JOINT BOARD ON INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS
REPORT OF GROUP MEETINGS.
The following brief memoranda of the six group meetings and the working map accompanying this report indicate the progress of selection of interstate highways. The interest of the States in the matter is clearly shown by the very large percentage of attendance. Of the eleven Western States eight sent personal representatives to group meetings; of the eleven Mississippi Valley States nine had personal representatives; of the six Lakes States all sent representatives; of the nine Southern States all sent representatives; of the five Middle Atlantic States two sent representatives; and of the six New England States all sent representatives. Every Board member was present at his respective group meeting, and in some cases States sent three or four representatives. States not represented in person generally furnished maps and correspondence indicating their choice of routes with the result that in the course of the group meetings all but two States have taken the opportunity to express themselves definitely regarding the routes selected.
Trails associations raised no serious difficulties at any meeting, although at Kansas City, Chicago and Atlanta numerous representatives of these organizations appeared quite evidently expecting to be heard. In no case, however, were any outside representatives permitted to appear before the meetings, but in all cases it was necessary in courtesy to meet these trails representatives outside of the meeting and talk with them regarding the situation. At Kansas City the number of visitors was so large it was suggested that they make arrangements for their own meeting in a separate place where a brief statement might be made to them, explaining the work of the Board. In every case the trails representatives appeared to recognize the difficulties raised by the multiplicity of marked routes and the varying degrees of responsibility of the trails organizations, and seemed satisfied that the Board was giving every practicable and fair consideration to the general trails situation throughout the country.
At the California meeting the two automobile associations gave no support to any particular routes, but were unofficially heard following the group meeting on the question of signs and markers. This situation arose because of the large investment and established policy of these associations in marking the California highways as a part of their association activities.
Certain elements in the work should be considered by the full Board because it was found that no definite attitude had been assumed with respect to these large details.
