—The Bureau of Public Roads gives out the information that 11,930 miles of road have been constructed during the year 1921 by the States in conjunction with Federal Aid, at a total cost of $231,963,682, toward which the government allotted $94,057,089. There were under way during the year 31,228 miles, which was about one-half the road work carried on in the United States during the year. It is safe to assume, then, that through the stimulus of Government Aid, direct and indirect, more than 20,000 miles were built during 1921, and that more than 40,000 more miles are under way.
The effects of Federal Aid is just now beginning to be felt; a few years more will see the United States so well supplied with good roads that the national appropriations for Federal Aid may be reduced materially.
It is estimated that the $190,000,000 available for allotment, $65,000,000 for the year ending 1923, $75,000,000 for the year 1924, and $50,000,000 remaining from previous appropriations, will result in the construction of more than 25,000 miles of road, which added to the 46,000 miles that are expected to result from previous federal appropriations, makes a total of 71,000 miles, or nearly 40 per cent of the estimated 180,000 miles of good roads in the System of Federal Aid roads now being outlined.
The U. S. Bureau of Public Roads gives out the figures up to December 31, 1921, as follows:
| Federal Aid Apportioned, 1917 to 1922 inc., | $339,875,000 |
| Projects under Construction: | |
| Total Estimated Cost | 275,652,104 |
| Federal Aid | 117,049,690 |
| Miles | 15,834 |
| Projects on which Construction is Completed: | |
| Total Estimated Cost | 221,739,710 |
| Federal Aid | 95,054,184 |
| Miles | 12,907 |
Matching Federal Aid Dollars.
—The main argument that brought the Federal Aid law into being was the need of farm to market roads and the fact that in the past the expense for building and maintaining roads fell most heavily upon the farmer. In an excellent report made by Senator Bankhead (Senate Report 250, 64th Congress, 1st Session) for the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, the statement is made that “it is probably conservative to say that at least 75 per cent of the money raised for road purposes” at that time, 1916, “is paid by the owners of country property.” He gives statistics to show that the owners of less than one-third of the real property of the United States were paying more than three-fourths of the cost of the public roads. This did not seem to be equitable, since the country people did not have a monopoly on their use. The burden of building and caring for the roads should be distributed among all who were benefited by them. There is no very adequate method of doing this, but inasmuch as all citizens, both city and country, share in the raising of national revenues, the result of federal appropriations would be to tend in some measure to equalize the cost of roads as between city and country.
It was not thought wise to make a direct gift of money from the federal treasury, as that would favor too much of paternalism, would result in “pork barrel” scandals, and would stifle local initiative, energy, and self-help. If the federal government were to enter upon the building outright of a system of roads, there would be a temptation for the states and counties to cease building in the hope the government would eventually get around to them. Likewise the demand for “pork” would be enormous. The plan was therefore devised of requiring the state to pay half the expenses of road building, that is, of matching dollars, fifty-fifty, with the federal treasury. It was further decided that federal money should go into road extensions, leaving repairs and renewals to the states. If states refuse to perform the necessary maintenance the only recourse the government has is to withdraw future Federal aid. The object of the government was to add to the stock of good roads, and eventually secure the necessary 20 per cent upon which engineers state, 80 to 90 per cent of the entire traffic can be adequately accommodated.
Many of the states were devoid of the necessary machinery to take care of this money and expend it efficiently in the construction of roads or to maintain them in good condition afterward; so the Government asked that highway departments be created, if they did not already exist, in order that there might be skilled supervision and efficient organization on the parts of the states as that was the best insurance that these duties would be thoroughly performed. Furthermore there would be some centralized authority at Washington and some at each state capital; the initiative and the choice of location, types, and materials for road building would not be left wholly to local administrations which were more likely to be swerved to meet the selfish interests of prominent local personages than is possible in larger political units. The judgment of Congress is less likely to be biased by local conditions or by selfish individuals than would that of a township or county board, or even the State Legislature. On the other hand from the very beginning of the national federation states have jealously guarded their rights, giving up very reluctantly to the Federal Government in any attempts toward centralization. So “no policy,” states the committee report, “should be adopted which does not permit the retention by the States of the fullest measure of control consistent with the necessary inspection and safeguarding which is customary with all federal appropriations.” Hence the states were left the power or not as they saw fit of availing themselves of the Government Aid money. Nearly if not all the states in the Union have availed themselves of Federal Aid. It is claimed by opponents of the system that this is because if a state does not take its quota the money will be appropriated to other states while this state will still have to pay its proportional part to the fund from which the money comes. This they claim is pernicious and has caused states to ask aid when voting the taxes to match the same was extremely burdensome to the people. In other words the people “are forced into a position where their only justification is a presumption that they are grabbing while the grabbing is good.”[199]
It was the intention of the framers of the law that the contribution from the government would be so substantial that results of magnitude might be accomplished and still at the same time not raise taxes higher than the people could stand. The plan adopted seemed just. First the road is primarily for the use of the people hence population should be a factor. A secondary consideration was to make accessible the best products of the farm and to develop the land which on account of its remoteness to markets and the conditions of the highways was not in the highest or best state of culture. Area then was a second factor. The third factor was the post roads—rural delivery and star routes. This last as has been pointed out in a previous chapter was possibly the peg upon which the garment could be hung in the closet of constitutionality. However, it was thought that “the interests of the East are protected by the factor of population, the interests of the West should receive consideration through including area as a factor of apportionment. Finally, the direct interest of the federal government,” according to the Committee, “as represented by the great mileage of rural delivery and star routes for the transportation of mail and parcel post should have some weight in the granting of federal funds.”