Frederick A. Gardner, Public Relations Engineer of the State Highway 

 Department; and H. F. Moore, representing the U. S. Public Roads Ad- 

 ministration. The Committee requested J. Harold Johnson, Assistant 

 Commissioner of the State Highway Department, also to join in all its 

 meetings, and keep the Committee in constant touch with the views of 

 the Highway Department on the problems studied. The Committee 

 also had the valuable assistance of Professor Harry C. Woodworth, of 

 the State Rural Policy Committee. 



A detailed study was made of practically all towns in four counties 

 of the state: Belknap, Carroll, Coos and Sullivan. Aieetings were held 

 with the local committees in fifty-six towns, and the roads in all these 

 towns were classified and mapped and the town maps and statistics con- 

 solidated into county maps and statistics. 



Tables were also made up covering the whole state with relation to 

 the assessed valuation per mile of classified roads, the amount of the tax 

 rates applied to road costs in 204 towns, the town expenditures per mile 

 of classified roads in all towns, and other such pertinent statistics. 



With these facts before them, the State Committee held further 

 meetings, and agreed on the principles embodied in the present report. 

 Incidentally, the work of the Committee was responsible for some of the 

 legislation enacted by the 1941 Legislature, as referred to in the body of 

 this report. 



At this point Mr. W. Robert Parks was assigned by the Federal 

 Government to assist in the work of the Committee and in the formula- 

 tion of its report. He was able to consider the large body of detailed facts 

 which had been gathered and to marshal them in relation to each other, 

 and in collaboration with Mr. Holmes made up a good part of the report 

 as here presented. 



The work of Mr. Holmes has been invaluable to the Committee. 

 He is an expert in fact finding and in classification of facts. He has made 

 up the town and county maps which embody the detailed findings of the 

 local and county committees, and has made up all the tables which form 

 such an important part of this report. The cooperation of the State 

 Highway Department is greatly appreciated, Mr. Johnson having sat with 

 the Committee at most of its meetings and helped to control the some- 

 times impractical suggestions brought forward. The dynamic leadership 

 in ideas of Mr. Putnam was constantly stimulating. 



Certain conclusions follow necessarily from the facts assembled in 

 this report: 



1. Land-use surveys should be taken into account in planning road 

 construction and improvements. (See No. 7 below.) 



2. Local committee studies and recommendations are at least as 

 important as mechanical traffic surveys in determining priority of im- 

 provement or construction. Traffic surveys are of value but may be very 

 deceptive and must not be taken at their full face value in estimating the 

 need and future use of improvement or construction. For instance, the 

 present Route 106 now bears at least one hundred times as much traffic 

 weight as it did before the rough and stony stretch along Rocky Pond 

 was completed. A similar case may occur when the so-called "Sheep 

 road" by-passing Concord is constructed. There may be many such 



