State System.
—The benefits to be derived from and the arguments for a national system of roads apply with equal force to a state system. In fact it may be better to avoid the two extremes of one consolidated central control for the whole country and a very highly dispersed decentralized local control. The state seems to be a sufficiently large unit to do good work and sufficiently small to be approachable. Competition with other states may bring out developments which under a single central control would never have been thought of. Notwithstanding the excellent research work that is being carried on by the Bureau of Public Roads there is no doubt but that that which is being done by the several states more nearly solves those special problems arising on account of climate, topography, soil, and so on of the particular state.
The state system should cover a greater per cent of the roads than a national system can hope to do. The effort seems to be to take over about 10 per cent of the established roads as state highways. Such roads, if carefully selected and located, can accommodate from 90 to 95 per cent of the inhabitants of the state.
The remaining roads would continue under local—county and town—authorities. A county system might be laid out and money expended upon its roads about in proportion to their use.
Again there is a feeling on the part of many that the first expense of improving a road (that would include grading, bridging, and paving, even if the latter should be done some time subsequent to the former) should be borne by the state and the abutting property, that the maintenance should be under the direction of the local authorities, and paid for by local taxation and by a portion of the state automobile license and gasoline taxes to be returned to the county for this purpose.