Page:Report of Joint Board on Interstate Highways.pdf/10

 Practically none of these agencies was in a position to secure the actual use of the devices they might recommend. They were advisory only, and it was clearly the province of some such body as the state highway department to introduce the results of the studies made.

The Association of State Highway Officials, therefore, introduced into their resolution the second general feature of the work of the Joint Board, which was to adopt a system of uniform signs and markers for use on the selected system of interstate highways. It was and is confidently believed that the introduction of a set of uniform markers, and caution and danger signs on the selected routes throughout the country will result in a reasonable time in the extended use of the same uniform devices on a much enlarged mileage of state and county roads. The large variety of signs now used will be replaced by emblems of uniform appearance, everywhere indicating the same degree of danger or need for caution in traveling the highways of the country. This will promote safety by eliminating confusion, and will create an impression on drivers because of consistent and general use.

The first meeting of the Joint Board was called for April 20, 1925, at the office of the Bureau of Public Roads in Washington, D. C. In advance of the meeting a proposed agenda outline the matters to be discussed was prepared and sent to all members in order that the work of the Board might be given advance consideration and thereby expedited. The agenda is attached to this report as Appendix I.

The meeting was held as scheduled and consumed two days. The action taken is shown in Appendix II, and consisted in organizing, laying down a definite procedure for acquainting all the States with the activities of the Board, and outlining definite policies to cover the work.

The essential feature of the procedure was a series of Group Meetings to which all States were to be invited to send official representatives authorized to act for the State in designating a tentative system of interstate routes of major importance. The Groups were six in number and meetings were subsequently called at convenient meeting points for the members of each Group. An outline of the Group, the places and times of meeting and other details are shown in Appendix III attached.

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