Maryland! Room
t,itT o( M«ryUn<J '
^0||cc« Park. M«.
gaNtfaity oi fAttyWnd VAinr
LIBRARY— COLLEGi PARi<
^^.cS>9^^
DO JOI CIBCBLITB
y^^o^ . %^^ ^.-^Jt* <!.
FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH
ANNUAL REPORTS
OF THE
State Roads Commission
FOR THE YEARS
1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911
■^^^
^
^\
TO
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF
MARYLAND
BALTIMORE
May, 1912.
re ^
COMMISSION.
1908, 1909, 1910, 1911
Governor Austin L. Ceothers.
John M. TtrcxEE^ Chairman.
Ira Eemsen,
Wm. Bullock Clark.
S. M. Shoemaker.
Francis C. Huttox.
Charles B. Lloyd.*
W. W. Crosby^ Chief Engineer.
E. .F. Ruggles^ First Assistant Engineer.
W. D. Uhler^ Second Assistant Engineer.
Caeville D. BensoN;, Counsel.
E. E. GosLiN^ Secretary.
*Appointed March 29, 1911.
PREFACE
The report herewith submitted was prepared by a committee of
the State Eoads Commission consisting of Messrs. S. M. Shoemaker,
William Bullock Clark, and Charles B. Lloyd, who were appointed
a Committee on Report and Audit by a resolution introduced by
Governor Phillips Lee Groldsborough on January 25, 1912, at the
first meeting of the Commission held subsequent to his inauguration
on January 10, when he succeeded Governor Crothers as a member
of the Board. The resolution, which was unanimously passed, is as
follows :
Resolved, That Messrs. Shoemaker, Clark and Lloyd are hereby appointed
a committee to prepare at once a detailed report of the operations of the
State Roads Commission since its organization, which report shall be sub-
mitted at the earliest possible date to this Commission.
Resolved further, That the said committee shall employ an auditing com-
pany to audit the accounts of the Commission, said audit to show the cost
of rights-of-way (including turnpikes), grading, surfacing, culverts and
bridges, surveying and planning, and inspection on each piece of work; the
cost of machinery, tools and other equipment, together with the proper dis-
tribution of these outlays, and the general expenses of engineering and
administration.
Resolved -further. That said committee shall report on how much has
already been spent on behalf of each county and Baltimore city, what claims
are outstanding, and what further amounts must be paid out for each of
said counties and city under the existing acts, and also what further con
tracts have been made on behalf of said counties and city.
Resolved further. That the committee shall include in its report a state-
ment regarding the relative cost and character of the work carried on under
the several methods of construction, viz., by contract, by county forces, or by
other special arrangements, and such other facts as will show clearly the
work of the Commission.
Resolved further. That this report when completed by this committee and
approved by this Commission shall be printed and transmitted to the General
Assembly as the official report of the Commission.
In pursuance' of this resolution the following report has been pre-
pared. It was laid before the Commission in preliminary form on
March 1, 1912, and adopted. A small edition was printed immedi-
ately and sent on March Y to the members of the General Assembly.
It was found impossible in the limited time at the disposal of the
committee and its accountants to go into all of the details of expendi-
ture, especially as the books of the Commission had not been posted
beyond July 1, 1911, while the distribution of the charges made to the
several counties was incomplete and inaccurate, since it had not been
4
Pkeface 5
based on the relative costs of the work done. The equipment account
especially needed to be adjusted and an equitable distribution made.
Under the methods followed certain counties had the use of crushers,
steam rollers, and other equipment either without adequate payment
or, as in the case of Cecil County, without any payment at all.
The present final report contains a complete analysis of all expen-
ditures as called for by the resolution and a distribution of the same
on a proper basis of accounting, which assigns to each piece of work
the costs properly belonging thereto. This has required much labor
because of the incomplete and confused state of the accounts which
required the critical examination of every voucher.
The report of the comanittee is followed by reports of the Chief
Engineer and the Auditors, who discuss at length the condition of the
work in each county and the costs involved in the construction of
each section of the road. They also explain the result of their investi-
gation of the accounts and of the new system of accounting proposed.
This system, which has been developed in great detail by Chief En-
gineer Crosby and fully applied by the Accountants, will constitute
the method of accounting which the Commission will follow in the
future.
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
FIRST, SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH AN-
NUAL REPORTS OF THE STATE
ROADS COMMISSION
For 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911.
INTRODUCTION.
The State Roads Commission presents herewith its reports for
the years 1908 to 1911, inclusive. Reports have been made bj the
Chairman to the Governor from time to time as the work has pro-
gressed, but the present report is the first official statement of the
Commission.
The State Roads Commission was established by the General As-
sembly of 1908, when provision was made for the construction of a
State road system through the issue of a State loan of $5,000,000.
Enlarged powers were given to the Commission by the General
Assembly of 1910, wdiich provided an additional loan of $1,000,000
for certain specified objects, the balance of which, after payments for
these have been provided for, is to be distributed as in the case of
tlie previous loan, except to those counties which benefit in other ways
under the law. At the same time the highway work carried on by
the State Geological and Economic Survey was transferred by the
Act of 1910 to the State Roads Commission; the Act of 1898 under
v/hich the Highway Division of the State Geological Survey was
established and by which it was possible to furnish, when requested,
free expert advice and technical assistance in road matters to the
towns and counties of the State was repealed; the State Aid work
established by an Act passed in 1904 was transferred, as well as the
construction of the Baltimore-Washington road, known as State Road
'No. 1, which had been provided for under the Acts of 1906 and 1908,
and which received further appropriations under the Act of 1910.
As the result of this legislation all of the State road building was
placed in the hands of the State Roads Commission on and after
June 1, 1910.
7
8 First, Second, Third axd Fourth
The State Geological and Economic Survey started the movement
for the improvement of the roads of the State when it secured the
passage of an Act by the General Assembly of 1898, with an appro-
priation of $10,000 annually, providing for the establishment of a
Highway Division in connection with that organization. Its other
investigations of the State's natural resources had led to the con-
clusion that there was no subject which more clearly demanded the
attention of the people of Maryland than that of intelligent road
construction. It was found that between $500,000 and $1,000,000
annually were being spent by the counties under an antiquated sys-
tem, which was a positive handicap to the development of the State.
Upon the passage of this Act detailed facts were collected and an
elaborate report published, setting forth the then existing conditions
and the best methods to be adopted for highway building throughout
the State. The road materials were thoroughly investigated and
mapped, great numbers of tests being made to determine their avail-
ability in various kinds of road construction. Advice was given by
the trained engineer and his assistants to the county and municipal
authorities. A plan for county roads engineers was suggested and
followed by several counties. Furthermore, plans and specifications
for road improvement in various portions of the State were prepared
and in many cases used.
The way was paved under the Act of 1898 for the inauguration of
a broader plan of State highway construction. A State Aid law was
drafted and passed by the General Assembly of 1904 and its admin-
istration placed under the State Geological and Economic Survey.
This law provided that the cost should be divided between the State
and counties, but it properly reserved to the State the preparation of
the plans and specifications and the supervision of the work. The
Act provided for $200,000 annually to meet the State's share of the
outlay.
. The results secured under the State Aid Act led to a demand for
a road from Baltimore to Washington, to be built by the Geological
Survey at the expense of the State alone, and an Act was passed in
1906 appropriating $90,000 for this purpose, to which the General
Assembly of 1908 added $150,000, together with an additional
$24,000 to pay for the approach to Baltimore, making a total of
$264,000.
Repoets of the State Eoads Commission 9
At the time of the transfer of the work of the State Geological and
Economic Survey to the State Roads Commission surveys had been
completed for 289 sections of road, aggregating 351.33 miles. Plans
had been completed and estimates made on 237 sections, aggregating
274.01 miles, the estimated cost of which amounted to $2,175,160.83,
including bridges, or an average cost per mile of $7,938.29. Of this
mileage 146.32 miles had been accepted as completed at the time of
the transfer at an expense of $1,244,039.75, while 46,38 miles were
in various stages of construction, but on the average more than 50
per cent, completed, the cost of the same being $273,783.43, or a
total outlay for completed and uncompleted roads amounting to
$1,517,823.28.
In addition several miles of road had been built for the counties
.it their request and expense. "Work on more than 200 miles of pub-
lic roads had thus been inaugurated by the State Geological and
Economic Survey, and for the most part completed, at the time of
the transfer of its work to the State Roads Commission.
The taking up in 1908 of the much larger plan of State road con-
struction followed, therefore, a long period of preparatory work
during which an efficient engineering force had been developed, and
m-any miles of modern roads constructed in all sections of the State.
This broader system of State road construction had already been pro-
posed in the report of the State Geological Survey for 1906-07 when
the Geological Survey Commission recommended the following:
"The Commission feels, in view of the widely awakened interest in road
matters and the present discussion of proposed legislation for the early im-
provement of the roads of the State, that it should report the conclusions
it L-as reached as a result of its experience to date in State road construc-
tion. These are as follows:
"First. That the early improvement, according to modern methods, of
an efficient system of main roads and feeders covering the whole State is
desirable from every standpoint.
"Second. That it is not cnly proper, but good business judgment on the
part of the State to provide that the main arteries of this system should be
improved and maintained by the State Commission at the expense of the
State.
"Third. That the improvement of the remainder of the system should be
at the joint expense of the State and the counties.
"Fourth. That the minor roads should be built and maintained by the
counties and localities themselves.
"Fifth. That present conditions have shown the importance of many of
the turnpikes as sections of the general system. While undoubtedly the
operation of these highways has contributed in the past to the development
of the State, conditions are rapidly approaching the point where their
future existence as toll roads is entirely undesirable. Any legislation look-
ing to the abolishment of the turnpikes as toll-roads should recognize the
10 First, Secoxd, Third and Fourth
private rights and property values in the turnpikes themselves, and in
all cases of assumption by the State or counties of the turnpikes, fair com-
pensation should be made to private interests for the property taken from
them.
"Sixth. That any legislation providing for the taking by the State of
the turnpikes should allow great discretion to the State Commission to
prevent the acquisition of unnecessary property or turnpikes unsuited to
the development of a system of market roads. Such legislation should be
broad enough to allow the Commission to acquire for the State, for im-
provement and maintenance, either turnpikes or main roads, as the case
might require."
This plan was taken up and carried to a successful issue by Gov-
ernor Crothers during the four years of his administration. The
amount and character of the work done are discussed in the f ollo"^ving
pages.
The passage by the General Assembly in 1910 of the Automobile
Law renders available from now on a constantly increasing sum for
the maintenance of both the State Koads and State Aid Koads.
Under this law the Automobile Commissioner shall, after the pay-
ment of his salary and the expenses of his office, remit the balance
to the State Treasurer.
According to this Act (Acts of 1910, Chap. 207), he "shall create a special
fund thereof, and on the first day of April in each year one-fifth thereof to be
paid to the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore for use on its roads
and streets, and the balance to be used for the oiling, maintenance and
repair of the modern roads now being built by the State and counties
and for no other purpose. Disbursements of the remaining four-fifths
.from this fund shall be made by the Treasurer to the counties on
drafts for expenditures which have actually been made in repairs on
State Aid Roads certified to by the Maryland Geological and Economic
Survey Commission, and to the State Roads Commission for expenditures
which have actually been made in repairs on State Roads constructed by
that body, on draft from such body itself. The State Roads Commission
shall not receive in any year out of the whole fund available for distribu-
tion, a greater proportion than the proportion which the total mileage of
State Roads completed to April 1st of any year shall bear to the total
mileage of both State aid roads and State roads completed to that date.
And no county shall receive in any year from such fund a greater pro-
portion than its total mileage of State aid roads bears to the total mileage
of State aid roads completed before April 1st in any year. The remainder
of said funds shall be distributed among the counties in the proportion
aforesaid."
ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION.
The State Roads Commission was organized on April 30, 1908, at
which time the members were sworn in by Governor Crothers. They
were Messrs. John M. Tucker, Chairman, Ira Eemsen, Wm. Bullock
Clark, S. M. Shoemaker, and Francis C. Hutton, together with the
Governor ex officio.
Reports of the State Roads Commission 11
On May 21 Mr. W. W. Crosby, Chief Engineer of the State Geo-
logical Survey, was also elected Chief Engineer of the State Roads
Commission, a joint arrangement being perfected by which two-
fifths of his salary was paid by the former and three-fifths by the
latter. By this arrangement the engineering work of the two commis-
sions was combined in a single head and duplication thus avoided.
At the same meeting Mr. Carville D. Benson was elected Counsel
and Mr. John C. Bowerman, Secretary.
The Chief Engineer at the meeting on June 8 recommended the
organization of the engineering department for the joint commission
by which first and second assistant engineers were to be appointed,
the former to be placed in charge of the Division of Construction and
the latter of the Division of Surveys and Plans. On July 1 this plan
was adopted by the Comanission and ]Mr. E. F. Ruggies was elected
Eirst and Mr. W. D. Uhler Second Assistant Engineer. On August
1, 1910, the work of surveying and planning was placed under the
Division of Construction and Mr. Uhler was placed at the head of
the then established Division of Maintenance.
The membership of the Commission continued the same until
March 29, 1911, when Mr. Charles B. Lloyd was added to the Board
under a provision of the Act of 1910, which permitted the Governor
to increase the Commission to seven members. Mr. J. C. Bowerman,
the Secretary, resigned on May 19, 1910, and on July 11 of the
same year Mr. E. E. Goslin was elected to succeed him. With these
exceptions the membership of the Commission and its chief em-
ployees have remained the same during the four years.
The joint arrangement made between the State Roads Commis-
sion and the State Geological Survey regarding the Chief Engineer
and his associates terminated on June 1, 1910, when the work of road
construction was entirely transferred from the State Geological
Survey to the State Roads Commission. The State Roads Commis-
sion thereupon assumed the entire cost of the engineering force, al-
though Mr. Crosby has continued as Chief Engineer of the State
Geological Survey without salary.
The ofiice of administration throughout the four years has been
,at the Union Trust Building, while the engineering department has
been located at the Johns Hopkins University, at first rendered neces-
sary through the joint arrangement with the State Geological Survey
12 FiEST, Secoxd, Third akd Fourth
and later continued because of the larger available space and the re-
quirements of the testing laboratory and shop which are maintained
bv the Commission.
OPERATIONS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1908.
The Commission soon after its organization made preparations to
select a system of main roads to be improved as required by law. To
aid the Commission in reaching its decision hearings were held in
e.'ery county of the State and in Baltimore City at which the citizens
were requested to appear and present to the Commission their views
as to the best roads to be adopted for improvement. Large and en-
thusiastic gatherings were held and in this way the Commission ob-
tained a good idea as to what the people desired. The Chief En-
gineer was instructed to locate on the detailed road maps of the
Geological Survey the roads suggested for improvement at the hear-
ings and when these were finally computed they were found to ag-
gregate more than 2,500 miles, much more than the Commission was
justified in selecting under the Act. The mileage of the roads was
therefore cut down materially by the Conunission until finally a total
of about 1,200 miles was determined on. This represented a con-
nected, main-artery system by means of which the county towns were
connected as well as other leading shipping points. After the system
had thus been tentatively selected, hearings were held at the offices
of the Commission in Baltimore, at which many delegations ap-
peared. A few changes were ordered but the system remained sub-
stantially the same as that already adopted. In this system were
incorporated 38.19 miles of State Aid roads already built by the
Geological Survey so that the main-artery system began with these
roads to its credit.
Most of the season of 1908 was taken up in the examination and
selection of the main roads to be improved and in otherwise prepar-
ing for the important work before the Commission. The efficient
engineering force which the State Geological Survey Commission
had spent many years in perfecting was available for the making of
surveys and the preparation of plans and specifications. Before any
part of the system of main roads could be with certainty determined
on, the season was too far advanced to hope for actual road construe-
Reports of the State Roads Commission 13
tion in 1908. Plans and specifications for the improvement of the
"Lewis-Trice" and a section of the Denton-Greensboro roads in Caro-
line County, 1.34: miles in length, were furnished on August 12 and
bids for the work were asked for and received on September 16 but
were regarded by the Board as too high and accordingly rejected.
Surveys aggregating 207.20 miles were made before the close of the
season and work already started in the preparation of the plans and
specifications for the succeeding season.
The Commission decided during this period to look thoroughly into
the condition of the turnpikes in order to determine their value in
case of possible acquisition as a part of the State road system. It
was, however, then and later definitely determined that the Commis-
sion was not to proceed indiscriminately with the purchase of turn-
pikes but only to acquire them where they were needed as a part of
the State main-artery system. The Commission recognized the de-
sirability of abolishing the toll roads but realized that if a system of
modem roads was to be built, that its funds were not adequate to
purchase all or even any large part of the existing turnpikes.
During this year the Commission was represented at the Inter-
national Eoad Conference in Paris by its Chief Engineer, who was
given leave of absence of four weeks for this purpose. The Chief
Engineer, however, met personally all of the expenses incurred.
StTMMABY OF WOBK IN 1908.
state Roads.
Miles.
Surveys made of 6^ sections, aggregating 207.20
Plans and specifications prepared for 0 sections, aggregating .00
Contracts let for 0 sections, aggregating 00
Other arrangements made for 0 sections, aggregating 00
Work accepted as completed on 0 sections, aggregating 00
Work under contract, on average 0% completed, aggregating 00
OPERATIONS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1909.
The State Roads Commission finally adopted on April 1, 1909,
the entire State road system. Surveys had already been made of
many of the sections determined on, and plans and specifications
prepared.
Late in April the Commission made a trip l^orth to examine the
roads under construction in the states of ISTew Jersey, Connecticut,
14 First, Second, Third axd Fourth
Ehode Island and Massachusetts, where the most up-to-date methods
were known to be in operation. The Commission secured much valu-
able data from this trip.
Much delay in starting the actual constniction in the spring of
1909 was occasioned by the readvertising of many of the roads be-
cause some members of the Commission thought the prices too high.
Little if anything was saved as a result of this and in one or two cases
it was impossible to secure as low bids as in the first instances.
The Commission recognized on the completion of the estimates that
one of the chief reasons for the high cost of roads in certain sections
was due to the excessive charges of the railroads for the transporta-
tion of stone and at once took the matter up with the several rail-
roads, but very little was accomplished in securing any reduction in
rates.
An agreement was made with the United Railways and Electric
Company in April, 1909, by which the Belair, Harford and York
turnpikes were turned over to the Road Commission on condition that
the Commission should meet all the expenses to which the railroad
company might be subjected by any changes required by the Commis-
sion. The railroad company later claimed that this agreement ap-
plied to all roads and a long controversy ensued which was finally
adjusted by the understanding that the State Roads Commission
should pay for the cost of any such changes, and if it was found
impossible to reach an agreement as to the ultimate responsibility,
that the matter should be left with the courts to decide. Constant
differences have arisen between the Commission and the railroad
company since construction began, but it is hoped that the matters
at issue may be adjusted without appealing to the courts.
The first contract let by the Commission, on June 9, was for one
mile of road from Federalsburg to the Dorchester county line in
Caroline County. At the same time the Commission after adver-
tising and receiving bids for the improvement of the road between
Oakwood and Porter Bridge, in Cecil County, rejected the same and
permitted the Chaii-man to construct this section by employing men
pnd purchasing materials and machinery. Following this arrange-
ment contracts were let from time to time and other arrangements
made until by the close of 1909, 111.63 miles of roads were under
construction, of which none were accepted as completed before the
end of the year, although several miles were nearly completed.
Reports of the State Koads Commission 15
During the year 1909 the Commissioii was represented at a num-
ber of important road gatherings, the Chief Engineer being granted
leave of absence to attend the Greater Highway Association of South-
eastern Virginia at Richmond on February 11, while the Chief Engi-
neer and Second Assistant Engineer were granted leave of absence
to attend the ISTational Congress of Road Builders at Columbus, Ohio,
on October 26 to 29.
Summary of Work ix 1909
State Roads.
Miles.
Surveys made of 79 sections, aggregating 26^.37
Plans and specifications prepared for 39 sections, aggregating 120.10
Contracts let for 21 sections, aggregating 91.08
Other arrangements made for 8 sections, aggregating. . . . , 20.55
Work accepted as completed, aggregating 00
Work under contract, on average IiO% completed, aggregating 111.63
OPERATIONS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1910.
The General Assembly of 1910 transferred the road work of the
State Geological and Economic Survey to the State Roads Commis-
sion so that in addition to continuing the work of building the main-
artery system of roads the State Roads Commission was also em-
powered to carry on after June 1 the construction of roads under
the State Aid law, which had 'been in the hands of the Geological
Survey since 1904, and also to continue the building of the Balti-
more-Washington road, known as State Road ^S'o. 1, which was un-
der construction by the same organization. At the same time a nev/
Act gave additional powers and increased funds to the State Roads
Commission, and likewise specifically provided for the construction
of a road from Baltimore to Annapolis, for the purchase of the Con-
owingo Bridge over the Susquehanna River, and for the building of
a bridge across the ISTanticoke River at Sharpto^vn.
Maintenance work was actively taken up in August, in order to
protect from injury the roads thus far constructed, which in some
instances had already commenced to suffer as the result of automo-
bile traffic. These roads were oiled or pitched as promptly as possi-
ble and the ordinary maintenance attention, such as cleaning ditches,
trimming shoulders, etc., was immediately accorded to all the State
16 FiKST; Second, Third and Fourth
roads requiring treatment, "with the result that by the close of the
working season of 1910 22 miles had been treated with pitch and
all the completed roads then in the hands of the Maintenance
Division, at that time aggregating 71 miles, including portions of the
Baltimore-Washington road built by the State Geological Survey,
were in condition to stand the winter of 1910-11 in good shape.
Many demands were made on the Commission to build roads
through incorporated towns and cities, but it was decided not to build
such sections for the present, since it was recognized that the standard
road construction was not generally adapted to the heavy traffic and
other conditions which prevail in segregated centers, and there was
no provision by which streets could "be paved properly under the Act.
It was considered that the extra cost of such paving should be paid for
by the municipalities, but that its type and character must be left in
the hands of the Commission if satisfactory results were to be secured.
The Commission therefore took formal action to postpone work of
this character until proper provision could be made for it.
The Co'mmission was again represented in 1910 at the Inter-
national Roads Conference at Brussels by the Chief Engineer, who
was granted leave of absence, and again attended the conference at
his own personal expense. At both of the international conferences
attended by him the leading highway engineers of the world were
present, and Chief Engineer Crosby gained much valuable knowledge
which he has been able to apply in the construction and maintenance
of Maryland roads. Moreover, he was able to inspect on the ground
in several countries the best methods of construction and to bring
back to Maryland the latest data regarding modem road construc-
tion wherever practiced.
Summary of Work in 1910.
State Roads.
Miles.
Surveys made of 46 sections, aggregating 139.98
Plans and specifications prepared for 5// sections, aggregating 185.29
Contracts let for S2 sections, aggregating 116.08
Other arrangements made for 14 sections, aggregating 44-21
Work accepted as completed, aggregating 57.80
Work under contract, on average 55% completed, aggregating 214-12
Reports of the State Roads Commission IT
State Aid Roads.
Miles.
Surveys made on 3 sections, aggregating 9.18
Plans and specifications prepared for 7 sections, aggregating 8.14
Contracts let for 3' sections, aggregating 3.97
Other arrangements made for 0 sections, aggregating 00
Work accepted as completed, aggregating 12.33
Certification to State Comptroller made on 13 sections, aggregating. . 12.33
Work not certified on average 76% completed, aggregating 20.59
Baltimore and Washington Road.
Miles.
Surveys made of 0 sections, aggregating 00
Plans and specifications prepared for 0 sections, aggregating 00
Contracts let for 0 sections, aggregating 00
Other arrangements made for 0 sections, aggregating 00
Work accepted as completed, aggi-egating 0.44
Work under contract, on average 0% completed, aggregating 00
OPERATIONS OF THE COMMISSION IN 1911.
The work of the State Roads Com -mission during 1911 proceeded
with much greater rapidity than in earlier years. Plans and speci-
iications were ready at the opening of the season for many new sec-
tions, and road building under already executed contracts and in
other ways was in progress in all of the counties of the State. On
July 1 work aggregating $3,250,000 was under construction.
The purchase of turnpikes, which began in 1910, was continued
during 1911, until 189.50 miles had been acquired and incorporated
in the State road system. The turnpikes purchased included the
Baltimore and Frederick, 60 mliles; Boonsboro, 9.60 miles; Conoco-
cheague, 6.10 miles; Belair, 15 miles; Harford, 16 miles; York,
22.50 miles; Liberty, 13.50 miles; Clarksville, 9.50 miles; Fenby,
2.50 miles; Emmitsburg, 21.50 miles; Jefferson, 8 miles; turnpike at
Belair, 2.50 miles, and Reisterstown, 2.80 miles.
All of these, except the Emmitsburg turnpike, constituted part of
the State road system as originally laid out. Some repairs, as well
as maintenance, were accorded these roads, but no systematic plan of
improvement has as yet been decided on. Some of them can doubt-
less be reconstructed at moderate expense, while others will require
large outlays to bring them up to the standard of other portions of
the State Road System. The heavy traffic that the completing of
the system will develop will require that the best possible road bed
18 FiRST; Second^ Third axd Fourth
shall be constructed for these roads, which mil become the main
arteries of travel.
The Maintenance Division continued to devote its attention to the
part of the State Road System already completed and accepted and
which at the end of the year aggregated 168.14 miles, not including
the Baltimore and Washington road of which 18.44 miles had been
turned over as completed by the State Geological Survey the year
before and was already in the charge of this division.
Summary of Wokk ix 1911.
State Roads.
Miles.
Surveys made of 28 sections, aggregating 83.95
Plans and Bpecifications prepared for 2.'/ sections, aggregating 72.73
Contracts let for 21 sections, aggregating 51.26
Other arrangements made for 10 sections, aggregating 25. .'f5
Work accepted as completed, aggregating 110.3-i
Work under contract, on average 70% completed, aggregating 175.85
State Aid Roads.
Miles.
Surveys made on 17 sections, aggregating 33.18
Plans and specifications prepared for 19 sections, aggregating 23.77
Contracts let for 9 sections, aggregating 13.23
Other arrangements made for 2 sections, aggregating 2.22
Certification to State Comptroller made on 21 sections, aggregating. . 28./-'/
Work not certified, on average 63% completed, aggregating 16.03
Baltimore and Washington Road.
Miles.
Surveys made of 2 sections, aggregating Jt.25
Plans and specifications prepared for 6 sections, aggregating 8.H
Contracts let for 2 sections, aggregating Jt.81
Other arrangements made for 0 sections, aggregating 00
Work accepted as completed, aggregating .00
Work under contract,* on average 87% completed, aggregating 0.11
*Does not include .'i.lO miles work on which was not started until January
16, 1912.
Reports of the State Roads Commission 19
WORK ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE FOUR YEARS.
The total results of the operations of the State Roads Commission
during the four years are shown in the following tables:
Summary of Work, 1908-1911.
State Roads.
Miles.
Surveys made of 217 sections, aggregating 695.50
Plans and specifications prepared for 117 sections, aggregating 378.72
Contracts let for SO sections, aggregating 258.1i2
Other arrangements made for 32 sections, aggregating 90.21
Work accepted as completed, aggregating 168.1^
Work under contract, on average 70% completed, aggregating 175.85
State Aid Roads.j^
Miles.
Surveys made on 20 sections, aggregating Jf2.36
Plans and specifications prepared for 26 sections, aggregating 31.01
Contracts let for 12 sections, aggregating 17.20
Other arrangements made for 2 sections, aggregating 2.22
Certification to State Comptroller made on S't sections, aggregating... ^0.77
Work not certified, on average 70% completed, aggregating 19.11
Baltimore and Washington Road.j^
Miles.
Surveys made of 2 sections, aggregating ^.25
Plans and specifications prepared for 6 sections, aggregating S.i//
Contracts let for 2 sections, aggregating Jf.Sl
Work accepted as completed, aggregating 0.4't
Work under contract,* on average 8t% completed, aggregating 0.11
fDoes not include work done by State Geological Survey prior to June
1, 1910.
*Does not include Jf.70 miles under contract, work on which was not started
until January 16, 1912.
First, Secoxd, Third and Fourth
STATE ROAD WORK
(Including Annapolis Boulevard.)
County
Mileage Accepted
of
S>-tem Completed
Under
Construction
Remarks
Miles
% Complete
Allegany
Anne Arundel
Baltimore City
Baltimore County. .
Calvert
Caroline
Carroll
Cecil......
Charles
Dorchester
Frederick
41 3.38
61 16.12
15 0.70
103 4.99
35 10.55
40 11.13
44 2.77
45 8.54
54 4.64
79 14.01
71
. 11.99
15.45
3.93
5.90
4.28
5.14
9.96
5.47
9.28
7.47
11.35
10.84
6.94
57
84
89
99+ Completed but not accepted.
99+ " " "
74
36
28
67
59
61
Garrett
Harford
57 5.56
40 8.71
38 3 20
55
58
Not accepted.
Kent
Montgomery
Prince George's
Queen Anne's
St. Mary's
31 . 3.28
72
7.81
13.96
5.99
3.50
82
56
87
62 11.88
42 11.17
49 14.06
Somerset
Talbot
37 3.00
37 7.%
63 2.03
59 10.30
52 7.83
2 33
7.80
60
Washington
Wicomico
Worcester
C;H, Fand M
6.78
10.52
10.49
53
64
52
1227 168.14
175.85
63
Reports of the State Roads Commission
21
STATE AID ROAD WORK.
County
Accepted
as
Completed
Miles
Mileage
Completed
Since
June 1,
1910
Under
Construction
Remarks
Miles
% Complete
13.84
1.25
35.88
3.74
2.22
2 62
54
8.98
2.51 1 44
Calvert
10.78
2.59
12.67
.48
3.03
1.83
3.59
.83
2.12
4.15
47
82
Carroll
Cecil
2.50
Work not started (Jan. 1, 1912.)
Charles
2.00
43
Garrett
Harford
23.23
4.39
5.84
1.59
1.45
75
Kent
Montgomery
Prince George's....
24.18
7.71
3.25
3.16
1.21
99
Queen Anne's
St. Mary's '
1.02
1.68
3.00
10.55
8.20
1.02
0.24
1.00
4.79
1.07
Talbot
Washington
!
166.31*
40.77
19.11
55
*Includes 125.54 miles completed by State Geological Survey.
22
First, Secoxd, Thied and Foueth
BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON ROAD WORK
(Including Columbia Avenue.)
County-
Mileage
of
System
Accepted
as
Completed
Miles
Mileage
Completed
Since
June 1,
1910
Under
Construction
Remarks
Miles
% Complete
4.88
44
.44
1
10.88 10.02
14.38 8.11
4.70
.11
Work started Jan.
.42 .31
.81
16, 1912.
30.56 1 18.88* .44
4.81
*Includes 18.44 miles completed by State Geological Survey.
Reports of the State Roads Commission 23
APPROPRIATIONS AND THEIR EXPENDITURE.
A summary of the appropriations and their expenditure under
the several road laws is presented in the following pages. An
analysis of the expenditures showing the proper distribution of these
outlays, is given in a later part of this report, together with a dis-
cussion of the costs.
Messrs. Douglas H. Thomas and Frank IST. Hoen who had been
asked, by resolution on ITovember 16, 1908, to prepare a plan for a
proper accounting of the receipts and expenditures of the Commis-
sion, submitted a report on March 11, 1909, after consultation with
the representative of an auditing company whom they had been em-
powered to add to their committee. This system, in modified form,
was installed by the Chairman late in 1909, but as employed has
been found insufficient to show the relative costs of the roads, and a
new method of accounting h^s been ordered by the Commission.
STATE EOAD LOAlSrS.
The State Roads Commission has been engaged primarily in the
construction of a main-artery system of roads, commonly known as
the State Road System, the money for which was provided for
by loans passed by the General Assembly in 1908 and 1910. It is
provided by the Act of 1908 that this work shall be completed in
seven years from July 1, 1908. The Act further provides that "not
more than one million dollars ($1,000,000) shall be expended in
any one year, accounting from said first day of July, 1908."
Act of 1908.
By the Act of 1908 a loan of $5,000,000 was created, known as
the State Road Fund, to bear date as follows :
$500,000, Augaist 1, 1908
1,000,000, February 1, 1909
1,000,000, February 1, 1910
1,000,000, February 1, 1911
1,000,000, Februaiy 1, 1912
1,000,000, February 1, 1913.
24 FiEST, Second, Thied and Fourth
The sale of the bonds was made as authorized by law so that
$3,500,000 had been sold prior to December 31, 1911.
Several counties have already received more than their propor-
tionate share not only of the 1908 loan but also of any balance which
may come to thenl under the 1910 loan. A reduction in the con-
tracts and other outstanding obligations has, therefore, been made in
order to reduce as far as possible these excesses. Allegany, Balti-
more, Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Harford, Howard, Kent and
Wicomico counties each shows an excess of payments and contract
obligations, although the cancellation or reduction of the latter will
materially reduce the excess in many cases and entirely wipe it
out in some others. Where permanent excesses exist the only redress
is apparently in adjustments of any future loans which may be made
by the General Assembly.
Act of 1910.
By the Act of 1910 an additional loan of $1,000,000 was provided,
known as the Roads and Bridges Fund, to bear date as follows :
$250,000, January 1, 1911
250,000, January 1, 1912
250,000, January 1, 1913
250,000, January 1, 1914.
The sale of the bonds has been made, as authorized by law,
$250,000 having been sold prior to December 31, 1911. Under this
law the Annapolis and Baltimore Boulevard and the Conowingo and
Sharptown bridges must be first provided for, and the balance is to
be distributed to the several counties with the exception of Baltimore,
Anne Arundel, Harford, Cecil, Wicomico and Dorchester counties,
which benefit by the works above mentioned. It is estimated by the
Chief Engineer that the cost of the Annapolis and Baltimore Boule-
vard, including the bridges and the approaches to Annapolis and
Baltimore as specified in the Act, and of the Sharptown and Cono-
wingo bridges will amount to about $850,000, leaving approximately
$150,000 for distribution to the counties.
Reports of the State Roads Commission 25
state aid funds.
Acts of 190J,. and 1910.
The State Aid law provides $200,000 annually to meet one-half
the cost of roads built jointly by the State and counties, both original
and later apportionments of balances being made in the proportion
that the road mileage of each county bears to the total road mileage.
The original allotments of the State Aid road money to the coun-
ties on the basis of the road mileage are made on October 1 of each
3^ear, but if the full amount of any county is not applied for the
balance of the money available is again distributed on April 1 on
a similar basis, to those counties which applied for more than their
original share.
The administration of this law, as already stated, was vested in
the State Geological and Economic Survey Commission up to June
1, 1910, but since that date it has been under the State Roads
Commission.
BALTIMORE AND WASHINGTON EOAD FUNDS.
Ads of 1906, 1908, 1910.
The General Assembly appropriated $264,000 at the sessions of
1906 and 1908 for the construction of the Baltimore-Washington
road, while the sum of $120,000 was added by the General Assembly
in 1910. At the time of the transfer of the work there still remained
in the State Treasury unexpended $24,000 of the appropriations of
1906 and 1908, although unpaid contracts were still in force in ex-
cess of this amount, and thus payable out of the appropriation of 1910.
It is believed that the balance of the appropriation made by the
General Assembly of 1910 will be sufficient to complete the sections
from Laurel to Beltsville and through Elkridge. The Chief Engi-
neer estimates that about $200,000 will be required to complete the
road, the unfinished portions to be provided for being the sections in
Baltimore County, in Laurel, at Paint Branch in Prince George's
County, and between Hyattsville and the District of Columbia line.
Under this Act it has been necessary to build paved streets as well
as the standard type of roads.
26 FiEST, Second, Tiiikd and Foukth
The construction of this road was transferred from the State Geo-
logical and Economic Survey to the State Eoads Commission on
June 1, 1910.
MAINTENANCE FUNDS.
Act of 1910.
The Automobile Law, as previously stated, provides a fund an-
nually for the maintenance both of the State Eoads and State Aid
Roads. The portion applicable to the State Roads is payable directly
to the State Roads Commission, while that portion applicable to tha
State Aid Roads is payable on the certification of the Commission
to the counties on drafts for expenditures which have actually been
made in repairs on State Aid Roads. Since the law became operative
the State Roads Commission has received $26,576.04 from this
source, which has been employed in the up-keep of the roads already
constructed, and $18,371.88 has been available for the State Aid
Roads. Under the terms of the Act the correct amount available
for the State Roads on April 1, 1911, was $12,460.45 and for the
State Aid Roads $22,507.47, so that the excess taken by the State
Roads Commission must be returned to the State Treasurer for dis-
tribution to the counties.
N^o question has given greater concern to the Commission than the
development of a proper plan of maintenance. It is recognized on
all sides that it is useless to construct expensive roads unless they are
to be protected from the traffic to which they will be normally sub-
jected, and also from other causes which tend to bring about their
deterioration. The question of maintenance is thoroughly discussed
in a later chapter by the Chief Engineer.
Reports of the State Koads Commission 27
TABLES OF
RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES
STATE ROADS
RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES— BY FUNDS—
Receipts.
Fund
Total
State Road
State Aid
Road
Roads and
Bridges
State Road
No. 1
Commissions
Receipts
Receipts from State Treasurer :
Proceeds from Sales of State
Road Bonds :
Under Provisions of Chapter
141, Acts of 1908
$ 3,355,700 97
$ 3,355,700 97
Under Provisions of Chapter
116, Acts of 1910
$ 251,293 50
251,293 50
$ 3,606,994 47
Total
General and Special Appropria-
tions :
Under Provisions of Chapter
217, Acts of 1910, for fiscal
years of 1910 and 1911
$ 400,000 00
$ 400,000 00
Under Provisions of Chapter
409, Sections 104 and 105,
Acts of 1910
$ 120,000 00
120,000 00
. Total
$ 520,000 00
Proportion of Collections under
Motor Vehicle Law, Chapter
140R, Acts of 1910, for year
ended iVIarch 31, 1911
22,460 45
22,507 47
$ 44,967 92
Total Receipts from State
Treasurer
$ 4,171,962 39
Receipts from Maryland Geological
Survey :
Balance of Unused Appropria-
tions with State Treasurer,
under Chapter 217, Acts of
1910
94,571 10
2,973 71
24,000 00
52 89
$ 118,571 10
3,026 60
Total Receipts from Maryland
$ 121,597 70
Receipts from Other Sources :
Preliminary Surveys and Plans —
2,029 50
$ 2,029 50
14,684 88
1,468 33
94 45
3,438 70
18,123 58
Sales of Plans and Specifications .
Miscellaneous
197 50
85 43
13 29
1,764 55
94 45
Total Receipts from Other
Sources
$ 22,012 08
Total Receipts— All Sources.
$ 3,394,409 08
$ 522,279 28
$ 254,817 63
$ 144,066 18
$ 4,315,572 17
Balance— Excess of Expenditures
State Road Fund — Overe
Roads and Bridges Func
and Vouchers Over Receipts.
$ 516,539 68
9,135 46
i — Overexpende
d
$ 525,675 14
Less :
State Aid Road Fund — Balance Unexpen
State Road No. 1 Fund — Balance Unexp
Total
ded
$ 305,338 98
113,387 79
ended
$ 418,726 77
$ *106,948 37
$ 4,422,520 54
"Composed of :
Accounts Payable
Bills Payable
Conowingo Bridge Bonds Assumed .
Total.
Less:
Cash Balance With State Treasurer.
Cash In Banks
Cash Items and Items Receivable. . . .
Total
$364,942 57
50,785 75
2,714 01
256,135 53
254,255 17
15,000 00
418,442 33
Excess of Expenditures Over Receipts $ 106,948 37
Exhibit "A.
COMMISSION.
FROM MAY 19, 1908, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911.
Expenditures.
Fund
State Road
State Aid
Road
Roads and
Bridges
State Road
No. 1
Total
Commissions
Expenditures
Construction — Schedules No. 1, No. 2,
No. 3 and No. 4 :
Preliminary Surveys and Plans. .
Rights of Way and Damages ....
Contract and Force Work
Total
Reconstruction — Schedule No. 5.
Maintenance — Schedule No. 6.. . .
31,274 30 $
275,133 49 ..
3,101,957 79
3,928 92 $
177'2i3 69"
$ 3,408,365 58
$ 16,378 92
$ 181,142 01
Preliminary Surveys and Plan s —
In Advance of Construction
Overhead Expenses— Schedule No. 7 :
Administration and Legal
Engineering
Total.
$ 154,492 02
Other Expenditures :
Payments to Counties from Motor
Vehicle Fund for Maintenance
of State Aid Roads
United Railways and Electric
Company — For Construction
Work in which final re-
sponsibility for Cost is not
yet determined
Road Equipment — Schedule'
No. 8 i
$ 25,089 28 $
175,705 11
47,430 38
Total 1$ 223,135 49
Total.
$ 3,910,948 76
1,928 42
1,997 69
250,267 39
661 78
26 58
28,646 30
$ 254,193 50 $ 29,334 66
8,654 35 $
1,343 73
9,310 55
9,310 55
37,793 42
277,157 76
3,558,084 57
$ 3,873,035 75
16,378 92
<f
88,676 23
■'$
290 52
.$
88,966 75
;
$
19,900 52
$
1,398 46
^
814 72
.|l
92,113 70
$
52,349 53
102,142 49
$
7,041 58
18,047 70
$
1
3,045 68
5,608 67
;$
473 72
870 01
1$
62,910 51
126,668 87
189,579 38
175,705 11
47,430 38
232,446 04
$ 216,940 30 $ 263,953 09 $ 30,678 39 1$ 4,422,520 54
30
First, Secoxd, Third axd Fourth
STATE ROADS
State Road
STATEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES— SHOWING PROPORTION OF ADMINISTRATION, LEGAL AND
COMPLETED
County
Contract
Number
Name of Road
Description
Prelimi-
nary Sur-
veys and
Plans
Grading 1 Surfacing
Allegany.
-8" Macadam .
-8" Macadam .
0144
AnneArundel
Balto. City. . .
0250
Baltimore . . .
0181
0182
0186
Calvert
Caroline
050
051
052
0.S4
055
Carroll
0200 i
0201 '
Cecil
040 <
041 1
043
Charles
01.50
Dorchester. . '.
070
Frederick
0260
Garrett
0161
Harford
0171
Howard
0220
0260
Kent
0120
Montgomery.
0260
Pr. George's.
0130
0131
Queen Anne's
0100
0101
0102
0104
St. Mary's. . .
(See below.)
020
021
0140 A Frostburg— Elkhart Mines 14'
0140 B Frostburg— Garrett County Line. . 14'
0142 Standard Oil Warehouse— Penn. R.
R. Crossing 16'— 8" Macadam
Frostburg — Garrett County Line. . 14' — 8" Macadam
Total
See below. (Next Page.)
Falls Road 40' Vitrified Brick
Wp<!tnnrt * 18'— 8" Tarred Macadam. .
westport , 49 5. Vitrified Brick
Philadelphia 18'— 8" Tarred Macadam . . . .
CityLimits-Overlea, (Belair Rd.) 1 i^' vTtrifierBri^k .'=.".'^" ! !
Total
See below. (Next Page.)
Greensboro — Denton 14' — 8" Macadam
Greensboro — Federalsburg 14' — 8" Macadam
Federalsburg — Dorchester Co. Line 14' — 6" and 8" Macadam ....
Denton — Federalsburg 14' — 6" and 8" Macadam
Greensboro— Denton 14' — 6" and 8" Macadam . . .
Total
Sykesville — Eldersburg 14'— 8" Macadam
Westminster — Cranberry 14' — 8" Macadam
Total
Conowingo — Porter's Bridge 14^ — 6" and 8" Macadam
Rising Sun — Calvert 14' — 6" and 8" Macadam
Elkton — Singerly 14' — 8" Macadam
Total
La Plata— White Plains 14'— 8" Gravel
Federalsburg — Hurlock 14'— 6" and 8" Macadam
Sec. .3Shiloh Church — East New Market. 14'—^" and 8" Macadam
072 East New Market— Mount Holly.. 14'— 6" and 8" Stone and
Shell Macadam
Total
Ridgeville — Damascus 14' — 8" Macadam
Oakland — Thayersville 14'— 8" Macadam
St. Ignatius' Church — Forrest Hill 14' — 8" Macadam
West Friendship — Sykesville 14'— 8" Macadam
Ridgeville — Damascus 14' — 8" Macadam
Total
Chestertown — Kennedyville 14' — 8" Macadam
Ridgeville — Damascus 14' — 8" Macadam
Forrestville — Upper Marlboro 14' — 8" Macadam
District of Columbia — Charles
County Line 14'— 8"Gravel
Total
Chestertown — Church HiU 14' — 8" Macadam
Centerville — Church Hill 14' — 8" Macadam
Centerville— Church Hill 14'— 8" Macadam
Centerville— Church Hill 14'— 8" Macadam
Total
Mechanicsville — Leonardtown 12' — 6" and 8" Macadam
Mechanicsville — Leonardtown 12' — 6" and 8" Macadam
Total
Forward
1.00$
0.99
0.54
0.64
55 61$
55 06
30 03
35 59
1,695 26$
2,474 89
1,349 96
1,545 70
8.749 31
9,563 47
5,161 92
7,043 43
3.17$
176 29$
7,065 81$
30,518 13
0.70$
247 81$
4,810 75$
40,693 15
1.67$ 140 93$ 7,080 10$ 42,312 00
1.95 164 56 3,537 01 21,572 10
1.37 115 61 5,348 08 21,650 58
4^99$ 421 10$ 15,965 19$ 85,534 68
2.58$
171 44$
3,295 46$
25,167 60
1.82
120 94
1,846 S3
17,332 29
1.12
74 42
2,339 77
9,733 80
2.67
177 42
4,138 41
21,978 70
2.94
195 36
2,523 62
24,461 81
11.13$
739 58$
14,144 09$
98,674 20
1.57$
1.20
121 77$
93 07
4,007 85$
1,787 76
15,240 22
5,885 79
2.77$
214 84$
5,795 61
$21,126 01
3.12$
3.07
2.35
234 12$
230 37
176 34
11,782 06$
13,803 91
3,914 31
20,870 74
31,894 87
16,296 45
8.54$
640 83$
29,500 28$
69,062 06
237 56$ 5,865 16$ 17,179 74
303 43$
155 10
5,712 723
3,382 66
331 63 11,566 28
34,227 69
21,851 83
30,045 62
790 16$ 20,661 66$ 86,125 14
2.06$
3.20$
1.51
4.71$
3.28$"
0.05$
5.76$
6.12
56 43 $ 1,319 48 $_
10,034 22$
2^293 22$
4,869 62
397 93$
202 48$
41,807 60
12,651 58
230 59$
108 81
10,010 69$
2,598 97
339J0 $_J2,609 66 $_
174 59$
3 15$
21,370 90
9,591^
30,962 57
3,401 95$ 26,038 40
79 97$
295 12
363 74$ 6,079 24$ 45,933 08
386 48 15,968 71
19,685 24
803,993 65
Exhibit "A"— Schedule 1, Part I— (Continued.)
Eeports of the State Roads Commission"
31
COMMISSION.
Fund.
GENERAL ENGINEERING EXPENSES APPLICABLE THERETO— FROM MAY 19, 1908, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911.
ROADS.
Construction
Bridges Under- Inspection ^. ,_
^^"<^, drains j^nd Super- j^neous
Culverts ' "'■'""° intendence "*"'=""'='
Cost Per
Mile
Rights
of Way
and
Damages
Admin-
Total istration,
(Including Legal and
Rights of General
Way and Engi-
Damages) neering
I Expenses
Cost
Per Mile
1,078 71$
1,581 36
545 08 .
900 78l
38 79$
55 34
322 53
246 45$
355 47
188 45|
359 57
7 50$
2 50
11 91
1 60
11,871 63$
14,088 09
7,287 351
10,209 20
11,871 63.
14,230 39 .
13.495 09 .
15,951 87 .
11,871 63 $
14,088 09
7,287 35
10,209 20 1
549 91$
652 57:
337 56!
472 91
12,421 54$
14,740 66
7,624 91
10,682 11
12,421 54
14,888 95
14,120 20
16,690 78
$ 4.105 93,$ 416 66$ 1.149 94$ 23 51$ 43,456 27$ 13.708 60
.$ 43,456 27 $ 2,012 95 $ 45,469 22$ 14,375 15
1,082 79L.
2,559 61$
512 52!
2,743 35
863 34$ 40 02$ 47,717 86$ 68,168 37
528 88$ 1,310 28$ 110 46$
18 00 429 81 2,713 02
15 53 1.458 63 309 48
54,142 26$ 32,420 51..
28,947 02 14.844 63| .
31,641 26 23,095 81$
371 95
47.717 86 $ 2,166 83 $_
54,142 26$ 2,494 44$
28,947 02 1,333 641
32,013 21 1.457 76,
49.884 69$_ 71,263 84
56,636 70|$ 33,914 19
30,280 66 15,528 54
33,470 97 24.431 36
$ 5.815 48$ 662 41$ 3.198 72$ 3,132 96 $ 114.730 54 $ 22,992 09$ 371 95 $ 115,102 49 $ 5,285 84 $ 120,388 33 $ 24.125 92
3.977 01!
330 52 2,656 53
4 00
48.911 59 8.318 30 .
48,911 59 2,250 46
8,704 79
10,237 08
8,701 03
s
8,204 80$
513 61$
4,090 68$
210 84$
120,596 89$
8,607 92..
$
$
120.5% 89$ 5,548 94$ 126,145 83$
9,003 98
$
605 72 . . .
$
284 47$
43 71$
7,179 43$
9.323 93 . .
7,179 43 $ 312 61
$ 7,492 04$
9,729 79
.$
4,177 11$
1,891 80$
606 82$
562 07$
112 17$
59,027 65$
10.616 48,..
$
59,027 65 $ 2,723 92
$ 61.751 57$
11,106 39
$
1,206 28$
1,833 40$
63 11$
18,812 14$
9.132 10..
$
18.812 14 $ 801 11
$ 19,613 25$
9,521 00
$
4,354 29$
1,193 08..
732 40$
1.332 14$
560 32
148 02$
86 11
38,179 03$
14,138 96
11 930 95 . .
$
38,179 03 $ 1,691 43
14,138 96 626 40
52,317 99 $ 2.317 83
$ 39,870 46$
14.765 36,
12,459 52
9.363 55..
9.778 38
$
.5,547 37$
1,244 39$
732 40,$
322 70$
1.892 46$
616 69$
234 13$
52,317 99$
11,107 85..
$ 54.635 82$
$ 33,284 46$
11.600 00
$
20 24$
31,818 96$
9,700 90..
$
$
31,818 % $ 1,465 50
10.147 70
■f
36 71..
$
17 24$
2 65$
434 84$
8,696 80 . .
434 84 $ 20 13
$ 454 97$
9,099 40
$
4 858 23 . .
$
360 36$
1.268 28
81 69$
64 29
57,676 34$
46,940 76
10,013 25..
1
7,670 061..
$
$~
57,676 34 $ 2,674 99
46,940 76 2,177 08
$ 60,351 33$
49.117 84,
10.477 66
8,022 25
1.545 51
8.025 79
$
12,880J8$
•1 368 40
1,545 51$
1,628 64$
145 98$
104.617 10$
8,806 151..
104,617 10 $ 4,852 07
$ 109.469 17:$
9.214 57
$
...$
686 21$
1,004 23
853 42
877 45
53 24$
29 50
59 76
41 95
27,698 86$
35,197 40
34,773 43
30,668 43
9,202 28 . .
11,540 13 . .
11.074 34!
$
27,698 86 $ 1,275 22
35,197 40 1,620 46
34,773 43; 1,600 93
30.668 43 1,411 95
$ 28.974 08$
36.817 86
36.374 36!
32.080 38
9.625 94
4,786 55$
3,418 48:
4,015 87,
292 30
136 90
626 70
12,071 43
11,58 19
15,567 73..
16,284 46
$
13,589 30$
1,627 17$
5,954 36!
1,055 90$
3,421 31$
184 45$
63 80$
89 52
128,338 12$
11,489 53 . .
$
128,338 12 $ 5,908 56
$ 134.246 68$
12,018 50
$
370 00$
781 10
892 02$
763 73
55,612 34$
41,460 16
10,433 02$
11,851 05 . .
36 00$
55,648 34$ 2,571 20
41,460 161 1,908 83
$ 58,219 54$
43,368 99:
10,921 26
12,397 99
$
7,581 53$
98,858 68$
1,151 10$
1,655 75$
153 32$
97,072 50$
10,993 49$
36 00$
97,108 50 $ 4.480 03
$ 101,588 53!
11,504 93
$
15,638' 73$
27,261 02$ 4,904 12$
1 ■ '
1.534,615 85j..
$
2.397 85$
1.137,822 05 $51,783 41
1
$ 1.189,605 46j..
1
32
FiKST, Seco]N'd^ Thied and Foueth
STATE ROADS
State Road
STATEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENDI
County
Contract'
Number
Name of Road
Description
Prelimi-
nary Sur-
veys and
Plans
Grading j Surfacing
Somerset.
Talbot . . .
Wicomico. ,
AnneArundel
Calvert .
St. Mary's.
090
0110
0111
Princess Anne — Westover
Easton — Wye Mills
Easton — Wye Mills
Total
080 Salisbury — Mardela Springs. .
OSlAMardela Springs — Sharptown.
Total
OeOBSnow Hill— Berlin
060 CSnow Hill— Berlin
OeODSnow HUl— Berlin
Forward
12'— S" Macadam
14' — 8" Macadam
14' and 16' — 8" Macadam.
98.26$ 6,983 09$ 177,784 91$ 803,993 65
3.00$
14' — 6" and 8" Macadam.
14' — 6" Macadam
12'— 6'' Macadam
12' — 6" and 8" Macadam . . . .
12' and 14'— 6" and 8" Ma-
cadam
Total
Total Roads Completed.
2.
2.78
2.27
7.83$
ROADS COMPLETED AS TO GRADING ONLY
0190
0192
030
031
032
022
Owings — Mount Zion
Owings — Mount Zion
Total
Owings — Prince Frederick
Owings — Prince Frederick
Owings — Prince Frederick
Total
Mechanicsville — Leonardtown
Total Roads Completed as to
Grading Only
Total Completed Roads — Car-
ried to Part 2
4.81$
5.19
10.00$
2.93$
3.09
4.53
10.55$
5.23$
25.78$
150 09$ 11,602 20$ 32,352 29
3.02$
4.94
185 16$
302 87
3,119 96$
12,523 43
24,593 42
46,485 90
7.96$
488 03$
15,643 39$
71,079 32
5.78$
4.52
409 46$
320 20
4,465 28$
6.988 90
54,279 37
33,451 39
10.30$
729 66$
11,454 18$
87,730 76
192 70$
192 70
827 01 $
4,325 32'
157 36; 4,831 50
8,961 64
19,549 49
18,391 41
542 76$ 9,983 83$ 46,902 54
127.35$ 8,893 63$ 226,468 51$ 1,042,058 56
343 92$ 8,191 82.
371 08 8,392 76 .
715 00$ 16,584 58 '.
437 68$ 6,486 u'.
461 58 3,906 60 .
676 69 7,718 89 .
1,575 95$ 18,11163.
467 35$ 8,242 42!
2,758 30$ 42,938 63.
,153.13$ 11,651 93$ 269,407 14$ 1,042,058 56
Exhibit "A"— Schedule 1, Part I— (Concluded.)
Reports of the State Roads Commission
33
commission.
Fund.
TURES— completed ROADS— (Continued.)
Construction
Bridges
and
Culverts
Under- I ^"5^4',^*'?" Miscel-
Total
Cost Per
Mile
Rights 1
of Way
and
Damages
Admin-
Total jistration, I
(Including Legal and
Rights of General
Way and
Damages)
Engi-
neering
Expenses
Total
Cost of
Road
Cost
Per Mile
$
98,858 68'$
15,638 73$
27,261 02
1
$ 4,904 12$
$ 177 84$
1,534,615 85 . .
49,995 01$
$ 5
,397 85|$
63 50$
1,137,822 05 $51,783 41$
50,058 51$ 2,310 08$
1,189 605 46..
$
3,924 14$
187 80$
1,600 65
16,665 00$
52,368 59$
17,456 20
%
2,555 12$
5,099 44
1,999 95$
1,034 62,
288 32;$
601 43
32 85$
121 12
32,774 78$
66,168 81
10,852 57 . ..
$
32,774 78$ 1,516 29$
66,200 31 3,061 24
34,291 07$
69,261 55
11,354 66
13,394 50;
31 50
14,020 55
$
7,654 56$
3,034 57!$
889 75$
153 97$
98,943 59$
12,430 10$
31 50$
98,975 09$ 4,577 53$
103,552 62$
13,009 12
$
1 221 92
.$
493 80$
1,552 52i
57 53$
40 41j
60,927 36$
45,364 48
10 541 07 . . .
!$
60,927 36$ 2,807 00$
45,364 48 2,090 001
63,734 36$
47,454 48
11,026 71
2,961 851
49 21
10,036 39 . . .
10,498 78
$
4,183 77$
49 21$
2,046 32
$
97 94$
106,291 84$
10,319 59 . . .
'$
106,291 84$ 4,897 00$
111,188 84$
10,795 03
$
779 45 . . .
1,146 77|$
1$
127 23
939 09
801 00
$ 9 82$
9 41,
11.709 71$
26,151 92j
4,212 12...
9,407 16$
"ii'so
1,517 77...
_JA41i3
17 5l'
26,356 98
11,611 00...
11,709 71$ 516 22$
26,186 42 1,152 87|
26,356 98 1,161 92
12,225 93$
27,339 29,
4,397 81
9,834 27
27,518 90 12,122 86
$ 3,443 99 $ 127_23 $ 3.181 .52 $ 36 74 $ 64,218 61 $ 8,201 61 $ 34 .SO $ 64,253 11 $ 2,831 01 $ 67,084 12 $ 8,567 67
$ 118,065 14$ 19,037 54$ 34,979 26$ 5.370 61$ 1,454.873 25$ 11.424 21$ 2,527 35$ 1.457,400 60$66,399 03$ 1,523,799 63$ 11,965 45
4,084 91$
2,455 71!
3,554 60$
1,987 60i
S 6,540 62$ 5.542 20$
164 89$ 467 53$ 16.807 67$ 3,494 32'.
776 20j 380 68, 14,364 03 2,767 63 ■
$ 848 21$ 31,17170$ 3,117 17'
16,807 67$
14,364 03
783 15$
669 33
17,590 82$
15,033 36
3.657 14
2,896 60
5,847 79$
1,560 04! . .
1,742 96:..
1.736 02$
159 55
615 76
232 27
267 18$
3.50 26
397 87|
14,934 36$
6.894 24
10,768 68
5,097 05$
2,231 15 . .
2.377 19 . .
4 74$
31.171 70 $ 1,452 48 $_
14,939 10$ 687 00$
6,894 24 317 14
10,768 68 495 38
32.624 18$ 3,262 42
i5,626 10$ 5,333 14
7,211 38 2,333 78
11,264 06 2,486 55
$ 9, 150 79 $ 1,736 02$ 1,007 58$ 1,015 31$ 32,597 28 $ 3,089 79 $ 4 74 $ 32.602 02 $ 1,499 52 $ 34,101 54 $ 3.223 84
$ 5,449 39$ 1,116 88$ 610 32$ 87 26$ 15,973 62$ 3,054 23$ 500 00$ 16,473 62$ 737 21$ 17,210 83$ 3,290 79
$ 21,140 80$ 8,395 10$ 2,558 99$ 1,950 78$ 79,742 69$ 3,093 20$ 504 74$ 80,247 34$ 3,689 21$ 83,936 55;.
$139,205 94$ 27,432 64$ 37,538 25$ 7,321 39$ 1,534,615 85 $3,032 09$ 1,537,647 94 $70,088 24$ 1,607,736 18,.
STATE ROADS
State Road
STATEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES-SHOWING PROPORTION OF ADMINISTRATION,
1908, TO DECEMBER 31, 1911
County
Allegany,.... 0140 C
Anne Arund'l 0191
0194
Contract
Number
0141
0145
0146 B
0148
Balto. City.
0251
0252
0253
0254
0255
Baltimore .. . . 0180
0183
0184
0188
00180
Calvert 033
034
Caroline
Carroll..
053
0202
0203
044
045
Charles....... 0151
!oi52
0154
Cecil.
Dorchester.
Name of Road
Description
Preliminary
Surveys and
Plans
City Limits to end of Sec-
tion A
Baltimore Turnpike
Six Mile House tc Flint-
stone
Red Hill-Six Mile House.
Allegany Grove— McKen-
zie's Store
Total
14'— 8" Macadam.
14' — 8" Macadam .
14'— 8" Macadam
Resurfacing 14' Macadm...
No Estimate
Brooklyn — Glen Burnie. .
■Light Street — Brooklyn . .
! Total
14' & 16' & 18'— 8" Water
Bound and Tar Macadam
40' Vitrified Brick
North to Atlantic Ave.
(Harford Road) 50' Vitrified Brick .
Belair Turnpike Plans not completed .
Frederick Turnpike Plans not completed.
Garrison Avenue 150' Asphaltum
Atlantic Avenue to Cityl
Limits (Harford Road).. 50' Vitrified Brick. . .
Reisterstown Turnpike No Plans
Total
City Limits — Mt. Washing-
ton (Falls Road)
City Limits — Taylor Ave.
(Harford Road)
Belair Turnpike
City Limits — Bucks Lane
(Liberty Road)
Frederick Turnpike. . . .
York Road .
Total.
Owings — Prince Frederick
Prince Frederick — P o r t
Republic
Total
0.25
5.00
6.95
0.94
5.323
■ 32|
5.64:3
40' Vitrified Brick, 16' & 18'
Pitch Macadam
15' & 16' & 18'— 8" Tarred
Macadam
18'— 8" Macadam, 49.5'Vitri-
fied Brick
16' & 18'— 8" Tarred Ma-
cadam
18'-8" Macadam, 40' Vitri-
fied Brick
No Plans
Grading.
Grading .
1
2.93
5.13
0.99
6.32;
4.26i
21.61$
Denton— Federalsburg .... 14'— 8" Macadam.
Eldersburg— Gamber ,14'— 8" Macadam.
Gamber— Fenby !14'— 8" Macadam.
Fenby Turnpike No Plans
Frederick Pike iNo Plans
Total !
Elkton— Chesapeake City. . 14 —8 Macadam
Elkton— Chesapeake City. . |14'— 8" Macadam
Conowingo Bridge IProportion of Purchase Price
Total
14'— 8" Gravel.
4.28;$
4.50}
8.78$
4.01$
4.673
5.29]
2.50
1.60
3.003
2.471
5.47$
6.27$
La Plata — Prince George's
County Line
Waldorf — St. Mary's
County Line 14 —8" Gravel | 3.01
Rock Point— Wayside Not Contracted 9.50i
Total 18.783
071 Sec. 2
073
Hurlock-Shiloh Church... . 14'-6" & 8" Macadam ; 3.083
Shiloh Church, BrookvieW|14'— 8" Shell and Stone 4. 39;
Frederick 0240
0241
0242
0243
0245
Total j \JL^^
New Market-New London!l4'— 8" Macadam ' 3.05,3
Monrovia-Kemptown |14'— 8" Macadam , ; 1-20'
Jefferson Turnpike il4'— 8" Macadam 4.43
Petersville-Knoxville |14'— 8" Macadam 2.67
Frederick Turnpike No Plans ^J'*?'
Emmitsburg Turnpike No Plans \ 21-54 .
Jefferson Turnpike Not Contracted 8.00 .
Woodsboro Turnpike No Plans 9-50i.
Grading Surfacing
13 90$
278 051
386 49!
52 271
727 18$
5,467 47
5,241 02
880 70
2,177 24
13,409 10
16,857 00
2,939 98
157 93;,
888 64$ 12,316 37$ 35,383 32
380 38$
22 88 . .
$ 38,061 90
403 26$ 3,130 52
$ 38,061 90
569 95$ 23,805 58$ 106,373 73
315 06
676 16
552 26 12,111 39 63,204 23
1.61$
0.89.
1.91
1.56
0.76
2.75
9.48$ 3,356 01$ 57,510 49$ 181,965 19
269 05.
973 53 .
21,593 52
12,387 23
167 09$
247 26
432 92
83 55
533 34
359 50
1,823 66
7,850 72$ 51,343 36
3,691 11 34,388 26
1,501 59
9,425 63
$ 13,043 42$ 95,157 25
639 35 $ 5.910- 03
672 21j..
l,3li 56$
5,910 03
266 46$ 5,032 99
$ 35,995 98
362 21$
410 29!
193 90..
124 10..
12,206 03
3,143 00
14.06:$ 1,090 50$ 15,349 03
225 12$
185 35
66 55
1,418 15
410 47$ 1,484 70
321 02$ 8,994 73
154 11
486 40
961 53
1,316 70
7 42
$ 10,318 85
173 71$
247 59|
6,418 48
4,091 49
10,575 00
6,480 00
$ 17,055 00
7,808 40
$ 7,808 40
$ 25,075 40
$ 25,075 40
421 30$ 10,509 97
223 53,$
87 95
324 67
195 68
7,664 22
2,089 33
7,576 60
7,815 69
307 27
11,765 22;$ 160,059 48
10,673 57
24,98490
35,658 47
6,885 55
5,130 30
10,572 79
12,014 34
4,678 42
$ 39,281 40
$ 511,442 31
Exhibit "A"— Schedule 1, Part II— (Continued)
COMMISSION
Fund
LEGAL AND GENERAL ENGINEERING EXPENSES APPLICABLE THERETO-FROM MAY 19,
—UNCOMPLETED ROADS
Construction
Rights of
Way and
Damages
.Total Con-
Ad
Tiinistra-
n. Legal
General
"■ineering
xpenses
Total Ex-
penditures
and Over-
head
Expenses
Bridges
and Underdrains
Culverts
Inspection
and Super-
intendence
Miscella-
neous
Total
and Rights and
lof Way and Eng
Damages E
$ 156 85
$ 141 10
1,088 19
1,239 78
429 45
7 47
$ 2,905 99
$ 40
92 25
163 37
$
3,216 67
26,944 39
28,542 94
4,302 40
165 40
$ 3,216 67$
26,944 39
149 00$
1,248 05
1,322 13!
3,365 67
<t
150 30
1,238 78
28,192 44
3,416 50
28,542 94
4,302 40
165 40
29,865 07
199 30
7 67
$
4,501 70
173 07
$ 10,032 38 S
1,389 08
$ 256 02
$
63,171 80
$ 63,171 80$
2,926 15
66,097 95
$ 6,509 32$
1,125 90
$ 1,262 13
18 70
$ 1,280 83
$ 1,883 48
32 31
$■
52,353 63
73 89
$ 52,353 63 S
2,439 45
3 44
2,442 89
$
$~
54,793 08
73 89
$
77 33
$ 6,509 32|$
1,125 90
$ 1,915 79
$
52,427 52
$ 52,427 52
54,870 41
$ 5,283 29$
1,922 36
$ 2,890 29
26 60
43 95
2,317 69
1,660 62
$ 2,098 93
2,077 93
$
142,944 13
2,419 59
720 11
81,673 27
104,259 23
973 53
$ 104 86
$ 143.048 99
2,419 59
3,906 94
84,623 27
104,264 73
71,098 53
$
6,490 96
109 87
32 69
3,708 71
4,734 32
44 21
$
149,539 95
2,529 46
i::::::::::;;
3,186 83
2,950 00
5 50
70,125 00
3,939 63
2,240 75
66,693 71
854 36
567 00
392 59
1,088 10
88,331 98
108,999 05
71,142 74
$ 74,217 75
$ 6,669 36
3,455 72
$
3,343 72
$ 6,939 15
$ 5,657 55
$ 261 84
106 12
$
332,989 86
68,925 16
44,205 79
432 92
12,512 84
533 34
359 50
$ 76,372 19
$ 409,362 05
$
15,120 76
3,175 49
2,036 64
19 96
576 49
24 58
16 57
5,849 73
$
424,482 81
$
746 09
938 27
$ 1,886 70
1,379 05
$ 1,220 00
273 78
588 90
5,065 50
10,688 34
60 00
$ 70,145 16
44,479 57
1,021 82
17,578 34
11,221 68
419 50
$
$~
73,320 65
46,516 21
1,041 78
817 63
47 78
550 58
86 08
18,154 83
11,246 26
436 07
$
1,732 14
$ 3,816 33
$ 454 04
$'"
126,969 55
$ 17,896 52
$ 144,866 07
$ 11,574 64
$
150,715 80
$ 4,265 06
$
151 33
$ 335 30
$ 273 57
«
11,574 64
677 21
$
532 44
31 15
$""
12,107 08
5 00
677 21
708 36
$ 4,265 06
f~
151 33
$ 335 30
$ 278 57$
12,251 85
$ 12,251 85$
563 59
2,395 07
1,261 05
516 07
9 04
5 78
12,815 44
$ 8,047 53
$
587 50
$ 2,056 11
$ 951 79
319 82
$_
«
51,986 57
27,057 38
11,073 11
193 90
124 10
$ 51,986 57
$
$
54,381 64
$ 2,654 84
685 80
$
134 55
$ 172 96
$ 27,057 38
$
$
28,318 43
34 20i
$ ""9,69i'55
2,695 16
$ 11,786 71
11,073 11|
9,285 45|
2,819 26i
11,589 18
9,294 49
2,825 04
$ 3,340 64
$~
134 55
$ 1,271 61
$ 207 16$
$ 31 47$
67 281
88,448 49
3,067 20
14,048 91
11.672 76
28,788 87
40,700 72
2,665 40
493 82
$ 50,235 20
$ 3,067 20
$
1,791 94
$52,027 14
$ 2,229 81
3,227 18
11,672 76
$ 514 25
927 24
$
131 31
601 44
499 71
1,232 46
1,879 60
123 10
22 81
2,025 51
843 92
1,392 14
3,198 51
$
415 31
14,048 911
14.650 35
$_
f
11,672 76
$
12,172 47
$ 17,129 75i$
415 31
279 72
$ 1,441 49
$ 1,163 92
185 92
$ 98 75
$ 28,788 87
$
30,021 33
$ 4,809 41
991 53
$
$ 56 52
$ 40,700 72
$
$
42,580 32
17 14
...
2,665 40
2,788 50
493 82
$
516 63
$ $5,800 94
$_
279 72
$ 1,349 84
$ 73 66
$
43,859 94
$ 43,859 94
45,885 45
$ 491 62
554 01
I 561 82
354 89
$ 22 37
23 50
$
18,341 57
30,256 38
$ 18,341 57
19,185 49
'
30,256 38
31,648 52
$ 1,045 63
$ 916 71
$ 45 87
$
48,597 95
1
$ 48,597 95$
2,236 06
$
50,834 01
$ 2,221 02
356 82
$
1,646 46
$ 379 87
350 47
1,000 61
597 73
95 75
439 98
$ 29 44
6 75
33 99
22 39
$
19,050 09
8,021 62
23,753 66
23,221 72
275 42
5,857 14
$ 19,050 09$
8,021 62'
23,753 66
23,221 72
45,995 59,
27,462 871
829 47
349 27
1.064 60
1,036 65
99 43
323 77
$
19,879 56
8,370 89
3,897 51
2,401 65
179 67
347 49
174 24
24,818 26
24,258 37
$ 45,720 i?
21,605 73
11,230 00
89 96
46,095 02
431 12
35
27,786 64
11.230 00
89 96
11.230 00
89 96
$ 9,487 79
$~
2,168 19
$ 2,864 41
$ 25,177 77
$ 92 92
$ 9,080 33
$
80,179 65
$ 78,645 86
$ 158,825 51|$
3.703 19
$
162.528 70
$ 150,819 50
$
11,327 44
$
879,672 05
$ 184,701 28
$ 1,064,373 33
$
40,287 35
$ 1,104,660 68
STATE ROADS
State Road
STATEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
County
: Contract
I Number
Name of Road
Description
j Preliminary,
iSurveys and
Plans
Grading Surfacing
Garrett 0160
0162
0163
Harford 0170
,0172
0173
0174
Howard.
Kent.
0121
0122
Montgomery . 0230
l0231
0232
0235
Pr. George's .
Queen Anne's'
Somerset.
0133
0103
0106
091
092
Talbot 0113
Washington . 0210
0211
Forward
Allegany Co. Line-Brook- 14' — ^8" Sand Stone & Macad-
view am
Oakland-McHenry 14'— 8" Sand Stone & Macad-
am
McHenry- Accident 14' — 8" Sand Stone & Macad-
am
Total
Churchill-Aberdeen 14' — 6" & 8" Macadam
Belaii^Conowingo 14' — 6" & 8" Macadam
Kingsville-Belair 14' — 8" Macadam
Belaii^Conowingo 14' — 6" & 8" Macadam
Belair Turnpike No Plans
Conowingo Bridge Proportion of Purchase Price
Total
Frederick Turnpike No Plans
Clarksville Turnpike No Plans
j Total
JChestertown-K e n n e d y -
I ville : !l4'
Wicomico
081 B
081 C
082 A
082 B
084
Worcester . t
(
060A
060 Sec
062
-8"Macadam..
-8" Macadam.
Macadam,
-8" Macadam.
Kennedyville- Locust
Grove 14'
Total
Rockville-Gaithersburg.. . 14'
Gaithersburg-Damestown 14' _ , ^
Rockville-Norbeck ,14' — 8" Macadam ! 3 . ^
Germantown Road - Cedarj
Grove 14' — 8" Macadam
Baltimore-Frederick Turn-
pike No Plans
Total
District of Columbia Line-
Charles Co. Line 14' — 8" Macadam
Chestertown-Church Hill.ll4 — 8" Macadam
Wye Mill Bridge '
Total
Princess Anne-Westover .14' — 8" Macadam
Westovei^Kingston 14' — 8" Macadam
Total
Bayside-Double Mills ,14'— 8" Shell
Clearspring-Conocoche-
ague 14' — 8" Macadam *
Clearspring Licking Creek 14'— 8" Macadam 4
Hagerstown-Boon s boro
Turnpike No Plans , 9
Hagerstown-Conocoche
■ 1
14.96i$
943 37
$ 11,132 22|$
97,337 37
!
5.99$
3.50$
378 27
251 20
$ 5,765 19$
$ 5,185 93;$
9,577 80
29,346 30
251 20$ $5,185 93$ 29,346 30
04$
761
152 09$
238 14
7,192 49$
10,037 94
21,718 01
21,720 97
50?
29$
52
_39023$_
153 28 . .
17,230 43$ 43,438 98
ague No Plans 6
Frederick Turnpike No Plans __2^
Total IL
B" Macadam 2
329 47$
347 14
733 44
6,636 815
4,940 93
1,026 69
17,705 43
4,590 00
6,836 33
60,
07$ 1,410 05 $ 12,604 43$ 29,131 76
55$
.361
.39!
.76
— -
jo'$_
.37$
180 64'$ 3,361 83$ 19,760 40
25 50
98 47
53 84.
378 29 9,036 16
436 89'
1,236 93
J736_74$
302 933
Mardela Springs - Sharp-
town 14' — 6"
Mardela Springs - Sharp-
town 18' Macadam 0
Salisbury-Allen 18' Bit Shell 1
Salisbury- Allen 18' Bit Shell 0
Salisbury- Allen 14'— 8" Macadam _5
Total JO
Snow Hill-Berlin 12'— 6" & 8" Macadam 4
I Snow Hill-Berlin 12'— 6" & 8" Macadam
Snow Hill-Pocomoke 12'& 14'— 6" & 8" Macadam. _2
Total 7
Road".^^^"^"''.'^"'.^'^':^'^ 337.43$ 19,622 37$ 288,966 85$ %9,717 66
Total— C o m p 1 eted
Roads forward from ^ ,, „^, „„
Part 1 153.13$ 11,651 93
Total — Construction
Expenditures — Per Ex- „,„„,„„»
hibit "A" 490.56$ 31,274 30$
201 72
.28$
$ 13,410 01$ 53,973 82
14.071 81$
6,809 70$
2,240 75|
4.359 56
2,334 15
10,641 03
276 08
21.151 94
54.163 60
27,721 36
10,877 41
15,375 05
$ 269,407 14 $ 1,042.058 56
558,373 99$ 2,011,776 22
Exhibit "A"— Schedule 1, Part II— (Concluded)
COMMISSION
Fund
EXPENDITURES-(Continued)
Construction
Bridges
and
Culverts
Uuderdrains
Inspection
and Super-
intendence
Miscella-
Total
Rights of
Way and
Damages
Total Con- Administra- Total Ex-
struction tion. Legal penditures
and Rights and General and Over-
of Way and Engineering head
Damages Expenses Expenses
$ 150,819 50$
11,327 44$
120 87$
1
25,177 77$
9,080 33'
i
879,672 05$
184,701 28
5 1,084.373 33
i 27.923 17
45.497 83
337 96
$
40.287 35
1,288 56
2.099 58
15 58
$ 1.104,660 68
$ 3,071 69$
932 87
1,023 88
21 62
I
$
27,923 17[..
45.497 83 . .
337 96..
$ 29.211 73
8,724 88
867 65
$ 369 15
47,597 41
353 54
$ 11,796 57
$ 2,645 21
12,702 36
464 46
740 34
$
988 52$
1,978 37$
369 15$
73,758 96'..
I 73.758 96
i 36,598 64
40,701 86
11.626 97
$
3.403 72
$ 77,162 68
$
769 86
728 64
$
1,311 07
1,222 67
726 03
670 41
$
117 67$
2,313 74
24 05
35 27
35,898 64$
40,614 86'
11,626 97 . .
700 00
87 00:
$
1.528 75
1.729 59
495 14
936 48
10 46
497 09
$ 38,127 39
42.431 45
12,122 11
1,759 14
21,990 80 . .
21.990 80|
3.306 50!
22.927 28
$
$
245 73:
11,672 77! . .
3,060 77
3,316 96
11,672 771
11.672 77
i 125,897 54
12,169 86
$ 28,225 14l$
3,257 64$
3,930 18,$
2,490 73
122,049 77$
3,847 77
$
5,197 51
64 76
30 33
95 09
$ 131,095 05
$
6 21
6 21$
33,745 16'
10.058 70'
43,803 86
% 33.751 .37$
10,058 70
$ 33,816 13
10,089 03
$
6 21
1
6 21$
$ 43,810 07
S 42.144 05
16,932 61
$ 59.076 66
$ 25.492 44
48.548 74
$
$ 4.3.905 16
$ 5,780 18
361 61
$ 6,141 79
$
835 24
«
256 23$
16 59
42,144 05 . .
16,932 61..
$
1.941 04
779 87
$ 44.085 09
696 81
17,712 48
$
1,532 05$
272 82
$
$'
59,076 66 . .
$
2.720 91
$ 61,797 57
$ 1,124 83
1,870 88
5,719 53
16 67
$
9 00
$
$2,785 92$
2,274 97,
773 04
1,008 79
1
53 62
8 75
25,455 94$
48,548 741..
36 50
$
1.178 49
2.247 60
1,660 35
708 81
$ 26.670 93
50,796 34
106 88
13 69
35 864 35 . .
35,864 35
1.5,310 50
27 50..
37,524 70
15,310 .50: . .
16,019 31
27 50
64 00
27 50
$ 8,731 91
$ 4,698 39
$
9 00$
6,842 72$
182 94$
125.179 53$
$ 125.243 53
$ 21.386 44
$
5,795 25
$ 131.038 78
$
382 32$
509 34$
71 13$
21,382 44$
4 00
$
$
991 70
1,798 44
10 61
$ 22.378 14
$ 3,143' 70
$
1,039 90$
230 42...
96 39$
1
39,063 42 . .
$ 39,063 42
$ 40.861 86
230 42! . .
230 42
241 03
$ 3,143 70
$
1,270 32$
96 39$
39,293 84..
$ $39,293 84$
$ 32,698 29$
1,809 05
1.507 93
1.696 01
S 41,102 89
$ 2,476 31
3,088 47
$
1,080 54$
1,538 82
15 35$
18 22
32,634 79$
36,705 47! • •
63 50
34,206 22
$
62 91
36,705 4"
$ 69,403 76
38.401 48
$ 5.564 78$
62 91
$
$
2,619 36
7 98
$
33 57$
69.340 26$
63 50
103 50
12,054 28
23,090 04
4.361 84
39,609 66
$
3,203 94
$ 72,607 70
?_
%
161 26..
32.484 46$
12,983 15 . .
9,619 49
$ 161 26$
7 46
$ 168 72
$ 5,103 17
$
2,695 48$
878 45
14 10
$ 32.587 %'$
12.983 15
21,673 77
1,509 69
591 21
438 04
$ 34,097 65
2 131 39
95 24
13,574 36
620 27
402 76
22,111 81
1
23.090 04
4.361 S4
$ 94,696 7e
,
23,090 04
1
..
4,361 84
$ 7,854 83
$
3,976 69$
109 34$
55,087 10$
$
2.538 94
1,326 81
137 34
577 70
15 20
1,507 66
$ 97,235 70
$ 3 633 65 S
61 56
$
1,269 58$
120 71
356 23
531 57$
52 26
30 00
28,799 23 . .
$ 28.799 23$
2.988 31
12,.5.39 21
329 92
32.724 63
$ 30,126 04
11 47
176 55
2,980 98'$
12,539 2I1 . .
7 33
3,125 65
13,116 91
329 921 . .
345 12
1.160 31!
292 25
705 68^ . .
.32.724 63 . .
34,232 29
$ 4,981 98$
353 81
$
2,452 2C
5_
613 83
21 98
$
77.373 97$
7 33
$ 77.381 30$
$ 38.135 06$
14.789 81
23,309 32
$ 76.234 19$
$1,870,717 64$
$1,537,647 94$
3,564 71
1,986 85
652 00
1,027 54
3.666 39
73,282 02
70,088 24
$ 80,946 01
$ 1,749 95
563 40
2,632 91
$ 4,946 26
$
1 529 14
«
38,135 06 . .
$ 40,121 91
$
15 94
156 06
1,059 85
574 54
32 46!
9 481
14 789 81 . .
15,441 81
23,309 321..
24,336 86
$
172 00,$
3,163 53
$
1
$
63 92
13,384 15
7,321 39
$
76,234 19!..
$ 79,900 58
$ 236,904 85$
16,553 64;$
53,466 72
$ 1,598,616 24'$
272,101 40
$ 1,943,999 66
$ 139,205 94$
27,432 64
$
37,538 25
$ 1,534,615 85;$
$ 3,133.232 09j$
3.032 09
$ 1,607,736 18
$ 376,110 79$
43,986 28
$
91.004 97,$
20,705 54
275,133 49
$ 3,408,365 58$
143,370 26
i
$ 3,551,735 84
1
38
First, Second, Third and Fourth
STATE ROADS
State Aid
STATEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES— WITH DIVISION BETWEEN STATE AND COUNTIES— SHOWING
FROM JUNE 1. 1910, TO DECEM
Contract
Number
Name of Road
Description
1
County
Prelimi- 1
nary Sur-
veys and
Plans
Grading
Surfacing
Allegany
98
194 A
195 B
168
198
221
222
234
184
157 A
157 B
200
169
207
219
164
155
197
209
Westport
Borden Shaft-Midland
Lonaconing-Pekin
Total
1.00$
1.53
168 83
258 31
40 52
$
8,223 11$
3,160 07
5,250 00
10,082 12
14'— 8" Macadam
0.24
2.77
242 88
S~
1,639 86
!i;
467 66
124 52
29 18
$
$
11,626 06
16,971 98
Baltimore
Falls Road
Falls Road
Total
14' — 8" Tarred Macadam
12'— 4" on 8" Telford Tarred
Macadam
3.20$
0.75
18,372 79$
3,098 58
25,724 92
6,533 11
3.95
1.45
$
153 70
1-
21.471 37$
1,606 44$
1,450 80
1,039 66
32,258 03
Caroline
Greensboro-Boyce's Mills
Federalsburg-Nichols
12'— 8" Shell Macadam
9'— 6" & 8" Shell Macad-
$ 144 36
152 33
60 73
8,351 91
Bridge Street-Federalsburg
Total
1.53
0.61
5,%3 73
12'— 16' & 18'— 6" & 8"
Shell and Pitch Macad-
am
6,135 45
3.59
2.01
$
357 42$
4,096 90$
20,451 09
Cecil
St. Augustine
12'— 8" Macadam
$
395 40$
1,171 45
$
8,961 56
Harford
Black Horse-Shawsville
12'— 6" Macadam
1.53$
0.67
70 26!B
2,893 39
12,565 82
12' — 6" Macadam
30 76
1,286 10
5,383 38
Post Road
14'— 6" & 8" Macadam
Total
2.20$
101 02
67 08
$
4,179 49$
17,949 20
Montgomery .
Kensington Road
12' & 14'— 8" Macadam
14'— 8" Gravel
3.25
1.00
1.02
0.24
$
$
6,636 32$
21,019 61
Pr. George's.
Brandywine
$
28 04
$
1,520 59
$
$
$
4,656 46
Somerset
River Road
12'— 6" & 8" Macadam
12'— 8" Shell Macadam
12' — 6" Macadam
$
92 78
$
1,241 47
8,271 55
Talbot
Dover Bridge
$
15 82
$
2,808 91
785 73
Washington..
Zion Church
1.00$
4.79;$
117 99
$
1,467 24'$
3,578 91
Wicomico
Middle Neck and Meadow Bridge .
Berlin-Showell
16'— 4" & 8" Shell Macad-
am
95 77
$
2,813 18$
20.936 08
Worcester . . .
12' & 14'— 6" & 8" Macad-
1
1.07$
122 47
$
623 04$
Total Completed Roads for-
ward to Part 2
8,267 38
26.89$
2.015 15
$
59,656 02$
164.107 68
1 1 r
Exhibit "A"— Schedule 2, Part I
Reports of the State Roads Commission
39
COMMISSION
Road Fund
proportion of administration, legal and general engineering expenses applicable thereto-
BER 31, 1911— completed ROADS
Construction
Admin-
istration
Legal and
General
Engi-
neering
Expenses
Total Cost
of Road
T
I
Bridges
Under-
drains
Inspection
and Super-
intendence
Miscel-
laneous
Total
Cost per
Mile
Expenditures Divided
otal Cost
)er Mile
Culverts
State's
Payments
Counties'
Payments
$ 960 73
1,676 30
1,170 40
$ 3,807 43
,
133 80
313 05
$
$~
606 66
687 88
265 00
1,559 54
$ 74 00
101 15
12 00
$ 187 15
$ 15,417 13
16,278 88
3,370 66
$
1
15,417 13$
10,639 781
14,044 42
8,096 31
8,312 54
1,838 09
$
7,320 82$ 696 21$.
7,966 341 735 131
1,532 57j 152 22 1
16,113 34
17,014 01
3,522 88
$
16,113 34
11,120 27
14,678 66
$
446 85
$ 35,066 67
$
12,659 45$
18,246 94$
16,819 73
$ 1,583 56
.1; 3.086 88
$
36,650 23
$
$
13,231 13
$ 20,310 58$
1,070 15
278 23$
161 62
1,759 76
490 90
$ 66,570 80$
11,447 04!
20,803 38$
15,262 72
19,751 35$
32,226 36$
5,060 50
37,286 86$
34,344 44
m
69,657 68
21,768 27
63 50
6,386 54 530 91
11,977 95
81,635 63 $
12,849 09 $
15,970 60
$ 21,380 73$
439 85$
2,250 66
315 67
360 00
828 51
$ 63 50
$ 78,017 84
$ 12,289 72
$
40,730 98$ 3,617 79
$
$
20,667 25
$ 1,785 34
1,319 33
10,591 15
$
86 00
92 65
%
8,475 67 S
6,374 87$
5,914 85$ 559 37
8,861 44
9,338 84
18,854 59
6,103 82
30,909 16
4,925 58
9.871 92
4,413 26
8,982 67
425 07
858 19
9,763 91
19,712 78
6,381 64
$
- 199 09
32,316 03
$ 13,695 82$
199 09
602 11
$
1,504 18
$ 178 65
$ 40,483 15$
11,276 65'$
21,172 37$
19,310 78$ 1,842 63
$
42,325 78 $
11,789 91
$ 421 42$
$
490 00
$ 12,041 94$
$ 16,776 31$
7,601 14j
5,991 01$
10,964 91$
11,344 98
6,463 67$
8,792 38$
3,970 95$
5,578 27$ 529 81
7,983 93$ 741 87
$
12,571 75 $
6,254 60
$ 484 12
558 90
$
685 12
310 00
$ 77 60
32 00
il!
17,518 18 $
7,937 27
11,449 79
3,630 19 336 13;
t !••
11,846 67
$ 1,043 02
$ 3,323 OC
!$
995 12
$ 109 60
$ 197 03
$ 77 08
$ 24,377 45$
$ 33,665 04$
11,080 66$
12,763 33$
17,822 06$
11,614 12$ 1,078 00
15,842 98$ 1,491 09
$
25,455 45 $
11,570 66
,$
1,052 00
$
$
1,370 00
298 75
10,358 45
7,294 73
11,175 12
$
$
35,156 13
$
$
10,817 27
$ 713 81' . .
$ 7,294 73
$
:$
$
3,490 49$
3,804 24
$ 334 58
$ 502 15
$
7,629 31
7,629 31
$ 833 48$
284 65
,$
624 69
542 21
$ 50 00
$ 11,398 62
$
6,058 04$
5,340 58
$
11,900 77
$
$
11,667 42
$ 144 12
$ 857 5i
1
;$
$ 4,296 79$
17,903 29$
2,426 63$
1,870 16$ 197 08
$
4,493 87
18,724 46
,$
70 00'$
503 37
$ 86 70
$ 6,681 79$
6,681 79$
3,651 57$
3,030 22
$ 286 90
$ 1,259 51
6,968 69 $
6,968 69
1
$ 2,072 45$
692 15
$
1,139 60
$ 211 60
$ 27,960 83$
5,837 33$
1
14,534 10$
13,426 73
$
29,220 34 $
6,100 28
$ 1,027 4C
$
563 26
$ 74 20
t
$ 10,677 75$
9,979 21$
5,681 74$
4,996 01$ 466 79 $
1 1
11,144 54^$
10,415 46
$ 49,320 26$
$3,786 70$
11,841 38
$ 1,235 51
$ 291,962 60$
10,857 67$
149,597 80$
142,364 80$ 13, 189 89$
305,152 49 j$
11,348 17
1 1
1 1 ■ ; 1 1 1 1 1
40
FiKST^ Secoxd^ Third axd Foueth
STATE ROADS
State Aid
STATEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES— WITH DIVISION BETWEEN STATE AND COUNTIES—
THERETO— FROM JUNE 1, 1910. TO DECEM
Contract
Number
Name of Road
Miles of
Road
County
Preliminary
Surveys
and Plans
Grading
Surfacing
228
241
176
224
243
115
245
180
164
164 B=
216
242
239
200
95
206
141
220
237
208
164 B>
Naves Farm
Mt. Savage
1.45
0.77
0.97
$
244 80
130 00
163 77
'
Total
Annapolis
Patapsco Street
Total
Valley Road
3.19
$
538 57
1.50
1.12
$
109 46
81 73
.$
5,341 29
2.62
$
191 19
1!
5,341 29
0.50
2.01
5.03
$
19 46
78 21
195 72
Old Court
Falls Road . .
Total
7.54
$
293 39
.03
0.83
$
2,808 91
$
785 73
$
82 64
Total
Uniontown
Black Rock
0.86
$
82 64
$
2,808 91
$
785 73
Carroll
1.00
1.12
$
86 12
96 45
$
1,595 98
$
4,306 50
Total
Vienna
Post Road .
2.12
$
182 57
$
1,595 98
'$
4,306 50
Dorchester
2.00
$
194 62
$
1,915 97
5
1,335 60
3.64
$
167 15
0.09
1.50
$
6 96
115 98
Daisy
Total
Brookville
$
3,446 89
$
7,761 60
1.59
$
122 94
$
3,446 89
$
7,761 60
1.04
$
21 47
$
253 05
;$
1,485 00
.46
1.50
Total
Riggs
$
21 47
$
253 05
$
1,485 00
2.16
$
60 55
Talbot
0.89
$
58 68
28.11
26.89
$
1,913 77
2,015 15
$
10,020 80
59,656 02
!
21,015 72
Total — Completed Roads — forward
164,107 58
Total Construction
55.00
$
3,928 92
$
69,676 82
$
185.123 30
Exhibit- A"— Schedule 2, Part II.
Reports of the State Roads Commission
41
commission
Road Fund
showing proportion of administration, legal and general engineering applicable
BER 31. 1911— uncompleted ROADS.
Construction
Administra-
tion, Legal
and General
Engineering
Expenses
Bridges
Underdrains
Inspection
and Super-
intendence
Miscella-
neous
Total
Expenditures Divided
Total
Cost of
Road
and
Culverts
State's
Payments
Counties'
Payments
$ 306 46
274 90
550 30
$ 551 26
404 90
714 07
$ 551 26
404 90
714 07
$ 24 89
18 28
32 25
$
576 15
423 18
746 32
$ 1,131 66
$ 1,670 23
$ 1,670 23
$ 75 42
$
1,745 65
$ 512 43
321 39
$ 621 89
6,169 30
$ 621 89
3,286 23
$ 28 51
282 97
$
650 40
$ 424 89
$
2.883 07
6,452 27
$ 424 89
$ 833 82
$ 6,791 19
3,908 12
$
2,883 07
$ 311 48
$
7,102 67
$ 452 88
377 15
560 76
$ 472 34
455 36
756 48
$ 472 34
455 36
756 48
$ 21 88
21 08
35 01
$
494 22
476 44
791 49
$ 1,390 79
$ 1,684 18
$ 1,684 18
$ 77 97
$
1 762 15
$ 144 12
$ 343 53
$ 4,082 29
2,776 79
$ 2,212 13
1,429 71
$
1,870 16
1,347 08
$ 185 81
126 39
$
4,268 10
2,694 15
2,903 18
$ 2,838 27
$ 343 53
$ 6,859 08
$ 3,641 84
$
3.217 24
$ 312 20
$
7 171 28
$ 907 69
442 74
$ 993 81
6,926 16
$ 993 81
3,732 68
$ 45 65
318 18
$
1,039 46
$ 484 49
$
3.193 48
7,244 34
$ 484 49
$ 1,350 43
$ 7,919 97
$ 4,726 49
$
3,193 48
$ 363 83
$
8,283 80
$ 195 82
$ 3,642 01
$ 2,016 23
$
1,625 78
$ 179 72
$
3,821 73
$ 827 79
$ 994 94
$ 994 94
$ 44 00
$
1,038 94
$ 67 97
1,067 23
$ 74 93
14,305 48
$ 74 93
7,744 35
$ 3 48
664 11
$
78 41
$ 1,838 78
$ 75 00
$
6,561 13
14,969 59
$ 1,838 78
$ 1,135 20
$ 75 00
$ 14,380 41 ,
$ 7,819 28
$
6,561 13
$ 667 59
$
15 048 00
$ 185 90
$ 207 37
5,871 55
144 55
? 207 37
2,935 77
144 55
$ 9 19
260 06
6 40
$
216 56
$ 4,124 44
$ 9 06
$
2,935 78
6,131 61
144 55
150 95
$ 4,124 44
$ 330 45
$ 9 06
$ 6,223 47
$ 3,287 69
$
2,935 78
$ 275 65
$
6,499 12
$ 328 90
$ 389 45
$ 389 45
$ 17 87
$
407 32
$ 2,694 15
$ 2,752 83
? 1,405 76
$
1,347 07
$ 126 27
$
2,879 10
$ 12,405 02
$ 7.868 39
11,841 38
$ 84 06
1,235 51
$ 53,307 76
291,962 60 1
? 31,544 21
149,597 80
$
21,763 55
142,364 80
$ 2,452 00
13,189 89
$
55,759 76
49,320 26
? 3,786 70
305,152 49
$ 61,725 28
5 3,786 70
$ 19,709 77
$ 1,319 57
$ 345,270 36
1 181,142 01
$
164,128 35
$ 15.641 89
$ 360,912 25
n
<!
o
o
C5
Iz;
g
<!
Oi
O
P
;?
<!
o
o ^
Eh W
z w
fi o
a w
PQ
<o
o P
a 2 iz; o
O <;
^ CO
Q
W <
H O
<* K
O
w
O tD
H^
2 <=>
w I
^ o
O H
^ W
o a
easuad
$ 44,849 32
24,058 64
38,382 01
66,715 05
930 09
CD
c-
00
00
eg
(M
8
o
8
CD
5
CD
sasuadxg
SuuaauiSug
paaua'f) puB jBaaq
uoii-Bjrisiu.nupv
$ 1,967 07
997 79
1,687 30
2,930 77
40 99
co_
&9
:
eo
00
SaSBUIBQ puB
iCBjW JO sjqSiy^ puB
uoi^jBna^suoQ lB:^ox
$ 42,882 25
23,060 85
36,694 71
63,784 28
889 10
05
CO
s
rH
66-
CO
§8
(M
8 ;
f^ '■
g
SaSBUIBQ
puB XBAi JO s:m3ia
$ 208 05
1,414 60
90 00
203 20
00
00
1
c
o
IB:jox
$ 42,674 20
21,646 25
36,604 71
63,581 08
889 10
CO
co_
CO
(N
8 ;
8 :
o .
lO •
^ '.
fA ■
IS
snoauBiiao
$ 85 85
8 70
9 15
108 86
a
(N
CD
uoi^Dadsuj
$ 626 84
495 68
474 79
527 59
«5
6S
suiBjpaapufi
SS :
?S :
00
3
1 »»
00
(M
o
3
C
o
puB saSpug
$ 6,061 31
856 91
1,343 31
4,185 19
S
IT
CD
6f
i
66-
SuiDBjang
$ 28,428 21
16,480 80
29,602 80
48,865 73
co
1 ««
auipBJO
$ 6,640 53
3,581 42
4,328 18
8,684 49
568 30
$ 23.802 92
SUB|J
puB sAaAjng
AaBuituiiajj
$ 369 22
222 74
371 64
644 02
320 80
$ 1,928 42
§
Miles
of
Road
3.05
1.84
3.07
5.32
2.65
15.93
:•:
1
aaquinjs: o^c^coS 1 :
• o
1
1
1
pa
(V
P5
L
i
! S'
1 *«!
: : :
9
bti
-J-
m
o
o
c
iz;
1
b
c
\
)
3
3
«
3
3
3
C
E-
id 3
Si §
2 P3
843
<1)
3
•5
6
O
Ti
1
fe
W
Tl
c
c
0!
o
(1)
O
P.
X
a
w
C9
■n
bt
« 01 o
P-S W
Repokts of the State Roads Commission
43
U2 p
O 6
P <
< °
O «
<< M
H
g
S
O
<!
w
;z;
w
o
Q
IS
< ^-
O M
2 H
tH O
So
Eg
fa w
o z
^g
2s
§2
O Pi
Eg
O
^ S
I <!
H 2
« hJ
Id Pm
H' ^
0^
^ M
:z; X
o w
H
o
Pi
:?
o
o
fa
o
H
;?
H
H
<!
H
/,
t-
o
■*
00
Oi
otal Ex-
mditures
and
verhead
xpenses
(M
«o
00
o
■«•
CO
00
Ot
00
o
c-
1-H
lo"
00
co
H S, OW
»-
1 f^
oJ
CO
c-
£?
1 tJ C bo m
in
in
■r^
c-
.go rt ^ c
,_,
in
,^
in
co
5
§
§3
CO
s
y-^
_j»
f»
in
t-
t-
t-
CD
tal
truc-
and
ts of
and
ages
05
o
in
co
CO
CD
lO
«5
X
°
g
CO
CO
o m c -c & E
TJ
o6
lO
<35
0^
€«■
«e-
s
s
CD
Sfi
5 " («
C<I
c^
Righ
Way
Dam
(^
ee
S3
t-
c-
o»
00
t-
o
Tl<
c-
o
05
CO
lO
o
00
ICl
lO
CO
o
CO
(X
o
c-
CO
o
■^
00
lO
OS
E-i
e«
05
CTJ
o
00
s°
1 ffi
in
00
■*
00
t-
<M
00
Ol
OS
o
(N
e<i
CO
00
CO
•2 c
SS
«
69-
g'^'S
t'
o
CC
CD
t-
iH
•2 S c
^
N
05
■*
+j ft 53
o
c
c
Ji ^'^
?
lO
i ^
1
C C c
i-H u!.=
^
««
■^
t-
(M
ia
5
T*
O!
<N
c
,_
c
OC
,-i
o
tl
u-
«
CO
IM
+j
Tt
(N
■^
O-v
1
«^
««■
dc
«£
l>J
S£
G
6
ir
oc
OS
OS
«^
>■
«»
«
c^
o-
in
!2
a
(N
ir
c
t-
o
■a^
«
c
'^
c
t'
c-
CC
3""
a
c-
■N
W
5
•
u
0.
00
bo
t-
oc
OS
in
C
-<^
a
CO
E; 1
^
0
y-
CO
c-
tr-
CD I
(2
(M"
O
ff
^
«0-
ir
00 1
■ EO C
f
tr-
1
oc
c<-
»g
IT
CO
fa M c
C3
^
i
««■
<«H
1
o_
^ T
ee
c
^
H T
t-
c-
o
m c4
V q
c
5 C
> <N
■cl
00
= tf
§
>< •
W :
• »
tl- * \
1?
-4
?
• '\
. ^:^
e
iii
j
1
Coui
0
3 <
i
5 "J
c
<
1 +J
1 2-=
.1
\ J
3 0
i i
i c
1
3 "c
s l£
2 '<■
c
a p
5 S
3 d
44
FiEST, Second, Third A^"D Foukth
1
^
t-cg
OJ
r^
eg
^ >< S > X
H5oH
°
c-co
050
o
o
00
eg
H
S
'=3 2!
s
s
g
lO"
•^co
00
co'
oo"
O
ee^
«»
ffi
eo
<» 1
H
CO
co«o
Oi
to
00
i, "2 c bo
00
;do
to
-*
O)
iJ
.2 c gH c
.E.2 "-a-E
TT
CO 00
^
t-
CO
COlO
SI
CO
<:
\Ct
■"S-CO
c-
co
t-_
«
H
Z
so
50^
aa
««•
(»
H
c-
TjltC
o
ICl
eg 1
O
. C 1 «.
•-lea
■^
CO
OJ
OQ
lO
to eg
00
in
00
Q
O5 00
•>*co
co"
S5
to
C<l
00 o
00
■^
.*
-^
r-c to
■<»'
to
^ ^
o
•^ C5
CO
CO
t-
1" S-r
C;
o;
t-
eg to
X
"^
o
eg
2 S
-^•■5w5
€«
6<^
S9
1 ee
e«
C<1
coco
"~t£
to
'a' 1
00 CO
00
^
CO t-
,-H
to
•»*
«
1 ~
^.
eg
in
£2 o
H °
ee
_ se-
lee
«e
<»
!z:^
CO
1 -^
eg
1 eg
<N
OIN
CO
TJ.
o
o3
Q 2
.-on
1 to
t-
1 in
in
OJ-O-
CO
eg
S
t-
co_^
IC
e<
S
< .
rf
.— '
.—I
.— '
CO
Ci
s
^
««■
»3
m
6«
fr, "^
t-
to to
ci
eg
OlH
b
CO
oo
to
§^
o
t-c
c-
c-
eg
1
-^
OOrt
o-
to
toia
eg
■ ai
lO
Pl
ee
«^
5«
<e
K O
o tf
01 75
■*o
^
fc'r
TTCv
CO
o 1
~ o o
^C
K o
s «
CJ
g^
ffi H
M iJ
1 «
^3
<! i
ca <
1
p ^
'■tj 1
■s
di
a
|5
&s
«
.i:
ii'c
X
Q««!
§
c
> t
^
H
I«
;?
c
1
(^ CO
>.^
1
X 'A
ct
£
3
2 w
1
2
2
5"
•_
11
o
«
1
1
03
ll
c
o
o
M
Ee4
O
^
a
^
e
's
!
g
6
0
H
o
(
1
^
c
3 1
H
' "2
a
J
H
4
> <&
t
««5
^
c
g
! O
't
t
J a
[1
Reports of the State Koads Commission
45
o
z
tf
H
H
iz;
O
Z
w
►J
<:
«
H
IS
H
O
Q
Z
<! -4
.1 05
*«! _:
O Si
5: M
M H
H O
< W
tf Q
Q
H
W O
a
5^
A
u
Q S
O
^
<^a,-
Q
^ ^
<^^
S
?;
Z ?!
o
<
C> ^
u
to
pS
S
<
2S
<i
rr;
n
O 1
nl
Q
o> o
d, H
w
<
» W
H
p Pi
<
Q
Z H
H
O
> W
^M
H
m w
H
W iJ
<
1 «
S3
<z
O Q
H <
z9
sg
H <!
i-lio o
ICD
TJ< CO O
tr-cooicgi-
c-
|1S
C-^C<I
CV
tr-OC O NO CO
O
s;
1 to i
ON cq|-w
1-100 o
lo CO CO -^T M ir
hf
O^ CD
CO-* CDOOOO
CO
CO
OCbPm
CD t— < COl O
CO li5 c^
ICi-* C<I CD -^ 00 1 00
b- LO 1— 1
.^
05 .131 lO 00 tr- 05
.*
CO
OtalC
if Mai
tainir
Road
Soo S'Sd
C^ U3 t^
CD coo CO t- T
lO
CO -^1-1
o-
OOIOOCOIOO
00
c-
CO_0O M
"*.
CO
CO
CONOCO a-
oo_ioioqi-i^co_
o
eo
'^"
<M
■^
rH Oi
s
^^ rt-rt"i-r
00
S"
1 ^°
«(3^
Vi
m-
€»
6e-
»
f»
e^lw-
€«■
60-
CD IT
lO, ;d
Oi cc
»/3 1 CO 1* O CO -^ o
Sia^SJ
6c
t-CO OCTSC0 05
CO
rTJ m
S-o-
05
a5c<-
IM tT 00 OlO oc
ir-
oc 00 ^ CD t-CO
OS
t-
Admin-
istration
Legal an
General
Engi-
neering
Expense
o ^
^
CD
o li;
CD
CD t- CJ5 U5 .It C
CO CO .^ 1-t
cx:
000 00 05010
CO
05
mS
N
CO
oa cDCDtr
CD
00 n^t .* lO 1-t N
£-
IM
t^
Tjt
eg
60-
'«• 6^
6e
5«^
»
ee-
ee-l
eSi
«»_
IOC
lO i O
u^ c
l6 . Oi C5 as o^ c- CO
CO
lOOC lO OCDOCO.HtTj.|t-,cO
cao-
CO
1^
CD
(M 00 in CO CD c-
in
asi-llOlOlOCDIMCOIM.*
CO
CO
U5C0
,_t
CO
OJ c
cq
05 CO (M 1-* as t-
s
coi-iclinlooiot-oocD'*
3
CO
08
mo=
o
Oiir
^
10005 t-oir
<M .1*1-1
t- OO lO O .^ 00
■S
(Mt>
c
q
IM
CO
Cvj i-l^tOOC
(35
1-1
r-1 1 C-_ Tj ^ io_ q i-l_
CO
00
^
^
(N
"^
i-T 00
o"
1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 1-1 1— t
t-"
co-
co
se-
€«•
«o-
_§&
M-
1
«©'a»
«6^
eo-
lAG
lO
c
lO
OOC-lOOO
eo t-
1 o>
05 -^
eo
CD|CD
.* lo CO CO CD .^ 1 as
00
11
o
,_,
in o C0 1-1 1-t 1-t CO
00
to
CO
1-t CO 1-t CO CO CO 1 in
00
1'"'
'-'
SjS
1
e©^
.««-l_
as-ie^l
«o- ee-
«e-
CD<T
Oi
^i^^^inTc^i ^
o-
IM C
lO 05
""05" C- O 00 Tl- CO t-
00 t-
§ss
(N tC
'-'
cc
00 cq c-
00 CD CD
05
o-
CO If coco ^ c-
CD 1 C-
•5 o c
(M5C
o
OJ
c-
c- en ^
c-t- t
.■3*
.^
1 OS CD CD »-H O tr-
S' t-
lO -^
o
OJ
lO > 1-* .^
'3' lO c^
o
05 cr- ^ 00 CO ^
o b-
M
(M
■M
^ 1-
C5
^ CO
1-o.S
£ c c
i 1
'-' ca-s
69
OO
o
lOO
C«-'5«-
F^^>t
?^l€«-
ff
f ««• l««'e«-
4J
O
U5
CO 1-1
05 TP CO O t-
CD 00 O t- O 1.-1
CO
co
e
MCO
t-
CO
"*C
Tf
00 CD
e<ico c
O CD t- to cr
lO lO C- 00 CO "Jt
o
■e of
ams
nd
pmei
US-'S*
03
c.
CO i-<
•^
U3
1-10 X
to TT (>] O t>
^ t:- CO i-t C- CD
^
05
lO I>
00
rH Tf
IM
OJ O .ij
05 t- CO 1-1
OOCO^IOOO o
05
t^
c
'-'
1-1
OOrt
q
rt<M 1-t i-t
00
.S 0) b! 'S
co"
Ed
CO 00
«=-'=^
, -«*
««
f»
as-
^»
€«•
e«-
•^ , lO
oco
oc C U5 -W CD O
cot t- ■ -
CJl O 00 1-t CO 05 05
eo
_^
OM
tOj o
CTiO
05
IM C-IO XtT CD
.^
.<t
1-t TT tr- 00 N C- j 1-t
.2
O^IA
lO
o
CS lO
.^
C CO O^ 00 1-t lO
05
.^
.^
.^ O CO CO lO TJi ' .^
CO
'C
oc-
o
tH^ OCDOO
00
-H 00 (M t- o CO : CO
S
00 lO
1-1
lO
CO OiHCO
t-
(M00C0O30000 OS
CO
rt
"-f
IC
cd"
1-1 .qi"
s
S
««
66-
«e^
i*:
CO OS Tl- Oj li^ 05
05
«*
oa
cc
lea
60
m
(M
CO.--^ O
lO c- •
OOt-CDOt^^
.«•
I
t-.-l
0O| w
a; u3
•^
OS C- O CO C^l 00
(M
ooco .
CO
05 1- CO OS CO ^Ba
CO
^
ir-o
\a
CO
O Tf
lO
O0O5COCOC 00
.^
m 00 •
oc
."^O CO o -^ " TO
t-
o
ooc
Ol
00
1-t
Ni-) 00O5 05 00
o
IM
CO
135 CO CO t- 05 C.-
lO
^
00
1-H
1-t
lO osc^aog
"H
^rti-tco 1-1
q
J3
"^
c<f
'^'
'af
««■
(f^
6©
M- M-
iys-
€«• •
a=
€«■
«L
€«•
U3 U3
^
•^
iiir
O , t^ lO 00 UD cvi -^
1-t ■ CO 05 .1^
CD
OS CO ^-1 CO D- in
c-
00
00 C<
q
OOi-l
o
CD 0> 05 IM CO "T
CD
03 OlO
ir
in 00 1-1 o CD as
-a-
I pBoa JO sanw
NiH
CD
o
tp irt
o
i-ii-iOodcoo
oi
IMCO'si
c
eg 1-1 1-t ■>* eo CO
in
in
'^
tH
CO
E :
3 -
i
§
o :
o
1 :
HI
^XM
4J
n
M ■
c«
.2 .H .Si
§
Oh
+3
c
a
c
c
0
t- ■
3 ■
^ :
c
a
,1
u
c
'n T 'E
ooo
^ ^ ^
c
i
og
1 ■
O
2 ■
Nts
:
n! 3 > C.^
« 1 01 5 C
fcfefc
S-SS-S-SS :
Name o:
1
la
^ ■
5! C
C OS
•^ a)
"3
1
c c
II
Li
c c
'i's
"3
0
0^
c
c
c
13
o
a) 0) at
ooo
c c c
X 'C 'E „
pHP-tOL, C«
be M t«
c c c
0) rt "^ cd rt oj
Q5J 1 3;feQ ;
£fe 3fefa g 2
ill 1 licS
C O si 0 o c
0) t. T3 C C oj
t< 0) u aj 0) tc
c
W K
z oc
1? Cu O Ph fci y
ooo
OOfeOQO fei
4.^ t4
U S
i 3
0<N
rHCJQOmoII
Oi-l<M
Oi-tcoco.*in
11
c 3
OJO-
ooooooooooC
CO CO CO
in in in in m in
coo
o o oooo
o c
oc
c ooco^
a^
"w
^
s
■a
c
3
0)
§
>>
<
o
•*->
.s'
o
bo
a;
E
S'
c
"5
15
2
<
<
oc
o
CJ
46
First, Second, Third and Fourth
■^
,_!
CO o -^
00
OJlOin
CO
1 "^
0 in CO
c-
00 0
,_,
OS
00
CO
CO 0 -^
t-
m CO CO
m
0
□
0
CO
Total Cost
of Main-
taining
Roads
CO
C- en IOC-
oo
lOlOlO ko
o
asoc-
co
t- CO OS CO
OS
comt-
00
ooc-^as
m CO
OS. CO
to
Oi IC -^ o
o
t- m CO OS
'co
rH 00 c-
t>
0 CO C-rH
CO
t—
Tf rH as
m
■^ t- rH
^Ig
C- CO
t-
aioio.-i
t-
OC<l-H i^
^ OS CO
0
rHoooas
OS
in
-'J' CD CO
-*
rH 00 CO
OS CO
U5
cjioi-in-
CO
(N
cr
CO
COCO 'T
rHrHCO"
in
m mrH to
cq-rH
00
co_
-3^
t- CO CO
ofco"
m
0 00
rHOS
OS CO
C" rH
rH 00
M
6©
r
CO
««■
^
€©■
e» »^
a.
e»
69
l«
«e
ea-
so
SO-
u
as
so- 99
cocoosM ,c-
(MCO CO O
to OitO-^
C3S1 0 rH m in
CO
rn OS m
OS
COCO 00
CO
OS"
0
.•a m
C-
Tf Ti* c- CO as
CO CO -^ 1 -^
CO .-ICO CO
CO ' en CO -"^ OS
m
in
c- t-os
Tf
■V rH 0
■•3*
CO
Admin-
istration
Legal an
General
Engi-
neering
Expense
O
■^ 00 -^ as 1 CO
1
•^ mcO ' CO
•«• t- -* CD
t>
OOOOCSrH
00
CO •O'CO
0
rH ■•3' -^
OS
00
n
CO
(N TPrHCO
(N
^^\n1~\ t-<
in in CO CO
CO
0
com CO
"^
O'S"
'^
^
<m"
C^
■<r
CO T-lrHCO
m
"•I*
■^
coco
rHOS
0
m_
to
«o^
W^
«»
«©
«e
69- ««■
99-
60-
ee^
99' 60-
so
99
CO OSO
69-
so
so^
so
CO, 00O'-l(N
ocoos
CO
00
rH as 00
00 1 00 OS CO -^ iC-
C-,0OrHOS, 00
6a OS
^ CD
tOlMiO C-'3'
OS
e^iojo
CO
t-
t- t- -^
os j oc CO "* t- 1 -a-
CO
00 t-C- CO
OS
c-
m^co
,
to
lot-as --I
CO
CO OS o
CO
,-H
-?COrH
00 t- CO
as rH m CO OS ' in
OS
rH CO CO m
CO g?c-
^
co
-i*
as
n
lO
t-incoc-
"^
CO -x>o
CO
o
co m c- CO CO
^
OOOrH 1 0
00
00_
.-H_Tr i-ico
CO -^ rH
as
-^
^_rH CO_
00
•<3' -13^ ^^. ^.,
00
^ -f CO rH
'"' oso
OS
eoico
o_
0
c<r
rH
O]
T-Tr-i rH
CO
oo'
rHrH CO
-^
rAjA '<t
CO co'co" 1 m
00
as
rH
,_t
CO
<N
CO
t»
ee-
ee
e«^
6©
^
69-
ee
&9 6(9
«e- so-
6oleo-
._^
SO-
so-
m"
eo^
t-,ino
U5
ooo o
o ooo
0
. .0 •
0
in , om •
Tn
. -co
in
"00
ii
00
coo
CO
OSIOO
•^
1 Tj^ OS as CO
CO ;
CO
t- ooos •
c-
rHI c:s
CO
CO
00
OU5
in
OlOO
CO
CO iinmco
"^
■* •
•«1<
CO t-co •
m
inio
^
00
COrH
■*
c
1 •* "(frHCD
CO
•^ coco ;
C£
c-
t- CO
t-
SiS
as-
e»
.^
ef^
«e
ae- ee-
M'
€«- ■
99
€^ e^
eo-i
E«
e« 99- 69
as -^ , CO
«o-
C i <"
■he
t-|00.-l
OS
■wlr-l:-
oc
CO , rH coco
0 0
rH CO Ir-
-d* CO -^rH , oc
oas
m
c- osoo
c-
00O(M
CO
COCOOS
00 CO
COC-
CO
cDiOOTfrnlc-
000
00, rH
■^
t-!tCrH
00
00 (N-*
in
■^
t-OSO
t-los
t-co
0
CO '-^COrf
00
g5
0
^
t-
iOiO
o
Tt TPOO
c-
OS
CO com
0
CO
coo
CO rHrH
trv.
CD
«5
y-\
CO CO
•*
CO rHrH
0;
m
co"
£g c
^ m —
6*
tfi
»
««■
93
60-' 60-
619
e&
69-
60 99
e^i
99
.3^
6
0
SO-'SO-
4J
CO oiniooo 00
moos
Td
c- t-ino
CO OOrHtr-
00
CO CO om, c-
,00^
- CO m
Hire of
Teams
and
Equipmen
o
en C-OU5
M
co^co
1-1 CO com
COlCOOOrHOS
c- CO oso
CO
oo-<t a-
rH , t3»
00 ^
OJ
lOinrH to
as
•^ lO »n
in
Tf CO -^ CO
c-
omcoo
0
CO t- om
rH OS rH
CO in
Tf in
03
<M(N 00
rH rHlO OC
in CO in as
00
OS
m CO OS CO
0^
com
t- as
Tt rH
(M
M(M rH U3
CO rHrHrH
^
r-ICO
Tl-
^ COrH
IT
m_|
tH CO
CO
CO
co"
1 al-
««■
69-
e«
«^ «
as- 69-
««^
e«-
ee-
?«•€«- Is^leo
so 99
so 99
N CO "* CO O^ O^
(M 1-HO] in
CO rH -<3' 00
CO m 0 oso -n*
CO -^ -"* CO
CO 0
CO Er-
Tor
■<3'
,_
>-< NIMINO C-
00 00 CO |0!
C-: ooSin
0 "^ rH 00 -^ , 00
eo
CO CO -rr
■^
OSOC
c- m
C-l
to
.2
CO CDO CDCO IC
00 -^T-H ' "^
as ' -^ ooo
M* : CO CO ^ Ir- ' t-
m
0 t-»H
0-
CDC
t-Ico
0
0
E
CO (M CO tH Tf ,-1
■^ "^ "^ CO
00 CD 00 CO
t- COrHinCO 10
CO^-I CO
0-
c-oc
la ,ia
"i
(N J t-CO >-(
eg
00 00 CO
cc
CO o t- t-
m
rHCOCOr-l as
c-
CD05_
cc
c-
00
OS
CD
^
C0|
^
eg
rH rt rH
eo"
co"
rHrH
co
c<
co
??
s
_
e»'«&
6%
««• 'm
6C 60-
«^
619 69-
60-
99
ae
•so
99
eo-'so-
so-
"^x
•^1 (M o CO in
O
osinrH
CO
CO -"^ t-
CO 1 "CO as m rH , 00
-"S*
as 000 t-
CO COrH
CO -"* 1 -^
IB
00 QOC-■vl^-
c-
(M rH»-<
in
rH
-3-COrH
00
00 ■"3' 00 CO I t-
m t-OOir-
CO COrH
0
CD
CD
tD
b
t- ! tn -<* c^] »-<
■*
OM as
,_(
t-
om-H
to
00 c-ooc-'co
r-i
r-^ Y-i ir^
o-
rH t-O-
1 00
0
00
00
o
m
C0COC>^^
CO
CO CO 00
CO
rHOO 0
CS
C- CO rH 001 rH
t- CO 00
rH CO O*
CO OS
CO
c-
J3
lO
\a
COCOrH
i>
in
COrHCO
m
rHrH CO OS
m
Tt
COrH
cc
000
OS_ rH
t-
•s
"^
^
CO
CO
CO
•^
ij
«©^
e&
as
ee-
efl
le^
ee
e»
e»
«§■
60'99
tf
60-
SO 60
6^'*^
OOi OSOOOjOS
rHCOin (N
Tf
comoo
C3S
eooO'l'.O
rH . CD CO 0 . OJ
OOOJ
N 00
rH,CO
-*
lOOtOlO
to
■-HCOCO c-
coc-00
OS
x*o-*m
■*
CO
OrHin
c-
t-coc
OS
CO
m
.
pBoa JO saiiH
s
Oi T-i r-i <N
t>
CO CO CO oc
Tf
in CO in
CO
rH 00 I>rH
coco
00'
m
m
coco' CO
oc
^ss
CO
CO
'''
i
»
6 '•
^
p.
ho
n
eiH 1
1 c
-M-ki
0
i
8
s
1
J
5
3
3p:
0
1
a:
p
c
"d
bo
"rt
c
■5
E
+->
.if
J
1
h
01 C
CS5!
"5
X
0
0
6
c
-3
H
"ca
0)
cS
H
m
c
0
CM
g
3"?
'a
g
ct
CC
£
c
1
0
■c
0
2
X
"rt
wn— Kennedyv
-Gaithersburg.
For',
ykesville
icodemu
rederick
enby Tui
Tot
a Plata-
ederalsb
hiloh-E
ast New
Tot
Monrovia
Bflferson
rederick
mmitsbi:
Tot
akland—
t. Ignati
elair-K
elair Tui
Tot
0) 0) .
ho -0-2:
2 tt
Tot
hesterto
ockville-
For
mZitab
OP3W
iJ] litCOtE]
S^^feW
0 oiwn
Pif^zr
0 K
2-5
o to
OrH CO
0 OrH CO
^mo
r^ T^\a
0
0 0
oo
■<3* -^ Tj*
in c- t- 1-
CO CjC^
CO
CO CO
N O]
OOO
rH 00 0
II
CO
0
000
0 00 ■
0
0 0
>>
•
t-
3
O
1
a
6
c
'I
0
1
a
X
;-
c
1-
1
c
c
0
B
1
Eeports of the State IIoads Commission
47
48 First, Second, Third and Fourth
STATE ROADS COMMISSION.
Statement of Overhead Expenses — From May 19, 1908, to December 31, 1911.
Administration:
Commission — Salaries and Ex-
penses $31,666 42
Commission — Secretary's and Of-
fice Employees' Salaries 14,728 05
Commission — Office Expenses 10,273 71
Counsel's Salary, Fees and Ex-
penses 6,242 33
Total Administration $ 62,910 51
Engineering:
General:
Engineer's Salary and Expenses. $15,660 59
Office Employees' Salaries 16,118 02
Office Expenses 21,116 22
Shop Labor and Materials 2,820 29
Investigations 603 60
Total $56,318 72
Preliminary and Construction:
Engineers' Salaries and Expenses $15,675 81
Engineer Inspectors' Salaries and
Expenses 21,598 72
Office Employees' Salaries 17,680 85
Office Expenses 1,101 52
Total 56,056 90
Reconstruction and Maintenance:
Engineers' Salaries and Expenses $ 2,725 21
Engineer Inspectors' Salaries and
Expenses 7,263 66
Office Employees' Salaries 3,421 05
Office Expenses 883 33
Total 14,293 25
Total Engineering $126,668 87
Total Overhead Expenses — Per Ex-
hibit "A" $189,579 38
Exhibit "A"— Schedule 7.
Reports of the State Roads Commission
49
state roads commission,
road equipment.
Date
Purchased
June 1910
May 1911
June 1911
August 1910
" 1910
April 1911
September ...1911
...1911
...1911
October 1911
November . . . 1911
December . . . 1911
...1911
...1911
May 1910
June 1910
" 1910
October 1910
" 1910
" 1910
" 1910
" 1910
November.. . . 1910
....1910
....1910
....1910
....1910
....1910
....1910
....1910
....1910
December. . . . 1910
May 1911
April 1911
July 1911
October 1910
" 1910
" 1910
" 1910
June 1911
" 1911
September . . . 1911
...1911
...1911
October 1909
June 1910
October 1910
June 1911
August 1911
September. . .1911
October 1910
County in which
Located
Description
Allegany
Cecil
Dorchester
Frederick..
Howard
Montgomery.
Prince George's
Somerset
Wicomico
Worcester
Unknown
10-Ton Road Roller $
Sprinkler Wagon
White Oiling Attachment
Sweeper
Sprinkler Wagon
Western Grader
Portable House
Steam Drill
Climax Stone Crusher
Buffalo Pitts Roller and Spikes
New Parts for Buffalo Pitts Roller
Road Roller and Crusher Plant
Road Sprinkler
Miscellaneous
4 Wheel Scrapers
8 Grading Wagons
8 Dump Wagons
4-Horse Power Engine and Parts
Stone Crusher and Equipment
2 Steam Road Rollers
Steam Drill and Tools
2 Sprinkling Wagons
Wagon Scales, Platform, Etc
Sprinkling Wagons, Etc
Climax Road Machine
Engine and Fittings
2 Monarch Rollers
Climax Crusher
Round Cedar Tank
Studebaker Sprinkler
Climax Crusher, Elevator and Screen
Austin Road Grader
Sprinkler Wagon
Pumping Outfit
Portable Water Tank and Equipment
Steam Roller
Tar Boiler and Sprinkler Apparatus
Gasoline Pumping Engine
Steam Road Roller
Sprinkler Wagon
Road Oiler Attachment
Tar Heater
Western Grader
6 Wheelers
10-Ton Roller
10-Ton Roller
Gas Engine
Sprinkler
Gas Engine :
10-Ton Roller
AVhite Oiler Attachment
Cost
2,366 00
373 00
150 00
220 00
278 00
145 00
145 62
287 50
3,240 00
2,552 80
291 51
3,500 00
250 00
235 25
100 00
960 00
944 00
169 10
262' 50
4,500 00
295 00
546 00
120 00
596 00
210 00
170 00
4,450 00
3,225 00
27 00
180 00
2,515 75
225 00
373 00
240 76
225 00
2,300 00
300 00
227 96
2,302 00
200 00
118 50
400 00
142 63
205 50
2,525 00
2,366 00
142 00
330 00
142 00
1,220 00
140 00
Total Equipment Per Exhibit "A" $47,430 38
Note : — In addition to the above Equipment, the Commission owns a Road Roller taken over,
together with its other assets, from the Maryland Geological Survey.
Exhibit "A"-Schedule No. 8.
o
w
w
o (^
o
o
So
<:
o
13
o
g^ CO
O n! •
C'O O -,
QJ Qj tn i-t
a; -p
-go
§^|
a! S c "
li-l COTf* IOC3C1II
t^ to Ot t^ Ol l>. I
» lO C3 C3 lO CSI O
>Tj«-^0>C>
I -^ ■^»« ca t>. to to
• oio toe
* i-Hi-t r-<
1 Tt«CO tOrH
lOOOCOiOCDOWOOt-WOO^i'-HOqcOtNt-^^'^^OO-ttt-^C^I
(MCCOOOC^CTl'^COlMi-i C^^tN '"l.C^ "^ "^ '^^ °S. "^, '^ '^ "^ '^^ ^
»-HOOOO^iO»-H(>JOC:^cot~-iOCOOt:-CO"<3'CO<J5COt-'-'cOD:i
rH t^TH t-Hi-lr-l ^ ,-H rH i-l i-H .-H rH i-H i-H i-H
000(N(MC'l»OOOS'^0005C3^lrtOO-*COO»-^'— '^OCDCO-^
cooo6o^'^ocDo6a^T-HC»!:Doocoodcoco'cD(>iir5co-<*cot-^
C<lTj<CO'rJ<OC£)lC-^dlOCSO(M^QO^Tj'r-(*^t-OC^lOOO
t>Ot-'-t'^O^^OOa3C00005T-H,-(COt-CX)C^<MO<M05lO
o-B '
O ■!-> O
OQ
IH^ox
pBaqaaAQ
aDUBU31U!BJ\[
■* OOOOON
lOtH as CO
Oi Irt CO ■^ »-( C» (M
CO (M ^D O tri ^ IJ3
tr- ■<t 0^ rH lo CO CO
§
c<ll:-
wco
oo(M :
.o
inS
:§
030
CO
cot^-'X)■^0(^l'^^1--^c^lt-"<tt>rHoot^«Da5tr^cccsait:^r-^ai
i-iQot-cC'^aiooiooocot--^iOt-i05ccictr-c<i(Moa5Ciio
tH -^ W f— I rH .-1 i-H tH i-H f-t »— I t-H rH rH t— I i— I t-H rH
CDfMOSi^C'asOOlOUOlrtOir-ICOr
>t-OC0NC<lO'-lt-t-
«£>COOOaSGOO(MCOaiOOOOCOUtii— ilOC-GOtMrHCOOO-^ai
Iff CO 1^- c<f w OS CO ?p CO CO -^ t> (C -^ -^ lo i^^ i> in i^
uoi:^ona:^s
uot;.3nj:isuo3
<Xm2t>i-l(MOOOOC-t-COtMC3:)rH'^OOt-
lOmcOOlNt-Ol'^'X'COdlr-m?— ION
'^* iC O CO CO --H Cri u^ Cji U^* Tt CO -^ 00 N -^
ClC-'-lTj'COOOOtM'tJ'Oi-H'-HUttO'^O
<7JrHcO'HaiTpoo-«3'oorHaswcooo_LCO
irt CM t--^
(pi-H '^ ci
T}< tH t-OS
CO Tj" C£5 t>
CO' oifN
Tt*cc)Oco(Ma:icocotDooNcoicooLam'XpC^i'5'^^^<^
Si
tDTtOSCOOtOt-'
^^c "- ' - - -
Tf CO c
1-H o^ 0:1 CO ^X" CO
coGOOiO(iDco^'X>OG6c^ait--GOO^t--6-ooaiiot-c
10 -^ rH ^ Oj tr- -rf " - .- ^- ^. _- . -
lO oi" t— CiiHCTlO^ - _-- , - _ ._._.___
O00t-C0'^t-CD-^I:-c£)00C0C'TiiOaiC^<M^'— I"— 'CiLCOOCO
pUB
XaBuiuiJiaaji
Oi tr- -^ lA T-H 10
i-H -"a^^ tr^ 10 {> CO
oico '^ 10 ^ -^
C^ CO N 00 iX)
CO_<M 05 t>
to 00 1-iy-^
s
^s
88 ;
10
c-co
s^
00
CO CO
Soo<ccoo
O li^ «i>CO lO
to t-^ r-i a> C-^ Tf
CO (N CO O CO
tDcoastrt'^irj-^cO'-icDocooscoooiowooaVosasaiC-^oo
uoco^coot^u^'eJMW'a3(N3ft-^o6^«gcoNa;oioO'^-w
CO^Tl-CO(NCC'*C-COC-0'-l2Mtg5^";0;ggCOWt-0>0
t-t'^lr-COOlO-<3'03C-t:-T-HCOCOtO(J3---J^lOU503Tj^»OCCCOCJ
eaNCO'cOCOrHNCirHrHrHNCO (N <N rH rH ■"? rH i4 CQ N
bo <D
0) cii
S C 0!
SSi:
S-.BC
bfi=^ c =2 J- 0:5 S ?.
3 g.c o £ S « o aj o-c 3^ S^>>>
; o o Q fe o W W W S Ph c w w H i> :> ;>
3 g '42
"3 J <u
''S is
.H 3 o
-r IS c
(M ^^ -J
^ Bo
6& 1) _
■<j ;^- t3
C H ai
3
0
U
Xi
j=
0)
0
s
ft
bi)
n.
T3
"3
<;
In
n >
CO
y c
05
■B 0
aj <M
aS ^
>.
> g
0 «
u
dl m
X. «
s
c
If.
s
1^
g
0 U>
.2 S
c
0
0
t1 -o
W ,0
^
t^
C "^
OS
S «i
f^
>i«*
^-S
c
p.
rt^
H
O
o
n
I
w
o . :?
s fa o
O «! ►j
?R 7^ o
^2
<;
o
13
n
o
>__;
5Q
l^^ox
- j:: Qj OJ o
5 C «•« S !« SJ o S 3 =3 o cj o ^- 3^ 5^;2S;£
< <J pa o o o o o Q fc o W W fci) g CL, c? M m H !> IS r>
B 9. ■«
t^»o<o-f(MC^c^[:-aifMi
I c>-< en I
1 CO tD C<I '
< ^ CO
t^«r»T:t«airH.-H'<#-rflOU:)CCiCD«^T^t^0^t-00C0OOCCt0
t^coc7>aiOO*^o^'^cocO'^oocomcsia3'^'^io^c^'^o
1CM
(Mr
IM
§s
0003 ■
CO
2g :
i
IM
uoijonaq-SUOQ
_e&
tofo»-«Trt^(>jO"^coo^i^o^**oc>tDU3cO'^o]Tr**^<35
IOCSI-<J*OC^CD'^U3T-lc£)(MaiO>OOcnO>05i-HOOC»<35COOO
ir>t^coa:corHu^ir5T-toocDi-io>^«-*-^t:-oocoooocp
•-IOCS] r-II>- OOiOt-OCOC<100tO'<3<«-i 00"^»OCOlOrHrHC^
<acoo^ c^csTio »-<^oi nil ii5i>rio»-»'"o^o t:- CO N 00
r-t CM
■^
<<N
l(M'
IM
mox
TfTj*.— t'^inioas'^rHcoousoO'-HiocDcoovoiococsi
Wi-HCOOO-^rfCOlOt-H-^OSCOCOCCfM-^f-Hi-fOOCviai
t^ai^Ha5N'-HC<IOC3000-^t-CO^l/5t-OOOOOCOOi-H'-H
(MCDt-OiOlC-C^CO^COOOaiOOlOloaSf— l-^t-CDtMlOT-l
La(MtO'-<O^COIr-05I:^000(MO-<3't-C<llOlOt-( 05 CO t-^os^
OiW^T-rT^-tff-rariOCOtNt-^O^T-HUSCOl/SOt^OC^NCDrH
Nr-(«0 CO<M<H IMrH(MCO>H CO CO >-l N r-i (M CO CO
XBX
puB suoi:t
-BjJdoaadv
00 too
-^ irt -^
CQ CO CO CO
C3 O: ^ CD
0-*
ooco •
02C<I ■
S5
CO (N
Otji •
ZDOO •
■^ CD ■
s
<N
IN .
■^
3uipuB:^sino
S13Bjq.U03 pUB
saan^ipuadxg; [e%oj^
lOCDO'^OOOt-'^OOOOU^COOCOCvICDCOCOVCmcOCO
OlOaJOT-ITj4rHCOCOCD'<*»-l'^OOCDOTj'i-IGOOOT-HO
03C^00305-^CO'-l-^'-l-^COCO'^'^COOOOOOCOOOOCg
t-^COOilMt-COCOlOCDOOO'-llOO^T-lrH'^CDCDC^l'-Ht-
OlOCD^HOCOINOOCOC-OC^OO'^C^CDlOUOOiO^COC-OO
l>^ U3 CD* •'S^ CO rH ClT 10 CO C<f t-^ CD O 10 ctT Tt o t> 03 C<f N U3 O
IMi-HlO CONrH Ni-HNCOi-t IM CO i-l i-l 1-1 <N CO CO
_€»
00 t-C-
■Tj* Oi 10
O CTl tD
lAodo
"^ iH CO
(jIBii-auo
s,^:^BlS) auipuB^s
-:^no s^aBa^uoQ
mox
(MOCO
CO 1-1 o
OCO_CM_
sasuadxa
pBaqaaAQ
COOOC^t-IMrHlOutlO
■^C^t-t-C^OirHC^CO
OO^C-lOCOIMOOi-lOO
^C<IC<100COOCO'-'CD
t^lOt-^ CO f-l 00 O CO
r-Too"
COi-Ht
COrH
'-H'-HCOt-CJS'-llCti^OO
lOCDOIr-OCTiT-HailO
t-CDCftLOOIMOOCOCD
cx)Tj«a30o-^ocotr-o
10 C*l CD CD^^OCi-HO^
odint-" ci cd'oo
IM --H
?a'
• CD 00 CO CD CD C» t-
ooocoin-<*05t-cot~
OOOlOIMOO'-HCDlOi
i-H O CO r- ■ ■
ooiniM
im" --h
i-HOCOOO^OCO'-l'-H
IM CDrH
J50 10
IMOOO
00 03 t-
CD C-^
co'co"
g
5
IM
CD
CD
10
cjic
; "'I'fM O^
as <M 1— 1 GO rH
^Xi (M OS C^ 10
--I OMOO
i£> -rj* rA ZD ^£>
CO O "^ i-H CD
1-1 CO
as o -^ 10 OS
as CO rH 1-t r-H
c£) as as »-H 10
i-H '^ W CO o
CD(M i-l CO CD
CD TT^'rh CO CD
lA 1-H t- 10 U5
ooco CO C- CO
lO r5< rf CO OS
52 First, Second, Third and Fourth
GENERAL REMARKS.
The State Roads Commission has been confronted by many diffi-
cult problems, because of the widely varying conditions in the differ-
ent portions of the State. It has been the aim of the Commission,
as far as possible, to use local materials where such could be found
of proper quality, but there are extensive areas in the eastern and
southern sections of the State where suitable materials are not avail-
able, and in other areas the local rocks have been found to be so
inferior as to make it inadvisable to employ them. It has oftentimes
been necessary, therefore, to transport materials for long distances,
and this in some cases has added greatly to the cost of the roads. It
has been the aim of the Commission to reduce these costs wherever
possible, and much time has been spent in looking thoroughly into
this phase of the subject.
Some experimental work has been conducted on the poorer local
materials by the employment of cements and bitumens in order to
deteiTuine the advisability of their use, and some fairly satisfactory
results have been secured. The methods followed in this experi-
mental work are described in greater detail in the report of the Chief
Engineer.
The surfacing of the State roads by bitumens or pitches in order to
protect them from the start from injury has been fully considered
by the Commission. The policy of oiling the roads in this manner
soon after construction has been generally adopted, and the Com-
mission believes that the added expense has been fully justified by
the greater efficiency of the roads thus treated. The different
methods of treatment are discussed at length by the Chief Engineer
in his report.
Some of the members of the Commission have advocated from the
start the building of the main through roads of the selected systems
first. Although this jwlicy has not been followed, it is now possible
to remedy this in a measure by building some 350 additional miles
of connecting sections and leaving the other roads of the system.
Eepoets of the State Koads Commission
53
aggregating 550 miles, for subsequent construction. This subject
is fully discussed later.
This report was adopted by the Commission on March 1, 1912.
S. M. Shoemakee_,
Chairman.
Wm. Bullock Claek/
Secretary.
Chaeles B. Lloyd,
Committee on Repoet and Audit.
APPENDIX A
REPORT OF CHIEF ENGINEER TO THE
STATE ROADS COMMISSION OF
MARYLAND
Gentlemen:
I have the honor to submit herewith my report as your Chief En-
gineer for the years 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911.
Your Commission began the organization of the Engineering De-
partment by electing the undersigned as Chief Engineer on May
21st, 1908. At that time he was employed as Chief Engineer to the
State Geological and Economic Sui'vey, and had engineering charge
of the road work under the State Aid Law, and of the building of
the Baltimore-Washington Road. It was agreed that he, and his
subordinates, should serve in their dual capacities, in so far as the
demands on them of both works might require. On July 1st, 1908,
on recommendation of the Chief Engineer, Eirst Assistant Engineer,
E. F, Ruggles, of the Engineering Department of the State Geological
and Economic Survey, was made Eirst Assistant Engineer to your
Commission, and W. D. Uhler, County Roads Engineer of Caroline
County, was elected Second Assistant Engineer to take effect August
1st, 1908. Your Commission also authorized the employment of
the balance of the Engineering forces of the State Geological and
Economic Survey on State Roads Commission work, as might, in
the judgment of the Chief Engineer, be found necessary. Such
additions or changes in these forces were made from time to time by
the Chief Engineer, and reported by him to your Board, as the
needs of the work required.
Your Board, after requesting and receiving the recommendations
of the Chief Engineer regarding details of organization and sal-
aries to be paid the various members of it, established such rates of
pay as in its judgment seemed proper.
With the determination of your Board as to the salaries to be paid
and after proper consideration of the men likely to be available, a
scheme of organization for the Engineering Department was worked
out by the Chief Engineer, and a form of contract and specifications
55
56 FiEST, Secokd, Third ais'd Fourth
prepared by him and your Counsel. The specifications were sub-
mitted to and approved by your Board in May, 1908, and the or-
ganization substantially as shown on the accompanying chart has
continued in effect. (See Chart, Plate II.)
The Maintenance Division, recommended by the Chief Engineer,
was approved by your Board, and established on August 1st, 1910,
with Second Assistant Engineer IJhler in charge.
During the year 1908, the Chief Engineer attended the Commis-
sion at its various hearings and meetings, and noted the various sug-
gestions made to you for roads to be selected as part of the state roads
system, and prepared a map of these suggestions, aggregating 2,520
miles, for your use.
During the remainder of the year 1908 and the year 1909, sur-
veys were made and plans prepared as fast as jDracticable for the fu-
ture work. By taking advantage of the forces established by the
State Geological and Economic Survey and of the previous work done
by it, the Engineering Department was able to present to your Board
on August 12th, 1908, plans and specifications for the improvement
of the Lewis Trice and the Greensboro-Denton Roads in Caroline
County, 1.34 miles in length. Thereupon bids for the work were
asked for and received by your Board on September 16th, 1908, but
were rejected as being too high in price.
The next advertisement for bids was made by your Board on
May 27th, 1909, and the first contract was let for 1.00 mile of road
from Federalsburg to the Dorchester County Line in Caroline
County on June 9th, 1909. About the same time, your Commission,
after advertising and receiving bids for a section of the State Road
System between Oakwood and Porter Bridge in Cecil County, re-
jected all bids, and on June 1st, 1909, authorized your Chairman to
construct this section by employing men and purchasing materials
and machinery. For a more complete report on this work reference
■may be had to the special report of the Chief Engineer now in your
files.
After the final adoption of the state road system by your Board
in April, 1909, contracts or other arrangements were made for 111
miles of road improvement before the close of the year.
The tables will show the contracts let and the contracts completed
during the years to December 31st, 1911, as well as the state-aid
Reports of the State Roads Commission 57
work during this period. (See Tables A, B, C, J), E and F, i3p. 147
et seq.)
The General Assembly of 1910 consolidated the road work of the
State Geological and Economic Survey with that of the State Roads
Commission in the hands of your Board, the transfer taking place on
June 1st, 1910, and in July, the undersigned was re-elected Chief
Engineer of your Commission, being allowed to also retain his posi-
tion of Chief Engineer to the State Geological and Economic Survey
for its other than road work. The Engineering Department then be-
came that of your Board alone. Following a recommendation of
the Chief Engineer, the Maintenance Division of the Engineering
Department was finally organized on August 1st, 1910, by placing
Second Assistant Engineer Uhler at the head, and entrusting him
with such powers and duties under the Chief Engineer as the latter
deemed necessary from time to time for the proper work of this
Division. The Construction Division remained in the hands of
First Assistant Engineer Ruggles as heretofore.
Your construction work has been greatly complicated and broad-
ened, when compared with that of most of the other State Highway
Commissions, by the provisions of your law regarding the expendi-
ture of one million dollars of your funds within the limits of Balti-
more City. Under these provisions, not only have your operations
covered an unusual amount of country road work proper, but they
have also included a large amount of modern city street work sucli
as usually comes under municipal authorities and engineers.
During 1911 both the Construction and Maintenance Divisions
have been pressed hard by their work. The tables will show tha
amount of work under construction and completed in various years
(see tables E and F). This construction has been of great variety
and generally of a high type, including simple grading, draining and
bridging, sand clay construction, shell macadam, gravel macadam,
broken stone macadam, pitched macadam, sampittic, brick, stone
block, sheet asphalt pavements, and some large concrete bridges, such
a<? the Herring Run Bridge on the Harford Road, the Deer Creek
Bridge on the Belair-Conowingo Road, the Rock Creek Bridges on
the Kensington and on the I^orbeck Roads, the Marshy Hope Creek
Bridge at Federalsburg, and two long steel bridges, with draw spans,
at Dover Bridge and at Sharptown. It will be seen, therefore, that
the demands on the head of the Construction Division for experienced
58 First, Second, Third and Fourth
ability and judgment are considerable, especially when the amount
of work to be handled by him is as large as has been the case the past
two years. In July, 1911, the amount of work under construction
under this Division aggregated $3,250,000.
Operations were promptly begun by the Maintenance Division.
Although it was late in the season (August) for such work, those
roads, built the year before, which it was seen were suffering from
automobile traffic, were oiled or pitched as promptly as possible, and
the necessary ordinary maintenance, such as cleaning ditches, trim-
ming shoulders, etc., immediately accorded all the State Roads, with
the result that, by the close of the working season of 1910, 22 miles
liad been treated with 93,400 gallons of oil, and all the completed
roads in the hands of the Maintenance Division at that time (71
miles), were in condition to pass the winter of 1910-11 in good shape.
It would have undoubtedly been better had the organization of
the Maintenance Division been effected in accordance with the recom-
mendations of the Chief Engineer at an earlier date than it actually
was. Under the circumstances, however, the Maintenance Division
has creditably performed its duties. The work of oiling or pitching
the previously built State Roads was carried on systematically and
a? needed during 1911. The acquisition by your Board of a consid-
erable mileage of former turnpikes (189.50 miles) threw a large
amount of additional work on the Maintenance Division. Such re-
pairs to the surfaces of these turnpikes have been made as directed
by your Board or its Chairman.
The work of your Commission in its use of bituminous materials
in both construction and maintenance has attracted much attention
from the other States, and even from abroad. The results secured
compare favorably with those had elsewhere.
The amount of work done by the Engineering Department has
been large, and is shown best, perhaps, by the accompanying tables.
.(See Tables G, H, I and K, ]ip. 162 et seq.)
Reports of the State Eoads Commission 59
The Organization of the Engineering Forces.
The form of organization of the engineering force now in use was
adopted after a consideration of many factors, including the amount
and location of the work and the local variations in working con-
ditions ; the control by the Commission of details of the work, and the
character and co-ordination of the members of the engineering force.
The amount of work to be cared for was estimated from the pre-
vious operations of the Geological survey under the State Aid Law
and other existing acts of the General Assembly and the annual ex-
penditure defined in the State Road Law. The former cost in the
aggregate fully $500,000 per annum, while the latter was apparently
limited to $1,000,000. Since, however, the State Road Law allowed
the contracts under way to be carried over to the succeeding years
the actual amount of work in a given year might vary within wider
limits. Thus during 1910, owing to earlier delays and subsequent
efforts to offset them, the cost of the work going on reached nearly
three million dollars and in 1911 between three and three and a half
million dollars.
The location of the work, in accordance with the law, was in every
county of the State, and consequently so scattered and relatively in-
accessible as to increase materially the difficulties and cost of super-
vision. Moreover, the annual working seasons varied from scarcely
five months in the western counties to nearly, if not quite, twelve
months in the southern and eastern counties of the State.
The question was rendered more complex by the sudden increase
in the amount of modem road work from less than $500,000 to sev-
eral million dollars annually. This made new contractors necessary
and compelled the engineering force to educate for the local con-
ditions inexperienced local contractors or those trained under foreign
conditions.
The conduct of the engineering work with the economy and
efficiency desirable could only be secured by an organization of the
engineering force which would be so elastic that it could be increased
or decreased in accordance with requirements without impairment of
the efficient operation of the main or central permanent staff. Such
temporary changes should therefore occur among the younger and
less experienced subordinates.
60 FiEST, Secoxd, Third axd Fourth
The Commission, although composed for the most part of mem-
bers without technical training as engineers or in road construction,
felt that au improvement in results, especially in the matter of costs,
could be made by keeping in their own hands a control over many
of the details of the work. The form of organization adopted must,
therefore, secure the closest contact between the Commission itself
and the work conducted under the immediate supervision of the en-
gineering force.
The Commission in its efforts for economy established a Ioav scale
of salaries ($60 per month for inspectors; $100 per month for chiefs
of parties; $75 to $100 per month for engineer inspectors or
division engineers) and ordered that, as far as possible, residents of
the State should be given preference in the matter of employment.
A few men from the Maryland Geological Survey, qualified by train-
ing and a knowledge of local conditions, were available for positions
of intermediate responsibility, but the majority of the inspectors
were, by necessity, selected from the ambitious, energetic, younger
men of the State who desired to enter the service and learn the work
of highway engineering. Practically all of these had had little or
no experience or training in engineering work. It was, therefore,
necessary to concentrate authority in the hands of the highest officers
and to delegate authority and responsibility only as occasions de-
manded.
The scheme of organization adopted to meet the varying demand
outlined in the preceding paragraphs is represented diagrammatically
in the accompanying figure. (See Plate II.) The Commission, act-
ing through its Chairman, maintains its own clerical force for general
correspondence and financial details and controls the engineering
force through the Chief Engineer, who in turn maintains a clerical
force for correspondence dealing with all problems of survey, con-
struction and maintenance of the roads. Matters of policy, law,
rights-of-way, finances, financial records, etc., are handled by the
Commission through its chairman, committees, secretary or counsel,
with or without consultation with the engineer.
The Chief Engineer on the one hand is in immediate touch with
the Commission and the Counsel and on the other with the engineer-
ing force through three assistant engineers who are respectively in
charge of construction and maintenance, suiweys and planning. The
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
o
6
ins
i liJ
> a
^ >
O
Of
2 uj
0-5
i/)<
' o
(^
<
o
W
Q
z:
<
<
2
O
z
o
8 5
/
\
<
0
a!
iij
r
Reports of the State Eoads Commission 61
assistant engineers report directly to the Chief Engineer or the First
Assistant Engineer and are supplied with such engineering and
clerical assistance as the work in hand may demand.
When a given road is selected by the Commission for improve-
ment, the actual conditions are obtained by survey. Erom the
notes furnished by the chiefs of parties the chief draftsman has pre-
pared a preliminary plan showing the existing road and the pro-
posed changes. A copy of this plan is sent to the engineer in charge
of construction for its study on the ground and its subsequent re-
turn with approval or correction to the chief draftsman for final
drawing. The completed plan, when approved by the Chief En-
gineer, is sent with the specifications to the chairman and the work
is then ready for bidders. The bids are tabulated by the Chief
Engineer and the contract awarded by the Commission, generally
after consultation with the Chief Engineer.
When the award has been made and the contractor is ready to
begin work an inspector is stationed on the work to keep the Chief
Engineer informed in detail regarding the progress of the work. An
inspector has no authority to accept, reject, or interfere with the work
of a contractor, but is required to warn the contractor and notify the
Chief Engineer whenever the provisions of the specifications appear
to be violated. The acts of an inspector in no wise bind the Chief
Engineer, who is the sole judge of a contractor's compliance with or
violation of the specifications.
Up to about the first of 1910, the maintenance of both the State-
Aid roads and the completed State roads had been attended to by
the Construction Division. At that time^ however, owing to the
large amount of construction under way or about to be, and to the
difiiculties, proved by several years' trial to exist, in the securing of
the desired degree of maintenance especially through the County
authorities on the State-Aid roads, it was decided advisable to create
a separate Division for the maintenance of all completed roads. The
employees of this division would then have a single interest free from
the distractions of construction problems, and while apparently some
'Overlapping" of work is thus caused and some duplication of trav-
elling by separate Engineer Inspectors in the same territory, never-
theless the improvement in the maintenance secured has been appre-
ciable and well worth this small extra overhead expense.
62 First, Second, Third and Fourth
After acceptance of the contractor's work by the Commission on
certification by the Chief Engineer, the road is turned over to the
maintenance division which provides the necessary patrolmen and
makes all repairs.
All outside employees, such as inspectors, patrolmen, etc., send
daily report cards to their respective chiefs. Monthly estimates are
prepared by the engineer inspectors for payment when approved by
the Chief Engineer and the appropriate assistant engineer.
The system on the whole works satisfactorily, and no just com-
plaint has been made except of the delay incident to the settlement
of questions arising between engineers and contractors. Such in-
stances would be greatly reduced in number if salary allowance
were sufficient to retain trained subordinates. This constantly re-
curring question of low salaries demands careful consideration by
the Commission, Since the beginning of the work 44 men* have left
the service of the Commission to accept better positions elsewhere.
These men had become valuable from their training and experience
and their loss has been a considerable handicap to the operations of
the engineering force.
*Since this was written more ttian twenty other men have also resigned.
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
PLATE III
Fig. I. — OLD STONE ARCH IX GARRETT COUNTY SHOWING CONDITION INTO WHICH SUCH
MASONRY HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO FALL.
Fig. 2. I'DRTION RECENTLY 1 M I'ROVEI) WEST OF CU .M J'.KKl.ANl), .\LLEG.\NY COUNTY.
VIEWS ALONG OLD NATIONAL ROAD.
Repokts of the State Roads Commission 63
FORCE ACCOUNT WORK.
Your Board decided in June, 1909, after rejecting all bids, to
authorize the Chairman to construct the Oakwood-Porter Bridge
Road hj eanploying men and purchasing materials and machinery,
and to complete the improvement under his personal supervision,
"without interference from the Engineering Department. It was
finally finished under this arrangement about the middle of IlTovem-
ber, 1910.
Later similar arrangements for "Force Account Work" were au-
thorized by your Board, in some cases with and in others without the
approval of the Chief Engineer. Such arrangements have existed
in Allegany, Washington, Montgomery, Carroll, Baltimore, Cecil,
Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Wicomico, Somerset and Worcester
counties. In a few cases, as in Wicomico, Dorchester, Washington
and Worcester counties, the performance of the work by the county
forces has unquestionably resulted in securing economy as well as
actual results on the road. In addition there have been the advan-
tages of the employment of local labor, the instruction of local
forces, and the increase of local interest in such work.
•In other counties, as in Allegany, (.Carroll and Somerset, the net
results of such an arrangement have evidently been negative in that,
while gain was made along some lines, in others a loss occurred.
Probably by improvements in methods or system in these cases, tho
net results could be made to show as profitable.
In the cases of Cecil, Caroline and Montgomery counties appar-
ently the losses more than offset the advantages of the arrangements
made. In Cecil and Caroline the force account work was excessive
in both cost and time required. Local labor received some benefit,
but much of the labor employed was foreign. In Montgomery County
apparently little was saved in first cost; the time required on a por-
tion of the work was excessive, and the character of the work done has
in the main been unacceptable to your Board — at least, your Board
has so far refused to accept the work, although pressed to do so by the
county authorities.
It would therefore seem that critical consideration should be given
to propositions advanced by localities in favor of avoiding contracts
for your work and of the performance of such work by local forces.
64 FiKSTj Second, Third and Eoukth
This is especially the case where interests other than those of econ-
omy and efficiency are at all likely to spring up.
For the details on which the foregoing remarks on this subject are
based, reference should be had to the special reports made to your
Board.
STATE AID WORK.
Practically all of the foregoing applies to the State Aid work of
your Board as well as to the State Road work. There are, however,
one or two additional considerations peculiarly applicable to the
State Aid work.
Bj Act of the General Assembly of 1910 the previous appropria-
tion of $10,000 per year to the Highway Division of the State
Geological and Economic Survey was repealed. With this appro-
priation the State Geological and Economic Survey had been fur-
nishing technical advice in road work to those localities of the State
that would otherwise have acted ignorantly and inefficiently, if at all.
The Geological Survey had by correspondence, publication and other-
wise done much toward the employment of trained men in public
road work. Erom such efforts many localities had been led to employ
road engineers. There are still others, however, which cannot as
yet afford to engage trained men for their present operations, nor are
Ihey quite at the point of increasing their operations to such an extent
as will enable the profitable employment of trained men, with the
resultant economy to be secured therefrom. These localities are
occasionally appealing to your Board for help, generally through your
Engineering Department. The writer has done what he could for
them, but neither his present arrangements with your Board nor the
status of matters in your present system make it possible to supply
the need. It would, therefore, seem to the undersigned desirable
that, if possible, some arrangements should be made by your Board
to continue the previous work of the State Geological and Economic
Survey along this line, within reasonable limits.
Up to 1910 the w^ork of the counties under the so-called "Shoe-
maker Law" had been gradually on the increase each year until the
State appropriation was not only annually exhausted, but was also
being anticipated in many instances.
Eepoets of the State Eoads Commission 65
E'aturally enough, perhaps, on the transfer of the State Aid work
to the State Eoads Commission, the former was given secondary
consideration to the work of improving the State Eoads system.
Further, the improvement by the State itself of many of the more
important roads of the counties relieved the pressure somewhat, and
as will be seen by the table (see Table E) the Stat© Aid work has in
most counties languished somewhat since 1910. It is probable that
little effort on the part of your Board would, however, be necessary
(o secure the utilization of many of the plans for State Aid Eoads
now completed by this Department and on file. Further, such work
would add greatly to the value of your system of State Eoads by
practically extending it in many cases beyond the limits now con-
templated for it.
66 First, Second, Third and Fourth
State Aid Consteuction.
Ads of lOOJ). and 1910.
On June 1st, 1910, the Chief Engineer reported fully to the State
Geological Survey Commission concerning the work carried on under
the State Aid Law up to that time. On that date 127.9 miles had
been completed and 46 miles (52 per cent, completed) were out-
standing under contracts.
In your selection of the State Road System your Board included
in its 1,220 miles of the latter 38.19 miles of road which, improved
iy various counties, is included in the above figures for completed
work.
Since June 1st, 1910, on which date the State Roads Commission
assumed charge of this work, 19.42 miles of State Aid road have
been placed under contract, or arrangements made for construction
with the County Authorities. The total mileage accepted as com-
pleted between June 1st, 1910, and December 31st, 1911, is 40.77,
and there are outstanding contracts covering 19.11 miles of road,
which it is estimated will now average fully 70 per cent, completed.
The discrepancy of 51/2 miles in the above figures represents
changes between lengths of work let and completed. Details of cost
can be had by referring to pp. 30 et seq.
It may be pertinent to state here that the average cost of con-
struction per mile of State Aid work for the amounts completed in
various periods has risen from about $8,000 for the period 1904 to
1910, to over $10,000 for the period of 1910 and 1911. The rise
is partly due to the greater widths of surfacing and the more extensive
grading and bridging demanded by the county authorities, the higher
type of surfacing required by changing traffic condition, including
the growth in the use of motor cars and trucks on these roads, and
the increasing difficulties and costs of construction, such as the deliv-
ery of materials when the extension of such roads occurs away from
the centres of supply. Such increase of first cost as comes from
compliance with higher standards of construction, such as wider
macadam, the use of pitch in or on the surfacing, the installation of
paved gutters to prevent washing, the use of stone in place of shells,
etc., etc., may, and frequently does, result in considerable economy
in maintenance. It is gratifying to note the appreciation of this
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
Fig. I. — WATER-BOUND MACADAM ON DEER CREEK SECTION OF STATE ROAD SYSTEI
Fig. 2. — NEW REINFORCED CONCRETE BRIDGE, OVER DEER CREEK.
VIEWS ON BELAIR-CONOWINGO ROAD IN HARFORD COUNTY.
Reports of the State Roads CoMMissioisr 67
fact by the county authorities as most conclusively evidenced by the
demands of these authorities frequently for even greater first cost
than the original plans of this ofiice suggest.
In addition to the tabular information given concerning the State
Aid work, there are submitted also the following supplementary re-
marks :
ALLEGANY COUNTY.
The later contracts completed here have called for 14-foot wido
macadam instead of the 12-foot built earlier. All but one-quarter
mile of the work done since June, 1910, has been under contract, this
quarter mile on the Lonaconing-Fekin Road being built by the county
forces, largely because of the smallness of the job. It was performed
fairly efficiently and within the estimate by this office. The work
now under way here is mainly 14-foot macadam, and is being done by
the county's forces because of failure to receive satisfactory bids from
contractors for the work. Its progress to date seems satisfactory.
c
aNNE ARUNDEL COUNTY.
]^o work has been completed here during the period from June
1st. 1910, to December 31st, 1911. Two sections are under way —
one of 16-foot pitch macadam, under contract on Patapsco street
in Brooklyn, and one of 14-foot stone macadam, being built by the
county forces on the Annapolis Road. The contract was let and
started so late in the season of 1911 that comment on it is at present
difficult. The progress of the work being done by the county forces
has been slow and unsatisfactory, due apparently to lack of efficient
management.
BALTIMORE COUNTY.
In all the late work in this county bituminous material or pitch
has been used at the request, or with the approval, of the county
authorities. On account of the heavy motor traffic to which these
roads are subjected, it is found impracticable to avoid such increase
in first cost, even if the omission of the use of pitch in construction
were an economy in the long run, as has been proved not to be the
case.
In this county the heavy pitch treatment required costs from
$2,000 to $3,000 per mile of 14-foot macadam, over and above the
68 FiEST, Second, Thied and Eoueth
cost of the ordinary ma,caclam. The woi'k now uncompleted and
still under way in Baltimore County is mainly of 14-foot macadam,
and under contract. About one-half mile more is being built by the
county forces. Progress on both jobs has been slow and unsatis-
factory, in spite of the efforts of this office. Thig is due in the case
of the contract to inefficient management, while in the case of the
force account work the delay was mainly due to failure to receive ma-
terial promptly and as needed.
CAROLINE COUNTY.
Of the three sections completed here two were of shell macadam.
The third was about two-thirds of a mile on one of the main streets
leading into the heart of the town of Federalsburg, and was of pitch
macadam and shell varying from 14 to 18 feet in width. This sec-
tion also included a reinforced concrete four-span arch bridge, re-
placing an old timber structure. In fact, this section is one of the
highest in type of construction outside of the larger citJies of the
State. Its cost, which was under $18,000, seems under the circum-
stances therefore quite reasonable.
One of the other two sections was built by contract and the remain-
ing one by the county's forces. Apparently local conditions here
cause contract work to be preferable.
The State Aid work now under way consists of the improvement
of the Dover Bridge Road and the rebuilding of the Dover Bridge, a
matter in which Caroline and Talbot counties are acting jointly.
Plans for this work were originally prepared by this office in April,
1909, and after advertisement a contract was made between the two
counties and Fisher & Carozza, contractors, dated jSTovember 13th,
1909. Shortly afterward work was begun on the road, but the
bridge construction was held up at the request of tlie Talbot County
authorities, in order that a different type of drawbridge might be
given consideration.
After such consideration for a period of six months the county
authorities finally decided on a change of grade of the section of road
at the Talbot County end of the bridge, but decided to build the
bridge itself on the original plans. The delay to their work, how-
ever, had so affected the contractors that it was finally agreed by all
parties to cancel the existing contract, settling for the work actually
Reports of the State Eoads Commission 69
done. In December, 1910, the Talbot County authorities secured
+he approval of the State to their surfacing the gi-aded section on the
Talbot side of the bridge by the employment of the county forces,
the cost of the work to be finally included and shared by the State
when settlement was finally made for the whole of the road and
bridge work, and in June, 1911, completed the surfacing of this sec-
tion. In April, 1911, new bids were asked for the road work remain-
ing from the original contract and for the bridge work decided upon,
and on May 15th, 1911, a contract was made with the York Bridge
Company by the two counties jointly for all this work. The contract
is now estimated to be about 45 per cent, completed, and it is expected
that the bridge and the 0.83 miles of road will finally be finished on
or before August 1st, 1912.
CARROLL COUNTY.
iN'o work has been completed in the period. One section (thy
Black Rock Road) was let in 1911, and is now approaching comple-
tion. The other section (the Uniontown Road) of one mile in length
^vas contracted for in February, 1910, and was to have been com-
pleted by June 1st, 1910. Inefficiency on the part of the original
contractor and the failure of the county authorities to so act as to
overcome this defect, notAvithstanding the recommendations of this
office, have resulted in the postponement of the completion of this
section into 1912. It is believed that the new arrangements recently
made for supplanting the original contractors will result in the fin-
ishing of this road early in the coming summer.
CECIL COUNTY.
The completed work has been done by contract on the Oxford Road.
One section of it, about one-half mile long, was really completed by
the contractor, in so far as the county authorities would permit, in
October, 1909, but, owing to the refusal or neglect of the county
authorities to provide proper arrangements for the necessary drainage
until July, 1911, the acceptance by the State of this section of the
Oxford Road was delayed until I^ovember 2nd, 1911, when the
drainage arrangements had been finally made by the county.
The work now under way is to be done by contract, but owing to
the recent date at which the contracts were finally closed but little,
if any, actual progress on the roads themselves has been made.
70 First, Second, Thied and Fourth
DORCHESTER COUNTY,
Work on the Vienna Road is now fairly begun under contract.
Prices were secured for two forms of construction of the surfacing —
one of the sole use of crushed stone and the other form of the use of
shells for the first course and stone for the top course of the macadam.
The use of shell in the place of stone for the first course would have
cost 15 cents less per square yard of surfacing, and this form of
constniction was therefore recommended by the Chief Engineer.
Yovir Chairman, however, ordered that the surfacing be constructed
entirely of stone, and this is being done.
HARFORD COUNTY.
The work on the Post Poad was delayed somewhat in its com-
pletion by the installation of an imderground conduit by the Ameri-
can Telephone and Telegraph Company alongside the road for its
entire length by one or two serious washouts occurring in the new
embankments, by the failure of the contractors to push their work
as vigorously as was expected, and by the fact that during the latter
days of the contract, arrangements not at first contemplated, were
made by the county to comply with the recommendations of this office
for treating the surface of the macadam with pitch. Apparently
the pitching of this road was warranted, if not demanded, by the
motor traffic on it. It is believed it will be found to produce economy
in the maintenance.
The Black Horse- Shawsville contracts were originally let in June,
1909, for 2.00 miles, but later extended at the request of the county
to cover about two and a quarter miles, which postponed their final
completion until September 16th, 1910. All work was done by con-
tract.
HOWARD COUNTY.
A portion of the Daisy Poad contract, begun in August, 1909,
has been completed and the balance is under way, probably to be fin-
ished during 1912.
The improvement on the Locust Chapel Poad has been extended
to the top of the hill at the entrance to the Macklin place, the work
being done on force accoimt basis by Gen. C. F. Macklin, Avho was a
large subscriber to the county's share of the cost of this work. The
Reports of the State Roads Commission 71
expense for tliis extension was high, partly owing to the late date
in 1910 at which the work was begun. Unfavorable weather con-
ditions prevented its completion that fall and some of the work then
attempted had to be done over again in 1911.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
The Kensington Road and Bridge between Chevy Chase and Ken-
sington were finished in 1910. The bridge is a fine example of re-
inforced concrete arch (two spans 40 feet each in the clear). The
road from Chevy Chase Lake to Kensington is too narrow to be
economical of maintenance under the traffic^ being only 12-foot
macadam, but otherwise is a fairly good piece of work.
The road from Chevy Chase Lake to Bradley Lane, the limit of
Chevy Chase proper, has been practically a failure and a very quick
one. Three causes may be assigned therefor.
(a) The refusal of the county authorities to allow the macadam
to be made of sufiScient width for the intense traffic, or perhaps the
failure of this office to insist on the adoption of its recommendation
for such width.
(&) The failure of the Street Railway Company to live up to their
agreement concerning the adaptation of their track grades to the
plans for the road improvement and the neglect of the county au-
thorities to compel them to do so.
(c) The neglect and lack of proper maintenance accorded the
newly completed work, notwithstanding the efforts of this office for
such care and maintenance.
Had the macadam been built wider, as recommended by this office,
the intense traffic from the freight station at Chevy Chase Lake to the
rapidly growing section in and around Chevy Chase Village, con-
sisting of heavy building materials of all kinds, would have been
much less inclined to rut the surfacing. Had the Railways Company
lived up to its agreement to adjust its tracks to the new grades of the
road, the drainage of the latter would have been better and the
macadam subgrade would have been stronger and better able to resist
the strains on it. The plans for this section of the road were based
entirely on the supposition that the Railway Company's agreements
would be carried out. However, had neither of these things oc-
curred, but had the road been built exactly as it was, and had
72 First, Secoxd, Thied axd Fourth
the proper degree of maintenance and care been accorded the
road, especially in keeping clear the drains, the road would have
given much better service than it has. The final authority in the
above matters was in the hands of the county authorities, not the
State Roads Commission. Perhaps this office might have refused to
approve the execution of a contract providing for a less width of
macadam than it expected would be satisfactory. At that time, how-
ever, such a position on the part of this office seemed to be too radi-
cal or dictatorial to be justifiably taken.
The work now under way in Montgomery County is so classified
because, although it is at least 99% completed, it has not yet been ac-
cepted, nor can it be until a little additional work is done to put it in
condition for acceptance. It is to be expected that this work will
be finally finished and accepted by June 1st, 1912. All the fore-
going work has been done by contract.
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY.
The work completed here has all been done by contract. An
effort was made to use the local material — gravel — in the case of
the Brandywine Road, with fairly satisfactory results. 'No work is
now under way here.
SOMERSET COUNTY.
The River Road near the eastern edge of the county and adjacent
to Pocomoke City has been completed. ISTo construction is now under
way here.
TALBOT COUNTY.
The section of the Dover Bridge Road shown on the tables as com-
pleted and the circumstances connected with it are more particularly
referred to under Caroline County, and reference thereto is sug-
gest-ed.
WASHINGTON COUNTY.
The Zion Church Road, shown as completed, was begun in October,
1908. The contractor all but finished his work on this road in 1909,
and thereupon removed his tools, machinery, etc. Notwithstanding
Reports of the State Roads Commission 73
the efforts of this office, it was not possible to get the road finally put
in condition for acceptance until September 12th, 1911, when this
was done and the settlement of the matter made.
JISTo work is now under way in this county.
WICOMICO COUNTY.
All the work constructed in this county recently has been done by
the local forces. The county has a good organization, is able to do
its work economically and well, and, in fact, can furnish an excellent
example of what can be accomplished by sincere, intelligent and prop-
erly inspired effort.
The recently completed roads have all been shell macadam 16 feet
wide.
ISTo work is now under way here.
WORCESTER COUNTY.
The section recently completed was built by the county forces.
The work was well done and at a not extravagant cost— in fact, within
(he estimates of this office as to cost— but it should have been done
more cheaply had better organization of the county forces prevailed,
and a greater effort been made to keep the cost down. The fault lay
mainly with the County Treasurer who was in charge of this work
for the county, and who seemed to take little interest in the work or
in the efficiency of it, and who neglected many opportunities to re-
duce the cost, if he did not actually assist to increase it.
'No work is now under way here.
74 First, Second, Third and Fourth
maintenance of state-aid roads.
An important point under the State Aid work is the question of
the maintenance of the improved roads. The law places the actual
maintenance on the county authorities, but puts the duty of super-
vising such maintenance on the State Commission. Further, Section
45, Chapter 217, Acts of 1910, states that if any county shall "refuse
or neglect to make such repairs within thirty days from the date of
such notification by said State Eoads Commission, said county shall
not thereafter receive any further assistance provided for in this sub-
title for State Aid roads until such repairs have been made."
Up to the transfer of this work to the State Roads Commission, the
State Geological and Economic Survey had, on the advice of counsel,
always held that the language of the Act applied to any money in the
hands of the State and to the credit of a county for completed work,
as well as to any balances of allotments or to new allotments of the
State appropriation.
In the summer of 1910, however, in the case of Cecil County, your
Board took the position that such -withholding of State funds should
not be done in cases where the construction, to which the State funds
were to apply, had been performed and that the only withholding of
State funds, where the county was delinquent in its repair work,
could be made in the case of contracts proposed to be awarded.
The effect of this change of attitude on the part of the State has
been to increase the difficulties of this Department in securing the
prompt and efficient maintenan'ce by the counties of those roads im-
proved under the State Aid Act.
There are many localities where such work is done to the satisfac-
tion of the State with reasonable promptness and efficiency. In many
others, however, such is not the case, and the undersigned would
recommend that your Board give careful consideration to this prob-
lem of the proper maintenance of the State Aid roads. It is gen-
erally true that the defects of the State Aid roads are due to lack of
prompt, careful and sufficient maintenance.
The maintenance of the completed sections of the State Road sys-
tem has at least temporarily been provided for by your Commission
under the general powers given your Board by the Acts, which pro-
vide funds for "the improvement or maintenance of roads," and, as
had been previously stated, this work of maintenance of State roads
had been carried on through a Di^dsion of this Department.
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
PLATE V
Repoets of the State Roads Commission 75
There is, however, one important point to be further considered
in this connection — that is, the protection of both the State and
State Aid roads against serious damage from extraordinary agencies.
For instance, a section of the Baltimore-Washington Road, between
the District of Columbia line and Bladensburg, has been practically
ruined in spite of all this Department could do, by the construction
of a railway track along the section in defiance of the plans, rulings
and orders of your Commission, and with wanton disregard for the
I'ights of the users of the public highway.
Again, although the laws give your Commission the right to regu-
late the use of the State Roads by extraordinary trafiSc, such, for
instance, as by traction engines, and although your Board has passed
what seemed to be reasonable regulations regarding such use, and
although this Department has done its utmost to have such laws and
regulations observed in many cases, they have been utterly ignored,
to the serious damage to the roads in question, and the cost of main-
tenance has thereby been increased.
Your careful consideration, therefore, of this matter of offering
protection to your roads against damage by extraordinary agencies,
and such action on the part of your Board as may seem proper to you,
are most earnestly recommended.
The maintenance of the completed State aid roads is placed by
law in the hands of the county authorities, but upon your Board is
placed the duty of supervising such maintenance with certain powers
to aid you in requiring it.
Until recently, the fulfillment of their duties by the county au-
thorities has been far from efficient or satisfactory in many cases.
jSTeither has your Board apparently given to this matter the amount
of careful consideration required to secure from the counties the
maintenance necessary.
Up to August 1st, 1910, the maintenance work on all the modern
roads of the State was under the Construction Division of the En-
gineering Department and incidental to the main work of that
Division. When, however, your Chief Engineer made in July,
1910, a condition of his re-employment that your Board should pro-
vide him with an efficient Maintenance Division, this work was
76 FiKST, Second, Third and Fourth
transferred to the then organized Maintenance Division, and since
then, all maintenance matters have been attended to through it.
iN'aturallj the Maintenance Division, with its single interest and
concentrated efforts, has been able to improve conditions somewhat,
but there is still room for improvement and such improvement mil
result much more quickly if your Board will itself take firm hold of
the matter and support, to the fullest extent of its powers, your En-
gineering Department in this regard.
At present 140 miles of State aid roads are requiring maintenance
from the county authorities under the supervision of your Mainte-
nance Division.
Allegany, Anne Arundel, Charles and Wicomico Counties have
made their repairs promptly and thoroughly, Baltimore, Caroline.
Cecil, Dorchester, Frederick, Harford and Worcester have been
slow and ineflBcient in their repair Avork, although in most of the
cases the work has finally been done.
Howard, Montgomery, Prince George's and Talbot Counties have
been so dilatory as to practically amount to wilful neglect of this
work. In the case of Montgomery County, the county forces have
been so occupied with their State Road construction for the past two
seasons as to prevent practically any of the necessary repairs being
made on a number of the State aid roads. These roads are rapidly
deteriorating for lack of attention and the cost for their repair is con-
stantly multiplying. Prince George's County has been fully as bad
in this respect.
Under the IMotor Vehicle Law, four-fifths of the net yearly reve-
nues are available for reimbursing your Board and the various
counties for their expenses for repairs to the completed State and
State aid roads. Such funds should be expended, of course, as
efficiently as possible, and to this end, it would probabh^ be advan-
tageous should your Board require as a condition precedent to tlie ap-
proval, required by law of you, of the county's bill for such work,
that the performance of the work shall be carried out under the imme-
diate supeiwision and to the satisfaction of your representatives.
Under the present methods, this office can collect no accurate fig-
ures as to expenditures for maintenance by the counties, and is
therefore unable to report on such costs. Unquestionably economy
would be encouraged if some arrangements were made by which such
figures could be collected and published.
Repokts of the State Roads Commission 77
Baltimoke-Washington Road — State Road Ko. 1.
Acts of 1906, 1908 and 1910.
The State Geological and Economic Survey, which had charge
of the building of the Baltimore-Washington Road, had already com-
pleted the construction of 18.44 miles and nearly completed 0.44
miles in addition.
After work on this road was transferred to the State Roads Com-
mission on June 1st, 1910, the only section completed up to Decem-
ber 31st, 1911, was the 0.44 mile of pitch macadam from the
city line at Gwynn's Falls southwesterly to the bridge crossing the
B. & O. Railroad. The width of the roadway built was 36 feet, and
curbs were placed along both sides for its entire length. A consid-
erable amount of storm water sewer work also was required to be
done by the local conditions, all of which increased the outlay re-
quired for the improvement.
The Legislature of 1910 made an additional appropriation of
$100,000 for this road and $20,000.00, or as much of the latter as
might be necessary, for extension of the earlier improvement of Co-
lumbia Avenue (begun at the city line at Gwr)mn's Falls) from the
B. & O. Railroad crossing in the city northeasterly to Carroll Park
or Monroe street. The road appropriation ($100,000) was to apply
specifically to the section between Beltsville and Laurel, and the sec-
lion through Elkridge.
Although the plans for these sections had been completed in 1909
by the Engineering Department in so far as it was possible under
the circumstances, and although some work had already been done
toward securing necessary rights of way for proposed relocations, it
was not until May, 1911, however, that any action was taken by your
Board concerning the work, and in December, 1911, a contract was
finally awarded for the Beltsville section, calling for its completion
September 1st, 1912. Work on this contract has just begun.
In May, 1911, a delegation appeared before your Board to urge
the improvement of the section through Elkridge. This matter was
then taken up by your Board, and it developed that decided differ-
ences of opinion as to details of the work existed between your Board,
its Engineering Department and the property o^vners interested.
Thereupon your Board referred the matter to a committee of three
78 FiEST, Second, Third and Fourth
of its members, and the final report of this committee is now being
completed, and it will be possible to proceed with this work at an
early day.
Under the appropriation for Columbia avenue, above referred to,
plans were prepared for this work and issued by the Engineering De-
partment September 30th, 1911. A contract for the work was let
by your Board October 10th, 1911, and the work is now nearly com-
pleted. A balance of not less than $12,000 from the appropriations
for this section will be turned over to Baltimore City, as required by
the Act.
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
Reports of the State Roads Commission 79
State Road Construction.
The first work of this Department after its organization, was that of
making surveys, plans and estimates for the improvements contem-
plated as fast as the limits of the work were indicated by your Board.
During 1908 surveys were made on 207.20 miles of your system, but
no plans were completed during this first year of operation. In 1909
surveys were made on 261.37 miles, and plans on 120.70 miles, aggre-
gating $1,388,790. In 1910 the surveys totalled 139.98 miles, and
plans 185.29 miles, at $2,489,820. In 1911 surveys were made
on 83.95 miles and plans for 72.73 miles, covering work estimated
to cost $866,900.
There was no work on your system accepted as completed in 1908,
as no contracts were let during that year. ISTeither was any such
work accepted as completed in 1909, though on December 31st of
that year 111.63 miles were being built, and it was estimated that
these would then average 40 per cent, finished. In 1910 160.29
more miles were placed under way, and on December 31st, 1910,
57.80 miles had been accepted as completed and 214.12 miles were
under way, estimated to average then about 55 per cent, completed.
In 1911, 76.71 more miles were put under way, 110.34 miles ac-
cepted as completed, and on December 31st, 1911, 175.85 miles were
under way and estimated to average then 70 per cent, completed.
The total of the accepted as completed work to December 31st, 1911,
is therefore 168.14 miles. Of these 167.44 were constructed in the
counties and .70 mile was built in the city.
In the above figures are included those of the accepted force ac-
count work in the counties, which aggregates 34.40 miles. The ap-
pended tables show fully the details of construction and progress of
this work (see Tables A, B, E, G, H). The costs are reported on
under a separate heading.
The work now under way — referred to above as 175.85 miles, and
estimated to average now 70 per cent, completed — is divided into
121.18 miles under contracts and 54.67 miles on force account basis.
All of this work should be finished for acceptance mthin the coming
working season.
Existing turnpikes, as a whole or in part, were purchased by your
Board during the years 1910 and 1911, aggregating 189.50 miles.
These were placed under the Maintenance Division during 1911.
80 First, Second, Third and Eourth
The maintenance of these roads has been carried on bj this De-
partment and, in accordance with instructions issued by your Chair-
man, generally along the identical lines pursued by the former
owners of these roads. In one or two instances, according to in-
structions, this Department had proceeded with somewhat extensive
repairs or "reconstruction" of sections of these old roads. This was the
case on the Boonsboro turnpike from Boonsboro toward Hagerstown
for about 2^ miles ; on the Emmitsburg turnpike between Frederick
City and Lewistown (for about IVg miles) and on the Frederick
turnpike near Lisbon. In each of these cases, the old surface was in
bad condition and the effort was made to produce a new surface
with local materials as cheaply as consistent with satisfaction and
efficiency. About one-half the quantity of stone that would have
been required for new construction was used and it is felt that the
so far completed work along this line has given satisfaction and
been reasonable in cost. For details of this work, reference should
be had to the appended tables (see tables M, P and T.)
In addition to the foregoing, this Department has begun the saving
of the old stone arches and similar structures existing on these
former turnpikes. Many of these are important and valuable both
physically and historically, but a great many, including some of the
most prominent such as the 90-foot arch over Castleman's Creek
near Grantsville, Garrett County, had been allowed to become dan-
gerously out of repair. In fact, during the delay of over a year be-
tween the time when this Department reported on the arches along the
Old ISTational Eoad, recommending their immediate repair, and the
date your Board finally authorized such repairs, one such arch did
collapse. However, it has been possible, by prompt work since its
authorization, for this Division to save those most likely to fail and
to permit probably the saving of all the rest.
Five of those most needing repairs, including the Castleman's
Creek arch referred to, have been put in first-class condition at a low
cost for a further long period of usefulness. This work should
go forward in the spring and as rapidly as practicable.
In many cases, the expense for contract work has been increased
materially and its rate of progress retarded for the following
reasons :
Reports of the State Roads Commission 81
(a) Insufficiency of time allowed the Engineering Department
for careful study and most economical solution in the plans and
specifications of the problems presented in every case.
Unquestionably many changes in the plans, productive of increased
expense, would have been avoided had more time been allowed the
Engineering Department for the preparation of these plans. This
is particularly true in the case of the city work, more specifically
referred to hereafter.
(6) Changes in the plans and specifications required by your
Board for various reasons after award of contract or beginning of
work under it.
Your Board, or its Chairman, has in many cases ordered changes
made, for various reasons, which have increased the cost.
(c) The advertisement and letting of contracts too late in the
year to permit reasonable time in the balance of the working season
for the completion of the work arranged for.
Many of your contracts have been let as late as September or
afterward, and the short remainder of the working season thereafter
available has placed extra expense on you. for making proper pro-
vision for travel over the new work during the following winter.
Much, if not all, of this extra expense could have been avoided by
letting the contract earlier or by deferring its commencement until
the opening of the succeeding working season.
(d) Award of contracts before necessary rights of way for the
work had been secured.
There have been many cases where contracts have been let by your
Board and work begun when the necessary rights of way were want-
ing. In some of these cases, it has then been necessary to secure these
rights at probably an increased cost. In others heavy damages have
had to be paid by you to the contractors because of delays and ex-
pense caused them by the consequent interference to their work.
The character of your completed work, and its cost, especially if
proper consideration is given to the facts above cited, will in the
main compare favorably with the similar work done along modern
lines elsewhere in this country. Some of your Avork is probably
superior to any other. Furthermore, as the work has progressed the
results have improved.
The following specific statements are made with reference to the
individual roads in the various counties and Baltimore City:
82 FiEST, Second, Third and Fourth
ALLEGANY COUNTY.
All the work so far accepted as completed lias been done by the
county forces and consists of the reconstruction or resurfacing of
the Old National Pike between Cumberland and Frostburg. Some
similar work has been done here along the same lines by the Mainte-
nance Division which is more fully reported on under the head of
Maintenance. The report regarding the efficiency of the work of
these county forces will be found under the heading of "Costs" and in
the special reports to your Board.
The work now under way here consists of two contracts aggre-
gating about 12 miles in length, east of Cumberland and one very
short piece (about one hundred yards long) west of Cumberland,
which is nearly completed by the county's forces.
The progress of both contract pieces has been most unsatisfactory.
The contract for the section from the "Six-Mile House to Flint-
stone" was made with the Highway Construction Company on
April 8th, 1910, about the same time that another contract with
the same firm was made in Washington County. It was apparent
when the contract was let that this firm had more work than it could
properly carry on at one time, x^s a consequence, neither contract
has progressed as rapidly as desired, though the one in Allegany
County seems to have gone on better than the other. ISTow, after
21 months' existence, this contract is but one-half completed and
will probably not be finished before the fall of 1912.
The contract for the section from Cumberland to the "Six-Mile
House" was let to Hootman Brothers on June 15th, 1909, although
it was evident that the prices agreed upon were too low to permit
the contractor to properly carry on the work. Hootman Brothers
continued the work in a desultory fashion until iSTovember 11th,
1909, when they decamped and abandoned their work, after accom-
plishing in this period only 16 per cent, of their total task. Your
Commission called on the bonding company, the United States Fi-
delity and Guaranty Company, to complete the work. This Com-
pany was allowed to occupy the time from April 22nd, 1910, to
November 2nd, 1910, in one or more attempts to go on with the
v;ork under various agencies. Finally G. A. Kean was employed
by the bonding company and began work on March 24th, 1911.
Since then the work has gone steadily, if somewhat slowly, forward,
Reports of the State Eoads Commission 83
and is now estimated to be fojar-fifths completed. The quality of
Kean's work is excellent and the section should be completed during
the summer of 1912.
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY.
Two sections of the State Road northerly from Omngs Station
toward Mt. Zion and Annapolis have been accepted as completed
from the contractors. These contracts were limited bj order of
your Board to the work of grading, draining and bridging only.
Two sections of the "Annapolis Boulevard" have been practically
completed by the contractors though the formal acceptance and final
payments on them have been delayed, pending the making up of the
final estimates. These sections are the first three miles of pitch
macadam northerly from the Severn River Bridge and the three
miles of water bound macadam from Boone northerly to the Magothy
River. Both acceptances are conditioned on the contractors agree-
ing to make good any defects occurring before June 1st, 1912.
There are now under way in this county the Brooklyn-Glenburnie
section of five miles of the "Annapolis Boulevard," which is practi-
cally finished and will be accepted the first thing in the spring ; two
sections of 71/4 miles, about 90 per cent, finished; one section be-
tween Boone and Arnold (relocated so as to avoid two railway grade
crossings and to be entirely on the easterly side of the railway) of
about 2% miles on which work has just begun; and a section of
about oner-third of a mile in Brooklyn of vitrified brick pavement,
for which the contract was executed May 24th, 1911, but on which
no construction has yet been started.
BALTIMORE CITY.
Only one section of State Road work has been accepted as com-
pleted in the City— the "Falls Road" from Thirty-sixth Street or
Third Avenue to the City limits (about three-fourths of a mile in
length), .paved with vitrified brick.
There are now under construction by contract the Harford Road
from E'orth Avenue to the City limits (about 2% miles), estimated
to be 88 per cent, finished, and Garrison Avenue from Denison or
Twelfth Street to the City limits (1% miles), estimated to be 80
per cent, finished. Before discussing further details of the work on
84 First, Second, Third and Fourth
these two roads, a brief general statement of the peculiarities of the
circumstances surrounding the work in Baltimore City is advisable.
Your Board established a procedure regarding this work as fol-
lows : The selection of the order in which the City work was to bi^
begun was left to the City authorities. The general character of
the work, such as the type of street surface, the width of the im-
provement, etc., were also to be recommended by the City. All neces-
sary rights of way for the work were to be provided, and all grades
and curb lines established by the City. In the absence, under the
present City organization, of a single engineering office through
v/hich all the various departments of the City could have their dif-
ferent interests in the details considered and could present to your
Commission the final decisions of the City as a whole, the Mayor
was requested to designate a City official for this purpose and Major
J. W. Shirley, Chief Engineer of the Topographical Survey, was so
named. In the majority of instances, therefore, the communica-
tions between your Board and the City have been through this of-
fice and Major Shirley, although there have been many cases where
your Board, or its Chairman, dealt directly, both with and without
the knowledge of this office, with the Mayor or some other City
official.
ISTow, on the submission by the City of its general desigTi for Gar-
rison Avenue, this office completed the plans and your Board
awarded the contract to P. Flanigan & Sons on August 25th, 1910.
Work was begun promptly, but shortly after the City Surveyor's
office (in wliich a change of personnel had occurred in the meantime)
requested a reconsideration of the grades on that portion of the
fivenue between Carlisle Avenue and the City limits. About this
time also, the United Hallways and Electric Company, who had
entered into certain agreements with your Board concerning details
of their track reconstruction, and the methods of handling it, re-
fused to agree to your interpretation of these agreements, and the
work of the contractors was interrupted and held up during nearly
the whole of the winter of 1910-11.
The grade matter was investigated and changes in the grades in-
sisted on by the City notwithstanding the expense of making them
would be nearly $5,000. Your Board agreed to the City's demands
and ordered the changes made and the earlier work of the con-
Reports of the Stat$: Koads Commission 85
tractors here was abandoned or done over again at your expense as
found necessary to meet the City's wishes.
In the spring of 1911, the United Railways and Electric Com-
pany finally receded from its former position above stated and
agreed to go on with its track work as directed by your Board. The
contractors thereupon pushed their work vigorously on the section
between Walbrook Junction and Maine Avenue except for the sheet
.asphalt surfacing, which was late (June 14th, 1911) in being
started.
On May 16th, 1911, this office was notified by the Assistant City
Solicitor to refrain from further work on the section of the con-
tract between Garrison Avenue proper and the City limits, that is,
on the portion of the Old Liberty Road embraced by the contract,
because some difficulties had arisen between the City and certain
property owners concerning the disposal of the storm water from this
road as proposed by the City and included in the detailed plans.
Work on this latter section has not yet been permitted to be resumed.
Your contractors began laying the sheet asphalt surfacing called for
in the contract on June 14th, 1911, and carried it on to about Pied-
mont Avenue, when it was halted temporarily. Tests showed that
the surfacing laid failed in many places to comply with the specifi-
cations and this office reported the facts to your Board. The varia-
tions were irregular and under all the circumstances, this office felt,
and so recommended to your Board, that the surfacing laid might be
accepted and paid for provided the contractor would at his own ex-
pense repair, maintain, and deliver this surface in first-class condi-
tion January 1st, 1913, to the street authorities, and provided further
that all such surfacing laid on the balance of this contract shoulci
strictly comply in every particular with the specifications calling for
a first-class pavement.
Your Board adopted the above recommendation and the necessary
agreements were prepared and executed. Surfacing again started
August 2nd, 1911, at Piedmont Avenue, but before Carlisle Avenue
was reached, it was again found that the sheet asphalt was deficient
according to the specifications and this offiice so notified your board.
About this time (August 9th, 1911) it became evident that un-
necessary delay in this work would probably prevent its completion
by October 1st, 1911, to a point where it would connect with an
86 First, Second, Third and Fourth
improved pavement laid in earlier years out Garrison Avenue to the
City limits. Such completion and connection were desired by the
City in order that considerable outlying taxable property might thus
be brought under a higher tax rate for 1912. Pressure was there-
fore brought to bear by the City on your Board and its contractors to
so push this work as to insure the connection mentioned. Under this
pressure, your contractors worked diligently to accomplish the end
in view, but in so doing, sheet asphalt surfacing was again laid be-
tween Carlisle and Maine Avenues (the connecting point referred to)
not in accordance with the specifications.
The work was also interfered with somewhat by another storm
water right-of-way question arising between the City and certain
property owners between Piedmont and Carlisle Avenues. This
question remains as yet unsettled and the drainage conditions of the
road on this section are bad, if not dangerous.
The contractors finally completed all such work as the rights of
way permitted about November 12th, 1911, and since that time the
question of the acceptance or relaying of the sheet asphalt surfacing,
and the problem of the disposal of the storm water from the street
between Piedmont and Carlisle Avenues have been depending on the
City for settlement, as has also the question of proceeding with the
work contemplated on the Old Liberty Koad between Maine and Gar-
rison Avenues and the City limits.
It is evident that all rights of way questions should be definitely
settled in advance of construction. When the general plans of the
City were first received by this office for the work proposed on the
Harford Road, your Chief Engineer suggested to the City that, in-
stead of the street car tracks being built in the centre of the pavement,
as then proposed, they should be placed in a reservation on the side
of the street along the Park front. The City, however, adhered to
its proposition for their location in the centre of the street and
the detail plans were thereupon worked up, the work advertised and
the contract let to P. Flanigan & Sons for the section from Worth to
Atlantic Avenues on this basis. Shortly after commencement of the
work, the City requested a change in the plans to provide for the
location of the street car tracks along the side of the road between
the B. & O. Railroad bridge and Erdman Avenue. About this time
also, the City decided to change the established grades near Carswell
Repokts of the State Eoads Commission 87
Street, and later again changed these grades twice. Here, also, had
the original suggestion of this office, above referred to, as to the
location of the tracks, been more fullj considered in advance of be-
ginning work, and had unnecessary changes of grade been avoided by
the City, some expense would have been saved.
Some difficulties were had with, and some delays to the work on
this section were caused by the attitude taken by the IT. R. & E.
Company concerning the contemporaneous work on their tracks,
notably on the "hiunp" between ISTorth Avenue and Hargest Lane.
Later the Railways Company receded from its position. The changes
in the plans referred to largely increased the amount of grading to
be done and naturally caused an extension of the time necessary for
the performance of the contract. This contract is now, however,
practically finished, and will be fully so at an early date.
The section of this road from Atlantic Avenue to the City limits,
including the reinforced concrete bridge over Herring Run, was
awarded to Warren Brothers Company in July, 1910. This con-
tract provided that the detailed plans for the bridge should be sub-
mitted for approval by this office, only the general features of the
design being specified in the contract. Accordingly two plans were
furnished by the contractors, which your Board submitted to the City
authorities. They recommended the more expensive structure, but
this office prevailed upon them to accept the cheaper bridge Avith
some additions to strengthen it, thereby effecting a saving of some
$6,000.
It was possible to do but little work on the upper section of this
road until the completion of the bridge and the latter was not finally
started until January 4th, 1911. Unfortunate delays by the Con-
solidated Gas Electric Light and Power Company in getting its gas
main out of the way of the bridge work, with some minor causes, re-
sulted in the loss by the bridge workers of several thousand dollars'
worth of cement, forms, and work in a flood early in August, 1911,
and in considerable delay to the completion of their work. The Gas
Company's delay was caused again by rights of way difficulties, pos-
sible of settlement in advance, but not so settled. The Bridge Com-
pany has filed a claim against your Board for over $3,000 dam-
ages to them in the matter, and it is possible that a considerable por-
tion of this will have to be paid.
88 First, Second, Third and Fourth
The bridge, including all expense for it, will cost your Board
approximately $60,000, which figure will be found, considering the
character of the structure, to compare favorably with the cost of other
structures of this kind within the City. (See Plate I).
Such of the grading on either end of the bridge as has been pos-
sible on this section has been done and the brick pavement has been
put permanently in place at each end of the section where the new
road follows the old location. The grading on the relocation and
over the bridge will be finished this winter, and the pavement then
completed as soon as practicable.
BALTIMORE COUNTY.
The work in this County has partaken of the character of both
the City work and the highest type of County work done elsewhere.
Owing to its physical connection with the City work begun or in
prospect, as well as the built-up character of the adjacent county in
many cases, it has been necessary to build almost identically with
the City construction and even in the other cases, a high and ex-
pensive type of construction has been unavoidable. As a conse-
quence the work has, on account of the limited funds available, been
confined to a short distance from the City lines, and to six roads.
The work on the Philadelphia Eoad between the City limits and
Herring Run (2 miles) Avas first finished, pitch macadam being
used for the surfacing. The contracts on the Belair Road (1%
miles) and the Westport Road (1% miles) have recently been
finished. In each of these it was necessary to lay a brick pave-
ment on the sections where the street railway tracks occupied the
centres of the streets — that is, for 655 feet on the Belair Road and
for 2,050 feet on the Westport Road, pitched macadam being used
for the balance of each contract. In each case difficulties and de-
lays were caused by the United Railways and Electric Company,
■ the delay to the completion of the Westport Road from this source
amounting to about seven months.
The work under way consists of contracts for a section of the
Harford Road from the City limits to Taylor Avenue (about 3
miles) ; a section of the Liberty Road from the City limits to Bucks
Lane (one mile) which contract has to be classified as "under way"
for the reason that the final estimate, in accordance with the wishes
Reports of the State Roads Commission 89
of the contractor, has not yet been made up, although his work has
actually been completed; and a section of the Falls Road from the
City limits to Mt. Washington (about 2 miles).
The Harford Road contract is practically completed and will be
finally finished at an early date. This contract was let by your Board
before the necessary rights of way for the road surface had been se-
cured over many of the property fronts between the City limits and
Hamilton and when it was certain that difficulties would be met in
the securing of such rights.
In fact, the contractor was notified, on order of your Chairman, to
begin his work at Hamilton and proceed northerly because of lack
of rights of way for his work to the south of that point. As a con-
sequence, the operations of the contractor have been delayed, the
completion of the improvement seriously postponed and a possible
liability incurred by your Board to the contractor. The latter has
filed a claim on this account of several thousand dollars, some of
which will possibly have to be paid him. Further, this contract,
let on September 16th, 1909, furnishes one of those instances where
the actual cost of the work to your Board has been materially in-
creased (by approximately $2,000) on account of being started too
late in the working season.
The same remarks as above concerning the Harford Road work
apply to the work on the Westport Road, except that, in the matter
of the claim of your contractor for compensation because of inter-
ference with his work, it may be possible for your Board to protect
itself by collecting the amount paid the contractor from the United
Railways and Electric Company, the primary cause of the delay.
The work on the Falls Road was contracted for xipril dth, 1910,
and begun on April 15th, 1910. The original scheme of this office
was, for the sake of economy, to locate the railway tracks on the
side of the pitch macadam on the Mt. Washington end instead of in
the centre, but the county authorities requested the latter arrange-
ment, to which your Board agreed. It was therefore necessary to
construct a brick pavement at this end. It seemed impracticable
to avoid centre location of the tracks on the City end and a brick
pavement was therefore built as far as Hillside Station. This con-
tract thus covers about .83 miles of brick pavement and 1.12 miles
of pitched macadam. The contractors (Wm. M. Elder & Company)
90 First, Second, Third and Fourth
began at the City line and at Mt. Washington practically at the same
time "working two crews toward each other. Some delay and extra
expense was caused the contractor by the failure to supply him with
steel for reinforcement in accordance with the contract, and this
extra cost has had to be repaid the contractor by your Board.
A serious cause of delay to the contractor's work was the attitudo
of the United Railways and Electric Company regarding its track
work, already referred to. The differences between this Company
and your Commission may be said to have reached a climax on this
job. The contractor's work was interrupted in ISTovember, 1910, on
1his account and the differences were not finally adjusted so he could
proceed on the brick pavement sections until June 26th, 1911, when
the Railways Company finally receded from its previous positions
and the brick work proceeded fairly smoothly. On account of these
interruptions to his work, the contractor filed claims for damages
amounting to $3,733.10. Payments in settlement thereof have been
made by your Board aggregating $2,987.33. It may be possible to
require the United Railways and Electric Company to finally bear
the larger part of this amount.
This same situation affected, to a less extent, the work on the road
within the City and already referred to. A compromise was there
effected with the Railways Company by your Board and the extra
cost of the work was approximately $3,2.50. Possibly part of this
amount is also recoverable by you.
Although your Board purchased no riglits of way in connection
with this work in the county, certain agreements were made, which,
in the opinion of your Chairman, called for extra work and increased
the cost of the work beyond the figiires estimated at the time the
contract was let. The culvert across the road at Court McSherry
Gate, the concrete and wooden steps to the Ropka and Mattefeldt
properties opposite are instances of this. The work under this con-
tract is now nearly complete and will probably be finished at an
early date.
CALVERT COUNTY.
The completed and accepted work in this county aggregates about
10y2 miles on the road between Owings and Prince Frederick, all
performed by contracts. These contracts were limited by your
Board to the grading, bridging and draining only.
Reports of the State Roads Commission 91
The remaining 414 miles of the Owings-Piince Frederick Road
is now imder contract, and the work (grading, bridging and drain-
ing onlj) practically completed, although as yet the final settlement
has not been made.
Along this road are many deposits of sand and clay. An effort was
made by this Department, realizing the great advantages at rela-
tively small cost to be had from so doing, to secure the approval of
your Chairman to its proposition to materially improve the natural
surface of the graded road by applying clay to the sandy stretches and
sand to the clayey ones. It is believed that practically all the com-
plaints regarding the present unsurfaced condition of this road in
bad weather would have thus been removed at only a fraction of
the cost for surfacing with stone or gravel. As yet, however, this De-
partment has been unable to obtain definite permission to proceed
with the sand-clay work recommended.
CAROLINE COUNTY.
About 111/^ miles of the route between Greensboro and Federals-
burg has been accepted as completed. The surfacing was all four-
teen-foot-wide macadam, mostly eight inches in thickness.
Two sections are under way — one between Greensboro and Denton
of about 1% miles, and one between Denton and Federalsburg of
4 miles. Both are of the same general character as the completed
work. The former section is being done by contract. It really is the
completion of a section formerly under another contract and which
your Board cut short for financial reasons. This section is now
nearly finished for acceptance. The other section is that south of
Denton leading toward Federalsburg for about four miles. This sec-
tion was begun March 9th, 1910, and carried on by the county's
forces. The work was not under the control of this office and has
never been completed to such extent that this office could recommend
its final acceptance. The county forces were stopped by your Chair-
man in December, 1910, and in May, 1911, the Maintenance Divis-
ion was directed to go on with such work as was then necessary
to repair the deterioration occasioned and to maintain this section
until further notice. The Maintenance Division accordingly ex-
pended about $150 in getting the section into shape for fairly
economical maintenance, oiled the macadam, and has since kept it in
92 FiEST, Second, Third and Foukth
as good condition as the circumstances would permit. The character
of this section is not up to your standards.
CARROLL COUNTY.
Two sections have been accepted as completed, both of macadam
14 feet wide and 8 inches thick. The one between Herring's Mill
and Eldersburg (about II/2 niiles) on the Sykesville Road and con-
necting with the State-aid road between this mill and Sykesville, was
built by the Springfield Hospital authorities on force account basis.
For detailed remarks concerning this work, reference should be had
to the special report made your Board concming it. The other sec-
tion of completed road is that between Westminster and Cranberry
Station (about 11^4 miles) on the road to Manchester. This section
was built by contract dated September 16th, 1909, and not finally
finished until September 26th, 1911. The figures named by the
bidder Avere entirely too low to admit of proper work and progress
on his part, and your Board executed this contract against the ad-
vice of your Chief Engineer. The character of the work done is
fairly satisfactory. Two sections of road are now under contract and
each is somewhat over half completed. When finished they will con-
nect, with the help of the State-aid road in Gamber, the Sykesville
Road with the Fenby Turnpike near Westminster, which has been
purchased and is now being maintained as a public road by your
Board.
CECIL COUNTY.
Three sections have been accepted here by your Board as com-
pleted. The section, about 2% miles long, from Elkton toward
Fair Hill, was built by contract, and is of trap-rock macadam 14
feet wide and 8 inches thick.
The other two sections — Oakwood to Porter Bridge (3% miles)
and Rising Sun toward Calvert (about 3 miles) were built by forces
working directly under your Chairman and expressly without any
interference from this office. For detailed remarks concerning this
force account work, reference should be had to the special reports of
this Department.
There are now outstanding two contracts for sections of the road
from Elkton toward Chesapeake City — one from Elk Creek southerly
Reports of the State Eoads Commission 93
to the cross roads below Perch Creek (about 3 miles) and the other
from these cross roads to Chesapeake City (about 2^/2 miles). The
former is about one-fifth done and the latter about three-fifths fin-
ished. The dates of their final completion are at present uncertain.
CHARLES COUNTY.
One section of screened gravel macadam 14 feet wide and 8 inches
thick from La Plata northerly to White Plains (about 4% miles)
has been accepted from the contractors.
Two sections aggregating 91/4 miles are now under way under the
same contractors. One extends the completed work about 614 miles
northerly to the Prince George's County line and is practically
finished. It should be finally completed at an early date. The
other section extends from this main line at Waldorf southeasterly
for about three miles toward St. Mary's County, and is only about
one-fifth finished. It should be completed the coming season.
DORCHESTER COUNTY.
Three sections aggregating about 14 miles have been finished.
Two of these (SVs miles) were built with broken stone macadam by
contract. The third section was built partly of stone, and partly
of oyster shells by the coimty's forces working under the supervision
of this Department. The work was well and satisfactorily done,
the details being available in the special reports on this work. These
sections have been oiled or pitched subsequently to construction by
the Maintenance Division and the pitched shell macadam is not
only an admirable section of road, but is also a conspicuous piece of
modern road in the eyes of the road authorities of this country.
(See Plate XII).
There are now under way two sections aggregating about 7^/2 miles.
Four and two-fifths miles are under contract between Shiloh and
Eldorado, and are about four-fifths finished. Three and one-tenth
miles, between Hurlock and Shiloh, are being built by the county's
forces and are about two-thirds finished.
FREDERICK COUNTY.
!N^o work has yet been accepted as completed here. Pour sec-
tions aggregating about llYs miles are under contract and partly
94 FiEST, Second, Thied and Foukth
ilnished. The 'New Market-ISTew London section (3 miles) is two-
thirds done. The Monrovia-Kemptown section is three-fourths done.
The Jefferson section extending toward Petersville is over one-half
done, and the Petersville-Knoxville section is five-sixths done. All
are made of broken stone macadam, fourteen feet wide and eight
inches thick.
GARRETT COUNTY.
One section of macadam, 14 feet wide and 8 inches thick and
about 5% miles long, extending from Oakland northerly, has been
accepted from the contractor.
Two sections are now under w^ay. A continuation of the finished
work northerly toward McHenry is under contract and two-thirds
finished. Another section beginning at the Allegany County line
and running westerly over the old National Pike is being built by
forces directly controlled by your Chairman. The length of the
section proposed to be so built is four and one-fifth miles and, on the
basis of the preliminary estimate of cost, the work may be said to
be about two-fifths finished. However, reference should be had to
the special reports on this work for accurate figures.
HARFORD COUNTY.
Three sections, aggregating nearly 8% miles, have been accepted
as completed from the contractors. One of these is the section be-
tween Kalmia and McCann's Comer on the Baltimore-Philadelphia
route and includes a relocation and new bridge over Deer Creek.
This is one of the greatest improvements your Board has completed.
The grades on the old crossing of Deer Creek were as high as 16
per cent, and the old road was utterly impassable for considerable
periods each year. The new road has no grade over 7 per cent., and
the bridge is a fine example of permanent work. (See Plate IV.)
" It is of reinforced concrete of unusual design and its cost ($10,000)
was only a few hundred dollars in excess of the usual type of steel
and wood structure of equal strength. Considering its freedom from
maintenance charges, its cost over a period of years should be less
than that of a steel structure. The design and construction of this
bridge has been reviewed by the "Engineering Kecord" as of general
interest.
Reports of the State Roads Commission 95
One section of the road between Kingsville (in Baltimore County)
and Belair, and extending between the Baltimore County line and
the junction with the Belair Turnpike (2% miles) is now about
one-half done; also, a section of the Belair-Conowingo Road extend-
ing from near Poole to Conowingo is about three-fourths finished.
These two latter contracts are both in the hands of one contractor.
Their progress has been unsatisfactorily slow, due probably to in-
.^ufficiency of equipment for proper pushing of the work.
HOWARD COUNTY.
One section, between the Frederick Pike at West Friendship and
the end of the State aid road built previously south of Sykesville,
has been accepted from its contractors as completed (about 3^4
miles). It is of macadam 14 feet wide and 8 inches thick.
ISTo construction work is now under way here.
KENT COUNTY.
One section of 314 miles northerly from Chestertown has been
accepted from the contractors.
Two sections, extending on toward Locust Grove, are under con-
tract. The first (4% miles) is practically completed and should
be finished for acceptance promptly. The second (3^4 miles) is
about three-fifths completed. All are of macadam 14 feet wide and
8 inches thick.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY.
At the instance of the State Senator from this county, your Board
in August, 1909, placed the construction of that section between the
end of the State aid road, about one mile west of Rockville, and the
town of Gaithersburg in the hands of Commissioner Hutton of your
Board with full power to construct the same according to his own
ideas. This section has a total length of 314 niiles and while a
portion of it (about 1 mile) has been accepted by your Board and
is being maintained by the Maintenance Division, the section as a
whole is not yet finished. It seems probable that it will be com-
pleted in 1912.
On April 26th, 1910, plans having been made ready for adver-
tisement for bids on the road between Gaithersburg and Darnestown,
96 TiEST, Second, Thikd and Foukth
for a length of about 5^ miles, the Senator referred to again pre-
vailed on your Board not to ask for bids but to place this work in
the hands of the county authorities. Work was accordingly begun
on or about July 18th, 1909, and the work finished to August 23rd,
1911, was on September 9th, 1911, presented to your Board for its
acceptance and maintenance. Your Board thereupon personally
inspected the work done and has not decided as yet to accept the
same.
On February 16th, 1911, your Board again, under similar circum-
stances, authorized the county forces to proceed with the construc-
tion of the road between Eockville and ]N"orbeck, one mile of which
(from Bock Creek northerly) had been improved under the State aid
law and accepted on August 31st, 1908, and also to proceed with
the improvement of the road between Gaithersburg and Cedar Grove.
It is understood that the county authorities consider the Rockville-
iN'orbeck work completed, although a? yet it has not been accepted
by your Board. The Gaithersburg-Cedar Grove work is now in
progress.
All of these works were, by expressed decisions of your Board, to
be done by the forces employed "without interference from the En-
gineering Department," and they have been so carried on. This
Department furnished as directed such information, plans, estimates,
etc., to Commissioner Hutton and the county authorities as it
possessed, and at your direction kept inspectors on the works to re-
cord facts as to work done, labor employed, etc. These inspectors
were specifically instructed to attempt no authority whatever over
the work and to simply record and report fully to this office con-
cerning what was done so that not only could a cost analysis be had at
the end of the operations, but also that as much of value as pos-
sible could be learned from the experiments. For details of these
works, reference should be had to the special reports thereon.
One contract was made and satisfactorily completed for your
Board covering simply the bridge over Rock Creek on the Rockville-
Norbeck Road.
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY.
Two contracts have been completed — one from Forestville to
Upper Marlboro (5% miles) and one from the District of Columbia
Reports of the State Roads Commission 97
line (QVs miles) toward the Charles County line near Mattawoman.
The former is of broken stone macadam 14 feet wide and 8 inches
thick; the latter of screened gravel macadam of the same width and
thickness. The work on the latter road was considerably delayed and
its cost increased by rights of way difficulties and delays in deciding
them. One contract for 6 miles, the extension of the District of
Columbia to Charles County line work above mentioned, is now un-
der way and about two-thirds completed.
QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY.
Four contracts for broken stone macadam 14 feet wide and 8
inches thick have been completed on the route between Chestertown
and Wye Mills aggregating in total length 11% miles. In addition,
a reinforced concrete bridge has been completed on the plans of this
office by the County's forces in advance of the road improvement on
this same route near Wye Mills.
About 3 1/2 miles of this route is now under contract near Church
Hill and is estimated to be over 90 per cent, finished.
ST. MARY'S COUNTY.
Eight and four-fifths miles of macadam road 12 feet wide and
6 inches to 8 inches thick has been accepted from two contractors
as completed, and 5^4 miles of work limited to grading, bridging and
draining from a third.
!N"o work is at present under way here.
SOMERSET COUNTY.
At the request of the county authorities, your Board authorized
work to be done from Princess Anne southerly toward Crisfield by
the county forces according to your plans and the general super-
vision of your Engineering Department. The control of this Depart-
ment, however, has not been allowed by your Chairman to be as posi-
tive, nor as direct, as to produce the greatest benefits in the work.
Unnecessary delays have been incurred through the consideration by
your Chairman of appeals by the county authorities to him from the
advice of this office, needless discussion of technical matters, and un-
warranted propositions for changes in the plans. Delays in securing
rights of way have also increased the cost of the work.
98 . FiEST, Second, Third and Fourth
For further details and figures on this work, reference should be
had to the special reports concerning it. About eleven miles of this
road has been worked on, of which eight miles are now under way
and between two-thirds and three-quarters finished.
TALBOT COUNTY.
Two sections, aggregating nearly 8 miles of macadam 14 feet wide
and for the most part 8 inches thick have been accepted from the
contractors. No work is now under way.
WASHINGTON COUNTY.
On June 8th, 1910, your Board, at the request of certain citizens
of the county, authorized the improvement by local forces of a sec-
tion of the old turnpike from the end of the State-aid road at St.
Paul's Church westerly through Clearspring for about 41/4 miles,
exclusive of the portion in the village of Clearspring. These citi-
zens arranged with your Chairman regarding the employment of
labor, the purchase or hire of materials, machinery, etc., and went
'jn with the work. To some extent, the work has been imder the En-
gineering Department, but the main control has been with your
Board or its Chairman.
The section west of Clearspring (2 miles) is considered as com-
pleted. That portion east of Clearspring (21/4 miles) is still under
way. This work seems to have been well and efficiently done ex-
cept for some details. Reference should be had to the special re-
ports on it.
A contract covering 41/2 miles of this old turnpike west of Indian
Spring is still under way and estimated as about one-third com-
pleted. This contract work has dragged unwarrantedly and your
(?hief Engineer has on one or more occasions called your attention
to its slow progress. Indeed, he has recommended that your Board
lake this work away from the contractors and make such other ar-
rangements as will ensure more satisfactory progress on it. The
fact is that these contractors, with their section in Allegany County,
evidently have more work on their hands than their facilities permit
them to push.
Reports of the State Roads CoMmssleQjijr 99
WICOMICO COUNTY. ^?:;;;;4^S'^i^ X
Two sections, aggregating lOYs miles have been accepted as com-
pleted. The first was built by contract with the County Commis-
sioners. The second was built by the county crews on a force ac-
count basis. Both were well and efficiently done and a great deal
of credit is due to the county authorities for the satisfactory results
in these cases. The county forces co-operated with your Board and
its Engineering Department to the utmost and proved to be of con-
siderable help and advantage to the work.
Six sections are now under way here. About 2% miles of the
read from Mardella Springs toward Sharptown are under contract
and nearly completed. A section of about one-eighth of a mile cov-
ering the inter-county bridge at Sharptown is now about one-half
completed. A section of about one-third of a mile at Sharptown is
being built by the county crews on a force account basis. This is an
experimental piece of work and consists of mixing pitch and stone
chips with the local sand to form the road surface. Thus far the
promises of success are excellent and it is believed that a new and
cheap method of providing a road surface over many of the sandy
stretches on the Eastern Shore may result.
Seven and one-half miles of the road southerly from Salisbury
toward the Somerset County line at Allen are being built by the
county crews on force account basis and are about three-fifths com-
pleted.
For details regarding all this force account work, reference should
be had to the special reports thereon.
WORCESTER COUNTY.
After advertising several times for bids on the proposed work
between Snow Hill and Berlin and receiving no satisfactory tenders,
your Board arranged with the county authorities for this work to be
begun by the county crews on a force account basis. About 7% miles
of the work has been, it is estimated, completed for acceptance.
While reference should be had to the special reports for the details
in this matter, a few general remarks may be made here. The
employment of the county crews in this work has been a saving in
(ost when comparison is made with the unreasonably high tenders
made by contractors for the work. But a further saving in expense
100 !FiKST, Second, Third and Fourth
would have easily been possible by better organization and efficiency
in the crews employed. The County Treasurer acted as the repre-
sentative of the county in this matter generally. He was paid by
your Board the sum of $50 per month for his services in this con-
nection, which payment your Chief Engineer several times stated
to your Board was unwarranted by the services rendered.
The w'ork was not properly pushed. It should easily have been
possible to have completed the entire road between the ends of the
two State aid sections leading into Berlin and Snow Hill respectively
by the end of 1911. This was evident to both your Chairman and
your Chief Engineer, and they so advised the County Treasurer late
in 1910. But through delays to arrange for rights of way, surveys,
materials, etc., sufficiently in advance of actual construction, the
work of 1911 made so slow progress that at the end of that year
about one-half of a mile of surfacing remains to be put on in order
that a continuous stone surface may be presented to the public traffic
for the entire distance between Berlin and Snow Hill. The exist-
ence of this unsurf aced gap in the macadam is an unnecessary incon-
venience, not to say expense, to the persons using this road, and is to
be regretted. The control of this office over this work has not been
complete, and has been weakened by the attitude of your Board, or
its Chairman, regarding this work on the part of the County's repre-
sentative and has not been effective for the greatest economy or
satisfaction.
One section (4^ miles) of this, road and one section (aggregating
QYio miles) of the Pocomoke City-Snow Hill Road are now under
\vay. The former is about four-fifths completed, and the latter will
average about one-fourth finished. All work in this county is being
done by the county crews, no contracts ever having been let.
CARROLL, FREDERICK, HOWARD AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES.
Running southerly from Ridgeville on the Frederick Pike, a road
of your system forms the boundary line, or lies for short stretches in
the four counties named, and the division of responsibility for its up-
keep induced your Board to improve it at a relatively early date.
The contract for the 2% miles of this road between the Frederick
Road and the point where the road finally and completely enters
Montgomery County, has been finished satisfactorily and paid for.
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
Reports of the State Roads Commission 101
State Road Maintenance,
The importance and economy of prompt, efficient and sufficient
maintenance cannot be overestimated in road administration, and
lliis is especially true in the case of modern roads under present
traffic conditions. More of the existing defects in roads today,
whether such defects be those of appearance, of comfort, or of
economy, are due more to weak points in maintenance than to de-
ficiencies in construction or to any other cause.
The requirements of maintenance work demand the careful per-
formance of little things and the prompt attendance to such ; per-
sistence and continuity of action; good judgment and craftsman-
ship in actual work ; and a high regard for economy and the old fact
that "many a little makes a mickle." Maintenance work con-
tains far less of the spectacular than does construction, and thus
some other stimulus is frequently needed by the workers in it that
interest may not flag. Without some such incentive, the results are
almost sure to be unsatisfactory. The foregoing may seem to be a
somewhat academic discussion, but it is stated in order that your
Board may perhaps understand better the matters hereinafter specifi-
cally discussed.
The maintenance of the completed sections of the State road sys-
tem and of those State aid roads taken over by your Board as a part
of your system is attended to by men employed directly under the
engineers of the Maintenance Division.
As regards the turnpikes purchased by your Board (aggregating
189.50 miles) the maintenance of about 116 miles of these has been
in the hands of this Department while that of the balance has been
arranged for by your iBoard with the county authorities, or with the
contractors employed in their improvement for at least the life of
such contracts.
Your Board has attempted some reconstruction on these old turn-
pikes through forces under the Maintenance Division. The results
are fully shown in the accompanying tables of costs, etc. (See
Tables M, P and T). It may be started that the road surfaces so
secured seem to meet general approval.
In this work, however, your Board has rented considerable equip-
ment instead of purchasing the same outright. If this work is to
102 TiKST, Second, Third akd Fourth
be continued, it would undoubtedly be more economical to own, in-
stead of hiring such mackinery.
The ordinary maintenance of your completed roads begins imme-
diately on the acceptance of such work from the construction forces.
A patrolman is as promptly as possible placed on each section of
such roads, the length of the section depending on local conditions.
This patrolman is furnished with a wheelbarroAv, shovels, rakes,
hoes, picks, brooms, etc., as may be necessary and materials for or-
dinary repairs are stored at convenient places along each section.
His employment is constant and his work consists of keeping the
ditches and waterways clear, the brush and grass cut, and of
promptly repairing small defects in the road surface as they occur.
At present it has been sufficient to divide the State into three divi-
sions, each of which is in charge of an Engineer Inspector, but as the
mileage of roads to be maintained increases, proba,bly the number
of divisions will have to be increased. The Engineer Inspectors are
held responsible for the work of the patrolmen and are expected to
visit each road at least once per week.
The patrolmen and the Engineer Inspectors send daily report
cards, showing the work done, to the office. Tools and materials are
bought in quantity by the office, distributed as may be needed, and
a careful stock account is kept of everything. All bills to be paid
by the Commission must be approved by the Engineer Inspector and
the Assistant Engineer in charge of the Maintenance Division before
being approved by the Chief Engineer. The Engineer Inspectors
are also required to inspect and report frequently on the mainte-
nance of the State aid roads.
In the case of extraordinary repairs, such, for instance, as in the
case of large washouts (and in the instances of reconstruction already
referred to), oiling, etc., a special temporary crew is sent to the road
by the Assistant Engineer of Maintenance with a foreman or in-
. spector, or both if necessary, in charge and such work is done inde-
pendently of the patrol system. At present, nine foremen, nine in-
spectors and nearly 50 patrolmen are employed, though these figures
are constantly varying somewhat according to circumstances.
Of the 168.14 miles of accepted State roads, 140 miles have been
pitched with a variety of oils, tars, asphalts, etc. The cost of so
doing has varied between 2c. and 9c. per square yard or from $150
Reports of the State Roads Commission 103
to $700 per mile. The cost per mile per year of siicli treatment
cannot at present be stated except in a very few cases, because of the
at present undetermined life of the treatment. It will, of course,
vary in the case of similar materials exposed to differing conditions
of soil, traflBc, etc. Reduction of these costs can probably be se-
cured by improvement of the equipment used in this work. Tables
are submitted giving much detailed information concerning the fore-
going in more concise form than could be given in the text (see
tablesM, O, P, S and T).
In connection with this subject of maintenance, two further im-
portant problems should be called to the attention of your Board.
The first is the matter of damages to your roads by unusual traffic
or agencies. Section 32-E, Chapter 141, Acts of 1908, gives among
other powers "complete control" over the State road system to your
Commission. Your Board June 11th, 1910, on recommendation
of the Chief Engineer and Counsel passed the following resolution
or order:
"No traction engine or other engine propelled by its own power shall be
operated upon any improved State Road, or section thereof, except such as
have wheels, with smooth surfaces and greater than four inches in width;
provided, that the above regulation shall not apply to automobiles or other
pleasure vehicles.
"Any person violating the provisions of this notice will be prosecuted
under the provisions of Chapter 501 of the Acts of the General Assembly
of Maryland of 1910."
Many of the traction engines used through the State have wheels
equipped with various devices to prevent slipping. The front pair
of wheels is frequently provided vnih a sharp high ridge circum-
ferentially around the tire which seriously penetrates or disturbs
(he road surface. The rear wheels are generally supplied with cleats
of some kind fastened to the outside of their tires. If, as frequently
happens, these cleats are thick and sharp-edged, their effect on the
road surface under the weight of the machine often exceeding ten
tons, may be readily imagined. Sometimes these cleats are in the
form of angle irons and present a cutting edge twelve to eighteen
inches long by i/^-inch wide and two inches deep.
The necessity for controlling the use of your new roads by such
surface destroying devices is such that positive action by your Board
seems unavoidable, if proper regard for the maintenance of your
roads and economy in such maintenance is to be had.
104 FiEST, Second, Thied and Foueth
So far all instances of the violation of your order above quoted
coming to the knowledge of this Department have been promptly re-
ported to your Board, which action seems to complete the duty of
this Department in the matter.
The second problem to be brought to your attention is that of the
entrance by various parties within the limits of your roads for
physical work of their own. In general all of the minor instances
of such work have been covered by permits from your Board and buc
little ground for complaint has been afforded. A major instance,
however, affording a good example of what may be a very serious
proposition may be cited as follows :
The Washington Spa Spring and 'Gretta Electric Eailway Com-
pany desired to extend their tracks from the District of Columbia
line northeasterly along the Baltimore-Washington Road to Bladens-
burg, a distance of a little over a mile. Their charter permitted
such construction, but under the various acts your prescription of
certain details of construction was necessary. This section of the
Baltimore-Washington Road had been improved under the State
Aid Law in 1905-6, and was in good condition.
The application of the Railway Company was referred to your
Chief Engineer for a report. He recommended that granting of the
permit be based on certain conditions as to location, grades, etc.
Your Board approved his recommendations and granted a permit
with such conditions as a part of it. The Railway Company there-
upon performed their construction ignoring in almost every detail
llie conditions of the permit. Their action was reported to your
Board by your Chief Engineer and your Board personally at dif-
ferent times has inspected the results. As yet, however, no action
resulting in a remedying of the obnoxious conditions so caused has
been taken by your Board. The existing conditions of this section
nf an important road is a nuisance, if not a danger, to the traveling
public and must occasion, if nothing worse, severe criticism of the
road authorities responsible for this road. It is the judgment of your
Chief Engineer that the existing condition should be remedied at
once even if the expense now of so doing is large.
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
PLATE VIII
Repokts of the State Roads CoMMissioisr 105
BlTTTMINOUS WOEK.
When your Commission first commenced its construction, there
was apparently but little necessity for the adoption of the more ex-
pensive types of surfacing, such, for instance, as those built with
the addition of bitumen or "pitch." Later, when construction was
begun adjacent to the larger cities, it was evident that such forms of
construction would have to be provided in many cases. As the
earlier work became complete and subject to motor traflfic, it also
became evident that the use of pitch, in some form or other, would
be necessitated in the maintenance work on these sections.
Fortunately your Chief Engineer, for some years previously, had
devoted considerable attention to the use of bituminous materials
in road constructions and maintenance and under the State Aid
Law, some important work along this line had been done.
Bituminous road work is a- modern development for meeting both
the actual needs under modern traffic and the desires of modern civi-
lization for greater efficiency, comfort, satisfaction and better sani-
tary conditions. The advent of the motor vehicle has greatly
changed the conditions under which a road formerly existed. Good
roads are in greater demand, owing to the greater radius of action
of the automobile. Smoother roads with more even surface are
more desired because of the sensitiveness at its greater speeds to
what have been considered in the past slight inequalities of road
surface. More cementitious surfaces are needed, due to its ability
to destroy the bond of the original stone surface, to cause internal
friction and wear on the pieces of stone forming the road crust, and
t*"- render the road itself more susceptible to the elements. Further,
the fine material which formerly laid on a good road surface, and
which, when not too thick, was not seriously objectionable, but in-
deed was of some actual value in the protection which it afforded
the stones composing the road, has been generally raised by the
motor, so extensively in fact, that under present conditions, there is
DO question but what the disadvantages, discomforts and unhealth-
fulness of this dust far outweigh any good it may formerly have
possessed. It apparently has never been suggested that a remedy
for this state of affairs is the abolition of the motor vehicle. On tho
contrary, their increase in numbers and their development for all
sorts of purposes seems to be inevitable and probably fortunate.
106 FiKST, Second, Thikd axd Fourth
The remedy therefore seems to be to cure the defects of the road.
It can readily be seen that Avith the variety of conditions prevailing
in each case, there is no one best way nor one best material. The
decision as to method or material to be used depend in each case
upon condition of traffic, availability of materials, desires of tho
locality and probable changes in conditions during the life of the
v>'ork decided on to be done. The clear recognition of this fact is
important for good work and economy.
From continued observation and experience, there is little ques-
tion but that a road used by not less than 20 motor vehicles every
24 hours should be treated with bitumen either during or immedi-
ately after the construction of the surface with gravel, shells or
broken stone, if economy and satisfactory maintenance are to bo
had. This treatment may also be justified for other reasons.
There may be said to be three ways in which a road surface may
be treated with bituminous material. These are: The mixing
method, the penetration method, and the method of surface appli-
cations after construction in the ordinary manner.
The choice of these methods depends, as before stated, upon con-
ditions. Such choice may be largely affected by traffic conditions,
but it is not yet clearly established just what amount of traffic
justifies a selection of one method instead of the other. Generally,
however, the choice is largely affected by other considerations, such
as comfort, health and satisfaction to the users or abutters. In
making the choice, it is well to be on the safe side from all thes'3
view points. It is almost inevitable that once a road is well im-
proved, traffic will be greatly increased over the previous records of
the same, and apparent extravagance in the choice at first may often
prove to be true economy later. The foregoing applies to construc-
tion or to reconstruction or the repairs to a road that has deteriorated
beyond the point where a surface treatment alone can be safely ex-
pected to relieve the needs. It may be well to remark here that,
in the opinion of the writer, reconstruction is often attempted
when a thorough surface treatment is all that is required, and it is
believed that in the near future, the use of proper surface treatment
will be far wider and of gi-eater satisfaction than has been the case
np to the present time.
Reports of the State Koads Commission 107
The mixing method, as the term is generally understood, consists
of mixing with the mineral material, composing the wearing course
of the road, a sufficient amount of bituminous cement. The sheet
asphalt pavement is properly an example of the use of bituminous
material bj the mixing method, though it is usually placed in a
class by itself.
The mixing is usually done at a plant off the roadway itself, and
often some distance from the site of the work. The materials may
be mixed either hot, or at normal temperatures of either or both ac-
cording to the method and materials employed, and by hand or by
machinery for the purpose as desired. If sufficient work is to be
done to justify the investment, proper machinery will permit econ-
omy in the performance of the work, but unless such is the case, the
rental or depreciation with interest charges, will be considerable per
square yard of finished pavement.
The mixed material is then taken to its place, spread on the road,
rolled and frequently then given a flush coat of bitumen and grit
(stone chips) and again rolled.
Satisfactory results from this method cost from 30c. to $1.80 per
square yard of surfacing over and above what would have been the
cost of ordinary water bound surfacing under the same conditions.
The mixing method can produce great uniformity of surface, and
of composition of the same, high value of surface for the materials
used, economy in the use of materials, long life of surface, and econ-
omy in maintenance. It has been widely used, but there is grave
doubt that such use has always been the economical method to have
followed, and there are a number of instances of utter failure in its
use.
The mixing method, although covered by the specifications of
your Board, has not been used on any of your work. Bids under it
were received for the improvement of the sections of Garrison Ave-
nue and the Harford Road within the limits of Baltimore City.
Although the prices named by the bidders were lower than any yet
made for such work within the City, your Board rejected these
bids and awarded the contracts in these cases for sheet asphalt and
brick pavements, respectively, it is understood, at the request of the
City authorities. There have been as yet no other cases in your
work where it seemed advisable to even ask for bids on this form of
surface.
108 ■ TiEST, Second, Third and Fourth
The penetration method consists of simply applying a coat of pitch
to the wearing course of the road just before the binding of this
course by gritting, watering and rolling, as usually practiced in
modern water bound work. After this application, the pitch is
coated with grit and the road again thoroughly rolled, when it may
be opened to traffic. The pitch may be applied cold, if properly pre-
pared, though it is usually used hot.
The cost of penetration work varies between 10c. and 60c. per
square yard above the cost of water bound work under the same
conditions, according to method, materials and quantity of pitch
used.
The penetration method may not generally produce as smooth and
uniform a surface as is possible under the mixing method, but ap-
parently it can be made to produce a surface of sufficient uniformity
and evenness to fully satisfy the conditions of many localities. It
seems to have, further, an advantage over the mixing method of
economy in the first cost and perhaps in the long run, of simplicity
of operation, and of the avoidance of complicated and expensive ma-
chinery, and in the matter of freedom from interference by patent
infringement claims. Such interference by certain patentees of their
so-called rights has materially increased the cost of pavements built
by the mixing method in many places. Failures can, and may, oc-
cur at almost any time under the penetration method, unless trained
men are in charge of this work.
One of the best examples, in this country, if not in the world, of
penetration work is the Gi/o. miles of Park Heights! Avenue running
from the City limits to Green Spring Valley, and built under the
State Aid law in 1909 and 1910. In a sense, it is an experimental
piece of work, in that advantage was taken of the opportunity to
vary the materials and the quantities of each for the purpose of ar-
riving at conclusions as to desirable figures and characteristics under
•known conditions. (See Plate V, Fig. 2, and VI, Figs. 1 and 2).
The following pieces of penetration work have been constructed
imder the State Aid and State road laws during the past four years :
The Salisbury-Tony Tank Road in Wicomico County (% mile)
(see Plate VII) ; the Baltimore-Washington Road, through Morrell
Park (1/2 mile) ; the Belair Road, City limits northerly (11^ miles) ;
the Harford Road, City limits to Taylor Avenue (3 miles) ; the
Reports of the State Eoads Commission 109
Liberty Road, City limits westerly (1 mile) ; the Philadelphia Road,
City limits to Herring Run (2 miles) ; the Westport Road, southerly
from Westport (11/2 miles). The Falls Road, between Hillside
Station and Court McSherry Gate near Mt. Washington, a distance
of 1% miles is now under construction by this method. Two sec-
tions of the Annapolis Boulevard so-called — one adjacent to Ann-
apolis of about 3 miles, and one running southerly from Glenburnie
for about 5 miles, have also been built by this method, although the
latter section has not yet been accepted from the contractors as
completed. The cost of the foregoing work has been between 20c.
and 40c. per square yard over and above what would have been the
cost for ordinary water bound macadam on the same roads, but the
actual cost has been somewhat increased by the peculiar conditions
as to weather, and periods of the year in which the work was done.
Tt should be possible to keep this figure, in almost all cases, within
?0c. above the cost of water bound macadam. Apparently this work
lias been a successful solution of the problems presented in these
cases, although it is impossible to say, at this relatively early date
after the completion of this work, what the final outcome from the
standpoint of economy in the long run will be.
The third method, that of surface treatments, is only applicable
to road surface already finished under other methods, usually to old
cr noAv water bound work. Generally, the method consists of clean-
ing the old surface to be treated, so that it shall be free from all fine
material and refuse, often washing it with water, if this happens to
be necessary. After such cleaning, and when dry and warm as
practicable, the surface receives the application of pitch which is
allowed to soak into the surface for such a time as the material used
may demand, and then a covering of grit is applied and rolled.
Another application of pitch and diips may be repeated immediately,
or after an interval, as may be necessary. Sometimes two or more
applications of pitch and chips are needed for satisfactory results,
and the interval between the applications may vary from a day or
Fo to a year or more, depending on local conditions. The pitch may
be spread by hand or machinery as convenient, and either cold or
liot as its character may permit. In your work, but little machinery
has been available for this purpose and the large majority of pitch
so used has been spread cold by hand.
110 First, Second, Thied and Foueth
The cost of surface treatments varies from 5c. to as liigh as 20c.
per square yard. The advantages of this method include simplicity
of work, economy in first cost, lack of serious interruption to the
users of the road, and ease of repairs and of renewal. Unquestion-
ably satisfactory results have been secured by the method of surface
treatments, and the writer believes this method offers an easy and
economical way for the revivifying of a road otherwise about to need
resurfacing at a far greater cost under the old water bound methods,
or under either of the two other methods of employing pitch. (See
Plates VIII, IX, XI and XII).
The general statement may be made here that the results from a
surface treatment vary proportionally with the quality of the sur-
face being so treated. It is more of a maintenance or repair than :i
construction method.
The earlier success of the mixing method and the consequent at-
tracting of attention to this method induced a rush into it by many
]'oad authorities, who seemed to believe it a panacea for all the road
ills with which they were familiar. A little later its extravagance
iu many cases became apparent and the penetration method received
many followers. Still later, the unnecessary expense of even this
method became apparent from many causes, and the method of sur-
face treatment developed. Unquestionably each method has its
uses, and the proper selection of the one for a particular case is the
end to be aimed at. The sphere of action of each is merged with,
or overlapped by those of the others, and it may be that they can
never be clearly separated.
In each of the methods referred to, a variety of materials may be
used. At the present time, except possibly in the case of certain
asphalts used for pavement work, the critical characteristics of a
bituminous material that ensure its being satisfactory in use under
any definite method or conditions are not settled. Gradually experi-
ence with them is clearing up the problem, but it is likely to be
some time yet, owing to the variety of the new forms now available
and yearly coming out before definite knowledge will be had. All
that can be said now is that certain materials will generally give good
results. Many materials will be satisfactory when properly used.
Some are extremely limited in their application and some are prac-
tically worthless.
Reports of the State Eoads Commissioit 111
The work of your Board has embraced the use of surface treat-
ments on over 163 miles of road. This treatment has been applied
to the Baltimore- Washington Road for the whole of its improved
length, and on 23 miles of the State road system. Some of the
State aid roads, such, for instance, as the Falls Road between Mt.
Washington and Brooklandville, in Baltimore County, have also been
similarly treated. For the details of this work, reference should be
had to the tables submitted herewith. (See Tables P, S and T).
It is impossible to report more definitely than above on results at
this time. There have been some failures, but they have been rela-
tively few. The yearly cost cannot be given because it is yet too
early in most cases to estimate, with any accuracy, concerning the
length of life of the work done. ' These are matters for a subsequent
report.
In the foregoing the main consideration has been the use of
bitumens or pitches in connection with ordinary road materials, and
may seem to have been all employed toward improving what would,
in many cases, have been a fair road, or, under earlier conditions,
have been an excellent road.
There is, however, another large consideration for the wider use
of bituminous materials in road work. By such use, many ma-
terials, otherwise unfit for road surfaces, such, for instance, as the
sand stones, granites, etc., without binding powers, may be most
satisfactorily availed of in many cases to great advantage. An ex-
periment on this line is now being made by your Board in its work
from the Allegany County line westerly on the old ISTational Pike.
Plenty of soft sand stone is here available, but it is so soft that it
will hardly bear rolling enough to put it in place. The cost of im-
porting suitable stone would be enormous. It is hoped that a satis-
factory road may be built by the use of this sand stone, supplemented
by a treatment with pitch.
Also by the use of bituminous materials, it has been found that
oyster shells, marl, and even loose sand, can be made to cheaply
form a road surface that will be both highly satisfactory and most
economical in a great many instances. One of the best-looking pieces
of your work in the State to date, and one that is apparently proving
most satisfactory, is a section of oyster shell road between East jSTew
Market and Mt. Holly in Dorchester County, which has received a
112 TiEST, Second, Third and Toukth
surface treatment of pitch. (See Plate XII). The dust and the
deficiencies in the wearing qualities of the oyster shells used in the
experiment seem to have been most satisfactorily overcome at a
small cost by this carpet of pitch and sand placed over the shells.
Again, what so far seems to be a most satisfactory experiment has
been made in Wicomico County at Sharptown. Here the natural
soil of the road is a loose porous sand. Adjacent to this section, the
contract price per square yard for broken stone macadam was
$1,105. The 2,000 lineal feet of sand road was roughly shaped and
then an application of cold pitch made to it in the quantity of one
gallon per square yard. The pitch and sand were then thoroughly
mixed by cultivating and harrowing, and another application of pitch
made. The road was then again harrowed and a light coating of
stone chips put over the road surface. The road was then rolled and
opened to traffic. Owing to the lateness of the season, it was impos-
sible to more fully complete the work this last fall, and it is expected
that some additional work will have to be done on this section as soon
as the weather in the spring permits. In the meantime, however,
the surface so far obtained has seemed to be most satisfactory to
the travel using it, and it is believed that the final results and cost
will warrant the extension of this process for many miles of the
sandy roads of the State. If so, the cost of the improvement of
your system in these sections will be materially reduced.
Again, another use of pitch in road work may be of great im-
portance. With the development of the motor vehicle and with the
march of road improvement come the increase of loads carried over
the roads and greater strain on the foundations of the latter. Many
engineers are advocating the wider use of cement concrete for
foundation courses of the roads in order to meet these heavier strains
thereon. So far the use of such concrete for the road surface itself
has not been entirely satisfactory, owing to its tendency to crack,
and to the difficulties of remedying defects as they appear. It is
quite possible that by the use of a relatively light and cheap carpet
of pitch and stone chips on this surface, these defects of the cement
concrete will be satisfactorily overcome. If so, a large avenue is
opened for progress toward satisfaction and economy. It is evident
that, in the near future, your Board will have a good opportunity
Reports of the State Eoads Commission 113
to make a reasonable experiment along this latter line, if you so
desire.
Two points further should be made in concluding this subject.
These are (a) the first cost of bituminous roads is not a correct basis
for the proper comparison of other materials or methods. Desirable,
and even satisfactory, as such roads may be, they require maintenance
like all other roads.
(b) This maintenance means expense, even though reduced from
earlier figures for such work, and such maintenance should be, with
bituminous roads as well as with any others, prompt, efficient and
sufficient.
114 First, Secoxd, Third aa'd Fourth
Costs.
Because of the confused condition of the records kept by your
Commission concerning its expenditures and of the segregation of
the latter, it was at first impracticable for the Chief Engineer to in-
clude with the foregoing portion of his Report any tables or definite
statements as to costs of construction. JSTow, however, that the Ac-
countants employed for the purpose have completed their work of
properly posting and, with the aid of the Chief Engineer, segregating,
all the expenditures of the Commission to December 31st, 1911, this
is possible. With the Accountants' figures as a basis, the follow-
ing statements as to "Cost" are respectfully submitted by your Chief
Engineer in accordance with the directions of your Commission.
Your Commission, in the Act of 1908, was "charged with the full
duties to select, construct, improve, and maintain such a general sys-
tem of improved State roads and highways," as could "reasonably
be expected to be completed with the funds" provided in said Act
($5,000,000). The Act of 1910 providing for another loan of
$1,000,000 did not materially increase your resources for the pur-
pose expressed above because provision for certain definite objects
(the Baltimore- Annapolis Road and the inter-county bridges) prac-
tically occupied the proceeds of these new bonds.
Your Commission, at its public hearings in 1908 and 1909, having
been urged to adopt for building, improvement and maintenance, by
the State nearly 2,600 miles of road, finally selected about one-half
of this mileage as its system. Your Chief Engineer advised your
Board that not over one-half the mileage selected could "reasonably
be expected to be completed with the funds provided," but a ma-
jority of your Board decided upon the selection of a system of 1,285
miles (1,227 miles in the counties and 58 miles in the incorporated
towns of the State), which to complete will probably cost not less
than $15,000,000. This action, unless hereafter abridged, commits
the State to the expenditure of three times the amount originally
contemplated by the Act of 1908.
It was possible to reduce the outlay for a complete general system
outside of Baltimore City, "in and through all the counties of the
State" and connecting all the County seats with Baltimore City, to
a cost probably within $10,000,000 by omitting from the system as
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
^H
F'
('-'
^^^iji^
M
^"^"^
;■" ■
i
(
''^ - -- '-7 — \r^
^-«
HL
-^*^^^^
^j-
■ '
^r
^^^m
K^-
/
•?!F'SlM
'^A^\»^
^fli
r*xM
..-
^
W t> *g|j
f^J
>-.^
^i
1
'!/;'* !:-»«
^'^
P
a8
'^wt: ' (
^
■
-><
W
/
r
n
iriwM^i,
•"smummt
%-l
2 ■ .
5 <
S <
Kepokts of the State Roads Commission 115
it now stands the supplementary, branch, or unnecessary portions
aggregating about 480 miles.
It would now, however, be difficult, if not impracticable, to reduce
the total cost below $10,000,000 because outlying sections of the
larger system have already been built and need connection with the
main system ; because turnpikes have been purchased, and subsequent
legislation has added to: your charges or prevented some of such
curtailment on your part.
There remains at least, however, the opportunity for your Board
without impairment to the general system of State Roads originally
contemplated, to postpone the investment by the State of about
$5,000,000, until such time as the people of the State shall deem it
wise to provide this amount, by confining your work in the immediate
future to the filling in of the gaps in the main system, now aggre-
gating 400 miles whose cost will approximate $5,000,000. When
these gaps shall have been thus obliterated and the main system thus
completed, it can probably then be clearly determined how much
more of an investment by the State is warranted along the lines
selected.
The foregoing financial figures are furnished from the basis of
your Chief Engineer's experiences and records. Lest they may
seem to be based on an excessive estimate of the average cost per mile
proper for your work, tables prepared by your Accountants and
Chief Engineer jointly, are submitted (pp. 117 and 118) as a record
of the financial facts concerning this work.
The idea has been held by some members of your Board, as well
as by many citizens of the State, that extravagant views of your en-
gineers as to what was desirable in the way of grading, bridging,
draining and surfacing on the roads were responsible for the cost of
the modern road work in the State being double the figure estimated
as projDer by those members or citizens. Consequently, before any
contracts were let by your Board, you created a committee from your
membership by whom all the plans prepared by the Engineering De-
partment were to be criticized and approved before the details to be
done on any section of your system were decided upon. Your Chair-
man headed this committee and during all your operations to date,
all plans for the work have borne the approval of this committee
through its Chairman. The Engineering Department made the sur-
veys, prepared the plans and submitted its recommendations. The
116 FiEST, Second, Third and Fourth
Chairman personally inspected the site of the proposed work, ordered
such changes in the plans and approved or disapproved the Engi-
neer's recommendations as he determined best, and thereupon the
work was begun. In the earliest instances, such changes were made
by your committee in the plans as seemed in many cases to necessitate
the record of a protest from your Chief Engineer, but as your work
has proceeded changes in the plans, or failures to adopt the recom-
mendations of your Engineering Department have decreased in num-
ber and extent.
In several cases, notably in Cecil and Montgomery counties, some
work was attempted by individuals from your Board with the ex-
pressed idea of accomplishing satisfactory results at considerably
less expense than would be incurred on the official plans by contracts.
Plans and estimates had been prepared in the regular way by the
Engineering Department and these plans, with all other information
in the possession of this Department, were by order of your Board
turned over to Messrs. Tucker and Hutton, who thereupon proceeded
with their work, as authorized by your Board, according to their own
individual views.
Your Board made a similar arrangement with the County Com-
missioners and Road Superintendent of Montgomery County. It
was ordered by your Board that, except for the necessary recording
of facts connected with them, no interference by or connection with
your engineers should prevail on these works.
The following table will show briefly the financial results in these
cases and enable a comparison to be made between the costs per mile
of work done by the Maryland Geological and Economic Survey
under the administration of an engineer; the costs of work done by
your Commission under your administration and by contract; and
the costs of work done under your administration but by your mem-
bers or agents without the interference of your engineers :
Reports of the State Roads Commission
117
TABLE X.
Description
Average Expenditures per mile in Construction
Under
Contracts
Allegany County :
M. G. (&E. S
S. R. C
Anne Arundel County :
M. G. &E. S
S.R. C
Baltimore County:
M. G. &E. S
S.R. C
Baltimore City :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Calvert County:
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Caroline County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Carroll County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Cecil County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Charles County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R.C
Dorchester County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Frederick County:
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Garrett County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Harford County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Howard County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Kent County :
M. G. & E. S
S. R. C
Montgomery County:
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Prince George's County:
M. G. &E. S :.
S. R. C
Under
Ordinary
Force
Account
Under
Extraordi-
nary Force
Account*
12,289 87 1
13,231 13$ 14,343 60
9,580 69
3,262 42 Grading only.
10,172 45
22,597 76
71,263 84
3,232 37
5,686 33
12,156 15 17,734 76
8,438 94 ,
9,747 79 15,032 16
8,649 04 !
8,488 95 [$15,878 34
Grading only.
6,93185,
6,910 28,
3,674 39 I
9,223 09 8,701 03
7,810 47
9,747 79
11,106 39,
7,737 81:,
10,579 51.
15,038 80 .
11,590 15 ,
14,605 86
10,147 701.
9,158 36;.
9,747 79.
10,817 27
7,788 24.
9,091 49 .
*Not under supervision of Engineering Department.
118
First, Second, Third and Fourth
TABLE X— Continued.
Description
Average Expenditures per mile in Construction.
Under
Contracts
Under
Ordinary
Force
Account
Under
Extraordi-
nary Force
Account
Queen Anne's County:
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
St. Mary's County:
M. G. &E. S
S. E. C
Somerset County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Talbot County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Washington County :
M. G. &E. S
S. R. C
Wicomico County :
M. G. & E. S
S. R. C
Worcester County :
M. G. & E. S
S. R. C
$ 12,018 50
General Average S. R. C .
General Average M. G. S .
General Average S. R. C.
&M. G. S
3,290 79
11,50-1 93
8,449 44
11,667 42$ 17,456 20
4,559 59
13,009 12
4,437 30
6,968 69
7,433 12
8,794 20
8,893 44
10,415 46
16,025 00
10,498 77
8,567 57
10,319 53
8,878 87
$9,650 05
Gradiug only.
Macadam and Grading.
Average of the two
above items.
$12,026 161 $14,218 08
iN'aturallj another comparison is frequently made, — that between
the costs of Maryland work and the costs of similar work elsewhere.
This comparison is a difficult one to make fairly and the obstacles
in the way of a fair comparison seem, only too frequently, to be al-
most insurmountable. Many authors of statements in this regard
have seemed either to prefer to state unfair conclusions or to have
been unable to overcome, to the extent necessary for perfect fairness
to both sides, the obstacles in their way. For instance, the successful
construction of "sand-clay" roads in ITorth Carolina at a reported
average first cost per mile of, say, $1,000, has, in the minds of some,
utterly condemned your work costing five or ten times this amount.
And the satisfactory construction, with pit-gravel, of roads in New
Jersey and around Savannah, Georgia, at a reported average first
Kepoets of the State Roads Commission 119
cost of $2,500 per mile has produced the same effect in the minds of
raanj others. But a fair comparison might present, to many of the
same parties, a different aspect were all the conditions prevailing in
each case more fully known and stated. Again it will probably be
quite generally admitted that it would be unfair to condemn the road
work of the States of ISTew York and Pennsylvania simply because
the statistical reports of those States show the average first cost of
their work to run as high as ten to twelve thousand dollars per mile.
The facts are (a) That reported "first costs" even when carefully
and accurately made are not satisfactory bases for comparisons of
the value of the results secured.
(b) That even when so made, they are at present seldom, if ever,
compiled along the same lines.
(c) That local conditions of soil, climate, topography, etc., enter
so largely into the problem that unless a great deal is known about
each and every one of these points, it is practically impossible for
even the experienced student of such matters to make a fair compari-
son of costs and results.
(d) That anything like a fair comparison can only be made after
careful study of all the elements of the problem and then only after
the further thorough consideration of traffic conditions and the ex-
penditures for maintenance over a period of not less than five years.
It may be admitted therefore that the point made by the writer,
regarding the general incorrectness of drawing comparisons from
reported "first costs," is well taken. However, there is properly a
great deal of interest in what are the "first costs" in any case and ac-
curate "first costs" are absolutely necessary to a further study of the
subject.
But most of the reported "first costs" of road work by in-
dividual States are useless for comparison, except possibly in the
headquarters of each State respectively, because of the absolute lack
of general uniformity in their compilation. Up to the present time,
while a great deal has been published concerning the recording of
cost data both on the work in the field and in the office files or books,
but little, if anything, appears to have been agreed upon or even
stated, after careful study, concerning the compilation of this data
into such statement of facts that a fair comparison may follow. Even
in a single locality, costs are found to be compiled generally in as
many waj's as there exist methods of performing the work.
120 First, Secoxd, Third and Fourth
For instance, in some statements of costs, the salaries of the in-
spectors on the work are charged to "Construction costs," in others
to "Engineering."
Some Highway Authorities report the cost of "Supervision" as
from 2 to 5 per cent, of the cost of construction, but the certainty
that in many such cases these Highway Authorities are not excep-
tionally efficient in either their work or their management of it
renders it beyond question that this low figure for supervision is
due to an unusual method of arriving at the segregation of expense
recorded. Some Highway Authorities receive funds for engineering
and construction and separate funds for administration and head-
quarters' expenses. Frequently the reports of these latter Boards
show no consideration of the latter fund in their reports of costs — a
manifestly unfair and confusing statement of the facts of the case.
Again, in the matter of Construction itself, a confusing variety of
systems exists. If work is done by a contract, the unit cost on each
item is the unit price of the "lowest responsible bidder" therefor,
and it may be assumed, for the purposes of this discussion that the
bid is, as it should be, a "balanced" one. This price must include
consideration of depreciation of plant required for the work of the
item, "overhead charges" for administration, and profit to the con-
tractor. ISTow, only too often have engineers deceived, not only
others but also themselves apparently, by drawing comparisons be-
tween such "prices" and "costs of contemporaneous force account"
work done under similar conditions of locality and supervision when
the recorded "costs" are found to contain no such allowances as
above mentioned.
There are many cases where costs have been compiled on different
bases and reported in the cases of similar work done "under force
account." On one, the machinery may have been owned by the de-
partment and on the other, rented. In the former case, no deprecia-
tion nor rental has been charged into the costs; on the other, the
actual hire paid is included. Further, there occurs frequent varia-
tion between the percentages of depreciation when allowed.
With a view not only of establishing a uniform system of com-
piling the records of expense in your work but also with the hope of
suggesting a system which will appeal strongly for general adoption
and when so adopted will enable comparisons of costs to be made
with confidence, your Accountants and your Chief Engineer have
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
Kepoets of the State Roads Commission 121
carefully studied the problem and devised the following system ac-
cording to which the expenditures of your Commission may be most
satisfactorily classified :
STATE ROADS COMMISSION.
CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURES.
GENERAL ACCOUNTS.
A— ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL.
B— ENGINEERING.
C— PRELIMINARY SURVEYS AND PLANS.
D— CONSTRUCTION.
E— RECONSTRUCTION.
F— MAINTENANCE.
G— EQUIPMENT.
PRIMARY ACCOUNTS.
A— ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL.
1— COMMISSION SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
2— COMMISSION— SECRETARY'S AND OFFICE EMPLOYEES' SAL-
ARIES.
3— COMMISSION— OFFICE EXPENSES.
4— COUNSEL'S SALARY, FEES AND EXPENSES.
B— ENGINEERING— GENERAL.
101— ENGINEER'S SALARY AND EXPENSES.
102— OFFICE EMPLOYEES— SALARIES.
103— OFFICE EXPENSES.
104— SHOP LABOR AND MATERIAL.
105— TESTS AND INVESTIGATIONS.
ENGINEERING— PRELIMINARY AND CONSTRUCTION.
110— ENGINEERS' SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
Ill— ENGINEER INSPECTORS' SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
112— OFFICE EMPLOYEES' SALARIES.
113— OFFICE EXPENSES.
ENGINEERING— MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION.
120— ENGINEERS' SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
121— ENGINEER INSPECTORS' SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
122— OFFICE EMPLOYEES' SALARIES.
123— OFFICE EXPENSES.
C— PRELIMINARY SURVEYS AND PLANS.
201— SURVEY PARTIES.
202— DRAFTSMEN.
D— CONSTRUCTION.
301— RIGHTS OF WAY AND DAMAGES.
302— GRADING.
303— SURFACING.
304— BRIDGES AND CULVERTS.
3 C 5— DRAINS.
306— ADVERTISING.
307— INSPECTION.
308— SUPERINTENDENCE.
S09— FINAL SURVEYS, ESTIMATES AND PLANS.
310— MISCELLANEOUS.
122 FiKST, Second, Thied and Foueth
E— RECONSTRUCTION.
401— LABOR AXD MATERIALS.
402— TEAM HIRE AND USE OF EQUIPMENT.
403— SUPERIXTEXDENCE.
404— INSPECTION.
F— MAINTENANCE.
r.01— LABOR.
502— MATERIALS,
503— TEAM HIRE ANTD USE OF EQUIPMENT.
504— SUPERINTENDENCE.
505— INSPECTION.
G — EQUIPMENT.
601— EXPENSE FOR.
602— TRANSPORTATION.
fi03— RENE\\aLS and DEPRECIATION.
604— SALARIES OF MEN IN CHARGE OF, LABOR, etc.
STATE ROADS COMMISSION.
ENTERING RULES FOR EXPENDITURES IN PRIMARY ACCOUNTS.
A— ADMINISTRATION AND LEGAL.
1— COMMISSION SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the salaries paid to members of the Com-
mission. Also all expenses of members of the Commission when engaged on
the work of the Commission, such as railway fares, team and automobile
hire, subsistence and incidental expenses.
2— COMMISSION— SECRETARY'S AND OFFICE EMPLOYEES' SALARIES.
To this account should be charged all the salaries of the Secretary of the
Commission and of all book-keepers, clerks, stenographers and oflBce boys in
the employ of the Commission in its main ofBce.
3— COMMISSION— OFFICE EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged all office expenses of the Commission,
such as rents, telegrams, telephones, postage, messengers, books, typewriters,
adding machines, stationery and office supplies.
4— COUNSEL'S SALARY, FEES, AND EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the salary of the Counsel, and such fees
as are necessary to be paid other attorneys in the legal proceedings of the
Commission which, from their nature, cannot be charged direct to a par-
ticular road or county. Also the traveling, subsistence and other incidental
expenses of counsel when engaged on business of the Commission.
B— ENGINEERING.
GENERAL.
101— ENGINEER'S SALARY AND EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the salary of the Chief Engineer and
his traveling, subsistence and incidental expenses when engaged on the busi-
ness of the Commission.
302— OFFICE EMPLOYEES— EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the salaries of the Chief Engineer's
Secretary, clerks, stenographers and office boys.
Reports of the State Roads Commission 123
103— OFFICE EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the office expenses of the Chief En-
gineer, such as rent, telegrams, telephones, postage, messengers, books, type-
writers, adding machines, stakes, instruments, stationery and office supplies.
104— SHOP LABOR AND MATERIAL.
To this account should be charged the labor and material used in the shop
operated under the direction of the Chief Engineer.
105— TESTS AND INVESTIGATIONS.
To this account should be charged the cost of the time of chemists,
physicists, or others engaged under the direction of the Chief Engineer in
conducting tests and investigations together with the cost of the materials
used in connection therewith.
PRELIMINARY AND CONSTRUCTION.
110— ENGINEERS' SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the salaries and traveling and incidental
expenses of all engineers engaged exclusively on Preliminary or Construction
work. 'At present they consist of those of the Construction Engineer, the
First and Third Assistant Engineers, and the Chief Draftsman.
Ill— ENGINEER INSPECTORS' SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the salaries, subsistence and incidental
expenses of all Engineer Inspectors engaged exclusively on Preliminary and
Constructive work.
112— OFFICE EMPLOYEES' SALARIES.
To this account should be charged the salaries of clerks, stenographers,
office boys, etc., employed in the offices of the Construction Engineer, the
First Assistant Engineer, and the Third Assistant Engineer.
113— OFFICE EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the office expenses of the Construction
and First Assistant Engineers, consisting of telegrams, telephones, books,
typewriters, stationery, and office supplies.
MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION.
120— ENGINEERS' SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the salaries and traveling and incidental
expenses of Engineers engaged exclusively on this class of work. At pres-
ent they would consist of those of the Second Assistant Engineer, and vaca-
tions of inspectors.
121— ENGINEER INSPECTORS' SALARIES AND EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the salaries and traveling and incidental
expenses of all Engineer Inspectors engaged exclusively on Reconstruction
and Maintenance work.
122— OFFICE EMPLOYEES' SALARIES.
To this account should be charged the salaries of clerks, stenographers,
office boys, etc., employed in the office of the Second Assistant Engineer.
123— OFFICE EXPENSES.
To this account should be charged the office expenses of the Second As-
sistant Engineer, consisting of telegrams, telephones, books, typewriters,
stationery and office supplies.
124 FiEST, Second, Thied and Fourth
C— PRELIMINARY.
201— SURVEY PARTIES.
To this account should be charged the salaries and expenses of engineers
and their parties in the field, engaged in surveying and locating proposed
new roads.
202— DRAFTSMEN.
To this account should be charged the salaries of draftsmen engaged in
preparing the plans and drawings for the proposed new roads.
D— CONSTRUCTION.
All construction work should be done under regular contract or force work
orders, which should bear distinctive numbers. An account should be opened
for each such price of work, such accounts to be grouped as to funds from
which paid and counties in which work is located,
SOI— RIGHTS OF WAY AND DAMAGES.
To this account should be charged the cost of land, acquired for right of
way, expenses of appraisals, and of commissioners or arbitrators in con-
demnation proceedings, commissions paid for purchases of additional rights
of way, payments for damages or repairs to abutting property and counsel's
fees and expenses when specifically applicable to the cost of acquiring certain
right of way.
302- GRADING.
To this account should be charged the cost of grading, including the cost
of operating steam shovels, scrapers and grading outfits, the hire of teams
and equipment, a rental for the Commission's equipment used and the cost
of miscellaneous tools and supplies used on the work.
The cost of grading done under contract should be charged this account
from the vouchers in favor of the contractors.
303— SURFACING.
To this account should be charged the cost of all labor employed and ma-
terial used in surfacing, including the cost of operating stone crushers,
spreaders, road rollers, sprinklers and oilers, the hire of teams and equip-
ment, a rental for the Commission's equipment used and the cost of miscel-
laneous tools and supplies used on the work.
The cost of surfacing done under contract should be charged this account
from the vouchers in favor of the contractors.
304— BRIDGES AND CULVERTS.
To this account should be charged the cost of labor employed and material
used in construction of bridges and culverts, including the hire of teams
and equipment, and the cost of miscellaneous tools and supplies used on
the work.
The cost of bridging and culverting done under contract should be
charged this account from the vouchers in favor of the contractors.
305— DRAINS.
To this account should be charged the cost of labor employed and ma-
terial used in construction of under, or V-drains, including the hire of teams
and equipment and the cost of tools and supplies used on the work.
The cost of drain work done under contract should be charged this account
from the vouchers in favor of the contractors.
Reports of the State Roads Commission 125
Z 0 6— AD VERTI S ING.
To this account should be charged the cost of advertising the terms under
which contracts for the work may be let.
307— INSPECTION.
To this account should be charged the salaries and expenses of inspectors
on the work.
308— SUPERINTENDENCE.
To this account should be charged the salaries and expenses of superin-
tendents in charge of work done by the Commission's forces.
309— FINAL SURVEYS AND ESTIMATES AND PLANS.
E— RECONSTRUCTION.
401— LABOR AND MATERIALS.
To this account should be charged the cost of labor employed and ma-
terials used in reconstruction of roads and turnpikes acquired.
402— TEAM HIRE AND USE OF EQUIPMENT.
To this account should be charged the payments for hire of teams and
equipment and a rental for the use of the Commission's equipment on the
work. It should include the labor employed and materials used in operating
and maintaining the equipment in use.
403— SUPERINTENDENCE.
To this account should be charged the salaries and expenses of superin-
tendents and foremen in charge of reconstruction work.
404— INSPECTION.
To this account should be charged the salary and expenses of inspectors
engaged on work of reconstruction.
F— MAINTENANCE.
501— LABOR.
To this account should be charged the cost of labor employed in maintain-
ing existing roads.
502— MATERIALS.
To this account should be charged the cost of materials used in the main-
tenance of existing roads,
503— TEAM HIRE AND USE OP EQUIPMENT.
To this account should be charged payments for use of teams and equip-
ment in the maintenance of existing roads together with a rental for the
use of the Commission's equipment so used.
504— SUPERINTENDENCE.
To this account should be charged the salaries and expenses of superin-
tendents and foremen engaged on maintenance work.
505— INSPECTION.
126 First, Secois"d, Third ats^d Fourth
G— EQUIPMENT.
To this account should be charged the purchase price of all equipment
which may have a substantial value after it has been used on any particu-
lar piece of work, such as road rollers, crushers, scrapers, graders, sprinklers,
horses and wagons, auto trucks, etc. Small tools and other equipment which
quickly wear out or become valueless should be charged to the work for
which purchased at the time of purchase and upon the completion of such
work should be appraised and credited to it.
The Commission's equipment should be inventoried and numbered, and
a proper record kept thereof. Charges for the use of the equipment should
be made against the work on which it is epiployed, the credits for which
may be carried in a "Depreciation Reserve" account.
RULES FOR DISTRIBUTION OF GENERAL ACCOUNTS.
The monthly total of the engineering expenses (accounts 110 to 113, in-
clusive), specifically applicable to Preliminary and Construction work, should
be charged to Construction Preliminary and to Construction in proportion
to the total amounts charged direct to those accounts during the month.
The monthly total of the engineering expenses (accounts 120 to 123, in-
clusive), specifically applicable to Reconstruction and Maintenance, should
be charged to Reconstruction and Maintenance in proportion to the total
amounts charged to those accounts during the month.
The monthly total of Administration and Legal (accounts 1 to 4, inclu-
sive), and of the General Engineering (accounts 101 to 105, inclusive),
expenses should be charged to Construction — Preliminary, Construction, Re-
construction and Maintenance in proportion to the total amounts charged
direct (including the specifically apportioned charges for engineering ex-
penses) to those accounts during the month.
Exception: No part of the overhead charges is to be added to the main-
tenance expenditures made from the allotments of the Motor Vehicle Tax
to Counties for maintenance of State Aid roads.
RULES FOR SEGREGATION OF ITEMS OF WORK DONE,
GRADING.
Under the head of GRADING should be included all excavation, including
ditch, masonry, culvert and bridge excavations, as well as the excavation
covered by the cross sections and from the borrow pits.
CULVERTS AND BRIDGES.
Under the head of CULVERTS AND BRIDGES should be included all
pipes, boxes, as well as culverts and bridges of all kinds used toward the
end of disposing the storm water coming to the road from above or from the
surface of the adjacent lands.
UNDERDRAINS.
Under the head of UNDERDRAINS should be included V-drains, blind
drains, sumps, as well as the standard underdrains, and such other de-
vices as are installed for the purpose of taking care of the ground, or sub-
surface, water.
SURFACING.
Under the head of SURFACING should be included, as well as the
macadam or actual surfacing prescribed in the specifications under such
head, all paved gutters, curbing, concrete or other breakers across the
shoulders, gravel, etc., used for the shoulders, when so used particularly and
independently of the grading expressly for the purpose of improving the
Reports of the State Eoads Commission 127
shoulders, and any material such as sand, cinders or stone dust used as a
layer between the subgrade and the surfacing proper.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Under the head of MISCELLANEOUS will be included only those items
which cannot be reasonably placed in one of the foregoing classifications, and
under the head of REMARKS should be placed an explanation of any mis-
cellaneous item amounting to over $100. Advertising may be placed in
the miscellaneous column. Removing and rebuilding fences should be
charged to right of way when possible. Guard rail for culverts should be
charged to culverts and bridges. Guard rail to protect embankments should
be charged to grading. Rip rap may be placed in the miscellaneous classifi-
cation, but if amounting to more than $50, statement should be so made under
the head of remarks. Catch basins and inlets, as well as storm water sewers
along the road should go under the head of culverts and bridges. Pipes or
ditches across private property as outlets to our culverts should be charged
to right of way whenever practicable.
Preliminary. — This covers the work of the Engineering Depart-
ment in making surveys, plans, calculations, investigations, estimates,
specifications, etc., up to the advertising of the work for bids.
Construction. — This is the work of the Commission or of its forces
in the improvement according to the Preliminary plans, specifica-
tions, etc., of a structure (or the building of a structure de novo) on
or a section of a State Road in the State Road (or State-Aid Road)
System.
Reconstruction, — This covers the rehabilitation, serious repair, re-
building or replacement of old structures on the turnpikes, or State-
Aid Roads, taken over by this Commission for maintenance by it.
Maintenance. — This covers the work of preventing the deteriora-
tion, of repaving, up-keeping, of treating with oil, pitch, etc., and
generally of keeping in satisfactory condition the roads (and
structures on them) under the charge of the Commission.
The classifications referred to above may be explained as follows :
From the foregoing it will be seen that the Cost of your Commis-
sion's work to the State (or of any item in such work), may be had
at any time by applying the recorded figures along the lines of the
chart below. If only the cost of one or more items is desired, of
course only such figures as are shown by the chart to enter into such
cost would be included.
128
First, Second, Third and Fourth
•j; 0) d) g
C/3000
■^ 'O 'O 'U
t^ l^ t- Sh
cd c^ cd c3
EESS
SSE6
0000
0000
P. Ji « C S
■? I" I* 5 ^
5 S X 2 °
&g g s s
'3E5E 2 0!
CO tn cfi m m
^ qj a) Qj ^
bd !ao ho ho b«
C C C C C
WHHWW
«+_( tH 4h ^W «4H
OJ D D Cl> flj
5 X _-
>>*^ 01 •
"5 nl +-• .
I C2 "
TO I 01 .
j: I Ji m
Q 03 QJ OJ
C a> dj dj
WmOO
f2 <11
I "(3
,„• a "S
0) o •
01— bD
■ a =3 "!
^ c S
H 01 ts
£ E £■" «
C 0) q) D S- E
§ 0) OJ
S a cs m
^ c o
■^ C 0)
c oin
Q) S <p S-.
X !_ a; c«
WHKm
Reports of the State Roads Commission
129
WU5»HC0 OiWMOSO ^OJjAOa
lO O (M N CO 00 t- GO iC
^ , ococDOco irsGOO'-'
CO N t™ ■^ CCn-H rH OQ O tr- Ol 00 O
CD WCCW
CO(N t-'<*
CO.-Hr-( ,-( r-l<M
CD M CO O? CO t- 00 »-< O to 1— t 1—1 to lO CO M (M ■^ -^
C-OOi— tCOt-HOOi-HOOOCJ'— ' <MfX)OC0 r-iO'-'CO
C-00i-tC0»-H00i-H00O
C- (M 00 -^ CO CO C- (N O Oi »o in CO
lO lO >-t i-t O t- tr- '^
.-HcococM'-tcrjX'C^J^
i>a50i>odwt>corH
t-<-t m o -^ o^t r-i
(MCDN U3
lOiO'-t'-tOt-tr-'^OOOO <MCOW0O
U5inM O
^ t> t-
iHinOOOCO coo
Tj<t>i-idO ooo
O O OT m '-' CO m o
ww'-tt-'<a« C0050
00 corf coo IfS^lO 00
rHCOCOlAi-H ''T
00 CD -^ O O
t- 00 tr- lO
1-H t-OOT
C4
.-tinoioot-'^oco t-00 ErNcooo
ClTt'i-tCOCMO-^'^OCCCO
iCOtMi-iOtNOOOTf
ag
>,t-0
rt OS ni
.Eai-a<
E^«5
bo .1
C
iX
W
Cm
J
-w^ c
1°°"
C=«oU
Si ■-<
13
c
E
%
s
<
H
4J
iS
C
c
^
o
0 05
u
1)
C
q
tl4
C
e/^co
— go
130 FiEST, Second, Third and Fourth
PRELIMINARY WORK.
It is inevitable that, previous to actual construction, considerable
work be done and expense incurred. Reference is not intended to
the first year's work of the Commission itself in the matter of hear-
ings, studies and selection of routes for your system, etc., but to the
surveying and planning then begun and still carried on sometimes
many months in advance of awarding contracts. ITecessarily sur-
veys must be had, plans worked up, and estimates made before ex-
penditures chargeable to actual construction begin and the cost of
this "Preliminary" work, while ultimately incorporated into the
total cost of an improved section, is temporarily at least outstanding
with no material changes on the road to show for it.
It is therefore necessary to open a "Preliminary" account to care
for such charges and the necessity will be apparent when reference
is had to the statements in Part I (p. 19) showing surveys made on
095 miles of the State Road System while construction has been be-
gun on only 348 of these. The preliminary investigations of the
Commission as a Board are readily chargeable to "Administration."
Concerning the costs in this "Preliminary" work referred to, it
may be stated that the average cost per mile has been unnecessarily
high because of lack of system on the part of your Board or its Chair-
man who, in the main, controlled it. Unnecessary traveling was
done by the survey parties who by special orders from your Chairman
were compelled to retrace their steps when often such repetition
could, by proper foresight and planning, have been avoided. Some
surveys have been ordered, out of consideration for individuals, when
not needed by, and too far in advance of any prospects for subsequent
construction.
In spite of these facts, however, it is believed that comparison
with similar work elsewhere will generally show the costs of this
"Preliminary" work to have been low, though not as low as similar
work of the Maryland Geological and Economic Survey under the
State-Aid Law nor as low as desirable and possible by proper
management.
STATE EGAD CONSTRUCTION.
It may be admitted that the average total cost per mile of your
work, — ^notwithstanding its generally high character — has been ex-
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
Fig. I. — SECTION of water-bound limestone macadam, with surface treatment of
ASPHALTIC oil AND SAND.
Fig. 2. — close view of surface of road in fig. i above.
STATE ROAD BETWEEN EAST NEWMARKET AND MT. HOLLY IN
DORCHESTER COUNTY.
Reports of the State Roads Commission 131
cessive. Tliis is true in spite of the relatively small expenditures
for engineering, which have been kept at a low figure partly by the
refusal of your Board to allow rates of pay in the Engineering De-
partment comparable with those established by the departments of
Baltimore City or by the large corporations in the State. The main-
tenance of the Engineering Department under such conditions, in a
state of only endurable efficiency, has been possible solely through
(a) The novelty and interest of the work.
(b) The form of organization adopted which throws the burdens
of responsibility on the best paid men.
(c) The loyalty and ambition of these men especially and
(d) The relatively small demand that has, fortunately for you,
existed locally for such men during your operations for the period
of your work to date.
At times the Engineering Department has been severely injured
by the loss of men, whose training in this work had occupied careful
attention for periods as long as ten years, through the offers from
other similar organizations of but slightly larger salaries than your
Board was willing to pay, though not higher than those recommended
by your Chief Engineer. To the present time, the Department has
seemed to survive successfully these losses (over 40 in number) but
it is now in a condition where further such losses seem imminent
and if incurred will probably be most serious. The new paving
operations of Baltimore City with the probable increase in the opera-
tions of the Sewerage Commission and of the Annex Improvement
Commission will naturally result in further opportunities being of-
fered our well trained men to secure better salaries with wider ex-
perience and in our losing many of them.*
It is absolutely necessary for your Board to remedy at once this
situation and re-adjust conditions so as to put this Department on at
least an equal footing with the others in this vicinity.
That the cost of your work may be seriously affected by the ef-
ficiency of your Engineering Department is readily demonstrated, if
indeed such demonstration is necessary. Competent engineering not
only affects the planning and the estimates of cost but also may pre-
vent an increase in cost after a contract has actually been let and
the unit prices for the work to be done agreed upon. A good in-
*Since the above was written, 20 of the best of our men have left in ac-
cordance with these anticipations.
132 First, Second, Third and Fourth
spector stationed on a contract can unquestionably in many cases so
influence the performance of tlie Avork by a contractor as to result
in facilitating its progress and early completion to the public benefit
to say nothing of the saving in costs for inspection, engineering and
overhead charges by the prompt completion of the work. There are
hundreds of ways in which an efficient Construction Division of
your Engineering Department can make minor savings on almost
every job which in the aggregate of your work will amount to a con-
siderable sum. In the past, however, your Board has not benefited
to the desirable extent from such savings. It has been impossible
for the limited number of men employed by you, that were qualified
by training and experience to make such suggestions, to properly
attend to these matters because of the demands on them for even more
important services under your system of organization.
Under the past administration of your Board, your Chairman has
acted, though without, in many cases, definite authority from a ma-
jority of your Board to do so, as Chief Engineer and Chief Execu-
tive Officer in control of your work in all its details. This action
was also had without a proper system for providing sufficient as-
sistance to the individual at the head of your work. Your Chief
Engineer has acted more in the capacity of a Consulting Engineer
than in any other, and the Engineering Department generally, it
may be said, has been so used also, by your Chairman. Inefficiency
and excessive cost has naturally been the result. ISTo individual can
be expected to administer and execute efficiently all the details of
your large operations without a proper organization and system and
not even then unless guided by special training and experience in
this work, either personal or supplied by his assistants.
That such inefficiency of administration and excessive cost has
resulted can readily be seen. The inefficiency is shown in one way
at least by the inordinate amount of time taken to complete relatively
small sections of road improvement, among which may be mentioned
Garrison Avenue (16 months) ; the Falls Road (22 months), all in
Baltimore City; the Westport Road (23 months) ; the Harford Road
(23 months); the Falls Road (20 months) in Baltimore County;
the Baltimore Turnpike (36 months) in Allegany County; the
Indian Spring Section (24 months) in Washington County; the
Rockville-Gaithersburg Section (36 months) in Montgomery County;
the T. B'. Road (24 months) in Prince George's County; the
Reports of the State Roads CoMMissioisr 133
Aberdeen-Churchville Road (16 montlis) in Harford County; the
Berlin-Snow Hill Road (36 montlis) in Worcester County, and many
others.
As at least the amount of overhead expense chargeable to a par-
ticular road is largely dependent on the amount of time occupied by
its construction, it naturally follows that if this time be excessive
such charges will also be in that case.
Further evidence of the excessive cost of your w^ork is seen in the
amounts paid by you to your contractors to compensate the latter for
losses sustained by them for interference permitted by your Board
to their work, such as from lack of necessaiy rights of way, delays
by your Chairman in issuance of instructions or in his decisions on
questions raised, etc. Such compensatory payments have frequently,
had to be made and aggregate to date an appreciable sum
($10,000) with every prospect of this sum being multiplied sev-
eral times before the work now under way shall be finally settled
for.
While it is now too late to avoid much of this excess in cost al-
ready incurred, it should be possible by proper organization, system
and salary rates to improve materially the existing conditions in this
respect, and in the future to keep the chances for such excessive ex-
penditures of both time and of funds to an inappreciable minimum.
state aid and BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON ROAD CONSTRUCTION.
The previous remarks concerning costs apply with full force to
your constructive work under the State-Aid and Baltimore-Washing-
ton Road Acts, except, of course, those paragraphs relating to the
selection of a system of roads to be improved. The following fur-
ther remarks may be made as particularly applicable to the State- Aid
and Baltimore-Washington Road construction.
State Aid Roads.
In the State-Aid work, agreement with the County Authorities con-
cerning the details of the plans was necessary for construction to
proceed, and in many such cases restrictions were imposed by the
Counties to which it seemed necessary for the State to yield. Such
restrictions have in most cases either increased the actual cost for
134 First, Second, Third and Fourth
the work or increased the ultimate expense (including the mainte-
nance expenditures) on the sections in question. In some few cases,
the wishes of the Counties have resulted in reducing the expendi-
tures for the work, but mainly at a sacrifice in the character of the
results.
Baltimore-Washington Road.
Most of the work has been done by contract and generally on short
sections (less than 2 miles each) at a time. Probably the shortness
of the sections was responsible for a higher average cost than would
otherwise have occurred.
RECONSTRUCTION.
As yet no Reconstruction of the old State-Aid Roads, taken over
as part of the State Road System, has been attempted, though some —
such, as on the Lower Sykesville Road in Howard County — seems
imminent. The Reconstruction done has been confined mainly to
the repair or rebuilding of a number of old stone bridges on the
road between Baltimore and Grantsville (the "ITational Pike") and
the reconstruction of the surface of this road near Boonsboro, and
of the "Emmitsburg Pike" a short distance northerly from Fred-
erick.
All this work seems to have been thoroughly and economically
done by forces employed directly by the Maintenance Division. The
costs are shown in the tables (see Tables O, P, K). Although
early recommended by your Chief Engineer, delay by your Board
in authorizing this work increased the amount of work and the
expenditures necessary for it, at least one stone arch being lost in
the interval.
The road reconstruction referred to was done according to modem
methods and at a reasonable cost (at a rate of about $4,000 per
mile), which will be found to compare very favorably with the cost
of similar work in the State, especially when the higher and more
durable character of your results are considered.
In the fall of 1911, your Chairman ordered steps taken for the
commencement of considerable reconstruction work on the "Fred-
erick Pike" in Howard County, but later the work begun was ordered
Keports of the State Roads Comi
discontinued, and although some expense had been incu'^ired-
matter, no reconstruction work has been done on the road surface
itself.
STATE KOAD MAINTEITANCE.
(Including Baltimore-Washington Road).
Your system for the maintenance of the completed construction on
the State Roads is along the most approved lines and patterned after
the famous French system; Its operations have so far seemed suc-
cessful though unquestionably its efficiency would be increased by a
revision of the salaries paid and by improving its equipment, es-
pecially by the addition of modern machinery and facilities. The
necessary investment for the latter would be more than met by the
reductions in costs.
It should, in fairness, be stated that the Maintenance work has
received far less interference from members of your Commission
than has the Construction work.
Some of the costs per mile reported for the work of maintenance
may strike the casual reader as high. It should be remembered,
however, that in many such cases, owing to the difficulty of drawing
a hard-and-fast line between Construction and Maintenance, work
that would be considered by many as Construction has been covered
in your work under Maintenance. Many miles of water-bound mac-
adam have been completed and then turned over to the Maintenance
Division and then oiled or pitched by the latter. This first oiling
or pitching might be considered as either construction or mainte-
nance, but under local conditions, it has seemed preferable to include
it under the latter. In certain other cases, such as in Anne Arundel
and Calvert counties, the expense for maintenance has been relatively
high because of the fact that the construction did not include pro-
vision for a durable surface on this work. Much of the work ac-
counted for under Maintenance in these cases consisted of supple-
menting the deficiencies of construction and naturally the expenses
were thus increased.
On the other hand, the expense for maintenance on much of the
acquired turnpike mileage was low because of the instructions of
your Board or its Chairman that the old turnpike methods of mainte-
136 First, Second, Third and Fourth
nance were to be followed and expense, unless absolutely necessary,
was to be avoided. Undoubtedly it would have been ultimate
economy to have made greater initial expenditures for maintenance
in many such cases.
In a few cases stretches of these old turnpikes were in such condi-
tion that their immediate reconstruction was demanded and au-
thorized. While such reconstruction has been performed by the
Maintenance Division, it has been thought desirable and best to
keep the accounts of such work separate from those of ordinary main-
tenance and this consequently has been done. This information will
ultimately be of great assistance in determining the value to your
Board of the turnpikes bought as well as the worth of the old turn-
pike surfaces for foundation purposes.
Baltimore-Washington Road.
The maintenance of the Baltimore-Washington Road has been un-
satisfactory and unnecessarily expensive because of delay by your
Chairman in authorizing its performance and interference by him
with the work on it. Considerable expense will shortly have to be
incurred for repairs to sections of this road, most of which could
have been avoided by proper performance of the maintenance work
needed in 1911.
STATE AID ROAD MAINTENANCE.
The problems of the proper maintenance of the State-Aid roads;
as referred to in Part 1 (page 74 et seq.) of this report, are serious
ones whether they are concerning costs or other features. As regards
the costs of maintenance of the State-Aid roads, it is to be regretted
that little definite information concerning such expenses can now be
reported for the period to date. The absence from your records of
available information is due to the following:
(a) This maintenance is performed by the Counties and the ex-
pense for it met by them.
(6) Up to April 1st, 1911, no official reports on such expense
were made by the Counties to your Board.
(c) Since April 1st, 1911, your Board has established no system
for such reports and the reports that have reached your Board have
Kepoets of the State Roads Commission 137
been irregular, not compreliensive, and of little or no value for pur-
poses of analysis.
(d) This oiBce has had no other means of obtaining the necessary
information with any degree of accuracy.
A great deal of effort on the part of this office has been required
in the past to secure even a passable degree of maintenance by the
County Authorities. This Department has been hampered in this
effort by a lack of support from your Board, possibly wanting because
of insufficient appreciation of the importance of proper support and
of the seriousness of the situation.
Your Engineering Department has, in accordance with your in-
structions,— issued in compliance with the provisions of the .State
Aid Act imposing on your Board a responsibility for the proper
iviainitenance of the State-Aid roads, — regularly inspected all such
roads and both notified and urged the County Authorities to make
the repairs necessary.
In the case of Allegany, Anne Arundel, Charles and Wicomico
Counties, the notices of this office have been attended to promptly
and the work done satisfactorily with little cause for criticism. In
Baltimore, Cecil, Caroline, Dorchester, Harford and Worcester
Counties, repeated notices have been necessary, and even with these
the repair Avork has been neglected by the County Authorities and
when done has often been inefficiently performed. Baltimore
County furnishes a glaring example of unnecessary delay and neg-
lect in tlie matter of such repairs. The road funds of this county are
large, its roads are important and its Roads Engineer fully appre-
ciating the efforts of this office has co-operated wdth it to the extent
of his ability. But apparently from lack of authority on his part,
from restraint by the County Commissioners, or from unknown rea-
sons, the usual delay in attending to this repair Avork has been pro-
ductive not only of increased expense for it, but also of considerable
just criticism from the users of these roads concerning their condi-
tion. This criticism is unjustly reflected on this office and on your
Board, and the writer feels that the utmost effoi-ts of both are war-
ranted in order to avoid it.
The same may be said of Frederick and Harford Counties, with
the following additional remarks : In each of these tAvo Counties, a
section of State-Aid road Avas indicated by your Board early in
1909 as a part of the State Road System. Since that date, the ut-
138 First, Second, Third and Fourth
most efforts of this Department toward the securing of the needed
repairs to these particular sections have been unavailing. In Fred-
erick County, your Board has finally taken the l^ew Market-Monrovia
section out of the hands of the County and is repairing it at the
State's expense. In Harford County, the State-Aid road between
Hickory and Kalmia was (in 1909) to be taken over by your Board
as soon as the County should have completed certain needed repairs
of a minor character. Practically nothing in the way of mainte-
nance has, however, been since accorded this section of road by the
County Authorities, in spite of the persistent efforts of this office.
!N'ow the repairs needed are naturally of a much more serious and
expensive character and the complaints of its present condition i-e-
flect on your Board.
In Howard, Montgomery, Prince George's and Talbot counties,
the repair work on the State-Aid roads ^'has been so dilatory as to
practically amount to wilful neglect of this work."
With the establishment from the Motor Vehicle licenses of a fund
for the reimbursement of the Counties for their expenses along these
lines, some slight improvement of the defects mentioned is already
manifest and it seems evident that more may be anticipated. As
drafts by the Counties for reimbursement are required by law to bear
your approval, it follows that a certain amount of responsibility for
the amount of each draft is on you. That is, your Board may be
considered at least to share the responsibility for the correctness of
such drafts and for their total in each case. To assume this responsi-
bility properly it would seem that your Board should have both
the necessary clerical check on the items of the draft and the
knowledge as to how much of the expense incurred was proper and
necessary. JSTo system in this respect now exists and prompt action
by your Board in the matter seems important.
It has frequently happened that the smallest items of ordinary
inaintenance work on the State-Aid roads have been so neglected
or delayed in their performance that serious damage has resulted and
the maintenance expenditure thereby unnecessarily increased many
fold over what it should have been with prompt and opportune action.
Many, if not most, of the complaints made by the public concerning
the conditions of the State-Aid roads, and by unadvised persons at-
tributed to defects of construction, are really due to improper mainte-
nance. When the condition of the completed State Roads is com-
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
iC-
r—
■B^?'
^
v^rCHMHI
"cvj
^^yi
1
tt
1
■B
-
1
B;
i
^
hI
H^^H
I« ..
^ \.'5
^^M^S^
^
in
B
HH
A
t.'^BH
[
1
E
^
J
1
1
1
H
Reports of the State Roads Commission 139
pared in the same locality, with that of the State-Aid roads, both
of which were built for the most part along identical lines, the evi-
dentness of the above is complete.
It is believed that it is not only the duty of your Board but also
in its power to improve materially the maintenance of the State-Aid
roads and to reduce the expenditures for their maintenance.
COMPAEISONS OF COST.
By direction of your Commission, the following specific criticisms
as to the costs of the work done in certain counties by special arrange-
ments (other than the regular contracts) made by your Board are
respectfully submitted. (Reference should be made to Table X
(p. 117) from the figures quoted.)
Allegany County.
Some work has been done on the force account basis and the cost
thereof has been greater than the average cost of similar work done
under contract, either by the Maryland Geological and Economic
Sui'vey or by your Commission. This excess of cost (about 10 per
cent.) has probably been due to a certain inefficiency in the organi-
zation for the work, and to some peculiar difficulties of the latter
itself.
Caroline County.
Your force account work here has proved unusually expensive,
being three times the average cost of the roads built under the Mary-
land Geological and Economic Survey, and nearly 50 per cent,
higher than the average cost of your roads built in this County by
contract.
This excessive cost is due largely to inefficiency on the part of
the local forces, but improper organization, rules, and instructions
from your Chairman are also largely responsible. This matter has
already been brought to the attention of your Board and discussed
by it.
Carroll County.
The cost of the contract work in this County has been practically
the same under the two Commissions in the past. The force account
140 jFiest, Second, Third and Fourth
work of your Commission has exceeded in cost the contract work by
over 50 per cent. This is partly due to the newness to the work of
the forces employed ; to the heavier character of the work done ; to
a certain local increase in the difficulties of performing parts of the
work, and to some extravagance in the use of materials and in the
quality of the results obtained. The efficiency of the forces was fair.
Cecil County.
The contract work of the two Commissions has averaged about the
same in cost. In this County, as in Garrett and Montgomery Coun-
ties, your Board made extraordinaiy arrangements for force account
work. Here, Chairman Tucker was authorized by your Board to
construct certain roads according to his own ideas. The Engineer-
ing Department was directed to furnish such plans, stakes, lines, etc.,
as were requested by Cliairman Tucker, but otherwise to refrain in
all ways from interference with the Avork. Your Chairman em-
ployed such superintendents, labor, teams, etc., and bought such
materials as he deemed necessary and personally supervised the per-
formance of the work.
About six miles of road were thus built. On three of these, bids
had been received before the arrangements referred to above were
made by your Board. The lowest bid, from a responsible party, was
for about $39,000, or an average of $13,000 per mile. The average
actual cost per mile of the work done under your extraordinary
arrangements in this county was $15,878.34 — an excess over the bid
price, which latter presumably included a profit to the bidder, of
20 per cent. The character of the results secured were not as good
as those usually had from your contract work. The excessively high
cost of this work was undoubtedly due to inefficient management of
the work.
Dorchester County.
While the price of your contract work in this County has been
higher (250 per cent.) than that of the Maryland Geological and
Economic Survey (partly due to your use of crushed stone instead
of shells for the surfacing) the cost of jouv force account work has
been less than that of your contract work by more than 5 per cent.
The forces here were well organized and, while at first somewhat
Eepoets of the State Eoads Commission 141
new to the work, tliey were well managed and the work was credit-
ably performed.
Ga7Tett County.
Your force account work here was placed by your Board in the
hands of its Chairman under the same conditions as referred to in
the case of Cecil County.
The actual cost shows to be over 30 per cent, higher than the prices
for the contract work, which prices included profits to the contractors.
The same conclusions, as in the case of Cecil County, are applicable
here.
Montgomery County.
Your Board, at the request of the County Authorities, turned
over to them the improvement of certain sections of your system in
this county, and, as in the cases of Cecil and Garrett counties re-
ferred to, instructed the Engineering Department to furnish such
plans, stakes, lines, and other assistance as might be requested but
otherwise to avoid all interference with the work.
The work done was performed by the County Authorities, who
followed their own ideas as to its details. The results, as far as
they have been presented by the county forces to your Board for its
a.cceptance, have been inspected by you personally and, with the ex-
ception of about one mile of the section between Rockville and
Gaithersburg (contract #0230) have been refused acceptance by you.
Detailed reports as to the condition of this work and its deficiencies
have been made to you by the writer as requested and reference to
them may be had for further information thereon.
Suffice it to say here that the work in the main (at least nine of
the twelve miles under consideration) does not come up to the
average character of your work elsewhere and has been unduly ex-
cessive in cost to date. If the results are finally to be made equal
to the roads elsewhere improved by the State or by the State and
Counties jointly, considerable expense in addition to that already in-
curred will be necessary and tlie excess cost thus greatly increased
above its present figures.
142 First, Second, Third and Fourth
Sonnerset County.
Your Board arranged with the County Authorities of this County
for the performance of certain of your work but failed to provide
for, and to exercise, the authority over the local forces necessary for
the avoidance of friction, extravagance and inefficiency. Conse-
quently, although the results are in character close to your standards
they have actually cost nearly 50 per cent, more than the work done
here by contract. Your attention was called, from time to time,
by the Engineering Department, to the excessive cost being incurred
in this work, but this Department, lacking the authority from your
Board, could go no further.
Washington County.
Your Board after advertising for, receiving and rejecting bids
for certain work in this County, arranged with one or two interested
citizens of the county for the performance of the work in question.
The low bid had averaged at the rate of $9,289 per mile. The
finished work shows an actual construction cost of $14,700 per mile
($16,025 less overhead charges of $1,325 = $14,700) although the
quantities of the work done were less than those bid on. The char-
acter of the work done is excellent.
Wicomico County.
While the average actual cost of the force account work here is
higher by nearly 20 per cent, than the costs under your contracts,
and by 40 per cent, than the costs under the Maryland Geological
and Economic Survey contracts, the fact is largely due to the heavier
demands of the force account conditions. It is the opinion of this
Department that the force account work in this county has been as
efficiently performed as could be expected. The character of the re-
sults is excellent.
Worcester County.
The actual costs of the force account work in this County show-
ing a reduction of a little over 3 per cent, from the costs of the Mary-
Eepoets of the State Roads Commission 143
land Geological and Economic Survey work and of nearly 20 per
cent, from the cost of the contract work of your Commission here.
They are also below any prices received by your Commission from
bidders on this work, and unquestionably the performance of the
work in this County by force account methods has been in the inter-
ests of economy. The criticisms to be made are as heretofore stated
(p. 99) : That an excessive time was consumed in the work and
unnecessary inconvenience thus accorded the road users, and that
not as much economy in the operations as possible was secured.
Sumniary.
As seen from the table (X, p. 117), the general average cost per
mile of the contract work throughout the State has been under ten
thousand dollars ($9,650.05). That of the regular force account
work has been nearly one-quarter more, while the cost of the extraor-
dinary force account work (that done under the personal super-
vision of your Chairman and in Montgomery County) has averaged
more than 4Y per cent, higher than the cost of the work done by eon-
tracts.
The concluding sentence of Section 32-D, Chapter 141, Acts of
1908 (the State Roads Law) reads as follows:
"The checks of the unsuccessful bidders shall be returned to them after
opening the bids and awarding the contract to the successful bidder; pro
vided, however, that said Commission, with the consent of a majority of all
its members, may itself do any part or parts of any such work under such
conditions in every respect as it may prescribe, by day labor, whenever the
Chief Engineer, in writing, shall recommend that course."
In most, if not in all, of the cases cited above where the force
account costs are shown to be excessive, the work was arranged for
by your Board without the written recommendation of the Chief
Engineer, provided for in the Act, and in many cases, especially in
those of the "Extraordinary force-account work," the Chief Engineer
was not consulted by your Board previous to its arrangements for
such work being eifected.
CONCLUSIGN.
Your Chief Engineer has, at various times, made definite recom-
mendations to your Board, many of which remain as yet unacted
upon. All of them had a direct bearing upon your work and, he
144 First, Second, Thied and Fourth
believes, it would be advantageous if definite action were taken on
each. Such, future recommendations as your Board may desire in
these matters, he is prepared to submit in detail when desirable.
Under your system, requiring for the best result intimate knowl-
edge by the Chief Engineer and his Assistant Engineers of the de-
tails of your out-door work, every effort should be made by both the
adoption of such form of organization and by the furnishing of such
equipment as will not only enable, but also encourage, these men to
personally visit, with their subordinates, each and every section of
your roads as many times in each year as can possibly be done.
Their judgment on the many questions to be decided will then be
much more valuable and economies in the work itself should
naturally follow.
The usual criticisms of the work of your Board have been in evi-
dence during the past four years. These criticisms come raaiiily
from two sources, — one being composed of those parties really inter-
ested in better roads and anxious for the greatest possible efRciency
and with or without private reasons for their particular complaints.
The other source is that always present body of self -constituted but
ignorant critics of all public work who are not only without the
underlying knowledge and experience to make their criticisms of any
value, but who also can be depended upon to fail miserably in doing
any better work, if by any chance they can be persuaded to attempt to
produce actual results. Therefore, in view of your own personal
knowledge of the defects in the results obtained by the local parties in
charge of the work in some parts of the State, and considering now
the figures on the cost of such work, as compiled by your Accountants
(see Table X, p. 117), it is evident that careful consideration of
both the source of the criticism and of the experience in your work
should be had before departures from your regular methods are sanc-
tioned by you simply because of such criticisms.
The undersigned wishes to express here his deep appreciation of
the value of the services, assistance and loyalty of his assistants and
subordinates generally. Without such support whatever of value
has been accomplished would have been impossible.
Very respectfully,
Walter Wilson Crosby^
Chief Engineer.
Eeports of the State Eoads CoMMissioisr 145
TABLES ACCOMPANYING
REPORT OF CHIEF ENGINEER.
Reports of the State Roads Commission
147
O m
eg g
4) c c t;
™ o o ?
P ois
H c
Date
of
End-
ing
2
o6
00
o
to
7-19-11
2
Date
of
Begin-
ning
05
O
i
9
s
1
o
o
i
OS
oo
eg
5-25-10
5-27-10
4-15-10
9-27-09
AiNnoo
o^Mfa^^paoWPia; i-s
r'^tHrjCL,
dwKK^^dffldeud d w^oJ^
S15S 5?4;rt 3^
tJJdd^ifooiw
ffiWdd^Hdni
<; PQ o
3 ^
o
. c
=1 X
(M
<:«
^
-a
rt
o
n
2
O 3
ANVoa^^v
aaawnHV a^NV
aaowiiavg
148
First, Secois^d, Thikd and Fourth
C.2
i" C S 0^
CO CO CO
•w.m'O bo
^ o c c
■5.S
O ,-1 rH tH
H C
AiNnoo
04 CO CO CO CO
o s ; - o • .:i ,r f = i; c 01 a : .2 c 5 o ; j: g,
.2S si :i :E 2 c S ?: g S Si; s g g ::gi!3 a
Kir;Hi^WHSdj^Jdo^dwd'-si-!dtii^
S ^ • ^ rf c ca ^
^^.sii-sii
Qcod^oSoW
ffiKd<iij<iiJiJ
aHOw^i^va:
AXio aaowiiava
_o
xaaAivo
\
Eeports of the State Eoads Commission
140
^3
-MeH*^ ^
a> C tic
o S i:i
cs o o rt
Q Ui3
(M00!O (MXtOgJ, MX «0 00 ;D
i yt
W c
AXNnoo
^^S"^
M.S! c o -
gm^.dSpa'=^.OK>'^a5-ScQ'^wfc;Ǥ<i&; <;
cnd^Kaid^ww'-iadi-idMpiKHdd'-s'HT; p-;
IN <H ^
(« ^ ^
tf
w
Q ■«
fa Q
^Ioao
aNnoHvo
150
FiKST, Second, Thied and Fourth
c5
^1 -*-* C Jj
V C C lu
™ o c c
W C bo
O •-( rH
o >-< >-* "-^
-^ CD CO
t-H .-H ^ ^
■^ S '^ 4
^°ai
H c
O --H .-(
(MCO CO CO
tH ,-1 O
i-J "^^ « fa <;■ <j 1^' <; fe e^' iJ H <
S kT =« d' J! a>
dtfdddw
K^'jpqdpifciitdKS^
KHs'dwWwi-ji-swfe^
c c : 01
^^ ■■a"-rScS
dl-S-<H'^fM>-5l-!t^
AXNnoo
aqoHHVo
<;«
fe: £ +^
! ^ T
I ! 1
0^ fi< 2
J ►J ^
4 S m 13 </}
aaisaHOHOQ
2 S
MOiHaaaH^
Repokts of the State Roads Commission-
151
CO
0) C g a)
OO Pi
,-( (MM-*
$ On
^ tr- rt
(do o g
£3 00
o ;:^ S
H c
00«Dt-C-00 005O00«O!D
^ 4) sj oj+e ^
w ^ CO cd
13-: g C £
a
c
1 <i
,
c
a
oS s
AXNnoo
fri'-iijd'-id'^StiiHW
^5
a ji
■5 5
a) o
a)^s u «
.3 0)
I >
<d o
ixaanvo
I ^c
0
1
c
a>
0
u
>
\
4)
-C
Q
^
1
;->
C I,
1
0)
3
1
r:
r3
J=
t«CS
Q W W
« m
QHOdavH
QHV
-MOH
XNHH
AaawooiNOH
152
First, Second, Thikd and Fourth
.S bo
' He
S 00
o ^ o
O O .-H
O t> CO
5 o o g
Q Oi3
o ^
00 J2
■ ■ Sh m c m c ^
w .E .S S o a o o
oo
bo-i
c c
b«
S 3 iu)
kJ H d C^ »-i W (1^ t-a <i fc <i (li < fa W Oi"
ti S S o ~ (
Mi-ji-s'i-JHd^W
d<wtiiwdsiH'
M^ — C? C« S
TO -^ rfi hpl fc-H TO
gdfflHpqig
Hi^d^ljH;
K 5
W ~
= 5
S
AXNnoo aoHoao aoNiaj
aNNV NaanC>
xasHaraos
S.AHVJtt "ig
Reports of the State Roads Commission
153
•iJ'y'S^J
.£ u
O i-H
o o
^£2
ns n! « aJ o!
fa jMOd
5
AXNnoo ioaqyx
NOXONI
-HSVM
00 0000 00 00
C:> lA ^ LA
<! 05OQn
8 SSSg
o oooo
bo
£ bo : E bo £
C o •- C o •- C ~ CO
gx = ?^ c g c ^ 34s «
"" ■ & 5? &
c ■ ™ rt OS
be i!,° o o y
C 3SSS bo
■-rS o o o =s
wdi-ji-s'-si-j
<! CQOQ<
ooiwooiAi
HaxsaoHOAi
'A 'H 'O
OOIWOOIM.
aaxsaHoaoQ
a) 5?
5) c m
fa'df^
z ^ . •
fi <u C
S be o
-O bo X 4)
154
FiEST, Secois'd, Third a:si> Foueth
~ 5=
OO ft
-o S
j; o c; oc
]
Date
of
End-
ing
00
12-16-11
Date
of
Begin-
ning
^
2
6-3-11
Date
of
Con-
tract
3
5
3
5-16-11
•Jf
JOS.
■a
H 'a
dwSKi-id'-idHKK
I I
AiNnoo
J < K B3
aaoNaHV snnv
Eepoets of the State Roads Commission
155
^OO ft
Oi d <35 c- as t™
<< 03
rj" U3 »-' 00
-a) BQ O Q H fa
O C» c» CO 00 00
"XJ C£> «0 «P
ooooo
ooooo
o o o
o »« t-
OOO O O O O O OJ 00
« o c c
rt'S M.S
ooooo ,-,
liiArim to 22
i-H i-H CO i-I( 05 3
o ;=; ;^ ;-!
^ «> CO lO
"V '7 I I I 'V "^ "7
ooESSSSioioio
=?e?iVi<i<io
cicoCowej^HSi^
lO to 00 lO 00
OS? ■§<«c^
o.S ^oog
90°
CO J.rj<
CO I' 'p
n 'O <o
10 00 00 00 00 00 op
[^ a
ooooo
Ainnoo
St =» 5
aj :^ nl
•-S ^ d i-i sd •-» d d H 1-i I-; OT cu ^ H
■.2 '.S^Ti C-i a-T! ft-d "-n ""a "• ^ a
5^t3jdMWMWKWw»fflK«««0
wfaaifctiidaidiiidffidffidKdffi^w
dHdH^^dE-idHdHdHdHOHdoJ
<! CQ
a.
-i ^ « o >
■> ^ c > c g
^; g ^ M >-
mOiJCQ^ O
£
Si) S
« iJ S iz;
<; m O Q H fa
N N N ea N N
ANVoa^^v
aaaNOHV
aNNV
;
<v
3
d
(V
>
< .
2
be
v
• 3
IS -
: >ir'?
J!
tii
So
: rS'O
Cu
fa
>o
aaowixava
156
FiKST^ Second^ Third axd Fourth
(N (MCOCO
< m m
0) C B u
iS o n c
5 .E bo
(-1 ° u s
a°^i
^<«SS
H c
1 I '
'-' '^^
CO (N COoO
S ^
(33 N Oi
S ^
°=;:;»8°8°^
N t-CSC- t-
•-5fa>-5ail-5l-sOHI-3
3 u, o i;
d<idm<i
M O 3 S O £■
AiNnoo
1:1
3 I '
"Si
« Om
B «
£3 PQ
< m m.
aioao
^^oaHvo aNnoavo | saaavHO aaxsaHO
-aoQ
Q J Q
aavAVOH
Reports of the State Roads Commission
u I
I
w
Q
<
O
S c £■£
t>o p.
■HtHt3 M
^ O C C
la's t*.S
-«! PQ
<: 05 o ^
t- 00 00
c^ c^
S "^ 2
CO 2
O .H 1-1
^^ f-M r-i
I I I
lO (M <M
Oi ^ Oi Oi
CO I
.-H rH (M
00 CO to
Oi ^ Oi ^i
OO M CO CO
<NCO NCOOJCOCOCO <NCO og
CO i-ICO CO
T3T3
•^ o a"^ o "IJ i;> 0! c« 01
'■-a -2 ^2 '-a
c"© c'o c 2 e'er: ^ =
Sg.§S§p&8 lis
« i-i « --i « i-i tf i-i M 03 E-i «
AXNnoo
<i PQ
QHOdHVH
<; « o
w w
AHaHOOXNOJt
s.aoHoao
aoNiHd;
xas xoa nox
■Hawos -^vx -onihsvm \
158
First, Secoxd, Thied and Eourth
m
oi
B
v
1 ^
,92
r-l
2
S
£^
o
O
^i^
s
8
o
o
o
8
<^66
i » J.
o
o
;::;
o
;::;
^"2 ^
5 .S in
5 O o S*
P4 S
S ^
_ , .. „ tS b« _^
^i-i^dddndddd^
pj^'fcdPJ
t-H W CO -^ U5«0
S ■z
C <U C • J c
» be o • c S
AJ.NI1O0
oaiwooiM
Haxsao
-HOA^
Kepokts of the State Roads Commissioi^
159
P
»i? c
<
O
S -a
o c
Pi
^ ^
o
H
c .S
O
z
»i Ji?
Q
K
^ ^
M
j5 S
U
<
^
■^ tJ
<
n
O ^3
H
2:
■<
•Si n
w
tf
:* %
o
c t^
IS
o S
H
J
O M
<
2; p
M
■^ .!■
« s
<» C S m
^OO ft
* O B C
.S 6«
? bC.S
AXNNOO
Oi = g
C^ T-H
P§ Mp m^
PQfo P^sd d*^
pgp ^pi d^
■2'S
Wot
aHOWIXTVa
C~. !MM
: « X c ■
« c
. ?
■ tc ^ tC IJ^ iC c
^COM'^ t-HrHrH T-ir-Jr-1,-1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ir^l t-t i-H (M fl
■ CJ c^ CO tr- L*^ c^ c^j o i/: o lc o ;7i to i>- t^ '~o o CO '-" c^ c-1 CO
; s: -x: cc c^ t- a: 3^. L- c^. 'ry -^ c>] o cr. X -x O X '^ X O' cc cc
(£>CC
03N
oco
OICOO
• oocoo xxo
■ CO N CO »-« lO N
•O NlO Oi 00 O
. CO CO CD CXJ O CO
• OS CD t* CD -^ t-
; eocSoSoSoSoS
• *H 00 00 '^ »-t 00
• CO -^ CD o lo oi
"^CD
■ lO t-0(MCO
■ irsus o5 CD CO
■CDCCNCOOS
• la C m ffl U5
• XCO W N 00
. .-• tr- D- Ti< CD
•*-^ t-CMOOTt*
CO
to
OOON
S
gN jg
o
o
OiH-*
C«l
OiCu^WiOiC'-'W'^'
• O ':XMi^
S
C -H X 3^ c^ o s: CC X C"^ X tc
oc<]ccinciT-^?cotn!r. coo
cii-iMxF-'^^ic^o^oici^'-^
CO*" O" X' "^" CD (TT oi »-*" ^^ CD* »-<" C^ lA
CJi-<C0'-''-HtDt--X-^tr-u3D-'^
(NCDt-CCNOSt-NC-lOCOCCW
i-iLOCOaiCDXCDXC^CD"^CDW
OOeOCDOOt-iOrft-CDOO'^CDN
CO(M
CD 00
cocf
CDlO
00 -^ tr- CDCO
CO "^ -^ CO CD
rj" COC5 COLO
OOONCvj -^
O t-ON»-t
f-H r-< CO C<i 00
CO N
fflXXO^^XOJt-CDXO I ■**
t^TT-cJOiot—rri-c.-ix-v |
ccocicicocx^t-cnx 1 5h
■^OX-TMinCDCi^OC^I I (M
cDot-OL3 --Tf cDcood irTo .-h
Cr- 05 CO CO r-l C5 t- OC O X OJ | O
^T?Wt:-COP'-^i-4W*co
xxt-toacM:
OOCDt
X TT CO CO
CDOOCioi W
. a
03 -4^
cc LC ^ ^ t- cc N c; ic TT
oc M to — < — " ac t^ c — <" U3
COi-HO-^t-HO occ-^
05 0oiot-cr:Nt--Htoco
» a
MOO
■-1O5 00
MOO CO
CC«U3
eac"cf
««•
!r-l t-
OONC-
re
--00
CO Ol
CO 00
to so
lO t-00
05I>0"
tdoi-*'
<oia
Tj« o"
t-o
•-ON
ooooo
c^ oc -^so
T-l ffi O Tj*
OC O TT CO
Tt CO 00 »^
«f ^"o"o
lOiO CO CO
O lO toioo
tr-io C^ CO to
too C0O(NI
t- t- 00 o o
lO (N WCO CO
lOO
t-t-
o>od
OO
i-HOO
eoN
t^t2
(NCO
OlO
eoei
?3S8
to to
tot^
j-pT!
O to
i-H 00
■-IO
to to
U3(M
TT to
COrH
ION
- too
•05 C-
■ oq lo
- eg cs
• o o
be o
?;&=«
>.£-
t;-= E y
<<:
;^:Z-j = = isi:5x:7.e^^^^
■rK
H2§
s
s
G
CD
1-5
s
$ 35,665 57
123,200 84
117,543 49
46,356 56
29,826 00
125,209 53
28,714 16
123,513 07
29,588 07
120,304 21
57,788 27
103,244 70
36,635 39
30,734 90
4,736 06
101,908 21
125.520 55
108,887 73
39,303 55
97,179 04
19,455 40
115.870 13
72,020 82
20,598 21
to
■*
1
co"
t-_
-
1
3.38
16.12
4.99
0.70
10.55
11.13
2.77
8.54
4.64
14.01
tO»-t O 00 •
lo t-(Meq •
ujodcoco ;
oot-cDOtoeoococo
OOfHOOOSOCOOOCO
.-ir-i-^coc-^wdt^ca
3
od •
to ■
•=1
$ 158,416 30
10,795 38
354,833 50
77,213 SO
19,710 55
102,969 63
3,005 34
10,060 33
12,898 07
iCr-l •
00 CO
OCO •
IftrH
c- to
'-Jco"
f-H to
(N
10,681 15
7,500 11
14.076 50
72,014 36
67,976 86
N lO
to ■*
^- ^.
IM in
^ <N
1
ooeqc-
00 OS t- 00 CO CO •
t-iotca-ooo ;
.-i (m' N O «> --H ;
COO! •
W CO •
CO-* '■
Ol^
tot-
ggglS^ :
i-< ■-( CO d od ;
g §8
od od
to iH
1-t
. 3
s
to
to
o>
00
d
106,979 15 1
89,168 87 ]
46,356 56
15,632 14*
59.051 60
8,831 77
123,513 07
i '
t-
1005 •
OCO ;
-a* in •
CO CO •
eg to •
o to '.
ccco •
4,736 061-
45,077 15
98,788 6H-
108,887 73*
39,303 55
64,916 75
19,455 40
55,884 60
72,020 82
20,598 21
» :
o>
00
1
11.31
3.04
0.70
7.62
5.61
1.20
8.54
od
^^ :
toco I
CD00"<*COTj'C<I'<tt-C<I
CO
d
~
^1
t-i •
O ;
00
§3 :
CO •
CO_ ;
CO :
« :
to •
u3 :
OCO
O-fl"*
CO I-H
05 0J
c-co
1,578 18
6,060 43
19,911 86
9,992 02
1
g :
ci '■
9 :
o
■*o>
co.-i
coin'
3
s
s
"1
t-05 01
oito to
on".
to to od
(NrH(N
tocctsa -
ooosco •
05 10 OO
TP tOtSi
t-H tOf-l
ooo
00 o
lO 00
oJco"
t-io •
eqto •
t-o •
SS :
to' to
inw
o> •
<M •
s ■
S :
1 ^
1 "i
««•
1
IO00O5
Oa LAIA
■<J'00
toco
toto •
IOCS ■
lO<N •
CO
COrt
t-O
in CO
CO
t- •
in '■
s
5
g2
CO
lO
CO
^.
od
COCO
O lO
COCO
o •
CO •
00
c»
to-
co
00 c»
into
in •
s •
d
i
CO
co"
00 00
§3 ".
se-
1
CO
^
00 00
c-id
^
NO
d^
^
d
ta t-
•* d
d^
:-
1
. 3
O 00 -^
.-HMIO
CO 0^ -^
lO t-^to
COtHiO
•■*tDCO
•to 00-^
• tOlO O
• to -^ t-
•c-o<icg
:oo"c^^co"
lOrH
cn-*
to to
c-co
o^to
is
§^ :
tr- CO •
^"a :
CO -*
to ^f
in o_
t-" oT
1
OU5 0»
eoi-ii*
• Nr-iei
;OJiH
•■*eo
loei ;
in to
1— ( Oi
od id
eo
C4
3
d^
cc«sj
1
"1
60-
• CO to CO
lodcvfi-H
.egrHi-H
• coo
^ooo
• tool
. O CO
'■ c-co
:too
.COrt
■ oo.-<
. tr- ^
• in 00
'.mm
. t>oa
SB
-H to
inod
00 ■
lO «
o_ a
S 0
5
1
1
O
US
• o
•(M050
•OUSrH
•CO T-i N
:8S8
jco.-i
■COrH
• .-ico
•rHN
\a ;
C- T-
>i
>>
1
>
g
<
0
<
'I
c
<
i
u
■ +.
3
u
as:
H.£
il
S a
t.
3C
M
0.'
" i
: t
56
i
si
Si
B
c
5
■ i
■ (
j i
:
J <
^1
3 <:
1
<
J
?0
n
S <1
. £
Q7
11
2
a
i
i
3
■ £
5 =
s.i
1
<
c
5
d
1
1
•w <
\
C
3
o
4J
m
tD
c4
t3
-A
3
C
162 First, Second, Thied and Fourth
TABLE G.
SUMMARY OF WORK COMPLETED ON STATE ROADS.
January 1, 1908, to December 31. 1911.
Surveys made of 212 sections aggregating 672 . 84 miles
Plans completed and estimates made on 112 sections aggregating 362 .89
Estimated cost $4,583,908.95
Contracts let or arrangements made for construction of 107 sections aggregating 332.70 miles
WORK DONE UNDER SAME.
Bridges built 37
Culverts 569
Excavation 620.675 cu. yds _
Concrete masonry 13,750
Brick masonry
Pipe underdrain 74,853 lin. ft.
Stone in V-drain 369 cu. yds.
Guard rail 8,033 lin. ft.
Paved gutters 2,090 sq. yds.
Clay pipe laid 10 in
lOin. relaid 284 lin. ft.
12 in 586 "
" " 12 in. relaid
15 in 326 "
15 in. relaid 76
18 in 112 "
18 in. relaid 113 "
20 in
24 in 91 "
" " 24 in. relaid 43
Cast iron pipe laid 10 in
12 in 4,519 "
14 in 3,751 "
16 in 385 "
18 in 109 "
Concrete curbing ' 12,521
Broken stone 1,039,202 sq. yds.
Gravel 88,835 "^
Stone block paving 1,095
Vitrified brick 31,394
Pitch compound ■ ■ 76,530 gallons
Catch basins and manholes 18
8 in. V. C. pipe 24 lin. ft.
Oyster shell • ■ • • 38,780 sq. yds.
53 sections aggregating 162.02 miles have been completed, and payments made
therefor amounting to about $1,700,000
About 87 miles are approaching completion amounting to approximately 1,210,000
Reports of the State Roads Commission 163
TABLE H.
SUMMARY OF WORK DONE ON BALTIMORE-ANNAPOLIS BOULEVARD.
January 1, 1911, to December 31, 1911.
Surveys made on 5 sections aggregating 22 . 66 miles
Plans completed and estimates made on 5 sections aggregating 15. 83
Estimated cost $250,387.24
Contracts let or arrangements made for construction on 5 sections aggregating 15.93 miles
WORK DONE UNDER SAME.
Bridges built 1
Culverts 56
Excavation 69,250 cu.yds.
Concrete masonry 1,443
Brick masonry
Pipe underdrain 3,280 lin. ft.
Pipe outlets 1,806 "
Guard rail 1.226 "
Cast iron pipe laid, 12 in 304
14 in 286 "
Broken stone 124,302 sq. yds.
Hassam Concrete Paving 768
Pitch compound 96,827 gallons
Rip rap •• 13 sq. yds.
2 sections aggregating 6 . 12 miles have been completed
Work on 2 sections aggregating 7.21 miles is well under way and should be completed
by July 1, 1912
Work on remaining sections of 2 . 6 miles is under contract but only just begun
164
First, Second, Third axd Fourth
TABLE I.
SUMMARY OF WORK COMPLETED UNDER STATE AID HIGHWAY LAW.
June 1, 1910, to December 31, 1911.
Survey made on 20 sections aggregating 42.36 miles
Plans completed and estimates made on 26 sections aggregating 31.91 miles
Estimates cost $482,557.31
Contracts let or arrangements made for construction on 14 sections aggregating 19.42 miles
WORK DONE UNDER SAME.
Bridges built
Culverts
Excavation
Plain concrete masonry
Reinforced concrete masonry
Cement rubble masonry
Brick masonry
Dry rubble masonry
Guard rail
Stone in V-drains
Subgrade
Pipe underdrain
Clay pipe laid less than 12 in
12 in. relaid
12 in
12 in. relaid
" 15 in
15 in. relaid
16 in
16 in. relaid
' 18 in
" " " " 18 in. relaid
20 in
20 in. relaid
24 in '.
24 in. relaid
30 in
Cast iron pipe laid 10 in
12 in
" 14 in
" 16 in
" 18 in
Broken stone macadam
Gravel surfacing
Oyster shell surfacing
Sand clay
Pitch on macadam
!§aved gutters
34 sections aggregating 40.77 miles have been completed, and payments made
therefor amounting to
About 19 miles are under construction amounting approximately in cost to
12
169
151,272 cu. yds.
2,562 "
966 "
26 "
91 "
5,613 lin. ft.
12,465
598
1,173
217
268
92
16
43
1,154
689
254,313 sq. yds.
8,466 "
55.706 "
106,251 gallons
2,320 sq. yds.
$418,658.40
238,500.00
Repoets of the State Eoads Commissio:x 165
TABLE K.
SUMMARY OF WORK COMPLETED ON STATE ROAD NO. 1. (Baltimore Washington Road)
From June 1, 1910, to December 31, 1911.
Surveys made on 2 sections aggregating 4.25 miles
Plans Completed and estimates made on 6 sections aggregating 8.14
Estimated cost $92,636.74
Contracts let or arrangements made for construction on 2 sections aggregating 4.81 miles
WORK DONE UNDER SAME.
Bridges built
Culverts 5
Excavation 2,410 cu. yds.
Plain concrete masonry
Reinforced concrete masonry
Brick masonry .■
Pipe underdrain ' lin. feet
Stone in V-drains '. cu. yds.
Guard rail lin. feet
Paved gutters 2,230 sq. yds .
Clay pipe laid 10 in , lin. feet
10 in. relaid
12 in " "
12 in. relaid
15 in ; 169 " "
15 in. relaid
18 in " "
18 in. relaid
20 in , " "
24 in " "
24 in. relaid
Cast iron pipe laid 10 in
12 in 24" "
Win " "
16 in " "
Concrete curbing 4,321
Broken stone .' 7,387 sq. yds.
Gravel
Stone block paving
Vitrified brick
Pitch compound 11,054 gallons
1 section aggregating .44 miles has been completed and payments made therefor
amounting to $13,356.73
About 0.11. miles are approaching completion amounting approximately to 8,500.00
166
FiKST, Second, Thikd and Fourth
TABLE L.
STATEMENT OF WORK DONE UNDER STATE AID LAW JUNE 1, 1910, TO DEC. 31
1911
County
0,1
o a
1
>
3
m
Preliminary
Estimates
Furnished
*Contracts Let
1
It
o o
Cost
Paid by
State
&^6
Miles
Miles
Miles
Amount
Miles
Amount
6-1910
to
1-1912
1910-11
Miles
Allegany
2.50
1.00
3.00
6.17
1.12
3.69
3.26
4.16
3.66
$45,255 11
46,197 36
49,477 63
2.22
2.62
2.51
$32,788 76
33,308 84
20,927 76
3.74
$46,007 50
$22,054 00
2.22
2 62
Baltimore
Calvert
8.98
108,297 74
52,987 46
2.51
1.83
2.26
5.78
2.46
1.12
5.74
90,588 93
12,566 79
66,597 05
0.83
1.12
4.15
28,969 22
10,369 91
42,314 22
3.59
38,528 91
19,310 76
.83
2.00
5.70
2.12
Cecil
2.50
23,554 27
11,743 51
4.15
4.83
3.53
45,996 04
2.00
22,632 83
2.00
Garrett
5.50
2.75
0.09
7.17
2.88
3.86
3.64
0.09
29,674 60
1,181 15
5.84
1.59
58,591 53
14,228 42
28,130 38
7,151 71
Howard
Kent
.22
2,021 91
1.45
3.73
47,280 76
3.25
3.16
36,736 04
31,124 63
19,320 76 1 21
15,974 73
Queen Anne. . .
0.50
.56
.56
12,397 44
2.00
.27
1.20
46,892 47
1,392 05
1.02
0.24
1.00
4.79
10,681 15
1,578 19
6.060 43
33,277 57
9,992 02
5,340 58
789 09
3,030 22
16,638 79
4,996 01
1
Talbot 1
0.24
1,581 29
Washing-ton
1.00
1.20
15,923 77
1.00
1.01
1.07
Totals
,25.04
42.36
31.91
$482,587 31
19.42
$223,748 58 |40.77
$418,658 40
$207,468 00
19.11
*On June 1st, 1910, Contracts were outstanding for 49 miles aggregating $490,000. (See 4th Re-
port on State Highway Construction M. G. & E. S. June 1st, 1910.)
Eepokts of the State Eoads Commission
167
168
FiRST^ Secoxd^ Third axd Fourth
m
m
0
>
<
O
Q
K
u
o
b)
z
H
<
<:
z
hi
H
2 K
S -2
H
fR
»J
n
<i
cQ
H
J^
s
bo
Jh . '^
2 ■ X
O •-'■XI ^ M
ICO
^% ^
S c
.S-c
Kepokts of the State Eoads Co:mmissiox
169
?soo iBiox
*soo lejox
CO N -^ t-Oq
N »-t 050 OS
CO CO OOOO 00 00 Irt
lO Irt 00 "^ O^ (M N lO
lO IC CO ^ I/;
<NCD M (M MC-
uBULiiBdaH
aoBjang
lUBpBDBJIf
Z /h
HJOAi q^JBa
CD CO CO lO t-05
CO '-H a> ca -^ CO
(MCOIN oq ot>
puB s;aaA[n3 g
t tf
-HlPiM.
CO I
-qj3u3q
CO 0> lOOOr
C<lr-(.-l lO
o>-i
NCO
•ON
o
O
i
O .-iM
O
o
oo
rH CC IJ^ t* 5s
a,: : ; ;
g I I I I M I S
r-H (N ■«• 00 00 (M eg TJI ^
C5 . i-H »-i »-t O
•o« e e 3."0 ^
£fo 3
I ^
c O t^
u ^ <u
^ I ^ ^
cS I
'5
(UTI
to 4)
few
£ -o
« C !<
ei! E =
e "~
o " e
.£2 2
bo
CS
3^3
O
1
< u 6
o a
O.S
< o
■~ >>>.
5.C S-g § §
o o o
be be h«
m
}^
Tl
(2
■ 91
MO
DM
fee
^o
TPT-ifM OS t- CO ^^ O CO t— t- 00 05 N U5 "^ »-»
OOiO ^H O iM Oi •-» Ir- O 00 NOOOOO ,
lOt-i^'XJCOOiO^CO'-H.-tOOOOCvJiO^"^
OSO'-H'-^N ^-4 O 04 t- O T-H O OS
^^r-rtlTT 00 iC lO CO -^ CO <:C ■<»• _-
JOOOOOO'^'-'lOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOiOCOO^iCOO
N * ' tr- O Oi " OOW'TtO
CO OS ix; CO cc OS ic eg
CO i-H
H^-jitr-OOS'rJ'OiCOCDCOiOOSOOOSQOOOt^OSOt-t-Ot-iOC£>iCOCgcO'^OCai^.-"C<I'-«ir5t0OO
^OS^(N^DNU^O^OOU^CSWrf^lCOXO"<*00»-^-^C<lCDt^-Ou^OSTJ't>CC'CSOOU^Ct-^ClOO^-lCOr^
^COQnl^OOSOStOi«ia<Xi«OiA'-l0300CC30cO'rPCOOC^CCOOCOQOOOrJ<OC<Ii-tOOOSCOt--l'-'OSNOO
jiOccg^"5'-^oosy5co.--<osTrr-Hroiniosostoiooooso'^w2t-tc)c<itr-cc<!coTr(>)^D"^o> usos
i(MO'~' (NT-Hr-toXtD '^a-t- -^OSt-t— i'-3'rj«,-tC0'^O'^»-H(M!M'ViOL0ii-iTj'<r> QOCO
W i-H lO COlO
Q
■7-
Q
<
0
O
^
>
n
3
H
<;
H
o
7
1-5
s «
OJ-B be
C»C-'»'-HOCOOOO— '(MOO
C-^lOrHOC-<M(NOOOOCO
ooi-<i«r-fOOsas'*a*'<*<x>u5
OCOlOCDNOC^-^li^
COOOilOlOr-lt-OTl'
■^r-iNCO COr-trHiH
O CD CO»-H
CO to iO CO
cooNoq
t-lO
t- Tj- U3 OS OS
O C- C T3" tC
Oi 05 00(M O
rt oooo-^
CO Ui '^ CO oo
oooioc: to
0>U5(M.-I0
(N(NC>li-(i-lrH.-H,-l^,
USU5-*r-^»-tait-lO00U5t-Tl<C<ICOC5'<j*O5Ni-HCOt— lOOiOOOi-ftOUS-^tOiOOOtOOO-^-^tOOT
00 N 05 O C30 r-J to Oj Ci C ■ .-.- —
c4rH * to ■<1' lO T-H ^ 'c
00 OS 00 U3
ooMoej-*
03 05 OS U5 CO
1-1 -^(M
tOiH
(NOO
■^ ■<# ^ ^ ^ "^ "^ w
: M to'
;oo ■
fL,0>
;e<l^lN003S05^eL(0"-l?OOrfMCO-^lCOtD ^ fLiC^COOCrtOJ
soiooxixocxio coMcoiommmioirroo >> -^rrTPiot-t-c-
^■-i— i-<T-(.-i.-ir-i_;00OC00OO0CvJNJD_:000.-iO0C
:oooooo 1? oo^^ o
lo ooo ooo
OO g
04-.
_;-S^-=^--
£ £ E
r"? 3
%
■O U.O ti.C.«l
o E.9.2T3
3 30
> o
J3^ QO e-O 8 8
«5Sc5-2 = 5c'3
o o 5
J5J5*'8 8 e «" e
M^
g^j^^J^^g — ^"7'5'S'C , i^j^'i- ?^£ 5^5/J si 5 J't!"r
ca-53-- i<i£-T:
51- ?=5'2J
:k«':
s £ & ?^:
— ^-r -? -*->?
c !- q c c M-n
J :Pl,
• >v ►
000
a o
QOdtnii
Oi 0) 0) « i, >,~
Qfe
3ii
:b.S^£EES|.2
sS=gS££E:2rt^ .
Ji
^
a
3J
<< P3
w 2 Js
PQ
M o S
<5 . es
"nix t*
■2 .^
o
COog
CON o
lO<MO(M
M OS
K i i
■? 2:
.2 <^
« 5
• IrtOi OS r-t M 00 U5 CN i-H t- i-H t- N tJ* lO OO rf (M m OWW
•OOO W rf (M Oi CO Ol 05 ■<3" O '^ O i-H C<J O '^ O y? CD -^ rH
"^OOOOOt-HOO-^OOOOOOOOOOOCO'MiOTj'OO
<35i— llO'^Ofl^CO'— 'OOOCr-t-CO-'^tDLCOiOint'— tcOONCCWGOOOU^t— 05t£>
oiflt-ioo^-^ocimaiooocoT-Hoicccotr-o^otDOcot-HOi.— las'— ic^
oju:)^ioococcc<i'-Ha5!:otDooo»ccD'-Hcoi>3ooooooojc-ooQOirtocx)a5
<N lO N d 1— I lO 00 1-H 00 in rH O CO »-l <N t-H »-4 t-. CO «D CO CO !X5 t-
3 I)
c-eoioooo
i-H^tOrHO
cooa CO o
COi-H
.-I05
rH CO 00 1-H
cou3LO»/5Lncooocoio
COast-Tj*tr-OiiOOt-iO
t-lOrHOiCOrHi-HOOMOi
OOO 00 00 05 oom
(>3-00 t> 00 tMr-t O
OS CO t- »-H i-H W to
GO t- CO O "^ OO t-
•-KM
CO 1-H
o t-
^CO
O CO
233
OOO
NN
OrHM»0C0"^t-;<NC^<>Ji0i-Jt-;C0»-lOOr-<0>C0"^MO0^asy?»HlrtcMC^3t-
COCO(>10<IO»-Hi-HOOCOt-HCOU3tHo6cOCOCOr-IlOCOUSCO"^»-HCvicDOi(Nt-C-
C O
'-' '^ ^ 's sa <^> £j
ooo
'(N coco CO CO
ioooo o
n
Oi-KN-^Or-INOrtCO
OOOOC<lC^C^a1-Ht-^rH
::?^!:S:::!000'H.-(M
S33"S3i>3S333s
+i 0) 0) 01
T ^ § si o
> bi ^
>1 ff o
-a 3O
c 01 2
c ^ ™:
59-
^^^
K = = = 'H'H'H
^ i
XPS a3~'
Cot
> t. > i-
OhJWfoMOKQ
2; cOou = SS
^^^1^
Oh : : "3 s
0) <u 0)73 ;s
K O O 1 2
«^. ii-r^ M-M+j-M-^'^'C
00
S c c c
U wj yj ^ «
O C C.m;?
cs o
>> b<l
^ s;
<u o
c 1)
• ^?y
c c c
(DOT
WSOh
^^
S U
•oj M
cs
a
o2
2
■B C
T
0
S "Si
u
)^ '1)
-^
^.fe
^
W hJ
fc
ss
w s s «
2 I « £
D ■* -a "3
.£ c Si -o
n^ 2 a a
^ J H H
172
FiKST, Second, Third and Fourth
S -s
fcr" m
•PA •l>S
spuno<j
•PA
•siBo
•PA
^"
o ^
H
R a)
MIPIM
'3''«SS'o'u''5S3SS'*'^
. 0) a) J* - .
C Kl cfl g c c
^ ^ ?
tlj C8 5
cs ea u o--"- o " " ■' -' -' •-
O O O O ' ' o
u a o cf u u u
O^OlCOtOf-HCnOCO
<oaoi(M»-iccooooc<ico
OJONO'-IOOOIO'W
"rJ^OasOiO^CDOi-HMOlCtN-^
ooooooooooooo
cOTCiMi-ioinoc-c-rtOC-o
I o I I 4^ CD T* 1 I I I V* V
^^!ck2Y^=!323ii^J3?3
. . d 6 ; ; t : ?s
0,0. ccggcci:;cccc
IT
2o
CO V
t3<;
■<*-^'*rj*-^TtcQV'^'^'^^"^"^^o0"*'0O'^*^
ast-rHCDCOIr-COC-OOOC5t-COI:-t-C5-:J*C3^{M
lO'-Hr-HCOO^COlOirDC^OOOO'-ll>C£ilOO^iOT3<CDO
e^Ii-Hi-HOT-KMONOqi-KN
O '-' (M O "-H l/S
lO Irt U3 t- t- t-
0000--l>-(
oo eJ
.S OhH
it o 3 01
--So I fa
c-|q g I
O a!
I -a _
i, a) 01 cs jJ D +S
OQfoOwMw
^1
o rt
^0 rH CO CO I 00
bo
ns bo
_3 g
•'' .S c«
S "^-
3 S > • "
bo .2 ks'Sts .
Y -a-s s u 1)
Reports of the State Roads Commission
1Y3
.o-c t--o-s "S"e ii'^-.-OJi-
33S''*^'"^-i-'^'i^^^'*'^ 'a oi'S'S'S
D
o a>
O
spunOjj
•PA ■I'S
SUOflBQ
■PA ■1>S
hU
2tJ
be (u
C O
OJtS ol'O'U'rti'^ 2-0
W3 _J
HI'S
C s- C
T! C3T3 ni
ft aW C.M
O o go §
:2;ij^;i-i
rt (rt rt r-v
M tii)_- M
> '^ =U ^ <D OJ
-6 >'d-dT!T3 S S S S J'-B 2 > *; > > ^
C rt C C C C i; SCI±;!:5 Cu g 2 g ?! g
«^-,. — ^^—^^F—i^-OO'^O'^— ^ — — ^- — — ----- w- ■
H3&..jc/3:z;aojijij.jH:iij;z;;z;#;z;^i-:]#hjijH4iJh:]ooji-j^^H
CC coco O (N
J oot- t-oo
^ _ n C*^. '-"-'
00O00OcCi-ctCD'-HaiOCCC»OC5OOOOC0OC0OOt:-tNTfC0OC<IC0in
m ooo t-
00<00(M _
Tj< to lO -^ lO
LOinJiouD-^io-^uTcom-^mmcoio
lOC-litiCOU0'^T:rLOu^"^COCC'*"<^'<*Tt<'
'^tDOJC^COC^'^CDas
OOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOi— lOOOOOOOOOOOO
c<iooascoa5Ttic<?iOii>cocT)ootDaiMt^coaiMu:toocoocO'^Goaii-Hoo-^cobcoMi-t
■^ i-H m !£>00 C> O Tj- U5 CO t^ (N CO OO W CJ <:£> ?0 0 O- CO Tt t> 00 CO t- to O '~ ■■ - _ . . .
t- n* N t- r-( !jj (M ^
]ooiitiooooc:ootccoooooto^t-i>"<i<u:)rHNu^(MO
l>COCCCNtr-C7SGO(MO--*COOOOOOiOrH'^T^lCX(ML
i-HC^tNO'-iOOOO'^-^'XiCOtr-OOCOO cOTfCOI:-iO(NCOOCOI>
1-H i-T t4 ci
COt-tO-^-— 'O^jOiOO
Oi-H coco N O
W I (N .-H Tt* CO 1-1 rj« Oi to CO
II I X C^ I I t-H (M I
lO to OS I GO 00
Ik
t- 00 <T>
ja I— 1 I U3 'yi' U3 I (jj ou I I 1X3 I c- ou a
^ C^ J- Cs] O «0 L t- CO I I CO I -^ "-^ '-
<M(M(MW>-H.-HU:>i-<(Mt-t-(M
I 1 I ' I I I I I I I I I I
00a5tOlCtO00tOC>t^tOt0lCtO<O
T-H ,-( t- -«:t" GOOD
O COOOCO-H I 00 00 00 lO 00 i-H -^ O O O iM C<I
O-— iO»-H|(Ml(Mr-iTfl I I (Ml Ir-tOtOtftCJtNWi 1
T I Tl I I I I =L?I I I I I I I V I I I I I I I ^"^
I (M I ■* Oi tr- OS O i-H I (MfMtM'^^C-O I CO CO CO CO t- OS ,-^y-s„-^
<M (M 1— I (M W OJ (N CO I lO CN (M (M 1-1 'y' (M CO CO lO rH r-i ,-H r-( I | "^ « <w
0-1 ^ W OJ CJ O] »— < N OJ C^ M C'j I uj 1.--J i^Nj T,N| ^-1 ■ ,■ 1.-M (.'J '.'J uj r— 1 1— I 1— 1 i—i I I
llllOllllllllllllllOO
a5too50o»-ttoaso5aicooOfTstDtr-o:iixitDtDtOr-Hi— (
- 05 t- tr- 00 to
1:^
^<
.•p- T3
fcH
m be M T
x.E x.E— ax 3 X X -•r..E~J.S.S-r -r 3
So bee;
OWr-lcOCO-^uOCS-OOO'-l'— (COOt
JG
tS ^ bo bo Sio be
^ g 3 3 3 3 g
' i< rt tfl nS o! 1)
K (s 1- '- ^- s- n
i5Zh 01 a* oj i> P
i=< V- fa 6h fa fa o
■f O 1111^
J; . C c C c 7)
2-73 O O O O C
^ g c c c c S
o is 01 a) <u 1) t,
HmQQQQO
a) V
he be
MM
EZ^SS
o o.
Cu (i 't^ 9 K '
c c
mZ
o o
bJO be -' -^ ■•:: "^
C CMMM ij
i'i ^6egt^
o O.S.S-Mq"
g g CO tn-^ ^
SxHH
^ I 4->
<u • be
>>;^ C aj
^ be o •=
Ol M fa fal 1-5 O W M P3
C3 c<! i,
. 0) 0) ■'^
2zzsS
<! o
Cc ft: X:r aZ o.«
5 mS^S'C S'E 3 » SB £ aj'i: be-r:'«rt-E bcbe*
"^'cvi^g'.'^'"^"^' I "^"^''^^'i?«J^'^'Tr'^'^'^''^'"^'^'c*J^
C0l0 00C0O00^0iO«0'0T:J<(Mi0C0'-''^OOOi-l(M00
oocsitoxi-^too:irtOOOOc^]cototO'-<oOrHO!X''^'-iu:ic^icot^c^ir-coO'-^cO'^c7itr-oo<>icocOTj'
(Mr-lOC0OtM(N<N'-<i— INi-KMOJ'^M i-lTj'C0»J^rHi-tOC0»-l030]i-(rHrHC0C0mC0"<3*i-H.-(i-lC<)'>*C0
-t-t-T*«tDt:-Ot-N
rHOOOOON(MOOOOOi-(OOOONi-H^ 7-1— lOJr-lrHi-lr-lrHi-li-lOO'-tOOOOOO
a) u o oj o
Scsoiortaio-c
faOffililWWSa<
APPENDIX B
REPORT OF THE AUDITORS
M A S K I INJ S & SE:1-I_£
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
30 BROAD STREET
NEW YORK
CHICAGO ST. LOUIS CLEVELAND PITTSBURGH BALTIMORE SAN FRANCISCO
Harris Trust BIdg. Third National Bank BIdg. Williamson BIdg. Farmers Bank Bldg. Equitable BIdg. Crocker Bldg.
LONDON, E. C.
30 Coleman Street
Cable Address " HASKSELLS "
To the Committee on Report and Audit,
State Roads Commission, Baltimore, Md.
Deae Sies: Pursuant to your instructions and to resolutions
adopted by the Commission January 25, 1912, we have audited the
accounts of the State Roads Commission, and, for the purpose of
obtaining the information called for by the said resolutions, have
supervised the redistribution of the accounts, for the period from
May 19, 1908, to December 31, 1911. Relating thereto, we submit
herewith eleven pages of comments and the following described
exhibits and schedules :
EXHIBIT "A" — Receipts and Expenditures — By Funds — May 19, 1908, to
Decembeb 31, 1911.
Schedule.
No. 1. — Statement of Construction Expenditures — Showing Propor-
tion of Administration, Legal and General Engineering
Expenses applicable thereto — State Road Fund, from May
19, 1908, to December 31, 1911.
Part I — Completed Roads.
Part II — Uncompleted Roads.
No. 2. — Statement of Construction Expenditures, with Division
between State and Counties — Showing Proportion of Ad.-
ministration, Legal and General Engineering Expenses
applicable thereto — State Aid Road Fund — Juno ], 1910, to
December SI, 1911.
Part I — Completed Roads.
Part II — Uncompleted Roads.
174
Eepokts of the State Roads Commission 175
No. 3. — Statement of Construction Expenditures — Showing Propor-
tion of Administration, Legal and General Engineering
Expenses applicable thereto — Roads and Bridges Fund —
June 1, 1910, to December 31, 1911.
No. 4. — Statement of Construction Expenditures — Showing Propor-
tion of Administration, Legal and General Engineering
Expenses applicable thereto — State Road No. 1 Fund —
June 1, 1910, to December 31, 1911.
No. 5. — Statement of Reconstruction Expenditures — Showing Pro-
portion of Administration, Legal and General Engineering
Expenses applicable thereto — State Road Fund — May 19.
1908, to December 31, 1911.
No. 6. — Statement of Maintenance Expenditures — Showing Propor-
tion of Administration, Legal and General Engineering
Expenses applicable thereto — State Road and Roads and
Bridges Funds—May 19, 1908, to December 31, 1911.
No. 7. — Statement of Overhead Expenses — May 19, 1908, to Decem-
ber 31, 1911.
No. 8. — Statement of Road Equipment — May 19, 1908, to December
31, 1911.
EXHIBIT "B" — Summary of ExpEXDixtrRES. Obi-igattoxs and Allotments —
By Counties — State Road Fund — May 19, 1908, to December 31, 1911.
EXHIBIT "C" — Summary of Expenditures, Obligations and Allotments —
By CouNTiEis — State Aid Road Fund — June 1, 1910, to December 31, 1911.
STATE EOADS COMMISSION.
Comments on the Audit.
RECEIPTS FKOM STATE TKEASUREE.
The item of $3,355,700.97 represents the proceeds from sales of
bonds under provisions of Chapter 141, Acts of 1908, as follows:
$ 500,000, Series "A"— dated August 1, 1908, proceeds $ 500,050.00
1,000,000, " "B"— " February 1, 1909, " 966,734.00
1,000,000, " "C"— " " 1, 1910, " 943,605.97
1,000,000, " "D"— " " 1, 1911, " 945,311.00
Total $3,355,700.97
The item of $251,293.50 represents the proceeds from the sale of
$250,000. The Public Highways, 1910 Series "A." bonds dated
January 1, 1911, under provisions of Chapter 116, Acts of 1910.
The item of $44,967.92 represents the Commission's proportion of
the taxes collected under the Motor Vehicle law for the year ended
March 31, 1911. This amount was apportioned by the Commission,
$26,576.04 to the State Road Fund and $18,391.88 to the State Aid
Road Fund, and was so entered in the books. Based on the mileage
of completed roads April 1, 1911, furnished us by the Chief Engi-
176 FiKST, Second, Third axd Foueth
neer, viz: State roads 109.88 miles and State aided roads 110.11
miles, the amount should have been divided $22,460.45 to the State
Eoad Fund and $22,507.47 to the State Aid Road Fund, as shown
in Exhibit "A." The allotment by counties of the $22,507.11 is
shown in Exhibit "C" herewith. The portion accruing to the State
Eoad Fund, to be expended for Maintenance only of State roads,
$22,460.45, has been considered as a part of the $88,676.23 expended
to December 31, 1911, for such maintenance, the balance having
been expended from the State Road Fund.
RECEIPTS FROM MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.
This item of $121,597.70 represents the amounts in the hands of
the State Treasurer and in bank to the credit of the Maryland Geo-
logical Survey, taken over by the State Roads Commission under
authority of Chapter 217, Acts of 1910.
RECEIPTS FROM OTHER SOURCES.
The item of $2,029.50 represents receipts from various County
Commissioners for preliminary surveys and plans in accordance with
Section 37, Chapter 217, Acts of 1910.
The item of $18,123.58 interest on bank balances represents the
amount of interest allowed by various banks on the funds deposited
with them.
The item of $1,764.55 represents the proceeds of sales of Plans
and Specifications prepared by the Engineering Department. It
has been allotted to the several funds on the same basis as that on
which the Engineering expenses were charged, that is, in proportion
to the expenditures from funds for construction, reconstruction and
maintenance, less those for Rights of Way and Damages (including
purchase of turnpikes) and the purchase price of the Conowingo
Bridge.
EXPENDITURES FOR CONSTRUCTION.
Schedule ISTo. 1 of Exhibit "A" shows the details of expenditures
for construction of $3,408,365.58 from the State Road Fund. It
is divided into two parts for the pui-pose of showing the expenditures
on completed roads separate from those on the uncompleted.
Repokts of the State Koads CoMMissioiq" 177
Schedule ISTo. 2 of Exhibit "A" shows expenditures for construc-
tion of $345,270.36, of which there Avas paid from the State Aid
Road Fund $181,142.01, and bj counties $164,128.35. The amount
paid from the State Aid Road Fund is in excess of that paid by the
counties for the reason that, in addition to paying one-half of the
cost of construction, there was also paid from the State Aid Road
Fund certain expenses of Preliminary Surveys and Plans, and of
Inspection and Supervision. This schedule is also divided into two
parts for the same reason as Schedule 'No. 1.
Schedule No. 3 of Exhibit "A" shows expenditures of $254,193.50
from the Roads and Bridges Fund for construction of the Annapolis
and Baltimore Boulevard and the iSTanticoke Bridge, and for the
purchase of the Conow^ingo Bridge. The work on the Boulevard had
not been completed at December 31, 1911.
Schedule No. 4 of Exhibit "A" shows expenditures of $29,334.66
from the State Road ISTo. 1 Fund for construction of the Baltimore
and Washington Boulevard. The work on this road had not been
completed at December 31, 1911.
For the purpose of obtaining the total cost of roads the proportions
of the Administration, Legal and General Engineering expenses
applicable to each contract, based on the relative amounts of direct
construction expenditure (less cost of Rights of Way, Damages and
Purchases of Turnpikes and Bridges) is shown in each of the
Schedules ]^os. 1, 2, 3 and 4, in the column headed "Administration,
Legal and General Engineering Expenses." The mileage shown on
these schedules is that obtained from the Engineering Department,
except that, in this report, contracts have not been considered as
completed until vouchers for the final estimates have been passed
through the accounting records.
EXPENDITURES EOE KECONSTRUCTIOX.
Schedule i^o. 5 of Exhibit "A" shows the details of the expendi-
ture of $16,378.92 for reconstruction of roads purchased by the
Commission, together with the overhead expenses applicable thereto,
prepared from distributions made by the Engineering Department.
178 FiEST, Second, Third and Fourth
EXPENDITURES FOR MAINTENANCE.
Schedule ^o. 6 of Exhibit "A" shows the details of the expendi-
ture of $88,966.75 for maintenance of existing roads, together with
the overhead expenses applicable thereto. Of the amount of
$88,676.23, shown as expended from the State Road Fund,
$22,460.45 was received under the provisions of the law relating to
taxes on motor vehicles.
PKELIMINAKY SURVEYS AND PLANS IN ADVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
This item, $22,113.70, represents expenditures for preliminary
engineering work in advance of the commencement of actual con-
struction. When work is commenced on the roads on which these
preliminary expenses were incurred, it is the intention that transfers
of these expenses shall be made from this account to the cost of con-
struction of such roads.
OVERHEAD EXPENSES.
The details of the amounts composing this item of $189,579.38
are shown in Schedule 'No. 7 of Exhibit "A."
This amount has been divided among the several funds in the
ratio of the expenditures from each fund to the total expenditures
of the Commission for Preliminary Work, Construction, Reconstruc-
tion and Maintenance (less Expenditures for Rights of Way and
Damages and Purchase of the Conowingo Bridge), except that the
amount of overhead expenses for maintenance on State aid road
work was obtained by using the rate per mile as was found for the
State road work, as such work was done by the counties and the
actual figures were not available. The amount of overhead expenses
applicable to maintenance in State Aid Roads is $9,447.39, and is
so charged against the allotments from this fund of the several
counties.
The overhead expenses applicable to the State Road Eund and the
State Aid Road Eund have been apportioned against the several
county allotments pro rata with expenditures in the counties and the
results are shown in Exhibits "B" and "C," respectively. The
Roads and Bridges and State Road ISTo. 1 Eunds are not required to
Kepokts of the State Koads Commission 179
be allotted by counties and hence the overhead expenses in those
funds are not so divided.
OTHER EXPENDITURES.
The item of $9,310.55 represents payments made to counties on
account of the allotments of the State Aid Road Fund's proportion
of the Motor Vehicle tax collections (see Exhibit "C") The pay-
ments were made by warrants on the State Treasurer on vouchers,
approved by the Engineering Department, for maintenance expendi-
tures by the counties.
The item of $175,705.11 represents expenditures for construction
work in the City of Baltimore and the Counties of Baltimore and
Anne Arundel, for which the Commission claimed the United Rail-
ways and Electric Company was partly responsible. We are
informed that the Coimuission has been unable to reach a basis of
settlement with the United Railways and Electric Company and
has referred the matter to its legal advisers for adjustment. As
shown by the Commission's records, the expenditures were as follows :
Baltimore City $126,993.51
Baltimore County 41,712.61
Anne Arundel County 6,998.99
Total $175,705.11
Such portions of the above as are not recovered from the United
Railways and Electric Company, together with the overhead expenses
applicable thereto, are chargeable to the respective allotments of the
City of Baltimore and the Counties of Baltimore and Anne Arundel,
shown in Exhibit "B."
In addition to the above amount not yet charged to allotments,
we are informed that the United Railways and Electric Company
hold further bills against the Commission aggregating approximately
$41,466.00 and that damage claims in connection with this work
aggregating $38,640.00 are on file. Further payments when made
on such accounts together with proportionate amounts of overhead
expenses are to be charged against the respective allotments involved.
ROAD EQUIPMENT.
Schedule 'No. 8 of Exhibit "A" shows the details of the Commis-
sion's expenditure of $47,430.38 for the larger equipment items, the
180 FiEST, Second, Thied aa'd Fourth
entire value of which should not have been consumed by the work
for which originally purchased. Xo part of the cost of this equip-
ment has as yet been charged to the Construction upon which it was
used for the reason that no inventory and appraisal of such equip-
ment has been made.
In addition to this equipment, the Commission has a road roller
taken over from the Maryland Geological Survey, valued at the time
at $3,000.
The cost of all small tools and equipment, having little if any
value after use on the work for which purchased, has been charged
to the cost of such work.
EXCESS OF EXPENDITUEES AXD VOrCHEES OVEE EECEIPTS.
As shown in Exhibit "A," the net excess of expenditures and
vouchers over receipts of all funds at December 31, 1911, amounted
to $106,948.37. This balance does not include contract obligations
for work to be done under which liabilities had not matured at
December 31, 1911. The amounts of such outstanding contracts
were as follows:
state Road Fund 1579,525.24
State Aid Road Fund (State's one-half) 169,180.51
Roads and Bridges Fund 112,175.72
State Road No. 1 Fund 54,964.83
Total $915,846.30
Accordingly, the net excess of expenditures, vouchers and contract
obligations over receipts of all funds at December 31, 1911,
amounted to $1,022,794.67, made up as follows:
♦State Road Fund — excess over receipts $1,096,064.92
Roads and Bridges Fund — excess over receipts.... 121,311.18
Total $1,217,376.10
Less:
State Aid Road Fund — available balance $136,158.47
State Road No. 1 Fund— available balance 58,422.96
Total $194,581.43
Balance — net excess over receipts $1,022,794.67
*In tlie case of the State Road Fund, the excess should be decreased by
such amounts as may be recovered in the settlement with the United Rail-
ways and Electric Company, and increased by the amounts which may be
paid in settlement of damage claims pending.
Repokts of the State Roads Commission 181
Section 32-H, Chapter 141, Acts of 1908, State Roads Laws and
Amendments, provides that "the aggregate of the total expenditures
of the said Commission for said purposes shall not exceed the sum
of $5,000,000, of which sum not more than $1,000,000 shall be
expended in any one year accounting from said first day of July,
1908; and for the purpose of providing for such expenditures for
the establishment, construction and improveanent and management
of said general system of public roads mentioned in this Act, a loan
is hereby created to be called 'The State Roads Loan' to the amount
of $5,000,000."
Under the provisions of this Section the State Roads Commission
had received to December 31, 1911, the proceeds of $3,500,000 of
such bonds amounting to $3,355,700.97, and had expended or passed
vouchers for $3,910,948.76, which, less the receipts from the Motor
Vehicle tax, interest, etc., left a net expenditure from this fund of
$3,872,240.65 or $516,539.68 more than the amount realized from
the bonds.
It accordingly appears that to December 31, 1911, the Comimission
had already expended from or passed vouchers against this fund to
an amount in excess of that which the Act provided might be spent
to July 1, 1912, leaving no provision for payments on contract and
other obligations maturing between December 31, 1911, and July 1,
1912.
It should be noted, however, that the proceeds of a further issue
of bonds of $1,000,000 dated February 1, 1912, became available
for this fund in February, 1912, and that the proceeds of a further
issue of $500,000 dated February 1, 1913, will become available
about that time.
In connection with the excess of expenditures, vouchers and con-
tracts over receipts of the Roads and Bridges Fund, it should be
noted that the proceeds of the sale of an issue of $250,000 of bonds
dated January 1, 1912, became available for the use of this fund in
January, 1912.
SUMMARY OF EXPEJ^DITURES^ OBLIGATION'S AND ALLOTMENTS BY
COUNTIES STATE KOAD FUND.
Exhibit "B" shows by counties the total of the expenditures from
the State Road Fund and the obligations for outstanding contracts
at December 31, 1911, the allotments of the proceeds of the sales of
182 FiKST, Second, Third and Foueth
$3,500,000 of bonds on the basis of road mileage, after allotting the
fixed amount of $700,000 to Baltimore City, and the remaining bal-
ances available or by which the allotments have been exceeded.
As heretofore explained under the caption "Other Expenditures"
the available balance shown for Baltimore City should be reduced
by such portion of the amount charged to the United Railways and
Electric Company as may not be recovered, together with the over-
head expenses applicable thereto. For like reason, the excess of
expenditures and obligations over allotments in Baltimore and Anne
Arundel counties will be increased.
Under the provisions of Chapter 141, Acts of 1908, the proceeds
of the sales of the further issue of $1,500,000 of bonds ($1,000,000
February 1, 1912, and $500,000 February 1, 1913), become avail-
able for the use of this fund for allotments to counties when received.
SUMMAEY OF EXPENDITURES^ OBLIGATIONS AND ALLOTMENTS BY
COUNTIES STATE AID ROAD FUND.
Exhibit "C" shows by counties the total of the State's expenditures
from the State Aid Road Fund and of the State's one-half of the
obligations for outstanding contracts at December 31, 1911, the
allotments of appropriations and other receipts, and the remaining
balances available or by which the allotments have been exceeded.
GENERAL.
Under the Commission's old classification of accounts, construc-
tion expenditures were shown under such headings as "Labor,"
"Material," "Team Hire," etc., summaries of which did not show
separately the costs of the main physical features of road building,
viz: those of Grading, Surfacing, Bridging, Culverts, Underdrains,
etc., or the cost per unit of such expenditures. For the purpose of
"comparative costs of different undertakings, it seemed highly desir-
able to you and to us that the classification of the accounts should be
such as to admit of a ready compilation of such data. Accordingly,
in conjunction with your Chief Engineer, Major W. W. Crosby,
and, after making examinations of the accounting systems employed
by the Massachusetts Highways Commission and the 'New Jersey
Commissioner of Public Roads, we outlined to the Commission a
new classification and system of accounts, designed to show the cost
Repokts of the State Roads Commission 183
of each road under the headings "Preliminary Surveys and Plans,"
"Grading," "Surfacing," "Bridges and Culverts," "Underdrains,"
"Inspection and Superintendence" and "Miscellaneous," and further
the costs of Eights of Way. From such costs, together with the
engineer's data of the physical work done, the unit costs of work
done under the foregoing headings will be readily determinable.
The classification and system as outlined with some minor changes
were approved by the Commission and are to be put in operation
from June 1, 1912. We have prepared the necessary accounting
forms and they have been or are being printed.
From the resolutions adopted by the Commission at its meeting
of January 25, 1912, we quote the following:
"Resolved further. That the said committee shall employ an audit-
ing company to audit the accounts of the Commission, said audit to
show the cost of rights-of-way (including turnpikes), grading, sur-
facing, culverts, and bridges, surveying and planning, and inspection
on each piece of work ; the cost of machinery, tools and other equip-
ment, together with the proper distribution of these outlays, and the
general expenses of engineering and administration."
To comply with the terms of this resolution, it became necessary
to examine and redistribute in detail practically all the expenditures
of the Commission from May 19, 1908, to December 81, 1911. This
work has been done by the Commission's employes under our super-
vision and the results are shown in the accompanying exhibits and
schedules.
Considering the fact that this work was in addition to the regular
routine work, which at March 1, 1912, as regards the detail distribu-
tion of construction expenditures, was over nine months behind, we
think that it has been expeditiously performed. Had the accounts
been kept according to the classification provided for the new system,
but little additional work would have been required to give the
information called for in the resolution above quoted.
Yours truly,
(Signed) Haskins & Sells,
» Certified Public Accountants.
\
i.i:J:^
-^^■^@'-:<fr^^iia
■' '^ IB
.MV)
•JLivr
tt
». i\fl
'^„, ml WWWIi
B*«.w>.HSil**lt-i.i *»-S*i£iST
ivlmrwlmr^J
'^ouisi
i
iiiilliiilli
!
1
! 1