Page:Needs of the Highway Systems, 1955–84.pdf/7

Rh relation to current prospects of meeting them, and there is a tendency toward understatement in the interest of producing an estimate that reflects financial feasibility rather than anticipated needs.

Relatively minor differences occurred among the States in the interpretation of and adherence to the concepts and guides established for this study. These account for a certain lack of uniformity in the reported information. Nevertheless, the totals are deemed wholly adequate as a representation of nationwide needs, forming a basis for setting the initial course of remedial action.

Systems studied

The States were asked to furnish estimates of needs for all roads and streets, segregated by systems as follows:
 * Federal-aid systems:
 * 1. Interstate, rural
 * 2. Interstate, urban
 * 3. Other Federal-aid primary, rural
 * 4. Other Federal-aid primary, urban
 * 5. Federal-aid secondary, under State control
 * 6. Federal-aid secondary, under local control
 * Non-Federal-aid systems:
 * 7. Other State highways, rural
 * 8. Other State highways, urban
 * 9. Other rural roads
 * 10. Other city streets

Existing and programmed toll roads were included in the systems deemed most logical from the standpoint of traffic service.

All costs were estimated at midyear 1954 prices. Construction cost estimates include an allowance for engineering and contingencies.

The estimates also include costs for Federal road systems (forest highway system, national park road system, national parkways, Indian reservation roads, and forest development roads). These have not been itemized individually. Many portions of these Federal systems are also in one or another of the above listed systems; those portions wholly Federal (no other governmental jurisdiction involved) are included with other rural roads and city streets.

The rural-urban classification used for systems 1–4 is that prescribed by Federal-aid legislation: Urban mileage is that in areas including and adjacent to municipalities or other urban places of 5,000 population or more. For systems 5 and 6, the mileage is almost wholly rural (outside the urban areas just described). It does include mileage without reference to municipal boundaries in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 7 States where population density exceeds 200 persons per square mile.

For the non-Federal-aid systems (7–10), the States followed their individual practices in claseif ying mileage as rural or urban.

It should be noted that some differences exist in mileages cited in this study and mileages previously reported in other publications by the Bureau of Public Roads. Some of these differences result from differences in rural-urban and system segregations; some, particularly in the figures for local roads and streets, are accounted for by the fact that the States have made new estimates. All of the mileages cited in this report are those reported by the States in connection with the needs study.