4 '' TRANSPORTATION uann_g_v_ Ht '0 .0.o.". '0 I... ‘on; 0000*‘ .50.}. 01' n.‘ I .0... '.|0. .0 Ogi 0 .O..n.'0l. . Il"'v no. 0 . . 0 O... I 0., U 0 '0'... 00.. /;Z“3-53 91/V Tra1r:.3-pg; _.- L Library -Lon FIl\TAl\T GING HIGHWAY MGHlL"-OF--Y;1AIY RIGHT-OF—W1Y COMMIT“““¢ 9121111 our AS§<5EIATIOiE or smrn HIGH'w'.A.Y ow: cums ,, /* March 1950 CONTEETS Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . s . . Part I.—~Factual Background Introduction . . . . . . . Federal participation in right—of-way acquisition State right—of~way financing practices . . . . . Right—of—way costs a function of land.values . . Distinction between right~of~way and construction Part II.—~A.Policy on Right—of—Way Financing Introduction . . . . . . - . . Financial responsibility for right~of~way costs . Acquiring agencies . . ;" s Methods of financing rights~of—way Techniques for reducing right~of—way expenditures Qooopoogouo . ' O Q O D O O I 9o“oo.oaQ‘o:oo ‘Q ~. 0 .' O Q O O O Q . - I. O cob items .4. h'h’ - 4rx~," 6?‘, éfl_/ //r 2'—g'V\‘ LOREWARD Early in l9h7, the Committee on Right-of—way of the American Associa~ tion of State Highway Officials initiated an extended study on the whole broad question of right—of—way for highway purposes. The committee has been working diligently since that time and in March, 1950 submitted the first section of their report. The program of the committee calls for the ultimate submission of a most extended report, probably containing as many as ten sections. Section I is devoted to "Financing Highway Right—of~way". Because of the broad field ultnnately to be covered in the report and the necessity for an extended time for the preparation of the various sections, the Executive Committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials concluded that it was not feasible to submit the report section by section over a period of years for consideration as a policy statement of the Association and that the period of time involved would undoubtedly require revision in the initial sections before conclusion of the final report. They believed, however, that the work of the Com- mittee on Right—of-Nay was of sufficient importance that their studies should be made available to the member departments for their consideration and review as promptly as possible, with the distinct understanding that the reports, as made available in this way, are not to be considered as national policies of the American Association of State Highway Officials but strictly as a committee report. Therefore, these reports will be made available to the member depart- ments in an inexpensive form as they are compiled by the Committee on Right—of-way. This is the first such section.- It is the hope of the Executive Committee that thelnanber departments will review these reports, as received, and will submit their criticisms and comments to the Chairman and Secretary of the Association's Committee on Right-of-way for their guidance in connection with future work of the committee. It is again emphasized that this report is not a national policy of the American Association of State Highway Officials and_is supplied to the member departments as information on committee work underway in the Association. PREFACE Since this report was written, the Congress of the United States has enacted the Federalaaid Highway not of 1950. This new act increases the Federal share payable for right-of-way costs from "one-third" to not to exceed "one-half" of such costs, as recommended in this report. Proposed by the A.A.S.H.O. but not included in the final Act, was a provision for advances of Federal funds to State Highway departments for acquisition of rights-of-way, portions of which would be repaid over a period of years. RIGIfl‘~OF- WAY OOZVFMITW AI/[EH1 CAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS I"Fra1'1l<: C. Balfour, California, Chairman I“David B. Levin, Bureau of Public Beads, Secretary H. G. I~icO1usky, Alabama N. 0. (Kelly) Moore, Arizona 75‘. C. Bogart, Arkansas L. G. Truehoart, Colorado *E. F. Harris, Connecticut Alban P. Shaw, Delaware Fleming A. Seay, Florida R. B. Adams, Georgia "‘E. H. Brunner, Idaho H. E. Surman, Illinois Thomas B. McDonald, Indiana W. P. Nichols, Iowa “‘J. A. Campbell, Kansas Arthur E. Lewis, Kentucky P. E. Lirette, Louisiana E. W. Axtell, Maine LeRoy W. Kern, I-Iaryland Lester J. Ellis, Massachusetts Wil son Hewlett, Michigan *8. Rex Green, Minne sota H. L. French, Mississippi Wilkie B. Cunnyngham, Missouri A. G. Si-mney, Montana A. G. Williams, Nebraska A. C. Kinne, Nevada (- li. O. Whitford, New Hampshire John W. Aymar, New Jersey S. A. Bennett, New iiexico E. B. Hughes, New York T. B. Wilson, North Carolina George Teskey, North Dakota Karl L. Rothermund, Ohio J. M. Devers, Oregon A. L. Dittmar, Pennsylvania Frederick 15. Lake , Rhode Island "'11. J. Blackmon, South Carolina Frank W. 1‘4itchell, South Dakota 0. L. Peeler, Tennessee J. C. Dingwall, Texas T. C. Heath, Utah G. M. Lane, Vermont A. H. Pettigreu, Virginia Frank M. Stocking, Washington Ii. H. Stickler, West Virginia Rolfe B. Sawtelle, Wisconsin J . 3. Graham, Wyoming L. LI. Hedgecock, District of Columbia T. Y. Awana, Hawaii Alfredo Mendez, Jr., Puerto Rico 0. W. Phillips, Sr., Bureau of Public Roads "'Member of Subgroup on Right—of--Way Financing Policy QQNCLUSIONS R'BCOZ@'IQ1lDATIOi\TS ——v Many and varied.have been the epithets hurled.by highway administrators and highway planners at weaknesses in land acquisition technique. Highway management is vexed because right~of-way acquirement frequently takes too much time, costs too much money, and is generally inadequate in the long run. Since some of the greatest obstacles encountered in a program of land acquisition are financial in nature, the following facts have been assembled indicating the particular nature of these problems. Under the Fedora ~Aid.Highway Act of l9U# and amendments, Federal contributions for right~of-way have exceeded 535.5 million, or almost 2.7 percent of the total Federal funds involved, as of June 30, 19b9, Thirty—six States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia,have made use of Federal funds made available for right—of*way acquisition. Some of those States habitually request Federal reimburse— ment, some make only occasional use and others which formerly financed a portion of their right~of~way costs with.Federal funds no longer do so for one reason or another. Few States, if any, have evolved a satisfactory, long range policy with respect to right*of~way financing. State highway departments generally have never had sufficient funds at their disposal to carry on an efficient program of land acquisition. In most States right—of~way funds are provided either on an annual or biennial basis. They are buds geted from existing highway funds in the majority of States. The use of a revolving fund for this purpose is seldom resorted to. lhe amount of State and local participation in right~ofQway'for the several systems of highways varies considerably among the States reporting; Thus, 31 States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii and.Puerto Rico, of the U5 States for which information is available, finance right~of~way acquisition for the State highway system without local assistance. In seven, the county provides the necessary funds, and in four, the counties and the tate share the financial responsibility. In connection with urban extensions of State highways, 2U juris- dictions report that the State itself provides the needed lands, in 12 others, the cities provide all right-ofkway. Counties and cities share right-o£—way costs in one State, and in the remaining seven, the States and cities share equally. In 19 jurisdictions, the State alone is financially responsible for acquiring land for Federal~aid secondary highways and in the other 22 reporting, the county is responsible. Of the 30 States having a State secondary highway system for which.information is available, the State pays for the right~of~way in 19 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. In eight others, the county alone is responsible. In one State, the State and county share such costs equally. The trend in the magnitude of right—of~way costs is a rising one and is expected to continue so, not only because of the size of highway improvements proposed for construction, but because land costs generally have practically doubled in the past ten years and are expected to sta- bilize considerably above l935~l9}9 prices. ii Methods of distinguishing between right~of—way and construction costs vary greatly among the several States. Such items as cattle passes, retaining walls, borrow pits, driveways, moving or destruction of trees, are charged to right—of-way in some States and to construction in others. Even where unanimity exists among the several States report~ ing, there seems to be no logical reason for certain items being charged to construction, while others are considered right~of—way charges. Thus the removal or relocation of structures, utilities, etc., is generally considered a right~of—way item, but the demolition of buildings is regarded as a construction item. With this background of fact, the following recommendations are made as to how the financing of land acquisition may be made more efficient‘ Assuming that Federal funds are needed in the acquisition of rights-of~way, it is recommended that the same ratio now used for con- struction costs be put into effect for right—ofeway on the Federal—aid primary and urban systems, and.possibly for the Federal~aid secondary system. An even greater amount of Federal participation in both con— struction and right~of—way costs may be desirable for the National System of Interstate Highways. The matching of Federal funds for rights—of-way on the same basis as for construction will serve to eliminate hair~splitting distinctions between right~of-way and construction items, and simplify administration of the highway program considerably. The States should be legally responsible for financing their share of the cost of acquiring right~of~way on Federal-aid.systems as well as on the State primary, secondany and urban systems. In those States where iii local units have been accustomed to furnish the necessary rights—of-way, they might continue to do so under agreement with the States involved. However, if the local units cannot or will not participate in such cases, the State should.have unequivocal authority to acquire the necessary right—of~way at its own expense. It is suggested.that the Federal contribution for right—of—way might be provided through periodic Federal—aid grants by Congress in accordance with a.prescribed statutory formula. Advance payments of Federal funds for right~of~way acquisition are recommended wherever found necessary. To assist the State in.providing its share of right—of—way costs, it is suggested that Federal funds be authorized by law to make loans for the acquisition of rights-ef—way, to be repaid ever a period of years. The further suggestion is made that State legislatures might make funds available for right-ofrway in advance of construction by setting up a revolving fund to be replenished as needed. The revision of cumbersome and.time-consuming land acquisition processes is an obvious method of effecting savings in the right~of—way bill. It is recommended that special benefits be offset against property taken for highway purposes as well as against damage to the remainder. Various methods of reserving right~of—way in the period between the plane ning and land acquisition stages, such as zoning, set~back regulations, the reservation agreement, and the acquisition of highway develepment rights are possible solutions which the States may want to explore. The expedient of marginal land acquirement is recommended for application wher~~ ever possible. And finally, the States and their municipalities are urged to support cooperative programs of land assembly wherever they will be mutually beneficial. iv Part I.~—FADTU£L BADKGROUND Introduction Progressive right~of—way policy offers countless possibilities of achieving greater returns per unit of highway expenditure. Yet land acquisition has been one of the least exploited aspects of highway development. We must admit that we have been muddling along, for the most part, in our efforts to utilize the vast potential of an effective land acquisition program. Realizing that the facts with respect to State right~of—way practices must be ascertained before efforts toward betterment cou1d.be successful, the Right~of~Way Committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials sponsored an investigation of land acquisition technique, by means of a comprehensive questionnaire. Most of the States have already submitted returns. Thus, through this far—sighted action by the States, a wealth of valuable source material on all phases of the right~of-way problem has been made available for study and analysis. _ 2 n Because of the immensity of the task, the Committee has determined to undertake the analysis piecemeal, one phase at a time. With the background of fact so provided, the Committee will evolve a recommended policy or standard on each.phase of righteof-way acquisi~ tion, for ultimate submission to the Executive Committee of the Association. This monograph on right~of~way financing, then, is the first of a series. The facts as derived from the questionnaire returns and other primary sources, will be presented first; 2 policy, supported by these facts, follows. Federal,participation,in,right—of-way_acquisition As an attempted solution to the problem of financing highway right- of—way, the Congress in the Federal Highway.Act of l9MO authorized the Reconstruction.Finance Corporation to cooperate with the States in financing the acquisition of rights-of-way "necessary or desirable" for highway projects otherwise eligible for Federal aid. 2/ No loans ever were made under this authorization. Another departure by the Congress from its pre-existing policy of not financing highway right-of-way, also contained in the l9MO Federal-aid legis- lation, related to balances of Federal-aid road funds apportioned to Hawaii for the fiscal years l939 and l9hO which remained unexpended at the close of the period of their availability. The Commissioner of Public Roads was authorized at his discretion to pay all or any part of the costs incurred on a project including "necessary new or additional rights-of-way..." _/ But it was not until the enactment of the Defense Highway Act of 19hl (55 Stat. 765) that the Bureau of Public Roads began making substantial expenditures for land acquisition. Under the act, the Federal Works \ Administrator was authorized to finance and acquire where necessary "new or 2/ Section l2, Federal Highway Act of l9MO (54 Stat. 867). g/ Section s, Federal Highway Act of 19to (5u Stat. 867). -5- additional lands" for flight strips, access roads, and the strategic network, for replacing roads Shut off from general public use at military and naval reservations and defense-industry sites, for grade crossing eliminations on the strategic network, and for off-street parking facilities. The costs of such right-of-way acquisition were made payable out of the appropriations authorized for the several classes of projects. Consistent with its estab- lished policy and in accordance with an alternative provision of the Defense Highway Act, the Bureau of Public Roads in practice channelized its land acquisition activities as much as possible through existing State and local agencies, except where it had been found that such agencies could not act with sufficient promptness. In these latter cases, acquisition was facili- tated through Federal machinery. Obviously, the Defense Highway.Act of l9hl was an emergency measure the objective of which was the immediate construction of roads urgently needed for the national defense. As the emergency for which this legislation was designed has largely passed and since the funds authorized for the purpose have been almost wholly expended, the authority granted under the not is deemed to have become inoperative, except as it applies to a few pending \ \ projects. As of June 30, l9h9, right-of-way costs for approved.projects amounted to more than $17 million of Federal funds, constituting 6.2 percent of the total Federal contribution of project costs. The present Federal administrative policy concerning right-of-way financing is Based upon the Federal Aid Highvay Act of 19st and its amend- ments. That act permits Federal participation in financing the acquisition ...5.... of rights~of—way, by redefining the term "construction" to include costs of rights—of—way, as originally so defined in the 19M} amendment to the Federal—aid laws. The Federal share of right—of~way costs may not exceed one—third on highway projects plus the usual increase in the public land States, and may not exceed one~half on grade crossing elimi~ nation projects. These provisions of law authorize only Federal partici~ pation in the financing of highway right—of~w¢ ; generally speaking, the actual acquisition of the needed lands is facilitated through State and local machinery. Federal expenditures for highway right—of—wey under the Federal Aid Highwy Act of l9MU and amendments, have been substantial. As indi~ cated in table 1, right~of—way costs for Federal primary, secondary and urban projects exceeded $33.5 million, as of June 50, l9¥9. As required under the Federal~aid laws, this was matched by a State contribution approximately twice as large. The Federal contribution for right-of—way constituted almost 2.7 percent of the total Federal funds involved. Not all of the States, of course, request Federal reimbursement right—of—way expenditures. Thirty~six States, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, ankl District of Columbia have made use of funds for this purpose, as tab1Q'2 indicates. Of thesc,four jurisdictions —~ Idaho, Wisconsin, Wyoming,§nd the District of Columbia-——-make only occasional use of Federal—aid for right»o1’:‘~wa;>r acquisition. Four ct-hers -—~ Connecticut, Oregon, Washiélgton, and West Virginia ~~ have indicated that while they have made use of Federal~ aid funds for land acquisition in the past, tney do not now do so. It is obvious, of course, that those States which do not elect to use Federal funds Table 1.—~Right~of~way and Total Costs for Federal Primary, Secondary and Urban Highway Projects, Postwar Federaleaid Highway Funds, June 30, 19U9 Total Federal Class of Federal Funds Federal and State Federal~aid for Funds for Totai Federal and . Funds Right~of~may' Right-of way funds State Funds Primary #8 10,263,639 $ 29,182,076 $ 621,592,313 $ 1, 231",s1m,11+0 secondary 2,387,032 7,095,051~ 367,775,883 733,851,837 Urban 20, 878, M06 62, zso, 672 262,771, 717 5111, M17, 383 Total $ 98,557,799 $l,252,l39,9l3 $ 2,507,lU3,36O ~ $ 33,529,0771 Table 2.-Use of Federal Funds for Highway Land.Acquisition Purposes, l9h9 Federal Funds Federal Funds State Used? State Used? Yes No Yes No Alabama x New'Mexico x Arizona x New York x Arkansas X [ North.Carolina x California x North Dakota x Colorado x Ohio x Connecticut x Oklahoma x Delaware x Oregon x Florida x Pennsylvania x Georgia x Rhode Island x Idaho X South Carolina x Illinois x South Dakota x Indiana x Tennessee x Iowa x Texas x Kansas x Utah x Kentucky x Vermont x Louisiana Z Virginia x Maine x Washington x Maryland x West Virginia x Massachusetts x Wisconsin x Michigan x Wyoming x Minnesota x Hawaii x Mississippi X Puerto Rico x ' Missouri x District of Columbia x Montana x 1 Nebraska X Nevada x New Hampshire x New Jersey x Totals 39 12 _.6_. for right—of-way acquisition, do not lose any Federal funds. For a given State‘s apportionment of Federal—aid funds can be used for construction or preliminary engineering or right~of~way or both, and balances that are not used for one purpose may be used for the other. Some States use Federal funds for right—of~way for certain projects only. The Colorado State Highway Department, for example, uses such funds on the Federal—aid.primary system only.‘ In Oklahoma, they are used only in connection with urban and grade crossing elimination projects. Like- wise, in Missouri and Virginia, only urban area facilities are involved. The extent of the use made of postwar Federal—aid highway funds up to June 30, l9M9, for right~of~way purposes by the various States is indicated in table 3. The range is great, varying from almost $6.5 million in Illinois to less than $5 thousand.in.Puerto Rico. A.division of these funds by States among Federal primary, secondary, and urban projects is found in appendices A, B, and C, respectively. State right~of—way financing practices Most State highway departments have never had at their disposal funds in sufficient amount to meet the costs of a desirably prompt construction program and the simultaneous heavy expense incident to land acquisition. Inherent in the very nature of an efficient land acquisition procedure is the need for a long range and deliberate policy with respect to right~of-way acquirement. Such, then, is the nature of the right—of~way financing prob— lem, from the State's point of view. But before we speculate as to possible Table 3 ¢-Federa1 and Total Bight-of~way Costs of Projects Approved for Construction, Postwar FederaL~aid Funds, Juno_30, l9H9 State 1 Right-»of--way Co st s A 1 Total Federal Share Alabama ' Arkansas $11, 52% $ 571, 502 CO]-orad’D 1 2,21 Connecticut 1,609,719 607,730 ‘Florida 1,23 ,3 E 5uO’262 Georgia '2 5,17 ulu,O25 Idaho 3%l¢O7é 79,390 Illinois 19 uss’ogo 15%’O96 Kansas 2,388’ M 6’u9D’966 Kentucky ,l9 :10} 800,291 Louisiana 1 823, 9 65,036 Maine l,3Q3,i3; 611,66M Massachusetts 5,668,M39 u5l,795 Michigan lL8:3u726§ 1:869:59Lt Minnesota *’617’ 95 6’lgQ’O38 Missouri %’528’§§9 1’8ob’2l7 Montana ’5u6’1ug 2’299’;85 Nebraska 1 5U2,028 2J5,dl2 Nevada , 20, 507 51%O57 New Hampshire 532,295 15,770 North Carolina 6 M¥”’99l “ 187,372 North Dakota ‘£35,227 ¢,lO9,ul8 Ohio 5 327’27i 1u3’789 Oklahoma ’776’6ss 1]76O’3Z5 Oregon 2?’6l9 292,106 Rhode Island 1 369,183 M;O,79O South Carolina 1,5u2,969 03,25“ South Dakota ’363’517 M85’23u Tennessee 6 028,708 151,077 Utah 1’1o9’o9o 2’O32’99l Vermont J122,135 708,830 Virginia 3su’13s 1Og’9l2 Washington 1u’2s6 12 ’5?2 West Virginia so’ooo 7’l+3 Wisconsin 571,191 10,000 Wyoming 28T,'g2 182,008 Hawaii 1 678,g3? ESBJEZY District of Columbia ’162:5o6 ' ’EZ’iE% Puerto R100 1M,73o M1910 Totals $ 98,55Y,799 $ 33,529,077 ..7.. remedies, let us examine briefly how States new finance right-of~way, what the magnitude of their expenditures has been in the last decade, and related matters. Funds available for highway improvement in most States are provided either on an annual or biennial basis. As right-of-way expenditures are deemed to be an element of the cost of a.project, an allocation is generally made for that purpose, except in those few States that still require the local units of governments to furnish the needed lands and at their own expense. Revolving right-of~uay'funds are only rarely used. The four States reporting use of revolving funds for land acquisition purposes are Colorado, Nevada, Oregpn, and.New Hampshire. In Oregon, for example, such funds are used for the purchase of right~of—way if the parcel must be acquired more quicmly than is possible under the customary procedure. A.revolving fund of $50,000 exists in New Hampshire. .Right-of~way funds are budgeted from existingihighway funds in most States; In California, for example, a right-of-way fund is set up by fiscal years, covering the estimated cost of right~of—way for construction projects scheduled for the future, generally not exceeding two years in advance. While funds for right~of—way are included in the budget submitted to the legislature in Illinois, it may be revised within limits by administrative action. In New Jersey, application is made to the State budgpt commis- sioner for funds for right-of-way needed in connection with the construction program for the following year, subject to the approval of the State legis~ lature. State administrative methods of financing highway right~of~way are indicated in table M. Table 11,.--State Administrative Methods of Financing Highway Right-of-way. State Does Revolving Right~ ofdway Fund Exist? ~a-..~-.__-_~.¢'_ -7| “M ‘g... *--~--- ..-u.--.-qr-do-~_.\-...-.-» -._.. .-.--.. _._.__.'_.--a-. -. Are Right-ofdway Funds Budgeted? 0 \.b ~4-~A1Q~U I-1...-—.“‘__.*.-\ .- M-vn -- Wm Are Right-ofeway Funds Provided as Needed? M mu -M 4.‘-_-n-~ _ Q4 -14 Other Methods ALABAMA ARIZONA €ALIFORNIA COLQRADO CONNECTICUT DEHAWARE None None Limited revolving fund exists for purchase of lands and other items included in budget None Funds to reimburse counties and cities are budgeted Construction and right- of#way funds set up as lump sum in budget Right-ofdway fund set up by fiscal years, covering estimated cost of right~of~way for construction proj~ ects scheduled for the future, generally not exceeding two years in advance .All funds are budgeted Funds are budgeted from regular highway appropriations Funds are budgeted and set up as Part of the cost of contract Table nu*—{continued) State 4 Does Revolving Right~ of—way Fund.Exist? Are Right~of“way Funds Budgeted? Are Right—of~way Funds Provided.as heeded? Other Methods FLORIDA GEORGIA IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS 1 1 None Hone None (No hformation) Funds used by local units from general road and.bridge fund must be budgeted Funds for right~of~way included in budget sub~ mitted to legislature. May be revised by administrative action Yes, from motor vehicle licenses and.gas tax as needed Funds for payment of right-of—way authorized and.provided as needed Funds provided as needed by action of highway commission State by resolution requests county to acquire right—of~way at its own expense Local units usually obtain right~of~way Local units use funds from general road and bridge fund Table U.—~(continued) State Does Resolving Bight~ ofe-way Fund Exist? Are Right-of-way Funds Budgeted? Are Right—of—way Funds Provided as Needed? Other Methods KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAIEE MAS sientssrrs MINNESOTA. MISSISSIPPI W fi Hone None W Yes, and.application for establishment of miscel- laneous encumbrance must be approved by State highway engineer, Oom~ missioner of Highways and Director of Finance Requests submitted ‘ yearly to legislature for construction funds l including funds for right—of~way Budgets are submitted.by each division quarterly based on funds approved < in department budget Funds for individual projects subject to approval of Right*of~ Way Committee, Legal Section and Commissions ers of Highways and Finances Funds provided as needed from general highway fund Presumably made avail" able from motor vehicle l and gasoline tax funds as needed If actual funds not available from State gasoline tax, bonds may be sold within limits authorized by legislature Table U.——(0entinued) State Does Revolving Right~ of~way Fund Exist? Are Right~cf~wey Funds Budgeted? Are Bight-of-way Funds Provided as Needed? Other Methods MISSOURI MONTANA NEVADA NEW JERSEY None A $100,000 State highway revolving fund exists. Bight~of~way payments under $25 or those re- quiring immediate pay- ment are paid from such fund None Estimated amounts re? quired for rights-of- way are budgeted at be~ ginning of fiscal year Application is made to budget commissioner for funds for right~of~wuy needed in connection with construction pro~ gram for following year. Subject to approval of legislature Right—of-way expendi- tures on each project approved by State Highway Commission from time to time Funds provided as needed by warrants drawn on State Highway Fund Funds available upon written request to State Highway Department audi~ tor who requests State Controller to issue warrant Funds appropriated by project F‘ ‘-0 Table H.—~(continued) state Does Levolving Right- of~may Fund Exist? Are Right—of—wag Funds Budgeted. Are Ri ht—of—way Funds Provi ed as Needed? Other Methods NEW'HAMPSH1RE NEW'MEXICO NEW'YOBK NDBTE~EiBDLlHA NORTH DAKOTA 1 1. A $50,000 revolving fund exists but funds may be drawn directly from Treasurer's office None None Not directly but amount is determined and controlled by over~all appropriations for highways and obli~ gated by official order when project progressed for contract C0nstruction.funds, including sufficient funds for right—of-way, appropriated biennially by general assembly Funds are arranged for as need arises by counties or cities Fund is drawn upon as needed Counties purchase right~of~way, sub~ mit certificate of cost to State and are reimbursed for 50 percent of cost Table u1—~(eontinued) State Does LevclvingIRight— of—way Fund Exist? Are Right—of—way Funds Budgeted? are Bi hteof~way Funds Provi ed as Needcd? Other Methods OHIO OKLAHOMA OREGON PENNSYLVKNLA1 Yes, and it may be used for purchase of right- of-way if transaction must be closed sooner than required for regu- lar procedure None All highway funds, including those for right~of~wey, are budg~ eted for two~year peri~ ed and set up as credit against which encum~ brances can be drawn for specific items or projects Estimated requirements for right~of~way set up in annual budget Budget approval of amount required for specific purpose is required Necessary funds are estimated each mcnth and requests for appropriations sent to Direqmor for approval 4-‘ M Table h.---(continued) .- --_ ___-_.~_-..'_. -.-_~--_ State - - M ..w--. RHODE ISLAND son is CAROLINA ' SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS VERMONT ZDoes Revolving Rig _._“¢__.___.-__ .. . _-_... . ofeway Fund Erist? ‘_._ ,...._..-_-V--.__-1.-a---_. _V None None _..-.-4, - ... -.-,-.-_-,.......,E-_-..> .. A __ ht- i -.-. ‘>_..._\ _--n~ .‘vfl4\a-_~>‘—.-.--\. .--~¢. Are Right—of~way Funds Budgeted? Financed from specific item fund appropriated ‘yearly by legislature in annual budget for Department "" |-“ -~-.-.-‘~---~‘-a... ! 5 .._-_- _~._~..-” . Are Right—of~way Funds Provided as needed? Funds taken from gen- eral highway fund and charged to prospective projects where funds have been allotted for construction thereof Funds made available when project is set up Funds are provided as needed by Department Funds are included in amounts allotted for each project -l__....-.. - -a-n--- -- _..-__<. ._--.-¢.-._...-. _.-._-_-.4-‘-..-. an-‘N Other Methods Counties and muni- cipalities use funds from their roads and bridge accounts or may issue bonds when = so authorized by .-_‘_ . _.._ . _,_-_' - people Table )+.--- (continued) State Does Revolving Right- Of—Wfly Fund Exist? Are Right—of~way Funds Budgeted? Are fiight~of-way Funds Provided as Needed? I Other Methods VIRGINLA WASHINGTON WEST VIBGIHIAJ WISCONSIN WYOMING- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA } None None None No Director of Highways budgets funds received from gas tax and makes available as needed Road funds are budgeted and estimated right—of— way funds are included as separate item Funds available for highway improvement are budgeted for particular projects, including right-of~way Funds for right~of-way included in annual budget of Highway Department State Highway Oommis~ sion makes annual allo~ cation for right~of~way purposes—~funds are available as needed! Additional funds may be authorized if needed \ N Payments from State highway fund for right~of+way are made without budg~ eting OI‘ Table M.-(continued) 4 Does Revolving Right— are Right—of—way I Are Right~of—way Funds State of~way Fund.EXist? Funds Budgeted? Provided as Needed? other Methods HAWAII \None No Voucher drawn against funds on deposit PUEBTO RICO None Yes, budgeted and provided as needed _8_ \ A substantial number of States finance right~of~way acquisition on highways under their control exclusively with State highway funds. But variations exist as between the several administrative highway systems, and even as between types of road improvement projects. Of the #5 juris~ dictions for which information is available, for example, 31 States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii and.Puert0 Rico finance the lands needed for their respective State highway systems, without contribution from any of the local government units therein. See table 5 for a specific enumerar tion of the States. In seven other States, the county still continues to provide and at its own expense, all the rights-of~way needed for State highways. In only four States do the counties and the State share the financial responsibility between them. In three —— Alabama, North Dakota, and Tennessee —~ the States and the counties share equally. In Idaho the State attempts to obtain local participation wherever possible. Federal— aid highways are, of course, included in the State systems. The pattern is different with respect to the financial responsibility for rights-of~way for urban extensions of State highways. Incidentally, this includes the urban sections of Federaleaid highways as well. As revealed in table 6, in 2h jurisdictions, the tate itself provides the lands needed for urban highways, while in 12 other States, the cities are expected to provide the rights-of--way without financial assistance from the State. In one State, Illinois, the State, county and city share the right- Of~way costs on designated projects. In the remaining seven States for which information is available, the States and their cities share equally.§/ A__p 1/ For a comprehensive discussion of State highway department authority in cities see "Statutory Authority of State Highway Departments in Municipalities," PUBLIC norms, June 19M9, Table 5;-“Division of Financial Responsibility for Highway Rights—of~ way as Between the State and Its County Subdivisions, for the State Highway System State State and County County Exclusively Share in.Proportions Designated Exclusively Arizona Alabamar~5O percent each Florida, Californiaé/ Idaho-participation variesZ/ Georgiaéé Colorado North Dakotar—5O percent each Illinoi Connecticut Tennessee—~}3—l/3 percent eachZ/ Kentucky? Delaware New Mexico Iowa Texas Kansas Wyomin§i/ Louisiana Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania§/ Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakot a Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Hawaii Puerto Rico District of Columbia ‘Y County may participate if project is of joint interest. State participates under certain conditions. In practice State participates if local units financially unable. State may acquire right—of~way for modernization of existing routes. State may participate in new or additional right—of~way. Counties may finance or partially finance State highways in townships or boroughs. Federal—aid accounts for the remaining }}~l/3 percent. '1 QEEQQK Table 6.~~Division of Financial Responsibility for Highway Rights~of-way as between the State and Its Subdivisions for Urban Extensions of State Highways St ate and City 7 State ‘, , City State, County Exclusively 5h<'~‘-1_1‘0 1? P1‘°P°1‘t1°ns i Exclusively I and City Share Designated ,n_ Californi7L/ Alabamar*5O percent Arizona Illinois Colorado2 . each FlQridaZ/ Connecticut Kansas~—53~l/3 percent Georgi? Delaware ea Idaho Iowa Missouri*~g%7l/3 per— Kentug7y§/ Louisiana cent eac Maine Massachusetts New York-5O percent New'Hampshire Minnesota each New M xico Mississi i North Carolinar~ 1 Ohio Montana.pp percent eachi/3&7 /3 Pennsylvania§/ Nevada South Carolinae—33~l/3 South Dakota New Jersey percent eachi/’ Texas Oklahom Tennessee—~33~l/3'per- Oregon§7 cent each Rhode Is and Vermontl Virgini 2 Washington West Virginia Wisconsi 2 Wyomin 2 Hawaii Puerto Rico District of‘ Columbia ' QQQ EQQK Acquired by city if on Federal~aid but not on State highway system. City participates under certain conditions. State may participate under certain conditions. In practice State participates if local units financially unable. Cities and towns under 6,000 population seldom.participate. Federal~aid accounts for the remaining 33-1/3 percent. State may participate in new or additional right~of—way. Municipal participation may vary, depending upon the extent the project will benefit the municipality, and its ability to pay. - 9 _ .As one might presume, the situation concerning the division of rightwof~way costs on the Federal~aid secondary system varies from that involving the other road systems. In 20 jurisdictions, the State alone is financially responsible for land acquisition for the Federal-aid secondary system, while in the 21 other States, for which information is available, the county furnishes the lands, exclusively. See table 7. Not every State has a State secondary highway system. Of the 31 jurisdictions having such systems, and for which information is available, 19 States, Puerte Rico, and the District of Columbia, finance the lands needed at the State level exclusively. In nine other States, the county alone is responsible. And.only in one Stat9—~K&RSaSw—d0 the State and county share equally in financing right—of-way for the State secondary system of roads. Table 8 indicates the States involved in each of these categories. State right~of~way expenditures of 27 States and the District of Columbia, for which information is available, are shown in table 9, by States and by years, for the decade 1938 through l9h8. The trend in magni- tude of expenditures since 1933 is upward, except for the war period, the 19%? annual total of over $28 million being almost double the 1938 total. In California alone, right-of~way costs in the l9H8-l9M9 fiscal year amounted to actual expenditures of $28,M55,666 with a budgeted program for the l9h9»l950 fiscal year of $3H,320,770 and presontly'planned expenditures for the next ten years averaging in excess of Sjé million per year. The ton-year total of more than $187 million represents a substantial invest~ mont even though little more than half the tates are accounted for. The average annual expenditure for right~of~way purposes, for all the States included in the tabulation, is over $18.? million. The average annual expenditure per State is more than $713,000. Table 7.---Division of Financial Responsibility for Highway Right s-of-way as between the State and Its County Subdivisions, for the Federal-aid Secondary System ._'_ State State and County County Exclusively Share in Proportions Designated Exclusively Colorado_1./ %nnectiout1/ .Ala"oama-2y Delaware Gal ifo I'nia3/ Kansas Colorado Louisiana lB‘lo:<‘i.daM naine Georgi ""‘ Massachuset t s Idal1o_5/ Montana Illi ois Nevada ' Iowa North Carolina * Kentuck‘y_6/ I Ohio ZIinnes0t Oregon I-iissouri ' Penn sylvania New J ersey3:“/ Rhode Island New Mexico South Carolina i New Yorl:_3_/ I Virginia Horth Daketa_'9=i West Virginia Oklahoma Hawaii South Dakota Puerto Rico Efennessee District of Texas Columbia ‘.*Tashington§/ Wisconsin_3/ Wyoming§/ Only State and Federal funds used for all importa__:_1_t secondary projects. If on State system, State pays 1/2. By State if on State system, by county if on county system. State may participate under certain conditions. In practice State participates if local units unable to do so.‘ State may participate in new or additional right--of--way. enemas rfable 8.---Division of Financial Responsibility for Highway Right s-of--way as between the State and Its County Subdivisions, for State Secondary ‘Highways St ate Y State and Oounty County _ l-To Secondary Exclusively Exclusively it share m _ Pro]-°°rt 1°11 5 Sy st em Reported De s1 g1at ed Connecticut Colo rado_1/ Kan sas--3}'-'l/ 3 percent [ Alabama Delaware Florida each Ar izona Loui siana Georgiel/ Oal if ornia Maine Ic1aho_3;/ Ill ino i s Liassachuset t s Iowa 3.-Eorth Dako ta 1-iinne so ta Ken tue,ky§/ Ohio I-Ii ssi ssippi 1‘-Zi ssouri Oklahoma I-iontana Dew iiexico South Dako ta Nevada Texas ‘Renae sse e New Ham@shire Vermont New J er sey Virginia New To rk k Wiscon sin N or th Oa1‘ol ina Wyoming Ore gen I-lawai 5. Penn sylvania Bhode Island South Carolina Washington West Virginia Puerto Rico District of Columbia i ii i/ State may participate under certain conditions. ‘ Federal--aid accounts for the remaining 3}-l/3 percent. State may Participate in new or additional right--of-wag}. Table 9.-L-state Right-of-way Expenditures of 27 States and District of Columbia 1938 through l9h7 Stats 1958 1939 19110 19111 19112 191-15 191111 19115 19116 19117 Total Average CALIFORNIA 6 2.896.311!) $ 1.h98,569 $ 2.881.725 $ 11,563,076 $ 3,822,030 8 11,156,635 0 5,157,268 Q 7,l10.22h # 8,25h.719 $11,212,116 $ 51,552,702 t 5,155,270 001010100 _1_/ 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 2,500,000 250,000 DELAWARE 515,101 156,189 502,527 250,511 121,602 911,607 56,562 151,779 125,160 176,911? 1,691,785 169,179 IDAHO 2/ 1011.900 86.116 67.353 87.637 107.9112 111.715 111.715 60.1196 60.1196 2L17.125 905.1173 90.5117 ILLINGTS 2/ 508.391 1152.359 5011.788 681.801 576,860 2711.719 637.386 1109.803 510111911 931.895 5.278.196 527.850 INDIAN“ 613,115? 712.970 752,773 1,096,119 1,119,600 1118,1428 210,753 557.715 758.708 1.570.211? 7.590.800 759,080 IOWA 860,000 500,000 )150,000 590,000 h90,000 270,000 270,000 180,000 250,000 560,000 11,200,000 120,000 KANSAS 5hh.526* 676.612 5ll+.5h9 694,010 398.576 2561,2811 85.665 192.9211 959.785 1.h60,9l+7 5.765.908 576.590 KENTUCKY 112.000 27.817 139.756 266,007 1178.635 107.002 38,166 167.95? 101111113 1166,1163 1.835.216 183525 MAINE 96.936 93,502 99,580 69,962 1110,9118 25.952 22.978 11.956 60,1-118 110.158* 725.190 72.519 MINNESOTA %/ 1,h93.691 1,1-121.1111 788,073 1.0hB,51|2 1.l+52.h70 6115.567 208.1160 L109.882 9111.852 1,529,290 9.9l1.7l1l 991.1711 MISSISSIPP 2/ 9117.253 9117.253 531.759 531.759 123.562 125,562 22.326 22.326 1187.590 1187.590 11,221,980 1122,!-198 MONTANA 159.083 7 1711,5211 259.218 218.3211 153.1111 211,077 159,7L10 50.1151 135.825 1011.236 1,l1l6,617 1111.662 NEVADA 111. 1411.617 740.390 119,689 58.3011 19,056 15,988 9.528 h3.127 55.J137 37l+,5Bl+ 37.1139 NEW HAMPSHIREIII 128,068 81,555 1Sh,538 119,667 20,787 20,815 lh,0)47 19,181 69,892 128,551 816,691 81,669 NEW JERSEY 1.927.750 2.260.936 1.888.596 2.512.903 1.h55.8L12 708.538 767,776 579,136 1,388,667 1,859,564 1/ 15,379,708 1,537,970 11011111 CAROLINA 200,000 220,000 550,000 550,000 500,000 225,000 95,000 90,000 250,000 8l0,.O00 5,250,000 525,000 NORTH DAKOTA 2/ 26.720 60,260 75.998 911.787 5L1.531 11.855 11.290 1,4917 35.267 60,000 1:58.625 113,863 01110 _9_/ 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 15,000,000 1,500,000 OKLAHOMA 391,817 180.255 3311,0811 317.302 2h0.89h 82.598 711.037 122.706 657,923 2b!-1.123 2,6h5.739 2611,5711 QREGQN 1/ 5116.667 5116.667 5116.667 5116.667 5116.667 5116,66? 5116.667 5116.667 5116.667 5L16.667 5.1166,67o 5116.667 PENNSYLVANIA 601,605 992.193 1.173.118? 118511.127 2.925.636 3.016.122 3.2753148 3.l420.09h 1.6h3.h12 1.3811336 20,287,060 2.028.706 RHODE ISLAND 291102711 125,000 106,161 118.5115 77.025 66,083 L15.h69 9.1499 13,036 25.587 875.232 87.525 SOUTH CAROLINA 1199.777 h7h,0h9 257.185 1138.175 602,159 1611.538 62. 99 35,056 51.298 1115,2011 2,728,618 272.861 VIRGINIA 817.990- 70G,l1-19* 839,0GG* 9L19.156* 1,569.502* 855.h79* 625.L\31* 512121? 772.650* l.39L1.h59 9.036.299 903.630 WASHINGTON 306.1170 778,037 757.3011 586.269 298.635 385,610 313,298 329.568 297.985 955.6711* 5.008.680 500.868 WEST VIRGINIA 631.972 701111311 7l+0,193 1.157.810 1.5511210 726.297 hf>0,155 315.966 5811.582 535,396 7,!-108.015 7110.802 DISTRICT 01-" COLUMBIA 200,000 150,000 119,966 150,000 150,000 lh9,8l5 711,987 75,000 75,000 101,000 1,275,768 127,577 TOTALS $ 16,7h0.819 $ 15,792,057 $ 16.L125,l1bB $ 21,282,616 3!; 20,792,838 t 15.1l+9.181 t 15.036.h11 3 l6,937.8hl+ 8 20.796,99h $ 28,619,190 $ 187,590,112? $ 18,759,Gh1+ * Figures obtained from.State highway department reports. 1 Figures not shown by years. /'Calendar year figures submitted for years 1938-h2 adjusted to conform with fiscal year figures for remainder of period. -' Figure for l9h7 computed on basis of figure shown for period l-l-b7 to 7-31-b7 ($557,772)- Figures for 1938-h0 inclusive adjusted to conform with fiscal year figures shown for rema /'Prorated on basis of figures shown for two-year periods. 6 Estimated inder of period. /IProrated from figure shown in Financial Report for period 7-1-b6 to 3-51-b7 ($l,39h,672.78). 'E7'Counties purchase right-ofdway and are reimbursed by State for 50 percent of cost. '_9/ Varies between $1 and $2 million per year. Figure for l9h7 represents budgeted amount. - 9(a) - Right—of~way expenditures by county and local rural highway agencies are also substantial. Table 9(a) indicates the magnitude of such expendi- tures by system. 0f greatest interest, of course, are the local erpendi— tures for State highways, ranging in amount from approrimately $95,000 in 1933 to a high of $h,687,000 in l9h0. The average over an eleven-year period, 1931 to.l9hL is $1,701,000, a sizable sum. Comparable figures are available for l9h7. The following sums were spent in that year: (Based upon studies of the Bureau of Public Roads.) State highways $h,879,000 County roads 3,619,000 Town, township and . district roads 157,000 City and village streets l,6h5,000 Total s10,300,000 The trend is clearly toward increased expenditures for right—ef~way purposes. Table 9(a).-Bighteofeway Expenditures by County and.L0ca1 Rural Highway Agencies, 1951—N1.l/ (Amounts in thousands of dollars) N I ' A fi ‘County and? Streets of Year -. State Local Rural Incoroorated Total h1ghwaySg/ R0adsg/ Places 1931 $ 227 $ - $ - $ 227 1952 157 ~- - 137 1933 95 239 ~— 33LL 1951+ 127 256 -—~- 585 I935 100 2,950 —— 3,050 1956 2,025 2,975 1 5,001 1937 1,855 L1,195 -- 6,0118 1938 2,897 M,133 97 7,037 .1939 3,107 3,977 235 7,319 19N0 u,6s7 9,578 117 1M,582 19H1 3,556 3,755 189 7,590 Total $lS,7l3_ $52,056 $639 $51,M0s Ayerage $ 1,701 $ 2,91“ $ 55 $ 24,573 l/ Source: The Financing of Highways by Counties and.Logal Rural Q3y§rnment§J l93l~l9Hl, Bureau of Public Roads, l9H9, p. 13. 2/ Some rignt—of~way expenditures are included with and are not separable from local road construction expenditures. .10. Of the States included in the tabulation, the State of California spent the greatest sum for right—of~way acquisition in 19b7, over $11 million. New Jersey is second, with almost $2 million of right-of-way expenditures. Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Kansas, Virginia, and Pennsylvania rank next in magnitude. As the postwar highway improvement program is just now moving into high gear, evpenditures for l9h8 provide an even better insight perhaps into the probable future magnitude of right-of-way costs, In California, for erample, over $19 million was spent for highway right-of-way in that year. An all-time high of almost $2.? million was erpended for land acquirement in Minnesota in the fiscal year l9h8. Large sums were also involved in Ohio, with an evpenditure of almst $2 million; in Pennsylvania with over $2.7 million; and in Virginia with over $1.8 million in l9h8, Nor is this trend toward increased expenditures for right—of~way acquisition one that will be quickly or easily reversed. The Bureau of Public Roads in cooperation with the several State highway departments recently completed a comprehensive study of the National System of Interstate Highways, pursuant to Congressional instruction. hf Among other things, this invest- igation includes the cost of improvement found to be required as estimated by the State highway departments on the basis of prices prevailing in l9h8. Of the $ll,266,hO0,000 total cost, $735,000,000 is the estimated right- of~way cost for all rural sections to be improved, an average of $23,200 per _L£/ HIGHWAY NEEDS or THE NATIONAL DEFENSE, H. D. 2&9, 81813 Congress 1st Session, l9h9. _ 11 _ mile, and approximately 12 percent of the cost of the rural sections. For all urban sections, the estimated right-of-way cost totaling $1,667,ooo,ooe averages $517,600 per mile, and more than 31 percent of the cost of the urban sections. These are staggering sums indeed in terms of past expenditures for land acquirement. California right~of-way authorities estimate that approximately$32 million or 29.9 percent of total highway expenditures will be spent annually during the next ten years for right~o£-way acquisition, under the Collier~ Burns Highway Act of l9H7. A3 of January 1, l9M8, the cost of overcoming accumulated critical deficiencies on Michigan's highways, roads and streets amounted to $1,M3u,910,6s7, of which nine percent was estimated for right-of--1-Jay pur- chase.§/ Even in the less urbanized States, estimated right~of-may needs for future highway improvement are substantial. The correction of major deficiencies existinggon 6,108 miles of the rural State highway system in Nebraska (exclusive of bridges and grade separations) are estimated to cost . $189,032,000, of which $5,395,000 or 2.9 percent is allocated to right~ef; W_§/ Likewise, the cost of the work to be done to improve the 79 percent of the rural Kansas State highway system that requires modernization is esti~ mated at $385,866,000 (exclusive of bridges and grade separations), of which 5/ HIGHWAX'NEEDS IN MICHIGAN, l9#8, Michigan Good Reads Federation and Michigan Highway Study Committee, pp. l20~l2l. NEBRASKA.HIGHWAY NEEDS, l9M8, Nebraska Highway Advisory Committee, p. 71. _ 12 _ $17,611,000 or h.h percent is set aside for right-ofeway acquisition. 1/ Total improvement needs in Illinois are estimated at t3,788,ll7,239 of which 2.8 percent or $105,255,751 is allocated to land acquirement. §/ Urban right—of~way costs are especially high because of the concentra- tion of buildings and structures of all sorts; public utility installations at surface and above and blow the ground; the need for grade separation structures and other improvements characteristic of urban areas; and the high values usually attaching to urban street frontages. Under these circumstances, the widening of existing facilities can be an erpensive undertaking. For example, the widening of Ashland and Western Avenues and LaSalle Street in Chicago cost more than a third of a million dollars per mile on the average for each additional 10 feet of width. In fact, urban right—of~way erpenditures frequently erceed the cost of construction. In Detroit, the property acquired for widening three miles of Woodward Avenue cost more than $9,800,000 of a total cost of approvimately $11 million. The right-of~way for the depressed Davison controlled—access highway through Highland Park in metropolitan Detroit, cost approximately $1,h50,000 for less than a mile and a half of length 20h feet wide, while the construc- tion cost was about $2,200,000. Of a total cost of approximately $21,200,000 1/ HIGHWAY NEEDS OF KANSAS, l9h8, Kansas Highway Fact-Finding and Research Committee, p. 112. Q/ A HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR ILLINOIS, 19b8, Illinois Highway and Traffic Problems Commission, p. 113. - 13 _ for the 37.2 mile‘, 300-feet hide Merritt Parkway in Connecticut, about $7,000,000 was erpended for right-of-way acquisitionee In New York City, the necessary lands for the Van Wyck Expressway totaled $6,500,000 in cost as compared with a construction cost of £20,000,000.> The new Santa Rosa Freeway, at Santa Rosa, California, involved a $950,000 right-ofrway erpenditure out of a total cost of S2,580,000.: After reviewing these huge right-ofeway costs, any thoughtful person will have to admit that highway land acquisition activities can no longer be treated lightly., Right-ofeway costs a function of land values It is obvious, of course, that right-of-way acquisition costs vary directly with land values. Farm real estate on the average has practically doubled in value in the last decade, in the United States, as figure 1 reveals. Urban property values have followed the same trend. The inference is clear: On the average, right-ofeway costs for high— way improvements will be found to have practically doubled over what they were a decade ago. Moreover, no spectacular reversal of the trend is evpected by author- ities. It is believed generally that over a longer period of time, land values will stabilize at approvimately fifty percent above the 1935-1939 aver- age. So that on this basis alone, right-of-way costs will never again be as low as they have been in the past._, As already suggested in other parts of this paper, right-ofeway costs are_evpected to be high because of the character of modern highway construc- tion and the types of areas involved. PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE OF FARM REAL ESTATE FROM I935-39 AVERAGE TO MARCH, I9ll9 I07 I45 33 97 89 7o ;;;-." ‘E 97 115 90- ' 57 68 141 79 use , 83 Wm ‘F 1-22 109 \3\ 21 I92 X'X __ 132 \74 PERCENT C 91 139 179 m INCREASE 155 135 155 alggflgcéover W 80-89 W 109 70 - 79 us. AVERAGE INCREASE - '1 , 60_69 IIIPERCENT ' , 50-59 Under 50 96 U. 5. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Figure 1. Rural land values in the United States ‘- it - Distinction between_right-of-way and construction items ‘There has been frequent and spirited controversy among some highway authoritiesiconcerning the proper distinction between right-of~ way and construction items. For example, if a retaining wall is involved in a highway improvement project, it is considered right-of-way in New Hampshire and Rhode Island, but construction in Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, and Ohio. Borrow pits are part of right~of-way costs in Missouri, but construction in Iowa, Kansas, and West Virginia. See table 10. A simple matter such as a driveway is treated differently in Rhode Island and Texas (right-of-way) from what it is in Mississippi, Ohio, and Oklahoma (construction). Even where a certain degree of unanimity exists among the States reporting, there appears to be no logical reason for placing certain items in the right-of-way classification, while other more or less similar items are classified as construction. For example, the States of Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, and Nevada consider the demolition of buildings a con~ struction charge.§/ But the removal of structures, utilities and related items are proper right-of-way costs in Florida, Ideho, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. __-—— 9/ Information is not available for all States on this matter, nor for the others mentioned in this section. Table 10 State practices concerning the distinction between right-of~way and construction items. ' Alabama Arizona California Colorado Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Iowa Kansas 00 ‘D O‘ Most distinctions made in connection with removal of struc- tures-not considered rigbt~o£-way cost except in special cases where payment to owner includes removal of structures by owner, All budgeted together, estimating appronimately'lO% right- of—way. Removal and/or relocation of buildings, public utilities, street liQ1ting installations, fire hydrants, etc., to construction. Demolishing of buildings, salvagingzmaterials, etc., optional depending on conditions, as to whether to right~ of~way or construction. Buildings and improvements to be destroyed are construction items. Payment for wells, ponds, lakes, etc., is right~ 01‘--way cost if owner replaces, but construction cost if State must replace. State endearors to cover as much as possible in construction contract. Special cases may arise, such as removal of trees or changing an entrance which may be charged to rig‘nt-of--va:/. Distinction made by determining whether or not construction work is necessary to clear physical obstructions in right- ofi»way; if so, charged to right—o£~way-i.e., pole lines, buildings, etc. Cost of land, removal and replacement of structures and other facilities considered right»of~way. Rearranging steps, entrances, construction of walls, rearrangement of utilities, resetting fences considered borderline cases. All items done by contractor are construction charges. The following are usually charged to construction: demolition of buildings, cattle passes, utility relocations, removal of trees, retaining walls. If payment is made to owner for such items, they are charged to right—of-way. Enese are generally considered right—of-may items: relocating buildings, fencing, pay; ment for trees destroyed. Moving and rehabilitation of improvements included in purchase of right~of»way if work is done by property owner; otherwise iarged to construction. Cattle pass considered construe~ tion item. Cost of land, fencing, property damage, moving of buildings charged to rigl1t-o.'€‘-wo:f. Cost of borrow is charged against the item “excavation.” Cost of cattle passes and retaining walls charged against "construction." Right~of~way'costs include ditches, drainage structures, channel changps, banl.protection, planting and slopes. Borrow and waste pits are construction costs. Kentucky : Louisiana : Elaine : Massachusetts : Minnesota : Mississippi Missouri .. Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York .. O‘ North Carolina: North Dakota : l 2.. In general if item increases utility and/or safety and perhaps reduces future maintenance costs, it is considered construction-if item only strictly reduces right~of—way costs, it is classified as right~of-way item. Or if such items as retaining wall or means of ingress and egress tend to retain former physical condition, they are classified as construction items. Distinction based upon determination as to whether such items are appurtenant to remaining land beyond limits of right~ of~way, whether performance of such items results in special benefit to property and whether such items of work involve replacement of facility previously constructed or installed for convenience of abutting property-items of such nature recognized as right~of—way items. In most cases distinction between right-of-way and construc~ tion items is a matter of judgment in answering the ques~ tion whether the work required is caused by change in line or grade or not. Apparently no distinction made, since bot fund. Whore certain construction items were included in right~of~way agreement made after construction was completed, work per— formed by maintenance division and charged to right~of~way. The following are generally considered as right~of—way: right-of~way fencing, purchase and removal of buildings, moving trees or shrubs, moving utilities. If items taken care of during construction, charged to construction. Necessary repairs to or replacements of damaged driveways considered construction cost. Moving of trees or shrubs or cash payment therefor apparently right~of~way charge. Such items as borrow, temporary dotours and utility reloca- tions charged to right~0£~way. Right~of~way items are those involved in clearing right»of~ way of all encumbrances, while construction items are those which may be incorporated in construction of highway or may be accomplished in normal construction procedure without replacement or recovery of salvagable materials. In borderline cases cost usually charged to right-of~way acquisition. Generally, construction item not included in plans or omitted as matter of oversight charged to construction. Items not shown on construction plans and necessary or desirable to minimize damages to remaining property con~ sidered right~o£~way cost. No distinctions made. Each case is determined as it arises. In principle if matter comes within purview of the law and results in a claim it is right*of~way. If it can be included in contract under State specifications, it is construction. Items forming part of road itself or necessary to future operation considered construction items, i.o., cattle pass, drainage pipe, otc., even though possibly construed as benefit to landowner in arriving at compensation. If main benefit is safety and convenience to highway users, it is considered construction item. If matter of con~ venience to property owner, it is right~of~way item. financed from same Ohio Oklahoma Oregon : Pennsylvania : Bhode Island 2 South Carolina: South Dakota : Tennessee Texas Vermont Washington West Virginia : Wisconsin : Wyoming Hawaii . Puerto Rico : District of _ Columbia ' 3 .. Controversial items such as retaining walls not included as part of right~of—way settlement. If their construction is engineering requirement, they are made part of highway contract--replacement of existing driveways is contract item. Transplanting trees, removing fences, etc., are specific damage items which are compensable and paid for as such. Damaged driveways, sidewalks, etc., listed on plans and figured into cost of contract. .Moving building, fencing, etc., done by owner and paid for by claim. Apparently borderline cases are adjusted arbitrarily. If item is mainly for purpose of protecting highway or motorist it is charged to construction. If provided to lessen amount of damages otherwise caused to property it is charged to property damages. ,Items involved in settlement of right-of-way claims classed as right-of~way costs, i.e., request for construction of retain- ing wall in place of a slope instead of cash payment charged to right~of—way. Charge to right~of-way includes cost of land taken, damage to crops and sundry properties, moving structures, agents’ expenses, condemnation expenses, legal expenses and attor- ney's fees. Almost impossible to separate all construction items from right-of-way costs--depends on type of construction. Normally called right-of—way if it in any way affects the cost of right-of-way. Counties, as part of right—of~way considerations, provide fencing, removal of obstructions and provide private drive- ways. Construction items are charged to construction. Borderline cases usually charged to construction; road approaches, cattle passes and the like, although definitely part of right~of~way costs are borne as construction costs. Generally, all right~of-way expenditures go to property owner and all construction funds are paid to contractor. Excep- tion: Borrow pits paid by construction department--waste pits from right—of-way funds. ' In borderline cases cost classified as construction. Example: Cattle pass which may enter into right—of-way negotiation but is of benefit as drainage and safety feature. Distinction is arbitrary. If cost incurred serves a construc- tion purpose in the completed road it is charged to con- struction. Example: Stock pass under highway, which also serves as drainage structure, charged to construction. None encountered to date. No borderline cases. Right~of~way costs include only filing the action, etc;, taking physical or actual poasessionlof the property and ejection of tenants and dwellers. No difficulty since clear right~of-way is available before construction is started. _ 15 a In contrast'>the definite allocation of the foregoing items in the States aforementioned, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, and South Dakota make no hard and fast distinction between right—of~way and construction items. No distinction at all is made in Arizona and Massachusetts where a single fund is used.for both classes of expenditures. A.few States have formulated a rule of thumb for the purpose. In Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming, the item is charged to construction if it is necessary for the proper operation of the highway, and to right-of~way if it promotes the convenience of the property owner. The cost is considered a construction matter if it is included in the construction contract in Idaho, New York, and West Virginia. The Bureau of.Public Roads has also formulated some definite rules regarding this matter, involved in the several programs of Federal~aid advancement and reimbursement. For example, if based upon an agreement with the landowner, removal or relocation costs of buildings, fences, wells, private walks, and other surface improvements may be considered a right~ of—way item.lQ/ lQ7' For a brief exposition of some of these, see "Federal Partici— pation in Bight—of-Way Acquisition Costs," by L. 3. Boykin, LAND ACQUISITION AND CONTROL OF HIGHWAY ACCESS AND ADJACENT AREAS, REPORT OF COMMITTEE AND FOUR.PAPEdS, p. 29, Bulletin No. 18, l9H9, Highway Research Board. -16.- These, then, are the facts with respect to financing highway right--of-way. Based on these facts and in accordance with the indicated needs, the Right-of-~Wa.y Committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials has sketched the broad outlines of a policy or standard; * 1|: * -I: 1: III _ 17 a Part II.-~A.PQLICY ON RIGEI*0F~WhY FINANCING Introduction For land~acquisition policy to be efficient in implementing the modernization of our highway system, it must facilitate land acquirement at the minimum total cost and with the maximum of speed consistent with the preservation of the rights of private property. Such a policy must be long—range in its conception and deliberate in its execution. When the acquisition of land is postponed until the very moment of need for construction purposes, as is too often the case, it is frequently discovered that the land actually wanted cannot be obtained without delay. Because it is the easiest thing to do, perhaps, plans are then altered to require less, or more~available, land and in the end it is often found that too much has been paid for the hasty acquirement of such inadequate takings. These circumstances, it seems, lead to ill—advised and uneconomic compromise. One of the principal causes of these conditions is related to finance: Most State highway departments have never had at their disposal funds in suf— ficient amount to meet the costs of a desirably prompt construction program and the simultaneous heavy expense incident to land acquisition. If the street and highway needs on our State and.Federal—aid highway systems are to be met, these deficiencies in the technique of financing right~of~way must be remedied. .Right~of~way financing, as treated.herein, presumes that right~of~way expenditures are different from construction and other expenditures. Right~ of~way is different from other components of the highway plant. Competitive _ lg a bidding practices promote efficiency and economy in highway construction. But no such quasi~automatic control obtains with respect to highway right- of—way. Once the precise location and design of a highway improvement project have been determined, specific parcels of land lying within the delineated right—of—way limits are required, and no others, even if offered at bargain.prices, will do as substitutes. In acquiring the necessary lands, the highway department and the property owner must agree upon a.purchase price, or the parcel must be condemned. It is easy to perceive how the highway department can "overpay" directly or indirectly for the land needed for right—of—way purposes. Einancial resppnsibility for right—of~way costs For years, State grants to local units of government for highway construction were conditioned upon the local units furnishing the necessary rights~of—way at their own expense. When land was cheap and largely undevel~ oped, when highway improvements were relatively few in number, and when transport facilities were practically nonexistent, no particular hardship resulted. Land for highway purposes wasjpractically always donated. But today, rights~of~way amount to thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single project and in some cases exceed the construction costs of an improvement. Associated with this phenomenon is the financial incapacity of local units of government, due in no small part to the added burdens placed.upon them in recent years coupled with the apparent shrinkage in the sources of their revenues. The result is that when the need is the greatest, the financial ability to meet this need is at its lowest. - 19 a These circumstances make State and.Federal aid in the acquisition of highway rights—of~way indispensable. Financial responsibility should vary, of course, with the different highway systems and with the levels of government involved. The extent of responsibility of the Federal, State and local government for financing right—of—way acquisition should vary, for example, with the principal Federal~aid systems and other classes of highways. Well~known National objectives justify the application of Federal funds to designated highway systems. If this be true, Federal aid should wherever practical, be used to finance right—of~way acquisition as well as construction, since one is as indispensable as the other in the establishment of transport facilities. In fact, in terms of dollar expenditures right~of—way costs may exceed the cost of construction, I especially on urban highway projects. Federal financing of right~of~way acquisition of lOO percent, or less when special circumstances dictate, seems desirable on highways of purely defense or military significance, such as so-called access roads to installations of the military establishment, to defense or military industries or industry sites and sources of raw materials, when such access facilities are certified by the Secretary of Defense as important to the National defense. In this category, too, would be replacement roads where existing highways are out off from general public use by necessary closures or restrictions at installations of the military establishment, and in other cases. _ go _ On the National System of Interstate Highways, the Federal share of right~of-way costs ought to be no less than its share of construction costs. The administration of the program would be simplified.by a like formula for both items; no discouragement, such as now exists, to the use of Federal funds for right~of~way purposes would.prevail; and no hair—splitting dis- tinctions between right~of~way and construction items would need to be made beeause of a difference in the matching ratios. The 50—5O ratio that has prevailed for many years with respect to construction costs would be a satisfactory formula for application to right~ of~way costs. Many officials believe that a greater Federal share for both construction and right~of~way, would be even more desirable, in relation to the National System of Interstate Highways. This increase in Federal responsibility is fully justified by the interstate and interregional char- acter of the Interstate System, and by the defense and.military objectives that might be served by this system of the nation's most strategic and heavily traveled.highways. Section 2 of H. R. 7398, currently being con- sidered by the Second Session of the Slst Congress, provides for a 75 percent Federal, 25 percent State maximum for both construction and right—of~way, for _ a designated class of funds to be expended on the Interstate System. The State government should be responsible, at least in the first instance, for its share of right~of~way costs on the Interstate System. And this responsibility should be so imposed.by law, to prevent unwarranted delays because local units are unable or unwilling to furnish the necessary right~of~way. Requiring local governments to furnish lands for important interstate and interregional arteries of motor travel is a.practice of a byegone era and should be discarded. However, a State and its local _ 21 i subdivision, may determine by agreement that a city or county is to make its contribution for a project in terms of rights—of—way. It is quite evident too that Federal aid is necessary in the acquisition of rights~of—way for the Federal~aid.primary system. As on the Interstate System, the Federal share of right~of~way costs ought to be the same as its share of construction costs ~- and for the same reasons. On this larger, though limited system of important routes of vehicular travel, the State should likewise be responsible by law, in the first instance at least, for financing its matching share of right—of—way acquisition costs. A.portion thereof, however, may be later contributed by interested localities in accordance with negotiated understandings or exist- ing statutes. The Federal—aid secondary system poses a little different problem. In general the secondary system.provides a somewhat different service, dis— tributing traffic between the primary system and land service roads, assuming the system is constituted functionally. Notwithstanding, the same Federal contribution toward right—of~way acquirement costs whiph is made toward con- struction costs may be justified. The theory is, that the extent of the Federal participation roughly measures the extent of the Federal interest in roads of this class and the extent of the involvement of Federal objectives. In contrast to a desirable policy on the primary system, some county and local rural participation in right—of—way financing for secondary roads seems desirable. While such local contributions may vary from State to State, and.perhaps even within the same State, depending upon the fiscal capacity _ 22 - of the local units and other variables, equal contributions by the State and local unit may be satisfactory. The Federal-aid urban system may be made up largely of the urban extensions of the Interstate System and other Federa1—aid primary highways. The policy recommended for these systems will be applicable to the urban system as well. Federal and State financial assistance in right~of-way acquisition is more important in urban areas than elsewhere because of the relatively high costs involved. The situation in municipalities is further complicated.by local desires for a maximum of home rule. Some States do not elect to use Federal funds for right—of-way acqui~ sition (except where the Federal Government reimburses the State 100 percent of the cost) and the State's entire apportionment is apnlied to construction or engineering costs. In addition to these Federal—aid systems of highways, in some States there are at least three major State systems, primary, secondary, and urban. The recommendations already set forth herein will apuly to any Federal—aid routes that are contained in any of these State systems. Other rules should apply, obviously, to the remainders, which may be substantial in mileage. It is recommended that generally speaking the State should be responsible, in the first instance, at least, for financing the acquisition of rights~of~way for the State primary system, because of the State—wide sib- nificance of such system. In some States, pursuant to lORj"St“EdlRQIQTQCtiCG, the counties and cities actually furnish the necessary highway rights~of—way. In such cases, if the local unit cannot or will not, for whatever reason there may be, supply the needed lands, it should be the unequivocal respon~ sibility of the State to acquire the same and at its own expense. ...23..- This emphasis upon the State's responsibility for the acquisition of lands on the State primary system might persist in those States having secondary systems. On this latter class of roads, the State should.be responsible, in the first instance, for providing rights~of-way since it is intermediate functionally between the main arteries of travel and the land service roads. State urban roads that are a part of the primary system should be dealt with the some as any other portion of that system. Finally, there are some public roads under the jurisdiction of the States that do not fall within any of the systems enumerated in the preceding paragraphs. Such highways may include those leading to State institutions, educational or eelemcsynary institutions, to and in State parks, reserva— tions, and places of historic interest, and similar special facilities. Generally, such.public or quasi~public enterprises serve State~wide objec- tives. Accordingly, it would seem that responsibility for the acquisition of lands for such travelways as are necessary for proper access devolve wholly upon the State. Any other rule could.hardly be defended. Where necessary provision should be included in the State statutes setting forth the State‘s obligation in connection with such improvements. Acquiringpagencies The Policy set forth in the foregoing sections deals only with the financial responsibility for right~of*way costs, and.not with the actual acquiring agencies. This latter matter will be the subject of e subsequent monograph. But a few principles related thereto are indispensable to a complete understanding of the financing aspects of right~of~way and are accordingly included herein. - 2h._ .As a general rule, it is not desirable for the Federal Government to actually acquire private property for right—of~way purposes, except in times of National emergencies and for roads in National parks, forests, reservations, and related facilities. That should be left generally to the States and wherever practical, their local subdivisions of government. For main highways, it would seem that the State should acquire the needed rights~of—way, ‘-less a particular jurisdiction prefers to have the job done locally. Acquisition by the cities and the counties would be warranted only if the local agencies are equipped to do so economically and speedily. Methodsof financing rights~of—wqy Thus far, a prescribed assignment of financial responsibility for right~of~way costs has been recommended. Nothing has been said concern» ing the methods of financing land acquisition. This latter phase can be analyzed in terms of how each of the respective shares —~ Federal, State, and local ~— can be provided. The Federal contribution toward right—of~way acquirement, such asfley be determined, might well be provided from the customary sources, namely, periodic Federal~aid grants by the Congress, apportioned among the States in accordance with a,prescribed statutory formula in most instances, the over—all authorizations varying with the different systems. It is possi- ble for the Bureau of Public Roads to advance Federal funds to the State highway departments in order to make prompt payments for work as it a 25 _ \ progresses, if the Commissioner of Public Roads determines that such advancement is necessary for the expeditious completion.of projects undertecen pursuant to the Federal~aid laws.ll/ However, such a program of advancements should.not be undertaken without adequate safeguards. It should be required that the funds so advanced shall be deposited in a sjecial trust account by the State treasurer, or other State official authorized by State law to receive Federal~aid highway funds, to be disbursed solely upon vouchers approved by the State highway department for work actually performed in accordance with.plans, specifications, and estimates, approved.by the Bureau of Public Roads, under the provisions of the Federal~aid laws. The State share of right~of—way costs ~— and it is obvious that it could vary from zero to l00 percent of the total right—of—way eost——— is by far the most important, if the magnitude of rigit—of-way expenditures is any criterion. In connection with certain Federal—State programs —— housin;, for example —~ practices and.procedures have been developed under which the Federal Government guarantees or purchases on such terms and conditions as are deemed agaropriate, securities issued by the States or their agencies and.political subdivisions. There is no good reason why a similar mechanism cannot be used in connection with right~of—way financing. Proposals nave recently been made by the American Association of State Highway Officials that the Congress authorize $100,000,000 for advances to State higlvay denartments for the acquisition of rights~of—way, _-__'_ 11 As authorized under Section 5 of the Federal~Aid Highway Act of l9HM. - 26._ a.portion of which is to be repaid over a.period of years, perhaps as long as 30 or more years. Of the total amount so proposed to be authorized, one-quarter or $25,000,000 would.be apportioned among the States in accordance with Section 21 of Federal Highway Act. The balance of $75,000,000 would be allocated to the States as determined by the Secretary of Commerce. .Aecording to the Proposal, a,portion of this remainder would be reimbursed to the Federal Treasury over a.period not exceeding;thirty years by making annual deduc- tions from regular Federal-aid apportionments. The balance would be repaid over a similar period out of the various State motor vehicle imposts. Qhe pertinent provisions of this Proposal, as officially adopted by the Asso~ ciation are reproduced in full in Appendix:D. As an alternative proposal, one perhaps not nearly as effective as the one just outlined, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation could be authorized to make Federal loans for advances for land acquirement on projects certified to it by the Bureau of Public Roads. If the total limi— tation on outstanding commitments, loans, and advances of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is inadequate for this purpose, it should be increased by an appropriate amount. Federal loans so obtained could be amortized out of annual Federal~ aid apportioned funds, if the State so elected. Low interest rates, approximating the going interest rate of the Federal Government, would be Charged. Some such.program of advance financial support by the Federal Government of right~o£»way acquirement by the States is considered of paramount importance. It is becoming apparent as a matter of fact that no extensive plan of highway modernization will proceed without it. - 27 _ The State too can do its part to promote a much sounder and more deliberate right—of—way policy than is customary today in most States. State legislatures can.make funds available for right—of—way acquirement on anproved.projeets far in advance of their need for construction purposes by setting up a State right-of~way revolving fund to be replenished as needed, if such a.procedure is practicable in the particular State. It might be observed that anylprogram *— Federal or State —— for the advance acquisition of lands for highway purposes canln enccessful only if proposed in connection with a planned highway route or section thereof. In other words, the location and design characteristics, at least in so far as they determine right—of—way needs, must have jelled sufficiently. This, perforce, will filter out of the scheme most of the s‘eculati0n and uncer~ tainties that otherwise would characterize any widespread.program of advance land acquirement. The relation between the advance acquisition of rights~of-way and the early completion of surveys and design plans is obvious. It is, of course, highly desirable that provision be made at an early stage for sur» veys, design plans, and.preliminary engineering. Federal funds are already available for this purpose under present Federalraid legislation. Horeover, proposed.amendments to the Federal-aid laws would further implement this desirable advance planning technique. Every possible encouragement both at the Federal and State levels should be given to this matter. A.reeent change in the administrative procedure of the Bureau of Public Roads involving the programing of projects will also assist materi~ ally in this direction. Under the revised.procedure, the engineering ~ 27(e)~ surveys, plans, cost estimates and rights—of—way phases of a given project will be separated in the programing stages from the construction phases. Simply put, it is an attempt to apply the 1‘stage construction" concept to the Planning and.prog aming of highway projects. The county and city shares of right~of—way costs probably will need to be supplied from the sources that have been customary up until now, namely, local highway funds, property taxes, local share of motor vehicle imposts, general revenues, outright donations, and.bonds. Whatever source of funds has been found to be acceptable in a particular locality may be used.for the limited county or local contribution that is justifiable under the policy heretofore enunciated. Techniques for reducing rignt—of—way expenditures It is not wholly amiss, in a.policy statement on right—of-way financing, to suggest, at least in broad perspective, various techniques that may reduce the magnitude of right—of—way expenditures. The revision of cumbersome and time~consuming land acquisition processes prescribed by the laws of some States, it seems obvious, would result in substantial savings. The offset of special benefits is another device that could result in a lower total land acquisition bill. While general benefits should be ignored, special benefits which accrue to the property owner as a result of the high: wey improvement for which a portion of his property has been taken ought to be offset against the value of the property taken as well as against damages to the remainder. It is not just to permit a.property owner adjacent to \ an improvement to reap special benefits from the expenditures of Public -28- funds which other members of the body politic cannot share. The owner should be placed in the same position after a forcible acquisition that he enjoyed before his property was taken; in other words, he must be made "whole," but that is all. His position need not be improved, although too often it is, at public expense. In many States, plans for expressways and other main highway improve- ments are being completed and locations determined with a substantial certainty. Of necessity, under present practice, the period between the planning and land acquisition stages may be of considerable duration. The vast amount of building construction of all kinds that is taking place, during this interim period, in the areas that are being contemplated for right~of—way is greatly distressing highway management because of the resulting heavy addition to land acquirement costs. This adverse circumstance can be miti- gated, in part at least, by the various methods that are now available for reserving lands for highway purposes prior to their acquisition in the customary manner. Such plans include zoning, set~backs, the reservation agreement, the acquisition of highway development rights, and others -- all of which alert highway management will want to explore. Nothing is more completely demonstrated by past experience than the costliness of successive acquisitions of property frontage to make possible repeated and unanticipated road widenings. The expedient of marginal land acquirement -— the outright acquisition of road—bordering properties in addition to those required.for the immediate physical improvements pldnned for a highway -— is recommended for application wherever possible. The ..29.... technique can also serve as effective protection against the encroachment of unsightly and inefficient ribbon development that inevitably clutters the roadsides of our main highway corridors. Agreement is now general that the expressway (having control of access) is superior to a road of ordinary design, in terms of time savings, reduction in vehicle operating and.maintenance costs, safety advantages, and increase in capacity. Still another element reflects the economic superiority of the expressway, namely, ultimate savings in right~of-way acquisition costs. Right—of~way cost comparisons involving the widening of existing highways of ordinary design and the establishment of expressways on new location indicate that generally speaking it is much cheaper to do the latter, with a far greater increase in functional transportation service. Highway planners are finding that substantial savings in right—of~way costs may be achieved by the integration of land acquirement for urban highway projects with the assembly of property for other public purposes. The mutual benefits of such a simultaneous and cooperative program of land acquisition will be reflected in lower costs, in a more rational landeuse pattern, and in the elimination of all possible focal points of conflict between the v.rious improvement programs concerned. The opportunities for such integration have been increased greatly by the recent enactment of the Federal Slum Clearance and Housing Act of l9H9, designed to assist slum- ,CdQarance and urban redfiwelopment undertakings by a system of loans and grants. The States and their municipalities are urged to support cooperative programs of land assembly wherever they will be mutually beneficial. In this connection, some States may find it necessary to obtain statutory authority to employ the techniques described in this section. A number of those mentioned will eventually be the subject of individual mono~ eranhs and are merely touched on here because of their possible effect on rr _>_, AppendiV A.——— Federal and Total Right—of~way Costs of Federal-aid Road Projects Approved for Construction, Postwar Federal-aid Primary Funds, June 30, l9h9 _—...e’---"-.»~‘_--_.---'e.._‘.—- ..__.s_ 4- V - Right-ofeway Costs -on-Q‘----.n—‘-a~—--3 1 I . I I i 4 ‘ L >-W .. -_-a.‘-_-.v-_~‘--\-_..._--_ _-Q--,-_-o-_~»-> <-Q-H Totals _ -.9~~ o~»- -_- ~-s-..._~ _,_. 8 29,182,076 _,\»-* ..._.._ .. __.\_.._._. ---_-Vera --v__.‘~ 1_-----_s-_,\ .. _,..__..._.. 8 10,263,639 -_.... __. 1 .,-..-_-'_.--~ _— >-~> State "”*““““" Total ‘ Federal Share Alabama t t5u,287 152,899 Arkansas 629,112 212,870 Colorado l,3hh,628 575,565 Connecticut 187,259 56,289 Florida 51,000 17,000 Georgia 199,171 66,390 Idaho 311,078 151,096 Illinois 1,208,000 u02,6o6 Kansas l,h65,h25 h90,0h7 Louisiana , 88,h90 29,h90 Maine 1,07o,u93 362,813 Massachusetts 1,280,802 hh2,677 Minnesota 2,952,236 979,053 Missouri 2,883,089 975,633 Montana 327,882 lh0,629 Nebraska 908,88h 297,7hS Nevada y 3 New Hampshire 217,887 72,629 North Carolina 2,hlh,7ll 791,261 North Dakota 32t,357 106,705 Ohio 3,113,091 1,027,2ho Oklahoma 95,500 35,905 Rhode Island 297,357 99,118 South Carolina 3h2,161 109,785 South Dakota 237,553 98,727 Tennessee 3,978,796 l,338,28h Utah 911,818 593,336 Vermont 203,0h8 67,532 Washington lh,286 "7,lh3 Wyoming h,098 2,183 Hawaii l,h6h,Sl0 h88,l70 District of Columbia 162,500 Sh,l66 Puerto Rico lh,730 h,9l0 Appendix.B.—~Federal and Total Right-of~way Costs of Federa1—aid Road Projects Approved for Construction, Postwar Federal~aid Secondary Funds, June 30, 1989 éight-of-way Costs State \ Total? Federal Share Alabama// $ 33§,l9U $ 99,825 Arkansas 220,292 76,189 0o 1o;ro.do 88, 790 35 , 819 Connecticut 215,688 71,896 /Kansas 868,898 156,511 / Louisiana 6, 330 698 Maine 106, 5 35,688 Massachusetts 230,980 59,053 Michigan 92, 79 38,988 Minnesota 928, 78 508,085 Montana 198,259 88,037 Nebraska 880,998 155,918 Nevada 2,670 2,053 New Hampshire 63,020 M13,898 North Carolina 1,277,589 $989 North Dakota 26,119 8,501 Ohio 712,683 238,729 Oklahoma ,’ 3,600 1,901 Oregon 3' 23,619 10 , 790 Rhode Island 181,827 58,135 South Carolina 813,886 120,672 South Dakota 1,525,965 52,350 Tennessee ,86,289 150,076 Utah 193,871 113,596 Vermont 1 72,287 21,780 Hawaii }218,023 71,381 ,1 Totals $ 7,095,051 $ 2,387,032 Appendix 0.-Federa1 and Total Right~of~way"00sts of Eederal—aid Highway Projects Approved for Construction, Postwar FederaL»aid-Urban / Funds, June 30, 19M9 State . ' Right~0f~way Costs L 'T0tal Federal Share Alabama $ 797,900 $ 319,180 .Arkansas- 73,000 29,333 Colorado 133,300 56,396 Connecticut 1,236,305 412,117 Florida 1,292,076 397,025 Georgia 39,000 13,000 Illinois 18,280,000 6,093,300 Kansas .U5M,ul9 l53,73M Kentucky 195,109 65,036 Louisiana l,?%4,U5Y 58l,M80 Maine 160,000 53,333 Massachusetts 9,156,717 l,367,86H Michigan 18,255,276 6,085,090 Minnesota 1,737,265 579,078 Missouri ;3,6M5,81Q 1,229,752 Montana 20,000 8,5M6 Nebraska 152,150 60,398 New Hampshire 251,388 9M,8M5 North Carolina 2,751,690 911,168 North Dakota 85,708 \ZS,ES3 Ohio 1,501,500 998, 0 Oklahoma 677,588 25M,36O Rhode Island 930,000 310,000 South Carolina 787,322 258,777 Tennessee l,603,66U 5#M,632 Utah 3,900 1, 8895 Vermont 96,800 15,600’ Virginia 389,138 126,592 West Virginia 80,000 10,000 Wiseensin 571,121 182,008 Wyohing 283,065 I§§§9hQ Totals -~ $ 62,280.672 $ 20,8T8,h06 ._ Appendix D. Proposal adopted by As A. S. H. 0. for advance of Federal funds to the States for acquisition of right—of~way (a) In order to expedite the construction of highways included in the Federal~aid highway system within urban areas and on the National System of Interstate Highways, as provided by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 190M, the immediate construction of-which is essential for the national defense and for eliminating the hazards of conges~ tion and facilitating the speedy movement of traffic thereon but is being seriously retarded by reason of the fact that the cost of acquir- ing rights-of~way required therefor must now be paid out of highway funds that are curren ly available thus leaving an inadequate amount of such funds for construction the Secretary of Commerce (herein~ after referred to as Secretarys may advance funds to the several States, from appropriations hereinafter authorized, for expenditure by such States, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Highway Act, as amended and supplemented, for the purpose of acquir- ing and clearing new or additional lands and interest in lands (including rights of access where deemed necessary), as approved by the Secretary, for rights~of~way for widening, constructing, recon- structing and improving such highways. (b) For the purpose of carrying;out the provisions of this section there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $100,000,000. 0f the appropriation so authorized, one—fourth thereof, or $25,000,000 shall be apportioned among the several States by the Secretary, within sixty days after approval of this Act, in accordance with the provisions of section 21 of the Federal Highway Act, as amended and supplemented, and the remaining three- fourths, or $75,000,000 shall be allocated to States by the Secretary, at such times and in such amounts as he may determine, without regard to the apportionment provisions of section 2l of the Federal Highway Act, as amended and supplemented, and all such funds after apportionment or allocation to any State shall be combined and administered as one fund that shall remain a ailable for seven years from the date of approval of this Act for expenditure by such State in paging the whole cost of acquiring and clearing rights—of~ way for highways in accordance with the provisions hereof. The funds so advanced to any State shall be deposited in a special trust account by the State Treasurer, or other State official authors ized 'under the laws of the State to receive Federal~aid highway funds, to be disbursed solely upon vouchers fipproved by the State higl1wa:/' department to pay the co st of z.1cq_uiri11g and clearing lends for_rights~of#way for the construction of highways in accordance with the provisions of this section. Any unerpended balances of funds so advanced shall be returned to the credit of the appropri~ ation from which the funds have been apportioned or allocated hereunder. (c) Before any funds are advanced to any State hereunder the highway department of such State shall make application there~ for and shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary for reimr bursement to the Federal Government of the sums so advanced, in the manner and to the extent provided in this section. Agreements entered into pursuant hereto shall include such conditions or pro- visions as may be deemed necessary or desirable to insure that only prices that are fair and reasonable alike to the public and to the individual owners will be paid for lands acquired, that the organi- zation and personnel to be utilized by the State will be adequate and qualified for the duties required, and that there shall be a credit against the acquisition cost of any property equal to the net proceeds from the rental or from the sale or salvage of such property or part thereof after it is acquired, The funds advanced shall be erpended.by the Statesonly for paying;the necessary and reasonable costs of acquiring and clearing rights-of—way for projects on the Federal~aid highway system to be constructed in urban areas and on the hational System of Interstate Highways, the cost incurred for such purposes to be subject to approval by the Secretary. The sums advanced to each State shall be reimbursed to the Federal Government over a.period of not to exceed thirty years, commencing;with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, in the followh 1ng manner; (1) That portion of the costs incurred and actually paid by the State for acquiring rights-of~way pursuant to this.Act which equals What would.be the Federal pro rata share of such costs determined in conformity with the limitations prescribed by law as to the Federal share payable on account of projects on the National System of Interstate Highways and.on the system of FederaL~aid highways in urban areas, respectively, shall be reim» bursed to the Federal Treasury over a period of not exceeding thirty years, commencing with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, by making annual deductions of an amount equal to at least one- thirtieth of the Federal share so determined from regular appor~ tionments made from future authorizations for carrying out the provisions of the Federal Highway.Aet, as amended and supplemented. (2) The remainder of the costs incurred.and actually paid by the State with funds advanced for acquiring rights-o£~way'pur~ suant to the provisions of this section shall be reimbursed to the Federal Government over a.period of not exceeding thirty years, commencing'with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, by annual payments of at least one~thirtieth of the_amount thereof out of the monies derived from motorevehicle registration fees, licenses, metor~fuel taxes, and other special taxes on motor-vehicle owners and operators imposed by the laws of the State and made available by such laws for State highway purposes, or out of monies derived from other special sources of revenue and made available for the purpose. If any State shall default in any fiscal year in making reimbursement in conformity with its agreement with the Secretary such agreement may thereupon be terminated and, beginning with the fiscal year in which such default occurs, reimbursement of the unpaid balance of the amount covered by such agreement shall be made by making annual deductions of not less than one~thirtieth of the amount originally advanced to the State from regular appor- tionments to such State from.future Federal authorizations for carrying out the provisions of the Federal Highway Ant, as amended and supplemented. (d) All funds reimbursed to the Federal Government in accordance with subsection (0) of this section shall be covered into the "reasury as miscellaneous receipts. /nu//ii/'@fi;WMT/W/I11 DATE DUE