OCR Text |
Show Completion of Interstate Still Some Yean Avm Estimated date for completing the System of Interstate and Defense Highways has moved ahead ah-ead at almost exactly the same rate as construction on the huge project, according ac-cording to Utah Foundation, Founda-tion, the nonprofit public service agency engaged in the study of state and local lo-cal government in Utah. Latest target-date estimates es-timates for the Interstate fall in the mid-to-late 1980's, just about as far in the future as was the original 1972 target date when construction began in the late 1950's, the Foundation points out in a research report released re-leased this week. Major reasons for advancing ad-vancing the estimated completion date include spiralling inflation, which has exceeded expectations; expecta-tions; up-grading of safety safe-ty and construction standards stan-dards during the time of construction and providing pro-viding the heaviest impact at this time revised priorities set forth in the Federal Highway Act of 1973. The 1973 law reduces money available for Interstate In-terstate construction and adds to the accounts of other Federal-aid highway high-way systems, particularly particular-ly the greatly expanded Urban Systems program, the Foundation reports. This year's total national allocation for the Urban Systems program, under the 1973 law, is almost eight times the amount provided for that program last year. Allocation for Interstate construction, on the other hand, was cut to less than half that of the authorization of the previous year. Stated objective of the change in Federal aid priorities pri-orities is to achieve a more balanced development develop-ment of the highway transportation system. Utah fares poorly under the revised priorities $48.7 million in total Federal Fed-eral highway aid in fiscal fis-cal 1974 compared to $68 million the previous year primarily because be-cause of the formulae for distributing available funds under the several programs, the Foundation reports. The major reduction re-duction comes in Interstate Inter-state funds, under which formula Utah is most favorably fa-vorably treated (1 of the total distribution), while the greatest expansion expan-sion is in the Urban Systems Sys-tems program where Utah receives least favorable treatment (one-half of 1 on the basis of population.) pop-ulation.) Utah receives a little less than 1 of Primary and Secondary funds, which are somewhat expanded ex-panded under the 1973 law. The 1973 Act changed both of these programs to make them apply solely sole-ly to rural construction, where previously they were divided between rural ru-ral and urban projects. Utah receives more than $3 million more in Urban Systems funds this year than under last year's program, but the apparent gain is illusory, the Foundation notes. Urban Ur-ban construction in Utah loses between $4 and $5 million which previously came from the Primary and Secondary programs, making a net loss of between be-tween $1 and $2 million dollars for urban construction. const-ruction. Rural construction construc-tion accounts in Utah gain substantially, benefitting both from the increase in Primary and Secondary funds and from the money in these funds which previously pre-viously went for urban construction. Utah is one of the lowest low-est - ranked states in terms of the proportion of its authorized Inter state mileage now open 10 , traffic, but is above the ! national average in the '', percent of total estimated ' construction cost which ; has been expended or ob- ;; ligated. This is because Utah deliberately chose to construct the more !: costly and difficult seg- '', ments, through and be- tween major cities along ! the Wasatch Front, at the '; outset of the program and leave until last most of 1; the rural stretches. In view of the further extended delay in prospect pros-pect before the Interstate Inter-state may be completed, the question of whether or not Utah made a wise decision may be open to question. However, Utah highway officials remain convinced that the decision deci-sion was sound, and point out that it is probable that cost of more sophisticated sophis-ticated urban construction, construc-tion, with many reinforced rein-forced concrete structures struc-tures and expensive rights-of-way, has increased even more rapidly ra-pidly than that of simpler sim-pler rural contruction. "There are no figures readily available to document, docu-ment, or to refute, this assertation ai,u aPPears to be i Ugh : compelling Lmr presents itself er' inmg the very perup.ee in Sain I1 w when viaducts . way approaches had hi I rebuilt or resif bf' The disruption J?' now traffic patted ' substantial, L - plation of similar S ions extstingfortj,5"" 15 years in Urban! M especially h i H torist, as welli tV professional high?-planner high?-planner and huiln 'V shudder." DuUdef - |