PAGENO="0001" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS ROADSIDE HAZARDS (90-21) / (/f'~f 1~C~'~ (Q c?~~ )~`} 13 HEARINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 23, 24,25, JUNE 6,8,20,21,22, 23,27,28,29, JULY 18 AND 20, 1967 Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works 0 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 87-7570 WASHINGTON : 1968 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.50 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland, Chairman JOHN A. BLA?rNIK, Minnesota ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama JOHN C. KLTJCZYNSKI, Illinois JIM WRIGHIT, Texas KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California WM. J. BRYAN DORN, South Carolina DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana RAY ROBERTS, Texas ROBERT A. EVERE~T, Tennessee RICHARD D. MCCARTHY, New York JAMES KEE, West Virginia JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Louisiana JEROME H. WALDIE, California WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JAMES R. GROVER, New York JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire DON H. CLAUSEN, California ROBERT C. MCEWEN, New York CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky ROBERT V. DENNY, N~braska ROGER H. ZION, Indiana JACK H. MCDONALD, Michigan JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Arkansas RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Chief Counsel JOSEPH R. BRENNAN, Engineer-Consultant CLIFTON W. ENFIELD, Minority Counsel SPECIAL SuBcoMMrrrsn ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PBOGRAM JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota, Chairman ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI. Illinois JIM WRIGHT, Texas KENNETH J. GRAY, Iflinois FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana ROBERT A. EVERETT, Tennessee RICHARD D. MCCARTHY, New York JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland, Membc~t Er Officio WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire DON H. CLAUSEN, California ROBERT C. MCEWEN, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee* HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin* ROGER H. ZION, Indiana* JACK H. MCDONALD, Michigan* WALTER H. MAY, Chief Counsel JOHN P. CONSTANDY, Assistant Chief Counsel GEORGE M. KOPECKY, Chief Inve8tigator ROBERT G. LAWRENCE, Associate Counsel ROBERT L. MAY, Minority Counsel GEORGE H. MARTIN, Administrative Assistant KATHRYN M. KEENEr, Chief Clerk Members appointed to subcommittee in the 90th Congress. II PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Testimony of- Beaton, John L., materials and research engineer, Division of High- Page ways, California 1089 Benson, Fred J., dean, College of Engineering, director, Texas Engi- neering Experiment Station, Texas A. & M. University, College Station, Tex., accompanied by Charles J. Keese, executive officer, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A. & M. University, College Station, Tex.; Neilon J. Rowan, project supervisor, Texas Trans- portation Institute, College Station, Tex.; T. J. Hirsch, head, Structural Research Department, Texas Transportation Insti- tute, College Station, Tex 1039 Bridwell, Lowell K., Administrator, Federal Highway Administra- tion, accompanied by Frank C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads; Dr. William Haddon, Director, NaUonal Highway Safety Bureau, Department of Transportation 1189 Constandy, John P., assistant chief counsel, Special Subcommittee on the Federal Aid Highway Program 492 Esch, Representative Marvin L., Ann Arbor, Mich 167 Huelke, Dr. Donald F., University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Mich 169 Huff, T. S., chief engineer of highway design, Texas Highway Depart- ment; member, Design Committee, American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) 493 Johnson, Eugene M., chief engineer, Mississippi State Highway De- partment; chairman, AASHO Planning and Design Committee, president, AASHO, accompanied by A. E. Johnson, executive secre- tary, AASHO, Washington, D.C.; John 0. Morton, commissioner, Department of Public Works and Highways, New Hampshire; chair- man, AASHO Traffic Committee; Howard S. Ives, commissioner, Connecticut State Highway Department; chairman, AASHO Com- mittee on Roadside Development; Marvin J. Snider, chief engineer, Missouri State Highway Commission, chairman, AASHO Commit- tee on Construction; Ward Goodman, chief engineer, Arkansas State Highway Department, chairman, AASHO Committee on Bridges and Structures 1140 Kopecky, George M., chief investigator, Special Subcommittee on the Federal Aid Highway Program 4 Linko, Joseph, New York City, N.Y 6 Lundstrom, Louis C., director, Automotive Safety Engineering, Gen- eral Motors engineering staff, Detroit, Mich., accompanied by Kenneth Stonex, executive engineer, General Motors Corp., Detroit, Mich 1005 May, Walter R., chief counsel, Special Subcommittee on the Federal Aid Highway Program 4 McAlpin, George, deputy chief engineer for technical services, New York Department of Public Works, Albany, N.Y., accompanied by Malcolm D. Graham, director, Bureau of Physical Research, New York Department of Public Works, Albany, N.Y 1106 O'Hara, John P. staff, Special Subcommittee on the Federal Aid Highway Program 404 Prisk, Charles W., Deputy Director, Office of Traffic Operations, Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Transportation - 4, 229, 493 et seq. Ricker, Edmund R., director, Bureau of Traffic, Pennsylvania De- partment of Highways; president, Institute of Traffic Engineers~ - - 493 (III) PAGENO="0004" IV CONTENTS Testimony of-Continued Skeels, Paul, chairman, Committee on Guardrail, Highway Research Page Board 493 Wilkes, W. Jack, Chief of Bridge Division, Office of Engineering and Operations, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads 493 Wilson, James E., traffic engineer, California Division of Highways; chairman, National Joint Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 493 LIST OF EXHIBITS No. 1. Four pictures-Interstate 5 between Portland and Salem, Oreg 221 2. Reprint from Highway Research Record 152 (1967)-Non-Intersec- tional Automobile Fatalities-A Problem in Roadside Design- Donald F. Huelke 221 3. List of nine interstate projects 492 4. Highway Research Board Special Report 81-publication 1165- Highway Guardrail-1964 502 5. Instructional Memorandum 21-11-67-May 19, 1967, U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration-Subject: Safety Provisions for Roadside Features and Appurtenances 696 6. Chart-Showing four-span side piers; two-span closed abutments; two- span abutments on slope; two-span rigid frame 930 7. Largepanelshowinghazardousgore 986 8. Summary statement of Charles W. Prisk, June 23, 1967, re slides shown inhearing 995 9. Paper, for delivery at AASHO region 3 meeting, June 5, 1967, Highway Safety as Related to Design Involving Fixed Objects, T. S. Huff 1020 10. Paper, Roadside Design for Safety, January 11 to 15, 1960, revised Marchl,1960,K.A.Stonex 1020 11. Graph, Hazard Curve 211-GM Proving Ground Accidents (with slide) 1020 12. Graph, Comparison of Proving Ground, 211 cases, Hutchinson, Cornell, and Route 66 "Hazard" Curves (with slides) 1020 13. Script for film, "Safer Roadsides," GM public relations 1023 14. Script for ifim, "Guardrail Crash Tests-For Safety," GM public rela- tions 1030 15. Report on Highway Safety Research-Texas Transportation Institute 1040 16. Selected List of Reported Research Subjects and Research in Progress Directly Relating to Highway Safety-Texas Transportation Insti- tute 1079 17. Physical Research Report 67-1-New Highway Barriers-The Practi- cal Application of Theoretical Design-New York Department of Public Works-May, 1967 1135 18. Graph-Motor Vehicle Deaths Compared to Total Vehicle Miles Traveled-1937 through 1966 1166 18A. Graph-Total Motor Vehicle Deaths Compared with Deaths on Federal-Aid Primary System-Total Roads, Streets and High- ways in United States-3.7 Mfflion Miles 1166 18B. Motor Vehicle Deaths-1212-1966. Statistical Report 1166 18C. Statewide Fatal Injury Accidents-1966. All Systems and Inter- state. Statistical Report 1166 18D. Statewide Fatal Injury Accidents-1966. Statistical Report-All Systems-Federal-Aid Primary System (Including Interstate)~ - 1166 19A. Booklet-Report by the Special Freeway Study and Analysis Com- mittee to the Executive Committee of the AASHO-February, 1960 1220 19B. Booklet-Freeway Operations-1961. (This booklet prepared as an outgrowth of the 12 regional seminars on freeway operations conducted by the Institute of Traffic Engineers) 1222 19C. Booklet-Traffic Control and Roadway Elements-Their Relation- ship to Highway Safety. 1963. Automotive Safety Foundation in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads 1222 19D. A report of the Special AASHO Traffic Safety Committee-Febru- ary, 1967. Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety, known as "The Yellow Book" -- -- 1222 *Refajned in Subcommittee Files. PAGENO="0005" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGhwAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik, chairman, presiding. Present: Messrs. Fallon (chairman), Blatnik (subcommittee chair- man), Wright, Johnson, McCarthy, Howard, Cramer, Cleveland, Clausen, Duncan, Schadeberg, Zion, McDonald, and Denny. Also present: Walter R. May, chief counsel; Robert L. May, mi- nority counsel; George M. Kopecky, chief investigator; Robert G. Lawrence, associate counsel; Salvatore J. D'Amico; Paul R. S. Yates, minority professional staff member; Stuart M. Harrison, staff assist~ ant; Mrs. Mildred Rupert, staff assistant; Miss Agnes GaNun, staff assistant; Mrs. Shirley Knighten, staff assistant; and Mrs. Kathryn Keeney, chief clerk. Staff, Committee on Public Works: Richard J. Sullivan, chief counsel, and Clifton W. Enfield, minority counsel. Bureau of Public Roads: Charles Harrell, visual information specialist. Mr. BLATNIK. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High- way Program of the House Committee on Public Works will please come to order. The significance of the testimony which you are about to hear in these series of public hearings beginning today and its important bearing on the lives and futures of millions of our citizens and the graphic material presented will make itself clear as the record unfolds. Now I have an introductory statement to read at this point, which we usually do at the beginning of these hearings, and the minority leader will be recognized immediately following that for any state- ment or comments which he deems appropriate, which usually are very pertinent and to the point. We begin today a series of hearings to inquire into certain questions bearing upon the design and operational efficiency of our highways. In the carrying out of our ambitious highway program under the terms and spirit of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, it is abso- lutely essential that every aspect of the program be performed in such a way as to preserve the confidence of Congress and of the American people. At the present time, we are spending more than $4 billion-these are Federal funds-a ye~r out of the highway trust fund for our Federal- (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 aid programs. More than $3 billion of this sum is being expended for work on the Interstate System and the remaining $1 billion for the primary, secondary, and urban construction. In the past decade more than $45 billion has been committed to these programs, the Federal share alone of this $45 billion being in excess of $33 billion. Without question tremendous progress has been made since 1956. The Federal Government, the States and industry have, acting in con- cert, made great strides from a small beginning. There is much at which we may point with pride. Nevertheless, in a program so vast, it could be expected that the way would not always be smooth, nor free from human error or occa- sional failure. Our hearings in the past have shown that such is, in fact, the case. However, as our hearings have identified various deficiencies and weaknesses which were affecting the program, the response of the Bureau of Public Roads, the American Association of State Highway Officials, individual State highway departments, and other interested organizations, has been prompt and effective. This willingness to act and the corrective measures taken have been most gratifying to the committee. While I don't normally care to anticipate the substance of public testimony we are going to hear, this time I feel compelled to do so to some degree because the matters concern the safety and well-being of our citizens. We need not dwell here on the deaths, the suffering, and the economic costs involved in this Nation's automobile accident toll. The Federal legislation passed last year and the programs underway are designed to attack this tragic problem. Without question, in time there will be success. However, I am con- cerned about the time element particularly, because I am certain that significant results can be accomplished right now. Material developed by the staff has convinced me that there is more that can be accomplished in the design of our highways from a safety standpoint. If unnecessary hazardous features continue to be designed and built into our new highways, we must take steps to identify and eliminate them. It is late. This is 1967 and more than one-half of the Interstate Sys- tem has been completed and opened to traffic. In a program where Federal funds alone are being spent at the rate of over $10 million a day and where certain built-in mistakes may be suffered for decades, great urgency must attach to required changes. This subcommittee again expects the responsible officials of the Fed- eral and State Governments and other organizations associated with the highway fraternity to give attention to these hearings and, work- ing cooperatively, expedite needed improvements. That concludes my statement. Now I will be pleased to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer. Mr. Cn~MER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and of course I join you in your remarks and would like to add a few comments of my own. It is interesting to reflect on the fact much has been said iii Con- gress, particularly in recent years, with regard to automobile safety, and Congress has passed legislation to provide for safety features to PAGENO="0007" 3 be included in automobile construction to guarantee the automobile purchaser with the maximum amount of safety features in the auto- mobile. That is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is the building of safety features into the highways themselves and, as I understand, that is the subject matter of these deliberations. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, enacted nearly 11 years ago, imposed a tremendous task upon the State highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads, in that they were asked to build the greatest public works project in history-41,000 miles of high-speed, access-controlled highways, in addition to the regular Federal-aid high- way program, and to do this within a limited period of time. The Interstate System will not be completed on schedule, but this is largely because of lack of adequate financing, not because of failure of our highway builders. In terms of production, the location and building of highways, the State highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads have done a magnificent job. Despite this fine work, or more likely because of it, not enough attention has been given to making our highways as safe as possible. The sheer magnitude of the job of locating, designing, and building a 41,000-mile system of high-speed highways within a limited time may have so occupied the time and attention of our highway builders that they overlooked some safety measures which now appear obvious. Whatever the reason, it is apparent that there are many unnecessary hazards within the rights-of-way of our most modern highways. Any observant driver can point out some of these hazards, such as culverts, bridge piers, unnecessary signs, improperly placed guardrails, deep ditches, and steep cut and fill banks, and trees and boulders which "beautify" the highway. Collision with any of these can kill a motorist who has the misfortune to drive or be forced off the paved roadway. Drivers veer off high-speed highways for a variety of reasons. In some cases the driver is at fault; he may be drunk, speeding, careless, or asleep. In other cases careful, law-abiding drivers may swerve to miss a child or an animal or a disabled car, may hit a slick or icy spot, or be forced off the highway by another car. Regardless of the reasons why a driver may leave the paved portion of a high-speed highway, roadside areas should be sufficiently clear of obstructions to give him an opportunity to regain control of his car. He and his passengers should be given a reasonable chance of survival and not be faced with the death penalty for a comparatively minor error. Drivers and their passengers have not been given that chance in many instances in the past. According to figures published by the National Safety Council, out of 49,000 traffic fatalities in 1965, 17,100-or 35 percent-were the result of single-car accidents in which cars left the roadway and overturned or collided with something. A substantial number of these 17,100 people-and thousands killed in other years- might be alive if more attention had been paid to clear, unobstructed roadside areas. Past investigations and hearings of this subcommittee have resulted in the highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads focusing increased attention on important elements of the Federal-aid highway program, and I congratulate the subcommittee for getting those results. I am satisfied that these hearings will prove equally as valuable as any PAGENO="0008" 4 we have held thus far, because they will result, I believe, in saving lives as well as money. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. I thank the gentleman from Florida. One brief an- nouncement. We are very pleased to have with us in the audience in attendance this morning about 60 students from Broome Junior High School and Richard Montgomery High School over in Roekville, Md. These students are sitting over there. We welcome you. You are accompanied by two of your teachers, Mrs. Gail Auricchio and Mr. Ronald Burdette. These students are a part of a larger group, as I understand. Is that true? About 130 students of the total group is visiting Capitol Hill and visiting other committees and activities. I think I can say without prejudice that you are witnessing the best session this morning. No one challenges the remark? We will let it stand for the record. We welcome you. Now back to the hearings. Mr. May and Mr. Kopecky, we will have you open the hearings. Will you please stand and be sworn in at this time? Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. W. MAY. I do. Mr. KOPECKY. I do. Mr. BIJATNIK. Mr. Walter May, chief counsel of the Special Subcom- *mittee on the Federal-Aid Highway Program, you are recognized. Mr. W. M~. Mr. Chairman, from time to time during the course of these hearings, Mr. Kopecky, of the staff, and I may be offering testimony. That is why we asked to be sworn in at this time. May we call as our first witness Mr. Charles W. Prisk. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Charles W. Prisk is the Deputy Director, Office of Traffic Operations, Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Transportation. Please stand up, Mr. Prisk. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. PmsK. I do. Mr. BLATNIK. Please be seated. Mr. May. Mr. M~vr. Mr. Prisk, will you identify yourself for the record, please? TESTIMONY OP CHARLES W. FRISK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OPPICE OP TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, U.S. DE- PARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION Mr. PRISK. I serve presently as Deputy Director in the Office of Traffic Operations at the Bureau of Public Roads, in the Department of Transportation. My education has been in the field of civil engineering. I have had graduate training at the Yale Bureau of Highway Traffic, in the field of traffic engineering. This has been largely my career, in traffic engineering. I have approximately 4 years of highway department experience in Connecticut. PAGENO="0009" 5 In 1935 I started with the Bureau of Public Roads working in the fields of planning and in traffic and research, and have continued until this time, gradually increasing my specialization in safety. I was made responsible in 1957 for the conduct of the study directed by this committee, by the Subcommittee on Roads of this committee, and was the principal author of a report on the Federal role in high- way safety. This was the result of an exhaustive 3-year study directed to highway safety needs as they were seen at that time, at the outset of the Interstate program. I served as assistant to the Commissioner of Research in the Bureau of Public Roads, and from that post went to my present position as Deputy Director, first in the Office of Highway Safety which was or- ganized in 1961 in the Bureau of Public Roads, and this office has very recently been changed to Office of Traffic Operations. I continue in that post. My affiliations, professionally, have been with a number of national organizations. I think perhaps the most important for the record and this committee is the fact I have served since 1944 with the American Association of State Highway Officials committees in the traffic field, presently as the secretary of two of its committees concerned with traffic matters. I was Chairman of the Highway Safety Committee of the Highway Research Board from 1962 to 1967. I am a member of the advisory sec- tion on their cooperative research program, which is participated in by all of the State highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads. I did have the honor, about 10 years ago, of serving as president of the Institute of Traffic Engineers and have been head of its interna- tional relations committee for the past several years. One other responsibility possibly related to the work of this com- mittee, as you start your investigation, is the function that I perform as vice chairman of the National Joint Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This is the standardization body responsible to five principal national organizations for the development of standards for traffic control devices. I have been associated with the National Safety Council and worked with its traffic conference, and am a member of several overseas groups also which are concerned with traffic and safety work, both operational and in the research field. I think maybe this is enough, Mr. Coairman, to give you an idea of the deep interest I hold in the subject you discuss today. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Prisk is actively associated with a two-page list of organizations related to traffic engineering and safety on the highways. Also I notice Mr. Prisk has received two com- mendations, one from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Medal of Merit in 1952, and second, the Matson Memorial Award for out- standing contribution to the advancement of traffic engineering in 1959. Mr. Chairman, as has been customary in the past, during this cur- rent effort cooperation received by the staff from all agencies and persons has been superb. As an example of this, I would like to ex- plain that Mr. Prisk, for some time now, has been assigned by the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Public Roads, to the sub- committee to render us aid and assistance. That he has done. He will PAGENO="0010" 6 be present throughout the hearings to help with his testimony and advice. Mr. Prisk, will you kindly keep your position. We shall call upon you periodically as we proceed. Mr. Chairman, may we now call as a witness Mr. Joseph Linko. Mr. Br~&TNIK. Mr. Joseph Linko, from New York City. Mr. Linko, will you please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. LINK0. I do. Mr. BLArNIx. Please be seated. Mr. W. M~r. Mr. Linko, will you idenitfy yourself for the record. Give your name and address. TESTTh~ONY OP IOSEPE LINKO, NEW YORK CITY, N.Y. Mr. LINKO. My name is Joseph Linko and I live at 4036 Third Avenue in the Bronx. Mr. W. M~x. How are you employed, Mr. Linko? Mr. LINK0. I do electronic TV work. Mr. W. M~r. Television repair? Mr. LINKO. Y~s, sir. Mr. W. M~&y. Mr. Chairman, we on the staff are aware of Mr. Linko's interest in highway design and construction. I would ask him now to present to the committee through the use of slides and explanation what he has developed on the subject during the past 4 years. Will you proceed,Mr.Linko? Mr. LINKo. Yes. (At this point slides were shown with the following colloquy:) Mr. W. M~x. I notice the first slide up there, Mr. Linko. What is that? PAGENO="0011" 7 Mr. LncKo. Well, about 4 years ago I noticed everybody was talking about highway safety, then I became aware of the conditions in the roads in my area. There used to be a sign here. About 2 years ago somebody hit it, and to this very day those concrete stanchions (circled) are sticking out. Anyone that rides over that area may cut his tire or damage his auto- mobile. I noticed these conditions and recorded them. This has been like this for 2 years. This picture was taken during the summertime. I had to actually cut the grass away in order to take the picture of that. Anyone riding over the same area would not even know the concrete stanchions exist, so they may ride over them and be surprised when the car throws them-maybe they would hit another car-for no good reason. Main- tenance people might come by 50 times during the summer here and cut the grass and always go around this thing. Nobody even thinks of removing it. It might seem like a small thing, but that is a concrete stanchion, and if you run over that thing, you would blow out your tire or it would catch the inside of your `tire, bend your tie rod or cut your brake linings. I cannot understand why this has not been moved. This is a hazard on Interstate 95. Here is another one, just about the same thing. This is supposed to be a partial shoulder for cars to use. These concrete stanchions (ar- row) are to protect a sign, which is a wooden sign. It would be safe if you knocked the sign down. You might damage the car. The sign will go down anyway from what I note. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. LinkO, not to direct you, but you said mainte- nance crews do come out here, for instance, and will cut the grass in the median strip and cut around these concrete stubs, leaving the grass near the stubs, enough so that the grass camouflages. Is that what you mean, the crews have known about it over the period of 2 years, that these stubs and other stubs were there? I" ~ I- r F PAGENO="0012" 8 Mr. LINK0. That is right. They have to go around them. Mr. BLATNIK. You recognize they serve no purpose, which is obvious. But worse than that, that would not be so bad, but the bad thing is they are definitely very serious hazards to the rather steady stream of traffic going by, and nobody calls attention to any of the crews to remove them. Is that your point? Mr. Lim~o. That is my point. They pick up the papers and cut the grass, `but they fail to remove the stanchions. Mr. BLATNIK. They pick up the paper and cut the grass, but they leave these concrete `barriers, spikes, standing there for over a 2-year periocL Mr. LINK0. That is right. This one (arrow) is doing nothing at all. If some small car runs into that, it can wipe out all the passengers in a split second. .4 "SC 7~'*_ .z.-~. - -~ ~- --~ ~~1 PAGENO="0013" 9 I also know the roadside speed signs-I would like to recommend at this point on city highways, where we have very narrow medians, that these speed signs be put in the center on the light pole (arrow) where you see the red dot in this slide. If it was put there, they could be put back to back. You would not need any pole to hold it up. You could save a lot of money-~and it would never be hit there, because you have the guardrail to protect it. Any way you look on the high- way, you will see the right roadside is saturated. And here you can see a speed sign in the center (arrow) that says "50 miles an hour"-we did it here. The reason they put the speed sign on the pole at this particular point is because they had no room on the right to put it. There is a wall there, and that is the only reason. Mr. W. Max. Notice the route sign, 95, the supports are outside the guardrail. Mr. LINK0. Yes, sir, they are. For that reason these route signs also should be installed on the light pole. They are very small signs. Furthermore, these signs should not be so close to each other like that. They are supposed to be 100 or 200 feet apart. The next light pole could be used for that one [indicating]. Instead they put these steel sign posts on the outside of the guardrail. These are mistakes, because somebody can damage their car for no reason at all, and the sign would have to be maintained. Mr. W. MAY. It represents a hazard and costs money? Mr. LINK0. They have to constantly fix it. If they installed it on the light pole, it could not be damaged. PAGENO="0014" 10 Here also you see a large sign, it says "55 miles an hour," and it'ts put on a 6-inch steel I-beam. Any medium sized car hitting this would be seriously damaged. If it is run into sideways, it has been known to cause the occupants of the car to be-well, let's say wiped out. PAGENO="0015" 11 Here is the same type sign. It is being held up by aluminum poles, which are hollow. This can go down easily if struck, and yet it stands up during the strongest winds. I would go further than this. I would put the sign on the light pole. We always manage to defeat the purpose of design. Mr. W. MAY. Again we have spent extra money to create another hazard. Mr. LINK0. That is right. Because you cut down the space between poles if you need to pull onto the shoulders; you need room to pull in. Here they are cutting down the space. They are saturating the roadside with unnecessary signs. Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Linko, on that picture, is that a concrete base on the pole? Mr. LINKO. On this one here? [Indicating.] Mr. HOWARD. No, the light pole. Mr. LINK0. No, that is not. This happens to be a good installation of a light. It is aluminum. I will get into what you are talking about. I do have some slides on it. It is a serious matter. Here is another sign which I feel we should discontinue on the highway altogether. It says "Use right shoulder," and it is held up by the heavy steel I-beams. Actually, it's meant for the driver in the left lane. You see the truck there, it could block the view in the left lane. On the left actually you have a 2-foot shoulder and nobody can really use that shoulder anyway. There is no sense in putting a sign that says "Use right shoulder" because nobody could use the left anyway. And yet there are hundreds of these signs scattered on our highways, and I feel they should be moved, because they are causing a hazard, and are not serving any real purpose. If they had to be put anywhere, PAGENO="0016" 12 put them on a light pole. You see the red dot in the center barrier? It would not cost any money for a sign post then. I Here you see a route sign. Now, one on either side, which calls for four separate poles, 21/2-inch angle irons. In the background is a light pole (arrow) right behind that sign. The signs should be on that pole and could be installed back to back. You would save four poles and there would never be any maintenance. This is what we have on this particular Interstate highway. It is saturated on the left and on the right.. PAGENO="0017" 13 Here is the same sign mounted on the right on a pole, eliminating all maintenance and putting it in a more favorable position, a little higher, and at no extra cost. Mr. W. Mi~. Mr. Linko, to go back one (fig. 1-009) at one time there was another sign on the left pointing toward the oncoming traffic? Mr. LINK0. Yes. One on the right and one on the left. Mr. W. MAY. Both have been hit? Mr. LINKO. Yes. If that had been on the light pole in the back- ground, it would take these right out of the shoulder altogether, and there would be no maintenance at all, and it would have saved a fortune of money in the original installation. Now, these are not small poles. They may look small; they are 21/2~ by 3-inch angle irons. If you hit them, you may get into serious trouble. 87-7~7 O-68---2 PAGENO="0018" 14 Mr. BLATNIK. Not to interrupt your orderly presentation, Mr. Linko-Mr. Prisk, I ask you at this point, what would be the reason for two vertical posts, the light post and the two supports for the Interstate 78 sign we see here? What would be the reason for these bemg two separate installations so close to each other? Mr. PRISK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is reasonable conjecture that the lighting installation was planned by one engineer, a responsible specialist in the lighting field. The sign installation was planned by a specialist in the traffic signing field, and these two were not properly brought together, these two interests, so as to serve the total purpose, in this instance with one pole. Mr. BLATNIK. Two different departments acting independently put- ting up two different sets of installations on a roadside, is that right? Mr. PRI5K. This would be my conjecture. Mr. BLATNIK. Would there be any other sections involved? Would it be one section dealing with the speed limit or any informational signs that do not come under Highway 78? Mr. PRIsK. I think you would find all of the signs would be coor- dinated and presented in a reasonably consistent way along the section of highway; but the lighting very often is handled by a specialist group and it is quite possible that in this instance, this example Mr. Linko has cited, would be accounted for by two different groups deal- ing with this part of the highway development. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Linko. Mr. LINK0. Yes. I would like to also point out here that on this particular occasion, you can eliminate everything on the right-hand side, even the lighting poles themselves. They all should have been put inside the center divider, leaving the right side clear completely. If you look farther up, which is hard to see, the bridge abutment is not protected either. On all of our Interstate highways, we have to go back and install guardrails at these bridge abutments. These are 60-mile-an-hour high- ways, and anyone getting pushed off the shoulder, anyone who gets a flat tire has no protection against the bridge abutment. We are spending millions of dollars without installing guardrails. It will cost more when we have to go back and do the job over again. It is more serious on these highways, because these are higher speed highways than the older highways. I do not think we should allow the highway to open unless it is fin- ished completely; because in the past, I have been talking to people about this, and they gave me many reasons why the highways should be open even though they are not finished, and taking everything into consideration t.hat was told to me and, looking around and seeing what immediately happens, I feel the highway should stay closed. Even if it inconveniences some people, at least the job will be done right once and for all. Just recently this highway was opened up and they still have no protection at these bridge abutments. This calls for better coordination of all the parties involved. This may be off the subject, but here is another sign that shows you that just by moving it 2 feet over to the right, behind the wall, it would be impossible to hit it, but here it is on the right-hand shoulder. It could have been installed on the light pole. And you can see the light pole does not belong there either; it belongs inside the center of the median rail. PAGENO="0019" 15 Mr. BLATNIK. What would be the solution, you say? The light post should be to the right behind the fence and the directional sign "No. 278 Interstate West," should be on the lamp post? Mr. LINK0. Yes; in this particular case it could be. But I would even remove the light pole completely if I were doing the job. I would put it inside the center divider as you see the other light pole. We fail to keep the right shoulder clear. If we have some lights in the center, why not have them all there and give the guy a break? Mr. BLATNIK. You would have no lights on the right shoulder side of the highway? You would have them all in the center wherever possible? Mr. LINK0. I would suggest, if you have some in there, why not put them all in there? They would be protected with the original guard- rails you see there, and anyone riding in this area would not have to constantly knock these things down. These are knocked down by the thousands. They cost money to maintain them. And sometimes they fall on cars and it can cause an accident and even kill people. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk, is it possible to install the lighting in the median and light that three-lane roadway? Mr. PRISK. I think it might be worth saying a word here, Mr. May, in response to that. In order to get proper lighting on a highway, it is important that the driver see a road surface uniformly illuminated, and it is the purpose, in this particular installation I am sure, to have part of the lighting supplied from the median side and the other part supplied from the road margin, as you see. The poles are staggered, part of them on the side and part of them offset in the median instal- lation. It would not be possible to provide all of the lighting from the me- dian without a somewhat different design, possibly a somewhat con- siderably more expensive design. I think the final answers for light- ing roadways as wide as the one you see here from the median side has not yet been found. PAGENO="0020" 16 There is some work leading you to believe that we might go higher in mounting luminares so as to cover situations of this sort; but simply attempting to light everything from the median side is not always a satisfactory solution. Mr. W. M~r. Mr. Linko, you had another point. That sign support, the sign 278, could have been located behind that concrete bridge para- pet on the right? Mr. LINK0. Yes, behind the concrete wall. They always seem to put it someplace where somebody is going to hit it. It could be put behind that, or on the light pole, or in the center divider, putting t~hem back to back. It would save on installation and constant maintenance. Here also you see another sign, 21/2 by 3-inch angle irons, saturating the shoulder. .-~ $ ~ ~ ______ r Here you see the same sign mounted on the wall. Now, the reason this is mounted on the `wall is because there is no room to put it on the ground. I feel if you can get something off the shoulder area, it should be mounted on the wall. :~. ~ ~ V.P. ~`; PAGENO="0021" 17 Mr. Ci `~n~n. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of Mr. Prisk? Mr. Prisk, her~i~s a highway that appears to be lighted from the median. It is four lanes wide. Is that consistent with your previous comment with regard to the other slide (fig. 1-012) which is three lanes wide, which had lights on both sides of the street? They have apparently found a way of lighting a four-lane highway. Mr. PRISK. Congressman Cramer, I think in response to that, I should say that I did not mean that it was impossible to light it from the median; but on the design that we had looked at before, the design of the glasswork in the luminare was intended to cover a portion of the roadway and the design of the installations at the roadside was designed to cover the balance of it, so as to provide a well-lighted installation. I am not saying that you cannot do it from the median with a properly designed system. Evidently this is a different design here. Mr. Ci~ii~. Different designed highway system or different designed lighting of the system, which? Mr. PR1SK. Yes, the lighting. There are four basic types of lumi- nares that give different light distributions, and evidently this par- ticular slide we are looking at provides more lateral distribution than the luminare we had seen previously. Mr. Ci~MEI~. In other words, the light bulb is higher and apparently with greater intensity, is that it? So that it will light a broader space? Mr. PRISK. Yes, sir; that is entirely possible. Mr. CI~&MJri~. Do you have requirements of any kind for lighting in your Bureau of Public Roads directives? Mr. PRISK. We follow the standards that are set forth by the Thu- minating Engineering Society and the American Association of State Highway Officials. These are guides in determining the lighting re- quirements on each highway. These are the ones we have accepted at Public Roads. Mr. CRAMER. In other words, you would accept either one, this lighting for this highway or the other lighting for the other highway? Mr. PRI5K. Depending on an analysis of the situation; yes, sir. Mr. BI~IK. Mr. Linko. n7~J Marti~e Aced L1~~~T R1GH~J PAGENO="0022" 18 Mr. Lmnio. Here also you see an easy knockdown sign in the shoulde area, which could have been put to the right a little bit to give u of the full shoulder-but I am not complaining about this sign, becaus this happens to be a good sign compared to this. Doug laston ~Parkway KEEP RIGHT a & LI *1~ -- S... This is the same hind of sign with 12-inch concrete stanchions o either side protecting it. Anyone hitting this will severely damag his car. If he hits it at the proper angle, he will be thrown righ back into the traffic and maybe cause another serious accident. This particular sign is the same one you have just seen (fig. 1-015). Now, no damage was done to the car at all, because this sign di - not have the concrete stanchions in front of it. __ 5; 54, \\.~.----. -~ - S PAGENO="0023" 19 Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Linko, would you stop right here again? May I ask, Mr. Prisk, as I understand, the guardrails or barricades of this type are to minimize or reduce the degree of damage or degree of injury; in short, to protect the motorists-is that correct-from going over the embankment or striking some fixed object on the other side of the guardrail? Mr. P1115K. That is correct. Mr. BLATNIK. In this case the guardrail becomes a hazard itself in attempting to protect the sign. Inadvertently, I am sure not inten- tionally, little thought was given to what it might do to the driver of the vehicle. Is that correct? Mr. P1115K. I think that is a reasonably correct statement, Mr. Blat- nik. I would think it would be best to realize at the outset that any guardrail installation-and I repeat, any guardrail installation-can be a hazard of itself. It may serve enough good purposes so as to overbalance the disadvantage of having it installed. But the guard- rail installations have sometimes been put in without significant thought as to the disadvantages. This is one. Mr. LINK0. Well, this is one of the reasons I started my program, to remove unnecessary highway hazards. Now these are saturated on the highways. This happens to be the Long Island Expressway, which handles maybe 100,000 cars a day. All you have to do is make a little mistake, have a flat tire, or have somebody push you into this. That road has a usable shoulder. You can get into a serious accident for no good reason. The guardrail serves no purpose at all. And nobody wants to remove these hazards. Now, it would be different if it had a purpose, but it does not have a purpose. You can see this sign is the same type of sign as the other sign and has not got the concrete stanchions. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman; may I ask the witness a question? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. Have you ever given any consideration to another problem, which we have particularly in my part of the country, New Hampshire, as to what this does to snow removal? Has anybody on the staff or anybody made any inquiries into that phase of it? I would think that if a plow would hit that it would not do the plow any good. Mr. W. MAY. Very true, Mr. Congressman. These represent a real difficulty to maintenance people when it comes to snow removal. They have a great problem. Do you have something to say on that, Mr. Linko? Mr. LINKO. Maybe that is how some may have gotten damaged. But this is more of a hazard than before, because now in this country we have millions of small cars. A large car might be able to smash that and just damage the car but now with the small cars on the road, it will wipe out all the passengers if hit in a certain way. At the angle this rail is installed, it could throw the cars right into the traffic stream and maybe cause a three- or four-car accident. It is really serving no useful purpose at all. I feel that we need a program to remove at least the unnecessary hazards, the ones that are doing nothing at all, and this is one of them. Now, with some of these there are heavy, 6-inch I-beams holding up the signs, and if you remove the concrete barrier rail, it might pose a problem. Here, this is not the case because the sign supports are light. PAGENO="0024" 20 Our highways are saturated with this type and all other types o hazards. This is why I am here, to point these things out. Everyone i talking about highway safety, but how could we have highway safet when we have these lying around and nobody is doing anything abou them? Here are two views of another type of sign, "167 Street," notice th two concrete pillars. These should be signs that go down easy and with a thin pole and n concrete bases. If a fellow makes a mistake, then let him knock doi~ the sign, instead of wiping out all his passengers and damaging hi car. 167 St $ I PAGENO="0025" 21 Here you see a parking sign. This is a 50-mile-an-hour highway, both lanes, and you have a parking sign right in the middle. They have maybe a 25-car parking place where you can look over the water at La Guardia field. Because of that, they put this parking sign with concrete pillars there. I feel we should not allow these types of signs on the highway. This does not serve any particular purpose, as far as safety is concerned. There is another sign like this to the left, and if you run into that, you stop dead. These are not protected. This area is saturated. I feel we should have rules and regulations of what can be installed. This more than likely is in the highway right-of-way. It is not pro- tected and anybody can put anything they want on the highway, be- lieve it or not. I feel that we should draw up some standards, brand new stand- ards, because the ones they are using today, nobody is paying any attention to them. First of all, anyone that wants to install anything on the right-of-way of the highway should go through channels. For instance, if you have a bridge abutment and they want to install a sign about 100 feet away, they are allowed to put it there. If they want to saturate a clear ~hou1der area, they do so. Such practices should be discouraged. Just because a sign says "1 mile away", it could be moved up ~ 100 feet and put in an area where a hazard already exists. PAGENO="0026" 22 Here you see a transformer, which is right at the edge of the shoulder. This is a. brand new highway just opened up in Staten Island. This could be put underneath the bridge I was standing on, and ~t would not cost any more money. The guy would have a second chance if he ran into that area. Here you see another transformer that is behind the guardrail. However, you can see that same type of guardrail installait~ion under- neath the bridge where it has not been carried through and the piers protected. PAGENO="0027" 23 Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Linko, would you stop right here? You show a transformer in each of these two slides. Are these anywhere near the same stretch? Would this be under the same highway department or are they two different States? Mr. LINKO. This is in New York State and on the same highway. Mr. BLATNIK. New York State. Mr. LINKO. There is another one here-here you see another one. This whole highway is saturated with this type of installation. Here you have it on the right. In fact, you have three separate hazards here. Mr. BLATNIK. May I ask, Mr. Prisk, here we have the same high- way department, the same installation of the electrical transformer near a bridge. Each of these three are located at a different spot. One is right in line with the light pole along the edge of the highway; the other one directly behind the protecting guardrail near the bridge; and the third is off, not quite along, the shoulder; yet not as far back into the slope as it should be to be safe. Why the disparity in location? Mr. PRISK. I think that the only honest answer I can give to that question, Mr. Ohairman, is that there is failure to recognize that trans- former box structure as a potential hazard. And not recognizing it as a potential hazard, these transformer boxes, or installations, were probably made on the determinations of electrical engineers and lighting engineers on the basis of the circuitry. They run so many hundreds of feet, so many thousands of feet, and put in a transformer, or so many pole installations and drop a transformer in. And they come more or less by chance on the highway on the basis of that type of reasoning. Mr. BLATNIK. Here we have three possible points of impact, the concrete block housing the transformer to the right, the sign post for the sign, and the guard rail. Then beyond it we have the bridge sup- port, vertical support. "~7~Jey Ave PAGENO="0028" 24 Mr. Linko, your point here was you could reduce these three to one and that would cut your chances of impact to one-third giving you two-thirds times better chance of missing an off-the-road collision. What you say is, move the concrete transformer behind the bridge, then you would have only one hazard, and place the sign on the over- head bridge? Mr. Lmixo. That is right. I feel there should be one hazard here. This happens to be an Interstate highway and a large truck running into that light switch box can cause thousands of dollars of damage. It would have to be replaced and the same goes for that sign. If it had been mounted on the existing bridge it might have saved thou- sands of dollars in the initial installation. And actuaily you need a guardrail at the bridge abutment, and there is none, as you can see. That should be the only hazard here, and instead there are three separate points for impact. In other words, nobody is really thinking of reducing the hazards; they are just continuing building them. Mr. Cn~ri~n. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. When I was a kid we used to play the game called "What is wrong with the picture?" It looks like that is what we are into here. Mr. Prisk, if I were suggesting what was wrong with this' picture, I would say, No. 1, the transformer is on the right-of-way, constituting a hazard; No. 2, the sign has been placed on a separate standard, rather than the bridge, which provides a separate hazard; No. 3, the white and black striped post is a separate hazard; No. 4, the guardrail itself at the red spot is a hazard in that it is not in any way grounded or installed in any way to prevent serious accident; and in addition, No. 5, the stanchions supporting the bridge, or the pillars themselves, have no protection and are pretty close to the traveled lanes. Now, that provides five separate specific hazards. Now, how can anyone possibly suggest that this design was made with safety in mind? Mr. PRI5K. This is a very good question, and you have made a good identification of the hazards that are there. I believe that the improve- ments that you suggested are not unreasonable ones, in most part. That black and white board is simply a marker board up against the side pier. I doubt that this could be considered to be any hind of hazard. In fact, it probably contributes t.o safety at night, because those boards are refiectorized and show the motorist where the side pier is. Mr. Ci~rEn. Substitute the light pole I did not mention-it is also in the picture-for the painted striped pillar. Mr. PRI5K. I wondered if you had overlooked that light pole. [Laughter.] I do not think of a good answer to your question. Mr. CRAMER. How can we today, with the engineering capabilities, that we have and with the Bureau's experience over many years, and with the State highway department's experience likewise, end up with five separate hazards in one loeation like this? That is what I want to know. Mr. PRI5K. There is no good answer for it that I can think of. These separate hazards looked at separately would be recognizable as hazards PAGENO="0029" 25 in any highway engineer's mind today. But they are put in over a span of time. It is quite possible this lighting might not have been installed at the same time the highway was built, and as things are added on, very often hazards are integrated into a facility without the overview evaluation of knowledge of the highway authority. So you ask how can this happen? I say it can only happen by lack of consideration of these separate elements for what they are, in terms of potential hazards. Mr. CRAMER. As I understand, then, your testimony is to the effect you have separate planners for separate functions, and they just do not get together. In other words, you have planners for lighting, plan- ners for signs, planners for bridges, planners for roadside parking, planners for use of right-of-way, for use of other than highway pur- poses, such as transformers_-is that right-in the State highway department? Mr. PRISK. This is what I would say is largely responsible for situa- tions of this sort. Mr. CRAMER. Let me ask one more question. We passed last year the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966. Prior thereto in 1965, we passed the Baldwin amendment, providing for studies and research in the subject of highway safety. In 1966, we passed the Highway Safety Act which required that standards be established relating to highway safety programs. What is being done under that to prevent a recurrence-you already have the statutes on the books-to prevent a recurrence of such an example as this? Mr. PRISK. Well, the Highway Safety Act is being administered by the National Highway Safety Bureau, as I am sure you know, and the standards that are being prepared there have not been put into final form yet. So just precisely what they will say about this kind of situa- tion is impossible for me to state now. I can say that from an overview of situations like this, conducted jointly during the last 6 or 8 months by the Bureau of Public Roads and the State highway departments, that these kinds of hazards have been identified. It is now the expressed policy of both the American Association of State Highway Officials and of the Bureau of Public Roads that these are to be eliminated from all future construction and are to be removed from existing construction as the programs progress. Mr. CRAMER. In the past, safety matters have been under you; is that correct? Under the Office of Traffic Operations, Bureau of Public Roads? Is that the new title? Mr. PRISK. That is the new title. I am second in command. Mr. CRAMER. What was your old title? Mr. PRI5K. Denuty Director of the Office of Highway Safety. Mr. CRAMER. So you were the safety authority prior to the reor- ganization, is that right? Mr. PRISK. Right. Mr. CRAMER. Now, under the reorganization, who is going to be m charge? Mr. PRISK. This is a question I think I must pass on. The Federal Highway Administration has, of course, been established within the Department of Transportation. The respective responsibilities of the Bureau of Public Roads, the National Highway Safety Bureau, and PAGENO="0030" 26 the National Traffic Safety Bureau are in the process now of being finally defined. I have been serving with this committee pretty much in the period that this has been taking place. Mr. CRAMER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I intend to pursue this matter as these hearings go on, and I hope we will have witnesses available to give us adequate explanation. Mr. BLATNIX. Yes, we look forward to it. We hope for the time being, as the problem here is presented for the record, we feel it is essential we do get into the area of questions the gentleman is now indicatmg. Mr. CA]~n~. I would like to outline for the record what my con- cern is. There has been a reorganization under the Department of Transportation Act passed last session. I have previously expressed myself as being quite concerned about it, because in my opinion it down- grades the Bureau of Public Roads in its historical function. I think this safety discussion is going to be a pretty interesting area for show- ing what is being done. In particular, I want to inquire about the function of the National Highway Safety Bureau, established outside of the Bureau of Public Roads as a separate agency under Mr. Brid- well, the new Federal Highway Administrator. I am going to pursue the subject matter of "so where do we end up" as it relates to redtape, decisionmaking, duplication of effort, and function of the Bureau of Public Roads as compared to function of these newly reorganized people. As an example, in regard to my question about draft standards now in existence, which Mr. Prisk indicated he could not necessarily testify to, I have in my hand the memorandum of February 16, 1967, issued by this new National Highway Safety Bureau, under Dr. Haddon, who I personally would not necessarily characterize as an authority on highway safety. In this memorandum it is suggested that the standards for geometric design to be used in the future, at least for the time being, are "A Policy on Geometric Design of Rural Highways," and "A Policy on Arterial Highways in Urban Areas," both adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials. And I just ask you this question, which I am sure you can answer, Mr. Prisk; that is, are those not the very standards under which these highways were constructed? Mr. PRISK. That is correct. Mr. CRA3ii~R. So we are really getting nowhere at the moment in regard to better standards under either the reorganization or the Highway Safety Act, and in the Safety Act we instructed the Secre- tary of Commerce, now the Secretary of Transportation, to provide adequate standards for safety purposes. I hope we will have proper witnesses to get further into that matter later, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CI~vEI~&ND. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. With this picture right before us, one of the hazards that picture reveals is the piers holding up the bridge on the right. Now, I assume that bridge could have been designed so that there would be no piers there at all, and I further assume that this means the design may have had to be changed. This raises the question of cost. We ~know that the highway trust fund is not exactly great. Is there anybody here, either on the staff or as witnesses, who can tell us how PAGENO="0031" 27 much more expensive it would be if the supporting piers on the right were eliminated? Can you answer that? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. Estimates have been made on recent construction for situations like this and the cost of moving that side pier completely out of the picture would run in the nature of 10 to 20 percent increase in the cost of that span. In some shorter spans there was no- Mr. CLEVELAND. Excuse me just a minute. You are making this un- clear to me. I am not talking about the cost of taking those piers out; I am talk- ing about the original cost of having designed that bridge so those piers never would have been put in in the first place. It must have cost something to put those piers in. Mr. PRISK. This is the same thing I am talking about. I am sorry to be unclear. If this bridge had been built without the side piers in it, it could have cost in the neighborhood of 10 to 20 percent more than it did cost. Does that answer your question? Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. May I make one comment, then I will recognize the gentleman from New York. Of course, there is limitation as to how long a span can be? Mr. PRI5K. Yes. Mr. BLATNIK. There is a point of no return, at which point you have to have supporting piers as you have here. Even at that, would not a guardrail or some other protective device around the piers be very helpful, rather than having a head-on impact into a square or circular concrete structure? Would a guardrail be of any protection in this case? Mr. PRISK. It would be my judgment that a guardrail for the side piers is desirable in this situation. Mr. BLATNIK. One last comment about "what is wrong with this picture," the title given to this picture by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer, is that after your attention is called to these obstructions, these hazards, you really do not have to be an engineer or specialist in safety. An average citizen or an average motorist, when his atten- tion is called to it, can find these things out for himself. The question is, How did this escape the attention of so many people in the highway department who are daily concentrating their efforts to all aspects f the highway program, which include safety and design features? It would not be lack of attention; is it lack of coordination? Mr. PRISK. I think, as I attempted to suggest earlier with respect o the lighting, the separate concerns of bridge engineers against the oadway design engineers, traffic engineers, and others probably have ot been sufficiently coordinated. On the other hand, the relative iazards they present are an area in which we do not have very much information. You should not overlook the fact that little research is available today to quantify the relative hazards. This is why it appears to the ayman and to the engineer, too, as an apparent hazard. But we cannot attach a specific quantitative value to any one or more of these five or six items that have been identified in the picture. This, again, is* another reason why things get overlooked. PAGENO="0032" 28 Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman from New York, Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This looks familiar. Is that Staten Island? Mr. LINK0. Yes; this is the Staten Island Expressway. Mr. MCOARTHY. Do you have information on fatal accidents at thi location? Mr. LINK0. Well, it is hard for me to get. In New York City, a bi city, we do not even bother to put these accidents in the paper becaus there is so much going on, and nobody ever hears about these thing People die and they do not even bother to print this in the paper. Th~ particular picture is really a shame because these hazards are n necessary. It does not cost any more money to eliminate these. It woul cost less money if some of these hazards had been eliminated at th start. You already have one guardrail protecting the overhead sign That guardrail could have `been put in front of the bridge abutmen Mr. MCCARTHY. On the sign, I would like to ask Mr. Prisk, wha would you estimate the cost of those sign supports? Mr. PRISK. This type of sign, "Bradley Avenue exit one-fourti mile," mounted on a mast arm, and in that type of location, I woul suggest that is in the range of $~,000 to $8,000. Mr. MCCARTHY. $6,000 to $8,000. Just before I left private industr to come down here to Congress, the company I was with and othe companies were beginning to utilize certain concepts made by a famou Italian engineer-~the name escapes me at the moment. Some of the vast, new, very interesting buildings have been erected with concret without supporting structures. Vast expansions of heavy cement struc ture without supporting pillars, so that it is conceivable-I mean it i feasible to construct that bridge without the median pillars, too. Now, I am just wondering i-f any of these people have been usin the latest modern technology in building bridges without pifiars. D you know of any? Mr. PRISK. I would have to say, sir, that I am not a structural en gineer. To the best of my knowledge, the bridge engineers in the Stat highway departments are using advanced concepts of design an materials. They certainly spend a great deal of `time in discussion o improvements of design. On the extent to which this principle that you mentioned has be - recognized, I am quite unable to comment. Mr. MCCARTHY. Just for the record, Mr. D'Amico gave me th name, the gen'tl~man I alluded to is Mr. Nervi, whose concepts hay been utilized. I believe Dulles Airport is one where they have thi vast expanse of heavy concrete without supporting pillars. Mr. PmrsK. Yes, sir. I think you must recognize, however, that ther are vehicle loads to be accommodated on that structure over a conside able span, and just what is going to hold that up, I do not know. Yo do not have any vehicle on top of the roof at Dulles Airport. Mr. McC~nTHY. No, but you have a very wide expansive area, pin the weight of the material itself, plus the normal stress. I am not structural engineer, either, but I think that the idea has been shoi that you can erect a structure without supporting members. My reco lection of it is that these can be made very strong with added reinforc ing steel. I am sure we would encounter some difficulties in v~iew o the load of trucks and cars and so forth, but it seems to me it is wort PAGENO="0033" 29 exploring the idea of erecting these without supporting pillars. You know of nobody who is at least experimenting with it? Mr. PRISK. That is correct. But I again must qualify that reply by saying that I am not a structural engineer. I do not work actively on problems of the supporting of structures. As far as their function and their general configurations are concerned and their effect on traffic, this has been the subject of some study on my part. As to what it would take to hold up a structure of this sort, I am not qualified. I might suggest that the committee may want to get a quali- fled bridge engineer to talk about this matter of center piers if you wish to discuss that. Mr. MCCARTHY. One final point. There is money available for re- search on new concepts of highway safety; is that not correct? Mr. PRISK. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. Under whose direction is this research conducted? Mr. PRISK. There are funds available through the Federal-aid high- way program for research such as you suggest. Mr. MCCARTHY. By the States? Mr. PRISK. By the States or by qualified investigators in the private domain. Mr. MCCARTHY. So that the money is available. It just occurs to me that this would be an area worthy of research anyway. We have new concepts. Could they be utilized? When you think of how many persons have been killed by hitting those median pillars or the side pillars- and this is a major area where people have been killed-I would think this would be at least worth exploring. Mr. BLATNIK. Could we get more information on that, Mr. Prisk? We would be interested in having more information on what is being done by way of research and what can be done. I do not mean to interrupt the gentleman, but time is running out. I believe we have a question from Mr. McDonald, from Michigan. Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Prisk, when a highway is designed, I assume that we have engineers to design the concrete roadway portion and bridge engineers to design our bridges and lighting engineers and sign engineers, too. Do we have any such people as safety engineers, for instance, to. coordinate the efforts of all these other people and keeping in mind at all times the safety of the driver on the highway? Mr. PRISK. Work that is done to bring together the interest of these several groups usually takes the form of a review team, which actually is composed of members of these groups that get together and discuss the overriding and interlocking requirements of each of their own responsibilities related to the final highway improvement. Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Prisk, do you think it would be a good idea to have an overall safety engineer on these projects to look at the highway only from the aspect of safety for the driver, and then to coordinate or help coordinate the activities of the other people in- volved in design? Mr. PRISK. Mr. McDonald, I ~would like to agree with you that that function be performed. As to whether or not it would be performed through a person who perhaps serves as the assistant to the chief engineer or something of this sort, I do not know as I would care to comment. I think the function should be performed. 87-757 O-08----3 PAGENO="0034" 30 Mr. MCDONALD. From what I have seen so far, from what we have seen before in our session, it would seem to me that this could be a whole field of its own, just safety engineering related to protecting the driver. I think that this one person should have authority in the final determination of how the highway is to be designed and con- structed. Mr. PRISK. I fully agree with your concept. Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you. Mr. Br~mux. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly I believe Mr. McDonaid has demonstrated why I believe he will be a valuable addi- tion to our committee. I think that he has touched on something that may well be a recommendation coming out of these hearings. Cer- tainly some of the State engineering establishments, if I can use that term, may be just a part of the total operation within the State and thus may be somewhat iiihibit.ed. I would think this committee might take a good look at making a recommendation along the lines Mr. McDonald made, and I want to compliment him for it. If I could ask the expert witness, the sign "Bradley Avenue," as it is located is suspended from the post. Is it feasible to pla~e that par- ticular sign on the bridge itself; and if you cannot, why not? Mr. PRIsK. This sign is of the type and of the dimension that I would believe it feasible to place it on the structure. There have been some unfavorable experiences with the use of signs on structures where there is vandalism or breaking of the luminaries that light the sign and things of this sort. And in this case, fences have had to be erected to prevent people, youngsters particularly, from getting at the sign. But in most circumstances with a sign of those proportions, it would be entirely practicable to mount it on the structure. Mr. CLAUSEN. I can fully realize that they have to design a size of the sign keeping in mind the distance between the sign location and the actual turnoff point; but I would imagine that could be engineered in such a way so as to take care of the point of concern. Would you agree with this? Mr. PRISK. Yes, sir. If this had to state "Exit 1/5 mile" instead of "14", that is not critical. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Yes, sir. Now, the final question, the red dot to the far right, is that a transformer? Mr. PRISK. Perhaps Mr. Linko would have better information than I on that; but I have seen these types of installations on highways, on Interstate highways, unfortunately, and this is a control box for the lighting circuit. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, again, would there be any reason why, for instance, that that particular control box could not have been placed on the bridge to serve the signs located on the bridge? Mr. PRISK. The box probably controls the entire lighting on the highway, perhaps as much as a half mile either side of the box, up and down the highway. It would seem to me that the most reasonable thing to do would be to move that box up the slope, or it could be put behind, possibly closer to the structure, on the far side so that it would be downstream from the structure and thereby enjoy the protection that is afforded by those side piers, as long as they stay in there. These are some pos- sible solutions. PAGENO="0035" 31 Mr. BLATNIK. Time is running out on us. Mr. Linko, would you proceed with your presentation? Mr. LINKO. Yes. I better get going. Here you see two concrete stanchions that must be 21/2 feet in di- ameter and about 2 or 3 feet high, capable of wiping out any car. There is no good reason for the sign to be at this location. They put in a second hazard close to where one already exists-the roadsides are saturated with this type. As you see, it says "one-half mile." A little further you see a natural hazard, a bridge abutment and embankment. I feel the better place to put this would be at the bridge. I cannot understand why they put it in here. If anyone hits that, he is finished. Poweii Ave Beth page I Bethpaqe Park EXIT ½ MILE Here is another one, right in the shoulder. (Slide.) Nsmjito~ Pkwy L..- L~OT 5oo r~ PAGENO="0036" 32 Here is another. All they have to do is back this up to the point in the background there where you see the red marks, and this sign would be behind the guardrail or bridge rail. In that way this hazard would be eliminated, and it would give the guy a chance if he ran off the road in this area. Also, you can see here that the guardrail is too short. ~~tIuIrIIItrulrrrllIrlIllllItttWtIh.. ~ .~ I 4- This sign could be put at the bridge abutment. Also, at the bridge abutment you see a guardrail. Notice that guardrail turned in toward the shoulder area. Mr. BLATNIK. I did not hear that last part. That guardrail is where? I a p .2 4 I PAGENO="0037" 33 Mr. LINK0. Actually the motorist has about 20 feet off the road to the right. Anybody riding along on this highway could actually run around that guardrail that is supposed to be protecting him, and smash into the bridge abutment. The purpose of the guardrail here is to protect cars from the bridge, and it is not even doing that. This is what I noticed all over the high- ways, extra hazards, which have got nothing to do with extra money at all. Actually, it costs more money to do it wrong. You can see, this sign could have been attached to the bridge. Again it is unprotected. Here is a half mile sign. Nobody is going to notice the difference if it is changed 40 to 50 feet. We could have completely done away with this hazard by putting it behind the existing guardrail (arrow). H PAGENO="0038" 34 Here also you could use a location where you have a hazard like that bridge above. NY 231 Nortftpo,t Babylon tZit5~ ½ WILE ~` V. The ideal position could be in an area where you have a hazard already (arrow). Why create new hazards? Sfltifl9tow~ Rd Port thy 36 */2 I is PAGENO="0039" 35 Here is a sign on Route 17, in New York State, and it says: "State police next right." You know that is not a critical sign. You could back it up where the dot is on your right (arrow) behind the rail and clear the area. Like I say, the important thing is to make this area off limits and to make it hard for anyone to put signs here. If they have to get through channels to get permission to put these signs here, they might look around and they might see that there is a guardrail here or a bridge abutment. Here you can see you have an opportunity of putting that sign where the red dot is on the wall (arrow). They put this concrete stanchion in the gore which is the worst possible place. It would cost less to do the job right. h~ I PAGENO="0040" 36 And here on the right you can see it would be very possible to put this sign stanchion on top of the wall or behind the wall, and clear this shoulder area. I want you to notice that 50-mile-an-hour sign, because in the next slide it will be down. - -~ -4. I / _____ Mr. BI~r~IK. Is this the same sign? Mr. LINK0. This is before and after. I took pictures in advance of about 150 places which later were hit, because I knew the installations were wrong and dangerous. I tried to bring this to the attention of officials but nobody would listen. I, ~`.. - . ~ ~vCk £*pwy I LG~ I~ ~-i ~ Airport T + + + .+ I ,~1 ~~~tr.IP~wv L$ftj i*i.~4 ~ ~yCk - ~ 7;"-- PAGENO="0041" 37 Here is the next installation on the same highway, about a half- mile back, showing how we can do the job. The sign stanchion is on top of the wall. The highway is not any wider, exactly the same conditions. Here is another location at which an accident occurred. I had some data on it. Here also this sign stanchion could have been mounted behind the wall. Also, the guard rail is too short. This was taken prior to an accident. Because I felt this was bad, and that something would happen. PAGENO="0042" 38 ~*~* A ~ 1 .,~` ~ -~- ..., This is the same location. You see snow on the ground. There is still no guardrail. I And you can see somebody smashed into this concrete base. Many accidents have occurred here. Notice that the guard rail is gone-it was hit and it went down. The guardrail has been damaged and re- moved at this particular location. It's been like this for over 2 years and nobody wants to take the responsibility for replacing it. .~ `-A- I PAGENO="0043" 39 And somebody had a serious accident. I do not know what hap- pened to this driver. Mr. BLATNIK. I am sorry to interrupt now. Was this picture related to the previous picture in any way? Mr. LINK0. Yes; same location. This has been hit prior and the guardrail was never replaced. Mr. BLATNIK. Is that the wall or a shadow at the right? Mr. LINK0. It is a wall, a stone wall. This stanchion could have been put behind the wall, or on the stone wall like I showed before. It happens to be a usable shoulder area, and this is the place where a car most likely will run off the road. It is on the outside of the turn, and it was raining. Failing to replace the guardrail caused the un- necessary hazard to this person. Mr. BLATNIK. What happened, do you recall, to the occupant of this vehicle? Mr. LINK0. I did get his license plate number and I called the place where he works. They told me he did not work there any more, so I really do not know what happened to him. Suppose you had been sitting where this driver was? Mr. BLATNIK. Same pose, same vehicle, front view? Mr. LINK0. Yes. I I PAGENO="0044" 40 This is what happened. I feel this is really unnecessary because this pole could have been out of the shoulder area and on top of the wall. This shows the terrific damage, unnecessary damage that is caused on your highways because of making simple mistakes. Mr. CRA3rm. It also indicates, does it not, that they made sure they put a post in there that an automobile could not destroy. It might destroy the automobile, but the automobile could not destroy it. Mr. Ln~o. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. To support a sign. Mr. LINK0. Sometime they might put up money to back these things up so it can be cleared from the shoulder. In this particular case, that is just a little stretch, about 3 or 4 feet. Why are they permitted to saturate the shoulders? If you have a shoulder area, these stanchions are supposed to be 2 feet off the shoulder area. Mr. W. MAY. As I recall the sequence, the first picture was taken in 1965, and then in February of 1966 somebody had wiped out the guardrail, and the last accident happened about September of 1966? Mr. LINK0. Yes. I have tried for ~/2 years; they never even bother to replace them. Here is another location. This is a shoulder area also. You can see that this guardrail is not installed to let you slide by, which could have been done. First let's get things straight. This sign does not be- long in the shoulder area. But in case there was no other place to put it, it would be very easy to build it closer to the wall and phase it out with the proper guardrail of about 100 feet or 150 feet and taper it right into the wall. This guardrail is designed to lessen your impact not to prevent it, but to do that it must be installed right. PAGENO="0045" 41 Here is another one. This one has been lucky. The guy did not hit it at the end. PAGENO="0046" 42 Here you see one Oil the right. At this point I would like to suggest that many of our roadside shoulders on the right could be cleared completely. I feel that at no extra cost they could be put on the left inside the center rail. One of the reasons I suggest this is because most of these signs are trying to tell the two left lanes what to do. They are telling the two left lanes to get over to the right because your exit is coming. If we would put them in the center rail, it would completely remove the hazard on the right shoulder. For the life of me, I do not understand why they are saturating the right shoulder. Rodman St Van Wyck Expwy .~ 4 ~. ~fr ~ `~. Here is another sign. You can see this one has been hit and the rail is down. If this was built properly inside the center rail, it would still be serving the same purpose and you would have a clear road to help somebody who made a mistake, instead of wiping them out. They would be able to get back on t.he road. .~ ~r. PAGENO="0047" 43 Mr. CRAMER. From these pictures, it looks as if the subject matter of the sign involves action on the right lane and the sign is on the right. Would that argue against placing those same signs in the center as he suggests? Any reason for having them on the right when the activity involved, the turnoff, and so forth, is on the right? Mr. PRISK. No, there are no fixed requirements. This perhaps is catering to the traditional practice to place signs on the right of the roadway. If that is a limited width median, however, you could have difficulty accommodating that size base and concrete footing in the median. The windload on a sign of that size is the principal determin- ing factor and poles cannot always be put on top of ordinary masonry walls. There has to be a substantial base to keep this size sign from being blown down. Mr. CRAMER. How many miles an hour wind? Mr. PRISK. Ranging up to 100 miles an hour, depending upon the sections of the country. Mr. CRAMER. That is all. Mr. LINK0. What I want to say at this point, I am really talking about city highways because that is where I came from, and 95 percent of the highways in my area have a very narrow median like this one [indicating]. In fact, more of the sign could be over the highway if you put it in the median than it would be if you have a full shoulder which this is not. In many places you have a full shoulder. And the sign real- ly belongs on the left, the way I see it-I could be wrong-because you are trying to tell the drivers in the center lane and left lane to get over. If you could remove the hazard completely, that is the point I am trying to say. I am trying to remove the hazards for every place-I am trying to figure a way, how can we get rid of that hazard? That is why I give this particular suggestion. We have a narrow median, the guardrail is already available to protect the sign. That is my point there. To me it sounds correct. Mr. CRAMER. Why can we not have a sign of reasonable size being placed on the light post, already a hazard in the center median? Mr. PRISK. The light pole would have to be completely redesigned to support a sign of that size, for reasons I indicated earlier. The wind- load on the sign could not be taken by light standards of conventional design. Mr. MCCARTHY. Could I ask one question? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MCCARTHY. Does the New York State Department. of Public Works have a safety director? Mr. PRISK. I think they have a traffic division. They have a design division, of course, and a chief engineer who is very alert to safety considerations. I am not aware that they have a safety director as such within the department of public works. Mr. MCCARTHY. I think back to my industrial experience, we had a safety supervisor or director whose job it was to just go around and look at these hazards and he was responsible for seeing that they were either guarded or removed. I would think that this is something that we in our State department of public works should have, somebody who will do what Mr. Linko has done, to go around and spot these things and see that they are remedied. Mr. Linko, did you bring this to the attention of the New York State Department of Public Works? PAGENO="0048" 44 Mr. LINK0. Yes, I told everybody and anybody who wanted to listen. Mr. MCCARTHY. What did they say? Mr. LINK0. I told them over a year ago on some of this stuff; and I look at the brandnew roads they are opening up, and they have the same stuff. Mr. BLATNIK. The same thing on new highways now being opened up that you told them about over a year ago, is that right? I look at the brand new roads they are opening up, and they have the have the roadside saturated with these big concrete stanchions, and they have guard rails and bridge abutments close by where they could have been installed. Mr. MCCARTHY. And they did not take any cognizance of your point- ing this out, they did not do~ anything about it? Mr. LINK0. I do not see any evidence so far. They are still putting in these big concrete stanchions. And I don't know why. There is no sense to it. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Prisk, may I ask one question? As I understand Dr. Haddon's memorandum of February 16, 1967, which I just referred to a minute ago and which was issued pursuant to the Highway Safety Act of 1966, the draft standards set out for highway safety that I mentioned, geometric design on rural highways and arterial highways in urban areas, do not really deal with the sub- ject of off-the-highway safety features, do they? Off-the-highway prob- lems that we have been referring to, obstructions near the traveled lanes? Mr. PRISK. Problems such as Mr. Linko has discussed here are dealt with only to a limited extent. Mr. CRAMER. And as a matter of fact, in November of 1966, the executive committee of the American Association of Highway Officials adopted the report of its traffic safety committee on "Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety," printed in document form in February 1967, which deals with this very subject matter, did it not? Mr. PIU5K. Precisely. Mr. CRAMER. And yet Dr. Haddon, as head of the new National Highway Safety Bureau, has not seen fit to even adopt these or similar standards relating to the very problems we are discussing, is that not correct? Mr. PRISK. If I have my dates correct, Dr. Haddon's February issu- ance that you mention is in the form of a preliminary standard. The final standard is not yet out, and I am informed that it is several weeks away from being out, perhaps even longer than that. Mr. CRAM~. As of the moment, there is no basic, even minimal standard relating to off-the-highway safety features or hazards which we have been reviewing here this morning, other than the printed AASHO publication which has not been accepted or adopted by Dr. Haddon? Mr. PRISK. Not by Dr. Haddon, but by the Bureau of Public Roads. The Bureau of Public Roads has accepted that publication and it does control the highway construction. From that standpoint, it has been recognized. PAGENO="0049" 45 Mr. CRAMER. Dr. Haddon is in charge of safety, and yet his agency has not yet adopted it, is that correct? Mr. PRISK. Dr. Haddon, with all due respect to him, is not in charge f the road program. The design and construction of highways is out- side of his jurisdiction, unless I am mistaken. Mr. CRAMER. Well2 he has jurisdiction under the Highway Safety Act, as I understand it, of 1966, does he not? Mr. PRISK. Not of the Federal-aid highway program. Mr. CRAMER. He has authority under section 402-I have the act before me-Public Law 89-564, the new section 402, title 23, United States Code, says that the Secretary shall promulgate "uniform stand- ards relating to highway design concerning highway safety." Has this authority to establish standards been delegated to Mr. Bridwell and Dr. Haddon? Mr. PRISK. I think you will find a statement of record, sir, made by the Secretary of Transportation, to the effect that the implementation of the safety standards is the responsibility of the Bureau of Public Roads. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. You are talking about implementa- tion. You cannot implement what you do not have in existence? Mr. PRISK. No, sir. Mr. CRAMER. You are talking about implementing the standards after they have been promulgated. They have not teen promulgated yet as it relates to these problems. Mr. PRISK. That is correct, aside from- Mr. CRAMER. Therefore, so far as Dr. Haddon is concerned, so far as the safety agency is concerned, so far as conforming to the Highway Safety Act of. 1966 is concerned, in which Congress instructed the Secretary of Commerce to establish highway design standards relating to safety, and despite the fact there are in existence proposed highway safety standards relating to these very problems of off-the-highway safety features, there have been no standards adopted to date by the Secretary or by Dr. Haddon and his agency, is that not correct? Mr. PRI5K. I do not agree with you fully. As an example, I take exception in one area that I am quite familiar with, and that is in Interstate signing. The signing standards for the Interstate System are the product of joint work between the State highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads. These have been approved officially by the previous Federal Highway Administrator for use on the Federal- aid Interstate System. These are the standards in effect today. And until they are superseded by something that Dr. Haddon issues, these remain as the standards. They have a good many safety implications in them. Mr. CRAMER. But they do not deal comprehensively with the subject matter we are now discussing, off-highway obstructions as they relate to safety hazards? Mr. PRI5K. They do not deal fully with it, that is correct. Highway safety is a very broad field. Mr. CRAMr~ii. Secondly, thero is already in the law, is there not, substantial provision for highway safety research, so that I do not think we should try to give the implication that there are not tools with which to do the job, No. 1-1.½ percent of all Federal highway ap- portionmènts are available to the States for research. And they must 87-757 O-68----4 PAGENO="0050" 46 mandatorily use this 11/2 percent for research, which would include safety research, would it not? Mr. PiasK. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Secondly, under the present law an additional one- half of 1 percent of State allocations for the ABC system could be used on a discretionary basis for research, is that right? Mr. PRISK. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. That would also include safety research, would it not? Mr. PJ~IsK. It could. Mr. CRAMER. So there is available a mandatory 11/2 percent, a dis- cretionary one-half of 1 percent of highway allocations, which to- day would mean approximately $71 million, three-fourths of which must be spent for research, one-fourth of which is discretionary, and any reasonable portion thereof could be spent for safety research, could it not? Mr. PRISK. At the State's election- Mr. CRAMER. This is without recourse, three-fourths mandatory, one-fourth discretionary, and this can be without State matching. Mr. PJ~IsK. And a good bit of it is being spent for safety research. Mr. CRAMER. And that is available, and it does not even require State matching. It can be 100 percent Federal funds for research, right? Mr. PRISK. No; not necessarily. Most of it is matched. Mr. CRAMER. The law permits it to be without matching. Mr. PRISK. Permits it, that is right. It is not the practice. Mr. CRAMER. And in addition to that, the Secretary himself under present law has authority for research. Mr. PRISK. With other funds, yes. Mr. CRA3nrn. And he can spend up to what, 33/4 percent of authorized Federal-aid highway funds for administration, including research? Mr. PlusK. That is the legal limit. Mr. CRA3rei~. Now, in addition to that, under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, the Congress specifically required the establishment of standards regulating design standards; that is another tool available, is it not? Mr. PiusK. Yes, sir. Mr. Ci~1ER. In addition to that in the Highway Safety Act there was written in a provision with regard to research concerning safety. Section 403. Is that not correct? Mr. PRISK. Yes. This is basically an enlargement or reinforcement of existing authority. Mr. CRAMER. And Congress authorized appropriations under the general safety provisions of section 402 of some $67 million for fiscal 1967, $100 million for 1968, $100 million for 1969. In addition to that, for research itself under that act, section 403, there was authorized to be appropriated the additional sums of $10 million for 1967, $20 mil- lion for 1968, $25 million for 1969, is that not correct? Mr. PI~IsK. I believe those are the correct figures; yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So I think the record should show that there are a lot of tools availthle to prevent this very thing from happening, at least in the future, and there have been tools available for many years in the PAGENO="0051" 47 past under other acts enacted prior to the Baldwin Amendment of 1965 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966, I am advised by counsel .on our side that they go back some 20 years. The statutes authorizing research that I mentioned just a few moments ago. I ask that a sum- mary of highway research provisions be inserted at this pomt in the record. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. Federal funds for highway research and planning (including highway safety research) are available under four provisions of law. 1. Under section 307(c) (2) of title 23, United States Code, one and one-half percent of aU Federal-aid highway apportionments are available only for re- search, investigations, studies, etc. On the basis of the 1968 apportionment of $4.4 billion, this would make about $66 million available annually. 2. Under section 307(c) (3), one-half of 1 percent of funds apportioned for the ABC system are available for research, etc., upon the request of a State. On the basis of the 1968 ABC apportionment of $1 billion, this would make about $5 million available annually. 3. Under section 307(a), the Secretary may use administrative funds for re- search. Administrative funds are deducted from Federal~aid highway apportion- ments in an amount not exceeding 33/4 percent of sums authorized to be appropriated annually. For fiscal year 1967, $60 million (11/2 percent) was deducted for administrative costs. For the same fiscal year, $11,073,000 of admin- istrative funds was budgeted for research. 4. Section 105 of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 authorizes appropriation of $10 million for fiscal year 1967, $20 million for 1968 and $25 million for 1969, for highway safety research and development. Mr. W. M~c~r. Mr. Linko, proceed. _________ - PAGENO="0052" 48 Mr. LINK0. We should provide a safe installation so that if there is an accident the car can slide by on both sides-only one side is protected here. As you see here, we are saturating the right shoulders, and thy rail has been hit. Mr. BLATNIK. What was that? - Mr. LINK0. Let us say it looks like this to begin with. If they install more guardrails and move the sign back against the wall. Mr. BLATNIK. Move the stanchion back against the wall? r t.. PAGENO="0053" 49 Mr. LINK0. You could have phased the hazard out. They call for 75 feet of guardrail for a sign like that. It is only about 24 there. If they would have put it back nearer the wall and installed the 75 feet of guardrail right to the wall, somebody can slide right by. At 50 miles an hour, that guard rail is not long enough to do the job. Here is where they did a good job with the sign. They put the stan- chion right up against the wall, about 15 inches wide, but then they put this guardrail and put it out some 30 inches. Mr. BLATNIK. In other words, you just cannot miss very easily ~ Mr. LINK0. That is right. With a proper guardrail, you could slide right by with no damage at all. PAGENO="0054" 50 Here are some signs showing you that we could take the signs off the posts and put them up on the bridge itself. We created the second hazard; it does not need to be there. It would have been cheaper to put it up on the overpass. Mr. BLATNIK. Do you feel that this rather elaborate and apparently expensive superstructure cost is not necessary to hold this sign; is that correct? Mr. Lmrxo. Yes. Mr. Br~NIx. The sign could be put on the bridge as indicated in the previous slide? Mr. LINK0. The distance is not too far. i~ you would keep the safety factor in the back of your mind, it would be advantageous to put it there, even if you have to make the sign a little bit bigger, and you will be able to see it. I understand those bridges cost $15,000 to $30,000. And here is a closeup of the base of the sign support. Again, see how short this guardrail is-this is a high-speed road. 4, ~tM ___ 1' -"-4 - - .-- --- ~ --1 If --~~- ~ -- Richmond Rd Clove Rd U~T 3/~ Nfl! L. - PAGENO="0055" 51 Mr. BLATNIK. Cost how much? Mr. LINK0. $15,000 to $30,000. Mr. BLATNIK. Would that be an approximate rough estimate of the cost of this structure Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Probably closer to the low end of that range, as close to $15,000 to $20,000. Mr. BLATNIK. $15,000 to $20,000? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Do you have a requirement relating to the distance be- tween an interchange and an interchange notice sign? Mr. PRISK. Yes, there is a requirement for a warning such as you see here, a half mile. This is approximately a half mile, but not to the near- est foot. Mr. CRAMER. Do your regulations prevent it from being located on the bridge because of the distance requirement? Mr. PRISK. No. Mr. CRAMER. If you have it on the bridge, can it be just an approxi- mation, such as "exit one-third of a mile," or whatever it is? You do not have to have exactly 1 mile, half mile, and so forth, do you? Mr. PRISK. For the benefit of the motorist, we give attention to driver reactions and the limits of human behavior and performance. We try to give major interchanges a 2-mile notice, a 1-mile notice, and a third advance notice sign about a half or quarter of a mile ahead. So there is no reason for distance considerations that that this sign could not be on the bridge. Mr. CRAMER. Could this sign be on the bridge under your present regulations? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. I understand maybe some highway departments con- sider bridges esthetically beautiful, and therefore should not be marred with signs; is that true? Mr. PRISK. That is true. And probably is real also, besides being true. It is an attitude that the bridge engineer reflects also in such de- tails as that offset you see in the right abutment lindicating]. The wail is brought out and set back. This is not entirely a structural consideration. You find much inter- est in the esthetics for bridges, and I expect that those in charge of the esthetics of a bridge would not welcome a sign on the bridge. Mr. CRAMER. Then we are talking about beautification. We are sacri- ficing safety for beauty, then. Do you think that is justified? Mr. PRISK. I place safety ahead of beauty. Mr. CRAMER. I have been doing it for a long time. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Prisk, I would like to develop this point just a little bit. Could you answer whether or not any of the States, to your knowledge, have someone in a position of a safety engineer overseeing all the plans and specifications prior to being submitted for bid and the responsibility to review and approve them as they relate to safety specifically? Mr. PRISK. I can positively state that all the highway departments do not have such a person, and I think that to the best of my knowledge there is no highway department `that has a safety engineer by that PAGENO="0056" 52 title and by that title alone, who has the type of function that yo mention. There are highway departments that have persons identified a~ traffic and safety engineers or planning and safety engineers, possibly But this straight title of a clear safety function, a single-minde function, looking toward safety of the highway is not a thing that know has been identifie~1 in the highway departments up to this time Mr. Cr~usEN. Do they have anyone that is specifically assigned th responsibility of approving these projects with the consideratio given to the safety factor involved-anyone? Mr. PRISK. Yes, when you come right down to it, the chief engi neer or the chief administrative official, of course, is responsible fo the approval; but these reviews of project plans go through a serie of approvals. They are passed to the traffic engineer for review o the level of service that the project will provide in terms of traffi capacity. Mr. CLAUSEN. Why has this not been done, if there is someone wh is supposed to be looking after it? Mr. PRI5K. I daresay that some of these reviews that have bee done in tandem have come up to the top and rejection of traffic an safety considerations has sometimes occurred. Mr. CLAtJSEN. Do you, in your opinion, feel that the States shoul have someone who oversees these project recommendations with th safety consideration primarily in mind? Mr. PIasK. Yes; and we have suggested the establishment of sur veillance teams on existing highways to learn something about th operation of these highways, so that this function that you mentio for new projects could be performed. Mr. OLAUsEN. Is the Bureau of Public Roads-now, they shoul have possibly someone in their divisions overseeing the State pro gram on safety- Mr. PRISK. I do not know if I quite have your question. Would yo mind saying that again? Mr. (JLAUSEN. Have someone in the Bureau division offices revie the project recommendations that are coming from the State fro: a safety standpoint because after all, where we have the Federal-ai highway program as well as the Interstate highway program, w do have an interest, and it would seem to be logical that the Bureau o Public Roads would have someone overseeing this. As you know, som of the people in the various States and their departments becom victims of bureaucracy and thereby are inhibited in making th recommendations that we think would add to highway safety. Mr. PxasK. The design engineer has that responsibility in our fbi organization, to examine plans for safety and capacity. So we reall do have a person in the organization now who is charged with tha consideration. Mr. (JLAUSEN. But do they have in mind principally the safel measures? Mr. Piusx. It would be pretty hard to get them to admit that the do not. Mr. CLAUSEN. From these pictures, would you not say somebod should be looking at it? Mr. PiusK. I would say so. PAGENO="0057" 53 Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that answers my uestion. Mr. BLATNIK. The Chair does not mean to interrupt. We are going in much detail. The questions are very pertinent. I thought we would continue in an orderly presentation of the record to show the different types of problems that have come up in spite of the laws on the books ow, and in spite of the directions by the Bureau of Public Roads, and more recently by the new Department of Transportation. Mr. CLAUSEN. I agree. The only thing that occurred here was that it came to my mind, and I felt it might be pertinent to include it in he record at this point. Mr. BLATNIK. Both witnesses will continue tomorrow. Before we adjourn, Mr. May. Mr. W. MAY. May I make a statement, Mr. Chairman, to place this testimony that we have heard this morning in proper perspective. I might say here that the type of hazards Mr. Linko has been discussing is not limited to New York. As the hearings progress we shall see such hazards are commonplace and widespread, and they exist at a critical level in all sections of the Nation. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. The Chair would like, before concluding today's session, to comment upon the appearance before our subcommittee of Mr. Linko, and the excellent cooperation and assistance he has given to the committee staff. It is a real pleasure to all of us on the committee to recognize the work and results accomplished by a private citizen who obviously is earnest and sincere and certainly persevering, and working alone with o organization to finance him or to encourage him and continuing because of his conscience and his belief. Mr. Linko has compiled a report that would do credit to the most qualified traffic engineers. Indeed, he has brought to the subject matter before the committee a layman's-eye view that might well be given urgent attention by our highway design, traffic, and safety engineers alike. Mr. Linko's alertness, concern, and unselfish dedication deserve the ratitude of all his fellow citizens, and certainly the members of this ubcommittee. Mr. Linko, we thank you. Mr. Linko and Mr. Prisk, you will both be available here tomorrow horning? The hearings for today are adjourned until 10 o'clock omorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene t 10 a.m., on Wednesday, May 24, 1967.) PAGENO="0058" PAGENO="0059" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON PtFBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room 167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik presiding. Present: Messrs. Blatnik (subcommittee chairman), Johnson, Mc- Carthy, Howard, Cramer, Cleveland, McEwen, Duncan, Schadeberg, Zion, and Denney. Staff present: Same as previous day and Sherman S. Wilise. Mr. BLATNIK. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High- way Program of the House Public Works Committee will please come to order. We are resuming our public hearings in matters pertaining to efficiency and safety on Federal aid highways. Before we get into our business, I have a brief announcement. We have visiting today another group of students from the Broome Jun- ior High School, Rockville, Md. Mr. Charles Coblentz is the instructor with the group. We had a fine delegation yesterday morning. We welcome you and we hope you will find the hearings informative and interesting. It is in the tedious and laborious sessions of subcommittees and full com- inittees `that the major work of the legislative branch of your Govern- ment, your Congress, is accomplished. We hope you will find this in- teresting and informative and we commend you for your interest in coming here. We welcome you. Back to the hearings. We continue this morning, with the testimony of Mr. Joseph Linko, of New York City. To review, for those who may not have been with us yesterday when we opened the hearings, Mr. Linko is a private citizen. He is a layman vho became concerned at what he saw alongside highways while trav- eling around the environs of his native~city. Without any encourage- ment or backing of any kind, and at considerable personal sacrifice and effort, he began cataloging what he considered to be examples of deficiencies in the design and construction of our highways, particu- larly from the safety standpoint.. Over a period of 4 years, Mr. Linko put together an impressive display of documented photographs, part of which we witnessed at yesterday's proceedings. As we resume today, I want to make one point very clear. As is our custom, this subcommittee scheduled public hearings only after (55) PAGENO="0060" 56 an exhaustive in-depth investigation of the subject matter had been conducted by our staff. I believe I am correct, Mr. May, this took place during most of the last year, about a good year in duration of timed Is that correct? Mr. W. MAY. Yes; at least, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Now, this investigation has disclosed that the matters testified to by Mr. Linko are by no means confined to the Greater New York area to which his testimony relates. On the contrary, during the course of our hearings it will be shown through other witnesses including members of our staff, that the deficiencies are nationwide in scope. They were discovered in all nine regions administered by the Bureau of Public Roads, each of which was visited by representatives of our staff in the course of the investigation. I feel compelled to make this point at the outset of today's testi- mony lest anyone get the erroneous impression that the serious matters we are now considering are in any sense confined to one locality or region; in short, that they were sort of handpicked, that this was a loaded sample of what is on the highway system, because this is not the case. Our second witness sworn yesterday was Mr. Charles W. Prisk. Mr. Prisk is Deputy Director of the Office of Traffic Operations, Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Transportation. He is an engineer by background. His qualifications in the highway field are impressive, particularly in the area of highway safety. As a further example of the splendid cooperation extended to this subcommittee in the past, the Bureau of Public Roads has made Mr. Prisk available to us for consultation and technical assistance during this investigation. His knowledge of the subject and his enthusiasm for improved safety conditions on our highways have proved invalu- able to us and we greatly appreciate your cooperation, Mr. Prisk. We will now continue with the testimony of Mr. Linko. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Linko, once again would you relate to the sub- committee how you began your interest in highway design and con- struction? What then took place? PURTEER TESTIMONY BY JOSEPE LII4XO, NEW YORK, N.Y. Mr. LINK0. Yes. On a certain section of the State highway I travel every day I noticed we had all types of road obstructions along the right shoulder area, and these obstructions were chopped up by cars and they were left and no one seemed to think it was important to remove them. After bringing it to the attention of the highway officials and finding they did nothing I decided to take a few pictures, and I photographed these locations. But then I-started to notice there were more. Mr. W. MAY. Were you a photographer? Mr. LINK0. No; I just bought a camera, because they did not listen to me, and I took these pictures. So as I went along, the more pictures I took, the more I found and there was no end to it-because the more I found, the more they built and I could not keep up with them. PAGENO="0061" 57 Up to this very day on the brand new Interstate highway they just recently opened up, they had the same conditions, even though I rought this to the attention of the State officials and I showed some of his material to the Bureau of Public Roads, to the Office of Highway Safety. And I saw the memorandums that they sent out regarding this, ut no one seemed to pay attention, even though they were sent out. Mr. W. ~ Do you recall when you first made your presentation o the Bureau of Public Roads representative? Mr. LINK0. Yes. Mr. W. MAY. Do you remember what month it was? Mr. LINK0. No; I do not remember that. It was duringthe AASHO ieeting. Mr. W. MAY. October 1965? Mr. LINK0. Yes. Mr. W. MAY. After that, you saw some of the directives that were ~ssued from the Bureau of Public Roads in Washington out to the States? Mr. LINK0. Yes. I pointed out the unnecessary hazards in the gore areas. I noticed that in the manual they were recommending to put them there. Then I also read some TM reports and these said that they should not be installed there in massive concrete foundations. But ur State has ignored that and they are still building them today. Mr. W. MAY. You are concerned because you saw these directives being issued from Washington in late 1965 and during 1966? And yet recently, in the past week or so, you still see them being built on the highway; is that correct? Mr. LINKO. That is correct, on the brand new highways. Mr. W. MAY. I think now we might continue with your slides. Mr. BLATNIK. Before we get into the presentation of slides, we wel- ome the additional students from Broome Junior High School. Before we turn all the lights out, we also have another distinguished uest, a Member of Parliament from the United Kingdom, from ondon, Mr. Dayell. Mr. Dayell has traveled in a good many parts f the world. He has been in the United States on previous occasions, nd has just come down from Expo 67 in Montreal, Canada. Mr. ayell is a member of the Committee on Technology in his legislative ody-and we welcome him. Mr. DArm,i~. Thank you very much. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. May, will you proceed with your presentation? Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Chairman, I wonder, before we start, if I ight ask a question? Mr. Linko was talking about obstructions on the i~ight shoulder. las any study been made as to whether the obstructions on the right houlder are involved in more difficulty, causing more danger to the river, than obstructions in the median strip, or on the left shoulder? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Prisk, with your many years of experience, what vould be your response to that question? Mr. PRISK. I think on the freeway type facility, Mr. Chairman, that approximately the same number of vehicles run off either side of the pavement. It is within a few percent of being even. Mr. BLATNIK. Would it be correct to further state, Mr. Prisk, that ye perhaps have more latitude about doing something, moving ob- PAGENO="0062" 58 stacles on the right side of the roadbed, than we do on the left? Yo have more limitations in what can be done on the left side? Mr. PRISK. This is correct. Once the right-of-way is obtained, o course, you do have outer limits that you work to. But because of slop considerations, your constant dimensions are in the cross-section be tween the shoulders of the roadway but the roadside itself is a varyin width. So there is an opportunity to make adjustments in the roadsid more so than in the median. Mr. W. MAY. Another factor we might consider, Mr. Prisk, is that o many of our highways, the wider, more usable shoulder is on you right; is that correct? Mr. PIUSK. This is true. Mr. W. MAY. So many of our highways may have a 4-foot shoulde on the left which is not too wide, particularly for breakdown, wherea on the right there may be a 10-foot shoulder. What Mr. Linko is corn plaining about is many of these obstacles remain very close, within - couple of feet of that usable 10-foot shoulder. Mr. LINKO. Yes. Mr. W. MAY. Whereas, in the city, when you had the small narro medians, normally you had some type of median divider, so you alread had your protection there. Mr. Linko was suggesting we put the sup ports and signs in the median between the median barrier. Is that right Mr. Linko? Mr. LINKO. That is right. Even if there is not a median barrier, on belongs there. They are going to put one in sooner or later, so wh not put it there? Actually the sign does not have to overhang as muc because there is no full shoulder there to begin with. It will be close to the guy that has to see the sign and it will never be hit, because th guardrail is there to protect the installation. Mr. W. MAY. Yes, sir. Maybe we could now continue with your slid presentation, Mr. Linko. Mr. LINK0. In these two slides you see that, as a general practice they take a sign and put it 100 feet away from the bridge, 100-200 feet -.4 PAGENO="0063" 59 I suggested to everybody that I could talk to, why not put the sign on the overpass? Or take this concrete stanchion and put it where the original hazard is already, which is the bridge abutment, and use one guardrail to phase out two hazards at one time and you end up with one hazard. This is the right way to do it. You can save on the cost of the supports. But in any case, if they could not do it this way, they could put this sign right next to the bridge abutment and use one guardrail to phase out the two hazards and wind up with one hazard. Victory Blvd EXIT 1/2 MILE PAGENO="0064" 60 Here you have two separate hazards. There is an Interstate high way and you can see they are not even protecting the bridge abutment Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Linko, referring to figure 1-055, if we look at th small piece of guardrail, we can recall what the manual calls fo Highway Research Bulletin 81, referring to guardrail. I think ther is always the suggestion, unless you are going to anchor the guard rail, maybe a. minimum of 75 feet should be used to cause that guard rail to properly perform. But throughout your presentation, I notic we see time and time a.gain short pieces of gua.rdrail. Mr. LINK0. That is right. That is 24 feet instead of 75 feet. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk, what do you think of a 24-foot section o guardrail on a location like that? Mr. PRISK. Unless the guardrail installations are 75 feet or more length, you get bending of the rail and it is impossible to develop ten sion to give it proper strength; these short sections are not useful a a guardrail. Mr. W. MAY. The hazard at the end of the guardrail, again, if i were struck at an abrupt angle, it would not hold up? It would no perform? Mr. PRISK. That is correct. Mr. LINK0. Here also you can see where they installed two signs o the top of a.n existing walking overpass. That shows the job can b done. And right behind, on the left, you can see they built a sig bridge for a sign. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Linko, excuse me. Just so you can identify for th committee, you say to the left, you are talking about the structure o the other side of the bridge, the two red dots? Mr. LINK0. Yes. That is a sign bridge to hold up a. sign. Mr. BLATNIK. The whole structure is just to hold up two signs? Mr. LINK0. That is right. /` PAGENO="0065" 61 Mr. BLATNIK. On the right-hand side, they use the bridge structure? Mr. LINK0. They use the walk bridge. Mr. BLATNIK. They have no structure separate for the sign; they put the two signs on the bridge structure. Mr. LINK0. That is correct. All over the highway you can see we can use these existing overpasses. It is less costly. The maintenance would be easier. You can slip this off at the top. We know how to do the job. We can even preengineer these things into the new highways, into the walls. But it is very seldom done. 87-7670-68-5 PAGENO="0066" 62 To talk about esthetic values. Here is a bridge with a sign on it and I feel this looks beautiful. I think the way it is written in the manual is discouraging the engineers from using these. bridges for signs. / Now, this is what you often see. Here they had a choice of putting the sign on the overpass and they did not do it. Then they had the second choice of putting it next to the bridge abutment and using the same guardrail to phase out a hazard that was not protected to begin with and they failed to do that. They created two separate hazards. ~i11 ~ Intl Airport van Wyck~ Izpwy EXIT 4 MILE ~erAVet PAGENO="0067" 63 Mr. W. MAY. I notice that the concrete pedestal on the left sign sup- port seems to jut out beyond the median guardrail. Mr. LINK0. Yes; they should go around for safety. Mr. W. MAY. The short piece of guardrail for the support on the right would be another hazard, and the bridge abutment is left un- protected. Mr. LINKO. All these are really unnecessary. It has nothing to do with money; it is just simple logic. There are no funds involved here. Mr. W. MAY. Had we put the sign on the existing bridge structure, we would have saved money? Mr. LINK0. That is right. This is what you see all over the highway. There is a bridge structure there, and here you see them installing guardrail to phase out a bridge abutment that should not have been there. This is a depressed highway and you do not need bridge abut- ments on depressed highways. The walls should be smooth. They made a mistake. They made bridge abutments. Now they are phasing it out. As you see in this picture they phased the bridge abutment out, but they are not interested in the concrete stanchion holding up the sign. PAGENO="0068" 64 This points out you did not need the concrete stanchion. Here they had no room in the shoulder to put it, so they used the wall. Mr. W. MAY. Here is a point we might make now and later on in your presentation. We make a mistake initially when we build in a And this. t~ ~ / J.rom* Av* 4$ PAGENO="0069" 65 bridge abutment, then we add a couple of sign supports to create additional hazards. Now we are going back to correct the initial mis- take of the initial abutment; we are going to put some guardrail in. Then we should look to see how better we could place the guardrail. The guardrail could have been drawn back here (fig. 1-063) and ended up protecting the motorists from this concrete pedestal on the right sign support. Mr. LINK0. That would have been the proper thing to do, but evi- dently one job had nothing to do with the other. This is why I put this program together. Nobody knows what the other guy is doing. And here you can see another sign that could be put on top of an overpass, and that is not going to look bad. You will notice the marks; I want everybody to concentrate on the marks, because they I IMldtown `run f Long I$lind fist ~/i sii.t PAGENO="0070" 66 show something. They show you unnecessary hazards along the road- sides. If this sign was put up on top of there, you could eliminate one of these. I am showing you a series of these things showing you this is not just one or two. With many signs in my section, they made unneces- sary hazards. Here you see one that was hit because of that reason. Right there was an overpass where the sign could have been and you could have dim mated this sign support completely. / / PAGENO="0071" 67 Take a look at this small sign and massive concrete and everything. The guardrail is not even protecting the concrete stanchion, because you can run right behind it. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk, could you give us an estimate of what that supporting structure for that small sign might cost? Mr. PmsK. I would say $5,000 or $6,000. Mr. W. MAY. So if we put that small sign on the existing overhead bridge structure, we might have saved $5,000 or $6,000 and done away with a couple of hazards? Is that your point, Mr. Linko? Mr. LINK0. That is right. The guardrail is not even protecting the concrete stanchion the way it is there. You can run right into it. I ~ WhIt~~t~ø, NY25AEAST ~ PAGENO="0072" 68 Here also you can see this sign could be up on the bridge. Every- where we look, we have failed to take into consideration these extra hazards. Here is a sign that was knocked down. It has been like that for 2 years. They had an exit sign that should not have been there. Once knocked down, it should have been removed, but nobody wants to take the responsibility of removing it.. Now this is a killer. Mr. W. MAy. Is that. the knocked down sign that we see to the right of the picture? Mr. LINKO. That is right, lying on the side. All it says is "exit." After 2 years, this concrete. stanchion is still there to wipe out any- body who makes a little mistake, you see. And that is one of the things I am pointing out. We are failing to maintain our highways or to clear the unnecessary hazards. Mr. W. MAY. Were you suggesting yesterday the Bureau and States should run a crash program to go back and remove that type of obstacle? Get that concrete out of there? Mr. LINK0. Not only that type, but every other unnecessary hazard. Even that curve is a hazard. Most cars run that at high speeds. If you clear that area and taper the curb, and if the car goes over it, he can still go right or left. Once he hits the curb, his tire will blow out and it can throw him into the stream of traffic and he can involve three or four cars. Mr. W. M~. Is that a breakaway light pole? Mr. LINK0. Right. I have not got the picture, but the sign that was originally on that big heavy concrete stanchion is on the light pole now saying "exit," showing we did not even need it to begin with. Another thing I notice is the installation of guardrail which I feel is wrong. They had the material to do the job, but they failed to install it in a proper manner. Here you see a tapered curb and anyone that / >~ PAGENO="0073" 69 jumps that curb and slides along the guardrail has to slide into the abutment. That guardrail could have been alined so that as you slide by, you could pass that abutment. Just because they call it a "center barrier" does not mean it has to be put in the center of that pole. And here you see another picture of the same deficiency. Besides that, I want you to notice all the dots on there. Every one of those dots is a potential hazard somebody could snag onto there. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk, is that a proper installation of guardrail? PAGENO="0074" 70 Mr. PiasK. The guardrail properly should go through the under- crossing structure and shield the center pier. Mr. W. MAr. Yes. Notice when the guardrail comes to the light standard up there, it breaks and we begin another piece on the other side of the light standard. Is that proper? Mr. PRISK. No. Again, on a center barrier, it is entirely practical and certainly desirable, to erect the light standards inside the barrier, not outside. Mr. LINK0. We failed to go around the pole and, besides that, we have all the separate hazards. If the guardrail continued right through there, you would have a sliding effect, but a guy hasn't any chance but to die at this particular point. This would be the proper way to do it, go around it so the guy can slide right by. ~1 ~ ~ U.. -~~l.MUIINp,JI. PAGENO="0075" 71 Here you see tire tracks of a marine, off on leave, going to Washing- ton. He did not even touch the guardrail. He caught that corner like I have been complaining about in the last few slides and was killed. I feel he got killed for no reason at all. If that guardrail were installed right, he would have slid by there. Many people are being killed on these same locations, and we are doing nothing about it. Mr. W. MAY. Excuse me. Was this in New York? Mr. LINKO. No, this was in Connecticut. Even though I was not in- terested in Connecticut, when I read this in the paper, I wanted to see if they had the same conditions we had. I went up and I took this pic- ture and I gave it to the newspapers. I do not know if they wrote up anything on it. I just notice now, a year later, they are starting to go around these posts. (At this point Mr. Johnson assumed the chair.) Mr. LINKO. Here you see a bridge abutment that has been hit. Here is what happened to the car. It is all smashed up and two girls died in there. PAGENO="0076" 72 And here you see a guardrail installed wrong on the right-hand side. In the center barrier they had an excuse; they called it a center barrier so let's say the guy put it there. But here there is not any reason for this guardrail at all. They only reason it is there is to protect the bridge abutment. You can see it is guiding you right into the bridge abutment. If you look close, you can see a scratch all along there, where a bumper hit this. They repa.ired it and put it right, in the same place. This is wrong. 13.7! L I I p I PAGENO="0077" 73 Mr. W. MAY. Again you make the point, if we made a mistake in the first instance and there is an accident, if we have an opportunity now to correct it, we should. But instead, we went back and put the guard- rail exactly in the same position. Mr. LINK0. This is the way it should be done. There is no reason to put a guardrail there not to serve a purpose. It is supposed to pro- vide a sliding effect so that you slide right by the hazard. But this is what you will see all along our highways. I have too many pictures to show you. I just brought a few. This is all unnecesssary damage. Many people got killed, other people got crippled for life-just because we failed to overlap this area. PAGENO="0078" 74 look you will see we failed to terminate these Everywhere you things properly. PAGENO="0079" 75 This particular rail originally was lined up with this abutment. But all you have to do is tap it a little and it will move in. Then it is exposed for the next person. By overlapping, it would be impossible for this to happen. You can use the strength of the bridge abutment to keep it from happening. But many of our highways, many of our bridge abutments in my, area, the whole New York State Thruway, the New England Thru- way, have these conditions. They are wrong and we have to go back and do the job over. This is what happens when you go into something like this. This en- gine was pushed into the compartment and two people died here. PAGENO="0080" 76 Mr. BLATNIK. You say two people died? Mr. LINKO. Two young persons. Mr. BLATNIK. The car, you see, was hit going forward. Mr. LINK0. Yes, they turned the car around soit would not be in the way of traffic. But you can see the impression of the abutment on that car. Mr. BLATNIK. The point of impact is the red dot? Mr. LINK0. That is right. Mr. BLATNIK. An obstruction like that will really stop you dead; really stop you cold. Mr. LINK0. Right, the engine is in the compartment, and two people died here. This is a picture of a guardrail that was installed to line up with that abutment (circle) to begin with; but once you tap these things, they will all move over. They should be terminated. They should be terminated to the bridge abutment itself so that you can use the PAGENO="0081" 77 strength of that connection, you see. And all our highways in New York City are deficient in this way. Now this is a picture I took 8 months prior to an accident. I saw someone was chipping away on this thing already. Here is the same scene. Three people died here. Four days latei'; another person died here i~the~exact-Hkcation. They failed to do anything about the situation, so I wrote a letter to our Governor pointing out the deficiency. 87-757 O-68----6 PAGENO="0082" 78 And at the same time as these people were getting killed at the former location, we were opening up brand new highways with this same "ideal" situation. This highway was just opened up in November. The same thing will happen when a car hits this. Now, I read a few `books on this particular type of W-beam installa- tion, and they say to terminate this thing and fasten it to the bridge abutment. This was put out years ago. And here we are opening up highways like this today. PAGENO="0083" 79 The answer to this particular place where the people got killed was that they shoved another guardrail in there and they thought their responsibility was over. This is when I wrote a letter to the Governor. I went to this particular place after they repaired it and I shook this guardrail and it moved 6 inches back and forth. You can see where the mark is at the base of that I-beam, you can see a big hole there, and that part could be pushed back and ~forth also. Mr. CLEVELAND. Is that curb ir1 the previous slide at the base of the bridge abutment-the base of the bridge-that curb looks like 5 or 6 inches. Is that a hazard also? Mr. LINK0. Yes; that is a hazard and it has been chopping up our cars. I noticed that after I wrote a letter to the Governor. PAGENO="0084" 80 They made this correction. See, they did taper that curb there a little bit with some asphalt as they fastened this thing to the bridge. Mr. Br~NIx. Will Mr. Cleveland yield for a moment? Mr. CLEVELAND. Yes. Mr. Br~rNn~. We will come later to more examples of how haz- ardous this can be. And we will include some of the cases on Wash- ington Memorial Highway, right along the Potomac. It would make it easier for the car to bump over the rail having two lower steps, so the wheels bounce to the first one, then bounce to the second one. It makes it a lot easier for a car to crash over the railing. We will have pictures of that, showing scenes of accidents that can happen just like that. Mr. Cr~vEI1~&Nr. We will address ourselves then to the question of these curbs. Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. Mr. Cr~vEr~.&~m. We have had ample pictures of where curbs have been dangerous. Mr. Br~m~. Right. Mr. Cr v~r~r. On the other hand, I suppose curbs do perform some functions. Mr. BLATNIK. If they are high enough, we sort of skid along the highway. However, curbs help you bounce up, elevate you to bounce up one step or two steps, and give you a good crack at the railing. You can be sure to go over. Recoil action. Mr. LINKO. Those curbs are hazardous and some of them are not 6 inches high; some are 6 and 12 inches high, and you do not even need to leave the roadway. The guardrail guides you into those high curbs and you can blow out your tire. If you have your brakes on at that particular time, you can collapse your whole front end. It is a serious matter. I asked the highway department ~o go back to all these points and do something similar to this; pour that asphalt there and give it long taper, maybe 2 or 3 feet, so you can ride up on that instead of blowing out your tire and running out of control. Even this particular installation here is not recommended in the book that I read. They put out a special book on how to install a W-beam guardrail. They do not recommend this installation. Mr. CI~vEr~rn. Mr. Chairman, while we are on that subject, taking the specific picture we have (fig. 1-91) and the specific bridge, I would like to ask you and Mr. Prisk-forgetting flow about the part of the curb facing oncoming traffic, let's talk about the part of the curb parallel with it; is that curb performing a useful function? Mr. Prisk, would you comment on that? What is the purpose of that being raised, lst's assume 6 inches, 5 or 6 inches? Mr. PRIsK. Sir; this wide curb has been known as a safety walk that is on the structure. It appears on some of our freeway-type facilities, even though pedestrians are prohibited from the freeways. So the only safety walk purpose you can possibly ascribe to this is for persons who maintain the structure, being able to walk and stay out of the traffic lanes. The curb here is definitely exposed to traffic and is an added accident factor in a good many cases on bridge structures. New designs have done away with this type of walk. They are gradually being adopted. PAGENO="0085" 81 Mr. CLEVELAND. In other words, the answer to my question is the curb no longer is recognized as performing a useful function? Mr. PRISK. The wide curb-on a freeway facility; yes, sir. Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Linko, when did you first observe this? (Fig. 1-87.) Mr. LINK0. I took this 8 months prior to the accident. Mr. BLATNIK. In 1965 you noticed this and said this is a dangerous spot? Mr. LINK0. That is right. It had been chipped off. I noticed the hazard there. It had been hit many times. Mr. BLATNIK. You had no record of previous accidents, but there were scar marks? Mr. LINK0. Right. Mr. BLATNIK. What did you learn about any accidents subsequent to noting this as a potential hazard? Mr. LINKO. You mean after I noted this? Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. Mr. LINK0. Right here-three people cUed here one day. Mr. BLATNIK. That was when, last October, was it not? Mr. LINK0. That is right. Mr. BLATNIK. Was that a mother and little children who were killed? Mr. LINK0. That is right. They ran into that abutment and wiped out everybody in the car. And 4 days later, at this same location, an- other person killed. Mr. BLATNIK. Four days later? Mr. LINK0. That is right. Another person got killed at this point. Mr. BLATNIK. What happened to the other passengers? Three more were hospitalized? Mr. LINK0. That is correct. It is a serious hazard. Mr. CLEVELAND. For the record, can we be told where this particu- lar bridge is located? Mr. LINK0. Yes. This happens to be-if you are traveling west on Interstate 287, this is the entrance ramp to the New York State Thru- way, and it is a sharp turn. A lot of people never get past this par- ticular place. If this guardrail were installed properly and secured to the bridge abutment, a car would slide by2 and continue on its way. But when you touch this guardrail, the way it is, it just moves back and you hit the abutment head on. That is because they failed to instal1~ the guardrail properly. I would like to say again, all our guardrails are like this. This is not an isolated thing. On the New England Thruway, New York Thruway, and all the brandnew highways we are building today, they are exactly the same. Mr. W. MAY. Here is a location where you have had several deaths, a series of accidents, and they finally make a correction and they put some cold mix there in front of the curb, tapering the curb. Now they make this kind of attachment to the bridge end post. Mr. Prisk, is that a proper installation? `(Fig. 1-92.) Mr. PRISK. No; this is not a full correction, certainly. It is an im- provement over what you saw in the early picture, but it is not a proper correction. PAGENO="0086" 82 Contraction of these guardrails will probably pull that installation loose in cold weather under normal conditions, and. so you no longer have the anchorage that is shown. That would be my judgment. Mr. Ci~vi~a~n. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question in this regard? Mr. JoHNSON. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. Cri~-o. The concrete abutment with the mark on it, is that serving any functional purpose so far as the bridge is concerned? Mr. PRISK. No. This is the principal weak point in the situation Mr. Linko is describing, the transition between the post guardrail and the rail you find on the bridge structure itself. In most cases that block of concrete could be cut off at its base and lifted away from the bridge and nothing would happen. The bridge would not fall down. It serves no real function except to ornament the bridge and to introduce an obstacle to a smooth transition between the approach protection af- forded by the guardrail and the protection afforded by the rail on the bridge. - Mr. Cr~vEr,AND. Mr. Prisk, actually what you are saying, then, the rails along the bridge should extend with the same material to the same height and same design into the guardrails that will be on the edge of the road; is that not the answer? Mr. PRISK. Not necessarily the same material, but you want smooth continuity in the traffic face of the rail, both on the approach and on the bridge. Mr. CLEV1~I1ANo. Let me ask you another question. With all due re- spect to my colleague from New York, Mr. McCarthy, who put in a word for the concrete people, let me put in a word for the forest prod- ucts industry. Would it not be safer if that particular installation we are looking at were made of wood? Would that not give at least the traveler a fighting chance if it would break off? Mr. PRI5K. I think I would like to pass on that. Wood can be pretty solid, too. I think it is inappropriate for this use. Mr. CLEVELAND. Are there any studies on this, the advantage of steel and concrete as opposed to wood? In some parts of the country we do use wood with just metal shields for guardrails. Is there a reason for this? Mr. PRISK. I was talking about the end wall of the parapet on the structure itself. The abutment is directly underneath that block of concrete as it stands between the approach guardrail and the rail on the bridge. I never have seen a~ modern bridge construction-that is, concrete or steel bridge-where wood has been used at that location. Mr. Ci~n~. Could I ask, Mr. Prisk, what are those four concrete stanchions (fig. 1-88) supposed to accomplish at the end of the bridge railing? Mr. PRISK. The block? Mr. Cn~iii~. The block of concrete. Not one block but all four of them-lines on one, or whatever it is. What is it supposed to accom- plish? Mr. PiusK. You mean these four panels? Mr. Ci~i~i~. Yes. Mr. PRISK. That is all poured as one monolithic structure. It is one solid wall, with panel ornamentation by the bridge engineer and the PAGENO="0087" 83 architect, to apply their skills-esthetic considerations to ornament the bridge. Mr. CRAMER. So we have here another instance of esthetics or beauti- fication, if you want to call it that, being the primary consideration, apparently largely to t:he exclusion of safety consideration. This could be compared to planting trees in the right-of-way, is that correct? Should there not be some mode of welding together in the form of planning whatever engineering esthetics are advisable and the safety hazards that might result? Mr. PRISK. I would agree. Mr. CRAMER. These clearly indicate there is just no coordination between the esthetic aspects and the safety aspects? Mr. PRISK. I doubt that the author of that design would agree, but I agree with you. Mr. CRAMER. We can only judge it by the results. People are getting killed here. Mr. PRISK. Right. Mr. W. M~&i'. Mr. Congressman, you would be interested to know the staff has talked to bridge engineers and asked them what is the purpose of the end post. The answer is there is no purpose. It serves no function. Mr. CRAMER. Well, it looks pretty and costs money. Mr. W. MAY. There are times we could put the date on it. But you notice it is like a tombstone. Mr. CRA3reI~. It looks pretty, costs money, and kills people. Mr. LINK0. Here you see a guardrail installed improperly also. Instead of letting you slide by here, you can hit the abutment head on. Mr. W. MAY. Again, here is a case of a failure to carry the struc- ture-the bridge narrows down and this is how they handled that particular offset. PAGENO="0088" 84 Mr. LINK0. Because it was installed improperly, this guy hit it. There were only 2 inches sticking out. You can see he just smashed into the concrete wall. ~1v ~ I - PAGENO="0089" 85 Here is another place where a fellow caught the corner and wrecked the bridge, because we failed to terminate, or go around. Where a guy would get a scratched fender, he has to wreck his car. Here is the guardrail referred to a few minutes ago. This is a 10- to 12-inch curb. Anyone sliding along the guardrail is going to come to a complete stop. If he has his brake on, he will completely ruin his car-for no good reason at all. PAGENO="0090" 86 This is a new bridge, recently installed. This is standard practice in New York State. They have these curbs on every bridge and still have not changed. Here you see them in the process of building. This is recently built. These things were brought to the attention of the Bureau of Public Roads and the State. Mr. BLATNIK. I am sorry, you say this is a brand new road being constructed? Mr. LINK0. Right. Mr. BLATNIK. Not even in use yet? Mr. LINK0. No. PAGENO="0091" 87 Mr. W. Mn'. They did not put a bridge and post on this one. Mr. LINKO. No, but that can cut you in half, too, because it is set back. Mr. W. MAY. Yes. Mr. LINK0. Here is a case where they removed the high curb, but the guardrail is set behind the bridge abutment, you see. Now you have the material to do the job properly, but it is not installed properly, so all these, unnecessary accidents at these points are really not necessary. Now here you see the guardrail set in front of the curb allowing you to go right through. a PAGENO="0092" 88 There are only two places like this I have seen in the whole State and I feel this is done right. But the only reason they did this was because they could not back it up. There is a sharp slope there. It was not done on purpose. [Laughter.] Mr. Bi~rNJx. Do you mean it happened by accident, by circum~ stances, and not by planning or design? Mr. LINKO. That is right. You can see anyone sliding along that guardrail has a chance of scraping his fender instead of wrecking his car. Mr. Cn~tiu~. They avoided accidents only by accident? Mr. LiMEo. That is correct. I recommended to Mr. Prisk and Mr. Kopecky in order to jrevent this misalinement of guardrails-as you see,-they are doing it every day-to make it mandatory to overlap the hazard. And if you have a high curb, you should overlap the high curb also. This way you cannot make a mistake, you see. All you have to do is overlap it and fasten it and it is impossible to do the job wrong. If you have got that mandatory clause in there, they will set it back behind the guardrail. That is a simple solution. Even in this particular case, I do not agree this is right, you see, because this can still be pushed back because it is not fastened to the curb. But if you overlap it, then you cannot make a mistake. A simple rule like this can prevent all this unnecessary wrong installation. This is a brand new rail developed and one of the newest highways we have got, just opened up, this is what you will see. The high curb is there. The rail end is not secured to the bridge railing. In fact, this type of railing, if you hit it, is designed to flip off the posts and would not serve any purpose at all. Any truck that hits this, it will just fly off, because it is not bolted actually with strong bolts. It is supposed to be anchored on both ends in order to realize the basic functions of this guardrail. ) SS~;~ 1 ~s ~ !I-~~~? S PAGENO="0093" 89 Here is another view showing you the back installation of it. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Chairman, we may remember this slide and use it later in the hearings. New York has developed a find brand new guardrail. It seems to work very well. There is a lot of merit to it. This is called a weak-post approach. If that guardrail is hit, the post gives way easily. This can only perform if the beam is properly anchored. It is not properly anchored in this picture. It is a brand new installation and it is not properly installed. That will give way much easier than the standard W-beam rail and the car would crash into that bridge abutment. Mr. LINK0. So you see, our brand new highways, with all the in- formation we have from the past, we are still building them wrong. And now we are getting a series of offsets, you see. I have docu- mented these to point out and prove that we are building these on purpose and not by accident. L I PAGENO="0094" 90 All these offsets are built for beauty, because they have a dark shadow, you see. I am for beauty, but not at these particular locations. And we can see anybody coming around this turn who slides into this thing would be stopped dead. If he had a full load of passengers, they have to go with him. I am going to show you a series of shots, but they all point out the same thing. - fl ~ I Here you can see they tapered the curb off easy so you can get up on there and slide into that guardrail. [Laughter.J Here you can see even 6 inches can grab a car. It does not look like it can do much damage, but you can see it smashed up this car unnecessarily. / PAGENO="0095" 91 Here is the front view. We have thousands of these offsets. Mr. W. M~x. That is not your car? [Laughter.] Mr. LINK0. No. I wish I had one like it. I only have a 1953 Willys. And you can see that we should outlaw any offsets against traffic regardless of how small they are. Here you see a guardrail installed improperly. They are supposed to be overlapped toward the traffic, but someone put it on backward. Even that one-eighth of an inch caught the car, you see. This is not an exaggeration. Mr. W. MAY. I think it is important, we just saw from a slide, 6 inches can stop a car, and here just less than an inch. How should this be done, Mr. Prisk. The overlapping should be laid the other direction? Mr. P1115K. The overlapping always should be so the following rail downstream would be behind the one upstream. Mr. W. MAY. Thank you. PAGENO="0096" I * Co IL PAGENO="0097" 93 Mr. LINK0. Here is a series of shots showing the second offset. Not oniy do we have the first bridge abutment, but we built the second. offset. I am pointing these out. Here is a particular location I photographed prior to an accident, and even though it has some protection, I felt it was unnecessary to have the second offset. 87-757 O-68----7 PAGENO="0098" 94 When Mr. Kopecky came down to see me, we noticed this condition. The light was down and the mark is on that second offset. We took a look at the car which is farther down, and this is what. we saw. He did not get that from knocking down the light post. And here is another shot of the same thing showing the glass was broken; somebody went through it. .1; . PAGENO="0099" 95 Mr. BLATNIK. Do you know what caused the automobile to go off the highway? Mr. LINK0. It could have been anything-lighting a cigarette or somebody might have shoved him over. Mr. BLATNIK. At any rate, he did slide over. He would have had some chance of recovery if the walls were flat. Mr. LINKO. That is right. Mr. BLATNIK. Fortunately he missed the first obstruction and your point is that if the wall were straight or smooth, he would have had a good chance of glancing- Mr. LINKO. That is right. The light pole would scratch this car. I have a series of shots on this point: PAGENO="0100" 96 -V. V PAGENO="0101" 97 * Mr. W. M~&i~. Mr. Linko, I think we can make another point here. How high is that one curb? (Fig. 1-108.) Mr. LINK0. It is a 9-inch curb and you cannot depend on cars k~p- ing on the ground. Mr. W. MAY. That is the point. You cannot hide behind a 9-inch curb and expect it to stop the automobile. PAGENO="0102" 98 Mr. LINK0. We have been doing that in many cases. Mostly we have no curbs at all. You could be traveling along 50 miles an hour and deviate just 10 inches out of the highway and you can be put out of your. misery. Mr. CRAMER. May I ask a question of Mr. Prisk. These are mighty pretty bridges. It looks like they may be also rather dangerous. Mr. Prisk, who is responsible, representing the Bureau, for review of plans for bridges? Mr. PRI5K. The responsibility for review of bridges done in our Washington office is with the head of our Bridge Division, Mr. Wilkes by name. The responsibility for all of this work, though, in a direct sense, is vested in our division engineer organization, one division engineer in each State. Mr. CRAMER. Now, do those division engineers in the State actually review the engineering plans for bridge structures, such as these? Mr. PRISK. Yes, with the help of their staff. Mr. CRAMER. Have they been instructed to consider those designs not only as to esthetics and beauty, but as to safety as well? Mr. PRISK. In a general sense, they have, yes. Mr. CRAMER. Why have they not been doing it? Mr. PRISK. That is a better question than I can answer in detail, but they are busy men. Mr. CRAMER. Now, I think, again, Mr. Chairman, the effect of the Bureau's reorganization should be inquired into by this committee. You have division offices and regional offices that are not going to be changed as to their makeup and we should inquire as to who may report to whom, to determine whether this is going to facilitate or further hamper such review. And it is my opinion that adding another layer of supervision could easily hamper rather than help the review process, from the standpoint of safety as well as esthetics. It is rather surprising to me, rather shocking, that these bridge abut- ments and other things have not been reviewed by the division offices, or by the States for that matter, from the standpoint of safety as well as esthetics. It looks like esthetics and beauty have had the upper hand. Mr. McCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMER. Would you care to comment on that, Mr. Prisk? Then I will be glad to yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York. Mr. PIU5K. Yes, I would say, not being acquainted with the site of these bridges, it is impossible to say whether these cases, one or any one of them, are part of the Federal-aid program. Mr. CRAMER. I assume some of them are. Mr. LINKO. I have some here, sir. Mr. PRISK. Beyond that, I think bridge engineers have been con- cerned additionally wit.h holding costs to a minimum. And in that connection, you tend to end up with a. structure that may have mini- mum standards, unless safety is given paramount emphasis. Mr. CRAMER. I will be glad to yield. Mr. MCCARTHY. I thank the gentleman from Florida. I am a little surprised at the gentleman from Florida, for whom I have the greatest admiration- Mr. CRAMER. I did not intend to yield for that purpose. [Laughter.] Go ahead and say what you have to say. PAGENO="0103" 99 Mr. MCCARTHY. I wonder if the stress we are putting on the approval authority of the Bureau of Public Roads is in focus? It seems to me we brought out yesterday that the first responsibility for construction of safe bridges and safe light poles and all the rest starts with the States. Is the gentleman suggesting this is solely a Federal responsibility? Mr. CRAMER. Oh, the gentleman knows I would not suggest any such thing. This is a partnership program and I am sure the gentle- man knows I have discussed it as a partnership program ever since I have been on this committee. But I call the gentleman's attention to the fact that the act we passed in 1966-section 402 of the Highway Safety Act-required that uniform standards be promulgated by the Secretary relating to high- way design as it affects safety. I think it is about time to get down to doing that job. Secondly, the Bureau has traditionally and always, through the regional offices, reviewed, and the law gives them the right to review- the obligation to review-the plans of the States to make sure that they conform to minimum standards. My pomt is, if you are going to have standards relating to esthetics which we have seen much evidence of in these pictures, we likewise should give at least equal consideration to safety, which apparently has not been done. Now, if the gentleman wants to take issue with that position, I would be delighted for him to do so. Mr. BLATNIK. Can we get back to a more orderly procedure? This is a very important point and we will ~et into that later. We will see more presentations and get into discussion of why this happened, why has it gone on for so long and what should be done. This is a little premature to get into but the point can be raised, of course, and it has been raised yesterday and again today. If we can proceed with the presentation of these slides, we would have an orderly volume of testimony of record before us. Mr. CRAMER. I felt Mr. Prisk was here for the purpose of giving us some idea as to how these things have been happening in the past and the reason for it. Mr. BLATNIK. He will continue to be with us through all the hearings. Mr. CRAMER. And for the further information of the gentleman from New York, section 109 of the basic law-title 23, United States Code-has been there for many, many years and it specifically says: "The Secretary shall not approve plans and specifications for pro- posed projects on any Federal-aid system if they fail to provide for a facility, (1) that will adequately meet existing and probable future traffic needs in a manner conducive to safety"-"safety"; that is what it says, specifically "safety"-as well as "durability and economy of maintenance." My point is that this evidences that safety has been downgraded and esthetics and other considerations, beautification, have been up- graded, despite this basic requirement in the law. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LINKO. Now, this particular car hit that abutment that you see in the background. Instead of getting a scratched fender, it cut off a lot of his car. PAGENO="0104" 100 This is happening, a little here and a little there; but nobody seems to group these things together. I put them all together and I hope it shocks this committee so we can get some action to phasing out these unnecessary offsets. Here you see the State of New York is making these things smaller and smaller. They are realizing their mistakes, but they will not give in. They are diehards. Here you can see they are making them smaller and smaller. Now, I pointed out how even a 6-inch offset poses an unnecessary hazard. They have it down to 6 inches here. ~1 ~ I PAGENO="0105" 101 And here you see many, many hazards, not oniy the first offset, but you have the second, third, and fourth. Every one of these things is a hazard. PAGENO="0106" 102 Here you see this is an obstacle course. You have to go by three trees, a lightpole, the first abutment a.nd they put a second abutment before you leave. There is something wrong to have conditions like this. The worst possible place to put it is on a turn. Mr. MOEWEN. Is there any reason engirieeringly why the lamp posts at that location could not be put back of the raiI~on~ the bridge? The barrier? Mr. BLATNIK. Or on top? Mr. MOE WEN. Or on top. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. The light distribution on a wide roadway, as I think I remarked yesterday, depends a good bit on the characteristics of the luminaire; but I would judge with a 6- or 8-foot sidewalk, as that seems to be, it would be possible to design a light standard that could be mounted in line with the wall, yes. Mr. MOEWEN. In other words, it would simply mean that as the pole extends up, the horizontal section would have to be a little longer; is that correct? Mr. PRISK. That is correct. Mr. MOEwEN. Thank you. I PAGENO="0107" 103 Mr. LINKO. Here you even see the rock outcrops. When they made this particular job, they had to blast a lot of rock and take it away and it may have been possible to fill in these offsets to provide a smooth road without spending an excessive amount of extra money. The point I am trying to bring out here is nobody is thinking about these offsets. Evidently they think they are not dangerous, but I see people being slaughtered on these things. And here you see another bridge abutment. Here you have four bridge abutments. If you miss one, you are bound to hit the other three. And the tapered curb allows you to go up nice and easy. PAGENO="0108" 104 Everywhere you look you will see these unnecessary offsets. And here you see four separate posts. They actually have a con- crete wall inside these posts instead of a smooth wall, to slide by. It does not involve any more money to do the job right. It is just nobody is thinking. L `1 I PAGENO="0109" 105 On the left you can see many places where you could have a collision. First, let me say this is not an old highway. This was built for the World's Fair in New York. They widened this road and built that wall and bridge abutment, which are hard to see in that shadow, and they feel their responsibility is done. They put that marker there and then feel they have no more responsibility. J PAGENO="0110" 106 Now, this slide shows you some car did hit this area and knocked that warning marker down. If you catch it right, you can wipe out a passenger. This wall should be smooth, but this is the way in New York State they build these things, and they are still building them today. This is the way it should have been done. There is not any reason why you should have any bridge abutment at all, especially on the depressed highway. Here, you see even the sign has been put on the wall. - 1 L~) I L~ :~ PAGENO="0111" 107 But this is what you will see on all highways. This is Interstate 95 aud this is only a pedestrian bridge, a narrow bridge, and yet you see the standard. If that was not bad enough, here you have a situation where some water was leaking out of the rocks, and during a couple ofmonthsof- a year it used to freeze and create a hazard; so they sent some people over here to eliminate the hazard. What they did was build these two concrete walls to keep the water from leaking out. Before, we had a I. I. I I I I PAGENO="0112" 108 hazard for 2 months of the year, and now we have it for 12 months in the year, 3~5 days. You have two abutments now that are not needed, and you can see these could have been phased out so you couldn't snag onto them. This is an improvement project? This is a little farther down, and you can see the same thing. We are creating these offsets right at the edges of our shoulders. a 4 ~: ~ PAGENO="0113" 109 Here is a $4 million new project in my area. They built two over- passes and a small section. As you can see, we are building these bridge abutments on purpose. Mr. W. MAY. Why did they have that sidewalk? Mr. LINK0. You notice they have a sidewalk there and yet nobody is allowed to walk here. Here you see a minimum clearance on the right. These slides show you that we are going to extra trouble and a.t great cost-going into the wall and out of the wall, and special brickwork, and there is no safety involved in this highway. These abutments are j 1J~,~11 87-757, O-68----8 PAGENO="0114" 110 going to snag some car, and you have a low curb there which allows this to be very possible. Mr. CI~c1~n~R. May I refer back to figure 134. Now, Mr. Prisk, assum- ing this is a Federal-aid project, do we have regulations relating to distance between the road and fixed objects? Do you have regulations for distances? Mr. PRISK. There are standard clearances that are required; yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. What are they? How many feet from the traveled road? Mr. PRI5K. On the edge of the travel roadway, 4~/2 feet is normally accepted as minimum on the left and 8 feet is the minimum standard on the right. Mr. CRAMER. The point I am making, if they wanted to build a wail, which they have done here, and at the same time wanted to accom- plish safety, I presume one method would be to bring that wall out on a plane to t.he edge of the bridge there. It would keep ~ou from hitting the bridge abutment. Could they do it under your distance regulation? Would that prevent them from doing so? Mr. PRIsK. It is a little ha.rd for me to understand the situation we have here. This could be an old structure conceivably and the roadway forced through there with substandard clearances. Mr. Ln~Ko. This is brand new, the whole works. Mr. PRISK. The whole thing is new? Mr. LINK0. New roads, new bridge, new everything. Mr. CRAMER. Regardless of whether it is or is not, if you are going to build that wall, do your regulations prevent them from bringing that wall out on a plane to the wall of the bridge? Mr. PRISK. So as to have smooth transition? Mr. C1t~IER. Yes. Mr. PRISK. No. Mr. Cit~iii~. Do some States, maybe, construe your distance regu- lations that way? Mr. PRISK. It is quite possible. There are a variety of inter- pretations. Mr. CRAMER. From two or three of these slides-for instance, the killers in the bridge five or six slides back, where they put the concrete wall (fig. 1-126) between the pillars and not to the road edge of the pillars, but they put them in between the pillars-it seems to me that somebody apparently thinks they have to put the fences a certain distance from the road. Your answer, apparently, concedes that, maybe, some States are so construing it. Certainly they should be advised, it seems to me, that they have some latitude in consideration of safety features. Have they been so advised? Mr. PRISK. I think you are familiar with the instructional memos that have been sent out by Public Roads with respect to clearances and dimensions for structures and particularly on points such as we are discussing. The Bureau of Public Roads works jointly with com- mittees of the American Association of State Highway Officials and fundamentally follows the experience and judgment of those officials in their determination of the standards. And, of course, move from that to enforce those standards on the States. PAGENO="0115" 111 Mr. CRAMER. Well, if your division engineer saw this as a project from an engineering standpoint-go back to the one with the wall (fig. 1-126). Could that structure get by your division engineer today? Mr. PRISK. Well, taking Mr. Linko's word, which I am quite ready to do- Mr. LINK0. This is a complete new unit, new wall. This whole area was ripped up and they rebuilt this whole thing. Mr. PRISK. This was evidently a minimum design. Mr. CRAMER. If it were approved, it was obviously approved with- out adequate consideration of safety features. That is all, Mr. Chair- man. Mr. MOEWEN. Did you say when this one was constructed, how recent? Mr. LINK0. This was constructed about 2 years ago. Mr. MOEWEN. About what? Mr. LINK0. About 2 years ago. Mr. MCEWEN. Two years ago? Mr. LINKO. Right. Mr. MAY. Do you know what highway it is? Mr. LINKO. It's in the Bronx, near Fordham. As you see, we built all of these unnecessary obstacles. This is a depressed highway, and most of the people won't see any beauty here. Here you are coming down the road, and you have a low 5-inch curb. People have crossed over this low median, knocking down two or three of these lights; every one of those bridge abutments are exposed. PAGENO="0116" 112 Here you see they eliminated all the bridge abutments, but they put concrete stumps in the center here under the light poles. This is wrong. You have a low curb and somebody can cross over and have a head-on crash, and if they hit these light posts, they are in trouble. This would be the proper way of doing it. Why not build a barrier and have no maintenance at all on your light posts? ~c11F a I PAGENO="0117" 113 Now, this is a brand new section of an interstate highway. Here on the left the guardrail is installed wrong because you can slide right into the abutment. Notice there are three structures in this one picture. 4 1 Here is a close-up view of something ~ew~r~ j~ist talking about. You see the fence in between there; the material is there to provide a smooth-sliding action. Someone wasn't thinking; there is a tapered curb there and there happens to be a little turn, and because of that someone is going to have to get wiped out in that spot. PAGENO="0118" 114 Here you can see the guardrail protecting the first post on a downhill turn, and there is a tapered curb. They must not be interested in the other three posts. That guardrail has been damaged and it is being replaced at this time. They still neglect to see the other three posts, and it was replaced just the way it was before. The rail is too short. I // Here you see three posts; the one with the clot, the middle one, has been hit; there is a black spot on it near the bottom. This is Inter- state 287; we fail to provide sliding action and protection at these poles. p PAGENO="0119" 115 Mr. CRAMER. Is there any regulation with regard to distance from the edge of the highway to these bridge supports? Mr. PRISK. Yes. It must be no closer than the edge of the shoulder. The shoulder is prescribed to be at least 10 feet in width. Mr. CRAMER. We have seen a lot of instances, particularly in these depressed highways, where they are almost on the road, just a few inches from it, with no shoulders af all. Mr. PRISK. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. How does that happen? Mr. PRISK. Well, the requirement that I cited is for an open section such as you have here. Where you have a complete curbed and walled section-the lesser clearances that I mentioned earlier are the ones that apply. Mr. CRAMER. It looks to me like people that build the wall, in those depressed highways, and the people that build the bridges just never got together. Mr. PRISK. One thing to be said, Mr. Cramer, if I may, about the offsets of these structures, is `that they are not put in without `a purpose. Unlike some of the `things `that we have seen in the slides, theso offsets do serve a purpose as support for the bridge. They are part of the structural design-it would be necessary to lengthen the span `of the bridges somewhat in order to relieve that particular problem where `the sidewall juts into the face of the wall section. Mr. CRAMER. Now, we also saw on some of those previous slides the very esthetically attractive stone, hewn stone apparently, on those de- pressed highways. Mr. PuisK. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I presume that that type of structure is approved by the Bureau, is it not? Mr. PRI5K. Upon recommendation of the State, yes. Mr. CRAMER. It is a rather costly item, is it not? Mr. PRI5K. It is more costly than other finishes, yes. Mr. LINK0. Yes. Here you see a guardrail approaching bridge piers, and they stop right at the piers. I feel that this guardrail should be continued PAGENO="0120" 116 through because a car can slam into any one of the other three poles. Why protect just the first one? As you see here, this has been hit; they don't dodge the pole. I feel that we should not open our highways until at least all the manmade hazards are protected. We built these hazards. We are spending mil- lions on our older highways j~hasing out these types, and at the same time we are building interstate highways, and we are neglecting them. I have a few slides on landmarks. Not only do we have all the other hazards, like I pointed out, but here you see a 50-mile-an-hour park- PAGENO="0121" 117 way, and this tells you are in Westchester County. You can have just a sign here, but instead they have these concrete blocks. There is a real hazard, and I am going to show you four or five pointing this out. Somebody had slammed into the side of this wall, and I have an article where he is in critical condition. I think these things are unnecessary. Mr. CRAMER. May I ask, Mr. Prisk: It appears in some instances that those are on the right-of-way, are they not? PAGENO="0122" 118 Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Someone had to give them permission to put them there, did they not? Mr. PRISK. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Nobody has the right to go on the right-of-way with- out permission, do they-this is government-owned property? Mr. PRISK. This is under control of the State, yes. Mr. CRAMER. Whoever is responsible-that other picture-Figure 1-147--seems to be a private fence, I don't know how it could be placed there. Mr. LINK0. That is the boundary mark of the county, sir. Mr. Cr~n~. County mark? Mr. Lncxo. Yes, sir. Mr. Ci~&~mrt. They had to get permission to put that there, I pre- sume, along the right-of-way. Does your division engineer review such requests? Mr. PRISK. I think it would be impossible for me to say whether they had been reviewed or not. Mr. CRAMER. Do you have any right under the law, or do you exer- cise it, to review such requests after a highway is built? Mr. PRISK. Yes, we do, under provisions relating to proper mainte- nance of projects. Some of these things are informally put in, and subsequently discovered during our maintenance inspections. Mr. Ci~tER. Do your division engineers in fact review such requests? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Apparently they have to give their approval. That is all. Mr. LINK0. Here you see the curb is tapered. Another thing I want to point out is that we are now spending mil- lions g~ing back on these highways. I do not feel we should leave that highway this way, because it took 30 years to get a center barrier in that highway, and we failed to phase out other existing hazards on ,~ . PAGENO="0123" 119 the roadside. If we are going to go back, and it takes 30 years to get back, and phase out some of these hazards, why do we have to leave the other hazards like that? Why could we not move this or phase it out with a guardrail? Here you see a rock on the right side, which is just as dangerous. Everything else is clear except this rock. I think we should clear our roadsides. V Here you see a lot of beauty. This is a steep downhill. It is the new- est type of guardrail we have. Nobody has seen that hazard on the right. You are riding down here, the speed is 50 miles an hour, and if you run into that you are in real trouble. PAGENO="0124" 120 Offhand I would say this is the almost perfect gore. This is the place that everybody seems to overrun. The curb should be tapered off, and they did taper off the leading edge. I would say this would be the per- fect gore. - r - - . - But this is what they do in my area. They have saturated these gore areas with heavy concrete stanchions. This particular guardrail was smashed into 2 years ago, and it is still lying there. I feel, at this point, I would like to say that we should have maintenance on our highways. They ought to replace the light pole in 48 hours if it is knocked down. The gua-rdrails are given out by contract every year or every 2 years, ~ PAGENO="0125" 121 and in the meantime there is no maintenance. There is a hazard there and a guardrail to begin with, and it should be maintained. Mr. CRAMER. I see four trees planted right there. Is that part of the beautification program? Mr. LINK0. I expect. Mr. Ci~n~R. It looks like new trees. Mr. LINK0. Somebody's idea of beautification. Mr. CRAMER. So in effect, by planting these trees in this instance, you are creating an additional hazard. Do you have any regulations with regard to planting of trees and other obstacles within the right-of-way that might be safety hazards? Mr. PRTSK. Yes. We issued instructions that there would be no trees to be planted within the clear distance of 30 feet from the edge of the pavement. These are trees of course that would constitute hazards. At the age of those trees, it probably would not hurt anybody to run into them; but as they grow they will be a traffic hazard-maybe they will get knocked down first. Mr. CRAMER. I presume they will get knocked down or grow up to the size where they will be a hazard, one or the other. In any event, they are contrary to the regulations which are in existence, is that correct? Mr. PRI5K. Yes; if that dimension is less than 30 feet. Mr. CRAMER. Who in the division or otherwise, either previously or presently, under the reorganizatió~ üTdiavee~dtity to review this sort of thing? Mr. PRISK. This is a very recent instruction, and I do not know that it has had its full impact. Mr. CRAMER. Under present new re ilations- Mr. PRI5K. As things stand today, the division engineer wou re- view the plans and would not permit planting within that distance. Mr. LINK0. You see here a concrete stanchion smashed into, and I feel that we have saturated this particular location. This is the worst ~te Pkwyj ~UND. hleadow ~ ~/iø Sa~osStatePkwy SOUTHBOUND Fire Island 53s PAGENO="0126" 122 possible place you could put something in a place where it is going to be constantly overrun; these have been constantly smashed into. Mr. M~vi~. Mr. Prisk, as I recall, the studies would suggest that ve- hicles run off the road four times more frequently in these gore areas as they do in other areas of our highways; is that right? Mr. PRISK. Studies have shown that. Mr. M~x. Very critical point. Mr. PRISK. Definitely so. Mr. MAY. Your point, Mr. Linko, from what you have seen, we just continuaily clutter up our gore areas with these obstacles that can hurt and kill people ~ Mr. LINK0. I am trying to point out the fact that most of these signs could be located back behind existing guardrail, or even if the guard- rail is not there it would still be 100 times safer. You can see that ear making just a little turn and if he turns his wheel, he is going into the concrete stanchion. il ~ PAGENO="0127" 123 Mr. MAY. That has been hit? Mr. LINK0. It has been hit. This is the closeup. It is constantly being hit. Mr. MAY. That is a sharp turn to the right. You have about 11 mes- sages on those signs, and it becomes a particularly critical area? Mr. LINK0. That is right. My main point here is that without spend- ing any extra money-in fact we could have saved money-you could have backed up this sign and put it behind this particular guard rail, and it would never be hit. There would be no maintenance, and I feel it would be in the proper place. NV 4~WE New York PAGENO="0128" 124 This is representative of what happens when one of these is hit in a bad accident. ,1 I `~--.J .4 ~s1~ F PAGENO="0129" 125 Here you see another one that has been smashed into. In this back view here, you can see that without spending any extra money, you could have moved that stanchion forward. Here you see where they put the sign in advance of the indecision area, like I am recommending. There was a light in that indecision area, and somebody knocked down the light. It could have been a concrete stanchion. I I I I I I 87-757 O-68----O PAGENO="0130" 126 Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr. Prisk a question? Here is a good example, although some of the others are even better. The number of words there is-20 wOrds. At Ohio State they did a study funded by the Bureau on how long it takes to read these signs, and they did this on official signs and on billboards. It showed the direct correlation between the number of words and the amount of time needed. Now, a car going 60 miles an hour goes 88 feet per second. They showed it took from 1 to 9 seconds, depending upon the amount of copy and number of words in the sign, to read these signs. It shows that excessive wording is going to take the driver quite a bit of time- he is going to be traversing a great distance. Now, I would think that t.his excessive wording is a. contributing factor to the fact that you have four times the normal number of runoffs. What are you doing in this area? Mr. PRIsK. Well, you put your hands on a very important problem, certainly. First of all, you mentioned 18 or 19 words on the signs. This is the difficulty we get into on some of our expressway situations, where there are a great many destinations to be served. If you are to move into this problem and have to decide which one of these words to drop off, I daresay, after a. little study, it would be hard to take them off. Perhaps any of them. The possibility we have been considering as part of our research pro~ram at the Bureau of Public Roads is to make some use of the audio capacities of individuals as well as their visual capacities, to give then notice of exits and destinations to be served at a particular Long Island LAST Van Wyck Expwy PAGENO="0131" 127 interchange. This is in the very early stage, however, and, until that time, what we are doing is abiding by the standards which call for no more than two destinations on any one sign. Where you have to have multiple signs, as in this instance, we make a particular effort to keep down to a single destination on a sign where that is possible. It takes a great deal of careful planning in order to handle some of these complicated interchanges. Mr. CRAMER. May I ask Mr. Prisk a question? (Mr. Blatnik resumed the chair.) Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Who dreamed up these signs saying "Ped-X" to mark a pedestrian crossing? Mr. PRIsK. I do not know what individual thought of that initially. Of course it is an attempt to save sign space; and `through that to give more legibility to the sign. Mr. `CRAMER. If you have not seen them before, you are likely to pass four or five of them not knowing what they are. I did it myself. I did not know what the heck it was. By the time I thired out what it was, I had already passed two or three Ped-X's. That is, as I understand, for pedestrian crossing; is that ~right? Mr. PlusK. That is right. Mr. `JRAMER. Is that wording, that type of sign, is that approved by the Bureau? Mr. PRIsK. That is right. It is approved by others than the Bureau. The National Joint Committee on TJniform Traffic Control-Devi ~has~-~ approved that particular message. However, we are making a very substantial effort right now to re- search that type of message as against the symbol which is more com- monly used in European systems, to determine whether we cannot give the driver a simplified message through a symbol. Mr. CRAMER. I think they do a much better job in Europe. They have a picture of an individual on it, and by a picture you can very clearly see what it is, that it is a crossing. But with Ped-X-you are going to have to educate the motorist considerably before they really under- stand it. Mr. PRISK. We are taking a serious look at that European system. Mr. LINKO. You see `I have outlined where I would suggest that you put this particular bridge sign (circle). You can see you have a full exit lane. The sign is actually overhanging the exit lane and it is in the worst possible place in the gore area as far as being hit is concerned. You can see by putting it at this point (circle) you can put it behind guardrails, leaving the gore area clear. This would not cost any more money. Here is where I feel a sign should be put, in advance of the gore area.. One reason is that you are able to read and see what you have to do first and then make your decision. Putting it in the gore area might create a condition like this in the next slide. PAGENO="0132" 128 You have to make a decision, and the proper place to put this is in advance at the proper time, early. The sign should be where the dots - ____ are. PAGENO="0133" 129 Anybody that passes this sign (arrow) should not be reminded that he has got to make an exit, because the smartest person, if he sees that, will try to cut somebody off and will get in trouble. Here is the point-somebody might make this maneuver; at the last second he is trying to cut the guy off and cross two lanes of traffic. I ~fL:A~J I1I1L1~1~L PAGENO="0134" 130 We can save a lot of money by putting these signs in advance. On many of our roads the signs are at this particular point in the gore. You could span just four lanes instead of six lanes and save money doing the job, by putting the supports where the circles are. F L~1~ Here is a perfect gore area. I do not think you could mark it any better, and yet somebody smashed t.he rail. You have extra room and nothing was spared in design here, and then we saturate the gore with a concrete stanchion. I PAGENO="0135" 131 Two years later, this is the same spot, and the guard rail is still lying there. I would again like to bring out the point, no maintenance on Interstate highways. According to the books I read, the State is responsible for maintaining these highways. In my State they gave the responsibility to the city; but the city does not maintain it. Here is another gore that has been hit and the sign could have been put in advance like this, where I have the outline. PAGENO="0136" 132 Here is another sign ~OU could have backed up. Give the guy break. We have neg1ec~j this area. - - Here you see another one ~ashed ~and the book a~ual1y recom~ mends that you put these Signs there. That gives you a good idea of why some of these are here. In the backgro~~~ you can see the dot showing a similar sign. All of those gore areas are saturated like this. Also, note the improper guardraj~. it is suppos~ to be 40 feet, not 12 feet. tw I I PAGENO="0137" 133 Here you see they spanned the gore area with the sign and had to go and put a little light bulb there. Once you put a little bulb there, you have got to have 40 feet of guardrail to protect the light. They have money for this guardrail at this point, but I feel they should use it where it is really needed. Mr. MAY. Any particular reason why they should put a guardrail in front of a breakaway light pole? Mr. PRISK. No. Experience and research have shown that short sections of guardrail at light standards are more hazardous than an unprotected light pole. Mr. MAY. This is another example of the waste of money and the creation of a hazard. Mr. LINKO. That is the way I feel about it. Mr. BLATNIK. A breakaway light pole would not do any good if you have a concrete obstacle like this? Mr. PRI5K. I was basing my statement on the breakaway type pok7, which would break it at the ground level. Mr. BLATNIK. Why do they have a big block of concrete there? If that concrete base were flush with the ground you could still bolt the light post to it. Mr. PRISK. Some of this is consideration of vertical clearance to the bottom edge of the sign. This is rather carefully controlled, so as to provide clearance consistent with the clearance of structures. The pole is ordered in a given standard length, such as is commonly manufactured in quantity. If this is shorter than what is required, the concrete is built up high enough to reach the bottom of the pole and to obtain the proper vertical clearance. There is no real reason why a somewhat longer pole could not be ordered at a slight additional expense, and that footing could then be flush. You might have a slight excess of vertical clearance under the sign. PAGENO="0138" 134 Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Prisk, is there any reason why these gore areas could not be clea~red and the signs put up ahead of the exit ramp or before the cutoff, as Mr. Linko suggested? Mr. PRISK. No sir. And we are very sensitive to that. We are quite aware of it, and have attempted to stress this with the States, at every opportunity, and the necessity to mount these signs in advance of the gore. Mr. CRA~nu~. These new safety regulations that are going to be promulgated, they will give an opportunity to do something thout it then by regulation,will they not? Mr. PRISK. Well, to the extent that you can accomplish it by regula- tion; yes, sir. Mr. Lmn~o. Here you see we did put this one in advance. Here we put a light pole in and put a guardrail anyway. I think we should make that off limits. Our whole State is messed up. Other States, like Jersey, put most of their signs in advance. This particular guardrail protecting that light pole is not needed, because it is an easy-knx±down light pole. You can see what happened. It went right through the windshield in this car and killed that guy. The guardrail is really not needed. fl PAGENO="0139" 135 This is the particular installation. All it says is "Exit 52," and it is an easy-knockdown sign and they have 48 feet of guardrail which cost a fortune of money. It is not serving any real purpose, and it kills the driver if he happeneds to run into the guardrail. I Mr. Br~rNnc. This is the guardrail that was struck in the preceding picture? Mr. LINK0. This man died because they were protecting this easy- knockdown sign. Mr. BLATNIK. The only function this guardrail serves, Mr. Prisk, is to protect the sign which is a breakaway sign. Mr. PRISK. I would say that is correct. There is a very curious re- verse of emphasis about this word "protection." You talk about putting the guardrail in to protect the sign, where actually the guardrail should be put in to protect people that might possibly run against it. The guardrail installations only should be put in a place where they would provide more safety than would be provided if they were omitted. I think that is a very important point to understand. Mr. CRAMER. May I ask Mr. Prisk a question? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Referring again to the report on highway design and operational practices of AASHO that was recently issued, relating to highway safety, in the subject matter of gore areas, it says: Since the rate of accidents in the gore area is approximately four times as great as the rate of ran-off.the-road accidents at other locations, it is impera- tive that the gore area and the area beyond be kept free of all hazardous ob- structions, so as to provide a clear recovery area for out-of-control vehicles. Then there were other suggestions. PAGENO="0140" 136 Now, the Bureau had previously adopted other AASHO reports relating to highway standards. Is it contemplated that this highway safety report is going to be given consideration? Mr. PRISK. That report you referred to has been adopted as a policy by the Bureau of Public Roads- Mr. ~m~&~ri~n. That is what you said yesterday. Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. So in the future these gore areas, so far as the Bureau is concerned, should conform to the gore area standards or recommen- dations set out in the AASHO report; is that correct? Mr. PRISK. That is our declaration. Mr. Ci~ur~n. And I assume that these likewise will be given con- sideration by Dr. Haddon and the safety agency? Mr. PRISK. I would expect that. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. Mr. LINK0. Here you see another location with an easy-knockdown sign, similar to the one where that driver was wiped out. There are 48 feet of guardrail here also, and you can see that, if you knock over the sign, it will not harm the car. Yet they are trying to protect it. They are killing the drivers. This is the Long Island Expressway. A lot of it is newly built, and I feel that we have an obligation, not only to keep the gore clear on the highways but to go back and rip up that guardrail. Just take it up and leave the sign there, before any people have to die. I PAGENO="0141" 137 This is the type of sign that can be hit and knocked over and the car can continue. As you see, the purpose is defeated here because there is a spear of guardrail in the gore. PAGENO="0142" 138 This is a serious matter. Here I have a series of pictures showing 48 feet of guardrail protecting an exit sign. It has been hit many times. So here it was hit. Instead of removing it completely, they made it stronger, and it is costing more money. This has been hit many times. PAGENO="0143" 139 And this is also an exit sign. There is no guardrail here, but this is not an easy-knockdown sign. This particular sign is held up by two 8-inch I-beams, and all it says is "Exit." And this particular section has many of these signs. Mr. BLATNIK. When you say 8-inch I-beams, you are referring to sort of a steel- Mr. LINKO~ That is right. Steel beam in the-shftpe-of-un--L-There are two of them there. There were two people in there, and they both died. PAGENO="0144" 140 This is the sigii. They didn't even imock it over. After they died, they replaced it with an easy-knockdown sign, which it should have been to begin with. - ~1 PAGENO="0145" 141 Here is another one with a guardrail protection. I recommend that they discontinue that exit sign completely and use the other sign on the right, the "Exit Speed 25" sign. I want them to combine the signs. They ~ can make it a little larger, and give the impression of being an exit. Here is another sign that I took prior to a fatal accident. When Mr. Kopecky came to New York several months ago to look at some of my slides, we noticed somebody ran there through this gore area, and they got maximum damage. 87-757 O-68----1Q PAGENO="0146" r 142 The light pole also had been knocked down but they replaced it before I took this picture. r They put an easy-knockdown sign there, but they failed to remove the guardrail in the rear which is laying on the ground. PAGENO="0147" 143 I want to say that this sign has been hit again and there was another accident since. And the rail is still on the ground. Mr. MAY. Would you go back and do that series again, please? We have here a breakaway light pole? Mr. LINK0. That is right. Mr. MAY. We could have put that exit sign on the light pole to begin with? Mr. LINKO. That is right. Mr. MAY. We did not do it. We put it up with two heavy steel I- beams, and we put two pieces of guardrail in front of it. What hap- pened? Mr. LINK0. Two people died there. Mr. MAY. So they replaced the light pole? Mr. LINKO. Yes, and then they put up an easy-knockdown sign; but the guardrail is still a menace because it is laying on the ground right there. `When Mr. Kopecky came to review this material the sign was pushed back over the guardrail. The guardrail is there today, and that was almost 8 months ago. Mr. MAY. Apparently the people who put up the light poles had no interest at all in the guardrail- Mr. LINK0. Evidently they have nothing to do with it. It should be ripped up, and removed. At this particular point, it is not serving any purpose at all, but. just~ waiting to do unnecessary damage. Here you see a sign which is supposed to be protected by the guard- rail. You can see that you could go to the left of the guardrail and hit two of the three poles. That guardrail is a menace. It is not serving a purpose. Mr. MAY. And any time you see that triangular wooden base with a light pole, that is temporary? PAGENO="0148" 144 Mr. LINK0. That type of pole, yes. It has been hit. Mr. ML~Y. The original pole was hit? Mr. LINKO. Yes, that is temporary. A gore area is a place that is constantly hit. We should have recognized it years ago. N. _~_~ ~ EXIT, I io Airport -. ` 94st. . I I You asked me a question, could we put this sign on the light pole? We could. Here you see a sign on the light pole. This particular stanchion you see laying on the ground on the right-hand side; all it did was hold up an "exit" sign and somebody smashed it down and the stanchion has been here for 2 years and they fail to remove it. And next time somebody goes through the gore he is going to get killed. Mr. M~&r. That is a breakaway light pole? Mr. LINK0. That is right. I <~ /~ / PAGENO="0149" 145 Mr. MAY. They will never get to it, because they will smash into that concerete pedestal? Mr. LINK0. This is right. I would like to point out this is Interstate.. I think we should get some maintenance. Mr. CRAMER. There is another example of those light posts going up the ramp, constituting a hazard, when they could just as easily be put on the wall. Is there any reason why those lampposts could not be put on the wall? Mr. P1UsK. No, sir. Mr. LINK0. Here also you see a new sign just installed and there is a concrete stanchion there between the legs. Nobody thinks of removing it. This is an easy-knock-down sign. It (the stanchion) is not serving any purpose at all. Here also you see a sign knocked down two 2 years ago and the stanchions are still there. A small sign has since been put in. PAGENO="0150" 146 Here is another gore area that is clear but it has been overrun. This is the front view of the previous slide.. There was an accident and the light pole was knocked down and a temporary pole put back, instead of removing the light and putting it inside the center guard- rail. This ramp in the gore is an expensive thing, and this actually could tip you over. .i ~Ti PAGENO="0151" 147 Mr. CRAMER. There is another instance where you have a lot of trees making a pretty good hazard as well, right along the side of the road? Mr. LINK0. That is right. This is in the gore area. This is a while back. I have got pictures showing you they are planting trees right now. Mr. M~r. Now, Mr. Prisk, I do not understand this one at all. What is that? It looks like a ramp. Mr. PRISK. This is a type design that was used in some areas. I do not know if I ever have seen one quite like it myself. I am certainly not suggesting that it is any kind of regular practice. I think this introduces a very definite hazard in the roadway, and at a place where it should be possible to run across the gore. Even the curb itself, as Mr. Linko has indicated earlier, is not always a necessary part of the gore installation. I think this is one of the first things that you must notice; namely, that the curbs at gores are often superfluous. Mr. ~ You are kind of perplexed about that one yourself? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. That would make a good ski jump. Mr. LINK0. Another bad thing about this particular spot, they have a blinker light, and anyone running through that area, it goes right through the windshield. This is the Cross Island Expressway, sir. Mr. MOEWEN. Cross Island Expressway? Mr. LINK0. Yes, in Long Island. Actually, the whole installation should be removed. The light pole should be put inside the center rail like you see the rest of them. I made an effort to try to clear these gore areas, and I talked to everyone and anyone, State officials, city officials, about these danger areas as far back as 2 or 3 years age. Here you see them building the PAGENO="0152" 148 stuff here. I have no way of stopping it. I have contacted everybody. This is a clear area that can be overrun by almost a quarter of a mile. This is the finished product. There is no guardrail. If you back up and take a look at this thing, you see it did not have to be there. Ny24 WET~ ~Stead~j A You have a guardrail in advance on the right. The guy could read it ahead of time. Mr. M~&y. About when was this installed? Mr. LINK0. This was installed last year. This was a federally aided highway. With all the efforts I have, been making over the years to PAGENO="0153" 149 try to cut it out, I have watched these people build this stuff and I have tried to stop it. It did not do any good. You can see by putting it behind the rail it is impossible to hit. The proper place where these signs should be is in advance where you can read it. Here you see this is our Grand Central Parkway. Put this sign in the center of the gore, and not at the beginning. This is a gasoline sta- tion. A guy might get the wrong idea and think this is an exit. These are all very poor decisions. Here, just by reversing this sign, as I marked in, and taking it out of the gore and putting it on the right island, would make it impossible to hit. PAGENO="0154" 150 Mr. MAY. It has been hit? Mr. LINK0. Yes. With no maintenance. There is no driver decision to be made on the right-hand side. But in the gore area, a guy may decide to go left or right, and that is where they are overrunning it. Without spending any extra money, and just by thinking about the situation, it could be improved and made safer. I wish they would remove this hazard. Here you see where they did something similar to what I recom- mended. Keep the thing on the right. And you can see the gore area, there was a light there, somebody smashed it. It could have been the stanchion they hit. This is another shot of the gore area, same spot. Even the light poles should be considered for the right side. / PAGENO="0155" 151 Mr. BLATNIK. What happened here? Mr. LINKO. Where the X is, there was a light pole. Mr. BLATNIK. The light was where the X is? Mr. LINK0. That is right. Also our entrance gores are saturated. I have a marking at the upper right where I think a sign should be in advance, so you can read it ahead of time. You should be able to read it and know what you are to do before you get to it. I marked where it should be. PAGENO="0156" 152 Here you see they did put it here. This is a proper sign installation. But even here they did a. half job, because the guardrail protecting this sign that is behind the fence is 2 feet from the curb. It is hard to see. There is a spot there pointing it out. You could run into that thing and wreck your car and it is not even protecting the sign. Mr. M~r. So we understand, that sign support is behind the fence? Mr. LINK0. That is right. Mr. M~r. They have put up that hunk of guardrail to protect- what is the reason? Mr. LINK0. I do not see any reason. That can smash the car, and it is not protecting anything. This points out, whether entrance gore areas or exits, they should be off limits to everything. If you could put this sign in advance, up there like I have marked. I PAGENO="0157" 153 You would be able to read it, see what you have to do, and continue on your way. If you made a mistake, you will not have to wipe out your car, because that gore area would be clear. All of these have been~I~it~~ PAGENO="0158" Every one of them. 154 Here is another gore area with a concrete abutment, which is just as dangerous. I feel we are failing to protect these in the proper manner. There are some places where you do have a hazard in the gore area, and it is impossible to remove it. We have been just leaving it that way. Cars have been smashing into it, wiping out the family and cars, while r - PAGENO="0159" 155 we feel that we met our responsibility. Now, there is a solution to every problem, and a solution to this may be this in the next slide. Now, disregard the stuff you see in the front. In the background you see the dot, and that is the abutment that you ~ we build an advance island like this, the decision could be made back here ahead of a clear gore area. They will never reach that area back there, so you would never have a crash. Iii this particular case we defeated the purpose of good design by saturating this with a lamp pole and then putting 12-inch concrete blocks to protect the light pole. This is a standard practice on our Interstate highways in this area. I I PAGENO="0160" 156 was trying to ~et Mr. Prisk to get a demonstration project to go to all these places, rip out all this stu~ff, and even taper the curbs. Give the guy a chance if he overruns this area. It is not serving any useful function. These particular highways that I am pointing out are not like an Interstate highway in the rural area, because these handle 100,000 cars a day. All the guy has to do is deviate a little bit, and that is it. I feel we have an obligation to go back and do something about these areas. Every one of these gores has been hit. Here you can see we had a chance to put this concrete stanchion back at the abutment, but we put it right up front where somebody is going to hit it, and somebody did. ~ `~`[~ ~ r ~t ~rr~ .j'~ - ~ ~ e,? f~ ~ ~ - ,1~. I 4 J PAGENO="0161" 157 This is what happened when they hit this kind of guardrail. This is a different shot of one of the pictures I showed you The car is corn pletely wrecked and two people died. That can happen at any one of these points we have been watching. This is another gore area that has been overrun. 87-751 O-68-----i1 PAGENO="0162" 158 I would like to point out I think we should have a rule that when- ever we pour concrete stanchions for any reason at all on our roadsides the guardrail should be installed with the concrete stanchions. This thing has been there for 21/2 years, and we never put in a guardrail to protect it. They had good intentions, but we should install the guard- rail before we pour the block. The motorist needs some protection. Gr~n~ Centrai P~ w~ Thr.qs Neck Br Hoills Court Blvd These things are constantly being hit, as you see here. PAGENO="0163" 159 Here is a view of light posts. Here you have an easy-knockdown light pole and concrete stanchions protecting it. They have been hit. This is what I asked the Office of Highway Safety to clear. I asked them to get a project going to taper this curb off. This is a killer. You could be riding along, 60 miles an hour, and if you have a tapered curb you would get a `second chance. But once you hit this, it causes unneces- sary damage, and maybe three or four cars are involved. If this curb is tapered, and we would clear all this junk in that gore, it would be much safer. U PAGENO="0164" 160 Here is another one. You see, that rail would never give somebody a chance to knock down an easy-knock-down light pole and keep on going. This is a standard practice in my area. It is serving no purpose but to wreck the car. You have an easy-knock-down light pole but every- thing is designed to wreck the car. F ~ S - -. : I PAGENO="0165" 161 Here is a closeup. Every one of these things has been hit. PAGENO="0166" 162 Because you can take a look at these things-well, they are chopping away at the tires. [ u* ~ ~ * L~t.... ~, * PAGENO="0167" 163 I have a couple hundred slides that I will never get a chance to show you. PAGENO="0168" 164 Here it says "Rest Area," and the sign could have been put on the righthand side of the guardrail. There are two concrete blocks right beneath that guardrail. If you hit that, you will really be put to rest. Mr. Br~a~IK. Mr. Linko, I thank you for appearing, and you will be appearing again in future hearings. To summarize briefly, we have seen what an alert and intelligent layman was able to observe in the way of unnecessary hazards and poor design in his native area. I am impressed by the acuteness and the validity of what he has evaluated. To be frank, in all the years I have been driving, I thought I was fairly safety conscious, about as much as the average good driver. I must confess that I was missing over 80 or 90 percent of these hazards and unaware of them. The tragedy and pity is that we have these deadly and lethal obstacles all around us, especially in the gore areas which you described. You see what they do to the unsuspecting motorist, who is unaware of the deadliness of these obstacles. It has been astonishing to learn that these hazards are as widespread as they are dangerous. These hazards exist from coast to coast.. Further, evidence that something is tragically wrong in the design area. is the testimony we have heard to the effect that mistakes of the past have been carried over, repeatedly and consistently, to even our newest roads. Many of the hazards Mr. Linko has pointed out exist on new or re- cently opened segments of the modern Interstate System itself. It has been shown that not only would it not have cost more to construct some of these projects safely but in many cases they could have been built more safely for much less money. Is that not true, Mr. Liuko? Mr. Lii~xo~ That is right; 90 percent of my program points out that it could have been done at the same cost or less. I ~~TT PAGENO="0169" 165 Mr. BLATNIK. You are not even pleading to make the highway safer-you just say, please leave them alone, do not clutter them up with these deadly obstacles- Mr. LINK0. Even if it cost a few dollars more. The first time it is hit and it has to be repaired-the few dollars you save is wiped out. Mr. BLATNIK. Many sign structures costing thousands of dollars apiece could have been eliminated entirely, by placing the signs on existing bridge structures. In addition to the dollars saved, greater safety would have resulted, obviously. Overdesigned supports, concrete bridge ends which have no func- tion, cluttered gore areas and roadside areas that look like military tank traps, all have been shown to be lethal in nature. The fact that they are costly and often unnecessary merely aggravates the situation. Somewhere, the people responsible for design have subordinated safety to other considerations. It is incredible, but true. The emphasis of these hearings, at further sessions, will be upon those things which can and absolutely must be done to correct the conditions shown by today's testimony and pictorial presentation. Mr. Linko, I know that I speak for all members of the committee and for the staff and for those who have been in the audience, partici- pating in this morning's presentation, in expressing our apprecia- tion and our commendation for a very skillful presentation before a committee of Congress. You have been most helpful, and we thank you. Mr. CRAMER. I would like to join in expressing my appreciation to Mr. Linko who, as the chairman has suggested, as Mr. John Q. Citi- zen, has seen fit on his own to study some of these matters. He has shown a very fine analysis of the problem. I think it will help alert this committee and the Congress and per- haps many other people to the safety hazards that exist. I congratu- late you and thank you for the fine service that you have rendered. It seems to me that in a number of instances-for what reason I don't know, there does not seem to be any valid reason-they are in effect designing death traps, despite the fact that the law requires the safety aspect of highway design be given equal consideration to other aspects. From what we have seen so far, it would appear that safety design standards have been downgraded, second rated, to esthetics, to planting trees, to beautification and what-have-you. BLATNIK. Would the gentleman yield at this point? It is a good point. Mr. CRAMER. Yes, I yield. Mr. BLATNIK. What really aggravates me and frightens me, I think in some instances it seems more than just downgrading the safety as- ,pects of highway design, but it is the complete unawareness of the need for safety or that this is a dangerous situation, and that maintenance work by State, Federal, municipal highway departments and other people should be most conscious of hazard conditions. Mr. CRAMER. I agree with the chairman. It appears that those who are responsible, State and Federal, have been oblivious to the safety hazards that are being built into the highways. I gather from the staff, this New York information is symbolic of what is being done throughout the Nation. Isn't that true, Mr. Prisk? Are these not ex- PAGENO="0170" 166 amples of what is being built, the type of death traps being built in the highway system today, all over the country? This is not just New York? Mr. PRIsK. This is reasonably correct, yes. Mr. Cit~M1~. So it is a nationwide problem. The designers and those responsible for carrying out the highway program have been somewhat oblivious to the necessity to build a safe highway as it relates to some of these obstructions, obstacles, and death traps that have been evi- denced here today and yesterday. Now, admittedly, I think the record should show as well, Mr. Prisk, that there have been a number of safety features built into the high- ways; have there not? - Mr. PRISK. Definitely so. Mr. CRAMER. As it relates to certaiii design aspects, there have been have there not, some other areas in which safety has been given con- sideration. Give us a few examples of those. Mr. PRI5K. I think access control itself is one. Certainly the improve- ment in alinement and curvature, separation of grades, separation of opposing roadways, and the gradual development of techniques of handling traffic in given situations. Mr. CRAMER. You see, when this system was evolved, the Interstate particularly back in 1956, one of the biggest selling points, in addi- tion to defense and the commerce that would result and adequate trans- portation and what-have-you, was safety. We were assured when these highways were completed that they could contemplate saving 8,000 lives a year. It appears to me that each of these safety hazards built into the highways reduces the possibility of saving those lives. One of the principal selling points for this entire program-now going on about $50 billion-was to save lives. If we are not actually building the highways to do that, we are not doing our duty. Perhaps this Safety Act passed last year, p1us these hearings, will pinpoint what else needs to be done. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Linko, and thank you, Mr. Prisk. The hearings for today are adjourned and the hearings will be resumed, and the committee will meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subconimittee recessed, to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 25, 1967.) PAGENO="0171" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTAITVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:16 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik, chairman, presiding. Present: Messrs. Fallon (Public Works chairman), Blatnik (sub~~~ committee chairman), Kluczynski, McCarthy, Cramer, Cleveland, McEwen, Schadeberg, Zion, McDonald, Denney, and Esch. Staff present: (Same as previous day.) Mr. BLATNIK. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High- way Program of the House Public Works Committee will please come to order. At the conclusion of yesterday's session, we heard convincing testi- mony as to the existence of certain design deficiencies in our Nation's highways, including even some of our most recently completed Fed- eral-aid roads. The conditions described by Mr. Joseph Linko, our first witness, were limited geographically to the Greater New York area in his testi- mony because New York is where the witness lives and is, therefore, the scene of most of the research he performed in his unusual and com- mendable one-man inquiry. However, as our staff investigation has disclosed, the conditions described by Mr. Linko are varied and exist from coast to coast. As we resume our hearings today, we will hear testimony from Dr. Donald F. Huelke, of the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Mich. An associate professor of anatomy, Dr. Huelke's interest in the cause and results of automobile crashes is of long standing. There is a lot more to be said about Dr. Huelke. We appre- ciate your appearance here. We are very pleased to have with us our friend and colleague, Con- gressman Marvin Esch, from Ann Arbor, Mich., who is a personal friend and associate of our star witness of today. Congressman, would you take over and make your presentation, make the introduction, as you wish? Mr. ESCH. Thank you very much, Mr.~ Chairman, and members of the committee. I am honored to be before this committee. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman and the other members of the committee as you begin this important hearing. I am also (167) PAGENO="0172" 168 most honored to have an opportunity to introduce and to give you a little bit more background on Dr. Huelke. Dr. Huelke, in previous years, had a grant from the Public Health Service to study the causes of fatal accidents. This took him through- out our own district in which he and an associate, Dr. Paul Gikas, studied on the scene the direct cause of fatal accidents over an extended period of time. He will speak of this work that grew out of not only the internal factors inside of an automobile, but the external factors in terms of road hazards that exist on our highways. May I suggest to the members of the committee that as you hear the expert testimony of our witness this morning, we reflect on the need not only to develop more effective ways of planning and design of our highway system, but that we also look at the death traps that exist today in the current highway system that we have, and determine what remedies we may make of an intermediate nature. It was in this regard that we became more closely associated with our witness this morning. There was one particular stretch of an interstate highway, 1-94, which Dr. Huelke and I called the "death corridor," because there was a large number of fatal accidents within a very brief section of that highway. Subsequent to calling attention to it, we did have emergency funds to erect a median barrier to alleviate the problem of crossover of the median strip. Although the highway was scheduled for updating in 1969, there may well have been 30 to 40 additional deaths during that time. I call the attention of the committee to this illustration because it points up the seriousness not only of our long-range planning, but the need for us to examine the present Interstate System to bring it up to more reasonable and safer standards, and to move in with intermediate programs which might be needed. Dr. Huelke, I think, has gained national prominence in the field of highway safety and his testimony today I think will perhaps be shocking, but perhaps will be most meaningful to you as you recog- nize the expertise which he brings to your committee. So, Dr. Huelke, we are very pleased to have you with us today. Dr. HD~LKE. Thank you very much. Mr. Br~TNnc Dr. Huelke, before you proceed, I want to certainly express the genuine appreciation and thanks of the entire committee, certainly the Chair, for the splendid cooperation you have given this staff. We do feel this whole subject area is one of tremendous signifi- cance, and it is almost shocking the way this whole matter has been overlooked for the 10 years we have been engaged in the largest peacetime public works program in history, which is primarily de- signed to save literally thousands of lives. At least several of these thousands were needlessly lost because of miscalculations or errors or, through inadvertence, obstacles were put in places where they greatly increased the probability of contact, of impact, of automobile collisions. Dr. Huelke, in your case, of course, as we do with all witnesses, we would ask that you take the oath. WTould you please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that. the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? PAGENO="0173" 169 Dr. HUELKE. I do. Mr. BLATNIK. Please be seated, Doctor. Mr. May. Mr. W. MAY. Doctor, for the benefit of the committee, would you tell us about your background, how you became interested in the subject matter. TESTIMONY OF DR. DONALD P. HTJELKE, UNIVERSITY OF MICHI- GAN MEDICAL SCHOOL, ANN ARBOR, MICH., Mfl) CHARLES W. PRISK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OP TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, BUREAU OP PUBLIC ROADS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPOR- TATION Dr. HUELKE. Approximately 10 years ago, I began a study on bio- mechanics of fracture production. In other words, how do bones break. This is a very small subject and it was actually only to the prob- lem of the lower jaw. Mr. W. MAY. Are you a medical doctor? Dr. HUELKE. No, I am not. I am a Ph. D. in anatomy. I have a doctor's degree in human anatomy. Mr. W. MAY. Did you go to school in Ann Arbor, Mich.? Dr. HUELKE. Yes, for my Ph. D. work. I received my bachelor de- gree from the University of Illinois. Mr. W. MAY. Thank you. Dr. HUELKE. At the time I was studying fractures of the lower jaw, one of the things we were doing was to review the clinical cases at the hospital, and it became obvious that over 50 percent of the fractures of the lower jaw were produced in automobile accidents. From this beginning, I started wondering what then, in automobile accidents is causing these types of injuries. So, in order to study the effect of full body trauma, I thought that the automobile accident would be one way to do so. To try and save time and not have to follow every injury-producing automobile accident, I then went out to only the fatal accidents. We then received a grant from the U.S. Public Health Service, the Division of Accident Prevention, which funded this project for 4 years. The project began at about November 1, 1961, and it terminated 4 years later. Presently I have a grant from the same source to investigate non- fatality accidents in recent model cars in which people are injured but not killed, and so to date I have examined some 200 fatal auto- mobile accidents in which approximately 270 people were killed, and, in addition, close to 300 nonfatality accidents in which people have been injured. As an aside from this, when we get to the accident scene, we are on call with the police 24 hours, day and night. When we get to the scene, we are interested in determining what happened and what killed or injured the individual. We take photographs at the scene of skidmarks, the roadway, the vehicles, and frequently of the occupants. And then, after we find out what the autopsy results indicate was the cause of death, we go back PAGENO="0174" 170 to the vehicle and start correlating the crushed chest with the steering wheel, or ejection from the vehicle. It became all too apparent to me many of these people were striking the immovable objects along the edge of the road, which not necessarily needed to be there, or which should have been protected in some way by adequate protective means. One of the things that I did notice, as Congressman Esch men- tioned, is on 1-94, around Ann Arbor. In a 4-year period, we had 20 percent of all deaths on this 1-94 expressway with 10 percent of the deaths due to cross-median accidents; in other words, one vehicle crossing the grassy stretch separating the two lanes of traffic. It was a year ago in Lansing that I testified to this point, and Con- gressman Esch was there and he was forceful enough in convincing Governor Romriey and Mr. Hill, head of the highway department, that this is truly an emergency situation, a true death corridor; it has just been the last month that 7 miles of guardrail have been installed on this expressway. And since the installation, there have been repeated hits on this guardrail of vehicles out of control, attempting to cross the median, but who have not succeeded because of this guardrail situation. I think it is going to be a lifesaver. I think we are going to save between five and 10 lives a year on the 7-mile strip of highway because of the guardrail installation. Mr. W. MAY. How far away from your home base did you go to analyze these accidents? Dr. HtTELKE. Wherever the police asked me to go from our area. Now, I am on call with the Ann Arbor Police, with the Sheriff's De- partment of Washetenaw County, and the State police at Ypsilanti. The State police do obviously cross county lines. In travel time, the farthest accident to the scene when I was called was 45 minutes away at night by expressway, so this did put us out a considerable distance from what you might say "home base." Mr. W. ~ Would you proceed. Dr. HUEKLE. What I would like to do, then, this morning is to talk about the problem of the highway in terms of collision experience that we have had, and not necessarily talk only the Federal-aid program, but show you the same sorts of things in secondary areas, as well. I would like to develop this theme, then, of the immovable objects, the obstacles, and the lack of protection which has killed many people in our State. So if I may have the lights out and the projector on, we could get to the first case. This is a police photo from an on-scene accident. The yehicle seen in the ditch was traveling toward us. This is a secondary road. It is not pa.ved. It is a gravel surface. But the night before, it had rained and it came~ down as sleet, and then it froze, so the highway was very slippery. Even the gravel road here PAGENO="0175" 171 was covered with ice, and as the vehicle came around the turn, the driver was traveling too fast for conditions. Notice I did not say he was speeding, because in my estimation, speed indicates he is traveling faster than the posted limit. But this man made the mistake of traveling a little too fast on this icy surface around the curve, so we have a driver error. As he came around the curve, he slid off and went into the ditch along the road edge. Notice here there is no shoulder to this roadway, and notice the very deep drainage ditch along the road edge. The ironic part of this thing is the fact that this is a nonfunctional drainage ditch, its function having been lost by a subdivision that is to the left, and in the background with service drives, making this ditch just a deep ditch. He went off into the ditch as you can see, and struck with the left front fender in that area, causing the door to pop open. He was ejected and was killed. Now, we have a problem with automotive design in that the car door opened; but the important thing is that had this been a relatively flat area, he could have made his mistake-I am not making any excuse for the vehicle, but even with his mistake, he could have survived this accident. The other mistake that he made is that there was a seat belt avail- able in the car. He did not wear it this day. PAGENO="0176" 172 `This is 1-95 Expressway near Ypsilanti, a town that is not too far from us. Notice the roadway is a 70-mile-an-hour dual expressway. The median in the center is 35 feet wide. It is flat. At 70 miles an hour, you are traveling at 103 feet per second, and it does not take you very much time to cross a 30-foot-wide median. Notice on the right side there is a lake, Ford Lake by name, and there is a steep embankment off the road area down to the shore of the lake. ,.1!' ______ ~ ~ -- - --`4 J The oniy protection that is offered along this segment are these pine pillars, 6-inch-diameter pine pillars, which can be broken off at a vehicle speed of between 5 and 10 miles an hour. Mr. W. MAY. There are no cables between those pillars? Dr. HTIELKE. No, sir. Mr. W. M~v. All right. Dr. HUaLKn. And one evening we did have a fatal accident at this scene. A woman was driving along when she hit this car in the rear. A little background on this vehicle. He had stopped in Ann Arbor late at night, coming back from vacation with his family. He had "bat- tery trouble," and his muffler had gone out on him. For a small foreign car like this, the ~as station did not have a muffler. They gave him a quick charge of his battery and he was going home in the slow speed lane, as we saw in the other photograph, when he was struck in the rear. This car and the other car went through those guard posts, down to the shoreline where this car struck the two trees right at the edge of the water. The pathetic part of this was that the three children in the back seat each received a fracture of one of their extremities. The father, who was the driver, was running around frantically throwing all the cloth- ing-that had literally exploded out of the rear of the vehicle-looking PAGENO="0177" 173 for his 19-month-old boy. His wife w~~jected from the car and was on the opposite side, dead of a cru~h~d skull, and had she stayed inside the vehicle, she could have survived. But also, she was holding this 19-month-old baby on her lap at the time. The child was ejected with the mother. The child landed in the water and drowned in 6 inches of water 3 feet from the shoreline-a double ejection fatality, both of which could have been prevented, again by automotive design. Had an adequate guardrail been along that road edge, this would not have been a double fatality accident. But today I want to empha- size some of the problems of the roadside. This tree is not on the edge of the road; this tree is in the road, and the sign says "Stop Ahead." And that is what he did, and he was killed. It happened at 10 o'clock on a Saturday morning. 87-757 O-68----12 PAGENO="0178" 174 When I was out at this scene, the farmer was working in his field to the right, and he was strongly berating me because of the tree. Finally I quieted him down enough to identify myself and he apolo- gized. He thought I was from the road commission. He told me that on two separate occasions he had called the road commission to in- dicate people had struck this tree, ripped out a. headlight or ripped off a fender, and he had pleaded with them to remove the tree. This tree was not removed, and we have a fatal crash against it be- cause it is 2 feet into the roadway. Mr. W. MAY. Is that the farmer's tree? Dr. HUELKE. No, sir. His farmhouse is nowhere near this area, so it is not a beautification tree for t.he esthetics of the farm area. Mr. W. MAY. That tree is on the right-of-way of the road? Dr. HUELKE. Yes. I then called the highway commission in our county and asked why these trees were not removed and others like them, trees on the outside of the curb that have been hit time and time again; and their answer was, "We don't have the funds to do so." I think this is very significant, because without the funds, you can- not get the manpower nor the machinery to remove these types of trees that are struck time and time again. About a year later, I passed this scene and the tree was marked "For Removal." So I called up the county commissioner and said, "Con- gratulations. I see you have funds to remove these types of trees now." He said, "Oh, no, we don't have funds; but we must do it. Those trees have Dutch elm disease." Mr. CRAMER. He said what? Dr. HUELKE. "That tree had Dutch elm disease." Therefore, it is being removed to stop the spread of Dutch elm disease; but they could not afford the money or time or manpower to remove these trees be- cause they were lethal. Mr. W. MAY. Excuse me, Doctor. Mr. Prisk, do I understand Mich- gan has entered into a program of tree removal alongside the high- ways? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Michigan Stnte Highway Department has started on their trunkline system in a systematic fashion to remove trees that are close to the road and constitute a hazard. Several hundred thou- sand trees have been removed under this proeram. Dr. HUELKE. And according to Mr. McCarthy. the chief designer of Michigan's highway systems, he is very thankful for Dutch elm disease, because now they have a good excuse to start taking them down, because before people would complain that that tree was being taken down; it is a nice old tree, gives a lot of shade, lot, of character to the road, and this beautification idea tends to take nriority. Now when they say it has Dutch elm disease, people are more understanding. Mr. CRAMER. Mv. Chairman, may I ask a question? Mr. Br~TNIK. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Does the staff know whet}~er this is a Federal-aid highway or not? It does not look very much like it. Dr. HUELKE. No, it is not; but this is the problem we see and I would like, if I may, to develop this point. Mr. CRAMER. In just a moment. Dr. HUELxj~. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Prisk, does the State of Michigan have a program to plant trees for beautification purposes as well as to take them down? Mr. PRISK. I feel sure that they do. PAGENO="0179" 175 Mr. CRAMER. So one program is planting them and another program is taking them down; is that right? Mr. PRISK. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. It makes a lot of sense. This particular tree is on the right-of-way. Obviously, by regulation or otherwise, it would not be permitted on a Federal-aid highway; is that right? Mr. PRISK. True. Mr. CRAMER. Actually what we are dealing with is a State-county problem, basically? Mr. PRISK. I would say so. Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Thank you. Dr. HIJELKE. Last year up in Lansing, when we talked about plant- ing of trees on the outside of curves, especially, Mr. McCarthy, the chief designer of Michigan, said, "We don't do that any more." I had to point out to him that 15 minutes previous to my testimony, when I was going on an exit ramp off of a Federal-aid supported highway, 1-96 by name, in the Lansing area, the road crew was out there planting trees on the outside of the curve at the very moment he said that this was not being done. Mr. CRAMER. As Mr. Prisk indicated, that is a different program. That is a Federal program to plant trees; that is a different program. Dr. HIJELKE. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. The other is a program to take them down. This is the program to plant trees. And that is the program we have before us now, to consider for further authorization, the program to plant these trees. Dr. HITELKE. I believe that it is not the problem of planting the trees; it is where you plant them and how close to the roadside. The interesting thing, and this is a typical road, this road was a very small trail about 20 years ago. They saw that it was being used more frequently, so they widened it and then put a gravel surface on it. Now this road is being upgraded and it is blacktopped, but still all of the roadside hazards are in place. The curves are just as flat as they have always been, and the problem is that now we have the higher speed roadway with all of the inherent bad characteristics of a very primitive road. We see this quite often. This is an example of what I call entrapment. Two male occupants of a vehicle were driving on this curve one night at a relatively high -~ ~ PAGENO="0180" 176 rate of speed when they went out of control to the right, just missing the yellow sign in the distance. Here along the road edge we have a very narrow drainage ditch and the right wheels of the vehicle became entrapped in this ditch and now are leading them on a collision course to the trees in the far distance. This is what will happen if you have a narrow type of ditch; it can be a trap to take the vehicle onward to others types of obstacles. PAGENO="0181" 177 And as we approach the trees, the ditch becomes steeper, the slope is stronger, and they struck the trees and bounded back into the roadway. And here we see the fatality in the rear seat. He was actually the driver, by the way. He ended up in the rear seat of the automobile. V I," dt~ I PAGENO="0182" 178 Another hazard, which is supposed to be a protective device. This is a tight right-hand curve, which is a feeder road to one of the express- ways, and in the background-actually, up above off of the screen, you see the chain-link fencing between the pine pillars. They went off the road,~ hit this, and this led them on a collision course directly to the tree. a'' `~ - tø t - PAGENO="0183" 179 You cau see the impact point and the lack of adequate supports of the guardrail and the chain-link fencing. PAGENO="0184" ~, I, ;~. 1:c; fyr4 * i'~'t~ ~72 , ~ j;:~ : `.4 4, ~ç'~c~ : :~ 4 .4 r `.4 (, * ~ ~1,, ~ ;p .i*w;A-i:4,;ti, S `~1 ~1 `l' 4/ :t ~:`( 1* 0 44 PAGENO="0185" 181 struck a group of trees that were fairly far from the road edge. Once he was on this downhill embankment, there was no possibility of a return to the roadway. This is his vehicle. He was alone in the car, but the windshield and the side window support damage was done by his head for lack of restraint. Mr. CRAMER. Go back to the tree he hit. Dr. HUELKE. Actually, you see the series of trees here [indicating]. Mr. CRAMER. Oh, yes. Dr. HITELKE. And they were about 30 feet off of the roadway. But the important point is this down slope is so close to the road edge that leads him on the collision course. (At this point, Mr. Kluczynski assumed the chair.) Mr. CRAMER. I want to ask you a question, Mr. Prisk. You indi- cated yesterday, did you not, that the Federal regulation relating to planting trees, although presently not being observed in many in- stances, is supposedly to plant them beyond 30 feet from the highway itself or the right-of-way? Which is it? Mr. PRISK. That is beyond the edge of the pavement. Mr. CRAMER. Right.. So if the witness' testimony is correct, as to distance, which I assume it is, this tree that caused this problem would not be prohibited under Federal regulations presently in exist- ence; is that right? Mr. PRISK. So long as it is inside 30 feet, that is correct. Mr. Ci~i~n~i~. So long as it is planted outside 30 feet? Mr. PRISK. Outside 30 feet, yes. Mr. CRAMER. So, so far as beautification is concerned, the planting of trees, there would be nothing to prohibit the duplication of this problem? PAGENO="0186" 182 Mr. PRISK. Well, I think that I should say- Mr. CRAM~. I mean, so far as the distance is concerned? Down- grade is another question. Mr. PRISK. This is a minimum requirement, the 30 feet. We do not ordinarily object to planting trees beyond that distance. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. HUELKE. Here is a typical example of what we see at express- way exit ramps and secondary roads more frequently in our area. But notice the tree (arrow) just. beyond the apex of the curve, and you can see it was recently hit (circle). This is a photo taken the following day after the accident.. Three young people were driving down this downhill, left-hand curve and struck this tree. These are the sorts of trees now that they are removing as hazards, but we see this time and time again. ** is i .`i't& $1 ~ Mr. CRAMER. I see there are three old trees and I see a new one in the middle, just planted. It looks like a tree. Dr. HUELKE. There is a series of them along there, new ones. Mr. CIi~n~R. It must be part of the beautification program. They are taking down the old trees and putting up new ones? Dr. HUELKE. Planting a little farther back, though, about five Mr. CRAMER. A little farther back. As far as the curve is concerned, it looks pretty close to the new ones they are planting. Dr. HUELKE. Yes, sir; I think about five- Mr. CRAMER. That provides a hazard to some degree. That cer- tainly is not the place to plant a tree, is it? Dr. HUELKE. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. Right around a curve, right in line with the travel of the car if it gets off the road, right? Dr. HtTELKE. Right. And I see no problem in planting of shrubs or bushes in this area for beautification, because they are very absorb- ing, as a matter of fact, as far as impact attenuation. The trees today that are small and little saplings are attractive, but in 10 years- Mr. CRAMER. Where is this located? Dr. HuEu~. Outside of Ann Arbor. Mr. Cit~i~. What system? Dr. Hui~icj~. This is a road that is nearby an expressway. Actually it has only a street name to it, but it is used for high-speed travel. ~J. PAGENO="0187" 183 Mr. CRAMER. It is interesting to me because there they plant the tree, and that is going to obscure one of the prettiest little lakes I have seen in some time, beautifully landscaped. It just does not seem to make much sense to me from the standpoint of safety or beauty. Of course, that is not your field. Dr. }TuELKE. And this is the on-scene photograph at the time. Now, this is part of the Michigan highway clearance pro- gram. You see that they did remove this tree-but they forgot to remove the tree stump. One night during the deer hunting season, three men were driving in a vehicle, they lost control, went off of the road- way-and this tree stump is 15 feet from the road edge-and the driver was killed. So here is a partial job of tree removal for safety and for other reasons, but they forgot to remove probably the most important part of the tree. This is a typical treatment that we see on secondary roads, and fre- quently, as I will point out, on the new expressways; an almost bare end of the bridge railing, and this sign was just a diagonal sign to in- dicate there was an obstacle ahead, which anyone could see. probably more clearly than the sign itself. PAGENO="0188" 184 The sign was mounted on a breakaway wooden post that absorbed none of the energy. / ~1 ~ J ~ I A ~. 1 * r~-~* - - * t And this is the on-scene photograph of what happened. The mother was seriously injured and her baby that she held on her lap was killed. The driver had moderate to serious injuries and the child in the rear seat was not injured at all. PAGENO="0189" 185 But the important thing is that something should be done to protect against these sorts of things, whether it is on a secondary road or not. Now, this is the expressway system in the east part of Ann Arbor. We are on one of the roads that pass through the city, Washtenaw Avenue by name, and early one Saturday afternoon-a shopping center is just off the screen to our left-a women who was driving home saw her neighbor at the shopping center and asked the neighbor if she would like a ride home, and the neighbor said yes. They traveled down this roadway-you can still see some of the snow. She lost control under this overpass complex and skidded-not hitting the first bridge pier, but, as you will see-went into the second bridge pier, and the PAGENO="0190" 186 neighbor was killed. The driver was not injured. Mr. W. MAY. Have you any idea how fast she was moving? Dr. HtTELKE. This is an impact speed of, I would say, approxi- mately 30 to 35 miles an hour. Now look close-I was actually standing on the road to take this photograph-there is no protection, no guardrail. This pillar is no more tha.n 10 to 12 feet from the curbing. This is one of the newer expressway systems in our area. Now, this is 1-94 in the Ann Arbor area.. Ann Arbor actually is located up in this region [indicating], and each spot on this 20-mile stretch of expressway indicates a fatal accident and, in the circles, the number of people killed. You see, we get a spread in through here. This is not a heavily traveled area [indicating] but here, because Detroit is to the right [indicating] on the photograph, we have a lot of heavy traffic located around the Willow Run area, airport, Ypsilanti. And notice on this one curve, specifically here; one killed, two killed, one killed,, one killed-just piled in this area [indicating]. And this is the "death corridor" that Congressman Esch and I were complaining about on the 1-94 expressway. This is a very interesting case. We see the guardrail over on the left side where it looks like it is a very functional guardrail, but notice the exposed end-and this is extremely important. PAGENO="0191" 187 PAGENO="0192" 188 This is what we found one night. Two college students were travel- ing on this expressway when they hit the end of that guardrail. This car is now 144 feet into the guardrail. There are 144 feet behind them from where they first hit that guardrail. And so we have to think of protecting the ends of those guardrails. I recommend a sloping end buried firmly into the ground to prevent this type of accident from occurring. The passenger was killed. This is the front view of the car. PAGENO="0193" 189 This was a nighttime accident. The vehicle was traveling toward us in the upper left lane, but the driver fell asleep, came across the me- 87-757 O-68---13 PAGENO="0194" 190 dian, and instead of staying on that side-there was no traffic around- he tried to get back to his pro~r lane. You see, over here on the right. He then came from behind the guardrail and struck it, deform- PAGENO="0195" 191 ing the guardrail. You see the end is way over here. This caused his car to roll over. He was killed. PAGENO="0196" 192 This is another accident on 1-94. Notice that in some instances in this area, we do put sighs up on the overpass railing. This man was traveling at about 80 miles an hour one night when he hit the end of this guardrail, but his car jumped up on the guard- rail. The guardrail then led him on the collision course to these bridge piers. See how he damaged the end of the guardrails. U ~1r F T1 :: - : ~_- PAGENO="0197" 193 And here is his car, almost completely ripped in half. He was killed. The guardrail has been replaced in the identical manner as it was before the accident. This would have been a proper time to extend the guardrail for an adequate length, to bury the end of the guardrail, and to do a good job at the time of repair and replacement. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the witness? Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. The gentleman from New Hampshire. Mr. CLEVELAND. Doctor, have you formed any opinion as you study these accidents as to how many of them would have been avoided had the design been proper, proper in your opinion? In other words, apparently a lot of these accidents involved high speed or involved going to sleep, or other driver error. Dr. H17ELKE. And aloohol. Mr. CLEVELAND. Did you evolve any tentative hypothesis as to how many would have been avoided if these safety devices had been proper? Dr. HtTELKE. On the roadway only. I am just talking about the road- way safety factors, rather than car safety factors, or alcohol. If we jusl talk about roadway clearance, in our area, a significant number of these people would not have hit these obstacles. But in the report which I will submit that we published in the Highway Research Board proceedings, the figure is estimated at about 15,000 to 16,000 lives a year that could possibly be saved if we would get rid of these types of obstacles. Mr. CLEVELAND. My question is, you showed us a slide of that car that hit the tree stump; now, if that tree stump had not been there, the picture did not show, but there might have been another tree farther on. Would he have been going fast enough to hit the other tree? Or there might have been a ditch, and he might have rolled over. There might have been a fatality, anyway. This is all conjecture. PAGENO="0198" 194 Dr. HUELKE. Yes, I see your point. What we find is so frequently beyond that tree line, at the road edge, there is a clear field. So if the tree were not there, that the individual struck, the angle of approach to the tree would be such that he would have continued out into the open field. Mr. CLEVELAND. Eventually slowing down? Dr. HUELKE. Yes. Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you. Dr. HUELKE. Now, there are many factors leading to automobile accidents. Alcohol has been shown to be related to automobile acci- dents and fataiities, specifically in probably 50 percent of the cases. But it is my feeling that up to now, although generally the highway designer has done an excellent job on these expressway systems-rounding the curves; good stable bridge piers, the bridges do not collapse; good roadways for heavy traffic-but it almost seems the philosophy has been, "Leave my paved surface, and you have to put up with what- ever is there and it is your own fault." Now, cars will leave the paved surface. Whether the man is in- toxicated, or whether the individual goes to sleep, whether he is under medication, loses control because of ice, snow, or fog, or maybe an- other car hits him, driving him into this off-road area, I do not think that the individual should then suffer because he is not on the pave- mont, and that what we should do is give more concentration to the off-road areas. This is the 1-94 expressway. One day a woman, who had just picked her husband up from the airport, was at the position where this truck is [indicating]. Another truck coming in the opposite direction was pulling a trailer. The trailer hook broke, because of metal fatigue; the trailer crossed this flat 35-foot-wide median and struck the car killing the woman who had just met her husband. - ~ ~ PAGENO="0199" 195 This is the same scene now, showing this double guardrail system t;hajt goes on and on into the distance. There is 7 miles of it. We will not see cross median accidents in this area any more, and I am sure that this is a truly lifesaving construction area. H This is another expressway in the Ann Arbor area and the "Exit" sign is well marked. The gore area behind it is fairly clear. Although this one is fairly clear, they often seem to just dunip the earth in there and flatten it a little bit and this is quite hilly. It is not as flat as this area to the right of the roadway [indicating], as I will show you in some other pictures. PAGENO="0200" 196 This is the bridge that we saw in the background-let me point this out to you. Here it is at a very gentle curve. Look at the design of this bridge. It is for esthetics more than any- thing else. We have an 8-inch curb. We have a sidewalk. It is illegal to walk on the expressways of Michigan, yet we still see these sidewalks. Notice the impact damage to the end of this bri4ge rail. Notice that the guardrail ends there instead of being wrapped around. One early morning a fellow did come along there, he got snagged at the very end of it and ripped his car apart and he was killed. It could have been prevented had this bridge rail and guardrail system been adequately designed for the vehicle to slide along it. I Li *1 -.!= PAGENO="0201" 197 Notice that here is the edge of the roadway, and this setback is probably 10 feet or so [indicating], but this is a very inadequate de- sign. There are many protuberances sticking out all along here. If you miss the first one, you have the second and the third. This was built at the time that there had been publications in high- way literature on a bridge rail design. This is an expressway turnoff well marked, heavily signed. There is inadequate guardrailing around the base of the signpost. But 1 day the individual did make this turn, a 17-year-old young man driving his parents in a brand new car, and he swung a little wide. You cannot really see it, but the road edge is right here [indicating], along here. He swung wide and got into this area PAGENO="0202" 198 It had snowed during the night. He skidded along the guardrail, which performed like it should; it held, it kept him on track-but the thing is that a few of the legs in here [indicating], near this end, were loose. The car snagged on the guardrail. It then spun around and the left rear door hit the cement monolith, here at the end of the guard- rail, crushing the door in, killing the father in the rear seat, and the mother in the rear seat was ejected out the opposite door and down this embankment. She suffered serious injuries. Had we had these legs implanted more strongly so that it would nOt rock and snag the car, and possibly the overlap of guardrail over the end here [indicating], this possibly would not have been a fatal acci- dent. This is the side impact against the door next to which the father was seated. ,. ( I 1 -~ I am standing under an overpass. This is an expressway again. This car (imt right in photo) went out of control one early morning. He was PAGENO="0203" 199 towing another vehicle. You can see the tracks as he came sliding side- ways into the exposed end of this very short section of guardrail, which crushed in the door, killing the driver. The passenger in the rear seat and the passenger in the front seat did not receive any injuries. This was repaired in the identical manner to the way it had been set up before the impact. And this is an overview from the overpass. Notice that he only took off about one or possibly two support legs, crumbling the guardrail. PAGENO="0204" 200 Had this end been buried, this individual would not have sustained fatal injuries. Here is an expressway, again a fairly nice clear area here [indi- cating], so that if you go off the roadway in this area, you have no trouble whatsoever. Beyond the truck there is a drainage ditch. I ~fet~I ~)`~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~:- ~ : ______ C ~ ~` A vehicle knocked down a refl~tor sign, went straight on toward the ditch, and then hit this part (arrow) of the retainer wail-which flipped it up into the air. He completely catapulted across the ditch, landing on the top of the roof; then the car (circle) rolled over. He was killed. There are data available to indicate the angle at which vehicles leave the roadway, especially expressway-type systems. Using that type of information, a more adequate guardrail could have been constructed -. 4~.* C ~ ~ ~ ~: .(~.z:~*~f:~; PAGENO="0205" 201 along here to prevent that very shallow approach from leaving the expressway. Mr. W. M~. You are suggesting that guardrail should have been extended toward us? Dr. HUELKE. Yes, very definitely; because we see that this is a very shallow approach. This is a car that went out of control and almost left at right angles to the roadway. In fact, I have never seen an ac~ cident quite like that. But it appears many of the guardrails are put in with that in mind, that the car is going to come at right angles to the road system. This is a very shallow angle at which this vehicle left, maybe 15° or so. If that is shown and the known speed of a vehicle-remember, it is legal along here to travel 70 miles an hour-we have to think of the deceleration distances and it is not adequate in this area. Mr. W. MAY. As we travel in the country, we notice this is not an uncommon situation. Mr. Prisk, do you have any idea why we so frequently see the guardrails really beginning too late to prevent the motorist from go- ing down an embankment into a hazard? Mr. PRISK. I suspect that some of these determinations as to guard- rail locations may be based strictly upon the height of the fill at the point where the guardrail starts and not appropriately take into `ic count the dynamics of the situation; the fact that in order to get be~ hind the guardrail, you necessarily would leave the road at some dis- tance ahead of the point where the fill becomes high. Mr W MAY Yes, that has been our observation So frequently, they have certain warrants for the installation of guardrails, the slope is a certain height, a certain type slope; three to one, two to one, that calls for a piece of guardrail. But so frequently they begin the guardrail at that point where it meets the warrant instead of coming back here and beginning it long before the motorist is apt to reach the hazard. Doctor, you may proceed. Dr. HUELKE. This is `the edge that he caught. on to cause the car to flip over PAGENO="0206" 202 This is a very shallow creek, by the way, that passes underneath this location. One of the concepts that has been advocated for an area like this is: Is it really necessary for drainage ditches that pass beneath express- way system to remain open? Why not enclose them for 30, 40, or pos- sibly 50 feet away from the road edge? So that if this, for example, had been covered over and this individual had gone into the area, lie would not have had the strong deceleration forces applied to the ve- hicle to cause it to flip over and for him to be killed. This is what the car looked like. Now, here we see a typical sign on the expressway system, at least in Michigan. These are 8-inch I-beams, support posts, imbedded firmly in concrete; and look at the guardrail we have adjacent to it. *J~1' ~ A I PAGENO="0207" 203 First of all, this guardrail is so short in length that if you did crash into it by leaving the roadway, you could run over it and you could hit that left leg of the pole, anyway. But notice that even the right leg is not protected. And they say, "Well, we do not have to protect it because no one hits these things." Well, here is a very extensive guardrail; this goes all the way along that curve. Look where the sign was placed for this, right at the be- PAGENO="0208" 204 ginning of the guardrail, so the left leg is protected, but the right leg isnot. Now, this sign that was on. here~ told us where the Flint exit was, and the Flint exit is about 2 miles away yet. So if this ~sigii had been moved maybe 20 feet farther down the road, it would have been com- pletely protected by the guardrail-but yet, here it is. You see, this individual left the roadway, again at a very shallow angle, striking this reflector post. This is the right tire track leading to this guardrail leg. A long shot shows you how shallow this angle was of his approach to the leg. Here is the on-scene photograph. It is very difficult to explain what we have got here, but I will try. Behind the officer is the guardrail and `1 .~.-- -~- I.- --... PAGENO="0209" 205 the road is beyond it. This is the engine area. This is a Pontiac con- vertible. The front bucket seat is fused to the rear seat. The post was knocked over at maybe-not even a 45-degree angle. The engine is 65 feet in front of the car. And the instrument panel is parallel with the left side of the car. The driver was found killed. This is obviously an immovable object, which literally just sliced through the car, causing the death of the driver. Had this sign been set back 20 to 30 feet, this individual would have gone down that relatively smooth embankment for a considerable dis- tance, but it could have been a survivable, off-the-road situation. This gives you a better idea of what the car looked like. Notice the front bucket seat here fused into the rear a.rea, instrument panels all along this left side of the car. A fatal accident. It is interesting to note that both of these sign legs were t.aken down and now we do not know where the Flint exit is any more, because they never bothered to replace it. 8~-757~ O-68--------14 PAGENO="0210" 206 Here is a brand new expressway with a fairly tight curve in it. One night three boys went off the road here, nipped the end of the guard- rail (arrow), getting behind the guardrail, hit the very end of the bridge pillar, and the car then continued up in this V area and through it, and then rolled over. One boy was killed. But look at the direct line _ I I I -S IS / I `S PAGENO="0211" 207 that would take you into this heavy mud embankment, and note that the short segment of guardrail is not adequate for protection against that type of bridge pier. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk, is that a proper installation of the guard- rail? Mr. PRISK. Mr. May, I think that would be pretty hard to defend on the basis of the experience that has been had with short sections of guardrail and the fact that the end is exposed-that very definitely could easily be folded back into the bank and anchored so as to give a smooth transition. Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman? Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Yes, Mr. McDonald. Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Prisk, who would determine whether or not that was a proper guardrail installation? Mr. PRISK. That is one of the tasks that falls on our division engi- neer organization in the Bureau of Public Roads, to review State high- way plans for construction. A review of details of this sort is some- times sacrificed because of the volume of work going through. I think also that there has been some lack of appreciation of the importance safetywise of appurtenances to the highway that do not cost very much money, but which do have an important operational effect. Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Prisk, in the Bureau of Public Roads, is there any such division as a safety division that would just look at these plans when they are submitted to determine whether or not we are building hazards into the highway system? Mr. PRI5K. Not specifically for that purpose. Oui~ engineering review is for a great many other factors in addition to safety, and there is no exclusive concern for safety in our review of highway plans. Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Prisk, do you think that there should be a particular division or group that would look at these plans with having only the safety thought in mind in order to coordinate the work of the engineers, who are more interested, really, in seeing traffic move and perhaps have not given enough thought to the safety of thevehicle and the driver on the highway? Mr. PRI5K. I think that is a very good suggestion. The whole matter of an operational review of the plans, I am afraid, is not performed as well as it could be under the present circumstances. A great deal of the attention is given to the structure of the highway and the construction process itself probably receives first attention. Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Prisk, do you think it would be in line, perhaps, to require that each State, in. the preparation of their plans for the highways, have a safety department or safety engineer to look over the plans; and then at the Federal level, the Bureau of Public Roads, to have a safety division to look over the plans for these new highways in order to determine whether or not the engineers have done a suitable job in construction of the highway as related to safety matters? Mr. PRISK. I think this function that you are describing must be strengthened. .. PAGENO="0212" 208 Mr. MCDONALD. Well, let me ask the question again. Do you think each State should be required to have such a division or a safety engineer look over these plans? And do you feel, then, at the Bureau of Public Roads division level, we should have a safety division or safety engineers looking at the overall plan of highway design, keep- ing in mind safety only, coordinating the efforts of the other engineers? Mr. PRISK. Part of this, I think, is perhaps a little more complex a task than seems to be evident on the surface, because there are so many different things that contribute to safety. I think that you need the wisdom of bridge engineers, for example, and some of the back- ground from their discipline to get a fully safe highway. We need some contribution from the maintenance engineer, who sees the highway in day-to-day use, and you certainly need the advice of the traffic engineer, who is concerned primarily with operating problems and the skills of the design engineer. Whether you could wrap this all up in one man or one division, and have such a unit function in every State highway department and require that as a part of ongoing operations, I think perhaps would take a little more study. But I do agree that it is highly important that it be done, that we get on with the task of finding out how best to accomplish that particular job. Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Prisk, it seems to me we have not done too good a job, from the testimony we have seen and heard today and that we have seen before, in. our highway design, as far as the safety of vehicle and driver is concerned. I think we need someone at the State level to police this highway design. Certainly, we can build very good bridges. We can see that in these photos, but unfortunately we have not given very much thought to what happens to a driver when we have these piers so close to the highway. I think we need some group or some people at the State or Federal level to police this safety when we design our highways. Mr. PRISK. I agree. Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. W. M~vr. Doctor, you may resume. Dr. HUELKE. Thank you. It is interesting to me that several laws specify that the automobile industry must show compliance, that their vehicles are safe and meet the law. But we do not have anything about safety compliance, as such, for impact purposes on the design of bridge rails, guardrails, and other things of that sort. It is an idea. This is the area where this car, as I was saying, went~' through. He got behind the guardrail, hit the first bridge here (arrow) then the car skidded up into that triangular area and out beyond, and then rolled over. You cannot tell which end is which here, actually, the car was so badly deformed, but this is the left rear tire [indicating]. When a car strikes something like a bridge column or another relatively immov- able object, t;he car~ deforms and usually what happens is collapse and compromise of the occupant space, and this is what kills the in- dividuals. This is a very interesting signing on 1-94. You are driving along, you are a stranger, you never have been here before, and now all of a sudden you come up to this area. You are doing 70 miles an hour to keep up with traffic. And here it says "Huron River Drive Exit, 1 PAGENO="0213" 209 PAGENO="0214" 210 Mile"; "Haggerty Road." Which way do you go, to go through the area? Even I, being an experienced driver on this expressway, have at times taken this wrong one, which is not the through expressway. This is an exit ramp, to the. right. They knew there was such a. confused area here, they have taken clown this one sign that sa.ys "Huron River Drive." All you know now is "Haggerty Road," and you assume the other is the expressway. But a little bit farther down, this is what they have done. Almost all the way in the area they have put. the shield of t.he expressway system on the sign. Why did t.hey not do that back half a mile? .1*~ ~ I But as we approach this area-see, "Expressway" here-you keep right to go on the expressway; but a quarter of a mile back, you had to keep left to keep on the freeway. This gets confusing. One day a. man did get confused at this very pthnt. He was riding along on the left side as lie had been doing, because it. was a left-hand curve before. He realized lie was going wrong and he cut across in front of this exit sign in here [indicating], but now his car was out of control.. There is a curve along here. It is a curve at about a 450 angle, so it is like a ramp. When his car hit that, it was enough to flip the vehicle over. You see there is very minor damage in comparison to some of the vehicles you have seen today involved in fatal accidents, but this man was ejected from his vehicle and was found with the left. front tire on his chest, with t.he weight of the car on it, and he died of a crushed chest. This was witnessed by about five people. Indecision. He did not know which way to go. He finally decided which way to go and he went t;hat way, but the car was traveling too fast. He had a problem. More adequate signing, I think, and proper signing there to alleviate the confusion would have been helpful. PAGENO="0215" 211 Mr. W. MAY. Doctor, you have brought up `another subject we are going to go into in some detail later in the hearing; the matter of signing, continuously advising the motorist, particularly which turn to make to stay on the throughway. PAGENO="0216" 212 Dr. HUELKE. This is an expressway exit. You can see the cars com- ing off the expressway back here, and this is a very confusing area. There `are about four or five different roads coming into this region and the only indication that a driver has that he should not go on t;his are these two signs [see arrows] on each side of the roadway which say "Do not enter-one way." There are one-way arrow signs, but they are placed so far away from this exit ramp that they are difficult to see. ~ /~_~ One night a man came along here wanting to go toward Ann Arbor and he thought this was the road. He got onto the exit ramp and fmm this point on after `he had missed these signs, there is no further indi- cation that this is an exit, not an entrance; `he accelerated, and by the time he had gotten up to the expressway, he was probably doing 60 to 70 miles an hour when he hit a car with teenagers in it here [indi- cating]. This was a quadruple fatality accidert, wrong way on the expressway, and this is how he got on. Notice there is a signpost here for the drivers who come off in this direction; another sign could have easily been placed here saying, "Stop, Wrong Way," or something like that. And maybe even another one on this side, giving him multiple chances to correct the mistake that he had made. Mr. W. MAY. Is that the manner in which most of the interchanges are signed? Dr. HUELKE. Yes, sir. We are lucky, even to have the "wrong way" sign here. Some of them do not have these. Now, this is a brand new bypass expressway system around Ami Arbor, and I would like to show you that there is hope yet. It appears that thought is being seriously given to some of these areas. ~1rD~~_ ___ PAGENO="0217" 213 Notice this broad, flat, smooth area extending for probably 200 feet off of the road area. This is a nice clean area if a vehicle would tend to leave the road surface and gooff into here. Farther on, on the same expressway, however, we get this. This is a gravel pit that was used when this road was being built. It is no longer being used to any extent, but yet it is there. There is a barri- cade over here so you cannot get through. But notice what would happen if a vehicle would go off into this clear area; notice the earthen embankment that the car could strike and the deceleration on the PAGENO="0218" 214 vehicle would be the same as if the car would strike the bridge pier. These earthen embankments are serious. Mr. W. MAY. Is it an interstate highway? Dr. HuEr~. Yes; the bypass around Ann Arbor. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk, this is a situation that should have been given attention. We are supposed to have controlled-access highways. When we allow temporary roads like this to remain in existence- Mr. PRISK. Yes; it could be a violation of access. It appears from Dr. Huelke's photograph that there is a drainage culvert under that roadway also. I would expect that that entire slope could be graded to a safe section, safe cross section, with a little effort. Mr. W. MAY. Thank you. Dr. HtTELKE. As we proceed farther on the roadway, we see that here the trees are fairly well cleared back. This is going back maybe 50 feet or so, but only a few hundred yards farther down the roadway, we see that the trees are very, very close to the road area. So here we have differences on the clearance of the trees; and these trees are, as I have shown before, quite hazardous. Here, again, we have a very clear offroad area, but look at that lone tree sitting out there, and that tree measures at least 28 feet from the edge of `the road. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prick, that water we see, does that present a prob- lern? Mr. PRIcK. Yes. A vehicle would not go through very much water without turning over or otherwise going through an abrupt de- celeration, which could cause injury, at least. Mr. W. MAy. Thank you. Dr. HUELKE. Now here the road clearance-there are no trees, but notice the high earthen emban1m~ient that is less than 20 feet from PAGENO="0219" 215 this edge of the offroad area [indicating]. And, again, whether it is trees or retainer walls, or what have you, this can be just as serious for impact, and obviously the proper grade is not there to allow a vehicle to go up that grade without striking directly onto it. Mr. W. M~r. I see a fence at the top of that high slope. Would that indicate that is the end of the right-of-way line, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRI5K. I would suspect so, yes; in which case it would be difficult to do much with that slope unless a slope easement was obtained. PAGENO="0220" 216 Mr. W. M~r. This brings up another problem in another section of the highway fraternity that must come into play when they are attempting to design safe highways, the right-of-way section. Those people could determine how much right-of-way they want, into which the designers must build their road. If you buy oniy that much right- of-way and then force the designer to build within it, you may end up with something like this; right? Mr. PRISK. Right. Dr. HuEIXE. A little bit farther on. Same roadway. We see we have a very nice, clear, flat area going quite a considerable distance away from the road edge; but then again, if we get out here and do travel that far, the heavy earthen embankment beyond. Here, however, less than a quarter of a mile down the roadway, is a perfect example of a clean offroad area. So this one stretch of roadway - ~ ~ PAGENO="0221" 217 in this area is only 5 miles long; it is a bypass system, and it has some beautiful offroad areas where serious concentrations, I think, were given; also right next to them are some of the worst hazards possible if you can say that. Mr. W. MAY. Doctor, as I understand it, you have analyzed some 200 fatal accidents since November 1961? Dr. HuRu~n. Yes, sir. Mr. W. MAY. In which 270 people were killed in those accidents? Dr. Hunr4Kn. Yes. Mr. W. M~c~r. In addition to that, you have analyzed some 300 non- fatal accidents? Dr. HuEI~E. That is correct. Mr. W. M~vr. Were there injuries in each of those? Dr. H1IELKE. Yes. All injury accidents in those 300. Mr. W. MAY. In your study as it existed up to and as of January 1, 1965, you made some analysis. You submitted a paper to the High- way Research Board? Dr. HtTELKE. Yes, sir. Mr. W. MAy. I was struck with some sections of your report. You say: As of January 1, 1965, we investigated 111 accidents in which 146 occupants were killed. No motorcyclists, trucks, or truck accidents were included in that. Later you say: If an individual is going to lose control of his vehicle for any reason, the road- way must be designed to prevent cross-median accidents and obstacles must be removed from the roadside so that serious or fatal injuries will not occur. In this study, 84 percent of the accidents were nonintersectional collisions, with a major- ity, 60 percent, being single-car, off-road collisions. That is a pretty high percentage when you consider that the acci- dents that you have analyzed occurred on all types of roads? Dr. HtTELKE. Yes. Mr. W. MAY. Expressways, rural type roads, primary type roads? Dr. H1IELKE. I think the point to emphasize here is that it. is not always a two-car collision, but more frequently a single car off the road. And in this day and age with the traffic safety movement, I think that no matter how much or how many types of safety specifications Dr. Haddon gets through the legislature onto the vehicle, that many of these safety features will be useless when you put a car into a bridge pier or into a tree, or a retaining wall, that is close to the road edge. If we are truly sincere in trying to save lives on the highway, we not only have to approach the vehicle, but we must do a concentrated effort on the highway system, lest the vehicle strike these things anyway. (At this point Mr. McCarthy assumed the chair.) Mr. W. MAY. Yes. Also as a point of interest, later in your report you mentioned, in 21 cases, more than one roadway hazard that should be considered important. Most obvious hazards are indicated in the first. However, other obstacles or design factors play an important part in fatal accidents. For example, you treat "ditch combination" situations which you showed earlier. You have made a couple of tables captioned "Type of Fatal Ac- cidents, Objects Causing Fatalities." These are all single-car collisions. PAGENO="0222" 218 It is interesting to look at these statistics and analyze 111 accidents: Tree or utility pole, 35; bridge abutment, five; guardrail, four; earth embankment, four. You say "roll over due to ditch," eight; slope or embankment, six; lost control on roadway, five; subtotal of 87 in 111 accidents. You talk of car-to-car collisions: Intersection, 18; cross median, 10; cross center line, 10; rear end, six; for a subtotal of 44. Statistics can be meaningful. Mr. Kopecky made an analysis of your data and he analyzed the study the Bureau of Public Roads made of fatal accidents on the completed Interstate System during the third quarter of 1966, and took the study the Bureau of Public Roads made in the last 6 months of 1966 on the Interstate System, and California's freeway fatal studies made in 1961,1962,1964, and 1965. We were struck with the similarity of the figures. For example, for single vehicles that ran off the road, the Bureau of Public Roads' third quarter study showed 59 percent; the Bureau's 6-month study, 57 per- cent; Dr. Huelke, 60 percent; California, 50 percent. Second, a vehicle ran off the road and subsequently struck a fixed object Bureau of Public Roads' third quarter, 73 percent; Bureau of Public Roads 6-month, 78 percent; Dr. Huelke, 72 percent; California, 67 percent. Also type of fixed objects struck-guardrail: Bureau of Public Roads' third quarter, 34 percent; 6-month study, 33 percent; Cali- fornia, 25 percent. Bridge abutment or a pier: 18 percent, 21 percent, 22 percent. Sign support: 11 percent, 10 percent, 9 percent. Tree: 4 percent, 3 percent, and 3 percent. This covers various sections of the country, the interstate study of the total country; yet the percentages are quite comparable. Dr. HUELKE. I think the important thing here is, we have seen this in other areas of the traffic safety movement. For example, alcohol: So many people have done studies on drink- ing and driving, that there are more data than will ever be needed to show that alcohol is highly related to automobile accidents. Yet one of the States that I know of just last year had to run a whole series of the alcohol investigation program in their State because they did not believe the data from these other States. Now, what I am getting at is that it looks like all these data you just mentioned on the highway design problems are in agreement across the country. I do not think there is need for continuing to get more and more data, making reams and reams of reports. We know it is a problem now. Let's get an action program going to do something about it. Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman? Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. Mr. MCDONALD. I would like to make a statement for the record. The Federal-aid highway. program has been in existence for 51 years, without adequate attention being given to safety off the traveled road- way, which would indicate to me that the Congress may need to re- quire appropriate review of the plans in this regard. Perhaps some action should be taken in the near future to see to it that this require- ment is made part of the law. PAGENO="0223" 219 Mr. MCCARTHY. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his statement. Doctor, I would like to ask you, you alluded to the ample data that are available on the problem of alcohol-driving accidents. Why do you think it is that tins ample data did not result in appropriate legislation? Dr. HuELiu~. Because it has recently been shown, using our data no less, by Dr. Seltzer, a psychiatrist at the TJniversty of Michigan, that in the first hundred accidents, of the drivers that were at fault-if you are alone and go into a tree, he considers you at fault-SO percent of these people, from our data we know 50 percent had been drinking, 24 percent had not been drinking and 26 percent we do not know. So more than half of the drivers at fault in fatal accidents had been drinking. He studied all of these drivers and found that 37 percent of them were alcoholics by psychiatric definition and that an additional 13 to 15 percent were prealcoholics. Prealooholics are the young people, the teenagers and those in their early twenties who are developing such a drinking pattern that it looks like, if they keep it up, they are going to become alcoholics. But studies have never been done on the progression of an alcoholic, especially in studies of alcoholism among teenagers, so they do not know. That is why they put these people in a prealcoholic category. Probably they are truly developing to be an alcoholic. So what do we do with these people? This is a real problem. Throw them in the cooler for 10 days, and let them dry out? The first thing they do is walk across the street from the jail to the bar; these people are alcoholics. They `are dependent on alcohol. Dr. Seltzer has found that `alcohol is only a symptom of deep-seated psychological problems in every one of them, including suicidal tendencies in a good share, paranoiacs, schizophrenics, and that the alcohol just happens to be a~i obvious sign of their psychiatric problems. These people need treatment. Now where do we put them? Where do we get all the psychiatrists to work in institutions to try and re- habilitate these people? If one gets into an alcohol retreat for a few months, that does not `do a thing. Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, my question was why is it that these people are permitted to drive? I mean, I recognize the need for their rehabilita- tion, but I do not believe `that is something that we can get into here. Dr. HIJELKE. Because if you take their license away, they are going to drive anyway. Studies have shown- Mr. MCCARTHY. They will drive anyway? Dr. HtTELKE. Yes. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without a license? Dr. HtTELKE. Sure. You are only caught once. You may not get caught again. I think it would be interesting to find out how many people in this room have, in the last year, ever had to show their driver's license be- cause they were driving an automobile. You have to have some sort of offense before this happens, and most people hardly ever are caught; let's face it. Mr. MCCARTHY. Do you have any figures on the number. of drivers in `the United States without licenses? Dr. HUELKE. No. This figure came through the Michigan area. Do you know that? PAGENO="0224" 220 Mr. PRIsK. Ihave forgotten. It is very high. Dr. HUELKE. I think in Michigan it is 200,000. Mr. MCCARTHY. Out of how many drivers? Dr. HUELKE. 4.5 million, is it, in Michigan? Mr. PRISK. It must be at least that. Dr. HtTELKE. 4.5 or 5 million in Michigan, they think. It is a good guesstimate, but they are not sure. Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, this is a tangent, but it is something of great concern to this committee. The gentleman from Florida and I were involved in an amendment that will require a study of alcoholism. But as you say, the data are available. It is due July 1. From what you say, we should not have much difficulty in gathering the data. And once we have the recommendations for legislation which this study requires, I would hope that this committee could act on this, because this is a serious thing. I mean, I think if a person wants to get drunk and kill himself, well, it is a free country. But I think if he hits somebody else, that is our concern. Dr. HUELKE. It is also interesting, in many areas-and I can only talk for Ann Arbor as a specific-a few years ago, the only way you could get liquor in Ann Arbor was by the pint or the fifth. You could not get just a small quantity. If you wanted to get alcohol, you had to get it big. They finally allowed liquor by the glass. Of course, you cannot have it near the campus area because of the students. You know, Indians and firewa.ter. So more of the bars, for the most part, are put out in the county area. They do not have bus service yet to get out there, so if you want to do any serious drinking in Ann Arbor, it almost requires you to drive. Yet there is a municipal ordinance that it is a misdemeanor to be driving after drinking. So you talk about confusion, I think this is a prime example of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. I think it is obvious in some of the things today on the highway. This is what we are concerned with today, and I think we should emphasize the fact that things have to be done. I believe that the reason that we see these things on the highway is not necessarily lack of con- cern by the highway designers, but the lack of education as to what an automobile accident is. And these data, these studies such as this, have really only been available for less than 10 years, these types of data. There are only three groups in the United States collecting accident data firsthand now. At Michigan we are doing it; in Detroit, Professor Patrick at Wayne State is doing it; and Dr. Nahum and Mr. Segel at UCLA Medical School are doing it. And that is all. Mr. ZIoN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. Mr. ZION. I would like to ask Mr. Prisk and Dr. Huelke if they are aware of the studies showing impact on the multiflora rose hedge? Mr. PRISK. Yes, the Bureau partieipated in the study on the multi- flora rose hedge as a possible device for restraining vehicles that go out of control and off the pavement. We found it to be reasonably effective. It does have some disadvantages, in that once hit, it takes 3 or 4 years to grow the rose hedge back up to that point. So if you have a place, say at the outside of the curve, where cars with any fre- quency tend to leave the road, a multiflora rose is not a very effective thing except for one accident. PAGENO="0225" 221 In addition to that, it is quite a trash catcher, to get to the esthetics of it. It does do a pretty good job of stopping a vehicle; we know that. Mr. ZION. I would like to make available for the committee members' inspection some pictures of the multifiora rose hedge as used in the State of Oregon. It is apparently quite attractive and does not show the trash-collecting capacity which you mentioned, although I am sure this is true. Dr. Huelke, my wife and I were very well aware of your interest in preventive medicine at my alma mater. I can say that with my experi- ence with Michigan and its capacity to prevent diseases and so forth, it has never been more vividly portrayed in activities, in preventing seri- ous accidents, as this job you are doing now; and I would like to asso- ciate myself with the remarks that this is a wonderful service per- formed by you and by your alma mater. I think citizens of this coun- try are mostindebted to you for your work. Dr. HIJELKE. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. If there is no objection, I would like to request that these photographs be made available for reference by the comrmttee. Mr. ZION. Yes. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection, they will be marked as hibiti." (The exhibit is retained in subcommittee files.) Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. May. Mr. W. MAY. Dr. Huelke, we had testimony in the previous 2 clays from Mr. Joseph Linko, of New York. Mr. Linko stressed changes in design of construction that would call for, as Mr. Linko said, a slid- ing action of the vehicle. If it strikes the guardrail and if a guardrail were properly overlapping the bridge end post, you get a sliding action. The accidents you analyzed seem to stress situations where the vehicle came to an abrupt halt. Is there not a relationship in the thinking of both of you? Dr. HuELi~. This is the whole concept. It is not how fast you are going; it is how fast you stop that causes the injury. And you want to take that time period and go and go and go and go before you come to a stop; and never do it abruptly, because it is the abrupt stop that causes deformation of the vehicle and injury to the people. Mr. W. MAY. While engaged in the inquiry a few months ago, we on the staff were impressed to read about Mr. Arfons, who was driving a test car going 580 miles an hour and lost control of the vehicle, and he lived. As a matter of fact, he was very slightly injured, which sug- gested to the staff at least, that a person can lose control of a vehicle and would come to a stop* without serious injury if he continued to move, to slide, and gradually slow down. Dr. HUELKE. That is just what he did in his car. Mr. W. MAY. He did not strike a bridge abutment or a signpost. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make Dr~ Huelke's Highway Re- search Board paper, called "Nonintersection Body Fatalities-A Prob- lem in Roadway Design," exhibit2. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without abjection, so ordered. (Exhibit No.2 is retained in subcommittee files.) Mr. W. MAY. Do you have anything else to add, Dr. Huelke? I have no further questions. 87-757 O-68------15 PAGENO="0226" 222 Dr. HtEL~. Nothing. Thank you.~ Mr. W. MAY. I want to thank you very much for your helpand your cooperation. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCAirriIr. Mr. Blatnik. Mr. BLATNIK. I was impressed with the testimony this morning. I would like to be recognized to make a concluding statement and an announcement for further hearings. We conclude today the third session of public hearings on the subject of the design and operational efficiency of our highways. The testimony to date, as the story has unfolded, has been that of widespread and serious design deficiencies that have persisted over the years and throughout the country in the construction of our high- ways, roads, and streets. One aspect which especially bothers me is the great gap that has been shown to exist between what we have learned from research and experience and its practical application in the designing and building of our new roads. The reasons for many of our accidents have been well known for a long time; yet there appears to have existed a tremendous failure to translate that knowledge into positive, corrective action. Again and again, we have found, for reasons that seem completely unaccountable, that the findings of research and experience are simply not being fully utilized by those who design and build our roads. These hearings to date have clearly shown that a. long, hard look at the whole area of highway design is in order. It will be the work of this &thcommittee to explore further these matters in future hearings. Before we close today's hearings, the first segment, I want to pay a well-deserved tribute to a gentleman, one of our witnesses during these past 3 days, who has provided invaluable service to our subcommittee in our inquiry. The cooperation furnished us by the Bureau of Public Roads in previous investigations has been of the highest order. It has been con- tinued in the matter now before us. The expert, specialized knowledge gained over a period of many years by Mr. Oharles W. Prisk has been made available to us in preparation for the hearings and continually during the conduct of the hearings themselves. Mr. Prisk was introduced as a witness on the first day of our hearings last Tuesday, but I would like to have the record again show Mr. Prisk is Deputy Director of the Office of Traffic Operations, Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Transportation. An eminently qualified engineer, he is recognized and respected in highway circles throughout the country as a specialist in the field of highway safety. Over years past, Mr. Prisk has worked long and hard in the cause of improved road design safety. He is no stranger to the conditions that have been described to us by the testimony of Mr. Linko and Dr. Huelke. On the contrary, he has been untiring in his efforts over many years to bring about reforms in highway design, the needs for which have been so dramatically established by the testimony we have heard to date. We are indeed fortunate to have available to us the expertise, the experience, the enthusiasm, frankness, straightforwardness, and forth- PAGENO="0227" rightness with which Mr. Prisk has made his presentations and re- sponded to all inquiries raised in the course of the proceedings. We look forward to his continued advice and counsel and further information as these hearings go forward; and so, Mr. Chairman, the public hearing for today is concluded. Again, Dr. Huelke, our deepest appreciation. I hope you will not mind if the members of the staff, or. the Chair, on behalf of the com- mittee and members of the staff, keep in contact with you for further evaluation or interpretation of any other material and testimony which may come before us. We commend you for your dedicated service, which obviously is far beyond the call of plain duty, and may very well result in the reduction of the type . of accidents, type of fatalities, mutilations and injuries that have been so needlessly suffered in the past. We thank you, Doctor. These hearings will now recess, subject to call at a future day to be announced later. Before we adjourn for the morning, I will be pleased to yield to the ranking minority leader, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer. Mr. CaAMia~. I have a couple of questions I wanted to. ask before these witnesses leave. Doctor, I understand that you showed some slides indicatmg trees planted, for instance, in the median strip. I gather it was your con- clusion that, in many instances, those are traffic hazards and can cause accidents. Is that right? . Dr. HUELKE. Yes. No matter how close they are to the roadway, whether they are in the median or elsewhere, on the right side-I did not specifically show a film of trees in the median; but Michigan, espe- cially the northern Michigan area, is notorious for this. Mr. CRAMER. You say they are notorious for trees planted in the middle of the median strip? Dr. Hui~rs~s. Yes.. Mr. CRAMER. Now, is it your opinion that, as a general rule, the planting of trees in the median strip, so far as safety is concerned, is a mistake? Dr. HUELKE. Yes. Especially if they are allowed to grow up. One concept I had one time, if I might interrupt- Mr. CRAMER. You cannot keep it from growing up. Dr. HUELKE. This is the concept. I was talking to one man from another county than ours, and he was complaining about trees in gen- eral, and one of their problems is they do not have enough tree-farm area. I said, "Well, your expressway in your region has a median that is so wide, why do you not use that for the tree farm? Also, these little saplings will be very good impact attenuation devices if you would happen to crash into the tree farm. Then when you need to move them, to put them in subdivisions, or wherever you would, .take them out of the median." But you never allow them to grow there permanently. Mr. CRAMER. I would be the last to suggest you are not fully aware of the esthetics and beauty and necessity of accomplishing beauty wherever possible. But, in your opinion, if it is a choice between beauty and planting trees in the median strip as relates to beauty and as compared to safety, you would recommend against it? Dr. HITELKE. Not trees. Mr. CRA~. What? PAGENO="0228" 224 Dr. HuEuu~. Not trees in the median. Mr. Ca~n~. Right. And also not trees how far from the highway itsel.f on the right or left side of the highways, the traveled roadway? Mr. Prisk has indicated their regulations are 30 feet-which, inci- dentally, are not being lived up to, according to the pictures we have seen. Dr. HuEr~Ei. Yes. Now, we have found in our study, as indicated in the reprint that was submitted as part of the testimony that many of our cars do not travel too far to hit trees. One of the big problems, as I was indicating before, is that once the people leave the roadway there is this steep embankment, or some- thing of the sort, that takes them on the track down to this tree. If these areas are flattened, the individual can more easily recover with- out becoming panicky and striking objects. Studies have been done, and I will read here at the end of the paper about roadside clearances studies. It has been shown in one study that if the roadsides are cleared of obstacles for 33 feet from the road edge, probably 80 percent of the accidents would not have occurred. Mr. CRAMER. How many feet? Dr. Hmui~. Thirty-three. Cornell, in their AOIR program, ana- lyzed data that indicated 80 percent of the vehicles struck an object within 12 feet of the roadway. Again, the trees and abutments, and what have you, are so close, you go off a little way and you are there. So we do have to have a lot of clearing. And I think 33 feet would be good. But we have to think of the approaches to those trees, as I say. Are we talking about a flat area or a downhill? Mr. CRAMER. Yes. If it is a downgrade area, the automobile would be channeled into it; then they should be farther than 33 feet; is that right? Dr. HTJELKE. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Now, Mr. Prisk, I am sure you are aware the present law, section 319(a) of title 23, United States Code, provides that the Secretary may approve, as part of the construction of Federal-aid highways, the costs of landscape and roadside development, including acquisition and development of public owned and controlled rest and recreation areas, and sanitary and other facilities, necessary to accom- modate the traveling public. Therefore, the States are permitted to plant trees or other beautification items on the right-of-way and on the median strips. Is that not correct? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. OIt~&~rER. And in fact, many States are doing it; right ~ Mr. PRISK. Yes~ Mr. CRAMER. And, as a matter of fact, I understand that recently in Honolulu they planted coconut trees about 2 feet from the traveled roadway. Mr. PRI5K. I am not aware of that. Mr. CRAMER. On an Interstate highway. Mr. PRISK. I am not aware of that. I think there has been an evolu- tion in the instructions as far as safety is concerned, and these per- haps could more recently affect the situation you are citing. Mr. CRAMER. So, in those instances, maybe we are overbeautifying and "undersafetyfying." Mr. rRISK. If they are 2 feet away, they are. PAGENO="0229" 225 Mr. Cit&i~n~. It would be pretty obvious, would it not? Mr. P1115K. It would be. Mr. CRAMER. The reasOn I asked the question is it seems to me an- other instance where there is lack of coordination as it relates to plant- ing trees, between the concept of safety and the concept of beauty, which we also saw the other day in the building of these walls, for instance, with the jagged edges sticking out for esthetic purposes. Is there any hope that there will be coordination in the future and that safety will be properly upgraded? How is that going to come about in the future if it has not in the past? Mr. PRISK. I think through improved recognition of the problem. This, of course, is the very first step in any betterment. From my seat in the executive branch, and knowing how people feel increasingly impressed with this recently evolving research, which as Dr. Huelke said, has only been available to us for a relatively short period of years, I believe there is a swing toward a great deal more emphasis on safety. Mr. CRAMER. Well, it would seem to be about time. It is a little disconcerting to me that there has not been adequate emphasis in the past, particularly in such obvious things as planting trees 2 feet from the traveled road. This new agency, the National Highway Safety Bureau-inciden- tally, Mr. Chairman, or maybe I should ask counsel-are we going to have as witnesses anyone representing the National Highway Safety Bureau, headed by Dr. Haddon? Mr. W. MAY. I would expect at the end of the first phase of these hearings, we would have Dr. Haddon. (At this point, Mr. Blatnik resumed the chair.) Mr. CRAMER. Some time at the end of the hearing? Mr. W. M&y. At the end of the first phase, roadside hazards. Mr. CRAMER. Maybe we can find out from Dr. Haddon what his thoughts or plans are relating to the safety aspects. The agency has been established for the purpose, as set out in the act, of estabhshing standards relating to safety. I would hope that, with the Safety Act on the books and the Bald- win amendment passed a year or so before that, safety will be UP- graded to a major consideration. We are going to build these highways and supposedly save 8,000 lives a year on the Interstate System alone, which is one of the reasons for its being built. Then I think it is essential that adequate consid- eration be given to safety features and efforts to make the highways esthetically acceptable or beautiful should give way to safety consul- erations where it is obviously causing safety hazards. You would not quarrel with that, would you, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Not at all, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I hope we can get into that. Certainly there is a lack of coordination, and safety should be given primary consideration. Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, may I make one point? Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. MCDONALD. I would like to thank Dr. Huelke for his fine pres- entation. I think the slides point up the problem studied. I looked beyond the traveled roadway and did observe the beautiful Michigan scenery. It made me homesick, Doctor. PAGENO="0230" 26 I would hope, as these hearings continue, we keep in mind the pos- sibility of enacting legislation through the Congress to require that review be made of the plans developed for highways, keeping in mind the safety factors. In the last 51 years, it is evident we have not done this as much as we should have. I think perhaps some congressional action may be necessary to see to it that we do build safety into our highways. Once again, Doctor, thank you very much. Dr. HuEL1c~. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, gentiemen. No further questions? The hearings for today are adjourned, and further meetings will be set at the call of the Chair. ~ (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to re- convene at the call of the Chair.) PAGENO="0231" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN, AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards TUESDAY, ~TUNE 6, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITrEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMIITEE ON PuBLIC Woiu~s, Wa8ltington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik (chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. Fallon (chairman), Blatnik (subcommittee chair- man), Kluczynski, McCarthy, Howard, Cramer, Cleveland, Clausen, McEwen, Duncan, and McDonald. Staff present: Same as previous day, and John P. Constandy, assistant chief counsel. Mr. BLATNIK. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High- way Program will please come to order. Today we resume public hearings on the design and operational efficiency of our highways, roads, and streets. The testimony we have received thus far has emphasized the road- side hazard problem. In that connection, the Chair would like to point out at this time results of a recent study of fatal accidents on certain sections of the Interstate System, which will be discussed at a greater length later on in the hearings. This study shows that approximately 60 percent of such accidents involved the single car, "ran off the road," category. In this group of accidents, vehicles left the traveled roadway and either overturned or, as in most cases, struck. some type of fixed object, with fatal results. With 53,000 Americans killed-men, women and children-in traffic accidents last year alone, in the year 1966, and another 1,900,000 injured, many of them crippled permanently for life, it becomes more important than ever that the causes of highway crashes be identified and corrected wherever possible and wherever they may be. We are all aware of the danger that stems from the presence on our highways of the unskilled or reckless driver, sometimes referred to as the "nut behind the wheel." We are also aware of some deficiencies in the vehicle. We have two important factors, the driver and the vehicle. The testimony in these hearings has shown that rather little, if not far too little, attention has focused on the third source of danger; thnt is, the road itself. V It is not surprising to hear that many of our older roads which, like Topsy, "just grew" as the population grew, are a conglomeration of design deficiencies. It is understandable that many of these old roads, which date back many years, would require almost complete recon- V V (227) PAGENO="0232" 228 struction to meet present-day standards of design safety. However, it has been disappointing, to put it mildly, to learn that many of these design deficiencies persist even in some of our newest, most up to date, most modern federally aided primary roads. We have also learned that they are present on portions of our great Interstate System, and on a nationwide basis. We resume this morning the testimony of Mr. Joseph Linko, a concerned citizen of the New York area, whose alertness and dedica- tion have already been established by his testimony to date. His docu- mented photographs have played a large part in our opening testimony. We also continue to have the benefit of the skilled knowledge and experience of very many years of Mr. Charles W. Prisk, Deputy Di- rector of the Office of Traffic Operations, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. Mr. Prisk is well and favorably known in highway circles, having labored long in the cause of highway safety. Both witnesses have been previously sworn and both witnesses are still under oath and they are here this morning. We welcome you, Mr. Prisk and Mr. Linko, to resume your testimony and presentation. Mr.May. Mr. W. MAy. Mr. Prisk, would you tell the committee how you first met Mr. Linko and what happened? Mr. PRISK. This was in the fall of 1965 at the American Associa- tion of State Highway Officials' annual convention. Mr. Linko ap- proached me with an interest in taking part in a program of the as- sociation, some part of the committee program. Later he talked to me about the subject matter that he had. Mr. Williams was at that time Director of* the Office of Highway Safety. He and I took Mr. Linko to our hotel room and saw some of the pictures, perhaps some of the same ones that we have all seen here since his testimony started. We were quite impressed with the pictures that we saw at that time. This was the first meeting. Mr. W. MAr. Did you make arrangements then to have Mr. Linko's slides shown to other personnel of the Bureau of Public Roads? Mr. PRISK. Yes, there was some free time on the following day and we prepared announcements to our division engineers of an informal meeting in the hotel and asked Mr. Linko if he would cooperate by showing his slides at that time.. We also suggested to our division engineers `that they might want to bring some State highway people with them. I think there were about 70 or 80 who attended that showing by Mr. Linko. Mr. MAr. About how long did that presentation last? Mr. PRISK. I would say 2 or 21/2 `hours. It was a very enthusiastic reception. Mr. W. MAY. Fine. Mr. Chairman, for the record, so it may be clear, to show the enthusiasm of the Bureau of Public Roads to Mr. Linko's study, I will read at this point a Bureau memorandum. This is from the Washington office of the Bureau of Public Roads, a circular memoran- dum dated June 2, 1966. It is directed to all of the Bureau regional engineers from Mr. J. D. Lacy, Director of Highway Safety. Subject: "A Layman's Reaction to Roadside Hazards": Mr. Joseph Linko, of New York City, a citizen with a strong public-minded interest in safety, showed a group of slides to an impromptu meeting of Bureau of Public Roads officials during the 1965 AASHO annual meeting. Although PAGENO="0233" 229 Mr. Linko was not himself a highway professional, his photographs and com- mentary were judged by many to be highly effective as a basis for relieving potentially serious roadside `hazards on current and future projects. His pres- entatioñ relates to the beautification features as well as the engineering ele- ments of the roadside. Arrangements were made with Mr. Linko to record his remarks and duplicate a number of his slides. A copy of his presentation which contaIns 68 slides and a narrative tape by Mr. Linko is being sent for use within each region. The primary purpose is to stimulate increased attention to safety appurte- nances among those which `involve the highway administration, design and supervision. We urge that the slides be shown to those in your offices who review plans and specifications and be made available to the appropriate highway department personnel responsible for highway design and operation. Because no special arrangements were made for recording, you may have some difficulty in understanding all of the narrative, and you~ will notice slide 32 is omitted. However, valuable material is in the sincere and largely accurate analysis of roadside deficiencies reflected in Mr. Linko's remarks. It is our hope that it will cause more attention to be given to the built-in hazards that may be eliminated and improvements of highway safety that are possible. Many hazards of the type shown will be eligible for correction through the Federal-Aid Highway Safety Improvement Program now underway and more fully described in PPM 21-16. We shall appreciate having the benefit of any substantive reactions that result from the use of this material. Mr. Prisk, were there reactions to this material? Mr. PRISK. Oh, very definitely. We made available, as this indicates, simply a very small sample of the illustrations Mr. Linko has, and responses came-I remember one from `California, for example, indi- cating that over 500 employees of the Division of Highways, all of their design squads throughout the State, various district offices, had viewed this presentation, looked at the slides and listened to the com- mentary by Mr. Linko, and they had very favorable reaction. Mr. W. MAY. Thank you. Mr. Linko, would you now proceed with your presentation. Mr. LINK0. Yes. FURTHER STATEMENT OP ~OS(EPK LINKO, NEW YORK CITY, AND CHARLES W. PRISK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OP TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, BUREAu OP PUBLIC ROADS~, U.S. DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION Mr. LINK0. Yes, sir. This portion of the first 15 to 20 slides will be of Connecticut. This happens to be on the border of New York. I strayed onto this Route 84 and I noticed that they were making mistakes like New York PAGENO="0234" 230 had been making. Here you can see that instead of putting this sign at the bridge abutment where there is a guardrail, they put it in advance and created a second hazard. It would have been less costly to put it at the br.idge abutment and there would have been no damage there. Mr. M~&r. Excuse me. You had seen what you had considered to be mistakes over in New York, so you went to Connecticut to see how they were doing things? Mr. LINK0. Yes, sir. I went to Connecticut and the border of New Jersey just to compare and see whether we were the only ones making mistakes, and I would like to compare these highways to the New York type, you see. Mr. W. MAY. All right, thank you. Mr. Lmn~o. Here also, you can see an unnecessary sign hazard that could have been put up ahead at the existing bridge abutment. Here you have a double rail and the right legof the sign is not being protected. It would be safer to bring this sign forward behind the guardrail. This happens to be on an outside turn, and that is where a car would be most likely to go. *rookfl.fd SrId9.~J PAGENO="0235" 231 Mr. W. MAT. Are those steel beams? Mr. LINK0. Yes, sir, 8-inch or 6-inch. This probably is 8-inch from the size of this sign. And here also you can see a 1-mile sign. It will not make any differ- ence if you back these up behind that guardrail. .You can put it at three-quarters of a mile rather than 1 mile, when that creates an un- necessary hazard. PAGENO="0236" 232 Here you see you have not a single rail but a double rail in a clear gore area. It is going to cause a serious accident, and it is really not needed. Here is a place where you have a clear gore area and a clear road with a nice shoulder, and they have about 200 or 300 feet of guardrail somebody might run into and which could be removed. r have a line there to mark the guardrail. 9 ~ PAGENO="0237" 238 Here you can see where the sig~i could have been mounted on top of the overpass or back up where the guardrail is, where the marks are. i I I ~1 I I Mr. W. MAY. You mentioned, I believe, at the hearings last time that you might recommend a crash program on the part of the Bureau of Public Roads, No. 1, to get Out there and remove unnecessary guardrails? Mr. Lii~o. That is right. Especially in the Greater New York area, there are iiundi~eds of places, maybe thousands, where there is guard- rail protecting easily knocked down signs, or. there are concrete stan- chions layin.g alongside the roadway .doing nothing at all. I feel this does not even involve any money. The local highway department could go along and rip out this material. Mr. W. MAY. This (figure .1-234) would be an example of where you consider a guardrail could be removed and you end up with a safer roadway? Mr. LINK0. That is right. `Somebody is bound `to go through there sooner or later, because it is an exit. They are going to rip up their car for no good reason at all. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk, how do you react to that? Mr. PiusK. I think this is the kind of location, Mr. May, where that could be seriously considered. From what I see of the terrain there, I also fail to see the reason for the guardrail. It would seem to me that they probably had more guardrail than they need. Mr. W. MAY. Yes. If they went into a crash program to remove this type of guardrail, unnecessary guardrail, they might consider, some- time, even regarding an area to make it more safe and then remove the guardrail; right? Mr. PRESK. Yes, this would be an important adjunct of taking the guardrail out. Mr. W. MAY. Proceed, Mr. Linko. PAGENO="0238" 234 Mr. LINKO. Ye,s. In this particular case (figure 1-234), this is a perfect. job of de- sign engineering there. There is no grading needed here at all. I feel the motorist has a break if he makes a mistake; there is no dit4~h, it is a nice slope, he can recover his car. I am even against this small sign. You might think I am picking on it, but even a sign like this is a hazard. You could be traveling along at 50 miles an hour and one of your tires might get in that ditch there. The average person approaching a small sign, or any kind of sign does not know if it is an easily knocked down sign. He will swing away and lose control of his car at 50 miles an hour, so that sign is considered a hazard. Mr. W. M~ur. Mr. Prisk, would you agree with that ~ Mr. PiusK. It might be considered `a hazard, but certainly not in the class with the I-beam structures. This appears to be a U-frame support. But there is a degree of hazard associated with it; yes, sir. Mr. W. Mir. Yes. A very simple move is to place that sign behind the existing guardrail which is up ahead. Mr. PRISK. And, of course, another possibility is to move it farther away from the roadway. Mr. W. M~Tr. Yes. Mr. LINKO. In this particular case you do have a guardrail to put it behind. It does not have any mileage on it. What is the difference if you put it here or a few feet farther? It only tells you 84, 6, and 202. You have to take into consideration these signs are constantly being knocked down. It cost a lot of money to maintain them. Behind the rail you would not have the maintenance. PAGENO="0239" 235 I found out they have the same problems we have in New York State with 10-inch and 12-inch curbs at bridges. The guardrail is gen- erally lined up with the wall, and you can get into serious accidents for no good reason at all. If the guardrail is lined up with the curb, you can slide by ii I noticed practically every curb on Interstate 84 constituted a hazard. Here is a picture where a marine died. He slid along the guardrail and went right into that abutment there. That was about 11 months ago. PAGENO="0240" 236 I went by this location the other day and I noticed they were putting guardrails around, but it took them 11 months to do it. They did not get around to doing it on this one-or that one. Look at the many targets you have, and with a tapered curb you can ride up PAGENO="0241" 237 nice and easy. I feel you need a crash program to get all these hazards off our roadways. It is an interstate highway and the speed is high here. Here you can see the sign could be mounted on top of the overpass and the pole could be put inside the center divider. Every one of these places is an extra snag. Even at the bridge support, the guardrail does not go around it; it stops in the center. 87-7~7 O-68-16 PAGENO="0242" This is similar. 238 r H * \T F 1. This one has been smashed into. I-i : ~ r - PAGENO="0243" 239 And that one has been hit. And that one has been smashed into. Where the dots are is where they have been smashed, because they are about 2 or 3 feet away from the rail. PAGENO="0244" 240 Here you can see the rusty pole sticking up about where the arrow is. Someone ran right through this area and knocked down the pole and they replaced it with a rusty one. I am trying to bring out the point it is a different color post from the crossbar, showing it was knocked down and someone went through there. The old one is on the ground, where the arrow points. By the way, the center rail was a new rail. It was recently installed and they failed to protect these hazards. The least they could have done was install a few more feet or guardrail and phase it into the center rails. I rode up this road and practically every one of these signs are not inside the center divide; they are away from it, sometimes 2 feet, some- times 3 feet. I feel they should get something done there also. In fact, in this one here, you could tear it out and put the sign on top of the overpass. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Howard. Mr. How~uw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In a setup like this, could it be said or thought that possibly we are building these guardrails, these small ones, to protect the poles, rather than the people? Mr. LINKO. The small section guardrail? Mr. Howuu). Yes. Mr. LINKO. Well, it is true, they are trying to lessen the crash. As a simple solution, I would rip it up and put the sign on the top. But just in case somebody wanted the sign here, I would put it inside the center divider. Until they have done that., I would put 75 feet of guardraiJ and angle it off and bolt it right into that center divide, so that you have your sliding action. Well, here they realized there were hazards. I ..w-ø.; I. I PAGENO="0245" 241 Here they felt, well, somebody might run into it, so they put 75 feet of guardrail here. But you see, somebody running into that still has a problem; they did not solve the problem here. * UI) EXIT ~ *~Z( This is a brand new rail. If I was doing the job, I would go around that hazard. But nobody had any intention of removing that hazard. They just .put the guardrail up because somebody had it on paper. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. Could a member of the staff tell me how much guardrail costs per foot, or would they describe the expense of guard- rail? PAGENO="0246" 242 Mr. W. MAY. Mr~ Prisk, can you tell us? Mr. PEISK. Somewhere between $5 and $7 a foot, lineal foot. That is the double frail. Single rail is $3 to $4 a foot. Mr. CLEVELAND. Does that include the cost of installation? Mr. PRISK. Yes, sir. Mr. Cr v~r~n. In some of these situations then, as I understand it, the public is paying for guardrail that is unnecessary. Do you concur with that observation? Mr. PRISK. I think that there is unnecessary guardrail in place, yes, sir. Mr. CLEVELAND. In other words, some of these guardrails are being put up to protect the foundations of signs that actually could be put on bridges and you would not need any foundation, and would not need to protect a foundation. Is that not a correct statement? Mr. PRISK. It is pretty hard to generalize about it; but- Mr. CLEVELAND. Could we go back to the previous slide? Mr. PIU5K. Maybe you could get a specific case. Mr. CLEVELAND. Look at that. It shows two signs being supported by the two supports, and the bridge just ahead where those signs could be. Now, if those signs were on the bridge, then we would not need, obviously, the abutments to support the signs. Would we need that guardrailing you see in there? Mr. PRISK. No. The guardrail that is near the 50-mile-an-hour sign would not be needed. Mr. CLEvEk&Nn. There is a guardrail costing perhaps hundreds of dollars; that is actually unnecessary, is it not? Mr. PRISK. That is true. And the rail on the right, the same thing can be said for that. Mr. CI~vELANu. Although these hearings are primarily concerned with highway safety, there is also a savings, an economy feature then? That is a collateral issue here, is that not correct? Mr. PRISK. Oh, very definitely. I think a good many times safety features will cost more, but it is also equally possible to arrive at a safer solution without spending any more money and in some cases actually saving money. Mr. CLEvELANI. So we have the rather incredible situation where we not only are in some instances designing danger into the highways, but we are doing it at increased costs rather than less costs? Mr. PRISK. It would cost something, of course, to put the signs on the structure. You do not just paste them up there. It requires some struc- tural frame to support them. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had evidence about this before, but I want to be sure it is inthe record. Taking the pictures we have with two large signs supported by a steel structure, what is the estimated cost of that type of installation? Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. This type of design spanning three roadway lanes and the shoulder, typical cost would be about $15,000 to $18,000 for that overhead span. Mr. CLEVELAND. But if you took those two signs, and fastened them to the bridge, that certainly would not cost any $15,000 to $18,000? Mr. PiusK. No, sir. PAGENO="0247" 243 Mr. CLEVELAND. So again I say we not only are designing danger into some of these situations, but. we are doing so at unnecessary and in- creased costs. Is that not a true statement? Mr. PRIsic. Yes. Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you. Mr. LINK0. Here you see a 20-inch block. Anyone riding along this rail will be guided into this 20-inch block and come to an abrupt stop. All passengers may go through the windshield. Here again, by curving the guardrail in the center in the proper manner-like I show with the line-you still would have a good shoulder and nobody would be in danger. This way here, the block is exposed. PAGENO="0248" 244 Maybe something like this. Mr. W. MAY. In the previous slide, why is that curb there? Mr. PRISK. it appears to be an old crossover. Since I'm not familiar with the exact location I can't answer that precisely. Mr. M~r. It looks like it might be tapered. Mr. PRISK. I think so. If tha.t is concrete, it would take a little jack- hammer work. Here you have a tire track, which is hard to s~, on the side. Some- body ran right along that gaardrail and hit that block. I F PAGENO="0249" 245 Here you can see it is all busted up, so he must have hit it pretty hard. This is not really necessary. It is not even the curb at all; the curb is here at the right eo why can't we guide that car past, give him the 10-foot shoulder. And here isnnother one; this is new work. PAGENO="0250" 246 This is the last one on Connecticut and it points out we still have not got any guardrail at these bridge abutments, and I would like to know really what we are waiting for. We are still opening up brand- new Interstate highways and we are not putting any guardrail at these bridge abutments. Now, here are a few slides of New Jersey. This is Interstate 87 show~ ing they have the exit signs and the guardrails in the gore areas, ~hieh is an indecision point; and this should be avoided. PAGENO="0251" 247 Here you see a guardrail back of this bridge abutment, where you probably would get hurt. I In / Here you see an unnecessary bridge `abutment that could have been phased out with the wall if somebody had a mind to do it. Here is Route 17, and that's an expensive installation. You could have the sign right in front of the bridge abutment; You have the pitper `length guardrail at this point, but the ends are not buried into the ground. The reason I am showing you this is because even if we had to put this bridge sign here, we could have killed `two birds with PAGENO="0252" 248 one stone; let's put it that way. Notice the bridge abutments are not pro-. tected. Every~vhere I see the new work, it seems to be that they are only doing one thing at a time. Here you can see you huve four targets. You have the two rail ends and two bridge abutments. ~-.L-. - And here you see a gore area really saturated. Not only did we put the concrete stanchion there, but we put three high voltage transform- ers there. Some big truck is going to run in there and damage that at PAGENO="0253" 249 terrific cost to the taxpayer to replace. That is, if it does not kill some- one. I would like to say again this should be off limits, especially a clear gore area like this, where a guy should get a second chance after he makes a little mistake. He is not going to get a second chance here. Notice the guardrail is not protecting the concrete stanchion base where the dot is. This is a widespread practice. Mr. HOWARD. Would you say there is little chance of the transfOrm- ers being bothered because nobody will get past the big concrete stanchion? Mr. LINK0. He more than likely would not. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Prisk, let me ask you about this slide. Why could those transformers not be to the right of the exit lane, behind the embankment, and out of the way? Can you think of any reason why the transformer could not be a few feet to the right? Mr. PRI5K. No, Mr. Chairman. I think that there generally is a great deal of room at interchanges to locate necessary transformers, such as these are, in a place where they will not be vulnerable or likely to be struck. The one argument for having them where they are perhaps is they are easily accessible for servicing. Mr. LINK0. I would like to point out, they really need a lot of service if they are there, because they are going to be hit. I do not think they realize this is a danger zone. I think that is why they put it there. I hope, since I am spotlighting this particular area as a danger zone, they will make it off limits to anything. In fact, require special permission to put anything there. That will discourage them. Here are a few slides on trees growing alongside the highway. This is a good design on your right. You can see tire marks where a truck ran through there. He pulled over to the right-hand side, and that is the best place for him when he loses control of his truck or car. He recovered and had a second chance. PAGENO="0254" 2.50 Here you see another car running by, barely missing a tree on the top. Now, in many places we have been planting these trees 2 and 3 feet off the shoulder, you see. He would not have gotten a second chance. I am trying to illustrate what happens to cars and trucks in their way back and forth to work. ~. ~it1L.~ Mr. IV. Mxr. Mr. Linko, I notice when cars leave the roadway, sometimes they leave for a pretty good distance. Mr. LIXKO. That is right. Sometimes 30 or 40 feet. I feel the road belongs to the motorists. Actually they pay for it and I do not think it should be saturated. I would like to say that in the manual that tells you where to plant the trees, they tell you 25 or 30 feet from the edge of the pavement. That means only 15 feet from the edge of the shoulder and I do not think that is far enough. There should be different distances; for in- stance, on flatland, uphill, and downhill. Because when you start running down the hill, you can hit a tree 50 feet away. And here you see that somebody lost control of his car and he ap- proacl~ed this tree. He had two choices, to hit the tree or swerve away PAGENO="0255" 251 from it. Now, the average guy will not hit the tree. This guy went to the left, knocked down a light pole and ran into the guardrail. That is my car, on the grass. I do not really know what happened to him, but this is the 10" by 10" pole he knocked down. If that tree was not there all he had to do was continue on his way and probably would have slowed down. But he was forced back on t.he highway. Under certain conditions, he could have caused a three- or a four-car accident. Today on our new planting on Interstate highways, we are plant- ing these trees just about where this one is and we have not learned a lesson. Here, you can see a tire track where somebody ran off the road and just skinned some trees. PAGENO="0256" 252 At this point they are not dangerous, but 15 to 20 years from now, we are going to have a condition like we just have seen. Here you see Interstate 95, and they are planting trees 2 feet off the shoulder. Other States are cutting them down 30 feet from the shoul- der. This is the way they are going to look from now. in maybe 5, 10, or 15 years I I I PAGENO="0257" 253 If we hit one of these, this is about what will happen-depending on the speed. I am talking about brand new work. Here you see four of these trees on the left have been knocked down already and three on the right. If the others survive, they are going to be the killers of to- morrow. Also these trees cost a lot of money. \~&~ 87-757 O-68----17 PAGENO="0258" k-4 a-,- CD CDCD 00 WCD c-~ ~-+~ 0 çD~ 0 CD CD CD 0 CD 0 CI) CD PAGENO="0259" 255 Mr. W. MAY. If they want to get highway money, they had better put the trees on the highway? Mr. LINK0. I do not know; that is what I think. Mr. BLATNIK. Inadvertently they are getting a bonus for building in potential hazards that will be there for a longtime? Mr. LINKO. That is the way it appears to me. Here is a forest on the other side of the fence. You can see they are planting trees on this side of the fence. I am not against planting trees. 4,~ l-~- I 1~ - PAGENO="0260" 256 Somebody might think I am a tree hater by now, but I am not. I would like to see them survive. They cost about $100 each, and if you put them behind guardrails, like this, I am for them. There were some spots where they were going to plant trees. I notified key officials and I tried to stop this job about a year ago. There you see the trees are there. They are small now. It was impossible to stop this work. I went. throuoth the regular channels, I notified everybody, but they keep on buiI~ing these. L. _ ~ ~ ~(_. 1 m .A \ .~ PAGENO="0261" 257 You can see they are not going to survive anyway. All you have to do is look back at the record and see how many people have been killed by trees every year in the past. We should have PAGENO="0262" 258 learned a lesson. There must be thousands of people being killed by trees. If somebody was to ask me what would I do with this tree-and I said I like trees-I would cut it down, because there are plenty of trees around here. The one on the right and the one on the left I would cut dOwn. But if this was in Arizona and it was the only tree there, I would say install 300 or 400 feet of guardrail and protect that tree. But here there is no choice, no decision; the tree should be cut down I would like to see the Government help them do it, because locally they have not got the funds. - \ PAGENO="0263" 259 Here you see some guardrails protecting a brandnew light installa- tion. This light pole is designed for easy shear-off. It has not even got a base. I do not think you can hit it, because it is behind the tree, and you see, there is a lot of expensive guardrail protecting that If you look at the end of that guardrail, you will see if anybody hits that guardrail, just hits it a little bit, he would slide right into that tree. That tree has been scarred, hit many times, as you can see. Mr. W. MAY. Farther down in the picture we see a piece of guard- rail protecting that light pole. You say that is a breakaway light pole? Mr. LINK0. Right. This one might show you a little better. This is an aluminum pole and you just tap it; it will break off. It is designed for that purpose, you see. But as you saw in the previous La PAGENO="0264" 260 slide, there is plenty of guardrail to protect it. The guardrail is the hazard, not the aluminum light pole. The reason I am showing you this picture is to suggest why could we not protect the tree also? You need a guardrail right down that line to protect all those trees. If you notice, this is an outside turn. I would like to see the new money that we are spending now on guardrails used wisely. Here you see a center divider. I feel when they put it here, they measured and put it exactly in the center. I think they could have gone around the tree. You can see the scar where it has beeii hit many times. I did see the guardrail damaged and 1 saw the man replace it exactly where it was. ~ I ~ I want to bring out the point, even the new money we are providing for repair work or upgrading, we are using that either to do the job only half right, or again, are creating more hazards while we are doing it. Here you see also trees in front of guardrails. PAGENO="0265" 261 This is a picture of a fence-you notice here where the (arrow) pole is sticking out. If a car runs into this fence, that pole across the top of the fence is a hazard to the occupant of the car. It can go right through his windshield. It could impale the driver, let's say it that way. And here you see where it did go into the driver. Mr. BLATNIK. By the way, Mr. Linko, is that an accident at the site of the fence in the previous slide? Mr. LINK0. No, it was a condition about the same, you see. Mr. BLATNIK. `The circumstances were the same, you say? PAGENO="0266" 262 Mr. LINK0. That is right. He was riding along there. Whert you put that fence in, if that pole is there, there is a very good chance it will go through you. The point I am trying to get across here is this man really got im- paled for nothing, because we do not need that. pole across the top. Here is a fence without a pole. The reason I am showing you this particular slide is we know how to do a good job, they might be doing a good job here. But I look at a different consrtuction site and they are still putting the poles across the top there. I feel this information should ge out all over the country, so they can know that we do not need that pole up there. We do not have to find out the hard way in every area individually. I think it is even less costly. Not being an engineer, I cannot give you figures on it. :~~: : .- . U Here you see an easy-knocked-down aluminum light pole, which I recommend. Now, with this type of light pole, you can hit it at 50 or 60 miles an hour and usually nothing happens to you, and most of the time you can use the pole over again, you see. PAGENO="0267" 263 Here is a place where somebody snapped it off, and the aluminum shattered and there is a minimum of damage to your car. I feel we should consider this as standard, equipment. In fact, we should make a standard on minimum shearoff on all poles along the highways. This way no unnecessary damage should be caused to an automobile. It is not more costly. Here you see them defeating the purpose. They put a big concrete* stanchion underneath these things. Mr. W. MAY. This is an aluminum breakaway light pole put on a concrete pedestal ~ (3 PAGENO="0268" 264 Mr. LINK0. I do not know if this particular one is, but this one is an aluminum breakaway type with a concrete pedestal. If you run into this, you are not going to go any farther; you are going to stop. _ 114 This is another one on an Interstate highway. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Prisk, why would the concrete block, concrete foundation, be elevated that much beyond ground level? Is there any engineering, functional purpose, or other reason for it? Mr. PRISK. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the reason is that the lights are being aligned vertically so that elevation of the luminaire above the ~ J PAGENO="0269" 265 roadway will be the same at each pole location. In this case it took a footing coming a foot out of the ground, in order to get the standard length pole up to the right elevation. Mr. BLATNIK. What is the reason for being at the so-called right elevation? Is it for appearances or better illumination? Would it make a difference if one pole were down a foot? Mr. PRISK. A foot would not make any appreciable difference, no; so it would have to be appearance. Mr. BLATNIK. Are you still continuing to do this, build a concrete block that much above the level? Mr. PRISK. No. We are trying the best we can to get this reversed. Instructions have been issued to all of our offices to control concrete footings on design, and during construction to be sure they do not come above ground level. Mr. BLATNIK. In a determination of this type,who has the final say, the safety man or the engineer on the job? You say, "We are trying." That is why I raised the question. Mr. PRISK. Well, the project engineer is likely to be the man who would determine just precisely where this footing would go, how high it projects above ground; because control on the job is necessary for grading and so on. In a. good many cases, it would be possible to grade around these footings, even though they were maintained at that same elevation, and provide the surface around it that a car could ride and if he did hit the pole, he would strike the aluminum breakaway sec- tion of the base and not the concrete. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Linko, when you talk about unnecessary hazards, these would he prime examples, would they not? Here you have solid concrete blocks spaced every few feet away for some distance. As far as we can see over the bridge, over the hill, you have lighting posts. Is that correct? Mr. LINK0. That. is correct. I feel these lights do not even belong here, you see, because most of the lights are inside the center divider anyway. It is hard to see, but if you look, you will see them. Once in a while they throw one to the right. For the sake of safety, I feel they all belong there. This way you can- not hit them. Mr. BLATNIK. So you have a double chance of safety. You say in the first placethe pole should not be there to begin with. Mr. LINK0. And maintenance problem. Mr. BLATNIK. And if it needs to be there it does not need that block, obstacle? Mr. LINK0. That is right. The pole was designed to be easily knocked down, so it would not damage the car. They are defeating the purpose here. Also, there is a problem of maintenance. Now, these poles are knocked down by the hundreds and they cost a lot to maintain, so if it was inside the center divider, it would not be knocked down. Mr. BLATNIK. ,Just .one more question, Mr. Prisk. Do you have any statistics on the maintenance costs in replacing light poles, by States or across the country? Some indication as to frequency or magnitude? Mr. PRISK. We do have figures as to knockdown rates on light poles at different distances from the edge of the pavement. The fre- quency of their being knocked down increases by about three times PAGENO="0270" 266 as you move them from a location say 12 feet off the edge of the shoulder to a point just 2 or 3 feet off the edge of the shoulder. Experience has shown on several facilities in the Chicago area that the cost of replace- ment of these poles varies according to whether the pole itself was damaged. If the pole was damaged, you are in for $200 to $300 for a new pole plus the cost of the luminaire, possibly $80 to $100. Mr. W. Mx~. A rule-of-thumb figure might be around $300 if the pole is damaged. Mr. LINK0. I have counted these poles knocked down by the hun- dreds in 2 or 3 miles. Mr. BLATNIK. Would you repeat. that? You count them? Mr. LINK0. By the hundreds. Mr. BLATNIK. In what distance? Mr. LINK0. In about a 2- or 3-mile area. They are constantly being knocked down and they cost a lot of dough. Here you see somebody managed to smash into this concrete stanchion. You can see all the unnecessary damage to their car where he could have just sheared it off, like the first picture I showed you. Mr. BLATNIK. It tore the concrete block right out of the ground. Mr. LINK0. Yes, right out of the ground on this. And all this un- necessary damage where he should have just got a bent fender. 1 * -. PAGENO="0271" 267 Here. also you see that on this particular highway, Interstate 95, the original installation was aluminum lights and I think the alu~ minum lights shear off easy because. the material is brittle. When you hit it, it just. snaps off. Now this is a. steel base. This light has been clown about. eight. times. So the first. time it got hit, the city has a habit of taking clown the. aluminum light pole and putting up a. steel replacement., and this is an Interstate highway and it is the general prac.tice. The. second time somebody hit this, you can see the.y damaged the base and so the car got. maximum damage. I feel the city should not be allowed to replace these. with a steel standard, heavy duty type like this. Not. only do they damage the foundation, they also damage the cars unnecessarily. Al `1 r~ ~ Here you see another light base which is a hazard. It is right in the shoulder area. It has been chopping up the cars for years and nobody wants to do anything about it. It is hard to see, but that edge is chipped off and~ as the cars ride this particular guardrail, they just knock down this pole anyway, even though the base is there, and they chop up their cars unnecessarily. L j I PAGENO="0272" 268 Here, also, you see an easy knocked down pole with 24. feet of guardrail, and if you look farther down to where the spot is on the bridge abutment, there is where we need the guardrail; here it is creating a hazard. TI -~ - .~ PAGENO="0273" 269 Here you see they are in the process of relighting our highways which probably happens every 20 or 30 years. I feel they are doing it wrong, because from all the books I have managed to grab hold of and read, they say these lights should be put beyond the shoulder- that means about 10 feet-and 2 feet beyond. Here you see they are not putting them back 10 feet in the center. It should be done in a manner like this, giving you plenty of room to go by. I will point out again that maybe it took us 20, 30 years to relight that other highway and we are doing it wrong. These lights are constantly being knocked down, because . of the way they are being put in. I feel if the Government has anything to do with this they should not pay for this job. I 87-757 O-68----18 PAGENO="0274" 270 Here you see where they could use one pole and put an arm on either side, but they have two poles and they put one exactly where it is going to be hit, in front of the guardrail and right near the edge of the shoulder. It made me mad as I watched them build this stuff. I read a book that tells them to put it 10 feet beyond. the shoulder. Here they are putting it right back in the same old place. They are pouring a brand new foundation, not using the old base here. There is no excuse for it. They could have set these back. This is only a two-lane section, so they cannot say the luminaire arms are not long enough. PAGENO="0275" 271 This is an Interstate section where you see them throwing it right in the shoulder. They are in the process of building this. This is one reason why I am here, because I told everybody else and nobody wants to listen~ Here you see a sign right in the shoulder area, and also a light base. I have seen some memorandums that the Office of Highway Safety sent out. It says not to do this, but you see them doing it and we are paying for it. Mr. W. M~vr. That is not a sidewalk; that is supposed to be a usable shoulder? PAGENO="0276" 272 Mr. LINK0. That is right. This is not a four-lane highway where you need a long arm. You are right at the edge. There is no excuse for this. This is brand new work and it is part of the Interstate System. System. Here you see a pole on the right that has been knocked down and going to be irnocked down constaiitly. It is costing us a fortune, be- cause we failed to put them in properly. Here you see two that were hit at the same time. 4/ .1 ____F PAGENO="0277" 273 Here you see three that were down. Notice the brand new bases on them. Mr. W. MAY. In these slides when we see that peculiar looking base, that means it is a temporary pole? Mr. LINK0. That is right. Every time you see one of those, it means somebody ran through. Let me point this out also, since you asked that question, we have very good repair on light poles. We repair them within 24 hours. But with guardrails, it takes about 2 or 3 years to repair them. They have a contract with the lighting company and they do a good job. I would like to see the same kind of contract for guardrails. Here is where four poles were knocked down by one truck, all at once. And you see a couple of dots on the left showing they could have been put on top of the wall. A A A A PAGENO="0278" 274 In this manner, you see. Nobody would ever hit them up there. You can save a lot of money. Here you see the 10" by 10" wood pole. New York City is tearing them down by the thousands and replacing them with aluminum poles. This is Long Island Parkway where they are installing them in front of guardrails. PAGENO="0279" 275 This is what happens when yon hit one of these 10 x 10 poles. All this is nnecessary damage. Here is another picture of the car, unnecessarily damaged. PAGENO="0280" 276 Here you see a relighting project, which is going to be good. Notice the light pole in the gore area? Now it is gone, and this is a fine job. You had a hazard in the gore area, an indecision point, and it was removed- and I was proud. In fact, I thought I had something to do with this, because I was squawking right along. But a couple of months later, I found them putting light poles right back in the gore areas again. I ... I A PAGENO="0281" 277 We could remove these things from the gore area. You can see that car aiming at that pole, see? If there is any ice he can turn his wheels all he wants, but he will hit the pole anyway. They have been hit. PAGENO="0282" That one has been down. 278 a SNLSJJ - ra If someone goes through there, they chop up the poles anyway; the light goes down anyway. I talked to Mr. Prisk about this, having a demonstration project to remove all of these concrete barriers like this. They do not stop the I' I - 4 :1 This is all hew work. If that is not bad enough, you see the 12 by 12 concrete poles protecting the light pole? a. ft V 4 ~ s~l N PAGENO="0283" 279 car from knocking the pole down anyway. They get through, damage the car, the passengers go through the windshield, and the light pole goes down anyway, as you can see here. And I feel the least we can do is go back and rip all of this out. This is on an Interstate highway and I do not think you need it here. H PAGENO="0284" Cl 280 a F- I PAGENO="0285" 281 I have five different shots showing gore areas frequently hit. PAGENO="0286" 282 rPr~ ~ ~ I r r p - - p [ T ~1 ~,I 7 PAGENO="0287" 283 PAGENO="0288" 284 Here is a light placement on a curve. Now, this particular light has been down about 10 or 15 times. I have about six or seven photographs, and you can see the various types of poles that have been used here. It has been hit many times, but they would not move it. All they have to do is put iton the inside part of the curve and nobody will run over it there. They are relighting highways and still installing lights on the outside turn. The faster they put them up, the faster they go down. PAGENO="0289" 285 87-757 O-68-19 PAGENO="0290" They really do not belong on the outside turn. 44. .I Now, a. car cannot help pointing in ~that direction. It is downhill. You have an outside turn. Even if there is no ice on the ground, they manage to get. into these lights. Next I will show you a series of pictures where it was decided to relight this median strip here. I took most of these pictures during the winter months primarily to show how often these lights get knocked down.Tt happens every year. No one groups them together so it does not look bad, soT did it. 286 PAGENO="0291" 287 Look at the median strip and the curb in these slides. They have angles or tapers to the curbs, and yet there cannot be any parking along there. If they were to put in a 10-inch curb, half of these poles might be saved. I PAGENO="0292" 288 As fast as they put these brand new lights up, they get knocked down. These are all new lights just being installed. (At this point, Mr. McCarthy assumed the chair.) PAGENO="0293" 289 Mr. LINK0. I would like to say that if they install guardrails on this narrow shoulder no lights are knocked down. Just the fact that you are not replacing the lights, the money that you save could pay I PAGENO="0294" 290 for the guardrails. The answer is install the guardrails and you would not have to replace the lights. It would not cost money in a few-year period, because it would pay for itself. `1 I. \ /~l* PAGENO="0295" 291 PAGENO="0296" 292 - a. .4.1 -`:5, ~T Lk~ PAGENO="0297" 293 A r PAGENO="0298" ~cj 294 / -3 Ti:; PAGENO="0299" 295 1~~ PAGENO="0300" 296 4 PAGENO="0301" 297 Here we start talking about bridge railings. Now, here you see a car ran through this bridge railing. PAGENO="0302" 298 A car ran through this bridge railing and dropped about 30 feet. These particular bridge railings are made of aluminum alloy. I feel they have no business using this kind of material on a high-speed road. Mr. W. MAY. These are different locations? Mr. LINGO. Yes, many locations there. PAGENO="0303" ~299 Here, this particular location there, you see they have a rope there temporarily. `1 I ,..~ V I ~ Ii 1 - - PAGENO="0304" 300 This is a different type of a guardrail. This is made out of aluminum also. Ii I PAGENO="0305" 301 Here you see another place where somebody ran right through. You can look at the tree branches that broke off. I feel they made a serious mistake using this type of material on an Interstate highway. If cars can go through, so can trucks and buses, and you can have a disaster. I feel we have an obligation and go back and strengthen these points as soon as possible before a gasoline truck or something goes through these railings. 44 A d This is another aluminum installation. You can see it just snaps right off. 7' / 87-757 O-68---20 PAGENO="0306" And this is another one. 1* j 302 I I_____ ~`~--`~* _____I ~ I r I ~ PAGENO="0307" 303 And here is a patched-up job where they put a section in there. Take a closeup look and you can see how they put it together. They are not even fastened. Kick it and it goes off. And here is another place that was struck and the rail gave way. There is a street below. Ms ¶ N I. PAGENO="0308" 304 This is another aluminum installation. Nobody hit this particular installation. From expansion and contraction, this particular railing worked its way right out of the ground. C `I ~1.. -~ -~ S Here is another section here. - a I 4 - p-s~a PAGENO="0309" 305 This is the type of aluminum railing. PAGENO="0310" 306 Here I would like to point out that this is a section of the aluminum railing I have been showing you. You can see one of these uprights has snapped completely off. There is not a mark on that railing. That means it could not have been hit hard. Aluminum alloy is not a strong alloy, so what they do is they temper it. In tempering it to make it hard, they also make it like glass. So if you just tap it, it just snaps right off. That is what happened here. I - - -`V _~. ~ $ : ~ ~ p -- A A4 4 A I r _-1 Fr, PAGENO="0311" 307 Just so you do not say this might be an isolated condition, here is another section in a different location showing there is no damage to that guardrail at all, but yet the part that is supposed to hold you from going through snapped right off. I feel we have a serious condition here, because most of our Interstate highways in this area have this type of guardrail. If cars can go through so easily, what is going to happen when a truck goes through there? Or maybe a busload of children? Or a gasoline truck? PAGENO="0312" 308 Now, here you see the aluminum guardrail protected with a barrier. This is in New Jersey. I guess they know it is not safe there, so they put a barrier there as a guardrail to keep the cars out. I As you can see here we have trouble constantly. I am showing you all different locations so you cannot say it is only there. I feel a simple solution, when you are pouring the concrete walls, is just to go up a couple of feet higher. I do not think it will cost much ~`~: I ! ~ ~ PAGENO="0313" 309 more money. Then you can put the handrail on top. The other type of railing, as you can see, even if it is steel sometimes, they do go through them. See? It could be a concrete wall, which I would recommend. Here is a steel railing. You might think after all those things I said about aluminum, that I do not like the aluminum company; but that is not true. Here is steel rail, it has a poor design. Notice that the upright is about 5 inches wide, but they slotted it 3 inches, so actually PAGENO="0314" 310 the upright is only 2 inches wide here. When somebody hits that, it will snap off right where the weak part is. In other words, you have 2-inch uprights holding this up. I am sure it cannot hold back. cars. And this shot proves it, because as soon as somebody tapped it, it broke off where the 2-inch section is. S I _______ a' A. PAGENO="0315" 311 This is what happens when you just tap it lightly. If you hit it hard, you go right through. PAGENO="0316" 312 Here is a good rail. This is solid steel, 4 inches wide by an inch and a half thick. If you hit this, the rail will not yield-this is the way it's designed. / - I 4 ,. \ I *~ I A I I A r V A -1 :1] I PAGENO="0317" 313 The car gets banged up but while it may get banged up in this particular case, more important you do not want it to go through. If it ever did it would fall onto a heavy-volume road below. So it shows you do know how to do a good job. Because we fail to build safe railings, cars have been going through in many hundreds of places. I am here to say mistakes have been made. Let's go back and fix what's wrong. PAGENO="0318" 314 This is also a steel rail and I feel it is a pretty good rail if it was tied together. Here you see it was put up in sections. Now somebody hitting the thing just knocks out two sections and defeats the purpose of the good design in the rail, which is to be solid in the particular case. And I feel that you should go back to these points and maybe run a W-beam right through to provide a sliding action and to protect the rail from damage and keep the cars from smashing into the ends. I feel we should do this pretty soon, because what are we waiting for? This is the same location. Notice that W-beam there in the fore- ground and the bridge abutment is exposed. PAGENO="0319" 315 Here they are hoisting the car up. Take a close look at this wooden railing-this can't hold back moving cars. And these are in many dangerous places in heavy traffic. Also, you can see it is rotting away and it's not being maintained. Here is a wood railing protecting on a bridge. A car ran right through, as these two pictures show, and went into the water there and the driver drowned. PAGENO="0320" 316 Here is a patch-up job on one of our parkways. They put a few boards up there and it will stay like that a couple of years. That is not a railing to hold back cars. Here you see the railing on the left-hand side is rotting away. I do not know whose responsibility it is to maintain that, but it is not I * ~ .` - ~r ~ PAGENO="0321" 317 being maintained. The point is if we have railings they should serve a purpose. Here you see a chicken fence to keep cars from going through. This happens to be a railroad track and some car went right through that fence. 87-757 O-68---21 PAGENO="0322" 318 Here is the place where it went through. If you notice, you have a bridge railing there in advance, a solid railing on your left, on the bridge. But alongside, on the side road, they have just the chicken fence. They have high speed trains going by there every day. ~ .. 1 T ____ - - ~ ~ Here you can see where a couple of people got killed. Sometimes they are electrocuted, other times burned to death. Maybe 10 or 15 cars fell on these tracks in this area here. The city and the public service commissioners are arguing who should pay for the guardrail there, the railroad or the city, and they have been squabbling for years now. I feel maybe if a gasoline truck hits a train, they will hurry up the job-but then it will be too late. Next is a series of shots, which I will PAGENO="0323" 319 go through because they show there are many p'aces being broken through. PAGENO="0324" V V r 0 El PAGENO="0325" 321 PAGENO="0326" 322 `~,& -~L24~j~.. PAGENO="0327" 323 I -~ tc * ~ i~:r* Yt - ~ -` a p~ *4 ~* ~* p ~K ~vc,w&: t_r r~ L4~ ` ~ ~ **7#: ø~ ~R4~fl~p,~ej* ~ * ` * W~W rest $ * `~ ~ We have to live up to our responsibility and go back and strengthen these rails. The way they are now, they are just handrails, not designed to keep the cars on the road. You can see in several cases there is nothing bent there at all; everything snapped off. That is because the stuff is hard and brittle, like glass. * PAGENO="0328" 324 Here you see a child throwing something on top of cars as they go through an overpass. This is a common practice in our cities. ____________ I Here you see they do not have to throw it; they just drop it on top of cars, because we failed to put proper fences there. 2C e *~ I- L ___________ -- - PAGENO="0329" 325 These pictures are not hard to get, and only proves how frequently these things are happening. I take them as I drive. This kid had about 15 stones and he was slinging them as fast as lie could at my windshield as I was going by. I PAGENO="0330" 326 This one had nothing to throw, so he was spitting on the cars. We have a serious problem here. In the city, hundreds of kids com- ing from school, and going back and forth, pass by these things and a kid could be a good kid but if he has something in his hand at the right moment he will throw it. I feel we have to fence these as soon as possible. Many of these locations I am showing you are on Interstate highways. PAGENO="0331" 327 This particular person there is throwing a popsicle over the top. I feel we can use no-see-through fences like this. This is not an inter- section, and there is no sight distance problem involved as far as safety in that, respect is concerned. I think we should use no-see-through fences. The kids would not throw anything because they would not see themselves hitting the target. They have no satisfaction, you see. I feel we should use corrugated aluminum of some sort. Paint it a nice color; it does not have to look ugly. It would discourage people from throw- ing things on top of cars. I .1 I PAGENO="0332" 328 Let's take this particular location. It is not an intersection and if you had a no-see-through fence here, I think it would be an advantage. Also, take a look at the large space between the bottom rung and the edge of the walk; you do not have to do anything wrong here~ Some- one might have been shopping and the shopping bag could break and a Pepsi Cola bottle could fall on a moving car 40 feet below, smashing the windshield. We should realize some of these problems and fence some of these things. J ~ Even when we fence, we have done a halfway job. Here you see a whisky bottle laying where the spot is. I put it there myself because I PAGENO="0333" 329 it was laying in the center of the street and I wanted to bring the thought to the attention of this committee. If it is laying in the center of the street, if some kid kicks it, it is going to slide right under there and may drop ~n a car anyway. We put the fence there but did not bring it down to the ground. There are many places where we did a half job. Here are two shots on Interstate highway where we failed to provide fencing or any curbing ledge below the rail. We have to get to these places and fence them before something serious happens. PAGENO="0334" 330 I _____ -- The three foregoing pictures show that under the right conditions something could fall on the windshield of cars below and even cause a four- or five-car accident. This covers some aluminum W-beams. I feel we made a serious mis- take using this type of material. I favored aluminum before when I talked about use of it on our light poles and bases. I told you it had no strength and it snaps off and does no damage. That is exactly what it is doing here; it is snapping off. r~ PAGENO="0335" 331 Now you can see somebody tapped that. Instead of providing a sliding action, it snapped off and they ran right through. This is the same location as the previous one from a different angle. PAGENO="0336" 332 Here you can see that the gu~rdrai1 is not even damaged, but yet the thing is snapped off. Some of the material has been used on our Interstate highways, too. If they caimot hold back cars, how do you expect them to hold back trucks? L PAGENO="0337" 333 There is practically no damage to the rail, but it snapped right in half. 87-757 O-67-----22 PAGENO="0338" 334 Here is the ideal picture, there is not a dent in that rail. The rail is split, so the material just cannot be any good. Even at this late date- and I brought it to most people's attention-we had the nerve, just in 1966, to go back and use this type of material again on our Grand Central Parkway. All they had to do was look around and see the hundreds of places where the cars have broken through-not only through single rail but through double rail. *;..~ ~ - S - - -_~~~~~*~~~:~~- ~ ~ ~ ~ - - -- - [-~ -- --- `V `lLuN~~ - `-~j.- ~ ~ - -`.5-S ~ ..m~ PAGENO="0339" 335 Here is a steel rail, somebody went right into it and I do not see any crack in there. It is just twisted, bent, and it held up and did the job. PAGENO="0340" 336 But this is what happens to the aluminum rail; it just cracks and splits. This is a constant problem; not only do we have constantly to maintain this at great cost, because aH you have to do is tap it a little and it has to be fixed, but it is not serving the purpose. It is causing many headon crashes, and causing cars to go off the road. The material is there but it doesn't perform. ~ ~ ¼ V I I PAGENO="0341" 337 And here you see somebody ran along this curb, supposingly to slide past the abutment. This shows it did not even crack where it was hit; it cracked some- where else. The guy got in trouble for nothing. PAGENO="0342" Here, it snapped off. 338 ;* ________ ~Th - 4r-~ ~. ~ Here you can see where somebody went through This is a downhill curve, right where you would expect. a double rail. PAGENO="0343" 339 Here you can see that somebody broke through this rail and came through the windshield. All this unecessary damage. PAGENO="0344" 340 This is the same location; there was no sliding action, it broke off and they got all that damage. Here you can see where somebody came through also. The broken guardrail is pointing toward you, and that is a double rail. Tl1ese are only cars coming through here, not trucks. This on an interstate highway. ~1L ~ ~ I PAGENO="0345" 341 Somebody died at this location here. The double rail is broken. These two show broken rails. One day I looked at this newspaper and it says, "9 in an auto-all drowned." I said to myself "what kind of guardrail was here?" It's not near my area. PAGENO="0346" 342 Mr. BLATNIK. What is the story in this case? Mr. LINK0. I do not know what happened here. I read about this in the paper. After seeing all this inferior type of guardrail in an outdoor area, I said to myself, "I wonder what kind of guardrail was protecting this particular one?" They ran through a guardrail here. I just pointed this out, you can expect something like this to happen. Suppose a bus goes through and wipes out 100 children in one shot? Or maybe a gasoline truck rolls over and hits a train or something like this? PAGENO="0347" 343 This is an urgent matter. I think we have to live up to our responsi- bility; go back to all these guardrails and bridge railings and fix them up so they can hold vehicles traveling these Interstate highways. Mr. BLATNIK. In these recent pictures you have shown, was the bridge railing aluminum, as well as the guardrails? Mr. LINKO. Yes, they were using aluminum bridge railings and they were using aluminum guard railings, aluminum W-rails. You can see they do not hold back cars. The timing is important. In most of the places where you have a bridge, there is another road underneath it. With proper timing- it could be a gasoline truck or bus full of children-you can have a disaster. This points out improper installation of guardrails and anyone riding along this guardrail will smack headon into that other section. I feel that if you just reverse this guardrail where you see the dots, then it would be impossible to hit either end of the guardrail as is now possible. This is dangerous. PAGENO="0348" 344 Here you can slide along there and it is impossible to hit the end of the opposite rail. They could have done the same thing at the other location, but no one was thinking. Most of our highways are in this condition. You leave the road, slide along the guardrail,. and you have run into the end of the next section of guardrail. And this has been hit; sort of standard practice on highways in our area. "iIii~ii~iI:~~ ~ var PAGENO="0349" 345 Here you see this pole right in the center of the median~ Anyone sliding along this guardrail will slam right into that pole. Pro~ed~1 Here on this side you see it is impossible to hit this pole; you can slide past. But the opposite side is not sufficiently protected. PAGENO="0350" 346 Or you had a choice of putting it inside the center, like this, where you have a sliding action on both sides. But most of our signs are not put in areas like this. A; L.. L I Even in a particular case like this, they should never ~mgle it out at the severe angle that you see here, because if happens to slide along, that severe angle may throw you back into traffic. They should not angle that so you slide out into traffic. r I- ~1. PAGENO="0351" 347 We have failed; this is the damage you see constantly; peopie run- ning into this-unnecessary damage. Here you see a pole. Notice the truck in the background. If he comes down and rides along that rail, it is impossible not to hit that pole. All the forces are against him. You have gravity, and centrifugal force to throw you right into that area. It is impossible to steer out of it. If the guardrail were installed properly here he could be guided right past it. We have failed in hundreds of locations on our highways to line up this guardrail properly. It would not cost any more; it is just that no- body is thinking about the problems created. I `I PAGENO="0352" 348 Here you see adi these light poles are targets. They are sticking right out. Actually they are designed to be hit if you really look at them. You cannot help hitting them, because they have not been put inside of the center divider. ___~~l~!~ ~.::*:~~ !~ +~1 4~ - 1* j I b PAGENO="0353" 349 They should be put inside of the walls, or on the top like this. You cannot knock this down; this is much better. If you look on the right, you can see that is a good job. But on the left in the center this is what you will see. You have the lights lined outside I it t 87-75~ O-68---23 PAGENO="0354" 350 with the guardrail and these are the ones that I told you a1~ut. I counted hundreds of them hit every year; they are constantly being knocked down. I These have been knocked down; they Iiave temporary bases. 3 PAGENO="0355" 351 Here you can see half the job again. PAGENO="0356" 352 Here you can see, we do not tie the guardrails together but we leave open spaces between the lights. As a result we have constant damage to light poles and unnecessary damage to cars that hit these rail ends. You can see that rail end sticking out where the dot is, lined up for the next car. If one hits it, it is in serious trouble. Here you see a rail that went right through a car. This is the typical result when a car hits the end of the guardrail. J)r~'r !~`aif~ U 1:! ( PAGENO="0357" 353 Somebody pushed that in. With the height of that guardrail end the way it is the next ~uy who goes through there will have the rail go through his windshield. And as I said before, it takes them a long time, as much as 2 years~ before they get around to repairing some of these. This is an invitation to death. * I Maybe in a manner like this. I have not the many pictures other people have; I just picked up what I could. But the guardrail could go through just like that. PAGENO="0358" 354 Here are two more views of what. you will see all over our highways. All you have to do is just tap these a little and they become great hazards. We should go back to every one of these locations, install a piece of guardrail, and bolt it to provide sliding action. Mr. W. Mvi-. ~[r. Linko, you suggested earlier that. in New York, when a situation like this happens where the guardrail is pushed over and the light pole is knocked clown, you get. good service repairing the light pole; they come back and put the pole up? Mr. LINKO. That is right. Mr. WT. Mxr. But the guardrail might stay in that. twisted position for some time, and without. timely maintenance? ~ ~ ~L - `1 I ~ 4:. IL r .- - -~. PAGENO="0359" 355 Mr. LINK0. In this particular case, it was only a week, hut I have pictures pointing out where these guardrails have not been repaired for 2 or 3 years. They are dated; I have proof. A lot of guardrails have no service for 2 or 3 years. When there are enough of them around that have been banged up, a contract is awarded to do them alL I feel it is more important to fix the guardrails at once than put the light poles up. And this is what happens when these things are hit. The light pole will go down anyway and the guardrails are sticking out. -~, PAGENO="0360" 356 Here you have two targets. I feel we should go through all of these places and install another piece of rail on either side to provide sliding action. It might help save some light poles, and I am sure it will keep you from slamming into these ends and bases and give you serious damage. Because these ends are not tied together, all of this unnecessary damage is caused. If it was done the right way you could have had a sliding action here. t PAGENO="0361" 357 And here you can see the base sticking out. The rail ends where the dot is. Someone slammed into that and knocked down a light pole. Because you do not have continuous rail to utilize the full strength of the steel railing, we get a lot of unnecessary damage and the light poles are going down anyway. I ~ This is what I am talking about, you see. That seems to be the standard installation. PAGENO="0362" 358 What makes me mad is when I see this. This is a repair job. The rail was damaged and they came by and patched this thing up. All right, so they made mistakes in the past. They did not know any better let's say. But this is what they are doing now, see? This is a brand new work and it is brand new money, and they put it up in sections. Anyone riding along that rail will hit that concrete stanchion, or guardrail end, or light pole because they are still sticking out. I feel it is inexcusable to do things like this. Here you see a part of a bumper ripped out on one of these posts which hold up the guardrail, because they did not block the rail out from the posts and the car got snagged. .7 PAGENO="0363" 359 Now, this is the proper way to install these lights inside the center guardrail. This shows we know how to do it. We have to get to it. Wherever we messed up in the past, in some way the money has now. got to be supplied fast. Actually it will pay for itself because of the current damage to these poles and the constant kn9ckdowns. I Here you see, on the left side you have a heavy sign support that can stop you dead and split your car in half. Beyond it is a light pole on this side. These could have been placed inside the center rail and the hazards eliminated. PAGENO="0364" 360 Here also it was not bolted to the railing. Even though it was near it, that means nothing. You have to phase it out, and bolt it to the railing. Instead of getting a scratched fender, a car is badly damaged. A F ~ 4/ - This is what you see. The material is there, but installed wrong. / rArc~n~T~ ~ WHITESTONE SR ``~ - ..L. F - - - PAGENO="0365" 361 Here you can see on the right-hand side where we robbed 15 feet of the shoulder area that could be used by the motorist, if needed. As it is anybody can get behind this guardrail. The guardrail is there to protect the bridge abutment, but you can ride behind and slide right into the wall. The guardrail is installed wrong and is using up some of the space that belongs to the motorist. Here you see a guardrail that could have been phased right to the wall to provide sliding action, but this seems to be standard practice in New York to leave that section there to hook Onto. (At this point, Mr. Blatnik resumed the chair.) 1j PAGENO="0366" 362 Mr. LINK0. Everywhere we look we have failed to provide sliding action. We are wrecking cars, rather than scratching fenders. Up ahead at the underpass you can see where the rail was phased into the wall. However, see on the right where they didn't protect another hazard. I West 230 St :~~- -- .< I:~~ ~ 1~,!1 ~:h1 I~;~i V F- 7 Here you see a place that has been hit. It could have been a scratch, but because of this it wasn't. By the way, this particular installation has not been repaired for about 6 to 8 months. Once you hit it, it lays around until a big contract is given for an entire section. PAGENO="0367" 363 This points out if you bolted this end to: the board, slide by. But that 15 inches is enough to grab it. a car could If you look at this, riding along you think it is a good Job; but I went up and took a close view of this. First, let me point out there is an offset, or bridge abutment, that is not needed. This is a depressed highway and you should not need or have such abutments on depressed highways. PAGENO="0368" 364 In trying to make up for and protect a 15-inch abutment, the guard- rail put there doubled the target; now it is 30 inches out. There is ~a lot of guardrail that cost a lot of money there, and actually there is more chance of grabbing onto it than you had to begin with. These are half jobs and I am trying to spotlight them so we can get on the right track and do it right. A hazard like this should be phased out into the wall, and bolted to it so you do not have damage and can keep going. Everywhere you look, you will see where we have no sliding action. Look at the end of this guardrail staring at you. Also there was a p / PAGENO="0369" 365 gap between the rails up `by the light pole' and they came along and put a short piece in behind the existing rail-what good is that? On the right, somebody busted right through there, because there were two pieces of rail which wei~e not tied together. There shoul.d have been one continuous stretch. Here you see some telephone poles in front of guardrails. You can say why did somebody do that? It looks silly. Someone might say that maybe the property behind that guardrail belongs to people who do not want them there. Well, I thought of that., so I took this picture. There are many poles here. 87-751 O-68-----24 PAGENO="0370" 366 The property on the other side of these poles belongs to the State, so that is a poor excuse. They just are not thinking. Anybody slid- ing along these rails will come to a dead stop. Thousands of people are being killed and injured every year run- ning into telephone poles and light poles. All you have to do is read the papers. And we are doing brand new jobs just like this. We have the material there to do the right job but we are putting the poles in front of the guardrails. There is another location. This is silly. L Ii. PAGENO="0371" 367 Now, this is a steel pole, 14 inches in diameter, that will split you in half. There is a guardrail on the left and there is a whole bunch of trees back further in the picture, but you barely see them. Every one of these is in front of the guardrail. There must be something wrong when you see things like this on the highway, especially on new highways. All of these guardrails are installed wrong. PAGENO="0372" 368 To provide a. sliding action, that rail should have been behind the wall instead of the end sticking out. These are just plain wrong and are going to chop up cars for no good reason at all. The material is there to do the right job. I want to say again, 90 percent of the stuff I am showing you has nothing to do with money at all. It. costs less money to do it, so it has nothing to do with money, and that is an important point.. This should be behind the wall so you cannot. hit it. * This should be behind the wall. These are designed to stop you. Not only do you damage your car, you damage the rail, and we have to pay, pay, pay-for no good reason a.t all. Next I have . a series of slides on rail ends. PAGENO="0373" 369 All these rail ends should be buried; these are dangerous. PAGENO="0374" PAGENO="0375" 371 PAGENO="0376" 372 Here you see they stopped the guardrail where you needed it the most, right at the bridge abutment. Here you can see the guardrail protecting a firebox that could have been put at the bridge abutment there. You can use that guardrail to protect the bridge abutment. There is none there. ~~4Aj#' PAGENO="0377" 373 This rail is too high; it will go right through your windshield. Here, wooden planks are being used on a brand new parkway in our area. This is 1966 or 1967. The speed limit here is 50 miles an hour. These wooden planks cannot hold back a car. They will split off. If you do not believe me, here you see one. PAGENO="0378" 374 Here you see a post that is 15 inches in diameter. Disregard the rotten pole, the second one. You should put a weaker one in the front there to give a guy a chance to knock it down instead of stopping hini dead. I LLL~ I ~ PAGENO="0379" 375 Here you see the brandnew square-type box beam, the best rail we have and I think it is good. They call for burying the end, but because the end is sticking up like that, a car can run right; through it. Here you can see where a square beam went right through this ear and came out on the other side. This driver .was lucky; it went right by him. Maybe it will go through the next guy. And this is very new work. PAGENO="0380" 376 When are we going to learn? Here, they tapered the box beam rail down to the groand which is what they should do ordinarily, but not at this location. If you drive along this rail, you are going to hit this base. PAGENO="0381" 377 This is what I am talking about. If you get up on that shoulder, you will head toward that abutment, but you will never reach it. You will be killed first by that railend. This is about maintenance. rfhere never used to be a guardrail at all of these abutments so they later decided to put in a guardrail. But it takes many months and I feel it takes too long to finish the job. There should be more considerttion for the motorist Here you see where they started to install a new center rail. V ii PAGENO="0382" 378 As fast as they put up the material, before they even finish the job, the cars are running through and damaging it. : Here's another area where they are breaking right through. - ~ -.1 - - ...E'. - - -- -- PAGENO="0383" 379 This shows the urgency where these guardrails are needed. The maintenance people are getting mad. They are knocking down the posts before they can install the guardrail. PAGENO="0384" 380 What they do, they place the beams along the side- to discourage the people. If you get tangled with these, you get in trouble, but they want to keep you off there. They are not really thinking. a. A PAGENO="0385" 381 These are hazards when you tangle into them. I feel we should regulate construction jobs to cut out these unnecessary hazards 87-757 O-68----25 PAGENO="0386" 382 \ 4 PAGENO="0387" 383 Here you see these small bricks or cobblestones. They measure 8 inches by 7 by 6 inches, and they are used to divert traffic. That is exactly why they are using them on this job here. PAGENO="0388" 384 You can see that if some car hit that area just right it couki. blow out a tire. This is the way they attempt to keep traffic out of these areas. This is a standard practice. PAGENO="0389" 385 Here you see a job where they have a temporary overpass. The guardrail has been installed properly and a car can slide by this particular obstacle. This is good. 4. But others are not. Some of these stand like this for 2 or 3 months and provide no protection, they are hazards. There is more hazard now than before they started. They are not using this particular location, this area here; they leave it over the weekend. They should replace this guardrail here to give the motorist a break. L ~1 -~-, r PAGENO="0390" 386 As you see, that is a target right at the edge of the road. All you have to do is deviate a few inches and you hit an abutment. - - ~1g_ -~ Here you see a telephone pole, but no marking, no reflector, no nothing. Here you see a rock that has been there for almost 2 years. The only reason I think it stays there, I don't think one guy can lift it to put it on the truck. But it is a serious matter. That is a big stone there. Any car running into that is going to have a serious problem. This is an Interstate highway. I understand the PAGENO="0391" 387 State is responsible for maintenance. But the city is doing the job and the State is not overseeing it. The guardrails are broken and they are never repaired. My slides are dated to prove it. Rocks are laying in the shoulder. Here you see a steamroller left on the side of the road over the weekend with no markings or anything. Somebody could runinto that and get wiped out. *~~1 PAGENO="0392" 388 Here you have three separate pieces of equipment left on the road. The least they could do is put them all together. You `would have one target. Here you have three separate targets. In fact, the right way is to take them up in front of the bridge abutment and `put them behind there so you cannot hit them. This guardrail is broken-has been for 2 years-and never replaced. `Finally somebody came by and replaced it, but forgot to make a double rail and put the guardrail on this side for sliding action. `The day they put it up somebody came by and wiped out the section there. They knocked down the light pole and ripped up the concrete abutment up `farther. And it is the same way today, 4 months later. All r/1' . *~1 - ti- I 1~H .`- -4 p -~ PAGENO="0393" 389 There used to be a guardrail here also until it got chopped up. It has been laying like this for ~ years. I I PAGENO="0394" 390 That concrete stump was there for 2 years. They just recently took it away. I am trying to point out we do not have needed maintenance on this highway. It is in the law that we are supposed to have maintenance. The State is responsible and the money should be withheld; any Interstate money should be withheld from the State unless it oversees this job. IC Here you see a pole protected ouly from one side. It was hit from the unprotected side. PAGENO="0395" 391 This happens to be underneath an Interstate highway. I feel we created an unnecessary hazard here. Here you see a low curb and many thousands of cars go by here every day. It is a commercial highway and it is in the city. And any car or truck that goes by here, all it has to do is go over that very low curb and it could hit any one of those targets all the way down the line. There are hundreds of them. A 1~-inch curb there would give you some protection. The idea is to design the curb originally so you cannot jump it. r This used to be a safe highway until they put this new highway over it. Now you have the targets on the outside turn. PAGENO="0396" 392 And these. This is new work, and when they do the new work the old road is overlooked. PAGENO="0397" 393 Here you see a line in the fence in the background. This is a new bridge that is being built on top here. There is the finished job. There used to be a guardrail here, but now that they have finished t.he job you have an unprotected abutment. This is a serious matter. If we do any new work, we are going to have to protect it. PAGENO="0398" 394 Here you see many targets with low curbs. U - -- - - -a -4 -4- _7 ~: it;:~: L PAGENO="0399" 395 This has something to do with maintenance.~ See the sand barrel sticking right on the shoulder area Anyone riding along here gets unnecessary damage because the sand barrels could be put over on the side. PAGENO="0400" 396 Here you s~ a large box of sand every year, right in that shoulder area. If you hit that, you stop dead. But they do it every year. - - ~ *4~. ~__.~~-;---~ - AL - - - - ~ ~- Here you see tire tracks of a car going bohind that guardrail, smashing into the wall and killing the driver. The guardrail was not long enough and it didn't curve back. PAGENO="0401" 397 Here you see a guardrail supposed to keep cars from going into that river. It will not do the job. Somebody could go right through there and drown. Those trees won't do the job either; they're too small. Here you see high-voltage wire towers. Anyone riding over this curb will have gravity to help them go down and they will just cave in that particular installation there and the high-volta~ge wire will fall on top 87r-757 O-68---20 PAGENO="0402" 398 of the car. I feel you need a guardrail there. A large truck can roll over the cable Here you see a sign that says-the arrow is pointin~ in-it says "Goethal's Bridge." That is actually one way, but that sign is telling you to go in there. I recommended to the State engineers to get that arrow to point down as I have it shown, so at least somebody knows you have to go past it. The last time I looked at it, it was still that way. 7' ~ r4 ~ I ~1 PAGENO="0403" 399 They do have a sign on the left, a little sign, saying "do not enter." Maybe it will be foggy and that overhead sign would be lit up there. You would, be looking at the lit-up sign and go right in that area. I feel we are asking for trouble. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Linko, and thank you, Mr. Prisk. May we have the lights, please. Mr...Linko, we,are more than indebted to you for the continuation of very effective and impressive testimony, illustrated by excellent pic- tures. If I were to try to summarize all of your valuable testimony, it would obviously set the stage for hearings yet to come. It is obviously a very serious situation, and in some matters a grim situation. How these points could have escaped the attention of experienced and trained traffic peo~e, safety people, engineers, is beyond me. On second thought it is perhaps not so mysterious when you realize that the average driver just,takes for granted, perhaps, 80 to 90 percent of what flashes by him I know, from my own experience, I have been unaware of this potential for impact with fixed objects I do believe it is the responsibility of those who design and build these roads to do so correctly. If we did not make mistakes we would not need erasers on the end of pencils but when mistakes are made, you have to learn from them You showed us light poles put in with concrete, bases where old poles .had existed, wrongly positioned. Mr. LINK0. Correct. Mr. BLATNIK. You have impressed me' with the almost unending combination o'f variables and situations-a guardrail will protect one side of the pole, and the other side left exposed.; it will protect'correctly one side and not the other. You have a good installation at the wrong place and the wrong thing done at a needed place, and then something done where nothing should be done. The hazardous situations can result from different combinations of installations You have the lights, transformers, fire call boxes, tele phone boxes, directional signs, conventional signs, telephone poles, and other such structures. We thank you very much, Mr. Linko. I know I speak for the whole cOmmittee. We are deeply indebted for your contribution and will have more to say about that later on. The testimony we have heard in these hearings to date has identified these various roadside hazards in the Greater New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey area, and in.the State of Michigan. The Chair has repeatedly emphasized that the conditions shown are by no means confined to these areas alone, but, on the contrary, are nationwide. Our staff has learned, during the' course of a painstaking, in depth investigation, that the roads in every region of our country contain design deficiencies of the hazardous and lethal sort which we have seen and heard described by our witnesses over a period of several days There will be testimony later on concerning conditions in other areas of the country However, we need not travel far to locate and identify built in hazards on our highways for they exist all around us I know from personal observation, just while driving in and around the Nation's Capital, that the sort of things Mr Lrnko and other witnesses have described can be found within a very short distance from right where we sit. PAGENO="0404" 400 One of the sections of our great Interstate System inspected by investigators from our staff was 1-495, better known as the Oapital Beltway. On Thureday of this week, when we next meet, we will hear an analysis of the beltway fromu staff member. His testimony will be supplemented by the comments of Mr. Prisk, whose continued presence at these hearings has been so helpful tous. The Capital Beltway was one of the first of the free Interstate circumferential highways completely encircling a major American city-and very properly it encircled the Nation's Capitai, together with the very rapidly spreading and growing metropolitan area. It is a wonderful convenience to the interstate traveler and to the hundreds of thousands of Washington metropolitan area residents who enjoy the use of it, who commute back and forth to work around `rnd through the `trea As with the testimon~ we have previously heard, the Ch'nr wishes to point out that, again, there is nothing peculiar to this highway alone. It is far from perfect, so far as roadside. hazards are concerned; but the lessons we may learn from its imperfections can be of great value to the people who design and build Our highways, both here and elsewhere. Another point I think, as Mr. Linko has made very clear, some of the lessons can be put into effect almost at once. Is that not true? Mr. LINK0. That is right~ I would like to point out again that 90 percent of the material that I am showing you has nothing to do wjth money. In other words, the job could have been done at the same cost, or even less, as the slides have shown Mr BLATNIK Yes If they just did not put obstacles there in the first place, it would give a better chance to the motorist, and chances of impact would be greatly reduced. We will recess our hearing at this time and meet again later on. Before adjournmg, I would like to recognize our colleague and very close friend,. Mr. (Jlausen, of California-and Mr. McEwen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My. comments will be brief. I think it is very necessary that on behalf of the minority, we recog- nize, Mr. Linko, you as an individual, and the great public service that you have provided. Certainly those of us that have had an opportunity to see your presentation have been most impressed. As a matter of fact, I quite honestly feel, Mr. Linko, with what you have done, its impact on our society certainly is comparable to the fellow who is going to find a solution in Vietnam. I mean this sincerely. As you know our former colleague, Mr Baldwin, was the initiator of safety amendments What you have done as `t layman, coming in before this committee, in my judgment is one of the great services to this country, not only now but in the future. I also .hope that whatever takes place following this particular hear- ing, there will be some action as a result of your efforts. I think, in short, it proves, Mr. Chairman, that many of our people-~ we tend to live in ivory towers and do not get down to the facts at hand. Here, as I understand it, is a television repairman-is that correct? PAGENO="0405" 401 Mr. LINK0. That is right. Mr CLAUSEN I think there ought to be reprints of this presentation sent out to prick the conscience of every engineer in this country I think they have been sadly lacking. I am a great respecter of engineers, but I think it should be on their conscience, because they, in effect, have been killing a great many Americans. I think it should be presented to people very forthrightly, so this thing does not occur. When a layman like this can come before the committee and make this sort~ of impression, I am just hopeful now that this committee will take the information and see that it is implemented immediately. Because, as I said, it is not a question of money. Mr. LINK0. Yes. And I would like to point out, millions can actually be saved every month. I have visited at random new highways and they still have these defects now. It can save millions right now, if only by not building more hazards. That is the point. Mr. CLATJSEN. I would think, frankly, the engineering organizations of this country would be well advised to take some copies of these photos and voluntarily see that these go out to their members. If they do not do this, I would think the committee would be well advised to see that they are sent to the service clubs throughout the country to prick their conscience. Some of the people injured or who lost their lives might have been members of your family It disturbs me greatly I think what you have done is one of the greatest services to mankind. Mr. LINK0. I am glad this committee will listen, because I have given this information out in the last 4 years to everybody, and nobody else has listened. Mr. MOEWEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. I would like to add also my appreciation to Mr. Linko for what he has presentOd. I think you have made us all very mindful of many of these situations that are repeated time and again on our highways I would say, Mr. Chairman, I would say to Mr. Linko, just. this past week when I had to drive quite a few hundred miles over our Inter- state System, I had occasion to observe there are improvements being made. For example, on 1-81 in New York State, between Binghamton and Syracuse, I noted there in the newer sections that have been opened where the guardrails are being buried, the ends of them. They. are being flared back and buried into the ground. After looking `it your slides prior to my trip of Fmt w eek, I found, Mr. Chairman, as I think all all of us on this subcommittee have, as we have been driving now we have been looking for a lot of these things that you have pointed out. I will say, Mr. Linko, I saw many of the things that you called to our attention that are still being repeated, particularly on location of signs where they could be placed back of guardra.ils and they are not placed back of them, or where a slight change in the location would take care of the situation. But I did note some improvements. One, on the flaring of the guardrails and burying them into the ground, and also I saw some better protection on some of our bridge abutments. PAGENO="0406" 402 Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to Mr. Linko, he has made a great contribution; and I think your testimony, more than the specifics that you brought to our attention is a reminder to all of us that we can get valuable information from people who are outside of our own particular profession or discipline. I am impressed that you, as a concerned citizen-not as a highway engineer-have looked at this and brought to us I think some of the most valuable information on highway safety that we have had pre- sented to this committee. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. I think that this sort of citizen effort must be recog- nized, and I do not know if there is anything in the way of reconm-ien- dation that could come from this particular committee to the appro- priate people, but this gentleman, in my judgment, is worthy of one of the high awards of this country for what he has done. If it would be in order, Mr. Chairman, and I think everyone on this committee would agree, I would like to see a resolution of commenda- tion to Mr. Linko. May we ask the sta.ff to draft a resolution and to make a recommendation in Mr. Linko's behalf to the appropriate people? If you think it is in order, I make the request. Mr. BLATNIK. I think it is definitely in order, and as I indicated in my statements earlier, certainly we had that in mind. I think both gentlemen, a.s usual, are both thoughtful and consider- ate with the suggestion. It may be a little premature to say at this time, but I believe, from what I have seen and what I have heard, and having some idea of the testimony yet to come, I believe that the hear~ ings, which have been started, were initiated, sort of launched by Mr. Linko's most revealing presentation. In every instance we have seen beneficial positive results from our hearings. I am confident the same thing will happen after these hear- ings. To that we owe you, certainly, more than just expressions we have made so far, and we will consider a suitable and more pertinent and more justifiable expression later on. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think that if this recognition is given-we are saying this, obviously, in front of the gentleman him- self-it is conceivable that other Americans would be motivated to make a similar effort. The fact he has taken the initiative on his own, in my judgment, has to be recognized, hopefully to improve the lot for every- one throughout the country. Mr. BLA~IK. Thank you, gentlemen. Again, may we thank the witnesses. The hearings for today are adjourned and the hearings will be resumed at 10 o'clock Thursday morning. (Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 8, 1967.) PAGENO="0407" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards THURSDAY, ~1UNE 8, 1967 HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL Sui~coMMIrri~ ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik (chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. Fallon (chairman), Blatnik (subcommittee chair- man), Howard, McCarthy, Cramer, Harsha, McEwen, Schadeberg, Denney, and Zion. Staff present: Same as previous days, and John P. O'Hara, associate counsel, and Mrs. June Teague, staff assistant. Mr. BLATNIK. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High- way Program will please come to order. We will resume hearings pertaining to the safety aspects of the Federal-Aid Highway System. As I announced at the close of our last session, today we will take up an analysis of the Capital Beltway, known as Interstate 495, which has been made by our staff. There are many favorable things that can be said on the positive or plus side of this modern section of multilane, divided highway that completely encircles the Nation's Capital. If I may suggest, let us keep in mind those features, including the great convenience to thousands of motorists every day, as we explore what might be some of the minus side or deficiencies in the area of this highway's design and operational efficiency. Our witness from the staff this morning will be John P. O'Hara, associate counsel; and in addition to our staff witness we continue to have present Mr. Charles W. Prisk, of the Bureau of Public Roads, who has contributed so much to our hearings. Mr. O'Hara, will you please stand and take the oath. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- ing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. O'H~A. I do. Mr. BLATNIK. Please be seated. Mr. Prisk, you are still under oath and will continue to be for the duration of these hearings. Mr. May. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Chairman, today we are going to receive an analysis of the Capital Beltway primarily from a statistical and road- side hazard viewpoint. At a later date in the hearings, we shall receive additional testimony on other aspects of the beltway. (403) PAGENO="0408" 404 Mr. O'Hara is one of our Nation's top investigators. He has served as associate counsel on the staff now for a number of years. He is not an engineer. He is not a design expert, but he has made this study of the beltway. Mr. O'Hara will you proceed with your presentation. TESTIMONY OP IC)HN P. O'KARA, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. May. Mr. Chairman, in December of last year I was assigned to look into the design features of the Capital Beltway around Washington. Mr. BLATNIK. Please proceed, Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'H~&i~A. In December of last year I was assigned to look into the design aspects and roadside objects on the Capital Beltway. I started out by acquainting myself with the beltway from one end to the other. At this time I would like to go to the map which we have mounted here. This is a map of the Capital Beltway [indicating] surrounding Washington, D.C. This is the Capital area in here where we are. The beltway circumscribing this area here [indicating] is a t~6-mile highway. Mr. BLATNIK. How many miles? Mr. O'HARA. Sixty-six. The last segment of this highway was opened in August of 1964, completing the circle. There are approximately 42~8 miles in Maryland, 22.1 in Virginia, and down here on the Potomac River on the Wilson Bridge, 650 feet which lie within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. The costs which we have ascertained to date have been $172.5 million. The Wilson Bridge was constructed entirely with Federal-aid money. Mr. W. MAY. One hundred percent Federal money? Mr. O'H~n~. That is correct, 100 percent Federal money. In the last 2 years, from 1965 through 1966, there were 2,676 acci- dents on this stretch of road. There were 50 fatalities. There have been 1,620 people injured. In connection with fatalities, I would like to mention this. We did not have complete statistics available for the year 1964. We did have fatal accidents. There were 10 in 1964. And in 1967, to June 6, Tuesday .f this week, there have been 17 additional fatalities. Breaking this down we find that, of the accidents in Maryland, there were 1,694 in this 2-year period. Mr. W. MAY. Excuse me. According to your figures, there have been 77 persons killed on the Capital Beltway since it opened in August of 1964? Mr. O'HARA. Approximately 3 years, 77 fatalities. Mr. W. MAY. Where did you obtain your statistics? Mr. O'HARA. The statistics I obtained came from the Maryland State Police for Maryland, from the Virgina State Police for Virginia, and from the District of Columbia Highway Department and the Metropolitan Police Department. PAGENO="0409" 405 Mr. W. MAr. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Just a moment. Mr. O'Hara, just repeat that. The last section was completed in 1964 so the system was completed as of August 1964. Is that correct? Mr. O'}IARA. That is correct. Mr. BLATNIK. From that time on, August of 1964 until this month right now, June 1967, over a period of time of 2 years and 10 months, how many persons have been killed on the beltway? Mr. O'HARA~ There have, been 77 people killed. Now in. connection with those fatalities, one of the fatalities may have occurred prior to August of 1964. We are not sure of the date on that. The statistics are not available, just the number of fatalities. Mr. BLATNIK. Will we have a breakdown later on as to the nature of these accidents? First the nature, where they run off the road,single car to fixed objects or collisions between two moving vehicles? Will we have that type of information? Mr. O'HARA. I will go into detail on some studies I made in some specific areas where we will use both statistics and slides. Mr. BLATNIK. You also have the geographical location of all acci- dents to show what sections of the beltway may be more a.ccident prone? Mr. O'HA1t~t. We will look into certain areas of the beltway, Mr. Chairman, where the accidents were much higher than in other sections. Mr. BLATNIK. Last question~ It is the first time I have heard the figure, of course, until the staff told me about it very recently. Why weren't these figures available sometime before? I have never seen them in any newspaper. Mr. O'HAiLk. I cannot answer that, Mr. Chairman. I can only say that in my travels around the beltway I discussed this with the various police agencies and learned that this information was available at the Maryland State Police and at the Virginia State Police. Mr. BLATNIK. Any central authority or central agency-did the Bureau of Public Roads know about the total fatalities? Mr. O'HARA. I have no information on that. Mr. BLATNIK. Will you check on that? Mr. O'HAii~. Yes; I will. Mr. BLATNIK. No one knows the total number because by dividing the responsibility the jurisdiction is spread between two States and the District. Unless there is central coordinating information on what accidents are happening, where and why, obviously there will be no way of correcting or removing or reducing the causes for those acci- dents. We will get into that later. Mr. O'HARA. Yes. In the course of my presentation I hope to show some of the areas that have high accident numbers. Continuing in discussion of statistical information on the beltway as regards accidents, this is a 20-percent increase in the number of accidents in 2 years. This is a 17-percent increase in the number of injuries and a 50 percent in the number Of fatalities for this 2-year period which was my period of study PAGENO="0410" 406 Mr. W.MAY. Thatisl966versusl965? Mr. O'HAm~&. That is correct. Mr. BLATNIK. Just one moment on that. I would like to have an analysis made or evaluation or interpretation, whatever you may call it, why accidents increase by only 20 percent, but fatalities by 50 per- cent. Are people going faster or is the volume of traffic greater? Are there more people getting onto the beltway as they learn it is more convenient and faster to get to wherever they want to go? It is a very significant figure. It seems to be a close relationship. But the deaths are 21/2 times greater-increased by 21/2 times-over the rate of accidents. Please proceed. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, I made a few detailed studies, and I, would like to show you where they are on the beltway before I turn this map around. The first one is this~ area, which is the interchange of. 495 and 270. At this point 495 is northbound and southbound roadway, and 270 is a 114-mile section connecting 495 with Interstate 70S, which comes down from Rockville andFrederick. The areas I would like to discuss are in this particular area of the 49~ and 270 interchange. Just for the record I would like to say my study in this area covered a radius of 1,000 feet from the interchange gore, that is where 495 veers to the right and 270 to the left. In this area in 1966 there were 78 accidents. And of those 78 acci- dents, 60 ran off the road, which is 77 percent. And of those 60 which ran off the road, 41 or 68 percent subsequently struck a fixed object. From the standpoint of injuries and deaths, there was one fatality and 49 injuries at this interchange in 1966. Mr. W. MAY. One year within 1,000 feet? Mr. O'HA1~. Yes. The second area I would like to discusss is the section known as the Rock Creek Park section of the Capital Beltway. This extends from the interchange at Pooks Hill, which has received some notoriety as the spaghetti bowl interchange, in an easterly direc- *tion 3.8 miles past the mterchange at Connecticut Avenue and ending at the interchange at Georgia Avenue. In this section, according to the records, in 1966 there were 219 accidents; 88 of the 219 were run off the road accidents, and of these, 55 subsequently struck a fixed ob- ject. In that same area there were four fatalities and 128 people injured in 1966. Mr. W. MAY. Thatis in a 3.8-mile section? Mr. O'HA1~. Yes. 3.8 miles of a 66-mile highway. Mr. W. MAY. You personally reviewed the accident reports over 1966? Mr. O'HARA. I reviewed every accident report that was available at the State police headquarters in Pikesville for that section. Mr. W. MAY. Thank you. Mr. O'HAn~. The third section is the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which is a 5,900-foot bridge connecting Virginia and Maryland, a very important segment of the Capital Beltway. Last year, 1966, there were 102 accidents with 2 fatalities and 107 injuries. In the 3-year period for which statistics were available to PAGENO="0411" 407 me for this bridge, 10 people have been killed here. That is 10 out of the 77 figure I mentioned earlier. Mr. W. MAY. Let us go back. In 1966, you say that there were 102 accidents which accounted for 107 injuries and twodeaths. Mr~ Prisk, you were somewhat surprised at those figures? Mr. PRIsK. Yes, I was. It seems to be a very weak spot, I would say, in the total beltway experience. Quite a concentration of accidents. Mr. W. MAY. You were surprised at the number of injuries relating to the number of accidents also~? Mr. PRISK. Yes, it is most unusual, this particular feature of it, to find as many or more injuries than you have accidents. Mr. W. MAY. Yes. All right, Mr. O'Hara. *Mr. BLATNIK. One point. Would that indicate, Mr. Prisk, having more iniuries th'tn accidents, would that indicate that the accidents were rather of a moderate to severe degree? Mr PRISK Defirntely so Norm'tlly injuries on a facility of this sort will run about half the number of accidents, so that you would expect perhaps 50 injuries on a freeway facility that had 100 accidents. This is not abnormal. Mr. BLATNIK. Is that over a high speed freeway? Mr. PrusK. Yes. Mr. BLATNIK. So it would be a normal situation? Mr. PRISK. Somewhere about 50 or 60 injuries per hundred accidents in not abnormal. Mr. BLATNIK. You have twice as many or about a hundred percent more injuries than would normally occuron a modern freeway system? Mr PRISK Yes Mr BLATNIK On this modern bridge which is part of the beltway ~ Mr. PRIsK. Yes, sir. This indicates very definitely a high severity location. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you. Mr. O'HAi~&. Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, I would like to point out these two aerial photographs. In this aerial photograph here [indicating] this is the segment of the Capital Beltway to the interchange at 270 crossing Old George- town Road, Rockvilie Pike, over to Connecticut Avenue and finally to Georgia Avenue. We will discuss this in some detail, and we will also discuss this area which is the interchange of 270 and 495 [indicating]. This second aerial photograph is a blowup of this outlined area in this first aerial photograph [indicating] Mr W MAY You took photographs of some of the design features of the Beltway ~ Mr. O'HA1t~&. Yes, I did. In connection with my survey in~ learning the beltway `as best I could, I took photographs of areas which I felt would be the scene of accidents. And at this point I would like to show you some of the objects and accident locations I found in re- viewing the State police records Mr W MAY Proceed Mr O'HARA Mr Chairman, this is a picture of an Interstite route marker which you will find on the Maryland portion of the Capital PAGENO="0412" 408 Beltway. Unfortunately the photograph is a little large for the screen. However, the shield is on top of those two steel I-beams. That shield is 36 by 42 inches. It is mounted on two steel, 4-inch I-beams, which are mounted in 3 feet, 6 inches of concrete. That is a concrete base at the bottom of those I-beams. :1 It ~ *.-.0 -. -~ j -p -.. -.:~ ~~~~_~1 PAGENO="0413" 409 This is a speed sign, which you will find on the Maryland side of the beltway. Again the sign is mounted on two 4-inch I-beams embedded in 3 feet, 6 inches of concrete. Mr W MAcI- Mr O'Hara, you previously showed the shield being held up by similar supports Are they located about the same place generally as the speed sign, a couple feet off the shoulder ~ PAGENO="0414" 410 Mr. O'HA~nA. Yes, they are generally right at the edge of the shoulder or. a couple feet beyond depending on the shoulder area available. Mr. W. ~ All right. Mr. O'HA1~. This is what happened. Here is a pickup truck which ran off the highway at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and struck the 1-495 route marker. As you can see, the sign is still there. As you can see from this slide, the pickup truck is pretty heavily damaged. Mr. BLATNIX. Is this the same truck? I. Ii L PAGENO="0415" 411 Mr. O'HARA. Yes. This is a closeup of the same truck. The driver received severe injuries in this accident. After the accident, the sign was put back up. This is a photograph I took subsequently of the exact location of the accident scene which we just looked at. Now the sign is mounted on one 4-inch I-beam. And this is what can happen to a vehicle which hits one 4-inch I-beam. This was a 1966 accident. The driver in this car was severely injured. PAGENO="0416" 412 Now we go over to the Virginia side of the beltway. This is a route marker used all along the Virginia portion of the Capital Beltway. Again, a couple feet off the shoulder area mounted on a 4- to 6-inch steel pipe embedded in concrete. SOUTH INTER31~r~. V~R:U~,A 495 PAGENO="0417" 413 And this is a Virginia speed sign mounted on a 4- to 6-inch steel pipe and embedded in concrete. This photograph was taken from in- side looking out across the traffic lanes of the beltway. It is about 2 feet from the shoulder. Mr. BLATNIK. Two feet from the shoulder? Mr. O'}]AitA. That is correct. 87-757 O-68-----27 PAGENO="0418" 414 Mr. BLATNIK. If a car should happen to go off at a speed of 60 miles an hour, which is not excessive for that beltway or any throughway like it, and hits a 6-inch steel pipe- Mr. O'HARA. That is correct. Mr. BLATNIK. A car traveling at 60 miles an hour, Mr. Prisk, hit- ting a. stee.1 pipe embedded in concrete, would it be possible to give some estimate of what might happen? Mr. O'HAi~. Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt here, I would like to show you what happened as recently as 10 days ago, in just such a situation. Mr. BLATNIK. Please proceed. Mr. O'HARA. This vehicle hit a sign similar to the one we were just looking at. This accident occurred on Interstate Route 95, and I am showing this only for the purpose of letting you see what happens to a vehicle which hits one of these steel posts. Mr. BLATNIK. Single-car-off-the-road type of accident, hitting the same type of steel post we just saw embedded in concrete? Mr. O'H~A. That is correct. Mr. BLATNIK. Hit no other- Mr. O'HARA. No other objects. Mr. BLATNIK. Or vehicle? Mr. O'HARA. That is correct. And in the lower portion of that photograph you can see the 50 number from the sign laying on the ground. Mr. BLATNIK. Fifty right at the very center? Mr. O'HARA. Right where the light is shining (indicating) you can see the 50. Now, in this accident four people were killed and five were injured. Mr. BLATNIK. Where did this happen and when? PAGENO="0419" 415 Mr. O'HARA. This happened on Interstate Route 95 just south of the Springfield exit on. May 29, 1967. In order to orient you on that loca- tion that would be about a mile and a half south of the Capital Belt- way, but this is the same sign that is used on the Capital Beltway. Incidentally, this is what happened to the sign. This is the sign that that vehicle hit. Mr. BLATNIK. Out of the ground? Mr O'HARA Th~tt is right You can see the concrete base where it was torn out of the ground. That is the bottom part of the sign. Mr. BLATNIK. It did not break tl~e steel post, did it? Mr. O'}IIARA. It bent it slightly. Mr. BLATNIK. Bent it, but did not break it? Mr. O'HAn~. No, sir. Mr. Chairman, this is a typical sign known as a destination sign, which you will see on the Capital Beltway. Again it is extremely large, mOunted on steel poles. PAGENO="0420" 416 Mr. W. MAY. Is that. located in Virginia? Mr. O'H~~RA. That is a Virginia sign on the Capital Beltway ]llst west of the interchange with Interstate Route 95. Notice there is no guardrail to shield the motorist from that sign. The steel poles are embedded in concrete. You have quite a bit of infor- mation for the motorist to reacT there, and again you will notice ~t is just. slightly off the shoulder area. On the. far side, the westbound lane, you see a similar sign, of the same mounting, and in the same general location. Mr. CRAMEII. How far off the right-of -way is that high-tension po~~1~ equipment right there? How far off the right-of-way is that? Mr. O'J-L~R~~. I have no information on that, Mr. Cramer. That may or may not he within the right-of-way. Mr. CRAMER. It looks even more dangerous than the sign, (Toes it not, from the cars speeding off the road? Mr. O'}f~R.~. Yes, sir, I would say it would be just as dangerous. Mr. BLvrxJI~. Can we have that checked; it is a very important poiiit. Mr. Prisk, a tower of that type would usually be off the right-of- way entirely, would it not? Mr. Pnisic Normally it would be off the right-of-way. The aline- ment here bears to the left. a slight curve as you see, and I expect the tower is off the right-of-way just about at the fence line. Mr. BLATNIK. We will have that. checked. But there could be cir- cumstances where the tower could he on the right-of-way: is that right? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Certainly, I would agree that there could be circum- stances where it could be in a more vulnerable location than this sign. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HARA. This is another type sign which you will find on the Virginia section of the beltway. Again you have an extremely large sign. Again, the steel post is mounted in concrete and again a few feet from time shoulder area. And here we have a concrete drain (indicating). Now the staff has seen photographs and the results of what has happened to a vehicle PAGENO="0421" 417 which has gone down this drain. It could lead you right into this sign support. Here is another sign on the Virginia side of the Capital Beltway. Again, the sign is mounted on the steel post embedded in concrete; but this time it is up against the bridge. And neither the bridge piers nor the steel posts have a guardrail to shield a motorist who might run off the road and run into it. And here is another sign on the Virginia section of the Capital Belt- way. I have shown this one to show you the amount of concrete which is above gi ound, especially on this right support PAGENO="0422" 418 Mr. W. MAY. Mr. O'Hara, you just did not select individual signs? Mr. O'HARA. No, this is not a single sign. There are many of these on the Capital Beltway. But these are best illustrative of the points I want to make. Again you will notice down here (circle) this is an emergency stop- ping sign only. It is mounted on a 4- to 6-inch steel pole similar to the poles the speed sign and route markers were mounted on. Mr. W. MAY. That is a real shame. The bridge piers in this particu- lar span are considerably off the shoulder and the motorist would nor- mally have considerably more recovery area than he generally does with the bridge piers that we haYe seen. But now t.hey have placed this pipe close by the shoulder, and created an obstacle. Is that right, * Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Very definitely so. That. is an elevated structure. There is plenty of lateral clearance to the right. Mr. W. MAY. That looks relatively iiinocent. Yet, we have just seen it can cause an accident. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HARA. This vehicle ran into a sign similar to the one we just looked at which had the concrete exposed above the ground. And in this accident. there were a number of injuries. Tile police officer who gave me this photograph was not sure whether it. was two or three but it was serious, and this accident occurred in 1966 on the Capital Beltway. PAGENO="0423" 419 Now, jumping over to the Maryland side of the Capital Beltway, this is `~. sign inst'tll'ttion which you will find ~Tong its 42 miles The sign here is mounted, not on. a steel, pole, but on an 8~ to 12-inch steel I-beam. The size of the I-beam will depend on the size of the sign. This particular one happens to be 8 inches, and again it is embedded in concrete Concrete c'tn be as much ~s 5 feet into the ground Notice thit the ro'Ld in this `irea is f'urly str'ught There is `i drainage ditch here `tnd f'urly steep b'tckslope [indic'tting] Mr. BLATNIK. If you hit that drainage ditch, it would be pretty h'ird to puli the wheel when it is soft It would be pietty h'Lrd to pull `~ wheel out of it Mr Pnisi~ Yes Cert'un designs on the ro'idside c'tll for `t rather rounded section of the ditch, fi'tt bottom type ditch This appe'irs tobeaV ditch Mr. BLATNIK. Would it lead a car right on into the sharp~ end of the guardrail first before hitting the sign; is that very likely' to happen? Mr. PRI5K. This very well could happen. That is true. Mr. O'HARA. As regards this particular sign, following is `aphoto- graph I took in December 1966. PAGENO="0424" 420 And when I was reviewing the police accident records, I found* that there had been an accident at this very location. The driver of this car, a young sailor, was killed. His vehicle got up on the embank- ment and hit just one of the sign supports, this 8-inch I-beam: PAGENO="0425" 421 This is the base of that sign support. And you support has not been damaged. can see that the The photograph speaks for itself `is to the vehicle Mr. BLATNIK. The vehicle is totally demolished and just a few scratch marks on the concrete and on the I-beam, is that right? Mr. O'HARA. Yes. Mr. W. MAY. That accident occurred prior to the time you took your photographs? Mr. O'HARA. Yes, it did. This accident occurred in October of 1966 and I took this photograph (fig. 3-17) in late December, or early January of 1967. Mr. `W. MAy. So your photograph depicts the way the situation stands today? Mr. O'HAn~. That is correct. That is the way it is now. PAGENO="0426" 422 Since we are speaking of guardrails, this is the same accident, and you can see that the guardrail did not stop him from get~iug behind and up to that sign support. Because here is the guardrail you saw in the first photograph. The car is in behind it. PAGENO="0427" 423 Now this installation of guardrails is typical of what you will find in M~ryland This p'trticular scene is just west of interchange 19 on the C'tpital Beltw'ty in M'tryland And look `~t this `Lre't, if you is ill You have a road which is curving at this point slightly to the left. Here is a, fixed object, a steel light pole. embedded in concrete. Here is the end of a guardrail meant to shield this sign. Yet there is an open space in here. The guardrail could have been longer. It could have come down~ here [indicating in front of light pole]. WHere they have discontinued the guardrail for a distance of 40 or 50 feet [indic'iting beyond sign] There is `t drain'tge are'i. in there They could have carried it in here, [indicating between two guardrails]. Back beyond the end of the guardrail here is a speed sign, mounted on two 4-inch I-beams, which could have been moved up behind the guardrail. This is what happens when a vehicle hits a guardrail. PAGENO="0428" 424 And in April of last year a woman driving on the beltway hit the end of this guardrail. The guardrail went through the front of her car, smashing her windshield, narrowly missing her and came out through the roof of her vehicle extending some 20 feet into the air. A couple of months later a similar accident occured on Interstate 70-S, and I show this photograph only to show that this guardrail installation is typical of what happens on the beltway and other roads. This guardrail which was facing us, as we are looking at this scene, is the end of the guardrail. This is the vehicle which ra.n into it. And in this case you notice that the sign is mounted on wooden posts. The runoff area is fairly smooth. It is not even, but it is~ not a deep drop either. PAGENO="0429" 425 And here is a closeup of that same car. The driver of this vehicle was severely injured. lie was alone. Maybe we should say fortunately. PAGENO="0430" 426 In August, a month later, on the Capital Beltway two young stu- dents ran into the end of a guardrail. In this case the guardrail again went through the car, through the windshield, through the passenger compartment, and out the rear window, extending many feet. ed_s ~s * / / / PflLflSS / Ii 4 PAGENO="0431" 427 It extended beyond the car. One person. was killed and one person severely injured. The same type guardrail installation. We can go to Virginia and we can find similar situations. Here you have a guardrail approaching a bridge. Here is a guardrail not flared back on the left. The guardrail runs up to the bridge parapet. lt is not anchored. On this side the guardrail extends back somewhat like an arrow. It ends at the bridge parapet. In this case they have taken the shoulder through the bridge. PAGENO="0432" 428 And here again is an accident in Virginia in 1966 where a driver hit the end of a guardrail, and the guardrail end went through the window, through the car, and killed the driver in this case. Mr. W~ MAY. Is there any question that guardrails should be more properly installed than what we have just seen in these photographs? Mr. PRISK.. I do not think so. The tests that have been made, and certainly the lessons that. are displayed all too gruesomely with ex- perience as recorded on these slides, I think teaches that the ends of guardrails need to be taken back away from the road, flared, anchored, otherwise smoothed into the approach alinemént so that you have a smooth surface where you have to introduce guardrails. 2/ Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this photo- graph was taken on Interstate Route 95 but it is used to illustrate PAGENO="0433" 429 what happens to a vehicle when it hits a guardrail. There were similar photographs from Route 495 in Virginia, but this one best illustrated the. point. This is a typical installation of a guardrail where it meets a. bridge parapet on the Maryland side of the Capital Beltway. This particular photograph was taken in December 1966. In checking the accident records I found there have been accidents at locations similar to that. This one occurred in December 1965, on the beltway where it crosses University Boulevard. This is in the area just west of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. This accident esulted in one death and one injury p 87-757 O-68----28 PAGENO="0434" 430 This is a location where 1 took a photograph in January 1967. The road at this point, which is just south of River Road as you are proceeding toward Virginia on the beltway, crosses over the Cabin Jo1~n. Parkway. The road begins to curve to the, right. And on the left your guardrail runs up to the bridge parapet. And on the right the guardrail is again like an arrow, and the shoulder is dropped as you go through the bridge. The guardrail goes up to the bridge parapet and is not anchored. And again checking the police records I found that that location was the scene of a fatality in 19~6 where the vehicle smashed into the guardrail and was led into the bridge parapet. I cannot show you a photograph of the vehicle. It was totally demolished and would not serve any purpose at this point. PAGENO="0435" 431 Mr. W. MAY. What is the recommended way of installing this guardrail? Mr. PRISK. At the structure, the rail should be brought onto the structure and made integral with the design of the structure itself, anchored firmly to the bridge structure. Mr. W. MAY. Anchored to the parapet itself? Mr. Puisic Yes, and in line with the configuration on the traffic side of the structure. This would be a rather difficult thing to do in this case perhaps with that curb there, but nevertheless could be done and is a necessary part of protection to the approach to these bridges. Mr. IV. MAY. Should the curb be there as we see it? Mr. PRI5K. No, that is not a desirable feature. That is a separate problem. Mr. W. MAY. If the curb was not there, then you could easily bring up that guardrail and anchor it to the parapet- Mr. P1115K. Yes, this is not difficult. It is necessary to make a pretty firm anchor because of the expansion-contraction of the guard- rail itself, which tends to pull it loose or possibly break the concrete at the end of the structure if you do not put it in there with proper design. But carrying the rail onto the face of that parapet wall that you see in the picture, about 3 or 4 feet, with proper anchorage through the parapet wall would hold the rail. Mr. O'HARA. Now this again is a Maryland sign. Again the 8-inch I-beams are anchored in concrete. There is a guardrail near the edge of the shoulder to shield a motorist from running up and striking the sign supports. The purpose of this picture, however, is to show the median. Here ar~ the bridge piers in the median which are unprotected where there is no guardrail to shield the motorist from running into them. The same thifig is true on the shoulder side. The guardrail ends before we get to this bridge. This particular overpass is at Lincoln Road. And when I was checking the accident records of the State police PAGENO="0436" 432 in March and April of this year I found that in September 1965 there had been a fatal accident at the very location which I have just shown you. This occurred at 4:30 in the afternoon. Now this is just illustrative of the type of damage and injury that can be sustained when you hit a bridge pier such as this. This is a photograph of the approach to the George Washington Parkway on~ the Virginia side of the beltway. In this area the road is curving slightly to the right. and again you. will see there is no guardrail to shield a motorist who might happen to wander down in this area [indicating]. Nor is there a guardrail on the southbound `1 -, ~ *..rqs PAGENO="0437" 433 shoulder [indicating] and there is no guardrail over on this side, the northbound shoulder. And in checking the accident records, I found that in April of last year this vehicle hit this bridge pier, killed three people and injured another. A few minutes ago I showed you a sign. And in the background was this particular bridge. There are a lot of things to look at here. We are approaching this from the south, heading toward Maryland. And for orientation purposes, this is just north of Dulles Airport.. There is a creek which passes under bot.h spans of this bridge. PAGENO="0438" 434 You will notice the bridge is boxed in. This is a solid piece of con- crete extending from the northbound lane to the southbound lane across the median. As you approach, you will notice a number of places where there is no guardrail. There is no guardrail here [indicating] in the median. There is no guardrail to protect a vehicle from the bridge parapet or from the end wall or from running off the road down into the creek. There is no guardrail on the far end of the bridge on the median side, northbound. There is no guardrail in the approaching southbound lane in the median. There is no guardrail at the end of the bridge in the southbound lane. And here we have the ever-present sign mounted on a 4- to 6-inch steel pole embedded in concrete. There is some guardrail here on the southbound shoulder. You see. guardrail in the southbound lane at. the end of the bridge, and this approach to the bridge parapet from the north. You see guardrail starting at the northbound end of the bridge. This guardrail is not anchored to the bridge parapet. at any location in this structure. You will notice they did carry the shoulder through this bridge structure on the Virginia section of the beltway. This is a bridge over the Capital Beltway. You are on the approach to the George Washington Parkway. The George Washington Park- way is up here [indicating]. These are the southbound lanes of the belt- way from Maryland, crossing into Virginia, passing under this bridge. To orient you again, the Cabin Jolui Bridge would be to your left. This photo looks toward WTashington on the George Washington Park- way, and this is the approach. You will notice the bridge parapet. There is no guardrail here at this end and nothing to prevent a vehicle from getting down into this lane of traffic below. The same situation exists on the far end of the bridge, and, in addi- tion, we have a speed sign which says "Speed Limit 40 Miles Per Hour," mounted on a 4- to 6-inch steel post. And there is the same situa- tion as regards the guardrail, there is none. . Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk, there is no question that there should be a guardrail at this location. I r~1 PAGENO="0439" 435 Mr. PIUsK. This would appear to be a very hazardous omission of guardrail. Mr. W. MAY. Thank y~u. Mr. O'HARA. Before I go t.o the next slide, I might add t.hat below here is your sign on the beltway. Again a 4- to 6-inch steel pole, "Emer- gency Stopping 0niy." Mr. CRAMER. Is this the George Washington Parkway? Mr. PRIsIC Yes, t.he upper structure is on the George Washington Memorial Parkway, Virginia. Mr. CRAMER. That parkway is a totally Federal project, is it not? Mr. PRISK. That is true. Mr. CRAMER. So nobody can suggest. that the State had any respon- sibilit.y relating to this struct.ure. This is enginee.red, paid for by the Federal Government, and engineered and supervised by the Bureau of Public Roads; is that correct? Mr. PRISK. This is correct. There is of course an agreement between the Bureau of Public Roads and the National Park Service concerning their facilities. T'hisst.ructure, at the same time, is just one of many that spans Interstate 495 and was built at the same time that Interstate 495 was built. Mr. CRAMER. The point I am making is, there was nothing in that agreement with the Park Service that suggested that highways should be built by t.he Bureau of Public Roads and at 100-percent Federal cost in this particular fa.shion, was there? Nothing prevented them from putting the guardrail up there? Mr. PRISK. Oh, no, not at all. Mr. CRAMER. Well, this seems to be a clear example of where there was entirely Federal responsibility and the traffic hazards were built into it. Mr. PRISK. I think that must be admitted. Mr. CRAMER. Yes, thank you. Mr. O'HARA. This is a typical Maryland gore area, which you will find on the Capital Beltway. This happens to be an interchange at River Road in Maryland. We are now looking southbound. This lane PAGENO="0440" 436 here [indicating] leads to Glen Echo on the Cabin John Parkway. There are a number of things to notice on this particular picture. It may be difficult for some of you to see some of the things I am going to point at. You will notice, first of all, this sign, which is for this lane, [indicating] is not. in the gore area, where you usually find a number of signs. They put. it over on the right, off the shoulder, and they put a piece of guardrail in front of the sign and flared it back. And yet in that gore area there is a sign which says, "No Hitch- hiking," which is mounted on channel irons. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. O'Hara, for the benefit of some of the visitors here, would you explain what a gore area is? Mr. O'HARA. Yes. Gore area is an area found on the highway, generally at an interchange area, where the motorist has to make a decision, as for instance here [indicating]. Here is a motorist on a collector-distributor road. He has to make a decision here, whether he wants to go this way to the right or whether he wants to go south on the Capital Beltway with the Cabin John Parkway. This area is known as a gore area [indicating]. Mr. W. MAY. That pie-shaped area. Mr. O'HARA. That is correct. Mr. BIJATNIK. What is the other phrase that Mr. Linko uses as you approach that type of gore area, with those. types of fixed hazards? Is it t.he area of indecision? Would that be correct, mornentarily,.for fleeting precious seconds, traveling at. 60 miles an hour; momentarily while ou are re.ading, your eyes bounce around, you are looking to the right and the left. and at the sign, and you register these impres- sions; a.nd you are trying to decide, what am I to do, t.urn off here or next exit? Mr. O'HARA. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. It is an area, such as t.he gore area, where four times as many accidents take place, is that not true? Mr. O'HAm.&. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Prisk, is that correct., gore areas such as this- how do you say it-you have four times t.he ac.cidents here as any other place on the freeway? Mr. PRISK. The drivers are four times more frequently running off the roadway at gore areas than other points on the road. Mr. BLATNIK. Right. Mr. PRISK. Four times more frequently. Mr. BLATNIK. Therefore, we have to give, at least four times more attention for these areas, for sign construction; would that not be true? Mr. PRISK. Correct. Mr. CRAMER. As you indicate, that Glen Echo sign on the left was taken out of the gore area. But it looks like just a little bit beyond the gore area in the line of the curve, they have planted some trees, have they not?. Mr. O'HA~. Are you referring to this area? Mr. CRAMER. The area to t.he left. Mr. O'HARA. There are a number of evergreens and small shrubs in here. There are some small trees at this time. Mr. CRAMER. Of course they will grow, I presume. Mr. O'HAIt~&. Yes, they generally do. PAGENO="0441" 437 Mr CRAMER And so these beautiful trees ~s ill become just as much a hazard from a standpoint of safety as any other obstructions put th'~t close to the highway, is th'it not correct9 Mr. O'HARA. Yes, sir, they do become hazards. Mr CRAMER And of course these `ire planted right in the direct line of where a car out of control would go if it got off the road and turned that corner? Mr. O'HARA. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. They did not plant the trees on the right, where you might miss them, hut they planted them on the left where, if you over- accelerate, you would run right into them. This appears to be being done all over the highway system. Mr. O'HARA. Yes, sir. I will show you some trees shortly. Mr CRAMER What price be'tuty ~ Mr. O'HARA. Again in the same area you will notice this gore area on the right Here is the sign mounted on 8 inch I beams imbedded in concrete. The guard rail, to shield the motorist from running into it, is placed in front. The sign could have been placed over in here off the right shoulder and cantilevered as the Glen Echo sign is. Again you will notice they have taken part of the shoulder here. You see the shoulder starts back here, beyond the sign. They took part of the shoulder, apparently, to put this sign in here. Here is a light pole mounted right behind or at least adjacent to that piece of guardrail. Notice one thing, if you wilL This light pole is located very close to the roadway. You will notice the bracket arm is a lot shorter `than the one on this light pole over here, which is close to the bridge where I was standing. The same situation is true of the other light poles on this curve. They have a shorter bracket arm. We see that there are longer bracket arms available where the poles could have been put back further from the roadway. The shoulder again is lost up in this area beyond the gore. They take it back again, and that is for this lane which is coming in over here. There is merging traffic from here and from here and from here. This lane on the left is a fast lane off 495. This is your collector- distributor road on the. right, your exit ramp to River Road turning right at the gore area, and your entrance ramp from River Road to get onto the Capital Beltway or the Cabin John Parkway, beyond the grass plot above the sign. This is typical of gore areas in Maryland. In reviewing records I found this accident, which occurred last year, on t.he Capital Beltway, in Prince George's County. In this accident the motorist was in this right lane, which is the deceleration lane to leave the beltway. This second lane is your slow lane. The motorist hit this curb on the right, which is about nine inches in height. He bounced off the curb, slid over into the slow lane, and sideswiped the other vehicle. The two of them ended up sliding into the guard rail, which is pointed like an arrow. There is a piece that comes out this way from the right, and another piece that comes straight at you from this direction, behind the vehicles. PAGENO="0442" 438 This gore area is not one with a deep drop. If the vehicles had run in there, they prob'ibly could ha~ e esc'~ped with no injuries or maybe minor injuries. This sign could have been placed. over here off ~to the right and cantilevered. The sign is your point of last decision. If you have not made your decision now, you are in trouble, especnily if you ~re out here in the slow lane and you want to be in here in the deceleration lane [indicating]. / / This is a gore area on the Virginia side of the beltway. They do the same thing on that side. Here is your deceleration lane leaving the Capital Beltway to get on Route 50. This is a collector-distributor ~ - I ~ :.\ ~ I PAGENO="0443" 439 road. I will iiot go into detail on collector-distributor roads, because this will be covered in another hearing. Here is your gore area. This is very even, and yet the sign is in there, mounted on steel poles, while over on the shoulder-this sign could have been mounted and cantilevered over the roadway somewhat in advance of this gore area. Just beyond this you see the merging traffic sign, again mounted on the 4 to 6 inch steel pole Now we are back in Maryland. This is known as a bridge sign. It is for the eastbound lane in this area. I say eastbound because actually the beltway has no direction; it goes north, south, east, and west, in completing its circumference ~f Washington. In this area we happen to be eastbound. There are a number of things to notice. First of all, you have a sign, food and gas, mounted on two channel irons, a few feet off the shoulder. Just beyond that you have a light pole with a bracket arm carrying the light over the traveled portion of the roadway. Just in back of that light pole is a piece of guard rail, which runs somewhat beyond this concrete support for this sign bridge. The guard rail could have come around in front of this light pole instead of where it is. The bridge sign is mounted in concrete. Some of these concrete supports for bridge signs can be as much as 6 to8 feet long, 3 feet wide and 10 feet into the ground. Notice the piers on the bridge. There are no guard rails to shield a motorist from running into them As you enter the Maryland beltway from Virginia, after crossing the Wilson Bridge, this is the interchange with Interstate 295. We are now looking eastbound. There are a number of things to benoted here. First, the steel light pole; Secondly, a no parking sign mounted on a channel iron. Thirdly, a route marker, the I-beams and concrete. PAGENO="0444" 440 Another light pole, a merging traffic sign, another light, and so on down the roadway. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. O'Hara, will you pause for one moment. We have been pleased to have a very fine delegation of students from the fifth and sixth grades of the Jackson School with us today. They are now leaving to meet with the Speaker, in the Speaker's office in the Capitol. Would you i~aise your hands ~ (Raising of hands.) Mr. BLATNIK. Mrs. Nancy Elisburg is the teacher of Jackson School's fifth and sixth grades. One of the students is Patricia Carroll. Her dad is Mr. Sterlyn Carroll, who is on the staff of the Committee on Public Works and has been for quite some years. We welcome the students, and I hope this gives you some idea of how a committee of Congress works. This particular committee is the Committee on Public Works. This committee is responsible for the Federal-aid highway system, especially the Interstate Highway System. Mr. George Fallon, from Baltimore, who is here this morning, is the chairman of the committee and the leader and original author of this highway program. Today we are studying how to makethe highwaysmore safe for you young people. We have made them very safe, but there are still more improvements to be made. This is true of anything. No matter how good it is, it can be made a little better. We want to make these highways so good that, when accidents do happen, it will be no one else's fault but the person who has been driv- ing. We are doing everything possible to help you. Thank you for visiting us, and I hope you have an enjoyable day. Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'H~u~. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The light pole which you see here on the left of the picture is a steel pole approximately 28 feet in height, together with the mounting PAGENO="0445" 441 bracket which gives it an overall height of 30 feet. The steel pole is mounted on a minimum of 5 feet of concrete. Now, the base plate to which the pole is attached is anchored to the concrete by four 1-. by 40- inch bolts. And this is class A concrete with reinforcing rods. I would like to show you what happens when these light poles are hit. In November of 1965 the doctor driving this car, according to the witnesses and the police reports, was driving at about 50 miles an hour. He hit this light pole. He was killed, arid there is his car, broken into two pieces. PAGENO="0446" 442 A month later, in December of 1965, again on the beltway, this ve- hicle hit this light pole. The driver was killed. Damage to the vehicle is evident. Here is the light ~pole. In February of last year, in this accident, three people were injured hitting this light pole, which was knocked down. The following month, in March, this vehicle hit this light pole. There is the concrete base, partially out of the ground. One person was killed and two injured. PAGENO="0447" 443 In June of last year this accident resulted in serious injury to one person when the vehicle struck this light pole. And in November of last year, two men wer~ returning from a fish- ing trip. There is your travel ]ane of the beltway on the left. Next to it is yrnir shoulder. They hit this light pole. If. killed one maii and in- jured the other. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. O'Ha.ra, it is well for us to remember that there are such things as breakaway type light posts? Mr. O'HARA. Yes, sir; there are. PAGENO="0448" 444 Mr. W. MAY. We have learned that in those localities that have in- stalied the breakaway light poles the experience has been wonderful in that people do not get killed. Mr. O'}L~uA. Yes,. sir. I am glad you mentioned that. I did not want to get ahead of myself. I think this will be covered in another hearing. Mr. BLATNIK. But Mr. May has had pictures, slides by Mr. Linko, showing that with aluminum type pipes or poles for lights, where the concrete was flush with the ground, the aluminum would shatter with minor damage and minimum damage to the occupants. Mr. O'HARA. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. What is the guideline or guiding factor in the de- termination by a State, whether to use a rigid-fixed steel pipe or alumi- num pipe or some breakable material for light stands, Mr. Prisk? Is it left up to the States to choose, or are there any directives or guide- lines sent out by the Federal bureau.? Mr. PRISK. On Federal-aid projects in general, of course, we have asked that due attention be given to getting as much competition as possible between suitable types of materials that. are alternately em- ployed in the usual design practice. It comes down to steel and alum- mum. We have talked exactly the same way, that competition should be maintained at the best possible level in the interest of an economic progrant But we have attempted to point out also the features that relate to this shearing off that occurs with the lighter type of pole. You may make a pole that will shear off out of steel or aluminum, either one. The aluminum basically is more brittle material. But, de- pending upon the alloys, steel or aluminum can both perform satis- factorily, reasonably well. The State makes the initial determination, of course, and we give our approval to the pole. In this case, evidently the State of Mary- land decided to use the steel pole, and very obviously we must have approved it. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. O'Hara. This occurred in January of this year on the beltway, resulting in a fatality. This is the light pole that was struck. PAGENO="0449" 445 And again in January, another fatality, and a serious injury in this accident. The subject of light poies became of interest to me when I saw all the accidents that were recorded in the accident files of the State police in Maryland. Maryland has lighted the Capital Beltway only in the interchanoe areas. There is no lighting on the Virginia side, although their concruits are set up so that the light poles can be installed in the future. When I checked the records concerning light poles, I found that 124 light poles were struck on Interstate 495 from 1965 through Feb- ruary of this year, which was the latest figures that were available. In this same period nine people were killed in light pole accidents on the beltway, out of the total of 77 killed in the last 3 years. In checking the beltway and trying to d~tcrmine where the light poles were being hit, I found that eight light poles had been reported hit a total of 19 times. Three of these poles had each been hit three times, and five poles each had been hit twice. And again, in reviewing accident records, there were 50 injuries sustained in 1966 in the reported light pole accidents. The 61 struck light poles reported in 1966 accounted for 26 percent of the fixed-object accidents. And, incidentally, the cost to repair the light poles was approxi- mately $22,500. This does not includedamage to vehicles. The light pole repair can vary in cost, in amounts up to $700 de- pending on the extent of damage. And of the cost sheets available to me on certain light poles which had been struck, most of them ranged from $400 to $600 per pole. 87-75'T O-~6S-~-~29 PAGENO="0450" 446 Of the light poles that I was able to identify, where I was able to say that light pole number so-and-so was hit at. such a location, I was able to identify 15 as being struck at. Interchange No. 17 from November of 1965 to February of this year. I would like to add one other thing. In reviewing the accident records, and in discussing light ~oies in particular, I found that, of the 2,186 light poles on the beltway, many of these are on the roads which cross over or pass under the beltway; and, as such, accidents involving these light, poles would be reported on that. road and not on the beltway itself. This is an art.ist's drawing of Interchange No. 17 on the beltway. This is the area. where I found many of the light poles which had been struck. This is 495 going north, and turning east toward Be- thesda and down in t.his lower left. area is Bradley Boulevard. This road extending to the top is Interstate 270 as you head toward Rock- yule or Frederick, Md., this bottom lane being the eastbound lane to 495 and the top lane is t.he westbound lane. This is Greentree Road crossing over the beltway. This area I will cover in some detail in the next several slides, but in this slide here these dots which are alongside the black line are light poles which are mounted approximately 2 feet from the edge of the shoulder. The clark line would indicate the lanes of travel. You notice this light pole in here in what we described before as the gore area was hit iii December of 1965, and again on October 14, 1966. It. was hit twice in that gore area. Going slightly around the curve, here is another light pole, No. 7, which was hit three times last year, and incidentally, between October 25 and November 9, the pole was hit in this particular location, and while it. was being repaired, it was struck again before the repairs were completed. So you have two accidents in that location within a relatively short period of time. INTERSTATE 495 & 270 MARYLAND 1966 liGHT POLES AS ROADSIDE HAZARDS P6U $t~15s4~o~ POLl s31 & 02740 26.1141 ~oo ~ ~ ( .`SY'~ia1 ,~ 107166. cer.lz~ ~. * ~11 fl 21.66 3' 1~ * ..~ 534$JIT 52 3 .~" P~.t5 466 ~s.i' FLf~3C ._._... - *.~ ~ 0 11.66' Ii, ~ POLE `1 1 16-66 .." ,,*~v*q s'susr~ ~ 33~' 55 10166 -SMIII'i.*i'st ~&~1~'(~ 11346 -_.. POll 27-10fl16:' *53 tbb 142~~2 55 s;c 25 I'S VS2C~' `1)~44 it'siC `ScIs $2~oc*1D~MAG3 POU~'?9i745 S'lsrs `101405 sss~s~e cL~' 11SO~C~ (`S 1314 tc6ICT POLl St&flST!C~ I cir~as ~trwio MAInANO sruios I `S1~s~5Jt~fl 31O~VQS4'PCL~ Llr~Ii1 3251 *Ct5D12IT13~Q3T1D MIP I 5330335*1 j*'s*UlIH? 23 01*1010 L,0143 PQtiI 1,11*0 PCC)3IMT II'OITIDPI1 SIC L1!PLAcIDP~~ PAGENO="0451" 447 Another light pole which received more than its share of strikes, but is not reported as being on 495, is this light poie here [indicating] No. 31. This light pole was hit three times last year from July through October. This light pole here, No. 30, and this light pole, No. 31, would not be recorded, as I said, on 495, even though they are in the interchange area. I would like to point out one thing before I move on. You will notice that we have a succession of ]ight poles being struck on 495 around the curve. This light pole, and this one arid this one and this one, a.ll being struck last year. And I wondered what about this light pole here [indicating] No. 6. Here is a light pole that is one out of several that has not been struck. So, in going back to the interchange area, I marked off the poles and I found out why it was not struck. You will notice that we are now at the gore area or approaching the gore area. This is 495, and we are looking north. If you will look at this map over here [indicating on map], this aerial photograph, this is the approach to the interchange area, 495 running this way to the right and 270 running north. I was standing right about here when I took this photograph. [Indicating.] This is the light pole in question, where the arrow is pointing. And you will notice the reason why it has not been hit. There is a. huge piece of concrete just in front of that light pole. The reason why that concrete is there is another story. At this point I am going back to Bradley Boulevard, which is the Qverpass 1,000 feet from this gore area, the interchange of 495 and 270. PAGENO="0452" 448 We are now approaching that gore area. I am standing on Bradley Boulevard. There ar~ a number of things I would like to point out here. First of all it is a. four-lane highway, northbound. This is 1,050 feet, roughly, from where we are to where the two roads divide at the gore. I noticed, in talking to the police and standing out here making observations, that there were a number of vehicles which ran across this area in here which we call a gore area. This photograph was taken last Friday morning. I have a number of these, but this gentleman up in the gore just below the arrow was traveling in the fast lane of 495. He suddenly realized he wanted to be over here on the right. He had to make his move against this vehicle to his right and against these vehicles over in the other lanes. He narrowly missed the light pole, which is in that gore area which I showed in the last photograph. He got by the light pole. In this area, in this northbound lane, there were 16 accidents and 13 people injured in 1966. Six were single-vehicle accidents, where tbo vehicle ran off the road and struck a fixed object. Now, that is within 1,050 feet. In order to familiarize you more with this area, I am going to backtrack another 1,000 or 800 feet from Bradley Boulevard toward River Road. This photograph shows a bridge sign which is over 495. At this 1)Oillt 495 is a four-lane roadway with a 12-foot shoulder and a 60-mile- per-hour speed limit. Just before this area there is a sign off the shoulder which advises that Interchange No. 17 is 1 mile ahead. It says "Junction 270 to 70S North 1 Mile"-this then is the next sign you see, approximately 1,700 to 1,800 feet from the interchange gore. This sign says, "Rockville-Frederick"; it has two arrows. This sign says, "Baltimore-Bethesda," and has two arrows. Again the speed limit in this area is 60 miles an hour. I. ~ -~ PAGENO="0453" 449 Now we are going to go forward where we were before, back up beyond Bradley Boulevard and just short of the gore area. This is the next sign you see. This is about 100 feet in advance of the gore area, telling the motorist this is 270 if you turn left; if you bear to the right you are on 495. You will notice the concrete on the left side of the road (arrow). Before, I talked about a light pole which is to the right of this truck and there was a piece of concrete in front of the light pole. And I wondered why that was there. And I looked at them and I could not figure it out. I went to the State police and county police and I talked to them. fr~~' \ \, ~~iiI PAGENO="0454" 450 And I found out that in 1964 this steel sign pole aiid this concrete base had been there. On each side of the roadway that huge piece of concrete we were looking at before was the base for a sign support. In March of 1964 this vehicle was traveling northbound on 495. He came to this area. He was traveling on the right side of the beltway. He realized lie waiited to be over here on the left. He lived in Frederick, Md. So he decided to cross over. Unfortunately he did not make it. He hit that steel pole, resulting in serious injury to himself. And this is what's left of his car. Subsequently that sign was removed and brought to where it is at the present time. This is the same area. :4 T / `1 PAGENO="0455" 451 This is the piece of concrete upon which that sign support had been; on the left is the piece of concrete we referred to before, and you will notice they have lighted the interchanges on the beltway and here we have a steel light pole just in back of where the steel pole had been for the gore area sign. So we have taken one steel pole away and we have replaced it with another. In addition, you see here a number of 4-inch I-beams. The exact purpose of these, I do not know. It might be to prevent vehicles from crossing this area after they have passed and failed to negotiate the turn they wanted, and maybe this is the reason they put them in there. You have a "no hitchhiking" sign mounted on channel irons and there is a reflector, which at night is visible for a few hundred feet. Now I am going to take you on 270, which is this road leading to the left, and following that we will go this way on 495 to the right. But first let's go on 270. And the next photograph you will see was taken just as we get under this overpass which is the westbound lane of 495. This is what you see as you go under that overpass. The road is curving gradually to the left. Here you have bridge piers. Then the light pole, a route marker mounted on 4-inch I-beam, another light pole, and steep backslope. And over here off the shoulder, in the median, is a drainage ditch. I studied this area and I selected 1,000 feet as a stopping point. I found in 1966 there were 25 accidents in this northbound lane in 1,000 feet in which 18 people were injured, and 22 of the 25 accidents were single vehicles which ran off the road. Fourteen struck the fixed objects we are looking at, bridge piers, light pole, route marker, and so forth. Four ran off the road and overturned; they probably hit a ditch; the accident reports are not too clear on that; 22 of these 25 accidents I am discussing occurred within 300 to 400 feet of this gore area interchange. So you can see that taking 1,000 feet, there were oniy three that occurred beyond 400 feet. PAGENO="0456" 452 The majority of them occurred from this point to just beyond the 270 route marker. This route marker is mounted on a 4-inch I-beam, and in checking the accident records I found that in April of last year: This vehicle ran off the road and hit that 4-inch I-beam. It took that 270 marker off the I-beam. The driver was injured, and again this is what those 4-inch I-beams can do to a vehicle. 1/ A PAGENO="0457" 453 And 2 weeks ago it was hit again. Still in the same place, still on the same 4-inch I-beam. Now we go back to that gore area we were discussing before, where I told you we would look eastbound on 495. In this section of road w~hich cui~ves slightly to the right and then straightens out, `again I se,lected a distance of about 1,000 feet. And this generally was the area within w1~ich the accidents occurred, although the distance to Green- tree Road is about 1,300 feet; but I used 1,000 feet, give or take a couple hundred feet. In this area last year there were nine accidents and five people injured. Eight of the nine accidents involved single vehicles. Six hit the light poles we discussed earlier in this area. PAGENO="0458" 454 Now, I am just going to back up for this one slide, to show you where we will be next. This top lane is the westbound lane of 495. We are looking north. This right lane is 495 to the east, and we have already been on 270 to the north. We are now going to discuss this section of the road up here. On the aerial photograph we are going to start about this area here [indicating on aerial photograph], which is Greentree Road, and come around this curve to where 1-495 meets 1-270 coming down from Rockville and Frederick, Md. This first photograph, taken just east of Greentree Road, shows Greentree Road overpassing the beltway. This is westbound. This is an area of three traffic lanes, with 12-foot shoulder. The design speed T I - PAGENO="0459" 455 here is `TO miles an hour. The speed limit is 60 miles an hour. And here we have a sign with a recommended or advisory speed of 50 miles an hour, warning you of a curve ahead. Notice the light pole just off the shoulder. The concrete piers in the median and on the shoulder are unprotected. The next photograph is taken from the bridge at Greentree Road. I want to give you a view of what is facing a motorist traveling ii~ this direction. You will notice the light poles continuing on around the curve on 495. Over here in the median, small shrubs planted along here; guardrail not flared back, running toward and ending short of the curve. The next photograph was taken about where this light pole is [indi- cating] in the curve. Last year, in this stretch around the curve, there were 24 accidents and four more occurred just beyond this curve in that short stretch to Bradley Boulevard. PAGENO="0460" 456 So we have a total of 28 accidents with one person killed and 13 injured, and 20 of the 28 accidents involved single vehicles which ran off the road and hit fixed objects. Now, we will go closer to the area of the curve. I Here we are aproaching it. To orient you, this is the bridge which passes over the northbound lane of 1-270. This guardrail is short. It could have come back further. We are in a curve, curving gradually to the left, and it seemed to me a. car could run off in here, in between the guardrail end and the light pole. The guardrail is pointed at you and you are continuing around the curve, and I will discuss this bridge parapet in just a few seconds. First, I will discuss this guardrail. Here off the shoulder you have a drainage ditch, with a steep back- slope. There is a concrete headwall but you cannot see it, nor can many other people. This is the problem with grasscutting equipment. They cannot get close enough to these things, to clear grass and weeds which hide the headwall. In checking the accident records, I found that in May of 1966 a man got behind this guardrail, hit the concrete headwall, turned his car over, and it killed him. Six months later, again 1966, same location, a man got to that guard- rail, and caught the end of it. He got past the concrete headwall, and managed to get over that chain-link fence, and down into the north- PAGENO="0461" 457 bound lanes of Interstate 270, which is not visible here. He was severely injured. PAGENO="0462" 458 This is the same bridge parapet I was talking about a few seconds ago. There are a number of things to note here. The full shoulder ends before the bridge. The guardrail comes back in toward the bridge parapet. There is a slight shoulder on the bridge. This is a raised curb, and a bridge parapet with guardrail not anchored. This is that same bridge parapet which in November of 1966 was struck by a vehicle. The vehicle first hit the guardrail, and you can see the guardrail gave way. The vehicle was carried into the bridge parapet. In this particular accident, the vehicle then went across the road-through three lanes of traffic, and slammed into the bridge parapet on the other side, as seen in this picture. PAGENO="0463" 459 This bridge is skewed somewhat. He was able to hit the parapet end of the other side of the bridge. That accident was in November 1966. This photograph was taken in December 1966, 1 month later. This is the way the guardrail was installed after the accident. In checking the records I found in January, 1 month after I took the 1ast photograph, 2 months after the first accident, a man traveling in theY same location went off the road, hit the guardrail which guided him into the parapet and he was killed. PAGENO="0464" 460 Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk, if we made a mistake in the first instance and we had a serious accident and had to go back and fix up the guard- rail, we had another opportunity to do it correctly, did we not? Mr. PRISK. Yes; obviously. Mr. W. M~&~r. This picture (figure 3-75) was taken after the first accident? Mr. O'1L~. In December 1966, 1 month after the first accident. Mr. W. 1~L~r. It shows you the way it was reinstalled. Mr. O'H~A. Yes. One month later we had this accident (figure 3-76) resulting in a fatality. We saw a few minutes ago t.he other side of the bridge, where the vehicle hit the guardrail and parapet on the right and then came across and hit this parapet here. This photograph was taken in late December or early January of this year. In checking the accident records, I found that in September of 1966 this vehicle ran into the guardrail and hit that same bridge parapet we are talking about, again resulting in a serious injury. You will notice at the left in the picture there is quite a backlog of traffic on 1-270. Mr. BLATNIK. That is 1-270? Mr. O'HArLA. This is 1-270 (indicating) and we are on 1-495. We are looking down here where the line of vehicles is stopped. Mr. BLATNIK. What is the reason for that line of traffic? U PAGENO="0465" 461 Mr. O'HARA. In checking the accident records, I found that 15 minutes before this accident occured there were two other accidents in the northbound lanes of 1-270. In the first one, the vehicle ran off and slammed into a light pole. And in the second accident the driver wanted to avoid debris from the first accident, and he ran off the road and overturned. You had two accidents blocking both lanes of traffic on 1-270 and this accident in the westbound lane of 1-495, all within 15 minutes. 87-757 O-68------30 PAGENO="0466" 462 This shows you what happens to the front of a vehicle when it hits one of these bridge parapets. This is the same accident we were just talking about. This photograph was taken last month. Mr. W. M~r. That is the way it is today? Mr. O'HARA. This is the way this interchange is today, after the accidents I have just shown you. PAGENO="0467" 463 Mr. W. MAY. Same as before? Mr. O'HAn~. Same as before. No changes have been made. (Mr. Howard assumed the chair.) Mr. W. MAY. All right, Mr. O'Hara. Mr. O'HAIL&. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss another area of the Capital Beltway; where I made some studies. This i.s a view of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, looking from Vir- ginia across the Potomac River to Maryland. This 5,900-foot segment of the Capital Beltway cost over $14 million and was opened to traffic on December 28, 1961. It has two 38-foot roadways, with three 12-foot traffic lanes, divided by a 4-foot concrete median with a 9-inch beveled curb. Of the 77 fatalities we have been talking about on 1-495 for the last 3 years, 10 were killed here; 13 percent. Last year there were 102 accidents, with two killed and 107 injured. I would like now to take you down on the bridge. This is the view from the Virginia side. It shows the tower which is on the drawspan portion of the bridge. PAGENO="0468" 464 The bridge passes through three jurisdictions. We are in Virginia right now. In front of us you can see just about all that is in the District of Columbia, 650 feet. Now, this 650 feet begins at about. the point where that diamond-shaped sign is that tells you there is a drawbridge, and ends beyond the drawspan or bascule leafs. You will notice the speed limit is 60 miles an hour, and you have three traffic lanes each way. There is a traffic light which hangs over one lane of traffic. We will discuss this a little more, very shortly. This is the tower from which the man who operates the drawspan has a commanding view of both approaches. This is looking from the tower toward Maryland. You will notice above the car between the two trucks in the westbound lane, which is facing us, a traffic light which hangs over the inside lane. And directly below us, where the vehicle is heading eastbound, that is the bascule leaf which raises. I 1~ ,-~J vf~. jt ~ .... This is looking from the tQwer toward Alexandria, Va. Here I want to show you, first of all, the traffic light which is just above this truck. And here in the middle of the photograph is a barrier gate [arrow]. This is a gate which swings from the side of the bridge to stop traffic when the operator is going to operate the drawspan. Before he can swing this gate, he has to have the traffic stopped. And this is somewhat of a problem to the operators I have talked to. First of all, they have to sound a horn or a siren, to warn the motor- ists that the drawspan is going to open. The traffic light turns from green to yellow and finally to red. And finally, when the traffic is stopped, the barrier starts to swing from the side of the roadway, and it has three red lights on it. They are hard to distinguish now, but there are three red lights which flash. The barrier crosses the three lanes of traffic. The same situation exists on the approach from Maryland. PAGENO="0469" 465 The effectiveness of these barriers and these lights is questioned. When you talk to the operators they tell you they have had some prob- lems with some drivers getting beyond this barrier. In one instance, one of the operators told me that he had 17 vehicles stopped on the bascule leaf which was about to be raised. He had to go out on a cat- walk with a megaphone and chase them off the bascule leaf so he could *open the clrawspan for the approaching ship. This is not just an isolated incident. It has happened a number of times, but this one occasion of 17 vehicles on the bascule leaf impressed me. Mr. W. MAY. He leads an exciting life. Mr. O'HARA. I would say so. He has many experiences to talk about. This is the approach to the draw portion of the bridge from the Maryland side. This is the first sign that you see. This sign says, "Draw- bridge Ahead." It is 700 to 800 feet from the actual drawspan. PAGENO="0470" 466 Mr. W. MAY. This is a very poor sign. A motorist, can travel many miles on our Interstate System, over toll roads and expressways, and if this is the first. drawbridge he comes to after traveling at a high sp~d, this is his first notice. Mr. O'HAit~t. That is correct. Mr. `W. MAY. I would like to point. out. a personal experience. I travel this daily, and that. sign is normally pointed toward the airplanes coming up the river from the south. Mr. O'I]LtnA. As in this slide. Mr. W. MAY. It is continually, in some fashion, moving down the road and away from the motorist, so no longer is lie able to see this sign. Mr. O'HAn~. That is correct. Mr. W. MAY. Do you have another sign as you move along? Mr. O'HA1t~t. We have already discussed the motorist who has trav- eled a great distance on the Interstate System, and here is a small sign that says, "Drawbridge Ahead." Mr. W. MAY. Excuse me. If you were over in the left lane, traveling at a high speed, with the right kind of angle you would not see it anyway? Mr. O'HAn~t. That is the point I was about to make. If that truck (fig. 3-85) was over in t.he right lane, and I was over on the left, I probably would not see that sign. PAGENO="0471" 467 This is the next sign that he sees. This si~ is somewhat dirty, and I deliberately show this photograph to point that out, that after a snowstorm we do get things like this. The sign is covered with dirt from the trucks passing by. Here are two lights that flash, when they are operating, and the drawbridge s%n which says it is 500 feet to the draw span. If you miss that first sign, this is your next chance. Speed limit on the bridge is 60 miles an hour. You are traveling 88 feet a second at that speed. You have to read the sign, if you see it and you have to comprehend it. You have to understand what it means and know that there is a possibility that the drawspan may go up. Mr. W. MAY. You have a few hundred feet. Mr. O'HAii~. 500 feet. Mr. W. MAY. However, if the span is up and the traffic has stopped, the traffic can back up toward this sign, so he may have a lot less than a few hundred feet to stop. Mr. O'HARA. That is correct. This can be a problem at night, as I will show you in several slides from this one. I will show you what can happen. Here is the sign we were just talking about; beyond that at the draw- bridge is the next sign. This says, "Drawbridge", and hanging over the roadway is the traffic light. If that truck had been over in the same lane as I and had been a little closer to me, I may have had difficulty seeing it. `There is no other light, other than this one, and the three other lights which are mounted on the ba.rrier. If those three lights are flashing at the barrier and there is somebody in front of me, chances are I am not going to see them, because I am on an upgrade, and they are at the top. PAGENO="0472" 468 This is the approach from the Virginia side. This is the same situa- tion, same warning sign. Beyond that you can see tile diamond-shaped sign and tile lights above it., which warn that the drawbridge is 500 feet. And here you get up closer to the tower, approaching it from Vir- ginia.. There is your speed limit sign, again your drawbridge sign, and the traffic light. That is an 8-inch lens hanging over the right lane. And I can tell you that you can have difficulty seeing that light when it is snowing and raining, because we have traveled the bridge. a number of times in all kinds of weather to see what the effect has been. PAGENO="0473" 469 Mr. W. MAY. Would you refer back to figure 3-88? There are no shoulders, braking lanes, on this bridge. Mr. O'HARA. That is correct. I was going to point that out shortly. Mr. W. MAY. Go ahead. Mr. O'HARA. This picture was taken after a snowfall. You can see we have lost some of that right lane because the snow has taken part of it, and that truck which is in front of us is riding in the inside, in the middle lane, so we have lost some of that lane also. If you are driving on the bridge and the drawspan opens, this is what you see. And here I would like to make several comments. First of all, up toward the tower, that little dark patch which you see at the left of the tower is the traffic light. You cannot see the barrier gate, but it is in front of those cars. There are no lights on the bascule leafs, except at the top where we have lights as required by the CAB. Now, I took this photograph standing on this 4-foot concrete median, which is 9 inches in height, and you can see that it is beveled; so if a car hits it, it has an excellent, chance of crbssing into the opposing lane of traffic, as borne out by the accident records. Another thing to notice is that when the bascule leaf is up, look at all the drivers over~on the side of the bridge. They know they are going to be there for a time. They have gone over to watch the river traffic. This is the daytime, so their lights are not on. And of all the cars that were on here, nobody had emergency flashing lights on. Picture yourself coming up this bridge at night. There are no lights on the bascule leaf except at the very top for aircraft. You do not know that it is up. Chances are you may not see that traffic light, and for sure you will not see that barrier with the three flashing lights. Here are cars `stopped, and if the drivers have gotten out to look at the ship, all you are going to see are their taillights. There is no indication PAGENO="0474" 470 that they are stopped, and again the accident records show that this has been a factor. There were seven accidents in 1966 where this was the result of the bridge being up, and the traffic stopped. A vehicle came up and slammed into the rear of a stopped car. Mr. W. MAY. Do you know about how many times a year that bridge is raised? Mr. O'}IARA. This particular bridge was raised 396 times last year, an average of better tha.n once a day. Mr. W. Mi~v. Opens only certain times? Mr. O'HARA. No, the bridge will open any time of the morning, day or night, rush hour in the morning or rush hour in the afternoon. As a matter of fact, in 1966 there were 10 days on which this bridge was raised 47 times, so that there are some days that it is raised more than twice and some days not raised at all. Mr. IV. MAY. How long does it take for them to raise the bridge and then to have the traffic moving? Mr. O'HARA. An average time is 10 minutes. You have to make sure the spans are even. I understand there are some problems of get- ting the ba.scule leafs straight, and then to move the barrier gates back, and have the traffic start up and start accelerating over. You can have traffic tied up when the bridge is only open for 8 to 10 minutes. Traffic may not get moving for 15 minutes. When the bridge is opened, especially during rush hour, the operators have told me that the traffic has backed up all the way over into. Maryland back onto Inter- state 295, into the District of Columbia. He tells me that he can see the lights all the way over in the vicinity of the naval facility over there. We have talked about the median. Mr. Prisk is knowledgeable about what is being done about this concrete median here, and I would like for him to say a few words at this time. Mr. PRISK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. May, I think all I might add to the discussion at this point is that there is a plan which has been approved by the three jurisdictions concerned, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, to install a positive physical barrier protection along the top of this median. This will consist of a steel barrier that will be parabolic on each side and will raise up to a height of about 28 to 30 inches above this median as it presently stands. This will be effective, almost certainly, in the prevention of any cross-median type accidents. This median barrier, as we see it, has not been too effective because it has been crossed on a number of occasions. Mr. O'Hara will have some pictures of some accidents involving the crossing of this par- ticular barrier. The new barrier is not of the type that is likely tobe crossed and, therefore, should at least reduce the chance of fatality from head-on collisions. Mr. IV. MAY. There is little we can do about the lack of shoulder or breakdown lanes on that bridge, is there? Mr. PRISK. There is absolutely nothing that can be done about that without complete reconstruction. The roadway that you see is three 12-foot lanes. They are marked; a total distance of 38 feet, curb to PAGENO="0475" 471 curb. There is a sidewalk on the side, and I think sometimes it is a little bit ironic to reserve lateral space on a structure for sidewalk when this seems to be the principal use for it: You stop for ship traffic and you get out there on the sidewalk and watch the goings-on on the river. Mr. IV. MAY. Pedestrians are not allowed to walk on those side- walks? Mr. PRISK. I am not certain whether there is complete regulation or prohibition of pedestrians on the sidewalks; but I know it is not used by pedestrians, except in this way, for the most part. Mr. W. MAY. Thank you. Mr. O'HARA. I might add, in connection with the sidewalk, Mr. May, that the people who operate the drawspan and work in the tower reach the tower by means of a catwalk under the bridge. They do not use the sidewalk. Mr. W. M~r. All right. Mr. PRISK. I might add, Mr. May, that we know from experience there will be frequent breakdowns on a bridge crossing of this sort. Somewhere around once every 20,000 miles of travel, you can depend on the car breaking down. For every 20,000 cars that this bridge car- ries across, you can be fairly sure that one of those 20~000 is going to break down. This bridge is about a mile long, I would say. About once every 20,000 vehicle miles you can expect a breakdown. So that presents a very important hazard. It is truly a fixed object and a most unexpected one, if I may say so, when it occurs in a normal moving lane. Mr. W. MAY. Do you have something to add to that, Mr. O'Hara? Mr. O'HARA. In talking to the State police a couple of the troopers remarked to me that, in addition to vehicles breaking down, they have had a number of vehicles running out of gas on the Wilson Bridge. And this is also a problem. There are no service stations close to that bridge. We computed the distance, and it is about 250 miles from the New York City area to the middle of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and in some cars that is about the average distance they can get on a tank of gas. Mr. W. MAY. If they do not stop and get gas on the toll portions of 1-95, they probably cannot get gas prior to arriving in the middle of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Mr. O'HARA. A trooper may have it with him. Mr. W. MAY. What is the traffic volume on the bridge? Mr. O'HARA. The traffic volume has increased 30 percent in the last 2 years. The average daily traffic count, which was made sometime prior to September of last year, was 62,400 vehicles a day, and in 1964 it had been 47,000. The design capacity is 100,000 vehicles a day. Mr. W. MAY. Using your figures, Mr. Prisk, would we expect three cars to break down on that bridge each day? Mr. PRISK. That is right; that is about what it would be. The figure I referred to includes running out of gas as well as flats and so on. Mr. IV. MAY. Yes. When you get up to 100,000, you would get five a day? Mr. PRISK. That is right. PAGENO="0476" 472 Mr. O'HARA. This accident occurred last year on the Woodrow Wil- son Bridge, and the reason I had not. mentioned the shoulder before is because I was going to mention it. here. The vehicle in front of this vehicle had a flat tire. As you pointed out., there is no shoulder on the bridge and the motor- ist decided to chaiige the tire. on the bridge. Another vehicle approached from Maryland, and only saw the taillights of the stopped car and apparently assumed that the vehicle was traveling in the same clirec- tion. A rear end collision followed, resulting in injury to three people. And this is the front of the car which ran into the st.opped vehicle. You can see the spare tire sitting on the sidewalk, which the man was going `to change. PAGENO="0477" 473 This picture illustrates what happens when a vehicle hits that median. The bridge span had been up. It was lowered. The driver of the vehicle, the station wagon straddling the concrete median, was unable to get the vehicle in gear. The other traffic started to move, and along came the Volkswagen bus and the driver did not. realize the first vehicle was stopped. The bus struck the rear of that. vehicle, threw it across the concrete median, where it blocked the westbound lane. This accident resulted in injury to four people. This is one of the points I wanted to make. When you have an acci- dent on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, you can have as many as four to six to 10 cars involved in a collision, depending on the time of day, and you can also have a number of people injured, which accounts for the 107 people injured in 102 accidents. Mr. W. MAY. Last year, 1966? Mr. O'HA1~. 196G. PAGENO="0478" 474 This next view is looking a.t the interchange with U.S. 1. If you are traveling away from where we are these right, lanes are the westbound lanes as they come across the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and at this point in the bridge there is a raised concrete. barrier about 24 inches in height. This traffic on the left is heading toward Maryland. This left sign over the westbound lanes says "Through Traffic," with an arrow for this lane, and an arrow for that lane. This sign on the right tells you that this is your exit to Route 1, and it gives the destinations for traffic which wants to turn off. Now, this right lane which the vehicle is in goes down under Washington Street, which is the overpass here; then it leaves the beltway. This is three lanes at this point. Just beyond that bridge, the beltway becomes two lanes. This right lane then becomes a collector-distributor type road. It collects the traffic off 1-495. The first exit will take you up to get on Washington Street. The second turnoff will take you into Alexandria, and beyond the overpass would be the turnoff to go south on U.S. 1. The motorist who knows this area knows that he can stay on this road and travel through the interchange area and come back on 495 beyond this far overpass where the beltway again becomes a six-lane facility, with three lanes in each direction. In 1966 this interchange area had 35 accidents, the majority of which occurred in this area over here on the right, according to the people I talked to in the Virginia State Police headquarters. There is a ques- tion of whether or not there would be more accidents here, because a lot of the accidents which should have been in this area took place on other crossing roads. This is a problem they are trying to resolve. Now I would like to take you down to just about where this vehicle is crossing on the bridge. J PAGENO="0479" 475 The next photograph is taken from there. Remember, this is a col- lector-distributor road on the right. The two left lanes go through. The right lane or slower lane becomes the collector-distributor road. Here is a motorist from out of State [indicating]. This picture was taken last Friday morning. He did not know that this right lane ran off in here. He did not know that he could continue on in that lane and come back out on the beltway further down the road. Fortunately for him, traffic was not heavy, and he was able to go from this right lane, crossing this lane of traffic and crossing the white- striped lanes, as you see, and continue into the slow lane of traffic, to continue on 1-495. If he had known, he could have continued on through and come out on the other side. There are a number of things to note here. First of all, there are a lot of skidmarks, some of which are well worn and did not come up in the photograph; but this one did and this one did, and here are some more off in here, and beyond that you can see others. S They may be part of this one; but these skid marks indicated to me that there probably are a high number of happenings such as this. In other words, people who are not sure where they are going, but suddenly realize they want to be in the left lane; this is actually what I would call an "accident," because the motorist did not do what he wanted to do. He wanted to be over on the left. It was not reported as an accident, because nobody was struck, and he did not hit another car. So, to be technical about it, you can say it was not an accident. But he did not do what he should have done, or what is done in the ordinary course of driving. The curb just beyond the white lines is a ramp-type curb, that white patch is what they call a rumble-strip. I will show you a closeup of the rumble strip up where the truck is. PAGENO="0480" 476 That is the rumble strip and there is a sign; and if you go up in the gore area on the right there is another rumble strip there. There is a steel signpost.There is a road going out to the right to Washington Street from the deceleration lane. There is a speed sign on a 6-inch steel poles There is no shoulder. The next exit lane does the same thing, and beyond that, in the second gore area there is another steel pole and another sign right in the gore are~a. Now we are at that first gore area and this is the rumble strip that I was referring to, which is directly in front of this sign support. This is a steel pole supporting a sign. There is a guardrail in front of it.. Mr. W. M~. Mr. Prisk, does that rumble strip make any sense? Mr. PIasK. At that location, I fail to see that it has any value. It is too close, too short, too close to the hazard. Mr. W. M~r. By the time you get the noise of the rumble strip you would have gotten- Mr. PRISK. You would be rumbling when you hit the pole, that is right. Mr. O'HARA. Now we are approaching the same interchange from the west. We are now facing east. We are in a slow lane of 495. Again a number of things here. There is a steel pole supporting the sign, and a guardrail in front of it, the guardrail ending beyond it, and then the guardrail beginning again just shortly beyond tl1at, shielding a. vehicle from these bridge piers in the median. There is another gore area just. beyond where this truck is. Here is another gore area. This is a deceleration lane. This is the guardrail in front of that steel pole, just a short section of guardrail. It ends and then it picks up again. I PAGENO="0481" 477 There is an opening and there is an end of the guardrail. Notice the skidmarks going into this area. Mr. CRAMER. May I ask Mr. Prisk a question? Is there any regula~ tion or standard with regard to six lanes going into four lanes and back to six lanes in an intersection area such as this? Mr. PRIsK. I know of no regulations. It is undesirable to have a lane drop. Mr. CRAMER. I thought turnoffs were supposed to be outside the traveled roadway. Seemingly, this area ought to be outside the six lanes. Mr. PRIsK. That is true. There are occasions, for one circumstance or another- Mr. CRAMER. What would be the circumstance in this area that would justify closing in the four lanes? Mr. PRISK. One typical thing that happens is that failure to have sufficient right-of-way to permit opening up the pavement to the wide- ness-one possibility, of course, is difference in capacity, analysis, you do not figure that the traffic involved is going to be as heavy as it turns out to be. Mr. CRAMER. Nobody can suggest that traffic in that area was not going to be heavy. * Mr. PRI5K. I think that is correct. Mr. CRAMER. Secondly, I have traveled that area quite a bit, at least to the south, and as I recall it is a swamp area. Mr. PRISK. That is right. Mr. CuAMER. There were not any buildings there, none to be con- demned at any great value. How in the world can reducing the six lanes to four lanes be justified? I think it is obviously a traffic hazard the way it is built. Now, does the Bureau have to approve that design? 87-757 O-68----31 PAGENO="0482" 478 Mr. PRISK. Yes. The Bureau has to approve that. Mr. CRAMER. Did you ever see that design? Mr. PRISK. No, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Who would see it? Mr. PRIsK. The Bureau's division engineer for the State of Virginia, in Richmond. Mr. CRA~rER. I just cannot understand why a design like that can get by the division engineer in the first place, even if it is recommended by a State, in an area where there appears to be no justification for not making an additional turnoff area available, or turnoff lane. I just do not understand it. Mr. PRISK. I am afraid I cannot help you. Mr. CRAMER. I hope somebody can help the situation in the future. Mr. PRI5K. These are the kind of things certainly that we need to do a great deal more about than have been done. I think the lack of review of some of the details has been one of the principal weaknesses, particularly in large interchanges that are complex, where there are several existing ramps, as is the case here. You have a certain amount of directional interchange between the routes that are involved, and we have the important U.S. 1 route, and we are also attempting to serve the city of Alexandria. There are a good many considerations here. And I think oftentimes this may come, and perhaps this is not fair to the people that plan the structures, but 1 think structure design crusades are over with in some cases. Mr. CRAMER. I notice over on Shirley Highway, Route 7, which is where I turn off to go home, they are sure doing a lot of interchanging around there. I hope somebody has looked at that before it got under construction, from a safety standpoint. I cannot quite figure out what they are doing yet. But I do know they were demolishing the bridge that was there, that looked like it was in pretty good shape. And putting another bridge exactly where it was. I do not understand that, unless it is for esthetics. And I admit the old bridge was not. as pretty as the new one but it looked to me like it was in pretty good shape. They took a crane and big steel bail on the end of a chain and knocked it down and built another one right where it was. That is along Route 7. I would like to know something about that, Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. I dare say we could develop, some material for the committee, to inform you about that situation. I do not have it here now, I am sorry. Mr. CRAMER. That is all I have. Mr. O'HARA. One other thing I would like to point out in this scene is that the lane in which I am traveling, behind this truck, ends just beyond this overpass, and this becomes a two-lane highway at that point. And the only advance warning you have is a small sign behind that truck, which is a few hundred feet from the turnoff, and the road then becomes a two-lane highway; and as you get to the foot of the PAGENO="0483" 479 Wilson Bridge, the acceleration lane of U.S. 1 becomes the right lane of the beltway. Mr. CRAMER. May I make another observation relating to this decreasing number of lanes at interchanges? It was just a year or so ago that action was taken because Interstate 4 going through Tampa and St. Petersburg, in Florida, was decreased in lanes to one lane going west, right to the middle of Tampa, and it. decreased to one lane. Rather reluctantly, and after a few accidents and a considerable period of time, it was agreed to do something about it and make it two lanes. There is another instance. I just cannot imagine how a division engineer would ever approve such a construction asthat. Do you understand how that could happen? Here is an Interstate, limited-access highway, going through Tampa, and it was reduced to one lane going west. You may be familiar with it; but I just cannot understand that. Mr. PRISK. I have seen a situation such as you describe also in South Carolina, so I do not think it is unique to Florida. But unfortunately these things are seen after they get hardened in the concrete, rein- forcing rods, and it is pretty difficult without using a wrecking ball, as you mentioned, to make any remedy. I think we have cautioned, in the yellow book which you are familiar with, which has been endorsed now as policy by the Bureau of Public Roads, and it calls attention to the necessity in the future of carefully considering all lane drops. That is what this is. This is a dropping of the lanes going into an interchange. Mr. CRAMER. Up to this point there has been no regulation, no requirement regarding lane drops, going into an interchange? Mr. PRISK. No regulation that I am aware of. It has been recognized as an undesirable design practice. Mr. CRA1~nai. Who recognizes it as undesirable? Mr. PRISK. It is generally regarded as undesirable design practice. Mr. CRAMER. Do the engineers who design these highways not know it? They get paid pretty well. Design. engineers get paid pretty well. Mr. PRISK. They get paid pretty well. Mr. CRAMER. Consulting engineers sometimes get a percentage of project costs? Mr. PRISK. If you are talking about consulting engineers, yes. Mr. CRAMER. That is pa.rt of the cost of the project, if the State decided~ to use consulting engineers? Mr. PRISK. Right. Mr. CRAMER. That is all. Mr. HOWARD. Continue. Mr. O'HARA. In connection with the accidents in Virginia, I did make a study. They reported 501 accidents in 1966; 166 of the 501, or 33 percent, were single vehicle accidents; 111 of those 166 ran off the road and struck a fixed object, or 67 percent. Also, 23 more of the 166 ran off and overturned. I could not determine from the accident report whether they hit a bank or ditch or other object; it was impossible to do so. PAGENO="0484" 480 At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take you into another area where I did a study of accidents. This is the section known as Rock Creek Park, Capital Beltway, beginning here at. Pooks Hill interchange and traveling in an easterly direction 3.8 miles to Georgia Avenue. This section, No. 4, is a section legend used by the State police. The State police reported 219 accidents in this 3.8 miles, with four fatalities and 128 people injured. Mr. W. M~. When was that, 1966? Mr. O'HARA. Yes, sir. Mr. IV. M~r. Thank you. Mr. O'HARA. This curving alinement came about as a result of an agreern~nt between the State Roads Commission of Maryland, the Maryland National Park and Planning Commission, and the National Capital Planning Commission, and this will be the subject of future consideration. Now, to orient you with where this slide is, this is the area around Pooks Hill. I am standing in the southbound lane of Wisconsin Avenue. This lane, this lane and this lane [indicating], are the three traffic lanes of 495. This fourth lane on the left is for traffic coming in from Interstate 70-S, in the vicinity of Rockville and Frederick. This fifth lane up on the left is the merging traffic lane from Rock- ville Pike, Maryland Route 355, and the overpass is the northbound lane of Wisconsin Avenue. There are a number of things to notice here. We have a merging traffic sign, a steel light pole of the kind that we discussed. On this side another steel light pole, a drainage ditch, and a fairly steep backslope. Over on the right is a concrete drain. And I will have something to say about this in a few minutes. Another steel light pole, a reflector, and here a triangular-shaped sign, with two dark lines, and then the dotted lines in the middle. The PAGENO="0485" 481 reason for this sign is that this right lane is about to end. We are traveling at 60 miles an hour. This is the first and only warning that you have that this lane is going to end. And the next slide I show will be taken from this overpass, and it will be just above this black patch in the roadway. The significance of this area is borne out by the fact that in this section of the beltway last year there were 37 sideswipe accidents, a number of which occurred here, and just beyond here, where another lane is dropped.~ In addition, in this section of the beltway there were 32 vehicles which ran off the road and overturned; 88 of the 219 accidents involved vehicles which ran off the road and, of those 88, 55 subse- quently struck a fixed object. This next slide is taken from the northbound lane of Wisconsin Avenue. The lane on the far left being the merging traffic lane from Wisconsin Avenue, Rockville Pike. Notice that Interstate 70-S has become the third lane of the beltway, and up in the top of the photograph, wh~re the car is going around the curve, just beyond that curve there is another sign similar to the one I just showed you. It has the same marks. And the purpose of it is to point out that again the right lane is going to be dropped. Also iii this scene here you will notice a number of objects. You have off to the right, off the shoulder, several trees. You have light poles. Beyond that you have a guardrail. And I would like to get up and point something out. There is a guardrail here pointing at you like an arrow. I think it is meant to protect that headwall in there. There it is. The light pole beyond it. These are all the objects that you have as you come into the park, and you have traffic moving at 60 miles an hour. PAGENO="0486" 482 This area of the park has a pretty heavy traffic rate, somewhere in the neighborhood of 55,000 vehicles a day, as of September of last year. This is a little bit east of where I was before. The traffic has come around the curve, swung sharply left, and it is now swinging back to the right, heading toward Connecticut Avenue. There is a sign up here and there is a short piece of guardrail in behind this vehicle. There are a number of trees off the westbound lane. In the median is a concrete drain. Now, I have taken you to the east end of the section. I am just west of Georgia Avenue. PAGENO="0487" 483 This photograph was taken just beyond Stoneybrook Road, looking west; and for orientation purposes, this is Kensington Parkway run- ning underneath the beltway [indicating]. There are three traffic lanes and the speed limit is 60 miles an hour. Incidentally, this section of the park is the only section on the beltway which is designed for 60 miles an hour, whereas the rest. was designed for 70 miles an hour. The traffic. weaves to the left, back to the right, back to the left, and back to the right again, constantly in motion. There are a number of things in here. The guardrail is here, and trees down in here. T11e guard rail is not anchored to the bridge parapet, nor is it in the median, nor is it. on the other side. Now the last. photogra.ph I took was up in here, looking in this direction [indicating]. We are now heading east again, just east of Connecticut. Avenue. 1-lere the road is curving gradually to the left.. This is where the road makes a sharp curve. The guardrail ends. A number of trees are. back in there, the tree line being somewhat away from the traffic lanes. You can see a heavy front slope, drainage ditch down in there, and a tree line, with the tree line coming back toward the road and the road curving. Up here is a piece of guardrail and beyond that open space. PAGENO="0488" 484 The guardrail I pointed at was this piece. Here is a distance of about 40 to 50 feet, with a guardrail ending and then it picks up again. I think that picture is self-explanatory. This is the concrete drain that I have been talking about, and I pointed it out to you in a number of places. This piece of steel sits on top of the concrete; it is not anchored. And the reason for that is so they can remove it and get down there to clean the drain if it is clogged up. `I PAGENO="0489" 485 The grass is not cut around that concrete drain. And, as you saw, it was not visible in the slides I showed before. In September of last year a man ran off the road in this section of the beltway and hit this type object. His car overturned and he was killed. These concrete drains are located all over the beltway. We now are approaching Georgia Avenue. This is Stoneybrook Road on the left. Jones Mill Road is on the right. There are. a number of inconsistent things here. The guardrail extends beyond the bridge here in the median and the guardrail on the right is considerably beyond the bridge. In the westbound lanes, there is no guardrail on the shoulder side and no guardrail on the pier in the median. The next slide will be taken up in the area of the sign on the right shoulder. Georgia Sliver Spring ~ Wheaton ~ EXITS 3/4 MILE We are now anproaching the B. & 0. Railroad overpass. Here is the usual guardrail installation with sign supports off the shoulder. There is not too much of a runoff. The guardrail ends before the PAGENO="0490" 486 bridge abutment. Over in the median, a short section of guardrail and the concrete support for the B. & 0. Railroad overpass. On the other side which we cannot see, there is no guardrail on the shoulder; but. the next overpass is Seminary Road, and there is no guardrail on that side to shield piers from vehicles which might get off the road. This is the next overpass just beyond the B. & 0. Railroad over- pass. There is a guardrail protecting the concrete piers in the median. On the shoulder there is no guardrail. However, there is a small piece of guardrail beyond the piers, but it ends just short of the light pole. On the left or westbound side, there is a sign but with no guard- rail, and in the median there is no guardrail. This area I thought was important. I wanted to show you these three structures to point out the inconsistencies in guardrail treatment. PAGENO="0491" 487 We are now heading westbound. This is Seminary Road passing over 1-495. Notice the speed sign does not have guardrail. The bridge piers do not have it. And there is no guardrail in the median. On April 7 a man traveling westbound hit this bridge pier in the median and was killed. And about 2% hours or 3 hours later another vehicle came along. The debris from this accident had not been cleared up. He stepped on his brakes, skidded across this median, and hit another car head on, we had two fatalities within 3 hours in this section. That concludes my presentation on the beltway. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. O'Hara, I want to thank you for a most bene- ficial presentation. Mr. HOWARD. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Hara. The chairman is about to return very shortly to the subcommittee, so the subcommittee will be in brief recess, pending the return of the chairman. (Short recess.) (Mr. Blatnik resumed the chair.) Mr. BLATNIK. The subcommittee is reconvened from its brief recess. We have heard testimony today on the Capital Beltway, officially known as Interstate 495. Previous to today our investigating subcommittee, the Special Sub- committee on the Federal-Aid Highway Program, has heard testi- mony pertaining to highway design safety in the Greater New York- New Jersey-Connecticut area, and in the State of Michigan. Some of the things we heard were appalling, in that they showed conditions where roadside hazards were designed right into the newly completed roads. But what we found even more appalling was testimony that these conditions are not local in extent, but exist nationwide. Even many of the most recently completed sections of our great Interstate System were found by our staff to contain the same built-in hazards that were found elsewhere. The unnecessary dangers described thus far in our hearings have been mainly of the roadside hazard type, as demonstrated so clearly and in so many, many categories by our very effective first witness, Mr. Linko. These include such things as improperly installed guard- rails, which often are a head-on, spearlike structure that will impale the vehicle and quite often the driver or other occupants of the vehicle. We have the overdesign. By that I mean the overly strong struc- tures and design of sign supports, consisting of steel pipe mounted on high concrete bases, which will withstand tremendous and violent ]mpact, in many cases demolishing the vehicle and causing fatal in- juries to the driver and the occupants. We have concrete bridge piers and concrete abutments exposed with no guardrail. In many instances the abutment should not be there to begin with. In other instances, where guardrails were installed, they, instead of protecting the motorist, become the first impact point. There are a whole series of sign structures and light poles and other types of structures along the roadside, adjacent to approaches to bridges or curves, which number as many as five to seven possible impact points, and if you are traveling at 60 to 65 miles an hour along the highway, it would be a matter of merely a fraction of a second in between these impact points, giving the motorist of course abso- PAGENO="0492" 488 lutely no opportunity to use his reflexes or to react in his own de- fense, to avoid these impact. points. Simple things like drainage ditches are often too steep, and the backslope too steep. Heavy-duty light poles we mentioned should be breakaway, snap- away. These are only a few of the deficiencies. We will have these listed by categories, and different types within categories, and have a better familiarity with the nature of the obstacles that are causing these accidents which are in so many cases, lethal ones. Today the testimony shifted to the Washington, D.C., area. A member of our staff, John P. O'Hara~ testified to an analysis made of the Capital Beltway, which as 1-495, encircles Washington and much of the surburban Maryland and Virginia areas. The Chair wants to commend Mr. O'Hara for a first-rate presen- tation. Here is a man well skilled in his presentation as an investigator; he is a very experienced and recognized and outstanding invesigator on the staff. This man is not an engineer. I think I am correct in saying that he would be classified in terms of a good, above-average, safety-conscious driver. But he was unaware of many, if not most of these obstacles on the highway until he, com- pletely alone, without any techincal assistance, as in the case of Joe Linko in Ne.w York, went out and just picked out instances in which he thought it looked, in his own estimation and in his personal judg- ment, to be a hazardous situation. He checked back with the police records and found out that. in- variably these areas which just looked dangerous to him were in fact dangerous and that lethal accidents had taken place, and other ac- cidents were continuing to take place; that in the restoring of these broken road fixtures, guardrails or whatever they may be, signposts, et cetera, they were reconstructed to be identical to the condition previously, and subsequently the same type of accidents again, quite often, took place, showing someone was not learning anything. In connection with 1-495, the Capital Beltway, it was dismaying to learn this morning that during the 2 years and 10 months since the completed beltway was opened to traffic in August of 1964, there have been more than 2,676 accidents. In these accidents, 77 persons were killed. The strange distribution which the Chair feels has great significance~ and which has been examined and evaluated in much more thorough depth, is that of the 77 persons killed on the 66 miles of modern freeway, the Capital Beltway, 10 took place on a 1-mile span called the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. In short, 13 percent of the fatalities took place on 1/66 of the stretch. The same hazards existing elsewhere continue to exist today. The Capital Beltway is no exception, safetywise, to what appears to be the general rule. This concludes the statement for today. The hearings will be re- cessed until further call of the Chair. Any further announcement, Mr. Counsel, before we adjourn the hearino~s for today? Mr. W. M~. No, sir. PAGENO="0493" 489 Mr. BLATNIK. With that, the hearings for today are adjourned. We thank you, Mr. O'Hara, and we again thank you, Mr. Prisk. (The statement of Represenative Gilbert Gude follows:) STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE GILBERT GUDE Mr. Chairman, early last month after a review of accident reports for the Capital Beltway (Maryland Portion), 1-495, based on the Maryland State Police accident data, I pointed out the high rate of accidents on a limited section of the Beltway between Georgia Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue in Montgomery County. While this hearing is concerned with safety, design, and operational efficiency of the highways, I think it is important that the Committee have the report and recommendations of the Maryland State Roads Commission after their own evaluation of the above-mentioned section. The attached resolution lists the immediate order for interim action by establishment of a reduced speed limit on the affected section. Further corrective action by the Commission, in the immediate future will undoubtedly involve lighting, marking and "signing". Excerpt from minutes of meeting of the State roads commission, Wednesday, June 7, 1967: "On recommendation of assistant Chief Engineer Trafik-Lewis, and as the first step resulting from studies being conducted to improve safety on the Capital Beltway, the Commission adopted the following regulation in Montgomery County: "Resolved, and it is hereby ordered, that the speed limit on (1-495) be lowered from 60 miles per hour to 50 miles per hour, from a point 1500 feet west of the end of the concrete surfacing at Georgia Ave. (Md. 97) to a point 3700 feet west of the end of the center line of old Georgetown Road (Md. 187), a distance of 4.14 miles." The work of this committee is extermely valuable in assessing the progress of the Interstate and Federal-aid highway systems, and the extent to which this system provides the safest possible means of travel for all the citizens. The members and staff are to be commended for their valuable research. We must be assured without any doubt that we have complete compliance with the design standards required in the Federal Highway Act, meaning the build- ing to the design characteristics required according to the best known traffic projections developed by the responsible authorities. To do otherwise, is to short-change the public in the most costly fashion, in the tragic loss of life and limb. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, sub- ject to the call of the Chair.) PAGENO="0494" PAGENO="0495" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards TUESDAY, ~1UNE 20, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik (chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. Blatnik, Kluczynski, Edmondson, Johnson, Mc- Carthy, Howard, Cramer, Harsha, Cleveland, McEwen, Duncan, Schadeberg, Zion, and McDonald. Staff present: Same as previous days. Mr. BLATNIK. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High- way Program will please come to order. This morning the subcommittee is resuming public hearings relating to the design and operational efficiency of the Nation's highways, par- ticularly as it pertains to the safety features. Testimony heard thus far in our hearings has disclosed conditions in the design of our highways, roads, and streets that are disappoint- ing and, indeed, alarming. One witness after another has described a seemingly endless number of roadside hazards that have, been designed and built into our roads. We have been shown scores of photographs to document the testimony, and the implications as to the extent of the conditions thus revealed are ominous. Most disappointing of all has been repeated evidence that the con- ditions shown to exist generally are not limited to our older roads, but include our primary and secondary Federal-aid roads and extend to even the Interstate System itself. Since the Interstate System typifies the design and construction of our most modern highways in the very best way we know how to plan and build, it becomes important that we now turn our attention to determine how the concept of safe highway design is faring on that network. The state of the art on a nationwide basis, therefore, will be the main subject of the testimony we are about to hear today. We are pleased, and indeed fortunate, to have with us today a panel of nationally recognized experts in the field of safe highway design and traffic engineering, who will review design and operational features relatmg principally to roadside hazards. These witnesses will help us examine and discuss some of the most recently opened segments of the great Interstate System. (491) PAGENO="0496" 492 Mr. Constandy, assistant chief counsel of our staff, will you please take over? Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Chairman, during February 1967 we asked Mr. Frank Turner, Director of the Bureau of Public Roads, to submit a list of the latest sections of Interstate highway opened in each State. We wanted to be able to choose one section in each of the nine regions of the Bureau of Public Roads, and to develop a sample which would be a fairly representative cross section of the Interstate System, as of this point in time, in order to review the design and construction from the standpoint of roadside hazards. From the list Mr. Turner supplied in February of this year we se~ lected the nine projects listed on the sheet before you, which I would like to offer now as exhibit 3. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. (Exhibit No.3 was marked and is retained in subcommittee files.) Mr. CONSTANDY. These sections were chosen without any prior knowl- edge of what they looked like. We tried to select a group which had a variety of traffic volumes, a range in topography from flat to moun- tainous, and both urban and rural sections. After selecting the group to be reviewed, we requested the assign- ment of Mr. Charles Prisk to assist in the analysis. Both Mr. Prisk and I went to each section and took a series of ph6tographs. We `are now prepared to present to the committee what was observed and photographed. In order to assist the committee in this review, we have asked five distinguished gentlemen to appear before the committee and act as a panel. Each is nationally known, and highly qualified and respected, both personally and professionally. Each has had a career in which he has distinguished himself in the subject before us today. Collectively they offer a needed opportunity to measure the state of the art in highway design as it relates to roadside features. I would now like to ask, Mr. Chairman, if the panel members and myself might be sworn. Mr. BLATNIK. Will the five panel members please stand. Please raise your right hand. (At this point the panel members and Mr. Constandy were sworn by the chairman.) Mr. BLATNIK. Please be seated. Mr. Prisk, you are still under oath. We appreciate your standing by. At the outset, the Chair speaks for the entire committee for the splendid cooperation of the members of this distinguished `and out- standing panel. It is not necessary to qualify that description any further. I think the testimony to be presented in the course of this morning's hearings will be evidence in itself of the caliber of witnesses before us. We appreciate. the special effort-first of all in the coopera- tion you have given the staff, and the special effort you have made to be with us this morning. Mr. CONSTANDY. I will identify myself and then ask each of the panel members, beginning with Mr. Wilson, to do likewise. I am, as you said, assistant chief counsel of this committee. Mr. Wilson, will you give your name, address, and present occupa- tion, please? PAGENO="0497" 493 TESTIJ~ONY OF CHARLES W. PRISK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OP TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, BUREAU OP PUBLIC ROADS; lAMES E. WILSON, TRAFFIC ENGINEER, CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGH- WAYS; EDMUND R. RICKER, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OP TRAFFIC, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OP HIGHWAYS; PAUL SKEFJLS, * CHAIRMAN OP COMMITTEE ON GUARDRAIL, HIGHWAY RE- SEARCH BOARD; T. S. HUFF, CHIEF ENGINEER OP HIGHWAY DESIGN, TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTME1~T; W. lACK WILKES, CHIEF OF BRIDGE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS Mr. WILSON. My name is James E. Wilson. I live at 1420 Mendota Way, Carmichael, Calif. I am traffic engineer for the California De- partment of Highways. Mr. Siu~Er~s. My name is Paul C. Skeels. I am the safety engineer of General Motors Corp. I live at 824 Colliston Street, Ann Arbor, Mich. Mr. HUFF. I am Talbot Huff. My address is 3215 Windsor Road, Austin, Tex. I am chief engineer of highway design for the Texas Highway Department. `Mr. Wuaci~s. I am W. Jack Wilkes. I live at 7801 Greely Boulevard, Springfield, Va. I am presently Chief of the Bridge Division, Office of Engineering and Operations, Bureau of Public Roads. Mr. RICKER. I am Edmund R. Ricker. I live at 1709 Mitchell Road, Harrisburg, Pa. I am director of the Bureau of Traffic Engineering for the Pennsylvania Department of Highways. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Ricker, you are also president of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, are you not? Mr. RIOKER. Yes, I am. Mr. BLATNIK. We also have with us a very distinguished guest in the audience, Mr. Ronald L. Moore, head of the Motor Layout Section of the Road Research Laboratory of the Ministry of Transportation, from London, England. Mr. Moore, we met you earlier. Would you please stand so the other committee members can see you. We welcome you. We look forward to visiting and chatting more with you on the problems which I believe we will find of common interest and mutual concern. All right, Mr. Constandy. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give a brief bio- graphical sketch of the panel members. Mr. Wilson is chairman of the National Joint Committee on lIJni- form Traffic Control Devices and the AASHO representative on the same committee. He is member of the AASHO traffic committee; member of the Interpretations Committee for the Interstate Sign Manual Committee of AASHO. He is a member and the AASHO representative of the committee on uniform traffic laws and ordinances; a member of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, and the American Society of Civil Engineers. He has been with the California division of highways for 18 years during which time he has had 8 years of design and 2 years in construction. 87~-757 O-68---32 PAGENO="0498" 494 Mr. Skeels is engineer in charge of vehicle safety test and develop- ment of the General Motors proving ground. A great deal of the information we will be discussing has been researched by the General Motors Corp. at their proving ground. We believe it will be a. valuable addition to the panel. He is chairman of the Highway Research Board Committee on Guardrails, Guideposts, Signs, Signals, and Lighting Supports. It is an ominous title. He is also vice chairman of the ASTM committee, E-17, which deals with road slipperiness, and he is a member and chairman of several SAE committees. Mr. Talbot Huff has been the chief engineer of the highway design section since 1954 and he was assistant to that post, from 1945 to 1954. Within AASHO, he is a member of the operating committee on design; chairman of the subcommittee on interim design standards for flexible and rigid pavements; a member of the subcommittee to study feasibility of variations in design standards; and he is a mem- ber, of the freeway study and analysis committee, 1959, which pro- duced the red book. It was probably one of the earliest evaluations of our freeway system. Within the Highway Research Board, Mr. Huff is a representative for the Texas State Highway Department.; a member of the regional advisory committee of the AASHO road test and a member of the analysis panel. He is also a~ member of the committee on shoulder design within the Highway Research Board. In the American Society of Civil Engineers, lie is chairman of the highway division executive committee and member of the committee on geometric design, the structural design of roadways committee, the technical procedures committee. He is chairman of the policy committee of breakaway sign research project in the Bureau of Public Roads and Texas A. & M., jointly. That project involves 14 States. We will hear more about breakaway signs, the fruits of that re- search. Mr. Huff is also chairman of departmental research and develop- ment of the State Highway Department of Texas. Mr. W. Jack Wilkes, as he mentioned, is chief of the bridge divi- sion of the office of engineering and operations, U.S. Bureau of Pub- lic Roads. He has been with public roads for 21 years, and for 4 years was division engineer for North Carolina. Within the Highway Re- search Board he is a member of the committee on design; and within AASHO, he is secretary of the bridges and structures committee. Mr. Ricker is the director of the Bureau of Traffic Engineering of the Pennsylvania Department of Highways; president of the Insti- tute of Traffic Engineers; secretary of the AASHO operating com- mittee on traffic; chairman of the joint vehicular signal system com- mittee; and a member of the department of traffic and operations of the Highway Research Board. We have a highly qualified panel. In the course of selecting them, none of them was a second choice. Having made the initial choices, we checked with people both within AASHO and the Bureau of Public Roads and found that they were eminently qualified to act in the capac- ity we have asked them to today. PAGENO="0499" 495 I would like to ask Mr. Prisk if he would begin by giving us his re- marks relating to this subject. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Constandy. Members of the committee, I think it goes without saying that the Interstate System provides high quality service for the motoring public of the United States. The projects that we will be looking at today and conducting a review of, are representative projects in nine States. These are the most recently completed projects open to traffic in the nine States that are available for review. They are representative of urban and rural conditions, and I think they cover the gamut from high-volume traffic, high-speed traffic conditions, on the Interstate, to the lightly traveled sections of the Interstate. The visits that Mr. Constandy and I were privileged to make were conducted largely during the month of April and early May. So this information that we bring to you today, which will be largely pictorial, is of very recent conditions. I think that we should start in our consideration of conditions on the Interstate System with this handout sheet that was circulated to you a few minutes ago. The top sheet shows the interstate accident experience, compiled by the Bureau of Public Roads. It shows 65 percent of the accidents and 61 percent of the deaths are associated with one vehicle, 88 percent of the single-vehicle accidents, and 89 percent of the deaths involve the vehicle that leaves the road. This may be a single car or a multicar collision course. This then is the condition to which we are principally directing our attention today, and in our review of the nine interstate projects, which have been presented to you, identified by the sheet that has been circulated to you earlier; 10 categories of information which were thought to be significant from an engineering standpoint. Analysis has, therefore, been organized in these 10 general cate- gories and I would simply like to mention them here so you have an idea of the way the ground may be covered. First is the subject of guardrail and median barriers. We often compare our Interstate System to the railroads, I think, remembering, of course2 that the railroads have track and fixed path to follow. And I think in a sense that the guardrail, median barrier problem, is perhaps associated with this matter of keeping drivers on course. Bridges are another category. Shoulders, curbs, drainage facilities, signs and sign supports, lighting, ligting ~standards, design posts or gores, and slopes at the sides of the embankment at the roadside. These then are the 10 categories in which the review information has been organized. The guardrail item has been chosen for initial discussion today because we find that as cars leave the road, this is the most frequently struck item. In fact, in the accidents involving fatilities where ve- hicles leave the road, the guardrail is struck in one-third of these cases. It is the most frequently struck. So we then have selected guardrail for this median barrier for this first presentation. Now I show you by this chart something that we see of the design demands as far as guardrail and median barrier are concerned. PAGENO="0500" 496 First of all, these barriers must prevent penetration by the vehicle. They serve no purpose, if they do not prevent penetration, at least in some degree. They redirect the vehicle along the rail. In other words, they do not deflect the vehicle off the rail back into the course of traffic out of control, but redirect the vehicle along the course of the rail. No. 3, they decelerate the vehicle within human tolerance limits. Mr. CONSTANDY. It is the sudden stop that kills people, is it not? Mr. PRISK. It is that. And we certainly strive for each of these objectives in construction and design of guardrail. The applications where guardrail is appropriate to use-I might say with respect to these, all of these are carried out with appropriate consideration for economy and for esthetics. As to applications, there are applications obvious at grade separa- tions and bridges, where guardrail is used. Also on steep, high em- bankments guardrail has obvious application, and at other roadside hazards where fixed objects are at place. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it is advisable for the committee to keep the initial three items of the design demands in mind as we review this series of slides. Most important, the three Mr. Prisk has mentioned here. Mr. PRISK. Now as we proceed, I think that I would like to move to our consideration of the history, briefly, of guardrail development. I can recall in early highway department experience when .2 by 4's were used or 2 by. 6's were used for giiardrails, causing rather sad experience with splintering wooden rail coming through the car or through a windshield. So types of rails are quite important and we shall be looking for various types of rails as we review these nine projects. Also the rail must be sufficiently strong to absorb energy without undue deflection and be suitably anchored. And we should be looking at different types, different characteristics, of the rail in this respect. One very significant thing that has been found in recent research is that it is important to have washers to hold the rail to the post, so that the rail will not, in effect, peel off, lose its tensile quality as a system. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you have one of those you might show the committee? Mr. PJasK. Yes. This washer is a rather obscure item, in many people's judgment, but that is the washer. This is the standard bolt that is used to hold the washer on the face of the rail. This is the traffic side. Mr. CONSTANDY. The purpose of that is to keep the head of the bolt from going through the guardrail; is that right? Mr. PRISK. Exactly so. This is the rail, the section of a common- type rail that is used. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that called a W-beam? Mr. PRISK. W-beam rail. And the washer goes in in this position as. it is bolted to the post. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you have any idea what the washer costs? Mr. PRISK. Well, these washers, of course, are bid like other items, but 15 to 25 cents would cover the range. Perhaps that is a little bit high. The full strength of the rail cannot be realized in a crash without a washer; that is correct. PAGENO="0501" 497 The rail is actually a system. It is not a disconnected series of pieces of rail. And it must be built as a system, a rail and post system, in order to achieve its maximum effectiveness. Mr. CONSTANDY. So if a 12-cent washer is not acquired, the invest- ment in the rail may not be realized. Mr. PRISK. I have heard of them costing 12 cents and that state- ment is correct; yes, sir. Mr. CONSTANDY. What does guardrail cost, approximately, per foot? Mr. PRISK. A linear foot of guardrail will run $2.50 to $3.50, installed. Mr. CONSTANDY. Post, guardrail, and washer? Mr. PRI5K. Entire cost; yes, sir. Mr. CON5TANDY. We are speaking now of W-beam guardrail cost? Mr. PRI5K. Yes. Some other types are cheaper. Some types are a little more expensive. So we shall consider various types of guardrail. I think in addition to this, with respect to its placement, that it is important to look at how guardrail is used and what situations it is used in, and how it is related to the design of the highway. One very important consideration is how high this rail is. If a rail is too low, it may be vaulted over or topped. As the vehicle hits it, the vehicle will roll over. Mr. CONSTANDY. I might say in that connection that during the course of this trip, we viewed a section of guardrail at a point where there had been an accident and there wasn't a scratch in the guardrail. The car completely leaped over the guardrail and the people within it suffered severe injury, or death, I do not know. But that does hap- pen; a car can leap completelyover the guardrail. Mr. PRISK. That is entirely possible. And accident records have substantiated the fact that cars do go over guardrails that. are mounted too low. So consideration of rail height is rather important. And we found important variations in rail height among the States. Another very important fact is the concern of blocking the rail out to the point where the rail will not be in a position that would permit the car wheels to engage with the post. Mr. C0N5TANDY. Could you explain what blocking out means? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Blocking out refers to placing of a block, a steel or wood block behind the rail and in advance of the post. The post goes into the ground, the rail is actually offset from the post a sufficient amount so that, when a car comes in, the wheel does not get under the rail and attach itself to the post. Mr. CONSTANDY. So the purpose of the block in the instances is to separate the guardrail from the post to allow sufficient clearance of an automobile wheel sliding along the guardrail to miss the post. Is that correct? Mr. PRISK. This is the case as far as the normal installation of guardrail is concerned. There are certain types of guardrail systems where the post is a retarder itself of the vehicle and helps to decelerate the vehicle. In those cases, the post is built light, of light material, in strength, and is intended to collapse. In these cases, contact with the post is not important. In fact contact with the post is a desirable part of its PAGENO="0502" 498 operation. Where you use a sturdy post, you must block the rail away from it. Mr. CONSTANDY. Of what material are the posts made, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Posts are usually wood or steel. Usually I-beam sections in the case of steel. There has been some use of aluminum, although this is not widespread. Mr. CONSTANDY. How about the block, what is that made out of? Mr. PiusK. The block is normally made of the same material as the post. If the post is a wood post, you will find a wood block behind the rail frequently. A steel post; will have a piece of steel. Actually, these sections that block the rail out are just exactly like the post itself. Mr. CONSTANDY. Sometimes the block is made of wood and the post is made of steel; is that correct? Mr. Piusx. This is on some occasions; yes, sir. There is a feeling that the wood block tends to absorb energy and this by itself is a desirable consideration. Mr. CONSTANDY. There is apt to be an advantage in using wood for a block? Mr. P~IsK. There is some advantage to be gained; yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you want to say something about the length of the guard rail sections, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes; this is a very important thing about its applica- tion. If it is to be effective at grade separations and bridges and on embankments and hazards on the roadside it necessarily must be in a position, not directly opposite the hazard, iut in line with the normal path of a vehicle that would leave the roadway. And as the vehicle leaves the roadway, it frequently will go off on a very flat angle and the rail must then be long enough to cover that approach path. In addition to that, of course, you do have the very practical matter of avoiding a series of short sections of rail, each one of which presents a hazard by itself, with the exposed end of the rail. So commonly, I think, we find rather too often sections of guardrail that are altogether too short. At the same time there are other places where a guardrail* is in, where it is not warranted. I would not for a moment suggest; that we put guardrail everywhere. Another point of great importance is that the end of the rail, this rail faced by blocked-up posts here, as you run into the end of this, it has quite a lethal effect on a vehicle and its occupants, and it has been found through research that it is appropriate and highly desir- able to flare the end of this rail into the approach alinement so that you have a smooth transition. Mr. Linko testified here several weeks ago about some of the rough transitions on highways that he had looked at and which were in his own pictures. I think it is a principle that must be recognized, that as you approach a section where a rail is used, that that rail, as you intro- duce it in the cross section, must be flared into the approach so as to present a smooth surface, Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you have some slides that illustrate these points? Perhaps it would be appropriate to look at those now. Mr. PRISK. We are set to go on the slides. If we may have the lights out, please- PAGENO="0503" 499 I think, incidentally, the analysis we have here in review, pictures, will stimulate some comment from this distinguished panel that I am happy to have at the table today. Mr. CONSTANDY. They may even disagree either with you or among themselves. We hope they will feel free to voice their opinion whether it agrees with anyone else's or not. Mr. PRISK. I would welcome that. Mr. CONSTANDY. Incidentally, we are not attempting here to estab- lish any design standards; it would probably be inappropriate for a congressional committee to do so. We simply want to review and ana- lyze this without it being thought that we are setting any design stand- ards to be followed. I think there are appropriate points here that could be commented on, which should prove interesting to people who have the responsibility of setting design standards. Mr. Htrrr. I would like to ask Mr. Prisk if he has any accident data or knowledge of installations that are in operation that prove the superiority of the blocked-out rail versus the non-blocked-out rail? And I also have one other comment I would make now, Mr. Prisk, if I may. I would suggest that you stress the importance of not putting a curb directly in front of a rail, if you do that as you go along. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think Mr. Prisk will agree with you on the curb. He has convinced me that is undesirable. We will ~et to a section of this discussion later when are are dealing almost entirely with curbs. Mr. Skeels?. Mr. SKEELS. While we are talking about the advantages of the blocked-out rail, I would like to point out another one. When a rail is mounted directly on a post and not blocked out, as the rail is struck by a car, the post will tip backward in the ground and the height of the rail then immediately starts to decrease; as the post is pushed backward the rail lowers. With a blocked-out rail, as the post is pushed backward, initially at least, the rail rises, actually gets higher, and so it is very effective in preventing cars from mounting the rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. Have you conducted research on this point, Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS I have not conducted research personally on this point., but Mr. Beaten of California has, and has proved this beyond a doubt. Mr. CONSTANDY. You have reviewed the Mr. SKEELS. I have reviewed his work. At General Motors we do use a form of blocked-out rail. It is blocked out by a spring section instead of by a solid block, but it does the same function and it is very effective. And we have done a~ considerable amount of evaluation on the benefits to be obtained by mounting the rail forward of the post face. Mr. OONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Wilson Mr. WILSON. I am somewhat familiar with Mr. Beaton's experiment done by the California Department of Highways, and I can confirm that what Mr. Skeels says is correct. I would like to comment on the problem of the guardrail not being blocked out. Mr. Beaton also conducted some experimentation which led to±he use of the block. What happened, the car would hook in1~o a post and have a tendency to circle and throw occupants out of a car. PAGENO="0504" 500 Mr. CONSTA.NDY. In that case, is it not true that the front of the car begins to decelerate and the back end of the car then is caused to swing around, either overturning or going end over end? Mr. PRISK. That. is right, and quite often the occupants of the car receive severe treatment, and sometimes are thrown from the car if not. restrained by seat belts. Mr. SKEELS. I would like to reinforce that with one more statement. If the wheel of the car is allowed to contact the post, which happens when the rail is not blocked out, it is very likely that the wheel of the car is torn off and you make a ma.j or accident. out of a situation which otherwise might. be quite a minor one. Mr. CONSTAxDY. Mr. Huff, I think you would like to say something more. Mr. HUFF. I would like to state that with our guardrail, where the ends are anchored, securely anchored on the ends, the non-blocked-out rails have been performing very satisfactorily. Mr. CONSTANDY. You use such installation in Texas, do you not? Mr. Hu~r. Yes. I can understand if the end is not secure you might have trouble. Where you anchor the end you probably will not have trouble. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker, do you care to comment.? Mr. RICKER. I was going to raise a different question. I wonder if Mr. Prisk is going to speak of the spacing of the post and the situating of the post spacing. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think so, yes. That. will come up in the course of the slides in any event.. Mr. Pmsic Yes. ,Just. as a matter of getting this before us pictorially, let's take a look at what. we mean by a. blocked-out rail. The third from the left is the common example of a blocked-out W-bearn rail. This same section that I have here at the table. And this shows the difference between that and the one next to the left, the standard rail which is mounted on the post. GUARDRAIL :~ I ) _ -. W4EAM BLOCKED OUT W*BE*M BOX BEAM PAGENO="0505" 501 Now, there are other types of guardrail even beyond the ones that are here, of course, but the farthest to the left is the cable rail where you have a wire cable, steel cable, mounted on wood post, or on steel posts for that matter, which will perform, and again depending upon the post, of course, with various kinds of effects. The farthest to the right is the box beam type of rail which is a rather new development in the field, starting in New York. This depends for its effectiveness not on the blocking out but on the fact that that post collapses upon contact as the vehicle goes into the rail, the box beam rail, it will knock down the vertical supports and bend this little square section that you see up here at the right end [indi- cating]. So there are various types of rail systems. These are four. Mr. CON5TANDY. Incidentally, in connection with the box beam rail, we will have testimony further in these hearings from people who developed it. But it is important to recognize, in use of that type guard- rail, that the post be weak and it is intended that the car will knock it down as it slides along. Mr. PRISK. May I show you the various types of approach end treatment that are commonly used? This is a case where the end of the guardrail, which is at the right of the slide, is buried in line. In other words, it is dropped to the ground level and anchored there with a concrete block. So that as the vehicle approaches that, he is not going to be impaled on the end of the rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it would be appropriate here to make reference to the Highway Research Board Special Report 81. Correct me if I am in error, but in it they depict both this and the next one you show which has a flare on the end of it and they recommend this one over the other one; do they not? PAGENO="0506" 502 Mr. PRI5K. Yes, this is the flared and buried installation, where the approach end of the rail is actually carried, laterally away from the roadway, so that your contact is in that curved section before it gets back to the edge of the shoulder. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels is chairman of the committee of the Highway Research Board which had a subcommittee develop Highway Research Board Special Report No. 81; is that not correct, Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. That is correct, yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Was that not a distillation of the known research which has been performed by various people on the use and application of W-beam guardrail? Mr. PRI5K. That is. Mr. SKEELS. That is right. Although the known test data was assembled and investigated by the subcommittee and Special Report 81 is the result of the findings of all available work. Mr. CON5TANDY. I see. Thank you. Mr. ZION. Mr. Prisk- Mr. CONSTANDY. When was Special Report 81 published? Mr. SKEELS. I don't have the exact date in mind. I would say about 4 years ago. Mr. CONSTANDY. I would like to make that exhibit No.4, Mr. Chair- man, Highway Research Board Special Report 81. Mr. Br~rNnc Without objection, so ordered. (Exhibit No. 4 is retained in subcommittee ifies.) Mr. ZION. Mr. Prisk- Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Zion. Mr. ZION. Where you have-I have seen new installations where you have the end of W-beam buried. It appeared to me that if it is not flared, as some I have seen, an automobile would have a tendency to ride up over it and then overturn as a result. Is this a possibility? -,-J L~. ~ PAGENO="0507" 503 Mr. PRISK. This is a distinct possibility. It is a function, in part, of the factor that I mentioned in my earlier remarks as to how long a rail section is anyway. But you are quite correct that any rail that is taken into the ground can be used as a ramp by a vehicle. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Huff, I think you have a comment. Mr. HUFF. I would like to comment on the flared rail. Our experience has led us to believe the flared rail introduced too severe an impact, which is what you try tO avoid in guardrail. You like as flat an angle of impact as you can. If you flare it, you do necessarily increase the impact. Now, on our anchored rail, or buried rail, as shown on the top section, we have been putting that in line with the rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. As the previous slide shows. Mr. HUFF. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Same alinement as the roadway. Mr. HUFF. Same alinement as the road and not over a 2-foot flare. Our experience in several hundred accidents has indicated to us that if a car gets on top, the post will act as a decelerating force to the automobile that is involved. Mr. CONSTANDY. In other words, the post that sticks up above the rail will decelerate the automobile as it hits the bottom of the auto- mobile riding along the top of the rail. Mr. HIIFT. That is correct. The post spacings must be as close together as 6 feet 3 inches, which fits the rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think we raise another issue here on the desir- ability of the flared and nonflared guardrail approaches. Mr. HUFF. In our experience and studies, we find that we need a longer rail, a longer approach rail, than Special Report 81 indicates that we i~ieed. I believe 125 feet, as I remember, is your length, Mr. Skeels. We think it ought to be upward to about 200 feet in order to accomplish- Mr. CONSTANDY. We will see slides of some installations which are only 25 feet. Mr. Skeels, you have something further to say? Mr. SKEELS. A couple more comments. I agree with Mr. Huff on the use of the inline approach rather than the flared approach. We do use the inline approach at General Motors. Mr. CONSTANDY. In spite of the fact, we must recognize, Special Report 81 does prefer a flared approach? Mr. SKEELS. That is right. I also recognize the fact that if a car does strike this, it is carried into the air; it can induce a rollover. However, a rollover is a much more preferable type of accident than being speared with the end of a guardrail. It is a matter of- Mr. ZION. Mr. Skeels, would not this in many instances throw a car into the approaching traffic in the other lane? Mr. SKEELS. I don't think I can say yes or no. It is a possibility. Personally, I think it is a remote one. Usually a car that goes up on the rail, catching the rail on one wheel, does not roll. It depends on many factors, such as the angle of the slope at the end. In other words how many sections do you taper into the ground on high-speed roads? You have to use a flatter taper than would be acceptable on low-speed roads. Our conclusion PAGENO="0508" 504 is that this is a preferable situation than to have an exposed end, as is the normal practice, even though it is flared. Mr. CONSTANDY. Don't we have to keep this in mind, when we install a guardrail or median rail, we are attempting to choose the lesser of the two evils; and that frequently we find that the thing that has been chosen as a protective device is really a compromise anyhow. You can't find the ultimate, in any event. Mr. Sx.~m,s. I would like to add two other thoughts. One, a guard- rail should be used only as a last. resort. An impact with the guardrail is an accident. And if you can eliminate the guardrail or eliminate the need for the guardrail, this is a much preferable solution. Mr. CONSTANDY. I might add, we have developed, or structured these hearings on the same premise, that it would be desirabie, al- though somewhat uneconomic and unfeasible, if an automobile could leave the traveled portion of the roadway at any point and allow sufficient room for a driver to regain control. That would be de- sirable. It is not going to happen in our time. But that initial objective, while it is unattainable, does have some features which should be utilized, in some circumstances, to provide flat, wide, runoff areas. There are some devices, such as signs, which are installed for the protection of the motorist, by giving information to prevent him from being confused, and if they are mounted where lie can use them, they can present a hazard. The next step is to try to lessen the severity of the accident, involving things that need to be near the roadway, hazards of light standard or signposts. We will have additional testimony of developments that lessen hazards of light standards or signposts. Another category consists of things that cannot~ be removed from the shoulder of the highway, such as bridge abutments, bridge piers, rivers, canyons, ravines, other natural phenomena, from which the driver must be protected. There we find ourselves in a situation where we should install a guardrail; while it is not ideal, it is better than the alternative. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SK1~im~s. One other quick comment. I agree with Mr. Huff on the length of guardrail he talks about. At General Motors we are using as much as. a 500-foot lead-in guardrail at the bridge pier. Mr. (JONSTANDY. 500 feet? Mr. S~ii~a1s. As much as 500 feet. Mr. CONSTANDY. You have made reference several times to General Motors. I wonder if you might mention to the committee what it is you have, in Michigan, that has given you this experience? We will, incidentally, later on, get into this in greater detail with other witnesses. Mr. SK~mAs. The General Motors Proving Ground at Milford, Mich., has 75 miles of road of all types designed to operate at all feasible speeds. And the practice of the corporation, of course, is to make the plant in which the employees work as safe as possible for these employees. At the proving ground, the plant in which our employees work is a road system. Hence we got into the problem of making our road system as safe as engineering knowledge would allow. Mr. CONSTANDY. I see. Mr. SKEELS. This is how we got into this business. PAGENO="0509" 505 Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Prisk, could we get on to these slides? Mr. PRISK. Yes. I think this discussion has been very helpful. Here again is the flared treatment that we have been talking about. This is another flare approach where you move from a cut. section into an embankment area, simply an elaboration of the previous slide. Now these are the types, or common "garden variety" of median barriers. The New York box beam, which has the relatively weak post and strong beam, there at the top, that box section, is one of the newer types. This takes a lot of the bending and these posts will drop as the car runs into that type of rail. PAGENO="0510" 506 This is a New Jersey type of concrete barrier. This sometimes is made of steel and, for the benefit of those here, I think that it is fair to say that this is the kind of barrier, Mr. Chairman, that will be used on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge very shortly, the structure we were talking about the other day here. This is the W-beam type rail, again, just doubling up what we had before, and the blocked out section. This is the California cable barrier, sometimes used with a cable down here low as well as these two at the top. These again are various types of median barriers. Mr. CONSTANDY. We will get into that cable barrier shortly, see some pictures of it. Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILsoN. I want to point out one thing that is different on this set of drawings. The blocked-out W-beam, you will notice, has got a little piece of rail which we call a rubbing rail, mounted on the post itself. This is to further insure that the wheel of a vehicle will not penetrate into the post area and cause a spinout. Mr. Piasx. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. CONSTANDY. You are serious about the car not touching the post? Mr. WILSON. That is right. Mr. SCHADEBERO. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question about the last slide? This New Jersey barrier, why is that slanted on the bottom? Just a matter of strengthening the barrier? Mr. P.RISK. No. This design, which is very similar to a design that was developed at General Motors Proving Ground, is intended to pre- vent the car from riding up on the barrier beyond a reasonable point. The top of the section of the barrier then engages the side metal of the car, so that you have a deflection of the vehicle in its path as it strikes that barrier and then rides away from it. Mr. SK]~s. Could I say a word on that? Mr. PRISK. Mr. Skeels would like to elaborate on that. Mr. Si~r~r~s. I would like to say just a word on this, not to contradict you, Charlie, thit-~--- Mr. Pi~isx. Go ahead. Mr. SKEELS (continuing). As the car approaches this type of a cross section, the wheel does ride up the lower section; it is intended to. This brakes the automobile in the direction you want it to turn. The wheel contacts-or perhaps I should say the tire contacts the upper portion, at about the break in the two slopes, forcibly turning the car, or turning the wheel in the direction to bring it to a parallel path. This is intentional and will be elaborated later on in the testi- mony, I am sure. Mr. CONSTANDT7. Yes. Mr. PRISK. Thank you. Taking a look at our next slide, this is simply an application of two types of rail, the guardrail at the edge and the guardrail or median barrier in the center, flaring out at the approach to the structure. Incidentally, what we commonly shall be referring to as a gore is this area right in here [indicating], where traffic coming up leaves the expressway or the freeway. This drawing is intended to represent here the case of dual bridges where you have one bridge built here, an open space here, and another bridge built in this area here [indicating]. PAGENO="0511" 507 This is one type of rail treatment which is very common. You will see many slides of this. I would like to move into some of the actual projects that we saw, Mr. Chairman. The first State that we are looking at is Utah; and this is on Interstate 80, in Salt Lake City. Here is the end treatment that is being used on projects in Salt Lake City now. This is a case where you have a rail section which comes on down, essentially, to the ground level. This is anchored and bolted to this steel post, and held to the ground level. PAGENO="0512" 508 This is about the way this looks in the field. You can see there a slight flare away from the edge of the shoulder, 3 or 4 feet. The rail is, as you aproach it, smooth, essentially with the ground level, then rises and twists through a length of about 25 feet. And then it carries on along about 1 foot off the edge of the shoulder. I think the thing to point out here is something that has been men- tioned a couple of times already; this appears to be too short, and in field review you can very easily imagine the car going down into this deep ravine. This is fairly rough country. And it would be possiblefor a car to pass the end of this rail and drop down into this area: on his approach. I was glad to hear the comments a moment ago about the longer rail. Certainly it would ap~ily here. Here is another section, which is rather typical of what you find on this project on Interstate 80; this again I would remind you is the most recently completed and opened section in Utah. The rail here is not blocked out but rather mounted directly on 8 by 8 wood posts. This is just a view of the general design, the way rail is used at that point. Mr. CONSTANIY. What was the post spacing? Mr. PRI5K. Post spacing here is 12 feet, 6 inches. There are some variations in this at some places but 12 feet 6 is the nominal standard. Here, now, is another application of rail as it approaches a bridge structure. In this case we have the twin bridge problem, with the open space, so there is a protective rail, again a 12-foot-6 spacing, somewhat more than seems desirable in a place like this where you can cut down the possibility of penetration and riding down in between these bridges. The rail is blocked to the edge of the bridge structure in the traffic face of the parapet wall. PAGENO="0513" 509 `Mr. ZION. Mr. Prisk, in this last slide, the rail is not blocked out. It looks as though it is low enough that a wheel wouldn't go below the W-beam. Is that correct? Mr.PRISK. That is right. This rail was about 25 inches, if I recall correctly, on this particular project; 25 inches was their mounting height. So you would- 87-757 0-08-33 PAGENO="0514" 510 Mr. ZION. Now, does this imply, then, if the W-beam is low enough, it would not be necessary to go to the expense of blocking it out? Or would this make the guardrail too low to be effective? Mr. PRISK. You have two considerations, Mr. Congressman. If you get the beam low enough, you can prevent the blockout-I mean you can prevent this wheel engagement with the post-but then you run the risk of the vehicle topping the rail.. This rail was mounted low enough so that you might presume that a wheel could not get in there, although I think Mr. Skeels would differ with me about that. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I would like to just add, under accident conditions, when that rail is hit., that post will deflect backward in the dirt. It will push back at a considerable angle. When it does, the bottom of the post is ahead of the rail and will catch the wheel. Mr. ZIoN. I see. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do we have any thoughts on the desirable height of the rail, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes. I think the research that has been performed indi- cates that the rail on the median barrier side, as a median barrier, should be about 30 inches, 30 or 31 inches. Mr. ZION. Is that the bottom of the W? Mr. PRI5K. That would be the top of the W-beam. And on the edge barrier, about 27 inches. This rail was low on this particular project. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you care to make a comment, Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILsoN. I was going to make almost the same comment, that in our continuing test program, we ran a test, a full-scale test, on the 24-inch height normal guardrail. Mr. CONSTANDY. Twenty-four inches? Mr. WILSON. Twenty-four inches high. This is the height we were using several years ago. And in order to verify that we either should continue or make modifications, it told us we ought to go to 27 inches in height. And this is the way it is being done now. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is on the shoulder? Mr. WILSON. That is on the normal guardrail installation as you see here. On a baa'rier, it would be higher, median barrier. Mr. CONSTANDY. When you speak of the research conducted in California., these were live tests, were they not? Actual automobiles being smashed into guardrails? Mr. WILsoN. Oh. yes. We have had several hundreds of these tests run into guardrails, curb, median barriers of all kinds. Mr. CONSTANDY. Those several hundred tests give a considerable amount of data to justify the standard you then used? Mr. WILSON. Right. Mr. ZION. In the center, it appears that if someone were guided along this guardrail, it would guide them right, into a concrete curb of some kind. Is that true? Mr. PRTSK. Yes, the curb that is at the base of the rail as you get onto the bridge is a hazard point, and a car sliding on the rail would, if he slid all the way to the bridge, certainly have to put up with that curb on the bridge. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is a significant point, Mr. Congressman. We propose to get into that in some detail in the next section of this presentation when we deal with the bridges. PAGENO="0515" 511 Mr. PRISK. This is a very good observation. We shall consider that a bit later. I have a slide showing that people actually do hit the rail. There is a similar situation on Interstate 80 where a car has hit that panel of rail and bounced off. You will notice the treatment on the right-hand side of this road- way; there is no rail at all. The median is protected because of the hole between the bridges. The right-hand side has no rail. And here is a closeup of that same right-hand side [indicating]. I think there is something a little bit ironic about that sign "Emer- gency Stopping Only," because if you reached the line of that bridge end, you certainly would make an emergency stop. PAGENO="0516" 512 Mr. Br~T~m~. If you would go over the embankment or hit the concrete abutment, either one, it would really be an emergency stop, would it not? Mr. PRISK. It would be an emergency. True. So this is the con- dition that we found. Moving on now, we find then, in the same project, a guardrail which is placed inline, and not buried. The end, as you see here, is distinguished by the fact it is striped, black and white, for that last 12-foot, 6-inch section. But this portion of it is at the full height, and anyone who went off the roadway on that curve might have difficulty if he struck that. I am almost certain he would. This is an installation, quite obviously, for the sign bridge. But if you look in the background of the picture, you will see a couple of sign footings here which are pretty big hazards by themselves; the rail stops short of those. - Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Prisk, again is this the brandnew road, re- cently completed Interstate System? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. BLATNIK. Where is it located in Utah? Mr. PRISK. This is Salt Lake City. Mr. BLATNIK. Which was completed last December 1966. So you visited this last April? Mr. FRISK. Yes. Mr. Bi~&miit. It was about as modern and up to date and as fresh or recent as you could find? Mr. PRISK. Yes. It is a new section, recently opened. Most re- cently opened. And this is just on the outskirts of Salt Lake City. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you move on, Mr. Prisk? -~ _ - ~~~i_-~- T PAGENO="0517" 513 Mr. PRISK. Here is another similar hazard where the rail is there on the approach to the structure, but you have go.t a, pretty good gap there to get through. I don't think you would have to have a small vehicle to get through that gap. Here is another gap in the rough terrain that I spoke of, between two rails. Originally the contractor used a roadway across here for construction hauling and that section appears to have been left open- is still left open for turnarounds. Mr. WILSON. On that last slide, I would like to point out a good thing about this installation is the fact that the curb, or dike, normally PAGENO="0518" 514 used to control drainages, is behind the guardrail. At a lot of installa- tions I have seen in the past years, this dike appears on the front, which would have a tendency to vault people over the rail. In this one I would say this is the place to put it. Mr. PRISK. This was characteristic of this job all the way through and we were delighted to see that. Here is another section where the rail runs for a way on the right- hand side, discontinues, and leaves you an opportunity up in this area to get, again, into pretty rough going. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is quite a drop, incidentally. It doesn't ap- pear so in that photograph, but it is very similar to others we have seen; you can go between the two sections of guardrail; if you went very far you would sail out into space. It is quite a drop. Mr. PRISK. That is a very deep ravine. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Prisk, what would be the reason for this spacing or discontinuing the guardrail, picking it up not too far beyond? Mr. PRISK. This is the slide with the deep ravine. There is a road right in here which apparently was used as a haul road by the con- tractor during the construction period, and now the highway patrol uses this in crossing from this roadway over to this one over here [indicating]. Otherwise, it is a long road to turnaround. Mr. CONSTANDY. In this instance the gap serves a purpose? Mr. PRIsK.. It does serve a purpose. Mr. CONSTANDY. It is nonetheless hazardous. Mr. PRI5K. It still is. You have an Opportunity to impale on this post here. This gap we have seen. Mr. Ric~rn. On that previous slide, there was an example of a median barrier with the rub rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. We will get into that. I think there are some later slides. Mr. PRISK. We will reach that in just a minute. PAGENO="0519" 515 Mr. CONSTANDY. Incidentally, members of the panel have not seen these slides. We thought it would be best to show them initially now. Mr. PRIsK. This is quite a trick to play on those fellows, but they are responding nobly. Here you have some discontinuous rail in the vicinity of a decision point, or a gore, as we call it. In this case it is a small section, very short section of guardrail installed here, behind the curb, a short break and on the other side the same thing, again giving multiple chances to failures of the rail. This I would say is a section where the guardrail probably was not needed. An exit takes off into a portion of Salt Lake City down this roadway and this portion of rail [indicating] buried in here carries on around that curve rather nicely, but there is some question as to how much of this rail is necessary until you get up in this area [in- dicating]. PAGENO="0520" 516 Mr. BLATNIK: One quick comment. It is incredible that we saw, a few slides back, a deep ravine with gaps between two rails, with no reason for a gap. Now referring to where the road was and where the ravine was, we needed a guardrail badly to keep from going over into a deep ravine, and they had no guardrail, and you have it here. Now, this is a rather simple observation, and does not require any compli- cated, computerized, sophisticated engineering, how to differentiate whether you need a guardrail or do not need it. How come they do not have it where they need it, and have it where they do not need it, and have it in this very well placed- Mr. PRI5K. I like to think of engineering as being commonsense, Mr. Chairman. That is what you are talking about now, and I think that there are certainly cases where the amount of engineering that is put into developing the design and the application of guardrail is proportional to its costing as it relates to the total cost of the project. The Interstate System is costing more than $1 million a mile to build but the guardrail at $3 per foot is only $15,000 a mile, and I think it is getting, disproportionately, about that much engineering atten- tion, and I think this probably accounts for some of the difficulties that we find in guardrail applications. This again is what would appear to be an unnecessary installation of rail. This is an entrance ramp coming from the right, main line here on the left of the picture, all of this rail not really in front of anything, except this sign which has a concrete footing on it. I would hate to strike that, but if you discount that particular thing, the terrain does not seem to call for rail at that point. Mr. BLATNIK. The only real hazard there is a concrete plaque which has been engineered and put in by engineers, is that correct? Mr. PRISK. True. Mr. CONSTANDY. We would not want to suggest that the guardrail there is to protect the sign. There are a number of signs that have the same legend, "merging traffic," mounted on pedestals that do project above grade, and they are unprotected. It is just a chance that this sign is in a place where it was otherwise necessary to install guardrail. We will see others later that have a sign, the same type, with none. Mr. PRISK. Right. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer. PAGENO="0521" 517 Mr. CRAMER. I want to make sure that I understood what you said about the amount of money spent on the engineering for guardrail, which you say is about $15,000 a mile as compared to a million dollar per mile total construction cost, therefore that the amount of engineer- ing going into guardrails is possibly less than what it should be. Do I understand, then, that your comment relates to section 121 (d) that limits payments for construction engineering to 10 percent of the cost of construction? Is that what you are referring to? Mr. Piusw. I can talk to you about the design efforts in general that are put into the development of guardrail plans and their place. Mr. CRAMER. It is true that there is a limit, is that correct? Mr. PRI5K. There is a limit, yes. Mr. CRAMER. So in this guardrail section costing, say, $15,000 per mile, assuming it were all guardrail, which apparently it is not, it would be sections of guardrails, then the amount of maximum engi- neering that could be put into it costwise would be $1,500, is that right? Mr. PRIsK. If you take that literally, I guess you are correct. Actually, $15,000 a mile is a single run of rail a mile long. It would come out about that. If you put rail on all sides of all roadways, then you get up to $60,000 a mile. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. Mr. PRISK. $6,000 for engineering. I am not sure this $15,000 worth of attention that has been given, even accep~ting your low figure- Mr. CRAMER. But you do not require a breakdown of the 10 percent relating to each phase of the construction, do you? Mr. PRI5K. No, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So they could put more than 10 percent into the planning and safety features if the State wanted to, were inclined to, is that not correct? Mr. PRISK. This is correct. Mr. CRAMER. So the obvious conclusion is that the States just have not been inclined to spend money for safety engineering planning as compared to construction? They want to get maximum construction, is that not the general attitude? Mr. PRISK. I believe that the accent has been on mileage production. Mr. CRAMER. That is right, and that has been the attitude of the Bureau, has it not? Mr. PRISK. This is not the attitude of the Bureau currently. It has been. Mr. CRAMER. In other words, currently since these hearings started, since we passed the Safety Act last year, we are looking into things that happened prior to that time, and it appears, according to these slides, that even currently there is not much interest in safety, based upon the evidence we have. Mr. PRISK. Well, I do not know whether I can say any more than the fact that the Bureau's first contact with the State highway depart- ments in a formal sense was devoted totally to considerations of safety. The Director of Public Roads a few weeks ago wrote to the head of each State highway department asking that such items as we are looking at this morning occupy a major place in the program. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker, do you want to comment? Mr. RICKER. It might be worth while noting the standards for guardrail placement are related to the cross section of the road and it is rather difficult to anticipate in advance just how much guardrail PAGENO="0522" 518 you are going to need. So it is pretty much tailored during construc- tion, rather than as part of the design, and we call it the windshield view you are seeing here, which in the slide here looks quite different than it looks on a set of plans, so a great deal of this depends on the skill of the people who are actually saying put more guardrail on or take it off, and many times we go back and observe the road after it is open for traffic, and we see the need for guardrails and add them. That is a common practice. Mr. CONSTANDY. But the common practice bears on the design? Mr. RICKER. Oh, it certainly does, but the basic design of the guard- rail is on cross section, not on the winshield view. Mr. CRAM~. Mr. Ricker, as I see it, the basic problem has been there are no standards, criteria, or guidelines relating to the type of guard- rail construction, relating to placement of guardrail as it relates to safety in particular, which we have seen displayed throughout in these slides. That has been, perhaps, one problem in the past, has it not? You say to put up a guardrail; you do not say where to place it, how to construct it for safety purposes, how to ground the end of it so it does not itself become a hazard? Mr. Ric~n. I guess we have to fall back on Special Report No. 81 of the Highway Research Board in which we put our best thoughts to- gether at that time. Mr. CONSTANDY. Was that ever adopted, Mr. R.icker, to your knowl- edge, as actual policy? Mr. RIc~R. I do not know that it was actually. It was sent out by the Bureau of Public Roads with a letter of endorsement. Mr. CRAMER. Well, this was put out. as a report by the Highway Research Board of the Division of Engineering and Industrial Re- search, National Academy of Science, National Research Council. To what extent were the States required to conform to this? Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Huff. Mr. HUFF. Mr. Congressman, several years ago-I am sorry, I do not know how long ago, I would guess some 5 or 6 years ago, the American Association of State Highway Officials took up the subject of guardrail, being closely associated with the Highway Research Board. It was decided to let the Highway Research Board complete its studies which they had done, and I do not know whether AASHO has taken formal action on it or not, but those of us involved in AASHO have accepted it. Mr. CONSTANDY. I do not think it has ever been adopted by AASHO as policy. Mr. HUFF. If it has, I do not know about it. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think what happened upon completion of Special Report No. 81, it was sent to the AASHO committee and was reviewed and the comments `of those members were reviewed by the members of the committee who produced Special Report No. 81 but I do not think it was formally adopted by AASHO. Do you know, Mr. Prisk, whether it is a requirement. of the Public Roads as something to be followed? Mr. PRISK. The Bureau of Public Roads in August 1966 issued an instructional memorandum identified as 21-5-66--excuse me, July 1, PAGENO="0523" 519 1966, is the date of that instruction-saying that the criteria in the Research Board report should be followed. Mr. CONSTANDY. Should be? Mr. CONSTANDY. They make a distinction between "should" and "shall," do they not? In other words, it is not mandatory unless it says it shall be followed? Mr. PRISK. This is normally used as a recommendation. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. The date it came out was in 1960, was it not-81? Mr. PRISK. HRB 81-1964. Mr. CONSTANDY. 1964. I believe we should have that in the record. Mr. CRAMER. So I get back to my point that there is no requirement that these safety features be followed and, secondly, that the Bureau's endorsement of the report was only in July of last year. Is that cor- rect, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. That was July 1966. I think the instructions that have more recently been issued are stiffer than that, and certainly would bring into full use the recommendations of the HRB 81 findings. Mr. CONSTANDY. If we could move along, Mr. Prisk, we have quite a few slides to show. Mr. PRIsK. Yes. Here is a case also in Salt Lake City where there is another gap, as you see, running from here down to here [indicating]. This rail was put in and in this case is blocked out for shielding this high- way sign at the roadside. 23rd East I Holtaday RIGHT LANEJ PAGENO="0524" 520 Here is a. case of another gap where there is a rail discontinued here and picked up over here [indicating]. Again the same sort of situation. ~ I Here is a flared section rather than short, again protecting, shield- ing a. sign. I do not like to say "protecting" a sign; hopefully we are protecting the motorist but it would be possible, again, to get around the edge of this rail. I think that longer runs of rail in these situations would be desirable. .~ 45th~1 Mu~ray Kearns Area RIGHTLANE i:T' PAGENO="0525" 521 Here you see again about the same kind of situation, rather short run of rail around the sign; no consideration of the hazard presented by these side piers in this case. Mr. CONSTANDY. Which would seem to be a more severe hazard. Mr. PRISK. Well, these certainly have more decelerating ability than these poles. [Laughter.] Mr. CONSTANDY. It appears a greater hazard. They are unprotected, but the sign which has four steel posts supporting it does have a guard- rail in front of it. Mr. PRI5K. I think we can all see that the four concrete piers are bigger than the four steel poles. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is right, Mr. Prisk. Note there, too, when the rail was installed for the roadway, the State followed one design standard, and by the time they came to letting the contract for installa- tion of signs, they upgraded the design standard for the guardrail, hence we have roadway guardrail on this project not blocked out, and the guardrail protecting the motorist from the sign is of a higher de- sign. One thing, it is blocked out. M. PRISK. Yes. There is definite im~provement that is installed here on this project. Mr. CONSTANDY. So we see some improvement within the same proj- ect, even though the protection of the motorist is handled entirely separately when it involves a sign as it does here. Mr. PRISK. True. `I ..\ PAGENO="0526" 522 This again in the picture is a closeup showing about where the rail stands as far as these piers are concerned, and the sign post. EXIT ~MILt Here is a rail going partially through a structure on the median side and over on the far side for the opposite direction, the same kind of treatment and same kind of sign treatment as you see in the distance. Mr. CON5TANDY. Of the fonr piers there, one of them is protected by the guardrail and the other three are exposed. Mr. PitisK. That is true. PAGENO="0527" 523 Now here again is a somewhat newer section we had the opportunity to see while we were in the State Lake City area. This is on 1-15, and in this case there is a much longer guardrail, buried as you see desir- ably and carried right on through, past the median piers in this case; and also the same thing on the margin of the roadway. So there is evidence on this particular ~project of picking up what appears to be a more desirable practice. Mr. CONSTANDY. So a third step in the evolution for improvement of guardrails is what you see? Mr. PRISK. That is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. I would like to say that this project was opened about the same day as the other Interstate project, although this one has higher design standard as far as guardrails go. Mr. Huff? Mr. HUFF. I would like to remark there is a fourth evolution that should be on there. It should be anchoring the downstream end of the rail as well as the upstream rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. For what purpose, Mr. Huff? To strengthen the guardrail? Mr. Hurr. Yes, that is correct. Our latest designs are incorporating that. Mr. PRISK. This is another case where the rail is flared and carried through the structure. PAGENO="0528" 524 Here is a closeup running through the bridge on the median side. Now, here for some unexplainable reason you find that this guard- rail is buried in line at the very e.dge of the pavement and runs through the structure, but there is essentially no real protection for that angle of departure from the roadway insofar as that center pier is concerned. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is the same bridge we looked at in the preceding- Mr. PRIsK. That is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Just looking at it from another angle, they im- proved the length of the guardrail but we see it is still possible to go behindit and strike the median piers. Mr. WILSON. I do not know how the other members of the panel might feel but in this particular installation, I would rather see the rail nearer the center piers, not to the point where if they happen to bend over slightly, they would hit those piers, but I think giving extra maneuvering room to traffic is extremely important here, and I would move that over about 10 feet. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is from the left shoulder closer to the median piers. Mr. Huirr. I agree with that. Mr. CONSTANDY. You agree, Mr. Huff? Mr. HUFF. I do; yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I would agree. Mr. CONSTANDY. How about you, Mr. Ricker? Mr. IRIOKER. I would agree. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes? Mr. WILKES. Yes, I would agree. Mr. CONSTANDY. We have unanimity. Mr. PRISK. That is remarkable. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. PAGENO="0529" 525 Mr. PRIsK. Next we have an approach to a twin bridge showing the treatment there. We just looked at a pier treatment. Here again the rail is flared, runs on down the slope of the median, so that the ap- proach end is rather low and then comes on into the structure itself. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, may we have some identification? Mr. CONSTANDY. These photos we have seen are in Salt Lake City. The last few slides have been of Interstate 15 south of Salt Lake City. Both were constructed at about the same time. We are back here on Interstate 80. 87-757 0-68-34 PAGENO="0530" 526 I 1~ 4~~1 k 4 1 A I A N PAGENO="0531" 527 Mr. PRISK. Here are some pictures of a bridge which again is a twin- bridge situation. You can see the edge of the traffic rail on the bridge itself has been damaged by collision, very substantial violence, of course, involved to cause that much damage. In the case of this acci- dent a man rode the approach rail which you see here; he came off this curve pretty much straight ahead, came on up to the ramp section of the rail or at least got on top of the rail and rode on into the bridge and caused this damage. He then went through the air and landed on PAGENO="0532" 528 all four wheels down here by this parking sign [indicating]. According to the measurements, he traveled 85 feet through the air and made a 26-foot drop and walked away from his car. Local police wanted to know which way he was moving on this roadway, and he said he was not, he was up here. [Laughter.] Mr. CONSTANDY. I think another worthwhile thing to mention is that, according to police officers, he was going within the legal speed limit at the time he had the accident. Mr. PRISK. True. Mr. CONSTANDY. Fifty, and the speed limit there is 60. Mr. WILSON. Are we going to talk later about the decking of structures? Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. We hope to get into that when we are dealing with structures themselves. Mr. PRIsK. Just could not avoid throwing one of these in. We have more structural pictures later. Here is a very interesting collec- tion of guardrail, I guess I would have to call it. You see the California barrier type with the anchor fence. Here is the twisted W-beam rail which comes on out, unfortunately, al- most to the edge of the pavement itself, and down here there is a bridge, so on the bridge they have elected to build a wall section and there is a concrete wall here. They have decked this bridge over. This is a twin-bridge situation again, but instead of leaving that hole like t.he one we just saw, and this is very close to the same location, they have decked this one over and actually built a concrete wall in that area, so we have three different types of median barriers. Here is one here of concrete. Another one is of cable, and another with a W-beam. - I PAGENO="0533" 529 Here is the way the concrete wall looks when you are up close, and of course, I-bolts here to hold the cables for the California-type barrier system. That anchorage, of course, is a necessary part of this system's working, but it is rather unusual that you have three types of barrier here, and as you stop and look at that, you find that there really is not very much reason that you can see for continuing this. This is done not just at this location but up here [indicating] and at still another place, so that you have this rail which obstructs the clear shoulder for one thing. You have this cable rail which does its PAGENO="0534" 530 job back here on the approach [indicating], and a wall up here [indicating]. Conceivably I think you might theorize at least that you could select one barrier, any one of these three barriers, and carry it straight through on a median line and possibly get a superior job. I have a little difficulty seeing why three types are used at that point. Mr. CONSTANDY. Paving that space between the twin bridges avoided the other hazard we have just seen. Mr. PRISK. They get credit for that; yes, sir. Mr. CONSTANDY. Had they used only the chain link fence cable barrier, it would have been good. Mr. PiasK. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. It would not have been necessary to protect the motorist from the transition between the chain link fence and the bridge structure, is that not true? Mr. PRISK. That is the place you have to watch, of course, that anchor point and the exposed end of the wall. Mr. CONSTANDY. Might this have come about because two different groups of people designed their own relative specialit.y? You have roadway engineers designing and specifying chainlink fence and the bridge engineer, at the same time, doing a complete design of the bridge? Mr. PRISK. I have seen that happen but. whether that is the case here is difficult to say; impossible for me to sa.y. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you want to say something, Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, this can be over- come. We have devised a continuation of this kind of a chainhnk cable across the deck of a bridge by the design of a proper post well for it., and that could be overcome. Mr. GONSTANDY. You would have omitted the concrete parapet? Mr. WILSON. Yes: we would have omitted that and, I think in this case, I might even have taken the risk of leaving out. this piece of rail entirely. It. may be slightly more hazardous than letting a fellow ride along that fence and hit that rail because it is so close to traffic. You notice it. is about 2 feet away from the traveiway. Mr. PRISK. Hardly that. ~ ~ U- V .,j,,;/,$~ PAGENO="0535" 531 Mr. PRISK. As we move along, we see the other end of this transi- tion where the rail and cable fence come together, begin another hazard point., at least from one side. Mr. PRISK. And here is the transition between a paved median and again you have this end fairly well exposed [indicating]. There is quite a bit of care taken to protect the overhead sign structure sup. ports, as you will see here. Mr. PRISK. There is a decrease in the number of lanes and width of the roadway at this point. Mr. PRISK. This is the median barrier that Mr. Ricker spoke of. This is a relatively high one we found. This is toward the east end of this Interstate 80 project in Salt Lake. The top of this is 36 inches PAGENO="0536" 532 and the rub rail down here at the bottom is to prevent, again, wheels from getting into these posts. Mr. MCEWEN. Will you go back-what is that object that seems to be sticking out from the top of the sort of W-beam? Mr. PRISK. This? Mr. MCIEWEN. Yes. Mr. PRISK. That is a reflector unit. There is one up here [indicating] and they delineate the rail at night for drivers. You see reflection from this surface and from this one [indicating] helps to guide your course. Mr. MCEWEN. They would break away? Mr. PRI5K. Yes, that is a very thin piece of metal just fastened under the bolt. Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you. Mr. PRISK. This is an overlap, again a transition between two differ- ent types of treatment. The left edge rail is going nicely into the median barrier, apparently with no great difficulty going in that direction. Corning the other way you have a possibility of hitting the back end of this rail if~you go straight~tO left of the roadway. Mr. PRISK. Here is another shot about in the same-just a little farther to the east, where this high rail stops and the sign is in here, and then again you introduce the standard twist and buried section which again is another rather unaccountable kind of gap. Mr. CONSTANDY. How could that have been done, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRI5K. This could have been carried straight through as a single rail after you get past this transition area. Mr. CONSTANDY. The sign at the end of the next piece of guardrail? Mr. PRISK. Yes. While we are looking at gaps, there is another one over on that side almost unaccountable in some of these. Now we move into another State, after treading pretty hard, perhaps, on Utah. PAGENO="0537" 533 Mr. CONSTANDY. Before you begin this, do any members of the panel have something they would like to say about the impressions they have from the slides taken in Utah? Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I have just one comment on the last median barrier which I noticed was not blocked out. It did have the lower rub rail, but the upper one was not blocked out. This seems inconsistent with recommendations that I have heard. I agree with all your comments about the gaps. These are unexplainable. In this picture also you will note there is a curb back in front of the barrier at the left. I kind of assume perhaps this is a bridge, but this might be a good point to bring out the fact that, in general, all that curbs in front of guardrails do is help cars to get over them. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do any other members of the panel have comments? Mr. Riciu~. I think there is a hazard here. We sometimes look at guardrail installations, and we say we must have a longer approach rail on this particular section, and we connect the two sections to avoid the opening between. We may overdo it and finally line the whole road with guardrail. I do not think this is what we are really intending when we buy right-of-way and flatten slopes, and so on. We should remember a guardrail is a crutch we use, and we should avoid a con- tinuous line of guardrails for the whole job. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes, that is a good point. Of the pictures we have seen, do you agree some of the gaps should have been avoided, however? Mr. RICKER. I think gaps should be avoided, yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr.. Wilson. Mr. WILSoN. During my tenure in design and construction, place- ment of guardrail was in fact-this was a number of years ago-was based on pretty subjective analysis. You take a look at it and make some judgments. However, recently there has been some work done in PAGENO="0538" 534 connection with where do you use guardrail and where, if you use it, do you create more of a problem than you correct; and we have put out some information on the use of guardrail, particularly on slopes. If you notice the slope behind the sign from the roadway coming from the other direction, it appears as if it were somewhere in the neighbor- hood of three to one. We would normally not put a guardrail on a slope of that nature because in our investigation of several hundred accidents where cars have gone over slopes, and there has been a guard- rail at the top, we find there would be less hazard to just let the car go over and go down the embankment. Now, this may seem like not the thing to do, but this has been our experience, and I think on that slope down there we would not use a guardrail. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Huff. Mr. Jjtrpp. I would like to make one observation in relation to the chairman's question why do you use guard fence when you do not need it and why do you not use it at the point where you do need it. I think there is confusion in the minds of a great many designers; this confu- sion as to whether you are putting up guardrail for protection of human life or protection of something they might run into or whether or not it is for delineation. Now there is a great deal of guard fence that is put up for a simple safe delineation that would serve the same purpose as guardrails. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Ct~rm~. I would like to ask a question. Mr. PRISK. Surely. (At this point, Mr. Johnson assumed the chair.) Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Cramer. Mr. CmaME1~. We have been sitting through better than 2 weeks now of hearings indicating that there are a number of death traps being built into these so-called modern lifesaving highways. The Interstate System, being built with 90-percent Federal money, was expected to save something like 8,000 lives a year. They have planted trees along the right-of-way, which themselves can be death traps. You see studies giving more consideration to bridge design than to safety. We are thiding all kinds of engineering mistakes or oversights relating to safety. We are seeing safety downgraded. We are seeing the construction of mileage being put first and safety features second. You have now adopted highway design and operational practices relating to highway safety, which I gather in future construction is going to have a substantial effect and make certain that safety is designed into the highway. Now, my question is, since over 50 percent of the Interstate System has been completed and we have seen ample evidence of deathtraps in the gore areas and what have you, what approach can be taken that will encourage the States in spending addi- tional funds or spending funds in the future to upgrade safety on already constructed highways. The States obviously are going to want to finish the Interstate System; that is gomg to be their primary objective. `What can be done to assure spending some. of these funds for going back and taking these deathtraps out of the highway? There is no special fund, available under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 for construction. As a matter of fact, we specifically prohibited spend- ing funds for the construction of safety items. Research, yes, but actual construction, no. This is going to cost a lot of money. PAGENO="0539" 535 Mr. PRISK. Well, the Bureau of Public Roads has been receptive to proposals and has urged proposals to correct existing faults and exist- mg sections of the Interstate System as well as incorporate desirable improvements in new sections yet to be built, and the essence of our most recent instructions to the field include both approaches; namely, to improve sections yet to be built and to go back on sections that are still deficient, and to make corrections there with Federal aid participation. Mr. CRAMER. How can you encourage the States to do this, though? They get a certain allocation of money; they spend that money for construction or for modification of existing highways. They are going to want to build more miles, basically, are they not? Mr. PRISK. Well, the law leaves the initiative with the States. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. How can we encourage them to get interested in safety, particularly relating to already built highways. Mr. PRISK. Well, I think through the medium of this hearing there would be some interest. We have seen some turnaround, Mr. Congress- man, as a result of our activities and these visits; corrections have been made. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I urge further, and I bring this out because the committee, I think, is going to have to give some consideration to it, the legislative Subcommittee on Roads, anyway. The General Account- ing Office has issued a ruling that once an Interstate highway is built to standard, has been approved, finalized, when you go back to do any modifications or improvements, Federal 90-10 Interstate funds cannot be used, and the cost sharing is reduced to the 50-50 ratio. Now that is not going to be any encouragement to the States to go back on a 50-50 matching basis and improve already existing Interstate high- ways from a safety standpoint, is it? Mr. PRISK. I believe that there have been cases, Mr~ Cramer, where 90-10 money has been used to correct existing deficiencies on the Inter- state System. Mr. CRAMER. Well, just a minute. I want to finish that point. That would only be in the case where the Bureau made a determination that the construction had not actually been completed; in those lengths where the Bureau determined it was completed, then it would be 50-50 matching, would it not? Mr. PRISK. This is possible. Mr. CRA~R. That is true, is it riot? Mr. PRISK. Yes, that is true. Mr. CRAMru. Well, that presents a serious problem, does it not? Mr. PRISK. Yes, I am sure it does. Mr. CRAMER. The State is not going to take 50-50 money for improv- ing a presently completed Interstate highway for safety purposes when they can get 90-10 money for new construction. That is a considerable deterrent, is it not? Mr. PRISK. I am sure it would make a difference. Mr. `CRAR. Well, I think it is quite obvious then that one approach the legislative committee ought to consider is that the Congress might feel that on safety projects the State should continue to be able to get 90-10 matching for the specific purpose of safety features on existing Interstate highways. PAGENO="0540" 536 Secondly, consideration should be given to providing some kind of an inducement for the States to go back and do the safety job that was not done. I mean, after all, we are letting the States spend 75 percent money for beauty, and it would seem to me it would make some sense to give safety equal consideration with beauty. Mr. PRISK. Mr. Cramer, the last instruction to which I referred has this phrase in it: "Federal participation will be the usual pro rata amount applicable for the system involved." This is the Interstate System. I see no reason why this would not mean 90-10 funds would be available. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that., but the General Accounting Office does not agree. Mr. PRISK. Well, I can only reflect. the attitude the Burea.u of Pub- lic Roads has taken. Mr. WILKES. Mr. Prisk, if I may say, I believe we can furnish a num- ber of Interstate projects that have been authorized when they are so identified as safety projects with the appropriate 90-10 financing on completed sections of the Interstate; so they have been authorized where they are identified as safety projects. Mr. CRAMER. Even though the projects have been completed? Mr. PRISK. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I would like, to have for the record a list of those projects. Mr. PRISK. I think that can be furnished. I am sure there are projects that have been handled that way. Mr. CRAMER. GAO determination could pose a problem relating to some of these if it were raised, is that correct? Mr. Pias~. Yes. Mr. Wiuti~s. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that the AASHO, testifying before this committee in executive session-the record now is made public-recom- mended upgrading the Interstate System with Federal matching money after the system is completed, but I speak for myself as being one not willing to wait until 1973, 1974, or 1975, until it is completed in order to do something about these deathtraps built into exist.ing highways. That. is all, Mr. Chairman. (Mr. McCarthy assumed the chair.) Mr. MOEWEN. Mr. Chairman I would like to ask just one brief ques- tion of Mr. Prisk. Does the Bureau of Public Roads have a sta.ndard as to where the guardrail should be placed in relation to the slope, if it is more than 1 in 6, or whatever gra.de you take? Mr. PRISK. No, sir. Mr. MOEwEN. That is left. to the States to determine? Mr. PRISK. We have endorsed, t.he closest thing we have come to this endorsement of the recommendations of H.R.B. 81, in which there are projected standards. I think that as you move from State to State the establishment of a nationwide standard becomes one that would be extremely difficult to arrive at a single. set of values, and so we have considered this more on a project. by proje.ct basis and on the basis of the principles t.hat are enunciated in the H.R.B. 81 report more than any other way. Mr. MOEwEN. Well, one of the things I notice, Mr. Prisk, traveling quite a few miles on interstate highway, is where off the highway you PAGENO="0541" 537 have a rather steep slope, guardrails were placed but then you come to a cut through the rock, where there was not any slope of any kind, just a sheer rock wall, and in none of these sections did I find any guardrail at all, and I wondered if you or the members of this panel would care to comment on that. Mr. GONSTANDY. Mr. McEwen, we will have examples of that as we go through these slides. In a couple of projects at least there were some situations of that kind. Mr. MGEwEN. I will be happy to hold the question if we are going to come to slides on this. Mr. OONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes? Mr. WiiacEs. That was a point I was going to make, that most of the guardrail that has been installed on a project is on the basis of stand- ards developed by each individual State and that the designer can only roughly indicate where in his opinion the guardrail would be required and it is most desirable to feel the engineer constructing the. project be allowed sufficient latitude to add or delete a guardrail as a project is developed, but the guardrails, like so many other items of highway hardware, are generally installed from standards that are developed by each State. Mr. CRAMER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask if the panel or any of its members could give the committee a recommendation as to what can be done as an incentive to bring the existing highways up to proper safety standards. Now, we gave a 0.5 percent bonus by legislation in 1958 to the States for billboard control. We didn't hesitate to do that for beauty. What can we do to encourage the States to do a job on safety on the present highways? Does any member of the panel have any thoughts? We want to face that question. Mr. WILSON. I think every State has some type of program where they are going back and looking at their present highway system. The Bureau of Public Roads asked us a couple of years ago to start a program of spot improvements where accidents were happening. There were places where accidents were apt to happen, and we have gone into a considerable program and I am sure other States have, too, although they have not given us any more funds to spend on this program. The money that has been spent comes out of our regular Federal-aid appropriations, but almost any highway department, in taking a. look at their accident-prone locations and analyzing what can be done toward accident reduction, I think, would certainly want to get into this in some depth. Mr. CRAMER. How much is California spending on safety? Mr. WILSON. Our safety program, which involves merely spot im- provements, or projects where safety is a primary consideration, is up to about $15 million annually. We do about 600 projects per year from a mere placing of a. sign-a few dollars' cost-to up to a million dollars per project. This wa.s as a result, or we had a program going prior to it, where we made a very detailed inventory of our State highway system and turned up about 4,000 locations that met the criteria we had established, which was about five accidents per year on a one-tenth mile section of roadway. We took a look at these 4,000 locations and decided on about 700 of them we could do something with ordinary traffic-type improvements, channelize, curve signals, this sort of thing and now we are in a 3-yea.r program to, you might say, wipe out these 700 places and we are on a level now of doing PAGENO="0542" 538 about 600 per year and we think this program is paying off. When these 700 locations are met, we expect to have 4,800 less accidents per year as a~ result of it. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I think that is an admirable program, but by your testimony I assume if you had adequate funds you could do it even better and more expeditiously. Mr. `WILSON. I think all the traffic engineers would like to have more money because they feel they can do a great deal here. Mr. Cn~IER. Would any other members of the panel like to com- ment on what their States are doing or what they think should be done? Mr. Hurr. On our 6,000- or 7,000-mile system in Texas, we attempt to improve and upgrade at least 2,000 miles each year. Now, of course, safety is a very general term. Probably you can't do a complete job on it, but you can take the highest priority items and concentrate on them, in our opinion, the widening of bridges and paving of shoulders and some of the things we have been talking about here, but also other things in the spectrum of safety. We concentrate on this 2,000 miles a year. This program which is mostly orientated to safety, we call it our safety betterment program, will run between $30 and $40 million in an average year. Mr. CRAMER. So Texas is spending $30 to $40 million a year? Mr. HUFF. Yes, sir. Mr. (3IL&MER. On upgrading existing highways. Mr. HUFF. Yes, sir. Those are State funds. Mr. Cm~43n~. All State funds. Mr. HUrr. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. California uses State funds or matching funds? Mr. WILSON. Primarily State funds. We are getting some 90-to- 10 participation on some pieces of interstate where we are doing some minor work. For the record, I would correct on the Interstate, the safety work we are doing on there is State. We do expect to get Interstate money on that, for such as modification, rigid sign bases, and so forth. Mr. CRAMER. Getting 90-40? Mr. WILSON. We hope so, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Mr. RICKER. On the subject we are discussing this morning, guard- rail, we have not had any trouble getting 90-10 funds to go back and add it as a median barrier or guardrail for bridge piers and so on. As you get into some of the ot.her subjects of safety where there would be more money involved, bridge widening, rebuilding interchanges and so on, particularly those that were incorporated into the Inter- state System but were not designed according to the standard, there we will need money. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Prisk, just on the point raised by Mr. Cramer, we have these figures here, 65 percent of the accidents and 61 percent of the deaths involved one vehicle, and 88 percent of the single-vehicle accidents and 89 percent of deaths, the vehicle leaves the road. I am wondering, do you have any figures indicating how the various States are doing? I assume there are some States that have a better record than others, each one I gather pretty much going its own way. Would there be a way of making available to the other States, say, the top PAGENO="0543" 539 10 States in terms of safety, what they have done, what kinds of guardrails they have, what their procedure is on location of signs and so forth, sort of an information gage on safety. Is there anything of this sort being made available by the Bureau? Mr. PRISK. The Bureau of Public Roads mails reports from States as they become available on subjects of this sort, reports that are of particular interest. I recall as a specific example, the research per- formed in California on wrong-way driving, the use of ramps at inter- changes in the wrong direction, causing headon collisions through this maneuver. A research report on this work was circulated to all State highway department~s with the request that this be considered as they treated this problem. This is one example, and as things appear that are of merit, these also are sent to the State highway departments. Mr. MCCARTHY. Which is the safest State in the Interstate? Mr. PRISK. This is impossible-we have no yardstick to measure that. Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, you have statistics on accidents from each State, right? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. MCCARTHY. Then you must know which is the safest State? Mr. PRISK. It is very difficult to measure this because it involves putting lives in terms of dollars and how much is a life worth in terms of dollars? You can count property damages in terms of dollars, but you can't count broken bones in terms of dollars, injuries, nor can you count the loss of a life, specifically or accurately. Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, is there any place where figures are published on death rate by State on the Interstate System? Mr. PRISK. We are compiling right now State by State figures for experience on the Interstate System, yes. I would be glad to get this available for the next session of the committee, just where we are at the present time, so that it could be part of your consideration. Mr. `CONSTANDY. We will have `testimony later in the hearing re- lating to that, Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MCCARTHY. Is this the first time you are compiling this information? Mr. PRISK. This is the first time the Bureau of Public Roads or any Federal agency has undertaken to compile accident data on a nationwide basis, yes. Mr. MCOARTHY. OK. Thank you. Mr. CONSTANDY. Will you continue, Mr. Frisk, with Ohio? Mr. PRISK. Yes. PAGENO="0544" 540 This is Ohio, again standard practice not to block out. Here you see a round post and this bulbous section on the end. A post here also mounted rather low and in the case here, no washers are used on the head of the bolt. It does not show too well on the picture, but that is true. PAGENO="0545" 541 Here is an installation we passed en route to the subject job. This is on 1-71, near Cleveland, where there is a guardrail installation at an overhead sign bridge and it is rather short and moving up close to it you see what happened on the median side. This guardrail without the washers, as I said, was torn off the post. 87-757 0-68-35 PAGENO="0546" 542 Here is a closeup shot. You can see the bolt still on the post and the rail actually pulled off the post coming right through without the washer. With the washer in there you would have had at least benefit of a little more guardrail than was working at the time of this collision. Moving back to the subject project- Mr. CONSTANDY. Interstate 80? Mr. PItIsK. That is right, in Ohio. Mr. CONSTANDY. January 1967? Mr. PRI5K. That is right. True. PAGENO="0547" 543 Mr. CONSTANDY. Rural section of 5.5 miles. Mr. PRISK. Yes. And this is a typical installation you find here. The guard rail is flared slightly and it Is not buried. In this case the installation was made for drainage structure just part way up the rail. It gives you a general view; in the distance is an overcrossing structure. Mr. CONSTANDY. What is the post spacing in here? Mr. PRISK. Twelve feet, six inches in Ohio. Here is a closeup of another installation, a slight flare at the beginning and a rather short run of rail across the top of the culvert. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Prisk, in addition to the short run of rail, it PAGENO="0548" 544 appears that the back is pretty steep, is it not? The slope is a little bit too steep to negotiate safely. Mr. PRI5K. That is correct. Probably it is 2 to 1 anyway. Mr. BLATNIK. Your drainage ditch is sharp and it serves similarly to the return groove on a bowling alley, which turns the bowling ball back. Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. BLATNIK. It is short. In that groove one could pretty well be frozen, fixed or locked in and run right into the culvert headwall; would he not? Mr. PRISK. Yes. I think there is a pretty good chance. It would depend on the angle of entry. In any event, when you traverse a V type of ditch, you are far more apt to go out of control than you are with a flat, rounded bottom ditch. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Ricker, you had your hand up. Mr. RICKER~ This illustrates a question of whether the guard rail - does not present more hazards than the culvert did originally. We think it would be worth review. You can't judge this just from this picture. Omit the guard rail entirely and the hazard may be so small it could be ignored or else perhaps extend the culvert slightly and you don't need any rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. In other words, a change of design in the culvert might permit elimination of guardrail? Mr. PRISK. Right. Mr. CON5TANDY. Plus elimination of a possible hazard. Mr. PRISK. This is a very good comment and this is also along the line of the investigation that was done in California under Mr. Wilson's direction, where the criteria for installation of guardrail was con- sidered against the possible hazards involved by having the rail there. Its protective value against its hazard value, I think, must be compared. Here is an instance of a. very short section in front of a sign, again a very slight flare over a very short distance on this rail. -~ j I - .- PAGENO="0549" 545 Mr. CONSTANDY. On this project of 5.5 miles, about half of which is used up by a bridge, there is no interchange complete within the project and we cite this example on the interchange immediately preceding. Mr. PRISK. That is correct. This is at one end of the project and shows a flared rail running through the piers of the structure. Here is rail lined up with the structure with the expption of the curb that sticks out in front. You see the characteristics we have noted before. The rail is not blocked out. The rail here is set back two or / PAGENO="0550" 546 two and a. half feet from the edge of the paved shoulder. In some cases travel on that grass surface or on the off-the-paved surface, I should say, presents a problem in itself. Mr. CONSTANDY. I wonder if we might have some comments by the panel relative to that. We have seeii it in several of these, or we will see it, where the guardrail is installed beyond the paved shoulder, leaving a distance of sometimes 2 to 4 feet of unpaved shoulder area in front of the guardrail, which generally as we found it, visiting in the spring, was muddy and quite soft. Is it desirable that the shoulder be paved up to the face of the guardrail? Mr. Huff? Mr. Hurp. As far as safety is concerned, in my opinion it is all right. It creates quite a mowing problem. Mr. CONSTANDY. So if it were paved, part of the cost of paving might be offset by the lower maintenance cost by doing away with mowing. Mr. SKEELS. I would agree with that. One matter I would like to call attention to is use of these round wooden posts. We have not talked much about posts and I don't want to get into it right now. Perhaps you will later, Mr. Prisk, hut the strength of the posts is a. very critical item and should be examined. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker? Mr. RICKER. Relative to the placement of this rail, I point out it is desirable to have it back there so you can open the car door on the outside and not have to step into traffic. It is good to have the rail back that extra 2 feet. Mr. CONSTANDY. Might it be desirable to pave the additional width? Mr. BICKER. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. We will see some slides in other areas where that space is quite pronounced and we wonder ivhat would happen if a yehijole left a paved shoulder and entered that muddy area. before it struck the guardrail. Continue, Mr. Prisk. ~. `~ PAGENO="0551" 547 Mr. PRISK. Continuing, you find again there are sharp, uncomforta- ble gaps of rail. In this case, right-hand piers are shielded by a short section of rail, which begins shortly after another one stops. Very nice slope protections, you will notice, on the structure itself. The cen- t.er piers are fairly well guarded from traffic simply by the slight slope that is there. We will talk about that. on another series of slides. Here is a closeup of tha.t same shot. You find the structure not only has that rail which starts a short distance before it, but after you get through the piers it. stops and then there is another one that starts for another reason. So here are some more gaps. _.A__- ~ ~ Here is one where, if you go far enough, you could be in the lake be- cause the guardrail here does not too well protect that total slope. PAGENO="0552" 548 This is another consideration of a gap. r I When you come to the dual bridges in Ohio on Interstate 80-S you will see from this picture they have done a pretty good job swing- ing the median rail back to protect and guard against that open space between the structures. In a fairly wide median, of course, something of this sort probably is superior to attempting to pave the entire median over. Mr. RICKER. There is another good feature of that. You will notice they have regraded the ditch between the two roadways and this is Pr~t'~ * - I, PAGENO="0553" 549 necessary if that guardrail is to work properly; otherwise it dips down into the center depression and makes a different kind of hazard. This is a good design where the median has been flattened. Mr. PRISK. At the same time, I call your attention to the headon posture of the rail on the right-hand side of the road. Here is a treatment on the end of that median flare that is doubled back so that actually for about seven or eight panels you have pro- tection on which ever side you hit it, going in the direction of the camera shot or in the opposite direction. Here is another one showing approximately the same thing. Now we move to Montana and find about the same situation. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, that would be 1-90 and this sectioii was made up of three projects, two of them being opened in 1966 and one in July 1966, 11.2 miles total. This is just on the edge of Missoula. PAGENO="0554" 550 Mr. PRISK. Thank you. That position shows we are out in the country here. Here are the two roadways on separate grade, obviously, with very substantially different elevation. Standard guardrail installation is what you see, with no blocked-out posts. In this instance you will find that they are patching the ends-I should not say patching, but they are extending the ends of the guard- rail on the right-hand side, so as to get the benefit of a flare section. PAGENO="0555" 551 This was field changed during the construction, and work, I expect, iioi~ is completed It w `is under w'ty `is we visited the project We move along on this section. This is about the way it looks as those portions `ire completed The r'ul is t'iken down `i slope, both in the median and on the right-hand side. Here is a case where you have a gap and somebody put the flare in on the wrong end, because. you are driving in the same direction as the camera is looking and there is a nice waterhole straight ahead, if you follow that flare, that you could drop into, up in this general area here [indicating]. PAGENO="0556" 552 rfhe sections in Montana have something to recommend them because here is the appearance of a washer clearly on a median barrier and this is back in the urban portion, near Missoula, and in this case the rail is not only not blocked out, but the rail is notched into a wooden post. There is an 8-by-8-inch wood post there and the post actually has been notched so it is down to about 5 inches thick at the top. ~L ~ r PAGENO="0557" 553 Mr. CONSTANDY. What do you think of that, Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I wouldn't dare say. Mr. PRISK. Inquiring into this notching made me not. say anything either. I found that this was done to obtain the 3.5-foot clearance to the edge of the pavement. rfhat is the hard way. Here is a section on a structure where concrete curb is introduced as you cross the structure and steel posts are substituted for the notched-out wood post and I dare say this is a little better to hit than that other section, from a number of viewpoints. PAGENO="0558" 554 Mr. CONSTANDY. Do any of the members of the panel have any- thing they would like to say about the notched-out, post? Mr. SKEELS. Well, it certainly weakens the post and it is going to break right at the bottom of that notch as soon as a car hits it, and leave stub post sticking up there. It is not going to perform properly. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. PRISK. I am informed that the median width has now been moved to 10 feet instead of the 8 that is here, so that part has been recovered. Here is an approach to a. dual structure in Montana where there is a flare carried well down into the median area. Mr. CONSTANDY. Before you get to this slide, Mr. Prisk-Mr. Ricker, you made a comment on the project in Ohio relative to the same thing. Could you look at this slide and perhaps tell us something about it, as to the swale? Mr. RICKER. I think it would be desirable to take some of that swale out at the locality where this guardrail begins, to avoid this not-too- good effective section of rail, where you are going down the slope and hitting the rail at the same time. You wedge in there. Mr. CON5TANDY. Apparently there is good reason to flare the guard- rail on the left, as it is, to prevent the motorist from meeting the hazard between the bridges, but there is a like hazard on the right side. This seems to be followed in many places, the median side is considerably flared and the guardrail on the right-hand side is not. I wonder if someone would care to comment on that. It perplexes me. Mr. RIcKI~. I would like to comment on this median side a little more. Mr. CONSTANDY. Go ahead. Mr. RIc~R. I notice in the picture there is an embankment down near the actual opening which provides a second line of defense for somebody who does happen to get in there. That is as good a place to PAGENO="0559" 555 find bushes and so, on behind the rail, where they normally would not be hit and they do improve the appearance as well as to slow down vehicles that do get that far. Mr. OONSTANDY. Mr. Huff? Mr. HUFF. In my opinion, the obtuse angle of approach on the median rail makes it an unsafe area and as~ a matter of fact I think it is more unsafe than the one on the right. Mr. CONSTANDY. What would your solution be-extend the length of it and lessen the angle? Then you would not have to worry about a car getting behind it. Mr. Hui~. Well, I think you get virtually the same advantage if you move the one on the left back up near the shoulder, the same distance from the shoulder as it is down the road. Mr. CONSTANDY. Anyone else care to comment? Mr. PRI5K. Here is another treatment where a different solution approaching what Mr. Huff just suggested has been followed: Just a very slight flare and this seems to be the end of it. .1 think that the one thing that bothered me, as an engineer, looking at these jobs, if I may be permitted a very general comment, is the variability even on specific jobs of the treatment of essentially the same kind of situation. Perhaps we learn from doing things differently and with incomplete knowl- edge; also, of course, perhaps we can gain as one is built this way and this one is built another way. Maybe later on we will know something about this. Mr. CON5TANDY. Both of them are intended to protect the. motorist from some hazard in the median? Mr. PRISK. That is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. In the former case it is the twin bridge, in the latter it is the slope? Mr. PRISK. The embankment, yes. True. Mr. SKEELS. On this one we have here, I don't know the whole situa- tion, of course, but it appears that perhaps that slope could have been modified and not need the guardrail. PAGENO="0560" 556 Mr. OONSTANDY. It might be a bad picture. I would hate to ride down here at this point where there is no guardrail. It is kind of steep and rather high. Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILsON. I think this is a good place to point out another thing involving the guardrail indirectly. Highway engineers over the years have been subjected to pressure to construct separated roadways, think- ing these may be somewhat more beautiful, and I suppose at times some are more economical but in this case here, and I am speaking of separated roadways, separated vertically one above the other, you will notice we had to put a guardrail in here to protect either the upper roadway or protect the cars from going off into the lower roadway. I think in this case it would have been better to have kept the roadways at the same elevation and eliminated need for the guardrail as you have right here in the section in the foreground of the picture. The added hazard of going to separate roadways in my opinion is considerable. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker, do you care to comment? Mr. RIcK1~. I was going to make almost the same comment. Some of us wonder, if you have to have the guardrail on the upper roadway, whether there is any use in making such a wide median. If you have decided already to put the guardrail in on the upper level, the width of median is relatively unimportant. Mr. CONSTANDY. Maybe the guardrail came at a later time than the decision to have the roadways on separate grades. Mr. RIcKI~R. Could be. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. It is quite possible, I should think. Now I move to a structure to take a look at practices in Montana, and find the guardrail, as you will see, on both sides of the roadway in both directions, center piers and side piers, and this gives you a general view of the installation. PAGENO="0561" 557 As we move in on it, this is a closeup of the median protection and you will see that the panels are in there with the end posts tightened up to 6-foot-3-inch spacing along in through this area here [indicat- ing], then lengthening out to 12-f oot-6-inch spacing down through here. This is perhaps a minimum length, you might say, of guardrail, looking at it from this angle. Let me give you another angle on this same structure. Here is the side protection, which is done about the same way. 87-757 O-68-----36 PAGENO="0562" 558 But here we swing around and take a look at the median pier prob- lem, in terms of where that rail is placed. This shot, of course, was taken perhaps a couple of hundred feet away and it is not too difficult to visualize someone getting into the bottom of this bowling alley gutter here that the ~hairma.n referred to a little while ago, and end- ing up in difficulty with that pier. As you look to the right-hand side, you have about the same situa- tion as a couple of hundred feet away. There is not an awful lot of proteetion here. You have a steep slope here which can turn you back PAGENO="0563" 559 into the embankment of the rail or possibly wedge you between the rail and the pier. All of this can be a little uncomfortable. Mr. WILKES. I would like to point out, though, greater justification for this offset at this pier than it would be at the median because the pier cap is not skewed parallel to the roadway and it overhangs, so that a truck could theoretically get in and strike the cap. Mr. PRISK. That is a good point. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that the only kind of cap that could be de- signed? Or would it be another hazard? Mr. WILIc.1~s. Of course you could make the cap parallel to the roadway at an increase in cost of construction. It would be more expensive. This is not typical. Usually they are designed to be parallel to the roadway. Mr. CONSTANDY. Of course, this bridge is not. skewed. Mr. WILKES. This bridge is not skewed and I am sure they used this design because they had a standard prepared for this. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Huff, your earlier comment about the bolt and guardrail might suggest this situation where the other end could be anchored or at least the post space be doubled up for greater strength. Mr. HUFF. Of course, the principal reason for anchoring is to eliminate this weak spot, weak ends. Mr. CONSTANDY. That could be done either by anchoring or de- creasing spacing of posts; is that true? Mr. HUFF. In my opinion, it should be anchored on both ends and it should be longer. PAGENO="0564" 560 Mr. PRISK. Moving along, this again is a far view taken 400 or 500 feet in advance of the structure. I think you can still see these same points stand out rather prominently and suggest that perhaps there has been a bit too little guardrail used at this point. Mr. CONSTANDY. That concludes the slides on Montana, Mr. Chair- man. If we can this afternoon begin with Oklahoma, Missouri, Ne- vada, we will. Mr. MCCARTHY. The committee will stand in recess until 2 p.m. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was recessed, to recon- vene at 2 p.m. the same day.) AFrERNOON SESSION Present: Messrs. Blatnik (subcommittee chairman), Howard (act- ing chairman), Cramer, and Clausen. Also present: Staff as heretofore noted. Mr. HOWARD. The subcommittee will please come to order. The Ohair recognizes Mr. Constandy. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I would like to clarify. It was referred to this morning. We have selected nine States; one in each region of Public Roads. We have, roughly, 10 different elements which relate to roadside hazards in the design and construc- t~ion of the highway. We propose to go through each of the nine States looking at each of these elements, one at a time. We hope to conclude guardrails this afternoon. Tomorrow we will deal with bridges, and so on, through the 10. But each day we will be discussing a different element, or maybe more than one each day; in each case as it relates to each of the nine States. I think the next slides we have depict conditions we found in Okla- homa. The project here is 1-40, located in Oklahoma City. It was opened to traffic in January 1967 and is a 2-mile urban section. While we were concerned with that particular project the next project contiguous to it was under construction and we took several slides of the work on the new project. Members of the panel, we still solicit your comments on each of these elements. Even though it is apt to begin to appear repetitive, it is not as it relates to that particular State. I would assume that silence concerning Mr. Prisk's comments would suggest agreement by each of you with what he says. If you differ with anything he says, raise your hand and we will clarify that. Unless you do differ, I will assume you agree with his comment. Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. This concerns Interstate 40 in Oklahoma City, an urban area project. This is a closeup shot of their guardrail section and guard- rail design. Here again you see round posts, bolts with no washers. PAGENO="0565" 561 PAGENO="0566" 562 Moving along to the actual application, you see this rather abruptly curved transition into a guardrail section. This is in advance of a slope condition. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that type of flare sufficient, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. This appears to be an extremely short flare, and the treatment here certainly is a rather abrupt flare and is not buried, as you can see. Mr. CONSTANDY. I notice that there is one post on the end, and by the next post the guardrail is back on a tangent, so the length of that flare is generally 12 feet. Mr. Pi~isx. That is about right. Mr. Cr~usi~i. May I ask a question? Mr. HowAiw. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Did I understand you correctly, Mr. Prisk, that you feel this particular design could be altered so as to improve safety? Mr. PRISK. I think that it should be. This is a very abrupt flare, for one thing, and the end of the post, the end of the rail was exposed to traffic at a rather close point as far as the shoulder is concerned, only 3 or 4 feet away. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think, Congressman, the slides taken on the new contiguous project would suggest they think so, too ;because on the new work, they have increased the degree of the offset from the end post to the shoulder, and so, in effect, have increased the flare. Mr. CLAUSEN. My immediate reaction, again as a layman, is that it offers no protection. If a person were to skid off and hit that rail there, certainly there would be no deflecting tendencies on the part of what you have there. Mr. CONSTANDY. In addition, as Mr. Prisk pointed out, these particu- lar installations do not have a blocked-out section. Neither do they have in all cases-am I correct, Mr. Prisk, t.hey do not always have washers? Mr. PRISK. That is right. PAGENO="0567" 563 Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Bicker. Mr. RICKER. Mr. Prisk has not commented on the terminal section, although he should. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you care to comment? Mr. BICKER. I am satisfied. Mr. PRIsI~. Well, in the case of the terminal sections, the new work, as we will see in a moment, has reduced the post spacing in situations like this. In addition to making a smoother flare, and longer flare, they have tightened up the post spacings to 6 foot 3 inches in place of 12-6. Mr. CONSTANDY. Did you want to say something further? Mr. RICKER. I am talking about that piece of steel that is curved around the end. Mr. PRI5K. Oh, that. You mean the terminal section. Mr. CONSTANDY. It looks like a collar on the end of the guardrail? Mr. PRISK. What Mr. Ricker is talking about is this [indicating], and I would be glad to speak about it. I would say it is not worth anything that I can think of. I really think that it serves no particular purpose unless it be esthetics. Mr. CONSTANDY. You know, you see them all over the United States, that collar, is it not true? Mr. RIciu~R. I think some of your other pictures have shown that they have almost no value at all in the case of a collision. They look good in, but not afterwards. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Wilson, do we have anything like this in Cali- fornia? Mr. WILSON. We use the end section. We use a 10-by-b post for the first post and 6 foot 3 spacing. I question the round post, whether it is strong enough to withstand what it is supposed to withstand. However, Congressman, we do use that type of cap around the end of the post. Mr. CONSTANDY. What do you think of its value, Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. Well, the intent of it is to keep the rail itself from spearing the car, and I imagine it has some deterrent effect in that re- gard. Mr. CONSTANDY. Possibly increasing G forces on the occupant, though? Mr. WILSON. It is possible. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels, do you have an opinion about that? Mr. SKEELS. Well, it is a step in the right direction. It is an improve- ment over an unprotected end. However, it is completely inadequate and I am certain that technology knows how to do better. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct this com- ment to counsel regarding what we are looking at in some of the photo- graphs. Is there going to be something included in the record in the way of recommended design change by some of the panel members here to correct this problem? Would that be a permanent part of the record? Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it would be such a massive chore. We would find it extremely difficult to ask the panel members, even as experts, to undertake it. Actually this whole process is currently in- volving the Bureau of Public Roads and the design sections of the 50 States. I am sure the panel members have spoken individually, as they have presented papers before the Highway Research Board and PAGENO="0568" 564 AASHO in making specific recommendations as to particular elements of the design. I think it would be kind of difficult for them through this committee, to produce something in the way of design standards, other than as their comments would indicate what is more desirable. Mr. BLATNIK. Will the gentleman yield on the same question? Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes. Just one second, Mr. Blatnik. The point I am trying to make here is I am hopeful what we have started here as a committee would provide a permanent record, so that we can actually compare the problem areas with what we will have in the way of correcting recommendation. It seems to me our hearings should at least have the comparison, examine the before and after approach. I would be pleased to yield to the chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Later on, Congressman, we have very fine witnesses, top officials of AASHO and certain Bureau of Public Roads people, who will try to answer the question: How come as many findings were presented, things we have been viewing, things we have been hearing, in these past several weeks of hearings? It is a massive attack. AASHO is working full speed and earnestly, revising the whole safety criteria, as we call it, regulations, directives, etc. Wherever it is possible, we can get recommendations and be helpful. I think the gentlemen will agree, as Mr. Constandy points out, the overall job which must be gotten underway, we hope the big end result of these hearings, will be specific action as to modifications. Whether we can do it in the hearing itself is highly doubtful. Mr. CLAUSEN. Actually what I am after, I guess, is away to prepare what I think could be a historical document. Because that which has been brought to the attention of we lay members of the committee here certainly could well be recorded and be properly utilized, for instance, among many of the engineering schools and students now coming on, to point out how, in effect, good engineering has brought about a certain amount of oversight. I think the principal intent of these hearings is to do just this; it is simply to get at the heart of the problem and, hopefully, record this as an historic document, so engineers in the future will not be making these inadvertent mistakes. I am sure they are inadvertent. Mr. CONSTANDY. In addition, in the course of this work, as we will see in the next few slides, where possible we have shown a before and after, in a sense, by showing, as here, the design standard that was in effect just as recently as 1966, when this project was completed, and the evolution in the design standards showing the. better design within the same State probably within a fraction of a mile of this particular installation. We will, in that sense, get to see an example of something that is desirable and something that is less desirable, even though the im- provement, we may find from the experts, is not perfect. Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes. I gathered that very point, during the discussion just prior to the opening of this hearing with Mr. Wilson, from my State of California, that this is underway. But I still hold the point of view we continually provide an extra service by supplying a docu- ment which prohibits this sort of thing as best we can in the future. And I would like to ask the staff to give very careful consideration PAGENO="0569" 565 to incorporating this in whatever kind of document leaves this sub- committee. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. We proceed here t.o look at another installation of guardrail. This is as you leave, a structure with the sidewalk on it in this urban section. You find t.hat the guardrail is directly in your line of path, presumably put in there partly for protection of the light standard, which is a steel light standard behind the guardrail. Anyone going off through this area certainly would not find himself in very good shape, hitting the end of that rail. lip in the decisionpoint, the gore area, you find the same treatment we just looked at a moment ago. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would this strike you members of the panel as being an undesirable feature? Mr. SKEELS. On that guardrail on the gore up there, it appears to me, from looking at the slide, that it is unnecessary to start at the point where it starts. The gore area is very critical. It is frequently invaded. There has been placed there an obstacle that certainly is not necessary. Mr. CONSTANDY. How about this piece right here [indicating]? As- suming an automobile was sliding along the bridge rail and has man- aged to get up here. Mr. SKEELS. This is, I think, obvious even to a layman. A car coming along the bridge is going to hit not only the guardrail, but is going to hit the light pole. Mr. CONSTANDY. We are agreed on that. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Wu~soN. I would like to comment on the gore area. We recently have taken steps to clean that area out.. As Mr. Skeels says, that is often invaded, due to the fact you are often making a decision in that area. It is not exactly the subject of the hearing now, but the curb there is also a matter that would throw a car out of control. Mr. CON5TANDY. We will later have an element in these discussions that deals both with gore areas and curbing. PAGENO="0570" 566 Mr. WILSON: I see. With regard to the light standards, studies we have done recently indicate, to us, if you are using a light standard without a breawaway base under it, you are better off having a light standard exposed than 20, 30, 40, or 50 feet of guardrail to protect it. The consequence of the accident is less if you hit the light standard. Mr. CONSTANDY. Ideally you have a breakaway light? Mr. WILSON. IRight. California last year took steps to take a look at old light standards, with the idea of putting some kind of frangible base beneath them. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. We have seen slides of some poles in the vi- cinity of Washington involving accidents. The light poles were not of the breakaway type. ~- ~ :~- ~ - a... -- *. - - :`~ ~ -~ ,- ._.~.f ...-~------- ~-` - -- - .- . -~,H~-~-.- ~ I PAGENO="0571" 567 Mr. PRIsK. I think with credit to Oklahoma, we will see evidence that fragible light bases have been used in Oklahoma as well. This is an exception. Mr. HUFF. Incidentally, it might be noted that this particular type of light base could be converted to a frangible base for some $40 or $50 for installation~ Mr. PRISK. There are a good many things in these pictures. We could talk about one picture for half an hour. But we will try to con- centrate here in this section on the guardrail aspects. PAGENO="0572" 568 Here is the median barrier where there is an 8 by 8 post, rail bolted directly on, again without washers. The rail here was set rather low. This is about 26 to 27 inches. The side rail is 24 inches. This is the other side-small washer, nut, as you see, bolted all the way through. Here, now, we are on the new job, which adjoins slightly to the west, of the work we were just looking at. Here they have blocked out the rail with wood block and at least gained improvement. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think they have square posts there, do they not? PAGENO="0573" 569 Mr. PRISK. Square posts and wood blocks. Here you do see that muddy area between the edge of the shoulder and the rail, makes you wonder a little bit whether that rail would perform as well as if it had a paved surface coming up to the face of it. When it is soft, certainly the wheel would be down somewhat lower that it would otherwise. PAGENO="0574" 570 This rail-look at it a little bit farther-here is an installation where there are some light poles involved. The one that you see first, beyond the end of this rail, has a frangible base, transformer base in there. This one is a steel pole and so are the others behind the guardrail. During the course of the work, the contract was changed to introduce these frangible bases in those places where the light poles were exposed. One thing that you will notice is that there is a separate guardrail around each post installation and some of the other places, and that, again, begins to bring some concern about the continuity of the rail and desirability of closing up gaps that we see there. T PAGENO="0575" 571 Here is another view of the same thing looked at along the line of the guardrail. You can see the position of the light pole. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is it true, Mr. Prisk, both the entering and leaving end of the guardrail instaTlatioi~ has a 6-feet-3-incli post facing to give greater lineal rigidity? Mr. Pi~isic. Yes. There are several panels of 6 foot 3 on this par- ticular lroiect; four panels, I think it is, at each end of the guardrail section, that are tightened up in spacing. PAGENO="0576" 572 Here you will see, looking at the flare end in some detail, how they have tightened up on the spacing. Rather an abrupt flare. This is the same line of poles that we are looking at, except we are up near the structure now, looking back on the approach to the structure. Another element in here, of course, is a block of concrete. These appear on projects once in a while. This is intended as a future sign support. ~t7 y: 4~~: .~*ct ~. :. ~ .~ ,~ ~ t~2~r:: ~*?~:t_Z: ~ 4*at:~.r: ~r~1r ~ ~ ~t ~r ~ ~ ;~ F ~ ~ ~ _~ ,;: ~-* # ~rr~ ~ a- ~ ~ ~ ~ S Crtm- tr~ r 4 Again, we will talk about signs and sign supports later. Mr. CON5TANDY. This piece of guardrail is there because that is the entry ramp? Mr. Piasx. That is correct. PAGENO="0577" 573 Mr. CONSTANDY. The next section of guardrail is to protect the foundation of the sign? Mr. PRISK. That is correct. Mr. CONSTANDY. The one in front of us is the beginning of the guardrail leading up to the bridge? Mr PR[SK. That is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Have we not found where there is a position for a light pole, and there was guardrail already installed for some other purpose, they then put a steel light pole behind the guardrail, and where the light pole fell outside the guardrail, they put the frangible base? In the far section behind the guardrail they are steel. The next one, as you pointed out in the first picture, is a breakaway, frangible pole. Did it not work out by pure chance that the light pole happened to come behind a piece of guardrail that actually was there for some other purpose? Mr. PRISK. I do not know. This frangible light transformer base that is on this standard is the result of field change during the project. Originally this was laid out with steel light poles everywhere~Sö~I~~ do not know as it is quite correct to say this is completely a matter of chance. It was a matter of deliberate design that they put a frangible base light pole in the exposed position. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker, you think this is the kind of situation where you would have the rigid guardrail? Mr. Riciu~n. I am not clear as to the first section-that is the third one in this picture-what it was for. Mr. CONSTANDY. The right-hand entry ramp. It appears the slope on that is a little bit steeper, a little bit higher than it is here in the forefront. Mr. RIOKER. If it is necessary, I think the whole thing should be continuous. I am not sure the first section would be necessary. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILsoN. I agree. Here is a place where, obviously, they bought enough right-of-way, and if in fact those slopes are so steep that a guardrail would be required, a very modest amount of fill in the area where the pointer is (indicating), would take care of any danger as far as running off the road is concerned. Mr. CONSTANDY. Perhaps at no more cost than the expense of the guardrail and its maintenance? Mr. WILsoN. It may even have been a lot less. 87-757 O-68-----37 PAGENO="0578" 574 Mr. P1115K. Here now is another view of the guardrail installation on new work, showing the flareback. There is no indication of any rail being buried here at all, carrying on up to this bridge structure. That light pole, of course, would be a steel light pole behind the rail. And here is the way it looks close up. You will find when you get there that you have the light pole mounted on a concrete footing, and some of these footings get very close to projecting in front of the rail. Some of them actually did. -~ .` I * 4- PAGENO="0579" 575 The rail is set, nominally, 2 feet behind the edge of the paved shoulder. It is 2 feet off this line. And, as you move up here to the structure, the rail is then, of course, tied into the traffic side of the parapet rail. Mr. RIOKER. Would you back up to the previous one? Mr. PRISK. OK. Mr. RICKER. You mentioned that is not buried, but that is a well- designed guardrail and post. Many, many of these have been installed and work very successfully. It is not the exposed end that spears the car. The only way a car can spear on that is if he goes down the bank and comes back up again, which is possible but not done very frequently. Mr. PRISK. I think I would agree with you on that. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that consistent with the recommendation of Spe- cial Report 81, or do you differ from that? Do they not recommend that the end be anchored whether it is flared or not? Mr. RIcK]~n. I think Bulletin 81 recommends flaring and anchoring. But there are some other problems here, too; because if it is buried or brought down to the ground level2 then a vehicle can, get on top of it, where it cannot get on top of this one. This is not a bad design. Mr. CONSTANJYY. Does anyone differ with that? Mr. Huff? Mr. Hu~. I would like to differ with it. That supported end there is less than 30 feet. Of course, the Bureau and the States have agreed on 30 feet as being the limit to which an obstruction should `be per- mitted. I would disagree that it would be a good design. Mr. CONSTANDY. All right, we will leave it at that. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. In any event, this is a closeup of the same shot, and I think the condition is obvious. Here we are on the median side now, with the rail flared back pretty much into the center of the unpaved median. PAGENO="0580" 576 Again, in that terminal section showing there, square posts are used, and the guardrail height here measured at the foot of the post, on the line of the post, is 27 inches, not any too high in that kind of condition. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that chain fence, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that a glare shield or is that intended to add to the barrier effectiveness? Mr. PRI5K. It serves moderately as a glare shield, but is intended to be a barrier against any crossing of the roadway at this point. The thing that concerns me about this fence was the fact that there is a rail up here along the top edge of that fence, and anybody who penetrated that rail or upsets that system would possibly endanger himself because of the rail at the top. Mr. CONSTANDY. There is a point which does not seem to be tremen- dously apparent. Mr. Wilson, you have had some experience in Cali- fornia relative to the pipe support on the chain fence, have you not? Mr. Wii1soN. Well, 15 or 20 years ago, we used to put a lot of chain- link fence up with the pipe in it. It was not very long until we found out these could be lethal weapons, and we took them all down. They have been down for a long time. Mr. CONSTANDY. What happens to the pipe on top? Mr. Wmsox. If the car runs into the end, it is liable to spear the occupants, or it will spear the car. And even if you break into a fence with that type of member as the top member of the fence, it could break anywhere and come into the vehicle. I want to point out one thing here, though; they did use special anchoring on the end of this guardrail. I think the post spacing is closer than it is farther down. I do not know what the post is, the first one, whether that is a steel post or not. Mr. CONSTANDY. The post on each end is steel. Mr. Wu4soN. I presume that it is set in heavy concrete. Mr. Si~iim~s. Pretty obviously that should be ramped. Mr. CONSTANDY. Sir? Mr. Sicm~s. And pretty obviously the end of that rail should be ramped into the ground. Mr. CONSTANDY. Buried? Mr. SKEELS. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think that is the last slide, is it not, Mr. Prisk, on Oklahoma? Mr. PRISK. This takes care of Oklahoma. Mr. C0N5mNDY. Before we get on to Georgia, do any of the panel members have any comment to make on the slides we have seen, beyond what you have said? Mr. SK~I1s. I have just one comment. I noticed that even ~on the blocked-out sections, they did not use the washers. Mr. PiusK. That is true. PAGENO="0581" 577 Now, we take up a section of 1-75 in Georgia, north of Atlanta. It was opened, parts of it, in late 1966, other parts in early 1967. It is a rural section, which has a variety of conditions on it that are quite unique. First of all, I guess, is this post used to support the rail, the Z-type post, which has been used in Georgia for a number of years. You see also no indication of washers at this location. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do any members of the panel have any comment to make on the type post used there? Mr. SKEELS. I might make one. We would not consider using this type of post. It certainly-well, I have not run tests on this particular design, but obviously it is a very weak post. The proper performance of guardrail, or the proper performance of this type of guardrail, is very dependent upon the strength of the post on which it is mounted. As you pointed out, there are other types of guardrail that depend on weak posts, but this type is not; it requires a. strong post. Mr. CONSTANDY. In this we have a good picture of the slot where, incidentally, there is no washer. When the forces are applied to the guardrail, that slot can open and you can see how easily the bolt head can go through the slot. Mr. SKEELS. That is why you need the washer. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. It has to be on, is that correct? PAGENO="0582" 578 Mr. PrnsK. This rail runs about 25 inches high at most locations where it was measured. Here is a section head-on, on the job, just beyond the light pole. As you can see, the light pole was set barely a foot and a half off the edge of the shoulder and the rail about 1 foot off, with no special treatment at all in this particular instance. - .~, . `- - --I .t._t. 4- I I - %.. - PAGENO="0583" 579 Now, they space their posts, these steel posts that we are looking at close up, at 12 feet 6 inches, until you come to a sign location and then a bit later you will see a different treatment there. Here is a view seen rather commonly along the job, showing about the way it looks. Again your head-on rail on this side and also on this side [indicating]. This is about 10 feet or 10 feet 6 inches off the edge of the pavement and this is about 9 feet on this side. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is this on a primary road system or is this part of the Interstate System? Mr. PRISK. This is the Interstate. System, 1-75. Mr. CONSTANDY. This was opened in 1967? Mr. PRI5K. Opened in February 1967. Mr. CLAUSEN. In what State? Mr. PRI5K. Georgia. 1-75, just about 15 miles north of Atlanta. PAGENO="0584" 580 This, again, is a general view showing the median section, separate line and grade, installation of rail here, evidently at a fill height which corresponds to the Georgia standards. This fill here, of course, is not as high, but it apparently meets the height here [indicating]. So meeting the standards here, that section is in. The same thing over on that side. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, is that long enough to protect the motorist from the dropoff, that slope? Mr. PRISK. Well, there is, of course, the danger of approaching through this area. Mr. CONSTANDY. I mean on the right side. Mr. PRISK. On the right side? No, I think, as I recall that location, that it is quite a dangerous drop at that point. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would it have been more desirable here to elimi- nate the guardrail from the median and use that material? Mr. PRISK. I should think this could be considered certainly as an opportunity to regrade the median at that point. Mr. Hurr. Is that a drainage structure this side of the barrier? Mr. PRISK. Yes, it is. There is a minor drainage structure right there at the trees, right in this area [indicating]. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think with the trees there, the drainage structure might not present a great problem. Mr. SKEELS. I was going to add, the trees give you far more hazard than the slope up where the guardrail is. The guardrail really ought to be down there protecting motorists against the trees, rather than against the slope up above. That slope, in the slide anyway, does not look lethal. Mr. CONSTANDY. We could cut the trees down, too. Mr. PRISK. OK, we move along to a very unusual situation here, which is a sign of progress. Maybe this is encouraging, because on the PAGENO="0585" 581 median side you find that the structure is protected by this much advance guardrail-four panels, I guess it is, it would be 50 feet-and starting at this place, they have now added some more. So you have an additional protection beyond what was originally afforded on this project. This was not joined together in any way. This is clean air between the guardrail ends. Mr. CONSTANDY. How about that, Mr. Huff? Did you want to say anything about it? Mr. Hu~r. Did they give .a reason for that? Have you thought of a reason? Mr. PRI5K. I cannot think of any reason. This is an improvement. Mr. CONSTANDY. The area engineer, I believe, or some member of the Bureau said they realized that the section of guardrail for the bridge was too short and decided to make it longer, so they put in an- other section of the same length, but they did not connect it. They are sitting side `by side or end to end. Is that undesirable, panel? We are all agreed on that? Mr. S1u~ELs. That *bridge rail appears to be extremely low. Mr. PRISK. We are going to take that up later, too. Here now is what you get as you get to a sign location. You find that this block is produced. This is a 6- by 8-inch block fastened to a steel post, so that your rail actually is blocked out when you come to a sign location. This is only at sign locations. Mr. CON5TANDY. That did not have a washer in it, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. No. It did not. PAGENO="0586" 582 This is an interesting situation where there is a sign to be put in here, and this first installation of rail was head on at the edge of the shoulder, and then there was some additional flare and additional length of rail that was laid out here. You can see the headwall down at that point, the earthfill across here, which more or less is a sign island. " Here, in this picture, you see the completed installation, the sign island. Here you see the flared blocked-out rail. Here you have no more blocks running up to the structure. Tha.t is the treatment at that point. PAGENO="0587" 583 Now we look ahead. Here is what you have. As you go down the sign, you see the blocks in here on the posts, and then the rail is mounted directly on the posts as soon as you get beyond the sign. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes, I think we should make this very clear: originally the standard to which the guardrail was installed did not PAGENO="0588" 584 require blocking it out. Subsequently, when they got a contract for the sign, and that included the guardrail, the standards had been im- proved and, consequently, when they joined the two sections together, they were protecting the motorist from the sign, which has the added feature of the blocked-out beam. As you get away from it, you find this, the older standard without the blocked-out section. Mr. Rici~iu~. Just out of curiosity, do you know what the shiny cap is on the standout block? Mr. PRI5K. That is a piece of very thin sheet metal that is tacked on the top of the block. I would say it is a piece of aluminum sheeting. Mr. RICKER. To protect it from weather? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. Rici~. Thank you. Mr. CONSTANDY. There is one other point here, in connection to the two different design standards. The new installation has a steel I-beam post and the other, not being blocked out, has the same-is that a Z-post? Mr. PRISK. Z-post. Mr. CONSTANDY. I just cannot imagine what might happen to an automobile, as it came down sliding along the guardrail at the new portion of the installation and then slid into the older portion-does anyone care to speculate? They are quite a bit different, are they not? And they probably would perform differently. Mr. Pi~ISK. Here is another installation that was carried out the same way; blocks on the rail up to the point of the sign and then you fade back into the rail mounted directly on the post going into the structure. Mr. WILSON. I know we are not talking about signs right now, but if that sign were moved about 100 feet ahead, just beyond the end of the bridge rail or just at the end of the bridge rail, then all this protection on this end would be unnecessary and the sign itself would not be able to be hit. Mr. CONSTANDY. Of course, without a guardrail installation, it would be possible for an automobile to go behind. Martetti chatt.fto,9*togi PAGENO="0589" 585 Mr. SKEELS.The guardrail is doing double duty, protecting not only the sign but the dropoff there. The guardrail is probably necessary anyway. Mr. CONSTANDY. You have left what they had placed there for the protection of the bridge and the ravine. This installation was only put there because of the sign. Mr. SKEELS. I realize that; but as it stands, it is doing double duty protection. Mr. CONSTANDY. Oh, yes. Mr. SKEELS. If you moved the sign over to the other side or by the bridge, you would still need the same amount of guardrail you have there now. Mr. CONSTANDY. Only because of the sign, the original was in- adequate. Mr. SKEELS. The original was inadequate. Mr. PRISK. Moving along, here you see as a result of some of this, when you combine it with a deceleration lane, parallel deceleration lane, you get quite a whip in here. You go past the sign, drop the blocks, and follow the line of the decel lane, and you get a pretty good ocket there before you reach the end of that particular installation. PAGENO="0590" 586 This, now, is on the median side where the rail is taken across the center of the median and buried in the upsiope on the other side. It is quite a long treatment. There seems to be a good bit of respect around the country, on a~11 of the projects we visited, I would state, for the hazards of this dual bridge, as far as possibility of treating it by rail is concerned. This is one place where the length of rail would seem to be entirely adequate. 4 4 4 L. PAGENO="0591" 587 This is looking back from the structure to that rail installation. As you will see, it goes back across the median on a rather easy flare. Here is an installation put in around a signpost, sign structure sup- port. And here the treatment is not quite as elaborate, because this comes, oh, possibly 12 feet from the edge of the paved shoulder and does not go on out to the place where you guard that sign support in the same fashion that the bridge itself was treated, the open bridge. Mr. CONSTANDY. That concludes the section on Georgia, does it not, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. That is true. We go now to Rhode Island. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. Do any of the panel members care to say anything relative to the slides we have seen in Georgia? Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. In referring to these last few slides, it looks as though they are trying to do an adequate job, but the principal criticism I would have would be the posts, the Z posts that they are using. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you care to throw in the washer? Mr. PRISK. Oh, yes. The washer is always in there, or the lack of the washer. Mr. CONSTANDY. Fine. Mr. Prisk, would you please proceed. Mr. PRISK. All right, we will consider Rhode Island now as our next State. Here we are on a section of Interstate 95, which is partly in rural area and partly in the urban, in the Providence district. This particular section lies south of Providence. PAGENO="0592" 588 This is the general view of their blocked-out rail, using steel blocks and washers, and everything looks fine. Measuring the top of the rail shows that that is up 31 inches high. This is an edge rail. PAGENO="0593" 589 Here is a general view of the same installation, washers all the way through, and this looks pretty good. They have used 6-foot-3-inch spacing on posts. Here, however, is one thing that we did find, that that 31 inches is up on top of a 6-inch curb for a good bit of the project, and compared to a standard American automobile, you will see that the top of the rail is fairly well up on the car, and I daresay that the possibility of getting into those posts might be a little greater. Just what would happen with respect to the curb in front of the rail on the rail's performance is a little hard to conjecture, but I do not think it would help it. 87-757 O-68-------38 PAGENO="0594" 590 Mr. SKEELS. I would like to comment on rail height a little bit. I do not want it to be inferred that the higher the rail is, the better it is. It can get too high. The 31 inches, in my experience, is too high, the danger being when struck with the force involved in collisions, the rail will tend to come off the posts, particularly if washers are not used. If it comes off the post, the car will go under it with the rail going over the top of the car. The height, then, is always a. compromise between being high enough to prevent the car from getting on top of the rail and low enough to prevent the car from wedging underneath the rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. Could it be that wider rails would be more satisfac- tory? I realize this is what they make. Has anyone done any research? Mr. SKr~Ls. I do not know of any research with wider rail. I know of research with double rails; two rails, one on top of the other. And of course the design with the lower rub rail. When the lower rub rail is used, you can mount the main rail higher; but if you mount it, I believe 31 inches is, in my opinion, a little too high. Mr. CONSTANDY. I would like to point out in this picture there is no washer. In the two preceding pictures there were washers. I think that is common. We found some places there were washers and other places there were no washers. Mr. FRISK. That is right. In most places washers were installed. This particular shot shows a place where they did not use the washer. Here you see the washers in place. Posts again are behind an asphalt curb at this time, some work still remaining on this project in spite of it being open to traffic. This is another thing that I suppose we could comment on, the disposition to get these projects open before everything is cleaned up. But the work here-I mean, what you see here, this condition is rather typical of that project. This is not picked out to be particularly bad, but rather representative. Mr. CONSTANDY. You reminded me of something that I meant to say earlier and I think it might be a good thing to say here. Some 2 -.~:~--~ ~ L. ~ ~ * *. :..: .* . *. 4..' PAGENO="0595" 591 people may get the impression that on a section of road 10 or 12 miles long, we sought out those places that did not look too good. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. PRISK. No. Mr. CONSTANDY. What we have shown are typical, representative things on that project in the way they were found. We took 2,300 pic- tures, all told, and from them we will use some 600. We have not gone out of our way, either way, to look for things that were good or look for things that were bad. We simply took pictures of these various 10 elements for what they were. Mr. Skeels, do you want to say something? Mr. SKEELS. I want to call your attention to one other item in this photograph. These posts are spaced at 6-foot-3-inch intervals, which means that one of the posts occurs at a splice portion; the next one occurs at a position where the rail is not spliced. The spliced portion on the rail is two rail thicknesses thick. At the intermediate post, then, there is only one rail thickness involved. In our test at GM, we have had several occasions when a car impact- ing a rail at a point where it is not spliced will tend to cut the rail in two in a shearing action at the mounting point, and it is our practice to put in a doubling section. In other words, a short section of rail about a foot long to act as a doubler at the point where we attach to a post, where it does not fall on a splice. Mr. CONSTANDY. If my recollection serves me that is also recom- mended in Special Report 81? Mr. SKEELS. I forget. We will have to check that. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it does. Mr. RICKER. It is. Mr. CONSTANDY. It is? Mr. SKEELS. It is a very cheap little thing. It does not cost much except a little foot of rail at each one of these, and it does prevent shearing action. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. That is a good point. Mr. PRI5K. OK, now we move along and look at some of the installations. PAGENO="0596" 592 We have one on the right set 2 or 21/2 feet behind the curb and the edge set in about 2 feet from the curb the other way, in this particular case approaching a major gore division between the route taking you to New York and one of the connections into Providence. This, again, can be looked upon as a standard type treatment. You will find railing that starts down in here [indicating], on this curve, in the gore. In many of these gores, the area was relatively flat. There is some question as to whether the rail was necessary there at all. I would also point out on this side you have a short section of rail installed around the bridge structure support., and a brief section here with no rail at all, though there is an embankment here, and then another start. So there are quite a few things in this picture to look at. Mr. CONSTANDY. That you would consider undesirable? Mr. PRISK. I think it could be improved, Mr. Constandy. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. PRISK. Here is another one. Behind the curb you have a blunt end of rail. In this case these are aluminum poles which, elsewhere along on this project., are left exposed very frequently, but in this case railing is put in there. It is a little difficult, again, to see the reason for that installation. On the left-hand side, you find the sign that might warrant some shielding, because of the fact there are concrete bases somewhat above ground and very husky upright supports, and there is no railing at that point.. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ske,els? Mr. SKEELS. I would just like to emphasize the undesirableness of mounting rail on top of curbing. Or to put it another way, to place curb- ing in front of the rail. This does nothing but encourage the car to get on top of the rail and make the rail ineffective. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Wilson? PAGENO="0597" 593 Mr. WILSON. It appears as if, in this picture here, it is a policy to erect a rail on the outside of the curvature. I want to point out we found that quite often rails on the inside of the curves are necessary and it looks to me like one ought to be combined with this to protect the traffic from the sign post, and also the slopes that exist over there. And I question whether the one on the right here is needed at all, because it appears as if there are flat slopes here. Mr. SKEELS. I might add to that, at the proving ground, we found that we get five cars off on the inside of the curves where there will be one on the outside, in spite of the fact people's normal intuition is that a car would go off on the outside. Mr. CONSTANDY. Five times? Mr. PmsK. If you lose control and go into a spin, it very commonly goes off on the inside of a curve. Mr. CONSTANDY. Five times as often? Mr. SicxF~Ls. It is pretty hard to predict, right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Of course, we may recognize that your employees using the proving ground are professional drivers, who perhaps are less inclined to go out of control on the outside. Mr. SKEELS. I do not want to elaborate on the point, but they are not professional drivers; they are farm boys we hire for six months at a time. Normal people. They are also good drivers, but not p~rofessionals. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Huff? Mr. HuFF. Our traffic experts report the same thing. I do not know about the 5-to-i ratio, but for some unknown reason, more than normal go off on the inside of a curve. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is surprising. Mr. PRISK. Moving on here to still another type of gore on the urban section, this is in the connection from 117 to 115, taking Route 117 off Interstate 95. Here is a head-on section, which is extremely short, for one thing, and which has no protection at all. If there is any tendency to run off the mside, I would say this has the prospect of being hit. PAGENO="0598" 594 You also see several other things in here besides the boulders. There is the light pole, and of course the sign-support structure itself with its footing. This job, as I said earlier, is not finished. You will see a couple of signs here that say the same thing, "Kent Hospital." Obviously the larger one is the final sign, which has just been installed; the other one just has not been taken down. Nor has the end of the guardrail been yet finished off. A good bit of the rail that we saw is exactly in this condi- tion, exposed end. Plent Hosp~i~~ ~Onau4 RSGKT _`~1U, _ `-i. Here is more on the median side. - . / PAGENO="0599" 595 This is a section of the side rail also showing how people get into this area, like it or not. This is shoulder here and this is just dirt, churned up and muddy. Well, muddy certainly in wet weather, as these ruts tsnd to indicate. And I suspect that the performance of rail wit.h that kind of surface in between cannot be too good. I t. L There are washers on this median divider, which runs right down the middle of a fairly wide median, in the process, as you can see, of land- scaping, completing work, finishing work on the median area. PAGENO="0600" 596 Now, when you come to a structure, this is one of the ~reatmenth that we see on this 1-95 job. Starting at this point here, you break away from the post [indicating] and mstall separately blocked-out sections that flare out and go around the pier, and then return to this head on, down in the middle, double section, double backed-out section. When you look as this, I think you get an impression that cars can easily be thrown off this area here across the roadway itself. The transi- tion is perhaps a little bit more abrupt than desirable. Mr. SKEELS. My comment would be that it would seem to me that this flare is much too much. It is not necessary to clear that pier that much. You might flare the two rails enough to give maybe a 2- or 3-foot clearance to the bridge piers, but not to get clear out to the edge of the road. Mr. PEISK. Right. Mr. SK~s. It looks to me like they made a real attempt to do it properly, but I question their approach. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Mr. Skeels, I am going to have to try to figure out what is the line of communication between yourself and myself; because you anticipated the very question I was going to ask. ~ ~ ~ ~ r-~k, .~IuI~ ~ PAGENO="0601" 597 Mr. SKEELS. Maybe we have telepathy. Mr. OONSTANDY. Maybe you could say this was too much of a good thing. Mr. SKEELS. They tried, but they did look at it. When they looked a~ it on paper, it did not look like this. Mr. CLAtTSEN. How would you alter the design in this specific in- stance? Mr. SKEELS. How would I do it? I would bring the railing closei to those piers. I would clear them by perhaps 2 or 3 feet, bring them in. And then of course I would not use this type of post and I would use more of them. Mr. CONSTANDY. What do you think of that, Mr. Bicker? Mr. BICKER. I certainly agree it is flared out too much. If you come in within 2 or 3 feet of the piers, that would be adequate. I am not quite sure of Mr. Skeels' comment about the kind of post or more posts, because I think this is 6-foot-3-inch spacing. Mr. P1U5K. It is. Mr. SKEELS. I stand corrected. I thought it was 12. I would use 6 feet 3 inches. Mr. PRISK. Here is a closeup of the same installation, same location. Another attraction that they have here is that the curb, which runs along outside the rail, just undei~ the structure itself is a disturbing feature. We are going to talk about curbs later. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that curb serving any purpose? Mr. PRTSK. It cannot serve any useful purpose at that location. This is the same location we looked at a moment ago. PAGENO="0602" 598 Now, here is what you get as you continue on the project. Looking along this backed-up section here, you ~et to the sign support structure, and the rail is bellied out again to pick up this location of the sign support. Again, it creates somewhat as a pocket on this side; but if the sign support is there, I do not know what else you are going to do about it. Mr. SKEELS. Move it over. Mr. CONSTANDY. You can see you can move the entire installation over there. That is one thing you can do. There has been a hit on this side opposite the sign support, too. Does it seem that the bridge could have been lengthened so that the footing and the supports would have been within the median barrier? Mr. WILKES. That is the comment I was going to make; the sign bridge could have been lengthened to approach the median. Mr. CONSTANDY. I just wonder if that would increase the size of the bridge structure, the sign bridge structure? Mr. Wu~KEs. It would be a nominal increase. Mr. CONSTANDY. The kind of cost we are talking about would not make it prohibitive, would it? Mr. WILKES. No. Mr. CONSTANDY. You would save something on guardrail installa- tion? Mr. WILKES. It would help out. Mr. CONSTANDY. If you want to add the cost of the accidents you anticipated here, you would probably extend the bridge? Mr. WILKES. I would agree. PAGENO="0603" 599 Mr. PRISK. Here is a case where they did not go out and pick up the signpost. This is right in the same vicinity. And there is a sign bridge, the same type we just looked at. Here is a double beam, blocked- out rail, median barrier installed along one edge of the median in- stead of down the middle, so this is too far away to go. Mr. CONSTANDY. Does anyone on the panel have any suggestion? Mr. WILKES. This looks like an exercise of judgment here. They wanted to protect the outside of the curve so they located the beam closer to the right-hand lane, the lane that is going away farthest. Mr. CONSTANDY. How about extending this bridge, does it begin to reach a point where it is no longer feasible, or could that have been extended so the support could have gone within the guardrail, the median barrier? Mr. WILKES. That would require an extension of, it looks like 15 or 20 feet, so that would be a substantial increase in the size of that structure. Mr. CON5TANDY. We do not have to let this remain this way? This is not desirable, is it? The' legs of the sign bridge are just a few feet off the traveled way and they are unprotected. Do you care to com- ment, Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I would cross the median barrier, pick up the sign on the other side, and then cross back again. If you could drift the barrier across the median, pick up the sign leg, without lengthening the sign. Another solution, and one that has been used on 1-94 in Michigan, is to bring a barrier in from the other direction, just past the sign. In other words, bring in especially a guardrail that ties into the barrier, into the median barrier, and bring it toward the sign in the direction of travel, and just past the sign. In other words, put a third leg in there, if I make myself clear. PAGENO="0604" 600 Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. Mr. PRISK. It can be done. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker. Mr. Rioi~i~. You are speaking about the location of the median barrier as the outside of the curve. I think there is another reason. There seems to be longitudinal drainage in the bottom of that median, so you cannot put the barrier right over the pipe. Mr. PRISK. That is true. Mr. Rici~r,n. It has to be off that one way or the other. Mr. PRISK. That is true. Here is another view of the same thing. In this case your pier re- mains exposed and it is the hazard, again, with the double beam rail on this side [indicating]. So you have a chance of coming on down in here, into this swell, and ending up passing the pier on either side, or perhaps striking it. There is a little bit of rail here. Let's take a look at that. This has been hit, obviously. Whether it did the job or not, we were not there long enough to find out; but nobody could go home too healthy after that. L F - ..~- * . ~~1 - - PAGENO="0605" 601 Here is another case where the rail continues on down. When you have a series of structures here with these lateral throws back toward the roadway, all of them I think could be lengthened to advantage, a little more gradual transition. This, now, is a spur of 1-95. There are some interesting things up here. This is a California-style barrier with slats incorporated in here so as to form a headlight glare shield. Mr. WILSON. May I comment on that? Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes, Mr. Wilson. PAGENO="0606" 602 Mr. ~Tfl~S0N This is even better. The fact that you have a curb in front of this makes this barrier not perform like it ought to. It is almost essential when you use a cable barrier, because of the critical height of the cable itself, that there be a smooth path from the roadway to its contact with the cable. In this case here I am sure you are going to get enough bounce, you will either bounce over it or under it, or something. Mr. PIUSK. I think we are going to have an anticurb club here, Mr. Chairman, if this keeps u~. Here is another view. This is one of the hazards, of course, along the way on these cables; turnbuckles are pretty solid. Mr. CONSTANDY. You have had some experience with the turn- buckles, Mr. Wilson, in California, have you not? Mr. Wn1soN. Yes. They have to be designed so the vehicle will not get tangled with them. There should be. as smooth a transition along the cable as possible. I want to point out one other thing here. This has a lower cable, which originally was used to snag the vehicle and hold it into the barrier, but we no longer use that. We just use the two upper cables at about 30-inch height. Mr. CLAtISEN. What problem did you run into to make you change that? Mr. WILSON. Apparently it snagged the vehicle all right and I believe it had a tendency to rotate the car, and this was not desirable, because unless you are tied in with a seatbelt or something, you are liable to get thrown out of the vehicle. We no longer use it. Mr. CONSTANDY. You have had quite a bit of experience in Cali- fornia with this type of median barrier. I wonder if you recollect any of the statistics? PAGENO="0607" 603 Mr. Wn~soN. Well, we only use this barrier, this type of barrier, on a median that is 22 feet wide or wider, the reason being that there is considerable variation When you hit it from one side, it is liable to deflect up to about 8 feet. And if you use it in a narrow median, you are liable to entangle a car coming from the Opposite direction. PAGENO="0608" 604 Mr. CONSTANDY. That would suggest this is a median not wide enough for it. Mr. WILSON. I think that is correct. All barriers, regardless of where used, cause some accidents, al- though we found they do prevent all cross-median accidents. Whenever you put a median barrier of any kind, or in fact, any guardrail, it becomes a fixed object of one sort or other and it is going to be hit. So what you are doing here is trading lives for a few injuries; that is really what is the case, because these do cause some accidents. But it seems that hitting a cable barrier where you can use it-and you cannot use it in a narrow median successfully-why, there is a certain spring to it that decelerates you at a rather-well, a rate that you can stand. Mr. CLAtT5BN. This type of design, coupled with an adequate safety. belt and shoulder harness, would this eliminate the problem of safety concerns~ Mr. WILSON. If it were used in a wide enough median and you do have the proper equipment, I would say yes. I have read a lot of fatal-accident reports where the median bar- rier is involved, and the predominant cause of the fatalities that are involved with these things are because people are thrown from the vehicle. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you happen to know how often your barrier of this type is hit on the Los Angeles Freeway, per month or per year? Mr. WILSON. I do not know. I cannot give you the exact number. I know we have about five crews that do nothing but fix this barrier. They are going at it all the time. Quite often they will run behind. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Wilson, I do not want to prolong this. Are you still using this type of design? Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir. We are using it, as I said, on medians 22 feet or wider; It is an effective barrier. It is an economical barrier. Of course, without the lower cable here, it runs about $3.50 a foot to place a barrier of this kind. It is about $8.50 per foot for a blocked-out me- dian barrier of another type. Mr. CLAUSEN. In summing up your statement, if I understand cor- rectly, you state that you feel you can save more lives-you may have some injuries, but you can actually minimize the number of injuries by coupling this with an adequate safety belt and shoulder harness pro- gram? Mr. WILSON. That is my opinion. Mr. CONSTANDY. In the course of this trip we made around t.he coun- try, the staff found there is some opinion if you use both shoulder harness and seatbelt, you have a greater degree of safety than with just one. Mr. SKEELS. Oh, let me talk. [Laughter.] Mr. CLAUSEN. Do you want equal time? Mr. SKEELS. The shoulder harness, diagonal shoulder harness should never be used without a lapbelt. Mr. CONSTANDY. Without a lapbelt? Mr. SKEELS. A lapbelt without a shoulder harness is not bad. A shoulder harness without a lapbelt is apt to be ba.d. Both of them to- gether are good. PAGENO="0609" 605 Mr. CONSTANDY. I was close. Mr. SKEELS. The best restraint system we know is the lapbelt plus shoulder harness. Mr. CONSTANDY. I see. Mr. SKEELS. The worst one is shoulder harness without the lap- belt. Mr. CLAUSEN. As a former aircraft fighter pilot that had to use both, when we grabbed the wire, I would agree with you. Mr. SKEELS. I would like to make a little comment about this barrier if I could. I do not disagree with anything that has been said about it. We have run a test or two at the proving ground on this and have one conclusion, which Mr. Beaton, at least, agrees with. If this barrier is struck at a relatively small angle, an angle, which, on a beam-type barrier, you just glance off of and continue on your way probably with a scratched fender, if you strike this type barrier at this small angle, it tends to snare you and make a much more major accident out of it. All he has said about the low deceleration is correct; it gives you very mild deceleration, but it tends to snare you and hold you in place and make a major accident or more major accident out of what perhaps, with some other types of barriers, might be only an incident. It does have the advantage that I have heard espoused that it traps the car and enables the government to get the owner, driver of the accident car, to pay for fixing the fence. It keeps him there. It does tie up traffic when you get an accident, and you get more of these accidents with this type barrier. However, agreed, you hurt very few people. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would you agree with that, Mr. Wilson? Mr. SKEELS. Give him equal time. Mr. Wu~soN. That is right. Where we have used this barrier under the same conditions as a beam barrier, we find there will be a few more accidents involving this barrier than the beam. And as Mr. Skeels says, they will glance off the beam and go on their way. They may bend their fender up pretty badly. But this will snag them and keep them there. You do have to get into that pretty far before doing damage to it. We do recover a considerable amount of damages from the owners of the vehicles. Mr. CLAUSEN. If you had your choice, you would run the guardrail rather than this approach? Mr. WILsoN. Well, it would have to be used under two different conditions entirely. We would not consider any way using this median barrier anywhere where we could not park equipment in the median to fix it; because in this case here, if you park a truck along the road to do any repair work, you are going to have to take a lane of traffic away, and the first thing you know there will be accidents developing down the line you do not even know about, so we are very careful about that. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk. 87-757 O-68-----39 PAGENO="0610" 606 Mr. PRISK. Here is an installation where it actually was hit. This is not the same location, but this is the same type barrier without the glare shield in it, and the car was decelerated and knocked down about six or seven posts and presumably came to rest at that point. This is on a section just off the project. Mr. CONSTANDY. Although it does not show very well in this picture, what the automobile does is cause the chain link fence to bunch up in a big wad, is that not right, Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. Yes. Mr. PRISK. It is in a pile down here [indicating]. Mr. WILsoN. Incidentally, we found the chain link fence itself was not an essential part of this barrier. It performs just as well without it. Mr. PRISK. Here we move right along. Here is the junction, again, between W-bearn rail and this California barrier we were just looking at. It is perhaps noteworthy that that lower cable was loose and laying on the ground unaccounted for. PAGENO="0611" 607 Here is the transition on the other side, which of course would be entirely satisfactory from that viewpoint. I think the previous one here could get you into some problems, particularly with that top rail. PAGENO="0612" 608 As we move along to the other end of the barrier, we find the eyebolts into the end post on the structure, and of course this is completely unprotected here for a short distance. This kind of subject will be discussed when we get to our bridge discussion. Here now, on the newer section, the newer designs in Rhode Island, they have developed this style. You are looking now at a buried rail. This is flared and buried and they have also raised the rail up to 30-inch height at this point, which may be a little bit too high, particularly being on top of a curb again, because of the possibility of the vehicle jumping. F PAGENO="0613" 609 These are new designs. This is looking from the other direction. You see the steel blockout sections. These are just being installed. This does go directly into the ground. Here is the way it lines up when they take it back into an embank- inent. This section is not completed yet, but it will be anchored, actually anchored in the slope in this case. This is all part of the approach protection for that structure you see in the distance. This is north of Providence. ~~44EA$T East Pró~vIdence rn~. I PAGENO="0614" 610 And here, another newer section, newer treatment where they are running the end of the rail into the embankment right at a slope around their structure and beyond the structure, so this would be fairly well protected. Incidentally, we shall be talking about structures and you will see that this wall is well back off the pavement, partway up the slope here. We will be discussing that later on. Mr. SKEELS. I like this approach down under the bridge, this treat- ment of the edge of the road, this sloping portion. That is good. Mr. CLAUSEN. The thought occurred to me-as a matter of fact, Mr. Howard and I were just chatting aout that earlier-would it not be possible to utilize that sort of an approach from the bridge on down by applying this to landscaping rather than necessarily using the guardrails more and more? I think one of the preceding pictures there-is there a chance of backing up here for a moment? Right there. Would it not be possible to extend the landscaping on down so as to minimize the need for the guardrail and have the same effect as what you had ~mderneath the bridge? Mr. PIUsK. WTell, the guardrail is a physical protection of the type that-I guess I do not understand your question. But I do not see that you can put in landscaping that would do the job that the guard- rail does. I PAGENO="0615" 611 Mr. WtLIci~is. Without moving the abutment back. Mr. PRISK. That is right. Mr. WILKES. The abutment is too close. Mr. PRISK. Unless you are going to change the structure. You are faced with the fact you have a fixed object very close to the edge of the parved way and this is put in here as a steel beam along these steel posts in order to keep some of them from hitting the end of the structure. Mr. CLAUSEN. Maybe it would be more expensive, but the thought that occurred to me was if you were to extend this landscaping on down like this [indicating], it may not require the utilization of the guardrail. Let's move it up to where the bridge is and I will show you what I mean. Right over in here, to have the same effect here [indicating]. Mr. PRISK. Yes, if you could recess the wall as this is done, cer- tainly. Absolutely. This is very desirable. We shall be talking about structures tomorrow and you will see a number of examples of this type. I think that should be applauded. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would the expense of that type of landscaping be similar? Mr. CONSTANDY. It is not a matter of landscaping. Mr. PRISK. It is a matter of lengthening the bridge structure. I misunderstood you, because you spoke of landscaping. You have to increase the span from this point here on out to this point [mdi- catingi in order to accomplish what you are speaking of, I believe. Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes. Mr. PRI5K. Jack, do you want to talk about this? Mr. WILKES. I agree, the big expense would be lengthening the span, or lengthening the structure, a greater expense there than would be the landscaping itself. Mr. CONSTANDY. Now we have moved on to Missouri, have we not, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. We have some pictures from Missouri t.hat are very interesting. We do not have very many for the simple reason Mis- souri has not made hardly any use of guardrail on this particular project. This is Interstate 35, north of Kansas City, a rather long job, but with hardly any guardrail on it. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. In 28 miles, the only portion of the project having guardrails at the time we visited it was the guardrail pro- tection at this first bridge, at the southern end of the project. I think they were beginning to install it on a second bridge a mile or so above this. PAGENO="0616" 612 * Mr. PRISK. It would be pretty hard to fault them on this kind of an installation. The washer is there and it is blocked out and the height was about 26 inches. As we take another look at this first bridge which was equipped with rail, we find this approach rail on the right pretty well buried in line with the edge of the paved shoulder, as I am pointing out here [indicating], and on the left just about the same kind of treatment. If anything, this may be a little bit short, but otherwise it looks fairly good as far as that part of it goes. Now, this is a dual bridge and you must remember there is a hole down there [indicating]. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, we might pause there. You say as far as this part of it is concerned. Remember, we are talking only about the guardrail. Tomorrow we will be concerned and discuss bridges. PAGENO="0617" 613 We will discuss what is at the other end of the guardrail, where - there is a transition from the guardrail to the bridge rail, a point to which you made reference yesterday. Mr. PIUsK. Yes. There is no protection. What I was saying is there was no protection for the space between the dual bridges with that type of installation. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Huff, do you want to comment on that? If I understand what you said earlier, would this be the type of installa- tion you could recommend? Mr. HUFF. If I could see the connection at the bridge, it looks like. what I saw. Mr. PRISK. Here is the connection at the bridge. Mr. CONSTANDY. I am not talking about the connection at the bridge; I am talking about the space between bridges. Mr. Prisk made the point that this design does not afford protection to the motorist going between the two structures. If I understood correctly the comments you made earlier, you would prefer the guard- rail to be parallel with the roadway. - PAGENO="0618" 614 Mr. Hurr. But longer than the one he showed. Mr. CONSTANDY. That would be your comment, this should be longer? Mr. Hur~. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. I See. Mr. PRISK~ This is a bit closer up. You can see the full shoulder width is taken across the structure. And even the little guardrail on the far side, on the right, continuing. Mr. Hrm'r. We furnished to them our plan-that is almost exactly our plan-showing the continuity of crossing the bridge, and it op- erates very well. Mr. PRISK. Here is the detail of the end as it is buried in line. They plan, if I recall the comments that we had from the field engineer at - - -4 PAGENO="0619" 615 the time, to put a plate on the top of that, so as to surround it-actually into the surface of the shoulder. Here is the left slide. You can see again how this runs on up to the structure. PAGENO="0620" 616 Now we are moving to Nevada and Interstate 80. This is a section we hit in bad weather. Actually we went from bright sunshine to a snowstorm that day. But here they have blocked-out rail and wood posts, as you see, in a fairly good-looking installation. This is typical, again, of what you find in that State. Mr. SKEELS. Was it 6-foot spacing? Mr. PRISK. The post spacing in Nevada is 6 feet 3 near the end of ~he run, 12 feet 6 normally. They paint the rail white there and avoid the cost of galvanize. This matches up nicely with the snow. * * * i~j1~ -~, Mr. SKEELS. No washers. Mr. PRISK. There are no washers. PAGENO="0621" 617 Here is a picture taken under very severe conditions-snowflakes you see there-but again showing the rail and the blocked-out position of the rail in relation to the paved surface. Mr. CONSTANDY. It loses some of the contrast in the snow, the painted rail. Mr. PRISK. That is true. Mr. WILKEs. Was that a curb at the face of the guardrail? Mr. PRISK. There is an asphalt curb right at the face of the guard- rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is not throughout, though, is it? Mr. PRISK. No, just along embankments and along structures, principally. Here is the approach to the only interchange there was on this par- ticular job we looked at, few and far between there. You will see the PAGENO="0622" 618 approach rail is slightly flared as you move into this section toward the decision point. Here is a good view of the gore showing how the rail sweeps off to the right and on down the exit ramp. The rail picks up in the gore just a little way beyond the gore. These points that you see in here [indicating], these white spots are black and white painting on the asphalt curb to give it higher visibility. Here is the same view under poor light conditions and during a snowstorm, indicating again the relative position of the rail, the po- sition of the gore. PAGENO="0623" 619 Here is another view showing the small amount of flare that was used there. This I think perhaps is one that I would call your particular atten- tion to, because of the fact that this [indicating]-this is the one inter- change structure on the project and for some reason it seems unex- plainable. Even at this point in time, a month or so after we looked at it, there is no approach rail along this embankment as you move toward the parapet end of that structure. There is one on this side PAGENO="0624" 620 [indicating] and there is one on the other roadway, but none on the approach side at the right-hand side. Mr. CONSTANDY. I believe there is none leaving the bridge on the right side either, Mr. Prisk, Mr. PRISK. I believe you are correct. There is some here on the left, but none on the right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Does not the correspondence we received from them since then indicate they have either installed this guardrail or they are about to? Mr. PRISK. A few days ago we had word-that is correct-that the rail was being installed by maintenance forces. It had been inadvert- ently omitted. This shot-one thing shows-again this slight flare that is used, the rail is not buried but left exposed. You do see, as an incidental by- product of this photograph, a very good contrast between the surface of the shoulder and the surface of the roadway itself. That contrast was evident both under poor conditions and good conditions. Mr. HOWARD. Now, Mr. Prisk, on that photograph, the previous one, what is the necessity for guardrail? You have fairly level ]and if the car should leave the roadway. It could be, as we were talking about before with Mr. Clausen, this idea of trying to keep the land as level and clear as possible off the road, that if an automobile does go off the road, the driver could very well have enough time to regain control of the car or bring it to a halt. But if he hits that guardrail, he is in trouble right there. I wonder what the purpose of that piece of guard- rail is? There does not seem to be that much danger. PAGENO="0625" 621 Mr. PRI5K. Well, the land may look ~ little bit flat from this picture and perhaps in the others, but actually there was rock in this area, and without being able to recall any more about it, I can only conjecture that this rail would have been put in because of the nearness of some rock outcropping on the inside of that curve. Mr. SKEELS. Is there any drainage across there? Mr. PRISK. I do not think there is any drainage there. Mr. HOWARD. You would think possibly landscaping could be a sig- rnficant factor for safety here, making it safer than the guardrail? Mr. PRI5K. Certainly any place where you can reasonably take slopes back and get rid of guardrail, you are better off, because you for all time solve your problem. There is then no maintenance for guardrail and very little on the slopes. Going ahead, we see the advance sign coming in toward the inter- change that I mentioned. We saw a closeup a little while ago. 87-757 O-68----40 PAGENO="0626" 622 This is again the standard type installation, blocked out, through- out, and 6-foot-3 spacings. This completes Nevada and we move next to a location in Indiana, where we looked at 1-69. This is a portion that runs between U.S. 24 and U.S. 224 just south of Fort Wayne, md. r H ~1 When you move to Indiana, you find this type of guardrail installa- tion. It is not blocked out. There are no washers on the joints. PAGENO="0627" 623 And as this measurement shows on this r&~ht1y completed section, there is only 22 inches of height on the rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. What do you think of that design, Mr. Skeels? The height, not blocked out, steel posts, and no washer? PAGENO="0628" 624 Mr. S~Ls. Well, of course, it needs the washer. The steel post is probably not strong enough. And that height is a bit low all right. Mr. CONSTANDY. By about 5 inches would you say? Mr. SKEEL5. Yes. About 27 inches is about right. Mr. PRISK. As I say, this height varied quite a bit in Indiana. I have guardrail measurements here up to 30 inches, so some of them are quite high and some of them were as low as 22 inches. Mr. CONSTANDY. You cannot say it averages out. Mr. PRISK. On the average it looks pretty good. Here is a fairly short section of rail installed at the outer edge of the shoulder, and it is a recently completed and opened project, early this year now. I think we continually have to remind ourselves that these are very new projects; quite short. You will see the reason for the rail. There is an extremely large pipe that goes all the way under the roadway here that is part of the irriga- tion system, of the drainage system, for the surrounding land. But in the process of protecting motorists from getting down here to that hazard and the headwall that you see here, a fairly short rail was installed. I think you can conjecture, possibly, that this slope is a traversable- type slope and perhaps this introduces more hazard than it is worth. Mr. SKEELS. I would agree; the pipe goes under the road. Mr. PIU5K. Yes. Mr. SKEELS. It could have been carried out another 20 feet and eliminated the hazard for all time without the guardrail. The guard- rail is certainly contributing more hazard than it is remedying in this case. Mr. CON5TANDY. You gentlemen would agree the slopes are relatively fiat? Mr. SKEELs. That slope looks real good. PAGENO="0629" 625 Mr. PRISK. Here is a treatment on the approach to short structures. You have an extremely short section there. I think this is only a 1~.5- foot section of rail in advance of the structure, directly head on. Here is looking from an overhead structure down to what you find again shows a great deal of respect for this hole between the twin bridges, because they carry the median rail all the way across, almost too close to this road, in order to protect against dropping in at this point. PAGENO="0630" 626 Here again [indicating] you have the head-on situation. Mr. CONSTANDY. In that photograph it would appear the median guardrail there is on an angle as it comes across the median, but I be- lieve I am correct, Mr. Prisk, that it is only apparently there and it is due to the swale? Actually that piece of guardrail is straight? Mr. PRISK. Yes; it is straight. I think we have another view to prove that. Maybe not here. Here again, just one section of rail in advance of the side pier. You have two panels in advance of the center pier. So this is 50 feet of rail, gentlemen, and this is 25 feet on this side. - ~ There it is close up. PAGENO="0631" 627 Mr. CONSTANDY. I think that might be worthy of comment from members of the panel. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEEI15. This is useless; this is a waste of money. You certainly have got to put in a great deal more than this and a great deal better guardrail to get anyprotection at all of that pier. Mr. CONSTANDY. This would seem to lead the automobile using it directly into the pier? Mr. SKEELS. Well, if you visualize that if a car does happen to hit this thing on the face of this, on its very short face, the rail is going to be deflected backward and the car will probably line right up with the pier by the time it gets there. Mr. CONSTANDY. What do you think about that, Mr. Huff? Mr. HUFF. I agree with him. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker? Mr. RICKER. I was going to reverse what you said and say it is not worth commenting on. Mr. CONSTANDY. Beg your pardon? Mr. RICKER. It is not worth comment. You need much more guard- rail to give adequate protection. PAGENO="0632" Mr. PRISK. Here is another view of the same thing. F, V V F, L~. -~ - ...~-- - -~ ___4 Here is the median side in a little more detail; 50 feet of rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels, I was oniy going to add, these are all too typical. They are fairly common. They are not unusual. Mr. Wmiu~s. But I would like to observe it is in the right position. It is near the middle of the median and it is not at the edge of the paved shoulder. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is true. I think that is worth while in light of a few of the pictures we have seen; it does leave something to be desired, however, the guardrail itself. Mr. Wilson, would you care to comment on this? 628 I I PAGENO="0633" 629 Mr. WIr~soN. I think about everything has been said that need be said about this particular situation. In the previous picture, I did notice one other thing-[shde] no, I guess it is a couple of pictures back-[several slides]-the sign structure-there it is. I suppose those are I-beams? If they are the sign should have been on the structure. Mr. C0N5TANDY. Yes. We will have another session which will relate to the signs and we will see more detailed views of signs on this project. Mr. PRISK. Here is a closeup of the protection at the twin bridges showing how the approach rail has carried across the center of the median, also doubles back for a number of panels. This is the way it looks as it reaches the structure itself. PAGENO="0634" 630 And this is doubled back one panel-excuse me, only one panel. Now this is new work. We moved away from 1-69, which is the route we were just looking at, and this is a portion of 1-70, east of Indianapolis. And this is not yet even open to traffic. There is work still going on on it. So this is a brand new piece of work. And as you look at the first entrance ramp on the approach to a structure, this is what you see. The improvement has been made to lengthen the rails, both on the right and on the left, and the rails have been buried. The approach ends have been buried. - -----~ r I I PAGENO="0635" 631 The detail of that shows again here. These are buried in line, not twisted; they are buried straight down. You will notice as you get up to the structure that you have a little pocket up there, and as far as the rail is concerned, it pretty well cuts off your shoulder as you reach this particular structure. This is per- haps a little more detail about a structure than it is about a rail, but in any event you see the alinement of the rail. Beyond this structure you can see how the shoulder picks up and makes a normal location of rail. Here is a closeup of the undercrossing on that same project. They have not lengthened the rail too much but instead of having two panels here [indicating], which would have been stopping at this point, this has been doubled, at least, and brought out here a little bit farther and buried. PAGENO="0636" 632 Even though this is brand new and, as I say, there has not yet been any public traffic on this highway, this would appear still to be some- what short of desirable. Mr. SK]~r~s. I would like to point out one other problem on this particular picture. It is that culvert down in the ditch. It is a flat wall, at right angles to the route of traffic, and a car going off the edge out of control can bottom right into that culvert. It does not have the benefit of the back slope angle. It is a bad place that is all too typical on the roads. I do not recall seeing any accidents involving these myself, but this certainly is a hazardous area that should be considered perhaps in some other area. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes; we will get into a segment on drainage instal- lations later. Mr. PmsK. As you reach the structure, this is what you find-no anchorage post driven close to the side pier. On the median side, this is what you have. Again with an extension from the previous job that we looked at on 1-69, which stopped here PAGENO="0637" 633 with a straight-up rail, to a section that now has a buried approach end at least. This is what the median end treatment looks like a little bit closer to it. I come back to still another job, and this is on the beltway around Indianapolis, where some work on guardrail and rehabilitation or improvement is underway. And this is the befOre condition. Mr. CONSTANDY. Before you get to the after, as flat as that area is beyond the guardrail, is the guardrail needed at all? Mr. PJU5K. You took the words out of my mouth. PAGENO="0638" 634 Mr. CONSTANDY. I am sorry. This is a very unusual picture, although the condition isn't, because several gores in that circumferential around Indianapolis are treated in the same fashion generally, which would be-I have forgotten the size of the supports for the sign, but they are enormous and they straddle the guardrail. Mr. PlusK. This car over here gives an indication of the flatness of the land. But the guardrail actually projected before the improvement started between the posts here, the I-beam supports, which if I recall cor- rectly are 8-inch I-beams. And so you ran a chance of being impaled on the guardrail or hitting the I-beam, either one or both. Now this is what has been done as a part of a multi-I was going to say multimillion-doflar project. It is not quite that much money. Mr. CONSTANDY. The project for a number of improvements relating to guardrail is approximately $800,000. Mr. PIU5K. Thank you. Mr. CONSTANDY. Some 24 miles of this circumferential. It includes treating the ends as well as the installation of some new guardrail and installation of guardrail leading to the bridges. Mr. PifisK. This is a part of a major improvement and this is pre- cisely what has been done at such a location as we saw in the p~vious slide. This has been pulled down so that you have a buried rail here at this point and your choice now is only running into these 8-inch I-beams. Mr. CONSTANDY. More than the rail is going to be buried there. Mr. PRISK. That is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Could you back up again so we could fully savor this? [Slide.] This is the before. [Slide.] Speedway; Clermont , PAGENO="0639" 635 Mr. SKEELS. Is this the end of the improvement or is this a stage? Are you going to take the sign out now? Mr. CONSTANDY. I could not tell you. Mr. SKEELS. We have to get these signs out of these gores. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think that is an ultimate objective. I think things are underway in some places to achieve it. Mr. HUFF. With the apparent sharp angle of exit there, he had better take them out or somebody will take them out i~or him. Mr. CONSTANDY. I am not sure of that. That is a formidable sign. It may be hit without much damage to the sign. Mr. SKEELS. I recall a similar sign in Detroit at U.S. 24, intersection with 696. They put up the supports for the sign and before they got the sign on, one of the supports got taken out. They put it back up again and hung the sign on and within a week it was out again. And they took the two supports out and put the sign some place else. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilson, do you care to comment about the two pictures you have seen here? Mr. WILsoN. Not really. As Mr. Skeels pointed out, and Mr. Huff as well, we are going to have to take steps everywhere to get these gore areas clean of all obstructions. And some of us are working in that regard. The most that should be located in this area is breakaway posts, of some sort, supporting small exit signs. Everything else should be gone. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker, do you care to comment about this? Mr. BICKER. I have the same comment. There is a question I would like to ask Mr. Prisk. Is this the second ramp of the cloverleaf? Mr. PJasK. Yes. Mr. RICKER. This is the one some of us had proposed to change the text of the sign, soit did not need to be as large. Mr. PRISK. Yes; true. Well, that is a treatment in any event. That is presently underway. PAGENO="0640" 636 I expect this job is still active. This is the back of the sign you just looked at and there is the structure in the background: The rail-the moment the picture was taken-was being put in through the structure so this is an improvement, you might say, to pro- tect traffic from running into the side piers. Mr. (JONSTANDY. Yes. You can see at the median piers the installa- tion of guardrail of similar design to the project we went to look at. Mr. PnISK. Right. This isjust to let you know it is not isolated. Here is another point where, again, you have guardrail coming down here. Not quite so close this time, perhaps, but nevertheless coming down, and it has `been buried. You still have a fairly flat area out here. It makes you wonder why you need rail inhere at all. Mr. S1~.1~Ls. You might eliminate the guardrail in this. It does not appear to be necessary. Mr. PRISK. So I think there are places where you can say safety is not costing money, but is actually saving money. This would be one place. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, could you run back through that series of slides, please? Mr. PRISK. I will be very happy to. [Series of slides.] That is the first "before" situation. [Slide.] This is the "after" situation, after the improvement. [Slide.J This is the rear view of the same sign we just looked at. [Slide.] Here is another location entirely where you also have a flat gore and the same treatment is beingapplied. Lf~ wfo rd svl ue~j I PAGENO="0641" 637 Now, this is one of the posts that is being erected underneath that undercrossing that you looked at a moment ago. The rail here again was up on top of a curb and it is, as you see, put in without washers. And it was none too high at this point. 87-757 O-68-----41 PAGENO="0642" 638 Here is the view along the rail showing the blocked-out section. That much was being done. Mr. HUFF. Is that a cable? Mr. PRISK. No. That is just a string line; they. were driving the posts while, we were there and this just happened to be a completed section. This is to show that other places are taking some account of what is happening in guardrail accidents. I put this slide in to show the com- mittee that Switzerland has taken steps to improve their guardrail design. This is a view on the Lucerne-Geneva Expressway and shows that the guardrail is flared back and followed in to the embankment. ~-, 4d~. ~~~~1 I I- PAGENO="0643" 639 This particular installation is put in because of emergency telephone installations at this point Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Prisk, can I ask you about how much of a slope a car can reasonably expect to ride on off the road without overturnmg? Of course, I know speed and the direction that it goes off the road would have something to do with that, but has~there been any research on that? Bcause it would seem, as it has been mentioned, that quite often we found that there is guardrail where really there need not be; in fact, if the car were permitted to go off the road, it might have a better chance of recovery rather than being hung up or damaged by a poorly designed guardrail. Mr. PRISK. We are recommending 6 to 1 slopes off from the edge of the pavement on the foreslope, and 4 to 1 slopes on the backslopes as you go up into a cut. Mr. HOWARD. I see. Mr. PRISK. Go down on a 6 to I and go up on a 4 to 1. This is a traversable condition. There has been quite a bit of work done at General Motors proving ground in support of this. I am not aware: of any research at the Bureau, that the Bureau of Public Roads has participated in, as related to that very problem. Mr. CONSTANDY. We will have, more testimony on that later, Mr. Chairman, particularly about the slopes. Mr. CLAUSEN. I want to ask some questions. Gentlemen, I do not care which one of you responds to this, but I have just' talked to a family that has: driven all the way from Cali- fornia-as a matter of fact, they are going to be returning, probably by a different routing. The one thing thatthey complained about was the signing found prior to many turnoffs. It is my understanding that the committee is now receiving letters on this because of nation- wide press releases about these hearings. Now, is there any one of you who could respond to this? Do you see this as a problem, from your point of view? Because we certainly are getting a goodly portion of correspondence complaining about a lack.of adequate warning on the signing prior to theactual turnoff. Would anyone want to comment on `this? I. will ask Mr. Ricker. Mr. RICKEn. The reason I was. smiling, I received a letter from the vice president of a steel company complimenting the New JerseyTurn- pike Authority on the quality of their highway, and so on. Mr. HOWARD. What State was that? : , . Mr. RIOKER. That was.the New Jersey Turnpike. [Laughter.] But he said. there were no signs for the connection leading to Pennsylvania Turnpike. At that time `there were six signs,. five of'them overhead. Some you `could walk through the sign. He did not see any of them. This is a problem I am not surewe have solved yet, to communicate with the public as to what they should be looking for. The standards on the Interstate System. require a sign beginning 2 miles from the exit, another sign at 1 mile, another sign at a quarter of a mile. ` .. . . . ` . Mr. CLAUSEN. Driving down the highways, I have noticed this my- self and I have talked to many others who have had similar experi- ences. You will see people weaving back `and forth; they are approach- PAGENO="0644" 640 ing the turnoff point and all of a~ sudden make this last-minute dis- covery. To me this is one item that needs to be given a priority, I be- lieve, as far as evaluation by the committee plus the subcommittee recommendations. Would you all agree with this as a panel? Mr. Ric~u~a. I am sorry; I am saying I don't quite agree there are not enough signs there. We do have a need for a better communication with the public so they know what they should be expecting and how to use the signs. Signs are there, but we need to explain them better so that they can plan their trip and look for the proper sign. Mr. CLAUSEN. What you are suggesting,then, is content rather than numbers? Mr. Ric~i~. No. As a matter of fact, driver education, if you wish to call it that; public understanding. We need some articles by people like Jim Wilson in Life magazine or Saturday Evening Post to tell people what we are doing. Mr. CLAUSEN. All right. Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. If the requirements of the Bureau of Public Roads and the requirements as set forth by the National Joint Committee and other responsible highway officials are met-and they are in fact; they are followed on the Interstate System, I think, quite precisely through- out the country as far as advance notices are concerned-this is just about all you can do, except to instill in the motorist himself the idea he has to plan his trip a little bit better. I get a lot of complaints, a lot of letters just like Mr. Ricker does, and quite often we will go out- in fact we do go on and investigate these complaints and find the com~ plainant has driven past two or three signs that said precisely what he was looking for. Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes. Mr. WILSON. But with the driving task this day and age and the traffic you have to handle, it is a very complex problem and you have to plan ahead. Mr. How~uw. I have one brief question I would like to ask the panel. You are familiar with the practice in Europe; many of the direc- tional signs and informational signs are used by merely using a picture or drawing. This is done mainly because of the language differences that you run into over there. It is true, however, that you can see, once you get used to them, much more quickly what the information is that the sign is trying to convey than by reading several, sometimes many, words. Have you any opinions as to the serious consideration that maybe we ought to give to this idea of information? Of course, I am aware of the fact the name of a town could not be done any other way, but "Go Slow; Children at Play," things like that, could be done so much quicker with pictures. Is that being used in the country extensively, at all, or is it con- sidered to be not very good for us? Mr. WILSON. If you will look at any State sign chart-and I am sure every State has a sign chart giving standard signs-you will find a great many symbol signs on it. All your curve signs, of course, are symboled, and I am sure you are familiar with these. PAGENO="0645" 641 I think the last meeting of the national joint committee adopted a symbol for notifying "Telephone Ahead." Mr. HowAlw. Yes. Mr. WILSoN. Just a picture of the hand set. I cannot recall any others right now, but I am sure there is some consideration. Mr. HOWARD. School zoning picture. Mr. WILSON. I think one of the pictures that has slowed this activity down here is the fact I think there were studies in Europe and Mr. Prisk can probably verify this, or he' may disagree with me entirely, but I understand there is not a very good understanding of the symbols they are using in Europe. They are poorly. understood by the bulk of the people. Mr. HOWARD. That may be it. I know they use them because of the language barriers over there, for "Parking" and "No Parking" and things like that. I didn't understand it very well myself, but I assumed they did. If we had it over here, in time we would get to understand; it might make it easier for people, for information. Mr. PRISK. I think it might be worth saying, Congressman, that the Bureau of Public Roads about 2 months ago entered into a contract with a private consulting firm, to undertake a. behavioral type study of reaction and response to symbols and shapes and colors and sizes of signs, so as to get down to the foundation of our physical and human reaction to signing and the use of symbols in particular,: and how many of these can be made to be meaningful. The sign that is most understood by you is the. one you are most familiar with, usually, and so if we move toward adopting new prmci- ples for a signing system, we must be careful to see that these are under- stood and acceptable to a substantial number of our population. Some of these signs that Mr. Wilson referred to that they had difficulty with in Europe are based on the fact that the symbol is a rather abstract and arbitrary type of symbol. Where a symbol was used such as a railroad train moving toward a crossing, and you have a picture of a locomotive and crossing gate, it is well understood that you are approaching a railroad crossing, so we tire in a process really of picking and choosing now or will as soon as this research is completed.: Among the symbols are a great many that I think can be gradually introduced into our own system, through the medium of the committee that Mr. Wilson heads. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, Mr. Wilson, will it be your attempt then to get a cross section opinion from the traveling public? I think there is a tendency sometimes maybe to have engineers talk among themselves and what they understand is. not necessarily what the average citizen will understand. Will it be your intent to conduct a survey among members of the driving' public? Mr. WILSON. Well, it will and. probably through consultants or `the University of California, and the Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering. We `have had that organization do quite a `bit of work for us in' connection, with. signing. We "have several small con- tracts with them, and I might mention one and this deals with a symbol toO. We were looking for some device to keep people from entering ramps in the wrong direction, and Dr.' Slade. Hulburt out at UCLA made an intensive study of the European symbol and also compared it PAGENO="0646" 642 to other ideas that we `had; and it came out that we adopted a new sign, a red sign with the words "wrong way" on it, rather than the symbol because the symbol did not do the job we thought the other one did, so we have been working in this area and will continue to work in this area. Mr. CLAUSSEN. Well, in conclusion-I know we are getting ready to wrap up, Mr. Chairman-I certainly want to thank these gentlemen for what I thmk has been some very helpful testimony. We will be lookmg forward to it for the balance of the week and to the additional evidence you will be able to give us. Mr. How~D. Thank you, Mr. Clausen. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, having guardrail in mind, and what you might consider a repre- sentative cross section of the Interstate System in the United States at this point in time, that the members of the panel express their opin- ions generally and overall on what they have seen. I would like to begin with you, Mr. Wilson, and ask if you care to make some comments? Mr. WILSON. Well, I would. It appears as if there is quite a bit of knowledge available to high- way departments, and it appears to me it is not being used in a proper manner. I think even in our own State, we have certain problems in connection with implementing new developments. I do not want to make all the comments but I would like to say one thing, that I do not subscribe wholeheartedly to the fact that a guard- rail ought to be buried every time there is an end. I think in a good many cases, particularly in rough country where we build a lot of highways, the end of the rail can be buried at the side of the slopeS does not have to buried in flat ground, and I think that a modest flare can be used to advantage, and I would have to disagree with some of the other experts~ on the panel here who feel perhaps it should be buried every time. Mr. CONSTANDY. Overall, Mr. Wilson, would you say you are satisfied with the installation of guardrail generally as is shown in the United States? Mr. WILSON. There are considerable inconsistencies to be sure. Obvi- ously there is a lack of communication in getting the word to the people who are actually doing the work. The variation in heights, the lack of washers; all of these things point up that while we know this informa- tion, it is just not getting to the right people. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels. Mr. SKEELS. I have about the same comments. First off, I. would like to make the point that we believe guardrail should be used only as a last resort, when the need for it cannot be eliminated. If, even by spending more money, you can make a guardrail unnecessary, you are better off to thereby solve the problem permanently. As to actual construction of guardrail, as we have seen, there are many faults; there are many times when apparently it is not intelli- gently applied. Knowledge is available to cover most of the situations. I am sure that we can all conjure up situations that we do not know how to solve, but most of them I think we can solve with the available knowledge that has been published in the Highway Research Board papers and bulletins and elsewhere. The primary need is to get this PAGENO="0647" 643 knowledge into the "hand of those who are actually picking out, the design that goes at this particular place and make sure that it is applied. You must realize that in many cases this will involve an expenditure of more money than they are spending now. If we put jfl: more posts this costs' more money; if we put in longer lengths of guardrail, which in many `cases is needed, this also will cost more money-not a lot more hut some more. `We have to recognize that we cannot do `the excellent job that our knowledge will let us do, for' the same money we are now spending. :` ` ;` `. `Mr.' CONSTANDY. I think it is worth recogniziiig this, that the expen- diture of additional money does not necessarily mean it is less eco- nomic. It may be more economic to spend the additional sum of money to make effective a mechanism in which you already have investment and which will fail if you do not improve it. :Mr. Huff? Mr HUFF It h'is been a privilege to me to see `ill the pictures you have shown However, I have not seen `Lnything very new because I have traveled over most of these States by `~utomobile, as well as some of the States that have not been shown. I think I have seen them all generally, what you have shown. Most everything you have shown is' subject to criticism, valid criticism. We have seen places the chairman pointed out this morning where `L guardrail was built where it should not have been, and places where `i guardrail should have been built, where it was not built I think th'~t is `t very valid point he made, ~nd in my opinion w e h'ii e in most c'ises built too much gu~irdrail I think that one danger we have, ,and I voiced this to the panel at noon, and other times, is getting into the smug feeling that we know now how to build a safe guardrail. If we do not watch ourselves, we will put all our eggs in one basket and find out we have come up with something that is not satisfactory. ` Now we h'we got a lot of people studying this subject, and we should `keep them studying it, and possibly we should try innova- tions that we experts have not thought of before. I would like to go back with you iii my own experience. I guess 1 could claim ,to be the senior member of this panel without any argument. I have been in the business a little Over 40 years, `in high- way engineering. Now to my certain knowledge, construction of guardrail up until-this is the State I have been involved in-up until somewhere around 8 to 10 years ago, was mostly the func- tion of our maintenance people., There was no engineering control involved. Now, some 8 to 10 years ago, I suppose 10 years ago, we began placing this under engineering control and I think we have gone a long ways in the 10 years that we have been working on this, and I believe with people like the traffic engineers here and a great many other people who I know will `begin instituting improvements you might have another get-together 5 or 10 years from now, and we would be in wonderful shape. , * I believe once you get it under engineering control, the problem will be solved. ` ` Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes? Mr. WII~KEs. Well, we have heard some difference of opinion ex- pressed in the panel itself, and to illustrate that, there is not uniform PAGENO="0648" 644 100 percent consensus on the name of the item. Some States do not even call this a guardrail. They identify it as a guiderail, because they do not want to imply that this installation will guard and will pre- serve life. New York State calls this a guiderail. I do not want to introduce another subject for discussion, but some of the remarks seem to imply an inherent weakness of a round post and, of course as a structural engineer, I do not entirely agree. There is difficulty in using a round post for installation simply because of blocking out the rail, but the form of the post does not mean it is deficient in strength. You can provide any strength that you would need in a round post. That is a kind of side comment. I do not want to appear to defend the practices that we saw which were easily identified as being deficient, but I think that most of the panel members will agree that all of these projcts that we served required a minimum construction period of 18 months to pos- sibly 3 years, so that many of the standards that were used in the contract plans were standards that were certainly old, possibly 2 or 3 and maybe 6 or 8 years old, because there is a normal timelag in the development of standards. As I mentioned before, guardrail is an item that is generally installed by use of State standards. In the photographs we saw of the recently completed projects, and when you observe projects under construction, you can see improvements. This is, I think, a tribute to the highway departments that were responsible, in that they recognize that there is room for improvement. I think all of us can see that improvement. Mr. OONSTANDY. Did you see something else, that some. of them yet fail to understand why they put a guardrail in? Mr. Wri~s. I would agree. Mr. CONSTANDY. With the upgraded standard, in one case, the guardrail was improved at the approach end but it still leaves you going into the pier and dead at the other end. I think while it is neces- sary to recognize there is a continual process of evolution in the up- grading of standards for these facilities, and we have certainly seen examples of that, it is more a question of the time it takes to do it. Mr. Ricker? Mr. RIOKER. I pretty much agree with what the other panel mem- bers have said. I would point out that most of these pictures showed a growing knowledge of the design of guardrail. Some of them are using the washer, some are bending down the ends, and so on. The other thing that seemed to be typical of them is they are applied to fixed objects. A guardrail has been used for many years for the second purpose here, on steep, high embankments, and has served the purpose. This is a sort of new art, putting in short sections to protect fixed objects, and everybody is learning or has been learning over the past 10 years, as Mr. Huff said. I think just about now we know what we should be doing. It is fine, the sort of publicity which these hearings will bring about, which I am sure will sharpen everybody's wits a little bit, to get it in the right place and proper advanced position. This has happened in my State within the last 5 years or so~ The criticisms I had of guardrail placement, particularly when it was not long enough or did not begin soon enough to protect a steep embankment, I do not find that complaint any more. It is being done correctly now. I think this will come. PAGENO="0649" 645 Mr. CONSTANDY. I want to thank you all for what I feel has been a most productive session, and you people certainly contributed to make it so. We will continue on the same basis, if it is still agreeable, tomorrow. Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Constandy. I am very sorry that official business made it impossible for our chairman, Mr. Blatnik, to be with us in the latter part of the hearings this afternoon. Today we have been privileged to hear expert opinion from this panel of distinguished specialists in the field of safe highway design and traffic engineering. Each of these men is outstanding and nation- ally known in his field, as is Mr. Charles W. Prisk of the Bureau of Public Roads, whose experience and advice has been so helpful to us in these hearings. The continued presence and assistance of these gentlemen as we analyze and discuss the design safety of some of our newest Interstate projects around the country is greatly appreciated by the subcommittee. It has been disquieting, although not surprising in view of earlier testimony, to learn from today's testimony that the same unsatisfac- tory installations of roadside appurtenances common elsewhere are to be found on new Interstate projects in various parts of the country. There have been some encouraging signs of progress, but not nearly enough. Many of these features are as dangerous as they are unnecessary. And it appears as late as 1967, they continue to be designed and built into our highways. Some of these mistakes are capable of quick and sometimes inexpen- sive correction. Some may be much more costly to alter, while others, I am afraid, will just continue to exist for generations to come. It will be the continuing purpose of these hearings to explore fufly the problems brought about by design practices which have been the subject of testimony thus far. Certainly the observations and expert opinions of this distinguished panel can be of great help in that regard. We look forward to your assistance when this subcommittee re- sumes its hearings tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. The subcommittee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to be recon- vened at 10 a.m. the following day, Wednesday, June 21, 1967.) PAGENO="0650" PAGENO="0651" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1967 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPEoIA.I~ SuBcoMMIrrJ~ ON `rmi FEDERAL-Am HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMIrrEE ON PUBLIC Wom~s, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 15 a m, in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon Kenneth J Gray (acting chairman) presiding Present Messrs Gray, Fallon (chairman of full committee), Mc Carthy, Howard, Cramer, McEwen, Duncan, Schadeberg, and Zion Staff present Same as previous days Mr GRAY The Special Subcommittee on the Federal Aid Highway Program will please come to order We resume hearing testimony in the nature of comment and ob- servation by a panel of distinguished witnesses. They are specialists of many years' experience in the field of highway design and tr'~ffic engineering We will resume the analysis and consideration of photo graphs made by subcommittee personnel and Mr Charles W Prisk of the Bureau of Public Roads, in each of the nine regions `idministered by the Bure'Lu throughout the country In each of the nine regions `i look was taken `it recently opened projects on the Interstate System This testimony concerns some of the design features that were noted at that time. With that, I will recognize our distinguished counsel. Mr W MAY Mr Constandy Mr CONSTANDY Thank you Yesterday, Mr Chairman, we reviewed the slides that related to the first two elements that we intend to look at in this project, guardrail and median barrier I think it is correct to say that we found un-properly installed guardrul on each of the nine projects we reviewed We go back to our original thesis that these nine projects are in tended to be representative of the Interstate construction in the United Stites as of February 1967 Mr Prisk, do you have something further relative to guardrail and median barrier for this morning, or do you want to go directly into the next element, bridges ~ Mr. PRISK. I think at a proper time, perhaps in the summation, it would be well to make some general remarks about guardraiL I would suggest that we proceed with consideration of structures at this time. (647) PAGENO="0652" 648 Mr. CoNsT~rY. Fine. We will follow the same procedure as yes- terday. Following that, time allowing, we will get into another element, per- haps lighting or slopes. If you will begin, then, Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. Yes, Mr. Constandy. Gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, I think in contrast to what we saw yesterday, looking at guardrails, which is a relatively low-cost item on highway sections of the Interstate System, we are concerned today with a high-cost item, a structure crossing an- other highway, crossing a river or undercrossing, crossing a railroad. In other words, affording a grade separation in absence of intersec- tion friction which is responsible for accidents and hazards on our con- ventional-type highways. Looking at structures on the Interstate System during the course of the observations in the nine States, I think the things that we are concerned with included the matter of the uniformity of the roadway width, as it crossed the structure, or went through the structure, as that relates to the approach width of the roadway. We are concerned with the clearances to abutments, to the edges of medians, piers, and other elements of the structure. We are interested in the heights of curbs on structures and the rail heights that were used on structures, the connection between the ele- ment that we spoke of yesterday, guardrail on the approach sections of roadway and the bridge railing, and the structure itself. These are the kind of things that I think we will be stressing in the presentation today as we proceed with this pictorial review of the nine interstate projects reviewed during April. May I have the first elide, please? Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, before you begin, I think the record should reflect that we are again honored to have the distinguished members of the panel who were very helpful to us yesterday; and I am sure will be so today and throughout the hearing. I would also, Mr. Prisk, just run down the order in which we have the slides prepared by States. We will begin with Indiana, then Missouri, Oklahoma, Nevada, Rhode Island, Montana, Ohio, Utah, and finally Georgia. So go ahead, Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. When this slide was drawn, the intent was simply to define some of the elements that we shall be talking about. These are all bridge rails and parapets of rather common vintage. On the left you will see a vertical parapet. This is the roadway side out here. This parapet rises directly from the roadway surface and is topped by a metal rail. This area here is concrete. Over here is about the same kind of a structure with the addi- tion of a brush curb. This dimension here is the critical one [indicating], usually running 4 or 5 inches, something of that sort. Over here we have again the same backup structure with a safety walk in front of it. The safety walk has been thought of as some- thing that probably has been misnamed in the past. Mr. CONSTANDY. You feel it perhaps is not a safety walk after all? Mr. PRISK. I would prefer to call it a so-called safety walk. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, is it true that the vertical parapet and the brush curb are more apt to be used on projects where the shoulder PAGENO="0653" 649 is carried through to the structure and perhaps the safety walk being something of a compromise on those bridges where the shoulder is not carried full width across the structure? Mr. PRISK. This I would say is true; yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Before we leave that slide, do the members of the panel care to make any observations relative to any type of design- Mr. SCHADEBERG. Why does the guardrail not have the same type of structure as you talked about, the New Jersey Turnpike that you explained yesterday, that was built in such a way that it would direct the car away from it? Mr. PRISK. You are talking about this surface, which would come up on a parabolic shape or two inclined slopes, as against the vertical side? Mr. SCHADEBERO. And then the slanted curb. Mr. PRISK. Yes, I understand: There is not much of that in use throughout the country. These are simply illustrative of what we found on the nine interstate projects. In fact, I can say factually that we did not find any of the New Jersey-type bridge rail and parapet designs on the nine projects. Mr. SCHADEBERG. Did you say that New Jersey type was-the type that was studied-was considered to be one of the safer structures? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. SCHADEBERG. Any researóh on this being done for rails-for guardrails? Mr. PRISK. On bridge railing, yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. I believe there have been research tests conducted in California on the use of that parabolical, New Jersey type. What do we call it? Mr. PRISK. It is a bridge rai1in~. Mr. CONSTANDY. They are testing it both from the standpoint of its use as a median barrier and as a parapet on bridges. PAGENO="0654" 650 Perhaps Mr. Skeels could comment, since they have developed and installed a similar type structure on the bridges at the proving ground. Mr. Sinr~r~s. Well, that is correct; we do have bridges with this type of bridge parapet installed. It is a modification of the New Jersey style. We adopted this after looking and doing what we considered a thorough engineering job on available bridge rail designs. We are very enthusiastic about it. It works very well, and I am sure you wifi see it come into more and more use. The design is, as applied to bridge rails, relatively recent. I believe ours has been in service about 3 years. There also is a section of the same design installed on one of the Detroit expressways as a median barrier. I would like to avoid confusion when we talk about bridge parapets or median barriers in the same breath; but they have the same basic job to perform. That is, to prevent a vehicle from penetrating and to turn the vehicle to a path roughly parallel to the road with a mmimum of hazard to the occupants of the vehicle, and a more secondary ob- jective is a minimum of damage to the vehicle itself. This has the advantage that if you do not damage the vehicle, the driver can keep it under control, and a car can strike this parapet in a mild type of impact and go onhis way. Whereas, perhaps with other types, he might be immobilized and there will be an accident. Mr. ScIIAr)Ei~aG. Thank you. Mr. (JONSTANDY. I can attest to that. Mr. Skeels has given us the pleasure of hitting a parapet at 45 miles an hour and it is a most exhilarating experience. It was surprising that there was practically no impact at all; and the car was directed back onto the roadway. Mr. Wir4si~s. I might add that there are several States that have adopted this New Jersey-type parapet as a standard for their full- shoulder-width structures. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Perhaps we will move along, Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. One other thing that might be said before we leave this slide is the fact that this rail, unlike the guardrail used at the edge of the pavement, is normally considerably higher, somewhere in the vicinity of 40 inches, as against ~7 inches; and upward, possibly, on a bridge rail up as high as 50 inches, 55 inches. This practice differs, also. Mr. Wuxr~s. Could I comment on the safety walk? The purpose, one of the purposes of the safety walk would be to provide a refuge for the pedestrians that are on the structure. And I am sure that is the origin of the term, safety walk. Mr. CONSTANDY. Isn't it true that pedestrians are uncOmmon, and that pedestrians are not allowed to use the Interstate? Mr. WILKES. That is correct. Your statement that no pedestrians are allowed would apply to the Interstate, but this feature is included in bridges for all systems, primary, secondary, and urban areas of course. Ph safety walk is widened to provide a sidewalk for pedestrians. Mr. CONSTANDY. Proceed, Mr. Prisk. PAGENO="0655" 651 Mr. PRISK. This is an indication of how the approach rail and bridge railing might be handled as a means of taking care of this condition that you have in the vicinity of the transition from roadway which is 1IIIII.Iu~II!1I!hhhhI!hLs1~~!~hi back here to the bridge which is up here. The roadway barrier, edge barrier, as I mentiOned, normally is mounted at about 27 inches. This rail may run as high as 50 or 55 inches, or at least twice the height of this rail. And this is one way that you will see that some of the States are beginning to come, as a means of smoothing out the transition from the approach. to the structure itself. Up here in the top photo, this is an airplane view looking down, where your approach rail is flared into the structure itself and made integral with that end wall. This is not necessarily offered as a desirable solution at all. It is simply something that some of the States are trying. in an effort to solve that prnblem. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Huff. Mr. HUFF. My department has adopted the standard which carries the rail continuously across the bridge. Mr. CONSTANDY. At some point we will show some slides showing that and contrasting it with another State which has attempted to do the same thing, done it a different way, perhaps less desirably. Mr. PRISK. Now we move in the State-by-State illustrations of what we found in this area of bridge structures. PAGENO="0656" 652 In the first case we come to Indiana, 1-68, somewhat similar to the pictures we saw yesterday. This bridge has the merit of carrying the full shoulder width all the way across the bridge. This is very desirable to have this unob- structed area, regardless of whether you come to a bridge or not. The side shoulder is always carried through here. Next is an instance of a vertical parapet rising directly up, 1-69, Indiana. / I 4 Here is one of the focal points of our study of bridge structures. We find this time and time again, not just here in Indiana, but in all of the nine States. This rail is brought up to a point where it almost V ~ - PAGENO="0657" 653 reaches the end of the parapet wall on the bridge structure. Any deflection of this rail, being struck on the approach to the bridge, would cause a car to stop at this point, and of course this is pretty much an immovable object, and collision here gets pretty violent. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that typical of the installation in Indiana, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes. This is typical of Indiana, and a good many of the other States that we will see. Mr. CONSTANDY. You relate what would happen when the guard- rail is struck by an automobile and the consequences of it; could we conclude that this is wrong? Mr. PRISK. I think it would be necessary to conclude that. We have no post support in the picture for a very considerable distance, and there is a 12-foot-6 spacing on the post. An additional post in this area would help somewhat to reinforce that guardrail against lateral deflection. As it stands, this could rather easily be moved back by the impact .~f a car, and the car would collide with the structures. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is a very severe type of accident, is it not? Mr. PRISK. It is. It is a violent collision. Mr. WILKEs. Could I point to another undesirable feature, and that is the end of that bridge rail, which is obviously an ornamental feature. Mr. CONSTANDY. How could that be better done? Mr. WILKES. Even with the parapet extended to protect the end of that, to keep the rail from hitting the driver or occupant in some cases, the rail could be turned down. Mr. CONSTANDY. We saw that same point in Utah yesterday. In that instance it was turned down and that round part that we see at the end was curved down to where it meets the top of the parapet, making it a smooth curve. Mr. SKEELS. I was simply going to add one comment. On this very short bridge it is doubtful in my mind that the rail is justified at all. Mr. CON5TANDY. The entire structure on top of the parapet? Mr. SKEELS. The metal rail installed on top of the concrete. 87-75~ O-68-----42 PAGENO="0658" 654 Mr. PIuSK. Here is the other side of this same bridge. It is a short bridge in fact, as you can see. And the median side, left-hand side, alsohas this same arrangement. There is no physical attachment between the rail and the concrete structure, and these posts can be rather readily displaced by a colliding car, which would then be faced with that same condition we saw on the right-hand side. Mr. CONSTANDY. Something perplexes me, Mr. Prisk. Why is it nec- essary that that bridge rail be higher than the height of the guardrail? Mr. PR1SK. Well, this has bothered me a long time, too. I do not know that there is a good answer for it. There is a little more hazard certainly, mounting a bridge rail, than there is running down a slope. Mr. CONSTANDY. If we take this view here, I am not sure you can dis- tinguish between the result of a car going over the parapet itself or. coming through this type of guardrail installation, in advance of the bridge. He is apt to suffer the same consequnces. Mr. PRISK. With this approach rail, chances are that he would fare worse hitting the approach rail than he would hitting something out here, even without this ornamental rail at the top. Mr. CONSTANDY. That fellow in Utah survived; but we have seen a number of these bridge accidents, where the occupants of the car did not survive. Mr. Wiums. Mr. Constandy, I might state for the record that the standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials is that a traffic rail must be a minimum height of 27. inches if there is no curb wider than 6 inches. If there is a curb wider than 6 inches, then - the rail or parapet must be 27 inches measured from the top of the curb. Mr. PRESK. That is this point [indicating]. Mr. (JONSTANDY. The rail is supposed to be 27 inches. Mr. Wiuii~s. Right. And if it is for pedestrians, it is general practice to increase that height. Mr. CONSTANDY. Then it would be a handrail? Mr. WILI~s. Then it would be a handrail. Mr. PRISK. What you are looking at is, according to what Mr. Wilkes says, a standard installation in accordance with the specifications, if this rail is in fact 27 inches high, and if this parapet also is 27 inches- do I understand you correctly? Mr. WILKES. That is correct. Mr. PEISK. This is what we did find in Indiana. You see other illustrations of this sort, also, in Indiana, on major structures; this is a longer bridge. These bridges were not built to in- clude the full width of the shoulder. The bridge shoulder amounts to about two and a half feet of clear- ance outside the edge of the traffic line. This short distance here. There is a wall on the structure, as you see, and a very bulky end wall parapet, and the guardrail is curved in, sort of in a pocketfashion, to reasonably meet the alinement of the curving rail, which then straightens out directly online with the camera. PAGENO="0659" 655 Let me show you another shot, closer in. This shows more of the structure and more of the condition there at the end of the structure. This rail, as I said before, is not too difficult to displace. PAGENO="0660" 656 As we move on into this condition, this is the scene of a fatal acci- dent on this type of condition, where a car in fact did strike the ap- proach section of the rail and stopped, with fatal results, on this heavy mass of concrete here at the end of this relatively long structure. Mr. CONSTANDY. We became familiar with this particular accident. It did not happen on the project, it happened on a project contiguous to the one we looked at. You will notice the similarity of this structure tO the preceding one. The man was driving a pickup truck loaded with furniture, moving frOm Michigan to a new job in Missouri, and was being followed by his wife and little kiddies in a car directly behind. This pickup for some reason-they never did find out why-went out of control, struck the guardrail and slammed into the parapet. He was killed, and the furniture was destroyed by flames. Can you tell us about that massive piece of concrete? We see them all over the United States. It is a very common thing; what function does itserve? Mr. PRISK. This has no function according to all the information I have been able~ to get. Perhaps Mr. Wilkes will~ have a better expla- nation for it. Mr. Wmi~s. Well, this is standard practice, design practice, for most highway departments. This wing wall can be seen in all States, or a similar wing wall. One of the purposes is to retain the embank- ment of the approach roadway-this would be from the ground level on down. I Mr. CONSTANDY. Could you talk about the ground level on up? Mr. Wiuui~s. A little background would be helpful. From the road- way down, something must be devised to slope the earth from the road- way surface down to the bottom of the structure. That is the ground line down. PAGENO="0661" 65~~ And from the ground line up they have made an effort to make a curb return designed to transition from the roadway cross section of the safety walk, back to the full shoulder. In plan view, that looks like a generous radius; but when viewed from the approach roadway, it does give a very abrupt change Some States have provided longer radius. Other means have been to have a longer transition ~f approach guardrail. Mr. CONSTANDY. That would be a means of eliminating a hazard. I would like to get more directly to the function of that parapet as it extends above the rail. Does it perform any function? Mr. WILKES. The function it performs here, it does mask the metal handrail, whether that is aluminum Or steel. Mr. CONSTANDY. For what purpose? Mr. WILI~s. Well, you do not have the exposed end of the guard- rail that you saw on the earlier photographs. Mr. OONSTANDY. You cannot be serious. This thing will kill you before you ever get to the exposed handrail. it is putting a more lethal thing in front of one that already is lethal. I have heard that from other people. I do not mean to sound. so incredulous. It has been spoken of before. Mr. WILKES. Well, the height of the rail is necessary for pedestrian traffic that you would have on the bridge, and from that pedestrian rail there should be some transition down to a roadway section. And this is the solution that was developed, I am sure, by the highways department. Mr. CONSTANDY. But by itself it bears no relation to the strength of the bridge; does it? Mr. WILKES. That is correct. Mr. `CONSTANDY. If it performs any function, it is to kill you before you get killed by the end of `the handrail. In fact, here is an ex- ample- Mr. WILKES. It certainly would depend on the angle of attack. It does have a feature of a radius-was built on a radius to flare out; and there are just as many or perhaps more wing walls that are built parallel to the railing. Mr. CONSTANDY. I suspect from our earlier conversations that you `tre not pleased with this type of design itself You do not care for the existence of that lethal mass of concrete; is that true? Mr. WILKES. I cannot say that I necessarily agree. There has been an `attempt to flare the bridge railing, which is restrictive, out to the full shoulder width. T'he criticism that I would have is that the radius is too short, that you need a longer transition. Mr. CONSTANDY. So it would be possible to design and build some- thing which would achieve the result that you desire? Mr. WILKES. Definitely. Mr. `CONSTANDY. And at the same time eliminate the hazard that is produced by the existence of this form? Mr. WILKES. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. We do see these all over the country. Mr. WILKES. Where you do not carry the full shoulder across the bridge, some `appropriate transition must be provided. I can agree that this is certainly massive; and if you hit it head on, it is a lethal weapon. PAGENO="0662" 658 Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. We will see other examples. I thmk, Mr. Prisk, is it not true that this is the site of a large segment of fatalities on highways? Mr. PRISK. The most frequent thing that ears hit when they leave the road is the guardrail, and the next most frequent thing hit, after guardrail, is some component of the bridge; and this comes first on the bridge. I would classify it in the way you have mentioned, yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Did you want to say something further, Mr. Wilkes? Mr. Wiun~s. No. Mr. CONSTANDY. If we could go along now. Mr. PIaSK. I would like to compare, if I may, this bridge on the job which perhaps shows the curvature Mr. Wilkes spoke about a little bit better than did the accident photo, but this is the bridge on the project. This is the bridge where the fatal accident occurred, which is very close to the project. And this is another case. Here another fatal accident actually oc- curred. As you will see, this bridge was hit hard enough to take away not only a portion of that end wall, but a very considerable length of the rail running on up to the bridge. This was obviously a very severe collision. Another view of this same accident location. Here the rail came to an end stopping, and with that terminal section on it, flared back. This did bring the car in violent impact causing two deaths at this point. . . This is another location, but a similar designed condition. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is between the project and Indianapolis. We do not know what happend there, but perhaps we can speculate. Mr. PmsK. Two deaths occurred. PAGENO="0663" 659 Now here is an attempt to remedy that situation that is going on today. Brackets blocking out from this curb section end wall are being fastened to the bridge, and the rail will then be extended to come up into this bracket, and this will afford somewhat better trarisi- tion from the approa~h rail to the narrow structure. This, at best, I think is only a partial solution. Just how much value this would have, I do not know. I expect that it would prevent contact directly-head on contact with the end, getting more glancing contact here. PAGENO="0664" 660 The curb, of course, and the safety walk are still a very considerable hazard and remain unprotected. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels. Mr. Si~ri~r~s. One brief comment. This will certainly provide a big improvement over the original arrangement that they had. However, we have to realize that when a car strikes a guardrail, the guardrail does not stay put. It moves in the direction the car was going, that is it moves away. This commonly produces a condition known as pocketing. When you run into a guardrail just short of an immovable object, such as we can assume the end of this bridge is, this happens. It will help the situation, but what you really need to do is put in a much stronger section of guardrail adjacent to your very strong bridge structure. More posts is a way of doing it, putting in more frequent posts right adjacent to the bridge structure. In other words, there are ways to handle this that are still better than we see in this picture. Mr. MCCARTHY. I wonder if we could clarify a point, Mr. Prisk. Pedestrians are not permitted on the Interstate System, is that correct? Mr. PnIsK. Not normally, that is correct. It is usually a matter of State law. Mr. MCCARTHY. State law? Mr. PRIsK. State law. Mr. MCCARTHY. But all States have them? Mr. PmsK. I cannot answer in that respect, but, most commonly, iedestrians are prohibited from the Interstate. Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, then why the safety walk on an Interstate highway? Mr. PRI5K. This is a carryover from the tradition that Mr. Wilkes mentioned, and I think the safety walk has been regarded in the past as an important aid to maintenance workers who come to the bridge, so that they have a place to get across the structure without being in the traffic lane. Mr. WIL~i~.s. Could I reply to that? Mr. Gr~y. Mr. Wilkes. Mr. Wmici~s. There is a requirement in the AASHO specification for Interstate highways that tunnels and long bridges on which the shoul- der is not carried across the structure must be provided with safety walks. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is in the current Interstate standards? Mr. WIL~s. That is correct. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you consider this a long bridge, Mr. Wilkes? Mr. WILKES. Well, it does not have the full shoulders carried across. And one interpretation that has been made on this specification re- quirement is that when you do not have the full shoulders, then it is necessary to provide safety walks. Mr. CONSTANDY. So that the critical fact is whether you carry the full shoulder, rather than the length of the bridge. You might have a short bridge. Mr. Wmar~s. The specification has both parts of that statement. The long bridge on which the full-long spans on which the full shoulder is riot carried. PAGENO="0665" 661 Mr. CONSTANDY. The whole philosophy is predicated on a 6- or 8- inch curb being sufficient to prevent the car from hitting the pedestrian anyhow, is it not? Mr. WILKES. No. Another part of the specification is that a safety walk must be 18 inches. Anything wider than that is called a side- walk by definition. Mr. CONSTANDY. Well, assume a pedestrian on the 18-inch safety walk, with a curb 6 or 8 inches above the roadway. If an automobile does go out of control, will a 6- or 8-inch curb cause it to keep from hitting the pedestrian? Mr. WILKES. No; it will not. Mr. CONSTANDY. It raises the question of whether it is really a safety walk. Doe,s it cost more to install a safety walk than if the safety walk were omitted from the structure? You have to take into consideration the concrete that you use to make it, and secondly. it would seem to add additional weight_-might it not add additional weight tO the bridge that you may have to take into account in the design of the strength of the structure? Mr. WILKES. In the design of a structure, the design load of course is a heavy truck. And by having a curb in the design consideration, the wheel is placed a certain dimension from the base of the curb. Now if the curb were not there, then the wheel could occupy the entire road- way, so that my answer is this: By eliminating a curb or safety walk, much more of the structure can be loaded with a truck, and would therefore have to be strengthened as a general rule. Mr. CONSTANDY. In other words, the bridge has to be stronger if it does not have a safety walk, than if it does have it? Mr. WILKES. Then the structure has to be designed in the event a truck gets against the parapet, whereas with the cui~b the design as- sumptions are that the vehicle svill be contained inside the curb. As an overload condition, in which overstresses are permitted, the designer then places a truck wheel up on the safety walk or sidewalk; but under those conditions, he is using higher unit stresses and considers that to be an unusual occurrence. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think the pedestrian would too. Mr. WILKES. Of course a pedestrian load is much less. Mr. CONSTANDY. There is some weight to the safety walk itself, is there not? Mr. WILKES. Yes, there is some weight, and it is generally expensive concrete to build a sidewalk or curb. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you prefer to see bridgs built without safety walks? Mr. WILKES. Very definitely. Mr. CONSTANDY. You would? Mr. WILKES. Yes, sir. Mr. CONSTANDY. You feel they create a hazard? Mr. WILKES. I do. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilson. Mr. WILSON. As a matter of information, in the early 1950's, Cali- fornia did in fact design a bridge rail without a safety walk and utiliz- ing the whole width-_in other words, we ended up with 2 feet wider distance between the rail itself and the. travel way. PAGENO="0666" 662 We built several of these bridges, and we had difficulty in develop- ing a rail that would hold cars on the bridge. And then several years later we went back to building a concrete rail-not like you see here- but with the narrow rub curb against it. We did try this without some success, and we went back to concrete. Mr. CONSTANDY. You used what is called a brush curb; is that right? Mr. WusoN. For the most part; yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. To keep the vehicle wheels from the parapet, but not wide enough that it creates a hazard? Mr. WILSON. That is the type that we used. Mr. CONSTANDY. How wide is that? Mr. WILSON. I would imagine 4 inches, something of that nature. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker. Mr. RICKER. There is another rationale for the safety walk on long bridges, and that is if a vehicle becomes disabled and the passengers have to leave it and walk off, they have a place of refuge. This does not protect them from a violent collision-a vehicle that would otherwise strike the rail. But it does protect them from ordinary traffic crossing the bridge. They have a place to walk. I do not know that this outweighs the other comments made; but it is a reason why a safety walk is provided on bridges. Mr. CONSTANDY. We are back in that area where we have to realize that you cannot get perfection. There has to be a compromise, which affords the greatest degree of protection to the person, whether he is pedestrian or motorist. How do you feel yourself, Mr. Ricker, about safety walks? Would you eliminate them? Mr. RICKER. In most cases, I think I would. On the other hand, with very long bridges, there needs to be some refuge for people who must leave their automobile because it is broken down. Mr. CONSTANDY.. Of course if there is a full shoulder, that is prefer- able is it not? Mr. RICKER. Very definitely. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. Yes, I might say further with respect to this picture, that this is part of the $800,000 guardrail rehabilitation project that we mentioned yesterday outside Indianapolis. Mr. CONSTANDY. So if that is to be effective, would it not be necessary to treat, in some fashion, the safety walk on this bridge? Mr. PIU5K. I should think so, yes. Mr. WmKE5. I think I would agree that attaching the guardrail to the wing wall is a partial solution. Perhaps the complete solution would be to provide a longer curb return underneath the guardrail to make an easier transition. Mr. CONSTANDY. Perhaps they could chop off that piece that sticks out. Mr. WILKES. That goes all the way across the bridge. Mr. CONSTANDY. Can you cut it off on an angle or would you create another problem once you do this, trying to find a safe solution? Mr. PRISK. In terms of transition, it might be of some interest to know that this adjustment in the position of the rail runs back 100 to 150 feet. PAGENO="0667" 663 Looking now at a brand new project, not yet opened, and also at this same critical point of junction of approach guardrail on the roadway and the railing and structure of the bridge, we find this condition. This is a new project just outside Indianapolis on Interstate 70. You will see that the shoulder is carried through on the normal width on this side. This is the lefthand shoulder. You will see the absence of that wide walk~ This again, the weak point is the lack of attachment of this rail to the structure. Mr. CONSTANDY. What Interstate? Mr. PRISK. Interstate 70. Mr. CONSTANDY. Just east of Indianapolis? Mr. PRI8K. Right~ About 15 miles. Mr. ZION. Do you have any figure on the number of deaths on 1-69 in Indiana from June of last year when it was opened to traffic? Mr. PRISK. We do not have the accident data for any of these projects specifically summed up. It would be possible to get that for the record if the committee would like it. Mr. CONSTANDY. Congressman, it was my suggestion that we did not. Some of these projects have been so recently opened that they have not had the opportunity for sufficient traffic to make these statistics meaningful. Mr. CONSTANDY. This particular project is not completed and is not open, but being completed to this extent, could we say that this is wrong, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. I think it has a weakness that we spoke of before, cer- tainly the lack of any considerable transition between the roadway and the structure. Mr~ CONSTANDY. Mr. Huff. Mr. ~ I believe it should be said somewhere in this discussion that the basic fault is not having full shoulders completely across the bridge, and I think we will all remember that there were national PAGENO="0668" 664 standards at the time this work was being designed, which would pro- hibit the placement of the shou1ders entirely across the bridge. Mr. CONSTANDY. Did they prohibit it or did they prohibit Federal participation in the cost of it? Mr. Hupr, It may be that in the adjustment of the~ curb ends the basic solution there may be to go back and take the fall operation and widen the bridge and carry the full shoulders across. Mr. CONSTANDY. A lot of these other problems- stem from that initial decision to not carry the shoulders through? Mr. Huri~'. I could not speak for Indiana, of course, butwe did have national standards which limited the length of the bridge on which you could carry full shoulders across. I say this in defense of the In- diana engineer who designed this, that- Mr. CONSTANDY. Of course this bridge, we will see, does have full shoulders. The opportunity is afforded to them to make a transition from the guardrail to the bridge rail correctly; and while I am not saying this for or against them, they have not done it right. This is on the left side. We will see in a moment the view from the right side. Mr. Him'i. It could be argued that this is not a full shoulder. Mr. CONSTANDY. Let me ask you this. The same shoulder precedes the bridge on the roadway. So we are really not concerned with restric- tion of anything, whether 6 feet is wide enough or not is really not the point. The significant thing. is whether there is. a reduction in the shoulder as it is carried across the bridge. In this case there. is not. Mr. Hun?. It could be argued that the 6-foot shoulder on the road~ way is not enough. Those are the kind of decisions made based, on what people thought at that time when the span- Mr. CONSTANDY. This particular bridge on the right side does carry the full shoulder. It is a little complicated inasmuch as the ends have an acceleration- Mr. HImT. It has not been hit. Mr. CONSTANDY. For what reason? There has not been any traffic on it. If it is hit, as it stands there now, just in advance of this path, what might you reasonably expect to have happen? Mr. HUFF. It could still be hit like it is; but if it had wide shoulders on it, it might not be hit. You get into the range of probability there as to whether it would be hit or not. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes, but I think we agree that there is no restric- tion as it goes across the bridge. Whatever shoulder crosses the bridge is the same shoulder on the roadway. It is a straight line. Mr. Htri~'. That would be true if you say 6 feet-it does not repre- sent a restriction. Mr. CONSTANDY~ OK. Mr~ PRI5K. This is a closeup of that transition point between the approach rail and the guardrail, approach rail and the bridge rail, excuse me. Some. architectural treatment has been given to this end wall, and we know there is a similarity in the design here and this is the same State. It has been straightened out. The bridge rail is ahimi- num of a new design. PAGENO="0669" 665 PAGENO="0670" 666 Here is the right side of this same bridge, and you will see here the acceleration lane coming in from behind camera and being carried on across the bridge to the normal width up here. The approach rail in this instance is lined up nicely with this aluminum rail on the structure, and you have a modest width curb on the bridge. Unfortunately, it extends somewhat outside the rail face in this section here. This is the right-hand side of the same bridge. Perhaps there will be some comment on that. Actually, the only clearance allowed here is this very short distance. I think that is about 18 inches there. 1 I We move along and we see~ another structure in our next State, Mis- souri, 1-35. Here we have a structure. This is about 180 feet long, if I recall correctly, which would classify it as a major structure. Here the full width of the shoulder is carried across, both from the right and from the left. PAGENO="0671" 667 When you get to the end of the concrete parapet wall, this is the condition that you find. This little wing section comes off the guardrail and is blocked off, and of course this is desirable; but you do have no attachment here or structural association with the bridge. PAGENO="0672" 668 This is another view showing the left~hand side, buried end rail going on up to the structure. Again, on this side, this section of the curb projects in front of the rail which is an undesirable feature. - - I - r This is a closer view of this same bridge. This is the oniy bridge, as I recall, on this whole section which had any guardrail treatment. But there is a good view of the curb, carrying drainage down to an outlet at this point. ____ ____ i / -~ ~ PAGENO="0673" 669 Now here is a closeup. In Missouri's treatment, it doesn't have all of the grooves in it that we found in Indiana; but essentially it is the same massive block of concrete standing between a rail here that is intended to guide traffic along the course up to this point. The rail is about 24 inches here and the top of this is about 27 or 28 inches. Mr. CONSTANDY. Can we say that it is wrong? Mr. PRISK. I think it is subject to most of the faults that we have just been discussing. Mr. OONSTANDY. The same thing basically, is it not? Mr. PIUSK. Yes. The only advantage I see here is the close spacing of the rails, which will offer somewhat more support than we have pre- viously. Otherwise, the same. 87-757 O-68-----43 PAGENO="0674" 670 Mr. CONSTANDY. Is there anyone on the panel who would question whether to consider that wrong? Mr. WILSON. I would question it; there is no way of telling here how much additionai strength that end post might have. I do not sub- scribe to the fact that it is 2 and 3 feet away from this concrete abut- ment; but we have made an attempt to strengthen the end of the rail by using a 10 by 10 post in lieu of an 8 by 8 and putting it into the ground at a considerable greater depth; recognizing that it is a critical area. Mr. CONSTANDY. It would be desirable, would it not, to carry the guardrail across the face of that parapet so that there is no break in the continuity in this area across which the car is sliding? Mr. Wu~soN. I would have to agree with that. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels? Mr. Sx~ELs. One additional comment. If they had carried that section on down to grade level, they would have eliminated that vertical space which is the primary problem here, and then leaving the rail about where it is it would have been in front of the wall, and could have been anchored to it. My point is that with really minor changes, this could be a rea- sonably good design. I note also that they do have the post at a 6 foot 3 inch spacing at that location. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, what is that stick with three amber refleetors on it? Mr. PRISK. Delineators. Mr. CONSTANDY. What does it mean? Mr. PlusK. It is a marking for the end of the bridge, essentially indi- cating to the motorist under nighttime driving conditions where the edge of the roadway is or the presence in this case of a hazard. Mr. CONSTANDY. The sign indicates the presence of a hazard? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. C0NSTANDY. In other words, this would otherwise be a single white reflector, is that true? Mr. PRISK. Normal delineation is carried by a single white reflector, yes. This is a hazard marker. Mr. CONSTANDY. It is paradoxical, they just finished building the bridge, and then they put up an indicator that they considered it a hazard. I think we will see this on some of the others. Mr. Wilson, this comes within your committee, does it not? Mr. WILSoN. Mr. Gonstandy, we sometimes call that a clearance marker. Normally you would see that on the right along the decelera- tion lanes or acceleration lanes of a facility like this and it merely tells you that-stay on one. side or the other, depending on which side you happen to be. It is not necessarily a hazard marker. It is a clearance marker. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. I will proceed. Then here is another structure that we next reach showing no rail in place at all. Essentially the same type of structure with no rail in place. PAGENO="0675" 671 * Mr. CONSTANDY. You could drive between the bridges there, or you could ~o down on the right, or, in the alternative, could hit any one of the bridge parapets? Mr. PRISK. That is right. This project is not heavily traveled, but it has been open as a relief route for about 6 months now. Mr. CONSTANDY. They do have plans, do they not, for the instafla- tion of guardrail on this project? Mr. PIU5K. Yes; it may be that now-today is almost 2 months since this picture was taken-guardrail may be in place at this point. Guard- rail work was deferred until after the project was opened. Mr. CONSTANDY. In spite of the existence of these hazards, even though they be tempornry, I have had occasion to speak to a police officer on this project, and I think what he said is worth repeating, to keep this in perspective. He was impressed with the overall reduction of accidents in this area as a result of the existence of this road, even though it does contain some of these hazards. The road which the traffic had been using before is not of this type. They had a con- siderable number of accidents on it. And when this was completed and opened, the rate of their accidents fell off considerably. He did make mention of the fact. that they had adopted a practice in the morning, with the first light of dawn, of the patrolman on duty driving the length of the project and. looking for skidmarks, and particularly at those places where they were unprotected by any kind of device and which would allow a car to have gone off the road out of sight of the traffic. A sergeant, while making his morning tour, noticed skidmarks leaving the pavement and entering the median in a situation very similar to the one that you see, between the bridges, that have the space between them unprotected. When he stopped and PAGENO="0676" 672 went to look, he found down in between the two bridges an automobile, the occupant lying on the ground next to it with a broken back. He had been there for some time. We do have accidents as a result Of the lack of protection on these hazardous points. But overall, the features involved in the freeway type of design have themselves reduced the total accidents in the area. It is worth bearing that in mind. Mr. PRI5K. This paralleled U.S. 66 and the heavy traffic relief evi- dently has benefited the overall experience. This is a closeup of another structure just a few miles farther along the way. This is the full shoulder width. This section here, to give you some dimension to judge by, this paving, this asphalt mat is 2 feet wide. You will see that there are about 2 feet 6 inches clear to the curb, and then a steel rail behind the safety walk on this bridge. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, I notice in each of these photographs, at the end Of the bridge, the approaching end, there is always a yellow barrel with a number of dents in it. What is that there for? Mr. PRIsK. I did not ask anybody what that was there for and I do not believe I can do any more than guess that it serves to reinforce this yellow delineator up here, clearance marker, or hazard marker, as you will. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. It is not one of your devices Mr. Wil- son, your committee's, is it? Mr. WILSON. No, sir. Mr. PRISK. This structure is almost exactly the same length as the other one and does have a different curb-to-curb width. As I recall, it was 32 feet curb to curb; the other one was about 40 feet, the reason being the difference in design period, one design a little earlier than the other one. *1 1 I I I j PAGENO="0677" 673 Here is a view on that same structure and you will see that someone did get up on top of this safety walk and put a pretty good dent on this steel channel that runs along the top. This is that narrow section of bridge. A I Here is another one, still another bridge at the same width, I might say. There is a marker out here. Mr. CONSTANDY. What is that marker, Mr. Wilson? The panel with the black and white stripes? I PAGENO="0678" 674 Mr. PRISK. I hoped you would ask him. Mr. CONSTANDY. I asked you because you are chairman of that committee. I do not mean to pick on you. Mr. Wu1soN. Really I am not familier with that type of marker, although I have seen it in several of these pictures. I am not even sure it is a standard marker. I would gather that you are to travel to the left of it, because if you will notice, the one on the right over there is sloped down the other way. Mr. CONSTANDY. You will forgive me, Mr. Wilson. You had better travel to the right of the one on the left and travel to the left of the one on the right? Mr. Wn4soN. I think there is something more basic than what we have gotten down to yet. Apparently it is a practice in some States to put in signs and traffic control devices by subsequent contracts after the highway is open to traffic. I can only speak for (3ahforrna m this regard; we do not open a highway until all of these devices are in. We do not think it is the right thing to do. I think it is obvious from this picture here that at least the traffic control devices other than signs ought to be in place here. Quite often you can have sign contracts following the major con- struction by the use of temporary signs, maybe a smaller variety. But in my opinion and the opinion of our State officials in California, we would not open a road like this until it has all of these devices on it. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker, do you know what that panel is for, the black and white striped one? Are you familier with it? Mr. RIc~KER. It is another type of clearance marker and, as Mr. Wilson said, the slope of the lines indicates which side of it you should go. Perhaps subconsciously, not by any written explanation of it. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that to inform the motorist of the existence of the edge of the shoulder? Mr. RIOKER. We use a number of these on narrow bridges on secondary roads, and we place them in line with the parapet. In other words, if we were going to use that marker in this situation, we would put it nearer the highway. Mr. CONSTANDY. Where that other-three amber reflector panel is? Mr. RICKER. Right. But it is a clearance marker. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. Yes. I will proceed now to another steel bridge and you will see, essentially, the same type of treatment. This one has the yellow barrel back with us as an assist for marking. I do not see a black and white diagonal marker here at all. In this case the yellow reflector units are in place, however. This is the same condi- tion we just observed, simihir condition on the same project, 1-35, Missouri. This is a little closer up view showing better, perhaps, what is in- volved in this opening. You have a drainage structure, I mean a culvert headwall, sticking up here at a place where you might go through. This could only add to your problem, complicate your problem in getting down here safely, if you had to enter that area. Mr. CONSTANDY. If you are lucky, you will have the accident at the headwall? PAGENO="0679" 675 Mr. PRISK. You are not assured that that is going to stop you, even so. This would stop you. [Indicating.] Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. Mr. PRISK. This is essentially the same condition that we have seen before, narrow bridge. Mr. CONSTANDy. Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. I notice on this project the signing is in, but the safety devices are not. PAGENO="0680" 676 Mr. PRISK. That is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. When you make reference to the safety devices, are you speaking of the guardrail? Mr. Wu~sox. Guardrail, delineation. I do not think I see a stripe- oh, yes, there is a stripe there. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it is interesting, is it not, that Missouri, Mr. Prisk, has a different philosophy about the delineators? Or do I have the wrong State? Mr. PRI5K. Excuse me, I did not quite get the question. Mr. CONSTANDY. The delineators you normally find on the edge of the shoulder on the highways, do they have a different philosophy? Mr. PiusK. Yes. As I recall, during the conversations on this project, we were advised that the State of Missouri did not want to use delineators on the Interstate project. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is an optional thing, whether you do it or not? Mr. PRISK. It is not an optional thing; it is required. Mr. CONSTANDY. Maybe it lends more significance to the fact that while they do not believe in it, generally, they do put the three amber ones on the end of the bridge? Mr. PRISK. That is right. II.J -~ ...i4 ~4 ~ I 115.7 L. -~ Here now we come to Oklahoma, and the project that we see there, again, presents the same difficulty essentially with a bridge in an urban area where there is no transition treatment. There has been an attempt here at a transition treatment, where a portion of that wall has been recessed to anchor a bolt and to permit a single five-eighths-inch bolt to go through the end guardrail into the concrete, so as to sustain that last panel. PAGENO="0681" 677 Mr. CONSTANDY. Not on this one, though, it is? I think that is on a later slide. Mr. PRIsK. Well, on this project there is that treatment. I have a close-up. There is one again that is quite open. In the previous case we saw the New York box beam rail; this one has a round rail on the top. PAGENO="0682" 678 Here is another structure on this project where there is quite a mass of concrete here, with clearance from that point to the end of the bridge rail, and, of course, plenty of clearance here. Mr. CONSTANDY. How does this one strike you, Mr. Wilkes? Forgive me for putting it in those words. Mr. Wn~s. I think that you can see that this is the longer wing- wall, and I would surmise that this superstructure would be a deep beam rather than shallow, because there is a relationship to the length of the wingwall and depth of the superstructure support. So I would say had the approach guardrail been fastened to that wingwall, that would have been an acceptable design. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. I expect the point Mr. Skeels said earlier about taking this down to ground level at this point would apply equally well here, if that rail could be brought into this wall. Here is what~ you find at an exit point where essentially the same thing only doubled up, back-to-back walls. There is a hazard marker. I think I miscalculated the other one. This one is. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is an extremely difficult type of situation; is it not? Mr. PRISK. Yes, it is. It is an elevated roadway and this is the exit ramp that you see the car on. The entire thing is in an urban area. There is a narrow walkway along most of the main line section. Mr. CONSTANDY. What possibly could be done to that-what do you call that big concrete end? Mr. PRISK. That is an end wall. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that a parapet, too? Mr. PRISK. End wall. It is almost in the shape of a cowl here, I guess. Vt ~ 1~ - PAGENO="0683" 679 Mr. C0NSTANDY. Could that be extended, tapered more and perhaps be less of a hazard? Has anyone on the panel had any experience with such a situation? Mr. Ricker? Mr. Rioi~n. Such cowls have been built and used successfully where they slope up more gradually and also in width. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. Continuing, this is another view of a connection between the rail and the structure on the project. This is the square box beam on top of a parapet, essentially the same height as the approach rail. Here is the steel light pole behind the rail in this case. PAGENO="0684" 680 Here is the general view looking along the roadway. What you will notice here perhaps is the provision that has been made to accom- modate the sign support structure within the wall. On this one there is a disturbing element; you do have this narrow curb, which is a desirable feature. But coming back along that same line and in front of the guardrail, the curb is continued parallel to the line of the highway. Mr. CONSTANDY. With what effect if struck? Mr. PRISK. To the degree the curb has any height at all, it begins to introduce the possibilities of a car jumping and hitting the guardrail PAGENO="0685" 681 at a higher point than would be desirable. There should be a lack-I mean a clear surface from the roadway onto the guardrail. Mr. CONSTANDY. I notice in this bridge, compared to the one you made reference to a few minutes ago, Mr. Wilkes, it just ends without that parapet or wingwall extended above the grade. There is a differ- ence in design; is there not? Mr. WILKES. Obviously there is. In this case I think the preferred end treatment would be to bring the metal rail down to the top of the parapet wall. Mr. CONSTANDY. And even then, of course, carrying the guardrail across the face of the parapet? Mr. WILKES. Correct. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker. Mr. RIOKER. The AASHO Safety Committee made a tour last year and wrote a report which I think the committee knows as the yellow book. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. Mr. RICKER. One of the points in there is that the space between twin bridges be covered over, if it is narrow enough to be 20 or 28 feet. I would suggest in a case like this bridging that opening would be better than constructing a parapet. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thus eliminating the hazard of the parapet on the left side in each case? Mr. RIOKER. Right Mr. CONSTANDY. And also permit continuity of the median barrier across the bridges. Mr. Wilson, I know your State has had considerable experience in doing that and you do have a design practice wherein you will bridge the space where the span is up to-what----20 feet? Mr. WILSON. In years past we have been decking them over if they are 22 feet or narrower. It is based On that-that was picked pretty much on the' basis of economics because you can deck it over just about as cheap as you can build the walls and build all the accessory hard- ware you need to protect the walls. Mr. CONSTANDY. So when the median is 22 feet, at the same cost you can have a vastly improved facility. Mr. WILSON. Yes. We have recently widened our base to 30 feet and intend to deck these over. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you have any approximation of the additional cost to deck them over on a 30-foot median? ` Mr. WILSON. No, I don't;' `but any traffic or maintenance engineer would certainly subscribe to it even if there is a modest additional cost. Mr. CONSTANDY. The additional cost for 30 feet would be modest? Mr. WILSON. In comparison to the total cost of the structures, I would say so. I am not a bridge engineer and I cannot- Mr. CONSTANDY. But there would be additional savings on main- tenance, to say nothing of the reduction in hazard. Mr. WILsoN. Oh, I am sure there would. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes, would you care to comment? Mr. WILKES. If you would like for me to guess. I would say for a normal short span bridge, the additional cost would be in the neigh- borhood of $120 to $150 per. foot of bridge to-this is additional PAGENO="0686" 682 cost or the difference in cost between paving a 20 foot and about a 30 foot. S Mr. CONSTANDY. So it is a nominal amount relative to the cost of the bridge itself? Mr. Wmxi~s. That is right. Probably the total cost between the minimum 6 foot and the 30 would perhaps be $200 or $300 per foot. Mr. Gi~i~-. Mr. Wilkes, are you referring to modification or are you referring to if this additional width were written into the specfications before it was actually built? Are you talking about modification? Mr. WIr,KEs. I am thinking if it were built additionally it would obviously cost much more than that to remove the parapet. Mr. GRAY. You are talking about the initial cost? Mr. Wii~s. Yes. Mr. GRAY. You wouldn't hazard a guess how much it would cost to go back and do this? Double? Mr. WILKES. Oh, maybe triple. I think it would be very expensive. Mr. CONSTANDY. Triple what? Triple the thing you are getting, not triple the costs of the bridge? Mr. WIL1u~s. It may be $400 to $600 per foot. Mr. CONSTANDY. To go back and correct? Mr. WII~KEs. To go back and remove the parapet, widen the sub- structure, provide additional beams. Normally contractors are less- let's say the cost of rebuilding and widening bridges is greater than for a completely new bridge construction. Mr. Gi~y. So the adage "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is certainly true, isn't it, in this type of situation? Mr. CONSTANDY. We have a panel behind Mr. Ricker depicting the two situations, the upper one being the bridge with space between the twin spans being decked over and the lower one showing it as it is in this picture, on the slide, where it has not been. You can see there how much it improves the overall appearance. all appearance. You find now up to 30 feet it is feasible. Perhaps we will no longer see twin structures 30 feet and under being built. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes. v' - PAGENO="0687" 683 This again is a closeup view of twin bridges, rather close together. And again the lack of anchorage between the rail and the structure. This is repeated over and over. This rail up on top of a curb, of course, would not function as well as one that was clear. Here is the type of hole that you drop into at this particular loca- tion. You can see the fence, anchor fence, up here at the top, and the ends of the two rails, with the daylight `between all the way around. A I r This is another structure showing the attempt here at anchorage. This is the one I thought I had before. But in this case, the rail I ~ PAGENO="0688" 684 is in fact recessed into the parapet walls so that the face of the steel rail is the same as the traffic face of the parapet wall. You do have, again, the curb at the head of the rail, with some dis- advantage in performance. On this project, too, there is a hole at this point, which would not help too much if you happened to get a wheel up on it. Mr. CONSTANDY. The concept here is desirable. We will see whether the details fulfill it. Is that true? Mr. PlusK. True. Here again approach to this same thing, a dual bridge, indicating the treatment on the median side where the rail is in fact anchored by a five-eighths-inch bolt to the concrete structure. L~ U .- I T Lt~ * *~ PAGENO="0689" 685 Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you consider that adequate? Mr. PRISK. These apparently are not working out too well because this is not a sufficiently strong anchorage to forestall the contrac- tion and expansion stresses that develop in the rail itself. Some of these, as we saw, pulled away or cracked the end of the concrete here. Mr. CONSTANDY. There are several bridges on this project. For some reason, this is the only one treated in this fashion. The others were built as we have seen, with the guardrail not connected to the bridge. Perhaps we can move on. Mr. Qit~y. Just one moment, if I may. What purpose does the fence serve at all, in the center, except to obstruct the view? Mr. PRIsK. It prevents a little headlight glare. It has this disadvan- tage at this point of introducing that toprail. Another use, of course, is pedestrians are prevented from promis- cuously crossing the roadway if they get up on there. Mr. Gn~x~. That would probably be considered the main purpose, would it not? Mr. PRISK. I suspect so. Mr. GRAY. All right, you may proceed. Mr. PRISK. This particular structure that we found with these anchorage points on it, this gives the detail of what has been clone here. 87-757 O-68------44 PAGENO="0690" 686 This is a half- or five-eighth-inch bolt, simply run through the con- trete at one point. This is what you start to get, cracking developing, and some of these have pulled loose. Certainly it could not stand very much impact. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels, you seem to have a reaction to this. Mr. SKr~m~s My reaction was that they tried to do something but the solution is inadequate. To this-the size of this single bolt is wholly inadequate to develop the strength available in the guardrail. The tensile strength. Mr. ~ Who designed this particular guardrail? Mr. CQNSTANDY. We don't know. Mr. PJUSK. Under the supervision of the Oklahoma Department of Highways. Mr. Gri4cr. Probably someone in the district office, would you guess? District highway office instead of Oklahoma? Mr. PnisK. Possibly so. It could have been done by a consultant. We just do not have that information. It is rather interesting on this same structure, that six of the eight possible points of contact of rail and structure have been fastened in the manner that we were just looking at in the previous slide. But two of them have not; on this side here is a place that is fastened and on this side it is not. Mr. CONSTANDY. So the concept is three-quarters correct? Mr. PmsK. So it is just a start. You see here they have even drilled-I do not know that you can make it out but there are two holes through here, Mr. Skeels; maybe they intended to put two bolts through there and for some reason did not put a second one through. I think there is only one place you can put a bolt through, anyway. PAGENO="0691" 687 This is the leaving side again of the part that is not fastened. However, we move along to a new project, which is contiguous to the west from the section we were just looking at, which is 2 miles long, essentially in Oklahoma City. This is going on west from Oklahoma City. You see the blocked-out rail lined up, and again running to the structure. PAGENO="0692" 688 Aiid here is the detail of that. The rail is blocked out. They use a steel post as an end post with a woodblock at this point; this gap is still with us [indicating]. Mr. CONSTANDY. The new work has the same deficiency we have seen on the old. Mr. P1w~K. Yes. This is a detail of the New York box beam type of rail, the sleeve shown here in the joint. This is recognized as one of the better types of railing. I PAGENO="0693" 689 This is a very interesting picture, because in contrast with what we saw in Missouri a few minutes ago, where there was almost no rail in place, they are just starting to put the rail up ahead of some of the structures that have been open 6 or 8 months. Here they built the. rail and finished it off before they even got a floor on the bridge. So this is 186° opposite, apparently, in their thinking. There is no-I would point out, this bridge is under construction today; there is no connection at all between these. [Indicating.] Mr. CRAMER. When was that picture taken, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PlusK. Mid-April. Mr. CRAMER. Mid-April? Mr. PitrsK. Mid-April. Mr. CRAMER. Had you adopted these AASHO standards at that time? Mr. PI~IsK. Just about at that time, yes. I think the States had not been advised by that time. It was a few weeks later. Mr. CONSTANDY. The picture certainly suggests that two different groups of people design and construct the elements which are to work together and function together to afford safety to the motorist. The guardrail is installed and finished ready to be open to traffic and the parapet at the end of the bridge has not even been built yet. Mr. CRAMER. Well, Mr. Prisk, I understand the AASHO design standards which you indicate were adopted about that time provide, on page 29, as follows: To afford maximum protection and to develop the full strength, the rail- Meaning the guardrails- on the approaches to structures must be attached securely to the structure and provide a relatively smooth configuration on the traffic side. This would be in violation of that regulation over AASHO stand- ards at the present time; would it not? PAGENO="0694" 690 Mr. PRISK. It would. Mr. CRAMER. What force and effect do these design and practices relating to highway safety, AASHO report, February 1967, have? Mr. PRISK. These become the policy of the Bureau of Public Roads endorsed by the Secretary of Transportation as far as Federal-aid work is concerned. The implication of the statement which you read would be carried out in future design practice. Mr. Cit~n~1?. If that project came to you today, would you approve it? Mr. PRISK. Our division engineers,, who have that approval au- thority, would not apprOve that type of project, in my opinion. Mr. CRAMER. Have they been so directed? Mr. PnIsR. Yes, they have.. Mr. CRAMER. They have been directed that the AASHO standards, and in this instance relating to this problem, are mandatory as a condition for approval by the Bureau of. Public Roads regional offices? Mr. PRISK. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Then can we expect in the future not to see this kind of construction; do you think? Mr. PRISK. I would expect so. Mr. CRAMER. Why did it take us so long to get to this point? Mr. PRISK. I think there probably has been a lack of appreciation or identification of the problem. Mr. CRAMER. Well, now, what are you going to do about this situation? Mr. PRISK. This situation would receive treatment in the priority it deserves, I would say, within the capacities of the State highway departments. Mr. CRAMER. What priority does it deserve? Mr. PRISK. Well, I would say it deserved rather urgent priority. Mr. CRAMER. As high priority as possible? Mr. PRISK. Not necessarily the highest. Mr. CRAMER. I think, frankly, the Congress and the Bureau of Public Roads and the executive branch are trying to put their priorities down. Mr. McC~nTHY. Mr. Ohairinan. Mr. CRAMER. Just a minute. May I continue, Mr. Chairman? Mr. (~RAY. Yes, Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. We have got all kinds of pressure, all kinds of de- mands. The President has asked the Congress to set up a separate trust fund, and authorize the appropriation of $160 million for fiscal 1968, and $220 million for fiscal 1969, for beautification, to plant some of . these trees along the right-of-way which will become a safety hazard, too. But I do not see any pressure; I do not see any great demand; I do not see any high priority; I do not see any equal priority as it relates to safety. Now, Mr. Prisk, that is not your responsibility; I am not suggest- in~ it is your responsibility to settle policy questions relating to priority. I do think, however, it is t;he responsibility of the Congress. What bothers me is I personally feel that safety is entitled to a very high priority, even as compared to aesthetics and beautification. And I would hope that there could be generated some substantial interest in financing constructional aspects of safety. PAGENO="0695" 691 The safety bill we passed last year, the Highway Safety Act of 1966, does not provide funds for construction money to build in safety fea- tures, does it, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. No. sir. Mr. CRAMER. So if a State wants to build in safety features, it has to take its regular Federal-aid construction money to do so; is that right? ~Mr PRISK. That is correct. .Mr. CRAMER. If it wants to go back and build in safety features, it has to take construction money to do it, right? Mr. PRISK. That is right. That is why we are trying to get them changed. Mr. CRAMER. We are offering the States up to 100-percent incentive payments to plant trees and flowers, to buy up lakes, to buy up beauti- ful rock formations off the highway, to buy up creek banks, to buy up beautiful agricultural vistas off the right-of-way. And I just won- der why in the world we are willing to provide Federal money for that purpose and said or suggested or proposed little help for safety pur- poses. And I asked the panel yesterday what their recommendation might be relating to providing an incentive, giving the proper priority, to safety. It seems to me saving lives is as important as saving trees and planting flowers. I would like to ask the panel again-I understand we provide 100- percent money for overpasses for railroad lines, do we not? One hundred percent Federal money? Is that not right, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. We provide up to 100-percent Federal money for beau- tification and that is a high priority item. And I just wonder why there is not some discussion, why there are not some suggestions as to how we can provide an incentive to the States to get the safety job done, concentrate on safety and eliminate these death traps that have been built into the highways. Does anybody on the panel have any suggestions or recommendations? I see the problem; we have been looking at it for 2 or 3 weeks now, but what are we going to do about it? Mr. PRISK. May I say, Mr. Cramer, that the first action of the new Director of Public Roads, Mr. Frank Turner, was to address a letter to the State highway department commissioners, and included in that he said this, and I would quote: I consider that available Federal-aid highway funds can be put to no better or no more urgent use today than in the very prompt initiation of a broad pro- gram to increase the safety of public highways. I think this indicates the attitude of the Bureau of Public Roads. Mr. CRAMER. That is a fond expression of hope. But they are not given the financial incentive like they are given for beauty; are they? Mr. PIU5K. No, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So I would like to address my question to the panel: Do you have any suggestions as to what the Federal function ought to be as related to safety? Mr. WILSON. I think my opinion would be any highway department ought to have a balanced program of new construction and going back and fixing up the old highways. PAGENO="0696" 692 As I stated yesterday, we took a good, hard look at the existing State highways. We found a number of things that were causing accidents. We decided that we could fix up about 1,700 of these with normal traffic engineering devices and traffic engineering tools. And I think that a ~rograin of this nature- Mr. URAMER. You are hard pressed, are you not, to put substantial money into safety when it has to compete with construction money; is that correct? Mr. WILSON. It is difficult to- Mr. Ci~&i~n~it. You do not have that problem as it related to beauti- fication; there is no competition there, is there? Mr. WILSON. I am not familiar with beautification. Mr. CRAMER. You get a separate appropriation for beauty. Mr. WILSON. I understand you do. Mr. CRAMER. Yes. So again I say I think we are putting our pri- orities down; esthetics and beauty with high priority, and safety with low priority. Does anyone else on the panel have a comment relating to what might be done? Mr. WIlSON. I would like to make one further comment. When I reviewed the legislation involving highway safety and reviewed House Report 1700 on the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and found that there was actually in fact no construction money available to go back and fix up hotspots and locations that were having accidents, I as a high- way engineer was somewhat disappointed in this. Mr. Cit~rm. Does anyone elese have any suggestions? Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I certainly agree with your objective, that some funds should be made available to fix up these now recognized deficiencies. Briefly, for our proving ground road system, we did make money available. We went back over our obsolete road system and we built it much in this manner. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Huff? Mr. Hurr. Mr. Cramer, I would like to say a highway becomes ob- solete through impairment of capacity and safety. Often the two go together. Now, in my department in Texas, we think we have been conscious of safety for several years; but for some 10 years we have been spend- ing about one-third of our available research on safety projects. We have begun putting a great many of those to use. And as I stated yesterday, we spent considerable amounts of money on rehabilitating our 6,000- or 7,000-mile system, bringing it up to safety standards and better, more comfortable capacity standards. Now I believe our administration, who I am not empowered to speak for what they might or might not like, but I believe my administration will say we always need more money to bring our highways up. Mr. CRAMER. Can you justify having a separate fund for beauty and not having an equal fund for safety? Mr. Hun?. I do not believe I can comment. Mr. Cm&i~n~n. I mean construction aspects. Mr. Hun'. I do not believe I can comment on that, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Well, commonsense would indicate safety is as impor- tant as beauty; would it not? PAGENO="0697" 693 Mr. Huri~. I do not think you can put any higher priority on any operation than our safety program. Mr. CRAMER. I do not think so, either. Mr. Wilkes, would you care to comment? Mr. WILKES. As an employee of the Bureau of Public Roads- [Laughter.] Mr. Cn&~n~i. You can take the fifth amendment if you want to. We will move to Mr. Ricker. [Laughter.] Mr. CRAMER. The President is not here to answer the questions. Maybe what we need is a "Safety Bird." [Laughter.] Mr. BICKER. Since the issuance of Mr. Turner's memorandum con- cerning the yellow book, we have had meetings with the Bureau's division engineer concerning the projects that are now advertised or have already been contracted, and he has told us that we must incor- porate all of the features of that book in current projects even though they are underway. There will be a deadline sometime this fall when new plans must reflect those provisions. In the ones now under construction or about to be let, he has author- ized change orders to incorporate provisions of the yellow book. Mr. CRAMER. What do we do about past construction? Mr. RICKER. I think if you are going to really go back and do past construction, you are going to get into a lot of money. Mr. CRAMER. Obviously. So what can we do about it? And that is all the more reason why the States possibly are not able to do it when they have to use construction money to accomplish it. Mr. RICKER. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. Well, now, Mr. Prisk, I have just one other question. You have been in charge of the safety office in the Bureau of Public Roads; is that correct? Mr. PRISK. Second in charge, yes. Mr. CRAMER. Well, second in command. There has been a reorgani- zation under the Department of Transportation Act. How many people did you have under your supervision before the reorganization? Mr. PRISK. Fifty-two. Mr. Ca~MER. How many do you have now? Mr. PRISK. I don't have the figures, Mr. Cramer. I would have to obtain those for you. I would estimate about 20. Mr. CRAMER. So you lost about 32 of the people that were working under you on the problem of safety as a result of the reorganization; is that right? Mr. PRISK, This is approximately right. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. How in the world are you going t.o be able to do your job? It is obvious not too much was being done before. You lost 32 people. How are you going to do it now? Mr. PRISK. These positions will be refilled. Mr. CRAMER. You expect to hire new people to replace those 32 you lost; is that right? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. What happened to all your expertise and know-how and experience that went with them? Mr. PRISK. A good many of the people who have left the organiza- tion are still in the Federal Highway Administration, the Highway Safety Bureau. PAGENO="0698" 694 Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. But how are you going to run your shop without qualified, experienced people? Mr. PRISK. I think the answer is obvious. Mr. CRAMER. You are going to have a lot of trouble, are you not? This is one aspect of these hearings I was hoping we would get into, the question of what this reorganization has done as it relates to dis- mantling the Bureau of Public Roads. I think this is one of the clearest examples. That is all I have. Mr. GRAY. Mr. McCarthy of New York. Mr. MOCARrur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Carrying on the theme in a slightly different tack than that pre- sented by the distinguished gentleman from Florida, I would like to go back to Mr. Prisk's observation that these conditions were permitted to develop because of "lack of appreciation for or identification of the problem." For the record, I would most like to make a couple of observations from my own experience in industry. The company I worked for for 13 years before coming here found itself in a similar situation. We had 58 plants all over the `United States, and found our accident rates in- creasing, death rates, in our mines. And conditions were allowed to develop the same way, lack of appreciation for and identification of the problem. It was not any deliberate action on the part of management, priorities were in a different direction. But they inaugurated a safety program with safety director at the corporate level and safety super- visor at every plant, who fine-tooth-combed the whole plant to find hazards and install guardrails, bridges over machinery, and so forth. I think the analogy is very close. When new plants were built, new mines developed, the safety direc- tor was part of the planning process, so safety was built into the new facility. Then they inaugurated a campaign to educate the workers. There were signs in every plant on safety all the time. Every employee had to wear safety glasses. They were, of course, competing for the Department of Interior's Mine and Safety Award, which was an an- nual event. We won those several years in a row. It was made a manage- ment responsibility; supervisor of safety overlooked these conditions in the plants and the mines, but the manager was responsible for any deaths, or accidents. And the result of this over a several year period, when they showed on a graph, it was just like this: precipitous decline in accidents throughout the whole organization, 58 plants, all over the `United States. It was simply a change from lack of appreciation, as you put it, and identification of the problem, to safety consciousness. And pinpointing the responsibility, building safety into the facility. And my distin- guished friend from Florida, I think, misses a point here, that safety is not an extra frill. I think safety is something that should be in every dollar that is invested in these roadways, so that when you are building these roads, you are building safety into the road, not something which you take on as a 10-percent extra. So I just would like the record to show this experience of which I had firsthand knowledge. I think the analogy is apt-and I don't think there is any room here for recrimination. If there are going to be PAGENO="0699" 695 recriminations about what was neglected in the past, then maybe some Members of Congress who have been around here for a few years and on this committee might be subject to the same. So I think if we approach it in this constructive manner and create consciousness of safety, we would be off on the right foot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cii~M1~n. Now, Mr. Chairman- Mr. Qr~&y. Mr. Cramer? Mr. CnAi~n~it. I trust no one implied from anything I said that I considered safety a frill. I do consider beauty a frill, and my position is that certainly safety ought to have higher priority than beauty. If any- one wants to challenge that, I would welcome them to do so. Secondly, it has been my objective in these hearings to find out what we can do about financing safety needs. Everyone knows Congress is interested in financing beauty. I want to create some interest in financing safety and, hopefully, maybe Con- gress will come up with a program to do so. The other aspect of it is: I made a statement on the floor of the House and I repeat it here, that in my opinion the Bureau. of Public Roads is being dismantled, dismembered, and disemboweled. Now the gentleman from the Bureau has stated that he has lost 32 of his qualified, experienced, knowledgeable safety experts, in a divi- sion that has responsibility of overseeing and of making certain that safety is built into these highways. That is where the important phase of it comes. You can pass all the regulations you want to, but if the administrative agency that has to see that those safety regulations are carried out through construction does not have adequate personnel, is not given high enough priority, is dismembered, then this entire program of safety is being to that extent destroyed. I, as a Member of Congress, cannot sit idly by with this evidence before us-we are now going into the third week of hearings-where* deathtraps are built into the highways, and seeing the Bureau of Public Roads Safety Division dismantled, dismembered, and disem- boweled, losing many of its knowledgeable personnel, where they are most needed, building safety in these highways. If someone wants to take issue with me I would be delighted. Mr. Gi~&r. Let me say I agree implicitly with the distinguished minority leader~ of the Public Works Committee, Mr. Cramer. But I think I might add one point, and that is that under the act itself, the States, starting with the division office or the district office in the State, going on up to the chief highway enghieers, work up a recom- mendation, both for the alinement and the design of highways, prior to the time that the Bureau of Public Roads division engineer even looks at this. So I think in addition to what the distinguished Member from Florida has said, we also need to have some better liaison with the States in order that when the idea for a design is advanced, that design in its initial stages should have safety features built in. It is one thing to say, for example, here you have not done this right or done that right and go back and spend 300 percent to correct it, and it is another thing to work in the safety features at the in- ception of the planning stages of a highway. PAGENO="0700" 696 So I would hope in addition to what we are developing here, what seems to be the responsibility of the Bureau of Public Roads and this committee, that we would also have some closer liaison with the States where these designs are initiated in the first place. I don't k~iow the best way to go about that., but I would say in addition to what the gentleman from Florida says we ought to have, either through AASHO or the various chief highway engineers, some liaison or some meetings here at the Washington level to go over these things, so that everyone will be in unison when these regulations are laid down. Would the panel agree with that statement? Because we need liaison in addition to Bureau of Public Roads and providing incentive and providing the funds by the Congress? We also need a little better un- derstanding between the States themselves. Mr. PRISK. Ithink that is correct, Mr. Congressman. And the Bureau of Public Roads and the key officials of the State highway depart- ments in the Midwestern States, about six or seven of them have met yesterday and the day before, considering this very matter: The appli- cation of the principles set forth in the yellow book. And this can be worked into the program in the best possible way. Mr. ~ The gentleman from Florida is absolutely correct; we need to work up these regulations and get them out. But, for example, in the district highway office in my congressional district of Carbon- dale, I know occasionally they have recommended certain things after a public hearing was held, then when it got on up to the State office in Springfield, it was found to be too costly or some other factor and the whole thing was scrubbed. So I think we have this problem that comes not only from the Washington level, but right on down to the very district highway offices of the States. You may proceed. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, we get right back to the question of money. I agree with what the chairman says. If we don't solve the money problem, we will not solve the problem as I see it. We have bundles for beauty, but no incentive for safety. I think it is time we gave some consideration to funds for safety purposes. Mr. Gn~&r. Yes, I agree with the gentleman. I was agreeing with the gentleman, Congress needs to provide the authorizations, the funds, and the Bureau of Public Roads direction. In order to complete this partnership, I think we have to go on down then to the local levels. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as reference has been made to the letter of Mr. Turner, dated May 19, 1967, signed by Mr. Lowell Bridwèll, attaching the letter of Mr. Turner to the State high-. way departments, I ask leave to have it made exhibit No. 5 and printed in the record following the quote from Mr. Prisk. Mr. Gi~c~. Yes. Without objection, this will be made exhibit No. 5. (Exhibit No. 5 follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, BuaRAt OF PUBLIC ROADS, Wa8hinf]ton, D.C., May 19,1967. Instructional Memorandum 21-11-67 30-01. Subject: Safety provisions for roadside features and appurtenances. The February 1967 Report of the Special AASHO Traffic Safety Committee- Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety-is ap- proved by the Bureau of Public Roads for use on Federal-aid highways. PAGENO="0701" 697 Enclosed is a copy of a letter I have sent to the top administrative officials of each State highway department offering our full cooperation and assistance in applying the findings of the report to the existing Federal-aid systems be- ginning as soon as possible in 1967 and continuing on a large scale for as long as is necessary to provide the highest possible level of roadway safety. The February 1967 Report confirms the provisions of IM 21-6-66, and the policy therein established is reaffirmed concerning PS&E approvals for new projects and change orders on projects now under construction. It is e~rpectc(1 that the plans for all projects on high-speed highways yet to be advanced to contract will incorporate the features of added safety as are presented in the February 1967 Report. Where a check of the plans for projects underway re- veals that features of added safety were not incorporated in the approved plans, contractual change orders to modify the applicable features in a manner which will incorporate the safer design features or extra work orders to add the safer design features are to be issued by the State highway department whenever practicable. For application of the cited safety features, high-speed highways include all projects on the Interstate System and all projects on the remaining Federal-aid Primary and the Secondary Systems where the design speed is 50 mph or more. To the extent practicable and feasible, an approved order of safety design should be utilized on Primary and Secondary projects with a lesser design speed. On completed Federal-aid highways each State highway department is asked to establish an active corrective program to apply the findings of the February 1967 Report. Public Roads requests that all features of geometric, structure dimension and roadside element design that can effect safety of the motorist who strays from the roadway be given careful consideration by the State. Each State should evaluate the seriousness of the exi~ting condition as measured by the more safe conditions recommended by AASHO in the new report and prepare its program for corrective work on previously constructed highways on the sev- eral Federabeid systems. The most serious existing conditions should be assigned highest priority for correction. Corrections should provide the safer condition to the degree as outlined by the AASHO Report, with careful attention to not overcorrect the situation, especially when large costs would be occasioned. At- tention is to be given the details of all proposed corrective work to insure that the new work does not retain a latent hazard to the motorist. Public Roads Division Engineers are to take a broad and liberal viewpoint with regard to approving programs proposed by the State highway department for work of the types described in the February 1967 Report. As pointed out in my letter to the State highway departments, many items of the corrective work are of a nature that can be readily and economically per- formed by State forces. To assist in the expeditious handling and completion of *this undertaking, the following procedures are established for.corrective projects: Where proposed by the State, Public Roads hereby finds it to be in the public interest to accomplish this work by use of State forces. Projects can cover sizable lengths of highway and may cover several or all types of road~ide features. For example, a project might include relocation or adjustment of signs, installation or modification of guardrail, removal of and/or protection from the varied hazardous roadside elements, etc., on as long a section of highway as may be proposed by the State. Projects are to be programmed and authorized in the usual manner. Project plan.s can be minimal, sufficient to identify the work to be accomplished and the method of its accomplishment. Prior construction plans marked to iden- tify the work to be performed would be adequate for this purpose. The project cost can be established on the basis of an approved State's estimate made up from agreed unit prices for the elements involved. Final payment on the basis of actual costs also is satisfactory if such a method is preferred by the State. Projects may be constructed under the contract method administered in the usual way. Federal-aid participation will be the usual pro-rats amount applicable for the system involved. In carrying out the work it is of paramount importance that all of the safety provisions for performinq construction under traffic be rigidly observed lest more hazard is created than is being eliminated. F. C. TunNun, Director of Public Roads. Lowsri K. BRIDWELL. Federal Highway Administrator. PAGENO="0702" 698 MAY 8, 1967. DEAn -: By means of this letter, I call to your attention the recently issued American Association of State Highway Officials report entitled "Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety". The Bureau of Public Roads concurs fully in the report's recommendations and conclusions and considers it to be one of the most important documents ever developed by the joint efforts of the Bureau of Public Roads and AASHO. We wish to assist every State highway department in applying its findings beginning as soon as possible in 1967 and continuing on a large scale for as long as is necessary to provide the highest possible level of roadway safety on the Federal-aid highway systems. We pledge to you such assistance as is necessary to allow the State highway depart- ments to plan and program the use of Federal-aid funds to expedite the accom- plishment of this objective. The report makes particular recommendations dealing with roadside hazards, which constitute a major contribution to the annual traffic toll. Work items such as are discussed in Chapter III of the AASHO document under "Roadside Design and Appurtenances" may be minor at individual spots but large when viewed on the basis of a full route. The required corrective work is of a nature that it can generally be readily and economically performed by State forces. Therefore if so proposed by a State highway department, Public Roads will find that the corresponding Federal-aid projects for use of State forces to accomplish this work are in the public interest. In accordance with statutory controls you of course know that Federal-aid funds cannot participate in costs of work classi- fied as maintenance. But there can be participation with Federal-aid primary, secondary and urban funds in work that classifies as reconstruction, or construc- tion; and Federal-aid Interstate funds for additional construction on previously constructed projects on Interstate System highways, and it will therefore be our purpose to permit full regular Federal-aid participation in this program, which will accelerate achievement of work of the kinds outlined in Public Roads Instructional Memorandum 21-6-66, August 1, 1966, subject "Safety Provisions for Roadside Features and Appurtenances". There should also be continuation and acceleration of a program for the types of improvements that are described in Public Roads Policy and Procedure Memo- randum 21-16, January 18, 1966, subject "Highway Safety Improvement Proj- ects", and extensively discussed in the cited AASHO document. A conference on this subject was held on April 25-27 with the design engineers of Public Roads. They and the division engineers are being advised that they are to assist in all possible ways toward the development and implementation of Federal-aid projects to achieve in the shortest possible time increased safety for the users of the Federal-aid highways. The Bureau is placing its full support and resources behind a concentrated major effort to implement the recommendations of the AASHO report and I earnestly solicit your own support in this joint effort. I therefore urge you as the Chief Administrative Officer of your State highway department to examine fully the recommendations of the AASHO report to determine from a safety viewpoint those features of~ existing highways which constitute hazards to highway users; and to establish an active corrective program along the lines which the report suggests. I know of course that each of you has a staggering list of needed work, both with and without Federal-aid funds. However, I consider that available Federal- aid highway funds can be put to no better or more urgent use today than in the very prompt initiation of a broad program to increase the safety of public high- ways. Conscientious and special personal attention to such a program is not only our responsibility; but at the same time it is an opportunity to perform a humane public service, and to demonstrate once again that we as highway officials are concerned with objectives that transcend the mere movement of people and goods. This is the first communication to you under my new title in the infant Depart- ment of Transportation. I know how busy you are and how many urgent priority items there are to claim your attention; I shall not be imposing on your time very often in this manner; but the overwhelming importance of this subject impels me to do so in this instance. We shall be sending through the normal channels such memoranda as appear necessary to aid in implementing this pro- gram; but I want you to know that our purpose will be to remove every possible hindrance to your being able to cooperate effectively in this important endeavor. PAGENO="0703" 699 We expect to provide you with the most liberalized procedural tools that we can devise under the law. I solicit your own personal support and I know that you have the same dedicated interest in this matter that we have. Sincerely yours, F. C. TURNER, Director of Public Roads. Mr. ~ONSTA~DY. If you would continue, Mr. Prisk, perhaps we could move on. Mr. CRAMER. Would you reread that quote? That is the "fond hope" letter, is it not? Mr. ~JONSTANDY. Actually the letter puts that phrase Mr. Prisk quoted perhaps in more perspective.. Mr. CRAMER. I would call it the "fond hope letter"; no money, but fond hope. Mr. Gn&y. The Turner letter? Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. Mr. PRISK. May I proceed? Mr. C0NSTANDY. Yes. Mr. Qit&y. You may proceed. Mr. PRIsK. Now we move to another State. This is Nevada. And in this case we find the same situation we have been looking at treated in a slightly different way. This is an upright-type post; a heavy 6-inch rail here at the top on a concrete parapet. Nothing particularly different. PAGENO="0704" 700 This is a closeup, same situation. The rail is rather low. Again we have twin bridges out here in a pretty rural country, very rurai coun- try. This is the only interchange within miles. And bridges are built separately, not paved over. I -~ - - ____ ~ 1 ~ Here is a view along the structure, on the structure I should say, showing the safety walk at this point [indicating] which intrudes inside the rail, the line of the rail. There is an asphalt curb along on~ this side [indicating]. You can see where these black and white stripes are. Mr. ~ You cannot tell from this photograph. You slide along this parapet to strike the end of that guardrail? Mr. P1~IsK. You are moving this way and if you slid along this parapet, you would indeed strike the end of that guardrail. PAGENO="0705" 701 Mr. W. MAY. We can do better than that? Mr. PRISK. I think so. Another picture closer up of the condition that you referred to, Mr. May, is shown here; and there is the guardrail at the end fairly well matched up with the curb line. If the car were sliding along the traffic face of the curb, instead of the parapet, we would be in pretty good shape. But along here, we would not. [Indicating.] This is a view in a snowstorm of the end of a bridge here-I can barely make this out, but I am quite sure-yes, this is the end of the 8T-757 O-68-----45 PAGENO="0706" 702 bridge; it is completely unprotected. Aside from this reflectorized marker, which with the black stripes down, Mr. Ricker said, means you. keep on this side. Another approach on that same bridge where there is a slight over- lap, 6-foot, 3-inch post spacing used. here indicating there is recogni- tion of the need for stronger rail support in this area. This again is a commendable step. Not fully adequate. Similar situation. PAGENO="0707" 703 Now we move to the Providence, RI., area, and find this kind of a situation where guardrail improvements are still underway. Looking at the structure, you of course have here very evident side piers, a foot and a half or 2 feet behind the face of this curb, 10-foot shoulder. Move up closer, some of these structures are not guarded at all except with black and white striped panel board, such as appears in this pic- ture. This is a pretty good target area. Of course, you do have this slope working for you to turn cars back onto the roadway if anyone got off at that point. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, that particular bridge was not on the particular project. Mr. PRISK. I should have mentioned that. Mr. CONSTANDY. We will see improvement on this project. PAGENO="0708" 704 Mr. Pnisx. Here is one that is on the project, and has a desirable feature of being an opened up span bridge where the abutment walls are partway up the slope, halfway up the slope here; provides addi- tional lateral clearance and additional safety. S. I I IL. Mr. OoxsnNnr. Mr. Prisk, this point you are making was illus- trated on the panel appearing behind Mr. Skeels and Mr. Huff. I ask the chatirman this be marked as exhibit No.6. Mr. thLvr. Without objection, it will be made exhibit 6. (Exhibit No. 6 was markecL) PAGENO="0709" 705 Mr. PRISK. This is a closeup of this recessed line of the abutment wall, this particular structure. This is paving underneath the bridge at this point. Mr. RICKER. I would raise the question whether additional protec- tection it still not needed for that vertical wall. Having observed accidents where a vehicle out of control will go up entirely over, this is still a hazard. Perhaps this can be protected by other meari.s. You may not need to erect a guardrail, but planting of some small bushes and so on to protect that area would be desirable. Mr. PRI5K. With the rigid frame-type construction shown on one of these photos, one directly behind Mr. Huff- Mr. CONSTANDY. The lower right-hand panel. Mr. PRISK. The two-span rigid frame, that is possible of course, to completely eliminate that abutment wall. This is, it might be said, a step in the right direction. Mr. WILsoN. Prior to 1963, we found that piers located next to shoulders and things of this nature here were being struck more often than we would like to have them struck, and instructions went out to our design sections in the bridge department in January 1963 to, in the future, design all structures similar to what is shown on the bottom right-hand side here, a two-span structure. This can be done with a modest increase in cost. And since that time, * our designs have had that feature. This also included going back on the shelf and pulling out design plans that have been completed years in advance and changing these. Mr. CONSTANDY. I am glad you said that, Mr. Wilson, because the initial reaction of a number of people we have talked to who have not had the experience your state has had, and who have not worked up the estimates, is that the better design would be rather costly. Your own experience in California has shown that `has not been true. Mr. WILSON. That is right. In fact, I could quote our chief bridge engineer, Mr. Elliot, in many cases where, if you can start a design from scratch from the very beginning and plan it on the basis of a two- span structure, there is no increase in cost. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. For three bridges recently constructed at the GM Prov- ing Ground we adopted this approach and the increase in cost is negligible. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Prisk? PAGENO="0710" 706 Mr. PRISK. Continuing with another structure, you see the atten- tion to architectural treatment on the bridge here, this is aluminum rail on top of a parapet. You see the curb design on the far side. The parapet walls are of the same type that we have been looking at and one right here, of course, in the foreground. These are quite strong. This is a detail of the rail showing an expansion joint. Mr. CONSTANDY. This makes a good illu~stration, does it not, of that brush curb-is that what you call it, Mr. Wilson, in California, the one you made reference to earlier? Mr. Wu~soN. I believe that is what I called it. Mr. CONSTANDY. It would be similar to this? Mr. Wu4soN. Yes. Exactly like that. \*\ PAGENO="0711" 707 Mr. PRISK. Here is still another illustration of that curb down at the bottom, the brush curb. And upon crossing another structure show- ing the guardrail approach here. In this instance there has been no final anchorage yet of the post up here at the structure. The curb is in front of the rail, again not too desirable. PAGENO="0712" 708 Here is the closeup of that same situation showing that this has not yet been resolved. The intent here, as I recall its being explained to us by State officials, was that there would be a post driven right alongside of the end of this abutment wall and through a right angle. The rail would be fastened at that point. The steel post would be fastened into the end of the abutment wall-end of the bridge wall, or the parapet wall here in this case. Mr. ()ONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes. Mr. Wn~s. I have a comment on the brush curb. As you can see, it is a practice in many of the New England States to provide a granite curb on many of the freeways and they carry it across the bridges. Although you can't tell from the photograph, I am sure that is a granite curb. It serves not only as a rub rail for vehicles but aJso protects your structures from the snowplows as they clear the road- ways in the wintertime. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is granite, we have been told. ;~.. : ~.:`4~ 1~ . ~0 `b~~._ ~ I PAGENO="0713" 709 Mr. PRISK. Moving along here, we found this condition at one ~tructiire which is certainly a part of the cleanup illustrated on jobs that are still open to traffic and not fully completed as far as all the safety equipment on the highway is concerned. It is disturbing to find conditions like this on highways that carry large volumes of traffic. Thi~s one is 1-95 in Rhode Island. - r r r PAGENO="0714" 710 Still another section on 1-95 showing full width bridge at this point; just in advance of a gore or decision point area up here where you see the sign [indicating]. There are light poles installed; this is fully illumina~ted, this urban section. Mr. Git~r. Do you have any statistics at all to show down at the Bureau whether or not the accident rate is less where you have at least a three-lane bridge, say, as compared to a two-lane bridge? You have more room; you have less people running into the guardrail? Do you have any idea? Mr. PRISK. I am afraid we don't have that. As far as highways are concerned, carrying the same volume, you are safer with three lanes than two lanes. Perhaps that would be obvious, but it has been borne out by studies, too. Mr. GRAY. You don't have any statistics on that, whether or not if a bridge is much wider, you are less apt to have a collision with the railing? Mr. CONSTANDY. The extra width would be carrying a full shoulder across the span? Mr. GRAy. Yes. Well, not necessarily in that context. What I had reference to was, say, someone was driving down the road, the tire blows out, this is certainly an invitation to hit this guardrail. Say for example this is two-lane traffic here, but say you have three lanes compared to two, I was just wondering whether, if the bridges were wider, this might not alleviate some of the problem instead of having to go to the safety lane. Mr. P1115K. This one-way traffic, all of this is all one way. Mr. GRAY. So that would be at least three lane-or it looks like four. Mr. PRISK. There are actually five lanes. There is one over here, here, here, and one coming in. [Indicating.] Mr. CONSTANDY. Four traffic plus shoulder. PAGENO="0715" 711 I think it is true, Mr. Prisk, statistics show where there are full shoulders carried across the bridge there are fewer accidents on the bridge. Mr. PRISK. That is right. You could reasonably infer from that three lanes would be safer than two. Mr. Gii~r. That is the point I was trying to make. Thank you very much. Mr. PIU5K. Here again is another view along the roadway approach- ing that same gore, or decision point up here. I In this case there was a littie cheating done on the bridge width, if I may call it that, because the deceleration lane began to take off and this is the edge line for the deceleration lane and the structure itself was not fitted to match the deceleration lane. It was simply carried straight ahead. I suppose there are reasons for that. Here is the departure point beyond the end of the bridge at that same gore, which is to the left of the photograph. And you will see PAGENO="0716" 712 there is quite a space here behind the curb to the rail [indicating] and of course no attachment here. This is a feature of the projects in Rhode Island, the tendency to carry this granite curb-in some eases this was a precast concrete curb. I am not sure which one this was, Mr. Wilkes, but they use both types up there-but this curb, instead of turning at this point and coming along the rail and coming into this paved gutter to run off the dramage, is carried down to this point and then off. This then becomes a hazard in itself on the approach to the structures. Another one that might be pointed out with respect to the structure, this again is twin bridges and the solution here adopted is to build a wall across this open space. The functiOn of that wall is hard to speculate on. ~- --~--~ I PAGENO="0717" 713 Mr. CONSTANDY. You will not go between the twin bridges. Mr. PRISK. You can see here, or get an idea, what might happen if you hit the wall. This is another closeup there showing how the rail has yet to be matched up to the end line of the bridge. Another shot about the same thing. All of these points look pretty bad in the field as in the photographs. I well as they do PAGENO="0718" 714 This is a case where that treatment that I mentioned, I believe, has been accomplished. There has been a type of anchorage into the end of the wall and post, driven right along side of the end wall of the parapet. This again provides support. I ~ We see here one completely without any anchorage. This is over- passing a more local street. P1 PAGENO="0719" 715 This is another approach coming in from the median. This rail, of course, comes in at a rather abrupt angle, for one thing. But for the other thing, there is no determination fully as to just how this is going to function on t.he end here. Mr. CONSTANDY. Could we reflect back on the criteria for the in- stallation of guardrail for the median barrier, that the car can be per- mitted, after having struck it, to follow a course parallel with the traffic rather than be thrown back into the traffic? A car utilizing that guardrail is going to be projected back into the traffic stream. Mr. PRISK. This is very abrupt. Again we have the curb that I mentioned previously in still another installation. * Now we move to Montana, and this is the situation just outside of Missoula. PAGENO="0720" 716 I think one of the things that caught my eye here was the fact that the rail was so low; the total height of this rail was about 26 inches going across the bridge. This is very, very low for a structure rail. The median rail you see here is carried on steel posts while it is on the structure. And this is the situation at the end of the bridge. Square wooden post driven as close as feasible, I presume, to the end of that concerte parapet wall. You see here, the vertical dimension of this W-beam guardrail is about 12 inches so you can get some judgement as to the height here. This is a shade under 12 inches here, and this is just a little bit higher than the top of that rail. A good many things of this sort were seen in all of our nine State projects where you get indications of people striking rails. This one was marked up, tire marks, indicating some rubbing at that point. I PAGENO="0721" 717 This is the New York box-beam-type rail on a bridge showing the sleeve on the inside. This is regarded as a very satisfactory type of rail. But used that low, there is some question as to whether it func- tions as well as it would at a greater height. In Montana, as in other places they have their twin bridges, and some of these are very close, as this one is. Their roadways are carried at different elevations. This one is an entrance roadway over on this side and these are the main lanes that you see in the foreground. 87-757 O-68----.46 PAGENO="0722" 718 Mr. CONSTANDY. Exit roadway? Mr. PRISK. Excuse me, exit roadway. Right. The grades, I think, still could be accommodated. They are not too much different at the bridge crossing. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes, in this situation the twin bridges have been paved over on the main roadway. We have the peculiarity of the third bridge carrying the exit lane. I just was wondering whether it would be feasible, for instance, to pave the space between those two? Mr. WILKES. Being the same additional cost, and normally on an exit ramp, it is an angle away from the main roadway so it would be a pretty strong taper if the bridge is any length at all. And of course, you would not have the exposure, normally you would not have the volume of traffic on an exit ramp that you would have on a through lane. Mr. CONSTANDY. No. I suppose the greatest hazard here is the traffic, the heavy volume of traffic, on the main line and on its right side. Mr. WILKES. That is correct. I might also cormnent here, for example, turning down the ends of the metal rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. As you suggested before. Mr. WILKES. I think they have done an adequate job here. I would expect that that dimension, instead of being 26 as Mr. Prisk suggested, is probably 27. Because that is what the standards require for traffic rail. Mr. PRISK. I am not going to argue about an inch. Mr. Siu~s. I have one comment to make on this rail, or two rather. First, I agree that it appears to be too low. It may meet the 27-inch requirement but I question this. whether or not this height is adequate. In fact, we have some information on rails of this height that have been mounted. The second thing, the rail itself is back from the face of the concrete parapet underneath. It is installed back of it as it has to be, I guess, in this type of installation. And I question if a car strikes the concrete whether or not it ever strikes the rail at all until after it is in the proc- ess of rolling over. The rail ought to be-the face of the metal ought to line up vertically, at least, with the base of the concrete. Mr. PRISK. Mr. Constandy, I wonder if we might ask Mr. Skeels at this point what the height of the rail is on the design they have developed at General Motors Proving Ground. Mr. SKEELS. The height of the concrete portion of that is 32 inches to the top of the concrete. And the height of the steel rail that is installed on top of that, I can't quote you exactly but it is approxi- mately another 14 to 15 inches. This makes a total height then of about 47 inches. Mr. CONSTANDY. Why that high. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. Well, the concrete portion itself was made high enough to do the job with passenger cars. In other words, if you had nothing but passenger cars on the bridge, the concrete portion would prevent them from going over. We felt with high center gravity trucks, this probably was not high enough, and they needed additional height, and so the metal rail is installed to take care of possible needs of truck-type vehicles. Mr. CONSTANDY. Such should be refletced in highway designs. PAGENO="0723" 719 Mr. SKEELS. Height, incidentally, the space between the concrete portion and the pipe rail, was determined by visibility purposes, to enable the drivers of automotive equipment to see out between. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is always fascinating. I would hope the driver of the vehicle I am riding is watching the road. I do not know why the fascination to permit him to look elsewhere going over bridges. Mr. SKEELS. It seems to me people like to look out and see what they are going over. Mr. WILsoN. While we are talking about subjects such as this, I would like to ~et a little traffic engineering in here. Besides, a rail should be functional, but there is a psychological effect of having too much openness in a rail. We tried some experimentation having no wheel guard at all and putting two rails at various heights there and in our mountainous country traffic will shy away from that rail to the point where it is noticeable to traffic. It will go toward the centerline of the highway. I think from a traffic engineering standpoint, this might be undesira- ble, because it will mean that traffic will be passing or meeting at a closer distance. Mr. CONSTANDY. You prefer that the driver of the vehicle not be able to see from the bridge? Mr. WIlsoN. He should have a secure feeling and apparently this openness does not give him this secure feeling. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think we have all experienced that, incidentally. I don't think it is unconmion. The other point, Mr. Skeels, you mentioned about the need to have your bridge railing higher for trueks; there are some 15 million trucks on America's highways and of course they are not all high center- gravity vehicles, but, a good percentage of them are. I wonder if these rails we are looking at are high enough to afford the same degree of protection to the truck traffic. Mr. SKEELS. That is the statement I made, I do not think this is high enough even though it meets specifications. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes. This is simply a closer shot of the same location. PAGENO="0724" 720 Moving along west from Missoula, this is an approach to a structure showing the guardrail installation. I I This is a bridge rather different in design. I think this is unique in that it employs the same unit of design on the structure as is employed on the approach. You see that this rail again, taking this at 24 to 25 inches where it was set, that this adds another 12 inches, roughly, to that, so that you are up 36 inches at least with that rail going across the structure, with a curb in front of it. I think we have a closeup view of this same condition. PAGENO="0725" 721 Here it is looking along the rail so that you can see lateral offset of the rail behind the curb, also the relative positions of the two. There is support for the rail on the structure provided by the series of steel posts, I-beams that you see mounted, integral with the curb structure. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels? PAGENO="0726" 722 Mr. SKF~ELS. I just have one comment. It would appear that the posts that hold the W-type rail on the bridge are of a weaker-type post than the ones that hold the same rail where it is used as a guardrail. Mr. CONSTANDY. The guardrail being wooden, I think, 8 by 8 and the bridge rail being steel I-beams. Mr. SKEELS. Of course, I do not know the size of the I-beams but the normal I-beams that are used are about, oh, a fifth to a quarter as strong as that wood post. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Huff, I would expect this bridge would develop some comments from you inasmuch as it begins to be similar to the type you~people in Texas have developed. Mr. Hurr. I believe I have no comment on this bridge. Mr. CONSTANDY. With your permission, you were kind enough to bring a couple of photographs, and I think it would be helpful to the committee to be able to look at them in contrast. Show the next slide first, though. Mr. PRISK. This is simply a view of the right side of the bridge. You were previously looking along the left side. Mr. CON5TANDY. At this point then would you take that carousel along a few slides to those that Mr. Huff was kind enough to bring in. ~. * ~~,IumuJui L:~. Mr. HtrrF. I would be happy to have the most caustic criticisms that I can get from my colleagues on this. Mr. PRISK. This is Mr. Huff's design. I would suggest you go ahead and describe it, Mr. Huff. Mr. Hw3T. You will note the bridge has a full shoulder going across the bridge. The rail is continuous from the approach roadway across the bridge. One fault that we think we have on that, and I would be glad to hear other criticisms, probably where we attached PAGENO="0727" 723 to the rail maybe it is a little too rigid and I believe we should have some kind of spring arrangement in there to give it a little bit of flexibility to match the flexibility on the approach roadway. I believe that is all the explanation it needs. It is there to see. Mr. CONSTANDY. Before we go on to the next slide, I notice that your reflector at the end of the bridge is a single white reflector rather than what we have seen earlier with the three amber reflectors. Would you put the next slide on, please? This is more like the bridge that we have been viewing in Montana where you have the guardrail carried across the structure on I-beams. Is that not correct? PAGENO="0728" 724 Mr. Him'i~'. That is my slide, is it not? Mr. PIUsK. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Certainly is. Mr. HtTFF. Of course, there is enough approach rail here to develop the full strength before you get to the bridge and if you get to the rail anywhere between there and the bridge or on the bridge, you should have enough strength to withstand it. Now, I believe-I am not sure whether those posts are spaced 12-6 or 6-3. Our standard now is 6-3, on the entire length to develop vertical strength as well as lateral strength. Because if a car does run up on the rail, he needs a 6-foot 3 spacing in order to avoid pocket. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is fine. I think this makes a very good contrast from the one we had before. Mr. Huri~'. Incidentally, one remark I might make, that does not have a block in it. We don't believe the block out would add a whole lot to the design. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes; we had that discussion. Let's go back to the bridge in Montana. If you had done this, you would have carried the same approach guard rail across the bridge. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRI5K. Yes. Moving on farther to the west, now, we see the treat- ment at ~his interchange structure. You will note particularly the position of the side piers. I think there is 14 feet of clearance from the edge of pavement on the right- hand side. Mr. CONSTANDY. As Mr. Wilkes mentioned yesterday on that same bridge, the cap on the piers is askew. I guess that concludes Montana. Mr. PlusK. That is right. Mr. Gi~y. The Chair desires to announce that we have one very important piece of legislation on the floor this afternoon. Also we PAGENO="0729" 725 have been in recess, because of the loss of a distinguished Member from California, Mr. Younger. It is the desire of both sides, the minority and majority, not to sit today during general debate because of the nature of the bill on the floor. Therefore the committee wants to thank all of the witnesses for coming today, and we intend to adjourn over until 10 o'clock tomorrow. We will be delighted to resume the hearing at that time. With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. (`Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to re- convene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 22, 1967.) PAGENO="0730" PAGENO="0731" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1967 HOtTSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBOOMMITrEE ON THE F]r~ni~AL-Arn HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE CoMMIrr1~E ON Puimic WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatmk (chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. Blatnik, Clark, Cleveland, and Zion. Staff present: Same as previous days. Mr. CLARK. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High- way Program will please come to order. We resume public hearings on the design, operation, and efficiency of our highways, roads and streets. As we continue to review and ana- lyze some of the most recently opened Interstate projects selected from around the country, we are privileged to have the benefit of the com- ments and observations of a panel of nationally recognized experts in the field of highway engineering. The continued assistance of these gentlemen is greatly appreciated by the subcommittee. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Chairman, yesterday we were doing bridges in the nine States, and we had concluded with Montana. We have remaining with that subject, Ohio, Utah, and Georgia. Mr. Prisk, if you could begin, we will see if we cannot complete the bridges and get on with signing. Mr. PRISK. Yes, Mr. Constandy. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, we begin today with Ohio, looking at bridges on Interstate 80-S. This, you will see, is a full-width structure, again; one of two twin bridges on this particular route, typical of the design that we find. There is no anchorage of the approach rail here or there. (727) PAGENO="0732" 728 Here is a closeup on the left side, showing the detail there. It shows the open space available. -~ -----~- V -a PAGENO="0733" 729 This is another structure on the same project, which is about seven- tenths of a mile long. This is a major bridge, and one of the longest in the State on the Interstate System. From curb to curb there, you see they have provided for two lanes and about 21/2 feet clearance on each side. A walk occupies the space between the face of the curb and the rail that you see. Here on the right hand is the approach to that long bridge, and again the guardrail comes in with the benefit of close post spacing to stiffen up the rail at this point. It, nevertheless, is of a design that would give enough so that a car could impale on the end of the structure at this point. PAGENO="0734" 730 Of course, there is beyond that the ever-present face of the curb, which rises vertically from the shoulder surface. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, that is typical of what we have seen in the preceding six States in regard to that detail of design, is it not? Mr. PlusK. Very similar. Mr. CONSTANDY. You would say it is wrong? Mr. PRI5K. This is not the safest design. Here is a closeup of the same situation, showing the vertical face of the curb, which definitely would be a hazard continuing along the rail. PAGENO="0735" 731 Here on the left side you of course have the same condition. I simply amplify my previous remarks. PAGENO="0736" 732 Coming now to the undercrossing, you find this structure on Ohio Interstate 80-S. The bridge piers are not shielded by railing of any sort, but they are offset a very considerable distance from the edge, and on the right side there is a rail flared back but not buried, which carries through the structure, giving protection against impact there. That completes the Ohio sections. We now move to Utah, in the vicinity of Salt Lake City, and find here a decision point. Motorists must decide to go up here or here, and this is a gore which is immediately ahead of two dual bridges, a very narrow separation. I~t me show you how narrow. PAGENO="0737" 733 Here it is looked at from the other end, looking back. It is probably no more than 8 or 10 feet clearance at this end, at the most; perhaps as little as five or six at the other end. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes, this would seem to be the ideal type of situation for closing that space and removing the hazards that exist as a result of the parapet on each bridge, and having that area traversable, would it not? Mr. WILKES. I would agree with you, Mr. Constandy, that probably it would have been very similar in cost to build the bridge without this opening. Mr. CONSTANDY. Being as close as they are, it might have cost even less to have done it the safer way? Mr. WILIu~s. Possibly. That would, of course, have taken out this rail and parapet entirely and made a paved section across the open area. Mr. CONSTANDY. Incidentally, that particular spot has the usual skid marks of vehicles in advance of the structure, but the area beyond is equally covered by skid marks from people who are yet undecided, after they pass the bridge, in which direction they want to go. Beyond the structure it. still is traversable for an appreciable area, and it is used as a crossover in that situation. Safety would be considerably enchanced by the removal of those inside parapets and paving the space in between. Mr. Wilson, did you want to say something? Mr. WILSON. What you just mentioned could be a deficiency some- where else. It could be a deficiency in signing or in signing messages. However, I would agree with you, every effort should be made to make the gore area as flat and as traversable as possible. Mr. GONSTANDY. Yes. We are deliberately omitting messages on signs in this hearing. At some later time we will be discussing signing and the messages that appear on the signs. Mr. Prisk? 87-757 O-68------47 PAGENO="0738" 734 Mr. PRISK. Here now is still another twin bridge situation, where there is guardrail protection on the left side leading up to that division between the bridges. Still there is the same hazard, of course, that exists. There is not quite as obvious a solution as the previous one, to pave over; yet it certainly is within range for consideration. Certainly it is much more desirable to have these areas as open and clear as possible. Mr. CONSTANDY. In that particular instance you can see, although not too well, there are tracks across here, and you will see some denting in that buried part of the guardrail. In fact, a car did have an accident here. He drove over the guardrail and went on over into the other road- way, barely missing the bridge parapet on the end of the bridge. This points up the possibility of a situation where you might have someone impacting on the end of the bridge in the opposing roadway. Mr. Huff. Mr. HUFF. I think that points up one of the dangers of flaring the rail too much. Had the rail been longer, and extended farther down the road, parallel to the roadway, that might not have happened. Mr. CLEVELAND. May I ask whose car that is? To whom does it belong? Mr. CONSTANDY. It belonged to Hertz, but we rented it. Mr. CLEVELAND. I wondered if that would be a hazard, too. Mr. CONSTANDY. In connection with that, we calculated we walked something over a hundred miles, and it would have been much longer had we not taken a car. While you raise that point, we did have a problem. I think right there, Mr. Prisk, that is as far off the road as you can go and still get back on the highway. That median appears to he more sturdy than it / ( PAGENO="0739" 735 actually is. It is a very loose material, and I had the uphappy experi- ence of getting stuck in it. Mr. CLEVELAND. Actually, the car that would be broken down normally would pull off to the right; is that correct? Mr. CONSTANDY. I believe that is true. In this particular instance there is an exit ramp on the right, and it seemed to be..the least hazard- ous to put the car in a place protected by the parapets of the bridge, so any car that might go out of control had the chance of missing us because of the parapets. Mr. PRISK. Proceeding now, looking at a bridge on Interstate 15, which is south of Salt Lake City, we find this condition. There is a little different treatment, because here a rail has been installed across in front of the open drop between the dual bridges, and in this case also, and remembering Mr. Huff's comment of a moment ago, this rail has not been flared but is buried. I think it could be said this rail is probably still all too shortto do the job. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels, . what would your opinion be of the effectiveness of that guardrail, taking into consideration the length of it, and the fact that the automobile that might strike it is apt to beata900 angleinthefaceofit? Mr. SKEELS. That one is rather useless as an effective guardrail. It does define the fact there is a hazard there, but, as far as deterring a car from going through it, practically any vehicle, at any speed what- soever, would go through that rail. I agree further that the length~ of the guardrail at this end of the bridge abutment is much,. much too short. You have to have several hundred feet in there to effectively handle a car that may be out of control. PAGENO="0740" 736 Mr. CONSTANDY. As Mr. Ricker brought up the other day, there is the undesirability of having the entire road lined with guardrail and, considering the spacing of the bridges on the roadway, you might have that if you install just sufficient length at the bridges and the approaches. This further suggests the desirability of having paved open spaces between the two bridges. It introduces an element of cost; in other words, if this median did add some extra cost because of the width of the paving between the structures, you would want also to calculate the saving in the guardrail to properly protect the structure, and by the time you have done that you may find the cost of providing the safer facility, with the paved space between the bridges, is actually less. Mr. ZION. Mr. Prisk, we were discussing on Tuesday the desirabilty of flaring plus burying the ends of this rail. Is this not another example of where a car could easily run up on the rail and perhaps be turned over into the highway? Mr. PRISK. I think that is correct, and I think this is an alternate possibility that you need to consider with the use of this type of rail. I think it is well to keep in mind, however, that running up here is unlikely to have the violent effect an exposed rail would have, say, if it were cut off at this point, and if you were to hit that squarely. Mr. ZION. Would it not be more desirable to eliminate both possi- bilities by flaring and burying? Mr. PRISK. In the previous view we had a picture of a section that was flared down here, and this does go down to a lower level elevation. There is a chance, unless this is quite long, that this again, with a car on the downgrade, could top that section of rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. These are patchwork solutions, but ideally would it not have been preferable to pave the entire median between the twin structures? Mr. PRISK. I think every one of my colleagues on the panel would agree that if this section were paved it would not be necessary to have this as low as it presently is, which is another feature in the dynamics of the accident. Mr. SKEELS. I have another comment on the guardrail approaching the parapet there. If a car does go on this at the slope they have used, it is unlikely the car would be tipped over. We have run many tests, and rarely does a car tip over when it goes up a slope of this nature. However, due to the extreme shortness of this section, the car will keep going, and will be guided directly into the bridge parapet on the end. It cannot get off of it once it is on it. It will go on and hit whatever is at the end. It does not look as if that would be very good. Mr. ZION. This V-shaped median, as someone suggested in the past, there is a tendency, of course, to leave the highway, say it is going away from us here in the right lane, but gets into the V; there might be a tendency to throw it across into the approaching traffic on the other side. Are you suggesting the desirability of having a raised median rather than a lower one, Mr. Skeels? PAGENO="0741" 737 Mr. SKEELS. We all have seen many examples of tracks that do go directly across the median like this. As you go down, if the car is out of control, it tends to steer to the left, and after it starts up the other side it tends to steer to the right; so the effective path is merely raised. If you have a raised one, it doe,s tend to steer back in the lane you came from; however, depending on the slope and the amount of rise that you can get, it would determine whether or not it would actually steer back into the correct lane before topping the rail. If it topped the rise, then it would go down the other side, which would be much worse. Mr. CONSTANDY. We will have a good example on one of the projects that is open in Ohio. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Let us move along here. You have seen a picture of this before. I do not think we need to spend time on it, but this is that bridge on Interstate 80 at Salt Lake City where there is complete exposure of this end rail, the end of the parapet. The possibility of a drop down here is of course nothing very healthy, either, but the full shoulder is carried across. Traffic normally would be moving in this lane, but any emergency use of the shoulder would very quickly get you into this parapet end. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I have just one comment on this. This bridge rail looks pretty good, and I do not think we should condemn the bridge de- signer for not matching the rail into it. Rather, it is failure, really, to recognize the highway as one system, the system consisting of the roads plus the structures, and the system has to be designed so that the vehicle can operate effectively on all portions of it. PAGENO="0742" 738 In other words, the guardrail and the bridge rail, and the shoul- ders-everything-have to be considered as they work together and connect together. Mr. CONSTANDY. It points up the necessity of coordinating the design by the different groups involved. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Yes, very definitely. Here again I will not spend any great time with this, because we have seen this open section, undesirably so, between the railing and the beginning of the structure. The opportunity is obviously here to pave over between the two bridges that are rather close together. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is the eighth State in which we have seen this? Mr. PRISK. That is true. Mr. WILSON. May I make a comment? We should perhaps give the State here credit for utilizing the brush curb design that was developed from research performed in California, in which they undercut the curb. The theory is that that would catch the tire underneath the curb and help prevent the vehicle from rising up and going over the parapet. Is that not correct, Mr. Wilkes? Mr. Wn~s. I think you have expressed it very well, yes. Mr. PRISK. May we move along to this bridge on Interstate 80. I PAGENO="0743" 739 There is evidence this has been struck in this area, with the chipping away in the concrete at that point, very similar to the other pictures we saw. Here, too, is evidence that people do not always stay on the traveled way. This is a structure making a connection from Interstate 15 to In- terstate 80, Salt Lake City being in this area. PAGENO="0744" 740 These tire marks very clearly show on this side, so there is enough shelf in this particular bridge, despite the undercut curb-which is a favorable design aspect of this structure-so that the wheel marks actually travel along here. Evidently the wheel is up high enough here, because these were rubber tracks. Mr. CONSTANDY. Those tracks continue along the parapet, as a matter of fact, and there was evidence that the vehicle mounted the brush curb and stayed up on it through that curve, and hit the end of the guardrail at the other end of the bridge. It was kind of an unusual accident, but it shows this kind of thing can happen. Mr. PRISK. This curb is wider than it is in desirable practice, some- what wider. Moving along again, here is an attempt to anchor the guardrail to the structure on Interstate 80. PAGENO="0745" 741 This is a closeup picture of the same thing. One thing you notice here is about a half-inch of rail left to take the strain at such time as the force is applied. I am a little bit surprised this would be cut quite so thin. That could not withstand very much of a blow. PAGENO="0746" 742 We have a picture here, now, of a structure where one of these was hit. This is a rail approaching on the left that I refer to. There is a closeup of the damage to the curb. Evidently a car topped this curb and got up into this area, and also did a little minor damage to the bridge rail itself; but it was getting up fairly high. We have no details of the accident. PAGENO="0747" 743 * Mr. CONSTANDY. Perhaps, Mr. Wilkes, that is a good i1lustration of the point you brought up as an alternate to having that massive parapet at the end of the bridge, by flaring down the bridge railing as they have done here. While the car or vehicle hit it, it was not impaled on it. Mr. WILKEs. I would agree. Mr. PRISK. It makes a glancing blow out of an otherwise severe head-on contact. Here is another structure entirely, where a hit occurred. This broke away the concrete, either that or this pulled out as a result of tempera- ture stresses on the rail. PAGENO="0748" 744 Mr. (J0NSTANDY. I think, Mr. Prisk, there was other evidence of an accident, likewise, on that striped panel. I think on this one there had been an accident. Mr. PRISK. All right. In any event, this is very similar to the pre- vious condition. The design is exactly the same. The bolt is pulled out. Here is the way this looks on one of the bridges where the rail is not in place. You can see the location of the bolt. Some of these are a little bent-it is expecting a great deal of one bolt. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SIu~ELs. I would just like to make a connnent. This shows, really, a lack of appreciation on the designer's part of the tremendous forces that are involved in these typical impacts. The guardrail itself, as you recall, the sections are bolted together with four large bolts, two at the top and two at the bottom, with a minor mounting bolt in the center. The guardrail will stand a tensile force of about 100,000 pounds. To bolt that rail to a bridge abutment with a single bolt, that looks to me as if it might fail at 5,000 pounds, indicates a misunderstanding of what one is trying to accomplish. I do not think the designer really realized he was trying to fasten the rail to the bridge in order to obtain the tensile strength that the rail can deliver. In other words, I do not think his goal was properly spelled out to him. Mr. CONSTANDY. The concept was good. It failed in detail. Mr. Siu~r~s. Yes, I think this is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes, you mentioned the other day the fail- ure of appreciation of detail in design of some of these things. I wonder if you care to say something about it now? Mr. WILx1~s. I am sure the designer of that connection was not aware of the horizontal force that would result from a vehicle struck against the rail, and did not realize it was intended this guardrail would PAGENO="0749" 745 develop a cable type resistance to the vehicle hitting the rail so there is a need for better understanding of how the rail is supposed to func- tion in collision. I agree with Mr. Skeels. Mr. PitisK. You turn a few amateur photographers loose, and you do not get good pictures every time; but here is a case on another structure where there is a bolt that actually is sticking out. That is the end of the bolt, that little dark spot just before you come to the face of the parapet wall. It is 3 or 4 inches; you could pull the rail back and forth. Obviously this does not represent the best in practice or in application. Let us look at another one. PAGENO="0750" 746 This is a concrete parapet wall in the median. We saw the other day the way the guardrail treatment was applied, and you will remember that the metal W-beam rail is flared out at this point, and at the end of the concrete wall going this way, and also in the foreground, back here where the camera was, is the cable-type barrier. This simply is an illustration of the design on the structure itself. You will see the narrow curb that projects from the wall of the median parapet. Mr. RICKER. This is the twin bridges situation where it has been paved between. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. On this particular stretch of highway, which is 5.7 miles, there is a series of bridges on the portions of the section closest to the intersection with Interstate 15. Not counting the first one we saw, they paved the space between the bridges, and, in addition, poured a concrete median barrier. At points farther along the highway the treatment is different, the median is not paved, and the bridges are not paved between, either. Neither is there a median barrier, although the median appears to be the same width. Mr. WILSON. One of the objectives of highway construction I think is to give the motorist a feeling that he is not even approaching a structure, and this can be accomplished by giving it full shoulder width and making all the approaching things as inconspicuous as possible. But I did want to point out; one thing here. In the moderate-length bridges we found it quite valuable, from the standpont of delineation, to use a contrast treatment on the shoulders. You will notice here you come off the travelway, and you have a white traveiway there, and when you reach the bridge you have a white shoulder. We have found in the past that it has been desirable to coat that with some kind of material that is similar to the shoulder color, black lac- quer or some type of asphalt compound that will give you a contrast treatment. This will help your delineation. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I had one comment. I assume the median barrier on the bridge approach is the chain-link type? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. SKEELS. Really, there is no excuse for changing that, as you go over the bridge. All you do is create the problem where the chain-link ends and the concrete begins. Either is fine, but there is no excuse for changing from one to the other. Mr. CONSTANDY. It again suggests there is no coordination between the bridge designers and the roadway designers. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Looking now at an undercrossing, at the end of the shoulder again, it is without protection at this point. The median piers are protected. Here you will see a median pier unprotected, and in this~case the side pier is removed so that you are way back up here before you have any lateral obstruction at all. Mr. CONSTANDY. So far that is very good? That is more desirable than a previous picture we saw? Mr. PIUSK. Definitely. PAGENO="0751" 747 Mr. CO~STANDY. Could you go back to that slide 1 minute? Mr. Ricker? Mr. RIo1~R. I was noting the pedestrian fence which I did not think would have to be that close to the path. It is somewhat of a hazard in itself. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is on Interstate 15, incidentally. The picture we saw before shows a structure where a fence comes down between the pier and the shoulder. On this structure they elim- PAGENO="0752" 748 mated the side pier, but they created the hazard by placing the fence along the shoulder. We could not figure out why. It seemed the fence would be as ef- fective if it were continued along the right-of-way line and brought to a juncture with the bridge farther up that slope. When you approach this-we were at some distance from it-we could not figure out what that thing was ahead. WThen you look at that fence end-on, it appears to be something in the road. You cannot see the side portion of it, so you cannot see the connecting piece of fence. You are conscious of something just off the shoulder. So whatever advantage was obtained from the psychological effect of driving through an open-span bridge like that was lost by the ex- istence of the fence. Mr. RIo1cJ~R. This again is apparently recognized by the placement of warning markers along the fence. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes; there are several of them. Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRISK. Moving now to our next State, which is Georgia, we find undercrossing structures of this general type. The side pier is in here, clearing the edge of pavement by 14 feet. There is no protection in terms of any rail installed here, nor is there on the center piers. Here is a closeup of this same side pier, showing the detail and the magnitude of the mass that is there, in case you happen to run off the road at this point. I ~ S PAGENO="0753" 749 This is another undercrossing, where you have a series of piers carrying roadways overhead. This section here is paved for drainage purposes and to retain the slopes in the fashion in which they were built. 87-757 O-68----.48 PAGENO="0754" 750 Also there is no protection, as you will see. Here is an approach to a structure. I think it was remarked in a similar view we saw yesterday, the rail height on this particular structure appears to be quite low. This, as I recall, is on1y 27 inches high, not hardly any higher than the rail. Those are the rear lights, of course, on that car proceeding away from the camera. Mr. CONSTANDY. This now makes all nine States having the same design deficiency in the transition from the guardrail to the bridge rail? Mr. PRISK. That is exactly correct. Here is the closeup of one of the Georgia structures. You see there the relative height of that concrete block at the end of the bridge and the rail. n I ~1 PAGENO="0755" 751 This is the detail of the type rail used on top of the parapet. This rises up vertically from the pavement edge or the shoulder. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you say, Mr. Wilson, it would be more desirable to have that brush curb rather than the flat wall, as we see it? Mr. WILsoN. I am not sure I would be capable of answering that question. Where we use a brush-type curb, we would certainly have a higher concrete rail behind it, just in case it was mounted. I think I would have to agree with what Mr. Skeels said yesterday, this looks like the rail was too low overall. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is something that has to be borne in mind. If you intend to take advantage of the brush curb, you have to then take into account the height of the parapet overall. Mr. WILSON. I don't think I am an authority on that, really, to comment. PAGENO="0756" 752 Mr. PIUSK. Continuing, we find this condition at the end of the project in Georgia, where again you have dual bridges with very little guardrail protection at this point. This structure, which is at the end, this being a connection with Interstate 285, was built as a part of the old project. We were looking from the end of the work. We have examined away from the project. That is the condition, perhaps the older condition, you might say. Now we look at some new work in the same State. We find out that bridge ends are being treated this way. You recall seeing in our review of the guardrail practices that the State highway department is start- ing to use these blocked-out sections and Z posts; and here you see them again, approaching the structure. PAGENO="0757" 753 This is the approach, moving from right to left on the photograph. With this block installed in the base of the post, you will bring out the face of the rail pretty well to this curbhne, so that aspect of it is perhaps something we can commend. I think, still, this rail is a little lower than would be desirable. That is a 1965 structure, as you can see. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think that completes the material we have on the bridges. Now I would like to ask each of the members of the panel to com- ment overall on what you have seen from the nine States, the nine States being representative of completed Interstate sections open for traffic in late 1966 or 1967. I would like to have your impressions and the satisfaction or dis- satisfaction, generally, with what you have seen. We realize there are a number of elements that were discussed that go into the features we have been talking about, but overall we would be curious to know whether you are somewhat dissatisfied or whether you are pleased with what the States have done, and what should be done in design and construction of the features we have seen. Mr. Wilson, will you begin? Mr. WILsON. I think it shows here, from what we have seen yester- day and today, that a modest cost increase in some of these features, such as decking over structures-and in some cases it may not even be an increase in cost-coming up with rigid structure two-span bridges in some cases, at no increase in cost, would certainly improve the safety features. I think every member of the panel would agree that we have a lot of work to do in connection with tying the guardrail to the ends of the structures. This is something that apparently has not been solved. Mr. CONSTANDY. None of the States did that correctly, is that true? Mr. WILSON. I would not be satisfied with the way I have seen it done here. Mr. CONSTANDY. Overall, were you satisfied or dissatisfied with what you have seen? Mr. WILSON. As I have said, there are considerable deficiencies, and with modest increase in costs you could be getting a lot more safety out of it. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I certainly agree that all of the projects examined showed the same general types of deficiencies, and there are quite a number of them. We saw a number of attempts to improve the situa- tion. There are lots of ideas on railing design. We even saw a few on the attachment of the guardrail to the bridge parapet. These designs obviously were made by people well intended, who intended to do a good job. Most of them we criticize as not being a good job, or not being as good as we think the state of the art would allow. I would certainly like to encourage the use of real full-scale tests to evaluate desiguers' ideas. I am a testing man, and I may be overempha- sizing this angle. I realize many of the designers do not have facilities to conduct full-scale tests on their designs. If they, do not, they should make use of designs that have been tested or evaluated and proven that they perform properly. PAGENO="0758" 754 In this case, as in many others, intuitive design is not always proper. The design has to withstand a dynamic situation of a car impacting it at a considerable angle-I use the word "car"; I should use the word "vehicle"-and the designs do not always respond as the designer thought they would. Hence, the only way to really appraise this is to run tests on them and evaluate designs. This approach should be encouraged, instead of al- lowing a designer to put in anything he thinks happens to look good. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. I think there is a great deal of merit to what you suggest in the testing of designs before incorporating into the projects. I think there might also be something to be said for the fact that there is already some knowledge which has been derived as a result of research done by several people in California, Texas, and yourself, to confine it to the group here. But we repeatedly see there is a failure of appreciation of the signi- ficance of what has been learned from the research that has been done already. You do not see it being applied, even those things already known. Mr. ZION. Mr. Skeels, we have no standards or criteria established by which these designs could be compared? No standards or criteria have been established? Mr. SKELLS. I do not know exactly what you mean, I guess. We have evaluated them- Mr. ZION. I thought your concept of testing was certainly a valu- able one, but would it not be preferable to establish some sort of stan- dard by which these things could be compared initially? In other words, rather than having each State participate in its own design testing and establishing criteria, would it not be wise if we could make some federally recommended criteria for design? Mr. SKEELS. It would be good to have a performance standard available, which they should meet. There obviously are many designs that would be adequate, but they all have the same function to perform. If a performance standard could be developed, this would be good. As far as I know, there is no performance standard for many of these items. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is it not true they are in the process of being deve- loped? Is this work not being done by the new agency in the promulga- tion of standards? Mr. Prisk, is this not one of the things that will be done by the new safety agency? Mr. PIU5K. This is the responsibility assigned by the legislation passed by the Congress last year, to develop performance standards for safety in highway design; yes, sir. Mr. CONSTANDY. They will begin to come out the first of July; is that not true? Mr. PEISK. Initial standards will, yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Huff. Mr. Hun'. My back vision is always 20/20. I do not have quite that good vision looking ahead. I have listened with great interest to the discussions and views of the pictures of bridges during the last half day. As I have noted down here, they consist of bad connections of rails to bridge ends, massive PAGENO="0759" 755 end piers, too close undercrossing piers, poor delineation, low bridge railing and high bridge railing, and unpaved, narrow medians. I believe that we could all agree that some standards should be de- veloped that would cure the evils caused by those things that we have seen. I also believe that most of the things we have seen will meet our pres- ent AASHO standards, which, of course, were not written in enough detail to cover all of the things that we have seen. It is my opinion-and I agree with one of the gentlemen to my right, who said that we should have a design system that will include the entire road, including the bridges-it should be a system that connects the rail from the bridge to the road, a system that carries the median continuously across the bridge, wherever practical or pos- sible, you might say. Such design standards, in my opinion, should be formulated through AASHO being composed of the member States. It is my opinion from contacts I have had with design engineers from a great many of the States, they subscribe to the standards set forth in the new yellow book, and are willing to turn to them for the solution of many of the problems we have seen here on bridges and other things. I would like also to comment on some of the things that perhaps were not expressed in the discussions here today and yesterday. One is the width of the bridge. It has been noted we should run the shoulders entirely across the bridge. There is no mention made as to how wide the shoulders should be. If there is an acceptance of the 10-foot shoulder on the right and the 6-foot shoulder on the left, on our highways that are carrying vehicles where 85 percent are driven at 70 to 75 miles an hour, it is my opinion those shoulders are not proving to be wide enough, par- ticularly the one on the left-hand side of the road, which is, as all laymen know, carrying the fastest stream of traffic. We are making those 6 feet wide, whereas those on the right we make 10 feet wide. Of course the shoulder has two purposes. One is to clear fast traffic, particularly the traffic that gets out of control. The other is for refuge for broken-down cars; that is the reason for putting it on the right. I believe protection to fast traffic is becoming just as important, and perhaps even more important, than the traffic clearance on the right- hand side. How wide these ought to be, I must admit, I do not know. The widths that were selected, I believe, were selected on the basis of the subjective ideas of the people in AASHO who developed the Interstate standards back in 1956, and I must say that I was on the working level of the group that selected those. They appeared to be wide enough then, but with faster automobiles and more powerful automobiles, I think such things as shoulder width and all of these other things should be taken up immediately, and the minimum ~tandarcIs raised to take care of the conditions we have now, which may not even be comparable to what they will increase to in the next 15 to 20 years. S I also noted in the successive stages of the projects that have been built, they are making improvements, perhaps not fast enough, but PAGENO="0760" 756 the rank and file of these States that were shown are making improvements. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. I think that is something we should bear in mmd, Mr. Huff, bemg very careful to recognize this in looking at old work. When we went to the newer projects you could see there had been some upgrading in standards. I think we might reflect on how long it has taken, and the fact that the improvement frequently still overlooked something that should have been obvious to someone who had a complete understanding of the problem before they made the change. Mr. Huff? Mr. Hurr. I have one more comment I would like to make. I missed it. I certainly agree with tests and research. Observation of roads under operation is very important in this matter. I think that each State should spend somewhat more than it is now spending on testing and research, which consists of, I might say, plant research or observation of installations on the highways themselves. Mr. CON5TANDY. Thank you. Mr. Wilkes? Mr. Wu~iti~s. My comments are as follows, Mr Constandy. I think I could say without any reservation that all of those bridges shown in the photographs, although they appear to be deficient in certain respects, were designed in accordance with existing AASHO bridge specifications, and that the designer was principally concerned with the structural adequacy of the elements that he has included in his design. Mr. CONSTANDY. In the design of a bridge that stands up? Mr. WiLKES. Correct. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think that should be recognized. Actually the area that we are concerned with here is whether you have a bridge that will satisfy the needs of traffic, and whether we have done as much as is possible to be done to provide the greatest degree of safety to the per- sons using it. Mr. WILKES. That is correct, and if there are deficiencies, we should recognize them as early as possible; and revise our bridge specifications. The second is, many bridge engineers, being men of strong convic- tions, do not agree that safety walks are dangerous. On the contrary, * they believe that the restricted-width bridges should have safety walks. However, in the light of the strong recommendation made by the AASHO Special Safety Committee, the majority of all States have revised bridge specifications now under construction to the extent * possible to eliminate the safety curbs. Almost without exception the States have agreed to eliminate the wide curbs from the future designs. Mr. CONSTANDY. If I understood the first part of what you said, relative to the safety walk, the bridge engineers have strong convic- tions they are desirable, but the new requirement in the yellow book will demand elimination inmost areas? Mr. Wmic~s. That is correct. They feel this finding of the safety committee is still an opinion; that they have not seen the evidence that it does constitute a hazard, and neither can they supply evidence that they are, in reality, safety walks. They are bowing to the will of PAGENO="0761" 757 the majority, as I say, almost without exception, and are eliminating the safety walks from future designs. There is a third fact that disturbs me quite a bit. We saw in the picture unprotected exposed ends of the curbs and I really could not justify in my own mind leaving this curb exposed. To a vehicle, that certainly results in a disabling accident if it should run onto this curb. The car would have no chance to recover at all; and this could be improved at very small expense, to provide an adequate transition, or a much better transition. Apparently we are still making the same mistakes. The last remark is that apparently there was inadequate coordina- tion between the bridge designers and the roadway designers to produce the safest highway that can be produced from our present knowledge. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you know, Mr. Wilkes, for how long the AASHO standard for the bridge railing was in effect, up until it was changed recently? Mr. WIL1ci~s. No. Mr. CONSTANDY. It was for some years, was it not? Mr. WILKES. Yes. I would say there was no change in the railing specification for a period of more than 15 years, until 1964 when the heavier loading was reviewed and approved by the committee. Mr. CONSTANDY. Up until 1964, would a bridge railing built pursu- ant to the AASHO standard contain a vehicle on a bridge? Mr. WIL~s. I would say in a majority of cases they did. Mr. CONSTANDY. If it is built only to standard? Mr. WILKES. Built to design; yes. Most of the rails that performed badly would not even meet the then-existing design standards. Mr. CONSTANDY. Of AASHO? Mr. WILKES. Of AASHO. Mr. CONSTANDY. If the bridge railing were built to the pre-1964 AASHO standard, it would contain an automobile if struck? Mr. WILKES. Let me say in most cases the rail performed in an acceptable manner. Now, certainly there are many instances where the vehicle did go through the railing, so I will not claim 100 percent performance, but most of the time it did. Mr. CONSTANDY. You know, of course, we have no professional competence on this staff in the engineering field; we do not purport to have. However, I have had many conversations with bridge engineers- dozens of them-relative to design strength of the AASHO standard bridge railing prior to 1964. It was `my impression, as a result of these conversations, that if they had answered the question, the answer would be no, it would not contain an automobile. Mr. WILKES. Let me say that, as a result of this Highway Research Board Special Report 81, certain angles of attack and speed of the vehicle were prescribed for a bridge rail or parapet test. I would agree that the pre-1964 bridge specifications for rail design,' according to those specifications, would not contain a vehicle at the speed and direction recommended for tes,ting in this bulletin. PAGENO="0762" 758 Mr. CONSTANDY. That is apt to be a large percentage of the vehicles striking the bridge rail? Mr. WILKES. No; I do not think all vehicles hit a bridge rail at a 200 angle at 60 miles an hour. Mr. CONSTANDY. No, I would not suggest that, either. We will get into this in somewhat more detail later in the hearing, because I think it is significant. Many States built bridge railings in excess of standards set as a minimum by the AASHO policy. Mr. Wu~s. I would agree. Mr. CONSTANDY. We have to recognize t.here that the State has the latitude to exceed the minimums as set by the AASHO standards, does it not? Mr. Wu,in~s. Yes; it does. Mr. CONSTANDY. In many cases States have done so? Mr. WILKES. Yes; they have. Mr. CONSTANDY. So, if we reflect on the projects which we have seen here in the nine States, the fact may be that they have been built, in the elements which have been analyzed, to the AASHO standards and still not be adequate, but the State is not precluded from going above those standards in providing a facility which would be adequate from a safety standpoint? Mr. WILKES. That is correct. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker. Mr. RICKER. Several different organizations, particularly in the State of New York, have made extensive crash tests of bridge rails. Movies of these tests have been shown in several meetings, such as the Highway Research Board. To those of us who have seen the movies, there is only one conclusion: That we never want to hit a bridge rail. There are just spectacular crashes, including such things as the motor flying out of the vehicle and over into the far side of the rail. I think we might consider a little bit that the nature of limited- access highways is enough that it greatly increases the number of struc- tures on a particular section of road. If you have a land-access high- way, about the only time there is a bridge is when you are crossing a river, but a limited-access highway has many, many more structures, and this is perhaps why they are becoming increasingly important in accident involvement, and increasingly important that they be designed safely0 On the matter of connecting the guardrails into the parapets, I have been personally advocating a better design of this for some 10 years, based on direct observation of accidents and so on. I am all in favor of it, and I think they must be connected, and well connected. One other observation. We may wonder why people run into bridge piers. I am speaking of the piers supporting the overhead structure, which may be only two feet wide. This looks like a small spot to hit. Certainly when it is drawn out on a plan, or from an aerial view, you wonder why anybody goes out of his way to run into them. Actually, in appearance to a vehicle, they are 14 feet wide, if you have only 2 feet of concrete; because if the vehicle touches them any- where, it is a head-on crash. Likewise, you can compute they are about 400 feet long. If a vehicie wanders over the median anywhere within 400 feet, it is almost certain PAGENO="0763" 759 to hit the bridge pier. This is why they are suddenly so much more important than they used to be. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is a very good observation. A chart illustrating the foregoing points is inserted in the record at this point:) POTENTIAL HAZARDS OF TYPICAL ROADSIDE PIERS PROJECTED VERSUS ACTUAL DIMENSIONS PROJECTED WIDTH A. VEHICLE DRIFTS OFF PAVEMENT AS-MUCH*AS 14 FT. - PAVEMENT - - - - - ~ ~ ,~ .~.....P9SSI9LE VEHICLE PA ~ __________ PROJECTED LENGTH _________ WIDTH- AS-MUCH-AS 190 FT. 2','2 FT. B. VEHICLE LEAVES PAVEMENT ABRUPTLY - - - - PAVEMENT - - - - - - LI~1~ULDER. ~ ACTUAL WIDTH. PROJECTED LENGTH 2'/2 FT. AS-MUCH.AS 50 FT. What was your overall impression of the work you have seen on the nine projects we looked at, Mr. Ricker? Mr. RICKER. I am afraid we have never really faced up to this mat- ter of connections at t.he end of the bridge. Some people have advocated safety walks, some say eliminate the safety walks. Some say connect the guardrail in directly to the parapet, and so on. There is no existing standard. I do not think that we can fault indi- vidual designers for not complying with the standards that exist. I think we do recognize there is a need for a connection, and we had better hurry up and get a good one. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Prisk, I think we can now turn our attention to lighting.. We have had, out of the nine States, only four which have lighting. The other five do not. The four which do have are Rhode Island, Georgia, Montana, and Oklahoma. Perhaps, Mr. Prisk, you might begin our discussion on lighting. Mr. PRISK. As you mentioned, Mr. Constandy, not all of the nine projects did have lighting installations. I think the matter of the light- ing of a controlled access facility is perhaps still an unsettled matter, because there are bodies of information that suggest the importance of lighting in some situations, and in other cases indicate that on these newer highways where there are fewer obstructions, fewer opportuni- ties to depart from a prescribed alinement, fewer opportunities to meet anyone at an intersection than under the norinaJ city street conditions, that lighting is probably not as necessary and that headlights will do the job adequately. However, in those cases where lighting has been a feature of the projects we have been looking at., we have examined PAGENO="0764" 760 that aspect of design since it does relate to the oeneral subject area of design efficiency and operation of the Interstate ~ystem. Take a look at some of these observations now. Here in Rhode Island, you first see a multilane facility installation of a fully lighted section where the luminaires are set 2 feet beyond the edge of the 10-foot shoulder making them 12 feet from this white line that you see here. This is common throughout the length of this project. They appear both on the left and on the right as you will see. 7 These poles are constructed so at their base they appear this way. PAGENO="0765" 761 This is an aluminum pole and this is cast aluminum around the base here. This is concrete, built-desirablY so- flush with the surrounding level of the ground. So that is the Rhode Island installation we are looking at now. These poles are rather frequently knocked down because of their nearness to the pavement. And this is one knocked down that we saw. This is the base at this point, out here [indicating], just 2 feet off the roadway. This is the position of the pole as it came to rest. PAGENO="0766" 762 You can see the remains of the base. This is so constructed and wired that the pole breaks away at the base. Here are remnants of these little clip sections that go on the bottom. And the wiring is such that there is an automatic disconnect when the pole is knocked down. Here is a closeup of the pole after it was hit, presumably an impact about bumper height, as you can see. And the pole is broken away here at the base. PAGENO="0767" 763 Still another picture of that same pole. Here is another location. In fact, during the evening that we stayed over there in Providence, this pole went down. We saw it working the night before and down in the morning when we first came out. So this is a very fresh situation, the car that went across the roadway here- you can see the skid marks after he hit the pole. PAGENO="0768" 764 Pursuing this a little bit further with the authorities in Providence since that time, we were uixable to find any accident report was filed for this pole knocked down at all. In other words, the driver ap- parently survived this breakaway-type pole accident with only damage to his vehicle and went on his way. Here again is a closeup of that particular installation, the one most recently broken. Mr. CONSTANDY. That picture shows something else, does it not, Mr. Prisk, the manner in which it is provided that the high-voltage lines will not cause an additional hazard by being broken. Could you explain that? Mr. PBISK. Yes, I had mentioned that on the earlier slide, Mr. Con- standy, that there was an automatic disconnect. These ends here and here pull away from the wiring inside the pole so that when it goes down, there is an automatic disconnect of the power, no opportunity for fires to develop or any short circuits in the line or even interruption of service to the other lighting units. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Bicker. Mr. RIcKi~it. You might note that that concrete base is about 2 inches out of the ground. That should be about the maximum, particularly when you consider erosion that may take place later on. Not having seen the pictures, I do not know whether you have some others that are higher. But I suspect that 2 inches is about the most that should be allowed to protrude. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. PIUSK. Very good observation. Glad to have it, of course. Most of these I would say are limited to within 2 inches. PAGENO="0769" 765 This is that poie knocked down showing the extent of damage there. Bending the lower part of this aluminum pole. Of course, the luminaire itself, the glassware, is broken as it comes down. Here is another one-this is off the project but still on Interstate 95-indicating a pole knocked down. It is rather interesting to us that in the very short distance that we are looking at here, we saw four or five light poles actually laying along the roadside as this one appears. 87-757 O-68---49 PAGENO="0770" 766 There is information available in other areas of the country that supports the desirability of having poles more than 2 feet off the edge of the paved surface. In Chicago, on their expressway systems, there have been studies, paragons made of the rate of knocked down light poles on the basis of miles of travel, and we find that moving the poles from 4 to 8 feet away from the edge of the pavement will cut the light pole knockdowns by about two-thirds. Here is an installation of the same type of pole behind the guardrail, the rail of course being put in here for this embankment. Now, down here, let's take a closer look (slide) and at this same loca- tion you will find wood poles that are put up, and they are inside the rail. Mr. CONSTANDY. They are not bre&kaway, are they? Mr. PRISK. These are wood poles that are not intended to break away; no, sir. I might say this is on a spur to Interstate 95; it im- mediately adjoins the project, feeding the project, as a matter of fact. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is apparently a temporary installation until that spur is extended; the lights are mounted on the wooden pole. Would you call them telephone poles? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Utility poles. Mr. CONSTANDY. Inside the guardrail. Here again we have somebody doing something wrong. While the State is to be commended for their efforts elsewhere, where they install breakaway light poles, whoever installed these wasn't thinking the same way as the man was who made the decision to use the safe breakaway light poles. This is an unneces- sary hazard. Mr. Riciu~. Is it possible the wooden poles were installed by a jurisdiction other than lighting? Mr. PIUSK. It is altogether possible. It could have been a local jurisdiction. PAGENO="0771" 767 Mr. CONSTANDY. Conflicting jurisdictions is another subject. we will get into later in these hearings. It is one that comes up. Of course ,the motorist striking it is concerned only with his well- being, but that does present a problem and we will explore it further as the hearings develop. Mr. PRISK. Here are some other pictures, in the same State again. In this instance the pole is mounted in the median barrier showing how nicely this can be fitted in with concrete base essentially flush with the paved median barrier, and protected here by the guardrail. PAGENO="0772" 768 Here is one over here, you see is exposed. The normal roadside condition is an exposed pole. Mr. SKEELS. This is in a gore. Mr. WmsoN. I would like to comment on that last pole Mr. Prisk pointed out. It is on the outside of a curve. We found that this is not a good place to put a light standard or really anything else that might be hit. These could be just as well placed on the inside of places like this. Mr. PRISK. Thank you. As we move along, we find an obstacle, on the roadside, of this mag- nitude. I show you this picture first. And then I show you this view of the same thing to give you an idea of where it is and its relevant size. This is the control system for the lighting that we are just looking at, and just dropped in here on a section of the tangent portion of 1-95, all too close to the roadway. There is a slope, where this picture was taken, which rises up here and is clear perhaps within the right-of-way for possibly another 40 feet from that location. It could have been moved up the bank. The only consideration I can understand for this location is that it is a little easier to get here and read the meter or service the equipment inside of the box. Mr. CONSTANDY. it is unfortunate. Those two things were the only features which spoil an otherwise very good installation of lighting, the existence of that control box and the unfortunate existence of the two light poles inside the guardrail. Mr. PJUSK. That is true. [:CU~t ~EUk~ 1 ~ L I PAGENO="0773" Experience with the control box system which they have has been relatively good. Now we are in Georgia, back to the section that is near Atlanta, where light poles are installed at this distance [indicating] which will measure just about a foot to the edge of the transformer base. This is not an aluminum or otherwise frangible base. This is a steel pole all the way. 769 PAGENO="0774" 770 Here are some of the things that Mr. Wilson mentioned, the same narrow clearance to the edge of pavement, and 1 or 11/2 feet, possibly 2 feet at the very most, showing off the edge of that pavement the unprotected posts or base. I Here is one upon the parapet wall of the bridge which does afford the protection by the structure that is there. PAGENO="0775" 771 Here is one closeup showing installation behind the guardrail. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is just by chance, is it not, Mr. Prisk? The guardrail is close to the bridge. Mr. PRISK. The guardrail is not put in there in any sense to protect the pole. As we saw, the other random poles came outside the guard- rail. This rail is in here on account of the embankment and the drainage system here. Here now is the approach to the Dobbins Air Force Base north of Atlanta, and you will see the pole installation here, too. The guardrail beyond it is in to protect this sign and leading up toward the undercrossing structure. The light pole is exposed. ii 1~ PAGENO="0776" 772 Mr. RIc~R. Excuse me. Mr. PRI5K. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker? Mr. RICKER. This picture illustrates another problem, although it is only a picture that could be taken from a different angle. Oftentimes the light poles block out the proper view of the sign and they must be placed in relationship to each other or else one pole after another will block a sign so you cannot read it at all. That would be another reason for moving the light pole back so as to get a clear view of that sign. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. PRIsK. Very good point. This is a typical installation. You will find at the entrance ramps on the project where there is the one pole put up here very close to the junction of the entrance ramp and~ the through roadway, and two poles put beyond that along the acceleration lane. This pole, of course, ends up being on the outside of the curve. There are two here. Mr. Htm~'. Mr. Prisk, you mentioned horizontal dimensions on the light standard. What generally are the vertical dimensions, height above the road, and so forth? Mr. PRISK. These, I believe-I looked at the plans on these-I would only have to recall that these are about 35 feet above the roadway. Fairly high. This is what you find in the urban section, entrance ramp coming in here and in this case a double luminaire mounting. This is in contrast to the previous picture where it is a single light over the roadway. rt~ PAGENO="0777" 773 Here, as a truck stops, you can see something of the horizonta1~ dimensions that we are talking about; the clearances from the side of the truck to these poles is so little that you might think that picture was staged. But that man just stopped there and we happened to get a picture of him. PAGENO="0778" 774 This is brand new work off the project. This is identified with the south expressway running out to the airport. Came in past this and picked up these pictures at that time. So today, even though this is still under construction, this is what we have for light pole placement on that project, which is part of the Interstate System, also. I I I ~1 I I I I PAGENO="0779" 775 Here is another part of the same new work showing, rather inter- estingly, a deliberate placement of rail rather well back from the nose or gore decision point, which is about where the camera is, but inter- estingly enough leaving the light pole in here in an exposed position in relation to this rail that is going to be built around through here. V r' ~; Mr. ZION. That is apparently not a breakaway type of pole either. Mr. PRISK. No. Mr. ZIoN. Is that a concrete foundation it is sitting on? Mr. PIUsK. Yes, sir, it is a concrete foundation. Mr. ZION. Does this not cost more than the aluminum breakaway- type poles you were showing previously? Mr. PRISK. They are competitive in most cases. Mr. ZION. Again would this not indicate a need for establishing some Federal criteria for light poles as well as for placement of guard~ rails, and tying them to bridges in highway construction? Mr. PRISK. I think that it would deserve commensurate considera- tion along with these other items that you mention as far as the per- formance standards are concerned, yes. I do not think that you need to limit materials to aluminum or steel. You can accomplish performance with either material. I do not con- demn one or the other. Mr. ZION. Certainly we are not fighting the concrete people,. but certainly this is one of the danger elements that could be reduced in erecting light poles; do you not~ agree? Mr. PRISK. If you are talking about that base, I fully agree, yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Congressman, you raise an interesting point, if you will allow a comment about the need for Federal standards to regulate some of this. S I PAGENO="0780" 776 We will look at light poles and some of the other elements. You can have discussion and differences of opinion on whether it is feasible to remove the shoulder piers on bridges, whether it is feasible to carry shoulders across bridges that are a given length. You can get into some meaty arguments, I am sure, with people who may even have some proof for their point of view. This, however, is a relatively simple thing. A light pole can either be put up to be frangible and save the motorist, or it can be put up in a very rigid fashion and the result would be likely to kill the motorist. We have had testimony about light standards on the Capital belt- way, on the Maryland section, which repeatedly, not infrequently, cause severe injury or death. It is a simple election: You can either put one up that will withstand the impact of the automobile, or you can put one up which will give the motorist who strikes it half a chance to survive. There is no great argument here. There is available a wide variety of types of light bases and poles. You can have an aluminum pole with an aluminum frangible base that is either mounted on a transformer base or the type you have seen here in Rhode Island. You can have a steel pole, steel base; it can be breakaway. You can have a slip-base pole-there is a wide variety to choose from. The prices are relatively competitive. It comes down to a simple thing: When you install the light pole you intend to give the driver of the automobile a chance to survive or you do not. Highway departments should be able to decide this without AASHO standards being set, or threat of penalties for not abiding by standards set by the Federal Government. Here is an area, it just strikes me, that could be improved by highway departments without regulation, so that a light pole, if struck, will yield. I think it is distinctive in that respect. Mr. Huff? Mr. Hiin~'. I would like to say that technology of highway lighting has advanced probably more rapidly than anything in our safety field. Up until not many years ago, the general practice was to use illumi- nation poles about 30 feet in height. One problem attendant to the low elevation was that you had to put the poles up near the edge of the road in order to light the highway. That is in particular where you had to light three or four lanes. Now, that created the collision problems, which I believe have been found in all the States, of people running into light poles. That has proved in the past to be one of the most hazardous things we have had. So to cure that, the highway engineers, in conjunction, of course, with the electrical people, have developed new lighting standards up to 45 and 50 feet high, No. 1, that will enable you to move .farther away from the road. It will also enable you to use fewer poles than you had to in the beginning, and it will enable you to have fewer knockdowns, of course. Incidentally, when you knock one of those down, it does cost money to put it back up and you want to have as few knockdowns as you can and as few replacements as you can. The only problem that has come up is that many, many of the light- ing projects are maintained by local jurisdictions. Sometimes it is difficult to get a local jurisdiction to purchase equipment or mainte- PAGENO="0781" 777 nance equipment tall enough that will go up and reach these 50-foot height lamps. And that is one* of the problems that most of u.s have been working on; we have been using frangible bases here for, oh, nearly ten years. We are well satisfied with them. So far as I know we have not had a fatal accident running into a frangible base, whereas we have had many fatal accidents on the old rigid-type base of which we are moving to replace all that we have. Mr. ZION. Would this not suggest that we make these regulations sufficiently flexible that we do not become wedded to a specific distance from the roadway? For example, rather than establishing 4 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet, and so forth, in a situation such as this, by moving the light pole back a mere 4 or 5 feet, you would have it behind the guard- rail and thus not accessible to an automobile that inadvertently left the paved surface. Mr. Hurr. In my opinion, sir, the frangible base should be there whether it is in front of the guardrail or behind it. Mr. ZION. Sorry, I did not understand you. Mr. Htm'r. In my opinion, the frangible base should be installed whether it is in front of the guardrail or behind it. The extra cost would be negligible,if any. Mr. ZION. Oh, yes, certainly. I agree to that. Mr. Hui~. I agree with you we should not have rigid standards as to just how far it should be away from the road; I agree with you on that. Mr. ZIoN. That was the point. Mr. CONSTANDY. And the point Mr. Huff made was very good. The fewer targets you can have on the roadway the safer the driver is going to be.~ The farther they are from the travelled way, the less likelihood there is of striking them. They certainly are two valid considerations. To go back to the other end of the poles, the rigidly mounted base does kill people. It is killing people daily in this country. And the States that have seen the wisdom of putting in something else-New Jersey, as an example has replaced many thousands of their light poles with breakaway, one type or another; they have had no fatalities. In Rhode Island they had had no fatalities. One witness was telling us how pleased he was with that type of installation, the breakaway light pole. They are not killing people. Yet in looking at some of the new work in the United States-this one, as an example; we will see an- other-you find the most recently completed project with a feature which could be changed with relatively little difficulty. They are open to traffic, people are using the highways and you can rest assured people are going to be killed when they stri~ke these light poles. Is there anybody who would suggest any reason whatsoever for there not being a standard that the light poles on the Interstate System be breakaway type? Is there any reason at all to argue against that? Is there any iustification? Mr. Hurr. I say there is no justification. It ought to be on all sys- tems, whether Interstate or not. Any time you build one, it should be frangible, in my opinion. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. Very valid point. Mr. PRISK. The Texas }tighway Department, Mr. Constandy, has recently completed a report of the effectiveness of the breakaway light PAGENO="0782" 778 poles and the relative ease with which existing fixed installations can be converted to breakaway. Bureau of Public Roads has picked up this report and circulated it to all the highway departments for that in- formation. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. I think we have a slide here that. will follow which will show how this lethal thing we see in the picture before us can be converted to a type which will minimize the impact when struck. I am a great believer in the laws of probability. If something can happen, it is going to happen if it is given enough exposure. When you are talking about a highway which has traffic volumes that ran 100,000 and 140,000 and 150,00 cars a day, it doesn't take long until you get up into the numbers where the laws of probability will come into play, somebody will strike the light, pole. They will survive or not., depending on the foresight of the highway department in in- stalling the facility that will give him half a chance when it happens. Would you go on, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Here now, this is rather disturbing, because this is an old project, and look at the position of the light poles here. They are, in fact, farther off the roadway traveled surface at. this location. This is a curb section rather closer to Atlanta than the subject projects we looked at; nevertheless it is not too comparable [slide] with this situ- ation, also close to the city of Atlanta and much newer. Here we are on an older project with poles fart.her away and there- fore less hazardous than some of the work being built today. I `~~` I ~` :`~- . PAGENO="0783" I PAGENO="0784" 780 ance standpoint, but it can be a very severe hazard for anyone who drives off the roadway. Mr. CONSTANDY. It could kill you, to be less polite? Mr. PRISK. Right. Here now is an installation in Oklahoma City. This is a frangible base and this is one of the ironies that you run into-I hope you don't run into it-but it is one of the ironies of the situation. A steel pole, frangible base, and a nonfrangible footing underneath it. So that if you can get into this one, which is also 2 feet away from the edge of your paved surface, you have to contend with 8 or 10 inches of concrete. Most cars underneath, for the record, will clear about 5 inches of concrete. Eight or 10 inches is too much. This, too, is in Oklahoma City. We will see the breakaway or fran- gible base section poles here all the way along. Parts of the installa- tion we will see later are a little bit different. Here is one, here [indicating]. .--.-.~, *:~~*~ I -- PAGENO="0785" 781 This is something we will be discussing a little later as we get to con- sideration of shoulders and curbs, but here the shoulder is cut off in order to permit this advanced roadway to come onto the main line, and the light pole is mounted at the end of the shoulder. You cannot con- tinue through there without having to take down that light pole. Fran- gible or not, I think most of us would rather not hit it. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think in the preceding view you had a similar situation, did you not? Mr. PIUSK. Yes. 87-757 O-68----50 PAGENO="0786" 782 Here, too, is something that can be commended. In addition to the frangible pole, here the structure has been altered so as to permit the light pole to be erected completely away from the roadway and behind the bridge rail itself. ~1 -I This is a steel pole of the type that was prescribed on this Oklahoma project. All of these frangible base installations that we saw were in- troduced as a result of field change while the project was being con- structed. And here again this is a project just opened at the end of last year. This is a steel base pole on a concrete footing. I .~ ____ I ~: --~-.~ __"_~~:-~ 1 PAGENO="0787" 783 Mr. CONSTANDY. So it is possible, then, late in the project, to make a field change and correct what otherwise would have been a hazard- ous deficiency? Mr. PRISK. This was done, that is true, to the credit of the State and the Bureau of Public Roads, whoever it was who initiated the change. By contrast with the steel pole, of course, this is the newer break- away-type base. You will see the footing so high, however, as to create a hazard of its own, particularly in this sort of soil that adjoins the paved shoulder. In this project, the field change was limited to taking care of these poles that are not behind guardrails. This pole [indicating] in other words, would be a normal pole with a normal base, steel base, and mounted in the concrete as usual, where I showed you the closeup. Here is the exposed pole which does have the frangible base. PAGENO="0788" 784 And this is the other complementing condition, steel pole, steel base all the way down behind the rail, slight exposure of the footing. PAGENO="0789" 785 Now moving to Ohio, and taking a quick look at 141, which is not the project that we selected but the one recently completed, we find poles mounted again along very close to the edge of the pavement. 1io~i~ PAGENO="0790" 786 In some instances they are protected by short sections of rail that they put in for other reasons. Here, there is a headwall drainage under the roadway, and the pole is located at that point. Another one up here is exposed. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that a breakaway-type pole, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. This is a breakaway-type pole. Mr. CONSTANDY. The one in Ohio? Mr. PlusK. Yes. __ __ - .~ ~ ~ ~ Here is the evidence in Salt Lake City of provision for putting in future lighting, indicating someone was thinking well ahead to the day when you might want to undertake something as we saw had been already done. In other words, putting a light pole outside the structure. PAGENO="0791" 787 This is the Texas installation. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. We were grateful to Mr. Huff again for hav- ing brought some slides with him. Mr. PRISK. We would run out of slides, I am sure, if we didn't have these. I would be very happy to have Mr. Huff talk about this, if he will. PAGENO="0792" This is a slide simply to illustrate the very ingenious way that they have begun to convert their system of previous poles that had steel bases and are steel all the way, to include this minor section here that can be introduced in the support system at the base of the pole. The next slide I think shows this even better. This is the break- away section down here. This is frangible. It is steel, will not give. But upon impact with this surface, this section tears out and the pole falls harmlessly over the top of the car. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is that a relatively inexpensive modification, Mr. Huff? Mr. Hun'. We installed some of those with maintenance forces for about $25 apiece. That is material and labor both. On the contract jobs that we have let, it cost a little bit more. Mr. CONSTANDY. So it is well within reach for the amount of safety that is being bought. Mr. Htwr. Yes, of course. We ran considerable numbers of tests, Texas Transportation Institute did, prior to putting these into opera- tion. We also installed some to observe. We had, oh, two or three ac- cidents. They were safe accidents, no damage except the pole had to be put back up and nobody was injured in the accidents. Mr. PRI5K. This is one of the things that you can convert at relatively low cost. Some of these other adjustments we talked about are more expensive. Mr. CONSTANDY. If you could run back through these we would have the effect of a movie. It depicts an automobile striking that type of light 788 Mr. Htirn. I do not know what else you have. Suppose you proceed, if you will, Charlie. Mr. PRISK. Well, we have a few in here. This is the way it appears, general appearance. IF ii I' I PAGENO="0793" 789 pole in research done at Texas A. & M., Texas Transportation Institute. Is that correct? Mr. Hur~. Yes. PAGENO="0794" 790 Mr. PRISK. A series of shots just before the car reaches the pole. Of course, this is the attitude of the pole and the car. PAGENO="0795" 791 PAGENO="0796" 792 It strikes the pole ((Texas) slides) continuing through the im- pact. (Slide.) This is what happens. (Slides.) Breakaway occurs. (Slides.) The pole is completely in the air, over the top of the car. (Slides.) Mr. CONSTANDY. Very good. Mr. IliJFF. The vehicle was traveling in the neighborhood of 60 miles an hour for that. test. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Huff. That would conclude the presentation we had on lighting. I would like to ask the members of the panel to comment on what they have seen. Would you begin, Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSoN. I do not see how this can be a controversial item at all. I think it is just plain commonsense that there are a couple of things -you can do to lights and you do not have to specify the type of pole, providing they use some kind of frangible or breakaway base. Largely through the work, testing work of other States and General Motors, we have adopted a frangible base for our steel light poles that we now use. We are doing this on new contract work and are going back on the existing installations that we have. To give you an idea of what the magnitude of the problem would be in California, we have in past years lost about 20 lives by people hitting light standards. Mr. CONSTANIY. Each year? Mr. WILSON. Each year. We think this is so serious that we have taken the steps that I have just mentioned, largely through the research efforts of others. We have also moved our light standards back from a position that you saw in some of these slides back to 18 feet from the traveled way. We have done this by going to a higher light pole and using a longer mast arm. This has given us probably better lighting and with the new developments in the lighting itself, we are able to get, in the gore area particularly, a single light doing the job that we normally had two lights doing. So this right off the bat cuts out one fixed object which formerly was beyond the gore area and in a very vulnerable position. One thing I would like to mention in connection with lighting is its interference with signs but in just a little bit different light than Mr. Ricker previously mentioned. That is that improperly placed lumi~ naires can place glares on existing signs and prevent their being read properly. When I first saw these slides, I felt- Mr. CONSTANDY. Which is right now? Mr. WILSON. Yes. That is correct. I thought that we had conquered the problem of having raised bases, these concrete bases, but as the slides went on, I saw that apparently the States have not conquered this problem. I might point out the yellow book is very specific in this regard: that bases, concrete bases of all kinds, whether for light standards or signposts or whatever they may be, should be flush with the ground and no higher. I think that is about. all the points I would like to make. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Skeels? PAGENO="0797" 793 Mr. S1~ELs. The location that we see on these light poles being so close to the road is probably the result of the fact lighting is specified by the lighting engineer, and his primary purpose is to light the road. This is his job. And he specifies a distance that is dictated by lighting requirements and not by safety requirements. I have talked to some of these people and they recognize that they are putting a hazard there but they do not put much weight on the seriousness of the hazard. Data we have gathered at the General Motors proving ground mdi- *cates 47 percent of the cars that leave the travel surface go more than 12 feet from the edge of the travel surface; 18 percent of them go more than 30 feet from the travel surface. At the proving ground we do put our lights 30 feet from the travel surface. And we do not use them on high-speed roads. We have never had one hit. I would think that 20 to 30 feet would be a very reasonable thing. The lighting engineer is going to take some loss in efficiency of lighting. I do not think he can do as good a job with a light pole this far from the road as he can up where he would like to have it. But we may have to take a tradeoff of lighting efficiency versus safety. Mr. CONSTANDY. It might inspire them to do research in that area and perhaps come up with one that would be as effective. Mr. S~EI4s. I think maybe they already have. As has been indicated, there have been big advances in this field recently and at the proving ground we just arbitrarily told them how far away they had to keep the lights from the paved surface and they should do the best they could with this ground rule. In any case, regardless of how far it is from the surface, if it is in the position where it can conceivably be hit, it must have a slip or a fran- gible base. This is primary and all light poles should be designed with this in mind. I might point out there is an NCHRP project in the final process of being let-this is administered by the highway research board; it is initiated by AASHO-to look into the best way of accomplishing this or the best ways of accomplishing or of making light poles safe. Texas uses the frangible base insert. Some States are using an aluminum transformer base which is frangible. And we are using a slip base which was developed from the Texas A. & M. signpost approach. We have done testing work for the State of Michigan in applying the slip bases to steel posts. It appears to us that the slip base is slightly more effective than the frangible base, but either one of them will save lives. I am not implying the slip base will save more lives than frangible base., but it will do less damage to the vehicle and possibly to the occupants. Either approach appears satisfactory. Again, all light poles should have one or the other. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Huff, would you care to add to the remarks you made before? Mr. Hun'. I would like to correct the record a bit. Texas uses the frangible transformer base on all new construction and has for some 5 or 6 years. Prior to that we had about 4,000 installa- tions with a steel base. That is the rigid base made of steel. We are adapting the insert to correct that condition. I would also like to dwell just a moment upon and expand on new ideas Mr. Skeels mentioned. We are working in our Texas Transporta- PAGENO="0798" 794 tion Institute laboratories on a slip base. We do not know what possibil- ities it has. I do individually believe this is so new that we should not tie ourselves down to any one form of breakaway light bases. We should all keep working on it to improve on what we have now, which itself is a great improvement over what we had previously. Mr. (JONSTANDY. Very fine. Thank you. Mr. Wilkes? Mr. Wuau~s. I agree with all the comments made by other panel members. I have an observation that in some of those cases where the concrete base is exposed that condition could be corrected by just a small amount of mound of earth around the base. Mr. CONSTANDY. For reasonable effort and money, they could cor- rect what is now an undesirable situation? Mr. Wuuiii~s. That is right. An alert maintenance man could correct this condition at practically no cost at a11. I am trying to recall from memory but I feel certain that this mean- orandum of Mr. Turner's that was previously introduced into the record contains the statement that on future Federal-aid projects, the lighting standards should be provided with a frangible or breakaway base. Mr. Prisk could probably check that. Mr. PIU5K. I am not sureit is in here. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Wilkes. Mr. Ricker? Mr. Ricarn. One comment we picked up on the AASHO safety tour last year was that it is practically useless, perhaps hazardous, to put a short section of guardrail in front of a a light standard. It is bettor to hit the light standard than it is the guardrail. The guardrail does not prevent the accident. I might note the draft standards of the Federal Highway Safety Bureau seem to call for much more use of roadway lightmg than most States have done in the past.. And this will inevitably cause many more poles to be installed, so that we have to have good design for them. At the same time, there is no money provided in that program for the installation of this lighting which means that many jurisdictions will be trying to save money and perhaps pnt in the short mast arms and get the poles too close to the road. Mr. CONSTANDY. The curse of the first cost versus economics? Mr. Ricici~ Right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you very much. Mr. Prisk, will you begin, now, with the segment that contains the signs? I would like to mention here we are concerned with the sign element purely from the standpoint of the mounting of the sign, loca- tion of it, and support for it, but we are not at this time particularly concerned with the message on the sign. We will have another segment of the hearings at some later time when we will be concerned with the message. Improper messages are like waving a red flag to traffic engineers and I realize it. But could we just contain this to-fl-except when you really feel you must say something about the message-the mounting and location? Mr. PRISK. Thank you, Mr. Constandy. I think of all the subjects that attract the interest of the public, perhaps traffic signing on the Interstate System is~ one of the most fascinating of all. We have looked at signs on these sample Interstate projects as rep- resentative of conditions around the country. I would like to move in PAGENO="0799" 795 and show you some representative installations that were found on several projects. Signing is important to the use of the highway. It will be complete- ly useless to build the highway system without appropriate installa- tion of signs. So here we are with the typical installation for advance notice of an exit on an Interstate project in Indiana. * STATE PO:LiCE POST. NEXT RIGHT PAGENO="0800" 796 This is supported by 8-iiich I-beams. This is the way the base looks on that sign you saw just a moment ago. Here is another installation, sign installation, where a regulatory sign is used. In this case, there is a general speed limit of 70 miles an hour, one of 55 for trucks and one of 65 for buses. I would like to call your attention to the fact this sign is placed in accordance with the minimum standards and is located 2 feet off the edge of the shoulder. Here is a man over here who is selling auto polish and he is about 50 feet off the road, or maybe more-probably more, 60 or 70 feet off. PAGENO="0801" 797 I dare say the auth polish sign is equally effective on the motorist. Mr. CONSTANDY. His sign probably will not be struck, will it? Mr. PRISK. Not much chance. Here is another installation of a sign that we are gradually beginning to think is just about an obsolete message: "Keep off the median." You cannot talk about it without getting into the subject of mes- sages. But this is at the same general locale as the speed sign that I mentioned in the previous slide. Here is the corner of that auto polish sign off here on the side and it gives you an idea of the dimensions we are talking about again, 2 feet away. This installation is mounted on a couple of U-chainels that are backed up and doubled. They theasure as the tape shows 4 inches longi- tudinally along the road, and there are two of them. This. is a pretty stiff installation. [Slide.] 8T-757 O-68----51 PAGENO="0802" 798 To go back to this one just a moment, we find this in a number of cases. This sign, and on the "No U-turn" sign [several slides] and on other signs. The "No U-turn" sign, incidentally, cannot be enforced or is not enforced in that particular State. Here is a Wells County sign, erected to show the political boundary. Again, this is questionable. This is an installation on an Interstate highway. How much information that provides that is really of benefit to the motorist is highly questionable in light of the other demands on his skills and on his capacity to operate safely. Wills Co PAGENO="0803" 799 This is a sign which I would say is not on a U-channel; it is on an I-beam. Mr. CONSTANDY. It is kind of ironic, as we saw the guardrail on the median divider in the Indiana installation, 50 feet, you pecple ques- tioned it; it was inadequate. Just in front of it you have two I-beams holding up a sign, which has dubious value. It could just as well be mounted on the bridge, could it not? Mr. PIUSK. Yes. It is not uncommon to find these on bridges. And it certainly would be a contribution of safety to put them there. Here, now, in Missouri we find another installation of an Interstate marker, mounted on an I-beam also, I might say. NORTH !~Rs~ El I PAGENO="0804" ri- ~` a L2~ CD ~ H p ~ Cl) ~D ~ oq CD ci- ~3*W ~ a Pt CD H C) ~4c~ H' CD~ C'- C) odll ~pCD p o P I / ~¼ PAGENO="0805" 801 This is that base, close up. Mr. ZION. Could these signs be put on breakaway posts, too, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes, sir. Mr. ZIoN. They could be like the light poles? Mr. PRISK. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0806" 802 Mr. CONSTANDY. Congressman, we will, later in this presentation, show just briefly this concept of breakaway signs. Next week we would hope to develop that in greater detail through witnesses who will ap- pear from Texas Transportation Institute. They have done research on the development of the breakaway signs. That is one form that is being uesd. Mr. PRISK. We proceed. Here is another type sign that is useful in orienting the motorist in his distance to destinations. But it need not be up on concrete footings of that size and magnitude. This, again, is the old base problem of getting something in line with the slope. Mr. RIciu~R. This illustrates something else. That sign does not have to be at any particular location, and by moving it longitudinally along the roadway it could have been placed behind that cut slope at a rela- tively safe place; even moving it out slightly and putting it beyond that cut slope would have been protecting it. Mr. CON5TANDY. Thank you. Here we could have safety at no cost, no additional cost. Mr. RICKER. Right. Mr. PRISK. And it could be handled, of course, in another way by moving laterally, as the auto polish sign is located. Mr. RICKER. The point I want to make is the longitudinal place- ment oftentimes provides the safety equally as well as laterally. And it can be done simply in the matter of staking out the proper location for the sign. 1~fr. PRISK. It would not make a bit of difference if it was 3.5 miles to Kearney or 29 miles to Cameron, I am sure. Mr. WILSON. Several years ago when we started putting these signs up on limited access highways we tied them fairly close. If you will notice on this one, a truck merely driving along the shoulder-and they do this occasionally-will damage the sign; even though it will not strike the post or anything, it will damage the sign to the point where it has to be replaced. This, to us, became quite a maintenance problem. You know that the slope of a shoulder allows a truck to tilt over on about a 5-percent slope and maybe more in other PAGENO="0807" 803 places and he will catch the corner of the sign and damage it com- pletely so it has to be replaced. So just from the point of maintenance, it would be better to get this thing out of here. Mr. CONSTANDY. It is another cost factor that should be borne in mind. Mr. RICKER. Mr. Prisk, that sign does not meet present clearance standards, lateral clearance, 2 feet beyond the shoulder? Mr. PRISK. I think it does. There are 2 feet here and the edge of the shoulder is out here somewhere. These were checked, practically all of them. I think you will find it does meet the standards as far as minimum clearance is concerned. But it is ironic t.hat the standards are actually set up to read that the sign must clear the edge of the shoulder by at least 2 feet, and you find all the signs at 2 feet. Suggestion of a minimum is taken as a standard and fixed dimension, unfortunately. Mr. CONSTANDY. Just adherence `to the minimum standards, without judgment, really is a problem. Mr. PRISK. That is true. Mr. CONSTANDY. On that picture, there is oil where the shoulder ends, here at the `beginning of the fore slope. They spray it with tar or oil. It gives the impression the shoulder is over farther. It might also give the same impression to a driver. As that relates to the closeness to the sign, and could, in turn, create an additional problem. I might say this, we have many pictures of signs on these various projects-and the problem is one of being able to pick a typical in- stallation and not spend the entire day showing all of them. These signs are simply intended to be representative and they appear with great frequency on sections, of the highway we looked at.. The fact we show two or three slides for `a given State should not suggest they were the only signs on `the project. Mr. PRISK. Moving on, here is another similar installation for an- other purpose, service sign, "Gas, Food" marking, wit.h exposed footings. GAS - FOOD 2 MiLES PAGENO="0808" 804 Here is an exit sign with exposed footings. Here is an exit sign, speed sign, on the right-hand side on I-beams. And in this case you will notice that the shoulder is paved to this point and then at this location you drop to a narrow shoulder. So that it would be possible, conceivably, to drive directly into it. I would also call your attention to almost the forest of signposts down in this area. I cannot help but think that some improvement in this situation will be necessary. .~ ~- ~ AJ:~ t~L: Urban area, off the project, specifically in Kansas City, in the free- way sections that are being built there now. This installation was found with the concrete pedestal supporting one end of an overhead bridge sign. PAGENO="0809" 805 And this is the other end. You are looking here in the direction against traffic. So traffic comes down under this structure and must pass either side of this sup j~ort. They really have themselves quite an obstacle there. Something like 8 feet from the front edge of this con- crete pedestal to the curb that will outline it. ~ __ L _ After some discussion on that job, incidentally, during the course of the visit, some additional negotiation and so on, this work is to be taken down and that hazard will be removed frQm the gore at that point. This is another installation of a sign bridge where the pole is up on the wall instead of being in front of the wall, which is desirable. This bulge is in here and rather abruptly made. I daresay that some more feathering on this would have `been desirable so as to make a more gradual transition at that point. PAGENO="0810" 806 Moving now to Montana, again we find some pretty husky posts here, too. Here is an interstate route marker on a 4-inch I-beam. Mr. CONSTANDY. Before you go on, perhaps the members would like to look and heft a piece of 4-inch I-beam-if you can lift it.. WEST £ INTERSTATE MONTANA PAGENO="0811" 807 In that connection, earlier we had displayed, during a segment of the hearing dwelling on the roadside hazards of the Capital Beltway, pic- tures of routing signs similar to this one, route signs mounted on 4-inch I-beams. We thought it would be helpful to get a piece of one of those posts to give some idea how big they are. We asked the Bureau of Public Roads to furnish a piece of the sign support and they did. Actually, the signs in Maryland are mounted on two of these, each in a 3-foot concrete foundation. Very formidable. We recently asked the Bureau to furnish this size and one of the larger sizes. We got back this reply from the Bureau: In compliance with the telephone request from the Washington office, we are delivering under aeparate cover two pieces of 4-inch galvanized steel I-beam. These pieces were cut from the sign support damaged in a highway accident. This size I-beam is used in the support for a great many of the signs on the Interstate System in Maryland. There is a larger size beam that is also used but the State did not have a damaged larger size available from which to cut pieces. Kind of significant. They only had the 4-inch I-beam. The larger ones don't get damaged. So we were not able to produce the larger size to show you. I thought you might like to see just how heavy they are. Mr. PRISK. Thank you. That is exactly the same as the section that you have there on the table. PAGENO="0812" SOS This merging traffic sign is also mounted on a 4-inch I-beam on the Montana project. I. - V \TRAFFIç L I I 4 ~1 PAGENO="0813" 809 Here is the exit sign similarly mounted on I-beams. Here is one of the very husky mountings that we saw on an exit from the main line here going into Orange Street. Mr. CONSTANDY. Missoula? Mr. PRIsI~. This is the west side of Missoula, Mont.; outskirts of Missoula. And that particular installation was extremely impressive. You see the gore condition where you have the approach roadways nicely divided, curbing outlines it, extremely short section of guard- PAGENO="0814" 810 rail here, 12.5 feet either side. And then that pole in the middle. I would like to take some estimates of the audience as to how large that is. F `1 - r - r I estimated it was 18 inches and when I measured it, I found it was 24 inches in diameter, and t~hen measuring the base, I found that that base the pole is welded to is 32 inches by 32 inches by 3 inches thick. Those nuts that you see are 5 inches across. This is a tremendous thing. And there it sits on a concrete base. I don't know what it would take to move that. Mr. CONSTANDY. it looks like a piece of locomotive. Mr. PItISK. It is very large. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Bicker, would you care to say something? Mr. RIoK~. Yes. There is a different approach to this. On the AASHO safety tour last year, almost; every time that an intersection, separation of roadways, was described as giving problems, it was noted that the signs were too far past the decision point. The type of mount- ing illustrated here presents exactly that case. The signs are over the roadway beyond the point of decision. If the signs were brought out to the decision point or in advance of it, you could not use a cantilever of this type; it would have to be a full span across the hig~hway. So this is an unnecessary hazard in itself. Messages are in the wrong place. Mr. CONSTAi~DY. Yes. Mr. Huff? Mr. Hurr. I would like to ask the reason for the large signs. I have been told it was wind load; is t.hat correct? Mr. PRTSK. That is what I understand, yes. Mr. Hu~r. What intensity of wind is used on such posts, Mr. Wilkes? PAGENO="0815" 511 Mr. PRISK. The specifications call for loadings up to 100 miles per hour, 100-mile-per-hour velocity. I don't know what the pound loading is on that. Perhaps Mr. Wilkes does. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, before Mr. Wilkes answers that, is that 100 miles an hour directly on the face of the sign, 900 angle? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. Wiu~s. The wind velocities for design purposes do go up to 100 miles an hour. Mr. CONSTANDY. The wind does not but the sign design does. *Mr. Wiun~s. And also this is a type identified as a butterfly-one wing on each side of the roadway. In the design assumptions, you would apply the wind on one side to develop a tortion effect and that gives an unbalanced load which is greater than you would have in some cases to a balanced wind load on the two sides. Mr. CONSTANDY. I realize it may be unfair in that you have no di- mensions other than those Mr. Prisk gave you, but could you con- ceive the necessity for something this massive any place? Mr. WILxi~s. Those were substantial cantilevers; they extended out over the roadway. Mr. OONSTANDY. You know, in the nine States plus traveling con- siderably around the United States, that is the largest thing I have ever seen. And it may be they have very strong winds up in that part; of the country. But the peculiar thing to me is Van Buren Street is perhaps the major street. Missoula has three interchanges into the city. Orange Street does go deep to the heart; of `downtown Missoula. But I just wondered why the sign in this gore is mounted on such massive support while Van Buren Street, at the preceding interchange, had more modest signs. Mr. WILKES. I would not want to pass judgment on the size until I could review design calculation. Mr. CONSTANDY. I appreciate that and I did not mean to put you in such a position. If I had to choose the most impressive thing we saw on the whole trip it would be this sign. Mr. Huff? Mr. HUFF. I might add we have done a limited amount of wind tunnel testing to support sign post design. Now we found, through our }imited research, that you could safely cut those loadings down to I believe about 80 percent, 75 or 80 percent. And as a result of that, we have begun cutting down on the sizes of our sign support. Mr. OONSTANDY. Are you meeting the standard? Mr. Hurp. Well, we are building them and getting paid for them. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is one test. Actually, though, the standard, as you found it, is too high and results in more massive sign supports than are necessary; is that true? Mr. HUFF. In our opinion, a 100-percent allowance for the 100-mile- per hour wind load is too high, yes, that is our opinion. Mr. CONSTANDY. If they ever had the kind of a wind in Missoula which this is intended to withstand, it would be the only thing left standing in the city. Mr. HUFF. I agree with you. Mr. OONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes? PAGENO="0816" 812 Mr. Wuices. Mr. Constandy, the original specifications were de- veloped for overhead sign bridges and experience will prove the ground-mounted signs could have a reduction in the wind load appli- cation and this 0.8 reduction is a standard for all ground-mounted signs. And that is permitted by the specification. Mr. CONSTANDY. So it does allow for going below the 100-mile winds for such signs? Mr. Wuin~s. For ground-mounted signs. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is this a ground-mounted sign? Mr. WILKES. No, this would be considered an overhead bridge, for which there would be no reduction in the wind velocity or wind pressures. Mr. CONSTANDY. You probably would not have to worry about this one. Mr. WILKES. I think I could safely say it is a safe Mr. CONSTANDY. Only from the standpoint of the wind. Mr. WILKES. Only from the standpoint of the wind. ILaughter.] Mr. CONSTANDY. Did you care to say something, Mr. Ricker? Mr. RIc~u. No. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think at this point, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, we will recess. (Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Present: Messrs. McEwen (presiding), and Schadeberg. Staff present: Same as heretofore noted. Mr. M0EwEN. The committee hearings will resume: Mr. Constandy. Mr. CONSTANDY. We might just as well begin where we left off, Mr. Prisk, if you will continue the slides of sign mountings and placements. We had begun to show the slides on Montana, is that correct? Mr. PRISK. Yes. This is Montana, Interstate 90, just outside of Missoula, west of Missoula, a project that was opened in December 1966. This particular sign structure, I recall, is one we photographed because of the very large column, 24-inch column, supporting t.he two cantilevered signs on this exit. This column is supported on a steel base that measures 32 inches by 32 inches. It seems remarkable that those nuts are 5 inches across, but they are, from one side to the other. From here to here it is 5 inches. It is very heavy construction and of course is on a concrete platform, raised above the roadway itself. I think the best point that was made in summary of this situation is the fact that it need not be there at all and would better serve the motorists if it were mounted at a position a couple hundred feet up- stream, back toward the camera, so the drivers would have that in- formation somewhat earlier, and that this gore itself could actually be fully clear. We move along on the Montana project, going west, getting into a more rural section. We find the exit sign for Reserve Street the next installation. This is mounted on two I-beams, as they are shown here. PAGENO="0817" 813 87-75T O-68----52 PAGENO="0818" 814 Here is the 2-mile exit sign for the next major interchange, the Kalispell Interchange; and this is mounted on three 10-inch I-beams. 5~ORTH WEST Kalispell EXIT 2 MILES Here is the 1-mile exit sign, the same design as the previous one, but mounted on three 10-inch I-beams, very heavy support. I, PAGENO="0819" 815 Here then is the exit direction sign, just ahead of the interchange. You will notice a rather abrupt deceleration lane, perhaps too short, particularly in this kind of open country; but, in any event, this is the signing that we find there. Then if you move off to the side road, you find this rather surprising sign which, after you have read Kalispell is 2 miles and 1 mile, you get on the side road and you find it is 114 miles. This is a bit of a surprise. PAGENO="0820" 816 Mr. CONSTANDY. We were strangers in that area, and we thought we would go to Kalispell for cigarettes, coffee, film; so we were looking forward, as we began to see this sequence of signs, to stopping shortly. I was about ready to pull off the road into Kalispefl, and we were amazed to see we had 114 miles yet to go. It is also interesting to point out that, on the side road, the sign telling where Kalispell is, is mounted on small posts. Mr. PRISK. I think this ought to come under the heading of sign messages, which will be discussed at a later time. Here you notice they do use wood posts on this side road mounting. PAGENO="0821" 817 We move along now to the Georgia job, and this Windy Hill sign is also supported on three I-beam mounts. These measure 12 inches. This is a very light section beam, but is is 12 inches. There are three of them. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think we should note, Mr. Prisk, should we not, the guardrail installation as we saw them yesterday and the day before PAGENO="0822" 818 do afford some protection for these signs, unlike the ones that we saw in Montana. Mr. PRISK. That is a fair statement. The merging traffic sign used on the Georgia project mounted on a high pair of channels. PAGENO="0823" 819 Here is an interesting set of photographs. Starting at this point, three-fourths of a mile from the Lockheed, Dobbins Air Force Base, let us drive down through that rainy road and see what you see. Here next is the exit direction sign, just in advance of the grade separation, directing you to the right to the Dobbins Air Force Base and Lockheed plant. PAGENO="0824" 820 Here is another view of the same thing. PAGENO="0825" 821 You reach the exit just beyond the structure, and you move into this situation, where you find the road is closed. So anybody who is bound for the base is a little surprised at that point. ROAD ~CLOSEDI A PAGENO="0826" 822 Here is one man who was surprised. He was starting into the exit, as you can see-and this is not Mr. Constandy; this was a Georgia native-and he recovered and pulled away. But, see, lie is on the shoulder at that point. PAGENO="0827" 823 Here is another car pulling into the exit. Mr. CONSTANDY. Notice in that picture the distance between the two cars. If we can have the previous slide, you can see the second car is well back. This gives you an indication of how slowly the first car was traveling to find the exit. You can see by this slide that the car that was far ahead is now alongside the other car. PAGENO="0828" 824 In that same slide you will see a car off on the shoulder beyond it. That is one we did not get a picture of, but he did the same thing, except that he went beyond the exit ramp, pulled off on the shoulder, and then got out, clutching his map in his hand, looking around at the countryside. Apparently he wanted to go there. He presented another hazard while he was in the exit ramp and afterward. Mr. PRI5K. Here is.still another car. You can see by the application of brake lights he has the same intention of slowing down to make that entrance movement. And still another one. This whole series, I might say, of erratic actions around that exit point, were photographs selected from a number that we witnessed over about a 20-minute period. PAGENO="0829" 825 You go from this sign to the sign you see, through the legs of this sign, in the background. That sign says a half mile. Instead of saying Dobbins and Lockheed, this says Lockheed and Dobbins. This violates the principle of good signing practice, which maintains continuity in signing messuges. Here is another interesting series, going the other way, going south. Dobbins Air Force Base here is labeled 3 miles, Lockheed 4 miles. It is a bit difficult to understand, because when you get up there, they appear to be across the street from each other. A F PAGENO="0830" 826 Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it is worth pointing out, too, that the exit here is also closed, although none of the signs in advance have reflected that. Mr. PRISK. That is true. We move along here close to the terminal of the project. You see another series of signposts erected on the right-hand side, ready for installation. The truck is turning off on the ramp which in fact does carry the traffic from this point on farther north. 4 -. - - - *.. - . .-~_I ~... 4 -. - --- A PAGENO="0831" 827 This treatment a.round the terminus of freeway projects and inter- state projects in particu1ar~the freeway ends-_is quite an art by itself. Evidently this is not altogether successful at this point, as witness the damage done to this exit si~ just ahead of when you ju~ saw the truck. PAGENO="0832" 828 Moving now to Nevada, to take a look at a few of their signs, you have this Interstate marker which, in this case, is a round steel post on a concrete base. It is somewhat out of the ground-just a little bit out of the picture, too. I ) ai I r BatUeMtn 30 Reno 250 PAGENO="0833" 829 Here it is at night and in a snowstorm-essentially at night-taken with a flash photo. Here you can see the base out of the ground some- what more than desirable, and the steel post. Both are very close by an asphalt curb. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, how does that round pipe compare with an I-beam in strength? Does it present as much of a hazard as the I-beam? 87-757 O-68--~---53 PAGENO="0834" 830 Mr. PRISK. I would say so. It would depend on sizes, of coui~e, but relative to the ones that we have been looking at on that general struc- ture, it would be equally hazardous. Here is the installation just ahead of the one interchange that we had to look at in Nevada. This is the 1-mile sign. It is mounted on heavy supports, but in this case it is pretty well protected by the advance guardrail, as you see. This is a snow shot, under adverse conditions, of the same location. I think you can visualize here the relative ease of viewing if this sign were moved out here quite some distance, even if you do not make an - -. - -~ Beowa we Crescent Valley EXiTI Mitt PAGENO="0835" 831 adjustment longitudinally, which many times is the more desirable thing to do; but this could be easily moved out here and be readily visible. The driver's eyes are in clear focus for straight ahead vision about 5° either side of looking straight ahead, so within 5°-the 5-degree visual angle-there is no difficulty in getting the sign slightly away from the roadway. Here is a shot of a smaller sign, also taken under adverse conditions, not protected Here is another sign, "Emergency parking only," perhaps of a class that ought to be looked at again in terms of its necessity PAGENO="0836" 832 We move now to Rhode Island. Here we find that the interstate marker is accommodated on a wood post, 4 by 4 instead of a 4-inch I-beam. ~ ~ ~ ~k ~3~s ` I ~-~fl~4( ~" t~4y~ ~ 2e~ ~ ~ - ~f~rx ~ ;tt4 ~ ,~ &;~ ~ ~ - ~ ~-- a~ ~ p t~i4i : PAGENO="0837" 833 These posts would go down much more easily and with far less vio- lent consequences as far as a collision is concerned. The same thing is used, doubled up, two of them, for speed limit signs. PAGENO="0838" 834 The same thing there. PAGENO="0839" 835 The same thing here. Merging traffic. A PAGENO="0840" 836 When we come to direction type signs, advance guide signs, there are mounted now, as you can see, two aluminum poles here. The third one remains to be placed on this base to back up the center of it. I think you tend to look at this and wonder if that would not be quite adequate without the third one, but in case you think that three may PAGENO="0841" 837 be too much-here is one with four. Again I am not too sure whether this is not more support than that sign needs. It is an extremely large sign-no question about it. Mr. HUFF. Mr. Prisk, what is the reason for all the blank space on the top of the sign? Mr. PRISK. That will be a future message when other exits are open, so we were advised when visiting the project. This is not a completed sign, as far as the project is concerned, because some of the exits are not, yet open. Mr. CON5TANDY. Could you show that base in the last slide? (Slide.) In speaking with the people from the department here, they men- tioned that base is frangible and the pole is aluminum. It was their opinion that if struck it would not cause the car to stop violently. However, it is also very heavy. I was not able to lift up this end of the sign. Their opinion is that the post is not as lethal as it looks. Mr. SKEELJS. Again I would suggest t.hey run a test on this. [Slide.] Mr. Wu.soN. I would like to comment on Mr. Huff's observation here on the blank space on the sign. I believe that all the message that should be on the sign is there already, as far as readability from the standpoint of the motorist, and I would hesitate to add any more to that. `: I believe that the Interstate regulations would restrict you to two lines of copy in this location. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. PRISK. Moving along, we come to the situation where there is a major division of roadways, and here again is another roadway at the left that is not yet fully signed. PAGENO="0842" 838 It is covered with a sheet here so that the message only shows as the sheet flaps back and forth, showing the main route proceeding to the right. This does have the advantage as you approach it of having this nice white concrete area in the gore, running down through the decision point, and by color at least you are adequately warned of the approach to an important decision point. I t PAGENO="0843" 839 Signing does present a problem when you have as many as four signs with that much message copy to understand. As you come in close at that point, this is the way the actual sign base looks in the gore area. There are two posts there, actually two bridges, if you remember, one over the right road and one over the left. This is *to be replaced by a single structure, single support, which will cover the entire roadway. Mr. CONSTANDY. As Mr. Marcello mentioned, they recognize the hazard that exists here themselves, and it was his intention to have both of those sign bridges taken down and one longer one put over both roadways, and the elimination of the sign structure and the guardrail in the gore. Mr.PRISK. At a point in advance of where it is now, which is in line with what Mr. Ricker mentioned this morning. Do you have a comment? Mr. RICKER. I was going to ask you whether this sign was intended to separate those two streams of traffic, or make an additional separa- tion beyond this point? It looked to me as if they were beginning to follow a separation on each roadway. Mr. PRISK. No. These were primarily for the two signs on each one. Moving now to the next one, south on 95, Narragansett-New York, we see an exposed sign structure support. This is in the median. I think I showed a picture rather similiar to this yesterday, or day before yesterday, as we looked at the guardrail. PAGENO="0844" 840 Now to Ohio. Oniy temporary signing was up on the Ohio project, 80-S, that we looked at. I think more frequently than not we found that only temporary signs were in place. I I PAGENO="0845" 841 These are small signs used at crossovers, to indicate that only main- tenance and emergency vehicles could use the cross9ver. There was a crossover paved just about where the camera shot was taken. PAGENO="0846" 842 This is approaching the end of the project where it intersects with State Route 627. You will notice here that this is temporary signing. In fact, it is mounted on a U-channel. Actually there were a couple of channels driven into the ground, which probably extend above the ground 4 or 5 feet, and then these channels you see are bolted onto the lower ones~ so it is a double channel through its height, where it would be hit if it were hit, 2 feet off the pavement. The sign structure is serving a perfectly good purpose as it is. On 1-71, running back toward Cleveland Airport-and this is a recently opened one, though not the subject one we looked at in Ohio-we found this kind of installation. It is a desirable type of I *, * * * E * PAGENO="0847" 843 cantilevered overhead sign, with a support well back here in a pro- tected place beyond this bridge structure. Here is another sign support which cantilevers out here to indicate you are at the corporate limits of Middleburg Heights. Thinking again in terms of demands on the driver to find his way through some of these freeway situations, we have begun to question whether as much signing as is done of this type is in fact necessary. You see, there is quite a bit to take your attention up ahead here. Mr. WILKES. I know we are not concerned with sign message, but on that sign you see the corporate limit sign, and then the following sign showing the Middleburg exit. This would be confusing to a stranger. Mr. PRISK. Because of its position. Mr. WILKES. Because of its position, which indicates it might be this exit. Mr. PRI5K. Good point. What I was attempting to suggest was we might do away with it entirely. Here is an installation made almost at the structure, a cantilevered design, good design, behind the rail, nicely protected as far as that is Middteburq Hts CORPORATtON LIMIT PAGENO="0848" 844 concerned, but you immediately seize on the thought here that that sign might be mounted on the surface of the structure itself, and that this installation and support could be done away with. We saw a series of this in this same location on 1-71. Moving to Interstate 40 in Oklahoma, this is the type of support that they use, again a steel pole on a concrete footing. I LNTERS TATE OKLAHOMA 40) - * * *~ *~ ~ `:4 - PAGENO="0849" 845 For the first time in our tour we found some breakaway support. This in fact is what your breakaway support looks like down at the base, slip base, this particular design that Oklahoma has adopted. Here are some other supports on the Oklahoma project for the bridge. The uprights, as you see, have been put in line or behind the guardrail or bridge rail, or median rail that is already in place. This does provide a natural protection for this type of installation. Here is a closeup showing how it is introduced in the median raii~\ There might possihiy be some improvement on this, but this is at least lined up with the center barrier, and therefore offers much less hazard than it would if it were outside the barrier. 87-757 O-68---54 PAGENO="0850" 846 Here in Utah we also find a steel pole em~1oyed. This eastbound on Interstate 80 going into Salt Lake City. This is just the conventional steel base, no breakaway features here at all. EAS~] ~; ~NTERS1ATE~ UTAH Pu PAGENO="0851" 847 Here is another regulatory sign, same type of installation. PAGENO="0852" 848 Here are speed signs mounted side by side, 45 miles minimum when conditions permit; 65~mi1e limit otherwise. These are real husky signs. In some cases we found them mounted like this. This is not neces- sarily typical. You will notice over here these foundations are pretty ~eU down, but in this installation- - - I I PAGENO="0853" 849 They are up, indicating this is not uniformiy controlled these bases down to the ground level. to keep We were not surprised by that previous one; we were here, because here our cylinders are concrete, bigger than you can put in a barrel, extending above ground, and on the outside of a curve. There are signs of cars running off into this area, and this would not make anyone feel too easy about leaving that type of installation in place very long. PAGENO="0854" 850 Mr. CONSTANDY. If the concrete was much higher, they would not need the pipe. Mr. PrasK. That is true. Mr. Him'ir. Mr.. Prisk, would you care to discuss the reason for building those high pedestals, or do you know? Mr. FRISK. In some cases it is because of the necessity to meet a standard length of steel post on top of the footing. In other cases I'expect it is a combination of construction practice. Mr. Htm'r. I have been involved, in that recently. It is my under- standing the sign message is supposed to be so high a vertical dimen- siOn above the roadway. The sign material, particularly the posts, are ordered `before the exact slope and so forth of the roadway are knOwn. In our experience, what we are doing is to prevent the contractor from ordering his material until the final cross sections of the `road have been determined. Mr. CONST4NDY. We did hear that hi one State the sign supports were ordered so much in advance that by the time they got them, the grade of the road was not what `they expected it to be, they poured the concrete high enough so the sign came out to the right elevation. It is a problem that possibly administrative processes could take care of. Mr. Hurr. That can be remedied by a' simple clause in the specification. Mr. WILSON. I believe these two signs have the same message, have they not? Mr. PRISK. Yes. . Mr. WILSON. Most States would combine these in one sign, located down the road about 100 feet, about where that car is, so it could be viewed from both the ramp and the mainline traffic. That is one solution of this problem. Mr. PEISK. Thank you. PAGENO="0855" 851 We j?roceed to another typical installation, the 23d Street East, where the exit sign is actually put on a sign island. I expect this is part of the solution, too, in some cases, to create an island in an appropriate place where the sign can be accommodated. This gives you some idea of the size of these posts. These are 6-inch posts. There are three used for that installation. Oii the 6-inch post you see an 81/2, 83/4-inch plate at the base. PAGENO="0856" 852 Again, not wanting to talk too much at this moment about the con- tent of the sign, but you see here quite a lot of information to soak up: Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Ogden, Pocatello, Provo, and var- ious other places. Along with this there is a repetition of Interstate 15, of 80, and then some U.S. route markers, two different ones over here, which seemed to me, as a first-time visitor, to be a rather complicated mes- sage in terms of the installation. These are protected by this typical rail that we have seen on our look at Utah projects, which is a little bit too short. Mr. CON5TANDY. Mr. Prisk, would you say the sign bridge is located sufficiently in advance of the gore of the exit ramp? Mr. PRISK. This is not as far in advance of the gore as would be desirable. No, it is practically at the gore right here [indicating]. PAGENO="0857" 853 Continuing in Utah you see this situation, the typical exit sign installed at this point. Clearly this is the kind of place where the breakaway design has its best application. With the breakaway sign, I dare say the entire area could be cleared up of this hardware, as the British call it; namely, the guardrail, posts. All these could be taken out. PAGENO="0858" 854 same installation, showing the concrete ri_ _I_ -~r~ 1 This is the back of that footings above ground. For the benefit of those who are not too well acquainted with break- away sign supports, this is a drawing prepared at Texas Transporta- tion Institute, illustrating the details of the joint at the base of the sign, right at this point which shears off. The one up here is in fact a hinge arrangement on the traffic side of the I-beam, which causes the I-beam to break and break around the hinge just below the sign surface itself-you saw the pictures I- PAGENO="0859" 855 this morning of how this performs when it is struck by a car. The pole goes over the top of the car. Essentially this is the same kind of performance you get from this support. I think we have some pictures here. This happens to be in Ogden, Utah. This is the very first breakaway sign installation site in Utah. This sign was being put in at the time of our visit. We did not see this particular installation at that time, but it was about that time, 2 months ago now, that this sign was put in. We are looking from the gore back toward the approach. This is the way it looked as you drove into it, and you can see the breakaway supports here. PAGENO="0860" 856 Here it shows h~~his hinge joint actually operate when it is struck by a car. It lets loose, and the web of the I-beam is cut through, all except this flange here on the back, On the underneath side. You end up with that kind of situation. It almost looks like a war scene. In this particular case the sign was struck, the driver went on his way, and there was no record of the accident filed. The newspaper in the area became a little bit curious, and with some little detective work finally located the car in a garage, found out there was very little damage to the car, talked to the driver. He was completely uninjured, and had no difficulty at all at this point, PAGENO="0861" 857 in spite of what appears to be a great deal of violence. This performed m a very safe way. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is a very fine demonstration~; is it not? Mr. Pi~IsK. Yes, it is. Mr. CONSTANDY. We will have additional information relative to this type of breakaway sign mount, as I mentioned before, next week when the people from Texas Transportation Institute testify rela- tive to this and some other work they have done. Mr. PRISK. These are indicative of typical signs that exist all too often, some of which we have seen in actual photographs: heavy foot- ings, whole installations in a restricted clearance area. PAGENO="0862" S58 One easy way of course is simply to move these out. I think per- haps the most remarkable thing you might do sometime. as you drive the Interstate System isto look at the signs that could be moved. We attempted to do this, and in a 30-mile section, out of 150 signs that were observed, it appeared that more than 100 of them conid be moved 20 to 30 feet off the edge of the pavement without any loss of effective- ness. There were quite a number of others, 20 or 25 others that did not need to be moved because they were already in a protected place. So with some planning I am sure our sign installations can be put in safer locations. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, in the view you showed of the break- away sign installation in Utah there was a guardrail in front of the sign at the gore. Might the removal of that guardrail be an additional safety feature? Mr. PIUsK. I am sure it would be, and I think this is the judgment of the Utah authorities, after seeing this performance, that it would be entirely adequate to delineate that gore with reflectorized units, so vehicles would be guided through there at night. You would have a visual definition of the gore area, but not neces- sarily any physical outlining of the gore. Mr. CONSTANDY. I wonder if the members of the panel would com- ment now on the sign photographs which we have seen on the nine projects. Perhaps we could begin at the other end this time. Mr. Ricker, would you care to comment? Mr. RIcErat. After seeing the last few slides of the steel breakaway posts, I am happy with our wooden ones we use in Pennsylvania, be- cause they break much easier and without so much debris left afterward. Mr. CONSTANDY. But the important thing is that the use of either of them is going to lessen the violence of the impact of automobiles. Mr. Rioxrn. Yes. I think we all realize there is much to be done in proper location of signs, both longitudinally and laterally, to keep them from being struck. The real point of concern, of course, is the gore area. There are more people apt to go off there., so that one should certainly have breakaway posts. There are some gores, particularly on elevated struc- tures, where there has to be a parapet rail anyway, and in those cases we need protection by means of something other than breakaway posts. Mr. CONSTANDY. Overall, are you satisfied or not, relative to the slides you saw on the nine projects? Mr. R~io~n. I have to say no. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes? Mr. Wn~~s. I believe I have commented on the more obvious fea- tures before. I do not know that I can add anything, except the com- mittee may be interested to know that the Committee on Bridges and Structures of the American Association of State Highway Officials is currently reviewing their standards for design of signs, and they are considering methods of reducing the windloads, or methods that. will reduce the mass of the sign supports as a means of reducing the hazard to vehicles hitting the post support. Mr. CONSTANDY. Overall, are you satisfied, Mr. Wilkes? Mr. WILxrs. From a structural engineer's viewpoint, I believe it. would be safe to say most of the structures I saw were structurally adequate. PAGENO="0863" 859 Mr. CONSTANDY. They are strong enough to hold up the sign? Mr. Wn4~s. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. But what we are really concerned with is from the standpoint of being hazards where they are placed and in the form in which they are placed. Mr. Wu~ires. I think I would agree with the rest of the members of this panel, that most of these signs could be relocated to provide a more generous lateral clearance, and many of the signs could be eliminated. Mr. CONSTANDY. I take it your answer then, is "No"? Mr. WILi~s. That is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Huff? Mr. Hurl?. I think the advantage of the breakaway sign has proven itself over and over. I know it has in my State. We have saved many, many lives by the installations we have. Whether it be wood or some other method I think is immaterial. We have not used wood, but we would have no objection to using it. I might state here that I have thought for sometime the signposts themselves were overdesigned. I know that is argumentative. I believe there would be some advantage in having them blow over once in awhile rather than to build such a strong structure, even though it might break away. We have begun coming down on the, size of those by two methods. We have gotten approval from the Bureau of Public Roads to reduce the wind stresses some-I believe about 80 percent on the ground-mounted signs. On the ground-mounted signs and others, we are bringing it down some more by using high-strength steel. Of course the higher the strength steel, the less protection you need. I have no other comment. Mr. CONSTANDY. That combined with your breakaway feature? Mr. Hurl?. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. We will hear more on the experience Texas has had with those signs later. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I cannot help but agree with the other members of the panel on the need for improvement.. One item which might bear quite a lot of looking into is a better and safer support for the large over- head bridge type sign. The only solution we have so far is to make the bridge sign longer, to get the support farther away from the traveled way, or to protect the supports with guardrails or some other method. I am not sure that a breakaway type of support could not be made for these, and perhaps even if one leg were knocked down, the whole bridge would still remain in the air. I think this is a challenge for the structural people. The breakaway sign mount, as we have seen here, is so well proven and so well engineered at this point that it certainly should, in my opinion, be made mandatory on all new signs, or accomplish an equiva- lent result. I do Snot really care how it is accomplished, but we certainly have to eliminate the exceedingly strong sign support which in many cases appears to be designed not to be damaged by automobiles. This would also imply that guardrails around the sign supports could then be eliminated. A breakaway sign or a sign mounted on breakaway post is safer than a sign protected by any type of guardrail I know of. PAGENO="0864" 860 Also it is fairly obvious that many signs perhaps can be eliminated, or at least the supports, which are what we are concerned with, can be eliminated by mounting the signs on bridges, combining signs. I noticed one in which we had two signposts adjacent to each other, one carrying one sign and one the other. This is not uncommon, and certainly needs to be looked at. Mr. CONSTANDY. Overall, were you satisfied or not, Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKri~I~s. I am satisfied that there is progress showing up. I particularly like the breakaway sign on the smaller Oklahoma sign we saw. There is progress in view. If this progress can be carried across the country, I am certain it would be still better. I do know Michigan has gone to the breakaway sign, as well as Texas, and obviously many other States are moving in this direction rapidly. What we have done in the past, and we saw examples of, I am not satisfied with. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. I think this is one of the most fruitful areas that we can improve for the motorist, and not only in the structural problems we have been looking at here, but in sign messages as well, although I will not talk about sign messages now. My office in Sacramento reviews message or sign guiding, and in that review we look at them very carefully to try to eliminate signs where possible, but where we find out the most good can be gained is the placement itself, particularly the lateral placement. Due to heavy traffic volume and the fact that we put a lot of signs in the median, we found mounting signs back to back-in other words, putting a sign message in the median area, and having a sign face in both directions-eliminates one fixed object entirely. We think this is good. I might recall on one modest-sized freeway project, after making our headquarters review of the guide signs, we found out we could eliminate about 45 supports that had been proposed by the district. These are individual signposts. We did this by going to a back- to-back mounting, to structure mounting. I would like to have Mr. Wilkes make a comment on what he thinks of mounting signs on structures. All in all we think this a pretty good area to improve safety for the motorist. We have recently changed our wind loading specifications to the point where we are now getting 90 sonare feet of si~n on wor'~ nn~ts. In years past we used wood on all signs having less than 60 square feet of area. That is a pretty good sized sign. We have done extensive testing on structural timber, 4 by 6, 6 by 6, 6 by 8. We feel we can use a 6 by 8 post without causing too much damage to a vehicle striking it. The exit signs that you saw in the gore area here we mount on a single 4-by-6 post. One of the things that bothers traffic enigneers is the number of signs we feel are not needed. You saw some of those here, particularly some of the rules of the road. I think there are enough freeways now constructed around the country that motorists should be aware of some of these regulations without having to be reminded of them every 3or4miles. The other area of needless signs is signs that are demanded by local groups. It is a difficult situation to try to tell someone that he should PAGENO="0865" 861 not have a sign on the freeway, when it is just one more object you see. The proliferation of signs cannot only damage the motorist's ability to read them all, but adds to the safety problems as well. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. RI0KER. Could we have Mr. Wilkes' comment on the problems, if any, involved in mounting signs directly on a roadway bridge? Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it would be very fine. Mr. Wilkes? So that we understand what the question is: The sign bridges which we have seen in the photographs sometimes ap- pear not too far from a grade separation or other structure. The question is whether those sign messages can be mounted directly on the bridge structure and save the additional hazards of the support of the sign bridge and the cost of the sign bridge. How about that, Mr. Wilkes? Mr. WILKiis. Most of the problems of attaching signs to overhead bridge structure are in the minds of the designers who do not want to clutter up their bridges. I expect this is not a real problem, but it has to be a job of salesmanship to convince responsible people in the highway organizations that this is a desirable goal. Then it just remains t*o detail the connections, because the sign itself really is an insignificant part of the total load that would go on to the bridge. It is a matter Of detail more than anything else~ Mr. CONSTANDY. You believe, more frequently, they can be mounted on bridges? Mr. WILKES. Yes; I do. We are encouraging that. Mr. MOEWEN. Mr. Wilkes, does the objection come from the esthet- ics standpoint? Someone is proud of a rather attractive bridge that he has designed, and he does not want it encumbered by a sign? Do you think this is a factor? Mr. WILKES. Yes, Mr. Congressman, it definitely is. Bridge de- signers spend considerable time on trying tO develop an esthetically pleasing structure, and then they resist any efforts to place signs on them. As I say, this is case for a little better salesmanship. Mr. MOEWEN. I have been impressed, as I know other members of the committee have, with seeing the massive concrete abutments on many of our bridge structures on Interstate and other high-speed highways, which follow the same pattern of being three- or four- tiered, and quite nicely designed esthetically. I must confess having passed many of those on our Interstate ex- press highways, traveling 60 to 65 miles an hour, and I don't believe I ever noticed the tiered effect of those concrete abutments until I had the benefit of looking at them in a stationary position here, as shown on the screen to the committee. I just wonder how many of us are able to appreciate this, traveling at high speeds? We so seldom have an opportunity to notice a really fancy abutment. Mr. WILKES. I think I will agree with you. Mr. CONSTANDY. If they stop long enough to notice it, it is apt to be they are dead. Another comment relative to esthetics of bridges, frequently the sign structure is built in advance of the bridge and I do not mean to impose my own taste on others; I am not a bridge engineer- but they look kind of ugly to me, and frequently you cannot see the bridge for the sign bridge structure. 87-757 O-68----55 PAGENO="0866" 862 I think perhaps the bridge would look better, and you could view the thing better if the sign were attached to it. We will go into the subject of gores-this area we have heard so much about, being such a critical point from the standpoint of the motorist. Mr. PiasK. Yes. This is, perhaps, certainly the most frequent place, where the motorist overruns his normal path and gets away. You are always faced with the decision to steer right or left, or to continue straight ahead, and it is at these places where people, particularly those not entirely familiar with the highway locations, or inattentive, because both of these things enter into it-you may be familiar with the location and still get in trouble in the gore. You may be unfamiliar and be in trouble as well. We do have a series of pictures taken on the nine Interstate projects that I would like next to show, which relate specifically to that prob- lem, and what may be done about it. I am going to start with a fairly good location. I would say this is one of the best gores we saw. This is on Ohio Interstate 80-S. You see out here that the curbing that is introduced in the gore is ex- tremely moderate, coming down to as little as an inch at this point, rising up here to perhaps 3 inches, and this distance from here back to here is about 30 feet, which does stand out as a target area for dividing traffic that would leave by this roadway or the through traffic that would go down here. It just so happens this particular section right in here is not yet in use. The Interstate project includes this but is operative only from this structure away from the camera. Mr.. CoNsTA~or. Mr. Ricker. * Mr. RIoKJ~. Could I comment there? There have been suggestions that the exit sign be removed from the gore. I think this picture illus- trates why it should not, particularly on the gore visibility condi- PAGENO="0867" 863 tions, snow on the ground, so on.. You need a guiding point here, and the exit sign mounted on breakaway post provide that guide point that here you must turn off. Mr. (J0NSTANDY. That is a good point~ Thank you. Mr. PRI5K. Moving along to take a little closer look at that gore, this is the area that exists on beyond. You could certainly run through a breakaway exit sign and on into this area without any difficulty of upset Slopes here are moderate The terrain is relatively flat for sev- eral hundred feet. This is a similar gore at the other end of the project where reflector- ized paint has been applied to that same type of paved surface. You I, / / PAGENO="0868" 864 have shoulders on either side. You might say either side of the exit ramp, and in the same general setup. You have a fiat area on beyond here. The difficult part about this is an exit sign on a 4-inch I-beam. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, would not a different colored shoulder area enhance the gore even more? Mr. PRISK. Yes. I think this is one added feature that is desirable; that is, to have a colored and textured separation between the through lanes and the neutral area immediately ahead of the decision point. We will see some pictures of that later on in the slides. Mr. Hun'. I would like to ask what purpose does the curb serve? PAGENO="0869" ~65 Mr. PRISK. The only purpose that I can think of that it serves would be to raise the area up slightly so as to get a little more projection and a little more conspicuity for this particular area here, cut off as it is by the grass, and defined in this fashion. I think you begin to sense this is a decision point. I would not hold for that very much. I think if I had to choose between this and the sort of thing I believe Mr. Constandy was suggesting; namely, that you have a big paved triangular area, asphalt in the middle between these two concrete pavements, that diverging, that I would settle for the asphalt wedge. Mr. WILSON. I would like to point out to the committee this was the sign I was referring to that we support on a single 4 by 6 wooden post, which incidentally I have seen hit. One particularly that I recall was when a small foreign car hit it with very little damage, and sheared it off. Mr. CONSTANDY. So that is another form of breakaway ~i~n? Mr. WILSON. That is right. It is a form we have been using on all our 60-square-foot area signs, at least 60 square feet, or less, for a number of years, and we have now gone to 90 square feet. Mr. PRISK. So this, then, on the Ohio project, is a fairly good gore, especially from the standpoint of the level terrain in between the roadways. If you expect four times as many people to run off here as at other points, it does have good characteristics except for the signposts themselves. Mr. Wnuiu~s. You may be pointing out later, Mr. Prisk, the d~sira- bility of the escape hatch to the left of the gore. There is a partial one here. It should be continued all the way through. It comes down to an abrupt end. Mr. PRISK. That is true. We will see some later. I said 4 inches. I was wrong. That is the sign you are looking at. There is the dimension, and it is a 6-inch I-beam. There are two of them, not just one. What Mr. Wilson said, if I understood him correctly, is that he used a 4 by 6 wood post, one 4 by 6. Here you have two 6-inch I-beams made of steel. PAGENO="0870" 866 Did I understand you correctly? Mr. WirsoN. That is corect. Mr. PIasK. So if your exit signs are standing up, I would ~ay this is too heavy; no question about it. Mr. BICKER. The exit sign I believe has 271/2 square feet of area, so the wood post is perfectly adequate to hold it up. Mr. PRISK. Moving back to our favorite sign, which you saw a mo- ment ago, this gore I think speaks for itself, after what we have said about it previously. There are not too many things in here that are necessary. It could be entirely cleared by an advance sign bridge 200 feet to the right of the picture, and the rest of the gore is fairly flat, negotiable, tra- versable by car. This is a view from the back of the same sign, only to indicate that the gore is not any problem of itself. PAGENO="0871" 867 Here is the opposite approach coming onto the Orange Street con- nection You see the exit sign in the distance You move up on this one and you come on into the gore here. You have conditions in this gore that are tied up with what we were talk- ing about earlier today, about where there are twin bridges. Orange St $ PAGENO="0872" 868 So in the gore this presents really a double hazard. You have these two 6-inch I-beams on the exit sign. Following the practice in this State you also have the additional hazard of the hole between the bridges. This is in Montana, I should say. Another gore with a non-break-away sign support, otherwise quite easily traversable up here for several hundred feet if you do run off. This is the advance to still another one. I think many of these things have to be considered as a system, just as we regard the total traffic accident as a system of interrelationships between the highway, the vehicle and the driver. So, too, you have to consider the gore really as a function of the total design, and the abrupt departure of the deceleration ramp along this line puts more pressure on traffic to run into this gore. More signing does the same thing, so these are all interrelated fac- tors we are talking about. PAGENO="0873" 86~ Kalispell I Ü~M1S5O~A PAGENO="0874" 870 Moving up on the gore you begin to see the signing at that point, and the relatively flat area beyond it.. But very heavy signposts, I-beams, concrete footings which are necessarily heavy. PAGENO="0875" 871 This is looking back on the approach. It gives you a little more idea of the abrupt departure and the alinement that is involved here would just make it more difficult t.o stay on either roadway. Transferring ourselves to Nevada and. the project there, this is the way the gore looks at that point. Here they have supported the exit sign on a single I-beam. This is outlined with a black and white curb to give better visibility both day and night, and this does seem to assist at that place. .. You also have the advantage of these delineation units that run down through here, and I think you need to remember that these gore areas PAGENO="0876" 872 need to be highly visible both at night as well as in the daytime, but the gore itself, with the removal of this obstruction, would not be an unreasonable place to run into. Mr. SKr~r~s. I would like to point out, that guardrail in the back- ground should also be ramped, because it is very apt to get hit. Mr. PIUSK. Right here? [Indicating.] Mr. SKEELS. Yes. Mr. PRI5K. Thank you. Mr. CONSTANDY. You were not advocating the use of the curb, were you, Mr. Prisk? I PAGENO="0877" 873 Mr. PRISK. No; I would not think this is the place where it is abso- lutely necessary. I rather generally object to the use of curbs. This is a closeup of that exit sign giving you a little better idea of the fact that this is mounted on an I-beam support. As I say, in some cases States are using two 6-inch I-beams; in this case a single one. The variability in this practice is quite remarkable. Mr. CONSTANDY. They are all supposed to hold up a sign of the same size? PAGENO="0878" 874 Mr. PRISK. I am sure that the signs are the same size. The sign is a standard one. There are literally thousands of them on the Inter- state System and prescribed by the Interstate Sign Manual as a stand- ard size. Mr. CONSTANDY. So in Ohio and Montana, they use two I-beams; in Nevada, they use one I-beam. Yet Mr. Ricker and Mr. Wilson, in their States, use one wooden post holding up the same size sign ~ Mr. PRISK. That is right. Here is the same thing under adverse weather conditions. This is a long view of an approach to an exit. gore, in Missouri. But by way of using this photograph a little bit more, you do have an entrance gore over on this side, too. This is a merging situation here. *1 . - . . PAGENO="0879" 875 It is quite important this area be clear as far as visibility between the two roads is concerned. A driver coming down thisroadway should be able to see traffic on this through lane as far back as possible in order to adjust his own speed and entry to the through lane. To move on down to that gore, we find the exit sign here with rather heavy concrete footings sticking out of the ground. And here we are-again the place here where the grading of the interchange probably could not be accommodated to make this a real safe place to run into, but it does not look like you have too good a chance of getting in there with those footings in the way as they are. PAGENO="0880" 876 Mr. CONSTANDY. Does that suggest, Mr. Prisk, that perhaps further consideration should have been given to the layout of the interchange so that there would be an area within the gore, to run into, if the car goes out of control? Mr. PRIsK. This is certainly one thing that should be considered. There are some efforts being made to develop impact attenuation bar- riers to use in just such situations as this. The Bureau of Public. Roads has a mockup now of a barrier that will accept a reasonable amount of impact where you have to guard against, collision with some fixed object that cannot possibly be removed, or against a situation of drop- ping into a hole, such as you have here. But I think your point is well taken, it is time to back up and take another look if that situa- tion does exist. Here is a gore coming toward you, on camera, in this area, again indicating relatively flat land that lays there. Oftentimes not too much consideration has been given to filling in places of this sort; but with some consideration of that in advance, it would be possible to provide a reasonable runoff area along in this section between the two roadways. It might be of some interest to the committee to know that Road Research Laboratory in England has come up with a series of tests very recently that have shown that gravel, about three-fourths of an inch round, laid to a depth of 18 inches will stop a car within reasonable deceleration limits and actually will hold the car in there. So that still another possibility is to load this up with a. gravel runoff track that would be used for that purj?OSe. As an aside to that comment, they told me that it is impossible to drive out of 18 inches of gravel when you get into it, so nobody is going to run into it just for the fun of it. If they do, they have to be towed out. PAGENO="0881" 877 This we find in Oklahoma City, a version of what we saw in Ohio, except that the curb is higher here. In this case they use a pipe to support that same exit sign, although this is temporary here and probably a little bit smaller than the standard. You see tracks of vehicles running across this gore indicating that the advance notice of that is not too good, or possibly the identification of it right at that ~point is not as good as it could be. Again, there is no differentiation in pavement color to help the driver identify the exact location of the gore. Here is a gore somewhat in the distance in this shot showing another place where it is relatively flat. 87-757 O-68-56 PAGENO="0882" ~78 This is one that is undesirable from the standpoint of the curb and certainly the rail, not to mention the sign installation; that is tempo~ rary. The fear that I would have in looking at this would be that they would replace this with a 6-inch I-beam. Mr. CONSTANDY. If they followed the practice on the exit sign that they have done with the other sign we saw, they would use a breakaway sign as developed in Texas; is that correct? Mr. PRIs1~ That is right. Here is another view of still another gore in this urban section where it would be possible to run on down in there without too much difficulty. PAGENO="0883" 879 Still another one, the guardrail possibly being some hazard. This is the entrance gore showing there is a degree, at least, of oppor- tunity for someone here to look across the gore at the entrance and see the position and speed of cars in this main line. Do you have a comment, Mr. Bicker? Mr. Rioi~j~. On that previous one (slide), Mr. Prisk, are you going to comment on the desirability or undesirability of that shoulder disappearing? Mr. PRISK. We have a series of slides on shoulders that would in- clude that point, most certainly so. This is an abrupt shoulder. I think I showed a slide this forenoon, one that had a lamp post in this same location. These are not good. [Several slides.] Mr. Sx~Ers. Could we go back? PAGENO="0884" 880 Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. S~i~i~s. This is perhaps an example of the very serious gore problems, one on an elevated structure in which you have to have a railing behind it and you have to get into that railing in some manner. In this case the large block of concrete is pretty short and pretty vet'- tical. I am sure Mr. Prisk wifi have more to say about this. Mr. PRISK. There is another view of it here. This is about the way it looks. This is what I am sure is a hazard marker, and that, in fact, worild be a very considerable hazard. This is a prow-type design here, which does come on down close to the roadway level, but there is not very much streamline to it. And --4 ..~ ~ ~ I PAGENO="0885" 881 because of it being on an elevated structure, it does create an unusual and especially difficult problem. Many times walls in that position obscure the sight from one car to another, which is another serious handicap that concrete introduces. Here is a view of another one at a somewhat greater distance. There is a little bit of advance notice out here in terms of some lane mark- rrs Ave txrr ~`4' I MI Harvey Ave ings and a little island out in front. Otherwise you do not have much notice of that hazard. Here is the portion that is just west of Oklahoma City. It is under construction and is contiguous with the projects we looked at, and here PAGENO="0886" 882 on this gore they have attempted something a little different. You can see this darkened area. If you move in close on it, you will see it is red brick. It is laid trans- versely across here. PAGENO="0887" I recall measuring this at about 80 feet, and at the end of that 80 feet is the usual curb such as we just saw on the urban project, and then, of course, your gore is beyond here. I would only point out that 80 feet at 60 miles an hour would be tra- versed in less than a second and hardly is enough notice-or given at the proper time perhaps is a better way to put it. If you could just transfer this whole thing a little farther in ad- vance, it might do some good. At that point I fail to see this is going to help anybody very much. Perhaps some members of the panel would like to comment about this treatment. Many things have been tried to warn the motorist of the approach to the gore. I think the big advantage, the one advantage it does have, perhaps shown here, is that it provides visual contrast in the pavement, and some indication visually of dividing roadways. PAGENO="0888" 884 Here is an exit sign in Rhode Island and a gore beyond, which again is quite traversable. If you think of riding in there too far, you might concern yourself about that rail and get that down at the end. PAGENO="0889" 885 Here is still another gore where there is a very abrupt takeoff, 25- mile-an-hour curve to enter that, and there is need for additional ma- terial to fill this depression if that gore is preserved. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, is there some rule which governs what the exit speed should be? Mr. PRISK. Desirably, exit speed should be .7 or .8 of the design speed. And design speeds-I do not know that I fully understand the concept of design speed except it is something to govern the geometrics and superelevation, curvature, by. But beyond that its meaning is a little mystic to me. If you figure that our sections through urban areas are designed for 50 miles an hour, as is required by the Interstate standards, .7 would, of course, permit you to have a 35-mile-an-hour exit at this point. This puts this a little bit low, a little bit sharp. Mr. CONSTANDY. On this particular roadway, the speed limit I think is 60, am I correct? This should be up to 40 or 45? Mr. PRISK. Desirably. Mr. CONSTANDY. Of course, we are not suggesting they change the sign to 40 or 45 miles an hour, are we? Mr. PRISK. No. Not at all. Mr. CONSTANDY. The design of the ramp should be one that would accommodate a car going 40 to 45 miles an hour, is that the way it is? Mr. PRISK. That is desirable, yes. One think that has happened here is you have a skew crossing and this roadway is coming up closer to the camera here than it is down here [indicating]; and for that reason, without a considerable amount of right-of-way here, it would be hard to get a 40-mile-an-hour takeoff. Mr. CON5TANDY. So they have to fit this into a smaller area? Mr. PRISK. I expect the right-of-way was a consideration. PAGENO="0890" 886 Mr. (JONSTANDY. Mr. Huff. Mr. Hun~. Of course, the design speed can be lowered by providing a long deceleration lane up the road. It appears they did not in this case; they used the shoulder as best I can tell. Mr. PRISK. They did use the shoulder. Mr. CONSTANDY. We are actually one lane too short here then, are we not? Mr. Hun~'. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. The roadway is three lanes and there should be a 10-foot shoulder to the right of it? Mr. HuFF. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. We can either say there is not a shoulder here or there is no deceleration lane? Mr. PRISK. You can take your pick. It is one or the other. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker. Mr. RIOKER. There is another approach to this, or perhaps several. One is to redesign the sign so that it does not have so much message and, therefore, can be carried on a breakaway post and do away with the guardrail. Another would be to put a sign on a cantilever mounted on the right side of the road. Mr. CONSTANDY. More in advance of the exit? Mr. PRISK. We cannot see all the geometry of the interchange, so we cannot suggest a specific answer to this one. Mr. CONSTANDY. I see. Mr. RIcKr~rt. But there are ways of getting a big sign out of the gore. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes. Mr. WILicJ~s. I would expect that that exit sign would obscure most of the message on the message sign because of its position. Mr. CONSTANDY. It would seem to. Mr. PEISK. From the decelerating lane. There is one advantage to bridges such as the one where this picture was taken; you can read the exit signs down below. Mr. MOEWEN. Mr. Prisk, in your answer to Mr. Constandy, the last part I did not understand. Why is that exit ramp such a sharp curve? It appears in this picture it is out in the country, is it not, and not in a heavily built-up area? Mr. P1115K. This is just a short way south of Providence. I suggested the degree of the sharpness of this curvature might very well have been restricted by reason of the right-of-way limitations that existed in here. [Indicating.] Mr. MOEWEN. The intersecting highways come in quite close prox- imity? Mr. PRI5K. Yes. This is coming over closer to us, coming up on this roadway. You get into a tight angle situation unless you have a very wide right-of-way on both roadways. Mr. MCEwEN. Would not it have been better in this case if the. exit ramp had been located farther from the overhead structure? In other words at a point where t.he two highways were a greater distance apart? Mr. PRISK. That would permit a flatter curve, yes. Sometimes that is possible; sometimes it is costly. PAGENO="0891" 887 This is another gore situation which we saw where there is a curb here outlining the gore, and for the life of me I cannot see reasons for curbs in this kind of a situation The footings are high. These are concrete footings, these blocks you see, topped by aluminum poles, which will snap all right if you can get up to them. But possibly when the final grading is done here, as some- one suggested this morning, this will be brought up to grade, so that you will not have anything except aluminum poles to contend with. I think I still wo~ild feel a little more comfortable with a true break- away slip joint in there. This is another view of a similar situation. We do have a guardrail difficultly in here. This job is still in the cleanup stage. But you can PAGENO="0892" 888 see that it is not totally outside the range of possibility of runnin through here, taking the sign out and r~ining through here an coming to rest down below without getting into any great difficulties We have some trees down there. There is always something you can hit, of course, if you go far enough. Mr. CONSTANDY. Before that project is completed, it is probable that there will be more fill put in that gore; is that correct? Mr. PRISK. Right there at the beginning; yes. That previous shot (slide) this one here, of course, that will be filled to curb height, we expect, in front of the sign. In back of the sign, shown by this next picture, I have no way of knowing if anything is going to be done there. Mr. CoNSTA~DY. What I am wondering about, when that fill is add- ed, in this particular one at least, it would seem that the concrete foot- ings of the sign would then not project above the grade quite so much.. Mr. PitisK. I think that is true. -- r * . ~.. :j~ ~rwkk PAGENO="0893" 889 And here we have the gore that you saw as we were looking at signs in particular. This, again, could be relieved entirely by the plan that is now in mind, which is to replace these two structures, both of them having center supports in the gore, with the single structure moved back toward the camera a couple hundred feet. This is a pr&ity formidable thing to run into. PAGENO="0894" 890 That shows the long wedge of white concrete coming on up to that gore and does provide very good visual delineation between two road- ways. That is an excellent feature, One that needs to be commended as much as the signs can be condemned. p. V r rnt.. I ~ A ~-*-` *~~I There is another use of concrete wedge between two asphalt pave- ments. This is a rather rough gore, if you move on into it, because this is rock in here and, of course, rock in the vicinity in general. 4~f/ I ~ PAGENO="0895" 891 The question rises again as to just how much of this you can remove. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you just hold up one minute? I just call your attention to the right-hand side of the road. We will be doing slopes a little bit later and we have another view of that rock cut. However, I do not think the one used shows the two different con- ditions. I think that rock was taken out in two different methods, the first part leaving a jagged portion that you see at the beginning, and then a different method was used, to result in that smooth sheer surface beyond it. The photograph we will use shows a good view of the smooth surface; it may not show the jagged part. Why I mentioned it is because there was some comment made at the time this was done by those people who prefer the esthetics of rough rock projecting next to the road in preference to the smooth rock to the road. The point I am making will be more apparent. I just want to direct your attention to the differences there. Mr. PRISK. Moving up closer on this gore, there is a concrete footing in there to contend with along with the curb, which although it is not vertical, still is enough to bounce a car out of control if someone is not prepared to ride into it. PAGENO="0896" 892 This gore has had its share of skid marks, and again in this location you have guardrails starting here and guardrails starting here [indi- cating], which are hazards of themselves ~nd desirably should be down to ground level and anchored. This is a section of gore. This is just off the project, but again a place where a guardrail has been applied similar to the last picture, und it has been struck as you can see. That is not too good delineation there, nor too good protection of the area. PAGENO="0897" 893 Some of these are pictures now on the north side of Providence, also on 1-95, showing some of the things you can get into in urban côndi- tions where you have walls to contend with and vertical curbs are the rule of the day. This is overworked obviously. Still on our Interstate System. Now we come back to conditions in Georgia, and the thing I wanted to illustrate here is the very good alinement, vertical and grading in between these two roadways. Excellent opportunity. The car at this elevated position has to see traffic on the main line in order to make its merge down at this point. [Indicating.] 87--757 O-68---57 PAGENO="0898" 894 Also it is worthy calling attention to that very excellent acceleration lane. It gives you plenty of opportunity. Mr. CONSTANDY. Could you comment about the deceleration. lane, Mr. Prisk? I notice that they are different. You come on the highway with a long thpering section. Mr. PIUSK. Yes. This is a marked contrast over here, because you have the abrupt widening here to a parallel deceleration lane. [Indicating.] There are two schools of thought about deceleration lanes, as to whether or not they should be tapered like this entrance lane is tapered or whether or not they might start abruptly. This one does. This is the choice in Georgia, and some other States use tapers. This is the view over on that other side, again showing the start of the parallel decel lane, coming on up in here [indicating] and what it is you have to contend with here in the gore. In this case I suspect thut the man who planned for this drainage ditch down through here did not think too much about people running in there. Agam, in total, the opportunity for coming through this kind of terrain is pretty good, coming through there without serious accident. 14 PAGENO="0899" 895 Two views, same place, head on. 1r~ PAGENO="0900" 896 And here, then, at the end of the project, we have this kind of situa- tion where they are getting ready to put up a three-masted sign to replace this Interstate 285 marking, which designates a beltway around the city. A g~iardrail has been put around the gore area, which consti- tutes a substantial obstruction. There will be a large sign put up here without the breakaway design. It too will be a very substantial traffic hazard. The gore here is one that contends with the bank and is about like Congressman McEwen indicated a little bit ago. We are in a place where the right-of-way is either tight or another condition exists. You do have a slope here in this gore which in itself could prove to be a hazard. Unless these slopes are held to 4 to i, desirably 6 to 1, it is pretty hard to negotiate. I -- ~ . PAGENO="0901" 897 This is the condition headed for the Atlanta Airport, where you have a heavy concrete base here, very short section of guardrail, with two ends to hit Otherwise, as you can see, it is fairly free and level terrain between the two roadways With the removal of that sign, the upright posts, the guardrail, the erection of the bridge a couple hundred feet in advance, this gore problem would be entirely solved This is new work. I showed a similar picture to you before. I won- dered, as I looked at this location, why this guardrail was put in here at all. I do not think I understand yet. It was being put in. Sylvan Rd Central Ave~ H a pe~~ I . i PAGENO="0902" 898 Mr. Rici~n~. I believe the picture you showed this morning showed there was a drainage structure in there. Mr. PRISK. Perhaps that is what is there. In any event, it outlines the gore and would prevent you getting in there too far. This gore in Salt Lake City is the kind of situation that also is met in some urban areas where walls exist. This is the prow design. I think someone mentioned this a day or so ago. This is shaped like the hull of a ship almost, upside down, and laid up here, and gradually in- creasing slope-little block of concrete that will stop you if you do not stop on that slope. Some of these work reasonably well. Under high speed they are not too effective. The thing I would point out here, too, is the relationship to this system's concept that I mentioned earlier. You have South 15, East 80; North 15, and West 80. I do not know how that strikes most non-Utah residents, but it is a little difficult sometimes for drivers to distinguish between South 15 and North 15 when they are separated like this. I have been puzzling over an alternate possibility. I think there probably are other solutions to that problem, but that is a signing problem. This is in here prmcipally to show you the gore problem and, as I say, when you are in an elevated section or up on a high embankment, these rails and walls cause serious difficulties in the gore. Mr. SCHADEBERO (presiding). What would you say the structure costs to put the signs on? Mr. PRISK. Overhead sign structure? Mr. SCHADEBERG. Yes. Mr. PIuSK. I would say $11,000 to $12,000, somethrng like that. Perhaps one of these gentlemen could make a better estimate, Jack? Mr. Wu~s. I would guess $10,000. PAGENO="0903" 899 Mr. SCHADEBERG. Without the signs installed? Mr. Wn~xi~s. Without the signs. Mr. SOHADEBERG. Thank you. Mr. PRISK. This is a gore, also in Salt Lake City; outlined with a very short section of guardrail, up to this point [indicating]. You can see the cars can traverse this. There are marks all over the place. And they not only can, they do. They run off here and run down through here [indicating] no reason. There is nothing down there. So obviously these are just drivers who were approaching the camera position, missed the road on one side or another, and then corrected their action by crossing the gore in order to get back to the road where they wanted to run. Mr. CONSTANDY. A policeman we spoke to knew this area and pointed this out as one of the most hazardous locations that they have, because of the existence of that guardrail. I believe he said that last year they had 24 accidents there. You can see a car right here [indicating] that had been coining south on 15, now moving into 80 to go east. And we found this, we stayed there for awhile and took a series of photographs, and I think in half an hour we had a dozen or two photographs of automobiles whose drivers found themselves in this same situation, either being on this side wanting to go there or being on this side wanting to go down here [indicating], very narrowly missing the prow of that guardrail. Mr. Bicker? Mr. RIcIcJ~R. At the risk of being repetitious, that structure seems to be past the point of the gore rather than in advance of it. Mr. CONSTANDY. It probably would he helpful if it were farther down the road away from it. Mr. RIcKm~. Particularly the sign on the left, as the motorist sees it, is out of position. PAGENO="0904" Mr. CONSTANDY. There is a great deal of confusion at this point. It is noticeable. Mr. Prisk noticed it before the police brought it to our attention. But after talking to the policeman, we went back and spent a little time there, and it was amazmg how frequently the cars almost hit the guardrail, or else they get pushed off on the shoulder. Mr. PRISK. The point Mr. Rioker makes is very valid and would save money, because as you move this structure back to the location back up in here [indicating], the number of lanes and the distance to be span- ned is less. Mr. CONSTANDY. So the bridge would be shorter? Mr. PRISK. We would have a shorter span, yes. And with this guard- rail out of here [indicating], it would be possible to run down in here without any difficulty at all. This is a gore that also serves as a battleground. You can see here a number of very undesirable features-discontinuous rail here, very short sections, then another piece that starts up within just a few feet. There is a great deal of crossing and recrossing in front of this gore. This again is 1-15 here. The gore we were just looking at is over the hill. This turn takes you onto 80 going into Salt Lake City, so this is a juncture of two interstate routes. Mr. CONSTANDY. I would like to ask you to keep this in mind, too; because as we approached this, it became apparent that many of the cars, a goodly percentage of them were going up this shoulder area believing it to be a lane. Of course, it is not; it is a shoulder. So we went up to the bridge, up where the arrow points and looked back this way [indicating], and took a series of pictures there. And again, not surprising, there were a number of cars that narrowly missed the guardrail, gore, but then continued on their way. And they have the duplication of the same problem at the narrow bridge right here at the crest of a hill. The shoulder is reduced for the bridge and it is not carried across the bridge full width, so you have another problem of the vehicles almost striking the bridge parapet. F:, PAGENO="0905" 901 This was pointed out; it is probably the most dangerous situation we saw. . . . Yes, Mr. Ricker. Mr. RICKER. Perhaps this is the time to comment that it has been found useful to stripe that gore area; in other words, where the shoulder is beginning, to put diagonal paint marks about 2 feet wide across that entire area in which you see traffic out there It does work It keeps people out of there. . . Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes. . This is a closeup of the actual gore itself. Here is still another one, another gore with a dual bridge just beyond. So again we contend with not only the hardware that is in the gore, but the possibility of dropping into a space between the two bridges. PAGENO="0906" 902 This is another one on the same Utah project and in this case that asphalt wedge is doing a very good job of keeping people away. In the immediate foreground, however, you do have to contend with the curb, which is raised about 6 inches at that point, almost vertical; and if that is struck, you can be in trouble. Here is a gore. As you get a little ways away from the city conditions where there is relatively easy terrain to follow, a little grading and treatment in that gore installation, breakaway sign for the exit mark- ing, and removal of the guardrail would probably make it quite safe. Again I call attention to the desirable contrast in pavements. I 1.. PAGENO="0907" 903 Here is a closeup of that same spot. One thing that was character- istic of. their design there in Utah was this little platform out front, this little hemisphere of concrete. I am not quite sure what function that performs. This is looking back at the same gore. PAGENO="0908" 904 Here is one where the entire platform was raised up, again on a curb2 a hazard marker up there, diamond marker, simply to reflectorize at night. Still another traverseable gore. PAGENO="0909" 905 And here is another entrance gore showing how flat this angle really is where the roadways are brought on. This is on a section of 1-15. PAGENO="0910" 906 Here is a departure and this happens to be in Switzerland. This is a picture I took earlier this year showing the attention they give to the type of marking Mr. Ricker just mentioned, in advance of the gores in Switzerland. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think that concludes the material on gores, does it net Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRI5K. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Perhaps, Mr. Wilson, you would make some corn- merits relative to what you have seen? Mr. WILSON. Yes. In connection with gores, I noticed that there are quite a few of the areas that have the basic fundamentals built into the grading to make a safe gore. I think that relative to this series of slides that we looked at, probably in more than half of them, with a very modest modification in hardware, you could make a safe gore out of it. Others, of course, would need a considerable amount of grad- ing work to be done behind the gore area to make them safe. It is my opinion that the only thing in that gore area should be the sign, exit sign, mounted on some type of breakaway structure or post. The lighting standard that you saw in many of these areas could be logically moved back of or ahead of the gore area and put on the right-hand side and raised to a slightly greater height to give you the illumination you need in that area. It is my opinion that the curb that you see here is not needed probably in 95 percent of the cases. The drainage that has to be taken care of here could be handled properly perhaps in another type of way. One thing that I might mention in connection with the gore treat- ment-it has not been brought up yet-is the use of reflective markers that are now on the market to delineate the V in the gore. PAGENO="0911" 907 We think that quite a lot of the trouble develops at night, and particularly in unhghted areas. The use of reflective markers to out- line the two white lines you saw in most of these picture is certainly helpful. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. SCHADEBERG. On the drainage, was there any study that indi- cated whether in the accidents that happened in the gore area, it was because they did not see the division in the road? I mean, whether they hit it straight away or were they at the point and then wanted to cross over? Mr. WILSON. Most of them, in my opinion, are due to indecision when they reach the point. However, the more advance notice you can give that there is a split in the path for the vehicle I think is better. These markers show up in your headlights. As far as the experimentation is concerned, we found in our studies that a signpost mounted in the gore area is four times as susceptible to being struck by a vehicle than one mounted `on the right-hand shoulder. For this reason, we think the gore area should be just as clean as possible. Mr. SCHADEBERO. Give them something to aim at? Mr. WILSON. Well, he has to have the exit sign. I think this is an essential part. But it should be something that could be struck and not cause a lot of damage. Mr. SCHADEBERG. I just asked one of the gentlemen here whether there was any-this probably sounds fantastic, but were there any studies made in different kinds of signs, like hard rubber that would bend but not break? Something that would not damage the car? Mr. WILSON. Well, of course, these signs that are used are rather lightweight. Most are aluminum and some are even a kind of paper composite with a very light gage aluminum face on them. Mr. SCHADEBERG. Yes. They would not harm the car much. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. I agree with Mr. Wilson in all he says. In the early part of Mr. Prisk's presentation, we certainly saw some gores that were very good. Some of these had been spoiled by puttin signs and other hardware in there, but the grading was very goo and with very little additional attention, they would have been' satis- factory. Gore signs certainly need to be eliminated to the maximum extent possible, and those remaining should be mounted on an approved type of breakaway mount. Now I am quite sure who is going to provide the approval, but we should have some specification for the type of signs that will be allowed in gores. A proper breakaway mount for a small sign, such as the exit sign, mounted on a proper breakaway mount, will not damage the car or its occupants. The painting of the V area immediately in front of the gore cer- tainly is a. plus factor and I would think should be encouraged. The curbing we find `around many gores certainly should be held to a very minimum height. I do not think I object to having a very low roll curbing there where the gore is a splitting device to PAGENO="0912" 908 split traffic. It is not going to split quite all of it, and it should be an unfavorable area to drive on, but still not be a lethal area to drive on. If you have a low roll curb there and maybe some gravel in there or rumble strips, this produces this effect. One gore type which has not been solved is the one on the elevated structure, and perhaps this would get back into a real look at the design of the structure to provide room enough to get a proper gore in when you do have to have an elevated structure with the gore. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Huff? Mr. Hurr. I have been very interested in listening to the details of this subject. I would defer to Mr. Ricker on the subject of signs; if he thinks they should be in `there, I `am sure that he must be right, but I would urge him to get all of them out of there that he can. Perhaps only in isolated instances would he need a sign in a gore. As a matter of fact, I thoroughly agree with Mr. Wilson, the gore area should be `as clean as possible. I `do not believe we can emphasize too strongly the matter of curbs on the approach to the gore. because the curb, anything more than 1~4 and 2 inches in slope-i2 inches in my opinion is hazardous. It is also my opinion slopes of that kind will provide ample drainage. Now, the gores on the elevated stretches do present `a problem. I have not personally run into that problem. From what I have heard here, I certainly can `agree it would be `a problem. One or two details that have not been mentioned: The angle of de- parture of an exit was touched upon. I do not know whether th'at is part of this subject or not, but I would like to talk about it just a moment. An `automobile going on a freeway is going, say, 80 miles an hour. That is almost 120 feet a second, which is pretty fast. We are transitioning him in the gore area down to a city street or local road system, which may not be over 30 miles an hour. So he has to make `a quick transition, we will say, from an operating speed of 80 miles an hour down to 30 miles an hour. That is a point of extreme turbulence. You can liken it to a water pipe; where you are turning water out of a pipe, you have extreme `turbulence at that point. Now, in order to accomplish this transition, you need as flat an a.ngle of departure from the freeway as you can get. I subscribe to the practices in Los Angeles, which I believe is about a 5-to-i angle of departure, which is-oh, roughly speaking, `that is about 2°, I suppose, something like that. Is that correct, Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. No, it is 40 and 46 minutes, Mr. Huff. Mr. Hurr. I was just half off. Anyhow it is a very flat angle. It is extremely necessary in order to transition him from the high speed to the low speed. And it is my opinion that our standards for this transition link probably are not enough-this is some operation-on the freeways. Now, there is another thing that was not mentioned except he showed a picture of one, I do not believe he called attention to `the dangers and hazards of left-hand exits. It is a place where traffic is unaccustomed to leaving the freeway. They are used to leaving it on the right. And in my opinion a left-hand exit should never be built. PAGENO="0913" 909 Now, some of my colleagues may argue with that-I know some who are not here will-but in my opinion, they should not be built. Now, another thing that was not mentioned; for night operations, it is my opinion that two or three light standards, luminaires around these so-called conflict points of both exit and entrance ramps does help night operations, particularly for people who may not be ác- customed to the particular installation. Mr. CONSTANDY. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Huff. Two of the points you mentioned, the left-hand exit and the tapering of the ramps, will be part of the material to be presented some time later relative to the design features. There is a relationship. Mr. Wilkes? Mr. WILKES. From what we have seen today, certainly more care- ful attention needs to be given to the location of the overhead sign bridges. I would agree with the rest of the panel that we should clean up the gore area and have as maximum the simple exit sign. The problem of the gore obstruction will be greatly reduced when we start building our structures with full width shoulders, because that removes this prow a considerable distance from the main lane of traffic. I think that will produce a considerable improvement. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Wilkes. Mr. Ricker? Mr. RICKER. I agree with what the other fellows have said. I would point out that gores are a necessary item on the highway. Every place we have an exit ramp, there is a gore. From looking at these pictures and others, it would seem to me that this is an area where we could go back on existing freeways and make corrections relatively cheaper and gain a lot of savings. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. Thank you. Mr. SCHADEBERG. Would you gentlemen suggest that safety could be enhanced if you had a longer approach to the point of decision? What did you call that pavement, rumble pavement, Mr. Huff? Mr. HUFF. Beg your pardon? Mr. SCHADEBERG. Did you call this rumble pavement? Is that the pavement that makes a noise? Mr. Hun~'. Someone else may have mentioned it, but rumble pave- ment I believe is a common name given to it. Mr. SCHADEBERG. This has nothing to do with the gore area, but maybe one of you might suggest, are there any indications of how many accidents involving cars that go off on the shoulder are the result of the driver going to sleep, or just losing control? Mr. Hurir. We do not have any statistics on that, sir. Mr. SCHADEBERG. The reason I asked is I wonder if it would be of any value safetywise to put some rumble pavement in the shoulder occasionally so it would at least warn the driver? Mr. Hun~'. We have used that on our bridges in our large metro- politan areas where we have large traffic volumes, on bridges particularly. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. * I would like to continue with this, taking up as another element of the design which contributes to the roadside hazard problem, curbs and shoulders, if you are prepared to give that, Mr. Prisk. 875-~6&-~--~-58 PAGENO="0914" 910 Mr. PRISK. I think curbs and shoulders rather naturally associate themselves with urban and rural conditions. Either you have a shoul- der provided outside the mam travel lanes for disabled vehicles, or in some cases, as you approach the city street conditions, and particularly on ramps from expressways, you find curbs that are used to delinate ramps, delineate gores, control drainage, and so on. The matter of the unimpaired width on that involved lateral clear- ances, and how these are arranged in different design situations was of great interest as we looked at these nine projects. We have a series of slides that relate to this area of interest, and if you will go ahead with those, we will begin to look at them. Just to introduce you to very general considerations, this is known as a barrier curb, the top curb. Dimensions are not awfully importnnt. This is only one typical type of barrier curb with a rise 6 to 8 inches, possibly to be laid back as much as 1 inch on that rise. This is what we mean when we call it a barrier curb; we intend essentially from the traffic side-traffic being out here [indicating] to restrain traffic from going over the top of the curb. It does not mean traffic will not go over the top, but it is intended to restrain it. These two types at the bottom are mountable curbs. One is an ex- tremely flat sloping curb on this section that you see. The other one is about a 450 angle curb. Both of these are very readily mountable. Many drivers will go off this type curb [indicating], however-that is, delib- erately drive over this curb-that would not drive over this curb [indi- cating], and many will be restrained just by the sight of this curb [indicating] and would not even attempt to drive over it. But this, in general, is what we mean by barrier and mountable curbs, the two general categories that exist. There are many variations of design of curbs, as you will see. CURBS HH~ `IT roi $~ j I 7/s._j F 51 h-~- ~ -i ~. T ~. J I 41V PAGENO="0915" 911 Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, how high would a curb of that top type have to be before it actually became an effective barrier? Mr. PRISK. Well, in terms of effective barrier, if you think back to what we have seen on the structures, where this runs up in the median dividers, it runs up to 31 inches before you begin to get real control of the vehicle for certain. I think very commonly among designers-perhaps others on the panel would have a view on this-lO or 12 inches is regarded as a fairly effective height. You get to the point, Mr. Constandy, if you go too high with the curb and you are attempting to accommodate a ve- hicle next to it, a man cannot open his door when he pulls up along- side the curb. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. What caused me to ask, I have a recollection of having read something about a 12-inch curb height as being non- mountable. A vehicle could mount a 12-inch curb, could it not, depending on the angle and speed? Mr. PRISK. It is entirely possible, yes. Probably not under city op- erating conditions, but in other conditions, yes. Let's go ahead and look at some of the curb applications that we found. Here in Salt Lake City, I am very pleased to see the curb was put in this case behind the guardrail. This is serving the drainage function. This, of course, is an erodable soil out here. And this drainage was a necessary part of the design of the embankment situation. PAGENO="0916" 912 A longer look at this. You can get an idea of that construction. The traveiway out here was supplemented by a paved shoulder, and then the rounding of the embankment carried over here also was paved when this shoulder was built. At that point drainage was entirely accommodated off the traveled way. The curb in no sense was a traffic hazard in this instance. Here the curb is in front of the rail. This also is in the Salt Lake City project. I am disappointed this is not out here [indicating]. In this case I do not know. This is on an approach to a structure. There may be some reason for it. r r r r V r F r V - PAGENO="0917" 913 Here again is the use of a curb in a gore where it serves as a place to put this marker board. I am not sure what else it does, but it at least serves for that. PAGENO="0918" 914 Here is a curb down here used to outline this area, the same sort of thing. The marker board is here, indicating you may go either way. This is another curb use, in this case cutting off the shoulder that existed back here near where the camera was, taking it out to within a foot or so of the true traffic lane. This curb does outline the entrance gore and provides a measure of shielding for the traffic that enters here, protection for that traffic. I rr* - T PAGENO="0919" 915 Here we find the curb outside the guardrail, in there, of course for a drainage function. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is in Oklahoma, Mr. Prisk? Mr~ PRISK. This is in Oklahoma, excuse me-4-80. And desirably this curb would be better if it were like the Utah situation-behind the rail, or at least back in line with the face of the rail. This entire area could be flat. Mr. CONSTANDY. I cannot help thinking, looking at this, that we are really beginning now to figure how we could improve something that is there. But actually the real improvement would have been to pave between bridges and avoid the whole problem. Mr. PRISK. It would have been, yes. The dual bridges are up here [indicating]. Here again is a dual bridge situation and the curb here about 4 or 5 inches wide, and entirely satisfactory as far as collision con- ditions are concerned. It lines up reasonably well with the approach PAGENO="0920" 916 rail at this point. However, back here, the rail fades back behind the curb and the rail would not perform as well back in this area as it does up here [indicating]. Of course, here, we previously discussed the weak points of this anchorage. Here is the curb so far in front of the rail that it would be a serious handicap to any effective service out of that rail. I Now we are on the new work in Oklahoma. You will find the median barrier coming up here in the same fashion that you found on the job that has just been opened a few months ago. This work is not k PAGENO="0921" 917 opened at all-the curb also coming out on the approach to a structure parallel with the alinement. This area here, raised above the roadway, serves no real purpose. There are no pedestrains permitted in that area. I cannot think of any other reason to have it there. Here you find the curb on the structure, satisfactory design, pro- jecting again somewhat in front of the rail. Here is the situation in Missouri, now, where we find the very definite tendency to continue that bridge curb in the same line as it was on the bridge, even though the rail was pulled back here. [Indicating.] PAGENO="0922" 918 You must remember, of course, that these things are built at differ- ent times. Undoubtedly the structure was built many months ahead of the guardrail installation. But if these were planned together, they could be made to conform. This is the asphalt curb used extensively on the Nevada project to outline the roadway through much of its length. It is not put here to guard this signpost in any respect. It does provide a measure of delineation, of course, as far as the edge of the roadway is concerned. This is one of the functions of the curb. But it does have some disadvantages from the standpoint of the operation of the vehicle. I - I I ~. I I Mr. Hu~. Mr. Prisk. Mr. PRI5K. Yes. Mr. ~ Do you think it well to give the reason for t.he curb? Do you know why the curb is there? Mr. PRISK. This curb I suspect is there because of highly erodable soil. Mr. Htii'~'. That is correct. In the areas in the West where you cannot grow any grasses or anything, with the rains that you have, you need some protection for erosion on the slopes. Mr. PRISK. Yes. I am sure that is the case here. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is there any way of achieving that, Mr. Huff, other than the use of t.his type of curb? Mr. Hui~'. Our people who are involved in this have not come up with any other reason. We have challenged them pretty hard on it. Our answer, of course, will be to put it back of the guardrail. `Mr. CONSTANDY. They use very little guardrail in Nevada. I noticed they have to curb frequently at fairly high points on the grade. There is apt to be less accumulation of water. I wondered if it is possible that you could compromise it in some other way than having a curb, de- pending on the amount of water which is collected on the road? PAGENO="0923" 919 Mr. Hurr. Incidentally, as a matter of information, in arid areas, I believe there is more tendency to go to steeper slopes to prevent their erosion problem. That is by both wind and rain, both. Mr. CONSTANDY. They have quite steep slopes. Of course, they have the Rocky Mountains there. Mr. Ricker? Mr. RIcKr~n. This type of asphalt curb is very useful during the period when you are getting grass started. It can be removed after the grass gets growing. There is a problem in placing it, because if you put it in before the guardrail is erected, you break up the shoulder pavement. If you wait and put it in after the guardrail, it sticks out in front of it. You cannot get the machines in to put up the post. It does look objectionable in those cases, but we rationalize it will only be there a few years until the grass gets started, then they will be removed. Mr. CONSTANJYY. That was a pretty good treatment in Utah, where they had placed it behind the guardrail. Mr. Rici~at. Yes; but I am not sure you can use this type of asphalt extruded curb in that position. There is difficulty placing it. It should go on top of the shoulder and in front of the guardrail in order to seal off the water. Mr. PRI5K. Continuing with our examination of curbs, this is a curb installation on the Montana project. You will see this is a mount- able type curb about 5 or 6 inches high, again used to define the gore area. It terminates here, just short of this problem area between the two structures, adjoining structures~ PAGENO="0924" 920 Here in Georgia you find sections where asphalt has been laid at a 450 slope, again for drainage considerations. `It~his is an outlet ditch at this point. This does not present any terribly difficult problem, and certainly it is desirable to have a curb follow some reasonable line parallel with the movement of traffic. Otherwise I think it could be quite disturbing to have any edge like that varied back and forth laterally. * I This curb projecting in front of the rail would otherwise serve its purpose. Dobbins ATa 3 Lockh*o~I 4 PAGENO="0925" 921 And here we have a situation I think worthy of calling your attention to: a brand new job here, this is south of Atlanta off the subject project, but the one that we saw en route to the airport. A curb in front of a median barrier, double sided barrier, can hardly help that barrier to perform as effectively as it would if you paved over the barrier flush oa both sides. So I think this is a case where money was spent for / curb and gutter-as I recall, the price of this was $3.20 a lineal foot for curbing and gutter along here-and I do not think we bought any safety with that. Mr. Oo1~sTANDY. That is on each side $3? Mr. PRISK. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. For $6 a foot, you should be able to pave that same footage flush? Mr. PRISK. Oh, yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. You would have some money left over, not having to maintain that so much too, I guess; is that true? Mr. PRISK. I should think you would have enough left over to put the bolts `through the posts here. Yes. I think this a case where some money was spent unnecessarily. PAGENO="0926" 922 Here it is shown as it starts. It has a little taper here, reaches its height very quickly, and is continued down here to a point where it reaches the edge of this shoulder. Here is the Ohio situation, another use of the curb, again one to out- line or delineate the course of the pavement, in this case the entrance ramp, which is here in the foreground, going on down to the main 1ine~ You start a curb at this point. This is a vertical barrier type curb, you can see from the closer picture. PAGENO="0927" 923 And this is a similar or additional type of curb situation. This is in Indiana where cars are unable, as they approach the entrance ramp, to have use of the full shoulder. You see the shoulder continuing up This curb is not thought to be much more really than a visual guide to traffic using that entrance ramp. Ipersonally am not impressed with having curb at that location. This is the use of curb in a similar fashion on another entrance ramp, on the same project, on a section not yet open. This is the end near where it joins the through lane. PAGENO="0928" 924 there in the distance, but the shoulder is cut off at this point [indicat- ing] from about where the camera shot is taken. This is older type. Yes? Mr. WILx~s. That was my point. Mr. PRISK. This is a closeup picture on the Indiana project. This, as I say, is the older work. There is only about a foot-and-a-half or 2-~ foot clearance at this point. [Indicating.] This is the entrance ramp,~ and this is the throughway. i _ a PAGENO="0929" 925 Here is the work as it stands today on the new job, which is cer- tainly better from the standpoint of clearance; because instead of hav- ing 2 feet from here to the curb, you have the full shoulder width. Drainage is dropped here and taken over into this low spot. The curb has the same disadvantage here, I would say, as I remarked on Ohio. Another thing that is noticeable here and I think significant is the fact there is a curb on the outer edge of the entrance ramp. This is not regarded as a good feature, because it tends to confine the entrance movement to the point where `the drivers are prone to stop in this area unless there is immediate opportunity to enter the traffic in the through lanes. 87-757 O-68--59 PAGENO="0930" 926 Here we are in Rhode Island with granite or precast concrete curb coming across these bridges, pretty much as though you had a side- walk situation. There are no pedestrians permitted in this area. In fact, there are signs right in this vicinity ~rohthiting pedestrians from com- ing into the interstate section at all. So the curb at this point is quite an unnecessary imposition on the free flow of traffic. Here the curb extends, as you see it from the bridge structure, parallel. We have a little difficulty about seeing the need here, again. It might as well be stopped and graded from this point in here. {Indicatmg.] 4" 5. - : L S 4 1. .. PAGENO="0931" 927 This is a similar situation on an undercrossing, with the curb well in front of the guardrail structure by 2 or 3 feet. I. $ F This is an asphalt curb, again used so as to provide a walkway immediately in front of the guardrail, and perhaps as much as 2 or 21/2 feet wide PAGENO="0932" 928 With that curb not there, of course, you might lack the drainage con- troithat would be necessary. From an operational viewpoint., it would seem you could go ahead and do without the curb on this kind of grade. It is almost flat. Here is an interesting shot, a little curb left over here, laid in front of the railing. I think there is one thing rather noticeable in all of the projects that we visited that were in the urban areas; it was that there was somewhat greater use of curbs than would seem desirable. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think, Mr. Prisk, that completes the presenta- tion on shoulders and curbs. We will adjourn for the day. Before we do, Mr. Chairman, I would like for the members of the panel to give their evaluations of what they have seen on the curbs on the projects. Mr. Wiison? Mr. WusoN. I think Mr. Prisk covered these points pretty well and I would certainly agree with him, there is a lot of money being spent for curb that could well go into some other type of facility. I would like to comment that too often curb is used for delineation, and I want to make reference to the previous slides which indicate that guardrails are apparently used too often for delineation as well. Quite often the use of these dikes, or curbs, confine a driver in an emergency to the shoulder itself, when in fact just behind this shoulder area is a very flat area where he could pull off and change a tire or take care of what emergency he may have. But if anybody has ever changed a tire in a. 10-foot shoulder next to a 60-mile-an-hour traffic, that is a pretty terrifying experience, particularly if you are changing the one on the traffic side. So anything you can do to make that area behind the shoulder available for such emergencies would certainly be well worthwhile. I * * * * ** PAGENO="0933" 929 There. is one point I would like to make. I talked to a group of maintenance engineers from our department not too long ago regard- ing use of curbs and dikes. They said if we had fewer of them, we would have to do less sweeping, which would cut our maintenance costs. Where you have a vertical curb, dirt is allowed to accumulate there and must be swept away; it will not go away by itself. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Skeels? Mr. S~Er~s. Curbs seem to fall into the category of signs and gores; they should be eliminated wherever possible. And in many of the cases we have seen, it seems as though it would be possible. Certainly if they are placed in front of guardrails, they hinder the performance of the guardrail and they should never be placed there. If you have to have a curb for erosion control, it should be as low and as mountable a curb as possible. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Huff? Mr. HUFF. A historical point, we inherited the curbs from the cities long ago. They were, I believe, used at that time primarily to keep the `buggies from running up on the ladies' lawns and making them all mad. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is an oldtime beauty program. Mr. HUFF. They had a place for `their purpose. Incidentally, a lot of the cities still have the same need for curbs for the same reason on the local streets where traffic does not go over 35, 45, or 50 mile%s an hour. But in my opinion, vertical curb over about 2 inches high has no place on a high-speed freeway closer than 12 to 15 feet, and if possible, eliminate them even that close wherever it is possible at all. Now, there are in this country, including my own State, many, many medians that have been built with raised curbs of 6 or 8 inches or higher. I have been told that many people have a lack of depth perception. To all of those people, a curb will look like any other surface; it will look flat. They are liable to run into it thinking it is a flat surface. Because of the success of the so-called flush median with no curb, we built the guardrail just as if it were on part of the pavement, the only difference being a difference in color or texture of the material in the median,; no separation by elevation. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Huff. Mr. Wilkes? Mr. WIL1t~s. In summary, I think we can all agree that there is too great use of curbs in our freeway designs. Mr. Huff mentions, many designers feel that because this highway is located in an urban area it demands a curb and gutter. Many designers have discovered that this is not a true assumption, so we will say obviously we have used too many curbs in our highway designs. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Wilkes. Mr. Ricker? Mr. BICKER. I would agree with what Mr. Huff said about the his- tory of curbs. There was one other point that might be mentioned. Some of the slides showed curbing in the median with the apparent intent of find- ing grass in between the curbs. This is very expensive and hazardous to maintain. On many highways, the grass has been removed and re- placed by other materials that require little or no maintenance. PAGENO="0934" 930 Curbs will require costly maintenance, hand sweeping and so on, in many of the instances shown here. This is something we have to think about in the design, to keep them clean so maintenance can be done with a machine. Mr. coNsTA~nY. If we look at the broader aspects of the problem, we may very well find that it is cheaper to pave the median than had heretofore been thought? Mr. BICKER. Oh, definitely. Several of the toll roads have removed the grass median at considerable expense afterwards and replaced it with other material to save maintenance costs. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Bicker. Mr. Chairman, we had one exhibit used in connection with the dis- cussion on gores and I would ask that it be marked as "Exhibit No. 7." Mr. SCHADEBERG. Without objection, so ordered. (Exhibit No. 7 was marked.) Mr. SCHADEBERO. On behalf of the subcommittee, may I thank you again, gentlemen. I understand the chairman is reconvening the meeting at 10 o'clock tomorrow. We will adjourn for today. (Whereupon, at 4:39 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Friday, June 23, 1967.) PAGENO="0935" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards PRIDAY, J~UNE 23, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMPITEE ON PUBLIC Woui~s, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:58 a..m~, in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. William H. Harsha (acting chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. McCarthy and Harsha. Staff present: Same as previous days. Mr. HARSHA. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High- way Program will please come to order. We continue to have with us this morning the panel of experts in the highway engineering field whose advice and comments have been so helpful to us at our public hearings this week. These gentle- men are performing a great service to the subcommittee, and to their fellow Americans, by making available to us their expertise and ex- perience in analyzing and discussing design safety features found in recently opened Interstate projects selected from various sections of the country. We will continue this morning with that discussion. You may proceed, gentlemen. FURTHER TESTIMONY OF CHARLES W. PRISK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS; JJLMES E. WILSON, TRAFFIC ENGINEER, CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS; EDMUND R. RICKER, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF TRAFFIC, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS; PAUL SKEELS, CHAIRMAN OP COMMITTEE ON GUARDRAIL, HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD; T. S. HUFF, CHIEF ENGINEER OF TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT; W. JACK WILKES, CHIEF OF BRIDGE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS-PANEL Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Chairman, we are pressed for time and I would like to ask Mr. Prisk if he could quickly go through the slides which cover the remaining three elements that we have-drainage, shoulders, and slopes. I would like to ask if the members of the panel might perhaps jot down notes as we go through each section. As we complete it, perhaps (931) PAGENO="0936" 932 you could give your comments then. We can conserve some time this way. Mr. Prisk, if you will please quickly go through the remaining slides. Mr. PRISK. Thank you, Mr. Constandy and gentlemen of the corn- mittee. These are slides first that relate to drainage features of the highway. At the top you will see the undesirable condition of an exposed headwall at the left and median inlet raised in the right hand. The lower part shows the more desirable condition where these drainage features are flush with the surrounding ground. DRAINAGE FEATURES RAISED MEDIAN INLET HEAD WALL FLUSH MEDIAN INLET * SLOPED END SECTION Now to look at some of the conditions that we saw. This is on. an Ohio project, interstate, where the median is built flush with sur- rounding ground. * . S *S~SS~' * - * ~ PAGENO="0937" I Here now in Nevada we find an exposed median drain built well above the surrounding surface. This is truly an obstruction to any traffic in that area. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is in Nevada, Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. Yes. 933 Here is a drainage feature at an interstate separation in Ohio where some obstruction is offered at the roadside. PAGENO="0938" 934 Still another picture in Nevada, a cross-drain headwall. Here now in Oklahoma is a paved median with a surface drain. It serves very nicely to handle drainage and offers no obstruction to traffic flow. PAGENO="0939" 935 Still another one. on a new project just outside of Oklahoma City, not yet opened, another kind of a drain on a rural seetion. Here is one in Montana which does project above surface in the median. the roadway PAGENO="0940" 936 Also in Montana, we find this desirable cutoff culvert, which fits in with the slope profile. Here is another view of a drainage pipe extending out the side, also in Montana, where there is some hazard involved. It's very close to the roadway. Mr. CON5TANDY. If that pipe had been extended, could not the slope have been brought back farther and that hazard been removed? Mr. PiusK. It could have been; yes, sir. PAGENO="0941" 937 Here we are in Missouri, with a drop inlet in the median, again raised above the surrounding terrain, level of the terrain. This would constitute quite a hazard if hit. Here, also in Missouri, is drainage carrying through a grade separa- tion structure, a very common type of drain inlet. There is a vertical surface there perhaps 8 inches high to hit. PAGENO="0942" 938 This is a cross drain, again you have a headwall condition, and wing walls there, particularly the headwall. You can well imagine this being cut off more nearly to the ground surface. Mr. CONSTANDY. I spoke to a highway patrolman in that State. He told me of an experience he had had with exactly that type of drain. He was pursuing a car and was pushed off the road, struck this type of structure, and his car was thrown some 15 to 16 feet in the air and struck a utility pole; it broke his back, caused, very severe damage to the car. Mr. PRISK. Phis is entirely needless and unnecessary concrete. I Here is a side drain which for a car out of control would present quite a hazard because there is an adrupt rise here, with concrete wall facing. This is not very well guarded against vehicles out of control. S ~*~5 ~ \SS...5,~S *S S I L PAGENO="0943" 939 Moving now to Rhode Island, we find in the median this sort of a drop inlet with a circular grate, paved areas around it, which seems to be functioning very well. This is entirely safe, this type of drop inlet, here shown at the curb. PAGENO="0944" 940 When we come out toward the rural section of this Rhode Island portion, we findthis shaped wall, wing wall to handle the culvert which crosses the roadway at this point, which in fact does present a considerable hazard unless the grating is very carefully handled around that point. It looks to me like it is going to end up too high even so, particularly out in this area here. [Indicating.] Here is the type of median drain, and an obstruction at the same time, seen on the Georgia project. This is going through a grade sep- aration structure. And although the headwall has been cut off, there still does remain here a less than desirable facility for drainage, from the safety standpoint. I. PAGENO="0945" 941 This is another type of inlet on that Georgia project where there is a vertical rise here, very obviously three or four bricks high, a table- top type of median inlet raised above the surface. This is a parallel drain under the ramp roadway, arid again with an exposed end of the type that is seen perhaps more frequently than is necessary. PAGENO="0946" 9~2 In Utah, on Interstate 80, we found drains of this type, and this curb that we saw yesterday, I think does tend to control the drainage. With these drop inlets that project seems to be quite well served. - I **~~ PAGENO="0947" 943 The median drainage is handled in a concrete paved ditch of this sore. Aside from the fact this has a rather sharp V at the bottom, I think it might be regarded as satisfactory. A rounded bottom would probably be more safe, functionally. At the side there is a sharper V ditch with a steep back slope, and as you can see, the erosion from this slope is beginning to fill up this particular drainage feature and certainly, fróni the standpoint of a car running into this type of a break in the slope, this is undesirable. PAGENO="0948" 944 Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Prisk, in that situation would benching permit a flatter back slope at not a. great cost? Mr. PRLSK. It is possible, depending upon the material, Mr. Con- standy. This slope could have been benched with the right-of-way available on that project and handled in a better manner. The principal difficulty here is with the sharp break at the bottom of the paved ditch and the steep back slope. Here is the Indiana project, again showing a. drain almost completely flush. Beyond it., however, is an undesirable feature of this median dam that we too often find on Interstate projects; the grate itself is quite harmless. TI Also in Indiana we found pipes used under the roadway to drain the adjoining land and to handle natural water ouises in the area.. These are rather large pipes, and as you will see here, they are left open with- out any guard as far as approaching traffic is concerned. .~ / PAGENO="0949" 945 When you come to a major junction where there is a drainage along the highway as well as this cross drainage, very large pipes, some of them running up to 6 to 8 feet in diameter, are brought together in this large drainage sink to handle surges in the waterfiow. This gives you an idea of the Indiana project in terms of the amount of water that does, in fact, drain from adjoining land and collect along -the project. You see cars in the upper right-hand corner of the picture. If they went out of control on this slope I expect the water itself could be a very serious hazard as far as the mobility of the vehicle is concerned and also in the event of an overturn. PAGENO="0950" 946 More of this same water condition. The water, I think, must be re- garded as a hazard itself. The siopes here are good. I PAGENO="0951" 947 And here is an interesting drainage condition, also found on that project, where there is a ditch paved down the slope which, of course, is not unnatural, but up at the' top there is a drop inlet at the same point, which [slide] going back to the previous slide for a moment, the outlet is at this point [slide] so you have two places for water to go immediately in front of that automobile. REST AREA 2 MILES Very flat territory. This is also on the Indiana project, showing how they carry their drainage through the embankment behind the side piers. This is rather typical of many jobs that we were touring. PAGENO="0952" 948 Mr. CONSTANDY. Also undesirable, that headwall? Mr. PRISK. It presents a very, very solid hazard. Mr. CONSTANDY. Could we quickly go through the panel members and have your thoughts on the drainage? Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. To start out here, I think that we saw some fairly good things in some areas. The flush-top drop inlets that we saw in the earlier medians there were very good. In fact, the medians in gen- eral were good, I think-but it is very easy to destroy their quality by putting some hazard up in them. And I saw later on, in some of these slides, that is exactly what happened. Before we are too critical about the type of drop inlets, I think it should be pointed out here that snow and ice create such condi- tions, in some parts of this country, that possible a flat drop inlet would not handle them all properly. I am not a drainage expert; I just bring this up to your attention. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it is worth mentioning. Is it also not true, in that type of situation, that some other design might accommodate that problem, yet at the same time not present the hazard? Mr. WILSON. That is quite possible, yes, sir. I would like to point out that quite often deep ditches along the side of the road can be graded to a higher elevation by merely changing the style of the drop inlet or the manner of carrying the water on- ward. I would also like to point out that deep ditches along the highway can often prevent early deterioriation of the pavement by giving proper drainage. So you have to compromise this thing in this area. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SK~rs. I agree we have seen some excellent examples in here and some that are not so good. It seems to point out that it is possible to do a pretty fair job on this item if it is looked at in the light of automotive safety. I am particularly concerned with dams across medians which some- times are very abrupt and sharp, and with the parallel drains under the bridge piers along the side. These almost invariably start out in a vertical wall which better attention should be given to, as these would be very lethal. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thankyou, Mr. Sheds. Mr. Huff? Mr. HUFF. I agree that the protruding inlets, tops, create a hazard to traffic and I agree with what the gentlemen have just said. However, we have had some expressions from people who are well versed in drainage. The so-called grate-top inlet is not efficient for carrying water. It is particularly bad where you have a lot of trash and things that cover it a.nd stop the flow of water. And I would say further that I believe some studies will have to be made to develop a more efficient inlet and to avoid some of the prob- lems of stoppage I just mentioned. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Huff. Mr. Wilkes? Mr. Wm~s. Many of the examples we saw were quite good. How- ever, it is pretty obvious there are some details that were not executed very well. As Mr. Huff has mentioned, this grated inlet does tend to become clogged with trash. There have been inlets developed, though, that PAGENO="0953" 949 provide both `the grated inlet and slot that will be self-cleaning. And we have attempted to distribute some of these details to the States. We hope that they will be `adopted. Other details we saw were the result, I am sure, or a designer attempting `to produce a maximum economy. For example, the end wall that spilled down into the ditch could be eliminated completely by a longer bridge. So this designer, in developing what he thought was the most economical design, encroached into this ditch area with his embankment and, as a result, it produced a second area hazard. I guess that is the point I am trying to make, that if we are willing to spend more money, many of these details could be corrected. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. We again are looking at situations where per- haps there were considerations of first cost and perhaps they were not really concerned with economics. Mr. Bicker? Mr. ItICKER. Two points: One, it is certainly objectionable to run a large culvert out beyond the ditch line where it makes a hazard in itself. On the other hand, if it is cut back flush with the side, slope, it is still a hazard, because there is `a large hole there that vehicles could drop into. I don't know that we can get away from that hazard and maybe we need to evaluate which is worse, to have a round pipe or a hole. The other point, I am not sure I entirely agree as to the hazard involved in a moderate amount of water in a ditch. Certainly if the water is deep enough to cover a vehicle, it would be a hazard, but- Mr. CON5TANDY. I am sorry-deep enough to what? Mr. BIoKirai. To contain a vehicle. If it went under the water it would be a hazard. But it could be that a relatively shallow body of water there would be a very effective deceleration device in itself. And there are many, many parts of the country where there will be water standing in the ditches a large part of the year. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would it be true, too, that the relationship between the `depth of the water and the ratio of slope and height of it should be considered? A car going over a steep slope is apt to turn over; if it turns over in the ditch, it would not have to be deep to kill the driver. We all on the committee are acutely aware of an example of that very same thing. Mr. BICKER. I have never seen crash tests in the movie, vehicles run- ning into a shallow body of water like this. I am just guessing that it might be well as a deceleration factor. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. HARSHA. May I ask a question? Would an additional guardrail in the vicinity of these extended drainage pipes, these large cor- rugated pipes, possibly alleviate any of the hazard? Mr. RICKER. I believe, Mr. Congressman, as we have been discuss- ing for the past several days, guardrail itself is a hazard and we need to evaluate whether it would be less of a hazard than the exposed end of the pipe or more. In each case, perhaps, it has to be thought of individually, depending upon the curvature of the road. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. Mr. CONSTANDY. Some of the examples we saw, incidentally, did have a guardrail protection for the hazard. I would suggest in each PAGENO="0954" 950 case it was not sufficient to prevent the car from getting into the hazard, particularly the one in Indiana, the large paved bowl. There was a section of guardrail there but it would be fairly easy to go behind it and end up in the hole. Back again, if you are going to install guard- rail it should be done correctly. Mr. Prisk, you have the next section dealing with shoulders. Would you quickly run through that? Mr. PRISK. Yes. This is a project in Indiana-the old section that* was looked at the same time we looked at the new Interstate work. Here the shoulder is cut off by the use of a curb, which moves down into that entrance area to shield the entrance lane. This is the old type design in Indiana. Here we come again to a consideration of shoulders on the Indiana project that has just been opened a few months. In this case, the PAGENO="0955" 951 shoulder goes directly into the acceleration lane. And there are no shoulders, as you will see, on the ramps. This is an undesirable feature to omit shoulders from ramps. A shoulder does pick up, as you get to this point. [Indicating.] In this instance, a very unusual installation of guardrail which is shown here on the Indiana project, you see curbs that control move- ment of the entering traffic and the guardrail is pulled in here so that this shoulder, which normally starts here [indicating] and would run on up to the structure on top of the grade, is bisected by the guard- rail installation. Mr. CONSTANDY. So half of the shoulder is behind the guardrail ~ Mr. PIU5K. That is true. Here is a view close up so that you can see the shoulder paved out to here and the guardrail running down the middle. PAGENO="0956" 952 Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. That leads into a bridge that does not carry a shoulder across it. Is that not correct? Mr. PRISK. That is true. Now as we move into Nevada, we find this shoulder condition, which is very desirable from the standpoint of its appearance and for delinea- tion purposes. These are the travel lanes, the black lanes; the shiny surface out here is the shoulder surface.. From that standpoint, it does provide a good aid for traffic. This is the same condition under poor weather conditions during a snowstorm. Again, along here you have this asphalt curb for drainage control. PAGENO="0957" 9~3 This picture is one on the Missouri project showing the shoulder, first paved 2 feet wide with an asphalt mat, then 8 more feet of treated material, and some slight oiling of the rounded surface. These slopes, as you see, are rather substantial as you move on down here. [mdi- cating.] This is the type shoulder that they have. Not any too stable. We anderstand some additional work is to be done on this shoulder, and certainly is needed, because it is soft now, easily pressed in just walk- ing on the shoulder. Another view of this same shoulder on the median side, showing perhaps a little bit more transverse slope than is desirable. A shoulder should have a relatively light slope from the edge of the pavement over to this point. [Indicating.] PAGENO="0958" 954 Here is the Oklahoma City project, which has the feature that we saw in Indiana, no shoulders on the ramp at all, both sides curbed. Of course, this is an urban section, perhaps a little more reason for that condition being found here. But we do have the shoulder through this area [indicating] which is cut off at this point, grass, and, in fact, the light pole is installed at that place. And here you pick up the shoulder again as you move on through the job. It is a matter of discontinuity of the shoulder. I think it is certainl undesirable. Motorists should always have a moving travel lane wit a shotdder alongside, wherever possible. This is another example of how the shoulder gets cut off, and that, of course, shields the entrance movemeiit, but at the same time it does make for an obstruction in the shoulder. (At this point, Mr. McCarthy assumed the chair.) PAGENO="0959" 955 Mr. Pnisx. Here is a closeup of that obstruction. As you move up and over all of the intersecting streets, this is curbed at this point. PAGENO="0960" 956 Now on brand new work, just outside Oklahoma City and off the sub- ject project, we find this is still going on, that the shoulder is cl.iscon- tinued at this point, the curb is introduced directly in line with the shoulder, in order to permit this entrance ramp. This, of course, saves a little bit on your design out in this area as far as space requirements are concerned. But it does not position through traffic too well. Here is Rhode Island, Interstate 95, where your shoulder actually is employed, all of a sudden here, for a deceleration lane. And so you PAGENO="0961" 957 lose the shoulder at that place. And here again is a discontinued shoulder. People are apt to break down at almost any point on the moving lane. It is unpredictable. Here is the kind of condition we have in Ohio on one of the entrance ramps where, with weather conditions, this soil is rutted out very bad- ly. And this is not a traversable shoulder. This is a ramp, of course, here [indicating]. In Utah, you have somewhat the same condition that we saw in Oklahoma City. This is Salt Lake City here, and here is the shoulder interrupted again at that point. 87-7ö7 O-68-----61 PAGENO="0962" 958 Here is a condition, also on that same Utah project, where shoulders on the ramps are carried on down through the ramp. The ramp aline- ment, as we pointed out in yesterday's discussion, is very good at this point. But the shoulder cutoff, as I showed you a minute ago, is also evident here. Here, too, is a similar condition which shows how the guardrail gets warped at this point, even though we have a shoulder provided on the bridge. There is no shoulder commensurate in width provided back in this area. [Indicating.] I I. PAGENO="0963" 959 Proceeding north on 1-15, with Salt' Lake City to our right, you have a choice of turning off here to go into Salt Lake City on Inter- state 80 or continuing north toward Ogden, Utah, on Interstate 16. This, in fact, is the shoulder [indicating] of this approach roadway that we have been on. You will see cars that move on right up through this, what appears to be the shoulder area. PAGENO="0964" 960 Here is a view of this same place, and this is this shoulder condition. And if you will just watch the red car as he moves from this place (slide) as he comes ahead, he progresses here (slide) and through here. Mr. CONSTANDY. Of course, it is the one next to him we were con- cerned with, but the red one is easy to see. The car riding the shoulder, restricted shoulder, going over the bridge. Mr. FRISK. Here the car is really induced into the shoulder because of this condition. PAGENO="0965" 961 PAGENO="0966" 962 Going on ahead, here another one comes up on that shoulder in the same fashion as the first shot we saw. Watch his progress. He comes on up the shoulder. You see what happens to the shoulder here. It narrows down at the structure and if he were to continue on the shoulder, he would find himelf in some trouble. As you go immediately under the structure where those pictures were taken, this is the condition that you run into: curb gore at this point not too traversable down through here. [Indicating.] That is the off-ramp and this is 1-15 straight north. That concludes this series. Mr. CONSTANDY. Let me ask the members of the panel their observations. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Wu~soN. I would like to make about three points here in con- nection with shoulders. If there is any place where vehicles need maneuvering room, it is in the vicinity of exit or the vicinity of entrance to limited access facility. There is sometimes a great deal of hesitancy taking place on the part of drivers, not knowing exactly what to do or where to go; and you see some strange maneuvers take place, which is all the more i~eason why, not only should you give them a full shoulder, but you should give them every other available chance to get off the road if they do reach an emergency as well. I would like to agree with Mr. Prisk on the desirability of using contrast treatment between shoulders and main line traffic lanes, par- ticularly where you can use a concrete pavement with a black lisphalt shoulder. However, this can be accomplished in other ways as well by use of open graded mixes which have a different, surface texture, and you can also use asphalt. It can also be done by using edge lines; and as I mentioned yesterday, it is desirable to carry this contrast treatment across structures, where the structure may be all white surface. PAGENO="0967" 963 The shoulder itself may require some kind of black treatment. I think it is important, in my own opinion, that shoulders should be paved. If you look at. the skidding-type accidents the skids start on the traveiway many times and are carried right off in the shoulder area. Whenever you get into a soft material, there is always a chance that the vehicle may overturn by getting caught in the soft material. I think we have paved our shoulders, and particularly the right-hand shoulders, in California for as long as I can remember. We have recently decided to pave our inside shoulders from a 2-foot width to a full 5-foot width on our freeways. This will result in a slightly higher cost initially, but will certainly reduce maintenance overall. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. Not being an expert in this area, I will make one point. It was not shown in Mr. Prisk's slides. This is the problem of the shoulder on the cloverleaf ramp. Many of these cloverleaf i~amps for various reasons are in restricted areas and have fairly short radius turns; and my observation is that the shoulders are paved on `the inside and sometimes the outside of these turns, and that is where the traffic rides. I wonder if there is a better solution to this? The only one I know of is to eliminate the short radius turns, and this is not always practical. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Skeels. Mr. Huff? Mr. HUFF. I believe there is no need to comment on what Mr. Prisk said. I was more impressed by what he did not say than I was by what he did say. He did not discuss the adequacy of the width of the shoulder as related to the needs of traffic. Nor did he dwell very much on the tur- bulence created when a shoulder has to funnel into a narrow bridge. Emphasis in discussion of shoulders should be put upon the question: How wide should a shoulder be on the road and how wide should it be on the bridge as related to the road? In my opinion the bridge shoulders must be 2 to 4 feet wider than the road shoulder, and it is my personal opinion that road shoulders should be at least 12 feet wide instead of 10 as is now provided for in the standards. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you suggest that on both sides, Mr. Huff? Mr. HUFF. Definitely on both sides. Originally the shoulder on the right side was provided for cars that got out of control and had to go over and stop. The shoulder on the left side was an obs1truction clear- ance only. With increased speed of automobiles and increased number of automobiles, it is my opinion that the clearance-the obstruction clearance for the rail should be wide enough to provide for a stopped vehicle as well as for clearance. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Huff. Mr. Prisk? Mr. PRISK. I would like to say that I am impressed by what Mr. Huff says about the provisions for shoulder width. I think this is very definitely a move toward safer design, particularly on structures. And I would fully concur in the comments that he has made. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. I would like to say that Mr. Prisk's omission of those is probably my fault brought about by an effort to try to hurry this along so we can conclude it today. Mr. Wilkes? PAGENO="0968" 964 Mr. Wn4ic~s. The early highway research showed that if you provide a side clearance of 6 feet you would not reduce the capacity of the main lanes. I expect tl1at this is the source of many of our practices today, and we have not sufficient clearances for the out-of-control vehicle. We fail to really appreciate the volume and magnitude of the haz- ard-of the frequency of this type accident. Mr. CONSTANDY. You suggest along with Mr. Huff that this is an area which should be looked into? The adequacy of the present standard? Mr. Wm~s. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Ricker? Mr. WILKEs. Let me make one more comment. The photographs we saw of the Utah project illustrate the use of this shoulder as a recovery area where the vehicles were either undecided or deliberately rode through this. They saw they had a clear lane and did not merge into the left as perhaps the previous signs had instructed. So this did provide some measure of safety to these vehicles through indecision or deliberate effort on their own. And I think that that is an important element in the design of the gore of the highways. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Wilkes. Mr. Ricker? Mr. RICKER. Could we be going back to the first picture of Utah showing the shoulder problem there while I am discussing other things? The matter of closing off the shoulder at an entrance ramp has been controversial for many years, and we discussed this a number of places. The Illinois tollway people told us that they had no evidence of problems because of that design, although it existed on all of their entrance ramps. So the opinion is not clear. On the other hand, when we look at. the reason why we have should- ers on this type of highway-a vehicle breaks down; the driver needs to get to a refuge point immediately, and if there is a long stretch such as this where he cannot get off on the shoulder, he cannot get to his refuge. And when he is ready to start up again, he needs an unob- structed path to speed up on the shoulder and get back to the travel lanes. I am looking for the first picture of your last series. This is a very dramatic picture showing what happens when you pave the main roadway with the same material as the shoulder. Someone has tried to change the impression that. that is the main roadway, to make it a gore or a shoulder; but the pavement itself clearly tells you that if you are going stra.ight ahead, you follow the straight-ahead path and do not pay attention to the paint lines. This happens in other areas as well, w-here joints in concrete pave- ment do not match up with the intended lane alinement and the paint lines cannot be strong enough to overcome them. I think the answer would be to change the texture of that shoulder pavement so that it is clearly a different use. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Ricker. The last &ement we have to discuss is slopes. Mr. PRI5K. We have a few pictures of slopes on each. one of the proj- ects that I am going to run through rather quickly. PAGENO="0969" 965 This subject I think has been appreciated by the panel and by the committee as they have looked at other features of design. This simply illustrates the various types of slopes in common use, 4 feet vertical- it is what we refer to as the 4-to-i slope. This is a view of the Ohio project, on the Ohio Interstate 80, very wide median, flat siopes, as you see throughout. PAGENO="0970" 966 The median is mounded up in the center. Drainage carried on each side of each roadway. Here again slopes are flat. You have the advantage of turning cars away from the center median pier with the slope condition of this sort. Here is a closeup, closer to that median pier. N N N PAGENO="0971" 967 Slopes of this type are relatively stable and easy to maintain in contrast to the steeper slopes. I Here is the other side of this same center pier again. PAGENO="0972" 968 Off to the side you have nicely sloping roadside to backsiope, made up here about 4 to 1, which can be traversed by a vehicle safely. This is the median condition at this point. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is on the other design section. There is an obvious difference between two parts of the section that we looked at; one project had this type of swale and the other one had the berm. Mr. PRISK. That is right. This is depressed median and also some- what narrow. L PAGENO="0973" 969 And this continuation is on the same section. Side slopes are also a little steeper. There is no guardrail put in on this project at all yet, and I think you can see that easing the slope in this kind of country is a rather substantial job, but at the same time it presents a substantial hazard. Now we move to Missouri, and we run into high fills of this type. 4 PAGENO="0974" 970 Here there is a drainage facility down at the bottom. Moving along on the project, this is rather flat country, and slopes are easy to control under these conditions. - - - - . :. * .* ** PAGENO="0975" 971 A special situation, of course, introduces itself if you find rock alongside, and in the severe cases here this has been cut back to 20 or 25 feet from the pavement edge, still stands there, somewhat of a hazard. This on the Indiana projects shows relatively good slopes to the roadside, carrying on out all the way to the right-of-way line. PAGENO="0976" 972 On the Nevada project there are differences in grades, as you will remember, between the two roadways, very high slopes here totally un- protected for the most part and probably standing about 11~ or 2 to 1. Here is a view of a truck negotiating one of those slopes. And here a.gain you can see the difference in elevation, natural sur- roundings, and the roadway, types of slopes that are employed at this point. ::: `~1 PAGENO="0977" 973 Still another view of the countryside there in Nevada. Under poor weather conditions, again this is the kind of slopes down through the median to the other roadway. 87-75'T O-68----62 PAGENO="0978" 974 And here, as you enter a rock section, you get into a more severe, much more severe slope, and to a degree much more severe hazard. In Georgia you find this kind of condition. The median has a good many trees standing, and the slopes move out to this point, with the median being mounted up where the trees are located. - --~ - 4 PAGENO="0979" 975 On the roadside slopes are moderately good, but you find conditions of this sort where water is dammed up. And you have, although with a fairly good slope here, quite a pond at the bottom. When these are wet, without being properly covered with vegetation, this becomes very hazardous to negotiate. PAGENO="0980" H 976 Occasionally on projects of this sort, as we did here in Georgia, we find mounds of dirt that are left in areas where it could so well, with a little bit of attention, be moved to adjoining sections to ease slopes. Slopes themselves right in this area were probably about 2 to 1 or so. Nearby sources of material and modern earthmoving equipment make it possible to distribute soil in such a way as to make slopes ne- gotiable. Some of that sort of thing was done here. I I PAGENO="0981" 977 Going through to Utah, one of these gores that you looked at, it would be a good place to have some extra dirt down in here, and these slopes being-if they were a little bit flatter, this guardrail could well have been eliminated, and this would be a negotiable area. Here is one that is in fact negotiable. We have all seen pictures of this previously. Here are the slopes in the median. Again these slopes must be more abrupt, if the medium is not paved. A portion of this project does have a paved median, and the other part is unpaved. And steeper slopes of course are on the unpaved section. PAGENO="0982" 978 This is still another view of that side slope condition that we were looking at a moment ago. Slopes here are such that if the dirt were readily available, right-of- way is setting back in here, and this could have been perhaps eased off to the advantage of anyone that might move on that side slope condi- tion. : ~ PAGENO="0983" 979 Next we come to Montana. This is one of the things that does hap- pen under certain drainage condition. You gradually cut a ditch deeper and deeper into the roadside, so that it too becomes a hazard. And un- less this ditch is properly controlled, sometimes lined, it will be very difficult to negotiate with a vehicle. I am not quite sure why we have that. This is a man taking some of his porkers home, a nice flat slope. Mr. OONSTANDY. We thought it was an antifreeway demonstration. Mr. PRISK. I guess. PAGENO="0984" 980 tk'..~ `T - -~ * * * * PAGENO="0985" 981 This is in Rhode Island. Your siopes, of course, are very easy here. They are fairly flat. The trees are the hazard. [Slide.] Here you have rocks coming through the surface of the earth-this happens in New England-as well as the trees. [Slide.] And more of the same. Here we have trees very recently planted and rather too close to the pavement, if I might say so. PAGENO="0986" 0~' PAGENO="0987" 983 Here there is rock adjoining the roadside, and these slopes really ought to have some protection. It is hard to imagine how this can go on without ultimately proving to be a hazard. [Slide.] Here too is more of the same rock. [Slide.] Still more. [Slide.] And still more. There was an accident in this general vicinity. And here is a case where they cut the rock back in a slope plane, which leaves the rock `with a relatively smooth surface as against the natural rock that we find in other places. PAGENO="0988" 984 This is some landscaping that was done on the project, just north of Providence, on 1-95. A great deal of money and effort went into design and construction of attractive roadside at this point. How much attention is given to slopes, I do not know. Considerable to vegetation. Mr. CONSTANDY. We would like a short comment from each member of the panel on these slides pertaining to slopes. Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSON. Here again I think we saw some evidence that we are trying to give the motorist a little bit of relief if he does have to leave the road. I do not think anyone could dispute the fact that we ought to have wider slopes and flatter slopes. Particularly I was pleased to see some widened areas cut. Sometimes this is rather costly. Grading is a pretty costly part of the road project. There is also another advantage here in that it helps during your snow removal operations. And I think we have to look at slopes of all kinds as a matter of economics. The cost is not only involved in the grading of the slopes and the grading could be very costly. I notice in one of these areas, the ground was rather flat; and I imagine that the material would have to be hauled in considerable dist&nces. Not only that, you would have to buy additional right-of-way and it would have to be a part of the very early design or the very early plaiming stages of a job. That is the time when you have to lay down your limitations on slopes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. Well, I agree that flat slopes are good. However, the slope itself, the actual grade of the slope, is not so bad providing it does not get extreme. By extreme I am thinking of greater than 4 to 1. The hazard is really-it really comes about at the bottom of the slope or toward the slope. Visualize a car going out of control, going - - - ~ PAGENO="0989" 985 down this slope. He can negotiate a pretty steep hill. However, if he comes to the bottom and runs into a V-ditch or bunch of trees or a sharp back slope or rocks, that is where he really gets into his trouble. In the rock cuts, these probably should be protected. One way might be to face them with a fairly low concrete wall that would at least make it smooth. It is pretty hard to make it soft, but you can make it smooth. I have mentioned ditch bottoms. They should not be allowed to be V-shaped. They should be gradually rounded so that a car going through it will pass through and not be brought to an abrupt stop against or toward the back slope. Obviously, trees should not be toler- ated close to the roadside. Trees should not be planted on the slope it- self, as we saw them on the pictures. One other item on the slope. In some cases the slope can be flattened and carried out farther from the road to protect an underdrain. In other words, if an underdrain is extended, it becomes less hazardous, and the slope can be flattened to cover it up. Carry it back a hundred feet from the road, and flatten your slope to cover it up, and you do not have to worry about the head wall or the end of the pipe. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Huff? Mr. Hun~'. Of course the advantage of the flat slopes has been dem- onstrated over and over. We might say that this was first brought strongly to our attention a good many years a~o by one of the auto- mobile manufacturers whose representative is sitting to my rig~ht. We should be grateful for the groundwork and the basis upon which this important feature was developed. I might add that on the Interstate System it is entirely possible that we would have enough right-of-way to develop flatter slopes than on most of the roads that we have already built. However, highways where right-of-way has been a problem will constitute one of the greatest difficulties in developing flat slopes on already constructed highways. In my opinion it is most important that we do move to developing slopes in the area of 6 to 1, which is recommended by the yellow book, on all new highways and on those which have already been built where it is possible. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Huff. Mr. Wilkes? Mr. WILKES. I do not believe I have any comments to add to those that have been made previously. Mr. CONSTANDY. It is a little out of your field. Mr. Ricker? Mr. RIOKER. I do not know that I have much to add, except that in many parts of the country such as in Pennsylvania we have almost continuous cuts and fills as we traverse the hilly and mountainous areas; and it is literally not possible to get the flat slopes that might be desirable, the same way with the rock cuts that are exposed. There is another area here which is probably not for discussion to- day, but the variation in scenery that is obtained by having rock cuts or changes in topography may result in drivers being more alert and staying awake longer; and I do not know that we have any data yet which shows that they can drive these roads safer, but I suggest there is a possibility. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Ricker. Mr. Chairman, that con- cludes the presentation of the slides on the nine projects. It had been my intention at this point to ask Mr. Prisk to make some summary PAGENO="0990" 986 observations. I think with the time we have remaining that I will ask leave that Mr. Prisk might prepare that statement and submit it at th1s point in the record as exhibit No.8. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The document referred to follows:) SUMMABY STATEMENT OF OHARLES W. Pais~, CONSULTANT TO THE SPECIAL SUB- COMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The newest Interstate highway projects in nine States were inspected during the period from April 3 to May 2, 1967 for the adequacy of their design for safety. These improvements appeared to represent impartially the freeway design just 110w- being opened for public travel on the Interstate highway system. Each sec- tion was located in a different geographic region of the United States, corre- sponding with the regions of the Federal Highway Administration. In four States the projects were entirely rural, in two States entirely urban, and in three States a mixture of urban and rural. Roadside hazards were given special attention during the field review- and a surprising number of thes~e were observed on all nine projects. Because the proj- ects visited are typical, it is not unreasonable to infer that many of the same weaknesses could and undoubtedly do exist throughout the 25,000 miles of the Interstate System that are now in use. The prerequisite to improvement of this situation is a thorough understand- ing of the nature of the hazards. In my judgment, they arise not so much from w-illful violation of official design standards for the Interstate System as the widespread, failure to recognize and treat a major freeway accident problem. The problem involves single vehicles that leave the roadw-ay out of control, a type of accident that accounts for about three-fourths of the traffic deaths among users of the Interstate System. A parallel and related difficulty stems from the insufficient and oft-delayed use of knowledge critical to safety. Much of this is readily available from reliable experience and research resolirces. In the nhie State review, the princi- pal design elements related to roadside hazards w-ere classified in the following categories: Guardrail, median barrier, structures, shoulders, curbs, drainage facilities, signs and sign supports, lighting standards, gores, slopes. Information was assembled on each of the nine projects for the items listed. During the past four days of this hearing, a review of the roadside conditions has been presented. My testimony has been based on a field visit to each project, conferences with many of the affected public officials, and close study of the design policies and practices applicable in each case. Only four projects, those in Oklahoma, Georgia, Rhode Island and Montana, had roadway lighting installations and obvidusly the observations on lighting standards relate mainly to those States. In Missouri, even though the Inter- state project inspected had been open for about six months, guardrail work was incomplete, being in place at only a few structures. Hence the comments on Missouri guardrail have application to only a small and perhaps unrepresent- ative sample of what later will be installed. The nine projects had been open to traffic for periods ranging from three to eight months. More often than not, considerable work was generally still needed to obtain a facility as safe as had been orginally planned. The missing work was typically classed as "clean up." Included were final alterations to guardrail grading and paving of shoulders, grading and seeding of medians and slopes. closing of construction crossovers in the median, installation of final signing, delineation, and mileposts, and numerous other features directly affecting the safety and quality of service available to users of the Interstate System. Girnrdrai~ Because guardrail is the roadway element most commonly struck as vehicles run off the roadway of the Interstate Systems, its design and use are significant importance. Obviously the purpose of the usual guardrail installation is to protect the road user from a consequence more severe than that of striking the guardrail itself. It should be used only where necessary since it is itself a roadside hazard. Practices among the nine States visited vary substantiaUy in this respect. PAGENO="0991" 987 Heights of guardrail measured varied from 22 inches to more than 30 inches, sometimes as much as this within a given State. A growing appreciation of the value of 6'3" post spacing is spreading in all States visited and in their newest work at least, the closer spacing is being used to strengthen guardrail sections. In only three States, Missouri, Montana and Utah, were guardrail installations regularly found to have washers on the bolt heads to prevent their pulling through the rail in the event of collision. These simple, inexpensive washers, along with the stiffening sections used at intermediate posts, will greatly strengthen beam guardrail installations. Blocking out of the guardrail, is found to be a standard practice in only a few of the States. On projects in Georgia and Utah, it was found that guardrail was blocked out only at the sign installations. Other sections had no blocks. On one project in Montana, the median barrier post had actually been notched so as to obtain the minimum standard lateral clearance between the face of the rail and the edge of the pavement. Guardrail ends can be extremely hazardous to cars i~unning off the road and should be buried in the ground at their approach end. They were treated this way in three of the nine States visited. In other cases, rail was either flared back or installed parallel with the roadway alignment and not buried. Signs Wherever permanent signs were installed in the gore areas of the nine Inter- state projects, they were, without exception, unreasonably heavy or massive. Mounting supports for the standard 5' x 6' EXIT sign varied all the way from a three-inch steel post for a temporary installation to two steel I-beams six inches in depth. Other sign supports ranged up to multiple twelve-inch I- beams for the larger advance guide signs. The desirable breakaway feature which has been urged on the State highway departments by the Bureau of Public Roads for sign installations, was found on only one of the nine projects and in this case, only on relatively minor type signs. Curbs Barrier curb was used without clear justification at many locations. Frequently it was placed in front of a guard rail or a barrier rail where it could adversely affect the proper performance of the rail structure. Curb is used often for delineation purposes to outline gore areas and other locations where there is sometimes no functional need to control drainage. A highly con~mendable design noted on the Utah Interstate project in Salt Lake City was characterized by a curb located about two feet behind and parallel to the road edge guardrail. The entire shoulder was paved to and beyond the face of the guardrail and into the depressed gutter in front of the curb. Paving of the clearance area between the edge of the usable shoulder and the face of the guardrail would appear to be a very desirable contribution to safety. Bridges On the Interstate System bridges, safety walks 12 inches and often 18 inches in width were relatively common. The need for more than a brush curb 4 to 6 inches in width on bridges comprising the Interstate System is very questionable in my opinion. From a performance standpoint, the safety walk presents a ver- tide surface hazard at the entrance to the bridge and also can cause a vehicle to strike the bridge railing system at a higher elevation than would otherwise be the case. A nearly vertical wall with a small fillet section at its base is much to be preferred over the typical safety walk cross-section found on many recent projects. Even though the standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials have been followed rather closely, the shoulder systems on these newest Interstate bridges on the nine State projects are largely inadequate for traffic needs. Only a few bridges of any length carried the full shoulder width. In one State there was undesirable variation in the width of successive similar bridges. Evidently, a design change that took effect for bridges designed within the Department was not applied to similar bridges on the same project which were being designed by a consulting engineering firm. Median and side piers were given a wide variety of protective shielding to avoid having motorists contact them. In too many cases there was no protection whatever or only a few sections of guardrail placed in advance of the pier. In contrast with the generally inadequate shielding of center and side piers, a fairly elaborate treatment was common at twin bridges where an Interstate PAGENO="0992" 988 driver leaving on the median side might otherwise drop to a roadway below through the opening in the median. On most projects studied, long sections of approach guardrail were flared into the median center line or even beyond to divert vehicles from the opening between the bridges. The solution of decking the median area was not frequently practiced. This has the advantage of eliminating the hazard just referred to and also removes the additional hazard posed by the left edge parapet walls. Ajnong the States, Rhode Island has concluded that 20 feet is about the widest median that can be economically paved between twin bridges. Some States that have studied this item believe that median widths up to 30 feet can be economically justified for paving. On the nine Interstate sections inspected, there were many twin bridges with medians below ten feet that were not paved over. The separate structures were often less than 25 feet apart, and eliminating the two parapet walls on the left sides of approaching traffic would have saved their cost, plus that of the extensive length of guardrail used on the approaches to the structures. This could frequently support the incremental cost of paving the median area. Noteworthy among the bridge safety design problems that still await solution is the development of a satisfactory transition structure between approach guard- rail and bridge railing or other elements of a grade separation structure. In two States, Oklahoma and Utah, some attempt was made to obtain an anchorage but the design was not altogether successful. In the other seven States, there was no physical connection or evidence of any attempt to make the approach guardrail integral with the bridge railing, a pier, or any other structural component. The need for an answer to this transition problem ranks as high as any on the list of immediate safety priorities. Discussions and information obtained during the survey indicated that most States plan some remedy of this deficiency. It was interesting to notice the varying nature of the concern. In one State, there was almost no guardrail on the approach to structures, whereas in another, the ap- proach guardrail had been built to a bridge location even before the bridge deck had been completed. Bridge Railing The effectiveness of rails on bridge structures is related to their height as well as to their design composition. Measurements were taken on many of the struc- tures observed in the nine States. Bridge rail height, adjoining and measured from the roadway surface, was as low as 27 inches in some cases and as high as 44 inches in other cases. The most common height of bridge rail was 40 inches above the roadway surface. Only a few of the States had lower or higher bridge railing than 40 inches, which suggests that this dimension, as well as the func- tional design requirements of bridge railing, needs to be studied and specified more exactly for application to bridges of the Interstate System. Aluminum was a common alternate for steel for bridge railing. Many different configurations were noted. Combinations with various heights of concrete bridge parapets make this element extremely elusive for evaluation. Bridge designers appear to exercise a great deal of individual expression in developing the con- figuration of bridge rails. Aesthetics and the desire to have a bridge rail that you can "see through" should not exceed the concern for a railing that is able to withstand the impact of a colliding vehicle w-ithout failure and unnecessary hazard to highway users. Shoulders Some attention was given during the study to the use of shoulders on the main roadway and on ramps. In Utah and in Oklahoma, the normal width of the shoulder was frequently obstructed by curbs placed at the entrance ramp terminal. In addition to obstructions of the main roadway shoulders, which should in all cases be available for disabled vehicles, a great inconsistency existed in the design of shoulders for ramp roadways. In a few cases it was difficult to tell whether the ramp shoulder was paved. On one project the ramp had a paved shoulder six feet wide on the right and no shoulder paving on the left. In still another State, the shoulder of the ramp. was paved three feet wide both right and left. Else- where, the ramps were outlined with curbs. The practice of paving shoulders on connecting ramps at interchanges obviously has not been sufficiently deter- mined, and there is doubt that the need for adequate shoulders at all locations has yet been fully appreciated. PAGENO="0993" 989 Slopes Flattening side slopes and rounding ditch bottoms to increase the safety of the roadside was not characteristic of most of the nine projects visited. Numerous situations were noted where, at least in localized areas, readily available embank- ment material could have been used to flatten slopes to 6:1, a slope that can be safely traversed `by a conventional vehicle. Because grading coats are becoming a somewhat smaller part of the total project cost, much more attention should be devoted to examining slope adjustments as new projects are constructed. Savings in guardrail installations, maintenance, and possibly drainage features that otherwise would be required can be credited against dirt-moving costs asso- ciated with flatter slopes. Lighting It was previously observed that only four States installed roadway lighting on the Interstate projects visited. Of these four States, two used steel poles on trans- former or flange bases mounted on concrete footings no more than 1~y~ to 2 feet off the outside edge of the paved shoulder. In Oklahoma and Rhode Island, the same lateral location was used but the lighting installation was somewhat less hazardous because frangible bases were employed on the exposed poles. The aluminum poles used were of a type shown by experience to break away at the flanged base without causing serious damage to the vehicle or its occupants. Where roadway lighting is employed, concrete footings should be kept to the ground level and the lateral clearance from the edge of the shoulder or face of curb increased above presently used minimums. The enthusiasm for maximum lighting efficiency and aesthetics has sometimes resulted in having the poles in target positions and undesirably close to the roadway. Longer mast arms are possible and with more powerful luminaires at higher mounting heights, fewer lighting standards are needed. Summary of needs In summary of the study of the nine Interstate projects selected essentially at random for this study, it can be said that several urgent needs remain to be satisfied if the Interstate System is to become as safe as the public interet requires. The following statements highlight these requirements: I. Decisions on engineering design frequently `have been based on first coat considerations rather than on a true cost effectiveness principle. Long-range economic demands suggest the high importance of choosing initial designs that will serve traffic adequately over the full life of the improvement at a minimum cost and with a maximum of safety. The maintenance and operat- ing requirements associated with the various alternate designs are vital cost determinants that should receive more attention during the decisions on design. II. When separate contracts or subcontracts are negotiated for installa- tion of signs, lighting, guardrail, drainage facilities, and similar elements, a maximum of coordination is needed to insure that these several items and the features of the principal construction contribute in a unified way to the finally completed highway improvement. III. Immediate steps should be taken toward a closer working relation- ship between bridge and roadway design engineers to achieve safer design conditions for the roadway entrance to bridge structures. Liberal evidence exists that the vertical element of the transition between roadways and `bridges is one of the weakest features of present roadside design. IV. Multi-disciplinary review teams, operating before, during `and after highway construction, are an aid to crystallizing timely decisions on many items affecting the safety of Interstate projects. Teams should be composed of representatives from design, construction, traffic, maintenance and perhaps other divisions of the highway `department whose views result in decisions that affect safety features. Supplementary assistance of personnel from the Bureau of Public Roads and other component units of the Federal Highway Administration, and from enforcement authorities has proved valuable. The functions of the team logically start in the earliest planning stage in the consideration of such items as sign locations, guardrail placement., and light- ing installations. Teams should also be active during the construction period so that adjustments then found to be desirable can be made. Before the project is open to traffic, the review team should examine the final state of the improvement to insure that the highway is in fact ready for public 87-757 O-68------63 PAGENO="0994" 990 use. In the administrative area also, care should be taken to avoid premature opening of projects that are~ not operationally safe for traffic. V. The adoption of a safety cross section to provide 30 feet or more of clear area from the edge of pavement on Interstate projects is one of the more important steps toward greater safety on Interstate projects. This will require not only the revision of standards for new work but also the ac- celeration of programs to remove fixed object hazards such as unnecessary guardrail, signs, trees, utility poles, boulders and other similar items. The desirability is also evident of adopting 6:1 or flatter slopes at the roadside wherever practical, and the smoothing and removal of all substantial ob- stacles from the gore, except for the standard EXIT sign and light-weight delineator posts. In all cases, the EXIT sign should he on breakaway type supports. VI. Where hazardous objects are not feasible of removal, installation of appropriate barrier devices should be considered. Under such conditions, barriers usually should be installed at a maximum distance from the road- way rather than at the conventional position along the outer edge of the shoulder. Special impact-attenuating devices now becoming available should be employed for shielding center piers in medians and for similar massive objects that cannot in any reasonable way he relocated or removed. VII. Hundreds of relatively minor hazards exist in current designs or in projects now in use. These should be the focus of programs by traffic engineering and maintenance forces. Corrective work includes such readily adaptable features as frangible or breakaway bases for exposed sign sup- ports and light standards, the lowering of concrete footings to ground level, the removal of unneeded barrier curb, the burying and flaring of guardrail approach ends, the removal of safety walks and wide curbs on bridge struc- tures, and the placement of clear understandable signing sufficiently in ad- vance of decision points. VIII. One of the major breakdowns noted from the study of the nine In- terstate projects is the inadequate communication and use of available re- search findings and improved techniques. The failure to communicate is noticeable at all levels and actually may be more serious in the higher ad- ministrative levels than at the technical level. A change of attitude which would characterize the highway as a more positive contributor to traffic safety is a pre-condition to progress in this area. IX. Concerted efforts should be made to compress the time period between final design decisions and general use of the highway improvement so that the benefits of recent advancements in operational practices, designs and controls will be realized in new or remedial work on the Interstate System. X. None of the findings from the observation of nine Interstate projects can or should be regarded as fully conclusive and final. Through properly directed research and additional investigation, more specific information as to highway design and operating deficiencies and solutions will surely be identified. Nevertheless, the findings of this study of nine new and represent- ative Interstate projects do have high indicated value. Typical of the atten- tion being devoted to betterment of the general situation is the listing of Interstate safety improvements contemplated or underway (See Adden- dum I). ADDENDUM I CURRENT AND CONTEMPLATED SAFnTY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE NINE INTERSTATE PROJECTS REVIEWED BY THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM Each of the nine Interstate projects selected for review in the several regions of the Federal Highway Administration has been said to be deficient safetywise in some one or more of its engineering details. Total safety in engineering design and operation will never be reached but some brief mention of the justified striving toward that objective ought to be included in the recOrd. Within the regions and on tL~ projects studied cooperatively by the Subcom- mittee staff and a qualified engineer from the Bureau of Public Roads, the safety improvements listed below are presently underway or contemplated: Rey~on One-Rhode Island Interstate 95 1. Signs originally placed 2 feet off the edge of shoulder will be moved back to 30 feet wherever viewing conditions permit. PAGENO="0995" 991 2. Heavy sign bridge supports located in the gore at the junction with 1-295 will be eliminated by moving the sign bridge to an advance location. 3. Curb and guardrail will be eliminated from gores and these areas will be graded with flatter slopes. Region Two-Ohio Interstate 805 1. The present temporary signing on this project will be replaced with perma- nent signs of modern design as the next stage of improvement. Region Three-Georgia Interstate 75 1. Guardrail on this project will be revised to incorporate the safety refine- ments outlined by recent research. Posts will be spaced closer to increase stability. The ends of the guardrail exposed to traffic will be anchored at ground level. 2. Frangible bases will be employed, replacing the steel bases now supporting light standards wherever these are in exposed positions. 3. Traffic signs will be moved back at least 30 feet from the traveled way wherever possible. 4. Median inlets will be improved so not to be an obstruction to traffic inad- vertently entering the median. Region Four-Indiana Interstate 69 1. Guardrail revisions will be made to include the anchorage of approach ends at ground level and shorter post spacing at points where maximum protection is required. 2. Drainage facilitites will be made less of an obstacle by. elimination of headwalls and with extension of present culverts. 3. Consideration is being given lighting requirements at interchanges and other points of need. Region Five-Missouri Interstate 85 1. Improvements will be made to medium drains and ditch blocks. 2. Break-away signs and light supports will be installed. 3. The installation of additional guardrail at points of special hazard will be undertaken and guardrail design will be improved to accord with latest safety standards. Region Six-Oklahoma Interstate 40 1. Improvements are being made in the anchorage of guardrail to bridge structures. 2. Improved guardrail designs are to be installed. Region Seven-Nevada Interstate 80 1. Traffic signs will be relocated at a further distance away from the roadway. They are presently 2 feet beyond the edge of the shoulder. 2. Additional guardrail installations will be made to protect motorists against the hazard of running off high embankments and some embankment slopes will be flattened. Region Eight-Montana Interstate 90 1. The guardrail on this project will be blocked out throughout its length and shorter post spacing will be used to guard against penetration at locations of special hazard. 2. Improvements in the signing will include installation of breakaway design supports. Region Nine-Utah Interstate 80 1. Some signs will be relocated to a position on overhead bridges so as to eliminate the hazard of ground structures. 2. Breakaway type signs will be installed throughout the project. 3. Better design will be used for the protection of motorists who strike the approach ends of guardrail. 4. The design of Exit and Entrance ramp terminals will be improved to reduce the fixed object hazards at these locations. Mr. CONSTANDY. We have looked at the various roadside elements in the nine States which we believe to be representative of interstate projects completed in the latter part of 1966 and the beginning of 1967. It would be most pertinent at this point if each of the members of the panel were to evaluate what it is that they have seen. PAGENO="0996" 992 I realize that some of you have some additional comments, which would be helpful and would enhance the record, but we would be appreciative if you would give your opinions as an evaluation of what you have seen overall on these projects. Can we begin with you, Mr. Wilson? Mr. WILSoN. Well, as engineers in this field of endeavor, our mission is twofold, as I see it. First we have got to keep the vehicle on the road by providing him with wider shoulders, wider travel lanes or wider roadways, delinea- tion mark lines, and things of this nature. The second thing is that we have got to prepare for the inevitable and that is when the vehicle leaves the highway. We must give the motorist a reasonable chance to avoid injury and death. I would like to call this building-in a forgiving quality in the roadside. This forgiving quality can ta.ke many forms, all of which we have discussed in the past few days. I do not think it will be necessary to elaborate on the specific items because my remarks regarding them are already a matter of record. However, I am deeply concerned about what I have seen. I believe there is knowledge available, knowledge that has been tested and proven. There is more experimentation going on right at this point that will help build in this forgiving quality that I mentioned. Our attention has previously been concerned primarily with the single-vehicle wreck. We must not lose sight of the fact that some of these same features that c~use the problem for the single car have caused the multiple-car wreck. The limited-access facility has brought with it some problems con- cerning which our own accident records, until just recently, were not telling us the full story of just exactiy what was happening. To assure that good design practices are followed, I mention just two items. First, for the past several years we have been having opera- tional reports made on completed facilities. These operational reports have been made by patrol officers, design engineers, traffic engineers, maintenance engineers, and people who are familiar with the area. These operational reports lead to improved design standards and have in fact been instrumental in not only changing standards for our future projects, but have been making immediate modifications to recently completed work. It is not unusual to go back and see things that need to be changed almost immediately after a project is finished, once the roadway is placed under traffic, and you can see what the behavior of traffic actually is. Second, in order to forestall the construction of obsolete work, we have recently formed a review team to look at projects in the plannmg stage. Design engineers, traffic engineers, and other disciplines are making recommendations to change contract plans before the work commences. I think here is one of the most fruitful areas and is resulting in many, many changes which will be beneficial. I think that this process of review should continue on through the construction phase as well. And obviously from the pictures t.hat we PAGENO="0997" 993 have seen here in the last few days, many changes could be made at modest cost on the construction job itself, which would enhance the safety of the motorist. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is fine. That is a very good statement. Are you pleased or unsettled-what word would you use to charac- terize your overall impression? Mr. WILsoN. I think I am deeply concerned about this problem, and I think that, not only to use an old excuse, but I think that the matter of communicating some of the very latest developments to our people in the field who can do the most about it would be most helpful here. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. Skeels? Mr. SKEELS. During these 31/2 days of hearings, Mr. Prisk has shown the committee many examples of questionable highway design. I would like to point out that the good features were not emphasized. Probably 95 percent of the design is excellent. The remaining 5 percent is what we have been seeing. The deficiencies we have been shown are mainly concerned with details that are safety hazards and indicate to me that the safety of the traveling public has not always been the primary concern of the highway designer. And this neglect has undoubtedly been unintentional. I do not for a moment believe anyone would accuse the designers of our Interstate System of being unconcerned with the safety of the traveling public. Rather, it is the result of other design pressures, such as cost, terrain problems, drainage problems, esthetics, the nece~s- sity used to establish standards and procedures, and the lack of infor- mation onthis state of the art at the designer's level. Overriding all of this is the necessity to have the enthusiastic support of top management at both the State and national levels. WithOut this, the best qualified and most safety motivated design engineer is helpless to put his design engineering in effect. With active top-level encouragement, even a mediocre design engineer using oniy ordinary commonsense should be able to improve on many of the design and construction deficiencies that we have seen. I hope these hearings will inspire the agencies responsible for high- way design to compete with each other to produce the safest road. Surely the influence of this committee will go far to achieve this end. The following steps might be considered: First, that safety design review boards be established at appropriate levels to catch as many deficiencies as possible at the design stage for new highways. Second, that trained inspection teams check the finished highway for areas in which improvements could be made. Third, that proven safety designs be immediately adopted by all States, even though they were developed by, another State or another agency. Fourth, that new but unproven designs be evaluated by an unbiased testing agency, and neither be adopted nor rejected on the basis of opinion alone. Most of the designs of which we are critical were thought to be good by somebody. PAGENO="0998" 994 Fifth, that AASHO and other pertinent standards be undated and written in sufficient detail so that the engineer will have an adequate guideline from which to work. Last, and most important, the top officials in all highway depart- ments, who in the final sense are responsible for approving or rejecting projects, must motivate their entire staff to put safety first. As a postscript, I would like to add that the nine States whose Interstate efforts were critically evaluated are typical of all States, and their highways are neither worse nor better than the others. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Skeels. Very good. Mr. Huff? Mr. HuFF'. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appre- ciation for the honor of having been invited to appear on this panel. As far as criticizing the many, many illustrations of design that we have seen, I believe that we have made statements over and over regard- ing them, so I will confine myself to generalizing. It seems that guardrail and bridge rail connections might be listed as public enemy No. 1. Close behind that would be curbs and possibly the massive ends of bridge rails. It is also significant, I think, that the installations that we have seen, all being on the Interstate System, could meet the standards for the National System of Interstate Highways. Now, I say standards for the National System of Interstate High- ways, and I mean that part of the standards which formulated in the beginning and was mandatory that all States follow. However, it must be remembered that there are other AASHO policies. They are not called standards. They are called policies; and it is my opinion that most of the installations that we have seen would follow what ever is laid out in those policies, insofar as they~are covered. Some of the items that we have seen are not covered in the standards or the policies. This in my opinion calls for a need for upgrading and broadening our-particularly our AASHO policies to cover these types of design, both on the Interstate System and on other highway systems for that matter. For example, the width of shoulders should be examined critically as to whether we are now designing a proper width shoulder. The guard- rail design should be examined critically, remembering that the guard- rail on a fill approaching the bridge is a flexible structure. When it gets to the structure, it becomes a rigid structure. Bridges have to be designed to carry trucks. It is entirely possible that a flexible rail should be run across the bridge, which would be a secondary rail inside the rigid rail. If a truck ran into the flexible rail, it. would go through the flexible rail and then be contained on the rigid rail. Whereas, all passenger cars would be contained by the flexible rail. Now, a good example of what AASHO is doing currently is the so- called Yellow Book, which was issued earlier this year. At recent AASHO design committee meetings-I am not sure whether all have done this, but the ones I am familiar with-have endorsed the so-called Yellow Book as a design standard. It goes far beyond tl1e specifications of the standards or the policies. Another thing that I have bee.n impressed with in these hearings is the need for better correlation between the various disciplines in PAGENO="0999" 9.5 highway engineering. It has been stated that the bridge engineer goes here and the road engineer starts and goes the rest of the way. Now, wherever that correlation is not being done, I strongly recommend that it be brought into play as quickly as possible. I might say that in our own State we have jointly-the divisions handling bridges and roads together with the traffic engineer-we have joined together and think that. we have the best solution that we know how to make on transition from a road rail to a bridge rail. I am not sure that it is best, but we think it is the best that we have been able to find. Of course we need also to inform ourselves as to what we should do to correct some of the deficiencies that we have seen here, and we all know-although my State is not represented in these pict.ures-~--we do have the same kind of deficiencies as were depicted here. We need to establish priorities on the worst and the most dangerous deficiencies and get to work on them. I believe that the States should get tothe job as fast as possible. Now, we are not going to be able to do all of them at one time. Another comment I would like t.o make would be-and this I hope is constructive criticism-I ama little bit afraid that this committee has tried to give too many answers to the deficiencies. We are a group of six engineers here. We have our opinions, but you might get six other engineers somewhere else and say, well, and start. picking holes. I think rather than us trying to give the ideas here before this dis- tinguished committee, `we should develop through AASHO, which I think is the most capable organization to do it, standards based upon the `great mass of research that has been accumulated during the last 10 years since the standards were developed and base our designs on that. I believe somebody should say some good things about our Interstate System because I know that in our State, and I have been in many other States, the people like it. They can go a great distance and at great ease, and I think one time we thought-and I was in our department in my same position before the interstate program was initiated-some of us thought that we were building too plush a highway, were just gold-plating and gilt- edging a special system here; and many of us thought the people would rebel against that. I think we should be gratified that they are with us and are willing and anxious and almost make it mandatory that we make it even bet- ter than we have macic it in the past. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Huff, for your very pertinent remarks~ Mr. Chairman, Mr. Huff on June 5 delivered a paper to the AASHO Operating Committee on Design for Region 3, at Indianapolis, md. The title of it is "Highway Safety as Related to Design Involving Fixed Objects." I would like to ask to make that exhibit No. 9 and with permission, to print it in the record, providing the size of the transcript will allow it. It `is a very, pertinent paper. I think it will add a great deal to the records that we have here Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection, it isso ordered. PAGENO="1000" 996 (The document referred to, illustrations omitted, follows:) HIGHWAY SAFETY AS RELATED TO DESIGN INVOLVING FIXED OBJECTS Over the past year, the topic "Highway Safety" has received considerable attention by automobile clubs, law enforcement agencies, automobile manu- facturers, civic groups, service clubs, and even the National Administration. The U.S. Congress has recognized the problem by passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Therefore, the program this afternoon is both timely and in accord with this growing awareness of the problem. My discussion is concerned with only one phase of the over-all accident record, those involving fixed objects. However, it also represents one of the fields in which we, as highway engineers, can exercise the most influence. We can exert only a limited control over pedestrian movements or animals encroaching upon the roadway. We have even less control over a driver's actions and reactions. We can, however, remove fixed impediments or render them safer so that the errant driver has a chance to recover control of his vehicle and return uninjured to the traveiway. During 1966, fixed object accidents in the State of Texas accounted for 14.5 per cent of the total rural traffic fatalities. Although this percentage is small compared to the total record, the number of people represented thereby is not. In human statistics, this percentage reflects a total of 500 people killed in our rural areas as a result of fixed object accidents. It is, therefore, obvious that such features deserve our immediate attention. As has been. the case since its very inception, the American Association of State Highway Officials has taken the initiative in this matter and in February of this year published a report entitled "Highway Design and Operational Prac- tices Related to Highway Safety." The Special AASHO Traffic Safety Committee Which compiled the report is to be commended for a job Well done. It is my fervent hope that the findings and recommendations contained therein will gain immediate acceptance by the highway profession. This publication covers, in detail, the topic which I am to discuss; however, I would like to cover several features which, over the years, have been of great concern to the Texas Highway Department and, I trust, other highway agencies. BRIDGES AND SEPARATION STRUCTURES With the advent of the Interstate Highway System, we began an accelerated program involving, among other things, the construction of thousands of bridges and grade separations. These improvements have enabled us to reduce the poten- tial hazards associated with at-grade crossings; however, they introduced fixed objects in the way of piers and wingwalis which have, unfortunately, taken their toll of drivers. In 1966, Texas recorded just over 1,000 rural accidents in- volving bridge ends or piers. The construction of minimum length underpasses with short spans have intro- duced piers adjacent to the shoulders which are entirely too close to give the driver any possibility of error. in order to protect the sense of openness afforded by our modern highway section, the driver should experience no constriction when passing beneath a structure. The center or outside piers should be eliminated entirely or set back at least thirty feet from the edge of the main lane pavement. This would be an ideal arrangement; however, it must be recognized that such an arrangement is not always possible or practical. Where this is the case and piers must be located nearer than thirty feet from the traveled way, they should be protected by an adequate length of guardrail, anchored on the ends so that it may develop its full ribbon strength. The Texas Highway Department has been using such installations for several years and we are quite encouraged by the accident record associated with the same. Attenuation devices consisting of energy absorbing material may eventually prove to be the best means of protection. Several different types of devices are currently being considered such as honeycomb masses of aluminum, forests of posts and large polyethylene containers filled with water. Bales of hay such as are used at the Grand Prix race represent a fairly effective although somewhat primitive attenuation device. As most of you are aware, Texas has developed breakaway sign supports; however, the elimination of the hazard imposed by fixed sign supports is of little value if the sign is backed up by a pier. PAGENO="1001" 997 Narrow overpasses and bridges likewise present some imposing barriers which have a high accident frequency. We, in Texas, have long believed that all struc- tures should be wide enough to accommodate the full width of approach roadway and shoulders. A crown width bridge does, of course, cost more than does a restricted width structure; however, considering the length of time the structure will be in service, it is an exercise in false economy to permit the initial cost to dictate design. Traffic safety and operation are enhanced by the wider roadway. The driver is more comfortable on a wide structure. In the event of an emergency stop, the wide structure can accommodate the parked vehicle without obstructing a traffic lane. Studies have indicated that emergency stops along a conventional facility occur each 10,000 to 12,000 vehicle miles which means approximately eighty million stops per year on the Nation's highways. If we are willing to spend millions of dollars to construct parking shoulders on the highways in between bridges, why should we shrink at spending a little more to extend this refuge area across our structures? When guardrail is required on the approaches to a structure, it should be con- tinuous across the structure, anchored securely to the bridge and at the end of the rail. The bridge should not have any curbs if there are none on the approaches. In particular, construction of a so called "Safety Walkway" should be avoided. While on the subject, I might offer the observation that altogether too much curbing has been used in the past along our highways. As a general rule, curbs should be used only where required for drainage and, in such cases, should be easily mounted by traffic. An acceptable curb would be a laydown type with a suggested rise of three inches in a width of twelve to eighteen inches. Any higher curb can throw a vehicle out of control or impart a dynamic action that tends to project the vehicle onto or over a protective rail. Bridge parapets and rails should be designed so as to provide unimpeded sight distances to side roads or ramps beyond the structure. On many of our existing facilities, we have discovered that traffic on an exit ramp or frontage road, stopped at the intersection, cannot see a through vehicle on the crossroad struc- ture until they pull out into the intersection. As a result, a number of collisions, several involving fatalities, have resulted. These existing situations can only be corrected by altering the traffic patterns or, at great expense, modifying the design. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES Our highway cross sections are replete with death traps for the unwary or errant driver. Among the most common are our installations for handling surface or cross drainage. Openings in medians and outer separations, between culverts, are prevalent in all areas of the Nation. If the culvert is continuous, any number of drop inlet designs with raised covers are encountered. Such hazards can be rather easily eliminated by extension of the culverts and installation of flush in- lets. Admittedly, a flush inlet is a maintenance headache since it is susceptible to being plugged by loose brush, debris or even a newspaper; however, a raised inlet or an open ditch is an even greater headache to anyone unfortunate enough to run into it. The only exception to the use of flush Inlets would be where they are located thirty feet or more away from the edge of pavement. Curb inlets also present a hazard to drivers if they are located adjacent to the travel way. As a general rule, the use of curb inlets should be avoided; however, where they are absolutely necessary, they should be located on the back side of the curb. The ends of culverts, headwalls and headwall curbs, etc., should be located well beyond the shoulder edge and behind protective guardrail rather than adjacent to or projecting into the roadway. Again, the guardrail should be of sufficient length, with anchored ends, in order to enable it to develop full ribbon strength if it is struck by a vehicle. Too often, a short length of rail, usually 12' 6" is installed at cuiverts. These short rails cannot coutain a vehicle. Thus the only purpose they serve is to delineate the hazard; however, they are a hazard in themselves. TREES For the past several years we and the highway industry have been maligned both publicly and privately for our lack of appreciation of nature's beauty. We have been accused of willfully and unfeelingly wreaking havoc on areas of natural beauty by construction of highways which disfigure the landscape. Unfortunately, there have been cases where overzealous engineers have disre- garded the amenities; however, I do not agree that this is the case rather than PAGENO="1002" 998 the exception. A modern, well designed highway is a thing of beauty. By judicious planting and landscaping it can be adapted to the terrain and natural foliage ~ that it complements rather than detracts from the scenic grandeur. What we must guard against, however, is becoming too~ overzealous in our beautification efforts. Aside from their ability to enhance a highway's appearance, trees are still a deadly menace to high speed traffic. Drivers and their unfortunate passengers are still being daily maimed and killed by trees on our highway system. In Texas, last year alone we recorded 788 accidents on our rural system involving trees and shrubs. In no case should safety ever be compromised in the interests of beautification. No trees should be planted or permitted to remain within thirty feet of a main- lane shoulder or within twenty feet of a ramp. No trees should be planted or permitted to remain within medians less than seventy-five feet in width. since over twenty-five per cent of highway fatalities result from vehicles leaving the road, trees should be removed on the outside within the limits of horizontal curves. Inside the curves, they should be removed or set back a sufficient dis- tance so that they do not limit sight distance. We have developed break-away mounts for our highway signs and illumina- tion standards. Until such time as an artificial break-away tree is developed, they must be considered one of our major roadside hazards. ABUTMENTS AND ErrAINING WALLS Since abutments and retaining walls must by their very nature be closer than thirty feet to the roadway, they must be continuous with no protruding features subject to collision. Desirably, they should be at least twenty feet from the roadway. if a closer location is required, protective guardrail should be installed. Retaining walls or abutments should not impair sight distance to ramp gores or signs. Retaining walls should, of course, be avoided if at all possible, thus resulting in a much more open, pleasing and safer facility. UTILITIES Utility installations are the nemesis of many highway engineers. They con- tribute nothing to the appearance, operation or maintenance of our system. The tangle of utility lines along many of our highways severely detracts from their appearance and they are a constant headache to our construction and mainte- nance personneL Nevertheless, we must live with them, hence we must establish some basic housekeeping rules. All overhead lines constitute a hazard by virtue of their supporting poles. Due to the massive size of H-frames and towers, they should be kept completely off the right of way except at extremely wide sections where they can be placed beyond any reasonable possibility of danger to traffic. Ideally, overhead lines should span the entire right of way with poles adjacent to or just outside the right of way line; however, if a compromise arrangement must be accepted, utility poles should be no closer than thirty feet to the main lane shoulders or twenty feet to the ramp shoulders. Electrical transmission lines, of course, pose the greatest danger to traffic since any accident resulting in a pole knock- down or damage could drop a "hot line" across the highway. Telephone lines do not pose this danger; however, because telephone lines cannot normally span as great a distance as power lines, their pole placement is a principal consideration. Railroad signal devices such as gates, flashing lights, crossbuck signs, etc., con- stitute a menace to traffic due to their usual proximity to the highway at railroad- highway crossings. I might mention that Texas is currently engaged in a coopera- tive research study involving at-grade railroad crossings. It is our intent to try and develop a hazard rating of different types of crossings as well as determine whether railroad crossing signs and signals should be brought back into the family highway signs. In municipalities, fire plugs and traffic signals can be quite hazardous. Most street sections are necessarily constructed on very restricted right of way with fire plugs, traffc signals, illumination standards, etc., located between the curb and sidewalk. All such installations should be located as far away from the road- way as possible, preferably beyond the sidewalk area. PAGENO="1003" 999 SUMMARY In dosing I would like to express my own philosophy with regard to the role of the highway engineer in the general field of safety. A highway accident, we must agree, has to he caused by one or a combination of three circumstances; namely (1) the driver, (2) the motor vehicle, (3) the highway. Under present laws the ability of the driver can range all the way from a physical or a mental weakling with low IQ, poor eyes, slow reaction time, etc., to a perfect physical specimen with high mentality. Nearly every state permits vehicles on its highways ranging all the way from one with poor steering apparatus, slick tires, etc., to perfectly operating machines. The driver and the automobile cannot, and it is my prediction will not, ever come under the purview or jurisdiction of the highway designer or traffic engineer. However, there is something we can do to improve the design and operational characteristics of all highways. It is believed that such meetings as this can provide the~ very best forum for an exchange of views among experts in this field. We are obligated to not only be sure that the facilities we `are now constructing are designed as safely as possible, but we are further obligated to ceaselessly point out to admin- istrators in our field the need to take corrective measures on the many, many miles of highways now in use which are just as backward as the driver with low mentality or the automobile with poor steering apparatus and slick tires. We should carefully study all accident reports and design features Ito determine whether they may `have been the cause of accidents. Only in this way can we eliminate those highway design features which contribute to our rising accident rate. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Wilkes. Mr. WIL1ur~s. Some of my remarks will repeat comments made be fore. .The highways we saw would meet the existing design standards, and the bridges could comply with the governing specifications. I think I can make this statement safely. This would then suggest that either our standards need revising or they need to be expanded to cover the deficiencies that we observed and. were so apparent. However, I believe there is a greater need for high- way engineers at all levels, the designers, supervisors, construction men, maintenance men, inspectors, to be made aware of the need for their re- spective responsibilities to produce the highway facility that will pro- vide maximum safety by the elimination of these hazards. This can only be done by the chief administrative officer of each State. He must impress on all employees the importance and the high priority for producing this total design for highway safety. We have seen in this presentation evidence of the lack of attention to details of design and construction which are necessary to produce this safest environment for the users Of the Interstate Highway Sys- tem. In many cases the deficiency could ~ corrected with little or no in- crease in construction costs. In other cases, the initial cost may be sub- stantially increased. However, as Mr. Constandy has pointed out, if consideration is given to the total cost, the initial construction, the maintenance, the accidents, the tragic loss of life and limb, the addi- tional expenditure and money may well be justified. The greatest deterrent to the correction of existing deficiency of bridge width and the inadequate side clearance is the lack of adequate financing. I am confident that future designs will incorporate the sev- eral features that have been found to provide the maximum safety to the highway users. The efforts made with the AASHO traffic com- mittee and the expressions of genuine concern at all levels of govern- ment, and especially the hearings held by this special subcommittee, PAGENO="1004" 1000 have focused the attention of all responsible highway officials on this national problem. We do appreciate the time and attention that the members of this House committee have given to this subject, and I feel that you have made a major contribution to the advancement of highway safety by dispelling the apathy among highway organizations throughout the country on this national problem. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilkes. Very fine state- ment. Mr. Bicker? Mr. RICKER. It is of course difficult to be the last one to summarize after five summaries, such as you have just heard. Perhaps I will be forgiven for going back and being a little more Philosophical rather than repeating what has been said. Our ordinary highways, the older ones in particular, are lined with hazards such as trees, rocks, utility poles, and so on, and in general we seem to drive them fairly safely without too many contacts. Starting I guess with the construction of the Pennsylvania Turn- pike we provided a. new driving environment. It has been said that the Pennsylvania Turnpike was the firsthighway to be designed ahead of the vehicle that would operate on it. Certainly since that time the vehicles have been capable of higher speeds and seemingly the drivers are using higher speeds. We are in the era now where we are building many new freeways, limited access highways, according to the knowledge available from the older roads. Apparently what is happening is that as we eliminate the hazards of crossroads, railroads, trees, and so on, near the right- of-way, near the pavement, we are moving into a new operating en- vironment where the drivers are perhaps more relaxed, less alert if an animal runs out in front of them or a tire blows or something else. And because they are more relaxed, they are more apt to leave the pavement and go into the adjacent areas. Therefore, these areas should be, as Mr. Wilson expresses it, more forgiving. I believe what we have seen in the slides these past several days indicate ways that we can improve this environment and make it more forgiving, and I certainly feel that we should all move toward that. It must be a continuing program. We cannot design safety into the road and then go away and leave it. We have to make maximum use of observations as the traffic uses the road, talking to the police who patrol it, talking to maintenance men who repair the damaged guard rail, talking to the traffic engineers who are out observing the actual operation of the highway. And as Mr. Wilkes says, it will be fairly easy to incorporate these improvements in new products. To go back and correct the others is quite a bit more difficult, par- ticularly when right.-of-way is limited, when the structures are already built. It has been implied by some of the Congressmen at this series of hearings that maybe we can get some more money to correct the older deficiencies. I am sure that when I go back to Pennsylvania this will be the first question asked me: Are we going to get more money to do it? Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you, Mr. Ricker. Mr. Chairman, I would like to personally thank the members of the panel. I think they have made an important contribution to the effort PAGENO="1005" i~i we are making, which incidentally is to define a problem. I do not think you need to worry about design standards coming out of the committee. I think that will be left, and properly should be, to the people who are professionally qualified to do it. I think they can be helped in the attention to the problem the corn- mittee will give, the definition of that problem. I want to thank you very much for your cooperation. It has been a strain, I realize-as an example-Mr. Ricker gave up his vacation to be here with us, and we are most orateful. Mr. MCCARTHY. On behalf of O~iairman Blatnik, and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Fallon, I would like to express the thanks of the committee to Mr. Ricker, who gave up his vacation, and to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Prisk, Mr. Skeels, Mr. Huff, and Mr. Wilson. I think you certainly made a major contribution to the future saving of a lot of American lives. When we took up the highway safety till last year, it was brought out-of course we are all cOncerned about Vietnam-it was brought out that since we have been in Vietnam three times as many American servicemen have been killed on our highways in the United States during that time, as died in battle and we are now killing more than 50,000 people a year. So this is certainly a major problem that affects the vehicle and affects the highway and relates to all aspects of it. I think that this testimony is going to accomplish a lot, and I think your suggestions are very valuable. We will be poring over them, and nobody has the answers as yet. We would not be here in this hearing if we had all the answers. Some of the suggestions macic convince me, from my own ex- perience in industry especially, that this should be a top management function. I think it should start with the Governor, and certainly his highway director, and I think that there is value in having a member of the top management team, the first echelon, right under the director of highways, who would be the director of safety. I think there is some value in that. I know there are also safety review teams that some of the States have; but that is a different sort of responsibility. If you had one top-level safety engineer who is part of the top management team in the States, I think-at least from my experience with a big company with over 70 plants-it showed that where we had one man in each operation who was in charge of safety, but with the ultimate responsibility falling on top management., this seemed to work. Also I think it would be a mistake for Washington to try to dream up all the answers and impose them on the States. The longer I am here, the more I see danger in some people who think, well, they have all the answers. That just it not so. I think the States could enter into a very healthy competition to determine which would be the most effective in cutting the number of deaths. Out in the field will be many, many valuable and important an- swers developed that could then be incorporated by the other States as one of you suggested. One thing the staff has discovered, and the members of the commit- tee, is that too often these admonitions that have gone out have gone PAGENO="1006" 1002 unheeded, despite the good sense they made from a safety point of view. Many of the suggestions were disregarded by the design people who seem to justify continued error by observing that "we have always done it this way." Chairman Blatnik is sorry he cannot be here to bring today's ses- sion of the hearings to a close. As you know, one of the biggest problems confronting Members of Congress is time. We often do not have enough time to do everything that we want to do, due to conflicting demands and duties. However, I do have his statement and I would like to read it here into the record: As we bring to a close this discussion by a panel of witnesses, each of whom is distinguished and nationally known in his field, the Chair wishes to thank each of the panel members for the fine service he has rendered to his country, the highway program, and the cause of greater safety to be designed and built into our new roads. You are to be commended for giving of your time and your knowledge as you have done, and I want the record to show that the Chair ex- presses, in behalf of our entire subcommittee, the gratitude and appreciation that is your due. During the opening days of our public hearings we heard testimony from early witnesses, documented by scores of photographic slides, that all was not well in the design-safety area of our highways. Roadside and gore areas cluttered with sturdy, overdesigned or unnecessary fixed objects such as heavy-duty steel poles or sign supports, elevated concrete bases and similar roadside hardware unprotected or too close to the traveled way were shown to be commonplace, even on our newer roads. So were other unsafe design features which so abound in the record by now that it would serve no purpose to recite them in full at this point. To establish whether these conditions were limited geographically, we broad- ened the scope of our inquiry. This was done by taking a representative sampling of the whole Interstate System, utilizing for the purpose an inspection of the most recently opened Interstate project in each of the nine regions administered by the Bureau of Public Roads. Each region was visited, and the projects in- spected by a representative of our staff accompanied by an eminent respected and experienced highway engineer, Mr. Charles W. Prisk, who is currently on loan to us from the Bureau of Public Roads. Mr. Prisk's excellent credentials are well known throughout highway circles and require no further comment. The results of this sampling are now apparent to us alL They are consistent with the testimony that has been previously incorporated into the record at these public hearings. The evidence has unfolded before our eyes as photograph after photograph has been thrown onto the screen to document with overwhelm- ing persuasion the testimony of the witnesses as to what they found and observed on newly opened Interstate projects all around the country. As a result, for several days this distinguished panel has seen slide after slide upon our screen, depicting built-in roadside hazards in these newest od projects. The opinions and observations of our panel members have confirmed our own impressions from the evidence to date. There is little question but that the design of these, our newest and most modern highways, has failed to take advantage of the available results of experience and research. The knowledge is at hand. Safe highway design is advocated and taught by leaders in the highway design and traffic engineering fields such as the gentlemen who have constituted our fine panel at this hearing. It is set forth in bulintins and publications that have issued over a period of years from the Bureau of Public Roads and from AASHO, the American Association of State Highway Officials. But somewhere along the line there has been a failure of communication with those who design and construct the actual roads. Possibly this situation has come about, in part, by a tendency on the part of State highway departments to regard themselves as "coiTstrueting agencies," whose chief function is to press forward as rapidly as possible under our great highway building programs. This attitude too frequently displaces what should be the concept of a highway department, namely that of managing the highway system as an operating physical plant, which is what it actually is. The highway is a live "going concern," which grows and changes with conditions, not a mere stretch of pavement which, once completed and opened to traffic, may then be abandoned except for the necessary maintenance-crew attention. PAGENO="1007" The Chair expects that out of these hearings will come, among other things, a greater realization that the design and construction of highways should be the beginning, and not the end of sound highway practice and operational efficiency. With the close of this week's sessions we have achieved a recognition of the scope of the problems we face in the area of safe highway design. We will try to find the answers to some of the problems that have been identi- fied thus far, when the subcommittee meets again to resume these public hear- ings on safe highway design and operating efficiency. Mr. MCCARTHY. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 a.m. Tuesday, June 27. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 27, 1967.) PAGENO="1008" PAGENO="1009" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards TUESDAY, J~UNE 27, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE C0MMn"r]cs ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washingkrn~, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. Robert C. McEwen (acting chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. Wright, Clark, McCarthy, Cramer, McEwen, Schadeberg, Zion and McDonald. Staff present: S~ame as previous days. Mr. MOEWEN. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid Highway Program will come to order. The subcommittee heard testimony last Friday by a panel of experts in the field of highway design and traffic engineering to analyze and discuss design safety features found in recently opened Interstate projects in all regions of the country. These gentlemen, after viewing numerous photographic slides de- picting design conditions found by our staff and by Mr. Charles W. Prisk of the Bureau of Public Roads at each of the projects visited, were asked for the benefit of their observations and opinions. Their testimony confirmed our own impressions from the evidence received earlier in these hearings. The testimony left little doubt that the design of these, our very newest highways, too often failed to incorpora~te and put into practical use the results of knowledge available from past experience and research. - The failure appears to be one of communication. Somewhere along the line the people who design and build the roads have failed to re- ceive the knowledge about safety design which is at hand and have gone about the design of new projetcs without incorporating safety features which reserach has demonstrated are both practicable and efficient. Today and tomorrow we will hear testimony from people who are leaders in the field of research and development. These witnesses will describe to us some of the tools that are available in our endeavor to create safer and more efficient highways. We are pleased this morning to have Mr. Kenneth A. Stonex, Execu- tive Engineer, General Motors Corp., Detroit, Mich.; and Louis C. Lundstrom, Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors engineering staff. (1005) 87-757 O-68------64 PAGENO="1010" 1006 Gentlemen, you will both be sworn at this time. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this subcommitte will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. STONEX. I do. Mr. LuNusmoM. I do. Mr. MCEWEN. Gentlemen, you may be seated. Mr. CONSTANDY. Will you each give your name and address, please? TESTIMONY OP KENNETK A. ~JX)NEX, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GENERAL MOTORS CORP., DETROIT, MICE.; AND LOUIS C. LUND- STROM, DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAI'ETY ENGINEERING, GEN- ERAL MOTORS ENGINEERING STAFT Mr. LUNDSTROM. I am Louis Lundstrom, Warren, Mich. Mr. S~roNEx. I am Kenneth A. Stonex, Executive Engineer, automo- tive safety engineering, General Motors engineering staff. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Lundstrom~ will you begin by telling us about the General Motors proving ground, please? Mr. LUNDSTROM. Yes. I would like to tell you a little bit about the history and scope of our proving ground, and to identify some of the safety problems we have found on our roadways and to discuss the solutions as they evolve. The General Motors proving ground near Milford, Mich., covers some 4,000 acres of rolling countryside. On this proving ground we have some 75 miles of road system that is used for all types of automo- tive test work. This~ involves the typical passenger cars, small trucks, large trucks, buses, earthmoving equipment, and military equipment. Would you like me to continue? Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes, sir, please. Mr. LUNDSTROM. In the conduct of our work over the years, we have encountered numerous safety problems. These problems include road- side obstacles, such as trees, stones, culvert headwalls, bridge abut- inents, roadside drainage ditches, the slope of roadside fill sections and the evaluation of theoretical approaches to these problems. Included in our work was the development of guardrails that were required for roadside obstacles which could not be eliminated. The problems of roadside signs, sign posts, were with us as they are in the public highway. The problems of light poles and their solution were encountered as well as the problems of bridge rails or parapets. As solutions to these problems evolved or appeared to evolve, we presented the results of our work in a number of technical papers at formal meetings of professional or technical societies with highway orientation. We will later summarize the highlights of a few of these papers which we think are significant to the formal record of these proceedings. To provide a graphic demonstration of some of the developments of the General Motors proving ground program and highway safety, we propose to show several motion picture sequences. The first two of these, "Safer Roadsides" and "Guardrail Testing for Safety," are part of the General Motors Public Relations Film Library available to the public. This composite film has been shown to more than 1,200,000 PAGENO="1011" 1007 people during the last 21/2 years. The other sequences we will show are of our current views of roadsides, performance of breakaway light poles and bridge parapet designs. Mr. CONSTANDY. You mentioned the film had been shown to 1,200,000 people. What kind of people were these, engineers or what? Mr. LUNDSTROM. This film is often used, probably most frequently used by service clubs. It is also used frequently by high school groups, by even the Boy Scouts in their programs of safety. It is also fre- quently shown to highway officials, city officials, anyone who might find reference to this road film library. Mr. CONSTANDY. Fine. Tell us a little bit more about what use is made of the proving ground? Mr. LUNDSTROM. The proving ground is used by all of the divisions of our corporation. Mr. Stonex and I represent the engineering staff who operate the proving ground, but it is open for use by every one of our divisions. The original purpose, obviously, was to have a private road system where testing would not be subject to the traffic encountered on normal public roads. We have at our proving ground then a total employment of about 1,500 people. Mr. CONSTANDY. When was this established? Mr. LUNDSTROM. The proving ground was established in 1924. Now, the proving ground is utilized very extensively by these operat- ing divisions. We have accumulated 337 million test miles during our operations. The current daily mileage runs between 70,000 and 80,000 miles. This is done on a three-shift basis, typically 6 days per week. Mr. CONSTANDY. So it is used in all types of weather, too? Mr. LUND5mOM. Day and night, year-round; the proving ground actually never closes. We have typical maintenance equipment, obviously, so that if there be a heavy snowstorm, we would clear our roads as you would on the public highway to conduct the scheduled tests. Nonscheduled tests under adverse conditions would, of course, be run as weather conditions would require. Mr. C0N5TANDY. Yes. We want to make this point, the traffic which you have on your road system is fairly typical of the traffic and the traffic conditions you then find on public highways. Mr. LUNDSTROM. Very much so. The purpose of the proving ground as far as automotive testing is concerned is to find the problems be- fore the vehicles are released to the customer. So we must have opera- tions on the proving ground that are typical of conditions throughout the country. Mr. CONSTANDY. Fine. When did you take over theproving ground? Mr. LuND5m0M. I came to the proving ground myself in 1939, but I was advanced to director of the proving ground in 1956. Mr. CON5TANDY. What problems did you have then? Mr. LTJNDSTROM. Well, gentlemen, the director of a proving ground or the manager of any plant in General Motors is responsible for the safety of the people under his jurisdiction. This is a cardinal rule in any of our industrial operations, and so it became my responsibility to have safety foremost in my mind and obviously then we had to be very careful about the safety of the operation on the road system. PAGENO="1012" 1008 We had been drilled over the years in plant safety and the extension of this concept to the road system was natural for us to take. Mr. CONSTANI)y. Yes. I think it is kind of interesting, your efforts along this line were motivated as an industrial safety project, this particular plant being the road system. Mr. Ltri~usmoM. That is correct. We could not tolerate injury on our control road system any more than we could tolerate injury from some careless practice in the plant itself. Mr. CONSTANDY. Could you continue then? Mr. LUNDSTROM. All right. In describing the proving ground then, as we saw it m perhaps 1956, the general layout of the road system was somewhat unique in that all of the major operations had been one- way traffic. Let me repeat again, as early as 1924, the men who laid out the proving ground recognized the importance of one-way traffic and all of the major roads from that time until now have been one-way traveled. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is an important feature in your safety record, is it not? Mr. L1m~smoM. I am positive this is perhaps the most important feature that we have had over the operation from 1924 to the present time. Now in 1956, or thereabouts, we discovered to our dismay that our roads were lacking in roadside safety. They had been built much as were the roads throughout the States and the country road systems; they lacked the wide shoulders that are known today to be important; they did have obstructions along the roadside; they had deep ditches in places that were thought to be necessary to remove surface water; they had steep backslopes or cuts through hills. In general these were the problems confronting us in 1956 and it was quite obvious in studying the accidents, one by one, that our most severe problem was related to these roadside hazards. Early computations or early studies of accident statistics indicated that approximately 70 percent of our accidents were of this single-car- running-off-the-road type. The proving ground, as I indicated earlier, is typical rolling coun- try. There is nothing different about it than any State or country road you might see in Michigan--curves, hills, lakes, level country, very ordinary type of operation, very ordinary type of environment. But we did, again in studying accident records, find that our test drivers, try as we may, would leave the test road about once every 250,000 miles of operation. In other words, this is a vehicle out control. And then what might happen to this vehicle out of control would depend very importantly on what the condition of the roadside was. And in that year 1956 or thereabouts, we admittedly had these hazards as are so often encountered on the public highway. Mr. CONSTANDY. At what speeds are the vehicles operated? Mr. LUNDsmoM. The proving ground system operates over all of the speed ranges encountered on public highways and a considerable number of tests beyond the legal speed limits. This is necessary so that we do go beyond what the customer will demand of his car in normal service. We also use higher speeds as a way of accelerating the test of a car. So we do run typically many miles at speeds over legal speed limits. PAGENO="1013" 1009 For example, from perhaps the 1940's until this time, all of the durability cars that were run on the proving ground had 90-mile-per- hour tests on the test track as a part of their normal endurance schedule. In other words, a driver every 30 minutes would be driving 90 miles per hour. So we were encountering these speeds that were considerably above normal highway practice, but for the reasons given. Mr. CONSTANDY. At the same time, though, a good portion of the mileage is at typical highway speeds? Mr. LUND5TROM. There are many, many tests at not only highway speeds, but at city speeds. We have stop-and-go traffic in certain areas where the cars never reach more than 30 or 35 miles per hour. Some of the cars stay on the city schedules entirely. Mr. MCDONALD. I would like to say I have had the privilege of going through your facilities there. I have seen cars traveling up to the speed of 130 miles an hour on your big track about 2 years ago when you had a display out there with some super automobile. I would like to say this is the most modern and well-developed track and test proving ground in America, not only for the safety of the vehicle but for highway safety. I think you are being a bit modest in your description of the proving ground. It is a tremendous thing and General Motors should be con-imended for the work they have done in the proving ground for vehicular safety as well as driver and high- way safety. Mr. LUND5TROM. Well, thank you. I hope the continued discussion here this morning will emphasize what you have offered. Mr. MCDONALD. I say that because, as a contractor before entering the Federal service, I was a subcontractor in many of your projects out there, so I feel I have had a hand in developing your facility. Mr. LUNDSTROM. Thank you. Mr. CON5TANDY. You will notice, as it became obvious to us, there is a potential for an accident when a high-speed vehicle impacts a solid object. The simple solution is to remove the obstacle. That cannot be overemphasized, can it? (At this point, Mr. Clark assumed the chair.) Mr. LUNDSTROM. No. That is a very obvious thing we neglect to say. Many of these obstacles are no match for a car or a car is no match for these obstacles. A tree of even 6, 8, or 10 inches in diameter can virtually destroy a car. Mr. CONSTANDY. And the occupants. Mr. LUNDSTROM. And the occupants. Correct. Mr. CONSTANDY. So in 1956, did you begin a renovation of the physi- cal plant to enhance the roadside safety? Mr. ~LUNDSTROM. Yes. We started developing the new designs, new facilities we were constructing, to higher standards; and in 1958 we started a very intensive effort to redo or modify the existing road system. I believe the first work of this nature was done in 1958 and it was the result of studies of accidents that. had involved personal injury unnecessarily. When we looked into any case and tried to find why was this man injured, we often came back to the fact, well, his car ran through some roadside obstacle; and I remember very well a rather shallow ditch PAGENO="1014" 1010 that caused some personal injury. They questioned why did the ditch have to be there; and it did not have to be. Mr. CONSTANDY. You know, this thing ought to concern more peo- pie; in this field of highway safety you hear a variety of opinions. Usually the opinion is there was a nut behind the wheel or `he was drunk. People seem to be looking for some defect in the driver's be- havior. But frequently, in the final `analysis, when you look at where the automobile stopped, it stopped suddenly against some object that did not have to be there. At the scene of the accident more people should be concerned over the signpost or the obstacle that did ultimately stop the vehicle. I think that way we may have more progress toward improvement of the roadway. Mr. LuNDsmoM~ Well, this work `that you mention and the removal of these obstacles was continued then, and by 1962 all of the major roads on our proving ground had been regraded and `the roadside ob- stacles removed as necessary. Mr. CONSTANDY. Before you began this undertaking, did you re- search the existing design standards and current practices as followed by highway departments and toll roads? Mr. LrnmsmoM. Yes. We do have at our proving ground a plant engineering department fully responsible for the design of our road- ways and we did ask them to review the practices that were being used throughout the, country to determine whether or not we could find suggestions for improvements of our road systems. Now, I remember quite well that they reported to us `the construction techniques and the design characteristics that we were using were typical of State roads throughout the country. In looking at some of the design guidebooks, I do recall seeing the statements made that roads built to minimum standards are not the safest roads. And there was strong evidence that too often roads were built to minimum standards. Mr. CONSTANDY. And hence not the safest roads? Mr. LuimsmoM. Correct. And herein lies part of the problem. So it was simply a matter of the proving ground deciding to build con- siderably above minimum standards. Mr. CONSTANDY. Did you survey existing roads `and turnpikes in the hope of finding a model safe highway? Mr. LUND5moM. We surveyed many miles of roads, sent men on cross-country trips to look at what practices were "being used. I would not say that we were looking~for a model, but we were looking for new ideas. And we did not find too much of benefit. We could identify the same problems on the public highway system as we were finding on the proving ground itself. Mr. CONSTANDY. And were you able to find a single mile of the Interstate System or any toll facilities which did not have obstacles, ditches, which could be potentially lethal if a car should run off the road at legal operating speed? Mr. LUNDSThOM. No. We had challenged our people to find this, a piece of public road that was free of all roadside hazards 1 mile in length. And to this date my men have never reported to me, and I have never personally found, a road of this type. Mr. OONSTANDY. Thank you. PAGENO="1015" 1011 Mr. LimismoM. Now, I. might continue by saying that in a little bit different way: The object of removing roadside hazards is to pro- vide traversable roadsides, to give a driver time to recover, time to re- gain control of his car, either stop it or direct it back to the road This is a rather simple statement, but a very importanteoncept. Now, we were very enthusiastic about this straightforward ap- proach to this problem. And the early experience on these regraded roads~ justified this enthusiasm. The early results were good. The drivers cooperated very well and it was difficult to keep aiiead of their suggestLns for roadside improvement. This again is perhaps a very significant point, that the drivers, once they understand the problem or once they understand what you are trying to do for them, will offer many suggestions and come in with their own comments, and again let me say it was difficult in those days to provide the im- provements as fast as the drivers would ask for them. They fully recognized it was for their own benefit, their own safety, and it was very encouraging to have their support as well as the sup- port of our engineers who were designing and modifying these road systems. Now we believed that this same approach could be applied to the public highways with equal effectiveness and we did begin then in 1958 to call attention to these improvements to those responsible for highway engineering throughout the country. On our proving ground, as well as on ~pub1ic highways, there are some places where it is virtually impossible to remove obstacles. This could be a river or a drainage system. These things cannot be moved. And we do then have construction elements, such as bridge abutments; we must have high roadside fills in places where it is impossible to flatten the slopes, and things of this nature. It was therefore necessary to develop systems such as guardrails to protect the occupants of cars in the areas where no other protection is feasible. In other words, if you cannot ~provide a clear, safe roadside, you have to provide a substitute and this is what we typically call high- way guardrail. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. Mr. Lu~usmoM. Now, later in our discussion this morning, we will show motion picture sequences of a project which had the objective of developing adequate guardrail protection. Back in 19~S8 we found that the materials currently available could be used to provide adequate control if properly installed and properly built. We did find, though, that the installations typically made on the State highways were rather minimum in strength and we found ways of improving them, ways of strengthening the installations to go be- yond the minimum standards. Probably the most serious problem in standard guardrail installa- tions was that the end of the guardrail was exposed, and I think you have already reviewed some of this work, knowing if the automobile strikes the rail dead center so that the motor mass strikes the guard- rail, the deceleration of the car is very high and the guardrail itself becomes a formidable obstacle. If the car strikes off center, the guard- rail may and frequently does impale the ear. PAGENO="1016" 1012 We have in our files, as I am certain you `have in your ifies, Dhoto~ graphs of cases where the guardrail has threaded through trie car interior, creating injury and death. Now the second problem on typical installations of guardrail is that the posts are separated by too large a spacing. Frequently it is found that the guardrail beam is weak enough to deflect so that when a collision isbetween the posts, the car is trapped and stopped at a high deceleration rate or it simply travels over the rail. Now in the consideration of roadside obstacles along our highway network, utility poles, and particularly lamp poles for roadway light- ing, are prominent. Early in the proving ground program we demon- strateci the feasibility of using a tripod lamp pole constructed of thin wall tubing with flush mounted base plates having low shear resist- ance. By thus distributing the inertia and minimizing resistance at the base, we were able to collide with a prototype breakaway pole, producing only very minor sheet metal damage and almost no possi- bility of injury to the occupants. Later in the testimony we will show a record of this early work and demonstrate the current status. This early design was considered to be too expensive and so recently we have gone into additional tests which we will describe later in our program this morning. Early in the proving ground program we recognized that ordinary traffic signs, mounted then at a height of 42 inches, could be significant hazards. The problem with this installation is that, at normal traffic speeds, collision with the sign support bends it away near ground level; the inertia of the sign is high enough that the mounting bolts are pulled apart or through the sign, and the sign starts to fall. Be- fore it falls far enough, the car runs into it at windshield level. Some of the standard signs weigh as much as 25 pounds and the sign will usually break the windshield and sometimes ~enetrath it. The proving ground demonstrated conclusively that if the sign is mounted .60 inches or more above the road, the car will pass below the sign before it falls far enough to be struck by the windshield. This concept was recognized in the 1961 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, where a minimum height of 5 feet, 6 inches on expressways is prescribed. Now, extensive development of guardrail designs mduced a grow- ing feeling that current bridge rail design are inadequate. Reports of increasing numbers of failures in the field as the construction of the Interstate System proceeded substantiated this feeling. During the planning of access to a new circular test track facility in 1961 and 1962, increasing emphasis was placed on the development of a bridge parapet that would be impenetrable to any type of vehicle, that would produce minimum injury to occupants and rnmimum dam- age to the vehicle, and that would redirect the vehicle in the direction of the roadway. Later in the day we will showS some ifim on this where we are changing from the concept of the flexible beam guardrail on the highway to a rigid beam that is needed on the bridge rail where there can be no possibility of the vehicle penetrating the guardrail. Mr. CONSTANDY. That parapet is most impressive. I think the movies you have will clearly show it. Is it not also possible to use that parapet design as a median barrier? PAGENO="1017" 1013 Mr. LUNDSTROM. Yes. There have been some sample installations made, one of them right in Detroit, and we are encouraged by the results, not only on our ~proving ground. We believe this design will be benefiôial as a median barrier. But the important thing to remember is that this is a rigid barrier, not a flexible barrier, as is used on the open highway. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. I wonder if you could give us some of the acci- dent statistics of the proving ground. Mr. LUNDSThOM Yes. I would very quickly like to say that in addition to the elements I have just described this morning, and I would repeat by reminding you that we are talking about a one- way road system, we are talking now about a road system that is used over the entire speed range of automobiles; we are talking about day-night operation, winter-summer; we are talking about improved roadsides. And in addition to this, we are talking about a system where we can be rather selective of who drives on this system. We are talking about a system where we can train the drivers better than you can train the public on the highway system. We are talking about a system that involves vehicle inspection. We are, therefore, talking about control of the roadway, the driver, and the vehicle. Mr. CONSTANDY. This is about as close as you can get to an opti- mum situation, is it not? Mr. LUNDSTROM. Well, this is our attempt, obviously. We are try- ing to take all possible improvements into account and this can be done on this private road system. Now, we have no way of breaking out the significance of each one of these elements. All I can tell you in answer to your question is that when you take the total~ system operating under these condi- tions, we have an accident record that is 25 times better than the public highway system. This is 2,500 percent better. It is hard to visualize, because today people are searching for 200 percent improvement, perhaps, in accidents represented on public highways. We are talking today about 2,500 percent improvement. It is a fact, it is proof that it can be done. Mr. CONSTANDY. Have you had any fatalities on the proving ground? Mr. LUNDSTRUM. Since 1924 there have been two fatal accidents on the proving ground, each involving two men. The last fatal accident was in 1942. Since that time we have run 225 million miles without a fatal accident. Mr. CONSTANDY. It is worth recognizing that the fatalities you have had, as few as they have been- Mr. LTJNDSTROM. I would like to have you understand very clearly the method I am using in comparing proving ground with the public highway. The number of fatalities does not make it possible for us to draw a good comparison with highway practice. So we have to drop to the next level of accident severity. This is in terms then of temporary disabling injury accidents. And it is this basis that I am using in talking about a 25-to-i improvement. PAGENO="1018" 1014 Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. I think it is worth keeping in mind that you cannot be concerned only with fatal accidents. The line that separates the two types is sometimes very thin. The accidents that you did have that were fatal, however, were they run-off-the-road-type accidents? Mr. LUNDSTROM. Both of them were. One of them involved a special car that ran ofF the top of our test track through a rather weak barrier and involved the death of two men. The second accident involved a truck that, again, ran off a curve that was unprotected; it was a rOllover accident into a poorly prepared roadside and again there were two fatalities. Mr. CONSTANDY. Since your roadside improvement program you have had none, both of these happened under t.he old design? Mr. LUNDSTROM. Both of them on the old designs, correct. Since we started working on the roadside improvement program, we have had, I believe, 219 cars off the roadway umntentionally. And there has been one temporarily disabling injury accident in 219 times. These statistics are significant. I would challenge you to look at the roadways that you drive every day and see if you could drive off the road 219 times without getting injured. Mr. CONSTANDY. I would like to avoid doing it once. Earlier you mentioned that the results of your work were given m a series of technical papers before technical groups. I wonder, Mr. Stonex, if you could summarize those papers, at least the more signif- icant ones. Mr. STONEX. Yes. Our first reference to the roadside as a practical approach to highway safety appeared in a paper which I gave at the Highway Research Board annual meeting in 1954. Mr. CONSTANDY. In 1954? Mr. STONEX. Yes, 1954. Mr. CONSTANDY. Thirteen years ago? Mr. STONEX. Yes. I would like to quote a part of that. I said- Many fatal accidents are a result of a too sudden stop. As highway designers, your concern is with the obstacle that caused the sudden stop and not with the obvious fact that the driver was driving too fast for conditions. As long as ob- stacles exist, some drivers will hit them. And the safety of a highway design should be in direct proportion to the time the driver has available between making his error and striking the obstacle. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is your whole basic premise, is it not? Mr. STONEX. Yes. Then I continued to point out that higher design standards have been adpoted for all components of the highway. However, we still have-and this was 1954- We still have hundreds of thousands of miles of two-lane highways where opposing traffic stream of units with hundreds of thousands of foot-pounds of kinetic energy pass within a few inches of each other. We have shoulders which are narrow, rough, soft when wet, obstructed by culvert headwalls, stones, trees; we have highways where the curves are short and sharp, sight distances so short that almost no opportunity for safe passing is provided, traffic lanes which are very narrow, deep roadside ditches, traffic types mixed from transport vehicles to pedestrians, and far too few roads to carry the traffic volume. It is no wonder the traffic accident record is as bad as it is. Our next paper discussing roadsides is a fundamental paper given by Mr. Lundstrom at the SAE summer meeting in 1958. And among the things that Mr. Lundstrom stated was- PAGENO="1019" 10L5 The importance of the vehicle-road relationship to the utility and safety of the highway system is often overshadowed by the individual problems of the vehicle manufacturer and the highway builder. With the accelerated highway program becoming a reality, a new objective look at the vehicle-road relationship is necessary. * * * Projecting requirements of vehicles and roads ahead nearly 20 years and combining them into an orderly and safe transportation system is an enormous undertaking. This paper can only suggest typical problems for addi- tional study. He also said- Of greatest prominence-in a complete study-are the new interstate high- ways, but of equal importance to the public is the safe use of primary, secondary, and urban roads. And in this paper, lie called our attention to the fact that Mr. Harlow H. Curtice, who was then chairman of the President's Com- mittee for Highway Safety, had stated that the- Nation's highway traffic toll could be cut in half within a relatively short time if present knowledge of highway safety problems were effectively applied on a nationwide basis. Our fundamental problem is not ignorance of what to do; it is failure to get it done on a sustained nationwide basis. We should con- centrate more intensively on putting our knowledge to work instead of casting about for revolutionary, new approaches in a mistaken belief that present meas- ures are futile. Mr. CONSTANDY. There is not much that can be said which would be more pertinent than that. Your own experience shows that, you people have proved there are ways to improve highway safety, to improve design. You have been able to show the results of it. The knowledge is available; it is a matter of implementing it Mr. `STo~x. Right. Mr. CONSTANDY. The paper you mentioned is dated 1954, which was 13 years ago, 2 years before the Interstate System was provided for by law. Again 2 years after it was begun, and in the years since, you have been proclaiming the things that you have found in your own efforts at the proving ground. Yet. we have seen examples too frequently here of that knowledge not having been applied, the result being that the roadside is not as safe as it might have been. Mr. STONEX. This is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Will you continue? Mr. STONEX. Mr. Lundstrom also referred to a cooperative project conducted by the proving ground and the Pennsylvania Turnplke and reported in 1940 in the proceedings of the Highway Research Board, which was done by myself and Mr. C. N. Noble. This paper had an interesting item in that we reported the details of some tests conducted on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, before it was opened, at speeds in excess of 100 miles an hour using a production 1940 car with production 1940 tires. Now this, I think, is relevant because of the possible current interest in what has beeii spoken of as a "Century Highway" in. the northeast corridor. Mr. CONSTANDY. Century Highway is a road that would be deslgned to accommodate traffic at speeds of 100 miles an hour. Mr. STONEX. One hundred or higher, depending on who is discussmg the proposal. Mr. CONSTANDY. Or higher. This research was done in 1940? Mr. STo~ax. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Continue, please. PAGENO="1020" 1016 Mr. STONEX. By the time of the 39th annual meeting of the High- way Research Board in January of 1960, we had advanced the develop- ment of the roadsides at the proving ground to the point where we could report a theoretical analysis and validation by experiments, which makes it possible to predict the severity of operation through ditch cross sections. We also related the characteristics of the automo- bile, such as tread width and center of gravity height, to the effect of increasing the steepness of the slope on ifil sections toward inducing car rollover. Now, we recognize that it would not be possible to submit these points of view and concepts to the highway engineering profession without an engineering approach. And this paper does develop this. It appears in the paper and we won't proceed to discuss it at the moment. However, auother thing we felt would be necessary would be to get some practical estimate of the width of the traversable roadside which would be required. I have a slide which summarized the distribution of the distances from the edge of the pavement that we have found on our proving ground roadside system. If I may go over, Mr. Chairman, I can describe it a little more accurately. This covers 211 cases where drivers had left our roads from 1958 to the conclusion of 1966. This curvature shows 10-mire distribution, distance from the edge of the road. You will note at about 100 feet we had probably about one incident of the driver going as far as 100 feet from the edge of the road. And as we go back closer to the road, we accumulate just a few more, twoor three more cases probably. HAZARD CURVE 2B GM PROVING GROUND ACCIDENTS 211 CASES I 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 90 $0 - - - - - - 70 60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sc 40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : 10 ~ii 0. 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 $0 90 100 DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT-FEET PAGENO="1021" 1017 Finally we go back, we find that at 30 feet we had 20 percent of the drivers who had gone more than 30 feet. Actually about 28 feet. And so we conclude that if in our modern highway designs we had a travers- able corridor beside the road 30 feet or so, that at least 80 percent of the accidents would be eliminated. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Stonex, these people did not hit anything, did they? Mr. STONEX. No. This is traversable roadside. Mr. CONSTANDY. Frequently you hear a comment that the man who hit the tree at 20 feet off the road would have hit something else if the tree had not been there. Mr. STONEX. On our roadside, no. Now I would like to show the distribution on several highways where they did hit things. Mr. CONSTANDY. Before you leave that, that 30 feet is the distance from the edge of the pavement? Mr. STONEX. This is the distance from the edge of the pavement. Mr. CONSTANDY. When you say "pavement," is that the traveled way or the shoulder? Mr. STONEX. This is the traveled way. In some case~s this is the traveled road, but it is the edge of the traveled way. Pavement on a paved road; on the gravel road it is the portion on which the man is supposed to ride. Mr. CONSTANDY. Eighty percent of the cars did not go more than 20 feet from the ege of the shoulder? Mr. SToNEX. This is right. The next slide repeats the proving ground history. We have here an example of a small number of cases from the Cornell automotive en- COMPARISON OF PROVING GROUND HUTCHINSON,~CORNELL, AND ROUTE 66 "HAZARD" CURVES 211 CASES :: ~° 40 30 20 10 ~iiii ~ N `*. \ ---~----~- -s- I- ~ ~ ti \_ ~ ~ ~ - Hufthin Estimate Hu -.~-- Ob %~ `~ ~ ~ om d chinsoi~ erved ~ - [Route 66 Study ~ ~ Ground - ~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF PAVEMENT-FEET 70 $0 90 100 PAGENO="1022" lois gineering research program, showing distance where the cars left the road where people were injured or killed. We have recently reported a study on Route 66, a seven-State study of injury and fatal accidents, and this curve shows the distance where these people went off the existmg highways. And we have another 70-we have this dashed ime which was recorded, a study by Hutchinson, on median encroach- ment. A particular type of divided highway, the number of instances where the people have gone into the median, leaving the road on the left side, and we found distribution like this. Now there was no record as to whether there were injuries. There were cases where a number of these vehicles did strike obstacles in the median. Fifteen percent of the cases went over on the opposite con- crete line, across the median line. In all cases, on the proving ground, it was where obstacles were in the road. Mr. CONSTANDY. Could you make some conclusions from that, Mr. Stonex? Mr. SToi~x. We conclude that if there had been no obstacles along any of these other roadsides, that probably these people would have followed a distribution somewhat like our proving ground drivers did. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would this suggest clear roadsides of at least 30 feet? Mr. STONEx. We think 30 feet is a very practical measurement; it would be safe for a very great proportion of the accidents and the cost is reasonable. Mr. CONSTANDY. You would n~ót object to more than 30 feet? Mr. ST0NEX. Not at all. The more the better. Mr. CONSTANDY. As a matter of fact, you relate back to something Mr. Lundstrom said, that if we are speaking of 30 feet, might we not be speaking in terms of minimums? Mr. Sroi~x. Yes, certainly. Mr. CONSTANDY. Minimum values from design standards, but rela- tively safe highways. Mr. STONEX. Yes. That is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you want to add something, Mr. Lundstrom, at this point? Mr. LUNEsmOM. Well, typically I would say use the right-of-way, at least if available. And on the Interstate System, we do have, gener- ally speaking, enough right-of-way to go beyond the 30-foot figure. And obviously it is on these roads where we have a higher speed traffic and the need for greater roadway width. On lower speed roads, where the traffic might be ~35 miles per hour, proportionately narrower escape routes would have been adequate. But the thing that the designer needs to look at is what is available to him to work with to make maximum use of his resources. Mr. CON5TANDY. Yes. And we may even question the level of service which is desirable. We may desire greater right-of-way widths within which to work. Do you want to continue, Mr. Stonex? Mr. STONEX. We have reported additional development of this con- cept from time to time which I will not go into in the interest of time this morning. However, I would like to discuss a paper which I pre- PAGENO="1023" 1019 sented at the Society of Automotive Engineers national meeting in January 1964. In this paper, the particular significance is that we showed and developed the dynamic energy considerations of collision between an automobile and a solid object. We show, for example, that in these solid and direct impacts at suburban and urban traffic speeds, peak horsepower from 5,000 to 6,000 will be developed. We ran a higher speed test, collision test, on a public highway outside of the proving ground, 64 miles per hour, and we developed a peak of almost 14,000 horsepower. And the purpose of this analysis was to make it clear that it is the collision horsepower that injures and kills people and the analysis then puts the consideration of the rated horespower of the engine into proper perspective. Now, this will be the opening scene of one of the pictures we are going to show you in a few minutes. Mr. CON5TANDY. What was the title of that? Mr. STONEX. "Single-Car Accident Problem." Mr. CONSTANDY. That was in 1964? Mr. STONEX. In 1964, yes. We have had the opportunity to discuss these concepts with a great many people and a great many audiences. For example, we have been invited to present the material at the highway division or highway department conferences on 43 separate occasions, from 1.958 until and including the current year. Mr. Lundstrom showed it to the executive committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials in November of 1958. We have made similar presentations to regional design committee meetings, that is the AASHO Design Committee meetings. For exam- ple, in Boise, Boston, Madison, and Tampa. Mr. Lundstrom has shown it at at least two staff metings of the Bureau of Public Roads, the first time in October 1958. We have also presented the material before meetings of the Canadian Good Roads Association and the Canadaian Highway Traffic Associa- tion, and at staff meetings of the National Safety Council and the Auto- motive Safety Foundation. We have shown it to the staffs of the Indiana, Ohio, and New Jersey Turnpike Commissions; The Port of New York Authority; and at meetings of the American Bridge, Tunnel, & Turnpike Association. We have also appeared on programs of many technical and pro- fessional associations and we have a total of 91 listings in our records. In this visit, Mr. Lundstrom, for example, has gone from San Fran- cisco to Boston to Atlanta. I have gone from Winnipeg to Miami or Quebec City to Tucson, with intermediate places. And we have also made this available for many civic organiza- tions, such as service clubs, church groups, and the communities around Milford and Detroit. We have a listing of 105 presentations to these groups. Our colleague, Mr. Meyer, who is with us, has kept a record of the people to whom he has talked, and it numbers more than 4,000 people. Mr. CONSTANDY. You made a very sincere effort to try to bring before the people the knowledge that you have gained from the efforts you made at the proving ground. Mr. STONEX. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. You have not tried to keep it a secret, I know. PAGENO="1024" 1020 Mr. STONEX. We have done the best we could to make it available. We thought that it was a very good investment to get it as broadly understood as possible. Mr. CONSTANDY. I would assume, or at least hope, that the lessons learned by you people might be incorporated in the design and con- struction of our public highways. Mr. STONEX. We would sincerely hope so. Mr. CONSTANDY. Before we get to the movie, you have a paper which you gave, if I can find it, entitled "Roadside Design for Safety." What was the date of that paper? Mr. ST0NEx. That was 1960. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Chairman, that was an award-winning paper and we have a copy of it here. I would like to ask that it be made exhibit No. 10 and, if space permits, it be printed in the transcript; if not, to be retained in the files. I would further like to ask that the slides be made exhibits 11 and 12. Mr. Cr~x. Without objection, so ordered. (Exhibits Nos. 10, 11, and 12 were marked and are retained in sub- committee files.) Mr. Sc ui~ii~a~o. Mr. Chairman, going back to the last few slides, I am not clear in my mind as to what the situation was when you talked about the number of feet off of the highway which would be safe. Now, these cars that went off the highway; did these hit an object or did they not hit an object? Mr. STONEX. In each of the distributions, these are the distances that the cars departed from the pavement. In other words, the maximum excursion. On our proving ground road system, this is where the driver regained control and either stopped the car or turned back. In the other cases, in most cases, also m the Cornell and Route 66 studies, these were injury accidents and this is the distance they went out before striking an obstacle, before causing an injury or fatality. Mr. SCHADEBERG. Was there any evidence as to why they went off the road, was it because they fell asleep or because they lost control of the car? Why did they leave the road? Mr. S~roNEx. There is very, very little evidence. In the case of our drivers, where the accidents are investigated, occasionally it was pure carelessness. We have cases where a man reached over to pick up a package of cigarettes which had fallen off the seat onto the floor. We have another case where a driver reached over to pick up a data clip board which had fallen off the seat. We have numerous cases ~where they fell asleep and many cases where they do not even know why they left. the road. Mr. SCHADEBERG. Would there have been any help if there had been some sort of rumble in the road that would have awakened them or at least called attention to the fact; that they were off the road? Mr. STONEX. It is quite probable this would help in some cases. On the other hand, we did experiment for nearly 2 years in trying to devise some way of alerting people before they really got off the road, and this we concluded was not successful and would not be effective. Mr. SOHADEBERG. I see. Mr. S~roNEx. We find when people fail asleep, they frequently leave the road before their head even drops. PAGENO="1025" 1021 Mr. LimismoM. I might add to that just a little bit. A rumble strip would hopefully awaken a person who was subject to gomg off the road for this reason. But this is only one of many reason that cars leave the roadway. And so we have no way, at the moment, of keeping a driver from suddenly swerving off the roadway to avoid something ahead of him. It might be an animal, it might be a stalled car, or something he comes upon unexpectedly, so he drives off the road to avoid the obstacle. Other times, snow and ice conditions cause people to go off the road, probably for driving too fast, but the fact remains that you and I and the general public do drive too fast on the snow and ice and even on wet roads, so cars will go off the roadway and rumble strips have no effect on these cases. So it is correct that a rumble strip might pick up a few cases, but I think the other reasons are so important that they overshadow the gains to be obtained from a rumble strip. Mr. SCHADEBERO. Thank you very much. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLARK. Yes, Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MCCARTHY. I wonder if we could underline this particular point. The other clay we heard about the Bureau of Public Roads study of the last 6 months of last year showing that 65 percent of the accidents on the Interstate System were where the vehicle left the right-of-way. Now, we hear from General Motors where they have trained drivers, 70 percent of the accidents are where the vehicle leaves the right-of- way, the traveled way. Now, I think what we can conclude from this, no matter what the reason-fatigue, alcohol, swerving, animal, falling asleep-whatever it is, and these are all causes I think should be explored, but I think the statistics point out that no matter what, drivers are going to leave the traveled way. I think that these statistics show that no matter what, there are going to be cars leaving the right-of-way. Now, before, I think there was sort of the attitude we picked up in these hearings, well, if they leave the right-of-way, that is their prob- lem. And we put these signs in and put them in steel and concrete and protect the sign rather than the driver. Now, what I would hope we would see is a change of attitude here to realize that whether it was the driver's fault or not, a certain per- centage of the cars are going to go off. And this idea that you are pro- posing of a 30-foot traversable corridor cutting 80 percent of the acci- dents. I think, is an excellent idea. And I just would like to underline that point right here in the record. Mr. SToNEX. We have felt that failing asleep and leaving the high- way really should not merit capital punishment. Mr. CONSTANDY. As someone remarked earlier here at the hearing, there has to be some forgiveness built into the highway. I think it is very appropriate. I think it might be worth mentioning, since we discussed 30 feet, that you would not advocate a fixed figure, would you, Mr. Lundstrom. Mr. LUNDSTROM. No. As I mentioned earlier, the necessary travers- able roadside depends, importantly, upon the operating characteris- tics. For example, you need a wider right-of-way along the outside 87-757 O-68----65 PAGENO="1026" 1022 of a curve `than inside. You need wider traversable roadsides for higher speed operation, and so forth. So you are correct that the 30 feet is a nominal figure, but it is not one to be fixed for every road in the country. Mr. CONSTANDY. You have to be very careful with minimum values, apparently. The sign manual suggests that signs should be placed at the minimum of 2 feet from the shoulder, and throughout the country they are placed just 2 feet.. They could just as well, very frequently, be placed at some greater distance than 2 feet. If the people who set standards were to adopt the minimum and it were blindly followed, you may have another problem later to over- come. We have seen situations where States have adopted some figure for a clear roadside, say 20 feet, and at 21 feet there would be a row of very heavy trees. Depending upon the circumstances, judgment must be exercised as to what would be appropriate for that highway for that speed limit at that particular place; what is the clear road width that you used on the proving ground? (At this point Mr. McCarthy assumed the chair.) Mr. LUNDSTROM. We use as much as 100 feet, if possible. Mr. ~ONSTANDY. Yes, building safe highway and using 100 feet, you minimize the problem of the single-car-run-off-the-road type of situation. Mr. LUNDSTROM. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it is worth pointing out, too, you count every vehicle which leaves the traveled roadway as an accident., do you not? Mr. STONEX. That is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Whether it hits anything or not? Mr. STONEX. Right. Mr. CONSTANDY. The driver is obliged to report back to you each instance when he leaves the highway? Mr. STONEX. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Before we get on to the movie, is there something, Mr. Stonex, you would say relative to slopes and the condition causing rollover? Mr. STONEX. It is described, Mr. Chairman, in the film. I could say that we have concluded that the 6-to-i slope ought to be about the steepest which should be used on a road. We have no slopes steeper than that. Mr. CONSTANDY. That would be what you would consider a mini- mum? Mr. STONEX. That is a minimum, yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. In those circumstances where drainage permits a slope that flat? Mr. STo~x. We would not permit one steeper than 6 to 1, and where possible we would like to have them flatter. Mr. CONSTANDY. 8 to 1? Mr. STONEX. 8 to 1,10 to 1, again depending on circumstances. The flatter it is, the less problem you have with erosion, the ea.sier it is to mow it; so all is in favor of the flattest slope possible. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. I suggested that at times you may find it necessary to have something less than 6 to 1, say 4 to 1; if it were PAGENO="1027" 1023 mountainous terrain, physically impossible, going along a river edge or other topographical situation which may force you to adopt some- thing less desirable than that. But when feasible, a lot can be said about what is feasible, 6 to 1 should be a minimum? Mr. STONEX. This is right. We should be very careful about any- thing steeper than that. And we should know what is being done. Consciously. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. I think that there are studies that have been made which would indicate that frequently obtaining a 6-to-i or even 8-to-i slope, with the price of dirt being what it is on that project, is cheaper than installation of a guardrail. Mr. STONEX. This is right. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. A preliminary study exploring that possibility could result in flatter slopes and safer roadways. Mr. STONEX. This is right. Yes. Mr. CONSTANDY. Do you want to present the film now? Mr. STONEX. We have the first film, entitled "Safer Roadsides," which is self-explanatory, I think. Mr. CONSTAND-Y. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been kind enough to furnish us with a script of the film and I would like to ask that the script of this film, "Safer Roadsides" be made exhibit No. 13 and printed in the record at this time. Mr. MCCARTHY. So ordered. (Script of film, "Safer Roadsides," follow as exhibit 13.) NARRATOR.-EaCh year, off-road accidents claim the lives of more than 13,000 people, and account for approximately one-third of the national highway death toll. In severity and frequency, theSe accidents are second only to car-to-car collisions as virtually every mile of roadside in the nation is studded with obstacles that can `cause serious or fatal accidents. While many of these accidents occur on S~ondary'and rural roads, residential streets and even our newest freeways contribute to the grim statistics, for vir- tually every obstacle at the roadside is a hazard that can cause a serious or fatal accident. But perhapS the' most alarming fact is that most of these accidents, and most of the more than 13,000 deaths that result, could be prevented! The validity of this statement has been proved by actual experience at the General Motors Proving Ground, where driving hazards have been systematically eliminated over the years. Here, more `than 60,000 miles are driven daily to test the performance, dura- bility, comfort, and safety of GM cars on 75 miles of specially engineered roads that comprise a cross-section of American highways. The tests are severe, the speeds often high and the maneuvers extreme . . . yet records prove that the General Motors Proving ,Ground is probably the safest place in the world to drive-more than twenty-five times safer than public highways! The principal reason is the fundamental concern for driver safety that has guided the Proving Ground since its origination in 1924-the application of one- way traffic, median dividers, grade-separated intersections, and limited access high-speed roads. Then there's the drivers themselves. Each applicant is carefully screened, then he must pass a thorough physical examination, safety indoctrination, and several days of on-the-job training with other test drivers before he is allowed on the road system alone. But-despite well-trained drivers and the application of all known safe- guards-accidents occasionally occur. Human fallibility, slippery roads, un- expected traffic situations, and occasionally mechnical troubles are ever-pres- ent conditions that cause accidents; even under the most closely controlled conditions. In the Six years between 1952 and 1958-a period covering 65 million miles of test driving-the Proving Ground experienced property damage accidents at the rate of one every 240,000 miles. PAGENO="1028" 1024 Surprisingly, the majority of these accidents-approximately 80%-were one- car of-road accidents, not two-car collisions! In these accidents the drivers involved lost a total of 64 days due to injuries. The cause of th~ statistics became evident in a review of the 1958 road system. While the road surfaces were wide and safe, the immediate roadsides were laden with obstacles as the test roads had been built to the same stand- ards as our public roads. Accordingly, many trees were left at the edges of the roads, and steep banks and grades were left untouched. In addition to these natural obstacles, it became apparent that sign posts. bridge abutments, and other man-made structures also presented Severe hazards. Since emergencies sometimes cause vehicles to leave the road, it was determined that accident-producing hazards should be eliminated to create a wide, safe emergency lane. Trees are one of the most common obstacles along roads of all types, and while beautiful, they are among the most dangerous, even in residential areas where speeds are low. The extreme danger of tree impacts is further illustrated by this 45-mile per hour test. (Show a remotely controlled car occupied by life-sized test dummies not re- strained by seat belts.) Thousands of motorists are killed each year in tree impacts such as this, and even speeds aS low as 25 miles per hour can easily result in serious passenger injury. Despite knowledge of their deadly potential, trees are still planted at the sides of many of our newest highways and will soon become hazards. Along major thoroughfares, the obvious solution is tree removal, and with modern equipment, the co~t is moderate. Once the site is regraded and seeded in grass, this section of once-dangerous roadside will be safely traversible and will blend nicely with the surrounding terrain. The addition of small shrubs and bushes creates a still more pleasing ap- pearance and illustrates that a safe roadside can he attractive without trees. The Proving Ground has hired landscape architects to develop roadside plantings that will provide maximum beauty and safety. Additional benefits of the clear roadside are a more open appearance and increased visibility at drives and cross streets. While tree removal is the most practical, the Proving Ground does not advocate the destruction of century-old landmarks such as this. To preserve the tree and yet safeguard the motorist, a section of guardrail is probably the best answer. and this correction has been used in some locations on the Proving Ground. Although tree-lined streets enhance the beauty and value of any residential area, they are dangerous and some means should be developed to provide the protection necessary without adversely affecting the appearance of the street. Broken lamp posts are a common sight along our roadways and are mute re- minders of the thousands of serious and fatal accidents they cause yearly. Massive light and utility poles should be eliminated or set back from the road- side substantially. On depressed roadways such as this, relocating the posts well up the slope would eliminate the problem. Another solution possible is to change the design of the poles to a light, tubular construction that will shear-off when impacted. This unit was designed and built by GM engineers to test the practicality of this approach. By minimizing deceleration at impact, poles of this type could reduce the severity of these accidents. Large sign posts and similar roadside markers are also very dangerous, and these, like trees, should be eliminated from the roadside. Signs that are essential on highways should be protected by heavily rein- forced guardrail. Small signs at the roadside are also hazards. Observe the results of a 40-mile- per-hour impact into the common 42-inch high sign. At 40 mph, the sign pierces the w-indshield and showers the front seat occupants with glass! At higher speeds, the danger may be greater. Increasing the sign height to 60 inches proved safer. At 40 miles per hour, the car passes safely beneath the sign. As an added margin of safety, all Proving Ground signs are now mounted at a minimum height of 66 inches. Irregular surfaces beside the road can be nearly as dangerous as projecting obstructions, as skidding into a deep ditch or hitting a stoop bank can cause se- vere damage and injury. PAGENO="1029" 1025 The danger potential of a clear roadside is directly related to the slope of the terrain; the more gentle the slope, the safer the roadside. The angle of a slope is most commonly expressed as a proportion, two-to-one, six-to-one, and so forth. For example, this is a two-to-one upsiope-quite a steep grade. This means that in two feet measured horizontally, the height increases one foot. Accordingly, a four-to-one slope increases one foot in four, and an eight-to-one slope one foot in eight. Downslopes are described in the same manner, but the heights are, of course, diminishing. This test illustrates the danger of impacting a two-to-one upslope at 35 mph. A similar test on a four-to-one slope produced better results, but even this grade could produce injury or damage at higher vehicle speeds. On the Proving Ground, maximum upslopes of six-to-one are applied, as these are safely traversible, even at 60 miles per hour. This grade produces the needed safety for high-speed roads and could be applied generally on most public high- ways; If steeper slopes are necessary, they must be well rounded. The contour of the ditch bottom and road shoulder are as important for safety as the slope itself, for it is obvious that a car can travel over gently rounded contours with far greater safety than thru the sharp angles of the traditional V ditch. This design is not only safer, it is easier to maintain as erosion is re- duced and mowing machines can operate without difficulty. When the roadside slopes downward, the possibility of roll-over increases as shown on this four-to-one grade. With the downslope reduced to six-to-one, the car tends to spin, rather than roll on firm soil. From these and other tests, it was concluded that the maximum safe grade for any road is six-to-one, but preferably flatter. From the stand- point of safety, the less grade, the better! A sloped roadside should also be free of surface irregularities to be really safe-eroded surfaces that could upset a vehicle skidding laterally can be smoothed and seeded at a nominal cost and, with proper grading, small parallel ditches could be eliminated in favor of gently rounded depressions a safe dis- tance from the roadway. Where drainage requirements are such that deep parallel ditches are needed, underground drain systems should be considered because of the extreme hazard presented by these excavations and this same correction must be applied to transverse drainage systems, including small creeks and culverts. This need is absolute to eliminate dangerous headwalls and bridge abutments. While under- ground drains increase the cost, the end result is well worthwhile as this creates a safe roadside, completely free of obstacles. While a clear roadside is the ideal, many natural and man-made obstacles can- not be eliminated. In dangerous areas, the only solution is to install some form of guardrail. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a perfect guardrail-any guardrail in itself is a hazard as any impact produces some degree of risk and damage. For those reasons, guardrails and barriers should be installed only at those places where hazards cannot be eliminated. For example, guardrails are absolutely needed on bridge approaches to pro- tect an out-of-control vehicle from the steep embankments, and against the possi- bility of hitting the bridge abutment. The guardrail should be firmly `attached to the inside of the bridgerail to pro- tect against this possibility. Lakeshores and other natural obstacles also `require guardrail. Guardrails are used only at t'hose locations where roadside hazards cannot be eliminated, and this same practice should be applied on our public roads. At the `Proving Ground, the result of the roadside hazard studies have now been in effect six full years. Roads that were once lined with trees close to `the pavement have now been, cleared for a distance of 100 feet on each side, and all other obstacles have been eliminated. In their place, shrubs and bushes `are being planted to further en- hance the beauty of the site. Dangerous parallel `ditches have been eliminated from the roadside and all side slopes are now as flat as possible, with none steeper than six-to-one. All grade con- tours and ditch bottoms `are gently rounded. Our records and other cost studies show that ditch and grading improvements can be made reasonably, and that this cost is amply justified in aecjdents prevented. PAGENO="1030" 102.6 While the elimination of small bridges and cross drains is more costly, these have now been encased below grade on the Proving Ground for a distance of 100 feet on each side of the road to eliminate dangerous headwalls and bridge abut- ments wherever possible. And, where it was not possible to eliminate the hazard, carefully constructed guardrails have been installed, built to the exacting speci- fications derived from the Proving Ground's guardrail test program. Today a vehicle leaving the road is an incident; six years ago this could have been a serious accident. Today if a driver loses control he knows that he has room to bring the vehicle under control-without fear of hitting an obstacle or turning over. And today, statistics prove more vividly than demonstrations that obstacles removed are accidents prevented! In the six years that the `Proving Ground's roadsides have been improved, not a single vehicle has traveled beyond the 100 foot clearance, even though incident speeds ranged as high as 80 mph. In fact, a large percentage of the vehicles stopped within 25 feet of the road- side! This leads to the conclusion that any increase in roadside clearance will pro- duce a substantial increase in safety on roads handling 30 to 45 mile-per-hour traffic, 25 foot side clearances would be reasonable safe, but on super highways and other `roads where speeds approach 80 miles per hour, a full 100-foot side clearance is needed. Side clearance should be related to speed, but the wider, the better! However, the most convincing proof that clear roadsides increase safety is provided by a comparison of injury accident statistics, before and after improve- ment. Before roadside clearance and improvements, in the six years between 1952 and 1958, the Proving Ground experienced damage accidents at the rate of one every 240,000 miles, and 80% of these occurred off-road. Sixty-four days of injury time were sustained in those accidents. Between 1958 `and 1964, the six years following `roadside clearance, the number of off-road accidents was approximately the same-75% of the Proving Ground's total-and `the frequency remained about the same-one accident every 258,000 miles! The important improvement occurred in the area of driver safety. Where 64 days of driver injury had resulted before roadside improvement, in the six years after improvement, there was not a single lost time injury accident on improved roads! Despite 153 off-road incidents, not one day of lost `time in the entire six year period! As the record shows, it was still not possible to prevent drivers from leaving the road, but when the roadside is clear the injury possibility is practically eliminated. These statistics `are working proof that roadsides need not be deadly-that roads like these with wide, clear rights-of-way are a practical, effective means of reducing injuries and saving lives-a means of accident prevention that can be applied today-not only on the Proving Ground-but on `all roads throughout the Nation. Mr. CONSTANDY. That film was revised in 1964, was it not? Mr. LUNDSTROM. This is the 1964 version and we have not had a major revision since that time. Mr. CONSTANDY. I was curious `as to when you made the first film of this type. Mr. LtTNDSTROM. 1958 was the first `time we had a film very much similar to it. Mr. CONSTANDY. This film then, has been made available to the public, to highway officials, since 1958? Mr. LuNDs~rno~r. Correct. We did show early versions of `this film in 1958 and improvements have been made `and modifications put into the film as conditions made it possible to do so. In 1964, we had occasion to produce `three films, as indica'ted in `the title to this particular film, one on "Safer Roadsides," one on "Guard- rail," and one on safety tests of vehicles themselves. These three films PAGENO="1031" 1027 were put together into a single 30-minute film, that was put in our film library and as indicated, has been shown to some 1,200,000 people. Now copies of the film that you have just seen and a copy of the "Guardrail" film that we hope `to be able to show in a little bit, have been donated to various organizations, among these, the Bureau of Public Roads, in sufficient quantity to send to their district offices. Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. The point I want to make is that basically the 1958 film is the same as this 1964 version as far as the points shown. You improved the picture itself; the basic features of the film are the same. Mr. LIJNDSTROM. Correct. I believe all of the elements were identified in the 1958 film; right. Mr. CONSTANDY. So for 9 years this has been shown and has been available to be exhibited, showing suggested improvements in the areas that you have covered and with which this hearing has been concerned? Mr. LuNusmoM. Yes, correct. Mr. CONSTANDY. The second film you have, can you explain that briefly? Mr. LUNDSTROM. Yes. Gentlemen, obviously, one of the major prob- lems that we have is the landscaping of a road system. We have many groups in the country rightfully concerned about the beauty of our roads. And we, too, are very conscious of this, and whenever we come to a meeting such as this, and propose removal of trees close to the road- way, we immediately have many people much against this procedure. I have property myself, where we have tree-lined roads and so I would object to a highway department cutting trees in my front yard. The film, though, was careful to explain that we have the option of protecting the driver by use of guardrail, treating the tree hazard much the same as you would treat a deep-fill section or some other hazard that you did not see fit to remove. But I would like to show a short film and while doing so, comment particularly on landscaping, because safe roads are really beautiful roads. I would call your attention-and many of you have driven the New Jersey Garden State Parkway-this is a road that I believe was built as a parkway, I hope that they had safety in mind, but I believe that the landscape people had an important part in the design char- acteristics of the roadside itself. So I believe they started with the goal of having a beautiful road and in so doing, they have a very safe road. I believe accident statistics show that that is one of the safest highways in the country. So I would now like to show some brief recent views of the proving ground, showing how we are attempting to bring back the shrubbery and the elements that do make a beautiful road out of a safe road. Could we have the film, please. There is no commentary on this. I will identify the scenes as they appear. [Narrating film:] This is an overview of the proving ground. This is 4,000 acres of property, some 75 miles of road. Now this is simply to show the removal of the trees through wooded area so we do have this 100 feet of green belt along each side of the roadway. Each of these views will show-well in this particular case, the attempt to produce irregular cut lines. There is no need to cut a straight slash through a wooded area. This is more pleasing and architects will PAGENO="1032" 1028 certainly tell you to make irregular lines. I think you can see rather clearly that the green belt does persist along the side of each of the roads. The other elements that I could call attention to at the.~appropriate time, you see a ribbon of guardrail on one side; that is the width of the underground culvert, and it shows that there is no need for a wall adjoining the road itself. Now, here are irregular tree lines, shrubs have been planted back on the right side. Here we had to have a minor drain structure to eliminate erosion. This is an 18-percent grade that you just do not have on a public highway but these elements have been moved back far enough to elim- inate the hazard. Here we are bringing in the small shrubs and trees back away from the roadway, where they are out of the escape route of the cars. Cars have gone off this curve summer and winter with no injury. Now among other elements, here again is an extension of a culvert. There is no headwall. The guardrail simply indicates the extreme edge of the drainage system. Along here we have some shrubbery planted in front of the guard- rail. Some people say guardrails are not pleasant. Now there are multi- flora roses hiding the guardrail. Just an experiment to see what can be done in the interest of beauty. Here is the edge of the lake, which has an irregular shoreline, very beautiful. Here is a wooden section with the trees removed in an irreg- ular pattern, again in the interest of beauty. Notice the clean, uninterrupted slopes that can be had. There is no erosion. Actually in much of this area we have installed underground drainage systems. It is unnecessary to have exposed ditches in all cases. This is one of the older roads, perhaps built back in 1924. We had to move the trees back, we had to remove the ditches, flatten them out. Here is new shrubbery going in, a safe distance back from the road. Generally speaking, the safe road is a beautiful road. These are young trees now but in 2 years they will be up and greatly enhance the appearance. Proper landscaping of the slopes make for a park-like appearance. These roads are perfectly safe. As we indicate, we have many, many cars that accidently go off the roads at all speeds for all reasons and we have had only one temporarily disabling injury accident in some 219 cases. There are no local distractions. It is actually the safest place in the world to drive. (End of ifim.) Mr. MCCARTHY. Do you have any billboards there? Mr. LIJNDSTROM. No; I know your problem. I know your interest.. I would simply say that fortunately we do not have any. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Stonex, will you tell us what you have done with the guardrail, the development of it as a safety system. Mr. STONEX. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Lundst.rom has indicated, we did have places on the proving ground were it was impossible or not. feasible at least to eliminate the obstacles. In fact, in 1958 we had something like 18 miles of guardrail. We didn't know how good it was. We searched the literature to see if we could find anything about the PAGENO="1033" 1029 dynamic testing of guardrails. This was done in 1958. We found that there had been no effective dynamic tests conducted or reported for more than 25 years, and that there was no really good research liter- a.ture which would demonstrate what an effective guardrail installa- tion is. Accordingly, we began some dynamic tests, and we found very rapidly that our existing guardrail structures were not adequate. The post.s were rotted, the guardrail section itself was found to have in- sufficient beaming strength. During the course of this, we consulted with the Highway Research Board Committee on Guardrails and Guideposts. WTe took advantage of the research which Mr. Beaton of California had conducted and we have reported progress to the com- mittee `throughout the course of this development, and have, given to the committee all of the film footage of the tests which were conducted, Mr. Lundstrom and Mr. Skeels made a report, a preliminary report, to the Highway Research Board in January of 1959, a paper entitled "Full-Scale Appraisals of Guardrail Installations by Car Impact Tests," and demonstrated certain conclusions. One, that good beaming strength is essential and that the 12-gage W-section steel rail mounted on posts spaced at 6 feet does provide `adequate strentgh. The end of the rail must be anchored securely. At that time we concluded that a mounting height of 18 inches at the center of the rail appeared to be satisfactory. Later research, I believe, suggested that 21 inches to `the center is probably a better minimal value. `We found that 6 by 8 pressure-treated wood posts gave a very satisfactory performance. We found that the guardrail ends present a dangerous obstacle and we developed means to control that. The `second and more comprehensive report was made at the 40th annual meeting of the Highway Research Board in January 1961. This is entitled "Guardrail Installations-Appraisal by Proving Ground Car Impact and Laboratory Tests." It was written by W. G. Cichowski, P. C. Skeels, and W. R. Haw- kins. This shows the results of more than 60 tests at speeds from 30 to nearly 70 miles per hour and at angles of impact ranging from zero to 33 degrees. We had some additional conclusions, in addition to those that were presented before, that 1,000 pounds per inch spring brackets with 4-inch travel could be used as a mounting bracket to space the rail out from the pest. and reduce impact. intensity at lower speeds. We found, very importantly, that reinforcing washers are required on the beam mounting bolts to prevent the bolt head from pulling through; and that reinforcing sections are required under the beam- cen'ter mounting to the post.. The ends must be ramped to avoid the end obstacle and they must be anchored. Now-, we found that the reduction in the spacing of the posts from the standard 121/2 feet to 61/4 feet approximately doubled the beaming strength and that the use of the reinforcing washer increased the strength of the attachment `to the post by three times. So w'e have made results of this test available to many of the State highway `departments in the 43 conferences we have attended, which I reported just a few minutes `ago. Now-, we have a motion picture which summa:rizes this and I would like to show that now. PAGENO="1034" 1030 Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that the script from the movie entitled "Guardrail Crash Tests-for Safety," dated July 1964, be made exhibit No. 14, and printed in the record at this point. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection, so orde.re.d. (Script of film, "Guardrail Crash Tests-for Safety," follows as exhibit 14: NARRATOR: "Guardrails . . . and bridgerails used throughout the country vary widely in appearance and design, and yet each has the same basic function- to demark areas of roadside hazards, and to deflect an out-of-control vehicle away from those areas, with minimum damage and the leas-t possible injury to th'e occupants. "But how safe are guardrails? Will they re-direct a straying vehicle or col- lapse under the impact? Are common design criteria needed for all installations. or are variations needed for different highway conditions? "To answer these and a wealth of other questions, the General Motors Proving Ground has conducted an extensive program. In the interest of highway safety, this ifim presents `Guardrail Crash Tests-For Safety!' "The investigation of guardrail and bridgerail designs at the General Motors Proving Ground was initiated in 1958 for several reasons. First, `several guard- rail failures had been experienced during the preceding months, and it was mandatory that the causes for these failures be determined and corrected for driver safety. Second, the Proving Ground was being enlarged and existing roads improved. This construction and renovation would require miles of new guard- rail, built to the safest possible specifications. And third, the `W' section, beam- type rail had recently been introduced and was being suggested for national use. While laboratory tests had been made, no actual impact performance data were available regarding this new material. "The guardrail situation was reviewed in detail, and proving ground manage- ment endorsed a study of current guardrail installations, with full1scale crash tests on those designs that appeared to provide the greatest safety potential. The results of this program would dictate the improvements to be made on the proving ground, and would provide valuable information to state and national highway planners. "The following criteria were established for evaluating the various guard- rail and bridgerail designs: "(1) The rail must prevent the vehicle from leaving the roadway and going into a roadside hazard. "(2) It must be flexible enough or of such design that it will deflect a vehicle at a rate of deceleration tolerable by its occupants. "(3) It should deflect the vehicle parallel to the rail-not back onto the road- way so as to become a hazard to other traffic. "(4) Finally, the guardrail should inflict a minimum amount of damage to the vehicle. "It was further agreed `that initial crash tests would be made at 35 mph at angles up to 20 degrees as this severity would reveal the better designs to be tested at higher speeds. "With the parameters of the test program established, the work of gathering, evaluating, and testing began. "Following physical tests four types of guardrail were selected for full-scale impacts and these would `be tested with different mountings, on different post materials, spaced at various intervals. "One of the earliest tests was made in June of 1958, on a section of convex ribbon guardrail, mounted to 6 by 8 inch wood posts spaced at 10-foot intervals. The car speed was 35 mph, and the impact angle was 18 dem-ees. "A subsequent 35 mile-per-hour, 20-degree test with the same rail mounted on posts spaced at 5 feet produced almost the same results. The installation failed to turn the car properly, and both the rail and the car were damaged considerably. This and other tests indicated that the convex ribbon had iusuffi- dent beam strength even with five-foot post spacing. "The `W' section steel beam rail proved more satisfactory. Even with 121/2-foot post intervals, the beam ribbon deflected this 37-mile-per-hour, 20-degree impact with only moderate lateral deceleration and some deflection back onto the pavement. PAGENO="1035" 1031 "The car was only slightly damaged, and deceleration records indicated that its occupants would have experienced nothing worse than minor injuries and, while sprung slightly, the rail and wood posts would be repaired inexpensively. "Similar successful tests from the standpoint of passenger safety were rim with the "W" section beam ribbon mounted on steel and reinforced concrete posts. These tests were also made at 35 miles per hour and 20 degrees. "Ribbon mounted on steel `I' beam posts remained intact, with only slight deformation and post damage and the reinforced concrete post installation fared almost as well, with the major post and ribbon damage occurring at the point of impact. "The next installation tested was a standard four steel cable design mounted on steel `I' be'ams spaced at 12'/2-foot intervals. This test is a 20-degree impact at 41 miles per hour. "The passenger hazard on any guardrail impact is well illustrated by this slow-motion sequence. Observe the reactions of the unrestrained dummies during impact. The cable installations tend to snare the car, but in so doing, create ex- tensive vehicle damage. - "The next test of 4-cable guardrail was from 60 mph and 20-degree angle. Two of the four cables failed completely, allowing excessive penetration by the test vehicle. Because of the initial success with the `W'-beam rail, tests were made at higher speeds to evaluate post mgterials and spacing. "These are 40-mile-per-hour, 20-degree impacts. into `W'-seetion, beam rail, mounted directly to reinforced concrete posts, spaced at 121h feet. Under these conditions, the reinforced conci~ete posts failed almost completely, and the damage inflicted on the vehicles is mute testimony of the deceleration and pas- senger danger that results because of post characteristics,. Further tests at higher speeds were run with other types of reinforced concrete posts, but none provided the strength and shock resistance needed. "This is a test of steel `I' beam pests at 121/2-foot intervals. While the impact is from 30 degrees, at 45 miles per hour, this and other tests produced similar results, moderately severe pocketing, with substantial vehicle damage and presumed passenger danger, despite the fact that deceleration effects were re- duced by the vehicle climbing onto the rail. "Tests with 6 by 8 inch wood posts continued to produce good results. The addition of spring brackets between post and rail improved over-all perform- ance. Ribbon and post damage was minor, and vehicle damage was slight, con- sidering the 19-degree. impact angle, and 45 mph speed. Further tests would now be made at higher speeds. "This test proved that post material alone was not the answer at higher speeds. "At 65 miles per hour and 20 degrees, wood posts spaced at 121/2 feet deflected the cars, but produced severe pocketing and high decelerations. The resulting damage was clear evidence that greater structural strength was needed to de- flect a car safely at turnpike speeds. By reducing the post interval to 61,4 feet, pocketing is virtually eliminated and deceleration is reduced to a reasonable level, even at impact speeds of 65 miles per hour and 20 degree impact angle. "Notice the minor damage to the guardrail and moderate vehicle damage sus- tained from the high speed impact. This test is proof that the installation can deflect almost any vehicle at highway speed. "The full impact of this 50-mile-per hour, 20-degree test is better illustrated by this black-and-white high speed sequence. Considering the angle, velocity and 16,000 . pound weight of the vehicle, damage to the guardrail and truck are slight. This test is vivid testimony that W-beam rail and 6114-foot post intervals will safely deflect almost any vehicle. "Even with concrete posts, this installation satisfactorily restrained and de- flected this heavy bus from 15 degrees and 40 miles per hour. With the problem of glancing impacts resolved, other tests were conducted to explore the problem of end impacts. "The extreme danger of the common end treatment is vividly illustrated by these results. Actually, this 30-mile-per-hour test was mild when compared to some of the serious accidents that have resulted on the public highways. To elimi- nate these hazards and to improve the uniformity and strength of the structure, a variety of sloped end treatments were tried. While these tests verified ihat it was considerably safer to impact a modified end treatment due to the lower deceleration and lessened damage, GM engineers determined that the safest treatment was to anchor the guardrail in this manner so as to absolutely prevent PAGENO="1036" 1032 any possibility of end impact. The concrete anchor also provides full strength in the end section. Tests have proved this to be the least hazardous, although in any ramped-end impact, there is always the possibility of vaulting. "This 60-mile-per-hour test was made on the proving ground's oval test track to provide baseline information on the existing guardrail. Failure was principally in the flat steel brackets used to mount the rail over the track. "The violent nature of this test re-emphasized the absolute need to upgrade rail and post designs to meet present day conditions. Later, a complete section of the track was equipped with W-beam rail, spring-mounted on specially devel- oped brackets spaced at 6-foot intervals. This test and others with heavy cars illustrate the success of the new installation under a 60-mile-per-hour impact. Both the guardrail and the ~ar were virtually undamaged by this 16-degree impact. "Another high speed guardrail tested was this combination chain-link cable design developed and used in California as a median barrier on high volume freeways. The 36-inch fencing and double steel cable are supported by `H' section steel posts spaced at 8-foot intervals. Turnbuckles are used at frequent intervals to maintain cable tension. "This lightweight barrier is purposely designed to ensnare any impacting ve- hicle, to prevent its deflection back into a high density traffic stream. The installation was tested at 65 miles per hour and 7~ degrees. "The severity of the deceleration, measured at a peak of 34 (l's, is indicated by the extreme damage to the vehicle, and the 4-foot square concrete anchor that was jerked from the ground. However, reviewing the slow-motion footage and instrument recordings of this test, it was noted that the deceleration was very moderate to this point (indicating). Here, the car was snagged by a cable-turn- buckle, and the deceleration increased tremendously. Later designs eliminate the turnbuekle between anchor points. "This 65-mil&per-hour, 17-degree impact shows how the installation responds with the relocated turnbuckles. Again, the dummies are unbelted. As shown from this car-mounted camera, deceleration during impact is moderate. But because of the possibility of extensive damage to prototype vehicles-this design was not adopted by the proving ground; however, the installation would appear to have application on high volume highways as the maximum deceleration recorded was 5 G's and the mean was a low 1.6 G's. "Attention shifted to the subject of bridgerails in 1962 as construction began on two new overpasses. Since no commercially available bridgerails embodied the safety and strength deemed essential, proving ground engineers designed and built this bridgerail to prevent any possibility of vehicle penetration. The base is reinforced concrete, angled to present a sloping surface. The toprail is heavy- gauge galvanized steel pipe, mounted on east steel brackets. "During low speed, low angle impacts, the sloped surface deflects most pas- senger cars with no sheet metal contact or driver injury, but the success of the design is best illustrated by this 50-mile-per-hour, 12-degree impact. The wheel rides up the sloped surface banking the car as it is turned back along the road- way. Sheet metal contact is minor and deceleration values are moderate. "The bridgerail also proved capable of deflecting a 16,000-pound truck at 50 miles per hour and 20 degrees. The impact is best observed in slow motion... note how the contact between the front fender and tl~e steel rail helps deflect the truck with its higher center of gravity. "Summarizing the results of the more than 60 guardrail crash tests already conducted, the following points became apparent: ~While no one guardrail design fully meets all objectives, 12-gauge W-beam rail spring-mounted on 6"x8" wood posts proved the best of those tested. "The ribbon should be mounted a minimum of 5 inches away from the post to prevent snagging, and ideally on a spring bracket to cushion low angle or mod- erate speed impacts. Heavy washers should also be added to prevent bolt pull- through on impact. "Because uniform strength is required to deflect a vehicle safely, the ends of the ribbons should be sloped and anchored in concrete. This need is especially critical on short installations. The anchored end treatment prevents pocketing and dangerous end-impacts. "On roads where speeds are kept below 50 mph, post intervals of 12% feet appear adequate. "On freeways and other roads where speeds above 50 mph are permissible, the interval should be reduced to 6~ feet. At the added posts, short sections of ribbon PAGENO="1037" 103g should be used to provide the same double thickness strength that results where the ribbon is overlapped. "A test conducted on a duplication of this typical signpost barrier illustrates these needs beyond question. "The boxes in this test set-up simulate the concrete sign bases. As on the free- way, the test speed is 65 mph and the impact angle is 25 degrees. These results are graphic proof that many of our present sign barriers are inadequate for pres- ent conditions. "Bridgerails of this or similar design should be considered wherever possible in new construction, as their smooth surface prevents snagging, and their strength with the steel upper rail will safely deflect even large trucks. "And finally, the approach sections of W-beam guardrail should be firmly attached to a flaired abutment at the end of the bridgerail. This provides a con- tinuity of support and prevents the possibility of impacting the bridge-end. "Highway safety tests are a continuing program at the General Motors Proving Ground, and their results to date prove that substantial improvements in guard- rail safety can be made on existing and future installations using currently available materials and knowledge~ "Details of the Proving Ground tests and guardrail installations are available. For published materials, write to the Director of the General Motors Proving Ground, Milford, Michigan." Mr. CONSTANDY. Some of the things which you have shown here were commented on during the slide presentation last week. There was some discussion relative to t.he merits, or the necessity, of block- ing out the guardrail from the post. I have noticed here you used a spring mount. I wonder whether you had any thoughts relative to it versus a wooden blockout section or steel blockout section. Mr. LUNDSTROM. We have put our emphasis on the spring bracket, actually. We drive these tests now, we find that the shallow angle impacts are very easy on the occupants of the car, very little sheet metal damage~ So we believe this additional cushioning is the proper benefit to be obtained from the spring bracket that you cannot get from the simple wood blockout. So we prefer it. It probably costs a little bit more. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Lundstrom, do you know of any States that have adopted the results of your research ~ Mr. LtTNDSTROM. Yes; we have obviously worked most closely with our own Michigan Highway Department. In the past few years they have been running their own experiments based on the suggestions we have given them. They have been to our proving ground several times to see for themselves what can be done and I know that they have done very good experiments on roadside slopes. They have been experimenting with improved guardrail, with burying the ends of the guardrail now and most recently we have conducted a series of experiments in cooperation with them on lampposts. Now, the turnpike authorities have visited us. The median guard- rail installed on the Pennsylvania Turnpike utilizes some of the find- ings that we have developed at the proving ground. We have had this bridge parapet installed in sample section on one of the Detroit freeways. We have had other States. Ohio has perhaps been another leader in the utilization of the clean roadsides and extended guard- rail programs. And please believe me, we are not the only ones who have done research. California has done a very considerable amount of resetarch in guardrail and in roadsides and they have applied many of these suggestions. So while it has seemed to us to be slow in developing, we are very much encouraged by the approach of the States, in more recent years, PAGENO="1038" 1034 to picking up various elements of these programs, finding out for themselves how to incorporate these features into their own design requirements. Mr. McC~ut~mr. Why would you say they were slow in recognizing the value of what you are doing? Mr. LUNDSTROM. I am not able to answer your question in any amount of detail. I would simply throw out one connnent, that has come to me repeatedly. The State designer and men in charge must decide how to spend the dollars that are available to them. And m many cases, they have chosen to build more miles of roads to a mere minimum standard rather than building a lesser mileage of roads at some higher standard that is going to be somewhat more expensive. Now, I am not here to criticize them in their judgment, but this is one of the items that has come to my attention and it is debatable but a real issue. I am sorry that I can't go beyond that point. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you agree many of the features about which one could be critical in desigin and construction of our new high- ways, wouldn't cost any more money? You showed a picture of the transition of the guardrail to the bridge rail section, and I have to say that it is the only t.ime I have seen one which would appear to be appropriate. We had pictures of the installations in nine States last week and in all of them there were guardrails which were installed up to the bridge parapet, and then ended with no overlap at all. There were attempts in two places, Utah and Oklahoma, to carry the guardrail on to the bridge parapet. and I take it from what was said, that the conclusion was reached by the panel that it was in- adequate. However, none of them were doing what would be sug- gested by your testimony and your film. There are other features similar to that where the cost would be no more, or at times be only slightly more. I make reference to the washer. The price that has been quoted to us for washers installed on a section of guardrail is 12 to 25 cents, varying in different loca- tions, and I think that in a mile of guardrail the cost would be mini- mal when we consider the cost of guardrail itself. I mention the washer, not because it is the most significant ele- ment in the design of the guardrail, but simply because it is one of the cheapest elements, and it is one that can be corrected and installed very late during the construction had it been omitted earlier in the design. Mr. LuimsmoM. Correct. Mr. MCCARTTrY. Too, Mr. Lundstrom, the States have an incentive to adopt the results of your research and those of other institutions, since they get. 90 percent of the cost of the construction of these facil- ities, but they have to pay 100 percent of the cost of the maintenance. And your research certainly shows that by building it with the guard- rail properly installed, setting the signs back, and so forth, the main- tenance costs are sharply reduced. So that from their point of view, I think it is clear that they are better off to build the better facility from the beginning, and they are going to cut their maintenance costs, of which they pay 100 percent. Mr. LUNDSTROM. I `believe their own studies and experience with these suggestions will bring out the point that you speak of. I believe it is a real good suggestion that they will come to that conclusion correctly. PAGENO="1039" 1035 Mr. STONEX. May I offer a comment. The problems between the con- nection of the guardrail and the bridge structure sometimes occur be- cause the responsibility for design lies in two different groups. The bridge engineer is responsible for the bridge and the bridge rail and some other design group is responsible for the guardrail and they don't communicate as well as theymight. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it is very true. We had a picture last week of a bridge under construction. The guardrail was already installed up to the point where the parapet would exist after it is built, but the bridge has not yet been finished. The design of the bridge seems to be an area in which no one else but a bridge engineer can offer construc- tive criticism about the operation of t.he vehicle upon it, or approach- ing it. These things `are changing. I think that we would be quick to agree to that. It is a question of time and how long we can tolerate the death toll in this country at the rate it is. it reminds me of `the Aunt Jemima commercial-"What took you so long?" These things have been known for some years and many major improvements could be brought about at either no cost or slight additional cost., sometimes even at a sub-. stantial saving. As example, the installation of sign bridges when the sign can frequently be placed on a structure for little money. It isn't always a matter of cost.. That is one of the first things people bring up when you talk in terms of improved safety design. You `have another film, do you not? Mr. Lrnmsmoa~r. I think I would like to just add this conclusion to your remarks, sir, if I could. It is cost benefit that we are looking at actually, and there are times when the designer must take into account the expected performance to be obtained from some change of design. For example, it is possible to eliminate piers on overpasses, at some additional cost. And statistics do show you how often these piers are likely to be contacted on any particular roadway. So you should be' able `to figure out in advance whether or not it is feasible to remove or to change the design to eliminate the piers. In the bridges that we talked about in this film, we did have to make a decision like, this. For $20,000 we could put more money into the bridge span and eliminate a center pier. We decided that this cost was nominal and would be less than one accident in the next hundred years, perhaps, from striking that bridge pier. So we elected then to put the additional money into the span and eliminate the pier and possibility of accidents for all times. So it is a decision of cost benefits which must be made. We have one final film. Mr. Stonex will comment on this and it does give a little more up-to-date information on lamp `posts. Are you ready? `Mr. STONEX. I am ready. Mr. CONSTANDY. We had testimony last week to the effect that in some instances in the construction of a bridge, eliminating the shoulder piers, if begun early enough in design, added nothing to `the cost. Mr. LUNDSTROM. That is possible also; yes, sir. Mr. CONSTANDY. We also `had the problem portrayed last week in- volvmg twin structures with the narrow median. We saw examples of twin bridges, where the space between them was about 6 to 10 feet and there again, at no additional cost, perhaps a saving, hazards PAGENO="1040" 1038 could have been eliminated by paving the spaces between the struc- ture. Mr. S~o~x. [Narrating film :J At General Motors, we thrnk that our circular track is one of the safest high speed roads in the world. One of the problems involved was the illumination of the track en- trance and the exit. The commercially available lamp poles were rigid and would have been hazardous. These scenes of impacted lamp poles were obtained on a day's drive through the city of Detroit. The city officials indicate that there are about 300 of these poles knocked down during a year's time, or about one a day. Here is a scene that you have seen before. Here is the tripod-type lamp pole which is not practical particular- ly; however, it was very effective, damage to the car very sli~ht. This will be a test of a standard steel lamp pole of standard installa- tion. You get some impression of the severity of the impact and the damage to the vehicle which is caused by this pole. Through our mutual interest in highway safety, Texas A. & M. University disclosed to us a design of a breakaway slip base for sign posts that they were testing in conjunction with the Texas Highway Department and the Bureau of Public Roads. Taking the lead from them, they had a bidirectional slip base and we arrived at this one which is omnidirectional. The top of the mounting plate is attached to the base of the pole. This is attached to the ground anchor by four bolts and spacers. And this will be a test of the pole of the omnidirectional break- away. This is an aluminum pole. The State of Michigan requested that we evaluate steel posts with the omnidirectional breakaway because of some difference in the initial cost. This is a steel pole with the rigid base, the standard installation at the moment throughout much of the country. They figure in serious and costly accidents, as you can see. Here is an installation with the breakaway base, slip base. The damage to the pole and to the automobile are minimal. I might say that this standard is approved by the Michigan State Highway Department presently. On our test track, we elected to keep the poles 30 feet from the edge of the pavement, so that we get the double safety of remoteness from the edge of the pavement and the slipaway bases. Mr. CONSTANDY. We have approximately 5 more minutes. I think you have one more film, do you not? Mr. LUND5m0M. No; we would like to not show the other film of the bridge parapet. I would like to call your attention to the rigid parapet though, that was shown in the guardrail film. There are many features, that are not. obvious to you on initial view- ing. First of all, vehicles that strike this new bridge parapet, vehi- cles that strike at rather flat angles, are redirected by tire contact and there is no sheet metal damage at all. For sharper angles of impact or for higher speeds, the tire climbs the bridge rail and the car banks into a turn. It is this fine turn and bank that gives this quadrail advantages over other structures. This performs so well that we now are driving these tests, rather than running the cars by remote control. If your committee is able to come to Detroit at any time, you can personally ride in cars being driven into these bridge rails about 40 PAGENO="1041" 1037 miles an hour with 10 degrees and you will have no difficulty surviv- ing this experience. All you will be required to use is a seat belt. I believe you have experienced this, sir. Mr. CONSTANDY. That is a good word; yes, I have experienced this. It was an exhilarating experience and very satisfying. Incidentally, I believe we went at 45 miles an hour at the time. Mr. LTJNDSTROM. Yes. The only thing I would like to say in closing our part of your investigation, is that we have had an unusual capa- bility of being able to test new designs in dynamic experiments and we fully appreciate this advantage that we have had. The highway departments have not had this kind of an opportunity. There has been nothing set up for them to run this kind of experiment. Be- cause of our unique ability to do this kind of work, I would urge that they be supported in their need for facilities to run dynamic tests, to determine what actually happens on the highway at highway speeds with commercially available cars, trucks, buses, and so forth. It is only through this kind of experimentation that you can have safe high- ways and safe highway structures developed. We have appreciated very much the opportunity of being with you this morning. If you are able to come to Detroit and look at our facilities firsthand, we would be most pleased to have you. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Before you finish, Mr. Lundstrom, have you made any computations on the number of the 13,000 deaths in off-the-road- side accidents that could be reduced by the utilization of the im- provements that you have shown us here today? Mr. LTJNDSTR0M. I am not one to try to predict with too little in- formation; the number of cases seems very important to us and it would seem very important gains could be made. I am not able to predict percentagewise what this would do on a public highway. It would be very significant but I would not like to put it in any per- centage points. Mr. MCCARTHY. I believe you did say that 80. percent of the acci- dents could be eliminated by the 30-foot removal of fixed objects off the traffic way. Mr. LUNDSTROM. This appears to be correct, that the experience we have had on the proving ground would indicate that 75 to 80 percent of the accidents would be eliminated by clearing 30 feet of roadway. Mr. STONEX. I think we could probably express that as a potential for saving lives. And in this sense, we could save all 13,000 if every- body did a 100 percent job on every mile of roadside in the country. Then there would be some accidental accidents, which we would miss a little, but I mean there is a potential of this number. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it is agreed it would be an appreciable reduction if some of the basic principles which you have shown today were incorporated into our highways. I want to thank you, Mr. Lundstrom and Mr. Stonex. You have been very helpful and cooperative. We appreciate that. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I think it should be pointed out that General Motors has been getting somewhat un- favorable publicity lately. However, they have been devoting many years to this effort to save lives and I hope that this will get exposure, too. I doubt if 1t will because-and I speak as a former newspaper 8~-757 0-68-66 PAGENO="1042" 1038 reporter-the unfavorable gets a wider circulation. But I think that General Motors has made a great contribution to the country by hav- ing this facility and making the results available. The committee will adjourn now until 10 a.m. tomorrow. (Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was recessed, to recon- vene Wednesday morning, June 28,1967, at 10 a.m.) PAGENO="1043" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1967 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTES ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:08 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik (chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. Blatnik, Wright, Everett, McCarthy, Cleveland, McDonald, and Duncan. Staff present: Same as previous days. Mr. BLATNIK. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High- way Program of the Committee on Public Works will please come to order. Today we will continue to hear testimony from witnesses who are knowledgeable in the field of highway engineering research and development. Our first witnesses will be a group of gentlemen who are affiliated with Texas A. & M. University College of Engineering and the Texas Transportation Institute, of College Station, Tex. They and the out- standing work they have been doing in the work of highway related engineering research will be further identified by counsel. Our panel for this morning are Dr. Fred J. Benson, dean of the College of Engineering and director of Texas Engineering Experiment Station, Texas A. & M. University; Dr. Charles J. Keese, executive officer, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A. & M. University; Dr. Neilon Rowan, project supervisor, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Tex.; and Dr. T. J. Hirsch, head of the Structural Research Department, Texas Transportation Institute. We want to welcome you gentlemen on behalf of the committee and express our true appreciation for the cooperation and special assistance you have given our staff in what we consider will turn out to be most helpful and significant hearings to further advance the cause of pro- tecting the motorists on the highway system. Gentlemen, as is custOmary, we administer the oath to all witnesses. I would like to ask you four to stand and raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before the subconimit- tee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Messrs. BENSON, KEESE, HIRSCH, and ROWAN. I do. (1039) PAGENO="1044" 1040 Mr. BLATNIK. Gentlemen, please be seated. All right, Mr. May. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Chairman, the staff of the institute prepared a detailed report concerning research objectives and accomplishments of the institute. I ask that that be marked "Exhibit 15." Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. (Exhibit 15 is retained in subcpmmittee files.) Mr. W. MAY. Dean Benson, perhaps for the benefit of the commit- tee, you can begin by describing the institute and its objectives. TESTIMONY OF DR. FRED J~. BENSON, DEAN, COLLEGE OP ENGINEER- ING, DIRECTOR, TEXAS ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION, TEXAS A. & M. UNIVERSITY; DR. CHARLES J. KEESE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE, TEXAS A. & M. UNIVERSITY; DR. NEILON ~. ROWAN, PROTECT SUPERVISOR, TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE; AND DR. T. J. HIRSCH, HEAD, STRUCTURAL RESEARCH DEPARTMENT, TEXAS TRANS- PORTATION INSTITUTE, COLLEGE STATION, TEX. Dr. BENSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Congressmen of the subcommittee, it is a very distinct pleasure for us to be here today, to appear before the Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid Highway Program. Since the mid-1910's, Texas A. & M. University has been active in the training of highway engineers and in research dedicated to a better system of highways for our State and Nation. Following World War II, Mr. Gibb Gilchrist, chancellor of the Texas A. & M. University; Mr. Thomas H. McDonald, chief and later commissioner of the Bureau of Public Roads; and Mr. D. C. Greer, State highway engineer of Texas, conceived and brought into being the Texas Transportation Institute dedicated to research important to all forms of transportation. In 1953, Chief McDonald caine to Texas A. & M. to head the program and bring the institute to fruition. A major portion of the Transportation Institute program has been the cooperative program with the Texas Highway Department and in more recent years including also the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. This portion of our program has been dedicated to the solution of long- range problems involving the transportation system on the highways. In the period 1948-52, Prof. C. J. Keese and I started a modest effort in safety research, beginning first with the idea that major achieve- ments could be had through improvement in driver attitude and driver skills. We found this to be rather discouraging, probably because neither of us was well-qualified for work in this area. In 1956-57, under my direction, Mr. Robert Schleider, a graduate gtudent, made a studyof the accidents on Texas Highway No. 6 between College Station, Tex., and Navasota, Tex., a distance of 22 miles. This study indicated that most of the fatal accidents and serious injury accidents involved cars leaving the highway and striking trees or culvert headwalls in the right-of-way and at some distance from the shoulder line. Actually, we were astonished at the number of accidents which involved striking off-the-road obstacles. PAGENO="1045" 1041 This particular section of the highway, was built in the mid-1930's and incorporated many of the features advocated by the General Motors engineering staff. Mr. BLATNIIc. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. I just want to ask, did you have any breakdown as to how many accidents were caused by trees and how many other ob- stacles off the highway? Dr. BENSON. Mr. Congressman, it is in the report. I do not have it with me. We could send it to you.. Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you. Dr. BENSON. This particular section of highway was built in the 1930's, and incorporated many of the features advocated by the General Motors engineering staff at the hearing of yesterday, June 27. The roadway had high shoulders, flat ditch slopes, and wide flat ditch. Drivers leaving the roadway had an exëellent opportunity to regain control of the vehicle when an obstruction was not encountered. Texas has been using the flat slopes and wide rounded ditches advocated by the General Motors staff for some 30 years. Mr. Gilchrist inaugurated these practices during his term as State highway engineer prior to 1937. Many of the trees involved in the accidents were more-and I repeat, "more"-than 30 feet from the pavement edge. A later study, which was supported by the Automotive Safety Foun- dation, and covering the years 1954-58, was made of approximately 10,000 accidents on 54 miles of freeway in the cities of Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin. Prof. C. J. Keese and B. F. K. Mullins were the investigators. This st.udy also showed that collisions with fixed objects along the roadway, particularly at night, were re- sponsible for many of the fatalities and serious injuries. Whereas only 12 percent of the accidents studied were of this type, they caused 38 percent of the injuries and 65 percent of the fatalities. This study was completed in 1960. It seemed evident to us that studies were needed of ways and means of avoiding such accidents or of reducing their severity. The general principle was obvious-the edges of the roadway should be kept as free as possible of fixed objects. Because of the severity of the accidents involving vehicles striking heavy sign supports, the idea was advanced that such supports could be built to fail under vehicle impact. The first formal proposal was developed in 1960 but lacked external sup- port, so the work was carried on until 1963, with limited funds pro- vided by the university and the institute. In 1963, the program became a part of our cooperative research effort with the Texas Highway Department. The first field installa- tion of "breakaway" signs was made beginning in September 1965 in Orange, Jefferson, and Chambers Counties of the Beaumont district. The first sign was struck on November 4, 1965, without injury to the driver and with only minor damage to the vehicle. After 1963, the program was extended to include breakaway design for lighting standards and this problem we think has been success- fully solved. Currently we are working on procedures for providing impact attenuation devices of fixed objects for which the breakaway principle cannot be used PAGENO="1046" 1042 All of this work that I ha.ve discussed has been carried on under the direction of C. J. Keese with Dr. T. J. Hirsch, Dr. R. M. Olson, and Dr. N. J. Rowan as the principal investigators. Professors Keese, Hirsch, and Rowan will discuss these programs in detail when I conclude. *One matter which we would like to bring to the attention of the com- mittee with regard to highway research in general is the tendency de- velopingover the past 2 years to ask research organizations to perform large dollar research programs in short-time intervals. We seriously doubt the wisdom of this approach since it has been our experience crash programs are wasteful in time and money and often unreward- ing in useful results. Most effective research rests on "trial and error" procedures and it is difficult to speed such processes up. We have one of the larger research organizations in universities in this country and, frankly, several of the projects which we have been asked to quote on recently we do not have the staff to do. It is now my pleasure to turn the microphone over to Prof. C. J. Keese, who with his colleagues, will provide a more detailed report of our highway safety research in the areas of breakaway signs, break- away lighting standards, new concepts for highway lighting, and im- pact attenuation systems. But before I do, I would like to state in summary that it is our opinion that the two principles involved in re- ducing the number and severity of accidents involving collision with roadside obstructions are these: First, limitation of the number of fixed objects in the right-of-way to the minimum. I think this should be from right-of-way line to right-of-way line; Second, provide protection for the driver of the vehicle at those fixed objects that are necessary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BI~rNIK. Thank you, Dean Benson. Professor Keese, would you proceed? Dr. KEESE. Mr. Chairman, since about 1956, the Texas Transporta- tion Institute has conducted and reported or now has underway some 29 major studies in the field of traffic and highway safety. These have been in the general areas of traffic accidents, including the breakaway sign and attenuation studies, illumination or highway lighting includ- ing the breakaway light poles, channelization and delineation, signing, speeds, freeway design operation and safety, general highway design operation and safety including city street medians. A partial list of these studies furnished to the staff of the subcom- mittee will be available to you. Gentlemen, probably because of the results of our cooperative re- search program with the Texas Highway Department, the institute has a long-established philosophy that research has little or no inven- tory value, that it should be put to work as rapidly as possible if we are going to catch up with the demands of transportation today. We have a philosophy throughout most of our research programs which is based on developing a theory, evaluating that theory through experimentation, and further evaluating it through practical apphca- tion. . This brings together on each project an advisory conurnttee corn- posed of highly qualified engmeers and others from the sponsoring PAGENO="1047" 1043 agencies, from `the research staff, and appropriate disciplines wherever we can find this advice. The institute research team usually works as an interdisciplinary group. This interdisciplinary research has during the years provided successful solutions to many transportation problems. Our philosophy with regard to safety is that safety is a b~yproduct of efficiency; that anything we can do to increase the efficiency of any element of the road-driver-vehicle `system will result in safer highway transportation. Now, this philosophy is based in part upon the philosophy of Chief McDonald, and if I might paraphrase his quotation back in 1948, he felt that we had reached the point in our knowledge of the way people use the highways to be able to coordinate highway design and traffic operation. He said that the degree to which this philosophy is accepted and applied would determine the safety and efficiency of our future highways. For many years in freeway design and operation and parallel studies in freeway accidents we have substantiated this philosophy that de- sign and operational improvements that create more efficient traffic operation result in a reduction of freeway traffic operation, or traffic accidents. Now, for several years, as Dean Benson mentioned, we have been conducting or had conducted traffic accident studies in the conven- tional manner. These post mortem studies `were disappointing and discouraging. Our present philosophy, present approach, is to use accident fre- quency as a symptom of inefficiency and then to apply the diagnostic approach to improve the efficiency and thus improve the safety. As Dean Benson mentioned, we learned quite early that roadside hazards were a problem. And as more and more miles of freeways were completed, and more signs installed, it was recognized that the large signs that required these massive supports would constitute a hazard t.o vehicles leaving the roadway. The personnel of the Texas Highway Department and the Texas Transportation Institute became con- cerned with this problem and began developing a research study aimed at minimizing these hazards. But accident experience was more ser- ious than anticipated and we found a need for more immediate solu- tions and that this was a matter of urgency. So we changed our normal research approach and developed the approach of finding through experimentation an acceptable answer, then applying these solutions experimentally along the roadways, and finally going back and doing a more extensive study to find the best answer to the problem. I might just add, before turning it over here to Dr. Hirsch, the importance of bringing together the research staff and the operatmg engineers. This has the advantage of stimulating a broad view of the problem which exposes the impractical divisions of responsibility and brings back about a closer understanding, a mutual understanding and respect for each other. And this I think more than any other thing has caused the implementation of this research a's rapidly as it has. . I would like to turn this over to Dr. Hirsch now to describe to you our workin the breakaway sign research project. PAGENO="1048" 1044 Dr. HIRSCH. Thank you, Mr. Keese. I will speak principally on the breakaway sign and the research that we have done in this area. To start; first, we need a little feel of why this problem of rigid sign supports only came to our attention in recent years. We started our first research in this area in September 1963. I think to give you a little background. on our modern freeway and Interstate Highway Systems, they are multilane and the speed limit has been increased up to about 70 miles an hour, and that a vehicle operator traveling on these modern facilities at legal speeds now must make more decisions as to changing lanes, what entrance ramp to select, what exit ramp, and so forth. Consequently, the number of these roadside signs has increased. Also, with the higher speeds, 60 and 70 miles an hour, the size of the signs required has increased in recent years-they are up to very large size, on the order of 8 feet by 16 feet-the messages are larger; larger letters are used so the operator can see it farther down the road and have sufficient response time so that he can make a decision as to what to do. Consequently, due to this increased size of the sign background these signs are designed by structural engineers. And this refers to the division of responsibility between the geometric designer and struc- tural designer-there is a need to design and hold these signs up with the wind loads on the larger backgrounds. Larger structural sup- ports have resulted, similar to the sample on the table here, where we have 8-inch wide flange beams weighing 20 to 35 pounds per foot. On some of these large signs, the size of these beams is 10 inches, and more. Because of this, in about 1963, engineers with the Texas Highway Department and the Texas Transportation Institute realized that we had a lethal obstacle in the roadway. In some cases these were as close as 2 feet to the roadway. We looked into the statistics and found that in Texas alone in 1963, there were 867 vehicular accidents with roadside signs. These accidents resulted in 264 injuries and 15 fatalities. In 1964, 1 year later, these figures in essence have doubled. There were 1,201 accidents, 400 injuries and 31 fatalities. Mr. W. M~&r. These are sign accidents? Dr. HIRSCH. These are sign accidents in the State of Texas. I am sure we do not have the figures for 1965 and 1966, but the num- bers have increased, not only in the State of Texas, but in the Nation. In September 1963, we started on this cooperative project with the Texas Highway Department and t:he Bureau of Public Roads. On this project the research engineers were working with highway engineers, and one principally, Leon Hawkins, who was in charge of designing structural supports, and we started out with this ap- proach that Mr. Keese mentioned. We were in a hurry and we more or less followed a. cut and dried procedure. We had a hypothesis when we started. We realized the severity of impact to signs was due to probahly three things: the massive posts, the stiffness of the posts, and the fixity of the base of the post to a rigid concrete foundation. As the research proceeded, it turned out that probably the most significant factor here rather than size or stiffness of the post was the PAGENO="1049" 1045 rigidity of the base connection of the steel post to the concrete founda- tion. Consequently, our breakaway concept was developed. We worked on structural details to accomplish this. And I must say to arrive at the details, which you can see illustrated here and which will be illustrated in the movie which we will show in just a minute, required very close coordination between researchers and practicing highway engineers familiar with highway design in- stallation and maintenance of these devices. Too frequently research- ers in a university operate in an "ivory tower" situation, and while they work experimentally, they are uneconomical or impractical from some practical standpoint. So consequently the design we are about to show has come fourth. The immediat.e attention was placed on a means, and the reason we arrived at a sign similar to the one you will see and will first see in the movie, is because there were a large number of these two- and three-post supports, steel I-beams, and what we call cantilever design, in existence. Our immediate objective was to find a solution which could quickly be applied to go out and modify these existing hazards, as well as look at new concepts and maybe more efficient., more economical solutions to the problem. Consequently, A-frames, signs with timber supports, signs with supports of aluminum, and other concepts were investigated. I think probably this would be a good time to show the movie. Mr. W. MAY. Just before we start, another statistic. According to the Bureau of Public Roads, there were 6,163 accidents involving ve- hicles in collision with fixed objects which occurred on Texas high- ways in 1964. The 1,201 figure you mentioned represents about 20 percent. Dr. HIRSCH. Yes. They were signs. Some of the others were light poles which I think Dr. Rowan will comment on later. Mr. W. MAY. I see. Dr. HIRSCH. And possibly trees and culvert wall. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask one or two questions at this point, if I may. First., let me congratulate Dr. Benson and his colleagues for the fine work in Texas they have been doing. It is for- ward-looking work. One figure he has mentioned that was particularly interesting to me-your studies seem to coincide with others that have been made. We had some yesterday relating to the incidence of accidents and fa- talities resulting from a car going off the highway and striking a fixed object along the right-of-way. I believe you said 65 percent of the fatalities in the group of accidents studied by your institute re- sulted from this type of obstacle. Do you have any figures that would tell us relatively how many of those resulted from cars veering off to the right and, how many might have resulted in cars veering into a median strip to the left ~ Dr. KEESE. Mr. Wright, quite early in our studies, one of the things involved was a study of highway medians, and the encroachment of vehicles onto that median and the development of the median guard- rail to prevent the vehicle from going into the opposing traffic lanes. I do not have the report with me that indicates the number of these that did cross the roadway, but since these were urban studies, I would PAGENO="1050" 1046 say that relatively few were able to cross the roadway and hit a fixed object. Generally those that cross the median and go into the opposing lanes would be in conflict enough that they would be involved in a collision with other vehicles. Mr. Wiwmrr. Well, we have in Fort Worth a highway that goes from east to west with which all of you, I think, may be familiar. The highway department has erected various types of guardrail from time to time between the westbound and eastbound traffic. And yet fre- quently when I am down there I will discover a place where a car has plunged right into this protective device and seemed headed for tb~ oncoming traffic, though it is a divided highway. This brings up one other question. Last year, when we had our hearings, Mr. Chairman, you will recall that there was quite a bit of discussion-I viewed it very hopefully-to the effect that we could reduce the incidence of accidents on our highways by planting in the median strip either trees or shrubs, or something of this type, to take up some of the brightness of the lights from the oncoming vehicles. I thought this was a great development. It sounded fine to me. I am wondering now if this is good or if it is bad. I would like to think it is good, but are we inadvertently creating hazards in the median area, for example, when we plant trees and things of this type, with the very best intention? Dr. KEESE. California. has done a considerable amount of study in this and Mr. John Beaton, I believe, will testify before this group later and can probably furnish a great deal more information on this than I. We are still quite interested in `the median planting, the planting of shrubs at various hazard points for attenuation of the vehicle, plus the elimination of glare, and esthetics. But certainly not those things that would constitute a hazard if struck. Mr. WRIGHT. So some type of vegetation that would reduce the glare but not be as sturdy in its trunk as a tree might be a solution. A shrub or some type of growing thing that would absorb the impact of the car and have the tendency to slow it down and stop it without shattering it with a sudden impact. Do you think that is probably the direction in which we should be moving? Dr. REESE. I think that is the direction in which we should do further investigation, very definitely. Mr. WRIGHT. About glare, have you done any research on the in- cidence of fatalities resulting from glare from oncoming headlights? Dr. REESE. We have attempted to do some. But this, because of the complexity of these situations, is almost impossible, as I mentioned earlier. It is almost impossible to do `these accident studies from post mortems of the accident and fo isolate any particular variable. Now, we realize that glare of opposing headlights is a problem and the Texas Highway Department has done a considerable amount of work using wire screen and other devices to eliminate the glare from opposing headlights very effectively. There is additional work going on at the present time around the country on this particular problem. Mr. WRIGHT. I suppose it would be very difficult to identify that as the cause, if a driver tragically loses his life in an accident. You can identify the fact he ran into a fixed object, but you cannot identify that he was caused to do it from the glare of oncoming headlights or necessarily from any other problem that bothered him. PAGENO="1051" 1047 Dr. KEESE. Right. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Do you have a film to show now, Professor? Dr. HIRsCH. Yes, I do. Before I start, I might make one comment on this film. Initially our research on the breakaway sign was sponsored by. the Texas Highway Department and the Bureau of Public Roads and this research was conducted from September 1963 to AuguSt 1965. And before this, the first signs that were developed, the breakaway concept, were being installed on Texas highways, beginning in August 1965. At present there are something like 1,500 breakaway signs installed m the State of Texas, and 69 collisions with these have resulted. Mr. Keese will comment on this later. At the present time, we are working on a project sponsored by 13 States and the District of Columbia, and this film has resulted from this further study of this problem, which is a study in depth to de- termine more specific design criteria. The theory has been developed through mathematical simulation, so that we can extrapolate this to different sizes of signs, different materials, aluminum or wood, and different concepts. I just wanted to clear this up because this film will indicate the 13 States to which I have referred. Unfortunately the District of Columbia has been omitted from this filmstrip. Mr. BLATNIK. May we have the lights out? (The subcommittee requested the text of the film be transcribed, as follows:) FILM ENTITLED "SAFE ROADSIDE SIGNS," PRODUCED BY THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE IN C00PEBATI0N WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, SPONSORED BY ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS, KANSAS, LOUISIANA, MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, OKALAHOMA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, AND TEXAS (The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this film are not neces- sarily those of the Bureau of Public Roads.) VOICE. This is a roadside sign typical of those used along our Interstate high- ways. Many factors have been considered in the design of the sign and its supports. The supports generally consist of two vertical wide flange beams which are strong and stable when subjected to wind forces. The posts have aesthetic quality, support a readable sign, are easily maintained, and are located adjacent to the roadway. In short, the sign supports are excellent-(crash)-but lethal. It is this last characteristic that has motivated research engineers to develop safer sign support designs. There is no doubt that rigid nonyielding sign supports constitute a safety hazard. Pictorial evidence is readily available from accident files. In Texas, two dead. In Louisiana, one dead. In Kansas, one dead. Highway sign accidents have increased significantly as Interstate highways have been completed. Recognizing this problem as early as 1963, The Texas Highway Department sponsored research conducted by the Texas Transporta- tion Institute to develop safer sign supports. The Texas breakaway design evolved from that research. In 1965, the research effort was increased and several state highway departments joined in sponsor- ing the research in cooperation with the Bureau of Public Roads. As a result of the research conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute, the Project Policy Committee has recommended that certain roadside sign sup- port design concepts be considered for use in providing a safer roadside environment. PAGENO="1052" 1048 The Texas breakaway design utilizes a wide flange or I-beam section as the caiitilevered support post. The safety features incorporated in the design are a slip base and a hinge joint. The sign can be attached to the post in several ways. This sign employs a ply- wood background with aluminum wind beams bolted to the plywood and clamped to the posts. The slip base is designed in such a manner that a shear plane is created at the base of the post. The base connection is fabricated by bolting the base of the post to the foundation stub and thus prOviding resistance to overturning from wind forces. The shear plane consists of slots rather than holes in the base of the post and the foundation stub. The hinge joint is a weakened plane, approximately 7 feet above the base. Its purpose it to permit upward rotation of the post after impact. To form the hinge joint, the front flange and the web of the post are severed and reconnected with a bolted fuseplate that slips or fractures to permit rota- tion of the post to clear the colliding vehicle. The Texas breakaway design functions as follows: As impact occurs, energy is absorbed by the pest and the automobile until the impact force is sufficient to cause the base to slip. After the base slips, the fuse breaks. Energy that was stored in the vehicle and the post results in the post being thrown clear of the automobile. Acceleration of the lower portion of the post causes it to continue in its upward swing and the automobile passes through safely. Now, observe this behavior in one of the slow motion crash test films taken at 1,000 pictures per second. Dr. Hmscn (interpolating). The change in velocity of the vehicle is on the order of 1 to 2 miles an hour. Mr. BLATNIK. Would you repeat that? Dr. HIRSCH. The change in velocity of the vehicle is on the order of 1 to 2 miles an hour. Mr. BLATNIK. The deceleration ~ Dr. HIRSCH. Yes VOICE (continuing). Note how little damage was done to the vehicle. Another design recommended by the Policy Committee is the Minnesota de- forming post, A-frame design. The post braces and wind beams are all made of U-section rail steel prepunched for easy assembly. The posts can be driven in the ground, usually to a depth of four feet or more, or they may be set in concrete, dependent upon the soil conditions. The Minnesota 4ieforming post. A-frame design, functions as follows: As impact occurs, energy is absorbed by the vehicle and the post until the force is sufficient to shear the post below the bumper level. The impact energy results in bending of the slender post member and twisting the sign. As the collision progresses, the vehicle collides with the brace member, deform- ing it, and causing shear failure in the bolted connection. A secondary collision may normally be expected as the vertical post member strikes the vehicle above the windshield. Now observe this behavior in a continuous run of the slow-motion crash test film. In crash testings of this design, the vehicles have sustained only minor prop- erty damage. Another design recommended by the Policy Committee is the joint failure. A- frame design. The sign support is an A-frame structure with features of a truss. The joints of the various members are made of a frangible material which will fracture upon impact. The individual members are tubular in shape and deform upon impact. Extruded aluminum panels are used for the sign background. The panels clamp directly to the vertical post member. The joint failure A-frame design functions as follows: As the colliñing vehicle strikes the unright member. tht~ m~mber deforms and the frangible foundation fitting breaks. As the collision progresses, the member is bent. causing a ulane of failure near the sian face. As the vehicle strikes the two brace members, deformation occurs in the first member, and the frangible foundation connection breaks. As the connection breaks. members are rotated upward by the impact force, the sign background is twisted, and the upper connections break. PAGENO="1053" 1O4~ The vehicle passes on through the support safely but the tortional effects on the sign cause failure of the other support and the sign collapses. Now observe this behavior without interruption. Again note that damage to the vehicle was minor. Dr. HiRscH (interpolating). Obviously t:he maintenance of that sign would be quite high. VOICE (continuing). Has been adopted *as design standards in the State of Texas. The first signs of this type were installed in 196~. Since that time they have been installed on several hundred miles of the Interstate System. Not only have lives been saved by adopting the breakaway sign, but this has been accomplished without additional cost to the public. These sign supports cost no more than fixed base supports. Modification of an existing sign in Texas costs something about $150. VOICE (continuing). The deforming A-frame design is now being used in Miii- nesota. It is very economical and accident experience has indicated satisfactory performance. The joint failure A-design is commercially available. As a result of this research, the Policy Committee of the highway sign support research project recommends that the sign support designs presented in this film be considered for use as a means of `making our highways safer. (Printed:) This film was produced from the Highway Sign Support Research Project HPR-2(104) sponsored by Alabama, California, Illinois, Kansas, Loui- siana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. (End of film.) Dr. HIRsCH. Just as a few comments, this principle is also used on smaller signs, such single-post signs, or where the two posts are very close togsther and the vehicle can strike both posts at the same time. And I mentioned before, one of `the desirable things, we think, about the cantilever post is `that it can easily be applied to modify existing sign supports. Mr. BLATNIK. Would you repeat that, Professor? You say this tech- nique, shear-type or breakaway supports, can easily be applied to exist- ing installations. Dr. HIRSCH. The existing signs, that is right. This has been done in Texas and the cost experience data to modify one of these roadside signs is approximately $150. It depends on the size of the sign, whether it is a small one or big one, but it is in this n~ighborhood. Mr. W. MAY. Do I understand, Doctor, the Texas Highway Depart- ment has underway a program of going back and modifying some of the existing rigid supports? Dr. HIRSCH. Yes. A number of the districts are going back and modifying them. Some of them had modified all the existing signs in several stretches of the Interstate System. On Interstate 10 between Houston and Beaumont, all of the existing signs have been modified, and of course all the new `signs are the breakaway concept. They also have a policy, where any of the existing signs wi'th rigid supports are struck by a vehicle, when they go out and maintain it or repair it, they install the breakaway concept. Mr. W. MAY. Would the Northern States have to worry about freez- ing conditions or rusting? Dr. HIRSCH. This question has been brought up by the policy corn- mittee from States like Minnesota. We feel that the corrosion problem, PAGENO="1054" 1050 if there is any increased resistance, is so minor that the breakaway action will still be had. One other comment. in this project, and it was not covered in the film, is that we had a study in depth to develop this mathematical model so that it could easily be extended to other types of materials and other types of sign configuration. I will not go into that at this time because it is a little bit too detailed. I might point out, as far as the deceleration levels I commented on with the breakaway concept, with the Minnesota deforming A-frame. cantilever post, the change in velocity of the vehicle is 1 to 2 miles an hour, more usually I mile per hour. The g. forces on the vehicle are on the order of 7 to 8 g. for a short period of time, something like 0.03 second. As far as the driver himself is concerned, the g. levels on our simu- lations and model studies indicate that he would only get one-quarter to one-half the g., something like one or two g., for a very short period of time. And according to existing impact and survival data developed by people at Hollomon Air Force Base, this is well below surviving or accidents that should create any injuries. Mr. BLATNIK. Professor, your testimony is truly most enlightening; Dean, all of you witnesses have provided most enlightening informa- tion. What really disturbs m&-am I not correct t.hat all the informa- tion we have seen as to deeeleration, the dissipation of impact forces and energy, has been long known? It is quite common knowledge in the engineering field, is it not? Dr. HIRSCH. Essentially, yes. Mr. BLATNIK. What puzzles me is that the Interstate program itself is the most modern highway system in the history of mankind. It is 11 years old. I find it absolutely incredible if not appalling, for 11 long years we have put in literally millions of signs that were known and should have been known to be lethal all the time, and only within the last 2 years are those in charge of the construction of the roads utilizing information that is standard and simple as far as engineering knowl- edge is concerned. Is that not true? Do you want to comment? Dr. Bi~xsox. Well, Mr. Chairman- Mr. Br.1~&mnc Those who should have been utilizing information, our engineers and professors and researchers such as yourself have long known of it and it was available had anyone sought the informa- tion. Dr. BENSON. The profession did not think it was as simple as that. I think I pointed out in my testimony that we actually started, Professor. Keese and I, with this concept in 1960. It took us 3 years to get it funded. The reason we could not get it funded, I think, was that most people believed we could not do it. They did not think it was possible for us to build, particularly the cantilever type support, that would carry the windloads and which could be made to fail under the impact of traffic. So we had to prove to the profession that this could be done; that this was a practical possibility. Mr. BLATNIJ~. Someone is living in the age of darkness then. I am talking about those who should be utilizing scientific knowledge. We can decelerate a human being from 15,000 miles in outer space and PAGENO="1055" 1051 bring him alive back to earth, with all gravitational forces and tre- mendous velocities. To say they did not think it was possible to provide for absorbing forces for vehicles traveling 65 or 75 miles an hour-it is absolutely incredible. But that is a problem we will have to wrestle out with others who will appear later on. I want to commend you for your most impressive presentation. I well know the methods of painstaking, detailed work and effort that had to go into the production of such findings. It looks simple on the surface. How many months did the whole project take, Dean Benson? Dr. BENSON. Well, the actual project, the real work on this began in September of 1963, so we have been about 3½ years at it now, I guess. It was about 2 years from the time we started the project until the first signs were installed on the Texas highway system, which from past experience is a very short time. Ordinarily you cannot go from an idea to practice in that period of time. So really in some respects this idea has been picked up faster than lots of other ideas. Mr. BLATNIK. You say "picked up," Dean. Is that the State of Texas? Have all the other States who participated in this research- are they utlizing the findings? Dr. BENSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the situation is in the rest of the country. Mr. BLATNIK. Counsel, do you have information later on, Bureau of Public Roads? Mr. W. MAY. It is of interest, Mr. Chairman, Texas installed their first breakaway sign support in September of 1965. Last week we had an analysis of nine brand new State projects from various regions of the country and on only one project did John Constandy a.nd Mr. Prisk find a breakaway sign. So on eight of the projects in various regions of the country, brand new, no breakaway sign. Mr. BLATNIK. Brand new-you are talking of the time span of a year to 8 months. Mr. W. MAY. Opened in the last part of 1966 and some in 1967, representing the latest thinking. It is just not being used. We rode over 700 miles from here before we found a breakaway sign support. Dr. KEESE. Mr. Chairman, it might be appropriate to comment at this time, and I would like to dwell on it in more detail later, that today's traffic facilities are becoming so complex that it is necessary to bring together disciplines of technology that were formerly not associated with the highway development `program. The implementation of research, I feel, depends a great deal on the mutual respect and understanding of the people and the disciplines involved, and I feel that the success in this project, both with the Texas work done with the other 13 States and the District of Columbia, was due to bringing together the operating engineers and the research team, to bring about this mutual respect and understanding between the various discipline groups involved in seeking out the solution. Mr. W. MAY. What discipline group? Dr. KEESE. Structures, and traffic, and maintenance, and. computers, and scientists, and mathematicians, and~ economists, I do not know whether I can list the whole array of them. There are quite a number of different disciplines involved, and there is specialization within the disciplines. Mr. W. MAY. How are we working toward that end right now? PAGENO="1056" 1052 Dr. KEESE. We are working on this cooperative research with the Texas Highway Department and with this other group through these advisory committees, which bring together these representatives of these discipline groups, from the highway profession along with the research group. Through their advice and counsel, by keeping our heads out of the clouds and our feet on the ground, and through our exchaiige of conversation and technology with them, I think both parties benefit a great deal. Now they pick these up, and implement them quite often; in the 29 projects that I mentioned we have done, I would say that practically everyone of those have been implemented before we were able to write a research report. Mr. W. MAY. You must be disappointed when you leave Texas and ride some of the new highways around the country, especially on the Interstate System, and find rigid sign supports close by the shoulder of the road. Dr. KEESE. I just wish we could find a way to disseminate this technology. Mr. BLATNIK. You must be disappointed, you must be alarmed- your level of anxiety must be quite high as you flash by this lethal situation at 60 miles an hour. Dr. KEESE. I think rather than disappointment, sir, you would call it challenge, challenge to find an answer. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. May. Mr. W. MAY. What do we have next.? Dr. HIRSCH. Mr. Keese will come back a little later and give a little experience report from Texas on the breakaway signs. At this time, I would like to turn the presentation over to Dr. Rowan, who is associate research engineer, associate professor of the driving research department. Mr. BLATNIK. Dr. Rowan. Dr. R.OWAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk this morning on a specific research project dealing with highway illumina- tion and lighting. This research has been conducted in three specific areas. The first is concerned with the impact behavior of lighting poles. This project was begun in 1964 as a cooperative project with the Texas Highway Department and the Bureau of Public Roads. And at this time I would like to restate or reemphasize something that Mr. Keese mentioned; that is, that research is most beneficial whenever it is conducted in a cooperative effort. In other words, an equally co- operative effort between the researcher and the people who will put the research to work in application. In 1965, I suppose it was, the highway department was very much concerned about the hazards of lighting poles along our Interstate highways. At that time they were beginning to install lighting in the urban areas along these Interstate highways, a.nd some very serious accidents had occurred and they were very much concerned, over this. We included at that time-it was not an objective of the research, but there was included at that time a study of the state of the art of lighting poles. In other words, what is~ the impact behavior of the poles that we can buy and put along our highways? PAGENO="1057" 1053 Following that, we did some-or we are currently engaged in some experimental research with a slip base lighting pole which is a take- off or a continuation from our breakaway sign support. Now, we have a film this morning which is a series of excerpts from some of our test films. It is not narrated. I will provide the narration myself. But it will be developed further into a narrated film, with its purpose being to disseminate information concerning the impact be- havior of lighting poles. If I can have that film now, we will proceed. (An untitled film was shown with Dr. Rowan providing the nar- ration.) This first scene is an installation which caused real concern. This is a steel transformer base, the red object under the pole is a steel transformer base weighing something on the order of 150 pounds. On top of it is a 40-foot steel pole which meets the current design standards of the Texas Highway Department. This is indeed a lethal object. It is nonyielding, is thebest way to describe it. When we get over these long scenes, we will see exactly what it can do to an automobile. I might mention, these are no longer installed in Texas on the State highways. The penetration of the front of t.he automobile in this scene was approximately 3 feet. This pushed the engine back up into the driver~s lap or within the front seat. The seat mountings were broken, the steering wheel was pushed up near the top of the automobile. This is a high-speed film shot at 1,000 pictures per second. The clock is turning at 30 revolutions per second. That will give you some idea of the speed. The speed of the vehicle was between 35 and 40 miles per hour. This would indicate falsity of the normal assumption that speeds on an urban street are safe. At 35 miles per hour, I think this is a good indication that there is considerable hazard in fixed objects in urban areas where your speeds are lower. I would like to emphasize that point, that we have problems in urban areas the same as we do on highways where our speed limits are on the order of 60 to 70. It is not an isolated problems by any means. This, gentlemen, is a light base that is now included as a standard design in the State of Texas on Interstate highways. This is a cast aluminum base. It weighs approximately 50 pounds. We have the same steel pole atop this base. Here you will see a com- pact vehicle weighing 2,100 pounds striking the pole at 45 miles per hour, and with good results. This vehicle traveled some 300 to 400 feet beyond the pole and finally became entangled in a fence. The speed reduction was something on the order of 1 to 3 miles per hour. Now. note. whenever the vehicle strikes, you will see the base break diagonally. It functions in two ways. You get, on one side, a breakage due to the frangible nature of this cast aluminum. Then on the other side of the base you get the slip action which we have in our sign supports. When the pole comes down, you will note that the top of the pole lands approximately at the foundation. The pole itself goes in the direction of the automobile. 87-757 O-68----67 PAGENO="1058" 1054 Now, this should allay fears that I have heard expressed by high- way engineers that this pole may fall in the traffic stream and create another hazard. But our experience has been that the pole stays in the same region and goes in the same direction as the automobile. So the only time that you would have a pole falling back into the roadway is when a vehicle has left the roadway and is coming back on and strikes the lighting pole. Another thing that I would like to point out, Which is the lesser of two evils, when you have a pole tumbling about that a vehicle can strike or have a vehicle strike a fixed object? If it strikes a fixed ob- ject, there is no doubt as to what is going to happen. When a pole is loose, there may not even be a vehicle there. If there is, at least he is hitting an object that is movable. Now, this is a test of remedial design. I guess that is the best way to describe it. This is the steel transformer base we saw earlier. And the highway depa~rtment was interested in something that would im- prove the safety aspects of this design. They designed a cast aluminum insert to go under this steel base. Now this particular base weight is about 120 pounds. The cast alumi- num insert here is 6 inches in height. It is placed under a pole which is 30 feet in height. And as I will show, these have been installed in two installations in Texas. This is to modify existing installations. Due to the mass of the base, we get more penetration in front of the automobile, but it is not really too serious. We have had three accidents with this design, and all of them have been satisfactory. (At this point Mr. Wright assumed the chair.) Dr. R0wAN. Now, this is an aluminum pole and is in what we call a flange mounting. The flange on the bottom of the pole is bolted directly to the concrete foundation. Now, I would like to express an opinion, my opinion. I was led to believe and many other engineers have been led to believe that an aluminum pole, because of its flexible characteristic, is safe. But I would not personally volunteer to ride in this vehicle that is about to strike the pole. Now, that is my opinion. There is too much rigidity. The action depends on one tearing the pole loose from the flange or breaking the flange. This requires an excessive amount of impact energy and this energy can be transmitted to the driver and in such a case it could be fairly serious. We have by no means shown all of our tests in this film. We have conducted tests of the steel pole in a flange mounting which is serious. It is not quite as serious as the steel transformer base, yet it does pose a problem, a serious problem. We have also conducted both the steel pole and the aluminum pole on cast aluminum bases. Both of them perform satisfactorily. The difference in them is merely cost. The aluminum pole will cost more than a steel pole. That was an aerial shot of the aluminum pole we saw just a moment ago, but back to the comparison of these the most desirable design that we have found is the cast aluminum base, and it is incidental as to whether you put a steel pole on it or aluminum pole on it, from an impact standpoint. Mr. W. M~. It is a transformer base, is it? PAGENO="1059" 1055 Dr. ROWAN. It is a transformer base, and I would like to mention this fact that we no longer put transformers fOr lighting in this base. This is strictly a safety feature. Nowadays a transformer is put in the aluminum housing. Now this is our experimental design of a slip base. It is similar to the sign support except it is in a triangular shape, a round base, but the bolts create a triangular shape. The deceleration here was negligible, something on the order of 1 mile per hour. Now the reason for this triangular shape is to make the pole multidirectional in behavior. In other words, you can hit this pole from any direction and it will perform essentially the same. Now, gentlemen, consider this is a 400-pound pole being put into motion by this vehicle with very little penetration of the energy absorbing portions of t.he automobile, and with virtually no effect on the driver. If you will notice the date, this test was conducted May 10. This was the second of a series of tests. This has not been put into practice yet. We do expect to prepare a researcher's report on the results of this design, and it will be presented to the sponsoring agen- cies by September 1 of this year. The reason the trunk lid is up is not the result of a crash but we have our instrumentation devices in the trunk, and they were removing them at the time when this picture was made. This is a film strip obtained from a television station in San Antonio. A lady was reportedly crowded off the road, went into a skid, and hit a steel transformer base, the first crash that you saw, sideways. It is completely locked, as you can see. They are having to pull it off the pole, force it off in order to get her out. She was killed. This is one of several such instances. No more than 2 months ago, two people were killed in Dallas in a similar accident in which they skidded sideways into a pole on a steel transformer base. I would like to commend the Texas Highway Department in their efforts to improve the safety as related to lighting poles along their highways. They make every effort to influence design, to establish standards, to make this changeover as rapidly as possible. Two weeks ago I was in the Beaumont district down in southeast Texas. I ob- served that they were cleaning out several hundred poles from a flange mounting base to the cast aluminum transformer base. This was 2 weeks ago. By now they do not have a pole on a state highway which is not a breakaway type. Also last September the highway district in the Austin-San Antonio area installed these cast aluminum inserts under steel transformer bases, some 300 of them, in the San Marcos area; and on Ranch Road 1 near Johnson City. Mr. W. MAY. How long did it take to convert the pole into a break- away type pole? Dr. ROWAN. Approximately 20 minutes with a crew of five men. Mr. W. MAY. How much money? Dr. ROWAN. Within $35. The cost of the insert was $19, I think, and 20 minutes of labor for five men and a lift truck. Now I have some slides on that. I would like to show you their procedure, if I may. Mr. W. MAY. You were talking about San Marcos? Dr. ROWAN. San Marcos and Ranch Road 1. Now, this is a remedial design, I would like to point that out. It is considered only as a re- medial design where you have existing steel transformer bases. This is PAGENO="1060" 1056 not new design. In new design they are using the cast aluminum base which is better. Mr. MAY. To convert the pole to the steel transformer base of the breakaway type, you pick the pole up with a cherry picker and reset it in the other type base? Dr. ROWAN. Yes, sir, I have about five or six slides here that will il- lustrate the procedure and how they did it. There is the pole before modification, the steel transformer base and a 30-foot pole. They are spaced about 150 feet apart, so you can appre- ciate the continuous hazard. - - _ii_ 1~ PAGENO="1061" 1057 Dr. ROWAN. Here is a closer view of it showing the concrete and steel connection. (4 ~ PAGENO="1062" 1058 Dr. iowAN. Here is the cherry picker lifting the pole from the foun- dation. I PAGENO="1063" 1059 Dr. ROWAN. Here the men are installing the insert, bolting it down to the foundation. Dr. ROWAN. Here it is being set on top of the insert and the bolts laying at the side will be used to connect the two together. L PAGENO="1064" 1060 Dr. ROWAN. Here is the finished product. 1 PAGENO="1065" 1061 Dr. ROWAN. Then a view off from some distance, showing that it is practically the same as it was except it is 6 inches higher and now it is safe. PAGENO="1066" 1062 There have have been three accidents. One of them was a Volks- wagen that brushed the side of one of these and knocked it over. In one of them, the people were hurt seriously. They had gone on through, rolled over down an embankment, and their injury was due to the roll rather than striking the pole, because the area in which the vehicle struck-the area the vehicle had struck the pole would not indicate any major severity. The other one was a truck, and it has been satis- factory. This picture was made on a recent trip to South Dakota. They have installed a number of signs, 55 feet from the edge of the roadway. Gentlemen, in this dimension that we are dealing with, 55 feet is fairly small. There is something else about the characteristics of the road- way. Mr. MAY. This points up the fact we should not worship that 30 feet ?~ Dr. ROWAN. We should not worship any particular dimension. Let us not permit anything become holy on this. There are many things that enter into this problem. For instance, here we have a continuous down slope over to that sign. This would naturally pull the vehicle in that direction. It would take a concerted effort to redirect it. My only comment at this point is why should we consider a philosophy, that it is all right to install a fixed object at a greater distance from the road- way when we can install a safe object at that distance? Mr. Max. Yes. Why should we plant a tree 31 feet from the roadway instead of 30 feet? Dr. ROWAN. That is right. There is nothing sacred about any par- ticular distance. The happenings in an accident are so complex that no two can be depended upon to be the same. Anything can happen when a vehicle goes out of control. The oniy thing is, we should be real careful about our fixed figures and criteria for design. There is noth- ing that will surpass good commonsense and engineering judgment. PAGENO="1067" 1063 Now I would like to move on very briefly in the interest of time and talk just briefly about our lighting program. The remaining portions of our lighting research have two phases. First is continuous hghting; that is, lighting along our Interstate facilities so that you have a con- tinuously lighted area. The Texas Highway Department was much concerned a few years ago over the existing standards for lighting. They felt that they were insufficient, so we entered into this research to arrive at a satisfactory and safe nighttime driving environment. The first phase was to investigate and to develop criteria for a more functional and economical lighting design. (Mr. Blatnik assumed the chair.) Dr. ROWAN. This research resulted in increasing the mounting heights of luminaires from 30 to 40 feet and in some cases to 50 feet, where we used 1,000-watt luminaires. This was a new innovation, the use of higher intensity sources to provide better lighting. Now the result of increasing this mounting height was to obtain better uniformity of light distribution-you know, the better the uni- formity, the less work the eye has to do. A second feature that was improved was reduction of glare. Reduc- tion of glare improves visibility. The third was to increase the. longitudinal spacing between these poles mainly in the interest of safety, but a byproduct was economy; a reduction in the cost. There have been several installations of this new design. Inciden- tally, Texas adopted our research findings as standard design for il- lumination. Several of these have been installed and already they feel that they have paid for the research several fold. Mr. MAY. How high are the poles? Dr. ROWAN. For a 400-watt luminaire, it is 40 feet. For a 1,000- watt luminaire, it is 50 feet; or 60 feet where maintenance can service them. Mr. MAY. Anci those poles can also be breakaway types? Dr. ROWAN. Yes, sir; you saw in the film 40-foot poles. Well, the addition of 10 more is incidental. Mr. MAY. Thank you. Dr. ROWAN. Now the third phase of lighting deals with the lighting of interchanges. One of the big problems in lighting interchanges, where you have several turning roadways, is the number of poles- I will put it as "the forest of poles" in order to light them in the conventional manner. This represents an unsafe condition, so what we are currently working with is a concept by. which we can create a panoramic view in our interchange area, one which closely approxi- mates that of daylight driving conditions. If the driver can see the entire interchange area, he can make his decisions in a systematic and orderly manner and will naturally conduct his driving in a safer manner. Now, the way that~ we are attempting to obtain this driving environ- ment is by fewer poles, and from 100 to 150 feet in height, each supporting a cluster of floodlights. They will light the area in low intensity condition, but. the driver will be able to see the entire inter- change in an appproach. We have facilities for mounting these, and are studying the photometrics and so on. There are four experimental installations that are now in the design stage. These will be completed PAGENO="1068" 1064 and installed within a year; one at San Antonio, Tex.; one at Tex- arkana, Tex.; one at Sioux Falls., S. Dak.; and one at Rapid City, S. Dak. This will permit us to make a positive evaluation of the relative merits of this design. Our overall objective in this research, as I say, is to develop sound criteria for a safe and satisfactory nighttime driving environment. Thank you. Mr. MAY. Thank you. Dr. Keese? Mr. Chairman, if I may have the other group of slides there. With the cooperation of the Texas Highway Department, we have been attempting to document all of the crashes with the breakaway sign supports and breakaway luminaire supports, and are now attempting to do the same thing with the various States involved in this larger project. Just to start out., I have shown a slide here of a typical nonbreakawa.y type support. i This is a second view of the same accident. 14 I PAGENO="1069" 1065 Dr. KEESE. This is a third one. This one has only one person in it, I believe, and of course resulted in a fatality. I think you have seen enough of these. This is a typical sign of the type hit there. 11 [~~ound Rock *2 PAGENO="1070" 1066 This happens to be a picture of the first sign that was hit after they started installation of these along the highway, and it just happens that this particular sign was put in or the installation was completed at 5 o'clock one afternoon. The driver struck this sign at 6:30 the next morning, and this is a picture or view of the front of the vehicle after impact. r I r -- I ~ Dr. KEEsE. The Texas Highway Department contacted this individ- ual and asked him what the effect of hitting the sign was, and he replied it was about like hitting a chuckhole in the road. He also said: I PAGENO="1071" 1067 Many thanks for the new sign. If it had been one of the old type, we undoubt- edly would have gone through the windshield or turned over. As it was, no in- jury resulted to my self or friend. The automobile received oniy $500 damage, and by the way, most of this was caused by hitting a 2-inch pipe in a secondary collision. This is a sign that was impacted in a hit-and-run accident. You will note that the angle of departure from the roadway to the sign caused it to strike the outside leg of the support. This is an accident showing the inside leg of the support struck by a truck. This particular driver went to sleep. There were no injuries or injury, type C. This was "no visible sign of injury," but there was complaint of pain. One hundred and fifty dollars' damage to the truck, $125 damage to the sign. I A I PAGENO="1072" 1068 This is another picture of an outside post being hit. The driver went to sleep, and I might point out that that post is approximately 25 feet from the edge of the traveiway. At that point I might read, if I may, from some of the accident reports. We now have 69 of them documented. Accident No. 69, the last one we documented, says- The vehicle left the road 425 feet in advance of the sign, struck the support and returned to the pavement 150 feet beyond the sign. There was no report of the accident. The maintenance people found the sign in a damaged condition and repaired it. No. 59- Leaving the roadway, the vehicle struck the right support at a 15° to 20° angle. Tracks continued diagonally across the ditch and onto the frontage road. No. 58- ______-~-~r~' ~ The vehicle was returning to the roadway at a 15° to 20° angle and struck the left support of the sign. PAGENO="1073" I 1069 Here is another where the sign was struck at a 29° angle. One item of interest might be that in accident No. 45, the vehicle struck the right support of a heavy roadside sign similar to this one, at 70 miles an hour, proceeded up an embankment, and diagonally across the frontage road, through a ditch, and through a fence, strik- ing and shearing two braced~ corner posts 8 to 10 inches in diameter. The sign was hit at 8:45 p.m., repaired by noon. We could go on and on through the 69 signs of various types along the road. These have been hit from every conceivable angle practically and they have been caused by skidding on wet pavement, or skidding be- cause of something on the pavement, such as a rock, or the driver going to sleep. In one case the driver was drunk. In another, the ve- hicle out of control. In another, skidding on dry pavement. Also, miss- ing a sharp curve. Skidding while passing. And secondary collisions, or having been in collision with another vehicle first. Mr. MAY. Dr. Keese, if a vehicle struck a breakaway sign at a 90° angle, it probably would not break away too easily; would it? Dr. KEESE. The sign would not function as it was designed; that is correct. Mr. MAY. But experience shows that a very remote possibility- Dr. KEESE. Because of the weakness created by bolting this thing down, and we are now looking at the possibility of using the tri- angular or circular support similar to the one developed for the lummaires. We were of the opinion it was almost impossible for a vehicle to hit these things at right angle, going down the roadway longitudinally. We find this is not the case. In a skidding accident, they hit over against the median and come back across the road- way, and in some cases go off an embankment and hit a sign. 87-757 O-68----68 PAGENO="1074" 1070 Mr. M~r. Have there been eases of people backing into these? Dr. KEESE. They have hit them at every angle you can think of. They have sideswiped them, backed into them, front quarter, back quarter, every other way. In one instance, a woman with two children in the car sideswiped, knocked both supports out from under it, and there was no injury. Minor damage to the vehicle. This is a typical base of the breakaway type of sign. I put it in here to show and emphasize 52 percent, over half the accidents in the 69 cases we have documented, have not been reported as accidents. The maintenance people go out and find these signs and supports in this condition, pull the sign back into place, rebolt it, and the sign is back in business. Mr. M~tr. Do you find you have more hits in the gore areas than at other locations? Dr. KEESE. The gore area exit signs have been hit in slightly less than half the cases, 31 out of 69 cases; the exit ramp areas, I would say by and large, are the scenes of the majority of cases. However, there have been some 18 typical roadside signs away from any inter- section or anything like that, and several others such as speed signs, warning signs, city limit signs, and things like that not associated with a decision point at all. Mr. BLATNIX. May I ask one question? I notice your circular con- crete base is flush with the ground level. For years a similar type of support in concrete bases in many instances was quite a bit above the ground, 2 feet above the ground. Is there any conceivable reason for raising a concrete structure or base like that any distance at all above the ground? Does it improve the strength or what does it do? Dr. KEESE. The reason for it, I think, sir, was to prevent corrosion of the metal, to prevent the soil and so forth from coming into con- PAGENO="1075" 1071 tact with the base of the sign and causing corrosion, I think, is the principal reason for that. Mr. BLATNIK. Am I correct, counsel, that some of these concrete bases are at least 2 feet above the ground? Mr. M~&r. More than that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. The installation was made in order to have the metal parts above ground level to avoid corrosion? Dr. KKE5E. With the galvanized metal I do not believe we have a corrosion problem. It might be of interest, sir, if you like, I have a few slides showing the conversion where the Texas Highway Department has gone back and reduced the level of these concrete bases to ground level, before they put on these breakaway devices. Mr. BLATNIK. Please proceed. I did not mean to interrupt you too long. Dr. KEESE. This is a typical sign that was hit. In this particular case, the sign wo~rked properly so far as protection of the precious cargo of the vehicle is concerned, but the post broke loose and caused a little more damage to the sign. In this particular case here again it broke in half, again no injury. - PAGENO="1076" 1072 In this particular case it was knocked completely down. This has been experienced in several of them, pa.rticu].arly on the narrow two- post supports. t - ;-~ - - I- -~ - I: -J This shows the conversion of the base. PAGENO="1077" 1073 This begins a series of pictures of the breakaway luminaire that was struck by a vehicle; to compare the type of accident that you get here with that picture that Dr. Rowan showed a moment ago. This is the frangible base that was shown. PAGENO="1078" 1074 This is the base of the support. This vehicle hit the luminaire almost exactly the same way as the fatal accident that Dr. Rowan showed. It hit broadside and as you will notice, at such speed that the pole came over the top, but there was no injury to the occupants or the driver. PAGENO="1079" 1075 I have a series of slides showing the conversion of these. I1*~ J ---j PAGENO="1080" And the concrete base Towered. 1076 PAGENO="1081" 1077 The sign is modified with the hinged joint-and the base is cut off of the postr-and it is welded to the lowered base. He. is welding it to what is left of the bolt sticking out of the concret~~ PAGENO="1082" 1078 Then the sign is re-erected and bolted on the top of it. As I men- tioned, I have a whole series of those but I do think these will suffice. Mr. MAY. Do we have a problem with the large overhead bridge signs we have seen with real massive supports? Dr. REESE. Yes, sir, I think we definitely have a problem there. They must either be protected or made breakaway. We feel and have pro- posed that they be made breakaway, and we are hopeful of doing a project that will permit them to be designed in this manner. It is completely feasible to do this. Mr. ~ You end up with a series of supports? Dr. KEESE. There are several different concepts that could be used. It would require multiple supports at the end, so that the entire end of the sign support would not be knocked out. Dr. BENSON. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the question that you asked regarding projections from the ground up. By and large I think most of these, practically all of them, are unnecessary. In highway design it is my personal opinion that we should try to keep every- * thing as nearly as we can, flush with the ground, and certamly not extend it more than an inch or two above it, so the vehicle always has a chance to pass over this without coming into collision with it. I think there are many changes that could be made to eliminate some of the hazards that we have today, just by cleaning up our designs to provide that we do not have obstructions above the ground. Mr. BLATNIK. I appreciate that conunent because I never did get an answer to why those concrete foundation supports, those obstruc- tions, should be left that far above the ground. Commonsense would indicate if it were needed, 2 inches would be sufficient to prevent cor- PAGENO="1083" 1079 rosion that might exist. As you indicated, you see no reason why, whatsoever. Dr. KEESE. No, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. May. Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman, we have here a list of research projects presently in progress at the institute and we will make this exhibit No. 16. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. (Exhibit No. 16 is retained in subcommittee files.) Dr. KEESE. Mr. Chairman, we have one other matter that we had planned to discuss very briefly, and this is `a matter of attenuation devices. We have conducted a feasibility study on these attenuation devices. Mr. M~. Mr. Keese, will you proceed to describe that? Dr. KEESE. I will ask Dr. Hirsch to describe that briefly, if he will. Dr. HIRSCH. The area I want to cover is impact attenuation or en- ergy absorbing barriers which can be placed `around fixed obstacles. Mr. BLATNIK. Just for the record, Doctor, and also for our benefit, what is a more precise definition of the word "attenuation"? Dr. HIRSCH. Attenuation is an attempt to stop a speeding vehicle `out of control, before it hits a rigid obstacle, and bring him to a con- trolled stop with controlled deceleration or gravity forces below the level which would result in injury or `death or fatalities. Mr. BLATNIK. That is important. Controlled deceleration, rather than the secondary point of impact? Dr. HIRSCH. Right. That is right. Mr. BLATNIK. They may have a wooden support or something frang- ible so a lesser impact might not cause as much damage as the more severe point of impact, such as rigid steel supports embedded in concrete? Dr. HIRSCH. That is right. That is correct. Mr. MAY. Are you going to use visual aids, Doctor? Dr. HIRSCH. I have a few slides. Just to introduce this problem, though, we have talked about the breakaway sign concept and the breakaway light pole. There are other obstacles in the roadway such as bridge piers which are in the median, wing walls, bridge abut- ments, supports of large overhead sign bridges, utility poles of vari- ous types which still present `a problem which at the present time we cannot solve with the `breakaway concept. Some guardrail installations `have been installed to protect these obstacles. In general, we feel that guardrail's `as presently designed and installed `are not impact attenuators. They have the primary func- tion of restraining t'he vehicle from leaving the roadway `and to re- direct it. We conducted `a feasibility study on the possibility of bringing these out-of-control vehicles to a controlled stop. In certain of these rigid obstacles, gu'ardrail installations are placed around them, gu'ardrails required to be 50, 75, or 100 feet long which in effect is enl'arging the target and `the probability that `the vehicle will have an `accident with the guardrail, probably much more frequently than if the guardrail had not been `there at `all, so in this line we have been looking `at impact attenuation devices. PAGENO="1084" 1080 in this particular sign shown up there, there is a series of 3 posts, another row of 3 posts, and 2 posts. That is 8 posts. In effect, this is a form of impact attenuation device or energy absorbing barrier. In this particular case, however, these posts were not, I do not think, really designed, considering the kinetic energy of a vehicle. This particular system would probably stop, with satisfactory deceleration levels, a vehicle going 25 miles an hour and would probably be satisfactory in an urban area. However, when you get ou~ on the highway and the vehicle speeds go up to 50, 60 miles per hours, 70 miles per hour, in effect the number of posts required there would have to go up in the order of 4 times. When you double the velocity, you quadruple the kinetic energy. Dr. HIRSCH. This is another form of impact attenuation device which would probably work up to speeds of 25 miles per hour. Under a present contract we are working under with the Bureau of Public Roads, we are conducting tests and evaluations of various systems to bring out-of-control vehicles to a controlled stop, and incidentally, 4' PAGENO="1085" 1081 a vehicle going 60 miles per hour, a. 4,000-pound vehicle has something over 400,000 foot pounds of kinetic energy. This vehicle can be brought ~o a stop in 12 feet of stopping distance with ~ decelerating force on the vehicle the equivalent of 10 g. I use the figure 10 g. You have heard aviators and pilots going into a 9-g. dive. This means the weight of their bodies is the equivalent of 9 times the weight of ours, sitting in the chair. Colonel Stapp at liollo- man Air Force Base has withstood deceleration levels up to 45 g. with no serious effect, so if you can control the magnitude of the decelera- tion force and the stopping distance, it is possible `and feasible to bring a speeding vehicle to a controlled stop at a distance of 10 feet, even as low as 6 feet; if you stop him at 6 feet at 60 miles per hour, you will have 20 g.'s on the driver, which we believe at this time to be a fairly high level. Mr. BLATNIK. It is high but it is tolerable? Dr. HIRSCH. It is tolerable, if the driver is properly restrained by seatbelts in a safe `automobile that is protected from secondary colli- sions with the windshield, dashboard, doorknobs and this sort of thing. PAGENO="1086" 1082 Dr. HIRSCH. This is a possible system which will be tested and eval- uated. The rigid pole there is to represent a fixed obstacle and around such a system you could put in this case a polyurethane foam material, either materials of foam, plastic, foam glass which has a crush strength which you can control, and apply force through a distance which in effect is absorbing the kinetic energy of the vehicle. Dr. HIRSCH. Another such system employs foam glass or poly- urethane or foam plastic or other frangible materials which would be right adjacent to the post, or series of wooden posts, except much larger in number than what we had around the sign. Theoretically it calculates you need about 20 to 24 posts to stop a vehicle going 60 miles an hour, a 4,000-pound vehicle. PAGENO="1087" 1083 Dr. HIRScH. This is an example of one called Platt's sand-filled can. Mr. Platt is an engineer with Ford Motor Co., who has devised a little can filled with sand to absorb energy of a vehicle on an urban street up to 20 to 25 miles an hour, preventing him from hitting a fixed obsta- cle and, as I understand, Mr. Platt has had several of these installed. PAGENO="1088" 1084 Dr. HIRSCH. Another possible system developed by Rich of Sacra. mento, Calif., is a system of plastic cells 6 inches in diameter, aboul 3 feet high. The plastic cells are of wall thickness about a quarter-inch, are filled with water, and when the vehicle hits, it is like squeezing a tube of toothpaste or squeezing the water up in the air, which absorbs kinetic energy. Mr. Rich has tested the system up to 35 miles an hour in Sacramento and has installations in California which work satisfactorily. The idea is, Can this concept be extended to 60 or 70 miles an hour? But just basically, we are working on this problem and will expect to test a number of the systems of the type illustrated on these slides this Summer under contract with the Bureau of Public Roads and Depart- ment of Transportation. I. I ~.lJ PAGENO="1089" 1085 Dr. BENSON. Mr. Chairman, that completes our presentation and if there are any other questions, we would be most pleased to try to an- swer them. Mr. BLATNIK. An excellent presentation, Dean Benson. Thank you, all of you gentlemen, for the very orderly and concise manner in which you obviously gave a very thorough, representative sampling of the very intensive work you have done in this field. Mr. May, have you any questions on the presentation? Mr. MAY. Mr. Ohairman, I would like to express our appreciation to these gentlemen who have taken a lot of time over thepast several months, and we would hope to maintain contact with them. Thank you very much. Mr. BLATNIK. Before you leave, Dean Benson, I am very interested in the joint cooperative effort between research institutions such as yours, Texas A. & M. University and Texas Transportation Institute, and operational agencies such as the Texas Highway Department and with the Federal Bureau of Public Roads. The reason I raise that point is that apparently for years, day in and day out, over and over and over, all across the country, personnel in State highway departments themselves would see things happening. For instance, they would observe that certain signs were being hit much more frequently. than others, but no one reported it, or perhaps it was reported and maybe it was not. At any rate, no one assessed or exaluated the situation as to why this was happening. The prob- abilities for impact were much higher, and since they were higher, even if they did not know why, in view of just the fact they knew the prob- ability was very much higher, why was not something done about it? We have seen that guardrails inadequately protected the driver from a concrete bridge abutment. After several accidents, some of which were fatal, the guardrails were reconstructed in exactly the same configura- tion as the original design called for. Someone was not learning. Do you have any comment, any one of you gentlemen, from your experience? Obviously you have done much advanced work. What can or ought to be done to improve the lines of communication, which exist to some degree, and how do you go about creating them where they do not exist? How can you get your information, your knowl- edge out into the field and into practice and use? Dr. KEESE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on that. I would like to preface my comments by the fact this year the Texas Highway Department will celebrate its 50th anniversary, and if you recall the progress that has been made in this 50 years,. and the tremendous amount of demand that has been placed on them to keep up with the transportation facilities that are required for today's living, it is understandable that the responsibilities for the various parts of this system are going to be distributed and be segmented and played further and further down the line. Thjs has probably been our greatest challenge, to bring together the people who are responsible for the various segments of the problem and to try to bring about this mutual respect and understanding, and to find ways to disseminate information regardless of where it is developed across the country, disseminate this information to these people in such a manner that it can be and will be used. 87-757 O-68----69 PAGENO="1090" 1086 Now we have used all of the methods conceivable, I think, or many of them, except the comic books. We have not gone to the comic book fashion yet of disseminating the information in written form, and probably the best that we have found have been two systems: First, our highway short course which brings these people together and creates a forum in which they can discuss their various problems from their vantage point, with the other people, and secondly, our movies, our motion pictures have done a tremendous job of dissemination of information and have been used quite widely across the country, but this is a terrific challenge to us to disseminate the information to the man who is going to have an opportunity to arpply it. Mr. BLATNIK. How would that dissemination be initiated? Do you have to wait until someone sort of so-called invites you to the dance? Do you have to wait until an agency or State bureau, highway depart.- ment, some high official seeks you out, asks for your findings, and your recommendations and advice? Dr. KEESE. Well, we try to get on every program that we can, where groups of people who are interested in the subject are meeting. We prepare and I have furnished to the staff, copies of our "Texas Trans- portation Researcher," which is written in more or less news form, which we hope will attract people only to the point that something has been done. It does not include generally any real technology, but it does tie into these reports which they can write for. We present summary reports, very few pages in length, which we hope that a person will have time to read. Our highway short course, Highway Research Board meeting, AASHO meetings, short courses and conferences of other States and just every opportunity that we get, we tell the story. Dean Benson, having been longer at this than I, could probably tell a better story on this than I can. Dr. BENSON. Mr. Chairman, engineers are pretty conservative and it is difficult to get them to change. I think probably the most effec- tive procedure we have had is to try to get our people to spend at least the minimal amount of their time in the field, actually talking to the folks who are daily faced with these problems and if we can do this, I think this is one of the most effective ways of getting our people to adopt new ideas or to bring to us their problems, which is just as important, because we do not know what all of them are. But how this is going to be done nationwide, I do not know: We have not successfully resolved it in our State. All I can say is we are trying, and personal contact certainly is very important. If you can talk to the man on the job, then you have a chance to get him to adopt new ideas. Mr. Bi~r~m~. The reason I asked the question is because, obviously, from the testimony you have heard so far, in the actual construc- tion of the highway system there are rather elementary situations or errors that are, you know, quite obvious, and where it would require only good judgment, just plain common sense, to avoid or eliminate them. These errors have been repeated over and over again and carried over into our most modern Interstate highways and freeways. The.re seems to exist a sort of barrier against n~w ideas, new concepts, new technologies. PAGENO="1091" 1087 Dr. BENSON. Well, unfortunately, standard designs have a tendency to be very difficult to change, and once you get one adopted, it may have faults in it but people will continue to use it over and over again because this is an adopted. standard. I do not know what the answer is. I think that some way or other we need to impress on people more of the idea that maybe a little more change is for the good. Another problem I think we have is that quite commonly no one really looks at the entire design when it is finished. No one really sits down with these plans, with all of the installations that are going into the highway indicated on these plans, and takes a look at the complete picture. The signing is on one set of plans, the roadway is on another set of plans, the structures are on another set of plans. Somebody needs to take a look at this whole ball of wax from the standpoint that we built into the design conditions which are a hazard to the driver of the vehicle, and I frankly do not think that we take a look at it very often from this point of view, and in some way or other we need to have people whose sole job it may be to look at the plan from this standpoint: "Have we done things in this design which will be hazardous that we can avoid?" I go back to what I said in the beginning, I do not think we should put anything in the highway right-of-way that we do not need there. I think everything we put into the highway right-of-way we must look at from the point of view of can this be made not a hazard to the driver of the vehicle, on the roadway or off the. roadway. Mr. BLATNIK. One of the most pertinent points made today is that apparently no one takes a look at the whole three-dimensional picture when it is completed in all its aspects and all of its functions. It seems to me that the whole thing is quite rigidly compartmentalized and some compartments, do an excellent job, such as the repair and installation of lighting fixtures that were knocked down. I am thinking of the story told about a certain gore area where a sign was estabhshed-this is a true story-and an evolution took place over about a 3-year period. To see the actual picture, you have a sign on two wooden sticks as temporary, improvised. Six months later the maintenance crew says in effect-I am making this up-"Holy smoke! This sign has been knocked down 14 times in the last 6 `months. We have to do something about it." From that point on, the direction which the train of thinking takes- this is what intrigues me-the immediate thought should have `been, "There is something wrong here. There is a frequency of impact. We would like to know why. Let us do something about it." But instead the train of thought goes in the other direction. "We have to do some- thing about this sign. Instead of wooden posts, we will have new steel posts put in." Now, the sign is still being hit with the same frequency, perhaps increasing now, with more traffic coming along. "Holy smoke! It has been knocked down 18 times the last 6 months." Meanwhile there is a little more damage to the impacting vehicles. Nobody thinks about that. You have steel pipes and that is not strong enough. So now "let us get two heavy-duty steel I-beams, mounted on a concrete support which rises 2 feet above the ground. "Now let them try to knock PAGENO="1092" 1088 this one down. This is here to stay," and by gosh it does stay. But the frequency of impact continues and in fact increases because more traffic has been generated. Suddenly, 2 years later, someone says, "Look. It is still being hit; in fact, it's been hit 14 or 15 times in the last 6 or 8 months. We have killed eight people during that time." All of a sudden it dawns on them that we.arekilling people with the sign. First of all, maybe the sign should not have been there in the first place. It is sometimes not necessary, not that important.. Or we have found instances where th further protect the sign, a wooden cross- beam on concrete supports is created, for deceleration support which is not adequate at all. In fact, it merely added another impact point. At this stage, someone finally realizes that we are killing people here, so either they remove the sign or go back to the stick or maybe now adopts what you suggest, a breakaway type of support. It took 2 years to make a full circle and come right back to the original notion, where obviously, initially, a breakaway type of structure was indi- cated. Why that was not realized or awareness was not. somehow even reached as experience unfolded, the right information was slow to reach the right people who should have been, doing something about it. We thank you gentlemen very much for a splendid contribution. We are indebted to you for your presentation. We thank you very much and we will close the hearings for this morning. We announce for tomorrow, Mr. George McAlpin, New York De- partment of Public Works; Malcolm D. Graham, director of the Bu- reau of Physical Research, New York Department of Public Works; and Mr. John Beaton, materials and research engineer, California Di- vision of Highways. I am sorry we cannot continue this afternoon. If you gentlemen will be available tomorrow morning, we will appreci- ate it. Again, thank you very much, gentlemen. This will close the hear- ings for today, and we will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.' (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 12:15 p.m., to be recon- vened at 10 a.m. the following day, Thursday, June 29, 1967.) PAGENO="1093" * HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND. OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards THURSDAY, IUNE 29, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SuBcoMMIrrm~ ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON Pum~ic WORKS, Washington, D.C. The special subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik (chairman) presidmg. Present: Messrs. Blatnik, Cleveland, Duncan, Edmondson, Howard, McCarthy, McEwen, and Zion. Staff present: Same `as previous day. Mr. B n~rIx. The Special Subcommittee on the `Federal-Aid High- way Program will please come to order, resuming public hearings on design aspects of the Federal-aid~ highway program, as it pertains to safety. . . . . . Our first witness this morning is Mr. John L. Beaten, materials' and research engineer in the California Division of Highways, Sacra- mento, Calif. ..` . . . Mr. Beaten, we welcome you, certainly, and more than that, we thank you for staying over for `at least 24 hours to be `available. The session started early yesterday, a long session, and we were unable to have the afternoon hearings which we had anticipated. Mr~'Beaton, as is customary, would you please stand and take the oat.h. Do you sol- emnly swear that the, testimony you are about to give before this special subcommittee will be the truth, the whole tru'th, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. BEATON. I do. Mr. BLATNIK. Please be seated, Mr. Beaton. Mr. CONSTANDY. Would you identify yourself for the'record, please. TESTINONY OF JOHN L. BEATON, MAThRIALS AND B~S[EARCH ENGINEER, CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.' ` Mr. BEAT0N. I am a materials and research engineer with the Cali- fornia Division `of Highways. My name is John L. Beaton. Mr. CONSTANDY. I would just like to' say, Mr. Chairman, we are very fortunate in having Mr. Beaten with us. There is probably no one else in the' country who has done as much research in this area `about which we are concerned, guardrails and median barriers, as Mr. Beaten has, as we will see throughhis testimony. (1089) PAGENO="1094" 1090 He has had considerable experience in live testing of barrier de- signs with full-size automobiles in quite a number of them. Mr. Bea- ton's testimony will be most informative. If you would, give your background, Mr. Beaton. Mr. BEATON. I am a graduate, with a Bachelor of Science in civil en- gineering, from the University of California in 1937. I have been with the California Division of Highways ever since then. Mr. BLATNIK. The PA system is not an elaborate one. It is im- pressive looking, but is not a very good sounding one. If you would speak a little more loudly we could hear better and the stenographer would have a better opportunity to keep up. Do not hesitate to use the ashtray or water, shift the microphone, and be more comfortable. We are looking fOrward with anticipation to your presentation. Mr. BEATON. We have been engaged in testing-dynamic testing of these traffic barriers for some 15 years-the last 15 years of my expe- rience. Before that time, I was engaged in a variety of engineering and management duties with the California Division of Highways. Today, I would like to outline the testing program that has been conducted by the division in developing various types of traffic bar- rier railings. These barriers, as the committee I am sure is aware, are used on the outside edges of bridges and highways, and in median areas, and also to deflect vehicles away from contact with various ob- jects along the roadside. We in California have been.. engaged in dynamic testing of traffic barriers since 11)52. Since that time to present, we have conducted ap- proximately 150 full-scale-collision tests at a cost slightly in excess of $500 000. Mr. OONSTANDY. That is 150 automobiles which have been run into the different designs of guardrail barriers; is that right. Mr. BEATON. This is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. At a cost of $500,000? Mr. BEATON. Right. Mr. (YONSTANDY. Roughly a little more than $3,000 per test? Mr. BEATON. Yes; that is the average cost. And it is that low when you consider all of the tests because many of these vehicles were not wrecked and many of the tests were made several in 1 day. If you are considering a smaller number of tests, then we consider this costs us, say $5,000, on the average to run a test. Some tests, when we are considering only one or two tests, will rim near $8,000. Our traffic barrier program in general has not only benefited from our work but it has also benefited from the work of several others, starting back with the Missouri Highway Department dynamic tests in the early 1930's, and current work by the New York Highway De- partment, Cornell University, General Motors, New Jersey Highway Department, and others. The Texas Highway Department, as was evidenced yesterday, has done work that has contributed to our work. It first became apparent to our highway and bridge engineers dur- ing the late forties and the early fifties that the traffic barriers that we were then using were not functioning as we had anticipated. The struc- tural capacity as well as the dimensions of such items up to that time had been designed by the application of statically developed criteria. We, therefore, felt that in order to fully understand the problems PAGENO="1095" 1091 involved in such designs it would be necessary to perform a series of full-scale-collision tests so as to determine the dynamics involved. Mr. CONSTANDY. `That would be 1952 or thereabouts? Mr. BEATON. We started in 1952; right. Mr. CONSTANDY. We had testimony from the gentleman from Gen- eral Motors to the effect that when they began in 1958 to upgrade their proving ground they searched for research which had been done I am not sure whether they mentioned being aware then of what you' had done in 1952, but they had come to the conclusion there had been virtually little `testing of guardrail median barriers for some 25 years. Did you find that to be true? Mr. BEATON. Thi's is true. We in 1952 started testing bridge curbs and rails and we worked on bridge structures almost entirely through the mid-1950's, and about the same time as General Motors started in 1958, we started testing and developing median barriers and did test some guardrails at that time. But that had been the first testing that we found in the literature since Missouri did their rather early, very early tests, in the 1930's. Mr. CONSTANDY. So the standard fo,r guardrail and median design in the early 1950's was not very high? Mr. BEATON. That is right. ` Mr. CONSTANDY. You found that what had been used as a standard was not effective? Mr. BEATON. Right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Mr. Beaton has a movie to show us at this point, Mr. Chairman. It is a sound picture. Do you want to say anything about it before we show it? Mr. BEATON. Only that this picture is the latest picture we have developed and is on guardrails. This picture outlines the program that developed our present standard of guardrail that we are now usmg. It also includes some median barriers. (Script of movie prepared by the State of California Transporta- tion Agency, Division of Highways, Materials and Research Depart- ment, is as follows:) `Full scale dynamic impact tests such as this to develop and prove various highway barrier designs have been performed `by the California Division of High- ways since 1952 as a part of the continuing effort to improve the safety of Cali- fornia's highways. This film report presents the results of a recent series of tests performed to o'bserve the effects that would result from certain proposed geometric and material modifications to the standard. California beam type median barrier and guard `railing designs. The comparative results of eig~ht full scale impact tests are shown. Four tests involve the median barrier design and four tests involve the guard railing design. In the median `barrier portion of this test series, the first test was conducted on the current standard double `blocked-out beam design composed of a 12 gauge steel "W" section beam mounted 30 inches above the ground and a 6 inch struc- tural steel channel centered 12 inches above the ground. This initial test served as a performance base tO compare the results of the modifications made in the succeeding three tests which include one test wiLere the steel "W" section beam was retained but where a 12 gauge steel roll, formed "hat" section was substituted for the structural `steel channel and two tests to determine the feasibility of using aluminum alloy members as alternates to the steel. Two thicknesses, 0.125 inches and 0.156 inches, of aluminum alloy "W" section beams were tested in designs utilizing a 6-inch structural aluminum alloy channel as an alternate lower rubbing rail. This is our current standard beam-type median barrier, designed and tested in a dynamic test series conducted in 1958. This blocked-out design is used in medians less than 22 feet in width when warranted by traffic conditions. PAGENO="1096" 1O~2 Here is the standard median barrier design erected on the test site. In this test series, all median barrier and guard railing installations were constructed on this simulated, fiat, paved median, and were impacted from this 25 degree ap- proach line. The impact speeds were approximately 68 mph for the median bar- riers and 60 mph for the guard railings. The standard California beam type median barrier installed for the first test utillzes 8" x 8" treated Douglas fir posts and blocks at 6'-3" centers. The 12- gauge galvanized steel "W" beams are mounted 30 inches above the pavement and the 6-inch, 8.2 lb. galvanized structural steel channel rubbing rail is centered 12 inches above the pavement. This is the standard median barrier installation ready for impact Test #1. (Sound track of crash.) This view from the tower camera shows the 25-degree approach angle at 69 mph. Here is another tower view showing the 15-degree exit angle. Note the tendency for the car to roll slightly away from the rail rather than into it. The damage sustained was typical of that we have observed from operating experience on our freeways. The rail was permanently deflected up, presenting a barrier more than a foot above the center of gravity of the average passenger vehicle. The vehicle was a total loss. The same post and block system was retained for the second test. However, in Test #2, aluminum beams and rail were substituted for the steel members used in Test #1. The 0.125 inch thick beams were alloy 2024-T3, and the 6-inch, 3 lb. channel rubbing rails were alloy 6061-TO. These elements were mounted at the same heights above the ground as was used in Test #1. This is the aluminum median barrier installation ready for impact Test #2. In this test, the splice of the aluminum rubbing rail was made the same as for the steel rail in Test #1. (Sound track of crash.) The 25 degree approach angle at 68 mph. Notice that the beam fails first, then - the aluminum channel rubbing rail fails at the splice. A majority of the flying debris is fragments of the aluminum beam. This is a view from the data camera mounted above the back seat showing the kinematics of Sam during this roll-over. Again, flying debris is fragments of aluminum rail. It was determined from the data film that the failure of the aluminum rubbing rail splice did not materially affect the results of this test. However, this splice was redesigned to provide more edge distance in subsequent tests. Again the vehicle is a total loss. For Test No. 3, the same aluminum channel rubbing rail was retained, but the thickness of the aluminum alloy "W" section beam was increased from 0.125 inches to 0.156 inches. This is the barrier as constructed for Test No. 3, and here is the strengthened rubbing rail splice. (Sound track of crash.) The same 25 degree approach angle at 68 mph as for the previous tests. Note the similarity in vehicle reaction between this test and Test No. 1 on the steel barrier. Barrier damage was also similar to that sustained in Test No. 1. However, this single successful retention of the vehicle was not conclusive based on the results of subsequent tests made on the same 0.156 thick aluminum "W" section beam in a single beam guard railing design. Again the vehicle is a total loss. For this fourth test we returned to the standard 30" high steel beam design used in Test No. I and substituted a 12 guage galvanized steel roll-formed "hat" section rubbing rail for the 6" structural steel channel. Here is the barrier as constructed for Test No. 4 with the roll-formed "hat" section rubbing rail centered 12" above the pavement. At the same approach angle of 25 degrees at 68 mph, there was more vehicle rebound with this hat section design than with the structural channel rubbing rail design. Note the flying wood fragments from the crushed timber blocks. Energy absorbed during the crushing of the timber blocks adds to the resiliency of this semi-rigid barrier system. Although this design gave a passable performance, there was more of a tendency to pocket under these high speed test conditions than was shown by the channel rubbing rails in Tests No. 1 or No.3. Again the vehicle was a total loss. The second phase of this research project consisted of four tests conducted on guard railing. Developed in 1960, this California standard blocked-out guard railing is placed for the motorists' protectionon steep embankments. This design PAGENO="1097" 1093 is also used to protect a vehicle from impacting bridge abutments, bridge piers at structures, sign posts on freeway shoulders and sign structures at exit ramps. In the guard railing portion of this test series, the first test was conducted on the 1960 standard blocked-out beam design. This 12 guage steel "W" section beam is mounted 24 inches above the ground on posts spaced at 12'G" centers. Modifications in the succeeding tests included halving the post spacing to 6' 3", determining the feasibility of using aluminum alloy as an alternate for the steel in the "W" section beam, and testing the 6' 3" post spacing with the steel beam mounted at 24 inches and 27 inches above the ground. The 1960 standard California beam type installed for the first guard railing test utilizes 8" x 8" treated timber posts and blocks at 12' 6" centers. The 12 gauge galvanized steel "W" beam was mounted 24" above the pavement. This is the 1960 standard guard railing ready for impact Test No. 5. This initial test was designed to serve as a performance base to compare the results of the succeeding three guard railing tests. It also was the first proof test of this design under a 25 degree angle, 60 mph impact from a late model vehicle. (Sound track of crash.) The impact speed was reduced from 68 to 60 mph for the guard railing tests. Typical of the sloped back bumpers on American-made cars from the past four years is the bumper on this 1962 Chrysler that strikes the barrier at the center of rotation of the beam. This high point of impact on the beam combined with the sloped-back bumper design increases the possibility of vaulting. During a later test it is found that by halving the post spacing, there was sufficient resistance to beam rotation to successfully redirect the vehicle. The first step in preventing vehicle vaulting as experienced in Test No. 5 was to increase the height of the beam from 24 to 27 inches and decrease the post spacing from 12 ft. 6in. to 6ft. 3m. This is the revised guard railing design with a 12 gauge galvanized steel "W" section beam at a 27 in; height on posts spaced 6 ft. .3 in. apart. (Sound track of crash.) Again, a 6 mph impact speed at 25 degrees. The 6 ft. 3 in. post spacing combined with the added 3 in. in beam height eliminated any tendency to vault. The 27 in. beam height places the beam well above the average sloped back bumper and minimizes the tendency for the vehicle to roll. Damage was understandably more severe with a single beam guard railing than was noted during the earlier tests on double beam median barrier designs. When the beam is mounted this high, the post is exposed to potential wheel entrapment. This 27 in. beam height is considered maximum for barriers without rubbing rails. For this third test on guard railing we retainedthe 6 ft. 3 in. post spacing from the previous test and dropped the steel beam back to the original 24 in. design height. The purpose of Test No. 7 was to determine the most effective and economical modification that could be made to the 1960 24 in. high guard railing design to provide a more protective barrier. (Sound track of crash.) The additional posts, even with the beam at the original 24 inch height added sufficient rigidity to the system to effectively redirect the vehicle. At this reduced height, there is a slight tendency for the car to roll. The steel beam of this guard rail system withstood severe deformation and extremely high stress concentrations in the immediate impact area with no evi- dence of failure. Again, much of the energy was absorbed in crushing the blocks. For this last guard railing test in the series, the 24 inch beam height and 6 ft. 3 in. post spacing were retained from the previous test, and a 0.156 in. thick alu- minum alloy "W" section beam was substituted for the 12 gauge steel. This is the installation for Test #8. The 0.156 in. thick aluminum beam is the same that performed satisfactorily in the double beam median barrier design. (Sound track of crash.) Again, the same 60 mph at 25 degrees as for the previous guard railing tests. An objectionable characteristic of the alloy 2024 aluminum beam revealed in this test is its unpredictable behavior during the extreme impact loading imposed by the vehicle. While being redirected in the usual manner, the vehicle is suddenly and vio- lently ejected from the barrier. The difference in performance between the steel and aluminum appears to stem from the difference in stress-strain relationships and the ductility of the two materials. Of most significance is the difference in impact resistance of the two materials. Laboratory tests indicated that the steel beam could with- PAGENO="1098" 1094 stand approximately 8 times the impact `loading as this aluminum alloy beam. The first penetration of the rail element into the car was through the left front wheel well. In summary, the blocked-out steel beam concept has been supported con- sisbently by satisfactory operational performances of field median barrier installations such as this. Investigations of in-service barriers at accident loca- tions revealed barrier behavior patterns, almost identical to those exhibited by successful barrier tests. Although the type of barrier tested in this series is referred to as a beam barrier, `the `beam itself must be capable of withstanding extremely high axial stresses if it is to function safely. The ability of steel to withstand these stresses was well substantiated by the performance of the steel beams used in this test series. When the imposed axial and tensile stresses cannot be resisted by `the beam member, we can expect results such as this: aluminum beam failures generally occur at posts, either through reduced sections at splice holes or at points of high stress concentration. In comparing the ability of aluminum beams to with- stand severe impact loading with that of steel, it is apparent that aluminum alloy 2024-~T3 in 0.125 inch thickness is an unacceptable alternate for 12 gauge steel beams for use on median barriers or guard railing. The 0.1fi6 in. thick aluminum in the same alloy is also an unacceptable sub- stitute for steel in guard railing and is marginal for use in double beam median barriers. Because of `the tendency to pocket, the performance of this 12 gauge steel "hat" section rubbing rail is considered marginal and `in this form would not be con- sidered an acceptable alternate to the standard 6" 8.2 pound structural steel channel. The 27 in. `beam height is considered maximum for the blocked-out guard railing. Because of the `tendency for whbel entrapment, a barrier with the beam `placed any higher than 27 in. would require a lower rubbing rail as does the 30 in. high median barrier design. Guard railing beams mounted 24 in, above the ground on 6 ft. 3 in. post spacing will give acceptable performance in most `locations. However, to increase the margin of safety over possible failure from impact by late model ears, it is concluded that for all new guard rai'ling construction the minimum beam height should `be increased from 24 to 27 in. above the ground, and the post spacing decreased frOm 12 ft.-6 in. to 6 ft. 3 inches. This study was made by the California Division of Highways in cooperation with the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. (End of film.) (At this point Mr. Edmondson assumed the chair.) Mr. CONSTANDY. Very good, Mr. Beaton. I think it says a lot. Mr. BEATON. Thank you. Mr. CONSTANDY. These are the current standards in the median bar- rier and guardrails? Mr. BEATON. These are the current standards we are using as of now. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think it might be worth pointing out it appears there is no washer used on the installation of the guardrail. Is it not true that California, instead of a washer, uses the acceptable alternate, the wide headed bolt? Mr. BEATON. This is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. There should be something there, more than a standard bolt head? Mr. BEATON. Sufficient width to hold the barrier to the block. Mr. CONSTANDY. Can you briefly outline your testing program? Mr. BEATON. Yes, I would like to. Our program in general rotates entirely around dynamic testing, so I thought it might be well if I out- lined our general procedure before I went mto the full development of our program. PAGENO="1099" 1095 When we started out., we used retired highway division cars which are lighter cars, in the Ford and Chevrolet class, and they are 4 or 5 years old. Later, and now, as you saw in this picture, we used retired highway patrol cars, which are only slightly over a year old when we get them. They are heavier, they are higher powered than the average vehicle on the road and therefor we feel that t.hey put our barriers to somewhat more severe tests than actually occur in the field. These cars are driven into collision under their own power through a radio remote control by a driver in the following car, as you probably nOted. The driver's seat is occupied by an anthropometric dummy who has become very dear to our hearts and we call him Sam because he has been through so much. He is instrumented with accelerometers in his chest cavity. In almost all tests he is merely retained by a seat belt. However, we have tested practically every other t.ype of restraining device, primarily in co- operation with our highway patrol. Actually,. we rely almost entirely on high-speed photographic coverage to obtain our technical data as well as our documentary information for these pictures. Mr. CONSTANDY. What speed and angle of impact do you use in your live tests? Mr. BEATON. We use the approach angles and the speeds recom- mended by the highway research board for testing of guardrails, ex- cept that for highway barriers, such as median barriers and bridge rails, our final testing will usually be at a 25° angle of approach and speeds ranging around 65 to 70 and some as high as 80 miles per hour. The HRB standards are two approach angles of 7° and 25° and speeds not in excess of 60 miles per hour. Our tests are all performed on an unused airstrip located near Sacramento. Mr. CONSTANDY. Could you tell us the evolution of the barriers and guardrails currently used? Mr. BEATON. Yes; I would like.to. I will follow my presentation with a short filmstrip or excerpts from various moving pictures that we have made during'.our various tests that will depict some of the comprehensive work we have done in this field. That will illustrate the good points as well as the problems in- volved in most current barrier designs. I am sure the committee realizes the perfect barrier has not yet been designed and that there is no sub~ stitute for a great deal of open space. We started our program in 1952 by making a series of tests of. con- crete bridge curbs of various shapes and heights.. This series was rather rudimentary in character in that we used a live test driver and for that reason were limited as to severity of collision. This series did prove, however, that an undercut. curb was the most efficient and~ also fur- nished basic information as to the effect of curbs on vehicle response. This. we followed by a series Qf tests in 1955. to develop the most efficient height and contour for bridge curbs and the lowest effective height for bridge rails both when they were mounted on curbs and not. We also found that if it was necessary to set a curb in front of a rail, then the lowest effective height of the rail was directly related to its setback until a maximum height of .4 feet above the curb was reached. Mr. CONSTANDY. Four feet.? Mr. BEATON. Four feet. . . . . Mr. CONSTANDY. Versus your norm, which is 27 inches? PAGENO="1100" 1096 Mr. BEATON. That is right. A little over 2 feet. This is because of the jump of the car as it goes over the curb, or dynamic response. Mr. CONSTANDY. Quite a significant thing, then. Mr. BEATON. Yes, it is. Actually, we found later that the additional height need not be added as long as the barrier was set back no more than about a foot from the face of the curb. This is because of the dynamics of the suspension system of most automobiles which I will illustrate in the movies later. This work finished for a time our development of bridge curbs and rails and we turned to the median barrier problem in 1958. Here the rapidly increasing volumes of traffic on our various freeways were starting to result in many severe cross-median head-on collisions. A two-pronged attack was initiated on this problem-one by our traffic department to determine the parameters of the overall problem, and one by ourselves using the dynamic information gathered during our bridge rail studies to attempt to develop median barriers if they were found to be needed. We felt that a median barrier should, No. 1, prevent crossovers. This was its first duty. No. 2, it should minimize possible injury to the occupants of col- liding cars. No. 3, it should minimize the possibility of secondary collisions re- sulting from cars careening from the barriers. Mr. CONSTANDY. Just to restate that, you initially want to prevent penetration of the automobile into the opposing lane of traffic. Mr. BEATON. Right. Mr. CONSTANDY. You want to reduce the forces of deceleration to those humans within the cars. Mr. BEATON. Right. Mr. CONSTANDY. And you want to redirect the vehicle on a path parallel to the road so that it does not go back into the adjacent lane of traffic and cause another accident. Mr. BEATON. That is right; yes. From their studies, the traffic department determined that the occurrences of cross-median headon collisions were directly related to the volume of traffic and that median barriers could save lives if prop- erly placed; however, it was emphasized that the placement of median barriers would cause an increase in accidents. In other words, there were many out-of-control cars which invaded the median area without becoming involved in an accident. Mr. CONSTANDY. Could you explain that a little bit? Mr. BEATON. Well, if you have a median area with no obstructions in it, in other words, it is absolutely clear, then the car may have a chance of recovery and come back to the traveled way. However, as soon as you install median barrier, then there is an object that can be struck. In other words, you have cut down the evasive area, let's call it, the defensive area, in half, so they fight off to strike the barrier and then they become an accident victim. Mr. CONSTANDY. I see. Mr. BEATON. Years of experience have proven these findings to be accurate. The fact that the accident rate would be increased by the placement of median barriers even though lives would be saved made PAGENO="1101" 1097 it even more important that we develop median barriers that would minimize injuries to the occupants of colliding vehicles. Our work, therefore, was to develop devices that would serve as positive barriers and yet minimize secondary effects on the occupant. This we did by developing a cable barrier for wide medians and a blocked out metal beam barrier for narrower medians. Within a year- 1959-60-we had installed more than 100 miles of the cable barrier and 50 miles of the metal beam barrier in the most critical areas of the State, and since that time another 300 miles of median barrier has been added. Operational studies of both types of barriers indicated that.the blocked-out beam barrier was serving as designed; however, the cable barrier at first needed refinement as to details and in addition had created certain unanticipated operational problems. A series of additional tests was then started so as to improve design details of the barrier itself and in addition to determine the effects of the geometry of various roadsides on the action of the cars as they approached the barrier. The effect of these tests was to more clearly define the design considerations for each type of, barrier. The flexible barrier system consisting of a cable on light collapsible posts and with a chain-link fence or expanded metal mesh to act as a glare screen proved itself to be. remarkably efficient in both stopping an invading car and in minimizing possible injury to the occupants of such a vehicle. Unfortunately, however, due to its flexible character it proved to be sensitive to the variety of changes' in the geometry of the approach roadway and shoulders or to `dikes or curbs placed in front of it. In other words, any excessive irregularity of the surface approaching such a barrier could result in the vehicle striking the cable too high or too low which would result in penetration. `Another problem that developed was that the slightest contact with the barrier caused damage which had to be repaired. Maintenance repair trucks positioned to perform these repairs often made it nec- essary to close the high-speed lanes. `.This results not only in a loss in efficiency of the freeway but also c'Luses `tccidents We h'~ve, therefore, found it necessary `to restrict `this type of' barrier to medians *that are relatively flat between the adjacent roadways and also where we `have a width of at least 22 feet so as to allow sufficient room to park the truck and utilize this equipment during the repair. The blocked out metal beam has shown no problem so far as place- inent is concerned and due to the fact that repairs are necessary only after `a very heavy collision, closure of lanes during repairs can be held to a minimum. During our testing program, while it was evident sustained decelerations on the occupants of vehicles colliding with the blocked out metal beam were relatively low, we were concerned that the disorientation of the driver due to a rapid change in direction of travel could result in severe secondary collisions. Interestingly, this problem,has not developed. In all, our overall median barrier program has been quite successful. Mr. CONSTANDY. Relative to that program, you have a paper given recently by `Mr. J. C. Womack, California State highway engineer, do you not~ Mr. BEAToN. Yes; I have. PAGENO="1102" 1098 `Mr. CONSTANDY. In the interest of saving time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the statement of Mr. Womack be printed in the record at this point. Mr. EDMONns0N. So ordered. Mr. CONSTANDY. It is a very fine statement, and as a matter of fact adds another dimension to the question of installing guardrails. It is something to which careful consideration should be given. They find that you increase the incident of injury if the median barriers are installed at the wrong place. Mr. BEATON. This is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. I ask the paper be printed at this point in the transcript. Mr. EDMONDSON. It will be printed. `Mr. CONSTANDY. Thank you. (The statement, "Median Barriers and Accident Prevention," by J. 0. Womack, State highway engineer, is as follows:) Median barriers were conceived and are installed to prevent cross-median head-on accidents. Accident data show that median barriers are very effective in accomplishing their purpose. Back in the late 1950's, before the median barrier program was initiated in California, cross-median head-on accidents accounted for approximately 20 per cent of the freeway fatal accidents. At present, with 400 miles of median barrier in place on 2,000 miles of freeways, only one-twentieth of the total freeway fatal accidents are of this type. The 400 miles of median barrier were installed first at locations where accident records and traffic conditions indicated they would do the most good in preventing cross-median accidents, and subsequently have been installed on all freeways where the median is less than 46 feet wide and average daily traffic exceeds 40,000 vehicles, and on all freeways with nar- row medians (less than 12 feet) where the average daily traffic exceeds 20,000. Since the barriers have proved their effectiveness in preventing one of the most vicious types of accident that takes place on California highways, the question quite naturally arises as to why they are not installed everywhere, and this question is very forcibly brought to the attention of highway officials whenever an accident of this type occurs and is reported in the press. Highway officials are just as concerned-probably much more concerned than most people-~by reports of fatal cross-median accidents. Here in California and throughout the nation they have given careful research and study to this most serious matter. The study, based on years of experience, shows that the solution is not as simple as it first seems to be. The problem is that the installation of such barriers causes approximately a 25 per cent increase in injury accidents and can most definitely cause fatalities. In 1965 there were 3,800 head-on accidents on California State highways. Of these, only 33 were fatal accidents caused by cars crossing over the center divid- ing strip on freeways. Thirty-three such accidents are too many, but they also must be viewed in perspective by those in charge of State highways in Califor- nia who are confronted with a yearly toll of more than 100,000 accidents and more than 2,000 persons killed. In the light of this, the State Highway Engi- neer must decide whether an all-out program desigiied to prevent such a small fraction of all fatal accidents is worth the cost, not in dollars, but in the in- creased suffering caused by accidents that would not otherwise occur, as well as a reduction in other safety programs designed to prevent a much larger num- ber of accidents. The general increase in total accidents as a result of median barrier installa- tion is due to the fact that the barrier cuts in half the space available for emer- gency maneuvers in the median. Drivers who might use the median to avoid an accident in an emergency have less room; they may strike the barrier or they may strike another car. In either event they `have an accident, often involving "innocent bystanders" on the same side of the freeway. These accidents that might never have happened also cause injuries and deaths. A median barrier or guardrail can prove just as deadly as another vehicle if you run into it with enough force. One hundred sixty-nine fatal accidents cc- PAGENO="1103" 1099 curred in 1964 and 1965 on California freeways in which vehicles struck some kind of guardrail. Included in this category are 41 where the guardrail was a median barrier. The dilemma persists. In order to solve it, the probability of a few cross- median accidents must be weighed against the certainty of many accidents of other types, and therefore barriers are only placed when the probability of their doing more good than harm can be demonstrated. In general, when traffic volume is very high, the number of potential head-on accidents is high enough that their prevention outweighs the negative aspects. But at low traffic volumes and where the divider strip is wide, the chance for a cross-median accident is so small that the added accidents the barriers cause are considered to be too high a price to pay. As traffic volume increases, more barriers will be installed. California motorists may be sure that proven safety devices and safer design standards will be adopted for the Oalifornia Highway System as fast as they are developed. Mr. CONSTANDY. Will you continue then, Mr. Beaton. Mr. BEATON. Our median barrier program testing new ideas and refinements of old went on through 1964. However, during the early part of this project and as a supplementary program we determined that our then 1958 standard guardrail was not as effective as desired. We therefore changed from the curved beam type to a W-section beam on blocked out posts. Improved bridge rail designs was our next objective. Testing was started in this area in 1965. As I stated earlier, our 1955 program had developed effective concrete bridge rails that were topped with a metal tubular railing. Tests in 1963 further refined these designs and im- proved the strength of the metal posts and rails. In addition to these concrete bridge rails, we found that we had a need for a railing that would improve visibility, be self-cleaning, and esthetically acceptable. Based on past dynamic studies, our bridge department therefore de- signed an all steel bridge barrier railing consisting of two horizontal rails mounted on steel posts. This railing proved to be both pleasing in appearance and very effective in redirecting colliding vehicles. It is of special value on interchange structures where visibility of approach- ing traffic is very important. Its use, however, is otherwise limited, in that it is important in the normal structure of any length that the driver not be distracted by objects along the side, such as boats and so forth, and also that the rail be somewhat substantial looking so as to give the driver every confi- dence in the world in them. Concurrent with our bridge railing studies, we were also conducting a program on guardrailing. This was started in 1964. Our traffic de- partment had observed during their continuing accident studies that the then current standard design of metal beam guardrail was dimin- ishing in its effectiveness due apparently to the higher speeds and heavier weights of the modern vehicle. During this project we there- fore studied the effect of various modifications to the metal beam type of guardrail. You have already seen the picture, and we changed our standards, we raised the beam and we cut down the post spacing. During this time and still underway, we are testing short sections of gua.rdrailing which are used to deflect vehicles away from collision with various objects along the side of the road. Our tests confirmed the findings of others that guardrailing less than 100 feet in length is ineffective unless adequately anchored. We are not satisfied with any of the current anchoring systems and are therefore attempting to develop a better system. PAGENO="1104" 1100 Mr. CONSTANDY. That is an area which is to a large extent ignored by many highway departments in the representative samples, ~ve have been shown. Mr. BEATON. This is an area that needs a great deal of work, ac- tually, because you are working in relatively small areas with very short deceleration distances. So it is a real problem. At the present. time, we are considering the use of the New York box beam median barrier and also the New Jersey design of concrete median barrier for us in areas where each would be especially effective, and we have tested both of these designs so as to obtain firsthand dy- namic knowledge to supplement the information that we have already obtained from the Other States. At this time, I would like to show another picture, which indicates some of the design features t.hat we had been concerned with and have tested. This is a silent film which I will narrate as we go along. (Narrating film.) The first series of clips I am going to show here indicate the four general classes of median barriers. This first is what we call a flexible system. These terms, by the way, are our own, they are not accepted by any national body. This flexible system is a cable barrier with an expanded metal light screen, or glare screen, in this particular case. Here is the New York box beam which we termed as a semiflexible system. It is a steel box beam on collapsible posts. We term our blocked-out metal beam as a. semirigid system. This is our standard median barrier design. This is one of our new bridge rails and we term it also as a semirigid system. And this we term as a rigid system, and it is the same as any other concrete wall barrier. Here we are testing at 90-mile-an-hour speed our flexible system cable barrier. Mr. CONSTANDY. Ninety miles an hour? Mr. BEATON. Ninety miles an hour. [Narration continued:] Here we are riding Sam through the 90- mile-an-hour collision. You note the energy is eaten up by the col- lapse of the posts and stripping of the cable. You can see the posts go- ing down in the front of the car, starting pretty soon. We are just now out of the full arc of the deflection and now we are coming back and you can see the posts going down in front of the car. Mr. CONSTANDY. You were satisfied with the result itself? Mr. BEATON. Yes. The decelerations on Sam are very low down, in the 1- to 3-g range. There is little or no rebound from this. The car stays in the median area. Damage to the car, actually, is rela- tively slight, amounting primarily to the cutting up of the sheet metal. [Still narrating:] Here is a test on semifiexible system, the New York box beam as you can see, the deflection is somewhat less. This is at 65 miles an hour, by the way, and the rest of the tests will be at 65 miles per hour and 25° angle collision. The deflection is 6 feet. There is low exit angle, only 5°. In all of the interior shots you will see of Sam going through these tests he has a seat belt on. You can see his sideward movement and rebounds somewhat heavier than it was as we went through the cable or flexible system tests. PAGENO="1105" 1101 Damage to the car was a little greater but not too much. Now here is our semirigid system. That would be blocked-out metal beam. Here at this same 65 miles an hour and 25° angle of collision, you will notice there is little tendency for the car to roll, because of the blocked-out feature. The exit angle is about 15°. Here the side thrust on Sam is somewhat greater than it was in the last test. The deceleration on Sam was 7 to 12 g's in this case, which we con- sidered to be tolerable, however, quite high. As you can see in the impact, the energy was divided between the railing and the automobile. Here again is a semirigid system. How- ever, this has a little more stiffness in it than the blocked-out metal beam. Mr. CONSTANDY. Is this a bridge rail? Mr. BEATON. This is a bridge rail, right, used primarily on inter- change structures. [Narration continued:] Acceleration here is a little higher. The reflection angle was somewhat greater; it was 25°. The early decelera- tions on Sam are greater, as you can see. Mr. CONSTANDY. More energy is taken up in damage to the car. Mr. BEAT0N (continuing). Here is a test of several bridge rails, all the scenes from now on are some of our earlier bridge rail tests. Here we were trying to determine the proper designs, proper height. Tins happens to be a very lightly designed straight wall, on which we were attempting to find out further information. This was our early standard design. It was a massive-looking bridge rail. You can see we went right on through it. This shows an experi- mental balli'ster design, which while it tested out all right, we never did `adopt. This is one of our standard bridge rails we use at present, whenever we want a safety walkway. This is the `same design, however, without a walkway `in front of it. This is the New Jersey median barrier developed for use in narrow medians, and we tested it in our latest series. This concrete rail failed because it was too low. The punch of the car is concentrated too close to the' unsupported edge, and there is insufficient strength to ret'ain this height `and it went straight through. This is lightly designed concrete wall. It failed and the car rolled off of it and rolled over. And `this is typical of any barrier that allows the car to roll into it. Now, in the next shot I will show what happens when you do not block out a wall and you allow the wall to deflect and allow the car to roll into the wall. This is a very typical roll. That is why we block out our median barriers. This is our current design of solid bridge rail. Lateral decelerations are relatively high any `time you use a rigid barrier. However, rigid barrier is necessary when you do not have space on the other side to accept the defleotions of other types of barriers. Sam lost his head in this one, but this was not primarily due to the type of `cOllision. He had a helmet on and it tripped up on high an- tenna; Sam has a very limited lateral movement in his neck, so it trapped and it was not necessarily indicative of the crash. 87-757 O-68----70 PAGENO="1106" 1,102 This is the New Jersey design of flat-angle high-speed collision. You can see here practically no damage to the oar, a slight amount. A great deal of energy was eaten up in raising the car, rather `than in crushing the car. Decelerations on Sam were very low, even though this was a 65-mile-an-hour collision, at 7°. Now this is at 25°, same speed. You will notice now the reaction of this is just like any other rigid barrier; that is, that it is very severe, very light, all the energy absorbed in the car. Accelerations on Sam were quite `high. No damage to the barrier, however; most of the deceleration energy was absorbed by the car. This is our standard bridge rail with a safety walkway in front of it. You will notice as the wheel of the car went over the walkway, there was little or no change in elevation of the car. This is due to the spring system of most American automobiles. If the rail were farther hack, then the rebound or the spring system would start to raise the car. This is a back view of the same accident. The tire blew out as it went over. A series of tests now showing our test of curbs. We determined the most effective height and design. Our early studies showed that under- cut to be quite effective, but even the best curb, high speed, low angle, you would go over them; you go over curbs at low speeds, this is only, 5-miles-an-hour collision at 30°. We wanted to know what kind of jump we would get going over a curb and that happened to' be a 60-mile-an-hour collision. We did find that in the first part of the jump, a great deal of the jump was absorbed by springing system. Here this is going over only a 6-inch high curb you can see the soft spring system did not affect the car `at all at first but a little bit later it started to impart a jump. Now here is a hard sprung sports car going over the same height, same speed. As you can see because of the hard springing, the jump is quite a bit more than over the soft sprung. Mr. CONSTANDY. You are not enthusiastic for curbs, are you? Mr. BEATON. No, sir, not enthusiastic at all. Mr. CONSTANDY. You would prefer that they were not used? Mr. BEATON. I do not think curbs should be used unless they are absolutely necessary. [Narration continued:] Here is a sports car going into our cable barrier over a 6-inch height curb. In this case, the barrier is close enough so that the car was not jumping too much before it was caught. Here we are going to test a series of geometric configurations ap- proaching our cable barrier. This is a typical sawtooth. You will see as the car comes up underneath, a sports oar, low anyway, it will penetrate the barrier. We had problems with this at first, and have no longer any use for it in this type of a location. Here is a car approaching on the high side of the superelevation on a curb. This gives a high-speed car sufficient jump to clear the barrier. Again, we had to recognize this fact in our designs and placement of such barriers. This is a 66-mile-an-hour collision with precast concrete median barrier that we attempted to develop because it was cheap. We have never used this, needless to say. However, it is a good example, I think, PAGENO="1107" 1103 of the difficulty of trying to make a light unit out of a brittle material. It just does not work with light materials or in dynamics You saw this picture in the other group, but it is to illustrate exactly the s'Lme thing that I just mentioned, that it is necessary that the beams, be properly designed so as to keep a car away from collision with hard posts. The failure, a.s you can see, is catastrophic. This is merely to show that if properly designed this type of barrier~ works re'tl well, prevents the c'tr from rotating, tipping over This is our standard, design. This is a typical damage On the road from a hard collision; as you can `see it more or less duplicates our test findings. One beauty of this particular barrier design is that light dents do not need repairs. This is typical damage of our cable barrier and as you can ,well imagine, with trucks out there to repair this barrier in a relatively narrow median, requiring the closure of the high-speed lane, we no longer use it in such locations. This is the typical location in which we use it. In places where it is relatively flat, we have plenty of room to get out and repair any damage that may occur. Whenever we have to place ditches for drainage, we either try to get them 6 feet away from the cable barrier or right up within a foot of the barrier. Any flexible system or semiflexible system, we feel that some space is needed to get our repair trucks in to repair any damage that might occur. In a semirigid system, we need less space, we can use it in the nar- rower medians, need less repair, we do not have to stop the traffic at all. We use this rail in interchange structures, or bridges, where we need sight distance. In other words, where cars are coming up from the side, both the car on the freeway and the approaching car needs to be able to see the approaching traffic. This is the New Jersey concrete barrier. We feel that there is a place for using this barrier in very narrow medians, where repairs should be held to a minimum and mterference with traffic held to a minimum. This is our standard bridge rail we use in most locations, `throughout the State of Cali- fornia. (End of ifim.) (At this point Mr. Blatnik resumed the chair.) Mr. CONSTANDY. We have a third film, Mr. Chairman, if we `have an opportunity at the end of the other witnesses' presentation to see it. It relates to short section of guardrails and `the necessity for them to `be anchored. There are a couple of things that come to mind. Do you use the chain link fence I believe you developed? Mr. BiwroN. Yes. Mr. `CONSTANDY. Initially, did you have some difficulty with the turnbuckles? Mr. BEAPON. We `had difficulties with the early turnbuckles because they were large and bulky and they snagged the car. We, therefore, went through a series of tests, redesigned these to the same size of the cable by using high strength steel, a pipe type. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think that you also initially had two heights of cable, did you not? PAGENO="1108" 1104 Mr. BEATON. We had two cables. We had problems with the lower cable tending to raise the car and give it an initial impetus upward. So we removed this cable and found by testing that the barrier system ismore efficient with it off. Mr. CONSTANDY. It raises some concern inasmuch as last week we had pictures from the nine States and two of them were using the original design chain link fence median barrier you developed.' Apparently both of them used your original design, because as I recollect in both instances, they do have a turnbuckle of the type you initially had which, as you found, presents a' severe hazard. And they also both used the low cable which you have since aban- doned. Since they are on brand new projects,, it would seem to suggest both the States that adopted your idea~ have adopted the early design in which you found some defects. It is hoped that both of those States become aware of it and perhaps make the necessary modifications be- fore they have to learn, as you people did, that there are improvements to be made in the original design. There were a couple of other items there. I think we should mention your ifim suggested the necessity of coordination between the design of the automobile and the design of the highway. The design of auto- motive devices such as the slope of the bumper permitted the car to raise up above the guardrail and in effect defeated its purpose. Mr. BEATON. We agree with this 100 percent. We feel that there needs to be a correlation between the vehicle and ,the road. This is a very significant area and very fruitful area in which to do a great deal of work. Mr. CONSTANDY. It would be a shame to have people in the highway field developing a facility for safety at considerable public investment which thereafter would be diminished in its value, if not negated, as a result of changes in automobile design. Mr. BEATON~ This is right. Mr. CONSTANDY. Did you have something that you care to state relative to smaller vehicles, sports car type machines, and as your protective devices relate to them? Mr. BEATON. Well we found, especially with the cable barrier, that the low profile sports car gave us many problems of penetration, gave other safety problems that are very difficult to take care of, especially with a flexible system. , Mr. CONSTANDY. Without diminishing values as relates to the stand- ard size car? Mr. BEATON. This is right.. They are a majority of the cars that are on the roadway. Mr. CONSTANDY. In your opinion, do roadside protective devices then leave the operator of a small sports type car less protected than he would be in a standard car? Mr. BEATON. Yes; I think this is true. Of course, I think that any- body in a sports car is less protected from almost anything. Mr. CONSTANDY. Perhaps they need to do what they did `with cig- arettes; have an imprint on the side that the use of this machine may be injurious to'your health. Mr. BEATON. It would be well to be cautious. Mr. CONSTANDY. If you would not mind standing by, we may be able to show the other film in the event we do not conclude. We would PAGENO="1109" 1105 like to thank you for your considerable cooperation and the hours that you have spent with us out in California showing us many, many pic- tures of the type you showed here today. Your own thoughts have been very helpful and we appreciate it. Mr. BEATON. Thank you very much. Mr. CONSTANDY. You have made a vital contribution in the field of highway safety and you have certainly helped us at this hearing. Mr. BLATNIK. The Chair and all of the members of the committee express our appreciation for your excellent and very, very impressive presentation which you have made here this morning. Mr. Beaton, we are impressed with your dramatic and well-engi- neered, carefully laid out test crashes and the scientific and engineering data that you have gathered and carefully collated and evaluated. What use is made of it besides the use within your own State of Cali- fornia Division of Highways? Mr. BEATON. We prepared and distributed written reports to all of the States, both through the Bureau of Public Roads and also through presentation of the Highway Research Board, and I feel that several States have used this work. I have no way of knowing, of course, which ones have and which ones have not. Mr. BLATNIK. What I am trying to get at, without getting you to pass judgment, is how it should be handled. You say several States have used it. Would you have any suggestions to make as to how we would get this to all of the States so that they would at least be aware of this information? Is that your responsibility, or the Federal bureau, the safety section of the Federal bureau? Mr. BEATON. It could be. In other words, they could have the machinery to disseminate this type of information. I think that every- body has to take this information and study it and make sure they can or cannot apply it in their particular situation. Mr. BLATNIK. You may have stated it earlier. Were any. Federal funds involved in this research? Mr. BEATON. None of our earlier work but all of our later work has been funded by Federal money. Mr. BLATNIK. All that information would be available to the Fed- eral bureau then, and it would be their responsibility to see that the States got what was pertinent and significant. It ought to be made available to the States, either in the form of recommended designs, or directives instructing them. We have thousands of miles of guardrail. Do you have any idea at all how many in the country are inadequate or deficient in some respect, such as being too low, improper spacing of posts, support of posts, things such as that? Mr. BEATON. I could not even guess as to that, sir. It would be very difficult to make an intelligent guess. Mr. BLATNIK. The reason I ask the question, in narrating an earlier reel you said this was standard guardrail design and you showed some structures in the period around 1958. You showed and described great weaknesses in it and reported great improvements in subsequent modi- fications. I am getting. at all of the standard designs of that time. There was a considerable amount of that being installed. Do you think it is still in existence? PAGENO="1110" 1106 Mr. BEATON. Oh, yes. We have old standards in existence in our own State. There is a problem, of course, of availability of funds to correct and replace and update the highway system insofar as all of its features are concerned, and this is one of them that we updated and corrected as fast as we could. But you just cannot keep up with it. Mr. Bi~rinx. For instance, you found the 24-inch height to be madequate. Yet I understand many Of our guardrails now in existence are oniy2O inches; is that correct? Mr. BEATON. We don't have any in our State. This may be true. Mr. BLATNIK. But there are quite a few at 24-inch height which you found to be inadequate in your tests? Mr. B1~roN. Right. Mr. BLATNIK. Those are to be replaced by the 27-inch guardrail, with the additional improvements, such as closer spacing of the posts, and your rub rail. Is that cost borne entirely by the State? Is there any cost of replace- ment of guardrail shared by the Federal funds? Mr. BEATON. I think it would depend upon the project. I am sure that there are on certain highways, Federal highways, I am sure there could be a portion of the money. I am not an authority on the financing. I do not know. Mr. BI~rNIK. Mr. Beaton, we certainly thank you again, very very much, for a most impressive contribution to our hearings. Mr. BEA~rON. Thank you, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. From the New York Department of Public Works we have George McAlpin, deputy chief engineer for technical services, and Malcolm D. Graham, director, bureau of physical research. Before you gentlemen sit down, would you please raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. MOALPIN. I do. Mr. GiL&uA~1. I do. Mr. BLATNIK. For the record, and purposes of identification to the committee members, will you please give your full name and official title or capacity to the reporter? TESTIMONY OF GEORGE MoALPIN, DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, AND MALCOLM D. GRAHAM, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PHYSICAL RESEARCH, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PuBLIC WORKS, ALBANY, N.Y. Mr. MCALPIN. I am George W. McAlpin, Deputy Chief Engineer, New York State Department of Public Works. Mr. GRAHAM. I am Malcolm D. Graham, Director, Bureau of Physi- cal Research, New York State Department of Public Works. Mr. Br rim. May I at the outset welcome you gentlemen and thank you for laying over 24 to 48 hours to be available at the com- mittee's convenience. The hearings ran longer than we expected and the session yesterday also was called earlier than expected. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Chairman, we are interested in New York's re- search and development of new concepts in highway barrier design. Mr. McAlpin, will you begin? PAGENO="1111" 1107 Mr. MoAi4pi~. Yes. We would like to present to you the results of our barrier research. We would like to give you a few introductory remarks concerning the substance of this research program. We have a copy of our most recent movie and then, if acceptable, we would like to follow that with a brief statement with regard to performance of our new barriers, on the basis of accident data that have been ac- cumulated. Then a brief statement on the general subject of implemen- tation of research findings, as they apply to our barrier work. If that is acceptable, Mr. Graham will give our introductory re- marks concerning the research project and we will follow that with the movie, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GRAHAM. Our research program has extended over a period of 7 years. It has resulted in the complete revision of standard designs for guardrail, median barrier, and bridge railing, as specified by the New York State Department of Public Works. Our project started in 1959, and we more or less built upon the prior work that had been done principally in the State of California. In all, we have run 48 full-scale tests, but in the beginning of our project we wanted to approach it a little bit differently. We wanted to analyze mathematically the barrier vehicle reaction. We tried to write an equation as to what happens when a barrier strikes a ve- hicle. By doing this, we were convinced that we could minimize the amount of full-scale testing required. Our full-scale testing program would first of all assist us in de- veloping these equations, and then finally would verify the equations that were developed. This mathematical program was successful. We were able to write these equations, which are solved on a computer and they have been very useful in assisting us in our barrier development. The first 14 full-scale tests and the mathematical analysis were formed by Cornell Aeronautic Laboratory of Buffalo under contract to our department. During this time the bureau of physical research of the public works department performed tests, full-scale tests, on the various posts used in guardrail systems. Finally, after the Cornell contract, the bureau of physical research took over the entire program, and ran the remaining 29 full-scale tests and completed verification with the mathematical models. Throughout our program we have been firmly convinced that the objectives of a guardrail or median barrier could best be fulfilled by a system that yields and, in yielding, absorbs some of the energy of the system, and cushions the impact of the vehicle. So our entire program is directed toward yielding systems. One of the most difficult aspects of the barrier design is the posts. With stout posts as you form the rail, you catch the wheel on the first post it comes to and if this is a stout post you get a violent de- celeration and possibly a pitching and rolling of the car. There are two ways you can get around this. One is to offset the rail from the posts, so that the wheel does not contact it, as you have seen in the California tests. The other is to make the posts small enough so that when the car does strike it, it can bend it down without these violent decelerations. All of our work has been directed toward the use of a lightweight post. It gives us sufficient strength in the lateral direction to support PAGENO="1112" 1108 the rail and absorb some of the energy ~f the car, but yet it is weak enough in the longitudinal direction tc ie pushed down by the vehicle without violent deceleration. In order to optimize our posts, to find a post that would do this for us, we ran quite a series of full-scale impact tests on posts alone in a variety of soils. We wanted to get, as I said, this sufficient lateral re- sistance, we wanted to get a minimum longitudinal resistance and we wanted a post that would react the same in all kinds of soils, whether they be loose, frozen, dense, or what have you. We were able to accom- plish this with a 3-inch I-beam post, weighing 5.7 pounds per foot. We were able to equalize the reactions regardless of the type of soil by welding a plate under the bottom of the post, ~a 6- by 24-inch plate. So when this is driven, regardless of the type of soil, whether it is frozen, freshly thawed or normal, we get a predictable and uniform resistance. Once the post problem was settled, the barrier design evolved around a rail which is of sufficient strength to limit the decelerations to what you would like to have, and this led to the development of our box beam system. For use in areas where deflection must be minimized we were able, with the heavier box, to limit the deflections to approxi- mately 2 feet, under an impact of 60 miles an hour and 25°. For situations where a greater deflection could be tolerated, we have, developed a W-beam system, again on the same lightweight posts and we have a cable system for side rails also on lightweight posts. We have two median barriers, one with the box beam and we have another one using W-beams placed on each side of the lightweight posts. So in all, we have five guiderail and median barrier systems and we have also developed a bridge rail system which at the present time is not used. The lightweight post is. We had to restrict the deflection even more on the bridge, so there is a heavier weight post but using the box beam railings. I believe that is all the introduction unless there are some questions. Mr. W. M~x. Will you run the film now. (The filmscript, "New Highway Barriers, Practical Application of Theoretical Design," follows:) FILMSCRIPT, NEW HIGHWAY BARRIERS, PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THEORETI- i&L DESIGN, PREPARED BY H & H PRoDUCTIoNs FOR THE BUREAU OF PHYSICAL RESEARCH, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF Ptn3LIC WORKS In the United States, each year, fifty thousand people die in automobile acci- dents. Nearly one fourth of the automobile fatalities are caused by collisions With fixed objects, including barriers. This fatality rate approaches thu popula- tion of a town the size of Bennington, Verm~nt. Some accidents cannot be pre- vented, but many can be minimized by providing safer driving conditions. Properly designed highway barriers delineate roadway limits and denote hazardous conditions. They must also redirect a colliding vehicle to limit lethal decelerations and to minimize danger to other vehicles. Our film shows high- lights of a research program that has resulted in a complete revision of New York State guiderail, median, and bridge barriers. From this project, We have developed analytical procedures for predicting vehicle reaction during a col- lision, and, for determining optimum characteristics of barriers for use in different applications. At the beginning of this program, three goals were set: to evaluate existing barriers; to develop analytical procedures; and to design new barriers. A barrier PAGENO="1113" 1109 must prevent a vehicle from passing through or over it; reduce deceleration forces on the vehicle and it occupants; redirect the car to minimize danger to following and adjacent traffic. Let us examine the criteria of retention, deceleration and redirection; they are the basic requirements barriers must fulfill. In a test of a cable barrier PAGENO="1114" 1110 designed during this program, deceleration forces are limited to the extent that they should cause only minor injury. The car is redirected' parallel and close to the barrier, and it can be maneuvered after impact and redirection. A rigid barrier, such as a concrete wall or an unyielding rail, does not absorb energy, and can cause fatal deceleration forces. For these reasons, we concen- trated on developing barriers that not only contain the car but yield to control deceleration. Initial deceleration is reduced by crushing of the car; however, to keep the deceleration to a tolerable level of less than ten times gravity, or ten. g's, the (:~..` ~ L - ,~ I PAGENO="1115" 11111 majority of the impact must be absorbed by the barrier as it deflects within the space available. Our analysis and testing began with the cable guiderail, which produces lateral resistance through tension during impact. Next we analyzed and tested a W section guiderail, which produces lateral resistance through both tension and bending. After analyzing these barriers, we evolved a new concept: a box beam rail that produces resistance primarily through bending. This barrier, a hollow section, supported on light posts, absorbs energy by yielding as it deflects. By changing section strength and post spacing, we have successfully tested the box beam at deflections from one foot to five feet. As a result of our analysis, four mathematical models have been developed and programmed for solution on a digital computer. One model computes vehicle trajectory, the others compute the force deflecting characteristics for the three PAGENO="1116" 1112 classes of barriers. Vehicle position is computed for each millisecond of collision until the corresponding barrier deflections agree. The computer then prints out vehicle position, speed and deceleration, and barrier deflection. With this mathe- matical approach, the effects on vehicle reaction can be predicted when rail and post strengths, postspacing and impact conditions are changed. This curve (illustrated) represents the measured trajectory of the vehicle center of gravity as the car hit the barrier and was redirected. This blue, dotted line was the trajectory predicted before the test. Vehicle center of gravity decelerations are plotted in this curve. The predicted decelerations agree with those measured within one g. Because we could not predict the reaction of posts in soil, we conducted dynamic tests on all eight types then in use. Test conditions simulated a car striking a barrier at fifty miles an hour and twenty-five degrees. None of the existing posts consistently provided the desired reactions. They were, therefore, unsatisfactory for our use. We then tested new designs. Our new post has nearly the same resistance in all soils and under all impact conditions. Yielding occurs at ground level, and post reaction can be predicted. The imbalance of post strength and barrier rail is shown in this first of forty- eight tests we conducted. The barrier, a then standard cable design, was sup- ported on heavy 6B8.5 posts spaced ten feet apart. The car hit the barrier at forty miles an hour apd thirty-five degrees. With little redirection, it continued into the barrier twelve feet, knocked one post over, cut into one cable, and separated the second cable at a splice. The splice caught in a post offset, and stopped. the car abruptly, causing a violent pitch, and yaw. The car stopped, or pocketed, within the barrier, astride the posts which had not yielded under~ impact. An improved cable design, using our light posts and end anchors, was tested seven times. In the guiderail finally developed, posts are spaced sixteen feet apart, and cable are supported, by i4 inch J bolts. These bolts release the cables as the posts are pushed down. The cables thus maintain contact with the vehicle as they deflect to absorb the impact. The car hit the barrier at forty-five miles an hour and twenty-five degrees, deflected ten feet, and was redirected and returned to the roadway. When released from the posts, the cables bunched together to control redirection. Average deceleration during impact was only 2 gs. Posts were replaced and the barrier was used in a subsequent test. This recent installation of our box beam and cable barriers shows the effective use of the two, evidently so placed because of differing allowable deflections. This end treatment of the box beam shows how it is turned away from the road- way. The cable and anchor was designed to eliminate the severe impact that would be caused by an anchored end post. Our new cable barrier is designed for deflections up to twelve feet. The cable barrier should be used only where there are no fixed objects or hazards within the twelve feet of allowable deflection. TheY second test in our series was performed on a conventional W section barrier, a ten gauge rail supported on 6B8.5 posts spaced twelve and one half- feet apart. Impact conditions were fifty-five miles an hour and twenty degrees. The car deflected the barrier six feet, pocketed within the barrier, and stopped twenty feet from the point of impact. The high deceleration, in addition to the violent pitching and rotation would probably have been fatal for driver and passengers. The performance of this barrier illustrates the need to have all barrier components operate as a system. PAGENO="1117" 1113 In this test of our design of the W section, the twelve gauge rail is anchored and bolted to light posts spaced twelve and one half feet apart. The car hit the barrier at fifty-five miles an hour and twenty-five degrees, deflected the barrier seven feet, and was returned to the roadway. Peak deceleration was less than 3 gs. In another test, the car hit the W section at high speed and low angle to simulate a brushing accident. The barrier deflected less than one foot, provided excellent redirection, and limited deceleration to one g. The end anchor bolted to a flared section of a recently Installed W section barrier is the same anchor used with the cable barrier. It provides sufficient PAGENO="1118" 1114 restraint to develop the ultimate tensile strength of the rail and minimizes the severity of an end impact The W sections are attached to the light posts with ~ inch bolts. Thus, when the posts are pushed down, the 1/~ inch bolts fail and release the rail so that it remains at a constant elevation to prevent the car from rolling. The W section is designed for deflections up to eight feet. In this test of a box beam designed as a median barrier, several views are shown to indicate the way the box beam reacts to absorb the impact and limit deceleration. The rail is a hollow, structural section 8 by 6 by 1/4 inch, and is supported on light posts spaced six feet apart. The car impacted the barrier at fifty-five miles an hour and twenty-five degrees, and was redirected parallel to the barrier. In another test the car impacted the median barrier at forty-five miles an hour and thirty-five degrees. In both tests deflection was limited to five feet ; this deflection was greater than desired. However the post/rail connection and rail splices were redesigned to provide the desired two foot deflection. This recent installation of a box beam median barrier shows an effective end treatment. The barrier rail is not attached directly to the posts, but rests on paddles or plates bolted to the posts. These plates are inserted into the tube through slots in the bottom of the rail, and allow the posts to bend down when impaced directly by a colliding vehicle. Without a mechanical connection to the post, the rail remains at the desired elevation to prevent the car from rolling. Median barriers have been designed for allowable deflections of as little as two feet. -~ ~ --;~ -- ~ I - -~ .4 - ~ `I 1 & PAGENO="1119" 1115 The box beam guiderail is shown in these scenes. An end treatment that provides additional protection sweeps up to the roadway. In this test the car hit the box beam guiderail at fifty miles an hour and twenty-five degrees. The rail remains at the same elevation as it is released by connecting bolts. De- celeration was limited to six gs, a reasonable force within the allowable de- flection. The car was redirected at thirty-two miles an hour and eleven degrees, then brushed against the barrier and stopped. After impact and redirection, the car was driven away. The closely spaced posts and splicing arrangement of this newly installed boz beam guide rail can be seen. The design allows deflection of up to four feet. (See figure G-6). On this same roadway, there are some interesting features that show the versatility of the box beam. It has been welded and shaped to PAGENO="1120" 1116 form a protective barrier at all four corners of this intersection. In this scene, the end treatment indicates the way the barrier can be swept away from the road to avoid an unnecessary hazard for the motorist. Although a major portion of our testing was concerned with median barriers and guiderails, we also performed twenty-two tests on bridge rails. The guide track, in which the car is moving at fifty-five miles an hour, is set for an impact angle of twenty-five degrees. The test barrier, one of several experimental barriers tested, was designed to meet requirements of the Amer- ican Association of Highway Officials. This AASHO barrier consists of rigid rails offset on rigid posts. Redirection was satisfactory, and a deceleration of twelve gs was measured during the impact. A transition to a recently installed AASHO bridge rail is provided by a box beam guiderail. Of interest to safety engineers is the use of additional bridge rails to enclose the open space between the two roadways to prevent an auto- mobile from dropping on the road beneath the bridge. In this bridge rail, a prototype box beam consists of strong rails and light, closely spaced posts. After an impact of sixty miles an hour and twenty-five de- F .-- PAGENO="1121" 1117 grees, the car was redirected properly and front wheel damage kept the car in a hard right turn. Peak vehicle deceleration was about nine gs These sequences show an early test of the box beam bridge rail. This school bus, loaded with sand bags and weighing 14,000 pounds, hit the barrier at thirty miles an hour and twenty degrees Redirection was excellent and peak 87-757 O-68----71 PAGENO="1122" 1118 deceleration was limited to four gs. This test enabled us to verify the mathe- matical model of vehicle trajectory when it was extrapolated to represent a larger vehicle than a passenger car. This box beam median barrier is the first installation of our design. It was installed along this section of an expressway two years ago, after we had made several successful tests of the box beam during the initial phases of our pro- gram. Posts have been damaged on six separate occasions, and three have been straightened. No additional maintenance has been reported, and none of the rails has been replaced. Significantly, no collisions have been reported, indicating that there have been no serious injuries. Experience with this installation, in addition to the success of our dynamic testing, justifies the design concepts originated during the project. As a result of this research program, the New York State Department of Public Works has adopted new standards for guiderail, median and bridge rails which we are confident will result in a marked reduction in the severity of barrier accidents. The department is pleased to have been able to contribute so significantly to the safety of the motoring public. Mr. W. M~r. Mr. Graham, while we have the lights off, I would like to show some photographs taken of some of the installations of this box beam in New York. I notice from the film, to function prop- erly, it should be firmly anchored at both ends. Is that correct? Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir; it does not need to be anchored. We are at- taching the ends, since the early designs; we are now attaching the eiids to the ground. But to function properly, it does not need to be anchored. Mr. W. MAY. Would that function properly as shown here? PAGENO="1123" 1119 Mr. Gn~rAM. No; I did not realize that is what you meant by anchoring the ends. That should be attached to the bridge rail. Mr. W. MAY. I believe that again shows the problem of communica tion and education down to the* people who make the installations of these new systems Is that not true? E Mr. GRAIIA3I. Yes, sir; it is. Mr. W. MAY. Somebody installed this improperly. Mr. GRAHAM. May I suggest that not knowing the installation, this is complete, except for the transition section, and is it possible that the transition has just not been erected at the time you took the photo? I am not familiar with the circumstances at all. Mr. W. MAY. It Probably was open. Do you recall whether it was open? Mr. KopBcjçy. Yes; it was opened in November 1963. Mr. W. MAY. I notice in the Photograph here there is a section of guiderajl, running at a 9O~ angle to the shoulder guideraj~~ Is that designed to prevent people from going down into the space between the twin structures? I was just wondering if that would function properly. Can you see the left end of the Photograph? Mr. GRAHAM Yes. We have never tested it at 900, I am not sure that anything would prevent a vehicle going fast enough from getting down in there. This, I would think, would be a credible job though. Mr. W. MAY. Do we have another slide? Is this a proper installa tion? That is another location. PAGENO="1124" 1120 Mr. GRAHAM. Is the red spot symbolic? Mr. W. MAY. Well, I suppose. It seems that we could make a better transition from the end of this box beam. Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir; we have a transition section. Mr. W. MAY. Yes. And that curb also presents problems. Mr. GRAHAM. We are now sweeping the curb away on a shallow angle and it passes under the approach barrier. ~ Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Graham a question. Should that reflector post be located inside of the traveled portion of the highway and inside of that guardrail? Mr. GRAHAM. I believe it would be preferable, sir, to put it on the opposite side. It is lightweight and would probably not present a particular hazard, but I would say it should be on the other side of the rail. Mr. MCEwEN. In your work in the Bureau of of Physical Research, you test these materials. Do you develop also the standards for apply- ing them and how they are to be installed? Mr. GRAHA~r. Yes, sir; we assisted with the standard section, stand- ard design sections, for these barriers. Mr. MOEWEN. Now, are there any directives in regard to a situa- tion like that, whether that reflector should be inside or outside of the guardrail? Mr. GRAHAM. May I refer the question to Mr. McAlpin? I do not know. Mr. MOALPIN. I do not believe that there are instructions that are that specific for this particular installation. I would not agree that there should not be, but as existing today, I do not believe there is. Mr. MCEwEN. Mr. McAlpin, you would agree there is some degree of a hazard to that inside the box beam? p PAGENO="1125" 1121 Mr. MCALPIN. Inasmuch as it is a fixed object, it could be considered a hazard. There is some disadvantage for an installation of this type, where we still have the butt end of the curb there. This is being' revised on our new standards, and as a matter of fact we have a remedial pro- gram to fix up `these situations. You might, however, say it is in an advantageous place here because of the delineation it affords. This shows the extent the motorist should go before he perhaps would collide with the butt end of that existing curb. So I would say that this is an area where it might be preferable to put it outside, from the fixed object point of view. Certainly'within the realm Of our cur- rent knowledge, we should require engineering judgment for local- ized installations. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McCárthy~ Mr. MCCARTHY. Gentlemen, I see by your report here that in New York State between `700 and 800 people had been killed in collisions with fixed objects. You mention yournew guidelines, as a result of your research, which I think is very valuable; Now, since we have been mainly concerned here with the Interstate System, I assume these deaths are on all highways in our State; is that correct? Mr. MCALPIN. That is correct, Congressman. Mr. MCCARTHY. My question is, has the' New York Thruway Authority adopted your new standard? Mr. MCALPIN. The thruway authority `has recently, as perhaps' you are aware, undertaken a major contract for the installation of me- dian barriers. Mr. Graham and his group worked very closely with the thuway in the' design of these, and they have `fully adopted our new concept for these installations. This does not mean that they have gone back and changed all exist- ing guardrails `on the entire 500 `miles of t.he thruway system. But m their new installations and medians, `they have fully adopted our concept. ` ` Mr. W. MAY. Mr. McAlpin, I understand New York has underway a program for guiderail alterations amounting to $15 millioit As I understand, that is underway at the present time. Do you know about that, Mr. McAlpin? , Mr. MCALPIN. You are speaking of a remedial program that is a program designed to make corrections in existing `installations? Mr. W. MAY. Yes, sir. Mr. MCALPIN. I apologize, I cannot frame this exactly in the $15 million category. We have issued. directives to each of our districts, to survey all locations in which the extent of `protection currently being provided by guiderail is considered inadequate. There has been a tend- ency through the years to install guiderail and stop it too soon for adequate protection of a fixed objector other hazard. Instructions have been. issued that au such cases should:be fixed. We have also issued' instructions that we will afford remedial work on the end sections of all existing guiderails at hazardous points in the State. These will be flared, grounded, and anchored in accordance with our new concepts, even though the remaining portion of the existrng guiderail would remain'under the old'standards. The total cost of this is somewhere in the vicinity of a $15 `million program, although I be- lieve this perhaps includes our bridge rail program in addition. PAGENO="1126" 1122 Mr. W. M~c~r. Yes, I have in front of me a paper sent to us by the de- partment. It says "Summary of Projects for Guiderail Alterations Program," lists the districts, and the total sum is $15,058,000. Mr. MCALPIN. We have underway a $47 million remedial treatment under the safety improvement program. This is underway, fully pro- gramed; this encompasses the results of our survey of all hazardous situations that can be classified as spot improvements, other than rebuilding the roadway. Mr. W.. M.~&y. Do you have another slide? Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. MeEwen. Mr. MOEwEN. Before we pass this slide, what about the curb on this bridge; is that the present standard of design? Mr. Mc~ALPIN. That is current standard.design. Thisis a safety walk, I believe, 18-inch setback from edge of curb to railing. Mr. MOEwEN. What is the railing there? Is that steel or aluminum? Mr. MOAJJPIN. I believe this is a steel railing, sir. Mr. MOEWEN. Now, has that been tested by you people for stability to retain and deflect vehicles? Mr. MOALPIN. Yes, in our early work we tested all existing systems being used in the State of New York, which would include our use of aluminum rail, or our old standard aluminum, our old standard steels. I believe this is a new standard steel rail which encompasses continuity of railing throughout, rather than construction in sections. A little difficult to tell from the slide, but perhaps counsel would know. Mr. MOEWEN. In the films Mr. Beaton showed of the tests in Cali- fornia, I believe on the New Jersey type structure they use, concrete with the rail on top. Has that been tested in New York? Mr. Mc~Ai1pn~. No; we have not tested this. New York uses very little of parapet type of design for bridge rails. At the time we entered this work in 1958, Mr. Beaton in California had already introduced a very extensive series, concentrating in the early days, I believe, on bridge rails. We followed this very closely, and not having a large usage of parapet type of rails in New York, we did not enter the field of testing. Mr. MCEwEN. Thank you. Mr. McCAlrnnr. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MOCAimly. On that safety walk. Last week we had a panel of experts, and the general agreement was that the term safety walk was a misnomer, and that it could be a hazard. The general agreement of that panel, as I remember it, Mr. Chairman, was that they would not in the future build safety walks. I am wondering if you had the experience with this and if you are contemplating eliminating these so-called safety walks. Mr. McAr1IIN. I certainly would not contest the misnomer of the term. This is under consideration by our bridge department. However, the use of curbs, whether or not you call them. safety or make them 18 inches wide as this case illustrates, offer a drainage feature on the bridge itself. From this point of view, they deserve consideration in the overall bridge structure design. We have, I believe, a major structure on the Interstate continuing into Connecticut, in which we have eliminated curbs. Butat the present PAGENO="1127" 1123 time, the demands for drainage are considered to be sufficiently sig- nificant so that we basically are stayingwith this. Mr. MCCARTHY. Now, do you have an overseer of the plans of bridge engineers? Is approval of your department required before construc- tion? Mr. MCALPIN. In our department? Mr. MCCARTHY. From the safety point of view. Mr. MoAr~mN. If I understood the question, do I personally have re- view and approval authority over bridge design? Mr. MCCARTHY. The department. Mr. MCALPIN. The answer is "No." Our group is a technical service group. Under the staff type of functioning, in many of these areas we work extremely close with the bridge group. We have no authority or veto power over their designs. However, I would say that it would be a rare occasion where, if we had a firm and substantial recommenda- tion, it would be ignored: Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. It appears, looking at this photograph, that a vehicle which collided with that guiderail would be guided into that concrete curb where the red dot is. Is there any reason why-you mention re- tention of water-that that could not be sloped, rather than a sheer abutment for the vehicle to strike? Mr. MCALPIN. None whatsoever. As a matter of fact, this is exactly the way we are doing it. The curb is being extended from the end of the bridge and curved around so that it continues in behind the rail. And the rail itself is being connected to the bridge rail. This gives continuity in case of impact. The curb would be there, but it will be flared around so it would not be the obstacle that it presents in this case. Mr. MCEWEN. Now as to the determination to use this type of rail, rather than the parapet which we say that was developed by New Jer- sey and shown in Mr. Beaton's films. Was this rail selected from the safety or esthetic standpoint? Mr. MOALPIN. I do not really know. You are out of my area. If you ask it another way, whether this rail is providing adequate safety, the answer is "Yes." We elected to do this because of the possible distraction of the at- tention of the driver, and I am certain this would be a consideration. I believe we are rather open aired in New York, and like the opportunity for vision through rails rather than confinement. Thus, on major high- level structures, we are using parapets. To give additional assurance to drivers, or for the psychological feeling of security, we .are using parapets. (At this point Mr. McCarthy assumed the chair.) Mr. MCEWEN. Do you consider this as safe as a concrete parapet, from the deflection standpoint? Mr. MCALPIN. Yes. Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. One more question on this approval from a safety point of view. Does the New York State Department of Public Works have a director of safety or someone of that type of capacity, who PAGENO="1128" 1124 looks at all of these plans before they are put under construction; to review them from a safety point of view? Mr. MOAI2PIN. Yes, we do, Congressman. We have within the struc- ture of our main office in Albany a unit titled "Bureau of Traffic En- gineering." This is the focal point for the entire department's opera- tions in regard to safety features, both design and operations. It has review capacity, it recommends in regard to modifications of designs, it has counterparts in each of our 10 district offices, which perform the same functions. Mr. MCCARTHY. They review all of the plans from t.he safety point of view? Mr. McAr~IN. When you speak of review of all plans, I have to back off just a little to say that with the volume of plans moving through our main office group it undoubtedly does not review all plans. However, their counterparts in the district offices where the plans are originally developed do review and participate in the design of these, of all facilities. Mr. MCCARTHY. And part of their mission is safety; right? Mr. McAI~IN. This is their major issue. Mr. MCCARTHY. Their major issue. Thank you. Mr. W. MAy. Could we go to the next slide? This is just another view of that previous installation we saw. If that were struck in the area that we see in the photograph, Mr. Graham, that rail according to the concept would give way, being a weak post, would it not? ~ .:~ PAGENO="1129" 1125 Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir; it would. Mr. W. MAY. Could we have another slide? This is a different in- stallation. But, again, that seems `to, represent a hazardous area; is that not so? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; that is so. The pictures that you call to our atten- tion primarily represent points of `transition and these are extremely critical and are receiving full attention, I assure you. Mr. W. M~iy. Could we have another slide? PAGENO="1130" 1126 That is the same scene, only on the right. Another transition point that will have to be fixed? Mr. GRAHAM. It most certainly will. Mr. MCEwEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCA.mmY. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. We have seen a number of slides showing abutments in all of the States, including New York. The abutment that is behind that reflector sign there appears to be a four-tiered concrete abutment. Can you gentlemen enlighten us as to what structural purpose this concrete abutment serves? E-~r I I' PAGENO="1131" 1127 We have seen scores and scores of photographs of automobiles smashed into these big concrete abutments. Are these necessary struc- turally? Mr. MCALPIN. Absolutely not, Congressman. They have in the past hooked up somewhat with tradition, I presume. This is a peculiarity of this structure that bridge designers felt to be necessary; they are not necessary structures. They have been eliminated on all new designs in the State of New York. Our remedial program, which is included in the $47 million program underway `at the present time, is to remove all of these and provide continuity of transition between the approach rails and the bridge rails. These are going, just as fast as we can pro- vide contracts and forces and funds to take them off. Mr. MCEWEN. As we have sat through days of viewing pictures similar to this, Mr. McAlpin, it seemed to some of us it took a while to make the transition from `horse `and buggy, if you will, to the auto- mobile. Now the esthetics of this tiered abutment had totally escaped me as `a motorist traveling the interstate at 65 miles, an hour. I have not enjoyed the beauty of these, and had not even, noticed what they were until we got these `slides and looked `at these objects and saw the damage they had caused the vehicles. I fail to appreciate, and I think our committee agrees what the purpose of the esthetic design is when you are traveling at 65 miles an hour. You do not have time to look at the beauty Of `an abutment. It is a hazardous object when it is struck and I `am delighted to know the department is now embarking on a prôgrám of eliminating these objects. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. McAlpin, is the $47 million all State money? Mr. MCALPIN. No; there is Federal participation on the basis of type of Federal moneys involved. We have had on the safety improve- ment program the opportunity to go in on Interstate and we have an Interstate traffic formula on the A, B, C, or the regular systems. We match under that formula. Mr. MCOARTHY. What is the share, roughly in terms of Federal funds and State funds, of that $47 million g Mr. MCALPIN. I am sorry, I cannot tell you. A lot of it we are con- centr'~ting on our Interstates in light of new standards There is `t great deal of regular 50-50 money What this proportion is, I am not prepared to say. Mr. MCCARTHY. So it would be over half Federal money? Mr MCALPIN I cannot even say this, Congressman, I am sorry PAGENO="1132" 1128 Mr. W. M&y. Do we have another slide? Could that installation be improved, Mr. Graham? Mr. G~AiiAM. Yes; we would ramp that down and attach it at the foundation. Mr. W. MAr. Could we have another slide? I understand that is another location but similar type installation. I - A I PAGENO="1133" 1129 Could we have another slide? Now there is an installation of. your cable. barrier that is designed to deflect how far, Mr. Graham? Mr. GRAHAM. Twelve feet under maximum impact. Mr. W. M~&~-. Would that be an improper use of that cable barrier? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; it certainly appears so. I do not know how far it is from the post to the face of the piers. Mr. W. M~.iir. Could we have another slide? It is about 10 inches. Mr. GRAHAM. That wotddhave tobe changed. Mr. MCEwEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. McEwen. PAGENO="1134" 1130 Mr. MOEWEN. A couple of the slides previous you had your new box beam coming into that abutment. Is that not also a flexible barrier? Mr. GRAHAM. With the box beam, and with posts at 4 feet, we can restrict the deflection to about 2 feet. We do need 2 feet between the abutment and the rail. Mr. MCEWEN. Now are you using W-beams at all in New York now? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir. We need 8 feet but for a normal side road installation, where we do not have fixed objects close to the roadway, both the cable system and the W-beam system work very satisfactorily. Mr. MCEWEN. Well, now, what would be the best type of guardrail here, W-beam, box beam, or cable? (refer fig. 6-26). Mr. GRAHAM. The box beam is the best thing we have for this type of installation. I presume this is a fairly old highway, judging from the type of abutment that is in there. And I believe the box beam was installed to improve a bad situation to the greatest extent possible. Of course, we are not building the abutments like that and we have not for many, many years. Mr. MCEWEN. Would that be considered also too short an installa- tion now under your standard? Mr. GRAHAM. We would extend it all the way through, and we would extend it back farther, and attach it down to the ground, to avoid any possibility of striking the end. Mr. MCCARTHY. Is it fairly tricky to install this? I have a little sample here. I think, from what we have seen here, the evidence will indicate that this is the best system. But I am wondering if it requires quite a bit of attention to see that it is installed properly. Would that be true? Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir; I would not say so, any more than any other system. I have observed them putting it in. They drive their posts 6 feet normally. The little paddles that go on top of the posts are bolted on, and the beam, of course, is fabricated in the shop and it is lowered over the posts. Where there are splices, we must insure that those are snug, otherwise we would get more deflection than we wanted. But I would say by comparison with other types of barriers, it is not a diffi- cult or tricky thing to install. Mr. MCCARTHY. Is it inspected before it is accepted by the State, by a qualified inspector? Mr. MCALPIN. As to structural soundness in conformance with ex- isting plans and specifications; yes, in all cases. Mr. MCCARTHY. How about the application, do they check to see that it is properly installed? Mr. MCALPIN. I qualified my other statment to the effect that it would be installed as the directions were indicated on the plans and specifications. If you mean whether we have a review group that would go out to check whether the original indicated design was correct, in the early instances, certainly, as exhibited here with these slides, this was not being done. We are paying considerable attention to this now, and trying to bring our house in order, especiaTly on these transition situations. Mr. W. MAY. I think that is the last photograph. I think what we have seen here, Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Graham, is a real excellent concept; a new concept, of highway barriers. There is PAGENO="1135" 1131 no question but that the research people should certainly., be com- mended and so should New York for adopting the new concept. But again it stresses the real problem we all have when it comes to com- munication and education, particularly to the people who install it, to see that it be done properly. Would you agree? Mr. MCALPIN. Yes; there is a continual communication problem in our business, just as in any other business. This becomes more and more severe each day. With the rapidity of technological changes we find that there is much, much more to communicate. (Mr. Blatnik resumed the chair at.this point.) Mr. W. MAY. Again, pointing out the communications problem,. we on the staff have talked to highway officials in other States, and some of them have mentioned the New York box beam rail to us. So it shows they have heard about it. But I recall one of them told us, "We will never use it here because the maintenance cost will be so high." For the record, could you tell us about what the maintenance cost has been? Mr. MCALPIN. We have introduced a continuing accident data col- lection record on our new barriers, including old barriers for the sake of comparison. These data are sort of limited in volume to date. How- ever, they do indicate without serious question that the maintenance costs on the new barriers are not in excess of what we have experienced in the past. This includes all of the four major design barriers, the cable, the W-roadside, the box roadside, and the box median. Mr. W. MAY. So that the thought that maintenance costs might be extremely high is probably the wrong thought and should not deter them? Mr. MCALPIN. It is not in accordance with New York's experience. Mr. W. MAY. The film mentioned some experience that you had with prototypes of this barrier. Do you have data along that line? Mr. MOALPIN. Yes; I do. The data as of this date indicates that the accidents on our new cables are considerably less severe than on our old cable system. For example, there were no reported fatal accidents, or any accidents requiring hospitalization on the new cable guiderails. These categories represented 1 percent of the fatalities and 16 percent of the hospitalizations with our old-type design. Stating this as a ratio on our old cable rail design, the survey sug- gests that one of every six. accidents may result in injury requiring hospitalization. The data on the old-style W-beam fully supports our research find- ings that these old designs, too, can result in personal injuries. On the W-beam guiderail of old design at the roadside we recorded 261 hits, resulting in six fatalities and 32 hospitalizations and 56 minor injuries. On the old W-beam median barriers, we have 51 reported hits, where two were fatalities and eight were hospital cases and seven were minor injuries. We do have some examples in regard to the box-beam median bar- riers. We have a continuous 2,700-foot length of this barrier, on a New York City expressway. It was installed in January 1965. Prior to this, the section had no barrier installed. Accident records for 1963 through 1964 indicated five cross-median collisions in the 2-year period. Two of these accidents caused fatalities, two resulted in personal in- juries, and one caused only property damage. In all, two people were killed and three people were injured. PAGENO="1136" 1132 In the 2-year period since we installed the new design barrier, it has been hit at least six times in major collisions but no personal injuries at all have been reported. In three of these collisions one post was re- moved each time and required replacement. In another, one post had to be straightened. No maintenance has been required to the box-beam rail itself. On a State parkway, we have a 2-mile section of the box-beam median that has been in service since 1966. Accidents on this section during the period 1961-~5, prior to the barrier installation, accounted for four fatalities, 14 injuries, and seven property damageS connected with cross-median accidents. In all, six people were killed and 42 were injured. During the rather short period of the survey of 3 months since the installation of the new barrier, there have been reported six sizable accidents, and in none of these cases has there been any injuries, except a reported bloody nose in one particular case. In one accident of this group, there is a report from the operator of the car, to this extent: He stated he was driving south at approxi- mately 45 miles an hour, lost control of the vehicle, crossed the passing lane, struck the center divider rail with the left front of the vehicle, then brought the vehicle under control and continued south. This type of performance we think verifies our rather substantial research in this area. The general conclusion on the subject-we would say that New York's experience to date, with limited survey informa- tion available, does not suggest excessive maintenance on any of these types of barriers, and is a very pleasing and pleasant reaction in regard to the severity of injuries to occupants. Mr. W. MAY. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we on the staff are personally aware of how adequate the New York Department of Public Works has been in the highway safety field in the past several months. There is great activity there. It has some very fine programs and symbolic of their programs appears to be this letter of June 8, 1967, sent out by B. A. Lefeve, deputy chief engineer, to all of the district engineers. He refers here to the new way in which they will give attention to guiderails, signs, light standards, utility poles, medians, interchanges, piers, abutments, walls, rock cuts, trees, bridges, exit ramps, headwalls, drop inlets, culverts and slopes. I ask permission to have it printed in the record at this point. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. (Letter of June 8, 1967, from deputy chief engineer to all district engineers, follows:) DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER GENERAL LETTER 67-55 S~rUTY IMPROVEMENTS ON GOING PROJECTS To AU District Engineers: We have been working on these safety improvements long enough so that by now we should not be permitting jobs to progress with some of the recognized hazards still being included. This is not only undesirable but it is costly. We'll have to come along and correct them in the very near future. So I'm asking you to once again look over going jobs as well as those going to contract with old plans on old standards and to initiate changes now to bring these jobs up to a reasonable standard of safety. The following things are to be reviewed and done! PAGENO="1137" 1133 1. Guide Rail Do not install any guide rail of the old type. Use one of the new types. No more heavy posts are to be used. All ends are to be brought down near ground leveL Make sure approach end is properly located. Do not use short sections of guide rail (2 or 3 lengths). 2. signs No heavy gore signs are to be placed. Use Breakaway type-wood or metal- see new Standards. Also see new standards for other ground mounted break- away signs. Heavy signs less than 30' from pavement that cannot be changed are to be protected by guide rail. Sign foundations are to be substantially flush with the ground. 3. Light ~tasidards Use frangible base and light weight poles. Foundations are to be substantially flush with the ground. 4. Utility Poles Utility poles should be 30' from the pavement on 50 M.P.H. roads. When re- locating these utilities on contracts get them back. 5. Mediona Install median barrier where median is less than 36' wide. Slopes to the barrier should be generally 1 on 6 with 1 on 5 as steepest. You will have to watch your drainage-maybe even underdrain if needed. Barrier can be cable or W Beam as well as box beam where there is room for deflection. Where you have a narrow raised median (up to 12') with curbs, reduce median width to 3' curbed and use box beam median barrier or eliminate raised median and use flush area plus box beam barrier. C. Interchanges Separate opposing ramps by box beam or double W a~s per Standard Sheets. Install "Wrong Way" signs on "off" ramps. There is a standard for this. If you have unusual problems at ramp ends, send in your suggested method for review and approval. Control access at crossroads for 300± in accordance with instructions. 7. Piers, abutments, walls, rock cuts, etc. For fixed objects of this kind less than 30' from pavement on 50+ MPH highways protect with guide rail. For speed zoned areas (under 50 MPH) use your best judgment. 8. Trees Trees over about 3" in diameter should be 30' or more away from the edge of the pavement on 50+ MPH highways. This is a very critical, emotional, hysterical and illogical problem. Do the best you can. And when you do remove a tree-remove it fast and haul it away fast. Where you can anticipate tree removal and can get the OK from property owners, if needed, why not set up a landscape project to plant trees several years ahead of the removal of the old trees? - When you plant trees, do not plant a tree that will mature at over 3" in diameter closer to the pavement than 30'. 9. Bridges Replace such bridge rails as are selected for replacement and approved by the Bridge Subdivision. Remove pylons from bridge ends. Connect bridge rail to approach guide rail with positive and adequate con- nection. Flare safety walk or brush curb ends back and away to a pOint under and beyond the guide rail where there is no approach curb. 10. Eccit Ramp The area beyond the gore area shall be so graded that if a vehicle goes through the gore, it ~vi11 be able to be controlled and brought to a stop. This means elimination of the sharp "ravine" and replacement with negotiable slopes. Drainage must be adjusted accordingly. 8't-757 O-68---72 PAGENO="1138" 1134 11. Headwalls-Drop inlets-Cnlverts Eliminate headwalls. Where an entrance structure is necessary on a culvert it will be so designed and, if necessary, protected by guide raiL Culverts will be extended to provide a safe recovery area. Large culverts are usually in high fills that require guide rail. In those cases where there are large culvert open ends that are not protected there is a potential hazard. However, guide rail placed just above the culvert end of a slope steeper than 1 on 5 is practically useless. Therefore, any protection that you deem necessary for such a situation will have to be substantially in the normal location for guide rail and so placed as to intercept a car coming in either direction on a 2-lane highway or from just the one direction on a divided highway with adequate median or median protection. Drop inlet grates in medians and other such exposed locations must be flush. with no raised portions, to permit free passage of a wheel of a vehicle. It is suggested that you use a bar type grate with the bars parallel to the ditch. Let the grate be rectangular with the long dimension along the ditch line. 12. Slopes Flatten slopes wherever possible. You may be able to eliminate guide rail by so doing. AU other things being equal and based only on relative damage to a vehicle and passengers from striking the guide rail or going down the slope, the following is a GUIDE for fill heights without guide rail: Ht.~fli Slope (feet) 1 on 2 10 1 on 3 20 1 on 4 1 on 5 1 on 6 Remember this is a guide and must be so regarded. If there is a river or lake at the bottom of the slope or other hazards or limiting factors such as trees, houses, buildings, or other such fixed objects, this cannot apply. Also if the alignment together with the fill produces a mental hazard or optical illusion or if the curvature is too severe to be adequately marked by delineators, then you must use your best judgment. I am sure you will not find many places where you can spread out so much on high fills. The determination as to which slopes to use is one based on R.O.W. geographic features, neighborhood development, economics and aesthetics. We expect that you will solve the problems listed in the "Dangerous Dozen" by Orders on Contract and, if necessary, field change drawings. In any case do it early in the contract-give the contractor a break. Try to get agreed prices on any work for which there is no bid item. If these changes are initiated early enough, the work can be done concurrently with the rest .of the job and no extensions of time should be required. Mr. MOEWEN. What did Mr. Lefeve say about rock cuts? Is that in the letter? Does he refer to rock cuts? Mr. IV. MAY. "For fixed objects of this kind less than 30 feet from pavement on 50-mile-per-hour-plus highways, protect with guiderail." Mr. MOEWEN. What was the date of this letter? Mr. W. MAY. June 8, 1967. Mr. MCALPIN. Counsel, if I might just add, this is of significance. This concerns going projects. Mr. MCEwEN. Mr. Chairman, the reason I ask this, I say to the gentlemen here present, is that I recently traveled over a very good primary four-lane highway, Route 12 running northeast from Alexan- dria Bay. This road was opened just last fall. There are a number of rock cuts in there, and at. a number of exits the slopes appear to be severe. There are new type guardrails at several places, but through none of those rock cuts are there any guardrails. And the rock cuts are much closer to the paved portion than the standard set forth in Mr. Lefeve's PAGENO="1139" 1135 letter. You, Mr. McAlpin, I think, or maybe Mr. Graham, one ~ you referred to the directive now to do away with the short sections of guardrail. Again, on this highway, just open last fall, there are very short see- t.ions of guardrails where there are tributaries flowing into the St. Lawrence River and in a number of these situations, some of them are so short, in my opinion, the only thing they could guard against would be a car, when it got to that bridge or culvert., doing an absolute right- angle turn. They do not guard at all if you lost control; you would go down the ravine into that gully. This is why, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the big problem here, when we see the wonderful work these gentlemen are doing, is the lack of communication-a problem of how this gets down to the person at the district level who is doing t,he job. For example, who is thinking of safety when that warning marker is put inside of the guiderail, such as we have just seen? There just seems to be no reason why these things are done. It would appear what they are doing is with no thought at all of safety. Mr. BLATNIK. That is a good question. One of the objectives, the end results, will be to find out why. Mr. W. MAY. I would just like to make the physical research report on "New Highway Barriers, The Practical Application of Theoretical Design," exhibit No. 17, Mr. Chairman. This is a most comprehensive and worthwhile report and should `be studied carefully by the highway officials who have responsibilities in these areas. This report and other data, may be obtained from Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Graham. Mr. BLATNIK. No. 17. Without objection, so ordered. (Exhibit No. 17 is retained in subcommittee files.) Mr. W. MAY. I would like to `again express the appreciation of this staff to Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Graham. Mr. Chairman, no one in this country helps this staff any more than the highway personnel of California and New York. For the past number of years, we have spent many, many hours with them and they have given freely of their time. We could not do without them. Mr. MCALPIN. Might I make just one statement, Mr. Chairman? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McAlpin. Mr. MOALPIN. I know you are stressing the very difficult problems, and Congressman McEwen spoke of this matter of communications. From the research standpoint, we think of this as implementation of research findings. This is the problem; the gap between the research finding and the implementation or inclusion of these in new designs that become a reality. This is the dividend we are seeking. I would like to say that there are instances in which this is done., we think quite successfully. The report i~e are handing you today is our final research report on: . New York's barriers. It is dated May 1967. New York is fully implementing all of the recommendations in this final research report. In many instances, we in research think of completed research being the terminal point-represented by the date of such report; that is the point at which implementation starts. In New York, we feel we have successfully bridged this gap between research and implementation to an enormous extent. Had we elected, however, to delay implementation until all of the fine points had been worked out, such as the rail transitions which we are awfully sorry PAGENO="1140" 1136 about being there and which do present real hazards and were called to our attention, then perhaps other problems would have been created. I would say, due to our ability and good engineering judgment in the Department of Public Works, as of this date of this final research report we have let to contract over 740 miles of newly designed barriers. This has been accomplished prior to the date of a final summary of all the research aspects. Further, we have issued orders to make reme- dial improvements on all current projects to the maximum extent pos- sible. Further, we have an active program of bridge rail and guardrail replacement. We believe that we are making some real progress. As for commu- nication between States, I might add for Mr. Beaton's sake that in the middle of our research, we adopted California's median blocked- out barrier in 1962 based on the result~s of California's experience, as an interim before we moved into our. new designs. Mr. BLATNIK. The Chair on behalf of the entire committee thanks Mr. McAlpin and Mr. Graham, for their excellent and most helpful testimony and, presentation. Thank you very much, gentlemen. This concludes the hearing for this phase of the committee work. I have a short closing statement. There is one thing that has been clearly established by the testimony we have heard this week, and that is the vital importance of having clear roadsides along our traveled highways. We have seen demonstrated again and again what happens to the vehicle that hurtles off the road and smashes against some massive, rigid fixed object-which hindsight then often shows should not have been there in the first place. It is not reasonable to suppose, of course, that our roadsides can ever be made 100 percent free of fixed objects. However, we have learned that many of these pieces of highway hardware that are abso- lutely necessary can be of a "breakaway" type that readily give way when hit, causing only slight damage to the car, and leaving its occu- pants uninjured. The difference between this result and what happens when a car hits signs or other objects held by solid, heavy-duty, steel I-beams or pipes mounted upon reinforced concrete bases, is a dramatic one indeed. If the necessary roadside object cannot be of breakaway construc- tion, then it .should be adequately protected by proper guardrail or other impact attenuation devices which will prevent or minimize the damage. The availability of breakaway and impact absorbing devices has been well illustrated by the testimony we have heard this week from people in the field of research and development. We have watched pic- tures of speeding cars crashing against sign supports with no serious damage resulting because the objects struck were not anchored in con- crete, but readily "gave" or "spun" out of the way when hit. We have seen.and heard about whole new concepts in the field of highway design and safety from these experienced and knowledgeable witnesses who so badly need to be listened to and heeded by those in authority. Some of the more important concepts in the field of safe highway de~sign are not new. The desirability of reasonably clear roadsides and gore areas, for instance, has been known and repeatedly demonstrated PAGENO="1141" 1137 by accident experience for many years. So has the proper and safe installation of guardrail and other concepts that we have found being honored in their breach more than in the use. It is mainly in the failure to make application of these concepts that the difficulties have arisen. The knowledge is there. We have seen it and others have seen it. It is available upon request. The people in the field of highway engineering research have done an impressive job, which our witnesses these past 3 days have so capably shown. Yet the testimony the previous week showed that some of the most basic con- cepts of safe highway design had been disregarded in the design and construction of some of our newest, most recently opened sections of interstate highway in each of the nine regions of the United States administered by the Bureau of Public Roads, which had been visited by our staff on a sampling basis. Naturally, having clearly established the conditions, we asked sun- ple questions. The gentleman from New York, Mr. McEwen, just a few minutes ago, asked the question "Why ?" Can we dismiss the prob- lem by. observing that there has existed over the years a failure of communication between the people at the top to those in the field who actually make the installations? Hardly, since we realize that although the installations, true enough, are made in the field, the design and plans from which they flow originate and must be approved at re- sponsible levels. It is the responsibility and duty of this subcommittee to seek the answers to the serious questions that have been raised by the testimony we have heard thus far in these proceedings. This we shall proceed to do when we resume and continue our public hearings during the coming months. There being no further witnesses scheduled for today the hearings are adjourned. Further hearings will be held at the call of the Ohair. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to re- convene at the call of the Chair.) PAGENO="1142" PAGENO="1143" HHI~HWAY SAFETY, DESH~N AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBOOMMITrEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE CoMMIa'ri~E ON PrrJ~LIc WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcomniittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik (chair- man) presiding. Present: Representatives Blatnik, McCarthy, Cleveland, Olausen, Duncan, MeDonaid, McEwen, and Zion. Staff present: Same as previous days. Mr. BLATNIK. The meeting of the Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid Highway Program will please come to order. For a number of weeks we have been holding these public hearings on the safety, design, and operational efficiency of our highways, roads, and stre~ts. This opening phase of our hearings has been mainly concerned with the problem of roadside hazards. The subcommittee's investigation, however, is a continuing one. And during the months ahead we plan to examine other important areas in the field of highway design. After further exhaustive in-depth investigation into the subject matter has been completed by our staff, these hearings will be resumed. Meanwhile, before we conclude this first phase of our hearings on Thursday of this week it is entirely fitting that we should hear from representatives of AA~HO, the American Association of State High- way Officials. Testimony by AASHO officials has been of considerable help to our subcommittee in past hearings covering a number of years. We not only appreciate but we welcome the comments and observations of the gentlemen present with us this morning relative to the subject matter of our current hearings on highway safety and design. I also say further that close cooperation and coordinated efforts and assistance will be received from AASHO, according to Mr. A. E. Johnson, executive director, and my friend for many, many years. Mr. Eugene Johnson, Chief Engineer, Mississippi State Highway Department, chairman of AASHO's design policy committee, we ap- preciate your coming here with the distinguished and experienced gentlemen with you. As is customary, we do have the witnesses take an oath; so if you gentlemen will please stand and raise your right hands. (1139) PAGENO="1144" 1140 Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to giv before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothin but the truth, so help you God? Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. I do. Mr. A. E. JoHNSoN. I do. Mr. Ivies. I do. Mr. SNm1~. I do. Mr. GOODMAN. I do. Mr. BLATNIK. Please be seated. Mr. Johnson, would you please introduce your colleagues and as sociates who accompany you, and would you please proceed? TESTIMONY OP EUGENE M. ~0HNS0N, CHIEF ENGINEER, MISSIS SIPPI STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, CHAIRMAN, AASH' PLANNING AN]) DESIGN COMMITTEE, AND PRESIDENT, &ASHO A. B. IOHNSON, EXECUTIVE D]:RECTOR, AASHO, WASHINGTON D.C.; HOWARD S. IVES, COMMISSIONER, CONEECTflCUT STAT HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, CHAIRMAN AASHO COMMITTEE 0] ROADSIDE DEVELOPMENT; MARVIN I. SNIDER, CHIEF ENGI- NEER, MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, CHAIRMAN AASHO COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION; AN]) WARI) GOODMAN CHIEF ENGINEER, ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, CHAIRMAN, AASHO COMMITTEE ON BRIDGES AND STRUCTURE Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. Gentlemen of the committee, I am E. M. John son, chief engineer, Mississippi `State Highway Department, and president of the American Association of State Highway Officials. I am appearing in the latter capacity and am accompanied by Mr. A. E. Johnson, executive director of AASHO, and several members of the special AASHO Committee on Traffic and `Safety. I would like to introduce these please, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ives of Connecticut, who is chairman of the Roadside Development Commit- tee of AASHO; Mr. Ward Goodman of Arkansas who is chairman of the committee on bridges and structures; Mr. Marvin Snider, who is chairman of the construction subcommittee. We understand that Mr. John Morton from New Hampshire, who is chairman of the traffic committee, is en route. There are two other members who are unable to be here due to other commitments, Mr. Prahi of Washington, who is chairman of the maintenance and equip- ment subcommittee, and Mr. John Meyer, who is chairman of the design committee. This special committee was created 3 years ago to emphasize traffic safety and to coordinate the work of the various committees that have primary responsibilities in that field. It is made up of the chairmen of appropriate AA'SHO committees, and originally included the committees on planning and design poli- cies, design, maintenance and equipment, and traffic, with the presi- dent of the association serving as the chairman because of the impor- tance of the operation. PAGENO="1145" 1141 This committee includes several specialized fields, inasmuch as traf- fic safety transcends the interest of more than any one single commit- tee. Recently, we added the chairman of the committees on roadside development, construction, and bridges and structures to make the special committee even more effective. It was this special committee, together with four traffic engineers assigned as special observers, that made an inspection trip and study a year ago that resulted in the publication of the AASHO "Yellow Book" entitled "Highway Design and Operation Practices Related to Highway Safety." We are sure that you are familiar with this publication. It includes the observations and recommendations of those who took part in the study. It was not balloted upon as an AASHO standard, but was is- sued as a committee report for the purpose of furnishing a checklist or guide in coordinating safety design features and for improving op- eration to enhance traffic safety. It has been used to spearhead stepped-up activity in the safety program. The association has printed and distributed 20,000 copies. We made these available, free of cost, to toll road authorities, consulting en~i- neers, foreign governments, automobile clubs, county officials, city officials, Federal agencies, and, of course, to all of the State highway ~departments and the Bureau of Public Roads in rather large num- bers. We might say, also, that for the past 6 years we have requested that appropriate AASHO committees include at least one sub)ect on traffic safety in their programs at our annual meetings. We, of AASHO, appreciate the opportunity of appearing before your committee today. We are pleased that your committee has given of its time and talents to study the whole matter of traffic safety. Our statement is somewhat comprehensive and lengthy, but due to the importance of the subject matter and the primary responsibility that the State highway departments have in highway safety, we ask your patience as we present it as we believe the information that we have to present is important, and has not been presented by other witnesses. We also wish to state, at this time, that not all roads and streets in the United States are under the jurisdiction of the State highway departments and, of course, we cannot accept the responsibility for all highway mishaps, but are completely willing to be answerable for those things that are our responsibility. We feel that all too often there is a tendency, when traffic safety matters are discussed, to automatically and immediately blame State highway departments in large part. There is without question emotion, hysteria, and sensationalism in the safety field, but if these serve a useful purpose, then we have no objection. Thirty years ago, when there were only 30 percent as many motor vehicles in the United States as now, almost 40,000 people were being killed on the Nation's streets and highways. Yet, the.. State highway departments were unable to get any effective public support for a comprehensive and continuing traffic safety program or to get people to be verysafety conscious. PAGENO="1146" 1142 Now, 30 years later, when some 50,000 people are being killed in traffic accidents, the factor of emotion and sensationalism has been injected and the lay public and officialdom are becoming aware of the seriousness of the problem. We hope that the matter will be kept in perspective and that the wide interest will be turned into constructive channels and not result in a destructive or critical attitude. We knOw that the work of your committee will be constructive and there will be no tendency to condemn the State highway depart- ments or the highway program. The expertise of professionals in the State highway ,epartments constitutes one of this Nation's most valuable resources. While we may be subject to some criticism for not anticipating or recognizing certain problems that have arisen on the Interstate Sys- tem regarding roadside obstructions, we do not think that we should be severely criticized. Frankly, the limited amount of such roadside appurtenances involved on the interstate, as compared to the multi- plicity of these things that are a part of the conventional rural high- way or the city street, appeared to involve a rather negligible mathe- matical probability of bemg a causative factor of an accident. The State highway departments first became safety-minded in the mid-1920's. In fact, an AASHO Committee on Standards was created in 1914 to "standardize construction and design to be used in the highway development program to accomplish efficiency, economy, and safety." The association established a design committee in 1919, a bridge committee in 1921, a construction committee in 1922, a traffic com- mittee in 1922, a roadside development committee in 1930, a mainte- nance and equipment committee in 1933, and authorized its planning and design policies committee in 1936. This latter committee is the one that develoj?s most of our major design policies and standards and is composed entirely of chief engineering officers of member de- partments. The advancement of traffic safety was an important part of each of these committees' activities. In 1925, when we first started computing fatality rates of high- ways and streets, there were only 21 million vehicles in the country. That year, the fatality rate was 17.5 per hundred million vehicle miles. In 1926, the State highway departments developed the U.S. num- bered system, roadmap symbols, the route marker, and started high- way signing and road maps as we know them today, all for the con- venience of the public and to promote safer travel. In 1936, we. started in earnest on improving geometric designs and layouts and on more effective highway signing to make our roads more functional. Refiectorized highway signs. started about this time to make night travel safer. Again, we found that the public was still apathetic to highway safety, mostly because of the fierce competition for the dollar to ex- tend the pavement and not to spend the money on other things. In 1936, the fatality rate was 15.5, and there were 30 million motor vehicles. Now, 30 years later, we find the fatality rate for the Nation to be 5.5, but for the Interstate it is 2.5, however, the roads it is replacing have a rate of 8 or 9 persons killed per 100 million vehicle miles. PAGENO="1147" 1143 As mentioned before, this can be enhanced even further by cor- recting some relatively minor and inexpensive things such as im- proving the design, use and placement of guardrail, protecting bridge ends and bridge piers, moving sign assemblies further from the edge of the shoulder, removing trees that are too close to the traveled way, using breakaway sign supports and light standards, changing the design of highway components, such as drop inlets, bridge turnouts and culvert headwalls and, in general, carrying ona program of elimi- nating or providing protection around obstructions that cannot be eliminated or moved out of critical areas. We have found that cars going out of control on high-speed Inter- state highways travel rather fantastic distances after they leave the road and even though there are a relatively few obstructions on those roads, as compared to older conventional highways, they can become lethal, for a vehicle very often proceeds until it collides with one or more of such objects. Substantial additional expenditures on the Interstate System could fast reach the point of diminishing returns and such moneys could better be spent on the improvement of roads and streets having higher fatality rates. I am talking about urban streets, the vast mileage of our `older rural primary highways and correcting "booby trap" situa- tions on our secondary roads. We do believe, however, that the AASHO work in improving and upgrading design standards and operational practices has been re- sponsible to a marked degree for the dramatic'decrease in highway f a- tality rates during the past 30 years. Much of our early highway practice was inherited from railroad practice following the slowdown of `the great railroad expansion pro- grams. The first generation of highway engineers came from the rail- roads so it is natural that the evolution of highway engineering started from :that point. It was during this time that much of our existing highway system was constructed. The then current practice dictated the slopes, ditch sections, major and minor structure configuration and right-of-way widths. It was also at a time when we had much less highway traffic, lower speeds, and much smaller trucks to consider. In fact, very few people, if any, anticipated the extend of the unprecedented growth that has occurred in motor vehicle traffic. The high cost of moving earth and making rock excavations~ together with the relatively light traffic needs, dictated the~ grades, alinements, sight distances, and the like. Consequently, these existing facilities are incompatible with present-day traffic densities and speeds. We are speaking of the typical rural two-lane highway yet in use and built 30 to 40 years `ago on narrow rights-of-way. Extremely limited budgets, limited bridge widths to very little in exceas of the width of the pave- ment, and because of the continued shortage of funds,: thousands of `these structures are still in service. The State highway departments could not get full support for in- creasing the widths of right-of-way for many years. We encountered strong resistance against moving any sizable trees along the roads during construction or in maintenance operations, `and during the great expansions of the utility services many pole lines were constructed along these highways in close proximity to the traveled way. In fact, PAGENO="1148" 1144 you will find that these accumulated obstructions c,an occur as often as 100 per mile on each side of many of these highways. On arterial streets, you will find that light standards, utility poles, trees, and fire hydrants make up a maze of roadside obstructions that can be lethal, but became an accepted practice and a normal part of the highway and street scene. For many years, the State highway departments got little public support for even mowing highway rights-of-way or for mOving utility poles toward the right-of-way line. As early as 19~0, the State highway departments, through AASHO, started. developing design standards for the time that an Interstate program might be authorized. We started with the then present state of the art of freeway design as reflected in the few urban freeways and some of the early toil road practices. The Pentagon network was even studied in detail as one of the starting points for an evolutionary and refinement process that continued until the program. was started, and the standards have been constantly reviewed and upgraded since that time. . . . . . . ... Great emphasis was placed on such things as widths of pavements, widths of shoulders, controlling curves and grades, sight distances, and the required geometry of interchange layouts. The purpose was to give the most efficient and safe roadway that could be devised. As stated previously, we were probably guilty at that time of not giving enough thought to the roadside itself and the ob- structions that might be placed uponthem. Very few people realize or appreciate the scientific basis used in de- veloping highway standards, for instance, deceleration rates are imsed on the coefficient of friction of a worn tire in contact with a wet pave- ment for the particular design speed involved. These cOefficients of friction, of course, change with design speeds and. become lesser for faster speeds. By multiplying the coefficient of friction by the acceleration of gravity, t:he deceleration rate in feet per second is obtained, and this must be kept below that where small children might slide out of the seats of the vehicle. This factor, con- sidered along with the. perception and reaction time of the driver determines the stopping distance required. We use the combined perception and reaction time of 2% seconds, which includes the slowest reaction drivers on our highways. It is found that even an alert fast-reaction driver, under certain condi- tions, while driving on the highway may have considerably slower time than when tested in a laboratory and sierted to the test, soit is desirable to include a substantial safety factor in the time consider- ation. In other words, a highway is designed with safety factors to pro- vide an extra measure of safety for a driver who is giving reasona~ble attention to his driving. .. In determining controlling vertical curvature, it must provide enough sight distance for a driver to have sufficient time to stop be- fore, hitting .any obstruction on the roadway 6 inches or~ more in height. For this purpose, the driver's eye is assumed to be 3.75 feet above the pavement and, of course, must be based on the smaller cars in use today. The larger vehicle provides some added safety factor in this regard. . PAGENO="1149" 1145 The vertical curve, therefore, must be adequate to permit a driver to see such an obstruction over a hilltop and give ample time to stop his car if it is traveling at design speed on a wet pavement and the tires are worn. This does not mean smooth tires, a heavy water film and a panic stop. Hydroplaning would result in such an instance. Deceleration rates are used in developing the length of deceleration lanes and the determination of exit ramp speeds. Even the 12-foot lane width that is used universally in modern highways is developed scientifically~ It is not a function of the physi- cal width of the vehicle, but it is an overall width plus lateral insula- tion space that is needed to safely accommodate the naturai weaving of a vehicle traveling `at the design speed, and it is for the purpose of minimizing driver strain that can be a factor on narrow pavements. The width of the right-hand shoulder of the Interstate System is based on the physical width of the legal vehicle and it being able to clear traffic on the traveled way, yet not apply loads closer than 2 feet to the shoulder line. It is difficult to maintain structural stability close to the shoulder line because of weather and moisture conditions. Even the limiting curvature on high-speed highways is based on scientific facts. The curvature is limited by the allowable supereleva- tion rate and the side friction factor of the pavement. The latter two `values are generally set at the coefficient of rubber tires and ice, so vehicles will not slide off the pavement during icing conditions. Highway location itself requires great talent and is an art `that relatively few people possess. A person must have a thorough knowl- edge of design standards and visualize the manner in which the road will fit into the topography when it is built. It is a continuous linear design which is entirely a different matter than a spot location design, such as a small park or building location. It involves the combining `of controlling curves, sight distances and grades, together with the accommodation of necessary appurtenances to give a safe and functional operation, a pleasing `appearance, cause a minimum of. disruption `during construction and in the community, and gives the most economical construction. We find that often highway location and design is subject to criti- cism by nonhigh'way people and especially after the' road has been completed. We believe if these critics were assigned the responsibility of going `out and actually locating and designing a highway, they would develop a keen appreciation and respect for the ability of the professional highway engineer. After the locatiOn survey has been completed, a high degree of pro- fessional competence is required in the design of the project. The lay- ing of grade lines, the determination of the size, type and location of minor drainage structures and the selection of bridge types and the completion of their structural design involves large sums of pub- lic funds and expert know-how is `absolutely essential. The design standards that we have developed have resulted in com- pleted Interstate System sections that have no obstructions closer than 12 feet to the pavement edge. This is the first time that a highway sys- tem has `been provided that can make that claim. `The traveled way and shoulder design, together with the the control of access feature, separation of grades, the dividing `of roadways and PAGENO="1150" 1146 appropriate signing, which is a requirement for complex highwa layouts to be functional, are things that dropped the fatality rate o these freeways to 2.5 per 100 million vehicle miles. As we have admitted previously, the effects of roadside features hay possibly been overlooked or at least underestimated, and this wa becoming apparent to us some 3 years ago. We refer to the matter o vehicles leaving the Interstate System and other highways and runnin out of control. This was one of the major reasons for the AASHO "Yellow Book.' A freeway is the only type of highway where the necessary signin and the sign locations can be predetermined and not subject to. constan change. As a result, sign supports, in many instances, were constructe to be more or less permanent in nature. These have turned out to I hazards in some instances. The same is true of guardrail ends. No one at this time knows thebes way to start a guardrail installation, and we doubt if one can be abso lutely hazard free. Both the flareout and grounding treatments hay objections. Before the Interstate program, major rural highway constructio was limited to about $100,000 a mile. We are speaking of a primax two-lane facility with high type pavement. Guardrail was not use extensively because of its cost. It was used to delineate certain condi tions or to serve as a warning that an embankment or a culvert or some thing similar existed. In some States delineator posts were used instea of railing. In many instances, where the rustic design concept was embraced o park or forest roads, large boulders were placed on the shoulders of th road for this purj~ose. Now, as we build the Interstate System and the budget is not put so restricted and a more liberal use of guardrail is indicated, it ha raised some entirely new situations and design problems. The cost of guardrail versus flatter slopes, of course, is an economi question that must be determined by the highway designer. Not oni must the first cost be considered, but the continuing maintenance cost of guardrail and the problems of mowing around it is a controllin - factor. Of course, there are many places where the topography prevents slopes flat enough to eliminate the need for guardrail. The assignment given the AASHO Design Committee this yea included a complete look at guardrail practice and design, as well as a critical review of all highway components to make certain that they perform their primary function, yet are attractive and, above all, enhance traffic safety. This will involve a review of all minor drainage structure configurations. The bridge committee has been asked to study the matter of bridge railing. With extremely wide roadways, more vehicles are collidmg with the bridge curbs and rails at relatively high speeds and at angles closer to 90 degrees. That creates a very difficult design and safety problem. It is entirely different than designing bridge rails for light angle impact that has been past practice when the solution is to deflect the vehicle instead of stopping it without serious injury to the occupants PAGENO="1151" 1147 or to the bridge or to persons or property that might be under the bridge. To stop a typical automobile traveling 60 miles per hour involves absorbing 500,000 foot-pounds of energy which presents a challenging task to a designer. Of course, safe bridge design is further complicated where pedestrian traffic is involved. All in all, we are now completely cognizant of the roadside problem and its seriousness and the roadside is becoming an engineered and designed element of the highway facility, instead of a byproduct of the grading and drainage operations. With all of the appurtenances that are necessary for the functioning and operation of a modern highway, which includes signs, guardrails, light standards, headwalls, and many other items, it is essential that these appurtenances not be planned and constructed independently, but reviewed together and coordinated by a field review at the time of construction. It may be possible to move a light standard or a sign installation to where a guardrail installation is already provided. If such is not possible, then these necessary obstructions need to be relocated so as to minimize hazard. Almost every State has had some experience in having proposed design rejected or reduced by so-called Bureau of Public Roads frugality, because of the costs involved. Full width bridges, the~ elimination of shoulder piers, additional lanes, full width left-hand shoulders on six- and eight-lane freeways, and the like, are examples. We do not wish to make an issue of this and do not propose to offer it as an excuse. It is our opinion that cost will continue to be a major control factor in this and all other highway programs. Even if there is considerable feeling of a liberalization in spending at this time, by the time the next cost estimate for the Interstate pro- gram is submitted, undoubtedly there will be a tendency to swing back the other way and become extremely cost-conscious once again. In 1958, AASHO was questioned by the Senate Public Works Com- mittee as to the possibility that the States were overdesigning the In- terstate facilities and using wider rights-of-way and median strips than justified. Now, it is well known and accepted that such charges are not true, and it indicates an evolution in official thinking. We might add that we have encountere4 some minor conflicts be- tween highway safety and highway beautification proponents. This is not a serious problem, but it does take the attention and action of the State highway administrators to correct. There is a tendency on the part of landscapers to plant trees close to the shoulders and locate shrubbery where sight distances are impaired. We have heard some criticism of the highway signing on our high- ways, and in particular, on the Interstate System. We have had more experience in communicating with the public through signs than anyone else. It is very definite that with over 100 million registered drivers hav- ing different levels of education, mental and physical reaction and background, that the intended and proper use of highway signing PAGENO="1152" 1148 cannot be instinctive to all of these drivers. What might be clear to many, could be confusing to a few, or vice versa. It is essential that drivers be taught how to use the signing and th complex geometry of modern highways for as time goes on and traffi increases, such thingsare not going to become any simpler. We alread have 60 percent more vehicles on our highways than when the Inter state program was started. Signs must have target value day and night and be large enoug to be legible and read at highway speeds. They must stand out but no be unsightly and must not require more than a glance to be rca Smaller artistic or rustic offerings have no place on high-speed big] density arteries. Highway safety involves three areas-the vehicle, the highway, an the driver. In fact, it is a three-legged structure and for such a struc ture to be stable, each support must be completely adequate. We readily admit that some further progress in traffic safety ca be made on even our most modern highway facilities, but the mos fertile field for achieving traffic safety lies with the improvement o the driver. Highway administrators and engineers are firm in this position. We see far too much hazardous and wasteful use of our highwa space even though the average driver generally does a good job. Some of the things you can see that contribute to accidents ar driving when fatigued, driving when intoxicated, driving beyond con ditions, aggressive driving, tailgating at high speed, driving too slow driving with smooth tires, not planning a trip in advance as to prope routes and exits, exiting from the wrong lanes, and not knowing hov. to drive on a freeway. One of the most hazardous things on a tw lane facility is passing on hills. These things are entirely too prevalent and while we accept the re sponsibility in the highway field of enhancing chances of survival i case a vehicle goes out of control, to a large extent we are merely treat ing the symptoms or the results and not correcting a major cause o accidents. Recently, at a national conference, we were advised by outstanthn motor vehicle administrators and State highway officials, that no leF than 10 percent of the drivers on our highways were operating wit a revoked license or had no license at all. This further underscore the need for improving the quality of the person permitted to operate a vehicle. We admit that we have experienced some delay in getting improved designs and applications incorporated into our highways. This is espe- cially a problem when your personnel is involved in a very heavy and continuing workload that is part of moving a big highway program. Essential leadtime may cause design features to go into the pipe- line 2 or 3 years before construction is started and construction may require 1 or 2 years. There is a tendency, under such conditions, to use existing standard design sheets and not take time out to upgrade or correct them, and to overlook making desirable changes during con- struction by change order. The larger an organization, the more serious the problem of internal communication and coordination between the various engineering of- fices becomes. This is the responsibility of the chief engineering officer PAGENO="1153" 1149 and the chief administrative official of a department to correct or to accomplish. The highway departments are involved in a spot improvement pro- gram that can enhance traffic safety and we intend to continue this activity. We are involved in research efforts. Some of these projects are car- ried on through the national cooperative highway research program financed with pooled funds from the several State highway departments. The program is administered through the Highway Research Board of the National Academy of. Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. Attached is a listing of research projects dealing with safety that have been initiated since our research program was started in 1963. Groups of States have pooled funds or have worked individually to research breakaway supports for highway signs and light' stand- ards, improve guardrail design and to determine wind loads on high- way higns as they affect supporting structure `design. Our committee on `bridges and structures is currently working on the matter of the structural design of sign supports and adequacy, appearance, and safety in miiid. In many places, overhead sign structures are absolutely necessary. Their supports must be located and protected to enhance safety, yet they must be structurally dependable. If one were to collapse on a high-speed highway, the results could be catastrophic. It is our feeling that some of the industries supplying products have lagged in their responsibility to develop safer highway elements. Recently, when we appeared before your parent House Public Works Committee on the matter of the next Federal-aid highway program, we indicated that emphasis in the next program should be placed on improving urban highway facilities, modernizing our vast `rural pn- mary network, and in improving our rural second'ary system. Just as we started the development of design standards for the inter- state program some years in advance, we have already started our appropriate committees on developing design standards for this next program. We assure you, however, as worthwhile improvements might be evolved, that they will immediately be incorporated into current de- sign work, and not wait until the next Federal-'aid highway program is authorized. ` At this time we make brief reference to the new highway safety standards issued on June 27 by the Department of `Transportation. Only a week ago, most of the State highway departments had not yet seen these standards, and could' not comment on them. As a result, we requested sufficient copies from the National High- way Safety Bureau to send to the State highway `departments. In `the original draft form, the safety standards made reference to AASHO design standards and policies as those to be used in the high- ways safety program. We `were surprised that' the final standards makes no reference to `the AASHO material, but instead carried a notation, "Standards applicable to the specific programs are those issued or endorsed by the Federal Highway Administrator." 87-757 O-68----78 PAGENO="1154" 1150 We believe that the standards and policies that will be used for high- way design, construction, and maintenance operations in connection with the safety program, as it applies to the State highway systems, will be those developed by AASHO and submitted to the Federal Highway Administrator for his official concurrence. We are assuming that this will be the case, and it is the intention of the State highway departments to continue in the field of develop- ing such teolmical and engineering standards and specifications that are used in the State highway departments' operations. This is a definite position. AASHO standards are accepted worldwide and our procedure for developing such things uses a vast reservoir of education and expe- rience from `all of the State highway departments that does not exist anywhere else. It has resulted in the United States being the top au- thority in highway technology. As we study the complex matter of accidents and their costs, we find that some may defy diagnosis, but it is evident that we need to know far more than is available of causative factors and how to cope with them. It is our feeling that the work that will be done by the National Highway Safety Bureau and AASHO will be able to give far more information th'an has been available up to the present time and will help materially. Facts and fignres on the safety problem have been entirely inadequate and we believe mostly because the public, to a large degree,' has been apathetic and disinterested in actively supporting any proposal that might eventually inconvenience them individually. We believe this is one reason that coping with the alcohol problem may be difficult. Much of the current public interest in traffic safety is emotional and has been cultivated to a considerable extent by sensational publicity setting the number of people expected to be killed over a given holiday or weekend period. This is a scare program and leaves t'he impression that if one returns home safe and sound that he is indeed fortunate. Actually, when one analyzes the mathematical frequency of traffic accidents as compared to the exposure factor created by 100 million motor vehicles operating on our highways, it is surprisingly low. How- ever, the safety problem is extremely serious and one that must receive the complete attention of everyone and be brought to an irreducible minimum, whatever that might be, in the shortest possible time. We appreciate the privilege of appearing here and will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. The members of our special traffic safety committee are here for the purpose of answering questions pertaining to their own specialized fields. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. John Morton, commissioner, Department of Public Works and Hi~iways from the State of New Hampshire has come into the room with a member of our committee, Mr. Cleveland. Mr. Morton is also chairman of the AASHO Traffic Committee. Mr. Morton, I believe you have a statement with you. Please take the chair. I hope you did not mind our going on. We have already sworn the other witnesses. Would you raise your right hand. Do you solenmly swear the testimony you are about to give PAGENO="1155" 1151 before the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- ing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. MORTON. I do. Mr. BLATNIK. Please be seated. Mr. Johnson, it would be proper perhaps just for the sake of con- tinuity, since you have a very comprehensive and informative state- ment which you have just presented, that we have Mr. Morton's state- ment follow; and then we will, begin the interrogation or dialog be- tween the staff and the members of the committee and your panel. Mr. Morton, give the. reporter your full name and your official capacity in the State of New Hampshire and also your capacity in AASHO as chairman. TESTIMONY OP JOHN 0. MORTON, COM.MISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, STATE OP NEW HAMPSHIRE, CHAIRMAN, AASHO TRAFFIC COMMITTEE Mr. MORTON. My name is John 0. Morton. I am commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways. I have the honor and privilege of serving as chairman of the AASHO Com- mittee on Traffic and also serving as a member of the Special AASHO Traffic Safety Committee. The statement that I have, Mr. Chairman, is rather brief, it is not a particularly profound statement. I find that Mr. Johnson's state- ment has been most comprehensive covering the field. HOwever, if you have no objection, I would be pleased to read this. I think it might take 5 or 6 minutes. Mr. BLATNIK. Either way. It will appear in full at this point in the record; or since it is a brief statement, you may wish to read it. Mr. MORTON. .1 would appreciate the chance and opportunity to read this. Mr. BLATNIK. You may proceed. Mr. MORTON. In 1956 when construction of the Interstate Highway System was provided for by an act of Congress, one of the strongest items in support of `this legislation was the fact that the buildin~'of a 41,000-mile network of interstate highways would save 8,000 lives a year. Prior to the year 1956, the States and the Federal Government were keenly aware of, and greatly. disturbed by, the huge economic losses, and the human suffering that was being sustained through highway accidents. Records maintained by the States, by the Federal Government, and by the National Safety Council have' accurately described the growth of traffic in this Nation. Statistical records `have been used to describe the percentage of fatal accidents in relation to traffic growth. Over the past 15 years the New Hampshire Highway Department has investigated and carefully evaluated every fatal accident occurring on the State's highway system. The accuracy of the investigations and the use made of the information developed, is now much superior and more intelligently employed than it was in the early years of this type of activity. It was in 1959 the New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways initiated a tree removal~ program. Since that date over 100,000 trees in close proximity to lines of travel on the State's high- PAGENO="1156" 1152 way system have been removed. This comment is made for it well dates and illustrates the department's concern with the removal of fixed objects in close proximity to lines of highway travel. In 1962 the Bureau of Public Roads established the position of Director of Highway Safety. This position was established for the purpose of expanding the Bureau's operations in the field of highway safety. In 1964 a special AASHO Traffic Safety Committee was established in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administrator and the AASHO organization. It is this traffic safety committee that is ap- pearing before you today. In 1965 at the annual convention of AASHO in New York City, the AASHO Committee on Traffic and Bureau personnel met with Joseph Liuko and viewed showings of his slides which depict accident-prone locations on some of the New York expressways. At this same meeting, many members of the AASHO Traffic Committee visited and studied the highway locations that were identified in the Linko pictures. At the 1966 summer meeting of the AASHO Committee on Traffic we devoted two full-day sessions to highway safety. At these sessions members of the committee presented informal reports concerning the activities of their respective departments `with reference to work being performed in the field of highway safety. In addition, the committee membership reported on what they believed to be some of the most critical areas associated with highway designs, signing, pavement marking, and operational features of expressways from a safety view- point. The following statements briefly describe some of the reporting: Virginia reported multifatal accidents involving trucks parked on shoulders on Interstate highways. Nebraska reported an increase in railroad-crossing accidents. California stated that fixed objects cause 39 percent of fatal acci- dents on freeways, that hydroplaning is a definite factor in wet road- way accidents, also that only 40 percent of total accidents occur on State highways. Oklahoma also reported a large percentage of accidents are occur- ring on local roads. In addition, Oklahoma encountered a problem with U-turns on expressways. Connecticut reported accident experience at left-hand off ramps, short weaving distances and at signals. Of 50 high-accident locations, 47 were at signals. Maryland reported that a compilation of locations with 10 or more accidents showed all except one were at intersections, 71 percent of which were equipped with standard signs and signals. Also, Maryland reported that State police are tabulating. and publishing a list of acci- dents caused by drinking drivers. New Hampshire reported that a high percentage of fatal accidents involved drinking drivers. In 1966, the special AASHO Traffic Committee visited the most heavily populated areas of the Nation for the purpose of studying the operation of traffic over both new and old expressways. This committee took into consideration the design, signing, and pavement marking of highways from a safety viewpoint. Of particular note was the fact that this committee discussed with many of the law-enforcement agencies, law enforcement as it relates to highway design and operation. PAGENO="1157" 1153 At the annual cOnvention of AASHO held in Wichita, Kans., in the fall of 1966, four members of the AASHO Committee on Traffic had served as observers to the special traffic safety committee, showed slides and offered comments of the pictures they had taken during the studies made by the special committee. Many of the pictures related to fixed objects in close proximity to lines of travel on modem highways. The development of the report by the special AASHO Traffic Com- mittee dated February 1967 is a condensation of the findings of the special committee.. It is extremely well done and its findings should be used as a guide to better highway designs. It is my opinion that it is impossible to develop a set of standards that can be made to function effectively in all parts Of the Nation. The great variances~ in climate and terrain encountered in the various States must be treated with commonsense and judgment from a design viewpoint. It is my personal belief that the greatest contribution toward in- creased highway safety will come through the elimination of the drunken driver from the stream of travel. In New Hampshire we have analyzed the character of roadside litter encountered on our highways and this analysis definitely emphasizes that in the past 20 years the amount of liquor consumed while driving on our highways has substantially increased. I have brought with me three photographs that were taken in connection with our spring litter cleanup in 1964. I hope the committee will have the opportunity to view these photos and in doing so, will note the high percentage of beer and whisky bottles that'were gathered from an 11-mile section of rural highways in my State. I am appreciative of `the opportunity to present this statement, Mr. Chairman. Could I leave these photographs `with you? Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Morton. This is an 11-mile section [indicating on photograph]? Mr. MORTON. Eleven-mile section of' rural two-lane road taken in the spring; `of the year after the snow is gone. Of interest to me is that fact that when we first started to analyze ~roadside litter we found a very small percentage of beer `cans or whisky bottles; but now our roadside litter is predominantly made up of that. Mr. BLATNIK. That is in the State of New Hampshire? Mr. MORTON. Yes, it is. Mr~ CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment if I may. Mr. BLATNIK. Just a moment and then I will yield. It is an awful shame that we have people throwing cans, all kinds of cans, beer cans, just cans, bottles, whisky bottles. What can be done with something like this? What can be done to make the public more aware of this? Mr. MORTON. There are all kinds of programs, antilitter programs, keep America beautiful, and some of it is taught in schools. We have laws, antilitter laws, where if they are apprehended dis- carding litter on the roadside in our State it is a $50 fine. Still most of this is deposited under the cover of darkness where it is hard to detect. The costs are tremendous that are involved in removing this litter from the roadside. Mr. BLATNIK. I just came back from some lovely `Canaclian-Minne- sota boundary water areas, lovely area, and it would seem that any PAGENO="1158" 1154 place human beings stay long enough it is going to get messed up. Man has the capability and the capacity for littering and messing up anything that is lovely. Just give him a chance to stay there long enough. Cans, junk, broken glass-go to any beach, any place that people want to enjoy the scenery and beauty on the highways, picnic places, the ball parks. Mr. Johnson? Mr. A. E. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, it is our understanding that beer cans and whisky bottles are the predominant part of the. material that is being picked up out of the roadside ditches at this time. Several States are spending more tha.n a million dollars a year on this operation. If you were out on the Shirley Highway in the last couple days, you would see a truck out there from the Virginia Department of Highways where they are picking up litter. There is a sign on the back of it: To Help Virginia Save $700,000 a Year. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. Ci~ver~iw. I just wanted to comment, Mr. Chairman. You may recall that when the Public Works Committee was having hear- ings on the beautification bill, Mr. Morton appea.red before this com- mittee, and at that time I commented that he had long been a stanch advocate of highway beautification. I suggest that these pictures that were taken in 1964 be further proof of this statement. This was 1964, and the highway department was picking up these cans and bottles. I want to remind the committee that Mr. Morton, of the State of New Hampshire, has concerned~ himself with beautifi- cation and did so early in the game. I might add one other item of interest, that the garden clubs of New Hampshire and the Boy Scouts every spring engage in a very active cleanup program along our roads. This is another way to meet the problem which so regrettably faces us. Mr. BLATNIK. Any further questions? I would like to get into this aspect of drunken driving. It is.a little beyond this immediate phase of our hearings, in ~hieh we are talking about design aspects and fixed hazards; but it is definitely something that ought to be gone over very. thoroughly. Some of us are quite familiar with what other countries have done-~ Germany, Denmark, particularly in Sweden. I believe they are very severe-I will not say harsh-but very strict to show the importance- the emphasis they give to this important and difficult problem. Is not Sweden very severe in its regulations or dealings with drivers that are drunk, whether they ar~ involved in accidents or not? Is that not true? Mr. MORTON. Yes. I understand that if you are found guilty of driving under the influence of liquor in Sweden, I guess you lose your license for a good many years. I saw one article with reference to Helsinki, Finland, where it said that the airport had been built by prominent businessmen and industrialists and so forth, and they had been found guilty of driving under the influence of liquor. When they were found guilty, they were sentenced to laJbor on that nation's airport. PAGENO="1159" 1155 I am sure that all the Scandanavian countries apparently have a very good record and are very stiff in their dealing with the drunken driver or the drinking driver. Mr. BLATNIK. It is a great disparity, is it not, in placiiig importance on infractions? For instance, I know if you are caught hunting with~ out n license, they may take away all your hunting gear, expensive rifle, and even the automobile. You can be drivingthe same automobile without any permit or license to be driving in the first place, with or without a rifle. They often do not do very much about it. It is very interesting to consider at this time. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not prolong this very much. In your statement, Mr. Morton, you brought out something interest- ing, and I would like to have a little expansion on it. You said~ It was in 1959 that the New Hampshire Department of Public Works and Highways initiated a tree removal program. Since that date over 100,000 trees in close proximity to lines of travel on the State's highway system have been removed. This interests me~ I would like to know what experience you have had, and if you have any figures on the number of lives saved? Let me say why I am asking this. We in Californiu are somewhat on the horns of a dilemma. You have heard a little bit about the redwood controversy, and there are people that want to improve the highways, and yet we have the other side, people who want to preserve all the redwoods. I know from personal experience that there are a number of people who are killed every year as they piled into these redwoods that are right next to the highway. With that background, could you elaborate just a little bit on the experiences you huve had in New Hampshire, how far back was your setback arrangement on highways as far as cutting of these trees and that sort of thing was concerned? Mr. MORTON. Mr. Olausen, at the present time on our Interstate sys- tem it is standard practice in our designs to clear back 30 feet from the edge of the paved shoulder. Now on a primary and secondary road we are not able to attain anywhere near that distance. Many of our highways are in rather heavily wooded areas, and I would say that if we are able to move the trees back maybe 10 or 15 feet from the line of travel we are doing exceptionally well. If we have isolated trees in open areas that are in close proximity and are definite hazards, we try to remove the isolated trees first. This program by no means is able to provide the degree of safety that we should have. I do not have good statistical information, but I do know that a very high percentage of our fatal accidents involve single cars striking the fixed object, most usually a tree, and quite often involving a drink- ing driver too. Mr. CLAUSEN. I was wondering if there would be a possibility of your providing us with some of the statistical information for the PAGENO="1160" 1156 record. Let me say this, I am keenly concerned about the objective of the conservation programs, but there is a question here of balance be- tween conservation objectives and safety. I would like to know what your experiences have been with the conservation organizations in your State relating to the removal of some of these esthetic trees. Mr. MORTON. Amazingly enough we have had very little interference from the conservationists. Mr. Cr~&trsEN. I see. Mr. MORTON. I think maybe that is because we have such a luxuri- ous wooded growth that the removal of these trees does not show up as much. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one com- ment that brings back many memories. I was in the State senate at the time the legislation was enacted that I think launched this program of the New Hampshire Department of Public Works to take down some of the trees. I remember the debate we had at the time, whether some of the trees were dead or decaying because of the salt that the highway department was using on the roads. I am not sure that debate has ended. It brings back many memories of that legislative debate. Mr. CLAUSEN. I wonder if the gentleman from New Hampshire could give me a copy of the debate. We have the same problem in California. Mr. BLA~IK. Mr. May. Mr. W. M~cr. Mr. Eugene Johnson, your statement covers a number of topics which we as a subcommittee will be looking into in the com- ing months. `We certainly appreciate your views concerning it. However, today we will discuss for the most part in the time re- maining, the roadside hazard problem. First, however, I go to your statements on page 3, paragraphs 6 and 7. Mr. BLATNIK. Page 3, paragraphs 6 and 7. Mr. W. M~x. It is mentioned that the 1936 fatality rate was 15.5, and we find the fatality rate for the Nation today to be 5.5 and the interstate rate is 2.5. Mr. Kopecky of the staff has brought together certain information concerning statistics and rates which might be helpful to us. Mr. Ko- pecky, would you begin? Mr. KOPEOKY. Yes, Mr. May. I would like to make three points. The first one is an analysis of deaths, motor vehicle deaths, and com- pared with vehicle miles of travel. The second point will be discus- sion of studies as to what points on or off the road were the scenes of these fatal accident events. Third is an analysis of what type of road system was involved. With regard to the first point I would like to use these two charts. The first one is this mimeographed chart of motor vehicle deaths, and the other one is this chart behind Mr. Johnson. PAGENO="1161" 1157 Mr. BLATNIK. Just a moment. What chart are we talking about now? Mr. KOPECKY. These figures on this chart, Motor Vehicle Deaths are taken from the data of the National Safety Council. Motor vehicle deaths Year Total deavhs Year Total deaths 1912 3, 100 1949 31, 701 1913-17 (average) 6,800 1950 34,763 1918-22 (average) 12,7(X) 1951 36,996 1923-27 (average) 21,800 1952 37, 794 1928-32 (average) 31,050 1953 37,955 1933 31,363 1954 35,586 1934 36, 101 1955 38,426 1935 36,369 1956 39,628 1936 38,089 1957 38, 702 1937 39,643 1958 36,981 1938 32,582 1959 37,910 1939 32,386 1960 38,137 1940 34,501 1961 38,091 1941 39,969 1962 40,804 1942 28,309 1963 43,564 1943 23,823 1964 47, 700 1944 24,282 1965 49,000 1945 28,076 1966 53,000 1946 33,411 1947 32,697 Total, 1900 through 1966~ 1,613,000 1948 32,259 Source: National Safety Council. It is interesting to note for calendar year 1966 there were 53,000 deaths. During the period from 1950 to 1961 the range is between 35,000 and 40,000 deaths. Then, for the first time the deaths go over the 40,000 mark in 1962 and they increase substantially each year there- after until they reach the 53,000 mark in 1966. The total from 1900 to 1966 of recorded deaths is 1,613,000 killed. The other chart is titled "Motor Vehicle Deaths Compared to Total Vehicle Miles Traveled." The broken line shows the number of deaths from 1937 through 1966, and the solid line is the billion vehicle miles traveled. As is noted, for the 6-year period, 1961 through 1966, :the travel in- creased 28 percent and deaths increased 39 percent. Mr. IV. MAY. Mr. Kopecky, I am looking at that schedule you drew up that says "Motor Vehicle Deaths." I notice that in 1941 the total deaths were 39,965. Twenty years later in 1961 it was 38,091. For each succeeding year the number of deaths has increased; for example, in 1962, 40,804; 1963, 43,564; next year, 47,700; next year, 49,000; and in 1966, 53,000. PAGENO="1162" MOTOR VEHICLE DEATHS COMPARED TO TOTAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED 1937 THROUGH 1966 DEATF~S 53,0~ 51 CCC 49 CCC 47 , CCC 45,ecC 43, 41, CCC 39' 37,--- 35, CCC 33, CCC `Ii' - - -~ - - jSIXYEARPERIOD~ 1961 THROUGH 1966 - - - 900 ~TRAVEL INCREASED 850 28% FATALITIESINCREASED ---800 39% .\ I 750 7Ar~ -- - - - - - -- - -- - - . . I -- ` - L ` ` I~ - ~ - ~ ~ -a I ~ I ~ I ` ` 3 I III , ~d I ~ IJATHS ~ / Ld~'T~ / ~I T7 (4 ~ ~ I /j `it:- \ - ` I ~ - * ~ I - -~ I ç- \ -~ - I I / ~ ~ 1 . ~ 1 I - - ~5O 500 550 , II~ H H U H H H hIM I II (III' 4- ~- 7 1- I 1956 I/S ACT MILES -1 -I- )[, UU~j 2~,fO 27,::: 25, CCC 23, CCC w -J w -J () > 0 -j -J co - - 193738 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 .y)I 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61- 62 300 250 200 65 66 64 63 PAGENO="1163" 1159 Mr. KOPEOKY. That is correct. Mr. W. MAY. You say that the rate is increasing more than the vehicle miles? Mr. KOPECKY. That is true. As indicated, during the 6-year period of 1961 through 1966 the deaths have increased 39 percent, while the vehicle miles traveled have increased 28 percent. Mr. W. MAY. I might say that if any of the witnesses have any com- ments, we will be glad to hear them. Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. May I make one comment? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Eugene Johnson. Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. I notice here on the chart that you are display- ing that it is based on the deaths shown on the last tabulation attached, which came from the National Safety Council. I notice on the other tabulations of sheets showing fatal injuries, so forth, deaths, that the source is the Bureau of Public Roads which came from the various State tabulations. I also notice there is some difference in them. Were you going into that? Mr. KOPEOKY. Yes. Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. Excuse me. Mr. BLATNIK. At this point I should say that any changes or ques- tions can be added on in the record later on. None of us can grasp the full import of figures yet, table form or chart form, merely by glancing. If there are any questions as to discrepancies or validity, the record will be open for quite some time for either further elaboration or correction. Mr. KOPECKY. Mr. Johnson, that is a good point, and I was going to handle that. As long as the subject is up now, I will go into it. The 51,032 as recorded by the Bureau of Public Roads covers those deaths actually reported by individual States in 1966. The National~ Safety Council figures include some other areas, namely, Guam, Vir- gin Islands, Puerto Rico, which account for some of the difference. In addition, the National Safety Council includes deaths which occur anytime during the 12-month period following the accident itself. So there were some accidents which took place in 1966, deaths will occur in 1967, which will revert back to the 1966 accident. Mr. W. MAY. Also this is a report of 46 States. Mr. KOPEOKY. That is true. PAGENO="1164" 2 ~ ~ ~;-~ ~ ~ ~ ~v; ~ ~t ~-o3 -4 ~ i"~ -~i~'~ ~ W N3~%)W O~CO4~OOQ~Q~ ~ ~ a - 2 `~ ~ N ~ 2~u ~ ~ 3 N ~ S.:; ~) ~00~00~: `~ cn w -v 0) :4, cn 3 -4 PAGENO="1165" 1161 Mr. BLATNIK. And also I would like to know the nature of the deaths and their location, whether Interstate, primary or secondary or on city and urban streets. Mr. KOPECKY. That is what I will discuss in a few minutes; yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. All right. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. I would also like to inquire of Mr. Kopecky. if he is going to study the rather sharp decline in deaths that occurred in 1938, 1939, and 1940. There was a sharp decline during the war period, and that is understandable, I suppose, because of people protecting their tires, et cetera. But in that 1938, 1939, and 1940 period there was a rather noticeable decline. Mr. KOPECKY. If you would like, we can inquire. Mr. CLEVELAND. I think you should, just as you are going to inquire as to why it increased in the last 6 years. It might shed some light on the problem to find out why there was a sharp decrease in the 1938, 1939, and 1940 period. If any member of the panel has any ideas on that subject, I think the committee would appreciate it. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Johnson? Mr. A. E. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an obser- vation at this time, that you are confronted with one of the problems that we have had over the years. That is the adequacy of the data and whether or not it is actually good. For instance, in 1961 we:know we had a fatality rate of 5.1 average, which was the lowest we have ever had. Since that time we have been in the neighborhood of 5.6 and 5.5. So for that reason I can't see the disparity in these two lines on this chart. I cannot find it at all. I notice that they show 53,000 deaths. I think the National Safety Council does as good a job as they can; but I think they also use lots of round figures at the National Safety Council. I checked with the Bureau of Public Roads yesterday on what was the fatality total in the United States in 1966, and it was their feeling that it was something over 51,000. Now you have got 51,000 there shown for a certain number of States. It was their estimate yesterday that it was something less than 52,000 killed in the United States on highways. We got this information, too, and that is that 54 percent of the fatalities occur on our State highway systems compared to 68 percent of the travel-total t.rav.el that occurs in the United States on the State highway systems-68 percent is on the State highway systems.. I would think that you are faced here wit.h almost an impossible task of being able to correlate these two curves because of the ina.dequacy of the data that we have had in the past. In 1941, I remember that period very well. That was when we first began to have quite a step-up in highway use. In fact, we started on another big highway program; and World War II then terminated that. We did have a pretty decided growth in traffic, and we did have a.n increase in the traffic fatalities. But, as I remember, I cannot remember it being to the degree that is shown on this dotted line. I know that many of the States were get- ting revenues on an increasing, an almost uniform increasing amount, PAGENO="1166" 1162 and they were planning highway programs. Actually, we picked up on about the same curve after 1946 that we had started in the 1940's up to 1941. This disparity, this 22-percent-travel increase, 39 percent fatalities, I do not believe it is correct. Mr. W. MAY. Do you have any better figures? Mr. A. E. JoHNsoN. I doubt if figures are available, Mr. May; but I do know the fatality rates we have at this time do not bear this dis- parity out at all. Mr. W. MAY. Maybe we can learn something as Mr. Kopecky pro- gresses. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Kopecky? Mr. KOPECKY. Yes. The second point we would like to discuss is about those studies which have been made as to at what points, on or off the road, these accidents took place. We have had some testimony about these subjects, the Bureau of Public Roads, No. 1, conducted a study of fatal accidents on certain sections of the completed Inter- state System during the last 6 months of 1966. In that study it was found that single vehicle "ran off the road" accidents accounted for 57 percent of the total fatal accidents, and of those 78 percent subsequently struck one or more fixed objects. We `noted in that study that guardrails, bridge elements, and signs accounted for two-thirds of the fixed objects struck. Mr. W. MAY. May I interrupt there, Mr. Kopecky? 1 am reading from the Bureau's report. Guardrails were the first objects struck in a third of the cases that might be expected since they constitute most frequent targets of out-of-control vehicles. Later it says that bridge or overpass objects were the objects next most frequently struck ini- tially. As a matter of fact, guardrails were struck 33 percent of the time; bridge element, 21 percent; signs, 10 percent. That is important for the record because the hearings do relate to roadside hazards, and you s~ the significance of them. Mr. KOPEOKY. In addition, in that study it was indicated that in 21 percent of the multiple-car fatal accidents vehicles then left the road, and of those that did, 75 percent subsequently struck a fixed object. These would add to the problem. Another study that was made that shed some light on these situa- tions, a number of studies, were made by the California Department of Public Works in which they analyzed all freeway fatal accidents for 4 years. The first study was 1961 and 1962. The second study was 1964 `and 1965. These studies covered 1,700 fatal accidents involving 2,068 deaths. In these studies, single vehicle "ran off the road" type accidents accounted for 50 percent of the total fatal accidents; of those, 65 percent of the vehicles subsequently struck a fixed object. The balance involved embankment slopes, ditches,. or gore areas. Another study made by California was of the 1965 fatal accidents on the State highway system, 14,260 miles. This indicated that 53 per- cent of the fatal accidents involved a single vehicle. Of those, 63 per- cent subsequently struck fixed objects. Still another analysis made by California, that of fatal accidents on their freeway system, 1,788 miles in calendar year 1966, indicated that 63 percent were of the "ran off the road" type. PAGENO="1167" 11163 Another study, and on which we had testimony by Dr. Donald Huelke in and around Ann Arbor, Mich., disclosed 60 percent were single-car "ran off the road" type accidents and that 72 percent of those vehicles subsequently struck fixed objects. Those accidents took place on all kind of roads. Still another study, by the Connecticut State Highway Department, disclosed that all fatal accidents on the State highway system in 1965 involved fixed objects to the degree of 43 percent.. The third and last point I wanted to make related to the type of highway administrative system on which the fatal accidents occurred. The Bureau of Public Roads is now collecting some information from the States, and we have had the opportunity to analyze that data. In summary, it indicates that approximately 50 percent of the deaths are occurring on the Federal-aid primary system. Mr. W. MAY. That includes the Interstate System.? Mr. KOPEOKY. That includes the Interstate System. The primary system by definition is the principal highway system, the main high- way system. It accounts for 7 percent of the total miles in the United States. It totals approximately 270,000 miles, including the Interstate, out of a total of 3.7 million miles of all roads and streets in the country., For this discussion, I ivould like to use this pie chart and two charts which we have handed out. The first mimeographed chart is entitled "Statewide Fatal Injury Accidents, 1966." This compares deaths on the Interstate System with the death total of all systems. TOTAL MOTOR VEHICLE DEATHS COMPARED WITH DEATHS ON FEDERAL /AID PRIMARY SYSTEM TOTAL ROADS, STREETS & FIICHWAYS IN U S = 37 MILLION MILES C 2 POhDS STREETS & HIGH 3 ~30 000 iULES (935o) 50S~' DEATHS F/A PRIMARY 2i0 OFDE~TPS 50 ~701 1 /0 PAGENO="1168" -4 -4 ci) 0 rn m - ~ -( > C) ~ ci) ~ C~CI) rn z ~jci)CI~ P~ - g~ Ci) - -u A) ci) 2 -4 A :uA)2A)~~ o~9:~~'OoA)~. -4 ~ A)~ -~- 2 o A)~ O~ )O.~ A)'<* ~O - ~ - - - £~3 ~) - )- - - - -- - ~ C~)OOQ~O) ~U1OOOO0) -JOO~.JN~OO J.j(&) ~ ~JCJ'-JO) OOQ13~ ~ 4A0)O) ala) ~-i--aoo~-i r-~c~ 01 0)01 -~ OC~ ~ W t~) ~ - -- ~-3 ~ Ui o'~) - ci) cii OON) ~J ci) (~) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~33~g~ -3 ci) (fli.~ 3 dID ~-~4 00 3 ~-I~j~ .j ~ ~ (3i(-'0) 01)0(3,010000(00)0) WO0 (0 0) (00) (00)01 0) ci) -3(310) (3100(3100 ~ C,) 0 -I -n ~ ~- 2 0 0 -4 PAGENO="1169" 1165 range. The Interstate accounted for as much as 19 percent of the deaths in one particular State in 1966. And the death rates ranged from a low of 1.00 up to 6.95, 6.60, `T.02, 5.60, per hundred million miles. Mr. W. MAY. Excuse me, Mr. Kopecky. I wonder if any committee members have any observations to make on that particular schedule? Mr. A. E. JOHNSON. Has the staff checked to see whether multiple fatalities in a single accident might be involved in some of those? Mr. W. MAY. Not yet. Mr. A. E. JOHNSON. Like a bus or something of that nature? Mr. W. MAY. Not yet. Mr. E. M. JOHNSON.: Mr. May, in that Interstate report made by the Bureau for the last 6 months of 1966, that information is given; but I do not remember exactly how it came out. There are many more fatalities than there were fatal accidents, which is to be expected. Mr. W. MAY. That is true. But this is the same kind of data that we use or whoever comes up with a national rate uses this same kind of data. Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. Right. Mr. W. MAY. And No. 1, you have the 3.15 rate for the completed Interstate System and in some States, the death rate is running higher than the national average for all roads. For example, 8.09, 6.46. If we look at where those rates apply, I wonder if we can learn, any- thing at all. Are they rural-type States? The reason the staff is having great difficulty with rates, is that we are not quite so sure that the rate is the real indication of whether or not a highway was designed `and built safely. We are concerned because the beltway right here in Washington had 30 people killed last year, and we have checked and during rush hour from 6 to 9 in the morning and 4:30 to 6:30 at night, no motorist was killed. If we knew the rate, it would probably run about 2.5. We just challenged the fact that somebody suggested a rate would indicate whether or not the highway is safe. In rush hour nobody was killed, the same highway; and other hours, 30 people were killed. We do this to suggest that nobody can be satisfied with a rate, par- ticularly a national rate. Mr. Kopecky. Mr. KOPEOKY. Yes. Just to conclude with this interstate chart, we noted that in two of the States the death rate per hundred million vehicle-miles on the Interstate System was higher than for all of the roads in those two particular States. Also, that in six States the death rate per hundred million vehicle-miles was higher on the Interstate System than the combined national average rate of 5.49 for all sys- tems in all States. Mr. W. MAY. Yes, sir. Mr. KOPECKY. Further, the Bureau of Public Roads data as taken from the individual States differentiates between urban and the rural Interstate systems. And in that regard the death rate on rural Inter- state was higher in 11 States than the combined national average rate of 5.49, and it was higher on urban Interstate roads in seven States. So, again, these are the observations that we obtained from our analysis with Bureau data. The, last point we want to discuss is this other chart listing the statewide fatal injury accidents on all systems, and as compared with the Federal-aid primary system, including Interstate. 87-757 O-68------74 PAGENO="1170" 1166 This material was obtained for 42 States that had such informa- tion and were able to report to the Bureau for the Federal-aid pri- mary system. And the chart indicates at the bottom that it accounts for 7 percent of the total miles in the United States, and it accounts for 50 percent of the deaths and 50 percent of the traffic for the 42 States reporting. Mr. W. MAY. When we see the initial "NA," what does that mean? Mr. KOPEOKY. NA would mean that is "not available," and the States at this particular ~point in time were unable to report this. Mr. W. MAY. Thank you. Mr. KOPEOKY. Again, as Mr. Johnson noted, the first column on this chart would show there were 51,032 deaths. That is what Mr. Johnson referred to. The National Safety Council reports approxi- mately 53,000 deaths. The difference is due to the fact that the Na- tional Safety Council reports include Guam, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. In addition they also include a factor for those deaths which take place in 1967 but involved an accident in 1966, and they include the 12-month time period, if a person dies within that time from the date of the original accident. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we may make that data an exhibit, and insert the material in the record where appropriate-. motor vehicle deaths compared to total vehicle-miles exhibit 18; and the pie chart exhibit 18A; motor vehicle deaths, 18B; statewide fatal injury accidents, Interstate, 18C; and the one referring to the pri- mary system, 18D. May we do that, Mr. Cl1airman? Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. (Exhibits Nos. 18, 18A, 18B, 18C, and 181D were marked and have been incorporated at the proper places in the record.) Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Johnson, to get back to roadside hazards, I notice in your statement on page 1', paragraph 3, you say- As we have admitted previously, the effects of roadside features have pos sibly been overlooked or at least underestimated, and this was becoming ap- parent to us some three years ago. The staff made a study. We reviewed various writings over the years, and it seems to us that the roadside hazard problem is not new. It has been spoken of by various people over the years. I mention just a few. Back in 1917, a Mr. DuPont writing relative to road construction and maintenance and safety of travel stated, "Construction should tend to promote freedom from accidents. Overhanging rocks and cul- verts are conducive to recurrence of accidents. Where possible, these defects should be obliterated and all new location work should avoid them." That was 1917. In 1938 a report from a study of motor vehicle traffic conditions in the United States made by the Bureau of PublicRoads and submitted to Congress in 1938 states in part 5, page 52: Practically any road can be driven over without mishap, provided everyone who uses it drives properly; but ample evidence demonstrates that everyone does not drive properly and a safe highway must provide a factor of safety for those who are forced off the surface by the faulty action of another driver or who may because of momentary inattention slip over the edge of the pavement. And we all remember WPA, back in 1939, September, Works Proj- ect Administration, technical series, Circular No. 1, Survey of Traffic PAGENO="1171" 1167 Obstructions, "Motor Vehicle collisions with fixed objects are reported by the National Safety Council to have `been the cause of 3,750 `deaths and 95,000 injuries during 1937. Deaths from this cause have increased 244 percent since 1927. The problem is significant enough to warrant attention leading to possible improvement of the situation. Obstruc- tions include bridge support .colunms, end posts of narrow bridges, utility poles, pedestal types, stop and go signals and flashing beacons," and so forth. In 1941, Maxwedl Halsey in his book, "Traffic Accidents and Con- gestion," stated, "Obstructions should be pushed back far enough from the roadway so that if a motorist is forced off the roadway, he will have sufficient space in which to slow down and stop." We had testimony of ~Mr. Ken Stonex of General Motors during these hearings. He was talking about these same matters, certainly as early as the middle and late 1950's. The staff is perplexed that it was only until recent times when high- way people seemed to be giving their attention in a forceful way, to these roadside hazards.i wonder if you want to comment on that. Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. Well, through the years, the geometries of the highways have been improved, standardwise, and there is no question particularly on a rural primary even today, there are many, many miles with inadequate length pavements and inadequate length shoul- ders, and I think by virtue of these particular features being too nar- row, that `the tendency or the `justification even for moving obstruc- tions farther out was somewhat discouraged or not feasible or maybe impossible to achieve really in view of what public reaction might be. I am just commenting, as you suggested, because certainly as we say in our statement, we have to assume the responsibility for obstruc- tions being too close. But I don't think that it could be said that they have been entirely ignored through the years. Now, if I am not mistaken, and you probably `have the statistics on it, this roadside obstruction matter has become much more critical with the faster Interstate traffic. I am not sure that that statement is correct, but I am under that impression. And the Interstate `actually as we all know in this room has greater lateral clearance than any other highway. Mr. W. MAr. Yes. I notice in your statement on page 7, first para- graph, you say: The design standards that we have developed have resulted in completed Interstate System sections that have no obstructions closer than 12 feet to the pavement edge. This is the first time that a highway system has been provided that can make that claim. I would suggest it is probably a claim because that might only apply to the right side of many of our Interstate highways. If you have a 10-foot shoulder and you place the obstruction 2 feet from the shoul- der, then you have 12 feet. If you have a 4-foot shoulder :on the other side, you have' it very close, and it would not be 12 feet. Would it apply on the' right side when you come to narrow bridges where ~we do not carry the shoulders through? Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. If you consider the bridge ends and bridge rail as obstruction, and the bridge is not full roadway length, your state- ment is correct. Mr. W. MAY. We do consider that obstruction. Do you? On page 4 of your statement you say: PAGENO="1172" 1188 Substantial expenditures on the Interstate System could fast reach the point of diminishing returns and such monies could better be spent on the improve- lent of roads and streets having higher fatality rates. What could we suggest there~ (Mr~ McCarthy. assumed the chair.) Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. The fact that we had there, Mr. May, is that in the first place th'it should be "subst'intial addition'il expenditures" And our feeling is that certainly there are many things which you have pointed out, such as signs, and maj or obstructions as compared to bridge piers, for example, bridge supports, that could and should be moved with little additional expense. But it could be that in lengthen- ing bridge spans or even eliminating intermediate bridge supports or widening your bridges to full roadway width, all of them, it could be th'tt the expense in~ olved there could not be iustified in the reduction of fatalities that would accrUe as a result of those improvements. Then, too-and, of course, I am mixing funds here, I realize that- but some of the safety features, for instance, on primary-we will not mix funds-some of the money that would be spent in moving back roadside obstructions and particularly in lengthening bridge span and in full roadway width bridges, might be better spent in improving the geometrics of rural mileage, that is pavement widths and shoulders and so forth. That was the thought that we had in that statement. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire? Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. Right on this point, Mr. May, can you tell me will the Federal Bureau of Public Roads authorize 90-10 money for these improvements that you are suggesting in the rearranging of obstruc- tiOns; because as I read Mr. Johnson's statement on page 2, he makes it pretty clear that the expense factor here has been important and it was not really until lie got into the 90-10 situation that some of this more elaborate safety designing could be taken from the drawing boards and put on the ground. Now you are suggesting that these changes are going to be made- my question is, If these changes that we feel are necessary are going to be made, is this going to be at the rate of 90-10 and does the Bureau have a position on that? Mr. W. MAY. Yes, sir. When it comes to going back to our completed sections of the Interstate and making this type of correction, generally roadside hazards, guardrail, and signs and replacing them with break- away supports and that type of matter, the BUreau has already partici- pated in some States in 90-10. Mr. CLEVELAND. Are there examples of that for the record that they have put up 90-10 money? Mr. W. MAY. Yes, sir. Mr. CLEVELAND. I would like to ask another question. Have there been some States that have recommended some changes that the Bureau said, "No, we do not feel they are necessary?" Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. I will attempt to answer that, Mr. Cleveland. In recent months, I do not know of any such refusal on the part of the Bureau. But it has been and always has been, and this is not a critical statement at all, a frugal attitude in design to provide what was thought to be needed, but not to go much, if any, above minimums. And I am sure there have been many cases in the past, and I am speak- ing of, let's say, a year or more ago, various States wanted wider PAGENO="1173" 1169 bridges-and that I can think of in particular-and were not able to do so on a participating basis with Federal funds paying the share of that cost. Mr. MORTON. Could I offer one comment here? There are various instances, I think, that are disturbing, maybe if certain rules are attempted to be promulgated here. And we have, for instance, a pri- mary road, primary Federal aid-this is on a 50-50 matchmg basis- where we are occupying part of a river and valley on a rather high embankment. Our road was designed with 24-foot pavement and then a 10-foot paved shoulder on either side with the guardrail out at the 10-foot line. We were asked to move the guardrail out and widen the shoulders to 12 feet. Well, we made some computations as to widening the shoulder 2 feet and setting the guardrail back 2 feet more. If I recall, to do a mile of that widening was going to cost us maybe $70,000 or $80,000 more. And I am sure it was our feeling, and the feeling of our people, that we were not buying 25 cents worth of safety for the expendi- ture of $70,000 or $80,000. There are expenses of that kind where I feel we need to use certain judgments. We could spend a lot of money that would not be well spent. Mr. W. MAY. Yes. You are going to have great difficulty in putting all the answers or directives in one book. You are going to have to still use your judgment each time for each item or eath project. Mr. MORTON. If I might go back one step here. In the earlier ques- tion that you posed, that is these fixed objects. In my particular State, we have several thousand miles of rural State highway system that are bounded by stone walls in relatively close proxmity to lines of travel. And certainly I mean you can view a stone wall to be as much a fixed object as almost any other thing. Now, we have lived with this type of wall, and we know that it would be financially impossible for us to go in and take all of these stone walls down. In fact, some of them are rather prize possessions by the property owners. And so I feel that you learn to live with these objects in close proximity and sometimes because of that, why you do overlook other objects. Mr. W. MAY. In the future on some roads you probably will still end up having stone walls. On freeway type roads, there will not be stone walls. What is relatively disturbing to the committee is having looked at some relatively new projects, new Interstate projects out through the country, and having found a series of this same type hazard: Gore areas, signs too close, massive supports, and that type of matter. And many, many times it would not have cost any more money-sometimes less money-to have done it safely. That statement you made relative to expenditures, together with your mentioning that research is being done prompted me to go back and review some of the writings we had. On December 12, 1950, an engineer addressed the Louisiana Safety Association Conference down in New Orleans. And he said: I sincerely believe that the accident rate here in Louisiana or in any State can be cut 25 per cent without our having to learn a single new fact about designing for safety. What we must accomplish now will not come by research, it will only come by conscientious determination to give safety a better chance. Streets and highways are expensive, so from the time the first design plans PAGENO="1174" 1170 are begun, we start sniping at desirable standards to cut the cost estimates. Right-of-way is costly, so we buy less than we should have and try to get alen cramping the cross-section design. Out in the country the location plans show an isolated sharp curve, am what do we do? Well, we decide it is not feasible to do anything, and the curve is built, a sure accident trap for the inattentive driver. Shoulders tha ought to be eight or ten feet wide, we design for six feet to save a little dirt arii money. This straying away from design standards is what we call being prac tical and against this whittling of initial expenditures, we are deliberatel; gambling with the safety of the next generation at least. We need to appi; more of what we already know about safety and design. People ought to b worth more than the pavement. I will say that engineer was Mr. `C. MT. Prisk. There is a philosophy here. There is a thinking that many time we have an opportunity when we are building new `projects to do: fine job. We may not come back to it for a while. And I think that i what is striking on the committee, as we progress with this phase o: the hearing. Perhaps we could' do this, beginning at the left with Mr. Morton each chairman of a particular AASHO committee might relate to th subcommittee here how your particular committee fits into this overall picture and what your observations might be as: to what we can di about the fixed object roadside hazard problem that is facing us. Mr. Morton? Mr. MORTON. I think from a traffic viewpoint, probably one of ou: difficulties in any organization is the difficulty of communication. Surely at our traffic committee meetings we try to draw from the traffic engineers of the respective States the hazards they are encounter- ing and the methods they are employing to overcome them. I feel that we `have made substantial progress in recent years of moving back the signposts. We have pretty well accepted now the theory of using the breakaway sign or the sign with the signposts with a weakness created in them so they are not a fixed object. Mr. W. MAY. You mentioned the breakaway signs, which seem to have such considerable merit. But in the nine new projects that were analyzed, only one State used breakaway supports on the project, mid then only partially. Only one out of the nine. Mr. CLEVELAND. May I inquire at this point? Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. Mr. CLEVELAND. Can you have any breakaway sign thnt supports a sign that goes across the highway? A breakaway sign by its nature has got to break away; and if you have a situation where you have to have a sign all the way across the highway, it cannot be a breakaway sign. Am I correct or false on that statement? Mr. A. E. JOHNSON. You are right. Mr. W. MAY. That may be true right as of this minute; but it is diffi- cult for at least the staff to consider that we cannot develop a break-j away, overhead bridge sign. Texas A. & M. is about to work on it. They have ideas about two supports to the side located in such a way that you could not strike both supports at the same time. If you broke away one, one could still hold up a sign. Mr. CLEVELAND. Is that feasible from an engineering standpoint to have a sign where the impact of a car could `break away one of the supports and the other support would be strong enough to hold it? Mr. E. MI. JOHNSON. It would have to be so designed to do that. As Mr. May says, I certainly would not say that is an impossibility, but PAGENO="1175" 1171 you are placing two additional roadside obstructions, but offsetting that with the breakaway feature. Mr. W. MAY. That is something that should be given real prompt attention. Mr. A. E. JOHNSON. Mr. Stonex with General Motors worked on a breakaway support for overhead sign structures. But it did dump the sign in the middle of the road. It let the car that hit it go through safely, but it dumped the sign in the middle of the pavement. Mr. W. MAY. We would not be anxious to do that. It is something that we believe could be developed. Did you have anything else, Mr. Morton? Mr. MORTON. Well, this question of signs, to me, is an extremely difficult problem. I mean to know just exactly what the messages should be on the signs. In many instances, I think we oversign. Personally, my feelings go along this way. If I am driving in New York State, New York City, and I see a sign that says Franklin D. Roosevelt Highway, all of these highway signs `by name do not mean too much to me. They have no significance. If ¶1 drive in California, the various San Diego freeways, these names are repeated time and time again, using up valuable space. As a strang- er, they have no significance to me. I would much rather travel by route number and work my route out and use an exit, numbering system. You can map your trip out and do it. I think our public should be educated in this direction. Mr. W. MAY. The problem of signing or indicating where the motor- ist is heading is going to be enquired into during the next several months. Perhaps we can do this. You people are at some disadvantage in not having been able to observe some of the features that we found on some of the projects. We will show you just a sampling of some of the types of hazards that were found on these recently opened projects around the country, and perhaps you will have some comments then. Mr. Constandy? Mr. CONSTANDY. Of course, we would not be able to show you the 632 slides which we used during the hearing. We did put together 17 slides that are not the worst situations. They are situations that seemed to be typical. PAGENO="1176" 1172 This is a section of a guardrail intended to protect the motoris from the shoulder here on the right. The guardrail is 25 feet long an supported by three steel posts. You will notice that the approaching end of the guardrail is aime directly at the car. There are a number of fatalities each year wher the driver is pierced by such an approaching end. The other end of the guardrail ends here at the pier and a ca impacting the guardrail would in all probability bend the guardrai back. This particular installation has no blocked-out feature to pre \~ent the wheel of the automobile from catching at the post. It doe not contain any washers to prevent the heads of the bolts that attac it to the post from pulling through the guardrail. This was a typical installation in the State in which we found i which happened to be Indiana. We found in all nine States that eithe the design or the installation of the guardrail left something to I desired. Would anyone care to comment about this photograph? Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. Mr. Constandy, may I ask you a question? Mr. CONSTANDY. Please do. Mr.. E. M. JOHNSON. In your studies, have you any comparison of th safety value of an adequately flared guardrail as compared to th buried-in-line guardrail? Your point, of course, that you make ther is well taken. I am going a little further. Mr. CONSTANDY. If you are asking for my personal judgment o opinion, I have none. However, I am somewhat familiar with th Special Report 81 of the Highway Research Board, which represente at the time of publication in 1964, the composite knowledge of thos people who conducted sufficient research into the matter to justif having an opinion on this. I think you will find that in Special Report 81, in reference to th point you raised, they recommend that in all cases the guardrail b anchored on the approach ends. They give two illustrations, one o which shows the buried end parallel with the traveled roadway whil the other shows an offset or flare from the travel way. My recollection of it is that they recommend 4 to 10 feet flare an they then recommend that before it comes back on a tangent that th distance be some 10 to 15 times the amount of the offset. This latte installation of being both anchored and flared was the recommende design by the Highway Research Board Special Report 81. They have recently come out with an additional publication whiel perhaps puts in more perspective the problems involved in guardrai installation. In the course of our speaking to the people who have conducte research, we found that there was much that could be said as to th advisability of a washer and advisability of blocking out the guardrail Mr. Beaton tested the guardrail in attempting to find out how short a section would be effective. In the course of his study at one point th test was approximately 90 feet, and the car tore it away. He concluded a section could not be less than 100 feet and be effective, particularly if it was not anchored. `When Mr. Stonex testified, I believe lie said they use a length 500 feet in advance of a bridge. This is 25 feet, one section. PAGENO="1177" 1173 I think everyone would agree that this is not only inadequate, but it presents additional hazards, at a cost of some $100 to $150, and only increases the target area. Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. I am familiar with the Research Board findings, but I just wondered if in your observations you had found where a flared guardrail without being buried had caused a fatality due to the end of the guardrail impaling the vehicle? Mr. CONSTANDY. Where the end was not buried? Not on any of the projects that we looked at. We have to* remember, however, that those projects were only opened in late 1966 or 1967. So the amount of traffic they have carried to date has not been significant enough to give it experience. But we are acutely aware of a large number of accidents of this type throughout the country. There was one in the WashingtOn area yesterday afternoon. Mr. E. M. JoHNsoN. Where it was flared sufficiently? Mr. CONSTANDY. No. I misunderstood. Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. I understood it was not flared. The point I wanted to ask was that if you had made any observations in your studies where flared guardrails without burying had been found to be safe as compared to flared guardrail that is buried according to the Highway Research Board study? Mr. CONSTANDY. No; we did not have anything on that. This is a sign installation in Montana. It is one of three intersections at Missoula. Of t.he three of them, this is the only one that had this type of butterfly sign in the gore. pa - PAGENO="1178" 1174 As you can see from the next photograph, the sign is substantial. It is mounted on a concrete base. The nut there is 5 inches wide. This is not a breakaway-type sign. -p 11 --------.~..---.-~. V 1- Fr. I This is a twin bridge in Salt Lake City, Utah. Mr. ZION. On the other slide, we presume it would be virtually im- possible to make a. breakaway sign that size? Mr. CONSTANDY. I do not know if it is impossible. According to the comments that were made by the panel that attended the hearings earlier, perhaps one solution would be to post this type of sign in advance of the point of decision along the right-hand shoulder behind the guardrail or on an overhead bridge structure. In either case, it should be in advance of that point. This is, as I mentioned, in Salt Lake City. It is a twin bridge which is unpaved~ California's experience would suggest that with a 24-foot medium it would be possible to pave between the two structures at no additional cost. I do not know if it would follow, then, where you hiive PAGENO="1179" fl75 an opening which is 6 feet between the two structures, and somethiiig in the area of 8 or 10 feet at the other end, it was not more expensive to do it this way than to provide the additional safety, and to have the area cleared. This is a light standard on a project north of. Atlanta, Ga., that is mounted on a transformer base. Both the base and the pole are steel. These are lethal when hit. This is an installation again in Salt LakeGity which shows a combi- nation of a chain-link fence combined with cable, and it approaches the twin bridge, which in this case has ~been paved. The bridge engineer has designed and constructed a concrete parapet between the two roadways, which presented a problem in the transition from the chain- PAGENO="1180" 1176 link fence to the concrete parapet. It necessitated the installation of a third type of l)arrier, a W-beam, which is flared and buried here, but it almost eliminates the shoulder on the left side. It comes from within 2 feet of the traveled way. There is some question as to the length of this section being too short.. You have a mixture of all three at one point, any one of which might have been satisfactory had it been properly installed. ~ ~ Here is a sign that is not untypical of the nine projects we visited. The righ-hand leg is mounted on a concrete pedestal standing over 2 feet high. The sign support is 6-inch steel I-beams. It is 2 feet off the shoulder, the edge of the sign. The sign is otherwise unprotected. You will note the message suggests that particular sign did not have to be located precisely ~t this point anyhow. PAGENO="1181" 1177 This is again typical of the Interstate route signs. In this case it was riounted, in Montana, on 4-inch steel I-beam, laid in concrete founda- tion, placed 2 feet off the shoulder. There is a variation. Some of them ise two 4-inch I-beams, as Maryland does. Some of the other States use one. One State mounted this, only a temporary installation, on a piece of channel iron. [~ANA PAGENO="1182" 1178 Here are two merging traffic signs. And I think the one on the righ was projected above the grade on a concrete foundation higher tha: any we had seen. That is over 3 feet high. L. Here is an installation in Montana where the guardrail is placed directly off the inside shoulder in order to protect the driver from the center pier. As you can see, it is not longenough. In this case, not being long enough, it permits the driver to go behind it and still impact the center pier. This condition is true, too, on both shoulder piers. PAGENO="1183" 1179 Here is another installation in Salt Lake where the guardrail misses coming to the end of the bridge, by some 8 or 10 feet. It is enough to drive between without touching either the bridge or the guardrail. I This is a concrete headwall and drainage structure placed directly off the inside shoulder. PAGENO="1184" 1180 This is an installation in Rhode Island where they have attempte to duplicate what California initially conceived was a desirable media barrier, utilizing the cable and chain-link fence on a weak post. Ho~ ever, Mr. Beaton testified they would only use this on wider media than is installed here, inasmuch as there is considerable defieetio: They would never use it with curb that close to it. After they installe this, they found that the turnbuekle presents an additional hazar They have eliminated the lower cable. What happened here is th~ Rhode Island has installed something Califormia has ahead discarded. PAGENO="1185" 1181 This is another photograph taken in Rhode Island which shows the existence of a formidable piece of rock which was left off the right shoulder at a distance of some 15 feet in an attempt to provide esthetics. This was a common situation on that project. This is again in Georgia. It is a median structure. 87-757 O-68-----75 PAGENO="1186" 1182 Here are the center piers on one of the projects where the guardrail comes up and does make an attempt to protect the driver, and I guess does from the first pier, but the next three are left exposed. You have the paradox there of the guardrail with refiectorizing paint to show they are a hazard. This is a sign in the median, left totally unprotected. I p j 1 SOUTH Narragansett + New York + PAGENO="1187" 1183 Mr. W. MAY. Perhaps since we have heard from Mr. Morton, Mr. Snider, did you have some comments on some of those features that we just saw, and give us your observations as to how we can assure ourselves that this type of feature will not be included in our new projects. Mr. SNIDER. I must say first that the pictures are very convincing that we have not been going all out on the safety features. I will say this, that in most of the States that I know of, most of these features or the design, at least, have been changed; and I will have to confess that although you did not name my State, I saw one picture that I recog- mzed-the foundations for the signs were high. That has been discon- tinued. It has been some time ago. Probably should have been dis- continued sooner. There are some of these features that are questionable in our minds at least. However, we are going on the guardrail in particular. The buried end of the guardrail, I think, could possibly cause a different type of accident, maybe not as serious. To my knowledge, we have not had a case where the driver of an automobile has run directly into the end of the rail. However, we are burying our rails, and making the transition, flaring it. We are doing it on construction jobs. I think it is worthwhile so that the accident may not be as serious. Now, going back to guardrails, we think that more flaring and longer guardrails probably might be safer. We do not know. We do not have figures on that yet, but we are trying to find out. Now, I want to comment just very briefly on those rocks in the. backslope. We have some of that. That did not happen to be in our State. It has made the biggest hit with the public of anything that I know of in the way of esthetics. We received a letter- Mr. W. M~ur. Did you say hit? Mr. SNIDER. Yes, sir. We have received a letter just very recently on a job on Route 1-44, down the. south part of the State, where we had left some of those rocks out in the backslope. And I must say they do look nice. This lady said that "you have a heart of. beauty. I do not see why you do not do more of it." Now, I do not know that that is a good description. That is what she said. I was down there after we had been going over these safety items, I was in that particular district recently, and I made mention to the district engineer that it looked like we were going to have to quit that and take such rocks as that out of the slope. And he let that word out, some way or another, and well, I have had a lot of criticism on it since. So it is a matter of education, I think. So are a lot of these items. I think we can do a better job, and I assure you we are going to do a better job. Mr. W. MAY. Thank you very much. Mr. Goodman? Mr. GOOD1SrAN. Thank you. I would like to tell you how much I ap- preciate being here. Being chairman of a bridge committee, it puts a severe responsibility on one's extra curricular duties. The bridge committee not only covers bridges per Se, but we also have the responsibility for the design of the sign supports, light sup- PAGENO="1188" 1184 ports, the culverts and such as that. I am real happy to report that most of the bad things I saw have been under discussion by the bridge committee for some time. To the best of my knowledge steps are being taken to correct them. We are making a sincere effort to eliminate the curves and be sure that there is no obstruction there for the car to hit. We are also looking at our bridge rail design to be sure that we have a rail that is somewhere between one that stops you so cold that you die and so weak that it. lets you go through so you die. There is a medium there someplace that we are trying to achieve. Our new sign manual will be out the latter part of this year. That sign manual is being updated to incorporate all the latest safety fea- tures that we can think of. It is very easy to alibi some of those pictures. The people who drew them. and built them, I understand they were building for permanence, and they wanted to place supports up out of the ground so they woukl~ not rust.. They wanted to make them strong enough so they did not have to replace them. But in retrospect, maybe we can see maybe they overdid it. Some of the critical faults I noted were simply caused by the fact that the bridge spans were too short. Some of the rails did not continue through and protect the inter- mediate columns. To do so would have infringed on the very narrow clear space that we were trying to achieve. What we are going to have to do, and we are recommending to the bridge committee, is that these spans be longer so there is plenty of room for the guardrail, either being long enough to not require guard- rail, or if we do have to require guardrail, for goodness sake, make them long enough so the guardrail does not infringe, on `the safety area. We are doing this by a series of task subcommittees. It all goes back to cost. Bridge engineers can design almost any type of bridge that is required. He is always controlled by the amount of money. We have an everlasting trying time to design a beautiful safe bridge within the money we have. So to take care of these, we have some subcommittees that are continuing to work on new materials, new de- signs, in an effort to so we can build safer bridges and more beautiful bridges. It may be of some interest to know that there was a contest spon- sored about a year ago-some bridge engineers were judges-and they chose as a winner, not the most economical bridge or the bridge with the cheapest span, but they chose as a winner the bridge which did offer the most pleasing appearance and sa.fety features. I think that is a new trend in bridge engineers' thinking. I was a bridge engineer many years ago and grew up in the school of frugality. And I am glad to say that some of the new schools are looking a little further in the future and are trying to get new safer bridges for the benefit of all. Mr. W. MAY. Thank you very much. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEwEN. I would like to ask Mr. Goodman, as chairman of AASHO Committee on Bridges and Structures, are you giving con- sideration, Mr. Goodman, to the elimination of t.hese large concrete abutments onthe ends of your bridge rails? We have had quite a few PAGENO="1189" 1185 slides here and testimony relating to this. We found, and I noticed myself, that in many of the photographs we have had, you can say the abutments are esthetically rather attractive. There are three or four levels tiered up. I said earlier in these hearings, personally going by at 65 miles an hour on an Interstate highway, the esthetics escaped me until I saw it captured on a still slide on this screen. We have seen photos of a number of accidents, where vehicles have either freely gone into the abutment or have been guided there by guardrail. Is there thought being given to eliminating these large ornamental, con- crete abutments? Mr. GOODMAN. Right. Traditionally many years ago when a bridge was built it had to have some sort of elaborate monument to dedicate it to someone or something. To my knowledge those have not been built in a long time; and even themost conventional bridge abutments are being replaced with just a flare turned down, so there is a straight line to get in the bridge and not have to come in and meet some sort of obstruction. Mr. MCEWEN. One other feature on bridges has concerned some of us, and that is, I believe, commonly referred to as the safety walk. Mr. GOODMAN. We have differences of opinion about the safety walk. In my sta~tement I said in general that we are trying to eliminate the 18-inch safety walk and merely have a flush curb. There are some engineers who feel that the 18-inch curb is important on long bridges for the benefit of maintenance people who are out there trying to fix joints and such as that and paint the strip, as a place of refuge. And theii in some of the States, in spite of all our warnings and pre- cautionary measures, there are. some pedestrians. And. although we would like to keep them off of there, some bridge engineers feel that the 18-inch walk is a good idea. I would say in general that most States have eliminated it and are going to the flush curb. I would like to offer this comment. I failed to say that another activity of the bridge committee is that for 2 years we have been studying-both in the United States and abroad-these large, wide joints in the bridge. We have had re- ports of some of the small cars and motorcycles dropping down in these joints and having some fatalities. We have had that on~ our agenda for 2 straight years, and we are trying to work out some series of expansion device that would not require that kind of a joint. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, this is not really a question, but it is a comment and an observation. I have noticed in New Hampshire, and I am sure this is true in other parts of the country, when a rain comes up, sudden rain, summer thunderstorm, under these bridges you will find congregated various motorcycles and motorbike people. It strikes me that this is an observation worth reminding ourselves of because there is a great deal of talk here about keeping these wide lanes under the bridges free of any obstruction, and there you have the human element. I have seen as many as 20 or 30 motorcycles crowded under there to get out of the weather. Mr. GOODMAN. True. Mr. CLEVELAND. I do not blame you for the designing of bridges' on there. It does show the human element does creep* in despite the best thought anybody can give. PAGENO="1190" 1186 Mr. GOODMAN. It is quite common to see on some of our bridges, under them, during the rainstorm, trucks of all kinds in addition to motorcycles waiting for the rain to get over. Mr. W. MAY. Then that becomes a fixed object. Mr. GOODMAN. Right. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Ives, may we have your comment? Mr. Ivi~s. I would like to just discuss briefly this matter of road- side obstacles. I think like every other highway department we are working very zealously in order to correct all the deficiencies that we have been made aware of and have been aware of for a long time in the matter of roadside obstacles. We have been talking primarily about our Interstate System. And it has been brought out here several times that the secondary systems, on our secondary roads, are where the greatest danger is in striking objects. I think many of the States in common with ours have devel- oped a crash program to find out where these obstacles are, what they are, and what we can do about that. For example, to cite Connecticut, which is necessary in this case, we have charged each district engineer immediately with surveying all of these dbstacles within the right-of-way that we have been dis- cussing as to clearances, no matter what they may be, with immediate attention to high-speed highways, and we know that this will take considerable length of time. So the reports are coming in piecemeal, and we are deciding whether to handle them by contract and remove corrective action or to do it with our own forces. I think this is most important to the effort to get right after this situation. And I am sure many other States are doing it. Mr. W. MAT. Thank you. Mr. Eugene Joimson, you mentioned the Yellow Book in the first page of your statement. You mentioned that it was not valid as an AASHO standard. Why not? Mr. E. M. JoHNSoN. Well, I do not know of any particular reason that it was not; but this tour and inspection was made, as you know, last year. And this committee wrote that report. We were extremely anxious to get it out as soon as possible, and the truth is that the executive committee actually approved it without a draft in front of us, as I remember. But it was approved by the executive committee to be issued as a committee report. We issue a great many publications in that maimer. I think that for all practical purposes, and particularly in view of the fact that the Bureau has used it as a standard, that for all prac- tical purposes, it is having the full effect of a standard adopted by two-thirds vote of the association members. Mr. W. M~&y. You do not consider the effect would be any different if it was adopted as an AASBIO standard? Mr. E. M. JOHNSoN. In view of the fact that the Bureau had utilized it as a standard, I do not believe it would make any difference now m this particular case. Mr. CLEVELAND. May I inquire? Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Oleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. When you adopt one of these things as standards, is there not a tendency for it to become fixed? Am I not correct in saying, PAGENO="1191" 1'187 as I understand your testimony, there are still some questions or areas of doubt in this general area; so if this was adopted as a standard by a vote, is there not a tendency for it to become fixed and people stop thinking about it? Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. No, Mr. Cleveland; I believe it is just the op- posite way. I do not know of anything that we have put out, whether it be a standard or. policy or whether it be a committee report, that does not receive virtually continuous consideration by the various committeesinterested in those subjects. In fact, we have a great deal of trouble with so many revisions com- ing in that it is difficult to handle them and keep the publications current. Mr. A. E. JOHNSON. The yellow book was issued as a committee re- port very similar to many of our publications because it was made up of comments and : observations by a special committee. It was not a matter worked on over a short period of time, of a committee that had members from all the State highway departments~ It is something that went through several years of study, development, study draft, and redraft. Here is one of the very important policy publications that AASHO puts out, which is called the blue book, which is the bible for rural de- sign. That thing is a very detailed scientific thing that was probably 4 or 5 years in the development. After it has been developed, then it is sent to the States and it is voted on as a policy, and it becomes actually the bible for designing highways. There is a difference as to the type of report that is put out, the effort that is put into it, the time, and how many States participated. Mr. W. M~v. Is there anything particularly new in the yellow book? Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. I do not think that this is particularly new; but I think it has emphasized the various things you have emphasized in your study and presentation. Mr. W. MAY. It is a compilation of those best thoughts and various items? (Mr. Blatnik assumed the chair.) Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. It puts it in front of all the highway personnel, I think, in a way that has not been heretofore achieved. Mr. W. MAY. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, unless some of the wit- nesses have additional comments to make. Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. I would like to make one, if I may. Mr. BLATNIK. Please. Mr. E. M. JOHNSON. I believe you are aware that we are as deeply concerned about this situation as anyone and are taking actions to try to correct these things. And I believe you will see many improvements during the next few years, and we do appreciate the opportunity to come here and discuss these things with you, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. I want you gentlemen to know, too, that we are cer- tainly mindful of the enormity and complexity of this peacetime public work project, the largest public works project ever undertaken by anyone. I think we are all agreed, are we not, there is always room for improvement. PAGENO="1192" 1188 It does require tremendous effort and constant alertness, so as we have gone through these hearings at no time were we trying to look for any so-called whipping boy-the same thing you do on your own staff. We have our respective offices. We travel back and forth from home. We are always finding something we should have thought of in advance. Again we thank you for your coopere~tion, for your appearance here. If there are no further questions from the committee, this will con- clude the hearings for today; and we will resume on Thursday, July 20. We will hear testimony from our final witnesses from this phase of our inquiry. The witnesses will be the Federal Highway Administrator, Lowell K. Bridwell; F. C. Turner, from the Bureau of Public Roads; and Dr. `William Haddon, director of the National Highway Safety Bu- reau of the U.S. Department of Transportation. If there are no further questions or comments, we again thank you. Gentlemen, the hearings for today are adjourned. (`Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearings were adjourned, to re- convene at 10 a.m., Thursday, July 20, 1967.) PAGENO="1193" HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS Roadside Hazards THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OF THE C0MMIrFEE ON PIJEIJo WORKS, Wc&slitington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Richard D. McCarthy presiding. Present: Representatives Blatnik (chairman), McCarthy, Johnson, Cramer, Cleveland, Clausen, Duncan, McDonald, and Fallon. Staff present: Same as previous days. Mr. MCCARTHY. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid Highway Program of the Committee on Public Works is now in session. We have three distinguished witnesses: Lowell K. Bridwell, Ad- ministrator, Federal Highway Administration; J?rank C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public Roads; and Dr. William Haddon, Director, National Highway Safety Bureau, Department of Transportation. Gentlemen, if you would rise please and take the oath. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you will give before the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. BRmwErA. I do. Mr. TURNER. I do. Dr. HAnD0N. I do. Mr. MoC~nTHY. Thank you, gentlemen, and we welcome you to the committee Mr MAY Mr Bridwell, you have `~ statement that you would like to make at this time? TESTIMONY OP LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; PRANX C. TURNER, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OP PUBLIC ROADS; DR. WILLIAM KADDON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION Mr BRrDWELL Yes, Mr May, I do Before starting my statement, I would like to introduce to the com- mittee Mr. Frank Turner, the Director of the Bureau of Public Roads, (1189) PAGENO="1194" 1190 who I am sure is well known to all members of the committee because of his long association with the Federal-aid highway program and working with the committee; and to my right Dr. William Haddon, the Thrector of the National Highway Safety Bureau, and as you are aware, he heads the Bureau which has responsibility for both the Highway Safety Act of 1966-which was an excellent product of the work of the House Public Works Committee-and also the Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Act of 1966 which the Congress enacted and the committee work was handled by one of the other committees of the House. I will proceed with my statement at this time, if I may~ Mr~ Chairman. Mr. McCA1~rIiY. Please do, Mr. Bridwell. Mr. BRmw~L. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you. I have been following the development of these hearings with great interest, not only because of my own concern, but more importantly because of the valuable contribution that the hearings are making to public under- standing of the magnitude of the problems you have been studying. There can be little disagreement that the single most important les- son to be learned from the evidence presented so far is the importance of thorough and detailed attention to the safety aspects of highway design, construction, and maintenance. The hearings and the information produced have made a valuable contribution in the area of highway safety, and the highway program is indebted for your efforts. It is appropriate that these hearings are being held at this point in time, when national needs in highway safety are being subjected to concerted action. During the course of these hearings, the initial set of standards for State and local highway safety programs was issued by Secretary Boyd. And, shortly before, the report of the Special Traffic Safety Committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials was published, and its findings adopted by the Bureau of Public Roads in all Federal-aid highway construction programs. These actions were preceded by the promulgation of the initial motor vehicle safety standards. Taken together, these and other current governmental efforts repre- sent a comprehensive offensive in the area of highway safety-an area which encompasses the highway, the vehicle and the driver, and the environment in one context, and in another the elements contributing to the preaccident, accident, and postaccident problems. In every facet of highway safety, we have set as our goal the rapid and effective improvement of all factors which can contribute to the reduction of deaths, injuries, and damage. No one will dispute the fact that the present toll of traffic deaths, injuries, and property losses on our highways presents a grim picture. I do not feel that it should be our role here today, any more than it has been the role of this committee throughout these entire hearings, to downgrade the accomplishments and advances already made in our highway systems. Certainly our Interstate System attests to these advances. On the other hand, so long as we are killing ourselves on our highways at the rate of roughly 1,000 people per week, we can only PAGENO="1195" 1191 conclude that we are not doing as good a job as we can-even with present resources. I believe the committee may be interested to hear from us about present and planned programs of the Federal Highway Administra- tion in cooperation with. State, county, and city officials, and other con- cerned interests, to meaningfully ancicomprehensively reduce the inci- dence of safety hazards highlighted by these hearings. Mr. Turner, Director of the Bureau of Public Roads, will under- take to do this in some detail. He will discuss past, present, and con- templated programs under the direct supervision of the Bureau of Public Roads in its effort to reduce or eliminate hazards on Federal- aid highways. Before Mr. Turner speaks to you, I would like briefly to outline some of the broad areas in which we will be working to achieve our safety goals. As a step in this direction, I have asked the Bureau of Public Roads and the National Highway Safety Bureau to begin preparation of a highway safety design manual-a comprehensive, all-inclusive hand- book of highway design practice which will, in one volume or perhaps in a series of volurries, integrate such disciplines as street and highway design, traffic engineering, and maintenance and operations. I fully expect this to be done in cooperation with State highway officials, county engineers, city officials, professional organizations, and others who have a contribution to make. We do not intend that this manual will be a mere codification of the hundreds of standards, criteria, guidelines, and suggested practices that have been prepared over the years by official, quasi-official, and private organizations., This will be only one of its functions. But more importantly, the proposed manual will embody truly up-to-date thinking in all areas of highway design, in a form attractive for immediate use and quickly susceptible to imprOvement as new information and advanced technology become available in the future. Moreover, it should eliminate gaps in accepted criteria that exist today. Another area that is receiving our immediate attention is the matter of safety research. Our Interstate highways are `designed on a 20-year future-needs basis as far as traffic volume capacity is concerned. It is our belief that the same sort of forward vision must be applied to research into highway safety design needs. Research in this area frequently has been a matter of reaction to conditions already devel- oped. Research is needed and has been started to make the driver- vehicle-highway system more nearly compatible, and less subject to failure in the accident situation. We are looking forward to the planned hearings of the Roads Sub- committee in a few weeks when we will have the opportunity of telling the committee members of our progress in carrying out the Highway Safety Act of 1966, including its authorizations for research. There is no limit to the value of new knowledge which can contribute to safer highway design, yet all. too often there exists a great gulf between research and application. Whether the gulf is due to lack of communication or reluctance to accept new ideas, our responsibility is to build a bridge across this gap. One means of accomplishing that objective will be early incorporation of applicable research findings PAGENO="1196" 1192 into the design manuai that I mentioned earlier, at the earliest possible time after these findings have been evaluated and proven to be valid and feasible. Also germane to your inquiry is the fact that all too often in the past, engineering decisions have been weighted by first or capital cost considerations. However, enlightened engineering practice now dic- tates that although initial costs may play an important role in such decisions, other factors must also be considered. More and more we will be urging States to use the cost-effectiveness approach not only for operational highway improvements, where it has already proven its worth, but in broader areas of highway design affecting safety. This approach has special implications with regard to safety items such as guardrail, median barriers, signs, and lighting standards. Yard- sticks are being developed by which relative safety effectiveness of one design over another can be measured. We believe accident reduction benefits, for example, can be measured on the basis of anticipated deaths, injury, and property damage, through formulas which can be employed equally well for determining either the area to be improved or the method for improving it. In addition, the other projections involving maintenance demands, durability under actual service conditions, and flexibility to accom- modate anticipated traffic growth can be applied to all highway proj- ects in the future. I am convinced that such techniques, founded on reliable cost-effectivness bases in conjunction with realistic engineer- ing for safety, will reduce the extravagance of too frequent rebuilding and at the same time will result in better, safer, and more economical highways. I believe it is important to note that the physical plant which is our Nation's highway network is one of the three major safety ele- ments which is most susceptible to consistent and continuing public control. No driver can be trained and policed to perform with the predictability or reliability of a fixed engineered system. The ve- hicle's dependability is subject to variables not always susceptible to constant and immediate correction. Thus, the highway itself will con- tinue to be a fertile area for total highway safety progress. Much effort in this direction has already been expended, and some of it has begun to bear fruit. But much more attention needs to be given to this pervasive prOblem, as well as to other elements of the comprehensive national highway safety programs which the House Publi'c Works Committee helped launch. We share with you, Mr. Chairman, your concern that "the mis- takes of the past are not carried over into our new roads." The con- suming interest of this committee will make our work toward that goal a great deal easier, and will stimulate much more vigorous action to- ward the meaningful reduction of built-in hazards across the Nation's highway system. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. As I indi- cated in my statement, Mr. Turner has a prepared statement which deals in much greater depth and detail with some of the issues, most of the policy issues that have been raised in the course of these hearings. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Bridwell, before Mr. Turner commences with his statement, I wonder if I could ask you a question. PAGENO="1197" 1193 Now a number of things struck us. One was that the substance of our findings had been known for a number of years. For instance, General Motors, one organization that comes to mind, has had films pointing out the deficiencies of our highways, particularly on roadside obstacles for a number of years; and nobody-let's say few States incorporated the indisputable findings of General Motors research into the con- struction of their roads. And the staff selected nine States at random with Interstate highways just built, and only one State had incorpo- rated these findings that were well known. Now I am wondering why it is that when this information was so widely available, it wasn't incorporated in the engineering of brand- new roads? Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. McCarthy, there are. a number of factors in- volved here. First of all I think my statement and by the statement that the committee will soon hear from Mr. Turner, we would agree with you wholeheariedly that the findings of research, testing, and analysis, have not been as widely and as rapidly applied as they either could be or should be. I do not believe, however, that the situation is quite as dark as-here is all of the information, why are you not doing it? There are quite a number of factors that go into it. One is the fact that highways that are actually being constructed today in many, many instances were designed 3 or 4 or even 5 years ago on complicated proj- ects. So that is a factor. A nother factor is that there is not a comprehensive manual in the field, which has been highlighted by these hearings with such things as the example of the guardrail in "Highway Research Bulletin No. 81." So that the people in the field, the people who actually design and are responsible for the construction of these projects, do. not have easily available to them a lot of material which is completely known now to the committee because it has been presented to the committee. It has rrnt been presented to these people in the field that have the responsibility. Another factor, of course, you referred to the General Motors re- search specifically. One of the overall conclusions of the General Mo- tors research has been the clear roadside concept which we have fol- lowed without any question, at least to some extent, to a great extent. There are cost factors involved in this because obviously if you. have a clear roadside and you have general clear slopes extending from the edge of the right-of-way for certain increments of distance, 30 feet is the one that we generally talk about, then there are cost considerations in the acquisition of right-of-way. There are cost considerations in the design and construction of the project and earthwork and structures and quite a number of things. So I cite these as factors, not as excuses, but only to point out that it really is not quite as simple as just simply saying the knowledge was there, why does it not show up on the highways? Mr. MCCARTHY. You mentioned that some of these Interstate high- ways were designed 3 and 4 years ago. Does that mean that we have to wait 3 and 4 years before some of these concepts are incorporated in the construction of future Interstate highways? Mr. BRIDWELL. No, sir. It will depend on the particular item or por- tion or facet of a design project as to what point in time it can be incorporated. PAGENO="1198" 1194 If you are talking, for example, about such things as what we popu- larly categorize as roadside construction, such as signs, guardrail, that kind of thing, as a practical matter~ these should be reviewed while the construction is going on and change orders made in the design plans if they are not being done properly. So that in that instance a correction can be made as late as today. However, in laying out the basic line and grade for a highway cer- tain results flow from this. The extent of your fill, the depth of your cuts, the location and length of major structures, once those designs are accomplished, to go and redo those requires a complete reengineer- ing of the whole project. For example, one of the things that I am very interested in is the extent to which we can have gentle slopes on a fill portion of a project. One of the factors that is the result of recent research is the application of photogrammetric procedures in which you can have a rapid and completely accurate calculation of a number of design alternatives, one of the results of which is a balancing of earthwork. In other words, you take the dirt from the cut and put it in fill so you do not have to borrow any or you do not have to waste any. To the extent that a line or grade is changed, then you have to go back and recalculate all of that earthwork, and this for all practical purposes results in a complete redesign of the project. Now in summary, the answer is on some items you can do it as late as today. On other items it is a basic fundamental part of the design, and once established it almost impossible to undo without starting all over again. Mr. MCCAmHr. Thank you very much, Mr. Bridwell. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. I just want to ask a question for the record. In con- nection with the construction by the State highways of the Interstate System particularly, and also the other Federal-aid highway systems, is it not a true statement that all of this highway design is done under standards that have the stamp of approval by the Bureau of Public Roads? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. By statute, the standards applicable on the Interstate System are those developed by the American Association of State Highway Officials in cooperation with the Bureau of Public Roads and are approved by the Secretary of Transportation. Mr. CLEVELAND. And you certainly have the right to either change or suggest changes or veto any of those standards that you people feel might be conducive to unsafe highways, is that not correct? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir; that is correct. Because the statute gives the Secretary final authority in this matter. He can accept and therefore, presumably, modify or reject any standard that he wants to. Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you. That answers my question. Mr. JoHNSoN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one or two questions here for Mr. Bridwell. As I understand it, all the money for highway safety that is pro- vided for in your budget comes out of the general fund. PAGENO="1199" 1195 Mr.. BRIDWELL. For the carrying out of the provisions for the High- way Act of 1966; yes, sir. Mr. JoHNsoN. Now was there enough money provided for in the budget that was approved just recently in the House? As I understand it there was a cutback in the committee and a further cutback on the floor. Do you have enough money to carry out the highway safety pro- gram? During these hearings it seems it was brought out there was quite a deficiency and need for a lot of work in that direction. Mr~ BRIDWELL. In my opinion, no, sir. The amount of funds ap- proved by the House are very substantially inadequate to carry out the program as envisioned by the Highway Act of 1966, which in the final analysis was a product of the House Public Works Committee. Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand it, if there is any reconstruction of the facilities that you build, that would come. out of the trust fund on your recommendation? ~Mr. BRIDwELL. Yes, sir. ~Mr. JOHNSON. There is ample there to take care of immediate con- struction that is necessary throughout the Interstate System? Mr. BRIDWELL. I will have to give you a qualified answer. In the sense of,is the balance of funds in the trust fund adequate, the answer is "Yes." In the sense of, are funds adequate considering the cost of completingthe Interstate System by the present statutory deadline for completion, the answer is "No." Mr JOHNSON As I understand it, you could h't~e used more money to bring in the program of highway safety- Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. . Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY~ .1 think it might be made clear that most of the features that we dealt with in these hearings were bridges, design of bridges, design of guardrail, breakaway signs and the like, and they would come out of the trust fund. Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Turner, would you like to deliver your state- ment to. the committee? . Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. McCarthy. As Mr. Bridwell has indicated in his statement, we believe your hearings are making a significant contribution to the future safety of highway travel. The Bureau of Public Roads wants to contribute to that safer future on the highway and in that capacity, representing the Bureau, I am pleased to be here today. As I understand your schedule, you have been directing your atten- tion appropriately to the problem of roadside hazards largely on the Interstate System This is a serious problem, m'tjor in its importance, because it concerns our principal highway network for interstate and defense travel; highways being designed and constructed for the high- est quality of service to users. We in the Bureau are keenly aware of and are giving appropriate recognition to the fact that structures alongside the roadway must be given different treatment in future design of our Interstate System. . In a way, the situation is rather unique because all of the other types of hazards are substantially less on the Interstate System than on older roads With most types of accidents eliminated or at least PAGENO="1200" 1196 markedly reduced by the Interstate System design features, I sup- pose we should not be too surprised to find that single-vehicle, run- off-the-road type accidents are the major type of accident possibility remaining on our Interstate highway facilities. Obviously, something must be done, and we have no doubt that something much better can be done than what you have seen here. We already have taken the necessary actions in that direction. During the course of these hearings you have observed, with con- siderable repetition, examples of roadside features-signs, light poles, bridge piers, guardrails and the like-which present serious hazards to vehicles which leave the roadway out of control of the driver. It is obvious that these items were not deliberately placed in such a manner as to create hazards. The rather large directional sign is designed specifically to convey information to the high-speed passing motorist in a manner which will reduce to a minimum his distraction from his driving chores and give him information needed to safely maneuver his vehicle. Standards for this particular type of signing have been developed only within the last 7 to 8 years. Prior to that time we did not use such large signs requiring the heavier mounting poles and foundations which have been discussed throughout this hearing. The justification for lights is also premised on providing a safer environment for the driver. However, the `pole which supports the light is necessarily, in many cases, an additional safety hazard and so we may properly raise the question about whether the' added safety from a lighted roadway exceeds the hazard introduced `by the pole mounting. The bridge piers and abutments support structures permitting the separation of cross traffic for the purpose of eliminating the hazards of at-grade intersections; but while they eliminate one set of hazards, their very presence at the same time introduced other hazards not previously existing. Guardrail is one of the best safety devices we have to lessen the chance of serious damage to a vehicle out of control and running off the paved roadway and shoulder, but in its use, we often introduce another hazard. So while many of our newer design features have been introduced to reduce major hazards, their very presence also produces a set of new hazards of a different type, hopefully of a relatively lesser magnitude. It is our purpose to reduce both sets of these hazards to the lowest pos- sible level. I believe the measures we are now taking will do this. There is no simple answer to offer for the question you have asked as to why these roadside obstacles have been erected as seen by you in numerous pictures. The administrator has mentioned some of the causes. The principal cause is clearly that our previous judgment in designs dated 7 to 8 years ago did not anticipate the degree and frequency with which drivers would run off these new roads. It took some time to observe that a dismaying pattern of run-off-the-road accidents was occurring and an equally long time to develop the appro- priate corrective measures and to get these into the stream of planning and construction. While some observed defects are still being included in recent construction, I believe that the focus of attention on these items by this subcommittee and the Bureau has served to force the PAGENO="1201" 1197 necessary and desired change. But change comes slowly, even with the impetus of such things as these hearings. However, I would say that while the necessary actions have already been taken, communication, implementation of, and compliance witb these actions must still be pursued diligently. The most tangible of these actions has been a joint endeavor of the Bureau of Public Roads and the American Association of State High- way Officials described in a report of the Special AASHO Traffic Safety Committee-"Highway Design and Operational Practices Re~ lated to Highway Safety," February 1967, and being generally referred to as the "Yellow Book." This particular undertaking was formally begun about a year and a half ago when the Bureau of Public Roads proposed to AASHO that a special study of the traffic and safety characteristics of the In- terstate System and other highways be made. The purpose of the study was to develop guidelines for treating the problem of run-off-the- road accidents in which fatal or serious injury resulted when roadside obstructions were hit. We were thus taking action based on the study and continued observation of the accident trends which I referred to. The proposal contemplated a review of traffic safety conditions at locations where accident and operational problems existed. AASHO enthusiastically agreed to the undertaking and the assign- ment was given to the AASHO Special Traffic Safety Committee. This committee had been created in 1964. As a top level group, it was composed of the president of AASHO and the chairmen of sev- eral of its major standing committees. The membership included the chief engineers of the California, Colorado, Connecticut, and Kansas departments and the Commissioner of Public Works and Highways of New Hampshire. The committee was assisted by four State traffic engineers and several representatives of the Bureau of Public Roads.. During the period of June 14 to August 18 of last year, the com- mittee visited 10 State, seven major metropolitan areas and numerous other cities and towns, observing actual highway traffic operations in a critical vein, and discussing with State and local police, traffic engi- neers, and local officials possible ways of increasing safety on the highway. The report's findings, conclusions, and recommendations are cOv- ered in detail in the report which I understand has already been sup- plied to this committee. It clearly brings out that much can be ac- complished by removing hazards that currently exist on and along our roads and streets, and by improving design and operational prac- tices so that similar or other hazards will not be built into highways of the future. Considerable space is devoted by the report to how this can be accomplished. On May 8, I wrote personally tO each State highway department expressing the Bureau of Public Roads full concurrence in the re- port's recommendations and conclusions. We in the Bureau consider it to be one of the most important documents ever developed by the joint efforts of AASHQ and Public Roads. We have pledged and dem- onstrated our active interest in seeing that every State applies the re- port's findings beginning immediately and continuing on a large scale for as long as is necessary to provide the highest possible level of 87-757 O-68---.-76 PAGENO="1202" 1198 safety on the Federal-aid highway systems. A copy of my letter is sub- mitted for the record. This study and report, the yellow book, confirmed a policy es- tablished last year by the Bureau of Public ROads, and covered in our Instructional Memorandum 21-6-06, August 1, 1960. It also is at- tached to my statement for the record. The policy required that all aspects of location, design, traffic control, drainage features, and road- side appurtenances are to be examined during development of the plans, specifications and estimates beginning with the location survey, and to the maximum extent possible in the construction and postconstruc- tion stages, to insure that hazards arising from vehicles leaving, the roadway out of control will receive pr~imary consideration. The memorandum specifically calls for the elimination of all un- necessary sign supports, light standards, drainage structure obstruc- tions, and other appurtenances. Where the need for such features does not permit complete elimination, they are to be located, if possible, in unex~osed positions. Where this is not feasible,. adequate protection for the out-of-control vehicle is to be provided in the form of impact- absorbing guardrail, special grading of the surrounding area, or other means which will reduce the severity of accidents. In addition to the various memorandums on the subject, I have made a number of speeches to the regional associations of State high- way officials and held numerous personal conferences stressing the urgency of action toward the removal of all potentially lethal road- side appurtenances. To `~ssist the States in expediting the correction of existing Irizards as recommended in the previously described AASHO report, we have streamlined our project procedures This is covered in the letter sent to each St'Lte highway department to which I m'ide reference and in more detail in a following set of instrnctions to our field offices. A copy of those instructions is included for the record. I believe it is important at this point to mention that in following up on the letter and the instructional memorandums, our regional highway administrators have been carrying out careful analyses of pending State plans. and instructing our division engineers to work with the States toward bringing these plans into conformance with the AASHO Yellow Book. In fact, our stand on the implementation of the AASHO Yellow Book has been so . firm that there have been some protests from the highway construction industry that we are stopping the program. What minor delays are necessary will be negligible, and certainly for the best possible reason. For the most part, adjustments in design can be made which will either eliminate completely any unneceèary ob- stacles, or relocate those which cannot be eliminated, or protect the motorist with well-designed, impact-absorbing devices from those road- side elements which cannot be either eliminated or feasibly relocated. For the sake of clarity and emphasis.: I might spell out here that which I indicated earlier: that the AASHO recommendations will be applied to the Interstate System throughout,.and will have particular application to the older sections already built. We have asked the States to calculate the cost of the ,additional work required to bring previously constructed sections of the Interstate . System into con- formity with the AASHO safety recommendations, in connection PAGENO="1203" 1199 with the new estimate of cost of completing the system due to be pre- sented to Congress and this committee next January, so that this work will be included in our report to you at that time along with the request for its financing. Another Federal-State effort which has important applications in the field of highway safety is the work of the so-called design review teams which the Bureau of Public Roads has been promoting. I am including for the record copies of memorandums we have issued on this subject. In recent years a number of States have established func- tioning committees or teams to review completed projects and make recommendations as to their safety and other design features. These teams function under various names, such as operational surveillance teams, freeway operation review committees, design review teams, and others, but all have the same purpose-to insure the utilization of proven superior design practices and the elimination or correction of those which have proven unsatisfactory. The Bureau of Public Roads has urged the establishment of these teams in all States along with effective review and reporting proce- dures to accomplish their purpose. To date 36 States have reported the establishment of such review teams, with others in prospect in four additional States. The typical team consists of several members, includ- ing representatives from such disciplines as design, construction, main- tenance, traffic operations, police, and Bureau of Public Roads. The findings and recommendations of existing teams have been con- sistent with those outlined in the AASHO Yellow Book. Our planned design manual, already referred to and described by Mr. Bridwell, will add considerably to this consistency. We have underway an intensive amount of research and investiga- tion into various highway safety matters, including the development in as short a time as possible of new structural systems to replace or eliminate fixed objects along the roadway. The program also includes the development of several new devices for vehicle impact cushioning and deflection to prevent or reduce the severity of "run off the road" type accidents. The guardrail now available and in general use is not entirely satisfactory because the guardrail itself is often a formi- dable obstacle and actually creates a roadside obstruction while pro- viding protection from some other hazard. Devices such as a "bumper" in front of fixed roadside hazards are flowing from the research effort, which is in addition to our continu- ing effort and longer range research and development activities in the areas of traffic operations and communications, all of which also have strong highway safety connotations. The types of research and investi- gation I have mentioned are indicative of what is underway but it is important to remember that a great deal of study and leadtime is necessary before any new design developments can be actually incorpo- rated into a highway construction project. The Burea.u also has recently engaged in a number of activities designed to provide and to assist in the development of basic infor- mation on the scope of the traffic accident problem. In July 1966 we completed arrangements for obtaining copies of police investigation reports on fatal accidents which occur on completed sections of the Interstate System. PAGENO="1204" 1200 Our initial reasons for this undertaking were exploration and staff development. We are not satisfied that adequate analytical procedures are being applied to the mass of accident information presently avail- able, nor in fact are we satisfied that fully adequate analytical pro- cedures have even been developed. This, then, has been a special study to develop staff competence in accident data analysis and to explore and devise analytical procedures that will effectively equip us to assist the State highway departments in establishing data analysis activities which we think must be undertaken. I believe the subcommittee is aware of our activities under Bureau programs, additional to those I have discussed, having a high degree of impact on highway safety. For the record, however, I would like to mention three of these: The Interstate System, program, the spot improvement program initiated in 1966, and our new TOPICS pro- gram. The National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, as you well know, is being constructed to the highest design standards ever developed for roads in this country or any other country. The danger of headon collisions is substantially reduced by separation of roadways for opposing. lanes of traffic. The elimination of all at-grade intersec- tions has completely removed the serious accident potential at cross- roads. Private driveway connections are also prohibited, thus further reducing or eliminating this possibility of a collision between vehicles. At the present time, almost 25,00Q miles of the system are open to traffic, providing us sufficient experience with traffic operations under these standards t.o know that the fatality rate on the Interstate Sys- tem runs substantially less than a third of that on the older, more conventional highways. It must be borne in mind, however, that substantial portions of this system were constructed some years a.go and that this construction was based on engineering designs developed even several years earlier. Consequently, some sections of the system were designed without the benefit of important knowledge gained in the intervening years, par- ticularly in the causes of various types of highway accidents on this system. The Bureau has provided recent authority that these older sections of the system can be modified in the light of current knowledge of improved safety procedures. The outlook, therefore, is that the safety record of the Interstate System will be still further improved with the incorporation of additional safety features on the older segments. On the older highways, this so-called spot improvement program is potentially one of the most important of all developments in the field of highway safety. It has directed the attention of the Bureau and the State highway departments to the possibilitieis of reducing acci- dents through particular attention to the removal of specific highway hazards. In terms of money invested, the benefits are expected to be quite large by the careful selection of future safety projects on the basis of both actual accident experience a.nd advanced identification of potential hazards. This will become standard procedure as the States are able to develop their capabilities in this area. The most significant and far-reaching aspect of this program is that the procedures required to carry it forward will result in the comprehensive and continuing surveillance system which is so sorely needed as a basis for further PAGENO="1205" 1201 safety improvements. A breakdown in the smooth operation of a hi~h- way manifests itself in accidents. Thus, a system or procedure which identifies and locates accidents is at the same time a pulse-taker of highway operational efficiency. As a corollary to the spot improvement program, I mention the TOPICS program, which has the purpose of making existing streets and highways in urban areas more useful by increasing their traffic carrying ability, reducing congestion, and improving their safety. To achieve these objectives, the program involves the application of mod- em traffic engineering and operational techniques to a selected network of the major traffic-carrying streets in the urban areas~ While many improvements of this type are primarily generated by the need to move traffic efficiently, they add up in fact to a kind of spot improve- ment safety program for the urban areas, and in that context can be considered part of the Bureau's and the State's overall highway safety effort. The present annuai toll of traffic deaths and injuries on our high- ways presents a grim picture. But before we `become overawed `by grimness in assessing the situation which exists, we should interpret and place in proper perspective the statistical information available to us. To be realistic about it, there are factors involved in the problem which can never be cured by any amount of highway improvement. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to improve on the other factors. But, in trying, we must recognize that there is probably an irreducible minimum of traffic accidents and deaths and we should proceed by all means at our disposal to reach that minimum. Included in that minimum most certainly are an unknown number of deaths from natural causes. Furthermore, it is useless to talk seriously about reducing fatalities until we are also willing as a society to take serious steps to eliminate the socially accepted mixture of alcohol and driving because a majority of the annual victims result from this cause rather than any deficiency in highway design or construction. It is quite obvious that the `accident problem must be attacked on many fronts and your subcommittee has correctly selected. as one of these fronts `the design of the roadway and the location of its roadside appurtenances. While the manner of handling these appurtenances is an important area for consideration, it must be kept in proper perspective. It should be recognized that accidents and fatalities involving features such as those which have been so amply and frequently presented to the subcommittee are far less in number than thOse which have been pre- vented by appropriate standard design which has not been. discussed. Likewise the total number `of accidents of the kind covered' extensively in t'he hearings constitutes only `a small fraction of all highway fatal- ities, in connection with the Interstate System. Any fatality is too many, and we must work diligently to avoid `all of them. In so doing, however, we must always keep at the forefront of our emphasis these items which produce the largest measure of benefit for the effort and dollars which are available to us. Actually, the total of all fatal accidents of the general type being discussed in these hearings constituted a very small percentage of the total fatalities last year-a figure about equaMo those occurring between railroad and highway vehicles-or the number of fatalities PAGENO="1206" 1202 from bicycles, motorcycles, and similar nonauto vehicle types. ThE figure is actually about 3 percent of the 53,000 fatalities of last year. The question is immediately posed then as to which one of thesE accident groups to focus special attention on, if a choice must be mad among them. The obvious manner is to treat all three at the same time but the practical and real limits of money and other factors in thE past prevented such a desirable choice. Your chairman quite properly~ wants to be assured mistakes of the past are not carried over into our new roads, particularly the Interstate System. A related question is whether the design of high- ways is being done in such a manner as to make use of the fruits of research and experience. The answer to both of these questions is an unqualified "yes" and I offer my previous remarks in support of this. I emphasize that highway safety has been a principal objective of the Bureau of Public Roads since the first Federal-aid road legis- lation of 1916. It is in fact a specifically stated requirement govern- ing our approval of Federal-aid projects and is contained in the basic act of 1921 and continued in every amendment to the act since that date. Substantial research in design and operation has been conducted or sponsored and implemented by the Bureau of Public Roads and the State highway departments. While highway safety has been of primary concern over the years, the practical limitation of availabTe funds at both State and Federal levels has historically restricted the extent to which all of the objectives of highway engineers and administrators could be achieved, over and: above the mere movement of people and goods. Even where the additional achievements were possible, it has generally happened in the past that advanced design features in- tended to enhance safety or esthetics or both, have been frequently assailed as "frills" by some public officials as well as by private individuals and groups who demanded more miles of road improve- ment as the principal product of the highway departments. This, then, Mr. Chairman, is a partial report on Bureau activities in the field of your inquiry. Briefly summarized, the Bureau's principal activities in this area are concerned with these main, closely related efforts: (1) A modified and expanded program for identifying and correct- ing high accident locations, or potentially high-accident locations; (2) a concerted effort to provide a uniformly safe environment along our roadsides to substantially reduce hazards to vehicles leaving the road out of control; (3) a continuing program of research and ex- perimentation in highway and traffic engineering in its broadest sense. All things considered, the Bureau and the State highway depart- ments have done a conscientious, constructive job over the years in enhancing highway safety, as is evidenced by a substantial decline in the fatality rate while the exposure and the probability of accidents has increased sharply due to increased travel. We are aiways willing and eager to learn how to do a better job, and we welcome a.ny adch- tional knowledge and sound suggestions which these hearings or any other source might develop. PAGENO="1207" 1203 The establishment of the Federal Highway Administration in the new Department of Transportation is hoped to be of great help over the long haul in bringing even more expertise to bear on the total prob- lem by assigning specific areas of responsibility to its component agen- cies. In this reorganization process the Driver Register Service, which has functioned in the Bureau of Public Roads since 1961, has been transferred to the National Highway Safety Bureau. We are proud of its accomplishments under our own direct jurisdiction, and expect that it will be a tool of increasing value in the attack on the highway accident problem. The subcommittee's own studies, as well as the testimony given dur- ing these hearings, will clearly indicate that more money than is pres- ently available or in sight will be required in the effort to make a marked reduction in the role of the roadway and roadside in the high- way accident, injury, and death toll rate. While this may not be the proper place to make the point, I believe that it should be strongly made because it is a key consideration in the problem you are attacking and we might as well recognize the fact. The highway engineer is fre- quently accused of shortsightedness but, as one of them, I honestly think that the problem over the years has been due more to funding deficiencies than to defective vision, lack of knowledge of the prob- lem, or a lack of concern. We have had to make choices on how to spend the funds at our disposal and while safety has always been the para- mount consideration, we have had to knowingly forgo some safety items which appeared of least hazard in order to put primary funding emphasis on those believed to represent the larger safety benefits. That concludes my statement, Mr. McCarthy. Mr. MCCARTEIY. Thank you very much, Mr. Turner. I just have one question. According to your statement at the bottom of page 11, which I would certainly like to endorse, and I think it is an excellent statement overall, it says, "it is useless to talk seriously about reducing fatalities until we are also willing as a society to take serious steps to eliminate the socially accepted mixture of alcohol and driving because the majority of the annual victims result from this cause rather than any deficiency in highway design or construction." Now you say a majority, which is over 50 percent, based on your own research. Mr. Ttm~i~. This is based on the research of many groups. And some studies would indicate that the factor may be as high as 75 per- cent, but it is clearly shown in all of the research in this area that something more than 50 percent, probably considerably more than 50 percent, involve in one form or another alcohol as a contributor to the accident. Mr. MCCARTHY. We have those figures, too. The gentleman from the State of Florida and I were especially interested in this, and as you know this is a result of the study going on. Now one other point occurred to me. I would like to get your opinion about the current flurry of activity regarding insurance. Now I have sort of. a feeling that two congressional committees might even work at cross purposes. There has been a great deal of material appearing in print of late about what is alleged to be precipitous and arbitrary cancellation of insurance. PAGENO="1208" 1204 As I listen to this information that is based on the fact that the drivers had some accidents, so they canceled his insurance or perhapE the rates are increased, and my own view has always been that the insurance companies have every right to do this. And while they have the right, I think they also should reward the safe driver by lowering the rates. I think it is only fair that the rates for those who consistently have accidents, whether through alcohol or other causes, should be higher. I wonder if you have given any thought to the idea in terms of safety to consider insurance rates as a deterrent to accident prone or drunken or reckless driving? Mr. TURNER. I think that is being handled in one of the other offices, and I think Mr. Bridwell might want to comment on that, Mr. McCar- thy. Mr. BRIDwELIJ. Mr. McCarthy, in terms of any kind of definitive study in the area, in the Department of Transportation, the Highway Administration, it has not been undertaken. As you are probably aware, the House Judiciary Committee has expressed an interest in this subject and has indicated that at least it might go forward with its own study and its own analysis. In addition to that, the Department of Transportation, Secretary Boyd, was asked by the Senate Commerce Committee or really more appropriately, I should say, was asked by Senator Magnuson, joined by some of his colleagues, to undertake a study of this problem. His response to the Senators was that we would be glad to undertake it if resources and what we believe to be the necessary legal authority are provided. So that I think that the situation at this point is fairly fluid, but I am assuming it will be resolved by the respective committees in the near future. Mr. MCCARTHY. It just strikes me as an imbalance. Mr. Nader and others have taken the vehicle and cited it as a corporate, inanimate object and, of course, we~ have pursued the road. Now there seems to be almost a reverse process on the way related to the driver. And as Mr. Turner points out, the majority of the annual victims result from the alcoholic driver. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. McCarthy, I would like to state for the record that we welcome this pursuit of the various aspects of safety. You have mentioned the vehicle on the highway, and I noted in my statement that we are looking forward to the hearings of the Roads Subcommittee of the House Public Works Committee, hearings on the progress of the Highway Safety Act, which, of course, deals with the driver and other elements of the safety system, other than the highway and the vehicle. Now referring back to your earlier question to Mr. Turner on the alcohol aspect of highway safety, Dr. Haddon is one of the country's leading authorities on this subject, and I would like to ask him, if I may, to supplement the comments of Mr. Turner on this subject. Mr. McC~'n~. If you woul~l, Dr. Haddon, I would appreciate it. Dr. }IAlrnoN? Without going into'~L verycoinplicated subject in great depth, I completely agree with the emphasis that Mr. Turner has placed on the subject. It presents a number of very tough problems. PAGENO="1209" 1205 For example, there is a good deal of recent evidence that. a~ very major part of the drunken driver violation and accident problem, par- ticularly from the fatal accident standpoint, involves not the usual scapegoat of the average drinker, at least light social drinker, but the alcoholic; that is, the man* who is deteriorated in his drinking. And he is, literally, sick. Actually a slogan `approach is not appropriate to that kind of prob- lem. This is one of the areas that we are going to be devoting a great deal of attention to. In fact we have just let contracts with several major research groups-for example, with Baylor University and with the University of Vermont and others-to begin prying into these accidents, particu- larly fatal accidents, that involve extreme amounts of alcohol-and they are extremely excessive usually-to find out what kind of~drink- ers these people are. The preliminary evidence, particularly from the work of the Cali- fornia Health Department and other groups, again is that a good many of them are not ordinary drinkers. At the same time we know that social drinking is involved to some extent and that this accounts for a good many-probably accounts for a good many thousands of deaths nationwide each year as well. In addition, of course, there is increasing evidence that teenagers and young college men who have not had, perhaps, as much experience with alcohol as our society leads them to over a period of years are also one of the additional tragic parts of this overall drinking and driving problem. I suppose the point I would make is that this problem, like most of the others, in fact as far as I know all of the others in highway safety, is a composite of pieces, each of which needs to be identified and han- dled on its merits, rather than using traditional folklore, traditional wisdom, if I may call it that, or shotgun approaches with which there has been little evidence of success in the past and which are unlikely to pay off in the future. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Dr. Haddon. Any questions on the right? Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Turner, I want to say you have given us a very fine statement here. As Director of the Bureau of Public Roads, do you have the sufficient staff and the financing to do a good thorough job reviewing these plans that come in, the safety i~eatures? Mr. TURNER. Mr. Johnson, I obviously would answer in this way, that I do not have as many as I would like to have. I think I could do a better job if I had more. Basically we have to depend, as you know, on the capability and soundness of the plans presented by the individ- ual State highway departments to us. However, it is `our function to review those. We could certainly do a better job if we had additional staff, but I think that we still have to go back basically to getting the plans right in the beginning at the State highway department, rather than in our office. Mr. JoHNsoN. I realize that. But the Bureau of Public Roads has the responsibility to approve these plans as submitted, as I under- stand it? Mr. TURNER. That is correct. PAGENO="1210" 1206 Mr. JoHNsoN. Certainly you should have staff and financing to do this job because this is the `all-important job of approval of these plans prior to construction. Now, another question: In reviewing the highway that is now in operation, do you have enough personnel to go into that in any detail to advise the various States of the Union as to what the deficiencies are; and if you have `the staff and make that review, do you have the necessary financing within the trust fund to do the work? Mr. Tua~n. We will have the necessary financing for the ABC System only on the basis of taking funds from something else to do this kind of work. In the Interstate work we will anticipate an increase in the funding for that system to cover this additional work and do the original con- struction as well. There will be an increased cost to the trust fund to do both of :these programs on the Interstate and the ABC systems. To go back to the first part of your question with respect to staff, again to review the plans and handle the construction, I would have to answer it the same way. We never have enough staff to go in and com- pletely review every project. We do not organize ourselves on the basis of attempting to duplicate or redo the work that the State highway department did. We have to take certain samples of the product that they send to us and analyze that, review a set of plans, one out of five such plan sites or one out of 10 something else. We do not have the staff to completely review every set of plans or every project that comes to us from the States. So we have to work on the basis of using our review procedures, primarily for the establishment of policy and attempting `to get that policy then executed by the State, without our having to re-do, dupli- cate the State's job. If we did it by reviewing or redoing the State's work, we would have to have a staff that would be 40 or 50 times as big as the staff that we do have. Mr. JOHNSON. As I understood you to say, you have taken one out of five, one out of 10- Mr. TURNER. I am using that merely as an example, Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. I thought that all `the plans, as submitted by the States, were subject to approval on the part of the Bureau of Public Roads? Mr. TURNER. They are. And we handle each one individually, but we do not have the staff so that we could take every set of plans and review it in complete detail. We just do not have and could not get a staff of that size. Mr. JOHNSON. I realize that you have pointed out here that con- struction was just one phase of the facility and what-have-you means of killing approximately a little over 50,000 a year, and I should think the Bureau of Public Roads would be funded and staffed to do a job on highway safety construction on every project in the Inter- staite System at least. Mr. TURNER. It would be a desirable situation, no question about it. Mr. JOHNSON. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cn~M~. I have `a couple of questions I would like to ask. PAGENO="1211" 1207 Mr. `CLEVELAND. I have some questions, too. Mr. MCCARTHY. Are these germane? Mr. CRAMER. The Chair can rule on them, but I think they are. Mr. MCCARTHY. The gentleman from Florida. Mr. `CRAMER. I do not want to usurp the prerogatives of the gentle- man who is sitting in the first position, and I will yield to him. I think he has a question. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Cleveland. Mr. CLEVELAND. My first question is addressed to Mr. Turner. When the public becomes very interested in something like safety, as they are now, there is a tendency for everybody to look around to see who is at fault; and as the chairman already pointed out, some people think it may be the car, some people think it may be the road, and some people think it may be the driver. I was interested in your concluding remarks where you say, "I honestly think that the problem over the years has been due more to funding deficiencies than to defective vision." I interpret this as being a somewhat euphemistic way of including the politicians in the list of villians, and I interpret your remarks correctly, do I not? Mr. TURNER. Only in the sense that you have attached that twist toit. Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you. Now I would like to call to the atten- tion of the panel some statistics that were given to us on Tuesday, prepared, I believe, by our own staff, and I will pass these over to you. These show that when you relate motor vehicle deaths to total vehicle miles traveled that very obviously in the 1942, 1943, and 1944 period there was a sharp decline, not only in travel and in deaths- and this of course was during the war period when people were driving most carefully to preserve gasoline and tires, et cetera. However, in the 1938 and 1939 and 1940 period there was a very noticeable and sharp decline in the number of deaths per traveled mile. I commented on this Tuesday, and there seemed to be no immediate explanation, and I would like to ask Dr. Haddon if he is aware of that very sharp decline in the 1938, 1939, 1940 period; and if he has any ~immediate explanations for it. And if not, I would then like to ask him if he would study these figures and give his observations to the committee in writing at a later date. It seems to me that there might be some interesting conclusions to be drawn from this very noticeable drop in the number of deaths per traveled mile in that 1938, 1939, and 1940 neriod. Are you aware of that particular period, Dr. Haddon? Dr. HADDON. Yes, I am. And here also a great many things were going on. These involve the drivers, the vehicles, and the road, to mention the usual three. However, this was also a neriod of temporary depression, I believe, and many people feel that this substantially influenced the results. I think the simple answer is that nobody really knows, and we are too many years after the fact for anybody to go back and dig out definitive answers. Mr. CLEVELAND. In other words, you do not think it would even be rewarding to make that particular study of 3 years? PAGENO="1212" 1208 Dr. HADDON. It might well be rewarding, but I think we should give our priorities to the problem we have in the "here and now," since there are a number of areas in which we think we can reduce the totals. Mr. CLEVELAND. I have one other question. Mr. Bridwell may an- swer this. Tuesday I inquired of one of the witnesses from your De- partment, I believe, or-correction, I inquired from one of the wit- nesses from AASHO-whether or not, in view of the evidence that we are hearing, that there are some obstacles just off the right-of-way that are contributing to the fatalities, and many of these being on the Interstate System, whether these corrections could be made at the 90-10 participation cost ratio of the Federal Government; and I was informed by that panel, at least, that this could be done. Is that your understanding? Were they correct? Will your~ De- partment or will the Bureau pay for correcting these deficiencies on the Interstate at the 90-10 figure? Mr. BRIDWELL. The answer to the question is "Yes." If I may, I would like to supplement it- Mr. CLEVELAND. Before you supplement it, let me go on, because I call your attention to the fact that the Comptroller General in 1961 ruled as follows: "An Interstate highway once improved, Interstate Systems standards with t:he aid of Federal Interstate funds, is not elig- ible for reconstruction with Federal Interstate funds." That, as I say, was the 1961 ruling, and, to my knowledge, it is un- changed. You may comment. Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. I do not think there is anything inconsist- ent here. I would like Mr. Turner to address `himself to that because he is much more familiar with that GAO ruling in 1961. Mr. TtTRNER. The point you are making, Mr. Cleve1~mrL. is ~Ii~1 I was referring to on page 10 with respect to the new authority that we granted to the States. And as Mr. Bridwell indicated, the answer on whether or not we can use 90-10 funds for correction of these things is yes. The Comptroller General's ruling that you are referring to had to do with the question of whether or not we could rebuild a piece of flood-damaged Interstate road. It was reconstruction of the road to the same standard, exactly as it had existed prior to the damage. What we are talking about here is actually additional work of a higher standard. It is not reconstruction. It is, rather, new items that were not included in the original design, but had they been included we would have approved. Or it is revamping and upgrading of items to a new standard different from that which previously existed. Mr. CLEVELAND. Have you asked GAO whether Or not this ruling, which seems rather clear to me, covers reconstruction of Interstate highways for reasons of safety? Mr. Tunx~. We have not asked them for an opinion. We had our own opinion, produced by our own legal counsel, that this was en- tirely acceptable. Mr. CLEVELAND. Could we have a copy of your counsel's interpreta- tion for the record? Mr. Turner. We can produce that; yes, sir. PAGENO="1213" 1209 (The memorandum of law referred to follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, BuRRAu OF PUBLIC RoiDs, Washington, D.C., August 29, 1967. Mr. WALTER R. MAY, Chief Conusel, special ~ubcomntittee on the Federal-Aid Highwa~y Program, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DRAB Ma. MAY: Enclosed is a Memorandum of Law concerning the propriety of Interstate fund participation in safety improvements on segments of the Interstate System previously constructed with Interstate funds. This is furnished pursuant to the Subcommittee's request, for insertion in the record of the hearings before your Subcommittee on highway safety, design and efficiency, at which I testified on July 20, 1967. The insertion would appear at the bottom of page 1294 of the transcript. Sincerely yours, F. C. TURNER, Director of Public Roads. MEMORANDUM OF LAW INTERSTATE FUND PARTICIPATION IN SAFEVY IMPROVEMENTS ON SEOMENTS OF THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED WITH INTERSTATE FUNDS The question presented is whether Interstate funds are legally eligible to participate in new safety improvement work or in revamping and upgrading existing items to a new or higher standard, as may be deemed necessary to eliminate hazards on segments of the Interstate System. previously constructed with Interstate funds. This question was raised because of the decision of the Comptroller General, B-143075, dated January 5, 1961, 40 Comp. Gen. 404, which modifies his earlier decision of July 19, 1960, 40 Comp. Gen. 21, to the effect that portions of the Interstate System constructed with Interstate funds and later seriously damaged by natural disaster, while eligible for emergency or regular Federal-aid funds, could not be rebuilt with Interstate funds. This decision makes reference to the rationale that, under the Federal-aid legislation and fund authorizations, Con- gress has provided for a completed Interstate System and the use of Interstate funds to rebuild a portion of the Interstate System previously constructed with Interstate funds to Interstate standards would not accord with the basis upon which Interstate funds were provided. The situation to which the Comptroller General's decision was directed-that is, the rebuilding or reconstruction of a highway seriously damaged or destroyed by natural disaster-is clearly distinguishable from safety improvement work on the Interstate System to provide maximum safety for the traveling public. In the one case, the work is restorative in character and may involve the complete rebuilding of a destroyed highway. In the other, the work constitutes additive or corrective safety features in accordance with the most modern design stand- ards based on current day experience, for the purpose of saving lives as well as reducing injuries and property damage. In our judgment there is no sound analogy between reconstruction and restoration work attributable to "serious damage as a result of disaster over a wide area" as referred to in section 125 of title 23, United States Code, and safety feature improvements, including ~rLrective work consisting generally of low-cost items, needed to overcome design deficiuj~te.~ in the light of current knowledge. The legisi~itive history is clear that Congress intended safety to be a primary objective of the Interstate program. In addition, section 109 of Title 23 expressly states that plans and specifications for all Federal-aid projects shall provide for existing and probable future traffic needs and conditions "in a manner conducive to safety" and that geometric and design standards for the Interstate System ~al1 be applied uniformly throughout the States. The declarations of Congres- sional intent in section 101 provide that prompt and early completion of the Inter- state System is one of the most important objectives of the law and that the Sys- tem is to be completed as nearly as practicable over the period of availability of `~undS authorized. It is recognized that Interstate authorizations and apportionments are based on `~ost estimates in order to provide for a completed System of specified mileage PAGENO="1214" 1210 over a given period of time. However, to say that the Secretary could not, wit respect to an Interstate project constructed some years ago, incorporate ne features of added safety, or corrective safety features pertaining to generally low cost items such as guard-rails and sign supports, based on accident experiene and most recently developed techniques of design, would defeat the ultimat completion of a System designed to optimum safety. To bar the use of Interstat funds for such purposes is not believed to be the inten:t of the law. Furthermori It would be an anomalous situation to preclude certain portions of the Syster from having the latest life-saving~and damage-minimizing standards while othe segments of later construction may incorporate such features. Such a cours would not be consistent with the concept of an integrated System built "in manner conducive to safety." The Bureau of Public Roads accident prevention program of Federal-aid high way improvements at specific locations which have been identified as hazardou because of a high-accident experience or because of engineering judgment ha been in effect for several years. This program for highway safety improvemen projects is set forth in several directives, including Policy and Procedure Memo randum 21-16. This memorandum, as modified on January 18. 1966, provides fo use of Interstate funds for safety improvement projects on the Interstate Systei to correct features found hazardous to operating traffic. More recently, Instruc tional Memorandum 21-11-67, dated May 19, 1967, and a supplement thereto dated June 29, 1967, have been issued on the subject. Such safety improvement work is being carried out within the limitations o section 109(b) of Title 23, which prescribes that the geometric and constructio standards for each Interstate construction project shall be adequate for the type and volumes of traffic anticipated for the 20-year period commencing on the dat of approval of the project. By reason of the foregoing, the incorporation of additional or correctional safety features to eliminate hazards on segments of the Interstate System is con- sidered as qualifying under the provisions of existing law and current policies and procedures governing the expenditure of InterState funds. DOWELL H. ANDERS, Interim Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. CRAMER. I want to welcome Mr. Bridwell and Mr. Turner and Dr. Haddon before the committee, and I appreciate their testimony. Of course we have been hearing this matter of safety now for a num- ber of weeks, as I am sure they are aware. I am particularly interested in the comment already referred to by the chairman and others, in Mr. Turner's statement relating to alcoholism. I have in hand the very fine letter, which I appreciate, from Dr. Haddon, dated June 29, in which he said: I have been intending to drop you a note since last fall to congratulate you on your authorship of section 204 of the Highway Safety Act, providing for a thorough study of the relationship between the consumption of alcohol and its effect on highway safety and drivers. Its provisions are extremely im- portant in my opinion. The results should help call public attention to the national situation. And then you, Dr. Haddon, indicate that the July 1 date set out in the 1966 Safety Act., Highway Safety Act, in section 204-you are not able to conform to that specific date-is that correct? But there will be a report? - Dr. HADDoN. That is correct. We will be several weeks late. Mr. CRAMER. We can except it sometime in the month of July or early August? Dr. HADroN. I think July would be optimistic, but we are hoping- for August. PAGENO="1215" 1211 Mr. CRAMER. And that is pursuant to section 204 requirements. And I was interested in Mr. Turner's suggestion, which accords with the evidence we had before us at the time we were considering the Safety Act; and that was that a majority of accidents had some relationship to alcoholism, which he repeats in his statement. Therefore, it was my belief that if we dealt with highway safety and did not deal with alcoholism, we were not dealing with 50 percent of the problem. Is that your analysis, too? Dr. HADD0N. That is completely our analysis. Mr. CRAMER. Now I understand further, consistent with your be- lief in the need for alcoholism research, you made a presentation to the Appropriations Committee. Dr. HADDON. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. Indicating-that is, Mr. Bridwell did- indicating on page 607 of those hearings of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Department of Transportation Appropriations, that $1.5 million was needed for alcohol safety research. That is the second phase of the program. Right? Dr. HADDON. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. Research on the problem as well as the study as to what the problem is. Dr. HADDON. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. And you outline certain aspects of it, which I will not take the time to read at this time, but I would like to place it in the record following my interrogation as to what is being considered in the way of research. Mr. MCCARraY. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that the Committee on Appropriations, and sustained by the House, cut the total appropriation for highway safety from $100 million to $20 million for 1968; is that correct? Dr. HADDON. That is correct. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, the additional 5 percent reduction-- Mr. CRAMER. And there was a 5 percent across-the-board reduction. Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. A reduction which cuts off another $1 million and leaves you with $19 million, is that correct? Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. As compared to the $100 million authorized; is that correct? Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. My first question is- Mr. BiimwmL. ~Excuse me, if I may, Mr. Cramer, there is one other additional point, too: that, as you are aware, the $100 million made available through the authorization, starting with this committee, s contract authority, and the Appropriations Committee wrote in an additional provision, section 401, which would have the effect of limit- ing obligations to the amount of the appropriations. Mr. CRAMER. That is the second point I wanted to get into and I will develop that. Mr. BRIDWELL. Excuse me. I am sorry. Mr. CRAMEn. You are correct, and I think that is something we should inquire into, and I am going to get into that in )ust a minute. PAGENO="1216" 1212 On the question of money: First, is that going to affect the alcoho research, the $1.5 nulhon you are requesting? Dr. HADDON. I believe we would have to cut back the amount tha: we intended to spend. Mr. Cii~rei~. By how much? You wanted $1.5 million. How mud do you think it will be cut, assuming the Senate sustains the Housi position? Dr. HADDON.I might note first that the reduction from $100 millioi to $20 million does not involve the research moneys, that these an under another cut, which was also passed by the House. Mr. CRAMER. What cut was that, how much? Dr. HADDON. This was a cut in our research moneys to carry out t.hi purposes of both acts. Mr. OR~rFa. How much did you ask for and how much was allowed? Dr. HADDON. We asked for approximately $31 million to cove: several things, including a relatively small percentage for the driver register. We are getting about $21 million, reduction of about a third. Mr. BIRDWELL. In the specific item of research, Mr. Cramer, the committee by its report language indicated that it wanted to reduce research funds by what we requested, a little under $22 million. So the report language would limit the total research effort for both the Highway Safety Act and the Traffic Safety Act to $15 million. Mr. Cit~31IR. All right; $15 million is for both, is that correct? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. That would apply to all of the research to carry out the provisions of the Highway Safety Act as well as the other act dealing with motor vehicle standards. Mr. CRAMER. I see. Now, a statement on page 12, "In so doing, how- ever, we must always keep at the forefront of our emphasis these items which produce the largest measure of benefit for the effort and dollars which are available to us." The dollars available are going to be a little less than one-fifth of those authorized, so far as the safety program is concerned, not talking about construction; right? Mr. BRIDwELL. Yes, sir. Actually, it is even greater than that, Mr. Cramer, because the authorization carries over 1967 funds, whereas the section 401 limits a total authorization of almost $165 million, limits it to $19 million. Mr. CRAMER. Therefore you cannot use the carryover of unexpended appropriations? Mr. BRIDWELL. TJnobligated authorizations, yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Right. My.own comment is, and you do not necessarily have to comment on it unless you wish to do so, is that we have a high- way beauty program, also, for which the administration is asking for full authorization, $160 million in 1968, $220 million in 1969. In view of the cut of some four-fifths of the safety money, it would ~eem to me the chances of funding that are rather bleak; it being my view that certainly safety has a higher priority than beauty. Mr. BI~mwELL. The Appropriations Committee, as I expect you are aware, Mr. Cramer, also cut the beauty money down to $1.2 million. Mr. CRAMER. That is for administration. Mr. BRrnwELL. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Not for the funding of the program itself. Mr. BRIDwELL. No, sir. Mr. CRAMER. There is no money for funding itself? PAGENO="1217" 1213 Mr. BRIDWELL. None. Mr. CRAMER. Right. Congress will have to act on an authorization to provide that at some later date if it is going to be provided; is that correct? Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct, sir. Mr. CRAMER. The second question relating to money is, the admin- istration sent up a request that both beauty and safety be paid out of a separate trust fund. Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Earmarking for beauty and safety, 1 percentage point of the automobile excise tax which is now 7 percent of the sales price, but scheduled to drop to 2 percent March 31, 1968. Is that correct, sir? Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. Now, it is my view that in view of money problems otherwise, and in view of the basic policy questions, the Ways and Means Committee probably is not going to act favorably on that. They have not shown any inclination to even hold hearings as yet; is that not correct? Mr. BRIDWELL. They have not commanded me to appear to present the case. Mr. CRAMER. Do not hold your breath. In any event., the money that is going to be available for safety and beauty will have to come out of the general fund? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir; from existing tax revenues regardless of where they are placed, in which particular pot. Mr. CRAMER. Right. Now, of course, that brings us into the basic genera.l problem of: Where is the money coming from for any of these things, in view of the President's announced intention to ask for 10 percent minimum surtax charge. Secondly, the chairman of Ways and Means has stated that it looks like the deficit next year is going to be about $29 billion unless we do increase taxes. I think the whole question of beautifiction, to bring it into focus, must be considered in view of all of our financial obligations, including the war in South Vietnam. This of course is presenting a most serious problem, as it relates to safety which should have high priority. Mr. BRIDWELL. There is no question about the high priority of safety, Mr. Cramer. I am sure the Congress in the course of enacting substan- tive legislation as well as appropriation bills, will have its overall judgment on priorities, and of course the administration exercises that same kind of establishment of priorities by the legislation and the budget requests it sends to the Congress. Mr. CRAMER. Now, the department has already apportioned to the States, as I understand it, 75 percent of funds authorized for fiscal 1967 and 1968 under the safety program; right? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Under the apportionment authority which you just referred to, which the Appropriations Committee saw fit to attempt to repeal in effect- Mr. BRIDWELL. It certainly has that effect, although there is no change in the statute. Mr. CRAMER. Florida was apportioned $1.4 million for 1967, $2.1 million for 1968. I assume they are in the process of getting ready to spend that money. What happens to Florida? As a matter of fact, 87-757 O-68-77 PAGENO="1218" 1214 Florida passed, did it not, and frankly I am the one who helped en- courage the State legislature to pass, what I consider to be one of the most farsighted safety programs anywhere in the United States of America. As a matter of fact, my former assistant and now State senator and minority leader of the senate was chairman of the senate committee and went all the way to provide a safety program for Florida. Florida is now committed by legislation to that program. But now you see the Federal Government is reneging on its money, so what is Florida going to do? They did what we asked them to do. They passed the legislation. But now we are going to take the money out from under them. Mr. BRinwEIL. Mr. Chairman, you are quite correct in your state- ment about what the State of Florida has done. It has passed enacting legislation, comprehensive in nature, clearly giving the executive branch of the Florida Government the authority to carry out a com- prehensive safety program, to fully comply with the 13 standards an- nounced by Secretary Boyd. So without any question the State of Florida is to be complimented on the enthusiasm with which it has tackled this program. Mr. CRAMER. It also provided the money to pay its share in antic- ipation of Federal matching funds to go along with it. Mr. B1~nw1E1~L. Yes, sir; and I hope that as the appropriation measure winds its way through Congress that the Congress will see fit to change its mind on the relative priority of dollars for this program. Mr. CRAMER. Assuming it did, I doubt if it is going to give you the full amount or the amount apportioned to the State. That is just my comment. So we have a pretty serious problem in this committee, the author- izing committee. The Congress gave the Secretary authority to appor- tion funds to the States, and the Secretary did apportion funds, upon which the States rely for the future year, upon the basis of which it passed its legislation, upon the basis of which it funds its share. And then we yank the rug out from under them by reducing the Federai funds available and, in effect, repealing the apportionment authority written into the basic act; is that not the effect of it? Mr. BRmwELL. I believe that is what the action of the House has done. Mr. CRAMER. Here is what is of concern to me. I am one who wants to reduce spending as much as anybody else. I think there are other programs that could be reduced that have less priority. If the Com- mittee on Appropriations can prevent the implementation of .contract authority by denying the use of appropriated funds for the making of obligations with respect to the highway safety program, which it has done so far, it would appear to me that the Federal-aid highway construction program can be subjected to the same treatment. Mr. BRIDWELL. I would assume so, Mr. Cramer, because, as you are aware, the Highway Safety Act of 1966 specifically states that it uses the same statutory language of chapter 1 of title 23, which contains all the provisions relating to apportionment and contract authority. So it is precisely the same statutory language involved in both the safety program and the Federal-aid construction program. PAGENO="1219" Limiting amount State available Nevada $48, 241 New Hampshire 62,151 New Jersey - 601,199 New Mexico 114,032 New York 1, 590,454 North Carolina 515, 194 North Dakota 64,351 Ohio 970,877 Oklahoma 249,519 Oregon 264,387 Pennsylvania - - 1,060,592 Rhode Island 75, 516 South Carolina 260,816 South Dakota 73,187 Tennessee 389,054 Texas 1,065,056 Utah 99,549 Vermont 41,872 Virginia 420,509 Washington 293,486 West Virginia 178,316 Wisconsin 400, 979 Wyoming 36,385 District of Columbia 71, 607 Puerto Rico 232,662 Total 19,000,000 Mr. CLEVELAND. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Mr. CLEVELAND. I want to be sure I correctly understand the wit- ness. Are you saying that, assuming only $20 million is available, that you are going to apportion that $20 million among the States on a pro 1215 The presumption would have to be if they can limit contract author- ity under identical statutory language for one program, they cer- tainly can do it for another; yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So we are getting into the realm of affecting the continuity of the program, and without continuity the job cannot be done, with the long lagtime involved, either in safety or construction; is that true? Mr. BRIDWELL. That is my opinion. Mr. CRAMER. Now you have $19 million. How are you going to appor- tion this $19 million, having already advised the States as to what you thought their apportionment was going to be? Is it going to be on a first-come, first-served basis, or will you spread the reduction propor- tionately among the States? Mr. BRIDWELL. It will have to be spread proportionately among the States, at the same ratio as the apportionments were made. Mr. CRAMER. If that is the case- Mr. CLEVELAND. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMER. Instead of getting $2.1 million, Florida might get a half million or less? Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, I would be glad to supply for the record the amount that each State would receive on its proportionate ratio of the $19 million. (The material referred to follows:) State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkaii~as CalifornIa Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas - Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan - Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Limiting amount available $371, 564 24,661 162,178 203,723 1,806,999 192, 153 247,444 46,976 580,695 452,309 60,327 72, 127 995,976 502, 348 277, 790 227, 170 313, 678 361,450 91, 913 327, 717 476,331 821, 007 346,015 236,397 455,227 77, 164 142, 690 PAGENO="1220" 1216 rata basis even if some of the States do not even have an ongoing pro- gram to be supported? Mr. BRIDWELL. No, not quite, sir. It is $19 million, when you take out the $1 million for administrative costs. Then what we would do would be to say to each State that you can obligate up to your pro- portionate share of $19 mfflion. Now, later on in the year, if some State did not exercise its use of that authority, then this would be turned over to a State which did want to exercise that authority. Mr. BLATNIK. Our time is running out, and I would like to have the staff ask questions. We shall also go further into the area of in- quiry that the gentleman from Florida raised on the floor yesterday, suggested by a member of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, Mr. McFall of California. We do get information and inform ourselves and the Members of the House of how the safety funds will be utilized, so we shall have more opportunity to get into that. Mr. Cn.u~rER. I am making my questions as brief as possible, maybe 3 minutes longer. Mr. BLATNIK. All right. Mr. CitAMsit. We have been holding hearings now for about 4 or 5 weeks, and I did not think 15 minutes was too long to ask questions. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask your indulgence in excus- ing myself for a moment? I have a call that it is necessary for me to answer. Mr. McC~rin~. Yes. Mr. CR I. Then if Mr Turner is able to answer, I will try to get through with the other two or three questions. Money was mentioned again. The gentleman from New Hampshire suggested one possible problem. Isn't the basic problem, as it relates to building in these safety features in existing highways, where the money is going to come from? Mr. TURNER. It will have to come from some other work that would otherwise-funds that would otherwise go for initial construction. We now have to divert it from initial construction and further im- provement of mileage roads to this purpose. Mr. Cit~rru. In your view there is no question but what yon have authority to permit a State to go back and redo highway construction to accomplish, hopefully, maximum safety, using presently authorized and allocated funds, which ordinarily would be used for future con- struction; is that correct? Mr. TURNER. That is our opinion; yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So any money spent now, under present law, for going back and doing this safety rebuilding on even the Interstate System, some of which the evidence shows has built-in death traps, that money is going to have to come out of what otherwise would be new con- struction money; right? Mr. TURNEit. That is correct. Mr. CR~rER. Most of the States, I would assume, are going to be re- luctant to go back and spend what they could otherwise spend for new construction for redoing old construction; are they not? Mr. TURNER. That is right. It becomes a tradeoff, of whether you expend the amount of funds that you have for correcting hazards on PAGENO="1221" 1217 existing construction, or whether you leave those hazards alone and go on and build new mileage. Mr. CRAMER. I understand you are making a survey now as to what the cost will be to bring Federal-aid highways up to your new pre- scribed safety standards; is that correct? Mr. TURNER. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Any estimate yet as to what that figure might be? Mr. TURNER. It is substantial, and I do not know the final figure; but that is fairly substantial. The inventory is not completed. Mr. CRAMER. What do you mean by substantial? Mr. TURNER. It is more than $1 billion, at least. Mr. CRAMER. So if we go back to existing highways and build in safety features, we will have $1 billion less of new construction. How much of that relates to the Interstate?~ Mr. TURNER. Relatively small amount of that. We are making at the present time a detailed study of the cost for corrections on the Inter- state System, that is to be included as a separate item in the cost esti- mate that we present to you next January. We are not far enough along on that- Mr. CRAMER. Are the States mandatorily going to have to do this? Mr. TURNER. Under present instructions, policies that we have set, they would have to, yes. Mr. CRAMER. Have you given consideration to any possible alterna- tive methods of financing specific safety features in existing highways and future construction ~ I want it understood that there is no money in the safety bill for building safety features into the highways; is that not right? Mr. TURNER. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. Any money for that has to come out of regular Federal- aid construction money, right? Mr. TURNER. Correct. Mr. CRAMER. Is any consideration being given or has any been given, to providing some type of program for that specific purpose, as was done for highway beautification? Mr. TURNER. There is considerable discussion going on within our agencies with respect to the possibility of a financing proposal for this specific purpose. We do not have anything yet developed or ready for presentation. Mr. CRAMER. It seems to me that with the States obviously wanting to spend money largely on new construction, with the Interstate Sys- tem as far behind financially as it is, the probable effect on the inter- state highway program is going to be a further stretchout of con- struction, in time, to completion. Mr. TURNER. That is right. This will increase the total cost of the Interstate System to 1972. Mr. CRAMER. There may be some reluctance on the `part of the States to comply with the full thrust of your safety regulations, knowing they will have to pay the cost out of construction money. They are likely to cut some corners, if they have to pay the cost out of con- struction funds. They are going to take as little of that as possible. Mr. TURNER. I think that is true in connection with the ABC. But on the Interstate, certainly they and we are anticipating that there will PAGENO="1222" 1218 be the additional funding made available to cover this particular purpose. Mr. Om~iiit. So I think basically your problem is money, right? Mr. Tuin~iEn. We think so. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. May. Mr. W. M~x. Mr. Chairman, I think we should clarify one very important matter. This subcommittee is in the process of conducting an incjuiry into highway safety design and efficiency. This is going to be a continuing inquiry. We are going to analyze design features as we progress. These particular hearings have dealt with roadside hazard aspects. Mr. Cm~n~R. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I have one more question. May I just briefly-I do not want to interrupt counsel. But we were told by the Deputy Director of the Office of Highway Safety within your Bureau, Mr. Turner, that he had lost, as I recall, 32 of his 53 personnel, including many that had the job of administering safety in the highway `construction program. Is that a correct statement? Mr. TURNER. There has been- Mr. CRAMER. Due to reorganization, with some of them going to Dr. Haddon and other people. Mr. TURNER. That is right. Our Office of Highway Safety was used to a large extent as a nucleus or recruiting area for a number of people who were initially transferred to the Highway Safety Bureau. Mr. Cii~na~. So they recruited employees out of your operational bureau to prepare the safety standards, t:he Highway Safety Bureau was obligated to promulgate. So how are you going to administer all these safety requirements if you do not have the personnel? You are reduced from 53 to 21, was it not, something like that? Mr. TURNER. There was some transfers. I do not believe it is to the extent you have indicated. We have since replaced some of those and are in the process of restaffing that former Office of Highway Safety under the new name of Office of Traffic Operations. We have at the present time a request for 51 positions, 41 of which I believe we have funding for. And we do have about 30 on board at the present time. Mr. ~ You are going to have all of these new responsibilities relating to safety in administering the highway program, going back and redoing all existing highways in view of these safety require- ments, building in these safety features to new highway construc- tion; and you are going tto have fewer persomiei than you had without these requirements, prior to the Safety Act. Even if you get the full allocation of personnel, how many did you say, 41? Mr. TuI~E1t. 51. Mr. `CIt~iER. 51? Mr. Ttit~m~. We have 41 funded. Mr. CRAMER. Forty-one funded, that is what I am talking about. How are you going to do the job? This is a major, tremendous, important job. How are you going to do it? You end up with 12 less people than you had before in the organization? - Mr. TURNER. We will do the best we can. That is all we can do. Mr. CRAMER. You cannot do the job; let's `be honest about it. PAGENO="1223" 1219 Mr. TURNER. We have to divert people from other activities, just as we would have to divert funds from other activities to permit us to do the job. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I made the suggestion on the floor of the House that I felt this reorganization, if not properly carried out, would have the effect of downgrading and taking away personnel from the Bureau of Public Roads operational agency, and transplanting them to these planning groups in the standards groups, which is exactly what has happened. I cannot see how you are going to administer the Highway Safety Act of 1966, or the new standards established under the act, with a cutback of 12 people out of the 53 that you had before the standards were in effect. If you are going to do it, it would seem to me you would need an increase in personnel, and in addition to that, the people you are getting are not experienced people. What happens to all your know- how? Where did your experience go? Mr. TURNER. It obviously went with the people. Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Well, that is all. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. May. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Chairman, I was emphasizing the fact that these particular hearings deal with roadside hazards wherever they exist, not simply onthe Interstate System. We did analyze some new Interstate System projects simply so we would understand what the state of the art was recently. The interstate projects are supposed to represent the latest in the thinking. So, Mr. Turner, on page 12 of your statement when you men- tioned, talking about very small percentage, you were referring to fatalities on the existing Interstate System; is that true? Mr. TURNER. That is correct, and I believe I indicated that in the first page of my statement, the preamble did indicate that I was re- ferring, in these remarks, to the Interstate System, but we are aware that you are considering the other systems as well. And we have followed suit with you, and we are applying all the findings here, and I have related the things I have described to the ABC System as well. Mr. W. M~vi-. Yes. I think it is important to recognize that when we talk roadside hazard, we are not talking of a minor phase of high- way design. We have had various analyses made during the hearings. We have had testimony indicating that some 60 percent of freeway fatalities are the run-of-the-road type of accident. The truth is that nobody in the country knows how many people were injured or killed last year because of roadside hazards. No- body knows. The indications are that many thousands were injured and killed in such accidents, maybe as low as 10,000 or 12,000, maybe as high as 18,000 or 20,000. Nobody knows. As a matter of fact, throughout the last 8 years of this subcommittee's experience the subcommittee has been concerned about the communication problem. I think the record should reflect some of these items. According to the General Services Administration, 835 directives were issued by the Bureau or revised by the Bureau during 1965. Does that sound plausible, Mr. Turner? PAGENO="1224" 1220 Mr. Tim~r~. Probably is low. Mr. W. MAY. And that included 607 circular memos and an un- known number of other temporary memorandums containing directive type information or instructions. Mr. TURNER. Mr. May, a great many of those are really revisions and reissues of the old memorandums, though, and should not be con- strued that the picture is as bad as that would imply. Mr. W. MAY. When they come into the office, somebody has to take a look at them, because they may be very important or they may be a little less important. Mr. TURNER. That is right. And it is so indicated, and those that are merely rephrasings, new issues, new dates, things of that nature, we indicate on the cover sheet the items that have been revised. Mr. W. MAY. Yes. I think it is apparent from the evidence that these memoranda and directives are not always completely effective. Back in December 1965, December 22, you, Mr. Turner, sent out a circular memorandum to your regional and division engineers, setting forth the latest thinking relative to design and construction concerning sign foundations, overhead signs, information s%ns, exit signs, unneces- sary signs, signs on guardrail installations, lighting standards, road- side design, and, toward the latter part of your memo, you said, "I urge each of you to discuss these safety considerations with the high- way department for incorporating not only the designs being pre- pared for future contracts, but wherever feasible on existing con- struction contracts." Again, August 1, 1966, you sent out another instructional memoran- dum relating to safety provisions for roadside features and appur- tenances, and again you mentioned clear roadside cross sections and elimination of nonessential supports and appurtenances, placement of these supports and appurtenances, design of supports and protection for out-of-control vehicles, provision for protective guardrail. And again you said, "On all new work every P.S. & E. shall be carefully checked prior to approval of the four areas of concern identified in paragraphs A, B, C, and D above. Current projects which are not com- pleted shall be similarly examined and field changes made to conform wherever practical." And yet when Mr. Prisk and Mr. Constandy went out and analyzed projects opened after December of 1965 and August of 1966, they found many, many features that could have been corrected during con- struction. Speaking of communication, we are faced with this fact. In 1960 the Red Book [indicating]-this is the report of the Special Freeway Study and Analysis Committee to the executive committee of AASHO, published February 1960. This came about in a fashion not too dissimilar to the new Yellow Book. Mr. TURNER. It is the other way around. The "Yellow Book" came into being as a revision of the "Red Book" procedure. Mr. W. MAy. Yes. The evidence would suggest that the "Red Book" was not followed to a sufficient extent over the last few years. There was a black book in 1961, and that was "Freeway Opera- tions" prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, published in 1961, and was available to the highway builder. PAGENO="1225" 1221 Mr. MCCARTHY. What will be the color of the new manual, green? [Laughter.] Maybe it is the color. Mr. W. MAY. Well, there was a dark brown book, "Traffic Control Roadway Elements, Their Relationship to Highway Safety," pre- pared by the Automotive Safety Foundation in conjunction with the Bureau of Public Roads, published in 1963. There was a light brown book, that is the "Highway Research Bul- le'tin 81, Highway Guardrail," published in 1964. The evidence shows that these publications were not followed to a sufficient extent, and now we do have the "Yellow Book." Mr. Turner, are the States allowed to open to traffic a Federal-aid project without Bureau approval? Mr. TURNER. Yes. Are you going to start on a new line of question- ing? I would like to respond to those colored books you were talking about. Mr. W. MAY. Do you have some comments on the colored books? Mr. TURNER. I think the colored books indicate that we are well aware of the things that you are talking about, and have been working on them. But the problem of communications that you refer to is the nub of the problem, and it is to that that I was trying to allude in my statement when I said that progress, good intentions, no matter how good, are difficult to get applied. This I think is the reason why I think you find these conditions still existing. Mr. W. MAY. I do not think there is any question. We agree with you. They have been sent out, all kinds of directives, bulletins, pam- phlets, and publications, but they have not been followed. Mr. TURNER. How do we get them followed? Mr. MCCARTHY. Could I ask something on that? Could we pursue this particular point of communications? This used to be my line of work. I was with a big corporation, 78 plants all over the United States, and one of my jobs was to get the word down to the troops, because we found frequently it got garbled. It can be done with the modern tech- niques of communication. Have you given some thought to this specific problem, and to devel- op some improved methods of communication? Mr. TURNER. A great deal, Mr. McCarthy; and I think we have had some success. You must put all of t.his in the light, however, of the relationship that the Bureau and the States have in this program. The responsibility initially for getting these things done rests with the State, and the State has money of its own in connection with these, and they may evaluate the proposals and suggestions there. And, as I indicated earlier, decide that something else than that might be the more desirable thing to do. And, as a result, they might knowingly disregard some of the suggestions in those varicolored books there, using their judgment to do so. Now this explains a whole lot of why some of these things were not done. Mr. MCCARTHY. You mean if the Federal Government puts in 90 percent of the money? PAGENO="1226" 1222 Mr. Ttn~n~. You are talking about the Interstate only. I am re- ferring also to the A-B-C system, in which they put up 50 percent of the money. Mr. Mc(iti~riir. Let's just for this specific point stay with Interstate where the Federal Government puts up 90 percent of the funds, and the States can still, if they wish, ignore your recommendations? Mr. TURNER. No; they cannot ignore them if we choose to disagree with their judgment. But we have to give respect to their views on these matters, too. They may be right in some of their judgments, just the same as we think we are. I think we have to work jointly in achieving this objective. We have to recognize that they have some responsibility and some integrity in the program, just as we do. We do not have the authority nor the right, and I am not sure that we should have it, to impose our will on the States regardless of their feelings in the matter. The program does not operate that way. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. May. Mr. W. M~vy. In the final analysis you are faced with a problem where the Bureau differs with the State as to hazardousness of a particular item. Whose judgment must prevail? Mr. TURNER. If they get the Federal-aid money, ours does. Mr. W. MAY. If we reach a situation where in the Bureau's judg- ment a project is not safe enough to be opened to traffic, if a State desires to open it, are they allowed to open it? Mr. Tt~iuci~i~. I am sure in a situation like that we could convey our feelings to the State and ask that they not open it. And I am quite sure the State would comply with that request. Ordinarily we do not enter into the question about opening dates of projects. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Chairman, may we make those publications that I mentioned exhibits 19-A, B, C, and D, in the order that I mentioned? Mr. McC~&RTirr. Without objection, so ordered. (Publications were marked exhibits 19-A through P and are re- tained in subcommittee files.) Mr. W. MAY. We have some representative slides showing deficien- cies as they existed on some of these interstate projects analyzed by Mr. Prisk and the staff. I would like to show those. Mr. Bridwell and Mr. Turner, perhaps you can help us in explaining what type of correction the Bureau will anticipate. There is a guardrail that we have had explained to us. It is on steel supports, no washer. Experts would suggest there should be washers. It is not blocked out. It should be blocked out. No transition was made overlapping the bridge pier, and it is too short. Mr. Turner, is that the type of installation that would be corrected on existing Interstate projects? Mr. TURNER. Yes. Mr. W. MAY. And if it calls for extending that rail and overlapping properly, the Bureau would participate 90 to 10? Mr. TURNER. That is correct, on the Interstate. Mr. W. MAY. You are concerned that the Bureau has already paid for that installation and you are going to lose some of the work? PAGENO="1227" 1223 Mr. TURNER. That is correct, because this is a different installation from the newer one that we are talking about. We are certainly ex- tending and enlarging on a different standard the design that we originally approved and paid for. Mr. W. MAY. Mention was made of Highway Research Bulletin 81; did that not make all sorts of recommendations that were not fol- lowed here? Mr. TURNER. That is correct. But it was not a part of the official original standard. It was a research report with recommendations in it. Mr. W. MAY. Yes. There is a large sign in a gore area and the experts have suggested that this is a hazardous installation, guardrail plus the sign. It is a massive support. PAGENO="1228" 1224 You can see here. That is the type of installation that might now be corrected? Mr. Ttm~n~. Yes. The correction there would be some sort of im- pact absorbing device, bumper or some other device in front of that post. Mr. W. M~x. Suppose the State suggested that we move back down this way and start an overhead bridge sign, and suppose that bridge sign cost $20,000, would the Bureau participate 90 to 10? Mr. TunNEI~. We might if we did decide the bridge sign was really the necessary correction for that place. Mr. W. M~r. And if that installation we are looking at cost $8,000 or $10,000, we might lose the value of that? Mr. TURNER. I am sure that much of that material can be salvaged and used in some other location; but I believe in a typical situation of the kind you are looking at here, that we can correct it by using these impact-absorbing devices that I am talking about. Mr. W. MAY. Have we used any of those impact-absorbing devices? Mr. TURNER. Only on experimental basis in the laboratory. Mr. W. ~ Here is a twin bridge problem. That could probably be paved over, but that might be expensive now. If it is not paved over, it is hard to visualize what the correction might be. Will the Bureau participate in the paving over of that? Mr. TURNER. I would say we would; yes. - --I PAGENO="1229" 1225 Mr. W. MAY. That green pole we see in the next slide is a steel light pole, steel transformer base. We heard from the Texas people that these can be corrected in some fashion now by lifting the pole up and installing a flexible type base for $25. The Bureau would certainly participate in that? Mr. TURNER. Yes. Mr. W. MAY. And that guardrail end points directly parallel to the shoulder. If it was decided they ought to make other arrangements, will the Bureau participate? Mr. TURNER. That is the kind of thing we are getting the States to do, and we are willing to participate. I I PAGENO="1230" 1226 Mr. W. MAy. Again they have installed one, two, three different types of barriers because of this median, because of this construction of the bridge. Mr. BRIDwELL. They wanted to make sure, Mr. May. Mr. W. M~cr. I am sure. That represents real hazardous location the way it exists. Perhaps they could level that concrete parapet or median barrier and carry the cable barrier through the structure and remove this small piece of guardrail we see in the right. Again, the Bureau would participate in this? Mr. TuRNER. I would think it should. Mr. W. M~. What do you think of my suggested correction? Mr. Tui~i~. That would be one I would want to look at. I Mr. W. M~tr. This is a typical sign installation right along the shoulder. Again, if that sign were to be moved elsewhere, the Bureau would participate? 1 `Kearney 4 ~ 30 - L'~ ;_~~ *1 PAGENO="1231" 1227 Mr. TrTRNER. Yes. That sign should either be moved back up on the slopes there where it cannot be hit, or it should be moved to some other location. it is not essential that you put that distance to destination sign at exactly those mileposts. It could be 2 miles, 3 miles, or 17 miles; it would make little difference. Mr. W. MAY. Yes, sir. That is a similar type problem. WE _ PAGENO="1232" 1228 And I guess another similar type prcthlem. These could be at least placed on breakaway supports. Mr. TuRNER. They should be placed on wooden posts that would break when hit. Mr. W. MAY. Apparently those guardrail installations were de- signed to protect the motorist from striking the center pier, and it appears it won't quite do it, but this could be corrected easily with not too much expense. I- PAGENO="1233" 1229 Mr. TURNER. That is the kind of items that we are promoting in the States. And this is the kind of treatment that in many cases will suffice, and this is why I say the cost of correction on the Interstate System in my opinion will be relatively small in amount. Mr. W. MAY. One of the real primary reasons why we selected the roadside hazard phase a.s the first phase of this continuing inquiry was the fact that immediate change could be brought about so it wouldn't be incorporated into new projects, and it would be relatively inexpensive to go back and correct some of the existing projects. A better transition of the rail could be made to the bridge here. This is a culvert headwall. What could be done with this? Mr. TURNER. Knock off the headwall and put a grate over the open space there. Mr. W. MAY. Relatively simple matter to correct? Mr. TURNER. Take some work and a little bit of material; yes, sir. 87-757 O-68-78 PAGENO="1234" 1230 Mr. W. MAy. We see quite a bit of this on some of the projects- isolated rock. Mr. Tm~i~n. A great many people, though, would advocate that as bemg esthetically helpful to the scene. Mr. W. M~. They apparently did on this project. But what would be the Bureau's position? Mr. TURNER. In a case like that one, nicely laid out, I would leave it alone. Mr. W. MAY. Leave it alone? Mr. TUR~i~R. Yes, sir. Mr. W. M~. If the State wanted to do something about it, would the Bureau participate? Mr. Ttrn~ER. I think I would want to reserve judgment on that and see what else might be along in the same package. Mr. W. Mvi-. We have another group of slides, just a sampling, to show how important it is when we go back to correct initial mistakes, that we do it in the proper fashion. Mr. Constandy, would you help us with these slides? Mr. CONSTANDY. Yes. This is the initial installation of guardrail in the gore area. You will notice the gore is relatively fiat and can question the need for guard- * - PAGENO="1235" 1231 rail. In this situation they have placed the guardrail there at a point between the two legs of the sign, and the sign legs I believe are 8-inch steel beams. This is the installation that was made initially. And thereafter there was a program to correct the deficiency. This is at a different location, but the same type of. situation, wherein, under a program to bury and lead into the ground the approaching end of the guardrail, you find this type of situation. Here a motorist, striking in that area, probably has the same chance of being seriously injured or killed as he did in the preceding situation. In other words, the corrective effort here actually did not correct anything. This is, incidentally, under a program of $800,000 to im- prove the existing guardrail on the circumferential route that has been open so little time. This was the older standard used on a project in Utah with speed limit signs mounted as you see, each with two steel pipes embedded in PAGENO="1236" 1232 concrete footings. They upgraded the standards on the new project, which is the one we visited. They replaced it with this standard, with the same signs now held up by a thicker steel pole, again mounted in concrete, as you see. This still leaves something to be desired, particularly by the person who hits it. PAGENO="1237" This is another view of the same piece of guardrail which you saw earlier. It is 25 feet in length, aimed directly at the car, aside from the other deficiencies. It is not blocked out, isn't anchored, certainly is not long enough, has 12-foot spacing on the posts, and leads directly into the pier. On a newer project we found this situation. The same 25-foot section of guardrail now has an added 25-foot section, which slopes down and is buried into the ground. The other end of the guardrail, however, still ends at and leads into the pier. I question the adequacy of the im- proved standards here and the expenditure of additional sums of money which doesn't accomplish the purpose. 1233 PAGENO="1238" 1234 This section, 50-foot section, of guardrail approaches and ends just before the concrete abutment of the bridge. It was installed initially. Thereafter the State highway department concluded this should be a longer approach section for greater protection to the motorist and added a separate 50-foot section without joining them. The car could still impact the end of the new guardrail or if it struck the face of new guardrail, would displace it and cause it to strike the same end of the old one. I call your attention to that other end of it where it simply goes up to the concrete parapet without any transition to the bridge rail. This is a situation which not only existed on all of the nine projects we visited, but it is commonplace throughout the country. It is perhaps the most typical installation that we saw. No protection in that transi- tion from the guardrail to the bridge parapet. PAGENO="1239" 1235 This was one of the exceptions. On one bridge on the project in Oklahoma City, there was an attempt to make the transition by setting the ~uardrai1 into the concrete parapet for a short distance and scour- ing it with a %-inch bolt. We question the value of this installation. PAGENO="1240" 1236 Here is what we saw on some of the bridges in Utah, where a similar type of situation produced this result when it was struck. I would say roughly half of the installations on the project in Utah were this way, and I think six or eight of them had been hit with a result simihir to this. At times the bolt pulled through the slot in the guardrail. At other times the bolt sheared. But, basically, it came out to the same result. This represents a new design standard. Both bridge and guardrail W-beam, butthere was no transition from one piece to the other. Again an attempt to improve the standard. They did carry the shoulder through the bridge and did change the bridge railing. I I p. PAGENO="1241" 1237 This is another bridge which carries the shoulders through the struc- ture. No transition from the guardrail, in this case to a concrete para- pet bridge railing. On the newest project here they used a new standard to upgrade their work. You find that they used here a rather nice aluminum bridge railing which appears to be effective from the tests. But again we have no transition from the guardrail to the bridge rail, and at the point of transition we still have remaining that ever-present concrete parapet at the end of the bridge. Does that have to be there, Mr. Turner, that concrete parapet? PAGENO="1242" 1238 Mr. TURNER. Not in the situation we are looking at; no. Mr. CONSTANDY. It does not add to the strength of the bridge? Mr. TURNER. No; not in this case. Mr. OONSTANDY. Thank you. Mr. W. MAY. I think, Mr. Turner, that that last group of slides emphasizes the Bureau's problem when it comes to spending money, going back to correct some of the built-in deficiencies. The Bureau would have to guard closely to see that the money is properly spent. Do you haYe a comment? Mr. TURNER. The illustrations that you have shown are exactly the kind that I was referring to in my paper, being the deficiencies that we want to correct and the treatment that you have shown here is obviously as unsatisfactory as the original, and we would hope that that would be corrected satisfactorily m all of the projects. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Bridwell. Mr. Bmi)wEr1I1. Mr. May, I would like to interject at this point that at this stage of the game I have no idea how well it would work, but I am hoping that this kind of situation can be prevented by the manual that I spoke of in my testimony, which Mr. Turner referred to, and to an earlier comment that I made: That while we have the very fortunate privilege of sitting here and having the opportunity to talk about this and see specific examples of the State highway department maintenance men or maintenance crew that is sent out to make one of these corrections-he is a lost individual unless he is given very, very clear directions and hopefully illustrations of the kind of thing that he is to achieve. So I am not at all critical of any particular highway department. We just plain-all of us-have not done a good enough job of stating definitely what we want to do and how you go about accomplishing it. Mr. MCCARTHY. Have you given any thought to a slide film to sup- plement the manual? For instance, some of these slides could be in- corporated into, I think, an effective slide film. Mr. Bi~mwEu~. I have given some thought to it, to this extent, Mr. McCarthy, that I would hope that the manual itself would be liberally illustrated; but one of the things that I have underway now is how we can upgrade and make more effective use of the graphic facilities of the Highway Administration, not only for the purposes here, but also in the highway safety program and a number of other areas. I am personally a very great fan of graphics used to illustrate any number of different program policies and objectives. Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Chairman, at our Chairman's direction, we work very closely with the new department and with the Bureau, and we have a.lways gotten the utmost cooperation from them. We have sat in at their original design meeting. We get an awful lot out of it. We think at times we are able to contribute something, and we would hope, with Mr. Bridwell's and Mr. Turner's permission, we might continue to do something. Maybe we can help spread the word. Mr. BRIDWELL. By all meanS. Mr. TURNER. You already ha~e the invitation, and I understand from Mr. Kopecky, I believe it was, that there was already one meeting set up, in one State, where you have been invited to come out and show PAGENO="1243" 1239 slides and make such other presentations as you wish to try to get the message across to the lower echelons of the State highway department organization. I think that would be extremely helpful. Mr. W. MAY. We appreciate that. Dr.' Haddon, the other day AASHO representatives testified here and they seemed to be upset concerning the new standards that were recently issued. I quote from Mr. Eugene Johnson's statement: We make brief reference to the new highway safety standards issued on June 27 by the Department of Transportation. Only a week ago most of the State highway departments had not yet seen these standards, and could not comment on them. As a result, we requested sufficient copies from the National Highway Safety Bureau to send to the State highway departments. It seems they were late in getting the standards, and it seems that they were not consulted with respect to the final draft of the standards. Do you have some comment to make? Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. May, I wonder if I may respond to that? Mr. W. MAY. Surely. Mr. BRIDWELL. I think several points need to be made here. One is that following the instructions of the Congress, under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, our statutory lines of communication with the State is through the Governor or his designated representative. In terms of the overall content of the highway safety. program, a number of State agencies, in addition to highway departments, are involved. So that we do not work with State highway departments in the highway safety program in the same way that we do in the Federal highway construction program. Notwithstanding that fact, AASHO as an organization in highway departments in the individual States, was consulted at length, as well as many other organizations, in the development of the standards. The report which was submitted to the Congress on July 1 and made available to this committee has in the front of it a chronology of prin- cipal events since the Highway Safety Act was passed. And I would call to your attention that on September 15, in the old Department of Commerce, the Under Secretary of Commerce met with selected State officiais concerned with highway safety and representatives of State governments. On October 7 the Secretary wrote to each Governor requesting appointment of a liaison individual to work with the National High- way Safet.y Agency. In a number of instances, Governors designated the State highway department of the individual State for this responsibility. On December 5 and 6 the Governors' representatives, the Depart- ment of Commerce, and the Highway Safety Bureau met with the Governors' liaison representatives for a 2-day meeting to discuss preliminarily draft or material to go into draft standards, and, of course, in many instances the State highway departments were repre- sented. On February 16 there was another meeting with the Governors' liaison representatives and a long discussion was held on the detailed proposals for the highway safety program standards. PAGENO="1244" 1240 Another meeting was held on February 21 with various national associations interested in the highway safety program, including AASHO. Then on March 16 the President appointed the National Highway Safety Advisory Committee which had to be consulted under the statute on the safety standards, and one of the members appointed was a prominent official of AASHO. On September 7 of this year letters were sent to all of the Gover- nors by the Highway Administrator requesting once again comments on the draft standards that had been supplied to them in February. And on April 25 and again on June 6 and 7, the Highway Safety Advisory Committee met to consider the standards and AASHO was represented at that time. Now, I could go on and detail some others, but I would like to specifically comment that AASHO as an organization participated in a meeting on December 6. AASHO as an organization was requested to supply their comments, suggestions, and so forth, on the draft standards issued in February. AASHO was invited, as an organization, to attend a meeting of the Governors' representatives in February. And because we are not getting comments in from the States as rapidly as we thought we should on the draft standards, we work through the regional highway administrators and the Bureau of Public Roads division engineers with the highway departments, to get in their comments individually. So I guess in terms of consultation with AASHO as an organiza- tion and with the individual highway departments, there were just many, many instances and certainly many, many opportunities. Now, relating to the specific point of their inability to get the standards, the standards were adopted by the Secretary on June 27. The same day or the following day two copies were mailed to each of the Governors, and the Governors' liaison men in these States, with the presumption obviously that they would let each of the individual State agencies interested in the program know what the standards said. In addition to that, we started over the next several days to mail 50 additional copies to each of the States for distribution among the inter- ested State agencies, and State officials, and that mailing was com- pleted on July 11. In addition to that we supplied copies of the standards to a number of organizations, including the motor vehicle administrators, and upon the request of AASHO, furnished them enough copies for individual mailings to the State highway departments. Mr. W. M~tv. I gather that you consider that AASHO and the in - dividual State highway departments were consulted sufficiently in the drawing up of these standards? Mr. BRmwELL. As thoroughly as it was possible to do between the time that the Highway Safety Agency was organized, essentially in November, and December, until the actual standards were promulgated by the Secretary in Jime; yes, sir. . Mr. W. M~vr. Is it your intention that they will be consulted in the future when any other standards are drawn up or revisions are made ? PAGENO="1245" 1241 Mr. BRIDWELL. By all means. As a matter of fact, at the AASHO executive committee last month in Biloxi, Miss., AASHO was kind enough to invite the Federal Highwa1 Administration to continue its participation in the AASHO Design Policy Committee through a rep- resentative of both the Bureau of Public Roads and the National High- way Safety Agency, so that the coordination and the cooperation, which has been traditional with the Bureau of Public Roads and AASHO, will be extended to the Highway Safety Agency. Mr. W. M~v. Thank you, Mr. Bridwell. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional questions. We have one matter with Mr. Kopecky which will just take a moment. Mr. KOPECKY. Just one point. On Tuesday we discussed and intro- duced a chart which was entitled, "Motor Vehicle Deaths Compared to Total Estimated Vehicle-Miles `Traveled." In that chart it was noted during the testimony, during the 6-year period from 1961 to 1966, miles of travel increased 22 percent while the `deaths increased 39 percent. Since then we have received additional information as to the travel estimate and the result of this new estimate is that during the same 6- ear period the travel increased 28 percent while fatalities increased 39 ~cent. This additional data is incorporated in the chart as it appears in the record. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Bridwell and Dr. Haddon and my good friend, Mr. Turner, I know I speak for the full committee in expressing our `appreciation for the most informative statement presented here, and for the facts and the splendid cooperation which we have received from all the agencies throughout the course of the preliminary work done by the staff, and the attitude as expressed-the positive, and straight- forward attitudes. ThQ.important thing from now on is to move forward to correct thtngs and to keep to a minimum, as Mr. Turner has stated, keep to a realistic minimum the unnecessary hazards, potentially accident-prone aspects that somehow or other have crept far too long into the con- struction of this system. I have a concluding statement I would like to read this morning. Today we conclude the first phase of our public hearings on high- way safety, design, `and operational efficiency. This opening phase has been principally concerned with the prob- lem of roadside hazards. The testimony has been explicit and far reach- king. Frankly, it is an incredible story. It has estiddished beyond any Iloubt th'at, despite an available store of.knowledge from research and ~xperience, even our new roads have continued to incorporate into their design and construction deficiencies from the past. The result has been that our roadsides generally are a conglomeration of hazards that are a danger to the life and limb of the motoring public. It would be repetitious to recite here the n'ature and extent of the deficiencies that have been identified by the testimony. They are seri- ous, they are varied, and they are widespread. We are cognizant of some basic~and significant changes in design which have occurred over the years and which have enhanced' the safety of the motorists. There is no question that divided highways with controlled access and no intersections at grade, together with PAGENO="1246" 1242 improved sight distances and flatter grades have done much to makel our roads safer. However, at this hearing we have been concerned with another thing; an aspect of design which has not had that same emphasis and which offers considerable room for improvement. No rational person could be unaware that the driver, whether as an mnocent victim or through errors of omission or commission, is fre- quently a contributing cause to the accident. As a human being subject to all of the usual human failings, he is sometimes careless and fre- quently unpredictable. In any case, we can safely predict that each year thousands of vehicles undoubtedly will continue to hurtle off our highways out of control, as they have done each year in the past. Reasons will range all the way from bee stings, sideswipes, or blowouts to driver error or fatigue. Whatever the reason, they are entitled to a second chance to recover control, without being smashed against some massive concrete or steel object which in too many cases should not have been there at all. No one can challenge the fact that thousands of the deaths and serious, permanently crippling injuries result from a vehicle leavi the road and overturning or impacting an object which is with adequate protection to the motorist. Too often the object has be~ placed in his path by the same people who built the highway. We must restrain ourselves from clutching for excuses which might make our own role in the whole accident picture tend to appear less culpable. It is not enough to point to the faults of the other fellow or to take comfort in what good things we have accomplished. If we are sincere and honest in our purpose; if we really want to reduce the ever-increasing high accident toll, often needless, on our highways, then we must face up to the realities of the situation, accept the facts, and be willing to change. We must look up and broaden the sco~pe of our vision. One of the significant problems that has been identified is a com munication gap between those who knOw and those who are respon- sible for the design and construction of the roads. As a result of that gap, the knowledge we have gained from experience and research over the years has often been ignored in practice. Certainly it has been available; much has been set forth in a veritable stream of bulletins, memorandums, and other papers that have issued each year from thi~ Bureau of Public Roads, AASHO, the Highway Research Board, an other sources. The~ information simply did not reach all the right pe ple. This communication gap is serious; it must be bridged. Another problem is how to overcome inertia, or resistance to chang~ Old designs of the type long discarded by progressive highway re- search and construction people as inadequate, cannot be justified on the basis that, "We have always done it this way." Last y.~ear's stand- ard~plans must not be blindly relied upon for the design of next year's road. I think one o~ ~t~hie major cJa~nges which must take place before there can be hope-6f lasting improvement in this whole field of highway transportation, is a ree~ `tluation by highw'iy dep'irtments of their pri mary mission. PAGENO="1247" 1243 It is true that most of the effort and money spent by a State high- way department is for design and construction of new work and phy- sical maintenance of old work. In spite of this, the basic role of the State `highway department is not to construct highways. Highway de- partments are, in the final analysis, in the business of operating a physical plant of highways. If this philosophy of an operational concept of a total system can clearly be understood, it would permit one to look at the highway in a new light and more readily identify the needs of the motorists. "Operation" means just that; it is not the twin of "maintenance." I have the utmost confidence that there exists the imaginative pro- fessional capability to attack these problems effectively, if an attack is indeed mounted. If the minds of as few as, let us say, 200 of the appropriate State highway `department people could be imbued with the wisdom of the operational concept, the seed would be planted and could be culti- vated in the tens of thousands of minds whose efforts can result in drastic reduction of highway accidents. This should be a challenge to the personnel of the Bureau of Public Roads AASHO, and the various State highway departments; their participation in the lessening of human tragedy, grief, and suffering should be exciting and gratifying. We `have the opportunity to save many lives. Inaction or delay in immediately taking full advantage of it cannot be tolerated. This matter will be closely followed by the subcommittee while in addition, during the months ahead, we continue to explore other important facets of safe highway design. Mr. MCCARTHY. The committee will stand adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the hearings were concluded.) 0 PAGENO="1248"