The Road Board Votes 4J Millions from Motorcar Taxation.
Page 1
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Road Board announces that, with the sum of the additional advances which it has indicated to County Councils and other highway authorities during the three months ended the 31st December last, the total advances made and promised to that date, since the. constitution of the Board, have amounted to Di,528,872. The whole of this money has been obtained from motorcar owners, inclusive of all categories of use.
It is true that the • Board still has considerable invested resources, but that fact is explained by the intervals which must necessarily elapse between the sanctioning of grants and the completion of the work in respect of which the money has to be paid. One matter for regret, in regard to the procedure of the Road Board, is that it does not do more in the direction of guaranteeing interest and sinking-fund charges on behalf of local authorities who are themselves prepared to raise large capital sums, and thereby to accelerate urgent measures of road improvement. We view this as an omission.
It is seldom realized, by the critic of private-car or commercial-motor traffic, that the yield from motor taxation is frequently more than enough to cover the whole of _ the extra cost of road maintenance. The writer had occasion to refer to this aspect of the ease in the course of his remarks when responding to the toast of "The Visitors " at Manchester last week, as may be seen from the brief report which we publish. The point is also mentioned on page 441.
The records of annual expenditure, from the earliest days when motor traffic began to come upon the roads affected, have to be taken into account, whenever discussions arise in respect of the cost, of road maintenance. It is notorious now that many county and other authorities neglected In a in tenance very shamefully between the years 1888 and 1903, or even until later dates. To-day, in consequence, they have arrears to make good, and they take the easiest and most-obvious course in blaming the motor vehicle. Little if anything is said about the increased expenditure upon education, sanitation, registration, lunacy, quarter sessions or police, all of which have made increased demands upon the money that is voted each year under the Local Government Board Act, of 1888, and which expenditure leaves less of the State func7fs availahle•for the highways than would otherwise he the case. Why should all the blame be thrown on the roads, for this lack of funds, when the money has been in the first instance available, but has been spent in other directions?
The yield from motor taxation is one that factorizes readily : the average number of private cars on any highway per day, throughout the year, has to be divided by two in order to furnish the average yield, in pounds sterling per mile of road per annum, from the taxes which are paid in respect of them; in the ease of commercial motors, the divisor is four. Thus, if we take a ease in which an average of TOO private cars use a particular road per day, the yield in taxa
tion (carriage tax and petrol tax) is £50 per annum ; the yield from an equal number of commercial motors will on the average be 225 per annum. Such yields have to be compared with the alleged increases of maintenance.
The writer commended the use of the foregoing figures, when speaking at Manchester, in all discussions that arise about road costs. He is satisfied that their employment will serve in many cases to discomfit a complaining road surveyor or highway committeeman. Motor owners should not be taxed twice, and no impartial or just person will suggest it. The remedy for existing difficulties lies in other directions.