A Highway_Safety_Design_and_Operations 405p.pdf

HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS
ROADSIDE BAZARDS
(90-21)
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SPECIAL SUBCOMMI'ITEE ON THE
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM
OF THE
COMMITrEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETIETH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 28, 24. 25, JUNE 6, 8, 20, 21, 22, 28, 27, 28, 29, JULY 18 AND 20, 1967
I>rlnted for the use of the Committee on Public Works
Digitized by Google

COMMl'rI'EJD ON PUBLIO WORKS
GlDORGII H. B'A.LLON, KarylaJld, O�
JOHN A. BLA!l'NIK, Mlnneeota
ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama
JOHN c. KLUczyNsKI, Dllnots
JIM WRIGmr, Texas
KENNETH J. GRAY, Illlnoia
FRANK M. CLARK, Penn17lvanta
ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma
HAROLD T. JOHNSON, CnUCornla
WK. J. BRYAN DORN, South Carolina
DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Cnrollon
ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana
RAY ROBERTS, Texas
ROBEM' A. EVERE'lYI', Teooesaee
RICHARD D. McCARfrHY, New York
JAMES KEE, Weat Vlrgtoln
JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey
EDWIN W. EDWARDS, LoulBtana
JEROME R. WALDIE, Callfornla
WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida
WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohto
JAMES R. GROVER, New York
JAMIIS C. CLJDVELAND, New Hampahlre
DON H. CLAUSEN, Calltornia
ROBERT C. MCEWEN, New York
CLARENCJD E. MILLER, Ohlo
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Teooeasee
FREO SCHWENGEL, Iowa
HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wlacooalo
M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky
ROBERT V. DENNY, Nebraakn
ROGJDR H. ZION, Indiana
JACK H. McDONALD, Mlchlgan
JOBN PAUL BAMMERSCHMIDT, Arknosns
,RICHARD J. SULLIVA!f, Oh�/ Oo•ttael
J0SICPB R. Bll&!flfAN, Engineer-Con.ttlltont
CLll"r0lf W. Elfl'IICLD, Jlin.orítf/ Oov-1
SPECIAL SUBOOJOUTTBZ ON TnE l<'EDEBAL-Am HIOBWAT PBooBAM
JOHN A. BLATNJK, Mlooe90ta. Chairman
ROBERT E. JONES, Alabnmn
JOHN C. KLt;CZYNSKI, llllnols
JIM WRIGH!r, TexBB
KENNETH J. GRAY, llllnolB
FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsyl'°n.nla
ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma
HAROLD T. JOHNSON, Caltfornla
ARNOLD OLSEN, Montnnn
ROBER/1' A. EVERE'DT. Tenn�eee
RICHARD D. McCARTHY. New York
JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jel'9eJ',
WILLJAM C. CRAMF.R. Florida
WILLTAM H. BAR!-IHA. Ohlo
JAME!-1 C. CLE"ELA'.'lD, New Hamp�hlrc
UON ll. CLAUSEN. Callíorofa
HOBI,:R.T C. M<:EWEN. Ne"· York
JOHN J. DONCAN, Tenoessee•
IIENRY C. SCHADEHF.RG, Wiscoosio•
ROGER H. ZJON, Indiana•
JACK B. McDONALD, Mlcblgnn•
GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland, Jlembcr E:z Offlcw
wALTER R. MAy' Chie/ Co•n•el
J0B!f P. CO!fSTANDY, 418'6tont Chie! Covn.tel
GtORGE '.{. KOPF.<'B:Y, Chief Invc,tlgator
ROREBT o. LAWRE:!fCE:, Alsocia.te Covnacl
R0BE:RT L. Mu, Minontv Counael
O1:0BGI: H. MABTl!f, ..idminiatrotive .4,,1,tant
KATRBYN M. KICl:Nl:Y, Chief Olerk
•Memberw appolnted to aubcommlttee ln the 90th Congreaa.
II
Dig11ized by Google

CONTENTS
J
(s;(p. 2..
r/90
P8lP � /
HS3
Tertimony of-
Beaton, John L., material.e and research engineer, Division of High- Pare
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. Umversity,College
Station, TeL; Neilon J. Rowan, project supervisor, Texas Tran�
portation lnstitute, College Station,._
Tex.; T. J. Hirsch, head,
Structural Research Department, ·iexas Transportation Insti-
tute, College Station, Tex____________________________________ 1039
Bridwell, Lowell K., Administrator, Federal Highway Adrninistra-
tion, accompanied by Frank C. Turner, Director, Bureau of Public
Roads; Dr. William Haddon, Director, National Highway Safety
Bureau, Department of Transportation_________________ ________ 1189
Constandy, John P., assistant chief cou11sel,Special Subcornrnittce on
tbe Federal Aid Highway Program____________________________
Esch, Representative Marvin L., Ann Arbor, Mich________________
Huelke, Dr. Donald F., University of Michigan Mcdical School, Ann
Arbor, Mich________________________________________________
Huff, T. S., chief engineer of highway design,Texas Highwny Depnrt
ment; member, Design Committce, American Association of St.nte
Highway Officials (AASHO) ____________________--_------.-. --
Johnson, Eugene M., chief engineer, Mississippi Statc Highway Dc
partment; chairman, AASHO Planni11g and Design Committee,
president,AASHO,accompanied by A. E. Johnson,executive secre-
tary,AASHO, Washington, D.C.j,
John O. Morton,commissio11er,
Department of Public Works and nighways,Ncw Harnpshire; chair-
man, AASHO Traffic Committee; Howard S. lves, cornmissioner,
Connecticut State Highway Department; chairman,AAl:-HO Com-
mittcc on Roadside Devcloprnent; Marvin J. S11ider, chief enginecr,
Missouri State Highway Commission, chairman,AASHO Commit-
492
167
169
493
tee on Construction; Ward Goodrnan,chief enginecr,Arkansas Statc
Highway Department, chairman, AASHO Committcc on Bridges
and Structures______________________________________________ 1140
Kopecky,G�org<: M., chief invcstigator,Special Subcornmittee on thc
Federal A1d H1ghway Program________________________________
Linko, Joseph, Ncw York City, N.Y____________ ·----------------
4
6
Lundstrom, Louis C.,director, Autornotivc Snfcty Enginccring, Gen
eral .Motors engineeri11g staff, Dctroit, Mich., accompa11icd by
Kenncth Stonex,exccutive enginecr,General Motors Corp., Detroit,
Mich______________________________________________________ 1005
May, Waltcr R., chief counscl, Special Subcommittee on the Federal
Aid Highway Program_________________________--- -----------
McAlpin, George, dcputy chicf engineer for technical serviccs, Ncw
York Department of Public Works,Albany, N.Y.,accompanied by
Malcolm D. Graham, director, Bureau of Physical Research, Ncw
4
York Departrnent of Public Works, Albany, N.Y________________ 1106
O'Hara, John P., staff, Special Subcommittee on the Federal Aid
Pr:t�c�!r�
º
'v.�o;p�tr- Di��i�r:-üffi�;-�r-Tr;ffi�-o-¡;;r�t¡-¿;;,
404
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 Highwa.rs; president, Institute oí Trnffic Engincers_. _ 493
<m1
Digitized by Google

IV CONTENTS
Testimony oí-Continued
Skeels, Paul, chairman, Committec on Guardrail, Highway Research Pase
Board ______________________________________________________ 493
Wllkes, W. Jack, Chieí oí Bridge Division, Office oí Engineering and
Operations, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads_______________________ 493
Wilson, James E., traffic engineer, California Divieion oí Highwaye;
chairman, National Joint Committee on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices ____________________________________________________ 493
LIST OF EXHIBITS
No.
l. Four pictures-Interstate 5 between Portland and Salem Oreg ______
2. Reprint írom Highway_ Research Record 152 (1967)-Non-Intersec
tional Automobile Fatalitiea-A Problem in Roadside Design-
Donald F. Huelke ____________________________________________
3. List oí nine interstate projects ___________________________________
4
·
Hi
ti�:h
ª
Jataue:��al
º
fg��:�� _-��:�� _
��=:��
¡
�� _��
5. Inetructional Memorandum 21-11-67-May 19, 1967, U.S. Depart
ment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration-Subject:
Safety Provisions Cor Roadeide Features and Appurtenances _______
6. f:hart-Showing four-spnn side piers; two-span closed abutmeuts; two-
epan abutments on elope; two-epan rigid írame __________________
7. Large panel ebowing hazardoue g<>re _______________________________
8. Su.mmar� etatement of Charles W. Prisk, June 23, 1967, re elides shown
1n hear1ng ___________________________________________________
9. Paper, for delivery at AASHO region 3 meeting, June 5, 1967 Highway
Saíety as Related to Design Involving Fixed Objects, T. S. Huff _____
10
. Pa
tfC:fc�1�f:Si� f_1�sti��x�
í
��:� !��-��
r
:__1_1_��- �� _
1
_
9
_
6
_
0
�-��
¡
��
1 1. Graph, Hazard Curve 21 1-GM Proving Ground Accident& (with
elide) _______________________________________________________
12. Graph, Comparison of Proving Ground, 211 cases, Hutchineon, Cornell,
and Route 66 "Hazard" Curves (with elides)_____________________
13. Script íor film, "Saíer Roadsidee," GM public relations _______________
14. Script Cor film, "Guardrail Crash Tests-For Saíety," GM public rela-
tione _______________________________________________________
l!í. Report on Highway Safety Research-Texns Transportation Institnte _
16. Selcctcd List of Reported Research Subjects and Research in Progress
Directly Relating to Highway Safety-Texas Transportation Insti-
tute ________________________________________________________ _
17. Physicnl Rescarch Report 67-1-Ncw Highway Barriers-Thc Practi
ca! Application of Theoretical Dcsign-Ncw York Department of
Public Works- May, 1967 __________. _. ___________. __________ _
18. Graph-Motor Vc:hicle Deaths Compared to Total Vehicle Miles
Traveled-1937 through 1966 __________________. _____________..
ISA. Graph-Total Motor Vchicle Deaths Comparcd with Dcaths on
Fedcral-Aid Primary 8ystem-Total Roads, Strects and High-
ways in Unit.ed States-3.7 Million Mill's ______________________
1 8B. Motor Vehicle Deaths-1212-1 966. St�tistical Rl'port ___________ _
18C. St
:��
i
_
d
stJis
t
Ü�a:ºJ�'.��rt��
i
��-��:�� _
��
1
- -�� _
�� _��
1
��
-
l8D. Statewidc Fntal lnj11ry Accidents-1966. Statistical Report-All
Systcms-Fcderal-Aid Primary Systcm (lncl11ding Intcrstatc).. _.
19A. Booklet-Report by the Special Freewny St11dy and Analysi'! Com
mittee to thc Executive Committ.ec of the AASHO--Febr11ary,
1960______________________________________________________
19B. Booklct-Freeway Opera tions-1961. (This booklet prl'pnreci as an
outgrowth of thn 12 regional seminar!' on freeway opcra tions
co11ductl'd hy thc Institutc of Traffic .E:nginccrs) ______.._.......
19C. Booklct-Traffic Control and Roac!wav Elcment.s-Thcir Rl'lation
i<hip to Highway Safct.y. 1963. A11to"motivc :_:::aret.y Foundation in
coopcration with thc U .S. Rnreau of P11hlic Roads. ____. _. _. _.. _
19D. A rcport of the Spccial AA8HO Traffic Safcty Committce--Fl'bru
ary, 1!167. Highway Design and Üpl'rational Pract.ices Helakd to
Highway Safety, known as "Thc Y<.'llow Book" ____. ________...
•Retalned In Subcommlttee Files.
Digitized by Google
221
221
-192
696
930
986
995
1020
1020
1020
1020
1023
1030
1040
1 079
113ii
1
166
1166
1166
1166
1166
1220
1222
1222
1222

HIGHWAY SAFETY, DESIGN AND OPERATIONS
Roadside Hazards
TVBSDAY, KAY 23, 1967
HousE oF REPRF.SENTATIVF.S,
SPECIAL SUBCOHHITl'EE ON THE FEDERAL-Aro H10HWAY
PRooRAx OF THE ÜOHHI'ITEE oN PUBLIC WoRKS,
Washington, D.0.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :15 a.m., in room
2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik, chnirman, presiding.
Present: Messrs. Fallon (chairman), Blatnik (subcommittee chair
man), Wright, Johnson, McCarthy, Hownrd, Crnmer, Cleveland,
Clausen, Duncan, Schadeberg, Zion, McDonald, nnd Denny.
Also present: Walter R. May, chief counscl; Robert L. May, mi
nority counsel; George M. Kopecky, chief investigator; Robcrt 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 �frs. Kathryn
Keeney, chiefclerk.
Staff, Committee on Public Works: Richard J. Sullivan, chief
counsel, and Clift.on W. Enfield, minority counsel.
Bureau of Public Roads: Charles Harrell, visual information
specia.list.
Mr. BLATNIK. The Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid High
way Program of the House Committee on Public Works will please
come t.o order.
The significance of the testimony which you are about to hear in
these series of public hearings beginning today and its important.
be.a� 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 t.o read at this point, which
we usuall¡ 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 t.o the point.
We begin today a series of hearings to inquire int.o certain qucstions
bearing upon the design and operatlonal efficiency of our highways.
In the � 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 wa.¡ as t.o preserve the confidence of Congress and of the American
pe<>� Uiepresent time, we a.re spending more than $4 billion-these are
Federal funds--a yef,r out of the highway trust fund for our Federal-
(1)
Digitized by Google

2
aid programs. More than $3 billion of this sum is being expended for
work on the Interstate System and the remaining $1 bilhon 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 pomt with pride.
Nevertbeless, in a program so vast, it could be expected that the
way would not always be smooth, nor free from human error or �
sional failure. Our hearings in the past have shown that such is, in fa.et,
the case.
However, as our hearings have identified various deficiencies and
weaknesses which were affecting the programt the response of the
Bureau of Public Roads, the American Associahon of State Highway
Officials, individual State highway departments, and other interested
organizations, has been prompt and etfective. This willingness to act
and the correctiva mea.sures 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
sorne degree because tlie matters concern the safety and well-being of
our citizens.
We need not dwell here on the deaths, the sutfering, and the economic
costs involved in this Nation's automobile accident toll. The Federal
legislation l?assed last year and the programs underwny are designed
to attack th1s tra�c problem.
Without question, in time there will be success. However, I am con
cerned about the time element particulnrly, becnuse 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 highwnys from a safety
standpoint. If unnecessary hnzardous fe.atures continue to be designecl
and built into our new h1ghways, we must tnke steps to i<lentify and
eliminate them.
lt is late. This is 1967 and more than one-half of the Interstate Sys
tem has been completed and opened to traflk. In 1 progTam where
Federal funds alone are bcing spent nt the rnte of over $10 million a
day and where certain built-m mistakes may be suffered for de<>ades,
great urgency must attach to required changes.
This subcommittee again expects the responsible oflicials 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 he pleased to recognize the
gentlemanfrom Florida, Mr. Cramer.
Mr. CRAl'tIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and of course. I
join you in your remarks and would like to a.del a few comments of my
own. It is interesting to reflect on the fact muc>h has heen said in C'o11-
gress, particularly in recent ,vears, with regard to automohile safety,
and Congress has passed leg1slation to provide for safety fent11res to
Digitized by Google

3
be included in automobile construction to guarnntee 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, ns I
understand, that 1s the subject matter of these deliberations.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1!)56, enacted nearly 11 years ago,
imposed a tremendous task upon the State highway departments and
the Bureau of Public Roads, in that they were aske,d to build the
greatest public works project in history----11,000 miles of high-speed,
access-controlled highways, in addition to the re�>"l.dar Federal-aid high
way progrnm, 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
attent1on has been given to making our highways as safe as possible.
The sheer magnitude of the job of loc.a.ting, designing, and building
a 41,000-mile system of high-speed highways within a Iimited time may
have so occupied the time and attention of our highwa.y builders that
they overlooked sorne safety measures which now appear ohvious.
,Vhatever the reason, it is apparent that tl1ere are man;v unnoc,essary
hazards within the rights-of-way of our most modern lughways. Any
observant driver can point out sorne of these hazards, such as culverts,
bridge piers, unnece.ssary sig-ns, improperly placed guardrails, deep
ditches, and steep cut and fil) banks, and trees and boulders which
"beautify" the highway. Collision with any of these can kili 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
sorne cases the driver is at fault; he may he dnmk, spee<ling, care)es.q,
or asleep. In other cases careful, law-ahiding drivers may swerve to
miss a child or an animal or a disabled car, may hit a slick or icy spot,
orbe forced offthe highway by another car.
Regardless of the reasons why a driver may leave the paved portion
of a high-speed highway, roadside aren,s should be suffic1ently clear of
obstmctions to give him an opportunity to regain control of his car.
He and his passengers should he 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 puhlished 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 peopl&-and thousands killed in other years
might be alive if more attention had been paid to clear, unohstn1cted
roadside areas.
Past investigations and hearings of this subcommittee have resulted
in the hi�hway departments and the Bureau of P11blic Roads focusing
increased attention on important elements of the Federal-aid highway
Proj!T&m, and I congratulate the subcommittee for getting those results.
I am satisfied that these hearings will prove equally as valuahle as any
Digitized by Google

4
we have held thus far, because they will result, I believe, in saving lives
ns 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 aoout 60 students from Broome Junior High
School and Richard Montgomery High School over in Rockville, Md.
Thesestudentsaresitting 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
tha.t true9 About 130 students of the total group is visitin
f Capitol
Hill and visiting other committees and activities. I think can say
without prejudice that you are witnessing the best session this
morning.
No one challenges the remark9 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 tha.t 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 God9
Mr. W. MAY. Ido.
Mr. KoPECKY. Ido.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Walter May, chief counsel of the Special Subcom
mittee on the Federal-Aid Highwa.y Program, you are recognized.
Mr. W. MAY. 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 Dept1ty Director, Office
of Traffic Opera.tions, Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of
Transportat1on. Please stand up, Mr. Prisk. Raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you a.re about to give before
this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. PRisK. Ido.
Mr. BLATNIK. Please be seated. Mr. May.
Mr. MAY. Mr. Prisk, will you identify yourself for the record,
please9
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES W. PRISK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFIOE
OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, U.S. DE
PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. PrusK. 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 Highw:iy Traffic, in the field
of traffic engineering.
This has been }arge}y my career, in traffic engineering. I have
approximately 4 years of highway department experience in
Connecticut.
Digitized by Google

5
In 1935 I started with the Burea.u of Public Roa.de working in the
fields of planning a.nd 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 a.uthor of a report on the Federal role in high
way safety. This was the result of an exha.ustive 3-year study directed
to highway safety needs as they were seen at that time, a.t the outset
of the Interstate progra.IIL
I served as ass1stant to the Commi�ioner of Resea.rch 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 wh1ch was or
� in 1961 in the Burea.u of Public Roods, and tlus office has very
recently been changed to Office of Traffic Operations. I continue in
that post.
My affiliations, profe�ionally, ha.ve been with a number of national
organizations. I tliink perhaps the most import.ant for the record and
th1s committee is the fact I ha.ve served since 1944 with the American
Association of Stn.te Highwa.y Officia.ls committees in the trnffic field,
presently as the secret.ary of two of its committees concerned wit.h
tra.ffic m.atters.
I was Chairman of the Highway Safety Committ.ee 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 hy
all of the State highway departments and the Bureau of Public Ronds.
I did have the honor, ahout 10 years ngo, of serving as president of
the Institute of Tra.ffic Engineers nn<l have been head of its interna
tional relations committee for the past. severnl years.
One other responsibility possibly related to the work of this com
mittee, as you start your mvest.igation, is the function that I perform
as vice chairman of the National ,Joint Committee on Uniform Traflic
Control Devices. This is the standnrdization body responsible to five
principal nn.tional orgn.nizations for the development of standards for
tra.ffic control devices.
I ha.ve been associated with the National Safety Council and worked
with its traffic conference, and am a member of severa} overseas gronps
also which a.re concerned with trnffic a.nd safety work, hoth opemtional
a.nd in the research fieid.
I think maybe this is enough, Mr. Chairman, to give vou an idea of
the deep interest I hold in the subject. you discuss today.
Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Prisk is actively associate<l with
a two-pa.ge Iist of organizations related to trnffic engineering and
sa.fety �n the highwa.ys. Also I notice lfr. Prisk has receiv�d two com
mendations, one from t.he U.S. Depart.ment of Commerce, S1lver lfedal
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 stnff from all agencies nnd
persons has been superb. As an example of this, I would like to ex
plain that Mr. Prisk, for sorne time now, has been assigned by the
Departrnent of Transportation, Bureau of Public Roads, to the sub
committee to render us aid and assistance. That he has done. He wi11
Digitized by Google

6
be I?resent throughout the hearings to help with his testimony and
adv1ce.
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. BLATNIK. 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. LINKO. Ido.
Mr. BLATNIK. Please be seated.
Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Linko, will you idenitfy yourself for the record.
Give your name and address.
,.
TESTDI0NY 0F J'0SEPH LINKO, NEW YORK CITY, N.Y. ,e
Mr. LINKO. My name is Joseph Linko and I live at 4036 Third
Avenue in the Bronx.
Mr.W. MAY. How are you employed, Mr. Linko?
Mr. LINKO. Ido electronic TV work.
Mr. W. MAY. Television repaid
Mr. LINKO. Yies, sir.
Mr. W. MAY. 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
wha.t he has developed on the subject during the past 4 yea.rs. Will you
proceed, Mr. Linkoj
Mr. LINKO. Yes.
(At this point slides were shown with the following colloquy:)
Mr. W. MAY. I notice the first slide up there, Mr. Linko. ,vhat is
thatW
Oigitized by Google

-
7
Mr. L:nnco. 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. Th1S has been
like this for 2 years.
This picture was taken during the sununertime. I had to actually
cut the grass away in order to ta.Ice 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. Ma.in
tenance people m1ght come by 50 times during the summer here and
cut the grass and alwa.ys go around this thing. Nobody even thinks of
removing it.
It mignt seem Jike 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 Jinings. I cannot understand why this has not been moved. This
isa hazard on Intersta.te 95.
Here is another one, just about the same t.hing. 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 írom what I note.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Linko, not to direct you, but you sa.id ma.inte
nance crews do come out here, for instance, and will cut thc grass in
the median strip and cut around these concrete stubs, leaving thc gras.c;
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 �
Digitized by Google

Mr. LINKO. 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 stea.dy
stream of tra.ffic going by, and nobody ca.lls attention to a.ny of the
crews to remove them. Is that your point 1
Mr. LINKO. That is my point. They .eick up the papers and cut the
grass, but they fail to remove the stanch1ons.
Mr. BLATNIK. They pick up the pa.per a.nd cut the gra.ss, but they
lea.ve these ooncrete barriers, spikes, standing there for overa. 2-yea.r
period.
Mr. LINKO. That is right. This one (arrow) is doing nothing a.t a.ll.
lf sorne sma.11 car runs into that, it can wipe out all the passengers in
a split second.
Oigilized by Google

-
I also lmow the roadside speed sign&-1 would like to recomrnend
at this point on city highwa� where we have very narrow medians,
that t.heee speoo. signs be _put in the center on the light pole (arrow)
where you see the red dot m this slide. lf it was put there, they could
be put back to back. You would not need any pole to hold it up. You
oould save a lot of money-1LDd it would never be hit there, beca.use
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 ca.n see a speed sign in the oonter (arrow) that sn.ys
"50 miles an bour"-we did it bere. The reason they put the speed
sign on the pole a.t this particular point is beca.use they had no room
on the ri� to put it. There is a. wa.Il there, and thn.t is the only renson.
Mr. W. MAY. Notice the route sign, 95, the supports a.re outsictc
the rdrail.
�
Lnmo. Yes, sir, they a.re. For that rea.son these rout.e signs n.1so
should be installed on the light pole. They are very small signs.
Furthermore, these signs
should not be so close to ea.ch other like
that. They a.reu:fposed to be 100 or 200 feet a.part. The next light
pole could be for th.at one [indicating]. Jnstea.d they put these
steel sign posta on :the outside of the gua.rdrn.il.
Theee a.re mistakes, beca.use somebody can da.mage their car forno
reason at a.ll, and the sign would ha.ve to be maintained.
Mr. W. MAY. lt represents a.haza.rd and costsmoney 1
Mr. Lnm.o. They ha.ve to consta.ntly fu: it. lf they installed it on the
lightpole, itcould notbe damaged.
Digitized by Google

10
Here also you see a larga sign, it S&..YS "55 miles an hour," and it•ts
put on a 6-inch steel 1-bea.m. Any medmm 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.
SPEED
LI MI T
55
SPEED C EC ED
BY o
Oigitized by Google
l.

11
Here is the same type sign. It is being held up by aluminum poles,
which a.re hollow. This cango down eas1ly if struck, a.nd 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 mana.ge to defeat the purpose of design.
Mr. W. MAY. Again we have spent extra money to create another
hazard.
Mr. Lxxxo. 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 cuttin� down the space. They are saturating the roadside
with unnecessary s:igns.
Mr. HowABD. Mr. Linko, on that picture, is that a concrete base
on the polef
Mr. LINxo. On this one here1 [Indicating.]
Mr. HowARD. No, the light pole.
Mr. Lnrao. 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 sorne 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 la.ne.
0n the left actually you have a 2-foot shoulder a.nd nobody can really
use tbat shoulder anywa.1,. There is no sense in putting a sign that
says "Use right shoulder' beca.use nobody could use the left anyway.
And¡et there are hundreds of these signs scattered on our highways,
and feel they should be moved, beca.use they are causing a hazard,
and are not serving any real purpose. If they had to be put anywhere,
Digitized by Google

12
put them on a light pole. You see the red dot in the center barriert
It would not cost any money for a sign post then.
Here you see a route sign. Now, one on either side, which calls for
four separata poles, 2½-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 lnterstate highway. It is
saturated onthe left and on the right.
Oigilized by Google
•"'

13
Here is the same sign mounted on the right on a pole, eliminating
ali maintenance and putting it in a more favorable position, a little
higher, and at no extra cost.
Mr. W. MAY. 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. LINKO. 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 righrt out of the shoulder altogether, and
there would be nomaintenance at all, and it would have saved a fortune
of money in the original installa.tion.
Now, these are not small poles. They may look small; they are 2½
by 3-inch angle irons. If you hit them, you may get into serious tr-0uble.
87-76.7088 2
Oigitized by Google

14
Mr. BLATNIK. Not to interrupt your orderly presentation, Mr.
Linko-Mr. Prisk, I ask you at this point, what would be the rea.son
for two vertical posts, the light post and the two supports for the
Interstate 78 sign we see here1 What would be the rea.son for these
being two separate insta.Ilations so close to each other!
Mr. PmsK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is reasonable conjecture that
the lighting installation was planned b:y one engineer, a responsible
spe.cialist in the lighting field. The sign mstallation was planned by a
specia.Iist 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 rightY
Mr. PmsK. 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 Y
Mr. Prusic. I think you would find all of the signs would be ooor
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, th.is example Mr.
Linko has cited, would be accounted for by two different groups deal
ing with this part of the highway development.
Mr. BLATNIK. Th.ank you. Go ahead, Mr. Linko.
Mr. LINKO. 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 cle.'lr oompletely.
'lf you look farther up, which is hard to see, the bridge abutment
is not protected either.
On all of our lnterstate highways, we have to go back and insta]}
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.
lt 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 OJ?en even though they are not finished, and taking everything into
cons1deration that was told to me and, looking around and seeing what
immediately happens, I feel the highway should stay closed. Even if it
inconvenienccs sorne 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 J?rotection at these bridge abutments. This calls for better
coordinat10n 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; 1t belongs inside the center of
the median rail.
Digitized by Google

15
Mr. BLATNIK. What would be the solution, you say 1 The light gost
should be to the right behind the fence and the directiona.l sign ' No.
278 Interstate West," should be on the lamp post W
Mr. LINKO. Yes; in this particular ca.se 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 hght pole.
We fail to keep the right shoulder clear. lf we have sorne lights in
the center, why not have them a.U there and give the g'l!Y a break1
Mr. BLATNIK. You would have no lights on the nght shoulder side
of the highwayi You would have them all in the center wherever
possible i
Mr. L1NK0. I would suggest, if you have sorne 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 kili people.
Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Prisk, is it possible to insta.U the hghting in the
median and light that three-lane roadway i
Mr. PlusK. I think it might be worth saying a word here, Mr. Ma:y,
in response to that. In order to get proper lightin� on a highway, it 1s
important that the driver see a road surface umformly illumiMted,
and it is the purpose, in this particular installation I am sure, to ha.ve
part of the lightmg supplied from the median side and the other part
supplied from the road margin, as you see. The poles are staggered,
pa� of them on the side nnd part of them offset in the median instal
lahon.
It would not be possible to provide all of the li�hting from the me
dian without a somewhat different design, possibly a somewhat con
siderably more expensive design. I think the final answers for light
!llg roadways as wide as the one you see here from the median side
has not yet been found.
Dig11ized by Google
_J

16
There is sorne work leading you to believe that we might go higher
in mounting luminares so as to covcr situations of this sort; but simply
attempting to light everything from the median side is not always a
satisfactory solution.
Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Linko, you had another point. That sign support,
the sign 2781 could have been located behind that concrete bridge para
pet on the r1ght@
Mr. Lmxo. 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 them back
to back. It would save on installation and constant maintenance.
Here also you see another sign, 2½ by 3-inch angle irons, saturating
the shoulder.
Here you see the same sign
mounted on the wall. Now, the reason
this is mounted on the wall 1s 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.

17
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, me.y I a.sk a question of Mr. Prisk 1 Mr.
Prisk, he�·1s a. highway that appears to be lighted from the median.
It is four Janes w1de. Is that consistent with your previous comment
with regard to the other slide (fig. 1--012) which is three Janes wide,
whichhad lights on both sides of the street t
They ha.ve apparently found a way of lighting a four-lane highway.
Mr. PlusK. Congressman Cramer, I think m response to that, I
should se.y tha.t I did not mean that it was impossible to light it
from the median; but on the design that we had lookad at before,
the design of the glasswork in the lumina.re wa.s intendad 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
pr_oper}y designad system. Evidently this is a different design here.
Mr. CRAHER. Different designad highway system or different designed
lighting of the �stem, whichi
Mr. PRIBK. Yes, the lighting. There are four ha.sic 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. CRAHER. In other words, the light bulb is higher and apparently
with greater intensity, is that it � So tha.t it will light a broader
space!
Mr. Pmsx. Yes, sir; that is entirely possible.
Mr. CRilt:ER. Do you ha.ve requirements of any kind for lighting in
your Bureau of Public Roads dirootives i
Mr. PRisK. We follow the standards that are set foi,th by the Illu
minating Engineering Society and the American Association of Sta.te
Hi�hway Oflicials. These are guides in determining the lighting re
qUU'ements on each highway. These are the ones we ha.ve accepted at
Public Roads.
Mr. CR.uu:R. In other words, you would accept either one, this
lighting for this highway or the other lighting for the other highway 1
Mr. PRIBK. Depending on an analysis of the situation; yes, sir.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Linko.
U.S. Mercha nt
Marine Acad
N EXT AIGHT

18
Mr. LINKO. Here also you see a.n easy knockdown sign in the shoulder
a.rea., which could have been put to the right a little bit to give use
of the full shoulder-but I am not complainmg about this sign, because
this happens to be a good sign compared to this.
This is the same kind of sign with 12-inch concrete stanchions on
either side protecting it. Anyone hitting this will severely damage
his car. If he hits it at the proper angle, he will be thrown right
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 did
not have the concrete stanchionsin front of it.
Oigitized by Google

19
Mr. BLATNJK. Mr. Linko, would you stop right here agn.in?
May I a.sk, Mr. Prisk, as I understand, the guardrads 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 corre<'t-from
going over the embankment or striking sorne fixed objeot on the other
side of the guardrail i
Mr. Pm:sK. That is correct.
Mr. BLATNIK. In this case thc g,iardrail �ornes a hazard itself in
attempting to protect. the sign
. Inadvl'rtent.ly, I am sure not inten
t.ionally, httle t.hought was ,vven to what it might do to the driver of
the vehicle. Is that correct�
Mr. PRisK. I think that is a reasonably correct statement, Mr. Blat
nik. I would think it wonld he h(>st. to realize at the outset that any
guardrail installation-:md I ropeat, 11.ny guardrail installation--ean
be a hazard of itself. lt may serve enough good pnrposes so 11.S to
overbalance the disadvantage of having it instal1ed. But the guard
ra.il instal1ations have sometimes be.en put in without significant
thought as to the disadvn.ntages. This is one.
Mr. LINKO. Well, t.his is one of t.he roosons I sta.rted my program,
to remove unnec.essary highway hazn.rds. Now these are saturated on
the highways. This happens to be the Long Island Expresswa.y, which
handles maybe 100,000 ca.rs a da.y. All you have to do is make a little
mistake, have a flat tire, or ha.ve 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 nt 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. Y011 can see this sign is the
same type of sign as the other sign and has not got the concrete
stanchions.
Mr. Cu:vELAND. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a r¡uestion �
Mr. IkATNIK. Mr. f!leveland.
Mr. Cu�YELAND. Ha.ve you ever given any consideration to another
problem,. which we have P?-rticularly in my part. of the country, New
Hampshire, as to what th1s does to snow removal?
Has anybody on the staff or anybody made any inquiries into that
phase of 1t? 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 rcprese.nt a real
difficulty to maintenance people when it comes to snow removal. They
ha.ve a great problem. Do you have somcthing to say on tlmt, Mr.
Ll�9
Mr. LINKO. Maybe that is how sorne may have gotten da.mnge<l. Rut
this is more of a hazard than before, because now in this country we
ha.ve millions of small cars. A large car might be able to smash thnt nnd
just damage the car but now with the smn.11 cars on the road, it will
wipe out ali thepassengers if hit in a certain way.
At the angle this ra1l 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
ha.zards, the ones that are doing nothing at all, n.nd this is one of
them. Now, with sorne of these there are heavy, 6-inch 1-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.
Dig11ized by Google

20
Our highways are saturated with this type and all other types of
ha.zards. This is why I am here, to point these things out. Everyone is
talking about highway safety, but how could we have highway safety
when we have these lying around and nobody is doing anything about
themi
Here are two views of another type of sign, "167 Street," notice the
two concrete pilla.rs.
These should be signs tha.t go down easy and with a thin pole and no
concrete bases. lf a. fellow makes a mistake, then let him knock down
the sign, instea.d of wiping out all his passengers aud dn.maging his
car.
Oigitized by Google
1

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 1s 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 hishway right-of-way. It is not pro
tected and anybody can put anythmg they want on the highway, be
lieve it or not.
I feel that we should draw up sorne standards, brand new stand
ards, because the ones they are using today, nobody is paying any
attention to them. First of all, anyone thwt 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 shoulder area, they do so. Such practices
should be discouraged. Just because a sign says "1 mile away", it could
be moved up a 100 feet and put in an area where a hazard already
exism.
Oigitized by Google

Here you se.e a transfonner, which is right at the edge of the
shoulder. This is a brand new highway just opened up m Sto.ten
Island. This could be put m1derneath the bridge I was standing on,
a.nd iit would not cost any more money. The guy would ha.ve a second
chance if he ra
n into that area:.
Here you see another transfonner tha.t is behind the gua.rdrail.
However, you can see that same type of guardrail insta.llation under
neath the bridge where it has not been carried through and the piers
protected.
Digitized by Google

23
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Linko, would you stop right here9 You show
a trn.nsfonner in each of these two slides. Are these a.nywhere near
the se.me stretch i Would this be under the same highwa.y department
or are they two different S�W
Mr. LINKO. This is in New York Sta.te and on the same highway.
Mr. BLATNIK. New York Sta.te.
Mr. LINx:o. There is another one here-here you see a.notJher one.
This whole ltj.ghway is sa.tu.ra.ted with this type of installation.
Here you ha.ve it on the right. In fact, you h&ve tJhree separa.te
.bBza.rds here.
Mr. BLATNIK. Ma.y I ask:, Mr. Prisk, here we ha.ve the sa.me high
way department, the sa.me installation of the electrica.l transformer
near a. bridge. Each of these three are located at a different S{>ot. One
is right mline with the light pole a.long the edge of the lughwa.y;
the other one directly behind the protecting guardrail near the bridge;
a.nd the third is off, not quite a.long, the slioulder; yet not as far back
into the slope as it should be to be sa.fe. Why the dispa.rity in locationi
Mr. PmsK. I think that the only honest answer I can give to that
question, Mr. Chairman, is th&t there is failure to recognize that trans
fonner box structure as a potential ha.zard. And not recognizing it as
a potentia.l hazard, these transformer boxes, or installations, were
probably made on the detenninations of electrica.l engineers and
lighting engineers on the ha.sis of the circuitry. They run so many
hundreds of feet, so many thousands of feet, a.nd put in a transformer,
or so ma.ny 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 h&ve three possible points of impact, the
concrete block housing the transformer to the r1ght, the sign post for
the sign, and the gua.rd rail. Then beyond it we ha.ve the bridge sup
port, vertical support.
Digitized by Google

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 �ving 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 sigo on the over
head bridge9
Mr. LINKO. That is right. Ifeel 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.
lt would have to be replaced nnd the same goes for that sign. If it
had been mounted on the exist.ing bridge it might have saved thou
sands of dolla.rs in the initinl installation. And actun.lly you need n
guardrail at the bridge abutment, and there is none, ns you can see.
That should be t.he only hazard here, and instead there are three
separo.te points for impact.
In other words, nobody is really thinking of reducing the hazards;
they are just continuingbuilding them.
Mr. CRAlIER. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BI.ATNIK. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer.
Mr. CRAMF.R. When Iwas a kid we used to play the game called
"What is wrong with the picture ¡" It looks like tliat is what we are
into here.
Mr. Prisk, if Iwere sugg-esting what. wns wrong wit.h this picture,
Iwould say, No. 1, t.he transformer is on the right-of-way, constituting
a hazard; No. 2, the sign has been plac.ed on a separate st.-rndard, rather
than the bridge, which provides a separat.e hnzard; No. �, the white
and black striped post is a sepa.rnte hazard; No. 4, the g11ardmil itself
at the red spot. is a. hazard in that it. is not in nny wav gro11nded or
installed in any way to prevent serio11s nccident; and in addit.ion,
No. 5, the stanchions supporting the bridge, or the pillars tlwmselves,
have no prot.ection nnd are pretty close to the trn.veled lanes. Now, tha.t.
provides five sepnrate specific haznrds.
Now, how can anyone possibly suggest that this design was made
wit.h snfety in mind 1
Mr. PrusK. This is a very good question, and you hnve made a good
identification of the hazards that are there. I believe that the improve
ments tha.t you suggested are not. unreasonable ones, in most part.
That black and white board is simply a marker board up against
the side pier. Idoubt. t.hat. this co11ld be considered to be any kind of
hazard. In In.et, it probably contributes to safet.y at. night, because
those boards are reflectorized and show the motorist where the side
pier is.
Mr. CRAMF.R. Subst.itute t.he light pole I did not mention-it is also
in the pictur&-for the painted striped pillar.
Mr. PrusK. I wondered if you had over]ooked that light pole.
[Laughter.] Ido not think of a good answer to your question.
Mr. CRAMER. How can we toda.y, with the engineering capabilities
that we have and with the Burenu's experience over many years, n.nd
with the State highway department's experienc.e likewise, end up with
five separate hazards in one locn.tion like this? That is what Iwant to
know.
Mr. PrusK. There is no good answer for it that Ican think of. These
separa.te hazards looked at separately would be recognizahle as haza.rds
Digitized by Google

25
in a.ny highway engineer's mind toda.y. But they a.re put in over a. spa.n
of time. It is quite possible this lightmg might not ha.ve been insta.lled
at the same time the highway was built, and a.s things a.re added on,
very often hazards are intesrrated into a facility without the overview
eva.lua.tion of knowledge o1 the highway authority. So you a.sk how
can this ha.ppen9 I say it can only ha.ppen by lack of consideration of
the.se separate elements for what they are, in terms of potentia.l
ha.zards.
Mr. CRAJO!R. As I understa.nd, then, your testimony is to the effect
you ha.ve separate planners for separate functions, a.nd they just do
not get to�her. In other words, you have planners for lighting, plan
ners for signs, planners for bridges, pl(l.Jlilers for roadside pa.rking,
planners for use of right-of-way, for use of other tlum highway pur
poses, such a.s tra.nsformers-1s tha.t righ�in the Sta.te highwa.y
depa.rtmentY
Mr. Pmsx. This is wha.t I would sa.y is la.rgely responsible for situa
tions of this sort.
Mr. CRAHER. Let me ask one more question. We pnssed Ia.st year the
Federal-Aid Highwa.y Act of 1966. Prior thereto in 1965, we J?&SSed
the Ba.ldwin amendment, providing for studies and research m the
subject of highway sa.fety. In 1966, we passed the Highwa.y Sa.fety Act
which required that standards be esta.blished relating to highwn.y
sa.fety programa.
What is being done under that to prevent a. recurrence-you already
ha.ve the sta.tutes on the books-to prevent a recurrence of such a.n
exa.mple as this9
Mr. PRisx. Well, the Highwa.y Safety Act is being a.dministered by
t.he Nationa.l Highway Safety Bureau, as I a.ro sure you know, and the
standards that are being prepa.red there ha.ve not been put int.o 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 situa.t.ions like this, conducted
jointly during the la.st 6 or 8 mont.hs by the Bureau of Public Roa.ds
and the Sta.te highwa.y depa.rtments, t.hat these kinds of hazards have
been identified. It is now the expressed policy of both the American
Associa.tion of Sta.te Highway Officials a.nd of the Bureau of Public
Roa.ds tha.t these a.re to be eliminated from n.11 future construction and
a.re to be removed from exist.ing construction as the programs progress.
Mr. CRAMER. In the past, safety matters have been nnder you; is that.
correcU Under the Office of Traffic Operations, Bureau of Public
Roo.ds1 Is tha.t the newtitle f
Mr. Pmsx. That is the new tit.le. I nm second in comma.nd.
Mr. CuxEa. Wha.twas your old t.itlet
Mr. P,nsK. Dermty Director of the Office of J:Iighway Safety.
Mr. CRAHER. So you were t.he safety nuthor1ty prior to the reor
ganiza.tion, is that right9
Mr. PRisK. Right.
Mr. CRAHER. Now, under the reorga.nization, who is going to be in
cha.rge?
Mr. PmsK. This is a question I think I must pass on. The Federnl
Highway Administration ha..<;. nf course, been estnblished within the
Department of Transporta.tion. The respPctive re<;ponsibi}ities of the
Burenu of Public Roa.ds, the National Highwn.y Snfety Bureau, and
Dig11ized by Google

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. Ca.AHER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I intend to pursue this matter
as these hearings go on, a.nd I hope we will have witnesses a.vailable
to give us adequate explanation.
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, we look forward to it. We hope ror the time
being, as the problem here is presented for the record, we feel it is
es;;ential we do get into the area of questions the gentleman is now
indicating.
Mr. CiiAMER. 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 opimon 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 whát is being done. In particular, I want to inquire about the
function of the National Highway Sn.fety Bureau, esta.blished outside
of the Bureau of Public Roads as a separate agency under Mr. Rrid
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, decis1onmaking, 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 Are.as," both adopted by
the American Association of State Highway Officials. And I 111st 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
constructed9
Mr. PRISK. That is correct.
Mr. CRAMER. So we are really getting nowhere at the moment in
regard to better standards under either the reorgnnization or the
H1ghway 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 prope::
witnesses to get further into that matter ]ater, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question i
Mr. Br..ATNIK. 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 tlrnt 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
Digitized by Google

much more expensive it would be if the supporting piers on the right
were eliminated 9 Can you answer that f
Mr. BLATN1K. Mr. Prisk:.
Mr. Piusx. 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 percentincrease
in the cost of that span. In sorne shorter spans there was n�
Mr. CLEVELAND. Excuse me justa minute. You are making this un
clear to me.
I am not talking about the cost of taking those piers out; I am ta]k
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 <'ost
something to put those piers in.
Mr. Prusx. This is the same thing I am talking about. I am sorry to
be unclear. lf 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 yourquestion9
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 ca.n be 9
Mr. Piusx. 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 sorne other protective device
around the pien. be very he]pful, rather than having a head-on impact
into a. square or circular concrete structure1 Vould a guardrai] be of
any protection in this case 'l
Mr. PrusK. It would be my judgment t.hat 1L guardrail for the side
piers is desirab)e in this sit.uation.
Mr. BuTNIK. One last comment about "what is wro11g with this
picture," the tille given to this pictnre by the g.:intleman from Florida,
}fr. Cramer, is that dter your at.tention is called to these obstructions,
these ha.zards, you really do not have to be an engineer or specialist
in sa.fety. An average citizen oran average motorist, whPn h1s at.ten
tion is callecl to it, can find th<'se things out for himself. The questiou
i$, How did this escape the al tcntion of so many people in the highway
department who are daily concentrating their efforts to all nspects
of the highway program, which include safety and design features1
lt would not be lack of attention; is it lack of coordination1
Mr. PRISK. I think, as I attempted to suggest earlier with respect
to the lighting, the separate concems of bridge engineers against the
roadway design engincers, trnffic engineers, nnd others prob,lbly ha.ve
not been sufliciently coordinated. On the other hand, the re.lative
hazards they present are an area in which we do not ha.ve very much
information.
You should not overlook the fact that little research is available
today to quantify the relative hazards. This is why itappears to the
layman and to the engineer, too, as an apparent hazard. Butwe 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.
Digitized by Google

28
Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman from New York, Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This looks familiar. Is that Staten Island 9
Mr. LINKo. Yes; this is the Staten Island Expressway.
Mr. McCARTHY. Do you have information on fatal accidents at this
locationf
Mr. LINKO. Well, it is hard for me to get. In New York City, a big
city, we do not even bother to put these accidents in the paper because
there is so much going on, a.nd nobody ever hears a.bout these things.
People die and they do not even bother to print this in the paper. This
pa.rticular pioture is rea.By a shame beca.use these haza.rds are not
necessary. It does not cost any more money to eliminate these. It would
cost less money if sorne of these hazards ha.d been eliminated at. the
start. You already have one guardrail protecting the overhead sign.
That guardrail could have heen put in front of the bridge abutment.
Mr. McCARTHY. On the sign, I would like to ask Mr. Prisk, what
would you estímate the cost of those sign supports?
Mr. Prusx. This type of sign, "Bradley Avenue exit one-fourth
mile," mounted on a mast arm1 and in that type of loca.tion, I would
suggeat that is in the range ot $6,000 to $8,000.
Mr. McCARTHY. $6,000 to $8,000. Just before I left prívate industry
to come down here to Congress, the company I was with and ot.her
companies were beginning to utilize certain concepts made by a famous
Itahan engineer-4he name escapes me at the moment. Sorne of these
vast, new, very interesting buildings have been erected with concrete
without supporting structures. Vast expansions of heavy cement struc
ture without supporting pillars, so that it is conceivable-1 mean it is
feasible to construct t.hat bridge without the median pillars, too.
Now, I am just wondering if anY. of these people have been using
the laitest modern technology in bmlding briclges without pillars. Do
you know of any?
Mr. PRISK. I would have to say, sir, that I am nota structural en
gineer. To the best of my knowledge,_
the bridge engineers in the State
highway depart.ments are using actvanced concepts of design and
mwterials. They certainly spend a gren.t deal of time in discussion of
improvements of design.
On the extent to which this principle that you mentioned has been
reoognized, I am quite una.ble to comment.
Mr. McCARTHY. Just for the record, Mr. D'Amico gave me the
na.me, the gentleman I alluded to is Mr. Nervi, whose concepts have
been utilized. I believe Dulles Airpol't is one where they have this
vast expanse of heavy concrete without supporting pillars.
Mr. PRisK. Yes, sir. I think you must recognize, however, that there
are vehicle loads to be accommodated on that structure over a consider
able span, and just what is going to hold that up, I do not know. You
do not have any vehicle on top of the roof at Dulles Airport.
Mr. McCARTHY. No, but you have a very wide expansive area, plus
the weight of the material itself, plus the normal stress. I am not a
structural engineer, either, but I think that the idea has been shown
that you can erect a structure without supporting members. My recol
lection of it is that these can be made very strong with ndded reinforc
ing steel. I am sure we would encounter sorne difficulties in view of
the load of trucks and cars and so forth, but it seems to me it is worth
Digitized by Google

29
exploring the idea of erecting these without supporting pillars. You
know of nobody who is at least experimenting w1th it !
Mr. PRisK. That is correct. But I again must qualify tha.t reply by
saying that I am not a structural engmeer. I do not work actively on
problems of the supporting of structures. As far as their function and
their general configurations are concemed and their effect on traffic,
this has been the subject of sorne 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
fied bridge engineer to ta.lk about this matter of center p1ers if you
wish tod1scuss that.
Mr. McCARTHY. One final point. There is money available for re-
search on new concepts of highway safety; is that not corre:et !
Mr. PRisx. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCARTHY. Under whose direction is this research conducted!
Mr. PRisK. There are funds available through the Federal-aid high-
wa.y program for research such as you suggest.
Mr. McCARTHY. By the States9
Mr. Pmsx. By the Sta.tes or by qualified investigators in the prívate
doma.in.
Mr. McCARTHY. So that the money is available. It just occurs to me
tha.t this would be an area. worthy of research anyway. We have new
con<�pts. Could they be utilized9 When you thinkof how many �rsons
have been kiUed by hitting those median pillars or the side p11lars
and this is a major area where people have been killed-1 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 ha.ve a question from Mr. McDonald, from Michign.n.
Mr. McDoNALD. Mr. Prisk, when a highway is designed, I MSume
tha.t we ha.ve engineers to design the concrete roadway portion and
bridge engineers to de.sign our bridges and lighting engineers and
sign engineers, too.
Do we ha.ve a.ny such people as sn.fety engineers, for instance, to
ooordina.te the efforts of a.U these other pe.ople n.nd keeping in mind
ata.U times the safety of the driver on the highway �
Mr. PRisK. Work that is done to bring together the interest of these
severa.} groups usually ta.kes the fonn of a review team, which nctually
is composed of members of these groups that get together and discuss
the overriding and interlocking requirements of ea.ch of t.heir own
responsi1
bilities rela.t:ed to the tfoal highway irnprovement.
Mr. McDoNALD. Mr. Prisk, do you think it would be a 1,_YOOd idea
to have an overall safety engineer on these projeots to look at the
highwa.y only from the aspect of safety for the driver, and t.hen to
coordina.te or help coordina.te the activities of the other people in
volved in design 1
Mr. PRISK. Mr. McDonald, I would like to a.gree with you tba,t that
function be performed. As to whether or not 1t would be performed
through a person who perhaps serves as t.he assistant to t,he chief
engineer or something of this sort, I do not know as I would ca.re to
comment. I think the function should be performed.
Wf-'IIWO 98 1
Dig11ized by Google

30
Mr. McDoNALD. From wha.t I have seen so fa.r, from wha.t we have
seen before in our session, it would seem to me tha.t this could be a
whole field of its own, just sa.fety engineering related to protecting
the driver. I think tha.t this one person should ha.ve authority in the
fina.l determination of how the highway is to be designed and con
structed.
Mr. P1usx. I fully agree with yourconcept.
Mr. MoDoNALD. Thank you.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cla.usen.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Thnnk you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly I believe Mr.
McDonald has demonstrnted why I believe he will be a valnable a.ddi
tion to our committee. I think that he has touched on something tha.t
may well be a recomrnendat!Íon coming out of these hearings. Cer
ta.inly sorne of.the Sta.te engineering establis_hmen!"-5, !f I can use that
term, may be Just. a; part of the total operntion within t.he Sta.te a.nd
thus ma.y be somewhat inhibited. I would think this committee might
ta.ke a. good look a.t making a recommendation nlong the lines Mr.
McDona.ld ma.de, and I want to compliment him for it.
If I could Mk the expert witness, the sign "Brndley Avenue," as it
is located is suspended from the post. Is it feasible to place that par
ticular sign on the bridge itself; and if you cannot, why noU
Mr. PRISx. 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 �
sorne unfavorable experiences with the use of signs on structures where . 1
there is vandalism or breaking of the luminaries that. light the sign
and things of this sort. And in this case, fences have hnd to be erected
to prevent people, youngsters particularly, from get.t.in� at the sign.
But in most circumstances with a sign of those proport1ons, it would
be entirely practicable to mount it on the structure.
Mr. CLAUSEN. I can fully realize that they ha.ve to design a size of
the sign keeping in mind the distance bctween 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. PrusK. Yes, sir. If this had to state "Exit % mile" instea.d of
"¼", that is not critical.
Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes, sir. Now, the final question, the red dot to the far
right, is that a transformer i
Mr. PRISK. Perhaps Mr. Linko would have better information than
I on that; hut I have seen these types of instnllations on highways, on
Interstate hig-hways, unfortunately, and this is a control box for the
lighting circuit.
Mr. C1,AUSF.N. vVell, again, wou]d t.here be any renson why, for
instance, tha.t that particular control box could not havc been placed
on the bridge to serve the signs located on the bridge 1
Mr. PR1sK. The box probab]y controls the entire lighting- on the
highway, perhaps as much ns a half mile either side of the box, up
and down the highway.
It would seem to me that the most. reasonn.ble thing to do would be to
move that box up the slope, or it. <'ould he put behind, possibly
closer to the stmcture, on the far side so that. it. would be downstream
from the stmcture and thereby e.njoy the protect.ion t.hat. is afforded
by those side piers, as long as they st.ay in there. These are sorne pos
sible so]utions.
Digitized by Google
,
1

31
Mr. BLATNIK. Time is running out on us. Mr. Linko, would you
proceed with your presentationW
Mr. LmKo. Yes. I better get going.
Here you see two concrete stanchions that must be 2½ 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 ty�.
As you see, it says' one-half mile." A little further you see a natural
hazard, a brid,1?0 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. lf anyone hits that, he is finished.
Here is a.nother one, right in the shoulder.
(Slide.)
4• A••
Ft Hemllten Pllwy
orr soon

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.
"-o<
1
.{!!. ';
"{
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.
11
''
Mr. BLATNIK. I did not hear that last part. That guardrail is where ª 11
Oigitized by Google

Mr. LINKo. Actua.lly the motorist has about 20 feet off the roa.d to
the right. Anybody riding along on this highway could actua1ly run
around tha.t guardrail that is supposed to be protecting him, and smash
into the bridge a.butment.
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 ali. Actually, it costs more money to do itwrong.
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 difl'erence 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).

34
Here also you could use a location where you have a hazard like
that bridge above.
The ideal position could be in an area where you have a hazard
already (arrow). Why create new hazards�
Oigilized by Google

35
Here is & sign on Route 17, in New York State, and it se.ys: "State
pollee nerl right." You k:now that is not a critica.! sign. You could
back it up where the dot is on your right (arrow) behind the re.il and
clea.r the a:rea.
Like I se.1., the important thing is to make this area off limits
and to make 1thard 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 gue.rdra.il here or a bridge abutment.
Here you can see you he.ve 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.

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.
Mr. BLATNIK. Is this the same sign ?
Mr. LINKO. This is before and after.
I took pictures in advance of abou.t 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.

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 ?� the wall. The highway is not any wider, exactly the same
oonditions.
Here is another location at which an accident occurred. I had sorne
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.
Oigitized by Google

And you can see somebody smashed into this concrete base. Man¡
aooidents have occurred here. Notice tha.t the guard rail is gone-1t
was hit and it went down. The guardrail has been dama.ged 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.
This is the same location. You see snow on the ground. There is still
no guardra.il.
Digitized by Google
IÍ
,¡

39
And somebody had a serious aceident. I do not know what hap
pened to this driver.
Mr. BLATNIK. I am sorry to interrupt now. Was this picture related
f.o the previous picture in any way 9
Mr. LINIO. Yes; same location. This has been hit prior and the
prdrail was never repla.ced.
Mr. BLATNIK. Is that the wa.11 or a shadow at the right9
Mr. Lnrao. lt is a wall, a stone wall. This sta.nch1on could have
been put behind the wa.ll, or on the stone wall like I showed before.
It happens to be a usable shoulder area., and this is the place where a
r.ar most likel;y will run off the róa.d. It is on the outside of the tum,
and it was raining. Failing to repla.ce the gua.rdra.il eaused the un
MC91.BP-Y hazard to this person.
M:r. BLATNIK. What happened, do you reca.11, to the occupa.nt of this
vehicle9
Mr. Lnrao. I did get bis Iicense pla.te number a.nd I ealled the place
where he works. They told me he did not work there any more, so I
rea.Ily do not know what happened to him.
Suppoee you had been sitting where this driver was9
Mr.BLATNIX. Same pose, same vehicle, front view9
Mr. Lnmo. Yes.

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. ÜRAMER. It also indicates, does it not, that they made sure they
�
put a post in there that an automobile could not destroy. It might 1
destroy the automobile, but the automobile could not destroy it.
Mr. LINK.o. That is right.
Mr. ÜRAMER. To support a sign.
Mr. LINKO. Sometime they might put up money to back these thinl?S
up so it can be cleared from the shoulder. In this particular case, tha.t
is just a little stretch, about 3 or 4 fe.et. Why are they pennitted to
saturate the shoulders i If you have a shoulder area, these stanchions
are supposed to be 2 feet off the shoulder area.
Mr. W. MAY. As I rocall 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 i 1
Mr. LINK.o. Yes. I have tried for 2½ years; they never even bother
j
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- ¡1
long in the shoulder area. But in case there was no other place to put
it, 1t would be very easy to build it closer to the wall and phase it o�t
with the proper guardrail of about 100 feet or 150 feet and taper it
right into the wall. This guardrail is design
ed to lessen your impact
not to prevent it, but to do that it must be installed right.
Oigitized by Google

41
Here is anotber one. This one has been lucky. The guy did not hit it
11.ttheend.
Digilized by Google

42
Here you see one on 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 1s because most
of these signs are trying to tell the two left Janes 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.
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 mil, 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 the road.
McL••n Ave
IIIT l/4 _IIILI
-,
t
l
'1
'·

43
Mr. CRAJD'.&. From these pictures, it looks as if the subject matter of
the sign involves action on the right lane a.nd the sign is on the right.
Would that argue against_placing those same si� m the center as he
suggestsf Any reason for having them on the nght when the activity
involved, the tumoff and so forth, is on the rightY
Mr. Plusx. No, there are no fixed requirement.s. This �rha.ps is
catering to the traditional practice to place signs on the nght of the
roodway. lf that is a limitcd 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 detennin
ing factor a.nd poles cannot alwa.ys be put on top of ordinary masonry
walls. There has to be a substantial base to keep t.his size sign from
being blown down.
Mr. CRAKER. How many miles an hour wind 1
Mr. Pm.sx. Ranging up to 100 miles an hour, depending upon the
sections of the countr;y.
Mr. CRAJIF.R. That 1s all.
Mr. LINxo. What I want to say a.t this point, 1 am ree.lly t&lking
about city highways beca.use that is where I came from, and 95 percent
of the highways in my &rea ha.ve a very narrow median like this one
[indicating]. In fact, more of the sign could be over the highway if you
put it in tne median tha.n it would be if you have a full shoulder which
this is not. In many places you ha.ve a full shoulder. And the sign renl
ly belongs on the left, the way I see it-1 could be wrong-beca.use you
are trying to tell the drivers m the center Jane nnd left In.ne to �et over.
lf you could remove the hazard completely tha.t is the pomt I am
t.rying to sy. I am trying to remove the haza�s for every plnce---1 am
trying to figure a way, now can we get rid of thn,t. hazard? . .
That is why I give this particular suggestion. We ha.ve a narrow
median, the guardrail is already available to protect the sign. That is
my point there. To me it soundscorrect.
lfr. CRAKER.. Why can we not have a. si�n of reason11ble size being
placed on the hght ¡>O:St, already a hazard m the center median?
Mr. PRisK. The hght pole would have to be completely redesigned
tosupport a sign of that size, for reasons I indicated earlier. The wind
load on the sign could not. be taken by light standnrcls of conventional
de8ign.
Mr. McCARTHY. Could I ask one question?
Mr. BLATNIX. Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCARTHY. Doea the New York Sta.te Department of Public
Works ha.ve a safety director?
Mr. PRisK. I think they have a trn.ffic division. They have a design
division, of course, nnd a chief engineer who is very alert to safet.y
considerations. I am not aware that they have a snfety director as such
within the department of pub}ic works.
Mr. McCARTHY. I think back to my industrial experience, we hnd
:i safety supervisor or director whose 30b it wns to just go around and
look at these hazards and he was responsible for seeing thnt they were
either guarded or removed. I would think that this is something thnt
we in our Sta.te department of public works should ha.ve, 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 nttention of the New York
State Department of Public Worksi
Digitized by Google

44
Mr. LINKO. Yes, I told everybody and anybody who wanted to
listen.
Mr. McCARTHY. What did they say1
Mr. LINKO. I told them over a year ago on sorne of this stuft'; and
I look at the brandnew roads they are opening up, and they have the
same stuft'.
Mr. BLATNIK. The same thing on new highways now being opened
up that you told them about over a year ago, is that right 9
I look at the brand new roads they are opening up, a.nd they have the
have the roadside saturated with these big concrete stanchions, and
they have wiard rails and bridge abutments close by where they could
have been mstalled.
Mr. McCARTHY. And they did not take any cognizance of your point
ing this out, they did not do.anything about it 9
Mr. LINKO. 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 9
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 h1ghways in urban areas, do not really deal with the sub
ject of off-the-h1ghway safety features, do they? Off-the-highway prob
lems that we have been referring to, obstructions near the traveled
lanes1
Mr. PRISK. Problems such as Mr. Linko has discnssed 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 "H1ghway Design
and Operational Practices Related to Highway Safety," printed in
document form in February 1967, which deals with th1s very subject
matter, did it not?
Mr. Prusx. 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 relatmg to the very problems we are discussing, is that not
correct?
Mr. PrusK. If I have my dates correct, Dr. Haddon's Febrnary 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 severa} weeks
away from being out, perhaps even longer than that.
Mr. CRAMER. As of the moment, there is no basic, even minimal
standard relating to off-the-highway safcty features or hazards which
we have been reviewing here this morning, other than the printed
AASHO publication which has not been accepted or adoptad by Dr.
Haddon9
Mr. Prusx. Not by Dr. Haddon, but by the Bnrean 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.
Digitized by Google

4ó
Mr. CRAXER. Dr. Haddon is in cha.rge of safety, and yet bis agency
has notyet adopted it, is that correctf
Mr. Piusx. Dr. Haddon, with all due respect to him is not in charge
of the road program. The design and construction of highways is out
side of bis jurisdiction, unless Iam mista.ken.
Mr. CRAxER. Well1 he has jurisdiction under the Highwn.y Safety
Act, as I understand 1t, of 1966, does he not9
Mr. PRISK. Not of the Federal-aid highway J?rogram.
Mr. CRAXER. He has authority under section 402-1 ha.ve the act
before me-Public La.w 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. Haddonf
Mr. PRISx. I think you will find a. statement of record, sir, made by
the Secretary of Transportation, to the eft'ect that the implementation
of the safety standards is the responsibility of the Bureau of Public
Roads.
Mr. CRAHER. I understand that. You are talking about implementa.
tion. You cannot implement what you do not ha.ve in existence,
Mr. Piusx. Nºi�sir.
Mr. CRAXER. l'.ou are talking about implementing the standards
after they have been promulgated. They have not ibeen promulgated
yet as it relates to these problems.
Mr. PRISx. That is correct, aside from--
Mr. CRAHER. Therefore, so far as Dr. Haddon is concemed so far as
the safety agency is concerned, so far as conforming to the Highwa.y
Safety Act of 1966 is concemed, in which Congress instructed the
Secretary of Commerce to establish highway design sta.ndards relating
to safety, and despite the fact there are in existence proposed highway
sa.fety standards relating to these very problems of off-the-highway
safety features, there have be.en no standards adopted to date by the
Secretary or by Dr. Haddon and his agency, is that not correctf
Mr. Piusx. 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 signin,g standards for the Interstate System are
the product of jomt 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 t.he Federal
aid Interstate System. These are the stanclards in effect today. And
until they are superseded by something that Dr. Hnddon issues, these
rema.in 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, oft'-highway obstructtons as they relate
to safety hazards í
Mr. Piusx. They do not deal fully with it, that is corred. Highway
safety is a very broad field.
Mr. CRAXER. Secondly, t!:::-:) is already in the law, is there not,
substantial provision for highway safety research, so thnt I do not
think we should try to give the implication that thcre are not tools with
,vhich to do the job, No. 1-1½ percent of all Federal highway ap
portionments are available to the States for research. And they must
87-7G7 �8---4
Digitized by Google

46
mandatorily use this 11h percent for research, which would include
safety research,would it notf
Mr.Pmsx.Yes.
Mr. ÜRAHEB. Secondly, under the present law an additional one
half of 1 percent of Sta.te allocations for the ABC system could be
used on a discretionary basis for research, is that right9
Mr.PRisx. That is correct.
Mr. CRAHER. That would also include safety research,would it notf
Mr.Plusx.It could.
Mr. ÜRAHER. So there is available a mandatory 11h percent, a dis
cretionary one-half of 1 percent of highway allocations, which to
da.y 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 notf
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. PrusK. And a good bit of it is being spent for safety research.
Mr. CRAMER.And that is available,and 1t does not even require State
matching. It can be 100 percent Federal funds for research,right j
Mr. Prusx. 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 pract1ce.
Mr. CRAMER. And in addition to that, the Secretary himself under
present law has authority for research.
Mr. PR1sK. With other funds,yes.
Mr. CRAMER. And he can spend up to what1 3¾ percent of authorized
Federal-a.id highway funds for administra.bon,including researchf
Mr.Prusx. That is the legal limit.
Mr. CRAHER. 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 itnoti
Mr. PRISK. Yes,sir.
Mr. ORA.Mm. 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 correcti
Mr. PRisK. Yes. This is basically an enlargement or reinforcement
of existing authority.
Mr. CRAMER. And Congress authorized appropriations Wlder the
general safetx provisions of section 402 of sorne $67 million for fiscal
1967, $100 mllhon for 1968, $100 million for 1969. In addition ,to that,
for research itself under ithat act, section 403, there was authorized to
be appropriated the additional sums of $10 million for 1967, $20 mil
lion for 1968, $25 miIlion for 1969, is that not correct�
Mr. PmsK. I believe those are the oorreot figures; yes, sir.
Mr. CRAMER. So I think the record should show that there are a lot
of tools availruble to prevent this very thing from happening,at least
in the future,and there have been tools a.vailable for many years in the
Dig11ized by Google
1
1

47
past under other acts enacted prior to the Baldwin Amendment of
1965 a.nd the Highway Safety Act of 1966, I am advised by counsel
on our side that they go back sorne 20 yea.rs. The sta.tutes a.uthorizing
research that I mentioned justa few mornentsago. I ask thata sum•
ma.ry of hlghway research provisions be inserted at this point in the
reoord.
M.r. BLATNIK. Without objeo'tion, so ordered.
Federal funds for blghwa.y research and planning (lncludlng hlghway salet;y
retlell?'Ch) are avallable under tour provislons of l'aw.
l. Under eection 307(e) (2) of tltle 23, United States Code, one and one-half
percent of aU Federal-ald hlghway npportlonmente are avallable only for re
search, lnvestigatlons, studies, etc.
On the basle of the 1968 upportlomuent of $4.4 billlon, this would make a·bout
$66 million available annually.
2. Under eect:ion OOT(c) (3), one-half of 1 percent of funds apportloned for
the ABC system are avallable for reeearoh, etc., upon the request of a Sta.te.
On the basis of the 1968 ABC apportlonment of $1 billlon, thie would make about
$5 mi
l
lion avallable annually.
3. Under eection 307(a), the Secretary may use admlnlstratlve funds forre
search. Admlnistratlve funds are deducted from Federal-a.Id hlghway apportlon
ments ln an amount not exceedlng 3¾ pet"C.-ent of sums authorlzed to be
nppropriated annually. For fiscal year 1967, $60 milllon (11/2 percent) was
dedllClted for adminlstratlve oosts. For the same fiscal year, $11,073,000 of admln
istrative tunds w1111 b� for research.
4. Sectlon 105 of the Hlghway Safety Act of 1966 authorlzes approprlatlon of
$10 million for fiscal year 1967, $20 mllllon for 1968 'llnd $25 milllon for 1969,
for hlghway safety researoh and development.
Mr. W. MAY. Mr. Linko, proceed.
-
Digitized by Google

48
Mr. LINKO. 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 the
raíl has been hit.
Mr. BLATNIK. What was thati
. ..., ' � --..·
. .
,
.
t.
Mr. L1NK0. 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 stanch1on back againstthe wall W
Digitized by Google
::.

49
Mr. LINKO. You could have phased the hazard out. They call for 75
feet of guardrail for a sign like that. lt is only about 24 there. lf 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 raíl 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 UJ? against the wall, about 15 inches wide, but then they put
this guardrail and put it out sorne 30 inches.
Mr. BLATNIK. In other words, you just cannot miss very easilyí
Mr. LINKo. That is right. With a proper guardrail, you could slide
right by with no damage at ali.
Digitized by Google

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 uf on the overpass.
Mr. fü.ATNIK. Do you fee that this ratlier elabora.te and apparently
expensive superstructure cost is not necessary to hold this sign; is that
correct9
Mr. LINKO. Yes.
Mr. BLATNIK. The sign could be put on the bridge as indicated in
the previous slide9
Mr. LINKO. The distance is not too far. If you would keep the safety
factor in the back of your mind, it would be advantageous to put 1t
there, even if you have to make the sign a little bit b1gger, and you
will be a.ble to see it. I understand those bridges cost $15,000 to $30,000.
And here is a closeu:p of the base of the sign support. Again, see how
short this guardrail 1s-this is a high-speed road.
,.
.'••

A Highway_Safety_Design_and_Operations 405p.pdf

A Highway_Safety_Design_and_Operations 405p.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from FRANCISCOJUSTOSIERRA

More from FRANCISCOJUSTOSIERRA (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Highway_Safety_Design_and_Operations 405p.pdf