The Joint Board’s Report

Meanwhile, James and the Committee of Five were considering a numbering plan. James wrote to the committee members on August 27 enclosing a small map of the United States on which he had shown, he believed, "the possibility of a systematic plan for numbering interstate routes." Many years later, he recalled how he approached the task:

As you know, the U.S. is about twice as wide as it is from North to South, and with this I saw a complete pattern of just what I wished. It stares one in the face, it is so simple and so adjustable. With north-south roads numbered odd from east to west, and east-west roads numbered even from north to south, you at once start a simple, systematic, complete, expansible pattern for a long time development.

All of the "continuous routes" laid out by the committee during the Joint Board's meeting had been numbered. For the principal east-west routes, James assigned two-digit numbers ending in zero. For the principal north-south routes, he assigned numbers ending in 1 or 5. With these base routes numbered, the remaining routes could be numbered accordingly. He thought three-digit numbers, which he considered inevitable, should be assigned to short sections, cutoffs, and crossovers. Logical alternate routes should be given the number of the principal line of traffic, plus 100. Thus, under his original scheme, an alternate for U.S. 55 would be U.S. 155.

On September 25, the Committee of Five met in St. Louis at the Jefferson Hotel to complete the numbering plan. The committee followed James' concept. Transcontinental and principal east-west routes were assigned multiples of 10, with the lowest number along the Canadian border (U.S. 2 chosen to avoid a U.S. 0). The principal north-south routes were given numbers ending in 1, with U.S. 1 along the East Coast. The north-south routes of considerable length but secondary importance were given numbers ending in 5.

The resulting grid was filled in with two-digit numbers for alternates, cut-offs, and connecting routes. Three-digit numbers were assigned to branches, with the figures 1, 2, 3, etc., added as a prefix in sequence along the line of the through route (thus, the first branch of U.S. 20 was U.S. 120, the second U.S. 220, etc.).

For the most part, the plan resulted in a consistent numbering sequence, with room for expansion because some one- and two-digit numbers had not been used (8, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 44, 47, 55-59, 66, 68, 72, 79, 82-84, 86, 88, 93, and 98). The Joint Board's final report noted, however, that absolute consistency was neither possible nor desirable:

An unbroken numerical sequence was not possible unless lines of prevailing flow of traffic were to be entirely neglected. Such lines cross each other and demand that numerical order be sacrificed in a few cases.

The most flagrant inconsistency was the route designated U.S. 60. As a multiple of 10, the number should have been assigned to a transcontinental, east-west route between U.S. 50 (Annapolis, Maryland, to Wadsworth, Nevada) and U.S. 70 (Morehead City, North Carolina, to Holbrook, Arizona). However, the Committee of Five assigned the number to a crescent route from Chicago to Los Angeles, with only the routing through the Southwest in correct numerical sequence. Although this route, because it crossed most of the transcontinental highways, would inevitably be one of the most heavily traveled U.S. highways, the fact that three of the States through which it passed were represented on the Committee of Five (Illinois’ Sheets, Missouri’s Piepmeier, and Oklahoma’s Avery) made this exception to the “zero” numbering plan suspicious — and would result in the most contentious battle over approval of the U.S. numbering system as well as creation of what would become one of America's best known highways.

On October 26, 1925, the Joint Board submitted its report to Secretary Jardine. As quoted earlier, the report explained the origins of the Joint Board, from the AASHO resolutions, the rationale for finding a successor to the named trails, and how the Joint Board proceeded to reach decisions. It explained its decision during the April meetings not to hold hearings, a decision that reflected its concern about the importance of the named trail associations:

An important policy of the Board was the decision to hold no hearings. This action was taken advisedly and from developments in the course of the work demonstrated itself to be entirely sound. Had hearings been held a general invitation to trail organizations and to all other civic bodies interested in road construction and promotion must have been issued. The number of such delegations desiring to appear would have prolonged the work of selection unreasonably if, indeed, it would not have defeated the whole undertaking. To have invited a special group of organizations or local interests to attend hearings to the exclusion of others would have been impossible in an official body like the Board. Questions raised at such hearings would inevitably have resulted in placing the Board in the position of an arbiter among the numerous trail organizations and other local interests; and such an event would have embarrassed the Board to so serious a degree that its purpose would probably have been defeated.

Moreover, there was available through the several state highway departments and in the Bureau of Public Roads a large amount of information available to all States and to the Board in assisting them to arrive at definite conclusions regarding the respective merits of roads or routes under consideration.

Further, had the Board permitted itself to be placed in a position of selecting in toto certain predetermined routes, like the marked trails, because they existed in that particular status, and of similarly rejecting other marked routes, a difficult legal question might have been raised. The Government, at no time and through no agency, had ever officially recognized any system of marked trails or routes except the primary or interstate classification of the federal aid highway system, and no authority had ever been given to any governmental agency to such end. The Joint Board, therefore, felt it necessary, if not indeed imperative, that its task be so handled as to preclude any appearance of giving an official status to any predetermined route or combination of routes.

In other words, the Joint Board would been forced to give a single number to each transcontinental named trail across its entire length, thus perpetuating what the group was established to eliminate.

The report also discussed the routes selected and numbered:

The Group Meetings produced a tentative system of approximately 81,000 miles of road . . . representing 2.8 per cent of the total public road mileage of the country.

This tentative system was then referred to a meeting of the Board in Washington, August 3-4, and was there adjusted and reduced to approximately 50,100 miles . . . . Separate maps of each State were then prepared and submitted to the respective States for confirmation, with the privilege of making such minor alternations and corrections as might to them appear necessary or advisable. Such changes as were made involved generally interstate sections of routes only and in only five instances were any changes required at state line connections. The total mileage . . . is approximately 75,800 miles.

The confirmations by the several States of the tentative routes adopted by the Board at the full meeting of August 3-4 were considered final . . . . Attention is called especially to the fact that the procedure of the Board gave every State easy and ample opportunity to submit its own original suggestions and recommendations; to review these after action by the Board in make such adjustments as were deemed necessary or desirable to effect a satisfactory distribution of routes and connections at state lines; and finally to make additional changes in cases where a State believed the Board had failed to give consideration to all the pertinent facts or had acted on insufficient or faulty data.

One section of the report discussed “The System of Interstate Highways”:

So far as possible the routes selected have adhered to the federal aid highway systems already approved for the several States. Practically all of the States, however, have some small margin within the legal limit of seven per cent which comprises the full federal aid system, and this margin has allowed minor departures from the approved federal aid systems. These new sections, as may be required, can at the request of the respective States, be added to the federal aid systems and in some instances States have already filed applications for such additions.

[It] was obviously necessary to exceed in some States the three per cent prescribed by law for a primary system of roads. To have arbitrarily adhered to the three per cent limit in several Western States would have resulted in omitting many desirable and needed routes. In the country as a whole, however, the total mileage of routes selected by the Joint Board is 2.6 per cent of the total certified public road mileage and, therefore, is within the three per cent primary classification permitted by law.

Having selected a system of routes for uniform marking, the question of designation was considered and an effort made with gratifying success to introduce an orderly arrangement of routes. In general, the scheme involved the use of even numbers for routes carrying east and west bound traffic, and odd numbers for the north and south routes. An unbroken numerical sequence was not possible unless lines of prevailing flow of traffic were to be entirely neglected. Such lines cross each other and demand that numerical order be sacrificed in a few cases. These are, however, so few and slight that the value of the numbering scheme is not diminished for practical purposes. The routes given continuous designations have been carefully considered and so far as possible are those (1) which are carrying on the whole the heaviest long distance traffic, (2) which the States contemplate improving to high standards, and (3) which are in the construction program for early improvement.

The Joint Board’s transmittal to Secretary Jardine concluded:

The Board has had unmistakable evidences during its sittings that the task assigned it was timely and necessary to a proper development of the correlated state highway systems. Its efforts, if successful, will provide a practicable channel for putting into effect recommendations for improving the usefulness, the safety and the convenience of the public highways. [The Report of Joint Board, pages 1-13]

The report contained the first log of the proposed U.S. numbered interstate routes, beginning with "Route No. 1" (Fort Kent, Maine, to Miami) and ending with "Route No. 630" (Echo to Ogden, Utah, the sixth branch off of U.S. 30). The report also transmitted the signs approved by the Joint Board, including the U.S. shield (using "56," one of the numbers not assigned to a route, and the State name "MAINE" as a sample). The Joint Board recommended that the Secretary transmit the report to AASHO, which represented the State highway agencies that owned and operated the U.S. numbered routes.

The Arizona Connections

During the Joint Board’s August meeting, State Engineer LeFebvre of Arizona, who was not a member, had discussed the Arizona-New Mexico connections with New Mexico’s French. As the members of the Joint Board considered the State maps after the August 3 meeting, LeFebvre and French agreed on the connections. The Mangums discussed the agreement:

As Arizona officials saw it, there were four routes entering Arizona from the east and two from the west that should be suitable for numbered highway designations:

The four roads entering Arizona from New Mexico were:

1. The Old Trails Highway entering the state at Lupton and crossing Arizona parallel to the Santa Fe railroad;
2. The Springerville cutoff, entering the state east of Springerville and joining the Old Trails at Holbrook;
3. The Sunset Route entering at Duncan and crossing by way of Globe and Phoenix to Yuma;
4. The Borderland Route via Douglas, Tombstone, Tucson, and Phoenix.

The routes entering Arizona from the west were:

1. The converged Sunset and Borderland Routes at Yuma
2. The Old Trails at Topock.

As the National Old Trails Road Association had done in 1915, AASHO classified both the Gallup and Springerville roads as arterial highways and as branches of the same road. The Arizona Engineer came away from the meeting believing that the National Old Trails Road with its two eastern branches, one through Lupton and the other through Springerville, would be assigned the number U.S. Highway 60, and began using it on maps. [Mangums, page 117]

The Winslow Mail provided additional context regarding the alternative routings of the National Old Trails Road at the Arizona/New Mexico border:

A dispatch in the Albuquerque Journal of last Friday states that W. C. Lefebvre, state highway engineer of Arizona, is in Washington, and yesterday attended a conference of federal and state highway engineers at which one of the principal items to be discussed was the rerouting of the National Old Trails via Socorro, N. M., instead of following the right-of-way of the Santa Fe railway via Gallup, as at present.

The dispatch stated that New Mexico favors the present route from Albuquerque to Holbrook via Gallup, while Arizona is committed to the Holbrook-Springerville-Socorro route, which lies south of the line favored by New Mexico.

The dispatch further stated that Mr. Lefebvre will urge the south route, on the contention that Socorro is the converging point of roads both from the northeast and the southeast, and that from Socorro the motorist has a direct route both to El Paso and through Albuquerque to the midwest and east. It will be urged, too, that by leaving the National Old Trails at Springerville, the tourist can take the recently constructed Rice-Springerville highway to Miami and Globe and Phoenix, in the southern part of Arizona, and thence by way of Yuma to California.

The dispatch states also that Mr. Lefebvre will urge that the south route from Holbrook to Albuquerque does not materially increase the distance between those two places. The north route is eighty-four miles shorter.

Messages of protest were sent to Washington by Williams, Flagstaff, and Winslow Commercial clubs, against changing the route of the National Old Trails.

The Miami Silver Belt, one of the staunchest supporters for the construction of the link between Springerville and the southern part of the state, in a recent news dispatch, says: “When the Rice-Springerville road is completed, the state of Arizona and the county of Gila will receive back the money which they have expended on its construction ten times over every year in the flood of dollars which will pour into the communities benefitted by tourist traffic over this route.

“There are in New Mexico and Arizona two cities which are the natural distributing points for auto traffic. They are Albuquerque and Phoenix. The Rice-Springerville road is the short and logical route between the two main distributing points. It starts somewhere and goes somewhere.

“The only completed route to the coast is by way of Yuma. It is not likely that any other route to the California coast will be finished for several years. The Rice-Springerville road is the long missing link which will connect transcontinental highways directly with the Yuma route.

The rivalry among the cities was fierce, as reflected in a first page editorial from The Needles Nugget as quoted in the Mail article:

“Tourists passing through Needles from the east report that they were told that gas stations are sixty-five and seventy-five miles apart; that the water on the desert is unfit to drink; that the heat is so intense many cars have caught fire; that the sand is so hot it melts the tires, and that if one gets off the road it is impossible to get back on the highway.

“That the National Old Trails highway is not carrying its share of the tourists this year that its superiority over the southern route should warrant is a fact that is recognized by every business man along its route through Arizona, New Mexico and California, and the reason for this condition is due to a well-organized campaign of the interests along the southern route that has been carried on for the last two years, with the result that the southern route by actual check is getting 72 per cent of the westbound tourists, while the National Old Trails highway, a much better road, just as scenic and a shorter route to California, is by the same authority, getting but 28 per cent of the travel.

“The southern highway employs a man who resides at Los Lunas, N. M., the junction point of the two highways, whose sole business it is to proclaim the advantages of the southern highway, and by the same token, perhaps, to misrepresent, if not by actual word of mouth, at least by inference, conditions that obtain along the National Old Trails highway.

“The Needles Chamber of Commerce, as its first important endeavor, is fathering a plan which also contemplates the placing of a man at Los Lunas and the highway committee has already secured a pledge of this town’s proportion of the funds that will be necessary to carry on this work, and several of the towns along the route have signified their willingness to participate in such an undertaking, and there is no doubt but that its success is already assured. Lou Downing, a member of the highway committee from this chamber, is planning a personal interview with similar organizations and business men in the various towns east of here as far as Gallup. N. M.

“Tourists coming this way and finding conditions so much better than they had been led to believe they would find from the lurid tales told them along the road, are justly indignant and express surprise that the cities along this route have not taken action before this to stop this campaign of . . . untruthful statements.” [“Route of the National Old Trails May Favor South,” The Winslow Mail, August 4, 1925, pages 1-2]

As Lefebvre had stated, pressure also was being applied to change the connection between Arizona and California. As discussed in The San Bernardino Sun on July 7, 1925:

Federal-aid money has been withdrawn from the Old Trails highway between Barstow and Needles and the federal good roads bureau is urging the construction of a new highway designed to cross the Colorado river at a point far to the north of Needles and join the Arrowhead Trail at a point about half-way between Barstow and the Nevada state line . . . .

The government is declared to object to what is described as an unnecessary swing from Kingman, Ariz., to the south to reach Needles and then a swing back to the north. Approximately fifty miles could be saved if the road cut due west from Kingman, so it is reported. This saving in mileage would be sufficient to build the new bridge necessary across the Colorado river.

Serious difficulties in solving the situation developed by the government’s attitude are presented. The state legislature has designated the highway via Barstow and Needles to the Colorado river as a state highway, and the state is maintaining the Old Trails highway as it is now routed. Withdrawal of Federal aid from Barstow to the Colorado river means a financial loss to the state, for it must maintain the highway in proper condition. There is no present provision for the creation of a new state highway along the route suggested by the government.

The issue will soon become of major importance, for Southern California interests are uniting for a drive to secure proper highways on the transcontinental routes leading into Southern California. The condition of the northern routes far surpasses that of the southern routes.

Various sections of San Bernardino county will face the situation with conflicting emotions. Needles will violently protest such a move, for that city is now one of the main supply points on the Old Trails highway. The Redlands interests supporting the project for a cut-off from Amboy to Whitewater will likewise resist the new proposal by the government.

Other sections of the county will either remain neutral or take the position that there must be immediate solution of the matter to the satisfaction of both the state and government highway departments, in order that a comprehensive transcontinental highway program may be worked out immediately. Los Angeles interests are declared to favor the government’s suggestion on the theory that the route from the east would be shortened and faster action would be secured by support of the Federal government than through opposition to it.

The Winslow Mail reprinted the Sun’s article, adding the commentary that “we infer from the article that Needles may be wiped off the map as far as the National Old Trails highway is concerned . . . . It hardly seems probable that the route of the Old Trails road will be changed, a road this is nationally known as it is. The people of Needles will certainly be up and doing if such a thing is attempted. [“Bureau Favors Change of Road Across Desert,” The Winslow Mail, July 10, 1925, page 1, 6]

Whatever the intent of the officials involved, the Joint Board retained the original location of the National Old Trails Road from Kingman to Los Angeles as part of U.S. 60:

From Chicago, Illinois, to Bloomington, Springfield, St. Louis, Missouri, Rolla, Springfield, Joplin, Vineta, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, El Reno, Sayre, Amarillo, Texas, Tucumcari, New Mexico, Santa Fe, Los Lunas, Gallup, Hotbrook [sic], Arizona, Flagstaff, Barstow, California, Los Angeles.

Countering the Lies

In July 1925, State highway officials opened the new National Old Trails Road segment from Winslow to Canyon Diablo. Tourist traffic had been using the new road for several days, but the State opened it formally a few days early to accommodate a motorcade from Winslow to Flagstaff for the big “Days of Forty-Nine” celebration. The Winslow Mail reported that the road “is in fine condition, despite the heavy rains in that part of Coconino county. At least one hour will be saved in running time between Winslow and Flagstaff by the opening of this link of the National Old Trails.” [“Open Highway For Benefit of Motorcade to Flagstaff,” The Winslow Mail, July 3, 1925, page 1]

A few days later, a contract was awarded for macadamizing a 23.7-mile segment of the National Old Trails Road between the end of the Flagstaff paving and Angel:

The contract is in two parts, one calling for crush malapais rock base with asphaltic binding, more than one and a half gallons of the oil being used to each square yard of surface. This is to be completed next June. Follows a top dressing a half inch deep of finely increased rock and oil, to be rolled in. The completed job is to be ready in October of next year.

It will take 60,000 cubic yards of crushed rock to complete the job, and when done it will be one of the finest stretches of highway along the entire National Old Trails. The grading already done and the concrete culvert work is highly satisfactory.

The winning bid the contract was for $321,000.

In August, the Automobile Club of Arizona received a consignment of 10 tubular iron posts ten feet long to mount signs along the National Old Trails Road between Winslow and Ashfork. “Signs will be erected as soon as the Automobile club receives the distance between points from the county surveyor of Coconino county.” [“Old Trails Will be Signed Ash Fork to Winslow,” The Winslow Mail, August 21, 1925]

While work to improve the road continued, community leaders were well aware of the campaign to divert traffic from the National Old Trails Road. Leaders in the southwestern States were working on a plan, parallel to the Tourists’ Daily News, for promoting tourist traffic through the National Old Trails Road cities in New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

In late 1925, local newspapers reported on a meeting in Kingman on October 5, 1925, to establish the National Old Trails Traffic Association. Initiated by the chamber of commerce of Needles, California, many of the 75 participants came from cities along the road in Arizona:

The organization will include memberships from all cities from Albuquerque to San Bernardino. The purpose is to disseminate accurate information concerning the National Old Trails, and to carry on an extensive advertising campaign to inform tourists in all parts of the United States of true conditions pertaining at all times along this route, and to aid in securing state, county and federal aid in its improvement. The original route of the Old Trails through the three states, Albuquerque to Los Angeles, via Gallup, was endorsed, and endorsement was given to the improvement of the original route across the Mohave desert in California, condemning change in routing as has been suggested by federal engineers from Kingman straight west to Goffs, eliminating Oatman, Topock and Needles from the highway . . . .

A campaign will be inaugurated immediately to popularize the famous Old Trails and to combat adverse propaganda from every source. The campaign will be conducted by the executive committee. By the first of the year the committee will have prepared a complete and accurate map of the Old Trails extending through the three southwestern states, with information concerning the national parks, monuments, and tourist attractions of all kinds. This will be supplemented by a circular letter or pamphlet giving, in detail the conditions of travel, conveniences of the road and information of the things visitors from other states may be interested in. It was reported that extensive improvements are being planned for the highway at many points between Albuquerque and Los Angeles. The pavement from Victorville to Barstow has been completed, and the pavement of a piece extending 16 miles east of Barstow is about to be contracted for. [“National Old Trails Traffic Association,” The Coconino Sun, October 9, 1925, pages 1, 13]

A follow up a few weeks later the new association reported:

The members of the executive committee of the National Old Trails Traffic Association, the road organization which was formed in Kingman on the 5th instant, are reporting activities to President L. V. Root [of Kingman]. Considerable finances have already been placed in the treasury and more are in process of collection from the various communities along the National Old Trails road.

Stationery and printed matter is now being gotten out and it is expected that the campaign of the association will be in full swing within a short period. The bringing back to the National Old Trails the motor traffic that it has heretofore enjoyed is the great objective of this association and a plan of publicity will be adopted which will bring before the general public something of the advantages of this route in mileage, scenic attractions and ease of motor travel through its entire length because of its all-season availability, good road conditions and the frequent service stations, camping and hotel accommodations that abound along this line.

The great bug-a-boo of the dangers of the so-called “desert” dangers which do not exist, will receive a knockout blow if publicity of the truth can be gotten to the motoring public. The dangers of this much heralded “desert” lie entirely in the propaganda that is from time to time circulated. The “desert” is no more than a good roadway across a stretch of country with service stations, hotels and small towns every few miles. It is that stretch of country usually designated as lying between Needles and Barstow, California, a distance of 161 miles over which the automobile takes from six to eight hours in driving time and some of those who desire make it in much less time.

There are no difficulties to overcome, no dangers to face and no privations to meet. If it were not for the untruths that have received much publicity the motorist would know nothing of having crossed the desert. Those long stretches of sand where you are told you will be stuck and have to go miles in low gear do not exist except in the minds of those who don’t know the truth or have some other motive for such statements. [“National Old Trails Traffic Association Now Becoming Active,” The Coconino Sun, November 6, 1925, page 12; reprinted from The Kingman Miner]

The association held its quarterly meeting in Needles:

The executive committee of the National Old Trails Traffic association, at its regular quarterly meeting held in Needles on Saturday, March 6, formally launched an advertising campaign that will be national in its scope and having for its purpose the dissemination of authentic information in regard to that portion of the National Old Trails highway lying west of Albuquerque and Socorro, N. M., through the three states of New Mexico, Arizona and California. Eventually the organization, which is just now in swaddling clothes but a lusty infant at that, will include in its membership the business interests of the full length of the highway from Baltimore to Los Angeles and it will come without solicitation.

There is no good argument against the just claim that the National Old Trails highway is the shortest and the best all-year route across the continent and it is the purpose of this association to make it also the most popular by looking after the welfare and comfort of its tourists, down to the minutest detail. Reliable information as to road conditions, mileage, accommodations and interesting, worthwhile side trips — in which the Old Trail highway excels — is thought to be of first importance and accordingly this information, kept up-to-date and absolutely reliable, is to be supplied to all member garages, service stations and hotels, in a distinctive emblem-container, so that it may be displayed as a badge of truthfulness and seen by the tourist even before he stops so that he may know that such information is available. Any unusual condition of road or weather will be immediately made known to him for his guidance and in every possible way he is to be made to feel that he is welcome; his business desirable and sought after and his comfort of paramount concern to the association and its individual members.

Supplementing the bulletin service will be accurate road maps and booklets descriptive of the various cities and places of scenic beauty and historical interest, of which there are many along the route. [“Old Trails to be Widely Advertised,” The Coconino Sun, March 12, 1926, page 14]

The Next Steps

The maps that the Joint Board agreed to on August 4 were not the final maps. As noted, the Joint Board members were to take the maps back to their States to work with members of their group of States on final alignments. The Mangums explained:

The Federal subcommittee, considering the roads for Arizona, decided that there should be no Spingerville branch on the National Old Trails Road, and recommended that the Holbrook-Lupton-Gallup alignment be the only one . . . .

For the first time ever, there was a numbered and coordinated U.S. highway system, and in Arizona the northern east-west highway would go from Holbrook to Lupton, omitting Springerville. The road across northern Arizona from Lupton to Topock was given the number U.S. Highway 60. The road from Springerville was assigned U.S. Highway 70. Springerville was never dropped from the National Old Trails Road, but once the highway names were discontinued and all roads were identified by numbers only, Springerville was located on Highway 70 and Lupton was located on Highway 60.

U.S. 70 was a near-transcontinental route beginning in Morehead City, North Carolina, and ending in Holbrook.

Overall, the National Old Trails Road, like all the long-distance named trails, had been broken into segments by number. Much of the National Old Trails Road was part of U.S. 40, a transcontinental route from Wilmington, Delaware to San Francisco. The second longest stretch, from Romeroville, New Mexico (near Las Vegas), to Los Angeles, was included in U.S. 60. [Mangums, pages 116-118]

Meanwhile, Missouri’s Chief Engineer Piepmeier informed officials in his group of States about the Joint Board’s decisions. On October 27, he wrote to O. M. Wilhite of Emporia, Kansas, chairman of the Good Roads Committee of the Emporia Chamber of Commerce, to inform him:

The numbering committee on the Joint Board designating United States Highways selected the road from Kinsley through Hutchinson, Newton, to Kansas City as Route 50 and the alternate route from Great Bend, Marion to Kansas City as 150 [sic, 250]. This report is being submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture for his approval. It will be acted upon by the American Association of Highway Officials [sic] at its meeting in Detroit, on November 18.

U.S. 50 was designated from Annapolis, Maryland, to Wadsworth, Nevada. U.S. 250, a route entirely in Kansas, ran from Baldwin, Kansas, to Emporia, Newton, Hutchinson, Dodge City, Garden City.

Wilhite wrote to BPR Chief MacDonald on October 30, citing Piepmeier’s letter:

Mr. Piepmeir [sic] has re-assured us of that statement by letter, a copy of which I am enclosing. We are reliably informed that the Highway Department of Kansas has reversed the numbers.

I feel sure, Mr. MacDonald, that you understand the local conditions out here, and as the Joint Board is endeavoring to select and number routes which follow the prevailing flow of traffic, it seems to us that a mistake would be made in giving the alternate number to our route.

We would like to know if there has been any changes made in your department since the information given us by Mr. Piepmeir.

In Chief MacDonald’s absence, E. W. James replied on November 9:

Both the selected routes and the scheme of numbering them in Kansas were submitted to the State Highway Department and the Board was given to understand that the adjustments made were satisfactory.

The work of the Board is completed and its report was submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture on October 30.

I am not quite sure what you desire in the way of information regarding changes in this Department since certain information was given you by Mr. Piepmeier. The only change in the personnel of the Board was the appointment of Mr. I. J. Moe of North Dakota, vice Mr. O. A. Brown of that State.

Before receiving James’s reply. Wilhite and O. A. Kirkendall, president of the Emporia Chamber of Commerce, wrote to Secretary Jardine on November 3, to object to the proposed numbering:

Mr. B. H. Piepmeir [sic], Highway Engineer of Missouri, informed us immediately after the sub-committee meeting held in St. Louis, Missouri, September 25 for the purpose of selecting numbers for U.S. Highways, that the Hutchinson Route (New Trail) would carry the Coast-to-Coast through number 50, and that the McPherson Route (Old Trail) would carry the alternate number 150 [sic].

He has re-stated it to us, also stating that no State Highway Commission has the right to change numbers — only the Joint Board which meets in Detroit, November 15-18, has that right.

We are reliably informed that some one in Washington or in the Kansas Highway Commission has reversed the numbers. Our understanding was that the Joint Board was to select and number routes which follow the prevailing flow of traffic. The route through Ottawa, Emporia, Newton, Hutchinson and Dodge City, not only takes care of western traffic, but also the south and southwestern. It passes through the larger cities, all having first class hotels — following the Santa Fe Railroad and Harvey Hotel system.

The Emporia Chamber of Commerce is asking you to recommend that U.S. Highway number 50, pass through the above named cites. This route not only has the shorter mileage, and more pavement, but it will be the first to be made a 365 day road through Kansas.

We feel it would be a great mistake not to have this route carry a through number, and we will appreciate your assistance very much.

Secretary Jardine replied to Kirkendall on November 10, again with a letter written by James:

I have your letter of November 3, signed jointly with Mr. O. M. Wilhite, with reference to the marking of the Old and New Santa Fe Trails, so called, across your State.

I recall that representatives of cities on the New Santa Fe Trail brought this matter to my attention, and it seemed clear at the time that the essential detail involved was to provide an interstate route through Ottawa, Emporia, Newton, and Hutchinson, all of which are important centers of population. This desire has been met in the routes selected by the Joint Board on Interstate Highways. The selection was satisfactory to the State Highway Department and likewise, I am informed, that the numbering system is satisfactory to the State. It was submitted to the State and certain adjustments were made to meet alterations which the Highway Department suggested.

It would appear that the real merits in your case have been satisfactorily met in providing an interstate route through the cities mentioned, and I can see no objection to the action taken which appears to be clearly in accord with the desires of the Kansas State Highway Department. [National Archives at College Park, Maryland]

In contrast with the supporters along the National Old Trails Road Association and the competing Santa Fe Trails, Cy Avery was satisfied, as Kelly explained:

He had managed to number seven national highways through Oklahoma, including three through Tulsa. These three were north-south U.S. Highway 75l from the Canadian border near St. Vincent, Minnesota, to Galveston; east-west U.S. Highway 64, the Albert Pike Highway; and diagonal U.S. Highway 60, which was partly the Ozark Trail. Back at home he returned his attention to building highways and bridges. [Kelly, page 152]

A New Record

While the Joint Board was changing the landscape for the Nation’s interstate roads, the Federal-aid highway program was at its peak, despite President Coolidge’s opposition to the Federal-aid concept. In BPR’s annual report for FY 1925, Chief MacDonald began:

By completing 11,328.6 miles of Federal-aid roads during the fiscal year 1925 the cooperating Federal and State governments established a new record. The greatest mileage previously completed in any one fiscal year was the 10,247 miles completed in 1922. The new record exceeds by 30 per cent the mileage completed in the fiscal year 1924, and by more than 50 per cent the aggregate mileage completed during the first five years of work under the Federal-aid plan.

The year’s work brings the total of mileage completed since the passage of the first Federal-aid road act in 1916 up to 46,485.5 miles; and in addition to the mileage completed a great deal of work has been done on the 12,462.6 miles which at the close of the year were under construction. The program of work thus far undertaken includes the above mileage completed and under construction and an additional 2,181.6 miles approved for improvement with Federal aid but not yet placed under construction. Including this latter mileage the program of Federal and State cooperation in road building as definitely planned or completed to date involves 61,129.7 miles, of which all but 3,570 miles undertaken prior to the passage of the Federal highway act in 1921 are included in the interstate or Federal-aid highway system designated in accordance with the provisions of that act.

He added that the 7-percent system included 178,797 miles of roads. “Of this mileage . . . approximately 57,560 miles has already been improved or undertaken for improvement with Federal aid.” Overall, the work included 50 miles of bridges.

He also discussed the designation of transcontinental highways:

As the result of the general improvement in the condition of roads throughout the country and the greatly increased use of motor vehicles the range of travel by highways has been so extended that transcontinental journeys are by no means uncommon. In consequence of this development the early improvement of a limited number of transcontinental routes and the uniform marking of such roads by all States has become one of the most pressing needs.

After summarizing the work of the Joint Board on Interstate Highways, MacDonald continued:

The transcontinental routes designated are all included in the Federal-aid highway system. Their designation and adoption by all States is an accomplishment of the highest order, carried out in a splendid spirit of cooperation by the Federal and State departments. Its immediate effect should be to facilitate compliance with section 6 of the Federal highway act which requires that the Secretary of Agriculture shall give preference in approving projects to those which will expedite the completion of an adequate and connected system of highways interstate in character.

Preferential consideration given to the improvement of the designated transcontinental system should at a very early date result in the complete improvement of the system, and the uniform numbering and signing of the system will be of inestimable value in promoting the safety and convenience of the highways used by interstate traffic. [Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture for the Year Ended June 30, October 15, 1925, pages 1-4, 25-26

On November 19, the Agriculture Department announced that Secretary Jardine had approved the Joint Board’s proposal, which was forwarded to AASHO for considered during its annual meeting in Detroit.

AASHO in Detroit

When AASHO met on November 18-21, 1925, E. W. James was called on to report on the Joint Board's work. He began by quoting General George W. Goethals, who had supervised construction of the Panama Canal, as saying that in his experience with official boards, he found them "long, narrow and wooden." By contrast, James absolved the board "of being dilatory, indecisive or faint-hearted in attacking the particular problem it had to deal with." The Joint Board had, he said, met the conflicting demands of the 48 States "on a broad gauge basis."

After outlining the decisions of the Joint Board, and how they had been made, James thanked the members:

The task has been full of pitfalls and might very easily at a number of points have been seriously embarrassed had we had any other than the most unselfish and broad attitude of mind among the members . . . . I am confident that no better start could have been made by any group of engineers or administrators in this country.

James then read a November 18 letter from Secretary Jardine to Chief MacDonald acknowledging receipt of the Joint Board's report and commenting on it. Recognizing the task facing the Joint Board, the Secretary had been "impressed with the broad lines, orderliness, and conspicuous fairness" of the work done. He asked that Chief MacDonald transmit the report to AASHO as a body, as well as to the separate State highway departments, and express the Secretary's concurrence with the system of routes proposed and with the plan to mark them uniformly “for the promotion of greater safety and convenience in connection with interstate traffic”:

I should be glad also if you would call the attention of all the States to a request which has been officially received from the War Department, and which has a direct connection with the plan covered by the report of the Board. The War Department has adopted a system of marking localities on maps for defense purposes, and the system requires eventually a corresponding marking of locations on the ground, as at cross roads, forks and other points where directional signs might properly be installed. The designation of such local points by the method of marking adopted by the War Department appears to me as thoroughly worthy of consideration by the States. Such a course would no doubt greatly increase the value of the general highway system to the Government.

Adoption by the States of the proposal “will accomplish a marked advance in the highway system,” while the designation of important routes of travel “will be a distinct advantage not only in eliminating confusion, but also in furthering systematic and continuous construction.” In addition, uniform marking via the system of signs “should promote safety of travel, especially if it can be associated with uniform traffic regulations”:

The directness of the through routes will doubtless serve a very large number of our population that travel from one general section of our country to another and will facilitate that freedom of communication which more than anything else binds our States and our country in one united Nation.

He thought the many agencies and groups involved “will find a practical application through the work of the Joint Board which is for this reason, I believe, very timely and adequate.” He added:

There appears to be ample authority in the Law for promulgating the plans outlined by the report of the Board, and the interests of the Federal Government in the highway system of the Nation might eventually have produced action essentially like that originated by the States in the present case. It is gratifying to have the States on their own initiative originate a plan of such broad National aspect and value.

From this point on, the Secretary said, "the results accomplished will rest largely in the hands of the several States under whose direct supervision the recommendations of the Board will be carried out." On that basis, he terminated his predecessor's appointments to the Joint Board and thanked the members for their time and effort, as well as "for the breadth of view they have taken in working out the details." [James, E. W., “Work of the Joint Board of Interstate Highways,” Wyoming Roads, April 1926, pages 7-8, 14-15; Secretary Jardine’s letter, National Archives at College Park, Maryland]

AASHO adopted the Joint Board's report and delegated to its Executive Committee the authority to make minor changes to the recommended system "as appeared necessary or desirable." AASHO asked James to cooperate with Markham on numbering questions. [Kelly, page 153]

The Victory Highway Fights for 40

Reaction to the Joint Board's work was mixed. It was widely applauded. Travel writer William Ullman began an article, "Seventy-five thousand miles of highways and not one cent for promotion!" The plan would "untangle the jumbled network of roads left by the haphazard, incoherent, disjointed activities" of the named trail associations:

The harmless tourist in his flivver doesn't know whether he is going or coming, whether he is a hundred miles from nowhere or on the right road to a good chicken dinner and a night's lodging.

Ullman praised the safety and directional signs as "simple in design, easily remembered and intelligible even to a driver who may not read the language." He added:

The map will be wiped clean of a lot of rubbish and in its stead the new highway map will tell the tourist how to reach his destination, where he is going, when to stop and when to proceed with caution. This, indeed, is a need in motor touring long past due. [Ullman, William, The Louisville Times, February 17, 1926]

The North Dakota Highway Bulletin, published by the State Highway Department, praised the trail associations for their "splendid spirit and work done," but added that they had "outlived their usefulness." [Moe, I. J., “Trails Associations Now Unnecessary,” North Dakota Highway Bulletin, September 1925, page 5]

In some cases, praise for the new system was based on how it would affect a State or city. The St. Louis Globe-Democrat, in reporting on Secretary Jardine's approval of the Joint Board's report, listed the four major routes that would pass through the city — U.S. 40, 50, 60, and 61 — under the Joint Board's 1925 numbering plan:

St. Louis, the logical "hub" of this great highway system, will, more and more, become the important center of motor travel. [“Standard Marking System for U.S. Roads Approved,” St. Louis Globe-Democrat, November 22, 1925]

Others criticized the plan. Hanna of Western Highways Builder commented:

Of all the idealistic proposals yet advanced for the administration of highways, none can equal this for pure imbecility. [“Oppose Road Signing,” Western Highways Builder, February 1926, page 23]

Meanwhile, Colonel Greene was still upset that the Joint Board had not limited the U.S. routes to transcontinental highways. He told The New York Times that, "In many of these states, I found short stretches of road which can by no possible mental gymnastics be called even important state routes; they are merely country roads." By adding more routes approaching New York, he said, some States seemed to think New York would add connections. "This I positively refused to do, thinking that they wanted to justify their great amount of roads by having New York pursue the same ridiculous policy."

In fact, Colonel Greene told The New York Times, when AASHO's Executive Committee met in January to consider objections, he planned to advocate eliminating the road on the west side of the Hudson River from New York City to Albany. He wanted to set an example for the other States so they would follow and designate only transcontinental roads that really run across the continent.  [“Too Many Roads as U.S. Highways,” The New York Times, December 20, 1925, page XX11]

Maryland’s Mackall, who had chosen not to attend the group meeting for Middle Atlantic States, was highly critical, especially about the role of the Middle West in developing the plan and selected the designated roads:

The whole numbering scheme of highways seems to have been dictated and dominated by the Middle West for and in the interest of that section.

As far as Maryland is concerned, the whole highway designation is wrong in principle and practice. We will not agree to co-operate in the numbering of Maryland roads unless radical modification is made in the plan as far as it concerns Maryland. Road authorities in Pennsylvania, so I am informed, are taking the same position.

Many of the roads in the western States, he pointed out, did not carry 10 percent of the traffic using roads in Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. He added as an example of absurdity that between Cleveland and New York, the plan called for only one road, while between St. Paul and Kansas City, about the same distance as Cleveland-to-New York, ten roads had been included:

If a proper road system is adopted, bringing in Maryland roads which have been ignored in the plan thus far, the commission will co-operate with the United States Highway Commission in the marking of the roads. In fact, if what we believe to be the proper plan is adopted this commission expects to supplement the road designations by also numbering and marking every road in the State system. This would be done with different types of numerals to prevent confusion of the State and interstate systems. [Maryland Scores U.S. Highway Plan,” The Sentinel (Rockville, Maryland), December 4, 1925]

As Mackall stated, Pennsylvania also had doubts about the proposal. J. Clyde Myton, Secretary of the Motor Club of Harrisburg, provided an example resulting from dominance of the Middle West:

The natural route from Indiana east is via Ebensburg and the William Penn Highway. The section from Kittanning to Indiana and from Indiana to Ebensburg is a secondary highway, unimproved. Had the Joint Board seen fit to adopt that route, which is about ten miles shorter than the one it selected, there is reason to believe the State would have placed it on its primary highway system, and scheduled it for early improvement. Rather than follow the route it selected, the Joint Board might have turned north from Delmont on the William Penn Highway over an entirely improvement road to New Castle and Youngstown.

The route selected from Lewistown to Selinsgrove, Sunbury, Wilkes-Barre and Scranton is not a natural travel route.

(In March 1916, the William Penn Highway Association of Pennsylvania chose a highway parallel to the Pennsylvania Railroad from Philadelphia via Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, with an extension to New York City. It was an alternative to the Lincoln Highway. With approval of the U.S. Numbered Highway System, the William Penn Highway essentially became U.S. 22. For information on the evolution of the route, see “U.S. 22 — The William Penn Highway” on this Website.)

William H. Connell, engineering executive of the Pennsylvania Highway Department (and president of ARBA), said his State could accept the Joint Board’s proposal only if provision were made for necessary revisions in the system:

I stated that Pennsylvania agreed in principle to a balanced interstate highway system and to uniform marking and traffic regulations, but I felt that considerable revision would have to be made affecting the State of Pennsylvania before the people of the State would back up such a highway system.

Upon examining the map and report of the joint board it will be seen that it designates a mileage of interstate highways in two midwestern States totalling 5,295 miles, while three of the largest Eastern States with about the same area and with nearly three times the population and very much more traffic have a mileage of interstate highways of only 2,939 miles. The system should not be made up in certain States of a great number of interstate highways, which are of far less importance than interstate highways in other States not on the interstate system as it stands today.

He said the interstate system “should be limited to important interstate highways of equal importance in all of the States.” The resolution AASHO adopted during its annual meeting in Detroit “provides that any revisions of the system as it now stands should be referred to the Executive Committee . . . for consideration.” This option meant that “a better balanced interstate system” could be accomplished, but “only by thoroughly revising the recently adopted system.”

He added:

President Coolidge, in his message to Congress, stated that Federal aid should be confined to interstate highways. It is obvious, therefore, that the system must be balanced, as it is certainly not the President’s intention to have Federal funds appropriated for a large number of interstate highways in some States and relatively few in other States. [“Too Many Roads as U.S. Highways,” The New York Times, December 20, 1925, page XXII; “Officials Plan Revision of United States Highways,” The New York Times, December 27, 1925, page XXII]

In this regard, Connell misunderstood the proposal. The Joint Board’s plan involved designation of routes, without any relation to funding. No additional funds were apportioned to the States based on its number of designated routes. The routes were all on the Federal-aid highway system or soon would be added, and were all equally eligible for Federal-aid funding at the choice of the State highway department.

The trend, however, was decidedly in the opposite direction.

Whether the reaction to numbering the Nation's interstate highways was positive or negative, one thing was clear to all observers: this was a major change that would have profound effects not just on motorists but on States, counties, and cities, as well as the named trail associations. This understanding was reflected in the strong, at times bitter, reaction of those who felt cheated by the Joint Board's choice of through routes and numbers. Almost immediately, for example, they accepted the Joint Board's intentions in applying the numbers. Highways assigned two-digit numbers ending in "naught" (multiples of 10) or "1" were seen as first-class highways. Highways with other two-digit numbers, including those ending in "5," were perceived as secondary. A three-digit number seemingly relegated a community to tourist purgatory.

The named trail associations, of course, were not happy. The Joint Board, which wanted to eliminate the trail associations, had not outlawed or eliminated them and had no authority to do so. No action had been taken to prevent them from posting their signs. In fact, the members of the Joint Board had informally agreed that the States could, if they desired, carry the names of the highways on the same standards as the shield adopted for the U.S. numbered highways. However, the Joint Board had also ensured it would not give a single number to any of the multi-State named trails, instead breaking them up among several numbers.

By the time members of AASHO's Executive Committee met in Chicago on January 14-15, coinciding with the American Road Builders Association's (ARBA) Road Show, they were faced with a flood of complaints generated by the named trail associations, communities, other groups, and individuals who were dissatisfied with the number their route received, or the fact that their route or city was left off or situated on a perceived secondary number.

While Maryland and Pennsylvania were threatening not to endorse the plan, many States wanted more mileage. In North Dakota, for example, the State highway agency's bulletin indicated the State was satisfied with its three east-west routes (the National Parks Highway, the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway, and the Yellowstone Trail), but felt that the two north-south routes assigned to the State, U.S. 81 (King of Trails) and U.S. 85 (not aligned along a named trail), were not enough. The State needed three additional U.S. routes, 82-84, and suggested that cities "sharpen their pencils to figure out just where a U.S. road should come" — and keep in mind the old adage, "The early bird gets the worm." [“More U.S. Roads Needed for North Dakota,” North Dakota Highway Bulletin, February 1926]

Many problems were of a minor nature; the Executive Committee resolved 79 of them during its meeting. But many of the disputes were major and would have to be held over, to be resolved through letter ballot of the States during the remainder of the year. [Kelly, page 155]

Maryland’s Mackall was satisfied with the results. After returning from ARBA’s Road Show in Chicago, he announced on January 16 that Maryland’s roads would be numbered as United States highways in accordance with the Joint Board’s plan — as amended in Chicago. The Baltimore Sun recalled his opposition to the Joint Board’s plan because of the large numbers of designated routes for the Middle Western States compared with the more heavily populated eastern States:

The joint board has been disbanded, Mr. Mackall pointed out yesterday, and the work has been placed in the hands of the executive committee of the Association of State Highway Officials [sic], which body held a special session last week at Chicago in connection with the road builders’ association convention.

Essentials of the new plan were discussed last week, Mr. Mackall explained, but the details of the system will not be completed for several weeks.

Under the new plan, he declared, Maryland will double the number of its highways included in the project under the original proposal; Pennsylvania will have four times as many roads in the system as apportioned to it originally, and New York will be granted at least eight times its original allotment.

Highway officials from Maryland, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania will meet in Washington within the next two weeks to draft the final plans of the project and ratification through mail ballots is expected shortly afterward, Mr. Mackall said. [“To Be Numbered as U.S. Highways,” The Baltimore Sun, January 17, 1926, page 6]

Contrary to Mackall’s expectation, resolution of routing and numbering issues would take much of the year. By James's count, the Executive Committee acted on over 60 additional cases through early November 1926. A sampling of the issues provides an idea not only of the complexity of creating a numbering plan but also of how vitally important the decisions were to the combatants.

The longstanding dispute between the Old and New Santa Fe Trails — U.S. 50 versus U.S. 250 —resurfaced soon after the Joint Board's report became public. Kansas had a similar problem with advocates of the Victory Highway who were upset that their route was assigned U.S. 340 (Manhattan, Junction City, Salina, Russell, Oakley, Cheyenne Wells, Kansas, to Limon, Colorado) while the main number, U.S. 40 went to Topeka, Manhattan, Beloit, and Colby to Limon, part of the National Roosevelt Midland Trail, a transcontinental route from Newport News, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles and San Francisco.

As part of the 40/340 debate, R. J. Brown of Solomon, Kansas, sent a telegram to Secretary Jardine on November 23:

We believe route number forty should continue of [sic] victory highway as it was dedicated to our boys.

Receipt of the telegram was delayed, but on December 5, Secretary Jardine’s administrative assistant, H. M. Bain, replied:

In the absence of Secretary Jardine I am acknowledging receipt of your telegram regarding the numbering of the interstate routes through Kansas, in which you suggest that the southerly route through Junction City, Salina and Oakley, be given a continuous number as a through route. A number of other communications also have brought this matter to the attention of the Secretary and on inquiry it is learned that the southern route was originally given the through number, but at the specific request of the State Highway Department a change was made by the Joint Board.

The Board submitted its report to this Department on October 30, and it was transmitted to the Association of State Highway Officials at Detroit on November 19th.

The Joint Board has been dissolved, and in the circumstances it is suggested that any further inquiries regarding the details of the interstate routes be addressed to your State Highway Department at Topeka.

I shall take pleasure in bringing your letter to the Secretary’s attention.

Secretary Jardine replied on December 9. He noted that he had received 25 similar telegrams from “Chambers of Commerce and leading men along the Victory Highway in Kansas, with reference to designating Victory Highway as route forty.” The Secretary noted that as Bain had explained, the Victory Highway had initially been assigned “40” but “just before the report was concluded, a wire was received from Mr. John W. Gardner, Chairman of the State Highway Commission of Kansas . . . asking the Committee to transfer the number forty to another route and to assign the number three hundred for forty to Victory Highway.” The Secretary enclosed a copy of the telegram:

COPY. TELEGRAM

TOPEKA, KANSAS OCT 14, 1925

E W JAMES

CHIEF DIVISION OF DESIGN BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS WASHN DC

KANSAS COMMISSION DESIRES ROUTE MANHATTAN CLAYCENTER BELOIT COLBY LIMON AS NUMBER FORTY STOP MANHATTAN SALINE OAKLEY CHEYENNEWELLS LIMON AS THREE HUNDRED FORTY

JOHN W GARDNER
CHAIRMAN KANSAS HIGHWAY COMMISSION

The Secretary’s reply continued:

The desire of this Department has been to O. K. recommendations by State Highway Commissions. At the time I signed this report I had not had an opportunity or the time to examine in detail the recommendations that had been made for all the states. What I did do was ask if the recommendations here made were the recommendations of the respective State Highway Commissions and if they had the general approval of the people of their respective states. I was assured that this was a fact. Some protests came to me before the report was finished and signed. In such instances I always did what I could to straighten things out.

Then he came to the main point, also stressed by Bain:

The matter is out of my hands now. Your only recourse is to make your protest to the State Highway Commission. If you make it strong enough, doubtless, you will get some results. The way has been left open in the report for straightening out injustices, wherever they may occur. I am sorry that I am not in a position at this late date to do very much for you. It is your own State Highway Department that is in a position to do something. [National Archives at College Park, Maryland]

On December 18, representatives of the named trails associations appeared before the Kansas State Highway Commission. Chairman Gardner explained that he had tried for the split 40 North/South arrangement in September but had been turned down:

The highway commission pointed out it sought to have as many national routes as possible through Kansas and had suggested both routes. Then the commission asked where optional routes were designated that both be given the same numbers. But the executive committee of the association of highway officials and the federal good roads bureau turned down the state commission and followed the general rule that the north route be given the original number and the alternate route be given the same number, but with a numerical prefix attached.

The highway commission asserted it would use all of its efforts at having both roads given the same number and that it also proposed the same plan be followed on the old and new Santa Fe Trails. The old Santa Fe Trail is now No. 50 and the new trail 250 in Kansas.

Governor Benjamin S. Paulen, who attended the meeting, declared at the close that tourists traveled on roads, not numbers, so the numbers were of little importance. “But if residents on either one of these roads get out and actually construct good highways that people will like to drive over, there isn’t any question as to which one will get the traffic,” he said. With the issue turned back to State officials, he suggested that Kansas highway officials would meet with AASHO to secure “40” for both routes, with North and South added to differentiate the routes. [“Would Divide ‘No. 40’,” Topeka Capitol, December 19, 1925]

News of the proposed North/South split for “40” inspired advocates of the New Santa Fe Trail. The Topeka Capital reported:

Milt Wilhite of Emporia; Will C. Austin of Cottonwood Falls, and about 20 others, representing towns along the New Santa Fe Trail attacked the office of Walter V. Black, state highway engineer, in force yesterday afternoon, demanding a “50-50” split on the numbering of the New and Old trail thru Kansas. Under the federal system adopted, the Old trail gets the number 50, and the New trail gets 250.

The arguments were much the same as in the Midland-Victory row of two weeks ago, when the Victory folks protested against giving the Midland Trail 40 and the Victory 240 west of Manhattan. The highway department has promised in both instances to ask federal approval of giving both routes “50” on the Santa Fe trails, and both “40” on the Midland and Victory, but without promising that the numbering will be changed from the way it now stands. [“New Santa Fe Trail Towns Launch Sequel to ‘40-240’ Contest,” Topeka Capital, file copy dated only December 1925]

On January 8, 1926, Ralph S. Hinman of the Hutchinson Chamber of Commerce wrote to Secretary Jardine, saying among other things:

As we understand it, the number “fifty” was assigned by the Federal authorities to the highway which included the New Santa Fe Trail (so-called); but through some motive the State Highway Commission as we understand it, gave the main designation “fifty” to the roadway running from Edgerton west through Council Grove, Osage City, Marion, Larned, Jetmore, etc., while the subordinate designation of “250” was given to the New Santa Fe Trail, diverging at Edgerton and continuing through Ottawa, Emporia, Florence, Newton, Hutchinson, Stafford, Kinsley, and Dodge City — converging with “50” at Garden City. It is to be noted that “50” as outlined by the State Highway Commission, touches the home community of Mr. Markham, Mr. Miller (the private secretary of Governor Paulen, passing his ranch), Mr. Gardner (chair of the State Highway Commission), and joins “250” at Garden City, the home of the Governor’s Pardon Clerk, - Judge Hutchison.

Hinman continued that if the idea of 50 North and 50 South was rejected “as impractical or impossible . . . then it is respectfully suggested and urged that the main numeral should be applied to the one now designated by the State Highway Commission as ‘50’ between the point of divergence at Edgerton and the point of convergence at Garden City.”

Secretary Jardin replied on January 29, 1926, saying in part:

The Executive Committee held its meeting in Chicago January 14 and 15, and I am informed that at that meeting the Kansas Highway Department was given a special hearing, and that an adjustment satisfactory to all respects was arrived at as affecting Routes 50 and 250. This involved the assignment of the designation 50 North to the Old Santa Fe Trail and 50 South to the New Santa Fe Trail. This is a solution of several difficulties of the same sort which were found to exist in the Western States, and was applied to Routes 40 and 240 in Kansas, which were designated respectively 40 North and 40 South.

This appeals to me as a very common sense and satisfactory way of meeting the opposing demands of the advocates of different routes within a State, and I think it should be acceptable to the communities in Kansas. [National Archives in College Park, Maryland]

Springerville Fights for 60

Julius W. Becker of Becker Mercantile Company in Springerville wrote to Secretary Jardine on December 5 about the Arizona-New Mexico connection of the National Old Trails Road. As noted earlier, the Joint Board had designated a route from Chicago to Los Angeles, via Gallup-to-Holbrook, as U.S. 60, while U.S. 70 from North Carolina continued via Fort Sumner and Socorro, New Mexico, to Springerville, Arizona, and a terminus at U.S. 60 in Holbrook.

Becker began by regretting he had to write to the Secretary about this matter after efforts at the State level had failed to resolve it. “Our experience, however, has shown us that the big man is more easily approached than the man of a smaller callibre.” He was not seeking “any special favor,” but would base his argument on “fact in as far as New Mexico and East Arizona local conditions are concerned.”

Becker acknowledged the many benefits of the move to recognize a network of interstate roads and to mark them with federally approved signs. However, he asked, “have you ever considered that highways in certain states may be political highways, and that they may be designated by the State Administration from a selfish standpoint instead of from the standpoint of helping the people of the State in general as much as possible?”

He was referring to New Mexico’s previous and current Governors, both Democrats, while the Coolidge Administration was, of course, Republican. Governor James F. Hinkle, born in Missouri, had moved to New Mexico in 1885 and served as Governor from January 1, 1923, to January 1, 1925. His home was in Roswell. He was succeeded by Arthur T. Hannett, the current Governor, who was born in Lyons, New York, but moved to Gallup, New Mexico, in 1911.

You, no doubt, are receiving some complaints from different states since these highways have been designated. No doubt, many of these complaints are not justified, others may be.

In New Mexico the Democratic Governor comes from the town of Gallup. Before becoming Governor he was a great highway booster for his own town. His Highway Engineer, who is a very capable man, has always played politics to a very great extent, and consequently, several good Republican towns have suffered. He has been open and above board in declaring himself against them.

Several towns in New Mexico on routes competitive to those passing through Gallup, and also on routes that Gallup coveted, have enjoyed a wonderful tourist trade for the past thirteen years. They have built good garages, money has been invested in good hotels in order to take care of the traveler, stores have taken on a more prosperous look, and besides this, in a number of sections the farmers have prospered through the market that the tourist furnished. I can name you several towns in the cattle districts where the business houses and many of the people would have gone broke during the period of depression in the cattle industry had it not been for the hundreds of thousands of dollars left in these towns by the travelling public.

Naturally, all of these towns were at the mercy of the present Democratic administration, and if you will kindly look at the map which I will send you under separate cover, you will notice that all routes of any importance and which are travelled by the best class of tourists now lead directly and indirectly into the town that Governor Hannett comes from, and in as much as we feel that the government sign posted highways will be followed by the tourist regardless of the old routes that were travelled, it is easy to be seen that a great many people in towns that enjoyed the traffic in the past will be compelled to lose heavily through this new movement.

Pardon me for making the following suggestion, but don’t you think it would be best if the Department of Agriculture were to withhold issuing any maps of designated U.S. Highways and all road markers until impartial investigations can be made of all complaints? Why should people in certain towns be compelled to lose heavy revenues and in fact, all investments that they have made in the past through the fact that they are powerless to protect themselves?

No doubt, you are wondering why an Arizonian is so much interested in New Mexico affairs. That is easily explained. We are so near to the line that for years our interests have been identical with those of New Mexico. Besides this, the shifting of highways and travel in New Mexico affects us to a very great extent also. In fact, we have been leaders, although living in a small town, in the good highway movement both in Arizona and New Mexico (through our affiliations in New Mexico) for a great number of years.

It is true that Springerville has been placed on Route No. 70, but that is just like taking us off of a main street and placing us on a third rate street. For the past thirteen years we have enjoyed traffic off the National Old Trails, as we were a part of that Old Trails, and we have enjoyed traffic off of routes passing through Oklahoma City and Amarillo. The shortest way for the tourist through that section of travel on his way to California was through Springerville.

We have spent thousands of dollars in boosting for good roads. In fact, we have the reputation in this section as being rather radical for roads in general. It did not seem possible to us that through a stroke of the pen we would be compelled to lose a heavy revenue. Naturally, this will mean a big loss to our farmers as well as to the business men. Springerville may show a very small population on the map, but it is surrounded by about a dozen villages, some larger than Springerville, and the farmers in these little places have enjoyed the market which the tourist traffic through our town furnished.

People from different sections of Western and Central New Mexico have suggested that I write this letter. I sincerely hope that it rings true to you. There is absolutely no desire to throw mud at the Governor of New Mexico, however, it was necessary to be definite in order to impress you with the fact that there might be some merit to this letter. My sole object is to convince you that it might be best to withhold any further action in this highway matter until all complaints are in and sifted as to whether they have any merit or not. You have the reputation of being very humane. You always have the reputation of understanding the people in general. A man who has risen from the ranks as you have could not be otherwise. Won’t you kindly feel that this letter is not written to gain special favor, but simply to get justice from the Highway Department of the Federal Government where it would be impossible to get it locally?

Becker had not clarified his point, which seemed to be that since the founding of the National Old Trails Road, motorists had traveled through Springerville because it was on the best road between Albuquerque and Holbrook. Now that the Gallup-Holbrook road had been improved, traffic was increasingly taking the shorter alternative in the National Old Trails Road. That shift would continue under the new designated numbers; through motorists already on U.S. 60 would not consider the former alternate route via Springerville as they once had done. The city was now on a completely different long-distance road, U.S. 70.

He wrote again on December 8 to provide the maps mentioned in the earlier letter. “You will notice that the highways for Federal markers vary a great deal in New Mexico from the highways which have been traveled by the tourists for a number of years. These are the natural tourist routes”:

We would like very much to have the privilege of showing our side of the story to any impartial representative whom you may designate to look into this matter.

As I have explained to you in my letter of the 5th, there is a reason as far as the New Mexico highway administration is concerned for all important routes to run towards Gallup. The result is apparent, but why should hundreds of people be made to suffer for the sake of a Governor’s ambition? Tourists will follow the marked highways regardless of anything else, as they are strangers in the country and you could expect nothing different of them. Those in power have the privilege of using this situation for their own benefit, unless of course, we succeed in getting an impartial investigation and a chance to show our situation and tell our story.

If necessary, some of us will be very glad to have the privilege of coming to Washington to go into this situation more thoroughly.

E. W. James wrote a reply that Assistant Secretary R. M. Dunlop signed on December 17 in his capacity as Acting Secretary. He expressed “much interest” in the matter described in Becker’s December 5 letter and the maps submitted on December 8 related to the designation of interstate routes for uniform marking and numbering:

I am somewhat at a loss to understand your letter of the 5th, as neither the map submitted nor the letter itself gave any intimation of the details which you had in mind as underlying your complaint, and a careful examination of the federal aid highway system in New Mexico and eastern Arizona, and of the routes selected for marking in that same area indicated that they could not be characterized as they were in your letter.

Your letter of the 8th with somewhat more elaborate maps on which you indicated some of the details, explained your contentions, but I am inclined to believe that you have misconstrued the situation, as the map in which you showed the routes which you understood are selected for marking is seriously in error. For instance, the north and south route in the Rio Grande Valley south of Los Lunas to El Paso, is entirely omitted, and likewise the route from Clovis to El Paso as well as some others. I am enclosing a section of a map of the United States showing New Mexico and Arizona and the routes proposed as interstate highways. I am inclined to think after examination of this map you will find that the situation is satisfactory.

The Joint Board on Interstate Highways, which had in hand the designation of these routes, submitted its report to the Secretary on October 30. He approved the report and, as recommended by the Board, transmitted it to the association of State Highway Officials, which accepted the report on November 19. I understand that that Association provided a method for making the necessary minor corrections that might appear necessary, and all such matters are to be handled only through the respective State highway departments. I believe that this adjustment is now actually in progress, and that reports have already been received from a number of States. This Department is asking, therefore, that hereafter all further suggestions regarding the interstate system be taken up directly with the proper State highway department. [National Archives at College Park, Maryland]

The Numbers Game

Kelly explained the problems facing members of AASHO’s Executive Committee, including Avery, when they arrived for a meeting in Chicago’s Congress Hotel on January 24, 1926:

[Avery] and his colleagues were confronted with nearly one hundred requests to change either highway routes or numbering. The petitions came from bypassed towns, from trails associations that had lost their identify, from individuals, and from state officials who felt their states had been shortchanged when numbers were handed out.

In the months after AASHO secretary Markham sent the first national highway maps to state officials, the highways with numbers ending in one, five, and zero quickly took on an aura of their own. A community that could boast one of those numbers would be a place that would draw people and business. If would be a community set apart. Every town wanted to be on those numbered roads and those that were not, asked for changes to be made. The executive committee dealt with seventy-nine of the appeals during the one-day meeting. Others that were not so straightforward were held over for a later time, and one became so contentious that it threatened to undo all of the joint board’s work of the past year . . . .

In addition:

The Kansas people were still at loggerheads over the Old and New Santa Fe Trails and over a numbering switch just past Manhattan, Kansas, in what had been the cross-country Victory Highway. That latter even elicited a telegram from the secretary of agriculture. To address the Victory Highway issue the executive committee split U.S. 40 into U.S. 40 North and U.S. 40 South. They turned U.S. 50 into U.S. 50 North and U.S. 50 South for the two Santa Fe Trails. Neither decision turned out to be the right one, and the issue festered for years.

Kelly’s reference to a fight that became “so contentious” involved the battle over “60” which Kentucky, Virginia, and other States knew should have been assigned to them instead of the Chicago-to-Los Angeles route. Governor William J. Fields of Kentucky, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives and a strong highway booster, “was beside himself that in all the road numbering, Kentucky had not been given even one prestigious single-digit or zero-ending number on any of her primary federal aid highways.” Whatever the merit of any complaint he had with the other numbers, he had a strong point on “60,” which the Committee of Five had placed outside the numbering plan they had agreed on. Governor Fields, with his State Highway Engineer E. N. Todd, was in Chicago for the showdown over the numbers.

The Executive Committee voted to retain “60” for the Chicago-to-Los Angeles route and tried to placate Governor Fields by assigning the single number 62 to a route from Springfield, Missouri to Newport News, Virginia. Governor Fields was not placated. Instead, “he stormed to Washington, D.C. He rounded up his state’s whole congressional delegation and paid a heated visit to Chief MacDonald on January 25. There, the Kentuckians pointed out that their state, alone of all the states in the Mississippi Valley, did not have a road designated with a zero ending”:

At that point — seeking the path of least resistance — MacDonald and James changed the numbers. They made U.S. 60 the highway from Springfield to Newport News, and renamed Avery’s route U.S. 62. As they were soon to discover, that was not the easy way out. Cy was furious. He telegrammed his friend and Oklahoma congressman Elmer Thomas in Washington: “Bureau of Roads attempting to change U.S. route number sixty from Chicago to Oklahoma City to Los Angeles . . . . This change without notice to us effects [sic] Missouri, Oklahoma and other states. We have had most of our numbers made and ready to put up. Kansas and Kentucky are the states asking for this change . . . . See MacDonald and insist on this being left as it was agreed on in Chicago. Wire me collect results of your interview.” Just as Governor Fields had been sure that the Chicago mob was behind the decision not to grant Kentucky a zero highway number, Cy was at least suspicious that disgruntled Santa-Fe Trail Kansans were working against Oklahoma. [Kelly, pages 155-158]

On February 16, 1926, several members of the Executive Committee — not including Avery or Piepmeier — met in Washington to consider the correspondence received on U.S. numbers. A summary of the Executive Committee’s action covered numerous topics, but on the issue of “60” James’s summary explained:

It was agreed that the present arrangement affecting Kentucky and involving Routes 60 and 62 should preferably stand as at present adjusted, that is, 60 from Newport News to Springfield, Missouri, and 62 from Chicago via Springfield to Los Angeles, because the State of Kentucky protested against 62, since all other States north and south were given a number ending in an 0, which adjustment appears to be in line with the understanding had by the Executive Committee, but before submitting the matter in the form of a motion it should be ascertained whether Mr. Piepmeier and Mr. Avery would prefer 60 East from Springfield, Missouri Newport New Virginia, and 60 North from Springfield, Missouri to Chicago, as an alternate to the present proposed arrangement. In case the use of 60 East and 60 North is agreeable to Mr. Piepmeier and Mr. Avery, those present agreed to support a motion to use those numbers in lieu of the present proposed arrangement.

The Executive Committee’s formal report, dated March 4, 1926, to State highway officials did not address the 60/62 controversy. [National Archives at College Park, Maryland]

Kelly explained that this “curious decision . . . may have had more to do with a reluctance to finalize their actions than any question about the outcome.” Avery and Piepmeier were not satisfied. [Kelly 161-164]