Highway Needs Versus Financial Resources
In the early 1920’s some economists and even engineers predicted that the market for motor cars would become saturated. As the number of motor vehicles stabilized, road mileage and the need for road improvement would also stabilize. Eventually, the highway system would reach a state of “maturity” at which time there would be a diminishing need for capital expenditures, and most of the highway revenues would be used for maintenance.
This prediction was never realized. Instead, as national income increased, the automobile market expanded even more. The manufacturers were able to spend large sums on research, and they greatly improved the performance and reliability of motor vehicles. After World War I, motor trucks, which previously had operated only in cities, took to the highways and rapidly increased in numbers, size and speed.
As already noted, the highway administrators responded to this ever-increasing and continually changing vehicle population first, by upgrading the old wagon roads, and then by building improved new roads tailored to the motor vehicle. Finally, they invented new types of roads such as parkways and expressways to move huge volumes of traffic at high speeds. As the roads improved, the annual usage per vehicle increased, so that highway traffic built up faster than vehicle registrations in a self-reinforcing spiral. The highway system never reached maturity. The need for capital expenditures did not diminish, but increased enormously.
By the middle 1940’s, most States had accepted as a virtual certainty that their road systems would never be completed. They realized that they would have to plan highway improvements far into the future and establish a policy that would recognize future needs and provide for them:
Establishment of a highway policy that will result in adequate highway service in the future requires determination of the proper size and cost of systems of the different classes of highways needed. There must be an equitable plan for distribution of costs among highway users and general taxpayers, allocation of authority and financial responsibility among levels of government, and regulation of highway use to protect users and to obtain maximum service. Each element is so interrelated with others that complete facts on present conditions and most up-to-date results of transportation research are essential to develop an over-all analysis of highway needs to serve the interests of all in an equitable manner.[1]
In 1947, the California Legislature created a joint fact-finding committee from both houses to study the highway needs of the State “and to recommend a policy and means of putting that policy into action.”[2] The Michigan Good Roads Federation undertook a similar statewide needs analysis. Other States followed, and by 1950, 13 had published needs reports, and others were working on the complex studies for such reports.
The legislative and other fact-finding committees depended on their State highway departments, assisted by the BPR, to supply the factual information for their studies. Most of this factual material came from the tremendous bank of economic and traffic data assembled by the statewide planning surveys begun in the middle 1930’s. There was also a large amount of research information on driver behavior and the vehicle-carrying capacity of urban streets and rural roads that had been assembled before and after the war by the BPR, the States and the Highway Research Board’s Committee on Highway Capacity.
The compilation of future needs was simple in principle, but laborious in practice. First, the analysts had to forecast the traffic that might be expected in a future year and then assign the future traffic to the various roads in the several systems. Then, knowing the present condition of these roads and the desirable standards to handle the forecasted traffic, they could compile a list of “deficiencies.” Finally, they would compute the future cost of the construction needed to overcome these deficiencies. The sum of these costs was the estimate of needs for the particular year studied.
These predictions of future needs were necessarily painted with a broad brush. First, they depended on the continuation of past population, economic, vehicle registration, and traffic trends. And then there was considerable difference of opinion among the States as to what the standards should be to accommodate the future traffic. Nevertheless, there was a broad general agreement that the past trends would continue or even be exceeded and that the AASHO standards would be adequate or at least tolerable. The needs estimates were widely accepted as being well within the accuracy required for long-range financial plans and also for arousing popular support for the increased taxes and highway imposts that would be required to realize those plans.
It is safe to say that most of the State legislatures were astounded and dismayed by the size of the backlog of needs as shown by the needs studies. The California legislative committee found that it would cost $1.7 billion over a 10-year period to bring the State’s roads up to a reasonable standard. The cost in Washington was estimated at $509 million and in Oregon at $468 million.[3] The Michigan committee found needs that would cost $1.75 billion to remedy.[4] Connecticut, one of the smallest States in area, found needs exceeding $400 million, and in Massachusetts the needs exceeded $700 million.[5]
In 1950 AASHO made its own needs study and asserted that what was needed nationally to catch up with highway needs was a $4 billion annual program for 15 years ($1 billion for maintenance, $2.5 billion for construction and $500 million for interest, amortization and administration).[6] About the same time the Congressional Joint Committee on the Economic Report set the immediate national road needs at $41 billion.[7]
The reaction to the disclosure of these massive needs varied from State to State. The California Legislature immediately increased the gasoline tax by 1½ cents per gallon and radically amended the highway laws to speed up right-of-way acquisition and permit acquisition of land in advance of actual need to forestall speculative increases in land prices. Michigan raised its 3-cent gasoline tax to 5 cents per gallon and added 2 cents to the diesel fuel tax which, along with a hefty increase in the truck weight tax, raised an additional $135 million annually.[8] Other States looked to Congress to make up the difference between
- ↑ BPR, supra, note 18, p. 41.
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ C. Shain, State Highway Needs and Finances, Committee Proceedings, Convention Group Meetings, Papers and Discussions (American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C. 1948) pp. 84, 85.
- ↑ H. Ward, The Financial Aspects of the Engineering Analysis, ‘Highway Needs of Michigan’, Committee Proceedings, Convention Group Meetings, Papers and Discussions, (American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C, 1948) p. 63.
- ↑ Study Toll Roads, Engineering News-Record, Vol. 142, No. 11, Mar. 17, 1949, p. 65.
- ↑ Money, Aggressiveness, Legislation Needed For Road Progress, ARBA Told, Engineering News-Record, Vol. 144, No. 11, Mar. 16, 1950, p. 25.
- ↑ Transportation—Roadbuilding Lags, Engineering News-Record, Vol. 144, No. 12, Mar. 23, 1950, p. 108.
- ↑ States Seek Methods to Raise Funds for Highway Construction and Repair, Engineering News-Record, Vol. 146, No. 20, May 17, 1951, p. 27.
