The above conclusions are believed to be in error for the three following reasons: 1. The Circular assumes that the farm products consumed on the farm were offset by the hauling of lumber, coal, fertilizers, mer chandise, etc., to the farm. In the first place, it is doubtful if there are as many tons of freight hauled to the farm as there are tons of products consumed on the farm. In the second place, the offset ought not to be allowed, since almost always the freight hauled to the farm is brought back when a load of produce is taken to town, or is hauled back incidental to a trip for some other purpose, or is hauled when there is nothing else to do. In the third place, a considerable part of the farm product is driven to market on foot.
2. The average haul for each of the several states is in error as discussed in § 15-18, and, in addition, the value for the United States is in error since no account has been taken of the relative amount of traffic in the several states. For example, Iowa, with its 5.4 miles haul and 25,000,000 tons of traffic, has no more weight in the mean than Arizona with a haul eleven times as great and a traffic only one hundredth as great. Again, no difference is made between Illinois, with 72 per cent of tillable land, and Wyoming, with only 1 per cent; and Delaware with an area of 2,050 square miles has the same weight as Texas with an area of 265,7S0 square 3. The cost per ton-mile is too great for the reasons stated in § 20-22.
If the cost of hauling the crops to market were 26.6 per cent of the value of the crops, then there should be a marked difference in the price of land near and remote from market. If it costs 26 per cent of the value of the produce to get it to market, then land at the market should be worth at least 26 per cent more than land which is the average haul away from market. It should be worth more than this, for there is a considerable amount of travel in volved besides that necessary to market the crop. An investiga tion in central Illinois, where the land is of uniform quality, shows that the price of land at the market is about 5 per cent more than that 5 miles away. In a rough way this shows that the estimates of Tables 1 and 2 are at least something like five or six times too great.
If the cost of hauling crops to market is equal to 26 per cent of their value, then there should be a marked difference in the rent of land. The annual rent of land varies from one quarter to one half the crop. If land the average haul from the market rents for one quarter of the crop, then land at the market should rent for half the crop, even if the social advantage of the latter is not included. In central Illinois, where at times the roads are as bad as anywhere, there is no appreciable difference in the renting value between land 1 mile and that 5 miles from market. This shows that the conclu sions of the above Circular are greatly in error.* Possible Annual Saving. The Office of Road Inquiry in Circular No. 19, to which reference has been made, estimates the possible annual saving by road improvement as two thirds of $943,314,665.54, or $628,000,000. This estimate is based upon a
comparison of the dati in Circular No. 19 with that on the "Cost of Hauling Farm Products to Market or Shipping Point in European Countries, Collected by U. S. Consular Agents," published in Circu lar No. 27 (Feb. 5, 1897) of the Office of Road Inquiry of the I:. S. Department of Agriculture. The average cost as given in the latter circular (when translated) is 10 cents per ton-mile, and the difference between this and the average stated in Table 1 is 15 cents per ton mile, which is two thirds of the average value in Table 1.
Concerning the data for America, notice that they are taken from Circular No. 19, and are greatly in error as has already been shown.
Concerning the data for Europe, notice in the first place that they are open to most of the criticisms made against the data in Table 2. In the second place, the twelve results given in Circular 27 vary from 4 to 30 cents per ton-mile, which is too wide a range and too few results for an accurate determination of the average cost of wagon transportation in Europe. In the third place, some of the results are professedly the cost to transportation companies, and some the cost to farmers to whom the hauling of the crops to market is merely an incident of farm work. And, finally, the data for the cost of hauling not done by transportation companies are for hauling garden products, etc., to large cities, and is therefore not repre sentative of the cost of transporting general farm products to mar ket. The cost of wagon transportation on the very best roads of Europe ought not to be very much less than the ordinary cost of hauling farm crops to market in America, for in most cases the latter is done when the roads are in fair or good conditions, and when in their best condition earth roads are nearly as good as the best stone roads.
It is very unfortunate that the conclusions from the two Cir culars referred to above, have been so generally accepted by speakers and writers upon good-road economics. Country roads are used chiefly by farmers, and if improvements are made they must be paid for largely, if not entirely, by farmers; and therefore the co operation of farmers must be secured before any improvement of the country roads is possible. Farmers instinctively know that conclusions such as deduced above from Table 2 are ridiculous, and not unnaturally distrust the motives prompting the argument, and are hostile to all propositions for road improvement supported by such arguments.
Further, it is not possible to determine either the cost of wagon transportation or the financial value of road improvement in the wholesale manner proposed in the above Circulars. The cost of haul and the value of improved roads varies greatly with local con ditions; and ordinarily it will be found that the probable saving in cost of wagon transportation alone is not sufficient to justify any radical road improvements. However, financial profit is only one of the advantages of good roads (see § 1-3).