it assportatioſº
| f library &
| HE
º 35%
.F.C.
| 12.27
-:- --- -*
- ---ſ*-.*à.º.-:
--*:-*J.*t -*.3t3.#w**--->
-º3--- -- -.j-------*--
------ ------
- ----*.- -s-t:
- ---t&-
-
*
*
DUPL
B 473611
Report
on a Study of
Florida Highways
for the
State Road Department of Florida
JULY 1952
PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL & MACDONALD
ENGINEERS
s1 BRoadway, NEw York s
HE UNIVERSITY OF MICH!GAN LIBRARIES
sep s sº



| _ _| |_| |__| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| ，_| |_| |__|_}ſ__
}�
PARsons, BRINCKERHoFF, HALL & MAcDoNALD
tºº
y Report
on a Study of
Florida Highways
for the
State Road Department of Florida
JULY 1952
ENGINEERS
51 BROADWAY, NEW YORK 6
Jransportation
Library
HE
356
F (2
T27
-—
* , , /2 2%/
g f ... / .--- gº. *z, *** *** - ºf
24e #~ * * /2, c. 2. t < * * * *
,” r 7.
Ö * .# - - -
. . .2 º
\ ||Y. -º, a STATE OF FLORIDA
FULLER WARREN, Governor
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
ALFRED A. McKETHAN, Chairman
District 1
J. GLOVER TAYLOR, Member MERRILL P. BARBER, Member
District 2 District 4
MARION G. NELSON, Member TRUSTEN P. DRAKE, JR., Member
District 3 District 5
RALPH. M. HARTSFIELD, Secretary JoHN W. McWHIRTER, Attorney
ENGINEERING DIVISION
SAM. P. TURNBULL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State Highway Engineer
H. W. OVERSTREET. . . Assistant State Highway Engineer, Administration
SCOTT REYNOLDS. . . . . . . . . . Assistant State Highway Engineer, Planning
JOHN R. SLADE. . . . . . . . Assistant State Highway Engineer, Construction
W. A. KRATZERT. . . . . . . Assistant State Highway Engineer, Maintenance



PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL & MACDONALD
E N G I N E E R S
EUGENE. L. MACDONALD FOUNDED BY WILLIAM BARCLAY PARSONS IN 1885
RENC tº
LAWREN CE. S. WATERBURY 51 BROADWAY, NEW YORK 6, N. Y.
MAURICE. N. QUADE JOHN P. HO GAN
WALTER S, DOUGLAS W. E. R., COVELL.
ALFRED HEDEFINE
C O N S LJ LTANTS
July 25, 1952
Mr. Alfred A. McKethan, Chairman,
State Road Department of Florida,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Dear Mr. McKethan :
In accordance with your instructions we have made
a study of Florida's highways and are pleased to submit
our Report.
In the study we have determined the State's existing
and anticipated highway needs and in this Report recom—
mend a method of achieving a practicable program of im-
provements for the coming twenty-year period.
To overcome the large existing backlog of deficiencies,
the present sources of revenue for highway use were found
to be inadequate. The proposed program briefly consists
of a sound schedule for the use of estimated revenues from
present sources together with the revenue bond method of
financing of specific self-liquidating highway facilities,
to which the method is applicable and the need is of high
priority.
Some of the recommended policies or procedures would
require legislative action; the precedent for revenue
financing of specific projects has already been established
in Florida. The necessity for recommended changes arises
from the tremendously increased scope of responsibility
and activity of the State Road Department. It has made
noteworthy progress in recent years but it must assume
even greater responsibilities and must be geared to cope
with an inevitable highway problem whose solution is fund-
amental to the State's welfare. Your recognition of this
responsibility is evidenced by your undertaking this high-
way study.
–2-
We express to you our sincere appreciation for
your generous assistance and Splendid cooperation and
that of your Board and Staff in the conduct of this
study and in the preparation of this Report. Your sin–
cerity and honesty in making a sound approach to the
problem is commendable.
We are likewise grateful to the many other agencies
and individuals Who furni Shed VOluminous information and
Valuable advice.
Wery truly yours,
PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL & MACDONALD
| 2”
$ { }
', {. --~~~~zºº’sº- Ž
*** -,-, y y w
*:::::c- X." * ,
- * ~, º, .,, ..., …” “*...". & A- .* * <>, <
Y. à.3.2%. , 3-3. -- - , s: , r. . .” -- *--- {../ .# >{ %~ (...” º
Lawrence S. Waterbury
. ...<rºwser-
- ... ...-- **
LSW. T.G
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
I.
II.
III.
IV.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A GENERAL APPRAISAL OF THE RESOURCES AND POTEN-
TIALITIES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE GROWTH OF
THE STATE ROAD SYSTEM AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT
Introduction and Scope of Report
Natural Resources of Florida—General
Resources of Florida—Agriculture
Resources of Florida—Industrial
Resources of Florida—Relation to Transportation
Growth of the State Road System
Origin and Development of the State Road Department......
Development of the State Maintained System
Administrative Policies and Practices Used in Selecting Roads for the
State Maintained System
The State Maintained System and Federal Aid Mileage
State Road Department Operating Costs, 1915-1951
County Roads and City Streets
Related Traffic and Economic Statistics
FORECAST OF MOTOR FUEL CONSUMPTION IN FLORIDA
DURING THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS AND FORECAST OF
REVENUES ACCRUING TO THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT.
Population Trends
Motor Vehicle Registration Trends
Forecast of Motor Fuel Consumption
Historical Growth of Automotive Imposts and Other State Road Depart-
ment Income
Origin and Function of the Florida State Improvement Commission............
Origin and Function of the State Board of Administration
Forecast of Revenues for the Next Twenty Years from Presently Avail-
able Sources
Automotive Imposts Diverted to Other Than Highway Purposes
STATE-WIDE TRAFFIC SURVEYS
Purpose and Scope
Preliminary Origin and Destination Traffic Survey
State-Wide Origin and Destination Traffic Survey
Review of the Regular Traffic Volume Counts
Time and Delay Survey
Other Time and Delay Surveys
Commercial Vehicle Survey
Application of Data
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTITUTING A STATE ARTERIAL
SYSTEM; RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SECONDARY SYSTEM;
AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON FLORIDA STATE ROADS.
State Arterial System
Secondary Road System
Transfer of Some Primary Roads to the Secondary Road System
Transfer of Some County Roads to the Primary Road System
Speed Limits
Roadway Shoulders
Limited. Access
Urban Links of the State Primary System
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
|
:
:
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Page
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE
FLORIDA STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT BOARD MEMBERSHIP
AND WORKING STAFF
Terms of Board Members
Highway Director
Tenure of Employment
Division of Traffic and Planning
Administration of Toll Facilities
General Observations
ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COST TO DEVELOP THE FLORIDA
STATE MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM TO ADEQUATE STAND-
ARDS DURING THE PERIOD 1953-1972 AND COMPARISON TO
ANTICIPATED REVENUE FOR THE SAME PERIOD. SHORT-
COMINGS OF THE PRESENT PRIORITY SYSTEM AND THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ITS REPLACEMENT
Primary Road Standards
Recorded Deficiencies
Fº Improvement and Expansion Costs for the State Maintained
y Stem
Recorded Improvement Costs
Additional Costs
Maintenance Costs
Administrative and Other Costs
Summary
The Priority System
GENERAL SUMMARY, METHODS OF FINANCING REQUIRED
IMPROVEMENTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Summary
Methods of Financing Required Improvements
Consideration of a Turnpike System
Summary of Recommendations
PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC AND EARNINGS REPORT AND PRE-
LIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED
FLORIDA TURNPIKE SYSTEM
General
Location of the Turnpike System
Determination of the Turnpike Route
Area to Be Served
Present Routes
Traffic in the Region
Analysis of Traffic Surveys
66
67
67
67
68
69
92
92
92
93
94
98
Estimates of Traffic
Schedule of Tolls
Estimates of Revenue
General Assumptions
Description of the Turnpike
Route Selection Studies
Turnpike Interchanges
Design Criteria
Geometrics
Structures
Roadway Section
Drainage
Structures
Interchanges
Service and Maintenance Areas
Estimates of Cost
Feasibility of the Project
99
101
102
103
104
105
105
107
108
108
109
109
110
110
111
111
111
112
ii
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
TABLES
Page
I — Growth in Income Derived from Leading Branches of Florida
Agricultural Activities 3
II-A — Lºs Field Crops Harvested in Florida During the Crop Year
1950 4.
II-B — Leading Truck Crops Harvested in Florida During the Crop Year
1950 4
III — Florida Citrus Industry on Tree Value for the Seasons 1920-21
to 1949–50 5
IV — Production of Frozen Concentrated Citrus Juices in Florida—
Seasons 1945-46 to 1949–50 6
V — Examples of Florida's Growth During the Period 1940-1950........... 8
VI — State Road Department of Florida Operating Costs, 1915-1951......... 12
VII — Mileage of Florida's Road Systems in the Years 1946-1950.................. 17
VIII — Construction and Maintenance Expenditures on the State Primary
System. During Period 1943-1950 19
IX — Related Traffic and Economic Statistics.............................. following page 20
X — Historical and Estimated Future Growth of Population, Motor
Vehicle Registration, and Motor Fuel Consumption in the State
of Florida following page 24
XI — Summary of Federal Aid Appropriations Granted the State of
Florida During Period 1917–1953 following page 26
XII — Summary of Revenues from Automotive Imposts and Other
Sources Since the Inauguration of the State Road Department
October, 1915, to December 31, 1951.................................. following page 28
XIII — Status of County Bonded Indebtedness as of 1952 33
XIV — Estimate of Net Revenues Accruing to the State Road Department
from Motor Fuel Imposts for the Years 1953–1972
following page 36
XV — Estimate of Total Revenue Accruing to the State Road Depart-
ment from Present Available Sources for the Years 1953-1972. 38
XVI — Comparative Statement of the Number of Tags Sold and the Net
Revenue Received for the Years 1931 Through 1951, Inclusive. 40
XVII — Tabulation of O & D Interviews and Manual Counts................................. 43
XVIII — State of Florida, Average Daily Traffic Volumes 1940–1951 at
Selected Automatic Recorder Stations.............................following page 48
XIX — Summary of Data Relating to Travel Conditions on Routes
Studied 49
XX — Florida Commercial Vehicle Survey 52
XXI — Roads on the Primary System Carrying Less Than 300 Average
Daily Traffic 59
XXII — Mileage of Important County Roads Augmenting the State Pri-
mary System as of 1951 60
XXIII — Basic Engineering Standards for Primary Roads 71
XXIV — Estimated Cost of Eliminating Recorded Existing and Anticipated
Deficiencies in the Primary System as of November 1, 1951–
Listed According to Improvements Desired and Priority............... 76
XXV — Estimated Cost of Eliminating Recorded Existing and Anticipated
Deficiencies in the Primary System as of November 1, 1951–
Listed According to Highway Districts and Priorities........................ 77
XXVI — Estimate of Total Cost to Develop the Florida State Maintained
Road System to Adequate Standards During the Period
1953-1972 Compared to Estimate of Total Anticipated Revenue
Table
to the State Road Department for Road Purposes for the Same
Period—Summarized According to County............... following page 80
XXVII — Estimate of Total Cost to Develop the Florida State Maintained
Road System to Adequate Standards During the Period 1953–
1972 Compared to Total Anticipated Revenue to the State Road
Department for Road Purposes for the Same Period—Sum-
marized According to Years following page 82
iii
PLATES
Following
Page
Plate I — Geometric Designs for Primary Roads Average Daily Traffic
Volumes of 1,000 to 5,000 70
Plate II — Geometric Designs for Primary Roads Average Daily Traffic
Volumes of 5,000 to 15,000
Plate III — Bridge Design Criteria 110
Plate IV — Typical Roadway Sections—Rural Area 110
Plate V — Typical Roadway Sections—Urban Area 110
Plate VI — Typical Undercrossing Structures 110
Plate VII — Typical Overcrossing and Stream Crossing Structures................................. 110
Plate VIII — Typical Interchange Plan 110
MAPS
Following
Page
Map I — Highway Districts 14
Map II — Primary Road System of the State of Florida 18
Map III — Location of Origin and Destination Survey Stations and Truck
Weighing Stations 42
Map IV — Traßlow Map of Florida Showing Average Daily Volume in 46
Map V — Routes Travelled for Time and Delay Survey 48
Map VI – Proposed State Arterial System 54
Map VII — Location Map—Proposed Florida Turnpike System 92
Map VIII — Regional Map Showing Principal Highways in Florida and Ad-
jacent States 96
CHARTS
Following
Page
Chart I — Comparison of Monthly Motor Fuel Consumption in the Years
1940, 1947 and 1951 for the State of Florida
Chart II — Organization Chart—Florida State Road Department.................................... 14
Chart III — Interrelationship of Florida's Road and Street Systems............................. 16
Chart IV — Historical and Estimated Future Growth of Population, Motor
Vehicle Registration and Motor Fuel Consumption in the
State of Florida 24
Chart V — Distribution of Florida’s Tax on Motor Fuels 28
iv
THE REPORT
Report
on a Study of
Florida Highways
for the
State Road Department of Florida
I. A General Appraisal of the Resources and Potentialities of
the State of Florida, the Growth of the State Road System,
and the Development of the State Road Department.
Introduction and Scope of Report
The growth of the population of the State of Florida and the
increase in the number of visitors, not only in the winter season but
also year round, coupled with rapid strides forward in the development
Of commerce and industry, have resulted in vast increases in traffic on the
highways. The construction of new highways and the maintenance of
those existing have not kept pace with the demands, and congestion,
along with other unsatisfactory traffic conditions, has resulted.
This study was undertaken to determine the highway needs of the
State of Florida and as a result of such investigations, recommendations
have been made as to the type and character of the facilities and improve-
ments necessary to serve the continued favorable development of the
resources and potentialities of the State of Florida. The possible methods
of financing the required program have also been studied and definite
recommendations are made in this Report.
Natural Resources of Florida — General
The historical developments that give meaning to the facts and
figures of a general appraisal of a state’s resources serve also to indicate
its potentialities and to suggest prudent courses for future development.
For many years the State of Florida has relied heavily on climatic
and geographical advantages for its economic well-being. For sound
and evident reasons, the State set out to establish itself as a winter
resort. It succeeded in building a reputation as “The World’s Foremost
Playground” by capitalizing on an attractive climate and 1,400 miles of
Coast line, and in doing so brought substantial wealth into the State.
It is understandable that equal attention and energy were not ex-
tended to others of the State's resources; yet once these resources were
given consideration, the State worked actively to develop them. The
depression years apart, there has been an exceptionally rapid expansion
in Florida's economy in recent decades.
The utilization of a natural resource, or a combination of natural
resources, is a continuing job. The utilization of Florida's climatic and
geographical attributes may be taken in illustration. The words, “I’m
spending the winter in Florida”, suggest a happy way of life to
Americans. Those who can manage to spend the winter in the Peninsula
State escape the snowstorms, chilling rains, and bitter cold that season-
ally grip most of the nation. The sun is warm, the beaches are un-
surpassed, and the fishing is excellent.
At one time Florida concentrated on increasing its popularity as
a winter resort, but recently it began to emphasize the State's attractive-
ness as a summer playground. Vacation communities in almost all parts
of the State now report a trend toward improved summer business.
Chart I, following this page, which shows changes in monthly gasoline
consumption for representative years, is an interesting illustration of
the manner in which this trend has affected motor fuel sales. While
the summer trade is never expected to match the winter trade, every
gain in the summer influx is a definite aid in balancing the State's
economy.
There is no reason to believe that Florida's resort trade will not
continue to thrive and grow. Although there is a wide range in the
figures available on the State's tourist business, a conservative estimate
places the annual income from this source at approximately $750,000,000.
Another development that may be mentioned in connection with the
State's climatic and geographical resources is its increase in permanent
population. The inducements offered by Florida to prospective residents
have been widely advertised and the success of this campaign is reflected
in the State's steadily increasing population, a very important aspect of
expansion treated in detail later in this Report.
Florida’s climatic and geographical resources were utilized first to
establish a prosperous winter tourist trade, later extended to something
approaching a year round tourist trade, and increasingly after the winter
trade had been established, to draw permanent residents. The popula-
tion increase contributed, in turn, to an expansion in the State's economy.
i
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SERT OCT. NOV. DEC.
iO {O
%
1951
8 N NS
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
COMPARISON OF
MONTHLY MOTOR FUEL CONSUMPTION
IN THE YEARS 1940, 1947 AND 1951
FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
J U L Y f 952
5 PARSON.S., BRINCKE RHOFF, HALL 8C MACDONALD 5
E N G | N E E RS NEW YORK
4. - 4
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.
M O N T H S


The post-war population increase, for example, created a demand for
houses. The Statistics Bureau of the U. S. Department of Labor reports
that in 1951 Florida ranked seventh among the states in the construction
of new dwelling units in urban areas. The greater purchasing power
created by population increases is reflected, moreover, in general con-
struction work. A Department of Labor report shows that in 1951
Florida ranked tenth in all urban building construction.
The boom of the early 1920's was prompted by the Florida weather,
which for many years had attracted winter vacationists. Paradoxi-
cally, it was in large measure the capital invested in the State at that
time that led to the development of natural resources which previously
had been neglected. The boom soon collapsed but the impetus toward new
development had lasting effects.
Resources of Florida — Agriculture
Though Florida is best known as a resort state, and though the
resort trade is the largest single source of income, the State's economy
now rests firmly on its widespread agricultural enterprises. Florida
now leads in the production of grapefruit and oranges, and produces
many other fruits in abundance. Its produce includes tomatoes, snap
beans, celery, potatoes, corn, tobacco, peanuts, and other field and truck
crops. Income in 1950 from dairy products was $39,000,000, truck crops
$110,010,000, and field crops $58,751,000. Tables I, II-A, and II-B, which
follow, show income from leading branches of Florida’s agriculture as
well as the acreage and value of leading field and truck crops for 1950.
Table I
GROWTH IN IN COME DERIVED FROM LEADING BRANCHES
OF FILORIDA AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
Agricultural Activity Total 1940 Income Total 1950 Income
Citrus $21,999,000 $175,767,000
Dairy Products 20,000,000 39,000,000
Meat Animals 10,000,000 35,000,000
Poultry and Eggs 8,000,000 13,000,000
Tung Nuts 50,000 953,000
Syrup and Sugar 5,000,000
Greenhouse and Flower Products............ 10,000,000 15,000,000
Pecans 530,000 600,000
Truck Crops 80,000,000 110,010,000
Field Crops - 58,751,000
Table II-A
LEADING FIELD CROPS
HARVESTED IN FLORIDA DURING THE CROP YEAR 1950
- Per Cent
Crops Acres Value of Total Value
Tobacco 22,000 $18,403,000 31
Corn 712,000 13,955,000 24
Sugarcane - 47,600 10,994,000 19
Peanuts 72,000 5,609,000 9
Cotton and Cottonseed..................... 31,000 2,965,000 5
Other Field Crops................................. 82,600 6,825,000 12
TOTAL........ 967,200 $58,751,000 100
Table II-B
LEADING TRUCK CROPS
HARVESTED IN FLORIDA DURING THE CROP YEAR 1950
Per Cent
Crops Acres Value of Total Value
Tomatoes 42,200 $ 31,270,000 28
Snap Beans 77,600 17,116,000 16
Celery 9,600 12,445,000 11
Potatoes 23,600 9,215,000 8
Cucumbers 14,300 6,485,000 6
Sweet Corn 28,500 6,373,000 6
Green Peppers 14,300 6,380,000 6
Watermelon 68,000 5,870,000 5
Strawberries 5,400 3,888,000 4
Cabbage 17,700 3,855,000 4
Other Truck Crops.............................. 24,900 7,113,000 6
TOTAL 326,100 $110,010,000 100
Florida's prosperous citrus fruit industry, which holds top place
among income-producing crops, is enjoying an era of extensive expan-
sion. Production and sales followed a steadily rising trend before the
1940-41 season and after that date showed a sharp rise. Florida pro-
duced 8,581,000 boxes of oranges with a sales value of $11,069,000 in
the 1920-21 season. By 1940-41 production had increased to 28,380,000
boxes of oranges with a sales value of $22,420,000. Production for the
1949-50 season was 58,100,000 boxes valued at $124,810,000. Other citrus
production generally followed the same pattern. For the season 1940-
41 the sales value of all citrus fruit — Oranges, grapefruit, tangerines,
and limes — was $32,422,000. The sales value of all citrus fruit for the
1949-50 season was $175,767,000. Table III shows in greater detail the
growth of the citrus industry in the seasons 1920-21 to 1949-50.
Notable among the factors that combined to stimulate expansion of
the citrus industry were establishment of the Florida Citrus Commission,
improved marketing, and technological developments. The Citrus Com-
mission, instituted by the State legislature in 1935, enforced reforms in
the inspection and grading of fruits, the bonding and licensing of
handlers, and the registration of brands.
Table III
FLORIDA CITRUS INDUSTRY
ON TREE VALUE FOR THE SEASONS 1920-21 TO 1949-50
ORANGES GRAPEFRUIT TANGERINES LIMES
Boxes Value Boxes Value Boxes Value Boxes Value
Sold Sale Sold Sale Sold Sale Sold Sale Total Value
Season (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) of Sales
1920-21........................ 8,581 $11,069 5,762 $ 8,701 696 $2,540 26 $ 63 $ 22,373,000
1921-22........................ 7,740 17,338 6,659 9,123 544 2,258 33 68 28,787,000
1922-23........................ 10,021 17,637 7,752 8,140 741 2,186 35 77 28,040,000
1923-24........................ 12,998 7,669 8,448 3,295 538 1,614 40 92 12,670,000
1924-25........................ 10,267 19,097 8,845 6,545 885 2,522 36 82 28,246,000
1925-26........................ 9,360 20,405 7,550 13,288 682 2,353 30 82 36,128,000
1926-27........................ 9,952 13,833 8,542 9,225 880 1,584 12 63 24,705,000
1927–28........................ 8,504 23,726 7,444 14,441 828 3,022 * &==ºg 41,189,000
1928–29........................ 14,831 11,272 11,228 8,758 1,468 2,202 6 20 22,252,000
1929–30........................ 8,796 15,745 8,236 12,848 816 1,371 8 34 29,998,000
1930–31........................ 16,624 17,788 15,708 7,697 2,365 1,088 8 31 26,604,000
1931-32........................ 12,029 16,600 10,631 7,123 1,964 1,080 9 30 24,833,000
1932–33........................ 14,322 9,596 11,515 4,145 1,863 764 10 28 14,533,000
1933-34........................ 15,716 14,302 10,812 7,136 1,962 1,138 12 28 22,604,000
1934-35........................ 15,408 13,251 15,095 5,283 1,962 1,099 15 43 19,676,000
1935-36........................ 15,719 18,548 11,408 8,784 2,061 1,752 12 43 29,127,000
1936–37........................ 18,882 26,812 17,992 9,176 2,950 885 45 140 37,013,000
1937-38........................ 23,640 15,602 14,506 8,559 2,260 1,582 70 217 25,960,000
1938-39........................ 29,583 17,750 21,438 4,716 3,350 1,106 95 235 23,807,000
1939–40........................ 25,350 13,182 15,810 6,640 2,376 1,925 95 252 21,999,000
1940–41........................ 28,380 22,420 24,500 8,085 2,670 1,709 80 208 32,422,000
1941-42........................ 27,024 29,726 19,099 12,032 2,073 2,778 150 292 44,828,000
1942-43........................ 36,991 64,364 27,187 25,932 4,154 4,902 175 326 95,524,000
1943-44........................ 45,900 83,079 30,882 40,455 3,560 6,728 190 758 131,020,000
1944-45........................ 42,530 93,991 22,195 37,732 3,805 8,029 250 1,015 140,767,000
1945-46........................ 49,500 117,315 31,860 40,462 4,150 9,836 200 558 168,171,000
1946-47........................ 52,450 49,828 26,280 16,556 3,855 4,896 170 536 71,816,000
1947-48........................ 58,000 36,540 29,160 7,582 3,355 2,684 170 432 47,238,000
1948-49........................ 57,900 80,280 30,060 20,078 4,350 4,936 200 468 105,762,000
1949-50........................ 58,100 124,810 24,060 43,023 4,950 7,159 26 775 175,767,000
*
5
Next, the industry adopted cooperative practices that resulted in
more efficient marketing and superior crop prices. The industry was
given new scope with the perfection in the early 1930's of techniques for
the canning of citrus fruit. A still unmeasured expansion of its market
has been provided by the development of techniques for the processing of
frozen citrus concentrate. Table IV shows the remarkable strides already
made in this branch of the industry.
Table IV
PRODUCTION OF FROZEN CONCENTRATED CITRUS JUICES
IN FLORIDA — SEASONS 1945–46 TO 1949-50
Season Gallons
Orange Juice
1945-46 225,684
1946–47 559,309
1947–48 1,936,868
1948–49 10,232,831
1949–50+ 21,419,802
Grapefruit Juice
1947–48 402
1948–49 116,123
1949–50% 1,582,274
Orange-Grapefruit Blend
1948–49 111,836
1949–50% 1,290,085
* Season Up To and Including June 17, 1950
These developments in the citrus industry are not without parallel
in other enterprises. A recent development, as shown in Table I listing
income from leading branches of Florida agriculture, was the establish-
ment of syrup and sugar production after 1940 which, by 1950, brought
$5,000,000.
The growth of a long-established enterprise is illustrated in beef
production. The use of land for grazing dates back to Florida’s earliest
days. The older breed of cattle did not, however, provide the better
quality meats. By a rigid program of eradication, which has left the
State free of ticks, the cultivation of suitable grasses, and the introduc-
tion of superior brands of cattle, Florida has succeeded in producing a
high grade of beef. It now ranks twelfth among beef-producing states
and second in beef production east of the Mississippi River. Beef cattle
production in 1950 amounted to 191,460,000 pounds with an income of
$34,955,000.
Before leaving the land it is well worth mentioning that the vast
swamp area in the southern section of the State, the Everglades, is being
drained and provided with roads. The drainage district covers some
five million acres. The project is expected to provide a great new source
of agricultural wealth.
Resources of Florida — Industrial
Other important sources of wealth are commercial fishing, a grow-
ing pulp and paper industry, mining, and manufacturing. Florida ranks
fourth in commercial fishing, with an income from that source of about
$50,000,000 annually. The pulp and paper industry came into promi-
nence as a leading enterprise with the perfection in the early 1930’s of
processes for pulping and bleaching southern pine. Since that time
Florida's extensive forest land has provided an increasingly large and
profitable source of income. Today there are at least eight major paper
companies operating in the State. These plants and their forest acreage
represent a capital investment of some $200,000,000. Allied with this
enterprise is the production of lumber and turpentine, two of the State's
leading products.
Between 1940 and 1948 Florida moved from thirty-fifth to twenty-
eighth place in the production of minerals. Natural deposits of phos.
phate rock, a basic agricultural need, are chief among its mineral resour-
ces. The value of minerals produced in Florida increased from $14,854,-
000 in 1940 to $54,998,000 in 1949.
While Florida is not a leading state in manufacturing, the past few
years have seen increases in this phase of its economy that indicate a
prosperous trend. The number of employees engaged in the production
of durable goods increased by more than 20 per cent between 1939 and
1948; the number engaged in the production of non-durable goods in-
creased by more than 29 per cent in the same period. The list of basic
items of manufacture in the State includes furniture; fabricated metal
products; stone, clay and glass products; tobacco products; and chemi-
cals and allied products. The list of basic items and the volume of pro-
duction has been growing steadily.
In the southern region of the United States, Florida is a leader in
retail sales and in per capita income. Between 1940 and 1950 per capita
income climbed from $470 to $1,210. These and other examples of
Florida’s growth during the period 1949-50 are shown in Table V.
Table V
EXAMPLES OF FLORIDA’S GROWTH DURING
THE PERIOD 1940-1950
Volume or Value Volume or Value
1940 1950
New Construction $227,200,000 $683,100,000
Manufacturing Payrolls 65,800,000 236,420,000
Value of Mineral Production..................... 14,854,000 (1949) 54,998,000
Electric Power Production........................... 1,316,000,000 KWH 5,632,978,000 KWH
Number of Telephones.................................... 221,203 624,709
Number of Business Concerns.................. 32,152 52,251
Bank Resources $535,497,000 $2,154,815,154
Income from Livestock 24,086,000 107,424,000
Income from Crops 91,473,000 390,911,000
Per Capita Income 470 1,210
Property Income 163,000,000 473,000,000
Proprietor's Income 153,000,000 662,000,000
Wages and Salaries 524,000,000 1,961,000,000
Total Income to Individuals........................ 900,000,000 3,376,000,000
Among Florida's potentialities for future development, mention
must be made of oil and natural gas. Some prospecting occurred earlier,
but it was not until about 1939 that major companies began to take a
definite and active interest in Florida’s oil possibilities. In 1943, the
Humble Oil and Refining Company brought in the first well at the Sunni-
land Field in Collier County. By the end of 1950, some twenty wells
had been drilled in the Sunniland Field, thirteen of which produced oil.
Production between 1943 and 1950 amounted to 1,578,571 barrels. As
oil production goes, that is hardly an impressive figure, but geologists
have predicted that eventually substantial oil deposits will be located in
various parts of the State. Most of the large companies have acquired
extensive oil rights, and available information indicates that large areas
of western, central, and southern Florida, as well as all of the Gulf of
Mexico tidelands, are under lease.
This broad outline of Florida's expanding economy points up, first,
the unusually rapid progress of recent years, and second, that progress
is being made along stable lines. It is evident that the State's present
prosperity is basically sound and can in no way be compared to the more
speculative era of the early 1920's.
Resources of Florida — Relation to Transportation
Not to be overlooked in an appraisal of Florida’s resources is its
strategic position as a gateway to South America and the islands of the
Caribbean. Miami International Airport is the busiest in the world. It
ranks first in value of exports by air and second in tonnage of exports
by air. Florida is the home state of Eastern Airlines and a major base
in the Pan-American system. The State has the advantage of several
excellent harbors, among them Jacksonville, Tampa, Port Everglades,
Miami, West Palm Beach, and Panama City. Customs collections indi-
cate the importance and growth of business at Florida ports of entry:
in 1933, $1,640,000; in 1940, $4,675,000; in 1950, $8,044,000.
Not one of the enterprises mentioned here can be considered without
reference to transportation. Expanding tourist trade and all of its de-
veloping commercial, industrial, agricultural, and social activities depend
On adequate transportation. Rail, air, and shipping facilities are essen-
tial and the State must insure that these local, interstate, and inter-
national channels are adequate. However, highway transportation facili-
ties must be recognized as the basic element, not only in the field of
transportation, but also in the State's over-all economic present and
future development.
Highways knit the State together; they provide the channels by
which all other means of transportation are integrated; and they provide,
along boundary lines, a multitude of links to other states and to the rest
of the nation. In an economy that has entered a remarkable era of
expansion, proper weight must be given to the high and important place
held by highways. There is, on the one hand, a need of keeping pace
with today’s opportunities, and on the other hand, the need for a long-
term program that will adequately accommodate economic expansion in
the future.
It is a matter of Sound administration to reassess road facilities that
are being subjected to far greater utilization than ever before and to re-
examine road policies that have been shaped by the experiences of a less
demanding era.
Growth of the State Road System
There is romance in road building and perhaps no account bears
out this observation so well as a glance at Florida history. Menendez
de Aviles, who landed at the newly-established City of St. Augustine in
1565, is credited with building the first Florida road. It ran from Fort
San Marco, at St. Augustine, north to Fort Caroline on the St. Johns
River. As the number of Spanish missionary settlements increased, the
road system spread, until by the seventeenth century some forty missions,
situated between St. Augustine and Pensacola, were connected by what
came to be known as the Old Spanish Trail. Today’s Route U. S. 90 is
built over many sections of that old roadway.
When Florida Territory fell to the British in 1762, British military
authorities considered it strategically necessary to connect it to the
Crown Colonies to the north. They constructed the “King's Highway”
running from New Smyrna, Florida, to Coleraine, Georgia. Many years
later the old highway was incorporated into Route U. S. 1.
Not long after purchase of the territory in 1821, the United States
Government found it necessary to establish forts for protection against
Seminole Indian uprisings. This plan entailed joining the forts by mili-
tary roads, an undertaking which made an important basic contribution
to the present-day system. The greatest lag in road construction
occurred in the southeastern section of the territory. It has been said
that in the early days of statehood the quickest trip to the capital from
the southeastern section was by way of New York aboard ship and then
back to Tallahassee by rail.
With Florida’s admission to the union in 1845, responsibility for
street and road construction fell to individual counties and towns. The
policy of delegating responsibility for all street and road development to
local political subdivisions was reasonably successful until the advent of
the Auto Age. The swift and widespread utilization of motor vehicles,
with attendant increases in speed and wheel loadings, demanded exten-
sive improvements in the alignment, width, and surfacing of roads. The
need for a state-wide coordinating agency eventually became evident.
Origin and Development of the State Road Department
In 1915 the State Legislature created the State Road Department.
At the outset, no great authority was vested in the Department. During
its first years of operation it did little more than function as a bureau
of information, providing maps, information on materials, and engineer-
ing data on road building to commissioners of the then-existing 52 coun-
ties. Authority and responsibility for public rural road construction
were retained by the counties; towns and cities retained responsibility
for urban Streets.
10
The State Road Department consisted of five members appointed
by the Governor, one from each of the then-existing four congressional
districts and one from the State at large. The 1915 act provided that the
terms of the first appointees range from one to four years and that the
terms of each of their successors be for four full years. This provision
was designed to allow for a staggered board which would at all times
include experienced members.
Two years after it was established, the State Road Department was
ushered into a new and vastly more important stage of development.
The experience of its first years indicated the further need of a road
agency of positive authority and with responsibility for direct participa-
tion in the construction and maintenance of highways. At the same
time, in order to obtain grants in aid made available by federal legis-
lation, it became necessary for the State to establish a road agency for
the coordination of state-federal programs and, further, that State
sources of matching and maintenance funds be established.
The State Legislature in 1917 reorganized the State Road Depart-
ment. The Legislature re-created a department which was granted
authority to establish a system of highways and to engage in construction
and maintenance. The measure provided sources of income which would
be applied directly to construction and maintenance or used to match
federal appropriations. A companion measure authorized the Depart-
ment to employ a limited number of able-bodied convicts in highway
Work.
With the rapid development of mass production manufacturing pro-
cesses, the use of motor vehicles increased phenomenally, until the auto-
mobile came to be a necessity rather than a luxury and commercial
vehicles won a prominent place in business and industry. The elaborate
refinement of technological processes and the unheard of increase in
motor vehicle traffic occurred, in Florida, against a background of an
expanding tourist trade and rapid developments in commerce, industry,
and agriculture. These great changes gave rise to ever-increasing de-
mands for more and better roads.
Of necessity, the State Road Department expanded in importance
and authority during its 36 years. It is today a vital part of the State
structure. At the end of 1951 it was responsible for the administration of
10,732 miles of roads and bridges; it employed 4,250 persons, representing
12 per cent of the Florida state employees; and during the fiscal year
ended June 30, 1951, the Department disbursed $64,605,000, or 18.73 per
cent of net disbursements for the entire State for the period. Table VI,
11
Table VI
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FILORIDA
OPERATING COSTS, 1915-1951
Investment Funds Diverted and Grand
Year Construction Maintenance Accounts Other Total Handling Charges Total
1915 *m-ºm-º-º-m $ 974.26 $ 974.26
1916..…. *º-º-º-º-º-º: *mºss-mºmºsº *m-sº e-m-mºsºm-º. 13,375.41 *mºm-amº- 13,375.41
1917..…. &=º-º-º-º-e tº-mº-tºmº *mº *º-mºm- 24,191.18 --- 24,191.18
1918..…. sºmeºmºsºmºs tº-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º- -— º-mºmºmºmºmºs 201,342.40 *-*- 201,342.40
1919.…~~~~ smºmº-º *º-º-º-ºms Eºmº-mºmº sºmsºmºmºm. 699,876.01 - 699,876.01
1920 tºmº-ºe tº-º-º-º-º-º-º-º: amºmºmºmºmº 1,528,996.12 *-ºs- 1,528,996.12
*1921 & 1922................ $4,207,330.83 f e-º-º-º-º: $1,280,020.60 5,487,351.43 *==== 5,487,351.43
*1923 & 1924................ 9,656,917.13 f mº-º-º-º: 1,998,304.43 11,655,221.56 *E=ºmºmºmº 11,655,221.56
*1925 & 1926............... $ 18,767,632.04 $ 2,646,146.32 715,387.33 22,129,165.69 e-º-º-º-º-º-º-º: 22,129,165.69
1927… 20,610,524.33 2,590,967.22 $ —5,580.16 292,216.44 23,488,127.83 23,488,127.83
1928 12,318,241.04 1,764,271.65 —157,069,65 223,955.41 14,149,398.45 $ 150,000.00 14,299,398.45
1929.….... 9,020,351.36 1,635,739.33 —154,883.00 162,348.67 10,663,556.36 265,000.00 10,928,556.36
1930.…. 7,872,968.13 1,729,897.43 —86,085.62 290,813.84 9,807,593.78 50,000.00 9,857,593.78
1931… 9,858,914.73 2,567,655.75 —196,998.60 447,732.02 12,677,303.90 300,000.00 12,977,303.90
1932 5,829,456.16 2,830,539.52 —167,431.05 226,668.60 8,719,233.23 612,040.44 9,331,273.67
1933 8,040,471.15 1,876,221.56 —87,411.90 —335,451.39 9,493,829.42 —68,473.61 9,425,355.81
§ 1934..........…...... 9,287,943.54 3,569,846.32 203,392.52 —8,854.83 13,052,327.55 70,000.00 13,122,327.55
1935… 7,650,649.33 3,703,650.15 159,611.52 14,446.73 11,528,357.73 7,032.05 11,535,389.78
1936..…... 9,664,736.28 4,342,683.52 124,390.64 134,491.01 14,266,301.45 14,266,301.45
1937.…. 7,665,828.32 3,577,098.10 —94,543.38 160,868.32 11,309,251.36 11,309,251.36
1938......…. 7,652,809.36 3,015,808.46 231,846.69 137,828.58 11,038,293.09 11,038,293.09
1939.…. 10,584,560.22 3,256,951.43 347,961.50 165,974.26 14,355,447.41 14,355,447.41
1940....................................... 11,433,811.25 4,176,638.37 458,248.92 92,443.60 16,161,142.14 16,161,142.14
1941… 11,377,130.91 3,845,764.98 146,948.81 187,915.03 15,557,759.73 15,557,759.73
1942 9,085,907.64 2,843,899.75 172,455.78 126,275.80 12,228,538.97 525,778.97 12,754,317.94
1943..…... 11,682,484.10 2,903,123.80 —196,876.06 97,352.44 14,486,084.28 346,366.74 14,832,451.02
1944....................................... 13,369,583.47 3,197,769.43 —220,353.54 114,322.98 16,461,322.34 371,322.61 16,832,644.95
1945.…. 9,138,007.96 3,714,095.81 55,415.24 120,131.62 13,027,650.63 395,741.44 13,423,392.07
1946.................................…. 13,770,912.29 4,544,560.15 1,056,423.04 222,357.61 19,594,253.09 410,140.73 20,004,393.82
1947.… 33,139,493.15 5,489,661.51 2,768,011.83 251,014.25 41,648,180.74 578,041.66 42,226,222.40
1948....................................... 33,344,680.32 8,404,102.73 1,888,807.96 270,158.89 43,907,749.90 763,061.24 44,670,811.14
1949....................................... 24,334,555.01 7,739,726.64 —634,580.33 243,892.98 31,683,594.30 827,717.86 32,511,312.16
1950.…. 39,556,899.74 9,044,089.41 1,541,998.69 361,342.22 50,504,330.06 937,513.94 51,441,844.00
**1951..................................... 58,617,751.49 10,013,564.95 2,212,689.72 1,812,435.71 72,656,441.87 1,029,864.88 73,686.306.75
TOTALS............................ $427,540,551.28 $105,024,474.29 $9,366,389.57 $9,806,393.15 $554,206,563.67 $7,571,148.95 $561,777,712.62
* Breakdown by type of operating cost was made only every two years during these biennia.
** General administrative expense was not prorated into construction and maintenance costs in 1951.
t For the purpose of a total, these amounts were added in the “Construction” column.
which lists the annual operating costs from 1915 to 1951, affords a
graphic measure of the Department’s growth. The Department had ad-
ministered the expenditure of more than a half-billion dollars since its
beginning. Operation costs for the year 1951 alone amounted to $73,686,-
300, which is ample evidence that highways have become Big Business,
and like any great enterprise requires expert administration and manage-
ment. The extensive organization required to handle the State Road
System is shown on Chart II. As shown on Map I which follows, the
State is divided into five highway districts. There is a district engineer
and a staff for each district. For maintenance operations, the districts are
subdivided into three or four maintenance areas, each with individual
area headquarters equipped with shops, offices, and warehouses.
Reapportionment in 1937 increased the number of congressional
districts from four to five. The State Road Department still is admin-
istered by a board of five members appointed by the Governor, except
that there is now one from each congressional district, as constituted in
1937, the at-large appointment having been discontinued. Appointive
terms now begin and run concurrently with the regular terms of succes-
sive governors. The board is required by law to meet quarterly at the
capital, and, at the first quarterly meeting each year, elects one of its
members as chairman, who functions as chief executive officer with full-
time, official residence in Tallahassee.
Development of the State Maintained System
Originally the State Road Department concerned itself exclusively
with rural roads. It became the procedure to take over existing county
roads and bring them to State standards. In many instances, of course,
completely new roads were required. In such cases it has been the gen-
eral policy for counties to furnish necessary rights-of-way. Mileage ac-
Quired from the counties or constructed by the Department comprised
the State Road System.
Following reorganization of the State Road Department in 1917,
road funds began to accumulate. Shortages of material and manpower
incident to World War I delayed new construction, but 1,112 miles of
existing county roads were, nevertheless, brought under State Road De-
partment administration and the Department assumed full responsibility
for their improvement and maintenance. Thereafter, the State Road
System, now known as the Florida State Maintained System of Roads,
increased steadily in mileage. The rate of increase is indicated by the
record. At the end of 1925, the Department was responsible for 1,158
13
miles; by 1927, the Department had 2,795 miles under maintenance; and
by 1931, the System had increased to 5,091 miles. In 1941 the Depart-
ment was made responsible for the construction, improvement, and main-
tenance of municipal links connecting state maintained rural roads,
adding 309 miles of urban streets to the System.
The State Maintained System was comprised, in 1949, of 9,234.8
miles. In that year this mileage was reclassified as primary and con-
stituted the State Primary System. This System was limited by policy
to 10,000 miles. In the same year the State Legislature made provision
for establishment of a State Secondary System. Thus, the Florida State
Maintained System of Roads, full responsibility for which rests with the
State Road Department, now consists of the State Primary System and
the State Secondary System.
By the end of 1951 the State Primary System had been extended to
9,572 miles. It is estimated that during that year roads in the Primary
System carried 6,571,380,784 vehicle-miles of traffic, or 55 per cent of
all vehicular travel in Florida. The importance of the system is high-
lighted when consideration is given to the fact that it constitutes only
18 per cent of all Florida's roads and streets.
The State Secondary System supplements the Primary network. It
is designed to aid state-wide traffic generally, and local traffic particu-
larly, by providing “farm-to-market” and “feeder” roads. Authorized in
1949, organization of the Secondary System got under way the following
year. In 1950, 633.3 miles were incorporated or constructed and an addi-
tional 526.5 miles were constructed in 1951, bringing the System to
1,159.8 miles. Roads incorporated into the latter network are selected
from existing county roads as funds for this improvement become avail-
able. Department engineers are of the opinion that from now on practi-
cally all county roads selected for the Secondary System will have to be
rebuilt completely to bring them to state standards.
Administrative Policies and Practices Used In
Selecting Roads for the State Maintained System
From 1917, when it was reorganized, until 1923, the State Road De-
partment had the authority to designate roads for inclusion in the State
Maintained System. In the latter year, the State Legislature reserved to
itself the right to decide just what county roads should form the reser-
voir from which the State Road Department must thereafter select mile-
age for incorporation into the Florida State Maintained System. This
basic network, which was in way of a priority designation, was called

14
i

THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA
| govinor
STATE Fº BOARD
H. aſſ H
| 5 District ENGINEERs)
|
DIR. OF TRAFFIC MGR. SECRETARY ---- ATTORNEY DIR. OF SAFETY EDITOR
PRISON CAMPS | | | | | | D: | FLA. HWYS. MAG.
lmſ DIR. OF F- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - }* * * - = = |* = as as a m- a ºn me = = * * * * * * * DIR. OF
AUTOMOTIVE TRANS, STATE hows ENGINEER OUTDOOR ADVT.
ASST STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER
ADMINISTRATION
| DIR. of PERSONNEL [Purchasing Agt | Auditor | DIR of Right of way
ASST. STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER ASST STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER ASST. STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER
PLANNING CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE
DIVISION ENGINEERS: DIVISION ENGINEERS: DIVISION ENGINEERS:
TRAFFIC 8 PLAN N | NG GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NORTH ERN FLORIDA
SURVEYS TESTS SOUTHERN FLORIDA
ROADWAY PLANS SPECIFICATIONS I
BRIDGE PLANS F-- URBAN PROJECTS PRISON CAMPS
DRAI NAGE | BITUMENS HEAVY BRIDGE MAINT.
FEDERAL AID | CONTRACTS
SECON DARY ROADS FINAL EST MATES
STEEL PROCUREMENT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
–––––––––––––––– H Asst. District ENGINEER | Asst. District ENGINEER H--------------
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA PLANNING, SURVEY'S, | PROJECT ENGINEERs | | MainTENANCE ENGINEERs
DESIGNERS, ETC. |
INSPECTORs, ETC. SUPERINTENDENTs, ETC
ORGANIZATION CHART | | | |
JULY 1952
PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL 8, MACDONALD
ENGINEERS NEW YORK
MAP-1
A L A B A. M. A
G E. o R G A
ſº ſ •º -
- -
\ * | ----- - s
º ---- o º --- -- - | -
* \ º 5 / T--
- - \ | - - Gads d = - -
--------- - Tau Awassee" º ha-i-º-ow \ - -
|-- o - * º º wadisow º
=<rº º º __ ity
º- y * Fo º º **ºn-i- -
º f s Lºw-Ax saxes –
airy tº ***** A waxulla - suwawnee ºoº- - -
tº j PERRY - - ºf Doctº -
SS - - me */ | *** \stºne a
- | Lafayern
^: Gulf \ Taylon Lafarf - Sºº- ---- a • ---
Jºanwun ~ ---> * -
-* ALAchua w -
\ º * ºf eas: -
º dºxºr - º Pur- 3.)
L_ Sºº \, Nº.
- -
-
-- \
N ---- ------ º
º
.** volusa N
** De Land
o *~ N tº-nº C.
N
------> **** TAwar- 1.
º ºlomº - - º -
« - /* ---- - zºo
- * > → º
or-a-do
------ º
------
Pasco --
--P-RH1---
o - -
Quº. ol-4
- ºnel-Las *. polk Sº d-c-
LARGO --- -
- y- -
T
- -ºn-ta \
º ------ º
- ----- \
on-P-R-E
º- wº ma-are- * oxEeºnosef ------
- |- Lucie
º w -
- * hism awº -
---Tºm
+ sanasora peso. To Ind-to-
-
- º GLADE5
KY Charlotte Hawen
c. -
- *****
LE GEND
º
ort Myers
o \\ ſ º memory P-L- 4.
-
LEE
STATE HEADQuarters
District office
Maintenance office, shop and warehouse
Main resting LABoratory
BRanch LABoratory (LIMERocky
Branch LABORATORY taggregate,
Branch LABoratory (cEMEwr inspection)
BRANch LABoratory (souls)
stare war-Ehouse
to STATE sign shop
Pave-ENT MARxing crew
12 stEEL REPAIR CREw (BRidge)
13 ELECTRic REPAIR crew
14 convict camps
- District Boundaries
---------- Maintenance District Boundaries
------------
----------
-------
-------
--
-----
-------
-
-------
º * - º
- D - d -
º
Howestead
-
- º
º
º
---------
-
2^
§ *
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
HIGHWAY DISTRICTS, MAINTENANCE DISTRICTs
AND OPERATING CENTERs
JULY 1952
PARSons, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL AND MacDonald
ENGINEERs NEw York






















the First Preferential System. As set up in 1923, it covered 3,908 miles
which were largely already part of the Maintained System or had pre-
viously been designated by the Department. Subsequent additions to the
preferential systems designated many thousands of miles of roads to
which the State Road Department must give priority in extending mile-
age in the State Maintained System. This practice continued until the
last legislature declared practically all county roads and city streets as
eligible for inclusion in the Maintained System, thereby giving the Road
Department a wide selection range.
In the matter of road categories, Florida road mileage is comprised
basically of the following: The Florida State Maintained System, County
Roads, and Municipal Streets.
Sub-categories of the State Maintained System are the State Pri-
mary System and the State Secondary System. Each of these is broken
down into specific subdivisions. The State Primary System is made up
of: Federal Aid Interstate Primary, Federal Aid Primary, Federal Aid
Secondary, Federal Aid Urban and Other State Maintained Primary.
The sum of the mileage of these roads comprises the State Primary Sys-
tem. The State Secondary System is comprised of two road classifica-
tions: Federal Aid Secondary and Other State Maintained Secondary.
County Roads are comprised of Federal Aid Secondary and Other County
Roads. Municipal Streets are in a single category. Chart III shows the
inter-relation of the State Systems, Federal Aid Designated Roads and
Streets, County Roads and City Streets, and the mileage of the systems
as of December 31, 1950.
The provisions under which federal grants in aid for road construc-
tion are generally made should also be noted. Federal aid funds must
be used for construction purposes only; they must be used for rural road
construction unless otherwise specified; and the grants must be matched
equally.
The State Maintained System and Federal Aid Mileage
The development of the State Maintained System has been traced
and it has been indicated that is comprised largely of roads that have
Qualified for federal aid grants. The Federal Aid Roads common with
the State Maintained System are now considered.
When federal aid for road Construction in the various states was
made available in 1916 under the Bankhead Act, Florida was without
a state road building authority and without state sources of matching
15
funds. A federal aid grant of some $56,000 in that year was, therefore,
reassigned to the counties, since they were engaged regularly in road
construction and had established sources of income that could be used
for matching funds. In the years immediately following, the State Road
Department was authorized to construct and maintain roads and enact-
ments were passed to provide state sources of funds. After World War I
and its dislocations, the machinery for state-federal road construction
was improved and a more systematic federal aid system established. In
1921, 1,928 miles of roads were selected as eligible for federal financing.
By 1923 the Secretary of Agriculture had approved 1,833 miles of the
proposed roads on the basis of area, population, existing mileage, the
availability of matching funds, and the existence of machinery for main-
tenance.
Of the 10,047.2 miles in the Florida State Maintained System of
Roads, both primary and secondary, as of December 1, 1950, 8,085.5 miles
were Federal Aid Roads of one classification or another. That is to say,
there were 8,085.5 miles having a federal classification that were common
with the State Maintained System. The balance of the State Maintained
System, 1,961.7 miles, either had not been proposed for federal aid or have
not qualified as eligible. In addition to the above quoted mileage, there
were 4,075.3 miles of County Roads eligible for federal aid. Federal Aid
Road mileage in the State Primary System and State Secondary System
as of December 31, 1950, is considered separately.
A. State Primary System : The National System of Interstate
Highways, comprising approximately 40,000 miles throughout the nation,
is designed essentially to join the principal centers of the nation. In
Florida there were 1,006.6 miles of primary roads classified as Interstate
Highways at the close of 1950. The system of roadways within a state
designed not only to connect with principal roads at border points, but
also to form a network connecting the main centers within a state, is
classified as Other Federal Aid Primary. Florida had 2,609.3 miles of
Federal Aid Primary roads at the end of 1950. Together these systems of
primary roads form an integrated nation-state network. Roads which are
part of the State Primary System, but qualify for federal aid secondary
funds, with the classification Federal Aid Secondary, totaled 3,562 miles
at the end of 1950. In the Federal Aid Urban classification there were
346.5 miles. Urban Areas are defined as areas including and adjacent to
municipalities or other metropolitan centers having a population of 5,000
or more. The total for all Federal Aid Roads in the State Primary Sys-
tem was 7,524.4. Mileage in the State Primary System, not common with
the Federal Aid mileage, was 1,889.5. The System covered, at the end of
1950, 9,413.9 miles.
16
ALL ROADS
AND STREETS
52,058 MILES
FLOR |DA STATE
COUNTY ROADS
30,733.2 MILES MA|NTA|NED SYSTEM
10,047.2 MILES
FEDERAL Al D COUNTY ROADS CITY STREETS
SECON DARY NOT FEDERAL Al D NOT FEDERAL AID
4,075.3 MILES 26,657.9 MILES 11,277.6 MILES
STATE SECONDARY STATE PRIMARY
SYSTEM - SYSTEM
633.3 Ml LES 9,413.9 MILES
FEDERAL Al D STATE MAINTAIN ED FEDERAL Al D FEDERAL Al D FEDERAL Al D STATE MA| NTAIN ED | | STATE MA|NTAIN ED FEDERAL AID
SECON DARY NOT FEDERAL Al D |NTER STATE PRIMARY - SECON DARY NOT FEDERAL AID NOT FEDERAL Al D URBAN
56 | . | MILES 72.2 MILES 1,006.6 MILES 2,609.3 MILES 3,562.O MILES RURAL URBAN 3 46.5 M |LES
1, 187.O MILES 7O2.5 MILES
Note - MILEAGES SHOWN ARE As of DEC. 31, 1950.
TOTAL MI LEA GE OF 633.3 | N SECON DARY S YSTEM
INCLUDES 14, 229 FEET OF BRIDGES.
ToTAL MI LEAGE OF 9,413.9 IN PRIMARY systEM
INCLUDES 624,028 FEET OF BRIDGEs.
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
|N TER RELATIONSHIP
OF FLORIDA’S ROAD
AND STREET SYSTEMS
JULY 1952
PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL 8, MACDONALD
ENGINEERS NEW YORK
i

B. State Secondary System: The State Secondary System was com-
prised of 561.1 miles of roads classified as Federal Aid Secondary and
72.2 miles of Other State Maintained Secondary. The State Secondary
System totaled, at the close of 1950, 633.3 miles. The 9,413.9 miles in
the State Primary System and 633.3 miles in the State Secondary Sys-
tem brought the total for the State Maintained System to 10,047.2 with,
as previously noted, 8,085.5 miles that had been approved for federal aid
and classified in federal aid categories. Detailed mileage figures for the
years 1946-1950 are listed in Table VII and Map II following this page
shows Florida’s Primary Road System.
Table VII
MILEAGE OF FLORIDA’S ROAD SYSTEMS
IN THE YEARS 1946-1950
STATE MAINTAINED PRIMARY SYSTEM
State Bridge Total
Other Maintained Feet Mileage
Federal Federal Pederal Federal Not Included Including
Aid Aid Aid Aid Federal In Road Bridge
Year Interstate Primary Secondary Urban Aid Mileage Feet
1946 *mº 2,640.0 2,785.6 am-mm- 3,231.5 597,342 8,657.1
1947 1,123.5 1,919.0 2,771.4 --- 2,922.2 598,596 8,736.2
1948 1,123.5 1,967.6 3,107.2 *º-º-º- 2,751.2 603,708 8,949.6
1949 1,123.5 2,278.3 3,589.1 — 2,243.9 615,076 9,234.8
1950 1,006.6 2,609.3 3,562.0 346.5 1,899.5 624,028 9,413.9
STATE MAINTAINED SECONDARY SYSTEM
State Bridge Feet Total Mileage
Federal Maintained Included In Including
Aid Not Federal Road Bridge
Year Secondary Aid Mileage Feet
1950 561.1 72.2 14,229 633.3
COUNTY AND CITY
County
Federal Maintained
Aid Not Federal County Road
Year Secondary Aid Totals City Streets
1946 3,705.1 26,055.7 29,760.8 10,763.8
1947 3,727.4 26,169.6 29,897.0 10,911.0
1948 3,836.9 26,954.8 30,791.7 11,102.1
1949 3,940.7 26,937.1 30,877.7 11,212.1
1950 4,075.3 26,657.9 30,733.2 11,277.6
STATE TOTALS
Year
1946 49,181.7
1947 ... 49,544.2
1948 50,843.4
1949 51,324.6
1950 52,058.0
17
State Road Department Operating Costs, 1915-1951
Since its earlier operations, when a simple cash basis was used, the
State Road Department’s accounting procedures have undergone several
changes. Double-entry bookkeeping with a large number of cost cate-
gories was adopted in 1927. In 1933 a number of cost categories were
incorporated into construction or maintenance accounts and the account-
ing presentation appeared on an accrual basis.
The Operating Costs shown in Table VI are not, therefore, an at-
tempt to reconcile annual revenues and expenses but are, rather, what ap-
pears to be a fair statement of actual operating costs for each year from
1915 to 1951. “Investment” accounts include plant, supply, and equip-
ment purchases less depreciation. Expenses in the category, “Other”,
include disbursements made for special audits, surveys, and other miscel-
laneous expenditures. This category had a continuously changing mean-
ing through the years as, for instance, in 1933 when many items were
transferred or prorated into either the construction or maintenance ac-
count in the Biennial Report. Table VIII shows construction and main-
tenance costs by highway districts from 1943 to 1950. It is notable that
in 1951 the total of $68,631,316 expended for construction and mainte-
nance of primary and secondary roads in the State Maintained System
was well over five and one-half times the amount expended in 1931, only
twenty years earlier.
County Roads and City Streets
Although this report is concerned principally with the Florida State
Maintained System of Roads, a description of Florida highways would
be incomplete without a more detailed reference to County Roads and
City Streets. At the close of 1950 there were 30,773.3 miles of County
Roads and Bridges. City Streets totalled 11,277.6 miles.
Except for the 4,075.3 miles which are eligible for Federal Aid Sec-
ondary Funds, county road construction and maintenance are the respon-
sibility of individual counties and urban communities in which the roads
are located. The counties receive a share of state motor fuel tax revenues,
but it is by no means adequate to meet requirements. During the year
ended September 30, 1950, the counties disbursed $14,486,648 for road
purposes including acquisition of rights-of-way, construction of roads and
bridges, maintenance, administration and related costs. Income from
various sources for the period was $13,341,152. A closing balance of
$3,544,545 in 1949 enabled the counties to meet all costs. The largest reve-
nue sources were: local road and bridge ad valorem levies, $7,055,034; the
counties' share of the State Second Gas Tax Surplus and the Seventh Cent
Tax, $2,615,661; and revenues from imposts on race tracks, $1,923,544.
18
-
|
-
| A &s A. º º
2 9. 15 2.
88
ATMORE BREwton
--- FLORA
- -- --------- --
- -
ſ
- --
5 | --
- I
\ - Nº. en ! crestview
*- º o
-- DE
- - -
* - A "* - - - - - º:
mſ 34.
7
7 - 34. |
37. MOULTRIE 12
SAMSON 9. 19 44. º *asunsw.e.
2 º º º A 6 § -Runswic
23. *3) ºf 35 33 84. sº 4. 23. 25
- -- - -
30.
/ BAINBRIDGE -
- -
-- /Gº 84. *
- F-F-1 Tºº Yº ºvaLDosTA 39 *** ****NS-
-- - - 197 38 34 -
- ---- 7. - 29 - 15
-- -Z - - --- –3. - 9 7. ( It FERNANDINA
- G y *"Tºº-º-º-º- 23
º A 2–0 ºf @/kº P. TYT2.--> ----—-----. * Yºu…sº
--- - * @ & | - ! ºasper |-- | z-
{ --. * - 44. - - -
J.-- 77 - º º 29); * Gºº o ––/ - | - : A V- - -
-
2 ſº-f------ º-L- r^l ſº * ~ * Q – Yº Nº ſº
f - V - - 23. - - * - / . . . Nº *. - //\ } "---> NVILLE
7a. tº Tºo "-r--> - o
! / T \ - ºf Q3) J / / \ }__________ - - --- / K |- - - - - JACKSONvil-LE
ºl---- -- L_* ſuve on - Hºf is: º r-BEACH
- º º city -
-------- - -2' - - - A º 129 - -------- ---
Panavacy ; - - - - PT V. ſº | | \, ( , \ Zººs -------/*-- -º-;
2. 2 - PERRY I !--|-- - ** -
-- -
! \ (27 Nº. 1 (247)^ gº ſ ^: - - 7 - - º'
* --------------> *- 31 - - | º l - -
-- º - º *- -º-º: º le st
- º - - - - - - - 1-A - - - - - - ^ r º starre §§ - AUGUSTINE
Ks - º -- 2. -
- -- --~~~ 2-----
º, º – - -\ \, I_____------ - w -- -
Port - w - -
sfºot-º' -- * A |GE) ºf \{^4 P Y.
2. %) . -
apalacº - sº GANESVILLEY. -\ |\ º
TN- O *** Aſ TTTTT -
T-4--a - Paulº
- - - - - - ---. - - - - - - -
| -- %2-y---->
rºº *(3) Tº S 7 h
1291 55 3.15 º ºn tº
- - -
- - 2 - º
3ol. 5) ---------- DAYTONA
- - - - BEACH
ſº sº-
45 CALA \ 7. --- N
-> Ew
--- 5 d º 40 SMYRNA
º - *-> 475 42 × AC-
w * Hºº * LAND
I Vº T
w - --
\ - | º 44 A
- --- -----
- - - - J | -- NFord
/ | (50.2 r’ - | -
------- (-5) / * - Sº
- - - --- -----e.
\ oly 44. s sº -
- - &
- - ------ –7] | º < \
T- |oº -\ . . . . .
----- ------ | 25 --
pape; 15
- 㺠----ºf--- Yºº-H---)----------- -
---- kiss MMEE |
- - - - - -- -- | -
-
45 ºs º \ la
Tassonº. TT F---Gº- \, | -
9.
spºns. - - - - PLANT ºes----
º chº º city } - - - - -\ - MELBourne
- SINº.
CLEARwaren - Caº'evº Lake -
- (50. WALES 15 -
- PA - | BARTow -------
- º - F----
ST. (37 * -
- PPEterseukg \ - - - -
- 35
3 I 25 º 60 VERO BEACH
--- TT \avon Park | -
2 54. - ----r --------
WAUCHULA .
sEBRING ! F.T.
- - - - N Hºgs * Pºcº
º N. 44.
"QENToN 17 º ro
- | o |------ --- \ -
| - - - - - - - - - \ -
7 L– ARCADIA 75 T *- F-TTTTT stuart
- - - - - - -
- 35 º F--- -
76
4. — — L-3
4. ---------------- T L. A r = -------------
- - - -
-] -- 15
- PUNTA 0 ºr E = c → d = E =
GoRDA
-\ | - wº-ST
—ſ 80)--~~~- PALM
N ----------------- –– 7 BELLE * -EACH
o GLADE Bo -
| 44. º
- - 29. -
7
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA FT. - - |
MYERS -- Al-
*-i----- º DELRAY
BEACH
----
45 -
L___-------------------- - --
PRIMARY ROAD SYSTEM ----
– Pº-º-º-º:
------------- nº-
OF THE 44.
29 Fon-
STATE OF FLORIDA 94. LAUDERDALE
- - | - - - - - - - -
7 HOLLYWOOD
-
------- T--------------- +-----
JULY 1952 90
------------- 90 MAM
PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL a M.AcDonal-D
ENGINEERs NEW YORK * .
- - - - - 5
-
- -o-EstEAD
-
- FEDERAL AID. INTERSTATE PRIMARY Roads | 1
- - OTHER FEDERAL AID PRIMARY Roads
FEDERAL AID SECONDARY Roads AND º
STATE PRIMARY ROADs not ELIGIBLE
- FOR FEDERAL AID
*- : to 20 30 -o 50
S C A L E o F ºn L E s 5
MARATHON
KEY
WEST
-





-
tº ºn tº ºn sº m ms – m ºn tº ºn tº m 'm m ms m ms ºne m
§
Table VIII
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES ON THE
STATE PRIMARY SYSTEM DURING PERIOD 1943-1950
CONSTRUCTION BY SOURCE OF FUNDS
MAINTENANCE BY TYPE
Year Highway District State Funds Federal Funds Total Routine Periodic Extraordinary Total
One.................. $ 831,797.24 $ 830,514.06 $ 1,662,311.30 $ 320,365.55 $ 103,436.44 $ 1,199,86 $ 425,001.85
Two.................. 837,848.74 288,367.97 1,126,216.71 369,115.75 133,305.40 491.89 502,913.04
1943 Three............... 1,632,146.55 986,326.87 2,618,473.42 585,956.38 194,641.98 13,789.46 794,387.82
Four.................. 2,071,804.36 2,213,170.49 4,284,974,85 410,070.76 108,254.07 389.83 518,714.66
Five................... 1,327,810.00 662,697.82 1,990,507.82 459,881.53 195,329.33 6,895.57 662,106.43
Florida............ $ 6,701,406.89 $4,981,077.21 $11,682,484.10 $2,145,389.97 $ 734,967.22 $ 22,766.61 $2,903,123.80
One.................... $ 3,404,735.43 $2,063,658.97 $ 5,468,394.40 $ 212,377.44 $ 166,523.96 $ 19,717.34 $ 398,618.74
Two................... 802,895.10 825,607.19 1,628,502.29 203,062.59 138,724.71 18,342.33 360,129.63
1944 Three............... 1,170,285.30 1,047,041.09 2,217,326.39 316,878.15 358,190.54 12,762.16 687,830.85
Four.................. 777,972.79 1,568,658.22 2,346,631.01 268,168.28 75,684.70 3,200.30 347,053.28
Five................... 897,117.76 811,611.62 1,708,729.38 305,178.01 183,338.02 52,577.30 541,093.33
Florida........... $ 7,053,006.38 $6,316,577.09 $13,369,583.47 $1,305,664.47 $ 922,461.93 $ 106,599.43 $2,334,725.83
One.................... $ 2,227,484.64 $ 549,806.16 $ 2,777,290.80 $ 426,601.41 $ 163,656.67 $ 47,738.81 $ 637,996.89
Two.................. 1,433,581.43 328,402.67 1,761,984.10 406,613.91 75,985.70 7,042.61 489,642.22
1945 Three............... 1,701,058.17 224,371.90 1,925,430.07 660,683.86 359,093.75 8,960.92 1,028,738.53
Four.................. 1,030,035.84 112,883.48 1,142,919.32 409,762.30 189,484.64 8,877.46 608,124.40
Five................... 1,368,722.96 161,660.71 1,530,383.67 554,858.95 373,077.64 21,657.18 949,593.77
Florida........... $ 7,760,883.04 $1,377,124.92 $ 9,138,007.96 $2,458,520.43 $1,161,298.40 $ 94,276.98 $3,714,095.81
One.................... $ 2,692,001.62 $ 435,246.84 $ 3,127,248.46 $ 664,340.50 $ 202,220.07 $ 6,412,05 $ 872,972.62
Two................... 3,005,469.08 159,753.65 3,165,222.73 578,266.49 231,129.15 10,060.17 819,455.81
1946 Three................ 2,111,033.22 416,120.54 2,527,153.76 724,178.52 403,831.36 162,934.77 1,290,944.65
Four.................. 2,188,737.00 158,216.91 2,346,953.91 554,176.91 51,677.62 2,646.00 608,500.53
Five................... 2,397,550.60 206,782.83 2,604,333.43 751,140.26 196,382.28 5,164.00 952,686.54
Florida........... $12,394,791.52 $1,376,120.77 $13,770,912.29 $3,272,102.68 $1,085,240.48 $ 187,216.99 $4,544,560.15
One.................... $ 7,179,000.63 $ 982,433.68 $ 8,161,434.31 $1,072,648.13 $ 194,288.29 $ 28,758,88 $1,295,695.30
Two................... 4,639,440.44 704,605.51 5,344,045.95 830,339.40 80,788.88 31,786.76 942,915.04
1947 Three................ 5,324,183.63 568,126.53 5,892,310.16 1,022,406.74 151,735.77 29,736.17 1,203,878.68
Four.................. 4,954,943.07 843,618.04 5,798,561.11 838,923.45 12,435.76 88,401.70 939,760.91
Five................... 7,266,503.33 676,638.29 7,943,141.62 1,030,852.47 14,078.25 13,064.24 1,057,994.96
Florida.......... $29,364,071.10 $3,775,422.05 $33,139,493.15 $4,795,070.19 $ 453,326.95 $ 191,747.75 $5,440,144.89
One.................... $ 3,962,470.32 $ 986,202.17 $ 4,948,672.49 $1,155,160.14 $ 601,016.99 $ 64,732.64 $1,820,909.77
Two................... 5,059,960.00 667,471.58 5,727,431.58 1,096,856.43 93,925.78 279,968.20 1,470,750.41
1948 Three 5,373,746.70 594,520.14 5,968,266.84 1,026,916.43 272,507.28 336,490.23 1,635,913.94
Four................. 7,190,197.05 1,332,234.03 8,522,431.08 1,156,231.37 293,085.38 257,340.88 1,706,657.63
Five................... 6,980,554.30 1,197,324.03 8,177,878.33 1,226,538.37 335,777.02 156,223.45 1,718,538.84
Florida........... $28,566,928.37 $4,777,751.95 $33,344,680.32 $5,661,702.74 $1,596,312.45 $1,094,755.40 $8,352,770.59
One.................... $ 3,136,728.15 $1,184,109.21 $ 4,320,837.36 $1,294,863.64 $ 79,385.05 $ 14,302.39 $1,388,551.08
Two................... 5,124,464.44 448,918.38 5,573,382.82 1,188,034.41 208,022.10 16,203.78 1,412,260.29
1949 Three................ 3,467,147.33 812,795.25 4,279,942.58 1,354,179.73 250,102.73 68,047.14 1,672,329.60
Four.................. 4,553,459.74 754,126.40 5,307,586.14 1,341,071.97 107,476.91 76,882.27 1,525,431.15
Five.................. 2,709,430.10 265,025.12 2,974,455.22 1,430,289.16 235,536.96 25,331.20 1,691,157.32
Florida........... $18,991,229.76 $3,464,974.36 $22,456,204.12 $6,608,438.91 $ 880,523.75 $ 200,766.78 $7,689,729.44
One.…. $ 6,250,418.34 $1,231,279.92 $ 7,481,698.26 $1,222,486.99 $ 342,242.09 $ 105,857.42 $1,670,586.50
Two................... 5,766,528.03 638,828.43 6,405,357.06 1,525,398.43 140,090.38 23,528.29 1,689,017.10
1950 Three............... 4,559,533.21 696,256.33 5,255,789.54 1,527,245.95 340,383.43 83,092.01 1,950,721.39
Four.…. 5,894,090.98 704,468.35 6,598,559.33 1,432,435.84 514,995.76 25,131.83 1,972,563.43
Five................... 5,545,797.00 1,155,628.20 6,701,425.20 1,248,345.74 175,123.36 113,754.40 1,537,223.50
Florida........... $28,016,367.56 $4,426,461.23 $32,442,829.39 $6,955,912.95 $1,512,835.02 $ 351,363.95 $8,820,111.92
Florida's city streets measured 11,624.1 miles at the close of 1950.
Of that total 346.5 miles were maintained by the State as Federal Aid
Urban roads. Not included in the 11,624.1 mile total were 702.5 miles
of streets maintained by the State out of other funds and serving as
urban links of the Primary System. In 1950, 291 incorporated communi-
ties expended $31,256,786 for road and bridge purposes. The largest
outlays were for construction, $10,102,996; for maintenance, $7,255,030;
and for service payments on the $99,176,371 street, bridge and storm
sewer bonded indebtedness which municipalities have outstanding, $7,-
895,697. Chief sources of revenue for road purposes were ad valorem
levies, $9,240,351; general appropriations, $10,688,901; and $4,076,000,
which represented the proceeds from newly issued bonds and certificates.
Related Traffic and Economic Statistics
Table IX presents by counties the population, gasoline consumption,
motor vehicle registration both for passenger and commercial vehicles
for the years 1940 and 1950, and the mileage of the Primary Road Sys-
tem in 1946 and in 1950. The per cent of change in each item for the
individual county is given to indicate the growth during the period.
This table also gives for each county the area in acres, the area under
cultivation, the total assessed valuation in 1948, the banking resources,
and retail sales for the year noted.
The several areas of the State, as represented by the counties, show
wide variation in population, traffic activity and growth, as well as in
economic progress due to the distribution of the natural and geographi-
cal resources of the State. Although a number of counties show a
decrease in population, the use of motor vehicles has increased in every
county as revealed by the figures for fuel consumption, which is due
in part to increased traffic on the Primary System.
An examination of the table shows the marked increase in popula-
tion, as well as in the use of motor vehicles, in the counties containing
the important urban areas of the State, which is proportionally much
greater than for the State as a whole.
An analysis of the results of the traffic survey discussed in detail
later in this Report indicates that a major portion of the traffic on the
Primary Road System has both its origin and destination in the larger
cities. The major arteries of these cities are bottlenecks, being con-
gested with local traffic. For the continued prosperity of these urban
communities, adequate highway facilities must be provided to serve both
the intra-city and inter-city traffic.
20
Table IX
RELATED TRAFFIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS
Retail Sales*
Gasoline Registered Registered Primary System County Cultivated Assessed Banking Dollars
Population Consumption Passenger Vehicles Commercial Vehicles Road Mileage Area Acreage Valuation Resources In Thousands
County 1940 1950 % Change 1940 1950 % Change 1940 1950 % Change 1940 1950 % Change 1946 1950 % Change In Acres (1945) (1948) (1948) (1951)
Alachua 38,607 57,026 47.71 7,277,688 13,514,333 85.69 6,645 13,338 100.72 1,607 3,289 104.66 255.0 259.4 1.725 622,080 344,411 $53,235,362 $22,182,000 $ 50,692
Baker 6,510 6,313 —3.02 841,161 1,865,043 121.72 769 1,337 73.86 211 606 187.20 46.7 56.0 19.914 372,480 36,655 3,522,740 1,270,000 3,111
ay 20,686 42,689 106.37 3,936,423 12,670,032 221.87 2,956 10,037 238.54 840 2,170 158.33 140.5 161.6 15,017 481,920 24,195 35,819,684 11,020,000 35,538
Bradford 8,717 11,457 31.43 2,096,421 3,771,125 79.88 1,407 2,789 98.22 496 1,150 131.85 84.3 100.0 18,623 186,240 87,044 6,220,227 2,404,132 7,189
Brevard 16,142 23,653 46.53 5,947,269 11,451,295 92.55 3,601 7,374 104.77 944 1,847 95.65 231.0 232.8 0.779 820,480 199,089 21,547,628 11,235,000 21,624
Broward 39,794 83,933 110.92 10,424,895 24,902,187 138.87 12,928 31,990 147.44 2,279 5,553 143.65 141.5 141.4 —0.070 778,240 108,111 206,301,512 64,865,000 119,958
Calhoun 8,218 7,922 —3.60 1,172,436 2,054,622 75.24 535 1,005 87.85 309 602 94.82 69.0 95.8 38.840 365,440 78,443 2,696,761 19,020,000 4,284
Charlotte 3,663 4,286 17.01 1,000,373 1,707,107 70.65 807 1,316 63.07 206 364 76.69 81.6 81.3 —0.367 513,920 273,321 7,959,624 2,500,000 3,785
Citrus 5,846 6,111 4.53 1,247,402 2,659,204 113.18 926 1,682 81.64 347 529 52.44 108.9 111.5 2.387 417,280 151,007 8,643,686 2,137,000 4,731
Clay 6,468 14,323 121.44 1,269,592 3,100,086 144.18 925 3,378 265.18 360 728 102.22 117.2 135.6 15.699 417,280 103,711 9,421,064 1,984,000 6,600
Collier 5,102 6,488 27.16 2,285,842 3,203,884 40.16 497 1,017 104.62 223 473 112.10 141.2 156.9 11.118 1,267,200 333,628 11,422,300 882,000 3,098
Columbia 16,859 18,216 8.05 3,073,893 8,630,180 180.76 2,165 3,777 74.45 614 1,479 140.87 126.5 150.5 18.972 505,600 159,841 10,786,000 6,441,000 14,704
Dade 267,739 495,084 84.91 67,452,400 142,535,638 111.31 88,552 176,273 99.06 13,019 27,059 107.84 192.5 209.9 9.038 1,392,640 77,631 1,009,981,379 442,000,000 698,460
De Soto 7,792 9,242 18.67 1,238,358 2,312,320 86.72 1,569 2,182 39.06 408 781 91.42 81.2 80.6 —0.738 3,840 7,830,220 3,196,000 7,400
Dixie 7,018 3,928 —44.03 1,493,051 2,324,802 55.71 785 765 —2.54 256 434 69.53 50.1 57.6 14.970 469,760 97,714 3,803,857 788,000 2,713
Duval 210,142 304,029 44.68 44,036,198 74,657,183 69.53 44,100 78,035 76.95 8,465 15,834 87.05 205.9 228.4 10.927 545,280 66,138 368,875,626 331,930,000 331,058
Escambia 74,667 112,706 50.94 11,230,663 23,875,107 112.59 14,213 27,926 96.48 2,165 4,547 110.02 166.3 178.4 7.276 485,760 66,249 78,518,030 45,210,000 88,935
Flagler 3,008 3,367 11.93 1,014,751 1,837,823 81.11 550 885 60.90 220 402 82.72 75.8 84.0 10.817 323,200 232,288 4,655,471 1,509,000 2,052
Franklin 5,991 5,814 —2.95 910,479 1,456,631 59.98 584 795 36.13 255 381 49.41 73.6 101.8 38.315 448,320 6,391,106 1,683,000 2,828
Gadsden 31,450 36,457 15.92 2,783,128 6,122,354 119.98 2,809 5,053 79.88 645 1,702 163.87 108.3 131.3 21.237 341,120 234,278 13,399,390 13,467,000 22,095
Gilchrist 4,250 3,499 –17.67 593,577 1,066,282 79.64 653 886 35.68 287 616 114.63 56.7 71.5 26.102 226,560 98.298 2,480,803 1,140,000 2,147
Glades 2,745 2,199 –19.89 386,617 854,300 120.97 771 453 —41.24 282 269 —4.00 87.5 99.3 13.485 480,000 98.298 3,360,237 1,547
Gulf 6,951 7,460 7.32 806,785 1,488,540 84.50 693 1,573 126.98 202 548 171.28 67.3 86.7 28.826 416,000 35,328 8,440,342 3,382,000 4,937
Hamilton 9,778 8,981 —8.15 1,088,896 2,009,863 84.58 671 1,108 65.12 247 561 127.16 75.7 88.7 17.173 330,240 149,178 4,244,519 1,570,000 4,256
Hardee 10,158 10.073 –0.84 1,774,725 2,802,425 57.90 1,874 2,510 33.93 699 1,348 92.84 64.1 75.8 18.252 406,400 333,445 5,076,847 3,769,000 8,626
Hendry 5,237 6,051 15.54 1,421,151 2,470,387 73.83 1,041 1,881 80.69 378 822 117.46 69.8 85.7 22.779 737,920 362,352 10,467,682 2,048,000 6,755
Hernando 5,641 6,693 18.65 1,255,765 2,511,725 100.02 1,172 1,998 70.47 315 717 127.61 78.6 95.9 22.010 314,880 36,572 5,521,772 2,821,000 5,702
Highlands 9,246 13,636 47.48 2,001,949 4,747,428 137.14 2,211 4,192 89.59 453 1,365 201.32 109.6 109.4 —0.182 698,240 503,478 16,628,932 5,374,000 10,992
Hillsborough 180,148 249,894 38.72 33,969,076 74,678,445 119.84 38,471 69,314 80.17 7,434 16,202 117.94 206.6 246.7 19.409 790,400 261,481 222,980,149 160,986,000 268,944
Holmes 15,447 13,988 —9.45 1,489,865 2,570,216 72.51 839 1,501 78.90 411 890 116.54 112.2 123.7 10.249 316,800 150,000 5,205,833 1,474,000 3,990
Indian River 8,957 11,872 32.54 2,219,167 5,278,825 137.87 1,967 3,661 86.12 547 1,154 110.96 76.3 76.5 0.262 336,000 150,687 16,467,366 4,006,000 11,466
Jackson 34,428 34,645 —0.63 3,144,016 7,606,181 141.93 2,497 4,916 96.87 806 2,384 195.78 201.0 230.0 14.427 602,240 377,586 12,355,896 10,964,000 19,626
Jefferson 12,032 10,413 —13.46 1,327,535 2,700,692 103.44 1,117 1,433 28.29 408 776 90.19 102.9 104.0 1.068 382,080 180,094 5,828,705 2,778,000 4,717
Lafayette 4,405 3,440 —21.91 355,164 891,374 150.98 414 643 55.31 207 351 69.56 72.9 73.3 0.548 350,720 81,165 1,976,155 580,000 1,675
Lake 27,255 36,340 33.33 5,919,244 12,004,984 102.81 6,504 11,410 75.43 1,568 3,453 120.21 292.1 303.7 3.971 736,640 198,630 45,465,612 18,869,000 30,030
Lee 17,488 23,404 33.83 4,164,523 7,550,308 81.30 4,199 7,602 81.04 1,094 2,004 83.18 107.7 121.1 12,441 652,800 104,064 26,608,809 13,151,000 28,660
Leon 31,646 51,590 63.02 5,953,492 13,973,481 134.71 4,994 7,415 48.47 940 1,772 88.51 132.9 142.3 7,072 452,480 153,505 49,920,503 28,948,000 43,818
Levy 12,550 10,637 –15.24 2,512,980 5,153,234 105.06 1,194 1,792 50.08 524 1,077 105.53 177.7 185.0 4.108 737,920 243,370 7,781,251 1,641,000 5,904
Liberty 3,752 3,182 —15.19 530,994 831,277 56.55 154 353 129.22 111 256 130.63 75.8 88.2 16.358 528,000 41,936 3,025,263 1,210
Madison 16,190 14,197 —12.31 1,777,542 3,034,373 70.71 1,432 2,184 52.51 477 969 103.14 105.2 112.9 7.319 455,680 217,904 6,246,410 3,503,000 6,219
Manatee 26,098 34,704 32.98 4,458,040 8,806,843 97.55 5,563 11,035 98.36 1,157 2,588 123.68 128.8 136.1 5.667 540,160 282,148 33,224,004 19,633,000 33,398
Marion 31,243 38,187 22.23 6,947,076 13,686,114 97.01 5,159 9,080 76.00 1,438 3,207 123.01 295.8 314.6 6.355 1,039,360 468,000 41,919,049 19,754,000 38,754
Martin 6,295 7,807 24.02 1,904,615 3,243,536 70.29 1,366 2,545 86.31 351 657 87.17 118.1 118.0 —0.084 368,640 175,682 14,726,983 3,383,000 6,988
Monroe 14,078 29,957 112.79 2,087,504 6,200,348 197.02 1,704 5,412 217.60 266 705 165.03 129.1 129.1 0.0 1,245,440 1,773 38,692,677 6,874,000 20,643
Nassau 10,826 12,811 18.34 2,269,117 4,784,779 110.87 1,452 2,469 70.04 376 768 104.25 90.2 103.2 14.412 417,280 43,060 10,480,377 3,370,000 9,053
Okaloosa 12,900 27,533 113.43 1,707,563 7,418,928 334.47 1,112 5,800 421.58 520 1,463 181.34 150.8 164.9 9.350 634,240 66,617 5,016,457 2,648,000 12,126
Okeechobee 3,000 3,454 15.13 805,217 2,002,967 148.75 536 937 74.81 201 587 192.03 80.8 89.0 10.148 487,040 257,513 3,383,895 1,245,000 3,010
Orange 70,074 114,950 64.04 17,044,567 35,599,630 108.86 21,068 38,726 83.81 3,836 8,037 109.51 184.7 218.3 18.733 635,520 421,376 133,633,232 73,705,000 132,184
Osceola 10,119 11,406 12.72 2,006,286 3,602,345 79.55 3,674 3,688 0.38 460 1,027 123.26 123.4 123.2 —0.162 954,880 813,050 11,132,911 57,940,000 10, 176
Palm Beach 79,989 114,688 43.38 18,294,202 33,228,998 81.64 22,411 38,913 73.63 4,072 7,844 92.63 270.6 271.7 0.406 1,717,760 278,090 174,272,353 102,250,000 164,189
Pasco 13,981 20,529 46.83 2,590,610 5,263,031 103.16 2,358 5,401 129.05 578 1,698 193.77 153.0 151.7 –0.849 492,160 267,436 17,482,456 4,011,000 12,954
Pinellas 91,852 159,249 73.38 19,718,907 39,458,459 100.11 30,747 59,287 92.82 3,309 7,641 130.91 136.3 150.2 10.198 275,200 48,950 265,067,332 123,493,000 207,360
Polk 86,665 123,997 43.08 18,111,232 34,140,157 88.50 19,268 35,400 83.72 4,506 9,406 108.74 332.7 346.4 4.117 1,274,880 959,809 138,961,489 61,573,000 108,019
Putnam 18,698 23,615 26.29 3,461,826 7,050,533 103.67 3,366 5,734 70.35 1,084 1,979 82.56 114.1 121.0 6,047 524,800 133,682 25,778,248 7,646,000 20,922
St. Johns 20,012 24,998 24.92 4,316,067 7,583,209 75.69 3,803 6,356 67.13 819 1,467 79.12 173.7 173.7 0.0 444,160 116,544 22,402,398 23,840,000 22,762
St. Lucie 11,871 20,180 69.99 3,859,058 7,222,922 87.17 2,937 6,065 106.50 742 1,994 168.73 92.0 94.7 2.934 386,560 292,306 21,488,684 11,733,000 23,987
Santa Rosa.… 16,085 18,554 15.35 1,581,255 3,818,550 141.49 1,395 3,112 123.08 547 1,156 111.33 172.1 204.6 18.884 736,640 114,643 5,280,005 2,168,000 7,469
Sarasota 16,106 28,827 78.98 4,412,999 9,010,531 104.18 5,578 12,204 118.78 667 2,010 201.34 128.7 130.8 1.631 378,240 238,537 35,652,884 21,546,000 41,210
Seminole 22,304 26,883 20.53 3,659,721 6,623,080 80.97 4,220 6,502 54.07 1,084 1,991 83.67 88.2 94.3 6.916 222,080 172,624 36,119,705 10,121,000 25,308
Sumter 11,041 11,330 2.62 1,285,160 2,602,897 102.53 1,163 2,070 77.98 497 1,028 106.84 105.8 113.2 6,994 366,080 169,177 5,884,034 2,134,000 6,422
Suwannee…--~~~~ gº 17,073 16,986 —0.51 2,239,416 4,715,171 110.55 1,702 2,606 53.11 464 1,366 194.39 102.6 112.2 9.356 438,400 284,556 13,728,893 8,030,000 11,236
Taylor 11,565 10,416 —9.94 1,974,002 4,687,594 137.47 1,285 1,831 42.49 395 897 127.08 100.8 124.1 23.115 668,800 78,951 6,302,989 2,246,000 8,533
Union 7,094 8,906 25.54 592,999 1,024,898 72.83 496 531 7.05 331 338 2.11 57.3 64.6 12.739 158,720 81,560 1,531,296 1,040,000 2,149
Volusia 53,710 74,229 38.20 12,330,576 23,669,603 91.96 12,367 24,528 98.33 1,881 4,473 137.79 207.6 207.9 0.144 794,240 234,478 109,285,711 39,965,000 83,353
Wakulla 5,463 5,258 —3.75 736,975 9- * ~ * 72.39 4 595 21.92 157 342 117.83 66.5 75.0 12,781 395,520 37,501 3,854,686 1,415
Walton 14,246 14,725 3.36 1,745,425 4,054,670 132.3 1,298 2,841 118.87 638 1,610 152.35 187.4 199.4 6,403 395,520 115,759 8,155,339 4,729,000 8,701
Washington * = * * *e gº sºrº e ºr 12,302 11,888 —3.37 976,891 2,260,079 131.35 954 1,393 46.01 353 852 141.35 96.3 111.8 16.095 383,979 105,948 4,233,634 1,746,000 4,093
Miscellaneous......................... sº * *==== 4-ºxº Ǻmºrºs 505 8,782 1,639.00 211 1,201 469.19 tºmº-º-º tºss *== *mem.
FLORIDA............................... tºe 1,897,414 2,771,305 46.06 384,542,792 778,905,615 102.55 317,111 801,559 152.77 82,188 175,896 114.01 8,657.1 9,413.9 8,741 37,090,859 12,710,895 $3,518,806,474 $1,869,550,132 $2,928,490
* Source Sales Management
II. Forecast of Motor Fuel Consumption in Florida During the
Next Twenty Years and Forecast of Revenues Accruing to
the State Road Department.
Population Trends
Iły virtue of its unusual climatic attractions, discoveries of new
natural resources, and ever-increasing opportunities in the fields of
business, industry, and agriculture, the State of Florida experienced a
phenomenal growth in population during the first half of this century.
In 1950 there were 2,771,305 Floridians compared to 528,542 in 1900,
an increase of 425 per cent. During the same period the national popu-
lation increase was 98 per cent.
Miami is an extreme example of what has been happening. It grew
from a settlement of 1,681 people in 1900 to a metropolis of 249,276 in
1950, an astonishing increase of 14,600 per cent! Throughout Florida the
urban population increases have been proportionally much more rapid
than the increases for the State as a whole. Between 1915 and 1950 the
increase in urban areas having more than 5,000 people was 545 per cent,
While the population of the entire State increased by 200 per cent during
the same period. In 1915, 44 per cent of the State’s population lived in
urban communities, while in 1950, 63.5 per cent lived in urban communi-
ties.
An analysis of Florida's population growth reveals that, despite the
influence of World War I, Florida's boom of the 1920's, the collapse of
the boom, the national depression of the 1930's, and World War II, the
general average trend of increase between 1915 and 1945 was relatively
steady. The greatest rate of increase for any five-year period occurred
during 1945-50 when the rate was over 23 per cent. This unusually high
increase was undoubtedly influenced by the influx of a backlog of people
Who, during the war years, laid plans for settling in Florida when world
conditions stabilized, and began migrating in 1946 when hostilities ended.
In forecasting the State's population growth for the next two
decades, the historical growth was plotted from 1900 to 1950 at five-year
intervals, and historical growth trends for no less than thirteen inter-
vals and combinations of intervals during that fifty-year period were
projected. An average slope developed from these projections indicated
that the State's population would be approximately 4,000,000 persons by
1970. Actually, a slightly higher figure was selected since it is believed
that the 4,000,000 figure was too conservative in view of the growth
influences apparent during the last five years. The final estimate of
population for 1970 was set at 4,180,000 and extended to 4,280,000 for
1972.
A check was made by relating the population estimates to those
made by the U. S. Bureau of Census. It was found that the ratio of
population increase in absolute figures between the average state and
Florida in the period 1930-50 was 44.6 per cent. The U. S. Bureau of
Census has estimated the growth of the national population for the years
1950-1970, from which can be derived a forecast of growth for the average
state. Comparing this expected growth in absolute figures with the
estimate for Florida developed in this Report for the same period, it was
found that the ratio was 43.9 per cent, or almost the same relationship
that had existed during the 1930-1950 period.
Motor Vehicle Registration Trends
In 1928, the first year for which reliable records are available, there
were 365,831 motor vehicle licenses sold in the State of Florida. Follow-
ing that, there was a steady decrease until 1933, when only 310,776 were
sold. Beginning in 1934 an upward trend took place which reached a
peak of 600,241 in 1941. During the war years tag sales fell off, but
from 1946, when 684,440 were sold, the number increased rapidly until
1951, when a total of 1,225,594 were sold.
To develop future trends for motor vehicle registration, the historical
trends were plotted and studied. Making necessary allowances for de-
pression and war years, this analysis showed that the ratio between
population and tags sold had been decreasing constantly over the years.
In 1930 it was 4.57, in 1940 it had dropped to 3.76, and by 1950 had
reached 2.72. Based on the population estimate for 1951 and the actual
number of motor vehicles registered in that year, this figure has been
reduced to 2.54.
It is the judgment of the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads and numerous
private research organizations related to the automotive industry, as well
as our opinion that, barring national or world crisis, the number of per-
sons per motor vehicle will continue to decrease during the next twenty
years. This decrease will be at a decelerating rate until something ap-
proaching a Saturation point is ultimately reached.
Therefore, plotting this historical rate of decrease for Florida, and
extending it in the form of a suitable parabolic curve, allowing a figure
of 2.72 for 1950 and a figure of 2.54 for 1951, ratios of 2.28 for 1960
and 2.26 for 1970 were reached.

22
It is believed that the figure of 2.26 for 1970 is a reasonable estimate.
It compares favorably with an estimate of 2.30 made about two years
ago for Florida by the Bureau of Public Roads. Dividing the estimate
of Florida’s population by the estimate of persons per registered motor
vehicle for each of the next twenty years produced a forecast of the
number of motor vehicles in the State for those years. The tabula-
tions used only included registered vehicles with engines. All registra-
tions for trailers, wagons, and other such categories were eliminated.
Forecast of Motor Fuel Consumption
Estimated motor fuel consumption in Florida for the coming years
is important since it is the direct basis for a forecast of State revenue
from motor fuel taxes. As a matter of simple arithmetic, the number of
registered motor vehicles multiplied by the average annual fuel con-
sumption per vehicle gives the yearly total consumption. In order to
arrive at an estimate of average annual consumption per vehicle, three
historical tabulations were made covering the years 1930-1951. These
tabulations were for registered motor vehicles, total motor fuel consump-
tion, and gallons of motor fuel consumed per motor vehicle. The third
and last of these tabulations, gallons per registered motor vehicle, formed
the basis for future estimates of motor fuel consumption in the State.
It was found that the average annual consumption had risen slowly
but steadily since 1930, when it was 705.3 gallons per vehicle, to 1951
When it was 767.6. One year of the depression and four years of the
recent war produced abnormally low ratios, reaching low points of 524.7
in 1933 and 607.2 in 1943. On the other hand, the consumption figures
of 819.0 in 1946 and 802.9 gallons in 1947 were abnormally high due to
the fact that gasoline rationing had been suspended by that time but
post-war automobile production had not yet met demands, and vehicles
were being driven more miles than they normally would be.
In developing the average trend for the period 1930-1950, adjust-
ments were made for the intervening abnormal years. Projecting this
trend resulted in a forecast of an average annual consumption figure
of 829 gallons per registered vehicle for 1972. A series of straight-line
interpolations were used to arrive at the values for the individual years
1952-1972.
In all of these calculations the consumption of diesel fuel was con-
sidered. Records show that diesel fuel came into noticeable use in
Florida in 1940. Since then its rise in use has been very rapid. Another
element in these calculations should be noted. Due to the method of
recording motor fuel consumption for revenue purposes in Florida, it is
2
3
not possible to categorize over-all consumption into its various uses, such
as: stationary engines, farm equipment, marine engines, construction
equipment, etc. Consumption by vehicles with out-of-state license tags
is also not isolated. It had to be assumed that the consumption relation-
ship between the various categories of non-automotive fuel users to total
consumption remained relatively similar during 1930-1951 and that the
ratio of consumption would continue to remain similar during 1952-1972.
The results of these calculations provided projections of total state
motor fuel consumption for each of the next twenty years. Table X
gives estimates of future population, motor vehicle registration, motor
fuel consumption, and other related items. Chart IV is a graphic depic-
tion of these anticipated growths.
Historical Growth of Automotive Imposts and
Other State Road Department Income
It has been explained that when the State Road Department was
organized in 1915 its function was merely of an advisory nature. To
finance its activities the Department received 15 per cent of the auto-
mobile registration fees, which at that time were collected by the coun-
ties. Income received by the Department in 1915 amounted to $3,646.90.
In 1916, it first full year of operation, the Department’s income was
$30,246.23.
In 1917 the State Road Department was made a road-building
agency. This move was prompted, in part, to take advantage of the Bank-
head Act, which provided Federal funds to individual states on a match-
ing basis for the construction of post roads. As one of the means of pro-
viding the necessary matching funds, it was decided in 1918 to turn over
to the Road Department the remaining 85 per cent of net receipts from
the sale of motor vehicle licenses which, up to then, had been retained
by the counties.
This practice continued until 1921, when the method of allocation
was changed so that the net income from tags was divided on a basis
which remitted 25 per cent of revenue direct to the counties, allowed 5
per cent to the Department for General Office Maintenance, and provided
that the remaining 70 per cent go to the Department for road construc-
tion. By this time the tag fees were no longer being levied by the
counties, but by the State. This arrangement continued until 1931, at
which time all revenue from motor vehicle licenses was diverted to the
School Fund and other State Funds.

24
>O86||92.6 |OZ.6 |996 |O96||996||O96||Gł76 |O £76||99 6 |O26||926 iO 26 |9 | 6 |O | 6 |906 |OO6||
|–| º- O
Cr2
<[©
TI„þººoººººooº
CDO G |jāsāgºOOº.
Ļººººoº）, ſºº
snouvºisisae anoiHa golow Tv101 || ..ſº.^°N）_）~
|~ gº_^
O O £Lºr.------=OO8
|NO I.Ld WT1SNOO TE 0-] }} O_LOW TV7 LO_L*=<！---
O Gº© „ºſO O2 |
(U)„cº|_ • •*
2øº„æ“
G„”-fºr_^|NOI_1\/T (ndOc] SE_LV_1S C.B. LI N []º 28
–1•*22-2
$ oog9，1]--~~~~ … •*|-~ _^009|| ;o ň
(/)_-æraeºir a 3-
2----ooº�|- (/)|-
OJoooºº\,/u B z
I 994 ELEGGzºoooz õ ? 5
-!&ooº/|g Ė %
~\7C]|\-JOT-ff N | T1E/\\/\-|_1 \JO-ſ� �NO|1\77] [lc]Od \7C]|\}/OT=}ğ = 2
2SETTO|HEA VO|| ?JOT - Å9„”/§ 5. §
2° OO6NO]. Leſ W {Q SNOO TE 0-1 \} O_LOWoovz 5 £ €
2|Z/-É ſą ſo
D- �z = {}
ĒJ^/2$0，
(/)→o àſ u.
2 O90||//OO82 =–1
CDL^�}= <!， C2
CD„e“/X{}-}O), MAE'NSMJ33|N|9|NEºſ G （E
ū}� OTwNodoww e TiwH ‘+3OH！3X10 NI88 ‘SNOS&wdÈ $ $
R»”/? ū •
çº...ºZul 296|| J. Tl Tm ſºoozºj§
»•
5„e“/**\7C] | ? || OT = -|O ELV1S-Ş >
>5/*51）E H L N |
Oººlf GēĒā'īīīīīīījāIJõJTZū’İŞNOI.Lcſ|Wſ]SNOO TETTE AJO LOW QNV/OO92
S3-101H3A 3lw Is-Ho-Lmo/”.o lī£NOILw&1s1938 ETOI HEA HOLOW “NOI, LWT'ndOd
AB NOlle! WnSNO 0 .u ſS-JO
|-
OOg |T13|[^-}vºșłºHILMOMJ9) E MJ/m 10- Q.E.LV/W|| 1S3 QNV TVO I MJOLSI HOOOt»
4- ~~ ~~
Z|-
� (/)\70||?JOT 3 -JO LNB W_1\}\;dBC] QVO}} E_1V_1S
22，uJ
O99||cºſ ºrOOºſ»
OO8||OO8£7

HISTORICAL AND ESTIMATED FUTURE GROWTH OF POPULATION, MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION,
Table X
AND MOTOR FUEL CONSUMPTION IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Estimated
Estimated
Motor Fuel
% Increase Gallons Total Motor Fuel Consumption Consumption by
Over of Motor Motor Fuel by Out-of-State Florida Vehicles
Florida Previous Year Persons Registered Fuel Consumed Consumption Vehicles in Florida for Travel
Year Population (or Census) per R.M.V.” Motor Vehicles* per R.M.V.* in Florida % of Total Gallons in Florida
1930.................................... 1,468,211 4.57 321,143 705.3 226,384,998
1931…~~~~ 327,718 715.2 234,612,315
1932.… 291,343 718.9 209,206,394
1933…~~~~ 384,727 524.7 202,021,850
1934.…. 337,567 681.1 230,216,891
1935.… 1,606,842 9.4 4.50 357,194 714.8 255,224,747
1936.…. 390,499 729.7 284,642,638
1937.…. 425,128 740.2 314,612,694
1938...…. 426,420 764.6 325,726, 184
1939.…. 461,841 751.9 347,396,874
1940................................... 1,897,414 18.1 3.76 504,918 76.1.8 384,702,901
1941..…. 568,461 750.4 426,162,442
1942.… 522,734 639.2 334,319,801
1943.....…......…. 484,501 607.2 294,466,464
1944.................................... 509,061 607.9 309,429,049
1945................................... 2,250,061 18.6 4.04 556,673 653.7 364,074,027
1946....…. 625,633 819.0 512,682,614
1947.…. 727,816 802.9 584,499,407
1948.................................... 808,075 786.3 635,277,568
1949.................................... 895,057 769.3 688,610,013
1950................................... 2,771,305 # 23.2 f 2.72 1,019,654 770.0 785,395,713 17.84 140,110,000 645,285,713
1951. 2,870,000 3.64 2.54 1,130,986 iſ 767,6+ 868,102,680 f 18.00 156,260,000 711,842,680
1952....…. 2,960,000 3.14 2.46 1,205,000 772.0 930,260,000 18.16 168,940,000 761,320,000
1953. 3,050,000 3.05 2.41 1,265,000 774.5 979,740,000 18.32 179,490,000 800,250,000
1954.................................... 3,138,000 2.89 2.37 1,324,000 777.5 1,029,410,000 18.47 190,130,000 839,280,000
1955.…. 3,220,000 2.62 2.34 1,376,000 780.0 1,073,280,000 18.63 199,950,000 873,330,000
1956................................... 3,300,000 2.49 2.33 1,419,000 783.0 1,111,080,000 18.79 208,770,000 902,310,000
1957. 3,377,000 2.34 2.31 1,460,000 786.5 1,148,290,000 18.95 217,600,000 930,690,000
1958.................................... 3,450,000 2.17 2.29 1,507,000 790.0 1,190,530,000 19.11 227,510,000 963,020,000
1959.................................... 3,520,000 2.03 2.29 1,540,000 793.0 1,221,220,000 19.26 235,210,000 986,010,000
1960.................................... 3,590,000 1.99 2.28 1,576,000 796.0 1,254,500,000 19.42 243,620,000 1,010,880,000
1961.................................... 3,655,000 1.82 2.27 1,610,000 798.5 1,285,590,000 19.58 251,720,000 1,033,870,000
1962..….. 3,720,000 1.78 2.27 1,641,000 801.5 1,315,260,000 19.74 259,630,000 1,055,630,000
1963........…....... 3,780,000 1.61 2.26 1,671,000 804.5 1,344,320,000 19.90 267,520,000 1,076,800,000
1964.................................... 3,840,000 1.59 2.26 1,699,000 808.0 1,372,800,000 20.05 275,250,000 1,097,550,000
1965..............….. 3,900,000 1.57 2.26 1,725,000 811.0 1,398,980,000 20.21 282,730,000 1,116,250,000
1966.................................... 3,960,000 1.54 2.26 1,750,000 813.5 1,423,630,000 20.37 289.990,000 1,133,640,000
1967.................................... 4,015,000 1.39 2.26 1,775,000 816.5 1,449,290,000 20.53 297,540,000 1,151,750,000
1968.................................... 4,070,000 1.37 2.26 1,800,000 819.0 1,474,200,000 20.69 305,010,000 1,169,190,000
1969.................................... 4,125,000 1.35 2.26 1,825,000 822.0 1,500,150,000 20.84 312,630,000 1,187,520,000
1970.....…. 4,180,000 1.34 2.26 1,850,000 825.0 1,526,250,000 21.00 320,050,000 1,206,200,000
1971… 4,230,000 1.20 2.25 1,877,000 827.0 1,552,280,000 21.16 328,460,000 1,223,820,000
1972.…. 4,280,000 1.18 2.25 1,901,000 829.0 1,575,930,000 21.32 335,990,000 1,239,940,000
1973..… 4,330,000 1.17 2.25 1,923,000 831.0 1,598,010,000 21.47 343,090,000 1,254,920,000
1974.................................... 4,375,000 1.04 2.25 1,943,000 833.0 1,618,520,000 21.63 350,090,000 1,268,430,000
1975.…. 4,420,000 1.03 2.25 1,964,000 835.0 1,639,940,000 21.79 357,340,000 1,282,600,000
1976................…...... 4,465,000 1.02 2.25 1,984,000 837.0 1,660,610,000 21.95 364,500,000 1,296,110,000
1977........…. 4,505,000 1.01 2.25 2,002,000 839.0 1,679,680,000 22.11 371,380,000 1,308,300,000
1978................................... ,545,000 1.01 2.25 2,020,000 841.0 1,698,820,000 22.26 378,160,000 1,320,660,000
1979.................................... 4,585,000 1.01 2.25 2,038,000 843.0 1,718,030,000 22.42 385,180,000 1,332,850,000
1980.................................... 4,620,000 1.01 2.25 2,053,000 845.0 1,734,790,000 22.58 391,720,000 1,343,070,000
* Includes all registered motor vehicles except trailers, circus wagons, F. I. C. and H. I. C. Tags, Duplicates, and other non-motor-vehicle registrations.
* Diesel oil consumption apparently not included.
f Last year in which actual figures are available.
# Actual.
Further to assist the Department in its road-building function, the
State Legislature of 1917 provided for a 1/3-mill ad valorem levy on Real
and Personal Property. This tax continued until 1927 when it was
repealed by Legislative Session. Effective 1921, an Inspection Tax of
1/3-cent per gallon was imposed on gasoline sold within the State. This
source of revenue was diverted from highway use in 1927. As early as
1917 the Road Department began receiving special contributions from
various counties and cities for special project road and bridge construc-
tion. Additional income also accrued from receipts of the Outdoor Ad-
vertising Fund, interest on U. S. Treasury Certificates, and other
miscellaneous sources. Revenues from these sources still continue each
year.
Since 1917, with the exception of the year 1949, the State Road
Department has received yearly allotments of Federal Aid Funds. The
revenue provided by the various Federal Aid Acts has consisted of Regu-
lar Federal Aid for improvement of state highways located on the Federal
Aid Highway System, which income started in 1917; Forest Federal
Aid, which originated in 1922; emergency appropriations, which were
received during the depression years of the mid-1930's; Secondary
Federal Aid, which began in 1938; as well as several other types of
Federal appropriations for highway construction.
With the exception of the first year or two of the Department's
existence, when sufficient funds were still not available to match the
Federal appropriations, the Road Department has consistently taken
full advantage of all available Federal Aid income. In those early years
the Federal allocations were reassigned to various counties, particularly
Okaloosa, Columbia, Baker and Nassau, for improvement of the main
east-west route known as the Spanish Trail, and to Columbia and
Alachua for improvement of the north-south highway known as the Dixie
EHighway. Table XI shows the amount and classifications of Federal
appropriations granted Florida through the years 1917-1953.
In the year 1920 the Road Department received an income of $1,660,-
546.42 from all then-existing sources, but the demand for new roads to
keep pace with the rapidly increasing automotive traffic was only
beginning and additional revenues had to be found. In order to keep
abreast of the demand for new and improved roads, the 1921 Session
of the State Legislature turned to a new source of income. In that year
a tax on the sale of gasoline was imposed for the first time in Florida.
It is improbable that at the time this tax was imposed any thought was
given to the conception that the financial responsibility for highway
development and maintenance should be borne by the highway user.
25
However that may be, this first one-cent-per-gallon tax on automobile
fuel set the precedent for what has since been recognized as the main
Source of income for road purposes, and there is little doubt that the tax
On motor fuel Will continue to be the major source of highway revenue
in the State of Florida, just as it will in all other states.
During 1921, its first year as an income producing medium, the
gasoline tax returned $228,056.41 to the Road Department. In 1923
the original gas tax was increased to three cents, two cents of which
were allocated to the Road Department and one cent distributed equally
to the counties. In 1924 a revenue of $2,448,855.49 from this source was
received by the Road Department. This revenue exceeded the income
from any of the other single sources then in effect. It also exceeded the
$2,200,806.36 total revenue received by the Department in 1921, two
years previously when the gasoline tax was originated. In 1925 the
gas tax Was increased to four cents with three cents allocated to the
Department. In 1927 an emergency tax of one cent a gallon on gasoline
Was imposed for educational purposes. This additional impost brought
the total tax to five cents per gallon. In 1929 the gas tax revenue to the
State Road Department was reduced from three cents to two cents per
gallon. So that of the total five cents tax then in effect, two cents went
to the Road Department, two cents were distributed among the counties
to aid them in meeting road debts incurred during the boom period. The
fifth cent continued to be diverted to school use.
In 1931 the gas tax was increased to a total of seven cents. The first
three cents, known as “The First Gas Tax”, were allocated to the Road
Department; the second three cents, known as “The Second Gas Tax”,
Were distributed to the counties on a formula basis to aid them in
servicing their old road and bridge debts; and the seventh cent went to
School use. In January, 1943, the allocation of the gasoline tax imposts
was again changed. The First Gas Tax, allocated directly to the State
Road Department, was raised to four cents per gallon. The Second Gas
Tax, allocated to county debt retirement, was lowered to two cents, and
the Seventh Cent continued, as in previous years, to be diverted to school
use. In 1949 the Secondary Roads Assistance Act was passed, which
provided that the Seventh Cent Gas Tax, formerly used for educational
purposes, be applied to highway use.
To describe the origin and nature of the Second Gas Tax, or Two-
Cents Tax, as it is sometimes called, it is necessary to go back to the year
1924, when a new element entered into the development of Florida roads.
This came in the form of the Florida land boom, which created an im-
mediate demand for more mileage of improved highways. The Road
Department did not have the financial resources to construct anything



Table XI
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AID APPROPRIATIONS
GRANTED THE STATE OF FILORIDA DURING
PERIOD 1917-1953
1935-36 Works
Entire Primary Secondary Federal Aid Federal Aid Forest Emergency Or Program Strategic Adv. Engr. Flight Access
Year United States Federal Aid Federal Aid Urban Grade Crossing Federal Aid As Indicated Gr. Crossing Network Surveys Strips Roads Total
1917....… $ 5,000,000.00 55,976.27 $ 55,976.27
1918 10,000,000.00 111,952.54 111,952.54
1919.…. 65,000,000.00 744,521.08 744,521.08
1920.…~~~~ 95,000,000.00 1,090,214.67 1,090,214.67
1921… 100,000,000.00 1,147,447.92 1,147,447.92
1922 77,500,000.00 886,825.69 $ 6,648.00 893,473.69
1923 57,000,000.00 599,221.13 18,470.00 617,691.13
1924--~~~~~~ 68,500,000.00 771,395.18 9,105.0 780,500.18
1925 78,500,000.00 887,336.52 7,684.00 895,020.52
1926 79,500,000.00 892,878.00 9,854.00 902,732.00
1927… 79,500,000.00 897,185.00 12,109.00 909,294.00
1928 79,500,000.00 899,451.00 12,082.00 911,533,00
1929.… 79,500,000.00 901,311.00 11,909.00 913,220.00
1930 79,500,000.00 909,235.00 11,436.00 920,671.U0
1931…~~~~ 214,500,000.00 1,540,069.00 28,572.00 $ 1,086,438.00 2,655,079.00
1932 137,500,000.00 1,543,232.00 44,250.00 1,587,482.00.
1933 259,500,000.00 a) 1,437,372.40 57,740.00 1,624,752.00 3,119,864.40
1934 415,000.000.00 63,763.00 b) 5,231,834.00 5,295,597.00
1935 207,000,000.00 32,975.00 b) 2,661,343.00 2,694,318.00
1936 532,000,000.00 1,655,723.00 33,176.00 c) 2,597,144.00 $2,827,883.00 7,113,926.00
1937—cº-º-º-º: 132,000,000.00 1,659,835.00 35,140.00 1,694,975.00.
1938 214,000,000.00 1,704,765.00 $ 340,953.00 $ 712,816.00 46,707.33 2,805,241.33
1939.…. 214,000,000.00 1,669,497.00 333,899.00 692,981.00 74,755.80 2,771,132.80
1940 145,000,000.00 1,342,535.00 201,025.00 297,870.00 38,425.50 1,861,855.50
1941… d) 208,000,000.00 1,554,482.00 202,866.00 417.388.00 53,356.81 $ 357,856.00 $143,143.00 2,729,091.81
1942 e) 307,500,000.00 1,425,748.00 249,506.00 299,547.00 2,080,000.00 $1,199,767.49 $5,058,802.20 10,313,370.69
1943 f) 147,500,000.00 1,431,426.00 250,499.00 299,694.00 76,318.33 2,417,020.36 4,474,957.69
1944.…. g) 30,000,000.00 316,362.53 316,362.53
1945…~~~ h) 41,760.55 41,760.55
1946 525,000,000.00 3,236,627.00 2,168,089.00 $1,599,641.00 205,029.38 7,209,386.38
1947..…. 525,000,000.00 3,236,081.00 2,167,725.00 1,599,641.00 173,205.00 7,176,652.00
1948 500,000,000.00 3,152,527.00 2,111,759.00 1,558,625.00 6,822,911.00
1949.….
1950 470,000,000.00 2,894,455.00 1,938,785.00 1,421,220.00 133,369.00 6,387,829.00
1951 470,000,000.00 2,904,565.00 1,945,506.00 1,421,220.00 134,959.00 6,406,250.00
1952 1) 500,000,000.00 3,547,205.00 2,317,735.00 2,187,694.00 Not Available 8,052,634.00
1953 1) 500,000,000.00 3,513,455.00 2,295,574.00 2,170,778.00 Not Available 7,979,807.00
TOTAL............................ $7,607,500,000.00 $50,244,550.40 $16,523,921.00 $11,958,819.00 $2,702,296.00 k) $1,331,039.15 $13,201,511.00 $2,827,883.00 $2,437,856.00 $143,143.00 $1,199,767.49 $7,833,945.64 $110,404,731.68
f— This total contains $110,000,000.00 appropriated under Defense Highway Act of 1941
as amended by Act approved July 2, 1942.
b — National Recovery Appropration. g — This total appropriated under Defense Highway Act of 1941 as amended by Act
c — Works Program Highway Appropriation. approved April 4, 1944. © º
d—This total contains $35,000,000.00 appropriated under Defense Highway Act of 1941. h — This amount represents projects authorized during 1945.
e — This total contains $185,000,000.00 appropriated under Defense Highway Act of 1941. k — $1,240,077.33 of total for expenditure through State Road Department.
1 — Allocated under the Federal Highway Act of 1950 for the fiscal years 1952 and 1953.
a — $217,287.60 of this appropriation has been deducted as 1933 repayment of 1931-32
Emergency Appropriation
near the amount of hard-surfaced highways which the boom demanded.
Since the Florida Constitution prohibits the issuance of state bonds, no
help was available from that direction, so the individual counties re-
sorted to voting their own road and bridge bonds in ever-increasing
numbers and amounts. The total for the boom period approximated
$175,000,000 and the debt bore inflated interest rates. Some of the pro-
ceeds were turned over to the Road Department for highway construc.
tion, but the greater part was expended by the counties themselves for
road and bridge building.
When the boom collapsed, real property values became so depressed
that the interest and retirement payments on county road and bridge
bonds, which payments were dependent for the most part on local ad
valorem taxes, could not be met. To aid the counties in this difficulty,
the 1929 Legislature appropriated a two cents State gas tax to the coun-
ties for road debt servicing. To administer the retirement of the county
bonded indebtedness, the State Board of Administration was created.
The Second Gas Tax was made constitutional in 1943. Under the pro-
visions of the amendment, the State Road Department receives 80 per cent
of any surplus remaining after debt servicing, while the counties receive
the remaining 20 per cent for use on local roads. Details of the part
played by the Second Gas Tax are discussed later.
The Secondary Roads Assistance Act was passed by the 1949 Extra-
ordinary Session of the State Legislature. The declared intent of this
Act is to reduce the burden of ad valorem taxes necessary to maintain
local roads by the individual counties. The Act provides for a one-cent
tax on each gallon of gasoline sold, and is distributed among the coun-
ties On the basis of the same formula of distribution used in the case of
the Second Gas Tax. Of each county’s share the Road Department re-
ceives 80 per cent of the tax for State Road use and the remaining 20 per
cent is given the individual county for county road use. The Act pro-
vides, however, that the Road Department shall expend its share of
funds from this source on such state roads as shall be designated by
each county.
Origin and Function of the
Florida State Improvement Commission
The Florida State Improvement Commission was created as a state
agency in 1941. With the amendment of the Act in 1945 its most impor-
tant function became the acquisition, construction, maintenance, and
operation of public facilities which are required for a state purpose.
Among the projects which may be undertaken by the Commission are
27
toll bridges, roads, and tunnels, the location and construction of which
must be approved by the Road Department. In order to finance its proj-
ects the Commission has the authority to issue its own bonds, certificates
or notes. To service such debts, the agency may charge rentals or impose
tolls.
Upon application by any county the Commission may provide for
the construction of roads and bridges within the county. Actual con-
struction is usually handled by the Road Department. Roads and bridges
so financed are turned over to the Road Department on a lease-purchase
agreement, by which the Department pays a rental equal to the annual
debt servicing requirements. This rental is generally derived from tolls,
revenues accruing to the Road Department from the 80 per cent of sur-
plus of the Second Gas Tax, or both. Upon full amortization of principal,
title to the facility transfers to the Road Department. When the Improve-
ment Commission has completed financing and all other necessary
arrangements, the bonds or certificates sold in connection with the pro-
ject are thereafter serviced by the Board of Administration.
Revenues received by the State Road Department from the above
sources for each year since the Department originated are shown in
Table XII. Chart V illustrates the basic method of distribution of gas
tax revenue as now provided by state law.
Origin and Function of the
State Board of Administration
Since its inception the Board of Administration has played an im-
portant role in connection with Florida’s highway finances. It will con-
tinue as a major influence, and for that reason deserves detailed attention.
By 1929, the recession of the Florida Boom, the National recession, and
the heavy property losses in the State resulting from the great hurricanes
of 1926 and 1928, which swept across the lower peninsula where road
building activity had been greatest, made it impossible for many of the
counties to meet the interest and retirement payments on outstanding
road and bridge bonds. To enable the counties to maintain their credit
and ease the burden of local taxes, the Special Legislative Session of
1929 enacted laws appropriating the proceeds of an additional two cents
per gallon tax, now known as the Second Gas Tax, on gasoline sold in
the State as a supplement to county ad valorem taxes for road and bridge
bond servicing.
The Board, consisting of the Governor, State Comptroller, and State
Treasurer, was simultaneously created by statute to administer all
county road and bridge debts incurred prior to June 21, 1929. When the
Board commenced operation in 1930 the county road and bridge bonds
reported as outstanding aggregated $160,517,148.98, with interest to

28
i

EACH GALLON OF MOTOR FUEL IN FLORIDA IS TAXED A TOTAL OF 7 CENTS BY THE STATE
92.99
FIRST GAS TAX, OR FOUR CENTS GAS TAX, SECOND GAS TAX, OR TWO CENTS GAS TAX, SEVENTH CENT GAS TAX, 80% OF WHICH
GOES TO THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT GOES TO THE STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRAT- GOES TO THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT FOR
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE |ON FOR DEBT SERVIC ING, SURPLUS REMAIN- CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF STATE
OF STATE HIGHWAYS, THIS IS A STATUTORY |NG AFTER PAYMENT OF BOND INTEREST ROADS WHILE THE REMAIN ING 20% GOES TO
MEASUR E. AND PRINCIPAL IS CREDITE D TO THE | NDIVID- THE COUNTIES FOR USE ON COUNTY ROADS.
UAL COUNTIES AND IS DISTRIBUTED 80%, TO THIS IS A STATUTORY MEASURE,
THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT FOR EX-
PENDITURE ON STATE ROADS IN THE INDIVID-
UAL COUNTIES, AND 20% DIRECTLY TO THE
|N DIVIDUAL COUNTIES FOR USE ON COUNTY
ROADS. THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURE.
80% OF SECOND ſ I /~ 2O % OF SECON D
STATE BOARD OF A DMI NISTRATION
GAS TAX SURPLUS 1 | \- GAS TAX SURFLUS
© ©
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT - 8O.9/o OF SEVENTH CENT 2O 92 OF > CO UNTIES |
| SEVENTH CENT

STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
DISTRIBUTION OF FLORIDAS
TAX ON MOTOR FUELS
JULY 1952
PARSONS, BRINCKER HOF F, HALL 8: MAC DONALD
ENGIN E E RS NEW YORK
Table XII
SUMMARY OF REVENUES TO THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT FROM AUTOMOTIVE IMPOSTS AND OTHER SOURCES
SINCE IT'S INAUGURATION, OCTOBER, 1915, TO DECEMBER 31, 1951
Florida State
Motor Counties, Cities Inmprovement
Vehicle and Commission
License Miscellaneous State Taxes Federal Gasoline 80% of Second 80% of 7th Cent County
Fees Revenue Ad Valorem Government Inspection Fund First Gas Tax Gas Tax Surplus Gas Tax Bond Fund Total
November and December 1915 3,646.90 3,646.90
1916 30,246.23 30,246.23
1917 21,439.42 $ 238.79 21,678.21
1918 278,464.42 11,111.22 $ 175,842.11 $ 9,972.55 475,390.30
1919 349,478.35 71,157.76 290,532.41 11,759.19 722,927.81
1920 499,500.00 239,320.49 694,814.77 209,060.84 $ 17,850.32 1,660,546.42
1921 671,534.91 111,708.76 643,373.16 490,308.38 55,824.74 $ 228,056.41 2,200,806.36
1922 1,074,352.71 580,716.92 396,206.19 842,965.84 80,803.14 601,336.71 3,576,381.51
1923 1,394,528.58 515,988.35 427,243.17 820,063.74 91,884.70 1,261,845.08 4,511,553.62
1924 1,688,697.87 879,219.83 424,392.88 1,071,287.04 196,327.06 2,448,855.49 6,708,780.17
1925 2,471,495.80 1,689,856.43 505,109.94 1,080,574.24 249,308.01 4,355,634.61 10,351,979.03
1926 4,713,662.91 614,137.61 524,426.09 1,007,484.16 410,842.46 8,636,358.93 15,906,912.16
1927 4,523,634.31 4,426,113.03 132,566.97 1,688,401.62 388,688.75 8,243,691.18 19,403,095.86
1928 3,429,339.97 3,057,754.32 872,513.91 6,770,508.10 14,130,117.10
1929 3,462,721.91 1,623,891.30 520,766.72 5,855,384.86 11,462,764.79
1930 3,376,477.03 840,838.24 1,230,204.44 4,527,699.18 9,975,218.89
1931 3,242,397.78 385,006.13 2,831,807.33 5,572,259.67 12,031,470.91
1932 114,903.41 735,557.99 6,350,235.99 7,200,697.39
1933 142,615.56 3,392,259.89 6,062,535.31 9,597,410.76
1934 167,323.77 5,996,613.21 6,990,935.43 13,154,872.41
1935 53,916.17 2,587,674.89 7,656,742.47 10,298,333.53
1936 5,570.32 4,355,421.41 8,539,279.15 12,900.270.88
1937 37,121.26 3,070,182.52 9,478,380.79 12,585,657.57
1938 375,338.86 1,968,711.70 9,771,785.53 $ 698,672.33 12,814,508.42
1939 203,646.71 2,975,513.95 10,423,741.85 2,593,429.82 16,196,332.33
1940 103,021.70 2,568,733.39 11,540,956.72 2,640,806.45 16,853,518.26
1941 3,704.89 1,996,813.36 14,006,948.49 3,831,094.01 19,838,560.75
1942 50,879.98 2,578,868.02 10,498,070.19 1,214,596.98 14,342,415.17
1943 43,556.46 5,110,180.56 11,545,557.87 549,318.98 17,248,613.87
1944 77,055.65 6,317,924.83 12,377,431.56 842,393.58 19,614,805.62
1945 111,615.18 1,390,512.18 14,563,291.98 1,107,359.23 17,172,778.57
1946 319,710.19 1,416,195.26 20,507,036.27 3,212,607.43 25,455,549.15
1947 330,728.61 3,926,657.71 23,374,844.59 3,291,228.35 30,923,459.26
1948 436,852.87 4,882,801.95 25,402,567.61 4,120,026.19 $ 8,192,659.84 43,034,908.46
1949 252,178.37 4,098,503.97 27,541,817.48 4,742,725.87 $ 462,714.28 —307,311.06 36,790,628.91
1950 428,826.27 4,628,239.09 31,194,684.53 6,195,930.99 5,989,460.75 26,370,248.56 74,807,390.19
1951 3,921,677.22% 9,628,816.43 34,264,319.85 7,328,760.60 6,629,109.40 16,808,930.86% 78,578,614.36
Totals $31,231,619.20 $22,227,302.63 $4,214,507.69 $86,313,352.31 $1,491,529.18 $350,592,793.88 $42,368,950.81 $13,081,284.43 $51,064,528.20 $502,585,842.18
* Includes $2,437,001.47 revenue from the Overseas Road and Toll Bridge District for the years 1946 to 1951, inclusive, not previously reported in State Road Department records.
** Adjusted to net amount after 1951 sinking fund payments.
maturity of $135,351,275.01. This represented over 600 issues. The 1931
Legislature increased the appropriation of gasoline tax money to three
cents per gallon for county debt servicing and provided for the following
distribution basis: one cent according to area; one cent according to
population; one cent according to contributions made by the respective
counties toward construction of State roads incorporated into the State
Road System previous to 1931.
The 1933 Legislature enacted a bill which authorized the Board to
purchase, with gas tax funds, outstanding County bonds at depreciated
prices. This allowed for the purchase of County road and bridge bonds
below par, and afforded an additional market to the owners of such
bonds who did not desire to hold them until maturity. Securities of the
par value of $8,530,572.49, having matured coupons attached of a par
value of $682,751.50, a total of $9,213,323.99, were purchased for $5,232,-
535.47, and all were cancelled and retired. This was an average cost of
approximately 57 cents on the dollar. Other savings were made in inter-
est by retiring bonds in advance of maturity.
The State Board of Administration was elevated from statutory to
constitutional status effective January 1, 1943. This amendment pro-
vides that for a period of fifty years from date of effectiveness the pro-
ceeds of two cents per gallon tax, to be known as the Second Gas Tax, on
automotive fuels, be pledged to the payment of interest and principal of
County road and bridge bonds issued prior to July, 1931. The amendment
also authorized the Board to take over an additional $3,632,387.29 in
principal and $1,625,623.15 in interest of debts incurred by the counties
between 1929 and 1943. The total county road debt taken over by the
Board amounted therefore to $164,149,536.27 in principal and $136,976,-
898.16 in interest.
This guaranteed income resulted in a stabilization of interest rates
on refunding issues. The outstanding indebtedness as of June 30, 1951,
was $73,231,555.76 principal with interest to maturity of $22,030,367.00,
a reduction of 55.39 per cent in principal and 83.92 per cent in interest
over the original debt. The average annual interest rate of refunding
bonds is 1.997 per cent. The total par value of gasoline tax anticipation
certificates and refunding bonds issued by the Board from January 1,
1943, to June 30, 1951, was $19,076,611.48 with an average annual inter-
est rate of 1.964 per cent, while the average annual interest rate of bonds
so refunded was 4.709 per cent.
When the Second Gas Tax was made constitutional the method of
distribution was changed so that now proceeds of the two cents per
29
gallon tax on motor fuels levied under the amendment are divided into
three equal parts, which are distributed among the counties as follows:
one part according to the counties’ contributions to the cost of state
road construction prior to 1931; one part according to area; and one part
according to population. In practical application this results in the
following formula:
Individual County
Individual County Individual Population
Road Credit County According to
1931 + Area + Latest Census
Total County Area Population of
Composite Road Credits of State According to
Factor for = 1931 State Latest Census
Individual 3
County
The only variable in this formula is population, which heretofore neces-
sitated a revision of the composite factors every five years, when Federal
census or State census was taken. We understand that the State has
now discontinued the practice of taking a census of its own, so that in
the future the composite factor will change every tenth year, when the
Federal census is taken.
After current principal and interest maturing on the bonds of indivi-
dual counties have been paid, and after having established sufficient sink-
ing funds for the still outstanding bonds of the individual counties, the
Board remits 80 per cent of any remaining surplus accruing to each
county to the Road Department for the construction of State roads and
bridges within that county. The remaining 20 per cent of surplus, if any,
is remitted directly to the county for use on local roads and bridges
within the county.
The best method of explaining this somewhat involved process is to
go through each step for a typical county. In Alachua County, for
instance, the value of roads contributed to the State Highway System as
of 1931 has been set at $2,841,952.40; the area of the County is 972 square
miles; and the population according to the U. S. census of 1950 was 57,-
026 persons. The total value of roads contributed by all counties to the
State Highway System as of 1931 is set at $107,688,461.99; the area of
Florida is 59,324 square miles; and the population of Florida according
to the U. S. census of 1950 was 2,771,305.
30
Therefore:
$ 2,841,952.40 . 972 sq. miles_ 2,771,305 persons
$107,688,461.99 ‘E-º 0.02639 y 59,324 SQ. miles T 0.01638 y 57,026 persons.T 0.02058
Then:
0.02639 -- 0.01638 –- 0.02058
3
= 0.021117 = Composite Factor
Since this composite factor will be used until the next census, it
will apply to the distribution for the year 1952. The estimated total
automotive fuel tax expected to accrue from all counties during 1952 is
$65,118,200. Two-sevenths of this, which represents the total Second Gas
Tax revenue, amounts to $18,605,200.
Therefore:
$18,605,200 × 0.021117 = $392,886
This $392,886 is the amount which will go to the State Board of
Administration as Alachua County's share of the Second Gas Tax. The
interest and principal payments due in 1952 on old road and bridge
bonds of Alachua County amount to $281,276, while the 1951 year-end
cash balance requires an additional $10,665 in order to reach the $51,679
scheduled as the 1952 year-end balance.
Therefore:
$392,886 — ($281,276 + $10,665) = $100,945 = Alachua County Surplus
Eighty per cent of this, or $80,756, will go to the State Road De-
partment for use on State roads in Alachua County, while the remaining
twenty per cent, amounting to $20,189, will go directly to Alachua
County for application to county road use.
The old road and bridge debts of 57 out of the total 67 counties have
been reduced to amounts which will allow surpluses in 1952. Of the 67,
Liberty was the only county which originally did not have a bonded
road and bridge debt to turn over to the State Board of Administration.
At the present time the debts of nine counties have been completely
amortized under administration by the Board. In these cases the total
income distributed to these counties from the Second Gas Tax is re-
distributed, 80 per cent to the State Road Department for construction
of State roads in those counties, and 20 per cent directly to each county
31
for local road use. Debts of eleven counties have not yet been reduced
to an amount which allows a surplus. Table XIII presents a detailed
picture of the counties’ debt status.
Beside the revenue from the Second Gas Tax, the State Board of
Administration receives, for the purpose of servicing county road and
bridge bond debts, a Transportation Mileage Tax. This latter is a tax on
trucks and buses, which in essential form might be considered a road
usage charge. The amount of assessment is fixed by statute and, there.
fore, subject to change. The revenue accruing to the Board from this
Source, and subsequently reverting to State Road Department and Coun-
ties for road use purposes when surpluses are shown, is relatively small,
compared to the income from the Second Gas Tax. This Transportation
Mileage Tax was substantially reduced very recently. In any previous
estimates of revenues made by the State Road Department the Trans-
portation Mileage Tax was discounted. By not including it, an element
of conservatism was introduced. In making the forecast used in this
Report, the same procedure was followed.
To complete the picture of Board of Administration revenue sources,
it must be remembered that the Second Gas Tax originally was a measure
to supplement county ad valorem taxes. After 1943 it became a case of
ad valorem taxes Supplementing gas tax income in cases where the
revenue to a particular county from the gas tax was not sufficient to
meet the county’s obligations. Since 1951 no ad valorem levy has been
required in any county, the revenue from the Second Gas Tax being
sufficient.

32
Table XIII
STATUS OF COUNTY BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AS OF MAY, 1952
This Table Represents, Old Road and Bridge Debts Only and Does
Not Include Florida State Improvement Commission Issues
These Debts of These Counties
Counties These Counties Receiving Counties
County Will Show Counties Have Been Surplus for Which Do Year When County
a Surplus Had No Completely First Time Not Yet Receive Debt Will be
in 1952 Original Debt Retired in 1952 a Surplus Completely Retired
ALACHUA ..................... X X 1957
BAKER ............................... X 1971
BAY ~~~~~~ X 1971
BRADFORD ................ X 1960
BREWARD ...................... X 1970
BROWARD .................. X 1960
CALHOUN ...................... X 1954
SHARLOTTE ............. X 1966
CITRUS ............................... X 1970
CLAY ..… X 1957
COLLIER ......................... X 1955
COLUMBIA ................... X 1956
DADE ................................... X 1974
DESOTO ............................ X 1961
DIXIE .................................. X Already Retired
DUVAL ............................... X 1955
ESCAMBIA ................... X Already Retired
FLAGLER ...................... X 1967
FRANKLIN ................... X 1956
GADSDEN ...................... X X Already Retired
GILCHRIST ................ X 1954
GLADES ............................ X 1954
GULF ..................................... X 1954
HAMILTON .............. X X Already Retired
HARDEE ........................ X 1971
HEN DRY ........................ X 1954
HERN ANDO ............... X 1966
HIGH LANDS ............. X 1952
HILLSB OR OUGH X 1966
HOLMES ......................... X 1957
INDIAN RIVER ... X 1970
JACKSON ......................... X X Already Retired
JEFFERSON ............. X X Already Retired
LA FAYETTE ............. X X Already Retired
LAKE ....… X 1969
LEE ºr X 1956
LEON ..................................... X 1955
LEVY ..................................... X 1958
LIBERTY ......................... X X No Original Debt
MADISON ...................... X 1952
MAN ATFE ................... X 1969
MARION ............................ X 1961
MARTIN ............................ X 1971
MON ROE ......................... X 1961
NASSAU ............................ X 1955
OKALOOSA ................ X 1952
O KEECHO BEE ....... X 1970
ORANGE ......................... X 1971
OSCEO.L.A ......................... X 1971
PALM BEACH .......... X 1964
PASCO .................................. X 1963
PINELLAS ...................... X 1967
POLK ..................................... X X 1966
PUTNAM ......................... X 1969
ST. JOHNS ...................... X 1955
ST. LUCIE ...................... X 1965
SANTA ROSA .......... X 1957
SARASOTA ................... X 1967
SEMINOLE ................... X 1973
SUMTER ............................ X 1968
SUVWANNEE ................ X 1956 .
TAYLOR ............................ X X Already Retired
UNION ............................... X 1956
VOLUSIA ......................... X 1968
WAKULLA ................... X 1953
WALTON ........................ X 1956 .
WASHINGTON ....... X X Already Retired
33
Mention was made earlier in this Report that the Florida State Im-
provement Commission can be considered a source of income to the State
Road Department. This revenue is in the form of the proceeds from
new bonds issued for individual road and bridge projects. Since the
counties began to show substantial surpluses from the Second Gas Tax,
a practice of pledging the surplus funds accruing to the State Road
Department to service Florida State Improvement Commission issues
has been growing. The arrangement followed is this: The County
Board of Commissioners and the State Road Department mutually
agree to the construction of a road or bridge project. When a project
is of such magnitude that income from either First Gas Tax funds or
Second Gas Tax surplus funds, or both, is insufficient for direct financ-
ing, the Florida State Improvement Commission arranges for a bond
issue in sufficient amount to cover the cost of the project. Upon sale of
the issue, funds are transferred to the State Road Department for con-
struction purposes and responsibility for bond servicing is assumed by
the State Board of Administration. A lease-purchase agreement is drawn
and servicing charges are met, in most cases, from Second Gas Tax sur-
plus revenue together with toll revenue.
Forecast of Revenues for the Next Twenty
Years from Presently Available Sources
Sources of revenue to the State Road Department, after having gone
through a number of changes, are now relatively stabilized and reduced
to four general headings: Gasoline Tax Receipts; Federal Aid Funds;
Special Revenues received from Counties, Cities, and Miscellaneous
Sources; and Bond Sale Proceeds received from the Florida State Im-
provement Commission. Gasoline Tax receipts are subdivided into First
Gas Tax or Four Cents Gas Tax revenue, Second Gas Tax or Two Cents
Gas Tax revenue, and Seventh Cent Gas Tax revenue. For the purpose
of estimating future income, each of these sources must be considered
separately.
The practice of granting assistance to the States by the Federal
Government for the development of roads was instituted in 1916 and has
continued up to the present time. There is no reason for believing that
Federal Aid will not continue in the future. Federal Aid Funds are
allocated to the States on the basis of a formula which uses population,
area, and a proportion of existing road mileage as the determining fac-
tors for distribution.

34
Like other states, Florida has received Federal funds in increasing
amounts through the years. Whereas the 1917 appropriation amounted
to $55,976.27, the State's apportionment for 1953 was $7,979,000.00.
During the thirty-seven year period the total of all Federal Aid granted
Florida amounted to $110,404,731.68. This included emergency appro-
priations of $16,029,394.00 granted during the depression years of the
1930's and $11,614,812.13 granted for road purposes under the Defense
Highway Act of 1941.
If the special appropriations made during the depression and War
years are eliminated, the total grants received by Florida under normal
aid categories amounted to $82,760,625.55 during the period. Although
the amounts appropriated have varied widely from year to year, it was
determined that a straight line projection for the period 1954-1972,
equivalent to one-half the arithmetic mean of the 1917-1953 total appro-
priations, would be the line most appropriate for the forecast. The 1953
Federal Aid appropriation for Florida is $7,979,807 and forms a satis-
factory basis upon which to estimate future Federal Aid appropriations.
The amount by which the annual appropriation is estimated to increase
each year in the 1954-1972 period is, on the average, about $110,000.
Application of this average annual increase results in an estimated
Federal Aid appropriation of $10,070,000 for 1972. In the light of re-
cently proposed Federal Aid legislation, this estimate is believed to be
COnServative.
Receipts from the tax on automotive fuels is by far the State Road
Department’s largest source of revenue. The combined total accruing
to the Department from the First, Second, and Seventh Cent Gas Taxes
in 1951 amounted to $48,222,189.85. As already explained, the Second
Gas Tax is a constitutional measure, and the two cents per gallon in-
come from this source is assured for the next forty-one years. The First
Gas Tax and Seventh Cent Gas Tax, being statutory measures, could be
decreased, increased, or even eliminated by the State Legislature. For
the purpose of this report it is assumed that these latter two imposts
will be continued for the next twenty years at the present rates of four
cents and one cent per gallon.
We have previously developed a forecast of motor fuel consumption
in the State for each of the next twenty years. The revenues estimated
to accrue from gasoline taxes to the State Road Department are based on
this forecast. The projected figures shown in Table XIV are net and
were computed by multiplying the number of gallons estimated to be
consumed in each year by seven cents.
35
For 1952 the total revenue from motor fuel tax is estimated to
be $65,118,200.00. The Second Gas Tax is two-sevenths of the total, or
$18,605,200; the Seventh Cent Tax is one-seventh of the total, or $9,302,-
600, and the First Gas Tax, four-sevenths, or $37,210,400. After deduc-
tion from the First Gas Tax of a three per cent handling charge made
by the State Treasurer, amounting to $1,116,312, and a further deduction
of $195,495 required to service outstanding bonded indebtedness on lease-
purchase agreements on which First Gas Tax revenue has been pledged,
the estimated net income from this source is $35,898,593. There is a
total of six road and bridge facilities having a bonded indebtedness
which is being serviced from the proceeds of the First Gas Tax.
A handling charge of three per cent is also deducted from the
Seventh Cent Tax. In 1952 this amounts to $279,078, leaving a net of
$9,023,522 to be distributed to the State Road Department for State
Road improvements and to the counties for local road improvements.
In this case the 80 per cent share accruing to the Department amounts
to $7,218,817.
The total income of $18,605,200 from the Second Gas Tax goes
directly to the Board of Administration. The Board then pays retire.
ment and interest payments due on the old county road and bridge bonds
Outstanding. The Board has set a retirement schedule so that a close
approximation of bond payments due during future years is available.
For 1952 this amounts to $8,399,520. In accordance with sound business
practice, the Board has also set a schedule of year-end balances necessary
for proper debt servicing which, for the year under consideration,
amounts to $7,031,179, a reduction of $540,815 from the $7,571,994 re-
quired in 1951. Eighty per cent of the remainder, after the above
requirements are deducted and surplus balance credited, amounts to
$8,597,196. This goes to the State Road Department and the remaining
30 per cent, amounting to $2,149,299, goes directly to the counties.
Before this $8,597,196 is turned over to the Road Department, how.
ever, a sufficient amount must be deducted to cover the servicing of bonds
issued by the Florida State Improvement Commission or other authori-
ties on which Second Gas Tax surplus income is pledged. In 1952 this
will amount to $3,199,557 for all counties. Additional requirements de-
ductible are the necessary funds to establish the scheduled year-end
balances for Florida State Improvement Commission issues which for
1952 amount to a total of $451,482.
The estimated toll income, set at $944,000 for 1952, is also applied
to Florida State Improvement Commission bond servicing. Since this is
a credit item, it offsets part of the servicing costs. Therefore, to arrive
at the net 80 per cent of Second Gas Tax income to the State Road De-
36
:
Table XIV
ESTIMATE OF NET REVENUES ACCRUING TO THE
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT FROM MOTOR FUEL IMPOSTS
FOR THE YEARS 1953-1972
Debt Service Total S. R. D. Income,
Estimated Debt Service Required Total from Required Debt Service Required First Gas Tax,
Motor Fuel First Gas Tax from Year-End Second Total Second Year-End 80% of Estimated from Year-End 80% of Net First 80% of Surplus,
Consumption Income First Gas Tax Cash Gas Tax Gas Tax Cash Remaining Income Surplus Cash Net 80% Seventh Gas Tax 80% of Seventh Cent
Years Gallons Less 3% Income Balance Income Income Balance Surplus from Tolls and Tolls Balance Surplus Cent Income and Tolls
1953 979,740,000 $ 38,013,912 $ 160,954 $ 26,815 $ 19,594,800 $ 7,906,261 $ 6,846,889 9,498,263 $ 944,000 $ 3,206,785 $ 4,769,265 $ 7,807,098 7,602,782 37,852,958 $ 53,262,838
1954 1,029,410,000 39,941,108 117,160 28,494 20,588,200 7,127,054 7,313,907 10,395,302 2,164,000 3,262,830 5,474,133 ,591,604 7,988,222 39,823,948 56,403,774
1955 1,073,280,000 41,643,264 116,397 29,578 21,465,600 9,548,728 4,721,013 11,607,813 3,287,000 3,245,930 7,514,657 9,608,359 8,328,653 41,526,867 59,463,879
1956 1,111,080,000 43,109,904 114,281 31,376 22,221,600 5,854,664 4,859,333 12,982,893 3,420,000 3,258,303 9,849,450 10,809,797 8,621,981 42,995,623 62,427,401
1957 1,148,290,000 44,553,652 113,510 33,506 22,965,800 5,375,873 5,267,179 13,745,665 3,563,000 3,374,353 12,150,492 11,633,270 8,910,730 44,440,142 64,984,142
1958 1,190,530,000 46,192,564 89,390 41,237 23,810,600 4,648,602 6,072,138 14,685,631 3,687,000 6,163,464 8,802,073 15,557,586 9,238,513 46,103,174 70,899,273
1959 1,221,220,000 47,383,336 46,560 ºm-mºmº 24,424,400 5, 180,616 6,191,211 15,299,769 2,998,000 2,724,048 10,863,510 13,512,284 9,476,667 47,336,776 70,325,727
1960 1,254,500,000 48,674,600 45,240 *-i-m- 25,090,000 5,533,932 4,935,935 16,649,075 3,111,000 2,767,586 13,054,726 14,801,273 9,734,920 48,629,360 73,165,553
1961 1,285,590,000 49,880,892 38,040 - 25,711,800 6,272,654 2,881,490 17,194,873 3,224,000 2,792,453 15,375,436 15,305,710 9,976,178 49,842,852 75,124,740
1962 1,315,260,000 51,032,088 36,960 *º-º-º-º-º-º: 26,305,200 3,452,019 3,128,435 18,084,989 3,337,000 2,840,494 16,248,352 17,708,579 10,206,418 50,995,128 78,910,125
1963 1,344,320,000 52,159,616 35,880 º-º-º-º: 26,886,400 3,708,067 2,610,524 18,956,995 3,430,000 2,876,165 17,187,992 18,571,190 10,431,923 52,123,736 81,126,849
1964 1,372,800,000 53,264,640 40,700 º-º-º-º-º-º- 27,456,000 3,403,769 1,975,439 19,749,853 3,483,000 2,503,674 18,500,012 19,417,159 10,652,928 53,223,940 83,294,027
1965 1,398,980,000 54,280,424 39,380 emº 27,979,600 2,435,908 2,007,989 20,408,914 3,536,000 2,528,226 19,834,569 20,082,131 10,856,085 54,241,044 85,179,260
1966 1,423,630,000 55,236,844 38,060 sm-m-ms 28,472,600 3,052,653 960,951 21,173,588 3,589,000 2,552,248 21,189,165 20,855,744 11,047,369 55,198,784 87,101,897
1967 1,449,290,000 56,232,452 34,740 sºmsºmºmºmº 28,985,800 1,928,864 813,553 21,763,467 3,642,000 2,525,774 22,569,003 21,499,855 11,246,490 56,197,712 88,944,057
1968 1,474,200,000 57,198,960 27,500 *º-º-º-º: 29,484,000 1,540,232 753,030 22,403,433 3,696,000 2,458,055 23,976,198 22,234,183 11,439,792 57,171,460 90,845,435
1969 1,500,150,000 58,205,820 26,500 *º-º-º: 30,003,000 1,398,838 470,232 23,109,568 3,749,000 2,484,255 25,406,943 22,943,568 11,641,164 58,179,320 92,764,052
1970 1,526,250,000 59,218,500 25,500 *º-º-º: 30,525,000 851,174 491,733 23,721,860 3,802,000 2,513,880 26,857,813 23,559,110 11,843,700 59,193,000 94,595,810
1971 1,552,280,000 60,228,464 *mºs-s *ms-s-s 31,045,600 877,979 151,963 24,405,913 3,855,000 2,536,730 28,335,583 24,246,413 12,045,693 60,228,464 96,520,570
1972 1,575,930,000, 61,146,084 * *-ºsºme 31,518,600 310,060 162,747 24,958,205 3,908,000 2,583,005 29,716,828 24,901,955 12,229,217 61,146,084 98.277,256
TOTALS 26,226,730,000 $1,017,597,124 $1,146,752 $191,006 $524,534,600 $80,407,947 $62,615,691 $360,796,069 $66,425,000 $59,198,258 $337,676,200 $343,646,868 $203,519,425 $1,016,450,372 $1,563,616,665
partment, the original $8,597,196 is increased by the estimated toll in-
come of $944,000, and the amounts payable for interest, retirement, and
cash balance then deducted. The net surplus for 1952 from the Second
Gas Tax for use by the Department in the counties contributing such
surplus is then estimated to amount to $6,793,121 for 1952. The figures
presented in this paragraph and in Table XIV are State totals which
were arrived at by calculating the motor fuel tax revenues accruing
to each individual county for each of the next twenty years. This en-
tailed a complete year-by-year analysis in every case of the debt servic-
ing requirements of the sixty-seven counties.
Revenue coming under the general heading of Special Income in-
cludes receipts of the Outdoor Advertising Fund, interest on U. S.
Treasury Certificates, special contributions by counties and cities for
construction and maintenance, and other such items. There exists no
set formula for forecasting revenues from these sources with any near
degree of accuracy. In order to arrive at some reasonable figure for
future years, the average annual revenue from the combined sources
covered by this income heading during the period 1945-50, which were
more or less typical years, was accepted as a fair figure. This amounts
to $350,000 per year for each of the next twenty years.
As already explained, Florida State Improvement Commission bonds
are special project issues and there is no way of anticipating when such
projects may be decided upon or what the magnitude of any future
project may be. A good example of this kind of undertaking is the Jack-
sonville Expressway Project which provides a limited-access highway
system through the city of Jacksonville. The expressway is so laid out
that it becomes an integral part of the State Primary System, providing
an urban link and joining State Primary rural highways at its extremi-
ties. In this case the new facilities will not only relieve much of the con-
gestion on the existing primary urban links running through Jackson-
ville, but will supplant them to a large extent. This means that expensive
improvements of existing urban links, which would otherwise have to be
made, can now be scaled down or eliminated entirely.
For the most part, these special project facilities are toll roads, toll
bridges, or a combination of both. The fact remains, however, that in
most bond issues sold to finance such construction, the Second Gas Tax
Surplus accruing to the county in which the project is located, is made
the primary pledge against interest and retirement payments. This is
understandable because of the lower interest rates which a guaranteed
income such as this provides. The toll collections are also pledged, gen-
erally to the extent that if the sum of the tax revenue and toll revenue
exceeds debt servicing requirements, the excess is used to accelerate bond
retirement.
37
The result, therefore, of constructing local improvements with
Florida State Improvement Commission bond sale proceeds, is that with
each new issue less annual revenue accrues to the State Road Depart-
ment from the Second Gas Tax, since proceeds from this source are
used for bond servicing purposes. However, since high-priority im-
provements are provided years in advance of their possible construction
through direct financing from annual income the advantages of this pro-
cedure are evident.
Any attempt to estimate income from Florida State Improvement
Commission sources is an extremely complex and unpredictable matter;
unpredictable because there is no way of anticipating when such a pro-
ject may be decided upon or what its magnitude may be, and complex
because, lacking factors of time, project cost, bond retirement schedule,
and interest rates, there is no way of forecasting the reductions that may
be made in the Second Gas Tax income to the Road Department. It was
decided, therefore, that for the purpose of this estimate the only logical
and justifiable procedure that could be adopted would be to disregard
any probable income from revenue bond sources.
The revenue estimated to accrue to the State Road Department from
all major sources for each of the next twenty years is shown in Table XV.
Table XV
ESTIMATE OF TOTAL REVENUE ACCRUING
TO THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT
FROM PRESENT AVAILABLE SOURCES
FOR THE YEARS 1953-1972
Year Motor Fuel Federal Aid Counties, Cities
Imposts Funds & Miscellaneous Totals
Revenue
1953 $ 53,263,000 $ 7,979,000 $ 350,000 $ 61,592,000
1954 56,404,000 8,090,000 350,000 64,844,000
1955 59,464,000 8,200,000 350,000 68,014,000
1956 62,427,000 8,310,000 350,000 71,087,000
1957 64,984,000 8,420,000 350,000 73,754,000
1958 70,899,000 8,530,000 350,000 79,779,000
1959 70,326,000 8,640,000 350,000 79,316,000
1960 73,166,000 8,750,000 350,000 82,266,000
1961 75,125,000 8,860,000 350,000 84,335,000
1962 78,910,000 8,970,000 350,000 88,230,000
1963 81,127,000 9,080,000 350,000 90,557,000
1964 83,294,000 9,190,000 350,000 92,834,000
1965 85,179,000 9,300,000 350,000 94,829,000
1966 87,102,000 9,410,000 350,000 96,862,000
1967 88,944,000 9,520,000 350,000 98,814,000
1968 90,845,000 9,630,000 350,000 100,825,000
1969 92,764,000 9,740,000 350,000 102,854,000
1970 94,596,000 9,850,000 350,000 104,796,000
1971 96,521,000 9,960,000 350,000 106,831,000
1972 98.277,000 10,070,000 350,000 108,697,000
TOTALS $1,563,617,000 $180,499,000 $7,000,000 $1,751,116,000
38
Automotive Imposts Diverted to
Other Than Highway Purposes
In the sub-sections immediately preceding, estimates of revenue
available to the State Road Department for use in the construction,
improvement, and maintenance of the State Maintained System were
developed. At another point earlier in this section of the Report it was
explained that one of the first sources of income to the Department in
its earliest stages was a portion of the automobile registration fees
which, at that time, were collected by the counties. This source of reve-
nue continued after the State assumed responsibility for levying this
impost. In 1931, however, all income to the State Road Department
from this source was discontinued when the State diverted the tag fees
to its general revenue fund. In the intervening years from 1931 to the
present, income to the State from the sale of automobile tags has in-
creased steadily. In 1931 the net revenue received amounted to $4,851,-
967.77. In 1951, $22,531,688.86 was realized from these sales. The total
collected for the entire period amounted to $205,666,106.81. Table XVI
sets forth the yearly number of tags sold and the net revenue received.
The Florida State Senate’s Joint Resolution No. 106 proposes an amend-
ment to the State Constitution that would fix the diversion of a size-
able portion of the revenue from motor vehicle license fees to school
use for the next thirty years. If adopted by referendum at the next elec-
tion, this amendment will make available to the schools an estimated
$8,237,000 in the first fiscal year. This income could be pledged to school
bond issues. The remaining balance will continue to be channelled into
the State's General Fund.
Earlier in this section of the Report the historical development of
motor fuel imposts in the State of Florida was traced. It was noted that
in 1927 an emergency tax of one cent per gallon of gasoline was imposed
for educational purposes. This one cent per gallon revenue continued to
be diverted from highway use until 1950, when the practice was finally
discontinued. During the intervening years the total amount of revenue
from this source diverted or expended for non-road purposes amounted
to $79,261,814, which represents almost fifteen per cent of the total gaso-
line imposts collected during the period. This figure, added to the $205,-
666,106.61 collected by the State through vehicle registration fees since
1931, gives a total of $284,927,920.61 in motor vehicle imposts which, over
a period of twenty-three years, has been channelled to purposes other
than highway improvements. This is well in excess of the estimated
costs of eliminating all Primary System chronic deficiencies presently
recorded by the Road Department.
39
Table XVI
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF THE NUMBER OF TAGS SOLD
AND THE NET REVENUE RECEIVED FOR THE
YEARS 1931 THROUGH 1951, INCLUSIVE
1950............ 1,117,105 20,111,458.18 1,963,170.05 10.8
1951............ 1,225,594 22,531,688.86 2,420,230.68 12.0
Number Net Revenue Revenue Revenue
Year Tags Sold Received Increase Increase Decrease Decrease
1931............ 359,511 $4,851,967.77 $ 38,674.36 .8 tº-mºmº *===
1932............ 315,175 5,261,974.26 410,006.48 8.5 *-*s *mºsºms;
1933............ 310,766 4,883,368.42 — $378,605.84 7.2
1934............ 367,250 4,233,708.91 — 649,659.51 13.3
1935............ 402,134 4,686,258.42 452,549.51 10.7 *====
1936............ 446,938 5,233,991.44 547,733.02 11.7 *º-ºº-ºººº, *
1937............ 487,865 5,857,761.76 623,770.32 12.0 --- *º-º-º-º-mºm.
1938............ 492,154 6,109,395.47 251,633.71 4.3 *-*-* *ºmºsºms
1939............ 532,336 6,563,037.44 453,641.97 7.4 *=ºss -------
1940............ 579,495 7,184,494.16 621,456.72 9.5 * smºmºmºmº-mºm.
1941............ 600,241 8,353,630.72 1,169,136.56 16.3 ------ *-
1942............ 549,645 9,380,907.74 1,027,277.02 12.3 *-
1943............ 507,074 9,052,563.89 — 328,343.85 3.5
1944............ 538,090 9,623,880.99 571,317.10 6.3
1945............ 576,675 10,388,074.76 764,193.77 7.9 ------- *m-º:
1946............ 684,440 12,258,976.08 1,870,901.32 18.0 *Eº-º-º-º-º-º-º: emsºmºsºm-se
1947............ 801,545 14,584,701.78 2,325,725.70 19.0 &= -º-º-º-º-ºmsºmºm- ems-tº-
1948............ 900,801 16,365,977.63 1,781,275.85 12.2 **** *m
1949............ 997,105 18,148,288.13 1,782,310.50 10.9 - -º-º-ºmrº.
*mº.
•mºs
12,791,949 $205,666,106.81

40
III. State-Wide Traffic Surveys
Purpose and Scope
The State Road Department during the winter months of 1951-1952
conducted an extensive series of traffic surveys and related studies under
the general supervision of this firm. These surveys provide detailed
information on the characteristics of vehicular traffic moving on major
highways throughout Florida. The results of these surveys form a
sound basis for the comprehensive traffic analysis required for this report,
and are a valuable addition to the records of the Department for use
in their continuing study of traffic patterns.
The traffic surveys and related studies fall into four main categories:
a special state-wide origin and destination survey; a review of the traffic
volume counts regularly taken by the Department; a time and delay
survey of major north-south routes of travel in Florida; and a special
survey of commercial traffic to determine truck weights, origins and
(lestinations, and cargo classifications. Each of these surveys and studies
will be presented in this section.
Preliminary Origin and Destination Traffic Survey
In November, 1951, the State Road Department of Florida conducted
in the field a series of origin and destination traffic surveys which
formed the basis of the preliminary analysis required for this report.
Stations for these surveys were located along three east-west screen lines
situated in the northern, central, and southern parts of the State. The
northern screen line extended from a point south of Jacksonville Beach
On the Atlantic Coast to a point in Dixie County on the Gulf Coast and
consisted of eight roadside interview stations located on the major north-
south highways intercepted by the screen line. This screen line and its
stations, as well as others described in this report, are shown on Map
III, “Location of Origin and Destination Survey Stations”. The screen
lines involved in the preliminary survey are those designated as Screen
Lines 2, 4, and 6 on this map.
The central screen line extended from a point south of New Smyrna
Beach to a point north of Tarpon Springs and involved the operation of
four stations which intercepted the major north-south highways in this
area. The screen line which ran east-west between Fort Pierce and Punta
Gorda had four survey stations which performed the same intercepting
function in the southern part of the State.
41
The data collected at these sixteen traffic survey stations presented
the pattern of off-season traffic movements which, in turn, were trans-
lated into preliminary desire line maps. The results of this traffic survey
permitted the study to go forward while the state-wide survey was in
progress.
State-wide Origin and Destination Traffic Survey
During the months of January and February, 1952, the State Road
Department conducted, on a comprehensive state-wide basis, roadside
interview stations which intercepted traffic on all major highways. As
indicated on the map “Location of Origin and Destination Survey Sta-
tions”, the stations were located so that all major passenger and commer-
cial vehicle movements in the State of Florida were screened. Likewise,
this arrangement of stations permitted the screening of all major move-
ments which entered and left the State. In four areas, Dade County,
Manatee County, Leon County, and Polk County, extensive origin and
destination surveys had recently been made by the Department for spe-
cial analysis of local conditions. As this information was satisfactory
for the purposes of our Report, stations were not operated in these areas
during the state-wide surveys.
Forty-three survey stations were operated, including new surveys
at the sixteen stations operated during the preliminary survey. Inter-
viewing at four of the forty-three stations was conducted for 72 hours,
in order to secure information for a weekday and, in addition, for Satur-
day and Sunday traffic. The thirty-nine stations operated for a 24-hour
period were open during a weekday.
At each station during its period of operation vehicular traffic was
stopped with the exception of motorcycles and buses. Each stopped
vehicle was classified by vehicle type; the number of occupants and state
of registration were noted, and its driver interviewed in order to obtain
the origin, destination, and purpose of his trip. The driver was also
asked how often he made that trip annually and the name of his previous
and next intermediate stop on the trip, if any occurred. This informa-
tion, obtained for every passenger car and truck interviewed at each of
the forty-three traffic survey stations, made possible the development of
complete and up-to-date information on the major traffic movements of
Florida’s highway system.
In Table XVII following this page the number of interviews ob-
tained is shown by classification of vehicle, together with the number of
vehicles counted at each station during the period of operation. Buses

42
-
cºunswick
FLORALA
T-RPON--
SPRs.
ELS
CLEARwaren # = 1
C.
sº
N
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
LOCATION OF
ORIGIN AND DESTINATION
SURVEY STATIONS AND º - - Aſ ºf
TRUCK WEIGH ING STATIONS g (8)
=T
JULY 1952 º -------
Fort
LAUDERDALE
PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL B. MacDonal_D
ENGINEERs NEw York
TWENTY - Four Hour stations
SEVENTY-Two HOUR stations
TRUCK. WEIGHING STATIONS
SCREEN LINES
no o no 20 ºo 40 5d.
tº-
5 c. 4 L = o F - I - E s
- - -
- _ºr MARATHON
*T

Table XVII
TABULATION OF O & D INTERVIEWS AND MANUAL COUNTS
.* .*
8; 8% E 3 3 5
## 35i º ë º:
35 555 . @ .E.
3 # 33.a 5. º: #
# #; ; ; #3
(N try Manual % No. Total
Station No. of Interviews by Class Count Inter- Buses Manual
No. 1 2 3 4 5 Total Cl. 1-5 views Counted Count
Screen Line No. 1
01:…~~~~ 3,057 65 135 51 417 3,725 4,331 86.0 55 4,386
02:…~~~ 2,583 27 101 45 480 3,236 3,506 92.1 34 3,540
Screen Line No. 2
04:…~~~~ 7,989 242 262 81 950 9,524 11,186 85.3 101 11,287
05:…~~~~ 673 18 80 2 45 818 873 93.7 10 883
06…~~~~ 1,590 28 71 23 159 1,871 1,940 96.4 16 1,956
07…~~~~ 805 16 52 10 80 963 1,072 89.8 10 1,082
08.”… 2,302 41 167 38 472 3,020 3,131 96.5 34 3,165
09.…~~~ 4,186 29 210 32 161 4,618 5,405 85.4 33 5,438
10~~~~ 12,036 171 335 249 1,205 13,996 17,469 80.1 147 17,616
11~~~~ 1,899 9 74 8 14 2,004 2,110 95.0 9 2,119
Screen Line No. 3
12…~~~ 1,304 24 51 14 133 1,526 1,566 97.4 10 1,576
13.” 2,221 19 128 12 126 2,506 2,617 95.8 35 2,652
14…~~ 2,123 43 118 22 441 2,747 2,819 97.5 15 2,834
15…~ 2,940 30 267 14 146 3,397 3,505 96.9 23 3,528
16…~~~~ 2,914 47 107 20 650 3,738 3,854 96.9 45 3,899
17~~~~ 1,883 8 15 - 7 1,913 1,973 96.9 13 1,986
Screen Line No. 4
18.”… 2,904 43 141 39 366 3,493 3,698 94.5 51 3,749
19...…~~~ 3,826 57 173 26 313 4,395 5,980 73.5 43 6,023
20.…~~ 10,828 79 329 25 573 11,834 16,146 73.3 99 16,245
21:…~~~~ 3,776 55 105 20 343 4,299 5,645 76.2 50 5,695
Screen Line No. 5
22:…~~~~ 2,696 55 58 14 77 2,900 2,996 96.8 13 3,009
23…~. 3,098 59 224 30 355 3,766 4,509 83.6 47 4,556
24”. 3,706 49 264 45 431 4,495 4,733 95.0 24 4,757
25…~~~~ 760 14 52 11 102 939 965 97.3 10 975
26…~~~~ 4,029 45 190 14 441 4,719 6,145 76.8 30 6,175
27~~~~ 3,731 31 123 17 314 4,216 6,349 66.3 42 6,391
52.…~~~ 1,463 16 76 9 286 1,850 1,996 92.7 7 2,003
Screen Line No. 6
30.…~~~~ 3,331 79 118 19 144 3,691 3,987 92.6 27 4,014
31…~~~~ 2,100 33 87 11 144 2,375 2,468 96.3 10 2,478
32.…~~~~ 1,994 20 115 15 214 2,358 2,428 97.1 16 2,444
33…~~ 3,779 37 185 14 439 4,454 7,440 59.8 51 7,491
Screen Line No. 7
34…~. 2,012 45 104 10 42 2,213 2,272 97.5 18 2,290
35…~~~~ 2,058 33 68 18 186 2,363 2,509 94.3 8 2,517
36~~~~ 2,131 20 210 9 184 2,554 2,695 94.8 25 2,720
37…~~ 4,047 39 176 15 364 4,641 7,179 64.7 49 7,228
Screen Line No. 8
38…~~~~ 10,497 49 206 15 146 10,913 25,533 42.8 234 25,767
39.…~~~~ 2,755 1 27 8 8 2,799 2,885 96.9 2 2,887
Other Stations
40… 3,506 34 254 43 173 4,010 4,167 96.2 39 4,206
47… 1,803 32 73 18 237 2,163 2,427 89.2 16 2,443
48…~~~~ 1,692 15 70 6 38 1,821 2,102 86.5 9 2,111
49.…~~~~ 2,863 29 148 23 114 3,177 3,281 96.8 54 3,335
50-~~~~ 1,086 15 48 25 114 1,288 1,977 65.2 11 1,988
51*… 802 17 39 7 20 885 1,198 73.8 6 1,204
TOTAL.................. 137,778 1,818 5,836 1,127 11,654 158,213 201,067 78.7 1,581 202,648
43
are shown separately for each station and included in the station total
of vehicles counted. A total of 158,213 interviews were obtained from
the 202,648 vehicles that passed through the stations during their respec-
tive periods of operation. Thus, 79 per cent of the traffic was interviewed.
In a later stage of the analysis a factor was applied to the individual
interviews obtained at each survey station in order to bring the results
to the level of total traffic passing that station during each twenty-four
hour period of the station’s operation.
In the Preliminary Survey a total of 41,783 interviews was obtained
during the operation of the sixteen stations. A total of 44,975 vehicles
passed through these stations during their period of operation. Thus,
93 per cent were interviewed.
As a result of these field surveys and the techniques of traffic analy-
sis which were applied to them, it is possible to describe the major traffic
flows in the State.
The most prominent flows of long-distance traffic in Florida are
movements with a southern terminal in either the Miami or Tampa-St.
Petersburg area and a northern terminal in areas beyond the Florida-
Georgia State Line. Thus, Miami and Tampa-St. Petersburg may be con-
sidered, trafficwise, as two beacons which send their rays northward
within the lateral limits of the Florida peninsula. These beams diffuse
once they have reached the northern end of the peninsula. These observa-
tions in general hold true for truck traffic as well as passenger cars.
The most important element in the above flows of non-commercial
vehicle traffic is the movement along Florida’s east coast from Miami
and other southeastern points to Jacksonville and the northeastern states.
In the case of trucks, the traffic generated by the west coast region in
the vicinity of Tampa and St. Petersburg approximately equals that
generated by Miami and other southeastern regions. This may be at-
tributed to the wide-scale agricultural activities of the west-central and
west coast regions of the State.
Florida's major traffic movements are thus considerably different
from other states, due largely to the shape and position of the State in
the continental land mass. There are virtually no movements of traffic
which merely pass through Florida on their way elsewhere. The Miami-
Southeast Coast and Tampa-St. Petersburg areas are two of the primary
destinations of tourist travel originating throughout the Nation. Few
states can, in addition, boast of such rich agricultural areas which pro-

44
vide a diversity of produce most of which must be shipped northward
to consumers in other states. Of equal importance is Florida's relatively
low industrial output which necessitates the importation of large quanti-
ties of manufactured products.
Analysis of the origin and destination traffic surveys also revealed
that Orlando, Ocala, and the area in the vicinity of Plant City and
Haines City are large generators of passenger and truck traffic of a
character both intrastate and interstate. The intrastate part includes
Workers commuting and local products or raw materials being hauled
to processing plants or transhipping points; traffic to coastal beaches
from these inland cities is also of considerable intrastate significance.
Commercial movements from these cities to points north, outside of the
State, are largely concerned with the export of local produce and the
import from the more industrial states, of manufactured products.
In the Western part of Florida, sometimes referred to as the “pan-
handle”, the geography of the State, and hence of its road system, limits
traffic movements to two basic patterns. One of these is the movement
from Miami, Tampa-St. Petersburg, and other points in Florida to states
West and northwest of that area of the State. A majority of this traffic
travels via the “Old Spanish Trail”, Route U. S. 90. The second im-
portant movement is north-south in character and has northern termi-
nals in Georgia, Alabama, and other states north of the “panhandle”.
The southern terminals of this major movement are the beaches and
ports of the “panhandle’s” Gulf Coast. Traffic of this character makes
use of several north-south highways in western Florida, located between
Pensacola and Tallahassee.
Review of the Regular Traffic Volume Counts
The records maintained by the State Road Department of traffic
counts taken periodically on the Primary System have been analyzed in
the preparation of this report. Our inspection of these records and the
methods of counting and computation employed in their preparation gen-
erally satisfies our requirements as to their soundness and accuracy.
However, due to the present trend in driving habits, the accuracy of the
classification counts would be improved by extending the period of
counting from eight hours to a full twenty-four hour period.
45
In order to measure periodically traffic volumes on the Primary
System, the Department makes six types of traffic counts:
1) 24 Automatic electric eye traffic recorders are in continuous
operation at key points throughout the State, and provide the
strongest and most consistent, as well as continuous, record of
traffic volume information.
2) 120 Bridge tender stations report 8-hour manual counts of traffic
twenty times a year, taken at intervals so that the results repre-
sent all seasons of the year.
3) 177 Key stations are operated with portable counting machines
for a full week every three months at other important points on
the Primary System.
4) 519 Control stations supplement the data obtained at the above
locations. The control stations are operated for a 24-hour period
every three months.
5) There are also more than 5,000 “blanket” stations located
throughout the Primary System, which are operated when it is
deemed desirable to integrate the counts obtained by the other
methods. “Blanket” stations are generally operated with a
frequency of from three times a year to once every three years,
when 24-hour counts are taken.
6) 210 Manual classification count stations are operated four times
annually for the 8-hour period from 10:00 A. M. to 6:00 P. M.
All of the previously mentioned types of counts are purely counts
of total traffic volumes, regardless of vehicle classification. The
function of the manual classification count is to provide informa-
tion on the types of vehicles, which may be applied to the other
traffic counts.
Data from all six types of counts are used by the Department to
compute the 24-hour average annual traffic volumes, broken down into
passenger, commercial, and out-of-state categories, which are developed
annually for every section of highway in the Primary Road System.
These counts are employed in a number of continuing and special studies
by the Department and have been used in the development of this Report.



46
CMoultRie G.) U23
- -ºu-swick
|->
clearwater.º.º. -
º
º -
º
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
TRAFFIC FLOW MAP
OF FLORIDA
SHOWING AVERAGE DALLY volume IN 1950
JULY 1952
PARSONs, BRINCKERHoFF, HALL & MacDonal-D
ENGINEERs NEW YORK
SANFORD
SELECTED AUTOMATIC
RECORDER s TATION s
o
o
o
-
TRAFFIC B A ND SCALE
|N VEHICLES PER DAY
o lo 20 3o 40 50
s C. A. L. E. o F. M. 1 L E s
\
- FROM MAP EASED ON FLORIDA state Road DEPARTMENT DATA

-
Map IV, preceding this page, shows the average daily traffic volumes
for 1950 on the principal highways of the State of Florida. It is a
graphic illustration of the extent and distribution of highway travel
throughout the State Primary System. The Traffic Flow Map was pro-
duced by a synthesis of all the traffic counts described in detail above.
In our review of the Department's regular traffic records, we have
chosen nine of the Department's automatic electric eye traffic volume
recorders as most representative of the phenomenal growth of traffic in
the past eleven years on the Primary System. The traffic volume record
of the nine stations is given in Table XVIII entitled “Average Daily
Traffic Volumes, 1940-1951”, which precedes this page. The table also
shows the per cent of each increase or decrease over the previous year
for each station. The locations of the nine selected automatic recorders
are shown on the Traffic Flow Map.
The average traffic volume increase from 1941 to 1951 at the nine
stations was 76.8 per cent in the ten-year period, and 63.5 per cent in
the five-year postwar period, 1946 to 1951. These substantial increases
are considered typical of the general acceleration of highway use on the
major highways of the State.
Time and Delay Survey
The primary roads of Florida have been extensively studied in the
preparation of this Report to develop factual information relating to
speed of travel in the peninsula area of the State.
Seven routes were considered in order to obtain the actual driving
time at safe speeds that can be maintained by the average driver ob-
serving posted limits in traveling the major north-south highways. These
routes, shown on Map V following this page, are as follows:
Route A — State Route A1A from Jacksonville to Miami;
Route B — Route U. S. 1 from Jacksonville to Miami;
Route C — Route U. S. 17 from Jacksonville to Kissimmee;
Route U. S. 441 from Kissimmee to Miami;
Route D — Route U. S. 301 from Baldwin to Ocala;
Route U. S. 27 from Ocala to Miami;
Route E — Route U. S. 129 from Live Oak to Oldtown;
Route U. S. 19 from Oldtown to Lebanon Station;
State Route 336 from Lebanon Sta. to Dunnellon;
Route U. S. 41 from Dunnellon to Miami;
Route F — Route U. S. 441 from Lake City to Ocala;
Route U. S. 301 from Ocala to Tampa;
Route G — Route U. S. 92 from Tampa to Kissimmee.
47
In this survey, crews consisting of a driver and a recorder were
Supplied with a book of maps containing the routes that each crew were
to traverse in a passenger automobile to obtain time and delay informa-
tion. The instructions for each crew showed the route number to be
followed, the direction to be traveled, the date, and the day and hour each
run was to start. Two methods of procedure were used in this study, the
cruising car and the posted limit.
The cruising car method requires that the driver shall overtake and
pass a passenger car every time a passenger car overtakes and passes
him. In this study, passing, or being passed, by buses and trucks was
not considered. Only passenger car speeds regulated the speed of the
study car. By this procedure, at the end of the route, the study car
passed as many cars as passed it. In theory, there were as many cars
driving faster than the study car as there were driving slower.
The posted limit method requires that the study car, at all times,
be driven at or near the posted speed limit in effect on the particular
section of highway being traversed. When it was necessary to drop
below the legal speed limit, a traffic restriction existed.
In both methods of procedure the study car never exceeded the
maximum lawful speed. A minimum of three trips in each direction for
each route were made starting at different times of the day in order to
obtain in rural areas, the average condition of traffic.
The data recorded included:
1. The number of the route being traversed.
2. The date.
3. The control points. These are the points along the route being
studied, not more than ten miles apart, generally at major inter-
secting highways or political subdivision lines.
4. The odometer reading, i.e., the distance as read from the odo-
meter instrument between each control point and the origin of
the trip.
5. The time of day to the nearest second at each control point and
at the beginning and end of each stop.
6. A quantitative and qualitative inventory of traffic restrictions.
Under traffic restrictions, the number of stop signs, traffic lights,
flashing beacons, and restrictive speed zones encountered while
driving from control point to control point were tallied by the
recorder. Congested areas were recorded when the trip was
made using the posted limit method. A congested area occurs
when the study car is slowed below the posted speed limit because
of other traffic on the highway.
7. Weather.
48
STATE OF FILORIDA
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1940-1951
AT SELECTED AUTOMATIC RECORDER STATIONS
Table XVIII
Station L-B- Boca Raton” Waldo.” Bayard Oak Hill Punta Gorda Lutz Plant City Ocala Sanford
On Route -> U. S. Route 1 U. S. Route 301 U. S. Route 1 U. S. Route 1 U. S. Route 41 U. S. Route 41 U. S. Route 92 U. S. Route 441 U. S. Route 17
Year A.D.T. % A.D.T % A.D.T. % A.D.T % A.D.T. % A.D.T. % A.D.T. % A.D.T. % A.D.T. %
1940 3,925 ...... ...... -----> 2,642 … ...... ...... 1,154 º-esº- 2,032 º-º-º-º-º-º-º: 4,939 e-º-º-º-º: 2,230 ...... 2,215 ------
1941 3,685 —6.1 2,628 2,935 11.1 1,872+ ----- 1,253 8.6 2,469 21.5 5,111 3.5 2,475 11.0 2,326 5.0
1942 2,324 —36.9 1,703 —35.2 1,618 —44.9 1,123 —40.0t 765 –38.9 1,778 —28.0 3,968 —22.4 1,527 —38.3 1,346 —42.1
1943 1,931 — 16.9 1,511 –11.3 1,187 —26.6 703 —37.4 641 –16.2 1,597 –102 3,768 —5.0 1,440 —5.7 1,141 —15.2
1944 2,252 16.6 1,728 14.4 1,330 12.0 886 26.0 723 12.8 1,647 3.1 4,266 13.2 1,552 7.8 1,276 11.8
1945 2,923 29.8 2,123 22.9 1,763 32.6 1,327 49.8 836 15.6 1,994 21.1 4,449 4.3 1,932 24.5 1,704 33.5
1946 4,468 52.9 1,859 –12.4 2,776 57.5 2,428 83.0 1,273 52.3 3,093 55.1 6,060 36.2 3,000 55.3 2,428 42.5
1947 4,710 5.4 2,099 12.9 3,154 13.6 2,439 0.5 1,507 18.4 3,498 13.1 6,098 0.6 3,413 13.8 3,331 37.2
1948 4,350 —7.6 2,427 15.6 3,434 8.9 2,694 10.5 1,572 4.3 3,820 9.2 6,489 6.4 3,890 14.0 3,072 —7.8
1949 4,715 8.4 2,750 13.3 3,720 8.3 3,010 11.7 1,720 9.4 3,790 –0.8 6,785 4.6 4,135 6.3 3,375 9.9
1950 5,050 7.1 3,155 14.7 4,580 23.1 3,390 12.6 1,995 16.0 4,185 10.4 8,265 21.8 5,220 26.2 3,695 9.5 Average of All
1951 5,030 —0.4 3,485 10.5 5,010 9.4 3,960 16.8 2,410 20.8 4,250 1.6 8,390 1.5 5,760 10.3 4,145 12.2 Nine Stations
Per Cent Increase
1941–1951 36.5 32.6 70.7 111.5 92.3 72.1 64.2 132.7 78.2 76.8
Per Cent Increase
1946–1951 12.6 87.5 80.5 63.1 89.3 37.4 38.4 92.0 70.7 63.5
Notes
* The traffic pattern at Boca Raton has changed since 1947 due to the opening of parallel and competing State Road 7. &
** The traffic pattern at Waldo was greatly changed by the construction of an Army base in the vicinity in 1941. Traffic continued to be affected by this base throughout 1941-1945.
% The per cent columns refer to the per cent of increase or decrease over the previous year.
† Estimated.
(D º - ſ XMoultrie (7) J2E
º
- ERU-Swick
ATMORE \-
*
º
sº
- FERNANDINA
º
-
-
- -
- TARPON --
SPRs.
|MELBourn
-
CLEARWATER
-
-
- -
- º
-o-º-º-o
- - -----
". | For
T
Lauo-º-o-L-
state Road DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
ROUTES TRAVELLED
FOR
TIME AND DELAY SURVEY
JULY 1952
Howest Eadº
- - PARSONs, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL & MacDonal-D
- ENGINEERs NEW YORK
no o to 20-30-40-50
s c 4 L E o F M L E S
- - 5
- º Lºº Maration
*T
-

An analysis of this study accurately portrays the driving conditions
which motorists find in travel over the representative routes studied.
These data, when compared with driving conditions that would be offered
by these routes if reconstructed to modern accepted highway standards,
illustrate the deficiencies in the Primary System treated elsewhere in
this Report, and form the basis for the economic justification of the
recommended improvements.
Table XIX below contains a summary of the data for the several
routes resulting from the Time and Delay Survey. Travel time and
number of congested areas shown in each case are the average of all
trips on the respective route.
Table XIX
SUMMARY OF DATA RELATING TO TRAVEL CONDITIONS ON
ROUTES STUDIED
No. of No. of
Restric- Traffic Lts.
Total No. of tive Flash Beac.
Elapsed Average Congested Speed and
Route” Miles Time Speed Areas Zones Stop Signs
A 372.9 11 hrs. 27 min. 09 Sec. 32.6 30 57 98
B 350.0 10 hrs. 19 min. 00 Sec. 33.9 51 83 236
C 388.0 9 hrs. 51 min. 41 sec. 39.4 54 60 83
D 391.0 9 hrs. 48 min. 33 sec. 39.8 47 60 84
E 456.5 12 hrs. 13 min. 35 sec. 37.3 12 80 97
F 185.3 4 hrs. 23 min. 02 sec. 42.3 1 50 42
G 79.5 2 hrs. 13 min. 30 sec. 35.7 5 25 45
* See page 46 and Map V for description and location of routes.
Other Time and Delay Surveys
In November, 1951, and in February, 1952, a group of State Road
Department officials drove from Jacksonville to Miami on Route U. S. 1
for the purpose of pointing out present restrictions and demonstrating
the recognized need for improved highway facilities down the east coast
of Florida. A representative of this firm accompanied the officials as
an observer.
49
Both trips originated at the Duval County Courthouse in Jackson-
ville and ended at the Dade County Courthouse in Miami, a distance of
about 360 miles. In November, the average speed was 37.8 miles per
hour and the total driving time was 9 hours, 31 minutes, and 37 seconds,
while in February the average speed was 35.4 miles per hour while
driving time was 10 hours, 14 minutes, and 55 seconds.
The two motorcades observed all local, state, and county traffic regu-
lations, and all caution and slow signs. Some automobiles, driving at
unsafe speeds for Route U. S. 1, or exceeding the posted limited, passed
the Official cars.
As an illustration of the degree of congestion that exists on Route
U. S. 1, on the November trip, speeds of 4.2 miles per hour in the West
Palm Beach Urban Area, 5.1 miles per hour in the Fort Pierce Urban
Area, 7.0 miles per hour in the Fort Lauderdale Urban Area, and 8.3
miles per hour in Titusville and the Daytona Beach Urban Area, were
required in order to proceed with some degree of safety. The motorcade
was slowed down 114 times due to traffic congestion, which made it
impossible for the recording vehicle to travel at the posted speed limit.
Other delays recorded were 184 stop lights, 38 flashing beacons, and 82
reduced-speed zones.
The February trip produced maximum speeds in most cities from
10 miles per hour in some school Zones to 35 miles per hour in outlying
areas. In a few sparsely settled sections along four-lane portions, travel
was restricted to 25 miles an hour by local speed regulations. Heavy
traffic was encountered in St. Augustine, West Palm Beach, and Fort
Lauderdale. From Fort Lauderdale to Miami, through Dania, Holly-
wood, Hallandale, North Miami Beach, and North Miami, it was almost
a bumper-to-bumper procession and it required 21 minutes to cover the
7.2 miles from the Miami city limits to the Courthouse.
Since the trip from Jacksonville to Miami could be made in an esti-
mated six hours on a modern limited-access facility, these two studies
definitely show the need of additional facilities along the east coast of
Florida and substantiate the findings of the survey made on this route
especially for the purpose of this Report.
Commercial Vehicle Survey
It was determined from the Origin and Destination Survey that 11.8
per cent of all vehicles passing the survey stations were medium and
heavy trucks. A review of the periodic classification counts and the
motor vehicle registration records indicates that the number of trucks
and the volume of truck traffic is steadily increasing.
50
The growth in commercial vehicles is greatest in the heavy tractor-
trailer combination classification. It is, therefore, essential that ade-
quate highway facilities be provided to serve the demand of this rapidly
expanding truck traffic. The geometrics of the roadway, as well as the
design loading criteria for the sub-grade, pavement, and structures must
reflect consideration of this upward trend in the number of commercial
vehicles which are increasingly larger and heavier.
In order that detailed information would be available covering truck
traffic characteristics, a truck-weighing origin and destination and cargo
classification survey was conducted at eight selected State Road Depart-
ment weighing stations during the period from June 24 to June 27, 1952.
Stations were selected so that the results would represent as closely as
possible commercial traffic on the Primary System.
Following is the location of each of the eight stations, which are
also shown on the same map with the location of the origin and destina-
tion survey stations:
Station 3 — Route U.
Station 4 — Route U.
Station 5 — Route U. S. 441, north of Lake City
Station 6 — Route U. S. 1, north of Hilliard
S. 19, southeast of Old Town
S
S
S
Station 7 — Route U. S. 17, north of Yulee
S
S
S
. 27, east of Branford
Station 8 — Route U. S. 17, north of San Mateo
Station 9 — Route U. S. 92, east of Plant City
Station 10 — Route U. S. 1, north of Fort Pierce
Each truck-weighing station was operated for a 24-hour weekday
period. The interviewers recorded the gross weight; the classification
of each truck as 2-axle, 3-axle, or combination; and secured from the
driver the origin and destination of the trip, whether it was local or
through, the rated capacity of the vehicle, and the commodity carried.
A total of 3,586 trucks were weighed, which represents about 90 per cent
of those passing through each station during its period of operation. The
large majority of trucks not weighed were empty trucks on purely local
trips.
51
The average gross weight of all trucks interviewed was 28,033 lbs.,
of which 35.5 per cent were empty. The average gross weight of all
loaded trucks was 34,126 lbs. A detailed summary by station and truck
classification is given in Table XX, “Florida Commercial Vehicle Sur-
vey”, following this page. The gross weight of combination units aver-
aged 36,742 lbs. The gross weight of the loaded combination units aver-
aged 43,650 lbs. Ninety-two, or 6.5 per cent, of the loaded combination
units were found to have gross weights in excess of 30 tons, and many of
these exceeded the legal, allowable maximum gross weight of 64,650 lbs.
for the largest truck permitted to use public highways in the State of
Florida. -
Of the trucks interviewed, 31.3 per cent were making local trips or
had necessary intermediate stops at short intervals. A trip of less than
50 miles between origin and destination is considered a local trip for
the purposes of this study. Trucks in this category carry household
commodities, building materials, and general freight.
68.7 per cent of the trucks interviewed were making through trips.
Of these, 25.7 per cent were 2-axle trucks, 5.3 per cent were 3-axle trucks,
and 69.0 per cent were combination units. The loaded trucks in these
classifications making through trips had average gross weights of 17,650
lbs., 31,794 lbs., and 44,596 lbs., respectively. The predominating cargoes
consisted of lumber, fruits, citrus fruits, vegetables, meat, meat products,
and fish.
Table XX
FLORIDA COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SURVEY
Stations 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Totals
2-Axle Trucks
No. weighed 118 87 262 187 129 123 180 219 1,305
Per cent of total trucks............... 30.1 49.2 51.7 23.8 32.8 49.6 34.4 39.3 36.4
Per cent empty........................................ 39.0 57.5 51.9 45.5 34.9 25.2 32.2 27.0 39.1
Average gross weight—lbs...... 12,81 10,750 17,325 14,672 16,435 13,097 12,773 14,109 14,445
Average gross weight—loaded
trucks only 15,738 15,121 19,111 18,199 19,680 14,712 17,636 15,390 17,046
3-Axle Trucks
No. weighed 17 13 3 42 29 60 10 12 186
Per cent of total trucks.............. 4,4 7.3 0.6 5.3 7.4 24.2 1.9 2.2 5.2
Per cent empty........................................ 35.3 69.2 100.0 52.4 34.5 36.7 50.0 41.6 44.0
Average gross weight—lbs. ... 21,141 14,735 *mºmmºmºs 25,708 29,563 27,853 23,386 18,570 25,223
Average gross weight—loaded
trucks only 26,644 25,988 - 35,675 34,111 29,214 33,606 19,994 31,314
Combination Units
No. weighed 257 77 242 559 235 65 334 326 2,095
Per cent of total trucks............... 65.5 43.5 47.7 70.9 59.8 26.2 63.7 58.5 58.4
Per cent empty........................................ 31.5 58.5 38.8 29.9 22.6 40.0 40.1 24.8 32.6
Average gross weight—lbs. ...... 37,678 29,111 35,707 37,739 38,882 38,251 34,584 37,233 36,742
Average gross weight—loaded
trucks only 45,993 44,270 40,609 43,500 48,836 44,632 42,409 41,293 43,650
Total Trucks
No. weighed 392 177 507 788 393 248 524 557 3,586
Per cent empty........................................ 33.9 58.7 46.9 34.8 27.5 31.8 37.6 26.0 35.5
Average gross weight—lbs. ...... 29,478 19,030 26,151 31,624 30,826 23,260 26,878 27,739 28,033
Average gross weight—loaded
trucks only 36,685 28,313 30,931 38,009 38,878 24,613 34,252 31,658 34,126
52
Application of Data
The information resulting from the four surveys and studies out-
lined in this section has been extensively employed in the production of
the Report.
From the Origin and Destination Survey the travel patterns have
been determined for both the passenger and commercial traffic on the
Primary System. The desired lines of travel of the major movements
give the theoretical location and a measure of the demand for additions
to the System.
The traffic counts provide a sound historical base for the projection
Of traffic volumes into the future. These counts have been used in con-
junction. With other trends such as population, gasoline consumption, and
motor vehicle registration for the purpose of estimating traffic on the
Primary System during the next twenty-year period. The demands of
these anticipated traffic volumes on each section of the Primary System
have been converted into the type and cost of improvement that must be
made to each Section to meet adequately the estimated traffic load.
The Time and Delay Surveys serve to provide comparative informa-
tion on travel conditions on various competitive routes which, in addi-
tion to pointing out present deficiencies, give a sound economic measure
of the necessity of additions and improvements to the highway system.
The Commercial Vehicle Survey provides principally information on
the size and weight of trucks to guide the estimating of the demands
of this class of vehicle on the Primary System in the future.
53
IV. Recommendations for Instituting a State Arterial System;
Recommendations on the Secondary System; and General
Observations on Florida State Roads.
State Arterial System
Earlier in the Report the National System of Interstate Highways
designed to connect the major cities of the nation and consisting of the
more important and heavily traveled roads in the U. S. Primary System
was described. In effect, the Interstate System is a network within
a network providing the best and most direct routes between the
country’s principal centers of population.
It is believed that Florida would be benefited by the establishment
of a similar State Arterial System joining important state population
centers and comprised of the major roads in the State Primary System.
This system could be established by selecting an integrated master net-
work of arterial highways on the basis of present and anticipated high
traffic volume loads.
In this study it was determined that an estimated 3,666 miles of
State Primary roads can be expected to have daily average traffic volumes
of 3,000 vehicles, or more, by 1972. The location of this mileage is shown
on Map VI, “Proposed State Arterial System”, following this page. It
can be readily seen from this map that the roads within the proposed
system, selected on the basis of high volume traffic, already serve the
purpose of linking major cities of the State.
Since any planned arterial highway network must be flexible and
adaptable to changing highway needs, this suggested network should
not be considered to designate with finality any particular route. It is
based on conservative estimates, and it may be necessary to increase the
mileage as the State develops.
As explained elsewhere in the Report, it is recommended that the
State Road Department adopt a Sufficiency Rating Method of program-
ming road improvements. This method of planning allows for the estab-
lishment of individual adequacy ratings for separate systems or portions
of a system. If an arterial system consisting of the major highways with-
in the Primary System were established, that particular network, because
of its greater importance, could be assigned a higher desired adequacy
rating than other Primary System roads, thereby guaranteeing an auto-
matic priority to the most heavily traveled highways and urban links.
The net result would be that the proposed network would be subject to
a higher degree of improvement and maintenance because of its superior
place in the State Road Plant.

54
© A &º ſº.
ATMORE
FLORALA
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
P R O P O S E D
STATE ARTERIAL SYSTEM
JULY 1952
PARSONs, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL & MacDonald
ENGINEERs NEW YORK
Proposed state ArtERIAL SYSTEM
no o no 20 Jo 40 50
s c A. L. E. 0 F M. I. L. E. s.
E. C-
clearwater EP Tº
- nº
-
-
º
º
T-O-
S enunswick
|
| Pºº-
- -----
Foºt
LAUDERD-L-
-o-EstEA-
-
ºnarºon.

It is apparent from an analysis of the result of the Time and
Delay Survey that the more serious everyday delays experienced in
Florida’s Primary Road System occur on the urban links. It is recom-
mended that the program for the improvement of urban links be formu-
lated first for the State Arterial System and that project priority be
given to towns and cities on this network so that maximum safe speeds
and the minimum of delay may be realized by vehicles travelling between
and through all major centers in the State.
Another reason for the desirability of the establishment of a State
Arterial System is its value to national defense. This is one of the
important reasons for the development and improvement of all Primary
and Secondary roads to an optimum degree. This applies particularly
to an arterial network over which the major movements of material and
personnel could be expected to take place in the event of an emergency.
Secondary Road System
One of the purposes of the Secondary Roads Assistance Act, passed
by the 1949 Extraordinary Session of the Florida Legislature, was to
develop a state-wide Secondary network. Previous to this, the Road
Department held responsibility for only one system which, with passage
of the Act, was designated the Primary System to distinguish it from
the new network. The same legislation recovered for highway use the
seventh cent of the motor fuel tax and designated it the Seventh Cent
Tax, thus virtually eliminating the diversion of motor fuel taxes. Eighty
per cent of the Seventh Cent Tax goes to the Road Department for ex-
penditures on state roads, and the other twenty per cent goes to the
counties to help cover county road expenses. Allocation of the Seventh
Cent Gas Tax funds to the counties is based on the same distribution
formula as the Second Gas Tax. It has been the policy of the State
Road Department to allocate its share to secondary roads.
The portion of the Seventh Cent Gas Tax which accrues to the Road
Department for the benefit of the counties cannot be spent on a state-
wide basis, but must be expended within each county according to the
distribution formula. These funds may legally be used for (1) construc-
tion and acquisition of state roads, (2) maintenance of state roads, (3)
acquisition of rights-of-way for state roads, (4) lease or purchase of
bridges connecting state roads, and (5) payment of county road and
bridge debts.
Despite the title of the Act, and although it is the declared purpose
of the Department to use a maximum portion of Seventh Cent Gas Tax
funds for Secondary construction, there is nothing in the 1949 Law which
55
specifically declares that such funds must be spent on the Secondary
System. Some of this revenue has been spent in connection with Pri.
mary Roads, particularly for rights-of-way purchases. On the other hand,
in addition to Seventh Cent Gas Tax monies, a large part of the Second
Gas Tax surplus and some First Gas Tax revenue is being expended on
Secondary construction.
Shortly after the Act became law, the Road Department reached a
seven-point policy agreement with the counties, the most important fea-
tures of which were: a determination that Secondary Roads would be
made up of important county roads and eventually embrace a total of
10,000 miles; the Department would allocate to a Secondary road de-
velopment program all eighty per cent surplus funds accruing from the
Second Gas Tax; and the Department would establish Secondary road
design and construction standards which would assure an optimum num-
ber of miles of good paved roads for the money available.
Under present policy the selection of county roads to be converted
to State Secondary roads is made by the individual counties subject to
review by the Department. These decisions are made annually, and at
such time to allow inclusion of the estimated costs in the final State
Road Department budget which must be adopted in February of each
year. The extent of new mileage to be added during the year depends
on the amount of funds available to each county.
About 12 of the 67 counties have established Some kind of short-
range but fairly specific program for the development of Secondary
Roads within their borders. As far as can be determined, during the
approximate two-year life of the Secondary System, a formal planned
program has not yet been formulated. Assuming that all counties were
basing the growth of the Secondary System within their boundaries on
good, sound, modern methods of selection according to needs, the lack
of a planned program will foster a State Secondary System not posses-
sing the necessary integration to serve its purpose.
In order to establish a coordinated system of State Secondary Roads,
existing legislation should be revised to clearly define the responsibilities
of the Department in the development of such a system. First, a com-
prehensive, well-knit, intelligently integrated network should be desig-
nated, the mileage of which should be chosen only after full con-
sideration of state-wide, as well as local requirements. Upon its
completion it would provide “feeder-roads” and “farm-to-market” roads
wherever they were most necessary; it would provide intra-county and
inter-county ties between communities, farm areas, industrial areas and
56
other locations requiring good Secondary Road transportation facilities,
and it would serve, regardless of county boundaries, as a feeder and
supplement to the Primary System.
One of the fallacies of the present policy is noteworthy. A major
portion of the Road Department's eighty per cent share of the Seventh
Cent Gas Tax and a good portion of the Department's eighty per cent
share of the Second Gas Tax is now being budgeted for Secondary Roads.
While such a policy may have been necessary to initiate the Secondary
program, the Road Department must recognize that any long continued
application of this policy will create a serious problem, due to the
lack of sufficient funds to improve properly the Primary System. It
must be remembered that the revenues from these sources must be al-
located to the counties on the formula basis previously described, which
element of itself makes difficult a coherent or logical development of the
Secondary System based on actual requirements.
It is felt that one of the major contributing factors to the present
undesirable features of Secondary Road planning exists in the Secondary
Roads Assistance Act. The Act is primarily a measure designed more
to relieve the counties of part of the financial burden of constructing and
maintaining local roads than an instrument to be used for developing a
State Secondary System. It is understandable that under this Act the
Seven-Point Policy Agreement was necessary to start the development
of the Secondary System including provision for matching funds for
Federal Aid Secondary allotments. However, the Road Department's in-
come is fixed and Second Gas Tax surplus funds used for this purpose
will not be available for Primary System needs.
Under present legislation and the resultant policies there will slowly
evolve an unconnected system of improved county roads serving iso-
lated needs. To provide for the proper development of the State Main-
tained System, the Secondary Roads Assistance Act should be amended
to the extent that a Secondary Road, its purpose and function, be clearly
defined and a selected system of county roads be designated from which
the Road Department would select Secondary Roads to the best advan-
tage of the individual county, as well as the state as a whole.
It is recommended that the Seventh Cent Gas Tax, as a separate
impost, be abolished, and the First Gas Tax increased from four to five
cents, thereby eliminating the present unwieldly distribution of Seventh
Cent Gas Tax funds. The Road Department could then be free to de-
velop the Secondary System according to good planning and in the
most economical and efficient way possible, while at the same time reliev-
ing the counties’ financial responsibilities by lessening the county road
57
mileage. Primary and Secondary Road expenditures would then be
made on a state-wide basis from the First Gas Tax, leaving the eighty
per cent surplus of the Second Gas Tax to be used for additional im-
provements most necessary to better the Primary and Secondary Systems
Within the individual counties.
Transfer of Some Primary Roads
to The Secondary Road System
There are 777 miles of Primary Roads which, in 1951, had daily
average traffic volumes less than 300 vehicles. This mileage is shown by
County, State Road number and road section number on Table XXI
which follows. Over 200 miles of these roads consist of feeder links and
minor alternates which are much more in the nature of Secondary, than
Primary Roads. In the interest of attaining a more closely defined line
between the Systems, consideration should be given to transferring this
approximate 200 miles to the Secondary Road System. This mileage
can be identified by a detailed review of the road sections given in the
table.
Transfer of Some County Roads
to The Primary Road System
In each county in Florida, with few exceptions, there are certain
important county roads which serve to augment the Primary System.
These roads total 1,445 miles for all counties and at present are admin-
istered and maintained by the respective counties. Due to the importance
Of the Service rendered by these county roads to local and state-wide
traffic movements, consideration should be given to their transfer to the
Primary System in a planned program over the next 20 years. The
following Table XXII shows the mileage by counties as of 1951 of these
important County Roads.
Speed Limits
Time and delay surveys were made on portions of the Primary Sys-
tem, as described earlier in this Report. The results showed that rela-
tively little congestion and delay were ordinarily experienced on rural
segments compared to the high degree of delay prevalent on urban links.
However, with the anticipated continuing increase in traffic volumes,
congestion will increase on both rural and urban portions of the System
unless the present deficiencies are progressively eliminated.

58
Table XXI
ROADS ON THE PRIMARY SYSTEM CARRYING LESS THAN
300 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
State Road Section State Road Section
No. No. Mileage No. No. Mileage
Alachua ...…~~~~ 234 2612 6,930 Indian River ........................... All over 300
241 2614 9.976 Jackson ....................….......... 69 5313 24.047
É #: ; Jefferson ..................................... 2š ::: 6.001
32 261 13,063 5 405 18.181
Baker All over 300 59 5406 11.995
Bay 388 4607 12.339 Lafayette … All over 300
Bradford ....................................... All Over 300 Lake 435 1103 1.712
Brevard … #: % § #. # #: §
1 009 13.780 €OIl J º
Broward .....................…. 823 8619 3.508 Levy All over 500
Calhoun … All Over 300 Liberty 67 5606 8.145
Charlotte … 31 01.03 18.228 Madison .......................................... 6 3502 8.093
77 5.315 Manatee ....................................... 683 1310 6.242
6 01.05 15.3 *
775 01.06 10.370 Marion All over 300
Clay 218 7112 13,021 Monroe … 94 9008 16.580
220 7114 4.288 Nassau 107 7405 3.599
e g 115 7407 5.138
Collier 846 0302 8.570
82 0305 8,021 Okaloosa * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 5710 9.431
92 0306 10i40 gºobee * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * All over }}
sº range 420 7516 14.135
Columbi * % #; Osceola … All Over 500
Olli Ill D13 ....................................... 18 2910 12037 Palm Beach .............................. 827 9324 6.926
Dade } }; 2541 % # #;
2 8716 11.552 e
DeSoto All Over 300 Pasco All Over 500
tº ſº Pinellas ............................…. All over 500
Dixie 51 3005 1.518
Duval 119 7218 5.313 E. ; ; ;
* utnam … º
Escambia 1; ; 1%; § ſº- * ... ſº 1447.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e s = ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * º t. tl C16 ....................................... Over
196 4809 ..., 5,007 Santa Rosa ................................. 87 5804 19.888
Flagler All over 500 or not State Sarasota 777 1706 8.060
maintained * > -- ~~~~~~~~~~ e
Franklin ....................................... 370 4902 10.999 Seminole ....................................... All Over 300
6; º; #3: $. * : {{#
Gadsden … 270 5013 8.375 11W a ſlilee .................................... &
Gilchrist … 47 3105 18.350 247 3708 10.699
Taylor 361 3805 17.224
Glades ſ: § #, 14 3810 10.301
18.4 ſº *
29 0509 12.460 Union ; ; 13%
Gulf All Over 300 18 3907 7.250
Hamilton ....................................... 135 3202 14,789 Volusia ............... |
O111S12. .................................. All over 500
º ; ; Wakulla ...................................... ; ; 2,727
* º 36 909 8.467
Hardee All over 500 Walton … 81 6010 17.902
Hendry … 832 0707 4,370 O 395 6011 1.450
Hernando ............................…. 476 08.10 10.954 185 6012 6.940
Highlands .................................... All over 300 2 6013 7.140
Hillsborough ........................... A11 Over 500 Washington .............................. 280 6109 10,875
Holmes … 181 5209 8.458 *-*
FLORIDA ............................... * * 777.419
59
Table XXII
MILEAGE OF IMPORTANT COUNTY ROADS AUGMENTING
THE STATE PRIMARY SYSTEM
AS OF 1951
County Miles County
Alachua 34.0 Lee
Baker 22.8 Leon
Bay 29.2 Levy
Bradford gººmsº Liberty
Brevard 51.2 Madison
Broward 60.2 Manatee
Calhoun 19.0 Marion
Charlotte 3.2 Martin
Citrus 13.0 Monroe
Clay 19.9 Nassau
Collier 2.5 Okaloosa
Columbia 7.5 Okeechobee
Dade 50.0 Orange
De Soto * Osceola
Dixie $Eº-º-º-º: Palm Beach
Duval 31.2 Pasco
Escambia 39.0 Pinellas
Flagler - Polk
Franklin 7.4 Putnam
Gadsden 23.9 St. Johns
Gilchrist *º St. Lucie
Glades 0.9 Santa Rosa
Gulf *sº Sarasota
Hamilton 23.5 Seminole
Hardee 15.1 Sumter
Hendry 21.6 Suwannee
Hernando 4.1 Taylor
Highlands 32.7 Union
Hillsborough 51.7 Volusia
Holmes 12.2 Wakulla
Indian River 29.0 Walton
Jackson 25.8 Washington
Jefferson 7.2
Lafayette gº-
Lake 3.2 ToTAL (State)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


60
The maximum lawful speed for the Primary and Secondary Systems
in rural areas for passenger vehicles is 60 miles per hour for day driving,
and 50 miles per hour for night driving. The limits for commercial
vehicles are 50 and 45 miles per hour, respectively. At some few locations
on rural portions of the System due to alignment deficiences and other
conditions considered hazardous, the advisory limits are below the lawful
limits. Florida does not have a legally defined speed limit. Reckless
driving at any speed is cause for arrest, but because of the difficulty of
proving that velocity in itself constitutes recklessness, few arrests for
that cause are made unless the driver is exceeding 70 miles per hour
during daylight hours, and somewhat less at night.
This condition sponsors higher speeds in rural areas than the lawful
limits allow. Of the total 752 motor vehicle accidents involving fatali-
ties in Florida during the year 1951, 253 occurred at speeds in excess of
the lawful speed limit. In an additional 28 fatal accidents the vehicle
was traveling at excessive speeds for that particular section of highway,
although not exceeding the lawful speed limit. Two hundred eleven of
the fatal accidents due to the driver’s exceeding the lawful limits occurred
on rural roads, also on rural roads 25 fatal accidents occurred at speeds
which although within the limits were excessive for the section of the
highway where the accident occurred.
Since the State Maintained System, consisting primarily of rural
roads, carries an estimated fifty-five per cent of all travel in the State
of Florida, there is clear indication that most of the fatal accidents due
to excessive speeds occur on either the State Primary or Secondary
System.
In the urban sections of the Primary System the posted speed limits
are generally 35 miles per hour in outlying areas, and 25 miles per hour
in the urban centers. School zones are posted for 10, 15 and sometimes
20 miles per hour. Local authorities are legally equipped to enforce speed
zone regulations more rigidly than the Highway Patrol can in the rural
Sections. In urban areas drivers are more inclined to Observe School Zone
restrictions and are further subject to delays at traffic lights, stop signs
and by the regular elements of urban congestion, thereby reducing the
likelihood of fatal accidents in these areas due to high speeds.
Consideration should be given to revising existing legislation to
broaden its intent so it will give the State Road Department the responsi-
bility for the determination, through traffic engineering studies, of safe
speed limits for every mile of the State Maintained System in both rural
and urban areas. Full and adequate enforcement power should be pro-
Vided to the Highway Patrol in this proposed legislation. All traffic con-
61
trol devices, including curb parking placed on the State Maintained Sys-
tem in both rural and urban areas, should be made legally subject to
approval by the Department. New installations should be approved be-
fore being placed.
During the course of the surveys for this Report it was noted that
many of the schools in both urban and rural communities throughout
Florida are constructed on the Primary System. This requires the in-
stallation of school zones, some of which are overly extensive on major
thoroughfares thus unnecessarily delaying traffic from 8 o’clock in the
morning until 4 o’clock in the afternoon on school days.
The modern tendency, which should be encouraged by the Road De-
partment, is to construct new schools at some distance, say, two to three
blocks, from major highways where more suitable land can be assembled
at lower cost, in locations removed from the noise of heavy traffic and
where zoning can prevent the encroachment of commercial and industrial
activity near the school. School crossings at major highways can then
be accomplished if necessary at a single traffic light, at a plainly marked
pedestrian crossing, which can be operated manually by the pupils or
police officers.
It has also been noted that there are extensive 25-mile and 35-mile-
per-hour zones through areas which are fundamentally rural in character.
In some instances these zones appear to have been created to serve minor
local commercial interests. Such restriction to traffic Seems unnecessary
and these zones should receive the review of the Road Department.
Roadway Shoulders
Before any primary highway can be considered fully adequate, its
shoulders must have sufficient width and stability. In this study of
Florida’s highways, the satisfactory results of the current program to
improve roadway shoulders have been noted. However, many miles of
the Primary System were found to present still a definitely hazardous
condition because the shoulders do not possess sufficient width or sup-
porting power. This program should be continued, and in setting up
the Sufficiency Rating System, it is recommended that the Road Depart-
ment assign a weight to highway shoulder improvements commensurate
with their importance.
On many of the Primary Roads the present condition is such that
if necessity requires a fast moving vehicle to veer off the road surface
it could hardly avoid being overturned due to shoulder instability and
62
in a great number of places would unavoidably catapult into the ad-
joining roadside drainage ditch because of insufficient shoulder width.
The remaining inadequate shoulders should be widened and stabilized in
conformance with the accepted standards. The design standards for
the National System of Interstate Highways and Primary Highways re-
quire that all shoulders in the U. S. Primary System should be provided
with adequate shoulders not less than ten feet or eight feet, respectively,
in width, so constructed to support adequately standing or disabled
vehicles.
A program of this kind will also give a driver the opportunity to
pull out of the traffic lane to change a tire or make emergency repairs,
thus removing a serious road hazard. It would act as a preventative,
particularly on narrow stretches of highway, against surface ravelling
at the edge of the pavement, a condition which is now prevalent and the
cause of costly maintenance.
Limited Access
Major highways throughout the country, as traffic volumes grow,
lose both safety and capacity, and hence, the faculty to provide adequate
traffic service because of the lack of control of access, particularly in
urban areas but also in the smaller communities that grow stringlike
along the highways, with commercial establishments offering to serve
the travelling public.
The design standards for the National System of Interstate High-
ways adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials
defines control of access for highways to mean the permission of access
to and from adjacent property at certain locations and for certain pur-
poses, and the permission of interchange with selected intersecting
streets and roads. The design standards provide that where state laws
permit, control of access shall be obtained on all new locations and on
all old locations wherever economically possible. A design with frontage
roads may be used for this purpose in those states which do not have
legal permission to acquire control of access. Additional right-of-way
should be obtained, adequate for the building of frontage roads connect-
ing with control access points if and when necessary.
It appears that the State Legislature has provided the Road Depart-
ment with adequate authority to designate limited access highways. It
is recommended that additional legislation be provided to designate the
recommended State Arterial System as finally determined by the Road
Department. This legislation should further provide that any future
63
improvements to the State Arterial System should contain provisions
for limited access features when determined advisable by the Road De-
partment. The law should specify that right-of-way for these improve-
ments either on old or new locations should be sufficient in all cases so
that the incorporation of these limited access features will not be
precluded.
There are additional features which should be incorporated in the
planning for the State Arterial System and for the Primary System
where required by traffic demands and where economically feasible.
These involve the elimination of cross traffic at grade and the elimina-
tion of railroad grade crossings.
According to the design standards for the Interstate System, cross
traffic at grade should be eliminated at locations where the anticipated
traffic volumes will be 3,000 vehicles per hour, based on the thirtieth
highest hour of the design year, generally taken twenty years from the
date of proposed construction of the improvement. For lower traffic
densities, cross traffic at grade shall be eliminated on the basis of an
economic analysis giving proper weight to traffic delay, traffic hazard,
and COnvenience.
With respect to the elimination of railroad grade crossings, the de-
sign standards Specify, where railroad operations involve two or more
main line tracks, or six or more train movements per day on a single
track, separation shall be provided regardless of traffic volume on the
Interstate Highway. Where the crossing involves five or less regular
train movements per day, grades should be separated when an economic
analysis indicates justification, proper weight being given to both hazard
and delay.
Urban Links of the State Primary System
Earlier in the Report it was stated that an analysis of the time and
delay studies showed that the more serious delays experienced on
Florida’s Primary Road System occur on the urban links. An efficient
and economical state-wide system of State Roads, particularly an arterial
system, cannot be obtained without adequate facilities within or around
urban Centers.
Florida’s urban problems in this respect are large and complex, re-
Quiring individual and comprehensive traffic and engineering studies
before any decisions on the most suitable type of improvement can be
made in any instance. Widening a city street is a much more difficult
64
and expensive operation than widening a rural road. Because of the
high property values and a variety of other conditions which contribute
to high cost, the improvement of existing links is very often unfeasible
and temporary relief can only be accomplished by the application of
modern traffic engineering principles such as the development of one-way
streets, removal of curb parking, etc. Recent rights-of-way purchases
in municipalities throughout the State show that average cost per project
may scale from a price of $1 per front foot to $170 per front foot. How-
ever, in some projects, this cost may be exceeded several times.
In small towns which bottleneck through arterial traffic a bypass
around the town may solve the problem. In larger cities, where the arte-
rial highway links must serve also as major traffic channels for suburban
areas and pass through the central business and shopping districts, the
only practical solution is the construction of limited access express high-
ways into and through the city.
The Jacksonville Expressway now under construction is a typical ex-
ample of the latter type improvement. A similar project is being formu-
lated for Miami. A tremendous amount of urban improvement through-
out Florida remains to be done and the sooner a comprehensive program
for work of this type is started, the sooner the State will attain a nearly
adequate system of highways. With consideration to the great deficiencies
in both the rural and urban sections of the Primary System and the large
amounts of money required to remove these deficiencies, and as expendi-
tures on the rural highways aid both the rural and urban areas, it is
recommended that the municipalities be required to make substantial
contributions from other than road user taxes to aid in the financing of
required urban improvements.
65
V. Observations and Recommendations Regarding the Florida
State Road Department Board Membership and Working
Staff.
Terms of Board Members
Later in this Report a method of highway appraisal which is suited
to good planning is recommended. However, despite the attributes of
any programming medium, it is rendered quite useless unless employed
consistently. The absence of continuity of policy has adversely affected
the Road Department's operation during past years, and if the condition
is not remedied, efficient, orderly, and economical development of the
State Highway System will not be attained.
Policy decisions rest with the State Road Department Board, which,
as described earlier, consists of five members, one from each of the Con-
gressional Districts as defined under the Reapportionment Act of 1937.
All members are appointed by the Governor, and their terms run con-
currently with his. A governor of the State of Florida cannot succeed
himself, so that every four years the incumbent Board members are
retired and replaced by an entirely new group. This creates a situation
which has two intrinsic weaknesses — first, major policy changes follow-
ing each election are inevitable, thereby cancelling any chance of pro-
gram continuity, and, second, all five incoming members frequently have
had little or no previous experience in the public highway field, and
together must start learning from first principles.
In the interests of uninterrupted basic policy and board experience,
the State Legislature should take steps to institute a staggered system
of appointment. The Board would continue to be appointed by the
Governor, and the membership would remain at five, but to assure
experienced membership and continuity of planning, each member should
be appointed for a five-year term, the appointments to be such that each
year one Board membership would become vacant, to be filled by a new
appointee. Meetings should be scheduled sufficiently often to assure full
and prompt coverage of all current business. At the first meeting in
each year a chairman would be elected to preside at all meetings held
during the succeeding twelve months.

66
Highway Director
At the present time, the Chairman of the Road Department Board
is not only a member of the policy group, but is responsible for the ad-
ministration of the Department. The overall operation could be im-
proved if a new position were created which would give the Department
an administrative head other than the Chairman Who Would serve full
time on a salary basis. This position should carry a sufficient salary
to guarantee to the State a first-class, experienced highway engineer
or executive who would serve as a career man and be fully responsible
for all details of administration. He would serve directly under the
Board and receive his policy instructions from the Board. It is suggested
that the five highway districts be retained as they now exist, since as
administrative subdivisions they serve their particular function well.
Tenure of Employment
Another inherent weakness now existing in the Road Department
organization is brought about by the fact that Department employees
have no civil service tenure. They participate in the State Retirement
Plan, but have no firm guarantee of continuing employment. It is recom-
mended that necessary steps be taken to give all employees of the
Department civil service status with definite assurances of employment,
and that vacancies be filled by examination so that the best talent pos-
sible may be acquired. Hand in hand with this is the matter of salaries.
State Road Departments throughout the United States are noted for the
low salaries which they pay their personnel, and Florida is not an
exception. This, of course, is a very short-sighted policy. Due to the
inducements offered by private businesses, good engineers and competent
office personnel are becoming scarcer each day, and in order to maintain
an efficient staff, adequate salaries will have to be paid. This matter
should receive full consideration by those responsible for the Road De-
partment working staff.
Highway Planning
The revenue and expenditure figures developed in this Report make
it quite evident that road building is a big business — the largest, in fact,
of any other single function of the Florida State Government. Because
of the very large expenditures involved, we cannot emphasize too greatly
the importance of planning highway work in a manner which will assure
the best possible returns to the State as a whole for the money invested.
67
This efficiency can be attained only by good programming and ignoring
influences which cause roads to be built where they are not needed, or
improvements to existing roads to be made which are not warranted by
actual requirements. A study of the Primary and Secondary Systems
leaves no doubt that in some instances roads have been acquired, con-
structed or improved by the State without sufficient justification.
Proper policy measures on the part of the Road Board can eliminate
such inefficiencies, but to guide them properly in their considerations and
decisions, the members should rely more on modern planning procedures.
Administration of Toll Facilities
The State Road Department is assuming jurisdiction over an increas-
ing number of toll road and toll bridge projects. There are many im-
portant administrative and supervisory problems involved in the success-
ful planning, construction, Operation, and maintenance of these revenue
producing facilities. The Department usually constructs these projects
as an agent for the Florida State Improvement Commission, or other
public body or authority, which issues revenue bonds and then leases
the facilities for operation to the Road Department until the bonds are
retired from the proceeds of the toll and other income.
These toll facilities include the Overseas Highway; the Buccaneer
Trail; two bridges at Pensacola, which are presently operated; the
Jacksonville Bridges, the Lower Tampa Bay Bridge, which are under
construction; and the revenue projects being planned in Broward,
Manatee, Martin, Sarasota, and other Counties.
It is recommended that a new Division of the State Road Depart-
ment be set up to COOrdinate these toll projects. In this Division would
be concentrated, under one central control, the functions necessary for
the proper administration of all toll projects. It is not expected that
the new Division would assume any of the fiscal functions of the State
Board of Administration, or of the State Improvement Commission.
The head of the new division would have the title of Director of
Special Projects, or Revenue Projects Director, and would report
directly to the Director of Highways. He should be a capable, well
trained engineer or executive experienced in the operation of revenue
projects and supplied with an adequate staff.





68
General Observations
The Road Department would be benefited by the institution of a
well-planned cost accounting system which would provide rapid and
accurate costs according to classification of expenditure. The informa-
tion thus provided would be of extreme help to the various Divisions
within the Department in their planning, and would be of definite aid
in the preparation of Road Department budgets.
The Holland Building, the State Road Department's central admin-
istration office, located in Tallahassee, is a well-designed structure pro-
viding excellent working conditions. However, since road construction
and improvement activities can be expected to increase in tempo during
the coming years, thus requiring a larger staff, a problem of adequate
working space will shortly develop. Consideration should be given now
to the planning of extra space to avoid the overcrowded conditions which
can be expected to occur in the present building.
During the preparation of this Report the various functions which
the administration of a large State System of Roads entails was closely
observed. It was found that the Department's Divisions are now
staffed with competent personnel. Both the central and the field offices
handle their responsibilities efficiently.
69
VI. Estimate of Total Cost to Develop the Florida State Main-
tained Road System to Adequate Standards During the
Period 1953-1972 and Comparison to Anticipated Revenue
for the Same Period. Shortcomings of the Present Priority
System and the Recommendations for its Replacement.
Primary Road Standards
The Florida State Road Department has adopted a set of design
standards suitable to the topography, soil conditions, climate, traffic
volumes, allowable speeds, and other related conditions peculiar to the
State. These standards conform basically with those of the American
Association of State Highway Officials and are adequate for the State's
requirements in all major respects. Plate I and Plate II, which follow,
show the geometric designs established for Primary System roads in
rural and urban areas. Variations of these are used in some instances
where state roads pass through settlements. Table XXIII lists the basic
engineering standards used in conjunction with the established geomet-
ric designs.
Recorded Deficiencies
The Road Department has divided the Primary System into road
Sections and subdivisions thereof and for each subsection maintains
detailed records of length, pavement width and type, surface conditions,
traffic volumes, deficiencies, improvements required, and other related
information. Similar current information is kept for bridges in the
System. Sufficient field checks were made to determine that the Depart-
ment's records conform substantially with actual road and bridge con-
ditions and that recorded desired improvements are in accordance with
established standards.
However, considerable portions of the Primary System are not
listed as requiring Work within the next 20 years. These portions include
not only recently-improved subsections, which might logically be omitted
on the basis that they have an anticipated twenty-year life, but also in-
clude parts of the System ten or more years old which, under normal
conditions, can be expected to deteriorate or become obsolete before the
expiration of another twenty years. In the final development of esti-
mated costs of improvements during the period 1953-1972, cognizance
was made of this factor, as detailed later in the Report.

70
| PLATE I
loo' Rig HT of way, M IN MUM - 2 oo' DESI RABLE
STAN DAR D C L E A R N G AND G R U B B | N G
| I'-6" 9' —l- | 2' 12' -1– 8'
SELECTIVE CLEARING |
Tº GRUBB | NG SLOPE I/8"|TO !' FOR SMOOTH SURFACE
*-*. SLOPE I/4"|To I' FOR OTHER SURFACES
º FOR F | LLS
SELECTIVE CLEARING
ano onveens - D7 -
U P TO 6' 3/4"TO %
2–zºtz.2%
6" Ż Z% Ø 6"
\ 2 | < 24
6 9 / ſ 4 o' STABILIZED — OR AS REQUIRED FOR
\
<Q FOR FILLS PRO PER D RAI NAGE
zºº/Sy/sw & / 6' TO O'
ox
U277&RS772SZZZSS7 4& FOR F | LLS
*/~ over to:
STANDARD CROSS SECTION FOR RURAL ROADS
e o' RIGHT OF waY, M N MUM - |
std, clearing STD, CLEAR i NG T
(and enveene STAN DAR D C L E A R N G A N D G R U B B | N G and causeng
*2.
|-- º | 32' MIN. + 32' M I N. —— y --
t SELECTIVE CLEARING SELECTIVE CLEARING
t AND GRU B B | NG PARABO Li C crown) AND GRUB B | NG
1/4"TO I' 1/2"To
CONC, SIDE WALK ºzzº
12'
| TA B | LI Z STORM sewer
| STA B | LI Z E D - Cº. REQ'D.
STANDARD CROSS SECTION FOR URBAN ROADS
:
CONC, S DEWALK
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
GEOM ETR |C DESIGNS FOR PRIMARY ROADS
AVERAGE DA|LY TRAFFIC
VOLUMES OF 1,000 TO 5,OOO
J U LY / 952
PAR SONS, BR NCKE RHOF F, HALL 8 MAC DONALD











ENGIN E E RS NEW YORK
| PLATE II
|- 4– 2OO' RIGHT OF WAY, MINIMUM L/ à-
|-- A /*
& t g º
| __*. 8 –L 24 – 8 - 7 - 7 - 8 24 8
l 3'-6" FOR -- MIN. MIN.
F. I. SYSTEM i
1 –, SLOPE FOR ORAIN AGE |
F9R FILLs t it. ." st
6 TO |O 3/4.) 1/8": 3/4" | 3/4.) 1/8": I' 3/4". I'
FOR FILLS tº * New Yº t? it. tº 6 : º N
Už"Toº 6 |2 6 N 6 12 6 : / & sº
^
6%) g N. ſº
• \ / _* 4 O STAB I L I ZED - 4 O. STA B | LIZED iº-
\ \\\y//, A : / —l F- OR A: §§§hed
FOR PRO PER
ax. F9R fills STAGE CONSTRUCTION D R A IN AGE
z OVER IO
• * * *ry a w NOTE - CONST. GUARD RAIL WHERE
SLOPES ARE STEEPER THAN 4. |
STANDARD CROSS SECTION FOR RURAL ROADS
|OO' RIGHT OF WAY, MINIMUM
ROUGH E NED SURFACE OR
21 CŞNiñºg COLOR
8 L 10 – 12 – 12 2' | 2 12 – 12 – 10'-
M | N. ſ T T ---- -I- —m-
I
43. . |
PARABOL IC crown-v
CONC. ZZZZZZ
SIDE WALK |- 12
.
74' STABILIZED
. . " 1/4". I
1/2" . I a- - " - " - tº
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ zº CO
:
NC.
SIDEWALK
F- - STORM SEWERS
WHERE REQUIRED
STANDARD CROSS SECTION FOR URBAN ROADS
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
GEOM ET R | C D ESI GNS
FO R P R | MARY ROADS
AVERAGE DA ||LY TRAFFIC
vol_UMES OF 5,000 To 15,000
J&J / Y /952
PARSONS , BRINCKER HOF F, HALL 8 MAC DOMA LD






ENG IN E E RS
NEW YORK
Table XXIII
BASIC ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR PRIMARY ROADS
z-RURAL ROADS-N
Average Daily Traffic
z-URBAN ROADS-N
Average Daily Traffic
z-RURAL ROADS–S
Average Daily Traffic
z-U RBAN ROADS-N
Average Daily Traffic
ITEM 1,000 - 5,000 1,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 15,000 5,000 - 15,000
1. DESIGN SPEED ................................. 75 Miles Per Hour. 30 Miles Per Hour. 75 Miles Per Hour. 30 Miles Per Hour.
2. MAXIMUM GRADIENT............ 5 Per Cent. 5 Per Cent. 3 Per Cent. 5 Per Cent.
Bottom of Base 2 feet above
high water.
Bottom of Base 2 feet above
high water.
Bottom of Base 2 feet above
high water.
Bottom of Base 2 feet above
high water.
4. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES...
Concrete Bridges, Concrete
Box Culverts.
Drop Inlets, Manholes, Pipe.
Concrete Bridges, Concrete
Box Culverts.
Drop Inlets, Manholes, Pipes.
5. STABILIZATION .............................
50 Lbs. per Sq. In. for 12 in.
below pavement. Shoulder
Stabilization 50 Lbs. Per Sq.
In., 6 In. Deep.
50 Lbs. Per Sq. In. for 12 in.
below pavement.
50 Lbs. Per Sq. In. for 12 in.
below pavement. Shoulders
50 Lbs. Per Sq. In.
50 Lbs. Per Sq. In. for 12 in.
below pavement.
6. PAVEMENT THICKNESS...
7 in. minimum for Concrete.
8 in. minimum for flexible
types.
7 in. minimum for Concrete.
8 in. minimum for flexible
types.
8 in. minimum.
8 in. minimum.
7. PAVEMENT Medium or High Type. Medium or High Type. High Type. High Type.
8. SURFACING Medium or High Type. Medium or High Type. High Type. High Type.
9. MAXIMUM CURVATURE. 3 Degrees. 5 Degrees. 2 Degrees. 2 Degrees.
10. M I N I M U M P A S S I N G
SIGHT DISTANCE...........................
11. MINIMUM NON-PASSING
2100 Feet (at 60 miles per
hour).
2100 Feet (at 60 miles per
hour). -
SIGHT DISTANCE........................... 675 Feet. 675 Feet.
12. BRIDGE DESIGN LOAD-
ING H-20. H-20.
13. BRIDGE WIDTHS.............................. Roadway Pavement Width. Roadway Pavement Width
plus 4 feet. plus 4 feet.
NOTE: These are State Standards. Compliance with National Interstate Standards is required on Interstate Sections.
º
The Department has assigned each of the recorded deficiencies to
one of three work priorities depending on its urgency. Essentially, road
or bridge deficiencies with a First Priority rating are considered to be
of a critical nature requiring correction at least within three years.
Typical examples of required betterments in the First Priority class are
cases where the road pavement is in poor condition, the road too narrow
for present traffic volumes, pavement type too low for today’s volume
and type of traffic, or a combination of these and related chronic con-
ditions. Bridges with road widths too narrow, having poor structural
condition, or having a width less than adjoining road pavements, are
also examples of First Priority items.
Deficiencies assigned to the Second Priority group are those which
may be defered beyond three years, but which require correction at
least within ten years. An instance of a Second Priority item would be
a stretch of road now in good condition but which, due to anticipated
future traffic increases, will require widening within the next ten years.
Another example would be a section of road constructed several years
ago with a surface still in tolerable condition, but because of age can
be expected to deteriorate to a point where it will require retreading or
other work before the expiration of the decade.
Third Priority deficiencies include work which does not fall within
the First or Second Priorities but which will be required before the end
of the next twenty-year period. Instances of such improvements would
be similar in nature to the Second Priority group, except that the pave-
ment has a longer life expectancy or future traffic increases are not
expected to be great enough within the next ten or fifteen years to re-
Quire betterment before that time.
First Priority items are determined by use of an Inadequacy Rating
Chart. This chart is based on a relationship between established stand-
ards and traffic volumes, roadway width and alignment, pavement type,
and other factors. The Inadequacy Rating does not determine the ur-
gency of an improvement compared to other items within the priority
group, but rather determines the necessity of assigning the betterment
to the First Priority category. No such ratings are used in determining
Second and Third Priority work; these decisions are more or less of an
arbitrary nature based on the experience and knowledge of the Depart-
ment engineers.
Following is a list of desired road improvements now used for all
Priorities :
Relocate on a new location.
Reconstruct on an existing location.
Apply surfacing on an existing grade.
Reconstruct and Widen.
Widen only.
Widen and retread entire width.
Retread existing width.
Add two new lanes.
Reconstruct to the Same Width.
1.
0.
Improve alignment by reducing excessive curves.
11. Reconstruct, widen, and improve alignment.
Desired bridge improvements are assigned to the following
categories:
Replace with concrete.
Replace with timber.
Widen.
Replace movable span.
:
Install a new structure.
A study of the units costs used for estimating purposes by the De-
partment showed that a revision was necessary. This was done by ex-
aming recent, representative contract bids tendered to the Department
for road and bridge construction. The revised unit costs were then ap-
plied to each recorded improvement desired. In developing the estimates
for the elimination of deficiencies, an additional step was taken.
In determining priorities, particularly Second and Third Priorities,
consideration is given by the Road Department to future traffic require-
ments. The Department bases its planning on recent counts of twenty-
four-hour traffic for season of maximum volumes expanded by an aver-
age state-wide factor of 1.7 to project traffic volumes twenty years hence.
This factor has been adopted on the basis of trends in population, gaso-
line consumption, and other related items.
73
In the review of the Department's projections, the available average
daily traffic volume figures were analyzed, as these records are the basis
of the established standards. The entire Primary System was divided
into representative segments and traffic was projected on the basis of
past records, local influence and other contributing circumstances. Traf-
fic increases developed in this manner were found to vary substantially
from segment to segment. The mean of the increases for all segments,
however, was only slightly higher than the 1.7 factor used by the De-
partment. The average daily volume projections, when compared to the
season of maximum traffic volume projections which had been developed
by the Road Department, proved to be sufficiently in agreement in the
case of all subsections having deficiences that the Department's fore-
casts of required widths, surface types, and other physical features were
used.
Estimated Improvement and
Expansion Costs for the State Maintained System
Summaries of estimated expenditures required to improve, expand,
and maintain the Florida State Maintained System of Highways during
the next twenty years, are shown in the tables following. Table XXVI
gives the estimated costs for the period 1953-1972 according to counties
and Table XXVII, according to years. In order to develop properly
these estimates, a study of future highway requirements of each indi-
vidual county for the next twenty years was made. In this analysis all
factors which normally contribute to highway growth were carefully
considered. Urban requirements and rural requirements, since they are
different in nature, were analyzed separately. In making this study
there was considered two basic factors; first, the estimated costs of
eliminating existing and anticipated deficiencies on existing state roads
and second the probable mileage increases in both the Primary and
Secondary Systems and their cost of construction.
As already described, the State Road Department maintains a
record of deficiencies on State roads. This record, however, does not
include the Secondary System. As a result of the analysis, it was found
also that improvements over and above those recorded by the State Road
Department will be required by the Primary System during the next
twenty years. The following paragraphs give a description of the
methods by which the final estimates were developed. The cost of exist-
ing recorded deficiencies, additional improvement costs not anticipated
by the Department, and costs of expanding the Primary and Secondary
Systems are shown in appropriate columns.


Recorded Improvement Costs
The result of the study of the Department's deficiency records as
shown in Tables XXIV and XXV, indicate that as of November 1, 1951,
there were 1,657.2 miles of First Priority work needed on Primary Sys-
tem roads and bridges requiring an estimated expenditure of $253,326,-
000; Second Priority work amounted to an estimated $110,774,000 for
the improvement of 3,135.9 miles of roads and bridges; and Third Prior-
ity work effecting 3,513.5 miles of roads and bridges amounted to an
estimated $66,766,000. This represents 8,306.6 miles of road and bridge
work required to be done within twenty years at a total cost of $430,-
866,000. The 8,306.6 miles scheduled for improvement is a gross figure
since under the Priority System now in effect there are numerous cases
where one type of work for a particular subsection, widening as an
example, is considered a First Priority item, while retreading for the
same subsection is deferred to a later priority. The $430,866,000 figure
is actually the estimated cost of eliminating recorded deficiencies on a
net of 7,748.2 miles of the Primary System.
A considerable amount of improvement work will have been ac-
complished in the fourteen months between November 1, 1951, the date
of the records made available to us by the Road Department, and
January 1, 1953, the starting point of the proposed twenty-year program.
This required an adjustment of the cost figure in order to bring them
up to the date of the beginning of the proposed program. Since First
Priority betterments are considered to be of a critical nature, therefore
requiring prior attention, it can be considered that Department funds
expended during the fourteen months will have been applied to deficien-
cies in this category. To bring the estimated cost requirements for the
First Priority work up to date as of December 31, 1952, the following
procedure was followed:
Estimated Improvement Costs Outstanding as of October
31, 1951 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $253,326,000
Actual Improvement Expenditures on the
Primary System. During the Period Oc-
tober 1-December 31, 1951. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12,512,000
Budgeted Primary System Improvement Ex-
penditures for the Period January 1-De-
cember 31, 1952. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,842,000* 81,354,000
First Priority Improvements Outstanding as of December
31, 1952. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $171,972,000*
* Since, for the purpose of flexibility and maximum utilization of yearly
revenues, it is the practice of the Department to include in the budget each
year more projects than can be covered by the anticipated revenues, the actual
First Priority improvements outstanding at the end of 1952 will be somewhat
in excess of $171,972,000.
75
Desired
Improvement
Relocation
New Construction on Existing
Location
Surface Existing Grade..........................
Reconstruct and Widen.........................
Widen Only
Widen and Retread Entire Width
Retread
Additional Two Lanes.............................
Reconstruct to Same Width..............
Reduce Excessive Curves....................
Reconstruct Width and Improve
Alignment
TOTAL–Rural Roads..............
Desired
Improvement
Relocation
New Construction on Existing
Location
Surface Existing Grade..........................
Reconstruct and Widen..........................
Widen Only
Widen and Retread Entire Width
Retread
Additional Two Lanes.............................
Reconstruct to Same Width..............
TOTAL–Urban Roads............
Desired
Improvement
Replace with Concrete.............................
Replace with Timber.................................
Widen
Replace Draw
New Structure
TOTAL–Rural Bridges..........
Desired
Improvement
Replace with Concrete.............................
Replace with Timber.................................
Widen
Replace Draw
New Structure
TOTAL–Urban Bridges........
Class
Rural Roads
Urban Roads
Rural Bridges
Urban Bridges
GRAND TOTALS...................
Table XXIV
ESTIMATED COST OF ELIMINATING RECORDED EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED
DEFICIENCIES IN THE PRIMARY SYSTEM AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 1951
LISTED ACCORDING TO IMPROVEMENTS DESIRED AND PRIORITY
RURAL ROADS
URBAN ROADS
RURAL BRIDGES
URBAN BRIDGES
2– First Priority —
Cost Miles
$10,707,384 75.548
25,050,397 179.872
1,621,970 44.501
7,440,960 392.420
4,822,403 35.864
4,426,380 132.272
962,582 99.510
30,244,700 262.332
812,840 10.100
$86,089,616 1,232.419
~- First Priority —
Cost Miles
$22,561,923 54.550
51,480,144 98.578
215,160 1.727
601,174 25.847
17,559,035 95.645
10,091.496 69.269
149,469 9.794
4,136,983 42,021
138,304 3.09.4
$106,933,688 400.525
2– First Priority —
Cost Miles
$24,716,460 15.40
883,526 0.90
3,305,315 2.64
11,520,700 0.65
2,370,680 0.86
$42,796,681 20.45
2– First Priority —
Cost Miles
$ 6,554,880 2.02
3,698,191 1.19
6,020,800 0.19
1,232,640 0.36
$17,506,511 376
T O T
~- First Priority —
Cost Miles
$ 86,089,616 1,232.419
106,933,688 400.525
42,796,681 20.450
17,506,511 3.760
$253,326,496 1,657.154
A L S
r— Second Priority—
Cost Miles
$10,429,140 55.374
7,217,725 93.464
237,803 13.102
18,519,105 996.190
254,818 13.799
6,937,869 261.502
11,457,265 1,223.286
22,979,455 196.992
475,489 12.649
461,265 6.0
133,000 6.274
$79,102,934 2,878.632
a-Second Priority —
Cost Miles
$ 643,009 3.323
2,634,100 9.893
1,044,049 46.945
2,464,833 19,890
2,275,650 37.251
1,567,342 103.759
2,508,936 25.246
16,927 .325
$13,154,846 246.632
r— Second Priority –
Cost Miles
$ 7,898,720 5.34
2,759,535 2.70
1,376,995 1.56
3,521,600 0.25
73,360 O.06
$15,630,210 9.91
2- Second Priority —
Cost Miles
$ 1,314,960 0.47
747,390 0.23
823,200 0.03
$ 2,885,550 0.73
a-Second Priority—
Cost Miles
$ 79,102,934 2,878.632
13,154,846 246.632
15,630,210 9,910
2,885,550 0.730
$110,773,540 3,135.904
-Third Priority—
Cost Miles
$ 810,797 5.555
1,049,741 54.559
124,492 2.737
8,697,605 224.046
27,560,616 2,758.402
12,736,692 114,408
868,963 15.948
$51,848,906 3,175.655
~-Third Priority—
Cost Miles
$ 681,003 2.380
164,882 7.540
719,937 4.779
2,138,920 34.088
3,988,208 278.362
640,225 6.799
$ 8,333,175 333.948
r–Third Priority—
Cost Miles
$ 2,758,840 1.97
627,068 0.62
282,210 0.22
2,385,600 0.13
326,040 0.12
$ 6,379,758 3.06
r—Third Priority—
Cost Miles
$ 43,269 0.32
161,280 0.48
$ 204,549 0.80
r—Third Priority—
Cost Miles
$51,848,906 3,175.655
8,333,175 333.948
6,379,759 3.060
204,549 0.800
$66,766,389 3,513.463
Table XXV
ESTIMATED COST OF ELIMINATING RECORDED EXISTING AND ANTICIPATED DEFICIENCIES
IN THE PRIMARY SYSTEM AS OF NOVEMEER 1, 1951
LISTED ACCORDING TO HIGHWAY DISTRICTS AND PRIORITIES
Highway ~-1st Priority— 2–2nd Priority— 2–3rd Priority— r—Total for All 3 Priorities—
District Cost Miles Cost Miles Cost Miles Cost Miles
! ~~~~ $ 58,738,481 424,296 $ 26,928,407 505.851 $14,365,317 744.661 $100,032,205 1,674,808
s 2 …~~~~ 24,319,532 204.841 18,064,619 631.120 13,208,438 765.683 55,592,589 1914.
3 ~~~~ 33,489,035 187.364 15,381,401 738.952 12,239,369 846.839 61,109,805 1,773.155
4 …~~~~ 79,785,514 428,631 15,586,988 339.441 9,093,808 470.025 104,466,310 - 1,238,097
5 …~~ 56,993,934 412.022 34,812,125 920.540 17,859,457 686.255 109,665,516 2,018,817
TOTAL.................. $253,326,496 1,657.154 $110,773,540 3,135.904 $66,766,389 3,513.463 $430,866,425 8,306521
NOTE: Cost and mileage figures include both road and bridge improvements. The 8,306.521 mile figure is a gross
total, including duplications amounting to 558.3 miles due to different types work being planned for the
same subsections of road but placed in different priorities. -
If the Priority Schedule is to be kept, $57,324,000 will be required
each year for the next three years for the elimination of recorded First
Priority deficiencies. Recorded Second Priority deficiencies will require
$15,825,000 annually for each of the following seven years, and Third
Priority deficiency eliminations will require $6,677,000 annually for the
succeeding ten years.
Additional Costs
The county by county analysis of highway requirements revealed
that the above amounts fall far short of total Primary System cost
requirements for the period 1953-1972. In order to accommodate the
rapid growth and development which, by all indications, will occur in
the next twenty years, it can be confidently expected that additional
mileage will have to be added to the Primary System and that a con-
siderable number of existing road miles in excess of the present schedule
will require widening to four lanes. The county analysis of the historical
trends of population, motor fuel consumption, motor vehicle ownership
and agricultural, commercial, business, and related activities and poten-
tials provided the basis upon which were computed the estimated costs
of providing these additional improvements.
In addition, as previously mentioned, the existing priority program
does not include all sections of the Primary System. By January 1, 1953
there will be 1,780 miles in the network having no recorded deficiencies.
Considering the average road to have a life of twenty years, this mileage
can be expected to require improvement work of some type before 1972.
The average weighted cost of eliminating all recorded deficiencies
amounts to $51,890 per mile, which unit cost was applied to the mile-
age not now recorded and distributed over the period 1953-1972 on the
basis of the date of last improvement.
Although the deficiencies as recorded by the State Road Department
include the widening and improvement of existing urban links, it will
be necessary in many instances to construct bypasses and expressways
around or through rapidly growing communities in order to relieve the
congestion which seriously delays all traffic. Also, many miles of the
Primary System, both urban and rural, should be provided with adequate
shoulders, limited access features including complete grade separation,
and railroad grade crossing elimination. These types of improvements
are costly but are imperative, and any forecast which omits these types
of expenditures would be unrealistic.

78
The Secondary System was considered separately from the Primary
System and also analyzed on a county by county basis. The existing
State Road Department policy that there will eventually be a total of
10,000 miles of Secondary Roads throughout the State was accepted. The
yearly increments were established on the basis of the county by county
estimate of road requirements. Since it is apparent that the county
roads, which will be absorbed in the Secondary System, will require al
most complete reconstruction, a new construction cost for a composite
mile of typical road of this type has been applied. This cost was com-
puted in the following manner:
Rural Type Road—Standard Section, two 10-foot lanes, rock
base, 6 inch surface treated, 6 foot shoulders sprigged,
standard slopes and back slopes. Estimated costs per miles
exclusive of rightS-Of-Way Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 37,500
Urban Type Roads Running Through Settlements—Standard
Section, two 12 foot lanes, 8 foot parking both sides, 1 inch
asphalt concrete on 6 inch rock base, stabilized pathway or
concrete sidewalk, side slopes grassed. Estimated costs per
mile exclusive of rights-of-way costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $291,700
Bridges—Standard 24 foot width, concrete, unit cost per
lineal foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 240
Assuming Secondary Road mileage will be 10,000 miles by 1972,
then :
Total miles at end of program. . . . . . . . 10,000 miles
Total miles at end of 1952. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,757 miles
Miles to be completed in the period 1953-1972. . . . . . . . 8,243 miles
Assume 1% of total will be bridge
mileage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 miles
Assume 2% of total will be urban
mileage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 miles 247 miles
Assume balance to be rural mileage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,996 miles
Then:
Total cost of developing bridge mileage. . . . . . . . . . . . $103,910,000
Total cost of developing urban mileage. . . . . . . . . . . . 48,130,000
Total cost of developing rural mileage. . . . . . . . . . . . . 299,850,000
Grand total cost to complete this system. . . . . . . . . . $451,890,000
Cost of composite mile = $451,890,000 $54,820
8,243
79
Maintenance Costs
Primary Road maintenance costs were based on the number of total
miles, both of two-lane and four-lane, estimated to comprise the System
each year, and unit costs for the upkeep for both types. From an analy-
sis of the Road Department's records of maintenance expenditures dur-
ing recent years, there were developed annual unit costs of $900 per
mile for a typical two-lane road; $1,650 per mile for a four-lane divided
type highway, and $1,440 per mile for a four-lane undivided road. By
applying these costs to the mileage forecasts, the total annual expendi-
tures for maintenance of the Primary System were computed.
Since the Secondary System was not established until 1949, past
experiences do not furnish enough information on which to base a direct
and conclusive estimate for this type of road maintenance. Primary
Road Maintenance Costs instead were used as the basis for developing a
Secondary Road Maintenance Unit Cost. This unit cost is $500 per mile
which is $90 per mile, more than the actual 1951 actual maintenance
figure for Secondary Roads. The higher amount was used in considera-
tion of the fact that the majority of existing roads in the Secondary
System were not more than two years old and the effect of weather and
Wear are not yet being felt to any appreciable extent.
Administrative and Other Costs
For the period 1948-1952, the State Road Department's average costs
of administration amounted to 4 percent of the total annual construc.
tion, improvement, and maintenance expenditures. If the recommenda-
tions made in this report are adopted, this 4 percent will not be sufficient,
and therefore 5 percent has been used in making these estimates.
The equipment, new building, and other costs are difficult to fore-
cast. The amount of new building, especially state institutions, that will
be required to be financed by the State Road Department funds during
any particular year is unpredictable. Therefore, estimates of future costs
in these categories are based on expenditures made in very recent years
increased by the anticipated percentage increases in State Road mileage.

80
Table
ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COST TO DEVELOP THE FLORIDA STATE MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM TO ADEQUATE STANDARDS
FOR ROAD PURPOSES FOR THE SAME PERIOD
P R I M A R Y
S Y S T E M
Est. Additional Est. Additional
Total Total Urban Costs Rural Costs
Total Total Four-Lane Four-Lane 1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority New Unrecorded Not Included Not Include Main-
Road Two-Lane Undivided Divided Improvement Improvement Improvement Mileage Improvement in S. R. D. in S. R. D. tenance
COUNTY Mileage Mileage Mileage Mileage Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Estimate Estimate Costs
Alachua 296.611 278.856 15.958 1.797 $ 1,641,130 $ 2,136,400 $ 1,357,000 $ 1,863,988 $ 1,804,006 $ 1,106,533 $ 80,448 5,175,786
Baker 80.196 76.346 3.850 *- 266,000 3,000 1,249,732 549,158 1,088,053 1,202,613
Bay 206.113 185,600 1.906 18.607 1,597,535 1,572,200 742,000 1,600,576 1,831,451 1,645,935 2,157,258 3,663,253
Bradford 104.838 83.622 1.156 20.060 871,297 783,300 1,126,000 1,051,441 900,000 8,276,751 1,893,868
Brevard 307.351 239,025 2.400 65.926 5,169,376 4,498,200 2,808,000 2,806,784 458,077 2,104,801 3,613,670 5,896,220
Broward 233.238 167.566 22. 135 43.537 8,023,296 5,173,000 2,792,000 3,307,839 1,436,107 10,439,134 8,926,618 4,764,435
Calhoun 123.512 122,153 1.294 .065 569,100 296,000 1,041,416 2,096,772 ,988 361,083 2,040,946
Charlotte 77.391 71.754 5.637 *m. --- 1,186,560 897,829 175,641 370,047 424,366 1,698,548 1,418,441
Citrus 126.035 124,928 -* 1.107 -sm- 411,600 1,441,000 712,716 291,256 321,755 1,792,635 2,143,336
Clay 160.071 149.895 .534 9.642 896,000 630,000 1,090,916 1,144,333 222,927 846,444 2,796,489
Collier 162,045 157.907 4.138 * 954,445 1,124,200 1,115,000 137,104 993,897 141,563 2,028,123 2,935,069
Columbia 159.886 157.454 - 2.432 476,258 896,000 406,000 411,259 1,254,598 552,081 1,160,107 2,841,959
Dade 269.413 160.226 58.093 51.094 30,667,641 1,118,600 1,726,000 2,740,449 1,640,611 325,965,370 56,686,220 4,449,429
De Soto 77.638 77.638 *- 166,585 934,500 372,000 382,268 318,511 1,169,636 1,397,484
Dixie 51.622 51.622 - -*- 414,400 330,000 1,373,527 100,609 640,500 948,200
I)uval 231.493 145.784 23.488 62.221 3,580,815 2,434,600 3,083,000 1,710,509 3,732,707 15,936,999 43,167,334 4,719,966
Escambia 226.363 195.030 16.834 14,499 7,189,811 1,234,800 1,193,000 2,137,705 2,179,504 1,920,307 7,318,796 4,046,091
Flagler 85.961 74.105 - 11.856 1,377,800 1,756,000 123,862 2,100,365 15,132,100 1,686,685
Franklin 122.281 122.211 - 0.070 641,200 622,000 405,668 2,108,553 56,744 308,838 2,125,508
Gadsden 160.586 155.386 2.809 2.391 662,378 717,500 820,000 1,310,197 991,568 550,573 665,045 2,696,954
Gilchrist 71.936 71.936 tº- *- -º-º- 368,900 173,000 2,740,889 1,840,690 1,294,848
Glades 103.566 103.566 -*s =ººm- 1,508,500 294,000 49,171 1,367,252 154,232 576,450 1,854,949
Gulf 86.938 82.838 3.222 0.878 285,600 375,000 82,227 1,118,613 22,988 280,296 1,941,912
Hamilton 121.953 121.341 tº- 0.612 64,826 832,300 439,000 1,288,818 840,510 139,618 266,932 57,221
Hardee 92.841 92.841 tº- *E=- 171,130 413,700 329,000 827,729 1,635,769 47,918 177,999 1,514,745
Hendry 110.255 102.936 4.895 2.424 351,899 431,900 528,000 1,172,449 172,428 952,218 115,925 1,783,355
Hernando 125.576 125.485 - 0.091 151,900 234,000 224,707 3,596,494 105,117 309,939 2,219,631
Highlands 153.933 149.101 1.010 3.822 387,167 1,810,900 595,000 1,792,395 2,142,489 54,37 956,626 2,483,404
Hillsborough. 290.016 189.736 26.125 74.155 7,627,747 3,220,210 4,544,700 2,834,083 3,488,353 8,233,452 20,241,768 5,796,706
Holmes 139.425 139.000 0.425 -*- 1,508,130 445,200 1,160,000 668,748 27,660 8,979 331,136 2,390,262
Indian River 113.229 91.874 2,304 19.051 3,816,040 750,200 307,000 1,588,738 209,535 10,386,787 9,570,648 2,036,221
Jackson 264.837 254.457 9.577 0.803 2,689,458 906,500 821,000 1,414,081 3,598,574 262,751 566,884 4,613,707
Jefferson 113.797 113.404 0.360 0.033 1,222,900 416,000 394,595 85,408 69,274 1,402,414 1,978,208
Lafayette 76,041 76.041 - *s- 632,800 298,000 340,866 6,847 87,288 1,368,740
Lake 316.401 307.038 4.200 5.163 3,350,039 3,956,100 1,205,000 175,424 2,899, 193 962,287 1,642,516 5,732,282
Lee 126,894 117.947 5.712 3.235 2,709,003 1,444,100 889,000 1,960,354 554,907 498,661 2,393,995
Leon 207,800 185.130 22.550 0.120 926,825 1,165,000 1,148,000 3,798,915 1,089,742 8,880,592 8,244,484 3,249,214
Levy 204.127 203.609 0.518 *-*- 1,198,400 1,084,000 855,192 1,713,974 27,319 180,382 3,519,717
Liberty 142.445 142.401 0.044 ºsmºsºm- 380,800 537,000 2,982,141 534,623 63,386 2,001,390
Madison 130.272 129.622 0.470 0.180 136,130 1,136,800 433,000 779,217 195,056 52,956 147,902 2,205,628
Manatee 143,983 126.603 6.964 10.416 3,647,580 4,188,800 206,000 449,359 1,448,097 772,447 3,556,439 2,694,158
Marion 362.753 336.963 6,641 19.149 4,852,400 2,112,000 2,324,312 3,084,893 505,589 3,772,962 6,368,383
Martin 172.502 152.190 1.910 18.402 3,521,652 1,390,000 386,000 2,697,035 1,123,261 1,665,219 12,073,564 2,834,092
Monroe 136,016 134,468 0.926 0.622 362,191 885,500 805,000 4,903,347 36,147 174,976 2,466,561
Nassau 125,873 87.987 1.941 35.945 4,193,970 3,257,100 1,373,000 909,849 2,006,542 4,846,440 24,107,631 9,080,559
Okaloosa 229,403 228.832 0.571 *- 75,137 2,613,800 1,369,000 2,406,654 1,022,802 379,237 459,002 3,680,009
Okeechobee 96.384 96.346 0.038 *mºsºm- 916,562 956,000 905,000 351,504 5,746 130,702 1,735,320
Orange 220.807 178.567 15,074 27.165 6,901,367 1,353,800 970,000 1,041,634 1,818,646 10,915,288 9,335,656 4,330,797
Osceola 159,664 136,947 1.149 21.568 4,705,269 4,083,800 881,000 1,715,864 744,955 527,902 2,630,525 2,743,842
Palm Beach 371.536 325.197 28.565 17.774 9,923,911 3,535,000 732,000 4,933,855 3,241,927 25,711,623 5,540,628 6,214,466
Pasco 161.529 148.284 1.425 11.820 329,211 1,022,000 1,129,000 465,805 1,401,802 1,375,706 5,707,610 2,940,240
Pinellas 216.318 185.145 29.324 1.849 8,534,717 2,247,700 720,000 3,291,819 1,601,172 17,649,106 5,335,154 3,565,790
Polk 411.885 342.218 16,198 53.469 11,140,992 5,881,400 2,673,000 2,521,829 4,222,187 16,364,412 27,200,718 7,738,572
Putnam 145.780 142.289 2,591 0.900 1,495,074 1,053,500 574,000 833,322 319,378 706,032 2,931,042 2,508,008
St. Johns 174.929 134.559 2.997 37.373 10,532,485 2,155,300 2,030,000 65,730 950,573 10,916,046 14,780,889 3,505,681
St. Lucie 139,195 114.854 11.993 12.348 1,742,106 650,300 324,000 2,115,997 1,640,869 4,465,557 5,831,826 2,409,929
Santa Rosa 224.223 221.928 1.589 706 4,066,399 1,073,100 1,204,000 164,246 936,460 11,870 1,373,398 4,645,553
Sarasota 152.334 125.270 8,826 18.238 5,617,335 2,422,700 948,000 120,550 631,607 4,929,493 6,979,102 3,028,850
Seminole 143.405 135.853 0.983 6.569 545,080 468,300 1,299,000 2,148,398 304,953 1,228,765 1,569,695 2,276,653
Sumter 135,698 135.655 0.043 ºsºm- 2,819,600 430,000 674,231 1,433,671 78,831 289,653 2,319,745
Suwannee 127.676 126.918 0.758 - 1,290,100 279,000 816,818 678,200 413,810 710,989 2,153,110
Taylor 143,883 143.883 *-*. º- 4,067 779,100 1,172,000 964,831 520,557 203,961 951,300 2,412,698
Union 66.901 66,901 -* === 39,518 736,400 118,000 485,175 3,725 70,616 1,204,220
Volusia 207.611 132,855 9,167 65.589 7,837,912 7,778,400 2,301,000 1,397,799 407,336 15,895,233 18,193,083 4,326,006
Wakulla 101.282 101.282 - Eºmº- 43,900 375,000 1,370,116 247,413 730 76,758 1,574,185
Walton 242.464 190.275 52,189 ºs- 779,477 943,600 772,000 1,568,016 2,644,603 54,085 109,583 4,625,376
Washington 131.693 128.792 2,901 º- 322,027 1,061,200 383,000 734,698 410,600 43,920 157,573 2,263,125
STATE TOTAL............................ 11,200,653 9,978.473 446.407 775.773 $171,972,000 $110,774,000 $66,766,000 $82,104,785 $93,253,856 $515,462,095 $356,830,917 $206,821,795
XXVI
DURING THE PERIOD 1953-1972 COMPARED TO ESTIMATE OF TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUE TO THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT
— SUMMARIZED ACCORDING TO COUNTY
SECONDARY SYSTEM GENERAL ITEMS TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUES AND BALANCES
Total Deficit After First Gas Federal Aid and
Revenue Revenue Revenue Application of Tax Revenue Other Revenues
Total Con- Main- Admin- Equipment from 80% of from 80% of 2nd and Revenue from Apportioned Apportioned
Road struction tenance istration and Estimated 2nd Gas Tax 7th Cent 7th Cent 2nd and 7th Cent on Basis on Basis Net
Mileage Costs Costs Costs Other Costs Total Costs Surplus Gas Tax Gas Taxes Gas Taxes of Deficit of Deficit Deficit COUNTY
127.526 $ 6,317,181 $ 678,601 1,108,054 $ 2,272,631 $ 25,541,758 $ 7,820,971 $ 4,297,720 $ 12,118,691 $ 13,423,067 $ 7,709,240 $ 1,422,801 $ 4,291,026 Alachua
138.048 7,250,931 701,436 661,585 550,109 14,422,617 1,970,572 955,728 2,926,300 11,496,317 6,602,654 1,218,571 3,675,092 Baker
108.283 5,135,153 601,927 1,028,153 1,555,299 23,130,740 5,728,128 3,604,125 9,332,253 13,798,487 7,924,855 1,462,594 4,411,038 Bay
95.341 4,678,394 515,269 1,004,816 858,490 21,959,626 2,104,144 1,181,023 3,285,167 18,674,459 10,725,261 1,979,431 5,969,767 Bradford
138.911 5,712,845 854,087 1,696,103 2,278,955 37,897,118 5,154,940 2,954,696 8,109,636 29,787,482 17,107,779 3,157,374 9,522,329 Brevard
134,165 6,927,322 692,902 2,593,353 1,595,143 56,671,149 8,603,492 4,601,166 13,204,658 43,466,491 24,964,014 4,607,304 13,895,173 Broward
143,420 6,908,448 787,153 708,694 944,556 15,778,156 1,928,168 936,800 2,864,968 12,913,188 7,416,403 1,368,755 4,128,030 Calhoun
120.792 6,621,819 588,163 679,819 717,422 14,778,655 2,892,985 1,930,993 4,823,978 9,954,677 5,717,248 1,055,163 3,182,266 Charlotte
206,050 9,080,932 1,209,768 870,250 972,408 19,247,656 2,135,906 1,507,265 3,643,171 15,604,485 8,962,089 1,654,024 4,988,372 Citrus
162.638 8, 198,220 858,610 834,197 1,218,996 18,937,132 3,296,845 1,658,480 4,955,325 13,781,807 7,915,275 1,460,826 4,405,706 Clay
82.919 3,462,926 510,823 670,158 1,317,404 15,390,712 7,450,185 3,622,850 11,073,035 4,317,677 2,479,762 457,659 1,380,256 Collier
139,774 5,693,497 864,336 712,790 1,142,125 16,411,009 3,260,640 1,936,284 5,196,924 11,214,086 6,440,561 1,188,656 3,584,869 Columbia
172.776 8,944,816 890,036 21,768,459 2,221,709 458,819,341 29,779,302 16,321,648 46,100,950 412,718,390 237,609,513 43,746,681 131,362,196 Dade
78.515 3,824,079 426,630 454,984 669,840 10,116,517 2,663,398 1,553,464 4,216,862 5,899,655 3,388,336 625,344 1,885,975 De Soto
217,641 9,902,740 1,249,025 765,950 595,954 16,320,905 1,992,565 1,157,009 3,149,574 13,171,331 7,564,661 1,396,117 4,210,553 Dixie
141,068 4,707,831 969,836 4,202,180 1,770,096 90,015,873 14,220,522 11,716, 179 25,936,701 64,079,172 36,802,449 6,792,180 20,484,543 Duval
106.987 4,207,819 675,579 1,614,171 1,755,020 35,472,603 8,169,512 5,280,922 13,450,434 22,022,169 12,647,944 2,334,277 7,039,948 Escambia
144,087 6,873,716 797,130 1,482,433 704,880 31,835,971 1,755,011 997,652 2,752,663 29,083,308 16,703,352 3,082,734 9,297,222 Flagler
132,224 5,801,825 778,870 642,583 967,560 14,459,349 2,584,487 1,253,476 3,837,963 10,621,386 6,100,157 1,125,832 3,395,397 Franklin
151.853 6,863,628 875,291 807,657 1,203,887 18,164,678 3,792,595 1,839,409 5,632,004 12,532,674 7,197,863 1,328,422 4,006,589 Gadsden
101.594 4,588,103 586,250 598,758 764,023 12,955,461 1,102,599 641,900 1,744,499 11,210,962 6,438,767 1,188,325 3,583,870 Gilchrist
158.324 7,429,426 887,451 706,072 845,274 15,672,777 2,689,393 1,304,356 3,993,749 11,679,028 6,707,590 1,237,938 3,733,500 Glades
127.478 6,187,971 695,246 549,493 710,373 12,249,719 1,840,544 1,030,419 2,870,963 9,378,756 5,386,480 994,117 2,998,159 Gulf
96.663 5,215,190 477,910 575,441 884,329 12,982,095 2,051,140 994,803 3,045,943 9,936,152 5,706,608 1,053,199 3,176,345 Hamilton
441.322 21,863,421 2,365,356 1,467,338 690,091 31,504,196 2,099,958 1,714,039 3,813,997 27,690,199 15,903,251 2,935,069 8,851,879 Hardee
168.677 8,364,271 903,430 738,758 795,677 16,310,310 3,705,556 1,817,021 5,522,577 10,787,733 6,195,695 1,143,464 3,448,574 Hendry
146.676 6,100,148 895,430 761,008 1,640,743 16,239,117 1,283,535 1,272,607 2,556,142 13,682,975 7,858,513 1,450,350 4,374,112 ..Hernando
211.170 9,427,397 1,228,727 1,052,922 1,190,059 23,121,458 4,746,556 2,298,752 7,045,308 16,076,150 9,232,980 1,704,019 5,139,151 Highlands
142.362 6,388,286 825,437 3,172,436 2,256,658 68,629,836 14,759,959 9,534,478 24,294,437 44,335,399 25,463,052 4,699,405 14,172,942 Hillsborough
149.911 6,946,299 848,576 709,790 1,020,798 16,065,578 2,286,583 1,129,534 3,416,117 12,649,461 7,264,937 1,340,801 4,043,723 Holmes
154.657 7,930,097 803,883 1,869,957 792,586 40,061,692 2,108,484 1,517,644 3,626,128 36,435,564 20,925,957 3,862,049 11,647,558 Indian River
147.556 7,228,345 798,864 1,145,008 2,050,022 26,095,194 4,328,040 2,099,099 6,427,139 19,668,055 11,295,911 2,084,749 6,287,395 Jackson
105.909 4,172,293 668,335 520,471 899,186 11,829,084 2,999,079 1,454,553 4,453,632 7,375,452 4,235,927 781,773 2,357,752 Jefferson
129.851 6,241,311 713,956 484,490 623,540 10,797,838 1,992,392 966,312 2,958,704 7,839,134 4,502,233 830,922 2,505,979 Lafayette
58.454 1,739,108 421,367 1,089,166 2,749,649 25,622,131 7,700,544 5,792,163 13,492,707 12,129,424 6,966,265 1,285,679 3,877,480 Lake
188.090 8,482,844 1,086,459 1,000,966 1,044,514 22,064,803 5,846,374 2,915,822 8,762,196 13,302,607 7,640,057 1,410,132 4,252,418 Lee
269.841 11,552,821 1,616,436 2,087,441 1,377,184 45,213,454 5,486,420 2,956,324 8,442,744 36,770,710 21,118,441 3,897,573 11,754,696 Leon
138.267 5,964,141 824,095 768,361 1,600,301 17,735,882 5,864,512 2,986,850 8,851,362 8,884,520 5,102,627 941,730 2,840,163 Levy
93.829 4,316,250 534,023 567,481 911,531 12,828,625 2,368,378 1,148,664 3,517,042 9,311,583 5,347,901 986,997 2,976,685 Liberty
150. 127 5,521,852 984,099 579,632 1,001,531 13,173,803 2,755,697 1,602,308 4,358,005 8,815,798 5,063,158 934,445 2,818,195 Madison
165.492 8,943,445 817,155 1,354,174 1,310,186 29,387,840 4,709,517 3,457,795 8,167,312 21,220,528 12,187,539 2,249,306 6,783,683 Manatee
165.851 8,368,322 874,612 1,620,150 2,821,468 36,705,091 9,134,554 5,024,895 14,159,449 22,545,642 12,948,589 2,389,763 7,207,290 Marion
122.773 6,374,086 630,645 1,634,778 1,182,519 35,512,851 2,278,470 1,836,154 4,114,624 31,398,227 18,032,874 3,328,108 10,037,245 Martin
65.154 2,327,874 433,480 682,754 1,689,320 14,767,150 9,550,890 4,789,230 14,340,120 427,030 245,255 45,264 136,511 Monroe
131.831 6,544,944 704,247 2,851,214 953,896 60,829,392 2,112,782 1,456,337 3,569,119 57,260,273 32,886,166 6,069,399 18,304,708 Nassau
73.997 2,119,824 541,402 733,343 1,674,090 17,074,300 4,871,458 2,362,657 7,234,115 9,840,185 5,651,492 1,043,027 3,145,666 Okaloosa
79.432 4,193,830 401,073 479,787 790,340 10,865,864 3,403,400 1,784,459 5,187,859 5,678,005 3,261,036 601,850 1,815,119 Okeechobee
126.436 6,322,710 672,087 2,182,918 1,728,196 47,570,099 7,316,192 6,023,972 13,340,164 34,229,938 19,656,770 3,628,259 10,944,909 Orange
199,788 8,523,842 1,199,424 1,387,821 1,161,544 30,305,788 5,250,260 3,372,317 8,622,577 21,683,211 12,453,271 2,298,348 6,931,592 Osceola
253.507 10,577,891 1,544,194 3,615,775 2,767,884 78,339,154 13,683,790 8,861,846 22,545,636 55,793,518 31,986,335 5,913,928 17,893,255 Palm Beach
285.160 12,296,665 1,700,018 1,418,403 1,284,593 31,071,053 4,834,460 3,019,619 7,854,079 23,216,974 13,334,153 2,460,922 7,421,899 Pasco
112.620 4,436,026 710,660 2,422,607 1,653,373 52,168,124 10,900,373 7,633,200 18,533,573 33,634,551 19,317,257 3,565,151 10,752,143 Pinellas
214.000 7,163,869 1,468,935 4,336,796 3,330,792 94,043,502 14,638,702 7,671,054 22,309,756 71,733,746 41,198,684 7,603,539 22,931,523 Polk
272.433 12,325,337 1,570,163 1,215,793 1,124,087 26,655,736 3,246,417 2,424,119 5,670,536 20,985,200 12,052,384 2,224,362 6,708,454 Putnam
114.138 5,734,050 604,250 2,595,266 1,702,909 55,573,179 4,880,000 2,885,295 7,765,295 47,807,884 27,457,397 5,067,477 15,283,010 St. Johns
93.203 4,202,657 538,343 1,196,079 959,821 26,077,484 3,409,478 1,895,172 5,304,650 20,772,834 11,930,416 2,201,852 6,640,566 St. Lucie
203.024 8,692,472 1,215,982 1,169,174 1,824,505 26,377,159 4,389,155 2,141,210 6,530,365 19,846,794 11,398,565 2,103,694 6,344,535 Santa Rosa
125.135 5,441,094 741,662 1,543,020 1,238,776 33,642,189 2,485,663 2,925,592 5,411,255 28,230,934 16,213,810 2,992,385 9,024,739 Sarasota
65.247 2,480,798 450,053 638,585 991,642 14,401,922 2,170,801 1,950,123 4,120,924 10,280,998 5,904,663 1,089,752 3,286,583 Seminole
91.050 4,163,571 520,483 654,489 1,220,563 14,604,837 3,161,087 2,162,801 5,323,888 9,280,949 5,330,307 983,750 2,966,892 Sumter
156.638 6,958,731 914,533 710,765 977,387 15,903,443 3,243,092 1,714,651 4,957,743 10,945,700 6,286,420 1,160,208 3,499,072 Suwannee
101.406 4,731,286 570,851 615,533 1,098,771 14,024,955 4,219,776 2,046,592 6,266,368 7,758,587 4,455,972 822,384 2,480,231 Taylor
87.812 4,284,831 476,743 370,961 548,580 8,338,769 1,924,632 993,379 2,918,011 5,420,758 3,113,292 574,582 1,732,884 Union
223.098 11,161,233 1,185,466 3,551,173 1,846,289 75,880,930 10,773,801 6,239,702 17,013,503 58,867,427 33,809,199 6,239,752 18,818,476 Volusia
240.724 11,250,370 1,354,172 839,632 717,149 18,349,425 1,702,028 968,549 2,670,577 15,678,848 9,004,798 1,661,906 5,012,144 Wakulla
191.592 8,825,572 1,089,195 1,070,575 1,853,111 24,335,193 4,653,384 2,368,762 7,022,146 17,313,047 9,943,364 1,835,126 5,534,557 Walton
139.775 5,908,216 844,332 606,435 1,015,521 13,750,647 2,160,664 1,047,921 3,208,585 10,542,062 6,054,599 1,117,425 3,370,035 Washington
10,025.092 $457,127,242 $57,464,962 $106,249,378 $88,627,865 $2,313,454,895 $343,646,868 $203,519,425 $547,166,293 $1,766,288,602 $1,016,450,372 $187,499,000 $562,339,230 ..........STATE TOTAL
Summary
The estimated total costs of improving the Florida State Maintained
Road System to adequate standards including the costs of maintenance,
administration, and miscellaneous costs over the next twenty-year period
is estimated to be $2,313,000,000. These costs do not include an allowance
for contingencies or the cost of any rights-of-way which may be required
on either the Primary or Secondary System. The total anticipated
revenue accruing to the State Road Department from all present avail-
able sources is $1,751,114,000. This total includes the proceeds from
the First Gas Tax, 80 percent of the Surplus of the Second Gas Tax,
80 percent of the Seventh Cent Gas Tax, and Federal Aid, and Revenue
from other sources. These amounts are respectively: $1,016,450,000,
$343,646,000, $203,519,000, $187,499,000.
Over the twenty-year period these figures reveal a deficit in the funds
available to accomplish the program of $562,339,000. It will be noted
in the table below that the present deficit of about $765,000,000, has
accumulated over the past years and will not be substantially reduced
during the next twenty years with presently anticipated revenues.
Accumulated Accumulated
Year Deficit Year Deficit
1953-1955 . . . . . . . . . $764,890,000 1964. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $726,202,000
1956. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769,276,000 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708,645,000
1957. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 772,079,000 1966. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 690,198,000
1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770,227,000 1967. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670,795,000
1959. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769,948,000 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650,488,000
1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767,842,000 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629,319,000
1961. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764,503,000 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607,822,000
1962. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758,491,000 1971. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585,439,000
1963. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742,982,000 1972. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562,339,000
In addition to the First, Second, and Third Priority costs for the
Primary System, Table XXVII shows that $1,047,651,000 will be re-
quired for the following categories: Unrecorded Improvement Costs,
Additional Urban Costs, Additional Rural Costs, and New Mileage Costs.
At the end of the period the Primary System will consist of 11,200
miles; 9,979 miles will be two lanes; 446 miles, four lane undivided;
and 775 miles, four lanes divided.
S1
The cost of developing the Secondary Road System during the period
is estimated at $457,000,000. This amount will provide an estimated
10,025 miles of Secondary Road mileage by the end of this period. Main-
tenance costs are estimated at $57,464,000.
General items covering the entire System include Administration
costs at $106,249,000 and Equipment and Miscellaneous costs at
$88,627,000.
In order to facilitate the preparation of Table XXVI, the First Gas
Tax revenue has been apportioned as follows:
The gross deficit in each county, after application of the 80 percent
surplus of the Second Gas Tax and 80 percent of the Seventh Cent Gas
Tax, was determined. The first gas tax was then distributed to each
county in the proportion that the gross deficit of that county is to the
total State deficit. Although this method of allocation is not necessarily
recommended, it is an improvement over the present inequitable method
used by the State Road Department by which the total income from the
First Gas Tax revenue is allocated equally to the five highway districts.
The Priority System
One of the most apparent shortcomings in the operation of the State
Road Department is the lack of a well-defined, long range, and compre-
hensive road improvement program. The Priority System now in use
falls short of serving its purpose because it fails to provide a sound basis
for detailed planning. Many other states have already proved the value
of a well-integrated road improvement program built upon a realistic
evaluation method.
Sound planning with suitable continuity has the major advantage
of insuring efficient and economical elimination of deficiencies when and
where improvements are most needed and also serves to enlist the active
support of all groups having an interest in highway betterment. Earlier
in the Report the methods now used by the Department for recording
deficiencies and establishing improvement priorities were explained. De-
ficiency records, within the limits of their scope, provide a useful source
of information but little more. The Priority System does not serve as
a satisfactory programming medium because of limited Scope and lack
of refinement.

Table
ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COST TO DEVELOP THE FLORIDA STATE MAINTAINED ROAD SYSTEM TO ADEQUATE STANDARDS
FOR ROAD PURPOSES FOR THE SAME PERIOD
P R I M A R Y S Y S T E M
Est. Additional Est. Additional
Total Total Urban Costs Rural Costs
Total Total Four-Lane Four-Lane 1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority New Unrecorded Not Included Not Included
Road Two-Lane Undivided Divided Inmprovement Inmprovement Inmprovement Mileage Improvement in S. R. D. in S. R. D. Maintenance
Year Mileage Mileage Mileage Mileage Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Estimate Estimate Costs
1953.…. 9,864.548 9,466.566 243.989 153.993 $ 57,324,000 $ 970,714 $ 1,913,289 $156,098,630 $ 55,526,978 $ 9,225,334
1954… 9,772.137 9,169.806 315.904 286.427 57,324,000 970,714 1,913,289 156,098,630 55,527,294 9,331,832
1955-...--~~~~ 9,719.769 8,912.920 387.951 418.898 57,324,000 970,714 1,915,313 156,098,630 55,532,128 9,426,019
1956.…... 9,794.111 8,952.083 390.843 451.185 $ 15,824,857 3,803,056 2,043,218 3,622,463 12,029,892 9,557,629
1957. -- 9,870.779 8,993.568 393.739 483.472 15,824,857 3,922,378 2,043,218 3,622,463 12,034,090 9,698,634
1958............................... 9,950,099 9,138.209 396.628 515.262 15,824,857 4,076,224 2,043,218 3,622,463 12,038,288 9,743,225
1959.............................. 10,031.340 9,083.774 399.521 548.045 15,824,857 4,181,596 2,043,218 3,622,463 12,042,485 9,988,241
1960.............................. 10,104.553 9,121.804 402.414 580.335 15,824,857 4,294,154 2,043,218 3,622,463 12,046,683 10,136,875
1961.............................. 10,199.706 9,185.113 405.255 609.338 15,824,857 4,400,569 2,043,218 3,622,463 12,050,880 10,286,278
1962 10,285.730 9,232.514 408.250 644.966 15,824,858 4,502,650 2,050,830 3,622,463 12,054,314 10,338,985
1963..…..................... 10,372.304 9,303.331 411.585 657.388 $ 6,676,600 4,601,824 7,018,987 2,180,860 9,841,630 10,374,058
1964.............................. 10,457.443 9,372.446 415.187 669.810 6,676,600 4,698,968 7,018,987 2,180,860 9,865,250 10,537,590
1965............................... 10,545.306 9,441.081 421.990 682.235 6,676,600 4,789,640 7,018,987 2,180,860 10,027,939 10,629,234
1966............................. 10,634.104 9,517.326 422.124 694.654 6,676,600 4,873,290 7,018,987 2,180,860 10,190,634 10,832,653
1967.............................. 10,724,641 9,591,072 426,494 707.075 6,676,600 4,966,211 7,018,987 2,180,860 10,350,623 10,848,727
1968............................... 10,816,613 9,667.150 429.963 719.500 6,676,600 5,050,410 7,018,987 2,180,860 10,510,256 10,954,993
1969............................. 10,917,901 9,752.545 433.433 731.923 6,676,600 5,135,158 7,018,987 2,180,860 10,678,710 11,063,489
1970.............................. 11,005.425 9,822.843 436,902 745.680 6,676,600 5,187,761 7,018,987 2,180,860 11,373,194 11,171,624
1971… 11,102.297 9,905.155 440.372 756,770 6,676,600 5,313,649 7,018,987 2,180,860 11,375,532 11,282,295
1972 11,200,653 9,978.473 446.407 775.773 6,676,600 5,395,105 7,030,938 2,181,224 11,734,117 11,394,080
TOTAL 11,200,653 9,978.473 446.407 775.773 $171,972,000 $110,774,000 $66,766,000 $82,104,785 $93,253,856 $515,462,095 $356,830,917 $206,821,795
XXVII
DURING THE PERIOD 1953-1972 COMPARED TO TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUE TO THE STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT
— SUMMARIZED ACCORDING TO YEARS
SECONDARY SYSTEM GENERAL ITEMS TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUES AND BALANCES
Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue from
Secondary Con- Main- Admin- Equipment from 80% of from 80% of from Federal Aid
Road struction tenance istration 31] Estimated 2nd Gas Tax 7th Cent First and Total Net
Mileage Costs Costs Costs Other Costs Total Costs Surplus Gas Tax Gas Tax Other Sources Revenue Deficit Year
1,999.285 $ 17,074,219 $ 999,640 $ 15,057,749 $ 4,044,465 $ 318,566,349 $ 7,807,098 $ 7,602,782 $ 37,582,958 $ 8,329,000 $ 61,321,838 $257,244,511 ............................... 1953
2,326.501 17,937,637 1,163,113 15,114,487 4,006,576 319,718,903 8,591,604 7,988,222 39,823,948 8,440,000 64,843,774 254,875,129 ................................. 1954
2,667.464 18,701,373 1,334,073 15,166,335 3,985,105 320,785,021 9,608,359 8,328,653 41,526,867 8,550,000 68,013,879 252,771,142 ................................. 1955
3,020.786 19,359,433 1,510,198 3,375,604 4,015,586 75,472,868 10,809,797 8,621,981 42,995,623 8,660,000 71,086,966 4,385,902 ................................ 1956
3,385.767 19,908,247 1,692,882 3,432,213 4,047,019 76,556,934 11,633,270 8,910,730 44,440,142 8,770,000 73,754,142 2,802,792 ................................ 1957
3,765.510 20,790,088 1,882,498 3,495,814 4,079,541 77,927,148 15,557,586 9,238,513 46,103,174 8,880,000 79,779,273 —1,852,125 ................................. 1958
4,153.669 21,278,897 2,076,580 3,534,322 4,112,849 79,036,441 13,512,284 9,476,667 47,336,776 8,990,000 79,315,727 —279,286 ................................. 1959
4,551.415 21,858,245 2,275,955 3,584,207 4,142,867 80,160,456 14,801,273 9,734,920 48,629,360 9,100,000 82,265,553 —2,105,097 ................................ 1960
4,960.084 22,402,785 2,476,791 3,645,644 4,181,879 81,266,297 15,305,710 9,976,178 49,842,852 9,210,000 84,606,175 —3,339,878 ................................. 1961
5,378,170 22,897,865 2,688,834 3,689,991 4,217,149 82,218,870 17,708,579 10,206,418 50,995,128 9,320,000 88,230,125 —6,011,255 ................................ 1962
5,805.212 23,465,248 2,902,865 3,408,777 4,252,645 75,047,431 18,571,190 10,431,923 52,123,736 9,430,000 90,556,849 —15,509,418 ................................. 1963
6,242.590 23,920,476 3,121,043 3,422,649 4,287,552 76,053,912 19,417,159 10,652,928 53,223,940 9,540,000 92,834,027 —16,780,115 ................................. 1964
6,685.274 24,467,452 3,342,873 3,484,300 4,323,575 77,272,458 20,082,131 10,856,085 54,241,044 9,650,000 94,829,260 —17,556,802 ................................. 1965
7,139,659 24,854,935 3,559,579 3,535,882 4,359,983 78,414,401 20,855,744 11,047,369 55,198,784 9,760,000 96,861,897 —18,447,496 ................................. 1966
7,600.150 25,254,950 3,799,821 3,586,182 4,397,103 79,411,062 21,499,855 11,246,490 56,197,712 9,870,000 98,814,057 —19,402,995 ................................. 1967
8,068,762 25,689,177 4,034,219 3,637,790 4,434,811 80,519,101 22,234,183 11,439,792 57,171,460 9,980,000 100,825,435 —20,306,334 ................................ 1968
8,545.792 26,160,655 4,272,445 3,690,283 4,476,339 81,684,524 22,943,568 11,641,164 58,179,320 10,090,000 102,854,052 —21,169,528 ............................... 1969
9,030.625 26,589,381 4,515,060 3,742,855 4,512,224 83,299,544 23,559,110 11,843,700 59,193,000 10,200,000 104,795,810 —21,496,266 ................................. 1970
9,524.283 27,161,264 4,758,285 3,796,766 4,551,942 84,447,178 24,246,413 12,045,693 60,228,464 10,310,000 106,830,570 –22,383,392 ................................ 1971
10,025,092 27,354,915 5,058,208 3,847,528 4,592,268 85,595,982 24,901,955 12,229,217 61,146,084 10,420,000 108,696,256 —23,100,289 ................................ 1972
10,025,092 $457,127,242 $57,464,962 $106,249,378 $88,627,865 $2,313,454,895 $343,646,868 $203,519,425 $1,016,450,372 $187,499,000 $1,751,115,665 $562,339,230 ..................... TOTAL
Since First Priority Improvements are considered to be required
within three years, Second Priority items within the following seven,
and Third Priority Improvement items within the succeeding ten years,
the highway needs and the funds required to satisfy them are not suf-
ficiently specific due to the priority classification employed. The In-
adequacy Ratings used by the Department only serve to help make a
broad determination between First and Second or Third Priority work.
Furthermore, consideration is not given to economy of maintenance,
roughness, and unevenness of surface and other important factors which
contribute to highway adequacy. Sight distance, passing Opportunity,
and roadway widths are not given proper Weights in many cases.
The existing system depends heavily on the personal judgment of
a few experienced individuals, rather than on a comprehensive study of
requirements based on sound engineering principles. The evaluating
process has no real common denominator, and there is no adequate way
of producing a list of road sections or subsections which fall above or
below any composite rating of adequacy.
It is strongly recommended that the Deficiency and Priority method
now used be replaced by the much more practicable Sufficiency Rating
System, which has proved its superior value in other states, and has
gained the support of the U. S. Bureau of Public Roads. This system
has numerous advantages and the most important are its ability to pro-
duce a scientific, unbiased, and realistic evaluation of a road system or
any portion of the road system, and its adaptability to good planning
procedure. It provides a basic guide for the programming of highway
projects on a true urgency basis, which simply means that first things
are put first.
It can be easily understood by legislators, highway user groups, and
the general public, and carries an assurance that expenditures are going
to be directed toward the most pressing requirements. The proposed
system is elastic enough to allow for adjustments required for special
emergency work, change of tolerability standards, or fluctuations in
available highway funds. Varying Standards of sufficiency can be as-
signed different routes and road Sections, depending on local require-
ments, traffic volumes, and other influences. The U. S. Bureau of Public
Roads has established the Sufficiency Rating Procedure as a part of their
maintenance inspection of Federal Aid Highways, and in some cases,
now bases its priority rating of requests for critical highway materials on
the Sufficiency Rating of the road sections on which the work is to be
done. Thus, the method has the additional advantage of expediting the
State's everyday and highly important relations with the Bureau of
Public ROads.
83
The Sufficiency Method of rating highway needs and programming
work is essentially simple. After careful analysis, each section or sub-
section of road is assigned a numerical rating ranging from zero to one
hundred, which indicates its degree of adequacy. This rating is based
on uniform engineering evaluations of par values given to the three
elements essential to a good highway — namely, Structural Condition,
Service, and Safety. The combined composite rating for the three gen-
eral headings results in an overall value which produces a numerical
comparison of the sufficiency of any segment against the 100 point
standard of a fully adequate road. It is evident that, under such a sys-
tem, the segments with the lowest ratings will be the least sufficient and
in most urgent need of improvement, while sections with the higher
ratings have superior structural and operating characteristics, approach-
ing closer to full adequacy as the rating value nears one hundred.
Each of the three basic highway elements entering into the sufficiency
determination are comprised of several sub-factors. For instance, struc-
tural adequacy, estimated life, and maintenance economy determine the
Structural Condition Rating while roadway width, surface width, and
safe stopping sight distance are elements which determine the total value
of the general heading, Safety. Service ratings are based on par values
for alignment, passing opportunity, sway, and related characteristics.
In recognition of the fact that benefits accruing from improvements to
roads carrying high volumes of traffic are greater than those accruing
from low volume road improvements, a traffic adjustment factor is ap-
plied to the final composite rating to arrive at the final Sufficiency
Rating. This final rating provides a value which is a clear, unbiased, and
practical reflection of the degree of urgency attached to the betterment
of any segment of road or street, and upon this foundation a logical pro-
gram can be formulated.
In view of the numerous advantages which would be derived by the
adoption of a Sufficiency Rating System, it is recommended that the
State Road Department institute this method of recording road con-
ditions. Once established, all records should be kept current and a
complete review made annually for both the Primary and Secondary
Systems, and at the same time a complete appraisal should be made of
anticipated revenues for the coming year. Through the Sufficiency Rating
System, the Department will progress toward achievement of a long-
range, comprehensive, and integrated program for road improvement
based upon an accurate knowledge of actual needs combined with up-to-
date estimates of funds available to meet those needs. By this method
annual budgeting of funds for highway use becomes realistic and
practically automatic.
84
VII. General Summary, Methods of Financing Required Im-
provements, and Recommendations.
General Summary
This study of Florida highways has been made to determine the
State's present and anticipated highway needs and to present the means
of achieving a planned, practicable program for meeting these needs
during the coming twenty-year period. The past development of Florida
and the accompanying growth of vehicular traffic in the State has been
studied thoroughly to provide a background against which existing con-
ditions and resources were appraised.
Florida’s phenomenal growth has resulted in a present demand
for highway facilities which the existing highway system fails to pro-
wide. In general, Florida's Primary System needs not more roads but
better roads. The existing network is reasonably adequate, but the roads
themselves require vast reconstruction to the high standards which, for
reasons of safety and facility of movement, are required by the heavy
volumes of modern vehicular traffic. Particularly in the State's fast
growing cities there is a need for connecting links in the State system
which cannot be met by existing congested streets. These urban high-
way improvements are costly but essential to the State’s economic wel-
fare. Fortunately the State Road Department early recognized its re-
sponsibility for urban connections and has taken steps to provide some
of the needed improvements, notably in Jacksonville.
Florida’s promising future indicates the necessity of a program of
highway improvements which cannot be achieved by the existing sources
of revenue for highway use. Even though consumption of motor fuel will
increase appreciably in the coming years, the resulting revenues for
highway use, together with other known sources of revenue, will be in-
sufficient to cover the existing backlog of accumulated deficiencies and to
keep pace with the constantly increasing demand for new highway facili-
ties and improvements.
85
Florida has followed a policy of diversion of some automotive im-
posts, principally the proceeds from motor vehicle registration fees. These
diverted funds which approximate $285,000,000, have been used for
worthy causes. However, had they been dedicated to highway use, the
existing deficiencies would be considerably less.
In order to arrive at the extent of existing deficiencies, the State
Road System was studied in meticulous detail, county by county, section
by section. To these recorded deficiencies were added estimates of further
deficiencies not covered by the detailed study. The long range extent of
secondary road needs is most difficult to determine. Their ultimat need
can be limited only by the degree of the expansion of the State's economy.
In view of Florida's constant growth, a conservative estimate was made
of these secondary road requirements. The extent of urban highway
deficiencies is likewise difficult of determination, but an estimate was
made for desired urban improvements in the amount considered abso-
lutely essential for Florida's continued development. For the coming
twenty-year period, it was found that existing revenue sources would
fall short of correcting these total deficiencies by the staggering total
of more than a half billion dollars!
The magnitude of Florida's highway problem is shown even more
strikingly when it is noted that almost one billion dollars would have
to be spent during the next three years to cover the accumulated de-
ficiencies. Total anticipated revenues from present sources during that
period amounts to $192 million, or only one-fifth of that required.
Although exact year by year programming of improvements cannot
be accomplished until the adoption of the Sufficiency Rating System
herein recommended, the study has revealed that in general, in spite of
apparent annual surpluses of regularly anticipated revenues over annual
increments of required improvement costs, the accumulated net deficits
amount to a maximum of $772 million about 1957 and are reduced only
one-quarter to $562 million at the end of the period.
Methods of Financing Required Improvements
In Florida it seems unlikely and contrary to the State's policy that
additional revenues could be obtained by increased motor fuel taxes, at
least in the amount sufficient to provide the high priority improvements
now when they are most needed. Only one State, Louisiana, has a higher
State tax on motor fuel. Nor is it likely that revenue from motor vehicle
registration can be recovered for highway use. This method would like.
Wise fail to furnish sufficient revenues in the early years when the
accumulated highway needs are the greatest. Florida’s Constitutional
86
prohibition of pledging the credit of the State to bond issues precludes
the possibility of large-scale general obligation financing for general
highway improvements which is the method employed in some other
states. Florida, along with several other states, has turned to the con-
sideration of the revenue financing of certain high cost highway facili-
ties which can be demonstrated to be needed and economically feasible.
In other states, the financing of such projects has been accomplished
through special Authorities and Commissions. In Florida, the precedent
has already been established through the agency of the Florida State
Improvement Commission in a manner described in detail earlier in this
Report.
It is not intended to present here with all the relative merits of toll
roads and “free” roads in general. A road may be free of tolls but, of
course, it cannot be free of cost. It was found that the toll road principle
offered the most feasible and realistic approach to some of Florida’s press-
ing highway problems. It is the only method which will provide the
required facilities when they are most needed. Without a constitutional
amendment, there is no alternative. It is recommended, therfore, that in
accordance with the State's already established policy and precedent, the
revenue financing of certain high-priority highway improvements be
undertaken.
Consideration of a Turnpike System
The trend toward toll turnpikes is evident and growing. They are
not, however, a panacea for all of today’s highway problems. There ap-
plication must be selective. In this study, their applicability was given
thorough and exhaustive consideration. The approach to the problem
was not the study of any previously-selected route of facility but rather
an analysis of over-all highway needs together with a detailed study of
the economic feasibility of a facility whose need had been demonstrated
by the statewide highway study and whose type and location had been
indicated by comprehensive traffic and engineering analysis. Any pro-
posed toll facility must be carefully integrated into the State Arterial
System.
Florida's principal highway deficiencies were found to be the in-
adequacy of existing arterial roads along the State's fabulous east coast
and through the rich central region, roughly from the Daytona Beach
area to the Tampa Bay area. One of the most compelling reasons for
the consideration of toll turnpikes as a remedy is the necessity that any
improvements to cover these deficiencies include the feature of limita.
tion of access. The cost of widening and otherwise adequately improving
87
the existing roads through these areas, combined with the necessary lim-
ited access feature, would be prohibitive, even if it were desirable. Far
more grade-separation structures and larger, more expensive ones would
be required. Rights-of-way costs in the cities would be staggering. There
would be undue interruption to local traffic, and some cities would be
physically dismembered.
That widening and improvement alone, without limited access, is
relatively ineffective in facilitating the flow of arterial traffic has been
demonstrated in the recently-completed project of improvement of Route
U. S. 1 through Daytona Beach. Likewise, the by-passing of cities and
congested areas, which have been shown to be the chief trouble spots
of existing routes, is ineffective unless access to the by-pass is limited.
The cities tend to move out to the by-pass.
It is not intended to condemn urban highway improvements or by-
passes on Routes U. S. 1 and U. S. 92; such projects are desirable and
essential in specific applications. It is intended to point out that to pro-
vide for the free flow of traffic along Florida's east coast and through
the central region to the Tampa Bay area, which were shown by surveys
to be the major desire lines of traffic, a continuous limited access facility
would be required. Such a facility would pass near enough to the inter-
mediate cities to give them adequate and improved traffic service. The
only feasible answer, therefore, to Florida's most predominant arterial
highway problem is a system of limited access toll highways roughly
from Jacksonville to Miami and from the vicinity of Daytona Beach to
the Tampa Bay area, as outlined in detail in subsequent sections of this
report.
Over the twenty year period but not during the early years when
the needs are the greatest, highway deficiencies can be largely met
through a carefully planned program of expenditure of regularly antici.
pated funds, supplemented by revenue bond financing of high priority
projects together with general obligation bond financing by cities and
counties. A sound system of priorities would be assured through the
establishment of the recommended Sufficiency Rating System. First
needs would be met first. Suggested changes in the State Road Depart-
ment organization made necessary by the increased scope and magnitude
of its operations would help to assure sound administration of the pro-
gram.


88
Estimates of anticipated revenue for highway use from motor fuel
taxes were based upon normally expected increases in motor vehicle traffic
without considering the increment of increase made possible by the con-
struction of a Toll Turnpike System as herein recommended. Such
facility would, in itself, attract substantially greater numbers of visitors
to Florida and tend to encourage an increase in intra-state travel. The
effect would be increases in revenue from the fuel taxes above those esti-
mated. The additional tax revenues could be used for highway improve-
ments elsewhere in the State.
The construction by revenue bond financing of a Turnpike System
will not, in itself, make up the indicated deficit in Florida’s highway
needs in the coming twenty-year period. There is an urgent need for a
great number of other high priority projects, particularly urban improve.
ments. It can not be expected that the State can bear the entire cost of
such improvements. Because of their great benefit to the local communi-
ties themselves, cities and counties must participate in the cost of such
projects through general obligation bond financing, when necessary, to
supplement revenue bond project and other income. It is recommended,
therefore, that these methods of financing be applied whenever practi.
cable on projects such as bridges and urban improvements. The early
fulfillment of important highway needs by these projects, together with
their salutary effect on regularly anticipated revenues and on the State's
economy in general, will go far toward meeting Florida's highway prob-
lems in the next twenty years. In view of this conclusion, a preliminary
traffic and earnings report and a preliminary engineering report have
been prepared. These reports constitute the following and final section
of this report on Florida’s highways. It is recommended that the Florida
Turnpike System project be undertaken immediately.
It cannot be expected that the total needs for a future twenty-year
period can be determined now with a high degree of accuracy. However,
in this study, the overall magnitude of the problem has been determined
and the means recommended whereby any foreseeable requirements can
be met. A program cannot be set up today and be expected to operate
automatically for the next twenty years. With the Sufficiency Rating
System, flexibility has been provided, whereby the program may be
reviewed and adjusted from year to year to fit more closely the needs
as they arise. The study must not end with a report; it must be neces-
sarily a continuing process.
89
Summary of Recommendations
1.
10.
11.
12.
The establishment of a legally-designated State Arterial System
joining important state population centers and comprised of
major roads in the State Primary System with provision for
ultimate limited access features.
The adoption by the State Road Department of a Sufficiency
Rating System of programming road improvements.
Giving the State Road Department greater responsibility in
the development of the Secondary Road System in order to co-
ordinate better the authority and participation of the counties
in the program.
An Amendment to the Secondary Roads Assistance Act clearly
defining the purpose and function of a Secondary Road and
providing a Designated System of Secondary Roads.
That the Seventh Cent Gas Tax as a separate impost be abol-
ished and that the First Gas Tax be increased from four to five
cents or that the Road Department discontinue the allocation
of the surplus Second Gas Tax to Secondary Roads to be ex-
pended by the direction of the County Commissioners and to
use it instead on Primary Roads.
The transfer of approximately 200 miles of State Primary Road
with light traffic volumes to the State Secondary System.
The transfer of about 1,435 miles of important county roads to
the State Primary System in a planned program over the next
twenty years.
Legislation giving the State Road Department the responsi-
bility for the determination of legal speed limits for the State
Maintained System in rural and urban areas.
Legislation giving the State Road Department legal authority
over all traffic control devices and parking on the entire System.
The State Road Department adopt a policy of advocating con-
struction of new schools at a safe distance from major high-
Ways.
Elimination of unduly low speed limit zones established for
local commercial interests in areas fundamentally rural in
character.
Acceleration of the program to provide adequate highway
shoulders to increase highway safety.

90
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Legislation providing that improvements to the State Arterial
System should contain provisions for limited access when de-
termined advisable by the Road Department.
Elimination of cross-traffic at grade and elimination of railroad
grade crossings where indicated by traffic demands and economic
feasibility.
Special emphasis on the improvement of urban links in the
State Primary System.
A staggered system of appointment for Road Board members
for five-year terms.
The creation of the post of Highway Director who would serve
under the Road Board and its Chairman as an administrative
head or executive on a full-time career basis.
The creation of civil service status for all employees of the State
Road Department.
The payment of more adequate salaries to Road Department
personnel.
The creation within the State Road Department of a Revenue
ProjectS Division With a COmpetent director and sufficient Staff
to administer the planning, construction, Operation and main-
tenance of revenue bond-financed facilities.
The adoption of a cost accounting system which would provide
a means of rapidly obtaining accurate costs according to classi-
fication of expenditures.
The planning of additional space for the State Road Depart-
ment's central administration office in Tallahasee to avoid over-
crowded conditions which can be expected due to the increased
volume and scope of its activities.
That the regular traffic classification counts made by the De-
partment be extended from an eight to a full twenty-four hour
period.
The immediate undertaking of a Florida Turnpike System
project.
That the method of revenue-bond financing or general obliga-
tion bond financing by cities and counties be applied whenever
practicable to other suitable highway improvement projects
such as bridges and urban facilities.
91
VIII. Preliminary Traffic and Earnings Report and Preliminary
Engineering Report for the Proposed Florida Turnpike
System.
General
There has long existed a strong desire on the part of the motorists
traveling in Florida from Jacksonville along Florida's East coast to
Miami and across the State to Tampa and St. Petersburg for an im-
provement in the existing highway conditions. This section of the Report
presents the estimate of the potential traffic and resulting earnings of
the proposed Florida Turnpike System which would serve these areas,
together with the preliminary engineering report containing a descrip-
tion of the proposed facility and an estimate of its construction cost.
The estimates of traffic and earnings prepared here with are derived
from an analysis of present traffic moving over the Primary Road System
of the Florida peninsula. Consideration has been given to traffic that will
be generated by the new facility and companion studies have determined
the many advantages which the Florida Turnpike System will offer to
the owners and operators of motor vehicles, and its beneficial effect on
the general welfare of the State by providing a much needed highway
facility.
Location of the Turnpike System
The proposed Florida Turnpike System has been developed from
investigations of Florida highway traffic, also from the route location,
engineering, and other studies made in the course of preparation of this
Report. The studies have indicated that the selected turnpike route would
best serve the highway traffic needs of the State. This route, as described
herein, consisting of the East Coast Turnpike and the Cross State
Turnpike is shown on Map VII entitled “Location Map — Proposed
Florida Turnpike System”, which follows this page.
The recommended Turnpike System begins at a point south of
Jacksonville. At this point the turnpike would connect with the Jackson-
ville Expressway System, presently under construction. This Express-
way System will, when completed, extend several miles north of the
City of Jacksonville to a connection with Route U. S. 17 and west to a
connection with Route U. S. 1 at the city line. Traffic from Route U. S.
301 will also enter Jacksonville on this link of the Expressway System
by way of Route U. S. 1. Traffic entering the State in the Jacksonville
area and traffic generated in Jacksonville will be served by this Express-

92
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
LOCATION MAP
PROPOSED
FLORIDA TURNPIKE SYSTEM
25ſº
clearwater ſº 12
（SC
º
cºunswick
NE
2\\ .
º
-
b see Ring ( or e = c is o a
-
-------
-----
FORT
----------
JULY 1952
PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL 8 MACDONALD
ENGINEERS NEw York
2–TuRNPIKE
IO o no zo 30 40 50
D-D-E.
S. C. A. L. E. o r M L E 3
-o-Estead º

way System and will cross the St. Johns River on either the Arlington
Bridge or the Interstate Bridge to continue to the northern terminus of
the proposed Turnpike. The Turnpike Route proceeds in a southeasterly
direction parallel and not far distant from the eastern coast line from a
point south of Jacksonville to a point northwest of the City of Miami.
At a point on the East Coast Turnpike between Daytona Beach and
Titusville, a branch of the Turnpike System would extend south-west-
ward to a point north of St. Petersburg, near Clearwater, Florida. The
route of The Cross State Turnpike is close to Orlando, Kissimmee, Haines
City, Winter Haven, Lakeland, Plant City, and Tampa.
The length of the East Coast Turnpike Route is approximately 315
miles. As shown on the Location Map sixteen traffic interchanges are
proposed, including the northern and southern terminals, which will pro-
vide access to and from all major cities and towns, as well as all im-
portant highway routes along the east coast. The Cross State Turnpike
will be approximately 128 miles in length. Nine traffic interchanges in-
cluding the western terminal are located so as to serve all important
communities and intersecting highways in this region.
The selected route of the Florida Turnpike System will serve the
most important movements of traffic in the State of Florida and, in addi-
tion, will relieve frequent near-capacity congestion on some of the most
heavily traveled trunk highway routes in Florida. These include Route
U. S. 1 from Jacksonville to Miami, Route U. S. 92 from Tampa to
Rissimmee, parts of State Road A1A, Route U. S. 17 from Jacksonville
to Winter Haven, and Route U. S. 441 from Orlando to Miami.
Determination of the Turnpike Route
It was apparent during the study of the deficiencies in the Primary
System that the present major highway routes in the area served by the
proposed Turnpike System are the most inadequate in the State particu-
larly in the urban areas. As these areas comprise the most populated
and the most rapid growing throughout the State, the projection of
present traffic volumes into the future indicate these major routes will
become still more inadequate to serve both the local and through traffic
which they carry.
The route determination first involved an analysis of the pattern
of the major movements of traffic, both passenger and commercial,
throughout the State. These lines of travel desire led to the development
of a wide band along the east coast of Florida from the northern State
line in the Jacksonville area to greater Miami and the lower east coast.
93
Another wide band indicated predominant travel desire lines from the
Jacksonville area to the Tampa-St. Petersburg area and to locations in
the center of the State between Tampa and Orlando. The ultimate Turn-
pike location to serve best these predominant traffic movements should
be within the limits of the wide band. This study resulted in the selec-
tion of the East Coast Turnpike and the Cross State Turnpike recom-
mended and described in this Report.
This selected route is a result of a comprehensive study from both
the traffic and engineering standpoint. The proposed Florida Turnpike
will furnish to motorists and truckers maximum service at minimum
construction cost and will therefore constitute a more feasible route than
any other Serving the same areas.
Area to be Served
The route of the proposed Florida Turnpike System is such that no
other combination of new express highways of similar length could per-
form traffic service of such great value to the State. A review of Section
III of this Report — “State-Wide Traffic Surveys” — will reveal that
the major long distance movements of highway traffic in the State of
Florida would be served by this Turnpike System. The East Coast Turn-
pike Route would assume the burden of the State's heaviest single major
traffic movement of this type, that between the northeastern states, Jack-
sonville, and the southeast coast area in the vicinity of Miami. This is
the major route of tourist travel in the State. Along it are located such
tourist centers as historic St. Augustine, Daytona Beach, and the entire
coastal region from West Palm Beach through Fort Lauderdale to Miami
and Miami Beach. The Turnpike System would directly serve all of the
five largest cities in the State of Florida: Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa,
St. Petersburg, and Orlando. It would also serve directly, or by connect-
ing expressway links, twenty-one of the thirty Florida cities having 1950
populations in excess of 10,000. These cities include West Palm Beach,
Miami Beach, Lakeland, Daytona Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Clearwater,
and COral Gables.
In addition to serving the majority of tourist travel movements to
and from the State of Florida, the route of the Florida Turnpike Sys-
tem makes it directly accessible to the most productive agricultural
and industrial areas in the State. These regions include the central west
coast area near Tampa-St. Petersburg, Broward, and Palm Beach coun-
ties, the area southwest of Miami, the Indian River country, Jackson-
ville and vicinity, and the central area near Orlando, Winter Haven,
and Lakeland.

94.
Miami, located at the southern end of the East Coast Turnpike
Route and along Florida's famous “Gold Coast”, is the largest city in
Florida and the leading generator of vehicular traffic in the State. It is
one of the most important centers of tourist activity in North America.
In 1948 tourists spent an estimated $243,000,000 in the greater Miami
area, an amount exceeding that which was spent by American tourists
traveling to all European countries in the same year.
Farming in southern Dade County, near Miami, is also an important
activity and yields a great diversity of produce ranging from avocados,
mangoes, and papayas, to beef and dairy cattle, beans, tomatoes, and
potatoes. Citrus fruit production is also prominent. Dade County is the
third largest producer in the commercial fishing industry. Miami Inter-
national Airport, a terminal for several major airlines, is the busiest air-
port in the world. Miami’s position at the southern end of the Florida
peninsula makes it a gateway from this country to Latin America and
the Carribbean.
Jacksonville, Florida's second largest city, is a focal point of trans-
portation leading from all parts of the State to the northeastern and
northwestern sections of the country. The northern terminal of the pro-
posed Florida Turnpike System will be located just south of the city,
connected directly to it by the Jacksonville Expressway System. It is
served by Routes U. S. 1, 17, 23, and 90, making it one of the busiest
points of concentration of through highway traffic in the southeastern
part of the United States. Four railroads and three major airlines
render service to the city. The city possesses an excellent deep water
harbor in the St. Johns River, and One of the largest naval air stations
in the country. Manufacturing activity dominates the economy of Jack-
sonville, the principal industries being pulp mills, food processing plants,
and the manufacturing of naval stores.
St. Petersburg and Tampa are located near the western terminal of
the Cross State Turnpike. The population of this metropolitan area in
Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties is 406,175 according to the 1950
Federal Census. This region presents a diversified economic picture, the
primary elements of which are tourism, industry, and agricultural pro-
duction. St. Petersburg has gained a national reputation as a rapidly
growing haven for retired people and has fine nearby beaches and resi-
dential areas. The St. Petersburg region has led the State in food fish
production. Tampa Bay is an excellent deep water port with an ex-
tensive transhipping trade to South America and the Caribbean.
Nearby phosphate mines are of great importance in the nation’s agri-
cultural economy and phosphate is a major commodity transhipped at
the port of Tampa. Tampa also produces in large quantities cigars, alu-
95
minum windows, canned processed fruits, and vegetables. Nearly two-
thirds of all fruits, vegetables, and juices canned in the State of Florida
are processed at this city. Tampa is the major trading center for
Florida's west coast. The area surrounding Tampa and St. Petersburg
is perhaps the most abundant source of food crops in the entire State.
Located here is some of the richest land in the southeast, and it is princi-
pally devoted to growing tomatoes, strawberries, beans, cucumbers, corn,
peas, squash, and citrus fruits. Other types of produce are also grown
in quantity in this region.
Present Routes
The Regional Map which follows this page shows the principal high-
ways in Florida and adjacent states, as well as major cities. The line
of the proposed Turnpike System has been added to this map to show
the relationship of the new facility to these existing highways. The net
of related highways shown connect Florida with neighboring states and
are the main points of entry into Florida from other parts of the Coun-
try. The present routes in Florida are shown in more detail on the Loca-
tion Map and those considered competitive to the proposed Turnpike
System are described below. South of Jacksonville, Route U. S. 17 is an
improved 4-lane highway extending to the U. S. Naval Station a few
miles south and west of the City of Jacksonville. South of this location
to Green Cove Springs, where the Navy maintains a large moth-ball fleet
in the St. Johns River, the route is an adequate 2-lane facility. The pave-
ment in general is suitable for reasonable speed. However, south of this
area to Palatka and to points farther south like Crescent City, Satsuma,
Seville, Barberville, DeLeon Springs, DeLand, Orange City, Lake Mon-
roe, Sanford, Winter Park, and Orlando, Route U. S. 17 is for the most
part a very poor 2-lane highway facility. Its alignment is not suitable
for travel at reasonably high speeds; its pavement requires extensive
maintenance or renewal. At certain locations the sight distance is
insufficient and the several structures are entirely too narrow for safety.
At Yulee on Route U. S. 17 a few miles south of the Florida-Georgia
Line, traffic can turn east to the Atlantic Coast and follow the Buccaneer
Trail south to the St. Johns River, cross the ferry, and follow Route
A1A to Daytona Beach. Due to the extremely inadequate condition of
the pavement through much of the area south of the river, much traffic
that might use Route A1A is not attracted to it. Below Daytona Beach
Route A1A is located first on the mainland and then on the beachfront
and then on the mainland, etc., in an irregular manner. Because of its
length, its location, and the numerous small communities through which
it passes, which restrict the speed of travel, Route A1A cannot provide
for travel at reasonable speed which would relieve Route U. S. 1.

96
-- lºss
CT-
st ATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
/*
º, k = w r u c < r 3, r" ºr " ' " " " ") '... "._y-
----- —-e-------- T- 25 [1]
REGIONAL MAP
SHOWING
PRINCIPLE HIGHWAYS IN FLORIDA
AND ADJACENT STATES
vuly 1952
/T w O R T H (3GREENssoRo
--
ORALEIGH
FarETTEvil-LE
*...* - sºon
º
's-
---
: º
---|--|--
}
(23) º
---
------
º'-
*
SI -- Lºº Lº
FLORI Tun-P- Yºst
50 o
--
parsons, brinckerhoff, hall a macdonald
ENGINEERs NEw York
----|--
sc-L-E in ---->






















Route U. S. 1, with few exceptions, is a 2-lane facility between built-
up communities. Passage through any of the communities is restricted
to slow speeds. These speed zones and other restrictions make the trip
from Jacksonville to Miami require from 10 to 12 hours.
Route U. S. 1 has numerous sharp curves, some structures of in-
adequate width, and the shoulders generally are completely inadequate
for servicing disabled vehicles.
The other important north-south route, U. S. 301, is in general a 2-
lane facility with inadequate sight distances, insufficient pavement width
and inadequate shoulders, and has numerous restricted speed Zones
throughout its length. Traffic from the north-east states, southbound on
Route U. S. 301 to Tampa or other communities served by this highway
is seriously impeded by the above deficiencies and restrictions.
The major east-west route for traffic from the north to Orlando and
the Tampa and St. Petersburg area is Route U. S. 92. This route con-
nects with Route U. S. 1, and State Route A1A at Daytona Beach, runs
South and West to DeLand, then southerly to Sanford, Orlando, and
ICissimmee, where it turns west and southwest to Haines City, Lakeland,
Plant City, Tampa, terminating at St. Petersburg. Route U. S. 92, a two-
lane highway, is deficient in roadway shoulders and has numerous loca-
tions where both horizontal and vertical sight distances are below the
minimum necessary for reasonably high-speed travel. Route U. S. 92, in
common with the other major routes, passes through the congested busi-
ness sections of the communities it serves. A detailed study of traveling
conditions on these present routes which traverse the area which will
be served by the proposed Turnpike System has been made in connection
with this Report and is discussed in Section III, “State-Wide Traffic
Survey”. An investigation of the average speeds and delays encountered
on these routes, together with an inventory of the physical condition,
including alignment and grade, pavement condition, and width provide
a measure of the need for the proposed facility.
A comparative analysis involving the competitive aspects of these
existing routes and the proposed Turnpike System aids in the develop-
ment of the estimates of traffic that will be diverted to the new facility
and the optimum toll rate that can be charged based on the savings that
accrue to owners and operators of vehicles using the Turnpike System.
97
Traffic in the Region
Traffic on the highways which would parallel the proposed Florida
Turnpike System, as well as on highways throughout the State, has
shown large increases since the end of World War II. While the pace
of traffic volumes was rapidly accelerated in the first post-war years, the
more recent years have evidenced continued and substantial increases.
In Section III of this Report, there is a Traffic Flow Map of Florida
graphically showing average daily volumes of traffic on Florida High-
ways in 1950; there is also a table of average daily traffic volumes, 1940-
1951, at important locations on the major highway routes of the State.
With the exception of the automatic traffic recorder located at Punta
Gorda on Route U. S. 41, all of the recorder data presented in the table
of average daily traffic volumes, mentioned above, can be said to be
closely indicative of the general trends of highway traffic in the immedi-
ate areas to be served by the routes of the proposed Florida Turnpike
System. Review of the data of these traffic recorder stations, shown for
the 1940-1951 period, provides a satisfactory basis for predicting the
future growth of traffic on the Turnpike System. Another indication of
the growth of highway travel in regions adjacent to the proposed Turn-
pike is shown on Table X in Section II of this Report. This table is
entitled “Historical and Estimated Future Growth of Population, Motor
Vehicle Registration and Motor Fuel Consumption in the State of
Florida”. All three elements of this table show progressive increases in
the period 1930 to 1951. The increases in these items from 1940 to 1950
are also shown in detailed tabular form by counties in Table IX of
Section I of the Report. On the basis of the historical increases in popu-
lation, motor vehicle registration and motor fuel consumption in the
1930-1951 period, the future trends in these fields have been estimated.
On heavily-traveled Route U. S. 1 between Jacksonville and Miami
an unusual phenomenon has occurred in the past two years. Traffic
which has reached near-capacity levels at frequent intervals on sections
of this route has, in 1951 and 1952, actually shown decreases in volume
at several places. This does not appear to be an indication of decreased
north-south traffic in the State of Florida, but rather a deversion of a
portion of Route U. S. 1 traffic to other major north-south routes in the
interior of the State, principally Routes U. S. 27 and 441. Route U. S. 1
between Jacksonville and Miami has been called “One of the United
States’ Twenty-five Most Dangerous Highways”. Considering the heavy
volume of traffic to be found at all times of the year on this route, par-
ticularly during the winter tourist season, it is not suprising that some
through traffic has found it easier to travel via inland highways in
order to avoid the dangers and congestion of the existing east coast route.
98
In Section III of this Report Table XX gives the results of a recent
survey of commercial vehicle traffic in the State of Florida. This study
reveals that a high percentage of truck traffic in Florida is engaged in
long-distance trips. Two-thirds of the trucks interviewed in this survey
were making trips of more than 50 miles in length. In addition, the
largest classification of trucks interviewed were of the heavy tractor-
trailer combination type. It was revealed that the growth of commercial
vehicles is most pronounced in the heavy truck classifications. The aver-
age gross weight of loaded trucks interviewed was 34,126 lbs. and only
35.5 percent of all trucks interviewed were found to be empty. Florida's
geographical and economic position lends itself to the increasing de-
velopment of long distance, heavy truck traffic. It is apparent that the
present system of trunk highways in the regions which would be served
by the proposed Turnpike System is largely inadequate to carry either
the present or anticipated volumes of long-distance truck traffic.
Analysis of Traffic Surveys
The state-wide traffic surveys conducted by the State Road Depart-
ment during the months of the 1951-1952 winter season, in addition to
supplying information leading toward the future improvement of the
existing State Highway System, provided the traffic data used in the
development of the estimates of traffic and resulting earnings on the
proposed Florida Turnpike System. Complete information on the method
used in conducting the origin and destination traffic survey required for
this section of the Report is given in Section III, “State-Wide Traffic
Surveys”.
In order to make use of the voluminous data acquired from the inter-
views conducted in the state-wide origin and destination traffic survey,
a procedure of traffic analysis has been developed involving the selective
processing of the interview data by business machine methods. Map III,
“Location of Origin and Destination Survey Stations” shows the eight
east-west screen lines which intersected all major north-south highway
routes and upon which were located the survey stations. Each of the eight
screen lines was used in the analysis to account for certain vehicular
movements, others passing through such screen line being eliminated
from consideration. Thus Screen Line 1 was used for all movements of
traffic to or from the area enclosed by Screen Lines 1 and 2 and points
north of Screen Line 1. All movements through the stations of Screen
Line 2 were used, as this line had been selected for the screening of
through traffic movements to and from all points south and all points
north of it. Screen Line 3 was used to account for all traffic movements
to or from the area enclosed by Screen Lines 2 and 3 and the entire
99
area south of Screen Line 3 in the Florida peninsula. Similarly, Screen
Lines 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 each played its part in developing the over-all
pattern of vehicular movements. Adoption of this method of trip selec-
tion, prevented the presence of any duplicate trips in the results.
Following the step just described, every interview not thus elimina-
ted was tabulated on business machine cards, so as to include the follow-
ing information: station number, class of vehicle, origin of trip, and
destination of trip. This information was then assembled by machine
sorting and recording methods into a continuous listing by survey sta-
tion and class of vehicle, which consolidated all similar trips and totaled
them. In addition, a factor had been developed and was applied at this
stage to the “total” column for each type of trip, which brought the data
collected in the field surveys up to the level of 100 percent of all traffic
manually counted through each survey station during each twenty-four
hour period of its operation.
This summary listing of all vehicular trips of potential interest to
the Florida Turnpike System, as a toll-free facility, was then reanalyzed
to determine the amount of this traffic which would use the Turnpike
System if charges are imposed in accordance with the recommended
Schedule of tolls. A determination was made in the case of each indivi-
dual trip of the relative attractiveness of the Florida Turnpike System as
opposed to the existing competitive highways. Such advantages as a
saving in travel time, reduced costs of motor vehicle operation, the ab-
sence of urban traffic congestion, savings in distance, and ease of travel
Were given close consideration as they were Weighed against the recom-
mended Schedule of tolls.
The factors developed for each individual trip as a result of the
above considerations are called “sales resistance factors”. In addition,
factors were developed, with respect to each survey station, which would
enable the assembled tabulated traffic data for that station, as repre-
sented on the previous listing, to be brought up to the level of average
daily traffic flow for the year 1951. These factors are called “average
daily traffic factors”.
Sales resistance factors and average daily traffic factors were then
key-punched into the business machine cards and multiplied with the
“total” column of the first listing. The resulting tabulation for each
station was then combined to produce the final summary by class of
vehicle of the estimated traffic which would use the Florida Turnpike
System between each of its proposed interchanges on an average day
in 1951.

100
Estimates of Traffic
By the method of analysis described in the previous paragraphs it
was determined that on an average day in 1951, 7,638 vehicles would
use the Florida Turnpike System, and that these vehicles would consist
of 6,674 passenger cars and 964 commercial vehicles. Through the pro-
cess of developing sales resistance factors and considering the effect of
competitive highway routes on the Turnpike and rejecting trips of no
interest, more than 85 percent of all trips interviewed were eliminated
from consideration with the Turnpike as a toll facility.
We have assumed, once the financial, engineering, legal, and admin-
istrative preliminaries have been completed, that construction of the pro-
posed Turnpike System would require a period of approximately three
years. Therefore, the calendar year 1956 has been used in this Report as
the first full year of operation of the complete Turnpike System.
The record of traffic volumes presented by the 24 automatic electric
eye traffic recorders maintained on a continuous operation basis by the
State Road Department over a period of years extending back through
and before World War II has been principally relied upon as a basis for
expanding the 1951 estimated average daily travel volumes between each
Turnpike interchange to the assumed first full year of operation, 1956.
In addition, other types of traffic counts made by the Department and
described on page 5 of Section III have been reviewed in connection with
this expansion of traffic volumes from 1951 to 1956. These records of
traffic counts have revealed the appropriateness of a 47 percent increase
of vehicular traffic between each interchange from 1951 to the first full
year of operation, 1956. Accordingly, these increments were employed
in this study.
With the opening of a new expressway system, offering vastly im-
proved highway transportation in an area important to the nation’s
economy, there is, in addition to the normal increases of traffic which
could reasonably be expected, a prominent element of induced traffic
which may be called “facility increase”. This facility increase on various
highway projects has ranged from 5 percent annually to more than
200 percent. In the case of commercial vehicles, the operation of which
is largely dependent upon business conditions, contracts, and franchises,
the element of facility increase in the first year of a new turnpike opera-
tion is not likely to be very high. Such facility increase in the case of
commercial vehicles is more likely to occur in the second and later
years of a new turnpike. Passenger car travel, on the other hand, shows
a tendency to generate prominent facility increases as soon as a new
101
turnpike is open to traffic. In the estimate of the facility increase which
would occur in the first full year of operation of the Florida Turnpike
System, consideration has been given to these attributes of passenger
and commercial vehicle traffic expected to be attracted to the Turnpike
System.
In the case of the Florida Turnpike System we have applied an
over-all facility increase of 15 percent for the first full year of opera-
tion beginning January 1, 1956. In the following nine years of operation,
estimated normal and facility increases have been applied to the Turn-
pike traffic in a manner which appropriately reflects the considerations
previously mentioned in regard to traffic characteristics.
It is estimated that, for the first full year of operation, the Turnpike
System will have a daily average usage of 2,563,977 vehicle-miles of
travel. Dividing this figure by the total length of the proposed Turnpike
System produces an estimated average daily traffic volume throughout
the entire system of 5,788 vehicles. Approximately 2,540 vehicles daily,
or 33.3 percent of the total daily traffic, will make a full trip over the
Turnpike, either between Jacksonville and Miami or Jacksonville and
Tampa-St. Petersburg.
Approximately 12.6 percent of the estimated first year traffic volumes
will consist of commercial vehicles; the remaining 87.4 percent will be
passenger cars. The total vehicle miles of use for the first full year of
operation of the Florida Turnpike System is estimated to be 935,851,678.
For the purposes of this Report light trucks are included with
passenger cars and excluded from commercial vehicles. Buses are not
included in the above estimates but will amount to approximately 1 per
cent of the Turnpike usage which will be considered in estimates of
I’OVOIllle.
Schedule of Tolls
The toll rates for travel on the proposed Florida Turnpike System
used in the estimate of earnings and recommended for adoption are
1.25 cents per mile for passenger cars and light trucks and from 2.0
cents to 7.0 cents per mile for medium trucks, heavy trucks and buses,
depending on their size and weight.

102
The weighted average rate per mile for all medium trucks, heavy
trucks and buses expected to use the Turnpike is estimated at 4.5 cents.
A full length trip on the East Coast Turnpike from the Jacksonville
terminal to the Miami terminal will be $4.00 for passenger cars and
$22.00 for Semi-trailers in the heaviest truck classification. From the
Jacksonville terminal to the Clearwater terminal a full length trip using
a portion of the East Coast Turnpike and the Cross State Turnpike will
be $3.00 for passenger cars and $16.50 for semi-trailers in the heaviest
truck classification.
The derivation of the above rates to be charged for travel on the
Florida Turnpike System involved thorough studies and analyses based
on investigations of the advantages which these vehicles might have in
making a trip over the Florida Turnpike System as compared with a
similar trip over the existing routes, with consideration to savings in
time and reduced operating costs and the other benefits, both tangible and
intangible, offered by travel on a modern high-speed, limited access,
expressway type of highway.
Estimates of Revenue
The toll charges proposed for the Florida Turnpike System have
been applied to the traffic expected to make use of the Turnpike System
in its first full year of Operation in order to obtain the estimated toll
revenues. Income from buses has been estimated to provide an additional
three percent. The Florida Turnpike System will receive income in ad-
dition to toll revenues from such sources as concessions for restaurants
and service stations. It is estimated that this supplementary income will
amount to approximately seven percent of the annual toll revenue.
The gross revenue for the Florida Turnpike System for the first
full year of operation is $16,685,024.
The following tabulation shows the estimated gross revenue for
the Florida Turnpike System over the first ten-year period of operation.
For these estimates, the revenues of the first year have been projected
at a rate, as shown blow, which includes conservative allowances for con-
tinuing facility increase and normal traffic growth. Following the tenth
year of operation, the estimate for that year has been used for computing
revenues thereafter.
103
ESTIMATED GROSS INCOME FROM TOLLS AND OTHER
SOURCES FOR THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE SYSTEM
Starting January 1, 1956
Expansion Factor Gross
Year Percent Over Previous Year Revenue
1st . . . . . . . . . . . ... (First year of Operation). . . . . . . . . . . $16,685,024
2nd . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,688,328
3rd . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,247,811
4th . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,805,158
5th . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,471,519
6th . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,999,810
7th . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,349,801
8th . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,767,291
9th . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,255,656
10th . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,818,439
First 10-year Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,708,884
27-year Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,185,270
The above figures have been set up as an estimate of the manner in
which an average earning would be built up, and are intended to indicate
a trend over a period of years rather than the gross earnings in any
particular year. There would, of course, be years in which the gross
revenue may be higher or lower than indicated herein, depending on the
economic conditions of the time.
General Assumptions
The estimates of Traffic and Earnings presented in this Report are,
in our opinion, conservative and in keeping with present economic con-
ditions. They are based on the following general assumptions:
1. That the highways feeding into the Turnpike System at its
various interchanges will be improved and maintained to
adequate standards as required.
2. That the trend of Florida's economy over the past five years will
continue, especially in regard to the development of tourism and
agriculture.
3. That there will be no legislation passed which will adversely
affect the Volume of truck travel in Florida.
4. That the Florida Turnpike System will be effectively advertised,
particularly in the solicitation of trucking companies, and that
all roads feeding to and connecting with its interchanges will be
suitably posted as routes to the Turnpike.
104
5. That the Florida Turnpike System will be efficiently operated,
maintained in good condition, and its routine Operations per-
formed in a manner which will insure high standards of service
to its patrons and close control of its traffic and revenue.
6. That no competitive Turnpike facilities will be constructed dur-
ing the life of the bond issue.
7. That the Florida Turnpike System will be built essentially as
described in this Report of Traffic and Revenues and in the
Engineering Report which follows.
Description of the Turnpike
The Florida Turnpike System, as contemplated in this Report, will
be a high-speed, limited access, expressway built in accordance with the
most up-to-date Turnpike design standards and will reflect the ultimate
in highway facilities. There will be two lanes of traffic in each direction
and stabilized shoulders will be provided on either side in order to
accommodate disabled vehicles. The opposing lanes of vehicular traffic
will be separated by a center mall.
IBoth ascending and descending grades Will be kept to a maximum
of 3 per cent. Maximum sight distances as Well as ease of travel at
design speeds Will be provided by long tangent roadway stretches and
curves, both horizontal and vertical, of sufficient radius to meet the
design criteria.
At appropriate intervals along the route of the Turnpike System,
service stations and restaurants will be erected by the Turnpike System
for the convenience of Turnpike patrons. All highways and railroads
which intersect the Turnpike System will be carried on structures either
under or over the traffic lanes of the Turnpike. On some roads of very
small traffic volumes a grade separation structure would not be justified;
Service road connections will be Constructed to reroute the traffic Of
such roads to adjacent highways.
Route Selection Studies
Studies of available geological information and surface features
from aerial photographs and many maps, in conjunction with field sur-
veys, were made in the area of the wide traffic desire bands and several
possible routes for the Turnpike System were analyzed. The traffic sur-
vey information discussed earlier in this Report, in addition to indicating
the desires of the major traffic movements, defined the points of traffic
105
concentration. The location of interchanges to serve the communities in
Florida along these routes was determined during the study of each line.
The Turnpike route shown on the Location Map indicates the general
location of the proposed facility as a result of these studies.
The final selected East Coast Turnpike route starts at a point on
Route U. S. 1 below Jacksonville in Duval County. The Turnpike ap-
proach will overpass Route U. S. 1 and the adjacent railroad tracks and
continue, along the higher sandy land to the West of the railroad, in a
southerly direction.
The Turnpike Route continues generally south along west of the
railroad within a reasonable distance of the towns or cities so that
adequate interchanges may be provided at reasonable distances between
the communities to be served and the Turnpike.
The selected East Coast Turnpike passes west of St. Augustine,
continues south and west of Bunnell, and west of Ormond, Daytona
Beach, Port Orange, New Smyrna Beach, Oak Hill, Titusville, Indian
River City, Cocoa, Bonaventure, Eau Gallie, Melbourne, Grant, Vero
Beach, Fort Pierce, Stuart, Jupiter, and West Palm Beach. The selected
route then continues southerly and west of the railroad but east of Route
U. S. 441. Generally parallel with this route the Turnpike continues
southerly and west of Delray Beach, Boca Raton, Pompano and Fort
Lauderdale to terminate at a point northwest of Miami.
The investigation indicates that suitable right-of-way on the selected
line for the East Coast Turnpike can be secured at reasonable cost, and
that the terrain along this route is suitable for Turnpike construction.
Several other North-South routes were studied. An attempt to find
a continuous route along the ocean front was discontinued due to the
nature and expense of passing through existing developed areas. The
expense of these undertakings would be prohibitive. The next apparent
probable route would lie between the Intracoastal Waterway and Route
U. S. 1. The existing communities in this area also ruled it out as a
feasible route. Right-of-way expenses forced consideration of a route
west of Route U. S. 1, between it and the Florida East Coast Railway,
which run from Jacksonville southerly to the Miami and Dade County
areas. In general, more and costlier structures would be required to
traverse the area between Route U. S. 1 and the Florida East Coast Rail-
way than the selected route to the west of the Railway.
106
The Cross State Route was chosen after considerable ground in-
spection had been made. This ground inspection indicated that a route
parallel and immediately adjacent to Route U. S. 92, would be costly
and give inadequate interchange service unless excessively large funds
were available for right-of-way and construction costs.
Considering also the inadvisability of destroying developed areas, a
suitable route south of Route U. S. 92, in general, was studied. This
route would pass east of Sanford and Orlando and south and east of
Rissimmee. It would continue south of Haines City, Winter Haven,
and Lakeland and connect with Tampa at its southern approaches.
A distinct disadvantage of this southern route is that it would not
afford as efficient and economical connections to the Tampa and St.
Petersburg areas as the route selected.
The CrOSS State route selected connects with the East Coast Turn-
pike Route north of Titusville, travels south and west across the more
open areas of Seminole County, south and east of Sanford and continues
through the center of Orange County in a south-westerly direction. The
route passes south and east of Orlando and north of Kissimmee, Haines
City, Winter Haven, Lakeland, Plant City, and Tampa and terminates
in a connection with Route U. S. 19.
The selected Cross State route affords excellent terrain for the
construction of the roadway, structures and interchanges of the proposed
Turnpike. The right-of-way along this route can be obtained at a reason-
able cost. The definite advantage of this selected route is that excellent
connections can be provided to Tampa, Clearwater, and St. Petersburg.
Turnpike Interchanges
Interchanges for the Turnpike System are indicated on the Loca-
tion Map by circles. Some of the interchanges are located more than 25
miles apart because sufficient traffic demands to sustain the expense of
both construction and operation of interchanges, does not exist at this
time. However, if developments occur in these areas where the inter-
change points are widely separated, facilities can be provided to meet
the demands of this future growth. The Location Map, in addition to
the interchange points shows project terminals, major intersecting and
parallel highways, and important population centers. All vehicles de-
siring to use the Turnpike System will be afforded access to and egress
from the Turnpike at the proposed interchange points. Each inter-
change connects to either a State or Federal highway or highways which
107
in turn serve the surrounding cities and rural communities and offer con-
nection by way of the existing highways to all of the central and Atlantic
Seaboard section to the State of Florida.
On the East Coast Turnpike vehicular interchanges will be located
near the following towns or cities: Bayard, St. Augustine, Bunnell, Day-
tona Beach, and New Smyrna Beach. Southeast of the New Smyrna
Beach interchange the Cross State Turnpike will diverge from the east
coast route. South of this point, the next interchange on the East Coast
Turnpike is near Titusville. Turnpike interchanges are also located near
Cocoa, Melbourne, and Vero Beach; west of Fort Pierce; southwest of
Stuart; and near West Palm Beach. Farther down the east coast, Turn-
pike interchanges are located near Delray Beach, Pompano Beach and
Fort Lauderdale. The southern terminal, will be northwest of Miami.
Proceeding southwesterly along the Cross-State Route of the Turn-
pike from the junction with the East Coast Route, the first interchange is
located east of Orlando; the other interchanges are located near Kissim-
mee, north of Haines City on Route U. S. 27, near Lakeland, and near
Plant City. Approaching the west coast, Turnpike interchanges are
located at the intersections with Route U. S. 301 and Route U. S. 41,
north of Tampa. The western terminal is a connection to Route U. S. 19,
near Clearwater, north of St. Petersburg.
Design Criteria
Geometrics
Design speed shall be 70 miles per hour.
The sight distances on horizontal and vertical curves based on
41% foot height of driver's eye to 4 inch height of object shall be a
minimum of 600 feet.
Vertical curves shall be of sufficient length to provide satis-
factory sight distances and good riding qualities.
The degree of horizontal curvature shall be a maximum of 3
degrees.
The rate of superelevation shall be a maximum of 1 inch per
foot of width.
All horizontal curves above 0°-19' shall be superelevated.
The rate of grade on the turnpikes shall be a maximum of 3
per cent.
The rate of grade on the turnpike ramp connections shall be
a maximum of 5 per cent for up-grade ramps and 6 per cent for
down-grade ramps.

108
The grade elevation of the turnpike roadways shall be such
that the top of the subgrade is a minimum of 2 feet above flood stage
at all locations.
The center mall width shall be increased as much as practicable
and where possible varied to produce different profile relationships
to relieve monotony and effect economies in construction costs.
Structures
Design criteria for all structures are shown on Plate III follow-
ing this page.
Roadway Section
Typical roadway sections for rural and urban areas are shown
On the Plates IV and V which follow.
The roadway section consists of two twenty-four foot wide high
type pavements, separated by a variable-width center mall, with a
minimum Width. Of four feet.
The pavements shall have a straight slope from the inside edge
to the outside edge of three-sixteenth inch per foot at all locations
except at superelevated sections.
The Shoulder's Shall be 8 feet minimum in Width and Stabilized.
The side slopes in both cut and fill sections shall be 1 on 6 up
to 6 feet in height; 1 on 4 for heights between 6 feet and 10 feet; 1
on 2 with guard rail for heights above 10 feet.
Through all cut sections a ditch of adequate width and depth
for proper drainage shall be constructed adjacent to the outside
slopes. Wherever necessary, ditches shall be constructed adjacent
to the right-of-way line.
Where the center mall exceeds twenty-six feet in width it shall
be depressed on a slope not steeper than 1 on 4 to provide center
drainage. For widths of twenty-six feet or less the drainage may be
across the pavement.
Mulch, muck blanket, or other material suitable for the pro-
motion of growth of grass and prevention of erosion shall be used
on the shoulders and on the unstabilized portions of the roadway,
slopes, and ditches in areas where the existing material is unsuitable
for this purpose.
Selective clearing and grubbing shall be carried out at all
portions of the right-of-way beyond the top of back slopes, beyond
the bottom of fill slopes, and in the mall wherever possible outside
the limits of the shoulders.
109
The right-of-way width shall be a minimum of 200 feet.
Necessary borrow shall be obtained from areas at least 300 feet
removed from the roadway right-of-way.
Curbs shall be provided only in sections with a narrow center
mall; immediately adjacent to structures; and as barriers at piers.
The 12 inch depth of subgrade directly below the pavement and
the stabilized portions of the shoulders shall have a minimum bear-
ing value of 75 pounds per square inch; the shoulder stabilization
to be 6 inches deep.
The roadway section will be equal or above the American Asso-
ciation of State Highway Officials' Standards for the National Sys-
tem of Interstate Highways. Design drawings and specifications
shall be based on State Road Department standards.
Drainage
All existing open ditches shall be spanned with drainage struc-
tures so as not to impede their function.
Suitable transverse and longitudinal drainage shall be provided
for the turnpike and the interchange areas.
Structures
Typical undercrossing and typical overcrossing and stream
crossing structures are shown on Plates VI and VII which follow.
Long viaduct structures over 140 feet in length shall be pile trestle
type. The cross section shall be two-28 foot wide roadways separated
by a six-inch high, four-foot minimum wide raised center mall. The
outside curbs shall be ten inches high. Safety walks, two feet wide
shall be provided between the 10 inch outside curbs and the railings.
Aedequate railings shall be provided.
Short viaducts and structures, less than 140 feet in length, shall
be designed of a type satisfactory for conditions encountered. The
cross section for the Turnpike shall be a twenty-eight foot wide road-
way between ten-inch high curbs. Safety walks two feet wide shall
be provided between the ten inch curbs and the railings. Appropriate
horizontal and vertical clearances shall be allowed for the crossing
of existing railroads, highways, and interchange ramps. The struc-
ture decks shall be reinforced concrete. Approach slabs of reinforced
concrete shall be provided adjacent to the structure decks. The
architectural treatment shall be pleasing and adapted to the locality.

110

PLATE III
GOVE/PW//VG SAEEC//º/CA7/O/VS, FLORIDA STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD
AND BRIDGE construction.
A.A.S. // O STA/VD4/7D SAEEC/F/C477OWS FOR ///G//WAYBR/DGES:
LOADING: H2O-sle -44 FOR TURNPIKE systEM
H2O-44 FOR LOCAL ROADS(OR AS REQUIRED)
MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCES:
HIGHWAYFT5TFEET
RAILROAD - 22 FT. 6 IN. (ABOVE TOP OF RAIL)
v,
º
3. TRAFFIC LANE
O loº-O"
O
(N)
Tſ)
K
i
i
t
SIG TRUC º T T
14!. O" V 2*o". 6+o" iglo
V = VARIABLE SPACING 14 FEET TO 3O FEET INCLUSIVE. USE SPAGING WHICH WILL
PRODUCE MAXIMUM STRESSES.
\
S
T
D.
H
2
O
->
FOR DECK SLAB DESIGN – 24 OOOLB. AXLE LOAD UP TO IO'-6"SPAN
ALLOWABLE UNIT STRESSES USED IN DESIGN'
REINFORGING STEEL f s = 20,000 "/n"
= 1. OOO “Zr." 0.
CONGRETE fo -V. f"c D } MAXIMUM fºc = 4,500 p.s.i.
NO PROVISION MADE IN DESIGN FOR FUTURE WEAR ING
SURFACE ON CONCRETE SLAB.
THE ROADWAY SLAB THICKNESS REQUIRED BY THE DESIGN
MAY BE INCREASED Va" As ALLOWANCE FOR weAR.
FLORIDA STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT
FLORIDA TURNPIKE SYSTEM
BRIDGE DESIGN CRITERIA
JULY 1952
PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL 8 MACDONALD
ENGINEERS NEW YORK
t.|~-_
= = = = = -m ） • • • • • • • • ► - - - - -
*
PLATE IV
/e 4-ade Aoin? … Grade A*/of
|
.5ee /Voye AP
-See AVo/e 43
oria More C
2^
~~
S .5ee /Voye &
and/ A/ofe C
...~"
S
~
~
S
S
--~~
TYPICAL SECTION - R U R A L A R E A
22a (///2. &y
|- 3 e^eefºre 3/222ara/ Čezzºg # &z-Aéſzzy se/eezzve
c/e a rhºzº” c/ear/o37
Jee AVofe Aſ º º
Are?/e &raze A227—J (A/a/ Varies) 22.2% Graae A272/
Jee AVofe A .See AVoſe A 25 M//7.
Var-zes a " - — 9)
& Zn//7. 24'4222.2/way & 'man. & "mºn. 24'4322/way & ‘Am/z. ſ
(
Jee A/o/e A C
L– See avore tº Aeve/ Jee A/o ye B &
Z-F _ºf_ wºrries— | 24eve/ 2T arza A/ofe C TN —s/eae Yazzº 4 zº “4- 2^ or c/ AVofe C Ts J J J
=#4%Hä: *m- ~ _^
See AVo/e 43 → --> 5 * N ~~~~ ~sº 2-
one wore c – -I 42.5/a8///zofoo ~~ # S- 40's/24//2277/oo ~s 2*
*~ *~ ~1–T T- *~ ~
3 z
TYP |CAL SEC T | ON SHOWING SUPERE LEV ATION /7//7.
RU RAL AREA
z aſ C. &ra, 4
4.3% /Vore 4 /Voye ZD
Arofºe &rade A2/~f A-2//e 2-222 A2/2/ A70//c/7, ma cA. Ab/a/7/aer - VV/a/e/7 s/?oa//a/e/rs 2 ſeer az727 cops frozcz
5ee /Vo/e Z) /Me2/22 Czora or 722 so/ oad sprzy?zng 474/2/-a/ ra// 27 /ocarzon of s/o.2es
/O’/7/77. avora Aºazz construc//on as read//re aſ . e
A 3ee /Vofe Z) ? 57°eeper //ha/2 24 . A .
/Vože A3
azz/2^2 /32//
J/oaes s^2// Ae :
Z on 6 - 2p zo 6 ſ.
See AVofe Æ / on 4 - 6 ſ. ſo /O /?
":/––
72/7
22' 3/24///
See /Vore &
/ on 2 - over /O fr.
/Vože C STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
Zep//, and war/, of a/rches zo Ae
TYP ICAL SECTION OF ACCESS R AMP adequare 272 deaemaeoſ upon ///e PROPOSED FLORIDA TURN PIKE SYSTEM
(TWO WAY) dra/7age system. TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTIONS
R U RAL AREA
J U L Y 1952
PARSON S, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL 8 MACDONALD





































































ENG|NEERS NEW YORK
{*
�-* * …
| | PLATE VC
225////7.
3ee /Vofe A
| 5e/ec//ve
C/ear/22
Jee AVože A3
3% C/ear/22 # cº-2,44/22 -- - - ——
-- - - - - - - - --— — —--—— — — — ----------... — 200' 4"/W (///z) ———- —- ~ : — —----—- - - -—--— -- - - - - -—- - - - - - - --T “ Tº"T"--------------- - -- ...—--...--—— ... ...—--...--—- -- - - - - - - -
Arofºe Grazze Az/2/*— : A-2-2A//e a 2-22/2 2/2/4
/O "/r/n. | | º - S. -
; *º- e /Vofe A *
Hºſec/722 Cz//-A e e sº-T—ºr£4%.
/ſ .c/ear/29
3 mºn 24 'A'22&vvoy 2" 4:42 24' ×22.7/w 'Az//7.
- *—---- + - __ _ _ 2 * *22-7xx'o Y_ —-i-º’--
|| mºn :
&zzra/42// * * * * -— 3//a":/’ l 3//a "; / . * , , ,
.5’ee /Vože D –34"; / J y . **2–- i
34 (3/a4///zzzz'/22 34' 5/24//zzz zºo.”
& ſº
Q \, .)
X. --~~ _--~~
( ~ —
: ~~
LDU ~~~ ( - )
–/e- - ~~
‘ſ zz/w & Y/z ANN w W º –4 _r=ºzzº
TYPICAL SECTION – U R BAN A REA
220 *% (M/w.) -º-
I t * 25' 4/22.
£4.4%/2 - 342. C/e 2/7/22 º &rAéſoz --- -- T-3eze %2
5 e /ecz', we c/ea/~/22
37.3% See /Voye A A/ea//a/2 Cz//-AE See /Vore Æ. –
eraſ/ a7/2 Z/ZT
/O’/m/n. Aºre/7/2 Grazae Abzº— | -- Aro/772 Grzo/e A22/27. -
& 77/7. &4’ A322d way 2"|| 4 || 2: 24' 43'222/vva y 32/7 -
hin .
|
/ Wºrry 24eve/
avora Ka//—ſ. * 2. | — =/øe 2/~/es
See AVože ZO 34* /”z. *::=#:Zº ^- ~s Jee AVoye A
A. ~ *~ _- ^,
____ 34° 37'24///zz ž/22 —— 34° 37'24///z.2%/22 — . . --—º `--~ *-
|-ºr — `--~ 2-y
`--~
--~
_- ^_
--~~~ *~
~ - `--~
~~ `--~ ~
--~~~ ~~~~ --~~~~ `--~ ~
--~~~ --~~~ ~ ^ J
--~~~~ --~~~~ *~ º
Kº WZ2 K2 NY& º key \\ *=
TYP CAL SEC T | ON SHOW ING SUPERE LEV ATION
U R B A N AREA
/Vože 24
25' ///o. A-4
3e/ec/ºve
c/earſ2?
|
225' //,2. L
5*2 &/222/2 2. &zzé4/zz
Aº-of//e Grace Ab/27––-
.5ee /Vože A4
\{ }
|- 37/a. /*A*222 way & /n//7
.5ee Aoſe o
Zoº an//7.
Goora Ka// Aleve/
2–34"; /* —3//e"; /* /
Jee /Vože AP | — — ºl I-
->
-:2\ 2 2. Ü 3 O'3/24///zoº/22
T->~~ >
~~~
-
TYPI CAL SECTION OF ACCESS RAMP
(ONE WAY)
/////c/h, /774/cA A/a/7A ef
or Zoo So// and S/2/799/72
as re?&/reaſ.
/Vože A3
S/oaes s/ 2// Are :
/ on 6 - 2/2 ſo 6 fr.
/ or 4 - 65 y? ſo /O /z.
/ on 2 - ove/ /O //
/Vože /)
VV/a/en s/7oz//a/e/rs 2 feez 2/72
cons/roc/ guara/ /a/ a7 /oco//o/7s
of 5/opes .5/ee/>e/- ?/72/7 4 / .
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
PROPOSED FLORIDA TURN PIKE SYSTEM
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTIONS
U R B A N A REA
J U LY 1952
PARSONS, BRINCKER HOFF, HALL a M AcDon ALD






ENGI NEERS |NEW YORK

PLATE VI
/– Top of RAIL
A
| / A- TOP OF SIDEWALK
# = E = H H = E = E = E = E = E = E E = E = H = E =
= E = F F = – El El E- E- E- E- E. E. E. = E E E E EZ-. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E.
Z. V. sº
W T
H …” -
W. E H= e1 W
| . *— BOTTOM OF STRINGER
C,
7-o"min || 7.9 min § |
- | l
8 . O" 12. O" 24!. O" 2"| 2"|* 24 o” 8 o'" ſis
mln : min. -
+Accºfºlo 4 HIGH SPEED ariº. & High SPEED ARTERIAL | \ APPROxiMATE
- LANE - | - | . T FINISHED GRADE
| | - | .
_FT- *— |
i -
*—l
SEC T | O N A – A
ELEVAT | ON - TYPI CAL STRUCTURE AT INTERC HANGE
TOP OF RAIL t 1 * *
*—t / TOP OF SI DEWALK L3’l. 24 - O" m in.
BOTTOM OF STRINGER —
APPROX IMATE
T FINISHED GRADE
tner SPEED ARTER la L B | t HIGH SPEED ARTERIAL
SEC T | O N B - B
WITHOUT S K EW
ELEVATION - TYPICAL UNDERCROSSING - TWO WAY TRAFFIC
BOTTOM OF STRINGER
MATE
GRADE
than SPEED
STATE ROAD DEPARTM E NT OF FLORIDA
PROPOSED FLORIDA TURN PIKE SYSTEM
TYPICAL UNDERCROSS|NG
ELEVATION - TYPICAL UNDERCROSSING - ONE WAY TRAFFIC STRUCTURES
J U L Y | Sº 52
PARSONS, BRINCKERHOFF, HALL a MACD ON ALD
















ENGINEERS NEW YORK
Joe of s/ope. * ‘s. - - -
Ayve Wh /Zorºa ........ - &
37.5 zego/reo
H
--- £ of 3rºe
PART PLAN AT ABUTMENT
2 2 __2440 2'4"a 2- 240 2
ELEVATION-TYPICAL STRUCTURE OVER SWAMP, WASTE LAND OR WATER CROSSING - g
SECTION A – A
Aone-t
2.
-
3. 24: O" 2,2'
When 3//offe 30&n As Jess #32 /40'increase 20/3/22
s/hocy/ae/ Afo//, /o 34.0"
SECTION B - B
ELEVATION-TYPICAL RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION STRUCTURE
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
PROPOSED FLORIDA TURN PIKE SYSTEM
TYPICAL OVERCROSSING AND
STREAM CROSSING STRUCTURES
J U L Y | S 52
E L EVATION - TYPICAL OVERCROSSING ELEVATION-TYPICAL STRUCTURE ACROSS RIM DITCH
PARSONS, B R IN CKER HO FF, HALL 8 M A CDO NALD






ENGINEERS NEW YORK
*
**
º
:
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
T – — — .
T- -
*-
— —- - -- ~
_ — — — —
_-- ~~
-*
-*
*- -
PLATE VIII
|* CU R V E
.
-*
|* CURVE
|
__ – — T
-*
---
-----"
_-- ~~
--~~"
-- TT
_-- ~T
-**
C O N T R O L A R E A
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA
PROPOSED FLORIDA TURN PIKE SYSTEM
| 8 O'
MAX. LONGITUDINAL
GRADE 1.5 %,
| TYPICAL |NTERCHANGE PLAN
J U L Y | 952
3OO FEET
PARSONS, BRING KERHOFF, HALL a MAC Don ALD








ENGINEERS |NEW YORK
\{* æ
Interchanges
Two fourteen-foot roadways plus two-foot shoulders, shall be
carried across the interchange structures. A four-foot divisor strip
and two two-foot safety curbs shall be used. Below the structure,
the Turnpike center mall shall be constructed on a long transition to
a minimum width of fourteen feet between the inside edges of the
roadways, allowing for the two-foot inside shoulders plus five feet
to the center line of the center pier. Adjacent to the outside edge
of one of the twenty-four foot roadways shall be a twelve-foot accele-
ration lane carried under the bridge. Between the outside edge of
this acceleration lane and the face of the bridge, an eight-foot mini-
mum clearance shall be provided. This same eight-foot minimum
clearance shall be provided between the standard twenty-four foot
roadway and the bridge pier on the opposite side.
Adequate lighting shall be provided in the vicinity of all inter-
changes, on the ramps, the Turnpike, and the crossroads. Design
speed shall be 40 miles per hour minimum on interchange roadways.
The layout of a typical interchange is shown on Plate VIII, “Typical
Interchange Plan”, which follows.
Service and Maintenance Areas
Suitable service and maintenance areas shall be constructed so as
to service the turnpike adequately.
Estimates of Cost
The cost of the Florida Turnpike System is estimated at $242,500,000.
The cost of construction of the East Coast Turnpike is $146,983,000, and
the Cross-State Turnpike $51,865,000. The construction estimate is as
follows:
Preliminary Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 500,000
Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,700,000
Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198,848,000
Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,908,000
Legal and Administrative Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Organizational Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000,000
Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,044,000
Total — $242,500,000

111
Prices for construction are considered adequate for present condi-
tions in Florida. The unit costs are based on a review of actual contract
prices for similar work for the Road Department for a period of nine
months ending January, 1952. The estimates of right-of-way costs are
present fair market values obtained by consultation with the County
Assessors of most of the counties through which the proposed facility
will pass.
The cost of maintenance and operation for the 443 miles of the
Florida Turnpike System is estimated at approximately $10,000 per mile
annually, or a total of $4,500,000.
Feasibility of the Project
For the purpose of revenue bond financing, an allowance for interest
during construction and the cost of financing must be added to the con-
struction estimate. The project estimate is as follows:
Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $242,500,000
Cost of Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 750,000
Interest During Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,750,000
Total — $275,000,000
From the estimate of gross income from tolls and other sources for
the Florida Turnpike System, the anticipated average annual gross
revenue is $30,185,270. The estimated annual average cost of maintenance
and operation is $4,500,000, leaving an annual net revenue for the twenty-
Seven years of operation within the thirty-year bond issue of $25,685,270.
Interest and amortization on a thirty-year 3% percent bond issue of
$275,000,000, assuming equal annual installments, will be earned 1,61
timeS.
In our opinion, based on the Preliminary Engineering Report and
the estimates of traffic and earnings and construction cost, the project
is financially feasible and is practical from an engineering and con-
struction standpoint.
1 12
"gº=
... . . liº º -- #
fºurº
. ºrrºw §§º,
º: ; §§ º ºriº
+ ...}. i e - º 2-cº º
º º:::::::::...
§ {
WºW *
ãootsoº--
--




----…**---.*_