sidering long-range financing, we have presently estimated their average cost and the 350 miles reserve as being $1.1 million a mile for a total cost of $1.6 billion and Federal cost of $1.5 billion. Of course, neither the 1955 nor the 1958 estimate included this item. Thus the Federal cost of the Interstate System, including $600 million Federal funds to cover unforeseen matters and a carryover balance from prior apportionments, totals about $36 billion. The 1956 legislation also authorized the designation of an additional 1,000 miles. However, it does not authorize this additional 1,000 miles to be included in the cost estimates made for apportionment purposes. Consequently, it cannot be considered an additional cost under present legislation. Table 1 is attached showing the 1955 estimate of cost, the amounts in which the 1955 estimate was insufficient to cover the conditions as estimated in 1957, the resultant 1958 estimate, and the amounts estimated to complete the 40,000-mile Interstate Highway System contemplated by the various legislative acts.

Both the 1955 and 1958 estimates were based upon the cost of completing the Interstate System and both contemplated the inclusion of certain toll roads at no cost and free roads with their cost to complete Interstate System standards. It is apparent that the toll roads would require no additional cost to the Federal Government to bring them up to Interstate System standards inasmuch as Federal aid to toll roads is prohibited by law. They amount to 2,256 miles.

In regard to free roads incorporated in the system, both the 1955 and 1958 estimates included the cost of bringing those up to standard. They were in varying stages of completion when taken into the system. They total 8,909 miles, but only 383 miles were fully completed without benefit of 1956 act funds. The status of these is shown in table 1 of the report on reimbursement submitted by the Secretary of Commerce to the Congress and published as House Document 301 of the 85th Congress, 2d session.

Considering in the calculation the mileage of toll roads incorporated into the system and other roads on which no work is to be done with moneys from the trust fund, and recognizing the variable amounts of work to be done on the miles already partially completed, it results in an equivalent mileage of about 34,000 miles of new highways upon which no previous work has been done. In other words, it must be completed entirely from the 1956 act funds.

Thus it is calculated that the average total cost per mile to construct the roads required to complete the system to the full 40,000-mile extent will be $1,175,000.

The reasonableness of this cost of completing this system is demonstrated by comparison of this average cost to that of the average cost of building toll roads in the United States of similar character to the Interstate System highways and a majority of which are actually on that system. Fourteen toll roads located in different sections of the country, ranging from Texas to Maine, average for construction $1,222,000 per mile, which figure does not include the cost of financing and construction attributable to toll operations. This compares with $1,175,000 per mile for the new freeways comprising the Interstate System.

I'm sure, also, you will be interested in the fact that the Interstate System will cost less per vehicle-mile of service than any of the other

highway systems in the country. On the basis of annual cost per vehicle-mile-that is, for the highway-estimates show that the cost varies from a low of about one-half cent per vehicle-mile for the Interstate System to three-fourth of a cent for the other Federal-aid primary system, a little over a cent for the Federal-aid secondary system and a high of nearly 12 cents for the non-Federal-aid systems.

There is no question but what the investment in the Interstate System yields the greatest return in service, safety, and benefits to the national economy and defense. To mention just one point alone, the safety record of similar highways and many of which are incorporated into the Interstate System has been remarkable compared to other highways. Last year the death rate for highways generally in the United States was 5.6 per 100 million vehicle miles of travel. On toll roads it average 2.8; on the best of the modern toll roads it hovered around 1; and on the New York State Thruway, it was only eightyeight one-hundredths. It has been estimated that the average saving in accident costs alone on the Interstate System would amount to $1.2 billion annually by 1975. The investment in this system will yield returns many times greater than its cost in the savings of lives, lessened property damage, and increased economic benefits."

Attached hereto for ready reference is a table indicating the 1955–58 comparative estimates, which I would like to insert in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be included at this point in the record.

(The table referred to follows:)

TABLE 1.-1955 estimate of cost; amounts the 1955 estimate was insufficient to cover the conditions estimated in 1957; the resultant 1958 estimate; and additional amounts to complete a 40,000-mile interstate system

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tallamy, do you have any further statement to make at this point to the committee?

Mr. TALLAMY. I might say that I have another table which I would be happy to present to the committee if it desires, which shows the cost differential between the 1955 and 1958 estimates, based upon preliminary engineering, right-of-way, grading, surface, and structures. This tabulation shows that the 1955 estimate for preliminary engineering would have been $900 million; the 1958, $1.4 million.

Right-of-way, 5.7 for 1955; 5.2 for 1958. Grading would be 6.5 for the 1955; 9.7 for the 1958 estimate. Surface, meaning the pavement, 6.3 for the 1955 estimate; 7.3 for the 1958. And structures, $8.2 million, 1955, as against 14 for the 1958; or a total comparative figures of $27.6 for the 1955 estimate and $37.6 for the 1958 estimate, a difference of $10 billion.

This table, which I will present if you would care, Mr. Chairman, indicates that preliminary engineering was not included as a specific item in the 1955 estimate. It was included as a part of the overall, individual construction items. So, in our estimating it, we had to rely upon the average cost of engineering for comparable work in that period of time.

Further, the 1955 estimate, which I did not mention in my prepared statement, includes a lump sum of $4 million for interstate highway work in metropolitan areas. It did not itemize it into grading, drainage, et cetera, or have any supporting data excepting it was going to be 2,300 miles and $4 billion. Naturally, since it was given in that manner, we had to apportion that $4 billion in this particular table in accordance with the average of distribution of costs for right-of-way, grading, surface, and structures at that period of time.

If you would care, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to submit this in tabular form.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that material will be included at this point in the record.

(The table referred to follows:)

Table showing 1955 and 1958 estimate of cost by principal items of work

1 Estimate includes $4 billion lump sum for 2,300 miles of routes added in and near urban areas. This lump sum was factored into amounts for the different classes of work based upon an evaluation of the cost for highways in the urban areas.

Preliminary engineering was included in estimated items of other work in 1955. It was separated for this table by applying factors applicable to the different classes of work,

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other material, Mr. Tallamy, you think would be helpful to the committee?

Mr. TALLAMY. I have nothing else, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that conclude your statement?

Mr. TALLAMY. Yes; that concludes my formal statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, Mr. Allen, I want to thank you, sir, for coming to the committee, and I want to thank Mr. Tallamy. Both of you gentlemen have given us quite a bit of information, and I am sure all of it will be helpful to the committee in making a determination on the matter before it.

Mr. Tallamy, let me ask you a few questions, if I may, for the purpose of information.

Let me direct your attention first to the situation that exists in fiscal year 1960. The appropriation for highway purposes was contained in the bill that went to the President recently, H.R. 7349, making appropriations for the Department of Commerce and related agencies. That is true; is it not?

Mr. TALLAMY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. While that matter was before the Senate an amendment was added on page 12 of the bill respecting the appropriation for Federal-aid highways.

Mr. TALLAMY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your understanding that the language of this appropriation confines expenditures for highway trust purposes in fiscal 1960 to that amount of money which is available for highwayconstruction purposes from the trust fund?

Mr. TALLAMY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The appropriation bill does not, in your opinion, make appropriation of any deficiencies that may exist between the actual obligation for expenditure and the trust fund out of the general fund?

Mr. TALLAMY. It makes no provision, in my judgment, for that. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the opinion of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and other governmental agencies that would be involved with you in the payment of these amounts in fiscal 1960?

Mr. TALLAMY. Yes; I would judge that is true because every conversation that I have had so far indicates clearly that we all agree that the funds must come from the trust fund.

The CHAIRMAN. As I read the record of what transpired in the Senate, that clearly is not what was intended, apparently.

I discussed this matter with certain members of the Appropriations Committee representing the House in the conference between the House and the Senate, and it was not what they intended apparently, from what they told me.

But if the language of the statute says something, that is what you have to do, of course.

Mr. TALLAMY. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the thought then of the executive departments involved that you will only be able to incur expenditures in fiscal 1960 for highway-construction purposes, regardless of what we may owe the States, to the extent of the amount that will be available in fiscal 1960 in the trust fund?

Mr. TALLAMY. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. You say, according to your best estimates, that amount of money in the trust fund will be some $500 million short of the claims that will be presented to the Federal Government by the States representing the States' portion of the highway-construction cost actually incurred and paid during fiscal 1960?

Mr. TALLAMY. That is right; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to interrogate the Director of the Bureau of the Budget when he comes to the committee on that point. The other day I talked to him about this hearing and suggested that he prepare himself to discuss it with us, because you had given us, as I recall, this

same information when you were before this committee in executive session a week ago last Friday.

Mr. TALLAMY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Since then I have had these conversations again with members, and there does seem to be some difference as between the language as you interpret it and what was actually intended.

I have a number of questions, Mr. Tallamy, about the overall situation that I want to go into with both you and Mr. Allen. But before I do that I think it would be fair for the Chair to yield to other members of the committee who may have some questions at this particular point.

Mr. Boggs?

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Tallamy, you refer to the additional approximately 1,400 miles that you discovered after you had measured these connecting routes. Was that approximately 1,400 miles?

Mr. TALLAMY. I did not get the latter part of your question.

Mr. BOGGS. We authorized 40,000 miles to connect certain areas of the United States, and you discovered that you could connect them with less than 40,000 miles. Is that correct?

Mr. TALLAMY. It did not take 40,000 miles to connect the points of origin and destination of traffic in the metropolitan areas which were included in the 1955 estimate.

Mr. BOGGS. Well, it took what; 38,000?

Mr. TALLAMY. It took 38,548.

Mr. BOGGS. So that you had approximately 1,400 miles left over, so to speak.

Mr. TALLAMY. Yes, sir; left over from connecting those particular cities that were connected in the 1955 estimate.

Mr. BOGGS. Then, without any further action on the part of Congress, you proceeded to allocate those 1,400 miles; did you not? Mr. TALLAMY. Yes,sir.

Mr. BOGGS. At the time that you made the allocation did you anticipate these difficulties with the trust fund?

Mr. TALLAMY. I guess we knew that the trust fund was not going to be able to meet the 1958 estimate of costs, yes, sir. But we did know also that the 1956 legislation stipulated that the Interstate Sysem should connect all of the principal metropolitan areas and industrial centers of the United States in the most direct manner and, at the same time, take care of local needs to the maximum extent possible with a system not to exceed 40,000 miles.

The States themselves had indicated to us that it would take an additional 13,000 miles to accomplish, in their judgment, the intent of connecting all of the principal metropolitan areas. So we did actually apportion 1,102 miles of the surplus to accomplish, to the maximum extent that we could, the joining of those metropolitan

areas.

Mr. BOGGS. Following through on that for a moment, in allocating this extra 1,400 miles did you consult with the States before you allocated it?

Mr. TALLAMY. Yes, sir. All of the States requested those designations before they were made.

Actually, the way it worked out was that there were a few of the routes which the States had not at the particular time requested desig