-- I “I,..’ 1 l--2 i -8 ------ ” i!?TTF i 033 +o(J 7 a-723 . I *’ -I c REPORT3 TO THE CONGRESS : able Basis For pprowing Certain Auxiliary’ oute Se nts Of The Interstate High ay System B-163714 Federal Hlghway Admlntstratlon Department of Transportation BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATE!3 WASHINGTON DC 20548 B- 163714 To the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives This IS our report on the questionable basis for approvmg certain auxllrary route segments of the Interstate Highway Sys- tem The Federal Hrghway Admmlstratlon, an agency of the Department of Transportation, IS responsible for admmrstermg the mterstate highway program Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act, l9Zl (31 U S C 53), and the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 us c 67) Copies of this report are being sent to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Admmlstrator, Federal Hrghway Admmlstratlon Comptroller General of the United States Contents J Ew2. DIGEST 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 4 2 QUESTIONABLE BASIS FOR APPROVING CERTAIN AUXILIARY ROUTE SEGMENTSOF THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM 9 Approval and construction of Interstate Spur Route I-180 10 Events leadlng to the deslgnatlon of I-180 as an Interstate spur route 11 Problems encountered as a result of accelerated construction schedule to meet steel plant needs 18 Examples of proposed auxlllary routes to population centers not approved by FHWA 20 3 AGENCY COMMENTS 23 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 26 Conclusions 26 Recommendation 27 5 SCOPE OF REVIEW 28 APPENDIX I Letter dated February 16, 1970, from tne Assistant SecretaryforAdmlnlstratlon, Department of Transportation 31 II Lrstlng of seven auxiliary route segments approved by FJ5WAon a case-by-case basis 33 III Offlclals of the Federal Government re- sponsible for the admlnlstratlon of the Federal-aid highway program 34 ABBREVIATIONS FHXA Federal Hlghway Admlnistratlon GAO General Accounting Offlce COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S QUESTIONABLEBASIS FOR APPROVING REPORTTO THE CONGRESS CERTAIN AUXILIARY ROUTE SEGMENTS OF THE INTERSTATE HIGHMAY SYSTEM Federal Highway Admlnlstratlon Department of Transportation B-163714 ------DIGEST WHYTHE REVIEW WAS MADE The Interstate Highway System connects as directly as practicable the prlnclpal metropolitan areas, cltles, and lndustrlal centers and also connects, at suitable points, with important contlnental routes ln Canada and Mexico Initially the system was limited to 40,000 miles In 1956 and 1968, an additlonal 1,000 miles and 1,500 miles, respectively, were authorized. By January 1, 1970, about 70 percent of the system was open to traffic, another 11 percent was under construction, engineering or right-of-way actlvitres were under way on 75 percent, and 4 percent remained in pre- liminary status. Since 1956 about $38.8 billion of Federal-aid funds have been set aside for these proJects Federal funds generally cover 90 percent of the costs. The Federal Highway Admlnlstratlon used a numerical rating system as a basis for comparing the relative merits of state requests for the addl- tional mileage authorized ln 1956 and ln 1968 and for selecting final route locations for the mileage allocations However, during the Interval between the first mileage increase in 1956 and the General Accounting Office (GAO) review3 the Federal Htghway Ad- mlnlstration allocated mileage to the States for certain auxiliary route segments on a case-by-case basis rather than on the basis of a rating system to rank State requests as to merit and slgnlflcance in terms of unfulfilled route needs. An auxlllary route 1s a radial, clrcumferen- teal, or spur route serving principally an urban area GAO wished to see lf this allocation of mileage on a case-by-case basis was ln consonance with the basic concept of the Interstate System and provided the benefits normally associated with the system. FINDINGSAND CONCLUSIONS The approval of seven interstate mileage segments resulted in 48 5 miles being added to the Interstate System which were not subJected to the numerical rating system. We p. 9 ) Six of the segments appeared to provide general benefits wlthln the con- cept of the Interstate System. (See p 9.) GAO believes that one segment--a 13 2-mile, four-lane hlghway--does not provide general benefits because lt wtll benefit primarily a steel plant near a small rural Illinois community The Federal Highway Administration estimates that this spur route will cost $47 1 mllllon of which the Federal Government will pay $39 million. Apparently, the primary purpose in constructing the spur route (I-180) was to meet a commitment made by the State to the steel company to pro- vide a four-lane hlghway connecting the plant to the Interstate System as conslderat7on for the company selecting that site for a new plant. (See p 11 ) The Federal Highway Admlnistratlon's decision to approve this spur route seems especially inappropriate since, at various times prior to its ap- proval, other routes were not approved although they appeared to be more Justified in terms of traffic and national significance. (See p. 26 ) GAO believes that a numerical rating system would have highlighted that this spur route was not in consonance with the nationwide character of the Interstate Highway System and would not have qualified as an addi- tion to the system (See p. 26 ) RECOBMENDATIONSOR SUGGESTIONS The Secretary of Transportation should require the Federal Highway Ad- mlnlstratlon to discontinue approving requests for auxiliary interstate mileage on a case-by-case basis and require lt to use a numerical rating system to rank requests on the basis of prlorltles reflecting the cur- rent ObJectives of the Interstate System The use of such a system would provide more assurance that (1) the States are afforded an equal opportunity to compete for any additional interstate mileage, (2) mileage 1s allocated on the basis of the most important needs of the Interstate System, and (3) offlclals have a means of comparing the relative merits of all State requests for mileage. (See p. 27.) AGENCYACTIONS AND UNRESOLVEDISSUES The Department of Transportation agreed that the States should be able to compete equally for interstate mileage and that allocations should serve the most important needs. However, the Department believes that a rigidly applied system of numerical ratings cannot adequately measure the relative merits of competing appllcatlons, particularly where an ur- gent need arises for adJustments or addltlons to specific short-route segments (See p 24.) 2 i GAO 1s not proposlng that a numerical rating system be applied so rig- idly that Federal-ald hlghway program offlc7als would be precluded from exercising Judgment when the c7rcumstances warrant GAO believes, how- ever, that, to exercise Judgment effectively, these officials must have avaIlable a means of clearly ldentlfylng various alternatives when deal- 7ng with problems of the magnitude encountered in interstate mlleage al- locat7ons. (See p. 25 ) MATTERSFOR CONSIDERATIONBY THE CONGRESS GAO 1s lssulng this report to the Congress for its conslderatlon when additional Interstate mIleage or other s7mllar programs are authorized and to inform the Congress of the deslrablllty of the use by the Federal HIghway AdmlnlstraQon of a numerical rating system to rank all the var- ious requests for mileage for auxlllary Interstate routes on the basis of priont7es reflect7ng the current ObJectIves of the Interstate Sys- tem 3 CHAPTER 1 7 INTRODUCTION The General Accounting Office has examined into the manner In which certain segments of the interstate mrleage have been allocated to the States by the Federal Highway Admlnistratlon (FHWA), Department of Transportation, Our review was directed toward evaluating the alloca- tlon of mileage for 16 auxiliary interstate routes, which were approved on a case-by-case basis, from the standpoint of whether these routes were in consonance with the basic concept of the Interstate System and provided the general benefits normally assocrated wrth the system. The scope of our review 1s described in chapter 5 of this report, FHWA is the principal agency of the Federal Government responsible for matters relating to highways. Accordingly, the allocation of interstate mileage is one of the prrmary responslbllltles of FHWA in its admlnlstratlon of the Federal-aid highway program. The development of the crlterla used by FHWA to deslg- nate highways as part of the Interstate System dates back to the 1930's. At the request of the Congress, FHWA, in a report submitted to the Congress in 1939, demonstrated and documented a need for a system of interregional superhigh- ways with connections through and around cltles. Through Joint efforts of FHWA and the Natlonal Interregional Hlgh- way Committee, appointed by the President, a report titled "Interregional Highways" was submitted to the Congress in 1944. The 1944 report recommended a network of 33,900 miles of superhighways and stated that an additional 5,000 miles of auxiliary urban routes would be needed. Acting on the basis of these reports, the Congress enacted the Federal- Aid Highway Act of 1944, which provided for the designation of a Natlonal System of Interstate Highways limited to 40,000 miles. The system was to be so located as to con- nect by routes as direct as practicable the principal met- ropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers; to serve 4 the national defense, and to connect at suitable border points with routes of continental importance In the Domln- ion of Canada and the Republic of Mexico. By 1945 the States had proposed 43,000 miles of main routes for inclusion in the system. The criteria used by the States as the basis for proposing these routes included consideration of (1) cities and rural population, (2) manu- facturing and agricultural production, (3) concentrations of motor-vehicle ownership and traffic, and (4) natlonal defense.