In Utah, the State highway system, comprising 21.6 percent of the total rural-road system, serves directly 30.7 percent of the rural homes and other establishments.
There is every reason to believe that the similar relationships in other States conform approximately to the pattern established in the States cited, and it is probable that for the country as a whole the Federal-aid and State highway systems, as at present designated, give direct service to about 25 percent of the total number of farmhouses, homes, churches, schools, stores, and other commercial establishments in strictly rural territory.
It is apparent then that the improvement of highway mileage outside of the Federal-aid and State systems must rest, not upon the value of a resultant substantial gain in vehicle-mileage accommodated, but rather upon the desirability of giving direct improved-road access to a greater percentage of rural homes and places of business and other congregation.
Outside of the Federal-aid and primary State highway systems there are in rural territory some 2,618,000 miles of road.[1] Even to reach directly all of the farmhouses, homes, and other establishments, it would not be necessary to improve all of this large residual mileage, because there is a considerable part of the existing mileage that serves neither occupied property nor measurable traffic. Moreover the highway planning surveys are indicating that an improvement of a substantially smaller mileage will bring direct service to a large percentage of the rural population.
For example, in Florida 57 percent of all rural dwellings are located within 1 mile of the State-maintained system; in Utah nearly 70 percent are within a like distance of the State system, and within the same distance of the State roads in Vermont are nearly 55 percent of all rural dwellings. What additional feeder road mileage, if any, it would be necessary to improve to give direct service to these or larger percentages of the rural population cannot be indicated. On this point the facts are not yet sufficiently analyzed to warrant a more definite statement. It is known, however, that conditions vary among the States and regions of the country.
It is apparent, however, that the improvement of roads outside of the Federal-aid and State highway systems calls for careful selection, to accomplish the greatest benefit with the least expenditure from two points of view: (1) Improved service to a still larger percentage of the total traffic; and (2) direct access to a greater percentage of rural homes and establishments.
- ↑ This total includes secondary State highways and county roads under State control.
In administering the appropriations recently made by Congress for the improvement of secondary and feeder roads, the Secretary of Agriculture has interpreted the language of the acts as applying to roads not included in the Federal-aid highway system, but possibly included in the State highway systems. Pending the availability of facts to be supplied by the State highway planning surveys as indicative of the relative importance of portions of the large mileage comprised under the definition, sections of road for improvement are being selected on the basis of the best available information. As soon as the planning survey information will permit, the States will select for approval by the Secretary of Agriculture a group or system of roads,
