Highway Needs of the National Defense/Strategic Importance of the Interstate Highway System

by United States Public Roads Administration

Layout 2

STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM

As previously mentioned, the War Department, in its designation of routes comprising the strategic network recommended in 1941, had indicated the superior importance of certain routes within the network generally solackag with routes that had been chosen as an interregional system by the Bureau of Public Roads. The remainder of the network consisted in large part of routes which had been originally indicated on the Pershing Map of 1922.

Military convoys would not unduly interfere with passenger and commercial traffic if the highways were adequate in pavement and shoulder width. This Army truck train in Texas completely occupied the lane in its direction of travel, and forced opposing vehicles part way off the road.

CHANGE IN NEEDS, 1922-41

Indication of the larger mileage was of greater necessity in 1922 than in 1941. At the earlier date the improvement of rural roads was at its beginning. A Federal-aid system, which legally could embrace upward of 200,000 miles, was in process of designation. It was desirable that the system should include all routes of substantial military importance in order that they would receive the preferential consideration for improvement which was to be accorded routes of the system. The comparatively large mileage indicated was included in the Federal-aid system and since has been substantially improved.

In view of the progress that had been made in improvement of the larger network, the situation in 1941 called for an indication of the part of the included mileage, relatively of primary importance, which then should be treated preferentially in the programing of further improvement. It was for this reason that the War Department specified its particular interest in a part of the network.

Following the direction of the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1948, the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Resources Board have been invited to cooperate in the preparation of this report. Each has been requested to indicate again, and as of the present time, the potential needs for improved hi ways for the national defense.

Outstanding in the advice received from the National Military Establishment is the comment that the National System of Interstate Highways comprises the principal routes of strategic importance.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

The report^[1] of a special committee directed by the Secretary of Defense to consider the matter on behalf of the entire National Military Establishment comments as follows:

1. The National Military Establishment considers a relatively small “connected system of highways interstate in character,” constructed to the highest practical uniform design standards, essential to the national defense. Because of the time required, and cost, such a system must be planned for and constructed during peacetime.

2. The transportation utilization experience of the military forces during World War II was the basis for recommendation as to routes that should become a part of the National System of Interstate Highways. It is believed that this system will, in large part, provide the principal system of connecting highways to serve the national defense.

3. However, as weapons and methods of warfare change there will be a significant change in the strategic importance of a relatively small mileage of connecting highways not a part of the National System of Interstate Highways. These other highways should be identified and given equal priority in design and construction within practical economic limits. The total mileage of “other highways of strategic importance” as foreseen at this time will not exceed 2,500 miles. It will be an exception if any of the “other highways of strategic importance” are selected which are not now a part of the Federal-aid system of highways. However, it is believed provision should be made for adding such sections of highways which are not on the Federal-aid system without regard to any mileage limitation.

---

1. See appendix III.