fransportation Library - - is B wºº 354. , y2) P2ſ) ----ºr --- VIRGIN IA ADVISORY LEGIS LAT | V E COUNC | L V|RG|N|A H |GHVVAYS ENGINEERING and ECONOMIC REPORT ºfº----‘. . . . .s*ke.. . . . .---. .- -* - - ---lº . . --> *-- -* tºº, -*.I* * * - -... .- JANUARY 1957 *~, # * g. -> === ..". PARSONs, BRINCKERHOFF HALL & MacDonald, gºing tss: *sºº .º§ #*º3* i. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LIBRARIES º Ç v" ^. - --- - ---- - *.------iſsiºnszº ºizii".- *:t- il|---* -**# Table Following Nurnber Section 12 Allocations to Highway Systems of 13-Year Available Highway Funds Assuming That the Fuel Tax Is Increased 1 Cent per Gallon, the Registration Fees Are Increased $2.00 per Vehicle, and Current Secondary and Urban Allocation Laws Are Modified J 13 Allocations to Highway Systems of 13-Year Available Highway Funds Assuming That the Fuel Tax Is Increased 1 C ent per Gallon, the Registration Fees Are Increased $2.00 per Vehicle, and Current Secondary and Urban Allocation Laws Are Modified. In This Trial the Allocations of Trial 4 Are Revised to Provide a Balanced Distribution of Funds J 14 Distribution of 13-Year Total Secondary System Funds to Highway Districts and 10 Sample Counties Deriving From Fuel Tax and Registra - tion Fees at Present Rates and Assuming System Allocation to be 36% of All Highway Funds Excluding Federal Aid Inter state K 15 Distribution of 13-Year Total Secondary System Funds to Highway Districts and 10 Sample Counties Deriving From a Fuel Tax Increase of 1 Cent per Gallon and a Registration Fee Increase of $2.00 per Vehicle and Assuming System Allocation to be 34% of All Highway Funds Excluding Federal Aid Inter state K 16 Method A – Distribution of 13-Year Total Inter state, Urban and Primary Systems Allocations to Districts by Existing Formulas and Retaining Present Fuel Tax and Registration Fees PQ 17 Method A – Distribution of 1 3-Year Total Urban Primary Extension Construction Allocations to Districts Assuming Present Fuel Tax and Registration Fees Are Retained K Table Number 18 19 20 2 1 22 2 3 Method A – Distribution of 13-Year Total Inter state and Rural Primary Construction Allocations to Districts Retaining Present Fuel Tax and Registration Fees Method B – Distribution of 13 - Year Total Inter state, Urban and Rural Primary Construc- tion Allocations to Districts Assuming Inter state and Urban Allocations by Needs, Primary System Allocations by Present Formulas, and the Retention of Present Fuel Tax and Registra- tion Fees Method C - Distribution of 13-Year Total Inter state, Urban, and Rural Primary Construc- tion Allocations to Districts Assuming Fuel Tax Increased 1 Cent per Gallon, Registration Fees Increased $2.00 per Vehicle and Systems' Allocations Based on Trial 5 Allocation of 13-Year Total Funds to Highway Systems Applying Revised Secondary Allocation Law to Estimated Revenue From Current Taxes and Fees and Distributing Additional Revenue From the One Cent Fuel Tax and $2.00 Registra- tion Fee Increases by Needs Revenue From Current Taxes and Fees and Distributing Additional Revenue From One Cent Fuel Tax and $2.00 Registration Fee Increases by Needs Allocation of 13-Year Total Urban Funds to Cities Applying Present Laws and Policies to Estimated Revenue From Current Taxes and Fees and Distributing Additional Revenue From One Cent Fuel Tax and $2.00 Registration Fee Increases by Needs Following Section Allocation of 13-Year Total Urban Funds to Districts Applying Present Laws and Policies to Estimated I.I| t- . ! } M j g | ſ º Table Following Nurnber Section 24 Allocation of 13-Year Total Inter state and Rural Primary System Funds to Districts Applying Present Laws and Policies to Estimated Revenue from Current Taxes and Fees and Distributing Additional Revenue From One C ent Fuel Tax and $2.00 Registration Fee Increases by Needs L 25 Allocation of 13-Year Total Inter state and Rural Primary System Funds to Districts Distributing Inter state Funds by Needs, Rural Primary Funds From Curreht Taxes and Fees by Incomplete Primary Mileage and Area, Population and Mileage Factors, and Additional Revenue From One Cent Fuel Tax and $2.00 Registration Fee Increases by Needs L 26 Selected Highway Indicators in Ten Southeastern States, 1954 S 27 Characteristics of Vehicles Used in Computing State Road-User Taxes, 1956 Registration Year S 28 State Gasoline Tax Rates, January 1, 1940 – January 1, 1956 S 29 Registration Fees on Selected Motor Vehicles in Ten Southeastern States, January 1, 1956 S 30 Estimated Highway-User Taxes Levied On Specified Vehicles in Ten Southeastern States and in the United States, January 1, 1956 S 31 Estimated Effect of a 1 Cent Per Gallon Fuel Tax Increase on Virginia's Highway-User Taxes S 32 Selected Highway Factors in the Present Organiza- tion of the Department of Highways T 33 Revision of Selected Highway Factors to Reflect the Replacement of Present Highway Districts by Congressional Districts T | Table Number 34 35 36 37 38 39 Comparison of the Distribution of Highway Funds Among the Construction Districts as Presently Constituted With the Distribution Among the Congressional Districts, Fiscal Year 1956-57 Counties and Major Cities in the Eight Construction Districts of the Department of Highways, June 30, 1956 Counties and Major Cities in the Ten Congres- sional Districts of the State of Virginia, June 30, 1956 Estimated Fuel Consumption and Fuel Tax Liabilities For Heavy Trucks and Other Vehicles With Possible Tax Rate Revisions For The Fiscal Year 1957 - 1958 Registration Fees Estimated Diesel Fuel Tax Revenue Following Section : - T - ºFºY -º• *-- =* * *... - **r- Figure ILLUSTRATIONS Inter state and Primary Highway Systems Interrelationship of Virginia's Roads and Streets Which Receive State Financing Estimated Total Costs of Construction Needs and Estimated Funds Available for Construc- tion Accumulation of Highway Construction Needs and Funds with Fuel Tax Increases Accumulation of Highway Construction Needs and Funds with Registration Fee and Fuel Tax Increases Present Methods and Procedures Used by the Department of Highways to Distribute Total Highway Revenues Source and Distribution of the Highway Dollar in the Fiscal Year 1956 – 1957 Highway Districts and Residency Areas Following Section I ***- -r- -ºr "ºr : PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Virginia Advisory Legislative Council has the responsibility of making investigations and studies of especially complex issues which are frequently brought before the members of the General Assembly or the Governor. Upon completion of its investigations, and based on its findings, the Council makes recommendations to the General Assembly which may provide the basis for appropriate legislation. In this instance the Council felt it necessary to call upon a firm of consulting engineers to aid it in studying various aspects of the State's highway problems, including annong other things, right-of-way acqui- sitions, current methods of allocating highway revenues to the several highway systems, highway design and highway costs, a projection of highway needs for a period of 13 years, a projection of highway revenues for the same period, and a study of methods which may be used to raise additional highway revenue if this should be found necessary. Although several somewhat similar studies of Virginia's highways have been made previously, it is believed that this Report presents a wider scope of subjects. In its preparation, some of the se subjects were treated in detail while others were treated in a more general manner, depending on the importance of the particular item in relation to the over – all problem. Most of the data used was provided by the Virginia Department of Highways. Where basic information was lacking or found to be in un- suitable form, the help of other agencies was used. When necessary, completely independent estinates were made by the Consultants. In the course of the field work phase of the study, the Consultants travelled Over and observed hundreds of miles of roads on all systems and in all sections of the State. Highway and bridge maintenance and construction methods were carefully reviewed and interviews were held with Resident and District Engineers. Practically all phases of the Department of Highways' methods, administration and policy were examined to the extent possible in the time available. =-（-- - -ir （~ ~~~~ ~ ¡ ¿ † ‡ ← i - ſ_i ſ iſ --ºr *- -- º VIRGINIA'S HIGHWAY SYSTEMS To fully appreciate Virginia's highway problems, it is necessary to have a knowledge of the vastness of the total highway network in the State and an under standing of the manner in which the several highway systems augment each other to form an integrated road plant. As of July 1956, the Virginia Department of Highways was directly responsible for the improvernent and rnaintenance of 48, 8 J 1 miles of road, the equivalent of a four-lane highway encircling the earth at the equator. In addition, the Department contributes to the construction and maintenance costs of 3, 468 miles of city and town streets as well as to the secondary roads in the two counties of the State which have elected to perform their own road work. Of the 48 states, only North Carolina has a greater number of miles of roads which are under direct Highway Department supervision. Virginia's large state – supervised road plant is a result of the fact that in 1932, when the State Secondary System was established, the State as - sumed responsibllity for the local roads of all counties except Nottaway, Arlington, Warwick and Henrico. Today, out of a total of 98 counties, only Arlington and Henrico continue to remain outside the State Secondary System. There are four designated systems of highways in the State. The oldest of the se is the Primary System, originally known as the State Highway System, which was established in 1918 with 4,002 miles of road on 28 routes. This system grew to 7,000 miles in 1930 and 7,087 miles in 1956. Its mileage is, for the most part, rural in character and is sup- plemented by 404 miles of the Urban System, consisting of the municipal links which make the Primary System an integrated network. As the name inplies, the Primary System highways are the most heavily used in the State and carry the major intrastate and inter state traffic move – In ent S . The Secondary System supplements the Primary System and can be envisioned as a large network of feeder roads providing access to rural areas. Traffic volumes on the Secondary System are under stand- ably much lower than on the Primary System and the Secondary construc- tion standards are, therefore, substantially lower than the standards for Primary roads. I Of the four systems now existing, the Inter state is the newest. In 1944, the Federal government passed legislation to establish a national arterial system of 40,000 miles of inter state highways which would link all the major cities and industrial centers in the county and, in addition, link the United States with the major highways of Canada and Mexico. This system, as originally established, was designated from existing Primary roads. Starting in the fiscal year 1954, it received annual Federal appropriations on a 60 per cent Federal - 40 per cent State matching basis. In addition to the 7,087 miles of State Primary roads in Virginia, there are 1,010 miles of Inter state roads, all of which are On previously designated Primary System routes. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 further crystallized the conception of the Inter state System by stating that it was the intent of Congress to complete the System as nearly as practicable over a thirteen- year period and to bring it to simultaneous completion in all states. It is to be composed of express highways constructed to high standards, which are described later in the Report. For the purpose of expediting the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of the Inter state System, including the necessary bridges, tunnels and extensions through urban areas, Congress authorized the appropriation of an additional $24.825 billion to the states over the thirteen-year period. These appropriations are to be matched by the states on a 90 per cent Federal - 10 per cent State basis. It should be explained, that in addition to the new Inter state Systern funds, Federal grants for the Primary, Urban and Secondary Systems will continue to be appropriated to the states on the present formula of 50 per cent Federal - 50 per cent State matching basis. Figure No. 1 is a map of Virginia which shows the existing Inter- state and Primary Systems in the State. Table No. 1 presents the State mileage by systems, and Fig. No. 2 depicts the same mileage informa- tion in graphic form. With the exception of the Inter state System, the tabulations and chart tend to be somewhat involved since the State's con- ception of which highways should be included in a system very often does not coincide with the Federal Government's conception of the same sys- tem. This circumstance is not unique to Virginia, but is found in all States . VIRGINIA ADVISORY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL PA. . .-----.--------4. | |NTERSTATE AND PRIMARY HIGHWAY SYSTEMS NOVEMBER |956 _- º . 25. s - - - º-- *. U º \ º -. ~ – - Washingtſon Boltimore N º IO 5 O Io 20 30 LE GEN D ={{I}= INTERSTATE system Highways FEDERAL AID PRIMARY SYSTEM HIGHWAYS —Q3 – STATE PRIMARY SYSTEM HIGHWAYS I- Mortins S ville C Kingsport Tº | id. PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL 8 MACDONALD Fig i INTERRE LATIONSHIP OF VIRG |N|A'S ROADS AND STREETS W H | C H RECEIVE STATE F | N ANC |NG AS OF JULY 1, 1956 ALL ROADS 8, STREETS 52,279 MILES STATE PRIMARY SYSTEM URBAN EXTENSION STATE PRIMARY SYSTEM |NTER STATE SYSTEM OTHER TOWN AND C 1 TY STREETS STATE SECON DARY SYSTEM Rur aſ 22 Rural 6,760 Rural 875 RUrol 40,349 Municipal 382 Municipal 327 Urbon | 35 2,929 Municipal 5OO Tof O | 404 To? O | 7,087 Tof a | 1,0 O Tof G | 40,849 F. A.P. F. A. S F. A., U. Non - F. A. F. A. P. F. A., S. F. A. U, Non - F. A. With Populofion With Populotion F. A. P. F.A. S. F.A.U Non-FA. Ruro 22 Rural O Rural O Rural O Rural 3,202 || Rural 3,489 Rural O Ruro || 69 Over 3,500 of 3,500 or legs Ruro | | Rural 13,747 Rural O Rurol 26,60 MU n. O Mun. 94 Mun. 2O9 Mun. 79 Mun, | 53 || || Mun. | 33 Mun, 35 Mun. 6 1 > - Mun. O || Mun. | Mun 2 Mun. 4 || 7 Toło | 22 Tofo 9 4 Tof 0 | 2 O9 Tofo | 79 Total 3,355 || Total 3,622 Tofo 35 To foſ 75 2, 82 | | O 8 To to | | Total 13,828 To to | 2 Total 27,018 LEGEND F. A.S. F. A., U. Non - F. A. F.A. P - Federo | Aid Primary 7 F.A.S. - Feder a Aid Secondary | | 5 6 2,700 F.A.U. - Federal Aid Urban TABLE 1 Interrelationship of Virginia's Road and Street Systems July 1, 1956 (Miles of Roadway) System Inter state F. A. P. F. A. S. F. A. U. Non-F. A. Total State Primary Rural 875 3, 202 3, 489 O 69 7, 635 Municipal O 153 133 35. –4 327 Total State Maintained 875 3, 355 3, 622 35 75 7, 962 State Urban Ext. Rüral O 22 O O O 22 Municipal 1 35 –9. 94 209 79 5 17 Total 135 22 94 209 79. 53.9% Other City & Town Streets 0 0. 115 6. 2, 700 2, 82.1% º State Secondary Rural O 1 13, 747 O 26, 60 l 40, 349 Municipal 0. O 81 4. 4 17 500 Total State Maintained O l 13, 828 2 27, 018 40, 849 Other Town Streets 0. 0 O 0. 108 1.08××× Total 0 l 13, 828 2. 27, 126 40, 957 GRAND TOTAL 1, 0 10 3, 378 17, 659 252 29, 980 52, 279 Total State Maintained 875 3, 356 17, 450 37 27, 0.93 48,811 Urban Ext. , Other City and Town Streets 135 22 209 2 15 1, 0 10 3, 378 17, 659 252 2, 887 29, 980 GRAND TOTAL * The Highway Department does not have direct responsibility for this mileage, but in accord with state law (33-113) contributes to its cost of improvement and maintenance. During the current fiscal year this con- tribution announts to $6,980 per mile. ** The Highway Department does not have direct responsibility for this mileage, but in accord with state law (33-113. 2) contributes to the cost of improvement and maintenance. During the current fiscal year this contribution amounts to $523 per mile. *** The Highway Department does not have direct responsibility for this mileage, but in accord with state law (33-50. 2) contributes to its cost of in provement and maintenance. During the current fiscal year this con- tribution armounts to $300 per mile. The above footnotes are discussed in detail later in the Report. *l|$ºre--t§ I - DESIGN STANDARDS AND IMPROVEMENT C OST EST IMATES Design Criteria Modern highway and bridge design standards are considerably higher than they were years ago when a large part of the State's exist- ing roads were originally constructed. This change has been brought about primarily by the demands of increased speeds, traffic volumes and truck weights. To provide safety and freedom of flow for vehicles traveling at today's maximum allowable speeds and for trucks carrying maximum allowable weights, engineers have evolved highway geomet- rics and standards which provide for minimum curvatures, both vertical and horizontal, adequate stopping sight distances, adequate passing sight distances and other features which eliminate the driving hazards of older roads. To accommodate increasing traffic volumes, four-lane highways are replacing two-lane highways. Twelve-foot lane widths are replacing the older nine-foot lanes, bridge loadings are considerably higher and roadway pavements are of a much higher type. Additionally, experience and research over the years has enabled the design engineers to con- stantly in prove construction materials and methods. The design and construction practices followed by the Virginia Department of Highways were reviewed and found to conform to the best practices in general use throughout the country and fall well within the approved standards of the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads. As in all states, the Standard Specifications are varied as needed by special provisions designed to meet the needs of particular projects which necessarily can- not be constructed to rigid standards because of one or more uncon- trollable features of terrain, availability of materials or right-of-way acquisition. Inter state System ||| In the construction of the Inter state System, the Highway Depart- | ment intends to follow the highway and bridge standards established by the Bureau of Public Roads and the American Association of State High- way Officials. The design standards for this System, which are shown in Table No. 2, compare closely to those used for the most modern toll turnpikes and assure a high-speed, free-flowing and safe movement of traffic. As a part of this study, estimates of the cost of completing the Inter state System prepared by the Department were closely reviewed . It was felt that the Department has under -e stimated the cost of some sections where high truck traffic volumes will require heavy pavement base courses. It was also found necessary to increase the estimated costs of structures and right-of-way. Revisions of cost estimates in- creased the Department's figure of $851 million to $91.2 million. The latter total consists of $509 million for roadway construction, $180 mil- lion for bridge construction and $224 million for right-of-way acquisition. --, This estimate is necessarily of a preliminary nature. The Virginia Department of Highways, along with the other states, is now in the pro- ce ss of having a more refined estimate made. Primary System The standards for the Primary System, as developed by the Virginia Department of Highways, are also shown in Table 2. Class I highways are those which carry heavy truck volumes - approximately 20 per cent or more of total traffic; Class II highways have a lesser propor- tion of truck traffic; Class III highways are generally local, scenic or tourist routes which carry between 750 and 2,000 average daily traffic; and Class IV are purely local roads carrying 750 or less vehicles per day. When present or fore seeable future traffic approaches 4,000 vehi- cles per day, four lanes are considered necessary. The Department maintains detailed records of the existing condi- tions and characteristics of all sections of the Primary System. A com - parison of the se records with the established standards provides a state - wide inventory of Primary System road and bridge needs. The basic method used in Virginia for determining needs is similar to that used by several other states and is known as a Highway Sufficiency Rating System. T II ---: -N By this method a road is rated on the basis of three major components: structural condition, functional adequacy and safety. These major ele- ments are further divided into sub-components, each of which is assigned a weight. If the combined sufficiency rating for any given section of highway totals 100, that particular section, theoretically, would be com - pletely adequate in all respects. As the deficiencies increase, the nu- merical value of the rating decreases. This method is designed not only to provide a record of needs, but also to provide an index of in- provement priority. The values applied to each of the components and sub-components were analyzed and found to be reasonable and acceptable. Numerous field checks were made to determine whether the records reflect true conditions as they actually exist. It was found that the office records were sufficiently close to actual conditions, and that the judgment used in as signing values to each weighted item was sufficiently reasonable so that the recorded deficiencies, required in provements and assigned priority for the entire Primary System could be accepted as correct for the purposes of this study. Furthernmore, an analysis was made of the estimates costs of improving the System by examining typical contracts recently let by the Department for sinnilar construction projects. Here, too, it was found that the Department's estimates were substantially correct and could be properly used. - The estimated total cost of improving the Primary System during the next thirteen years is established at $693 million, consisting of $423. 7 million for roadway construction, $126.5 million for bridge construction, and $142.8 for right-of-way acquisition. Of the above total, $366 mil- lion, or over 52 per cent, is backlog. In other words, because of lack of sufficient funds during past years, Primary System deficiencies have accumulated to this degree. The balance of $327 million will be required to eliminate future deficiencies as they accumulate in each year of the thirteen-year period. Secondary System As will be noted from Table 2, the Secondary System standards, as developed by the Virginia Department of Highways, are based on traffic volumes. Estimates of the cost of improving the System are based on the following objectives established by the Department: 1. The hard surfacing of all roads carrying 50 or more vehicles per day. 2. The all-weather surfacing of roads carrying from 10 to 49 vehicles per day. 3. The light surfacing of the remaining mileage . 4. The strengthening of all bridges and culverts to a mininum 10-ton capacity and the elimina – tion of all open fords where it is economically feasible. To avoid a disconnected system, it is planned to bring short gaps carrying less than the volume of traffic necessary to justify an improved type (all-weather or hard surface) to standards consistent with adjacent sections where present trends indicate future traffic increases. The Department has been endeavoring to improve the Secondary Systerm in accordance with a Master Plan based on the above standards and objectives, which is at the same time sufficiently flexible to meet the problems encountered in individual counties. The plan was intended to determine total Secondary System highway needs in each county up to 1965, and no attempt was made to separate existing needs from future needs. For the purposes of this study it was necessary, therefore, to determine the existing backlog and to extend the estimate of future needs to 1970. In order to make these revisions, ten selected counties were studied in detail, and it was found that their additional future needs be - tween 1965 and 1970 would approximate 12 per cent of the total needs as determined under the Master Plan. This percentage was applied to all districts. Further analysis of these selected sample counties indicated that the backlog would armount to between 40 and 48 per cent of the revised total needs. Backlog was determined by applying the cost of inprove - ment to non-surfaced roads, roads with intolerable geometrics and struc – tures under 10 tons capacity in each of the sample counties. This figure, which averaged 45 per cent of the total needs up to 1970, was applied to each district. Although a detailed analysis of all counties would result in somewhat varying percentages in the different districts, it was felt that the average figure as determined was sufficiently correct for the purposes of this study. \- -- L ** ~! i.*ra--E. : –9 The revised estimate of cost for improving the Secondary System during the next thirteen years thus amounts to a total of $342 million, consisting of $244. 3 million for roadway, $68.9 million for bridges and $28.8 million for right -of-way acquisition. Of the total annount, $153.9 million is backlog. Urban System Because of the somewhat unique relationship which exists in Virginia between incorporated towns and the State, any estimate of urban needs, which is based on existing records, must necessarily be of a "curb stone" nature. Incorporated towns in Virginia have an unusual de – gree of independence and self-determination. Unlike most other states, in Virginia, the Department of Highways has very limited responsibility for the improvernent of Urban System deficiencies, with the result that records are totally lacking. In practice, the Department relies on the cities to nake their own determinations of the innprovernents to be made with the funds available. As far as could be determined, no special study has ever been made to determine the overall Urban System needs. Since a realistic estimate of the cost of eliminating deficiencies in this system concurrently with the other systems over the thirteen years was necessary to give the en- tire picture of the status of Virginia's highways, the Department's Urban Engineer and his staff prepared a set of cost figures based on his intimate knowledge of the System's requirements. Although this estimate is based almost completely on the good judgment of the Department, a check of the figures indicatesthat they are sufficiently correct, under the circum- stances, to serve the purposes of this Report. As a matter of fact, the figures are, if anything, on the conservative side, particularly in the estimate of right-of-way costs. The estimate of the total cost for improvements required on the Urban System during the next thirteen years armounts to $229.9 million, consisting of $104.9 million for roadway, $56.5 million for bridges and $68.5 million for right-of-way acquisition. Estimated Total Cost For All Systems The period of thirteen years was selected as the interval to be studied because it coincides with the term established by Congress for the completion of the Inter state System. Since, however, no large-scale Inter state System projects will be undertaken until the next fiscal year, the thirteen-year period covered in this Report is considered to start on July 1, 1957 and extend to June 30, 1970. Table 3 details the estimated annual costs of improving each system for the thirteen-year term. The backlog data represent the work which should be done now and the figures in the individual-year columns represent the estimates of future inprove - ment costs as they are expected to accrue. The estinate of total con- struction cost for the entire thirteen-year period amounts to $2.177 billion. TABLE 2 (Part l of 3) PROPOSED BASIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS (1) Right – of - Design Maxlnunn Maximum Paved Bridges (3) (7) Way Width Road Speed Degree of Per Cent Shoulder Width Roadway (6) De sl rable Without Wlth - e M. P. H. Curvature of Grade Inner Outer Long Short (5) Medlan Frontage Frontage Classification Topography Des. Min. Des. Abs. Des. Abs. Cut Fill (2) Cut Fill (2) Bridges (4) Bridges Loading Wildth Roads Roads 4 – Lane Divided Flat 70 70 1.0° 3.0° 3.0% 2.0% 6 6. 1 0 1 1 0" 281 40' H-20-S 16(44) 36' 150 250 Rural Rolling 70 60 2.0° 4.0° 3.0% 4.0% 6' 6" 1 0 1 1 01 281 40' H-20-S 16(44) 36' 150 250 º Light 60 50 3.0° 4.5° 3.5% 4.5% 6' 6" 1 0 1 1 0" 281 40' H-20-S 16(44) 16' 150 250 Mountainous Heavy as 50 3.5° 5.0° 4.0% 5.0% 6' 6" 10' 101 28 40' H-20-S 16(44) l6' 150 250 4 -Lane Divided Flat 70 50 l. 0° 3.0° 3.0% 3.0% 6' 6" 1 0 1 1 01 28 40' H-20-S 16(44) 36' 150 250 Urban (8) Rolling 70 50 2.0° 4.0° 3.0% 4.0% 6' 6" H. O' 101 28 40' H-20-S 16(44) 36' 150 250 Light 60 50 3.0° 4.5° 3.5% 4.5% 6' 6" I 0 1 1 01 28 40' H-20-S 16(44) } 6' 150 250 Mountainous Heavy gº 50 3.5° 5.0° 4.0% 5.0% 6' 6" 1 0 1 101 28 40' H-20-S 16(44) 16" 150 250 2–Lane Undivided (9) Flat 70 70 1.0° 3.0° 3.0% 3.0% 10° 10' 1 O' 10" 28' 44' H-20-S 16(44) 1 50 250 Rolling 70 70 2.0° 4.0° 3.0% 4.0% 10° 10' 1 0 1 1 01 28 44' H-20-S 16(44) 150 250 Light 60 50 3.0° 4.5° 3.5% 4.5% o' lo 10' 10" 28' 44' H-20-S 16(44) 150 250 ** Heavy 55 50 3.5° 5.0° 4.0% 5.0% 10, 10. 1 0 1 1 0 281 44' H-20-S 16(44) 150 250 6 —Lane Divided Flat 70 70 1.0° 3.0° 3.0% 3.0% 6' 6" 1 0 1 1 0 1 40' 52' H-20-S 16(44) 36" 175 275 Rural Rolling 70 70 2.0° 4.0° 3.0% 4.0% 6' 6" 1 0 1 1 01 40 52' H-20-S 16(44) 36' 175 275 Light 60 50 3.0° 4.5° 3.5% 4.5% 6' 6" 10' 101 40' 52' H-20-S 16(44) 16' l 75 275 Mountainous Heavy 55 50 3.5° 5.0° 4.0% 5.0% 6. 6' 10' 10" 40' 52 H-20-S 16(44) 16 l 75 275 6-Lane D1 vided Flat 70 50 1.0° 3.0° 3.0% 5.0% 6' 6 10' 10" 40' 52' H-20-S 16(44) 16' 1 75 275 Urban (8) Rolling 70 50 2.0° 4.0° 3.0% 4.0% 6' 6" 1 0 1 1 0 40t 52' H-20-S 16(44) 16" 175 275 Light 60 50 3.0° 4.5° 3.5% 4.5% 6' 6" 10 1 1 0" 40' 52' H-20-S 16(44) l6' 175 275 Mountainous Heavy as 50 3.5° 5.0° 4.0% 5.0% 6' 6" 1 0 1 1 0" 401 52 H-20-S 16(44) 16' l 75 275 3-Lane Undivided (9) Flat 70 70 1.0° 3.0° 3.0% 3.0% 10 10. 1 0 1 1 0" 40' 56' H-20-S 16(44) l 75 275 Rolling 70 70 2.0° 4.0° 3.0% 4.0% 10° 10' 1 0 1 1 01 40' 56' H-20-S 16(44) 175 275 Light 60 50 3.0° 4.5° 3.5% 4.5% 10° 10' 10' 10" 4.01 56' H-20-S 16(44) 175 2.75 Mountainous Heavy 55 50 3.5° 5.0° 4.0% 5.0% 10° 10' 1 0 1 1 0" 40' 56 H-20-S 16(44) 175 275 (1) Gradients two per cent steeper may be provided in rugged terra1n with special permission from the Chief Englneer. (2) Point of fill slope to be two feet outside of the paved shoulder. (3) The design for all culverts and bridges over streams shall be in accord with the Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges of the A. A. S. H. O. to accommodate floods at least as great as that for a 50-year frequency or the greatest flood of record whichever 1s greater, with runoff based on the land development expected in the watershed 20 years hence and with backwater limited to an annount which will not result in damage to upstream property or the highway. (4) Offsets to face of parapet or rall shall be at least three and one-half feet measured from the edge of through-traffic lane and apply on right and left. (5) All bridges and floor systems with spans under 40 feet shall be designed using an alternate loading of two axles four feet apart with each axle weighing 75 per cent of the rear loading of the H-20-S 16 loading. (6) Clear roadway width of bridges measured between bridge curbs. (7) Medians in rural areas in flat & rolling topography shall be at least 36 feet wide. Medlans in urban and mountainous areas shall be at least 16 feet wide. Narrower medians may be provided in urban areas of high right-of-way costs, on long & costly bridges, and in rugged mountainous terra1n, but no median shall be less than four feet wide. (8) A. A. S. H. O. "Policy on Arterial Highways in Urban Areas", when adopted shall be used as design guides where they do not conflict with these Standards (9) 2 Lane Undivided or 3 Lane Undivided is intended for stage development to 4 Lane Divided or 6 Lane Divided respective ty. The right-of-way should be obtained according to the future construction section. Notes : Minimum passing or nonpassing sight distance as per A. A. S. H. O. "Geometric Design of Rural Highways". Traffic lanes shall not be less than 12 feet wide. Median and ditch drainage facilities are to be designed to keep the travelled ways usable during storms at least as great as for a 10-year frequency, except that a 50-year frequency shall be used for underpasses or other depressed roadways where ponded water can be removed only through the storm drain system TABLE 2 (Part 2 of 3) BASIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR PRIMARY HIGHWAYS - I - Bridges Design Maximum Maximum (1) (2) Roadway (3) Speed Degree of Per Cent Minimum Passing Lane Shoulder (4) - - (6) Road M. P. H. Curvature of Grade Nonpassing Sight Number Width Width Ditch Long Short (5) Median Right of Classification Topography Des. Min. Des. Abs. Des. Abs. Sight Distance Distance of Lanes Des. Min. Cut Fill Width Slopes Bridges Bridges Loading Width Way Width Flat 70 70 1° 4° 3% 3% 600' 4 121 12' 8' 10" 4 CS - 3 28 40' H-20 4'-40' 160' CLASS I Rolling 70 60 3° 6° 3% 6% 475' 4 12" 12' 8' 10' 4" CS - 3 281 40' H-20 4'-40' 160' DIVIDED Light 60 45 6° 11° 5% 7% 3501 4 12" 12' 6' 8' 3" CS-3 28 36" H-20 4'-40' 160" Mountainous Heavy 45 35 11° 20° 5%, 7% 240' 4 12t 12' 4' 6' 2" CS-3 281 32 H–20 4'-40' 160' Flat 7 O 70 1° 4° 3% 3% 600' 3000' 2 12" 12' 8 10' 4" CS - 3 28 40' H-20 1 1 0" CLASS I Rolling 70 60 3° 6° 3% 6% 475? 2 100' 2 12" 12" 81 1 0 1 4' CS - 3 281 40' H-20 1 1 0" UNDIVIDED Light 60 45 6° 11° 5% 7% 3501 1500' 2 12" 12' 6' 8' 3" CS - 3 28 36" H-20 1 1 0" Mountainous Heavy as 35 - 11° 20° 5% 7% 240' 800 2 12' 12" 4' 6' 2" CS-3 28' 32" H-20 I 10' Flat 7 O 70 1° 4° 3% 3% 600' 4 1 11 1 11 8 ' 10' 4" CS - 3 26 38" H–20 4" – 40." 160' t - ! - - l CLASS II Rolling 70 60 3° 6° 3% 6% 475' 4 11 11' 8 ' 10' 4" CS – 3 26 38 H -20 4'-40' 160 DIVIDED Light 60 45 6° 11° 5% 7% 3,501 4 1 lº l l ; 6 8' 3" CS - 3 26" 34' H-20 4'-40' 160' M** Heavy 45 35 11° 20° 5% 7% 240" 4 | 1 | 1 1 4' 6' 2" CS - 3 26" 30." H-20 4'-40' 160' Flat 7 O 70 1° 4° 3% 3% 600' 3000t 2 1 11 1 1' 8" 10' 4" CS - 3 26' 38" H-20 1 101 t - t CLASS II Rolling 70 60 3° 6° 3% 6% 475' 2 100' 2 I 11 1 11 8 10' 4" CS - 3 2 6' 38" H-20 1 10 t UNDIVIDED Light 60 45 6° 11° 5% 7% 350? 1500' 2 1 lº 1 l' 6' 8' 3" CS - 3 26' 34" H-20 1 1 0 Mountainous Heavy as 35 11° 26° 5%, 7% 240" 800' 2 I l' 11' 4' 6' 2" CS - 3 26' 301 H–20 1 1 0" Flat 60 50 6° 9° 5% 7% 350 1800' 2 10 * 9' 6' 8' 3" CS - 1 24" 32' H - 15 80' ºp Rolling 50 40 9° 14° 6% 8% 2751 1500 2 101 9' 6' 8' 3" CS – l 24? 32' H- 15 80? UNDIV Mountainous 40 30 14° 25° 7% 10% 2001 1000' 2 101 9' 4' 6' 2" CS - 1 24! 28' H- 15 801 Flat 55 45 7° 11° 5% 8% 3 15" 1500' 2 101 8 : 6' 8' 3" CS – 1 24 32' H- 15 × 50 $º.º., Rolling 45 35 11° 20° 7% 10% 240" 1200' 2 1 0" 8" 4' 6' 2" CS – 1 24! 28' H - 15 × 50 UNDIVIDED { Mountainous 35 25 20° 38° 9% 12% 165' 800 2 101 8 * 4' 6' 2" CS – 1 24! 28' H - 15 × 50 Notes: (1) Measured between height of eye 4.5' and height of object 4". (2) Measured between height of eye and height of object 4.5". provided at intervals not greater than 2 miles apart and preferably 1 mile apart. * Plus easement for slopes. ) 4) Bridges over 50" between abutments are considered to be long bridges. ) In accordance with AASHO Bridge Specifications dated 1949. ) Passing zones to be Clear roadway width of bridges measured between bridge curbs. in design. Right-of-Way width for Controlled Access Highways - Minimum 200" Desirable 300' The desirable maximum curves and grades shall not necessarily obtain where good engineering judgement and conditions dictate the use of better design. Where it seems impracticable or not economical to obtain the absolute maximum design as shown, permission shall be secured from the Chief Engineer for recommended changes | | |_| |_| |_| |_| | | | | | TABLE 2 (Part 3 of 3) EASIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY ROADS . . * º # - i 3. i º - &: R. º • * - r-- * **. * . - Annual Average New Bridges Daily Design Maximum Maximum Nonpassing Width of . Design Bridges to Remain Traffic Speed Degree of Per Cent Sight Surfacing or Width of Clear Load Safe Load, Right-of- Volume M. P. H. Curvature of Grade Distance (1) Pavement Roadway Width A. A. S. H. O. Clear Posting Way Width 1975 Topography Des. Min. Des. Abs. Des. Abs. Des. Min. De S. Min. Des. Min. Des. Min. Des. Min. Width Basis (Tons) Des. Min. Flat 60 50 6 9 5 7 475 350' 201 18' 30" 26 - - (2) 24' -- H - 15 18' 10 801 501 40 0 to Rolling 50 40 9 14 6 8 350 1 2.75 20 ! 18! 3.0' 26" - - (2) 24' -- H - 15 18' 10 80 ! 50 1, 000 Mountainous 40 30 14 25 7 10 275" 2001 2.0" 18° 30' 26" - - (2) 24' -- H - 15 18' 10 801 50" Flat 55 45 7 1 1 5 8 4 15' 3.15' 20" 16' 2.8' 24! 24' 22' -- H - 15 15' 6 80' (3) 40" 100 to Rolling 45 35 11 18 7 10 3 151 240' 20" 16' 2.8' 24! 24' 22' -- H - 15 15" 6 80 (3) 40" 400 Mountainous 35 25 18 36 9 12 240' 165' 20" 16' 2.8' 24! 24' 22' -- H - 15 15' 6 80' (3) 40" Flat - - 40 - – 14 5 8 tº- amº - - * - sº 12 #y - *s 20 ! 20 ! 14' H- 15 H- 10 - - - - * - (3) 40' Under Rolling - – 30 - – 25 7 12 - sº- - - -- 12 #y -- 20, 20 14" H- 15 H – 10 - - - - -- (3) 40' 100 Mountainous - - 20 - - 56 10 15 - * - - - - 12 #y - *- 201 20 ! 14" H- 15 H – 10 - - - - - - (3) 40" (1) As defined in "A Policy on Sight Distance for Highways." (2) Minimum of 24 feet or 4 feet more than approach pavement width. (3) Minimum of 40 feet or as required for construction. Definition: Design standards for secondary and feeder roads are the set of values or controls to be used for minimum design under normal conditions, but not necessarily for exceptional cases for which lower values will provide a justifiable degree of improvement, and for which the values will need to be determined separately. Traffic Basis: These standards are shown for three ranges in volumes of annual average daily traffic. These volumes are assumed to be the present traffic or that estimated to occur when the improvement is completed. It is desirable that the se standards be used for volumes which allow for future increases in traffic. The design peak hour traffic density is assumed to be approximately 10 per cent of the annual average daily traffic. These design standards are for roads with annual average daily traffic up to 1,000 vehicles. Roads with greater volumes should be designed in accordance with current practice applicable to roads with similar conditions on the Primary system. }º--- - r-- --Y-r”-y ESTIMATED HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION NEEDS TABLE 3 Fiscal Year 1958 - Fiscal Year 1970 Fiscal Year Ending Rural June 30 Primary Backlog 366,067 1958 28, 23.9 1959 28, 0.97 1960 42, 6.96 1961 15, 557 1962 16, 391 1963 14, 288 1964 11, 057 1965 25, 468 1966 52, 4 16 1967 6, 344 1968 44, 253 1969 23, 456 1970 18, 653 TOTALS 692, 982 (Thousands of Dollars) Inter state 22, 700 40, 500 51, 300 89, 100 87, 900 98, 600 88, 800 93, 900 87, 000 90, 100 91, 000 54, 600 16, 900 9 12, 400 Secondary 153, 903 14, 470 14, 470 14,470 14, 470 14, 470 14, 470 14,470 14,470 14, 470 14, 470 14, 470 14, 470 14, 463 342, 006 Urban 1 14, 938 8, 842 8, 842 8, 842 8, 842 8, 842 8, 842 8, 842 8, 842 8, 842 8, 842 8, 842 8, 842 8, 834 229, 876 Totals 634, 908 74, 25 l 91, 909 l 17, 308 127, 969 127, 603 136, 200 123, 169 142, 680 162, 728 l 19, 756 158, 5.65 101, 368 58,850 2, 177, 264 -- --- -2-: --t..-!,- :-•r-º NON – CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES Before estimated highway improvement costs can be finally bal- anced against estimated highway revenues, it is first necessary to deduct from the estimates of annual revenues the anticipated expenditures which must be made for non-construction purposes. These include such items as allocations to Henrico and Arlington Counties; appropriations to other State agencies; Department of Highways' Engineering, Administration and Overhead costs; Inter state, Primary and Secondary System main- tenance; as well as several other demands on the highway fund. The estinated an ounts of these deductions are detailed in Table 4 and are briefly described as follows: Allocations to Henrico and Arlington Counties Henrico and Arlington are the only counties of the 98 counties in the State which are not presently operating under the Secondary Road Law. Under existing statutes, however, they are entitled to receive annually the amount of fuel tax revenue which they received in 193 l plus annual increases which are proportional to the yearly increase in total State fuel tax revenue as compared with 1931. It is estimated that during future years the amount of fuel tax to be received by the two counties each year will approximate 2.06 per cent of the estimated total fuel tax accruing to the Department. Other State Agencies - Appropriation must be made to the Department of State Police, Division of Motor Vehicles, State Corporation Commission, Attorney General, Department of Agriculture and Inmigration, and the Division of Grounds and Buildings. These appropriations are not a diversion of highway funds; they serve to cover the costs of services which the se agencies perform in connection with various highway activities. The announts of the various appropriations are based on judgment and are intended to provide sufficient funds for necessary capital in provements and for the normal expansion and inn provement of the various services. Engineering, Administration and Overhead The following items are included in the category of Engineering, Administration and Overhead: 1. State Highway Commission 2. Administration and Engineering 3. Highway Grounds and Buildings (Capital outlay, maintenance, and Operations at locations other than Richmond) 4. Surveys, Maps and Plans 5. Contribution to State Retirement System and Social Security 6. Regulation of Outdoor Advertising 7. Virginia Council of Highway Investigation and Research 8. Accident Prevention, Compensation Awards and Medical 9. Two-Way Radio System 10. Joint Hydraulic Studies 11. General Liability and Property Dannage Insurance The Department of Highways' overhead expenses can be expected to increase substantially as a result of the planned acceleration of high- way construction during the next thirteen years. Administration and engineering expenses will likewise increase as the field and office staffs are expanded. In addition, capital outlays of significant magnitude will be necessary to replace present office facilities which, even at the cur- rent level of activity, are already approaching intolerable conditions. Research and traffic and planning expenses can be expected to increase as greater demands are inn posed upon these units of the organization. The Engineering, Administration and Overhead estimates are calculated to provide sufficient funds to allow for normal expansion of operations plus anticipated acceleration in activities during future years. | II --- *::: * | Inter state and Primary System Maintenance Proper maintenance is one of the most important responsibilities of any State Highway Department, and in the interest of maximum economy the armounts expended for the proper preservation of roads and structures should be fully adequate. This estimate reflects not only the increase in maintenance standards which the Inter state System will require but also increases in the average maintenance costs per unit mile which have heretofore been expended on existing Primary System highways. On the new System, many more miles of four-lane highways will require full- width stabilized shoulders, extensive snow removal, increased routine clean-up operation, and a general expansion of most other maintenance activities. The average cost per mile per year to furnish fully adequate maintenance for Primary Systerm highways and existing Inter state System highways is estimated to be $1,400. The corresponding average unit cost for new four-lane Inter state System highways is estimated to be $3,500. Since the Shirley Highway is an exceptionally high volume road, its main- tenance costs are carried separately at $4,000 per mile per year. Allow- ance was made for reduced maintenance during the years in mediately preceding new construction of any particular section, and for lower than average maintenance costs in the early life of newly-completed sections. It was assumed that one-half of the existing Inter state roadway mileage will revert to the Primary System and that the other half will either be replaced by new Inter state construction or become part of the Secondary System. Secondary System Maintenance Secondary System maintenance costs are expected to be affected primarily by the proposed program of up-grading existing surface types. Increased mile age and improved standards will naturally be reflected in greater maintenance costs. Of the se two factors, the major cost increase will result from the improvement of existing roads as currently pro- grammed. In proved road surfaces always require correspondingly higher maintenance expenditures. Primary System Urban Extension and Secondary Street Grants Present legislation provides that incorporated places with popu- lation of 3,500 or over receive each year from the state highway fund a basic amount of $4,000 per mile of Primary System extensions plus an- nual increments which are in proportion to the yearly increases in total state highway revenues as compared with fiscal 1948. It is estimated that in fiscal 1958 these grants, including the increment, will increase to $7, 724 per mile and will further increase to an estimated $ 10, 236 by fiscal 1970. In addition, these same cities and towns receive a basic annount of $300 per mile for other streets within their boundaries which are main- tained at a standard satisfactory to the Commission (so-called secondary streets) plus annual increments which are in proportion to the yearly increases in state highway revenues as compared with fiscal 1948. It is estimated that the secondary street grants will amount to $579 per mile for fiscal 1958 and increase to $768 per mile by fiscal 1970. The mile ages of eligible Primary System extensions and secondary streets were estimated to increase in future years at the same rate in which they have increased between 1948 and 1956. On this basis, Primary extensions will amount to 590 miles by fiscal 1958 and secondary street mileage will armount to 3, 23.6 miles. It is estimated that by fiscal 1970 the se mile ages will increase to 884 and 5, 321, respectively. For the purpose of this study, Primary System extensions and secondary street grants were treated as non-construction expenses as it was as surned that none of these grants would be applied directly to meet Urban System con- struction needs. Access Roads to Industrial Sites Legislation provides that either (a) one per cent of the total funds available to the Department of Highways, less engineering, administra- tion and overhead costs, or (b) one million dollars, whichever is less, be allocated each year for the construction and maintenance of access roads to industrial sites. It was assumed that starting with fiscal 1958, this allocation will be one million dollars in each year. : --- - - l~~~ wºſº&--£º.& L.L tº: Federal Aid Secondary to Henrico County Although Henrico County is not in the State Secondary System, it does qualify for Federal Aid Secondary grants. The current method of distribution to Henrico County is based on the three-factor formula used to allocate Secondary Federal Aid an ong the other 96 eligible counties in the State. For this study it was as surned that the factors of area, popu- lation and road mileage of Henrico County would vary at the same average rate as these factors in the other counties, thus making the 1957 factors applicable in each year throughout the 13-year period. : : | EXPENSE ITEMS AND SOURCE OF FUNDS FROM STATE PRODUCED REVENUE Fuel Tax to Henrico & Arlington Counties Amount to Other Agencies Engineering, Administration & Overhead Primary & Inter state Maintenance Secondary System Maintenance Primary Extension Grants Secondary Street Grants Access Roads to Industrial Sites State Match of 1-1/2% of 70% of F. A. S. Sub - Total FROM SEC ONDARY FEDERAL AID: 1 – 1/2% of 70% of F. A. S. F. A. S. to Henrico County Sub - Total TOTAL NON -CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES 1958 1959 1, 475 I, 529 9, 500 10,050 8,500 8, 8.30 12, 539 12, 609 18, 382 18, 934 4, 557 4, 937 1, 874 2,056 1, 000 1, 000 58 60 57,885 60,005 58 60 64 66 122 126 58, 007 60, 131 1960 1, 581 10, 600 9, 160 12, 677 19, 881 5, 315 2, 240 1, 000 62 62, 516 130 l, 625 11, 150 9, 490 12, 792 20, 875 5, 692 2, 424 1, 000 tº-mº sºm-mºº-ºº ºmºmº mºtº ººm-º ºmºmºmºmº- 134 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF NON - CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE ESTIMATES Thousands of Dollars FISCAL YEAR 1958 - FISCAL YEAR 1980 1, 673 1 1,700 9, 820 12, 895 22, 127 6,053 2, 603 1, 000 1.37 1, 72 l 12, 250 10, 150 13, 0.12 23, 233 6, 438 2, 792 1,000 141 1, 763 12, 800 10, 480 13, 153 24, 395 6, 838 2, 99.1 1, 000 145 1, 840 13, 850 l 1, 110 13, 432 26, 386 7, 606 3, 377 1, 000 72 78, 673 152 l, 876 14, 350 l 1, 350 13, 591 27, 44 l 7, 96.1 3, 553 1, 000 74 81, 196 156 1, 910 14, 800 11, 600 13, 74.1 28, 264 8, 330 3, 734 1, 000 76 83, 455 160 l, 938 15, 250 11, 850 13, 834 29, 112 8, 710 3, 92.1 1, 000 78 78 86 164 85, 857 1970 l, 966 15, 650 12, 100 13, 870 29, 986 9, 0.49 4, 0.87 1, 000 79 87, 787 79 87 166 87, 953 13 YEAR TOTALS 22, 703 165, 300 135,250 171,425 314, 387 88, 705 38, 8.35 13, 000 895 950, 500 895 987 1, 882 952, 382 1971 1, 993 15, 950 12, 300 13, 950 30, 400 9, 393 4, 25 l 1, 000 81 89, 318 81 90 171 89, 489 1972 2,020 16, 150 12, 500 14, 0.30 30, 800 9, 750 4, 414 1, 000 83 92 175 1973 2,047 16, 350 12, 700 14, 110 31, 200 10. 121 4, 582 1, 000 178 1974 2,074 16, 500 12, 850 14, 190 31, 600 10, 491 4, 750 1, 000 182 1975 2, 103 16, 650 13,000 14, 270 32, 000 10, 871 4, 92.1 1, 000 185 1976 2, 130 16, 800 13, 150 14, 350 32, 400 11, 262 5, 0.91 1, 000 189 1977 2, 158 16, 950 13, 300 14, 430 32, 800 11, 655 5, 259 1, 000 193 97, 837 1978 2, 184 17, 050 13, 450 14, 510 33, 200 12, 047 5, 426 1, 000 94 103 197 99, 158 1979 2, 212 17, 150 13, 600 14, 590 33, 600 12, 437 5, 584 1, 000 100, 268 95 105 200 100, 468 1980 2, 242 17, 250 13, 750 14, 670 34, 000 12, 846 5, 754 1, 000 —º 101, 609 97 107 204 101, 813 Totals to 1980 43, 866 332, 100 265, 850 314, 525 636, 387 199, 578 88, 867 23, 000 1, 787 1, 905, 960 l, 787 1, 969 3, 756 1, 909, 716 ſae …»， ºxes" ESTIMATES OF FUTURE REVENUES To determine the probable revenues which the Department of Highways will have available to meet the estimated in provement costs, an independent projection was prepared. Virginia's highway revenue is obtained from four principal sources: fuel tax, motor vehicle license fees, operators and dealers license fees, and title fees. Revenue from other sources announts to only a small per centage of the total highway income and is treated separately in the estimates as miscellaneous in- C OIY) e . Basically, the revenues deriving from these four principal sources were estimated individually by extending the trend of the past relationship that each item bore to the population of the State to the future. For this purpose, independent estimates were made of Virginia's future popula- tion. Furthermore, all estimates were prepared in the form of net revenue available to the Department of Highways since the gross income from each of the sources is subject to various refunds and deductions. The use of this method made it unnecessary to determine the amounts that might be refunded in future years thereby eliminating an extra step without sacrificing the accuracy of the projection. Table 5 shows the details of these estimates extended to 1980 on an annual basis. It should be stated here that, although the original request of the VALC was to analyze construction costs and revenues for a period of thirteen years, which term coincides with the Inter state System improvement pragram, it was decided to carry the estimates ten years beyond that period for the purpose of being better able to advise the State of the most practicable method of financing a long-range, overall, program. of highway improve - In ents . Population Virginia's population increased between 1935 and 1955 at the rate of about 53,000 per sons per year, which is an average annual increase of about 1.8 per cent. During the post-war period 1948 to 1955, the average increment was 53, 100, or about 1.6 per cent per year; from 1950 to 1955, the increment was 52, 600, or about 1.5 per cent per year. In other words, the State's population has been increasing at a decreasing rate both absolutely and percentage -wise. The forecast of State population was estimated by continuing the trend that has existed since 1935. The yearly increases were estimated to be 53, 000 from 1955 to 1958, 52, 000 from 1958 to 1963, 5 1, 000 from 1963 to 1968, and 50, 000 from 1968 to 1980. The resulting projection agrees substantially with a recent estimate prepared by the Bureau of Population and Economic Research of the University of Virginia. Motor Vehicle License Fees The ratio of population to the number of revenue licenses issued during each fiscal year, or the "persons per revenue license issued, " was analyzed for the 1935 - 1955 period. It was found that the proportion has been decreasing continuously since 1944, but at a gradually decreas - ing rate. This trend is expected to continue as the ratio of population to motor vehicles approaches a saturation point. The trend of decrease in the ratio of per sons per revenue license issued was projected mathemati- cally as a continuation of the hyperbolic form which the ratio assumed during the 1945 - 1955 period. This resulted in an estimate wherein the ratio of persons per revenue license issued during each fiscal year would decrease gradually from 2. 73 in 1955 to a minimum of 2.20 in 1968 and remain at that value until 1980. The ratios thus determined were then applied to the estimated future population to obtain an estimate of the number of revenue licenses to be issued during each year through 1980. The average net fee per revenue license issued has varied in the past as a result of variations in the proportion of trucks to passenger cars. As surning no change in the present schedule of fees, the average net fee will increase as the proportion of trucks increases. An examina - tion of the records indicates that the average fee increased from $ 12. 23 in 1949 to $13.02 in 1952. From 1952 to 1956, the increase was only $0.11, resulting in a current average fee of $13. 13. It was assumed that by 1964 the average net fee per revenue license issued would increase at a decreasing rate to $13. 18 and remain at that value until 1980. The revenue from net motor vehicle license fees was then derived by applying the estimated average net fee to the estimated revenue licenses issued each year to 1980. Fuel Tax Fuel tax revenue depends upon motor fuel consumption. Total motor fuel consumption was estimated by projecting the number of powered vehicles and the expected annual fuel consumption for an average powered vehicle. The application of the fuel tax per gallon to total consumption determined the estinnate of net fuel tax. .:; -ºº- ---* - -- ---» *, -| r !•l- ---- * - --E.- r >- ſº---º-*:- Powere d vehicle registration during the last decade has averaged 92 per cent of the number of revenue licenses issued during the corres- ponding fiscal years. It was assumed that this relationship would con- tinue. Thus, future powered vehicle registration was estimated to be 92 per cent of the number of revenue licenses issued during each future year. The true persons-per-powered-vehicle ratio, which was 2.99 in 1955, is expected to decrease at a diminishing rate each year until it reaches a saturation point of 2.39 in 1968 and from then on remain at 2. 39 until 1980. This ratio may appear conservative if compared to the present low ratio in California, but it is believed to be justifiable in view of the history and character of the growth of motor vehicle registrations in Virginia. Gallons of fuel consumed per powered vehicle per year in Virginia has increased from 801. 0 in 1948 to 846. 8 in 1956, which is an average annual increment of about 5. 7 gallons per vehicle. There has been little increase, however, since 1953, when the average consumption was 845.4 gallons. Although the proposed highway improvement program coupled with an expanding economy can be expected to be reflected in increases in average travel per vehicle, anticipated in provements in motor fuels and in the efficiency of automobile engines should tend to act as offsett- ing factors. As a matter of judgment, it was assumed that the average fuel consumption per powere d vehicle will increase at the rate of two gallons per year until 1980. Total fuel consumption on Virginia's highways for each year until 1980 was then obtained by multiplying the estimated powere d vehicle registration by the estimated average fuel consumption. The average net tax collected per gallon was then applied to total fuel consumption to determine the estinated total net fuel tax revenue. Operators and Dealers License Fees Operators and dealers net license fees during the last five years have varied only slightly from $0.38 per registered powered vehicle. Recent legislation increased operators license fees from $0.50 to $1.00 . Since approximately 25 per cent of the increase will be applied to increased administrative needs, only 75 per cent of the increase will be available for highway purposes. It was, therefore, assumed that the net fee will be $0.665 per vehicle. Title Fees Since 1947, net title fees per registered powered vehicle have shown a maximum variation of $0.04 from a basic fee of $0.60. It was assumed that the average net title fee will continue at $0. 60 per registered powered vehicle until 1980. Miscellaneous Incorne Fines from overweight trucks, and revenue from outdoor adver- tising, State-owned toll ferries and other incidental sources were not estimated separately. It was estimated that in fiscal 1956-57 these sources would provide 2.57 per cent of the State -produced revenue from the four principal sources. It was assumed that the figure of 2.57 per cent would continue in the future. Total net State-produced highway revenue was then estimated by increasing the projected revenue derived from the four principal sources by 2.57 per cent. For the revenue projections it was assumed that the income that will be produced by the recently enacted fuel tax increase and registration fee changes for heavy truck use will be approximately the same as that which has been received from the Motor Carriers Road Tax which they replace. Any error which might be introduced by this assumption would have a small effect on the overall revenue estimates. The recently en- acted fuel tax and registration fee changes are discussed in detail in later sections of the Report. Federal Aid Funds In addition to State -produced revenue, Virginia receives four types of Federal Aid funds for highway in provement. The amount of each type of Federal Aid which any State will receive is subject to Con- gressional decision and, therefore, cannot be estimated by mathematical formula or any other estimating method. For the purposes of this study, the Department of Highways provided a schedule of probable future announts of Primary, Secondary, and Urban Federal Aid which in its judgment, and based on the experience of recent years, may accrue to Virginia. The Department's schedule appears reasonable in all respects and was, therefore, used without change. |||s||| -------| º t||:|... 1º It should be noted that the armount of Inter state Federal Aid that Virginia will receive over the thirteen-year Inter state construction pro- gram is estimated to be the total amount necessary to meet the full Federal portion of the estimated Inter state System construction costs. Present Federal appropriations will not be sufficient to meet those re- quirements, but the Inter state program is subject to periodic review and it is assumed that Congress will adjust the allocations and appropriations to the extent necessary to carry out its intention of providing a complete Inter state System of highways in the designated time. City Funds Except for Arlington County, all cities which receive Urban Federal Aid are required by State law to provide one-half of the neces – sary match money. Since Urban Federal Aid must be matched on a 50- 50 basis, the cities must provide one-half of the total match money. Arlington County, which is classified as an urban area by the Bureau of Public Roads, qualifies for and receives Federal Aid Urban funds. How – ever, since Arlington does not receive any Federal Aid Secondary funds, the State does not require it to provide any share of the matching funds and matches its allocation in full. The amounts provided by the cities as match money are, in effect, additional revenues which are used to meet Urban System construction costs. This additional income was estimated to be one -half of the estimated total Urban Federal Aid less Arlington County's portion, which is matched by the State. REVENUE SOURCES STATE (AFTER REFUNDS): Motor Vehicle License Fees Fuel Tax Title Fees Operators and Dealers License Fees Miscellaneous Net Income Total State Revenue FEDERAL AID: Primary Secondary Urban Inter state Total Federal Aid CITY: City Portion of F. A. U. Match Money TOTAL HIGHWAY REVENUE 1958 20, 080 71, 580 842 934 2, 400 95, 836 7, O73 5, 500 3, 195 18, 694 34, 462 1, 460 131, 758 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 20, 780 2 1, 440 22, 0.10 22, 600 23, 190 23, 720 74, 220 76, 730 78, 890 8 1, 220 83, 560 85, 600 872 899 922 947 97.2 994 966 996 1, 022 l, 0.50 l, 0.78 1, 101 2, 489 2, 572 2, 643 2, 719 2, 796 2,863 99, 327 102, 637 105,487 108,536 l l 1, 596 l l 4, 278 7, 358 7, 575 7, 792 8, 009 8, 226 8, 443 5, 722 5, 890 6, 058 6, 226 6, 394 6, 562 3, 333 3, 43 l 3, 529 3, 627 3, 725 3, 823 36, 450 46, 170 80, 190 79, 110 88, 740 79, 920 52, 863 63,066 97, 569 96, 972 107, 085 98, 748 1, 522 1, 568 1, 6 12 1, 658 1, 702 1, 747 153, 712 167, 271 204, 668 207, 166 220, 383 2 14, 773 1965 24, 240 87, 690 l, 0 15 1, 125 2, 932 1 17, 002 8, 660 6, 730 3, 92.1 84, 510 103, 821 l, 79 l 222, 6 14 TABLE 5 Thousands of Dollars FISCAL YEAR 1958 – FISCAL YEAR 1980 1966 24, 650 89, 310 1, 032 1, 144 2, 985 1 19, 121 8, 877 6, 898 4, 0.19 78, 300 98, 0.94 1, 837 2 19, 052 1967 25, 0.60 91, 050 l, 0.49 1, 164 3, 0.41 12 1, 364 9, 0.94 7, 0.66 4, 117 8 1,090 101, 367 l, 881 224, 6 12 1968 25, 480 92, 7.30 1,067 1, 183 3, 0.96 123, 556 9, 311 7, 234 4, 215 8.1, 900 102, 660 1, 926 228, 142 1969 25,780 94, 100 1, 080 1, 197 3, 139 125, 296 9, 528 7, 402 4, 313 49, 140 70, 383 . l, 970 197, 649 SUMMARY OF TOTAL HIGHWAY REVENUE ESTIMATES 13 YEAR 1970 TOTALS 26, 080 305, 1 1 0 95, 420 1, 102, 100 l, 0.93 12, 784 1, 2 1 1 14, 171 3, 182 36, 857 126, 986 1, 471, 022 9, 745 109, 691 7, 570 85, 252 4, 41 l 49, 659 15, 210 819, 424 36, 936 1,064, 0.26 2, 0 15 22, 689 165, 937 2, 557, 737 1971 26, 370 96, 740 1, 105 1, 225 3, 224 128,664 9, 962 7, 738 4, 509 22, 209 2,060 152, 933 1972 1973 26, 680 26, 980 98,060 99, 370 l, 117 1, 130 1, 239 1, 253 3, 266 3, 308 130, 362. 132, 041 10, 17 9 10, 396 7, 906 8, 074 4, 607 4, 705 22, 692 23, 175 2, 105 2, 149 155, 159 157, 365 1974 27, 280 100, 690 1, 142 1, 267 3, 35 l 133, 7.30 10, 6 13 8, 242 4, 803 23, 658 2, 195 15.9, 583 1975 27, 570 102, O70 1, 155 1, 28 l 3, 394 135, 470 10, 830 8, 4.10 4, 901 24, 14 l 2, 23.9 161,850 1976 1977 1978 27, 880 28, 180 28,470 103, 390 104, 770 106,020 1, 168 1, 180 1, 192 1, 293 l, 307 1, 321 3, 437 3, 481 3, 521 137, 168 138, 918 140, 524 1 1,047 l. 1, 264 l 1, 481 8,578 8, 7.46 8, 914 4, 999 5,097 5, 195 24, 624 25, 107 25, 590 2, 284 2, 328 2, 374 164,076 166, 353 168, 488 1979 28, 770 107, 400 1, 205 1, 335 3, 565 142, 275 11, 698 9, 0.82 5, 293 26, 073 2, 418 1980 29, 080 108,840 1, 2 18 1, 349 3, 61 l 144, 098 11, 915 9, 250 5, 391 26, 556 2, 464 Total to 1980 582, 370 2, 129, 450 24, 396 27, 041 71,015 2, 834, 272 219,076 170, 192 99, 159 819, 424 1, 307, 85 l 45, 305 173, 118 4, 187, 428 170, 766 A COMPARISON OF IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES WITH REVENUE EST IMATES A cornparison of the estinates of present and future construction costs with the estimates of net revenues available to meet those costs reveals that by June 1970, the presumed end of the thirteen-year Inter – state System program, there will still remain a backlog of $571. 9 mil- lion. The thirteen-year program is assumed to start on July 1, 1957 with an estimated backlog of $634.9 million. With present highway tax rates, a reduction in the backlog of only $63 million or slightly less than 10 per cent will have been achieved by 1970. Although considerable high- way in provement will have been accomplished during the years 1957– 1970, highway deficiencies will still be considerable at the end of that tirne. Figure 3 compares the estimated costs of eliminating highway de - ficiencies with estimated revenues from current sources and at current tax rates for the years 1957 to 1980. To extend the comparisons for the ten years beyond 1970, the end of the Inter state System program, it was assumed that the needs of the Primary, Secondary, and Urban Systerms would accumulate at a constant rate which was derived by taking the aver- age of needs accumulations between 1957 and 1970. As can be readily seen, the future annual revenues exceed the an– ticipated needs costs in most years, but only to the extent of a total of $63 million for the first thirteen years. If the improvement program is extended to 1980, the backlog at that time would be reduced to $384 mil- lion, or by almost 40 per cent. It is obvious, therefore, that Virginia, like many other states, is faced with a critical highway problem that has been developing over a long period of time. Despite the unprecedented annual increases in highway revenues since the termination of war-time gas rationing, the amounts available for construction have never been sufficient to meet constantly accumulat- ing highway needs. Actually, highway deficiencies, and the cost of elimi- nating those deficiencies, have been expanding during past years at a much greater rate than available revenues. Contributing factors to this situation are (a) the expense of improving and maintaining almost all of the county roads (Secondary System), (b) constantly higher design stand- ards necessitated by increased vehicular volumes, speeds, and weights and (c) constantly increasing construction prices. The lack of sufficient funds during past years is apparent not only in the resulting accumulation of deficiencies, but is also clearly recog- nizable in the manner in which annual budgets are prepared and improve - ment projects selected. After deducting from total revenue all of the non-construction expenditures previously described (44 per cent in 1958) the Department is left with grossly inadequate announts to undertake an adequate, comprehensive and long-term program of improvement. Un- less additional revenue is provided, it will be necessary to stretch avail- able construction funds as far as possible to correct only the most critical deficiencies, perhaps with some sacrifice of desirable design standards. Figures 4 and 5 both show the relationship of the cumulative con - struction needs of all systems to the cunnulative construction funds esti- mated to be available from present revenue sources, and at current tax rates, between now and 1980. These illustrations depict very clearly that even after twenty-three years, a substantial backlog will still exist. These illustrations also present fore casts of probable available construction funds made under the following assumed conditions: 1. A one cent addition to the present fuel tax. 2. A 1-1/2 cents addition to the present fºc1 tax. 3. A two cents addition to the present fuel tax. 4 A $1.00 addition to the present registration fee. 5. A $2.00 addition to the present registration fee. 6. A one cent addition to the present fuel tax plus a $1.00 addition to the registration fee. 7. A one cent addition to the present fuel tax plus a $2.00 addition to the registration fee. These data are shown in detail in Table 6. If an additional one cent was added to the current tax of six cents, the backlog would be re- duced to $77 million by 1980, or slightly less than 88 per cent. If one and one -half cents were added to the current six cents, the entire back- log would be eliminated by 1979. If a full two cents were added, all current deficiencies would be eliminated by 1976. The addition of $1.00 or $2.00 to present registration fees would result in much less sub- stantial revenue increases, but a combination of a one cent fuel tax in - crease plus a $2.00 increase in registration fees would eliminate all items of backlog by 1980. : V|RG|N|A ADVISORY LEG|SLATIVE COUNCIL 72 O 68 O 64O 6OO 56O 52O 48O 4 4 O 4OO 36O 32O 28O #||—BACKLOG EST|MATED TOTAL COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION NEEDS EST|MATED FUNDS AVAILABLE AND FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR 1957-1980 L E G E N D |N TER STATE PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION NEEDS SECON DARY URBAN FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION | § $8: tº ºt *º tºº ºw §§ i i 69 YEARS EN DING JUNE 3O 24 O 2OO | 6 O | 20 8O 4O 1957 58 59 SEREE |96O 6 | 62 XX KX # |# 65 66 F| SCAL PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL 8 MACDONALD Fig. 3 | –, | – |-）, |---- | 4 \_', u \ ， | – VIRG |N|A ADVISORY L. EG | SLATIVE COUNCIL ACCUMULATION OF H|GHWAY CONSTRUCT |ON NEEDS AND FUNDS WITH FUEL TAX INCREASES 3. O Z" / 2. 8 A / - / 23 YEA R P R O G R A M / 24 / / / 22T 2.6 34 22* ~ KN 2^_^ sº y’ / Go º cº 2 2 ºf ºz 2.4 Pº z gº *...* Af / L^12%. 38.2 Z | 3 Y E A R PRO G R A M *— L^_^) & / (Period of Inter state Highway Construction) L^ N N × 2 2 2^ 2, 2 __ o°]/ . Z. / tº z 2. O N E EDS FOR ALL SYSTEMS, T--— / ZT-2 p → 2 º * TOTAL EST MATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION / / / / 2. 6 / 4. % y/ ſ % % Z / 7’—4-y A / // EST IMATE D TO TAL REVENUE AVA ||LABLE / T-H FOR CONSTRUCTION BASED ON PRESENT REVENUE SOURCES. N. Ž 2. / / ,” / / Af / |.. O ZZ Ty N - / // N EST IMATED TOTAL REVENUE AVAILABLE FOR /// CONSTRUCTION INCLUD ||NG NET GAIN FROM L // |ND |CATED F UE L TAX INCREASE S. -- " --- /// /// / 2' // + o,él–A– // t // / - - g // - - - -> —! // X 4/ I. 3 // - - O. 4 H CD % 3 }% E // oal; ŽZ º // 2 # 3 % 1957 58 59 1960 6] 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 1970 7| 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 19 SO F | SCAL YEARS ENDING JUNE 3O PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL 8, MACDONALD Fig. 4 VIRGIN IA ADVISORY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ****--~~~~..- :----- - ------ -:-~~ *• --'-.i.*- -.. -- -*** * ACCUMULATION OF H|GHWAY CONSTRUCTION NEEDS AND FUNDS WITH REGISTRATION FEE AND FUEL TAX INCREASES 3. O 2.8 º 23 YE A R P R O GRAM *— 2.6 2% º Jr.” 2^ / Aſ 21 Z / 2| Z 2. 24 Z/ 2.4 __ / LT 221 2. ~ - 3 YEAR PROGRAM - Jº- L^ sº? J.2 (Period of Interstote Highway Construction) _^ sº º /* Sy? / SCN Ac)3]2. 2" 2.2 Sy& | XS 24-3 Lºr «". 22, 2% , sº + pº CS 2ſ. 8 ***2 sº NG o? 2. Nº. Q}. 2 &Q. 2 x\" S / QF *2% Q& 2. O A & Sº +%2%.e. o' 22" × 2 ” CŞ §8.2%3° 2|1 < *N .N. 22 Nº / £21. 22 × Ł2 |.. 8 / - AZ 222 on // 42 Or. TOTAL EST MATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION // 22 <[ /* £2 — N E E D S FOR ALL SYSTEMS. */ // 22 —l / 2 § 1.6 Z/ | .4. y-r z z C / / #2 u- / / // y Z / // (ſ) |, 4 7% Af 3 / / EST IMATED TO TAL REVENUE AVAILABLE L % T-I- FOR CONSTRUCTION BASED ON PRESENT —l / REVENUE SOURCES. m // / 1.2 / / %/ %W Ż N% NN// Z l, O / % / } // N ESTIMATED TOTAL REVENUE AVAILABLE FOR / % Nconstruction |NCLUD ||NG NET GAIN FROM / £% |NDICATED REGISTRATION FEE INCREASES, O. 8 / N N O 6 —I- a/ N - ZYZ g // N EST MATED TOTAL REVENUE AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUC – º // NTION INCLUDING NET GAIN FROM INDICATED REGISTRATION 3 // FEE AND F UE L TAX INCREASES. o.4|- ſh #4 A 3 / - ſ 5 /A oal; A/ ** | H. Ž (ſ) ſº 3 / O y 1957 58 59 1960 6| 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 1970 7| 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 7 9 |98O F | SCAL YEARS ENDING JUNE 3O PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL & MACDONALD Fig. 5 TABLE 6 ESTIMAT ED CONSTRUCTION NEEDS COSTS COMPARED TO EST IMATED F UNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION FROM PRESENT AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATE HIGHWAY USER TAX RATES Thousands of Dollars Negative Amounts Indicated ( ) Backlog } 3-YR. 20 - Y R. TOTALS F IS C. A. L. Y E A R E N D IN G 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 TOTALS TOTALS to 1980 CONSTRUCTION NEEDS Total Construction Needs 634, 908 74, 251 91, 909 1 17, 308 127, 969 127, 603 1 36, 200 123, 169 142, 680 162,728 I 19, 756 158, 5.65 10 1, 368 58,850 48, 458 48, 458 48, 458 48, 458 48, 458 48, 458 48, 458 48, 458 48, 458 48, 458 2, 177, 264 2, 516, 470 2, 66 1, 844 Accumulation 709, 159 80 l , 0.68 918, 376 l, 0.46, 345 l, 173, 948 1, 310, 148 1,433,317 1, 575, 997 1, 738, 725 1, 858, 481 2,017,046 2, 1 18, 414 2, 177, 264 2, 225,722 2, 274, 180 2, 322, 638 2, 371,096 2, 419, 554 2, 468,012 2, 516,470 2,564,928 2, 6 13, 386 2, 661, 844 gº ſº sº CONSTRUCTION FUNDS A. PRESENT REVENUE SOURCES Total Highway Revenue 131, 758 153, 7 12 167, 271 204, 668 207, 166 220, 383 214, 773 222,614 219, 052 224, 6 12 228, 142 197, 649 165, 937 152, 933 155, 159 157, 365 15.9, 583 1 6 1, 850 I 64, 0.76 166, 353 168, 488 170, 766 173, 118 2, 557, 737 3, 675,056 4, 187, 428 Non-Construction Expenses 58, 007 60, 13 1 62, 646 65, 246 68,073 70, 804 73, 634 76, 23.9 78, 825 8.1, 352 83, 615 85, 857 87, 953 89, 489 90, 922 92, 373 93, 724 95,088 96, 462 97, 837 99, 158 100, 468 101, 8 13 952, 382 1, 608, 277 I, 909, 716 Total Construction Funds 73, 75.1 93,581 104, 625 139, 422 139,093 149, 57.9 14 1, 139 146, 375 140, 227 143, 260 144, 527 1 11, 792 77, 984 63, 444 64, 237 64, 992 65,859 66, 762 67, 6 1 4 68, 5 16 6.9, 330 70, 298 71, 305 l, 605, 355 2,066, 779 2, 277, 7 12 Accumulation 73, 75.1 167,332 27 1, 95.7 41 1, 379 550, 472 700, 051 841, 190 987, 565 l, 127, 792 1, 27 1,052 l, 415, 579 1, 527, 371 l, 605, 355 l, 668, 799 l, 733, 0.36 l, 798, 028 1, 863, 887 l, 930, 649 l, 998, 263 2, 066, 779 2, 1 36, 109 2, 206, 407 2, 277, 7 12 tº tº º £º Backlog 634, 908 635, 408 633, 736 646, 419 634, 966 623,476 610, 097 592, 127 588, 432 610, 933 587, 429 60 l , 467 591, 0.43 571, 909 556, 923 541, 144 524, 6 10 507, 209 488, 905 469, 749 449, 69 1 428, 8.19 406, 979 384, 132 tºº dº sºme B. WITH 1 & ADDITIONAL FUEL TAX Additional Construction Funds 10, 815 11, 167 1 1,500 11, 770 12,072 12, 373 12, 617 12, 872 13, 054 13, 256 13, 448 13, 589 13, 726 13, 868 14, 0.09 14, 140 14, 276 14, 426 14, 559 14, 709 14, 828 14, 972 15, O75 162, 259 262, 246 307, 12 l Total Construction Funds 84, 566 104, 748 l 16, 125 15 1, 192 15 1, 165 161, 952 153, 756 159, 247 153,281 156,516 157, 975 125, 381 91, 7 10 77, 3 12 78, 246 79, 132 80, 135 8 1, 188 82, 173 83, 225 84, 158 85, 270 86, 380 1, 767, 6 14 2, 329,025 2,584, 833 Accumulation 84, 56.6 189, 314 305, 439 456, 63 l 607,796 769, 748 923, 504 1, 082, 75 l 1, 236, 0.32 l, 392, 548 l, 550, 523 l, 675, 904 l, 767, 6 14 1, 844, 926 1, 923, 172 2, 002, 304 2,082,439 2, 163, 627 2, 245, 800 2, 329, 025 2, 4 13, 183 2, 498,453 2, 584, 833 * * * tº-s sºme Backlog 634, 908 624, 5.93 61 1,754 6 12, 937 589, 714 566, 152 540, 400 509, 813 493, 246 502, 693 465, 933 466, 523 442, 5 10 409, 650 380, 796 351, 008 320, 334 288, 657 255, 927 222, 2 12 187, 445 151, 745 1 14, 933 77, 0 1 1 tº nº C. WITH 1 - 1/24 ADDITIONAL FUEL TAX Additional Construction Funds 16, 222 16, 750 17, 250 17, 655 18, 108 18, 560 18, 926 19, 308 19, 581 19, 884 20, 172 20, 384 20, 589 20, 802 21, 0 14 2 1, 2 10 21, 414 2 1, 639 21, 838 22, 0.64 22, 242 22, 458 22, 6 12 243, 389 393, 370 460, 682 Total Construction Funds 89, 973 1 10, 33 1 121,875 157,077 157, 201 168, 139 160, 065 165, 683 159, 808 163, 144 1 64, 699 132, 176 98, 573 84, 246 85, 25 l 86,202 87, 273 88, 40 1 89, 452 90, 580 91, 572 92, 756 93, 917 1, 848, 7.44 2, 460, 149 2, 738, 394 Accumulation 89, 973 200, 304 322, 179 479, 256 636, 457 804,596 964, 66 l 1, 130, 344 1, 290, 152 1, 453, 296 1, 617, 995 1, 750, 171 1, 848, 744 1, 932, 990 2, 0 l 8, 24 l 2, 104, 443 2, 191, 7 I 6 2, 280, l 17 2, 369, 569 2, 460, 149 2, 551, 721 2, 644, 477 2, 738, 394 gº gº fº Backlog 634, 908 619, 186 600, 764 596, 197 567, 089 537, 491 505, 552 468, 656 445, 653 448, 573 405, 185 399, 051 368,243 328, 520 292, 732 255, 939 2 18, 195 179, 380 139, 437 98, 443 56, 32 l 13, 207 (31,091) (76, 550) tº gº * - D. WITH 24 ADDITIONAL FUEL TAX Additional Construction Funds 21, 630 22, 334 23, 000 23, 540 24, 144 24, 746 25, 234 25, 744 26, 108 26, 512 26, 896 27, 178 27, 452 27, 736 28, 0 18 28, 280 28, 552 28, 852 29, 118 29, 418 29, 656 29, 944 30, 150 324, 518 524, 492 6 14, 242 Total Construction Funds 95, 381 115, 915 127, 625 162, 962 163,237 174, 325 166, 373 172, 119 166, 335 169, 772 171, 423 138, 970 105, 436 91, 180 92, 255 93, 272 94, 41 l 95, 6 14 96, 732 97, 934 98, 986 100, 242 101, 455 1, 929, 873 2, 59 1, 27 l 2, 891, 954 Accumulation 95, 38 l 2 11, 296 338, 92.1 501, 883 665, 120 839, 445 1, 005, 818 1, 177, 937 1, 344, 272 l, 5 14, 0.44 1, 685, 467 1, 824, 437 1, 929, 873 2, 021, 053 2, 1 13, 308 2, 206, 580 2, 300, 99 l 2, 396, 605 2, 493, 337 2,591, 271 2, 690, 257 2, 790, 499 2, 891, 954 º tº: G Backlog 634, 908 6 13, 778 589, 772 579,455 544, 462 508,828 470, 703 427, 499 398,060 394, 453 344, 437 33 1, 57.9 293, 977 247, 39 l 204, 669 160, 872 116,058 70, 105 22, 949 (25, 325) (74, 801) (125, 329) (177, l 13) (230, 110) s sº * - E. WITH $1.00 ADDITIONAL REGISTRATION FEE Additional Construction Funds l, 414 l, 459 1,493 1, 528 1,561 1, 597 1, 627 l, 652 l, 673 l, 698 l, 72 l 1, 729 l, 746 1, 757 1, 770 l, 787 1, 80 1 1, 817 I, 823 1, 840 1, 852 1, 869 1, 882 20, 898 33,493 39,096 Total Construction Funds 75, 165 95,040 106, 1 18 140, 950 140, 654 151, 176 142, 766 148, 027 141, 900 144, 958 146, 248 1 13, 52 l 79, 730 65, 201 66, 007 66, 779 67, 660 68, 5.79 69, 437 70, 356 7 1, 182 72, 167 73, 187 l, 626, 253 2, 100, 272 2, 3 l 6, 808 Accumulation 75, 165 170,205 276, 323 4 17, 273 557,927 709, 103 851, 869 999, 896 1, 141, 796 1, 286, 754 l, 433,002 l, 546, 523 l, 626, 253 l, 69 1,454 1, 757, 46 l l, 824, 240 1, 891, 900 1, 960, 479 2, 029, 916 2, 100, 272 2, 17 1, 454 2, 243, 621 2, 3 l 6, 808 gº s sº Backlog 634, 908 633,994 630, 863 642, 0.53 629, 0.72 6 16,021 601, 045 581, 448 576, 101 596, 929 571, 727 584, 0.44 571, 89 l 551, 0 1 1 534, 268 5 16, 719 498, 398 479, 196 459, O75 438, 0.96 41 6, 198 393, 474 369, 765 345, 036 mº * * Eº F. WITH $2.00 ADDITIONAL REGISTRATION FEE Additional Construction Funds 2, 828 2, 918 2, 986 3, 0.56 3, 122 3, 194 3, 254 3, 304 3, 346 3, 396 3, 442 3, 458 3, 492 3, 514 3, 540 3, 574 3, 602 3, 634 3, 646 3, 680 3, 704 3, 738 3, 764 41, 796 66, 986 78, 192 Total Construction Funds 76, 579 96, 499 107, 6 11 142,478 142, 215 152, 773 144, 393 149, 679 143,573 146, 656 147, 969 1 15, 250 8 1,476 66, 958 67,777 68, 5.66 69, 46 l 70, 396 7 1, 260 72, 196 73,034 74, 0.36 75, 069 l, 647, 15 l 2, 133, 765 2, 355, 904 Accumulation 76, 579 173, O78 280, 689 423, 167 565, 382 718, 155 862, 548 1,012, 227 1, 155, 800 1,302,456 1,450,425 1,565, 675 1, 647, 151 1,714, 109 1,781, 886 1, 850, 452 1,919,913 1,990, 309 2,061, 569 2, 133,765 2, 206, 799 2, 280, 835 2, 355, 904 s sº ---. Backlog 634, 908 632, 580 627, 990 637, 687 623, 178 608, 56.6 591, 993 570, 769 563, 770 582, 925 556, 0.25 566, 62 l 552, 739 530, 113 51 1, 613 492, 294 472, 186 45 1, 183 429, 245 406, 443 382, 705 358, 129 332, 551 305, 940 sº * = G. WITH 14 ADDITIONAL FUEL TAX AND $1.00 ADDITIONAL REGISTRATION FEE Additional Construction Funds 12, 229 12, 626 12, 993 13, 298 13, 633 13, 970 14, 244 14, 524 14, 727 14, 954 15, 169 15, 318 15, 472 15, 625 15, 779 15, 927 16, 077 l 6, 243 16, 382 16, 549 I 6, 680 16, 841 16, 957 183, 157 295, 739 346, 2 17 Total Construction Funds 85, 980 106, 207 l 17, 6 18 152, 720 152, 726 163,549 155, 383 160, 899 154, 954 158, 214 159, 696 127, 110 93, 456 79,069 80, 016 80, 919 81, 936 83, 0.05 83, 996 85, 0.65 86,010 87, 139 88, 262 1, 788, 512 2, 362, 5.18 2, 623, 929 Accumulation 85, 980 192, 187 309, 805 462, 525 615, 25 1 778, 800 934, 183 1,095,082 1, 250,036 1,408, 250 1,567,946 I, 695, 056 1, 788, 512 1, 867, 581 1, 947,597 2,028,516 2, 110,452 2, 193, 457 2, 277,453 2, 362, 518 2, 448, 528 2, 535, 667 2, 623, 929 º tº-º; * -º Backlog 634, 908 623, 179 608,881 608, 57.1 583, 820 558, 697 531, 348 499, 134 480, 915 488, 689 450, 23 1 449, 100 423, 358 388, 752 358, 141 326, 583 294, 122 260, 644 226, 097 190, 559 153, 952 1 16, 400 77,719 37, 915 sº $º tºº H. WITH 14 ADDITIONAL FUEL TAX AND $2.00 ADDITIONAL REGISTRATION FEE Additional Construction Funds I 3, 643 14, 0.85 14, 486 14, 826 15, 194 15, 567 15, 871 16, 176 16, 400 16, 652 16, 890 17, 047 17, 218 17, 382 17, 549 17, 714 17, 878 18, 060 18, 205 18, 389 18, 532 18, 7.10 18, 839 204,055 3.29, 232 385, 313 Total Construction Funds 87, 394 107, 666 l 19, 1 11 154, 248 154, 287 165, 146 157, 010 l62, 55.1 156, 627 159, 912 1 6 1, 417 128, 839 95, 202 80, 826 81,786 82, 706 83, 737 84, 822 85, 8 19 86, 905 87, 862 89, 0.08 90, 144 1, 809, 410 2, 396, 0 l 1 2, 663, 0.25 Accumulation 87, 394 195, O60 3 14, 171 468, 419 622, 706 787, 852 944, 862 1, 107, 4 13 l, 264, 0.40 1, 423, 952 l, 585, 369 1, 7 14, 208 1, 309, 410 1, 890, 236 l, 972, 022 2,054, 728 2, 138, 465 2, 223, 287 2, 309, 106 2, 396, 0 1 1 2, 483, 873 2, 572, 88 l 2, 663, 0.25 tºº * tº Backlog 634, 908 62 l, 765 606, 008 604, 205 577, 926 55 1, 242 522, 296 488, 455 468, 584 474, 685 434, 529 43.1, 677 404, 206 367, 854 335,486 302, 158 267, 910 232, 63 l 196, 267 158, 906 120, 459 81, 055 40, 505 (1, 181) s * * * º DISTRIBUTION OF HIGHWAY REVENUES The various formulas governing the distribution of highway rev – enues in Virginia present, in their combined form, an exceedingly intri- cate system of fund allocations. This complexity is evidently the result of almost fifty years of compromise on the part of various conflicting interests and political subdivisions within the State. In an attempt to describe the disbursement system in a relatively simple manner, Fig. 6 was prepared to show the interrelationship of the various steps involved in the distribution of funds. Gross Highway Revenues from State Sources Gross highway revenues from State sources are derived from: 1. Gross motor fuel taxes . 2. License fees. 3. Title registration fees. 4. Motor vehicle carrier's road tax. 5. Chauffeurs and operators license fees. 6. Fines from overweight trucks. 7. State – owned toll ferries. 8. Miscellane ous revenues. The se items, together with the tax rates and fees which accom - pany them, are defined by State Statute and have already been described in detail earlier in the Report. Total revenue derived from the se sources during fiscal 1956–57 is estimated to be $93.4 million. Motor Fuel Tax Refunds The first deduction from gross revenues takes the form of re- funds to non-highway users of motor fuel. Among those eligible for re- funds are boat owners, aircraft owners, farm equipment operators, and school bus operators. It is estimated that in the fiscal year 1956–57 these refunds will approximate $5 million, or seven per cent of the gross motor fuel tax receipts. Allocations to Counties Not in the State Secondary System The second deduction is made in accordance with the Secondary Road Act of 1932 and subsequent legislation. Those counties which chose not to enter the State Secondary System must be allocated an annount from motor fuel tax receipts equal to the amount they received in 1931 plus an additional increment which is based on proportionate increases in motor fuel tax receipts in each year over that collected in 1931. To- day there are only two counties, Arlington and Henrico, which are not in the State Secondary System. It is estimated that in the fiscal year 1956 - 57, these counties will receive approximately $1.35 million, or two per cent of gross motor fuel tax receipts. Appropriations to Other State Agencies The third deduction consists of the appropriations which must be made to other State Agencies engaged in various activities connected with highway functions. These appropriations were described earlier in the Report. In fiscal 1956–57 the amounts allocated for these agencies ap- proximates $9.6 million, or ten per cent of gross receipts. Net Highway Revenues The net balance of State funds available to the Department of High- ways for the fiscal year 1956–57 is, therefore, $77.4 million, a reduc – tion of 17 per cent. Federal Aid funds for all systems in 1956–57 will annount to $ 16.8 million, making a total of $94.2 million available to the Department of Highways. Distribution of Net Highway Revenues According to statute, the first claim against the highway fund is for the Secondary System. In 1932, when the Secondary System was established, the legislature stipulated that an annount equal to the one and one-half cents gas tax received by the counties in 1931 was to be turned over to the State for expenditure on the new Secondary System - sºº - f :Wh!f*W†-g%b: and that an additional annount of not less that $2 million (the approximate armount raised through local taxes in the Counties for road purposes in 1931) was to be added by the State. Since the one and one -half cents tax announted to $3.26 million, the total actual annount made mandatory for annual State expenditure for maintenance and construction of county roads was $5.26 million. Actually, there has been no year since 1931 in which the expenditure on the Secondary System has not exceeded $5.26 million. There was no change in the law specifying appropriations to the Secondary System until 1942, when legislation was passed requiring that at least 30 per cent of the total State and Federal funds available for highway purposes were to be allocated to the system. The Acts of 1942 also provided that the armount spent for the maintenance of the Secondary System was not to be less than $5 million per annum. This was not, how - ever, to be in addition to the 30 per cent. In 1946, legislation was passed increasing the motor fuel tax from five cents to six cents per gallon, and specifying that a total of $2.5 million deriving from this increase was to be set aside annually for the Secondary System. This has been interpreted to mean that the armount of $2.5 million is in addition to the minimum statutory requirement of 30 per cent. In addition, a minimum annual expenditure of $8.5 million was established for the maintenance and construction of the System. Actually, during recent years, the policy has been to allocate ap- proximately 37 per cent of total available funds to the Secondary System. In practice, the Department allocates as much unencumbered State funds as it possibly can to the Secondary System after making allowance for the minimum maintenance and construction needs of the Primary System. It is estimated that in fiscal 1956–57 approximately 36 per cent of total available highway funds, exclusive of the new Inter state System Federal Aid grant for the year, will be allocated to the Secondary System. The armount of this allocation will be $33.9 million. After the allocation to Secondary roads has been made, an esti- mate is made of the cost of administration, operation and over head of the Department of Highways. The numerous cost items involved were discussed previously in the Report. For the current fiscal year, these charges will annount to an estimated $6.9 million. To further the economic growth and development of the State a special revolving fund was established by legislation in 1956 to permit the construction and maintenance of access roads to industrial sites. G - 3 The armount to be made available to this fund is set at a maximum of one per cent of total revenues after administration and over head costs are deducted, or $1 million, whichever is less. The appropriation for the current year is $873, 000. The fourth allocation is for Primary System maintenance and re- placements needs. The term replacements, as defined by the Virginia Department of Highways, is not to be confused with construction. In actuality, it consists of heavy maintenance. Whereas ordinary mainten– ance is described as the function of preserving each type of roadway, structure and facility as nearly as possible in its condition as constructed, replacements cover the activities involved in restoring each type of road- way, structure and facility as nearly as possible to its condition as con- structed. Construction, on the other hand, consists of any operation which changes the type, width, length, location, or gradient of a road, facility, or structure, or consists of the function of building into, or adding to such road, facility, or structure, features not included in the Original Construction. Because of highway fund linitations, an estimate is nade of the minimum maintenance and replacements needs of the Primary System. The allocations made to the eight Construction Districts are based on policy considerations of rural Primary System mileage, service requirements and the varying costs of maintenance and replace - ments of the different types of Primary highways. As far as could be determined, this policy of allocating funds based on maintenance needs rather than on a formula basis has been in effect since the inception of the Primary System. Funds for the construction of the Primary System are the last to be allocated. In actual practice, there are both statutory and policy de - terminations which govern the amount allocated for this purpose. It is inportant to note that the Primary System Construction Fund includes not only rural Primary System roads, but Inter state and Urban roads and streets as well, The armounts necessary to match Federal Aid grants and the allocation of State funds to municipalities with population of 3,500 or more are determined by statute. The balance of State funds then re- maining are available for remaining Primary System needs. During the current fiscal year 1956–57, total Primary System construction funds, including all Federal Aid grants except the Federal Aid Inter state allot- ment approved by Congress in June 1956, and including State funds to municipalities with population of 3,500 or more, annount to $43.9 million. Table 7 shows in detail the Department of Highway's estimate of revenues and appropriations for the current fiscal year. Table 8 shows the Department's estimate of the distribution of the net available rev- enues. Figure 7 is designed to illustrate the sources of the highway dollar and the nature of its expenditure. V | RG|N|A ADVISORY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL PRESENT METHODS AND PROCEDURES USED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS TO DISTRIBUTE TOTAL HIGHWAY REVENUES TOTAL STATE REV E NU E S FOR ALL HIGH WAY MO TO R F U E L T A X R E FUND S ALLOCATION FROM MOTOR FUEL TAXES FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR OTHER STATE AGENCIES NET STATE REVENUES AVAILABLE TO FEDERAL AID FUNDS PURPOS ES ARE DE R | V E D FROM : To Non-Highwo y Users etc. counties. NoT IN STATE SEconoARY, SYSTEM TO BE DERIVED FROM STATE REVENUES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS ( EXCLUDES ALLOCATIONS FOR INTERSTATE | Gross Mo for Fu el Tox (STA TUT O R Y ) (Henrico * ..."; Counties) H! GHWAY PURPOSES SYSTEM BASED ON FEDERAL Al D H G H – 2 License Fees M} N US M|NUS Amount To Which They Were Entitled in 1931, M} N US (STATUTORY) EQUALS PLUS WAY ACT OF 1956) 3 Title Regist ro 1 on Fees Plus A Proportion of e Increos e In Motor Fuel FEDERAL Al D F UN D S CONSIST OF . 4 M of or Vehicle C or r i e r S R O od Tox Tox Revenues, 5 Chou f feur S 8 Oper of or s License s (STATUTORY) | Federol Aid Primory (F A P) 6 Fines From Over weight Trucks 2 Federal Aid Secondory (F A.S.) 7 S to t e Owned To || Ferries 3 Federo! Aid Urbon (F A. U.) 8 M is cell on eous Revenues 4 Feder aſ Aid interstofe (F A. I.) (STATUTORY ) EQUALS | TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Which Are Distributed in The Following Order | I I FIRST secono tºo Foºt. - FIFTH | | STATE SECON DARY SYSTEM E N G | N E E R N G, ADMINISTRATION AND ACCESS ROADS TO INDUSTRIAL SITES PRIMARY SYSTEM MAINT ENANCE PRiMARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION STATUTORY MINIMUM OF 3 O % OF TOTAL OVERH E A D REVOLV | N G FUND 8. REPU. A C E MENTS FUNDS AVAILABLE, PLUS $ 2,500, OOO - - - - ( Includes Present Inter stote And y n y ( Policy Determinotion Bosed On (S to tutory Moximum Of 1%. Of Totol Alſo cotions To Districts Are Bosed Urban Systems.) Need Of All Systems ) Revenues Affer Costs Of Admin - On Considerotions Of Mileoge , is trotion, Engineering, 8 Overheod, Or Service Requirements, And Costs B 1, ooo, ooo, which ever Is Less.) Of Mointenonce 8 Replo cements. ( Policy Determinotion Bosed On Needs Of The System.) FUNDS CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING- | F. A. P. Motched By State On 5O %–50% Bosis 2 30%. Of F.A.S Matched By Stołe On 50%-50% Bosis Present FA. I. Motched By Stote On 6 Oºſe F – 4 O'Me S. Bosis 4 F.A.U. Motched By Stołe On 3 FU N D S CONSi ST OF THE FOLLOW | N G : N. O. T E S I. PRIMARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION FUNDS EXCLUDE FUNOS FOR | 7 O %. Of Federal Secondory Aid Motched By Stote On 50%-50% ENGINEERING, ADMINISTRATION AND OverHEAD Following Bosis-50% F 25%.S Bosis. 25%. Urbon Place. (Except For 2 Of her Sf of e Unencumbered Funds. 2. SEcoMDARY SYSTEM ALLOCATIONS ARE USED FOR MAINTENANCE, Arlington County Where Siote REPLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION, ENGINEER- Motches 50%.) |NG AND OVERHEAD OF THE SECONOARY SYSTEM The AIlocotion 5 Other Stote Funds For Engineering, Administration, And Overheod Of The Secondory System Is A Proportion Of The Totol Appropriotion For Engineering, Administrot- ion And Overhead Of The Highwoy Department And Is Bosed On The Proportion Of Funds For MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT And CONSTRUCTION Of The Secondary System. To Totol Funds Avoiloble PRIMARY, INTERSTATE AND URBAN SYSTEMS construction FUNDS ARE DISTRIBUTED For Such Purposes For ALL Systems, AMONG THE EIGHT CONSTRUCTION DISTRICT S IN THE FOLLOWING OF OER | FIRST SECOND Th] RD T. SE CONDARY SYSTEM FUNDS ARE DISTRIBUTE O | N THE FOLLOWING ORDER | | | FEDERAL URSAN AID IS DISTR. BUT ED AM ONG s 2,000,ooo is Distrisu'ſ ED. To Districts The BALANCE IS DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE EIGHT The EIGHT CONSTRUCTION DISTRICTS ON THE ON BASIS OF UN COMPLETED PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION DISTRICTS ON THE BASIS OF THE BASIS OF THE PROPORTION OF THE URBAN MIL EAGE . SIMPLE AVERAGE OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS: ſ POPULATION OF THE DISTRICT (1950 Census , STATUTORY) (STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF EQUITABLE DIS- T | I | includes All Places Over 5,000 Populotion) TO ( TRIBUTION; ACTUAL METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION is F | RS SEC O NO THIRD FOURTH F1F TH TOTAL STATE URBAN POPULATION POLICY DETERMINATION ) | | - | | | (Policy Determinotion) | Toto) Areo DISTRIBUTION OF 7 O 9/2 OF FA S. AND STATE ALLOCATION FOR EXTRAOR DINARY STORM ALLOCATION FOR "R OTATING BRIDGE FUND" "EQUALIZATION FUND" OF #2,000,000 is THE BALANCE IS DISTR1 BUTED AMONG THE 2 Totol Populction (1950 Census ) MATCH ING FUNDS TO 97 COUNT | E S DAMAGE DE FICITS - * * * DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE 96 COUNTIES 96 COUNTIES OF THE STATE SEC ON DARY - 5 Total Rurol Primory System Miledge 㺠(96 COUNTIES IN STATE SECON DARY SYSTEM (Pole, osterminor ( Policy Determinotion ) OF THE SECONDARY SYSTEM FOR CON – SYSTEM ON THE BASIS OF A SIMPLE AVER- AND HENRICO COUNTY) olicy Determinotion) STRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF THE NON- A GE OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS, *. HARD - SURFACED SECON DARY M1L EAGE º | | # 9. Of FA.S. is withheld For Use By The | N THE COUNTY o) Rurol Areo in Square Miles (Excludes Areo Troffic And Planning Division, And Is Motohed - of Incorporoted Ploces Of 3500 Or More) By State Funds. (Policy Determinotion) b) Rural Populotion (1950 Census, Excludes DISTRICT AL LOCATION | S DISTR BUTED N THE FOLLOWING ORDER 2 The Bolonce Of F.A.S. Is A locoted Among Populotion Of Incorporated Ploces Of The 97 Counties On The Bosis Of A Simple - 35 OO Or More) Average Of The Following Foctors. c) Secondory Rood Mileoge o) Rurol Areo in Square Miles (Excludes d) vehicle Miles Of Trove! On The Second- Area Of Incorporated Ploces Of 35OO or y System. | | - | l Or More ) (Policy Determinotion) FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH b) Rural Populotion (1950 Census, Ex- | | | | cludes Population Of Incorpor of ed Ploc es Of 35C O Or More. ) - PRiMARY SYSTEM EXTENSIONS GRANTS SECONOARY STREET GRANTS TO FEDERAL URBAN Ai O TO URBAN PLACES ThE 8ALANCE IS EXPENDED ON RURAL PRIMARY c) Secondary Rood Mileage. To INCORPORATED PLACES OF 3,500 INCORPORATED PLACES OF 3,500 PLUS STATE MATCHING FUNDS. Stote SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION, RIGHTS OF WAY, LAND- 3 State Mojohing Funds Are Allocoted To The OR MORE At Rote of $ 4,000 Per Mile OR MORE At Rote Of 8300 Per Matching Funds Are Taken From Allocation To SCAPING, PLANNING, ETC, AND FOR CONTRIBUT- 96 Counties in The Stołe Secondory System Plus Specified Proportionote Increoses. In Mile Plus Specified Proportionote District Based On Areo, Populotion, 8 Mile - IONS TO URBAN PLACES FOR CONSTRUCTION And Moy Be Used Only For Construction Of Fisco! 1957 Rote is § 6,980 Per Mile Increoses. In Fiscal | 957 Rote is oge Formulo. PURPOSES WHEN NO FEDERAL Al D is AVAll_- Routes which Are Included In The F.A.S. System. (STATUTORY) 352.3 Per Mile. (Policy And Statutory Determinotions) º Clt Y AGREES TO BEAR ONE - HALF - (Policy And Statutory Determinotions) (STATUTORY) - ! (Policy And Stotutory Determinotions) Fig. 6 PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL 8, MACDONALD TABLE 7 ESTIMATE OF REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS FISCAL YEAR 1956-57 ESTIMATED STATE REVENUE : Gross Motor Fuel Tax $71,250, 000 Less Estimated Refunds: Motor Fuel Tax - 5, 000, 000 2 Counties Not under Secondary Road Law 1, 350, 000 Net Motor Fuel Tax $64, 900, 000 Registration of Titles 750, 000 M. V. and Bus Line Licenses 18, 425, 000 M. V. Carriers Road Tax 1, 250, 000 M. V. Chauffeur's and Operating Licenses 750, 000 M. V. Miscellane ous Revenue 227, 150 Fines from Overweight Trucks 475, 000 Outdoor Advertising 35, 000 State Owned Toll Ferries: w Grey's Point 64, 000 Hopewell 41, 000 Jarne Stown 12 1, 000 Total Revenue from State Sources $87, 038, 150 LESS APPROPRIATIONS FOR OTHER STATE AGENCIES - Division of Motor Vehicles: ----t*t- --- A.sºº L.L.ºsº --*-- 1956-57 Operations $3,000, 570 1956–58 Capital Outlay 55, 000 1956-57 Purchase of M. V. Tags 200, 000 $3, 255, 570 Department of State Police: 1956–57 Operations $5,558, 84.5 1956–58 Capital Outlay 359,095 5, 917, 940 State Corporation Commission-Regulating and Taxing Motor Carriers 326, 970 Attorney General-Legal Services for Highway Dept. 21, 000 Division of Grounds & Building s-Maint. & Operation of Highway Building at Richmond 65, 000 Department of Agriculture & Innigration-Inspection of Gasoline and Motor Oils 37, 000 Division of Personnel-Expense of Highway Personnel Asst. 5, 000 Total for Other State Agencies 9, 628, 480 | STATE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR HIGHWAYS $77,409, 670 - FEDERAL GRANTS | Federal Aid Primary $5,990, 689 * Federal Aid Secondary 4, 658, 5.08 Federal Aid Urban 2, 704, 545 Federal Aid Inter state 3, 47 l., 022 Total Federal Aid 16, 824, 764 TOTAL STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR HIGHWAYS $94, 234, 434 ;---， ， ， ， sae | _* !_！ --x, -1- are- I | | TABLE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR HIGHWAYS FISCAL YEAR 1956 - 57 (Dollars) A. Highway Department Engineering, Administration and Overhead l g Highway Commission Administration and Engineering Traffic and Planning - Routine Operations & Truck Weighing Highway Grounds and Buildings - Capital Outlay Highway Grounds and Buildings Matching Employees' State Retirement System Matching Employees' Federal Social Security Surveys, Maps and Plans – General Virginia Council of Highway Investigation and Research Accident Prevention, Compensation Awards and Medical Two-Way Radio System Joint Hydraulic Study Regulation of Outdoor Advertising General Liability and Property Damage Insurance Sub - Total Highway Department Appropriation B. Maintenance, Replacement and Construction Funds C. Primary System Maintenance & Replacement Funds Primary System Construction Funds a. Federal Aid and State Matching Funds 1. Primary Federal Aid-Matched 50% Federal, 50% State 2. 30% of Secondary Federal Aid-Matched 50% Federal, 50% State 3. Inter state Federal Aid-Matched 60% Federal, 40% State Total Federal Aid and State Matching Funds b. State Funds -Rural Construction, Right-of-Way, etc. c. Total Primary System Construction Funds Secondary System Maintenance, Replacement and Construction Funds a. 70% of Secondary Federal Aid-Matched 50% Federal, 50% State b. State Funds c. Total Secondary System Funds Urban System Maintenance, Replacement and Construction Funds a. Urban Federal Aid-Matched 50% Federal, 25% State (Remaining 25% Matched by Cities) b. Street Funds (Municipalities of 3,500 or more) 1. Primary Streets - 539 + miles at $6,980 per mile 2. Secondary Streets – 2,842 + miles at $523 per mile Total Street Funds c. Total Urban System Funds Sub - Total Maintenance Replacement & Construction Funds Total Appropriations to the Primary, Secondary & Urban Systems D. Access Roads to Industrial Sites E. Total Funds Primary Secondary Urban System System System Total 4, 57.7 3, 0.53 850 8, 480 2, 123,550 l, 415, 700 393, 250 3, 932, 500 270, 000 180, 000 50, 000 500, 000 270, 000 180, 000 50, 000 500, 000 8 1, 000 54, 000 15, 000 150, 000 2 1 0, 600 140, 400 39, 000 390, 000 280, 800 187, 200 52, 000 520, 000 324, 000 2 16, 000 60,000 600, 000 54,000 36, 000 10, 000 100, 000 64, 800 43, 200 12, 000 l 20, 000 13, 500 9, 000 2,500 25, 000 2, 160 l, 440 400 4, 000 18, 900 12, 600 3, 500 35,000 27, 000 18, 000 5, 000 50,000 3, 744, 887 2, 496, 59.3 693, 500 6, 934, 980 11, 142, 915 - º- 1 1, 142, 915 l 1, 981, 378 - wº- l 1, 98 l, 378 2, 795, 104 - * 2, 795, 104 5, 785, 037 - * 5, 785, 037 20, 56.1, 519 - - 20, 56 l, 519 13, 867, 037 - tº- 13, 867, 0.37 34, 428, 556 - * 34, 428, 556 - 6, 52 l, 912 me 6, 52 l, 912 - 24, 905, 89 l tº- 24, 905, 89 l - 31, 427, 803 e- 31, 427, 803 - - 4, 173, 362 4, 173, 362 - - 3, 767, 246 3, 767, 246 - - l, 486, 57.7 1,486, 57.7 - - 5, 253, 823 5, 253, 823 - - 9, 427, 185 9, 427, 185 45, 57 l, 47 l 31, 427, 803 9, 427, 185 86, 426,459 49, 316, 358 33, 924, 396 10, 120, 685 93, 36 l, 439 - - sº- 872, 995 94, 234, 434 s SOURCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE HIGHWAY DOLLAR IN THE FIS CAL YEAR 1956 – 1957 OBTA IN ED DISTRIBUTED MO TO R F UE L TAX ... SECONDARY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE PRIMARY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEM ENTS. MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND LICENSE FEES. ... URBAN SYSTEM MAINTENANCE A ND CONSTRUCTION. APPROPRIATIONS FOR OTHER STATE AGENCIES. ADMIN | STRATION ENGINEERING “A ND OVER HEAD OF THE DE- PARTMENT OF HIGH WAYS. F E D E R AL A D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - * g e - - MOTOR F UEL TAx RE FUNDS ACCESS ROADS TO INDUSTRIAL SITES, ALLOCATION FROM MOTOR FUEL TAX TO COUNTIES NOT IN THE STATE SE CONDARY SYSTEM. M|S CELLAN E O US STATE FUND S PRIMARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION. REPLACEMENTS AND construction. - r t - ! r . ; } - - - * . * . -- - | : w - -: * - - - - - - +-- --- --- > * :* - - * * - - ! t l y } | - }Ț}șį|{į{| – {- | ---- ------: --- ---.r.:ſ.-; ALLOCATION OF HIGHWAY FUNDS TO INDIVIDUAL COUNTIES AND DISTRICTS After the net announts available for the Secondary and Primary Systems have been estimated for the ensuing fiscal year, a determination is then nade of the armounts which are to be allocated to the individual counties, districts, and cities in the several systems. Secondary System Fund Distribution Inasmuch as the State-wide Secondary System has first priority on net available total highway funds, the redistribution of the Secondary fund is analyzed first. As previously explained, the State Secondary Sys - term fund for the current fiscal year has been set at $33.9 million, which consists of 70 per cent of the total Federal Aid Secondary grant for this year, matched by State funds on a 50-50 basis, plus the necessary ad- ditional State unencumbered funds necessary to make the total armount. It should be mentioned at this point that although Henrico County is in- cluded in 70 per cent Federal Aid Secondary computation, that county is required to match its share of Federal Aid Secondary grants from its own funds. Also, Arlington County, which is classified as an urban area by the Bureau of Public Roads, receives no Federal Aid Secondary allo- cation. It might also be noted at this point that total annual Federal Aid Secondary grants are distributed between (a) roads on the State Second- ary System and (b) roads on the State Primary System which qualify for such Federal Aid Secondary but which are not eligible for Federal Aid Primary. The distribution of 70 per cent to the State Secondary System and 30 per cent to the State Primary System was originally based chiefly on the proportion of mileage in each system to the total mileage eligible for Federal Aid Secondary. These ratios have been maintained to the present, although in 1956 the actual proportions of Federal Aid Second- ary mileage were 78 per cent in the State Secondary System and 22 per cent in the State Primary System. Considerations of annual fluctuations in the mileage of Federal Aid Secondary roads as between State Primary and Secondary Systems as well as the higher costs of construction of the Federal Aid Secondary roads in the State Primary System appear to have contributed to the policy of maintaining the 70–30 distribution. Since the total of Secondary System funds includes Secondary Sys - term requirements for engineering, administration and overhead, announts sufficient to cover the se items are deducted from each county's alloca- tion after the distribution of funds is made to the counties. The total annount of this deduction is based on the proportion of funds available for the maintenance, replacement and construction of the Secondary Sys - term to total funds available for such purposes for all systems. In fiscal 1956-57 it is estimated that the funds for engineering, administration and overhead of the Secondary System will approximate 7.5 per cent of the total Secondary System allocation. Thus, approximately 7.5 per cent of each county's allocation is set aside for engineering, adminis - tration and overhead of the Secondary System. The funds available to the Secondary System are distributed in the following order: (a) Seventy per cent of the Federal Aid Secondary funds are distributed to the 96 counties in the System plus Henrico County. Before actual distribution is made, 1 - 1/2 per cent of the annual Federal Aid Secondary grant is withheld for use by the Traffic and Planning Division for special planning projects. This 1-1/2 per cent is matched by State Funds. After this de - duction from Federal funds the balance is distributed annong the 96 counties and Henrico County on the basis of a simple average of the following factors; 1. Rural Area in square miles (excludes area of in- corporated places of 3,500 or more), 2. Rural population (1950) census; excludes popula - tion of incorporated places of 3,500 or more), 3. Secondary road nile age. State matching funds are then allocated to the 96 counties in the System. The se funds may be used only for construction of routes which are included in the Federal Aid Secondary Systern. In the distribution of the se funds, both statutary and policy considerations govern-statutary with respect to matching Federal Aid Secondary funds and policy with respect to the actual distribution of funds. | - ---* (b) An annual allocation, which was a policy determi- nati C, established in 1940, is made for Extra - or di- nary Storm Darnage Deficits and is distributed on a needs basis ºr ºng the counties. The actual allo- cation is based on the preceding year's experience. This annual allocation was established to avoid taxing unduly the available funds of those counties which suf – fered unusual road damages be cause of storms. An annual allocation of $150,000 for a Rotating Bridge Fund was established in 1955. This allocation fulfills a function somewhat sinnilar to that of the Extraordi- nary Storm Damage Deficits allocation. It is rotated annually annong the eight Construction districts. An Equalization Fund of $2 million, which is based on a policy determination established in fiscal 1954–55, is then distributed annong the 96 counties on the basis of the proportion of the non-hard -surfaced Secondary System mileage in each county to the total mile age of such roads in the entire State. The balance of the funds available to the Secondary System is then distributed, according to policy estab- lished in 1941, annong the 96 counties of the System on the basis of a simple average of the following fac- tors ; 1. Rural area in square miles (excluding areas of incorporated places of 3,500 or more population), 2. Rural population ( 1950 census; excluding popu- lation of incorporated places of 3,500 or more), 3. Secondary road mile age, 4. Vehicle miles of travel on the Secondary System. ----- *:*-*--- Primary System Construction Funds Primary System construction funds include moneys available for the Primary, Urban and Inter state Systems and consist of the following: | (a) All available Federal Aid Primary grants, matched by the State on a 50 per cent Federal - 50 per cent State basis. | (b) 30 per cent of available Federal Aid Secondary grants, matched by the State on a 50 per cent Federal – 50 per cent State basis. | (c) Unexpended Inter state Federal Aid grants made prev – | ious to the Federal Highway Act of 1956 matched by the State on a 60 per cent Federal - 40 per cent State basis, and Inter state Federal Aid granted subsequent to the passage of the Federal Highway Act of 1956 matched by the State on a 90 per cent Federal – 10 per cent State basis. (d) Urban Federal Aid grants matched by the State and metropolitan area on the basis of 50 per cent Federal- 25 per cent State – 25 per cent Urban area. The one exception to this rule is Arlington County, in which case the State matches Federal funds completely. (e) Remaining available state highway funds. It should be noted that, unlike in the Secondary System, these funds exclude costs for administration, engineering and overhead of the Department of Highways, such costs having been previously set aside. The above described funds are distributed annong the eight con- struction districts in the following order: (a) Federal Urban Aid, as a result of a policy determi– nation made in 1946, is distributed on the basis of the proportion of the urban population of the district (1950 census; urban places of 5,000 or more popu- lation) to that of the State as a whole. (b) A total of $2 million is distributed on the basis of the uncompleted Primary System mileage of each district as a proportion of total uncompleted mileage in the State. This equalization fund was established in 1942 when sections of the Primary System were not up to hard-surfaced standards established by the Depart- ment of Highways. Despite the fact that this parti- cular standard was met a long time ago, the statute governing this allocation still exists, and funds con- tinue to be distributed on the basis of the 1942 allo- Cation. The balance of the Primary System construction funds are then distributed annong the eight districts in ac- C ordance with both policy and statutory considerations. The effective statute, enacted in 1922, calls only for an equitable distribution annong the districts. An e quitable system of distribution was determined in 1923 to consist of a simple average of the following ( C ) : factors: ſº 1. Total area of district. I Total population of district. 3. Total rural Primary System mileage in the dis - trict. The individual district allocations are expended in the following IIla. In Ile r , I (a) Statutory grants for construction and maintenance of Primary System urban extensions ( which correspond to the Urban System). These statutes provide that incorporated places of 3,500 population or more re- reive a base rate of $4,000 per mile plus an annual increase which is in proportion to the difference be - tween total State highway funds available for highway use in each year and the State highway funds avail- able in 1948. It is estimated that in fiscal 1956 -57 the amount per mile will be increased to $6,980. It is interesting to note that, in accordance with the Act creating the State Secondary System, payments to municipalities with a population of 3,500 or more were begun as long ago as fiscal 1933. At that time, annual sums in the armount of $1,500 per mile were made for the maintenance of streets serving as Primary System extensions. An additional $500 per mile was granted for construction purposes on a project basis although H cº-w 5 (b) (c) (d) not on an annual basis. Later legislation increased the annual grant for maintenance to $2,500 per mile while maintaining the construction grant at $500 per mile on a project basis. In 1948, legislation was en- acted to provide for annual grants of $4,000 per mile for maintenance and construction. Subsequent legis - lation provided for an annual increase in the base rate of $4,000 per mile. Grants to incorporated places of 3,500 or more popu- lation for the maintenance of secondary streets at the rate of $300 per mile plus annual increments based on the formula described in (a) above. This is in ac- cordance with legislation enacted in 1948 and subse- quent years. It is estimated that the armount per mile will be increased to $523 in fiscal 1956–57. Federal Aid Urban System funds plus State matching funds are then distributed to the urban places on the basis of urban population. Since direct annual dis – tributions to each town would result in relatively small, ineffective surns, the funds are rotated so that each year a group of towns receives sufficient monies to undertake a full-scale project. The balance available to each district is allocated for rural Primary System construction, right - of- way, lands caping, planning, etc. , and for distribu- tion to urban places for construction purposes when no Federal Aid is available and the town agrees to bear one -half of the project cost. This latter factor is almost neglible at the present time. The distribu- tion of the se funds is a policy determination based on the needs of the particular district. FºI T| - - C- -- -º-W| -&- ANALYSIS OF THE ALLOCATION OF HIGHWAY FUNDS AMONG THE F OUR HIGHWAY SYSTEMS At the present time, the State of Virginia is faced with the nec – essity of planning to meet the future needs of its road plant. These needs, which are derived chiefly from the present backlog of unsatis – fied road in provernents, estinated increased vehicular traffic, and the demands of the new Inter state System are reflected in all of the four systems of the road plant. The two major questions facing the State, the refore, are: 1. Will there be sufficient funds to meet total high- way construction needs under existing taxes and fees 2 If sufficient funds are not available, how can additional revenue be obtained ? 2. Will the present laws and policies governing the distribution of funds annong the s ºr sie m's meet the construction needs of the systems ? If they do not, what modifications or changes must be intro - duced to enable their needs to be met equitably 7 A previous section of the Report examined the problem of the suf- ficiency of funds to meet the needs of the entire State-wide road plant. The purpose of the present analysis is (a) to determine whether the pre – sent system of distribution will adequately meet the needs of the systems, (b) to determine the location and extent of existing inequities, and (c) to investigate possible corrective measures. The allocation of funds annong the systems was analyzed through the use of five different trial methods based on present and possible in- creased tax and fee rates. Each of the methods contains different as – sumptions. In all cases, however, total highway funds include an amount of Federal Aid which would be sufficient to insure the completion of the Inter state System in 13 years. Trial 1 Trial 1 is based on the following assumptions: 1. The continuation of the present laws and policies governing the distribution of funds annong the sys – term S. 2. The continuation of present fuel tax and registra- | tion fee rates. The results of Trial 1 allocations, which are presented in Table | 9, indicate the following: 1. The Secondary Systern allocation, which is estab – lished at 30 per cent of total ilighway funds includ- ing Federal Aid inter state, plus $2.5 million in each year, will exceed the System's estimated 13- year total construction needs. The System's con- struction allocation will be 110 per cent of its needs. 2. It is assumed that the Interchange System allocation will be sufficient to meet its construction needs in full, 3. The allocation to the Urban System will enable it to meet 39 per cent of its construction needs. In arriving at this figure, it was assumed that State grants for Primary extensions and secondary street grants, both of which are under control of the cities, were used for maintenance purposes only. These grants were, therefore, not considered to be avail- able for the construction of the Primary System extensions. *~~-- ~3-: *- rººf 4. The allocation to the rural Primary System will provide sufficient funds to enable it to meet only 25 per cent of its estimated construction needs. Under the as surnptions of this Trial, the State funds available to the System are insufficient to match and thus receive the estimated armount of Federal Aid Primary that will be made available during the peri- od. --- L.-: The following conclusions may be drawn from the results of Trial 1 allocation nethods: : 1. The allocations to the systerns are unbalanced. The Secondary System receives more than its estimated needs while the rural Primary allocation is so in- adequate that a large armount of Federal Aid is lost for lack of sufficiert matching funds. : -* tºº- ** - ------w--w-- “A-•- ---- 2. If State funds for the Primary System were suf- ficient to match total Federal Aid Primary, the total construction fund that would be available for all systems would be sufficient to meet 100 per cent of the Inter state construction needs and approxi- mately 56 per cent of the combined needs of the other systems. 3. An equitable distribution of funds annong the sys- terms (excluding the Inter state) would result in allo- cations to each systern sufficient to neet 56 per cent of its construction needs. Trial 2 Trial 2 is based on the following assumptions: 1. The continuation of present fuel tax and registra - tion fee rates. 2. The modification of the laws governing the allo- cation of funds to the Secondary System. Trial 2 presents a possible method of improving the distribution of funds annong the four systems, by revising the present statutes govern- ing the allocation of funds to the Secondary System to exclude Federal Aid Inter state grants from total highway funds. The results of Trial 2 allocations, which are presented in Table J 0, indicate the following : 1. The Secondary System allocation is established at 36 per cent (the per cent appropriated in fiscal 1956-57 by the Highway Department) of total high- way funds excluding Federal Aid Inter state grants. On this basis, construction funds are sufficient to meet 54 per cent of construction needs. 2. The rural Primary System received sufficient funds to match all available Federal Aid Primary grants. Total construction funds are 60 per cent of esti- mated construction needs. 3. The Inter state System allocation will be sufficient to meet its total construction needs. 4. The Urban System allocation (as in Trial 1) will meet 39 per cent of its construction needs. Under the Trial 2 method of allocation funds, the ratio of con- struction funds to needs of the rural Primary and Secondary Systems are brought more closely into line with each other and with the overall ratio for the three systems considered as a whole. The Urban System still suffers from a disproportionate lack of funds to meet its needs. Trial 3 Trial 3 is based on the following assumptions: 1. The continuation of present fuel tax and registra - tion fee rates. 2. The modification of the laws governing the alloca- tion of funds to the Secondary and Urban Systems. 3. The establishment of an Urban construction fund. Trial 3 presents a possible further method of improving the dis- tribution of funds annong the systems, especially with regard to the Urban System. It includes the revision of the Secondary System allocation laws indicated in Trial 2 and establishes an Urban construction fund. The results of Trial 3 allocations, which are presented in Table 11, indicate the following: 1. The Inter state System allocation will be sufficient to meet its total construction needs. 2. The Secondary System allocation will enable it to meet 54 per cent of its construction needs. 3. Major modifications in present methods of allocat- ing funds to the Urban System will result in an allo- cation great enough to permit the System to meet 56 per cent of its needs. The se nodifications are as follows; J-4 Pw"* - - L Under the conditions of Trial 3, systems are determined equitably. (b) Urban System Primary extension grants are reduced to $6,000 per mile per annum to be used for maintenance purposes only. The difference between the normally computed grants and the $6,000 is to be used by the State to provide the city portion of the Federal Aid Urban match money. Excess funds are placed in an Urban construction fund to be used only for construction purposes, An additional $30,000, 000 of State funds is to be added to the construction fund, The rural Primary System allocation is sufficient to meet 56 per cent of its construction needs after the transfer of $30,000, 000 to the Urban construc – tion fund. mately the same proportion of its needs. Trial 4 Trial 4 is based on the following assumptions: 4. Trial 4 reflects the modification of Secondary and Urban System allocation practices as indicated in Trial 3 and the effects of an increase in fuel tax and registration fee rates. A motor fuel tax increase of one cent per gallon. An average registration fee increase of $2.00 per vehicle. The modification of the laws governing the alloca- tion of funds to the Secondary and Urban Systems. The establishment of an Urban construction fund. are presented in Table 12 and indicate the following: the allocations to the various Each System can meet approxi — The results of Trial 4 allocations | 1. The Secondary System allocation is sufficient to meet 78 per cent of its construction needs. 2. The Inter state System allocation is sufficient to meet its needs in full. 3. The Urban System allocation is sufficient to meet 62 per cent of its construction needs. 4. The rural Primary System can meet 74 per cent of its construction needs. Under the conditions of Trial 4, the increase in revenues derived from higher fuel tax and registration fee rates creates an imbalance annong the systems with respect to the proportions of allocated funds to needs. While the combined funds for the three systems are sufficient to meet 73 per cent of combined needs, the proportions for the individual systems vary considerably. Trial 5 Trial 5 is based on the following assumptions: 1. A motor fuel tax increase of one cent per gallon. 2. An average registration fee increase of $2.00 per vehicle. 3. An equitable distribution of funds based on the needs of the systems. Trial 5 is based on the assumptions of Trial 4 except that funds are distributed annong the systems in accordance with needs. Each sys- term is granted sufficient funds to enable it to meet 73 per cent of its con- struction needs. To effectuate this distribution, the Secondary System will receive an allocation of 34 per cent of total funds excluding Federal Aid Inter state grants. The Inter state System, as usual, will receive enough funds to meet its construction needs in full. The results of Trial 5 are indicated in Table 13. A highway program based on the assumptions of Trial 5 would, at the end of the 13-year period, find the Inter state Systern fully com - pleted and approximately 73 per gent of the deficiencies of each of the other three systems sinnultaneously eliminated. J-6 II. | Summary The fore going analysis of the present methods of allocating funds to the highway systems reveals several important conditions which re- quire further comment. 1. The present allocation system, which distributes funds on a non-needs basis, is inherently defect- ive, and results in an inequitable distribution of funds annong the systems. (a) To provide sufficient State funds to match the total estimated Federal Aid Primary grants during the next 13 years, it will be necessary to modify the current statute requiring the Secondary System to receive a minimum of 30 per cent of all available highway revenue, at least to the extent that Federal Aid Inter – state grants are excluded from this stipula - tion. |L (b) Such modification will have the effect of put- ting the Secondary and rural Primary Sys- terns allocations in closer balance with their respective needs, although it will not improve the situation with respect to the Urban System. (c) Under present methods of distribution, the Urban System allocation: (1) falls far short of the armount required to eliminate its total construction deficien- cies. (2) falls short of the armount necessary to meet its needs at the same relative rate as that of the Primary and Secondary Sys – tems, even after allowing for modification of the 30 per cent law indicated under (a) above . *:: |||||L.L.L.L.L. (d) Substantial modifications in the methods of allocating funds to the Urban System will be necessary to enable it to meet its needs at the same rate as the Primary and Secondary Systems. To improve all three highway systems simultane – ously and equitably under present motor fuel tax and registration fee rates, current laws and poli- cies will require substantial modification. Unless a drastic increase in the fuel tax of ap- proximately 3.5 cents per gallon is instituted, suf- ficient funds will not be available to completely eliminate all the deficiencies in the other three sys- terms concurrently with the completion of the Inter- state System. The unlikely possibility of such an increase, however, requires the allocation of funds to the three systems in a manner which will permit the improvement programs for each of the systems to be conducted at a sinilar rate. The only method of developing a well-balanced and integrated network of State highways is to allocate funds in accordance with the relative needs of each systern. J -8 L.I - †3.w|t;i.** TABLE 9 TRIAL l ALLOCATIONS TO HIGHWAY SYSTEMS OF 13 –YEAR AVAILABLE HIGHWAY FUNDS ASSUMING THAT PRESENT FUEL TAX, REGISTRATION FEES, LAWS AND POLICIES ARE RETAINED (Thousands of Dollars) Total Special Income Deductions Funds to Highway Department Construction Amounts Not Available For City Portion of F. A. U. Match Money Highway Per Cent Construction Funds are of Construction Construction Funds Needs State Produced Revenue l, 471,022 Total Federal Aid l, 0.64, 0.26 Fuel Tax to Henrico and Arlington Counties 22, 703 Amount to Other Agencies 165, 300 2, 347,045 Secondary System Allocation 1 - 1/2% of 70% of Secondary Federal Aid plus State Match Money Secondary Federal Aid to Henrico County Engineering, Administration and Overhead Maintenance and Replacement 736, 6 14 l, 790 987 42, 485 314, 387 376, 965 1 1 0 Inter state System Allocation (Estimated Maintenance and Construction Cost) Maintenance and Replacement 951, 23.9 38, 839 912, 400 100 Urban System Allocation: Primary Extension Grants Secondary Street Grants Urban Federal Aid State Match Money Maintenance and Replacement 88, 705 38, 835 44, 822 22, 4 l l 127, 540 22, 4 ll 89, 644 39 Primary System Allocation: Urban Federal Aid plus State Match to Arlington County Primary Federal Aid plus 30% of Secondary Federal Aid Remaining State Funds Engineering, Administration and Overhead (Less Secondary System) Access Roads Allocation Maintenance and Replacement Loss of Federal Aid for Lack of Match Money 9, 674 135,267 3.19, 478 92, 765 l 3, 000 132, 586 54, 140 17 l, 928 25 All System Totals 2, 347, 045 818, 5 19 22, 4 l l l, 550, 937 7 l .W*•* * …---*）--→ --> --*r-！-------*----------------<！--*** →4----- TABLE 10 TRIAL 2 ALLOCATIONS TO HIGHWAY SYSTEMS OF 13 - YEAR AVAILABLE HIGHWAY FUNDS ASSUMING THAT PRESENT FUEL TAX AND REGISTRATION FEES ARE RETAINED BUT CURRENT SECONDARY ALLOCATION LAW IS MODIFIED (Thousands of Dollars) Amounts Not City Portion of F. A. U. Match Money Funds to Available Highway For Department Construction Total Special Income Deductions Per Cent Construction Highway Funds are of Construction Construction Funds Needs State Produced Revenue Total Federal Aid Fuel Tax to Henrico and Arlington Counties Amount to Other Agencies l, 471, 022 1, 064, 0.26 22, 703 165, 300 2, 347,045 Secondary System Allocation 1 – l /2% of 70% of Secondary Federal Aid plus State Match Money Secondary Federal Aid to Henrico County Engineering, Administration and Overhead Maintenance and Replacement 549, 943 l, 790 987 48, 690 314, 387 184, 0.89 54 Inter state Systern Allocation (Estimated Maintenance and Construction Cost) Maintenance and Replacement 951, 23.9 38, 839 912, 400 100 Urban System Allocation: Primary Extension Grants Secondary Street Grants Urban Federal Aid State Match Money Maintenance and Replacement 88, 705 38, 8.35 44, 822 22, 4 ll 127, 540 22, 4 ll 89, 644 39 Primary System Allocation: Urban Federal Aid plus State Match to Arlington County 9, 674 Primary Federal Aid plus 30% of Secondary Federal Aid Remaining State Funds 135, 267 506, 149 Engineering, Administration and Overhead (Less Secondary System) Access Roads Allocation Maintenance and Replacement Loss of Federal Aid for Lack of Match Money 86, 560 13, 000 l32, 586 4 18, 944 60 All Systems Totals 2, 347, 045 764, 379 22, 4 l l l, 605, O77 74 * -- TABLE ll TRIAL 3 ALLOCATIONS TO HIGHWAY SYSTEMS OF 13 - YEAR AVAILABLE HIGH WAY FUNDS PRESENT FUEL TAX AND REGISTRATION FEES ARE RETAINED ASSUMING THAT BUT CURRENT SECONDARY AND URBAN ALLOCATION LAWS ARE MODIFIED Total Income (Thousands of Dollars) Funds to Special Highway Deductions Department Amounts Not Available For Construction Highway Construction Funds Per C ent Construction Funds are of Construction Needs 1, 47 1, 022 l, 0.64, 0.26 State Produced Revenue Total Federal Aid Fuel Tax to Henrico and Arlington Counties Amount to Other Agencies 22, 703 165, 300 2, 347,045 Secondary System Allocation 1-1/2% of 70% of Secondary Federal Aid plus State Match Money Secondary Federal Aid to Henrico County Engineering, Administration and Overhead Maintenance and Replacement 549, 943 l, 790 987 48, 690 3 14, 387 184,089 54 Inter state System Allocation (Estimated Maintenance and Construction Cost) Maintenance and Replacement 951, 23.9 38, 839 9 12, 400 Urban System Allocation: Primary Extension Grants Secondary Street Grants Urban Federal Aid State Match Money Urban Construction Fund Malntenance and Replacement 57, 624 38, 8.35 44, 822 44, 822 38, 392 96, 459 128, 0.36 56 Primary System Allocation: Urban Federal Aid plus State Match to Arlington County Primary Federal Aid plus 30% of Secondary Federal Aid Remaining State Funds Engineering, Administration and Overhead (Less Secondary System) Access Roads Allocation Malntenance and Replacement Loss of Federal Aid for Lack of Match Money 9, 674 135,267 476, 427 86, 560 13, 000 132, 586 0 38.9, 222 56 All System Totals 2, 347, 045 733, 298 l, 6 l 3, 747 74 --rº} : TABLE 12 TRLAL 4 ALLOCATIONS TO HIGHWAY SYSTEMS OF 13 –YEAR AVAILABLE HIGHWAY FUNDS ASSUMING THAT THE FUEL TAX IS INCREASED 1 CENT PER GALLON, THE REGISTRATION FEES ARE INCREASED $2.00 PER VEHICLE, AND CURRENT SECONDARY AND URBAN ALLOCATION LAWS ARE MODIFIED (Thousands of Dollars) Funds to Total Special Highway Incorne Deductions Department Amounts Not Available For Construction Highway Construction Funds Per Cent Construction Funds are of Construction Needs State Produced Revenue Total Federal Aid Fuel Tax to Henrico and Arlington Counties 1, 701, 330 1,064,026 26,493 Amount to Other Agencies 165, 300 2, 573, 563 Secondary System Allocation 631,490 1-1/2% of 70% of Secondary Federal Aid plus State Match Money Secondary Federal Aid to Henrico County Engineering, Administration and Overhead Maintenance and Replacement l, 790 987 48, 690 314, 387 265, 636 78 Inter state System Allocation (Estimated Maintenance and Construction Cost) 951, 239 Maintenance and Replacement 38, 839 9 12,400 100 Urban System Allocation: Primary Extension Grants 57, 624 Secondary Street Grants 45, 678 Urban Federal Aid 44, 822 State Match Money 44, 822 Urban Construction Fund 54,012 Maintenance and Replacement 103, 302 143, 656 62 Primary System Allocation: Urban Federal Aid plus State Match to Arlington County 9, 674 Primary Federal Aid plus 30% of Secondary Federal Aid 135,267 Remaining State Funds 598, 935 Engineering, Administration and Overhead (Less Secondary System) Access Roads Allocation Maintenance and Replacement Loss of Federal Aid for of Match Money Lack 86, 560 13, 000 132, 586 5 l l , 7.30 74 All System Totals 2, 573, 56.3 740, 141 l, 833, 422 84 | ſ ºſ " " | __， |_| \__ \_ — TABLE 1.3 TRLAL 5 ALLOCATIONS TO HIGHWAY SYSTEMS OF 13 - YEAR AVAILABLE HIGHWAY F UNDS ASSUMING THAT THE FUEL TAX IS INCREASED 1 CENT PER GALLON, THE REGISTRATION FEES ARE INCREASED $2.00 PER VEHICLE, AND CURRENT SECONDARY AND URBAN ALLOCATION LAWS ARE MODIFIED IN THIS TRLAL THE ALLOCATIONS OF TRIAL 4 ARE REVISED TO PROVIDE A BALANCED DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS (Thousands of Dollars) Per Cent Construction Funds are of Amounts Not Funds to Available Highway | -\.*: Total Special Incorne Deductions Highway Department For Construction Construction Funds Construction Needs State Produced Revenue 1, 701, 330 Total Federal Aid l, 0.64, 0.26 Fuel Tax to Henrico and Arlington Counties 26, 493 Amount to Other Agencies l65, 300 2, 573, 563 Secondary System Allocation 1-1/2% of 70% of Secondary Federal Aid Plus State Match Money Secondary Federal Aid to Henrico County Engineering, Administration and Overhead Maintenance and Replacement 6 13, 949 l, 790 987 45, 985 314, 387 250, 800 73 Inter state System Allocation (Estimated Maintenance and Construction Cost) Maintenance and Replacement 951, 23.9 38, 839 9 12,400 Urban System Allocation: Primary Extension Grants Secondary Street Grants Urban Federal Aid State Match Money Urban Construction Fund Maintenance and Replacement 57, 624 45, 678 44, 822 44, 822 78, 0 12 103, 302 167, 656 73 Primary System Allocation: Urban Federal Aid plus State Match to Arlington County Primary Federal Aid plus 30% of Secondary Federal Aid Remaining State Funds Engineering, Administration and Overhead (Less Secondary System) Access Roads Allocation Maintenance and Replacement Loss of Federal Aid for Lack of Match Money 9, 674 135, 267 592, 47.6 89, 265 13, 000 132, 586 O 502, 56.6 73 All Systems Totals 2, 573, 563 740, 14 l l, 833, 422 84 -ſ -ſ -ſ （ （_ſ_ſ_ſ_ſ_ º _* _ — | 5 || 5 || 5 || ~* -º -º -º - C--- ------->5 DISTRIBUTION OF SYSTEM FUNDS TO HIGHWAY DISTRICTS AND COUNTIES The previous section described the distribution of funds annong the highway systems and demonstrated the need to alter present policies and practices to equitably meet the needs of the various systems. This section describes the distribution of the system funds annong the counties and construction districts of the State. Secondary System The analysis of the Secondary System allocation is based on two methods of approach which contain the following assumptions: Method A. That, under present motor fuel tax and registration fee rates, the Secondary System receive 36 per cent of all highway funds excluding Federal Aid Inter state (the assumption contained in Trials 2 and 3 discussed in the previous section) and Method B. That, providing a motor fuel tax increase of one cent per gallon and an increase in average registration fees of $2.00 per vehicle, the Secondary System re- ceive 34 per cent of all highway funds excluding Fed- eral Aid Inter state. Under this assumption, the Secondary System will receive an allocation of con- struction funds whose ratio to needs will be the same as that of the rural Primary and Urban Systems. Method A. Under the as sunptions of Method A, the Secondary System will receive an allocation of construction funds sufficient to meet 54 per cent of its total needs. An equitable distribution of these funds annong the counties would indicate that each county should receive 54 per cent of its needs. However, the application of present allocation practices to the 96 counties in the Secondary System results in an extremely erratic and unbalanced distribution of funds. To avoid the lengthy and detailed calculations necessary to analyze each county appropriation separately, the factors used to distribute the funds an ong the counties were applied to eight groups of counties, each K- 1 of which corresponds to a construction district. This method of procedure permits State-wide comparisons to be made on a district basis. In ad- dition, the allocations to ten selected counties in the State were analyzed individually to illustrate the extreme variation which occurs at the county level between allocated funds and construction needs. In both cases, it was assumed that any changes in the distribution factors of area, popu- lation, road mileage and vehicle miles which may occur during the coming 13-year period would not be sufficient to alter the results to any substan- tial degree. The results of this approach are presented in Table 14. The data indicate that the distribution of funds annong the ten counties on the basis of current practices results in a range of extreme values. During the period under consideration, County 8 would not only be unable to under take any construction work, but could not even afford the cost of properly maintaining existing roads. County 10, on the other hand, would receive well over three times the estimated construction needs costs after meeting all maintenance costs. The data also indicate that although the State -wide ratio of construction funds to needs is 54 per cent, only County 4 comes within reasonable range of this figure. Four counties are substantially lower, while the remaining five counties are substantially higher. The distribution of the Secondary System funds annong the districts indicates a condition of greater equality due to the tendency of large groupings to average out individual county extremes. Despite this tend- ency, however, the counties in the Staunton district would receive, on the average, considerably less than estimated needs, while the counties in the Richmond district would receive substantially more than their needs requirements. Method B. Under the assumptions of Method B, the disparities in the ratio of funds to needs annong the ten counties become even greater than under M ethod A ; the ratio of funds to needs on a county basis when corn - pared to the State -wide average shows a pattern similar to that occurring in Method A: the ratio of funds to needs on a District basis also shows a pattern similar to that in Method A. The results of the use of Method B are indicated in Table 15, Inter state, Urban, and Primary Systems The allocation of Inter state, Urban, and Primary System funds to the eight construction districts was analyzed in three different ways using the following methods : . - : Method A. (5) Method C. By applying the assumptions used in system allocation Trial 2 of the previous section which include: The allocation of 36 per cent of total highway funds, exclusive of Federal Aid Inter state, to the Secondary System. The retention of current fuel tax and registration rates. The continuation of the present laws and policies governing Urban grants. The retention of existing laws and policies. By applying the as surnptions adopted for system allocation Trial 3, which include: The retention of current fuel tax and registration fees. An allocation to the Secondary System of 36 per cent of total highway funds exclusive of Federal Aid Inter state. Urban grants for Primary System extensions at $6,000 per mile per annum for maintenance only. The utilization by the State of the difference between Urban grants for Primary System extensions as now determined and the proposed fixed rate of $6,000 per mile to meet what is now the cities' obligation (25 per cent) for matching Fed- eral Aid Urban and to place the balance in the State Urban System construction fund. An additional $30 million in State highway funds to be added to the State Urban System construction fund over the next 13 years. By applying the assumptions adopted for system allocation Trial 5, which include: An increase in the fuel tax rate of one cent per gallon and in the average registration fee of $2.00 per vehicle. A Secondary System allocation of 34 per cent of total highway funds exclusive of Federal Aid Inter state. Urban grants for Primary System extensions at $6,000 per mile per annum for mainterance only. The utilization by the State of the difference between Urban grants for Primary System extensions as now determined and the proposed fixed rate of $6,000 per mile to meet what is now the cities' obligation (25 per cent) for matching Fed- eral Aid Urban and to place the balance in the State Urban System construction fund. (5) An additional $54 million of State funds to be added to the Urban System construction fund during the next 13 years. Method A. The results of the use of Method A in distributing funds to the construction districts are indicated in Table 16. The distribution factors used in this method are those used by the Department of Highways in determining their fiscal 1956-57 allocations. It may be noted that the total of $ 1.526 billion (which includes Federal and State funds) consists of the following items: (1) Total Inter state construction funds. 2) Rural Primary construction funds. 3) Federal Urban Aid plus State matching funds. 4) State Primary and Secondary street grants (which are pre- sumably spent for maintenance only). A comparis on of the allocation of funds for each system in each district with the needs of each system follow s. Urban System To consider the total funds available for Urban construction, the cities' portion (25 per cent) of the Federal Aid Urban matching funds is added to the available Urban funds as indicated above. In addition, the State grants for city streets which are presumed to be used by the cities for maintenance purposes or for meeting Federal Aid Urban matching funds are not included. Table 17 which presents the comparis on of district needs with dis – trict allocations, indicates a substantial degree of imbalance annong the districts. While the State ratio of construction funds to needs is 39 per cent, the range of ratios an ong the districts varies from a low of 19 per cent for the Bristol district to a high of 66 per cent for the Fredericksburg district. Inter state and Rural Primary Systems Table 18 compares the allocation of Inter state and rural Primary System construction funds to the districts and the construction needs of the districts. For purposes of the analysis, it was assumed that funds to meet the needs of the Inter state System would have priority over those of the Primary System. --- |*-wº.$º º- While the State-wide ratio of rural Primary construction funds to needs is 60 per cent, the range of ratios annong the districts varies from zero to 185 per cent. Two districts, Culpeper and Staunton, will be un- able to meet total Inter state needs and will, therefore, have no funds available for rural Primary construction. This condition again demon- strates the inequity of the prevailing method of distributing funds annong the districts. Method B . The distribution of funds in accordance with the assumption of Method B indicates that on a State-wide basis, the Inter state System will meet 100 per cent of its needs and that the Urban and rural Primary System allocations will meet 56 per cent of their respective needs. In determining the distribution of funds to the districts, allocation of Urban and Inter state funds were made on a needs basis, i. e., each district meets 100 per cent of its Inter state needs and 56 per cent of its Urban needs. Only in the case of the rural Primary System were the present formulas used to distribute funds annong the districts. Table 19 indicates the results of the use of the method. Although the use of the formulas to distribute rural Primary System funds annong the districts provides a more balanced allocation than exists under Method A, ratios for certain of the districts vary sub- stantially from the State average of 56 per cent. It appears, therefore, that a more even distribution of funds annong the districts is not possible through the use of a fixed formula system of distribution. Method C. The distribution of funds in accordance with the assumption of Method C indicates the effects of additional revenues estimated to be derived from increased motor fuel tax and registration fee rates. The results of this distribution which are presented in Table 20 indicate that Inter state System needs will be completely met and that Urban and rural Primary Systems allocations will meet 73 per cent of their respective needs . In the distribution of funds armong the districts, it is assumed that all districts will meet 100 per cent of their Inter state needs and 73 per cent of their Urban needs. The allocation of rural Primary funds to the districts which was based on the application of present formulas again results in an in balanced situation. Although 73 per cent of the State needs will be met, the range of ratios annong the districts varies from 47 per cent in Culpeper district to 106 per cent in Richmond district. Summary The analysis presented in the previous section revealed the fact that the current method of distributing funds to the highway systems is resulting in in balanced allocations. of State-wide system funds to the counties and districts as presented in this section reveals the following findings: (l) If present distribution practices are continued, the Secondary Systern roads in some counties will be considerably overinproved within a few years, while those in other counties will have received no inn – provement whatsoever. This condition must nec – essarily result in a State-wide Secondary System bearing a minimum of road similarity from county to county. It is also clearly demonstrated that under current practices, the Urban and rural Primary Systems are subject to disproportionate district allocations. Although it has been generally presurned through- out the Report that in future years the Inter state System will be regarded as a completely separate system from the rural Primary and Urban Systems, the State, up to and including the current fiscal year, has practiced the policy of allocating Inter- state, Primary and Urban System funds to the dis – tricts on the basis of fixed formulas which bear no relation to needs. Because of the wide variation of Inter state mileage which exists armong the districts, the continuation of the present system of distribution without regard for the needs of the Inter state System in the indi- vidual districts will soon result in making the new arterial highway program completely unworkable. The analysis of the re distribution h -* (4) Even if the Inter state System is considered sepa- rately, and allocations to this System are distributed on the basis of needs, the continuation of the practice of distributing the balance of the State Primary funds on a formula basis will result in the development of the Urban and rural Primary Systems at dispropor- tionate rates, to the detriment of the orderly overall development of the State-wide total network of high- ways. T *. ****ty.* * Maintenance Per Cent Replacement Maintenance Construction and and Funds are of Construction Replacement Construction Construction Construction Funds Needs Funds Needs Needs State Totals 498,476 3 14, 387 184, 0.89 342, 006 54 Districts Bristol 73, 395 45, 360 28, 0.35 67, 33.9 42 Salern 71, 012 44, 0.57 26, 955 50, 706 53 Lynchburg 64,495 40, 939 23, 556 40, 624 58 Richrn Ond 60, 855 36, 553 24, 302 31, 667 77 Suffolk 61, 670 40, 11 1 21, 559 38, 235 56 Fre dericksburg 39, 158 24, 151 15, 007 20, 0.86 75 Culpeper 70, 977 44, 620 26, 357 42, 108 63 Staunton 56, 914 38, 596 18, 3.18 5 1, 24 1 36 Sarnple Counties No. 1 10, 604 9, 832 772 11, 173 7 2 8, 140 6, 367 1, 773 7, 95 l 22 3 4, 846 3, 664 1, 182 4, 164 28 4 3, 910 2, 471 1, 439 2, 808 5 1 5 5, 716 2, 656 3, 0.60 3, 0.18 1 0 1 6 6, 481 2, 378 4, 103 2, 703 152 7 5, 113 2, 823 2, 290 3, 339 69 8 8, 0 1 7 8, 824 (- 807) 8, 9.13 O 9 1, 631 586 l, 045 665 157 10 2, 584 546 2, 038 620 329 TABLE 1.4 DISTRIBUTION OF 13 - YEAR TOTAL SECON DARY SYSTEM FUNDS TO HIGHWAY DISTRICTS AND TEN SAMPLE COUNTIES DER IV ING FROM FU EL TAX AND REGISTRATION FEES AT PRESENT RATES AND ASSU MING SYSTEM ALLOCATION TO BE 36% OF A LL HIGHWAY FUNDS EXCLUDING F EDERAL AID INTERSTATE (Thousands of Dollars) - ...º. ººr. |lº-&-- : TABLE 1.5 DISTRIBUTION OF 13-YEAR TOTAL SECONDARY SYSTEM FUNDS TO HIGHWAY DISTRICTS AND TEN SAMPLE COUNTIES DERIVING FROM A FU E L T AX IN CR EASE OF 1 CENT PER GALLON AND A REGISTRATION FEE INCREASE OF $2.00 PER V EHICLE L AND ASSUMING SYSTEM ALLOCATION TO BE 34% OF ALL HIGHWAY FUNDS EXCLU DING F EDERAL AID AND INTERSTATE L (Thousands of Dollars) Maintenance Per Cent L Replacement Maintenance Construction and and Funds are of L Construction Replacement Construction Construction Construction - Funds Needs Funds Needs Needs L State Totals 565, 187 3 14, 387 250, 800 342, 006 73 u- Districts L. Bristol 83, 0.27 45, 360 37, 667 67, 33.9 56 . Salem 80, 280 44, 0.57 36, 223 50, 706 7 1 Lynchburg 72, 990 40, 939 32, 0.51 40, 624 79 L. Richmond 69, 0.88 36, 553 32, 535 31, 667 103 . Suffolk 70, 321 40, l l 1 30, 210 38, 235 79 Fredericksburg 44, 450 24, 15 l 20, 299 20, 0.86 1 0 1 L. Culpeper 80, 60 l 44, 620 35, 981 42, 108 85 r- Staunton 64,430 38, 596 25, 834 5 1, 24.1 50 Sample Counties L. No. 1 12, 0.14 9, 832 2, 182 l 1, 173 20 r= 2 9, 350 6, 367 2, 983 7, 95 1 38 3 5, 471 3, 664 1, 807 4, 164 43 L. 4 4, 42 l 2, 47 l. 1, 950 2, 808 69 * - 5 6, 52 1 2, 656 3, 865 3, 0.18 128 6 7, 36 1 2, 378 4, 983 2, 703 184 7 5, 80 1 2, 823 2, 978 3, 33.9 89 - 8 9, 0.87 8, 824 263 8, 9.13 3 9 1, 852 586 1, 266 665 190 10 2, 927 546 2, 38 l 620 3.84 -- -- - | DISTRIBUTION OF TABLE 16 METHOD A 13 - YEAR TOTAL INTERSTATE, URBAN AND PRIMARY SYSTEMS A L LOCATIONS TO DISTRIC TS BY EXISTING FOR MULAS Distribution Factors State Totals Districts Bristol Salern Lynchburg Richrn Ond Suffolk Fredericksburg Culpeper Staunton AND RETAINING PRESENT FU E L T AX AND REGISTRATION FEES (SYSTEM ALLOCATIONS ARE BASED ON TRIAL 2) (Thousands of Dollars) Urban Federal Aid Population Of Places of 5, 000 and over 49, 659 1, 296 4, 886 3, 173 10, O67 18, 439 4.32 8, 23.8 3, 138 Incomplete Primary Mileage Fund Incomplete Primary Mile age as of 1942 26, 000 4, 583 3, 674 3, 22 1 2, 655 3, 601 1, 771 2, 709 3, 786 Other Funds Inter state (FAI, 30% of Primary FAS, FAP, and Urban and Remaining Systems State Funds º Totals Population, A rea, Rural Primary and Inter state Mile age 1, 450, 458 1, 526, 1 1 7 192, 91 1 1 98, 7.90 184, 498 193, 0.58 167, 818 174, 212 21 1, 187 223, 899 | 220, 0.34 242, 074 107, 914 1 10, 117 1 98, 278 209, 225 167, 818 174, 742 Remaining State funds after Secondary System allocation, Engineering, Administration and Overhead, Access Roads allocation and Prinary and Inter state Systern Maintenance. an ounts for Primary and Secondary street grants. Remaining State funds include .L..L...# ...A- *. L. º & g § º (SYSTEM ALLOCATIONS ARE BASED ON TRIAL 2) (Thousands of Dollars) State Totals Districts Bristol Salem Lynchburg Richmond Suffolk Fredericksburg Culpeper Staunton TABLE 1 7 METHOD A DISTRIBUTION OF ASSUMING PRESENT FUEL TAX AND REGISTRATION FEES ARE RETAINED 13 - YEAR TOTAL URBAN PRIMARY EXTENSION CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATIONS TO DISTRICTS Per C ent Total Construction Urban State City Urban Urban Funds are of Federal Match Match Construction Construction Construction Aid Money Money Funds Needs Needs 44, 822 22, 4 l l 22, 4 l 1 89, 644 229, 876 39 1, 296 648 648 2, 592 13, 3 l 1 19 4, 886 2, 443 2, 443 9, 772 22, 785 43 3, 173 l, 586 I, 587 6, 346 16, 775 38 10, O57 5, 0.29 5, 0.28 20, 1 14 36, 009 56 18, 439 9, 220 9, 2 19 36, 878 109, 783 34 4.32 216 216 864 l, 307 66 3, 40 l 1, 700 1, 701 6, 802 13, 759 49 3, 138 1, 569 1, 569 6, 276 16, 147 39 TABLE 1.8 METHOD A DISTRIBUTION OF 13 - YEAR TOTAL INTERSTATE AND RURAL PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATIONS TO DISTRICTS RETAINING PRESENT FU E L TAX AND REGISTRATION FEES (SYSTEM ALLOCATIONS ARE BASED ON TRIAL 2) (Thousands of Dollars) Per Cent Inter state Primary and Construction Rural Rural Rural Funds are of Primary Inter state Primary Primary Primary Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Funds Needs Funds Needs Needs State Totals l, 33 1, 344 912, 400 4 18, 944 692, 982 60 Districts. Bristol 189, 335 67, 900 12 1, 435 96, 635 126 Salern 168, 895 86, 500 82, 395 82, 0.80 100 Lynchburg 158, 0.50 1, 300 15 6, 750 84, 702 185 Richrn Ond 187, 766 165, 400 22, 366 66, 346 34 Suffolk 165, 837 127, 100 38, 737 98, 458 39 Fre dericksburg 107, 314 42, 300 65, 014 45, 762 142 Culpeper 195, 826 220, 900 (-25, 074) 16 1, 508 O Staunton 158, 321 20 1, 000 (-42, 679) 57, 491 O : gº->xxº TABLE 19 METHOD B DISTRIBUTION OF 13 - YEAR TOTAL INTERSTATE, URBAN, AND RURAL PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATIONS TO DISTRICTS ASSUMING INTERSTATE AND URBAN ALLOCATIONS BY NEEDS, PRIMARY SYSTEM ALLOCATIONS BY PRESENT FORMULAS, AND THE RET ENTION OF PRESENT FU EL TAX AND REGISTRATION FEES (SYSTEM ALLOCATIONS BASED ON TRIAL 3) (Thousands of Dollars) URIBAN INTERSTATE RURAL PRIMARY Per Cent Per C ent Per C ent Construction Construction Rural Construction Urban Funds are of Inter state Funds are of Primary Funds are of Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Funds Needs Funds Needs Funds Needs State Totals 128, 0.36 56 912, 400 100 389, 222 56 Districts Bristol 7, 4 14 56 67, 900 100 5 1, 605 53 Salern 12, 69 1 56 86, 500 100 48, 645 59 Lynchburg 9, 343 56 1, 300 100 44, 127 53 Richmond 20, 056 56 165, 400 100 54, 132 82 Suffolk 6 1, 147 56 127, 100 100 57, 234 58 Fredericksburg 728 56 42, 300 100 28, 0.75 6 1 Culpeper 7, 663 56 220, 900 100 60, 713 38 Staunton 8, 9.94 56 20 1, 000 100 44, 69 l 78 TABLE 2.0 METHOD C DISTRIBUTION OF 13 - YEAR TOTAL INTERSTATE, URBAN, AND RURAL PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION ALLOCATIONS TO DISTRICTS ASSUMING FU E L T AX INCREASED 1 C ENT PER GALLON REGISTRATION FEES INCREASED $2. OO PER VEHICLE AND SYSTEMS ' ALLOCATICNS BASED ON TRIAL 5 (Thousands of Dollars) U.R.BAN INTERSTATE RURAL PRIMARY Per Cent Per Cent Per C ent Construction Construction Rural Construction Urban Funds are of Inter state Funds are of Primary Funds are of Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Funds Needs Funds Needs Funds Needs State Totals 167, 656 73 912, 400 100 502, 56.6 73 Districts Bristol 9, 708 73 67, 900 100 66, 680 69 Salern 16, 618 73 86, 500 100 63, 0.63 77 Lynchburg 12, 235 73 l, 300 100 57, 240 68 Richrn Ond 26, 262 73 165, 400 100 70, 634 106 Suffolk 80, 068 73 127, 100 100 74, 429 76 Fredericksburg 95.3 73 42, 300 100 36, 508 80 Culpeper 10, 035 73 220, 900 100 7 6, 207 47 Staunton 11, 777 73 20 1, 000 100 57, 805 1 0 1 . | | | | -º POSSIBLE ALTERNATE METHOD OF FUND DISTRIBUTION The previous two sections, which indicate the high degree of in- equity inherent in the methods currently used for the distribution of high- way funds, lead to the conclusion that all allocations would have to be made on a needs basis to attain a completely balanced distribution of funds an ong the systems, districts, and counties. The use of the distribution formulas, however, is of long stand- ing. Some counties, towns and other interests may resist the drastic changes required to achieve complete equity of distribution. In recog- nition of this attitude, the analysis contained in this section was prepared in an effort to develop a possible compromise method of allocating highway funds, which, although not completely equitable, would at least reduce the present imbalance and, at the same time, be acceptable to the various political, social, and geographic subdivisions of the State. The simplest and best method of accomplishing maximum possible adjustments in distribution without radically disturbing existing laws and policies would be to continue the allocations of revenues derived from current tax rates to the systems according to present practice, at the same time, however, accumulating the additional revenue acc ruing from the proposed increase of one cent in the fuel tax and $2.00 in the average vehicle registration fee in a special fund to be distributed to the systems, districts, and counties in accordance with needs. The data presented in Table 21 derm on strate, as did a for egoing section, the unbalanced distribution of funds to the Urban and rural Pri- mary Systems resulting from the allocation of revenues based on present tax and fee rates and on present practices and policies. For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that (a) Federal Aid Inter state grants would be excluded in determining the allocation of 36 per cent of total revenue to the Secondary System and (b) that all necessary Inter state System matching funds would have first call on the funds remaining after the Secondary System allocation was determined. If, however, the additional revenue derived from the proposed increases is distributed on a needs basis, a fully equitable allocation of funds to the Secondary, Urban and rural Primary Systems can be achieved, as shown in Table 21. In determining these allocations, the present laws were applied to the additional revenue to determine the added funds to go L - 1 to Henrico and Arlington Counties and to Primary System extension and secondary street grants. The balance, apportioned annong the systems according to needs, results in the full completion of the Inter state System and the simultaneous cornpletion of 71 per cent of required construction in each of the other three systems at the end of the 13-year period. As previously demonstrated, however, the re distribution of sys – tem funds to the districts, towns, and counties presents a much different picture. Although systern distribution would be balanced, the data pre- sented in Table 22 demonstrate innbalance which again occurs when re- distribution of Urban System funds is made to the districts according to current practice. Although the State Urban System allocation, under current methods of distribution, constitutes 39 per cent of needs, the allocations to the districts vary from 19 to 66 per cent of needs. When the additional revenue estimated to accrue from the proposed increases in highway in posts is applied in a manner calculated to balance the dis – tribution, the net result is a variance between districts of no more than two per cent and a variance between any individual district and the State average of no more than one per cent. The problem of an equitable distribution of Urban System funds does not end by balancing the district allocations. The armount which is allotted to each individual town is determined by fixed formula. Table 23 presents the armounts which will accrue to each eligible town during the next 13 years on the basis of total estimated revenue from current gas oline tax and registration fee rates and the use of current allocation rn ethods. These data indicate that the relationship between available construction funds and construction needs varies from zero per cent to 164 per cent. When the additional funds estimated to accrue from in- creased in post rates are distributed in a manner calculated to achieve maximum equity, the ratios of construction funds to construction needs vary between 70 per cent and 164 per cent. All but eight of the towns come within one per cent of the State average of 71 per cent, and those eight exceed the State average by varying announts. The data presented in Table 24 show the distribution an ong the districts of the funds for the improvement of the Inter state and Primary Systems, which are based on current tax rates and present methods of distribution. The Culpeper and Staunton districts will not only lack suf- ficient funds to complete the Inter state System, but will have no funds whatsoever to apply to the improvement of the Primary System. This distribution is so completely unbalanced that even the application of ad- ditional funds made available through the proposed increases are insuf- ficient to seriously alter the pattern. The ratios of district construction funds to district construction needs still vary from as little as two per cent to as much as 185 per cent. * L. -*-- ----- a---- p-º-º: i ºl.º The data presented in Table 25 indicate the changes that result from modifying present distribution methods to the extent of (a) initially deducting sufficient funds to meet Inter state System, needs from the total funds available for the Inter state and Primary Systems and (b) distributing the balance an ong the districts on the basis of the formulas used at present to distribute rural Primary System funds. The district ratios of available construction funds to needs of the rural Primary System now vary from 40 per cent to 86 per cent. In addition, if the increased revenue was dis – tributed annong the districts according to need, the variance would then be reduced to a minimum of 68 per cent and a maximum of 88 per cent. Whereas the State ratio of available funds to needs would be 71 per cent, six districts would have a ratio of 68 per cent and the Richmond and Staunton districts would have ratios of 88 per cent and 84 per cent, respectively. It is, therefore, quite clear that if the proposed additional revenues were allocated according to need, it would be possible to realize a good degree of balance in the distribution of system funds with a minimum of changes in existing laws and policies. Furthern or e, if the principle of distributing additional revenues on a needs basis was also applied to district and town allocations for the Inter state, Urban, and rural Primary Systems, a very fair degree of balance would result. While improvements in allocation to the above three systems are significant, this, unfortunately, cannot be said in the case of allocations of Secondary System funds to the counties. Because the needs of each individual county are not available, it is not possible to show in detail the exact extent to which the additional Secondary System revenue could be used to balance county inequities. It may be recalled that the analysis of the ten sample counties presented in Table 14 indicated a relationship of available funds to needs ranging from zero per cent to 329 per cent. On the assumption that these counties are typical, it is obvious that the additional Secondary System revenue could not be spread sufficiently an ong the lower per centage counties to bring them close to the State average, a result of the fact that several counties are now receiving far in excess of their needs. Nevertheless, the distribution to the counties of an additional estimated $58. 378 million on a needs basis would result in a better distribution of funds than is being realized under the present method. ALLOCATION OF 13 - YEAR TOTAL FUNDS TABLE |I* REVISED SECONDARY ESTIMATED REVENUE FROM DISTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL ONE CENT FUEL TAX AND $2.00 Amounts Not Available City Portion For of F. A. U. Construction Match Money Highway Construction Funds | | BY (Thousands - M Highway Construction Needs l, 790 987 48, 690 314, 387 184,089 --~~Nº. : 342, 006 38, 839 912, 400 9 12, 400 127, 540 22, 4 ll 89, 644 | 229, 876 86, 560 13, 000 132, 586 4 18, 944 *- ---- 692, 982 Total Incorne Special Deductions Funds to Highway Department l, 47 l., 0.22% 1, 064, 0.26 State Produced Revenue Total Federal Aid Fuel Tax to Henrico and Arlington Counties Amount to Other Agencies 22, 703 165, 300 2, 347, 045 Secondary Systern Allocation 1 – 1/2% of 70% of Secondary Federal Aid plus State Match Money Secondary Federal Aid to Henrico County Engineering, Administration and Overhead Maintenance and Replacement 549, 943 Inter state Systern Allocation (Estimated Maintenance and Construction Cost) Maintenance and Replacement 951, 239 Urban Systern Allocation: Urban Construction Fund Primary Extension Grants Secondary Street Grants Urban Federal Aid State Match Money Maintenance and Replacement 88, 705 38, 8.35 44, 822 22, 4 l l Primary System Allocation: Urban Federal Aid plus State Match to Arlington County Primary Federal Aid plus 30% of Secondary Federal Aid Remaining State Funds Engineering, Administration and Overhead (Less Secondary System) Access Roads Allocation Maintenance and Replacement 9, 674 135,267 506, 149 All Systern Totals 2, 347, 045 *Revenue produced from continuation of current highway impost rates. 764, 379 22, 4 1 1 l, 605, O77 | 2, 177, 264 " | 2 l TO HIGHWAY SYSTEMS APPLYING ALLOCATION LAW TO CURRENT TAXES AND FEES AND REVENUE FROM THE § REGISTRATION FEE INCREASES NEEDS of Dollars) I Per Cent - Per Cent Additional Revised Revised Construction Additional Announts Additional Total Construction Funds are of Additional Funds to Not Available Highway Highway Funds are of Construction Additional Special Highway For Construction Construction Construction Needs Income Deductions Department Construction Funds Funds Needs I 230, 308 3, 790 226, 518 | 58,378 54 58,378 242, 467 7 1 100 912, 400 } 00 73, 328 15, 620 I 6, 843 39 22, 463 73, 328 l62, 97.2 7 l | 72, 349 60 72, 349 491, 293 7 l 74 230, 308 3, 790 226,518 22, 463 204, 055 l, 809, 132 83 **） — — — | | | （_| \_T_| |_| |_| |_| | | | | | | | | | `--+ |- | -! }}}}}|}|}||? TABLE 2.2 ALLOCATION OF 1 3-YEAR TOTAL URBAN FUNDS TO DISTRICTS APPLYING PRESENT LAWS AND POLICIES TO ESTIMATED REVENUE FROM ClujRRENT TAXES AND FEES AND DISTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM ONE CENT FUEL TAX AND $2.00 REGISTRATION FEE INCREASES BY NEEDS (Thousands of dollars) Per Cent Total Construction Additional Urban State City Urban |Urban Funds are of Urban Federal Match Match Construction Construction Construction Construction Aid Money Money Funds Needs Needs Funds State Totals 44, 822 22, 41 l 22, 41 1 89, 644 229, 876 39 73, 328 Districts Bristol 1, 296 648 648 2,592 13, 31 1 19 6, 684 Salem 4, 886 2, 443 2, 443 9, 772 22, 785 43 6, 583 Lynchburg 3, 173 1, 586 1, 587 6, 346 16, 775 38 5,445 Richmond 10,057 5,029 5,028 20, 114 36, 009 56 5, 851 Suffolk 18, 439 9, 220 9, 219 36, 878 109, 783 34 40, 719 Fredericksburg 4.32 216 2 16 864 1, 307 66 47 Culpeper 3, 401 1, 700 1, 701 6, 802 13, 759 49 2,830 Staunton 3, 1 38 1, 569 1, 569 6, 276 16, 147 39 5, 169 Revised Total Urban Construction Funds 162, 972 9, 276 16, 355 1 1,791 25, 965 77, 597 91 l 9, 632 1 1,445 Per Cent Revised Construction Funds are of Construction Needs 7 I 70 72 70 72 7 l 70 70 7 I * = T = - № - ſ- ， ） （ | （_| |_| |_| | | | | | | | | || — — — ||—| State Totals Totals Less Arlington County” Bristol District Abingdon Big Stone Gap Bluefield Bristol Galax (See Salem Dist.) Marion Norton Richlands Wytheville District Totals Salem District Bedford Galax (See Bristol Dist.) Martinsville Pulaski Radford Roanoke Salern Vinton District Totals Lynchburg District Danville Farmville Lynchburg South Boston District Totals Richmond District Blackstone Colonial Heights Hopewell Petersburg Richmond District Totals Suffolk District Emporia Franklin Hampton Newport News Norfolk Poquos on Portsmouth South Norfolk Suffolk Virginia Beach Williamsburg Warwick District Totals Fredericksburg District Fredericksburg District Totals Culpeper Alexandria Arlington County% Charlottesville Falls Church District Totals Totals Less Arlington County Urban Tederal Aid 49, 659 44, 822 184 57.1 94 248 199 1, 296 94 6 16 32.8 32 3 3, 282 243 4, 886 l, 25 l 1, 703 2 19 3, 173 2 19 363 l, 25 l 8, 224 10, 057 204 2, 175 l, 515 9, 0 18 2, 855 373 442 194 2.38 l, 425 18, 439 4.32 4.32 2, 205 4, 837 92.8 268 8, 238 3, 40 l ALLOCATION OF 13 - YEAR TOTAL URBAN FUNDS TO CITIES ESTIMATED REVENUE FROM CURRENT TAXES AND FEES State Match Money 27, 248 22, 4 l 1 92 2.85 124 100 648 47 308 164 16 l l, 64 l 122 2, 443 625 852 109 l, 586 109 182 62.6 4, 112 5, 0.29 102 l, 088 757 4, 509 l, 42.8 186 22 l 97 l 19 7 13 9, 220 2 16 2 lb l, 102 4, 837 464 134 6, 537 l, 700 TABLE 2.3 APPLYING ‘PRESENT LAWS AND POLICIES TO AND DISTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM ONE CENT FUEL TAX AND $2.00 REGISTRATION FEE INCREASES BY NEEDS (Thousands of Dollars) City Match Money 22, 4 1 1 22, 4 l 1 92 286 124 99 648 47 308 164 l62 l, 64 l 12 1 2, 443 4, l l 2 5, 028 102 l, 0.87 7.58 4, 509 l, 427 187 22 l 97 1 19 7 12 9, 2 19 2 16 2 16 l, 103 464 134 1, 701 l, 70 l Total Urban Construction Funds 89, 644 368 l, 142 188 496 398 2, 592 l88 l, 232 65.6 646 6, 564 486 9, 772 2, 502 3, 406 4.38 6, 346 4.38 726 2, 502 16, 448 20, l 14 4.08 4, 350 3, 0.30 18, 0.36 5, 7 10 746 884 388 476 2, 850 36, 878 864 864 4, 4 10 9, 674 l, 856 536 16, 47.6 Urban Construction Needs 229, 876 l, 4 16 988 2, 252 3, 169 76 l l, 350 2, 050 700 625 13, 31 1 l, 981 76 1 2, 560 791 394 14, 080 l, 500 7 18 22, 785 7, 055 83 | 8, 405 484 16, 775 405 933 2, 58 l 2, 340 29, 750 36, 0.09 8 19 666 14, 080 2, 850 46, 920 l, 520 19, 896 l, 878 l, 200 l, 200 l, 332 17, 422 109, 783 l, 307 l, 307 8, 315 2, 60l 2, 84.3 13, 759 13, 759 Per Cent Construction Funds are of Construction Needs 39 35 4 l 90 38 47 107 55 56 66 66 53 71 19 49 Additional Urban Construction. Funds 73, 328 987 320 l, 569 1, 066 342 445 l, 429 488 38 6, 684 l, 38 l 342 552. O O 3, 248 559 50 1 6, 583 2, 4 15 579 2, 45 l O 5, 445 282 2 12 l, 073 O 4, 284 5, 85 l 163 464 5, 462 O 14, 662 1,059 8, 155 563 O 448 452 9, 29 l 40, 719 47 47 l, 385 1, 445 2,830 Revised Total Urban Construction Funds l62, 972 987 688 l, 569 2, 208 530 94 1 1, 429 488 436 9, 276 l, 38 l 5.30 1, 784 65.6 646 9, 8 12 l, 045 50 i 16, 355 4, 9 17 579 5, 857 4.38 ll, 79 l 282 650 l, 799 2, 502 20, 732 25, 965 571 464 9, 8 12 3, 0.30 32, 698 l, 0.59 13, 865 l, 309 884 836 92.8 12, 14 l 77, 597 9 l 1 9 11 5, 795 l, 856 l, 981 9, 632 Staunton District Buena Vista Clifton Forge Covington Front Royal Harrisburg Lexington Staunton Waynesboro Winchester District Totals 184 209 208 288 387 2 13 7 10 442 497 3, 1 38 92 104 104 144 194 106 355 22 l 249 l, 569 92 105 104 144 193 107 355 22 l 248 l, 569 368 4 18 4 16 576 774 426 l, 420 884 994 6, 276 857 l, 152 2,595 1, 818 l, 572 796 3, 496 2, 7 ll l, 150 l6, 147 × Urban Federal Aid to Arlington County is used on State Rural Primary System in Arlington County 229 385 l, 392 69 l 322 129 l, 0.16 l, 0.05 5, 169 597 803 1, 808 l, 267 l, 0.96 555 2, 436 l, 889 994 ll, 445 Per Cent Revised Construction Funds are of Construction Needs 71 70 70 70 7 1 70 70 * - f . - . * * . > : +. r º r - ‘. - 3. - -: - ** 2. i ~~ * 3. º º: g r ". TABLE 24 ALLOCATION OF 13-YEAR TOTAL INTERSTATE AND RURAL PRIMARY SYSTEM FUNDS TO DISTRICTs APPLYING PRESENT LAWS AND POLICIES TO ESTIMATED REVENUE FROM CURRENT TAXES AND FEES AND DISTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM ONE CENT FUEL TAX AND $2.00 REGISTRATION FEE INCREASES B Y NEEDS (Thousands of dollars) Revised Per Cent Inter state Per Cent Additional Additional Total Revised and Rural Inter state Rural Rural Construction Inter state Rural Rural Construction Primary Systern Primary Primary Funds are of System Primary Primary Funds are of Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Fund 8% Needs Funds Needs Needs Funds Funds Funds Needs State Totals 1, 33 1, 344 912,400 418, 944 692, 982 60 67, 753 4, 596 491, 293 7.1% Districts Bristol 189, 335 67, 900 121, 435 96, 635 126 12 1, 435 126 Salem 168,895 86, 500 82, 395 82,080 I 00 82, 395 100 Lynchburg 158,050 l, 300 156, 750 84, 702 | 85 156, 750 185 Richmond 187, 766 165,400 22, 366 66, 346 34 22, 366 34 Suffolk 165, 837 127, 100 38, 737 98, 458 39 38, 737 39 Fredericksburg 107, 314 42, 300 65, 014 45, 762 142 65, 014 142 Culpeper 195, 826 220, 900 (-25, 074) 161,508 0 25, O74 3, 389 3, 389 2 Staunton 158, 321 201, 000 (-42, 679) 57, 491 O 42, 679 1, 207 1, 207 2 * See Table 18 TABLF 25 ALLOCATION OF ] 3 - YEAR TOTAL INTERSTATE AND RURAL PRIMARY SYSTEM FLJNDS TO DISTRICTS DISTRIBUTING INTERSTATE FUNDS BY NEEDS, RURAL PRIMARY F UNDS FROM ClſRRENT TAXES AND FEES BY INCOMPLETE PRIMARY MILEAGE AND AREA, POPULATION AND MILEAGE FACTORS AND ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM ONE CENT FUEL TAX AND $2.00 REGISTRATION FEE INCREASES BY NEEDS (Thousands of dollars) Revised Per Cent Inter state Per Cent Additional Total Revised and Rural Inter state Rural Rural Construction Rural Rural Construction Primary System Primary Primary Funds are of Primary Primary Funds are of Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Funds Needs Funds Needs Needs Funds Funds Needs State Totals 1, 331, 344 912, 400 418, 944 692, 982 60 72, 349 491, 293 7 l Districts Bristol 67, 900 55, 558 96, 635 57 9, 761 65, 319 68 Salem 86, 500 52, 426 82, 080 64 3,054 55, 480 68 Lynchburg 1, 300 47, 566 84, 702 56 9, 687 57, 253 68 Richmond 165, 400 58,459 66, 346 88 O 58,459 88 Suffolk 127, 100 61, 743 98, 458 63 4, 808 66, 55 l 68 Fredericksburg 42, 300 30, 286 45, 762 66 646 30, 932 68 Culpeper 220, 900 64, 776 16 1,508 40 44, 393 109, 169 68 Staunton 201, 000 48, 130 57, 491 84 O 48, 130 84 --★ → - + _） _. _ º _* _ — _* _ — _* ! ſ ſ，|-_， _， _, _, _, _） :-） ） ） ） -* - HIGHWAY RIGHT - OF - WAY The gradually increasing cost of right-of-way during past years has brought expenditures for land acquisition to a level where they repre- sent a substantial portion of the total highway construction cost. It is no longer unusual to have right-of-way costs reach 30 to 35 per cent of the total cost of an Urban System project or 20 to 25 per cent of the total cost of a Primary System project. Despite its in portance, land acquisi- tion in connection with modern highway in provement is probably one of the least under stood and least appreciated functions of a State Highway Department. The design and actual construction of a section of a highway are often be set with numerous technical problems, all of which, however, are subject to satisfactory engineering solutions. The problems of right- of-way procurement, on the other hand, cannot be reduced to the appli- cation of mathermatical formulas. To begin with, an estimate of the fair sales value of the property must be prepared; a determination of damages nust then be made; and, finally, negotiations for purchase must be con- ducted. These activities, which depend almost entirely on the personal opinions of value of both the Department's negotiator and the property owner, involve, in very many instances, some divergence in views and variance of interests. It is certain that the construction of the Inter state System will add to the Department's right-of-way problems. The standards for this system require a minimum right-of-way width of 150 feet and full control of access. However, because of terrain problems, future expansion of lanes, service roads, and other features, many miles of the system will require a right-of-way width considerably in excess of 150 feet. A portion of the Inter state System, perhaps ten to thirty per cent, will remain in their present Primary System locations; the balance will be established on new locations. In the former case, heavy damage and relocation of buildings and utilities costs on many sections will result from both the acquisition of additional width and the imposition of limited access. On those sections which are constructed on new locations, the damage and relocation of buildings and utilities costs will not be as great, but other problems, such as the partition of farm units, will arise. It can also be anticipated that a greatly expanded program of high- way construction will tend to increase the demand by property owners for higher prices and undoubtedly will mean that a greater per centage of acquisitions will have to be made under the Enninent Domain Statute. At the present time, acquisition is made through negotiation in approx- imately 90 per cent of all cases. In the remaining ten per cent of the cases, the Commonwealth deposits a certificate with the Clerk of the Circuit Court stating that sufficient funds have been set aside to cover the estimated value of the property plus damages, if any. The deposit of this certificate gives the Department the right to enter the property and construct the road. During construction, negotiations are continued and if no agreement is reached within a reasonable period after construc- tion is completed, the case is resolved in the Circuit Court. Records indicate that only ten per cent of cases where certificates are filed are finally resolved in the Courts. In other words, out of every one hundred parcels acquired, only one requires court action. During the course of this study, the Department's records of land acquisitions for highway right-of-way were closely reviewed. From all indications, the Right-of-Way Engineers are diligent in striving to set fair and reasonable appraisals of property, and, if anything, are on the conservative side in their estimates of darnage. Contrariwise, the records of cases which went to condern nation indicate that the court- appointed Commissioners are much more liberal in their evaluation of damage awards. Apparently, the Commissioners are not required to detail either the individual items which comprise the total award, or their respective estimated worth. There is no way, therefore, of evaluating the emphasis that is laid on any particular item or group of items. The records also reveal that in making their award, the Commissioners record only the total for land and the total for damages. Furthermore, in none of the cases reviewed, did the Commissioners consider Section 33 – 73 of the 1950 Code of Virginia. This section provides that any enhancement in the value of the property remaining with the owner which is a result of the highway's construction is to be offset against the dannages. The right-of-way selected for relocated sections of the Inter state System will, in very many case g, cause the appreciation of the value of neighboring 1and, particularly at interchange points. In the future, all Right-of-Way Englaeers should include an item covering enhanced land values in their appraisals. Further more, the office of the State Attorney General should instruct the local attorneys who appear in condemnation cases to bring the enhanced value to the attention of the court. IM - 2 -- sºr-y--- º-- I. # On the whole, the Right-of-Way Division is doing a good job of procurement, both in its efforts to acquire land at reasonable prices through negotiations and in its speed in closing title. Proof of reason- ableness of price lies in the fact that in practically all cases of Court action, the owner is awarded more than the Department offered. This does not necessarily indicate that the Department's appraisals were not fair and equitable in these cases. Rather, all indications seem to demon- strate that in almost all the counties of the State, and in some counties to a greater degree than in others, the Commissioners almost invariably tend to favor the owner. This situation might be improved if condemna- tion cases were heard before a full jury. Under the present system, the court appoints either five or seven Commissioners. Where seven are appointed, each party to the action may request the removal of one. Of the remaining five (or where only five were appointed originally) any three may act. Some judges make a practice of requesting a list from the attorneys for each side from which the Commissioners are selected. Under this procedure, it is quite likely that biased Commissioners will be appointed. This factor is of particular importance when only three members act. A study of the records indicates that sympathy is rarely on the side of the Department. As discussed in the next section, the importance of advanced planning cannot be overestimated. When the Right-of-Way Engineer has sufficient time to make unhurried negotiations, he can generally purchase at a more favorable price to the Department. Advanced right-of-way acquisition very often also precludes expensive delays in actual construc - tion because it allows sufficient time for the relocation of public utilities. Before the Right-of-Way Engineer can start negotiations with an owner, however, he must have in his possession a set of approved plans. The preparation of plans is in itself at times a lengthy procedure. In the case of those sections of highway which are to be relocated, a preliminary route location must first be made. In all cases of in provern ent which require additional right-of-way, surveys must be conducted from which the final design is determined. The Design Engineers then prepare plans which show the owners of property along the proposed project and the boundaries of their properties affected by the road. The plans also indicate all buildings, walks, trees, fences, walls, and in some cases, even shrubs which add value to the property. In addition, the Right-of-Way Engineer requires a profile of the existing ground elevations along the centerline of the proposed highway with the future grade line clearly indicated. To supplement this profile, cross-sections are also required. The plan, profile, and cross-sections M – 3 are needed to enable the negotiator to tell the property owner exactly which land is needed, how his buildings, fields, lawns, etc., will be affected, and whether they will be left facing a fill or setting on top of a Cut. Thus, to allow sufficient time to acquire the necessary properties, it is important that advance planning be well organized and programmed and that plans be completed well ahead of the construction schedule. The Federal Aid Act of 1956 provides for the advancement of Federal funds for right-of-way acquisition before construction. Heretofore, other states have solved this problem by creating a revolving fund for the early purchase of right-of-way. In the interest of economy and efficiency, Virginia should adopt a policy of using advanced Federal funds, a revolv - ing fund created from State highway revenue, or possibly a combination of both for the purpose of securing the necessary right-of-way well in advance of actual construction. M-4 -* ->n .ſº| r- *... º -E-ſº-º-º:- H GHWAY PLANNING One of the most important and complex problems facing State highway administrators today is that of planning future improvements. This is especially true where numerous and divergent interests must be considered and where funds are in short supply and the need for improve – ments urgent. A well-defined, fully-publicized, long-range program is neces – sary for several in portant reasons. First, a lack of planning forces a Department of Highways to operate on an externporaneous basis neces si- tating a year-to-year selection of projects. Such an in provised pro- cedure very often results in unrelated in provements which create dif- ficulties when stage construction projects are undertaken. Second, a well-defined, long-range program facilitates the purchase of right-of-way and relocation of utilities well in advance of construction and often at considerable savings. Third, a long-range program of specifically desig- nated in provements helps to generate public under standing and support for a Department of Highways' procedures and policies. It must be under stood, however, that no highway program, no matter how well-conceived, can be absolutely rigid. Because of the numerous related factors inherent in highway development, any program of future in provements should be subject to periodic review and adjust- ment to keep pace with influencing changes in traffic volumes, traffic patterns, available funds, construction prices, and other basic elements. The most popular and perhaps most practicable method yet de – vised for the establishment of improvement projects and their priorities is the Sufficiency Rating System, which is now being utilized to varying degrees in numerous states. A Sufficiency Rating System undoubtedly has many advantages; at the same time, however, it contains features which can be disadvantageous if not closely governed. Among the ad- vantages which can be claimed are the following: 1. Uniform application of the ratings to all sections of road of a given class resulting in 1pm partial determination of needs. 2. Properly applied, the system weighs each item constituting the final rating, thereby establishing an adequate index of the sufficiency or deficiency of the section of road under con- sideration, thus providing an equitable guide for the establish- ment of a work priority . N - 1 3. The adoption, application and implementation of this sys- term, when coupled with an adequate public relations program, in crease public under standing and appreciation of highway problems. 4. In some states the adoption of a well-conceived and balanced Sufficiency Rating Systern has had satisfactory results. Some of the possible disadvantages of the system are: 1. The introduction of personal judgment in rating the factors which determine the final priorities. 2. The need to consider the costs of bringing sections of road with different ratings up to standard which is especially true in establishing a system of priorities. In such cases, a connon sense evaluation must be made of the relative bene - fits, in terms of cost, that will be obtained in selecting one project in preference to another. 3. Unless the system is well devised, the diversity of roads which are rated on the same basic factors may not insure a fair determination of priorities. This could be especially true where some sections of road are of relative major in- portance while others are of relative minor in portance. Despite the possible inadequacies which are inherent in a Suf- ficiency Rating System, it is at present the best system available and has proved workable when tempered with experience and good judgment. Be - cause of the numerous indeterminate factors which are involved in high- way planning, it is most improbable that highway planners will ever evolve a system of priority determination which is based on a set formula . Earlier in the Report, it was explained that the Virginia Depart- ment of Highways does use a Sufficiency Rating System for the rural Primary System. The details of this system were studied and found to conform with good practice. The Department is now extending its Suf- ficiency Rating method to the Urban System. When that is completed, the Secondary System Master Plan procedures need only be expanded and adjusted to place the Department in an excellent position to provide the public with an equitable, comprehensive and detailed needs program for the entire State road plant. }| * 3r-]º*{ * - **------- -~~r~2r |-r-rº- Up to now, the Department of Highways has not published detailed plans for future highway in provements. Available evidence indicates that this policy has not created public acceptance of or sympathy for its problems. Although previous studies made by the Department, namely, The Twenty Year Plan of 1945 and Virginia's Highway Needs of 1954, were nade available to the public, they dealt with overall in provernent needs, but contained no details of the proposed programs. It is strongly recommended that the Department consider a policy of publishing periodic reports on its future plans to an extent consistent with good public rela- tions policy. The fore going is a discussion of the planning function relating to the scheduling of specific projects. Through its Traffic and Planning Division, the Department already is well equipped to perform this func- tion. To carry this activity to its ultimate conclusion, however, there is an important secondary area which, although not completely overlooked by the Department, has not been developed to the extent necessary. After determining the projects to be undertaken over a given period, other divisions of the Department of Highways then begin their particular phases of work. The Location and Design Division which is responsible for determining new route locations when this is found nec – cessary, is also responsible for the preparation of highway designs and specifications of projects involving either relocation or reconstruction on existing locations. If the project includes a structure, the Bridge Division assumes the responsibility for the design of the structure. When the highway location is finally deterrnined and designs are prepared, the Right-of-Way Division makes preparations to acquire the necessary prop- erty. Finally, when the project reaches the construction stage, the Construction Division assumes responsibility for seeing that it is prop- erly completed. As can be readily imagined, all of these activities require the closest cooperation among the several divisions. It also should be re- membered that on those projects eligible for Federal Aid close liaison must be maintained with the Bureau of Public Roads. During the course of this study, the manner in which the divisions operated within their own sphere of responsibility and the extent to which they cooperated with other divisions was noted and found to be excellent. It is felt, however, that because of the greatly increased activity which will result from the expanded Inter state System program, special N - 3 provisions should be made for carrying the planning functions through all stages from initial project determination to final construction. Al- though the Location and Design Division was as signed this responsibility about two years ago, and apparently has performed a capable job, it is recommended that a special unit be organized which would be specifi- cally charged with the accomplishment of each project in the Depart- ment's overall program and the proper scheduling in all divisions of the work involved after the initial determination of priority up to the comple - tion of construction. º Sº ſ N –4 : CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES During the field phase of this study, an examination and analysis was made of construction practices. Construction projects were visited and observed, specifications were analyzed, recently awarded contracts and bid prices were examined, and a meeting was held with representa- tives of the Virginia Road Builders Association. It was determined that current practices and policies are substantially sound, but that there exist several areas where improvernents could be made to guarantee the receipt of maximum value for each highway dollar expended. Project Inspection The most innportant deficiency observed was the lack of proper supervision of highway construction projects. In the case of one parti- cular Primary System Project, it was found that the contractor was lay- ing asphalt on a section of new embankment which in several places had deep rain gullies running back to the center line of the roadway. This was probably an extreme instance of exceptionally poor practice which developed from a lack of Departmental supervision. However, the re- sult will be that future maintenance costs on this section will be much higher than if the project had been properly constructed. Because of the lack of constant and competent inspection during the course of con- struction, it is reasonable to conclude, on the basis of observations throughout the State, that the full value of the construction dollar is not being received. The obvious course of action is to secure a sufficient number of qualified inspection personnel. This task is not as simple as it may sound, and is a problem with which the Department of Highways has been struggling for a long period. The demand by private industry for compe- tent engineers and the high salaries which are offered make it exception- ally difficult for a state agent to secure this type of personnel. In an effort to improve the situation the Department has been conducting a training program which, over a period of years, educates promising young high school graduates through a combination of actual field experi- ence and part time technical courses. This has worked out reasonably well except in one important respect. When the training course is com – pleted and the trainee has become a valuable asset, he is offered such tempting proposals by engineering and contracting firms that it is dif- ficult or inn possible to keep him. A large part of the answer to this problem lies in the establish- ment of a more attractive wage scale and the institution of employee benefits which will not only attract greater numbers of graduate engi- neers and young trainees but will also significantly reduce the present turnover. Concurrently, it is suggested that the Department endeavor to work out an arrangement with the engineering and contracting firms engaged in highway work to halt the practice of proselytizing personnel. Right-of-Way Obstruction Most contractors feel that construction delays caused by the failure to have utility installations relocated before initiation of a pro- ject very often contributes to higher construction costs. The matter of utility relocation is a problem in almost all states and undoubtedly occurs to some degree in Virginia. In August 1955, a meeting of Department of Highways' engineers, contractors' representatives and representatives of several private and public utility organizations was held to discuss the problem and endeavor to work out some solution. It was found that re- location delays apparently stern from these three basic causes: 1. After being notified of the need to relocate their facilities, it is necessary for the managers of the utility companies to make surveys of the work and secure authorization and fund allocation. Where overhead wire is involved, this pro- cedure requires two to three months. If underground cable is involved, about six months are required. 2. With respect to underground facilities, the owners of the installation are very often not notified of the work required. The reason seems to be a lack of records of such installa - tions. 3. Very often the utility owners experience difficulty in obtain- ing new right-of-way for their installations. As a result of the meeting, several recommendations were made which, basically, pledged the fullest cooperation of the Department to the utility owners, specially in the matter of giving as much advance notice as possible. These recornmendations were sent to all district engineers with directions that they be followed. This directive, if properly carried out, should serve to reduce delays caused by utilities relocation. How- ever, it is a complicated problem which, if not handled properly, could grow even worse in the future because of the large-scale Inter state Sys- tem construction program. In another section of this Report, the impor- tance of early planning and right-of-way acquisition is stressed. If plan- I ning is kept sufficiently in advance of actual construction (generally not now the case) and proper liaison is maintained with the utility owners, delays due to this cause should be reduced to a minimum. Maintaining Traffic During Construction Generally, it is the Department policy that highway sections under construction are to be kept Open to all traffic. This is under standable when there are no alternate roads over which traffic can be detoured or where the costs of creating a temporary detour are excessive. However, if there are existing detour roads, or if, in their absence, a temporary detour could be provided at reasonable cost, it is certainly more eco- normical to arrange for traffic to by-pass a construction project rather than permit traffic to pass through the project. When such arrangements are not made, the bid prices naturally incorporate the additional expenses faced by the contractor. These expenses include, among other items, increased earthwork and paving costs, additional payroll and equipment costs due to construction delays occasioned by traffic, the additional cost for personnel required to direct traffic, and, possibly, higher insurance premiums. The Virginia Road Builders Association provided an illustration which compared two recent projects. The excavation quantities were about the same per mile, the paving was produced and laid by the same contractor and the projects were in the same geographical location. One was constructed under conditions of traffic and the other was on new location. The project constructed under traffic cost $48,000 per mile more than the one on new location. From observation, it would appear that this case is not an is o – lated instance, and that this practice is costing the State additional sums, a substantial portion of which could be saved if detours were established where possible and practicable. Work Order S During the construction of a section of highway, conditions often arise which require changes or modifications in the original plans or I specifications. The need for such changes, which first become apparent *— ** . --- O tº 3 to the contractor and the field inspector, is brought to the attention of the District Engineer through the resident engineer. From the district, the work Order is processed through the Richmond office. The contractors feel that an undue length of time is very often required before final ap- proval is returned. This delay in approvals results in delays in the work program and is a cause of higher costs. In the course of this study, an analysis was made of about 200 typical work orders which had been pro- cessed through the Richmond office during the previous twelve months. It was found that only in a very few cases did a delay of any in portance occur after the request for change was submitted to Richmond. Most work orders during the period were processed in from four to 14 days. It was also found that, although the dates on the work orders in such cases generally indicated excess time, headquarters had previously approved the change by a telephone call to the District Engineer. It appears, therefore, that the occurrence of an undue delay be - tween the time when a work order is found necessary and the time of its final approval in Richmond is due to an unwarranted period of delay pre- ceding the submission of the change to headquarters. It is suggested that as a curative measure a method be devised which, in cases of work orders which require major changes, would minimize the delay in getting the document to Richmond. This assignment could be delegated to an as sistant district engineer, a now non-existant position which, it is felt, would materially in prove district operations in many respects. It is also felt that in cases of relatively minor changes, the responsibility for issuing the work order could remain with the District Engineer without processing it through headquarters. Average Size of Construction Project The lack of funds, the present method of fund distribution, and perhaps the need to satisfy the demands of the various political sub- sections of the State all contribute to the fact that major in provement projects are very often undertaken on a piecerneal basis. This practice unquestionably does not promote maximum economy. A substantial por- tion of a contractor's overhead consists in mobilizing his forces, ma– terials, and equipment at a job site. Thus, the longer his equipment and personnel can be kept continuously busy on a single large project, the Łower be can bid on a job. The magnitude of the Inter state System (|| | \ | - : +t : \r. program will permit the letting of larger contracts in many instances. Full advantage should be taken of this condition in order to decrease repetition and duplication in advertising for bids, letting of contracts and preparation of estimates. Larger projects will reduce contractors' moving-in and overhead costs and permit better utilization of equipment and personnel, all of which should result in lower project costs. Fur – thermore, the Department will benefit since fewer engineering parties and inspectors will be needed when several projects are consolidated into O1) 62 e Contracts for a large number of smaller projects will still be required on sections of the Primary and Secondary Systems and will thus continue to make work available for the smaller contractors. Engineering Computation by Electronic Methods In recent years, excellent progress has been made in applying newly developed electronic aids to increase engineering productivity. Numerous state highway departments have installed or have on order electronic computers for engineering purposes. The economy of the se devices has been annply demonstrated and it is believed that they will be used in increasing numbers. For several years the Virginia Department of Highways has utilized automatic equipment to a very large extent for the purpose of recording and analyzing accounts, maintenance and in provement expenditures, and traffic statistics, It is believed, that, at the present time, consideration is being given to extend the number of fields in which electronic devices can be used. It is recommended that such consideration be pursued diligently, particularly in the phases of survey and design computations. If the Department finds the se new methods applicable to its particular needs, it is probable that costs can be reduced and that the current man- power situation can be relieved as well. Additional Considerations As in practically all other states, there are numerous other issues, which, although relatively minor individually, can as sume innpor- tance when taken collectively. These issues relate mainly to the inter- pretation of specifications and plans, field decisions on the part of the inspector, resident engineer and district engineer, and at times to the way the contractor interprets specifications and regulations. Each dif- ference of opinion in these cases must be examined on its own merit. A full analysis of the subject would be much too lengthly to justify its inclusion in a report of this scope. In the course of the study, however, the overall inportance of these differences was not overlooked. It ap- pears that the working relationship between contractors and the Depart- ment, although good at the present time, could be improved in this gen- eral respect if frequent meetings were held between the contractors' and Department's representatives. At these meetings the differences of opinion could be fully discussed and mutually satisfactory decisions reached. Such decisions should, of course, be fully explained and put into practice by the field representatives of both the contractors and the Department. 5.Gº º-.-| :-tº :-*{º ~&--- *" | ---> rr-!.- -y*- HIGHWAY RESEARCH Highway research constitutes an integral part of a well-rounded program of highway activities and makes a substantial contribution to the progress of any forward-looking state highway department. Since a research department or Organization is the agency through which are channeled highway problems requiring special study, the importance of an adequate research staff and program cannot be over stated. For many years, the Virginia Department of Highways has been aware of the need for and the benefits to be derived from highway re- search. Prior to 1949, the Department conducted these activities at its headquarters in Richmond. In 1948, however, the Department, in cooperation with the University of Virginia, established a research organ- ization at the University in Charlottesville to organize and carry on research studies in connection with highway matters. This organization, the Virginia Council of Highway Investigation and Research, has stated its objectives as follows: 1. To carry out research programs for the purpose of facili- tating the economic design, construction and maintenance of highways. 2. To train men in the fundamentals of highway engineering. 3. To maintain relations and to cooperate with the National Highway Research Board, the research divisions of other highway departments and universities, and other such agen- cies. 4. To report and publish findings which are of general interest and value and which add to fundamental engineering know- ledge. 5. To hold joint meetings and conferences related to the develop – ment and improvement of all phases of highway engineering. Organization of the Council The governing board of the Council is composed of the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, who acts as Chairman, the Dean of Engineering of the University, and the Director of Research of the Council. In developing the research program of the Council, the Board is as sisted by an Advisory Committee consisting of itself, one representative each of the Virginia Military Institute, the Virginia Poly- technic Institute, the University of Virginia, and an Assistant Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways. The staff consists of a Director of Research, who is assisted by a corps of Research Engineers, a Research Psychologist, a Highway Economist, an Information Officer, an illustrator and a secretarial staff, Graduate and undergraduate students are employed extensively as assist- ants in the research work. To facilitate its progress, necessary labora- tories are maintained for studies of concrete, soils and bituminous ma– terials. In addition, separate sections have been established to study and prepare reports on Traffic and Safety, Economics, Climate, and Other related highway subjects. The Director of Research and the staff are active in numerous national Organizations related to highway engineering fields, including the American Association of State Highway Officials, the American Con- crete Institute, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Highway Research Board, the Virginia Academy of Science, etc. The present Director of Research is Chairman of the Department of Design of the Highway Research Board and is a member of the AASHO National Ad - visory Committee, which is conducting the special road test now under- way in Illinois. The program is financed largely by the Department of Highways although the University cooperates by providing offices, laboratory space, utilities and janitor service. In fiscal 1954–55, the Council expended $140, 562, and in fiscal 1955-56 it expended $112, 023. The reduction in expenditures was due to the inability to fill all authorized positions with suitable candidates. In fact, at the present time there are several vac – ancies in the authorized strength of the permanent staff. Research Studies The research studies deal with problems which in large measure emanate from the Department of Highways. In general, these studies are of new or hitherto unused materials which give promise of reducing - -----ºr* *--~~ II costs in highway construction, and of the possibilities of varying adopted specifications to permit the use of a broader variety of materials to reduce costs. In addition, studies are made of completed roadways to determine load carrying characteristics of the pavement; of wearing sur - faces for roughness and non-skid characteristics; of sealing compounds for portland cenent concrete paving; of base and sub-grade stabilization with fly ash, hydrated line, portland cenent and the use of salts in graded aggregate mixtures; and of soils for load carrying characteristics under pavements and as foundations for structures, etc. A number of traffic studies have been made in cooperation with the Traffic and Planning Division of the Department of Highways. Fur – thermore, in cooperation with the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads and with funds obtained from the Federal Aid grants for planning and research, continuing studies are undertaken of highway signs, truck weights and volumes, and the economics of linited -access roads and bypasses. Fol- lowing are some examples of subjects covered in reports published in 1955 and 1956: 1. The effects of truck weights and volume on pavements. 2. A comparison of the density of Marshall specimens and paverment cores. 3. A field study of the methods of providing skid-resistant roads. 4. The effects of sea water on concrete. 5. The performance of various compounds used in sealing joints in concrete pavements. 6. A field study of plant mix and rock asphalt surfaces. 7. Four reports on the use of fly ash for various purposes. 8. Three reports on the use of various materials such as salts, cement, lime and fly ash for subgrade stabiliza- tion. 9. A study of gravels for bituminous mixes. 10. The causes and costs of highway sign replacement. P – 3 Comments on the Present Research Program At the present time, the research laboratory at Charlottesville appears, in certain respects, to be both inadequately equipped and inade – quately staffed for the problems that must be studied. In addition, it would seem that, because of the method of approach, an unwarranted annount of time and effort is being expended on certain problems. For example, a great deal of research is being undertaken to determine a method of "de-slicking" certain types of roads instead of applying greater concentration on developing a method of initial construction which would not require subsequent "de-slicking" applications. In this instance, it is quite probable that the manner of approach to the problem was dictated to a large extent by reasons of economy. Such slick-surfaced roads are more common in some of the western portions of the State where proper aggregate is scarce or non-existent. Because of construction fund limi- tations, faulty local materials are used which result in slickness, thus creating the problem. It is felt, however, that greater emphasis should be placed on the development of preventive measures rather than cures. It was also observed that research in the field of highway drainage is carried on independently of the Council by a University group which specializes in such subjects as ground water levels and the industrial and agricultural uses of water. Since the proper drainage of modern highways is an important subject, it is suggested that the Council participate to a greater degree in drainage research and give its findings widespread distribution to Department of Highways personnel. In conjunction with this research, high water during times of flood and flow formula con- stants should be subject to expanded research. Both subjects have been made highly important by the requirements of the Inter state System design criteria. Conclusions In general, the Virginia Council of Highway Investigations and Research is doing a commendable job but is suffering from an acute shortage of fully trained and experienced personnel. The enormously increased highway construction program now in pending will aggravate the condition. It is recornmended that the staff and facilities of the Council be built up rapidly to meet present and future problems. This building-up will not be accomplished until the inadequate salary scale now in effect is adjusted and additional funds are made available for the 0. : expansion of facilities. It is felt that the meeting of these additional costs would result in high dividends to the Department. It is also suggested that closer liaison be established between the research engineers and the design and construction engineers to insure a full and mutual understanding of current problems. The research engineer, having a more academic turn of mind, is naturally inclined at times to overlook or minimize the practical aspects of a problem, where - as the field engineer, on the other hand, may be inclined to discount the value of research. A clearer understanding and appreciation of both functions on the part of the men in the laboratory, the design office and the field would be highly advantageous. }*.5– --r- BOND FINANCING Numerous states have at one time or another in the past resorted to bond financing as a means of meeting some portion of the cost of high- way improvements, while other states have adhered to the principle of "pay-as-you-go" in the development of their road systems. The need to acquire additional funds to match the new Federal Aid Inter state funds as well as to undertake other highway in provements is now forcing Connecti- cut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, and Michigan, an ong others, to turn to credit financing as a solution to their highway fiscal problems. Other states, including New Jersey and South Dakota, are considering increases in highway imposts as a means of raising the nec – essary funds while continuing to operate on a "pay-as-you-go" basis. There is a wide diversity of opinion on the part of the states as to the practicability of credit financing. One school of thought seems to be that the financing of highways through bond sale proceeds is an uneconomic measure. Another school of thought believes that the benefits accruing to the general welfare and the savings in vehicle operation which result from accelerated highway in provement programs annply justify the extra costs involved in credit financing. There are numerous pros and cons which can be advanced for either method, but the final answer must be based on a full evaluation of the particular problems which face any individual state. Traditionally, Virginia has held to a rigid policy of improving its highway plant without resorting to borrowing. That this policy has been correct is impossible to say definitely. This much can be said, however; despite its large backlog of highway needs, which, incidentally, is present in practically all other states, Virginia's road plant not only compares favorably with those in most states but is superior to many. Although it is anticipated that Virginia will continue its policy of improving highways only to the limit that annual revenues will allow, the subject of bond financing is briefly discussed here merely to point up a consideration which may be come increasingly important. Between 1945 and 1955, the cost of highway construction has increased by about 110 per cent. If national prosperity continues as it has been, there is every reas on to believe that construction costs will continue this upward trend, particularly in the face of the great demands for materials, equipment, and labor which will result from the Inter state System program. An increase of 110 per cent over a period of ten years represents an annual increase of about 7.75 per cent over the preceding year. A one- cent fuel tax increase plus an average increase of $2.00 in license fees would produce an estimated $329 million in twenty years or an average of $ 16.4 million per year. If this additional revenue was pledged to meet the annual interest and an Ortization payments on a 20-year bond is sue of $ 100 million, it would allow for a 2.0 coverage at an assumed five per cent interest rate. It is evident, therefore, that if the inflationary trend in highway construction costs continues at the same rate during the next 20 years as it has during the last 10 years, it would be prudent to finance highway improvements on a credit basis at least to the extent of $ 100 million. This comparis on is purely one of financing costs and does not take into consideration the highway user benefits which would accrue because of the early in provement of a substantial annount of highway mileage. Additional advantages include the possibility that subsequent reduction in stop-gap major maintenance projects would result in savings in maintenance expenditures and that the early improvement of many miles of deficient highways would generate increased traffic which, in turn, would provide additional highway revenue. The balance of the $3.29 million income from increased fuel tax and registration fees, after meeting bond interest and amortization re- quirements would be about $170 million. That amount would be available for spending on an annual basis. Q-2 | I º CONVICT LABOR ON HIGHWAYS Prison officials and humanitarians have long been concerned with the problem of providing useful work for the convict population in Federal and State prisons and local jails. Officials are continually faced with the acute problem of developing work programs for inmates which will elimi- nate objectionable idleness in these institutions. Although various types of manufacturing have been tried in prison industries, these attempts have been limited by objections and pressures arising from commercial sources, and frequently from labor unions that are in competition with the prison labor. The Federal prison system contains an industrial section which promotes the use of prison work and products such as tentage, canvas items, laundry work, etc., annong Federal establish- ments. In addition, many state prisons now manufacture automobile license plates. However, despite all efforts by prison administrators to provide useful work, there is still much idle time in all prisons. In many instit. tutions, the only work available is in the operation, maintenance and upkeep of the prison plant. Since prisoners are being released to society each year in large numbers, penologists stress the need for some means of rehabilitating them before they are returned to society. Correction authorities note the fact that without the benefit of some conditioning process, one cannot expect the great proportion of these men to go from prison cell to unfamiliar employment after years of confinement and inmediately make good workmen. It has been traditional in many states, including Virginia, to keep a large segment of the prison population active in the maintenance and construction of roads. At one time, this policy worked quite well, since it not only served a sociological purpose but provided a cheap and constant source of labor as well. In those days, road construction consisted pri- marily of hand labor supplemented by simple horse-drawn equipment. During the past 20 or 25 years, however, the use of prison labor for road construction and maintenance has gradually declined and is no longer generally feasible. This decline has been due to the drastic improvement in highway standards since the beginning of the automobile age and, to the constantly increasing mechanization of highway work. Until recently, the Virginia Department of Highways used prison- ers on construction projects, particularly on Secondary System roads. The lower standards on these roads as compared with Primary System highways made it possible to utilize the skills of prison labor. It is R - 1 understood that this activity has now almost ceased completely and that activities of the road camp inmates are being confined almost exclusively to maintenance work. This complete withdrawal of convicts from con- struction activities apparently stems from the Federal ruling that prison- er's cannot be used in the construction of a Federal Aid project and per - haps also from objections by contractor and union organizations. As a result, prisoners are now engaged in such activities as ditching, clear - ing brush and weeds, erosion control, planting and maintenance thereof, general clean-up, hand-shovelling, and miscellaneous activities that can be performed by convict road gangs. Since for security purposes, pri- soners must be closely spaced and kept within a restricted orbit of move - ment while under guard, their use in connection with several of the above listed activities is costly. At the present time, the Department is using an average of about 1, 800 prisoner's scattered throughout the State in 22 permanent and 18 temporary camps. The camp superintendents and guards are Prison Department employees. Prisoner work gangs and the accompanying guards are turned out daily on the requisition of the Department of High- ways local superintendents or foremen. The Department of Highways reimburses the Prison Department for convict labor at 90 per cent of the daily rate for which free labor can be hired in the locality. Opinions as to the general economic value of prison labor vary, but the general consensus indicates that one free laborer can produce the work of one and one -half to two convicts, even when convict labor is engaged on a type of operation most suitable to gang operation. On other types of operation, the ratio of productivity might run as high as four prisoners to one free laborer. It is believed that some measure of increased value could be obtained from prison labor if as signments to road work could be placed on an honor basis with a small wage incentive for the individual prisoner. The inmates of the suggested honor camps would be selected jointly by the Department of Highways and Prison Department authorities and screened for the following qualifications: 1. A voluntary request must be made by the prisoner. 2. The innate's behaviour record must be satisfactory. 3. The inmate must be physically capable of productive work. -* •l - 4. The innate must be classified as a minimum custody risk. 5. The inmate's potential tenure on road work must be six months or more. 6. The nature and record of the crime for which he was convicted must be such as to reasonably justify assign- ment to an honor camp. The prisoner selected for these camps would be paid a minimum wage of at least $0.50 per day which would accrue to his account and be paid to him when sentence was completed. It is quite possible that legis - lative authorization would be necessary to institute a wage incentive plan of this type. There is one possible construction activity which the Department might consider for the use of prison labor. Some states are now solving the problem of replacing old bridge structures of short lengths by using pre-cast concrete units. Virginia has a large number of obsolete bridges where such members could be used. In addition, the manufacture and installation of pre-fabricated bridge units could be performed by convicts. Although these activities require some skill, both the Department of Highways and Prison Department regulations permit the use of convict labor on any type of semi-skilled or skilled labor for which the prisoner has the required ability. In summary, the use of prison labor on the highways in Virginia is not economically beneficial to the highway system. Convict labor has a certain value in times of national emergency when manpower is extremely short, or in those few areas of the State where there is a constant shortage of available free labor. In ordinary times, however, the best thing that can be said for the use of prisoners on the highways is that such use may be necessary for and beneficial to their rehabilitation. ~Y—,**&Nº.: |\, i.x; t -3. *:-->* -*-3 COMPARISON OF SPECIFIED FEATURES IN VIRGINIA'S HIGHWAY STRUCTURE WITH THOSE OF NINE OTHER SOUTHERN STATES How does Virginia Compare with other states in the Southeast” with respect to various aspects of its highway structure ? This section attempts to shed some light on this question by discus sing such matters as population, highway user taxes, mileage, income and other related highway features. Data are based on the year 1954, the last year for which comprehensive statistics were published by the Bureau of Public Roads. Population, Miles of Rural and Municipal Roads and Streets, and Miles of State – A drºninistered Roads and Streets On July 1, 1954, the population of the State of Virginia was esti- mated by the Bureau of the Census to be 3, 560, 000. Virginia ranked third an ong the ten southeastern states, led only by North Carolina with a population of 4, 225,000 and Georgia with a population of 3, 606, 000. Although third in population, Virginia ranked eighth, with approximately 55,000 miles, in the total number of miles of rural and municipal roads and streets in the State. In this respect only South Carolina, with 53,000 miles, and Louisiana with 47, 000 miles, had fewer miles of roads and streets. However, although Virginia ranked eighth in the total number of miles of rural roads and municipal streets in the State, it ranked second, with approximately 49,000 miles, both in the country as a whole as well as in the ten southeastern states, in the total number of State – administered roads and streets. It may be noted that the reason for the large number of State- administered roads and streets in Virginia is due to the fact that the local roads of all but two counties are under the direct jurisdiction of the Department of Highways. In 1954, county roads were under state control in the following states: Alabama (four counties); Delaware; North Carolina; Virginia (all but two counties); and West Virginia. Only North *The following states are included in the Southeast comparison: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana. Carolina could boast (both nationally and regionally) of a greater number of miles of State-administered roads and streets than Virginia. Percent- agewise, both Virginia and North Carolina had 90 per cent of the roads and streets in their respective states under Department of Highways administration. South Carolina followed in the Southeast with only 46 per cent of its streets and roads under State administration. Furthern or e, as would be expected, North Carolina and Virginia ranked first and second in the Southeast in miles of State-administered roads and streets per thousand persons with 16.3 and 13.8 miles, respectively. Number of Motor Vehicles Registered, State Highway User Taxes and State Income In the Southeast, Virginia ranked third in the total number of motor vehicles registered with 1, 209, 368, ranked fourth in the total armount of State highway user taxes * with $75,900, 000 and ranked seventh in average taxes per motor vehicle registered with $62. 73. Although on a per capita income basis, Virginia ranked second with $ 1, 480 (pre- ceded only by Florida with $ 1, 610), the State ranked only fifth in highway user taxes per capita with $21. 3 1. An examination of highway user taxes per capita as a per cent of income per capita reveals that Virginia experi- enced the lowest percentage of all the southeastern states, ranking tenth with 1.4 per cent in a range of per centages varying to a high of 2.4 in Mississippi. Table 26 presents data on the selected highway comparisons discussed under the above two subsections. Road-User Taxes on Selected Motor Vehicles in 1956 In August 1956, the Bureau of Public Roads issued a study dealing with road-user and property taxes on selected motor vehicles in all states as well as miscellaneous related highway matters. ** The study was made in late 1955 and early 1956 and is based on legislation in effect in the states as of January 1, 1956. * Includes motor fuel, motor vehicle, motor carrier and miscellaneous fees and taxes. **Public Roads: August 1956, Vol. 29, No. 3. Road-user in posts consist of motor fuel taxes and motor vehicle, motor carrier and other miscellaneous taxes and fees. To create a basis for permitting state comparisons, the Bureau established certain operat- ing characteristics for the vehicles included in the study. These include motor fuel consumption, annual miles of travel, and the average number of miles traveled per gallon. Table 27 presents the operating character – istics of the vehicles included in the study. In many states, it is common practice to assess a property tax on motor vehicles as well as a registration fee. Since the revenues derived from motor vehicle property taxes are in most cases diverted to uses other than highway expenditures, the comparisons presented in this sub-section include only those as sessments which accrue to the high- way fund. In addition, in evaluating the information contained in the Bureau's study, it must be noted that because of the difficulties encountered in determining taxes on vehicles in inter state operations, all taxes on such vehicles were omitted. Only vehicles in intrastate operations were in- cluded. Furthermore, but in the same vein of thinking, common carriers which operate for hire over established routes and fixed schedules were not included because of their complex tax schedules and forms of regula- tion, and because their operations are predominantly inter state in char - acter. Thus, only data for contract carriers are shown. The vehicles included in the Bureau of Public Roads study are as follows: Vehicle Gross Vehicle Weight (1bs.) 1. Passenger Cars a. Light 3, 882 b. Medium 4, 705 2. Farrn Service Trucks a. Pick-up 4, 800 b. Stake 12, 500 3. Private Trucks a. Pick-up 4, 800 b. Stake 12, 500 c. Van 19, 000 d. 3 – Axle Dump 40, 000 e. 3 – Axle Tractor -Serni Trailer 40, 000 f. 4.- Axle Tractor -Semi Trailer (Gasoline) 50, 000 g. 4.- Axle Tractor-Semi Trailer (Diesel) 50, 000 Vehicle Gross Vehicle Weight (1bs.) 4. Contract Carrier Trucks a. Stake 12, 500 b. Van 19, 000 c. 3 – Axle Tractor -Serni Trailer 40, 000 d. 4 – Axle Tractor -Semi Trailer (Gasoline) 50, 000 e. 4 – Axle Tractor -Serni Trailer (Diesel) 50, 000 Motor Fuel (Gasoline) Tax – On both January 1, 1940, and Jan- uary 1, 1956, Virginia levied the lowest motor fuel tax arn ong all the ten southeastern states. These rates were five cents per gallon in 1940 and six cents per gallon in 1956. Although the last session of the Virginia Legislature increased the gasoline tax on larger trucks by two cents, the figures used here were prepared previous to the date when the increase went into effect and can be used for comparis on purposes even though the additional truck tax undoubtedly had the effect of increasing Virginia's average tax per gallon. In 1940, only the State of Kentucky levied a tax Of five cents per gallon. All other states levied taxes of six cents or seven cents per gallon. In 1956, with the exception of Georgia (which levied a tax of 6.5 cents per gallon) all other southeastern states levied a tax of seven cents per gallon. Further more, in both 1940 and 1956, the tax rate in Virginia was only slightly higher than that of the country as a whole. The average (simple) tax for the nation in 1940 was 4.4 cents and in 1956 it was 5. 7 cents. Thus, where as for the country as a whole the gas tax increased by 1. 3 cents or 29.5 per cent during this period, the increase for Virginia was only one cent or 20 per cent. Table 28 pre- sents data with respect to the motor fuel tax in the ten southeastern states and in the United States during the period January 1, 1940 – January 1, 1956. It is estinnated that a one – cent increase in the motor fuel tax in Virginia would increase gross motor fuel tax revenues during the thirteen- year fiscal period 1957–58 through 1969–70 by approximately $ 1.84 million and increase revenues during the fiscal period 1957–58 through 1979–80 by approximately $35.6 million. Vehicle Registration Fees - Not only is Virginia's fuel tax lower than that of all the other southeastern states, but its registration fees (with the exception of light passenger cars and farm pickup trucks) are also on the low side. As indicated in Table 29, Virginia ranks from fifth to tenth in registration fees in medium passenger cars, farm service, private and contract carrier trucks. In the categories of light passenger cars and farm pickup trucks, Virginia ranks third an Ong all the south- eastern states. In 1954, data made available by the Bureau of Public Roads indicate that the average registration fee for all motor vehicles in the State of Virginia was $12.72. Among the ten southeastern states, Virginia ranked fourth in registration fees per vehicle. - X---Kº # | |*~~~ -- Registration Nurnber of Motor Registration Fee Per State Vehicle Registrations Fees Vehicle Rank Virginia 1, 209, 368 $ 15, 378, 000 $ 12. 72 4 N. Carolina 1, 401, 926 25, O79, 000 17. 89 2 S. Carolina 737, 602 5, 572, 000 7. 55 7 Georgia 1, 182, 07.3 6, 524, 000 5. 52 1 O Florida. 1, 543, 534 29, 0.34, 000 18. 81 I Kentucky 963, 102 7, 162,000 7. 44 8 Tennes see 1, 133, 672 13, 142, 000 | ] . 59 5 Alabama 937, 915 5, 2 1 0, 000 5. 55 9 Mississippi 623, 680 8, 118, 000 13. 02 3 Louisiana 92.3, 649 7, 978, 000 8. 64 6 According to the Division of Motor Vehicles of the State of Virginia, a total of 1,407,595 revenue licenses were issued in the fiscal year 1955– 56. It is estimated that if registration fees were increased by one dollar per vehicle for all vehicles, a total of approximately $23. 159 million would be realized by the State during the thirteen-year fiscal period 1957– 58 through 1969–70, and that $44. 195 million would be realized in the fiscal period 1957–58 through fiscal 1979–80. An increase of $2 per motor vehicle would increase revenues during these periods by $46. 318 million and $88. 390 million respectively. Combined Vehicle User Taxes and Fees — Among the ten south- eastern states, Virginia ranks on the low side in combined user innposts per vehicle with respect to all vehicles except those in contract carrier service. The State ranks fifth and tenth respectively for light and medium passenger cars; fifth and seventh for farm service pickup and stake trucks; and from seventh to tenth in the various categories of private trucks. Only in contract carrier trucks (excluding the 19, 000 lb. van ) does it rank high, and in these cases it ranks first in the 12,500 lb. stake truck and in all the tractor-trailer combinations. Furthermore, Virginia user- taxes are lower in all cases (other than contract carrier where they are higher in all cases) than the average user-taxes for all states in the nation. Table 30 presents data with respect to user-taxes in the ten southeastern states and the United States as a whole. It may be noted that the chief reason for Virginia's low ranking in user-taxes is its six cents motor fuel tax as compared with rates of S & Eº 5 6.5 cents and seven cents in the other ten southeastern states. Never- theless, if an adjustment to seven cents is made in Virginia's motor fuel tax, its user-taxes would still not bring the State up to the existing high point in the range of the southeastern states in the categories of passenger cars, farm service and private truck rates. In fact, in the categories of passenger cars and farm service trucks, Virginia (on an adjusted basis) ranks from third to seventh among the southeastern states. In the category of private trucks, Virginia still ranks from fifth to ninth annong the different classes of trucks. In con- tract carrier operations (with the exception of the 19, 000 lb s. van where it ranks third) Virginia ranks first in the other categories of trucks. When compared to the national average, Virginia would, on an adjusted basis, vacillate around the average in passenger car and farm service trucks but still be considerably under the national average in private truck rates. Table 31 presents data comparing Virginia (on an adjusted basis) with the other southeastern states and the national average. +:*** T ſº J | f ſ ſ t State Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida. Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Louisiana | | | | | | | | E – E TABLE 26 SELECTED HIGHWAY INDICATORS IN TEN SOUTHEASTERN STATES 1954 Percent State State Ad- Total Rural Miles of Administered ministered Population & Municipal State Admin- Roads are of Miles per July 1, 1954 Rank Mileage Rank istered Roads Rank Total Rank (000) Pop. Rank 3,560, 000 3 54, 827 8 49, 246 2 89. 8 2 13. 8 2 4, 225,000 l 76, 420 2 68, 955 I 90. 2 I 16. 3 l 2, 270,000 9 52, 955 9 24, 359 3 46.0 3 10. 7 3 3, 606, 000 2 94, 679 l 15, 134 5 16.0 8 4. 2 6 3, 300,000 5 56, 205 7 12, 298 7 21. 9 6 3. 7 9 2,978, 000 7 63, 130 6 17, 621 4 27. 9 5 5. 9 4 3, 362, 000 4 70,065 3 8, 553 9 12. 2 9% 2.5 10 3,001, 000 6 68, 550 4 12, 118 8 17.7 7 4. 0 7 2, 126,000 10 65, 613 5 7, 993 10 12. 2 9% 3. 8 8 2, 882, 000 8 46, 770 10 15, 036 6 32. 1 4 5. 2 5 (1) State Highway State User Per Capita Number of User Taxes Highway Taxes Income User Taxes Motor Per Motor User Taxes Per Per as a Percent Vehicle Vehicle ($000) Rank Capita Rank Capita Rank of Income Rank Registrations Rank Registered Rank 75, 868 4 $21.31 5 $1,480 2 1.4 10 1, 209, 368 3 $62. 73 7 107, 757 2 25.50 2 1, 190 7 2. 1 2× l, 401, 926 2 76.86 I 47, 766 9 21. 04 6 1,063 9 2. 0 4 737, 602 9 64. 75 6 65, 338 5 18. 12 9 1, 237 4 1.5 8× 1, 182,073 4 55. 27 10 113,098 l 34. 27 I 1, 610 l 2. 1 2× 1, 543, 534 l 73. 27 2 63, 548 6 2. l. 34 4 1, 216 5 1. 8 6 963, 102 6 65. 98 5 77, 233 3 22. 97 3 1, 212 6 1. 9 5 1, 133, 672 5 68. 13 4 53, 732 8 17. 90 10 1,091 8 1.6 7 937, 915 7 57. 28 9 44, 653 10 21. 00 7 873 10 2.4 l 623, 680 10 7 l. 59 3 57, 57.7 7 19. 98 8 1, 302 3 1. 5 8% 923, 649 8 62. 33 8 % Two states share this rank (1) Includes revenues from motor fuel, motor vehicle, motor carrier and miscellaneous taxes and fees. Source: Bureau of the Census Bureau of Public Roads "Highway Statistics, 1954" TABLE 27 CHARACTERISTICS OF MOTOR V EHICLES USED IN COMPUTING STATE ROAD - USER TAXES 1956 REGISTRATION Y EAR Annual Motor Fuel Gross Vehicle Total Annual Miles Traveled Consumption (gallons) Average Miles Per Gallon Body Weight Farrn Private Contract Farm Private Contract Vehicle Type Pounds Tons Service Operation Carrier Service Operation Carrier Passenger Cars Light Club Coupe 3, 882 1. 9410 * 9, 500 * = gº 576 gº Six Passenger Mediurn 4 Door 4, 705 2. 3525 º 10, 500 sº &º 724 * -º Six Passenger Single Unit Truck Pick-up - 4, 800 2.4000 6, 000 9, 000 tºp 387 600 gº- Stake &º 12, 500 6. 2500 5, 500 12, 000 20, 000 550 1, 333 2, 222 Van º 19, 000 9.5000 sm. 15, 000 25, 000 # = 2, 307 3,846 3-Axle Dump iº 40, 000 20.0000 tº 30, 000 * = m 7, 500 tº- Tractor -Serni-Trailer Combination 3-Axle Tractor 28' Van 40,000 20.0000 * = 40, 000 40, 000 ſºme 8, 000 8,000 4- Axle Tractor (G) 33' Van 50, 000 25, 0000 sº 60,000 60,000 * 15, 000 15, 000 4-Axle Tractor (D) 32" Van 50, 000 25.0000 sº 60,000 60,000 sº 10, 000 10, 000 G - Gasoline D - Diesel Source: Bureau of Public Roads "Public Roads; August 1956, Volume 29, No. 3." f -- - - - º r * * ſ, Farrn Service 15. 10. Private Contract Operation Carrier 16.5 sº 14. 5 º-> 15. O sº 9. 0 9. O ... 5 6. 5 4. O tº-º . 0 4. 0 4. 0 ... O T . TABLE 2.8 STATE GASOLINE TAX RATES January 1, 1940 – January 1, 1956 (Cents per Gallon) State 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 Virginia 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 North Carolina 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 South Carolina 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Georgia 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 6, 5 Florida. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Kentucky 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Tennessee 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Alabama 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 Mississippi 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 Louisiana 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 : 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 United States Average 4. 4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4, 7 4.8 5. 1 5. 1 5. 3 5. 3 5.4 5.4 5. 7 Source: Bureau of Public Roads "Highway Statistics, 1954'' Bureau of Public Roads "Public Roads; August 1956; Volume 29, No. 3." TABLE 29 REGISTRATION FEES ON SELECTED MOTOR VEHICLES IN TEN SOUTHEASTERN STATES January 1, 1956 (Dollars) Gross Vehicle Rank Weight North South of Range Vehicle (lbs.) Virginia Carolina Carolina Georgia Florida Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Virginia Low High Passenger Cars Light 3, 882 10. 00 10. 00 4. 00 3. 00 15. 00 4. 50 9. 50 3. 00 12. 48 3. 00 3× 3. 00 15. 00 Medium 4, 705 10. 00 12. 00 6.00 10. 00 20. 00 4. 50 13. 00 3. 00 16. 57 3. 00 5× 3. 00 20. 00 Farm Service Trucks Pick-up 4, 800 12. 00 10. 00 6.00 5. 00 24. 75 4. 50 9. 50 15. 00 7. 00 3. 00. 3 3. 00 24. 75 Stake 12, 500 19.50 3 1. 25 66. 00 15. 00 60. 50 4. 50 22. 50 22. 50 2. l. 40 10. 00 7 4. 50 66. 00 Private Trucks Pick-up 4, 800 12. 00 20. 00 6. 00 5. 00 24. 75 10. 00 25. 00 15. 00 10. 00 10. 00 5 5. 00 24. 75 Stake 12, 500 19.50 62. 50 66. 00 15. 00 60. 50 32. 00 45. 00 22. 50 37. 00 60. 00 9 15. 00 66. 00 Van 19, 000 45. 60 152. 00 126. 00 55.00 84. 70 1 12.00 240. 00 50. 00 94. 00 120. 00 10 45. 60 152. 00 3-Axle Dump 40, 000 180.00 320. 00 401. 00 1 10. 00 187. 00 350. 00 435. 00 100. 00 271. 00 240. 00 8 100. 00 435. 00 3 –Axle Tractor-Serni-Trailer 40, 000 180. 00 320. 00 197. 00 13.5.00 196. 40 350. 00 435. 00 75. 00 282. 00 260. 00 8 75. 00 435. 00 4-Axle Tractor -Semi-Trailer (G) 50, 000 300. 00 400. 00 282. 00 1 35. 00 2 18. 10 - 525. 00 75. 00 333. 00 320. 00 5 75. 00 525. 00 4-Axle Tractor-Semi-Trailer (D) 50, 000 300. 00 400. 00 2.62. 00 190. 00 246. 10 * 525. 00 75. 00 333. 00 320. 00 5 75. 00 525. 00 Contract Carrier Trucks Stake 12,500 19.50 125. 00 66. 00 30.00 60.50 32. 00 70. 00 22. 50 73. 00 120. 00 10 19.50 125. 00 Van 19, 000 45.60 266.00 126.00 1 10.00 84. 70 45. 00 3.15. 00 50. 00 187. 00 240. 00 9 45. 00 3 15. 00 3-Axle Tractor -Semi-Trailer 40, 000 180. 00 560. 00 197. 00 262. 50 2.32. 90 150. 00 560. 00 75. 00 552. 00 520. 00 8 75. 00 560. 00 4-Axle Tractor-Serni-Trailer (G) 50, 000 300. 00 700. 00 282. 00 262.50 255. 60 - 675. 00 75. 00 654. 00 640. 00 5 75. 00 700. 00 4-Axle Tractor -Semi-Trailer (D) 50,000 300. 00 700. 00 2.62. 00 372. 50 2.91. 10 * 675. 00 75. 00 654. 00 640. 00 6 75. 00 700. 00 >}: Two states share this rank G - Gasoline D - Diesel Source: Bureau of Public Roads "Public Roads; August 1956; Vol. 29, No. 3." Rank of (lbs.) Virginia Carolina Carolina Georgia Florida Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Virginia 43 54 30 Vehicle Passenger Cars Light Medium Farm Service Trucks Private Trucks Contract Carrier Trucks (1) Excludes property taxes Two states share this rank >< Pick-up Stake Pick-up Stake Van 3-Axle Dump 3-Axle Tractor -Semi-Trailer 4-Axle Tractor-Serni-Trailer (G) 4-Axle Tractor-Semi-Trailer (D). Stake Van 3-Axle Tractor -Semi-Trailer 4-Axle Tractor -Semi-Trailer (G) 4–Axle Tractor-Serni-Trailer (D) D - Diesel G - Gasoline TABLE 30 ESTIMATED HIGHWAY -USER TAXES LEVIED ON SPECIFIED VEHICLES IN TEN SOUTHEASTERN STATES AND IN THE UNITED STATES (1) January 1, 1956 (Dollars) Gross Vehicle Weight North South 3, 882 45 50 44 40 56 45 50 44 4, 705 53 63 57 57 71 56 64 54 4,800 35 37 33 30 52 32 37 43 12, 500 53 70 105 5 1 99 44 61 62 4, 800 48 62 48 44 67 53 67 58 12, 500 99 156 159 102 154 126 138 1 16 19, 000 184 3 13 287 205 246 274 40 l 2 12 40, 000 6.30 845 926 598 7 12 876 960 626 40, 000 660 880 757 655 757 9 11 995 636 50, 000 1, 200 1, 450 1, 332 1, 1 10 l, 269 - 1, 575 1, 126 l, 50, 000 900 1, 100 962 840 947 - 1, 225 776 l, 12, 500 317 281 282 199 317 270 2.38 279 19, 000 5 16 535 545 385 605 44.1 597 445 40, 000 l, 140 1, 120 l, 107 808 994 1, 036 1, 138 936 l, 50, 000 2, 180 1, 750 1, 732 1,263 1, 607 - 1, 743 1, 726 l, 50, 000 1, 840 1, 400 l, 312 l, 0.48 l, 292 - 1, 393 1, 376 l, Source: Bureau of Public Roads "Public Roads; August 1956; Volume 29, No. 3" 53 67 34 60 52 130 255 796 842 383 133 242 469 125 717 467 52 153 28 1 76.5 820 1, 370 l, 020 286 519 l, 090 l, 700 l, 350 5× 10 8× 10 : : United States Average Low 47 59 38 65 54 135 246 75 l 79.5 1, 347 1, 100 223 393 887 l, 496 l, 245 28 40 24 37 33 60 142 325 449 755 555 133 2 13 454 760 560 High 68 87 68 1 14 81 222 40 l. l, 248 1, 347 2, 6 18 2, 534 46 l 736 l, 514 2, 794 2, 6 12 TABLE 3 ] ESTIMATED EFFECT OF A ONE CENT PER GALLON F UEL TAX INCREASE ON VIRGINIA'S HIGHWAY USER TAXES (1) January 1, 1956 (Dollars) Gross Range of User Taxes Vehicle in Ten Southeast State s United Weight Rank of States Vehicle (lbs.) Low High Virginia Virginia Average Passenger Cars Light 3, 882 40 56 5 O 3× 47 Mediurn 4, 705 53 7 1 6 l 5 59 Farrn Service Trucks Pick-up 4, 800 30 52 39 3 38 Stake 12, 500 44 105 58 7 65 Private Trucks Pick-up 4, 800 44 67 54 5 54 Stake 12, 500 99 159 1 13 9 135 Van 19, 000 184 401 207 9 246 3-Axle Dunp 40, 000 598 960 705 8 75 1 3-Axle Tractor Serni-Trailer 40, 000 636 995 740 8 795 4-Axle Tractor Semi-Trailer (G) 50, 000 1, 110 1, 575 1, 350 5 1, 347 4-Axle Tractor Semi-Trailer (D) 50, 000 776 1, 225 1, 000 5 1, 100 Contract Carrier Trucks Stake 12, 500 199 3 l 7 339 1 223 Van 19, 000 385 605 555 3 393 3 - Axle Tractor Serni-Trailer 40, 000 808 1, 140 1, 220 l 887 4-Axle Tractor Semi-Trailer (G) 50, 000 1, 263 2, 180 2, 330 l 1, 496 4-Axle Tractor Semi-Trailer (D) 50,000 1,048 1, 840 1, 940 1 1, 245 * Two or more states share this rank G - Gasoline D - Diesel (1) Excludes property taxes Source: Bureau of Public Roads "Public Roads; August 1956; Volume 29, No. 3" % wº*:: : : : ------ | : |#|| | CONSTRUCTION DISTRICTS The State of Virginia is divided into eight construction districts and 43 residency areas as shown in Fig. 8. The districts constitute the organizational units responsible for effectuating the policies of the De- partment and form the basis for the distribution of the Primary System construction funds. The residencies are responsible to the district in which they are located. The Fredericksburg District, with four residen- cies, has the fewest number. All other districts have either five or six residencies. The number of counties in each district vary from a mini- murn of ten to a maximum of 14 counties. The range in the number of counties per residency in all districts other than the Fredericksburg District is from 2.0 to 2. 4 counties per residency. The Fredericksburg District has an average of 3.5 counties per residency. As discussed previously, the apportionment of the bulk (approxi- mately 90 per cent in fiscal 1956–57) of the Primary System construction funds annong the districts is based on the simple average of the factors of area, population and rural Primary mileage. With the exception of the Fredericksburg District, whose average of 7.4 per cent is the lowest armong the districts, the averages of the other districts vary from 1 1.6 per cent in the Staunton and Lynchburg Districts to 15.2 per cent in the Suffolk District. The variations within the factors constituting the aver – ages may be noted as follows: 1. The distribution of population is extremely wide spread, ranging from 135,000 or 4. 1 per cent in the Fredericks – burg District to 780, 000 or 23.4 per cent in the Suffolk District. 2. The distribution of area (except for the Fredericksburg District) is fairly even, varying from 1 1.6 per cent in the Suffolk District to 13.6 per cent in three other dis – tricts. The Fredericksburg District has 8.9 per cent of the total area. 3. The distribution of rural Primary mileage varies be - tween 9, 3 per cent in the Fredericksburg District to 14.6 per cent in Bristol District. Although Secondary System funds are allocated on a county basis, the responsibility for supervising highway activities in the counties and in plementing Department policy rests on the district office through its residencies. Thus, it is in portant to note the distribution of Second- ary System area and mileage as indications of the dimensions of the problems involved. -:|.|.|. --- 1. Secondary System area (with the exception of the Fred- ericksburg District) is fairly evenly distributed annong the districts, ranging from 1 1.2 per cent to 13.8 per cent. The Fredericksburg District contains 9. 1 per cent of total Secondary area. . 2. Secondary System mileage (excluding Fredericksburg District) varies from 10.2 per cent in the Suffolk Dis – trict to 16. 0 per cent in the Salem District. The Fred - ericksburg District contains 8.2 per cent of the Second- ary mile age. : The distribution of highway funds annong the districts is as follows: | 1. The distribution of total highway funds for all systems annong the districts (excluding Fredericksburg District) varies from 1 1. 4 per cent for the Staunton District to 14, 8 per cent for the Suffolk District. The Fredericks – burg District receives 7.3 per cent of total funds. : 2. With the exception of the Fredericksburg District, the distribution of rural Primary construction funds annong the districts varies from 10. 6 per cent to 15.4 per cent of total funds. The Fredericksburg District re- ceives 8.4 per cent of total funds. In addition, the funds per mile of road varies from $3,959 in the Fred- ericksburg District to $4,789 in the Culpeper District. : 3. Again with the exception of the Fredericksburg District, the distribution of Secondary funds varies between 1 1.4 per cent in the Staunton District to 14. 7 per cent in the Bristol District. The Fredericksburg District receives 7.8 per cent of total funds. The distribution of funds per mile of road varies from $676 in the Salem District to $912 in the Suffolk District. T –2 : t- The distribution of specific highway factors on a residency basis is as follows: 1. The number of square miles of area per residency var- ies in each district from 839 square miles in the Cul- peper District to 1, 108 square miles in the Staunton District. 2. The total number of miles of State -adrºninistered and / or supervised roads and streets per residency in each district varies from 1, 03.3 miles in the Fredericksburg District to 1, 402 miles in the Lynchburg District. 3. Rural Primary mileage varies from 165 miles per residency in the Suffolk District to 207 miles in the Staunton District. r re- 4. Secondary System mile age per residency per district varies from 83.3 miles in the Suffolk District to 1, 155 miles in the Lynchburg District. C º The above data indicate that the present organization of the De - partment is generally equitable for administrative purposes. It does not appear necessary to revise the boundaries of the present districts or alter the present system of Organization of districts and residencies. Deficiencies in the present organization are for the most part due to a lack of adequate staff. This situation can be reme died by additional per – sonnel rather than by any major reorganization of the present structure. In recent years, suggestions have been made to re organize the Commission on a Congressional District basis. An analysis of the effects of this proposed reorganization indicates (a) that serious and substantial changes would be necessary to effectuate the conditions of the proposed plan and (b) that the proposed reorganization would result in much greater variations and inequalities annong the new districts than exist at present. These indications are evident from the following data: 1. A reorganization of the Highway Commission would require; (a) An expansion of the total number of districts from eight to ten. (b) The creation of four new district offices. At the present time, four of the ten Congressional Dis- tricts do not have a district office. Two of the Con- gressional Districts (Districts VI and VIII) each have two district offices and would be for ced to dis continue one office. : : T cº 3 (c) The reshuffling of the present residencies to more evenly reflect the needs of the new districts. . A re Organization of the Connrnission would create variations in highway factors annong the Congressional Districts that would be significantly greater than under the present organization. (a) The range in values of the average of the factors which are used to distribute the bulk of the rural Primary construction funds would vary from 4.2 per cent in District X to 15.2 per cent in District VIII. (b) A redistribution of the Secondary area armong the Congressional Districts would result in an ex — tremely widespread and erratic distribution rang - ing from 0.9 per cent in District II to 18. 7 per cent in District IV. : (c) A redistribution of Secondary mile age on a Con- gressional District basis would result in a range of values from 0.9 per cent in District II to 17. 9 per cent in District IV. . As suming no changes in the existing residency structure, the following would obtain; . (a) The population per residency per district would vary between 33,000 in District VIII to 404,000 in District II, . \_º- (b) The number of square miles per residency per district would vary between 376 square miles in District III to 1,660 square miles in District I, . (c) The total number of miles of State -administered and/or supervised roads and streets per resi - dency per district would vary between 677 miles in District III to 1, 904 nmiles in District I, | (d) The rural Primary mile age would vary from 94 niles in District II to 320 miles in District I, | (e) The range of Secondary mileage per residency per district would vary between 308 miles in District III to 1, 337 miles in District I. T º 4 : -* ºr º-.**** : sº ** | 4. Variations in the distribution of highway funds annong the Dis- tricts would be greater than at present. (a) The distribution of total funds would vary between 4. 1 per cent in District III to 15.3 per cent in Dis- tricts IV and VIII. (b) The distribution of rural Primary funds would range from 2.4 per cent in District II to 17.2 per cent in District VIII. In addition, under the pro- posed re organization, the annount per mile would vary from $3,534 in District I to $8,981 in District II. (c) The distribution of Secondary funds would vary from 1.8 per cent in Districts II and III to 16. 7 per cent in District IV. In addition, the armount per mile under the proposed system would vary from $661 in District V to $1,466 in District II. 5. A re organization of the Commission raises the question of the justification for separate district offices to handle highway matters in some Congressional Districts. For example, Dis - trict II would contain 94 miles of rural Primary and 382 miles of Secondary roads as compared with 1,500 miles of rural Primary and 7, 228 miles of Secondary roads in District VIII. 6. The proposed reorganization would open the Commission to greater local political pressures. The data discussed above are presented in detail in Tables 32, 33, and 34. Tables 35 and 36 list the counties and major cities in the Construction and Congressional Districts. VIRGINA ADVISORY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (D JONES VILLE (2) WISE (3) LE BANON (3) ABING DON (3) TAZEWELL G) witHEVILLE (i) chalsTIANSBURG HILLSVILLE (3) MART | NS VILLE ROCKY MOUNT (D salem (2) LEx|NGTON (3) STAUNTON AMHERST (5) BED FORD HIGHWAY DISTRICTS AND RESIDENCY AREAS NOVEM BER RESIDENCY AREAS CHAT HAM (ii) APPoMATTox HAL FAX SOUTH HILL AME LIA (3) DILLwºn (2) charlottesville (33) HARRISON BURG EDINBURG (3) LURAY LE ESBURG (i) WARRENTON CULPEPER |956 LOUISA ASH LAND (3) chest ERFIELD @ PETERSBURG (33) FRANKLIN SUFFOLK (35) wave RLY SAND STON @ Bowling GREEN KING GEORGE FAIRFAx () warsaw SALUDA NORFOLK (3) accomac PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL 8. MacDonald o Io 20 30 Fig. 8 TABLE 32 SELECTED HIGHWAY FACTORS IN THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS Per Cent Per Cent - - Secondary Per Cent Construction Population of Area in of System of District - 1950 State Total Square Miles (1) State Total Area (2) State Total Bristol 388, 372. 11. 7 5, 542 13.6 5, 520. 04 13. 8 Salem 394, 490 1 1. 9 5, 537 13. 6 5, 484. 92 13. 7 Lynchburg 3 l 1, 34 1 9. 4 5, 375 13.2 5, 3+ 1. 88 13. 3 Richmond 554, 200 16. 7 5, 402 - 13.2 5, 100. 73 12. 7 Suffolk 779, 690 23.4 4, 752 ll. 6 4, 468. 29 11.2 Fredericksburg 134, 774 4. 1 3, 632 8. 9 3, 626.00 9. 1 Culpeper 486, 040 14. 7 5, 035 12. 3 4, 986. 95 12. 5 Staunton - 269, 773 8. 1 5, 540 13. 6 5, 50.1. 10 13. 7 Total 3, 3 18, 680 100. 0 40, 815 100. 0 40,029.91 100. 0 Average of the Population, Number of Miles of State Administered and/or Supervised Roads and Streets * * - Ullſ al Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per C ent Primary Rural of of of Systems of Mileage Primary State Total Secondary State Total Urban (3) State Total Total State Total Factors Bristol 1, 164. 34 14.6 5, 704. 03 13.9 156. 99 4. 7 7, 025. 36 • 13. 4 13. 3 Salem l, 0.10.86 12. 7 6, 556.53 16. 0 498. 39 14.8 8, 065. 78 15. 5 12. 7 Lynchburg 96.7. 9 l 12.2 5, 773. 70 14. 1 2.68. 75 8. 0 7, 010. 36 13. 4 1 l. 6 Richmond l, 095. 07 13. 8 5, 004. 98 12.2 698.67 20. 8 6, 798. 72 13. 0 14. 5 Suffolk 827. 02 10.4 4, 166. 45 10, 2 l, 206. 07 35, 9 6, 199.54 1 l. 9 15. 2 Fredericksburg 744. 60 9. 3 3, 342. 36 8. 2 44, 27 1. 3 4, 13 l. 2 3 7. 9 7.4 Culpeper 1, 116. 60 14. 0 5, 54 l. 70 13. 5 254. 33 7. 6 6,912. 63 13. 2 13. 7 Staunton l, 0.35. 76 13. 0 4, 867. 85 l l. 9 232. 78 6.9 6, 136. 39 1 l. 7 ll. 6 Total 7, 962. 16 100. 0 40, 957. 60 100. 0 3, 360. 25 100. 0 52, 280. 01 100. 0 100. 0 Number of Square Number of State Administered and/or Super- Number of Population Miles Per vised Miles of Roads and Streets per Residency Number of Number of Counties Per Per Residency Rural Residencies Counties Residency Residency (l) Primary Secondary Urban Total Bristol * 6 12 2. 0 64, 729 923. 6.7 194. 06 950.67 26. 16 l, 170. 89 Salem 6 12 2. 0 65, 748 922. 83 l68. 48 1, 092. 75 83. 06 l, 344. 30 Lynchburg 5 10 2. 0 62, 268 l, 0.75. 00 193. 58 l, 154. 74 53. 75 l, 402. 07 Richmond 6 14 2. 3 92, 367 900, 33 182. 5 1 834, 16 l 16. 44 l, 133. 12 Suffolk 5 l2 2.4 155, 938 950. 40 165. 40 833. 29 24 l. 2 1 l, 239. 9 l Fredericksburg 4 14 3. 5 33, 694 908. 00 186. 15 835. 59 1 1. 07 1, 032. 8 1 Culpeper 6 13 2.2 81, 007 839. 1 7 186. 10 923. 62 42. 39 l, lb 2. 10 Staunton 5 1 l 2. 2 53, 955 l, 108.00 207. 15 973. 57 46. 56 l, 227. 28 Total 43 98 2. 3 77, 179 949. 19 185. 1 7 952. 50 78. 15 l, 2 15. 8 1 (1) Includes rural and urban area (2) Excludes area of municipalities with population of 3,500 or over (3) Includes Primary System extensions and other secondary streets in municipalities with population of 3,500 or over. Congressional (1) (2) (3) D1 strict II III IV VI VII VIII IX Total I IV VI VII VIII IX Total II III IV VI VII VIII IX Total TABLE 33 REVISION OF SELECTED HIGHWAY FACTORS TO REFLECT THE REPLACEMENT OF PRESENT HIGHWAY DISTRICTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS Per Cent Per Cent Secondary Per Cent Population of Area in of System of 1950 State Total Square Miles (1) State Total Area (2) State Total > 07, 144 9. 3 3, 320 8. 1 3, 109. 34 7. 8 -:03, 923 12.2 4 47 l. 1 379. 69 0. 9 3.34, 127 10. 1 75 l l, 8 468. 89 1.2 358, 514 10. 2 7, 537 18. 5 7, 5 10. 78 18, 7 3 16, 734 9.5 5, 304 13. 0 5, 274. 17 13.2 337, 947 10. 2 3, 755 9. 2 3, 696. 49 9, 2 289, 598 8. 7 6, 623 16.2 6, 589. 89 16.5 296, 985 8. 9 7, 29 1 17. 9 7, 278. 60 18, 2 390, 380 ll. 8 5, 330 13. 1 5, 306. 71 13. 3 303, 328 9. 1 457 l. 1 4 15. 35 1. 0 3, 318, 680 100. 0 40, 815 100. 0 40,029. 9.1 100. 0 Average of the Population, Number of Miles of State Administered and/or Supervised Roads and Streets ** Ul Per Cent Per Cent Per C ent Per Cent Primary Rural of of of Systems of Mileage Primary State Total Secondary State Total Urban (3) State Total Total State Total Factors 639. 01 8. 0 2, 674. 92 6.5 493. 72 14. 7 3, 807. 65 7. 3 8, 5 93. 6.3 1.2 38 1.86 0. 9 644. 07 19, 2 l, l 19, 56 2. 1 4. 8 2 l l . 64 2. 7 6 16.68 l. 5 525. 25 15. 6 1, 353. 57 2.6 4. 9 1, 299. 84 16. 3 7, 292.47 17. 9 259. 24 7. 7 8, 85 l. 55 16, 9 15. 0 942. 3 1 11. 8 6, 684. 2 l 16. 3 2.53. 27 7. 5 7, 879. 79 15. 1 I l. 4 737.84 9. 3 3, 853. 86 9.4 548. 00 16. 3 5, 139. 70 9. 8 9. 6 1, 246.46 15. 7 6, 096. 6 1 14. 9 187. 07 5. 6 7, 530. 14 14. 4 13. 5 l, 499. 55 18. 8 7, 228, 28 17. 6 130. 93 3. 9 8, 858. 76 17. 0 15. 2 1, 105. 8 1 13. 9 5, 187. 00 12. 7 15 1. 03 4. 5 6, 443, 84 12. 3 12, 9 186. 07 2. 3 94 1. 71 2. 3 167. 6.7 5. O l, 295.45 2. 5 4. 2 7, 962. 16 100. 0 40, 957. 60 100. 0 3, 360. 25 100. 0 52, 280. 01 100. 0 100. 0 Nurnber of Ex1sting Residencies 4 3 Number of Counties 98 Includes rural and urban area Number of Counties Per Residency 2 3 Number of State Administered and/or Super- Population per Residency 153, 572 403, 923 167, 0.64 42, 3 14 52, 789 l 12, 649 48, 266 32, 998 78,076 303, 328 77, 179 Excludes area of municipalities with population of 3,500 or over Includes Primary System extensions and other secondary streets in municipalities with population of 3,500 or over vised Miles of Roads and Streets per Residency Number of Square Miles Per Rural Residency Primary Secondary Urban Total (1) l, 660 3 19, 5 1 1, 337. 46 246. 86 l, 903. 83 447 93, 63 38 l. 86 644. 07 l, l 19, 56 376 105. 82 308. 34 262. 63 676. 79 942 l62. 48 9 11. 56 32.4 l l, 106. 44 884 157. 05 l, l 14.04 42.2 l l, 3 13. 30 l, 252 245. 95 1, 284. 62 182. 67 l, 713. 2 3 1, 104 207. 74 l, 016. 10 3 1. 18 l, 255. 02 8 10 l66. 62 803. 14 14. 55 984. 3 1 1, 066 22 l. 16 l, 037. 40 30.2 l l, 288. 77 457 186. 07 94 l. 71 167. 67 1, 295. 45 949 185. 1 7 952. 50 78. 15 l, 2 15. 8 1 TABLE 34 COMPARISON OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF HIGHWAY FUNDS A11 Percent of rº, Percent of Secondary Percent of Urban Percent of Rural Rural Systems Total System (1)| Total System Total System Total Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Construction Districts Bristol $10, 198, 352 13. 6 $5,213,472 ,14.9 $4,568, 054 14. 7 $ 416, 826 4. 7 1, 164.34 5, 704. 03 $4,478 $80 1 Salem 9, 960, 936 13. 3 4, 442, 102 12. 7 4,432, 177 14. 3 1,086, 657 12.2 1, 0 10.86 6, 556. 53 4, 394 676 Lynchburg 8, 955, 529 12. 0 4, 220, 674 12. 1 4,005, 1 16 13. 0 729, 739 8. 2 967. 9 l 5, 773. 70 4, 36 l 694 Richmond 10, 214, 786 13. 7 4, 776, 192 13. 7 3, 762, 502 12. 2 1, 676, 092 18. 7 l, 0.95.07 5, 004. 98 4, 362 752 Suffolk 11,020, 808 14.8 3, 714, 676 10.6 3, 800, 373 12. 3 3, 505, 759 39. 1 827. 02 4, 166. 45 4, 492 9 12 Fredericksburg 5, 482,039 7. 3 2, 948, 140 8.4 2, 409, 460 7.8 124,439 1.4 744. 60 3, 342. 36 3, 959 72 1 Culpeper 10, 420, 753 13. 9 5,347, 507 (2) 15.4 4, 41 1,700 14.3 66 1,546 7.4 1, 116. 60 5,541. 70 4, 789 796 Staunton 8, 526, 810 11.4 4, 249, 610 12. 2 3, 534, 890 ll. 4 742, 310 8. 3 1, 035. 76 4, 867. 85 4, 103 726 Total 74, 780, 013 100. 0 34, 912, 373 100.0 30, 924, 272 100. 0 8, 943, 368 100.0 7, 962. 16 40, 957. 60 4,385 755 Congressional Districts District I $ 6, 21 1, 142 8. 3 $2,258,040 6.5 $2,411, 228 7.8 $ 1,541, 874 17.3 639. 0 1 2, 674. 92 $3,534 $90 l District II 3, 202,043 4.3 840, 929 2.4 559, 697 1. 8 1,801, 417 20. 2 93. 63 38 1.86 8, 981 1, 466 District III 3,045, 946 4. 1 1, 170,493 3.4 569, 877 1. 8 1, 305, 576 14.6 21 l. 64 6 16. 68 5, 53.1 924 District IV 11, 451, 869 15. 3 5, 728, 654 16.4 5, 156, 133 16. 7 567, 082 6.3 1, 299.84 7, 292.47 4, 407 707 District V 9, 240, 820 12.4 4, 187, 919 12. 0 4, 415,089 14. 3 637, 812 7. 1 942. 3 l 6, 684. 2 l 4, 444 66 1 District VI 7, 0.66, 152 9. 4 3,008, 942 8.6 2, 790, 521 9. 0 1, 266, 689 14. 2 737.84 3, 853. 86 4, 0.78 724 District VII 9, 976, 957 13. 3 5, 082,481 14.6 4, 273, 284 13. 8 621, 192 6. 9 1, 246.46 6,096. 6 1 4,078 70 1 District VIII 1 I, 432, 228 15. 3 6, O 15, 593 17. 2 5,094, 990 16.5 321, 645 3. 6 1,499.55 7, 228. 28 4, 0 12 705 District IX 9, 778, 488 13. 1 4, 965, 353 14. 2 4, 397, 394 14. 2 415, 741 4.6 l, 105.8 l 5, 187. 00 4,490 848 District X 3, 374, 368 4.5 1,653, 969 (2) 4. 7 1, 256,059 4. 1 464, 340 5. 2 186. 07 941. 7 l 8, 889 l, 334 Total 74, 780, 013 100.0 34, 912, 373 100. 0 30, 924, 272 100. O 8, 943, 368 100.0 7, 962. 16 40, 957. 60 4, 385 755 AMONG THE CONSTRUCTION DISTRICTS AS PRESENTILY CONSTITUTED WITH THE DISTRIB UTION AMONG THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS FISCAL YEAR 1956-57 High w a y System s ' A 1 1 Oc a ti on s (1) Includes the fiscal 1956–57 Inter state System allocation authorized prior to the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. (2) Includes Federal Aid Urban and State matching funds for Arlington County. Miles of Roads Allocation Per Mile of Road Bristol District County Bland Buchanan Dickens on Grayson Lee Russell S C Ott Smyth Tazewell Washington Wise Wythe City Bristol Salem District County Bedford Botetourt Carroll Craig Floyd Franklin Giles Henry Montgomery Patrick Pula ski Roanoke City Martinsville |Radford Roanoke Lynchburg District County Arnher st Appomattox TABLE 35 COUNTIES AND MAJOR CITIES IN THE EIGHT CONSTRUCTION DISTRICTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHW A YS June 30, Buckingham Carnpbell Charlotte Cumberland Halifax Nelson Pittsylvania ºr ince Edward City Danville Lynchburg |Richmond District County Annelia B runswick Charles City Chesterfield Dinwiddie Goochland Hanover Henrico Lunenberg Mecklenburg New PKent Nottoway Powhatan Prince George City Colonial Heights Richmond Hopewell Petersburg Suffolk District County Accomack Greensville Isle of Wight Jannes City 1956 Nansennond Norfolk Northampton Princes s Anne Southampton Surry Sussex Y Ork City Hannpton Newport News Norfolk |Portsrnouth South Norfolk Suffolk Warwick Williamsburg Fredericksburg District County Caroline Essex Gloucester King George King and Queen King William Lancaster Mathews Middle sex Northurnberland |Richrnond Spotsylvania Stafford We strnor eland City Fredericksburg Culpeper District County Albermarle Arlington Culpeper Fairfax Fauquier Fluvanna Greene Loudoun Louisa Madison Orange Prince Williarn Rappahannock City Alexandria Charlottesville Falls Church Staunton District County Alleghany Augusta Bath Clarke Frederick Highland Page Rockbridge Rockingham Shenandoah Warren City Buena Vista Clifton Forge Harrisonburg Staunton Waynesboro Winchester : DISTRICT I County Accornack Charles City Essex Gloucester James City King and Queen Mathews Middle sex New Kent Northampton Princess Anne York City Harmpton Newport News Warwick Williamsburg DISTRICT II County Norfolk City Norfolk Ports nnouth South Norfolk DISTRICT III County Chesterfield Henrico City Colonial Heights Richmond DISTRICT IV County Annelia Appomattox Brunswick TABLE 36 COUNTIES AND MAJOR CITIES IN THE TEN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA June 30, Buckingham Curnberland Dinwiddie Greensville Isle of Wight Lunenburg Mecklenburg Nansennond Nottoway Powhatan Prince Edward Prince George Southampton Surrey Sussex City Hopewell Petersburg Suffolk DISTRICT V County Carroll Charlotte Franklin Grays on Halifax Henry Patrick Pittsylvania Wythe City Danville Martinsville DISTRICT VI County Alleghany Bedford Botetourt Carmpbell Craig 1956 Floyd Montgomery Roanoke - City Clifton Forge Lynchburg Radford Roanoke DISTRICT VII County Arnher st Augusta Bath Clarke Frederick Highland Madis on Nelson Page Rappahannock Rockbridge Rockingham Shenandoah Warren City Buena Vista Harrisonburg Staunton Waynesboro Winchester DISTRICT VIII County Albermarle Caroline Culpeper Fauquier Fluvanna Goochland Greene Hanover King George King William Lanca ster Loudoun. Louisa Northumberland Orange Prince Williarn Richmond Spotsylvania Stafford We strºn Oreland City Charlottesville Fredericksburg DISTRICT IX County Bland Buchanan Dickens on Giles Lee Pulaski Russell Scott Smyth Tazewell Washington Wise City Bristol DISTRICT X County Arlington Fairfax City Alexandr ia Falls Church ‘| ||| ||} | || 5| 5 || 5 || || 5 ſ） ） {ſ—， ſ-, ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS The Department of Highways is governed by a State Highway Com - mission consisting of a Chairman, who is appointed at large, and eight additional mernbers, each of whom represents a construction district. All appointments are made by the Governor subject to confirmation by the General Assembly. Members are appointed for a period of four years and are subject to removal by the Governor. The Chairman, who acts as executive director of the Department, is a full-time official bear – ing the title of State Highway Commissioner. The District Commissioners are not full-time Officials but participate generally through attendance at Commission meetings. Assisting the Commissioner are two principal aids: (1) the Chief Engineer, who also has the title of Deputy Commissioner and (2) an Ex- ecutive Assistant whose duties are chiefly administrative in nature. The positions of the Chief Engineer and the Executive Assistant might be characterized as Deputy Commissioner for Engineering and Deputy Com - missioner for Administration. In fact, some state highway departments are organized to provide for two such positions innediately below the director of the Department. Assisting the Chief Engineer and directly responsible to him are two Assistant Chief Engineers, each of whom is responsible for the fol- lowing Commission activities: First Assistant Chief Engineer 1. Maintenance Engineering . Landscape Engineering Construction Engineering Equipment Engineering Urban Engineering Second Assistant Chief Engineer 1. Bridge Engineering 2. Secondary Engineering 3. Testing Engineering 4. Research Engineering 5. Location and Design Engineering This division of functions between the two Assistant Chief Engi- neers appears to be satisfactory, although there is some minor over – lap. As indicated above, the Executive Assistant is responsible for general administrative matters. Although several sections in the De - partment of Highways are directly responsible to the Chairman, they are in actuality channeled to the Chairman through the Executive As- sistant. The sections which constitute the responsibility of the Executive As sistant are : 1. The Right-of-Way Division The Purchasing and Stores Division The Fiscal Division The Traffic and Planning Division The Toll Facilities Division The Personnel, Safety and Public Relations Divisions. The organization of the Department as described above consti- titutes the Central Office of the Department. There is, in addition, the field organization, which is based on the division of the State into eight construction districts. Each district is under the supervision of a Dis- trict Engineer who reports through channels to the Chief Engineer and who, in addition, works with the men of the Central Office in carrying out the policies of the Department. It may be noted that in no district does driving time from the district office to the remotest point in the district exceed approximately two hours. Reporting to the District Engineers are 43 Resident Engineers, each of whom is charged with the responsibility of the Department's smallest administrative unit, which is called a residency. Each resi- dency consists of from one to four counties. The Resident Engineer is responsible for all field operations in all systems in his residency, for the execution of the Department's policy in the field, and for the task of maintaining the most cordial relations between the Department and the citizens of the State. In the performance of his duties the Resident Engi- neer is aided by maintenance superintendents and construction inspectors. I t.%.| |II.*-* \,ſ I | To adequately cope with future highway demands resulting from the Inter state System program and the anticipated general increase of highway activities, there is an obvious need to increase the personnel of the Department. There is also a need, in an operation of the size and complexity of the Department of Highways to constantly subject all its ac- tivities to a "job study" unit whose function it would be to determine the adequacy of methods and procedures and to reconnnnend necessary changes and innovations. At present, it appears that the top-level staff located at Rich- mond is sufficient for the task. However, an expansion in the number of engineers at the lower levels will be necessary. Clerical and account- ing personnel present less of a recruiting problem than engineering per - sonnel, and an expansion in the se types of employees can very well await the impact of the new Inter state program before additions are made. A general illustration of an insufficiently manned and trained staff may be shown by the present situation in the Bridge Department. At present, there are 23 employees in the Department including tracers, draftsmen, etc. Of the 23 employees, fewer than ten are college grad- uate S ; of the se only four are engineering graduates. It is felt that to meet the needs of the expanded highway program, it will be necessary to increase Bridge Department personnel at least 300 per cent. This increase will be difficult or in possible with the present salary schedule. Currently, a graduate with two years experience starts at the same sal- ary in the Bridge Department as does a graduate trainee with no experi- ence who starts in the training program. There is thus a need either to adjust salaries for graduate engineers who have experience or to create a graduate trainee program within the Bridge Department itself. The Bridge Department also suffers from the lack of a hydraulics division, which results in an uncoordinated program relating to water – shed factors, drainage areas, waterway openings and general highway high-water information. The existence of an inadequate number of grad - uate engineers thrusts the responsibility of making water way calculations on the already overworked members of the Department, thereby accen - tuating and making more acute the lack of a coordinated program. At present, the districts are seriously undermanned, and the need for additional engineering personnel in every district is urgent. To obtain adequate supervision of construction work in the field service, it is estimated that the number of engineers below the grade of Resident Engineer will need to be more than doubled. It may be noted that this additional engineering personnel should be recruited by early 1957. Apparently, no District Engineer has an as sistant capable of act- ing for him on a 11 questions arising in connection with construction and maintenance operations. Such a position, which has already been author - ized, could be filled by promotion from the ranks of the Resident Engi- neers, thereby establishing a line of promotion to the position of Dis- trict Engineer. In addition, at the time of the field study, no district had a Bridge Engineer to assist the District Engineer. Staff assistance for bridge construction or maintenance comes from Richmond head- quarters. The Resident and District Engineers are not sufficiently trained to evaluate old structures for load linits or repair needs, and this lack of staff assistance results in conditions of rust and general deterioration. Lack of time and limitations of personnel under the present organization prevent a satisfactory solution to this problem. It is, therefore, sug- gested that each district fill the position of District Bridge Engineer, which has been authorized, and in addition create the position of Assis – tant District Bridge Engineer so that personnel can be trained to fill the position of District Bridge Engineer. Furthermore, it is suggested that the Central Office at Richmond establish a sub-section connposed of men who are specialists in analyzing old bridges with respect to load limits and repairs. There is also a lack of sufficiently qualified inspectors in the districts to properly supervise contract construction. The summer work load of the Resident Engineers is far too great to provide proper inspec – tion of highway construction, and the men hired for inspection on high- way and bridge work are in many instances inadequately trained. There is thus an urgent need for a greater number of Assistant Resident Engi- neers. Furthermore, it is believed that intensive schooling for inspectors during the winter months would increase their efficiency considerably. The need for increased engineering personnel in the Districts may be illustrated by reference to the present situation in the Culpeper District. There is a critical shortage of engineering personnel to handle the activities of the District. Both additional Resident and Assistant Resident Engineers are needed. In fact, there has been a need for several engineers for the past ſew years which has not been satisfied. In this connection, it may be noted that the situation in this district is aggra - vated by the inclusion of the Virginia portion of the Greater Washington \ : }} vaºs- II I : * º *::: | * .. Metropolitan area within its boundaries. At the present time, there are no graduate engineers working under the Design Engineer in the Culpeper District. Furthermore, too few graduate assistant engineers are being trained to replace key personnel who are rapidly approaching the age of retirement. The laboratory testing equipment in this district is relatively crude and of poor quality, space is crowded, and it is apparent that both equipment and personnel are woefully inadequate to undertake additional work in the present quarters. It is, therefore, believed that the testing function, especially in connection with the Inter state System program, will have to be handled either by a private organization or by an expanded Highway Department testing staff operating with adequate facilities. There is also a general inadequacy and insufficiency in the dis - trict Office plant. District buildings, yards and equipment are poor, ill- lighted, and lacking in adequate toilet facilities. Over crowding of per – sonnel and facilities results in conditions of distraction and inefficiency. The conditions existing in Culpeper District are almost typical of several other districts. The Department of Highways maintains a group of Inspectors who supervise contract construction. This group is classified into three grades: Inspector B, the senior grade ; Inspector A, the Junior grade; and Inspector Trainee. As used in highway construction operations, the title "Inspector" ordinarily implies activity in a rather limited field. In Virginia, however, Inspector B is charged with the entire responsibility for obtaining sound construction in compliance with project plans and specifications. In view of this situation, it is recommended that an engineering title be created for the Inspector in charge of a project. In many states, the engineer in charge of a project is called the "Resident Engineer". Since, however, this title is already in use in Virginia, it is suggested that the title "Project Engineer" would be appropriate for this position. Such a title would be more indicative of the duties and responsibilities of the position than the title of "Inspector B" or "Inspector A". The adoption of this title would not involve any changes in the lines of auth- ority in the Department. Furthermore, since the Specifications and the Manual of Instructions are revised from time to time as a regular proce - dure, the necessary changes of wording can be gradually incorporated in these documents. Hitherto, the lack of an adequate salary scale has been a serious impediment in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel. On July 1, 1956, the salary schedule for positions in the Department was revised substantially upwards, representing an advance over the previous salary increase, which was put into effect two years earlier. The salaries for most of the engineering positions seem reasonably good and should help to obtain and hold qualified personnel. However, it is suggested that the salary for the District Engineer be made equal with that of the Divi- sion heads in the Richmond headquarters. It is also suggested that the salary range in the Resident Engineer and Assistant Resident Engineer positions be increased two steps when the District Engineers are re- classified. The positions of Inspector B, Inspector A and Chief of Party should be carefully watched to determine whether the salaries pertaining to these grades are attracting satisfactory personnel. The new salary for the position of Graduate Trainee seems to be appropriate, but it has been in effect for too short a period to determine its adequacy. At present, it is the practice of the Department, on evidence of satisfactory service, to make regular one-step promotions within the grades. The Graduate Trainees receive these one -step promotions every nine months. With respect to other positions, the following obtain: a one-step promotion each year for those receiving less than $5,000 per annum; a one -step promotion every eighteen months for salaries be - tween $5,000 and $7,500 and a one-step promotion every two years for salaries above $7,500. Furthermore, it is the practice with respect to vacancies, to promote from a lower to a higher grade provided there is a suitable candidate in the lower grade. This practice appears to be reas onable and fair. i-- .*r -, Nº.\s s'r]| gº -º-º- COMMENTS ON FU E L T A X AND REGISTRATION FEE INCREASES Fuel Tax : The armount of revenue which might be realized by adding one cent per gallon to the current fuel tax was estimated in a previous section of the Report. In that estimate, it was assumed that the one cent per gallon would apply whether the fuel was used by heavy trucks or other vehicles. Currently, however, fuel consumed by heavy trucks is taxed at eight cents per gallon, while fuel consumed by other vehicles is taxed at six cents per gallon. Thus, fuel used by heavy trucks is taxed at a rate per gallon one-third higher than that used by other vehicles. If fuel currently taxed at six cents per gallon becomes seven cents per gallon, the fuel currently taxed at eight cents per gallon should increase to 9-1/3 cents per gallon if the existing relationship were to be continued. ~s<---, Table 37 presents an estimate of fuel consumption and fuel tax liabilities for trucks with three or more axles and other vehicles for the fiscal year 1957–58. For this tabulation, it was arbitrarily assumed that trucks with three or more axles would consume ten per cent of the total fuel used on the highways. This assumption is essentially in agree – ment with estimates prepared recently by the Virginia Highway Users Association and the Virginia Railway Association. The resulting revenue from the two cent surtax on fuel used by heavy trucks also ess entially agrees with an estimate recently made by the State Corporation Com – mission. Table 37 indicates that under current tax rates heavy trucks would provide about 12.9 per cent of the total fuel tax revenue. If a one-cent increase were imposed on all fuel, the portion of the total tax provided by heavy trucks would be reduced to 12.5 per cent. An additional 1/3 cent per gallon on fuel used by heavy trucks, for a total of 1 - 1/3 cents, would maintain the truck portion of total fuel tax income at 12.9 per cent . Registration Fees Table 38 presents the current schedule of registration fees and indicates the revisions that will become effective on April 1, 1957. The revisions establish a separate schedule of fee rates to be applied to for- ~x.***** hire and for-rent carriers over 18, 000 pounds gross weight and change the current method of as signing fees to tractor trucks and semitrailers. Presently, tractor trucks are registered at a fixed fee and semitrailers are charged the fee per thousand pounds corresponding to the gross weight of the combination of which they are a part, less the fee paid for the tractor. After April 1, 1957, the fee rate for a tractor truck will be determined by the gross weight of the combination of which it is a part, and an additional fee of $ 12.00 will be required for each semitrailer. The changes will increase heavy-truck registration revenues but will not change the revenues from other vehicles. The magnitude of the increase has been estimated as low as $300,000 and as high as $ 1, 625, 000. No independent estimate has been prepared for this study. Registration fees as estimated for this Report do not include the effect of those in- creases; their effect is included in miscellaneous revenue, but their annount is not defined. Registration income for the fiscal year 1957–58 was estimated to be $20. 0.80 million, not including the effect of the revised fee schedule. The increased income for that year could vary between $20. 380 million and $21. 705 million, depending on which of the above estimates of in- creases is more nearly correct. An additional average increase of $2.00 in the registration fee per vehicle was estimated to produce $3.052 million during the fiscal year 1957–58. That increase would amount to 14 or 15 per cent over the total registration income for that year, the exact per centage depending on whether the revised fee schedule produces $ 1, 625,000 or $300,000 in additional registration incorne. It is apparent, therefore, that by increasing each fee presented in Table 38 by about 14 or 15 per cent, total registration fees for the 1957–58 fiscal year would be increased by an armount approximately equivalent to an average of $2.00 per vehicle. Application of that per cent increase would change passenger car fees from the present $10.00 to about $ 11.50. It would also change the rate per thousand pounds of for-hire carriers in the 50, 001 to 56, 800 pound group from $ 10.65 to about $ 12. 25. That increase would change the total fee for a for -hire carrier's tractor truck, in a combination weighing 56, 800 pounds, from $604. 92 to $695. 80. Such an increase would seem inequitable, since the registration fee for that truck-trailer combination will increase from $426.00 to $604. 92 on April 1, 1957. It appears that the application of weighted increases to effect the $2.00 per vehicle average increase would excessively penalize the vehicles which already pay the largest fees. An alternate, and possibly more acceptable, method of producing that increase would be to add $2.00 to each fee designated in Table 38. That method would produce the same total revenues as the 14 – 15 per cent increase. It would, however, in- crease the passenger car fee to $ 12.00 and add only $2.00 to each truck registration fee. This method would have the additional advantage of enabling simple determination of the exact additional revenue produced. Diesel Fuel In recent years, diesel fuel tax rates, in relation to those for gasoline, have been the subject of frequent study. The object has been to determine whether diesel fuel should be taxed at a higher rate than gasoline because of the high degree of efficiency of modern diesel engines and the relatively low cost of diesel fuel. The basic argument used by proponents of a higher diesel fuel tax rate is that diesel-powere d trucks can travel between 40 and 50 per cent farther on a gallon of fuel than can gasoline-powered trucks of the same gross weight. With the same tax per gallon for diesel fuel and gasoline, diesel trucks, therefore, pay about one-third less fuel tax per mile of travel than their gas oline-powered counterparts. This relation- ship has been accepted as generally correct by the Bureau of Public Roads. As an illustration, the highway user taxes which are paid by a gasoline – powered tractor - semitrailer combination of 50,000 pounds gross weight may be compared with those paid by an equivalent diesel- power ed combination. To make comparisons, basic operating charac – teristics were as surned as follows: Total Annual Travel 60,000 miles Average Miles per gallon: Diesel-power ed 6 miles Gasoline-power ed 4 miles The assumed average miles of travel per gallon of fuel are arbi- trary, but they are believed reasonable by the Bureau of Public Roads and were used in their study of "Road-User and Property Taxes on Selected Motor Vehicles, 1956. " Under the assumed conditions, and with both fuels taxed at eight cents per gallon, the diesel-powered truck would consume 10,000 gallons and pay $800 fuel tax, and the gasoline-powered truck would consume 15,000 gallons and pay $ 1, 200 fuel tax. The only other user tax involved is the registration fee, which, because the two trucks are of equal gross weight, would be the same for each truck. The total user taxes collected for the diesel-powere d truck would be $400 less than those for the gasoline - powered truck, although both make identical use of the highways. Many states have recognized this situation and now in pose either higher registration fees for diesel trucks or a higher tax per gallon for diesel fuel, the basic justification being that the consumption of motor fuel by highway vehicles is an automatic measure of highway use and as such should in pose a like price for like services. Other considerations of user costs and user benefits involved in the purchase and operation of the two types of vehicle are not related to this basic principle. If substantially equitable highway-user taxes are to be charged to all vehicles which, under similar conditions and for similar publicly provided services, use the public highways, then it would appear that the greater use of the highways obtained from a gallon of diesel fuel should be charged for at the same rate per mile as is charged the gasoline vehicle of the same dinnersions and under the same conditions. The amount of revenue which would be produced under alternative differential rates of taxation for diesel fuel is presented in Table 39. No differential rate of diesel fuel taxation was included in preparing the fuel tax revenue estimates presented previously in this Report. | r --Y-wº-V---V--^-*-- : ***- TABLE 37 ESTIMATED FU EL CONSUMPTION AND FU E L T AX LIABILITIES F OR HEAVY TRU CKS AND OTHER VIEHICLES WITH POSSIBLE TAX R A T E R EVISIONS FOR THE FISC AL YEAR 1957–58 Trucks with 3 or n or e axles All Other Vehicles Total Vehicles I Arnount Per Cent Armount Per Cent Annount Per C ent (000) of Total (000) of Total (000) of Total I Highway Fuel Consumption (1) (in gallons) l 19, 500 10. 0 l, 0.75, 500 90. O 1, 195, 000 100. 0 I Fuel Tax: 6 cents per gallon $ 7, 170 10. 0 $ 64, 530 90. O $ 7.1, 700 100. 0 I 2 cents additional per gallon for I. heavy-truck use 2, 390 100 . 0 - 0 , 0 2, 390 100 . 0 t. Sub - totals $ 9, 560 12, 9 $ 64, 530 87. 1 $ 74, 0.90 : 00.0 I Proposed 1 cent per gallon increase 1, 195 10 : 0 10, 755 90 0 11, 950 100. 0 L Sub - totals $ 10, 755 12.5 $ 7.5, 285 87.5 $ 86, 040 100 . 0 L. Proposed additional increase of 1/3 cent per gallon L. for heavy truck -> Ul S e 398 100 . 0 * 0. 0 398 100. 0 ºl Totals $ 1 1, 153 12.9 $ 75, 285 87. 1 $ 86,433 100.0 C. (1) Heavy truck fuel consumption assumed to be 10 per cent of total fuel consumption. This approximates recent estimates by the Virginia Highway Users Association, the Virginia Railway Association, and the State Corporation Commission. TABLE 38 REGISTRATION FEES PROFERTY – CARRYING VEHICLES Fee per Thousand Pounds Gross Weight (1) For Rent Or Private IT or Hire Mininnurn Fixed Carrier (2) Carrier (3) Fee Fee Semi-Trailer (3) $ 12.00 Tractor Truck (4) 30. 00 Private Trailer for carrying up to 1, 000 pounds 3. 50 Private House Trailer 7. 50 Well Driller Vehicle 10. 00 Distributor : 2 sets of License Plates 70. 00 Each Additional Set 15. 00 Motorcycle Dealer: 3 Sets of License Plates 15. 00 Each Additional Set 4. 00 Other Dealer : 2 Sets of License Plate s 25. 00 Each Additional Set 8. 00 Other Property Carrying Vehicles by Gross Weight Group: Pounds 0 – 10, 000 $ 1. 20 $ 1. 20 $ 12.00 10, 001 - 1 1, 000 l. 30 l. 30 1 1, 001 – 12, 000 1. 40 1. 40 12, 00 1-13, 000 1. 50 l. 50 13, 001 – 14, 000 1. 60 l. 60 14, 0.01 – 15, 000 1. 70 1. 70 15, 001 – 16, 000 1. 80 1. 80 16, 001 - 17, 000 2. 00 2. 00 17, 001 - 18, 000 2. 20 2. 20 18, 001 – 19, 000 2. 40 3. 85 19, 00 l –20, 000 2. 60 4. 15 20, 001–21, 000 2.80 4. 50 2 1, 001–22, 000 3. 00 4. 70 22, 001–23, 000 3. 20 5. 10 23, 001–24, 000 3. 40 5. 40 24, 001–25, 000 3. 60 5. 75 25, 001–26, 000 3. 80 6. 10 26, 001–27, 000 4. 00 6. 40 27, 001–28, 000 4. 20 6. 70 28, 001–29, 000 4. 40 7. 05 29, 001–40, 000 4. 50 7. 20 40, 001–45, 000 5. 00 8. 00 45, 001 – 50, 000 6. 00 9. 60 50, 001–56, 800 7. 50 10. 65 (1) See text for method of applying these rates before and after April 1, 1957. (2) Applies to private, for rent and for hire carriers until April 1, 1957. (3) Effective April 1, 1957 (4) Inoperative after April 1, 1957 PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES Private Passenger Car: Capacity 8 or Less Capacity 9 or More Motorcycle Side car Vehicle for Rent Without Chauffer Taxi and Vehicle for Rent With Chauffer Bus for To and From Church Contract School Bus Bus in Special Charter Service All Other Passenger Carrying Vehicles Fee Per Hundred Pounds . 30 . 70 70 . 80 . 00 . 30 . 70 Fee $3.00 Minimum Fixed Fee $ 10.00 10. 00 - : | TABLE 39 ESTIMATED DIESEL F. UE L TAX REVENUE (Thousands of Dollars) Fiscal At Present Year Tax Rate Ending 8 cents Additional Tax Per Gallon June 30 Per Gallon 2 Cents 3 Cents 4 Cents 1958 2, 392 598 897 1, 196 1959 2, 48.0 620 930 l, 240 1960 2, 560 640 960 l, 280 1961 2, 632 658 987 1, 316 1962 2, 7 12 678 l, 0.17 l, 356 1963 2, 792 698 1, 047 1, 396 1964 2, 856 7 14 l, 0.71 l, 428 1965 2, 928 732 1, 098 1, 464 1966 2, 984 746 1, 1 19 1, 492 1967 3, 040 760 1, 140 1, 520 ! 96.8 3, 0.96 774 l, 1 6 1 l, 548 1969 3, 144 786 1, 179 1, 572 1970 3, 184 796 1, 194 1, 592 13 – Year Total 36, 800 9, 200 13, 800 18, 400 Total to 1980 71, 0.96 17, 774 26, 66 l 35, 548 ºn-sº- :*ſº- ; tw CONCLUSIONS AND RE COMMENDATIONS The condition of Virginia's highways compares favorably with that of other states, and is, in fact, superior to many. This condition has been the result of a number of factors, including able administration, the application of sound engineering principles, and, ins Ofar as it was possible under the current distribution system, the judicious use of funds. In Virginia, however, as in every state, a lack of sufficient funds has resulted in the accumulation of an extremely large backlog of needed in provements. Despite continued highway modernization, particularly since the end of World War II, the pace of construction has lagged seri- Ously behind needs, thereby creating a situation which has caused sub- stantial injury to the general welfare of the State. If the pace of con- struction is not increased to a point where improvement will gradually begin to overtake construction needs, it may be assumed that the general economy of the State will continue to be adversely affected. Highway Needs and Highway Funds The most in portant finding of this Study is that a great disparity exists between estimated present and future highway needs and estimated highway revenues accruing from current in posts. In preparing this Report, it was necessary to assume that today's construction costs would be maintained in the future. Even with this as sumption, and despite the anticipated normal gains in revenue during the period, the annount of backlog at the end of 23 years would only be reduced by approximately 40 per cent. Actually, however, the excessive costs resulting from required maintenance and replacement during that period make it highly doubtful that the backlog would be reduced even to that extent. It is evi- dent, therefore, that an increase in funds is necessary to enable the highway plant to provide Optimum service as a public facility. There are two possible sources of additional revenue : (a) vehicle registration fees and (b) motor fuel taxes. It is believed that the most logical increases would be an average $2.00 per vehicle increase in the motor vehicle registration fees and one cent per gallon increase in the fuel tax. If the national economy remains substantially as it is today, it is estimated that these increases will bring all systems in the State to 100 per cent completion in approximately 23 years. The se re Conn - mended increases are based on long-range projections of both costs and revenues which are essential for the formulation of a basic program. However, to make allowances and adjustments for constantly changing trends, it is suggested that estimates of costs and revenues be reviewed at least every second year. The Distribution of Highway Funds The second most important finding is that the present methods of fund distribution result in allocations to the systems, districts, counties and towns which are completely inequitable with respect to needs. In evaluating the effects of the Inter state System, it may be recalled that the Federal Aid Act of 1956 contemplates the completion of the Inter state System in 13 years. Although there is small likelihood of its achieve - ment within 15 or more years, it was assumed, for purposes of the Re - port, that the System would be completed within the specified time, and that all Federal Aid grants necessary for its completion would be forth- coming. As indicated below, the continuation of present laws and policies can only result in the development of a seriously unbalanced road plant. 1. When all Inter state System grants are matched and the legally required 30 per cent of total funds available to the Department of High- ways is allocated to the Secondary System, there will not be sufficient State funds available to match the combined Primary, Secondary and Urban System Federal grants. 2. At the end of the 13-year period, the Secondary System will have received 110 per cent of its estimated needs, the Urban System 39 per cent of its needs and the Primary System only 25 per cent of its needs. The State of Virginia will thus have realized a completed Inter- state Systern (which is certainly desirable), a considerably over-dev – eloped Secondary System, and poorly developed Urban and Primary Sys - term S. 3. The distribution of system funds to the counties, districts and cities results in an even worse condition of inbalance. During the next 13 years, one of the ten sample counties analyzed will not even receive sufficient Secondary System maintenance funds, while another will re- ceive over three times the estimated cost of its construction needs after meeting its maintenance requirements. Similarly, allocations of rural Primary System funds to the districts and Urban System funds to the cities are so completely inequitable, that the development of a balanced road plant is utterly impossible. W -2 >:- Re commendations The findings of the Study lead to the following recommendations: 1. In computing the total annount to be allocated to the Secondary System, exclude Federal Aid Inter state grants from funds available to the Department of Highways. Continue the distribution of Secondary funds to eligible counties according to present practices. 2. Define the Inter state System allocation to consist of total Fed- eral Aid Inter state plus required State matching funds plus estimated maintenance requirements. Distrib-tºe this allocation to the districts on the basis of directly-determined relative needs and priorities. 3. Define the Urban Systern allocation to consist of total Federal Aid Urban plus State matching funds and distribute this allocation accord- ing to present policy. Continue Primary extension and secondary street grants as presently required by law. 4. Define the rural Primary System allocation to consist of all highway funds remaining after the allocations for the other three systems and all non-construction expenses are determined. Distribute the se funds to the districts on the basis of the incomplete Primary mileage and the three -factor formulas which are presently used to distribute the combined Primary, Inter state and Urban Systems funds. 5. Restrict the application of items one through four to the rev – enue derived from current highway-user imposts. 6. Increase the fuel tax by one cent per gallon and the registration fees by an average of $2.00 per vehicle. 7. Establish an equalizing fund with the revenue obtained from the increased taxes and fees. Distribute this fund to the Urban, Primary and Secondary Systems and in turn to the various subdivisions on the basis of directly-determined relative needs and priorities. The implementation of these recommendations requires a mini- mun of change in present laws and policies and will result in extensive in provernents in the allocation system. No highway system or sub- division would have its present allocation reduced, and those receiving less than their proportionate share of funds would have their allocation increased. Table s 21-26 illustrate the se matters. Although the application of the above re commendations would re- sult in a substantially equitable allocation of funds, further improve - ment would be obtained from the adoption of the following: 1. Discontinue the use of the Secondary System Equalization Fund. Its function would be assumed by the more effective equalizing fund es- tablished in Item 7 above. Combine the present Rotating Bridge Fund and the Extraordinary Storm Damage Fund into a single revolving fund to be used where needed. 2. Discontinue the use of the Incomplete Primary Mile age Fund, the basis for which, i. e., non-hard-surfaced rural Primary mileage, has long since disappeared. 3. Transfer full responsibility for improving urban Primary ex- tensions from the cities to the Department of Highways. In this connec – tion, it will be necessary to: (a) Reduce Primary extension grants to the city to an armount that will allow for adequate maintenance, and (b) Delegate to the State the responsibility for match- ing all Urban Federal Aid grants. The legal changes required to accomplish these recommendations are not extensive. Except for the determination of the Secondary System allocation and the city street grants, the distribution system now in use is, for the most part, based on policy rather than statute. For example, the law merely requires that the distribution of Primary System funds to the districts be made on an equitable basis. Policy determinations, however, have established the manner in which this legal requirement was met, and have also established the manner in which Secondary Sys – term and Federal Aid Urban funds were distributed to counties and urban places. As an example of the need for a fresh approach to the subject, it might be noted that the formula presently governing Primary System fund distribution was established as long ago as 1923. It is obvious that considerable changes in highway requirements have occurred since then. Additional Reconrmendations In addition to the major reconnendations indicated above Con- cerning the modification of the distribution system and the use of the ad- ditional funds to be derived from increased in posts, it is also recon - nnended: W – 4 1.-º º # : : #- -º- tb. * \tsk - L. l **.- 10. 1 1. 12. That the Sufficiency Rating System be extended to the Urban and Secondary Systems. That maintenance appropriations be increased. That a special unit be organized within the Department charged with the responsibility for the accomplishment of overall high- way programming and for the proper scheduling in all divisions of the work involved after the initial determination of priority up to completion of construction. That a well-defined, well-balanced, long-range construction program be adopted and that it be publicized to an extent con- sistent with good public relations policy. That no projects be undertaken unless they are a part of the overall in provernent plan. That the adopted program of highway development be periodic - ally reviewed, and that it be sufficiently flexible to permit ad- justments to changes in traffic patterns, available funds, con- struction prices, population shifts, and other basic elements. That innmediate steps be taken to insure that all sections of roads in the Inter state and rural Primary Systems which may be located in areas annexed by expanding incorporated towns and cities remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Highways, and that the limited-access features of such sections be retained. That in future right-of-way condemnation proceedings, the en- hancement value, if any, be included in the appraisal. That consideration be given to replacing the Commissioner system which is presently used in condemnation proceedings with a jury system. That right-of-way purchases be made substantially in advance of actual construction. That the field inspection force be sufficiently augmented with competent personnel to adequately supervise all construction activities. That more extensive use be made of detour s when construction is in progress. W – 5 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2 1. That the relocation of utilities be better coordinated. That a more extensive use of automatic computing equipment be considered. That more frequent meetings be held between contractors' representative s and Department engineers to discuss mutual problems. That the research staff and research facilities be expanded. That the number of prisoners engaged in road work be held to a minimum; and that, in an attempt to improve the efficiency of convict labor, consideration be given to establishing a con- vict program which includes honor camps and an incentive system. That consideration be given to the manufacture by convicts of suitable items for highway construction. That greater stress be placed on the improvement of struc – tures. During past years, greater stress was placed on the in provement of highway surfaces rather than on bridge in- proverments. This emphasis on surface inn provement has re- sulted in a great number of sub-standard bridges throughout the State. That innediate steps be undertaken to sufficiently increase the technical staff, particularly in the districts and residencies, to properly handle both the present volume of work and the ad- ditional work load which will be created by the Inter state Sys - term program. That, where necessary, the old facilities of district offices be expanded or replaced by adequate buildings and shops. | i º º, y- ºf tººwº-*...s Jy:},º -:* --- 5 ; ;** §---º.#:!-º*: - --3.--”- ----x- ---- .t-:s}* --:*--** -5.a-. liiii ("å Söğā'īāśā’īāśā" II .+ GAYLORD DATE DUE FRl NTED l N U.S. A. ------◄-► **” ~ ~→ → → → → *****