good road increases the possibilities in the use of the horse but the point is that it does not increase those possibilities in anything like the measure by which it increases the possibilities in the use of the motor vehicle. An automobile on a good road may easily travel 250 miles between sunrise and sunset, and perhaps only 50 miles on a really bad road. The improved road holds no such possibility of increase in the day's journey of the horse-drawn vehicle. This is, in our opinion, the real explanation of the connection between the development of the motor vehicle and the growth of the movement for good roads. There was no effective demand for good roads so long as they offered only the increase in advantages available with a horse-drawn vehic'e. Good roads. had to wait until a body of automobile users arose who realized the very greatly increased possibilities of the hard, smooth roads with their new machines. The fact that the disposition to charge at least a portion of the cost of the improved roads to the motor-vehicle is country-wide in its scope, is evidence of the soundness of the above analysis. The motor vehicle is adopted as the tax base primarily as a means of reaching the user of the road and with one accord the states turn to these users with the demand that if they really want the good roads, they, who use them, must pay for them in whole or in part. The question then immediately arises as to whether the whole cost or only a part, and, if only a part, precisely what part, of the costs should be borne by the users. Some of the enthusiasts for heavy motor fees seem to forget that roads and streets were considered necessary before the advent of the automobile and the truck and that the public interest in these roads and streets was often considered sufficient to justify their construction and maintenance as a general public charge. In the case of city streets, of course, it has been a general practice to charge a portion of these costs to the land immediately served, in the form of special assessments. Certainly there is a certain element of general public interest in almost every road, whether it be a back alley in a remote suburb or a motor speedway stretching across the State, which might form a sound basis for charging a part of the cost to general tax funds. On the other hand, some of the representatives of the motor vehicle interests go to the other extreme, asserting that the public builds roads for itself, free for all to use as they choose, and that it is unfair to charge any part of the cost to any particular group of users. It seems to the Committee that the true view is one which lies between these extremes. That there is a general public interest in the streets and highways is true. But it is equally true that, when these streets and highways cost more than they otherwise would because of the necessity of supplying accommodations to a particular group of users, such additional cost may be properly chargeable to those particular groups. The problem is to draw the line. Once drawn it determines the maximum amount which may be equitably assessed against the user, under the revenue system as it now stands in this State. Such a division line would, however, serve to remove the discussion of motor-transportation taxation to a new plane where the criteria of fairness would be something more dependable than mere assertion. It might bring home to the people the true costs involved in the present elaborate plans for road construction and make possible a more intelligent decision as to the desirability of such expenditures. In such intelligent comparisons of costs and advantages lies the only possible solution of the financial problem which the State is facing. Without them, road-building may possibly play the role in State bankruptcy which was taken by internal improvements in so many states a century ago. In cases where the roads are used for business, as, for example, in the case of a motor truck hauling eggs from up-State to New York City, the term "user of the road" must be understood to be the person for whom the service is rendered. The purchasers of the eggs in a New York City grocery in a very real sense employ the truck to bring them the eggs. A charge on the user of the road would under the present system be imposed, of course, upon the truck but it will appear as a business expense of the truck owner who must pass it on in higher prices to the consumer of the eggs. These facts have been seized upon by some of the representatives of the trucking interests as an argument for opposing special charges on trucks on the ground that "the public builds. the roads and the public cats the eggs;" that the public derives a direct benefit from the transportation over the roads it owns, the truck being the mere agent or servant of the public. This position, however, overlooks this important consideration, that not all eggs are brought to New York City by truck. Many are brought by the railroads. If the true costs of the truck-borne egg, including the cost of supplying any additional road facilities involved in the use of the truck, is not charged to the buyer of that egg, the egg carried by the railroad is discriminated against, for it must certainly be sold at a price which covers the entire cost of its transportation. Nor does the reply that the railway is a monopoly, whereas the trucking business is not, meet the point, for a railroad under regulated rates is not permitted to exercise the monopolistic privilege of price control. Its rates are regulated on the principle of a "fair return." The conclusion is that only by charging to the user of the road the community costs involved in supplying him the additional road facilities required by him in his use of the roads can the motor-truck competition with the railroad be placed on a basis which will insure an economically sound decision in the struggle between the motor-truck and the railroad. This is the only way to keep the accounts straight,* so that an industry whose proper development means so much to the solution of the transportation problem may be neither repressed or unconsciously subsidized. The important results which might follow the statistical analysis of road costs suggested above would justify considerable effort to carry it through but it is a task which involves resources beyond those available to this Committee. Indeed with the present differences of opinion and lack of knowledge regarding the engineering aspects of the problem it might prove impossible to carry through the analysis in a manner which would yield trustworthy results. It will be of interest, however, to bear this general analy sis in mind when considering such general facts regarding road costs and motor vehicle revenues as are readily available. Motor traffic and road costs. The essential connection between the growth of the good-roads movement and the development of the use of motor vehicles has already been pointed out.† *The public utilities contend, and with considerable force in the opinion of the Committee, that in all justice to them, truck companies maintaining a freight service should be classed as public utilities and subjected to the various special taxes which utilities must pay. † Supra, p. 132. The output of motor vehicles in the United States for the year 1899 was 3,700. It first exceeded one million in 1916, and in 1920 the output was two and one-quarter millions. The number of motor trucks is still relatively small, being less than 15 per cent of the total output in 1920, but from the point of view of wear on the highways motor trucks are of more importance than passenger cars. More than that, the rate of increase of motor trucks is greater than the rate of increase of passenger cars. There appears to have been an overproduction of passenger cars in the last few years, and while the number of such cars operated will continue to increase, the future rate of increase will probably diminish. There is not the same degree of overproduction in the truck industry, and while the rate of increase may be less henceforth the absolute increase promises to be large.† * The development of improved highway systems is reflected in both public debts and expenditures. The total of all State debts for highway purposes in 1899 was about three and one-half million dollars, or between one and two per cent of all State debts. In 1919 the State highway debt had grown to more than one hundred and forty-three millions, or more than twenty-one per cent of State debts for all purposes. This is only one indication of the incresaing expenditure for highways. In addition the states have appropriated large amounts of current revenues for highway improvement, and the local divisions have in many cases exceeded the states in the amount spent for this purpose. Moreover, the large number of projects under contemplation by the highway departments at present indicate that such expenditures have only begun. The number of motor vehicles registered in New York in 1920 was 670,290 or 7.3 per cent of total registrations in the United States. This represents an increase of 18 per cent over 1919, and 263 per cent over 1915. The number of motor trucks registered in 1920 was 148,873. This is a larger number than is registered *The increase in annual production of passenger cars between 1915 and 1920 was 230 per cent as compared with an increase of 435 per cent for motor trucks. This and the data quoted above are taken from the National Automobile Chamber of Commerce: Facts and Figures of the Automobile Industry, 1921. † See discussion of motor industry by F. R. Pleasonton's article, entitled "The Automotive Industry, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Sept., 1921, p. 107 et seq, Most of the debt in 1899 for highways was in Massachusetts. Bureau of the Census, Wealth Debt and Taxation, 1913; Financial Statistics of the States, 1919. in any other State,* and also represents a larger portion, 22.2 per cent, of the total number of motor vehicles registered, although in Massachusetts and Connecticut motor trucks represent about one-fifth of all motor vehicles registered. A traffic census taken by the New York Highway Department on eight of the State's highways in four different years show the following results:+ TABLE 17. CHARACTER OF ROAD TRAFFIC, 1909, 1914, 1916, AND 1919. Year over Number over over over over over 1916 (Per- (Percentage) centage) The number of trucks and busses counted in the same census in 1916 were 299 and in 1919 986, an increase of 230 per cent as compared with 148 per cent for all motor traffic. The density of motor traffic as represented by the number of automobiles per mile of public rural road is 8.3 in New York. This is exceeded in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California and Connecticut, with densities varying from 23.3 automobiles per mile to 8.5 automobiles per mile. It has already been suggested that construction of highways has been one of the principal causes of State debt in the United States. This is even more true in New York than in other states. In 1897 New York had no improved highways outside of the cities. In this year the State made its first appropriation $250,000 for this purpose. This was followed by further appropriations, and in 1907 bonds were first issued by the State for highway improvements. A fifty-million dollar issue was author *The number of motor vehicles registered in New York in the first six months of 1921 was 721,488, an increase of 8 per cent over 1920. Ohio stands second in the number of motor trucks registered, with 83,300. Report, New York State Highway Dept., 1919. Automobile Facts, pp. 34-37. § Supra, p. 135. |