The ‘touring-roads’ class demands that the United States shall limit its road activities to the construction and maintenance of a few ‘ocean-to-ocean’ and ‘across-country’ highways of great perfection and then leave the rest of the people to build their own roads or do without, as they may choose.
The ‘business-roads’ class believes that in dealing with roads we must keep in mind their functions and the relation which they bear to the general transportation system of the country ; that, as the harbor is the terminus of the river and the railroad, so, for practical purposes, the railway station is the terminus for roads; that neither freight nor passengers will ever be carried long distances over roads as cheaply as they could be over railways, and that it is an idle dream to imagine that auto trucks and automobiles will take the place of railways in the long-distance movement of freight or passengers; that the proper function of roads is not to connect antipodal oceans nor the distant capitals of far-away States, but to make easy communication between the farms on one hand and the towns and railway stations on the other, to the end that the farmer may market his crops at less expense and the town dweller may get farm products more easily at less cost. They therefore favor a general system of roads radiating from the towns and railway stations out among the farms.[1]
In later years, in a different context, and in somewhat different form, Shackleford’s arguments would be used to oppose parkways, highway beautification and long-distance freeways.
In their report of January 21, 1915, the members agreed unanimously on the need and desirability of Federal aid and its constitutionality, but not on any specific policy for Congress to follow in granting such aid. The Committee failed to come to grips with the question of how much aid should be granted, other than to counsel that Federal aid should be undertaken in a large way rather than a small, haphazard way. They warned that small contributions spread over a large mileage would create a “pork barrel” that would dissipate the Federal funds without any permanent upgrading of the roads. The Committee also came out against centralization of control over the road program in Washington.
Prophetically, the Committee declared, “We believe that permanent highways will result in very considerable adoption of auto-truck hauling in preference to rail transportation where the distance is within a half day’s run.”[2]
Federal Aid Becomes A Reality
Among the first bills introduced into the 64th Congress in January 1916 was Representative Shackleford’s H.R. 7617, providing that “the Secretary of Agriculture, on behalf of the United States, shall, in certain cases, aid the States in the construction and maintenance of rural post roads.” This bill proposed to appropriate $25 million annually, out of which each State would receive at least $65,000. The remainder would be apportioned one-half in proportion to population and one-half in proportion to the mileage of rural free delivery (RFD) and star post routes. The locations and standards of the aided roads were to be agreed upon between the Secretary of Agriculture and the States, and earth, sand-clay, and other low cost surfaces would be eligible for the subsidy, as well as higher types, and the Federal share of the cost would be not less than 30 percent nor more than 50 percent. To receive Federal aid after 1920, each State would have to have a State highway department to administer the Federal funds. Finally, the construction and maintenance of the aided roads would remain under State control.
Other good roads bills were introduced in the 64th Congress, but Shackleford’s H.R. 7617 attracted the most support. Its author had been cochairman of the Joint Congressional Committee, and he was now chairman of the newly formed House Committee on Roads. He had come to realize that compromise between the long-distance roads and local roads advocates would be necessary to pass any Federal-aid bill. His new bill had the support of the American Association of State Highway Officials, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Postmaster General, and the Office of Public Roads, all of whom opposed the ABC rental plan so dear to Shackleford’s heart.
When the Shackleford bill reached the floor of the House, there was no opposition to it on constitutional grounds, and almost everybody was satisfied that ownership and responsibility for roads should remain with the State and local governments. There was also general agreement that the Government should deal only with States through a highway department. Debate revolved almost entirely about the formula for apportioning the funds among the States, and the exclusion of places of more than 2,500 population from the benefits of the act.[N 1]
Opponents of the bill claimed that the apportionment formula gave the wealthier States, which contributed most of the Federal revenues, less than their fair share of the post road benefits, and they were particularly bitter that the cities, which contributed a very large share of the revenue in all States, got nothing at all from the bill. The rural road advocates replied that the wealthy States and the cities had already received more than their fair share of the national income in other forms, such as expensive post offices and public buildings, harbor improvements, veterans’ pensions (one-third of the pensioners lived in six eastern States, practically none in the south) and, most of all, in shelter of their industries behind a high protective tariff.
Despite the opposition, the Shackleford Bill, with some changes, passed the House by a good margin and was carried unanimously in the Senate. It became law July 11, 1916.
The principal changes in the bill were to reduce the funding and change the apportionment factors to one-third according to area, one-third according to population, and one-third according to post road mileage. The Secretary of Agriculture was allowed to take 3 percent off the top of all appropriations for administration. No Federal aid was to be apportioned to any State until its legislature had assented to the provisions of the Act, but after that, the Secretary would pay one-half of the actual cost of any approved project, including the cost of bridges and culverts, up to $10,000 per mile. After completion of the aided road, it would be the duty of the State to properly maintain it, and if this were not done, the Secretary could refuse to approve further Federal aid in that State until the road was restored to good condition.
- ↑ The debate on the Federal-aid bill comprises some 300 pages of The Congressional Record, Vol. 53, 1916.
86
