purposes to determine quantities of excavation and fill. Bridges were located, their probable spans estimated, and the cost of each individual structure established, together with extensive investigations into probable traffic flows and characteristics, the topography of the country, and the location of interchanges. It is the most precise and comprehensive estimate for a huge construction program ever undertaken in the highway field. It required more than a million man-hours to develop.

The 1958 estimate indicates that the cost to complete the system as was contemplated in 1955 would be $37.6 billion, of which $33.9 billion would represent Federal funds. This Federal fund amount compares with $25.6 billion in the original estimate and is an increase of $8.9 billion.

There are two basic reasons for the difference between the estimate made in 1955 and the one submitted to the Congress in 1958. First, the 1955 estimate was of necessity a preliminary estimate because of the limited time available to prepare one prior to consideration of the 1955-56 legislation.

Second, they are not comparable in all respects. They are not always identical in location, design, or function because of traffic increases, change in concept required by the 1956 legislation to provide greater servicing of local needs, and physical adjustments required when the topographic and foundation conditions were better determined by the more detailed surveys and studies secured as part of the 1958 estimate. Also there was a lifting of standards in the design of the Interstate System in some States which previously were not contemplating the elimination of crossings at grade and other factors to the extent required by a modern express highway designed for 1975 traffic.

Further, the 1955 estimate did not have the advantage of developing traffic estimates in the light of the extraordinary increases in traffic experienced in the last few years. It was based upon traffic data and information of several years prior to 1955; whereas, the 1958 estimate was based upon a broader knowledge of traffic increase brought about by the recent-year increases and the altered concept of the 1956 act which required a greater assignment of local traffic than had previously been done. An analysis of the number of traffic lanes, in the two estimates, which affect the road base, shoulders, and other roadway features, indicate the 1955 estimate was inadequate by $1.3 billion because of these requirements.

Also, the provision of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 which declared that the local needs to the extent practical and feasible should be given equal attention to those of interstate traffic substantially changed the concept of the location and number of interchanges and frequently the location of the highway itself, particularly to serve local needs of the small cities and communities throughout the country.

An analysis of the additional structures, interchanges, and supporting items to serve local needs as required by the 1956 legislation indicates that the 1955 estimate was inadequate by $3.8 billion to properly serve that purpose.

There are other factors for which the 1955 estimate had to be adjusted to meet the requirements of the 1956 act and modern freeway

operation. Items not included in the 1955 estimate, such as utility relocations, uniform signing of the Interstate System throughout the entire United States according to modern freeway standards, lighting under certain conditions, and other incidental items, such as delineation, all of which are essential for proper operation of the Interstate Highway System, amount to $800 million.

*་

Highway construction costs of the Interstate System type rose 12 percent as a result of general nationwide price increases during the interval between mid-1954-that was the time we took the estimates of cost of doing work to determine the overall estimate and the last half of 1956-which was the period we had to use in determining the cost of the 1958 estimate-as reflected by the Bureau's price index for Federal-aid highway construction; in other words, a 12 percent rise in this period.

This increase is applicable, of course, to all items and represents a total $4.1 billion increase in construction costs in the 1958 estimate. All of these items totaling $10 billion represent the differences between the 1955 estimate and the 1956 act design concept and the construction price rise occurring in the interval, or a Federal cost differential of $8.9 billion.

While the 1958 estimate indicated that it would cost $37.6 billion to construct the Interstate System between the same cities and border points used as the basis of the 1955 estimate, the actual measured miles by those detailed estimates was found to be 38,548 as compared to the 1955 figure of 40,000. Thus, if the location of the Interstate System were to follow the alinements originally contemplated requiring 40,000 miles to establish the system connections as planned in 1955, the 1958 estimate of cost would undoubtedly have been still greater. In our judgment the 1958 estimate is sound. As a matter of fact an examination of contract awards demonstrates its accuracy. Projects costs have averaged about 5 percent below the estimates, and in view of the detail with which the 1958 estimate was made we have every reason to expect that this condition will continue to prevail based on present construction price levels.

In October of 1957 the Secretary of Commerce made available for designation 1,102 miles of routes out of the 1,452 miles which had not been included in the system as it was estimated in 1955. The remaining 350 miles is held in reserve to be certain the 40,000-mile limitation is not exceeded during actual construction. The Interstate System highway legislation of 1944 established the basic policy that the system shall, among other things, connect the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers of the United States with a system properly integrated and serving the national defense. To fulfill this requirement to the maximum extent practical within the 40,000-mile limitation, city-to-city routes totaling 886 miles and 216 miles in and around metropolitan areas were designated in 1957. These designations were made from recommendations presented by the State highway departments totaling over 13,000 miles. They were made after consultation with the Department of Defense and after a study of their importance with respect to system integration, and the population, farm production, manufacturing, and economic values had been considered. The designations were not made, however, in time to be included in the 1958 estimate, but for the purposes of con

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

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.