(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Annual reports of the State Roads Commission for the years .."

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 sections, aggregating .00 

Contracts let for sections, aggregating 00 

Other arrangements made for sections, aggregating 00 

Work accepted as completed on 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 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 sections, aggregating 00 

Plans and specifications prepared for sections, aggregating 00 

Contracts let for sections, aggregating 00 

Other arrangements made for 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 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 $_ 

10,03 4 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 8 3 $_ 
54,142 26$ 2,494 44$ 
28,947 02 1,333 641 
32,013 21 1.457 76, 



49.88 4 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$ 
5.1 9 
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 $ 16,584 58 '. 

437 68$ 6,486 u'. 

461 58 3,906 60 . 

676 6 9 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; 
4.26 i 
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 9.50 i 

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 9-50 i. 



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 

Salisbury-Allen 18' Bit Shell 1 

Salisbury- Allen 18' Bit Shell 

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 
2 1.151 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 




^ 





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 





3 < 


i 
5 "J 


c 
< 


1 +J 

1 2-= 




.1 


\ J 


3 

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 





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 




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^ 


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 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 "^ 


in CO 


c- 


00 


,_, 


OS 


00 


CO 


CO -^ 


t- 


m CO CO 


m 





□ 





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> 


CO C-rH 


CO 


t— 


Tf rH as 


m 


■^ t- rH 


^Ig 


C- CO 




t- 


aioio.-i 


t- 


OC<l-H i^ 




^ OS CO 





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 


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 rH m in 




CO 


rn OS m 


OS 


COCO 00 


CO 


OS" 







.•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 




■•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 





rH ■•3' -^ 


OS 


00 


n 


CO 






(N TPrHCO 


(N 


^^\n1~\ t-< 


in in CO CO 






CO 





com CO 


"^ 


O'S" 


'^ 


^ 






<m" 




C^ 




■<r 


CO T-lrHCO 


m 




"•I* 


■^ 


coco 




rHOS 







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 








00 




00_ 


.-H_Tr i-ico 




CO -^ rH 


as 


-^ 


^_rH CO_ 


00 


•<3' -13^ ^^. ^., 


00 


^ -f CO rH 


'"' oso 


OS 


eoico 


o_ 







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 • 





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 





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 





CO '-^COrf 






00 


g5 





^ 






t- 


iOiO 




o 


Tt TPOO 


c- 


OS 


CO com 





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 





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 





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 oso -n* 


CO -^ -"* CO 






CO 


CO Er- 


Tor 


■<3' 




,_ 


>-< NIMINO C- 


00 00 CO |0! 


C-: ooSin 


"^ 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 


t-»H 


0- 




CDC 


t-Ico 










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 





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 





00 


00 




o 


m 


C0COC>^^ 


CO 


CO CO 00 


CO 




rHOO 


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 . 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 







































i 


8 

s 


1 
J 

5 


3 

3p: 



1 


a: 
p 
c 


"d 


bo 


"rt 


c 

■5 

E 
+-> 


.if 
J 

1 

h 


01 C 
CS5! 


"5 


X 








6 
c 

-3 

H 


"ca 


0) 

cS 

H 


m 

c 


CM 

g 

3"? 


'a 
g 


ct 


CC 

£ 

c 
1 




■c 




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 


oiwn 


Pif^zr 


K 




2-5 


o to 


OrH CO 


OrH CO 


^mo 


r^ T^\a 










oo 


■<3* -^ Tj* 


in c- t- 1- 


CO CjC^ 


CO 


CO CO 




N O] 


OOO 


rH 00 












II 


CO 







000 


00 ■ 


























>> 


• 










t- 
























3 
O 




1 










a 








6 


c 








'I 












1 

a 


X 

;- 
c 

1- 








1 

c 








c 





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 







U 


Xi 


j= 


0) 



















s 


ft 


bi) 


n. 


T3 


"3 


<; 





In 


n > 


CO 


y c 


05 






■B 








aj <M 












aS ^ 


>. 


> g 




« 


u 






dl m 




X. « 






s 








c 


If. 


s 


1^ 






g 


U> 
.2 S 


c 





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 


/ 


\ 


< 


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 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 




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 








1 


c 


a> 







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 


5 

1 


1 


O 
US 


• o 




•(M050 
•OUSrH 

•CO T-i N 


:8S8 

jco.-i 


■COrH 


• .-ico 






•rHN 


\a ; 


C- T- 


>i 




>> 

1 


> 

g 

< 




< 

'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 





> 


< 
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 


< 







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 







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 

SUOflB Q 

■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 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 



■' ' ^ I B 



.MV) 



•JLivr 



tt 



». i\fl 



'^ „, m l WW WIi 



B*«.w>.HSil**lt-i.i *»-S*i£iST 



ivlmrwlmr^J 



'^ouisi 









i 

iiiilliiilli 






! 


1 


! 1