W. B. Ruggles, M. Am. Soc. C. E. (by letter).—In his discussion Mr. Lavis quotes the case assumed by the New York Sun, of two bridges over the Ohio River—one between Cincinnati and Newport and one 20 miles below, between villages, etc.
In 1898 the writer was employed by the Board of Supervisors of Cincinnati to put a valuation on its Ohio River bridges for purposes of taxation, and the many points of view, as to their cost and their actual value to the owners and to the communities, were at that time, and have been frequently since, considered by him. In this particular valuation the duties of the Engineer were comparatively simple and plain, for, as there were sure to be controversies on two points at least, first, as to the right of the city to levy any tax on the bridges as such, and second, as to whether any control by the city extended to the center of the river, informally but generally recognized to be the division between the cities for police and similar purposes, or only to the northerly low-water mark, the limiting boundary to the "Territory Northwest of the River Ohio," as recognized by the ordinance of 1787, it appeared to the Board to be advisable, in the earlier stages of their efforts, to avoid, as far as reasonable, any controversies concerning details of the valuation, and the writer was instructed to give the bridge companies the benefit of any doubts.
The railroad bridge of the Cincinnati Southern Railway, the one lowest on the river and having the little village of Ludlow at its southern end, and thus most nearly filling the conditions of one of the assumed structures of the Sun, is, with its railroad, the property of the city, and the Supervisors believed that, under the terms of the lease to the operating company, it should not be taxed.
Of the other four bridges, the Cincinnati and Covington Elevated Railway and Transfer Bridge—commonly known as the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Bridge—the Covington and Cincinnati Suspension Bridge, the Central Railway and Bridge Company's Bridge, and the Newport and Cincinnati Bridge, commonly known as the Pennsylvania Railway Bridge (all noted in the order of occurrence, passing up the river), the writer had official or semi-official reports giving such details of at least the principal features of the structures that in a measure they supplied quantities, weights, and some prices; those lacking were either calculated from actual measurements taken on the structures or supplied from plans furnished by the companies, since, as the several companies relied on defeating the efforts of the supervision on legal grounds, they conceded values which otherwise might have been strenuously contested. As long as the writer knew anything of the results, the Board of Supervisors was unsuccessful in its purpose to get the bridges, as such, on the tax duplicates; but that has no particular bearing on the points raised in this discussion. Of the five bridges, three are primarily railroad bridges. The Cincinnati Southern Bridge has one footway only, on which it formerly collected tolls; all the others have footways and wagonways, and the three above the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Bridge carry electric railways. The Newport and Cincinnati (Pennsylvania Railway) Bridge has all the features of steam and electric railways, wagonways and footways. In some particulars these bridges differ greatly, for instance, the bed-rock of the river lies at the surface of the most easterly (Pennsylvania Railway) bridge, and for each successive bridge is found deeper, as the river is followed westward, the river-span piers of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Bridge being 54 ft. below low water and those of the Cincinnati Southern Railway Bridge being likewise very troublesome.
The two bridges with exactly the same uses—double footways, wagonways, and electric lines—are the adjacent Suspension and Central Bridges, one having the City of Covington and the other the City of Newport at its southern terminus, but these differ most widely as to valuation. The Suspension Bridge, as reported to the writer by the late W. Hildenbrand, M. Am. Soc. C. E., with the consent of his company, was valued at only a little short of $1,000,000 as reinforced; that of the Central Bridge Company, as reduced from the reports of the engineers, was very nearly one-third, only, of that amount, both without any right of way, as real estate was in all cases listed separately. At that time, however, the traffic over the Suspension Bridge, counted in persons and vehicles passing over its several lines, was not far from as relatively greater than that of the Central Bridge as its valuation was higher, and it was more indispensably necessary, as the writer views it, than either the Central Bridge above, or the Chesapeake and Ohio Bridge below it, for in the thirty odd years of its use (it was completed in 1867), the adjoining communities had adjusted their lines of traffic to it, while that passing over the other two bridges occurred more because of little differences of convenience (not, however, to be considered otherwise than an important provision in traffic of such magnitude).
Disregarding other differences, such as the unit prices of 10 or 11 cents per lb. for iron paid by the Suspension Bridge Company in the time of the Civil War, compared with 4.47 cents per lb. for the new cable wire or 3.32 cents per lb. for the new structural steel, it appears to the writer that the element of more or less indispensable use by a community, as well as the greater freedom of movement in the river below by reason of there being no piers in the stream, are elements of value; but that they are items to be reduced to figures for the purpose of taxation is not so clear, any more than that there is equity in any demand that might be made that the New York Central and New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Companies should be taxed on the additional $22,000,000 expended in the electrification of their lines about New York City for the comfort, convenience, and edification, not of the patrons of the roads alone, but of the public at large, without—as just concluded by an eminently able board—any marked economies in operation. There is no question in the writer's mind that any one line of railroad is several times more valuable to each individual in inland regions, such as Mexico and Arizona, than an equal mileage in Connecticut with its Sound harbors, steamship lines, good wagon roads, and numerous but non-competing railways, partly because of the relative usefulness, for which no practicable substitute could be found, and partly because these newer States have not entered on all these multifarious lines of governmental activities, such as policing and safeguarding for public health and the like, and, much as funds are everywhere desirable, could possibly defer for a time some of these developments of civic zeal. It does not appear, therefore, that the discriminations in valuations disclosed by the author's Table 1 are altogether without a good basis in relative convenience, although clearly extreme; but, as the law of most States is understood by the writer, such discriminations may not usually be made with strict regard for the legality of tax assessments.
It is true, as remarked by Mr. Riggs, that a bridge is, of itself, not usually a desirable feature of a railroad, but it must be clear that if there were no river between Cincinnati and her sister cities in Kentucky, communication between the two States might be entirely free, and the business opening for toll bridges would not exist; consequently, in these particular cases, the bridges cannot be considered undesirable.
One other consideration bearing on values has been at least suggested by the study of the Cincinnati Suspension Bridge. It is, as indicated, the oldest river bridge at Cincinnati, the second or third oldest over the Ohio River, and, though repaired and strengthened, it has never been supplanted by an entirely new superstructure. The next oldest bridge is the pin-connected Pennsylvania Railway Bridge, built five years later than the Suspension Bridge, but, at the time of this valuation, it had been entirely replaced by quite a different structure—even the masonry was largely rebuilt. In a degree this comparative facility with which provisions for the greater loads can be provided without condemnation of the leading features of the structures has been shown in the Brooklyn and Niagara Bridges, though not by any means perfectly, but the point the writer would make is that this element of ease of reinforcement, or with which provision can be made for greater loads, is to be considered in the author's "Physical Property Elements of Value," as doubtless he has concluded.
Henry Earle Riggs, M. Am. Soc. C. E. (by letter).—The discussion of this paper has been so full, and so much of it is devoted to bringing out methods of valuation not fully covered in the paper, that it does not appear to the writer desirable to do more than to clear up one or two matters which may have been left somewhat ambiguous in the paper, and to review the main points on which there is apparent disagreement among engineers who have engaged in valuation work.
The writer wishes to express, to those who have added so materially to the value of the paper by their discussion, his sincere appreciation and his thanks, and he regrets that, owing to the length of the paper and the extent of the discussion, it will be impossible to review all the points raised.