America's Highways 1776–1976: A History of the Federal-Aid Program/Part 2/Chapter 9

by Federal Highway Administration

 

Layout 2

Development
of the
Interstate
Program

The National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, more commonly known as the Interstate Highway System, is a 42,500-mile network of freeways, spanning the Nation and linking together and serving more than 90 percent of all cities of over 50,000 population and thousands of smaller cities and towns. The System comprises little more than 1 percent of the Nation's road and street mileage, but when completed, it is expected to carry about 25 percent of all traffic.

While the Interstate System is a national system connecting all States, it is a part of the State highway system in each of the States in which it is located. Federal highway funds, derived from highway-user taxes, are used together with appropriate State funding for the construction of the Interstate System, but the "ownership" is with the States, and the entire burden of maintenance, administration, and regulation falls upon the States and localities.

The Interstate System, now nearing completion, is being constructed by a State-Federal partnership. The State highway departments and the Department of Defense assisted in the designation of the System’s routes. The States select and design the projects to be built each year; the necessary right-of-way is acquired by the States under State law, and the States award and manage the construction contracts—all subject to the review and approval of the Federal Highway Administration. The Federal share of the total system cost, now estimated at $89 billion, is 90 percent, and States’ shares are 10 percent.

The Birth of the Interstate System

Initial Consideration

The origin of the Interstate Highway System can be related specifically to a formal report made to Congress in 1939. Before that, a few scattered parkways and urban arterials were already demonstrating the virtues of controlled access highways with grade-separated interchanges. There had been earlier dreams of a transcontinental network of superhighways, although these were usually conceived of as bypassing all cities and serving only those who wanted to make long trips.

In the 1930’s there was mounting evidence of future traffic congestion on the country's main travel arteries; but at the same time a prolonged period of economic depression made normal public financing of highway improvement a difficult matter. There was a sudden revival of interest, after almost a century, in toll road financing, and toll roads were built in several of the major traffic corridors.

The Piscataqua River Bridge on Interstate 95 literally joins the States of Maine and New Hampshire. It fits gracefully into its environment and provides convenience, safety, and savings in travel time for the motorist.

The Federal-aid legislation in 1934 had authorized the use of Federal-aid highway funds for planning purposes, and continuing statewide highway planning surveys were initiated in 1935 under the guidance and leadership of the Bureau of Public Roads. From these studies came a wealth of factual information which, for the first time, permitted some definition and measurement of highway transportation and its problems and made possible highway planning based on knowledge rather than guesswork.

A Study of Toll Roads Versus Free Roads

With this data to draw on, the Congress in 1938 requested the Bureau of Public Roads to study the feasibility of a toll financed system of three east–west and three north–south superhighways. The resulting comprehensive study made by Public Roads in cooperation with the State highway departments was reported to Congress in 1939 in the landmark publication Toll Roads and Free Roads.

This study demonstrated that the suggested 14,000-mile toll road system would be far from self-supporting. Seeking more than a negative recommendation, the study explored and documented the need for a system of interregional superhighways, with connections through and around cities. A 26,700-mile nontoll network was proposed, with the recommendation that the Federal Government share the construction cost at more than the traditional 50 percent Federal-aid rate.

The Interregional Highways Study

To pursue this concept, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed a National Interregional Highway Committee in 1941. Thomas H. MacDonald, Commissioner of Public Roads, became the Committee’s chairman ; its secretary was Herbert S. Fairbank, Deputy Commissioner for Research in the Public Roads Administration.

Through them, the resources and assistance of the Public Roads Administration and the States were made available to the Interregional Highway Committee. Then, in 1943, in the midst of World War II, Congress requested Public Roads to make a study of the need for a nationwide expressway system. The Committee and Public Roads presented their report, Interregional Highways, to Congress in 1944.

The study considered systems of several sizes, testing each by a variety of criteria, and recommended as optimum a rural network of 33,900 miles. The need for an additional 5,000 miles of auxiliary urban routes was foreseen, bringing the total proposed system to about 39,000 miles, of which one-fifth would be in urban areas.

High standards of geometric design with full control of access were recommended. No overall cost estimate for the system was made. It was suggested that postwar expenditures for its construction should be $750 million a year, two-thirds of it on the urban sections.

Designation of the System

Acting on the basis of the 1939 and 1944 reports, the Congress in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 directed the designation of a National System of Interstate Highways limited to 40,000 miles and “. . . so located as to connect by routes, as direct as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers, to serve the national defense, and to connect at suitable border points with routes of continental importance . . .”

The Act provided that the routes of the National System of Interstate Highways be selected by joint action of the State highway department of each State and the adjoining States, with the approval of the Public Roads Administration and were to be incorporated in the Federal-Aid Primary System if not already included in it.

In response to a request from PRA, the States proposed routes for inclusion in the System. Criteria for selection included service to cities and rural population, to manufacturing and agricultural production, to concentrations of motor-vehicle ownership and traffic, and to national defense. Additional criteria in urban areas included consideration of need for through and circumferential routes and their relation to land use, urban planning, and civil defense.

Considerable discussion ensued between the States and the Department of Defense. On August 2, 1947, selection of the general locations of the main routes of the Interstate System was announced. They totaled 37,700 miles, including 2,900 in urban areas. The remaining mileage within the 40,000-mile limit was reserved for auxiliary urban routes.

Again on the recommendation of and in consultation with the States and the Department of Defense, the general locations of 2,300 miles of urban circumferential and distributing routes were designated on September 15, 1955.

This well designed interchange in Morris County, N.J., maintains much of the original topography while smoothly blending the heavy traffic of I-80 and 287 with that of U.S. 46. It provides long acceleration and deceleration lanes and wide shoulders for safe emergency stops.

Early System Construction

Progress in the designation of the routes on the System had been slow. So was progress in construction. Congress authorized a sizable postwar Federal-aid highway program, but for the fiscal years 1946–53 no specific amounts were earmarked for the Interstate System.

In what now seems a token gesture, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1952 did authorize $25 million for the Interstate System for each of the fiscal years 1954 and 1955, to be matched on the traditional 50–50 Federal-State cost sharing basis. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954 authorized $175 million for the Interstate for each of the fiscal years 1956 and 1957, with the matching ratio changed to a 60-percent Federal share. These 1954–57 funds were apportioned among the States by formulas used for apportioning regular Primary System funds, taking into account the area, population, and postal route mileage in each State.

During the first postwar decade, of course, a good deal of the regular Federal-aid highway funds were used on the Interstate System—some 27 percent of the Primary and 45 percent of the Urban Federal-aid funds authorized for fiscal years 1946–56—however, this level of construction funding fell far short of meeting System traffic requirements or design standards.

Highway Needs Studies

National Defense

Although some work progressed, traffic needs on the System increased at a faster rate than construction. The Congress, in 1948, requested PRA to study the status of the System and to comment on the relation of highways to the national defense. The ensuing study, made in cooperation with the State highway departments, was reported to Congress in 1949 in the document Highway Needs of the National Defense. It demonstrated the critical deficiencies of the Interstate routes and estimated the cost of needed improvements at $11.3 billion; 47 percent of the suggested improvements lay in urban areas.

There were some recognized deficiencies in the estimate. It did not include the 2,300 miles of urban auxiliary routes, which were then yet to be designated. It was realized that designs should be based on traffic needs of the future, but it was found impracticable to make such forecasts, so deficiencies of existing highways were measured against existing traffic.

There were other flaws, easily seen in hindsight. It was then considered that a good deal of the System could be developed by reconstruction of or widening existing highways, which later proved impractical on many route segments. And subsequent substantial construction price increases were unanticipated.

Highway Systems

The next few years brought a welter of discussion and studies of the problem. Protracted hearings of the Subcommittee on Roads of the House of Representatives in 1953, published as the National Highway Study, dwelt at length on the Interstate System among other subjects.

In a message sent to the Governors Conference on July 12, 1954, President Eisenhower called for “a grand plan for a properly articulated highway system.”^[1] Later in 1954, a committee of the Governors Conference reported to the President its belief that the national government should assume primary responsibility, with State participation, for financing the Interstate System.

In the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954, Congress requested the Bureau of Public Roads to make several extensive studies, in each of which the State highway departments collaborated.

One study was reported in March 1955 in the document Needs of the Highway Systems, 1955–84. Construction needs of the 37,700-mile Interstate System for the years 1955–64, to provide for traffic predicted for 1974, were estimated to cost $23.2 billion, of which 46 percent would be spent in urban areas. Again, the estimate did not cover the 2,300 miles of urban auxiliary routes. Thus, the estimate included essentially the same mileage as the estimate reported in 1949, and at about the same construction unit price levels.

Yet the new cost estimate was double that reported in 1949. This time an attempt was made to forecast future traffic needs; higher standards were used for estimate purposes, including access control throughout; and there was greater awareness of the probable need for extensive location on new right-of-way.

Still, the report itself acknowledged that there was a tendency in State estimates to reflect financial limitations rather than anticipated needs, and additionally a tendency to understate the needs. Further, both this and the earlier estimates were made in a comparatively short time, with limited manpower. A good deal of the estimating was done by map study for route location and use of average quantities and costs per mile.

Feasibility of Toll Roads

Another study requested by Congress in 1954 was reported in April 1955 in the document Progress and Feasibility of Toll Roads and Their Relation to the Federal-Aid Program. At that time the toll turnpike was vigorously advocated by various promotional groups as the ready solution to highway congestion and financing. This study indicated that 6,700 miles of routes could be successfully financed by tolls, but predicted (reliably) that assurance of public funds for early completion of the Interstate System would soon end widespread interest in toll roads.

The report reaffirmed the desirability of the principle established in the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916: Roads built with Federal aid should be toll free. But the report did recommend inclusion in the Interstate System of toll roads which met System standards where there were reasonably satisfactory free roads in the corridor permitting traffic to bypass the toll road. This simply recognized that toll roads, built without Federal aid, existed on the lines of the Interstate System and that to duplicate them would be an economic waste.

The Clay Committee Report

Following up on his message to the Governors Conference in 1954, President Eisenhower appointed an Advisory Committee on a National Highway Program, with General Lucius D. Clay as its chairman. The Committee’s report, A 10-Year National Highway Program, was transmitted to Congress in February 1955. Using the Bureau of Public Roads-States estimate of $23 billion and adding to it $4 billion for the urban auxiliary routes not included in that estimate, the Committee arrived at an overall cost for completion of the Interstate System, in the 10 years 1956–65, of $27 billion. The Federal share was figured at $25 billion, or about 90 percent.

This attractive safety rest area and information center on I-94 near New Buffalo, Mich., is the result of a combined effort of architects, landscapers, and design engineers to preserve mature trees and to provide grassy picnic areas. The pond was purposely created from a 4-acre borrow pit.

To manage the financing of the program, the Committee proposed creation of a Federal corporation which would issue $20 billion of long-term bonds to be repaid over the 32-year period 1956–87 from the existing 2-cent Federal motor-fuel tax. While the proposal had many attractive aspects, features that probably weighed most heavily against it were: (1) it placed a ceiling for 32 years on the regular ABC Federal-aid program (as a necessary part of the financing plan); (2) it would cost $12 billion in bond interest; and (3) it removed fiscal control of the program, in effect, from the hands of Congress.

Program Established

Legislation Fails in 1955

Equipped with these reports, Congress began consideration of the highway problem early in 1955—in both the House and the Senate. The Senate Subcommittee on Roads held hearings extending from February into April. In the House, the Committee on Public Works held hearings from April into July. In addition to the public hearings, both committees spent countless hours in executive session.

Both the Senate and the House had for consideration an Administration bill, modeled rather closely after the recommendations of the President’s Advisory Committee. The Senate also had before it a bill introduced by Senator Albert Gore. This bill proposed continuing the Federal-aid program generally in its traditional form but with substantial increase in authorization levels. Annual authorizations for the regular Federal-aid highway program would be increased from the existing level of $700 million to $1.1 billion; Interstate authorizations from $175 million to $500 million; both authorizations would cover each of the 5 fiscal years 1956–1960; the Federal share of Interstate costs would be increased from the level of 60 percent to a two-thirds share, and apportionment among the States would remain as prescribed in the 1954 Act.

Later, Senator Francis Case introduced a bill providing over a 10-year period annual authorizations of $450 million for the ABC program and $900 million for the Interstate System, the latter to be on a 90–10 matching ratio.

A modified version of the Gore bill was passed by the Senate on May 25, 1955, providing $7.75 billion for the Interstate System program, spread over the 5 fiscal years 1957–61, with the Federal share of costs to be 90 percent. Numerous other significant provisions were included in the bill with respect to the Interstate program. There were no provisions for the revenue required.

In the House of Representatives consideration was given to the Administration bill, the Senate-passed bill, and a bill proposed by Representative George H. Fallon. For the Interstate System, Fallon’s bill offered $24 billion over the 12 years 1957–68, a 90-percent Federal share of costs, and apportionment among the States in the ratio of the estimated cost of completing the System in each State to the total cost of completion in all the States. The bill proposed increases in Federal motor-fuel and rubber taxes to provide needed revenue.

A modified Fallon bill came before the House in the last days of the session but was defeated. The Administration bill also was defeated. With adjournment of the 1st session of the 84th Congress, the Gore bill, passed by the Senate, remained alive but dormant for the rest of 1955.

The failure of Congress to enact legislation came as a shock to many. There had been almost universal testimony supporting an expanded highway program. One major difficulty, perhaps, was the diversity of proposals, each vigorously supported or opposed. Questions of toll financing, credit financing, and current-revenue financing were hotly argued. Almost every highway beneficiary group expressed willingness to pay its fair share of the cost—according to its own method of calculation. Some groups objected to any tax increases. There was one further possible reason why legislation was not enacted in 1955. The public, still relatively uninformed on the issues, had yet to raise a concerted voice.

1956—Year of Action

Congress returned to the problem early in 1956. User groups seemed more amenable to compromise; the public was better informed, aroused, and strong for action. The Federal corporation and the bond financing plan were dead issues, and the Administration endorsed the pay-as-you-go principle.

In this receptive atmosphere the House Roads Subcommittee and the House Ways and Means Committee separately undertook to develop the program features and the finance provisions for Federal-aid highway legislation. Many provisions of the 1955 bills were adopted. A joint committee bill was approved by the House on April 27, 1956.

Shortly thereafter the Senate Public Works Committee replaced the program features of the House bill with a modified version of the 1955 Gore bill; and the Senate Finance Committee modified the House bill’s finance provisions. The revised bill was approved by the Senate, with some amendments, on May 29.

Senate-House conferees developed a compromise bill on June 25 and on the next day both the Senate and the House approved it by overwhelming votes. On June 29, 1956, President Eisenhower signed the bill into law.

This portion of I-91 near Fairlee, Vt., is located on independent alinements to preserve the natural terrain characteristics and the beauty of the area.

The Federal-Aid Act Highway of 1956

General Provisions

The legislation, so painstakingly developed, is commonly called the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, but officially this is the name of Title I of twin acts; it contains the program features. The other twin is Title II, the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, which covers the financing provisions.

In recognition of its importance to the national defense, the System’s name was expanded to National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The length limitation for the System was increased from 40,000 to 41,000 miles. (Later, in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, an additional 1,500 miles of Interstate System was authorized—bringing the total system length to 42,500 miles.)

The Act prescribed that standards for the Interstate System should be adopted by the Secretary of Commerce in cooperation with the State highway departments; that they should be adequate to accommodate the traffic forecast for 1975 (modified in later legislation) and that they be applied uniformly throughout the States. To preserve the operating efficiency and safety of this System, access ramps at interchanges on Interstate highways were to be limited to those provided in the original project plans, except as changes may be approved by the Secretary.

In authorizing Interstate funds, the 1956 Act significantly departed from the traditional biennial authorization pattern. For the first time, an accelerated program to complete a highway system was authorized. The Act authorized a total of $25 billion over the period 1957–69 as the Federal share of this construction program.

The Act also established a new method of apportioning Interstate funds among the States, changing after the first 3 years from a formula based on mileage, area, and population to an apportionment factor for each State computed from the ratio of the cost of completing the System in each State to the total cost of completing the System in all States. It further provided for a series of cost estimates to establish these values on a current basis as construction of the System progressed in the years that followed.

The Federal share of Interstate project costs was set at 90 percent, except in States with large areas of Federal public land where the Federal share is increased proportionally up to a limit of 95 percent.

Title II—the Highway Revenue Act of 1956—established the Highway Trust Fund and assigned specific motor-vehicle user taxes to this fund for the payment of highway construction costs. The Act also provided that the highway program must be conducted on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, requiring that Trust Fund revenues be adequate to meet all needs without drawing on the General Fund of the Treasury which had previously supported the Federal-aid highway program.

Interstate Use Restrictions

The 1956 Act barred service stations and other commercial establishments from location on or access within the Interstate System right-of-way on the grounds that highway users should not be subjected to monopoly and so that highway-oriented business could engage in free competition. It is probable, also, that many State highway departments were unenthusiastic about undertaking the franchise system, with its attendant problems, which is common on toll roads. Service at businesses located on intersecting roads is not difficult for Interstate travelers to obtain, since interchanges occur much more frequently and there is less inconvenience in leaving and re-entering than on toll roads.

In a positive direction, the Act permitted use of airspace above or below Interstate highways for parking purposes (a provision subsequently broadened to allow any public or private use that will not impair the highway).

Gently curving I-70 in the Eagle River Valley of Colorado provides the motorist with new vistas of the countryside with each turn. The weathering-steel guardrail blends with its surroundings. Flat slopes, designed for safety, are quickly regaining vegetation because of the topsoil salvaged during early stages of the construction.

Congressional belief that Interstate highways built with 90 percent Federal funds should have some Federal protection against very heavy loads led to a provision in the Act on vehicle weight and width limitations. The limits were essentially those of the then-current policy of the American Association of State Highway Officials, or alternatively those legally permitted in a State on July 1, 1956, whichever were greater. The law did not actually prescribe Federal limitations per se, but accomplished its objective by providing that no Federal-aid apportionment would be made to any State that permitted vehicles on the Interstate System of greater size or weight.

Route Location

To some extent, Congress entered into problems of route location. The 1956 Act proposed that “Insofar as possible in consonance with this objective [prompt completion of the Interstate System], existing highways located on an interstate route shall be used to the extent that such use is practicable, suitable, and feasible, it being the intent that local needs, to the extent practicable, suitable, and feasible, shall be given equal consideration with the needs of interstate commerce.”

This language was intended as permissive modification of the original legislative prescription in the 1944 Act that the system was “. . . to connect by routes, as direct as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers . . .” There may also have been concern about the needs of the cities as contrasted with those of cross-country travel, about possible dislocations of homes and businesses, and about the costs of new right-of-way.

Broadening a provision of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1950, the 1956 Act required that the State highway departments, in planning a Federal-aid project (Interstate or ABC) involving the bypassing of or going through a city or town, must hold, or offer to hold, a public hearing and must consider the economic effects of such a location. (This provision was subsequently expanded to cover rural Interstate projects as well.)

The public hearing has a dual purpose: for the State to present and explain its proposals to the public and for the public to present its views to the State. Decision by popular vote was not intended. Decision by the responsible highway official is properly made by weighing the economic and social costs and benefits to highway users and to the locality, the region, and the Nation, and choosing that solution which produces the greatest overall benefit—often a far from simple task.

Right-of-Way Acquisition

Acquisition of right-of-way had been recognized as a large, costly, and complicated aspect of the Interstate System program. To ease the problem, the 1956 Act authorized use of apportioned Federal-aid funds for advance acquisition of right-of-way, provided that actual construction followed within a specified period (within 10 years now).

At that time, not all States could legally acquire control of access, and while all could take land by eminent domain, some could not begin construction on the land until the taking process had gone through the courts. The 1956 Act, therefore, provided a means whereby, at the request of a State, the Federal Government could acquire land (and prompt entry to it) or access control for an Interstate project and then convey the title to the State. Some States took advantage of this mechanism ; however, most States soon obtained legislation or procedures for obtaining access control and prompt right-of-way entry.

Toll Facilities

The early consideration of toll road construction for the Interstate System has already been mentioned. The subject received a great deal of attention again in both 1955 and 1956. The decision reached in the 1956 Act was that toll roads, bridges, and tunnels could be included in the Interstate System if they met the System standards and if their inclusion promoted development of an integrated system. The Act reiterated that Federal-aid funds could not be used on toll roads, nor on toll bridges and tunnels except under the special circumstances already covered by Federal-aid legislation.

The Act did provide that Federal-aid Interstate funds could be used on an approach to a toll road incorporated in the System, if the toll road is to become free when the bonds are liquidated and if there is a reasonably satisfactory alternate free route available by which the toll section may be bypassed.

As a result of these provisions, some 2,300 miles of toll facilities (roads, bridges, and tunnels) have since been incorporated in the Interstate System.

A sharp controversy had developed over the question of reimbursement to the States for Interstate projects already built with less than 90-percent Federal aid or with none at all. While both free and toll facilities were involved, the arguments generally centered on the latter. In the 1956 Act, the whole matter was in effect deferred—the law declared the intent of Congress to determine whether or not the States should be reimbursed for work completed between 1947 and 1957, and if so, how, when, and how much; and the Secretary of Commerce was requested to report to Congress on this issue. The report was made in January 1958, but Congress took no action to provide reimbursement for either toll or free road construction.

The Highway Revenue Act of 1956

The language of Title II was formidable, for in large part it comprised amendments to the Internal Revenue Code. But it was a landmark in Federal highway law since it established, for the first time, a linkage between Federal excise taxes on highway users and Federal aid for highways. It sought to achieve three major objectives: To finance the long-range Federal-aid program, including the funds specifically authorized to complete the Interstate System and an anticipated, but not legislated, escalating ABC program during the same period; to provide revenue wholly from highway-user tax revenues; and to confine the program to a pay-as-you-go basis.

The Taxes

The Federal excise taxes earmarked to pay for the Federal share of the highway program and their rates reflected a balance between the need to pay for highways and for other functions of Government and the cost occasioned or the benefit gained by each class of highway beneficiary in forms that were practical of collection. The result of this endeavor by Congress appeared at the time to be a productive and generally equitable tax schedule. Considerable revision was made in later legislation. The taxes included an increase in the tax on motor-vehicle fuel, an increase in the excise tax on the manufacturer’s sale price on commercial vehicles (new trucks, buses, and trailers), a new annual use tax on vehicles in excess of 26,000 pounds gross weight, and an increase in the tax on highway vehicle tires.

The Highway Trust Fund

Linkage between highway-user tax revenue and Federal aid for highways was formalized in the 1956 Act by creation of the Highway Trust Fund. Into the Fund go the earmarked taxes; out of it are appropriated the Federal-aid funds for payment to the States.

It was recognized that expenditures would exceed income in the early years of the Trust Fund, but this deficit would be overcome by excess revenue in later years. The 1956 Act, therefore, included a provision permitting borrowing or “repayable advances” from the U.S. Treasury. However, this provision was in effect nullified by an amendment requiring pay-as-you-go operation. The amendment (Byrd Amendment) required that if the projected expenditures which would result from a pending apportionment of authorized funds were forecast to exceed projected Trust Fund receipts, then the apportionment was to be appropriately reduced to prevent a deficit.

1956—A Landmark Year

In the 1956 Act, the Congress acknowledged that it was dealing with forecasts of highway needs and of tax revenue and that future legislation might well be needed to bring about proper balancing of receipts and expenditures and of costs and benefits to beneficiaries of highways. Accordingly, it requested the Secretary of Commerce to undertake an extensive investigation which became known as the highway cost allocation study; the final report was completed in January 1961.

The twin 1956 Acts were indeed a major landmark in the highway history of the United States. It was perhaps less than perfect legislation, arrived at after long and sometimes hot debate. Much of it evolved through compromise, aimed at practical solutions.

Nevertheless, the legislation broke with traditions and created some new principles:

• It authorized completion of an entire national highway network—the Interstate System—and provided for its financing (on the basis of costs recognized at that time) .
• It required the establishment of, and broadly defined, location and design criteria for the System.
• It departed from the historic 50–50 Federal-State sharing of project costs and the fixed formula method of apportionment.
• It created a linkage between highway-user tax revenue and highway expenditure and established the Highway Trust Fund.
• It began an accelerated highway improvement program which was to bring about a new era in highway transportation in America.

The Accelerated Program

The Starting Point

To the public, the accelerated program for building the Interstate System as announced in 1956 was obviously a big job, but not necessarily complex. Perhaps this thinking derived from the characteristic development of a toll road—a one-route project, all starting from scratch, all on new location, all built in a short period of time, and all under the management of a single agency, with all the money available at the beginning or as needed.

But the Interstate program was being accomplished by 49 States and the District of Columbia (there are no Interstate routes in Alaska), in cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Public Roads. Cities, counties, and towns had a direct interest in how routes were to be (or were not) located to serve them; and while toll roads characteristically approach but do not enter the cities, the Interstate System would, and at the same time would serve large volumes of the local traffic load. Not all Interstate routes were starting from the same status of development in 1956. Some sections, indeed, were already completed, although these were mostly toll roads. Some others were in varied stages of development—a two-lane highway needing expansion to four lanes; an expressway lacking full control of access or needing additional grade separations or lanes. About four-fifths of the Interstate mileage was destined to be built on new location, but some would follow an existing highway, perhaps using it as one of its separated pairs of directional roadways.

The alinement of I-280 in densely populated northern New Jersey was carefully selected to have a minimal impact on the established neighborhoods and existing traffic patterns.

Not all States were starting from the same status in 1956 either, for a variety of reasons. A “shelf” of acceptable project plans was available in some States but not in others. Some State highway departments were able to staff up to the job rapidly while others took much longer; many had previously acquired little or no right-of-way on their own; some had never before designed or built freeways on a large scale.

Interstate projects are complex undertakings, consuming 3 or 4 years from beginning of route location study to final completion—and often much longer in urban areas. In the early years of the program, a large proportion of effort and expenditure was devoted to preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition. Construction followed at some later period.

All of this explains why the Interstate System program did not instantly jump into high gear on the morning of June 30, 1956, producing great stretches of completed pavement. It necessarily would be a number of years before any notable mileage was opened to traffic.

Design Standards

The 1956 Act called for adoption of uniform design standards for the Interstate System in all States. The American Association of State Highway Officials and the Bureau of Public Roads, anticipating the need, began developing geometric standards (those governing curvature, gradient, number and width of lanes, etc.) in May 1956 and by July had completed and adopted a full set of such standards. This rapid accomplishment was possible because the AASHO Committee on Planning and Design Policies had been evolving progressive freeway standards for years and had developed a set of Interstate System standards as early as 1945.

The major items in the adopted standards included: control of access throughout the System; design adequacy for projected 1975 traffic — later changed (in 1963 Act) to a 20-year minimum design period from the date of project approval; 12-foot travel lane width; 10-foot minimum shoulder width; elimination of railroad grade crossings; elimination of highway at-grade intersections; design speeds of 50, 60, and 70 m.p.h respectively for mountainous, rolling, or flat terrain conditions; curvatures and gradients consistent with design speeds; separated traffic lanes with variable median widths on a right-of-way adequate in width to accommodate these standards; and minimum widths for highway bridges.

The 1956 design standards were formulated as minimum rather than fixed levels, with the expectation that minimum levels would be used only where higher ones would result in excessive cost. They have served well, and have required but little modification since their adoption.

Reasonable uniformity prescribed through minimum standards seemed fully appropriate for the Interstate System insofar as geometries were concerned, since these are the features the driver sees and is directly affected by. In contrast, however, structural design features which govern load-carrying capacity and durability are hidden from the driver’s eye. Moreover, structural design of a roadway is necessarily largely guided by localized circumstances—physical conditions, availability of materials, and local experience and practice. Consequently “uniformity” in structural design was not prescribed in detail for the Interstate System—only the requirement that design be soundly and justifiably arrived at and be adequate to support anticipated traffic loads.

While these geometric standards complied with the basic requirements of the law at the time of adoption, they were soon found to be inadequate to meet realistic needs for future traffic service. The statutory design year 1975 was changed by Congress in the 1963 Highway Amendment Act to provide a design requirement for traffic service adequate for a 20-year period commencing on the date of plan approval for the initial construction of the project. The Committee Report stated this action was necessary to prevent premature obsolescence in the System design. And, in 1966, the Congress amended Title 23 to provide that “Such standards shall in all cases provide for at least four lanes of traffic.”

A bicycle path has been built within the right-of-way of I-94 in Minneapolis, Minn., that extends for over half a mile and safely connects two neighborhoods.

Designation of Additional System Mileage

As noted earlier, the 1944 Federal-Aid Highway Act provided for the designation of an Interstate System not to exceed 40,000 miles, and in August 1947 a System totaling 37,700 miles was designated which included routes through and skirting major cities. The remaining mileage authorized (2,300 miles) was designated in September 1955 for additional routes around and through urban areas.

At the time of the initial System designation, there were no detailed location studies and no engineering and economic analyses available for consideration. The locations within each State, therefore, were diagrammetic only, and the estimated mileage of designated System segments was derived from the length of the existing principal highways in the route cor-be added to the System within the authorized mileage ridors selected for the System. As more precise data became available, the mileage and location of the designated segments were adjusted accordingly.

Savings in the total System length, resulting from more detailed studies of the related engineering, economic and sociological factors involved in the highway location, permitted added System segments under the original statutory length limitation. In addition, Congress in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 increased the authorized length of the Interstate System by 1,000 miles. Thus, the Secretary of Commerce, on October 18, 1957, was able to announce an increase of 2,102 miles of Interstate routes that could limit. With these additions, there remained a reserve of 350 miles which was held to cover possible increases in the length of individual route segments as more detailed location studies progressed.

Section 17 of the Hawaii Omnibus Act of 1960 (PL 86-624) included an amendment that removed the limitation that the Interstate System be designated entirely within the continental United States. Under the provisions of this amendment, three routes on the island of Oahu in the State of Hawaii were approved as additions to the System in August 1960, utilizing some of the “reserve” mileage noted above. And in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, Congress authorized an additional 1,500 miles on the Interstate System. This led to an announcement in December 1968 of the designation of route segments totaling 1,473 miles in length.

Subsequent System adjustments, additions and deletions have resulted in the present status of full commitment of the total 42,500 miles authorized by Congress for the Interstate highways.

The rest and information area on I-90 near Sheridan, Wyo., provides picnic areas for the family and play areas for children. A choice of a moment beside the delicate ponds or a lovely view of mountains is also available to arrest the traveler’s eye.

Signing and Numbering

From the very nature of Interstate System traffic, signs on the System need to be highly visible, properly located, clearly understood, and completely uniform. After study of existing practices on expressways and field tests by the Bureau of Public Roads, the American Association of State Highway Officials in 1958 adopted a manual on signing and pavement marking for the Interstate System. The manual prescribed as the Interstate route number marker the now familiar red-white-and-blue shield. Guide signs, primarily for carrying destination information, are uniformly white on green; signs concerning services and rest areas are white on blue. The manual also specified the message sizes and, in general terms, the placement of signs so that uniformity will prevail throughout the System.

The American Association of State Highway Officials also developed a complete numbering system for Interstate routes. Those routes with odd numbers run north–south; those with even numbers run east–west. Major routes have one- or two-digit numbers, and the long, evenly spaced routes have numbers ending in 5 or 0. The lowest numbers are in the west and south to avoid conflict locally with the U.S. Route numbers. In urban areas the main route numbers are carried through on the paths of the major traffic streams. Connecting circumferential or loop routes at urban areas have three-digit numbers, using the main route number with an even-number prefix. Radial and spur routes also have three-digit numbers, with an odd-number prefix.

Toll Roads

As already noted, the 1956 Act permitted inclusion of toll roads in the Interstate System, although it continued to bar the use of Federal aid for toll road construction or for further improvement of such included routes. On the recommendation of the States, it was announced on August 21, 1957, that 2,102 miles of then existing toll roads in 15 States were being officially included in the System. The only sizable toll section undertaken on the designated Interstate System since 1956 is a 53-mile portion of I-95 in Maryland and Delaware. This segment was completed in 1963 and was constructed following special congressional legislation.

Program Funding

Initial Authorization Level

Although Congress in 1944 directed that the Interstate System be designated, it made no provision for special Federal funding for the construction of the System until years later. The 1952 Act included a token Interstate authorization of $25 million each for fiscal years 1954 and 1955 and the 1954 Act included $175 million for fiscal years 1956 and 1957. This “beginning” of special Interstate System funding authorization was followed by the creation of the Highway Trust Fund in 1956.

In Section 108 of the 1956 Act the Congress declared it to be essential to the national interest to provide for the early completion of the Interstate System as authorized and designated in accordance with the 1944 Act. Section 108 states it was “. . . the intent of the Congress that the Interstate System be completed as nearly as practicable over a thirteen-year period and that the entire System in all the States be brought to simultaneous completion.” There was authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1957–69 a total of $24.8 billion of Federal funds, to be matched by the States on a 90–10 Federal-State ratio, for the purpose of expediting the construction, reconstruction or improvement of the Interstate System. This amount combined with the unexpended balance of previous authorizations brought the total of available Federal Interstate authorization to $25.14 billion as of June 1956.

It should be noted that up to this time there had been no detailed estimate on a section-by-section basis of the cost of building the Interstate System. The $25 billion Federal authorization in the Act was based on the Clay Committee Report, in which the total System cost was stated at $27 billion—with a Federal share of $25 billion recommended.

The Congress, in the 1956 Act, recognized the changing requirements for the System and the need for up-to-date periodic estimates of the cost of completing the System and required a series of such estimates beginning in 1958.

1958 Cost Estimate

The first of the series of periodic estimates of the cost of completing the Interstate System was submitted to the Congress in January 1958. This estimate was prepared by the individual States during calendar year 1957. To provide for uniformity of estimate procedures among the States, an instruction manual was adopted which extended the standards for design and construction of the System.

The unit price level of 1956 construction in each State was selected as a cost base. Units of construction quantities estimated for the System completion in each State were computed against this unit price base for the total cost determination. The estimate total exceeded the authorization level established by Congress 2 years earlier in the 1956 Act.

In submitting this first estimate to Congress, Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks noted:

Although this estimate shows an increase in cost over the amounts authorized by section 108(d) 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 highway 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 basis of experience and these estimates will 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 adjustments in authorization of funds or revenues would be premature.^[2]

The 1958 estimate included only 38,548 miles of the 41,000-mile System authorized by Congress. This differential resulted from the fact that the 1,000-mile addition to the System, authorized by Congress in 1956, was specifically excluded from the estimate by provisions of the 1956 Act; and the additional 1,102 miles available for allocation October 18, 1957, became available after the cutoff date for preparation of the estimate. The total cost for the 38,548 miles was estimated to be $37.6 billion of which $33.9 billion was the Federal share, and $3.7 billion the States’ matching share.

The basic information in the 1958 estimate was supplemented by data presented in hearings conducted before the House Ways and Means Committee in July 1959, at which time preliminary cost data for the remaining 2,452 miles of the 41,000-mile System were reported. The combination of these submittals was an estimate totaling $41 billion for 41,000 miles. Of this total the Federal share was estimated to be $37 billion. This was the first detailed Interstate cost estimate submitted to the Congress which encompassed the entire System mileage authorized up to that time. No costs were included for State highway planning and research, or for Bureau of Public Roads administration and research. Since both of these activities are charged against Federal Interstate funds, the costs should have been included. This omission was corrected in the 1961 estimate.

Economic Recession and the 1958 Federal-Aid Highway Act

In 1958 the Nation found itself in the grip of an extended economic recession, and acceleration of the Federal-aid Highway program was considered as one means to hasten recovery. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958 was prepared with this objective in view. Among other provisions, it increased the annual Interstate authorizations of the 1956 Act from $2.0 billion to $2.2 billion for fiscal year 1959, and from $2.2 billion to $2.5 billion for each of the fiscal years 1960 and 1961. These increases were partially in recognition by the Congress that the Interstate System was going to cost more than had been provided for in the 1956 Act; partially because Congress desired to accelerate progress toward completion of the System; and partially because of the recession in the economy.

The plants and vegetation used along I-64 in Greenbrier County, W. Va., were selected to blend with the natural vegetation on the rolling hills of the Greenbrier River Valley.

More important perhaps than the increases in authorization levels—in its ultimate impact on the program financing—was the provision of the 1958 Act which set aside the pay-as-you-go provision of the 1956 Act for 2 years and directed apportionment to the States of the full amounts authorized for fiscal years 1959 and 1960, namely, $2.2 billion and $2.5 billion. This provision in the 1958 Act for expanded and accelerated expenditures was not matched by a commensurate provision for additional Trust Fund revenue.

The net effect was to advance appreciably the time when the Federal-aid program would enter a period during which annual expenditures would exceed Trust Fund revenues. And when the pay-as-you-go amendment again became effective after its 2-year suspension, it was obvious that Federal-aid highway program financing was in need of adjustment.

Temporary Relief

A report on the study of allocating highway costs and benefits and a new estimate of the cost of completing the Interstate System, both called for by the 1956 Act, were expected to be completed early in 1961. It was generally assumed that a long-range solution to Federal-aid financing problems should then be undertaken and that, in the meanwhile, temporary relief measures would be sufficient.

Consequently, early in 1959 President Eisenhower proposed a temporary increase of 1½ cents per gallon in the Federal motor-fuel tax. The Congress, in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1959, increased the tax from 3 to 4 cents per gallon for the period from October 1, 1959, to June 30, 1961.

The 1959 Act also reduced the Interstate authorization for fiscal year 1961 to $2.0 billion. When the time came to make the apportionment in October 1959, however, the pay-as-you-go provision made it necessary to reduce the apportionment to $1.8 billion.

In addition, because of the necessity for correlating the level of anticipated Trust Fund revenues and expenditures, the Bureau of Public Roads in 1959 instituted a program of “reimbursement planning” under which a limit was set quarterly on the rate at which each State could obligate funds to contracts in order to assure that Federal payments of ultimate reimbursement to the States for work accomplished could be made within the limits of the available Trust Fund balance.

The 1961 Estimate

In 1961 the second estimate of cost of the Interstate System was submitted to the Congress. Again, as in the 1958 estimate, the total cost was $41 billion with a Federal share of $37 billion.

The unit price base for the 1961 estimate was the average unit price level in each individual State for calendar year 1959. There had been a lowering of construction unit price levels between the 1956 level used in the 1958 estimate and the 1959 level used for the 1961 estimate. With this lowering of construction prices, the construction costs reported in 1961 were reduced. This was offset by including the costs of administration and research and planning, which were omitted from the 1958 report. A comparison of the 1958 estimate and the 1961 estimate is shown in Table 1.

Table 1—Comparison of the 1958 and the 1961 estimates of total cost for the 41,000-mile Interstate System
(Millions of dollars)

Item	1958		1961
	Total cost	Federal funds	Total cost	Federal funds
1. Interstate System routes included in 1958 estimates:
1958 estimate (38,548 miles) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	$ 37,570	$ 33,900
1961 estimate (38,522 miles) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .			$ 36,848	$ 33,234
2. Remaining system mileage:
1958 estimate adjusted to include 1,452 miles, excluding 1,000-mile addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	1,613	1,452	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1961 estimate (1,528 miles), excluding 950 miles of 1,000-mile addition:
Routes designated in 1957 (952) miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	1,209	1,087
Hawaii routes designated in 1957 (48 miles) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	216	195
Reserved for specific routes, detailed location not yet established (220 miles) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	220	198
Held for final measurement (308 miles) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	308	277
Subtotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	1,613	1,452	1,953	1,757
3. Routes included in 1,000-mile addition:
1958 estimate adjusted to include the 1,000 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	1,111	1,000	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1961 estimate (950 miles)	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	449	404
Subtotal, 41,000-mile system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	40,294	36,352	39,250	35,395
4. State highway planning and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	574	511
5. Public Roads administration and research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	357	357
6. Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	706	648	809	737
Grand total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	$ 41,000	$ 37,000	$ 41,000	$ 37,000

The 1961 estimate report stated that the estimates reflected accurate appraisals of the cost in each State based on 1959 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.”^[3] The estimates were considered adequate for establishing apportionment factors for distributing Federal funds among the States for the fiscal years 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966— the purpose for which Congress intended the estimate—and for the enactment of necessary legislation modifying the level of authorization for construction of the Interstate System and providing the revenue needed to pay for the costs involved.

Highway Cost Allocation Study

The highway cost allocation study, undertaken pursuant to the 1956 Act, was reported on to Congress in January 1961. Its purpose was to provide Congress with information on which it might make an equitable distribution of the Federal tax burden for the support of the Federal-aid highway program among the various classes of persons using Federal-aid highways or otherwise deriving benefits from them. The need for additional revenue to meet the cost of the Interstate System program had already become evident from the 1958 cost estimate, as substantiated by the 1961 cost estimate.

The highway cost allocation study was unquestionably the most comprehensive and exhaustive study of highway economics ever undertaken. The study findings relative to highway-user benefits of passenger cars and trucks of different weight categories strongly influenced the legislation that was to put Interstate financing back on a sound basis.

The 1961 Federal-Aid Highway Act

In February 1961 President Kennedy, in a message to Congress, endorsed continuation of the pay-as-you-go principle and support of the Federal-aid highway program wholly by highway-user taxes, for which he recommended certain increases. After extensive study, the Congress rejuvenated the Interstate program by passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1961.

Under the 1956 Act, as amended in 1958 and 1959, some $11.7 billion of Federal Interstate funds had already been apportioned to the States for fiscal years 1957–62. The 1961 Act revised the remaining authorization schedule to provide $2.4 billion for fiscal year 1963, $2.6 billion for 1964, $2.7 billion for 1965, $2.8 billion for 1966, $2.9 billion for 1967, $3.0 billion each for 1968, 1969, and 1970, and $2,885 billion for 1971. Thus the total of Federal funds apportioned or authorized was increased to $37 billion, the 90-percent Federal share of the total $41 billion Interstate program cost.

Nebraska’s “Chain O’ Lakes” along resulted from borrow pits used during construction of this part of the highway. These lakes have been landscaped with native grasses and trees and offer the highway user water-oriented recreation and provide wildlife sanctuaries.

To provide the needed financing, the 1961 Act revised the existing schedule of highway-user excise taxes dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund. The motor-fuel tax was continued at 4 cents per gallon until October 1, 1972. For the same period, the tax per pound was increased on highway vehicle tires from 8 to 10 cents, on inner tubes from 9 to 10 cents, and on retread rubber from 3 to 5 cents. The use tax on heavy vehicles, those of over 26,000 pounds gross weight, was increased from $1.50 to $3.00 per 1,000 pounds per year. All of the 10-percent tax on the manufacturer’s sale price of new trucks, buses, and trailers was earmarked to the Trust Fund, instead of only half as had been provided by the 1956 Act.

By this 1961 Act, both the necessary authorizations to complete the Interstate System on the basis of the most recent estimate available and the revenues to pay for the job were provided.

Construction Progress

Following passage of the 1961 Act and the regular funding of the program which resulted, construction of the System moved forward steadily. “Miles open to traffic” grew in number on virtually a straight-line basis year by year. The States were able to move to construction on most sections of the System without major delay and total progress was limited only by the funding available.

There were problems relating to the location of some segments of the System, generally involving environmental considerations, but these were relatively few in number when considered against the total system concept. Progress in general was excellent.

In 1967, as a Federal budget requirement, the authorized Federal funding was withheld in part. Although the States had available balances of unobligated apportioned funds, they were not permitted to exceed a predetermined level of Federal funding. The result was the beginning of the controversy over “withholding” of funds authorized by the Congress and otherwise legally available.

With obligation ceilings controlling the total level of highway construction after 1967, there was a slackening of the rate at which new sections of the Interstate System were opened to traffic. However, even with these controls, there were in service at the end of 1974 over 36,000 miles of the 42,500-mile System and another 2,800 miles were under basic construction, generally on new location. Only about 400 miles, or about 1 percent, of the System remained in a no-progress status at that time.

Increase In System Cost

With the changes in statutory engineering requirements (20-year traffic projection (1963), minimum design of four lanes (1966), and increased System length by 1,500 miles (1968)) for the Interstate System, there were also legislative requirements enacted by the Congress in recognition of the public need in areas of economic, sociologic, and environmental considerations. Included in this category of legislative requirements were:

• Assistance for relocating families and businesses—1962
• Transportation planning requirements in urban areas for joint modes—1962
• Scenic enhancement provisions, spot safety improvement program—1965
• Joint development concept, soil erosion control, preservation of parklands—1966
• Fringe parking facilities, increased relocation assistance, replacement housing—1968
• Exclusive or preferential bus lanes, highway traffic control devices, passenger loading areas to serve bus and other mass transit passengers—1970
• Urban mass transit provisions involving the withdrawal and substitution of certain Interstate routes in large urban areas—1973

The provisions of the 1973 Act have not yet been fully implemented, and the ultimate cost effect of this legislation is not known.

Such changes have a marked effect on the cost of constructing a highway system. This had been expected from the start. The earliest reports to Congress on the need for an interregional highway system stated the “impossibility” of venturing an approximate estimate of the cost of building the entire interregional system to the standards recommended. It was stated that to be of value, such an estimate would have to be predicated on far more exact determination of all variables involved than had been possible to undertake. Further, the Congress was informed that even had such precise determination been attempted, the “usefulness and validity of an estimate of the ultimate cost of a construction program that must inevitably extend over a period of perhaps 20 years and be affected by unpredictable changes in the general economy, in the habits and desires of people, in the character of vehicles, and in other circumstances, would still be highly questionable.”^[4]

With safety for the pedestrian in mind, a 1,082-foot long pedestrian overpass was built over I-95 in Shirlington, Va., that safely connects a large apartment complex on the east side of the highway with a large shopping center on the west.

The Oregon Trail as of 1848.

The eastbound lane of I-80, east of Pendleton, Oreg., is built on the site of the Old Oregon Trail and takes the motorist into tortuous, but spectacularly scenic, mountain country. In this area, the east- and westbound lanes may be more than a mile apart.

The report continued, “Construction to the standards recommended will certainly be expensive beyond the common experience in building most of the ordinary existing roads and streets, but the merit of the expenditure is to be judged not by such a comparison but rather by the value of the advantages to be gained in traffic facilitation, in reduced costs of vehicle operations, and in lowered accident rates.”^[5]

As noted earlier, the 1958 and 1961 estimates, each totaling $41 billion in cost, formed the basis for the 1961 Act. In compliance with statutory requirements, additional cost estimates were submitted to Congress in 1965, 1968, 1970, 1972, and 1975. Future estimates are to be submitted in January 1977.

In each of the reports to Congress, information was submitted regarding the difference in total costs reported. With the changes in the statutory requirements as to the total system concept and the enactment of new environmental and sociological requirements, it was expected there would be introduced elements of cost not considered in the initial estimates. These increased costs were not “overruns” or “errors” in previous estimates, but were rather, a reflection of changing construction prices and changes in law enacted by Congress in recognition of changing public need, including design changes for mobility, safety, and environmental requirements.

Table 2 categorizes the major influences affecting total costs and shows the cost increase in each category. Some elements of the 1973 highway legislation are yet to be implemented, and the permissive substitution of System segments and cost in urban areas will be reflected in the highway and mass transit construction programs in urban areas. These changes will affect the construction cost on the Interstate System.

Table 2—Interstate System cost estimates, increases by cost categories
(Millions of dollars)

Category No.	Description of cost category	Estimate cost increase by years
		1965 over 1961	1968 over 1965	1970 over 1968	1972 over 1970	1975 over 1972	Total
1	Unit price increase	$1,135	$1,875	$2,395	$3,825	$5,870	$15,100
2	Engineering cost increase	161	385	350	125	515	1,536
3	Right-of-way values—relocation assistance, homes and businesses	693	890	910	250	1,060	3,803
4	Statutory design year change—added lanes, 4-lane minimum, etc.	739	675	320	100	515	2,349
5	Statutory mileage increase, major System adjustments, etc.	941	930	4,155	−235	30	5,821
6	Added interchanges and grade separation structures	289	990	240	185	160	1,864
7	Increase in roadway design, bridge width, tunnel clearances	445	1,245	3,265	1,015	2,355	8,325
8	Additional safety elements on new and on completed sections		1,530	335			1,865
9	Increased social, economic and environmental requirements	1,207	555	285	515	1,110	3,672
10	Mass transit—fringe parking provisions of 1970 Act				125		125
11	Construction project overruns					257	257
	Subtotal[N 1]	5,610	9,075	12,255	5,905	11,872	44,717
	Total Estimate 1961 = $41,000[N 1]	$46,800	$56,500	$69,870	$76,300	$89,200

1. The arithmetic disparity between the addition of these last two entries is the element of cost involved in categories of State highway planning and research, FHWA administration and research, and in contingency items. These are listed in the reports to Congress.

Completion of the Interstate System

The System is nearing completion in rural areas and in most of the urban areas. The benefits derived in the new freedom of movement and safety of travel have been enormous. The movement of people and goods on this System results in a user-benefit ratio of about $2.90 for every dollar invested in the construction of the System over its service life period. The differential in operating safety on this highway system, over other highway systems, will result in a saving of an estimated 8,000 lives per year. The System contributes dramatically to the economic development of the areas it serves and, because of the advanced design features involved, will continue to serve this development long after other highways would have become functionally obsolete.

The “finished” System may yet be altered in urban areas as the 1973 Highway Act is implemented and as Congress gives further consideration to the total transportation needs in the large urban areas. However, these adjustments can and will be made without impairment of the total value of the Interstate System to this Nation’s economic growth and social well being.

The $90 billion level which is approximately the “cost of completion” of this giant public works project is a fair price for the end product. The highway system cannot be compared in service or in cost to the limited facility under consideration when the basic highway legislation was first being formulated. The Nation can well be grateful to the Congress for its wisdom in adjusting highway statutes to meet public interest requirements as the System developed. The end product will be a lasting testimonial to the Congress and to the highway organizations, State and Federal, who were responsible for carrying out the program.

REFERENCES

1. Bureau of Public Roads Annual Report, 1954, p. 3.
2. A Report of Factors For Use In Apportioning Funds For The National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, H. Doc. 300, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. III, IV.
3. The 1961 Interstate System Cost Estimate, H. Doc. 49, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 13.
4. Interregional Highways, H. Doc. 379, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 114.
5. Id.