America's Highways 1776–1976: A History of the Federal-Aid Program/Part 2/Chapter 11
Operations
Concurrent with the extensive development of highways in the United States, the Federal Highway Administration and its predecessors have traditionally carried out a number of important projects and operations in the international field. Three of the major international efforts undertaken have been the Alaska Highway, the Inter-American Highway, and a continuing technical assistance program to foreign countries. Also, with transportation research assuming an increasing international importance in recent years, the international exchange of information and the coordinated multinational development of transportation research has become an important function in the research and development programs of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
In its international operations, the FHWA cooperates with major financial and developmental institutions, such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Export-Import Bank, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and the Department of State through its Agency for International Development (AID). In addition, foreign contacts have been established through international technical seminars and technical forums sponsored by such groups as the International Road Federation and basic engineering societies.
Perhaps the two best known projects the FHWA has worked on outside of the United States are the Alaska Highway and the Inter-American Highway. The Alaska Highway was an urgent World War II undertaking, requiring slightly over 2 years to construct, while the Inter-American Highway, begun about 1930, has only recently been completed with a paved surface. Just south of the southern terminus of the Inter-American Highway, the Darien Gap Highway is now under construction as a final link between North and South America. Neither of these endeavors has been the sole responsibility of the FHWA, but in both instances, the FHWA has been the prime motivator on the technical aspects of the undertaking. The greatest contribution to world transportation has been FHWA’s technical assistance programs in many countries around the globe.
Early International Exchanges
Today it is common to think in terms of global events and places, but near the turn of the 20th century, American engineers were already very much aware of the events and technological advances abroad. With the clamor for roads growing constantly stronger in the 1890’s, the Department of State initiated a project to gather information concerning European road laws and methods of construction. This information was a factor in stimulating the Congress in 1893 to establish in the Department of Agriculture the Office of Road Inquiry.
One of the first published studies of the Office was Cost of Hauling Farm Products in Europe. An international influence can also be seen in the 1901 Annual Report of the Office of Public Road Inquiries (OPRI). In the section on Testing of Road Materials, Director Martin Dodge stated “The importance of laboratory tests on road materials has long been recognized both in this country and in Europe. For over thirty years the national schools of roads and bridges of France have conducted careful tests of all materials used in the construction of National highways. These laboratory tests have been the means of greatly reducing the cost of road construction, and it is a well-known fact that the French roads are the best in the world. . . .”[1]
The Federal Highway Administration and its predecessors have sent engineers and technicians throughout the world to help build and maintain roads.
The OPRI first participated in an international event in 1900 when the Office built an object lesson road for observation of engineers and officials attending the First International Good Roads Convention at Port Huron, Michigan. “A special feature of the work was that the traction engine was used instead of horses to draw the road machine and dumping wagons, which plan proved very satisfactory. Thus, the traction engine served the treble purpose of furnishing power for the crusher, drawing the road grader, etc., and rolling the road.”[2]
In 1908 Maurice O. Eldridge, Chief of Records, Office of Public Road Inquiries, submitted a paper on “Cost of Road Building in the United States” for the First International Road Congress in Paris, France. In the same year, a new investigation by OPRI of road construction, maintenance and administration in foreign countries was also in progress.[3]
By 1910 the library of the Office of Public Roads (OPR) was receiving periodicals and reports from the major European countries. In 1911 the library reported “. . . Foreign countries which are issuing reports concerning highway activities have also placed this office on their mailing list in exchange for similar courtesies from us [Public Roads].”[4][N 1]
In 1913 the OPR made its first exhibition outside the United States. Financed by a special appropriation from Congress, an exhibit was set up at the International Dry Farming Congress in Lethbridge, Canada. It was also in this year that Congress requested the Department of State to obtain the latest information available concerning 17 items of highway development from some 19 countries of Europe and Asia. When this material was obtained, it was studied by OPR officials and given to Congress for their use in considering legislation.
- ↑ The 1912 Annual Report noted, “The office has also received large collections of city engineer’s reports from Australia, Austria, Belgium, British Guiana, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, England, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Romania, Russia, Salvador, Scotland, Straits Settlements, Sweden, Switzerland and the Union of South Africa.”
During the next 8 years, which included World War I, the Office had little foreign exchange of information on peacetime road developments, but U.S. research and development in this area accelerated rapidly. When the Department of Agriculture decided in 1922 to send an exhibition to the Brazilian International Centennial Exposition, the Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) was selected to participate. Its exhibit was a large model of a gravel road in various phases of construction placed in front of a realistic background supplied by an oil painting. For this meeting a special report explaining the work of the Bureau and its exhibit was prepared, translated into Portuguese, and distributed.[5]
Following the successful demonstration at the Brazilian exhibit, Chief MacDonald was appointed as a delegate to attend the first Pan-American Road Congress in Argentina in October 1925. H. H. Rice, Chairman of the U.S. Delegation, clearly defined the reasons for participation in this Congress when he stated:
We feel that our mission is especially important on account of this country’s long and costly experience in establishing an adequate system of highways. Those who have been connected with the good roads movement in the United States since its inception have learned many lessons which should be of the greatest value to any other nation in the earlier stages of highway development.
If, by citing our own experiences, we can help our sister nations of the south to avoid the needless waste of time and millions of dollars of money which we were obliged to go through before highway construction had become systematized as it is now in this country, we feel that our return trip to South America will be productive of . . . good results. . . .[6]
After his return from this Congress, Chief MacDonald presented a paper titled “Our International Relations as Shown by the Pan-American Congress at Buenos Aires” to the 11th Annual Meeting of AASHO. In concluding his address, Chief MacDonald established what was to be the guiding policy of the Bureau when he stated:
What is here written must be heard for its one purpose—rather two purposes. The first is to stimulate our own imagination and to sustain a more profound faith in this work of highway building. The other is to point one way in which we may be of the greatest service to these other countries. There are many opportunities open to help in the tremendous highway improvement program they must have. . . . There is a definite responsibility upon this generation for the establishment of international relations of enduring character. In the next quarter century these will be of greater importance. The solidarity of the Western Hemisphere and the opportunity for each republic to work out its own destiny under favorable and helpful conditions is the end sought. Without highway improvement of magnificent proportions these conditions are impossible. Mutual sympathy and helpfulness is the spirit of Pan Americanism. It is the finer statesmanship.[7]
Shortly after this, the Bureau appointed a technical advisor to the American Delegation at a Conference on Automobile Circulation held in Paris, France.
In October 1930 the Sixth International Road Congress was held in Washington, D.C., with the Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads serving as Secretary-General of the American Organizing Commission. Engineers from 64 countries attended. The Congress consisted of general discussions and reports of road problems of mutual interest to all engineers.
At about this same time, in line with the policy expressed by Chief MacDonald, the Bureau became actively involved in the design and construction of the Inter-American Highway. But with the increased load of national recovery programs in the mid-1930’s, very little attention was given to other overseas operations or exchanges.
In 1938, Chief MacDonald presented a paper at the 24th Annual Meeting of the AASHO titled “Contrasting United States and European Practice in Road Development.” He pointed out significant developments on the European scene, such as the German autobahn, and emphasized the benefits to be gained by the study and application of events and programs undertaken by other political entities. He stressed that “This is not an advocacy that we should or should not be governed by or adopt the policies and methods of other countries; rather that we should intelligently appraise the results of the cycles of time through which the older countries have gone as an invaluable experience from which we can profit sans cost.”[8]
In 1938, E. W. James, who was deeply involved in the Inter-American Highway, was detailed to Cuba to provide assistance to Cuban engineers in reconstruction of the central highway. By 1939 other requests from Latin-American countries for technical assistance began to come to the Bureau. Under provisions of Public Law No. 545 of the 75th Congress and Public Law No. 63 of the 76th Congress, the Bureau sent engineers to Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador for short-term specialized assistance. On May 25, 1939, the Export-Import Bank of Washington officially requested the Secretary of Agriculture to arrange for the assignment of engineers from the Bureau to assist the Bank in connection with the extension of credits for public road construction in Latin America.
Economic Development Becomes the Guiding Force
With the advent of World War II, PRA engineers became involved in urgent projects in Panama, on the Inter-American Highway, and on the Alaska Highway as part of the defense effort. In addition to these high priority projects, Public Roads engineers in 1943 were detailed to highway projects in Bolivia, Haiti, and Santo Domingo. By the end of the war, these projects had either been completed or were phased down to a peacetime schedule.
However, a new priority on overseas operations had emerged. The United States took on the responsibility to assist in the recovery of our friends and allies from the devastation and economic ruin resulting from the war. Two major programs were soon to be initiated under separate legislation by Congress. The first of these was the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the war-damaged highway system of the Philippines. The second was the development of a highway organization in Turkey capable of the construction and maintenance of an expanding road system to be undertaken as a part of a Mutual Security Program. From 1946 to 1950 these two programs drew heavily upon the manpower and technical backup skill of Public Roads. Over 100 engineers and technicians were sent overseas to work and train local engineers and equipment personnel.
The effect of the U.S. highway operations in the Philippines was probably most clearly and sincerely expressed in a letter written to the Bureau in 1952 by Jose Lozada, Chief Engineer of the Philippine Highway Department, in which he said:
Undoubtedly untold material benefits have accrued to the Country in general in the implementation of the Rehabilitation Program. But the benefits derived therefrom by the Bureau of Public Works, particularly the Division of Highways, are in themselves invaluable and immeasurable. The wealth of new knowledge and modern practices in the design, construction and maintenance of highways, unfolded before us by the engineers of the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads on the basis of their past experience, has saved the Philippine Government time, effort and expense in ferreting out suitable highway procedures thru the usual cumbersome and costly channel of ‘cut and try’ method. . . .
With a sound foundation, tempered and tried during those hectic days of implementing the Rehabilitation Program and enriched by constant associations with the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, the Division of Highways is now much better prepared to shoulder the responsibility of executing the highway building programs of the Philippine Government, especially in connection with the total Economic Mobilization of the Country.[9]
During the 1950–1960 period, Bureau overseas operations expanded as the need increased for technical assistance to the developing countries throughout the world. Bureau engineers traveled throughout the world on special assignments undertaken in cooperation with the International Cooperation Administration (ICA),[N 1] the Export-Import Bank, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). Major programs during this period were initiated or completed in Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan, Liberia, Turkey, and the Philippines.
- ↑ Now known as the Agency for International Development (AID).
From 1960 to 1970, Bureau technical assistance continued at about the same level with major programs initiated or completed in Laos, Cambodia, Yemen, Brazil, Nepal, Philippines, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, and the Sudan.
During these two decades, all technical assistance programs of the Bureau were characterized by an intensive effort to provide adequate training and selective procurement of equipment to do the job.
Mechanization has been the key to modern road construction on the scale necessary to meet the needs of transport throughout the world. Over $250 million worth of equipment and spare parts, destined for highway departments of foreign governments or for construction projects undertaken by the Bureau overseas, have been procured by the Bureau since 1930. Because timely deliveries of spare parts and servicing of equipment is essential throughout its life, Bureau engineers and administrators elected to utilize the Bureau procurement and contracting office for this service. The Bureau required factory inspection prior to shipping on all major equipment purchases.
This thru truss bridge was built with BPR assistance in the Philippines during the rehabilitation program.
In addition to equipment procurement, Bureau engineers designed or assisted foreign engineers in the design of many bridges, the superstructures of which were later purchased in the United States. For the Philippines alone, of the approximately 500 bridges erected in the rehabilitation program, over 300 bridges were designed, procured in the United States, shipped, and erected.
By the end of 1969, major programs of FHWA’s overseas operations were nearly completed, and an overseas force of over 200 engineers and technicians was reduced to less than 70. From 1970 to 1974, programs consisted of relatively small teams of engineers assigned to Brazil, Argentina, Laos and Kuwait, with specialists being detailed to other countries for specific assignments when requested. Although current technical assistance requirements in many countries have changed to more sophisticated elements of highway and transportation techniques, such as the design and construction of limited access expressways in Kuwait, the need for basic highway assistance still exists in many developing nations.
In total, the Federal Highway Administration and its predecessors have sent engineers and technicians to over 50 countries throughout the world. From the deserts of Sudan and Jordan to the mountains of Nepal and Bolivia, from the jungles of the Amazon and Mindanao to the plateaus of Yemen and Ethiopia, and to the hills of Laos and Cambodia, FHWA engineers and technicians have helped develop local personnel to build and maintain roads, roads that provide much needed access for food, medicines and all of the many other items needed to improve living. In more than eight countries where these engineers have worked, revolutions and open civil warfare have taken place during the life of the projects, but no Bureau employee has been seriously injured. In many instances, the Bureau continued operations during the unrest.
However, a record of the international activities in road construction by the United States is not complete without a discussion of its work on the Inter-American Highway, the Alaska Highway, and its major technical assistance programs. Whether for the purpose of defense or international aid, it is in these operations that the capabilities of the United States, through its agent, Public Roads, was tested in imaginatively meeting totally different and complex situations, and in the professional competence, toughness, and diplomacy of its personnel. It is also in these operations with foreign countries that major positive impacts were effected as scores of engineers, technicians, and machine operators were trained, and as roads, which facilitated communications, defense, and economic development, were built or repaired. A more detailed examination of these operations presents a glimpse of the diversity and depth of the programs undertaken and the challenges that were met by the Federal Highway Administration and its predecessors as it worked in the international arena.
The Inter-American Highway
The dream of linking North and South America is an old one. King Charles V of Spain, in the early 1500’s, ordered a road built from Mexico to South America.[10] However, practical difficulties at that time made this plan impossible. In the 1880’s, Henry Clay publicly proposed a hemispheric route for the purpose of promoting good will and improving social and economic progress.[11] The idea gained impetus when a proposal was advanced in the U.S. Congress in 1884 for connecting the American continents by means of a Pan-American Railroad. Congress authorized the creation of a special commission to consult with the American Republics about the possibilities of railroad communication between their countries and the United States. As a result, at the First International American Conference held in December 1889 in Washington, D.C., the railroad project received active support. Subsequently the Pan-American Railroad Committee was created and over a period of years worked diligently but unsuccessfully to develop interest in the project.
In 1923, with automotive travel coming of age, the Fifth Conference of American States meeting in Santiago, Chile, recommended the holding of an automobile highway conference, looking toward the construction of a network of roads to facilitate freer passage within and between the various republics of the Americas. This was the start that was needed.
The first Pan-American Highway Congress was held in Buenos Aires in 1925, and it was decided to have the Highway Congress become a permanent activity of the Pan American Union. Three years after this meeting, the Sixth Conference of American States met at Havana, Cuba, This conference authorized the Pan-American Highway Congress to take the actions necessary to obtain financing and technical cooperation for preliminary studies of feasible routes for construction of an Inter-American Highway. The U.S. Congress took action on the idea of an Inter-American Highway on March 4, 1929 (45 Stat 1697) when a joint resolution was passed authorizing the appropriation of funds for the reconnaissance survey for a road to connect North and South America.
The concept of a Pan-American Highway System, meanwhile, was advanced at the Second Pan-American Highway Congress held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in early October 1929. At this Congress a resolution was adopted stating that each member country should prepare a complete study of its highway system plan in order to meet the needs of intercommunication of its political subdivisions and to provide the most convenient junction with the highway system of the neighboring countries. The governments were also requested to designate, as international highways, those main arteries of transportation which connected or would connect the capitals of the different countries with a view to incorporating them in the Pan-American Highway System.
Following the Congress in Rio de Janeiro, the Republic of Panama invited all of the countries of Central America, Mexico, and the United States to a conference in Panama City to consider ways and means of furthering the proposed plan for a road survey between the isthmus and the Rio Grande River. On October 7, 1929, this first Inter-American (Regional) Conference was held at the National Palace in Panama City. The representatives[N 1] enthusiastically endorsed the proposed survey and took action calling on the several governments to furnish transportation, assistance, maps, existing survey records and other such cooperation that would help in carrying out the required field work. Office space and drafting quarters were provided rent-free by Panama in the National Palace until the conclusion of the field work in May 1933. This was the genesis of the “Inter-American Highway,” a section of the hemispheric Pan-American Highway System.[N 2]
- ↑ From Panama, Costa Rica, the Canal Zone, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the United States.
- ↑ Although the road from Laredo, Texas, to Panama City is commonly referred to as the Inter-American Highway, the section of road from the southern border of Mexico to Panama constitutes the length in which the U.S. Government, through the BPR (FHWA), has participated.
President Calvin Coolidge welcomes the Pan American Highway Commission at the White House in 1924. This group, representing 19 Latin American countries, toured the United States to observe construction progress under the Federal-aid program.
As a followup in March 1930, the U.S. Congress appropriated $50,000, previously authorized in the joint resolution, “To enable the Secretary of State to cooperate with the several Governments, members of the Pan American Union, when he shall find that any or all of such States having initiated a request or signified a desire to the Pan American Union to cooperate in the reconnaissance surveys to develop the facts and to report to Congress as to the feasibility of possible routes, the probable cost, the economic service and such other information as will be pertinent to the building of an inter-American highway or highways.”[12]
The Act specified that all official contacts were to be made by the Department of State, and by arrangement with the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Public Roads was to conduct the reconnaissance.
By June 21, 1930, an engineering party of BPR engineers had left the United States for Panama, and by July 1, 1930, the Office for the Technical Committee of the Commission in Panama was established and located, at the invitation of the Government of Panama, in the National Palace.
By May 1933 the field work was complete, and work began in Washington on the report to be submitted to Congress.
First U.S. Appropriation for Construction
In 1934 an appropriation of $5 million was requested from the U.S. Congress. It was estimated that this amount would be required to construct a passable dirt road which would connect the existing stretches of road and, thus, make the Inter-American Highway a continuous reality. Congress, however, only appropriated $1 million which was to be divided between Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama for plans and construction of a number of major bridges and the continuation of survey work. The first construction work was to be done on a cooperative basis with the United States furnishing the plans, specifications and estimates for the bridges, all the steel and other fabricated materials for the superstructures, mechanical equipment, and transportation of materials and equipment to the work sites. In addition, the United States was to construct the superstructures and furnish all supervision and inspection. Each cooperating country was to furnish all local materials and transportation of these materials, purchase right-of-way, furnish labor needed to construct the bridge foundations and substructures, remove bridge falsework, grade bridge approaches and clean up the job site.
Proposed route of the Inter-American Highway in 1933.
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama quickly agreed on the disposition of their shares for bridge construction. Costa Rica did not wish to use its share of this allotment for bridges but desired, instead, to construct portions of the southern section of the highway in order to open up promising agricultural areas. After lengthy negotiations, it was agreed, in September 1937, that the United States would provide technical assistance, furnish adequate modern equipment and provide culvert materials. The Government of Costa Rica would provide the labor and local materials needed for the work. Because of the difficult terrain, work on these sections progressed slowly over the next few years. With the completion of surveys handled from the Panama office and the initiation of construction in Costa Rica, the Bureau established its headquarters office in San Jose, Costa Rica, in October 1935.
The Threat of War Steps Up Construction
In 1939 the Commanding General of the Panama Canal requested the PRA to administer the construction of a 61-mile road project from Chorrera to Rio Hato, where an important air defense facility was located. Panama was to undertake the construction with PRA acting principally as monitor. For this project, Congress provided $1.8 million to the U.S. Army, and in 1940 Panama received a $2.5 million loan from the Export-Import Bank to cover its share of the cost. With the advent of war in 1941 and the military importance of the highway, the U.S. Government took over full financing of the project. With some 45 miles to complete, Public Roads took charge, and by July 1942, just 7 months later, the project was completed. Although this project was originally a military requirement, because of its location and alinement, it was later incorporated into the Inter-American Highway. 
Guatemala constructed this 300-foot bridge over the Tamazulapa River as its first project on the Inter-American Highway.
At the same time, Public Roads was also working with the military on the transisthmus highway, also known as the Boyd-Roosevelt Highway. Work on this project began in 1940, but due to heavy rains and other problems, work did not proceed rapidly. With the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, work began on a 20-hour day basis, and by April 1942, a battalion of field artillery was able to move from the Pacific side of the isthmus to the Atlantic side in 3 hours in contrast to the previous 24 hours required by other modes.
Meanwhile, because of the possibility of attacks on the sea routes to Panama, Congress, on December 26, 1941, authorized expenditure of $20 million for construction (55 Stat 196). One-third of the construction cost was to be contributed by the Central American countries and Panama. This established the pattern for ⅔–⅓ matching formula which, in general, has been followed ever since. However, Panama, desiring that the road there be built in its entirety with a concrete surface, agreed to contribute the total difference between what would otherwise have been its matching share and the amount necessary to complete the road at the higher cost of the concrete.
First priority in speeding up the construction of missing sections was assigned to completion of the work in Costa Rica. Recognizing the difficulties and cost of construction in the rugged Costa Rica mountain country, Congress appropriated an additional amount of $12 million without matching requirements (55 Stat 540). As a result of military studies and events in early 1942, the Secretary of War, on June 6, 1942, authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to initiate necessary surveys and preconstruction work to complete the highway to military needs. Soon after, the Secretary authorized construction to proceed with military funds. The work by the Corps was to be undertaken in cooperation with Public Roads and the respective countries. To complete the project in the shortest possible time, standards were drastically reduced.
In late September 1943, because of changing priorities, the Army Chief of Engineers received orders to begin demobilization of their activities on the highway.
Prior to the commencement of the War Department project, the local governments and Public Roads had completed 696 miles of all-weather road through the Central American Republics south of Mexico. This left 864 miles to be constructed or completed. Of this, approximately 460 miles was to be new construction and 404 miles was to be widening and improving already existing dry-weather roads. When the U.S. Army project was terminated in 1943, about 58 percent of the project was completed at a cost of approximately $36 million, and of the total 864 miles, approximately 600 miles were passable.[13] Work continued on projects in the respective countries until 1951 when appropriations were expended.[N 1]
- ↑ From December 1941 to December 1946, 333 miles of Inter-American Highway and 62 miles of the Rama Road were improved under Public Roads programs.
Edwin Warley James
When Edwin Warley James left the Corps of Engineers’ New London (Conn.) District Office in 1910 to work for the Office of Public Roads, the fledgling automobile and roadbuilding industry gained a hard working, brilliant engineer and an author and future diplomat.
James, who was to become the “Father of the Inter-American Highway,” was born October 17, 1877, in Ossining, N.Y. After he graduated from Phillip’s Exeter Academy in 1897, he continued his studies at Harvard University, where he was a 1901 cum laude graduate.
He went to work in a publishing office, but his interest in engineering led him to spend his evenings studying drafting and steel detailing at the Boston Evening Institute. This schooling only increased his desire for greater engineering knowledge, and in 1905 he entered the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he completed the final 2 years of engineering study. In March of that year he married Ethel Townsend.
After he graduated from MIT, James received an appointment with the Corps of Engineers and 6 months later was on his way to the Philippine Islands as a district engineer. After 2 years of supervising public works projects in the Provinces of Bulacan and Nueva Ecija, he returned to New London.
It was here that he worked on design and surveys for the intracoastal canal. James was now in his early thirties and had a solid background of engineering experience.
When in May 1910 Public Roads needed two experienced engineers, James applied for one of the positions and was accepted.
He immediately dug into the problems of road construction, and it wasn’t long after passage of the Post Road Act of 1912 that Director Page selected and assigned responsibility for administration of the program to James.
Under this Act, experimental roads were built in a number of States with the cooperation of counties and other legislative districts. From this experience, James became fully aware of the many problems encountered with Federal assistance at the operational level.
As a result, he realized that programs funded through the Federal Government could best be administered through State organizations. At every opportunity, he supported this view and when the 1916 Federal Aid Road Act was passed, enough legislators had been convinced to establish a Federal-State relationship—a relationship which has been fundamental in the development of highway systems throughout the United States—to make it part of the law.
After passage of the 1916 Act, James was placed in charge of project implementation. Faced with project submissions and no uniform procedures or criteria, he soon established standards for plan sheets and other information necessary for project review and approval.
It wasn’t long before Federal legislation called for selection of a primary highway system, and criteria were required to assure the best route selections to meet the purposes of the law. Once again he accepted the challenge and when Thomas H. MacDonald became the Director in May 1919, he asked James to select a small committee and assist him with the project. Using Post Office maps and Census Bureau information, James and his assistants established a formula that assured them that the routes selected would serve to a maximum extent the greatest needs of the country at the time. This method withstood many controversies and inquiries that flooded the desk of the administrator.
It was quite natural now that the question of route markings and designation would be required for interstate travel. Once again James was called upon to provide a solution. Taking advantage of his experience and the personal relationships developed over the years, he, along with others from the Bureau, was able to get the cooperation from States, road associations, and other elements to endorse a plan for U.S. route numbering.
Shortly thereafter as Chief of the Design Division he spearheaded the development of uniform signs and markings. His great interest in traffic control devices was evidenced with his appointment in 1925 as Chairman of the AASHO Committee on Highway Signs, Signals and Markers and the subsequent publication in 1927 of the Manual and Specifications for the Manufacture, Display and Erection of U.S. Standard Road Markers and Signs prepared under his supervision.
From 1924 to 1943 he served as chairman of the AASHO Committee on Standards. In March 1930 James became Chief of the new Division of Highway Transport.
This Division, under his leadership, brought the Bureau of Public Roads into the newly reorganized field of traffic engineering and the developing fields of highway finance and economics.
For nine years James, as Chief of the Division, supervised the development in the Bureau of this new field of highway transport, including planning surveys, traffic surveys and related studies, coordinating activities with AASHO and the Highway Research Board.
Although occupied with the duties of his new position, he was still able to assume responsibility for undertaking a comprehensive feasibility and reconnaissance study of an Inter-American Highway. The resultant report, Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Inter-American Highway from the Republic of Panama to the United States, became the basis of construction of this important international highway.
By 1939 James was deeply involved with construction programs on the Inter-American route as well as foreign assistance programs. He continued with these projects until he retired in 1953.
During the course of his career, he served as Chief Inspector of Post Roads, Chief of the Division of Maintenance, General Inspector, Assistant Chief Engineer, Chief of Design, Chief of Highway Transport, and Chief of the Inter-American Highway Division.
James continually found time to express his thoughts and knowledge in articles prepared for publication in engineering magazines and periodicals. Well over 200 such articles were published, with many of them in Spanish, a language which James spoke fluently.
With his background of work in the Philippines and his knowledge of design, construction and planning, he prepared the book titled Highway Construction, Administration, and Finance—1929. The book, prepared especially for the purpose of acquainting Latin American officials and engineers with road practice in the United States, was translated into 17 languages and distributed throughout the world. In 1930 it was selected for the Belgian Award as first prize in a worldwide competition by the International Association of Road Congresses.
With a genuine handshake, sincerity, and directness to the problem, James represented the best in highway engineering that the first half century of the automobile age could produce.
His greatest assets were reflected in his relentless drive to achieve or solve problems in the highway field.
Perhaps the James theory concerning man and the use of his intellect were best expressed in a letter he wrote as he approached his 90th year.
On his well-worn typewriter he wrote to a friend: “I have never been able to sympathize with the fellow who retires and at once begins to rust out.”
During his career he received many awards and citations. Receipt of the Citation for Meritorious Service and Gold Medal Award of the Department of Commerce in 1950 and the Citation and Decoration of Foreign Service (U.S.) in 1944 represented acknowledgement by his government of his devotion to his job.
Needless to say, James was the “amigo” of the highway engineering professionals of Latin America and materially extended the image of the Bureau as an organization dedicated to the art of building roads and, in foreign assistance, of helping those who wished to help themselves. 
The Selegua Canyon in northern Guatemala as it was in 1959 depicts the rough terrain along the Inter-American Highway.
An All-Weather Road Becomes a Reality
Impressed with the progress being made on the highway and the cooperative attitude of the participating countries, Congress in the early 1950’s authorized expenditures aggregating $64 million in the Public Roads Federal Highway Acts of 1950, 1952, and 1954. Of this total amount, however, there still remained unappropriated at the beginning of the 84th Congress in 1955 the sum of $49.3 million.
The most dramatic progress in financing the highway began after President Eisenhower’s message to Congress in 1955 urging the early completion of the highway. Congress promptly and overwhelmingly passed the legislation requested by the President and proposed that the highway be finished within 3 years. To this end, the Appropriation Act of June 30, 1955 (69 Stat 233) appropriated $25.3 million, a special act of July 1, 1955 (69 Stat 244) appropriated $24 million previously authorized and an additional $25.7 million, and an act of August 4, 1955 (69 Stat 452) appropriated an additional $37.7 million.
Regular appropriations continued during subsequent years, permitting construction to progress in each country with the final gaps of an all-weather road being completed in Guatemala and Costa Rica at about the same time in 1963. The final paving of the highway was not completed until late 1973 when the difficult mountain section was finally surfaced.
Formal dedication of the Inter-American Highway took place in the form of a motorcade from Panama to Mexico City in April 1963. This motorcade of three buses carried the leading officials from practically every country in the Western Hemisphere. Formal dedication ceremonies were held at each border crossing with Presidents of the neighboring countries often attending. Receptions were held at major cities and enthusiastic greetings were given the travelers throughout the trip.
A current road map of the Central American Republics reveals the significant role of the Inter-American Highway in the overall socio-economic and highway transportation development within each Republic. Generally located in the more heavily populated areas of the western or Pacific side of the isthmus, the Inter-American Highway, as a main artery, serves to intensify the development in such areas, provides a base for many feeder roads to virtually isolated communities, and in some instances, opens up riches in the interior and eastern sections of these countries. Initially, the opening of certain sections of an early pioneer road were strongly resisted by many farmers who looked upon the road engineers and the small construction crews as invaders. Soon, however, they recognized the benefits that the highway was bringing to them—a ready access to markets, a means for more frequent visits with relatives in the city, and a virtual end to their isolation. 
The Inter-American Highway in rural Honduras in 1963.
Thus, the forces of socio-economic development emerged slowly, but strongly, sparked in a small, but very significant, manner by the Inter-American Highway which, later, contributed toward the extensive advances made by the Republics of the isthmus. The Inter-American Highway found its rightful place in the economic history of these countries and in the hierarchy of events that, over the years, led to the establishment of a bond of friendship between them and their partner, the United States of America.
The Darien Gap[N 1]
The Pan-American Highway Congress, meeting in Lima, Peru, in 1951, requested the Organization of American States to urgently create an ad hoc committee of experts to determine the most efficient and expeditious manner for opening to traffic the incomplete stretches of the “longitudinal Pan-American Highway.” A committee was established in 1952 to study and develop recommendations by which each country could finance and construct the missing sections of the highway within its borders.
- ↑ “The vast jungle region adjoining the Republics of Panama and Colombia, known as Darien Province in the first country and as the Department of Choco in the second, bore from its discovery the generic name of DARIEN. This possibly resulted from the name given by the Indians to the torrential river now known as Atrato. . . .”[14]
Subsequently, this technical committee, in October 1953, recommended studies in the Darien for the first time. When the Sixth Pan-American Highway Congress, met in July 1954, it recommended that a technical expedition be organized to conduct research and planning surveys in the Darien Region of Panama and the adjacent area of Colombia.[15] Finances for early explorations, administration, and promotion were provided by annual contributions of $30,000 each from Colombia and Panama.
In February 1955, the Darien Subcommittee was organized to be made up of technicians designated by each of the Governments of Panama, Colombia, and the United States. The first Darien Subcommittee meeting was held in August 1955 in Panama.
The south or Pacific route was recommended for both countries with a border crossing at Cruce de Espave, but both countries modified this recommendation, making the border point at the landmark known as Palo de las Letras.[16]
With an apparent feasible route for a highway through the Darien having been agreed upon, efforts began to obtain financing for surveys. The Eighth Pan-American Highway Congress in Bogota, Colombia, in May 1960, adopted a financing plan requiring all member countries of the Organization of American States to participate.
By late 1962, the Darien Subcommittee had negotiated contracts with consulting firms from the United States, Panama and Colombia to undertake the surveys and studies of the route. A BPR engineer was assigned to work with the Darien Subcommittee in administering the $3 million survey program.
As the surveys progressed in Colombia, it became increasingly evident that the route along the Pacific Coast was impractical; the mountainous terrain, the torrential rains exceeding 400 inches per year, and the length of the route clearly made it unacceptable for an international highway. Thus, at the seventh meeting of the Permanent Executive Committee of the Pan-American Highway Congress in Mexico City in 1964, permission was obtained for the Bureau of Public Roads to undertake geophysical research studies of the alternate or Atrato route along the Caribbean Coast of Colombia. This route had always been considered impossible because of the extensive Atrato swamps.
The Darien Gap highway was cut through almost impenetrable swamps adjoining the Republics of Panama and Colombia.
Using a helicopter which could land engineers and equipment on the surface of the swamp, field investigations of the preselected routes were made. Visual examination of surface conditions was supplemented by peat sampler penetrations into the swamp.
Once the specific route had been recommended, a geophysical survey was made by using electrical resistivity methods along the route corridor across the swamp. A sufficient number of tests were made to indicate a reasonably stable sand layer could be anticipated at depths of about 20 to 36 feet below the swamp surface to confirm the feasibility that the highway could be built across the Atrato swamp and it would save 205 miles in length, about $115 million in cost, and 5 years in construction time.
The Atrato route was approved, and as a result of this breakthrough and tremendous saving, the entire Darien project received international publicity and support from the Organization of American States. The Darien Gap project was selected by the National Society of Professional Engineers as one of the top 10 engineering achievements in 1968.
The U.S. Congress authorized the initiation of construction on the Darien program by an amendment to the 1970 Federal-Aid Highway Act. This amendment provided that funds should be obligated and expended under the same terms, conditions, and requirements with respect to the Darien Gap Highway as were the funds authorized for the Inter-American Highway. The amendment authorized the appropriation of $100 million for the Darien Gap program.
Administration of FHWA interests in the project is under the direction of the Region 19 office in the Panama Canal Zone, with field supervision being handled from division offices in both Panama and Colombia. The entire route, except for 14 miles in Colombia, has now been designed or is under contract for final design, with construction well underway in Panama. It is anticipated that by 1982 the vision of many legislators, engineers, and highway administrators for a “land bridge” to connect the Americas may become a reality.
The Alaska Highway
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and their closely following successes in the Pacific found Alaska, located on the great circle route between the United States and Japan, in a position highly vulnerable to attack.
On January 16, 1942, the President appointed a Cabinet Committee consisting of the Secretaries of Navy, War, and Interior to consider the necessity of and proper route for a highway to Alaska. In February, it was concluded that a highway was necessary and that it should fulfill two major requirements:
- Furnish a supply route to link up the airfield established in Canada and Alaska by the Canadian Government and the United States Army Air Force.
- Provide an auxiliary overland route to Alaska, relatively secure from attack by the enemy, to supplement sea and air routes and, thus, provide a measure of safety for the armed forces and aircraft ferrying personnel.[17]
Many previous studies had been made of the most desirable routing to Alaska, but due to the wartime emergency, military considerations became the prime criteria. The project was approved by President Roosevelt on February 11, 1942, with work on the project authorized to begin at once. Final agreement with Canada was reached on March 18, 1942.
The Alaska Highway stretches from Dawson Creek, British Columbia, to Fairbanks, Alaska.
The work to be performed by the United States would begin at Dawson Creek, British Columbia, and extend northwestward to Big Delta, Alaska, where connections were to be made with existing transportation facilities. The authorization provided for construction of a pioneer road by U.S. Army engineer troops, followed by contractors, furnished and directed by the Public Roads Administration, who would improve the pioneer road to an authorized standard.
Public Roads received instructions from the War Department to build the final highway according to established standard specifications for roads and bridges in national forests and parks. The road was to be two lanes, and surfacing was to be of local materials, with final surfacing to be applied only after earthwork had stabilized. Temporary bridges were to be trestles of local timber. Permanent bridges were to be left to future financing and to the determination of the government authorities charged with operation of the road. The Army sector commanders were to locate the pioneer road with such ultimate standards in mind that would permit maximum use of the alinement for the final road.[18]
As originally conceived, the work of constructing the highway was divided between the engineer troops of the Army and civilian contractors under the direction of Public Roads. In actuality, however, it was a combined effort with overlapping work responsibility, shifts in priorities, and a great deal of truly cooperative effort from the time of the arrival of the first Army troops at Dawson Creek on March 10, 1942, to the removal of all contractor personnel and supervisory engineers of Public Roads at the end of October 1943. As a highway project alone, ignoring military and economic considerations, the route selected was perhaps inferior to one located west of the main range of the Rocky Mountains but because of the war, a completely different set of requirements and priorities was necessary.
With the general route established, decisions had to be made concerning location and design in or across canyons, rivers, mountain passes and muskeg; the weather for work schedules; the use and source of native materials; as well as many other engineering and logistic considerations.
Mobilization
Immediately upon receiving notice of the impending agreement, the PRA Western Headquarters started a search of the whole West Coast for water transportation. Eventually, transportation to and from the project, both freight and personnel, was handled by a contractor and consisted of a fleet of 4 freighters, 10 tugboats, 5 passenger boats (converted yachts) and 1 manned barge built in 1868, assembled in Lake Union and Lake Washington in Seattle. In addition, early contingents of personnel were carried to Skagway by the Army Transportation Service, classified as either passengers or cargo, depending on order of boarding and location of berth above or below decks.
Simultaneously trucks, tools, and other equipment and materials were gathered from the camps of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in the northwest for use on the project. These were started north by whatever transport could be obtained. The resources of the Work Projects Administration (WPA) were also tapped for roadbuilding and office equipment. Both of these agencies were being terminated at the time, and the use of surplus equipment was mutually beneficial.
Field headquarters were established in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, with a subsidiary office at Gulkana, Alaska, and in Ft. St. John, British Columbia, with a subsidiary office at Ft. Nelson on the Liard River. PRA work in the Whitehorse sector did not commence until over a month after activities started on the Ft. St. John end of the project. The first contingent of 12 men from Denver arrived in Ft. St. John on March 14 and 15, and the first troops and PRA personnel reached Skagway, Alaska, early in April, with Public Roads men finally reaching Whitehorse in mid-April.
Personnel carrier arriving in Alaska.
A location crew fording the Donjck River.
Access to the entire project was limited to three major routes: by rail to Dawson Creek, B.C., by boat to Skagway and then rail to Whitehorse, and by boat to Valdez, Alaska, and then by highway to Gulkana. This restricted access inevitably resulted in serious congestion at all three points. In the spring of 1942, 600 carloads arrived by rail at Dawson Creek within a period of 5 weeks. At one time 200 carloads were awaiting shipment at Prince Rupert, B.C., for Skagway or Valdez.
The level of activity soon made it apparent to PRA personnel that a project office had to be established close to the scene of action, and in April 1942, a district office was established in Seattle. This office was later moved to Edmonton, Alberta, in January 1943 as contractor operations accelerated.
Reconnaissance and Location
Initial reconnaissance to establish a preliminary location for the Alaska Highway was conducted by air, on foot, and with pack trains and dog sleds. Aerial reconnaissance was new but invaluable in locating the route from Watson Lake to Whitehorse and crossing the Continental Divide. However, it was necessary to send ground reconnaissance teams on foot or with dog sleds to survey many sections of the highway. When feasible, a winter road was used by surveying parties, but the very nature of a winter road, located through the wettest areas and on frozen rivers in contrast to the requirements for an all-weather route, demanded that the reconnaissance teams do much hiking to locate the route of the proposed road some distance away. When dog sleds were used, usually a couple of engineers, their guides and dog teams would set off for weeks at a time and cover hundreds of miles. Much of this work was performed in temperatures between −20° F. and +40° F., and with the exception of an occasional trapper’s cabin, the men lived in the open under a canvas fly.
When sufficient reconnaissance work had been done, though far from complete, work began on locating the centerline for the pioneer road. Sixty packhorse outfits were organized at the beginning of May 1942, to accompany survey crews working out of Ft. Nelson.
These PRA survey crews began nagging line for the Army clearing crew. In late May, Army and Public Roads location parties moved north from St. John to establish that section of the pioneer road. Aerial photographs of the area ahead were made available to the location engineers in the field camps, enabling them, by use of compass and prominent landmarks, to locate critical “control” points in the route selection. Much of the time, particularly in the Ft. St. John sector, this preliminary line was flagged and blazed just ahead of the bulldozers. In fact, at times the locators expressed fear of being run over by the heavy equipment. In some areas ground reconnaissance was not really completed until after location surveys had started. However, no significant rerunning of surveys was required.
Construction, 1942
The rate of actual construction in 1942 is difficult to conceive, but the fact that practically all of the pioneer road was built in 5 months, and most of it in 4 months, gives an idea of the urgency of the project. The Army involvement in construction of the pioneer road consisted of seven engineer regiments comprising a force of 394 officers and 10,765 enlisted men.[19]
As soon as the Army troops started construction, it was apparent that, without help from the civilian contractors, it would be impossible to complete the access road or keep anything resembling the originally planned schedule. Consequently, work forces began to be merged. By the end of July, contractors were being shifted about and rescheduled all up and down the line to supplement and speed up construction of the pioneer road regardless of prior arrangements.
Army requests for the construction of the Dawson Creek railhead, pipeline, flight strips, and other installations, coupled with a labor and spare parts shortage and increasing equipment breakdowns, compounded to further delay the work despite the closest kind of cooperation. Perseverance prevailed, however, and on October 25 the final breakthrough came at Beaver Creek in the Yukon Territory near the Alaska border. A formal ceremony at Soldiers Summit, on the south end of Kluane Lake, celebrated the event on November 20, 1942.
A ribbon separates Royal Canadian Mounted Police and U.S. Army troops at the dedication of the Alaska Highway in 1942.
Winter, 1942–43
After the breakthrough at Beaver Creek, much remained to be done to make the truck trail a usable road. The westerly portion presented a dreary prospect, and work continued on into the winter under extreme weather conditions. Record low temperatures were encountered, reaching 72 degrees below zero on the northern sector. Diesel fuel failed to flow from the equipment fuel tanks to the engines, and steel parts broke with increasing frequency. Throughout the project, temporary bridges were “freezing in” and going out when forming ice pulled them apart. However, work continued at a fairly high level during the winter on major structures over the Peace, Sikanni Chief, Muskwa, and Liard Rivers, on rock cuts where possible, and on preparation for the 1943 construction season by repairing equipment and building shops and camps.
Engineering design work in preparation for the following year’s construction was carried on throughout the winter, the design for the permanent highway being essentially completed by the beginning of the 1943 season. On April 7, 1943, however, the policies on standards and alinement were radically altered by an Army directive. This directive ordered a substantial lowering of design standards and required that construction of the all-weather route follow the pioneer truck trail to the maximum extent that could provide a usable road. [20]
Layers of trees were laid over the permafrost as the first step in stabilizing the pioneer road.
Moving freight along the highway near the Alaska-Yukon border was a hazardous operation in the summer of 1943. The ditch on the left was the original pioneer road.
In retrospect, the first year was one of many problems of logistics, establishment and reestablishment of policy, inconsistencies, and conflict, but also, it was a year in which a spirit of full cooperation and dedication developed in all workers on the job, regardless of status. A truck trail of sorts was built, much of it improved to a usable, all-weather standard, and the construction of a highway in 1943 was made a possibility.
Construction, 1943
The road, as it evolved at the end of 1943, was constructed almost entirely in that year. However, the original road, resulting from the 1942 effort, must be given full credit for its contribution to the final effort in communication and transport.
The directive changing the standards and alinement caused a substantial shift in emphasis of the 1943 work of the contractors under the direction of Public Roads. As a result, the final road contained a considerable length of indirect mileage, excessively steep grades and substandard alinement. This was an outgrowth of the fact that the original road had been constructed to a large degree along the lines of least resistance, with no appreciable thought given at that time to locating it as a permanent, all-weather, and reasonably safe facility.
The completed Alaska Highway as it appeared at Summit Lake in the Rocky Mountains in 1943.
The spring breakup during May destroyed a large number of temporary bridges south of Watson Lake, but stockpiled materials enabled rapid replacement. Although this was a temporary setback, over all progress on the project was maintained by a work force of over 11,000 men. Throughout June bad weather seriously delayed the construction schedule on the southerly section, including numerous washouts of structures. Despite this, work on the major structures was not seriously impeded and some were put into use.
On June 9 and 10 disaster struck when heavy rains extending 200 miles north and south of Ft. Nelson caused the destruction of 24 temporary bridges. A coordinated effort by all the forces, using stockpiled and salvaged material, resulted in reopening this section for through traffic by July 20, nearly 2 weeks sooner than the most favorable estimates made at the time of the floods.
Even with the temporary loss of six more bridges to high water west of Ft. Nelson early in August, the opening of the Peace River Bridge to one-way traffic August 4, and later that month to two-way traffic, was accomplished. Fortunately, by this time it had become almost routine to replace temporary spans, and 5 days after the washouts traffic was again moving over the sector.
As late as August the 40-mile section near the Alaska-Yukon border was still impassable. Access to the area was possible only by float planes. Finally on October 13 the gap was closed, reopening the road permanently. Followup forces improved it to required standards. By October 31, 99 bridges had been completed, and 34 were either under construction or not yet started. The entire pioneer road was in a usable condition.
At the peak of operations in September 1943, there were 1,850 PRA employees and 14,100 civilian employees of 81 contractors working with 11,107 units of equipment. Except for two companies, the Army engineer regiments had been moved in February 1943 to new assignments elsewhere. As with the pioneer road, the 1,420 miles of final highway was largely built in a 4-month period, with the final overall cost for both the pioneer road and completed highway amounting to $138,312,166.
| Item | PRA Funds | Army Funds | Total |
| Cost of pioneer road | $ 10,196,759 | $ 9,547,826 | $ 19,744,585 |
| Cost of final type road | 87,205,328 | 6,874,307 | 94,079,635 |
| Other work | 11,615,913 | 11,615,913 | |
| Final job inventory | 12,872,033 | 12,872,033 | |
| $121,890,033 | $16,422,133 | $138,312,166[21] |
The challenge of administering the civilian program in constructing the Alaska Highway at a time when Bureau personnel were helping to complete the Inter-American Highway and administering wartime activities on domestic highway systems required a tremendous effort by everyone in the organization. In retrospect, these undertakings confirmed the soundness of Commissioner MacDonald’s personnel and administrative policies, the comprehensive training programs of young engineers, especially on field construction projects in the national forests and parks and other Federal lands, and the spirit and pride of all employees in maintaining the professional stature of the Bureau.
Postwar Operations
The Philippine Program—1946 to 1969
Public Roads began work in the Philippines in 1946 under authorization contained in Public Law 370, 79th Congress, an Act for the rehabilitation of war damage to the Philippines (usually referred to as the Rehabilitation Act of 1946). The Act authorized Public Roads “. . . after consultation with the Philippine Government, to plan, design, restore, and build, . . . such roads, essential streets and bridges as may be necessary . . . for national defense and economic rehabilitation and development of the Philippines.” It also provided authorization for training engineers of the Philippine Government.
Under this authorization and with a fiscal appropriation of slightly more than $40 million, Public Roads assigned three of its highway engineers under F. C. Turner to begin the program.
The program began under difficult conditions. Recruitment of engineers in the States did not proceed readily since many Public Roads engineers had just finished difficult wartime assignments. Housing was practically nonexistent, office facilities limited, and at this time, there was a Pacific shipping strike in progress. For the Philippine Bureau of Public Works, only a few experienced engineers were immediately available.
By September 1947, however, many of the initial problems were overcome and the project was well underway with key positions filled and operating procedures well defined. A highway planning and programing section was established in the Philippine Bureau of Public Works to undertake a complete road and bridge inventory necessary for future economic development. This new section was also responsible for recommendations on the organization of a Philippine Division of Highways separate and distinct from the numerous other operations of the Philippine Bureau of Public Works. The recommendations of the highway planning survey (HPS) were accepted, and in 1948 a Philippine Division of Highways within the Bureau of Public Works was established by executive order.
Under the “Rehab” program administered by the reorganized highway department, approximately 500 bridges and 360 miles of high-type roads and streets were constructed.
The work of the U.S. Division Office under the Rehabilitation Act of 1946 continued through 1951 at which time Public Roads was requested by the International Cooperation Administration (ICA) to remain in the Philippines as highway consultants to the ICA and as advisors to the Philippine Bureau of Public Highways. Public Roads personnel completed the work under the Rehabilitation Act, which had been extended 1 year, and accepted new work authorized by ICA. Funds were provided by ICA with matching funds by the Philippine Government for a program of improvements for a nationwide highway network, construction of development roads (principally on the Island of Mindanao), replacement of temporary wooden bridges, and the development of village and feeder roads. The training program begun in 1948 was continued and was so successful that 
Unloading steel for bridge replacement in the Philippines.
Construction of the Mindanao development road.
Turkish terrain required intensive maintenance.
Meanwhile, however, negotiations were underway between the Philippine Government and the Development Loan Fund (a U.S. Government lending institution) for a substantial loan for highway purposes. This loan, identified as DLF No. 67, was approved in June 1959 in the amount of $18.75 million. The loan agreement specified that the borrower (Philippine Government) make arrangements for the Bureau of Public Roads to act as liaison between the Philippine Government and the lending agency.[22]
After a difficult beginning, the program progressed satisfactorily, and the majority of program activities were completed in September 1969.
The Turkish Program—1947 to 1958
On May 22, 1947, the 80th Congress enacted Public Law 75, known as the Aid to Greece and Turkey Program. The law included a sum of $5 million to Turkey for highway purposes. Originally scheduled to be administered and operated by the U.S. Army, it was shortly found more suitable for the Public Roads Administration (PRA). Thus, on July 12, 1947, the State Department and the PRA signed an agreement in which Public Roads would supervise the highway program in Turkey under the terms of the Act. By the end of 1947, the PRA’s staff consisted of 18 men, engineers and specialists sharing space with their Turkish counterparts for a good opportunity for close working relationships and training. The initial objectives of the administrative and planning advisors were to prepare a report on the status of highway development and to negotiate a formal agreement with the Turkish Government covering the objectives of the cooperative program; establish the obligations to be assumed by each party; formulate the ways of attaining the desired objectives; and arrange the financial requirements for the program. The report was completed, presented to the Turkish Government, and an agreement executed on April 26, 1948. This agreement stated that the Public Roads group would assist the Ministry of Public Works of Turkey in establishing a long-range highway improvement program and in establishing a pattern for highway administration on a national scale.
The initial staffing of the Public Roads group provided the required organizational arrangement for accomplishing the work. Specialists were added to the organizational units as required, but when Turkish personnel were capable of taking over an organizational unit, that unit was dropped from the Public Roads organization. The first division to be transferred to exclusive Turkish administration was the Planning and Programing Division in 1954.
Pack animals move aggregate in remote areas of Turkey.
The 11 years of training and working together between BPR and the Turkish personnel bore fruit. When the technical assistance program began in Turkey, BPR personnel could not identify a counterpart in the Turkish organization for many of the divisions such as in Survey and Design or in Materials. Or, if there were counterpart groups, many of the techniques used were not mechanized. Thus, units had to be organized and staffed, and training for counterparts and their sections had to be undertaken. The better graduates from this instruction became instructors for new classes. While the on-the-job instruction was going on, further practical experience was being gained by the Turkish personnel as they built and maintained the highway system.
By far the greatest part of the Bureau’s effort was in supplying equipment. The initial aid program provided for shipment to Turkey of equipment, materials, and parts valued at approximately $4.5 million; subsequent aid programs increased this figure to approximately $41 million. Equipment was already arriving in Turkey in December 1947 when the first of the PRA group arrived.
The task of institution building[N 1] required innovative measures, especially in training matters. Initially, recruiting local personnel satisfactory as equipment operators proved to be difficult, and to furnish enough operators, the Turkish Army supplied officers and men to the program. This speeded up construction of strategic highways and was considered to be sufficient justification for bringing army personnel into the training program. Prior to starting actual road construction, all operators received training on the new equipment.
The basic program was essentially completed by the mid-1950’s, and the last advisor returned to the United States in late 1958. Measured in terms of highway improvement, the mileage of all-weather roads on the Turkish National Road system more than doubled between 1948 and 1958, and on the Provincial System it increased fivefold. In 1960 the Turkish highway department was maintaining 14,450 miles of national roads and 13,182 miles of provincial roads. From 1940 to 1960, over 800 bridges were built on the national system and more than 400 on the provincial roads. In evaluating the Turkish program, the following assessment was made in a study prepared in 1962 by the Columbia University School of Law:
Financially, the extent of the aid hardly comes up to the level of the aid received by the other sectors and organizations in Turkey. Yet, the outstanding feature of the aid is that in this instance the technical assistance has been rendered directly by the Federal Bureau of Public Roads. Consequently, the technical aspect of the work done has been of the highest level. The fact that the organization was set up and put into operation by the U.S. experts has been the principal factor in the eventual success of the project.
Within a short time, the general Directorate of Highways has evolved into a first-class organization. So much so that today it is in a position to extend technical assistance to certain countries in the Middle East implementing highway-construction programs.
The aid extended to Turkey in connection with her highway program and the results achieved through that aid confirm the fact that, in the case of underdeveloped countries, technical aid is more important than financial and that it should be given priority.[23]
- ↑ Institution building is assisting in the development of a highway organization equipped with adequate laws and procedures and administered and operated by trained personnel. The ultimate desired result of technical assistance is to develop the capability of a country’s highway organization to administer, build, and maintain a highway system adequate to develop their economy and improve the standard of living.
Training Foreign Nationals
The Federal Highway Administration has always placed strong emphasis on training. The training of young engineers and construction operators in developing the roadbuilding capability in this country proved so significant that an initial emphasis in this area was naturally of high priority in all overseas projects also.
The first major applications of overseas training programs were undertaken in the projects in Turkey and the Philippines. Since then institution building through training has been a part of all technical assistance provided by FHWA. Because conditions in each country vary tremendously in facilities, educational level, and other factors, each overseas Division Office has been required to develop training programs specifically to meet the needs of that country.
A deficiency Bureau engineers noted in all overseas programs immediately after World War II was the lack of manuals or procedural guides. In order to overcome this, early in each program, a Bureau advisor assisted his local counterpart in preparing manuals to cover his specific technical field. These manuals were in the local language and were designed to fit conditions within that country. Practically all Bureau technical manuals and some State highway department manuals have been modified and issued in the language of the various countries. Thus, American design standards, planning techniques, material tests and specifications, and equipment practices have been adopted, in various degrees, throughout the world. The use of these manuals by the respective countries for both training and operations has been one of the greatest influences on the growth and development of their highway departments.
Major overseas programs where training was the key element for the successful establishment of a addition to Turkey and the Philippine Republic, in Ethiopia, Iran, and Laos. Less extensive programs were undertaken in Nepal, Lebanon, Sudan, Brazil, Bolivia, Kuwait, Jordan, Dominican Republic, and Cambodia.
While the overseas divisions carried out the greater portion of their training activities onsite, the need to train, in this country, staff engineers and administrators of foreign highway departments was also recognized. Since 1948, the Bureau has welcomed over 10,000 engineers and highway officials for various types of formal training programs.
In 1949 BPR and the Department of State decided to offer to groups of foreign engineers a formal course of lectures, discussions, demonstrations, and field trips. The course included 6 weeks of lectures and discussions in Washington, 2 weeks visiting equipment and automobile plants, and subsequent visits to various State highway departments where field operations and Federal-State cooperation could be observed. This program continued for 4 years, the final course being held in 1952.
By combining a relatively small group of specialists overseas with the extensive backup provided by the FHWA headquarters and field offices working in cooperation with State highway departments, FHWA has contributed much to assist the world in its struggle to expand economic development by opening new areas. Certainly the work of the FHWA around the world, through its use and teaching of American design standards and construction trades, has fulfilled Mr. MacDonald’s charge in 1925. It is, indeed, the finer statesmanship. REFERENCES
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads Annual Report, 1901, p. 243.
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads Annual Report, 1900, p. 289.
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads Annual Report, 1908, p. 6.
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads Annual Report, 1911, p. 46.
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads, The Bureau of Public Roads and Its Exhibit (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.O., 1922) pp. 5, 6.
- ↑ H. H. Rice Appointed Chairman of U.S. Delegation to Pan-American Road Congress at Buenos Aires, Good Roads, Vol. 68, No. 7, Aug. 1925, pp. 196, 197.
- ↑ T. MacDonald, Our International Relations as Shown by the Pan-American Road Congress at Buenos Aires, Address delivered at 11th Annual Meeting, American Association of State Highway Officials, Detroit, Mich., Nov. 19, 1925, Papers, 1924–25, p. 11.
- ↑ T. MacDonald, Contrasting United States and European Practices in Road Development, Address delivered at 24th Annual Meeting, American Association of State Highway Officials, Dallas, Tex., Dec. 5, 1938, Papers, 1937–39, pp. 3, 4.
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads, Testimonial (Manila Division Office, Manila, 1952), pp. 12, 13.
- ↑ Staff of The House Comm. On Public Works, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., Report of The Construction Progress On Inter-American Highway in Central America and Panama (Comm. Print 22) p. 146.
- ↑ Staff of The House Comm. On Public Works, 88th Cong., 1st. Sess., The Final Link, Report On The Darien Gap and Progress Toward Completion of The Inter-American Highway (Comm. Print 2) p. 3.
- ↑ Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1930 (46 Stat 115).
- ↑ Staff of The House Comm. On Roads, The Inter-American Highway—An Interim Report Pursuant To H. Res. 255 (Comm. Print, Dec. 18, 1946) pp. vi, vii, 11.
- ↑ Darien Subcommittee, The Darien Gap Project (Darien Gap Subcommittee, Panama, Oct. 1965) p. 1.
- ↑ Final Act, Sixth Pan-American Highway Congress, July 11–23, 1954 (Comm. on Economic and Social Affairs, Pan American Union, Washington, D.C., 1955) p. 22.
- ↑ Final Conclusions and Recommendations Regarding Location, Design, and Construction of The Pan-American Highway Through The Darien Gap In The Republics of Panama and Colombia (Darien Subcommittee, Panama, 1968) p. 11.
- ↑ The Alaska Highway, H. Rep. 1705, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 9, 10.
- ↑ Letter to Gen. Clarence L. Sturdevant, Office of the Chief of Engineers, from Thomas H. MacDonald, Commissioner, Public Roads Administration, Mar. 4, 1942, in Construction of The Alaska Highway (Public Roads Admin., Washington, D.C., 1945) pp. 102–105.
- ↑ H. Rep., supra, note 17, p. 14.
- ↑ Letter to J. S. Bright, Public Roads Administration, from Col. L. D. Worsham, Corps of Engineers, Division Engineer, Apr. 7, 1943, in Construction of The Alaska Highway (Public Roads Admin., Washington, D.C., 1945) pp. 164, 165.
- ↑ H. Rep., supra, note 17, p. 26.
- ↑ Loan Agreement Between Department of Public Works and Communications, Republic of The Philippines, and The Development Loan Fund, DLF Loan No. 67, June 29, 1959.
- ↑ Columbia University School of Law, Public International Development Financing In Turkey (Columbia University Press, New York, 1962) pp. 132, 133.