Page:America's Highways 1776–1976.djvu/478



The legislation, so painstakingly developed, is commonly called the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, but officially this is the name of Title I of twin acts; it contains the program features. The other twin is Title II, the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, which covers the financing provisions.

In recognition of its importance to the national defense, the System’s name was expanded to National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The length limitation for the System was increased from 40,000 to 41,000 miles. (Later, in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, an additional 1,500 miles of Interstate System was authorized—bringing the total system length to 42,500 miles.)

The Act prescribed that standards for the Interstate System should be adopted by the Secretary of Commerce in cooperation with the State highway departments; that they should be adequate to accommodate the traffic forecast for 1975 (modified in later legislation) and that they be applied uniformly throughout the States. To preserve the operating efficiency and safety of this System, access ramps at interchanges on Interstate highways were to be limited to those provided in the original project plans, except as changes may be approved by the Secretary.

In authorizing Interstate funds, the 1956 Act significantly departed from the traditional biennial authorization pattern. For the first time, an accelerated program to complete a highway system was authorized. The Act authorized a total of $25 billion over the period 1957–69 as the Federal share of this construction program.

The Act also established a new method of apportioning Interstate funds among the States, changing after the first 3 years from a formula based on mileage, area, and population to an apportionment factor for each State computed from the ratio of the cost of completing the System in each State to the total cost of completing the System in all States. It further provided for a series of cost estimates to establish these values on a current basis as construction of the System progressed in the years that followed.

The Federal share of Interstate project costs was set at 90 percent, except in States with large areas of Federal public land where the Federal share is increased proportionally up to a limit of 95 percent.

Title II—the Highway Revenue Act of 1956—established the Highway Trust Fund and assigned specific motor-vehicle user taxes to this fund for the payment of highway construction costs. The Act also provided that the highway program must be conducted on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, requiring that Trust Fund revenues be adequate to meet all needs without drawing on the General Fund of the Treasury which had previously supported the Federal-aid highway program.

The 1956 Act barred service stations and other commercial establishments from location on or access within the Interstate System right-of-way on the grounds that highway users should not be subjected to monopoly and so that highway-oriented business could engage in free competition. It is probable, also, that many State highway departments were unenthusiastic about undertaking the franchise system, with its attendant problems, which is common on toll roads. Service at businesses located on intersecting roads is not difficult for Interstate travelers to obtain, since interchanges occur much more frequently and there is less inconvenience in leaving and re-entering than on toll roads.

In a positive direction, the Act permitted use of airspace above or below Interstate highways for parking purposes (a provision subsequently broadened to allow any public or private use that will not impair the highway).

Gently curving I-70 in the Eagle River Valley of Colorado provides the motorist with new vistas of the countryside with each turn. The weathering-steel guardrail blends with its surroundings. Flat slopes, designed for safety, are quickly regaining vegetation because of the topsoil salvaged during early stages of the construction.

Congressional belief that Interstate highways built with 90 percent Federal funds should have some Federal protection against very heavy loads led to a provision in the Act on vehicle weight and width limitations. The limits were essentially those of the then-current policy of the American Association of State Highway Officials, or alternatively those legally permitted in a State on July 1, 1956, whichever were greater. The law did not actually prescribe Federal limitations per se, but accomplished its objective by providing that no Federal-aid apportionment would be made to any State that permitted vehicles on the Interstate System of greater size or weight.

To some extent, Congress entered into problems of route location. The 1956 Act proposed that “Insofar as possible in consonance with this objective [prompt completion of the Interstate System], existing highways located on an interstate route shall be used to the extent that such use is practicable, suitable, and feasible, it being the intent that local needs, to the extent practicable, suitable, and feasible, shall be given equal consideration with the needs of interstate commerce.” 472