TRANSPORTATION
LIBRARY
DUPL
HE
355
B 738,000
.A3
1958c
Gaylord
PAMPHLET BINDER
Syracuse, N. Y.
Stockton, Calif.
Transportaud
Library
HE
UDUI
355
A3
85th Congress, 2d Session
I
t
1
House Document No. 300
A REPORT OF FACTORS FOR USE IN
APPORTIONING FUNDS FOR THE NATIONAL
SYSTEM OF INTERSTATE AND
DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
LETTER
FROM THE
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
TRANSMITTING
AN ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF COMPLETING THE
NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE
HIGHWAYS IN EACH STATE AND THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, PREPARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPOR-
TIONING INTERSTATE SYSTEM FUNDS AUTHORIZED
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1960, 1961,
AND 1962, PURSUANT TO SECTION 108 (d) OF THE
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1956
+
JANUARY 7, 1958.-Referred to the Committee on Public Works
and ordered to be printed, with illustrations
99678
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1958
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES
2
Transportation
Library
Gift
Dinet
JAN 7 1959
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Hon. SAM RAYBURN,
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE,
Washington, D. C., January 7, 1958.
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
DEAR MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with the requirements of section
108 (d) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (Public Law 627,
84th Cong.), I am transmitting herewith an estimate of the cost of
completing the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
in each State and the District of Columbia prepared for the purpose
of apportioning Interstate System funds authorized for the fiscal years
ending June 30, 1960, 1961, and 1962.
The factors contained in this estimate of costs of construction
are derived from analysis and summation of estimates of cost set
forth in detail in 49 bound volumes of individual State reports which,
although considered a part of this transmittal, are being sent directly
to the House of Representatives Public Works Committee hearing
room because of their size.
Making an estimate of this magnitude is a complex engineering
job and requires exercise of sound judgment in forecasting probable
highway needs of each State in the calendar year 1975. The basic
elements of the job have been done in the individual State highway
departments where there is available the largest collection of needed
basic data, skills, and experience bearing on the highway problems of
each State. These estimates, uniformly prepared under a common set
of guides and engineering standards developed jointly by the Bureau of
Public Roads and representatives of the State highway departments,
represent the best coordinated judgment in this important matter.
In submitting this estimate I wish to recognize and pay tribute to
the State highway departments, all of which have cooperated to the
fullest in its preparation. This is but another working example of
the fine relationship of cooperative endeavor which has historically
characterized the Federal-aid highway program. In executing the
program set out in these estimates it is of great importance that this
State and Federal partnership be maintained and even strengthened
wherever possible.
Although this estimate shows an increase in cost over the amounts
authorized by section 108 (b) of the 1956 act, I do not see any need
for consideration at the present time of new legislative measures which
would add to the income of the highway trust fund. This is the first
estimate of a series of five and is made in the early stage of the high-
way program launched by the 1956 act. As construction of the
Interstate System progresses toward completion and as the amount of
remaining work correspondingly decreases, future estimates of cost
will be made on a broader base of experience and these estimates will
III
:
IV
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
progressively become more accurate by reflecting actual trends in cost,
either upward or downward, that cannot be forecast as well now.
Until this additional experience is acquired, consideration of any ad-
justments in authorization of funds or revenues would be premature.
I recommend it for approval by the Congress.
Sincerely yours,
SINCLAIR WEEKS,
Secretary of Commerce.
Transportation
Library
HE
355
.A3.
1958C
}
CONTENTS
Page
1
1
3
Purpose of report____
The designated system covered by this estimate.
Uniform application of geometric and construction standards_
I
Preparation of the estimate and the basic principles and procedures
followed..
Cost summaries and apportionment factors_
Comparison of present financing with present estimate of cost.
Causes for the increased cost reflected in this report__
Conclusions___
11
I
Į
}
1
}
8
8
347∞ ∞
A REPORT OF FACTORS FOR USE IN APPORTIONING
FUNDS FOR THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INTERSTATE AND
DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, section 108 (d), requires the
Secretary of Commerce to submit to the Congress within 10 days sub-
sequent to January 2, 1958, an estimate of the cost of completing the
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.
The purpose of the estimate is to derive the ratio of cost of complet-
ing the Interstate System in each State to the cost of completing the
system in all of the States to serve as a basis for apportioning funds
authorized for the fiscal years 1960, 1961, and 1962. The 1956 act
specified this method of apportionment in order to carry out its stated
objective of completing the Interstate System simultaneously in all
States.
The estimate presented herein is the first of a series to be submitted
to the Congress in accordance with the 1956 act. Revised estimates
must be submitted in January of 1962, 1966, 1967, and 1968, to estab-
lish the ratios for purposes of apportioning funds for the fiscal years
1963-69.
THE DESIGNATED SYSTEM COVERED BY THIS ESTIMATE
The National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, known
as the Interstate System, was designated under authority given in the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944. This system was not to exceed
40,000 miles in total length and was to be located to connect by routes,
as direct as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and
industrial centers, to serve the national defense, and connect at suit-
able border points with the routes of continental importance in the
Dominion of Canada and the Republic of Mexico.
The Interstate System was selected by joint action of the State
highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads, and routes
comprising an estimated 37,700 miles were designated on August 2,
1947. Additional routes limited to those around and through the
urban areas, totaling an estimated 2,300 miles, were designated in
September 1955. Pending the necessary engineering studies to deter-
mine the most economic alinements, the location of these routes was
diagrammatic only, and for convenience and in the absence of detailed
engineering studies, their lengths were measured along the existing
principal highways.
Section 108 (1) of the 1956 act increased the authorized length of
the Interstate System from 40,000 to 41,000 miles. Moreover, in
developing the estimates for this report, the States found that by
more accurate measurement and by the selection of better locations
1
2
FUNDS FOR INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
for the routes already designated, their previously estimated length
would be reduced to approximately 38,548 miles.
On October 18, 1957, the Secretary of Commerce announced 2,102
miles of interstate routes expected to be added to the system. None
of the cost of this mileage is included in the present estimate. The
1,000-mile expansion of the system is specifically excluded by section
108 (1) of the 1956 act, and the 1,102 miles of the savings made
possible as a result of more direct locations became available subse-
quent to July 1, 1956, which is used as the base date for preparation
of the cost estimate in this report.
Plate A shows the location of the designated routes which form the
basis of this estimate. Table A shows the mileage of the Interstate
System as well as the mileage of the other Federal-aid highway
systems in each of the States.
TABLE A.-Mileages of Federal-aid highway systems
Mileages of Federal-aid highway systems
State
Interstate
Other
Federal-aid
primary
Federal-aid
secondary
Total
Alabama..
Arizona
Arkansas.
California.
878
1, 161
522
5, 238
16,971
23, 087
1,446
3,777
3,376
13,745
Colorado.
2, 135
6, 384
17,643
5.047
10, 233
Connecticut..
674
17,415
3,592
3,850
Delaware
275
8, 116
989
1, 153
Florida..
40
2,417
526
1,419
Georgia
1, 111
1,985
4, 260
10, 726
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana.
1, 112
16, 097
7,267
13, 005
611
21, 384
2,440
4,620
1,608
7,671
8, 902
10, 868
Iowa.
Kansas
1,090
21, 378
4,355
15, 837
709
21, 282
9,392
33, 137
Kentucky.
803
43, 238
7, 179
22, 782
Minnesota.
Louisiana.
Maine
Maryland
Michigan..
Mississippi.
Missouri..
605
30, 764
3,804
15, 216
595
19, 625
2, 566
7,730
313
10, 891
1,621
2,299
Massachusetts.
350
4, 233
2,004
5,973
450
1,723
8, 327
2,206
1,066
4,379
5,831
21, 732
888
28, 629
7,941
19,317
676
28, 146
4, 472
9, 487
Montana.
1,095
14, 635
7,652
19, 365
Nebraska
1, 180
28, 112
4,687
4, 467
Nevada.
488
10, 334
5, 165
13, 100
New Hampshire.
534
18, 753
1,656
2,486
New Jersey.
215
4, 676
992
1,590
New Mexico.
368
2,797
1,670
1,980
New York.
1,003
4,018
3, 013
5, 236
North Carolina.
1,210
9, 252
9, 563
19, 311
North Dakota…….
677
30, 084
6, 173
24, 112
Ohio
504
30, 962
3,008
13, 531
Oklahoma.
1,344
17, 043
6, 422
16, 905
Oregon..
784
24, 671
7, 195
11, 747
19,726
Pennsylvania.
717
3,305
5,463
Rhode Island.
1,435
6, 035
9, 485
13, 220
South Carolina..
71
20, 690
392
384
847
South Dakota……….
679
3,937
13, 396
Tennessee----
512
18, 012
4,290
12, 383
17, 185
Texas.
988
4,323
9, 735
Utah...
2,889
15, 046
14, 219
27,855
Vermont
634
44, 963
1,519
3,359
Virginia..
Washington.
West Virginia.
Wisconsin...
Wyoming.
321
5, 512
1,237
1,804
996
3,362
3,683
18, 034
613
22, 713
2,974
9, 648
207
13, 235
2,370
10, 671
452
13, 248
5,883
18,624
District of Columbia.
931
24, 959
2, 618
2, 124
Hawaii..
Puerto Rico...
Total.
29
5, 673
112
78
219
532
550
602
1,085
1, 134
1, 635
38, 548
209, 146
528, 378
776, 072
99678 O-58 (Face p. 2)
Portland
Bellingham
Seattle
Olympia
Salem
Grants Pass
Sacramento
Oak-
land
San Francisco
Tracy
Reno
Barstow
Spokane
Plate A
NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
Sweetgrass
d'Alene
Co
Coeur d
Great Falls
Butte
Helena
Billing
Boise
Pocatello
Casper
Tremonton
Winnemucca
Las
Vegas
Santa Monica
Los Angeles
San Bernardino
San Diego
Salt Lake City
Grand Forks
Sault Sainte Marie
Duluth
Bismarck
Fart
Superior
Houlton
Buffalo
Rapid City
Albert Lea
Sioux Falls]
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Alexandria
Boy
Tomah
Mont
pelier
White
River
Jct.
Rochester
Utica
Muskegon
Madisond
Denver
Cheyenne
Big Springs
Lincoln
Grand
Rapids
Lansing
Flint
Niagara
Port Huron
Syracuse
Buffalo
Albany
Derby
St. Albans Line
Plattsburg
St. Johnsbury
Augusta
Bangor
Portland
Portsmouth
Worcester Boston
Com
cord
Benton
Harbor
Erie
Des Moines
Kalamazoo
Omaha
Chicago
Toledo
Davenport
Moline
Detroit
Cleveland
Scranton.
Elkhart
pungs
burgh
Strouds
Easton
Pueblo
Wichita
Akron
Bloomington
Canton
Wheeling
Pittsburgh
Harrisburg,
| Springfield
Cham-
Wash-
Salina
Topeka
poign Indianapoliti
Columbus
Dayton
Kansas City
Cincinnati
St. Louis
Norwalk
Effingham
Charleston
Staunton
Louisville
fort
Frank- Lexington
Lexington
Petersburg
Richmond
Norfolk
ington Hagerstown Fred-
Strasburg
erick
New Haven
New York City
eading Newark
ltimore
Baltimo
Washington
Trenton
Philadelphia
ilmington
New Bedford
New-
Spring
field
Providence
for
urg
Tulsa
Santa F
Flagstaff
Oklahoma City
Amarillo
Albuquerque
Phoenix
Casa Grande
Yuma
Tucson
Nogales
Las Cruces
El Paso
Pecos
Denton
Forth Worth,
San Antonio
Hillsboro
Austin,
Laredo
Dallas
Houston
Cairo
Nashville
Memphis
Little Rock
Birmingham
Knox
ville
ساسم
Greensboro
Durham
Chatta
Asheville
nooga
Charlotte
Spartanbur
Fayetteville
Columbi
Florence
Meridian
Montgomery
Shreveport
Jackson
Galveston
Baton Rouge
New Orleans
Atlanta
Augusta
Macon
Charleston
Savannah
Mobile
Jacksonville
Tallahassee
Pensacola
Lake City
Tampa
St. Petersburg
Daytona Beach
Miami
December, 1957
FUNDS FOR INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
3
UNIFORM APPLICATION OF GEOMETRIC AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
Section 108 (i) of the 1956 act requires the geometric and construc-
tion standards for the Interstate System to be approved by the
Secretary of Commerce in cooperation with the State highway depart-
ments, and that these standards shall be adequate for the types and
volumes of traffic forecast for the year 1975. Appropriate committees
composed of State highway department and Bureau of Public Roads
engineers had been working for several years under sponsorship of
the American Association of State Highway Officials in developing
design standards for the Interstate System. The standards used in
making the estimate reported herein were adopted by full membership
vote of the American Association of State Highway Officials on July 12,
1956, and approved July 17, 1956, by the Commissioner of Public
Roads acting for the Secretary of Commerce.
To serve as a standard guide, the Bureau of Public Roads, working
with representatives from the State highway departments, prepared
in October 1956 an Instruction Manual for Preparation and Sub-
mission of Detailed Estimate of the Cost of Completing the Interstate
System in Accordance with Section 108 (d) of the Federal-Aid High-
way Act of 1956.
This manual outlined in detail the procedures to be followed in
preparation of the estimate. It was furnished to all State highway
departments. An additional guide was prepared by the Bureau of
Public Roads and furnished to the States to serve as a means of
checking their forecasts of traffic. Since everyone working on the
estimate was provided with the same guides, maximum uniformity
has been obtained.
Uniformity as used here does not mean that the average cost of
constructing a mile of road, or any other average factors, will be the
same in all States. Such a comparison of averages is meaningless
because of wide variations in conditions such as traffic, terrain, climate,
and other factors peculiar to individual States and even within dif-
ferent portions of the same State.
Within the scope of practical uniformity there is a balance between
traffic needs in a particular circumstance and the highway design used
to satisfy that need. There are and should be provisions for some
range and variation in design. These variations will include such
things as widths of rights-of-way and the kind of improvements to
be removed therefrom, pavement and subbase thickness, bridge
foundations and types and the frequency and length of structures,
number of traffic lanes, frequency and complexity of interchanges
and grade separations, and many other elements involved under
various local conditions. Uniformity in this sense, therefore, means
the application in all of the States of the design range provided in
the Geometric Design Standards approved for the Interstate System
pursuant to section 108 (i) of the 1956 act.
PREPARATION OF THE ESTIMATE AND THE BASIC PRINCIPLES AND
PROCEDURES FOLLOWED
The estimate of cost of completing the Interstate System was pre-
pared in each State by personnel from the State highway departments
and the division offices of the Bureau of Public Roads. Representa-
4
FUNDS FOR INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
tives from both the Bureau's regional offices in the field and the head-
quarters office in Washington worked closely with the State and
division office personnel in the preparation of the estimate. This
procedure provided the close supervision necessary for a high level of
uniformity.
Each State has compiled its estimate in a bound volume following a
standard format for all States which includes maps showing the loca-
tion of the several interstate routes in that State, plates showing the
engineering features, and tables listing the design criteria, route and
section mileages, and estimated costs for each section broken down into
major elements of construction.
On June 29, 1956, when the 1956 act was approved, sections of the
Interstate System were in various stages of development, ranging
from the most elemental preliminary planning upward through com
pleted sections already in use. In estimating the cost of completing
the Interstate System in accordance with the adopted geometric and
construction standards, all work in a financed status as of July 1, 1956,
was considered as having been completed. This means that the cost
of any work on the Interstate System, which was to be accomplished
with funds already assigned for construction, has not been included in
this estimate.
It was also necessary to insure the use of a common base period for
the unit construction prices to be used in the estimate. Since all of
the States would be working on their estimates in the early part of the
calendar year of 1957, average cost indexes of construction for the last
half of the calendar year of 1956 were selected.
On completion of each State's estimate, it was forwarded through
the field offices of the Bureau of Public Roads and then to the Wash-
ington office where detailed checks, analyses, and summaries of the
States' estimates have been made.
COST SUMMARIES AND APPORTIONMENT FACTORS
The data summarized in the following tables are derived from
material presented in the 49 volumes of the reports.
Table B lists by States (1) the amounts of the unobligated balances
as of July 1, 1956, of the Federal-aid interstate funds apportioned for
the fiscal years 1954-57, inclusive, under the Federal-Aid Highway
Acts of 1952 and 1954 with corresponding amounts of estimated
State matching funds, (2) the amounts of interstate funds apportioned
since July 1, 1956, for the fiscal years 1957-59, inclusive, under the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 with corresponding amounts of
estimated State matching funds, and (3) amounts for work expected
to be financed with other than interstate and State matching funds.
In order to comply with the intent of the 1956 act these amounts have
been excluded from the cost figures to be used in establishing the
factors for apportionment of funds authorized for the 1960 and later
fiscal years.
Table C lists the estimates of cost by States for all work not financed
as of July 1, 1956, which was required to complete the Interstate
System. These costs are shown in three categories: (1) Preliminary
engineering, (2) right-of-way, and (3) construction. The summation
of the cost of these three elements of work less the total amounts
FUNDS FOR INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
5
shown in table B represent the remaining cost to complete the Inter-
state System. The ratio of this cost in each State to the sum of the
costs in all the States determines the factors for apportionment of
funds for the fiscal years 1960, 1961, and 1962.
Table D shows in summary the remaining cost in each State as
described in table C and the resulting apportionment factor for each
State.
TABLE B.-Amounts not included in costs used to determine apportionment
factors-Sec. 108 (d)
[Thousands of dollars]
State
Total of 1956
act inter-
state appor-
tionments
1957-59
Estimated
State funds
to match
1956 act
funds for
1957-59
Balance as of
July 1, 1956,
of apportion-
ments from
1952 and
1954 acts
Estimated
State funds
to match
balance of
1952 and
1954 acts,
interstate
funds
Amounts for
work ex-
pected to
be financed
with other
than inter-
state and
State match-
ing funds
Total
Alabama.
95, 524
Arizona..
10, 614
2, 641
53, 787
1, 761
Arkansas.
3, 191
10, 547
530
121, 087
67, 910
154
California...
7,545
150
3,985
57, 812
269, 341
2,657
Colorado.
24, 475
82, 097
63, 967
Connecticut.
6,088
242, 217
2,500
536, 033
45, 180
1,351
Delaware.
5, 020
1,365
2,962
75, 271
29, 313
1, 975
Florida.
3,257
36, 376
2,256
91, 513
79, 578
1, 544
Georgia.
8,842
49, 541
2, 463
85, 911
108, 923
1, 642
Idaho.
12, 102
3, 584
5, 570
96, 109
47, 578
3,723
Illinois....
3,975
327
2, 684
130, 645
220, 986
1, 198
Indiana...
24, 554
672
55, 435
114, 014
454
Iowa..
12, 668
370, 640
8, 414
617, 306
95, 407
5, 609
Kansas
10, 601
6, 332
140, 705
84, 911
Kentucky.
9,435
363
4,379
242
6,382
123, 101
87,817
Louisiana.
9, 757
3,723
94, 951
77,250
2,634
Maine.
8,583
3, 217
103, 931
37, 702
2, 144
Maryland
4, 189
1, 556
91, 194
56, 377
1,037
Massachusetts.
6, 264
4,254
1, 541
48, 738
100, 122
1,028
Michigan.
11, 125
41, 597
2, 116
106, 807
169, 006
1,411
Minnesota..
18, 778
43, 328
1,752
158, 102
1, 188
105, 801
Mississippi.
11, 756
3,565
2, 787
194, 289
Missouri.
74, 354
1,858
8, 261
3,062
122, 202
126, 728
2, 053
Montana.
14, 081
287
87,730
204
67, 295
Nebraska.
6,396
4, 623
4, 919
145, 923
2,673
67, 166
Nevada
7,463
115
81, 398
5, 235
New Hampshire..
48, 932
3, 626
2,575
1,335
1, 969
84, 825
300
New Jersey.--
29, 313
3,257
2,120
53, 776
1, 413
102, 673
New Mexico………
11, 408
4, 583
6, 782
40, 686.
4, 521
57,024
246, 691
New York..
4,570
372, 075
205
87
333, 282
North Carolina.
37,031
61,886
5, 311
3, 541
119, 333
North Dakota.
13, 259
4,788
687, 857 1,067, 022
3, 192
51, 838
Ohio..
5, 760
2,761
140, 572
200, 393
1,840
Oklahoma.
22, 266
62, 199.
3,061
2,041
84, 012
Oregon
9, 335
6, 830
2,577
234, 591
1,881
63, 469
Pennsylvania.
5, 228
97, 805
10
6
Rhode Island.
251, 152
2,301
27,906
8, 519
71, 014
5, 679
South Carolina.
29, 313
3,257
78, 308
371, 564
317
211
South Dakota.
63, 023
7,003
3, 475
33, 098
2, 317
Tennessee.--
54, 437
5, 266
75, 818
2, 192
1, 195
99, 935
518
Texas.
11, 104
63, 608
7,213
4,809
270, 186
Utah
30, 021
123, 061
813
583
45, 644
Vermont.
2, 448
301, 603
90
23
29, 312
Virginia
3,257
48, 205
2,232
1,526
Washington
94, 722
50
10, 525
36, 377
3,246
2, 164
West Virginia.
75, 517
89, 340
7,734
3, 021
199, 997
1, 783
55, 756
3,673
Wisconsin..
6, 195
91, 728.
4,031
2, 688
106, 688
Wyoming
11, 854
68, 670
6, 752
4,639
377
48, 697
District of Columbia..
3, 733
130, 310
1, 014
406
29, 312
3,257
53, 850
2,120
1, 413
36, 102
Total.
4, 690, 000
497, 269
146, 186
94, 803
1,940, 474 | 7,368, 732
·6
FUNDS FOR INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
TABLE C.-National summary of estimated costs-Sec. 108 (d)
[Thousands of dollars]
Preliminary engi-
neering (surveys,
Amounts
State
detail plans, spec- Right-of-way Construction
already
available
ifications, con-
tract documents)
(table B)
Federal-aid and
State matching
funds required
to complete
system
Alabama.
20, 939
93, 172
Arizona
640, 841
121,087
24, 336
633, 865
26, 062
Arkansas.
446, 507
57.812
9.241
439, 093
29,940
California.
362, 086
82,097
242, 543
319, 170
650, 722
Colorado.
2,909, 128
536, 033
10, 658
3,266, 360
20, 625
293. 051
·Connecticut.
75, 271
14, 104
249, 063
Delaware.
84, 376
385, 046
91, 513
6, 404
392, 013
15,989
Florida.
176, 721
85, 911
24, 872
113, 203
213, 769
·Georgia
690, 317
96, 109
21, 841
832, 849
83,475
Idaho
800, 892
130, 645
11.280
775, 563
16,608
249, 182
Illinois
55, 435
70,032
221, 635
268, 765
Indiana.
1, 926, 776
617, 306
55, 692
1,648, 267
136, 949
Iowa.
875, 113
140, 705
9,443
927,049
53, 985
Kansas
364, 669
123, 101
10, 158
304, 996
52, 983
Kentucky..
319, 349
94, 951
26, 674
287, 539
55, 559
Louisiana.
586, 612
103, 931
27, 273
564, 914
113, 821
Maine..
799, 140
91, 194
7,526
849, 040
8, 218
Maryland
198, 346
48, 738
26, 619
165, 352
126, 682
Massachusetts.
677, 538
106, 807
37, 226
724, 032
196, 391
Michigan.
818, 951
158, 102
49, 366
895, 066
321, 928
Minnesota..
1,086, 028
194, 289
26, 153
1, 263, 033
Mississippi.
107, 888
594, 178
122, 202
7,596
606, 017
28,659
Missouri
401, 549
87, 730
39, 340
353, 074
158, 250
Montana
865, 266
145,923
18.110
916, 933
Nebraska..
13, 701
414, 986
81, 398
9,063
365,399
Nevada
31, 792
242, 201
81, 825
8, 785
198, 231
New Hampshire...
20, 754
192, 297
53, 776
7, 102
168, 060
New Jersey..
14,925
195, 311
40, 686
42, 321
245, 224
176, 652
New Mexico.
1, 124, 686
372, 075
15, 231
New York..
26, 604
1,040, 156
405, 073
61, 886
82,353
385, 022
334, 098
North Carolina.
2,242,593
1,067, 022
7,329
1,592, 022
38,869
North Dakota….
268, 703
140, 572
1,223
8, 546
Ohio..
194, 743
62, 199
78,586
520, 929
Oklahoma..
1,728, 929
234, 591
9, 517
Oregon.
31, 442
348, 910
97,805
7,043
103, 612
Pennsylvania..
517, 494
71, 014
52, 906
174, 329
142, 313
2,093, 853
292, 064
557, 135
Rhode Island….
126, 676
1,502, 894
371, 564
7,408
1,310, 912
40,094
South Carolina.
135, 280
33,098
11, 028
149, 684
23, 855
South Dakota.
305, 686
75,818
2,373
264, 751
5,376
'Tennessee…-
192, 005
63,608
33, 902
136, 146
158, 908
Texas.
883, 469
123, 061
52, 305
952, 218
227,847
Utah
1,473, 702
301, 603
14, 325
1, 452, 251
Vermont...
19, 328
315, 095
48, 205
8.668
12, 822
300, 543
Virginia
Washington..
West Virginia.
Wisconsin.
Wyoming-
District of Columbia
Total...
317, 963
36, 377
60, 856
303, 076
177, 643
1,323, 516
199,997
16,736
1,362, 018
103, 289
553, 679.
91, 728
18, 261
581, 976
52, 581
400, 709
68, 670
15, 017
402, 881
55, 408
398, 450
130, 310
10,806
338, 565
4, 218
372, 891
53, 850
12, 063
334, 065
77, 252
265, 394
36, 102
318, 607
1 32, 142, 055
¹ Estimated cost for apportionment of Interstate System funds for fiscal years 1960-62 (includes both
Federal and State funds).
FUNDS FOR INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
7
TABLE D.-Estimated Federal-aid and State matching costs to complete the system
and apportionment factors-Sec. 108 (d)
[Thousands of dollars]
Apportion-
State
Costs
ment
factors
State
Costs
Apportion-
ment
factors
Percent
Percent
Alabama
633, 865
1.972
New Hampshire.
176, 652
0.550¹
Arizona..
Arkansas.
439, 093
.1.366
New Jersey.
1,040, 156
3.236
319, 170
.993
New Mexico………..
385, 022
1.198
California.
3, 266, 360
10. 162
New York..
1,592, 022
4.953:
Colorado.
249, 063
.775
North Carolina…….
174, 329
Connecticut..
.542
392, 013
1.220
North Dakota…….
142, 313
.443.
Delaware...
Florida.
113, 203
.352
Ohio.
2,093, 853
6. 514
832, 849
2. 591
Oklahoma.
292, 064
.909
Georgia...
Idaho.
Illinois.
Indiana.
Iowa..
Kansas.
Kentucky.
Louisiana.
Maine..
775, 563
2. 413
Oregon.
557, 135
1.733
221, 635
.690
Pennsylvania.
1,310, 912
4.078
1, 648, 267
5. 128
Rhode Island.
149, 684
.466
927,049
2.884
South Carolina.
264, 751
.824
304, 996
.949
South Dakota….
136, 146
.424
287, 539
.895
Tennessee..
953, 218
2.966
564, 914
1.758
Texas.
1, 452, 251
4.518
849, 040
2.641
Utah.--
300, 543
.935
165, 352
.514
Vermont
303, 076
.943
Maryland
724, 032
2. 253
Virginia
1,362, 018
4.237
Massachusetts...
895, 066
2.785
Washington.
581, 976
1.811
Michigan..
1,263, 033
3.930
West Virginia.
402, 881
1.253.
Minnesota….
606, 017
1.885
Wisconsin..
338, 565
1.053
Mississippi.
353, 074
1.098
Wyoming.
334, 065
1.039
Missouri.
916, 933
2.853
District of Columbia.
318, 607
.991
Montana..
365, 399
1. 137
Nebraska.
198, 231
Nevada.
168, 060
.617
.523
Total...
32, 142, 055
100.000
:
COMPARISON OF PRESENT FINANCING WITH PRESENT ESTIMATE OF COST
After applying the deductions summarized in table B, the total
estimated cost to be used in determining the apportionment factors
for fiscal years 1960, 1961, and 1962 is shown in table C as $32,142,055,-
000. This amount includes approximately $3,065,409,000 of State
matching funds, leaving an estimated $29,076,646,000 to be supplied
from the highway trust fund for the 1960 and later fiscal years.
The Federal-Aid Highway Acts of 1954 and 1956 authorize a total
of $25.0 billions to be appropriated in specific amounts for each of the
fiscal years 1957 through 1969 for the purpose of expediting the
construction, reconstruction, or improvement of the Interstate System
after July 1, 1956. Another $2.6 billions in State funds would be
needed to match these Federal funds at the matching ratios established
by the legislation. Thus, the total for Federal and State financing
that has been provided under these acts is $27.6 billions, for the period
following July 1, 1956.
By comparison, the total for Federal and State financing to complete
the Interstate System after July 1, 1956, as summarized in this report
is $37.6 billions. Of this amount $33.9 billions represents the Federal
share and $3.7 billions represents the States' matching share.
8
FUNDS FOR INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
A tabular comparison of the present financing that was provided
by the 1954 and 1956 acts and the financing needs currently estimated
in accordance with the 1956 act is given in the following table.
Current estimate of needed Federal aid - State matching
money:
For fiscal years 1957-59 (Federal funds already appor-
tioned).
Required for 1960 and later fiscal years.
Total..
As provided by the 1954 and 1956 acts.
Federal
share
(billions)
State match-
ing share
(billions)
Total
(billions)
$4.875
$0.605
29.077
3.065
$5.480
32. 142
33.952
3.670
37.622
25.000
2.645
27.645
Thus it is indicated from the estimates made in 1956-57 that the
combined Federal-aid and required State matching finances needed
after July 1, 1956, to complete the Interstate System would be about
37 percent greater than the amounts which have been authorized in
the 1954 and 1956 acts.
CAUSES FOR THE INCREASED COST REFLECTED IN THIS REPORT
This estimate of cost for completing the Interstate System is higher
than the amounts presently authorized because-
(1) The nationwide traffic forecasts for 1975 which were made
subsequent to the 1956 act are 15 percent higher than previous
forecasts, resulting in a need for more traffic lanes and other
facilities. Construction required on the Interstate System by
this additional traffic accounts for an estimated 5-percent increase
in needed facilities.
(2) Section 116 (b) of the 1956 act states that it is "*** the
intent that local needs, to the extent practicable, suitable, and
feasible, shall be given equal consideration with the needs of inter-
state commerce. To serve local needs as required by the above
portion of the act will require an estimated 63 percent more high-
way grade separations, interchanges, other structures, and addi-
tional frontage roads than had been considered in determining
the amounts authorized by the 1956 act. This accounts for an
estimated 15-percent increase in total work to be done.
(3) In addition, miscellaneous items such as utility adjust-
ments, lighting, signing, and other incidentals account for some
increase, probably aggregating another 3 percent.
(4) Highway construction costs of the Interstate System type
have risen 12 percent during the interval between mid-1954 and
the last half of 1956 as reflected by the Bureau's price index for
Federal-aid highway construction and this increase is applicable
to all items.
CONCLUSIONS
These estimates are an accurate appraisal of the cost in each State
based on 1956 price levels but do not represent a commitment of funds
to the location, design, or cost of individual projects to be undertaken
on the Interstate System. Before any construction begins, every
portion of the system covered by this estimate will be further investi-
1
FUNDS FOR INTERSTATE AND DEFENSE HIGHWAYS
9
gated and studied by the Bureau of Public Roads and State highway
department engineers in preparing the detailed designs, plans, and
specifications, on which actual construction bids will be invited. It
must be recognized that the estimate totals are based on current
prevailing factors and carry no forecast of future trends, either upward
or downward.
The estimated costs to be borne by the highway trust fund and
State matching funds are considered adequate for the purposes
described in this report. It is therefore recommended that the esti-
mates and apportionment factors shown in table D be approved by
the Congress by concurrent resolution, in order to permit the Secre-
tary of Commerce to apportion the authorized funds for fiscal years
1960, 1961, and 1962 as soon as revenues in the trust fund are esti-
mated to be sufficient as required by the provisions of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1956, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1956.
о
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ENGIN. - TRANS. LIBRARY
312 UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY
764-7494
OVERDUE FINABER DAY
FEB 22 1990
DEC 121963
DATE DUE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 01184 0579