Friday, 11 January 2013

Costs of Highways


Costs of Highways

Determining Relevant Costs:              
           
            The total cost for improvements to a highway system or segment includes engineering and design, expenditures for planning, the outlay for acquiring rights of way, and the costs of constructing roadway, structures, and pavements. Selection of the cost items to be included in and excluded from specific economy studies requires straight and careful thinking. A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this book. However, four of the most important considerations are as follows:
1.      In general, allocated costs, used for accounting purposes, should be omitted from economy studies. To illustrate, a given percentage may be added to estimated project costs for administration, planning, and engineering overhead. These costs probably will be incurred whether or not a specific project is undertaken; if so, they are not relevant in comparisons between possible courses of action. Stated differently, only the added or incremental costs are relevant.
2.      Expenditures made before the time of the economy study should not be considered. These are called sunk costs, in that they cannot be recovered by any present or future action. For example: the roadway and pavement of an existing road may be in good condition and have a substantial “book value” in the records of the highway agency. Nevertheless, if one alternatives in the economy study. Again, it would be improper to include costs incurred earlier for preliminary planning and design.
3.      All relevant costs must be included and all irrelevant charges excluded. In this regard, as mentioned earlier, transferred costs may be particularly trouble some. Assume, for example, that one of several plans for a proposed highway improvement requires a private utility company to move its facilities at its own expense. From a budgetary standpoint this cost is not chargeable against the project from a public works economy-study standpoint; however it is a proper charge. Economic resources are consumed. Even though paid from private rather than public funds.
4.      In certain types of economy studies. It is proper to make an allowance for the salvage value of a machine or structure at the end of its estimated useful life. As a general rule, salvage value should be neglected in economic studies for highways. It is conjectural at best to assume that an investment in a highway will have great worth 20, 30, or 40 yr in the future. One exception might be to assign salvage value to the land occupied by the road. Even in this situation only the raw value of the land in its predicted future use, after deducting the cost of converting it to that use, would be included. Other costs associated with acquiring the land in the first place, such as legal expenses and the cost of cleaning it of buildings cannot be recovered and would not be a part of the salvage value.

Proposed highway improvements often will bring changes in annual maintenance and operating costs. For present conditions, data for these should available from the cost records of the highway agency. Estimates of these costs for the proposed improvements must be projected. Here again, only the relevant costs are to be sure that only true cost differences are reflected.

A Framework for Highway Economy Studies


A Framework for Highway Economy Studies:

            Possibly the most difficult and error-prone phase of economy studies lies in placing the study in the proper framework or perspective. And if this phase is done incorrectly, inputs of the most reliable data and flawless procedures for analysis will still give erroneous results. Some of the guidelines to be followed in developing this framework are:

1.      Economy studies are concentrated with forecasting the future consequences of possible investments of resources. Past happenings, unless they affect the future, are not considered. This “forward” look is distinctly different from the “backward” look of accounting practice. This difference is illustrated by the discussion of incremental and sunk costs later in this chapter.
2.      Each alternative among which choices are to be made must be fully and clearly spelled out. As an example, if a freeway is proposed to parallel a busy street, there will be vehicle operating cost savings not only to those diverted to the freeway but, possibly, also to the remaining travelers on the street. On the other hand, traffic using this same freeway could increase congestion and vehicle operating costs on other traffic arteries. This likewise should be recognized. Thus, the first step in analysis is to make a complete list of consequences, both economic and other.
3.      A clear distinction must be made between economic analysis (the use of resources) and financial considerations (the use of money). It has already been indicated in Chapt. 03 that decision making involve dealing with three elements in sequence. These are (a) economic, which is the use of resources; (b) financial, which deals with getting and expending money and, (c) political and administrative, a catchall phrase for all the no quantifiable forces that bear on the decision. It was also indicated that rational decisions were more likely to be reached if the best alternative from an economic point of view were tested in sequence for its financial and political and administrative viability. It this alternative failed either of these two tests the next most viable alternative would then be examined, and so on.  In the past analysts sometimes erroneously have included financial considerations in economy studies. A first illustration is the practice of including interest as a cost only if money is to be borrowed to finance a project. But it can be seen that, regardless of the source of funds, the same resources will be consumed in constructing, maintaining, and operating the proposed highway whether the project is financed with borrowed funds or with current revenues. Two more among the common situations where financial thinking can lead to errors in economy studies involve allocated and sunk costs.

HIGHWAY ECONOMY


HIGHWAY ECONOMY

INTRODUCTION:

            Governments have, of necessity, provided certain facilities that the private sector could not furnish. Among them are highways and public transportation. The intents of the expenditure for highways are to raise the level of the entire economy by providing for ready transportation of goods; to assist in problems of national defense; to make easier the provision of community services such as police and fire protection, medical care, schooling, and delivery of the mails; and to open added opportunities for recreation and travel. Highways benefit the landowner because ready access makes his property more valuable. Their improvement benefits the motor-vehicle user through reduced cost of vehicle operation, savings in time, reduction in accidents, and increased comfort and ease of driving. On the other hand, road improvements consume resources, including land, which might be used for other productive purposes by individuals or by government and the vehicles travelling produce air pollution and noise. From the point of  view of resources use, then, highways can be justified only if, in net sum, the consequences are favorable-that is, if cost reductions to highway users and other beneficiaries of the improvement exceed the costs, including some allowance for the return on the money invested. There are as has been indicated before, numerous other factors to be considered, but this chapter focuses on the economic or resource-use phases.

            Highway economy was under discussion over a century ago. W.M Gillespie, professor of civil engineering at Union College, in his Manual of the Principles and Practice of Road Marking, stated that “A minimum of expenses is of course highly desirable; but the road which is truly the cheapest is not the one which has cost the least money, but the one which makes the most profitable returns in proportion to the amount expended upon it.”

            The first detailed attention to highway economy developed about 40 years ago at lowa State College. It focused largely on the relative economy of various roads surfacing and, later, on the costs of motor-vehicle operation. The advent of the state wide planning surveys with the masses of data developed by them brought attention to many other factors of importance to the overall problem. Even so, attention to highway economy as a topic for detailed research and analysis has been small and sporadic. An accepting was that economic comparisons of alternative routes on the Interstate System were required by federal regulations. Many of these were based on the so-called Red-Book, developed by the AASHO Committee on the Highway Design. Further impetus for economic analysis on federal-aid projects many come through the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 (Sect. 186) which required that in 1972 the Federal Highway Administration.

The Planning Dilemma


The Planning Dilemma:    

            As indicated in Chapter 1, the United States is, for better or worse, tightly bound to the motor vehicle. Until the early or middle 1960s, the attitude of the public and their elected representatives toward highways, and particularly freeways, was highly favorable. Even today, such attitudes generally prevail toward highway investments in rural areas, although some critics blame the automobile for such problems as the removal of land from productive use, its failure or that of alternative transportation schemes to provide for the movement of rural residents, particularly the poor, and the overcrowding and despoiling of recreational and scenic areas. But a possibly large segment of the population and many social scientists and politicians charge the motor vehicle and the freeways and streets that serve it with primary responsibility for such urban problems as air and noise pollution, urban sprawl, displacement of the poor and minorities from their homes, and the detoriation of the central city and close-in residential areas. Thus, where a few years ago highway agencies proceeded with their urban programs with little interference and with a feeling of certainty, they now operate in an atmosphere of confusion, uncertainty and distrust. This situation is not peculiar to transportation, for agencies charged with other public responsibilities also are being subjected to strong criticism. 

HIGHWAY AND URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING


HIGHWAY AND URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

The Development of Highway Planning:

            In the United States before 1930, the primary attention of highway agencies was focused on establishing a system of all-weather rural roads. With this objective there seemed to be little need for “planning” the problem was to get the roads built.

            About 1930 the attitude toward planning began to change. City streets were in relative distress, and many rural highways were overloaded. The practice of using all federal aid and the bulk of state highway funds for the improvement of main rural highways needed examination. And yet what were the next most important groups of roads or streets? Should their improvement supersede the demand for reconstruction of much of the main system that was rapidly becoming inadequate for increased traffic?

            From the data at hand such questions were unanswerable. To get facts on which to base decision, the so-called “highway planning surveys” were under taken. Beginning with the Federal-Aid Act of 1934, Congress authorized expenditures not to exceed 1 ½ % of federal-aid funds apportioned to each state for the making of surveys, plans, and engineering investigations of projects for future construction. In addition, the usual “matching” provision was waived. By 1940, all the state highway departments were assembling the facts necessary to develop long range highway- improvement programs.

            Today, planning has become a basic activity of every major highway or transportation agency. Data assembled by the planning departments are used to develop programs for the years ahead, and in almost administrative decisions. New planning procedures are under continuous development; in many of these activities, scientific applications such as special instruments, statistical methods, and computer analysis are replacing the cumbersome and time consuming hand-labour methods of earlier days. But in spite of developments such as these, the planning premises and approaches of highway agencies and the proposals for highway improvements stemming from them are being challenged on many fronts. As a result, some projects, particularly urban freeways, are not being constructed at all and others have been substantially delayed. For example: a 1971 study by the Texas Highway Department indicated that an average of 8 years and 5 mo elapsed between authorization to proceed with a project and its opening to traffic, and even longer lead times are anticipated when the environmental impact statements called for by the Environmental protection Act are required.

Research for Highways



Research for Highways:

            The Federal Highway Administration and other Federal agencies, the individual state highway departments, a number of universities, private or university related research groups and individuals, and many of the other organizations and associations mentioned here conduct research on highway problems. Many other agencies operating in parallel fields also have projects with strong highway implications. The output from these efforts is large; one estimate places it at 60 million pages per year. Thus, merely to find what research has been done or is under way is a difficult task. The Computer-based reporting by the Transportation Research Board, mentioned above, is offering at least a partial answer to the problem. Also, many reports are available through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va 22151.
           
The Conceive, finance, and properly organize, conduct, and report the findings of research is a difficult task, but its discussion is beyond the scope of this work.   
   

     


American Road Builders Association (ARBA)


American Road Builders Association (ARBA):

            This association is a nonprofit, noncommercial organization whose membership includes highway officials, engineers, teachers, equipment manufacturers and distributors, materials producers, and contractors. The association has a number of committees active in all branches of the highway filed. It publishes a series of technical bulletins; references to some of them will be found in this book.

Other Highway Associations:

            Numerous trade associations interested in promoting the use of their products are also active in the highway field. Typical of this group are the Asphalt Institute and the Portland Cement Association. Each of these organizations publishes magazines and technical bulletins and releases other data concerning its products. Many have filed engineers located strategically over the country. Much reliable and useful information can be gained from these sources. Certain individual manufacturers, such as those for corrugated-metal pipe, are also active in similar manner.

Another group of associations includes those having special areas of interest in highway transportation. For example, the National Safety Council is concerned with highway-accidents. Among its functions are the collection and distribution of highway-accident data. The Highway users Federation for Safety and Mobility, supported by the automotive, oil, and trucking industries, have fostered research and education toward safe and efficient highway transportation. The Federation’s interests also include highway administration and planning, and it has made significant studies in both fields. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has particularly emphasized vehicle-crash resistance and occupant protection. The Eno foundation for Transportation, Saugatuck, Conn., among other activities, publishes the excellent periodical Traffic Quarterly.  

There are also associations whose concern is highway transportation in general. Representative of these are the American Automobile Association and the American trucking Association. Most of these also publish magazines or bulletins.

University and College Activities:

            Most engineering colleges have specialists in highway engineering on their teaching staffs and offer undergraduate courses in the subject. Some of them also offer graduate programs and provide extension courses, in-service training, and special conferences in the highway field. In addition, many universities conduct research on highway problems, often with the cooperation and financial support of highway agencies or other interested sponsors.

Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)


Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE):               

            The Institute of traffic Engineers is a society whose members have professional interests in traffic or closely allied subjects. The Institute publishes a monthly magazine, Traffic Engineering (Traffic and Transportation beginning in 1974), the Traffic Engineering Handbook, and An Introduction to Highway Transportation Engineering, all of which are excellent.

Transport and Road Research laboratory


Transport and Road Research laboratory:

            The Transport and Road research Laboratory, located near Crowthorne, Berkshire, England, is outstanding in both personnel and facilities. Its studies have covered a wide range of subjects dealing not only with the problems of Great Britain, but also with those of the developing nations. It also offers an education program including lectures, seminars, and short courses. Lists of publications and individual research reports are available to highway officials, researchers, and educators on request.

Transportation Research Board (TRB)


Transportation Research Board (TRB):

            The (Since 1974) Transportation Research Board, organized in 1920 as the Highway Research Board (HRB), is a private nonprofit organization. It operates under the auspices of the commission on societal Technologies of the National Research Council, which, in turn, is a part of the National Academy of Engineering. The TRB is supported by the several state highway and transportation departments, the Federal Highway and Urban Mass Transportation administrations, and many other educational, technical and industrial organizations interested in transportation in the broadest sense. The Board provides a forum for the discussion and publication of the results obtained by individual research workers or organizations. It also organizes committees of experts to plan and suggest research work and to study, correlate, and publish their results. Its annual meeting is by far the largest single gathering of engineers, administrators, researchers, and teachers interested in highways and other forms of transportation. The Board’s staff also handles arrangements for workshops and conferences on special subjects. In addition, it has conducted special research projects, the most notable of which was the $27 million AASHO test road.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)


HIGHWAY ASSOCIATIONS

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO):

The American Association of State Highway Officials, (AASHO) was established in 1914 as an association of state, territorial, and District of Columbia highway departments and the Federal Highway Administration. In 1973 its name was expanded to bring in state departments of transportation. Officials of these agencies govern its operations. Engineering activities are carried on through standing committees which, among their other duties, prepare specifications, manuals, and standards representing the best current practice.

            Publications of AASHTO (or AASHTO until 1974) include, among others, Highway Materials (specifications and Tests); Specifications for Highway Bridges; A Policy on Geometric Design for Rural Highways; A Policy on Design of Urban Highways and Arterial Streets; and numerous other standards and design guides. All these works are authoritative and frequent reference will be made to them in this book.
            The Associations also publishes an annual proceedings and a magazine, American Highway and Transportation Monthly. These report on current highway subjects and important legislation, and reflect trends in thinking and legislation pertaining to the highway field. 

Consultants in Highway Work

Consultants in Highway Work:

            Only rarely are consulting engineers or consulting engineering or management firms engaged to administer a highway agency. On the other hand, many agencies employ them to make special studies, to design specific projects, and at times to supervise construction. The degree to which consultants are employed varies widely among agencies. Furthermore, there are strong differences in opinion over the advisability of using consultants.
            With highway planning, location and design becoming more complex, difficult, and controversial, consultants from such fields as architecture, landscape architecture, environmental protection, and the social sciences often are engaged. At times a design team which includes these and possibly other specialists may be used.

Special Highway and Transportation Organization


Special Highway and Transportation Organization:

            Numerous special organizations have been created by the legislatures of the individual states to carry out special transportation functions. These include the planning, construction, and operation of toll roads, toll bridges and tunnels, rapid-transit facilities, and in the case of the port of the New York Authority, bridges, tunnels, and port facilities. In 1970, receipts and disbursements of these agencies exceeded $1.2 billion.

            State legislatures or other authorities have been creating a number of special regional organizations to coordinate all transportation activities in large urban complexes. Some of these organizations are empowered to gather data and make recommendations but they can neither levy taxes to implement their findings nor control the activities of other organizations. Others have more power. It seems clear that the agencies created to date are the forerunners of many more to come.

Highway Personnel:

            Administrative and technical positions in the highway field are largely in the hands of and are controlled by civil engineers. In certain states, neither an engineering education nor professional registration is required of the chief executive officer; but the great majority of other key persons from state highway engineer down must be so qualified. In the more important positions, engineers will have heavy administrative functions and will be in constant contact with elected officials and the public. Recognition by educators that all engineers in key positions have such duties has led to increased emphasis on a broader education and written and Spoken English in many engineering curricula.

Training Programs for Professional and Preprofessional Engineers:
           
The aim of many of the programs for professionals is to provide a rapid development and rounding out of young engineers to fit them for planning, design, or administrative positions of responsibility. Such an approach is necessary since it is seldom possible today for the young engineer, on his own, to remain technically competent. Neither is it possible for him to serve a long apprenticeship under experienced men. Several approaches are used. One is to encourage professionals to take nigh time extension courses offered by nearby colleges or to attend full-time short courses and conferences. Some agencies send career employees to graduate school for a year or more with salary and expenses paid. The Federal Highway Institute which has a primarily education function.

Preprofessional employees are trained as surveyors, draftsmen, inspectors, and for other positions for which an engineering education is not essential. With the training program there may be an attractive civil-service progression leading to positions of reasonable responsibility and prestige.

Some highway agencies have also instituted in-house management-training programs for engineers in administrative positions. An alternative is to send them to management schools such as those sponsored by AASHO or given by management consultants.

More Effective Use of Engineering Manpower:

            Developments in such fields as photogrammetry and planning, design, computation, and record keeping by computer, coupled with widespread substitution of technicians, draftsmen, and clerks for engineers on routine assignments, have been employed to drastically reduce engineering requirements. As a specific example, the Wisconsin Highway department cut its engineering requirements per million dollars of construction from 10 to 4 in a 3 yr period.

Other federal Agencies


Other federal Agencies:

            Among the many other federal agencies whose highway interests overlap those of FHWA are the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Urban Mass Transit Administration, both of which report directly to the Secretary of Transportation. The U.S Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Indian Service all administer substantial road networks.

State Highway and State Transportation Departments:

            The Public highways of the country are under the full control of the 50 state governments. In most states administrative authority has in turn partly been delegated to state highway departments and partly to countries and cities or other lower units of government.

            Several state highway departments now also have been given legal control of all, or virtually all, rural roads. North Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware are examples. All state highway departments also have authority over some routes in cities. Also, under the federal-aid highway acts, state highway departments must administer all federal-aid programs.

State highway departments differ greatly in size. Mileages administered range from less than 500 to more than 70,000; annual expenditures from less than $50 million to than $1.1 billion. Organization varies in accordance with state law. Typically, departments are headed either by a director or by a commission of three-seven members (with a director or chief engineer). A director’s responsibility is clear and centralized, but frequently he has and needs an advisory board. Under the commission form of organization, responsibility may be divided; and if its members represent respective state subdivisions, there is a tendency to distort the annual state highway budget to satisfy local demands, Commissioners appointed at large by the governor and with staggered terms therefore may be preferable. The director or chief engineer under a commission usually (but not always) is appointed by the commission. Governors usually appoint directors (Sometimes superintendents), who obviously are subject to political changes.

Local Road Organizations:

            With a few exceptions, the most heavily traveled roads in a state are administered by the state highway department. In marked contrast, some 33,000 country, town and township, urban, and special agencies administer local roads and streets. Sizes and organization of these agencies differ widely. Many of them have good engineering and administrative supervision; others do not. For example, almost the entire personnel of some agencies may be changed after an unfavorable election.

            Country and local road administrations are being improved steadily. Among the changes are the classification of roads and streets by the state law, with state aid restricted to the more heavily traveled routes; the inventory of all local raods by highway planning surveys; widespread adoption of civil service in place of the once prevalent spoils system; and the consolidation of several road administrations into a single unit under a qualified engineer.

Friday, 4 January 2013

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)


HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATIONS

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA):

The federal Highway Administration is the agency designated by Congress to administer the highway program of the federal government. It was created in 1893 as the office of Road Inquiry of the Department of Agriculture. For 20 years under several names, its function was to gather available knowledge and to teach others how to build roads. It was the Post Office Appropriations Act of 1912 that gave the first assignment of actual road building; functions were further expanded by the federal-Aid Highway Act of 1916. In1918 it became the Bureau of Public Roads of the department of Agriculture. Under a federal reorganization effective July 1, 1939, it was transferred to the federal Works Agency and became the Public Roads Administration. In 1949, under another reorganization of the government, it was transferred to the Department of Commerce and again named the Bureau of Public Roads. In 1967 it was transferred to the newly formed department of Transportation which also absorbed federal transportation activities such as urban mass transportation, the federal Aviation Administration, and the Coast Guard. It was placed under a federal Highway Administrator and a director of the Bureau of Public Roads. In 1970 the agency’s name was again changed to federal highway administration. Proposals for further reorganizing the federal government, if implemented, may again change the status and title of the agency or agencies under which the highway activities of the federal government are carried out.

            Activities of FHWA differ markedly from those of many other federal public works agencies. As indicated earlier, most of the federal funds for highways are spent by the state highway departments, with FHWA serving as adviser and monitor. In direct contrast, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Civil Works Division of the Army Engineers and the General Services Administration execute the projects themselves.     

Systems for Route Designation


Systems for Route Designation:

            Practically all the major highways in the United States are marked with route-designation signs for the convenience of the motoring public. This route-designation system is separate and distinct from that used for highway management purposes, and the two should not be confused. Briefly, the route-designation plans are as follows:

Interstate Routes:

            A numbering system, consistent nationwide, developed by the American Association of the State Highway Officials (AASHO). Signs are reflectorized and in full colors-red, white, and blue.

United States Highway Routes:

            A numbering system, reasonably consistent nationwide, that overlaps portions of the federal-aid and state highway systems. East and West trending routes are even-numbered, with the lowest numbers in the north; north and south trending routes are odd-numbered, with the lowest numbers to the east. The sign shape resembles a shield.

State Highway Routes:

            A numbering system for routes of some continuity within individual states. Each state has adopted a distinctive shape or pattern for its sign; for example, the Pennsylvania route marker resembles a keystone. Similar numbering schemes also have been developed by some local agencies.

Special Designations:

            At times, freeways or toll roads are given special designations to identify them more clearly in the minds of motorists. Examples are the Henry Hudson Parkway in New York, the Will Rogers Turnpike in Oklahoma, and the San Bernardino Freeway near Los Angeles. Research is underway to develop far more sophisticated motorist advisory systems. These are discussed in Chapt. 10.    

Country and Local Roads


Country and Local Roads:

            In the 2800 countries of the United States there are 2.3 million mi of rural roads, not in the state highway systems. A relatively small portion of this mileage is in the federal-aid secondary system. These are commonly classified as local rural roads. Not all of them are administered at the country level, for there are some 15,000 rural towns, townships, and other jurisdictions that have distinct and separate road systems.

            Although these local rural road systems constitute 71% of the nation’s road mileage, the vehicle-miles accumulated on them are less than 20% of the total. Their function is largely that of land service, and average daily traffic is about 150 vehicles per day. Improvements are often of a low order; 75% have only soil, gravel, slag, or stone surfacing. Land-use studies by highway planning surveys have revealed that many countries have mileage in excess of that needed for proper land service and that money is wasted in maintaining these roads.

City Streets:

            As noted, some important city streets have been incorporated into the federal-aid or state highway systems. There remains 490,000 mi of streets and alleys in 16,000 urban communities that are under local control. Some serve primarily as arteries for local traffic and others mainly provide access to property.

State Highway Systems


State Highway Systems:

            In each state a system of roads has been designated by the legislature as a state highway system. Proportions of the total state road mileage under state have assumed vary from 4 to 89% with an average of 19%. Except where the state has assumed primary responsibility for almost all roads, these routes were generally selected as those of primary interest to the state as a whole, as contrasted with roads primarily serving local needs. These state systems usually incorporate the interstate system, the federal-aid primary system, some routes from the federal-aid secondary systems, and other mileage as well. The combined length of the 50 state highway systems is 781,000 mi including about 74,000 mi of extensions into cities some 110,000 mi of the state systems have only gravel, stone, slag, or soil surfaces.

Federal-Aid Highway Systems


Federal-Aid Highway Systems:

            In 1912 Congress made the first in a continuing series of appropriations to the states for road construction. This appropriation, followed by annual grants for the years 1916-1920, was for “post roads,” over which the mail was carried. It soon developed that this form of appropriation resulted in scattered improvements without any assurance of continuity or an ultimate system of improved highways. To remedy the situation, federal appropriations since 1920 have been made to limited mileages of roads of specified characteristics; thus the various federal-aid to the use of federal funds. Some but not all of the state, country, and urban road networks are on federal-aid systems.

            Congress has, overtime, redefined the federal-aid system and changed federal-aid allocations with the aim of correcting deficiencies in our road system. It seems clear that in the years ahead, as in the systems described below, the pattern of federal-aid is financing, and permitted uses of funds will be substantially altered.

Federal-Aid Primary or “A” System:

            The federal-Aid Highway Act of 1921 established the federal-aid primary system. It required the states to make an initial selection of 7% or less of their total mileage as a system of primary and interstate highways. Selections were subject to the approval of the secretary of Agriculture operating through an office of public roads. After the 1921 Act, the main trunk roads of the nation, totaling 180,000 mi in length, were quickly selected. This primary federal-aid system often referred to as the “7% system.” Now totals 258,000 mi, including about 34,000 mi in urban areas. When a state has provided for improvement of 75% of its federal-aid primary system, the mileage could be increased by another 1%. In combination with the interstate system, these roads form a dominant part of our rural highway network.

Federal-Aid Secondary or “B” System:

            Congress established the federal-aid secondary system in 1944 to supplement the federal-aid primary system. Its mileage is 96% rural and consists of important country and secondary state highways; in 1970 it totaled 637,000 mi. selection of the routes is the joint responsibility of local authorities, the state highway departments, and the Federal Highway Administration.

Urban Extensions and Urban System (“C” and “D” System):   

            Highways, Streets, and alleys in urban areas total some 560,000 mi. Travel on them (1970) was 51% of the nation’s total. Until World War II, construction and maintenance of streets and alleys were considered to be of local concern, and federal, state and country spending were devoted almost exclusively to rural highways. As traffic in urban areas increased, more and more attention was focused on the problems it created; and federal, state and some times country funds are now used to improve major routes inside the limits of our cities. Federal participation began when congress in 1944 authorized a special fund to aid in extending the rural federal-aid systems into urban areas. In 1970 it created a separate urban system. Routes are to be selected by local officials subject to state and federal approval. Beginning in 1975, some of these funds may be used for mass transit.

National System of Interest and Defense Highways:

            The Interstate system, a selected 43,000 mi of the most important highways in the country, connects and extends into most of our larger cities. Joint selection was authorized by the federal-aid Highway Act of 1944, was approved by the state highway departments and the commissioner of Public Roads, and was finally adopted in August 1947. Included are about 8000 mi of extensions into urban areas and circumferential urban routes. Although it constitutes only 1.2% of all road mileage it is expected to carry more than 20% of all motor vehicle traffic.
            The Interstate system is being improved at the highest standards appropriate for the terrain traversed and the traffic served. Rights of the way are wide to permit roadside improvement, and access is controlled; some 85% of its length is on new locations, since existing developments, poor vertical and horizontal alignments, and other features of the present highways along the same routes cannot be reconciled to the extremely high standards.

Introduction of Highway Systems


Introduction of Highway Systems:

By legislative acts in the several states, roads and streets have been separated into numerous groups or “systems.” Authority over each of these systems rests with an appropriate legislative or administrative body. It, in turn, makes provision for the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of its particular group of highways.

            In the United States, 85% of the highway mileage, some 8,170,000 mi, lies in rural areas. Its distribution over the country varies with population and development; it ranges, excluding Alaska, from 0.31 mi of road per square mile for Arizona to 4.0 mi per square mile for New Jersey. Before 1890 this vast rural mileage was without system or classification. Responsibility for its establishment and upkeep was in the hands of local government; countries and towns took care of the roads. In general their condition was poor.

            New Jersey, in 1991, initiated state aid for rural roads. In 1893 Massachusetts authorized the construction of state highways. Soon thereafter other northeastern states established state highway departments and state highway systems. By 1910 about half the states had set up state highway departments with varying degrees of authority. Finally, the federal-aid act of 1916, which made partition in federal aid contingent on having a state highway organization, caused the remaining states to establish departments; in a similar manner, the act of 1921 (to be discussed subsequently) brought the concept of highway systems for rural roads to all the states.

            The remaining 15% of the country’s roads (561,000mi) is in urban areas. Here the ratio of mileage to area is large; for example, Washington, D.C has 16 mi of streets per mi. as with rural roads, early responsibility for streets rested solely with local governments. However, in contrast to the situation with rural roads, state support for city streets did not begin in substantial amount until 1924. Not until 1934 were nay city streets included in a highway system.

            The distinctions between highway systems, if merely “on paper” would be unimportant. However, they reach far deeper, particularly in the area of finance. Funds for highways are appropriated from designated sources to specific systems.

Legal Foundation for Highways


HIGHWAY SYSTEMS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND ASSOCIATIONS

Legal Foundation for Highways:

            In the United States, government has since early times assumed the responsibility for providing and regulating roads and streets for public use. This concept and the principles of law that support it, developed in Great Britain and, even earlier, with the Romans. Fundamental authority for and control over roads rest at the state rather than the federal level. Thus, the constitution of each state legislature in carrying out the provisions of that constitution, provide the foundations for highway policy. Within the limits of its constitutional powers, the legislature may delegate its authority for roads to a state highway commission or director, and to country, township, district, and city authorities. Basically however, control over all highway matters in the state constitution and the legislature. It follows that existing plans for highway administration, finance, and other affairs may be modified by suitable state legislative action.

            The Role of the federal government in most highway matters is almost completely different from that of the states. Congress, however, does exercise authority parallel to that of the state legislatures over a relatively small mileage on federal lands. On the other hand, it does not have jurisdiction over state and local roads in the several states. Its sole but very considerable power comes through control of the substantial money granted to the individual states under the provisions of the federal-aid highways acts. For example, the use of federal-aid funds is restricted to designated and constructed to approved standards. Again, allotted federal aid may be withheld from a state that has given insufficient maintenance to a road constructed earlier with federal-aid funds. Thus, through curbs on the use of money, the federal government has consistently given direction to the highway policies of the individual states.

            In contrast to the United States, where primary responsibility for highways rests with the individual states governments, the central government of most other countries retains direct control of at least the major highways.

HISTORY OF HIGHWAYS


HISTORY OF HIGHWAYS

EARLY ROADS:

Traces of early roads have been found which antedate recorded history. The first hard surfaces appeared in Mesopotamia soon after discovery of the wheel about 3500 BC. On the island of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea was found a stone surfaced road constructed before 1500 BC. The Direction in the Bible (Isaiah40:3-5) “make straight in the desert a high road” constructed soon after 539 BC between Babylon and Egypt. In the western Hemisphere evidence exists of extensive road systems constructed by the Mayan, Aztec, and Incan people of Central and South Africa.

The Romans bound their empire together with extensive systems of roads radiating in many directions from Rome. Some of these early roads were of elaborate construction. For example, the Appian Way, built southward about 312 BC, illustrates the procedures used by the Romans. Just a trench was excavated to such a depth that the finished surface would be at ground level. The Pavement was placed in three courses: A layer of small broken stones, a layer of small stones mixed with mortar and firmly tamped into place and a wearing courses of massive after 2000 years.

With the fall of the Roman Empire, road building became a lost art. It was not until the eighteenth century that tresaguet (1756-1796) in France developed improved construction methods that at a later time, under Napoleon, made possible a great system of French roads. Highway development in England followed soon after. Macadam (1756-1836) in particular was outstanding. A road surface which bears his name is still used.

Although little significant road building, as such, was done in England before the eighteenth century, the foundations of England and thus American highway law were being laid. Early Saxon laws imposed on all lands an obligation to perform three necessary duties: To repair roads and bridges; maintain castles and garrisons; and aid in repelling invasion. Soon after the Norman Conquest it was written that the king’s highway was “a sacred thing, and he who has occupied any part thereof by exceeding the boundaries and limits of his land is said to have made encroachment on the King himself.” Very early, applications of this law made clear that ownership of the roads actually was vested in all persons who wished to use them. Other statutes, dating as far back as the thirteenth century, required abutting property owners to drain the road and clip any bordering hedges, and to refrain from fencing, plowing, or from planting trees, bushes, or shrubs closer than specified distances from the center of carriageways. In these and other early statutes can be seen the rudiments of such present day concepts as the governments responsibility for highways, the rights of the public to use them without interference, and the obligations of and restrictions on the owners of abutting property.

EARLY AMERICAN ROADS:
           
            Few roads were built during the early history of the United States since most of the early settlements were located along bays or rivers, and transportation was largely by water. Inland settlements were connected with the nearest wharf, but the connecting road usually was just a clearing through the forest. Before the Revolutionary War travel was mainly on foot or horseback and roads were merely trails cleared to greater width. Development was extremely slow for a time after the war’s end in 1783. For example, poor roads were the real cause of the whisky Rebellion in western Pennsylvania in 1794. The Framers of this area objected to a tax on the whisky that they were making from grain. One historian has recorded that “a pack horse could carry only four bushels of grain over the mountains but in the form of whisky he could carry the product of twenty-four bushels.” Construction of the Philadelphia-Lancaster Turnpike resulted from this incident. It was a toll road 62 miles long, surfaced to a width hand-broken stone and gravel.

Between 1795 and 1830 numerous other turnpikes, particularly in the north, eastern states were built by companies organized to gain profits through toll collections. Few of them were financially successful. During this period many stagecoach lines and freight-hauling companies were organized.

The “Old National Pike” or “Cumberland Road” from Cumberland Road, Md., to wheeling, W. Va., on the Ohio River and on to St. Louis, Mo., was one of the few roads financed by the federal government. It was originally toll-free. The Cumber-land-Wheeling section was authorized by Congress in 1806 and was completed 10 years later. It was 20 ft in width, and considered of a 12 in. bottom and a 6 in. top course of hand-broken stone. Some 20 more years elapsed before the road was completed to St. Louis. During this same period numerous canals were constructed, particularly along the Atlantic Seaboard; but they offered little competition to turnpike development, since the terrain of the most of the country was unsuited to canal construction.


The Railroad Era:

The Extension of turnpike in the United States was abruptly halted by the development of the railroads. In 1830 Peter Cooper constructed America’s first steam locomotive, the Tom Thumb, which at once demonstrated its superiority over horse-drawn vehicle. Rapid growth of the railroad for transportation over long distances followed. Cross-Country turnpike construction practically ceased, and many already completed fell into disuse. Rural roads served mainly as feeders for the railroads; improvements primarily led to the nearest railroad station and were made largely by local authorities and were to low standards. However, the improvement of the city streets progressed at a somewhat faster pace. Also, the development of the electric trolley in the 1885 launched the trend toward public transportation.

Regarding Highway development before 1900, federal road officials stated that:
                           
At the end of the century, approximately 300 years after first settlement, the United States could claim little distinction because of the character of its roads. As in most parts of the world, the roads were largely plain earth surfaces that were almost in passable in wet weather. Neither the Federal nor State governments had undertaken to provide funds on the scale that would permit general road improvement. Those seeking knowledge on road-building methods and administration turned to the countries of Europe for information.
   
  The First decades of the twentieth century saw the improvement of the motor vehicle from a “rich mans toy” to a fairly dependable method for transporting persons and goods. There were strong demands for rural road improvement, largely for roads a few miles in length connecting outlaying farms with towns and railroad stations. This development has been aptly described as “getting the farmer out of the mud”. Great improvements also were made on the city streets. 

In this period it was recognized that road improvements was a matter of federal and state concern rather than of purely local interest to be dealt with by the country and city governing bodies. Federal and state highways organizations were established and small amounts of money appropriated by congress and the state governments to deal with road problems.

Modern Highway Development:

The period since 1920 might well be called the “automobile age,” for during this period highway transportation has assumed a dominant role in America. It can well be described as “a nation on wells.”

On the other hand, road and street mileage have increased relatively little during these four decades. This small growth is a result mainly of new roads and streets in areas where land use has become more intensive, and from a relatively small mileage of major arteries on new alignments. The greatest impact of the tremendous growth in Highway transportation has been to generate a much more intensive use of the same road and street skeleton. In turn, the bulk of highway expenditure to date has gone to adapting existing roads to this more intensive use by greatly improved vehicles.

The first 15 years of modern highway development saw highway agencies focusing primary attention on the completion of a network of good rural roads comparable to the street systems undertaken by local governments. By 1935 cross-country travel by automobile in almost any direction was practicable. Since 1935 highway activities in rural areas have been devoted mainly to an attempt to provide facilities of higher standards and greater capacity. During the same period, increasing attention has been focused on urban areas, which have been struck simultaneously by rapidly increasing population and a shift from mass transportation to the private automobile. Extreme congestion exists in the central areas of many cities and towns, parking space is often insufficient, the “flight to the suburbs” is an accomplished fact, and noise and air pollution are causes of serious concern. Barely a start has been made toward solving this “urban problem.”  

Future Highway Developments:

            Technological advance has been great during the age of modern highways and continues today. Knowledge has been extended in the fields of soils and other highway materials so that designs are now more economical and reliable. Developments in machinery and management techniques are revolutionizing construction and maintenance methods. The highway engineering has become increasingly conscious that a highway can be attractive and safe as well as useful and has learned much about roadside improvement, erosion control, and noise abatement. Entirely new sciences have developed in the fields of highway planning, geometric and structural design, and traffic control. In these areas lie many challenges for those interested in research, design, and administration as present practices are refined and new approaches are developed.

            Possibly the most difficult problem now facing highway and transportation planners, engineers, and administrators is to define the role of highways and other forms of transportation in urban areas. Currently, critics are blaming the automobile for such problems as the flight to the suburbs, congestion and slum conditions in the central areas, and air and noise pollution and are clamoring for new solutions. To search out, demonstrate, and implement viable approaches to transportation that will help solve these problems will challenge the ingenuity, abilities to deal with people, and staying power of all in the years ahead.

As indicated above, the decades from 1920 to 1970 have been called the “automobile age” and the transportation that will be evolutionary. But will motor-vehicle use continue to increase as in the past, almost doubling each 20 years? One viewpoint is that it will, with an estimated 75% increase as in urban travel by 1990. Another is that an energy shortage and demands for better housing and healthcare and for the control of the environment will consume a greater share of our resources so that motor-vehicle use will, of necessity, be curtained. Only the future will tell.