Toll Roads and Free Roads/Part 1
TOLL ROADS AND FREE ROADS
Part I
THE FEASIBILITY OF A SYSTEM OF TRANSCONTINENTAL TOLL ROADS
PART I. THE FEASIBILITY OF A SYSTEM OF TRANSCONTINENTAL TOLL ROADS
Section 13 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1938, approved June 8, 1938, provides that:
The Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads is hereby directed to investigate and make a report of his findings and recommend to the Congress not later than February 1, 1939, with respect to the feasibility of building, and cost of, superhighways not exceeding three in number, running in a general direction from the eastern to the western portion of the United States, and not exceeding three in number, running in a general direction from the northern to the southern portion of the United States, including the feasibility of a toll system on such roads.
In accordance with this direction an investigation has been made, reconnaissance locations of six highways answering the general description contained in the act have been projected, and the following report is submitted with recommendations concerning the feasibility of building, and cost of, the six superhighways selected, and the feasibility of a toll system on them.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The building of the six superhighways on the selected locations, to the high standards consistent with the indicated character of the proposed facilities, is entirely feasible from a physical standpoint. The approximate total length of the six superhighways, as projected, is 14,336 miles; and the estimated cost of constructing them to desirable standards is $2,899,800,000, which is at the average rate of $202,270 per mile.
The estimated cost per mile varies from a maximum of $1,158,400 for the section from Jersey City, N. J., to New Haven, Conn., to a minimum of $63,450 for the section from Rupert, Idaho, to Brigham, Utah. The variation results principally from differences in the estimated cost of right-of-way, the quantity of grading required, the number of access points, the number and character of bridges required to carry the highway over streams and over or under intersecting highways and railways, and the number of pavement lanes required for the accommodation of the estimated traffic.
A most conservative average estimated annual expenditure for theperiod 1945-60, required ‘for financing the construction, maintaining the property, and operating the facility, for the six superhighways in their entirety is $184,054,000 per year, which is at the average rate of $12,840 per mile per year, varying from a maximum of $66,560 per mile per year for the section from Jersey City, N. J., to New Haven, Conn., to a minimum of $5,700 per mile per year for the section from Rupert, Idaho, to Brigham, Utah. These estimates of the required annual expenditure are based on reasonable assumptions with respect to the probable service life of the various elements of the construction, probable maintenance and operating costs, and financing costs based upon a 30-year loan with annual interest at 2.6 percent and an additional 2.24 percent for retirement. The total utilization of the six superhighways in their entirety, by the most optimistic estimate, averages for the period 1945–60, 4,544,000,000 vehicle-miles of toll-paying traffic per year, of which 3,635,000 000 is accumulated by passenger automobiles and 909,000,000 by motortrucks and busses. This utilization averages per day over the entire mileage approximately 12,450,000 vehicle-miles, of which 9,960,000 is by passenger automobiles and 2,490,000 by motortrucks and busses, implying an equivalent average traffic volume on each mile of the six superhighways of 699 passenger automobiles and 175 motortrucks and busses per day.
The most optimistic estimated average daily toll-paying traffic for the period varies from a maximum of 5,998 passenger automobiles and 1,500 motortrucks and busses for the section from Jersey City, N.J., to New Haven, Conn., to a minimum of 96 passenger automobiles and 24 motortrucks and busses for the section from Spokane, Wash., to Fargo, N. Dak.
The test of the feasibility of a direct toll system on the roads is based upon assumed average rates of 3.5 cents per vehicle-mile for motortrucks and busses and 1 cent per vehicle-mile for passenger cars. Since, on the average, it is estimated that the ratio of motortrucks and busses to passenger automobiles in the traffic will be approximately as 1 is to 4, the assumed toll rates for each type of vehicle result in an average rate of 1.5 cents per vehicle-mile for vehicles of all descriptions. It is believed that the usage rates assumed are reasonable for the purpose of testing the feasibility of a direct toll system on these roads. If higher rates were assumed, it would be necessary to reduce the estimated potential toll-paying traffic, probably by an amount that would result in a net reduction of the total yield. If lower rates were assumed, it is doubtful that the increased traffic would be sufficient to produce a greater total yield. In addition to these tolls, based on miles traveled, additional tolls were assumed for certain bridges where no alternate free facilities exist.
On the basis of the assumed rates of toll, the estimated total toll collection from the maximum amount of traffic that can reasonably be expected to use the six superhighways would be $84,037,000 for the year 1960 and for the period 1945-60 would be $1,154,236,000, or an average of $72,140,000 per year for the 16-year period, which is considerably less than the $184,054,000, estimated as the probable average total annual cost of the six superhighways. It is, therefore, concluded that a direct toll system on these six superhighways, in their entirety, would not be feasible as a means of recovering the entire cost of the facilities.
However, there are two sections on which it is estimated that the annual toll collections for the year 1960 will slightly exceed the annual cost. These sections extend from a point near Philadelphia, Pa., to a point near New Haven, Conn., a distance of 172 miles. On these two sections the estimated revenue of the year 1960 represents 109 and 104 percent, respectively, of the estimated cost for that year, or a combined average of 106 percent.
Other sections most nearly approaching these sections in point offeasibility of operation as toll facilities are those from the junction of the most westerly and most southerly routes in California to Whitewater, Calif., a distance of 91 miles; from Washington, D. C., Baltimore, Md., 39 miles; from a point near Boston, Mass., to Port￦land, Maine, 134 miles; from Miami to Jacksonville, Fla., 326 miles; and from Baltimore, Md., to a point near Philadelphia, Pa., 76 miles. On these sections the anticipated revenues in 1960 would produce from 91.8 to 83.2 percent of the estimated cost for that year. On no other sections of the six projected toll roads do the estimates made result in a ratio of collections to costs as large as 80 percent. On 19 other sections of the six toll roads as projected the estimates made result in ratios of maximum collections to costs varying from 50 percent to less than 80 percent. These 19 sections, described by their approximate termini and total lengths and the corresponding ratios of maximum collections to costs in 1960, are as follows:
| Approximate termini | Approximate length |
Ratio of estimated annual toll collection in 1960 to annual cost | |
| From— | To— | ||
| Miles | Percent | ||
| Richmond, Va. | Washington, D.C. | 108.0 | 76.1 |
| San Ysidro, Calif. | Los Angeles, Calif. | 124.4 | 76.0 |
| Whitewater, Calif. | Indio, Calif. | 32.7 | 73.3 |
| Chicago, Ill. | Angola, Ind. | 156.9 | 72.9 |
| Brigham, Utah | Salt Lake City, Utah | 52.3 | 69.9 |
| Odessa, Tex. | Dallas, Tex. | 337.9 | 67.1 |
| Los Angeles, Calif. | San Fernando, Calif. | 44.8 | 62.1 |
| Buffalo, N.Y. | Albany, N.Y. | 287.6 | 61.9 |
| Whitewater, Calif. | Ludlow, Calif. | 69.1 | 61.8 |
| San Fernando, Calif. | Tracy, Calif. | [1]291.7 | 61.1 |
| Minneapolis, Minn. | Chicago, Ill. | 392.6 | 57.6 |
| Sacramento, Calif. | Redding, Calif. | 153.7 | 57.3 |
| San Antonio, Tex. | Dallas, Tex. | 250.7 | 53.2 |
| Portland, Maine | Bangor, Maine | 121.3 | 52.5 |
| St. Joseph, Mo. | Springfield, Ill. | 275.7 | 51.7 |
| Springfield, Ill. | Indianapolis, Ind. | 203.7 | 51.4 |
| Carlisle, Pa. | Philadelphia, Pa. | 94.8 | 51.0 |
| Angola, Ind. | Detroit, Mich. | 102.2 | 50.9 |
| Tracy, Calif. | Sacramento, Calif. | 69.1 | 50.5 |
- ↑ Includes 42.3 miles of free highway.
On all other sections of the six superhighways as projected, the estimates made result in ratios of maximum collections to costs less than 50 percent.
The foregoing statement regarding collections and costs is based upon maximum estimates of traffic for sections of a complete system. If the sections were to be constructed as isolated units, the maximum collections and the ratios given would undoubtedly be materially reduced.
The comparisons made have reference to sections of substantial length extending between major controlling points on the highways. Doubtless, there would be shorter sections of the routes, perhaps some short sections of highway and some of the tunnels, but especially some of the bridges, which, if they were built and operated as local conveniences would accumulate a sufficient toll collection to cover all or a substantial part of their annual costs.
Each one of these indicated possibilities requires a thorough study in much more detail to determine the extent to which it might qualify as a sound, direct toll project.
On the basis of the investigation made and its results as briefly summarized above, a sound Federal policy for the construction of a system of transcontinental superhighways, traversing the entire extent of the United States from east to west and from north to south, cannot rest upon the expectation that the costs of constructing and operating such a system as a whole would be recoverable, in their entirety or in any large part from direct tolls collected from the users.
If, as an actual test of the feasibility of a limited mileage of toll roads, it is the desire of the Congress to make provision for the construction of a section of highway of substantial length upon which there is a reasonable prospect of the recovery of the costs through tolls, it is recommended that such provision be made applicable to a section of highway, properly located, and extending from an appropriate point near Washington, D. C., to an appropriate point near Boston, Mass.
The factual evidence presented in this report clearly indicates that the construction of direct toll highways cannot be relied upon as a sound solution of the problem of providing adequate facilities for the vitally necessary highway transportation of the United States, or to solve any considerable part of this problem.
While these conclusions are reached with reference to the limited question of financial feasibility of transcontinental superhighways and the possibility of toll collections to meet their cost, it is recognized that the report should be constructive rather than negative in character. Further, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed by the basic Federal highway legislation to submit reports or recommendations to the Congress on important highway matters. Conforming with this direction there is included in this report a discussion of the most important problems confronting both the Federal and State Governments and their subdivisions with respect to highway facilities.
From the discussion there emerges the general outline of what is in effect a master highway plan for the entire Nation. The carrying out of the plan in all its parts calls for appropriate action by the Federal and State Governments and all county and municipal subdivisions. As desirable joint contributions of the Federal and State Governments, the report lists several undertakings as follows:
- The construction of a special, tentatively defined system of direct interregional highways, with all necessary connections through and around cities, designed to meet the requirements of the national defense in time of war and the needs of a growing peacetime traffic of longer range.
- The modernization of the Federal-aid highway system.
- The elimination of hazards at railroad grade crossings.
- An improvement of secondary and feeder roads, properly inteerated with land-use programs.
- The creation of a Federal Land Authority empowered to acquire, hold, sell, and lease lands needed for public purposes and to acquire and sell excess lands for the purpose of recoupment.
The report emphasizes the difficulties encountered in the acquisition of adequate rights-of-way; and, in view of the fundamental necessity of such rights-of-way, proposes definite measures by which the United States could aid in the acquisition of suitable rights-of-way and simultaneously contribute helpfully to the solution of other urgent problems, especially certain problems confronting the larger cities.
RELIANCE UPON STATE-WIDE HIGHWAY PLANNING SURVEYS
For the wealth of basic data, available in great detail for the purposes of the required investigation, especially data concerning the volume, character, and range of traffic, the condition of existing highways, and the need for new facilities, we are indebted to the State-wide highway planning surveys of 46 States. These surveys have been made possible by the availability of joint Federal and State funds under the authority of the provision contained in the Federal highway legislation authorizing expenditure from several Federal highway appropriations and matching State funds for physical and economic investigations required for the planning of future highway projects and programs.
The information furnished by these surveys made it possible within the limited time available to select the six superhighways described in this report with reasonable assurance that the selection made is probably the best that can be made, and to obtain the substantial concurrence, in the particular selection, of the responsible State highway authorities of all States. In fullness and in accuracy the facts supplied for consideration in the investigation are unmatched by the information elsewhere or to any person available. In the absence of these facts this report would necessarily be far less definite in its conclusions, and less dependable in its authority.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SURVEYS DISCLOSED BY PLANNING
The facts derived from the highway planning surveys were especiallyuseful in disclosing the general characteristics of highway traffic, which have an important bearing upon the estimation of the amount of traffic that would probably use the proposed superhighways if they were constructed. Certain of these general characteristics that affect important decisions basic to the conclusions of this investigation will be described and illustrated by facts supplied mainly by the highway planning surveys of a number of States.
TRANSCONTINENTAL TRAVEL LIGHT
Some of the proposals for the construction of so-called transcontinental highways appear to be motivated by a belief that there exists an important volume of transcontinental travel; i. e., a through travel in motor vehicles between points in the Atlantic coast or far Eastern States and points in the Pacific coast or far Western States. No other explanation adequately accounts for the usual insistence upon a virtually absolute straightness of line between the continental termini.
Facts developed by the highway planning surveys definitely and conclusively show that there is no fully transcontinental travel, none even of semicontinental range, that could be accumulated in sufficient amount on any one or several highways traversing the breadth of the country, either to justify the construction, or to any considerable extent determine the character or location of such a highway or highways.
This conclusion is borne out by the planning survey facts presented graphically in plate 1. The greatest width of the tentacled central band shown in this graph represents to scale the average daily number of passenger cars traveling between points in the three Pacific-coast States and points in all States east of Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona, as actually counted at stations on all main-traveled east-west roads located approximately where such roads are crossed by the dashed line curving through the States of Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona. The average daily number of all such vehicles is 2,532, all of which are bound to or from the three Pacific-coast States in the proportions indicated by the numbers appearing at the end of the scaled tentacles running to the three States.
Similarly the numbers of passenger cars bound to or from points in all States eastward of the three in which the counts were made are shown by the figures appearing at the end of the tentacles running to the respective States. The sum of the numbers of cars bound to or from points in States bordering on or near the Atlantic coast is 300. This figure represents substantially the total volume of average daily passenger-car traffic moving over all main-traveled highways between the east and west coasts. By a similar reckoning the average daily passenger-car traffic between the west-coast States and all points east of the Mississippi River over all main east-west highways will be found to be less than 800 vehicles. These vehicles could not be attracted to a single east-west route under any circumstances.
Plate 2 shows by a similar diagram the origins and destinations of motortrucks and busses observed at the same Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona points and indicates that the range of travel by such vehicles is much shorter than the passenger-car range represented in plate 1.
Similarly plates 3 and 4 show the origins and destinations of all passenger automobiles and motortrucks, respectively (other than vehicles of Florida registration), passing on an average day over the Florida State line. The traffic data represented are the results of counts made throughout the year 1937 on all main highways crossing the State line. Plate 3 shows that there is a well-developed movement between Florida and the Middle Atlantic and New England States that might conceivably be accumulated on one properly located free highway between the Potomac River and the Florida line. It shows also that there is another well-developed movement that might be accumulated on a single properly located free highway between Chicago and Florida.
It may be observed that the number of passenger cars of other than Florida registration shown, in plate 3, as bound to or from the three Pacific Coast States is 23. Cars of Florida registration, not included in the graphed totals, similarly bound to or from the three West Coast States add an average of 3 daily to this number, making a total of 26, as counted at the Florida line. It is interesting to compare this total with the 20 cars shown in plate 1 as having been found in Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona to be bound to or from Florida points. The close agreement of these figures, resulting from counts made independently at points separated by almost the width of the continent, is indicative of the high accuracy of the highway planning surveys.
HIGHWAY TRIPS ARE PREDOMINANTLY SHORT
It will be observed that trips less than 5 miles in length constitute the largest group in all States, ranging between 25.7 percent of all trips in one State and 43.8 percent in another, the percentages in the other nine States lying between these limits. Trips from 5 to 10 miles in length constitute the next largest group, and those from 10 to 20 miles long the third largest group.
| State | Length of trips traveled by passenger cars registered in— | |||||||||||||
| Rural areas | Incorporated places having a population of— | Urban areas | All places | |||||||||||
| 2,501 to 10,000 | 10,001 to 25,000 | 25,001 to 100,000 | More than 100,000 | |||||||||||
| Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | |
| Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | Miles | |
| Florida | 11.4 | 6.3 | 20.2 | 9.9 | 29.7 | 14.6 | 30.5 | 14.9 | 22.8 | 10.0 | 23.5 | 11.3 | 16.1 | 8.1 |
| Kansas | 9.6 | 5.0 | 23.2 | 11.6 | 29.7 | 15.6 | 30.5 | 14.9 | 41.0 | 18.5 | 29.6 | 14.6 | 13.3 | 6.3 |
| Louisiana | 9.9 | 5.6 | 23.2 | 11.6 | 22.1 | 11.2 | 26.6 | 13.5 | 74.2 | 57.5 | 28.3 | 12.6 | 16.4 | 6.5 |
| Minnesota | 11.4 | 6.1 | 24.9 | 11.6 | 27.4 | 12.3 | 54.3 | 19.7 | 34.7 | 15.1 | 16.4 | 7.3 | ||
| New Hampshire | 13.0 | 8.3 | 13.7 | 8.6 | 20.1 | 11.1 | 27.2 | 16.7 | 18.5 | 9.9 | 15.5 | 8.9 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 9.8 | 5.9 | 13.3 | 7.1 | 15.1 | 8.4 | 19.7 | 9.4 | 30.8 | 13.6 | 17.5 | 8.5 | 13.5 | 7.1 |
| South Dakota | 15.9 | 8.6 | 25.2 | 8.3 | 34.2 | 10.0 | 60.9 | 26.9 | 30.9 | 9.9 | 18.7 | 8.7 | ||
| Utah | 10.8 | 4.8 | 18.0 | 8.2 | 38.3 | 15.4 | 38.8 | 18.9 | 52.9 | 24.0 | 34.2 | 14.3 | 17.4 | 6.6 |
| Vermont | 9.3 | 5.7 | 20.2 | 9.5 | 24.5 | 11.4 | 21.6 | 9.8 | 11.7 | 6.5 | ||||
| Washington | 11.5 | 5.8 | 20.0 | 8.1 | 30.6 | 13.8 | 26.2 | 14.7 | 40.8 | 20.0 | 30.6 | 14.1 | 14.6 | 6.7 |
| Wisconsin | 10.9 | 6.4 | 24.5 | 12.6 | 27.9 | 13.9 | 33.2 | 8.4 | 48.2 | 25.8 | 31.2 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 7.9 |
- ↑ This is the 1-way distance of all trips. A trip from Washington to Baltimore and return would be considered as 2 trips of 40 miles each.
- ↑ The mean is shown to indicate the arithmetic average of all the trips; the median indicates that length of trip so chosen that thee number of shorter trips and the number of longer trips are equal.
The data represented in plate 5 and table 1 have a double significance in relation to the estimation of potential traffic for the proposed highways with limited access.
1. They indicate that a considerable proportion of an existing traffic moving directly along the line of the proposed facility cannot be counted upon to use the facility unless the distances between access points are very short. Any given distance between access points must be considered as excluding from potential use of the facility all or practically all of the traffic found to be desirous of moving directly along the line of the facility for distances shorter than the access spacing.
2. The data also indicate that, as a rule, the amount of traffic that would be attracted by any of the proposed limited-access highways from other generally parallel routes will vary inversely with the distance separating the new highway from the parallel routes. Generally it must be assumed that for most of the traffic moving on a parallel route, diversion to the proposed highway would involve some indirection. The amount of such indirection that would overbalance other attractions of the new highway would vary with the length of the trip possible along the new highway before diverging to destination. As long trips are shown by plate 5 and table 1 to be a small percentage of all trips, and as only a traveler embarked upon a fairly long trip would accept any considerable lateral diversion from his direct course in order to enjoy superior highway facilities, it follows that the amount of traffic that can be counted as transferable to a limited-access highway from a generally parallel normal highway at a considerable distance must be quite small.
As indicated by table 1, residents of large cities, on the average, make longer trips than residents of small cities. Evidence that will be submitted hereafter (see pl. 8) shows that as a city is approached, the volume of traffic begins to increase at a greater distance from large cities than from small ones, which corroborates the stated rule. As New York is our largest city, the traffic diagram presented in plate 6 may be considered to represent the extreme condition in respect to average length of trip and ratio of numbers of long to short trips. Yet, even at New York, as plate 6 shows, an average daily traffic of 82,166 crossing the Hudson River by all facilities between the Battery and Tarrytown dwindles to less than a fifth of that amount within 20 miles. This dwindling occurs despite the existence of a ring of satellite cities which, by their local influence tend to keep the volume up.
It is of particular interest to note in plate 6 that only 3,100 of the 82,166 vehicles crossing the Hudson River are bound from or to points in States west and south more distant than New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
MAJORITY OF AUTOMOBILE OWNERS HAVE LOW INCOMES
A survey recently made by the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, United States Department of Commerce, shows that the majority of family passenger cars are owned by families of very moderate income. As indicated in the table below more than half of all family cars are owned by families that have an annual income of $1,500 or less. Less than 5 percent of all family cars are owned by families that have an annual income of more than $5,000. Less than a third are owned by families that have annual incomes in excess of $2,000.
| Ownership of family passenger cars by annual income groups | ||
| Annual income bracket | Percentage of family passenger cars owned by families in each income bracket |
Percentage of family passenger cards owned by families with income less than the maximum of each income bracket |
| Percent | Percent | |
| Under $500 | 6.54 | 6.54 |
| $500 to $1,000 | 20.55 | 27.09 |
| $1,000 to $1,500 | 24.77 | 51,86 |
| $1,500 to $2,000 | 18.08 | 69.93 |
| $2,000 to $3,000 | 17.73 | 87.66 |
| $3,000 to $5,000 | 8.02 | 95.68 |
| Over $5,000 | 4.32 | 100.00 |
In estimating the probable volume of toll-paying traffic on the selected superhighways, it is necessary to give due consideration to these facts. Persons of low income who own and operate passenger automobiles are influenced in the uses they make of their cars to a greater extent by the immediate operating expense, such as gasoline and oil, than by the actual total costs, including tires, depreciation, and so forth. The cost of the gasoline consumed on a trip may amount to little more than a cent a mile. To the motorcar owner with an income of less than $1,500 a year, a toll of 1 cent per mile is likely to appear as a 100-percent increase in his cost of operation; and so viewed it is an additional cost that he is not likely to pay.
CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING THE SELECTION OF ROUTES FOR INVESTIGATION
CONFORMITY TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DESCRIPTION
Several considerations influenced the location of the routes chosen for the superhighways to be investigated. The first requirement was that the routes selected should conform substantially to the description specified in the act, i. e., that there should be not more than three running in a general direction from the eastern to the western portion of the United States, and not more than three running in a general direction from the northern to the southern portion of the United States.
The major routes selected conform exactly to this description. Two of the north-south roads run from the Canadian line to the Mexican border, the third runs from Maine to Florida; and all three of the east–west routes run substantially from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts.
In addition to the three major routes in each general direction, the investigation has also covered three diagonal branches from the central east-west route. One of these was included to give direct connection with the National Capital at Washington; the other two, branching northwest and southwest from points near Salt Lake City, were included because they permit the central route to give reasonably direct connection to the northern and southern Pacific coast sections during seasons when, for climatic reasons, the central route may be preferred by travelers to the northern or southern route. DISTRIBUTION IN RELATION TO GEOGRAPHY AND POPULATION
The second consideration was that the routes chosen should be reasonably distributed geographically and in relation to the distribution of the population of the country; that, consistent with other requirements, they should pass through as many States as possible. Accordingly the northern east–west route clings to the northern tier of States from New England to Washington. The southern east–west route traverses the southern tier. The central east–west route passes almost exactly through the center of the country. The eastern and western north–south routes approximately parallel the coasts, and the central north-south route, though for valid reasons it departs somewhat from a central position geographically, intersects the central east-west route close to the center of population. The 6 major routes and 3 diagonal branches traverse for some distance 41 of the 48 States.
ACCORD WITH POPULAR TRAVEL ROUTES
A third consideration in the selection of the routes was that they should accord reasonably with recognized popular routes of travel. For their movements across the country, whether the distances were long or short, motorists have previously had a considerable choice of routes, between which, in the beginning at least, there was little advantage of improvement. By their choice, as reflected in the relative density of present traffic on various highways, they have established certain preferred routes, which stand out quite clearly as the widest bands on a traffic map of the country. (See pl. 8.) In the selection of routes for the superhighways close conformity to these preferred lines of travel was an important objective. This consideration weighed heavily in the decision to include the two western branches of the central route among those to be investigated. These branches, one coinciding closely with the historic Dee Trail and the other with the pioneer movement of the Mormons into southern Utah, both bear the stamp of approval of the early pathfinders and a long succession of their followers.
This consideration also strongly influenced the southwestward slant of the central north-south route, which follows closely a line selected by many travelers for winter use in driving from the populous Northeast to the Pacific coast.
IMPORTANT TERMINI AND REASONABLY DIRECT COURSE
A further consideration was that the several routes should have important continental termini and should run as directly between these ultimate objectives as might prove to be consistent with the connection of important intermediate points and the development of traffic. It is believed that the routes selected fulfill these requirements.
The eastern north-south route joins the New England and Florida playgrounds, and passes within a reasonable distance of all the coastal cities. The central north-south route has its termini at the international bridges at Port Huron, Mich., and Laredo, Tex. At the south it is the logical connection with the Inter-American Highway. For 157 miles in the north it joins with the northern east-west route, and so doing saves $42,000,000 in the construction cost at the expense of 4 or 5 miles of extra distance for traffic moving between Chicago and Detroit. The western north–south route takes a protected valley course for the most part from border to border, within easy reach of all the coastal cities.
The northern east–west route joins the hub of New England with Seattle, northernmost of west coast cities, and in its intermediate course first serves Cleveland, Chicago, and the other Great Lakes cities and the Twin Cities of Minnesota and then follows almost an air line through North Dakota and Montana.
The central east–west route begins at a junction with the Atlantic coast route, which can be reached conveniently from New York and Philadelphia, and thence follows a very direct line to San Francisco. The line first chosen for this route diverged from the final line southwestward at a point near Indianapolis, to pass close to St. Louis and Kansas City, and then followed the Missouri River northward to a point between Lincoln and Omaha, Nebr., where it entered the valley of the Platte River and thence followed the line of the historic Oregon Trail and Overland Route into Wyoming. The change to the present direct route between points near Indianapolis and Denver follows the consensus of advice received from the responsible State highway officials of all the States affected.
The southern east–west route begins near Charleston, S. C., and runs very directly through the southern tier of States to Los Angeles. It crosses the eastern north–south route at a point that nicely compromises the claims of the southern coastal cities, which there have convenient access to it. It passes near Atlanta, Birmingham, Montgomery, and Jackson, and heads directly toward Dallas and Fort Worth in Texas, whence, avoiding the Big Bend of the Rio Grande River, it passes just north of El Paso and on to its western terminus.
OPTIMUM LOCATION FOR COLLECTION OF TOLLS
Finally, and subject to a proper balance of all previous considerations, it was the intention so to locate the several routes, as to achieve an optimum condition in respect to toll collections. The results in this respect are set forth in great detail in subsequent pages. It is sufficient at this point to state that it is believed that no substantial change in the chosen lines, reasonably consistent with the several considerations previously discussed, would improve upon the potential earning power of the lines selected.
METHOD FOLLOWED IN SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED ROUTES
In January 1938 the first traffic map of the United States was compiled by the Bureau of Public Roads from the latest data then obtainable from State traffic flow charts and available tabulations, most of which had been prepared in connection with the highway planning surveys. In January 1939 this map was revised to conform with more complete and detailed information, and the revised map is reproduced in plate 7.
The traffic flow represented is that of the year 1937 on routes of the United States highway system and other main-traveled highways. Bands of varying width, centered upon the approximate lines of the various highways, indicate by their scaled width at all points the volume of passenger-car traffic using the highways at such points. The over-all width of the open bands represents the total passenger-car traffic, and the width of the narrower black bands the volume of that part of the traffic, described as “foreign,” consisting of passenger cars registered in all States other than the State in which they were observed.
As it was the purpose of the map to show only the passenger-car movements of longer range, local increases of total traffic caused by short trips in and out of cities and local increases of “foreign” traffic caused by short trips over State lines are not shown. Shorn of these increases, the band widths, as shown, represent approximately the volume of all passenger-car traffic flowing, exclusive of the numerous extremely local movements mentioned. Thus, even the open bands represent traffic of relatively long range, and the black bands represent generally movements that are still longer and at least of interstate extent.
Examining the map, some of these existing routes are seen to stand out above others as relatively important in respect to both their total traffic and the volume of “foreign” traffic they serve; and it was by such a visual comparison, qualified by the various general considerations previously described, that certain routes were tentatively chosen as representing the approximate lines of the six superhighways to be investigated.
The routes thus chosen are indicated by the darker traffic bands on plate 8. On this map the width of the shaded bands represents the same total traffic that is indicated on plate 7 by the width of the open bands; and the generally superior importance of the selected routes is borne out by the generally greater width of the darker bands.
Tentative locations for three east-west and three north-south superhighways approximately paralleling the existing routes indicated in plate 8 were defined by the Bureau and submitted for consideration and criticism to the highway departments of each of the 48 States. In accordance with the comments received, several adjustments were made, and a final decision was reached, with the concurrence of all States except South Dakota, upon the routes as shown and numbered on plate 9.[1]
For purposes of designation, the three north–south routes were numbered from the easternmost to the westernmost 1, 3, and 5; and the three east–west routes were numbered from the northernmost to the southernmost 2, 4, and 6. The diagonal route running northwestward from Salt Lake City was designated 4N (north) and the diagonal running southwestward from the same city, 4S (south). The branch of route 4 added to connect with Washington, D. C., was designated 4A; and because route 3 is broken where its location coincides with that of route 2, east of Chicago, the section extending northeastward from route 2 was designated as route 3 Mich.
- ↑ It was the opinion of the South Dakota State Highway Commission that route 2 should pass through the northern half or central portion of South Dakota, connecting westward with U.S. 10 at Billings, Mont., and eastward with Minneapolis and St. Paul. The South Dakota department contended that such a location would shorten the length of route 2 by 100 miles, that the construction would be more economical, and that the route would be accessible to a greater number of users. However, the location of the route through Montana, as finally chosen, runs considerably north of Billings, and this more direct final alinement eliminated the possibility of locating a shorter line through South Dakota. As the topography of the section traversed by U.S. 10 is not less favorable from the standpoint of construction than that of the section traversed by more southerly locations in South Dakota, the reference to more economical construction undoubtedly was based upon an assumed shorter line. Since such shortening of the line would not result, the basis of the second claim no longer exists. With respect to the relative service to be expected, the preferred line of travel now follows U.S. 10, as evidenced by the width of the foreign traffic bands on plate 7. Furthermore, with the exception of the Black Hills area, the largest increases in population are occurring in centers located along U.S. 10.
ESTIMATES OF PROBABLE TRAFFIC ON SELECTED ROUTES
In estimating the traffic that would probably use the selected routes all available information was carefully considered. The 1937 volumes of total and “foreign” passenger-car traffic on existing highways approximately parallel to the routes chosen, were known, as indicated by plate 7. General information concerning the relative percentages of passenger-car trips of various lengths in a normal highway movement, and concerning the percentages of all car owners having annual incomes of various orders, was also available as previously set forth in this report. And finally, the Bureau was also in possession of information concerning the volume of motortruck and bus traffic on various main highways and in various sections, which, though not so complete as the available passenger-car traffic data, was still sufficient for the purpose.
As a first step in estimating their probable traffic, the selected highways were assumed to be free highways of limited access, but with access points located as they probably would be in a toll system. Guided by this assumption, an estimate was made, for each section of the proposed routes, of the amount of traffic the new facility would probably attract from existing free highways located at various distances from it and approximately parallel to it.
The first consequence of the assumed condition was to exclude as potential traffic for the limited-access route that part of the movement on any parallel free highway composed of trips shorter than the assumed distance between access points. Since vehicles making such shorter trips would be forced by the limitation of access to travel further than necessary between their origins and destinations they would not use the new facility even if it were immediately adjacent to the existing free route.
In estimating the percentage of the known volumes of traffic on parallel free routes that, for this reason, would be excluded from the limited access routes, the facts concerning the distribution of trip lengths developed by the highway planning surveys of 11 States, provided helpful guidance. These facts are presented in plate 5 and corresponding vehicle-mile data are generalized in the single curve on plate 10. Referring to this curve it will be seen that if the interval
al between any two access points were 10 miles, at least 20 percent of the vehicle-mileage of traffic moving on an immediately adjacent free highway would have to be counted as unavailable for the limited-access route. If the distance between access points were 20 miles the excluded portion of the free highway vehicle-mileage would be increased to 40 percent.
That part of the traffic on parallel free highways not excluded from the limited-access route by the distance between accesses, might be attracted by the superior facility of the new route. Whether it would be or not would depend upon the distance it would be necessary to travel and the character of service available over existing roads from the point of origin to the new route and from the route to the point of destination, and also upon the whole extra distance entailed by use of the new facility. While the superior design of the new route, if operated as a free facility, would doubtless be considered by potential users as outweighing some extra distance, there would obviously be no advantage in its use if to reach it at one end of a trip and continue from it at the other it were necessary to travel as far over existing cross roads as the distance via a comparable parallel road directly from origin to destination. This consideration would impose a definite limit upon the lateral distance over which the superior facility of the new route would attract traffic from existing parallel roads. Of the traffic moving over a closely parallel existing road it would definitely exclude only the traffic of comparatively short trip length; of the traffic moving over more distant parallel roads it would definitely exclude larger parts as the separating distance increased.
Beyond these definite limits use of the new facility would involve greater travel over existing roads than would be necessary for direct travel by a comparable existing road from origin to destination. Under this condition use of the new facility would be inspired only by a quickly satisfied curiosity. Within the limits mentioned, use of the new facility would not require greater travel over existing roads than would be necessary to travel entirely over such roads from origin to destination but would increase the total travel distance. Under this condition, the decision whether or not to use the new road would depend upon an individual appraisal, by potential users, of the competing attractions of short distance on the one hand and a better facility for part of a longer distance on the other. The number of potential users who, under this condition, would actually choose to use the new facility would increase with reduction in the amount of extra distance involved in such use in relation to the total length of the possible trip over the new facility. Traffic of long range moving in the general direction of the new facility would obviously be attracted to it from a greater lateral distance than any short-ranging traffic. For this reason, the greatest potential usage of the new facilities would naturally be expected to be generated by the existing-road traffic indicated on plate 7 as “foreign.”
In estimating the traffic that would probably use the proposed new facilities if they were operated as free limited-access roads, these several considerations were kept in mind in a section-by-section appraisal of the probabilities with respect to the entire mileage in volved. The relation of each section of the routes with respect to all possibly competing highways was carefully studied and a judgment was formed as to the part of the known traffic using such competing roads that could be attracted to the new facility. Mathematical exactness in such judgments was an impossibility; and to avoid underestimation there was studied effort to maintain a liberal bias. The resulting estimates, therefore, are believed to represent the maximum traffic that could reasonably be expected to make use of the proposed facilities if operated as free limited-access routes.
Having considered every section of the proposed routes from this point of view, the next step was to convert the estimates made upon the assumption of free use into estimates of the probable toll-paying traffic.
A consideration of the ability of people to pay tolls, as indicated by the distribution of automobile owners by income groups, and further consideration of actual fees which would be charged for specific trips over various sections of the routes, led to the conclusion that not more than about one-third of the vehicles that might use a typical free road of limited access could be regarded as potential traffic for the same road operated as a toll facility.[1]
The general estimate of one-third as the proportion of users of a free limited-access facility who would use a similar toll facility and estimates of toll-road traffic based thereon were submitted to responsible highway authorities of all the States with a request that they comment upon the reasonableness of the assumptions and the resultant traffic estimates. In arriving at the final estimates of traffic likely to use the proposed routes, if operated as toll facilities, comments received from the State officials were considered together with a firsthand review of the particular attractiveness of each section of the routes and of the ability of the potential users in each section of the country to pay a toll of 1 cent per mile for passenger cars.
On the basis of this further study various factors, ranging from 0.167 to 0.40, were decided upon for application to the estimated free-facility traffic to convert it to an estimate of traffic on the toll facility. In densely populated areas, where highway congestion in considerable degree has already been experienced and where there are relatively large numbers of potential users who are able to pay tolls, factors as high as 0.40 were used. This value was used, for example, on the section of route 1 between New York City and central Connecticut. In sparsely populated areas, where thus far little or no congestion has been experienced and existing modern highways afford excellent service, factors in the lower range were used. For example, a factor of 0.20 was used for the section of route 4 between Evanston, Wyo., and Rock Springs, Wyo.
- ↑ In this connection it is interesting to note the results of a study of a selected cross section of car owners throughout the country, conducted by Dr. George Gallup, Director, American Institute of Public Opinion in March 1938. The Gallup poll indicated that 27 percent of car owners, when making a long trip, would be willing to pay 1 cent per mile, and that 39 percent would be willing to pay from one-half to 1 cent. In commenting upon the results of the poll, Dr. Gallup said: “Many motorists who would be willing to pay tolls happen to live far off the probable lanes. All that can be safely estimated about the public attitude today is that about a third of all motorists in reach of the toll roads think they would use them on occasion.”
| Section | Accumulated length |
Average daily number of vehicles |
Average daily number of vehicle- miles |
Accumulated vehicle- miles |
Average daily number of vehicles for accumulated length | ||||
| Number | Route | From– | To— | Length | |||||
| Miles | Miles | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | Jersey City, N.J. | New Haven, Conn. | 65.6 | 65.6 | 3,508 | 230,125 | 230,125 | 3,508 |
| 2 | 1 | Junction Route 4, Pa. | Jersey City, N.J. | 106.86 | 172.4 | 2,651 | 283,127 | 513,252 | 2,977 |
| 3 | 5 | Junction Route 6, Calif. | San Fernando, Calif. | 44.8 | 217.2 | 1,734 | 77,683 | 590.935 | 2,721 |
| 4 | 1 | Washington, D.C. | Baltimore, Md. | 39.3 | 256.5 | 1,602 | 62,959 | 653,894 | 2,549 |
| 5 | 1 | Junction Route 2, Mass. | Portland, Maine | 133.9 | 390.4 | 1,348 | 180,497 | 834,391 | 2,137 |
| 6 | 6 | Junction Route 5, Calif. | Whitewater, Calif. | 91.0 | 481.4 | 1,310 | 119,210 | 953,601 | 1,981 |
| 7 | 1 | Baltimore, Md. | Junction Route 4, Pa. | 76.2 | 557.6 | 1,272 | 96,926 | 1,050,527 | 1,884 |
| 8 | 5 | San Ysidro, Calif. | Junction Route 6, Calif. | 124.4 | 682.0 | 1,140 | 141,816 | 1,192,543 | 1,748 |
| 9 | 2 | Junction Route 3, Ill. | Junction Route 3, Mich., Ind. | 156.9 | 838.9 | 1,119 | 175,571 | 1,367,914 | 1,631 |
| 10 | 1 | New Haven, Conn. | Junction Route 2, Mass. | 99.8 | 938.7 | 1,048 | 104,590 | 1,472,504 | 1,569 |
| 11 | 2 | Buffalo, N.Y. | Albany, N.Y. | 287.6 | 1,226.3 | 1,020 | 293,352 | 1,765,856 | 1,440 |
| 12 | 1 | Richmond, Va. | Washington, D.C. | 108.3 | 1,334.6 | 946 | 102,452 | 1,868,308 | 1,400 |
| 13 | 4 | Carlisle, Pa. | Junction Route 1, Pa. | 94.8 | 1,429.4 | 852 | 80,770 | 1,949,850 | 1,364 |
| 14 | 1 | Salem, Oreg. | Portland, Oreg. | 56.9 | 1,486.3 | 822 | 46,772 | 1,995,850 | 1,343 |
| 15 | 3 Michigan | Junction Route 2, Ind. | Detroit, Mich. | 102.2 | 1,588.5 | 805 | 82,271 | 2,078,121 | 1,308 |
| 16 | 4 | Oakland, Calif. | Auburn, Calif. | 110.0 | 1,698.5 | 750 | 82,500 | 2,160,621 | 1,272 |
| 17 | 2 | Albany, N.Y. | Junction Route 1, Mass. | 147.2 | 1,845.7 | 748 | 110,106 | 2,270,727 | 1,230 |
| 18 | 2 | Cleveland, Ohio | Buffalo, N.Y. | 220.7 | 2,066.4 | 744 | 164,201 | 2,434,928 | 1,178 |
| 19 | 4 | Pittsburgh, Pa. | Carlisle, Pa. | 166.6 | 2,233.0 | 715 | 119,199 | 2,554,047 | 1,144 |
| 20 | 2 | Perrysburg, Ohio | Cleveland, Ohio | 79.3 | 2,312.3 | 676 | 53,607 | 2,607,654 | 1,128 |
| 21 | 5 | San Fernando, Calif. | Tracy, Calif. | [1]291.7 | 2,604.0 | 658 | 164,106 | 2,771,759 | 1,082 |
| 22 | 5 | Portland, Oreg. | Junction Route 2, Wash. | 146.7 | 2,750.7 | 654 | 95,942 | 2,867,701 | 1,059 |
| 23 | 5 | Tracy, Calif. | Junction Route 4, Calif. | 69.1 | 2,819.8 | 625 | 43,188 | 2,910,889 | 1,048 |
| 24 | 6 | Whitewater, Calif. | Indio, Calif. | 32.7 | 2,852.5 | 800 | 19,620 | 2,930,509 | 1,043 |
| 25 | 5 | Junction Route 2, Wash. | Canadian Boundary | 124.7 | 2,977.2 | 567 | 70,705 | 3,001,214 | 1,022 |
| 26 | 2 | Minneapolis, Minn. | Junction Route 3, Ill. | 392.6 | 3,369.8 | 550 | 215,930 | 3,217,144 | 967 |
| 27 | 6 | Junction Route 3, Tex. | Shreveport, La. | 190.4 | 3,560.2 | 548 | 104,339 | 3,321,483 | 944 |
| 28 | 4 | Indianapolis, Ind. | Columbus, Ohio | 156.6 | 3,716.8 | 511 | 80,023 | 3,401,506 | 926 |
| 29 | 3 Michigan | Detroit, Mich. | Port Huron, Mich. | 72.5 | 3,789.3 | 510 | 36,975 | 3,438,481 | 918 |
| 30 | 1 | Portland, Maine | Bangor, Maine | 121.3 | 3,910.6 | 491 | 59,558 | 3,498,039 | 904 |
| 31 | 6 | Odessa, Tex. | Junction Route 3, Tex. | 337.9 | 4,248.5 | 484 | 163,544 | 3,661,583 | 870 |
| 32 | 4 | Columbus, Ohio | Pittsburgh, Pa. | 195.6 | 4,443.5 | 475 | 92,625 | 3,754,208 | 853 |
| 33 | 3 | Junction Route 4, Ill. | Junction Route 2, Ill. | 155.5 | 4,599.0 | 468 | 72,774 | 3,826,982 | 840 |
| 34 | 1 | Miami, Fla. | Jacksonville, Fla. | 326.5 | 4,925.5 | 446 | 146,619 | 3,972,601 | 814 |
| 35 | 4 North | Brigham, Utah | Salt Lake City, Utah | 52.3 | 4,977.8 | 412 | 21,548 | 3,994,149 | 809 |
| 36 | 3 | San Antonio, Tex. | Junction Route 6, Tex. | 250.7 | 5,228.5 | 398 | 99,779 | 4,093,928 | 789 |
| 37 | 4 | Junction Route 3, Ill. | Indianpolis, Ind. | 203.7 | 5,432.2 | 396 | 80,665 | 4,174,593 | 771 |
| 38 | 3 | St. Louis, Mo. | Junction Route 4, Ill. | 88.8 | 5,521.1 | 360 | 31,968 | 4,206,561 | 768 |
| 39 | 5 | Roseburg, Oreg. | Salem, Oreg. | 133.3 | 5,654.3 | 354 | 47,188 | 4,253,749 | 758 |
| 40 | 2 | Junction Route 3—Mich., Ind. | Perrysburg, Ohio | 69.9 | 5,724.2 | 352 | 24,605 | 4,278,354 | 753 |
| 41 | 4 | St. Joseph, Mo. | Junction Route 3, Ill. | 275.7 | 5,999.9 | 331 | 91,257 | 4,369,611 | 733 |
| 42 | 4 South | Junction Route 6, Calif. | Ludlow, Calif. | 69.1 | 6,069.0 | 320 | 22,112 | 4,391,723 | 729 |
| 43 | 3 | Springfield, Mo. | St. Louis, Mo. | 165.2 | 6,387.9 | 316 | 52,203 | 4,443,926 | 718 |
| 44 | 5 | Junction Route 4, Calif. | Redding, Calif. | 153.7 | 6,387.9 | 313 | 48,108 | 4,492,034 | 708 |
| 45 | 2 | Fargo, N. Dak. | Minneapolis, Minn. | 219.1 | 6,607.0 | 301 | 65,949 | 4,557,983 | 694 |
| 46 | 4 | Auburn, Calif. | Reno, Nev. | 106.5 | 6,713.5 | 300 | 31,950 | 4,589,933 | 688 |
| 47 | 5 | Ashland, Oreg. | Roseburg, Oreg. | 122.9 | 6,836.4 | 298 | 36,624 | 4,626,557 | 681 |
| 48 | 3 | Tulsa, Okla. | Springfield, Mo. | 171.3 | 7,007.7 | 296 | 50,705 | 4,677,262 | 671 |
| 49 | 1 | Jacksonville, Fla. | Junction Route 6, S.C. | 219.3 | 7,227.0 | 288 | 63,158 | 4,740,420 | 660 |
| 50 | 1 | Junction Route 6, S.C. | Richmond, Va. | 362.6 | 7,589.6 | 279 | 101,165 | 4,841,585 | 641 |
| 51 | 4-A | Junction Route 4, Pa. | Junction Route 1, Md. | 88.5 | 7,678.1 | 271 | 24,249 | 4,865,831 | 637 |
| 52 | 4 North | Portland, Oreg. | Boardman, Oreg. | [2]163.4 | 7,841.5 | 272 | 30,328 | 4,896,162 | 632 |
| 53 | 2 | Seattle, Wash. | Ellensburg, Wash. | 90.0 | 7,931.5 | 270 | 24,300 | 4,920,462 | 628 |
| 54 | 4 | Greeley, Colo. | St. Joseph, Mo. | 529.7 | 8,461.2 | 258 | 136,663 | 5,057,125 | 604 |
| 55 | 3 | Junction Route 6, Tex. | Tulsa, Okla. | 270.5 | 8,731.7 | 252 | 68,166 | 5,125,291 | 593 |
| 56 | 6 | El Paso, Tex. | Odessa, Tex. | 245.2 | 8,976.9 | 248 | 60,810 | 5,186,101 | 584 |
| 57 | 4 North | Boise, Idaho | Rupert, Idaho | 182.2 | 9,159.1 | 235 | 42,817 | 5,228,918 | 577 |
| 58 | 4 South | Ludlow, Calif. | Las Vegas, Nev. | 117.0 | 9,276.1 | 210 | 24,570 | 5,253,488 | 572 |
| 59 | 5 | Redding, Calif. | Ashland, Oreg. | 138.2 | 9,414.3 | 204 | 28,193 | 5,281,681 | 567 |
| 60 | 6 | Shreveport, La. | Vicksburg, Miss. | 168.8 | 9,583.1 | 195 | 32,916 | 5,314,597 | 560 |
| 61 | 6 | Phoenix, Ariz. | El Paso, Tex. | 391.1 | 9,974.2 | 192 | 75,091 | 5,380,688 | 546 |
| 62 | 6 | Indio, Calif. | Phoenix, Ariz. | 254.0 | 10,228.2 | 165 | 41,910 | 5,431,598 | 536 |
| 63 | 4 North | Boardman, Oreg. | Boise, Idaho | 253.1 | 10,481.3 | 158 | 39,990 | 5,471,588 | 527 |
| 64 | 6 | Birmingham, Ala. | Atlanta, Ga. | 141.2 | 10,622.5 | 155 | 21,886 | 5,493,474 | 522 |
| 65 | 4 South | Las Vegas, Nev. | Salt Lake City, Utah | 407.5 | 11,030.0 | 140 | 57,050 | 5,550,524 | 508 |
| 66 | 4 | Salt Lake City, Utah | Greeley, Colo. | 463.3 | 11,493.3 | 136 | 63,009 | 5,613,533 | 492 |
| 67 | 6 | Vicksburg, Miss. | Birmingham, Ala. | 270.5 | 11,763.8 | 121 | 32,730 | 5,646,263 | 484 |
| 68 | 1 | Bangor, Maine | Canadian Boundary | 196.6 | 11,960.4 | 119 | 23,395 | 5,669,658 | 478 |
| 69 | 3 | Mexican Boundary | San Antonio, Tex. | 156.2 | 12,116.6 | 96 | 14,995 | 5,684,653 | 473 |
| 70 | 6 | Augusta, Ga. | Charleston, S.C. | 116.3 | 12,232.9 | 91 | 10,583 | 5,695,236 | 469 |
| 71 | 4 North | Rupert, Idaho | Brigham, Utah | 119.7 | 12,352.6 | 80 | 9,576 | 5,704,812 | 465 |
| 72 | 6 | Atlanta, Ga. | Augusta, Ga. | 153.2 | 12,505.8 | 78 | 11,950 | 5,716,762 | 406 |
| 73 | 4 | Reno, Nev. | Salt Lake City, Utah | 514.9 | 13,020.7 | 63 | 32,439 | 5,749,201 | 445 |
| 74 | 2 | Ellensburg, Wash. | Spokane, Wash. | 145.9 | 13,166.6 | 62 | 9,046 | 5,758,247 | 440 |
| 75 | 2 | Spokane, Wash. | Fargo, N. Dak. | 1,169.6 | 14,336.2 | 56 | 65,498 | 5,823,745 | 409 |
| Total | [3]14,336.2 | 5,823,745 | |||||||
The section of the routes selected on which it is estimated there would have been the largest volume of toll-paying traffic in 1937 is the 65.6 miles from Jersey City, N. J., to New Haven, Conn. It is estimated that 3,508 vehicles would have used that section daily, resulting in a total utilization of 230,125 vehicle-miles.
The lightest 1937 traffic estimated for any section is the 56 daily vehicles corresponding to the 1,169.6-mile section from Spokane, Wash., to Fargo, N. Dak. Although 18 times as long as the Jersey City–New Haven section the vehicle-mileage generated is barely more than one-fourth of the utilization of the most heavily traveled section.
The estimated 1937 tfaffic on all sections of the selected routes, operated as a toll system, is shown on the flow chart, plate 11. Estimates for the section between Richmond, Va. and Boston, Mass. are shown in greater detail in plate 12.
The 10 most heavily traveled sections of the selected routes, as listed in table 2, have an aggregate length of 938.7 miles. The location of these sections is shown in the map, plate 13. It will be noted that these most heavily traveled sections form a continuous route from Washington, D. C., to Portland, Maine, and shorter stretches east of Chicago, Ill., and in the vicinity of Los Angeles, Calif.
Adding eight more sections, as listed in table 2, raises the aggregate mileage to 2,066.4 miles; and, with the exception of a section between Cleveland, Ohio, and the Ohio–Indiana line, completes a route from Boston, Mass., to Chicago, Ill., with a spur to Detroit, Mich. In the West, sections are added near Oakland, Calif., and between Portland and Salem, Oreg., as shown in plate 14.
If, in a similar manner, sections are added successively in groups, in the order of their estimated traffic volume, the locations of the accumulating sections are shown on plates 15 to 21, inclusive. Comparison of this entire series of plates gives a good idea of the relative traffic importance of the selected routes in various sections of the country. If the roads were built in the order of their traffic importance as toll facilities they would be built in the order of progression indicated by this series of maps.
In table 3 the traffic that would probably have used the selected routes in 1937, operated both as free and toll facilities of limited access, is compared with the actual traffic moving in that year over existing highways closely paralleling the selected routes, and with the traffic on these highways with and without their urban connections. In one-half of the table the comparison is made in terms of average daily vehicle-mileage, in the other half it is made in terms of average daily traffic volume.
It will be noted that the total vehicle-mileage estimated for the toll facility on all routes is about one-seventh of the vehicle-mileage served by all sections of the parallel existing highways, about a fifth of the vehicle-mileage on rural sections of the existing highways, and one-fourth or a little more of the vehicle-mileage estimated for a limited access route operated as a free facility.
| Route | Length of sections of— | Average daily vehicle-miles in 1937 | Average daily traffic density in 1937 | ||||||||
| On parallel existing highway |
On selected limited- access route |
On parallel existing highway |
On selected limited- access route | ||||||||
| Existing highways, urban and rural |
Existing highways, rural only |
Limited- access highways |
Urban and rural sections[1] |
Rural sections only |
Operated as free facility |
Operated as toll facility |
Urban and rural sections[1] |
Rural sections only |
Operated as free facility |
Operated as toll facility | |
| Miles | Miles | Miles | |||||||||
| 1 | 2,066.0 | 1,624.7 | 1,856.2 | 9,342,414 | 5,683,349 | 5,208,578 | 1,453,578 | 4,522 | 3,498 | 2,806 | 783 |
| 2 | 3,153.5 | 2,717.3 | 2,978.8 | 6,335,003 | 4,725,059 | 4,536,926 | 1,199,604 | 2,009 | 1,739 | 1,523 | 403 |
| 3 | 1,493.1 | 1,300.3 | 1,258.2 | 3,772,750 | 3,156,505 | 1,428,139 | 390,590 | 2,527 | 2,428 | 1,135 | 310 |
| 3 Michigan | 226.6 | 166.8 | 174.7 | 989,940 | 608,267 | 427,772 | 119,220 | 4,369 | 3,647 | 2,449 | 682 |
| 4 | 3,150.7 | 2,800.6 | 2,816.8 | 6,490,525 | 5,107,920 | 3,387,126 | 891,455 | 2,030 | 1,824 | 1,202 | 316 |
| 4-A | 100.3 | 85.6 | 88.5 | 457,565 | 321,614 | 87,261 | 24,283 | 4,562 | 3,757 | 986 | 274 |
| 4 South | 675.9 | 616.8 | 593.6 | 776,033 | 631,113 | 408,172 | 103,626 | 1,148 | 1,023 | 688 | 175 |
| 4 North | 863.7 | 771.4 | [2]770.7 | 1,143,524 | 894,599 | 608,314 | 147,336 | 1,324 | 1,160 | 789 | 191 |
| 5 | 1,453.9 | 1,223.2 | [3]1,406.4 | 5,771,231 | 4,377,166 | 3,079,054 | 799,614 | 3,696 | 3,578 | 2,189 | 569 |
| 6 | 2,623.2 | 2,327.1 | 2,392.3 | 5,392,157 | 4,060,813 | 2,912,549 | 694,600 | 2,056 | 1,745 | 1,217 | 290 |
| Total | 15,806.9 | 13,633.8 | [4]14,336.2 | 40,471,142 | 29,566,405 | 22,083,891 | 5,823,745 | 2,560 | 2,169 | 1,540 | 406 |
The traffic shown for the existing highways is that which actually used them in 1937. Had these roads been thoroughly modernized throughout, it is conservatively estimated that their traffic would have been from 15 to 30 percent greater than it actually was.
FUTURE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC
Based upon estimates of probable future changes in population, in the number of motor vehicles per capita, in motor fuel consumed per vehicle, and upon an estimate of the increase in miles traveled per gallon of fuel by the average vehicle as a result of improvements in motor vehicles and changes in driving habits, plate 22 shows a predicted trend in the vehicle-mileage of travel on all rural roads.
It is assumed that the rate of increase in vehicle-miles of travel onmain highways will exceed the average rate of increase on all rural roads because: (1) A faster rate of development of abutting properties is anticipated for main roads than for local roads; and (2) the average length and number of long trips (50 miles or more) is expected to increase at a faster rate than the average length and number of shorter trips. The allowance for each of these factors depends, of course, upon the specific section of highway considered.
In considering an allowance for the first of these factors for the selected system composed of three east-west and three north-south routes, it must be remembered that access is assumed to be denied to all abutting property owners except at designated poimts where approach facilities are provided. This condition restricts development of abutting property to areas close to access points. Where the selected route is located in such manner that it provides an attractive connection between such areas and nearby marketing or metropolitan areas, a very fast rate of development may be anticipated. However, to keep pace with the average rate of development of abutting property on all roads having unrestricted access, the fast rate of development in favorably located areas close to access points on the selected routes must be great enough to compensate for the lack of traffic contributing development along the balance of the system. It seems doubtful that it would be great enough even were the selected routes operated as free facilities, but in the absence of a definite means of determining the extent to which these items balance, it is assumed that the average rate of development on such a system operated as a free facility would keep pace with the average rate of development on all routes. For a system of toll highways, a slower rate of development must be assumed.
In considering the probable faster rate of increase in the average length and number of long trips, it becomes apparent again that the allowance made for the selected routes operated as toll facilities should be different from that which would be made if they were operated as free facilities. This difference is caused by the fact that the more money people spend for tolls, the less they have left to spend for operation of their vehicles. However, this rate of increase should be greater for the selected routes, operated on either a free or toll basis, than the rate of increase for main highways, because the long trips, which tend to increase in number faster than short ones, form a larger percentage of the traffic on limited-access roads than on normal main highways.
A thorough consideration of all of these points indicates that it would be reasonable to assume that the trend of travel on the selected routes, operated as toll facilities, would increase approximately one-third faster than travel on all roads.
Before expanding the maximum estimates of 1937 traffic by application of these trends, one further factor must be considered. That factor is generated traffic which, for this purpose, may be defined as the traffic which results from a new desire for travel on the part of certain people who would not care to perform the same travel in the absence of the improved facilities. This traffic would appear during the first years of operation of the new facilities, after which time its entire effect upon the rate of increase may be assumed to be eliminated. It is estimated that 3 years after completion of a route this traffic would increase the total diverted traffic by 20 percent, if it were operated as a toll facility.
Using these relationships, the multiplying factors derived for converting the maximum estimates of 1937 traffic on the selected routes, operated as toll facilities, were 2.5 for 1960 traffic and 34.2 for the traffic of the entire period from 1944 to 1960, assuming that one-half of the system could be placed in operation January 1, 1944, and the remaining half could be placed in operation January 1, 1946.
NUMBER OF LANES REQUIRED FOR FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF TOLL-PAYING TRAFFIC
One of the elements of highway design most affected by the volume of traffic to be served is the width of the pavement or the number of lanes provided.
In determining the number of traffic lanes required for toll roads, it is necessary to base the determination upon factors that are not present in the same degree in dealing with free public highways. Highway departments have built the existing roads with definitely limited funds and it has been their problem to distribute these funds over the roads under their control so as to meet the most urgent traffic requirements. Provision of facilities has always lagged behind the evident needs. Often a needed widening of surface has been deferred in order to meet more pressing demands for surfacing earth roads or to replace low-type surfaces with more durable construction. Any system of highways constructed with public funds for the free use of the public must be designed on the basis of compromise, and all highway users have been inconvenienced at times by the lack of both wide and smooth surfaces.
It is understood, however, that these conditions must either be accepted or that funds must be provided more rapidly for their correction. The prospective user of a toll highway will regard lack of adequate width in an entirely different light. He will be in a position to choose between the free and the toll route. To attract the motorist the toll roads must offer advantages that loom larger than the tolls charged. There must he no retarding of traffic flow because of lack of width. Therefore the traffic volume at which a toll facility should be widened is inevitably much lower than that at which free highways have been widened. To provide unrestricted movement of the traffic anticipated 20 years hence requires wide pavements at relatively low present volumes.
PAVEMENT WIDTH DEPENDENT ON MAXIMUM RATHER THAN AVERAGE VOLUMES
In considering the possibilities of self-liquidation of any toll highway, the measure of use must be the total volume for a year or some average volume that takes into account seasonal fluctuations. Estimates of probable use are prepared on such a basis for use in financial studies. But such figures do not indicate the necessary widths of pavements because width must be based on the maximum estimated traffic that will use the road at peak periods throughout the year. Not only does the average daily traffic for any month vary considerably from the average on a yearly basis, but also the traffic on the different days of the week varies to a similar or an even greater degree.
To provide means of determining the probable maximum daily and hourly traffic volumes from the estimated average daily volume on the selected routes, records from a number of automatic traffic recorders were analyzed. Selection was made of records from highways on which the fluctuation of traffic was thought to be comparable with that which may be expected on the routes of the selected system.
The results of this analysis are shown in plates 23 and 24. Plate 23 shows that with an average daily volume of 1,500 vehicles, for example, the average daily volume in the month of maximum traffic may be expected to be 2,000 vehicles. Plate 24 shows that 2,000 vehicles per day correspond to a maximum hourly traffic of 520 vehicles.
The next step was to establish a relation between traffic volume and needed width on a toll road. Recently, the Bureau of Public Roads has conducted studies of highway capacity in which exhaustive analysis has been made of the movements of all vehicles using highways of 
With a zero traffic volume there are no vehicles and consequently there can be no value for vehicle speed, but vehicle speed at zero traffic is approximated when a vehicle moves by itself, so separated from other traffic that the driver is not influenced by the presence of other vehicles on the road. His speed is then uninfluenced by that of other vehicles, and represents a free choice at the particular time on the particular road. The average speed for all vehicles using the road under that condition was, in the case of the two-lane width, 44 miles per hour, and on the divided highway 48 miles per hour. Increase of the total traffic volume to 500 vehicles per hour resulted in a decrease of the average vehicle speeds to 40 and 47.5 miles per hour respectively, and at a volume of 1,000 vehicles per hour in both directions, the speeds become 35.5 and 47 miles per hour. It is significant that there was no serious reduction in speed with increasing volumes on the four-lane road and also that at low traffic volume the traffic moved faster over the divided highway, with its invitation to faster and safer travel, than over the two-lane road.
DIFFERENCE IN SPEED OF SUCCESSIVE VEHICLES BEST INDEX OF CONGESTION
It has been found that the average speed of all vehicles does not. represent a final criterion of the freedom of movement or congestion. Results of various analyses show that the average difference in speed between successive vehicles is a much more positive index of congestion. In periods of light traffic when passing is generally unrestricted, any desired difference in speed between successive vehicles may be maintained. As the traffic volume increases the opportunity for passing diminishes, lines of vehicles form and, accordingly, the difference in speed between successive vehicles becomes less, even though the average speed of all vehicles may not be affected greatly. Plate 26 shows that such difference in speeds is a much more sensitive index of congestion than is the average speed of all vehicles. This graph shows, for roads of the different widths, the mean difference in speed between Here again, a successive vehicles under various traffic volumes. straight-line relation exists between the traffic volume and the speed differences, again indicating that there is an effect on the freedom of movement even with relatively light traffic volumes, and that there is no point at which congestion suddenly occurs.
Beginning with a speed difference of 6.4 miles per hour at zero volume, this figure on the two-lane road drops to 3.5 at 1,000 vehicles per hour in the two directions, while the initial speed difference on the divided highway of 8.3 miles per hour drops only to 7.1 at 1,000 vehicles per hour. To restrict the freedom of movement on the divided highway to a speed difference of 3.5 miles per hour requires a total of over 4,000 vehicles per hour, or over 2,000 vehicles per hour in each direction.
DESIRE FOR SPEEDS FASTER THAN THOSE NOW GENERALLY POSSIBLE
Investigation of the distribution of vehicle speeds, on the two-lane road studied, shows that no vehicles traveled over 60 miles per hour even in traffic as low as 200 vehicles per hour in both directions, and only 7 percent exceeded 50 miles per hour. On the divided highway, however, at similar volumes 5.1 percent of the vehicle speeds exceeded 60 miles per hour and 36.6 percent exceeded 50 miles per hour. The width of the two-lane road studied was narrower than the 24-foot width recommended for the toll roads, and similar studies on wider two-lane pavements might show a somewhat greater percentage of fast driving, but it is certainly indicated that on any two-lane road speed of operation would be limited to a greater extent than on four-lane divided highways. These figures add to the evidence that even under conditions of light traffic, four-lane divided highways induce higher speed and therefore will prove more attractive to drivers wishing to save time with safety.
The faster travel speeds in themselves indicate a willingness of the driver to pay for saving in time, since increasing speed increases gasoline consumption. Composite figures obtained by averaging the results of tests on several makes of modern passenger cars show that with steady driving on concrete pavements at a speed of 40 miles per hour, gasoline consumption is 0.0575 gallon per mile. At 60 miles per hour the consumption becomes 0.082 gallon per mile. With gasoline at 18 cents per gallon the cost per mile would increase from 1.03 to 1.47 cents per mile, representing a cost for the higher speed of over 0.4 cent per mile for gasoline alone. Should the availability of a large mileage of high-speed highway induce the more general usage of over-drive transmissions, or the introduction of engines performing more efficiently in the higher speed ranges, the final cost of fast driving on toll highways might be no higher than present costs of traveling at similar speeds, desired but seldom possible, on existing highways.
Since the studies of highway capacity are still incomplete, the figures presented are based on data obtained on the best alinement; that is, a level straight highway. Introduction of grades and curves, even of the low magnitude recommended for the selected routes will tend to reduce somewhat the freedom of movement possible. Therefore, in any section of the country where curves and grades must be incorporated frequently in the design of the highway, there will be on two-lane roads a further restriction to the freedom of movement.
It may be thought that differences in speeds will not be significant on such roads since only persons desiring to travel at the highest reasonable speed will be willing to pay the required fees. This might be true with reference to passenger vehicles, even though the data of plates 25 and 26 tend to dispute that thought, but it must be remembered that the value of time and distance saved over such roads will be largest for commercial vehicles. It may be expected that commercial vehicles, particularly the heavier units, would be attracted to these roads in greater proportion than that in which they are found on the existing roads.
FOUR HUNDRED VEHICLES PER HOUR INCONVENIENCE TO IN BOTH DIRECTIONS CAUSE TRAFFIC
Results of studies of the movement of many thousands of vehicles in many sections of the country show that the spacing of vehicles traveling normally over a highway follows rather definite laws. Analysis of observations shows that with a traffic volume of 200 vehicles per hour in one direction, spaces between these vehicles long enough to permit vehicles moving in the opposite direction to pass each other are available only 50 percent of the time, if the time required for the completion of the passing maneuver is 10 seconds. While it is believed that 10 seconds is entirely reasonable, reduction of the time required to 8 seconds would still leave only 55 percent of the time available for passing. It is believed, therefore, that a volume of 400 vehicles per hour with traffic approximately evenly divided in the two directions is a maximum which it is safe to assume may be carried over a two-lane road without inconvenience at some time during the year. Plate 24 shows that this maximum volume of 400 vehicles per hour corresponds to an average daily volume of 1,500 vehicles. Sections of the selected system on which the average daily traffic volume is expected to exceed 1,500 in 1960 are, therefore, planned to be more than two lanes in width.
THREE-LANE PAVEMENTS UNDESIRABLE
Neither in theory not in practice is there complete agreement as to the width of road to build when more than two lanes are required. Were adequate accident records available, the proper width for highways wider than two lanes could be based entirely on the factor of safety. In no State, however, are accident data sufficiently complete to permit a reliable analysis of the accident rate on roads of various widths. In theory, a three-lane road has a definite place where the traffic in one direction is much heavier than that in the other direction and where the direction of heavy traffic flow reverses as, for example, between morning and evening. In the case of toll highways, however, it is not anticipated that there will be any such marked difference in the volume of traffic in the two directions and therefore this theoretical advantage of the three-lane highway is not present. Furthermore, many studies of vehicular movement on three-lane highways definitely show a reluctance of drivers to utilize the center lane to the maximum advantage.
From the point of view of driver behavior, the three-lane highway suffers a psychological disadvantage which might well result in an abnormally high accident rate. On a two-lane road, a driver engaged in a passing Maneuver must encroach upon the left lane, the lane which is definitely reserved for traffic in the opposite direction, and he does it with full realization that his passing is accomplished only in the face of the superior rights of drivers in the opposing lane. In the case of the three-lane road, particularly with traffic evenly divided in the two directions, there is no clear-cut right-of-way distinction. A vehicle moving in one direction has as much right in the center lane as one moving in the other direction, and passings may involve much greater traffic hazards.
Furthermore, for the selected routes the three-lane pavement could be regarded only as an expedient. Its traffic capacity is somewhat higher than that of a two-lane pavement, but four lanes will permit, without inconvenience, traffic volumes several times as high as those which may be accommodated on a two-lane road. Inasmuch as the three-lane road does not lend itself readily to remodeling as a four-lane divided highway, which is believed to be the ultimately desirable type of construction, the three-lane road has no place on the selected routes. Although the available accident figures are not sufficiently reliable or voluminous to be employed as a criterion, it is interesting that in one State the reported accidents on undivided roadways of two-, three- and four-lane width show but a small difference in the accident expectancy on the basis of accidents per million vehicle-miles. Very limited data from another State in which a modern four-lane highway has recently been opened to traffic show a remarkable reduction in accidents on the four-lane divided section as compared with those of an adjacent fourlane highway. There was 0.31 accident per million vehicle-miles on the undivided highway as compared to 0.13 accident per million vehicle-miles on the four-lane divided section. Although both figures are low, they are fairly comparable, and the advantage of the divided highway is striking.
DIVIDED FOUR-LANE HIGHWAYS RECOMMENDED FOR HEAVY TRAFFIC
It is recommended that when the traffic volume becomes too greatto be reasonably accomodated by a two-lane highway, a four-lane divided highway should be provided. All the cost estimates have been based upon this recommendation. The dividing line between two- and four-lane pavements has been taken at an average traffic of 1,500 vehicles per day in 1960. It is unwise to recommend for general use a capacity limit for four-lane highways in terms of total traffic since it is felt that local conditions producing traffic volumes sufficient to justify more than four lanes will be so individual in their characteristics that each case will require special study. Serious congestion on four-lane pavements would occur only in proximity to large cities, where in the periods of heavy volume, the traffic is not evenly divided between the two directions. Accordingly, the volume justifying an increase in width beyond four lanes is based on the traffic in one direction only, rather than on the total in both directions.
Figures show that the same freedom of movement possible on a two-lane road with a total hourly volume of 400 vehicles will be found on a four-lane divided highway with an hourly volume of 2,600 vehicles, or 1,300 vehicles in each direction. Using the ratio between the maximum hourly volume and the average daily volume throughout the year found on two-lane roads, 1,300 vehicles per hour represent a daily average of 5,000 vehicles in each direction. Typical heavily traveled roads show that in periods of heavy volume, the volume in one direction is seldom more than double that in the other. Therefore, an average of 7,500 vehicles per day in both directions is considered a conservative figure for the capacity of a four-lane divided highway without inconvenience at any time. This figure is offered only as a rough indication, and should not be used where it is possible to study and analyze traffic characteristics. Traffic volumes far higher than 7,500 vehicles per day may be accomodated on four-lane surfaces with slight inconvenience at certain times, but still at relatively high average speeds. The 1,300 vehicles per hour in each direction could travel at an average speed of 45 miles per hour, but the traffic may be increased to 3,400 vehicles per hour in each direction with an average speed of 40 miles per hour. Each of these figures represents an average speed, and with the distribution of speeds normally encountered, some vehicles must travel at 60 miles per hour or faster to offset those which travel under 40 miles per hour even in light volumes. CHARACTER OF THE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS SELECTED
In accordance with criteria and standards previously established the selected routes were approximately fixed by detailed location on large-scale maps, chiefly county maps, prepared in connection with the State highway planning surveys. A typical section of one of these maps is shown in plate 27. The lines were located either by Bureau of Public Roads engineers resident in the several States or by engineers of the State highway departments, or both, working together. In all cases the locating engineers were intimately familiar with the areas in which they worked.
Wherever necessary a field reconnaissance was made. It is thus reasonably assured that the approximate locations chosen are practicable of development and conform closely to the criteria adopted. The field inspections also permitted a better judgment to be formed of the quantities of the various construction items that should be accounted for in the estimates of cost.
The alinements chosen extend as directly as possible from one major source of traffic to another, deviating from such direct lines to serve minor sources of traffic only where it has been estimated that the resulting increase of traffic would be substantial. Sources of traffic, in general, consist of cities and towns, intersecting highways, and points of travel interest, such as national parks, resorts, etc.
In all but two sections, totaling 94.2 miles, the detailed locations have been made entirely on new lines apart from existing roads. One of the excepted sections, 51.9 miles in length, lies along the Columbia River in Oregon; the other, 42.3 miles long, crosses the Sierra Madre Range north of Los Angeles, Calif. In these sections the alinement chosen coincides with that of existing highways because no other topographically feasible line could be found.
The chosen approximate locations bypass cities and towns, but pass sufficiently close to them, wherever possible, to attract their traffic. In detail, the locations are such that (1) control of access may be readily obtained wherever possible; (2) obstruction to the outward development of cities and interference with communication across the selected route are avoided to the greatest extent possible; (3) the cost of grade separation structures is reduced to the feasible minimum; and (4) a maximum feasible benefit of low land values is gained.
STANDARDS OF DESIGN ADOPTED
RIGHTS-OF-WAY
In general, the design provides a right-of-way width of 300 feet in rural areas and 160 feet in suburban areas. These are in the nature of minimum widths. In rural areas it is expected that they may be exceeded where (1) land values are very low; (2) it may be less expensive to acquire extra land to avoid the cost of constructing grade-separation structures for roads to connect private property divided by the road; or (3) where additional land is needed for some special construction or border control. In suburban areas the minimum width may be exceeded where (1) the additional land is required to allow for expected future growth or to insure effective control of the road; (2) it may be economically feasible to purchase parcels of real estate in their entirety instead of paying damages for areas left isolated by the construction of the road; or (3) it may be less expensive to acquire additional land and so to avoid costly construction, such as retaining walls. In rare instances it may be advisable to restrict the right-of-way to less than the minimum widths mentioned to avoid the purchase of very expensive or important land or buildings, even though the result may be an apparently excessive construction cost; but in no case should this be done at a sacrifice of the minimum standards of design.
CURVATURE AND GRADES
It was the purpose to design the selected routes for use at a normal maximum speed of 70 miles per hour. Consistent with this purpose, the normal standards of curvature and gradient were set at maxima of 3° for curves and 3 percent for grades. Jn applying these standards, however, it was necessary to make some concession to topography to avoid costs clearly exceeding the benefits to be gained by adherence. In rugged mountainous terrain an effort was made to keep within maxima of 4° curvature and 4-percent gradient, and this was found possible at reasonable cost except on four sections having and aggregate length of 153.8 miles. For these four sections alternate locations were made, one conforming to the 4° curvature and 4-percent grade requirement, and one permitting curves of 6° and grades of 6 percent.
The estimated cost of constructing the 153.8 miles to the lower standard is $26,107,000. Built to the higher standard these lines would aggregate 172.4 miles in length and their cost would be $42,124,600. It is concluded that the advantage to be gained by building to the higher standard would not justify the additional 18.6 miles of travel and the increased construction cost of $16,017,600.
The sections involved and the estimated lengths and costs of each are as follows:
| Section | 6°—6-percent standard | 4°—4-percent standard | |||
| Length | Estimated cost |
Length | Estimated cost | ||
| Miles | Miles | ||||
Castaic Junction, Calif., to Wheeler Ridge, Calif. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
50.6 | $12,798,564 | 55.9 | $26,409,860 | |
Wells, Nev., to Nevada–Utah State line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
58.3 | 4,819,140 | 64.4 | 5,285,090 | |
In Sierra County, Calif. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
14.7 | 3,098,980 | 16.0 | 3,577,380 | |
In Nevada County, Calif. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
30.2 | 5,390,310 | 36.1 | 6,852,270 | |
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
153.8 | 26,106,994 | 172.4 | 42,124,600 | |
Considerations of safety require that the length of road ahead visible to drivers of vehicles be at all points at least as great as the distance required to stop a vehicle moving at the assumed design speed, allowing 2 seconds for perception and brake reaction and a braking distance based upon a uniform coefficient of friction of 0.4. The distance thus required is 614 feet. Three-degree curvature in unwidened cuts allows a minimum sight distance of 690 feet; 4° curvature under similar circumstances provides a minimum sight distance of 590 feet. The higher of these standards, therefore, would conform to the requirements of safety corresponding to the assumed design speed of 70 miles per hour, the lower would be only slightly deficient; but 6° curvature under similar conditions would provide seriously insufficient sight distance for safety of operation. On the 153.8 miles located to the latter standard it might be necessary in places either to widen cuts where they occur on the sharper curves or indicate the necessity for caution by warning signs.
Modern passenger cars in good condition are capable of maintaining relatively high speeds on 3- and 4-percent grades and even on grades of 6 percent. Motortrucks, as at present designed, are incapable of such performance. Tests by the Bureau of Public Roads indicate that the larger vehicles now in general use, when loaded in accordance with the manufacturer’s gross-weight rating, cannot be expected to climb 4-percent grades at a speed greater than 25 miles per hour. On 3-percent grades a speed of 30 miles per hour is the maximum that may be expected under the same conditions. With vehicles loaded 50 percent over the manufacturer’s rating—a practice that is not uncommon—the corresponding maximum speeds for 4- and 3-percent grades are 16 and 22 miles per hour respectively. Under either condition of loading a 6-percent grade slows the larger modern trucks to a crawling speed.
On grades of steepness approaching either the 3- or 4-percent standards and, of course, on the exceptional 6-percent grades, ample provision is required to permit the passing of trucks by passenger cars.
On 2-lane roads the sight distance, wherever possible, should be sufficient to permit passing of the slower vehicles when the visible length of road is clear of opposing traffic, even if opposing traffic appears after the operation of passing is begun. Where such a sight distance cannot feasibly be obtained signs must be placed to prohibit passing. Such limited sections should be permitted only as exceptions, and in no case should their continuous length exceed about 2 miles.
PAVEMENTS AND THEIR FOUNDATIONS
For roads of the character of those proposed only high-type pavements are appropriate. The pavement thickness should be designed in each section to be consistent with the wheel loads to be expected. A smooth-riding surface, as nonskid and glareproof as possible, should result. Subbases should be used wherever required; and, both for pavements and subbases, good local materials should preferably be used, if available.
Material encountered in foundations should be analyzed, and, if found to be unstable, should be replaced or improved by stabilization, using cementing admixtures as required. To the extent possible measures should be taken to insure a uniform moisture content of the subgrade.
CROSS SECTIONS
Typical cross sections are shown in plate 28. As indicated, all traffic lanes of the proposed roads would be 12 feet wide. On two-lane roads these lanes are shown as separated by a traversable dividing strip 2 feet wide. This is believed to be a desirable feature; in fact a more positive division between the lanes of opposing traffic would be desirable, but on two-lane roads is impossible because of the necessity of using the opposing traffic lane as a passing lane. For this reason the narrow dividing strip provided should be built as a traversable surface, flush with the surface of the traffic lanes, but contrasting with them in color and texture, so that drivers will be warned both visually and physically when they cross it or encroach upon it.[1]
Where the expected traffic volume justifies the construction of more than two traffic lanes, four lanes built in pairs, the pairs separated by a parkway strip at least 20 feet wide in suburban areas and 40 feet wide in rural areas, would be provided. These widths of medial parkway strips are ample and may, in exceptional cases, be reduced, since the separation of grades at intersections obviates need of the parkway for protection of crossing vehicles. Sections of the selected routes on which two- and four-lane pavements would be required are shown on plate 29.
Each two-lane pavement would be designed to drain to both sides and drainage would be provided in the medial parkway strip. This design is particularly advantageous in sections subject to snow. The parkway is a convenient area on which to store the snow which, when melted, runs off into the central drain instead of flowing across the pavements to create a serious hazard in case of sudden freezing.
Shoulders would be invariably 10 feet wide to provide adequate space for stopping off the pavement. In construction they would be sufficiently strong to support the weight of vehicles in all weather.
Slopes of cuts and fills would be designed to prevent erosion. Where feasible, fills would be made to a slope of 1 on 4 or flatter to avoid the use of guardrails and in no case, except perhaps in some mountain locations, would their slope be steeper than 1 on 2. Cut slopes would be varied according to the character of the materials encountered and the depth of cut. All cut slopes would be liberally rounded for both stability and appearance; and no hazardous breaks, such as deep ditches, would be permitted. At ends of cuts and fills, slopes would be made progressively flatter so that they would gradually merge with the ground and with each other.
Low curbs, with flat slopes readily mounted in emergencies, would be used in park areas and on the inside of curves where necessary to control drainage and reduce the maintenance of shoulders or medial parkway strips. Curbs of this character would be contiguous with the pavement proper. Curbs intended to prevent vehicles from leaving the pavement, as at walls and bridges, would be of the barrier type, set at least 2 feet from the edge of pavement. All curbs should be highly visible day and night.
- ↑ The cost of such dividing strips is not included in the subsequently tabulated estimates.
The grade of the toll road, wherever possible, would be laid above the general level of the surrounding land. Where divided roads are located on slopes, the two sides would be placed at different levels in the interest of economy of construction, additional safety through the reduction of headlight glare, and a more pleasing appearance.
INTERSECTIONS
On the roads as planned there would be no intersections at grade. At no point would a driver encounter another vehicle. crossing his path; and at no point, except at the especially designed accesses, would he encounter another vehicle entering the roadway. Railroad grade crossings would be avoided generally by carrying the highway overhead. In fewer instances the highway would pass beneath the railroad.
All intersecting highways of importance would be carried over or under the proposed roads. Cross roads serving light traffic would be closed and their traffic diverted via existing roads, or roads constructed for the purpose, to the nearest grade-separated intersection. The same considerations would govern in respect to the treatment of intersecting streets in suburban areas. Traffic on unimportant intersecting streets is frequently much greater than on the lesser roads in rural areas. For this reason grade-separation structures would probably be much closer. The construction of parallel streets would not only serve rerouted traffic from unimportant streets but also serve adjacent property cut off by the construction of the proposed road. A typical 4-lane highway in an urban area is shown in plate 30.
At all points where the selected routes intersect, the design would be such that traffic, regardless of direction, would be able to proceed or turn without crossing traffic on either road. All traffic would leave or enter at the right on suitable acceleration and deceleration lanes. The full clover-leaf type of grade-separation structure meets all conditions and requires but one structure. It is more confusing to the driver, however, than some “braided” types of intersection which may require more than one separation structure but which result in more direct access roads.
PRIVATE PROPERTY CROSSINGS AND CATTLE PASSES
BRIDGES AND OTHER STRUCTURES
Culverts, bridges over streams, railroad and highway separation structures, and all other structures such as retaining walls would be constructed so that vehicles will have adequate clearance and drivers will feel no sense of restriction at any point.
Structures carrying the traffic of the proposed roads would be designed in all respects except their clearances, in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges of the American Association of State Highway Officials. The live loading would be H-20. Structures carrying intersecting roads would be designed in accordance with the standard practice of the agency in control of the intersecting road but in no case for a live loading less than H-15.
The vertical clearance provided at undercrossings would be at least 14 feet within the limits of the pavement; and horizontal clearances would be such that the shoulders would be carried through the structure opening without reduction in width. Medial parkway strips would not be narrowed and one pier only would be permitted in the middle of them. Future sidewalks, if required, would be carried through in the shoulder area.
When the proposed roads are carried on structures of moderate length (up to about 100 feet) the width of the medial strip would not be reduced and the normal shoulder area would be used for sidewalks. For bridges over 100 feet long the medial strip might be narrowed but in no case to less than 6 feet between curbs. All curbs on bridges would be 2 feet outside the normal edge of the pavement so that the minimum medial distance between normal inside edges of pavements on divided roads would be at least 10 feet. Changes in width of medial strip would be accomplished by gradual transition to avoid all sense of forced alinement.
Substantial bridge railings would be located at the pavement curbs. Sidewalks would be located between the curb and pedestrian railings at the sides of the bridge.
Where it is necessary to omit shoulders, as at high retaining walls, barrier curbs would be placed 2 feet outside the normal edge of pavement and the nearest face of the retaining wall would be at least 2 feet from the face of the curb.
Guardrails, where required, would be placed clear of the normal shoulder and carried continuously past all culverts. The width of embankment would be increased to accommodate the rail. Railings would be extended well beyond the ends of fills to overlap adjacent cuts or shallow sloping fills.
ACCESS POINTS AND TOLL FACILITIES
Access drives would lead by easy grades and curves past the toll booths which would be visible from the toll road and the intersecting road. Ample storage space for entering vehicles would be provided approaching the toll booths.
A typical grade separation, access roads, and toll booths for a twolane toll road are shown in plate 32. Traffic on the toll road should be prevented from making left turns. Two access drives and two toll booths, therefore, would be provided regardless of traffic density. To prevent all possible conflicts of turning traffic the toll road would have to be designed as a four-lane divided road at the intersection. A less complete facility, but one which might suffice on the more lightly traveled roads, would be provided by widening the two-lane road to three lanes, as shown in plate 32. The middle lane, in this case, should contrast in color and surface texture with the outside traffic lanes and generally would be used only by through traffic to pass vehicles slowing down to leave the toll road or vehicles just entering the toll road. Acceleration and deceleration lanes, therefore, would not be necessary with this type of facility.
As toll collection constitutes an appreciable operating expense, study was made of the possibility of utilizing only one toll booth at each access and providing traffic circulation so that all crossing of traffic would be avoided. The result is shown in plate 33. On a conservative basis it was estimated that the annual cost of operation of a second toll booth would be less than the excess of the annual interest and amortization charges on the cost of the extra grade separation structure and other additional construction over the relatively simple arrangement of two accesses. This is particularly marked for two-lane roads where the cost of constructing an appreciable length of four-lane divided road as against a three-lane road must be added to the extra cost.
At intersections with important existing highways on which the making of left turns is hazardous, four access roads or a full cloverleaf type of grade separation with four toll booths should be provided.
LIGHTING
The proposed roads would be lighted to the extent justified. Lighting is considered to be necessary in tunnels, on long bridges, and access drives and in suburban areas where lighting of adjacent streets would confuse drivers if similar lighting were not provided on the road. While fixed sources of light are generally to be preferred, other methods of outlining the road at night, such as the use of reflectors, may be considered as supplements and possibly as a substitute for fixed-source lighting.
SIGNS
Because of the relatively high speeds expected on the proposed roads some variation from the standards recommended by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices of the Joint Committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials and the Conference on Street and Highway Safety would be required in the design, erection, and location of signs. Generally the signs would be much larger than those recommended in the manual so that they could be read at greater distances; and those intended to give notice of the approach to access points would be erected in multiple so that drivers would be informed repeatedly of the facility ahead some time before reaching it. The character of the road should obviate the necessity for a multiplicity of warning signs. All signs would be lighted or of the reflecting type so as to be easily readable at night.
LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT
The roadside and slopes would be protected against erosion largely by the use of flat and rounded slopes. Additional protection would be given by topsoiling and seeding to produce vegetative cover suited to location, soil, and climate.
The roadsides would be planted under the supervision of landscape architects with the general objective of giving a pleasing appearance and making the new construction fit into the surrounding landscape.
Only native trees and shrubs that require little or no maintenance would be planted. They would be arranged naturally in groups at some distance from the pavement so as not to present secondary hazards to cars out of control.
The desirability of providing roadside parks, picnic areas, and other facilities inviting drivers to stop and rest must be determined by future policy. Facilities that would invite short-trip traffic and make the long trips more pleasant would build up public good will and might add appreciably to the revenues collected.
FENCING AND PROTECTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
Protection from encroachment is necessary on a toll road. Both sides of the road would have to be fenced except where steep slopes, dense forests, canyons or other natural conditions give the needed protection. The type of fence required will depend upon local conditions.
DETAIL OF ROUTES DIAGRAMMED THROUGHOUT
The standards of design described in the foregoing pages have been applied in detail to the approximate route locations as fixed on the large-scale maps, and all design decisions necessary for an estimate of cost have been made in great detail. Such decisions have been recorded in tables for the entire mileage of the selected routes. Straight-line diagrams of the tabulated data for portions of the mileage, representative of various sections of the country, are shown in plates 34 to 45.
On each of these diagrams the section of the selected routes covered is represented by a central line or lines. A single line indicates that the pavement designed for the particular section is two lanes wide; double lines indicate sections that would be constructed with divided four-lane pavements. Scaled distances along the central line or lines represent the lengths of continuous sections of each width of pavement; and at properly scaled intervals the positions of all cross roads, intersecting railroads, rivers, State and county lines, and other significant features of the locations as fixed are symbolically indicated. 
Wherever bridges or trestles over rivers and streams would be required on the route locations as projected they are shown on these diagrams. At intersections of the projected lines with all other roads and railroads the diagrams indicate the probable manner in which the grades at the intersection would be separated, whether by underpass or overpass.
The estimated 1937 traffic on all cross roads at their points of intersection with the projected route locations is shown by the length, to an indicated traffic scale, of short vertical bars appropriately positioned above the points at which the corresponding cross roads intersect the projected line. Consistent with the indications of this traffic scale, numerous lightly traveled cross roads are shown as scheduled for closing if the projected road is built, their traffic to be diverted to nearby crossings.
Finally, the straight-line diagrams and the tabulated information on which they are based show the location of all proposed access points on the routes as located, and their relation to cities and towns and important intersecting roads.
Coupled with the large-scale maps showing the approximate geographic position and courses of the routes, the diagrammed and tabulated decisions with respect to the design of the roads serve as the basis for the estimated cost of the proposed facilities.
ESTIMATED COSTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCTION
The estimates of right-of-way and construction costs were made and compiled in the several district offices of the Bureau of Public Roads in accordance with uniform basic decisions laid down by the Chief of Bureau. All unit costs and construction quantities used were based on intimate knowledge of all local conditions and the current prices paid for the various items of work.
Right-of-way.—Right-of-way, exclusive of accesses, was assumed to consist of 36 acres per mile for rural areas and a minimum of 19 acres per mile for urban areas. These values are based on widths of 300 feet and 160 feet, respectively. For each access point, from 3 to 10 acres were added for two-lane construction and from 10 to 15 acres were added for four-lane construction. Property damage, if any, was estimated and added as a lump sum between control points. Right-of-way and property damage varied from a minimum of $5 per acre to $50,000 per acre.
Where it was necessary to relocate existing highways or construct new service roads between control points so that traffic on closed cross roads could be rerouted to nearby separated crossings or to restore service on public roads occupied by the new construction, estimates were made of the mileage involved and the costs per mile.
Grading. Estimates of grading quantities were based upon a uniform schedule of earthwork volumes per mile corresponding to five general types of topography, from which an appropriate selection was made for each varying section of the located lines. The schedule referred to follows:
| Symbol | Type of topography | Earthwork quantities per mile of selected route | ||
| For sections with 2-lane pavements |
For sections with 4-lane pavements and 20- foot central parkway |
For sections with 4-lane pavements and 40- foot central parkway | ||
| Cubic yards | Cubic yards | Cubic yards | ||
| RL | Relatively level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
30,000 | 50,000 | 60,000 |
| GR | Gently rolling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
50,000 | 90,000 | 100,000 |
| HR | Heavy rolling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
100,000 | 180,000 | 200,000 |
| LM | Light mountainous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
200,000 | 350,000 | |
| HM | Heavy mountainous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
350,000 | 500,000 | |
These quantities were understood to represent averages per mile and were not construed as applying to short sections of the most rugged topography. Quantities intermediate between the tabulated values were used where conditions warranted. The estimated unit cost of grading varied from $0.15 to $1 per cubic yard, the average being about $0.32 per cubic yard.
Retaining walls.—Where retaining walls were recommended, as in heavy mountainous areas, estimated quantities were determined between control points. Consideration was given to the use of viaducts in lieu of high fills and grading quantities were appropriately modified.
Drainage structures.—Costs of drainage structures up to 20-foot spans were determined at an estimated cost per mile between given control points.
Surfacing.—High-type surfaces of a thickness consistent with anticipated traffic requirements were estimated on the basis of 14,100 square yards per mile for two-lane sections and 28,200 square yards per mile for four-lane sections. ‘The unit costs varied from $0.65 to $3.30 per square yard, depending upon the type of surfacing used.
Miscellaneous.—Areas of clearing and grubbing were estimated to vary from about 8 acres per mile for two-lane sections to about 25 acres per mile for four-lane sections.
Curbs, where required to control drainage, were placed 2 feet outside the normal road surfacing and the estimated cost per mile included the cost of the extra 2 feet of pavement.
Guard railing was estimated where slopes as steep as 1 on 2 were required.
Large reflecting signs were provided in repetition approaching all accesses. A maximum amount of $1,000 per mile of highway regardless of width was allowed for this item. Fencing, on both sides of the highway, was estimated at an average of $3,000 per mile.
Topsoiling, seeding, and planting costs depend to a considerable degree on topography and climate. Allowances were made for this item in the amounts of $5,000 to $8,000 per mile in suburban areas, and $3,000 to $6,000 per mile in rural areas.
Bridges, viaducts, tunnels, and accesses.—The width of bridges was defined as the perpendicular distance face to face of the bridge; the length as the distance face to face of the abutments measured parallel to the centerline of the road. An undercrossing was defined as one at which the selected route would pass under, and an overcrossing as one at which the selected route would pass over, the intersecting road. On the above bases of length and width, estimates were made for the following classes of structures at the costs assigned to each:
For stream bridges, less than 100 feet in length, $10 per square foot. For long stream bridges the estimates varied in accordance with conditions found at the sites. Costs ranged from $6.50 to $28.50 per square foot.
For bridges over railroads $15 per square foot plus $10,000 and for railroad bridges $20 per square foot plus $10,000.
For highway separation bridges in rural areas $15 per square foot plus $10,000, and in urban areas $17 per square foot plus $16,000.
Cattle passes, or equivalent land purchases, were estimated at about $8,000 for each two-lane and $15,000 for each four-lane highway crossing.
Costs of tunnels were estimated individually in accordance with the geological formation encountered.
Three general types of accesses were estimated at the following lump sums:
(A) Accesses to two-lane roads widened to three lanes at the intersection, with two toll booths, at a lump sum of $70,000 for each point of access. This lump sum included:
Grading, paving, and appurtenances of the accesses.
Widening to a three-lane highway for about 2,000 feet.
Transitions for the approaches to the widened portion.
Additional width of grade-separation structure.
(B) Accesses to two-lane roads widened to four lanes divided at the intersection, with two toll booths, at a lump sum of $240,000 for each point of access. The items involved are the same as for type A except that the item of widening involves a four-lane divided highway for about 3,700 feet.
(C) Accesses to four-lane roads, with two or more toll booths, at a lump sum of $50,000 for each point of access. The items involved are the same as for type A except those due to the widening of the selected route.
Type A was used for all two-lane sections except those which are expected to carry near-capacity traffic, where widening to a four-lane divided highway may reasonably be expected in a comparatively short time, in which case type B was used.
The field form used for estimating costs is illustrated by the typical sheets shown in plates 46 and 47. Estimates prepared on these forms were summarized by access points, by counties, by sections, and by routes.
The total cost for right-of-way and construction of the 14,336.2 miles of the selected routes, as estimated in the manner above described, including 10 percent for engineering, contingencies, and interest during construction, is $2,899,770,145, which is at the average rate of $202,270 per mile. The average costs estimated vary from a maximum of $1,158,412 per mile for the 65.6-mile section from Jersey City, N. J., to New Haven, Conn., to a minimum of $63,450 per mile for the 119.7-mile section from Rupert, Idaho, to Brigham, Utah.
Table 4 gives a summary of the physical features involved and the estimated costs by routes.
Tables 5 to 15 show a distribution of construction costs by items for the system and for each route, subdivided by States.
| Route No. | Route | Length in miles | Number of roads closed |
Number of under passes |
Number of over passes |
Number of railroad under passes |
Number of railroad over passes |
Number of bridges |
Number of tunnels |
Number of accesses |
Total construction cost by routes | ||
| Total | 2-lane pavement |
4-lane pavement | |||||||||||
| 1 | Miami, Fla., to Madawaska, Maine | 1,856.2 | 1,151.5 | 704.7 | 554 | 288 | 600 | 15 | 139 | 360 | 144 | $464,886,080 | |
| 2 | Seattle, Wash., to Boston, Mass. | 2,978.8 | 2,007.6 | 971.2 | 1,272 | 378 | 697 | 29 | 167 | 383 | 2 | 145 | 548,053,850 |
| 3 | Laredo, Tex., to Chicago, Ill. | 1,258.2 | 1,173.9 | 84.3 | 676 | 70 | 327 | 6 | 81 | 255 | 4 | 44 | 223,176,151 |
| 3 Mich. | Angola, Ind., to Port Huron, Mich. | 174.7 | 54.7 | 120.0 | 123 | 12 | 100 | 3 | 13 | 37 | 16 | 48,363,666 | |
| 4 | Oakland, Calif., to Philadelphia, Pa. | 2,816.8 | 2,373.1 | 443.7 | 1,148 | 232 | 442 | 19 | 148 | 496 | 11 | 105 | 466,339,733 |
| 4-A | Capital Branch | 88.5 | 88.5 | 52 | 9 | 26 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 7 | 13,087,200 | ||
| 4 S | Whitewater, Calif., to Salt Lake City, Utah | 593.6 | 593.6 | 60 | 10 | 37 | 2 | 13 | 259 | 12 | 58,039,418 | ||
| 4 N | Portland, Oreg., to Salt Lake City, Utah | 770.7 | 770.7 | 183 | 40 | 72 | 2 | 22 | 93 | 1 | 31 | 104,810,492 | |
| 5 | San Ysidro, Calif., to Blaine, Wash. | 1,406.4 | 604,0 | 802.4 | 377 | 253 | 275 | 6 | 64 | 333 | 8 | 84 | 371,527,504 |
| 6 | Los Angeles, Calif., to Charleston, S.C. | 2,392.3 | 2,172.7 | 219.6 | 753 | 139 | 382 | 1 | 101 | 683 | 1 | 80 | 337,870,583 |
| Total | 14,336.2 | 10,996.3 | 3,345.9 | 5,198 | 1,431 | 2,958 | 84 | 752 | 2,911 | 27 | 668 | 2,636,154,677 | |
| Route No. | Right- of-way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrails | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| 1 | $39,301,135 | $75,698,021 | $16,747,530 | $91,773,392 | $3,003,165 | $1,798,035 | $2,663,385 | $1,882,900 | $5,427,750 | $7,799,480 | $209,731,287 | $9,060,00 | $464,886,080 | |
| 2 | 43,875,413 | 113,092,140 | 29,979,265 | 131,954,429 | 3,928,303 | 1,628,970 | 4,082,810 | 2,379,300 | 8,931,000 | 12,088,000 | 179,602,220 | $7,572,000 | 8,940,000 | 548,053,850 |
| 3 | 13,588,986 | 37,850,560 | 11,522,130 | 45,498,033 | 3,439,182 | 1,638,259 | 1,233,270 | 1,255,210 | 3,765,430 | 5,691,720 | 95,040,371 | 1,003,000 | 3,650,000 | 223,176,151 |
| 3 Mich. | 5,541,355 | 9,007,485 | 3,720,450 | 8,400,356 | 165,625 | 929,550 | 401,830 | 174,290 | 523,370 | 739,590 | 17,124,735 | 1,635,000 | 48.363,666 | |
| 4 | 32,113,959 | 104,202,015 | 23,823,660 | 106,102,994 | 2,563,400 | 1,186,600 | 4,594,570 | 2,630,025 | 8,448,375 | 9,872,585 | 142,360,050 | 19,931,500 | 8,510,000 | 466,339,733 |
| 4-A | 1,497,000 | 3,382,500 | 942,250 | 3,277,000 | 64,350 | 27,000 | 96,500 | 89,100 | 264,900 | 357,100 | 2,639,500 | 450,000 | 13,087,200 | |
| 4 S | 1,234,520 | 27,117,175 | 2,936,300 | 10,232,123 | 113,980 | 743,080 | 528,300 | 1,780,800 | 1,211,000 | 11,302,140 | 840,000 | 58,039,418 | ||
| 4 N | 11,211,930 | 24,328,130 | 1,808,730 | 21,251,381 | 633,180 | 903,100 | 777,500 | 2,303,700 | 2,854,200 | 33,131,841 | 316,800 | 2,290,000 | 104,810,492 | |
| 5 | 33,980,230 | 76,131,450 | 11,850,350 | 72,442,440 | 3,398,750 | 506,000 | 1,844,425 | 1,390,300 | 4,167,150 | 6,415,500 | 147,486,409 | 6,149,500 | 5,765,000 | 371,527,504 |
| 6 | 14,442,990 | 65,182,807 | 11,381,360 | 70,504,607 | 2,400,384 | 1,443,979 | 1,848,900 | 2,255,330 | 6,882,910 | 9,627,480 | 146,424,836 | 5,475,000 | 337,870,583 | |
| Total | 196,787,518 | 535,992,283 | 114,712,025 | 564,436,785 | 17,710,319 | 9,158,393 | 18,411,870 | 13,362,255 | 42,495,385 | 56,656,655 | 984,843,389 | 34,972,800 | 46,615,000 | [1]2,636,154,677 |
- ↑ Plus 10 percent for engineering, contingencies, and interests during construction, $263,615,468; grand total $2,899,770,145.
Wherever bridges or trestles over rivers and streams would be required on the route locations as projected they are shown on these diagrams. At intersections of the projected lines with all other roads and railroads the diagrams indicate the probable manner in which the grades at the intersection would be separated, whether by underpass or overpass.
The estimated 1937 traffic on all cross roads at their points of intersection with the projected route locations is shown by the length, to an indicated traffic scale, of short vertical bars appropriately positioned above the points at which the corresponding cross roads intersect the projected line. Consistent with the indications of this traffic scale, numerous lightly traveled cross roads are shown as scheduled for closing if the projected road is built, their traffic to be diverted to nearby crossings.
Finally, the straight-line diagrams and the tabulated information on which they are based show the location of all proposed access points on the routes as located, and their relation to cities and towns and important intersecting roads.
Coupled with the large-scale maps showing the approximate geographic position and courses of the routes, the diagrammed and tabulated decisions with respect to the design of the roads serve as the basis for the estimated cost of the proposed facilities.
ESTIMATED COSTS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCTION
The estimates of right-of-way and construction costs were made and compiled in the several district offices of the Bureau of Public Roads in accordance with uniform basic decisions laid down by the Chief of Bureau. All unit costs and construction quantities used were based on intimate knowledge of all local conditions and the current prices paid for the various items of work.
Right-of-way.—Right-of-way, exclusive of accesses, was assumed to consist of 36 acres per mile for rural areas and a minimum of 19 acres per mile for urban areas. These values are based on widths of 300 feet and 160 feet, respectively. For each access point, from 3 to 10 acres were added for two-lane construction and from 10 to 15 acres were added for four-lane construction. Property damage, if any, was estimated and added as a lump sum between control points. Right-of-way and property damage varied from a minimum of $5 per acre to $50,000 per acre.
Where it was necessary to relocate existing highways or construct new service roads between control points so that traffic on closed cross roads could be rerouted to nearby separated crossings or to restore service on public roads occupied by the new construction, estimates were made of the mileage involved and the costs per mile.
Grading. Estimates of grading quantities were based upon a uniform schedule of earthwork volumes per mile corresponding to five general types of topography, from which an appropriate selection was made for each varying section of the located lines. The schedule referred to follows:
| Symbol | Type of topography | Earthwork quantities per mile of selected route | ||
| For sections with 2-lane pavements |
For sections with 4-lane pavements and 20- foot central parkway |
For sections with 4-lane pavements and 40- foot central parkway | ||
| Cubic yards | Cubic yards | Cubic yards | ||
| RL | Relatively level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
30,000 | 50,000 | 60,000 |
| GR | Gently rolling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
50,000 | 90,000 | 100,000 |
| HR | Heavy rolling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
100,000 | 180,000 | 200,000 |
| LM | Light mountainous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
200,000 | 350,000 | |
| HM | Heavy mountainous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
350,000 | 500,000 | |
These quantities were understood to represent averages per mile and were not construed as applying to short sections of the most rugged topography. Quantities intermediate between the tabulated values were used where conditions warranted. The estimated unit cost of grading varied from $0.15 to $1 per cubic yard, the average being about $0.32 per cubic yard.
Retaining walls.—Where retaining walls were recommended, as in heavy mountainous areas, estimated quantities were determined between control points. Consideration was given to the use of viaducts in lieu of high fills and grading quantities were appropriately modified.
Drainage structures.—Costs of drainage structures up to 20-foot spans were determined at an estimated cost per mile between given control points.
Surfacing.—High-type surfaces of a thickness consistent with anticipated traffic requirements were estimated on the basis of 14,100 square yards per mile for two-lane sections and 28,200 square yards per mile for four-lane sections. ‘The unit costs varied from $0.65 to $3.30 per square yard, depending upon the type of surfacing used.
Miscellaneous.—Areas of clearing and grubbing were estimated to vary from about 8 acres per mile for two-lane sections to about 25 acres per mile for four-lane sections.
Curbs, where required to control drainage, were placed 2 feet outside the normal road surfacing and the estimated cost per mile included the cost of the extra 2 feet of pavement.
Guard railing was estimated where slopes as steep as 1 on 2 were required.
Large reflecting signs were provided in repetition approaching all accesses. A maximum amount of $1,000 per mile of highway regardless of width was allowed for this item. Fencing, on both sides of the highway, was estimated at an average of $3,000 per mile.
Topsoiling, seeding, and planting costs depend to a considerable degree on topography and climate. Allowances were made for this item in the amounts of $5,000 to $8,000 per mile in suburban areas, and $3,000 to $6,000 per mile in rural areas.
Bridges, viaducts, tunnels, and accesses.—The width of bridges was defined as the perpendicular distance face to face of the bridge; the length as the distance face to face of the abutments measured parallel to the centerline of the road. An undercrossing was defined as one at which the selected route would pass under, and an overcrossing as one at which the selected route would pass over, the intersecting road. On the above bases of length and width, estimates were made for the following classes of structures at the costs assigned to each:
For stream bridges, less than 100 feet in length, $10 per square foot. For long stream bridges the estimates varied in accordance with conditions found at the sites. Costs ranged from $6.50 to $28.50 per square foot.
For bridges over railroads $15 per square foot plus $10,000 and for railroad bridges $20 per square foot plus $10,000.
For highway separation bridges in rural areas $15 per square foot plus $10,000, and in urban areas $17 per square foot plus $16,000.
Cattle passes, or equivalent land purchases, were estimated at about $8,000 for each two-lane and $15,000 for each four-lane highway crossing.
Costs of tunnels were estimated individually in accordance with the geological formation encountered.
Three general types of accesses were estimated at the following lump sums:
(A) Accesses to two-lane roads widened to three lanes at the intersection, with two toll booths, at a lump sum of $70,000 for each point of access. This lump sum included:
Grading, paving, and appurtenances of the accesses.
Widening to a three-lane highway for about 2,000 feet.
Transitions for the approaches to the widened portion.
Additional width of grade-separation structure.
(B) Accesses to two-lane roads widened to four lanes divided at the intersection, with two toll booths, at a lump sum of $240,000 for each point of access. The items involved are the same as for type A except that the item of widening involves a four-lane divided highway for about 3,700 feet.
(C) Accesses to four-lane roads, with two or more toll booths, at a lump sum of $50,000 for each point of access. The items involved are the same as for type A except those due to the widening of the selected route.
Type A was used for all two-lane sections except those which are expected to carry near-capacity traffic, where widening to a four-lane divided highway may reasonably be expected in a comparatively short time, in which case type B was used.
The field form used for estimating costs is illustrated by the typical sheets shown in plates 46 and 47. Estimates prepared on these forms were summarized by access points, by counties, by sections, and by routes.
The total cost for right-of-way and construction of the 14,336.2 miles of the selected routes, as estimated in the manner above described, including 10 percent for engineering, contingencies, and interest during construction, is $2,899,770,145, which is at the average rate of $202,270 per mile. The average costs estimated vary from a maximum of $1,158,412 per mile for the 65.6-mile section from Jersey City, N. J., to New Haven, Conn., to a minimum of $63,450 per mile for the 119.7-mile section from Rupert, Idaho, to Brigham, Utah.
Table 4 gives a summary of the physical features involved and the estimated costs by routes.
Tables 5 to 15 show a distribution of construction costs by items for the system and for each route, subdivided by States.
| Route No. | Route | Length in miles | Number of roads closed |
Number of under passes |
Number of over passes |
Number of railroad under passes |
Number of railroad over passes |
Number of bridges |
Number of tunnels |
Number of accesses |
Total construction cost by routes | ||
| Total | 2-lane pavement |
4-lane pavement | |||||||||||
| 1 | Miami, Fla., to Madawaska, Maine | 1,856.2 | 1,151.5 | 704.7 | 554 | 288 | 600 | 15 | 139 | 360 | 144 | $464,886,080 | |
| 2 | Seattle, Wash., to Boston, Mass. | 2,978.8 | 2,007.6 | 971.2 | 1,272 | 378 | 697 | 29 | 167 | 383 | 2 | 145 | 548,053,850 |
| 3 | Laredo, Tex., to Chicago, Ill. | 1,258.2 | 1,173.9 | 84.3 | 676 | 70 | 327 | 6 | 81 | 255 | 4 | 44 | 223,176,151 |
| 3 Mich. | Angola, Ind., to Port Huron, Mich. | 174.7 | 54.7 | 120.0 | 123 | 12 | 100 | 3 | 13 | 37 | 16 | 48,363,666 | |
| 4 | Oakland, Calif., to Philadelphia, Pa. | 2,816.8 | 2,373.1 | 443.7 | 1,148 | 232 | 442 | 19 | 148 | 496 | 11 | 105 | 466,339,733 |
| 4-A | Capital Branch | 88.5 | 88.5 | 52 | 9 | 26 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 7 | 13,087,200 | ||
| 4 S | Whitewater, Calif., to Salt Lake City, Utah | 593.6 | 593.6 | 60 | 10 | 37 | 2 | 13 | 259 | 12 | 58,039,418 | ||
| 4 N | Portland, Oreg., to Salt Lake City, Utah | 770.7 | 770.7 | 183 | 40 | 72 | 2 | 22 | 93 | 1 | 31 | 104,810,492 | |
| 5 | San Ysidro, Calif., to Blaine, Wash. | 1,406.4 | 604,0 | 802.4 | 377 | 253 | 275 | 6 | 64 | 333 | 8 | 84 | 371,527,504 |
| 6 | Los Angeles, Calif., to Charleston, S.C. | 2,392.3 | 2,172.7 | 219.6 | 753 | 139 | 382 | 1 | 101 | 683 | 1 | 80 | 337,870,583 |
| Total | 14,336.2 | 10,996.3 | 3,345.9 | 5,198 | 1,431 | 2,958 | 84 | 752 | 2,911 | 27 | 668 | 2,636,154,677 | |
| Route No. | Right- of-way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrails | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| 1 | $39,301,135 | $75,698,021 | $16,747,530 | $91,773,392 | $3,003,165 | $1,798,035 | $2,663,385 | $1,882,900 | $5,427,750 | $7,799,480 | $209,731,287 | $9,060,00 | $464,886,080 | |
| 2 | 43,875,413 | 113,092,140 | 29,979,265 | 131,954,429 | 3,928,303 | 1,628,970 | 4,082,810 | 2,379,300 | 8,931,000 | 12,088,000 | 179,602,220 | $7,572,000 | 8,940,000 | 548,053,850 |
| 3 | 13,588,986 | 37,850,560 | 11,522,130 | 45,498,033 | 3,439,182 | 1,638,259 | 1,233,270 | 1,255,210 | 3,765,430 | 5,691,720 | 95,040,371 | 1,003,000 | 3,650,000 | 223,176,151 |
| 3 Mich. | 5,541,355 | 9,007,485 | 3,720,450 | 8,400,356 | 165,625 | 929,550 | 401,830 | 174,290 | 523,370 | 739,590 | 17,124,735 | 1,635,000 | 48.363,666 | |
| 4 | 32,113,959 | 104,202,015 | 23,823,660 | 106,102,994 | 2,563,400 | 1,186,600 | 4,594,570 | 2,630,025 | 8,448,375 | 9,872,585 | 142,360,050 | 19,931,500 | 8,510,000 | 466,339,733 |
| 4-A | 1,497,000 | 3,382,500 | 942,250 | 3,277,000 | 64,350 | 27,000 | 96,500 | 89,100 | 264,900 | 357,100 | 2,639,500 | 450,000 | 13,087,200 | |
| 4 S | 1,234,520 | 27,117,175 | 2,936,300 | 10,232,123 | 113,980 | 743,080 | 528,300 | 1,780,800 | 1,211,000 | 11,302,140 | 840,000 | 58,039,418 | ||
| 4 N | 11,211,930 | 24,328,130 | 1,808,730 | 21,251,381 | 633,180 | 903,100 | 777,500 | 2,303,700 | 2,854,200 | 33,131,841 | 316,800 | 2,290,000 | 104,810,492 | |
| 5 | 33,980,230 | 76,131,450 | 11,850,350 | 72,442,440 | 3,398,750 | 506,000 | 1,844,425 | 1,390,300 | 4,167,150 | 6,415,500 | 147,486,409 | 6,149,500 | 5,765,000 | 371,527,504 |
| 6 | 14,442,990 | 65,182,807 | 11,381,360 | 70,504,607 | 2,400,384 | 1,443,979 | 1,848,900 | 2,255,330 | 6,882,910 | 9,627,480 | 146,424,836 | 5,475,000 | 337,870,583 | |
| Total | 196,787,518 | 535,992,283 | 114,712,025 | 564,436,785 | 17,710,319 | 9,158,393 | 18,411,870 | 13,362,255 | 42,495,385 | 56,656,655 | 984,843,389 | 34,972,800 | 46,615,000 | [1]2,636,154,677 |
- ↑ Plus 10 percent for engineering, contingencies, and interests during construction, $263,615,468; grand total $2,899,770,145.
| State | Right-of- way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrail | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding, and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| Florida | $3,216,360 | $3,672,000 | $657,430 | $14,735,000 | $322,400 | $178,655 | $358,000 | $1,074,000 | $1,136,790 | $16,239,440 | $1,060,000 | $42,650,750 | ||
| Georgia | 411,630 | 2,122,500 | 962,200 | 3,357,512 | 203,815 | 150,000 | 226,400 | 200,000 | 5,658,485 | 560,000 | 13,854,542 | |||
| South Carolina | 838,550 | 2,158,500 | 400,400 | 7,018,275 | 423,710 | $236,270 | 236,720 | 200,200 | 600,600 | 800,800 | 14,267,290 | 700,00 | 27,882,865 | |
| North Carolina | 756,850 | 4,467,250 | 609,850 | 4,317,420 | 237,900 | 562,350 | 153,100 | 459,300 | 765,500 | 5,599,440 | 560,000 | 18,488,960 | ||
| Virginia | 2,233,520 | 5,69,781 | 1,085,150 | 9,974,675 | 309,000 | 60,715 | 549,450 | 183,150 | 549,450 | 909,790 | 8,096,746 | 940,00 | 30,552,327 | |
| Maryland | 3,248,000 | 11,655,400 | 1,639,500 | 6,718,900 | 149,700 | 120,900 | 39,000 | 95,200 | 324,800 | 549,900 | 20,813,900 | 450,000 | 45,805,200 | |
| Delaware | 391,800 | 1,541,00 | 248,500 | 965,00 | 21,400 | 28,500 | 9,000 | 14,000 | 48,800 | 99,600 | 2,065,800 | 100,000 | 5,533,400 | |
| New Jersey | 13,189,600 | 6,714,100 | 752,400 | 6,452,900 | 144,300 | 163,000 | 216,900 | 77,200 | 331,600 | 527,000 | 38,147,800 | 1,250,000 | 67,876,800 | |
| New York | 4,844,000 | 795,090 | 978,500 | 2,064,240 | 48,800 | 58,100 | 73,200 | 24,400 | 73,200 | 163,000 | 36,115,260 | 250,000 | 45,487,790 | |
| Connecticut | 3,564,750 | 12,712,500 | 5,113,500 | 7,309,440 | 432,000 | 918,000 | 270,000 | 108,000 | 270,000 | 648,000 | 24,148,400 | 600,000 | 56,094,590 | |
| Rhode Island | 182,800 | 364,000 | 72,800 | 513,240 | 21,840 | 95,550 | 4,550 | 4,550 | 27,300 | 45,500 | 392,340 | 1,724,470 | ||
| Massachusetts | 1,735,700 | 4,725,600 | 380,700 | 4,933,000 | 109,200 | 49,100 | 77,700 | 233,100 | 332,800 | 10,020,880 | 700,000 | 23,297,780 | ||
| New Hampshire | 146,075 | 1,419,000 | 214,200 | 1,556,640 | 77,100 | 18,310 | 18,400 | 55,200 | 92,000 | 3,684,000 | 150,000 | 6,430,925 | ||
| Maine | 2,381,500 | 16,177,300 | 2,530,400 | 17,897,150 | 433,100 | 71,000 | 366,600 | 363,000 | 1,089,000 | 1,304,800 | 12,333,506 | 1,190,000 | 56,137,356 | |
| Total | 39,301,135 | 75,698,021 | 16,747,530 | 91,773,392 | 3,003,165 | 1,798,035 | 2,663,385 | 1,882,900 | 5,427,750 | 7,799,480 | 209,731,287 | 9,060,000 | 464,886,080 |
| State | Right-of- way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrail | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding, and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| Washington | $1,508,003 | $20,597,750 | $2,595,550 | $8,378,117 | $633,205 | $569,000 | $277,400 | $832,200 | $832,200 | $10,668,140 | $7,392,000 | $770,000 | $55,053,610 | |
| Idaho | 477,800 | 2,146,200 | 287,800 | 2,149,200 | 196,00 | 246,100 | 87,100 | 261,300 | 261,300 | 4,381,600 | 210,000 | 10,614,400 | ||
| Montana | 1,441,420 | 18,783,000 | 1,064,500 | 16,046,505 | 944,400 | 636,400 | 92,900 | 2,071,000 | 2,071,000 | 8,432,080 | 180,000 | 560,000 | 52,324,105 | |
| North Dakota | 883,200 | 3,386,100 | 822,600 | 14,506,400 | 7,500 | 177,700 | 351,000 | 1,053,000 | 1,404,000 | 5,478,000 | 1,120,000 | 29,289,500 | ||
| Minnesota | 4,323,555 | 5,038,750 | 379,840 | 8,282,622 | 386,560 | 352,000 | 246,200 | 738,600 | 1,253,000 | 6,826,060 | 870,000 | 28,697,227 | ||
| Wisconsin | 3,142,125 | 6,496,810 | 1,086,985 | 9,540,275 | 273,413 | 337,760 | 294,400 | 883,300 | 1,255,200 | 10,057,300 | 1,010,000 | 34,357,478 | ||
| Illinois | 4,950,200 | 7,770,100 | 1,174,060 | 6,693,400 | 179,730 | $709,420 | 126,650 | 94,800 | 284,400 | 578,500 | 22,915,00 | 480,00 | 45,946,260 | |
| Indiana | 1,725,550 | 6,925,550 | 1,361,700 | 8,320,410 | 71,500 | 487,100 | 123,000 | 142,700 | 428,100 | 509,100 | 9,456,750 | 750,000 | 30,301,460 | |
| Ohio | 9,877,000 | 10,701,750 | 5,619,250 | 14,292,500 | 264,750 | 142,750 | 150,000 | 242,000 | 727,000 | 1,176,000 | 29,181,500 | 800,000 | 73,174,500 | |
| Pennsylvania | 1,051,000 | 1,381,000 | 962,000 | 3,712,000 | 50,000 | 35,000 | 96,000 | 48,000 | 144,000 | 166,000 | 9,347,200 | 200,000 | 17,912,200 | |
| New York | 12,531,560 | 12,725,130 | 13,979,000 | 32,571,000 | 770,000 | 235,200 | 1,155,000 | 385,100 | 1,155,100 | 2,025,800 | 51,871,200 | 1,400,000 | 130,807,150 | |
| Massachusetts | 1,964,000 | 17,040,000 | 666,000 | 7,472,000 | 241,200 | 19,500 | 113,200 | 117,700 | 353,100 | 555,900 | 10,983,300 | 770,00 | 40,295,960 | |
| Total | 43,875,413 | 113,092,140 | 29,979,265 | 131,954,429 | 3,928,303 | 1,628,970 | 4,082,810 | 2,379,300 | 5,931,000 | 12,088,000 | 179,602,220 | 7,572,000 | 8,940,000 | 548,053,850 |
| State | Right-of- way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrail | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding, and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| Texas | $4,048,076 | $8,513,301 | $1,688,430 | $15,232,455 | $309,602 | $482,599 | $36,625 | $486,760 | $1,460,280 | $2,562,570 | $36,139,356 | $1,150,000 | $72,110,013 | |
| Oklahoma | 3,203,450 | 8,513,310 | 1,478,600 | 9,457,000 | 231,600 | 161,000 | 216,900 | 268,500 | 805,300 | 1,122,800 | 17,782,726 | 630,000 | 44,240,376 | |
| Missouri | 2,968,700 | 14,570,800 | 6,730,800 | 11,768,538 | 694,150 | 86,150 | 711,175 | 280,650 | 841,950 | 1,256,456 | 12,555,174 | $1,003,000 | 1,070,000 | 54,537,537 |
| Illinois | 3,368,760 | 5,883,950 | 1,624,300 | 9,040,050 | 203,830 | 908,550 | 267,570 | 219,300 | 657,900 | 749,900 | 28,563,115 | 800,000 | 52,288,225 | |
| Total | 13,588,986 | 37,850,560 | 11,522,130 | 45,498,033 | 1,439,182 | 1,638,259 | 1,233,270 | 1,255,210 | 3,765,330 | 5,691,720 | 95,040,371 | 1,003,000 | 3,650,000 | 223,176,151 |
| State | Right-of- way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrail | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding, and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| Indiana | $115,750 | $477,750 | $118,500 | $535,800 | $5,400 | $10,000 | $5,900 | $9,500 | $28,500 | $28,500 | $586,200 | $200,000 | $2,121,800 | |
| Ohio | 390,000 | 549,000 | 251,500 | 645,000 | 10,500 | 6,000 | 3,000 | 9,000 | 27,500 | 41,000 | 521,000 | 2,453,500 | ||
| Michigan | 5,035,605 | 7,980,735 | 3,350,450 | 7,219,586 | 149,725 | 913,930 | 392,930 | 155,790 | 467,370 | 670,090 | 16,017,535 | 1,435,000 | 43,788,366 | |
| Total | 5,541,355 | 9,007,485 | 3,720,450 | 8,400,386 | 165,625 | 929,550 | 401,830 | 174,290 | 523,370 | 739,590 | 17,124,735 | 1,635,000 | 48,363,666 |
| State | Right-of- way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrail | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding, and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| California | $4,635,150 | $16,889,115 | $4,535,700 | $10,098,850 | $583,800 | $431,900 | $215,450 | $611,280 | $572,640 | $22,872,075 | $890,000 | $59,335,970 | ||
| Nevada | 634,230 | 12,381,950 | 1,563,600 | 6,502,300 | 40,00 | 239,250 | 200,000 | 1,199,200 | 800,00 | 2,285,590 | $1,319,500 | 420,00 | 27,585,620 | |
| Utah | 829,425 | 9,532,500 | 834,000 | 4,604,355 | 59,200 | 468,000 | 191,000 | 573,000 | 573,000 | 2,969,160 | 550,000 | 21,183,640 | ||
| Wyoming | 949,300 | 11,450,000 | 3,310,000 | 11,773,500 | 66,800 | 445,000 | 334,000 | 1,002,000 | 1,278,000 | 5,621,940 | 350,000 | 36,580,540 | ||
| Colorado | 421,230 | 4,554,250 | 1,574,100 | 7,780,029 | 19,200 | 503,420 | 216,100 | 648,300 | 1,080,500 | 6,311,700 | 490,000 | 23,586,849 | ||
| Kansas | 2,027,374 | 4,316,100 | 1,399,795 | 12,325,494 | 64,125 | 491,360 | 361,200 | 1,083,000 | 1,800,100 | 6,647,380 | 1,120,000 | 31,656,528 | ||
| Missouri | 2,134,700 | 2,808,450 | 1,490,800 | 8,772,420 | 448,700 | 206,900 | 207,400 | 622,200 | 632,500 | 9,128,680 | 490,000 | 26,942,750 | ||
| Illinois | 3,525,400 | 5,377,250 | 1,298,550 | 7,375,550 | 168,200 | $554,300 | 283,450 | 209,400 | 627,900 | 624,500 | 15,186,479 | 630,000 | 35,860,979 | |
| Indiana | 1,827,550 | 5,046,800 | 1,086,400 | 5,881,100 | 101,400 | 217,300 | 171,700 | 146,00 | 439,800 | 439,800 | 9,023,938 | 1,000,000 | 25,382,397 | |
| Ohio | 9,097,500 | 12,686,00 | 3,795,250 | 9,369,750 | 285,000 | 174,000 | 684,750 | 241,000 | 719,500 | 1,107,500 | 19,897,874 | 1,020,000 | 59,078,124 | |
| West Virginia | 180,000 | 867,600 | 53,380 | 382,580 | 6,955 | 18,840 | 5,865 | 17,595 | 23,045 | 2,719,400 | 50,000 | 4,325,300 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 5,852,000 | 18,263,000 | 5,882,085 | 21,247,057 | 720,000 | 241,000 | 650,000 | 302,000 | 904,000 | 941,000 | 39,695,834 | 18,612,000 | 1,500,000 | 114,808.976 |
| Total | 32,113,959 | 104,202,015 | 23,823,660 | 106,102,994 | 2,563,400 | 1,186,600 | 4,594,570 | 2,630,025 | 8,448,375 | 9,872,585 | 142,360,050 | 19,931,500 | 8,510,000 | 466,339,733 |
| State | Right-of- way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrail | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding, and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| Pennsylvania | $873,000 | $756,500 | $487,500 | $1,663,000 | $29,000 | $17,000 | $79,000 | $43,000 | $127,000 | $127,000 | $1,602,600 | $140,000 | $5,944,600 | |
| Maryland | 624,000 | 2,626,000 | 454,750 | 1,614,000 | 35,350 | 10,000 | 17,500 | 46,100 | 137,000 | 280,100 | 1,086,900 | 310,00 | 7,142,600 | |
| Total | 1,497,000 | 3,382,500 | 942,250 | 3,277,000 | 64,350 | 27,000 | 96,500 | 89,100 | 264,000 | 357,100 | 2,639,500 | 450,000 | 13,087,200 |
| State | Right-of- way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrail | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding, and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| California | $47,500 | $4,659,700 | $1,464,000 | $2,166,300 | $388,300 | $146,400 | $439,200 | $4,836,600 | $140,000 | $14,288,000 | ||||
| Nevada | 145,290 | 2,477,400 | 366,000 | 1,805,500 | $12,200 | 34,100 | 61,000 | 366,000 | $244,000 | 686,320 | 14,000 | 6,337,810 | ||
| Arizona | 1,565 | 683,200 | 25,800 | 126,400 | 8,600 | 18,920 | 4,300 | 25,800 | 17,200 | 91,200 | 1,002,985 | |||
| Utah | 1,040,165 | 19,296,875 | 1,080,500 | 6,133,923 | 93,180 | 301,760 | 316,600 | 949,800 | 949,800 | 949,800 | 5,688,020 | 36,410,623 | ||
| Total | 1,234,520 | 27,117,175 | 2,936,300 | 10,232,123 | 113,980 | 743,080 | 528,300 | 1,780,800 | 1,211,000 | 11,302,140 | 840,000 | 58,039,418 |
| State | Right-of- way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrail | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding, and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| Oregon | $9,625,900 | $18,650,780 | $679,250 | $13,444,000 | $473,600 | $264,300 | $381,500 | $1,115,700 | $1,666,200 | $23,936,461 | $316,800 | $1,260,000 | $71,814,491 | |
| Idaho | 953,500 | 4,173,600 | 899,600 | 6,726,700 | 136,500 | 584,900 | 272,600 | 817,800 | 817,800 | 7,027,700 | 770,000 | 23,180,700 | ||
| Utah | 632,530 | 1,503,750 | 229,880 | 4,080,681 | 23,080 | 53,900 | 123,400 | 370,200 | 370,200 | 2,167,680 | 260,000 | 9,815,301 | ||
| Total | 11,211,930 | 24,328,180 | 1,808,730 | 24,251,381 | 633,180 | 903,100 | 777,500 | 2,303,7800 | 2,854,200 | 33,131,841 | 316,800 | 2,290,000 | 104,810,492 |
| State | Right-of- way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrail | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding, and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| California | $13,661,690 | $41,790,000 | $6,220,000 | $39,125,200 | $728,800 | $1,164,925 | $806,700 | $2,417,850 | $3,392,200 | $57,384,591 | $2,189,500 | $2,915,000 | $171,796,456 | |
| Oregon | 16,111,500 | 21,745,800 | 1,332,350 | 15,235,050 | 883,600 | $287,000 | 362,500 | 315,200 | 1,034,100 | 1,833,800 | 52,231,236 | 3,960,000 | 1,420,000 | 116,782,136 |
| Washington | 4,207,040 | 12,595,650 | 4,298,000 | 18,082,190 | 1,786,350 | 219,000 | 317,000 | 238,400 | 715,200 | 1,189,500 | 37,870,582 | 1,430,000 | 82,948,912 | |
| Total | 33,980,230 | 76,131,450 | 11,850,350 | 72,442,440 | 3,398,750 | 506,000 | 1,844,425 | 1,390,300 | 4,167,150 | 6,415,500 | 147,480,409 | 6,149,500 | 5,765,000 | 371,527,504 |
| State | Right-of- way, property damage, and relocation |
Grading | Minor drainage |
Surfacing | Clearing and grubbing |
Curbs | Guardrail | Signs and markers |
Fencing | Topsoil, seeding, and planting |
Bridges | Tunnels | Accesses | Total |
| California | $1,780,390 | $9,849,265 | $2,110,750 | $8,670,200 | $410,800 | $222,700 | $688,100 | $478,800 | $14,683,260 | $520,000 | $39,394,265 | |||
| Arizona | 1,855,370 | 8,334,800 | 2,070,200 | 5,690,470 | 559,100 | 235,760 | 825,000 | 1,247,000 | 8,535,380 | 420,000 | 29,782,680 | |||
| New
Mexico |
1,855,370 | 1,877,000 | 546,400 | 4,911,300 | $77,400 | $275,000 | 108,000 | 154,800 | 464,400 | 476,700 | 1,744,300 | 215,000 | 17,232,580 | |
| Texas | 5,537,015 | 26,582,352 | 3,313,200 | 26,938,000 | 759,014 | 992,458 | 162,730 | 777,020 | 2,331,060 | 4,155,630 | 61,018,876 | 1,490,000 | 134,057,355 | |
| Louisiana | 595,070 | 3.035,650 | 817,900 | 5,840,403 | 544,650 | 92,821 | 182,550 | 547,650 | 547,650 | 11,361,290 | 350,000 | 23,916,234 | ||
| Mississippi | 1,181,480 | 2,834,020 | 353,560 | 3,543,270 | 274,500 | 140,170 | 152,400 | 457,200 | 609,600 | 10,526,300 | 350,000 | 20,830,774 | ||
| Alabama | 1,014,825 | 6,100,720 | 1,394,650 | 5,036,089 | 108,120 | 144,400 | 210,100 | 629,500 | 629,500 | 13,802,870 | 700,000 | 20,830,774 | ||
| Georgia | 1,712,630 | 5,155,000 | 541,000 | 5,653,500 | 401,000 | 3,000 | 213,000 | 200,500 | 601,500 | 1,004,00 | 20,236,900 | 840,000 | 36,592,530 | |
| South Carolina | 413,330 | 1,414,000 | 233,200 | 4,212,375 | 175,700 | 80,700 | 80,700 | 119,500 | 358,500 | 478,000 | 4,515,660 | 560,000 | 12,641,665 | |
| Total | 14,442,990 | 65,182,807 | 11,381,360 | 70,504,607 | 2,400.384 | 1,443,979 | 1,848,900 | 2,255,330 | 6,892,910 | 9,627,480 | 146,424,830 | 5,475,000 | 337,870,593 |
| Section | Number in order of cost per mile |
Number in order of traffic volume |
Route | Construction cost |
10 percent engineering contingency and interest during construction |
Total costs each section |
Average cost per mile each section | ||
| From— | To— | Length | |||||||
| Miles | |||||||||
| Jersey City, N.J. | New Haven, Conn. | 65.6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | $69,083,460 | $6,908,346 | $75,991,806 | $1,158,412 |
| Junction, Route 4, Pa. | Jersey City, N.J. | 106.8 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 75,458,300 | 7,545,830 | 83,004,130 | 77,192 |
| Junction, Route 6, Calif. | San Fernando, Calif. | 44.8 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 23,703,930 | 2,370,393 | 26,074,323 | 582,016 |
| Baltimore, Md. | Junction, Route 4, Md. | 76.2 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 35,874,400 | 3,587,440 | 39,461,840 | 517,872 |
| New Haven, Conn. | Junction, Route 2, Mass. | 99.8 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 46,407,020 | 4,640,702 | 51,047,722 | 511,500 |
| Portland, Oreg. | Junction, Route 2, Wash. | 146.7 | 6 | 22 | 5 | 64,155,201 | 6,415,201 | 70,570,721 | 481,055 |
| Salem, Oreg. | Portland, Oreg. | 56.9 | 7 | 14 | 5 | 23,502,849 | 2,350,285 | 25,853,134 | 454,361 |
| Pittsburgh, Pa. | Carlisle, Pa. | 166.6 | 8 | 19 | 4 | 64,806,102 | 6,480,610 | 71,286,712 | 427,891 |
| Junction, Route 2, Wash. | Canadian boundary | 124.7 | 9 | 25 | 5 | 47,631,362 | 4,763,136 | 52,394,498 | 420,164 |
| Albany, N.Y. | Junction, Route 1, Mass. | 147.2 | 10 | 17 | 2 | 54,495,650 | 5,449,565 | 59,945,215 | 407,237 |
| Washington, D.C. | Balitmore, Md. | 39.3 | 11 | 4 | 1 | 14,105,600 | 1,410,560 | 15,516,160 | 394,873 |
| Seattle, Wash. | Ellensburg, Wash. | 90.0 | 12 | 53 | 2 | 29,315,255 | 2,931,526 | 32,246,781 | 358,298 |
| Carlisle, Pa. | Junction, Route 1, Pa. | 94.8 | 13 | 13 | 4 | 33,181,874 | 3,318,187 | 36,500,061 | 385,022 |
| Cleveland, Ohio | Buffalo, N.Y. | 220.7 | 14 | 18 | 2 | 77,012,745 | 7,701,274 | 84,714,019 | 383,842 |
| Perrysburg, Ohio | Cleveland, Ohio | 79.3 | 15 | 20 | 2 | 27,136,750 | 2,713,675 | 29,850,425 | 376,424 |
| Oakland, Calif. | Auburn, Calif. | 110.0 | 16 | 16 | 4 | 38,279,100 | 3,827,910 | 42,107,010 | 373,700 |
| Buffalo, N.Y. | Albany, N.Y. | 287.6 | 17 | 11 | 2 | 91,696,915 | 9,169,691 | 100,866,606 | 350,718 |
| San Ysidro, Calif. | Junction 6, Calif. | 124.4 | 18 | 8 | 5 | 38,175,881 | 3,817,588 | 41,993,469 | 337,568 |
| Columbus, Ohio | Pittsburgh, Pa. | 195.0 | 19 | 32 | 4 | 58,448,516 | 5,844,852 | 64,293,368 | 329,710 |
| Junction, Route 2, Mass. | Portland, Maine | 133.9 | 20 | 5 | 1 | 39,086,265 | 3,909,625 | 42,994,880 | 321,097 |
| Junction, Route 2, Ind. | Detroit, Mich. | 102.2 | 21 | 15 | [1]3 | 29,801,059 | 2,980,106 | 32,781,165 | 320,755 |
| Junction, Route 3, Ill. | Junction 3, Mich.–Ind. | 156.9 | 22 | 9 | 2 | 43,446,360 | 4,344,636 | 47,790,996 | 304,595 |
| Junction 5, Calif. | Whitewater, Calif. | 91.0 | 23 | 6 | 6 | 25,036,495 | 2,503,650 | 27,540,145 | 302,639 |
| Detroit, Mich. | Port Huron, Mich. | 72.5 | 24 | 29 | [1]3 | 18,562,607 | 1,856,261 | 20,418,868 | 281,640 |
| Tracy, Calif. | Junction, Route 4, Calif. | 69.1 | 25 | 23 | 5 | 17,125,370 | 1,712,537 | 18,837,907 | 272,618 |
| Ashland, Oreg. | Roseburg, Oreg. | 122.9 | 26 | 47 | 5 | 30,370,800 | 3,037,080 | 33,407,880 | 271,830 |
| Junction, Route 3, Tex. | Shreveport, La. | 190.4 | 27 | 27 | 6 | 46,775,118 | 4,677,512 | 51,452,630 | 270,234 |
| Portland, Oreg. | Boardman, Oreg. | [2]163.4 | 28 | 52 | 4N | 39,832,691 | 3,983,269 | 43,815,960 | 268,152 |
| Junction, Route 4, Ill. | Junction, Route 2, Ill. | 155.5 | 29 | 33 | 3 | 37,131,697 | 3,713,170 | 40,844,867 | 262,668 |
| Richmond, Va. | Washington, D.C. | 108.3 | 30 | 12 | 1 | 25,609,005 | 2,560,900 | 28,109,905 | 260,110 |
| Redding, Calif. | Ashland, Oreg. | 138.2 | 31 | 59 | 5 | 31,735,255 | 3,173,526 | 34,908,781 | 252,592 |
| Indianapolis, Ind. | Columbus, Ohio | 156.6 | 32 | 28 | 4 | 35,796,228 | 3,579,623 | 39,375,851 | 251,442 |
| St. Louis, Mo. | Junction, Route 4, Ill. | 88.88 | 33 | 38 | 3 | 19,529,208 | 1,952,921 | 21,482,129 | 214,916 |
| Springfield, Mo. | St. Louis, Mo. | 165.2 | 34 | 43 | 3 | 36,045,892 | 3,604,589 | 39,650,481 | 240,015 |
| Auburn, Calif. | Reno, Nev. | 106,5 | 35 | 46 | 4 | 22,439,290 | 2,243,920 | 24,683,219 | 231,767 |
| Roseburg, Oreg. | Salem, Oreg. | 133.3 | 36 | 39 | 5 | 27,240,636 | 2,724,064 | 29,964,700 | 224,791 |
| Minneapolis, Minn. | Junction, Route 3, Ill. | 392.6 | 37 | 26 | 2 | 73,009,823 | 7,300,982 | 80,310,805 | 204,561 |
| Atlanta, Ga. | Augusta, Ga. | 153.2 | 38 | 72 | 6 | 28,108,255 | 2,810,826 | 30,919,081 | 201,822 |
| Portland, Maine | Bangor, Maine | 121.3 | 39 | 30 | 1 | 22,203,316 | 2,220,332 | 24,423,648 | 201,349 |
| San Fernando, Calif. | Tracy, Calif. | [3]291.7 | 40 | 21 | 5 | 51,864,880 | 5,186,488 | 57,051,386 | 195,582 |
| Junction, Route 3, Mich.–Ind. | Perrysburg, Ohio | 69.9 | 41 | 40 | 2 | 12,044,750 | 1,204,475 | 13,249,225 | 189,545 |
| Junction, Route 6, Tex. | Tulsa, Okla. | 270.5 | 42 | 33 | 3 | 46,561,539 | 4,656,154 | 51,217,613 | 189,345 |
| San Antonio, Tex. | Junction, Route 6, Tex. | 250,7 | 43 | 36 | 3 | 38,987,901 | 3,898,790 | 42,886,691 | 171,968 |
| Junction, Route 3, Ill. | Indianapolis, Ind. | 203,7 | 44 | 37 | 4 | 31,647,470 | 3,164,747 | 34,812,217 | 170,899 |
| Tulsa, Okla. | Springfield, Mo. | 171.3 | 45 | 48 | 3 | 26,347,441 | 2,634,744 | 28,982,185 | 169,190 |
| Odessa, Tex. | Junction, Route 3, Tex. | 337,9 | 46 | 31 | 6 | 50,921,061 | 5,092,106 | 56,013,167 | 165,788 |
| Junction, Route 4, Pa. | Junction, Route 1, Md. | 88.5 | 47 | 51 | 4-A | 13,087,200 | 1,308,720 | 14,395,920 | 162,666 |
| El Paso, Tex. | Odessa, Tex. | 245,2 | 48 | 56 | 6 | 35,798,286 | 3,579,829 | 39,178,115 | 160,596 |
| Jacksonville, Fla. | Junction, Route 6, S.C. | 219.3 | 49 | 49 | 1 | 31,732,987 | 3,173,299 | 34,906,286 | 159,171 |
| Boardman, Oreg. | Boise, Idaho | 253.1 | 50 | 63 | 4-N | 36,334,400 | 3,633,440 | 39,967,840 | 157,913 |
| Shreveport, La. | Vicksburg, Miss. | 168.8 | 51 | 60 | 6 | 24,137,084 | 2,413,708 | 26,550,792 | 157,291 |
| Birmingham, Ala. | Atlanta, Ga. | 141,2 | 52 | 64 | 6 | 20,178,426 | 2,017,843 | 22,196,269 | 157,197 |
| St. Joseph, Mo. | Junction, Route 3, Ill. | 275.7 | 53 | 41 | 4 | 39,238,016 | 3,923,802 | 43,161,818 | 156,554 |
| Vicksburg, Miss. | Birmingham, Ala. | 270,5 | 54 | 67 | 6 | 37,264,038 | 3,726,404 | 40,990,442 | 151,536 |
| Whitewater, Calif. | Indio, Calif. | 32.7 | 55 | 24 | 6 | 4,417,710 | 441,771 | 4,859,481 | 148,608 |
| Junction, Route 6, S.C. | Richmond, Va. | 362.6 | 56 | 50 | 1 | 48,077,192 | 4,807,719 | 52,884,911 | 145,849 |
| Ellensburg, Wash. | Spokane, Wash. | 145.9 | 57 | 74 | 2 | 19,061,250 | 1,906,125 | 20,967,375 | 143,711 |
| Salt Lake City, Utah | Greeley, Colo. | 463.3 | 58 | 66 | 4 | 56,632,098 | 5,663,210 | 62,295,308 | 134,460 |
| Bangor, Maine | Canadian boundary | 196.6 | 59 | 68 | 1 | 23,595,360 | 2,359,536 | 25,954,896 | 132,019 |
| Mexican boundary | San Antonio, Tex. | 156.2 | 60 | 69 | 3 | 18,572,473 | 1,857,247 | 20,429,720 | 130,792 |
| Augusta, Ga. | Charleston, S.C. | 116.3 | 61 | 70 | 6 | 12,293,750 | 1,229,375 | 13,523,125 | 116,278 |
| Brigham, Utah | Salt Lake City, Utah | 52.3 | 62 | 35 | 4-N | 5,474,940 | 547,494 | 6,022,434 | 115,152 |
| Junction, Route 4, Calif. | Redding, Calif. | 153.7 | 63 | 44 | 5 | 16,021,340 | 1,602,134 | 17,623,474 | 114,662 |
| Miami, Fla. | Jacksonville, Fla. | 326.5 | 64 | 34 | 1 | 33,653,185 | 3,365,318 | 37,018,503 | 113,350 |
| Las Vegas, Nev. | Salt Lake City, Utah | 407.5 | 65 | 65 | 4-S | 41,854,303 | 4,185,430 | 45,039,733 | 112,981 |
| Fargo, N. Dak. | Minneapolis, Minn. | 219.1 | 66 | 45 | 2 | 22,213,242 | 2,221,324 | 24,434,566 | 111,522 |
| Junction, Route 6, Calif. | Ludlow, Calif. | 69.1 | 67 | 42 | 4-S | 6,642,760 | 664,276 | 7,307,036 | 105,746 |
| Greeley, Colo. | St. Joseph, Mo. | 529.7 | 68 | 54 | 4 | 49,445,719 | 4,944,572 | 54,390,291 | 102,681 |
| Indio, Calif. | Phoenix, Ariz. | 254.0 | 69 | 62 | 6 | 23,393,120 | 2,339,312 | 25,732,432 | 101,309 |
| Boise, Idaho | Rupert, Idaho | 182.2 | 70 | 57 | 4-N | 16,264,000 | 1,626,400 | 17,890,400 | 98,191 |
| Spokane, Wash. | Fargo, N. Dak. | 1,169.6 | 71 | 75 | 2 | 98,621,110 | 9,862,111 | 108,483,221 | 92,752 |
| Ludlow, Calif. | Las Vegas, Nev. | 117.0 | 72 | 58 | 4-S | 9,542,355 | 954,235 | 10,496,590 | 89,714 |
| Phoenix, Ariz. | El Paso, Tex. | 391.1 | 73 | 61 | 6 | 29,547,240 | 2,954,724 | 32,501,904 | 83,104 |
| Reno, Nev. | Salt Lake City, Utah | 514.9 | 74 | 73 | 3 | 36,425,320 | 3,642,532 | 40,067,852 | 77,817 |
| Rupert, Idaho | Brigham, Utah | 119.7 | 75 | 71 | 4-N | 6,904,461 | 690,446 | 7,594,907 | 63,450 |
| Total | 14,336.2 | 2,636,152,677 | 263,615,486 | 2,899,770,145 | |||||
It is concluded that:
The system of roads selected, conforming closely to the direction of section 18 of the act of June 8, 1938, vs feasible of construction at approximately the cost indicated. Moreover, it is probable that no reasonable change in the precise location of a system of approximately the same extent would materially affect the indicated average cost per mile.
ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL COST AND REVENUE
It is assumed that construction on the selected routes, if it is undertaken, will be completed one-half by January 1, 1944, and the remaining half by January 1, 1946. Without any significant error it can be assumed that the whole system would come into use on January 1, 1945, with collection of revenues from that date on the entire system.
Traffic estimates have been projected to 1960, and cannot, with reasonable assurance of accuracy, be projected beyond that year. From January 1, 1945, to December 31, 1960, is a period of 16 years, and it is for that period only that revenues can be estimated with substantial accuracy.
The roads, as built, would have a probable average service life, as a whole, extending far beyond this 16-year period. Some elements of the construction obviously have longer lives than others, but all elements, with the possible exception of some very minor ones, such as signs, fencing, etc., should last well beyond the 16-year period.
For example, the probable average service life of the surfaces or pavements may be assumed to be at least 30 years. This life period reflects experience tables of similar past construction, together with the more favorable quality of the proposed construction. The estimated construction cost of the pavements, including curbs and accesses is $682,231,200, which is 23.5 percent of the $2,899,770,000, estimated as the total cost of all construction and right-of-way. The average life of the graded roadbed and right-of-way may be assumed to be at least 100 years. Only a general change in the geometric design of the roads as built could materially affect the accuracy of this assumption.[1] The estimated cost of right-of-way, clearing and grubbing, grading, minor drainage, topsoil, seeding, and planting, totalling $1,014,044,700, represents 35 percent of the estimated total cost. The average life of major structures, such as bridges and tunnels, similarly may be estimated conservatively at 60 years, although for the modern types of structure proposed such a life period is probably short. Bridges and tunnels are estimated to cost $1,121,797,800, which is about 38.5 percent of the estimated total cost. Other miscellaneous items of the construction, such as guardrails, signs and markers, and fences are generally of shorter life than the three major items above mentioned Their estimated cost, $81,606,400, is only 3 percent of the total estimated cost. If these elements are assumed to have an average service life of only 10 years, the probable composite average life of all elements of the routes as constructed, including their rights-of-way, would be:
- ↑ For example, a revision of the projected alinement that might be necessary if vehicle speeds well above those now contemplated should become common.
As previously stated, this estimated average service life of the selected roads as a whole materially exceeds the 16-year period for which it is reasonable to estimate revenues. It also is about twice as long as the 30-year period fixed for retirement of the debt.
Annual debt service charge.—Retirement of the debt in 30 years will, it is estimated, entail an annual debt service charge of 4.84 percent of the total estimated cost. This 4.84 percent rate covers annual interest on the loan at 2.6 percent and provides for retirement in 30 years by an added 2.24 percent. The 2.6 percent interest rate on the loan is approximately the composite rate of United States Treasury borrowing charges as of January 1939. It reflects the rates on both short-term and long-term Treasury borrowings. It therefore can be assumed that with this rate borrowing for the proposed road construction may either be of short- or long-term character. The retirement annuity of 2.24 percent to be added to the interest rate will retire or amortize the total cost in about 30 years if compounded at 2.6 percent annually. Thirty years is a common term for highway loans.[1] It is also slightly longer than the term of any outstanding United States borrowings. The assumed annual debt service cost, on the basis of the United States Treasury borrowing rate, therefore, is 4.84 percent of $2,899,770,000 or about $140,401,000 annually. The corresponding annual debt service on an average construction cost of $202,270 per mile is approximately $9,790.
The annual debt service is the largest item of annual cost. It could be decreased by extending the term of the loan. The total cost of the loan, on the other hand, increases directly as the term increases. The 30-year loan, at 2.6 percent annual interest rate as indicated, reflects the United States Treasury rate and the longest term of Federal borrowing.[2]
Annual costs of maintenance and minor reconstruction.—The annual costs of maintenance and minor reconstruction are entailed principally by the strict maintenance of the surfaced roadway and operating facilities and the drainage, and other structures, plus the maintenance of a good appearance of the right-of-way, together with any necessary reconstruction during the interval 1945–60. These annual costs vary from section to section. They are estimated to amount to $18,637,000 and are equivalent to approximately $1,300 per year for the average mile during the period 1945–60.
Annual operating cost.—The assumed annual operating cost consists principally of the collection and management of the tolls, the operation of a sufficient traffic police force, and the removal of snow. These items vary from section to section, but combined they are estimated at a total cost of $25,016,000, or approximately $1,740 per average mile per year for the period 1945-60.
Total annual cost.—The estimated total annual cost which is the sum of debt service, maintenance and minor reconstruction, and operating costs, is $184,054,000, or an average of approximately $12,840 per mile per year. This total cost figure is shown, as of the year 1960, in table 17, which table also shows the corresponding accumulated cost of $2,944,861,936 for the period 1945-60.
| Description | Number in order of revenue as a percentage of cost |
Number in order of traffic volume |
Route | For the year 1960 | For the period 1945–60 | ||||||||
| From— | To— | Length | By individual sections | Total by accumulated sections | Total costs for each section |
Total costs accumulated by sections | |||||||
| Debt service[1] | Maintenance and operation |
Total costs | Average cost per mile |
Length | Costs | ||||||||
| Miles | Miles | ||||||||||||
| Jersey City, N.J. | New Haven, Conn. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 65.6 | $3,679,371 | $686,800 | $4,366,171 | $66,557 | 65.6 | $4,366,171 | $69,858,736 | $69,858,768 |
| Junction, Route 4, Pa. | Jersey City, N.J. | 2 | 2 | 1 | 10.8 | 4,018,894 | 1,160,400 | 5,179,294 | 48,495 | 172.4 | 9,545,465 | 82,868,794 | 152,727,440 |
| Junction, Route 5, Calif. | Whitewater, Calif. | 3 | 6 | 6 | 91.0 | 1,333,439 | 437,000 | 1,770,939 | 19,461 | 263.4 | 11,316,404 | 28,335,024 | 181,062,464 |
| Washington, D.C. | Baltimore, Md. | 4 | 4 | 1 | 39.3 | 751,261 | 218,250 | 969,511 | 24,669 | 302.7 | 12,285,915 | 15,512,176 | 196,574,640 |
| Junction, Route 2, Mass. | Portland, Maine | 5 | 4 | 1 | 133.9 | 2,081,726 | 943,650 | 3,025,376 | 22,594 | 436.6 | 15,311,291 | 48,406,016 | 244,980,656 |
| Miami, Fla. | Jacksonville, Fla. | 6 | 34 | 1 | 326.5 | 1,792,362 | 689,750 | 2,481,112 | 7,602 | 763.1 | 17,793,403 | 39,713,792 | 284,694,448 |
| Baltimore, Md. | Junction, Route 4, Pa. | 7 | 7 | 1 | 76.2 | 1,910,663 | 430,500 | 2,341,163 | 30,724 | 839.3 | 20,134,566 | 37,458,608 | 322,153,056 |
| Richmond, Va. | Washington, D.C. | 8 | 12 | 1 | 108.3 | 1,303,931 | 470,750 | 1,834,681 | 16,941 | 947.6 | 21,969,247 | 29,354,895 | 351,507,952 |
| San Ysidro, Calif. | Junction, Route 6, Calif. | 9 | 8 | 5 | 124.4 | 2,033,240 | 511,000 | 2,544,240 | 20,452 | 1,072.0 | 24,513,487 | 40,707,840 | 392,215,792 |
| Whitewater, Calif. | Indio, Calif. | 10 | 24 | 6 | 32.7 | 235,286 | 129,750 | 365.036 | 11,163 | 1,104.7 | 24,878,523 | 5,840,576 | 398,056,368 |
| Junction, Route 3, Ill. | Junction, Route 3, Mich.–Ind. | 11 | 9 | 2 | 156.9 | 2,313,944 | 969,150 | 3,283,094 | 20,925 | 1,261.6 | 28,161,617 | 52,529,504 | 450,585,872 |
| Brigham, Utah | Salt Lake City, Utah | 12 | 35 | 4-N | 52.3 | 291,594 | 128,450 | 420,044 | 8,031 | 1,313.9 | 28,581,661 | 6,720,704 | 457,306,576 |
| Odessa, Tex. | Junction, Route 3, Tex. | 13 | 31 | 6 | 337.0 | 2,712,046 | 611,850 | 3,323,896 | 9,837 | 1,651.8 | 31,905,557 | 53,182,336 | 510,488,912 |
| Junction, Route 6, Calif. | San Fernando, Calif. | 14 | 3 | 5 | 44.8 | 1,262,467 | 442,00 | 1,704,467 | 38,046 | 1,696.6 | 33,610,024 | 27,271,472 | 537,760,384 |
| Buffalo, N.Y. | Albany, N.Y. | 15 | 11 | 2 | 287.6 | 4,883,759 | 1,581,600 | 7,465,259 | 22,480 | 1,984.2 | 40,075,383 | 103,445,744 | 641,206,128 |
| Junction, Route 16, Calif. | Ludlow, Calif. | 16 | 42 | 4-S | 69.1 | 353,792 | 133,650 | 487,442 | 7,054 | 2,53.3 | 40,562,825 | 7,799,072 | 649,005,200 |
| San Fernando, Calif. | Tracy, Calif. | 17 | 21 | 5 | 291.7 | 2,762,313 | 898,500 | 3,660,813 | 12,550 | 2,345.0 | 44,223,638 | 58,573,008 | 707,578,208 |
| Minneapolis, Minn. | Junction, Route 3, Ill. | 18 | 26 | 2 | 392.6 | 3,888,489 | 1,431,500 | 5,319,989 | 13,551 | 2,737.6 | 49,543,627 | 85,119,824 | 792,698,032 |
| Junction, Route 4, Calif. | Redding, Calif. | 19 | 44 | 5 | 153.7 | 853,293 | 290,550 | 1,143,843 | 7,442 | 2,891.3 | 50,687,470 | 18,301,488 | 810,999,520 |
| San Antonio, Tex. | Junction, Route 6, Tex. | 20 | 36 | 3 | 250.7 | 2,076,488 | 481,050 | 2,557,538 | 10,202 | 3,142.0 | 53,245,008 | 40,920,608 | 851,920,128 |
| Portland, Maine | Bangor, Maine | 21 | 30 | 1 | 121.3 | 1,182,544 | 363,250 | 1,545,794 | 12,7444 | 3,263.3 | 54,790,802 | 24,732,704 | 876,652,832 |
| St. Joseph, Mo. | Junction, Route 3, Ill. | 22 | 41 | 4 | 275.7 | 2,089,809 | 563,550 | 2,653,359 | 9,624 | 3,639.0 | 57,444,161 | 42,453,744 | 919,106,576 |
| Junction, Route 3, Ill. | Indianapolis, Ind. | 23 | 37 | 4 | 203.7 | 1,685,538 | 455,550 | 2,141,088 | 10,511 | 3,742.7 | 59,585,249 | 34,257,408 | 953,363,984 |
| Carlisle, Pa. | Junction, Route 1, Pa. | 24 | 13 | 4 | 94.8 | 1,767,260 | 392,000 | 2,159,260 | 22,777 | 3,837.5 | 61,744,509 | 34,548,160 | 987,912,144 |
| Junction, Route 2, Ind. | Detroit, Mich. | 25 | 15 | [2]3 | 102.2 | 1,586,198 | 617,700 | 2,204,898 | 21,574 | 3,939.7 | 63,949,407 | 35,278,368 | 1,023,190,512 |
| Tracy, Calif. | Junction, Route 4, Calif. | 26 | 23 | 5 | 69.1 | 912,094 | 252,750 | 1,164,844 | 16,857 | 4,008.8 | 65,114,251 | 18,637,504 | 1,041,828,016 |
| Junction, Route 3, Tex. | Shreveport, La. | 27 | 27 | 6 | 190.4 | 2,491,233 | 447,600 | 2.938,833 | 15,435 | 4,199.2 | 68,053,084 | 47,021,328 | 1,088,849,344 |
| Ludlow, Calif. | Las Vegas, Nev. | 28 | 58 | 4-S | 117.0 | 508,224 | 190,500 | 698,724 | 5,972 | 4,316.2 | 68,757,808 | 11,179,584 | 1,100,028,928 |
| Fargo, N. Dak. | Minneapolis, Minn. | 29 | 45 | 2 | 219.1 | 1,183,073 | 697,750 | 1,880,823 | 8,584 | 4,535.3 | 70,632,631 | 30,093,168 | 1,130,122,096 |
| New Haven, Conn. | Junction, Route 2, Mass. | 30 | 10 | 1 | 99.8 | 2,471,629 | 524,400 | 2,996,029 | 30,020 | 4,635.1 | 73,628,660 | 47,936,464 | 1,178,058,560 |
| Greeley, Colo. | St. Joseph, Mo. | 31 | 54 | 4 | 529.7 | 2,633,469 | 1,359,400 | 3,992,869 | 7,538 | 5,164.8 | 77,621,529 | 63,885,904 | 1,241,944,464 |
| Indianapolis, Ind. | Columbus, Ohio | 32 | 28 | 4 | 156.6 | 1,906,500 | 468,200 | 2,374,700 | 15,164 | 5,321.4 | 79,996,229 | 37,995,200 | 1,279,939,664 |
| Phoenix, Ariz. | El Paso, Tex. | 33 | 61 | 6 | 391.1 | 1,573,680 | 736,650 | 2,310,330 | 5,907 | 5,712.5 | 82,306,559 | 36,965,280 | 1,316,904,944 |
| Cleveland, Ohio | Buffalo, N.Y. | 34 | 18 | 2 | 220.7 | 4,101,683 | 962,100 | 5,063,783 | 22,944 | 5,933.2 | 87,370,342 | 81,020,528 | 1,397,925,472 |
| Oakland, Calif. | Auburn, Calif. | 35 | 16 | 4 | 110.0 | 2,038,737 | 530,00 | 2,568,737 | 23,352 | 6,043.2 | 89,939,079 | 41,099,792 | 1,439,025,264 |
| Boise, Idaho | Rupert, Idaho | 36 | 57 | 4-N | 182.2 | 866,217 | 484,400 | 1,350,617 | 7,413 | 6,225.4 | 91,280,696 | 21,609,872 | 1,460,635,136 |
| Shreveport, La. | Vicksburg, Miss. | 37 | 60 | 6 | 168.8 | 1,285,536 | 343,200 | 1,628,736 | 9,649 | 6,394,2 | 92,918,432 | 26,059,776 | 1,486,694,912 |
| Salem, Oreg. | Portland, Oreg. | 38 | 14 | 5 | 56.9 | 1,251,757 | 292,250 | 1,544,007 | 27,135 | 6,451.1 | 94,462,439 | 24,704,112 | 1,511,399,024 |
| Junction, Route 4, Ill. | Junction, Route 2, Ill. | 39 | 14 | 5 | 155.5 | 1,977,627 | 451,000 | 2,428,627 | 15,618 | 6,606.6 | 96,891,066 | 38,858,032 | 1,550,257,056 |
| Perrysburg, Ohio | Cleveland, Ohio | 40 | 20 | 2 | 79.3 | 1,445,298 | 357,900 | 1,803,198 | 22,739 | 6,685.9 | 98,694,264 | 28,854,168 | 1,579,108,224 |
| Junction, Route 6, S.C. | Richmond, Va. | 41 | 50 | 1 | 362.6 | 2,560,582 | 843,900 | 3,404,482 | 9,389 | 7,048.5 | 102,098,746 | 54,471,712 | 1,633,579,936 |
| St. Louis, Mo. | Junction, Route 4, Ill. | 42 | 38 | 3 | 88.8 | 1,040,122 | 258,200 | 1,278,322 | 14,396 | 7,137.3 | 103,377,068 | 20,453,152 | 1,654,033,088 |
| Albany, N.Y. | Junction, Route 1, Mass. | 43 | 17 | 2 | 147.2 | 2,902,427 | 841,600 | 3,744,027 | 25,435 | 7,284.5 | 107,121,095 | 59,904,432 | 1,713,937,520 |
| Pittsburgh, Pa. | Carlisle, Pa. | 44 | 19 | 4 | 166.6 | 3,451,560 | 606,500 | 4,058,060 | 24,358 | 7,451.1 | 111,179,155 | 64,928,960 | 1,778,866,480 |
| Tulsa, Okla. | Springfield, Mo. | 45 | 48 | 3 | 171.3 | 1,403,259 | 346,950 | 1,750,209 | 10,217 | 7,622.4 | 112,929,364 | 28,003,344 | 1,806,869,824 |
| Junction, Route 3, Mich.–Ind. | Perrysburg, Ohio | 46 | 40 | 2 | 69.9 | 641,501 | 219,750 | 861,251 | 12,821 | 7,692.3 | 113,790,615 | 13,780,016 | 1,820,649,840 |
| Jacksonville, Fla. | Junction, Route 6, S.C. | 47 | 49 | 1 | 219.3 | 1,609,093 | 523,950 | 2,214,043 | 10,096 | 7,911.6 | 116,004,658 | 35,424,688 | 1,856,074,528 |
| Detroit, Mich. | Port Huron, Mich. | 48 | 29 | [2]3 | 72.5 | 988,641 | 321,250 | 1,309,891 | 18,067 | 7,984.1 | 117,314,549 | 20,958,256 | 1,877,032,784 |
| Springfield, Mo. | St. Louis, Mo. | 49 | 43 | 3 | 165.2 | 1,919,797 | 357,800 | 2,277,597 | 13,787 | 8,149.3 | 119,592,146 | 36,441,552 | 1,913,474,336 |
| Junction, Route 4, Pa. | Junction, Route 1, Mo. | 50 | 51 | 4-A | 88.5 | 697,022 | 207,750 | 904,772 | 10,223 | 8,237.8 | 120,496,918 | 14,476,352 | 1,927,950,688 |
| Roseburg, Oreg. | Salem, Oreg. | 51 | 39 | 5 | 133.3 | 1,450,831 | 356,600 | 1,807,431 | 13,559 | 8,371.1 | 122,304,349 | 28,918,896 | 1,956,869,584 |
| El Paso, Tex. | Odessa, Tex. | 52 | 56 | 6 | 245.2 | 1,906,610 | 442,800 | 2,349,410 | 9,582 | 8,616.3 | 124,653,759 | 37,590,560 | 1,994,460,144 |
| Indio, Calif. | Phoenix, Ariz. | 53 | 62 | 6 | 254.0 | 1,245,913 | 426,00 | 1,671,913 | 6,582 | 8,870.3 | 126,325,672 | 26,750,608 | 2,021,210,752 |
| Columbus, Ohio | Pittsburgh, Pa. | 54 | 22 | 4 | 195.0 | 3,112,956 | 630,000 | 3,742,956 | 19,195 | 9,065.3 | 130,068,628 | 59,887,296 | 2,081,098,048 |
| Portland, Oreg. | Junction, Route 2, Wash. | 55 | 22 | 5 | 146.7 | 3,416,893 | 716,750 | 4,133,643 | 28,178 | 9,212.0 | 134,202,271 | 66,138,288 | 2,147,236,336 |
| Junction, Route 2, Wash. | Canadian boundary | 56 | 25 | 5 | 124.7 | 2,536,837 | 519,400 | 3,056,237 | 24,509 | 9,336.7 | 137,258,508 | 48,899,792 | 2,196,136,128 |
| Junction, Route 6, Tex. | Tulsa, Okla. | 57 | 55 | 3 | 270.5 | 2,479,88 | 555,750 | 3,035,609 | 11,222 | 9,607.2 | 140,294,116 | 48,569,728 | 2,224,705,856 |
| Auburn, Calif. | Reno, Nev. | 58 | 46 | 4 | 106.5 | 1,195,112 | 374,500 | 1,569,612 | 14,738 | 9,713.7 | 141,863,728 | 25,113,792 | 2,289,819,648 |
| Ashland, Oreg. | Roseburg, Oreg. | 59 | 47 | 5 | 122.9 | 1,617,543 | 413,700 | 2,031,243 | 16,528 | 9,836.6 | 143,894,971 | 32,499,888 | 2,302,319,536 |
| Las Vegas, Nev. | Salt Lake City, Utah | 60 | 65 | 4-S | 407.5 | 2,229,152 | 965,000 | 3,194,152 | 7,838 | 10,244.1 | 147,089,123 | 51,106,432 | 2,353,425,968 |
| Birmingham, Ala. | Atlanta, Ga. | 61 | 64 | 6 | 141.2 | 1,074,699 | 346,800 | 1,421,499 | 10,067 | 10,385.3 | 148,510,622 | 22,743,984 | 2,376,169,952 |
| Boardman, Oreg. | Boise, Idaho | 62 | 63 | 4-N | 253.1 | 1,935,163 | 767,750 | 2,702,913 | 10,679 | 10,638.4 | 151,213,535 | 43,246,608 | 2,419,416,560 |
| Salt Lake City, Utah | Greeley, Colo. | 63 | 66 | 4 | 463.3 | 3,016,214 | 1,293,250 | 4,309,464 | 9,302 | 11,101.7 | 155,532,999 | 68,951,424 | 2,488,367,984 |
| Rupert, Idaho | Brigham, Utah | 64 | 71 | 4-N | 119.7 | 367,730 | 314,250 | 681,980 | 5,697 | 11,221.4 | 156,204,979 | 10,911,680 | 2,499,279,664 |
| Redding, Calif. | Ashland, Oreg. | 65 | 59 | 5 | 138.2 | 1,690,213 | 336,400 | 2,026,613 | 14,664 | 11,359.6 | 158,231,592 | 32,425,808 | 2,531,705,472 |
| Seattle, Wash. | Ellensburg, Wash. | 66 | 53 | 2 | 90.0 | 1,561,325 | 285,000 | 1,846,325 | 20,515 | 11,449.6 | 160,077,917 | 29,541,200 | 2,561,246,672 |
| Vicksburg, Miss. | Birmingham, Ala. | 67 | 67 | 6 | 270.5 | 1,984,675 | 555,750 | 2,540,425 | 9.392 | 11,720.1 | 162,618,342 | 40,646,800 | 2,601,893,472 |
| Bangor, Maine | Canadian boundary | 68 | 68 | 1 | 196.6 | 1,256,684 | 581,500 | 1,838,184 | 9,350 | 11,916.7 | 164,456,526 | 29,410,944 | 2,631,304,416 |
| Portland, Oreg. | Boardman, Oreg. | 69 | 52 | 4-N | 163.4 | 2,121,481 | 343,000 | 2,464,481 | 15,083 | 12,080.1 | 166,921,007 | 30,431,696 | 2,670,736,112 |
| Mexican boundary | San Antonio, Tex. | 70 | 69 | 3 | 156.2 | 989,166 | 279,300 | 1,268,466 | 8,121 | 12,236.3 | 168,189,473 | 20,295,456 | 2,691,031,568 |
| Augusta, Ga. | Charleston, S.C. | 71 | 70 | 6 | 116.3 | 654,763 | 294,450 | 949,213 | 8,162 | 12,352.6 | 169,138,686 | 15,187,408 | 2,706,218,976 |
| Reno, Nev. | Salt Lake City, Utah | 72 | 73 | 4 | 514.9 | 1,940,005 | 1,149,800 | 3,089,805 | 6,001 | 12,867.5 | 172,228,491 | 49,436,880 | 2,755,655,856 |
| Spokane, Wash. | Fargo, N. Dak. | 73 | 75 | 2 | 1,169.6 | 5,252,541 | 3,344,000 | 8,596,541 | 7,350 | 14,037.1 | 180,825,032 | 137,544,656 | 2,893,200,512 |
| Ellensburg, Wash. | Spokane, Wash. | 74 | 74 | 2 | 145.9 | 1,015,199 | 315,800 | 1,366,999 | 9,369 | 14,183.0 | 182,192,031 | 21,871,984 | 2,915,072,496 |
| Atlanta, Ga. | Augusta, Ga. | 75 | 72 | 6 | 153.2 | 1,497,040 | 364,800 | 1,861,840 | 12,153 | 14,336.2 | 184,053,871 | 29,789,440 | 2,944,861,939 |
| Total | 14,336.2 | 140,404,071 | 43,652,800 | 184,053,871 | 12,838 | 2,944,861,936 | |||||||
The annual cost would continue after 1960 at approximately the same average annual rate; and, until 1975, when the indebtedness would be completely retired, it would include the regular annual payment for debt service. The total of these payments over the 30-year period would be $4,212,032,130; and the difference between this amount and the $2,899,770,145 borrowed, or $1,312,261,985, represents the total cost of borrowing. This $1,312,261,985 of direct finance cost is 45.3 percent of the net cost of construction.
With payment of the sixteenth annual installment of the 4.84 percent debt service charge at the end of the year 1960, approximately 44 percent of the debt would have been retired. On the basis of the composite service life of 65.5 years, as previously estimated for all elements of the facilities, and assuming a straight-line depreciation, the accumulated depreciation by 1960 would be less than 25 percent. Comparison of the residual value of more than 75 percent with the unretired 56 percent of the debt, indicates adequate security for the refinancing of any necessary reconstruction.
COMPARISON OF REVENUES AND COSTS
For the entire system and 75 constituent sections, what is believed to be the maximum possible estimate of toll-paying traffic that would have used the selected routes in 1937 is shown in table 2. (See p. 24.) The total for all routes is 5,823,745 vehicle-miles per day, or 2,125,666,925 vehicle-miles per year. These estimates are based on actual traffic counts made during the year 1937.
In consideration of growth trends of population and motor-vehicle registration and the increased annual travel of vehicles, it has been estimated (see pp. 33 and 34) that utilization of the system in 1960 would be 2.5 times the 1937 value, and that the accumulated utilization during the period 1945 to 1960, inclusive, would be 34.2 times the 1937 value. It has not been considered advisable to attempt to estimate traffic beyond the year 1960.
It has been concluded that the toll rates that would probably produce the most favorable return for the system as a whole would average 1 cent per mile for each passenger car and 3.5 cents per mile for each motortruck and bus, the latter rate varying considerably with the weight and capacity of the vehicles. Assuming motortruck and bus traffic to constitute 20 percent of the total traffic, these rates result in an approximate average rate of 1% cents per mile for each vehicle without regard to type.
This rate has been applied to the forecast vehicle mileage for the year 1960 and for the period 1945-60, for the system as a whole and for each of the 75 sections previously identified, and the corresponding gross revenues are shown respectively in tables 18 and 19. For the entire system of 14,336 miles, the gross revenue for the year 1960 totals $84,037,000, as shown in table 18. For the period 1945-60 the revenues are estimated at a total of $1,154,237,000, as shown in table 19.[1]
- ↑ About 5.5 percent of these gross earnings are derived from special bridge tolls collectible where no free competition exists.
| Description | Number in order of revenue as a percentage of cost |
Number in order of traffic volume |
Route | By individual sections | Totals accumulated by sections | |||||||||||||||
| From— | To— | Length | Revenue | Costs | Revenue as a percentage of cost |
Length | Revenue | Costs | Revenue as a percentage of cost | |||||||||||
| Miles | Percent | Miles | Percent | |||||||||||||||||
| Jersey City, N.J. | New Haven, Conn. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 65.6 | $4,773,166 | $4,366,171 | 109.3 | 65.6 | $4,773,166 | $4,366,171 | 109.3 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 4, Pa. | Jersey City, N.J. | 2 | 2 | 1 | 106.8 | 5,359,401 | 5,179,294 | 103.5 | 172.4 | 10,132,567 | 9,545,465 | 106.2 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 5, Calif. | Whitewater, Calif. | 3 | 6 | 6 | 91.0 | 1,625,161 | 1,770,939 | 91.8 | 263.5 | 11,575,728 | 11,316,404 | 103.9 | ||||||||
| Washington, D.C. | Baltimore, Md. | 4 | 4 | 1 | 39.3 | 858,305 | 969,511 | 88.5 | 302.7 | 12,616,033 | 12,285,915 | 102.7 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 2, Mass. | Portland, Maine | 5 | 5 | 1 | 133.9 | 2,566,097 | 3,025,376 | 84.8 | 436.6 | 15,182,130 | 15,311,291 | 99.2 | ||||||||
| Miami, Fla. | Jacksonville, Fla. | 6 | 34 | 1 | 326.5 | 2,066,984 | 2,482,112 | 88.3 | 763.1 | 17,249,114 | 17,793,403 | 96.9 | ||||||||
| Baltimore, Md. | Junction, Route 4, Pa. | 7 | 7 | 1 | 76.2 | 1,948,475 | 2,341,163 | 83.2 | 839.3 | 19,197,589 | 20,134,566 | 95.3 | ||||||||
| Richmond, Va. | Washington, D.C. | 8 | 12 | 1 | 108.3 | 1,396,703 | 1,834,681 | 76.1 | 947.6 | 20,594,292 | 21,960,247 | 93.7 | ||||||||
| San Ysidro, Calif. | Junction, Route 6, Calif. | 9 | 8 | 5 | 124.4 | 1,933,343 | 2,544,240 | 76.0 | 1,072.0 | 22,527,635 | 24,513,487 | 94.8 | ||||||||
| Whitewater, Calif. | Indio. Calif. | 10 | 24 | 6 | 32.7 | 267,473 | 365,036 | 73.3 | 1,104.7 | 22,795,108 | 24,878,523 | 91.6 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 3, Ill. | Junction, Route 3, Mich.–Ind. | 11 | 9 | 2 | 156.9 | 2,393,515 | 3,283,094 | 72.9 | 1,261.6 | 25,188,623 | 28,161,617 | 89.4 | ||||||||
| Brigham, Utah | Salt Lake City, Utah | 12 | 35 | 4-N | 52.3 | 293.758 | 420,044 | 69.9 | 1,313.9 | 25,482,381 | 28,581,661 | 89.2 | ||||||||
| Odessa, Tex. | Junction, Route 3, Tex. | 13 | 31 | 6 | 337.9 | 2,229,553 | 3,323,896 | 67.1 | 1,651.8 | 27,711,934 | 31,905,557 | 86.9 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 6, Calif. | San Fernando, Calif. | 14 | 3 | 5 | 44.8 | 1,659,032 | 1,704,467 | 62.1 | 1,696.6 | 28,770,966 | 33,610,024 | 85.6 | ||||||||
| Buffalo, N.Y. | Albany, N.Y. | 15 | 11 | 2 | 287.6 | 3,999,194 | 6,465,359 | 61.9 | 1,984.2 | 32,770,160 | 40,075,383 | 81.8 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 6, Calif. | Ludlow, Calif. | 16 | 43 | 4-S | 69.1 | 301,447 | 487,442 | 61.8 | 2,053.3 | 33,071,607 | 40,562,825 | 81.5 | ||||||||
| San Fernando, Calif. | Tracy, Calif. | 17 | 21 | 5 | 291.7 | 2,237,203 | 3,660,813 | 61.1 | 2,345.0 | 35,308,810 | 44,223,638 | 79.8 | ||||||||
| Minneapolis, Minn. | Junction, Route 3, Ill. | 18 | 26 | 2 | 392.6 | 3,066,415 | 5,319,989 | 57.6 | 2,737.6 | 38,375,225 | 49,543,627 | 77.5 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 4, Calif. | Redding, Calif. | 19 | 44 | 5 | 153.7 | 655,844 | 1,143,843 | 57.3 | 2,891,3 | 39,031,069 | 50,687,470 | 77.0 | ||||||||
| San Antonio, Tex. | Junction, Route 5, Tex. | 20 | 36 | 3 | 250.7 | 1,360,262 | 2,557,538 | 53.2 | 3,142.0 | 40,391,331 | 53,245,008 | 75.9 | ||||||||
| Portland, Maine | Bangor, Maine | 21 | 30 | 1 | 121.3 | 811,939 | 1,545,794 | 52.5 | 3,263.3 | 41,203,270 | 54,790,802 | 75.2 | ||||||||
| St. Joseph, Mo. | Junction, Route 3, Ill. | 22 | 41 | 4 | 275.7 | 1,371,323 | 2,653,359 | 51.7 | 3,539.0 | 42,574,593 | 57,444,161 | 74.1 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 3, Ill. | Indianapolis, Ind. | 23 | 37 | 4 | 203.7 | 1,099,686 | 2,141,088 | 51.4 | 3,742.7 | 43,674,279 | 59,585,249 | 73.3 | ||||||||
| Carlisle, Pa. | Junction, Route 1, Pa. | 24 | 13 | 4 | 94.8 | 1,101,118 | 2,159,260 | 51.0 | 3,837.5 | 44,775,397 | 61,744,509 | 72.5 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 2, Ind. | Detroit, Mich. | 25 | 15 | 3 Mich. | 102.2 | 1,121,581 | 2,024,898 | 50.9 | 3,939.7 | 45,896,978 | 63,949,407 | 71.8 | ||||||||
| Tracy, Calif. | Junction, Route 4, Calif. | 26 | 23 | 5 | 69.1 | 588,770 | 1,164,844 | 50.5 | 4,008.8 | 46,485,748 | 65,114,251 | 71.4 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 3, Tex. | Shreveport, La. | 27 | 27 | 6 | 190.4 | 1,422,427 | 2,938,833 | 48.4 | 4,199.2 | 47,908,175 | 68,053,084 | 70.4 | ||||||||
| Ludlow, Calif. | Las Vegas, Nev. | 28 | 58 | 4-S | 117.0 | 334,957 | 698,724 | 47.9 | 4,316.2 | 48,243,132 | 68,751,808 | 70.2 | ||||||||
| Fargo, N. Dak. | Minneapolis, Minn. | 29 | 45 | 2 | 219.2 | 899,067 | 1,880,823 | 47.8 | 4,535.3 | 49,142,199 | 70,632,631 | 69.6 | ||||||||
| New Haven, Conn. | Junction, Route 2, Mass. | 30 | 10 | 1 | 99.8 | 1,425,849 | 2,996,029 | 47.6 | 4,635.1 | 50,568,048 | 73,628,660 | 68.7 | ||||||||
| Greeley, Colo. | St. Joseph, Mo. | 31 | 54 | 4 | 529.7 | 1,863,093 | 3,992,869 | 46.7 | 5,164.8 | 52,431,141 | 77,621,529 | 67.5 | ||||||||
| Indianapolis, Ind. | Columbus, Ohio | 32 | 28 | 4 | 156.6 | 1,090,934 | 2,374,700 | 45.9 | 5,321.4 | 53,522,075 | 79,996,229 | 66.9 | ||||||||
| Phoenix, Ariz. | El Paso, Tex. | 33 | 61 | 6 | 391.1 | 1,023,696 | 2,310,330 | 44.3 | 5,712.5 | 54,545,771 | 82,306,559 | 66.3 | ||||||||
| Cleveland, Ohio | Buffalo, N.Y. | 34 | 18 | 2 | 220.7 | 2,238,510 | 5,063,783 | 44.2 | 5,933.2 | 56,784,281 | 87,370,342 | 65.0 | ||||||||
| Oakland, Calif. | Auburn, Calif. | 35 | 16 | 4 | 110.0 | 1,124,703 | 2,568,737 | 43.8 | 6,043.2 | 57,908,984 | 89,939,079 | 64.4 | ||||||||
| Boise, Idaho | Rupert, Idaho | 36 | 57 | 4-N | 182.2 | 583,713 | 1,350,617 | 43.2 | 6,225.4 | 58,492,697 | 91,280,696 | 64.1 | ||||||||
| Shreveport, La. | Vicksburg, Miss. | 37 | 60 | 6 | 168.8 | 673,674 | 1,628,736 | 41.4 | 6,394.2 | 59,166,371 | 92,918,432 | 63.7 | ||||||||
| Salem, Oreg. | Portland, Oreg. | 38 | 14 | 5 | 56.9 | 637,632 | 1,544,007 | 41.3 | 6,451.1 | 59,804,003 | 94,462,439 | 63.9 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 4, Ill. | Junction, Route 2, Ill. | 39 | 33 | 3 | 155.5 | 992,111 | 2,428,627 | 40.9 | 6,606.6 | 60,796,114 | 96,891,066 | 62.7 | ||||||||
| Perrysburg, Ohio | Cleveland, Ohio | 40 | 20 | 2 | 79.3 | 730,810 | 1,803,198 | 40.5 | 6,685.9 | 61,526,924 | 98,694,264 | 62.3 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 5, S.C. | Richmond, Va. | 41 | 50 | 1 | 362.6 | 1,379,156 | 3,404,482 | 40.5 | 7,048.5 | 62,906,080 | 102,008,746 | 61.6 | ||||||||
| St. Louis, Mo. | Junction, Route 4, Ill. | 42 | 38 | 3 | 88.8 | 517,609 | 1,278,322 | 40.5 | 7,137.3 | 63,423,689 | 103,377,068 | 61.4 | ||||||||
| Albany. N.Y. | Junction, Route 1, Mass. | 43 | 17 | 2 | 147.2 | 1,501,047 | 3,744,027 | 40.1 | 7,284.5 | 64,924,736 | 107,121,095 | 60.6 | ||||||||
| Pittsburgh, Pa. | Carlisle, Pa. | 44 | 19 | 4 | 166.6 | 1,623,921 | 4,058,060 | 40.0 | 7,451.1 | 66,548,657 | 111,179,155 | 59.9 | ||||||||
| Tulsa, Okla. | Springfield, Mo. | 45 | 48 | 3 | 171.3 | 691,249 | 1,750,209 | 39.5 | 7,622.4 | 67,239,906 | 112,929,364 | 59.5 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 3, Mich.–Ind. | Perrysburg, Ohio | 46 | 40 | 2 | 69.9 | 335,433 | 861,251 | 38.9 | 7,692.3 | 67,575,339 | 113,790,615 | 59.4 | ||||||||
| Jacksonville, Fla. | Junction, Route 6, S.C. | 47 | 49 | 1 | 219.3 | 861,017 | 2,214,043 | 38.9 | 7,911.6 | 68,436,356 | 116,004,658 | 5.0 | ||||||||
| Detroit, Mich. | Port Huron, Mich. | 48 | 29 | 3 Mich. | 72.5 | 504,071 | 1,309,891 | 38.5 | 7,984.1 | 68,940,427 | 117,314,549 | 58.8 | ||||||||
| Springfield, Mo. | St. Louis, Mo. | 49 | 43 | 3 | 165.3 | 847,997 | 2,277,597 | 37.2 | 8,149.3 | 69,788,424 | 119,592,146 | 58.4 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 4, Pa. | Junction, Route 1, Md. | 50 | 51 | 4-A | 88.5 | 330,580 | 904,772 | 36.6 | 8,237.8 | 70,119,004 | 120,496,918 | 58.2 | ||||||||
| Roseburg, Oreg. | Salem, Oreg. | 51 | 39 | 5 | 133.3 | 643,301 | 1,807,431 | 35.6 | 8,371.1 | 70,762,305 | 122,304,349 | 57.9 | ||||||||
| El Paso, Tex. | Odessa, Tex. | 52 | 56 | 6 | 245.2 | 829,008 | 2,349,410 | 35.5 | 8,616.3 | 71,591,313 | 124,653,759 | 57.4 | ||||||||
| Indio, Calif. | Phoenix, Ariz. | 53 | 63 | 6 | 254.0 | 571,348 | 1,671,913 | 34.2 | 8,780.3 | 72,162,661 | 126,325,672 | 57.1 | ||||||||
| Columbus, Ohio | Pittsburg, Pa. | 54 | 32 | 4 | 195,0 | 1,262,734 | 3,742,956 | 33.7 | 9,665.3 | 73,425,395 | 130,068,628 | 56.5 | ||||||||
| Portland, Oreg. | Junction, Route 2, Wash. | 55 | 22 | 5 | 146.7 | 1,307,952 | 4,133,643 | 31.6 | 9,212.0 | 74,733,347 | 134,202,271 | 55.7 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 2, Wash. | Canadian boundary | 56 | 25 | 5 | 124.7 | 963,904 | 3,056,237 | 31.5 | 9,336.7 | 75,697,251 | 137,258,508 | 55.1 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 6, Tex. | Tulsa, Okla. | 57 | 55 | 3 | 270.5 | 929,290 | 3,035,608 | 30.6 | 9,607.2 | 76,626,541 | 140,294,116 | 54.6 | ||||||||
| Auburn, Calif. | Reno, Nev. | 58 | 46 | 4 | 106.5 | 435,566 | 1,569,612 | 27.7 | 9,713.7 | 77,062,107 | 141,863,728 | 54.3 | ||||||||
| Ashland, Oreg. | Roseburg, Oreg. | 59 | 47 | 5 | 122.9 | 499,285 | 2,031,243 | 24.6 | 9,836.6 | 77,561,392 | 143,894,971 | 53.9 | ||||||||
| Las Vegas, Nev. | Salt Lake City, Utah. | 60 | 65 | 4-S | 407.5 | 777,749 | 8,194,152 | 24.3 | 10,244.1 | 78,339,141 | 147,089,123 | 53.3 | ||||||||
| Birmingham, Ala. | Atlanta, Ga. | 61 | 64 | 6 | 141.2 | 298,367 | 1,421,499 | 21.0 | 10,385.3 | 78,637,508 | 148,510,622 | 53.0 | ||||||||
| Boardman, Oreg. | Boise, Idaho | 62 | 63 | 4-N | 253.1 | 545,173 | 2,702,913 | 20.2 | 10,638.4 | 79,182,681 | 151,213,513 | 52.4 | ||||||||
| Salt Lake City, Utah | Greeley, Colo. | 63 | 66 | 4 | 463.3 | 858,985 | 4,209,464 | 19.9 | 11,101.7 | 80,041,666 | 155,522,999 | 51.5 | ||||||||
| Rupert, Idaho | Brigham, Utah | 64 | 71 | 4-N | 119.7 | 130,548 | 681,980 | 19.1 | 11,221.4 | 80,172,214 | 156,204,979 | 51.3 | ||||||||
| Redding, Calif. | Ashland, Oreg. | 65 | 59 | 5 | 138.2 | 384,349 | 2,026,613 | 19.0 | 11,359.6 | 80,556,563 | 158,231,592 | 50.9 | ||||||||
| Seattle, Wash. | Ellensburg, Wash. | 66 | 53 | 2 | 90.0 | 331,277 | 1,846,325 | 17.9 | 11,449.6 | 80,887,840 | 160,977,917 | 50.5 | ||||||||
| Vicksburg, Miss. | Birmingham, Ala. | 67 | 67 | 6 | 270.5 | 446,201 | 2,540,425 | 17.6 | 11,720.1 | 81,334,041 | 162,618,342 | 50.0 | ||||||||
| Bangor, Maine | Canadian boundary | 68 | 68 | 1 | 196.6 | 318,939 | 1,838,184 | 17.4 | 11,916.7 | 81,652,980 | 164,456,526 | 49.7 | ||||||||
| Portland, Oreg. | Boardman, Oreg. | 69 | 52 | 4-N | 163.4 | 413,455 | 2,464,481 | 16.8 | 12,080.1 | 82,066,435 | 166,921,007 | 49.2 | ||||||||
| Mexican boundary | San Antonio, Tex. | 70 | 69 | 3 | 156.2 | 204,424 | 1,268,466 | 16.1 | 12,236.3 | 82,270,859 | 168,189,473 | 48.9 | ||||||||
| Augusta, Ga. | Charleston, S.C. | 72 | 73 | 4 | 116.3 | 144,276 | 949,213 | 15.2 | 12,352.6 | 82,415,135 | 169,138,686 | 48.7 | ||||||||
| Reno, Nev. | Salt Lake City, Utah | 72 | 73 | 4 | 514.9 | 442,234 | 3,089,805 | 14.3 | 12,867.5 | 82,857,369 | 172,228,491 | 48.1 | ||||||||
| Spokane, Wash. | Fargo, N. Dak. | 73 | 75 | 2 | 1,169.6 | 892,919 | 8,596,541 | 10,4 | 14,037.1 | 83,750,288 | 180,825,032 | 46.3 | ||||||||
| Ellensburg, Wash. | Spokane, Wash. | 74 | 74 | 2 | 145.9 | 123,322 | 1,366,999 | 9.0 | 14,183.0 | 83,873,610 | 182,192,031 | 46.0 | ||||||||
| Atlanta, Ga. | Augusta, Ga. | 75 | 72 | 6 | 153.2 | 162,911 | 1,861,840 | 8.8 | 14,336.2 | 84,036,521 | 184,053,871 | 45.7 | ||||||||
| Total | 14,336.2 | 84,036,521 | 184,053,871 | 45.7 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Description | Number in order of revenue as a percentage of cost |
Number in order of traffic volume |
Route | By individual sections | Totals accumulated by sections | |||||||||||||||
| From— | To— | Length | Revenue | Costs | Revenue as a percentage of cost |
Length | Revenue | Costs | Revenue as a percentage of cost | |||||||||||
| Miles | Percent | Miles | Percent | |||||||||||||||||
| Jersey City, N.J. | New Haven, Conn. | 1 | 1 | 65.6 | $65,559,143 | $69,858,736 | 93.8 | 65.6 | $65,559,143 | $69,858,736 | 93.8 | |||||||||
| Junction, Route 4, Pa. | Jersey City, N.J. | 2 | 1 | 106.8 | 73,811,054 | 82,868,706 | 88.8 | 172.4 | 139,170,197 | 152,727,440 | 91.1 | |||||||||
| Junction, Route 5, Calif. | Whitewater, Calif. | 3 | 6 | 6 | 91.0 | 22,321,485 | 28,335,024 | 78.8 | 263.4 | 161,491,682 | 181,062,464 | 89.2 | ||||||||
| Washington, D.C. | Baltimore, Md. | 4 | 4 | 1 | 39.3 | 11,788,774 | 15,512,176 | 76.0 | 302.7 | 173,280,456 | 196,574,640 | 88.1 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 2, Mass. | Portland, Maine | 5 | 5 | 1 | 133.9 | 35,245,186 | 48,406,016 | 72,8 | 436.6 | 208,525,642 | 244,980,656 | 85.1 | ||||||||
| Miami, Fla. | Jacksonville, Fla. | 6 | 34 | 1 | 326.5 | 28,389,899 | 39,713,792 | 71.5 | 163.1 | 236,915,541 | 284,694,448 | 83.2 | ||||||||
| Baltimore, Md. | Junction, Route 4, Pa. | 7 | 7 | 1 | 76.2 | 26,762,184 | 37,458,608 | 71.4 | 839.3 | 263,677,725 | 322,153,056 | 81.8 | ||||||||
| Richmond, Va. | Washington, D.C. | 8 | 12 | 1 | 108.3 | 19,183,635 | 29,354,896 | 65.4 | 947.6 | 282,861,360 | 351,507,952 | 80.5 | ||||||||
| San Ysidro, Calif. | Junction, Route 6, Calif. | 9 | 8 | 5 | 124.4 | 26,554,351 | 40,707,840 | 65.2 | 1,072.0 | 309,415,711 | 392,215,792 | 78.9 | ||||||||
| Whitewater, Calif. | Indio, Calif. | 10 | 24 | 6 | 32.7 | 3,673,730 | 5,840,576 | 62.9 | 1,104.7 | 313,089,441 | 398,056,368 | 78.7 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 3, Ill. | Junction, Route 3, Michi.–Ind. | 11 | 9 | 2 | 156.9 | 32,874,784 | 52,529,504 | 62.9 | 1,261.6 | 345,964,225 | 450,585,872 | 76.8 | ||||||||
| Brigham, Utah | Salt Lake City, Utah | 12 | 35 | 4-N | 52.3 | 4,034,745 | 6,720,704 | 60.0 | 1,313.9 | 349,998,970 | 457,306,576 | 76.5 | ||||||||
| Odessa, Tex. | Junction, Route 3, Tex. | 13 | 31 | 6 | 337.9 | 30,622,783 | 53,182,336 | 52.6 | 1,651.8 | 380,621,753 | 510,488,912 | 74.6 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 6, Calif. | San Fernando, Calif. | 14 | 3 | 5 | 44.8 | 14,545,739 | 27,271,472 | 53.3 | 1,696.6 | 395,167,492 | 537,760,384 | 73.5 | ||||||||
| Buffalo, N.Y. | Albany, N.Y. | 15 | 11 | 2 | 287.6 | 54,928,688 | 103,445,744 | 53.1 | 1,984.2 | 450,096,180 | 641,208,128 | 70.2 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 6, Calif. | Ludlow, Calif. | 16 | 42 | 4-S | 69.1 | 4,140,355 | 7,799,072 | 53.1 | 2,053.3 | 454,236,535 | 649,005,200 | 70.0 | ||||||||
| San Fernando, Calif. | Tracy, Calif. | 17 | 21 | 5 | 291.7 | 30,727,845 | 58,573,008 | 32.5 | 2,345.0 | 484,964,380 | 707,578,208 | 68.5 | ||||||||
| Minneapolis, Minn. | Junction, Route 3, Ill. | 18 | 26 | 2 | 392.6 | 42,117,026 | 85,119,824 | 49.5 | 2,737.6 | 527,081,406 | 792,698,032 | 66.5 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 4, Calif. | Redding, Calif. | 19 | 44 | 5 | 153.7 | 9,007,972 | 18,301,488 | 49.2 | 2,891.3 | 536,089,378 | 810,999,520 | 66.1 | ||||||||
| San Antonio, Tex. | Junction, Route 6, Tex. | 20 | 36 | 3 | 250.7 | 18,683,118 | 40,920,608 | 45.7 | 2,142.0 | 554,772,496 | 851,920,128 | 65.1 | ||||||||
| Portland, Maine | Bangor, Maine | 21 | 30 | 1 | 121.3 | 11,151,936 | 24,732,704 | 45.1 | 3,263.3 | 565,924,432 | 876,652,832 | 74.6 | ||||||||
| St. Joseph, Mo. | Junction, Route 3, Ill. | 22 | 41 | 4 | 275.7 | 18,835,034 | 42,453,744 | 44.4 | 3,539.0 | 584,759,466 | 919,106,576 | 63.6 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 3, Ill. | Indianapolis, Ind. | 23 | 37 | 4 | 203.7 | 15,104,122 | 34,257,408 | 44.1 | 3,742.7 | 599,863,588 | 953,363,984 | 62.9 | ||||||||
| Carlisle, Pa. | Junction, Route 1, Pa. | 24 | 13 | 4 | 94.8 | 15,123,787 | 34,548,160 | 43.8 | 3,837.5 | 614,987,375 | 987,912,144 | 62.3 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 2, Ind. | Detroit, Mich. | 25 | 15 | 3 Mich. | 102.2 | 15,404,843 | 35,278,368 | 43.7 | 3,939.7 | 630,392,218 | 1,023,190,512 | 61.6 | ||||||||
| Tracy, Calif. | Junction, Route 4, Calif. | 26 | 23 | 5 | 69.1 | 8,086,727 | 18,637,504 | 43.4 | 4,008.8 | 638,478,945 | 1,041,828,016 | 61.3 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 3, Tex. | Shreveport, La. | 27 | 27 | 6 | 190.4 | 19,536,955 | 47,021,328 | 41.5 | 4,199.2 | 658,015,900 | 1,088,849,344 | 60.4 | ||||||||
| Ludlow, Calif. | Las Vegas, Nev. | 28 | 58 | 4-S | 117.0 | 4,600,618 | 11,179,584 | 41.2 | 4,316.2 | 662,616,518 | 1,100,028,928 | 60.2 | ||||||||
| Fargo, N. Dak. | Minneapolis, Minn. | 29 | 45 | 2 | 219.1 | 12,348,628 | 30,093,168 | 41.0 | 4,535.3 | 674,965,146 | 1,130,122,096 | 59.7 | ||||||||
| New Haven, Conn. | Junction, Route 2, Mass. | 30 | 10 | 1 | 99.8 | 19,583,946 | 47,936,464 | 40.9 | 4,635.1 | 694,549,092 | 1,178,058,560 | 59.0 | ||||||||
| Greeley, Colo. | St. Joseph, Mo. | 31 | 54 | 4 | 529.7 | 25,589,466 | 63,885,904 | 40.1 | 5,164.8 | 720,138,558 | 1,241,944,464 | 58.0 | ||||||||
| Indianapolis, Ind. | Columbus, Ohio | 32 | 28 | 4 | 156.6 | 14,983,909 | 37,995,200 | 39.4 | 5,321.4 | 735,122,467 | 1,279,939,664 | 57.4 | ||||||||
| Phoenix, Ariz. | El Paso, Tex. | 33 | 61 | 6 | 391.1 | 14,060,407 | 36,965,280 | 38.0 | 5,712.5 | 749,182,874 | 1,316,904,944 | 56.9 | ||||||||
| Cleveland, Ohio | Buffalo, N.Y. | 34 | 18 | 2 | 230.7 | 30,745,800 | 81,020,528 | 37.9 | 5,933.2 | 779,928,674 | 1,397,925,472 | 55.8 | ||||||||
| Oakland, Calif. | Auburn, Calif. | 35 | 16 | 4 | 110.0 | 15,447,730 | 41,099,792 | 37.6 | 6,043.2 | 795,376,404 | 1,439,025,264 | 55.3 | ||||||||
| Boise, Idaho | Rupert, Idaho | 36 | 57 | 4-N | 182.2 | 8,017,267 | 21,609,872 | 37.1 | 6,225.4 | 803,393,671 | 1,460,635,136 | 55.0 | ||||||||
| Shreveport, La. | Vicksburg, Miss. | 37 | 60 | 6 | 168.8 | 9,252,878 | 26,059,776 | 35.5 | 6,394.2 | 812,646,549 | 1,486,694,912 | 54.7 | ||||||||
| Salem, Oreg. | Portland, Oreg. | 38 | 14 | 5 | 56.9 | 8,757,833 | 24,704,112 | 35.5 | 6,451.1 | 821,404,382 | 1,511,399,024 | 54.3 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 4, Ill. | Junction, Route 2, Ill. | 39 | 33 | 3 | 155.5 | 13,626,580 | 38,858,032 | 35.1 | 6,606.6 | 835,030,962 | 1,550,257,056 | 53.9 | ||||||||
| Perrysburg, Ohio | Cleveland, Ohio | 40 | 20 | 2 | 79.3 | 10,037,632 | 28,851,168 | 34.8 | 6,685.9 | 845,068,594 | 1,579,108,224 | 53.5 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 6, S.C. | Richmond, Va. | 41 | 50 | 1 | 362.6 | 18,942,628 | 54,471,712 | 34.8 | 7,048.5 | 864,011,222 | 1,633,579,936 | 52.9 | ||||||||
| St. Louis, Mo. | Junction, Route 4, Ill. | 42 | 38 | 3 | 88.8 | 7,109,325 | 20,453,152 | 34.8 | 7,137.3 | 871,120,547 | 1,654,033,088 | 52.7 | ||||||||
| Albany, N.Y. | Junction, Route 1, Mass. | 43 | 17 | 2 | 147.2 | 20,616,786 | 59,904,432 | 34.4 | 7,284.5 | 891,737,333 | 1,713,937,520 | 52.0 | ||||||||
| Pittsburgh, Pa. | Carlisle, Pa. | 44 | 19 | 4 | 166.6 | 22,304,453 | 64,928,960 | 34.4 | 7,451.1 | 914,041,786 | 1,778,866,480 | 51.4 | ||||||||
| Tulsa, Okla. | Springfield, Mo. | 45 | 48 | 3 | 171.3 | 9,494,262 | 28,003,344 | 33.9 | 7,622.4 | 923,536,048 | 1,806,869,824 | 51.1 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 3, Mich.–Ind. | Perrysburg, Ohio | 46 | 40 | 2 | 69.9 | 4,607,150 | 13,780,016 | 33.4 | 7,692.3 | 928,143,198 | 1,820,649,840 | 51.0 | ||||||||
| Jacksonville, Fla. | Junction, Route 6, S.C. | 47 | 49 | 1 | 219.3 | 11,826,018 | 35,424,688 | 33.4 | 7,911.6 | 939,969,216 | 1,856,074,528 | 50.6 | ||||||||
| Detroit, Mich. | Port Huron, Mich. | 48 | 29 | 3 Mich | 72.5 | 6,923,380 | 20,958,256 | 33.0 | 7,984.1 | 946,892,596 | 1,877,032,784 | 50.4 | ||||||||
| Springfield, Mo. | St. Louis, Mo. | 49 | 43 | 3 | 165.2 | 11,647,186 | 36,441,552 | 32.0 | 8,149.3 | 958,539,782 | 1,913,474,336 | 50.1 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 4, Pa. | Junction, Route 1, Md. | 50 | 51 | 4-A | 88.5 | 4,540,495 | 14,476,352 | 31.4 | 9,237.8 | 963,080,277 | 1,927,950,688 | 50.0 | ||||||||
| Roseburg, Oreg. | Salem, Oreg. | 51 | 39 | 5 | 133.3 | 8,835,707 | 28,918,896 | 30.6 | 8,371.1 | 971,915,984 | 1,956,869,584 | 59.7 | ||||||||
| El Paso, Tex. | Odessa, Tex. | 52 | 56 | 6 | 245.2 | 11,386,377 | 37,590,560 | 30.3 | 8,616.3 | 983,302,361 | 1,994,460,144 | 49.3 | ||||||||
| Indio, Calif. | Phoenix, Ariz. | 53 | 62 | 6 | 254.0 | 7,847,429 | 26,750,008 | 29.3 | 8,870.3 | 991,149,700 | 2,021,210,752 | 49.0 | ||||||||
| Columbus, Ohio | Pittsburgh, Pa. | 54 | 32 | 4 | 195.0 | 17,343,572 | 59,887,296 | 29.0 | 9,065.3 | 1,008,493,362 | 2,081,098,048 | 48.5 | ||||||||
| Portland, Oreg. | Junction, Route 2, Wash. | 55 | 22 | 5 | 146.7 | 17,964,644 | 66,138,288 | 27.2 | 9,212.0 | 1,026,458,006 | 2,127,236,336 | 47.8 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 2, Wash. | Canadian boundary | 56 | 25 | 5 | 124.7 | 13,239,162 | 48,899,792 | 27.1 | 9,336.7 | 1,039,697,168 | 2,196,136,128 | 47.3 | ||||||||
| Junction, Route 6, Tex. | Tulsa, Okla. | 57 | 55 | 3 | 270.5 | 12,763,748 | 48,569,728 | 26.3 | 9,607.2 | 1,052,460,916 | 2,244,705,856 | 46.9 | ||||||||
| Auburn, Calif. | Reno, Nev. | 58 | 46 | 4 | 106.5 | 5,982,469 | 25,113,792 | 23.8 | 9,713.7 | 1,058,443,385 | 2,269,819,648 | 46.6 | ||||||||
| Ashland, Oreg. | Roseburg, Oreg. | 59 | 47 | 5 | 122.9 | 6,857,647 | 32,499,888 | 21.1 | 9,836.6 | 1,065,301,032 | 2,302,319,536 | 46.3 | ||||||||
| Las Vegas, Nev. | Salt Lake City, Utah | 60 | 65 | 4-S | 407.5 | 10,682,336 | 51,106,432 | 20.9 | 10,244.1 | 1,075,983,368 | 2,353,425,968 | 45.7 | ||||||||
| Birmingham, Ala. | Atlanta, Ga. | 61 | 64 | 6 | 141.2 | 4,098,049 | 22,743,984 | 18.0 | 10,385.3 | 1,080,081,417 | 2,376,169,952 | 45.5 | ||||||||
| Boardman, Oreg. | Boise, Idaho | 62 | 63 | 4-N | 253.1 | 7,487,919 | 43,246,608 | 17.3 | 10,638.4 | 1,087,569,336 | 2,419,416,560 | 45.0 | ||||||||
| Salt Lake City, Utah | Greeley, Colo. | 63 | 66 | 4 | 463.3 | 11,798,111 | 68,951,424 | 17.1 | 11,101.7 | 1,099,367,447 | 2,488,367,984 | 44.2 | ||||||||
| Rupert, Idaho | Brigham, Utah | 64 | 71 | 4-N | 119.7 | 1,793,072 | 10,911,680 | 16.4 | 11,221.4 | 1,101,160,519 | 2,499,279,664 | 44.1 | ||||||||
| Redding, Calif. | Ashland, Oreg. | 65 | 59 | 5 | 138.2 | 5,279,009 | 32,425,808 | 16.3 | 11,359.6 | 1,106,439,528 | 2,531,705,472 | 43.7 | ||||||||
| Seattle, Wash. | Ellensburg, Wash. | 66 | 53 | 2 | 90.0 | 4,550,071 | 29,541,200 | 15.4 | 11,449.6 | 1,110,989,599 | 2,561,246,672 | 43.4 | ||||||||
| Vicksburg, Miss. | Birmingham, Ala. | 67 | 67 | 6 | 270.5 | 6,128,538 | 40,646,800 | 15.1 | 11,720.1 | 1,117,118,137 | 2,601,893,472 | 42.9 | ||||||||
| Bangor, Maine | Canadian boundary | 68 | 68 | 1 | 196.6 | 4,380,610 | 29,410,944 | 14.9 | 11,916.7 | 1,121,498,747 | 2,631,304,416 | 42.6 | ||||||||
| Portland, Oreg. | Boardman, Oreg. | 69 | 52 | 4-N | 163.4 | 5,678,773 | 39,431,696 | 14.4 | 12,080.1 | 1,127,177,520 | 2,670,736,112 | 42.2 | ||||||||
| Mexican boundary | San Antonio, Tex. | 70 | 69 | 3 | 156.2 | 2,807,752 | 20,295,456 | 13.8 | 12,236.3 | 1,129,985,272 | 2,691,031,568 | 42.0 | ||||||||
| Augusta, Ga. | Charleston, S.C. | 71 | 70 | 6 | 116.3 | 1,981,616 | 15,187,408 | 13.0 | 12,352.6 | 1,131,966,888 | 2,706,218,976 | 41.8 | ||||||||
| Reno, Nev. | Salt Lake City, Utah | 72 | 73 | 4 | 514.9 | 6,074,057 | 49,436,880 | 12.3 | 12,867.5 | 1,138,040,945 | 2,755,655,856 | 41.3 | ||||||||
| Spokane, Wash. | Fargo, N. Dak. | 73 | 75 | 2 | 1,169.6 | 12,264,188 | 137,544,656 | 8.9 | 14,037.1 | 1,150,305,133 | 2,893,200,512 | 39.8 | ||||||||
| Ellensburg, Wash. | Spokane, Wash. | 74 | 74 | 2 | 145.9 | 1,693,823 | 24,871,984 | 7.7 | 14,183.0 | 1,151,998,956 | 2,915,072,496 | 39.5 | ||||||||
| Atlanta, Ga. | Augusta, Ga. | 75 | 72 | 6 | 153.2 | 2,237,569 | 29,789,440 | 7.5 | 14.336.2 | 1,154,236,525 | 2,944,861,936 | 39.2 | ||||||||
| Total | 14,336.2 | 1,154,236,525 | 2,944,861,936 | 39.2 | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
In addition to the estimated toll revenues tables 18 and 19 also show the combined debt service, maintenance, and operating costs for the system as a whole and separately for each of its 75 sections, for the year 1960 and for the period 1945-60, respectively. Relations of sectional and total revenues and costs are also indicated by solvency or operating ratios.
Table 18 shows for the year 1960 a deficit of $100,017,350, with a corresponding solvency or operating ratio of 45.7 percent.
Table 19 shows for the period 1945–60 a deficit of $1,790,625,411 with a corresponding solvency or operating ratio of 39.2 percent. In both tables 18 and 19, the 75 sections are arranged in the descending order of the solvency or operating ratios; and their order on the basis of traffic volume is indicated by the serial numbers in column 2.
It is to be noted that the indicated deficits, which are believed to be minimum values, occur for the system as a whole, notwithstanding the use of a liberal estimate of initial use of the toll roads in 1945 and a liberal rate of annual increase of the toll-paying traffic—a rate substantially greater than the estimated general rate of increase in all motor-vehicle traffic.
It may be argued that, since State gasoline taxes have been justified as charges for road use, such tax earnings should contribute to the support of the system of toll roads in proportion to the gasoline consumed on them. Assuming gasoline tax earnings at 0.28 cent per mile for passenger cars and 0.56 cent per mile for trucks and busses the average annual earnings in the period 1945-60 would amount to $15,270,000. Should it be found possible to credit this amount to the toll system it would make no important change in the conclusions reached since the average annual deficit for the entire system would be reduced by only about 14 percent.
From the fact that the system as a whole shows the above-noted deficits, it does not necessarily follow that all sections would show a deficit, since the various sections operate under different relative conditions of first cost, annual cost, and annual revenue. However, examination of the data presented in table 19, particularly the solvency or operating ratios in column 9 and the accumulated ratio in column 13, shows that there is no section or combination of sections that has a solvency or operating ratio above 93.8 percent for the period 1945–60. In the year 1960, table 18 indicates that four sections cumulatively might earn a slight excess of revenue over costs.
It is here to be observed, however, that, in general, unless the various sections and groups of sections form parts of a larger connected toll system the previously estimated toll-paying traffic may not be realized.
Finally, therefore, it is concluded:
That, since a liberal estimate of revenue for the period 1945–60 is less than 40 percent of a conservative estimate of debt service, maintenance, and operating costs for the same period, a toll system on the roads selected as directed in section 18 of the act of June 8, 1938, is not feasible.