Now, then, on March 1, 1924, Texas had $1,300,000 unabsorbed. On July 1, 1924, there will become available to Texas under existing law $4,400,000, making a total of $5,700,000 coming available to Texas under existing law; in other words, Texas can carry on a program during 1924 equivalent to the program of 1923.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Then how about 1925.

The CHAIRMAN. Until there is another authorization.

Mr. WHITE. Until there is another authorization.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, that is on a basis of an appropriation of $50,000,000?

Mr. WHITE. On the basis of an appropriation of $75,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. No; the three years.

Mr. WHITE. Just a moment.

The CHAIRMAN. The three years run $50,000,000, $65,000,000, and $75,000,000.

Mr. WHITE. This column 2 on this sheet is on the basis of $75,000,000, which becomes available on July 1, 1924.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; but before that there were two years.
Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. One of $50,000,000 and one of $65,000,000, available, which, first, was much less than the last appropriation.

Mr. WHITE. The point is this, Mr. Dowell, that it has taken the State of Texas, like other States, a considerable length of time to get its program organized, and set up its necessary State laws and State machinery to get this thing going. Now the machine is set up and it is going. It is all oiled up now ready to go.

The CHAIRMAN. I wasn't exactly sure.

Mr. WHITE. It is ready to go at the rate of $5,600,000 of Federal aid.

Mr. HUDSPETH. He apportions Texas' part under the $100,000,000 appropriation at $5,880,000. He has absorbed in contracts up to January 1, 1923, $5,621,000, which would leave only about $100,000 to the good under the $100,000,000 basis, according to his figures there.

Mr. SEARS. If you will permit me, I would like to ask a question. Mr. GARBER. Why was the apportionment in this table made on the basis of $100,000,000?

Mr. WHITE. This is not an apportionment. This is information for the committee as to what that will amount to.

Mr. GARBER. It is on a basis of $100,000,000.

Mr. WHITE. If you would authorize $100,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Just a question. I am not satisfied with the gentleman from Texas getting away like that.

Mr. HUDSPETH. On our program down there.

Mr. WARD. Although the act of 1923 covered 1925, I felt that under the act of 1925 you would be drawing upon the same basis that these figures are based on.

Mr. WHITE. That is true under the present act in column 2. Column 2 of this table No. 2 shows the amount that would become available to the various States in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1924, and that is the fund becoming available under the existing act. Mr. WARD. I thought it would run on to eternity.

Mr. WHITE. Not to eternity. That is the fiscal year 1925. Mr. WILLIAMS. There is a total of Federal money to the credit of all the States on March 1, 1924, of $57,000,000, is there not?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. If we continue on the same basis of construction the volume of construction throughout the State, it would seem to me that $75,000,000 would be the maximum of our appropriation in view of what is shown in column 1.

Mr. WHITE. No, sir. You cannot run this thing up against the wall. You must maintain a reasonable balance, unobligated, to take care of contingencies as they arise, just like, for example, in our own home State, we must carry a balance, actual cash in our treasury there of something over $2,000,000 constantly, as a paying fund. We cannot run up to the end of the State treasury with actual payments, no more than you can run up against the end of any appropriation with actual obligations.

Mr. WILLIAMS. But the facts are that on the past two years' operation you go up to March 1 with $57,000,000 available to the States, which almost equals the appropriation for the last year.

Mr. WHITE. But this point you do not get apparently. Many of the States would have absorbed a great deal more Federal aid had there been more Federal aid becoming available to be absorbed. For instance, in the State of Iowa we absorbed last year $2,300,000 of Federal aid. Now, we could have absorbed twice that amount had twice that amount become available. That is the point I am trying to get across. You could not absorb more than was reasonably becoming available.

The CHAIRMAN. But did you utilize the money that was collected from license fees without the Federal aid?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. And just one point there. We are collecting a great deal of motor license fees, not only in the State of Iowa but in all of the States.

Now, without this Federal aid those funds in many instances would have been dissipated on secondary roads, roads of secondary importance, while with the Federal aid we have been able to keep those funds on roads which carry the greater volume of traffic and we are therefore getting some improvements on those roads.

Mr. ROBSION. It is unfair to compare what the States would do under $100,000,000 authorization with what they did under a $65,000,000.

Mr. WHITE. It would have no relation.

Mr. MANLOVE. In other words, in my State of Missouri, we have a balance available from last year's appropriation of $312,369. I take it that instead of demanding this allowance from the Government, that the part of our bond issue which we have taken out of our own treasury that the man in charge said, "Well, the Government has very kindly appropriated that to us, but we are just leaving it up here and spending our end now and can spend that when we want to. In other words, we could keep piling it up and use it after using this bond issue. Is that it?

Mr. WHITE. You could not use it after the three years have expired from the time the fund became available.

Mr. ROBSION. I would say to the gentleman from Missouri that that perhaps would not be a very wise policy because the Federal Government must participate from the beginning and it must participate only on this system of highways now laid out. If they go on and complete this system with their money and the Federal Govern

ment has not participated, then try to get the Federal Government to spend its money, they might possibly not be able to do it.

Mr. MANLOVE. We expended all of our bond issue last year, $14,000,000 and odd. We will be the same way you are in Iowa, will we not-we will be spending more than the Government aid.

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; far more. You can absorb your proportion of $100,000,000 or $200,000,000 without placing any more burden on your people than has been placed on them.

Mr. MANLOVE. Will we get the benefit of that in Federal aid? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; in the course of time. Now, if we go on with this statement of the funds that are being raised by States and local government from the motor vehicles, I made the statement that last year the States collected $189,000,000 in motor license fees. Thirty-six States have a gasoline tax, this tax ranging from 4 cents down to 1 cent per gallon. Thirty-five States have a personal property tax. Just one point further in reference to the gasoline tax. We do not have figures showing the approximate total amount collected by these 36 States for the gasoline tax, for the reason that 8 of these States passed the gasoline tax within the past year and we have not been able to get figures. Thirty-five States have a personal property tax. We have no knowledge at this time what the total amount is that is collected from those personal property taxes on motor vehicles. In 9 States they have authorized cities to levy local taxes upon motor vehicles, such as wheel taxes, etc.

So I feel, we are making a conservative statement to this committee when we say that the motor vehicle is paying in State and local taxes $220,000,000 annually. The National and State motor vehicle tax collections then amount to approximately $340,000,000 per year, and that fund is sufficient to build this system of highways within a period of ten years on the estimated cost of $3,400,000,000.

Now I have recited these statements of the State and local and national taxes on motor vehicles for the purpose of not trying or attempting to set up any sympathy for the motor owner or anything of that kind. I personally feel that the motor owner can afford to pay this bill for these roads if/we will only give him the roads after he pays the bill. That is the point in which he is interested. With us, there is no complaint about these motor license fees or taxes and a great majority, I feel, of our people would be willing to have their motor license increased, doubled, if need be, in order to increase these highways over which these vehicles can be operated.

Mr. SEARS. May I call your attention right there to the fact that in some States the automobile is now paying eight direct taxes? Of course the automobilist is willing to bear his burden and he is not complaining if he can get the road, but in many cases he is paying the tax and not getting the roads.

Mr. WHITE. That is the point I made.

Mr. SEARS. The point I want to bring out is that so many think they are not paying any taxes and yet in some cases they are paying eight direct taxes.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Why not getting the roads, Mr. Sears?

Mr. SEARS. Some States-my State the cost is too great. We expected them to complete it much quicker than they will complete it.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Have you the material on the ground in your State?

Mr. SEARS. No, sir. We have the material on our roads for years and years, and we have the new age and old age, and now we are putting down permanent roads. We find that putting down roads with this temporary stuff does not pay. We find the best road pays; it will last at least the life of your bonds, the concrete roads with vitrified brick.

Mr. MANLOVE. I would like to offer Mr. White the suggestion that I believe his statement is the most interesting or as interesting as any of these members of Congress have attended in any of the committee meetings and so far as I am concerned I would like to see him given all the time he needs to elucidate the subject he has before him.

The CHAIRMAN. It is now 15 minutes to 12 o'clock and I take it Mr. White will not be able to complete his statement within the time. allotted. Therefore the Committee will adjourn to meet again tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 11.45 o'clock a. m., the committee adjourned to meet again Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock.)

COMMITTEE ON ROADS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Tuesday, March 11, 1924.

The committee this day met, Hon. Cassius C. Dowell (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. You may continue, Mr. White.

STATEMENT OF MR. F. R. WHITE, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HIGHWAY OFFICIALS -Con.

Mr. WHITE. At the time when the committee adjourned, I had just completed a recitation of the various taxes that were imposed on motor vehicles, and I have brought out the fact that the State and local taxes on motor vehicles now amount to $220,000,000 per year, while the Federal taxes on motor vehicles amount to probably $120,000,000 per year, or a total of about $340,000,000 per year, which taxes would be sufficient to complete this system on the basis of the estimated cost of $3,400,000,000, within a period of 10 years; in other words, that the motor users- -the motor owner-is now paying sufficient revenue to pay for this system of roads.

The motor owner can well afford to pay for this system of roads, and for its completion, at an early date, due to the fact that on account of the decreased cost of operating motor vehicles over improved highways the motor owner will get back in decreased cost of operation a sufficient amount to more than return to him the amount which he pays in taxes for this work.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. White, you have made a statement here that is interesting, and I wish you would give the committee, if you are able, an estimate, if you have made one, as to the difference in the cost of operating cars on the various kinds of roads that are constructed.

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have such information.
Mr. WHITE. We have such information.

For the information of the committee I will say that extensive investigations have been carried on by the Iowa State College, and the Iowa State Highway Commission cooperating, investigating the subject of the cost of operation of motor vehicles over different types of highways. These investigations have been going on now for a period of about five years. Different types of vehicles have been used, varying all the way from the light Ford touring car up to and including heavy Army trucks. Runs have been made of a good many thousands of miles over various types road surfaces, and from that data we find that on an ordinary dirt road we get about 14 ton-miles of traffic per gallon of gasoline. On a gravel road we get about 21 ton-miles per gallon of gasoline, and on a paved road we get about 31 ton-miles of traffic per gallon of gasoline.

Now in order that the committee may get a better idea of this term, "ton-mile of traffic," I want to say that the ordinary Ford touring car weighs about 1,600 pounds. We know from our traffic studies in Iowa that the ordinary motor vehicle carries an average of about three people, so that the ordinary Ford touring car, with an ordinary load of three people, weighs about 1 ton, so when you drive that vehicle 1 mile, then you are developing about 1 ton-mile of traffic. With the heavier type vehicles, of course, you get a larger ton-mileage per miles traveled; for instance, if your vehicle is heavy enough so that with its ordinary load it weighs 2 tons, then by driving that vehicle one mile you develop 2 ton-miles of traffic. With gasoline costing at the rate of 20 cents per gallon, then on a dirt road the gasoline costs about 1.43 of a cent per ton-mile. On the gravel road it costs about .95 of a cent per ton-mile, and on a paved road about .64 of a cent per ton-mile.

The difference then in the fuel cost, between these different types of roads, is as follows: The difference between a dirt road and a pavement is about seventy-nine one-hundredths of a cent per tonmile, roughly speaking about three-quarters of a cent. Between a pavement and a gravel road about thirty-one one hundredths of a cent per ton-mile, and between a gravel road and a dirt road, about fortyeight one hundredths of a cent per ton-mile. Now this saving in the gasoline consumption constitutes only an item of saving due to the improvement of the highway. There are other savings, such as depreciation, tires, wear, repairs. These total savings constitute about four times the saving in gasoline. Then in order to get the total savings, roughly, we can multiply each of these savings by approximately four. That is not absolutely true all the way through, due to the technical fact that the efficiency of the motors varies according to the loads. I will not go into that to any extent unless the committee wishes, because it is a highly technical subject. I will say this, however, that with the motor under a light load, like it would be on a paved road, for instance, you get lower efficiency than you do on a dirt road; that is, on a dirt road, with the motor carrying a higher load, you get higher efficiency, so that difference in efficiency of motors at the present time serves to reduce the total difference for gasoline consumption, as between the lower type road and a higher type road. The motor-vehicle people are now beginning to develop motors in which that difference in efficiency will be reduced, so that we can expect in a few years to find ourselves where the motors