li'ipp i
I li
■llPiiPlliilililli'i I 111
Report
OF THE
State Roads Commission
OF Maryland
OPERATING REPORT
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS
1957-1958
FINANCIAL REPORT
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS
1957-1958
A HISTORY OF ROAD BUILDING IN MARYLAND
Report
OF THE
JState Roads Commission
OF Maryland
OPERATING REPORT
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS
1957-1958
FINANCIAL REPORT
FOR THE FISCAL YEARS
1957-1958
A HISTORY OF ROAD BUILDING IN MARYLAND
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
December 15, 1958
Baltimore Beltway, showing interchanges at the Baltimore-Harrisburg Ex-
pressway, the extension of Charles Street, York Road, and Dulaney Valley
Road. The Beltway is now extended east of the Dulaney Valley Road.
OFFICE OF THE STATE ROADS COMMISSION
OF MARYLAND
M^ y i Ur^ L ^^^ ^^^^ LEXINGTON STREET
^ ^ BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
To His Excellency, Theodore R. McKeldm, Governor of Maryland:
Sir:
We have the honor to submit an operating and financial report cover-
ing the activities of the State Roads Commission of Maryland for the
fiscal years 1957-1958.
j Included in the latter half of this volume is "A History of Road Build-
;;j ing in Maryland" which has been prepared to commemorate the first fifty
;r years of this agency's responsibility for the development and maintenance
2 of Maryland's highway system.
H
:)
^ Respectfully,
C
q Robert 0. Bonnell
D Edgar T. Bennett
John J. McMullen
State Roads Commission
Date: December 15, 1958.
II
a
z
>
<
1
11
s
E
1
If
'^ »
- N.
"-Z
c r^
Q
s
-'O
i~6
1*12
°l
•sz
S
||
O
z
g
s
•1-
O
Of
'5z
1'^
■sz
S
1^?
II
Jl
COM
1,
Hi
C 'J
■sz
5
<
0
Of
<
o
—
1
1
U4
1-
•5Z
Q
o
<
X
<j
z
O
.1
i
f
^ /■
1^
■sz
Q
U.2
<
z
o
O
1
il
II
1;
■sz
Q
>£z
}
—
kl
si
5
1
1
-5
1
STATE ROADS COMMISSION
MEMBERS
ROBERT 0. BONNELL, Chairman
EDGAR T. BENNETT, Member JOHN J. McMULLEN, Member
CHARLES R. PEASE, Secretary
ALBERT S. GORDON, Executive Assistant to Chairman
ORGANIZATION PERSONNEL
Engineering Department
NORMAN M. PRITCHETT, Chief Engineer
WALTER C. HOPKINS, Deputy Chief Engineer
P. A. MORISON, Director of Highway Maintenance
CORDT A. GOLDEISEN, Director of Highway Construction
S. W. Baumiller Roland E. Jones
Landscape Engineer Assistant to Chief Engineer
Clarence W. Clawson Truman A. Keeney
Engineer of Road Design Equipmeiit Engineer
A. F. Di Domenico Allan Lee
Office Engineer Research Engineer
Hugh G. Downs George N. Lewis, Jr.
Engineer of Special Services Director — Traffic Division
Frank V. Dreyer Leroy C. Moser
Chief Location Engineer Right of Way Engineer
Warren B. Duckett Frank P. Scrivener
Construction Engineer Maintenance Engineer
Albert L. Grubb Austin F. Shure
Chief — Bureau of Bridges Assistant to Chief Engineer
J. Eldridge Wood, Chief — Bureaii of Soils and Materials
District Engineers
District No. 1 — C. Albert Skirven, Salisbury, Maryland
District No. 2 — Rolph Townshend, Chestertmvyi, Maryland
District No. 3 — Lisle E. McCarl, Laurel, Maryland
District No. 4 — Enoch C. Chaney, Relsterstown, Maryland
District No. 5 — E. G. Duncan, lipper Marlboro, Maryland
District No. 6 — G. Bates Chaires, Cumberland, Maryland
District No. 7 — Thomas G. Mohler, Frederick, Maryland
Accounting Department
Carl L. Wannen, Comptroller
Morris M. Brodsky James W. Rountree, Jr.
Assistant Comptroller — Assistant Comptroller —
General Accounting Procedures and Controls
Charles L Norris, Assistant Comptroller — Budgets and Costs
Legal Department
Joseph D. Buscher, Special Assistayit Attorney General
Personnel^ Pension, and W orhmen^s Compensation Division
William F. Bender, Director of Persorinel
Public Relations Division
Charles T. Le Viness, Director
Toll Facilities Department
Louis J. O'Donnell, Chief Administrative Officer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal iii
Commission Personnel v
Report of the Chief Engineer 1
Deputy Chief Engineer 5
Construction 9
Highway Location and Survey Division 12
Division of Road Design 13
Bureau of Bridges 15
Bureau of Soils and Materials 16
Inspection 20
Development Engineering Division 20
Division of Special Services 21
Division of Special Operations 22
Maintenance 25
Maintenance Division 27
Landscaping 28
Sign Shop 28
Equipment Division 30
District No. 1 33
District No. 2 41
District No. 3 49
District No. 4 59
District No. 5 69
District No. 6 79
District No. 7 89
Right-of-Way Division 97
Traffic Division 103
Bureau of Research, Design Standards and Engineering
Training 107
The Administration of Federal-Aid, Special Hauling Per-
mits AND Outdoor Advertising 109
Personnel, Pensions and Workmen's Compensation Division — 113
Legal Department 115
Toll Facilities Department 119
Accounting Department 123
Report of the Comptroller 124
, REPORT OF CHIEF ENGINEER
To The Honorable Chairman and
Members of the State Roads Commission:
Submitted herewith is the biennial report of the Chief Engineer cover-
ing the period from July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1958. This report is accom-
panied by the reports of the various Bureau Heads and District Engineers.
These reports, with supporting data, give a detailed picture of the accom-
plishments of the Engineering Division during the past two fiscal years.
One of the outstanding projects initiated and completed during this
biennium was an extensive engineering review, analysis and study of
every mile of road in the State highway system. Numerical evaluations —
"Sufficiency Ratings" — were prepared for each section, following which
a second, objective review of every mile of highway was made in the field.
Following this review, the data obtained were compiled in tabular form,
and estimates prepared, reflecting current construction and right of way
costs for projects in the Twelve Year Program remaining to be initiated,
and additional projects recommended for inclusion in an over-all program.
It is believed that the data obtained reflect a sound approach to the prob-
lems inherent in design, traffic safety and State highway needs.
From the inception of the Twelve Year Program to the end of the fiscal
year at June 30, 1958, contracts covering 903.14 miles had been awarded,
at an authorized expenditure of $246,496,034. In addition, contracts were
advertised with award pending, for 42.90 miles, estimated to cost $16,-
223,000. There were authorized, in addition, for surveys, plans and
right of way acquisition on projects that had not been awarded, the sum
of $33,070,714.
The following table shows the distribution, by county and by system
of the work covered by these authorizations.
O
<
o
'^^
^
_.
c-1
oc
CD
iC
J^
1^
CD
_^
o-
CC
-s
CC
'-1
j^
-r
-1
1 ^
□c
M*
"S.
m
CO
OS
CC
CC
crs
CO
cc
^•
CO
o
CD
c-1
o
o
o_
6c
92
^
^*
>o
CO
o"
CO
Cvf
CO*
-r
_■"
o"
o"
cc"
cf
cg~
OD
o*
o"
o"
^
co"
cs
oo"
oT
o
-*
o
■o
^
OS
OS
05
»o
CO
Cl
fi
.J
O
CO
CM
■o
t^
00
00
o
!3
t
co"
cd"
o"
(m"
eo^
iC
CO
r-^
fM*"
co'
tc
1^^
CO
■^
-^
»r>
CO
^
CO
d
o"
I^"
cc
iC*
■<
ta
cs
K
o
C
C-(
s»
e^
JJ
<M
^
CO
J^
OC'
lO
-r
M
OS
-T
OO
^
»o
OO
_^
—-
•r-*
^
-r
C7S
o
CO
CO
CD
ec
CO
^5*
OO
a-.
OQ
OS
"^
C-3
^
CO
-f
t^
o
CM
00
00
CO
03
t^
00
o
is
t-^
^
1-^
oc
^
oi
C4
CO
OO
o
^
^
^
t>I
05
OS
OC
^
d
c<i
d
r^
c-i
CO
C<l
^
•o
C-1
^
CO
^
CO
CO
eg
CO
CD
^
CO
CO
Ol
to
■^
OS
E o
o
o
o
^
o
o
CD
^
^
Q
o
<
o
o
o
o
o
Q
o
o_
c
1
1
1
1
o
1
1
1
o_
o_
1
o
o
o_
1
1
1
c^
1
1
o^
e
c'
CO
1
1
1
1
c^
oT
1
1
r-T
1
1
c
CO
OO
lO
IC
e
■^c
*"
'-"
r^
■^
oc
CC
r-^
CO
•-'
d
H
'Si
co^
rC
cd"
o
^
-<
e^
«&
o
s
OS
CD
CD
CD
CO
o
o
O
Z
s
03
o
CO
z
1
1
1
1
o
1
1
1
o
"
'
t-
00
o
CO
1
1
1
d
1
1
OS
•a
_,
OO
CO
<M
w
-
,^
t^
CO
(M
_
OS
«
CD
-r
ira
^
to
"oT
^^
lO
.J.
_
J^
0;
o
o
CO
c:
r^
00
CD
2 .^
o
Ift
t^
CO
CO
"5
os_
C-.
Cs
C3;
CO
00
CO
■^r
CD
o
o
c-1
CO
00
oc
o_
S2
<^~
-^
oo'
■^
Cvf
-r"
co"
c-f
tc
tc
iC*
oc"
c<f
co"
C-J*
uf
CO
C-l"
c-l"
o"
tc
-^"
co"
OO
"5
CO
CO
oc
c=;
OO
to
o
c^.
C^l
CO
oc
CC
»-'5
OC_
u^
-r
CO^
oc
GC
-p
uO
r^
oc
CC'
o:
"O
H
3
•M*
cf
oo"
CD
m
>•
<
—
IS
«^
e^
1 E •
1 S-2
^r7
CD
to
1
1
1
1
f
1
I
1
1
r
1
1
1
1
CD
1
1
1
1
I
1
O)
■<
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Q
m «a
CO
d
CD
z
o
§J^_
rS
s
O
ifl
CO
OC
'^f
o
oo
OO
OS
t^
OS
I^
CO
CO
CO
■i.l
T^
"5
"rr
t^
»-.
o
CO
o:
CO
"7"
CD
to
lO
-t!
to
n^
oi
OS
^
CO
&0
t^
^
CO
to
•-H
U5
OO
c:C;
OJ
^
QC
— '
to
o;
eg
t^
CO
t
^
c^
04
CQ
CO
1 »«
<
1 •*
H
-3
'^
OO
OO
05
OO
W5
o
C31
00
02
o
CO
r^
o
Ci
OO
oc
o
•^
O
OO
w
H
CO_
»o^
Ci
CO
CO
•n
co^
t^
to
o-
■few
t^
^r"
lo
^
oc"
^
^
'-X'
c-r
cs*
oT
cs
to"
CD
CS*
r-T
r^
^
CO
^
c^
co"
s
C §
o
40
CD
ic
«5
O:
OJ
03
o>
cc
£o
05^
Ol^
1"^
t^
— "
CC
c^
T
■-^
CO
"^
•-^
"^
"^^
o
05
oq
o
o_
3
o"
CO
CO
CO
cc"
CO*
c-i"
to"
co"
<
'^
-r
*"■
CO
"^
o
6^
««
>H
e-2
CO
~co"
o
(^
to
^
o
CO
^J*
«
1
t--
CO
1
I
I
1
I
1
Oi
1
1
1
iC
'ffH
1
1
1
t^
I
1
<:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
c8&q
Oi
QC
CO
Oj
CO
t^
i-
tf
"
""
•^
&H
s
C c
o
CC
U5
o
OS
o
CO
CO
CD
CD
OO
'3 ^
CR
t^
c;
-r
r^
CI
CD
CC
t^
oc
O
CD
-r
CO
1
to
CO
S3
2
CO
i?
z
2
§j
c
o
CO
od
l«
OO
~
^
^
rf
M
£J
_fl
CC
^
s
s
s
1
CO
t--.
C<l
o
CC
(M
us
OS
lo
lO
CI
^
J5
lO
CO
CD
OS
eg
o
o
ej
^
o
OO
Ed
t^
OS
OS
OO
iC
o
u:
CO
CO
!3a
to
o
OS
b
t^
Tj*
1^
o
\n
IC
o:
lO
to
o
00
CO
'i|
ci"
^
^
ss"
__r
o"
oc"
!>.*
CO
Os"
co^
tt"
^
o'
o"
CO
CO
00
to
cc"
^
00
cc
lo*
H
CD
t^
m
CD
iC
CO
CO
O
•So
Ol
CO
to
a
>;
3
<
^^
o
««
■<
v»
z
e
o
o
tH
o
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
^
ii
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O S
_
o
CO
"^
CO
CO
_
c«
^
.^
o
-rr
lO
oc
^
o
o
o>
o
ei
cc
o
CO
£
cc
o
o
OO
C5
o
o
eg
o
tc
to
^-^
s
f-
CO
ro_
«
M"_
CO
CC
1
CD
OJ"
5
o*
2-
I
3t-
oo"
o"
o
00
CO
IS
00
lO"
2 °
cc
CO
W5
CO
02
CT
tf
?
50
CO_
CO
^
c-1
^-
lO
^
CO
oc
CM
'— '
o
•-^
OS
O!
3
T-«"
CO*
y~X
■w-^
cc"
irT
.— «
e-
1^
"8
<:
«^
d
<
e©
S
i
t
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_
05
o
OO
CO
>o
OS
CO
eg
—1
OS
^
OS
~
lO
00
05
o
OO
„
o
^
eg
-**
t~
t^
co-
CO
CO
OS
o
I^
c-1
o
■o
lO
•o
ld
o
CC
CD
■^
CM
CO
00
o
'C "m
«5
CB
CO
tc
Ol
CO
Csj
co"
^
OS
od
OS
lO
^
otf
co"
^
Ifi"
CO
to"
^^
c<
to
CD*
O o
•^
OO
CO
rr
iC
iC
OO
CO
OO
:gO
■^
TO
^-
lO
o
OO
1^
o
c-1
T
'C5
oc
-r
to
CO
CO
oc
t"^
3
^
•n
CO
cm"
CO
l-T
io
co"
c-^
cs
r^
lO
OJ
-r*
r^
^
to"
-r*
cc
C-:
CI
o
i^
CD*
-<
'"'
■^
'— '
CO
CO
CM
o
Eh
e©
e«
t-g
CC
^
o
t~
\n
CO
o
to
M
o
1
•^
"?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
115
00
to
1
1
^
■^
1
1
*^
(S«
03
"^
CO
CO
CO
o
OS
_!
C-)
^H
I^
S"
^
-ri-
r^
o
^
00
>o
^r
CO
en
■^
OO
„
o
OO
t^
to
to
o
~
OJ
^
s
■*
■§.i
Sh3
CC
lO
■^
oc
o;
CC
CC
CO
OO
00
cc
00
00
'"^
CO
OO
&r
00
^
ci
C-]
CO
oc
o
^
^
^
f^
^
d
eg
t^
d
c<
o
e<
CO
Q
<M
lO
c^
"^
CO
CO
CD
CO
cs
Ol
CM
CD
CD
-^
CO
ei
to
eg
-w
o
S
1
OO
^^
-^
CJ
^_
00
cq
OO
OO
^
o
□o
iC
__,
^
C5
^
CO
~~o
_
CO
o
^
OS
Pi
»o
CC
(M
CC
CO
o
g
o
^r
c-1
e-
w.
0
^
c
t^
cs
OS
t-*
CO
CO
o
t-*
g
'fe "S
c^
co'
J^
tr-
CD
oJ
00
-r
r-^
^
CO
oc"
^'
-1-"
ic.
o
^^
tc
<
>*
g o
CO
oc
I«
CO
5
o
lO
02
oc
^t-
o
za
3
c:
o_
■^
OO
•—
ee
o;
o
OO
r-
-^
Tl-
CO
^-
^r
00
"^^
CO
^
CO
o"
eg
OO
g
g
-a;
tt
-<
Q
«^
O
Z
o
kC
CO
o
OS
OC
r^
05
t^
CO
05
r--
00
8
JJ>J
'';
W5
"^
"
t^
o
CD
o
^
lO
to
^
-p
eg
lO
o
a
is"
«
CO
OS
c-
d
to
t-
--f
jji
(M
(M
■^
^^
oq
CO
'^
*"
""
""
CM
""
c-1
eg
eg
co
^
»o
-C
CO
OO
CO
CO
^
t^
(^
00
■^J*
-^
o
^
co
'^
C3
(^
t^
.oa
I--
_H
lO
s
U3
OS
to
oi
c
CO
CO
o:
O!
»o
c:
o;
CO
OO
kr
CC
c
o
o
o
o
O
1
o
tr
CO
CO
CC
OS
c
»o
00
o
CO
c/
O o
w:
00
00
00
00
eg
00
o
C5
r--
:SO
3
OO
^
oc
to
n
^
^
oc
c
ot
-1
CD_
OS*
2-
to
CO
CT
CO
>4
<
eg
"
ii;
««
€^
s
H ^
o
•o
t^
CO
<^
•o
-^
o
c»
o
o
CD
CD
CO
00
<£
^►J
OS
Oj
T
f^
^-J*
CD
CD
t'-
-^
o
■<r
5
1
-^
K
CD
ii
«:
<»
c:
M*
CC
cj
o
o
CO
oc
»<;
00
^
^-,
CO
ci
^
eg
^
a
^
"
<M
CO
^
'^
r«
't*
C-1
■"■
"
eg
U5
"(D
^
H
>i
bO
2
"H
l-l
<
C
o
o
>
<
2
c
c
c
>
3
(3
1
I
h
1
c
I
c
c
is
1
c
o
O
<
c
3
1
1
1
X
A
H
c
c
'i
c
c
o
O
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
During the fiscal years ending June 30, 1957 and June 30, 1958, a total
of 90 contracts, representing 195.343 miles of road construction and re-
construction, were awarded, at an authorized cost of $54,089,013.
The following table summarizes the work covered by these awards :
CONTRACTS AWARDED
Fiscal Years 1957 and 1958
7-1-56 to 6-30-57
7-1-57 to 6-30-58
TOTAL
No.
Miles
Amount
No.
Miles
.Amount
No.
Miles
.Amount
28
18
4
3
55.903
71.797
11.655
0.300
?30,722.870
8,576,777
310,224
215,878
22
13
2
18.590
34.098
$10,950,782
3,199,703
50
31
4
5
74.493
108.895
11.655
0.300
$41,673,652
Widening and Resurfacing ....
Federal Aid Secondary
Miscellaneous
11,776,480
310,224
328,657
112,779
Totals
53
142.655
$39,825,749
37
52.688
$14,263,264
90
195.343
$54,089,013
During this biennium there were completed 150 projects, totalling
330.179 miles, authorized to cost $87,626,823. These totals represent
contracts started in fiscal years 1957 to 1958, as follows:
Year Started
Number of Contracts
Miles
Amount Authorized
1954
3
17.244
$ 4,880,947
1955
29
126.042
34,192,137
1956
51
95.105
31,104,783
1957
57
68.592
16,305,599
1958
10
23.196
1,143.357
Totals
150
330.179
$87,626,823
Among the most notable of the projects completed were the Blue Star
Memorial Highway, Md. Route 71, in Kent, Queen Anne's and Cecil Coun-
ties, the Glen Burnie By-Pass, the John Hanson Highway between U. S.
Route 301 and the George Palmer Highway, and additional sections of
4 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
the Baltimore Beltway, the Baltimore National Pike, and the Washington
National Pike. A start has also been made on the Washington Circum-
ferential Route, and the construction of the Frederick By-Pass was vir-
tually completed.
Many of the projects under construction at the end of this biennium
are due for completion before the end of 1958.
Respectfully submitted,
Norman M. Pritchett,
Chief Engineer
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
WALTER C. HOPKINS
Deputy Chief Engineer
William A. Jordan Northam B. Friese
Highway Engineer, III Highway Engineer, III
JAMES I. CROWTHER
Highway Engineer, III
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
The Deputy Chief Engineer is the direct representative of tne Com-
mission and the Chief Engineer, with respect to overall policy and execu-
tion of the Commission's directives applicable generally to all phases of
construction and maintenance of the State's highway system, but more
specifically with respect to work performed by consulting engineers em-
ployed by the Commission for general highway work ; for construction of
Revenue Bonds Toll Projects, and for the Commission's Improvements
Program.
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
Consultant Engineering Service
In 1956, the Commission entered the third year of its full scale opera-
tion under the Twelve Year Program. This year also marked the advent
of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 which provided for completion
of the Federal Interstate System of Highways. The volume and magnitude
of the engineering services required m the preparation of plans and
specifications, and in supervision and inspection of construction of proj-
ects under the Twelve Year Program, was such that the Commission was
unable to handle many of these projects in its own departments. The
additional engineering requirements of the Federal Aid Highway Act of
1956 imposed an even greater work load on an already overtaxed engineer-
ing staff. In order to keep abreast of the Twelve Year Program and meet
the requirements of Federal Interstate projects, it was necessary to
retain the services of consulting engineers. It has been the duty of the
Deputy Chief Engineer to prepare contractual forms and agreements for
engineering services; to negotiate with consulting engineers for their
services ; to review the proposals submitted, and to make recommenda-
tions with respect to employment of consulting engineers by the Com-
mission.
During the period from July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1958, approximately
seventy agreements for engineering services were processed by the Deputy
Chief Engineer and approved by the Commission. These agreements in-
volved over twenty-five local and out-of-state consulting engineering firms.
Revenue Bonds Toll Projects
Patapsco Tunnel Project
On June 7, 1954, the Commission delegated the Deputy Chief Engineer
to act as liaison representative between the State Roads Commission and
various agencies, engineers and contractors in connection with the design
and construction of this project.
The project, officially named the BALTIMORE HARBOR TUNNEL,
consists of a 1.45 mile long, twin-tube tunnel under the Patapsco River
between Fairfield and Canton, with 16.06 miles of divided highway, con-
taining twelve interchange connections.
Since official ground breaking ceremonies on April 21, 1955, progress
schedules for design and construction were essentially met, to the extent
S Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
that the project was sufficiently completed to open to traffic by the sched-
uled date. Dedication ceremonies were held on November 29, 1957 in the
toll plaza at the Fairfield end of the tunnel, and the project was opened
to traffic at 12:01 A.M. on November 30, 1957.
Miscellaneous clean-up work continued after the project was opened to
traffic, but virtually all construction has been completed except for water-
front bulkhead and restoration work.
Northeastern Expressway Project
Following the authorization by the Maryland Legislature of 1955 to
construct the Northeastern Expressway as a toll facility, the Deputy Chief
Engineer was designated by the Commission to act as liaison officer be-
tween the Commission and the various groups and agencies connected
with the project. With the enactment of the Federal Aid Highway Act
of 1956, the attitude toward financing the project as a toll facility began
to change. The unsatisfactory experience of some States with recently
completed toll facilities, and the unfavorable bond market with high inter-
est rates, gave impetus to the already changing attitude toward the proj-
ect. On August 8, 1957, the Chairman formally advised the Bureau of
Public Roads of the Commission's intent to construct the project as a
free road on the Interstate System of Highways. The new aspect of the
project brought on extensive changes in the engineering requirements for
the project and consequently the duties previously delegated to the Deputy
Chief Engineer have been gradually assigned to other divisions.
Capital Improvements Program
On September 23, 1957, the Commission's Capital Improvement Pro-
gram was assigned to the Deputy Chief Engineer. This assignment in-
volves a program for construction of new building facilities and improve-
ments to existing facilities.
A program was immediately initiated to develop standard plans for
district offices, shops and garages which, with minor variations, could be
utilized in all districts. Plans and specifications have been completed for
the proposed Snow Hill garage in Worcester County, and the design of
standard plans for district offices, shop and garage facilities is nearing
completion.
Liaison has also been maintained with the Director, Department of
Public Improvements, in connection with the planning and construction
of the Commission's new office building located in the new State Office
Center.
CONSTRUCTION
CORDT A. GOLDEISEN
Director- of Highway Construction
CLARENCE W. CLAWSON FRANK V. DREYER
Engineer of Road Design Chief, Location Engineer
ALBERT L. GRUBB C. STUART LINVILLE
Chief, Bureau of Bridges Development Engineer
J. ELDRIDGE WOOD JOHN D. BUSHBY
Chief, Bureau of Soils and Materials Engineer of Special Operations
WARREN B. DUCKETT HUGH G. DOWNS
Construction Engineer Engineer of Special Services
CO
D^
DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
The Director of Highway Construction forms a direct contact between
the Chief Engineer, Deputy Chief Engineer and seven District Engineers
relative to construction projects.
He also exercises general supervision over the activities of the High-
way Location and Survey Division, Division of Road Design, Bureau of
Bridges, Bureau of Soils and Materials, Construction Division, the recently
established Development Engineering Division, Special Operations, and
Office of Special Services.
Reports from each of these Divisions appear in the following pages.
HIGHWAY LOCATION AND SURVEY DIVISION
This Division, under the supervision of Mr. Frank V. Dreyer, Chief
Location Engineer, is charged with the responsibility of performing the
highway location studies and field surveys necessary for the preparation
of Construction Plans and Right-of-Way Plats. The Division, in close
cooperation with the Traffic Division, and under the direction of the
Chief Engineer, serves as a planning staff for highway projects in future
programs.
Due to the great volume of work resulting from the Twelve Year Pro-
gram and' the 1956 Federal Highway Act, this division has expanded
rapidly, and is now comprised of 180 employees. Mr. Roland M. Thomp-
son and Mr. James F. Lcskot, Sr. are the two principal assistants to the
division head, and are responsible for directing location studies conducted
by the office personnel, and supervising 30 survey parties in the field.
Also engaged in field reconnaissance and location studies are Mr. Charles
W. Ruzicka, Mr. Edgar J. Streb, Mr. William T. Sprague and Mr. Ridgely
H. Dorsey. Mr. George W. Bushby is in charge of the Property Survey
Section, which performs condemnation surveys, staking right-of-way lines
and preparing special right-of-way plats. Mr. Pierce E. Cody III is the
immediate supervisor of the Drafting Section of 20 employees.
The following tabulation is a resume of the survey work accomplished
by field parties in the fiscal years, July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1957 and July
1, 1957 to June 30, 1958. An additional table shows the breakdown of the
survey work for the years covered by this report.
Tables Showing Work Accomplished By St.a.te Ro.vds Commission's Survey Parties
Fiscal Year, July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1957
Description
Miles Primary
Roads
Miles Secondary
Roads
Total
Miles
Traverse Surveys
33.00
56.89
32.05
61.04
131.35
116.19
23.27
33.50
164.35
Preliminarv Centerline Surveys
173 08
Construction Stakeouts
55 . 32
Right-of-Way Stakeouts
94.54
Borrow Pits:
20 Preliminary Borrow Pits
19 Final Borrow Pits
12
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Fiscal Year, July 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958
13
Description
Miles Primary
Roads
Miles Secondary
Roads
Total
Miles
Traverse Surveys
62.00
79.67
62.36
55.00
137.90
71.86
20.31
36.49
199.90
Preliminary Centerline Surveys
151.53
Construction Stakeouts
82.67
Right-of-Way Stakeouts
91.49
Borrow Pits:
4 Preliminary Borrow Pits
8 Final Borrow Pits
Note: Due to advanced highway standards requiring that all surveys shall provide for
ultimate dualization, progress shown is classified 'PRIMARY' or 'SECONDARY'.
The term "Traverse Surveys," as used in these Tables, covers complete surveys on
roads of minor importance, on which it is not necessary to make the more exacting
centerline surveys. It should be noted in interpreting the Tables shown above, that
more work is performed than is indicated in the tabulation.
For a modern highway — especially in the dual highway classification — extensive spur
lines must be run on all streams and intersecting roads. The aggregate of these spur
lines may be twice the mainhne mileage.
Interchange areas, bridge locations, etc., must be very carefully contoured; and all
such work, although not showing as 'mileage' in the Tables above, amounts to probably
15% of the survey forces' work.
Breakdown of Work Accomplished By Survey Parties
Description July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1957 July 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958
Traverse 164.35 Miles 199.90 Miles
Topo 340.00 " 375.00 "
Preliminary Centerline 173.08 " 151.53 "^
Preliminary Cross-Sections 226.64 " 166.23
Check Levels 207.63 " 172.75 "
Profile 167.12 " 165.25 "
Spurs 170.00 " 196.00 "
Reset Centerline 176.47 " 181.80 "
Final Centerline 45.30 " 22.21 "
Final Cross-Sections 45.30 " 22.21 ||
Construction Stakeout 55.32 " 82.67
Right-of-Way Stakeout 94.54 " 91.49
Miscellaneous Property Data . 14,00 " 17.00
Condemnation Stakeout 120.00 " 158.00
Cut Cross-Sections 43.72 " 72.40
Cut Centerline 66.33 " 60.81 "
Property Survey 250 Parcels 300 Parcels
Preliminary Pits 20 4
Final Pits 19 8
Bridge Stakeout 1
Miscellaneous Fieldwork 1,060 Days 1,125 Days
DIVISION OF ROAD DESIGN
The major function of this Division, under the direction of Mr.
Clarence W. Clawson, Engineer of Road Design, Messrs. Frederic A.
Hering and William A. Kollmer, Assistant Engineers of Road Design and
14 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Mr. Edgar L. Reese, Field Investigation Engineer is the detailed prepara-
tion of construction plans, right-of-way plats, specifications and proposal
forms for highway and incidental construction.
The personnel of this Division are assigned to groups under the direc-
tion of Associate Engineers to perform the varied phases of this Divi-
sion's work as outlined below.
Design
The preliminary design in the preparation of highway plans consists of
platting the survey data furnished by the Location Division, consisting of
alignment, existing grades and topography. Preliminary proposed grades
are then established along with the design of a preliminary typical cross-
section of improvement, the preliminary delineation of the proposed right
of way, the assembling of traffic data, the preliminary design of channel-
ized intersections and traffic interchanges. The preliminary plans are then
referred to the Field Investigation Engineer for a study in the field with
representatives of the District Engineer's Office, Location Division, Right-
of-Way Division, Traffic Division and Materials Division. The recommen-
dations of these Divisions resulting from the field review are then referred
to a final design group under the direction of an Associate Engineer for
the completion of final plans.
This work requires a careful study of drainage conditions to establish
and design proper drainage structures. Detailed studies of intersection
channelization at grade and traffic interchanges are made and the correct
type facility developed to handle the anticipated traffic volumes.
The completed plans include a complete tabulation of quantities of the
various items applicable to each project together with the necessary
Special Provisions and proposal quantities to be used in advertising the
various projects for bids. The group in charge of the design of a particu-
lar project also prepares plats delineating the required right of way.
This Division prepared detailed construction plans and special provi-
sions for advertising covering 302 miles of construction during the fiscal
years of 1957 and 1958. The details of the contracts covered are shown
in the reports from the various Districts.
Right of Way and Condemnation Data
This Division is also charged with the preparation of condemnation
plats, property mosaics and miscellaneous data required in any condem-
nation proceedings for the acquisition of rights of way necessary for the
construction of the various highways projects.
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 15
A total of 404 condemnation plats and 948 right of way plats for the
acquisition of rights of way were prepared during the fiscal years of
1957 and 1958.
Final Earthwork Quantities
Another phase of this Division's work is the computation of final earth-
work quantities whenever required.
Electronic Computer
The use of the Electronic Computer in the Highway Engineering field
has been recognized as a time saving method in Engineering Computation.
This Division has completed the programming of a number of Highway
Engineering Problems for solution on the Electronic Computer and as a
result will be able to realize a considerable saving in time and manpower.
BUREAU OF BRIDGES
The functions of this Bureau are divided into three major categories:
design, construction, and maintenance of bridges, under the direction of
Mr. A. L. Grubb, Chief, Bureau of Bridges.
The "Twelve Year Program", caused the need of this expansion of work
in addition to its former duties of designing, preparing plans and specifica-
tions for new bridges, and the widening, and /or repair of old bridges.
Preparation of plans, specifications and reports are under the supervision
of Mr. H. H. Bowers, Bridge Design Engineer; bridge construction for
the Western Area is under the supervision of Mr. David Silver, Jr. ; and
the bridge construction for the Eastern Area is under the supervision of
Mr. L. W. Carr. Bridge maintenance is under the supervision of Mr. Paul
A. Kempter.
During the period covered by this report, the Bureau of Bridges released
for advertisement 92 contracts for various highway structures, ranging
from major bridges to small culvert structures, repairs to existing bridges
and widening projects. Of these contracts 57 were designed and specifica-
tions prepared by consulting engineering firms ; of the 57 projects designed
by Consultants, 5 were substantially revised during the final design or
construction periods by Engineers of the Bureau of Bridges.
Also, several bridge structures, destroyed by flash floods, were replaced
immediately under direction of the Bureau.
Detailed design, plans and specifications were made for highway grade
separation structures, highway interchange structures, stream crossings
16 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
(among which were several prestressed concrete bridges), and single and
multi-celled culverts. Many of these projects included the complete design
and drafting of connecting approach roads and a substantial number were
for repairing, rehabilitating, and widening existing structures which re-
quired ingenious solutions of the problems presented. Furthermore, the
detailed structural steel drawings, reinforcing steel drawings, and form
plans for these structures were checked by either the consulting engineers
or the Bureau of Bridges depending upon origin of design.
Details of the bridge contracts advertised during this biennium are
covered in the reports from the various Districts.
BUREAU OF SOILS AND MATERIALS
The responsibilities of this bureau, under the direction of J. Eldridge
Wood, are to insure the quality of materials offered for use, establish the
reliability of sources of supply, and to investigate new materials and
methods. Detailed explanations of the activities of the Bureau in carry-
ing out these functions have been given in previous reports, and will not
be repeated.
During this biennium, this Bureau, in its investigations of new and
improved products, methods and procedures, has cooperated in testing
programs conducted by the American Association of State Highway
Officials, the American Association for Testing Materials, and the Na-
tional Bureau of Standards.
The following tabulations show, statistically, the work accomplished
during this biennium by the various subdivisions of the Bureau.
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
17
Bituminous Concrete
Extraction Branch
Material
Composite Samples from Bituminous Con-
crete Plants
Plant Mixed Stabilized Aggregate Base
Course
Sources of Aggregate
Road Samples
Total Samples
Total Number of Tests
July 1, 1956 to
June 30, 1957
929
29
56
253
1,267
2,253
July 1, 1957 to
June 30, 1958
1,094
705
11
190
2,000
3,358
Total
2,023
734
67
443
3,267
5,611
Bituminous Concrete
Physical Test Branch
Material
Marshall Specimens
Road Samples
Immersion — Compression
Special Projects
Total Samples
Total Number of Tests
July 1, 1956 to : July 1, 1957 to
June 30, 1957 June 30, 1958
784
367
6
4
1,161
1,265
1,007
285
18
16
1,326
2,763
Total
1,791
652
24
20
2,487
4.028
Bituminous Materials Section
Material
Abson Recovery Tests
Asphalt Cement
Asphalt Emulsion
Joint and Crack Sealer
Liquid Asphalt
Lubricants
Motor Fuel
Road Tar
Waterproofing and Dampproofing.
Total Samples Tested .. .
Total Number of Tests.
July 1, 1956 to
June 30, 1957
July 1, 1957 to
June 30, 1958
35
290
33
55
92
67
12
12
604
1,621
26
343
128
47
59
56
9
12
14
694
2.223
Total
61
633
161
102
151
123
21
24
22
1,298
3,844
18 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Chemical Statistical Data
Material
Calcium Chloride
Canvas, Duck
Cement
Cork
Enamel, Dipping
Enamel, Equipment i
Galvanized Base Metal
Galvanized Hardware
Glass Beads
Helical Pipe
Lime
Paint, bridge
Paint, guard rail
Paint, traffic
Primer, metal
Soil samples
Thinner
Top soil
Varnish, asphalt
Varnish, spar
Fiber washers
Fly Ash
Fertilizer
Water
Miscellaneous
Total Samples Tested...
Total Number of Tests
July 1, 1956 to
July 1, 1957 to
Total
June 30, 1957
June 30, 1958
18
40
58
9
23
32
0
7
7
13
9
22
8
5
13
6
9
15
417
383
800
35
49
84
7
16
23
12
13
25
2
8
10
77
158
235
27
29
56
53
120
173
3
3
6
11
128
139
2
2
4
11
18
29
8
9
17
2
0
2
4
26
30
1
8
9
2
0
2
476
669
1,145
10
19
29
1,214
1,751
2,965
3,298
5,145
8,446
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Tests Made by the Portland Cement Concrete Section
19
Material
Block, Concrete
Brick
Castings, Iron
Cement
Curing Agents, Concrete
Cylinders, Concrete Test
Gravel
Guard Fence, Fittings and Cable
Joint Filler, Premounded
Miscellaneous
Mix Designs, Concrete
Pipe, Cast Iron and Fittings
Pipe, Concrete, Reinforced
Pipe, Vitrified
Sand
Screenings and Dust
Slag
Steel, Cable for Prestressed Concrete
Steel, Reinforcing
Stone
Water
Welders, Certified
Welders, Tested
Weldments
Wire and Mesh
Total Samples
Total Number of Tests...
July 1, 1956 to
June 30, 1957
10
20
262
30
20
4,270
167
9
38
22
262
11
291
24
153
61
29
7
597
316
13
10
18
53
259
July 1, 1957 to
June 30, 1958
14
17
293
45
19
5,790
135
6
25
26
184
18
261
28
135
55
42
8
651
309
9
34
48
38
233
Total
24
37
555
75
39
10,060
302
15
63
48
446
29
552
52
288
116
71
15
1,248
627
22
44
66
91
492
6,952
12,541
8,423
13,941
15,377
26,482
Soils Statistical Data
Work Performed
July 1, 1956 to
June 30, 1957
July 1, 1957 to
June 30, 1958
Total
Borrow pits sampled and analysis performed
Gravel pits sampled and analysis performed
Soils sampled from surveys and analysis per-
formed
273
258
2,494
797
149 miles
299
171
4,487
1,930
262 miles
572
429
6,981
Proctor Density and moisture determinations
made
143 Soil Surveys made and soil profiles pre-
pared for proposed construction of
2,722
411 miles
Total routine classification analysis
of soil samples
25,592
43,958
69,550
Note: The test quantity does not include extensive tests on fly ash not incorporated in active
project work, also limited in-place tests for compaction, water samples or top soil
samples.
20 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
INSPECTION
The Construction Division under the direction of Warren B. Duckett, is
charged with the over-all supervision of inspection on work done by con-
tractors and by the Special Operations Division, except for large bridge
structures.
The chief function of this Division is to see that the work on roadways
and small structures is performed in compliance with the plans, specifica-
tions and special provisions. This is done, under the direction of the Con-
struction Engineer, by a force of Associate Engineers, Assistant Engi-
neers and Inspectors. There were, in these classifications, 309 employes
at the close of the biennium. They are distributed within the Districts,
under the immediate supervision of the District Engineer.
Procedures are coordinated on a State-wide basis, and every effort is
made to obtain a uniform application of specifications throughout the
State.
During the period covered by this report, awards were made on 98 con-
tracts for work supervised by this Division, covering 344 miles of road
and costing approximately $74,500,000.
DEVELOPAIENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
This Division was established in October, 1957 under the direction of
C. Stuart Linville, Development Engineer, with a staff" consisting of eight
assistants.
The primary purpose of this Division is to coordinate State Roads
Commission highway planning with local planning agencies and land
developers. At present, its activities are confined to the metropolitan area
of Baltimore and Washington and encompass the following counties :
Baltimore, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George's, and Anne
Arundel. One Assistant Development Engineer is assigned to each county
with the following functions :
Review all building applications submitted to the county authorities
for conflict with State Roads Commission plans and take appropriate
action.
Review all zoning applications submitted to county authorities and/or
planning boards for conflict with State Roads Commission plans.
Review all subdivision and property plats and advise regarding State
Roads Commission requirements.
Present State Roads Commission proposed requirements at zoning hear-
ings and attend county highway planning meetings.
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 21
Review all commercial entrance permit applications, make engineering
studies and issue permit in accordance with State Roads Commission
policy.
Advise prospective developers regarding the affect of State Roads Com-
mission planning on their property.
Coordinate proposed development with Location and Right of Way
Divisions.
During the period October 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958 the following has
been accomplished :
Building Permits Reviewed 15,276
Zoning Applications 473
Subdivision and Property Plats , 762
Commercial Entrance Permits Issued 188
The operation of this Division has resulted in considerable saving to
the Commission by dedication and /or reservation of areas required for
State Roads Commission improvements, denial of rezoning in areas of
future improvement and the relocation of proposed structures to avoid
conflict with programmed highways.
DIVISION OF SPECIAL SERVICES
This Division, under the supervision of Hugh G. Downs, assisted by
M. D. Philpot and J. C. Pritchett, maintains all contacts with the consult-
ant engineers assigned by the Commission to the production of surveys, or
plans, or both for road and bridge projects. This encompasses super-
vision of the consultant's work from preliminary planning to the produc-
tion of final plans, proposal forms ready for advertisement, and estimated
construction costs.
During the period of this report, the Division processed the work of
twenty-six consulting engineering firms, involving projects covering high-
way and bridge projects on interstate, primary and secondary routes, as
shown in the following list :
234 miles roadways — advertised (including highway plans com-
pleted in preceding 6 months)
262 miles roadway plans — supervised
145 miles roadway plans — completed and approval recommended
117 miles roadway plans — to be completed by end of 1958
1,106 right of way plats
22 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
60 bridges — advertised (including bridge plans completed in pre-
ceding 6 months)
117 culverts — advertised (including bridge plans completed in pre-
ceding 6 months)
75 bridge plans supervised
130 culvert plans supervised
50 bridge plans completed and approval recommended
70 culvert plans — completed and approval recommended
25 bridge plans — to be completed by end of 1958
58 culvert plans — to be completed by end of 1958
DIVISION No. 9, SPECIAL OPERATIONS
To help relieve the idleness at the various penal institutions of the
State, the 1937 General Assembly authorized and directed the State Roads
Commission to expend the sum of $100,000.00 per year for the fiscal years
of 1938-39, such monies to be used for the purpose of establishing recon-
struction, betterment and maintenance projects suitable for prison labor.
Subsequent General Assemblies have not only continued this authorization,
but have increased it to the point that the State Roads Commission may,
at the present time, spend any available funds on projects which they
consider suitable for prison labor w^ork.
The type projects assigned to this Division have been widening and re-
surfacing of pavement surfaces, the extension and widening of drainage
structures, widening of cuts and fills, the correction of drainage problems
and clearing and grubbing. Projects selected for accomplishment by this
Division are planned and directed by John D. Bushby, Engineer of Special
Operations. He is assisted by four area engineers together with sufficient
junior engineers and other personnel capable of supervising and directing
prison laborers.
The following table shows the projects authorized, for work by this
Division, during this biennium:
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
23
lO IC lO IC lO
CD CO (N CO CO
oa I I I (M
OC OC OC^Di^ t- t^ C
(£) O
C<1C0
CO-*
IC lO UD
00^ to
oa I I
00 c^
5 lO IC lO
)lO00 o
< I (N >-l
CO I I
) oco
tDt>l:-t>CC^^t^t--OO0O0Ot^
I I I I 00 I (N_ _
CO 00 o -^ t^
eg I CO "Ht-H
(MO I >-l ■
tC lO t~ -H
CD t^ t^ OO t~ t^ t- CD CD b- 00 00
io lo u5 lO irt lo lo lo JO ifl in o
OSCD CO <J)
(M LO 00 -^ 00
CO t-- Cvl CO -^
■*^CO_
t-'o"
rt eg ocooo I
>HCO-H^C0CO IM rH >H rH
1-HO OCDCOC
CD ^H C^J 00 00 Oi 00
iH lO" ^'' Co" CD' t^ Oi
»-lCO »0 00 00 (N
* ICCO O IC CO CO CD
C^ m
-- a u
(U g
ca g^M.S
C^l-^ cu
>j bico
2 "B Qj f^ to >>'0 ■<-■ S <u a
tig !» ft '^fci-"-;wsf5fo5'5Ii"
S^ = -Stf-^-S 3 m c C S; 0) ca-H
.eg S-a — — J-i iiXl ck>
OOC!cg<1
S c c c
£ C C OJ
!a "=
-gJ-3
.S « - t-
m c Eo
c= => -
SB^Sa
■Cm r _a)
ko.-— o toco— .tago
■Si
"la
13 .
'Jgl-Sgo
• ^ =« C .m^
2H g K o "- <^
'^i, cafC o t-^
^
M
t>
oo
J3
c
M
C
ca
T3
^.
c
ca
^ QJ
t
v,-^
to '^
m
3
3
vm
t3 m
c "
•n-B
f^^
c
ca
c
Q)
c
ca
c
ca
C o
a) g
Co
Gr., d
Gr., d
R/W
Clear,
C o u ^ ^
z p
o
(N I -< I
CO I m I
CD I I I I I 00 I I
=« li 5
EE
-OT3
ca ca
o o
tfPi
2 -d
CO ^ ^
p > o
w 5 3
ca2 c
S 2 « c i-s
eg S
„ OJ {J M g
ca ca i
° 0) ca
Z > ffi
^^ a; OJS
eg ac to 2
o ca 0) • b 5 5
".2 bwi; I'd
CO O)'-' C O M^
ca CO p ca -^J c I*
r- OJ ■*^ TI CD '? CO
^£ -o « ca
§"-0 §■« 0) >>
\^S = E
c3WZ g
axi a I?—
pj3 ca-- 0)
f p • t: 3 .
cap3 o o >-,T3
oo
■"■^ t- "S
!«'
o'd'' g
ccd* o
p t- > c^
C^wcj p g i
cax c 3^ £ ta 5 •; 5t> 0) o.
c c'oJ'S
"> gs§
T3 O 0.0
C — "^^ c s^
ca "3 q; o o
^ 5 M CO M
o 0)2 ca ca t.
. Opq'^ (MfL,
2W-B oo;;r.j^
w p e •..:'T ca
■g,^ 0) CO COIN'S
,^ J J
p P
cj c
E S
P o
o<o oo X
^^ o
,-lrt o
O O eg ■* CD
S loo Oi-icg
i-i ■^ eg •* CO eg
^ -p -d "d' TJ "d' TJ
. '^ -I -g <M '^ ><
•d-d^-'-d-d g-B'd-aj^'d'd'd
LC locc « 1^ 10 10
CO CO 1-H CO IC U5 10 (M C^ (M C^ C^
!N (N Tf CO "^ "^ -^ i-H ^ ^ rH 1-1
'^ "^ 'CO 'O 'U 'C
§ s s
000
egegcg_,_,
1-t C^ ^-l 10 Uf T-H
OOXOOCO OiO_
■^ 00 00 eg CO X r;
T)( ■<i"a' 1010 Ti< g
in eg
CD CO
COCO
OqO
o-^eg J3=:J
-. _ =a ':^ ^ t- "?
■^ f-* lO in I I J,
^eg I I --1 J,^
CD ^ CO t- CO n; oi
t>i>'^<^ p_!.J=
o: oseg
oocg
UM
-^ eg _ ego o ^
,^t>Scgcg_icgco^^
^ .rtH I eg I e^j fM fft 1 ^ ■
3 I m t- -; "1 ?^ I CD (M c
"'-IjJjk^'-j'CO^^^COCO
ixSSxx^xxx
fT)icgco«THj"j,3i:„_i
"T P o'^'^it-=oa
.T X X
X
OC in
CD (75
^cg
SSgeg , , , ,
eg (M ^ ^ I I ' ' ' '
'r'rxxx>^>^ ^ t^ ^
ginginoqegJ-J-^pp^p-Hp^p^
W W W OQ 1> 1> 1> t> (5 t> 1> t>
o
s
J -t^
MAINTENANCE
P. A. MORISON
Director of Highway Maintenance
Frank P. Scrivener S. W. Baumiller
Maintenance Engineer Landscape Engineer
LOUIS PFARR
Supervisor, Highway Markings
DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE
Until his retirement at the close of this biennium, P. A. Morison func-
tioned as Director of Highway Maintenance. In the performance of his
duties, he maintained a direct contact between the Chief Engineer, Deputy
Chief Engineer and the District Engineers of the seven Districts, relative
to all operations in connection with the maintenance of the highway
system.
Reports covering the operation of all Divisions concerned with main-
tenance of highways appear in the following pages.
MAINTENANCE DIVISION
Under the direction of the Maintenance Engineer, this division exercises
general supervision in order to better coordinate maintenance operations
and insure uniformity of maintenance methods, practices and policies at
a State-wide level.
In addition to the carrying on of normal operations, the ever-increasing
demands of the traveling public for additional services has to be met.
Further, this organization must be prepared to keep the highways safe
and passable during periods of emergency.
The State is divided into seven maintenance districts, corresponding in
location to the construction districts, each under a District Engineer. An
Assistant District Engineer is assigned to each district, whose duties are
to coordinate the various maintenance activities on the district level,
inspect periodically in detail, and exercise control of maintenance work
and its related functions.
A Resident Maintenance Engineer is located in each county, whose
duties are to program and assign and direct operations in the county to
which he is assigned.
The tabulation below shows the number of field maintenance men in the
maintenance organization :
Chauffeur 297
Road Foreman 90
Chauffeur-Foreman 95
Motor Equipment Operator 140
Automobile Mechanic 64
Gas Shovel Operator 18
Blacksmith 2
Shop Foreman 20
Shop Clerk 34
Skilled and Unskilled Laborers 1200
During the period of this report, the standard work week for field forces
changed from 45 to 40 hours per week, five 8-hour days, Monday through
Friday. This change was brought about by an act of the State Legislature
requiring a 40-hour work week. Although the work week was shortened
5 hours, the classified employee received no salary decrease, while hourly
employees received a 10% raise.
27
28 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
During emergencies, however, such as snow storms and floods, main-
tenance forces work around the clock until the roads are again safe for
travel.
There are 19,473.49 miles of road in the State of Maryland. This De-
partment maintains 4,707.94 miles of road in the State system and
2,248.21 miles in the County system. This latter total includes the County
roads in Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's, Talbot, Calvert and St. Mary's
Counties.
LANDSCAPING
The activities of this phase of the work for this biennium were under
the direction of S. W. Baumiller, Landscape Engineer. On or about the
close of the fiscal year 1958, however, due to the increased work load, a
Landscape Superintendent was appointed, who will be responsible for
the control and direction of all professional administrative landscape
work.
The Landscape Engineer has assisted the District Engineers with all
work items of a landscape nature ; has prepared landscape development
programs for work by State Forces and Special Operations ; has assisted
the Right-of-Way Division in acquiring rights of way involving landscape
work which called for cost estimates for moving or resetting of plant ma-
terial ; and has co-operated closely with garden clubs and other civic or-
ganizations on State approved roadside planting projects.
The Interstate Highway program has provided for comprehensive land-
scape work on all Interstate Highways, greatly increasing the demands
for landscape plans, specifications, etc. and this Division is now in the
process of employing additional help.
SIGN SHOP
Under the direction of the Supervisor of Highway Markings, the sign
shop, located in Baltimore, manufactured, painted and/or repainted
73,000 signs and markers used throughout the State Roads System. In
addition, this shop maintains all types of signs. This requires a repaint
every 4 or 5 years. All signs, markers and surface markings are in con-
formity with the Manual of Uniform Traflfic Control Devices for Streets
and Highways. The uniformity of pavement markings is further insured
by the fact that a paint crew operating out of this shop applies surface
markings to the pavement. This one crew works state wide.
During this biennium, the practice of striping pavement edges on all
dual highways was inaugurated.
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 29
As the result of a recent survey, the following tabulation indicates the
normal condition and monetary value of all of the signs and markers in
place along the State system.
GOOD
District Signs Value Posts Value
1 6,665 $ 27,169.44 7,062 $ 12,358.50
2 10,145 50,036.28 10,899 19,073.25
3 18,483 66,344.57 19,575 34,256.25
4 12,894 51,022.65 14,285 24,998.75
5 10,917 44,255.15 12,022 21,038.50
6 5,787 31,513.65 8,592 15,036.00
7 6,732 30,920.18 7,125 21,468.75
$301,261.18 $139,230.00
OBSOLETE
District Signs Estimated Cost of Replacement
1 1,641 $ 4,739.15
2 1,580 3,955.00
3 2,264 9,791.45
4 1,994 7,294.03
5 2,079 6,628.30
6 4,071 14,275.43
7 1,362 3,803.77
$50,527.13
EQUIPMENT DIVISION
The Equipment Division, under the direction of Mr. Truman A. Keeney,
Equipment Engineer, is charged with the complete supervision over all
activities concerned with the purchase, servicing, maintaining, repairing
and disposition of State Roads Commission equipment.
The Equipment Engineer maintains a direct contact with the Commis-
sion through the Special Assistant to the Chairman, the Chief Engineer
and the District Engineers and Division Heads. He exercises general
supervision over the Equipment Supervisor and the District Equipment
Supervisors relative to all service, maintenance and repair operations of
the State Roads Commission equipment.
During this biennium, General Services Administration surplus equip-
ment and material has been made available to the Commission, through
the Bureau of Public Roads, at no charge, or at a fraction of the original
cost. Advantage has been taken of these surpluses in the securing of shop,
electronic and engineering equipment, small tools, structural steel, etc. and
of the following highway equipment :
3 Buses No Charge
15 Pickup Trucks No Charge
49 Dump Trucks No Charge
7 Stake Trucks $ 4,991.42
1 Rotary Snow Plow Truck. _ 7,282.00— Original cost $36,412.00
7 Truck Tractors 10,141.60— Original cost 50,708.00
4 Tool Box Trailers 1,882.80— Original cost 18,828.00
2 Tank Trailers 1,742.80— Original cost 8,714.00
The three buses and fifteen pickups secured at No Charge, cost
$3,999.02 to paint and put in first class operating condition and the forty-
nine dump trucks cost $29,606.18 to paint and put in first class operating
condition. The other units secured and for which token payments were
made, required only minor repairs and painting to conform with State
Roads Commission specifications.
As of June 30, 1958, the Commission had 268 passenger cars, 3 buses,
670 trucks and 1,771 pieces of miscellaneous highway equipment. Com-
pared to the fiscal year ended June 30, 1956, there was an increase of 18
passenger cars, 2 buses, 83 trucks and 185 pieces of miscellaneous high-
way equipment. The above figures do not include the highway equipment
of the Toll Facilities Operation, which had, at the end of the fiscal year
30
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 31
1958, 11 passenger cars, 51 trucks and 57 pieces of miscellaneous highway
equipment. Compared to the fiscal year ended 1956, there was in the Toll
Facilities Operation, an increase of 2 passenger cars, 32 trucks and 24
pieces of miscellaneous highway equipment.
During the fiscal years 1957 and 1958, the Commission purchased or
acquired 661 units of highway equipment valued at $1,146,331.79 and
traded in or sold 343 units of highway equipment at allowances or salvage
of $171,687.11 resulting in a net cost of $974,644.68 for Highway Equip-
ment. The Commission - Toll Facilities, which operates under a separate
fund, purchased 72 units of highway equipment valued at $331,711.44 and
traded in 14 units of highway equipment at allowances of $3,925.15 result-
ing in a net cost of $327,786.29 for Toll Facilities highway equipment.
There were, in addition to the trade-ins and sale of highway equipment,
30 small, obsolete or broken pieces of equipment, such as: truck chassis,
conveyors, gang mowers, hand mowers, hand paint machines, pumps, tar
kettles, etc. which were stripped of all usable parts for other equipment,
removed from the Equipment Inventory and sold as scrap with other ac-
cumulated scrap materials.
The Equipment Division also maintains complete Highway Equipment
Inventory and Equipment Maintenance and Repair Records, keeps in
close contact with the Accounting Division on the Unit Cost Accounts, sees
that all equipment is properly titled, licensed, insured and accidents prop-
erly reported, analyzed, estimates obtained and proper repairs made,
prepares budget estimates on the purchase of equipment, directives on
the care, maintenance, and operation of equipment, and reports to various
government agencies, states and State Roads Commission districts, divi-
sions and personnel.
Md. Route 413 through Crisfield, before and after improvement.
DISTRICT No. 1
Headquarters — Salisbury, Maryland
C. ALBERT SKIRVEN
District Engineer
CARROLL L. BREWINGTON, JR. CLARENCE W. TAYLOR
Assistant District Engineer Assistant District Engineer
Construction Maintenance
Dorchester County
WILLIAM H. MOORE
Residefit Maintenance Engineer
Somerset and Wicomico Counties
WILLIAM P. HOBBS
Resident Maintenance Engineer
Worcester County
JAMES W. SMALL
Resident Maintenance Engineer
DISTRICT No. 1
District No. 1 comprises Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico and Worcester
Counties, and extends from the Choptank River on the north to the mid-
Virginia line on the south, and from the Chesapeake Bay on the west to
the Atlantic Ocean on the east.
Due to the generally low lying, flat waters of the terrain, drainage is
very important in both construction and maintenance activities.
A breakdown of the miles of roads maintained by the State Roads Com-
mission's forces follows :
County
State System
County System
Total
Dorchester
155.69
117.23
141.49
171.57
436.94*
155.69
Somerset
117.23
Wicomico
141.49
Worcester
608.51
* Worcester County assumed maintenance of its County roads July 1, 1957.
All counties now maintain the county system of roads beginning as
follows: Dorchester — July 1, 1947; Wicomico — July 1, 1953; Somerset —
July 1, 1955 ; Worcester— July 1, 1957.
For the year ending June 30, 1957 district maintenance personnel
amounted to 141 employees. As of July 1, 1957, when the Worcester
County authorities assumed maintenance of their roads, 29 of these em-
ployees, who had formerly worked primarily on the county roads, re-
signed from State Roads Commission employment and were hired by
Worcester County.
The following equipment, which had been used for the most part in
county road maintenance, was sold to the Worcester County Roads
Board : 2 pickup trucks ; 4 dump trucks ; 1 D-7 Dozer ; 3 Motor Graders ;
2 Pull Graders ; 1 5-ton Roller ; and other miscellaneous equipment.
Dorchester County now carries on its maintenance operations from its
new shop at Cambridge. This building was completed in 1957, replacing
the old shop and location at Rhodesdale,
Tables showing data pertaining to road construction and maintenance
operations for the biennium follow.
34
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
35
O '^ ,-1
Oh .
^ 1
Ifl
05 Ol
;0 O rt
o
f- in
;o
t- tr-00
o
0
O M
t> eo M
o
■* CO
■>t
in in 00
CO
CO
■*.
"1 ^.
oo^ ^ Oi_
to
-H ■*■■
to_
cocoes
oo'-^-in
00"
lO
CO o
.-1 a> a>
CTJ
t> CO
in
tc >-nn
o
05
CO ■"J
c^ t> t-
to
to C<1
.HTJI
to
<»
T-T t-T
■*
OT-
to
M-
MI-
dO-
60-
<
i
i>
i> t>
t> 00 00
(S <c
t>
t>t> t>
h22
lO
in lo
in in in
in in
in
in in in
5«
<
lO
;0 CT)
«5 o o
00 IN
00
weO'*
rt 1
1 N IM
•H 1
c^
N 1 IN
c^
1 t>
00 1 1
1 o
1
1 Oi 1
t-
in in
Ol r-l
in
in 05
bo
S s
a
« —
^
« -d
a
O
1
m :s; :^
•a £
tfag
3 Sf:=
«■
O
1 i i
^ r. r.
01
a
Z
o
H
a.
S
c
o
c
C O
O .• rt
• SO
° E E
". 2 g
i3 « m
01.
Oo«g_fc
ZS 00
3
tit:!
3 3m
m M 0)
0) OJQJ
Q
P-i
a a
a M w
^ in in
CO IN IN
m
a
aa>
o
m
:z«o
n;om
1 CO CO
CO
<l!lN to
i-H
■^COIN
X
1— 1
H
•-J
OC OiM
t> t>
O)
C» in
00
ooeort
tC
Tj<
3
1 ^ rt
o o
o
t-INrH
IN CO CO
1—'
H
OJ
o
«
H
hi
M
^ tf
Q
■<
Z
c
z
Eh
O
^Z S
<J
0
O
o °
in
o
^
° s
Q
Eh
H
t-H
Z
2
tj V,
~
■z.
■<f
■5
<;
3
c
E-
Ht3 :3
"o!
5
m
COg
c
0
PI
.2
l> 00
0)
a
o
ffi
2K
M
'-T3
3
"!3
z
o
C
0)
>
o a) 0)
o
0)
T) .5
J
m
c
o > >
1- axi
S
o
"0
c
o
§ 0) 4)
;" Jl! Jl!
1=5
c
^ E E
o«°
5
<
■g 8 8
O g
w=^^
>.
IM M
coo
c
o
Eh
(5 aJ S
■g E
3 8
<
> >
H O O
5 ^
.«)IN
2l oeo
d
V V V
2
CO
o w
00 '^ S « E "I
_ rof^ Oftn
— +-> O 1 O '
S X o >> o >i
SHfcpapKpp
05
1-H CO
o
T3
in i-H
(a -"Jl
rl" rtCO
s
t3 ^
s s
S
OtiSS
"g
ss
^
(N ■*
^ ^ ^^
"T
■^
^■Hin
e-
in
00
in r
CO m
IN i
OCOCOio
IN i iw
1
36
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1957
District No. 1 — Fiscal Year 1957
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Rigid
J-K
Semi-Rigid
I
Non-Rigid
F,G,H,I
Untreated
D-E
Patching
Sq. yds.
8,845
28,830
1,531
170,373
2,009
80,400
Blading — Dragging
Jacking — Asphalt
Jacking — Cement Slurry
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous
Joint and Crack Filling
Oiling — Bituminous
Miles
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Gals.
Sq. yds.
2,300
44,944
130.5
Shoulder Maintenance
Patching
Blading — Dragging
Sodding
Mowing and Hand Cutting
OiHng — Bituminous
Removal — Excess Material.
Unit of
Charge
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Cu. yds.
Bitum.
3,750
127,716
Stabilized
133,809
3,246
325
88,802
Grass
400
1,211
Earth
700
7,364
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Pipe and Box Culverts
Curb and Gutter
Catch Basins
Spillways, Etc
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
260
5
1
2
4
121
2
Bituminous Rebutt
Underdrain
—
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
140
57
610
11
30
10
Posts
47
Cable
470
Fittings
—
Paint
2
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
37
Maintenance Report — Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
Units
Miles
Maintenance
Roadside
1,107
436
1,000
125
3
80
3,141
Park Area
195
293,650
31
77
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., etc
Snow Removal
Ice Treatment
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence
Manual Traffic Count
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi.
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
55^
6,795
98.5
96
^"—3,119 Miles
2,470
44
161,700
1,386
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures
Riprapping
Unit of
Charge
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Sq. yds.
Maintenance
1,400
288,080
423
57
64
405
235
38
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958
District No. 1 — Fiscal Year 1958
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Unit of Rigid
Charge J - K
Semi-Rigid
I
1
Non-Rigid Untreated
F,G,H,I D - E
Patching
Blading — Dragging
Jacking — Asphalt
Sq. yds. 34,549
Miles ' —
Sq. yds. —
42,046
3,300
.101,963
810
—
190,688
—
Jacking — Cement Slurry
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Gals.
Sq. yds.
12,527
255,457
—
Joint and Crack Filling
Oiling — Bituminous
—
Shoulder Maintenance
Patching
Blading — Dragging
Sodding
Mowing and Hand Cutting
Oiling — Bituminous
Removal — Excess Material
Unit of
Charge
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Cu. yds.
Bitum.
16,425
92,927
Stabilized
Grass
70,258
2,540
362
18,421
22,298
110
90
1,430
Earth
1,100
3,163
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Pipe and Box Culverts
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
227
1
35
2
4
200
4
1
65
Curb and Gutter
Catch Basins
Spillways, Etc. .
Bituminous Rebutt
Underdrain
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
200
49
390
4
48M
98
17
42
_
Posts
107
Cable
1,070
Fittings
Paint
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
39
Maintenance Report— Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
/Units
\ Miles
Maintenance
Roadside
726
4,640
200
386
552
23
58
1,476
Park Area
142
50,350
45
179
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., etc
Snow Removal
Ice Treatment
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence
Manual Traffic Count
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi.
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
3,952
135.51
49
92"— 3,851 miles
2,204
60
168,600
1,440
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures
Riprapping
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Sq. yds.
500
96,187
527
20
56
361
18
^
o^
CO
CQ
-i:
DISTRICT No. 2
Headquarters — Chestertown, Maryland
ROLPH TOWNSHEND
District Engineer
C. R. SHARRETTS L. B. DEPUTY
Assistant District Engineer Assistant District Engineer
Construction Maintenance
Caroline County
GEORGE H. FOOKS
Resident Maintenance Engineer
Cecil County
J. J. WARD, JR.
Resident Maintenance Engineer
Kent County
OWEN S. SELBY
Resident Maintenance Engineer
Queen Anne's County
WM. F. LEAVERTON
Resident Maintenayice Engineer
Talbot County
HARRY C. RASH
Resident Maintenance Engineer
CLYDE C. THRIFT
District Equipment Supervisor
DISTRICT No. 2
This District is composed of Caroline, Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's and
Talbot Counties. The roads in the District maintained by the Commission
are shown in the following tabulation :
County
State Roads
County Roads
Caroline
152.31
209.93
172.68
198.62
127.99
Cecil
432.07
Kent
229.55
Queen Anne's
u 408.67
286.34
Talbot
Total
861.53
1,356.63
470.84 miles of county roads in Caroline County are maintained by the
County authorities.
The County Commissioners in each of the counties have supplemented
the gas tax funds allotted, and, as a consequence, a considerable mileage
of hard surfaced roads is added to the county system yearly, and many
old bridges are replaced with modern structures.
Regular State road maintenance, such as oiling and snow removal, is
normally serviced by headquarters in each County. In emergencies, how-
ever, there are no boundaries. The practice of preventive maintenance,
such as planting and shoulder stabilization, has resulted in a considerable
saving of maintenance funds.
So far as oiling, snow removal, etc. are concerned, the maintenance of
County roads has been conducted in a manner similar to State roads.
Tables showing data pertaining to road construction and maintenance
operations for the biennium follow.
42
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
<
«
H
•K
Z
o
o
CO
(M
U
a
o
o
H
O
o
OS
H
O
I— 1
Q
O
^■■
Q
>^
<
hJ
O
^
Pi
i-s
<0 irt
^
\a o
■^ OT5O00 1
to
C^l [-"H
o
(M
C<l 1
o>
a
CC rH
00
t- 00
oooi -HOC Hot
00 OT to
«
00
00
t-
-i-^
«3-H
t>
to ^_^
in-*_o_i>
o_
05_ OCOT^
,-J
o_
o_
o
^c<r
00
00 i-H
tji'o'qd'o"
oi
lo c^ctT
oo"
lo"
lo"
■*"
<: 3 «
^11
1-1 C<1
OT
-H 0>
OC^ lO OT
IM
'* to OT
Tf
c^
c^
OT
C0C<1
00 t-
t^50 i> ira
^
m-
I—*
se-
€^
05
efl-
6^
«r&
as-
€^
■*"
<
i
(£5 <X>
50 «5
t> C~ t- 00
to toto
00
„ tn
lO lO
ira lo
LO lO LO lO
LO LO LO
LO
H "
1 {
1 1 1
1
s- fc;
•^ Tj*
CO 5D
tc-c-il:-
Ol
■41 OS
1 IM
rt TOOT >-l
CO M CO
OJ
00 00
1> IM(N to
t> C~l>
■<*
o
<
pqCQ
f-
0)
o
d 6
U)
la
01 0)
d
c
a o.
C3
o
MM
M
a
OS
-M
M
"Sti
OT^ J
ot" £
3
o
3 3
TJ .E
o
z
o
tf«
■d >^ >« <i>
03
3 3
1=a
c 5 3 3fe
o
o
s
o
w
3|S
•z tit:
3 :3 7i
M MM
Q
wm
"aJco c S 1*
gl^ M n! tH
"0 Qj 0>
s
o d
> > >
0
S.D.
MM
Om^^O
M
L_ ^^^
t--
C-l CO lO o o
c<
ooo oo
c
1
1
05
Z^DCO
05
lOO] oo to
(M t- LOOT LO
c
O
(M
CO
ft|0(M
Oh ;0 lO
rH 00 t> 00 O
OOT LO LO to
■^ lOOOTli OT
rH.-(OC<l OJ
05
M 1
o
w
to
lO
P
_
H
0^
<
0 .
8 ffi
z
tf
tf
<1
^
Eh
Q
0)
3
(J
^
Z
'Z
H
O
O
<
'C
o
fri
O
c
E-
O
■z.
few
s 1
c
i-
a>
T3 3 S £^
"5
c
E-
M
1
o
Q
>
Z
13
^
o
o
O
H
«'
s
s
oj C
OT
c o
C-
OS
S
■^1
"S
cg
'^
-d
c
o
0)
o
o
S O
3
t; bo 55 > m
J3
O
m
0)
is
o
■^ M
(M ^ .O
O OT-— O
15J1 OTgOT
0)
>
o
2
■^ o
■d -a to 13
wSompq
*fc-
Sz
S SdS
m
6
C^ CO
OIM
^ oooqS
OT
t^ t>
00 t-
LO tHC-im
C^
(M(N
(M(M
Tf OToq .
• • M
M
3
'd'c'
-BTJ
T3 ■OTS"-'
«
s§
;ss
S SSp
t3
<
2
C
K
D
lOtO
COOT
,-100
10 05
05 10
COOT
tJO
'HO^
'^^ Mm 1
OT lO LO"^
to INOTt>
Eh OOO"
05 CO LO
-H C^ (M
C<I (N <M
M fci W
44
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1956--June 30, 1957
District No. 2 — Fiscal Year 1957
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Rigid
J-K
Semi-Rigid
I
Non-Rigid
F,G,H,I
Untreated
D-E
Patching
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Gals.
Sq. yds.
198,212
5,630
265,727
33,165
151,361
85,728
2,119
37,227
4,810
Blading — Dragging
10
Jacking — Asphalt
Jacking — Cement Slurry
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous
z
Joint and Crack Filling
Oiling — Bituminous
30,096
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Bitum.
StabiHzed
Grass
Earth
Patching
Blading Dragging
Sodding _
Mowing and Hand Cutting
Oiling — Bituminous
Removal — Excess Material.
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Cu. yds.
155,943
424,384
149,375
3,847
325
78,342
25,931
18
292
3,485
73,668
4,681
12,674
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge
Repair
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
62
3
18
24
1
1
19
11
Pipe and Box Culverts
30
Curb and Gutter
303
Catch Basins
5
Spillways, etc.
—
Bituminous Rebutt
—
Underdrain
1,967
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
2,401
409
4,710
764
95
123
9
30
2,019
Posts
20
Cable
—
Fittings
Paint
^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
45
Maintenance Report — Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
Units
Miles
Maintenance
Roadside
6,206
22,153
1,520
816
47
129
19
311
Park Area
14
1,290
113
532
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., etc.
Snow Removal
Ice Treatment
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence
Manual Traffic Count
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi,
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
13,377
130
52
18"— 8,235 Miles
4,431
280,925— dismantled
285,896
796
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures
Riprapping
Unit of
Charge
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Sq. yds.
Maintenance
576
196,186
13,635
193
105
459
227
431
46
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958
District No. 2 — Fiscal Year 1958
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Rigid
J-K
Semi-Rigid
I
Non-Rigid
F,G,H,I
Untreated
D-E
Patching
Blading — Dragging
Jacking — Asphalt
Jacking — Cement Slurry
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous
Joint and Crack Filling
Oiling — Bituminous
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Gals.
Sq. yds.
147,647
11,730
56,320
15,266
232,232
2,400
160,178
5
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Patching Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging Miles
Sodding ' Sq. yds.
Mowing and Hand Cutting . Miles
OiHng — Bituminous j Sq. yds.
Removal — Excess Material I Cu. yds.
Bitum.
Stabilized
123,866
1
45,390
149
135,461
4,004
4,500
10,885
Grass
210
220
60
3,462
674
Earth
13,565
1,147
1
10,802
Maintenance — Bi
'idges and Structures
iJnit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
51
7
179
1
12
24
Pipe and Box Culverts
86
Curb and Gutter
Catch Basins
6
Spillways, Etc
Bituminous Rebutt
Underdrain
374
Giia
rd Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
1,215
5,820
29
100
325
19
12
1,900
Posts
11
Cable
Fittings
Paint
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
47
Maintenance Report — Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
/Units
\ Miles
Maintenance
Roadside
6,572
250
1,279
102
173
11
226
Park Area
180
2,695
140
879
24
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., Etc
Snow Removal
I ce Treatment
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence
Manual Traffic Count
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi.
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
12,287
422
163
1261-^"— 51,229 miles
3,217
620,650
854
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures
Riprapping
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Lin. ft.
235
Lin. ft.
176,543
Number
2,551
Number
47
Number
139
Number
413
Number
74
Sq. yds.
961
DISTRICT No. 3
Headquarters — Laurel, Maryland
LISLE E. McCARL
District Engiyieer
WILLIAM L. SHOOK WALTER E. SAYERS
Assistant District Engineer Assistant District Engineer
Construction Maintenance
Montgomery County
HARRY J. PISTEL JOSEPH B. KUHNS
Associate Engiyieer, Construction Resident Maintenance Engineer
Prince George's County
JOHN W. WILLIAMS J. PAUL SMITH
Assistant Engineer I, Construction Resident Maintenance Engineer
ALBERT H. FRIESE
Assistant Engineer — Permits
DISTRICT No. 3
District No. 3 is comprised of Montgomery and Prince George's Coun-
ties. A breakdown of the miles of roads maintained by State Roads Com-
mission forces follows :
County
State System
Montgomery
361.03
Prince George's
296.92
Total
657.95
All county roads in both Montgomery and Prince George's counties are
maintained by the respective counties.
The construction awards during the past two years have raised the 12-
Year Program funds expended in this district to almost $90,000.00. The
sections of highway completed in the earlier years of the program are
now being extended. Radiating outward from the D. C. line, we now have
rebuilt New Hampshire Avenue, Wisconsin Avenue, Kenilworth Avenue,
and Branch Avenue. The circumferential ties between these radials, such
as Viers Mill Road, University Boulevard, and the Washington Circum-
ferential are being constructed as modern dual highways. Work has been
accelerated on the Washington National Pike and on the Washington Cir-
cumferential Highway since these routes are on the Interstate system.
The entire Maryland Metropolitan area of the District of Columbia is
in District 3. The additional mileage acquired annually due to the ex-
panded road construction program and the ever-increasing volume of
traffic create conditions that require careful planning and periodical reor-
ganization of supervision to cope with the maintenance problems of today.
During the period covered by this report, a total of 2,100 permits were
issued to public utilities and private individuals for entrances and drive-
ways.
Tables showing data pertaining to road construction and maintenance
operations for the biennium follow.
51
52
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
< D
ocooc ■* ot~
t^oc-^H ooCTi a>a>
00 rH t~
CO 0000 (NO OlO 00
eoo Oi-i (M cj
in io»mom W5 lo ic
I I I I I I I I
in C^IMOSOJ «0 0> !D
I rt,-i--i I .-H r-i eg
O i-< ^-( fH fM
F
t;
c
o w
m
O g
T3
. a
E
3
— a)
CO .2
3 c«
£ E >.'-' E.S
Cl, ca 5 m CO j
t^ _:
W
to a ca c o. c3 M
300 3 oM 3 3
Qti.QOcoQO
• CO
Zl fa bo
3 0.**
E^
- -■ S^ ^'
^ g gM«
;d
•o-o
c c
CO CO
mm
XXI
.u
CO a CO
3M 3
CO CO '5^
3 31-1
•SS-t3
CO 3
j* °-_. _ —
as S
3 a
Q2
c«£-S-5
01 j-> 3 3
tf<QP
=3 3
>s
^ m
zj a;
OX
O O I W)<
INO MO
«5<35COO
M [-com
cqi-Hccc^
^,
Ed
■<
>.
^
■s
be
•7
X
d
s
^
0
<
a
<H CO
0
W
z
— K
i
CO
SK
h-
0)
:z:
0
0
co/C;
SK
& CO
13 J3
> w o
OPh :z;<!
5; >
Qi a;
3 o
6 .S
a) fc <I 'C — ■
■Z> . CO «
mo < > «
> coft- c ^
C C -M CO ,^
0) QJ a;ffi o
X > M™
3 SS fc C ►7
CO >- OJ o
— jj CO
s^
z^
zs
s s
o~ "-loro
coftH^cg^
coSIh-W E
&2-^
_,^C TO Mo
Wc<io-i 2 2 "
S P &S
o «
B! O
2;
o
5 in 10 1 5 rA "^ ,
M
OJ
05'
r T T t^ ■< F- 1 f- 1 "^ t- 1
1 "^ "* — im"co CO
lo^cocggcjcgco
22 I in in 1 in
^^aooor^ 00 i;;;'^
Ci ■* t-l- ^ rH I
in t- in 1 m ™ ^^
,-1 -HCO
(NCO
-HCO
[- t-
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
53
00
00 00 m
^
!< lO
t~ •* lO
^
^ -H
^
o
0
1 CO
CO
t^ ;D Ci
u
5 lO
O 50 O
c
: ^
OS
Oi Oi
Oi^
»H O CO
c>
J C-^
t-^ Ci c^
«£
I N
(M
00
00__ Ci^
l>
■*" .-T .-T
it
^ o"
o" -"f rf
C
r ^
^
^
i-T 00
■^
o o o
«
> t~
CO (M ■*
t-
in
in
w
c<i 0
w
t^ Oi o
«
> (M
c
A »»
«»
«»
M- tH
•* c<f
J- ««■
V
5^
CO
*9-
00
00 00 00
oo
CD
!D C^ t-
CO 00
00
1
in lo uo
lO
lO
u5 in in
in in
in
CO
1
mm t-
<N
CO CO [-
N 1 ^
1 1
int-
I -H
1
c^
la
1 V) 1
U5 ;0
1
to
00
1 CJ5 1
O O)
i-HCD
1
CO
ce
■§
3
o
S
l_
l>
m
E
P3
pq
m
pI
c
o
3
a
w
tf
w
1
d
6
J£
t^ a -S o
T3
T3
~ X
<Zi
V
fee c
c
o^S
qT
CIS
ci!
cd
^ "C ^
^b
c
&H
.is:
c
e
ate Gil
.a. to c
ghway
.10 Mi
;t. Con
ghway
a>
T3
a
3
p;
a)
73
t3
S 3
I'M
in
d
w
3 Sp. PI
Single L
Dual Hi
Single 3
Anson S
Dual Hi
Is
pq
w
•d
O
CO g ^pa
o- t? ,S ft
.S ^
■d .-
c
■5
0
oooooo
o
o
o
o
e^
— O —
t> O -HIM
c
o
o
1
~
N
1
looo oioeo
Ti<
■*
00
la
?-
forH
00 CO in i-i
a
1 ^
Oi
CO
1
OlO OlO oo>
o
o
o
oc
«"=■
t- in loin
o-
t-
m'
0
1
CO
OiHlOiHOO
o
o
o
o
CV
if
rH o oo
o-
>^
'^
in
CO
Brown Station Road
D. C. Line
Georgia Avenue
03
Q
^ 0)
3 . P
<
Q
■z
o ^
H °
U
23 -d
■<
0
Q
C<1
C^]
"a
0
M >
College Aven
B. & 0. R.R
College Ave. t
Dart Avenue
E-W Hwy.
1
o
C
o
5
0
2
o
■d
o
IM
T3
H
H
ca
P3
m .
H
•d
c
E-
0
S
S
o
eaoo
'd
0
•6
(3
O
V
-2 «
>
73
c
tf
c
=5
w
S
«
ca
^
cS
J
o
aJ
■d
o
^
M
c
13 >
ja*
ca
X
3
«
d
m
P.R.R. 500' W. of Ardwi
Dower House Road
Brown Station Road
Intersecting State Roads
D. C. Line
be
S
C
c
c«
c
O
>-5
a;
>
O
n
c
o
«■
0)
>
O
"o
a
i-I
T3
PQ
Z
3
o
c
1-5
L..
>
o
m
Q.
E
C4
3
cs
W
c
■«
U. S. 1— CoIesviUe Roa.
U.S. 1
U. S. 1 to Dartmouth A
Bradley Blvd.
c
ca
m
'a
o
>-s
.iJ 0)
ac
0
«
~v
3
T3
0
0
0
C
Si
a;
m
hi
JiJI
>>
ca
&
Is
II
> J3
0
C<1
M-Stt
■S -a' -d^K
bite bcffiMtr
bt}
M .^ d ii .«• .«■ M
. C o x2 2 •
■d
•tsSh-
S S SS^
Sh-
K<-
Kh^
K
g^
s
o
o
— , —
0
CJ
(M O
CO
CO
^ n ^
t- c-
CO
t-
lO
«c
in
CO
<H
'^ 1 1
C<l
IN
IC
coco
IM
•^
mm to
^
,_(
00
N M S?
C 00
Tf
N
OS
CO
CO
05 O S
■*oo
OJ
t>
«> t- 1
to
«o
c-
t- 00 1
1 [~ t>
t>
p!<
p!, pl. S
eC
pi.
i
0.
p!< p!, ^
1 pIpI
p1 I
54
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1957
District 3 — Fiscal Year 1957
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Rigid
J-K
Semi-Rigid
I
Non-Rigid
F,G,H,I
Untreated
D-E
Patching
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Gals.
Sq. yds.
14,475
5,625
78,977
15
5,650
186,011
83,890
3,441
4,291
253,600
1,493
Bladins; — Dragsrine;
—
Jacking — Asphalt
Jacking — Cement Slurry
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous
—
Joint and Crack Filling
Oiling — Bituminous
—
Shoulder Maintenance
Patching
Blading — Dragging
Sodding
Mowing and Hand Cutting
OiHng — Bituminous
Removal — Excess Material.
Unit of
Charge
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Cu. yds.
Bitum.
2,253
68
Stabilized
29,947
208
45
Grass
127
Earth
16,770
1,997
999
1,685
Maintenance Report
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
1
112
180
2
—
3
Pipe and Box Culverts
Curb and Gutter
2
110
Catch Basins
3
Spillways, Etc
—
Bituminous Rebutt
. — .
Underdrain
—
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
3,948
810
7,485
197
34
180
389
30
68
Posts
58
Cable
—
Fittings
—
Paint
27
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
55
Maintenance Report — Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
/Units
\ Miles
Maintenance
Roadside
2,004
5,970
607
1,191
44
34
1,245
Park Area
44
570
108
1,483
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., Etc.
Snow Removal
Ice Treatment
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence
Manual Traffic Count
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi.
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
18,140
578
991
5"— 3,708
4,347
446,900
868
Miles
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures
Riprapping
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Sq. yds.
610
131,252
540
495
11
412
67
260
56
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
July 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958
District No. 3 — Fiscal Year 1958
Roadway Siirfaciny
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Rigid ' Semi-Rigid ' Non-Rigid
J-K I F,G,H,I
Untreated
D-E
Patching
Sq. yds. ' 17,839 84,775 ' 66,907
Miles — — —
Blading — Dragging
Jacking — Asphalt
Jacking — Cement Slurry
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous
Joint and Crack Filling
Oiling — Bituminous
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Gals.
Sq. yds.
800
7,700
234,337
400
253,161
—
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Bitum.
Stabilized
Grass
Earth
Patching Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging ' Miles
Sodding ' Sq. yds.
Mowing and Hand Cutting . Miles
OiUng — Bituminous Sq. yds.
Removal — Excess Material : Cu. yds.
2,740
43,723
901
15
52,850
2,869
191
80
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
1 Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Number
Number
7
—
_
Pipe and Box Culverts
Curb and Gutter
Lin. ft. 260
Number 9
Number —
150
Catch Basins
1
Spillways, Etc.
Bituminous Rebutt
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
—
Underdrain
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
4,200
293
1,860
209
7
200
174
50
58
_
Posts
11
Cable
Fittings
Paint
—
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Right-of-Way
57
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
/Units
\ Miles
Maintenance
Roadside
1,701
7,868
588
1,633
210
22
5,579
Park Area
117
Trees planted
1,081
126
589
195
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., Etc
Snow Removal
I ce Treatment
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence
Manual Traffic Count
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi,
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
13,640
653
1,629
14"— 40,846 Miles
2,390
2
291,450
2,504
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
C leaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Cat ch B asins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures
Riprapping
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Sq. yds.
182
93,474
984
405
7
306
700
1,120
DISTRICT No. 4
Headquarters — Reisterslown, Maryland
E. C. CHANEY
District Engineer
JOSEPH M. SIMONDS MILTON C. VOLKER
Assistant District Engineer Assistant District Engineer
Construction Maintenance
WILMER N. BARNES
Associate Engiyieer
PAUL D. SULLIVAN
Associate Engineer
Baltimore County
CHARLES E. HESSON
Resident Maintenance Engineer
WILLIAM K. RICHARDS
Resident Maintenance Engineer
Harford County
PERCY B. SHIPLEY
Resident Maintenance Engineer
Permits
ARRA CHANEY
Assistant Engineer I
DISTRICT No. 4
District No. 4 comprises Baltimore and Harford counties. A breakdown
of the miles of roads maintained by State Roads Commission forces
follows :
County
State System
Baltimore
319.00
Harford
266.69
Total
585.69
All county roads in both Baltimore and Harford counties are main-
tained by the respective counties.
With the continued growth of the Metropolitan area around Baltimore
City and the development adjacent to the incorporated towns in Harford
County and various towns in Baltimore County, several thousand permits
were issued to utilities, developers, private property owners and to the
Division of Engineering of both Baltimore and Harford counties.
The pattern of improvement is becoming evident with the dualization
of the major radial roads leading from Baltimore. Sections of the Balti-
more Beltway have been constructed which, when completed, will form a
circumferential route almost completely encircling Baltimore City and
passing through or near the highly developed areas in Baltimore County.
Also the Baltimore-Harrisburg Expressway, which will be completed in
1959, is a modern expressway type of road extending from the Baltimore
Beltway to the Pennsylvania line.
Along with these new modern highways has come the problem of main-
taining their miles of pavement, many acres of grass medians and inter-
change areas to be mowed, additional signs and snow removal.
Geographically, Baltimore County, in this District, covers practically
all of the metropolitan area of Baltimore City. The increasing volume of
traffic, along with additional mileage acquired annually by the expanded
road construction programs, necessitate carefully planned procedures and
modern methods to meet the ever-growing maintenance problems of today.
60
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 61
Of the 319 miles of State roads maintained in Baltimore County, 51.64
miles are divided highways.
In Harford County, 21.71 miles of the 266.69 miles of State highways
maintained are divided highways.
Tables showing data pertaining to road construction and maintenance
operations for the biennium follow.
62
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
f SI
r S *
X ;o in CO
t-H m
O lO I> -H 005
•* C- X « eg -^
M X X X --i-*
X ^ -H
100!05 M in •-(
lom
05M
in in lo in
in in in in
in(MC<I (M
moot- <-ie5
o> O —I
OOr-li-l rtNC^IM IM
— '-B
.1^ c a.
t, > a.'O •
I mtf ^b:
3 3 J>^ 3
QQ^ Q
■s CiJ
^■o c
>>02
^ a; o
d'3'3'
t/3 3 3
■"Srh
fe D
13 rj
E-a
ffi .
CO ', 'B oj o
esP9 cs< I
•s E E=o >>
• g O 'OJ _ >
i^J M 3."
n! _• P a ^
3WW I 3
P3« o
EE§
M i
•-I 3WM
QcO'*
b.E d
CO —
E .
CQ _■ c
w^ .
-• — "^
a. earn
!/; 3
Oi-O
so a
>.£ E : >>£
S 0; Hi "^ 5 t^
,; 3
Ui
53 w M Q a; o
"a a a a'rt .
3W3WM 373
Qt).t|<coQC3
Oro
i-s^
2.S a
eIc
? Sr o
- CZi
coOt)
^x a: •*
5: CO t- eg
t^ ocOtC
O
CO
O
m «0 Oi !D
m o! to -H
eg o egm
I OX-*
eg oeo
coegO'-i'«
■^eo oo-H
^ L,
o o a a
^ J
^ i-
i O Q
d2<:<<! ^w S
S PQ
J* c-i
5 S
a K 5H 5h
aaa
X X K
X X
HH HM K HH HM
5 «
.H i-H ^ ri in in
•* t> -H
in Js in CO »-< a: ■^
PQci
eg aixcoeg"-! O'S'x
CO CO^t)<;DCO ■^•■^co
in «c> in ;o in
in in in
np3pq
X X
in in
mm
ml
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
63
■M (M O LO
a-
1
—I C<I
n
O [
c
00
OC OC C^"*
Cv
1
to (N
t»
O 11 O II 00
i.':_ic tc^_
Cs
. 1
"*. 00_
(N
-* II ^. II ■>
ccoc oct-"
o o
00 00 ■*
^. ^^co
»
1
O Tt
Tl.
«)
to lO
««• 00
M .-1 •*
c
N
se-
-T >-r
t'
■ 1
s
6ft
TO
f^
9=
111
«OI> t-00
«> 00
t-
_
lOlC Irt lO
in lO
in
tD«5 XOO
U3 O
05
CO 1 ! eg
1 oa
1 « « 1
t-
(M --l
th eg
"
3
c
X
o
CQ
o>
X
<M
CVI
OJ
^ w
Oi M
3 "E
^ ?
" S
S "
PJ S
•f.
d. and
3urf.
and R
B. Sui
B. Wi
B. Re
, Wid.
if w
S d
1
73
. . . o
OJ
9 ^ a 0
D, "bi
'Q
a; 01 o -—
w c
T3
<
Cq W
S:-^ woe-
c
1 1
1
1
1
Oi
<T)<.-1010
1
1
1
05
[i<OCrf O O
g li: o ^ Tj.'
«
-b
1
o
1
in
ND RE!
ston
03
■
is
<
Q
■z
o
'Z
<
H
O
O
< ^
o
H
H
C ^
w
Q
Z T-t "S
§
Z
IDENI
ston
ey Roai
Mi. N.
c
"3
o
15
o
<
o
^ ^ ^ a^^.
&H> So
1
X
1
s
o
<
a
T3
7S.
5
m
m
a
g
rt
ESS
o
5 2
&i5
1 s
0)
tledge
,R. Ove
vre de i
ickton
c c
P3 ^
>
0)
w
3K sii;
> >
-1^
tft.Kw
O O
•<
OJ
"S^l
CJ O; c: 'M
rr ^ ^
O"- S o
o
ut C<] Tf »C
•<t
'O-b'^^'C
w
ss^s
ti
o
t~
t-l (>]
t^^
^ "^
tr-
o o^ o
^ ^H
ee
'S' ra
«oiica!o
M IM
n
"C-Qi^
■!f T)<
tf
Km«K
X K
P3
64
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1957
District No. 4 — Fiscal Year 1957
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Patching Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging ! Miles
Jacking — Asphalt Sq. yds.
Jacking — Cement Slurry Sq. yds.
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous Sq. yds.
Joint and Crack Filling Gals.
Oiling — Bituminous Sq. yds.
Rigid I Semi-Rigid
J-K I I
47,819
640
60
7,384
Non-Rigid
F,G,H,I
10,476
750
24
83,374
4,955
69,837
Untreated
D-E
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Earth
Patching Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging Miles
Sodding Sq. yds.
Mowing and Hand Cutting Miles
Oiling and Bituminous Sq. yds.
Removal — Excess Material Cu. yds.
94,442
65
,094
7,470
1.5
—
229
263
15.40
18
30
353
—
121
146
4,260.54
—
62,660
—
—
—
—
—
14,331
5,353
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Number
20
1
3
870
13
2
8
Pipe and Box Culverts
Curb and Gutter
Number 15
Lin. ft. 835
Number 20
Number —
Lin. ft. —
Lin. ft. 3.200
60
490
Catch Basins
20
Spillways, Etc
4
Bituminous Rebutt..
540
Underdrain
531
Guurd Fence
I
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Removed 16,600 Lin. Ft.
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number j
1,384
275
6
9
608}/^
3,156
262
981
525
1,235
282
97
25
2,714
Posts
138
Cable
4,732
Fittings
252
Paint
22
Removed 1,620 ft. of 2 Cabled
Fence
2 Panels — Flexabeam
Paint Posts
—
Damrod Posts
—
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
65
Maintenance Report— Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grabbing.
292 Bags Fertilizer
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Miles
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Top-Soil Cu. yds.
Cutting Grass Acres
Trimming Trees 1 Number
Moving Equipment j / Units
1 Miles
Unit of
Charge
Removal of Trees.
Number
Maintenance
Roadside
625.25
12.06
47,901
5,964
858
867
158
105
4,344
23
Park Area
92.5
11.06
6,100
445
322
2,052
Traffic Service
Unit of
Type of Work Charge
Curbs Painted Lin. ft.
Snipe Signs Number
Highway Markers ' Number
Surface Guide Lines ' Miles
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., Etc Number
Snow Removal j InchesMi.
Ice Treatment ! Cu. yds.
Traffic Lights ' Number
Snow Fence ^ Lin. ft.
Manual Traffic Count i Hours
Maintenance
28 1-.
4,350
649
11,731
653.9
185
3099.74
8,994
miles
311,400
Removed— 37,960
2,484
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Wall Cu. ft.
Ditching (New) | Lin. ft.
Cleaning — Ditches , Lin. ft.
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts 1 Number
Cleaning — Box Culverts .^. Number
Cleaning — Bridges .' i Number
Cleaning — Catch Basins | Number
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures Number
Riprapping
Cleaning — Curb and Gutter.
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
240
175
307,525
1,046
120
108
708
125
144,668
66
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958
District No. 4 — Fiscal Year 1958
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Rigid
J-K
Semi-Rigid
I
Non-Rigid
F,G,H,I
Untreated
D-E
Patching
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Gals.
Sq. yds.
55,074
10,171
11,014
26,900
154,631
211,677
Blading — Dragging
Jacking — Asphalt
Jacking — Cement Slurry
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous
Joint and Crack FilHng
Oiling — Bituminous
—
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Bitum.
Stabilized
Grass
Earth
Patching
Blading — Dragging
Sodding
Mowing and Hand Cutting
Oiling — Bituminous
Removal — Excess Material.
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Cu. yds.
79,805
145
69,500
50,019
198
84
1,196
1,000
205
3,478.60
8,559
27
13
2,925
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Pipe and Box Culverts
Curb and Gutter
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
26
7
135
10
6
98
3
836
2
3
50
49
965
Catch Basins
16
Spillways, Etc.
2
Bituminous Rebutt
210
Underdrain
679
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
Number
12,500
815
11
133
1,817
3,178
415
92
139
211M
515
883
Posts
Cable
78
468
Fittings
96
Paint
Painted Post
11
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
67
Maintenance Report— Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Pine Trees
Fertilizer
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Trees Planted
Trees Removed
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Number
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
/Units
\ Miles
Number
Number
Maintenance
Roadside
369
5,400
10 Tons
200
9,150
1,083
154 >^
315
188
132
4,923
25
26
Park Area
13
4,200
75
391
260
2,086
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Snipe Signs Removed
Salt Bin Erected
Curbs Painted
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., Etc
Snow Removal
Ice Treatment
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence
Manual Traffic Count
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Number
Ft.
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi.
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
247
1
1,318
11,446
552.6
415
81"~4,106.98 Miles
7,190
17
318,900
2,518
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures
Riprapping
Cleaning — Curb and Gutter
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Lin. ft.
1,209
Lin. ft.
343,153
Number
1,014
Number
53
Number
42
Number
594
Number
—
Sq. yds.
629
Lin. ft.
241,205
DISTRICT No. 5
Headcjuarters — Upper Marlboro, Maryland
E. G. DUNCAN
District Engineer
JOHN H. REEDER 0. KENNETH WEBB
Assistant District Engineer Assistant District Engineer
Construction Maintenance
Anne Arundel County
JACOB C. WILKERSON
Resident Maintenance Engineer
Calvert County
ADAM M. NOLL
Resident Maintenance Engineer
Charles County
W. AUGUSTUS FOWKE
Resident Maintenarice Engineer
St. Mary's County
M. CHAPMAN THOMPSON
Resident Maintenance Engineer
DISTRICT No. 5
This District is comprised of Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles and St.
Mary's counties. The county highways of Calvert, Charles and St. Mary's
counties are maintained by the District Maintenance forces. Anne Arundel
county maintains its own county highways.
The mileage maintained on the State and County highways is shown
below :
County-
State Highways
County Highways
Anne Arundel
311.37
109.71
229.00
195.22
Calvert
234.06
Charles . . .
318.98
St. Mary's
338.54
In addition to regular maintenance, 181.73 miles of State roads were
surface treated with bituminous material and covered with mineral
aggregate. 189.37 miles of County roads received the same treatment.
The District Maintenance forces graded, drained and surfaced with
run-of-bank gravel, the following mileages of County highways:
Calvert County 8.40 Miles
Charles County 6.75 Miles
St. Mary's County 13.96 Miles
Tables showing data pertaining to road construction contracts and
maintenance operations for the biennium follow.
71
72
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
w
00
05
Oh .
5- S O
Ol-5<<
Q
o
G >-
O ti
t-
fMOi t- O
o
lO to CCiCt- o
to c^] ^ oi to in t-
o.
O lOiO O
CO
CO O OS CO IM iq
in CO X X X o C'J
to
o"
to I> X t>
t~_
C^J_ 05_ OtO_X_ lO
CO to X t- X c^ in
o_^
mcciS •**
X
rf" «" t-'o'c-f t-"
^ in" o:r to to' '^'"■^*'
o"
IM05OT rf
CO
■* t- —I O X CM
■* O -* t~ (X o
X
69-
sOth in
C<1
X -H CO CO 0-]
o_ X to to t^ in
&9-
-<
o
K)
to
tocoto to
t-
t> t> t- 1> t- t>
t^ t> t^ X X X X
affi
lO
ininm m
U5
in in in in in in
in in in in in inm
Q
<!
CO
t> t--H 00
C^]
05 to -^y-IX in
05 O C- tH CO O-^f
1
1-I.-IOT r-(
CM rt --I CM 1 ^CM
t:~
III 1
1 1 1 1 O 1
1 1 1 1 to 1 i
t> t> t~ IM
CO
CO ■* intOiH o
O CM CM rt tOtO
'^
*^
01
■6 fc
c ? J in 3 01 o
^ .:s oJ . . ..S . ° 3 —
^lilisrlgs. §j
wPi Z 2 O UrH
i
3
K
D-
O
Z
O
g
CO u 0) rt
s * . .
fe § ;g pa
i: H 3= =■
ffl-o" aji-3"^
nl-t; Mm K E .
w a; 0 n a* c a-o
a3 J *^ . :<
p
c
o
O
3
c >>.5 o 0)
M "J "r H M M
^g|| m& «
•j; U u C „• ^
CQ-of3 * C . C
c — . . O "oj o
£ rt g-o O > U
OJ aQ 1? -d i3 .t i-
5PQ 1 0) a) . <D
mc; t;^/=:euf- Ch
— — ^ '"a • .
3 3M|a3[g-| ^
QQ w cow rt
^ cq
comQO
Q
C/i
2 i 2
1 1 OO!
i
■*X O 1 CO 1
1 CO -H in o oco
Tf
B
1 1 OO
1
1 -HCq C<1 1 to 1
1 [- o to X tH c-
in
J
O 1 «:
1 tH^
1
1 in in CO t -^ 1
O O X CM CO to
o
S
(MO
Or-IO C^l
CO m CM in in CM
CO
&
«
Eh
Q)
M
Z
«■
o
I-]
OJ
o
6
^
Cli
1
1
O
^ i
H Oh
m
d
"a.
bl
c 2
OJ
>
si' "
m & cq
a ^ ■*
0.0 S
O S _a; 5 «^
^CQ M s 2 ^ o
1
0
Eh
en
C8
■^ 1
z
o
d
. C
2-S
1 1
2 to
3
3
S
o
o
E^
o .
K
QJ ^« GO *
'- m K -a •
^ >. tf T ■«
-d 1 a. m §
S^ ^ S -• fc -o
^o S 5 " 1 ^•
o
Is .
c
^ 2
3
g =E 5x £
< S^ wS o
^- ^ ^ " 1 i
O 0 ^ a S t;
&,d hJ g &< CU CD
> £
>*^ O
+:>
o m
o-< O
<;
d
a> o
It o o
o
>» >> o aJ
o o o o o o
u
"
■«" 03
IMCO TO
CO
rt rt CO ^ >
^CO CO CO CO CO »
(N
<^J
■^ ^
5
o
-6 =«
^W w
w
_-W M W M W ■
(§
S ti
s& ^
t>
:§ti tJ tJ t2 ti s
o o
Sffi
r-H to
Tf __
t- =
CO ^) X CO V -^ -
CM OJ
^u, 2 4 2 g S
<£> in
t^ r^ ^^Irt 1 IC
ooo"-* inx5?CTiT't^in il in ri fi t-^
—' oc
g: P to cc X. X '-'!
tCtOtCo^ XXS— iLf
-T Tf Tf x; ^ t ^ m c^
-i < < ^,^ < < ^ < !.""
^ X m 00 in in ^
0>7
CO Tl-
?i ?i ;' T [■:
-T5
■*^ CM ^ CM CM ■*
<< X < ji ji <
w <
ac-<?;<;';
,<< u < u u <;
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
73
r-( O 05
l> Tf ^ Tt< CQ ^
[~!OC0 CO in<M
00 O CO Oi'D
I I I I I II
-* T-Hl-H
W M W W
g
w
w
(13
Q
o|33
t> c!j p3 rt
lO O TfOCOIMCvlO 05
CO 00 OIMOOOCOIM 00
■* 0<N<N'-l«0
CO Tj< •* Tji (M lO
0) 0)
0) J
!k^ I
■O -O -B 73 T3 "d tj "d T) T3 TJ "d
OmwOO
1^
^Q
;*« H
oj^; w
lO
(M
1
CO
CO
(MOO
(N
-BTS
■B
ss
S
IN"*
rH05
^CO
•<1m
74
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1957
District No. 5 — Fiscal Year 1957
Roadway Surfacing
Unit of
Type of Work Charge
I
Patching ' Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging Miles
Jacking — Asphalt Sq. yds.
Jacking — Cement Slurry Sq. yds.
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous Sq. yds.
Joint and Crack Filling Gals.
Oiling — Bituminous | Sq. yds.
Base Repairs Sq. yds.
Rigid Semi-Rigid
J-K I
3,451
39
83,629
6,920
26,025
2,560
Non-Rigid
F,G,H,I
16,656
3,587
159,912
376,106
2,450
102
1,017,127
Untreated
D-E
156
2,747.70
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Bitum. Stabilized
Grass
Earth
and Gravel
Patching
Blading — Dragging
Sodding
Mowing and Hand Cutting
Oihng — Bituminous
Removal — Excess Material
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Cu. yds.
6,828 63,139
— 1,444
— 7
66,105 —
— 550
3,360
870
565,177
9,367
58
15,000
166,703
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge
! New
Replacements ; Installations
Bridge Repairs
Pipe and Box Culverts
Curb and Gutter
Catch Basins
Spillways, Etc.
Bituminous Rebutt
Underdrain
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
2,975
3,124
7,674
273
543
294
1,036
1,040
241
167
585
Posts
113
Cable
48
Fittings
Paint
51
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
75
Maintenance Report — Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing.
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment.
Washouts
Cutting and Hauling Bushes,
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
/Units
\ Miles
Cu. yds.
Lin. ft.
Maintenance
Roadside
2,380.1
472,818
31,528
Park Area
782.5
17,866
2,327
521
3,462
1,654
163
2,504
115
61
234
—
5,806
—
4,675
—
59,571
—
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., Etc..
Snow Removal
Ice Treatment
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Manual Traffic Count I Hours
311^
8,942
277
192
'—2,970 Miles
1,942
6
107,088
1,576
Drainage (Clea ning)
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Ditching (New) Lin. ft.
Cleaning — Ditches Lin. ft.
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts Number
Cleaning — Box Culverts Number
Cleaning — Bridges Number
Cleaning— Catch Basins Number
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures ; Number
Riprapping Sq. yds.
Cleaning Pipe Lin. ft.
10,032
759,013
3,675
225
86
310
20
494.5
75
76
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958
District No. 5 — Fiscal Year 1958
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Rigid
J-K
Semi-Rigid
I
Non-Rigid
F,G,H,I
Untreated
D-E
Patching
Sq. yds.
Miles
Cu. yds.
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Gals.
Sq. yds.
17,108
6
6,826
65,850
.5
4,158
113,228
395,058
890
36,960
351
Blading — Dragging
Jacking — Mud
Jacking — Cement Slurry
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous
Joint and Crack Filling
Oiling — Bituminous
577
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Bitum.
StabiHzed
Patching Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging Miles
Sodding j Sq. yds.
Mowing and Hand Cutting Miles
OiHng — Bituminous [ Sq. yds.
Removal — Excess Material ...I Cu. yds.
Grass
650
103,011
Earth
and Gravel
391,772
9,531
528
124,301
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs . .
Number 31
Number 54
4
38
60
Pipe and Box Culverts
6
Curb and Gutter
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
67,655
64
Catch Basins
3
Spillways, Etc. ...
6
Bituminous Rebutt
Lin. ft. ' —
Underdrain
Lin. ft. 68 i 46
Lin. ft. 102 1 —
122
Bulkhead No. 5101
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
Lin. ft.
10,331
4,509
15,683
716
351
270
591
740
183
202
136
1,118
Posts
Cable
188
3,462
Fittings
292
Paint
20
Dismantle
Report of the State Koads Commission of Maryland
77
Maintenance Report — Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Washouts
Cleaning Bushes
Laying Sod
Spreading Fertilizer
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
/Units
\ Miles
Cu. yds.
Lin. ft.
Sq. ft.
Lbs.
Maintenance
Roadside
1,930.8
114,569
794
945
1,904
74
218
8,093
3,492
102,885
10,000
25,040
Park Area
1,323
12,685
347
145
3,099
12
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools R.R., Etc
Snow Removal
Ice Treatment
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence
Manual Traffic Count
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi,
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
7,961
919.9
326
6,653 Miles
2,439
6
157,977
2,412
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures
Riprapping
Installing Drainage
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
44,136
594,417
2,416
461
92
267
4
108
1,385
DISTRICT No. 6
Headquarters — Cumberland, Maryland
(Bratldock Road — State Route 49)
G. BATES CHAIRES
District Engineer
GEORGE E. GEARY R. E. L. PUTMAN
Assistant District Engineer- Assistant District Engineer
Construction Maintenance
Garrett County
EDWARD P. KAHL
Resident Mainteyiance Engineer
Allegany County
GEORGE B. HALE
Resident Maintenance Engineer
Washington County
RALPH T. THAYER
Resident Maintenance Engineer
DISTRICT No. 6
This District is comprised of Allegany, Garrett and Washington Coun-
ties, with territory ranging from rolling, in the eastern section, to moun-
tainous in the west.
County roads in all of the counties are maintained by the County
authorities. The State system maintained in each of the counties follows :
Allegany County 144.28 Miles
Garrett County 157.81 Miles
Washington County 223.88 Miles
Ordinary maintenance was carried on throughout the district as usual.
Preventive maintenance, such as spring fertilizing, seeding, planting, etc.
have been carried on, with a saving of maintenance funds, throughout
the District.
Snow removal and ice treatment continue to be the greatest maintenance
problem in this District. In connection with ice treatment, 24,695 cubic
yards of cinders were purchased, crushed, stored and applied to road
surfaces, and 3,059 tons of salt and calcium chloride were used in the
stock piles to prevent freezing, in addition to that applied directly to the
surface.
Tables showing data pertaining to road construction and maintenance
operations for the biennium follow.
81
82
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
M5C
c:
K r] cc •* s -T -"T
3-. X
?i Ti -x o L.-: ~]
re
X :^. cc X cc
^
•< £ 65
ah
f-;D
O -1 t-": C: L- 1— C-.
OX
C X O u- «; o
to
t-"
'■".T •*. '5'_^ 0_ CC -X^
— x" oT -H* ^ c" — "
x"re"o" t~ lif c-"
x_
X cc 1" -^ '— «
'■4.
N-H
tc J-- x; c 01 ic X
MT)
lO 0-. X <C iC ^
X
CI O -— 1 ^
0
as^lvi
•^
X o:_, cc i--; T). a: x
-- ■* -- -H t~ re
< 5
<
««■
Q
lato
;o
;OtC to t- t- t- t>
t- t-
t-t> O X X X
X
XXXX X
USUI
iri
U3 lO »0 l^ iC tf2 IC
\a\a
ifl u5 ic in ic lo
in
IC LClOlO UO
a
MC^
<c
lO 00 *-* »0 ii5 OS IC
050
Ot-"* X -H X
X
lOC^CDCOCO
1 w CO i-< ■ ^H
— lec
-H-^N eg -H ^
*-H C^ 1 11
oo
-HI 1 IN' cc
III 1 1 1
1 1 lC^CD
o
'^S N -^ C^
■*■>*
cgiNM ^ M re
re
■^-^
<
-
C
0^
-* z
■y ^- ~' Z
i X (^ -5
i
15
2
'* '^ .; .£
i
b.
O
z
o
S
i - 11 . si
'-^^ i £'■?■ 1 l^x
5 3 w g^s ^ a»-|
"5
o
CQ
--« 1 1 1
.2.2
! H
• c
c
= k— c 3d.S 3 ri^'~.
,j.CJQO -gee cj Q H
t-"
■y.
""^"3
1 5
i 1
1
z
III
1- t.
en
i a.
■c
si
s
r" >: a'E • !> -.i
3-t_^Qjci,§ oj|g:-
->,3C JW .-U S^SJ^
■3-3 1=^1
t»w wreco
y.
! 1
,
' IC t-« ' O III
1 •<t ^N 1 1 1 ec
to
1 .1 0
eg
1
1
1 TT o: t~ 1 t~ 1
1 »H05X 1 \ ^
re
1 1 (Ore 1
10
—
Q
1 1
1
1 OS rr t~ 1 -H 1 1 1
1 mxos 1 1 1 re
c
1 1 100
10
i
H
rHlCt- C
.-(OO M
-*
■ 1
NO
eg
■g
■0
^
s «
_a
w
03 i
o
■i '^
o
K
1 §
III i s
-o
52
^^ 3 0
x"cxiO^
0
4
1
JwS|«
1
E-S ^ '^ ■?
>-_
"S
z
o
s
lJ
5= ^ si
— ~ <^ -a ~
3
V.
i|
s
'V ^
•W
g^ 3| 4 1-5
x
•^ 2 C K
E^
ll
£
■= £ .£ K . K 2
X
3
= 7 '- ~-> « -r: -
3
d S C < w C
c
-= z r.^ S,
i i G riS
a >
05C
>
cc jS cc £ < <
z
C
^Kmci
■e
3 Tf
d
c
fc' C &.' cJ
t: '^
Z
!>' ^
= ^
= C >> >. >-. >. c
o2 o^ .
0-.
^s;?^
'^ ^
^-^s e - e X -*
:£
S^-'i ^K -T
-1 p
-•''^S^
5
£ 3_; t£X uXt: bi si _• m si CC
.^WM^ KM X
^■^
O
3J=2 =
. .aw aw " «K aK
"U
(S
~
5e-Sk
liK
:^:i-KZKZS azKZ :^
IS
S;:iDS tJK l^'
t;^
Si
ore
c c
re Ncg
—
C) Tl
;C tC
^^
-g 5d;o
^T' ^ "^
■-"
t-" -,"7 a-. '-7'f'f ic
-^i
OJt^^'^l' <4 X
^r-^j^
cg^'Hcg
^^?
^T^
3C
J, «c tc ;c ' tc «; « '
|5 55| ?55 %
i.-:
^ ^ Ol 7 'I Tt
rvi t-- lT
re J, X re
<^&
^
<i. ^^^ ^^^ ^
J
<<c^ ^ <
Sc<
^C^^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
83
i^taac <c ococoico
05
O OJ
o-.in ■*
,^
cocoes CO l> Oi c~ 1 t^
o
t-OJ o
CO
OC(M« (M_ ioo_^]^ 1 in
^
0_ Tf
co__x_ e<i_
X
Tfinco" ira c<f-«e<3 oc
of
eo" eJ
■*m" t-"
x'
u5,-(0 -H taojtc to
to
C^ Oi
■y- ■*
9
ir: X to X c^iiM-^ t-
m- w>
in
^ ^ -h" to"
6»
1 ««•
■*
60- *»
N
«»
— •— >
tOtOtOtO tr- t-t-X
to
t-
tr-X
lomioio in lOin in
in
in
in in
1 1 1 1 1 III
t-eototo -^ t>ox
to
05
050
i^IMN ^ Nr-ii-l
'-'
^
NC<I
XIII 1 11
iHcgc^ to XMm
o
c^
oca
i-HiH r-l
"
.a
1
■"■•3-H
*t^
H-S|.S
3
surf,
ec. B.
esurf.
f. and
abBr.
d. Fre
ing El
, etc.
01
C
CS
nd Re
f. Sp
and R
Resur
,. C. SI
ag. tw
b.-seal
resurf,
B.
P9
. Rel. a
d Resur
d. Rel.
ec. B.
3Sp. R
surf. (H
Mi. Su
id. and
Spec.
1
E
§
0) be OJ
3
CO
s
.S -Ch
ec. B.
1. Wid
pec. B.
id. Rel
Girder
ec. B.
incl.)
ec. B.
id. Res
m
C
'S
CIS
-1^
0)
w C
^<NMO!-H^ o oeo 0
^
o
c
1 1
^
^COOlO-'l't- O 051O 1/
5
in
1 !£
to
^rH-^oiNM t~ mt- t-
-
o
1 c
1 1
CO
t3 *
CO
c
o '
o
to
H til
• <
: Q
: z
w
: 1 :
^ CO E o
o
. <1
; <
D ^-S 5
.2
. J
■ H
h7 "a.t:
• o
• o
. w
T3
o
o
; o »
■ 2 ="
: o
• H
: Q
WIDENIN
larpsburg
862 Mi. W.
7 Mi. N. E.
a. Line
. S. 219
lear Spring
8 Mi. N. of
akland
0
c
s
0)
O
• 2
Wo'd&Hp ^ oC
J
sc
03
1
HI
>
0
(S
V Z
^^
di o
ggold
towai
S. 11 :
Park
M ca
2 E
0)
« 1
tf ^ to P^
O
o
S . ^ ca
"oj
g
o
D. u
boro
40
ne
i. S. of
Park t(
Lt (Md
i. N. o
tain L
1 °
S 0)
Boons
U. S.
Pa. Li
1.3 M
Deer 1
Huyel
0.1 M
Moun
to
4)
>
o
•B
1
1
CS
CJ
1
X in o ^
OtO-H 1
^ IM
T)no>-i-*co rr coco
x«
inco
-H in
coco-* to 1-1 . to -H
to t^
■O TJ -d T3 T3 "O "d
2 oj • • 1
W M
sssss t; ss
SE
2S 1
;i t3
— — '
t-
-* Tf
'^■^"t^-^ "? '^=^
S
to
to to
.-l.iOJMlA ^ "*lA
to
■<1'
in
■*
■* •*
^<^^6 ^ ^o
i
^
< 1
1 ^ ^
i
84
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
M.4INTEN.i^NCE REPORT
July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1957
District No. 6 — Fiscal Year 1957
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Patching Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging j Miles
Jacking — Asphalt ' Sq. yds.
Jacking — Cement Slurry Sq. yds.
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous I Sq. yds.
Joint and Crack Filling i Gals.
Oiling — Bituminous 1 Sq. yds.
Rigid
J-K
Semi-Rigid
I
Non-Rigid
F,G,H,I
14,533
8,540
30,977
29,458
23,437
36,097
207,278
Untreated
D-E
1,188
4.6
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Bitum.
Stabilized
Grass
Earth
Patching Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging ' Miles
Sodding Sq. yds.
Mowing and Hand Cutting Miles
Oiling — Bituminous Sq. yds.
Removal — Excess Material Cu. yds.
9,438
3,800
7
302
1,861
107,095
1,230.10
866.2
6,049
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Pipe and Box Culverts
Curb and Gutter
Catch Basins
Spillways, Etc.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
32
5
14
2
2
10
80
1
Bituminous Rebutt
—
Underdrain
756
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Posts
Lin. ft. 13,554
Number 1,476
Lin. ft. 40
Number 74
Gals. 223
216
72
26
Cable
—
Fittings
—
Paint
2
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
85
Maintenance Report — Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautifi cation
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
/Units
\ Miles
Maintenance
Roadside
3,258.4
237,722
1,836
13
18.5
1,182
13
625
Park Area
126
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., Etc
Snow Removal
Ice Treatment — Sand and Cinders
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence — Erected
Manual Traffic Count
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi,
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
7,435
205.21
161
215.5"— 525.97 Miles
12,422.5
26
326,365
1,572
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures
Riprapping
Cleaning — Underdrains
Cleaning — Grates
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Sq. yds.
Number
Number
17,162
404,945
2,823
118
25
158
113
3
86
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1957 to June 30, 1958
District No. 6 — Fiscal Year 1958
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Patching
Blading — Dragging
Jacking — Asphalt
Jacking — Base Repair .
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous
Joint and Crack Filling
Oiling — Bituminous
Unit of
Charge
Sq. yds.
Miles
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Sq. yds.
Gals.
Sq. yds.
Rigid
J-K
Semi-Rigid Non-Rigid
I F,G,H,I
12,044
1,400
20
6,175
83,194
11,417
Untreated
D-E
4.7
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Bitum.
Stabilized
Grass
Earth
Patching Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging Miles
Sodding Sq. yds.
Mowing and Hand Cutting Miles
Oiling — Bituminous Sq. yds.
Removal — Excess Material Cu. yds.
118,787
10,200
156
10,318
107,954
1,331.8
514.3
8,882
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Pipe and Box Culverts
Curb and Gutter
Catch Basins
Spillways, Etc.
Number 32
Number 16
Lin. ft. 380
Number , 1
Number | —
Lin. ft. —
Lin. ft. —
1
12
40
3
Bituminous Rebutt
Underdrain
240
242
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
18,518
1,174
1,003
214
453
531
94
1
280
Posts
26
Cable
Fittings
24
Paint
1
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
87
Maintenance Report — Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
/Units
\ Miles
Maintenance
Roadside
3,629.2
451,613
795
1,256
56
8.3
145
5
Park Area
132
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Highway Markers
Surface Guide Lines
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., Etc.
Snow Removal
Ice Treatment
Traffic Lights
Snow Fence— Erected
Manual Traffic Count
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi.
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
8,960
128.05
89
324.0"— 525.97 Miles
13,327
49
333,075
1,548
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures-Grates
Riprapping
Cleaning — Underdrain
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Sq. yds.
Number
77,447
379,345
2,413
266
29
98
55
38
Baltimore National Pike. Approach to Frederick By-Pass at the Monocacy
River.
DISTRICT No. 7
Headquarters — Frederick, Maryland
THOMAS G. MOHLER
District Engmeer
DONALD S. BROWN F. LA MOTTE SMITH
Assistant District Engineer Assistmit District Engineer
Construction Maintenance
Carroll County
B. F. THOMAS
Resident Mainteyiance Engineer
Frederick County
J. RAY HARTMAN
Resident Maintenance Engineer
Howard County
HOBART B. NOLL
Resident Maintenance Engineer
DISTRICT No. 7
This District comprises Carroll, Frederick and Howard counties. There
are 630.42 miles of State roads under maintenance in these three counties.
County roads in this District are maintained by the authorities of the
respective counties.
The mileage of State roads as shown above includes the main streets of
the following towns : In Carroll County, Westminster, Taneytown, Man-
chester, Hampstead, New Windsor, Union Bridge, Sykesville and Mt.
Airy; in Frederick County, Frederick, Middletown, Emmitsburg, Thur-
mont and New Market ; and in Elkridge in Howard County.
Regular maintenance was carried on as usual. No extraordinary main-
tenance was required during the biennium.
Tables showing data pertaining to road construction and maintenance
operations for the biennium follow.
90
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
91
t- ■*
o
00 t-05 in t~
CO
X
-H 05
-H in
Tfcoin^coin-^ijj'-tt^
II "^
a
■* CX3
in
to la^r-KX
t:~
eg CO
t- X
o->ttDxinr-(to[-ox
0 ll X
H Kl
■* in
to
CO^ ^- 00 Gi 00
tD__
[~
in co_
™. Oi^
cgoirHt^Mto^t-ox
in -^^
2 P «
<
M !D
c<f
o" oo"-*" to*"^"
x"
in
!> t-'
t-" co"
oT eg" x" rt" ctT in to" co" t-' m"
'~i. in"
-!)' ^
t>
tH "^ 05 "^ CO
t-
to
(N CO
-Hinincocg-^ocoxCTs
X eg
N
X eg N <M M
"^
x_
to
in
o_
o_eg X .H X oi cji cj>
X [-
= eg"
*^
w^
t^ y-*
V> ««■
a
as
1
to
to to t~t>c^
t>
t-
t-
to to
tOtOtD(CtOt>t>t-t>t-
lO lO
in
in in in m in
in
in
in
in in
inininininininininin
l«
o \a
OJ
05 inoo t~t>
00
J,
in
i> in
egtoxxot-cot--^-*
■H N
1
1 1 MM eg
1
1-1 M
1 MrHi-HCO-H 1 -negiN
Q H
1 1
o
O -Hill
O)
0
1 1
0 1 1 1 1 1 eg 1 1 1
>
t>- o>
rt rt inoooo
i
0
t- 01
•-icgMegt-ox-icgocj
a
1-H 1-H tH rH fH iH
<
<
t«
clj
J
1
n
^ IS
0
is
Oh"
c
09 09 09
nQW09 0) 0) 0)
H
o
_^J
3
m
a
a;
73
w
o
o
■5
3
Q
E
a
to
d
■5
CO -S
„• g 0 www
Oi 0) Oi .
O
z
o
S
Q
03
09 .
w *1
0
:qw
!2
m
v
c
0
1 ss
|33M£'S'?'?fe
^•Tj-d-o'Ti; 3 3 3 3
3 — — • f; a* • • • •
«_■ Oi Q) ai'O'B'a'aTS
«Wa
QS
"o m m" .-WW
.a a. A _ .
r^s:"^'^
£
S m^
d'a « E "3 6 o d d
W 3iJ cu 3 ea'oiMt/}
ciOi S S
d
w
0^ ^
0^
^lOOO
i «C 00 M O t^ ■<)• 1 1
1 o
o>
0
1 ^
Oooo
o-^to-^o 1 oi 0 X in
to 0
K!
Z^omw
1 00 1> to in Tf Tf 1 1
1 "^
to
CO
1 =■
< XO!-*
■<ti-it~ego it-x-HTf
X t-
J
Qt>X^
1 o
rHin in ■* M 1 1
1 to
t-
CO
1 ■<*
(1,0: eg CO
.-ito-<cgco 1 t^—iMin
c^ eg
S
»H
(NOj-lcgiM
CO
'^
0
0-
Oh to 00
-- -01 >-H CO in egcoinco
eo in
t^
H
o;
03
■ J
E-i
; <
M
Q
H
2:
o
§ «
■z
<
: 0
o
Eh
1 °x "
■ 0
: z >.
"* »,
1 o
3
o
>>
• 11 !
"■o 0
t; 0 tj
^^ =
y 0 = 0)
3 oJ ■> 5j5
-SS ^ 2 >,.£ >
h2K fH&HO-w
•3 -j;
H 0
3
i
J3
-^
0
c
0
■s
"S
>
0
M 5 ^
Z
o
Oh
c
2 ^°
fH fe 1
3 p «
>>£ Si 1
0)£J X ""S m rf
o
rt
,3
S
1 w
w
rt
o
1 |fet;§
II
ti
0/
2 o
d
§ C» O OJ 0)
"0
0
2-w
a u>
«3
01
Jaw
01 Ql
w
i
a
0)
Q
0)
4J 0)
0)t» 2
a eg
< d
>
O
> >
OO
d
>
0
>-;2ow&H-<ol>i2c
d
05 „
»
1 1 II
£g
s
1
aJo(2o(£
0!
<?
>
a-n
05 0-*
00 .q.
t>-<j'-Htoegm«toc-CTie^
. >,
>.
>.
^incoe^jco . .egoi^c"
P
W01
W oa W 03 ^- CQ ffl
09
09 c 5
. C9 0
■VT3-V
■O -c -d -d -d ^ ^ -d -B T3 X
tf
OtifetDfe
^DfetJfeSfcfe
fe
sss
SSSSStJti'SSSS
"g
^
< w
£S
CO
rf oto'x
OJ
^H CO
eg
egineg., ..tococ-'"
in'?
So
05
o
-< -"f ^ tocg
o o ego o
"3
0
Of d>
•H 1 t 1 eg ^ 1 1 1 c^
' eg-^ -H 1 , 1 Tj" -Htoo
=^s
Oi
Gi Gs C5 0^ G5
Oi
05
0 CO CO CO S ?S CO CO CO
V.
J
1 oT
1 Kfo
T*
^
■<f tc in't tc
■0'
in i
to 1 1 1 in in 1 1 1 (
:l
92
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1956 to June 30, 1957
District No. 7 — Fiscal Year 1957
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Patching Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging Miles
Jacking — Asphalt Sq. yds.
Jacking — Cement Slurry Sq. yds.
Resurfacing — Non
Bituminous Sq. yds.
Joint and Crack Filling Gals.
Oiling — Bituminous Sq. yds.
Unit of
Charge
Rigid
J-K
9,756
7,701
Semi-Rigid
I
30,232
Non-Rigid
F,G,H,I
191,739
131,522
Untreated
D-E
600
5
500
2,080
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Bitum.
Stabilized
Grass
Earth
Patching Sq. yds.
Blading — Dragging Miles
Mowing and Hand Cutting Miles
Oiling — Bituminous Sq. yds.
Removal — Excess Material Cu. yds.
101,663
40,660
388
1,240
3,426
42
32,288
880.5
8,555
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
Pipe and Box Culverts
Curb and Gutter
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
17
3
7
5
8-Planks
1
6
265
1
Catch Basins
5
Spillways, Etc.
Bituminous Rebatt
Underdrain
180
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
765
3,298
2,020
185
312
71
533
115
47
28
Posts
4
Cable
2,721
Fittings
Paint
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
93
Maintenance Report — Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautifi cation
Brush Hauled
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Loads
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
fUnits
\ Miles
Maintenance
Roadside
2,296.7
645,297
49
653
176
749
2
11
Park Area
475
7,114
169
220
1,400
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Highway Markers N umber
Surface Guide Lines Miles
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., Etc Number
Snow Removal | InchesMi.
Ice Treatment j Cu. yds.
Traffic Lights — Cat's Eyes.
Snow Fence — Painted
Erected
Removed
Manual Traffic Count
N amber
I in. ft.
Hours
8,218
619.97
59
61"— 3,785 Miles
7,380
2
2,364
2,100
313,780
215,718
989
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Miscellaneous Structures
Riprapping
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Sq. yds.
2,160
331,709
481
60
98
179
7
94
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Maintenance Report
July 1, 1957 to June 1, 1958
District No. 7 — Fiscal Year 1958
Roadway Surfacing
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Rigid
J-K
Semi-Rigid
I
N on- Rigid
F,G,H,I
Untreated
D-E
Patching
Blading — Dragging
Sq. yds.
Miles
17,771
48,725
6,157
27,728
199,187
325,478
—
Heater Planer
Jacking — Cement Slurry
Resurfacing— Non
Bit uminous
Joint and Crack Filling
Oiling — Bituminous
Feet —
Sq. yds. : 771
Sq. vds. —
Gals. 4,540
Sq. yds. —
—
Frost Boils
Tons
101
—
Shoulder Maintenance
Unit of
Charge
Bitum.
Stabilized
Grass
Earth
Patching
Sq. yds.
18,995
11,905.65
—
7,650
Blading Dragging
Miles
—
412
—
833.9
C. R. Used
Tons
—
—
—
920.15
Mowing and Hand Cutting
Miles
—
—
2,721
—
Cal. Chloride
Tons
—
1.90
—
40
Removal —Excess Material
Cu. yds.
—
25
147
10,533
Maintenance — Bridges and Structures
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
Bridge Repairs
New Floor
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
6
22
8
6,010
9
2
15
217
4
20
Painted— 9
Pipe and Box Culverts
Curb and Gutter
16
285
Catch Basins
6
Spillways, Etc.
—
Bituminous Rebutt
Underdrain
484
Guard Fence
Unit of
Charge
Repairs
Replacements
New
Installations
New Fence
Lin. ft.
Number
Lin. ft.
Number
Gals.
Number
Lin. ft.
620
150
846
76
414
7,154
10,413
95
359
242
108
23
Posts
10
Cable
270
Fittings
4
Paint
—
Posts Painted
—
Guard Rail Beams Painted
—
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
95
Maintenance Report — Continued
Right-of-Way
Type of Work
Mowing, Clearing and Grubbing
Beautification
Resetting Fence
Removal of Debris
Top-Soil
Cutting Grass
Trimming Trees
Moving Equipment
Trees Cut
Trees Planted
FertiHzer Spread
Shrubbery Planted
Unit of
Charge
Miles
Sq. yds.
Lin. ft.
Truck
Loads
Cu. yds.
Acres
Number
/Units
\Miles
Number
Number
Tons
Number
Maintenance
Roadside
2,1021^
186,020
1,350
631
46
175
372
6,964
43.44
357
Park Area
478
550
189
1,484
11
Traffic Service
Type of Work
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Cinder Hauled
Cu. yds.
Number
Number
Miles
Number
Inches Mi.
Cu. yds.
Number
Lin. ft.
Hours
1,138
Snipe Signs
961
Highway Markers
7,937
Surface Guide Lines .
526.4
Surface Marking, Schools, R.R., Etc. . .
129
Snow Removal
313"— 8,970 Miles
Ice Treatment
8,718
Traffic Lights .. .
251
Snow Fence — Erected . .
340,689
Removed
318,527
Manual Traffic Count
1,114
Drainage (Cleaning)
Type of Work
Headwall Striped
Maint. Stakes Removed
Ditching (New)
Cleaning — Ditches
Cleaning — Pipe Culverts
Cleaning — Box Culverts
Cleaning — Bridges
Cleaning — Catch Basins
Cleaning — Streams
Riprapping
Dirt Hauled
Cleaning — Concre te Gutter
Retaining Wall Built
Grate Installed
Unit of
Charge
Maintenance
Number
Number
Lin. ft.
Lin. ft.
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Sq. yds.
Cu. yds.
Ft.
Ft.
Number
331
538
1,700
269,960
128
68
83
73
3
467
21.744
26
2
RIGHT OF WAY DEPARTMENT
LEROY C. MOSER
Chief Right of Way Engineer
Office Right of Way Engineers
R. DONALD WOOTEN
Adnfiinistrative Assistant Right of Way Engineer
J. FRANCIS CURREN C. MAURICE HEANY
Special Asst. Right of Way Engineer Assistant Right of Way Engineer
HAINES B. FELTER ARTHUR C. PERKINS
Special Asst. Right of Way Engineer Assistant Right of Way Engineer
District Right of Way Engineers
District #1
JAMES A. SMITH, JR.
District Right of Way Efigineer
District #2
LESTER K. JENKINS
District Right of Way Engineer
District #3
LOUIS A. YOST, JR.
District Right of Way Engineer
STEPHEN M. BOJANOWSKI
Asst. Dist. Right of Way Engineer
District #J!f
SIDNEY J. WARD
District Right of Way Engineer
WILLIAM C. HANNON
Asst. District Right of Way
Engineer
District #5
WILLIAM C. KRIEGER
District Right of Way Engineer
District #6
HENRY F. FREDERICK
District Right of Way Engineer
District #7
CARL A. CLINE
District Right of Way Engineer
RIGHT OF WAY DIVISION
The Right of Way Department is responsible directly to the Commis-
sion in administrative, policy and fiscal matters and reports to the Chief
Engineer on all matters pertaining to engineering. The main overall
function of the Right of Way Department is the acquisition of private
and public properties required for the Commission's highway construction
programs.
The continuing pressure of the needed acquisitions for the Twelve-Year
Program, added to the requirements of the Federal Interstate Highway
Program, has compounded the work load of this Department during the
past two years. This increase has been on both a quantitative and quali-
tative basis.
Although the main efforts of the Department must be concentrated on
the acquisition of rights of way for immediately proposed projects, more
and more effort and money are being directed toward acquiring properties
in the more urban sections of the State for future projects.
The continuing spread of urban areas and the accompanying increase
in land values make it imperative that the attempt be made to acquire as
many properties as possible that will be needed for future programs
before certain areas are so heavily built-up that future roadway expan-
sions in these sections would be economically prohibitive.
The following is a condensed summary of the operations of the Depart-
ment over the past several years since the inauguration of the Twelve
Year Program. It is hoped in this way to present a basis of comparison
by which to judge the progress of the Department during the last two
years.
Fiscal
Numb 67'
of
Average Cost
Year
Rights of Way
Cost
per Parcel
1954
1,978
$ 4,147,122
$2,096
1955
3,266
12,575,558
3,850
1956
2,179
12,489,442
5,731
1957
2,063
14,305,601
6,935
1958
2,200
10,858,253
4,935
One of the radical changes in right of way acquisition procedures dur-
ing the past two years, involving additional work for the Department, has
been the operation under the new land acquisition law which went into
effect June 1, 1956. Most acquisitions are now handled in accordance
98
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 99
with this Act (Chapter 59 of the Acts of 1956 of the General Assembly
of Maryland).
During the period from June 1, 1956, to July 1, 1958, there were 974
cases referred to the Boards of Property Review for their consideration
and awards. Of this number, awards have been returned in 646 cases
(66%). Settlements, as a result of these awards, were made in 352
instances (52%). Of the remaining total, appeals were entered by the
State Roads Commission in 220 cases and by the property owners in
91 cases.
The foregoing statistics are somewhat misleading since in many in-
stances the Commission entered an appeal immediately upon the filing
of the award. If it hadn't, it is likely that the property owners would
have appealed. A total of 311 cases was set for court trials, or approxi-
mately 48 percent. This represents the number of cases (311) appealed
and set for trial, compared to the total of 974 cases originally referred
for hearing before the Boards of Property Review.
The Federal Interstate Highway Program has substantially increased
the work load of the Department during the past two years. This pro-
gram went into effect June 1, 1956. In Maryland it includes the follow-
ing major projects : The Baltimore Beltway, the Washington Circum-
ferential Highway, the Northeastern Expressway from the Baltimore
City Line to the Delaware Line northeast of Elkton, the Baltimore Na-
tional Pike from the Baltimore City Line to the Pennsylvania Line near
Hancock, the Washington National Pike from Frederick to Washington,
D. C, the Baltimore-Harrisburg Expressway from the Baltimore Beltway
to the Pennsylvania Line near existing U. S. Route 111, the Jones Falls
Expressway from the Baltimore City Line to the Baltimore Beltway and
a new Baltimore-Washington Expressway. It is estimated that on these
projects alone, the necessary rights of way will total approximately
$79,000,000.00. This does not include Interstate acquisitions within Balti-
more City, which are the City's responsibilities.
As soon as the Federal program was enacted into law, the Right of
Way Department was called upon to submit detailed estimates on every
project in the Interstate System. As these projects have come closer to
construction, the Department becomes involved in three separate opera-
tions, all of which are necessary to secure Federal monies under this Act.
After the estimate noted above is made and submitted, a formal agree-
ment is drawn with the Bureau of Public Roads for each individual con-
tract and an estimated amount is then allocated for the Commission's use
on this particular contract. The Right of Way Department then begins
to acquire the necessary properties.
100 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
As funds are expended or committed, progress vouchers are submitted
to the Bureau for reimbursements. This piecemeal payment is continued
until a project has finally been completed, when a final voucher is pre-
sented and a comprehensive audit made. This audit includes all payments
and expenses which are subject to participation by the Federal Govern-
ment.
During the two year period which is the subject of this report, the
Right of Way Department has put under agreement approximately
$9,500,000, and the Commission has been reimbursed for slightly over
$5,000,000.
While the work on the Interstate System may be more eye catching
than that involved in Maryland's Twelve-Year Program, the Right of
Way Department is continuing the acquisitions of land needed for the
latter. As a matter of fact, far more of the Department's time is spent
on state projects than on those in the Interstate System.
For the 4,263 rights of way acquired during the two year biennium, it
was necessary to file 566 condemnation cases. During this same period,
196 condemnation cases were tried and settlements were reached in 191
cases, after their filing.
At the end of the biennium, there were still 426 cases pending on the
several Court dockets throughout the State, including cases filed prior to
the beginning of the biennium. A number of cases tried and settled be-
fore trial during the biennium were also actually filed prior to July 1, 1956.
Because many cases were carried over, it was necessary to analyze them
over a longer period to reflect valid percentages of those cases filed and
tried in relation to the total number of acquisitions.
The Twelve Year Program began on January 1, 1954, and on that date,
there were outstanding 113 condemnation cases. During the four and
one-half year period since the inception of the Twelve Year Program, an
additional 1,328 cases have been filed, making a total of 1,441 cases filed.
At the end of the biennium, June 30, 1958, 608 of these cases have been
settled without trial, through further negotiation; jury awards have been
made in 407 cases, leaving a remainder of 426 cases to be disposed of.
Inasmuch as 10,963 rights of way were acquired during this period,
it is indicated that in 13 percent of the acquisitions, it was necessary to
file condemnation proceedings. These figures also indicate that of the
condemnation cases filed, an average of 60 percent was settled through
further negotiations and approximately 40 percent are actually taken to
trial, and it can therefore be determined that of the cases originally filed,
only approximately 5 percent went to jury trial.
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 101
For each of these trials, the Right of Way Department correlated the
necessary data, arranged for the appearance of expert witnesses and
furnished all engineering testimony. An actual condemnation trial lasts
about two days, often longer, and since a pre-trial conference usually
lakes one or two days, the aggregate time consumed in the preparation
and conduct of each case amounts to approximately one week. Since it is
necessary to use our most experienced personnel in the preparation for
the trial and the presentation of testimony, this phase of operation is one
of the most time-consuming aspects of the work of the Department.
Another function of the Right of Way Department is the rental of
improvements on lands not immediately needed for road construction
purposes. While it will be necessary in the future to remove these im-
provements, they presently represent an available source of income to the
Commission. For instance, from Jujy 1, 1956 to June 30 ,1958, the Com-
mission collected $415,000.00 in rentals, from an average of 265 proper-
ties under lease. Right of Way personnel is responsible for securing
tenants for these properties, negotiating leases, arranging for and super-
vising necessary repairs and for terminating leases.
During this two year period, a very important change was brought
about in the administrative setup of the Department. Heretofore, all
right of way acquisitions were under the supervision of six Assistant
Right of Way Engineers who maintained their headquarters in the Balti-
more office. However, on September 1, 1957, field operations of the De-
partment were shifted to a District level. The Right of Way Department
now maintains an office in each of these districts under the direct super-
vision of a District Right of Way Engineer, who in turn reports to the
Chief Right of Way Engineer.
In all cases the areas served by Right of Way Districts coincide with
the Engineering Districts, except Washington County, which has been
temporarily placed under the supervision of District 7. This county will
ultimately be in District 6 as soon as trained personnel is available.
TRAFFIC DIVISION
GEORGE N. LEWIS, JR.
Director
ERNEST W. BUNTING GEORGE W. CASSELL
Highivay Engineer III Highway Engineer III
J. LESTER MINTIENS
Highivay Engineer III
TRAFFIC DIVISION
In the course of its normal operations during the two year period, the
Truck Patrol stopped and weighed more than 1,500,000 trucks of which
some 5,500 were found to be in violation of either the weight or size
regulations and fines totalling 255,764 dollars were imposed for these
violations.
A system of sufficiency ratings was established for all State-maintained
highways whereby a numerical value was assigned to each section of
highway.
A total of 204 requests were received from various persons for the
erection of automatic traffic signals at various locations. After investi-
gation of the facts surrounding each particular case, a total of 31 new
automatic traffic signals were installed, making a total of 248 automatic
traffic signals now maintained by the State Roads Commission. In addi-
tion to the new installations, adjustments and improvements were made
to 20 existing traffic signals.
During the biennium the County highway maps for 4 Counties were
completely redrawn and printed for distribution. In addition, 14 County
highway maps were partially revised and brought up-to-date and printed
for distribution.
Annual reports indicating the condition and status of the various high-
way systems were prepared for both the State Roads Commission and the
U. S. Bureau of Public Roads.
A comprehensive review was made of the existing Federal-aid Second-
ary System for each of the 23 Counties in cooperation with the County
Commissioners and their highway engineers.
The varied activities of the Traffic Division have increased, during this
biennium, in both volume and diversity.
The various functions of the Division include: Preparation and publi-
cation of maps, erection and maintenance of traffic signals, review of
construction plans for traffic operation and highway safety, traffic studies
in incorporated towns, enforcement of weight and size limitations of
commercial vehicles, physical inventory of roads, maintenance of regu-
larly scheduled automatic and manual traffic counter stations, analysis
of accident experience at various locations, origin and destination studies,
speed zoning, plan for highway signing and marking, cooperate in design
of interchanges and channelized intersections, and, plan and conduct
special studies made for a great variety of purposes.
105
106 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Among the major accomplishments of the Division during the period
were :
Participation in the Interstate Highway Needs Study in cooperation
with other Divisions.
A study was made and charts were prepared indicating the location
and number of accidents by type on the Baltimore- Washington Boule-
vard as compared with similar statistics on the Baltimore-Washing-
ton Expressway.
In connection with a regular annual assignment and also as an ad-
junct to the Section 210 Study required by the Federal Highway Act
of 1956 a series of Loadometer Studies were made at strategic loca-
tions throughout the State.
A special study of accidents occurring on divided highways in the
immediate vicinity of underpass structures was made and a report
submitted to the American Association of State Highway Officials.
BUREAU OF RESEARCH, DESIGN STANDARDS AND
ENGINEERING TRAINING
ALLAN LEE
Research Engineer
BUREAU OF RESEARCH, DESIGN STANDARDS AND
ENGINEERING TRAINING
The functions of this Bureau are concerned principally with the re-
search activities of the Commission, the preparation of various design
standards and procedures, and the program of engineering training for
the engineering personnel of the Commission.
However, the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 and
subsequent Federal Aid legislation has necessitated many studies to be
made. Although many divisions participated, this Bureau correlated
most of the work incident to the studies prepared by Maryland. In addi-
tion, this Bureau very actively participated in the report which was pre-
sented to the 1958 Legislature titled "State Highway System Study, In-
cluding Sufficiency Ratings."
In addition to supervising research projects directly sponsored by this
Commission, this Bureau keeps in close touch with reports and activities
of the Highway Research Board, American Road Builders' Association,
etc. By this exchange of information the Commission is kept well abreast
of developments throughout the country.
Under the State Roads Commission-University of Maryland Research
Program, an experiment designed to study various methods of controlling
Erosion of Highway Slopes has progressed very well, and valuable prog-
ress reports have already been made. It is contemplated that a compre-
hensive semi-final report will be available this fall, and the experiment
will be continued on a broader scale.
A second project under this program is one dealing with an investiga-
tion of concrete pavements which eliminate transverse joints and are con-
tinuously reinforced for very long stretches of pavement. All of the prep-
aratory work for the investigation has been designed and fabrication of
necessary instrumentation is under way. Very close examination of the
physical condition of the pavement and stresses induced at various times
of the year over a period of at least five years will enable us to appraise
this type of construction.
108
THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL AID, SPECIAL
HAULING PERMITS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
AUSTIN F. SHURE
Assistant to Chief Engineer
THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL AID, SPECIAL
HAULING PERMITS AND OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
Fedejxd Aid
Since the passage of the original Act in 1916, the Congress, by further
enactments from time to time, has provided funds for the continuance of
highway work through the years and up to the present time.
On or about the time of the passage of the Federal Aid Act of 1944,
consideration was being given to a system of Inter-Regional highways,
as it was then called, but the system did not materialize until ten years
later when the first enactment was made for the use of funds on Inter-
state highways.
Two years following, and in 1956, provision was made by the Congress
for the use of funds in substantial amounts, and for the construction of
the Interstate System of Highways on the basis of the Federal Govern-
ment contributing to the extent of 90% of the cost, and the respective
States assuming the cost of the remaining 10%.
Although the preliminary cost of the highway improvements, such as
engineering and rights of way, were eligible for participation with Federal
funds, the return on Federal Primary, Urban, and Secondary projects did
not justify its use because of the requirements involved, and furthermore,
because there was no loss in funds. However, on the Interstate projects
where the preliminary costs are relatively heavy, the Commission is en-
tirely justified in taking advantage of the use of these funds from the
inception of the project to its completion.
The Maryland Interstate System, in its entirety, was approved by the
Bureau of Public Roads following recommendations by the Commission ;
the location as well as the design is most modern in character, and im-
provements are being developed which are believed will accommodate
traffic requirements for a number of years in advance.
Beginning with, and subsequent to the year 1944, the Commission has
received the following from the several apportionments made available
by the Congress :
PRIMARY $ 29,707,676
SECONDARY $ 18,408,599
URBAN $ 30,511,757
INTERSTATE $ 57,942,434
110
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 111
It is significant to note that the State and the respective local govern-
ments participating in these funds have taken advantage of them in the
improvement of the State and County highways to the extent that no
funds have been lost to the State for highway usage, and as of June 30,
1958, the unprogrammed balances were made up of the following:
PRIMARY $ 31,665
SECONDARY $ 155
URBAN $ 321,847
INTERSTATE $ 2,190,151
Including the monies made available from the years 1916 to 1944, this
represents a total allocation to the State of Maryland from the Federal
Government for highway, bridge and grade crossing elimination construc-
tion an amount of $186,189,284.
Special Hauling PevTYiits
The control of oversize and overweight vehicles on Maryland highways
has increased from a routine matter to one of prime concern. This control
is being made increasingly difficult, first because of the lack of adequate
laws. Regulations are largely the result of past policies and legal opinions,
without basic legislative enactments.
The following table showing the number of permits issued and amounts
collected indicatss the ever-increasing work load of this Department.
Fiscal Year 1950 Fiscal Year 1957 Fiscal Year 1958
$ 5,521 $ 17,250 $ 18,958
$60,560 $214,830 $227,110
Outdoor Advertising
The Legislature of 1958 augmented the law governing outdoor advertis-
ing enacted in 1931, by setting up regulations for the control of signs
and billboards adjacent to Expressways and Interstate Highways. This
adds to the detail of the work involved. However, it restricts, in general,
any advertising within close proximity to the main line highways. It is
the first step toward a better control of roadside advertising.
The details of the work involved during the past biennium are shown in
the following table.
Fiscal Year 1957 Fiscal Year 1958
Sign License Fees $ 3,074 $ 8,142
Fees from Sign Permit Tags $11,265 $12,940
Signs of General Nature Removed from
Roads 900 1,100
Cardboard Signs Removed 26,000 28,000
Signs Removed from Newly Acquired
Right of Way 350 424
PERSONNEL, PENSIONS, AND WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION DIVISION
WILLIAM P. BENDER
Director of Personnel
W. PHELPS THOMAS
Personnel Manager
KEENE C. CRESWELL
Wo7'kmen's Compensation Investigator
PERSONNEL, PENSIONS, AND WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION DIVISION
During the period of this report, some employment expansion was made
by several divisions, but the total in the roads divisions has remained
relatively constant. However, the opening of the Harbor Tunnel more
than doubled the personnel of the Toll Facilities Department. The open-
ing required not only a sudden increase in the toll collection and main-
tenance forces, but also the creation of a new series of uniformed classes,
as follows :
Captain, Tunnel Patrol Force
Lieutenant, Tunnel Patrol Force
Sergeant, Tunnel Patrol Force
Harbor Tunnel Officer
The total number of employees, exclusive of the Toll Facilities Depart-
ment, at June 30, 1958, was 3,204, including 2,117 salaried, and 1,087
hourly workers. Including 312 Toll Facilities employees, the grand total
was 3,516 employees.
Under Workmen's Compensation, there was paid during the biennium
a total, for compensation, of $29,058, and for medical services, $23,071.
The compensation refund was $18,234. The insurer was the State Acci-
dent Fund.
114
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
JOSEPH D. BUSCHER
Special Assistant Attorney General
FREDERICK A. PUDERBAUGH
Special Attorney
ROBERT S. ROTHENHOEFER
Special Attorney
EARL I. ROSENTHAL
Special Attorney
T. THORNTON MURRAY
Special Attorney
J. THOMAS NISSEL
Special Attorney
EUGENE G. RICKS
Special Attorney
WALTER W. CLAGGETT
Special Attorney
HERBERT L. COHEN
Special Attorney
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
1956
The office of the Special Assistant Attorney General to the State Roads
Commission during the calendar year 1956 continued to represent and
advise the Commission on all matters where legal questions were involved.
During this period this office filed 217 condemnation cases in the several
Counties of the State and Baltimore City. The filing of the cases in Balti-
more City was occasioned by the right of way acquisition necessary for
the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel.
This office prepared and submitted to the 1956 Session of the Legisla-
ture a lengthy bill, the primary purpose of which was to deter, and, if
possible, eliminate right of way speculation. Another feature of this bill
was designed to relieve the crowded Court calendar of so many condem-
nation cases. The Boards of Property Review began to operate in August
of 1956. However, they were not in full operation throughout the State
for a number of months thereafter.
In addition to the condemnation cases, this office sent out 3,009 requests
for title searches in the several counties and, upon receipt of the complete
title searches, checked the title abstracts. Also in connection with the
construction of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, approximately 300 title
searches in Baltimore City and the surrounding counties were necessary.
This office supervised the searches in connection with the Tunnel Project.
The above mentioned condemnation suits, Board of Review hearings and
title examinations were all in connection with the State Roads Commis-
sion Construction and Reconstruction Program, carry-over work from
previous years, and work made necessary because of the construction of
the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel.
Each individual expenditure for the Patapsco River Tunnel Project
required this Assistant to prepare and sign a formal opinion in connection
therewith.
During the calendar year 1956, 246 condemnation cases were tried or
settled prior to trial in the Circuit Courts of the various counties and the
Superior Court of Baltimore City. Two of the cases tried were appealed
to the Court of Appeals of the State, and briefs prepared and the cases
argued before that Court in order to get a judicial determination of cer-
tain legal questions.
116
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 117
Also, this Department represented the State Roads Commission and the
Members thereof, individually, in all suits and causes of action brought
against the Commission and its Members, as individuals, acting in their
official capacities. In addition, this Department prepared or approved all
agreements entered into between the State Roads Commission and the
various counties, agencies and individuals, and approved as to legal form
and sufficiency, all contracts entered into by the State Roads Commission
for road construction.
As a result of the investigation into right of way speculation which
came to the attention of this office in the preceding year, the members of
this office further assisted in the conducting of the investigation by exten-
sive questioning of persons involved and making certain searches in the
Land Records of the counties. This required a considerable amount of
time. Further it was necessary for this Assistant to assist the State's
Attorney for Montgomery County in preparing the conspiracy case against
the individuals indicted as a result of this investigation, and this Assistant
was summoned and testified as a witness in the Criminal Case against the
defendants. The defendants were found guilty and sentenced by the
Court on a conspiracy charge.
The staff consisted, for 1956, of Mr. Frederick A. Puderbaugh, Mr.
Robert S. Rothenhoefer, Mr. Earl I. Rosenthal, Mr. T, Thornton Murray
and Mr. Herbert L. Cohen.
1957
During the calendar year 1957, this office represented and advised the
Commission on all matters where legal questions were involved.
During this period, this office filed 300 condemnation cases in the
several counties of the State of Maryland. In addition to the filing of
these condemnation cases and the filing of petitions under the 1956 Statute
which created the Boards of Property Review, this office sent out 2,355
requests for title searches in the several counties and, upon receipt of the
complete title searches, reviewed and checked all of the title abstrac':s.
During 1957, this office tried or settled immediately prior to trial 149
condemnation cases. Also, during the year, this office represented the
Commission before the various Boards of Property Review in 442 cases.
The cases tried before the Courts and the Boards of Property Review
were cases involving land acquisition made necessary by the Commission's
12- Year Program of Highway Construction and Reconstruction and the
construction program occasioned by the passage of the Federal-Aid High-
way Act of 1956. The cases also involved land acquisitions made neces-
sary because of the construction of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel. These
118 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
cases were all filed prior to 1957. However, many of them were tried
during the calendar year 1957. As a result of the trial of condemnation
cases during this period, a number of cases were appealed to the Court of
Appeals of Maryland either by the Commission or by the property owners.
In each of these cases, this office represented the Commission before the
Appellate Court.
This Department represented the State Roads Commission and the
Members thereof, individually, in all suits and causes of action brought
against the Commission and its Members as individuals acting in their
official capacities. Further this office prepared and approved all agree-
ments entered into between the State Roads Commission and the various
counties, agencies and individuals, and approved as to legal form and
sufficiency all contracts entered into by the State Roads Commission for
road construction, reconstruction, maintenance, the obtaining of material
and supplies and the services of the Consulting Engineers who performed
engineering work for the Commission.
The year 1957 saw the first full year of operation by the Commission
under the provisions of Chapter 59 of the Acts of the General Assembly
of Maryland, 1956 Session, Under this law an entirely new method of
obtaining rights of way for highway purposes was employed. This method
was designed primarily to prevent land speculation by speculators who
attempted, with some degree of success in the past, to obtain greater com-
pensation for the land taken than the facts justified. A review of land
acquisition under this statute reveals that the procedure is working quite
successfully and it is now felt that land speculation within the State has
been eliminated or eflfectively deterred. The same statute that provided
for the new method of land acquisition also provided for the creation of
Boards of Property Review in each of the counties and Baltimore City.
With the exception of one county, the Boards have all been appointed
throughout the State and are actually hearing and deciding cases. The
exception is Charles County where the Board has been appointed but had
not actually determined any cases prior to December 31, 1957.
The activities of the Commission under its 12-Year Highway Construc-
tion and Reconstruction Program, plus the additional duties of a legal
nature which was occasioned by the enactment of the Federal-Aid High-
way Act of 1956, made it necessary to increase its staff by two members.
Mr. J. Thomas Nissel and Mr. Eugene G. Ricks were appointed in the
summer of 1957 as Special Attorneys of the State Roads Commission. The
remainder of the staff comprises Mr. Frederick A. Puderbaugh, Mr. Robert
S. Rothenhoefer, Mr. Earl I. Rosenthal, Mr. T. Thornton Murray and Mr.
Walter W. Claggett.
TOLL FACILITIES DEPARTMENT
L. J. O'DONNELL
Chief Administrative Officer
JOHNSON H. WEBSTER
Chief Maintenance Officer
SUPERVISORS — ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT
HOWARD J. McNAMARA, Accountant I
H. DWIGHT WAHAUS, Accounta7it II
WALTER A. STAIRIKER, Accountant III
EDWARD F. HEROLD, Accoimtant III
TOLL FACILITIES DEPARTMENT
Five revenue projects were operated and maintained by the State Roads
Commission through the Toll Facilities Department during the biennium
reviewed in this report — the Susquehanna River Toll Bridge, the Potomac
River Toll Bridge, the Chesapeake Bay Toll Bridge, the Patapsco (Balti-
more Harbor) Tunnel and the Williamsport ToH Bridge.
Aggregate toll revenues from the five projects during the two-year
period totaled $19,952,567.14 for 33,797,111 vehicular crossings, an in-
crease of $3,735,131.14 in gross income over the 1955-1956 biennium, and
an increase of 5,537,787 in the number of vehicular crossings.
Under terms of an Act of the General Assembly of 1953 pursuant to
which the Williamsport Toll Bridge was acquired by purchase from the
Washington-Berkeley Bridge Company on January 8, 1954, the structure
was freed of tolls on March 31, 1958, its revenues having aggregated the
purchase price plus the costs of maintenance and operation to that date.
From January 8, 1954, to March 31, 1958, the gross revenues of the bridge
totaled $1,016,270.13.
The four major toll revenue facilities — the Chesapeake Bay, Susque-
hanna and Potomac River Bridges, and the Patapsco Tunnel which opened
to traffic on November 30, 1957, are administered, operated and maintained
under terms of a Trust Agreement.
With the completion of the Administration Building and the toll plaza
on the Fairfield approach of the tunnel, the administrative, accounting and
maintenance headquarters of the overall operation were moved in August
1957, to the centralized location afforded by the new structure.
In late October and during November of 1957, the operating, patrol and
maintenance forces of the new tunnel were organized and trained for its
opening to traffic at 12:01 A.M., November 30.
During the biennium under review, a new bituminous concrete wearing
surface was placed on the Susquehanna River Birdge over the original
decking which had seen sixteen years' service. Plans also were prepared
for revision of the East Approach of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, to pro-
vide freer turning movements at the Stevensville intersection of U. S.
Route 50 and Maryland Route 33, and easier access to the Bay Span for
through traffic.
Tolls at the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay Bridges were re-
vised as of November 1, 1957: the cash fares for passenger vehicles and
some trucks at the former were increased slightly, while extra passenger
120
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 121
fares were eliminated at the latter structure, except for passengers in
buses.
Both traffic and revenues of all five projects were affected by the numer-
ous snowstorms during the 1957-1958 winter along the Atlantic Seaboard.
Traffic over the Susquehanna River Bridge during the 1957-1958 bien-
nium declined by 282,745 vehicles to a total of 17,209,376 and produced
$3,459,178.40 in revenue, or an increase of $100,534.44 over the previous
two-year period as the result of the increase in toll rates. Of the total
crossings for the period under review, 13,861,219 were by passenger
vehicles, 3,348,157 by trucks, a decrease of 142,340 and 100,405 respec-
tively in the two categories.
Vehicles using the Potomac River Bridge increased by 271,152 during
the two-year period as compared with the previous biennium, producing
gross revenue of $3,947,786.00, or an increase of $418,123.50. Traffic for
this period showed increases in both the truck and passenger-vehicle
classifications, there being 320,731 of the former and 3,745,722 of the
latter, as contrasted with 315,089 trucks and 3,480,212 passenger vehicles
during the prior biennium.
The biennial comparison of traffic and revenues of the Chesapeake Bay
Bridge shows an increase in both traffic and revenues, despite the down-
ward revision of the passenger-vehicle toll rates for eight months of the
two-year period of this review.
During the 1957-1958 biennium, 5,228,680 vehicles— 4,760,612 of them
passenger and 468,068 trucks — crossed the span, as compared with
4,082,650 passenger cars and 407,886 trucks during the 1955-1956 period.
Revenues during the 1957-1958 years aggregated $9,483,298.45 as com-
pared with $8,255,717.85 for the previous 24-month period, or an increase
for the biennium of $1,227,580.60.
Over the seven months' operation of Patapsco Tunnel during the 1957-
1958 biennium, a total of 5,062,650 vehicles used the facility, producing
gross revenue of $2,167,784.40. Of the total traffic for this period 4,388,-
799 of the vehicles were passenger vehicles and 673,851 were in truck
classifications.
For the 21 months it operated as a toll facility in the period of this
report, both traffic and revenues increased at the Williamsport Toll Bridge.
Due to increased truck usage, revenues for the 21-month period to March
31, 1958, increased by $21,894.90 to $475,861.95 as compared with the
prior biennium. For the period from July 1, 1957, to March 31, 1958,
1,816,777 passenger vehicles and 413,175 trucks crossed the span as com-
pared with 1,993,935 passenger cars and 385,939 trucks during the pre-
vious full biennium.
ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT
CARL L. WANNEN, Comptroller
MORRIS M. BRODSKY JAMES W. ROUNTREE, JR.
Assistant Comptroller Assistant Comptroller
General Accounting Procedures and Controls
CHARLES L NORRIS
Assistant Comptroller
Budgets and Costs
SUPERVISORS — GENERAL
JOSEPH E. GERICK
MORRIS P. MARSTON
SUPERVISORS — DEPARTMENTAL
JOSEPH T. BUNN WALTER F. MORAVETZ
HENRY L. COMBS S. JOHN STROMER
CLEMENT M. FRANK IRVING TAYLOR
REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER
CONIENTS
Page
Index to Exhibits and Schedules 126
Explanatory Comments (All Funds) 129
ALL FUNDS EXCEPT FUNDS ADMINISTERED UNDER TRUST AGREEMENTS
Combined Balance Sheet, June 30, 1958 Exhibit A 146
County and Municipality Funds Schedule 1 148
Bonded Debt and Debt Service Funds Schedule 2 150
State Highway Construction Bonds Payable Schedule 2a 152
County Highway Construction Bonds Payable Schedule 2b 154
Fixed Assets Schedule 3 155
Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1958 Exhibit B 156
Counties and Municipalities Tax Revenues Allocation Fund
(Including Bond Proceeds) Schedule 1 158
For Account of Municipalities Schedule la 159
Statement Showing Allocation of 20 ^c Share of Gasoline
Tax and Motor Vehicle Revenue Funds to Coanties
and Municipalities Schedule lb 162
County Maintenance Funds Schedule 2 163
Statement of Expenditures for Maintenance of County
Road Systems Schedule 2a 164
County Construction Funds Schedule 3 168
Sinking Funds Schedule 4 169
Genera! Construction and Operating Fund, and Mainte-
nance Fund — Participation in Costs by Pohtical Sub-
divisions and Others Schedule 5 170
Combined Statement of Expenditures, by Funds and by Di-
visions, for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1958
Statement of Administrative and General Expenses Schedule 1
Statement of Passenger Car Costs Schedule la
Statement of Operating Equipment Expenses Schedule 2
Combined Statement of Expenditures, by Objective Classifica-
tion, for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1958
Combined Balance Sheet, June 30, 1957
County and Municipality Funds Schedule 1
Bonded Debt and Debt Service Funds Schedule 2
Fixed Assets Schedule 3
Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1957 Exhibit F
Counties and Municipalities Tax Revenues Allocation Fund
(Including Bond Proceeds) Schedule 1
For Account of Municipahties Schedule la
Statement Showing Allocation of 20% Share of Gasoline
Tax and Motor Vehicle Revenue Funds to Counties and
Municipalities Schedule lb
County Maintenance Funds Schedule 2
Statement of Expenditures for Maintenance of County
Road Systems Schedule 2a
County Construction Funds Schedule 3
Sinking Funds _ Schedule 4
General Construction and Operating Fund, and Mainte-
nance Fund — Participation in Costs by Political Sub-
divisions and Others Schedule 5
124
Exhibit C
172
174
176
177
Exhibit D
178
Exhibit E
182
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 125
Page
Combined Statement of Expenditures, by Funds and by Di-
visions, for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1957 Exhibit G 208
Statement of Administrative and General Expenses Schedule 1 210
Statement of Operating Equipment Expenses Schedule 2 212
Combined Statement of Expenditures, by Objective Classifi-
cation, for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1957 Exhibit H 214
Statement of Traffic Volume and Toll Income of WilHamsport
Toll Bridge, by Classifications, for the Fiscal Years Ended
June 30, 1957 and 1958 Exhibit I 218
Statement of Federal Aid Accounts for the Fiscal Years Ended
June 30, 1957 and 1958 Exhibit J 219
Statement of Federal Aid Receipts, by Project Agreements Schedule 1 220
General Construction and Operating Fund —Program Prior to
July 1, 1954, Fund — Statement of Project Expenditures for
the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1957 and 1958 Exhibit K 232
General Construction and Operating Fund — Twelve Year Road
Construction Program Fund — Summary of Authorized Ex-
penditures and Actual Expenditures, by Districts and by
Counties, to June 30, 1958 Exhibit L 242
Twelve- Year Road Construction Program Fund Schedule 1 244
Emergency Construction and Reconstruction Program Fund Schedule 2 262
Interstate Projects Not In Twelve-Year Program Schedule 3 266
Maintenance Fund — Statement of Expenditures for the Fiscal
Years Ended June 30, 1958 and 1957 Exhibit M 267
Statement of Maintenance Costs, by Districts:
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1958" Schedule 1 268
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1957 Schedule 2 270
County Construction Funds — Statement of Project Expendi-
tures for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 1957 and 1958 Exhibit N 272
FUNDS ADMINISTERED UNDER TRUST AGREEMENTS
Balance Sheet, September 30, 1958 Exhibit O 278
State of Maryland Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Bonds
(Payable Solely from Revenues of Bridges and Tunnel) . . Schedule 1 280
Statement Showing Changes During the Fiscal Year Ended
September 30, 1958, in Reserves Created Under Article V of
Trust Agreement Dated October 1, 1954 Exhibit P 281
Statement of Income and Expenses of Susquehanna River,
Potomac River, and Chesapeake Bay Toll Bridges, and
Patapsco Tunnel for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30,
1958 Exhibit Q 282
Balance Sheet, September 30, 1957 Exhibit R 284
Statement Showing Changes During the Fiscal Year Ended
September 30, 1957, in Reserves Created Under Article V
of Trust Agreement Dated October 1, 1954 Exhibit S 286
Statement of Income and Expenses of Susquehanna River,
Potomac River, and Chesapeake Bay Toll Bridges for the
Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1957 Exhibit T 287
Statement Showing Deposits and Withdrawals, Patapsco Tun-
nel Construction Fund, by Periods, from December 7, 1954,
Through September 30, 1958 Exhibit U 288
Statement of Traffic Volume and Toll Income, by Toll Facili-
ties and Classifications, for the Fiscal Years Ended September
30, 1958 and 1957 Exhibit V 289
INDEX TO EXHIBITS AND SCHEDULES
Page ■
1958 1957
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Administrative and General Expenses:
Bv Di\'isions 174 210
Bv Objective Classification 178 214
Toll Bridges and Tunnel 282 287
Assets and Liabilities:
Bonded Debt (Toll Bridges and Tunnel) 278 284
Bonded Debt and Debt Service Funds 150 186
Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Bonds — Consolidated 278 284
Bridge Construction Account (Toll Bridges) 278 284
Combined Balance Sheet (Excluding Toll Facilities) 146 182
Counties and Municipalities Tax Revenues Allocation Fund 149 185
Countv Construction Funds:
Bv Counties 148 184
Consolidated 149 185
County Maintenance Funds:
Bv Counties 148 184
Consolidated 149 185
County and Municipality Funds — Consolidated 149 185
Fixed Assets 155 188
Maryland Toll Revenue Projects:
Operations Reserve Fund 278 284
Revenue Fund 278 284
Sinking Fund:
Bond Service Account 278 284
Redemption Account 278 284
Reserve Account 278 284
Patapsco Tunnel Construction Account 278 284
State System Construction:
Program Prior to July 1, 1954, and General Operating 146 182
Twelve-Year Program 146 182
Emergency Construction and Reconstruction Program 146 182
Interstate Program 146 182
State System Maintenance Operations 146 182
Bonded Indebtedness:
Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Bonds, Dated October 1, 1954 280
County Highway Construction Bonds — First, Second, Third, and
Fourth Series 154
State Highway Construction Bonds:
Series A to E Issue 152
Second Issue 152
Combined Statement of Expenditures, by Funds and by Divisions ... 172 208
Construction Expenditures and Amounts Authorized to Complete
Projects:
County Road Systems 272 272
State Roads System:
Program Prior to July 1, 1954, and General Operating 232 232
Twelve-Year Program 242 242
Emergency Construction and Reconstruction Program 242 242
Interstate Program 242 242
Equipment Operating Expenses:
Bv Divisions 177 212
By Objective Classification 178 214
126
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
127
Expenditures, by Objective Classification (Excluding Toll Facilities)
Federal Aid Agreements and Receipts, by Projects
Federal Aid Apportionments and Receipts Applicable Thereto
Fixed Assets Purchased for Service Facilities
Gasoline Tax Fund Allocations:
To Counties
To Municipalities
Maintenance Expenses:
County Road Systems 163
Detailed Classification of Costs, by Divisions, State Roads Sys-
tem 268
Summary of Expenditures, by Divisions, State Roads System... 267
Motor Vehicle Revenue Fund Allocations:
To Counties 162
To Municipalities 162
Reserves Created Under Article V of Trust Agreement Dated October
1, 1954 281
Revenues and Expenditures:
Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures (Excluding
Toll Facilities) 156
Counties and Municipalities Tax Revenues Allocation Fund (In-
cluding Bond Proceeds) 158
County Construction Funds:
By Counties 168
Consolidated 156
County Maintenance Funds:
By Counties 163
Consolidated 156
County and Municipality Funds — Consolidated 156
General Construction Fund, State Highway System:
Program Prior to July 1, 1954, Fund 156
Twelve- Year Program Fund 156
Emergency Construction and Reconstruction Program Fund 156
Interstate Program Fund 156
Maintenance Fund, State Highway System 156
Maryland Toll Revenue Projects:
Operations Reserve Fund 281
Revenue Fund 281
Sinking Fund:
Bond Service Account 281
Redemption Account 281
Reserve Account 281
Operations Reserve Fund (Toll Bridges) 281
Passenger Car Costs 1'76
Patapsco Tunnel Construction Fund 288
Revenue Projects Interest and Sinking Fund (Toll Bridges and
Tunnel):
Bond Service Account 281
Redemption Account ,. 281
Reserve Account 281
Sinking Funds 169
1958
Fiscal Year
1957
Fiscal Year
178
214
220
220
219
219
155
188
162
162
196
196
197
270
267
196
196
286
190
192
203
190
197
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
286
286
286
286
286
286
210
288
286
286
286
204
128 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Page
1958 1957
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Susquehanna River, Potomac River, and Chesapeake Bay Toll
Bridges, and Patapsco Tunnel 282 287
Washington and Berkeley Bridge Company — Realization of In-
vestment in Capital Stock (Williamsport Toll Bridgej 156 190
Road Miles:
As of January 1, 1956:
By Counties
By Municipalities
As of January 1, 1957:
By Counties
By Municipalities
Sign Permit Fund
Toll Facilities (Revenues and Expenditures^:
Chesapeake Bay Toll Bridge
Patapsco Tunnel
Potomac River Toll Bridge
Susquehanna River Toll Bridge
Williamsport Toll Bridge
Toll Transactions and Rates:
Chesapeake Bay Toll Bridge
Patapsco Tunnel
Potomac River Toll Bridge
Susquehanna River Toll Bridge.
Williamsport Toll Bridge
196
196
162
162
156
190
282
287
282
282
287
282
287
156
190
289
289
289
289
289
289
289
218
218
November 3, 1958
To THE Honorable:
Robert O. Bonnell, Chairman
Edgar T. Bennett
John J. McMullen
Members, the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Sirs:
A report on the finances of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1958 and 1957, comprising financial state-
ments and explanatory comments, is submitted herewith. The financial
statements are listed in the accompanying table of contents, and the explanatory
comments are as follows:
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1954,
AND GENERAL OPERATING FUND
The revenues and expenditures of this Fund for the fiscal years ended
June 30, 1958 and 1957, shown in Exhibit B and Exhibit F, respectively, are
summarized as follows:
1958 1957
Revenues:
Participation in costs by political subdivisions and
others $ 538,230.49 $ 379,706.76
Reimbursement of the costs of enforcing weight-
and-size limitations on motor vehicles 336,436.82 308,851.63
Federal aid 278,592.43 532,047.83
Tolls — Williamsport Bridge, after providing for
operating expenses (Toll free after March 31, 1958) 106,588.78 230,858.54
Other 213,674.79 285,056.25
Total Revenues $ 1,473,523.31 $ 1,736,521.01
Expenditures:
Construction costs $ 2,307,490.40 $ 5,332,844.73
Cost of enforcing weight-and-size limitations on
motor vehicles 349,644.84 310,248.45
Other 105,895.90 627,534.47
Total Expenditures $ 2,763,031.14 $ 6,270,627.65
Excess of Expenditures Over Revenues $ 1,289,507.83 $ 4,534,106.64
Cash Balance at Beginning of Year 4,481,620.15 9,015,726.79
Cash Balance at End of Year $ 3,192,112.32 $ 4,481,620.15
129
130 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
The assets and liabilities of this Fund at June 30, 1958 and 1957, are
shown in Exhibits A and E, respectively, and are summarized as follows:
1958 1957
Funds with State Treasurer $ 3,192,112.32 $ 4,481,620.15
Federal aid earnable 33,223,736.52 21,205,647.40
Inventories of materials and supplies 2,069,639.83 2,175,475.33
Roads system construction in progress, etc 15,485,605.66 20,996,220.87
Other 1,361,452.15 1,764,038.05
Total $ 55,332,546.48 $ 50,623,001.80
Liabilities:
Working Fund advanced, etc $ 506,309.72 $ 506,309.72
State equity in roads system construction in prog- .-
ress 15,485,605.66 20,996,220.87
Reserves:
Completion of authorized projects 1,185,641.86 2,048,243.52
Federal aid unrealized 33,223,736.52 21,205,647.40
Other ■ 705,536.45 1,129,608.65
Current working funds and construction projects 4,225,716.27 4,736,971.64
Total $ 55,332,546.48 $ 50,623,001.80
The item of Federal aid under Assets includes appropriations and appor-
tionments available for programming and placing under agreement construc-
tion projects on the several Federal highway systems. The Federal aid ac-
counts are shown in Exhibit J and supporting schedule.
Expenditures for the fiscal years under review applicable to the Construc-
tion Program Prior to July 1, 1954, are listed by projects in Exhibit K.
TWELVE-YEAR PROGRAM AND FEDERAL
INTERSTATE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FUND
The revenues and expenditures of this Fund for the fiscal years ended
June 30, 1958 and 1957, shown in Exhibit B and Exhibit F, respectively, are
summarized as follows:
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 131
1958 1957
Revenues:
Gasoline Tax Fund— 50% Portion $ 23,678,491.79 $ 23,531,842.11
Excise tax on issuance of certificates of title to
motor vehicles, less refunds 9,434,507.85 10,302,124.12
Total $ 33,112,999.64 $ 33,833,966.23
Less:
State Highway Construction Bonds Sinking
Fund provision $ 12,352,859.75 $ 11,464,546.32
Maintenance Fund supplement 3,300,000.00 1,800,000.00
Total $ 15,652,859.75 $ 13,264,546.32
Remainder of State tax revenues $ 17,460,139.89 $20,569,419.91
Proceeds from sale of State Highway Construc-
tion Bonds excluding premium and accrued
interest 15,000,000.00 30,000,000.00
Federal aid 20,404,732.83 11,506,934.55
Other 2,213,906.22 1,477,741.19
Total Revenues $ 55,078,778.94 $ 63,554,095.65
Expenditures:
Construction costs $ 64,535,067.90 $ 53,793,644.32
Other 1,295,608.59 393,259.47
Total Expenditures $ 65,830,676.49 $ 54,186,903.79
Excess of Expenditures Over Revenues (Excess of
revenues in italics) $ 10,751,897.55 $ 9,367,191.86
Cash Balance at Beginning of Year (Including invest-
ments) 12,346,050.04 2,978,858.18
Cash Balance at End of Year (Including investments).. $ 1,594,152.49 $ 12,346,050.04
The 50% portion of the Gasoline Tax Fund for the fiscal years 1958 and
1957 is the Commission's share of the motor vehicle fuel tax which is imposed
at the rate of six cents a gallon. The excise tax on the issuance of certificates
of title to motor vehicles represents tax revenues at the rate of 2% of the fair
market value of motor vehicles for which certificates of title are issued. These
revenues are pledged to the extent of debt service requirements for State High-
way Construction Bonds issued by the State Roads Commission of Maryland.
The remainder after debt service is subject to an annual transfer not in excess
of $4,000,000 to provide for Maintenance Fund supplement. The balance is
for construction purposes.
The proceeds from the sale of State Highway Construction Bonds were
currently invested in short term obligations of the United States Treasury to
the extent that programmed construction expenditures permitted. The net
income from Treasury obligations received in the fiscal years 1958 and 1957
amounted to $191,704.34 and $263,887.11, respectively.
132 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Federal aid earnings represent that portion of project costs which was reim-
bursed by the Federal Government under agreements with the Bureau of
Public Roads. The status of Federal aid for the periods under review is shown
in Exhibit J and supporting schedule.
Schedules 5 of Exhibits B and F give details concerning participation in
costs by political subdivisions and others totaling $1,077,799.84 in 1958 and
$1,302,084.12 in 1957.
Schedules 1, 2, and 3 of Exhibit L show the authorized expenditures and
actual expenditures, by counties and by projects, pertaining to the Twelve-
Year Road Construction Program from inception to June 30, 1958, and these
authorized expenditures and actual expenditures are summarized, by districts
and by counties, in Exhibit L.
The assets and liabilities of this Fund at June 30, 1958 and 1957, are
presented in Exhibits A and E, respectively, and are summarized as follows:
1958 1957
Assets*
Funds with State Treasurer $ 1,594,152.49 $ 12,346,050.04
Federal aid earnable 44,573,741.92 36,755,675.00
Roads system construction costs 190,618,301.47 134,394,557.39
Future revenues encumbered 64,509,506.71 56,609,476.17
Total $301,295,702.59 $240,105,758.60
Liabilities:
State equity in roads system construction $190,618,301.47 $134,394,557.39
Reserves:
Completion of authorized projects 66,103,659.20 68,955,526.21
Federal aid unrealized 44,573,74.1.92 36,755,675.00
Total $301,295,702.59 $240,105,258.60
The reserve for completion of authorized road construction and recon-
struction projects for the fiscal years 1958 and 1957 is summarized below:
1958 1957
Balance at beginning of year $ 68,955,526.21 $ 45,180,472.12
Project expenditure authorizations, including adjust-
ments for overruns, underruns, etc 61,683,200.89 77,568,698.41
TOT/^L $130,638,727.10 $122,749,170.53
Project expenditures 64,535,067.90 .53,793,644.32
Balance at end of year $66,103,659.20 $ 68,955,526.21
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 133
MAINTENANCE FUND
The revenues and expenditures of this Fund for the fiscal years 1958 and
1957 as set forth in Exhibits B and F are summarized as follows:
1958 1957
Motor Vehicle Revenue Fund— 50% portion $ 5,622,106.29 $ 6,190,836.62
Tax revenues transferred from construction funds... 3,300,000.00 1,800,000.00
Other 210,130.39 353,372.22
Total Revenues $ 9,132,236.68 $ 8,344,208.84
Expenditures:
Maintenance costs $ 8,513,764.12 $ 7,367,893.76
Operation and maintenance of Williamsport Toll
Bridge 87,750.77 51,852.57
Capital properties acquired 1,008,031.21 721,011.31
Ocean beach protection 2,288.50 2,000.00
Other 20,835.24 37,338.81
T0T.4L Expenditures $ 9,632,669.84 $ 8,180,096.45
Excess of Expenditures Over Revenues (Excess of
revenues in itahcs) $ 500,433.16 $ 16Jf,112.39
Cash Balance at Beginning of Year 3,475,306.93 3,311,194.54
Cash Balance at End of Year $ 2,974,873.77 $ 3,475,306.93
Detailed maintenance costs, by districts, are shown in Schedules 1 and 2
of Exhibit M. At January 1, 1958, the State System road miles, by districts
and by counties, were as follows:
134
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Miles of
Undivided
Highway
District No. 1:
Dorchester County 151 .18
Somerset County 112.37
Wicomico County 128.43
Worce.ster County 157.78
Total 549.76
District No. 2:
Caroline County 151 .89
Cecil County 193.68
Kent County 172.68
Queen Anne's County 181 .82
Talbot County 127.99
Total 828.06
District No. 3:
Montgomery County 325 .37
Prince George's County 258.67
Total 584.04
District No. 4:
Baltimore County 266.68
Harford County 246.29
Total 512.97
District No. 5:
Anne Arundel County 241 .38
Calvert County 109.71
Charles County 218.08
St. Mary's County 194.38
Total 763.55
District No. 6:
Allegany County 145.40
Garrett County 157.81
Washington County 222.59
Total 525.80
District No. 7:
Carroll County 165.67
Frederick County 283.18
Howard County 124.87
Total 573.72
Grand Total 4,337.90
Miles of
Divided
Highway
4.51
4.86
13.06
13.79
36.22
.42
16.25
16.80
33.47
35.66
37.65
73.31
52
18
.32
.62
70
.94
62
9
.17
.04
.84
72
.05
.47
"'.92
1
.39
10.91
23.94
21.85
56.70
344.08
Report OF the State Roads Commission of Maryland 135
The assets and liabilities of this Fund at June 30, 1958 and 1957, are as
follows:
1958 1957
Assets: .,
Cash with State Treasurer $ 2,974,873.77 $ 3,475,306.93
Accounts receivable 205.85
Total $ 2,974,873.77 $ 3,475,512.78
Liabilities:
Deferred credit — unpresented toll tickets $ 4,878.20
Reserves:
Completion of work on existing authorizations. . $ 203,438.91 143,938.15
Acquisition of district garages and shops, and
other capital properties, etc 2,760,650.54 3,316,012.82
Roadside beautification — Sign Permit Fund 10,784.32 10,477.76
Other 205.85
Total $ 2,974,873.77 $ 3,475,512.78
COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITY FUNDS
The revenues and expenditures within the Counties and Municipalities
Tax Revenues Allocation Fund, County Maintenance Funds, and County
Construction Funds administered for the benefit of the political subdivisions
are summarized for the fiscal years 1958 and 1957 as follows:
1958 1957
Revenues:
Gasoline Tax Fund— 20% portion $ 9,471,396.72 $ 9,412,736.82
Motor Vehicle Revenue Fund— 20% portion 2,248,842.47 2,476,334.64
Total $ 11,720,239.19 $ 11,889,071.46
Less County Highway Construction Bonds Sinking
Fund provision 597,689.31 385,425.20
Remainder $ 11,122,549.88 $ 11,503,646.26
Proceeds from sale of County Highway Construc-
tion Bonds excluding premium and accrued in-
terest 2,088,000.00 1,567,000.00
Federal aid 1,602,695.70 1,188,049.53
Remittances by counties 370,773.86 485,569.40
Other 4,804.06 5.33
Total Revenues $ 15,188,823.50 $ 14,744,270.52
136 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Expenditures:
Payment of tax apportionments:
Counties $ 8,299,961.18 $ 8,097,456.53
Municipalities 955,640.97 1,057,876.97
Construction costs 622,415.74 678,874.10
Maintenance costs 1,984,625.42 2,162,316.60
Payment of net proceeds from sale of County High-
way Construction Bonds to participating coun-
ties 2,078,174.91 1,557,344.86
Payment of Federal aid:
Baltimore City 953,226.00 625,940.00
Counties 245,392.28 222,857.95
Other 70,315.72 294,405.06
Total Expenditures $ 15,209,752.22 $ 14,697,072.07
Excess of Expenditures Over Revenues (Excess of
revenues in italics) $ 20,928.72 $ 1^7,19845
Cash Balance at Beginning of Year 1,287,113.53 1,239,915.08
Cash Balance at End of Year $ 1,266,184.81 $ 1,287,113.53
The allocation of tax revenues as to shares of counties and total shares of
municipalities within each county is reflected in Schedules lb of Exhibits B
and F for the fiscal years 1958 and 1957, respectively. Schedules 1 and la
of Exhibits B and F show the individual allocation accounts for counties and
municipalities.
The mileage inventories of urban paved streets and county rural roads at
December 1, 1957, used in distributing 1957-58 highway funds to counties and
municipalities other than Baltimore City were as follows:
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
137
«'
Road Mileage Basis for Computing Distributable Shares
County
MunicipaHty
— Urban
Paved
Streets
Maintained
County
All Rural
County
Roads
Urban Paved
Streets
Maintained
Total
Total
Allegany . ...
503.29
828.96
1,692.78
233.01
467.49
761.23
431.86
317.00
506.95
984.59
661.10
581.53
343.00
228.90
1,011.68
765.49
407.96
338.02
288.40
285.11
660.54
567.06
460.43
0.85
0.23
1.05
3.17
1.44
0.21
1.98
3.90
2.23
2.85
0.65
3.37
8.89
0.71
0.52
1.23
0.31
17.01
504.14
829.19
1,692.78
234.06
470.66
762.67
432.07
318.98
510.85
986.82
663.95
581.53
343.00
229.55
1,015.05
774.38
408.67
338.54
288.40
286.34
660.85
584.07
460.43
163.01
54.21
11.72
30.67
51.49
29.39
7.75
49.76
102.82
46.75
67.19
10.66
129.62
258.05
10.34
2.48
20.37
35.26
152.06
90.18
43.40
667 15
Anne Arundel
883.40
Baltimore
1,692.78
245 78
Calvert
Caroline .
501 33
Carroll
814 16
Cecil
461.46
Charles
326 73
Dorchester
560 61
Frederick
1,089.64
710.70
Garrett
Harford
648.72
Howard
343 00
Kent
240.21
Montgomery
Prince George's
1,144.67
1,032.43
419.01
341.02
308.77
321 60
Queen Anne's
St. Mary's
Somerset
Talbot
Washington
812.91
Wicomico
674.25
Worcester
503.83
Total Mileage....
13,326.38
50,60
13,376.98
1,367.18
14,744.16
Certain minimum shares are prescribed by law in determining county allocations.
Revenues and expenditures of the County Maintenance Funds for the
fiscal years under review are set forth in detail in Schedules 2 of Exhibits B and
F. Analyses of maintenance costs by counties and by descriptive classifications
are set forth in Schedules 2a of Exhibits B and F.
At December 1, 1957, the seven county road systems maintained by the
State Roads Commission of Maryland comprised 2,248.21 road miles.
Revenues and expenditures of the County Construction Funds are set
forth in detail in Schedules 3 of Exhibits B and F. Construction costs are
shown by counties and by projects in Exhibit N.
A comparative summary of the assets and liabilities of the County and
Municipality Funds combined as of June 30, 1958 and 1957, follows:
138 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
1958 • 1957
Cash with State Treasurer $' 1,266,184.81 $ 1,287,113.53
Federal aid earnable 170,933.00 571,784.00
Future revenues encumbered for the completion of
authorized projects 238,190.54 617,794.38
T0T.4L $ 1,675,308.35 $ 2,476,691.91
Liabilities:
Tax apportionments payable to counties $ 553,397.56 $ 612,978.68
Tax apportionments payable to municipalities 515,062.22 400,763.52
Reserves:
Completion of authorized projects 271,425.76 584,639.07
Federal aid unreaHzed 170,933.00 571,784.00
Current working funds and new projects 164,489.81 306,526.64
Total $ 1,675,308.35 $ 2,476,691.91
Exhibits A and E show in summary form the balance sheets at June 30,
1958 and 1957, respectively, for the Counties and Municipalities Tax Revenues
Allocation Fund, the County Maintenance Funds, and the County Construc-
tion Funds. The balance sheets of the individual counties within each Fund
are presented in Schedule 1 of those exhibits.
BONDED DEBT AND^DEBT^ SERVICE FUNDS
The revenues and expenditures of the Sinking Funds for the fiscal years
1958 and 1957 are summarized as follows:
State Highway Construction Bonds Sinking Funds
1958 1957
Revenues:
Portion of proceeds of the excise tax on certificates
of title to motor vehicles and the dO'''( share of the
GasoHne Tax Fund $ 12,352,859.75 $ 11,464,546.32
Premium and accrued interest on bonds sold 45,916.66 18,799.58
Net income from United States Treasury obligations 327,766.69 299,962.59
Total Revenues $ 12,726,543.10 $ 11,783,308.49
Expenditures:
Redemption of bonds $ 8,200,000.00 $ 7,599,000.00
Interest on bonds 3,838,360.46 3,264,824.33
Total Expenditures $ 12,038,360.46 $ 10,863,824.33
Excess of Revenues Over Expenditures $ 688,182.64 $ 919,484.16
Balance at Beginning of Year 11,082,351.05 10,162,866.89
Balance at End of Year:
Cash $ 275,440.69 $ 219,141.56
Investment in United States Treasury obligations . 11,495,093.00 10,863,209.49
$ 11,770,533.69 $ 11,082,351.05
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 139
County Highway Construction Bonds Sinking Funds
1958 1957
Revenues:
Portion of proceeds of the 20% shares of the Gaso-
line Tax Fund and the Motor Vehicle Revenue
Fund $ 597,689.31 $ 385,425.20
Premium and accrued interest on bonds sold 3,315.69 1,661.05
Net income from United States Treasury obligations 10,224.21 6,108.38
Total Revenues $ 611,229.21 $ 393,194.63
Expenditures:
Redemption of bonds $ 130,000.00 $ 100,000.00
Interest on bonds 145,077.50 89,311.25
Total Expenditures $ 275,077.50 $ 189,311.25
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures $ 336,151.71 $ 203,883.38
Balance at Beginning of Year 444,674.46 240,791.08
Balance at End of Year:
Cash $ 4,657.71 $ 8,856.41
Investment in United States Treasury obligations 776,168.46 435,818.05
$ 780,826.17 $ 444,674.46
Revenues and expenditures of the Sinking Funds for the fiscal years under
review are set forth in detail in Schedules 4 of Exhibits B and F.
Bonds sold during the two-year period were as follows:
Par
Value
Premium
Accrued
Interest
Total
State Highway Construction
Bonds:
Series I dated Aug. 1, 1956
Series J dated Jan. 1, 1957
$15,000,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
1,567,000
2,088,000
$ 690.00
$ 7,350.00
10,759.58
45,916.66
1,598.37
2,981.61
$15,008,040.00
15,010,759.58
Series K dated Oct. 1, 1957
15,045,916.66
County Highway Construction
Bonds:
Third Series dated Aug. 1, 1956..
Fourth Series dated, Aug 1, 1957
62.68
334.08
1,568,661.05
2,091,315.69
Total
$48,655,000
$ 1,086.76
$ 68,606.22
$48,724,692.98
140 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
The following summary shows the status of bond authorizations:
Series
Date of
Bonds
Average
Annual
Net
Interest
Rate
Principal
Original
Issue
Redemptions
Through
June 30, 1958
Outstanding
June 30, 1958
State Highway Construction Bonds:
Authorized by Legislature of 1947
A
B
C
D
E
Aug.
1949
Dec.
1949
Dec.
1950
Dec.
1951
Aug.
1953
1.49479%
1.53731%
1.45051%,
1.73046%
2.58744%
Total
$ 22,500,000
2,500,000
25,000,000
25,000,000
25,000,000
Authorized by Legislature of 1953:
F
G
H
I
J
K
Sept.
1954
Julv
1955
Nov.
1955
Aug.
1956
Jan.
1957
Oct.
1957
2.06217%
2.51084%
2.42188%
2.77353%
3.59632%
3.50626%
Total
Total State Highway Construction Bonds
$100,000,000
$ 25,000,000
25,000,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
15,000,000
12,000,000
2,500,000
11,664,000
9,997,000
6,664,000
$ 42,825,000
1,200,000
800,000
600,000
300,000
300,000
$ 10,500,000
13,336,000
15,003,000
18,336,000
$ 57,175,000
$ 23,800,000
24,200,000
14,400,000
14,700,000
14,700,000
15,000,000
$110,000,000 $ 3,200,000 i $106,800,000
$210,000,000 $ 46,025,000 I $163,975,000
County Highway Construction Bonds-
Authorized by Legislature of 1953:
First
Second
Third
Fourth
July 1, 1954
Aug. 1, 1955
Aug. 1, 1956
Aug. 1, 1957
1.93353%
2. 50165 'f,
2. 68473 7o
3. 55419 %o
Total County Highway Construction Bonds
$ 1,290,000 $ 120,000
1,551,000 40,000
1,567,000 20,000
2,088,000
$ 1,170,000
1,511,000
1,547,000
2,088,000
$ 6,496,000 1 $ 180,000
$ 6,316,000
Debt service requirements for State Highway Construction Bonds and
County Highway Construction Bonds outstanding at June 30, 1958, are shown
in Schedules 2a and 2b, respectively, of Exhibit A.
TOLL BRIDGE AND TUNNEL FUNDS
(ADMINISTERED UNDER TRUST AGREEMENTS)
The operation and maintenance of the toll facilities comprising the
Susquehanna River, Potomac River, and Chesapeake Bay Bridges, and the
Patapsco Tunnel (under Baltimore Harbor) is carried on under the terms of a
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
141
Trust Agreement dated as of October 1, 1954, by and between the State Roads
Commission of Maryland and the Fidelity-Baltimore National Bank, as
Trustee. The Trust Agreement secures the payment of $180,000,000 par
value Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Bonds.
Maryland Toll Revenue Projects Revenue Fund and Maryland Toll Revenue
Projects Operations Reserve Fund
The transactions of the Revenue Fund and the Operations Reserve Fund
consolidated for the fiscal years ended September 30, 1958 and 1957, are sum-
marized as follows:
1958 1957
Revenues:
Toll and Other Income:
Susquehanna River Bridge $ 1,998,674.94 $ 1,713,348.62
Potomac River Bridge 2,173,638.32 2,235,692.27
Chesapeake Bay Bridge 4,069,062.94 5,217,192.50
Patapsco Tunnel (opened to traffic November
30,1957) 3,409,654.03
Income from Investments, etc 138,918.94 85,388.61
Total Revenues $ 11,789,949.17 $ 9,251,622.00
Expenditures:
Expenses of toll facilities excluding general and
administrative expenses:
Susquehanna River Bridge $ 437,168.11 $ 314,341.28
Potomac River Bridge 173,360.37 150,004.37
Chesapeake Bay Bridge 471,696.21 244,556.06
Patapsco Tunnel 729,393.92
General and Administrative Expenses— net 232,899.27 17^,480.10
Patapsco Tunnel Northern Approach Extension 302,211.70 292,302.58
Transfer to Interest and Sinking Fund 9,766,791.07 7,704,010.48
Transfer to Revolving Fund to augment expense
and change funds 75,000.00
Total Expenditures $ 12,188,520.65 $ 8,879,694.87
Excess of Expenditures Over Revenues (excess of
revenues in italics) $ 398,571.48 $ 371,927.13
Adjustment to Cash Position — To convert Toll
Revenues to Cash Basis (itaHcs indicate red
figures) 38,732.68 18,577.32
Net Decrease in Cash Balance fnet increase in italics) ... $ 359,838.80 $ 390,501^.1^5
Cash Balance at Beginning of Year including in-
vestment in United States Treasury obligations) 4,255,862.21 3,865,357.76
Cash Balance at End of Year (including investment
in United States Treasury obligations):
Revenue Fund $ 451,570.20 $ 203,204.45
Operations Reserve Fund 3,444,453.21 4,052,657.76
$ 3,896,023.41 $ 4,255,862.21
142 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
The balance of $451,570.20 at September 30, 1958, in the Revenue Fund
comprises $402,320.00 which is the required 20% of the 1958-59 Annual
Budget of Current Expenses, and $49,250.20 which was in transit between
the toll facilities and depositories at that date.
The balance of $3,444,453.21 at September 30, 1958, in the Operations
Reserve Fund provides a reserve for paying expenses of operation, mainte-
nance or repair, replacing equipment, insurance, and completion of construc-
tion of the Patapsco Tunnel Northern Approach Extension.
Sinking Fund Accounts
The transactions in the Sinking Fund Accounts for the fiscal years ended
September 30, 1958 and 1957, are as follows:
1958 1957
Additions:
Income from investments $ 383,991.61 $ 406,807.03
Transfers from Patapsco Tunnel Construction
Fund to provide for Term Bond interest 4,025,925.00 4,2.53,670.00
Transfers from Revenue Fund 9,766,791.07 7,704,010.48
Total Additions $ 14,176,707.68 $ 12,364,487.51
Deductions:
Bridge and Tunnel Term Bonds purchased (in-
cluding premium and accrued interest) $ 9,156,726.61 $ 6,730,185.15
Payment of interest on Bridge and Tunnel
Revenue Bonds 4,737,910.00 4,999,405.00
Total Deductions $ 13,894,636.61 $ 11,729,590.15
Excess of Additions over Deductions $ 282,071.07 $ 6-34,897.36
Cash Balance at Beginning of Period (including in-
vestment in United States Treasury obligations) 11,353,579.73 10,718,682.37
Cash Balance at End of Period (including invest-
ment in United States Treasury obligations):
Bond Service Account " $ 1,033,098.37 $ 425,090.00
Reserve Account 9,318,140.00 9,892,781.43
Redemption Account 1,284,412.43 1,035,708.30
ToT\L $ 11,635,650.80 $ 11,353,579.73
The balance of $1,033,098.37 at September 30, 1958, in the Bond Service
Account is held to apply against bond interest payable April 1, 1959.
The balance of $9,318,140.00 at September 30, 1958, in the Reserve Ac-
count is held for the purpose of paying the interest on and the principal of the
bonds whenever and to the extent that the moneys held for the credit of the
Bond Service Account shall be insufficient for such purpose.
The balance of $1,284,412.43 at September 30, 1958, in the Redemption
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 143
Account is held for application to the retirement of bonds issued under the
provisions of the Trust Agreement.
Patapsco Tunnel Construction Fund
The transactions of this Fund from its inception to September 30, 1958,
are summarized as follows:
Revenues:
Proceeds from sale of Bridge and Tunnel
Revenue Bonds dated October 1, 1954, and
sold December 7, 1954, including accrued in-
terest of $947,866.33 $178,841,866.33
Less:
Portion applied toward redemption of Bridge
Revenue Bonds (Series 1948) $ 34,037,000.00
Accrued interest from October 1, 1954, through
December 7, 1954, deposited with the
Trustee to the credit of Bond Service Account 947,866.33 34,984,866.33
Net Proceeds $143,857,000.00
Net income from United States Treasury Obligations, after de-
ducting premium written off and other net adjustments 5,233,424.85
Sale of plans and specifications 27,756.34
Total Revenues $149,118,181.19
Expenditures — For construction costs — net 134,381,071.33
Balance at September 30, 1958, including cash and investments $ 14,737,109.86
The balance of $14,737,109.86 at September 30, 1958, comprising cash of
$1,245,426.25 and investment in United States Treasury obligations of
$13,491,683.61 is subject to encumbrances of $3,124,665.77 under existing
construction contracts, leaving $11,612,444.09 available for further construc-
tion costs and for contingencies.
General
Condensed balance sheets of the Toll Bridge and Tunnel Funds at Septem-
ber 30, 1958 and 1957, are as follows:
1958 1957
'cash and investments $ 30,565,082.81 $ 54,242,800.68
Capital properties 191,123,863.15 166,361,730.87
Encumbered future toll revenue, etc 162,933,000.00 172,146,000.00
Other assets 14,743.80 12,491.85
Total $384,636,689.76 $392,763,023.40
144 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Liabilities:
Reserves:
Created under Article V of Trust Agreement
(Operating and Sinking Funds) $ 15,518,118.61 $ 15,559,619.02
Construction 14,902,811.87 38,577,762.01
Other 158,896.13 117,911.50
Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Bonds Payable 162,933,000.00 172,146,000.00
State equity in capital properties 191,123,863.15 166,361,730.87
T0T4L $384,636,689.76 $392,763,023.40
Financial transactions pertaining to the four toll facilities administered
under Trust Agreement terms are shown in the accompanying Exhibits 0
through V.
APPLICATION OF GASOLINE TAX AND
MOTOR VEHICLE REVENUE FUNDS
Reports of the State Comptroller set forth the application of the gross
receipts of the State derived in the fiscal years ended June 30, 1958 and 1957
from the motor vehicle fuel tax and from motor vehicle fees, fines, etc., and
such application has been summarized as follows:
1958 1957
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax — Application of funds:
Payment of refunds $ 2,758,839.36 $ 2,884,388.12
Salaries and expenses of the Gasoline Tax Division 224,532.65 119,280.16
Shares apportioned:
Baltimore City (30%^.. 14,207,095.07 14,119,105.26
State Roads Commission for use of counties and
municipalities (20%) 9,471,396.72 9,412,736.82
State Roads Commission (50%) 23,678,491.79 23,531,842.11
Total Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax . $ 50,340,355.59 $ 50,067,352.47
Motor Vehicle Fees, Fines, etc. — Application of funds:
Payment of license refunds $ 35,559.07 $ 40,964.85
Payment of fine refunds 9,000.78 7,315.25
Salaries and expenses of the Department of Motor
Vehicles 2,709,682.84 2,262,479.79
Salaries and expenses of the Department of Maryland
State PoHce 4,323,628.09 3,319,020.72
Salaries and expenses of the Traffic Court of Baltimore
City 260,432.79 205,804.28
Salaries and expenses of the State Roads Commission
of Maryland in enforcing weight-and-size limita-
tions on motor vehicles 336,436.82 308,851.63
Salaries and expenses of the Maryland Traffic Safety
Commission 83,047.40 83,817.79
Payments to counties on account of salaries and ex-
penses of trial magistrates 466,713.00 418,146.00
Emergency ambulance and other use of toll facilities . 3,000.00
Payments to counties and Baltimore City in lieu of
personal property taxes 6,401,-592.50 6,297,330.50
Shares apportioned:
Baltimore City (30'7; 3,373,263.77 3,714,501.99
State Roads Commission for use of counties and
municipalities (20%) 2,248,842.47 2,476,334.64
State Roads Commission (50%) 5,622,106.29 6,190,836.62
Total Motor Vehicle Fees,
Fines, Etc $ 25,873,305.82 $ 25,325,404.06
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 145
PERTINENT FINANCIAL INFORMATION
RELATING TO ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
A review of the first four-year period of the Twelve- Year Road Con-
struction Program, together with the Interstate Program, is presented below.
Revenues of $89,943,899 from the Gasoline Tax Fund and $40,137,838
from the Motor Vehicle Titling Tax, less transfers to the Maintenance Fund of
$9,100,000, provided a net of $120,981,737 from which $43,452,488 was trans-
ferred to the State Highway Construction Bonds Sinking Funds, leaving a
balance of $77,529,249 available for construction. This compares with a net
of $70,681,000 as projected in the Twelve- Year Program for the four fiscal
years through June 30, 1958.
Federal aid primary system appropriations for the four fiscal years
through 1958 were $11,741,900 as compared with $7,740,000 projected in
1952 for the four-year period.
The Program as proposed in 1952 contemplated the issuance of
$110,000,000 of State Highway Construction Bonds in the first four years of
the Program; all of these bonds have been issued.
The Twelve- Year Program did not include Federal aid interstate system
appropriations. Federal aid for the four years ended June 30, 1958, was ap-
propriated for a total of $36,696,635.
Expenditure authorizations under the Twelve- Year Program and the
Interstate Program totaled $288,405,978 for the four fiscal years ended June
30, 1958. Cash disbursements during the same period applicable to these
authorizations amounted to $222,302,319, leaving authorized expeditures yet
to be made of $66,103,659. The cash balance of $1,594,152 at June 30, 1958,
and revenues of $64,509,507 to be derived from sale of State Highway Con-
struction Bonds and from Federal aid are encumbered to provide for these
future expenditures.
The major revenues of the Construction Fund are expected to approxi-
mate $74,000,000 in the 1959 fiscal year. For 1960 a total of $83,000,000
may be expected. Construction expenditure authorizations are scheduled to
keep pace with indicated revenues.
Respectfully submitted,
Carl L. Wannen,
Comptroller.
146
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
oc
QO
I— I H
XO
^2
at:
^^
2:0
O
^
P^
GQ
00
C90
E- ^^
a«
§■ ;
§
00
<S
00"
00
_1?
CJS
CK
S|
CO ■_
co_
-:c
00
00
fe."^
^r
«»
«A
IM
■ CO
00
(N
«
■^ '^
0 ■ ■ ■
0
a H IN
; 0
CO
0 B a g^
0 0
ro
0 : : :
0" — T
^
0 ■
>0 co" ;
«
OS • - •
" ^-
• in
-^ • • ■
10 Ol^
CO CO !
co"
c < ^
'~
e©
e»
„
■ • 0
^^
•0
c £ —
00
• • R
10
Z E —
oc :
: : CO
: 0
0
CO
gill
cc" -
■ ■ 0
od
ira
CO
• ■ t^
01
1^
5| #.
«©
99
1
r>-
r.
»
•>; 1
•z.
i§
00 :
£^
t^
Ci
o>
<
c^j :
ci 1
S
^
e«
11. S.I
> a H - = £ s
C: ■
: ^^
0 t~ ■
; ^
ro
— CO -
"?
c —
CO 00 •
»c c~
0 CO
: 0
0
--
^ 00 .
00 cT •
10
en
io"
0 t^
— 0
0
«»
0"
: 50
(M
1
sgs-s
eg
=
■ lo CD cc en cc iM -r
00
CO
3
■ — 0 0 -^ 00 CD 0
- 5 =-• 5 P
■ C-i '^ re ci CJ CO cri
CO
5 s-' Is
.10 -f »occ cc 0 05
^-
2
_ -rr -r 0 c^ cc w3 o_
■ ^'' »-^ cc CO crT cc Ci"
»o
c-j
fe S5^ 5
0
■ ao c^ c; 0 0 ~r
CO
z 5^ e 5
: cc GC oc" cs' ic
"2
»o
-(£ g ""c
e^
a»
05 00 tt
5e>U0 C-lCOOiCCC^^^t^ 00 »C
— - ^ C: c
" — ' ^]" f^ -f,' ~ ^' ^ [^ — * ci 0 r^
c^
J
^
~r c-i z^ ^
: S -r {z: ic ei cc ^. cr. oc c; O co
^
- — ' — 10 ^' ^ ^- -r a; ac' u'f co" r-T
0
0
cr- CO V- CO — CO CJ I- c: r- d -v
CO CM *c »r
5-^OC OCtOO OCC »CC^ 1^
*■
ci" csT
cc-h'cc(m" cd-i-* ccco" -r
O!
COfMi-* 000 CO CD
0
^
«^
'. (o '.
^
a
: Q •
•_3 •
z :
■ a •
'. « :
L.
■ ^^ •
H
* 2
. > .
• ■§
• SP •
: « •
xs •
:'li
■ 0 •
■ a ■
• H ■
• 'C
■ 5; Ci
• P '
■ 3 ■
: °^
•^
:!§
0 •
:<; :
:S :
• Z-73
: 1
2 K
"^ :^ &. ■
a i
. 0
• — ' •
• a c
- 2
•■1^350 ■
■ z
■ c ■
■ >*
: « «
: E- — S
. Z W3-
. B ==•
• Stj N -"=« H Z •
:-2 S-D « > g 2 '
• i; " 2 a;-S£i f- •
■2g:H^Egaa-S
: S^ .- "^ a E i
: 0
-.2 •
: ^
• J
- c-^
■ s
■ 0
3 ^
03 K
CO • £ •
■S ■
gill
• 0 ce
c ! •
■5 . ;
ii : :
3 — " H
•^ f; S- ° S -S3 c t.
•~ z ° "« S s 0 c-s 0
:^ -^-^Zfaz^Bsl
££ „ >. s 1 i^£.«« g
J:-^; ~ S S "^ c Q, tipi f
£ -^ = S £ 5 ._ z i = ^, ^
<
0
1^1 -s
• z ;
fa s
■^ i P,
33 0 c-
0 — M C3
— m t^ - 1-
!■= 5 i^ g= H S „ « g 5-5 = S =
«5oSS&?|jCQcZ^^p^
K « |^.° fc3
S0.5 rSgS
a gg3<:< 5 gg ggM gft.
0
Q
<i;.
Sft,K0
iSfc
fc.
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 147
— OO CO
r^ ci ^
" 00 CTi
GO «:> 00
O CD »C
OS iC
00 o
CO lO
,-. -^ CD
OS -r- M
Oi IC OO
OD 00 OO
If-
lOClM
o c^
TOO S
o o
o o
SSoo
mo
o o o o c
o o t^ ^
t-^ OS — '
^ — o
r- Oi — o
3 »C -H CD OO CD
-g I
Kg
C|
El. i:
^Q I g
Q to 5
<: &
o ° 2
g B O
2 a "
a g g
Z K S
g a o
o aO
J=Qs
„ rn H
H J tf3
3 O Q
J Z «!
Ol— ' O
& S z
.H-a
?-?^o d
! & m'
3
6
5
s
K
E-
Z
W.S 5
f fe a!
3
3
H
^CQ
5 s^ii i
5 -t: CT g CT „ ^
-a o
•E — -a
O c3 oj a;f
:£ o'o 3 I'
''o 3 c-acd."
3 g g-g S 5,^
■a a
^-T Z
. o
3ia
iT3
_- I -< ^ o
. - 3 E J- \£
"£■3
T3-a
-a
■*-•
M
f—^
<:
c
o
o"
n'
D
t-
=
3
3
c^
C
U
>"
P
^x
ca
a= ;J^
^■yj
__
Oo
-i!i
cj O
cog
C3
2 <«r^-
I
148
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
73
n
X
X
VI
Q
©
Id
eo
Z
>-
U3
H
1-9
<
^^
K
Z
cc
D
a
S
z
j2
-s:
z
-<
->*:
>-
^
Z
Ed
Z
o
S3
S
o
o
cs ic "5* t^ re ^ '— ' u-j
cc cc *<?- -r CD '--? t- *^
cc CD ^' — ' CT 'J5 ^
:;
C^ ->> Oi ©»
O •*> Oi ^*
e^
CO
0C!O
o
—
X
'-•^
©»
^
ONE-'
— 2 O
& 5 B
O >-
- :^ a s
- z s: f- f-
= ^55?:
5 i^
^ 5 - '^ - w
r- o K, t^ a
S ^ 5 DO,
I *>^ Oi ©» I cc
oc -^ = — = 'T B»
-- — ^ — 3C ^
= <
: b o
^ !: 5
CD uS '^" r^ cc oj ■^ i£i
CD 3C ^^-T CD fS t^ (>.
CC t— -^GC t^ a: '^-^
oc cd' g" — " o' «--s" ©f
-rCDQCOCOt-^CD-^Or— OOiOiOCO
.COCD*C»CCCCJ"C':'iC: ~I- — "CC
Ciocsc'te ■-J^cD»0'C'^^<35-^Ol^co
OO ^ CD 1/5 ■
^cc C> 5J— o^ c
S £
z O w U. .i C^v: r- ;
:-?-n S =,= ;"= 2 fe
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
149
CM CO lO C<l Oi c
-r o Oi CI
CO ic o --^
o i—o tc
lO iC O CO
sr-rMcoOiCit— i;
I -t- — CM O t^ 00 o
-r oi esq r^ ^ cm -- ■
Ooio'r^CXDOCOOOcDCJiOCMGOCM-t'Cit-^Ob
.— iC<:0^-COOC>COOCM"*CD'— C-liLOOO-^iOOi
05'--ocmcm':di— ooco'faios'XJoccD'— '__coc^i_
O" O' C» C^' 00 lO C3D 00 t-^ CO »0 O C-l Oi" '— O oi" CO
■ -r ^ 0=0 ^ -^ c
J ,— 1 t-- CO CD
;cOOOOOO<r3»000'— CM
.:DOi'^'-'CMOcoai--r
I --H CM t^ 00 O '
-- «D CM ^
OOO
CM od
CM CO
CD lO O -t^ IC
kO CM CM Oi t^
I-* CO cm' -^h' o6
CO 00 CD ^ O
CO CC_ CO o oo
iC OS CO Oi t^
oco ■
cn
CD
t>.
CSCD ■
f
'^ CO ■
OOO 05
CM oil^
-f O UO
C<ICD*OCMC5CMCMCOr^CMCDO»d>-CDC^"^i— 'CMOr--000
•n<ooioscMr^ot^-f"^o;oo!^cocM'--oo'^coooi:^'^cD
cOlOO'-H^>;ooio'^-^coo*oococDo^ocM'o6cM■^'oir-^co
Or-'OCDO'-HOCD'— cDOOCOOe^'^cD'— 'CMUOOO-TiOO:
»C «5 O OO t>- Oi i— O CM CM CO •-'^CO^CO -^^OS^OCO CO CD__ •— ^ CO__ CM_
^'--'"'"""^i'o'o'od cM~oc*"ic 00 oD r^*"co uo o^cm' oi" »— T cd c— ' — '
I CO IC c
. ClCOOiOt-CDCM-t*— 'C
.__. . .. -OOO I
r'<ooioiCMt"-or---r-rosoor--cDCM'--co-^coooi-^'^_cD
CO "O o* ■— ' i>^ o' oi o t-^ CO o o6 CO CD o' *o cm' q6 CM ^ oi r^ 00
Ot— OCOO'— OCO-— CDCOCOOCM-*CO'— CMiCOO-rWiOl
i0iCO00l>-05^-OCMCMCDi— •OOCO'^OlOiCDOOCO'— -COCM^
CD cm'co cM'"o''o'"QdcM odio odoo r-Tco'^c o cm"" oT^epqi"
^ io
i .— I 050
^ »- Ol -^ c
8 c« » J3 O K S
K W W S Oh O^M 02 H ^ P^ ^
r^
oooo oo
»/3
lO o
to
e»
««
^
OOO
oi
TJ1
eo
««
««
^
en
—
'^
e«
««
to
to
t^
t^
fJJ
f5
■^
■^
"^
CQ
w
6»
s
S
o
O
IC
"5
in
Ui
«e
««
,P
to
o-
m
cc
■ „-
u-
M
ee
in
00 oi CT
o6
»o c
to
»»
«&
-*<
«o
«
o
QO
00
TO
««
««
o
Q
o
o
TO
Oi
««
•»
MO a
1 —
OO
t^ O ■;
T— ' c
<»
•»
X
H e
.
oi m Z
a Q M c
Z 2 Sfc
fef^ 3 :^
ag2f
z c 2 ?
5 B z c
Z p D -
Z fe
3 Z Q »
H t< E- >
o o o^
C_
(_
O
150
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
a
X
tZ!
Ed
CQ
Q
S
o
a
Z
D
[=<
o
z
z
C
z
o
pa
z
o
z
>■
O
P
o
O
05
g
E
cc
B
D
O
% 1,311.99
96,663.41
OO
-*■
O
d
co_
OS
g
E
CO
o
£
S
05 I^
O CO
§ g
OO
cjc
U5
o
g
E
a
cc
z
o
o
CO
'T 1^ O
to cc o
05 ci o
C5 US O
Ord O"
o
o
Iffl
O
o
00
o
g
s
a
f-
K
2 §
lO en
o
o
o
§
o
o
c'
CO
County Highway
Construction
BONDS^
Bonded Debt
Fund
o
8
o__
ooo o
oooo
o g d o
o
o'
CO
z
o
is
B! Z
O o
OZ
il
W
O m
S z
o
gP3
1
Bit-"
9 CO -=
o g-T
03 03
CO
Oi
§ §■
c<i CO
OO CO
(3o" '^^■
C33 C5
of
00
o
od
CO
m Z
a -<
go
CO
o
o
W5 U5 CO
t^ C^ O
OO CO CO
-i^" od cc'
CO CO
C3i C3-.
oq cm"
C<1
oq
co_
State Highway
Construction
Bonds —
Bonded Debt
Fund
§ §§
O OO
o c; o
O OO
8 {28"
iOO
o
o
d
05
CO
<
S 280,098.40
382,667.52
1,641,250.00
998,282.00
2,992,436.00
196,445.00
61,877.81
95,178.13
2,964,218.75
2,938,906.25
581,570.36
490,000.00
57,175,000.00
106,400,000.00
1,080,000.00
1,511,000.00
1,547,000.00
2,088,000.00
d
o
-^
co"
CO
uj i
CO K
CO &
<cg
a
a
a
■n
cc
o
2 §
B %
< >
a =*
1 1
a "
& — ■
Z M
Pi: >,
HI
1^
3 ■
T3 :
of
-n =
i^
I'i
c ^^
-§~
3 •
'a :
> .
5 ■
-§. ■
O ■
■n^ ■
1 :
a •
s ■
a ■
o
3 0
-^8
m
3
>
3
r
o.
:i
3o'
-OO
X CO
— «©
>>
3
?
cn
3
-C30
|i
to =
o >
3
-13
^_
P5°.
cc '^
ll
Eg >
£^
?'i
°2
ca"^
cc n
'-gs
_3
>
3
a,
en
3
M
3
3
-o
^O
'C
_3
Is
e,
3
30
r-' CO'
X 3
S >
pa
>>
3
"S
B
CO
CO
CO
lO"
E
If.
CO =
5 >
pa
Debt Service Funds With Paying Agent for
Payment of:
Matured bonds and interest coupons payable (in-
cluding interest coupons payable July 1, 1958,
$557.612)
■=
3
1
-c
o
pa
Future Tax Revenue Encumbered and Portion of
Existing Sinking Funds Reserved for the Re-
demption of:
State Highway Construction Bonds:
Series A, C, D, and E
-a
a
cS
i-j
d
1
3
-a
5
■XI
3
O
pq
G
O
! :
i :
& ■
& ^
Kco
-&«
i'^
cc
-o
CO
-a
1
3
O
6l.
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
151
o
to
^
U3
o
o
^ 1
i
^
oo
o
o
II
o
o
o_
- II
o
lO
(M
^ 1
o
o
o"
oil
o 1
« 1
o
oil
o
o
CO
to"
o
3
o
00
CO
o
CO
CO
1^
OS
05
oo
cO_
oo
oo
§8
oo
K|
u?0
o
o
i
CO
S 581,570.36
57,175,000.00
106,800,000.00
6,316,000.00
7,684,991.76
4,085,541.93
124,423.09
257,067.01
206,182.54
193,153.53
C3
CO
CO*"
0
>
<
P-
z
c
0.
c
c
cflC
t fc
-J fc
31
-1 c
z
c
2
C
eq
Q
s
K
p
'a
"3
-g
J3
-a
c
Iw
o *
mS S3
-c
c
a:
c
a;
1
1
-c
a
c
a
2
1
T
" C
K
I
c
C
>
1
>
1
§
m
.. o
CJ o "^
1 M<
III
c
c^
X
c
1
"1
-c
c
1
§
-pa
a
-_o
§
O
.1
a:
c
1
.1
c
fc.
152
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit A, Schedule 2a
BONDED DEBT AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
state highway construction bonds payable, JUNE 30, 1958
Date Payable
Interest Rate
Principal
Serial Maturities
Total
Series A, C, D, and E:
Series A, Dated August 1, 1949:
August 1:
1958 to 1960 ($1,500,000 Each)
1M%
1J^%
m%
iy2%
2H%
2 ' o'V,
2.i6%
$ 4,500,000.00
6,000,000.00
1961 to 1964 fSl,500,000 Each)
$10,500,000.00
Series C, Dated December 1, 1950:
December 1:
1958
$ 1,667,000.00
6,668,000.00
5,001,000.00
1959 to 1962 ($1,667,000 Each)
1963 to 1965 ($1,667,000 Each)
13 336 000 00
Series D, Dated December 1, 1951:
December 1:
1958 to 1960 ($1,667,000 Each)
$ 5,001,000.00
5,001,000.00
5,001,000.00
1961 to 1963 ($1,667,000 Each)
1964 to 1966 ($1,667,000 Each)
15,003 000.00
Series E, Dated August 1, 1953:
August 1:
1958
$ 1,666,000.00
5,001,000.00
8.335,000.00
3.334,000.00
1959 to 1961 ($1,667,000 Each)
1962 to 1966 ($1,667,000 Each) . . .
1967 and 1968 ($1,667,000 Each)
18 336 000 00
Total— Series A, C, D, and E
$57,175,000.00
5%
VA^c
1.60%
1M%
1.90%
1.90%
1.90%
2%
2.10%
5%
1.90%
2%
2.20%
2.30%
2.30%
2.30%
2>^%
2>^%
2y2%
2H%
$ 800,000.00
800.000.00
400,000.00
800,000.00
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
3,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
10.000,000.00
Second Issue— Series F, G, H, I, J, and K:
Series F, Dated September 1, 1954:
September 1:
1958 and 1959 '$400,000 Each)
1960 and 1961 ($400,000 Each)
1962
1963 and 1964 ($400,000 Each)
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
$23 800 000.00
Series G, Dated July 1, 1955:
July 1:
1958 to 1960 ($400,000 Each)
. $ 1,200,000.00
400.000.00
400,000.00
400,000.00
400,000.00
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
3.000,000.00
4,400,000.00
1,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
1961
1962
1963 '.
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
24,200,000.00
Exhibit A, Schedule 2a — Continued
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
153
, Exhibit A, Schedule 2a— Concluded
BONDED DEBT AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
state highway construction bonds payable, JUNE 30, 1958
Date Payable
Interest Rate
Principal
Serial Maturities
Total
Series H, Dated November 1, 1955:
November 1:
1958 to 1960 ($300,000 Each)
5%
2%
2ys%
2.20%
2H%
2H%
2H7c
2.30%
2^%
2.40%
2)^%
5%
2.60%
2.60%
2M%
5%
3H%
3H%
3.30%
3%%
3.40%
3^%
3.60%
3.60%
5%
3^%
3'^%
3.40%
$ 900,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
1,500,000.00
2,40(l,f)0().0()
2,5(10,000.(10
1,6()0,(I0().(I()
1,700,000.00
2,600,000.00
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1 4 400 000 00
Series I, Dated August 1, 1956:
August 1:
1958 to 1961 ($300,000 Each)
$ 1,200,000.00
1.5(l(),0( 10.00
2,(100,(100.00
1(1,000,000.00
1962 to 1966 ($300,000 Each)
1967 to 1970 ($500,000 Each)
1971
14,700,000.00
Series J, Dated January 1, 1957:
January 1:
1959 to 1962 ($300,000 Each)
$ 1,200,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
300,000.00
3,000,000.00
3.000.0(10.00
6,(100.000.00
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968 and 1969 ($1,500,000 Each) ....
1970 and 1971 ($1,500,000 Each)
1972
14,700,000.00
Series K, Dated October 1, 1957:
October 1:
1958 to 1965 ($300,000 Each)
$ 2,400,000.00
600,000.00
2,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
1966 and 1967 ($300,000 Each)
1968 to 197! ($500,000 Each)
1972
15,000,000.00
$106,800,000.00
Note: — A summary of debt service requirements for all issues, by fiscal years, is as follows:
Fiscal Year Ending June 30
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Total
Total
Principal
Interest
$ 12,423,239.00
$ 8,500,000.00
$ 3,923,239.00
12,221,116.71
8,501,000.00
3,720,116.71
12,023,932.96
8,501,000.00
3,522,932.96
11,841,540.67
8,501,000.00
3,340,540.67
11,667,850.42
8,501,000.00
3,166,850.42
11,498,854.21
8,501,000.00
2,997,854.21
11,326,310.25
8,501,000.00
2,825,310.25
12,0,37,157.75
9,401,000.00
2,6.36,157.75
13,049,257.75
10,634,000.00
2,415,257.75
14,6.30,31.3.00
12,467,000.00
2,163,313.00
16,988,713.00
15,167,000.00
1,821,713.00
16,655,150.00
15,200.(100.00
1,455,150.00
16,175,250.00
15,100.(100.00
1,075,250.00
17,202,250.00
16,500,000.00
702,250.00
10,170,000.00
10,000,000.00
170,000.00
$199,910,935.72
$163,975,000.00
$35,935,935.72
154
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit A, Schedule 2b
BONDED DEBT AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
COUNTY HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION BONDS PAYABLE, JUNE 30, 1958
D.\TE P.4YABLE
I.NTEREST R.4TE
Principal
Serial Maturities
Total
First Series, Dated July 1, 1954:
July 1:
1958
4%
lJi%
VA%
IH%
2%
2%
5%
2%
2.10%
2.20%
2.30%
2.40%
2>^%
2J^%
2}^%
5%
5%
3%
2.40%
2^%
2H%
2.60%
2.70%
2H%
5%
5%
35i%
3^%
3?4%
m%
Wa.7o
3.30%
3.40%
3.40%
3J^%
y/2%
$ 90,000.00
90,000.00
270,000.00
300,000.00
200,000.00
220,000.00
1959
1960 to 1962 ($90,000 Each)
1963 to 1965 (1100,000 Each)
1966 and 1967 ($100,0(JO Each)
1968 and 1969 ($110,000 Each)
$ 1,170,000.00
Second Series, Dated ArocsT 1, 1955:
August 1:
1958 and 1959 ($90,000 Each)
$ 180,000.00
180,000.00
90,000.00
120,000.00
240,000.00
120,000.00
120,000.00
300,000.00
161,000.00
1960 and 1961 ($90,000 Each)
1962
1963
1964 and 1965 ($120,000 Each)
1966
1967
1968 and 1969 ($150,000 Each)
1970
!,511, 000,00
Third Series, Dated August 1, 1956:
August 1:
1958
$ 20,000.00
100,000.00
100,000.00
200,000.00
100,000.00
240,000.00
360,000.00
280,000.00
147,000.00
1959
I960
1961 and 1962 ($100,000 Each)
1963
1966 to 1968 ($120,000 Each)
1969 and 1970 ($140,000 Each)
1971
1,547,000.00
Fourth Series, Dated August 1, 1957:
August 1:
1958 and 1959 ($20,000 Each)
$ 40,00(100
125,000.00
130,000.00
1.35,000.00
140,000.00
145,000.00
150,000.00
155,000.00
160,000.00
165,000.00
170,000.00
180,000.00
190,000.00
203,000.00
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
2,088,000.00
Total
$ 6,316,000.00
Note — A summary of debt service requirements for all series, by 6scal years, is as follows:
Fiscal Year Ending June 30
Total
Principal
Interest
1959
$ 397,362.50
466,500.00
559,487.50
553,075.00
547,511.25
581,090.00
593,546.25
585,505.00
577,380.00
569,042.50
599,922.50
609,742.50
505,850.00
349,451.25
206,552.50
$ 220,000.00
300,000.00
405,000.00
410,000.00
415,000.00
460,000.00
485.000.00
490,000.00
495,000.00
500,000.00
545,000.00
570,000.00
481,000.00
337,000.00
203,000.00
$ 177,362.50
1960
166,500.00
1961
154,487.50
1962
143,075.00
1963
132,511.25
1964
1965
121,090.00
108,546.25
1966
95,505.00
1967
1968
82,380.00
69,042.50
1969
54,922.50
1970
39,742.50
1971
24,850.00
1972
12,451.25
1973
3,552.50
Total
$7,702,018.75
$6,316,000.00
$1,386,018.75
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
155
H
-J!
D w
OS
X
H
O
1-9
Q
U
S
2^
Q
■<
^
^
a
H
»
H
<
r/5
u
>*
>H
rn
>-3
C/3
-t;
Q
o
-<
(/J
O
ta
a
u
b
S
o
H
H
K
;^
n
u
b^
S
u
H
<
H
c»
^ I =.;
oq CO M
C: CO t^
CO ^ CO
U5
oc ^ito
^
-r c-l 00
§
cgt^oo
o o ^r co-rr CO
iO»OOi CO ^ t^
COU5 00
CMOOCO
CO I-* »— • O CO CO
O CTiCO
t^CO(M
— > ci as
-r »o -r -r c^ CO
oiooas
COCOI->.I>-COiO oooo
OS oc CO CO CO ci cvj (>i lo
o CO r- ci CO o CO -— ' CO
^ CO ao CO -f ^ CiOco
CO CC 1>- l>- CO >0 OC C3 o
.-• CO
^O_co
ci" *c o"
- O CO O CO ^ CO
CO C<l t-^ OO tCi CO
t-- CO lO oo
O -H cO<MC
»ot^ oo
Jb-CDI>-00 CO W3 .
^»or^o6^C3 c^'^cd
(M CO O CO CO OS OO CO t—
cCC0C:»O»C-r (MOOl
o cvJ -m" -r CI -t''" of •— " t-^
T- CO — -r CO .— ' lo r- O
iOCOCOCO-TCD CiO_— '
<M~ Co' ^'
fc- o
II
11
s!!:
-3 = 3 K ii -2-= k «- L"
§ ^SE.° ° -=* S ■^-
e H
? ^ tn _2 - i: o
156
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
pq
F-
03
•^
K
>0 —
W
05
OK
Q
T^Qm CQ I
[i3
Hlz:
Koch
gHQS
QHQ
lis
'OS
fc-t:^
HQ
ccd
so
CQ
1
1
- 02
■o
■COCSO
1 ^~.
1 O t^CD
. CO
■ CO CO 02
cv
' o oc oi
. : CO iri o"
llNKINO
Funds
hedule
S'S!?-
-co"
• »o CO r^
t~-_
S^?c
• QC
- - -r CO
CO
CO
j^ tj
ci" CO
' Cf3
««»
; **i
ND
.ITY
,2,.3)
_
t^
o
CO
o
CO
O Tf CM
oo t-»
o
o
o
lO t^-s-
^ 05 ■
S
-^
wi
n
o
*1-
CO U3«5
^o
o
a;
c
CO??
UNTY ,
NICIPA
FUNDi
dules
CO
C^l
CO
t^
o
00 1 "^^
ojco :
o"
o'
oo"
-r
05I0 •
CO
o
1^
00
oo 1 CM oo
OS W3 •
c_
o_
co_
CO
o_
COC»
C1_S ;
Co
Mu:
(Sche
oT
(M
""
CM
;£
.-.
°°
««
«e 1 «»
H
as
<M
"^(M
25 —
QO
-f
00
CM 1~ — O >0
oco
,— 1^ CM IC t^
^
CO
oc o6
CO
CO
-r o ^' oc' 'Tii
a 5
o
coco
O
CC CO
c-iai
.^
Cv
t^ r^o CM CO
cS
(C
lOr-T
aid
_"
■n
■ N 1
r^ tC 00 cm' CM
S &
CC'
<M in
^ OC' o --
2^
CD
c,-
1-
1
>o o
5
>a
c^
Os"
oc ,-'
S
«^
«»
a&
-Year
M AND
{AL
TATE
1 CON-
M Fund
M
CO
m
QO
■o
^
US
c^
o
•^ o
^
t^
cc
00
■o
CO
CO
o
OS Oi
r^
00
ci
ai
(M
OtJ t^
t^
CO
*^_
oc
t^
QO
:o_
»o
CR
*^ o^
,-^
Twelve
Progra
Fedei
Inters
Progra V
STRUCTIOl
C:
-r
h-T
o
GT'
CO
CO
t- CO
O
,—
IM
• o
■o
O^ iTD
0&
xT
o'
:>ra
»0 CO
?ls ^
aom>2
Ir-I--(MiCCi 000»C
—
o
Ci
og o —
o-
ICTU
Pri
1, 19
RAL
TING
ID
odN --^
— OO CD oi o" o o »o -r
c
o
00
ooa>co
t^ -- CO — CO lo t^ -r CD
Ol
^J,
10U3C0
r -r cr. <M
c:_Oi -r
s I -f_
05
3TRI
HAM
I.Y 1
ENEI
ERA'
Fun
ccfoc -1-"
o' d" CO oc
CTU^C^f
0^
1 tc
od
o r^ r--
1^ 1 o
W3
' CO »6
-t
Z C -" 0.
5 £-^0
'
^£g
«<&
«
e9
OlCMiO Oir^OCCiC-rC^OC'CCCO^CDOl'Tt^lMiCC^ OCCIOW5
.^
-f-rr^ — OiC^ oot^cq
r^ !>; cc ^1 -1^ r- Ci — _ — _ as OG oc O CO CO CD (M »- GO -f CO o
00 0-;
t^
— lO w oi io r^ t^ ,-- C5 r^
^^ :0 t-- ;r -ri 7C ~' — :X ac ■^' CO QC — -' CO i^ iC oc CO c: to o
-t — ! — ' — " y -T oo --: o OC'
J
cicio —-^ro-Tiro-jrco — i:^o;co—i — oi'— CO — o icoc-^co
c^
r- :r. ut CO y_ rM oo co ^ -f
r-- cn-r
tr-
oo" — —r ci v' -r to' -r lO I - -r o' oi" c^' O — ci" o" cD* cT
rCioiM
.—
-T a;' t - v' oi' o)' 00 o:' u5 oc'
o
r^ r- CO c^ -r OS cc r-- oi »r:i ->] r^ — r oi ci co co r-
cDcnooc^ — osiraio
^^^^T '^ CC oi — oi o-i CO — c: »o CO c:
CO
o
-r-r o_ 0Q03
c^cr'o-' looi" -m' irf-rj* — '
^
O) IM —
o-
CO ^^
««
m
as
M
-a
j=
3
>
fc.
o
O
i
3
§
■|9
.1
E
aj "t*
£ M
o
1-1
O-C
.S
-g
z.
s
13
§
1
:-a 5
■ O u'.5
.'.3 3 C!
>—
It
X
i
.■2
pa
"o
OQ
strut
onst
oblii
es, e
eigh
ciliti
iions
ieak(
H
.2
. >
x;
'e
3
o
3
fa
c
.§
is
c
S
■o
■ 5^ >-S S=[g-? ^
2
1
o
e
3.. :
i
i
c
M
c
3
J3
Highway C
ty Highway
jtes Treasui
ystem Facil
of enforcing
oil System
litical subdi
ment — Ches
_3
1
'Eg
e:e
o *-■
z
>
E
.s
'o •
6-
E
ll
5
Q.
2
2^
.i3 0-T3 o ° o >. S
£_o
o
St3
u O ■
1
,o
2 =
c
o
o
i
—
-a
= P
03. S
-o" fc
o g
Fund ....
m sale of S
ni sale of C
from Unite
ent from T
ent of the i
or account
1 in costs b
m sale of ei
1
>
X
E-
O
2
id mainteni
lerties acqu
protection
Fund ....
3 ".3
£§. :
^ o. ■
C CIS ■
ca X .
1
'o
3
O
res:
uctioi
■nancf
ion ai
1 prop
beach
?rmit
s and
nt of
mntie
3 ?^.
grt j?° -oT J-^-5 r £ S S£ £ t;-:3 S £
Recove
Deposi
Miscell
Transf(
ENDITU
Coiistr
Mainte
Operat
Capita;
Ocean
Sign P(
Repairi
Pavme
Cc
M
Advani
>
a.
■y.
K
K
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
157
O lO O iC
Ot>- Oi-i
t-, t^ ^ l-H
00000(M00cD
ooooooqoO'Tf^
cccocriotD-rosoi-^
a5_ CS|_ <N 00 o_ -f^ ^^ <N o_
CO oT oi r--.' ■— r »o" CO CO ci"
1—1 CO -T GO -r CO CM
OOOOOtMOOCO
OOOOOOOOO^
§^
Oo
oo
oo -t<
O W3 00
tOOSiO
ICO '^
cnira «5to
cocoaioco-rcjios-*
oo-f-fuoooicor^cM
OiCNc>)QOO-r-r(MO
o c^
o in
O l^T
o t^ -r
O o to
t^inos
"^ to "^ oo
t^ 00 '^ 05
^tOOC OS
cooiOir^ — iOcoco<M
-Hco-r oc ^co c-1
o t^
§5
O >0 03
o; 02
l^iCO
O —
to —
^ CI
o
to to cc
odco
05 —
CO CO
<ri to
"tso
«~^o'
t3i »r3
oo o^
— *to
fc
■ M B ■ g
; S f= M 2 S oj
. fc 2 I o S:g ^
■ S ?? b£ 2 M o
I goo B 3^
-£ =« o o Ji_ ".=i-a j!
2:3 s a:==3-S fc s g
'*t3-i3--5oi:oT3'-J;
S gmmooQfeSr^
a «
3 c !;■
" S c ^
.° 3 C
£ ^-o
P-"- O
^. ^ffl
c5 E a
-o M o
8 "^s i;
i a O
-&^ow:-
Scc
c gr3 o
„-^ G &
Imp
3 S
fa C9
%^
_3_3
"ca ca
-Q >
P a 0-SO-:
,OT3j'^-g
3 T3 'S C 5- ,5^ -g
H^ 3,^.— (T^C/j-e^i*-
jX'
-^Oi
§0.o__
. O ^' ~o 'ca
V S2 ™ ^ p 3
^ "^ W >- £ "g .
t^ m "ca o -2 ^
m c a ->^
o o aj <D
ym rtz
o r~ 1^
oi" c<r ^
f- 3
O M
H to
ca oj aj =
>>-g.tS
(2zS
«s III
^2, ^5 E
WO
1-^ !
a sp
IS
' 3 c
t P tlH
g 5 P
0. == o
158
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
X
en
o
Ed
s 1
cc
^^»r^
^
*n
0
U5
_
m
' ^ -^ • • ^
;_^
C".
,„
CO
(M
00 1
IC 1
-r oc' CI ■
— 00 ■
iC c^ ci cr. t-
- — cr- -co
■ oc = CK
m
C^
»-: 1
»c ci o"
I--I
ci
= i-.- '
-r c^o :
: = -r ; ;oc
: -T-o in
c»
CO
in
oc 0
ce irice 0 ac
. (~ oc in
-!<
■<■*?? '
»;; cT"^*
C-l' 2C'
iC C^ ^ C"' I -^
cT co' ■ -»*
■ -m' qc cm
cc
in
00
■M — cc
■re CM CM
CO
in
m
o_
22 2: 1
^ 1
«^
«»
««
-
j
rcc^cc — c^jcno- ri-*r5cc'>ji;5ir:c:c^'Mr~'MO^-r
C-. l-r
t~
^
c:: — crro — seen -rc:»o-r — occ-r^-roic^cC'M — cc
0 CO
Oi
CO
1
3: c; ^ cr ^d o o ac tc -T — cC re ^ ifi -c "m" d c" c^J -si rJ i -^
in 0
0
S 11
0 oc
t
-^ CI cc t'' '-t: — '^ -T: — -^ t: C-: ci — re i ^ t ~ rr t * :/: — c". o
oc 00
CO
Ci' t--
H i
C-.
in
[2
I
c>i ^' ^'
2
2
]
?«
^
»
-
5 1
00 ;
:^
0 : '0 : :
-^
«
QO -
35 ■ - ^- - -
c5
OS
SHE 1
1 = s g 1
06 :
»::-»•:;
"5
M
s
^- : :5 :
I^
-r
0 • -co ; ;
OC
fe
r-H -
O
«»
• »
1 «
-
«:■ S
^
0 CO
^ ! — — . ! r
^
~~\ ^
CM
C5(M
- '■ • >n t~ : c
<5
»ri
OCV3
>« ■ oc iri " c
^i
06
«
CO
■<3 . . t^«o ;i
ra
oos
= , .'^.-'1 .c
JO
t^
-r
^C < ^
U5U3
a
-TOO
^ ■ -I^OT •
- cS z
^"
N
t^
'^
r-£- <
2
z
««i>
e«
*ii
z
cc«
CD
(Mc;
■ evi 'oct- '
■ ^
Oi 0
H!
C3C 10
t-
— ■0
.— ■ — oc ■
■ 0
0 0
>^
H ^ J P Q
Z Z J w C B
s - ^ :i z a
c~ 06
06
in —
' — ■ in r^
: in
iri d
0
K
US
-roc
0
coo
: I- : i~ in :
; —
00 0
0
5o i H^ o
cc C5
ci"
cdci
• -r ■ c; cc' ■
C5 oc'
00
C5
OCC:
■ I~. ; -r o> •
06
00
o_
o_
^ fc- ^ Z Ch
c
e«
«>&
«e
z
<^
— 1~
«
r^
CiC:
■ 0 ■« -r ■
:„
~ri~
^^
z S - 5 - z
cc
x.di
ry\
^
-r 0*
: -r : -r « :
uj
ci
ci
3C
urz iC
OC
oc
oc
:in :o CO :
:S
CO_
:i E s 5 ^ -
TJ
— *^
^
^
r; 10
■CM -r— " ■
■ t-^
1?
•M
■CO
c;
C3i
—
—
m
— ;
,
C
«&
«<»
«»
c
». Z J!.
r^M (M
e^o
^COCOCOCfl -t^-O • -t^
•t^co-t
~1~ "^
r^ in
1
■oc— c CC
Oi —
o o c^"
cdcK
U3 u3 ci c' oe : 0 0 ; ci
;-tcm"i-
^
0 c-i
Z ^ M 2 K
1^ H S s
lO'M
ccoccccc-J' r'-t-^ -r
incMoc
CO
T C
r-S^z-
-race: CO CM .Ct^ . .1^
0* !« cc oc v£ ■ 0" 0* ■ ■ f>i
.inc::_c:
■ CM oo*"^-
Ci
01'
CO CO
in in"
5 z z f-
c; ^o
I^ C5
— CiOcor^ ■ 0 c; ■ -co
Ci
in in
re o w
TCOUO-fC^ -I-iC ■ ■ (M
■ -T -r cc
Ci CM
" 1^
«»
: :H
: OD
s
^ , _ . — — — — — '-Hi- — I - u- — -^ '-I --J -r '-t -r »i^ C
C-. 1 0
0
1 Ci
:^
re ~ rr C: ei I - ~. -— tr fr '-:f — »-e — iH ir. -- fj ~ re ~ cj tr
- 1 CM
CO
- X =
m 00
c
00
S ? =
ir. CM
Ci
^31 — " cT -r -r C» iC 1 - »C »C I-' t-T -r ^c iT t-' -r >m' l-T cc — ' t^ CT
'ci- 1 -
c
r-'
rM sr »c — cn ic -r c. rc re c^J c; c: <:^) ^ c^ I— cc -r c) »o CT. -
■n
r" -i. ^"
-1
00
"-
^ -■
««
'^
»»
C= CM
i^
Ci
CD in
C£
: '-;
g
ui ci
CM Ci
; =0
re --c n -ri — C". '^ — -" 'y: "-t -^ tc — ~i — t~ re *i v: — -3 tc
^ oc CM
c
C<1_
'cTi" 2C
C3
H
CO
t^
C
- °^
~c^" — ■ ' ' ' Z:
'
^
««
s
E^ Z
cc CM • :o
- C'lCS
CM . oc 1* ■
' '^i
■8 '5
0
K
jy, C C
00 « r^
— lO
■ ir.
0
1 g
e s >- 5 P 3c
c oc : oc
' in —
' — in 1^
■ if5
:in =■
0
C;-y2 g = e 5
! z
Toc :c
:coc_
:i~ t^.m :
:cc 0
:= cf ■ CI
- CO CI
■ cT
■Ci oc
00'
-r oj ci
• oc 0
■ oc
00
0
0
M
cm"
cm'
1
fc^ i
0&
c^
«»
& fe X ^
° o < a 3
z BE- o a§^-
CM^GCcriOcciO — MOi^cn — >cro — -rioccc^<Mi--C
> • <2
^
. Si
1
ic»9cc-r!iDOc:-r-rc^tcrj<MOt^rcc^»cciccccccDc£
5 • in
C£
5 '-^
cc 3^' -r ^' ;2' ':r ^ ^ re »£J i"^ re C: — 3C i-l i-^ ^ cc •>) 5C c: ir
» oi
" ; Ci
5 CO
^. *~. ~ ~ ~ "*-, ~. ~. ~t "~. ^ '~. ~. ~~. '"''. ~ -"; ' ~ "^ '. "'-. ~; ~. ~
'- c^_
c
' ^
-; 0
- - in
«,
D CO
0'
-
^
.^0=
•QCC-.
■QO OCl ■^CO
• -r CM • '0 '000
'. '. 00
c-
1 0
.>o
ac -T oc
•noc
■ i~ CO • ■ -r oc m
■ ■ CO
5 CM
bS
t>^ — ^ c=
: — c;
^ ^ ^ ^* gsj
: — ' M : : -T* : cd —
00
c*
i cm"
X &:
r-ocr^
. I^CO
■ ce c-j cc OC —
• 1 tr • ■ '^ : 0 CM
Ci
X z .
u5-r cc
.mio
cc iCi^ 0 -r
; : Ci
t-
■< < ^"
cTio-r
•iCio
:3 oc ^ ce cd"
■ -r — ■ iC ■ oc -»^
cJ
c
j" CO
ce »c -T H <N
c
5 —
^ ^
. CO
r o_
"■^
«
e»
M
■ «
U
OD rn
i si
is s
z £:
:a g
:g 0
• Z J
1
p 0
;-o \
■■iU- '
; -•
Jo
i 5|
ilri-l
•11-1
:i
lifi
^1
• = =^ = -. --sot
- = = E^ g j-g 5 £
^ S £ S'x X H s^ is js
e
z
0
3 a
Cj -
z-f
u
a S
g. oQ
'3 CO
cr -a
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 159
Exhibit B, Schedule la
COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TAX REVENUES ALLOCATION FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR ACCOUNT OF MUNICIPALI-
TIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1958
Municipality
Road Miles
Municipali-
ties, Decem-
ber 1956
Cash
Balance,
July 1,
1957
Revenues
Total
Funds
Available
Expendi-
tures
Cash
Balance,
June 30,
1958
Allegany County:
Barton
2.26
114.03
24.65
5.80
2.98
2.74
10.67
$ 592.59
46,046.45
6,419.97
1,492.94
2,458.91
726.73
2,779.83
S 1,808.31
91,240.08
19,723.48
4,640.82
2,384.42
2,192.39
8,537.50
% 2,400.90
137,286.53
26,143.45
6,133.76
4,843.33
2,919.12
11,317.33
S 1,831.05
19.970.15 ■
4,661.92
2,458.91
2,220.16
8,644.27
S 569 85
Cumberland
137 286 53
Frostburg
6 173.30
Lonaconing
1,471.84
Luke
2 384 42
Midland
698 96
Western port
2,673.06
Total
163.13
S 60,517.42
$ 130,527.00
$ 191,044.42
S 39,786.46
S 151,257.96
Anne Arundel County:
Annapolis. . . .
50.76
S 13,073.07
S 40,615.15
$ 53,688.22
$ 22,043.01
S 31,645.21
Calvert County:
Chesapeake Beach
5.97
5.40
$ 1,630.62
1,497.05
$ 4,776.85
4,320.75
$ 6,407.47
5,817.80
S 4,907.70
4,455.65
J 1,499.77
North Beach
1,362.15
Total
11.37
« 3,127.67
S 9,097.60
t 12,225.27
$ 9,363.35
J 2,861.92
Caroline County:
Denton
9.40
6.35
.55
4.36
.38
.42
1.72
6.75
$ 2,446.79
1,645.48
154..30
1,147.04
95.70
101.51
835.04
1,774.24
$ 7,521. .33
5,08(1.90
440.08
3,488.61
304.05
336.06
1,376.24
5,400.95
$ 9,968.12
6,726.38
594.38
4,635.65
399.75
437.57
2,211.28
7,175.19
$ 7,603.24
5,136.82
449.72
3,537.28
310.55
34.3.21
1,. 399.92
5,480.43
? 2,364.88
Federalsburg
1,589.56
Cioldsboro . . .
144.66
1,098.37
Henderson ....
89.20
Hillsboro. .
94.36
Preston . . .
811.36
Ridgely
1,694.76
Total
29.93
$ 8,200.10
$ 23,948.22
J 32,148.32
S 24,261.17
$ 7,887.15
Hampstead . . .
2.00
3.50
4.86
3.00
5.12
6.68
5.78
20.35
Si 459.07
917.92
1,261.23
7I1..39
1,338..32
1,755.09
1,516.42
5,244.13
J 1,600.28
2,800.49
3,888.69
2,400.43
4,096.73
5,344.94
4,624.81
16,282.86
S 2,059.35
3,718.41
5,149.92
3,111.82
5,435.05
7,100.03
6,141.23
21,526.99
$ 1,572.72
2,833.42
3,934.02
2,359.60
4,144.75
5,407.91
4,679.21
16,425.30
$ 486.63
884.99
Mt. Airv .
1,215.90
New Windsor
752.22
Sykesville. . .
1,290.30
Tanevtown ....
1,692.12
Union Bridge. .
1,462.02
Westminster
5,101.69
Total
51.29
.70
3.04
3.07
13.13
4.25
1.38
.73
2.24
S 13,203.57
S 41,039.23
$ 54,242.80
$ 41,356.93
$ 12,885.87
Cecil County:
Cecilton
S 186.29
786.65
785.35
3,335.65
1,904.75
356.09
353.59
596.13
% 560.10
2,432.42
2,456.43
10,505.85
3,400.60
1,104.20
584.11
1,792.31
$ 746.39
3,219.07
3,241.78
13,841.50
5,305.35
1,460.29
937.70
2,388.44
S 565.01
2,453.04
2,477.01
10,531.45
3,300.60
1,113.53
757.56
1,833.30
S 181.38
766.03
Chesapeake City
764.77
Elkton ....
3,310.05
Northeast
2,004.75
Perryville
346.76
Port Deposit
180.14
Rising Sun
555.14
Total
28.54
$ 8,304.50
$ 22,836.02
$ 31,140.52
% 23,031.50
$ 8,109.02
Charles County:
Indian Head . .
2.28
5.50
$ 575.27
1,416.86
$ 1,922.21
4,636.90
$ 2,497.48
6,053.76
$ 1,887.29
4,603.22
$ 610.19
La Plata
1,450.54
Total
7.78
S 1,992.13
S 6,559.11
$ 8,551.24
$ 6,490.51
$ 2,060.73
Dorchester County:
Cambridge
38.52
.28
7.16
1.47
2.06
S 9,941.93
75.32
1,859.60
372.15
1,013.06
$ 30,821.43
224.04
5,729.01
1,176.21
1,648.29
$ 40,763.36
299.36
7,588.61
1,548.36
2,661.35
$ 31,116.76
228.10
5,801.25
1,166.58
1,692.44
S 9,646.60
71.26
Hurlock
1,787.36
Secretary
381.78
Vienna. . . .
968.91
Total
49.49
J 13,262.06
$ 39,598.98
$ 52,861.04
$ 40,005.13
$ 12,855.91
Frederick County:
Brunswick
16.80
1.16
4.34
$ 4,363.98
281.96
1,121.03
$ 13,442.37
928.16
3,472.61
S 17,806..35
1,210.12
4,593.64
$ 13,564.53
939.12
3.510.75
S 4,241.82
Burkittsville
271.00
1,082.89
Exhibit B, Schedule la — Continued
160
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit B, Schedule la — Continued
COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TAX REVENUES ALLOCATION FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR ACCOUNT OF MUNICIPALI-
TIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1958
Municipality
Road Miles
Municipali-
ties, Decem-
ber 1956
Cash
Balance,
July 1,
1957
Revenues
Total
Funds
Available
Expendi-
tures
Cash
Balance,
June 30,
1958
Frederick
56.29
4.55
1.36
1.27
1.10
8.72
3.07
1.75
14,325.88
1,011.76
.324.17
25.74
293.78
2,284.31
814.36
809.12
45,039.93
3,640.65
1,088.19
1,016.18
880.15
6,977.23
2,456.43
1,400.25
59,365.81
4,652.41
1,412..36
1,041.92
1,173.93
9,261.54
3,270.79
2,209.37
4.5,213..39
3,521.02
1,100.82
742.66
891.20
7,063.82
2,487.19
1,38.3.57
14,152.42
1,131..39
Mt. Airy
Myersville
New Market
Thurmont
Walkersville
311.54
299.26
282.73
2,197.72
783.60
825.80
Total
100.41
S 25,656.09
$ 80,342.15
S 105,998.24
J 80,418.07
J 25,580.17
RETT County:
Accident
Deer Park
2.11
4.11
3.57
2.77
3.74
4.14
10.44
14.55
$ 561.79
1,043.22
915.62
705.72
886.84
2,020.29
2,862.15
3,782.03
$ 1,688.30
3,288.58
2,856.51
2,216..39
2,992.52
3,312.58
8,3,53.47
11,642.05
$ 2,250.09
4,331.80
3,772.13
2,922.11
3,879.36
5,332.87
11,215.62
15,424.08
1 1,697.25
.3,314.12
2,892.13
2,219.66
2,947.47
3,384.96
8,581.46
11,772.25
? 552.84
1,017.68
Friendsville
880.00
Orantsville
702.45
Kitzmilier
931.89
Loch Lvnn Heights. .
1,947.91
Mountain Lake Park . .
2,634.16
Oakland
3,651.83
Total
45.43
S 12,777.66
$ 36,350.40
$ 49,128.06
J 36,809.30
S 12,318.76
Harford County:
Aberdeen
25.27
13.38
25.93
$ 6,427.37
6,410.03
6,701.84
f 20,219.57
10,705.88
20,747.65
$ 26,646.94
17,115.91
27,449.49
$ 20,296.29
10,832.28
20,959.91
$ 6,350.65
Bel Air
6,283.63
Havre de Grace
6,489.58
Totai
64.58
$ 19,539.24
$ 51,673.10
S 71,212.34
S 52,088.48
$ 19,123.86
Kent County:
Betterton
1.86
5.43
.44
.84
2.04
1 437.95
1.691.76
125.94
261.27
618.17
$ 1,855.99
.5,418.28
4.39.05
838.19
2,0.35.60
S 2,293.94
7,110.04
564.99
1,099.46
2,653.77
1 1,704.89
5,411. .30
434.54
829.75
2,015.05
% 589.05
Chestertown
1,69,8.74
Galena
Millington
130.45
269.71
Rock Hall
638.72
Total
10.61
1 3,135.09
$ 10,587.11
$ 13,722.20
? 10,395.53
$ 3,326.67
Montgomery Countt:
Barnes ville
.45
.20
2.22
6.24
1.61
3.35
7.37
.39
.88
5.94
3.12
1.74
7.22
.29
2.28
1.65
.52
.76
52.98
4.04
17.69
3.26
$ 128.70
43.73
.558.11
1,606.27
786.25
1,643.61
1,866.12
79.20
240.91
1,524.18
790.78
870.73
3,535.54
57.34
607.61
426.94
248.32
202.53
1.3,044.02
919.46
5,029.63
870.36
% 360.07
160.03
1,776.31
4,992.88
1,2,88.23
2,680.47
5,897.04
312.06
704.12
4,7.52.84
2,496.44
1,392.25
5,777.02
232.04
1,824.32
1,320.23
416.07
608.10
42,391.47
3,232.57
14,154.49
2,608.46
$ 488.77
203.76
2,334.42
6,599.15
2,074.48
4,324.08
7,763.16
.391.26
945.03
6,277.02
3,287.22
2,262.98
9,312.56
289.38
2,431.93
1,747.17
664..39
810.63
55,4.35.49
4,152.03
19,184.12
3,478.82
% 372.18
165.45
1,775.48
5,014.95
1,. 334.94
2,740,96
5,883.50
322.67
727.87
4,811.15
2,495.14
1,455.97
5,913.12
239.96
1,885.87
1,. 340.00
431.22
628.63
30,528.45
3,110.75
14,707.85
2,635.58
S 116.59
Brookeville
.38.31
Chevy Chase, Section ill
Chevy Chase, Section IV
Chevy Chase, Section V
C'hevy Chase View
558.94
1,584.20
739.54
1,583.12
C'hevy Chase Village
1,879.66
Drummond. .
68 59
Friendship Heights ....
217.16
Gaithersburg
1 465 87
Garrett Park
792.08
Glen Echo.. .
807 01
Kensington
3 .399 44
Laytonsville
49 42
Martins Additions . . .
546.06
North Chevy Chase
407.17
Oakmont
233 17
Poolesville
182 00
Rockville
24,907.04
1,041.28
4,476.27
843 24
Somerset
TakomaPark
Washington Grove
Total
124.20
$ 35,080.34
S 99,377.51
$ 134,457.85
$ 88,521.69
$ 45,936.16
Prince George's County:
Berwyn Heights
Bladensburg ....
5.88
7.50
4.19
6.82
7.05
2.70
11.97
37.31
3.72
2.50
$ 1,415.29
1,957.32
1,129.79
1,833.23
1,667.63
1 4,704.83
6,001.05
3,.352.59
5,456.96
5,641.00
2,160.38
9,577.69
29,853.26
2,976.53
2,000.35
$ 6,120.12
7,958.37
4,482.38
7,290.19
7,308.63
2,160.38
12,693.59
39,205.44
3,957.20
2,654.16
$ 4,662.21
6,070.06
3,456.77
5,567.18
5,563.92
1,461.11
9,663.84
29,861.82
3,037.06
2,006.69
$ 1,457.91
1 888 31
Bowie
1,02.5.61
1 723 01
Brentwood
Capitol Heights
1 744 71
Carrolton
699 27
Cheverly ....
.3,115.90
9,352.18
980.67
653.81
3,029.75
9 343 62
College Park
Colmar Manor ....
920 14
Cottage City
647 47
Exhibit B, Schedule la— Continued
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
161
Exhibit B, Schedule la — Concluded
COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TAX REVENUES ALLOCATION FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR ACCOUNT OF MUNICIPALI-
TIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1958
Municipality
Road Miles
Municipali-
ties, Decem-
ber 1956
Cash
Balance,
July 1,
1957
Revenues
Total
Funds
Available
Expendi-
tures
Cash
Balance,
June 30,
1958
District Heights
11.78
1.80
3.79
5.14
8.16
3.46
13.90
30.66
3.97
17.54
4.00
15.21
2.23
11.89
7.40
11.01
8.55
2.23
3,087.08
870.50
1,204.20
1,348.96
2,085.72
699.37
3,509.23
7,870.74
1,113.14
4,564.34
1,051.04
3,927.22
554.62
3,045.71
1,911.85
2,834.62
2,234.52
1,259.82
9,425.66
1,440.25
3,032.53
4,112.73
6,529.15
2,768.49
11,121.96
24,532.32
3,176.56
14,034.47
3,200.56
12,170.15
1,784.32
9,513.67
5,921.04
8,809.55
6,841.21
1,784.31
12,512.74
2,310.75
4,236.73
5,461.69
8,614.87
.3,467.86
14,631.19
32,403.06
4,289.70
18,598.81
4,251.60
16,097.37
2,338.94
12,559.38
7,832,89
11,644.17
9,075.73
3,044.13
9,526.77
1,455.87
3,260.58
4,162.93
6,577.25
2,593.39
11,139.45
24,700.50
3,277.75
14,196.82
3,269.77
12,260.96
1,799.25
9,593.65
5,970.48
8,895.52
6,942.52
2,007.76
2,985.97
Eaglp Harbor
854.88
Ednioiiston
976.15
Fairniouiit Heights
1,298.76
Forest Heights
2 037.62
(Uenarden
874.47
Greenbelt
3,491.74
Hyattsville
7,702.56
Landover Hills
1,011.95
Laurel
4,401.99
Morningside . . .
981.83
Mount Ranier
3,836.41
North Brentwood
539.69
Riverdale
2,965.73
Seat Pleasant
1,862.41
Takoma Park
2,748.65
University Park
2,133.21
Upper Marlboro
1,036.37
Total
252.36
$ 65,278.50
$ 201,923.57
$ 267,202.07
$ 202,981.88
$ 64,220.19
Queen Anne's County:
Barclay
.42
7.09
.46
1.50
1.00
.10
$ 346.55
1,825.98
122.19
395.42
263.59
40.68
J 336.06
5,673.00
368.07
1,200.21
800.14
80.01
$ 682.61
7,498.98
490.26
1,595.63
1,063.73
120.69
$ 346.55
5,708.11
373.37
1,217.53
811.66
81.84
$ 336.06
Centre ville
1,790.87
Church Hill
116.89
Queenstown
378.10
Sudlersville
252.07
Templeville
38.85
Total
10.57
$ 2,994.41
S 8,457.49
S 11,451.90
$ 8,539.06
$ 2,912.84
St. Mary's County:
Leonard town . . .
2.48
S 633.96
S 1,984.35
$ 2,618.31
$ 1,989.90
$ 628.41
Somerset County:
Crisfield
14.10
6.06
S 3,391.21
1,423.59
S 11,281.99
4,848.85
S 14,673.20
6,272.44
$ 11,124.92
4,750.09
$ 3,548.28
Princess Anne
1,522.35
Total
20.16
$ 4,814.80
J 16,1.30.84
$ 20,945.64
$ 15,875.01
$ 5,070.63
Talbot County:
Easton
23.12
4.19
6.44
1.09
$ 5,930.66
2,044.35
3,145.86
899.40
S 18,499.26
3,352.59
5,152.90
872.16
$ 24,429.92
5,396.94
8,298.76
1,771.56
$ 18,609.54
3,430.58
5,272.86
899.40
$ 5,820.38
Oxford
1,966.36
St. Michaels
3,025.90
872.16
Total
34.84
S 12,020.27
1 27,876.91
$ 39,897.18
$ 28,212.38
$ 11,684.80
Washington County:
Boonsboro
5.43
2.14
3.20
113.82
9.00
2.87
5.14
3.25
6.74
S 1,133.90
1,0.37.72
830.67
55,239.69
2,317.59
743.32
1,345.53
826.66
1,731.85
$ 4,.344.76
1,712.30
2,560.45
91,072.05
7,201.27
2,296.41
4,112.72
2,600.46
5,392.95
S 5,478.66
2,750.02
3,391.12
146,311.74
9,518.86
3,039.73
5,458.25
3,427.12
7,124.80
$ 4.102.37
1,729.95
2,602.87
92,806.66
7,279.77
2,338.30
4,181.07
2,598.87
5,453.51
$ 1,376.29
Clearspring
1,020.07
Funkstown
788.25
53,505.08
Hancock
2,239.09
Keedysville
701.43
Sharpsburg
1,277.18
Smithsburg
828.25
Williamsport
1,671.29
Total
151.59
$ 65,206.93
$ 121,293.37
$ 186,500.30
$ 123,093.37
$ 63,406.93
Wicomico County:
Delmar
6.15
5.78
3.20
66.83
$ 1,609.81
1,490.85
814.91
17,051.53
$ 4,920.86
4,624.82
2,560.45
53,473.42
$ 6,530.67
6,115.67
3,375.36
70,524.95
$ 4,989.88
4,652.83
2,559.46
53,796.09
$ 1,540.79
Fruitland
1,462.84
Mardela Springs
815.90
Salisbury
16,728.86
Total
81.96
$ 20,967.10
$ 65,579.55
S 86,546.65
$ 65,998.26
$ 20,548.39
Worcester County:
7.74
12.09
13.70
9.14
$ 1,992.41
3,050.17
3,563.72
2,372.31
$ 6,193.09
9,673.70
10,961.93
7,313.29
$ 8,185.50
12,723.87
14,525.65
9,685.60
$ 6,225.69
9,676.19
11,083.70
7,394.40
$ 1,959.81
Ocean City
3,047.68
Pocomoke City
3,441.95
Snow Hill
2,291.20
Total
42.67
$ 10,978.61
% 34,142.01
$ 45,120.62
$ 34,379.98
$ 10,740.64
GRAND TOTAL
1,334.15
S 400,763.52
$1,069,939.67
$1,470,703.19
$ 955,640.97
$ 515,062.22
162
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit B, Schedule lb
COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TAX REVENUES ALLOCATION FUND
STATEMENT SHOWING ALLOCATION OF 20'; SHARE OF GASOLINE TAX AND
MOTOR VEHICLE REVENUE FUNDS TO COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1958
Road Miles
Allocation Based on Total County Road Miles
Share
COUNTV
Counties
(Exclud-
ing Muni-
cipalities)
Munici-
palities
Total
Gasoline
Tax
Motor
Vehicle
Re\'ENUE
Minimum
Share
Adjustment
Total
Counties
Munici-
palities
.\llegany
Anne .Arundel . .
Baltimore
Calvert
Caroline
Carroll
Cecil
Charles
Dorchester
Frederick
Garrett
Harford
Howard
500.32
798.17
1,636.53
230.49
458.80
759.70
432.00
352.34
506.74
987.57
720.57
579.49
341.99
226.66
984.21
732.93
406.10
335.93
287.77
286.04
654.88
579.41
436.98
163.13
50.76
1 1.37
29.93
51.29
28.54
7.78
49.49
100.41
45.43
64.58
10.61
124.20
252.36
10.57
2.48
20.16
.34.84
151.59
81.96
42.67
663.45
848.93
1,636.53
241.86
488.73
810.99
460.54
.360.12
556.23
1,087.98
766.00
644.07
.341.99
237.27
1.108.41
985.29
41667
338.41
307.93
320.88
806.47
661.37
479.65
$ 431,290.14
551,865.46
1,063,862.02
157.226.37
317,709.60
527,201.74
299,384.07
234,103.86
.361,589.44
707,265.12
497,955.00
418,691.75
222,318.06
154,242.54
720,546.09
640,509.25
270,865.42
219,990.80
200,176.61
208,595.04
524.263.41
429,937.99
311,806.94
$ 102,403.44
131,0,32.25
252,598.23
37,331.06
75,435.42
125,176.22
71,084.30
55,584.48
85,854.04
167,929.60
118,232.02
99,412.14
52,786.12
36,622.60
171,082.97
152,079.41
64,312.97
52,233.55
47,528.96
49,527.80
124,478.57
102,082.39
74,033.93
$ 2.840.06
3.634.05
7.005.-57
1,035.34
2,092.12
3,471.64
1.971.45
1.3,919.18
2.381.08
4,657.37
3,279.05
2,7.57.10
1,463.97
45,893.02
4J44.82
4,217.78
1,783.66
1,448.65
1,318.17
1,373.61
3,452.29
3,831.16
2,053.26
$ 530,853.52
679,263.66
1,309,454.68
193,522.09
391,052.90
648,906.32
368,496.92
303,607.52
445,062.40
870,537.35
612,907.97
515,346.79
273,640.21
2.36,758.16
886,884.24
788,370.88
333,394.73
270,775.70
246,387.40
256,749.23
645,289.69
529,189.22
383,787.61
$ 400,326.52
638,648.51
1,.309,454.68
184,424.49
.367,104.68
607,867.09
345,660.90
297,048.41
405,463.42
790,195.20
576,557.57
463,673.69
273,640.21
226.171.05
787,506.73
586,447.31
.324,937.24
268,791.35
230,256.56
228,872.32
523,996.32
463,609.67
349,645.60
$ 130,527.00
40,615.15
9,097'. 60 '
23,948.22
41,039.23
22,836.02
6,559.11
39,598.98
80,342.15
36,-350.40
51,673.10
Kent
Montgomery, . .
Prince George's.
Queen Anne's . .
St. Mary's
Somerset
Talbot
Washington ....
Wicomico
Worcester
10,587.11
99.377.51
201,923.57
8,457.49
1,984.35
16,130.84
27,876.91
121,293..37
65,579.55
34,142.01
Total
13,235.62
1,334.15 14,569.77 $9,471,396.72
$2,248,842.47
$11,720,239.19 SlOfi.50 299.52
$1 069 939 67
Italics indicate red figures.
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 163
m
o
M
;z;
p
i-s
Q
M
Q
;?;
u
Pi
<
M
>H
tj
■<
; )
CO
rr
Q
hH
Z
Uh
D
H
U.
B
H
H
O
u
O!
H
M
5^
M
^
P
H
S
S
>H
Z
H
U
Z
(^
P
X
O
U
O
Q
Z
■<
V)
M
P
iz;
H
>-
u
K
El,
O
H
;z:
M
^
H
H
-<
H
03
^ ^ (v^ ^ 00 -,
< s ■<
fe S 2
O p ;;-
-^fe z: z H
i-' S H '
W300COCOCOOOCDCO
CO -^ CD im' O O wi Oi
COCC050i<3SCD — CC
CO OT CO -^"^ QO OD CD OJ_ t^-
— • t--^ CD -I"' oT o" t^" oT I l-C
r- — ' Tf 40 00 i>- •— ic
" -T- CO C^ C^l C^J CO
oo a: .— '
o6 00 -r
U^ CO oo
*n CO
<X3
I
1^1
ioDoor--c-joocot--
S -n- I -^ Co' CD o lO c-i
3 CO CO lO O CD — " lO
> C:_ '-- CO 00 OC CD lO
-' r-^ CM* rvf oo* o' 1--^ CO
- ■— " -r o 40 t- —
rs,\
Ol *o -H o ^ t^ -
Oi M" 40 CD O -t^iO oT
QOCO^-CDt^CDOiO
^ -r CO <M CO (M CO
I O -* lO f— ' — 1— <
c^j o -r lo — .— ■ csj
-r a:_ --■ o CD i-^ CO
»0 O" <m' •— ' (m' »0 'T-l
cDcD-r t-cDlOI--
c; cC CS — ^ OC' -r oo
<N iO o' cd' o' i-T QC
•— ' CO C^ C^ CO CS (M
O Oi
O QO
'. '. ; o* lo
o t-
oo
O' Oi
■ ■ ■ CS CD
«*
l^»Ot^»COCOCOOO
c^oqt^ooor--foo
"T ci o ci o" r>i uo CO*
CCiO — CDOIIOCICO
r- o_ r-. — ■ I-- -r — o
CD of »o o' o;' t^' rV as'
■og,
S ^ S H
go go ,
oi ^ w^.
o5 «
O rj
OCOMO-rEHf
164
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
a
H
x
>H
c»
Q
<
O
oi
>-
H
on
/,
m
D
OS
C
u
©
M
u.
o
M
>?^
u
D
^
•-S
Q
a
H
>^
Z
u
-<
ci
§
Ci^
>"
o
nJ
u.
-<
a
E^
Q
H
Z.
«
Cu
U
X!
b
M
te.
o
H
Z
u
1
_
CC
-r
^
1 .^
:^ :
_^
3: c:; •
^
^
1
csi I-- -r
I^
• Cl ■ •
-r -r CO
ib
10
e 1
06 ci 0
OC
06
' oi '
cj ci »d
•ra
oo'
H
CO -^
00
U3
00
C5
K
03 Oi
-r
o
»
•»
<:C> • • -
CO
„^ : : : :
^1
h3
o B
(M
Q^ ■ • -
05
co>o : : ; :
05
cc ; ; ;
o»o . . . .
03
t--
--M : : ; :
•0
S
o <
-^ . . .
■^
t>r • . • •
rC
SC
s:
„ . . . .
CO
g
H
e© - • •
t«
^ : : ; :
«»
H
— DC CC t- = O
1^0
CO
^ OCOOO-^-O
coco r^
-5 :
0
W5 10 W C^ CC -^
T-Oi^
S5
o
z
OC C^ X ci -r ci
~^
t^
■^
ci ^ t^ r-^ c^ d-.
0 iOCC
£ ;
0
-r Ci :o -M ^ O
(M
s
m'" £:
cc c^ o »o c^
cc
i^
0
S_c;_o2toio
1— ' -^ -^
Oi
o_
-<
g
■-^ O Of
c; — ■—" O)"
-r'
^'
0 "
COCD^'
'^ ;
05
W
99
««
«»
o
J
>
c
•<
■^
^
= : :
0
o
■0
S •
K
iC
63
H
■ lO
IT
■rt :
z:
o
t- o
:«=
to
C
§H
CO
H z
b:
p a
(S
■ a&
«^
e© ■
««
_
Tl
P
3 «
_
H
Z
u
P5
; 1
CO
■ cso
c^
»o ■
c^
CO •* ■ C5 CC05
-h»oo
0
1^
«
>o
- (?o<£;
r-
t*- -
o-
-3-0 -OiC-JOi
OCOCC
CO
ss
^
■ 0 ^
oc
c-a
00 : c-i t-; -r
-^ cJ 0
0
10
■ cc
— CT C —
cD»CiO
oc
cu
=0 :
t>-
C^ . IM
0;
B.
-^
tc
e
CQ
1 ■
€^
c© j e«
«»
§1
tn
00
-;
CO
CO •
■^
to
^-rc^-r
-- »o o»
0
m
<M CO
10 .
U"
cooc c:
OC'
r^ C^
(^
-^'
M
IT
CO
■ "0^0
lOt-ci
00" ;
0
ro c^i
ir
sO
a
c
: CO cc
— "X.
gg
GC
oc
s
(M
M-=
a»
^
> S&
1^
to
^ 2
-00
\r
»o
:^
c
0 ■ —
oc
g£
c
to
CO
! =*3
^
■ oi
(3-
0 : »fi
•0
06
t^
CD
. CO
^
0
; 1-^
CN
c
. 1
I--
»o
--
Ci. &3
0
1
"*
(i; &
et,
■ «©
w
» ee
«»
00
; ,^
^
CN
- '-:rcc
=0 -co
00
00
o;
"5
■ ^-
»f
0
1 •
oc ■ T-f^
W3
: : CO* cc
^
'. c;
. . «:: -^
OS
XI
^.
■ ^-
'-^
K
0
t^
H
^
-<
s
C«
^
• «#
«» 1
1
o
c
5 0
lo 0
0 -0
0
■^
1 -^
0 iC
c^
^'
c
i 'T
■ ' 'T 0
0 ; ci
00
O •<
o
c
iiOOJ
a 5
«
If
3 i-_
a: ; —
OS
K a
c
CQ
a z
^^
«•
e^
% «^
««
|g
^H -o
c
^ 0
T. '■ -Oi
00
go. -t
0
1- 00
0 ■ - 10
OS
3 c
c
a -<
oco :''
5 -a-o :
K a
==--0 ■
0" t-To* ; ;
t^
& e^ ■ -
«5
— — to t^ -r >f
3 Ci
5t^ -^us
D ^ CC COC! OO C
2 CD CD t^ aco
00
^. '"^ "". ^ '^ ^
5 ^
3'^^ CQ CO
3 COOO — 00 >Ot-
!—''*•—_ ^ ^
CO
uD ^' (ri ui ^ i>
i 31
•, ^ ^ CO
-I CQ M CJ 05 CO t-
- cc <m' 10 »o -n^
id
^ 10 ^ tc ic r-
C
t cc ^ cr;
c
3 — OO CO 0 (M
c^oicct -
1 3C CO CO
0 co>nt^QC oc(>
J -^ c; cr ^ M
^
- iC 'TJ"
3 <m"o"t"co"ci
ro'co'co »r3-r
«.
c
1
* 1 -
1 **
0 tc C5 e-j 00 «■
5 C
50 T «3CD -^
c
■5 t~Qomoo-fcj
5 '^'OCS OOOC (N
r^
— CM « -1- 00 •!
3 C
^-TT (MOCI^ -T
■5 t~ 00 c«j C5 r- -
CO CO »o Oi c^ »c
00
^
oc oc c>i iri cc c
i ^
^ IE 0* C; Cl' C;
0 t^ r-I t-I M »o ^
ci om'og 10 OS »n
"^
»C "5 CC CC CC 2(
S — <MO COCCC
1 OC' 0 — 0 00 oc
g
ooc=!C — — ;:
: c
; "M ZC CO C-
1 ^
0 U3c= r-.-f_-r c
- 0 CO CO — ^^ -rr
■^
0 -T '^^^-^
1 ^
" ^'*^'"^' *^^'" a-
1^
H
6
e e«
»
. . ^^ . .
c
■^
?3
' 5P
c3 -3
— C
: rt
' 5?
; : H
J
0
• C;
>H
bJ]
:'>
■ ■ C c.
-3
M
•'•B
0 .0 0^
- bC
:t3
^l&
;2
^.1 §
;-o
t: E.|gi
SrTll-
L
— - 0
>
c3
1 0
= -0
i l.lll
iJMl
Pi 3 a s « ,
■ mj= " = C^.S
- H c c c 0 c.'
^ c 0 i> a; 2
1 i i 2 0
•* c
S £ £ S £ fc
h:; c c : c ;,■
-3; c i c ^ E
U g = H Ht;
c
i_
Is
:l
£ >
^ c
H
H
-■f'-ri'^oSo"
^j'ai-i1^ ''^£ "
'S'rt ' H :t ' p
E ' -^
i^^> =^wfS
'5 r: '^ ' r3 £j
;
s:
^2
S-
:;-:
cS
h;^
s
:ss;5£:
HO
ss
t-
sp
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
165
s
d
ai
CO
OC
i
CO
-p
'*
S
t^
s
OO
«o
o
OC
»3
CD
1
CM
1
OO
CO
S 28,979.33
3,977.32
215.49
6,442.76
CO CO
CO -r
QOCO
CD
00»O00'-HiOO COOO
03 CD -r Cvi OO (M ^ I-- CD
-t^ OJ O CO O C^ 00 —" I^
-r c>i CO t^ oi lO »o
CO CS 05 lO CD OC C^.
CO ci CO •-^'
o
cH
o
o
CO
o
o
>o_
O
o
o
co"
99
1
$ 369.43
10.25
o
S§
OS
00
CO
— it^CO
(r<iooj
05
CO
00
OiOO
o
a-
o
o
CO
CO
CD
(MO iO
COO 05
1- C^l o
00
1
to
aq
i
en
r-.CC lO
CO Oi
<»
o
03_
■^00 <3
lOCM o
— C-J lO
CO
o
o
-^
s
«»
o
1
CO
o
o
00
i
'T CO
o
OiO
□OO
— 'O
-r o;
oo'o
Oi
00
CO
$ 70,008.84
19,728.58
447.58
39,920.09
--CD O lO
.^' OC 1^ CO
OO-f CO
O OO »«
o
o -f CO r^ '— 1 o 00 oi lO OO
r-0iCSlCD<M01 t-^io^ -i^
<X5 — ' r-^ r-I r-I r- — ^ o co' lO
*ci t-- M CO -r OO CM -t" 40 CO
OO fM' ■^ Co' Co' Co' Co' O'
o'
o
S 125,740.14
76,759.78
1,226.99
57,976.56
99.84
11,862.30
16,228.77
23,567.10
6.75
28,669.57
OO
TO
MiCOit^^OO COCMIO OOCD-^ OO
1— ' CO OO CO 00 CO 03 1^-^ TT CD CO W3
ic o^ c^i 1— « CO 00 Oi OO <— 1 uri »o lO »c
uocoiocM^co ooci coCMt^ r^
io-fOD-rcoo-1 ^— H^ c^ OO o
-r co' <>]*" CO »c odod o" c<r i>^
Si
K a
i
3
1
i
c
2
•i
'>
•3
c
=4
."2
s >
s
./5
3
.2 1
11
-2:5 >
8 °.i
cj-a t
■|>"
c
c
■"£
c
>
c
c
C
-a
S
>
■2
's
""o <
b
S- -
o 1
c
)
b
■<
c
c
1
C
C
C
c
1
c
c
1
c
I-
c
1
t
'5
c
-a
1
'o
c >
II
1 =
c
c
-1
c
c
i
>
c
X.
"c
1
-a
3
.2 a
-2:5 >
S °.t:
-a ^^
- o-^
111
.1
e
%
c
c
c
_c.
, I
t-
c
~3
-a
5
>
■=
' 3
-a
03
|i
■<
o
166
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
r* oo
Z \2
o
u
o
eo
b
o
a
i—i
;_,
<-i
Z
(— >
<
a
Ed
a
z
Z
u
<
K
»—
■<
*-:
u
OS
>^
O
^
b
■<
GC
Ed
^-.
H
z
On
o
?<
tUl
U
i
z
&
a.
X
z
-«:
IS
O
a
z
C
1
1
ui
cc: c;
=5
1
Ice
c;
cc
c
§
:oc 00
;-i in
00
II
00
CO_
cc ■
o •
c :
cc
e© -
o
i
E-
r-. Z
•^ o cr
oi oc cc -r M oc oc re
o oc oo lie" re -r o CO
'^J »00 -r cc *>!<:=•
I- U2 ce I^ '— ' — t^
QC '
CO
S oc rC S ?j
c= C-. cc_ -r
coo
cc CJ
1 J-
i
o_
B
?:
O
li
m
Pi
a
h
Q
- X •
i
B
ci CO
re cc
oqcc
CC
1 -
O CC
oc
oc t~; CO CC S CC
cc
"3
O
od
s
B
li
sO
C3 <
1-^
oo
o
CK -r
— 5C
c
CO
oo
00
i
CO
o
CO
CO
cc
"5
CD
«o
CO
Gc"
o
CO
c^
CO
oc
00 cc
CO^
'— CO
CO
'"^
CO
CO
1^
!
oo
o
1^
co
ig
B a
1=
CO
Ci
o
ca
11
<
«
- Ci
»
o
in
lOO
coo
CJCD
CO cc
-rta
cqco
CO
CO
OS
OO
Salaiues,
Wages, and
Employees'
Benefits
OC CO o :o »c
CO oc 1-^ -ri -.
i~in ="cc— "
OO
CO
u5 CO ira — _ o
cc-r t^sr
ClO COI^ w
-f'lOiCci'
-r -r
I
CJ t^ OS cc
Ci 03 1^ 0-.
oo ~ oc -T
Scg"^ 5o
CO
CO
1
cousc^t^ooo cccc -r — 1^ Ci
en
1
cc r iO -M -r »o 1/3 CO cc -f co
CO — cococcco roo— ot~ CO
cc oc !3J O C-5 cc -T OC — ■ -P CO CC
cr.a-.c. "O I ' CO
-T C-. "O cc cc C-. =; co_ 0-. ira
co'^ri-'-Tco — 'lo' ai~ —
o
o'
E-
Z
z,
z
z"
K
5
= 1
h
21
3 :
- t
- 7
:'?
; a
■-^
£
I'c
■ :
.2 ^
3
5_:
1
-o :
5
J 1
'Z'c
C i
< >
H
5 1
3 ;
n 1
'■ i
3 :
i :
h
3.:
i £
3 !
3 "5
^
2 y
;'>
; 5
: '£
-a
S -a ;
ill
;"§''?
3 r '^^
H> 1
"2 ■
■ ^ :
■"2 '
5 « :
c i:
£ S !
.J
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 167
o
cr
is
to"
i
to
eo
*
1
00
$ 26,997.71
97.66
33.60
5,018.93
131.16
7,231.08
1,464.29
16.20
to
o
?3
o
ooo
to
to
i
CO
I-'
o
o
•rr
1
— 00
o
t~c>j cn-r —
to ci od in t~
•ra
QC
to
OCIO
2 1
o
in
e« 1 «<&
««
^'
oo S^
o
en
o
CO
oo"
e«&
— lO o
CO -H
OS
m
;o
en
to
TO
to
to
ta
^
o
W5
oo
8 49,,357.72
239.52
69.84
19,482.32
916.96
16,590.82
3,386.35
6.37
23,949.64
1,634.05
TO
-rf -;r -^ — C>^ lO CO OC
>o -^ lO oo
0&
S 155,453.01
362.76
144.55
36,431.18
7,621.74
52,090.76
7,848.79
606.50
23,949.64
7,733.79
25,.372.91
to
■^(Mt^CZJt-^ '*CO(M ''J'
K5-^^-,— (>] lOOCOC CO
M
«»
to
8f
;
1
1
'c
"c
c
1 a
c
c
'c
s
J
c
"5
1
i
M
-3
■>
o
5 ?
? is
£
c
.c
>
c
G
T
3
= i:
t.i
""2 =
i
o
' c
_5
1
M
3
o
>
■3
.5 2
<
g
z.s
gj
K T
II
1
c
I
s
1
f
'5
-a
1
2
t
3
-a
c
5 -J
1|
? 5
■S^i >
J
o
1
t
1
•a
1
73
<
<
Z
o
168
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
^
TS
pq
5
1— I
X
^
y.
o
W
M
ElI
;?:
p
1-9
Q
bS
Q
Z
Ed
CH
<
U
>H
nJ
<
c»
u
Q
(/!
Z.
Eb
&
Eb
»
S
Z
H
o
Hi4
tt
H
O
O
E&<
P
H
CO
Ed
;?;
P
O
H
o
Q
>i
^
Eh
u
o
0.
X!
Ed
o
Q
Z
<
oc
Cd
P
Z
Ed
>
Ed
«
E£.
O
H
Z
Ed
S
Ed
H
-J!
H
c«
-t" O; 00 OO
OO ^ CO lO
CO *0 >tM^ OS ^*0
I CD -^CO O O} i--
< g
« Ci C^IO o
00 CD *r3 CI t
Oi »0 CO
00 CD IC
iC^iCOi^MCCiCOcDcD
c>) c oo cc -r t->- oo Oi r-- o Oi -
cc CO -r o o oc -m' ^ Ti ci -^ ■•
CO o_ -r CO c^ co_ Ci_ c
t-T ^ »rs oc CD oT !
i lO t^ OC -M
ccf^-'Mc^'— com
C<I »0 05 C-l CO »o
CO n; t>- 00 Oi t~-
^ C5 CO W 1-^ (N*
O OO M OS Ol »o
1^ IM CO Oi 00 -t^
OO (M (M t-i CO lO
E- Z J
c tD =:
<
COCOOCOtoiOOOCl--.OCOCOCi
CO O O M o oc — — " —
ci ci o o* ci to'
oocooo»o-- . ,w-..--
^'~t'-l^.°^, "^'^'^.^. *'^'^' — CO - . __
T iC 00 CO t-^ ITS ' — »0 i/i UO ^ »0 CO
coo ic c*:-r-roii- lO
t-iwji-'.t-J^ond-T'OOcDCD
O 00' iO O CO O I— ■ CO O 00 -1^ Oi
cdco-rC5<M'cic:occico-rcD
USO^CDCOCOOlCOCOr^iCCMCO
— - - ""-■*■-" 1 — 0_ 00
: — ' c^r ^
^ o o o o
GO CI O oi O
iOcoo -r to
^^ ^ O CM^ 00_
;Sz
|:m
S K & ■<
K O Z E^
g 0. B!»
fi p< s
oo
? ^ ^ ^ CO o
3 CD O ^ O I^ Ci C
l<MCOC^C<I00 00 "M-—
OOC^'— oocoo
■ o o coo
• O O -T C
; C5 o -1- o
. t- d^J o
.■MC O CO
;«. E i-
B^i
B 5
J r° to M O c
jO H B ~ c
Q J d F B p
J- o
zo
« o g C- & o
Z mO go b;
5V t. H C H
<<;ocoooQfc,3:=:
z ^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
169
^
„
0;
CO
Ice
0
^
co
:
CO
COO -
tco
10
0
(3
10 ■
"? 1
ficd
oi 0"
\ti 00
06
■0
in
CO
CO
b|
00 r-
QO
« :
in
MOO
CO
§1
— 'iT'
re — ■"
^
00-
00
co" •
co"
CO 0; ■
CO
05
01
e„a3
-"
2
O
<«
«.
«•
€»
« :
«
0 0
0
c
00
0
0 -t>
^
S
o>o
UO
C-JCO
in
^ 0
0;
0 oi
co^^
0
0 to
0 t^
60
K _
^
0 t^
t^
T t^
K £?
GO — '
o"co"
oo't-T
to'
o
E-.-^
;!;
(M -^
to
I^(M
0
^ g
^
«»
«»
«»
«»
e»
9%
^2
0
t^
t^
0
0
0
t- n*
K=f3
0
0
0
0
<M t^
0
Q W
«:
o"
cJto
Z B
85 1
0
0
W3
05 t^
as s
I:^
0
0
IC
m
TUi
o_
Z
co'
CO
1^
0*
too'
t- o
to
to Ol
I-.-
g«
M»2
^
"
in
o
e«
6»
«»
a»
«»
w
o
(^
,_,
_
0
0
0
OiOO
OS
lO
(M
t^
0
0
0
®!CO
0
CO
«
ui
CO
\l
CD
0<M
■n
^
OJCO
'^
CO
cs
0"
0"
c*o
c-i
-Cto'
-^
^S,
0
05
M
f>l
—
'^
"^
"■■
«^
«%
o»
««
^
«.
z
OD
00 CD
CO
>o
000000
0
UOCC
^
o
lO
^ CO
05
C£
000000
0
tO<M
Oi
H m
W5
ca CO
0 o' 0' o' 0 uo
«
00 CO
O Q
lO
Oi
to t^
■^
& z
„fe z
W3 05
cr.
0
oooooS
•-
in
b; d
g «I <
oT
co' lO
CO
0' 0' 0 0' 0' T-^
--H-CO-
gfe
-r ^
-r
00000 10
>fl
05 en
o s *-3
-r
t^ <M
cccc
^
uo
(m"
^
CO
-1""
»»
<A
•»
e«&
««
6I«
oo
"co
10
0000
CO
to
--. r^
to
"a
r^
0000
^
tsr~
E -,
^
&
t^
Ci
0000
ui
ir
cot^
r-H
O Q
ID Z
1:0
^
0:
Kg
; c^
0 c> 0 0
C<)
t^ t^
05
og'
o"i--^t>rcD
t-
si'oo'
^*"
Hp3
0;
^
OCDtOtO
00
00
000
gQ
t^
CQ
•^
iotqco_to
o_
U5
--H b-.
CD
;!
t^
t>-'
eg
33
^
w
«>«»»
«
«r»
««
so -—1 0 0: CD OS 0
^
10—.
^
0 r^ CO CO CD CO oi
CO
^~~^S^Sc:^-T ~~
— 'C
0-
CO »o
0 00 0 aJ CO 10 0
<M_ 0_ cO_ CD^ m CC 05
h-
= 55£5£££5g Sjgi^
c^
us
oi
CO_
CO '-- CD -^" »0 CO' l>-
o'tCr^";e'o"o"oo"o'od o"o'o'io
•^l~.
1
H
0 mtOtOO 00 00 CO OS<MC-)-3<
0_ ^ ^ CO^ CO
iOCDcDCC-P-fCOCOCOOO_ rt
0 10
05 CO
«f»
«e
e©
«^
e9.-i
««
53
-a
c
,0
a
g
M
pa
c
.2
.S?
.1
3
3
'C
-g
0
>.
rg
3
&
3
cu
"w
■ 3
^
0
0
8 §
J
3 »- ^
!«
c -S
J3
a 3 E 0 £
Ml
.11
1?
"P
fefe S"*" M
>j
'S
C
3
0
a
c
'>
1^
■ S.S-S w =«
mil
000 gOT
£ £ s; « 1
1
-a
0
-0
■ c ^
■ 0 0
1
>
5'f
>
-a
JO
;t
^ 0
1^
0
. u
g
■1^
■ c
3
St-
C
z
il
^ 3
1
>
M
■3
_3
C9 oi cS c«2
;-£°.|
p:
iiiiiiiiii
i-Bs-g"^
(i
-g —
§
■S-S-S-S oi
t
c
: 1 -" M 3
C
X
i
0
Ililli^lJ
Z -S -5 •^ -" t- 03 C 0 ^
g fe fe S 0 S > £:f^i
l|llll|ll|li|.rll =
2 >>
33
3
g&K.£.S,S.S.g.S.£SJt>,^g;H£
(S 1
C
E ^ 1 .1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 II i fe -^ ^ i
12
"5
ca
go.p-ft^e-<; Ph 2
s s
i
1 «
H
fe
C
c
1^
S 3
170
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
<
t3
u
-c
cc
w
_
Ed
m
K
h-
H
X
X
o
M
U'
tb
Ui
a
Z
ac
H
O
w
Q
H
Z
Z
-<
S
Z
O
z
^00
■<
^S
Q
Q'"
z
P©
Pec
U.
^H
z
H
Hr^
-<
PU
oa
Clh
ft,Z
o
Q
Z
<
CO OS
z
O
o
^
H
z
^
l-H
z
H
o
03
z
o
On
O
1— (
u
^^
-'I'
H
a:
a
Z
CM
u
tb
O
o
H
Z
H
H
- 5 D
o ^c^
^H ITS
l^ ^H
o ^
q o o
T3;r.i-S J
s = = £ >.
1 >
■a e; "^^cn.S
9 ~ o s::j S
Pi t-S =^ =
g.S ? 3 :
c3.i'— X
;s:^-^
■^ =
5= s'is
iMX-i
! £ ^' = -£.1 i =1-2 '
CO ^,c<»^
'— I .-- CO CD
r-,
>
=
O
S
s
P
3
^
"ti
w
1<
C«
1
-g
■?,«
3
3
o-o
>
Qi
5
CL
;OS = £-^^--2^2
= "— X X '^ ■— i! = s
■D = =iu= 5* 2"^ 5 ^
U.H o ►:; a
^'g'S^'SS^ _
Q "m 4l -e ."^ c ■
03 =«
S S
:S"
.Hse
o
7=1
^
^?
20
s
f^
C
s'o
c 1
"c
5
fi
H =
■SO
^
g E
J °
c
^
J
pa
tl
D.
ST
P^Q
Q
cC
— .2 .£
O OO O
o o oo o o
>o
toco
2
CO
<
<
pq«
cas5
«
ffl
'r X! X!
s s S2 s :g s
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
171
00 ic oo Qo as
OS OC iM
-c/5 £
^ OC3
Go o
M c 2
.S3
eS 0~^ O
S; mK.S
I'll
g-H is
c 3'-§
cms-
> 2 ,
I "is
■"■a S
la's
« -^ a; ^ « dj I
03 2 ojQ 2 -ffl
fE«
g g M o cai3
o ts C — ^ — I-,
^c„ 3C-J i-.= u^
o o
■a—So
;o §^
§ £^'^.:h
-O 03
3= s^M 5-2.2
o s 2:
O 0-" m-— oo^. I
►^ h^ O
;E raK
c c o o o
-i 3j: xi
>^ X XI ><
S "
03 ^
bp bp^bC c
- 5^ >
;cc
Ph fc fe fe & a.S !u
c > ^ S _
•j;'?.-^ c bi ° o o ?.=
J a o bo-^-ars-^:^^ i= S
= = &.= = > g>-|"^ 21?
" "• ^ O O o O'E g br ^
'£ 3.2'S
Ei S M " O.OOoJ!'mbDg>>
i 2;i g^s s g S'3i|'i gs
-O, >..S
■^ m 2 S 2
CO S K
S 3 & a'H'b
oi o o g.S «
172
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
2
5
X
Z.
e
H ^
Z H
(^
cs -
a g cc
=^ H 2
^««
&. a D
r, ^ z
X H r
C F- J
!/2 H ^T;
Z Q g
oz ^
^ Q
^ i ^
^ f- O
z 5 aa
Z CO O
S £ z
a: "^ J
. H a
cc 0. «
a '^ ^
S X g
&- a 2
2 55 -*
z Q
H Z OS
^ ^ S
X fc- M
W , O
c ^ o
z z
H -
^S
Q
Ed
Z
i
g
S z
z c
-^^
z
00
oooo
^
— cc
c»
o
^
o
o
t^
fc ^ m
M
00 oi
CO
C^iO
«^
•^
■^
z§i
III
CO^
OS
00 S^
«;
^
CO
Oi"
o
Q
«»
03
»
<M
t>-
CO
CD
o
lO
o
cc
O
CC
as'S
^^
'"'
s
ee
«»
Q ,
Z •t:
to Z
5 -
H O
ii
a^
<
B
W-3'CC
— .oo-^-to
ost^o
— '(M
o
-r
^
O
z
CMO —
— occo
IOU5
o
-r c4 CO
TOI>J0C-T
oi CO c^
-r CO
^
t^
05
t^^QO
O -r
OS
"^
c^ oot^
(MO QO —
t-o
coo
o
CM
1«
lO
ro to-
C^J Ol
—Tic
-r
ci"
(s^
zfc.
cc
re
»o
<
s
««
M
z
O O OS C^J
oot^ — OtO
cC(Me-)
2^
s ^^
o
O
o
z E
oj -j"fr r^
CO -r ,— i^ c^
O cr. C5
lOO '-^oi
to c<i ci c»o c;
t^COO
f^
CO —
ci
^
— ceo oc
oo: to-r -r
— CO OC'
— o
o
»M CCC^I -C
— o:c;"5-r
04 00
c
z
^' rc r 'T — '
r-'o" "O
CO oc
CO*
coco
^
wi
C z
o
O
-TGC
o
«»
M cc c4
r^
o
z
oo
o win
coco
CO
c^
<
eg
J
©»
N
oc «}00
COO
■^
coo
t^
•^
CC
NSJc-i
oioc
^
uid
»o
*r
Cu
Ed
^
CO 50 —
CO CO
CO 00
CO
CO
°v
"5
-r
— o
O
Z
^^
cf
?>.'*-*"
o"
3
cc
c
z
c
CO
*<
«»
«•
z
o
f-is-
iO
«
u
^ O =1
■^
o
go —
o
c:
S „ =
c;
OS
s
0. H-o
-r"
•^
z
o
III
CO
»o
ta
.J
6(»
^
b:
O — t-MO — OOccocOiOro
ceo MO
t^CJ
cccc c
iO 1
z
■<
»ocDC:-r'^ir--c:oc»/3'r-ru5c^i
^ o o; o_
com
looou:
K _
-r — ' uD-r
M 00
ci w oc
B^
OC' I-^ CO CO
cqoo
0<N0
0:>
C
Z
<
^ CD cc
-H^<N
■^
Eg "^
— T— * — " — ' o" CO
.-^ c^T'^*"
=°;
eo"
O =3
»
•^
e^S
tf
z^
*»
si
— «3
2
£ 2
-rc^':^ioc>r — co-r^•^^J-r-rccc
lO U7 — CO
CO 03
OOC^QC
i>-
e- B
ccoco
£ ^
cc c: ~^ ~ ■^" r^" I ~ v: — ' I - — "M ic —
— ; — " ^j i^
coim'
o -r o
^
lO-r
en CO -r
H H
-r w
OO c^ cc
2 0.
<
r^-T ci ut" x" -T o' t~ — " -^j* c:'i^' -r o'd'^j i^'rC
•^lO"
O*^*0C
00
I>3 &c3
tn N
(M
r
w
CC
CO
COMSCiQCCCC^-rOCt^OCl-rt— CCWSCO-rC^lCCiCQCcDOOiOC
»o-:r«c; — coooc^cocic;cc'^^t^occ^icccr---roct^iow;
^
oslC^l^■^■x'-T-rr^c^oc<i-r^^O'— ccooco»oioc>JiC"TiC<x
o
«^
g
H
re cc QC cc c^ iC cc — -r ac c^ <m C:_ c^i_ --. ^_ «:. c^. O — O c^) m cc c: oc
en
-r oc — 3c" 3c" ic cT t-^ QC — — ' t-^ -r oc ci" <:m" ctT -r* %ri cT cT cT -r ^' o' oc
cccr. <Mic •^Jacio-ri'-ciocc-j-Occcno-rccoiCMOcc-f-T
CO
^ r-^
05
«»
e»
c
i
o
Im
o
ll
c
>
J
S.s
.St
'5
5-a.2 S •"
J
SS
1
■a a™
'^
1
.1
y
2 c-x « —
111 11
1
o
O \
a:.=
1 =
be a
■il
'3
1
=° It; 1 S = § 1 1 1
D
g 'k '^C C;:5<;^Ki'7:x^KC5t£:s';ri:SKHHHKwc^
c
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 173
• t^ (M 00 CO O
CD -rr iC rr CO ■^ c
CD 05 O O »— CD r
•— ' Oi CT: r^ o; i— r^
>-• CSJ .— - t-* kO CO PO
OS Oi »C -^ Wp t>- CO
•M Oi •?" 00 O Oi CO
i '— Oi »0 O OJ
CJi CD CI CD O -f »0
»o CD c;_o; 00 c CD
) 00 CO -^tO CO CO
D Cq Tf CO *0 CO -^
CO — — .CM — — '
— CD
CD CO__
CD CM
CO CD
CO r^
01 —
— co^
CO CD
CO — Ot — 00 ■
Tf 06 oi 06 wi Oi
'* ' -->os -r L
^ — CM -f
»o ^- r^ 10 OS -r r
QC -f U5 Oi 10 CD CTi
>iO Oi O OC CM t-- OS
CD CO M-' CO =D CO OS
I>- 00 CO O CO 1— I t"
CM CD CM CD CO CD t-
CO CM — CD O' 00 CO
O »0 TJ- Ol -^ CD t^
CM CO CO CM -f CM CM
-^ I
00 CM CD O CM »0 "^
t^ oq CO CM o t^ —
—* CD ^ O" Cp CD -^
'^"^ ~
I- GC '_
OS CD CD lO »0 O — >
cm'— — CM''-H'—^
-0 -— CM OSO
" ~ 1 OS O CO CD
- GC CO *0 Oi 00 C
00 O
CO -r
QO'co'
03 00 CM I
O C^ ^
— Co" OS
OS — CM
cd' »o oT
•^ CO CM
CO CO ^
j ««
— CM CM
c<i — CO
00 OS 00
CO CM OS
OS — b-
O c^ CD
O OS -h"
— T-Tos"
p OCD
«5 cm'
^^os
in ?^ ^-
.1 e
■a g^
= C3
2QQQQQQO
z <;
< f-
^ a
2 £
B 2
C a
00 c ■"
HZ H
^.i
a 5;
3 § C 3
174
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
o
3
K
X
CO
\^.
a
Oh
IX! 00
'"^ OS
-<
«
o
td
'a^,
U
a
>^
o
Q
<
Q
a
^;
>
u
H^
H
«
-<
-<
«
Ed
H
kH
CT
hJ
;«^
^
1— 1
02
Q
b.
-<
Ui
o
Ed
O
W
H
<!
H
c«
J d 1
^
^^
J^
CM
^
=
_
CO
00
_
occ
UO
_
oq
^
J^
O)
'V^
CO
o
1
lO
to -< f- 1
Sac
c
-TCMi-c: xir^-T-r*rjC3
O CO
o
CO lO
o:
^i'^-
co^:
CM r - -r :z:" "' x' »c' iri C: -f"
CO ^
lO
-rr (M
oo
c^
OJ 00
CO
o c^icc«i^c:-^ — cc-r
Oll^
CO
CC «M
o'
'MO
OO
« < B
H Qi U
o_
c;
■^ _^^^j ^^,, ,-^ ^ ^ ^
o=
cO_
COC-J
— '
'rf
t- H -
-+
<: z >
K
•5 S e
«^
&@'
»
t-^
to
QO •
o
rt
t--
<M.
CO •
o ;
o
c:
co
'"'
■c c
OJ z
e%
^
coos
oc
r-cct^oc3s05coo»ccocDr--— H
O)
col-
CM
CO
m«
^
0!C<I
r>.
^ CM 1-- !>. -^^ CM ^^ ^ O OO •— Oq iO
ds 00 t^
lO
—
^ «r
ir
OT ^ ^ ^ -t; 00* CM r^i -h' -f' ai d^ o
c=:
IOCS
csj
^_
o o
Tt^'
CMWicoiocMcr. cccDcmraccccus
O 00 lO
S "z.
c^ »o
COCMOCl'TlCOiOl-rOCOiOCC
CO
CM_Cft CO
o:
(M CO
Oi
CC
o -r — * oi oc "' o" — ' oi »o in"
CC'CO'
CO
C<)
CM
o
«&
5
OC'
oc
— l^-fC
ocococo
"~03
CO
OJ
CM
C^
o6
CD
IGHT, He,
Power,
AND
Water
>o
— lO oi 00
^O-T CD
CO
cm"
I^OCOO
OC'
:o
(M C<) CO O
O
"^
-r CQ CO
C-J
!2
i>r
^
e©
(^
-a?
=-a«>
CCCM OOOICCM
CO e;
C 00 •
c^o c
_^
-co
»o
g 1 £
CM r- O CO — CM
c»"ra
OS OO CC
c:: 1-
-t
— t-" t^ ,-^ r-J t^ iO
-^J r~I
-r CO
CO -r r-
CO
C^ CO
id
o tr ^ — uTMO
CO cr^
o
-1
-rio'
S" ■
t- CO
ui
o"
c*-
Oh E 3
&H2q
99
^
.
ooo
c
lOt^CMC^-^CO — tOOSOCOiCDCV^
o
— OS c-
_
CO OS
^
i -g
Sago
O CC
o
t^
COO -»
o
I--
lO —
o 00 CC o oi id r^ CO tri CC CC CC CC
If
— CO C^
c-
I^ t -
cc
o -^
^co-*»o-rccooc:oooc— -fcc
lO CO CC
CM
3 t--a:*owtil:^0'— '-rc-^CMcc-r
cooa
■^
iai«
CC c^f
5 CI '*m' tC -r — f' cT 'nT '"^■T -r c^*" o' "^^ '— '
CC
o"co'
c*-
r-TfM'
CD
' „ f^^ „- t^ " — »b
^ hS
e«&
e©
coc
5 O
O lOODCO
inc c t^o N
c
>oo c
o
oo
"co"
fc. ,„- E-
CO ^
CC C5 »C -^
oc lo lo f 00 r-.
h- ^. "^ c^
cr
— OS
1— «
= o S
J e z - S
t^ ^
ci r^ * o «d o6
OS
r-
CC
t-wi oi lO
-r r^ CO oi *t^
— o
CO CO CO
o
^ ^; ^ Q S
z-3 ri < E
'N -— '
c
V ^
'^.t.^''^
C-) 0-. C^l >c
""
oo 00_
00
— " iC •—
B & C?
fis m w
««
^
c^co
OS
cMoscMi— o»ocrs»occt-^>o
coo —
-i< — O
CM
C to
ct: cq
o
■i -^
l>.cD-rCMCOCCCMCCO^-T;
COOO C
00 co-
z a
c o
\ CC
^ td -j^ CO "' CM '-^ c^j u:s CD id
Cc" CO Tf' T-
o —
CO
«i
OCMiccicnocaiCM-fOcc
o r-
i^ c:
r- GCi
OlCi — CCCi — CMCMGCr--
OS_CO_ O
co — CO
>ra
> fcj
CC cm' CO CO lO CD
-co' CS
os"
lO
«^
ea
Ci o
3 CDCDtCr--— CCOClCMCOr-OO
_,
CO CO oc Cv
x-r
~^
H ffi
CO 00
-ri^-^occ^cM'— -TOO — cr-cs
c
— CO o oc
00 -^
o
Z £ B
^ CO
j t-; ci t^ CO id o to — ' *d CC o o CC
Cs
C^ co" -I' CO OS —
•o
c <; „ o
; CC CC O CM lO -f CM »0 CC O 1- IC O
I^IO t^
c
»i5
0:_'0
r^ -r CO lO CO t-
CO
— "-r"
c
.- ^ coO'M'co-^--r-"- cc--
Oio
"
-
-"
oo
Ha ^
r-r-
ff^
»B
z _ z
co =
"T
- CC
-rcMcDc;-r'ccot--ccoor-
C^
>o=>
0 c
CO 115 -r
"oo"
ON
JTIO
CIAl
ITY
JTIO
CO (^J
to
lo — ccr^ — ccrr^ioooo
CO CO c^
O — C-J
cot^
■5 CM
JV-' -^' U-; -V — ■ — * —' ir< I ^ cr c^
t^
— -
CO O O 1^
—
— CO
CC oc. oj CI ir IT- — -^ 9 oc id
-T
-P OO C3S c
oco
K S 9 g 5
COC
c
r CD
-r c^_t~
Q0_^
z soj e S
co'>o
■f <— *"
o id oj" c: a:* — ' 1 - CD c) r-' -^f
IT
O OS*" c^
o c>fco'
^
ea (S — o b;
CO ^ »0 -r -r I-- 1-^
t^(M
lO
o -< o
C- O
e^
«^
Ol CO
~T
--
— cDc^jccr^c^ic^r^r^^ticD
t'
t^oo -
O t 1
^
AY FOR
CATION,
'K, AND
)ther
jEAVE
cr.cr.
r CC
5 U5 OS OS
00
c
CO o t^ -r" o6 00 c<i oi oc CM ^"
oo'o
r- CD
00
S CO c
<1 Tt^ —
- CO CM
I^
r o
t-- CO OO^O 0_ «__CO CM_ 00 CC_ 05_
C^
T— CO lO CO CO r—
CO
::" — *"
'^ id" cm' CM CO cm" ^ Oi" CD CD Cc'
-T
o'o" o
CO co-a<
CO
— —
rr^cDio^iO ccoC'
cr. CO
00
I^
->x
^©
69
Oi»0
3 CD
CMCDCD^^OOSl>-l>-"OlOC
J,
5 (M 1^ lO ^
H C3SIO
o
c
"^c<io;cDcor>-iocMOoct^
r-
- -r ^. '-^ '^ ^ ^
^
COO
j oor-^ '-
t-^
5g§
i 2 -<
c
-TfOCDCCCCQO-rCMOOiO
1 coc
o
o^
c
rj CC
r-c^icooicociooo^cnt^t^
s oo -
■< oo >0 O CO
OS
t-^o
c
■i" »—'
CC t-T id" CC -^■' id" -t' oi" CC CC cm
cr
s" co"oo ir
3 ira I- --f
OO
-rio
c
oi — -roscM^r^cMioccco
J occ
OC' CC' CO
CM " -H --I CM
o_.
CQ
^
6%
-f -t-
oi <M CC cvj CC -^ c*:> o -r ci CD Oi 00 to
^
3 COO
,
in oo
CM
^ 0-— cocot•^o»ocMO^oo^-^-
OI
7i O
J
O oi
CO oi -t- oc r^ OS CO c-i r-I c^i ic o CC '-^
CO
<XsO
-r CM-Tocoowsiccspoicocccn^csi
c
S OOl
o
oc -r
lO t^ cr: *C f lO CM CC »o C<J OJ t^ CC ^
O ^ O CD oo
t-Zzd
'? »ooc»ooooc^coot^ — OCOC^l
t;
s" oc'o" to ^
— . 00
'«r
H
t^ c:
CO CM oc "O •* lo a; o cooc — CO
t^
c^ -r " CC CM CM" -r »o —
CO
"Tji"
1 '^
S»
■ a
cd
■ 3
• ' ■ I' c
'■ >,
'. ^
z
• c
!.9
li "*
: S
-.2
i
T3
■ ^
■ 3
•^
bt
3
■-a
■ 5
:_5
■ 3
■*c^
:"«
:_c'
■ >
o
>
5
.J
B'=
<
1
o
H
o
■;2
■ 1
■ c: 0
' o c
IP
■T3
■J
i!3 :jJl
ioi c3_.t i^
3:^rXHj«Op:
3
- £
■.►3
- 03 S
1
2"°
sis
:;o c
1?
S 2 =
;'Xi
, i
3 = j
• 1
: M
-.la
: 1
O
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 175
*+
00
os-r
OS
in
^
CO
_^
00 -a< — t^ CD 03 t~
CO
0 06 CO >o OS <^^■ —
in
OS
CO CO U5 (M 0 r^ Qo
0
00 05 t^ -^ 00 CSI OS
CO
CO "m" '-h' (m' •— ' ^
ir:
OS*
-
in
^
^
e«
0 <^qtMO•ra-f 0
CO
CO 1
•S' oococo-r— 'u:to5
C=
r-; 1
CO oi CO c-i CO 0 c^
u-i
CO
T-H 0 t^ (M_ (M O) -^
0:
QOC^ — CO<MCO
CM
0"
6f9
99
»
00 00 ■* t^ CO ^ (M
CO
OS
CO »« CO c<) CO ^ c<;
t-^ 0" 0 0 06 C^i cm'
^
CO
-H 00 00 CO ^ -t- CO
OS CM_0_-<_-5-_— _03
oc
l^
""""'"
2
CM
51©
e«
1
CD CK ira 00 10 CM <M
,^
C3S 1
in I^ CD T- CD « 00
r-
cm" CO CM in CD 0 CO
t^
0"
^ CO lO-T t- 10 CM
co'
«.
«^
1
coior — f ir5:350
CO
-II
CO IC 0 CM_ CM t^ OS
00 1
^ 10 CO CO CM -f" 06
^ CD •— — CM 00 CO
oc
OS 1
0"
*9
«.
^
C<l 00 CD CO CM OS CI
10
CM 1
1^ 00 0 (^ CM CM CO
■^ 1
0 -: -: r-; -* CO M<"
cd
0
— CO t^ CO -^ t- 00
-^^ CM m CO CM lO c-j
CC
0
t--' cm' o' 00" -r c" r-"
0'
tC
~~
'^"'
CO 1
«
e©
W
0 0 coco 0 »nic
CO
cm
in ^ CO OS r-. CM 00
t^
0 t^ CD -^ r^ CO -^
^
CO
-t< 0 OS 00 0 in CM
C3S CO 'tT CM t^ CO
~^
CO
CM co-
03
t-"
se
©&
e©
00 in — in CM — 0
^
^t^
CD r-. CO Qo in -f ^
cc
cs
t>^ -p cm' 06 OS in —
0
OS in T 00 c^i CO in
CO
OS i^t- — o_i^ 00
CN
00_
^
''
f^
«©
e©
t^ OS OS CO OS CO CM
CM
00
t^ in -r t^ CM 00 r~;
t 1
06 in CD -r in -^ CO
OS
-r I
OS CO in -t^ — CM in
in
t--3- 00 ao^ CO CO
^r
OC
-^)■■'odoco"odos"cD■
in
co"
e«
€«
*ll
— 00 — .-^ r^ '-H CO
in
CO 1
in •— t^ 0 t^ OS 00
cjs I-; 00 OS 1-; t~: CD
cc
06
00
u:
in — "!>.■ o' co' co' co'
t^
<M* 1
-:f< OS 00 00 CM 1^ t^
in
2^
c«
e©
^
0 0 0 CM I^ 0 CO
CM
i CO
C^
0
— cm' r-^ 06 — CO OS
<rt^
CO
cocM oinosoo —
^
CM 00 — — t^I^CM
CD OS Cm'~ CD — oT OS
ir.
00'
in 0 CM c- CO 00 OS
— — — —
t~
in
^
09
S
0 CM coomcMO
in
in CO CM — CO CO 'rJH
c^
CO 10 CM — CO in —
OS 0 — t^ 0 0 OS
-^OSOCOOO — OS
>".
^' cm' CD I-" co' cm' —
r^
0 1
00 CM 0 00 CM 00 00
^ 1
€^
as
^ \
CM ^ CO CO OS in CO
1- 1
CM 0 00 0 0 CM_ ci:
-r ;
— CM CO c^i CM CO -r
oi
CO 0 — CD CO CD CM
CM t^ t^ CM 0 00 C^
c
-if -P CO CJs' 0' cm" CM
c
-1"' '1
0 CO Tt< OS in t^ 0!
CD
^
e^
«©
ll
z
0
•-
S — CMco-rincot^
!-
>666666c
Qg;2:zz;:«2;2
hi
g.SS.S.2.SS.2.2.2
eSqqqqqqc
■<
t-H
b
0
H
03
a:
CO -- i— I '-'
0
^
©©
^ »or*os ccf-i
sg
0 I^ -^ 00 (M I-H
a, >
B K
-Tt^ 10
rt B
«^
B J Z
CO r--^ -t^ CD as
E a i*
0-= J
<;
J
CM »0 <— ' W3 CVJ CD
ROFESSION
AND
Technica
Services
•— H 00 -i^ CT'* "-r ■— *
^'00" ^'00' to
^
w&
as cct cv? ^ Oi t---
S z
Csi ^CD — -^
f^ &
C-l
0 5
z
z
-""2 b _^ „
z ^ s ;:J B
s £ ■< £ ii -
-f
iggsgs
IS c —
0
*^
0000*0 r- —
t^ r^ — I o> 00 ko
s
CD — -HO *c»o
H
e©
z
0
2
'z.
0
Q
^j
is2
2
s s 2
;-
^^•
5 a z
9^
<n a <:
S 0 J S 0 OS
OW-o^rtPL,
2"o
J I
176 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit C, Schedule la
STATEMENT OF PASSENGER CAR COSTS (INCLUDED IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND
GENERAL EXPENSES) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1958
General Divisions:
Maintenance $ 3,263.17
Special Operations 12,793.71
Commission — Administration 6,210.16
Commission — Public Relations 2,114.71
Accounting 786.45
Engineering— Chief 4,520.24
Road Design 3,649.34
Bridge Design 6,927.86
Sign Shop (Baltimore) 2,385.02
Soils and Materials 24,551.59
Legal 4,760.76
Repair Shop (Baltimore) 3,979.37
Construction Inspection 12,432.17
Right-of-Way 44,911.16
Personnel 433.64
Main OfiSce Building Service 609.25
Highway Location and Survey 27,747.45
Traffic— General 12,722.86
Traffic— Control Surveys and Maps 1,358.18
Engineering — Special Services 3,888.85
Engineering — General Office 2,6) 7.32
Engineering^Development 3,331.73
Total $ 185,994.99
District Divisions:
District No. 1 $ 8,391.96
District No. 2 14,035.17
District No. 3 : 1 1,694.15
District No. 4 9,602.97
District No. 5 : 14,251.76
District No. 6 12,038.75
District No. 7 8,668.88
Total $ 78,683.64
TOTAL $ 264,678.63
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 177
Exhibit C, Schedule 2
STATEMENT OF OPERATING EQUIPMENT EXPENSES
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1958
Total
District
State
Wide
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5
No. 6
No. 7
Salaries and Wages
Insurance
S 446,383.22
18,432.23
36,614.11
862.56
18,159.95
243,972.03
9,576.54
12,519.36
343,464.20
56,450.62
80,508.73
9,799.05
$30,147.23
1,442.78
4,727.42
80.05
274.28
15,055.81
848.46
739.54
20,852.67
4,621.72
3,253.75
548.71
$95,106.87
3,870.53
9,058.03
228.51
8,120.69
59,184.87
3,048.19
3,654.57
106,421.86
16,325.66
21,114.57
2,530.60
$51,805.55
2,228.64
3,470,57
$7.80
1,490.18
26,803.32
729.83
1,276.37
37,553.69
6,571.85
10,634.50
561.45
$57,446.96
1,922.11
4,445.29
215.15
704.43
25,8.37.25
1,355.05
951.60
28,.379.35
5,232.65
7,023.10
1,457.00
$83,748.37
3,187.10
6,077.70
216.55
3,439.01
52,755.26
1,788.49
2,874.84
69,249.69
9,923.88
20,989.76
1,556.89
$49,090.22
2,244.65
3,702.13
17.95
715.53
3.3,423.94
970.14
1,293.63
27,438.63
5,635.44
6.812.59
1,704.22
$63,815.55
2,112.64
4,690.27
68.80
1,095.92
24,421.21
750.37
1,087.14
30,476.26
6,4.33.85
7,810.57
893.40
$15,222.47
Light, Heat, Power, and
Water
1,423.78
Traveling Expenses ....
Fuel Oil— Diesel
442.70
63.35
Gasoline
2,319.91
Kerosene
Lubricating Oil
6,490.37
86.01
Parts and Repairs
Shop Materials and Supplies
Tires and Tubes
641.67
23,092.05
1,705.57
Miscellaneous Expenses ....
2,869.89
546.78
Total
$1,276,742.60 | $82,592.42
$328,664.95
$143,098.15
$134,969.94
$255,807.54
$133,049.07
$143,655.98
$54,904.55
Italics indicate red figures.
178 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
X
QCQ
do
,Ci3
DO
W = Q
5h«
H
oo9c
o|
§^
<^
2S
c
z
1
1
§ 1
S z 1
z 0
^^^
z
0
t^o«o
00
0
C5 ■
-co
a>
u>
USTCC
CO
■CO
OS •
w
fc 1* CD
cco-r
CO
ci
0 ;
[05
r^
CO
IP
eo-r CO
CS C5C5
CO
w3 cToo
csT
oi"
— roiM
0
^
«*
1
cc cc 0 c c;
tot-
oc CO CO
_p
00 CO
ocn
coo
oc 10 CO
cr.
i^o^
fc B a m
oi CO re ic cc ic cc
cc ^* t-
ex-
0 v: oi — ' ■yi ro —■' -r —- c-r -^ co' oi -r
oi ci
cdreood
isii
0 t~ 0-. c^ — c-i 00
Ci QC CO
re
-r c« ^o^u^ c^ c^
c; CO CO
•0 c^ I C re I - — 1 - 1 - x 3 ic
cc 1—^
re ci CO
2|^£
re
i-TcrT oioi — '— 'i-'oj'
00 CJ
— c- 1^ c-i re re
^ iC —
"
««
Q
z
:^ X s 2
2/< Deo
rr^ z «! z
e
- „ a c 3
c
i^-r
!>) C-. — (M 0
,^
»C'-cico-rC5 0)r*-rot--rooto-riooot^oot^co<M
t=e) 0 c-j-T
ts
01 — r^ 3C CO — cr- »c ci — I ' -^ 1 - -r «r cc QCi-^ CO •« r- c^
iii
i-o = -)^ t^ ci
tc
<x ^' ^* ^'
CO ic -r cr. cc — ' c; i-^ t -^ cr' ~ 1 - :o cr* oi v: — ' oi cc c::' "^ co
ira -r 1- .^ =
ro
otd I* cc
-r 1 -- -r I ^ -r — _ -ric cc CO 0 I - -r CO — _ c; to 1 - 01^
;c 0
CO
— OJ ' *— '
— - ei'
«.
z
0
11
0 z
CiCC 00
-r C5
^ ^ ^-l ^ r.^ i:^ ^ ^, r^, ^) 1^
r-w
c; cc
oc— •
re
CO 00 00
ic I'- ^ C^ i"^ ^ O) 0 CO C^l 00
Cl —
0^'-^
OJ 06
Gc* CO CO ^' QC 'X »d 0 -r -r i^
CO *r
-r oJ
U50
ci
-T rocs
CO -r
cr. U5
(OCCIO
»« 1-1 CO CO t- CO »^.^.^.—
«: *«
Zr
0
CJ
^
i^S
*'
— —
re
0
Q
Z
a
«»
0 CO ^CM locoes
t^-r
U5
wst^
oeoo
or^-i-
— CM«
-r
reeocjoc
CO I'-. CO 00 CCiO 00
co»o
O-^-J-
050-r
CO 00 1>. 00
<
— ^— ^r-^a: — iO —
ci r^
r^.
cio
odocj
CEO re
0 c'-r
ws
-loo 'oo
c; i^
CO
iO^»<
CO re
l~0)
Ci
0
Z
cj c) c^ cc »c rt 0
o»c
COiC
-r 'o
00 ^
Z
"i c-i cT t -T — ' ^
err 10
1-H
IC
cfre
H
5
0
^^ ^^
a
«»
s.
0
ceoc O}
iore-ri~
-r
co oc CO ic CO oc 01
c
z
.
cc oc -v;
cr, 0 »^ -r
5 B „
;— oc -r
M CO ^-^
cr. ej t ~ c>j
0
c' OS CO c: cc 0 06
=: !^ 2
U5 C-l
»c 1^ re 10
^ -r oi cr. 0
^
^ ?^ 0
0 -<c 1 ^
10
— C-. CO —
10
ic-r CO GCio
z
0
cc wT— T
00 ce" — ' — "
cT
01—' oico'o"
§=g^
01 OJ Cl
— -r — (N
'" OJ "^
H
«»
■ -- c^
0
^
00 :
CiO CD
^
CO
CO
00
(-
z
• ot-.
.— <
oa ■
CO 10 CO
0
-r
»-;
0
c
K
:cOCi
0
ci
000 CO
oi
oi
w
— ^
<-*
0
. CO CO
CO
2?
0
a GO
£
.eot^
0
»J
Z a
• coco
-r
cT
oT
a
c:
(«
i
> e.
B
t^r*^
■ tt»
C
f- J
Jr
»:
OG »c CO re
-rocojO'^'Oi-cooo
2 ■*
z r^
tc 2
IJ^ i5 ~- 5 5 ^- 3 5 2 5
"^
•«
re -r 0 re
oc c?i c: re
oc OJ 10 v: ^ — :3. --r: cs
H ^
h£
•X
CO lOCj -r
s z
0 oc -T -JT
CO OJ -i"''. *"■ ~1
0 w
S b
c; — ' a: -r -r 1 - — ' -r ^' 1 -
-r*
— ' ej 0; — "
.^'ic i^co* 01
<;c
?«
CO " — ^ »C "" ih " c:
^
OJ 01 Oi
f-
0
6fr
— ■I'-^-dClCOOCOCViO'— ^^ f
C000ClC0-rcOOII^iC»O^»Cf^O<MOu0C0Cl^0CC2
r^»o-riC---rcoo»cocco-rojcocviOccciiCcoi-o
J
"*■ "t: i? ^'' ^ '^' ^"^ ?£ *'^ ii ^ '"* ^ —' '^' ^ '^* °^ ^' S ^ ^
QCO^-rcococo^C'—oicoc^oc — coi-^o_cs_-rt'^t^QO
r/-' -** ;^" _' -V 'J-' ~; -T-" ^ :-' C* I '^
cc of ^ co' QG »c r - I-* co' ci 0' W3 0' co' — * oc* c; r--" t^^^t~£
-r— io -rcooicococooo^oi'--r oicooic
I ■- -^ 0 — r »h' Lf; "' C5 O) CC
ICCJCO' ^"
*•
-6
■a
0
H
d
c
b.
«
■^
a
"o
z
-^
s»
—
>
g
3
03
0
a
.5 t!t
0
a
5 :
a
3
: g
: !2
>-
■ >
c5_=:
3
0
>j
0.
S
a
a
z
■>!
a
p
:J
5 :
2 = ="
£ •• ss i
2 S 2 5
1
0
^
• ; J
i
: "
it-
Co s
• C
: § I
sis
. « C 1- -, ^,«
.]2 C = "^ ^ ^- 1
= tit
<
X c
'. 0
: 0
^ .
:_c
■ i.
:' I
'5
itcC
- ?
- S
■ w^
5
;e
• >&
: So
'■££
HO-.O-1
•< ^-
co
^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
179
^0 50
-t- o t^
iri o CO
1 eC O Ci r- >— ' o
> GO iCi — CD C
I— iO iC
CDCOOOM'-^COCDi— IC0CDO3
COC^OlOiCO'^t-^CSJGOOO
■--^ CO -t CJ r-I C-J lO (T-i 1-^ O" CD
^t^CD CDCO(M0C»raCDCO
0_ -— ^ '— __ O; W5 O -f CO CVI CD
<M* oT -t^' ■^' i-T cd' o i-T c^' c-S
OOCO ^ 'Tf oo
CO r-- c^ U5 oi
Oi lO O ■rf CO *0 iC C35 t^ CO
00 CJ 00 Ci o
lO CD ^ -r co'
CM iO '— CO r^
coo CD
lO '* "^
oc citC
■^ r- -r Oi
O O OO C<I -rf 05*0 00
ir?00;<OiC OiCDc
0-1 <— Oi oo
kC CO lO — t^
O r-^ 00 ■^' UO
lO o o; <o ic
O O-i" 00 ctT cm -- CD" — '""
I>.CO^-^OOI->-CDC*l
OiOiOOOCDCMCSliO
1-J r^ ifi CO t^ o ^ lo
eo—ie^'^coM''— '.— I
<0 t^ t^y— oo
CD OS l>- 05 "— '
t^ -^ w QO (M
-rf r- CD oq (M
■^' C^i" CD CD
.—I . lOOO
00'-«
CO t^
CO — CO
W3 CO -f CD 1— • CO
f-^ o oq o 00 1-;
wi lO i^ i>^ oJ r^
lO IT) O »0 -^ CO
CO Oi CO crs^ t^ (M^
CQ o CO oo '-''" r-T
1— ir<i 1-1
oq o
^ o
OiO 00-^ 00
--r^u:)---H^io
— 'lOCOW3(Mt--0-lf--t^.— »0 Olt^iO— -OlOiOOCOiOC".
CO 0_»0 "^__t^ (M^"-^*^"* COOi c*300CN|-r-r'^fMQr, ^;Qr)»ft
rCoJcD o lo o CO o^wi CO -^ c^ -rr w cm' <M*
1— ■ f -^ I>- lO -^ ■— CD O 05 1— I iC CO
^£? CO r^ '
O oqioc _
oc CO — ' CM oo'
o o CO oo
CO '—' ^
o — — r-_CM
CO CD C-j' oc W5
CO IJO »0 O CM
— CM -H »C
-r ^ CO
oc CO —
iO CM CM
-^■2 §■
M-" j:--S
-Q o 3
<D-2 c^ C.-3 S-r g
.s-l
J-O O O 3
►s hj h-; o o Oi (^ f
S.&s
^ era
; g s = £ g £ §•
M
a
1*
n
a
fl
■ti
tc
a
'-C
B
e
-g
fi
-a
,3 °:
JU c«
a &
>>^
rt o
H g.SP S-
° C § ^
O
g-g g
180
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
T3
I- s-
s g--
X 1^ .^
X a
W QH
UCQ
QO
ZH
H^
O
DS
^Q
HH
>-H
-<
^Q
uh
22z
faH-r
502
^«2
KOS=
O^H
^Hg
'SZ
zSw
Oos>
^Qi .
SSIFK
UNDE
QNNEL
jQ^
S'-H'^
h22h
"zo
f»5SQ
gig
sss
(»5'^
wpz
cjfaS
Q^t^
!»«1tK
HQ
fag
o^
W^
So
Q^
Sz
z^
fcN
CO
s
o
u
a
z
z
i
z
o
o
o
or
cc
a:
cc
ro
1
County
Construction
Funds
oooo
-
—
County
Mmnte-
NANCE
Funds
1
Counties and
Municipali-
ties Tax
Revenues
Allocation
Fund
OOt~.
— (35
Oieo
cn»o
CO
O
o
oo"
o
Mainte-
nance
Fund
o
z
o
P^
o
z
c
z
•<
z
c
p
b:
z
o
o
K
C
z
li
Oz
o
CO
—
to <0 CO
CO oo ^
»^ Oi CO
!M_ O CD
E-i
z
s
B
a
W
-<
B
B
Z
a
O
t^ (M
Z B
li
to <!
<
Pi
z
^s
a B.
o
1
j^ iM oot^ oooo o CO c o <x)cn — ■ t^ •:: S S
t^ 05 ^ Oi O O C^ O -^ O »0 »00 Ol iC lO O c*i
sj -r — ■ o rf cc "m" o o c: t~ r-I >ri ''^ S to oc •-
^_ lO C-. CO C-. C-l CC O CO O O T OC — "=. "^l "". ''i
c>4 oD oTio ccc^'ic cT cc o" iC c-rci" cc ic -r lo cc
O* Cl Cs C5 Tl (M oo ^ — O^ »—
o ^ ao
■si 13
z
1
5
]4
3'E.
: ST
s
c
C.J
■ 5C-
c ,
II
i
1 i
■a -S
^ 1
■I 1
;i 1
:.-S >.
^ c ~ ^
i
-a
o
_c
; 5
s
■ .Ss ■;
i
5
«
o
3
O
>.
i
T3
1
C
3
5
i-
■J-
1
'T
3 J
".1
3 *
0 c
M O
'=;
= 5
iz.i I
z
I'd
; ^
:c2
3J5 J
^ = :
: w £
: g 5
. cj 73
:-= -S
■III
• " fc'o
rill
'■ %
;<£
:S
: 5
■ c c
: g c.
. S o ^
m
i
3
i
5
5
1
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
181
$12,313,437.96
$1,766,191.02
45,113.38
9,729.62
o
$1,649,967.47
162,332.31
228,012.21
oil
o"
o_
09
in
o
CO
o
CO
TO
to
o-
$7,384,982.14
1,282,391.22
959,383.24
o
CO
CO
co'
42,750.00
151,.350.36
5,702.25
70,765.49
61,748.02
47,417.57
$61,701,510.09
5,101,129.21
69,231.67
d
00
i 1
s 1
OO
OCO
(MOO
$ 350,496.93
6,590.96
7,681.25
r-
^
1
1
^11 ^<*-o
<M OjO
as" o
1
J
1
1
$6,505,330.13
6,507,1.32.04
1,801.91
42,750.00
151,350.36
55,456.70
73,653.09
61,748.02
63,112.33
$104,381,782.83
CO
o
1
>
11
^ c
1 1
1^
2
e
c
~o
1
1 O r-
II
^>
.2 B
11
g
c
c
u
-c
1 c:
a
p:
1
c
c
1
c
c
c
1
c
1
'I
>
c
pi
'c
■c
c
0
c
1
.213 "
is S)£
.2 B
O g c«
5-1 »-
iiii
1
1
c
§.l
z £
O *:
&■<
'1
1
£
c
£
z
6-
•-■ -^o
182 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
HO
mo-
go
<a
oag
o
^" CO o
"1
to
oo
U5
CO
CO
-r
CO
O
00
CO
CO
Bonded Debt
AND
Debt
Service
Funds
(Schedule 2)
o"o"
o o
oo
oo
5 o
CO
CO
County and
Municipality
Funds
(Schedule 1)
CO
CO*
i
8
to
00
CO
s
OS
CO
co"
Maintenance
Fund
o
g
co"
Twelve-Year
Program and
Federal
Interstate
Program
Construction
Fund
2^ 2
^' cc
5=
c; 00
i5 — '_
-r CO
in 00
to
CO
co"
o
o"
Construction
Program Prior
to ,IuLY 1, 1954,
AND
(iENERAL
Operating Fund
is
§
2
«o oooraco —
C OIC >rtc0030>
QC -r ui t^ ui -I-' iri
CO c C-. -r t~ cc 00
-r o' as oo" lO co (m'
CO o — cci~ o>
c^ roc-jo — . o
o_
CO
s
o
$ 9,916,734.62
23,200,381.54
500,000.00
599,622.84
480,000.00
1,264,243.90
33,108,582.90
10,335,976.00
15,088,547.50
2,175,475.33
15,109.13
155,375,669.13
467,654,871.06
156,775,000.00
4,268,000.00
57,227,270.55
o
00
i
UJ
C/5
C/}
<
Z_^
c>
■^.-'
<^
Xa
3
3
2
«
3
o
3
y:
1
II
^x
o oi
^3
si
P
z c.£o
a ir"'
Ci CO
X fe-.
fc = >
JS 3
'ill
a o a
lit
X' 3 =
f- n £
IS
Q
-5
c
B
a
L
z
<
1
II
a =
a
£
i
c
1
z
1
<
_:
£
o
M
-<
<
1
•<
-
a.
■<
■«:
H
o
Is
to O
c o
•2£
.2 2
o a
J= K
3.°
ig
o <
^ z
z 2
2 E-
E- ^
g«
fe z
z o
^ s
K H
2.£
II
>
J
Q
£
f-
o
c
•<
(-
-£
c
1
C5
z
H
£l
Q a
z c
•ol &}
iil
S K c
g OO
gii
z aO
grt >
S m «
>* Zj=
£ ZV3
c
=
S
O
5
O
a
o
z
o
s
o
o
a
a
H
o
a
Q
a
K
a
z £
gCL<
> "^
a N
o
a tc
« E-
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 183
r- o T
Ol I--0
r^ 00 CO
t^ CO -t^
o o o o Ol zo
O O O CD 00
t^CJ lO<
O: 00 -^ ■
,-hO-
r^ oi CO »— CO
CO O •-- CO
CO coco
»— CO(N
CO iO 1— '
i-Tco ocf^
. »0 CO -^
: Oi -r -r
iCi
l-H O
So
JoS
o H
tiO H
S P3 g
M B g
oi fa o
O HO
ill
fa S Ix
Iz °
ot5 ■<
9 o
; mp;
5 " =^
ii
!■§
£*
si
g £ £"2 S
- r? -
1^ 5 «
a u
£ "E 5 '^ .=? o a 5
Sm
3 i o
.IS.S^TJ
o 3
o
ffi" s
eg
S ?^ o
o S te
O =^=0 i-
^ l^'i 11. s
■ W J^ 3 t- -O fe
, ,,.S^ O H >5
- R fe g S^H-S
?OT O fa
M SO<!&-i<t;co Oc»
-a a
"^■^■S.
o D.^
O cu';^
-S 3
Cm
^ +^ en
>o°
III
o -^^^
O S3
"goo"
■>..S M
55 « c
E-i'-C IS
184
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
T3
;/;
"^
C
©
>?:
M
s
Ed
Z
>-
U)
F-
1^
u
ffl
z
c»
u
Ed
S
Z
c
-<
z
S3
>•
z
Q
Ed
Z
o
oa
u
S
o
u
I •- »o r— u^ o CO CO c
to iC — ' «0 Ci iC Ci e
^ 2
t^ iC I - UO O «D c
I -
r-- lo t-* lO o CD cc oo
<M oc !>. o oc r-- -r —
-r cri c c: o iri »c
O to ^- CO Ci «0 CTi
: !>. o oc r--
-r cri c c: o iri »c CO
-iiO^-COCiiOOiCC
!£? o: ic cT cT t-^T f-T ro
B M c: H 5
K :i tt X ::
B H » ^ H
H H S _ Sd
:3 > :^ £ -
PC 2; ^ S
S S oi '
w *:2 ft.
. lO t^ lO O CO CO oc
~ — cr. o c' I »c CO'
^^^
_ _ _ _ _ -^ o6 -
:iC — c-t-ri^iO»OCvi^OiOCO
~ " ■ 'S t— 05 oc
^ r>j lo 'M
.C:0»0"COOJCOO:OC01
" ~-- — -" ~ 'r^iOiOCvi^OiOCO
^ -^ or r ■-. — ^ CO t— 05 oc
TO — '?c' cTi-^crfio »rt CO -ri •--"
CO
OOOOOCJOC
; lO .— . CO •— f o »o
oo
oo
o o
00 CO
>-
C0»00i0i*CO*0O
>— 'Ocy^oooco-fOoor-cD-roco
COOfMOOOOiOCiCOOiCOOiOOC-l
^ o — o o o — " as o '-^ •— ' oc t-^ CO CD
coiOQCio-— co-fr-micoir-oicco
COC^Oi-^CMOiOcOGCI-^ — CDt^OlOC
40 -^ CO* —* CO o; t--' oc lO iiO CD c^" — -
CO cDcor-^ tn co<M»oc^
QCO lO -f O oo
CO iC o o o s
iC OC' *o M ^
■ • ; c OT : ^
• ■ 5 ">> ■ ^
a, . <- I- ■ "t^
oo o o o — cr :
CO CD Oi ■— '
O: C^ -^TCO to co
^OOOfciO'
bc-:
'= c s5 c-c o £; rf o o-'E 3 -.".
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 185
o;ccot--oocooro-rcr^»OiocDC
c^ lO oc «D o -r wr -- -
wi -t^' CO t^ •— ' CO -1
ai»nit^cst^i>-c -
o io CO >— ' ^ •>:. CO a:_^ lO '-' »o cs» 'T ^
o' oo" -i-' CO *o od ao' — "
J oi r^ *- -H —(
_ . i i^J — . CO O l>. CO CC '— '
O O ■^ -P O: cvj <M_ r^ to CO
lO <ri M -t^ CO oi o CO GO GO
1 m Oi PO CO <M — GO t-^
ooo.o_a5_
•TieScS
-M lO Oi CO C
(Mt
- O CO CO c
■ CO i— _ lO »0 '-; O O CD Ol
t— CO 't-^Ioco-i-cqcscot-^oi
^r- .*MCDOCDaicDiCt^co
too . 1— ' fM C<1 CO Oi <M CO t^ «0
o' co' ■ CO od" CO GO -— " co' *o ci" oT
■crj-^o*-icoc;i>.coOT-'
■ O CO Id - ■■
: lOO GO '
r Ol 00 C<j CD '— CD
h CO -rl^ O CD t^ GO
-OiCO'— 'C^OCOI^
1 Oi CO c» o> (M 05 o:
^ CD'M --' C>
!>. oc r-
lO -P CO
IC GO
^ oi
r- CO
oo UO
CO CO 1— ■
_ ._ — 'CO'O-
CO UO '^ CO Csl
o
O OO
-rf
OOiO
t^
OCM
COCO
oscoor-QOcDOco-raiioiocccrjGoc^'— 'cooii
(T^ O GO CO to -r O --^ ':^J to 1-; CO CO o O '-- -T Oi c^ c
-COt^— 'CO-ftMiOGCC
- - — - -5 oi as t^ 1-^ -- ■ . , .
:) iC Ol CO WD
3 IC oo oo -— CO "
:,_,_._HCOCM»OOSCOGCC^'— 'COt
C^ 1--0 IC -— '
» CO O t— oo CD O C
- a: »C to CD Oi c
■■tO'— 'C^»0'— 'COCOOO-— <
• ^co-i^o4»OGocvioic4«o(N'>j . ._ __.._
<r^i>-oo;oit^^H— .,— coc^iOOicooccM-— -00
-^io_t--co_c:_io ^_io_^CN -■-
j'lOodod^- co'-r-rcoc
CO »o -r cc to *o c
r>- coco
O CO 00 GO
CM — oor-
1— -I-^COOiCDO-OOOOi
CjT CO OJ CVJ C^f 'T to o"
«
g z
S3
■tl^ot-=:il! (D_C-*^*-<t- bDcii^ML*^.—
: <; <t m o o o o o Q fe o W W M «5 CL, o-.oj CO H ^
a s
o Ji
S o
^
c
oo 02 c^
O!
CM 1^ t^
■*
•— 1 1—
**
^„
CO
•0
t»
«»
-
0
0
*^
t^
10
0
««
«•
■
^
0
0
OJ
oi
•0
in
«&
««
■
r-
t^
0
^
€«
v»
■
00
°i
2
CO
CO
«A
w»
-
^0 0
^
00 a: (^
05
0 -p -r
^C- CO
CD
-r
69
00
m
-^
-^
r^
to
CO
e«
e»
J-,
53
•^
>o
lO
«^
««
'
M QO b-
1— '
<M
<«
•*
X
H
igi£
B g G E
>J
z E z *
< B t^ ^
z pg S
H
gg o<
So m g
H H P >
P P Pq:
0 0 0'^
C
C
U
1
186
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
:3
^3
w
r/)
t>
Q
05
;^
;=)
.
u.
o
>
S
OS
»-s
u
,
r/1
H
U
H
Ed
tii
a
(-/
z
Z
-J!
^
o
O i
o: z
'-^ z
il
O -
K c
^§
gffi
D
6
J
: oc
CO
o*
o
CM
1
-a
S
i
CO O
o
o'
o
: CO
! ! CO
■ • °9.
■ ■ 00
■ o
: o
to
J
o
oo
1^
§
00
CO
County
Highway
Construction
BONDS-BoNnED
Debt Fund
o
oc
o.o_o_
i
o_
z
il
s s
IX z
■72
11"-
c^ cc C>J
05 0 00 -
ic oc r^ ■
CO
oo
o
o"
q"
1 ^
rZ3
00 CJ
to CO
c: OC'
— o --
-r oc' o'
CO CO
o o
■=£ = = §
|5 «
o oo
0 oo
i ii
1 52
o
o
o_
g
H
-* O O O C: — O lO »0 -TO O C; ^CJO
cr — =: = :;» o t~ c<i oco o= csoc
= 5P: = S!: ^ 'i t ?{§■ §g goo
— . I- -rj r^ 'M cc — -M^ c-^ coo oo O CD o
c-r o-'»^'c-i»^'— ' t- -r cc* cTcT i^o" o"— 'l^
— ic C-. o: cc CO c: CO ^ c: QC 1- o r^ re CO
incct- — c: c-^ u5-r CO— t'^"'.
CO c^
oo
CO
CO g
< a
pi
1
K
a:
i
o
2
ill
3
s
CO
o
lO' ■
3 -
►^ ;
3 ;
-a ■
3
>
3
C.
CO
CO
>o
o
i •
a ■
3
-o ;
£ coS
9 z .
Ill-
H O 3 ■
lit-
< H =■£
(1< z o
k'- S-'
lifl
III?
Q
Si
c^ a o
z^^ ^Q
gzS-^
ir
fa
■-=
-o
c
OS
EC
d
Ci."
1
3
-g
c
-I
z •
o ■
cQ ;
z ;
o .
e :
K .
S ;
2 ■
>• ■
i :
X c/1
~-|
fee
S£
o
1
c
-1
1
2 5
B .-5
cs >-
c —
1 s
PI
>
z
3
<^ g o ^. o >
-^ 5 S , "g • -'
^ X c: ^-o-TS .
c ;^ F= == § c «•
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
187
ooo
O C=CD
0*00*
000
000
cD'^"i>r
*0 CO CO
0>000 OOOOiO
0000
OOOOO
8§SS
0* 0 0' 0* 0
ooooo
8§g§
00 CDO
200
600
700
000
000
d lO COO
-f-f -f io>o
■^ ^ ^ c^
0000 OOOCOO OCDO
0000
ooooo
000
0000
8§§§
OOOOO
ooooo
III
000
003
670
002
200
600
700
000
000
0 ^r~
!M lOCOO
-r ^ -p io»o
^ t— ^
-00 OO-Tt^ -^
1 C^ ^ r-l ^
-<;oQH ^ijhOWi-h'^'
o 5^5.1! o
2-^2
2 2 « SrR
CO S £<rj:;; 0.
Spa
188
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
H
Of)
H
U
C/)
Of)
-««!
Q
U
OS
;><
(24
o
w
a
O
Ed
Q
Q
U
;^
Q
■•i;
Z
^
u
H
OJ
H
<
Of)
u
>-
>N
r/)
nJ
73
^
Q
u
■<
c«
O
Can
«
U
u.
E
O
H
H
ti
/.
O
W
b
S
u
H
^
H
CO
C: t-^ QO
(M -r CD
ZtL<
>: o
CO p
O P Q 0.
o"? ZO
£i
mS
CO' CO fo'
OGQO
ooeo
— - ec c^ cc o
o t^ to r~ o o
CO u? t^
21.2
365
907
568
531
499
oc oc r-
15,6
332
612
644
439
614
ggs
- lO I— CO *C OS CO
CO t^ r^ iq O o
CC iC <-" CO c4 o
coo CD "^
«»
2
iC -T CO CO -^ CD
o ^ 0-- -^ lO <d
— CO r^
OC CO CO
coco — O -t- CM
OiO I<»C — <M
iO CO Ol
CM — CM
OCMiC — CMCC
CO »0 lO
■ CD — CO t-^
5 CO QC '
_ -CM ifi-
. o; o; Tt" QO — '
OiOt^Wti^-CM C^'-HCg
— " 05 im' C: cm" CO* CO »C iC
CO CM to T— CM CO O t>-
W3 •— QO O CM Oi CO t^ •—
— -f O O I
: CM CD CO t
CO m
CO -f'
Sec
'cc O
o c-
*— ^ btjg c c rt g —
oca
o ^
0.2
_30
O ■
z
190
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
[^
Zil
|<
S- »-. J2
Xsi- illiiiil
III jTiiT:-
qHcS ,| ?- I 5 ?
a£z "^'^
r^z
S3;-)
==5zo
zzo
«==Z
a t. H
C^ >— PO O C£
PC rr CC o «^
W5 C^ --^ Csi CO
— <MiO ^O
ca — QC cT
o -^ — •
— 00
O OCQC(M
X —
da
zz
li
^z
-c ; : —
■ y- _i — Sf ■ ;
3J-?l=
5 S =
Zr-
"5 o £: S £
"* > & ^ X
:- — x -/: X =- -
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
191
O CO o o
or- o ti
o o O lO
O 00 O Cft
O -T' O OO
CStOiCCDOCDCDO
00 0500000
O O CD O O ^ O O
•fooidooooi^-t-urs
oi -"--^ CM OS lO c^_^ r-~ oo
lO »o r— * •-' (m" oo v-^ 05
-TO
00 lO
o; — ■
t^oT
0i_0^
CM C»
g E
t-- 1— O lO '-'
s if5 ■^ O t- c
oo 00
CO OS
o »c
5 t— 1-- O iTi '— '
D l^ OOiOOOOtOO
O CO oo O iC »0
^ S; in CO o m -f
ic OS 05 oo
OOOiOOOOO
O CO
oo
c§ ?q 00 CO o S t^
«D ^ 00 CO
kO t^ CO CO
Tf 00 CO to
ootooo^oo
-f OO' »0 oo 00 t^ -^ »n
OS -^ !M Oi lO tM t~ oo
o r^
o r^
o ^
O CO S !M '^ CO "^
gg(M0O
« lO 1^ -H cNj OO r- en
C^ -f I- -r CM -H
CO
1^
o oo
O -p
--0
— o
or^oco
S2
CO -^^
S3is
03
t^coor^
O) CD
CD m
CO CM
CD »0
li^ t--c> t--
ill
cr o
a is
0 S
ca S
S
oog S S g g-
:2ggl^£
bcx: M
p i^-T3
3hi« O
fin O
^ -^ bC O
5S'« gS - ^ a
) o S-- £ §'3 ><
- 3 -."^^ >^
S ^ rt ;« -O ,, r- ^^ -
"P C V SrS S g g Pro g C 3
" ^ • i^^t^i ag
0.2
."S >>
5«iS
•E^ a J
CO ! *.£«■
-sg':2>.
mgHg.
cd a
a a.
*S5
i'p'rt
o ce o m
bD~S: °- >
Q.!-^ C3
1=^ J; .
>oo'
:0-T3
i CT3>5 a. 3
Ill^l5^1
J -^
ly Con
way C
of coll
from
ned to
;;arolin
VVorces
in boo
l|
5.£FS"g-3 p P »
3
"^^
s p
3 S ci-;3l3 o 2; ca o 5j^:~^ S
ii !:
c< c3,1'
^_ S"p
sro-=
< S fc
^ oorj.
P w
C 0) <D 3
Is-Scg"
H S'c. '-5
192 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
•T3
,^
.^
^
"cc C-.
OC
_
C-. — CO :-rc-j : -o : = oc
1 2C
^,
1 o 1
00 -T OO ■ lO GC
— O-r-rrc -t-«= ■ ■— -cctc .
^
Lf;
a^*
- d
fc c^ -T c; c-j ■ -^ re ■ -r : o ^* ;
CO
I ^ re r^
cc ■M cc OC — . -r 1- . I - = M .
Ec z /, [?
lO-T m :p
o »o
co*ot^cc-r .OO . .CM .OC— _ .
C^.
'-. 1
^ ^ 1^
oi" »f" 't" - 1
■^in
ooo"— ""ceo' ■-r— ' ■ t£ [^ZX '.
C^'
g
c^-f OS ;'M-r
s
s
««&
M>
s 1
eo«3o;oO(Mi^cv500-T(Mosiocococ5-^t^t^-Tr^Oii2M'
s
I—
«= 1
cct^:oic — ccoc-racc; — c^oi^-roC(Mccc^3 0i^c;o^
C5
O cf i^' -.r cf — ic — ' »c — ^ -r ^* ^ ^C — — >£: ^ ^i c^j -T ;£ ir;
CO
o
5
1
H
00
—
a:" 1 ~ — ' ( - ■^' — ' 1 -.' ic — ' "" ~' '"' cr" ifi — * 7^' cj' re* — ' ■' a-' re ~' oC
o
r-^
od
TO
UD
_" ^' — ■
cm"
—
S2
ee
««
ere
= z 1
-# ■ 50
^ . -o ■
^
1 o II
E- O
>o .o>
■ ■ tn
c;
1 5 1
iiii
c^i :ci
OO ift
i ;^
<M .^
: : :co :::::::
'^
^ t:" d £
cxT ■
o
2 !^ Hr_
|c|-
"
'^
«» •
e^
«^
r- O
^o
■ *t<
::«)—•
■ 00 ■ ■ 02 00 . 'S* ■
lO
(N
« 1
•o
- - Qoco
■ • ■ (M • —CI CD •
OS
05
M V 1 „ ,r
:o'
! "3'»
: cj : : — TO : « ;
CD
1-^
l~-Z
a f- H a g
O -f
-* . (^ o . e-j .
TO
c:-'
Oi
:i-»o
. . . 0-- . .TOO . o .
O
- c;
■ l'^ 00
■ 1^ ■ ■ TO^TO ■ CD •
o"
isS
CO'
Igjzfa
iC
• ■ iC 00
■ • -r ■ c-q-f ;to ;
■ - en c^
TO
^^
"-
o
z
a; *^
-۩
«»
je
z
OC' m
CO -r -co ■ -M c^ - -OS
_^
^
o !
m J^ C
—
o
o 1
f- fc i e: c
Z ^ J O C B
a & ? ;^ z B
-r ic
^ c^i ' — ' — — * r^
ir
o
o'
W
;o —
o— ■ ■«= :o-. m : :-r
-TJCC
Si- : : « ; to -r . . oc
c
o_
a o E g - c.
— 'cs
cTi-T ■ . - -T c-roo ■ ira
c-
tc
l-^ 1
;- O ^2 H 22 -
OsO • ■ ;tO -^OC ; ;00
< 55^ -^ Z '"^ -^
-r
"^
*^
o
««»
e^
ae
Z
^
coeo
• . -o
00(M -O -CCI^ ■ -^
o
o 1
M
O-r
. . -t^
CDO ■ ■ ■— -^--^ - -lO
ec
^ -J
• ■ - ^
-* oi ; :ci : oo' o' ; : oi
iri
U5
iC —
! ! !»c
o »c — .<^ -^ . . -r
OOiC
ceo , . .O .O^C» , .CO
-r
of
■ CD
-rio • ■ ■ »o od— • ■ QC
U5
S"
QC
l,iO • ; CO ; c<l ■ T
"
O
w
•»
** 1
o
CDe*>U5 •
-^i^ '
OCCCDC;*C -OOl -l^ -CCCi
^
1-
o 1
E- K
o; i^J TC
— rc
QC -r CJ CM o ■ « cc - ■ oi ■ '^ ^;
»o
C
"^ 1
ic jc oi -T w5 '.CM — : -r : iC -T
CO
«^ I r? 11
- 5 *=£ i
c^ cc CSI
TO
ic o; cT ■
^ w-^
tc fc ^ ^ ?; : — ?^ : :'^ .^,<=^.
— iCOOQcn -CMCC ■ ■ — " -rcc
U"
i5 1 "' 1
o
*0 CD
0-(
« U5IM_ •
^S 1
^i-Io-rcM rtic ; CM ;-r-r
00
c:
OJ"
«»
««
» 1
cc^c-. ot:=-j=c-:c:oc-r — c:-oci rr-i--TWt-w-!
TO
c
gg
s^
QC c^ ci ^* ^ — ui ^ oc -r "^ -r r~ cc l^ »^ — ' wi cic c^' c; ^ ^ »^
00
2°?
ceo— iOClOCOOtCrCCC'TM — iOrCOC-rC-OlC'liCCOCCU-
CM C 0CO« l^t^inO O O CC -T'M — _c<io cc o=,c:.o_>nu:
^
cc
oc oi 00 1^ cc cc t -T lo c'l' c;* o" I -^ o i« :c -r c^* cc Gc CD oc oc o" a
a
£p~
rcr^cccit^cciCCi-riC-rOOW^. — QC»ni«rc»OOcc
s
If
OC
<
— " _' —
2
-f
««
«®
w
oc'M!=ocoeiroooji2'«52S"'°'^'2'''c<^ — 3c5So-
05
to
t^
CD
a
o
= - ?1 § ?: - f? 5 f; - - ^ ^ r^ ^ E = ?r fl S; - = S S
CO
o
^''i' — 't J -^' I-* 1- IT- -T */i — * --' '^'«^' '^i-' ^i ^ '^i '-c Te' I-' cTc
t—
' s
— T^iricr. f-.ci^c-t — — — i-or-M-ri-crrio — rcc-lt-cD
2
-rcot^'— rccsccc^jT'— oc-T'M'MOicc^rccc^GMt^Tco
CO
c
-," — ' — "
C-J
co'
*•
««
<«
z
00 W5 ■ ■
c^ : :^ :,v,^ : '.c:.
-1
■ o
o
oa
M a ^ . 2
OC c^) ■ • ■ c5 ■ o: CD - I*
•-
o
o
^
c -= !; C: P _.
-r wj
5 CO
o - o a e 5
«3 .—
O— CO 'CRIO ;-i-
J o
z
'^^ cc . ,
Nt~ : .TO .o.-i". - . o":.
C£
1 o_
o_
-^cT ■ ■
c't^ ■ - ■ -r -diCC ■ ■ iiS
C
r t^
i>r
>
o SO c g,;;
-r <^^ ■ ■
050 ■ ■ -CD -roc • -QC
:i3
£ a tS 5"^
CMCM • • -CM ■ ■ —
>o
iO
"= =
«»
oe
-
O H g S
Z oJ £ e B B —
OOC««C^CCOC5i:COOClOW50000ClU5C^»0(M-rOCC^»0
: S
r-
tt>
? 00 -r t-. oc X -r -r -r oc 1- o I- "5 — cc r-; o o -r to o
0(
o
0-<lJZ~J^2'o
Eb:o<£oz5-=
5 r^- -• f- 5 ,~- ["• 5 -■ !-• 5 '-• " 5 ^- i^- '^' -■ '-] -• Ti w' =
CO.
^
o.
So
^ 00
«*
c
00.
5J
MOO •
■ r* -
OOCMt^»CCC iftCD ■ ■ IC OUS
-r
Cs
1 to
O OO !>3 ■
■ eo •
■ lO — »C CS CO ■ iO CO • CO ■ ^. CT-
' TO
a" .
03 00 t^
■«o
" (O lo ^ cc -r : OC -r ! t^^ ; oi i-
o'
c
= g^tc
lOCOO
. (3)
OSOOCICDO .COI^ . .(= .=2"=
"2
: 00
TOr^os :
.<M^ .
.cjociM^- ,ocs .o; .C5C^
»o
< < So
cooci" ■
■ cT •
-tCcoGc— "tC icTiC - -io :::;f^*
115
c
> ta
^3-5~
<M -r 00 ;
■CC ;
115
l>
as
5 00
~
«e
*»
€«
: „
5
c
■ I
1
; B
z .
■< CO
: !
::::::.: t^ ■'.''. '.
:&
^ 1
i
U ; : : ! ^rtlj ; ; =
• ;
3 O
s
H ^
iJ
a
c
"£
fij
■1
:f -i = = ;< :s i 5-i -.2 H is S
£
11
5
5i
S
M^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 193
Exhibit F, Schedule la
COUNTIES AND MUNK IPALITIES TAX REVENUES ALLOCATION FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR ACCOUNT OF MUNICI-
PALITIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1957 ''''^^^^^
Municipality
Road Miles
Munici-
palities,
December,
1955
Cash
Balance,
July 1,
1956
Revenues
Total
Funds
Available
Expendi-
tures
Cash
Balance,
June 30,
1957
Allegany County:
Barton
2.26
113.71
24.65
5.80
2.98
2.74
10.67
S 628.12
28,500.38
5,894.55
1,502.34
2,417.44
677.58
2,721.08
S 1,864.81
93,826.51
20,339.67
4,785.80
2,458.91
2.260.88
8,804.23
$ 2,492.93
122,326.89
26,234.22
6,288.14
4,876.35
2,9.38.46
11,525.31
$ 1,9110.34
76.280.44
19,814.25
4,795.20
2,417.44
2,211.73
S,745.4S
Cumberland
$ 592.59
Frostburg
40.046.45
Lonaconing
6,419.97
Luke
1,492.94
Midland
2,458.91
Westernport
726.73
2,779.83
Total
162.81
S 42,341.49
$ 134,340.81
$ 176,682.30
i 116,164.88
Anne Arundel County:
Annapolis
50.29
$ 12,844.61
S 41,496.22
$ 54,340.83
$ 41,267.76
J 13,073.07
Calvert County:
Chesapeake Beach
6.26
5.73
S 1,576.99
1,437.30
$ 5,165.36
4,728.05
S 6,742..35
6,165..35
$ 5,111.73
4,668.30
North Beach
1,497.05
Total
11.99
$ 3,014.29
S 9,893.41
S 12,907.70
$ 9,780.03
Caroline County:
Denton
9.40
6.35
.55
4.36
.38
.42
1.72
6.77
$ 2,.354.87
1,631.33
149.02
929.47
92.15
86.69
968.35
1,709.87
S 7,756.30
5,239.64
453.83
3,597.60
313.55
346.55
1,419.24
5,586.19
$ 10,111.17
6,870.97
602.85
4,527.07
405.70
433.24
2,387.59
7,296.06
S 7,664.38
5,225.49
448.55
3,380.03
310.00
331.73
1,552.55
5,521.82
Federalsburg
S 2,446.79
Goldsboro
1,645.48
Greensboro. . . .
Henderson
Hillsboro
95.70
Preston
Ridgely
1,774.24
Total
29.95
$ 7,921.75
$ 24,712.90
« 32,634.65
$ 24,434.55
$ 8.200.10
Carroll County:
Hampstead . . .
2.00
3.50
4.86
2.75
5.12
6.68
5.78
20.07
$ 511.96
887.04
1,232.10
682.02
1,234.59
1,651.66
1,443.50
5,008.61
$ 1,650.27
2,887.99
4,010.17
2,269.13
4,224.71
5,511.93
4,769.30
16,560.53
$ 2,162.23
3,775.03
5,242.27
2,951.15
5,459.30
7,163.59
6,212.80
21,569.14
S 1,703.16
2,857.11
3,981.04
2,239.76
4,120.98
5,408.50
4,696.38
16,325.01
Manchester
Mt. Airy
1,261.23
Sykesville
Taneytown
Union Bridge
1,755.09
Westminster . .
Total
50.76
$ 12,651.48
S 41,884.03
$ 54,535.51
S 41,331.94
S 13,203.57
Cecil County:
Cecilton
.70
3.04
3.07
12.80
3.91
1.38
.73
2.24
$ 116.22
709.44
768.92
2,927.01
1,767.92
348.65
181.08
558.07
$ 577.60
2,508.42
2,533.18
10,561.77
3,226.29
1,138.69
602.35
1,848.31
$ 693.82
3,217.86
3,302.10
13,488.78
4,994.21
1,487.34
783.43
2,406.38
S 507.53
2,431.21
2,516.75
10,153.13
3,089.46
1,131.25
429.84
1.810.25
Charlestown
Chesapeake City
785.35
Elkton
Northeast. .
Perryville
356.09
353.59
596.13
Port Deposit
Rising Sun
Total
27.87
$ 7,377.31
$ 22,996.61
$ 30,373.92
$ 22,069.42
$ 8,304.50
Charles County:
Indian Head . . .
2.28
5.50
S 737.25
1,911.66
$ 1.921.35
4,634.86
$ 2,658.60
6,546.52
S 2,083.33
5,129.66
$ 575.27
1,416.86
La Plata
Total
7.78
$ 2,648.91
S 6,556.21
S 9,205.12
$ 7,212.99
? 1,992.13
Dorchester County:
Cambridge
38.09
.28
7.16
1.47
2.06
$ 7,329.24
76.84
1 810 13
« 31,429.52
231.04
$ 38,758.76
307.88
7,718.13
1,563.70
2,455.15
$ 28,816.83
232.56
5,858.53
1,191.55
1,442.09
$ 9,941.93
75.32
1.859.60
372.15
1.013.06
Eldorado
Hurlock
350 74 1 01.1 OR
Vienna
755.37
1,699.78
Total
49.06
% 10,322.32
$ 40,481.30
$ 50,803.62
$ 37,541.56
$ 13,262.06
Exhibit F, Schedule la — Continued
194
PwEPORT OF THE STATE ROADS COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
Exhibit F, Schedule la — Continued
COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TAX REVENUES ALLOCATION FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR ACCOUNT OF MUNICI-
PALITIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1957
MUMCIP.ILITY
Road Miles
Munici-
palities.
December,
1955
Cash
Balance,
July 1,
1956
Revenues
Total
Funds
Available
Expendi-
tures
Cash
Balance,
June 30,
1957
Frederick Countt:
Brunswick
Burkittsville
16.82
1.16
4.26
55.08
3.83
1.36
.18
1.10
8.72
3.07
1.69
$ 4,188.64
337.78
1,075.55
13.625.39
845.84
356.75
27.04
297.29
2 234.85
735.04
432.36
$ 13,878.83
957.16
3,515.09
45,448.63
.3,160.28
1,122.19
148.53
907.65
7,195.21
2,533.18
1,394.48
$ 18.067.47
1,294.94
4,.590.64
59,074.02
4.006.12
1.478.94
175.57
1.204.94
9,430.06
3,268.22
1,826.84
$ 13,703.49
1,012.98
3,469.61
44,748.14
2,994.36
1,1.54.77
149.83
911.16
7,145.75
2,453.86
1,017.72
% 4,363.98
281 96
Emmitsburg
1 121 03
Frederick
14 395 gg
Middletown
1 Oil 76
Mt. Airv
3'>4 17
Mversville
25 74
New Market
293 78
Thurmont
' 284 3 1
Walkersville
814 36
Woodsboro. . . .
809 12
Total
97.27
$ 24,156.53
$ 80,261.23
$ 104,417.76
$ 78,761.67
$ 25 656.09
Garrett Countt:
Accident
2.10
4.05
3.58
2.80
3.44
4.14
11.09
14.57
S 514.26
1,034.22
907.80
699.84
877.29
1,995.01
2,794.98
3,617.42
S 1,732.79
3,341.81
2,954.00
2,310.-39
2,838.48
3,416.07
9,150.78
12,022.27
$ 2,247.05
4,376.03
3,861.80
.3.010.23
3.715.77
.5,411.08
11,945.76
15,6.39.69
S 1,685.26
3,332.81
2.946.18
2,304.51
2,828.93
3,390.79
9,083.61
11,857.66
S 561.79
Deer Park
1,043.22
Friends\-ille
915 62
GrantsviUe. .
705 72
Kitzmiller. . .
886.84
Loch Lynn Heights , .
2,020.29
Mountain Lake Park
2,862.15
Oakland
3,782.03
Total
45.77
$ 12.440.82
$ 37,766.59
$ 50,207.4!
S 37,429.75
$ 12,777.66
Harford Countt:
Aberdeen
24.76
1.3.14
25.84
$ 5.991.77
6,296.39
6,527.69
$ 20,430.43
10,842.32
21,321.58
S 26.422.20
17,1.38.71
27,849.27
$ 19,994.83
10,728.68
21,147.43
$ 6,427.37
Bel Air
6,410.03
Havre de Grace
6,701.84
Total
63.74
$ 18,815.85
$ 52,594.33
$ 71,410.18
$ 51,870.94
% 19,539.24
Kent County:
Betterton
1.43
5.61
.44
.84
2.04
$ 486.01
1,906.54
146.27
278.40
693.63
$ 1.421.13
5,575.20
437.27
834.78
2,027.35
$ 1,907.14
7,481.74
583.54
1,113.18
2,720.98
f 1,469.19
5,789.98
457.60
851.91
2,102.81
S 437.95
Chestertown . . .
1,691.76
Galena
Millington
125.94
261.27
Rock Hall...
618.17
Total
10.36
$ 3,510.85
$ 10,295.73
$ 13,806.58
$ 10,671.49
$ 3,135.09
MONTGOMERT CoUNTT:
Barnesville .
.45
.20
2.22
6.21
1.61
3.35
7.26
.39
.88
5.89
3.09
1.80
7.22
.29
2.28
1.62
.52
.76
50.65
3.54
19.40
3.26
$ 136.83
$ 371.31
165.03
1,831.81
5,124.11
1,.328.47
2,764.22
5,990.50
321.81
726.12
4,860.07
2,549.68
1,485.25
5,957.50
239.29
1,881.31
1,3.36.72
429.07
627.11
41,793.27
2,920.99
16,007.69
2,689.95
$ 508.14
165.03
2,376.73
6,679.43
2,111.55
4,387.35
7,859.43
409.79
926.10
6,272.02
3,.359.32
2,347.88
9,.371.03
303.24
2,491..36
1,737.51
684.97
844.18
53,599.02
3,795.40
20,956.32
3,524.06
$ 379.44
121. .30
1,818.62
5,073.16
1,325.30
2,743.74
5,99.3.31
330.59
685.19
4,747.84
2,568.54
1,477.15
5,835.49
245.90
1,883.75
1,310.57
436.65
641.65
40,555.00
2,875.94
15,926.69
2,653.70
$ 128.70
Brookeville .
43.73
Chevy Chase, Section HI
Chevy Chase, Section IV
Chevy Chase, Section V
Chevj' Chase View
544.92
1,555.32
783.08
1,623.13
1,868.93
87.98
199.98
1,411.95
809.64
862.63
3,413.53
63.95
610.05
400.79
255.90
217.07
11,805.75
874.41
4,948.63
834.11
558.11
1,606.27
788.25
1,643.61
Chevj' Chase Village
1,866.12
Drummond . .
79.20
Friendship Heights . . .
240.91
Gaithersburg . . .
1,524.18
Garrett Park
790.78
Glen Echo.
870.73
Kensington . .
3,535.54
Laytonsville . .
57.34
Martins Additions
607.61
North Chevy Chase
426.94
Oakmont . . .
248.32
PoolesviUe . . .
202.53
RockviUe. . .
13,04402
Somerset
919.46
Takoma Park . .
5,029.63
Washington Grove
870.36
Total
122.89
$ 33,308.58
$ 101,401.28
S 134,709.86
S 99,629.52
$ 35,080.34
Exhibit F, Schedule la — Continued
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 195
Exhibit F, Schedule la — Concluded
COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES TAX REVENUES ALLOCATION FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR ACCOUNT OF MUNICI-
PALITIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1957
Municipality
Prince George's County:
Berwyn Heights
Bladensburg
Bowie
Brentwood
Capitol Heights
Cheverlv
College Park
Colmar Manor
Cottage City
District Heights
Eagle Harbor
Edraonston
Fairmount Heights. . .
Forest Heights
Glenarden
Greenbelt
Hyattsville
Landover Hills
Laurel
Morningside
Mount Ranier
North Brentwood ....
Riverdale
Seat Pleasant
Takoma Park
University Park
Upper Marlboro
Total.
Queen Anne's County:
Barclay
Centerville
Church Hill
Queenstown
Sudlersville
Templeville
Total.
St. Mary's County:
Leonardtown . . .
Somerset County:
Crisfield
Princess Anne .
Total.
Talbot County:
Easton
Oxford
St. Michaels.
Trappe
Total.
Washington County:
Boonsboro
Clearspring
Funkstown
Hagerstown
Hancock
Keedysville
Sharpsburg
Sniithsburg
Williamsport ....
Total.
Wicomico County:
Dclmar
Fruitland
Mardela Springs .
Salisbury
Total.
Worcester County:
Berlin
Ocean City ....
Pocomoke City .
Snow Hill
Total
Grand Total
Road Miles
Munici-
palities,
December,
1955
5.48
7.50
4.42
7.09
6.37
11.89
.36.00
3.72
2.48
11.92
1.79
4.64
5.14
8.11
2.73
1,3.60
30.31
4.27
17.54
4.00
15.21
2.23
11.74
7.38
10.90
8.55
2.61
Cash
Balance,
July 1,
1956
247.62
.42
7.09
.46
1.50
1.00
.10
10.57
2.48 $
1.390.93
1,869..37
1,095.53
1,746.95
1,698.77
2,964.90
9,157.60
946.87
600.84
5,431.51
847.74
1,175.46
1,270.40
1,7.30.73
661.46
3,352.19
7,787.93
1,082.38
4,190.95
1,018.69
3,769.99
566.47
2,881.87
1,826.89
2,7.38.19
2,094.87
1,271.16
$ 65,170.64
264.90
1,780.74
138.28
358.10
231.87
57.18
2,831.07
584.18
13.05
5.52
3,208.92
1,207.97
4,416.89
22.76
4.19
6.44
1.09
34.48
4.39
2.14
3.20
11.3.09
8.95
2.82
5.14
3.25
6.65
149.63
6.15
5.78
3.20
65.59
5,661.36
1,958.81
3,100.77
819.33
11,540.27
1,098.
1,363.
761.
54,983.
2,234.
701,
1,298.
801,
1,650
$ 61,893.33
80.72
7.63
11.70
13.70
9.14
42.17
1,316.78
1,.386.30
1,211.94
637.96
16,488.86
$ 19,725.06
2,137.58
2,504.34
2,910.56
2,161.91
4,521.76
6,188.54
3,647.11
5,850.24
5,256.13
9,810.90
29,704.98
3,069.51
2,046.35
9,8.35.65
1,477.00
3,828.65
4,241.21
6,691.87
2,252.62
11,221.89
25,009.95
3,523.34
14,472.93
3,300.55
12,550.36
1,840.06
9,687.13
6,089.53
8,994.01
7,054.94
2,153.61
Total
Funds
Available
$ 204,320.82
346.55
5,850.23
379.57
1,237.71
825.14
82.51
8,721.71
10,768.05
4,554.77
15,322.82
5,912.69
8,057.91
4,742.64
7,597.19
6,954.90
12,775.80
38,862.58
4,016.38
2,647.19
15,267.16
2,324.74
5,004.11
5,511.61
8,422.60
2,914.08
14,574.08
32,797.88
4,605.72
18,663.88
4,319.24
16,320.35
2,406.53
12,569.00
7,916.42
11,732.20
9,149.81
3,424.77
Expendi-
tures
S 269,491.46
611.45
7,630.97
517.85
1,595.81
1,057.01
139.69
11,552.78
$ 2,630.52
13,976.97
5,762.74
4,497.40
6,I00..59
3,612.85
5,763.96
5,287.27
9,659.90
29,510.40
3,0.35.71
1,993.38
12,180.08
1,454.24
.3,799.91
4,162.65
6,336.88
2,214.71
11.064.85
24,927.14
3,492.58
14,099.54
3,268.20
12,.393.13
1,851.91
9,523.29
6,004.57
8,897.58
6,915.29
2,164.95
Cash
Balance,
.IlINE 30,
1957
204,212.96
1,415.29
1,957.32
1,129.79
1.833.23
1.667.63
3.115.90
9,352.18
980.67
653.81
3,087.08
870.50
1,204.20
1,348.96
2,085.72
699.37
3,509.23
7,870.74
1,113.14
4,564.34
1,051.04
3,927.22
554.62
3,045.71
1,911.85
2,834.62
2,234.52
1,259.82
$ 65,278.50
264.90
5,804.99
395.66
1,200.39
793.42
99.01
8,558.37
1,996.56
10,585.76
4,.339.15
% 19,739.71
18,780.16
3,457.33
5,313.89
899.40
$ 28,450.78
24,441.52
5,416.14
8,414.66
1,718.73
$ 39,991.05
3,622.36
1,765.79
2,640.44
93,314.92
7,385.00
2,326.89
4,241.21
2,681.70
5,487.17
S 123,465.48
9,714.39
370,230.62
S 5,074.60
4,769.30
2,640.44
54,120.84
S 66,605.18
6,295.80
9,654.12
11,304.40
7,541.77
$ 34,796.0
$1,088,409.87
4,720.
3,129,
3,401,
48,298.
9,619
3,028
5,539
3,483
7,137
14,924.91
18,510.86
3,371.79
5,268.80
819.33
346.55
1,825.98
122.19
395.42
263.59
40.68
2,994.41
633.96
3,391.21
1,423.59
5,930.66
2,044.35
3,145.86
899.40
$ 27,970.78
3,586.64
2,091.50
2,570.85
93,058.37
7,301.99
2,285.55
4,194.28
2,656.66
5,406.04
188,358.81
6,460.90
5,981.24
3,278.40
70,609.70
$ 86,330.24
8,433.38
12,158.46
14,214.96
9,703.68
44,510.48
$1,458,640.49
% 12.3,151.8
$ 4,851.09
4,490.39
2,463.49
53,558.17
$ 12,020.27
1,133.90
1.037.72
830.67
55,239.69
2,317.59
743.32
1,345.53
826.66
1,731.85
65.206.93
$ 65,363.14
6,440.97
9,108.29
10,651.24
7,331.37
$ 33,531.87
$1,057,876.97
$ 1,609.81
1,490.85
814.91
17,051.53
20,967.10
1,992.41
3,050.17
3,563.72
2,372.31
10,978.61
$ 400,763.52
196
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
fe
H
E-
NJ
ffi
X
5q
X
aa
W
;>a
^
Has
Z
3
&b
,^ ,
Z
z<
3
<; w
^
X
Ci-
xH
<
< —
,^.
^ r ^
^
aX
~
ZH
<
X
c c
^
Xi.
z
--X
>
~ r-
^
^ — t-
^»^
^
a-<o
<^ -r
^
i::?:
=^z^.
in
-sS
Ed
I 5Z
~
^'^^
■<
^z
CV
^<;
Zx
■"
OH
z
D
^&r
S
^z
u&
^
CO
z
^ ^"^
<
<c
GO
0^
Z50
H
^Q
Z
^z
:2
ou
^
la
^
Xa
H^
^?.
aEd
^^
Jj:^ a,j
H""
^
H
02
02
_ ^ _ - •- - — -- :r -1 TJ :r IT 3- :r.
^
III
g
OC 6s - — ~- i :c: fl 7^ ri ^ rt i -^ ~"i i: i ~ re ^ t -^ -f — C:
00
H
OJ
3
a,
o
-T — ■ ~' — ' — ' '^ —' ~" '■•' t-^ '^f •"' — ' -t' oc" '^' »r3 oc cC ?c -t"
06"
cc — ■ ^ -r M -T cic ~^ ih ■ — 00 ' — csc^cDcc
a
s
o_
a
T.
<
^
B
IS
«^
««
1
ac-.rMccoc:ccooc:o»rrcrcr=r-iC^iccsi'Tce^iO
05
U5
en
~ --' — _' _; — ; L-^' __; -- J a: — ' — * rr r* i ^^ — ~- re — " ri e-i a: ^
^
s
CO
0
0
~ — ~ X rt — - i^ u- I- 1^ M re rt Ti — c: rt ~ i^ C:_Ti C;_»f3
CD
— -icre — r-r£rre?i-ra:i?:— ■c<)Mt^iocco]csc5io'r)-cc
0"
»a
e»
Ci-^c-i-^OfM^r — o<>jc?:occc — r-i:--(«Ci-^e^coOrr
to
C; -,c GC a: --C 3: -r =£: t- 1- re 0 c:; i« x 0 c: 0 sc -r cr- oc — _
^
t^
0
-<:
ic rt' — ' t - x' ~" ~' T j' <-* ■^' — * a:' r t I-:' t-, — ' — ' -^' x' — * o' rt 10
05'
f;
□0
OC'
s
—
9S
— ■ c; ^ ©1 •- *■=( — cr- c: 1?; "57 ^«^i^ u3 ci as «N. -^■^©4 c: ©» Ci t^
'~
c-
^ C; ^--5 -<^-^'^4 ^^rc cst-04<teacOooCc*c.^©Jf5e'Ct'-;M5
s„l
-<?-©» 4^ -^ui tcJ*>^c:=ccic:is:<to*^--^©4®*'3:^Q6^--^ --^^
r-
'>;9-:^c;>ci^ocro*^o<totoO^-*f5»^^ -5(-o '5r^ cc ®i -^^
2
i|g
-~^^-^5C *=3 ^"^^^^ "^'^"^'^■^^'^_^'^'^'*^"^*^
^
oi"o»"«c*" ■^«r>-c»rs •~^'^ ©« Oi-- rcr(5nr'5^---r--c-c-c©4<3»— T
,—
Z 3 £
rc
^
s'-^i
2
'C
E
«&
z
— _ .^ _. c^i — — — — ei re — X — — — . -* -^ :r X — —
T^
CO
^
^ s S
__" ^ J _:_-:--' 4J-; i_-r —" r~ -^" — — ' x —■ r i — x r ~ ~^ — c:' -r -r
-^
«
X
ot^
cs oc ci — M ci ^ X — re — ^_ cs 2C i^ re re oc c^ re — ^ 0
M
-T cT -t' t^ ce 0 ci" ■^* ifs i>^ csT 0' C5 0' -^ ce' — ' ic ce »c x' re ^
— -i-t^.ceocceir^cDciQCcc^iO'TpoC'iict^iOiCicre — oc
r^
2
cJ
H
6%
»&
5
0 re 1- re r- ^ - re it; ue 0 c: -c X - ^. = ei ~ oc 0
(M
00
'<
^,
re cJ re -r :;: X — - -r x' — ' -jz — ' — ' ^" x i ^ »e ic e \ L-e x re' e^
CO
2
— -^ — ej — C:»je— x — re-r- rej3 ~ei — ej — — cs
t^
"tt"*© »o — tc csTej »c ■^ca c>j w w5 »o ef — * ^ eJ *o c;" »c csi -^
d
cece-T-r — reorecc — c;(Mej»coc<)t^ — ~— csre^-
-rico — ce*oce(Mcei^iC'^'M — t^cc(M(Mcs(>jiO-Tcc
•^_
c
"
03
««
ae
■^csoo^-c<ioc'^cec:cew3^r(M'^ — lOt^-^cscDO'^
0
Or»-coTrTrcslcv^^^^Qcc:OTOO^^C5!^elO^-;»ot-.Ol^
«o
c<j:cce«3c^ — '-^a:— uiwr — i^fr^c'cdce'reNCOXCs
csi
cc — Gt^x^:r;ic«5X<:c-?--rrei^'^ — ej — c^c:r*ct^
10
»-3
cox»ocs-rx-rreu^ o_i- :c re tM c:_cn -r ce re re x ^0 -*
H
^r
0
C-i
— c: ■ciiO«:?i:^occot^i>-'* (CCKMi^oct— oocetMir-
c»
e
xcs cTiCit^Qci^OMr^b- cooocqio^ic-Tcct^-^
1 QC
P
c^c; ' — cic-r^r^dih^wire ocit^ocix-roioci
CO
^ifr " — eiiirej --cr--r^ . — e^-r— — re-rx'^
c*5
•^
?
.
1
2
"*"
s
10
_ _ _ „ ^j _ _ .- ,, ^j .„ _ ^ .- ^ - -c r: t^ -r ce X -rr
C-J
s
t~
r- P
^ — : ~A -N-' -vj ^•" ->-' — " '^ Qc c:' t^ '^' ^ 1 -^ ~' '^i — ^ -r cc — X cc
"5
m ^ ^
ci — ctcf»h^reicoxcsr^^ej — cr. oejcixict^ce
CO
a 2 ;t
-r t^ »C ei -r T'- -r re iO c: t-- »c re ei c: :c -r re ej ei :c 10 '^
0
p 5 £
^'
TO
gss
0 S z
w
H
■<
I * I I ' I ' ' ' 1 " i ! 1 i - 1 - ! - - . -
z
H
0
:^ :;:;;;;: ii ; ^^1^ '■.■'■.'■■■.'■■
• s:----«--'Boi"z-j
iliiiigiiliiifeiii^iSiil
0
0
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 197
Ed
X
H
ftS
O
C^
a
Pi
s
a
Q
p
>-
El,
O
H
Z
■<
t
^^
in
t^ in
„
to CO 00
03
C^J
GC t^ o GC r^ -r oo
00
oil
oi o ci O c^i lO cc
CD
u; ^ !C o in 02 tc
O
CO"
:= t- — r--r — o
a: ino'o; r^i- a-
iC
oc c^i -f in ut
o
CO
p
>-5
e^
^
t^CO^COCDCC COOl-^
lO
J
H
t^^CCi^sJcCQC--— " —
evj
ococoo:r^cccnw-t
CO
00 t----r t-- to lo -r <£5 c:
O
-T^ o CO o" oc or:* r^ -r u"
CO
H
«OI>-Oi — iO»OCDCOU-
— CC CC CM IM O CO -T
"^
e©
««
z
CD O
CO :
■ o
CO
03 ■
■ in
**
feo 2 O S
zE- g E a
*o :
■^
■ r^^^
l"^
"^
a
e^ !
«©
_
OS
M CO
K
o
o
to
2^ g
o"
c
o
u
<=
Jo
g
CO
H
^
ad
Q
a
o
o
b
o t
CD
o
1^
o
z
O
o
o
'XJ
co"
O
i§
"
o
£«
ee
«»
z
1
z
o 1
KM
CO y- ,C — 3- ^? CC 30 l>
CO
•.-^ :: i= ^^ r rl :;; r -
el
a =3
i\ re -r f- cc »B -r CO O
s
ca
t' cc co' :=" — gc i>r -q^ »r
cS
S ^
IC Ci — OC ICCDCOiT
to
^■^
■^ coco — (MtMCCtN
m
«^
cm'
CO
-*COCOO'-*COOTC*)(M
H
»0'Tr-^oi-i---»ccocD
-^
m
— cdcdoiiooi-^^r^ic
iOiOOiO-fO'-OO
cor--ricoocoo5oc^
•^
— oi" ic cc" GC oc -r — ' f
Hfej
M
^ -T-ccoiccMcoic
oo
<:
C>cf
»&
€»
^
— CMOCOSIM — «
00
o
CO
,
o
-r O CO '-^ CC O CO
o"
CO
tc oc in t^ t^ t^ CO
CO
<
CO
tO_t^C^ CO t^l:^ u:
o;"
in oc in co' to rC o
IC
H
-r oc oj oj to in to
^
<m"
&©
e^
,
„
^^
t=
o
<fc. z ^fc
K C P
1^
D
Z
a
>
a
Pi
H =.
e<&
««
g i
o
CO ^- 00 o; oc -^ I/;
00
m z 3 03 z;
K < 3 X B o
g s „ 2^ D ?: Q
m O B J-t-' Z < Z
o
in to CO ^ CO c^' to
oi
CD
CO F^ »c <rq CO o o w:
|(£gz|>Ofg
crT r - GC 40 co" CO CO o
ur cc oq c^ -r CO to
OS
to
OC' ■
■ -T r^
1 OS
sa ,„
i 1
oc
o" t^
«^
t^ -^
1 50
g«i
S" :
CO ^
«■
s °
H C/
II
rt
^ :
"*ll
to
W5
^fCOlOOOCCO:)t~-C35t-*
oo
iC^O(MCOCiO^-iO
t-
B§
^COfNCM*^^— ^^O
oi
S z'"-
to
coi>^acf-iOQ>--ciir
-< 3-"
<m' cf c; t^ co' '^ GC '-•;" co
co"
O 5 >
^ t- CO -r t^ ^ ic
CO
«$
ee
>^
f-
t^
>-
g
< < e S B £ .: <.=
H
c
C
w
o«
G
t:
E-
^
198
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
EM
3
X
%
H
t»
Q
<!
O
o .
-^
^g
HD
§Q
h5
^§
&-;«*:
WS
s^
O
H
12:
Ed
H
<:
H
CO
..g
o5 w
t^mc35(MO o o
w 00 -r »fl t>- .— I r^
•^ C^* '-^ 00 cj w oi
o i;© CI o ai -r r-
co 00 (>) r- CO c<) cc
o .J
H
g < B S
*< 1^ J z
-= o E a
o: CS C5 U3 (M
O lO CD O CO
CO t^ C O —
00050 ^r o t^cD
^ oseoiooo <>i ^
-^ ^ CD lO CO C33 CJ
I^ oo '^ oo CD -r cc
CO CO CO 00 oc CI I-
COU50003(M CO ^H
^^ 00
^- CO oa 00 <M Oi CD
OOTt*.— iO(M coco
CO OO CO 05^ co^
C^» (Ceo C^-t^" '--"cvT
--* (M
CO(M 00 <M
bo
•a
Z^.^S g „ S
8 i i-^-^ 1-1
"O 13 "O "^ fc- "^
^ o o o o £ o
M i„ ^ -^ i« TS v„
g o o o o o o
f^ 5.2
O 03
^ l-i - S
Wag Qj^
►^ o o c o
J "o O cj^
O o o ~
<: —
^5
c« o
••^
c^ i^ Q^ 5 rt _D,2
w -£ 2
3.2
g.o.2 "
B E B :
•&'3'S "A
Bag
'5'3 H'3 c.'2>
SSq2 P
S =«"
•■ O Oi o
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
199
(M
t-
m
IM
I^
CO
o
00
00
1 1
oeco ^
O lO
.—
b-
lo— t>;
o' I-^
cs
— oo ^
2 §
oc
(M
«
M.
««
»
S»
U5-^
y
to
coin
00
ira
too
-h'qC
t^
OS to
s
»-H t^
0_0s^
o
to"
tc
•^'lO
o"
W3
CO
e»
&&
»»
««
CTOiOtOt^OC Or- o
to
to
o-iroooo
05 to
J^
to to r^ lO
OOS
lOoJOtO—'OT 10 1~: lO
to
c<
-r — ■ N o'
o —
^
b-
Oi
(NT-T^OSOO ^05 -f
o
oqoo W^o
oo'co'TO'irs' cc (m"
oa
o
00 co' t-T
Cvf
cm"
■*
N
-r
e»
««
w
4«
o
o
O
irs
o
U5
«^
&©
o
^
o
oo
OO
>o
O
00
n
CO
to
w
o
o
to
>o
t^
o
o
T
t-
t^
-^"
se
M
»»
©&
05^^_
O — W3 OS
"orTos
o
-et* t^^:f t^
-tt^ cq
oo
CO
too (>)l>;
t^ IMO —
to (3
(M oscq t^
— 1 1^
CM
00 ooi-: -r
t^'o'
M* oi— •*"
|>I
— CO o
o t^
c^
O-l ' CO
-1--
o
to
««
OCCOCOOOC^ 05 lO o
OCO
oo
t--o
»o
^* lO to lO CT: (M OO-^ -*
T -^
oc
to 00
CO
to CO o' <m' to OS r-: o' CO
tdoi
o-
c^i
— cci
I>I
(M — (>J t^ ^ lO OOO to
t^
lO
lO" -P
c
to
CD
1—1
ei»
e^
e^
o
00
to
to
o-
»c
iC
'^
OS
-rr
oo
O:
OJ
i
00
OS
o6
•^
■^
OS
oT
'-'
s«
«^
««
»
o
CO I^
o
^ ^T
t~
OTfi CKl
CD
m
O —
t-. to
1^
to o"
-r —
o"
ojo'
o-
O— CO
OO
9&
«^
«(&
>o
oo
O 00
o
cv-
CO
lOO
00
to CO
o
o-
OS
oo
o>
t~
CO to
O -P
CO
o-
^*
d OS
OS
^
tf
o
c^
^H
<M
co"
c^
CO
co"
'— '
ae
efi
««
0&
OOtOfM
tc
OS<M
Q
^
— ^rco
cr
coio
OS
t-^o6^
tc
— t^
CO
^
oo —
CO -:J^
oo
t^
■n'
<M
CM
««
M
«»
e^
CSHOC^tMOJO to OO lO
lO t^-*
— — — -f
ost^ O
00
^
lOI^l^t^OJO t^ »o O
CSI 05 lOO
oo CT
-r
CVI
-ro5»oO'*'r- tote to
CO f'^ to
-r o" >o t-:
od OS oj
lO
CO
totoot^t^to mc<i CO
r-^ — CO
CO t^iraos
r^ Gc ^
CO
o
t^-5._— .-TCO CO— 03
t^
CM OOC33 0)
O OS
ws r-TtCco'co coc^" CO
-co"
tc
txJ to" f-"
o" —
tC
co"
TK— (M — —
CO
ur
»0 — ^rt^
T-*
lo
CO
^
^
««
_„^ COtO CO
>o o c-j r.
ao~^t^~r~:p t^o o
oooo oc
CO
CO OS iO "■
CO — ooco— t'~:t^ o
t^ o' c<i o' oc 00 o cvi 'i^'
CO t^ r>i t-.
to to O to — lO — OJ
lO C^" c*"
CM
O CO t^ 00 CO CS to to lO
t^Osf~ 00
Cr
-ht^t^co- oo —
CO cc
C3S
ic — t^iOCO_-7- c-i^co to
os-l^^t^ O
oo u-
l>-^
tCto o'co r1^' l-co c^"
— OS oc
to
OS 00 — ^ c^r of
r^ c*
o"
O
^
CO
«»
«^
e©
e^
M :
_^
J
.
,
bO
^
- -
,
.H •
c
a
o
c
^ :
<3
S)
-o
tS
'm O
bO
bo
'> ■
o
O;
3
13
si)
]?
ci
-T3
■
x; ;
c^
a^
—
C
' .s
„
"O
CM
C2 G
i — surfac:
i — oiling .
shoulder
drainage
-g :
5 :
>
>
t-r
>>
.2
>
-o
■3
3
i
> s
.2 "^
II
^ U. fc, fc- fc- -3 y
1 :
i
P
3
i s'i 2
„"S"^'2'S --a
^
lis
UT3
fill
o aj o ^
Is
""Si
sl.H 1
1. g C3 5
ij-a "
a-a 0-
1-^
CEC
aintenance o
lintenance o
aintenance o
aintenance o
•ainage struc
ructure repai
aintenance oi
parkways . .
affic services
aintenance o
it
c
E-
CHAR
aintenance o
aintenance o
aintenance o
aintenance o
rainage struc
aintenance o
|gi
111
o
1 s
s
*3
:s
c
a
;s
E-
s
P
■s
s
5
s
c
S
^
^
P
1
o
U
200
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
o
3
fa
5
X
a
Q
O
o .
^§
U< ;^
cat*
O
H
2:;
H
i
^
-V-
.^
_
o
00
o -
.c
0
CO
f.
^ *
bc r- r-
.-. CO
o
c
o^
00
a
*0
CO CC' cc
—^ c;
<M
oc
(Nod
ICW5
I^
ES
X
— oc
CO
oc
E-t
O
d^
CO
cc
_r
^J
ro
»~^
«© ;
«^
c«
«9
00
~~oo
(M— ■
CO
a
oc CV) .
0
(^
(^;
t» t^
CO
e
r>-
t^
o o
'-'
cc -
cc
--'cT
0"
K
'— '
'— '
CSJ •
CO
"
«^
e^
«©
0&
a
T
1
fH
oc O b-
t-
1 ^cco coo
oco ■
0
O ^ Ci
lOC-.o:
cc eo CO
cc Ci <rj oc CO
coco
0
0
CO c^* — '
xei'^ \r
in -^ 00
t--
»o c: CO oc ci
cKt^ :
06
06
H
r^co tc
O i^
cc OO O
r^-- locn-
^cc 0.
— ^ t^
oc
cc O^ cc ^ —
t^
EI
cT^'^VJ'
xn ;
rC-T — '
'-"
^'
O
H
o&
^
6I&
w
a
o
Ed
2
P
H o
S
C
£: &
"?
Q
c:
o S
o J
c:
^W
z i
c«i
J K
E-
o g
-—
Z
-rf ^
= S
«^
«i
C^-t"
cc 00 U3
oc •
p-
o
coc
•^
coo
CO
»;
r^ -r
CCCO —
o •
"<*
■rr
-^•^
cow
c^
Ee3
oc t^
-f^ * oc
c:
iC
•-r cc
o
1-- rf
0
3
-rr C-)
t^
c<5>r
mcD
CO
cu
-;
s.
0"
D
C/3
e^
w
» «»
e«
ii
CO
o r-
C<1 o
o
coo
OCC
00 —
0
00
o:
iocq
t-
cc
W5CO
CO
(N
cc
or
oc cc
QCC
CCCO
iri
»c
r^o
CO CC
irt
SC
O
QCCC
CO
c -
tz
a<
««
M
^ ««
**
m
CO
_
0
_^
r-
oq
cc
^
c
r^
0
06
0
H«
o
c
Cs
CO
B. B
CS
££:
~
^
P-.
««
«e
e^
lO
_p
c
to
r^o ■
^
->•
J
a;
t^
Oi
cooo
»o
<
r^
rvi
o
ai
^ CO
0
06
cc
6c
£
^
cc
»r
:
f-
s
*r
'Ti
s
w
t»
w
lg
o
O
c
«2
1
-< e
cc
o <
OS
CO
a a
cc
a o
o z
■§^
«A
«^
»
^I-.
D t^Ci
1^
•*
r^
ceo
5 ^CD
■cc
CO
< B
oc cc5
^ o*o6
, -^
06
c4
O Q
Q
> lOOO
B <
ooo
: OS t^
S «
ccec
CC
> Csfo"
cq~
10
go
1 ^
e->
<
««
«^
^ «»
M
e V
— O (M iC ^ ^
CM ifS — ifS I^
5 o-»oc^^of
coo «:
t^-rr-
•2
tf
"5gg
5 ^- CO r^ ci ic
c
■5 CD CO -f cc C
1 c lo ir
t^uD t^
io
&
cx: *b t^ r-: oc c
CO '^ C' CT- CO
-" O^ O' ui CO C
y' c: t^ ^-
OCDO
06
s
«r ^ ^
CO cc r^ cc — f>
1 -r i= o cc c;
CO oc oc. — c
CO 00 »-
S 5 §
cncc -r iccc
ex cc oc -f- o
«
3 OC.^.^.t.'"
: o5 —
s
oo
„
-r ^' to cc
:r i-^rccccooo
r t^»-<"
U5>0
00"
V
«
«
M
t— c^j ci ^ cr c
1 —t oc cc »0 CO u-
3 ic-r cct^^
coc^ "■
t^O t-
- s
S
t-- (M W2 cc M «:
0 C: O CO o c
D OC OC U-
J oc
CO
^
OC CO o: — CO 1^
- ic c^ -r oi wi cr
r I- o ^ o' c
5 ocd —
ooot-
- oc
00
— <>) CO CO Ci w
3 t- W5 CO cc lo r-
2 — C-. -P C^J G
ri cc oo T-
' E;
=e
g
OJO -rc^co
cccc oo -i;»o c:
■3 cc oo -r i>^ If
3 13 CO
C5 CO t-
oc
lO
M <m' iC CO -f'
o' CO* to cc* c^
— ' tC cc oi" -
r"" ir?'--
■rao"
1^
°s"
H
iC cc * •—
«
0 COiO ■-
9 ««
- CO
O) CO
■ bt ■ •
■ ,
: M '■
.
■ ,
i
^
■ .is
m O
: bc
•"2
:g.s
f
•"3 :
;■> •
■ '-a :
■ 0
0
.2 c
m 0
If
"■2
- c
'.-a
:^: » o o ce-
j
;| : : £
: ^"1
: gg
•; Ofo|-|.
: --^ i i"^"^
pd -o -o -o -a
1.1 ^
- -a
: S
> "S
1> Cj
1
0
:>
ii
C— ^ *" ^ *" 3
^ £ ■ :i
: if'i 2
5I :
!i
e
■ o-a "
'pi
>- ^ O O o o
0 ^ o o o o .
cj-3 =»
s-a g
W c o cu o E
5 = : g °
■■^ i.'s
3 = ;
0
.■ii:i
'5
- c*
-<
^ 5i t; O =i -tS
§ rt § § o
-- c_; tc-r; o
. fc-'c c
3 c> w
1 =
^ c^
• s
3.2-S
0
: i s- s 5
b = S "^ =^
;-g5^
\ E
rvi rt rt ?3 ?3
^ 5 d
: >.-
. E-
s -S -S 5 " .
:ftiii|i§^£|s
r^^ "^ '^ "^
= "S"^
Us
2> oc
3 "0 °
'rt'c;'?;"^ r
E'?. =.?-5 &^> co-
■^'^ ■ — '^
2 ■ 5 H. rt ■ 5
;cih
S2
^;:
^^
",;:
:i£
cS
E
-?^
tJ
^
"^
''-
^;
~S
3 3;
hS
^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
201
' --I to 00 1—
o
J3
O— 'OOO oo
^ CO ^ — '
Oi o
oo O CC ^-^ o
WOi
O (M
^ as
OO cc
•^ CO Oi "^ lO
- O oo O Oi CO
- W3CO n' ^ -** CT)
lO ^ ^
CO CO Ci CO CO
I>. M^ -H O CO
eri oo kO oi CD
CO r-T
lOCO
»m' C^ CQ O
CS) -t^ OO oc
• CO (M iC lO CO
'f^ iCoo t^
OOO
't'
CO OS
<=> O Oi O CKl
o^co ou^
t^iO
CO
cooo
OSiO
r-o 1— oo
Oi CO
■^ IC
2 =^ ^^
O » o o
>H o o o
-< o o o
■a c-rs
55®
El 9"
; •g'2
S 2: a ;
H o
a o
C C M g S
.2 c
1>
t3
.s.s.s-l.s ssa.s a^ «
O O) o '^
OOPh
202
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
73
o
CI
T3
t/3
H
c«
>i
CO
Q
<
0
OS
>-
Hr-
^15
»iii
0 ,
00
CO
D
Z.
U
u^
u.
U^
a
u
z.
<
'4:
zw
H
^^
2:
-<
S
0 J
03 5o
S^
H«
to'
fXJi.
0
Sw
u
fcx
QH
l§
X"^
u
1
■ ■ . 10 ■
ic ■
■oc
0 -r
^
0
'V
c;
'. '. '.^ \
[^
: O) OC i>j
(^
06
&3
:-r C-. oc
X
; ! ;« :
c>j !
^.
c^i
H
0
;;;«»;
a»
^
;^ ; ; ;
r^
CM
U
• 00 ■ ' •
^
<
;co : : :
2
t6
CO
B
1 CO 1 ! ;
CO
ro
^
■ iC • • ■
t-^
^~
Eh
;m ; ; ;
ee
t-
ccr^O (MTO
CO
c-i : : : :
0
0
CCS S
CO -; OC -; 0
COO
0 ....
OD cl rc -r C^i
"T CO
-^ 111"
CM
^
H
— -r c: cc oc
CO CO
CJ>
jgco a.
C 0 (M tC !=
OCCKl
c^ '. '. 1
00
0
S
^g|
oCcvTc-j — "—"
'"'
oJ
CO
H
««
««
«»
a
: ^ _. „
3 :
0
p
z
0
• ■ ir^ c 10
"?
P
«g
;-r »i5»^
^ :
CM
^
fs
^
t- 0
c^
o_
0
H Z
5:2
02
CO
^1
Q
:**
ae
t^
^ B
aj
oc — 0 = CO
0 •
CM
00
0 5
0 J
0 •
o-
■<
z <
cc CO -r 0 oc
oj
»o
ci
0 B
— 0 ci cc 1^
S :
CO
s
5 ^
im'iO
c:'
00
B
P5
«S
0&
«»
z
OCU5 -co ^H
O! •
C5 1^^ 1
10
*-0 -coco
CO .HTIO
B
CO ci : >ri 0
CO
OC : 0: Ci
CO
VO
— Icsco
00 :
s
t.
CO
M :o_
0
&.
o_
CM^
-Tj
e* :
s»
c«
§1
2 *
m t^ • ■ ^H
— . leo ■ •
0
C5
0 CO • • 0
1^ ■ cs • ■
0
CO :co : :
oi
o'
GC CO ! ; ^H
C5 . t^ . .
Ci
30
CO ."* . .
00
"3
oT ■ ■
CO
Is
CO
a ■<
«► • ■
««
s»
• ■ • -o
£ • • -Ci
0
CO
!! ; ; ; ;s
ci
06
U5
a =3 : : : :^-
P. Ed . . . - ^
CO
(S £:
CO
za
^ ::::«*
<»
M
1 : : : : :
t^ '0 • •
^
^
^
b;
oc -co • '
*-;
CO
.<
B
0 :co : :
C3
-T . C^f . .
CO
05
S
s
f-
t>
cm' ; : ;
hJ
!S
•*
«»
a»
B C
E- a
0 10 ■ -(O
„
t.
I>1 OJ • p
»o
0
< e
CM
CO
c ■<
-r
B K
c^ I 1
p
t~^
OS c
0 z
CO
C'-^
<^
«» • -
««
«»
B
^o-^< :»
CM
C3J
1^ 0 CO - ■^
m
^
< B
ccojr-: :o6
0
C C
0 0— • .—
B <
eo-r
00
0 ^^
<:
M>
«»
M
Cv
OC 00 — OOOi
coo
CO coooco
^
CO
0 Z g M
i -e a £
«5 to C^ t-^ IC
oc »o
c^i p p w
&
1-^ CO co' -r ci
•m' '^'
ci iccdoo
^
»o
< « si
^ S »^ B
(M »« C: •— 00
"M -r — I-
d co»cr^ ^
ci CO
0 co^ p
iO
U5
i-."i^co"ocir>
CO
'A CO CO
s"
CO"
00
^'is'tl"
6«
«r»
*•
1 cc c; 0 ■^ -r
0 0
10 CO CO 1^ -r
_f
0
0 CO C: CO (M
01 0 0: o^> c
!>;
p
CO 0 OC :o' :o'
CO ui oc Ca 0
OC CO to C: CO
Ci -T c; 00 oc
h-
CO »o
0
CO
>o'
CO
r-
«■
Oi
: : : : :
s - •
0
: - s
: : s
0
' . OJ
>. SP ; : ■ •
•3 :
3
2.2
^ 3
E-"S ■V.a'-
-5 • •
j_
"~S
. . 0
5w=5 ^^ ^ :
-a :
5 : :
_o
^ it
0 • 0)
■•s ; >
snifi
S : :
-0 . .
1 : :
^cil
0 ^5.52
liiiifc
J
•-2^ ?
:i~i
£ sf's 2
^ v« --*.-— t„ .^
S---T3 5
Et! c 0 0 0 C;
2 1 1 1 1?
c- ■ 2
rt e3 0
0
^■2 1:2
-Q.2 "
.J
■s £ S S J s
0 ? "
.= i:t|
>an).
listri
acat:
and
etc.
iity
ener
ortio
c
z
.5 J 'J J 2
;«w=> 0^^
^
^«s<;<5C
S r-»^
*-*
0
^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
20^
X
y.
o
H
fO
H
^
&
>->
Q
w
Q
12;
»
tf
^
M
>^
hJ
<<
cc
U
Q
(/J
iz;
b
;^
Eh
o
1— 1
tf
H
O
O
^
p
;z;
Uj
o
H
1— <
o
Q
H
;z:
o
X
u
Q
1^:
<
r/)
U
P
;^
u
>
u
K
t^
O
H
;z;
w
S
M
H
-*!
H
t/3
f^
lO
oo<to ^
to to
J^ ^r-l-
o
oo
BOS
M OD ^!^
o to
Oi »i5 CO
<»
^?-
g|S
0^
-h' to ui
oi cc
03
?^ ^--' o6
M
tc
Jo
'^d
tr> ^'^i
O -^CD
in
<^
t^ ^o
<3v} »OCO
o6
^^
o5 «r
oi"
■^
cTgo"
o"
5*;
.-^■"
t^
QO
■so
«s
«^
^
OD
to -P O ut) lO O OS
r^ 00 -r o o o -t^
CO
to
OiCOOOOOO
o
^
o
CO
od ci O to' oi O ic
(■^ ^ CO* '-^ c^i o CO
to
<
t^
to »0 on lO (M 00 00
I— CD CO t-- CO UO CO
to
O
lO
oi o -r (M -r QO (--
^-f*"
id —' cT GO -— ' en CO
'^j' r^ »o M CO
•TOC CD^ ^
o
CO
o
«^
««
-
to !-
^
_^
CC H 1
o
o
Ej
'ranspe
0 Coun
Mainte
nance
Funds
C-I
s
a
z
b-H
e»
«»
.
O ICO o
ooo
lO
ooo
ro
o too'o
r-^OO
I^
s
^H c^ Oa iO
•M t-OO
oo
u:s i^-- c^~
(xJt^o"
c-r
-Tt~-»>M
'— '
r^
e^
^
-
,
CO
CO
cocc
•o
OS
r^oo-<^
o
3;
o
S 5 fe
o^
00
c~
OS coco
o
o
'— "
o
00 lO
iO
!>; ^ CO
Tjl
■^
oo
1-. COCO
g2 §
•T?
W3
MO_
05C0-^
to^
t--
"^
z^o
o
id'-^cT
GO
Tt^COCD
CO
""^
s
■
S
»o
OOOOO'-'Or-t^-MOcg
O-rtiQOOOOO
°s
M
lOfMlMOC^OlOOOO
CD GOOiO OOO CO
lO
►J S m
-t o <
^
CD ^ -^ -r o CO CO o ^*
o CO ^' ^ »d o c
o
CJ
OUOlCiCOQOCOC^OOOO
&; S ■J
t^ 1— 00 C^l »0 oo O^
^£S
(^
i-T co' id tC oc cvf c^~
id cN cd' od^*" cj cc
o"
-f
•n^ i>- r-^ c^ n^
(M ^ OO 1-H O
oo
<5
©^
^
-^
O ■* C50
o>raoo-*<MO-rtoooo
CD
^
lO M oio
ctomotoczJooico-Jirad
CD
OOiOtoOO-t^OS^OrOt^OOiC
c^
H
OiC^OtO
^ eg ooio c^ (M_i^o_to c^^o oo
H
lO i^" to c^' i^ (m' »o lo r^ od t-T oT
o eg t-H
'^t^OCvlcO^HCSI-^t^^OS
^««
^d
^
-p
g.ggp^Sg
»o
»o
Transp
Fro.n
Gasoli
Tax a:
MoTO
Vehic
Reven
cS
s
^
CO
ID
o
CD
■o
'^
a
'ranspei
From
COUNTTI
Mainte
NANCE
Funds
ci
0
H
e©
e@
z
w
CO
^
■OJO -rtD
its
-H
Ed
o ^
as
■lOO »OI^
f^
1^
z S
< ^ H
o
lO
: O O C33 CO
. 03 ^ '^ O
CO
o
-rf^
o
o"
■ cf »o 'Ti^rC
_r
s
S o
»o
■^ <M C^
H O
^
^
o ,
<o
3
oincso-Tt-
o
sss
*o
-< 2 1-
o
o
O 05 000 to
o
O CT) O
j 2oa H
o
O to tt O -T
-^c^io
£ « & -<
00U5 tDOOCO
•C3
t^ rt^ «^
to
.-H CM 02 W^C33
as
lOtdcacvrtsi
o"
(xjo'cj"
o
-!rt^"5<M"5
■*
CO
lO "^OS *5^0 --I
tOOi
OOSJ
OlM
c
to
CM lO 05 t^ (M O
O ®J
to "C
f^ Ol
O OJ cd CO ■-' -f^"
05®j
(x5 o
ass
a
5g
CM OO CO -^lOCO
CM "^
cio Oi
c
S2
■3i^.
1— ' "S^i Oi Oo "^ C^
^^
o cs
05^^^
^
tCoo' iC
io ecT
©j"cn
tc
^^
<JJ
c^
^r
«^
•s
. >
• ^
■ H .
2
t
■ H
■ ^
: p
. o
a,
J 1
J 1-
; c
6
. C
5 ;
z
, c
c
.c
' a
c
5 B
c
: !- D H
& o 2 ^
: go p t
^o|-°
t
3 2
. E-
' p.
: ^1
i ?
: >
" c
>c
3 I
i c
|l
<
S "^
5c
5 c:
3 p.
J 5
c
:>&
Sll
s
^^
^-}
5:^
3P
204 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit F, Schedule 4
SINKING FUNDS
STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED JUNE 30, 1957
Revenues:
Portion of proceeds of 5()?( share of the (iasohiie
Tax Fund .
Portion of proceeds of 20% share of the Gasoline
Tax Fund
Portion of proceeds of 20% share of Motor
Vehicle Revenue Fund
PortioT\ of proceeds of excise tax on certificates
of title to motor vehicles
Premium and accrued interest on bonds sold:
State Highway Construction Bonds:
Series I, par value S15.0()0.000
Series J, par value $15,(100,000
County Highway Construction Bonds, Third
Series, par value $1,567,000
Net income from United States Treasury obliga-
tions
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
Funds deposited with paying agent for debt
service:
State Highway Construction Bonds:
Series A, due August 1 , 1956
Series C, due December 1, 1956
Series D, due December 1, 1956
Series E, due August 1, 1956
Series F, due September 1, 1956
Series (i, due .July 1, 1957
Series H, due November I, 1956
Interest on all bonds
County Highway Construction Bonds:
First Series, due July 1, 1957
Second Series, due August 1, 1957
Interest on all bonds
Total Expenditures . . .
KxcBss OK Revenues Over Expenditures (Ex-
cess of expenditures in italics)
Cash Balance, .Iuly 1, 1956— Including invest-
ment in United States Treasury obligations . .
Cash Balance, .Iunb 30, 1957 — Including invest-
mentjin United States Treasury obligations . . .
Total
1,897,267.00
346,545.56
.38,879.64
!,567,279.32
8,040.00
10,759.58
1,661.05
306,070.97
812,176,503.12
$1,500,000.00
1,667,000.00
1,666,000.00
1,666,000.00
400,000.00
400,000.00
300,000.00
3,264,824.33
80,000.00
20,000.00
89,311.25
$11,053,135.58.
$I,123,.367.54
10,40,3,657.97
$11,527,025.51
State Highway Construction
Bonds, Sinking Funds
Series A,C,D,
AND E
$4,842,635.02
Second Issue
Series F,Ci,H,
I, AND J
$4,054,631.98
2,262,245.16
201,542.31
$7,306,422.49
$1,500,000.00
1.667,000.00
1,666,000.00
1,666,000.00
$7,715,377.33
I 408,954.84
8,197,732.61
$7,788,777.77
305,034.16
8.040.00
10,759..58
98,420.28
$4,476,886.00
400,000.00
400,000.00
300,000.00
2,048,447.00
$3,148,447.00
County Highway Construction
Bonds, Sinking Funds
First Series
$ 110,625.00
2,988.95
$ 113,613.95
$ 80,000.00
25,625.00
$ 105,625.00
7,988.95
118,3.35.43
$ 126,324.38
Second Series
$ 127,805.00
1,871.09
129,676.09
$ 20,000.00
41,555.00
$ 61,555.00
$ 68,121.09
122,455.65
$ 190,576.74
Third Series
$ 108,115.56
38,879.64
1,661.05
1.248.34
$ 149,904.59
22,131.25 I
22,131.25
$ 127,773.34
$ 127,773.34
Note — The revenues and expenditures shown by this statement do not include the purchase, sale, or redemption of investment securities consisting
of United States Treasury obligations. For purposes of this statement. United States Treasury obligations owned at July 1, 1956, and at
June 30, 1957, are considered as the equivalent of cash.
206
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
^
Q
<
z
_ '-'5
<z
-a
■"z
Z^
z^
z
s z g
OS
■5 s.
§27
= > =
s ;-J'>
coo
coo
^o
T^ O^
lOO
COS
3*^ ^ CO ^
.•S j; iC t„ -a 3
C 3 = u
c4;.£ 3_;-o
c -^ ~ - - —
£S
Ej= S:c 5C.'
3 Sa5 «fc. S'SmEQkK
Q S J 5 £
-k T'^
oQopi o
>-,
w
>
>.
-s
• ' ': i
_o
>
C3
>>
C3
S
; 0
c.
5
'S
s
'5;
c
0
-
' -^
0-& ;
'&
>
; •=
■5
1
c
— .2
>
S
£
£
"0 0-3
fc.
0
^
£
,£
X.
t-
to g=
s
c
^
C
•
,y:
g
S
- o-^>
^
>
■"H
(-
%
"£
"c
c
=
"■3 =
"c
i
'i
_c
t
t
^
:|
:|
|:S|
.£
E
E
c
IZ
3
^
^
.S^ H
■ j-
i
'i
^
:£
1
• 1
^w £ C --
i!^C
C
^c
"c
"^
=
=
5 — w 't" ^
^
,^
^'-
-^
S . S X "3 ^
■Jl
-|
\ '■ \
1
^
I
i
-•i'l;?!
1
i
\ t
;f
5
3
CO
E- «
0 S
T
\ °f
S
C
' ><
><
' "t^iitsj
(
(^
-
5 S s
!2
i;
: 2:
2
s
^
■^
c "^ -
:c
^ t^
i^
■ ^>o"5>nu-
CJ
<
-«a
C K s
. =
- ^
-
Ofc
fe.fe
0
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 207
0
0
Q
0 0
0
0 0
CD 0
o_ 0
0
IM — .
co"
^
«,
c
o —
oo
■§ g
0
0
S §8
CO 1
»o
2 =
0
S
S 00
—
O ro
- ^ ^
0"
-r o'o
cJ
(M
w 1
O:
S
m
CO
^
Q
_j,
^
t^ kO
•— ' 0
^
O
o
"^
CO
0
r^
0
CO 0
U50
J^
•o
^
T-^
-r
-r
0
05
CO
— - uz
CO 0
CD
5
C-.
cc
CO
co_
s
Oi
<N
OC' CO
c5°
0
^c
'
cT
CO
im" —
a
; g
o
-a
J.
i
-t:
;-g
'■H
h
-3
;-a
;-C
;x
:-r
T3
c
"^
o
. o
35
5
5
_>
5
; 5
: 5
s
8
:S
: n
:S
:-d
3
03
-S
c3
: 5
c
1
o
1
1
E-
o
J
■a
■ o
• CO
: —
e'
s
a
■ T
-3
: 1
. 0
0
-T-1 C
1
c
3
0
5
1
O
-a
5
S
o
-a
0^
>J
;"o
■J
• a
■ "S
■ a
■ _c
-a
1
- u
: S
■ c
c
a
;S|i|
MSB
-a
£
2
L.
o
o
S2S
■ «
:|
■ t
1
<
.2
1 °
:-c:
: "a
:.5
3 « ^
"c
.2
:J
■a
3
3
>
■J. a
- 1
:"5
■ hL' —
3 ^
0 "
•si
:sl
■si
"2
c
-g
1
■ *n
2
5
■c
. :
■J
3 M
; CI
■ >^
■ E o
■ ^ 3
^■-0.2
11
3 &
■ "i
; §
^1
■T
ri
3 =
- -is
•1
■ ?
1 =
„ 0
:-3
§■3
" 1
%
-a
-£
ca
:
1
•S-S.|'of|-o|"S
0
■2.9
< 2
^
■I-2
= ^£■2 S
> ^
ir: —
3.2
|.£
'ii _
1 2
0 -^
■|
|l||l' "
0 Sf o"?
. 3 fc §■>
1
ra|
1
•^ o
_c
S-5
< i
^^
Sj 5-5
2 5
S ^
^1
E i
Sl 1
1
•" 0 § o** 0 = 5^
o
O
"
^
tfo
.^CJ
'^
"
"
000
OHO
g
'o
c
'.%
'C't^
-3
^
^ >,
'm
>
^ >
■> >
'g
E
":
:
s
bo
">.
c
c
c
3
0
E
o
c
c
c
3
C
C.
c_
0
0
O
C
c
2 5
!!.
0
-c
>
>
>
, MM
1 £
1 b
1 M
>i
(-
j^
c
c
c
^
a
-a
c
1
c
1
c
&
a.
C
c
c
3
0
_
S .
0 3
3
fe
1 b
' ^^
c
0
t-a tf
c
3 t- 0
>i-^
c:
bC
c
c
-0
rt rt -^
i5 2 -
-=
c
s
C
C
s
£ £
=3"^
p.
C
£
■l
5
" 5 S
a ^ a
■° C..2
<
-a
J
g'c
°c
c
.s.=
0 £
c
'c
"c
"0
3 >
0 ^ ^
la-i
1
J
C
1
a
11
c
c
°
'i
£
c
t
c
J
£
E
c
'o'o
£■£■
0 0
CO
"..£
Si
^ i
n
5s
1
£
c
'£
£
u
e
£
£
c
0
'i
E
0
3-^
-0 c
ail
r ■^'m 3
" .-S " 0
O'gO
=1°
=^0
ill
0 M.-S
C3 3 -
5 c
>
e e
-A 'A
C
c
C
C
c
c
0
■> >.
3
S,
'o =
c^
c
7><
>'
><
><
><
><
>^.
c
; g
?
iOT
-
' CO CO
t^r^
r-
; s
r^
3
05
c»
^5?^-^ 1
I
W
;s
2
IS
, p
4^
a
hP.
P
< P
, P
. p.
Oi
P
hC/
3^
^P
208
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
o
s
K 2
■a
GO
02 Eh
hQ
^ ^ I-"
gw
^Q
^g
^^
o
5 e
-fe.
=" ^ IB
z " "
5 ^ z
iiii
£" =a =
5^ " z
5 z :?
OS *^
c: c; c; --;
o ^ c; crs
?£! ac o 1^
^*o oi-* --
t^co^-OOCi — -^r-TO^-ocoOcoo
ClI^OiCCCOCOOCDOOcor^OCSJCOO
QC— ' Csi C^' CC CO O C^ »— * C^ ci O CO c^ o cc to
■ — CC — ^-MtM
O lO QC CO
.ococtoo-r — cc — !:
o
SCO — o-rc^cc-rciicc^t-co
cc re -H c^
to -r ^ '
CO WDt^ ^H
2
oooc-rcoooooccrot^coc^c;--i^ooc^ooo^(M
c; i^ c-j — c; '
S n^ -.2
5
1
J
1
0
j
c
^ £■ ■ ■3 5 =
3 3= 5_:_:S
T c :
z-bZ.'
■r»C
t^ - c ti tS bD bC
^j:;cloo l=: = i_5f->- :,
i.iJ|-||e!||-|-a
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 209
OO
oo
! ! oc
»o
. . •«
i
g
"5
CO
CO*"
: ^-
u:>
^
ira
o^
o_
■ ■ R
■*
^^
«»
«*
t-,U5l^
COCJ
'V wco
■^
t^ t^ 1 «5
CO ^ Oi
oooo
Qoi; o
tooo
00 o
wi OS cj
lOO
■o i^co
coco r^
00 CO CO
o ^ t^
•^o
od'-^
o" o"od
of
f
^I'cD rC II
W3
-f 00 0-.
-r " 1 c^i II
-r
«
s»
^ e«
««
w
0(M
^
■O Oi t^
CO
J,
oo OS
a oo-H
o
l-^O
£J
rJ CD -r
Q
6 ^ ^
d
s
-.00 CD
t^.o
22
O C350
o" oo'tv"
o
CO
^
fas' QO
CD ic
o
o co^^
(NO
CD
~-
'
'"'^' 1 CT- 1
•*
» e»
^
\^\
o
o
: : o II
CO
CO
fo
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
o*
■ ■ o 1
CO
I^
o'
o"
: : o' 1
e«
e©
: : s; 1
(M OOO (M ^ coco
o oo-t<
^1
.f^ o II
-* t^ CO CO O — c<:
^a o CO
3^ -r 11
05 r-i --H O* -t' -1^' CO
V COio
OD
„
_J • pr; "
CO r- CO r~ CO 00 o
O O iO
--_ r^_ oo oo -f_ u5 (N
CI
o
1^. ^-
■5 tC — ■
"^"!aS i;;'^"
f O o:
Oi
-o r--
iO 00 00 oo O »0 <X3
c
c
i tri
CO
■i" oo
««
9 «&
««
««
^ »0 »0 CO QC »0 ^
0 CO<M
00
J_
^'^
OS oo »o — T o; ic
7 OOIO
CO
-1
c^* oi t^ -r -J- o c^
g -.'uj
r-^
^
I CO CD
-p -r -f 03 CO >o CO
I^ — w o oq -r CO
ui 02 oo" -h" tC —" tC
c
iT — " »-.'
cf
u-
sto' iC
'»■ -r to CO t^ oj -H
:! oo ^
t^ CO
P OICO
QC
.-
•—
-PO'
-f'
-^
9f
»»
» aiiio
»o
ic c^ '-' 05 1^ r^ 05
c
3 t^— 1
00
C£
CO t^
QS (M_ ^ CO C^ CD O
c
5 o--;
CO
ir
oo o
■^ 00 05 oi 00 T-H CO
6 oi oi
(M Uti Oi ^ 05 "5 CO
D (MCD
Ci
c:> 05
(M lO O 00 C -H CO
c
co"— To" co"
5" OO'O"
cjT
c
'oT o
COCO
^^
»^
«.
» ««
^
e^
t^ OS 00 CO "^ o oc
J CO :
CO
r^
|l
t^ .^ ^ CVl t^ -f »o
c
1 -1-
•^
CO ^' 00 (m' CO O O
5 o :
o
c:^
(M Oi t^ IC 00 Oi -aZi
0 »c
CO_05 0_(>10^COC^^
r^
^C
-jH ^ c<r CO -^ ^ c-i
3 oT ■
Ol
Oi
O .— -f (M -^ ,-H -^
•"o
1— 1 CO ,— . 1— 1 C^l »— « .-H
H C^
C*I
^>
«K»
s
^ «> :
€«
1
CO oo lo oi 00 CO r^
5 O ■
^
~
CO
O O CO CO O -^ -rjH^
cs
c;
Oi t^ CO CO CO t-^ 00
^
r-T
1^
k(d
Ol CO CO Ci CO CO lO
Cv
CO
®
eo^oqo O5»oco
c
1^
.^' CO oc -r -r' *r o'
c
^
,-7
^
^
" .-.
If
00 ;
oo
or
«^
tfi
» e« -
e^
t^ lO lO 1^ '^ ^ 00
t>
lr~ ■
(^
^
-r
O ^CMOOOO 00
CM
o
1—
CO -h' o oi oi !>: -r
CO CO -r lO "^ lO Oi
<a:: r-- CO 1-H CO lO -t'
O
00 t^ i^ CO irf c^" CO
'>^
I-- Oi oo Tfi lO ■* CO
•^
c» •
oj
O^
o" :
id"
'O
«9
««
^ .
^
C^ -f -H CO CO t'- OS
C^
^ IC
CO
^1
^ on (^ r^ 00 -r r^
If
OicO
CM
lO oi o c^i -r ■-'' CO
OOi^
CO
r- CO CO CO oi oo 00
c
'f CJ5
-r
CO oo CO CM r- CM <M
"^ ,—
CO
CO tC QO" O co' CM ^
c
Oco"
CO
CO
r--f co-t^t^co-^
-r uo 1
OiO-t"CI_CO_OlO
l>
t^^ 1
OC'
oo 1
C:
Qo'io 1
CO 1
«»
Oi
Oi 1
«^
©9*^
c«
Jl
§
•S'S
o
* s
t^
a
g
o g"
o
.2 "^
P
:2 "^
-3
H
^22
C
s g
p
■3 c o
fa
CJ ^
"O fat
-g
X
g ;;;:;; ;
3-0.;;
5
J w
o .
^
fc. c > ..
'> J
H
« s- &:
oj jj S o
-III
.>
m t-
> d d 6 o' 6 o' d
^
M S
1
a <
^ . 3i .^ ."S .^ .^ .^ .^
n
St^*^'*^'^'?^"*?;'^
e
3
SSqqqQQGQ
i§
-a
<
W
Q
H2
H
<
1
O c3
"Si
S!^ S C 3
o=„ iS fan ce
ao«
210
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
o
Z
Z«
<
S ■ >■ ,•
^ ^ « H
5 o ^ ^
>n
_
^
_
o-
^
,^
„
C-l
.
rsi
0
CD
g
>o
_^
_
CO
lo
^ ^.
c:
iococ:cDOcDc:c:;cDi-.ocir
cc
c;
C^I
og CO CD 0 <m' — CM oi oJ CD 0 0
CD
»o
c^
= ib
-riot^oC'OC»^o-^-rcoOcD
^ c;
"*"
-r ^ -r
S
tO_iC
CO
Os"
a.
S"g^
««»
^
B
-^
s
c=
-^
rt
CO w
to
00
OS
CO
i=^
-T"
^
1-3
-< Q
cm z
■<
e»
««
§
ii
o-r
0
ococooociocoico:
CD CD
OS
"O
,,
CO
CO
0
K-T
-. 0 -r -- 00 -r -r 0 0:
CO
OC
0
iraco
0
1^ t-^ CO CM I^ 0 t^ oi CD*
ci 0-
Crs
ai cc
0
cm"
— CO
OC
i-co^' r-^c-rc:
c-
.— CO
s
CT
4JO c; ic -r ^ ^ CO CO
COC-
o-
CO
CO
C
S3
cT
I^
^"cm'oi'cd'cm" cd'i-T
CM CD
C-l"
t^
.J
iC
— OC
a
o
CM
w
««
fS
cr.
^
co=n — -^
0
-r
^
00 1
. B
lO
Oi
0 r^ c: CO
OS
CD
'°.
£"t;i<
~^
ci
oi to 'M ws
ci
ci
0
ai
0
0 — C-4 00
CO
to
o B S^^s:
»o
cj:
(^
t^
^ = £g
"^
-t" —"«>"
oi
;r
" 1
^
»l.
« 1
m
"5C-1
_^
-^ c: — 10 OC O' 0 0
^^iif-
oo~ir
IcM i
INTING,
ITOSTAI
Blub
HINTS,
Etc.
^-
0 CO 0 0 0: 0 0 CM
loiboc
t~CT
<35 CM
O -r
0
CO CM t^ -P cm' CM CD 10
— OC u-
0 CO
t^ 05
w
-rojioooicic — --
<M OC
10 -:t*
c^
00 .— 10 Ol CC^
o_
CO 1 1-
C □"CLi
re
s©
h 1
1 >-
CC-T
^
I--lOcDOCOiCCD^CDOCOCCr
cc
coo-
00 00 CO 1 •-• I
i, -K
C'
COOOCO'CC — iC — CM«— 0*0 —
r--
OICO (M
to 00
PPLIEI
'FPICE
ORATC
Etc.
to 00
0
c^ioocMocGCiocoio-r'r^cMiO *^
.-H C^
u-
t^ •*
t^Ci
r-oocO'-t^c:cocooOT-
CO CT
05 -V
«oo_
cr
»o -r OC ^_^^oc CO ic r~ coicoc
cciocm'^^ cS--^ ^co
I^
CO ^*^
co" 0"
sO (0
^ ^
««
|S 1
fc. m f-
o to
~o
C-llOOO
■0
0
'*
^
OtT
W"
0 rt
o g z
O TO
c
O0-;OIM
UD
c
0 C^
0-
J e z ^ ^
to r^
CR C73 0'^
id
t^ cs
r^ -r
Cv
0 o'
z J = ■= S
to CO
cc
IT
00 0
00 02
CC
00 0" to"
cm""
cc
C<1
"^
^
S'
« m w
a»
s»
O 03
TON
oi ost^oo ^ 0 OC 0 0 co-^^c:
Ift 0 CD Os
c
CO CM
Z B
o c^
00 Oi CM 00 CD CM -^ C OS 00 iC "O CT
(Ts 0
0 00 t- 0 1
?^ z
ui^
c:
0 OC -r t^ oi CM* CO ^ -r t^ -r CM -r
UJ CD —
»r
■^ Oi
ts> ..r
'rr^occo^coosoococDcDwo
OC' to
CO -^
c:
0 CD CO OC lO CO CO CO CD OS '-
t~ c-
tc
c^ 1 CO 1
i-^^-
^"o-
CM
^«
«©
~
S»
h" af
C<I05
coosioi^co^oiootJOOocMOi cq
t-CC
t- -
CM 1
z £ a
l^M
c
ic>oocMi^^a:r^r-cocM-ft-- r--
-r<=
»r
>o
o -c „ c
°"d
06 GC c^ iri csi i>: ^' -r 0 -r 0 cc OC «-
c: r^ ^
f.
00
K « ° -<
cr
OiOOt^iOCMt^-r-fCOiOCDCr
CO CO 10 c^
10
£ O Z H
c-j to
Cl CC (M <>» CM 1^ --" CD ^ !:C r^ ^ GC
»—
C5 0 c
c^
a a < S
dm
rC ^* CD 0 (TO CC ^' -T ^ CO -
CO c^
j:;
HH
«»
t^
CJ
oeo
^
CO-HCOCMOCiC-r-HCCDCOt-
U5QO —
o> -t
CM
a
0 OCOOCM-rcqX'CM!r5CO»OCs
to
^ 5 i
<N C^
c^
cr^'^)^f^70-virst-^-^t^<:^c^
0 -^^ IN
tc
CD
cc r^
— CT. -r >ra tc
B,< g
cc -^
cD-roo-rio-r-rcDi"oiocs
coo"
i.
^ ^ Tji" Tf' '^'" .-H cd" CO cm' cm" CM*
■^oc
Cs
-i""
^ ,_,.—. -^
IM
i»
CL,
e«&
«»
Sa as ,n ?S g c: ^
jr (^ M O J:; ^ O
r^to
c; i^w5cc-rOr^i>.c-:c)coG;c^
j^
C CIS 0 t^ -t
-t-
a-
-r r- 0 -i^ «"
-r
CO o
cc 01 0 Gc' r--^ CO ci »o c? cTs 0" id -t
-r 0 0 i^ CO -r I* ic OC 0 OS CD t--
cr.it:> c^
-1- c
CO
-^ c
—
t-^OCOCOTcDCD — -rCi»00
U"
|^»0 C^
-*Q0"
i>^" 0 crsV- 1 fco^o 'fj'" coo" odes
0"
CM COCM (M OCO
e©
i
00 CM
r- r^^oi'M-fiO«:;r — ra^QO'>.
>o-
10 0 CT
00
Y FOR
ATION,
, AND
FHER
SAVE
<>.
QC— — O-rCOiOcDCSCOC^JT CC
CC ?
Cv
CO CT
-r (m'
Cs
c -r CO cd' — ^ CO — ■ 0" -— • Gc" c^i cr
^
ci to to .-
a
06
t^ CO
tOCT-COOSiOCDCOCOOCCDOlC^
00 -r 10 r^ a
CKO.
c
C^
c^-
Tt*
00 "5
OC
or-r — cr' cm' cm' ■^'00* (--."^'co' '^
r^-r CO CO c^
co"
^>7r'^
-n- — t^-r— '-rr cMoc
t^
**
««
(MO
CO ^ -r CO -^OO W5<M OS QOCO CO u"
.-. cq to tc
c
0
a o
5."*
i^o>
-t; cDc»^-.cocooqt•^0■^a:'^c^
—
00 CO -
UJO
ic CM r-^ t^ CO ^" oi CO fM* I ^" -r i cr:' —
c^
CO 06 r-^ c
c\
cD»ot^-rcDC:orr-cc-^r--f cn
iraro in c-.
c
occDoccccoco — roc-, --cxo
Ic
to* to
c^
— 'cm'oi iO'trt i-'-t' :='i- 01' c' -
tr
to CV
00 -r
c^
Os"
-r CO
— CD — cooc — OcD'Oi»o-rc^
CO OC
W5
c» z
<!
s»
e»&
— C-.
~
^J _ _ „ ^ _ _^ _ ,^ ^ ^ J^
^
CO >0 0 OC
OC
^
CO I^
Cs
^
CJCJ
CD c: — ' — ^ oj c r 1 -^ -r »o -r CO f' 06 o"
to <x
CO tc
00
CO CO
10 CO ir
o
OC lO
cr
03— -rc:roc:':^j-rGC'-riO cr
o_-
I^
c
CM
— 'co'
c/-
0 o'r-T-r cm''— ''oo'4r3 0s'ai'cM'"GC —
00 c^
00" c
OC
--T
H
-Tr>-CD— ■OTTCMOO'^OliOC^
GT
CN
CO ^^ CO CM CM COCO'-
CM c
10^
e^
«^
_„
"£
M
3
s
1
Z
o
> t
Q i
.3
c.
O
B
-a
<
0
li
0 *-
0
■3
Oh
C
t.
■cl
. = -c
— r
c
:'E
C
—
I"!
cm «
o-g
ill
IP
1 ^ -i
'5
0
1
>> ?
II
M.X
1
C,
ll
0 ?
s >
H
1
"CO
1
M
^ .£
^'>
'JTr c
0
<
1
is.-^
0 -j:6q«mMOT j«OKP-
s
K E=
M
H
O
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
211
lOiOOl'-H'— 'OOiC I CD
05 CM* r-^ CO o -r cc -^
QOCO'— 'lOOOCOOi CO
-r lo CO CM ro <x; cs
as -r *o CO CM csi ^
o o •-< -TtH lo r^ CO
CM >— < "-"^C) 05 t-- CT)
cm' id" c4" o' co" CO
GO W5 CM Ol •— ' CZJ -*
o CD id --^ oi id CO
I •- CO cji c: — ' o-i CM
I -I oJ CO oi CO o cm'
t^ r^ to -r lo lO 0"j
OC CM I-^ »0 -f
;:; I
r^ w CO lo lo c
^ t-^ CO --H c
CO to OS CO CO t^ r^
t - CM -T' as CO O CM
O GO r-I CO ^' — ■ t-l
-— 1 O CO GTS CM -— I lO
t^ -n o -r — • -* -^
i-h' cm' co' -—' cm' cm' •-''
' as o coo o
S
CO .— I CO OS C^l •-' CO
u^ CO ^ -^ o coo
'-H -^ lo •-< r- oo o
o ^
00 t^
lO Cs
t- o
COOC w lO
oo ^" c^i oo
c^i --^ '— ' .— 1 1>. W3 c:i
CM ■<+< O r-- lO CD »o
t-^ CO t-^ O" t^ CO CO
1— ' CJ CO CO »0 CM CO
OS t-- CO t-- t/3 CO OS
00 CO CO O CM OOO
s o r-- CM t^
t^ ,-. iC I-- CO t^ —
IC CO -— O 05 T— OS
I-- -t* CO QO CO OS r
t^ t^ CM CO 05 ^ C
,-H CD O O' '-H C^j T
lO -^ -^ CM CO r-- c
CO IC -— I O OS GO C
-1^' -r t^ CD 1—' CtT -
»0 o -— ' as ^r oo c
-2 Z H o
'o w ^ ^
w t, <; H a:
CO -— I QO !>.
O' l>^ OS c
OO t-- lO I
CM^lCCOC
I^^'c^f CD
lO f-t -— ' CO
.— . CO -^ O; CD O CM
CM id t-^ GO O O* l>^
r-- CO CM OS -t^ -^ o
1— • -t^ CM »0 CM »0 lO
od od O -T^' OO CO ^
I - ^ O CO •-' OO GO
3 O CO Oi O lO
o OS -r CM c
O cdcDO t
OO O OS lO c
S m
Q CD
2; £- J '
5! S S '
3QQQQQQQ
212
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit G, Schedule 2
STATEMENT OF OPERATING EQUIPMENT EXPENSES FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1957
Total
District
State
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5
No. 6
No. 7
Wtde
Salaries and Wages
Insurance
$ 474,005.42
12,700.16
32,378.11
979.25
19,351.21
221,161.29
9,175.75
11,234.03
325.108.65
55,361.72
71,354.58
6,940.26
$ 39,221.70
1,061.02
2,834.29
44.80
1,912.99
15,235.75
672.88
903.66
28,950.73
4,644.11
5,942.88
201.96
$102,858.26
2,622.84
7,505.02
279.41
8,478.21
55,142.21
2,.593.14
3,384.29
10.3,242.31
11,528.79
16,088.87
1,267.94
S 59,037.19
1,476.52
3,210.25
142.55
1,411.26
23,879.29
832.14
1,026.83
32,482.73
8,257.55
9,675.49
646.38
$ 57,909.87
1,351.08
4,291.73
149.65
644.75
22,003.79
1,060.64
689.24
25,542.67
4,424.05
7,404.10
780.69
$ 84,344.23
2,254.80
4,779.19
196.45
3,497.18
49,641.05
1,884.34
2,389.14
64,412.49
11,875.13
17,313.51
1,496.23
$ 45,714.88
1,590.64
4,381.73
$ 67,086.67
1,494.77
4,713.85
130.38
1,108.17
22,058.60
1,072.49
1,084.67
26,497.24
7,843.56
7,386.60
1,783.68
$ 17,832.62
848.49
Light, Heat, Power, and
Water
662.05
Traveling Expenses
Fuel Oil — Diesel . .
.36.01
.5.35.01
27,378.67
966.36
1,124.81
20,893.09
5,158.36
6,041.94
604.91
1,763.64
5,821.93
93.76
631.49
23,087.39
Shop Materials and Supplies
Tires and Tubes
1,630.17
1,501.19
Miscellaneous Expenses ...
158.47
Total
$1,239,750.43
$101,626.77
$314,991.29
$142,078.18
$126,252.26
$244,083.74
$114,390.40
$142,260.58
$ 54,067.21
214
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
W
K 2
Wo'
«Tf
gs
z^
& -
1-9 -H
QK
I^S
KO
-<^
hQ
s«
2H
s^^
, Hoc
a^9
HSo
ej«m
►^-^z
i^iODH
o&>
5hm
S^tfJ
Ehh
^o^
^z:?:
CLAJ
ED U
D TU
aoi'z
>a<
^mH
Oli,c5
OBJE
DMIN
BRID
^^o
CQ
COH
zg«
WO!
rv.Q
S 5 2
|g£
Z 3 a, Z
-< £ K a 2
S S,"* 5 ^ =
a Sr- z < z
E z a o D
5S
C3*M OO
cso — c: o oc 00
re I - — -r GC oj*
<c
oi c: oc
o
cc'^^c^ — iSooor^
rz ~ i5 — "^ ^ '^- "^ ^- ^- '^'
i--t- oc»cr-
t^ -r cc GO I- O O
ro oc oc o c: o cc
t^ c: :5 1-^ o CO CO
-ri O :o O i:c CR cc
^^ 7X X^ P '^- — ZT Zi
-r ci I ~ — I ' --C '?'i =
-OO oo
-OOirf
. coo CO
o'— ~
r>.icco»oo— o-rciocoooccM
Oi Oi 00 GO Ci oc- O CO ^ r-^ O — •— ^ CD
cocio-^ccu5--ciodo6ocic:»o
t^^Cit^-rcO'— icoco<Mooco»o>o
co-^'— '•—i-^c^ -^»oc; -j-»o
-r ci
00 -r
O CO
O) CN) CD oo - t*
•-^ "-^ i^ OS ; »C
W3 CDO -** .1^
CO »-^o o , »-^
OS ^^ O 00 • Ci
1— ' (>4(M ^ •
CO .coco
CO -r *o CO
- oi ^ oc c; cs c
: — I- tC
t - — -r to CO C-. r
*— »/5 iC to CO •
ooic-i-r -M
: — cc -1- 1 - CO CO CO
':3 M
2 E .
t > "-S.-S Z.ti j ^ 1 T3 o »
2 SJS •'a.
£3 I It's
t; _ — X ^- —
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
215
*■
05(M O
05 ■
to lO •
OO
o
O
0 -rr^(3:-i' >cooo »c
OiO (M
ci «! :
o
lO
OO
ic oo(35r^cD 1^00 0
oeooi
u:
o'
^ t^ 0" U5 1>^ CO 0 0' C-1
OsOiCO
^ ■
T
o
Oioco-H oio-r 0
■f
CO
05
ic c^i 00 00 »0 00 00
(m"
m
c-f co' (>f (^)"
ooco
— 5D
(M utico OO
C-J
OO —
CO OO
.-r CO
O coco
■* Ol
M-cq ,-ao
CO
.(r OC
OO lOlC
00 us
-^t-Iod
>oa6
ci ci oi c=
c=
b-:>n
.-^ t^ CO
00 t^
00
iOOC
t- -f -rr
(M CO
!>• C<1 -— '
CO 00
OO t^ -^ 00
CS
lO-H
O OCS
CTS
CO
ctT CO
00
'^
OO CO
0
d,
0
(»
»
OO CJ Ci ^ OS CO iO ^^ OC iC O ^
00
■ ■*ooo
co»rtO t^(35 0-
-^ CM O O CO COiCOiO '^'^O t^ OC
O ^ IM t-- r-. ^ CO CO OS CO -^ CO
ot
•lOtOrt
(^^ o (^J (^^ 013 -■
CO C^3»00 — OO-rr-CO -rPOSCO OS w
ooocooit^-t'cD-^'cO'^eo ci
a
:<^o'co
id CO 00 o6 o* oc
CO cMio-r CO oor^cDoo -^'ooo* o '^
lOOiO MtOCOt^Ot^lM —
.CO^iO
(M CO ^ CO ex -T
lO Ir^OC^ CO O t^ OS -H ^CDCM oo O
ODOOCO M CM C^ O CO CC t^ -^
. (M ^
— 00 to (M O
CO CM CD -r COOOOOS COOOOO ^ 00
»OCDI^ 1— T C'f CM lO i— ' — ' oT
(X
■ r-^ -^
inu-
— ' — " o' —'^'c^fco' o-^'cm" c^*
CMlOt^ CM ^ CM
00
t^cOiO
(NIC
OO
(MO 00
^
■•o
Oi
•o
t^. rcc
OS CO o
t^ iO>rao)(33 COOt^ (M
— <M
en
(Cr- O
00 — oq u-
o-i 0:0
COiOO
t^o
-r
(35 0 "
lO
■ -^
<rq
c'
Q.' of rvi -+
CM »0 0'
CO 0" c' 0" »0 OS CO "^ CO
CO,- (M
00
coooococ
OiiOiO
CM CO
OO
CO
:o_
CO
o
•O C-) C'
0 CO
n u3oc_(3it^_ roiraco_ co_
o'lOCM
^
o" ■O
CO »o c
of -r
co' COCi'(3i'(M" oTufof 0(5"
TT OO
^
t^ ,-M
0 0
CO 0 C32 -^ 00 (M
CO -r cjj c-1 ■«
(m'co'co'
Ol CM Oi OOO O
O:
Oro lO
CO
OO
IC t^
(Td IC
Oi 0
j^ -t<o.*o
oco
CO 05
CO COCO W^iC lO
ICI--. 00
CO
ICCC
tCcO
>OCO
0 -^
CO CO (M CO 0
0 00
-Ji .(J*
OS CO CO IC CO oi
>o
-r (N i^
CO
U5 0S
CO CO
(35 CO
■n' 06
»c OO 00 iri C3
(35 >0
OO ^ OS COOl CM
Oi-f'
Ut) CO
o-r
iO CO 0 OO 40
"oc CO
to OCOC33
CO CO
CO CO
oo'oo'
-t-'
irT
CO
^
^
^
-r' ^ o.f oq~
0'
l>r (>q'
Oi
o
ooco
s
•CDO=.*
c
0
1000
00 -P
; o' !>: oo'
c
to
Oi
00_
o ":i
CO
.o t-.(^^
. t-_-r co_
0"
(35
■^ w
CO 00
^
00 to
OC
10
CO
1—1 CTS
CO
o t^
COC
r--
— ;
CM CO
CO IT
^ OC
eo^
.-co
05 r^
CO
'"'
CO
CO
Oi
CDI-^
t^'T O — .
ust^cocooooocoooo
0
t^ t- 0 -^ ^ 0 0
o
COI^
-f 03 OO
-rcocOiCt^»ol^c35coiot-
0
CD -r 00 't "^ ""; "^
CO
CO^
^co o(5-r
cdcOC?:o6cdcji'M'o^'>iQ(
!) 0'
OC CO 0' t^ 00 1^ -^
03
°A
to (3!
co" co'
2,34
31.25
1,01
27,05
1,.38
17,77
222,21
9,41
67,90
16
J OS
00 " CM COi-i
t--,— iCOCM-fOO^CM'— 'OCC^l OS.— '-t
W^KMI^CCOO^OCDCi:
-r lot^-r^ — H O50DCOCO ic -t- 00 t*^ ^ en
-tHQo. _ior-.05ict-~iocoir
cooiO^cccco'idost^or-l oi'rrc^
CO »n CO .^ CO c<i (m' -1^ o' o' «■
S iC -f^t^^ 10 o'lO-t-CO t-^^^oi OS CO »o
CM'-.CT.l^CMOOCOO'OOGO t^OiO
-roow300oo^o-r(Mr'
lO O Oi OS CO ^_CH'^^-*^-'^- f^'^,^
CO (N CO ooco -r co_o_(35ioc
.— »— CD 00 0: W5 t>. CM CD 0 CO CO CO iO CD
CO -:p".--"oo"cO oT Cm'cC o'cM^eo' CD CO u"
' (rq* eo' (TQ t^ — '' W3 ^^ CO oiD .^' c
e-i" lo'iot-T -r t^'o'co'ic os'oo'od — * 00' c-f
^ O (MCO^COOOC
t^ CDOO -V W3Tt-40CM S^Ol =2 f^^ ^
.-. C^ (>)
CJCM ■" ^r-.-^ OOSCMIOCO C^l
coco' CO
■.a
1 0
s
c«
J2,
^•J=
s
'of 8-i-SP
6—
tS ■"
s.
-, o'5 3 S"^
:*j
■-JJ
-g
2'^
3
> " S-o Eo
:|
_E
■ i
' 1
ll
s.
^
(o 0 S-a-g".
-^
> a.
g.
J
i:
fl
c«
1
E
g j^
■a a
PhO-
c
■J
. g c
t:
a
■2
§
<
ii
CU
o
z
i ^
_c
c
t
c
1
6
c
'c
1
c
c
J :
si
c
'I
>
ct
s
1-
1
c
• c
>
c
i
c
1
\
-o
c
C5
c
i
;'5
~ =?■
0 b
■3
>
Ii
C(3-^
1"
a
II
-g =
13 ?:
-2 c
'o'c
£l
0
-a E
5 be =
0
c
-a
cS
bii -
-^ c
0.=
c
ii
THER Expenditures:
Construction contract paymei
Land purchased fright-of-way
Prnfpssinnal sprvipps
Relocating power lines, (
acquisition of right-of-way .
Purchases of fixed assets (e:
overhead and equipment s
Net increase in book value of
of materials and supplies (al
ing salaries and wages, and
service costs, etc., totaling
o
0
216
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
t3
3
o
w
3
5
X
Z ^
1-9 .
go
5S
^^
Ci ft!
Fig
cagH
|g§
e«
a _
^g
>^
QZ
o
i~ S" m
b g §
51^
c^S
■< -5 !^ S O
m t.^ Ope
H ^ M » -
Z 5 63 g S
fe
-r C —
o
z
Ed
Ed
a
K
fe
J
s
Z
<
o
cc r— o »o
men
o c;
c
m
o
(M
-r ^
c: r^
S
c^
s
=
»r3 -M
s
g
s
s
oo c;
oo —
t^
«
— oc »o
: • ■=£ "i -"H -.1 -.1 ; '-a-4'§ :"° :■£ :
■ ' -^ -S '^ '"S ■'S -ooSS -o -^^
: g:g K:a:3:3: =3a^-s:=: °^
: fet c « .2 :.2 : c : S : "J g g :^ : >..[g
:..£&,= I :§ ;^ :a : .s§^^ :>> :§s
'i^4^ ^ ;^ :|'i|i-^i^'l^it?|.1
ce^S; ' c-^E^Iti >."= >,-3 ^"Sbco S.B' o 5 o g
= fc-«i-S-f'^ -^ ^ ^-' -oii-^r's'S sf
S-3s:o=-5 gxo-g &B >>:§ >-o
fe t; m 2 (i, CL,
£r
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
217
oc
1
OO
r-- OO "^
CO id OS
CO CO CO
od Mcd
CO
OO
OS
$2,046,061.06
152,718.73
239,981.40
to
g
M
CD
o"
o"
TO
o"
00 lO
11
$6,199,258.72
1,074,941.51
904,596.17
oo'
18.790.09
5,955.20
3,235.00
6,003.40
38,383.00
57,761.17
oc
oc'
$54,892,897.38
4,195,642.40
76,916.69
^ 1
*" 1
0-*
ooi
OO COC5
to woo
OO' COU5
o ooo
oi" o"os"
o
OS
«^ 1
II
II
II
O 5050
OS *^^
00 OO
$5,392,006.27
5,393,131.01
1,124.74
1
18,790.09
5,955.20
3,235.00
32,608.38
41,395.85
57,761.17
o"
to
CO
05
to
to_
OS
Payment to Accounting Officer, Dis-
trict of Columbia — Washington
Metropolitan Area Transportation
Study
li
he a
a o
'-S »
o
-si
^ § a
i
o
01
o
c
'o
e
1
1
'3
=
1
'o
1
f
1
■a 2
1
■g
3
1
i
1
.2
=« 03
.2 ^
3 &
.-2 tS
ill
III
1
1
' 1
c
c
§1
o ~
1
£
Q
H
Oh
X
<:
c
° caT3
a: OT ts o
..H._2 c^
III I I
O -^ m ?^ M
^'c £= S
gOOJ
218
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit I
STATEMENT OF TRAFFIC VOLUME AND TOLL INCOME OF WILLIAMSPORT TOLL
BRIDGE, BY CLASSIFICATIONS, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1957 AND 1958
Toll
Rate
Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 1957
Nine Months Ended
March 31, 1958*
Traffic
VOLl'ME
Toll
Income
Traffic
Volume
Toll
Income
Passenger Cars and Light Commercial Vehicles:
Passenger cars, taxicabs, ambulances, motorcycles, etc
S .10
.15
1,042,580
6,016
1,046
77,556
26,749
135,799
341
3,869
$ 104,258.00
902.40
762,1192
4,413
685
59,685
22,635
83,640
281
2,620
$ 76,209.20
661.95
Heavy Commercial Vehicles:
.25
.75
1.00
1.25
.35
19,389.00
20,061.75
135,799.00
426.25
1,354.15
14.921.25
Trucks and tractors, tractors and semi-trailers (3-axles) . .
Tractors and trailers ( 4-axles)
Unusual vehicles and vehicles with 5 or more axles
16.976.25
83,640.00
.351.25
917.00
Total
1,293,956
$ 282,190.55
622.16
936,051
% 193,676.90
456.80
TOTAL INCOME
S 282,812.71
$ 194,133.70
Bridge became toll-free April 1, 1958.
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
219
X
>-»
H
CO
OOO CO
_
oo
-f
= C-J 05(MO<=
'^
^
rotdpoco-lo-
^
i
o coo oo?S
OU5C3 oc'-rr^
00
H
CO
«2 CiO yr> CO cv-
as_
99 •'^5!^
tH {B
ooo cococ>c
(M
H O t-
o rq 03 (M o c
oo
■:i Ed Z
»o oocD CO ^ cr
(0 ;; B
QOCO OiO CO C^l
ai
i^t^tc «o i^<r
'— '
o'co o"co -rr-
of
occ) o o Oi u-
*o
o"
> K «
CO lO -^(M CO cv
CO
^^^
<a3 coodco -tr ^
" oT
a:
»» »
Si
Z
p
•-s
g
'Tl^cn -t^
e
CM t^Oq 05
(M
w
-r" to o 00
o
z
O 05 coo
•V
Z
c:
cocgoo
!D
11
00 ^^'co
Ed
oo GOCO -H
-«!
z
»i^OS^U5 02_
o_
m
^
^ (M
CO
4©
a
toco-- oo
oo
.
B o
83.7
51.2
41.7
10.9
t-^
K
a
a
Z
Ci CO CO CO
00
K J
o'r-'-T-co'
05
<: o
t^toioo
"1
lO^S^ ^ »o
-1^
t=
s©
1
S5 III
t~-0 CO t^
COt~iOCM
c^
1
J
^ ai t< -r
o
fe
2io cqcM
H
OC0 02Q0
lO
coin-f —
IC
CDCO'ufo"
e^ CM
^
CO
"
oo
^ ooooto
05
C7100CO oo
o
cdcol^oi
E
-f .— W3 O)
o
3
Sz
o"
-r CO ira Qo
oo
Ed
moo or -^
Pi
a
Z
co'cMCo'co"
r^
»& ^
4%
a><
t^
t^CMlOt^
OS
'
O
^^ m
o
CO^UO t^-^
t-^ i 1 1
£
CC
UO-P OiCO
CM
z
-r CO coo
to
p
csT^'cf t^
8»
^■
o
o
o_ o o o_ o o
<
g
ed CO -r oc' — * c
-ra
CT oo ^_'— -r c£
o^
cncTco'-p -r^-
H
^ CO CO r^co c
^
tC-r f-^co-t^'--
t^
m
9& -^
«•
o
ES
oooooo
o
CO o o_ o o o
CD
s
-r CO* 00 " — cr
z
o
CM C^l CD ^ CO O
ira
Oi CM CO »C -f CC
^
Oi
COCvf lo-^-^t^
H
c-1 CM ^ o en u-
o
CO CM_t-;-^_CO_ e'-
^
er Ocf coco '^'^
-^
«© (M
^
-<
OOO'O
o
o
o ooc
ui
oi O' CD 1^
to
U50 ooira
O CDIOCO
oot-Tt^Toi
oo_
^"Sco
CD
CO CM coo'
o^
6© CM
©©
,Sz P
CMOC^SO
C5 Ol^tO
;5
PS o >«
u X* — «3 05
^ o -cr C5
Balan
ULY 1,
Apport
MENT
Thru 1
CO CO »o t^
l--"aJ"o"--p
-H CM -^ CM
t^.- CMO
^
oo'ioc^'co
•-j~—
9© ^-H
«&
t:
C r-
b
. 3 =
>> C3
-SQh-
i
.gi|s 11
o
£:b;^£qc:
>
:S c3 c3 rt c^ a
& S fe & &I
tfi CO C« M M W
o o o o o c
p-
e.
p-
p-
a
a
II
lO O CM_
CO CO oo
c« 3 E
CO > ^
t^ 3 o'S
^_c3.=S o
^"S g c.
."*' a a. a
220
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
0
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
^
_
c
cc
«l
Q
^
^'
_^
c:
I^
J^
—
^
^
,^
^
_
^
tic
ci
5
22
CI
CO
s; g
c:5
cc
tc.
CC
CO
cc
c: S
a
CO
*rt
c-
cr
0
^ a
oc
c
oc
. s
^
C B
cc o
C3
Z f
3 O
-5 H
00
00
~
0
000
0
0
0
0
B 3
c
= 0
c c
0
COOO
0
0
g«£
I
a
CO ^
cc — »fl
0
■^
1
n
i«
coous
c
J s
c
Z
m
^■zr
ZT-'^
co"
cri
— cc —
CI
-r
00
?j iH
>^
C4
p
o
o
p
&
g
CO
J.
0 0
0 re
0
j^
CO
000
0
CO
0
j_
0
0
~~^
0
Q
U5
c
CO
t^
-roc
0
0
0
0
0
o_
H
C5
cc
ut
peso
cc
cc
0
CO
cr " an
w:
SE
:^ to
»r5 -r
re -r
c
-.0
c-r
cc oc C^
'~C
oc
*c
o-
0-.
-r
ct
CO
H
o"
re —
cTcc
of -m'
■0
7C
_'
»n cc -r
cC
-r
-r
y
QC
CO
—
cc
0-. C-.
>>
10
b:
■<
z
a
D
>-
«^
»:3
— —
__,
_ J_^
_
0
0
0
^
0
s
w5
55
0 c
00 i
c
0
C
0
tb
2
t^ t-»
gK=
s
ei
cc
a-.
r^
0 c<
0 o-
I^<35 1C
r^
g
o
co"m
o"oc
C3:'c»C-
1^
-jT
hfi
i^
oc
cc
rvj •r
-r 0 »/^
or
i
&]
CC
CM
e-i
CM
<!
•-5
0
O CD
t<10
2
cr
irr
-r ~
— CC
0
-'5'
X —
=■
2
CO
H ;»
t) J
^^
«.
coo S
oc
0 CJiM
_
~
ce
000
CO
0
z
^
z
0
cc
c
0
0
0 0 S
^ S
S -^ —
^
~
V.
i^ ^ i?
^
^
2
—
3
^
C4
00 c
0 c:
-r -r r^
^
c-
CC lO 1-
c-
i?
cc
tc
5
0
CO
00
3c"in~:
:/■
u-
OC
IC
c-r
S3
or
'X.
5-
cr
-^
~"'"
--C-
cc
cs
"*"
CI — —
CI
"t
-v
■<
t»
■<
as
§
&.X
XX —
B.C
C-
r
<<.<
<<
<<:<
<
<
<:<
<
-<
z
z
&-fc.fc.
fcfc.
fafefc.
^
tL,
fe
»c^b;
fc
li
-
-
-
"
T3
S
1
■1 ■
3
z
§1
>. 0
3
z
1
>.
i
I.'
>•
0
0
-0 :
c.
3
II
%
•4 t
1
3
1^
o
ft.
o
z
o
§
►J
J
5
is °
c
3
0
I
e
0
e
5
»
c
S
0
£ ■-
. 1 &
S c
.13
0
0
c
2
cc
c
c
>
1
i
oc
10
3
c
"i
5 i
is :
II
II
S'c
It
||
il
^1
nil
1 -S 1
m5 £t£
ifc
3 —
to 0
art
5.?
1
0
rt -
c
c
1 1|
fc 5 ^ c
£ > 0 c
7^ -2
'*^ 1-
■-3
S
B
a
c
>
3
0
c
i ^
c
•_-3
= S
If
■■= !«
n S
1
IE i
.'■5 5
c
i4
3 = ? i
£; 0 £; y
gt: ErI
-g
3 =
c
J
bC
3
'>>
i>
tie
pa c
'
S(£c:
z z
a
zc
»
-<
-<
M
wff
tc
5
03
a
S)
^
C3
CC
ffi
CQ
m
pa
eg
§1
0 c
cc c
'^Sl
-Arj
H B
o a
1
gi
a.2
1
c
. ei
■^
—
'■=«
^
^
__
Cl
_^
_^
»C
cc
c;
•M t-
^ —
c
01
^
^
■^
ui.r
3CC
trt
?
cc
cc
re
cc
CC
cc
CO 3C —
-*■ -^ CC
S S
a
-S^
T
H
=
cc a
-r -
. ^
or
f-
cc
a*
-JC
■^
^
oc
QC
oc
-r^r,
T -'
"T ^
<
•^.
-5
<<
-<
-i
iT
"T
"?
»r
^
"?
iC
^
**?
U"
<
<
<:
<
<
<
<
<
-<
' <
<
<
K
X
s:
4
*.c
a:
2:
s:
aa
«
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
221
oo
^
0
0
J_^
05
^
»o
_
CD
0
0
0
^
^
CO
^
0
1
oosn
c
0
0
0
-r
CO 00
t^
1—
»o
0
CC
«o
Ol
0
0
tdoo
CO
c
^
0
c^i
CD CD
C5
CC
r^
c^
■^
~p
CO
»rj
CO
-r
CO
t^ii:
0
t^ t^
>n
OS
0
f^
CO
(^t-.
0
-f
OC
CO
irJc
t^
^
CO
(N
^
n
^
^
*-.'
u:
CD
OS CO
-r
0
d
(M
0
o o
0
0
c
^^
000
CT.
-r
^
0
0
0
OS
CD
-1-
0
0
0
c
«
CO —
a
C<
-r
0
t^
0
oc
0
t--
u:
CO
5
CC
05
IM O)
CO
Vh
c^
CO
IOC30
c^
>o
c^
0
CO h-
c<
»o
iO ^
CC
02
c^
— 0
■tl
.
.
0-
10
0
.
io
CD
OO
0
0
~
,^
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
j-5
CO
0
0
0
oo
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ir
0
c
0
c<io
0
0
•*
c
•^
c^
CD
0"
CD r^
c.
CD
(M 0-
l«
d
CD IC
ir-
CO
"5
0
ir:
IM
10
0
COt>
(^
C£
0
C^
t^Tt^*
ir
0
0
-^
c^
OC
^
OS
_
t^
-r
i~r
C-JiM
tf
(M >0
<z
.
ic
IT
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
^
c:
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
r--
CC
CC
0
CO
0
OC
0
0
c
oc
ir
0
10
CC
OC
0
m
a-
0
c
oc
ir
10
c-
OC
c^
IN
^
IT"
CC
^
c
CO
CC
t^
Os'~
t^
CC
"5
CC
0
o-
CC
OS
IT
<=
c
c
c:
c
c
c
t-
C^
cc
^
T
0
o c
^
> c
0
^
t^
0
0 0
0
J_
c
c
c
C
^
0 0
oc
^
c
=
c
> -J
OC
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0
ir
0 <z>
o c
t^
r-
^
cr
c
0
^
'-r ir
u-
^
0
c--
0* 0
Cv
CT
w
c
i^
•r
0 a
t--
c
ir
c
CC
«■
0
0 0
ss
^
c^
Tt
OC
CC
I c^
!->
0
ir
c^
ir
Cv
^
. =°
c
1^
(^
o-
■<5
0
S" ° '
03 c
t>
l>
r>
c
oc
irt oc
I--
t-'
t-
cc
J oc
<N
c;
^ c
c
S
c^
»-
D-
■^ 1
C^
^
1
Q
3
TS
-,H^ fc, „ HH M HH
2 5fcfcS 2S2 5>_S22hh
^ ..Co
>> ° • ■ S >-i
c4as >s ■ "^
&C0 g _^ w
g-a " & o •£
X '^ a. £ ^
^ Sh Ci C3 ^
bC ?* >*W *^ '-^
rt.S C^'C 3
W Sl"^ rt o &
£; " 2 i tm
2 M.H 00 .-o
.§:i^.E.|^g
as ncQ
Lit.
< = «
c ■ S ca
« : o>
^> o :a O o
o ?^— c
ffi Cj ^
ca ca
-SB
"3 >>
5 = -^^
q o ■
3 3-
;S Q ii = ^ p; ii
n CQ S3 «
''■S °^ 6 o.
a S >• J: s j; S: ■ a j: w
- o c: o o
13 t3
§&= =
BS I
so.
§
ta ■
-a
ca .
a
0
« :
h
-a
W
. 1
a
&
■ m ,
a
3 . >^-S
3 o
0 >r
. >^-
I M S - B :
ca' (D I ^ . .
B.-a i.c'i
:o
-O o.-?'
Bk
tsc :
m ffl ms3
^-i.§^.s'^|.s1|g,|-
= M °T3 2 = g S 2 M °
-^'a-°13'^13^1a"-^-^-a''«
a sa « n pa n
.2 3
aS-v 2?K^
CO ->■
■ — IC
oc CC o ^- c^ ^*
iC »C CO CD CO oc
iC ut 10 »C *A W3
CO CO CO CO CO CO
ec K ffi
222
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
.2
O
3
tS
>-< H
53 ^
« 00
'-'2
?®
CQZ
CO "-9
£q
^12:
H
H
OK
HO
CO
5 °
oooooooooo
' — ' • — ■ ■ ' ^ ' ' — ■ ^ — ' « — ' ( ' ' ' I — '
ooooocoooo
o o ci o o o o o o" o
CO OC ^ ^ ^ IC f^ -T •
oc o -r" CO MO ^csT'
C O 1/3 »C
J CO CO
OO 00 ^1* »o
O O C-1 -^ cc
M CQ CO -^ oo
o o
oo
C^ 00
(N oo
coo
— 'cs
CO CO
oo ^
lOciT
oo
o'o'
03 00
CO ^
-j: -^ oc o
tc tc. fe, fc. ti. t, b. tc, fc. t, fa. 6, fe. fc. fc. fc. fc. Cs. fe, fc tn C::. fc fc. fc fc. fc fc. fe. fc, fi, fe. fc. fc. fe fc, fe fe fc fc fe
-.2
O o
o-g s
^ o ■ ^
■: = ~ 1 >.= S;2- —
. o
r^ -r »o -'- c
g I
S QSc
c'S g c.
^.^^'^K-^ ~:
(M
CO
-d
C-J O) C-l ^^1 Ol -M C-l C^l 01 , , _ , ,
^t--*'^"^"^"^"5"'OW^^C^
— T T T TrSrSrSrS
■no — J. J.^^
00 to oc
'r " r " r ■ r ' r c^ co lo in
X X X I X ^,' V "^i" "^
OOOOOO OQQ
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
223
CO ^ '-'
o o o o
1-1 C<I oo
o
o oo
cdoo
c:; o o o ci
400 lO
<:0 --^ 00 CO O; ':0 c
O O-O-O
r^ oo m W3
o o o o o> o
O d O O O O O C> O O O O O O O O O O O O (3 O O CD o o o o
o o o oo
t^-OO'-^iOOOOOOOmiCOOiOOOc
lOOio-rt^oiococ
r- CO -r CO -
•O O O O O W5 »o
j ,—1 .— . CO O 1— I
1 ^ r-H CO CD T-H
-j:i'n'/i-ji 'Xi 'Ji -j:> 'm za
t:u E^ b [^ f^ t^H C2-1 E^ ^ •— ■ •— •
,__ tUl t3H tlH tUi tlH [^
fflpHpH 3
_^ bC bti C c<3 o
^ cmPffl-c£
g^«
So I
"^ d 'Z^ a 3 7i
■" ~ "'Ph ca-
m's m'
5 g-5 o
-.J >, 5
^1^
ID
■a t.
3
C
Oh 0
:pj
-<
:«■
■-0
0
a^
■ c
?;
■ >>
*- fe
. s
ti
a^
t
:S
i
1 •^ s
X
: c u
03
" M^
C
c
:S« fee ■:■
i cu-s > g a; ^
- =3 g o a O J3
■t: c.-„ <; 3 = fc t; -S -
£ £
iffl.
aacQ CO
5 CO CO CD CO C,
- 1>. r^ t^ 00 c
00 00 00 00 00 c
-f o
2S
QQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQOQQQQOpi fl fi. fi, ti ti fc, fcti
224
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
o
5 CO
^ 00
WW
w2
ws
?«
OK
H^
Z«
HO
^^
<!
H
00
00
„
0 0
0 0
0
„
0
0
0
000
0 0
0
00 00
5
Q
c<j CO 0
^
00 »o 0
oooiod
CO
s^
K
00
-*■_
-r co_
^-
CO -r CO c^r
-rio
CO
S m
a
t3
Sg
<
Is
0
-o
0
0
000
0
m «
^2
CO
CC
3 «
t^
t)
id Z
U
00
0
— c 000
0
o
In
'T ec
00
0
CO CO
0
'T t^
oi
c^ <^'r;S
■Tl*
00 —
0
(MO
CO
•Tf
H
o
in oq CO
<
^
^
>-i
•-J
^
—
00
0
00
CO
!n
•^
o
0 c
fe
o
SE
m
— 05C COTO
-^ (M CC t^ —
-r . f tote
0
0
0;
-r 0 CO 06
l~COiO 00
00
cr. 10
•0
00
00 ^-
0 =
00 to
CO 05
cu
o
CO CO
re
CO
CO — C2
z
"
«
•-5
^
0--
_
_
_
O to
c
0
0
^ffi
£""-
—
cr
I~
-^
oc
CO
0
OS
a i-
ffi-j
t-
cr
r.
i/i -ro^-osfcc;'^~~~^ ~t^ ~ ~ ^ ^ -^ — — — __ oo'cc ' — — ~ — — — — ^
c:
O »C ^- -^ — fC I~- -^ O v: y, r^ ^ T-l — ~- — »i^ ~ — — ^ c: IT- ~i n ce »« OC -r »c x x — ^ re O:
oc =cre!M — t^ce ut>-r-.it — •^— — >ou;= X3:-r.ra r t^iMO — t-c<:-^r^= r
iCM r — Ti:/: — ic-r^l-T tc-r —
^
<
IS
a
&
C- S aj 02 cc tn M 32 03 i/j 33 SO cc ai X c t. X' a; x -n-f.-ri-rj-jj-Ji a: » yj 03 a; oj ro 02 03 m 03
< <-<<<-9;<-<<;-»:-<<-<<<:< < <<<; <:<<<<< <:<-»; <: <i <<: -«;<:«: <
fe fc.(k,fr.fc,fe,[i,fe,fc.(i,!k,fc,fc.fc,fe,fe. fc fefefe fefefefofefe, fafefe. Ci,6[:,fc,fe,fafc.feb.
^
§ ;■?
a> 0
rt
>>
»
c
E
1
•13 .S
■5
►JO
tf
tf
3
(§
i
c
m
B
s
%. :|
rt
.3 gtflH
'C
b
R
a
o
B
02
1
3 . is
1
c
0
c2
5
1
M
~^ oJ
1
0 ^
oK
Sx
^1
_irf
K
= a
O
Z
o
■<
o
15
X! ■ 0
tSQ MO
J^ .'^ 5 ^
o-Ste fc
-c
0:
c
c
. o_s >
-c
C
>
B
c
c
a:
ec
1
a
T
7.
11
111
■^•ja:
t 5 §
c
c
S '^ ^~- -
0
0
Q
m
c
C
0?
-c
c
0:
Pi
-a
5
"5 c
c
CE
> c
oq:
0 c
pa
.P5 a
1 1^1
^ ^ ^ z
S— 0°=
EcSx
p:
c
X
c
a
c
0:
c
p:
£
1
c
p:
c
C
p:
C
c
p:
s
X
! '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. c> a^
«2
f- IS
i^
T 7 X xxi><xx«xx'r~ -r vv xxxxxt x x xxxxxxx
2
Ift lA IC IC in »A iC lA lA CD to :0 CO to CO ** "1 ^/ C^J C'j CO '■f ' 1 1 1 1 j III j 1 ' 1 1 III
U. fc.
fe
>^
U
b:
^
^
(i
c;
;:
C:
X
X
I
I
I
a:
s
W
3:
tl
w
X
3:
X
X
I
I
Report of the State Roadg Commission of Maryland
225
■o o o
: o uoo
.0_'-HUD
oooooooo
(M O CD CC »0 '
Oi r- ■n' oi lo '
o o c; o ■--
oo O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOO O O O O C5 ^
O O O O O O O O O O O o o o o o o ~ —
o o o* o o o o* o o' o o' o o' o o" o o'
■^■^iCW^-^'-'CCC^OCDO'rf'J'OCO'^O
t-*eo^-00ii00ir^oicv300so:'i0'>j'*^co
■^ CD f * CO Oi ■— '' CM* Qs' tC -r" CC --^ 1— r c^' o' ■^" tC
OOO oo o o
o
oo5
O
O'O o o
to
o
oo=:«
So
g
OOO
o
o oo o
-:f oo lO
C^ ^ lO c^
lO
oo t^CE
toco oio
o o
o t^
Q0 05
t^
<M IC CD
M
c^ r^ -rf ic
o
o
C^ C^ CD .-H
00 M
CC M CC M CO M 03 OJ M >yj -03 M M M 'Oi <y3 M
t^ ^Cl^QlH tiH [^ t^
i-a o
0*T3 ~ c^
Qij t<3 5 '^
o cacr;
o _ ■" j= -
SFSS §
i-g
rt
— 3 3 C3 »'•'
3tt1 tc siJ-7^— = o"
^ cj — ^ ►-^ *; ra M ,__, w --^ CO n j^ ,£i a I— ^ ■ — ■ ^-*
52^.c rf era ^^^'^
; . o -g eri 2; ^ >- '^^
COT32
u o >-
o -a
bC O C!3
1^^
bC ^_3
W 5^
So
o p -»S
ca cs c
ceo
'- = 0-32
*^ £:S o.S
s«
^- o _ o s
o o q o
r= S £3'g £-'-^ =a sec art grt!2tS rt:SC
S m^M^ S^ ^ ^ n &
S S
,X><^ X! XXX X
xx><:xxxxxxxxxxxxx33 c; ssk
fMco-t-iO— 'i^rc-riicot-^cacaio— c^oco; o: ojc ~
"T'T'T'T'TTTTTT'TTT'TTToc c c6
■-TXT - XJ X-T-7T
S ^ WhCn^f^ h^ h^
CC OC'
226
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Q
^ 00
WW
Miz;
WQ
»
H
0j
EchH
OM
H
<!
H
■-5 "
. o
B OS
m z
— o
z ■^
« o
W Z
S|
; ^ O
O C
Oi ^ ^
O O O
o o
CI -r — ^
t-, r- Id
Oi O CD O
o o — * o
— O Oi o
(M CI OG 0_
o" t^ of -t^"
— r^ 00 —
fe h-. HH
-::: 9"^ ;:;
Ji
eu
Ph
— .
c«
o
O
t«
rfl
z
Z
O
6t
P
S :s :^ :^ :Ǥ!
"8 5^
Iw'g
^ ^
_, p o g b
§.2Bi&:^.t:.2
^ c3 5 E rt rf tit-^ o — . ^i; ^
- 0, S-a-J=-=.= f:"^ o •«*.
TS
&
Fe
&
^
OJ
(U
Q
^
ZZi
>■
>
is
&
«
-o
^
«
rt
-^■:3." —
B<
go ^
^
J=
cc
S
pa
^
o
u.
Fi
rt
{ >
"A
S
<
s
— T3-
= 0:ij'=_a.'= „ =
O -- > !rf W
^S ^ ^ "
?3 ^ C!j O^ rt Q;;
T32W .o
M.Sf X fcc^ S;= s; 5-^ S-
- >pa
IfefcSl
<^ i- n. te
— c'-SZ 3
CI >-J 5 o ?^
is-gz.-ss
CD -^ -—
-r "? r- T-.
lO *0 WD
lO iC iC »o iC iC ;
:^ s s :^ci
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
227
3
C
O
O
O'OOOOOOCOOOOOOOO
OCiOOi— 'OO-— ilOC
) CO CO •-" IC I
.-H 1-H CO
O O O 'CT'
•C :3 c: o o
lOOOOOOOOOOOOOC'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC'OOO'OOOOOOOO
oooo
>0'00<OOC:>OOOOOOOOCr>iOOCDOOiOc
i>ooo<:Dooc\)Oa:ai-
D CO •— ' lO I^'
as '-'
^ so g
2 ^ »- h^ ^^ "O ? te
>-f O O ,2 ." ^ S O c
-d-d-d.H-='-d ^' S'
■■g §"^0-
;^ S-S^ o
^f^cci
!- c £fo;? =
'o -f '^^ -e.
£;22 0^
I'd.-
^ -"O cPh(§ O c o
■0-0
^ o "r" "^ «a
>/"-0
O-a^^W _ = -^ go'
£? SSI'S,
^-25 ?iJ^ '^•— - '^ ^ >■% fe >.= -;*:
jpqZajfeOQKp^Hjpq&HQrtO
papnWS
oc^i-— 'co•-t'iOcot--.c»crlO''-HC^JCo■-rlOO^^oooo-ru:lcor•-oooiC>'-Hc^lcon^»C(r5^-.cccb<o— -c^jco-^ 10 (m-j-^o
■n^.-HOOCMC^c^c^)c^c^c^icocococococococococo"n'--r-r-t'-+--h-t'w:>»oio>i^u^uti»o»OiC^'^u3c^ 1 oi 000
228
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
1 ; :
1 • •
c
g
g
g
s
0
-1 c;
c
g
g
g
oS
g
§ S
:3
H
e
ci
'^' CD 0
=■ 0 c= O-f' 0 0 -^
B
£^
oc
oooooc*«ot^
oc
T OC' CC ■
oc
'^i"
cS ID ^_
I , t^ t^ t^ c^ •^. *^ *^.
(m' c^j" c^f -m'c:' I-" — ' 'Tfl-
s
^^ ^
■<:
OC — •
00; —
&3
u
ic cc ■
in
o
o a
z
^ ;
^
o
1
^ :
1-1
5§
-3
o
o
o
0
CO
: 0 0
5
; 0
a>
1 S
^
-^' in
0
>«
"3
5 8
S
oc
cr.
CD
: o_ cr^ ;
00
o
p
H z :
m
3 :
t-^
oo : =
= o §
d
§
5 SS :g ■•
0
; §
H ,
a :^
r~- lO •^^
in
S £
2
! t^
rJ
hi
■^ ^j >2 H^
CO
0
w H
■<
o -^
lO i^ — '
-r'
— '
-r' r^ •'
*n
-tT
« 00
z
o
CO ^- c-t
oc
X
cr. — ■ =c
I^
<:
o
0
C
«o
- -O
fc
§ si
0 a:
5
0
-O
^ csi a
»r
0
■ !2
OQ
H
oc »r
^,
r^ -r
3C_
oc
.0
-«!Z :
fO ^^ ^
' ■ s'
t^ —
^
§
oi
■ CO
H^
g
5
Z
eo
""
Ut- ,
Ci
ws '
^2 '
o
O tc
cs©
^g
CL,«
&_- :
>-iH
S ;^ !
MZ
1
^g
9 oc
oi 3H oS c: 0 — ^ — —
f- ;^. ^
9 ;2'5
? 1 ' 5ir
cr
10 c; c: oc S r-- t- r^ r^ *i- t^
»n '^^o
5 — ' cT ~' y: re r^ DC
rs
oc' occf !m'— ' c-f ci' <m' ofc-r I-'
— ' ro" tc
Si
kC »i^ re oc -r ic
^ 2
o — — ic re_ C'
^
""
<
■"
"^
=i
<s
5 OQtJ
Qa3t> ;^ ^ ^y: V
v; iC!y3 32 CO oj coco t>
1^ ;3co
£ <*
<< < < < << <
2; < <;< < <; < << ■<
S ^fc fefc fa &H El, fafa fa
< <<
«.[=- fc. c=. fo [=,;=. ;^
^
fa fafa
: : -2 ■
■ 0
■ 0
■ 0 •
RX
! '. GJ
' > c^
o 2
o-Srt
. ii
. -Jj
■ -^
■ —
0 ■
. a
t3
03
. 03
0 . fi
. 0
- i
■ = «
b£
;°
•0
32
0 '.
: M
: bD
• 0 ■
■r ;
-9
11
.-^ Six
, 0
32
'■ >
. 0
•-c
;o
0
u
0
;l
ea -02
I'd :
5^ as
HO
.5 1 :
7 1 :
S 1 :-,
"3
3 0-J=
1^
"2 5 *
. 0.:
ii
Ji
;|
Sz
•8
2
c is
gOnS
■ c ■
STATEM
F'
i 1^
5 -3 2
atii
'_ £•-'0 > !« S^i
Sa2
■ s
z
: S
:^
_-g
3 ^
5 fee
z
g 0 5
m
-a
"3)
c
«2
! cc oc
. tc ts
:-^ -3
1 :
:S S
t- u
O B
IS X
■7
i
^;-r >r~ - „ 32". 2:
s ^
«£z g
-r icio cccc :c -.c cc ^^ ;^
^ic£^^ .ir -^ 'T- 'T
-
II
1 a;
xii-^ " "
-^
"^
•-'
"* ^^
■^
^^
•'^
.— - .-^
■"^
■^
•"^
"^
""^
•^
•^
-^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
229
ro CD OO QO
OO .— I lO -— ■
O CCi
o
o o -r — c; — :
O o -r -r^ ~ cf :
t-- ic c: — »o to I
CM_ oo ci_ CT^ c; cr. -
CO CO -r cs io *c c
o o o
r^ CO -r
"ti iri 1— ' QC
OOOCOOOOOO
or^»r500io»o»ci
^ o ^ — .
— C^3 T-
fe fe El, fc. fc, 6l. fc fe fc< 1-^
t) & & t3
"^ « i
SPS b
(§2^:^ £|f^aiH
> >
':o-F=5- ^
I I
> o
Pill
m oK-O
p >.^
c. = ao >< ^
S(S
o =«'0 o _
a, CS / t^ £
£ to -g M) i!
i2
•g
^
c
b^
ri
3
!fi
1
G
CS
t^
1
O
>
-a
>>
1
13
c^ c
^ rt
2
13 : o i^
— S-z; ca
»^ to 5
'<;K.a;K
Z ,„«"_
O o c ''^
2 § -^ p =«
S -^(i- pis
J3P^-
^r2c
mm
3- £
3 e |-2i3ffl
= > o >;■ „
: c ■ S la '^
3 — la"^'" =^
J m
• - M SO
■s ^ ^ -c
m.^ g^
m
xi><iK!><^3;g><>^?^^
; lO ':d (C* cc i;
.i.i-.JL.JL i o o i i,^
CQ m m cQ ffl M
*J^ CD -
:= o »o
O O 6 ^ -<^
lO •— ' o; CO "^ ^^ "^ '^ ^ "^ u^ t^
TiC|'v^COCOCOCOCOCOC^C3(MCOoi
230
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
o
3
x: t:
= H
l£
^ X
Hw
a **
s-
OQ
<:;2;
H^
ut-
aw
o
aso
CU|M
>nH
caZ
.&
OC-s
HQ
^^
ce
Qtf
^S
j>^
g-
ss
woo
Hr
£fc<
fcW
Offi
H^
ZK
HO
§fa
H
H
^
H
QC
_
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
c;
1 ^ II
»o o
■c
— ' s
c
^
— ' ^
^
cc -rj
^
^
oc ocr-: cc ! != II 1
or
c-i ^
□c
-f
z
OC
O -r C"
cc GC
I-
s§r; 5 i CO II 1
e
:3
O* u"
—
— *" -r
—
-^''
JIOC cc J
CO
cc c^
Ed
1^3 tri
0
o a
m a
z
-
cc
B<
««
IB
^-1
—
^
O
^
—
—
00
c
CO
e £
1 £
cr
—
1,
^
nx
cc
CC
t—
gc^
is
oc
u-
CC
cc
11
i3
-r
I,
—
c-j'
ocf
OQ
trc
^ °
S8
^ z
C3 Z
t3
-I-"
t)
«i&
c-
c
o o o
^
^
c
CO
Q
OO
C5
oc
S
C O <3
c:
o
0
<33
:;:
cr
^
»o cc — ■
^
C:
—'
0
c
X
»c lb c-j
■y.
0
E4
o"
•^
^
rvj" iC iK
-•■
-r"
^
CD
CO
3C
i?
^ QC u5
2C CM
ce
2;
ir
— iC
^
N
:S
^
«»
^
<
O c:
00
o
o
m
i
O t^
cc
o
OO
OS
fcl
O -r
re
: uj
ooo
o oc
g
6r;
cc-r
in CO
§
H
o"
oc" O
cc
~*
I J
c::c" —
t~r
cc
cc •«
S
Cfl
g
"'
«
P
»&
^
o
0
050
o
o
0
El "5
o
CO
m£
to
t-'~
~
*c
f-^
£— "
g'
~
C4
p >■
O J
in
a-
as
s ^
oc
-.
oi c c;
_
- -- -
^
S S 32 2 '^
1 ^
C:
~
~ C: —
~
r—
ro o c
O QC — OC I^ C-
S QC
M
t^ o c
^ OC ^
>0-r ceo — O
si
— GC
ra o cc
lO ce e-l OC t- -1-
cc o
^f
u-
— ' :^* 1 ,
— ' <^," ^f
tr
— " ^ ei cT cc c
cc
re »c
CiC
C^J
C-I »c ^-
;c I- t^
u-
-r •— cc — I-
CI
o
C5C
<
€^
H-cni 1— i-i
^•4 "4^
si
o
d,cL, ^di
o
V3 ^
;l_
C-
!3 t) C
MccZ ccoiZ
£
< <
<
■<"
z ^ _ ^
-C < <
<;<3;" <:<■-
fc* [=.
ti-
'^
fc. fc, fc.
*-
H_fefc H-lfe.fe,
J
1
o
c c
1 :|
c
1
o
«
GC
"?
i
5
to jO
-^
' Project
"t!
c
1
>
-3
z
E
•a
£
1
O
*1
- 5
1 :=||-f
o
_«
; 5
c 2
c
b
C-
z
c
"is
1:
■^1
.Spill '
I.I
-=
•— - = " ■§ -3
1.
o
L
>> >. >. >. >,
^ a c3 C3 C5
& & & s &
1
11
>
fl-l
z^
>-?
■¥ c i^ ^ "5.^
> c >
MM M M bC
_Bf-S
1.1 1
c
^^ oc.H S_
cd 93 cS C3 SS CS
sS
Si
i == =^
Sk is =:
_: .3 .3 .iS .3 **
gS
gl
o S
«Z
S
t< c:
_>^— ,.— '—
.
.
^-^^-^..^v^-'-— ^—
^.^
— '-^
H H
B CQ
ift -^
oc cc o — o
Is
IT) -r -T- -M
iiii
^
^ ^ c-i h-
rc W5 —
»n »— c-j — n u"
cc
I-(M — — (NC^I-
_i
1-5 jjwrjwd
(Sz
'^l* 3 V ^
r^ ?. ^ ^ 2^ —
— iH ic
^
522-^vi -A-AJ^
,1 ICC c c c
E::!,
Ui
i
^
5
ss
s
Sd
S
ss
:^
is
5:
n:
S
p:
3
K
1
232
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
a
a,
X
Hoc
cut-
o-
►^ CO
UU
H^
r- r^
Qh
<:
OS
,^
— C^
^«
Cn
is
A.
o
_
"5
>n tc
Oi
c
_
_
_
_
_
^
j_
^
_
j^
C
^
"3
J_
to
,_
oc
=
£ >o
CMCC = — 00= 00
c = =
0
0 -rr 00
J
o
O ro
cq ci oc 0 =' 0 (=:" ic 0
CO ='
= CO
0
0" c^ to
t^ to — ■ -V
0 ccw^coc oct^
0 = 0
0 1^
0
0 CO t^
to CO to IM
r^
o
K "o
<^^ 0 c^ m -T c: 0 cc 0-.
C CO
0
0 oc 00
<M_^ -rr CO -T^
c
IC
tC cc
iri i^ cs" '->f *-"' 10 c^ cc
oc tC
10 00
0"
o' -r e<r
l^ — 00
H
"
c^
>n -M
00 oq
(M
0 cq -r
■M
«^
g
H- CO oi
o
02 ■
c; ^ c; »o 0 00
o-rco
1^ t^
to
-r CO 00
O H
^
— . '^. '^-.'^^.—. "^ "".
to •—
C-]
-r '^ CO
a H
m * ---
■^
>n
oc 0 — ^ oc 0 -r CO
c 0 0
c^' co"
c'
Eg a
iOC i« c^ 0 CO «5
0 c^ 0;
to t^
C-J CO CO
* * *
CO
s
t~.oc=cr. = CO —
cf 0^" to C-f iC
oJ oc*
to
t^ oc a
O CB B
-^
<M
^
-r <M
c^ c^
go
BO. Z
<
^ ^
se
d
o
— "5
usr^
— U5
00
cor~
CO
to
CO
c
to t^
a
O W
c^ oe
— IM
to C3;
M lO
to
0
m
>ra
-r ro
ci 0
OC —
0 CO
02 0;
CJ
0
06
c^
t^ to
CO
^s
o
C: —
C<I
t^
to CO
cc »o
CO
OC
to CO
oa
^T
CT
t^
•Jot
to
cvTcc
to 0>f
co"
'Z
0;
<M
(M
.
««
«
00
^
00 —
X
<:
~^.
"**
"^ ^
a
rC
H
>^ t^
C-1
to "
z
< 2
'—'
1
««
gsi
55
B —
« « -
r-
a o —
O 2 !>.
«»
^CO
s i
c t
s|.|
"Oov
>--C,5?
^ 0
O OJ
§1
11^
J 30:^
« m
■fiii
-^l^
c
til s
z
1
>
1
f-way
f^way
riment in th
1 concrete pa'
nts in erosion
nts In cnntin
asts ot variou
ite System as
ay Act of 195
.1 J
f-way
f-way
ifile line
11 at 3fi struct
ited needs fo
f Federal Higl
■ete curb and
11 at 9 locatio
Q
c " c
• 'E ■E?I^£ci
= 'o'E ^"SJ
? 2
9
? S .£
B° S -B
'Z
3 ^ J
1 of righ
y engine
Iioles
y engine
licnic ar
1 of righ
g an ex
V reinfor
E ex|ierii
Iiaveme
y engine
y engine
111 of th(
the Intel
Aid Higl
1 of righ
I of righ
II of new
11 of esti
ction 21i
on of COI
poles
explora
_c
I'S-i
itioi
inar
ting
inar
ish I
itioi
ctill;
ctill;
rete
inar
inar
latic
1 on
■ral
0 c
,c
itioi
itioi
face
atio
■rSe
ucti
ting
■face
■'-
t. 5 1
■5 5 g_£:H-5-2 5-24
l|l'||;g:^'5 15 -i ■§ -5 s s-s-sl 3
c
? .-' "7
3"~ -^~,^ 3"— '^S — ~
— — ' "t?
cr-S.o ST3S-? -o
^ C t^ C'~-^^
0 CJ ^ 3 t.."Caj -3
<
o &.
<(1,K&.W<0 CC_
P^PhU
«c c
< -A ^ M Ph Otf M
i
=
5* =
0
'c
c
'0 g'o g£ T3 0 C
j
i I
1-5 ►-
J
-a
0
= P
0 c
C c3 r
0 =« 0 s
-1.^
i
>
1 1
ill
"2 ^
1?
from n
th of P
from n
th of P
11 S
50
toward
River;
redericl
V from
z
<
I
Pike at Bro
lester
40
Exiiressway
to Middleti
Exjiressway
Middletowi
Exjiressway
0 1 mile nor
Expressway
0 1 mile nor
and Md. 4,
rth westerly
0 Monocacy
ile east of JP
Expresswa;
State line
5
1
1 1
"^ ^72
S cc
M-2 M°0-
bl *^ bL*^ X
Ft £ - c Ml «
-•
5
) "S I
1 g;:
"c3 b
ISI
-2: ~
3 -Ti 3 ni .
^-^^a<=-
c
1 1
o . o
w C X c
rsey
k to T. B.
k to T. B.
;toii Natio
lo Oxford
luth of M
to New I
de
de
5 S
— S-i^
Yt
ville Road
re-Ilarrish
letowii Ro:
re-Harrish
letowii Ro
re Count \
1
de
tion of Ml
ville Road
Bartonsvi
Siver to .2
re-Harrisb
;r Falls to
c
51 5i
to Do
ccokee
ccokee
r'ashinf
aston 1
mile s(
. S. 4(1
tate wi
tate wi
= = 5
c 5 c
Guiijii
altimo
Ijams
altimo
Middl
altimo
Middl
altimo
U.S.
tate wi
itersee
artons'
erick;
cacy 1
altimo
powdf
a:
M p:
<<s::ia — 3m Ma
«ccm
PQ ff
ff
33 K m M .= 33 P3
l|
CO
CO
0
-T^-d'^-OTJ^. ;
-d
M
SSiiSS;^ :
S
&
t" s:
(>j
-
X
" lO-Tcc"^— — c
n ~ ^
r i;
^ T =
-^ "? — CO
ir
<
< <
r ;t '^ s "" ?= '~ '- 1-
o<iS
^ a
[^
io io cc
CO 00c o:
<
«: <
o,p,gHOK<; <i<
:S<:<
33 C
fe
CQ n IT
< Cfc 33
m
b S
r
03 .
C3-Crfc3rtc3 C3n
/' C3
,„ c;
?3
=3 _
5 o
oc
oc 0COC0CQC=^ ococ
to
j^
,^ a c-
« r^-^ J=
Q F
irt 1C»0»C1CQC IC""
«?«
to t-
t^ to t^ 1 ~
•"^ H
J
1 1 1 1 1 m II
1CO-. I
1 u
to 1 to to
P
s-i o) c r~ c 1 T^ cs
1 cote
a
<
'
_. ««77« 7-
CO 1 1
C5
*l
fq a
00 — oc —
a
5
»-a
■^
c
c^
5-
-
—
oc
oc
oc
oc
I-*
to tJ-
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 233
•o o o 00 ro '^ zo
CDco — or^o oooi 50
'-^. T "^ "^ "^ '—i O O (M Oi
O CD CO »o -r q6 O O I^ 1-h
(Mt^ CO O<M00 OlO-f (>)
-— ' r-T i-T CD fM*" oi" •—' .— ' CC CO
"^ .oc
o
CO
CO
CD 1— « CO 00 -
l-* -rf" DO O CD .-H O 1:^ Oi
iC Oi 00 CD -^ 05 lO lO *0
■^ OS CO OO Ol — '
I -I
■q. B >.
— (3
-a.5P ^ bD be
o — '
= =; = o
Pm< p^ rt h
•2^'S Ji S
*-
.sag a a
o
- 1^ M. 2 MM
g
.2'-S 3 'S'i^
3
5^ = S = o
W Oj O ' — ' cb Q>
<;
-75
Pi
>> P
a^
S
£ P
£
Q.£
-§.
ss ^.s'i
C4
3)-S S "^ S
^
S^'S'S ^•■-
-^
■^^2 1 g-5
5§£§-2S
Kl
oa,^
.SP i
'o'o
C
O o 1.- 3 g.°-2'
So'SSP ^SPS"
■ m "- S la .5 " "" ^
'3 >
;'5i'5o
-<o Oh c^ecfiH <:&hO-i o c5
J3 j5
and I
Road
irrisb
xpres
a. lin
le Bare
Memor
I. S. 50
h Heigh
Tvaskii
Id. 405
lawan
more-H
burg E
on toP
Memo
. 213
Memo
213
on of t
le Star
rth of I
Earleig
kin to
on of A
on of S
1 Balti
-Harris
f Parkt
S'^ 5a ''^
■43 i — ' 0 ^*-. :a
'■^'^ 0 "^ 0
^ ^"i i-s
;/2t).:KtJ
u^ ^^ %
-7-
§ ° S 0
S 3
Inter
an
1 mil
Nort
Rock
Laur
Inter
Inter
Ro
Balti
no
rt >>
2Zp^:S'
; c p o ~
fsp:
■gsg'a:H
o o
J5 j3 _0
•:ot/3
3 C w ^ .
'o^ i^.2
•3 -3 C -S, m
^3 eg
a 3-
O t^ CO O --^ Oi c
»o r^ to o c
-r io 00 ♦— CO c
' — -r -H cmo
t^ -p 05 00
j,.|0.
: "• M
:g2-E
.3 « fc-^ g M O
^.S te Oi O.SS
C- C o ^^ O -C.M
o Q. o ... ca g
5j3 B.a-_3 . ca
= b3 g as S
-S 5i Fl o— ?a_g
►S WCdffiOHWrtO
at Golc
Dam
Road
in Riv
a
^ a
fe ca
R.R
ngo
rove
R.R
J ° caa
: -M ca _, o
il3-=-e -S&,HS:a.|
►S mc<iS06-CL,hS
CO
-d
^ O) --^ CO ^
■^ C^J t^
ajaj ■ ■ •
o
3
OC' CO O CO »o to c
PL,©" CT o" <:<;tSeL,
to S
'C^ CD
<:<:(^ w« w
><i.<ir:
dice
o2t
•o S 5;
^ OJS
<;<;i-
OU<
<;«;fiH
ic -r -r- -
(x; 1:0 ^o
»C »0 Id
^-C3_0 _0 ^
I -H -H kO *C Oi 10
1 — — o c
«=■ - £2 2? OC' « CD ^ ?S
0. HW^aHffiO*^ fe
CD CD CD CD CD CD
CD 10 10 »r3 10 W5 UO
10 I I I I I I
1 •— ■ OC T— I OS Oi CO
QO OOt^t— t^cCCDCD
234
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
o
£
X
»
H
Q
a
aa
X
. CO
O
O
o s £; o
= O C 5i s
< ^ --=
: ico i^ cc i« cc —
<— ' — c^
^iCO
*** ***** **5; *
tcioco o -t* -r t^
t^zc ci c*i oi — ^ o
3^;; tc C^ c-j oc oc lo
CO -^ -^r*
cr- I -- S o oc
cm' IC C^j CO o
::= — c<i OC' -r
00 O C:
1 -T — t^
3-S c t I -C.bp
Pi
=: o —
2-e = o_s t -^^
r= v 5 t^ r
-c>'^c'^cc5c— ■— cC!^
2 > = 3
5- ."2
I ^ & >« c^i
=3 S5 "H =
I 5 1 ^i
=s o
; w = ,< - 5 « tf
£ =f !=~
o ^^
w u5 oc j; O
3 -
.30
eg - M
oil '.
ort
to I
mi.
eltw
to
1 Li
■r-d-s^-d
-d C
0 ^■'^
■a ^p|^.«^.5
S.2
"5"= J— il^.^'
0
l^^frill^
°'c §
|-f>-=: fe- = 0
ntersi
liters!
liters!
11 terse
1^
_C;
-1- i
•1 ^'^
■«" « "" "■5-' =-^
0
0
•T3T3
CO
Sa occ;
t:;?:?!:^^
. CO
CS^ 1^
ffl P5fc-PQ
»o »c »o »c
»c »c »o »o
?^»i;»C I'S iciCi/^iO lO"^"
. kO *o »n
" »o »o »c
-r I I I I _ .
— oc ci en c: I
»c »o *c
iC»C»CW5'— ' *— • ^- ^-"
c^ <— ^-
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 235
r^ lO r^r --
- o O CD
' — 1 CO lO t-^
fM O
f^wocS
■^1 eg
s
^ --
o
s
»r? —
^o ^S
CO o
o c
c^ ^ -— t^
>ooo
—
CO -r
o
s
;:^ o
— ^
O OsCMC-4
CC CO
CO
CO
c^od
S""
2S
wS
C-l
"^
2
^
u
W
C75 OO I--
IC *-'
— < iC Oi OS CO
O CD coco »0
Ol CO CO t-
—T ,-r lo '-h"
iC • —
CN| »0 t--
r-^ lO (»*
Oi (^.^ o
□o oo C^)_
CO C^l
■^ 00
Crs CO y->
05 C5
C3'~
1
Rl
s
ca
3
"2 §
additi
ing
cing— r
tructio
M
0 K C
■l
D,u= £;
M
o
ail
■i^f
0
o=S^
D
P|1
-a
•s
2|
ill?'
-3
C«
III
Ml
- fl
>>>.
S rt «
to
3 2:^
"S ^°
g-l ^ a.-g
C
^ s^ i|i
M M 2
.2 fe
& s
& life
a
£ a-s'
g
ai oJ'O
1^1
3i
o o
'3'o M o
5-c m >,
Mb V
:Q
"2 E £-0 ^
» 0 M_gjp
3
ca.^
■P SP-S 3 £ -^
3" 3 2 S Co5
M M-p
3 M
s g'-S
p
c.
P 3 S
g-a'i
M 2
"c"o
.2.2
'o'o'o
o 5 5
1
-a
-g'"o -g
0
3
cJ
1
I
t^ *^ bjD 0 -Si
.S 3
2
>•£ >. fc-JiCd -
c
J
PI
^ f
3 3
■3 3 >
g'g'S
eg
s
s
|iiH
0
'M-^'M^jSiO
(x;(x;«
Piet, _;
fS<
't:<;
-<<;ort
i2p4
1^
h-^ -;
WQ
(5rt«E-i
; Q. E« ca
° O CT3
^^ O ca ca
*e bU O
s ^"^ 0
- toca
>! > o .S o.
g ca O r ■"
^ S^ 0. '^^^S,
33 Z2
0
s cS s
c Q_,
> =
>>l^ 0)
*^ >
a ^ -^3
3-1;
I^^Jg
S fe ort >
Expr
lunpo
'yle R
{iver
tts A
oad
c 22
II
w-s'"^
'& S.-6
?- o«^ ca
-_ S:^ o
nSS
(53 c3
;PhK a;pg
iEOS~m-SScei— -
3 ca-« °; a, «2 > J c
j= i: P,
. ca
-O
3«.= >.
■o ^ cortW
■S-—'~ -5
go-
So
' ^- w o
-a >. i
3T3 6
ca 3 t;
^ O £
a;-
2 i^ >.'-&
« =-5
5 si^
5-
S-|
'00.;
SS
a2m 0202
— < o
^<Q QQ O
COiO
■^ ^
M 485-28
M 485-33
B 700X
SM 319X
537-17
537-18
308-7
RB428
©■m
SS
fefeOPQ
XX.
10 »o 10 »o
^ iC iO »0 lO iC lO lO »J^
10 I II I I I I I
|<3 00 O'OiOiO CO
l^<: CQ M
236 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
o
W
z
Ed
Ed X
w
^Z
cut-
Eb O)
Ed Ed
"5
^S
?i
'^<
^'Ed
k-c >«
OS
M El.
^,,
■^ -i"
^2
w C
E-
On
o
?;
00
a
o
o"
K
a
O
tad.
c; t-- o cr.
*c r^ ^ —
-f -r iC — '
cr c —
o ^ t^
CO -r -r
— O CO
CO »0 OJ
« g-
OC CSI o
1^ o t^c
^ U5 —
r^<N
«>
odb
5
oc
U5 t^
o
O U5
C5 00
o
o
o -^
-r CO
^
lOCM
IC
t^ OS
_«
7^
.
^
y,
=
S
CS
>
■^
03
&
1
C/
5
^
bj
,
^f
L.
"o
®
■a
is
-5
5
i
g
c-
3
K
t
CQ
c
<
o
y;
S
"
B5
c o
3 t.
bij c.
•r 1^ s
>. o
ts -
■5 = V.c
-62 =
c~ 5 2
§.= ■
1^ s
.t: c "O .t:
^ — — -' ,^ =4
■-5= £f S
— o-a'T. S
T5-£ o
Ci C 5
o 33 :^m
— S £ ."H rt
:Sffl
•c
C o
re *^
2 w
a ■=-=
5E o E
~-' S 5 3
rt = o 1 5 -^
o*^ o ^ ^^.^
o O a- C _ '-
«- a "^ P u.
:S D
J= 3
Z<;
3 ^ o o
gffl c i
o c
30 £ £ S
^ £ 2 & S &
Sfe-3a;§Os
22 ES S3 ^UH
s<
^ to — iX
5§
-c —
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 237
CO CO oo
O -n^ tSD CSI
O CO "^ <-•
O C5 C^l ^ ^ C
• ICO i—
u
M
CO cr> o^
CC 00 Ol
— t OC lO o
GO o -t; -f;
oi 06 c6 ui
CO -r o i—i
c»»o 10
CO
M
^
rt
CDIM
CO
^0
CM
«
1^
o>
C5
05 r^
t— en
CO
(M
g
<M
0 Tt>
s
to
CO 00 cc t-*
" CD CO r—
3
i.-s
s
c.H
-a g
c ?
'"Sm
&
^
2 ho
ta'
M
&
?
1 0
X
'£
■a U
?
£
-0 °
- o
0.0 M
'= SP .0 S
er'3
CD 3
00- a
• 3 I. 3
■^ to^ o-
■s 3 m
F=
R
'Hj bt ..'5)
■^
^
^ -5m ?;
■S
^
m
.i&e&e
•^feg l-g
•-••■? -" -a OS
3.2
1-2 -
3 .2 °
'WO
's'o
O C3
.3 PS g ■£
^
:^
Pi
fc
Is
- rj _c '— . _^- t.
ffl.sm^
^■ss
"H a
C3 Oi
.>;0
m22 oQ
'■CO'' S °
miz; H [
: --aps-S
3 a, Qj -ti o-
^.& .(S a:
i 3Ph >-.=a
5 Sm
'a'a
>.-£■
i c cs ca E
! o o o o
IS 5i ^
e 2
to &
^ o
£ o o^
2 a I- 0.
^3 o o-r)
>. W
a g
o .
M O
aS
t, " CO
aS
=3 &
ISoS"^
.-I'd.-- O 3
a^ e-g-o
o So & §
S 3 S ==05
o o £ o
s,
: -- — — . '-' m -o
S^ So So o
"■ o^ •^_; o
,_« c— ='^ 1S
IS
i'O c o c
,^S.9f§ S
i3 jj -^ . P5
=3 ca.5 >^
O CO ?P >. O
S.S ice's
r CC W5 (M
— <^<- -< " U5C/3
SJgggg Sg SS «S S «K-«s«
K <CWM MC WC?
-- CO to o "^
»Ct IC iO iO
■ 10 »o »^ ic u:)
to to 10
10 to »o
238
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
:^ =ic~ z
□c :c »c O i^ — C-
xii ui — ' c: GC o O
C; lO
re — 3C
:c c: O O cc
c6 ci o c:; 06
C; CO O O QO
1^ CM cc 10 ^H
* * * * *
* Z* S
H
Q
^:
Ah
X
HA
5^
^?
~'<
-•^
-0!
O
O
OS
1 I r- 5
CO CO
— 10
-00 C
— 10 CO
COOlM
§
CO
ss
-rot^
0
^
s
0^
«• f
CO
CI
•-JL o
St ,2
1 = ■=
-OB -O
6£ o MO
6C -3 i- — -c
=t ? 3 " s
3 .=
M-ec "IH-? rt^ — ^-=
J J I J
^2 «■ -t^
c c - C3 -
C 3
>> O 3
M ,- C:.
= S.Sf2 £ o
— • ^c
- i^o
c S: >.
OC '—^-3
£■ ^ ^ C-g =5
So >% s S o "
- rt ^ — ^. = S' ? ^ °
-3i.
S " I
0 >. fc g
^ "2^" -^ 3 s '~
c ^ c Ef ^•-=■5 i
ii =;,= ,' ■= ^~ S-
i-s-= £ o ^ cO
CS -S.x
fe = • - fe E
J5 - C C t„CL|
W3
S o
&a
-— X^ S-— ^'•— ^ 3 — ' C o c
I -
■Jl -Jl -SI
f; «
CSI
V7
ig
-v*
^
^
Q
0 —
C-J
0
00^*^0
^
X
><><^
d s
-k
r^
X
^
M CO
^
CO 1^ T
X
XI
X
^?
cy
=r
1 i
OC cr
AhZ
M
»o
s
s
CO =0
CO
«ra
-;4S
io
«
-r u5
CO
CO
c
I^ 10
S
H
fc-
fc
R^
a,ra
m
«
^-<fc.
fc
fe
<(1^
ffi
m
j^
:S<qQ
fl^fe
Q
^g
■V
■ L.'
-v-
_^
.^
■■■J
-s->
-v- «^ -V-
—
"^
■ LT
■ :J
-^
■ —
' ' "J J
J "O
1/S »i5 »o
cc cc
<;
C^
^'
v
■^
T
?=ci.
c;
en
ro
S?5
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 239
CO » so -T' o; — ' o iC o t-^ CM ^ — ~T
-T -r CD »r5
t- .^ o
C; ^ — !
»o ^ — I
1 ,— I »o ^- cr- o *
. CO CflC^l
m C3 Gc
Oi ?^ QO CO I— '
• lO OC »0 C5 Oi W3 4i^ •— '
i ^ CO
] lO ^
t- CO
2 ^ H^
c >. i
rt
rt rt ■
3 t^^ tu ^ b£ bL
^' S c-^
:| t g-o:|.
5.S 2 c'5-_
^ o o o
o kch^hq <: 0.H cl, k h w < eu, c^
'-^I^ ^ O O/ C'
5 bD
O 3
>> 1
.1 ^
•P
c« 3
^S
>>
t
bf
3
„-a
bf)
•S °
i J
S^
=« §
'f
j=
bJ-S
"Sic
■a' §
IS
>■- 3-"
03 m
■k -fu
.=
5)
1
f
1^ 33
.III
i
bO C
£= "
_CtC tj)
m <^
C.-2
§ ^
o'S 3
||
3 S
l|
•S-2
o-o
0-S.2
-a
i
3
tC
-a
3
3
.2
3
-o o
'? »
. 3
b£ 3
3 S
■gs
T3'.H
2F bD
2 1 w
3 -— ■£:
£r2
Pi
■3 ^'■^
111
J "
c3-g
be ^
3
a
3
O
all
2^3
< Pi
(i
^
a:;
^ w
H
H
Ph
Ph
C-l
~^ '^ bL
runs
runs
Cenil
Oi
CB 'S
=8 •_ OJ
'(5
H
iver at I;
iver at B
irmans
Ijoro
R. near I
ine
ine
oward I
ood
City
aeobsvil
1 of U. S.
1^
pass
|- Md. 26 and Md.
544 to Massey
ad— east and wes
Expressway
approach through
y line to Warwick
Bridge approach
1
II
tomac B
toniac R
rough H
0 Woods
& 0. R.
! D. C.
1 D. C.
easterly
■ Hollyw
Lookou
Mary's
line to .
tersectio
= i
over P
over P
urnie t
idway
over B
8 towa
8 towa
d nort
north
at Poin
near St
ore Cit
iry to i
z|
£
ick By-
ction 0
n, Md.
ver Ro
bingtoi
iridge
Coun
to Ba.v
. =3
Bridge
Bridge
Glen B
New ^
Bridge
Md. 11
Md. 11
Freelai
1.5 mi.
Md. 5
Md. 5
Baltim
McHei
1 i*^
ffi
Freder
IntersE
Unicor
Lando
Was
Bay I
fron
Md. 2
so
:2 oj
. — o
bD &
3^3
"3 2
m 3
l.-i
«'a
■^ a -o
lO »C »r3 .^ CO I-'
ifS io c
io »A »0 »0 CM lO
o^ISoh
I- CO CO CO c
GC CN CO
^ _. CD
-H C5
1-1 »-. CO
240
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
o
O
ffl
5
X
H
oo
u
«
u
H
l-M
Q
Z
H
Oh
X
as
Q
h2
>i
UQ
U
!3Z
b
tJ-r<
«
O
PL|t,
z
&-2
H
o"
-<
K
H^
U
?^, ,
A.
aW
o
Q
hh
z
COQ
n
1 Z
QW
02
H
^H
CO
^!^
z
-•nJ
o
'^
u
-^u
.j
>^S£
-<
^fa-
z
o
§S
TOO
too
OO
o'c-i"
00
to -;c>l
'"oS
oo o
6i o c^
1,722,513.82
833.217.92
3,423.60
1,106,741.22
90,971.40
2,396.66
60.368.44
1
o
^
"5
Authorized to
Complete
Projects in
Progress
June 30, 1958
O O O ro O
CC -M C^ O "^
oi »^ od CO »
* * * ^ g * ^ 2 * 'c5 *
*
* * ';
i
B
»
a.
X
Ed
-r o
o
CO t^
00 oo
O^ M
CO
o
o
r
3°
lo oo"
o
o •
o
C^ CO
CO o
CD
OC
s
CO
2§i
!^ B .
B g-
o o ^
O iq ^^ ^
05 O ci tN^
to— t^co
c^ -^ O
00 IM
o
CO coo M ^CDt^ -rf '-t* CO
t-« «3'-i "^ '^'^'^ "-^ ""I ^
CD "Die »/5 OC CD IC <M lO CC
,-. ^ -r *o cq Oi CO ^ CO CO
t^ ^ 1-H ^ OCi CO Cft 0_ ^ 1^3
oT t-^ ko i-^c^'oi" 'm' CO -f
CO ^n^ C> t-^ lO CO
z
o
s
i i 1 ^oll
•id L 1 ^ %st^
j^s j.S^ili ^ -EM I .III .1 ,1 Mu°z
>>Mi >-Sfe°i- 2§o= 2 >,.^ >> >, >v "Sgo.S
bo feSc'-S-So MS--5 0 MO; t! a ij t: b ^o-.s-:iS
••5i^ '-i'&lill i§i-i Ss 1-1 1 1 -ss-g.ss
z
o
8
If 1 1 i • 1 , 1
Cms & _-T3 !3 S " o *^ "
'' g " c £:-*' o Sf S ■ o-S^= .= cS ° =
•«-^§ S fci^-fc S § ffl .-Si^rtS ^&^ .^ gfe
."2
m
>>
1
O
— o
CO <M —
o ?
: :^ o =
■ o
£1
trs^ "^f^to^ "JMj- -Tco >« so << .a; M « o "S" (U as
a
-ox
00 'l ^
-T3 -=
i^ 1
lS2
O 1 1
7
c
^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
241
■^(30
10
0 cc- C- 0 (3-*
l~ lO C^ C-) -.
^ cc cc t^ ^
(M ^ »0 CO t^
oo_cc -^_^
in 00 115 CO ""^
*^
n- 1
-11
*
*
*
81,185,641.86
» 208,487.73
141,458.F7
232,105.40
603,590.56
1 cc II
°o |l
l^"l
t^ to ^* c=> II iftaO(MC35^t- 0 t
CO ©» ©4 ^T 1 »ooso>oci3> ^ 1
cooc^' 0 c^i r.; -I'" -r ^ 0 M
-r tx^ '(^ 1 05 II — COCOOf^ 0= II
odt-r<^ 1 tC II cr'aic^itio^ r-^ II
1 CO II M«00CO CO
^ I! ** ^11
52,671.43
88,3.50.52
Si,289.95
85.332,814.73
8 21.42
195,075.41
3,288,262.07
1,967,105.61
117.619.78
8 5,332,844.73
cc
10
cdI'~'II - ■co'co'^l^^
—' 1 ^ II ' '° '''2 1 ^ II
1 «© II : :«»^ »9 II
M
C 0
■Jl
11
lis
is i
»: Ci CO
Various
Various
Various
TOTAL
j.^
: : : : : <
H
: : : : : o
H
—
0
a)
—
-
g S "^ >, •
,^ t« c*- 1^ ^ 7*.
- 2 0 0 o.= {3
"^ £ S £ g S
242 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
^ _ _
,^
ITS :o
-ro)
o--
-r 1- -M
m
,,
f.
g
co^
1 -r c-r »f5 :0
-r CD
OO ^ Ci ?l
o c> 2C r--
l~>--5^.=~ — .
r- o
oc o
— c^j^-r o
mc: CM
cr. C: lO
<
5 Z K
1 cd" cc r-^ »c
— '-r
C-f -r"
w c;* c-i ^
CO o of
3 '^ £
' r-T
c:5"
>ri
1-
r a K
r^ a, :i
E 1 2 — S
cr; ai
S^Sf
r~ uo £
I--
cb
§
^^■S"
1 ^
re »o-r :c — '
coco
co'co'
CO
-f c<r tc co'
X ''^ z^
-2-
«»&
CM* 1
i
c
1 lr^ OC *>! r-^
or u3-r i-o
^^
coo
Ci ic r^ro
CO CO CO
cOCiC:
CO
c^
CO
>o 1
r- CO
S
^ S 33
1 ic 5c oc ci
CM ^
— CO t*
CO
^
S Z B
1 -r ci" c:;' r^
nvf cc — ' r^ c;'
-r'— *
'cSc^
O — oc" r-T
CO in -f'
cm' CM CO
o;
oc
r^
!a 1
f;
o s as
f ^ c; oc cc
— CO oc CO o
CO incs
« 1
X a. c
I OCiCt-O
r^t^c CQ c; CO
i^in
c:;_(M_co_:o_
cicr. CO
CO cot^
H
F- X e
<
*M* sot-Too"
1 eo
mis-Tioci
o'oc"
** CO
Cit-T
CO cio -r
cot-'o"
wcocm"
1
CM
CM 1
-1
1 -^-r-r
<^-r c^>at~
CO —
-roc
C^ O-fOC
o — ^
CTCO-
1 t^
>«
IcmII
1 « It
S II
oc CO
CO oj;r CO
11 C (C
i m t^m oc
t^t^
^ z a
1 CC C-T cc oc
irt^coci" CO
oc •—
fC-r
o"if5=r"cD
— 'lood
t-*o"cr
-T
0;
o »^ S
oc 00 — C5 r-
r~-r QTO
oc CO t-^
»n
o iot^_oc
-T=_00 -TOC_
-r CO
^t^CO CO
^- oooo
e© ^
-" ""•""
'^d
<dco
r- <M —
CMMCO
of— —
CO
^1
1 «>» il
cc c; r^ —
t, o — — —
a-. CO
CO -r
OOfNI
1 ^^
1 CO
-1-
1 _; II
1 oc — - oc o
oc o
cDujoe 2
1 °:|1
kJ
0»nr-i/3
00 -r c^ :c -r
t^ io
-T CO *r
CO -r^co
1 ^-
^,
o
(M* -^" — ' iC
-^ cc <m' r-T -r
lei i-^
o'-r
'v' -v^ -r' oc'
CO CO oc'
CM i^r^
T
I"
nil
.0 il
Sll
Sll
c: era :e ia::
a= — in CO —
inr-
W-T OC -r
— ' Oi CD
>n
MU3I-.0
C;_OC_O0 >-OC>
— _oc-r o
O -r oc_
in c-j "^
1 0»
^co ^'oi"
'^'d
t-Tro
— COOl
CO -roc
-rcM —
1 co'
1 f^
1 ««
.,
I r- r- oc c:^
-r r-- o o ci
rsi -^
cr c-
-r coo; 2
OlO —
-r oc t-
1 CO
c~>
c
CO f--
oc -^
1 oc 5:_ cc B
CJ CO 25 lO c^_
»r-c<j
OOC
CO CO CO
x|-:
^""t-T
*—' cT
'^fci C~'ct;
oc CC* —
— oc'ci"
§
■ra
c — c; i-^
^or 2Sto
GC CO
to f "-
S ^
2;^^::;
•" c^i o.-
— m —
occo in
s
1
(S
«^
V-'
«^
2 11
d« II
As
^ 1 c; c^o re
cr. cc ^. T =r
cc ^•' OC c; -r
o —
^ '^'
C^J C5 C^! C^
05 CO C IC'
O' oc. Ol
cor- oc
cr a: ci
1 §
z
II
i II
o
C
■"■>■-.
— 00 o — *n
Ci »c
6^ t^ 0|
1 '^-
s
z
s
K: C c
K 1 -£rc c^»«
O oc T- oc —
i§
»r?oc
cr. 1^
CO —
or — ' 1 - co'
CO -T in oi
OC c-r co'
X,' — »c
f II
«-ii
IS
<
o
H
-' 1 e©
1 ^
^11
CJ
a
1 c: ^ cc CO
[ -f i*^ »o O
-^^O — CD
r^c
C". in
Oi CM CO Ol
CO CM or. CO
comoi
in CO o
°si
1 CO
7X
CO
0 1
- 1
S
t-3
£ z
1 3Ciot4— .
-T S o_5_c_
»CCi,
in -r oc. m
CM oc r-
oo O C:
1 CO
'Xl
c
C'l r^ t-^ oc cs"
CO CO
co" o4 — ' rC
o'— i-T
= '2'%j"
1 x;
a.
s 1
X
O »0 -T iM CO
*>! O-*
— t^r:; CM
coin';M
OJ COiO
p^
c •"
CO -r
CM CO oc
lO c>J ^
^
B
«>
--'
^
i;; 1
II
OCOCOCM
o o ^- m t^
c; Oi
c; CO
r- cr. -r c;
CM -roc
O OO CO
1 "
CM
^11
H
C lO
oc CO CO
-1* O <— '
«
Sll
Z
=C — CM GC
t-. cs
CM mco-r
t^ CM CM_
to 1^ CO
&
-r" u^* s* r^ c:'
M—'
S2 ^"
cf of -r -r"
oc'oc'co
=S"SF
^
oT
" 1
z
o
t^ -r CO
to »o t^
o
s
-^_iC— ^t-
CO -r ;c c£ :o
, r
Fl ^
i^ m o t^
^- m in
ro-occ
1 """
1 ""■ 1
<
©^ ""
^'^' ^"'"'
CO t-^
iOci
CM —
cm'oo'co ■
C<1 —
1 i
li 1
z
1
i 1
1 1
1 oS^?5
1
r-- OC oc Ci Ci
t^Ci
u:>r.i
t^co — r-
o oc —
oc — a-.
1 -T
ZI
-
O
-ri^ o -r CO
»c »c
t, CO
1 ~-
. 1
o
iC — rM O e-l
^ QC
— ^ 00
ci :o CO in
ci in t-^
l^Moi
—
i '
CM —
""
fT^ 0)0 1^
1— C3S oo -^r cc
cs irs
o-*-
c: -^co ^
cso (r>
sSJi
1 oc
S3
^ 1 t; !!
m c o w5 ce
lOO
in -r
in-— in oi
oc ^r -r
CO
lis
-1- -r cc cr
CO -r — CO -f
C: C0_
CM oc
to lO co^
CO* tC oc" rCio
CO (^ ?? CO
Soc
c^fc-r
5&
in CT. rv. oC'
o; CO CO cr
cm'cT;:-
»OI^ CO
s
%
S 1 S II 1
-<r1 ^
-r cc iC
■^ c^ co' -^
OC— *
h-Tco
cm'— 'c-i'cm'
t-T cm' oc
c^oo — "
in
S II
■^
c^
(MCM
CM
e«
Is II
Hi
ci oc »n :c
c- c: cc to
P2«I-S
c; o
CO CO
4n -^i
1^ C: ^ O:
oi Ci o;
oc in-r
CO c; i^
rco
g
Cl
cr
CMOC
-r cr. S CM
H
^'~'s?f
S^ggs
oc CO
CO^CO
s'^"
rCoc'-r oi"
ctT oi CO
O CO r^
i75 lo 00
»n
g
ix 1 ^ 11
o
CO iC
00 ^ oc o
E-
>n!Ci-
^c^r^'-T^
coco
-^co'
-f — " cm' CM
o'co — '
co' — ^
o
c*
■" 1 8 1
CM 1
e^
M
1 ^ 1
^
•O =C Si
o CO o: — o
^ s
»n —
C^T O -1 =
oc -^in
-ra-.-r
1^
0
c
c l-l!
a
5^
■ CO ^ 30
■ o ro -r
gg^fei
O) CO
^^§ oc
c; be CO
-TUSK
^.
2
2
ir f-:
.cOQC -r
. r- cc oc
OOO^m OO'cTi
oc cT
cTcrr— 'o'
r<i CO in'M
oc CO CM CO
OC CO Ci
si? —
O
CI
CO
B
\ 0 '
5 oc 1
r-T"ic
««
\ %
(^
■ «•"
eA» 1
<^I oc cc -r
f^ ^ ^ ^ ,^
^ J,
oc in
-f CO — O
-f-r —
occo —
in
3
-
= ^.
to a
-r "^J 00
5
s > «
C: (M 00 CO QC
^_C:
CO »- CO CO
CM 00 O
C-J "O CO
o
^
:c •- a
e a
»:' cc »f^ cc
c; Oco"co
t-J-r
r-^ic
(m' oc of oc
cs' co'co
oc" C^l" CO
oc
CO
c
- CO
a
z
'"2^ —
1- C--
g":2
gccr-r-
^2§
2S'~
^
- t.
>•
< E-
^
—
a»
s
X
,
1 u- -J ~- -
— iT^ -* -^ -V-
oc in
r-co QCO
rooc eg
-^ — OO
t-
oc
h
CM
5
^
1 s ?) 5 S
£ O^ S 5 ^
~ 2
-r oc
oc oc o* —
oc c^i r^
QC — O
s
s_
3
§ CM
^—
^
a
c
-v-' — * f-^' -^"
-'-'■—' c^-i^^
co'ic
c:'in
CM CC — CO
cT co'co"
O5"oq"ac
CO
CO
g
z
CO CO O OC
00 »r> —
i
3
z
-
' ^ rci-O
— C^_CO-T
ss
^^
C-.-CO-
^^co —_
c^ — —
cs
" "'
<
—
««
•S
s»
/Ni — '- r-
OC ^, ^ _r :
-^- 1^
oi m
-r o oc o:
t^cor^
g2S
1 o
1-
u
? 2
z
p
o
s
<
c-i re in i^_
T^^.ci-T^ ■
cr; oi oc O
CO -r CM oc
CO -r cn_
0_^_10
CO
s
0
z
o r^ i; c;
o ocr-^(Ni ;
r^ CD ^ :o
— 'oc
in in
-r CM
— oi" oc CO
cr. in CO r-
oc" co'co'
CO 00 »o
§o5
^- .— o
cr
co'
cr.
^" gg
o
-r-roOM
OCMOOOO :
,^-j.
Ci_co^
CC »o cq
-^^'lO
— '— '<m"co ;
coco
co-^
c (m' —
cocvToc
«£»->
«
2
1
^
M
e«»
o — !0 oc
■
= ■-=
^^
_ _ ^
-TC; CO
i^Sr:
1
■M
■ =2
o
^
c~- ic -r
o
»J
^ ^ ^ •
-'- — * -r ^
C^ rvi
-v* y'
cr- -r o* c^i
CO to CO
c^'oc —
i -
r^
00
:§
— ^ c^
— ^ — 0^
-p -r
CO
IM »>J *—
iC
"
gS-z
£
•3
z'a fc
S
0
OT3 0
<
ill
0
Z
0
a
X
'. m
0
z^
_o =
S z »
z g c
ill
ill
B a fc
J
(5
° EC C-.S -^
f- e S i s
cJ • : :"g :
pilii
"11
in
2l1
,o"2 ; : -
-5 ■ ■ ">
5 < :^ :^ X
'^ : : 5
d >, - "5
ml
<
a;
>■-
a"
s-
s:
E-.
<
3
3
Q
Q
Q
—
o
—
—
H
H 4;
244
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
X
CZ3
P
H
Q
w .
§1
^i
^ 0H
HCQ
^Q
-<
o^
Osa
OP
Ehcl
I
>
E- ? £
o fi- &
^ X E-
"=H
c; cc oc t^ O *r5
Ci ^- -T GO O O
:o -r oc 00 o_ r~
ci oc cT r^ r^ ?D
o iO cc cc a: cc
« I
CO ^ c:
t-^ r o lo oc
O iC* CO cc oc t-
I : I
z ^ c « [
(>j CO Gccr o o
^^ oo CR c;_ o o_
^ 00 CC lO tM* QC
5 C2 ^ ^ lO CO
— 4C CO a; W5 -^
— -r ccic d as
lO 3C CC CO c^j •— '
oo" 'T oT O* CO od r^-"
Q
CD — 00 »—
ifT — oc »c
■ iO ^ CO
.00 CC ^ 00
»OI^ ^
iC CO Oi O I
r- CTi a: -:
3 3 3 3 3 3
-3 -0-0 -a -0-0
^ ^ ^ "^ '^ S
^^'^■.h ^'^
^-5^^^^
- = = £
:ss
=cc.
2 w j= 3 _- >--2
0.-^ = 2^:2 B
o>.=^ S -S 5 -M o
>>~ K ^ -^ _c —
o •^ £ ^ ^ ;^ ^■
^ O T3
•a tf
■; >
III ||J
^ ™ -^ :S "S
.2 --MM
= ►5 — — sZ 3
gCg 3 gM §■
,Q °^ Q W -^
^1
?5l
Co:
— m
fi,™
0 5«
—
< c
£?^
o<°
<
•T3<:
ia, :Sft,ciH
S£
«
*i
&a
"cO=S"
a: 32
-OT3-aT3-OT3
M
03 COM
--^3^«=
-S
SSSSSS
C3
PPP
pSSd
1 S a a a-5-
<; 0
T'^
C) CO -^ »c 00 ^
1
re CO
««««««
Report of the State Roads Commission op Maryland 245
!•- c^i f^r O ^ -r ^
-t- CO c^ T— O CO 1— 1
O ^ CM -f CO -^ <M
J <:o O '— ' O -— ' O •* l>. c
^.1
t^
) ^ o as ^ :
- CO o -r »o *c OS oo
t- r- o CO CO
00 CM lO Oi CO
O CM .— ' OS CO
oi lo o r^ oo
'— _-rcO0OCM^
05 CO O ^ CO
GO CO lO CO t
iC T-. C-) CO CM
uti r- t--. OS -
Oi »/5 -f o -^
O »0 CO O 00
o r^ CO o r-
r>._ »o lo o -r
—' -f' co" ic co'
r^ 00 -n- »r> oo
CO CO o o o
o_ o_ CO r- CD
»^ -— ' T— ' os" ic
urface
urface
iden 2S
urface
aunty)
urface
urface
urface
ce (Now C
'1' and Res
>0' and Res
>0' and Res
32' and
22' and
Curves
20' and
J2 a "^fo
"S O' ^-'_:
■oSSS
Q. S o o & ^5
« o > >^ 2*"
>.-^ S Soo^ «
«_ a* a. Cuo ^ w
-^COCO — ICt^CO^O
r-co^-cocoosc^-f
COCM^4f5-T t— i,— QO-rf
CO -r CO ooo *"* ^
lO ■— lO C^ CM
— ooiri — CMOOO
r-coi^cD-f<300
5CMO CO
3 O CD co"
r^ocococoiCOic
lOOCOcDiO— 'CO-
OOCOOiO^-iOt^iO
CO-— 'Osco-fiOOi— I
OliO'MQO'— ■'— COCM
CO co' ■— '*" co' CO oi^ lO •— «*
CO 1— < .— I CD iC
(N CD CM coco
CM^ CD M CM OS
Cm'qO CO CM t^
lO •— ' CD -^ CD
CO ^ CM CM ^
^ CD 050 — '
CO CM CO C-1 CO
rj^ ^ -rr ^* CM
-O M ^
-ti— 3
« rf S
o ° £;
-o -S *i
."2 3 S r9 *^ $ ."H 3
S "SS 3 cS £
> c ^ > ^►^ > c
^ 3 3 ■" "~ ■" ■*
ca t- >-
3 3 □ I." 3 ^
,>. >. >-3.>i ,
0:2 o o s'v o.y
ill ii'?
2>,-i? 2 o o ^
g-esi
i 2 ~ s 0 g o 2
>,o &«' c " - o "
en
CO 00 C30 O CO CQ CD CD CO CT) CJ
CD»^*000t^<DO^4-iOCC»^CD
COCOCOCOCDCO-t' O-^COOOCO
T3-d-d-d-d-OT3-tj-d-d-dT3
— I CM CO "^ ic CO t^ 00 as •— ' — ■
I I [ I I I I I II!
OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS OS
O CO CO o f^
a: oj 72 cc ^
f— ' C^ CO -^ CO
? f Oi o "5CO C
5 10 -^ ryJ lO IC C
3 CO CO "-H Tf CO ij
iCuOU5iCiOiOW5iC
246
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
a
o
O
3
Xi
a>
^
o
M
in
-;~
Ed
*~*
a^
H
u
^
H
NN
K
Q
X
Z
Ed 00
H ,
^ ©
Qfo
l^.
md
O^
Q
<ln
Ee3
?^9
f-
H?
-<
&^
a<
C
So
Q
1 ^
<
Urr
ZEd
'<c
SC
C
'-g
3
H
0>H
C/)
Oca
?^
as .
n
ftnO}
w
>J
od
02
H&
H
yQ
/".
r:?^
a
tw
o
^a^
Zh
O ,
^d
-<
QS
-UH
O^
tf^
0-Q
<'^
^<
>i
H
>
nJ
Ed
^
H
. ^ _
— '-
-r 1 1
. 1 -^
■^C-l c
.coooc= U 1-
II
ccc-.c-
-o«U
-1
-I -r,— OOCCIOOCOQCI'^ICO
1 l~ c-l CO -r r^ lO in
3 C OJ
c;^— — ca r^TTOiC^ I c; 1 w (M cc t^ oc ,— — t^ 1 esq 1 r--.
1 c-i r lO oc C
p z a
lOt^cTc^l fXV^'V"-
- CO cor^c;-^l^co(M
3 1 «5
1 -^izic^axcc 1 CO 1
(M c^ ^ .— 00 o — ^^^ 1 -rr 1 CO Csl 00 CO
(>
cc -r cc CO iM
o 0. G
: — .«
1 00 1 —
ca cc cc -^ M
cO_
<^-
«
>o
CO
—
^
a» 1 «^
-i-
e»
e«
^-v
*
1
1 .» •»- ^
1
1
II * *
1 1
O;— -^t~ -*0:>0r^ ICO 1 tDC0C-JC = O=5O 1-
1 lo — CO -r cr. oc
-1
-rt-^oc^ t^-r-r —
1 En
1 -T ci i^ wca 1 t^ 1
2^
»/2-rcc-r GC -r o c<i_ 1 r- \ c<j c^ :q c: oc_ o ic C
. s 1 N
1 -^.-~.x.^.°i ! » 1
co»nc3;oit^t^t^a2icit^
1-= -r O oc 00 1 O 1
Srla
cb-ri:c^ -fOait^ (>
CO-T 00 o
CD 00
»n -r CJ c: cq
,-° c
rQ coc c: te cnc 1 ^
oq «
a-. 1 o
^£
t~"
00-
—
*^
««
«e ««
-i«
«©
ee
,
ira : iira 0-* — ^ o=
o«
in
O C3!
U5CC-r — <M
o
O ■ -TO — (MO^
00
C^ CO
Oi
CO —
-I- in 2 -f r~
o
o
r-_ ■ ■ <M_ i^.o_co lo 1 ^ 1
o_to
C3i ^
^.5
-^-
in
K : in — — oo 1 f 1
I^ 1 —
— . . ^' »-
oo 1
c=
— <M
^:t^
a
e5
as ■
«l
«»
.|«
««
«e
^r^i^r^ — <^acM<^
1-^ 1 CMCCIOCRCSIOO — C^ IcO ll^ll
o = cc r- cc -p t^
Eg <
^ c; — CQ mcDcsc^ r^ cc os cc oc co lO oi os i lo i cq
Z
QCOiCCrO ClOOCQO ^ OO — CS U5 t^ ^r '^ CO I cc
_ -1
com — u^ -Tin 03
^ c '^ S
«rac:-r— " -Tirao-io oc" — "_"oo ^"
00 r^
c^r cT T-f cf c<r
1 g
s f" z S
coco »r3coc^»r5 -r ,— co
lO 1 o
>,;
S <; <: z
CC 1
c a a
^^
< E- O
1
e©
€« 1 «^
« l«
««
as
— c; — ^ oromoccol a::o — — — c^ia:r^lcDlc<i
ooo-r oa r
CD
O
X
o —
to cc t^ in 00 -t
s
[ CS
CO
^^ CO o C35 r* cc 1 ""^ 1
z =
£ z
cocc — oc" ocr-'rccc I cc
1 — "c"— 'oc'lM'co't^-lO C<r 1 oc
-t'oo in ci'cjroo 1 CO 1
G
OCCCCO" CC'MOCCCOj CCCS
<*
CO
— !M — <MC<1
—
<:
z
1
a
e^
e© 1 ^
e& 1 as
^^
e»
o -^
-" = t^-^
i^
1 «^-
(M
(M 1 05
o CC lOr^cc
00
E-
2;
lo-
ic o t^ cr
lOCOOO
a
o coinoom
m
iffll^<NlC=
ir
1 TOO I^
CO
S 1 CO 1
o_oc_co_— o_
z
^
res'
<r^"-^'iocs
C'
1 dTioco
o"
m
tz^a^o^ic^
oi"
c
t^ cr:
CO cc mi>
in 1 ^ 1
00 inoo ooco
t-
p
S
iC-r
t^ »n (Nr^
r^
1 — US
t- 1 -.
— C-J — O) —
o_
<
c-f
w-
" 1
ICO
-""
5
«^
a€
1 ^
-|«ll
€@
ae
1 1
z
■— cc
00 OO'^ o-
<M ^^ QO
OO CO
O CC^J-^H CC
o
a
^-cD-r c
if
cc
(M OO
o CO m CO CI
■*
O
s
"^
O CO — <=
OC
1
^ ci
^^ incccoo
CO
f
:_^
>
■ c
■ c
1
\ca
■ c
. b
)
'^. -5
-a
■ ^
S?
o _
o =«
: :
Z t
3§
• s
o
Z
~ £
f ^
■iz
^
s
s ■ s s
13
g g g
*W5 =
2 —
; *.
^t5
=2 ■££
1
=2iS<2
z
>- ^
1- r^
Z
o '--
o = -
o *^
< =
^ C
._C'w
£•1
:■
1 3
3i
3-33
1 ill
a ; 5 3
5
>
1-
Z
=1
3 3 3 •
OT CO W cc
73 rf rtO
?;
= a
."=
£!W
Xj" : xr?.q"
o
-r -^ -f c s
Q
H 3 ?«= H.
2'^
Remove Crov
ves. Widen 2
nd Resurface
ves. Widen 2
nd Resurface
ves. Will™ 2
ves. Widen 2
o
LlJ
Z
-1
O
DC
< c
iiiii
.-S.^S.'^-SS.'^
" '-=3 S 3.2 g
CJ O w C "o -
S/P and
Oonstrui
Construi
S/P and
S/P and
Bridn.
Const nil
24' Relo
Widen ■'
S'S.-Sc.-l'o'o:!
-2 > ^> g =
^S^S^SS^
• 1
o
-o
c
■—
ti
-^
^ ^
^
=
1
s
z
g
• S tz2 2
3
M
— -?
^
P
'■^
•- c^
= —
^^'3
Q
■ M =«
-a
J
-3
X
^
o«.|
-
o
"if
71
■■5 §c
^ ° fc
-
E-
o
<
'o — ^ = a 5
i- «^. 3J c * -
Eg
c2
1
^v:y:3=iM = ^ C^
•^ ^ "S If 2 S 2 *'-
oS o- c-t o> =
iry Program F
Is Bv-Pass to
. 404 to Tuck
. 312 to Dent
.313 to Deia'
dsboro to Dei
ieraisburg Bv-
-c c 5 = cy- » . 3
.|sSSSc£
.-m^^CiCH Biffl^
|(£=go(S&^s«
£
CO
IL
„ B
f' K
•^ 00 -^ -^ cc 1^
Eh h
g a
iJ5*^ioic--- — — C^
OgJOO — o
(S|
aiaiaiaiai aiai^
-o-d-a-c-d-d-a-d
-d-d -d-d -d-d
z.
SpiStitJ titJS
SSSSSS22
SSSSSS
Sgggg
i^ t^ t-- r~ r- r^ r^ r^
^-c^ cc* in t^
•~
^^
1
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 247
iCC^
cc
c^
u"
cc
1 t-
t^
c^
u-
QC >r-
la-
1 cr
„
iO
-r
11
lO 1— r- »f3 lo oi '^
CC
1 oj
1 cr> 1
t^Oi^t^i— o (y
C^
1 I--
-r S «c^ c c^
1 T
1 -^ "^ i« oo QC lO C^C^
■^
1 "5 1
oTo'cr'-r oa't^' —
ir
1 '~^
-I-" a? — -lOco-T
■ 1 r;
[ ooc^ T— 'ciodc? crw:
-T
1 ^ 1
-H o -;■ ^ <=■- u-
QC
=
«: ro -ru5 | t^
1 =« 1
'—
1 ^
1 ^
CC
1 ^ 1
^
«^
1 e«
«^
J^ 1 ^
e© 1 ©& II
* * * *
•jf
1
CVJ O -t> OJ O? ^ if
^^ (M O lOOOC^
a-
CTs oo -T O CD CC cn O
iC 1
r^ o t^ >o li^ ^ c
S
1 CO
c^ to cc lo^o »r-
CO
CD — > T'- I-^__ "— OC^
or
1 t--
■rr ^rr CO cc CO «"
^t-^ ccccoci -ric
•o
c^ o' cl -^* (m' r-T ,—
,—
[ cvT
1~ -f" — "CKOCCO 1 QC
OCCCT (m'-h'o'— iOI>
oc
cd'
cC
„ -^ 03 — coc
CO
t^ -r — ■ (M c^
cr
1 ^
CO Ci ICCC
oc
--J. co_ oo M
^
^
M
s©
e»
» j «©
«a
«&
C«3
- QC
-t
-tH
CO (^ oo c
c<-
(M -f OS
O c^l o o
j^
o
CO oooc
c ai t^o
O'
CD 0_0_0_cr
cc
0_00 -f U-
c^
o'— ."
C
^
-*' icoi'cot^
oc
co' cd"
— '»0 CO —
-t
o^f
p tc
o
o-
u:) -r
(M
cc
CO
'"
d
oo o_ 1
«A
M
«fi
"
e»
«« ««
Q^ «^
CO .— ( t^ d CO »o oc
cr
cr
-t- t^ -1* r^ r^ c:
a-
r^Oi lOOOQOt^ ■^ c/-
OC
,^ 1
o cc (M oo or. CO r^
-r -t^ cc Oi oc t^
*o 1
MCCr '-t"_ c: CC »Ci oc
'—
o
cc (M lO CO CO -T
O CO fcOOOiCO (MCO
oc
o 1
(m" — ' c> cT -r =c
ir
»o"
co" -p lo -f'oc
c
■^'ccT qocn'i— i"-^ c<r
-^
""^
"'"'""'"
c
2^
ifl
lO CO CO — '
2^
"
^
61?
s©
«.
©s
«^
^1^1
OS cn o r-- oo 00 cc
o
1
to c^ CO oo ^ c-
»c
csto r^cviojoo a:'i>'
1 CO 11
cc CO t- o: oc' o cr
O CO t^ lO (M oc
t^
oc CD c; OO f c:; co c:
^-r ic^ o coo
-r
CD
1
"^. co_ — oiojc:
0^(M t^CDCiOl CCCC
. ^ 1 I- 1!
— a; o oT ci" o' cc
g
QO'
t^ CO r.r cT — ' .—
^" OO -t'" — ^ r--^ *o oJ ir
t^
CO CO -r o; u-
oi oo -r Oi to -f*
^ 1 o li
CN
CO
-T u-
-
6©
«
«@
«3
efi
^
_ -l-ii
r^ t^ oi GO cc
o
cc
IM O O
OCi CO
cn cr.
o
(M 1
t^t— oc — cr
1^
-3< ^ O
oc
CO CI CD
r^_cN 5o 05_cc
cr
o_oo_ co_
^ o
t^
-r W2c^— 'o-
f
cn'
co' '--' co"
cooo co"
CO -r"
U"
-^
O »CCO(>^ ^
Ol
cc
-- -t*
cc
-f CO — (M ^
CO
CO'
■O CO
■ T- CI
to — '
-t
" 1 M II
«&
«s
^
«i.
dS
««
«. j^jl
OOCO^^
b-
CC
-. ira c
cc
IC C35 Ol
^ -"
OC
~^
COOOIOC^O)
'^
oo
T— ' CI <— <
■^
o c6
lO^-i'OOC^
ur
^
CO CO «
o
^ir- CD
CD ^
?J
IS
CD
.
J«l
*J
M
pi
3
s
si
3
pi
0
^
-a
6
1
C§
^
OJ §
3
1
^^
5
1
^-.
3
-a
cS
6
g
^§^
o
■o
III
Z
■a
■a
11
1
-g|5
S..5 <D
1
3 3 3
'w
o
l^s
ss
3 oT ^ ^
^
«(S«
fS
Q
.2
cS
"^T -
(X
-a-o-c
■"
~c|
^
"ic
rves, \\'iden 24', and
rves, Widen 24', Rcsu
rves. Widen 24', and
rves. Widen 24', Re:
_.
rves and Resurface
rves, Widen 24', an
rves. Widen 24', an
rves, Widen 24', an
X
5
>
>
1-
z
o
o
llJ
o
■ c
-3
Si 61
a a r-
.2.2 c
EH.'-
iB - 1
i.ll
5
ify Cu
ifv Cu
ifvCu
ify Cu
■n 24',
irface (
ifv Cn
One Lane c
By-Pass 24
Section t
Modify Cu
and Intel
S/P and R
8/P and R
S/P and R!
irface .
ify Cu:
le Elim
', and
ify Cui
ify Cui
ifv Cui
ify Cu
ilvert .
ifv Cii
-§■§■§■§.-2 !-§
= -C^-r'T3'T3-CJT3J=5T:
"ogcvjooooOc
SSSSsSmS
fS^o :s:ss^ s
to
(2
^
m
3
C3
.3
c3
(1
Q
<
-a
-a
h3
H
5
3
-i-
H
a.
o
S
^ « c
c/d
O
Q
to Warwick .
ennsylvania L
V 1
& 0.2
*^
^.1
5
.J
Q
'Z
fi
rt
>
<
c
o
d:
cj -^ >
> fc. cr
. 1
m Projec
(Elkton)
nsylvania
Neck . . .
3 3
%: .3
<
Pi
Progra
burg to
to Md.
burg to
to Del:
to Gree
to Bure
■ille to 1
E
^&H --- ^«(i;
Progra
e Ave.
to Pen
to Elk
posit to
,0 Delai
,0 Fair
,0 Dela'
■ to Ris
a
o
sRiv
un to
toll
at E
anna
ndary
derals
eston
derals
d. 313
dgely
eston
a
C3CC O Oj= g
econdary
Delawar
U. S. 40
U. S. 40
Port De
Elkton t
Elkton t
U. S. 1 t
Bavview
>.
i M -^ "^ 3J=
CO
1
r_gS t^ ticcZ
a
CO
-: c-j CO c
00 — C". t^ o -t
^ S ^ -'=> X
„co iCCSUZ
T? -d 73 "d T? T3 1^
-6-6-6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -a
sssssss
D ti ti tJt^z;
SSS SSSS S
c^
^
T^ Cq CO -^ IC» 1^ 'T-
-H Cj, CO -*upcO
^- cj CO -no CO C3 *— t
u-
»c
IC
IC
iC
-
cr
OT
Oi
ai
^
"
s
«
"
"
"
^
o
248 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
u
s
'O
0)
JS
o
Ul
m
^
El)
H
U
pa
H
K
Q
X
x2
w
Qm
nW
H^
tfp
O^
Q
t3^
12^
1^
^7?
^9
H
HUi
<i3
Ed
O
Q
1 "*
■<
Urr
ZH
o
H
o>.
!/5
OCQ
y,
« .
n
Cut/}
^
u
zS
NJ
od
H^
a
^Q
y,
^^
H
few
o
Zh
o ,
UH
«!
Q&
^H
o(^
«^
tfP
!^Z
H-fl-
>H
E4
>
iJ
H
^
H
— -r cc I GC
rc^ cc I O
°^-^-^- I ^^
ccoTic I CO
S ^ C ?5
CO 05 CO
cq t^ ^H
OO (M
o cc CO r^ lO CO
O »0 -^ Oi »o
-lO _
-5 — O ,
O — ro
o3S
OCD
O 02
lorot^
-S
«»
w r^ io (X' 00 ^
oi C30O r^ OS c^
>0 1^C3!N
o
-,
5 rt
'-'=13
goo
S O O
«
te I
I
mi
3-0 ^
^, c 5 o > =
•■--. "t: 1- o
<c c
OS b- -C
I Q _
Q't:
?"' " C "O r- '^
■ ° I oS §2
oS
cO
o2
OJ 3
PO
«^
H 2,
SS 3
2 oQ
>, s
in
Q 3'^ro
»C to W5
Q ^'^'
cr-03
mc§^
-OTJ
O &
SS
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
249
1— ( C^ lO 00 c
-^o — o
1 -- O OC 05
OS b- 00 c; -^
1 00 1-H oo
_. f-
CO CC 05 CO C^ b- 05
CO CO •—■ C^ CO CO -—
— ■ c^j CO cc lO -r t-^
— CO ■^
t- O C O CD —
lOW^CO-— • •— iCCOC^lfS— •
- O 1— O CO O *0 IN O iO
5C-1 — < CO— 'a;coooco
C^ OJ lO CO OO CD
CO d CO W5 IC CO
ic en c^^ c^_^ oo_ oo
lO ^ lo -r irf CD
'T- 05 05 CO O Ti
t^ (M — * 00_ O
1— 'csT^'cc
OOOO OOOOCD(M
OOOO OOOOM-CO
o_o o_o_ o_o_o O — C^J
i-T ic »o' »o CO o" lo -m' co' — '
CS CO fM O". ^- O^ i-H lO
•— ' o -!■ o oi o r-- — 00 4C
iM OC ITS t- Ol CO t^ C^ »f5 lO
^ lO oc — t
u
.4
3
s
X
H
oo Oi CO oo W5 Ol CD lO to C
^Hoooi-r ocor-ooc
C^.-. — ,-. — lOOC' — ot
. UO t- -M — C
^ iC —
-H 00 ^
2f
"22 -^ is
I
CO »0 CO OJ
■— — 1/5 CD
} — o
CO »-' »o 00
0(M "* —
CO ^
3 3 3 3 3
c^ o o o o
c: £2 c: c g
c c
2 S stf S
->* p o_a. p
c^ ic r^ o/ io
cc jc ^ "c aJ
■2,^ p
£ § o
E o =
a. a
bo br^
MM Ml M
.o 0,0 O^"
o o o 0.2 'o^
is -s i; :: s^ "^^ is ca >S ca' «'
c«
&
KK(X(X« oCliJ=Bij=^
^
ca^cart^i—rt =a„__„
„
p^ Oh CL, a, Ph S P- §p^ § §
M^Mcocc cbQcoQQ
P
;w
■< » 5 ° =
.J »
pC
a. oS^t oZ o
,-"o ca'-'^ *^ to "
! 2 -,, -o p 2 Ph
i«
^-^■H
p 3 ca >.
i.-a
o ro . ij -J TO •-'Ji—H
SHt:)a<;tqpa2
* £ c „ c p
j2— ^ P_i.
p £ = £ P:=
PP3 a;
o £ ^ <=2
Ph o^ »;.=
^ 3 g bD<^
o^M^2
lO W5 lO CO CO
- lO CD -— ^
tJS
CO CO cc cc cc
■d-d-a-d-a
t- t^ t^ r^ t
Bl3
OJCO
;p,p,0 fc
2222 232^;^J£c32(2o
0:1030203 030303030:03
250 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
u
3
T3
O)
JZ
o
W
C/3
^
Ed
(— 1
^s*
F-
u
ffi
H
*— (
a
Q
So?
©
Qeo
^
b^
'^
U
<z6
— "
,^
^H
Z
S9
^-
a?
-<
S^
U3
a.
a>-
r- —
^^
O^Z
—4
^
^
ZW
z
I^H
ii
-z
H
^^
U
Arf
c>
r/:
CM
r.
a; .
n
cut/2
w
>j
03
-<
r H
Ui
'w ^
z.
riz
u
rw
C
Za
^Z
-^ i ^ '"'• "^ S "^ "a;
;5? 00 CC' c^ o; ^- 2
- . . . .-o =— '
) I I I 1 ^
ifi lO »r5 ic lO ic
o cc ^ *o oo
5iC*CiO»CiOiOt
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 251
o <M — oc »o c; CO
^»f3 CO iC
(M ^
»0 ^ c: lO —
1 c: r
■^ CO <>) oc — ^ ic
ca o_ -r^ <M_ c^)^ t-- M to oc CO — <m co c; co »o
CO »o lO CO cT OS t' CO -r ci" oc co' o" od ic to
^ <M 1— ' CO
^ ^ CI fM —
o
oco
o r^
O t^(MtOCVi
s
OO— '
r^ CO
iiic^fe
CO
Si
00 •— • Oi ^
. — t^ C3 <
1 . • -- CO t
> O 00 o — o — ~ cc x
:ooo cooMOcoo
OC^OCiiCOlCOt^
to Cvi '—' — — ■— I C
1 ■^ c: *r ^
O O t- O I
-f o CO c:; c
CM o t^ c
■ — o -r
: ci to «
OO
OO
>oo"
« m
o o
OOOO lO o o o
— — '"'i-T cvTioc^'io
_ _ — CD CO
^ cc
c-jco-rosoo
»i5 (M o> O 00
CO
C5
826
059
106
941
427
CO^f
coco
x> —
lOO otoro
OC
toco
CVj -H CO ■^
00
Oi — — C: 'M C:
O iOtO(-^ — OCCOOOICQOCQC
OC -rocorot--<Maoo
_»C ■^^— to 0^(M CD ^^CO
c;*!0 •— "co '-T i-T^
^ CO -M I- to I
X
X
CI CS CO 00 00 to CO
OS OO -f ^
OO O CO
r>-cDr- -r
CO CO -r o
CO to CD
CO ■r-H to
CO t^ OS
OOCMO to OS 00 O <M
too CD
^ ^ C^ CD
t^ O 00
-^ -V ^ 00 -r oci
<Mco-r-
CO 00 C^l ^ w ^
(M ^H CO »0 -^ T-^
00 CC CO '-^ 00
O ^ 00 00 o
o_ -^ ro — _ c^_
^~co eoo't--^
3 40 — O O »«
c >,
-o-o — -a ?
sS S'l S-2
■s -s -ll S -b 3 =
PS;:i
^ he
^Pi
-i-i Jio
2 2-S^
1? Mr°-a
ou^.fcoi Q(S
^ 3
5 ° S 3 3 _
« ca
KW2°«
2 3 o
.2 ■ =«
■S-Q
:t_s s
c - "' —
jT3 I e5 —
§si2^
K J 2 £ o
-a^ o oO
goj.-3 I .
5 - o J'E
S =a^ o £
-^ |.| a=
; ^ M o >.
3 "^ "^ '*^ b
- 3-n s S
-^^"^ 3
373
S >
i ."^ "^ .'S' = .'3
= «,
:-■ ^ M
d o >-, ^ Eg"
s| laM ^
— 3 c. o o.
S3«
^5
OS
fS-<Q
>>^
S 3
si
EX C ■
qs .
o o^
a:" CO fc
— ce
O O -^^ o c
s^p s;
1 to Md
1 toMd
to Hilvi
12 toM
50 to M
Road to
^'^T^^^' S:
§o
ppSSpS
So
oSS
- CO CO CO CO
S '-5 ^ ^ S oi '72 ai a; ^
IS :s;^
go; i s
ra^tOCO OO'— c
^D::^=oci^ioco E — ti
3 Cs O O O O
;, _^,^ -rcoc^OX— C^O
^Spppo '"P
1— > -M -r to c
CO to CO OS -r 00
^ " — — CM CM
I I I I I I
to to io i?5 to to to »0 to to to tO to to CO CO
D CS '-' ■^ ■^
.1 I II
S OS Cd QS OS C
»— t oa CO -^ toe
5 CO coco COCO c
^- C^ CO f to c
CO CO CO CO c
252
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
o
xn
H
Q
HOC
£2
Ss
So
cue/}
<z
I
□c r* c;
— t^
1 _
c=
—
-- - —
^
_
..
_
^
^
j^
_^
iO
u^
tD
1 = 1
totrs ro
1 ^
OC
1 "5
5 i m
52s
0-.C —
1 t^
I 0
iC
c:
ceo— criooccc. OiC
'•~-
oc —
CM X 01
ce
1 C<I
cc ac re
<y^ -^ m
1 ^
{ '^
cc
c;
oc -r I -.* (m' cc cT ie cm' in —
C-'i
iC iC
— ' cT c"
C'i
cm'
& ^'s
to — —
s "^
c^>
1 =-.
1/5
■M C^ C^ — — -M t^
o_
^k""
^
^
•m'
— t-' — ' iC
-^*
1-^
CO
««
1 *^
«&
»»
*
t
1
* *
0 X »n »0 c: C »o
cc
1 c^
1
cc 0 cc oc ^ c: CI — 0 «:
CM
co-r
c -r —
CO
50
c: ct (M — lO -T cc
ffC
1 c*3
1
5C
= 0 0-.
c:
10
cr i/; r- ec c: c^ cr.
U5
1 —
1
in
cc
t--o— — inocc^^^c^
-r
?o cc
OCiM 10
— '-^'(m' ~~5'i«
1 I^
I ^
1
-r'
cc
i-^i 0' l'^ '^ yi -^' C: oc c:' ^
GC
^'crr
C*f — -' CM
Ci
1 ^^
E--3
»f; — . ii^
C:
»
ceciic re- t^c^
— ic
c S
1 "»
1
t^
-M
— 0 -^i — — cc -r
0 C^J
co
0:
f-r
^
QC
1
^
CS
cc ^ '— ' r*
ec'o
^
c=.
CO
1
T
«
«&
M
ei&
•»
'
1
■ 0
to
l«
„
1
iC
— cr ■ OC'
:o »
0
»o
10
fc.
Ci
1
^0 r-
c;
CM
0
■0 ■
<N
1
cio • 0
i«
(jj >-
;o ;
I-C
t^
cJ
-r ^ ; tsi
— ' —
IC
^
00
£^
C*l
«
, ^. c-i
OC
CM
! ^-
r^
«o_
•—
0
0
0;
00
■ — t^
OS
i
1
£
M
<»
««
•»
w3r~o 0 locicc
,^
l«
r
^
^
c»r5rc oct^r^iocco
Ci C^l
-""t
^
loo
J, ri -^
at r r~ r~ -r
t^
c;
0 — c: ^ir^i«ce^-r
CCiCO
CO
1^
QQ Ed ^
z - e g
OCX 0: 1^ =
^
re
c-j c<i_ oc t-. oc oc CC iC ic
GC
icce
o;«ci
—
o_
oc oc —
ci'iffi-T ici^ oc
':^':Ci
- f. z a
C
oc »r
— CJ CM
0
s
s •< 5 z
e a * K
cc»«^
z
a
< t' C
«e
•»
e«
**
j
1
trt — I- »« 0 -T ^
cc
^=2^;; 2?^i;;r3^2£'^
CO -r
<Si<^z^
1 00
c
cs
1 =*?
c;
OC
0 CM
CC -T CC
1 ->•
s
a
1 0
cr.
r-
■:^ — f^ ec CM c^ S c5 ic
OC to —
1 -r
2
a _
i^ ac -T
1 «=
^
c^'
-^
-*■* cm" '-'J '^ 1^ r^J ci" oc* 0*
c-
— cc
-co" SB
»«
C5
5 z
~"
"T
(C
CC cc '^ ib — W5
»c
0 cr
-r 35 CM
cc
CO
c
CC
o_
c<
CM CO
o_
g
?-.
^
-a-"
p
^
«I9
«»
«»
«»
<
■ 0 oc
„
1 0
1=0
r
^
0
CC CM cc
_
— oc
:--.
CM
E-
Z
C
S
25 cq
cc
It
eo
c:
CM oc CD
ClOC
m
0
-c 10
ta
C5
II
0
co«r i«
l>
z
* 0"—-'
c;*^
C5
oc
oc
-r --' co'
oc
r^
^eC
; cm'
1 ^
c
Oi'—
s
0
Cl
1 3S
g
t^
1 i
-'
-
i-r:'cc"
ei'i^
o"
IS
z
I*.
1*
II
^>
1 4»
10
kO
OOTO
1 »
l«
II
00
U3
co-r CM
0
CM «
•00
1 ui
0
B
10
t^«o
1 "^
II
^^
0
-r CO t^
»ooc
■ -r
t^
0
5
0
—'0
1 "
1
II
II 1
^"
'*
»o^*-r
CO
»CCC
^
1 ^
1
■ o •
si.
1
b£
C • m •
■a
■ j^
0 ■ s ■
C
0 3
C3
: ; : 3
1 <?
X. '^ ■
CO • ta '
0
^
: : ; M
. . . c
6 • 0 •
:r2
! 0
- • -S
Z .-5 •
=i
Z
: : :^
^1
& : ■■
ts =
"^
_o
: :S
& S S
J
s : o
"
■(«
■'H
EaC br tj
"S -^
•5 "i ;
0
1 Q
irxK
X -3
~
__" ■ ■ ^ 'Q
— ■ SP
c
> \2 :
>
. ca c« cs
-» 3 3 3
l.fe.fe.fe
t 3
1
1- =
3 a; •
- 3
1 H
1 z
3
1
< ^
Q :-g
^2 • *
5:
0 .= :
0 j^ = 0
cj ^
1 s
1
= . ■ ~-s
"".S.S.S
-3 3
^ §&-
""
t/5 .ri-S.S
= .!*
1 lii
g
.5
^1: = !
%
rr- S
UJ "-i— t
<^ X
1 DC
0 5:; 5
^ =
0
"w
—
Q'2-'|'h.
5 '^-S
' 's'Srs
0-5-
^cS
S
«
"c
1= :s-5
fe^ll
^ i =
-<~'7'.
C3 =05
hi
1 1-
<
Q
J
^^^^
"c si
J "c
s
UJ ..£--.
0 r; "S -
z — "^--
•f 5; :
1 "
t
oiBiKPi
3 =
0=^ =
fat) :
1
1
c
c
i i ic^"^ !€€€€-
c
0 c
Ill
3
^0::S«S:Sp:
1
0
OOPS02 KccoQtnoiQp:
0 oc
Q
j
c
t
S«
-- ■ ■ '
' !'c
J
.S3
ft. ;
T3 ■ * ■
: .ft.
>.
1
2 : : 0
C;
■■J
►J
1 ■ t
c
S 5
> c
3
-c
>
1
sa ■ _
= : 5
% ^
1 -s
\
W t ?^ ^ -'-
^
z i
S
"S
1 ~A Miaill
"2 ;7 s 7 l'75~£
■3
1 '■=
0 : >
'0 rvi "c *^ 5
J
f^
1 1
^
c
I
~ : P
1
«_:< ;- c-f . 1
c
5
c
'■3
>-. !^
a -r ~. Sc-5 in "" ~
0
a
E
5
c
c
c
jj
*1 t
£
0
*c
CA
0.
3 >
t- rt
gg
,, _r C^ rvi 1- (N
-i
1 ^
>>
§ >-
E- 0
' ~ a'—
Is
H I^ C^ C^ ?C 'S* cc
^ ^
^M * .
r £;
11 c
^fc^Ti'-^' -Ti-d-^g-l
■X. ^:^
^ **!y3
«z
-6-6^3-6-6-6 —
■^ t
P
^==^=;
SSSSSS5
22 ""
:£ "
-k-kS;= <SSSzk
a ~»
, ,
1
<
22
c— ■
s r5 B E"^
s "S
fc
III
Ss
'S^
5^"
^
'-^
'^
'£ ~ '■£ '£
'<£
cr
so
'■S
'■^
CC
!5
■-£
'■s
i
cr-
s^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 253
<M lO 05 (M »0
CO CO t^ CD r^
iC O Oi Ol CC
§
O C33
asOCOt^O — MM-f
»0 t^ O' CO O: iC
r^ c<i CO 00 -^ CO
-f *f (M r^ lO
"^1 -M--CC CI
g
-V 00
I~.-t"TU^iC-roccocc
"•"So "'"^
CO OO Ol — ' I-- o
O OO <M OC' »C GC
o
00 OO iC (M O
lO ^O t^ CO (M
ic r^ t^^ Oi^ o
CO' CD l~>-" CO oi"
*
OC'OOiOOiCOCOOCD
OO OS »0 O "■ ^^
"5 ^^ -f, 00
lO (M CM
-^ o
■^ -M OC' O O O
-r t^_ IC M to »C CO r>]
- o" »o" co' o'
COi— ^
00 t^ CD I^ "^
OO ■-< C3
*co oc ^ r
a O CD 00 »o »o
~j CO "^ *C O CJ
-* ^ CO c
C lO C: CD O
»0 ■— 00 o to
I ^
I^ -^ lO -O c
^ ^ CM CO r- oC' ^
O ^ CD ^ O '
'COOCMI-^Ot— »— CO
s-riCT-ci-fco-rio
-H ^r^o — I
I
CO CD
too"
S 00 —
lO *0 OS — 00 t
I-- 00 00 -^ t^ c
U50 lO
.-H OOGC
•rf CMCO
CM
S
o
t^
00
—
C-)
CO
3 3
3 E 3;>2
•2 - - £ 3
S S S J3Q
3cc; 3q: 3 3,
c3'tS
s-?g
^
3T3 3^^ 3
0; J
rsrsrsrs
3TJT3-
3 1-- k- I
£ K S£ £ " - _
■sows SSSSrt
Q -^ ?? -^
br^
sph^^s -
X t^
K OJ 3 3pi
3Pi
I^Krtpi
Ut.
Q S-o-o ci
J!'
C g'irird
'3'S
■go.-S:Sm'
'^'S rf»---^
^ £
5S > >|
Qi^ - 3 3 E
**o
^^OO^
0.-3
f^.:!"?"?!
ccS
So^SSc
3'^
Pi §
-a-T3
^ o o £ o-^
•o ca J,.S
'^ C.S! C
T333 'Ki
>■ - 2-^
■^ -
> s
CO
» o o i'CQ".'
- lO o "^
„3; *-
3'C
= — T3 —
> .Sl-
ips-^
■ooS
2^
. = •> O^ o
S5.-S S
-o
H 25 oa
gpi"
311
'- 3 "
lO O I
-d-a
So
.tO
Sc;^
oiccococo-r T icio
j»o»o»occr^cO'— r— cm"— ^-'— 'i— i
C ^CO-fiOCOt-.CCOiC
-i-.i-*r>»i^i>-i>. t-
S-S-
■gaJ
" p
C» 3 £ c-
.j: o o
'— c^i CO -r I- OO c^
lO wo IC UO wo wo iC
c^a CO -e
-o -T- 2 "o "d " c5 "d "a
254
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
o
3
•n
a>
JS
CJ
M
CC
J
05
H
L3
rv^
H
as
a
z
HOC
H
Qeo
nH
•^Z
ttU
0^
^
£0
Z
^rr
r «
"a
t-i-s
z
^2
f-
HpS
a
Ed
Cl.
C
5q
^
OiZ
Z
ZH
z
c
Si
c
$§
f-J
-^u
C£
c-
w>,
cz:
Oca
Z
^
n
DnGC
H
^~'
S«
M
Od
-9;
K
H^
U^
,^Q
z
c
Zh
0
'^i^
<
as
<«:h
o<^
oi<
kQ
<z
w^
>H
H
>
1-:]
H
^
H
CC
.
_
_
_
>r,
00
<M
r^
•0
OJ
__
CO
_^
CO
,^
1
:5 0 M
g B. 0
C4 — ^- t>-
c: '^ ^
-^ r- ut,
—
o_
1
—
C-
»n_Gr;_ cc_^ci_t^
W5 I^o"c^
c:
QC
jn
c; r^ CO ^-^ r- 00
0
-^
'T-
lO
-r^t^ -r t^
-=^"
^^
CO
CO
^^
-—
irac-i
««
c«
^
^^
■» -X-
1
*
0 0 CD
1 0
10 ^ 05 COI^ t^
c
= = CO
CO
cr.
oc CO oq c^io-f
^^
U3 -f^_t^W3 ^^ "^
»C ic CSI
CO
Oi
3C
-r c^ r^ CO c^ 1^
-^" CRCfcJco irscD —
-r
0"
-T
oJc^i cocct--''—
Ss
CD 10 CM — . C35 00
oc
o_
c-
C0_03_ -T t^
^E
«"
CO
.-
icTco
*,
««
t»
99
•
0
^
10
CO
0 1
^
^
OQO
00
&<
in
coo
0
0
0 1
COI^
A ^
^
*c
oc
0
'-''"
—
■~
— '-r
CRO
^■i
>o
QC
OJ c^
C^
S&
C30
^-
/M
C; —
0
^H
^
*-h"
^
(S
09
«e
1
D
Fh
^i* C5 ^ »C c; l--r c-
t^
0 CO COCOC5C
s
S n = g
Ci cc — l^ c-1 ;i^ £- '^
1(5
^ U5 01 OJ 0-.
^c^'-r
0"
c»
CO
0
0" Ci' — ' a> ai
S t- Z g
t--
^
cr
CO
s -< < z
CO
c IS a
< f- C
a
««
1 **
««
2
,
to „_c>-. com ^
10 OJ — •
0
10
"
,^
iM
a: c-i CO CO 00 r~
c^
r^ 0 •*
>«
0
X
3
M — C^iOC^ CO<M —
0 0 10
CO
-r
cicvi^ -^r^ocoo
g 0
■^ ocofcoco^ -^"-^ t—
CO tC tC
^r
0"
cc
I^
cs stT c^f co' c; 0"
2 z
0
t^ 10 C^l CC 01
<
5 ~
z
«@
"5
«s
CJO
CO
1^
00
"
CO
*fl
-r CO
00
t^o
10
in
cm
■
oco
z
0_c«
Ci
c»
■*03
z
ID
10 -r
CO
q
-^r
'
,—
cr
—'of
r^To"
0
CC W3
U5
0 —
s
05
CC
0
00_CO_
0
<:
co"
1
—
«(m"
ts
««
1 *^
<^
IS
z
1
w
CO-*
_p
_,
"^
(M —
0000
0
0
ta-rr
00
CC
CO
CC
oc»
coco
^ c*a
»o
t-^
0
00 ^
-r C5
S
'^
<D
^3
(U
a
a
a>
OT 1
,^
^
^
'3
-5
■5
M :
s
0
:5;
3 ^
„-
J
a
(S
3
M :
S
0.
□ "^
.E =*
^
«
=
g
s
'3
6
T
:s
T3
1 ^
1-
3
a.
r2
."9
;a
Z
rt
• a
1 «
c6
a
a-=
■a
■3
g7
1
>
Ph §
T-a
;^"
■§
■§5
S
i
<S ■
■q
S
«
-J
6 3
cq
ce
03 .
3 ■
0
a:
M''
z
is ?
t^
^
11
3
i2
3
-a»5
>
1-
z
J
0
fi
3 3
CU
c"
3
PS
1^
1
1
3
0
0
(i.
w)
rt
— -0
-OTJ
K
>ir'
-i=^-
v-ir"
i^"
?;
SP^
! _i
-;;
■ -s-s"
5 C3
G
11
Q -J- u
0
r
c.
III
r2
LU
Z
C
<
UJ
z
-
1 1 =!P
>i >, C3 ce [V] ti >
a « 3 = g^
-M "S -g-S-S- c.
0 p
£ £
3 C
0 0
P3 23
6~o''s£-'po~"co"
000
1
Ill's |.-S|
S S eSoicSS SS
S S S
ta
(f
00
-*
•^ ."
CO
0 ■
•T3
"T ^•
.'.-^
<
.2iT3
>,
<",^
fc-.
ca
z
tsis
(^q
c^
0
5;
3« S -■
pa-g 3 t-
^
<
•11 .
0^ ^ •=
-d
Q
>
bC
s
2 - "=
S '-J :
oj .3 ■
0
t
Z 1
< CO
c
-2-3 tf«>
II 1 liK Is
0
c 0
'0
1
0
C
c
.y.i » ;^.3Pi
ffl S !:3t3mm QtJ
■^ 1 '-^'
S m &
E
1
3
1:2
||1 |-|
_^
B S
fe c
>
0
I^ >0 -M g ^ —
U5 iO -M
J
CO 2
c:r 0 »c
,32 CO C^ Csl CM
II
c-j
©'•^
2 -= -o-d-d-d nd-d
-d -d -d
15
^a
|;^^-3 Td-TJTd
2 S SSSS SS
s s s
pa
tf t>S sss
iliil
^< ~
0 — ' 00
*? T TTTT TT
C) CJI C|)
V
'i'
CO ^ in CO t^oO
°p; -
-
(^
c^
I--
'^
t^
'"
r^
'"
1^
■^^
30
S
OC
1
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
255
J^
-r o; c^
IC CO
cr
-f
^
_
^
J_
J^
1^
_
QOOO
'J= CT-
<M
J__
c
^,
-^1
II iraoc
CO
^
,,
,,
u
1
(T'l CO C^ OO CO c
^ c^
-ri O t-~ »0 CO ^ I- Oi — -r GC cc C-l U^ IC 05 CO CO IC
«
11 CDC^ cr. CO — l^
C0»0>0t^«0 CD CO W
CM_oc CO -r icr loc^— "lOutiocM^rj — ^oo -r ooir
-t.
II t^ oi oc C-. to •—
^ ,S nS t^ —T cc
00 r^
t^
r--' co' cT ci" — ' i-~r c-f '^ c^f c-f lo o" o' •--" co --' c<r cc c^
Ci
t^
11 co"h-r c-ro'oi'co'
CO
"
cr
^ ^ cc
:^
^
II - -r -rc~,
"
» 1 6^
^)
c^
II ^
a»
*
*-x-#** ■«•** *
II * ^* '-
t^ 1/5100 C5 ir
o -t
r^
1 -rr>iO-1^t-^OC^ir--Cv]OOrKic^iocoOO>OiOO
" =^ g 2 '_: JJ
CO I^CMOO oc
i^
1 rMc:5r^iocoo-ro5r— -t^coooiooooccooo
CO CD 'T r^-M c^
. «l«:
-t
1 '^lCccc^-^iO'^]-^^'-Hlo^J::,cocococ^^^-rooo
-t"
c-
II 04 04_ ''".^."^O'
Oi
^'lO^c-lco' ir
r-
1 1-' CD oT o;' ■— ' m cc -t-' ^^ cc iri o" oT ■— T cT -^ c^" c^
o
o -< <M « ir
cc-rt---f-fi 1— ciC — cD-fc^-ti 1— iioio
«:
— CO C^ Ol — CO
cc
^ ^ CO
d
^T-i -T
--
|5
^£»
««
II ^
««
^
o c:
^
rg
(MU5
oooo
f.
-t-
II 1 -V
'-S
-- Oi
o
o
o o
i
CO-^
oooo
CD
o
m
00 (M
o
o c
CJ
oo
oooo
c-
''I
^
CC CO
CO
lO'
lO' u-
o'
c
■^~
ouo— 'o'
^
O"
1 "
III 1^
i-T
O*co
c;
«€
«^
^
1 fe
1*^
II 1 ^^
CM
"
CO
1
l«
1
±_
ir> CO CO t^ —* c^
CO c-
_^
^oi»o--aDr>JOicDt-^ooc:-fcnocco:r-oC'— '
^,
CO
II C=CO COCOQO-1-
CO
c; ^ oc r^ ^ -1-
OiO
cocioo^ocnor^*— ast^coc5CD<M'-H»o-r»oco
cr
Oi_o_-r — o_ CO
CO cc 05 -r oc CD oc r-. cowoc CD c^_ ^^ '-'
II 00 — ' COCOCOO
CD—. C] <>)
CC
CC^lCCCOCM MiOCOQO <M CO C^l
«
O
|| oico" 03-<"co"oc
CO
\^
«^
|«.
II 1
e^
Oi OS C32 CO Oi C^
-f oc
I^
oocoocooooc^o^os^oo-^oor^-^oc^o:
CO
II 1 cr. 1- Oi -t^ CD OD
CO
COI^iCMCOOiCDCDi— ir^r--0(M":)00-t*CD<MCD
or
r-cDC3iio--H r^
OO-T
iO^— '(M'MO»oiOC^»ooc5o:-rcc'— '00 o:_oo oc
^.
II 1 COO ^ COiO CO
a;'-t."co c^f of t^
cvTcv-
C^
O-f CO'cD '--"'-H'oo'cvr-t^*"co'"C>f CO'CTTtM*" OGO r-i
1 ^
II ODI- Ol'cc'Oi'O
.-H (>) c^
^
f>i
--i C-1 OJ CO 'M
II ^^
^
«
cc
o
Z
lO O »0 t^ OS
OiCO COI^d
.-|(^) cDi^
O) t^ -t. I^
s
t-
OC
II 0.00 u.
1 '^^ ^
co-t-
o
IS
o
cc
(Mt^-^r-CD
■^ r-' o -f' r^
cc oo '^J^^r^
o_
C
1 CO 0_ l-^
1 lo rC c^f
Oi^CO
If
cc
o
CO cocD-r CO
-r 00-f — '
'^
•^^
eA
— u:
»9
cr
o
00COCO»O'-H
— .o ocoo
^
'J*
CO
1 CD W3 O
00 c^
O
cc
a-
1-^ Cq CO (TQ c^
im' CO c^ to'
(m'
1 ^
OC
1 ^(m" CO
-i<o
-1
cc
1 (M
1
CO
1 1
l"
_1_
bo
-a
,
_C
s
«
-a
s
M
W
5
3
'o
cc
ia 3
>
^
s
§.2
11
>>
cS
c
,
,
si
^
! J
3
O
3
-1
&
QQ
1- =:
Is^
^^t2
^
D.
Is Is
.§.§
-a J3
3 3 D
^ ^' ^
tV C; 0^
«PiK
-o-o-o
"2;
3 3 3
3 C C C
I
0
^ 1
i 1
1
3
3
'o'o
£, =<
353
oi
N
-o
3
5
.2?
'53
1
X
111
'3
Q
o £
"2^
mil
72.75.75. -^7^
. . -Is
O c
oc s=
UJ -
> tj:
1 ^^
:inting, Ligh
P and R/W
P and R/W
eliminary Ei
P and R/W
P and R/W
1- ^
5 S S
■T3 oJ oj d^ ■ ■ "" 1" ' aj Gi dj-rs a
^g>>>^-i'^^l^>>>^£
CMj' g g gC<||^^c-l(M<^^<^^ ^ ^ gOj _
5 °^ss;^.
>' 3
PHMtaPHCcM
^s
cgrtKftiJsSSSfgcgcgeSoegSSS^SS
O tfcc m2p=
c
3"
6
&
-73
3
■a
o
3
II
"Si
3
-1 ^^-
<n^
3 of
3
to
3
:f -d
'5.S
>..
Ji!
K
o S
O^J
"S
i
.■/J
'o
,ai o
i.li
3 0.
3
..s
>
■>
1s
■<
E-
C
72
1
■ill
— n' > *^
y? ^
cS
3
_-t3
,3
C
(M
■ o org
c.£
csiii
"5) c
c
S o .c^
^
p.
o
-a
cc
u-
2 5^1
jr
1l
, 1
<
re
c
S3 ff
1 •►^l
ca 3 2 =
E-
l«r:gr: > f
f£l
l-^^t
L,2?5S-ss^-". &.:So-5-.:^s
iver Bi
South
ver to
land 4'
to Cal
5 Corni
Cl c
=> >, t. •.--O'T ^— S; C .^T3 S^-" «-C"ca J
3 c
l-ii5:s2 2|25Sj5pg->ogo»a«
ico fetx, -fa.g
vern
.role
uth
Ma
t. Zi
aysc
fe-d .3.S S.S'-^
m(SM<S?:
ss
& CD
cs'
6
•^[-.-^lOuOOiO-^OOOOOGMt^OOOO-^CO"^
'•^Z^
j'Y'CD-- 'I-^lr^r-*CD'— <-^r-^t-^t-~ot-^t-^co^oi^i—
»— CO
d "~ '^
<>) C-JC^ -^-CMC-
^«-t:
fflT3xJ'd'rJxJT:-dTrT3T3T3'd'd'73-d"d'd'c
-a -d -e T3 -d -=
^wsStiSS
m 2
dssssssss:sssssssss:2
s SS SSS
_^M
O^CO^»OCOOOC^CO^:t.»rtOi»-
<
Q3 ,_ T-4 T-H T-H ^H
.— . ^
cococccccccocccocococooococococococou
7 ^T 7t^
1 1 1 1 1 1
J-l J
«
ex
a
3 0(
3 00
oo
a
"
3 0t
3 0t
"*
^5*
'.«
0(
3Qt
la.
3 0t
3 a
0(
0!
3 a
po
a
256
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
5 Z H
g H a!
u ft- P
<M <o CO c? CO |^^ ic t^ o
■-f»005O0sOC0iCC0
irTio CO t^' --h" oc cm" CO »ri
CD r- eg .— I CO o '-H 00
0^5: cdScO— I-— 'OO^
i-^oc oc t-- -r CI — t-- CO
00 lo a^oi oc io" -r -i* ^
t-^co — -t^cC'— coco
.— ( OC' Oi — .^ CO
o
a>
00
o
c^
kfZ
«»
M.
«
00
00
CO
CD
ee
e©
t^
o
o
§
^
«»
«
S
Et,H
I **
OCQ
OS .
^^
O CO O t- t^ CO
t^ o o o; CO -r
-r r^_ co_ — _ cg_ ^
' -r CO o CO oo
t^ QO .-- OS ■-- O CD I
eg CO < " "
3£ 'i ^
Oi CD oo
iz « O oi
g H g H
S •< 2 Z
Q 2 ^ W
Sll
Ol t-^ ^ O (M C
■'OiCOiOiCO'— O
" O 0> to 1^ 03
"5COO C<ir-<M
OC' »C CO CD t^ CC
oc
!M 00
CM-T
U5
OCO CO
!>. -rr .— '
CDCOCNJ
lo.
- c^ r^ ^ — -
-O r^-r
I
CD c-i CTi t— i^ oo CO oi -r
-HTfoO-— iCOOCOOOOi
r-._ oi_ oo c:;_ cD_ CD rM -f oo
co" co" -r o lo' id" ci" eg"
»C UO O ^ C^J CO
cjiOcoQoasor^O'Mt:
(Mo;aiOOoiO'^or^<
t- 00 Og Ol 0_iO Oi^OS CO c
oo *o co" oi M oi" w:? oo' CD -
I— coai»ct^cD— -t*
-— • lO CD <— ' oo i— ■ CO
««
icou^coco— 'oocgr^io
loicfs-r — uot^oo-rt-
io oo oj o CO oi CD
oo CO <>)
-r oc o;
o'odoo
; (M CO >0 Oi CO' CC' CO »0
Hcor-oi-t-to-— 'Cgc^
^■rrlOco-rTcooC'03
' ci" oc O" CD' Tf' GC o' co"
^H t^ ,— CO Ol
3 3 3
3 rt rt
.^ 3 c r
3 3 3^-^3
5 "5 -5^ 3^
i o o o g o
-S.S.S
3 3 3
o o.o
KxT '§■§■? 1^1
Q Q <: m CO M OS ^ ctj
3 °^ 3 a-' 3 oT 3
£ tp " 3 S.ca o
3eQ Sfij Spi S
0-13 IS'
■) CM "^1 OI C-1 bC
> > > ^
'33333
W
" >.'-5 >.>.>,>> >.-5
Jt: o .'S fs .^3 M= ?= c
5 T3 -C -a T3 T3 -^
j; o^ O O O O O 0)
3 3
S °
..33"
"5" c. > _^ M >> _
E -c cs'd, =/ o ""
§060*1 EC"
id g'^" 3°
CO „J=C-)^ „ CM
■0.2 1; • -Si ■
;-SSaJ
Q. i^'
!?S
ss
rO.O'E
.i^js-
•^ 3 5f C
"o O o'>^
-PhO,
HI '^H -,
blj
3S
O >.m _g "2
fc _ 3 "b E =«
S OS
CO COCO COCEh o
O O O iC »0 —
^ ^ ic iO CD csi eg c-i
2 S ^J<! IS
I— eg CO "^ W5 1^
I I I I I I
03 0^0^0^03 O)
oo OOOC 00 00 00
C<)COt"«SCDt^00010i
I I I I I I I I I
coeocoeocococococo
^^c<tiy^ -rf m CO t-» oo >— <
III I I I I I I
lO »0 lO W5»OW5tOu0»O
030203 o^oo^osoo
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 257
t^-fOO
- 1
■^CDCC
5-t--
_
W-f
□OCC
o 1 oc
a. 1
o-
1^
CO o
CO CO
o
CO t^inO-
o
:> ^Moo -t* 05 — 'M
r^ ^ Ol CD 1 cv
t^ lO CO o-
D O 1 COCOCO 00 003U5
CDO CDC
'^
00 -TOO CO
-4'K^.^.
CO CD CO —
H if
3 •-"'^O CD OCO^
o'cd'cm'iO I CC
^
lO ^' -f'oTcM
O-f QQ
oT o-i" r-' -f"
^
_.
OO ^ CM
CO ic CD r — f
Ol r--
QO ITS »0 05
c
IC -1"
0_ 1 I^ CD
CC
CD_
-r "0 »r3 CO
CO
-^
»— '
C^
»-
co"
co'«'
«^
e^ 1 c^
"
» «&
^
M
* * * -x- #
1
ocnoc
5 -fCS-OO^ CO W3 -^ O fM iOO O 1 ^
CO
r^ o »o oio
r^ t^
coo os-^ o ^
^ coiMoo-t^ oo'-^c^joi>-t^oc:> cc
o
u-
•ra ic-r o
CM O -T- »00 CO
OC
1 cocDccMOO -r OTioco U3 0 »o r-^
f ly^'^-fcS^ a: CO ^'co o"o o (■-
o c;
co_oo_co_^_co_cs
CO
c^aic^c^
oc
co' oi" ocr^Toc
oT o"
I-Ccc OS '— C^" -f
C^ ,— Oi o
5 OICO^ O -^ ■^ 00CM(M
-
■— ' CO OS t^ r^
c
Of
^^ o_
CD
■o o.^^,"^
r^ ^ lO r-
^"
c^
.-T r-T
CS
^"
^'^'
.-T
C
»»
«
» ««
«
> m
««
w
O OS -H
c
o
Q
o
c
o
CD O O t^ O
o
OS O O
CO
oc
OO t^
o
OO O OCDO
iC
o c»o
D O
o
o
CO
O O O CO o
o
oo'io
c
ci
U5
cm'
CT
o
o oooc
»o
-m' »o o'
■o : : : ; : :
o r^ioo
IT-
-rr-H
'^
3 OJ
Tj
°.
CO CO cq c^
S "^
OC
e«
«
» ««
«
, z
»»
«»
-f CO T a
c
t^OOO-^tO I---lHcOCD-t^CC-f^-t^ 1 C
CO
1
Ol CD 03 »0 00 CD
^ '^ -t- coo CM
-1
-1
r^tMCM-t"(M OCOUD'-HOi'-^COC
iO CO
t-- OO -+I CO »o -f
c
^ C^J^^ CO ^ (M^ MCdCM OO CO r-- w
-p
Ol OI CD 00 oc
O t^
^* rC OO ^
Q(
' 5d"co' co' ^^ co--'^'
CC
.■!-*
1^
iO OOOl —
,-7
cm' ^' ^^ ~r CM
o-
'T <M
'^
o IC
^
CM
""
w r^ CO -f
2
^
«
^ €«
e^
> s©
e^
e«
1
mc-j--
c
i^(M(M<:DcQ cDr--»o-m^c»co(r
^
Od
CS
— O-Hira Ol -1-
CO CD r- — o -r
CO 1
U50 03 tc
cor--i--»ooo r^cD-^oo^cDcoo-
CO ■— ' t-- CO »o a~
Cv
MiciOsCDir:! GO (M 'T c:; ^ t^ t^ ■-
CT
T— _
c-"
t^ t^ CM C^
o: lO
-r Oi 05 CM -^ —
°°- 1
i-r(M'oo"o^*(M' CO*" coccod-rt-
l>
Ol r^ Ol"-— "cc
t~S o"
Cm'cO lO t--'c-rCM
qT 1
" 0OU5CS
2
00 CO '-"CSI
CS
:;
— ^^OlCsl
i2 ^
^CMCO-^ CO
6©
«
* ei^
«
e^
«^
lO-f
s
O QO
CO OTCO
^
cr
1 OO
OO
OlOl
t^
00 r-
o-
t^
oi«
>o
^^GJ
Ol
CM CM
CC
Ol
CO -r
o
tool
o f coin
CD
t
o
C3:^^^
CD
OOC^J
oc
CD
cd'o"
—" cocd'o"
-T
■ -
uo'
.-n'oT
o~
00
r-io
CO r^ ^
-r
o-
CC
OIM
z
'^
^
^
o__— _
0_i0
CC
e«
^
««
e^
ee
^
e«
cot^
cr
coco
Oi I^COO
Tt*
i>
o
00
00 CM
iOCM
a-
■^
1
coo
•rt
rr '^
cr
00
00
>Ot^
COCO
o
Ol
oico
C<
00 CO
CO ^o"o
^t^
u
t^
•rr m
cm' i-H
,_
CD 1 1
*"
c^
CO
1
1
D
«
|-i
CD
^
—
w
M
a^
■T3
1
J
3
J i
S „-
in
d
Z
1
3
1
m
c
."2 a.
m
&
3
C3
^
rt
1
CO
6
z
X
*c
-Sis
3 c_
'■ I
5
>
1-
3
1
-a
3 3:
-cot:
1
o
>
1-
z
3
(5
o g.
a.
PC
-c
C
0|3§
■ 3
■^3
3.-
1
z
3
^i
rt
S
c c ::
1
|«|
§3
.= I|I
■ c
=3 i
-a
3
S
o
o
3 J!J '''S
^3
CM CM^ CM
£ £ 0^ £ -a
c
CCS
c: c: =:
o
o
>
c
O O 3
■5'S o
;|:|S
II
"p-
Pi 0.
■ c
p||
>
's'O -ts
."2
odify Curves, Wid'
odify Curves, Wid
d Stage— Resurfac
odify Curves, Wid
St. George's Islan
3-a ?^T5i-a-a
z
ff
■3-2---
■r2
9:;'3 S
O
oc
<
to
iden 20' and Resi
odify Curves, Wi
d Stage, Resurfai
odify Curves, Wi
odify Curves, Wi
odifv Curves. Wi
<
S/P and R/W Acqi
S/P and R/W Acqi
W. Slope Polish
and 3rd Lanes .
Modify Curves and
Add 4th I.ane Whe
■2-SS2
aJ-2 o ^
P, .^Ph
;f.|
• 3 c-
.S &J
B
£-§2
5P.S
mSPhC/3
StfSIS^S (2&:S,SSSS
pi
msS 03
SPhQcbO
t;
S
3
-a
t:
o
_o
§
Cl,
s
a
bM
J2
<u
QJ
l-S
c
be
,C
lO
-d
:^«
— 2
S .£;
"So
o
11
E °
Ol a
-a
1
CO
-a
ii
2
^ >
S13
>
"5
'o
Ph
>
o
■I
c
1
Ii
it
rr} cc
MS
"^.TdC
$5! 3
'S
Oh
C
"o
O
o
T3
O
<
Q
<
o
1
|2
m
-a
_§-^
3-T3
1
^ 3
i
^1
-a
c
j:
£
3
o
'o
.2
'£
|j
Z
2
-g
i
E
3
O
£
3
O
1
Z
n
"2
5
-T3
s
p
.s
2
-a
B
3
O
'o
.2.3
o >
m £
' PL,
-g o
J2
B
o
o
<
II ii!
Secondary Pr
Lexington
Clements (
Clements (
Md. 5 to V
Md. 5 to V
Valley Lee
Washingtoi
Lawrence,
Md. 235 to
Morganza
Chaptico (1
Charles Co
Milestown
ra o
2o
0 3 OO,
3j= .S S
HO -hO
Sis rt
t; Ba 6 3
O 3 O 3 O
zotfort
a.
£
s
^
CD
io i^ Ol -r ci Ol CD ci ».- cq r^ ■* CM
o
.2 OO
o
■.3 o
O c^i
cocof-r-r-t" CMl^l^-t^coco^
"S? cmS
a-v —
tOlO CM iO
C^IO-ICMOICM^ COCO-^CMCMCMCO
a ire
iO "^ lo"^ lO
-d-a-d-a
■73 -d -d -d T3 -d -d -d -d -d -d -d T3
ai
^ ^ CC ai CO
g^^ -d
-a T3 .-d
SSSS
SSSSSS SSSSSSS
&
Z P &ti
z; D S
s^^p^
O CM CO W3Q0
-4CO^O
1— ' C<1 CO -f
■— <M CO -r CO i^ 00 OS ^ ^ f-H ^ .-H
'-'
C-l CO -ViO
CD |-~ OO
TTT?*?
Ol a; oi Ol
JhJhJh-hJhJ- JhJ-iJhJ- tt— 11— <i--i
.i
lO »0 iO W5
io »re »re
io»o*o»cio
Cl Ol Cl Cl
OOOC'OO OiOOOOOO
o
O O OO
o o o
OOOOO
■— '
^^
^^
^^
^—'
—^
^^
'— "
^-'
•~*
"— '
*— '
1— .
1
^^
'"'
'"'
'"'
'"'
^"
"^
■-^
'""
*"•
'^
'"'
^^
o
258
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
u
H
s
HOC
Em
O^
M Ph
I '^
^Z
^P
Oca
PnCC
oS
H^
|«
^:^
^9
-»;Z
'*r
1 CC
^
- -f CO c; t-
1 ^
o
1
^
1
_^
,_
lo 1 ..
^
cot-
-f CO CO
1
:^ Sm
-f^-t-GCCOOOCDCCtO 1 CC
? -r 11
^OCoici— C50 -l<| COC-ICOCO — coco |
oc 'M -r i--crs — lO-M^t^ 1 C
g Z K
»o o" oc" CC OC CC CC lO —
4 ^
" CO [I
co"— "oc'co'o— " O"or 0~ 1 co" — 1 CO CO CO U5 J-- 1
H a «
CM OC OO CC CC CO OC' I^
(^
IO00CCO21O0Q C^CO OO — — CO — t^oo
S 0- D
cj: (M —
lO 00 -T -
Cv
<r1 ^
^
c-
o" 1
cm" 1 1
[^
^
«
» «» 1
««
«l «« 1
^^
* * -x- -x-
1
II
* *
1
1 *
ocococooo or^|c?;| (Mr^cor^or^— j
— Ol — .nOO ooliral OU50CDOU50 1
<'^
o a; o K. c; o w2 M I-
-^
,— « II
Ico -r — co-rmcoo
co' -r oi" oo' oc' ^* co' lO -
co" II
fc"=a
CCt— iTj^iX: CCQCI-
-1
<M CO ■^_
c
CI II
id I ~ ^- '-^ -r ' "^ 1 "^ 1 ^ ^ CO 1^ 1
^ ^
c
co" 1
CO —
«^
<^
w
> «» II
6%
s» «»
,
O C<3
-TOO
CM 1 a
1^ II
--C3 <M O CK O
0
CD CO r^
t^
C3
CO o -r o o.) o
o
3S
C<I O CO
CO 1 -.
0
O^00_b-
— oo"
co"^
oc
o"
o'c<j'i-"cD"crrco"
00" 0"
cT-r 00
H J^-
OCX)
cc
r^
-r -t*
CD 10
"■
(>>_ II
"
e
e
c2
۩
«
> «^
€^
e« ««
lOCM C30-f o
— OCCV
Ic
-rl -rco-rcooco ooool-fl lo — ocii~irao> 1
H
-> t
oc CD02 Cs
z
O T- W3 Ol o
— -O lO c
,—1 it
c=t-o-. — oro oor
_ 1 00 1 CO 00 c-i 01 lO >ra 10 1
z; E- c tf
--T --' CD -^' cjd"
co'»Oco 1 a
OD II
c
— >0 lOCO
CO .— . CO
fc
1 -
CO II
i: ^ c
1
€^
l«
> ^
««
«| « 1
,
C-. -f ^ lO -f
t^t^ cc
c
Icoll CCCO»OC7i'M-r M(M 001 COCOOCOC005C35 1
K
O -r — CO T-
CO CDC
w
coll cooicMoc-roo coco cv
b:
lO lO 1^ CO -r
CV
oil TI^OO-TO 05CO IM| — C-liOiMOCDiO |
O
1 Z
^'o'gc t-'^'
-T-rfiC
c
o'
irtcii^ — l^co — -f Ic^
in C-) 0 r- 0 00
lO lO »C CO o» — I^ —
10 C- ^ -M -f 10
o "
CS
^
1 ^^
<
z
e^
«
» 0&
e^
I
^
OOi^
CO
00 -ct-
IN
o»
I^ — C^ — 00
r^ CO -»"
CD CM
t^cD
^ o cc
OC
00 OO t^ I^ CO
OS t^ 00
t^CO
CO (33
z
»0'-00
c^
-r — IT
I--
■^
00 coo O CO
CO -f C3i
z
rC^-r"
Cvf
IOX5IM
oc
1^
cfcD 00O5 CO
CO c^
^
C» CM
ci'oo
o
o
^cso
t^
lOI^ CC
I--
1 -f CD Ci -r -r
-V oc
0
s
00<M
00
1 1 -rcoo-rco
10 0
CI
10 u?
B
z
<:
C-J
oo"
1
(>»" —
«^
«^
»
1
»9
•» «»
m
to CD
^
o t^t^
c:
^
1
— QO-<J>OlO
(N
c
1 «
— CO
— 00
o
MOO
<MC0 1M
b-
CD
OOOT OO
»o —
IO-
O
J
oid
_p"
o ^C
o-
CD
o cii im' csi (>j
CD 1 U5 1 10
CS 0'
im'c>
S
1 "
1
■c
>
3
3
c
0
~-0
c£?
c ^
O N
"J2
8 g
<o
■|
I^
JJ
d
Z
S
so ^ IV a 3 v
CD « « m
. .::; o m m o
c- 0 c^ 0 5;
o w rt o oj rt
C3
C3.c3.ca c«7^
c3 ca
CCJ C3
5 strtfKt:
t- ^ "n i-i'«5
z
-•5 |-a-2 1
1
.£ - 3 3 3 3«=c
Q :.2 £ £ £ £co
3 3
3 3
~ca - ■
r ' !3-o-a-o-o a
■a -a
T3-a
Q 0=23 =
« =
h- ■ s_s s s s a
c c
o
O
=^ J ? C C = J
o G rt
TT COUN
1 Grade Se]
iden 24', a
iden 24', a
iden 24', a
iden 24', a
cquisition
Resurface
Staffed . _ .
3 S
^^ a,
oq iM c
0 S i-
S
._S
tS 03
^'cT
CI IM
r2r2
z £ S £ £ £t3 g g-c
OC • 5 . . . . Sc5
^^.oirt(S^.'*.
5 3 3 £ S £ £S:.-r
£ £-St3-t3 £ £
<|||gh«'fgi
< o o > > > >^ — fir
> > '5 ~ - > >
3 3^ -/^^^ 3 3
O •:g-^aSSS«^">'
y'>i^ >.'~'>^^ >^
ll't.^'t.'^'g"!!
>> >* ^ - ^ >> >i
•*'i'i"5l's:l'i'i.-2
f«11flp.^i
^^-g-a-S'-S^
SSSSSJsSSis
Sc^SSSSoj p:
SSls^-sSS
13
_>
c
<
C3
-S 1
_«
E-i
a
z
o
J2
O
■>
a
£
"^ a
o'l-'
p
"o =■>
1
1
^c
■r c
o
n3
Q
Z
.2i c
o —
L^
>>
C3
0
0
CU
'0
is
EC
CO
_>
■g 0
3Condary Progra
Westernport to
U. S. 41) to Con
Corriganville to
Barrelville to M
Westernport to
Md. 36 to Penn
Md. 53 to W. L
Miller to Midlai
Md. 53 to U. S.
/ Program
it tic .Savagi
and to W'cl
Creek Lai
?r to (iortn
40 E. of C
in to West
•s to Dee])
■ersville to
ary Progra
38 to U. S.
495 to Md.
any Count
Street in L
Street, Ea;
Park to B
Mile W. of
CO
<n
a:
a "■
Ci C5 CS 05 Oa Oi
t;
>n CO
lOinoo 10
g 1
CDOtotOCOiOC-. lOCO
^ — — UOiOCO —
^■%
-o-dT3-d-d-a-6T3T3
a: M X oj CO ^ ai 02
-T3 -d -T3 -T3 -0 -T! T3
sssssssss
t3tDt2tJ&Sp tJ
2SSSSSS
i
S fe Z ■<! S
ooooooooo
— <M CO -^ »0 CO t^ 00
0000000 d
— CI CO "Y »0 CO b^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
259
c; or CO
^
1 --
1
j^
CO
o
_
-fxa
^
Ol
CO
-,
OJ
^O
-r
o>
ocoo irt
-M
^
00
05
Oi
r^
O OS
_
_
QC
-M
w
05CD coo
o ai -r -r -r »o lo
o -r oo
0-l-t">liOOO-t-GOt^
CD — — r^ no
»o t^
t-^
s
oo CO -r Oi
CO -f ^ '— CO -f CO
-f ^ C71
C-l
-r cc OS — _ co_ « CO CO -t'^
-ro_co^i_co
o
c^
odcsTt-ifi
w;
*r5
o">o"^" oo"
C'co't^'-T'io' c-j'i--"
im'o
oo oT r-T uo o" c<r ■^' lo co*
CO CO r-T — ' ^'
o'cD
OC
CMCO^ tX
co-f (ra -rq
o
CO'MCO'MOOOCDfM'^
oi »o
t-
o
^1
-P_(M CO
99
""Siooo^" Soo
od"
CD 1-1 i^-05 M CO CO
co'
M
* * *
i>-
II
*
O O OC m
CO 1
iooocM»ooo-roo
O (M O
o
t^COOCS-PoDt^OfM
t-- CO o o o
GOO
CD
"
Oi
CDQO-fCOOCO-rO
SSo
O-t-CD-f^fM-l'O-PO
o ^ o o o
COO
lO
o
OOTt^ W3 C^
"* lo'cg o' o"
cs
cr_cot--ior-050coco
T-H_oO_0_iq
f-O
ao^tr^m
iC
t ~ co' >o' oT co' -T co" -f"
incsT —
-r oT co' cc" CO oi" t^ go'im'
-t^lio
c^ o ■^ «
-?t-
O^ a: CO CO
r^
(MCir-iot--ioo»cu:)
05CO CO
CV --H t^ Ol iO IC CD
CO
C3C
o'
^
e@
1^
s
«^
e«
r— o
^
c=
1 ^ 1
-fC-) o o
O CRO
o
J,
iffl
o
o
O lO'^ o o
CO
(MO
^
CO
1
OiOO
^
o lo-r -t^o
CD
1
£?o
It
CO 1
o So o
o — '>n
o
o
o
COtCOCO-t^
1
r-^c<r
,_,
CD
ifS
— ■ >o' c;' lO
c">o'
o"
urT
^
o'
■o
irfoicTiocD'
»o
oo'cm'
t-T
gf II 1
CO 1
«^ 1
ocooc ^
OO-H
lO
o
«.
c^ o CD »o r-
-^
a©
«(&
lO CD b- i—
1 r-, 1
CDOCC«^ ^
co^oroccoooooco
COIOOO
^
-rU0tOOC350C-T(M-:t^
oir^cDco CO
^CD
Ol
O
»0 IOCS CO
u:
1 QO 1
lO t^ »6 '^1
coo C-1
C»
ooco;ococo»o»o»o
»-■ (M CD CM fcO
CD 1^- O: 03
t^
«,
ir3 cc t^^ o
i-;— _-!-_>0 0_— oo CO,
— ._o
iq u5 CO r~ 1 -. -f lo -r o
Of- lOlO
O^
<M
<M
1 « 1
ex:' co' tC ^"
^ c' -^ co' co" -r cf o^ »r5
Ol"
o'
C^ -:r T—
■^
"-"" «o
g
'— CO CO »r2 t^ CO
'^'^
c/:
o_
e^
1 ^
1
L
^
^*
m
€@
^
wiocoeo
Ice
(M lO Oi CO
-, _p ^ ^ _p ^, _^ o.
-T r^ r^
CD
OCO»OOOOGCt^cO-f
cDoO"t^t^-r
lO -r^
Ci
uii 1
Oi CD .-H O
CD
^lOO r-
-T -f oi OC lO OCi l^ c^
— >o t^
O
»oooco-ro0"co»oco
o o
o
I-OOO t-
a
O
t^»0 CO CO
O -P CK -O CO CO oo_ co_
IOOC3
t^
c-j_c-)_o_cca5cDO) lOO
,— . CO en -r 03
t--
-f
lO
CO* Ol -T fM' -T ^' o' oT
o'a
of t^ r^ c-i" w CO gjT CO o
t^cq
t^
-1^
&^
o
-TWO -.
^
cowcDin-Ti^c^j^-r
oc
e©
r- Oi oo^ci
o
^
. ^
^
IC'CO
f^
C0 0.1
t-^ lO lO lO -1^
05 00
o
«
-1-
CO CO
int-
Ol CO 1-^ Oi 00
CO en
o
t^
• CO
CM "f
CD CO CD (M_ t-^
W5 0
coo-r-'a
.— r
o-r
■ r^f
c<j'
—Toe
CO
o'm'
CD CD r^ o" O
o"cD
□d
CO
IC
:o
lOO
CD -r ^ — 'O
«<&
CO
cD»0
^
U5— •
e^
s
I CDOC^
00
1
CO
:o
^
CD
CD
cooo
CDOiOOCv^^
COCft
oo
t^
-?io^£b
o
'^
t^
■ t^
'— '
CO
•^
oor-- oi -r C:
■^ Tfl
t^
'Tfi
QO
o (>i d ^
w;
s
CO
■ ^
CO
■^
^
U5C0
C^i CD CD -rP (M
C-) '-H
o'
>ra
c
-a
o
t3
:|
3
c
►J
C
ca
; 3
^
CO
^
(M
:e5
, ;
o
Z
03
T
C
;-g
<
T
1
4^
l-J
J_f
X
: 3
o
^^=^
■ ,— ^
- c
3
^ 2 «
■«-i
2.2 Q
q3 o o o o £
o cs c-
c
tSti
™
1
3
s
■ '-^
c3 3
• t^
.!«^
p^^^^^^
&&S.
tE
Q
>
3
O
^ S
^ 0^ *■
"C 1-
't^ I- fc-
3 =
II
>-
c
o
o
:r2
3p^
I"?
•T3
; C
3 3
-O 3 3 S ^ =
3 3 =
fS
■a -a
Z
^Q
>
" r,C ^T3 ^
- ^-
-T3-0
^ -t3 -a -t3 -rt -c
■
-a-o-c
-c
3
"O t.
-o
" & c^-
c c =
S: p
3 ;
O
o
z
o
H
C3
z
Z
CO
§^
c!
O
=
Q
.c
ill
■ ^ ct
cacdCQcacacSc^c^
s
hJ
03 o! cc
- :^^-
t
> >
= ° >t?^''2'3
.■93:^.'sr2r9"sri
Ijlll
S § b £: £
^ (M
II
g^
-g M
3 >
2 S >. >
S'2 1"= J'S
1 -.21. >•>•.& SiE;|
CJ ^ j_
<
5
33333333 =
ocoouoooc
t;; fcji 3 3 =
3 cOOC
"K 3
Const
Engir
Modi
Modi
^^fS'-ff 111 1
1
llll'-filll
l%tl>-%
g'i
piM^S<;QQ<ii
Pffi
sssssssss
ZtfSSS
zs
c
1
i_i
o
1
3
•Ji
3
'?
1
i-i
t.
O
H
Q
k
..53 °
or
<
p:
CO a
•■ o ^
1
J3
1
c
<
O
Q
'5
',5
h
Z
Pi
1:1? ii ^
■5 -2.5^ P.S.S
S
c
(B i; o t! O K
•5" g * 2 "t: 5
'^^^
2
1
>
6i
c
Z
■SSI
2
E^
c
B 5 c'gj g i>-
^S ££ >.2 °cc
a EC^ c = fc g o
3|^
H
oo'°ot::rs--
>,cc 3 ,-rj > o o = m =
1^ 1^1 III J 1
3 o "^ =^ U*
D O M o o =
^ 3*"*"t:
H.i200 K
"t^ M -T -Tf -
2-
'3 =
li
<1^
^
a
-o^^gco'czj c
&
C/3
1
O)
a;
-d
15 ^
IH „
"=: = ? ?
^^
-f-TI^t^OOCO-^OS^
COCOCOCOiOCDCCCO-^
llgggg
-d ^-6~
cc ai '30 CO rE
ccco-aiajaacca:
a: a:
■T3T3-d-e-d-d-d-a-c
a §^
:sc3ss
ptitJti t^
pp^tJp&PI::
Pt^
SSS2SSSSS
<;o-
O O-HCOTT
oo o-
<— 1 M CO "^ liT
CO i-~. oo a: 1-^ .— 1 .-H r-
,— ( I—
T-ic-JCO^lOCDt^QOCT-
T' V
i 1 1
22^2 ;:
lOUT-i^iOtOiOiO*^
r-i>
O^ C3 03 OS C3 03 OS OS o*
OS osos OS o-
OS l-H
^
■^
'-
^
^
^
^
""
*"
*"
^
^
"
■"
^
'"'
'
o
260
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
a
H
s
z
H
^2
^^'
H
zo
Hoa
So
I -*3
z
^&
^><
o
^<
«9
<!Z
■
1
^
cc
C5
..^
—
^
-V-
m
^
a:
^
(-)
CO
lis
to — 'lOO— ca»n — oocccio^D
-r-TOC:^— Oocco
10
ib 0 = r~ 10
CD lo oi_ oc '>) CO — M -r -r ^^ ec CO
«
0_ CO_ 0 i« 0_ 0_ U5 -P
OS_
£-C lo CD CO — ' o — *" CO CO -r oo" -1"*" -r"
c^'
-r ex — * cvT c^* c^" t^ 00"
Os'
— '-r* t^CMo'
|£g
^-tHco^o:^ Mcoc^-rr^
CD
-TO COCM CO
QC — — CO — — -H (M -M —
10
CD COC^] CSJ CO
— 0 t^-1-
C-)'
cm"
-)■"
— ' oj" — "
69
«»
e»
e«&
«»
^
_
^—^
* * * * * *
O CO O CO <© CO CO ^^ CO rr ^- "^ C<1
1^002— 'COOOO
0
'I' CM u^ C30 (3
O
<3 lOOOO CDOO U^OiO CO CO lO CO
C000-^005<30»C
ojo 0 co-r
-5
CO
oco — 0 000 cca
°i
10 (^ 10 »/2 t^
W5 (N co' co' co' rC — " c:' CO oT od -r -^
0'
•^ -r ^' CO 10 00 0:' f>i
— 10 iCcTo"
Kla
— ^OCCOOOC— O^OIOlM'^C^
ir.
Oi 00 400 »— — CO
CO
-^10 iOO -r
r° C
OOCSI^CO"— ^ CD CM ^
^ oc 03 0 CO —
CM 10 t^CM
^E
CO
-: — ■
•rr
1-'
— ' cm" co"
«^
«€•
«B
««
**
e«
as
1
— kC
oaac
(MC-]
-^
c 0 00 ^
0
Tj*
00
CO OS
I--CM
0 0 t^O OS
0
CO
OOIr~ ■
c
CO t^
X5 000
^
o_o_co_o_t-._
>ra
CO
^H
i^
U2 OC
10 -—'-r
CO
10 co't-Tioio
CM
—
oc"
CM
iOCM
r^iorj
cc
-r t^ CO ci c^
2^
>n
00
«-
(S
«&
««
e^
»»
a»
e@
■rr o; QOicco ^ r^ Oi ^ o -r <M CM
00
CO c^ i^ »f:> i« oc oc 10
CO
-r
t^CM »OCO CM
1
CO CM o CO t^ i>- r-- -r o oo <M QO h-
cv:
-l-C^-TCMCOt^t^t^
0
— ' 0 CO U5 CO
o CO CO CO CO o oo o; CO -rr — CO "^
OCM-*coco. rco
CO
in
i^_>o co_o?io
z
i-T tC co' Ci QC CO CO ^' ac ■^' co' od -f
a
r~r co" CO t^ t^ •— 00
o
i~I
c<i"oo" occcTos
5 f^ Z S
CO CO ■^
CD
f~ —coos
(^
S < ^ Z
e « a
!«1
<: ^ C
D
«&
a%
»a
as
»
^
,
CO — t^C:i--T--rCMCMCMCO — C<I
-r
1 CS 10 U5 CD CO Oa M »C
lo
^
r
r^o CD ^^00
K
CO co-f-rt-oc3C-rt--rc:cocr;
C3SO>OC0 10!MC^^-
OCO ini^O
«
a
1^ CD lO o id t^ r^ 3C ici^ o; c; CO
CDOCOt^ — OCQCOC
OC_— 0_04-H
o
g o
— ■' CM — ' to oc" o' ^ I ^* -— ' co' oc' -r' r^
0' cm' c3s' 0" 0" CD" CD' CO
c
0'
OC— " —coco
B
2 z
CO r^ -r l^ (M -- (>
CO C35 — CM OS
g
S "
«r
00
^
H
«(&
««
««
«i«
a»
as
CM
00 CD 103;
r^ c^ ^ 0: 0
0
N CO t^o oc
0
0
p
= — C-IO
c^ — 0 ic «:>
1 C3S mr~ ^ 0
T
r^ CO CO 0
z
r-
-r rtiraS
10 "5 CXD CO —
0
1 0 oc CD coco
u;
»/3
1
z
o
co'
cTo''— '1^
cc-r'ioo'cM
CD
'm" c^* 0" cm' cS
CD
CO
1
CO »c os'ic
c
o
" c c>j>o
0 (^ 0: C-1 CO
as
d OS oa CD »o
>n
oc CM CO -f
s
lo
oc WCO CDOl
^-
0 .— 1/3 GO
o
<:
■M
CM
m"
— " CM CM
IB
z
€«
as
1 ^
Si
ad
ai>
m
^
0 -^ 0 CD
oo>ra
t-
— CM 00 (Mm
oc
m
0 CO CO OS
o
o
a
.J
"-^
■^■(MQOOl
co>n
t>-
COIM — <M OS
'^
OS
OS -i-CM-S-
CO
ui^rc^-^
0 cc
-r CO CO X5 0
t^
OS
0 CO — ITS
S
CO
1
b
c
ok
c
)
b
c
-O'C
1
■§■§
1
1
(S
M
1: =«
a
c^a
CM ° M-^
^ S £f>
3
c
= 1-- £
K
": tfi
(S
OS
■S
0 C fc,^
1 0
J ^fc
-a
■0
g
^-^■-p::
1 '
a
- 53
3
.■.-.■ «a;a
-0 a.
a.
-0^-2-2
ts
."2
~ mH
&p
g^OlgJ M a g
3..g^ i § S_5
■s
pa
3
3
z
3
g £ £ g 3 3
T3-a-o-a £ £
|-a-a 1 g 1 S
5
— : 3
e-
> S: .
•£
"^ —3 -a
H
P-r
OT
E
^
-o-a-:3 »- - =
i 3 5-S =« =«
Pi 5 SpipjOifrj
Z
3
g-o
!s
Q
.|
.l.f.i.p^
^ffffff^'
0
1 ^
0 >, >. >>JS
•S C3 cS csBh
Ij i-KiS i. ='='-'h..'S:s
."3 r= ~ ."5 :^ ."i 3
1 0
3 M MM c«
DC ^'rtcq-? <<<< . .
?- ^ ^ ^ i^ -^ j*
DC
sa: KK 2
UJ
<— _ S
DC . = r^ - .... »? »
Q
r;; -;;:'t: c3
< ^Qt^Sj^^^^tf ^ >c^o.=s
>>>>>>>n
bJ
^3 § § J
3333333-;
DC
u.
^2 2°r
|| III
o^g'"o.4 |a^a,o^o,'H'o | | f
j
•^ 0 ill
mO OCO
aS< mOSMKOQ^SSpiOHtf
SSSSSSSff
_ C3
2 3
■a >.
►4
^tf
H c
>>
£te
o o
) ^
5
0
S
3 ^
fa >
„
J -sis
.2 2
hJ
0.-5 CJ
pq
is III
■i||
i
i^si^
»C;
z
o
1-
0 C-3
0
H
.►J
<
>
.>.2_o 0
E-
C
X
Q
<
Pi
ii 0 0
<; -^ -^
.So
till
1i
2 "
Is
iiiijj
£.-^,M
00
IL
<»
£"'"'
5 s
Z to cc t~ l^ r~ t~ !M Z cc r~ 1^ t^
_
CO CO f^ t^ i^ t-C 0^ »r
^&
^-o -d -3 -d -d -d -d ''" -13 -a T5 -c
-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-c
cc'zz 5.^
&S SSSSSSe^SSSS
ssssssss
timm isp
_
C5 '^ H CU ^
O ^ CM CO
0
^ CM CO Tf uDcor^cc oi— — - -^ ^
coco CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO c^
— "MCO-fcOt^OO-^
— oi CO -r io
OS OS OS OS OS
P5 ^i— ■
CMCM OKMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMC^]
OJC-10qiMCqiM(MC^
-
—
—
•—
—
--
'—
'— '
*-"
^"
^~
—
^^
^"
•"^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 261
t~ — r
CS
_
oira oi>i-
r '
tc-
r^ —
iretotoiret^-T" to o"
If-
1
to OS to
1 „
1 o
II 1
CD CC O; t^ OO <M CO :£
OO M O! t^ oi o U3 ire in c-i
OO 1 CTl
o (^ r^
t£
CO o: i^ o; o 00 co
Ic 1 lO 00 CO CM O CO CD CO -t
—
Ol
00 — to
t^l--r--GftCO Oi»COC
o-
u^
oo^' cc' o'c^" rC
c\
-r lo o CO CO — o oi
C
CM*
r^' '— ' cac
f^
U^* '^' CTi* OO* l>r CM* CD If
OO
I-^ .-H (M C^
-t- CJ5 :d CO « CO lO
ire tc
C'
lo -f 00 -r cc CO '
<y
cr.
cm'
cc*
2
— '
'-
" CM*
d9 9&
« |«||
e«
-1 «»
*• 1 - ii 1
a
cDOC-ccoooino-. o lo lo3
1
loireto 1 1^ 1 mr^t-t-r^ r-,t-r-
2 II
--10 cQO-ro oic
— oooooimoo--
o 1 t^ 1 —
1
CO — OICMOO ooc
CO 05 CM (>) (M "ti CO Cv
c^oi^OiiOi^oic^a
1
0C;tO_(^
^
i^Oit-.oo SisS 1 £
OC'
CO* o" ^ -r cc CM co' a
-t
Qc'p-"ioo'co— "tri-l-'-r ira 1 r-; 1 !>)
1
■ co" 1
■^ r-H CD CM CO CO
t35 ire
ire <>
OO ^ C^l CM
c
^ ire cv
O CO 1 c
^- r>. CM
-r
^
cm'
"
2
1
-
■ (tJ 1
«»
i|«
1
««
«» 1 »»
«|«|j
-t^ o
oo coc
a-
OC
o
00 1 t^
1
o
-r -. 1
t^ l>- CO o
t, 1 „ 11
CT
CO CO 1
CM_0^
lOO -PC
CO
o_
1
-^ CT
cocM oq o
c^
^
CM
O" O'u-
r^
■ 1 »
ire
^
oo" o"
1
1
ai
2 S
0*CD tV iO
CO — ic —
5 CO
1
a^
»
se ae
«
1
1^ 1
«»
>— 1 o CM ic W3 r^ »r5 CT
c^
00 to CO CO >re CO "re ire ^
t^ I t^ 1 o
r
-JH to T-
1 _
1 CT) l^--^ r»-i rv-1 1 1 II
W3CM Ol^ — CO iCC
c^
-t
Ol 1 CO
1
ireo-fioi 66or^tD-f dc-i 6-
ro S
o 40 r>-CMoo^ t^cs
—__ r~- CO CO »re_ t- to OC' c^
c^
t^ ! CO
1
-r — o I to 1 coooSc^ feSiS
S S II
t"-' OC ^"^ CO
1 ^'^' c^'co'— '^'-r tc
co' 1 to'
1
ire .-
CO 1 CO 05 CO* ^* ^ci
oo' ire' II
c
ire CO !!
'"'
CO
1
t^
^
w
«^
^ \^
1
t^ ««
1 II 1
CMO cDi«-Hr, -r-
1 _
1 ^^,.c,^f,«=-
^
1 r- 1 OO
1 oooi-
IqoI tfSrMoncoro rvirftni
l^ll
^cc oC'CMcoo; — o-
cc
-r CO M ire -f oi o ire CO ir
cc
iC-f OOiOiOC' OCT
'—
tr
t^
oire-f<o cor-ooost- toireSloiloll
^ r^ OO CO ic oc' CO* CO
CN
1 ocire'ire'to'cJo'-r oi Qo" -t
r-"
1 oc— 'od 1 oo 1 ire'— '—"(m' ire' oo'tM'-r 1 .>
' — ■ II
t^ -tT CM "-I ^
""
C£
CM
( -
^
1
^
^
5:5 il
1— T
II
«i
e»
«
9%
1
e© 1 s©
^ |«.|i
'^
„
5^ m
to
oi r^
to
u
1
-*
o U 1
-f CO CD O
o
to 1 = II
^
CO
Ol 00
OO
C
1
-tl< 1 IT
Oi CD CM 05
r^ II
r^
"f
"^^ -Tt-^
tooo
b-
-^
1
00
t- ! u-
— lOOOM
t^
tc
1 S II
1-^
'V
l>
to't-'
CT
t^
tc
r^" 00 CM* CD
o
Ol o
c
o
to ire
c
W
ire
c
-r OC' CD -^
o
'V
u-
to
C
to 1 il: II
c^f
a~
o"
^
-'
l«=
«(&
e^
««
^
M
1
«&
«« i«»||
CO
o
>ra OO
Ol
^ t^
ire
!M
o-
_
1
'^ CD CO CD
^
OS 1 CS II
"^
cc
1^ M
cc
o
— to
t^
OS
r^
t^
CD CO CM O
OS
't
<^^ II
OC
ui
-^ (>J
OC
t^
-H C^
C>]
c^
^
CS
c
,_
1
O — — lO
c
o; 1 -■ II 1
CM
^f
'~
1
1
nil
^
>,
>>
^
<D
3
-5
u*
>
12
^
o
..g
o
s
bi)
3
S)
«
'Z
o
•T^
s
."S
.--
p:
T3
J
^
a
ffl
R
3
i
i
1
o
L
i
d
Z
■g
•z
>>
to ffl
c
-t^'
^
III
ii
1
1
s
ItS^II
i
3 3 3
11
'q
3
3^
1
.-2 -2 "2
3
"0-0 73
T3-g
> s
■o
-o
^.si^£
S 3 =^
(S
C C C
CS ca C3
ea 3
§
"r
a -
Ji&
Dual R/W and Contrc
0.0 Miles! Lane of U!
and R/W Acquisition,
R/W Acquisition ar
"uryes. Widen 24', and
cation and New Bridgf
R/W Acquisition for
ifv Curves, Widen 24',
ify Curves, Widen 24',
3wn
s
c
c
i.s
30.
."2 2. "2
> > >
3 3 3
ooo j;
2
1
'5
c
W
>
'e
111
> > 3
2 -s
O =a
o -g
1 IS
12
>
3
3l
-a J.
g-o ^
■:2g^
to'£ o
1 =
^-o
^ 3
■5^
PH'-^a:'-'-!^;-?-?*^!
o o o o 2 oj o ors
c
so
"^ m.^-O'^'^^ w"^
m com f^raSS ■<
s ssscSd:s§^
1
«:s
ItfW^II (Si
"a
1
j3
c ■
t
1
.Sgfe
E-
t-
m
hJO^
>
t?
■
>>=!'>3
s
15
_o
1
i fc ° c
o -^ — s
III c2
>
J
_>
o
1
£
c5
O
o
1
-2
Oh
S
E
:
o
O
"o
1 tls
it
<
o
13 fe • =j
1-
3 2 _:-0 -.'.i!
Q
■z
<
Pi
c
OS 3 OJ
Creek to Pa. '.
urg and Lewisto
D Point of Rocks
U. S. 40 to Cato
i Relocation , .
.!■>■> >
S.2.2 Q
Oca *^
<
g
|5
B
o
Of,
5?
mo iS i-S
>S °H a, E
'►J
3
O
o
io ^ =
1
f :
b
o
c
o
-d
-c
^ oi
S %^
fc clH
o
Q
<
Pi
o
Tuscarora
Emmitsb
U. S. 340 tl
Relocation
Catoctin to
Catoctin R
E. End of
W. End of
Alt. U. S. 4
2 g -'/^ .V3 O ,73 o ,aj -* _
go . . -g . o . 52
ji
>.c -3 OS o " 2 "as
Sti5ti|:ipf2 l:JtJ
CO
IL
CO
ta
OJ
^ OT? 5S o
^ ^^
ii
OS
— — ^
- ^" ""SS -^
r^ OS t^ 00 ire — r^ CO
2«
1^ r^t^^c^jireoC'-Ht^
mCQ^
OS — .— — — CO .— CM
CO 6CC oJM^-^ M
-a -a -d -d -d -c -c -d -d
11
-d-d-d-d'd-d -d-d
ti z;:^ titiSS ^
s ssssssss
i^t^o
ssssss ss
O — <M CO
C3 CO too
CO
ceo
to 1^00 o>-^-^— -^
— c<icotor^i^-----c^
CM
— - c^j -r
OS Oi05 01010505 Ol
CO cocococococococo
CO
t^ r^ r-^
O:0iOi05O5C3l C»C35
CO
COCOCOfOCOCO COM
—
"^
•"
"
~
"
""
~
"•
■"
"
— '
"
"
""
—
^
—
"
-~
^
—
— '
—
—
—
-^
I
262
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
t3
hJ
(/3
E-i
W
«
«
;_)
ffi
H
NH
w
Q
;?;
u
Q
52
H
HH
■^ o
C/3
§==
Kg
$^^
z^
ZS
OQ
^Z
UH
Oh
^^
So
KZ
H^
CO
O
o
O
oi
: -T r- c-i 7c c: o
m B o B
S £ Z g
S tl ■< z
s ^ fS.
a O
O D
•^ c: ' " O »o I -
5 2
5h
o\ S o*
o«^:;oPio«
-.5 s!^s
go o.o
<<<<<^<
O "30 O f^ CD
g- jl X ' j? ^ X ■ ? X X
- Oi 1^ 05 /M CD
C3 cn t;^ «=> c: C5 r* CO I ~
CVJ t-* to W3 *0 0_ iO CO I
•—"CO lO CO
c:r--icc^'r;co-fOCiic
SE £
^ O OO O W3
-H -H t^ l«-
■ M M-3 ^ —5. M>-l M>-l g M 5
■~--:.^ _ 3 - 3kJ -K
SfiSE
o 5
(2^ CS
. o o
III"
35
Cf§-drt 3
b^ SJ'I o
Hill
tcoa so
C8 o O m'5 in
3-SSo o o-c
_: ■-''- _; if iS '/; _; -yj
2
'oh
I'd
ZS
-r -r
;23aKX«K3325ffloq5qM5qfflaq«a aq
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
263
c^ I
-Hi GC ro
^ ic ^
IC CO CO o
O »0 O' ^
O co" ^
O h^ h^^ -<
13. §
o =;=
: c ^ iM CO M o oi
t^ --• -t* ci m Oi c^
CD_^ OD CD ^ 00_ Cvl 0_
c<r co' »c -r co' CO
^ OC
. »— -Tf <0 ^O O
t^ T-H 00 O CO o o
CO CO -^ O CO O (^
C'Xl.O
" 2 ^
'5lf^ mi
H'of o
>. C O c
"3 2's
2 i=
5_g o o
^'St^'313 E'lS.S
£ ►S ffi ,5 hS p: ^5 (S
- - ._io c
r^o; lO -- c
O IC O CO Oi o o c^ oo
-rr^ocooioot^ oo
-t^ Oa O OOQOO oc; oo
CO lO O CO o »o o -r oo
^ < t;^
OC
Ci
-d
:^ o
;Q.S
^ -a 00
J ^ o
"5 S
o -g
o 9 ^
so.= -j;j=-.
60-;
CSC
be bfi be -s . Of • "
cZ » JB J -a -S ^
if 2 2 ^ oj 2 ^ ■V~'
o'o'OT? ^'*0 O g
o oo <o -e.2.2 ho
►15 ^ H^ O O kS »S ^
i^ ■A
'oh
o o
'"§ ^
^1
=oS
CO %
oS:
o^_
GO'S
o S
11 =
<:co It-,
<
- cS5!
i O .►J-
o
Sw^
°^.^o
t^ 2;
3 1^ Oi — • 00
3KK
(BOg CO
CO OO CO
K W W K
S^osOiOOOOi— ^1— I
^t^r-ccoooooooooooo
264
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
-a
c
o
O
<M
cc
<V
H
3
C:::
-c
D
H
W
Q
Z
hJ
H
0,
H
x
D3
H
Q
AJ as
O .
PH
<!;2j
^5
o
^o
Q
s^
iC
Wr/T
S
^H
H>i
z
<<
Oh
X
c>-
04
z=a
o
^a
7-
-z
-<
^M
C2H
o
m
H
s:^
^
Z^
Oi
»3
z
p
J
^3
■<
CQ
Ed
Z
a
C
z
^•tS
««!
Z:&
OH
Su
H^
o
PQ
«z;
H^
CO
z
o
o
>^
!i^
z
H
o
«
»
%
u
^-
1
cc oc
i r^
1 oc
j_
^
1 ^1
_
-o
lu.
1 lO
c^j
1-r
1
:f S m
cc
ic CO t^ 1 c:
1 ^^
>«-T O-
o-
1 CMO t~
o
CC
1 c^ c»^c:
1 r^
1 <yz
« -T
t-^
5 z ei
1 o"« 1 u-
1
— 'co
1 iri
CO tC
.^
ci"oo
oc
cL fQ ^
B " o
00
oc
1
COM
a-
—
1
Ǥ
09
s» 1 «»
1 ^
**
M
«»
m
G
1 o t-t,
IT*
o
»— Ci »fl
1 tn
c> o
C
Isgg
-f
[
o
1 = "^fc
XT'
l^^l2 =
cc
oo
c
:;o
o
1 >o -TC:
c
h-
loo
iO
t- o 55 tr
I^
m
■<
oc'>c
~"i5'~
cr: i^^'c^
.^1
1^
oc
cc
1
fc.
1
«
M
^
OS 1 a»
1 ** i **
_^l ,*
M
«•
,
1
_,
1 =
1
o
o
Ee.
1 "^
1
o
c
o
o
1 c:
!
o
c
^5
us"
-1
2"
c
e
g^
£
(5
0&
se 1
»»
ae 1
p
1
1 ■ ■
e
1
~~l
j
~|
Z;
5
cc incq
1 a-
oc t^«
^
1 QO
oc
OCCJi
er
CC
a J
1 ''■
COC*5iC
CM 1 O
6; 5
I^C^
1
r-c^i c^
cc
COT
o
X
2 B e K
cc"
cc crcc
^
(N
z > z g
s
c O
-<
ae
ae 1
ee 1 ee
» 1 as-
M
5
t «A«
1
c
K
H
,
t^ CM
1 a-
1 ^
»OC5 t>-
i «
1 CM
1 «
1 OO
,_
1
a
CO 03
»c
^ locr
1 t^
o
CM CO
I^
IC
£a
^^ d
t^
1 r^
a2 Ci cc
1 CO
1 -r
cc
1
£g
''"
— —
1 -'
"
cm'co'
"-|2
o ~
z
1
H
«»&
««
M
|«
1 ^^
e«
1 *
««
O c=
1 CO
1
1 -
1
J^
_
1 o
t '^
Mco«n
»C
1
oo
oc
z
o
1 ^
1
oc row
cc
1
cc
m
z
p
«0-T
C
co"— "cO
1
lO
^
t-
^
o
o
CO
»c cc-^
c>:
p
s
1
<
1
z
ee
s»
96
e«
Q«
1
ae
M
a»
i»
00
•c
m
1
o
B
■^
1-^
1
o
.J
1
s
ci
1
1
U)
X
X
c
C
t
-a
c
£
rt
.£
c
c
bd)
2
M
i
o
1;
'—
o ■
CQ
1
B
a
Q
°
ft
5
c;
c
C
;
1
C
llll
cQ ofc
o
s
M
>.
=C- >
c
= C 2
.=
s-
js
c
- =.2 S
5
_«
9 ^'"i
%
Ja M 5_
"i
sjj-i
J
K.E ca.=
= ^ «
03
= S z
2
M S^
^C^'c
§£^1
1
a '-Z^
I^
(§5:^
e5«i£
crt^e.
^
i^
&
i
1^
z
o
•J
J
u
3
Si
•p
—
__; ; c
„
= bCX
-
c
fc
§
h
o:S =
<
1
c
o o -^
hi - C
-?
- §•§• =
^
;.= •=-
r-
• =
£
c c3
.
-i
2Sc
1
o o'-
c
c c ■*■
o o 5
b
^1"
£ S *~
*-S'^-C
zzz
S 5'S^
o
-
^ °.-
:
2
t/:
-2-2 =
S5£
111:
:§
>
<
'c '5 J
•< <<
sec
5 5^
S S =
c c c
Q
K
„
,
o 5
[xl
s'lfr CS IJ5 a;
:v-
cc c*? c^
c; C5 o
o
'^
C ^
s '. s . -•
r^ t^ r^
i«0™
tfz
z_
go o S
"^
■a-o-c
-a-d-c
coco .
CO
gs
>: S
SS5
SISS
p:^
O
o
H
2;
g
*K Z"
'^ »r2 »o "■
-^J!_
z ,
P?5
£ 1
1-
<><
1 1
< CO re c'
^ "" cc
?q )T -; S
T'cS><><
2 ^ ^- ^ —
83
c ^
l!
SS 5 5
ac-1^
SoS^
Q CD CO <x:
^ f 7" r" r'
£2
5'~'
' <g=°
M
y
M&
v.
X
^
■^^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 265
$ 287
69,303
2,559
1,076
co"
4»
o
1
COiC
co*-^"
ft©
oo
$ 229
19.237
1,732
05
i
o
CO
CO
•»
S 600
66,782
2,777
1,250
OS
o
'*-
OS
o"
CO
II
-ro'
S
o
o
1 ^1
OS'-H
-if
§
o
>o"
o
cm"
CO
«5
CO
CO
o
s
o
S2
CM
$ 39
4,251
169
OS
CO
i
««
OO 1^
CC
co"
S 561
1,821
193
g
««
1
CO
CO
TO
oi
CO
CM 03
CO
00_
CO
O X50
o'im"— "
to
OS
co"
CO
co"
CO
t^
s
o
^
^
-^
(i
c
cS
c
"3
c
,c
-€
-o
<
1
c
c
">
)
0
^
[^
D
0
c
'5
61
J
c
C
c
1
a
c
1
c
'Z
c
0 ta
D "t
i
a:
I
'o
-c
CS
1
1
t:
w
C
.£
c
1
«
CO
C
02
H
o
B
Pi
CM
P5
o
o
Oh
-< CO
S ^
2 t:
i i
0.
>
o
^ >
£
Oh
i >
e
^
H
>
5
C
!
c
1:
c
0-
c
*r-
-c
s
>
It
■2
'I
>
is
c
H
c
o
C
-/;
c
a:
£
H
O
g
c
Pi
Oh
<
c
c
Pi
Oh
>H
oi
<;
o
z
c
' c_
j,
<
C
i-
coo M wffl „'. "in^'n 00 fc i^
-d^ 'o-.-d-d ■§ ..-dS-dStJ H-c o^j >^^
p
o
%^
pi
= 2 ^ ^ o m g
S2 2jP §_ ° _ ?) "_ ^-<
S>^ Sasj?; o^ ';^s ^ S gg i^ il
^g 0-w-^ to'^ 5t- -i (^ s" O— g^
op 5h'~'- «W gg § § g^ og a^
|m o fe S Oh rs
266 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
oo
»
Qj
U)
H
l-N
Q
Z
Ei3
&H0O
Xw
w2
Q©
WM
Hh
S^
OD
a^
Q
E-W
Z '"»
^9
H
^cs
<
E->H
Cl,
c»a
^
z
^^
<<
<J1»D
z
2g W
^
oz
F-
?^
w
D-O
Z
n
HCC
;>Ei3
-JCi
aJ
as
^fc
Ed
^Q
Z
^!^,
U
hEi9
O
Hfe
Oh
z
I-:;
t^-t:
HD
^H
Ww
^-^
o
KQ
(IhZ
H^
H
<J
H
CO
02
H
H
Z
I
Pig
£ I ~.\
^5
o o o
C2 50 U3
J
l„ I
CO
s -i^
-< o
oo c s
>> >>
2 S "H 5 ^
MM X ^ «
OP-
'S'c
-"
ttl:aaj
3'o ,^
z: .^ bC
P- ^ffi
o 5z:
■= Z gpi "
►^ O s't^ =
o lis I
-a o .> " K
" t-i "T, —
■n ^SS o
fa C X S K
c^-
:= o is £ s: So
. . d 5" c pr •
" = t T T '^x ^
t 2 — — "^ *" S
>, j: r- t^ t, r^ -J-,
|ooo o o
3 o ^
0=^1°
rta
'l-d 03 O!
. O Q> '"'
0^
:^:<^£r;
ro
ro c^
=?<ig
'?'v? J,
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 267
Exhibit M
MAINTENANCE FUND
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1958 AND 1957
Fiscal Year Ended June .30
1958
1957
Maintenance Costs, Districts (Schedules 1 and 2)
District No. 1
? 858,606.14
1,299,635.67
1,378,,355.25
1,358,789.28
1,484,913.25
891,125.40
979,896.84
$8,513,764.12
1,008,031.21
2,288.50
90,048.02
12,624.75
$ 688,017.38
1,158,602.24
1,149,501.21
1,068,232.71
1,. 3.32,396.18
784,549.67
880,370.71
District No. 2
District No. 3
District No. 4
District No. 5
District No. 6
District No. 7
Total
$8,251,321.83
262,442.29
$7,061,670.10
306,223.66
Maintenance Costs, State-Wide Projects
Total
$ 161,821.68
27,916.16
93,470.00
119,348.46
1,836.64
132,836.51
336,649.32
121,764.39
12,388.05
$ 1.38,222.83
29,076.14
49,891.29
15,9.3.3..39
22,144.54
48,927.05
339,758.23
71,858.47
5,199.37
$7,367,893 76
Acquisition of Capital Properties:
Engineering equipment
Office equipment
Shop, storeroom, and yard equipment
Snow fences and posts
Transportation — motor vehicles
Road maintenance and construction:
Other
Laboratory equipment
Totai
S 34,159.01
375.27
5,000.00
42,643.97
63.28
7,806.49
$ 41,454.24
1,050.29
3,751.00
83.55
5,513.49
721,011.31
2,000.00
Operation and Maintenance of Williamsport Toll Bridge:
Salaries and wages, including employee's benefits
Payments to Toll Facilities Division — for supervision
Portion of equipment service expenses
$ 7,400.01
1,010.30
733.74
756.63
1,758.93
418.36
546.78
$ 10,012.09
4,774.06
1,382.44
833.05
8,489.36
2,972.08
647.03
2,165.24
51,852.57
Repairs and Maintenance of Rental Properties
4,763.41
Sign Permit Revenue Fund:
Highway beautification
Passenger car operation .
Portion of administrative and general expenses
Portion of equipment service expenses
31,275.35
TOTAI,
$9,626,756.60
$8,178,796.40
268 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
13
Eh
hH
n
S3
S
H
Pi
o
oc
O
So
^-'^
ccp
Hi-9
oQ
Q
^!^
w«
S^
5^
«(»
o
J^
t-*
^
o
CO
J
tooc
CD
oc
in o oc
CO
r--
C-l 05 oo
Cl 00 r-. CI
CO CO
o
t^
t^
t-.OCl
o
TT *—
iri
OMTO
c: cjjcd CO
CO CD
CO
c^
CO w
t~
c: 12 t^
coo tnco
in
cio>
cr
CI a; CO
COOT
in CD in c
CO
CD
— CDt^
035
6
— ■ >re
Cl'-- I~^C
C35'
cr
t^
in -- CO
o"
iO
in
Z
to
^-
c
CD
CD
ir
^
«.
e« 1 ^
«e
« 1
«»
«e
««
«»
OOiMOOGOfMOsO
o-
035 CO
O CD
CO -J* CO
CD
05 t^
^
ooco^»cosr-ot--
Cl
o r^
CI —
cr
CO 1"^ CD
— cc
in
o'cdcoGCiooocsi-^
in
inoj
^ -^
c
£
CD r~^ u*
OJ
ocs
CsJ
-r — CO oc r^ CD ^
t^
cooo
O r-
O
C^ CO
ca CM_ r^ ^ oi CO t--
cr
CO
o
d
t-^ (m" -r c^ to oc cs
-^
-i"
Cl"
-r"
iM*
Cl
Z
o
Cl
1^
t^
in
CS
Cl
««
1 ^
oe
e«e
1
^
^>
«»
«»
coos— 'OOiCOiOcD
o
CO Oi oc ^- ^-
CDCR oc
eo
-^
ti
OOr^MCO-^eOCCO
t^
O^'COCC
ci ci t-^ GO o o t^ oi
cr
^' Qo — ' in oc
(^ jy^ 1^
o'
oi
05
o cc t^ a: r- cc oo c^
c) oc in C3 Tf
cc
o
CO
iCtMCC — — t-OCCM
c^
c
Ql — O
oo
00
d
— ' ci ^'(m'cO^
CD cT-f*
CO
(7-
co"
00*
oo"
z
c
IC
in
-M
-^
1
*^
w
ee
l«.
«
^
«»
««
«
CO'^ QO
cor^c^o
o
Oi
o t^co
1^ CO-**
^
mo
lO
CSI oot^
loooo:
■^
CD in 00
-fcitr
CO
^ —
cc oJ ci
CCt^OM
CO
o
cio'co
CO
CDM-'cO
—
CO m
oo
CO
inooci
oc
CC
O CO t~
^
00 CO
05_So_
ic csi_ a: t^
o
in
IT
CO_T>
— '
d
oc r-T
wi" OOl-^CC
^
cfoOCD
r-T
o"
Z
c
^
a-
'"^
w
5
«»
e^
e«e
oe
M
«»
««
«»
««
-
_
-i-o — o:f in
C5 CDO
COO -H
,^
in oo
CO
c
O'
CO C3; oi in — CO
oc
-^
ini~-
CO
iC
o t-^ — * in 1-^ d
o
CO ci-p
c
o'-r in
o'
05 OC
00
cc
CO Cl Cl CO o c
oc
CldOl
-r t^in
r^
00
GO
in o; in
o
d
iri"
co" Oid
^
^
Cl" ci -r
o"
^
^
Z
s
00
s
OC
^^
'"'
ee
oe
««
««
M
e^
«^
«»
»
-^O5O5"^C<I(MC0O5
^r OICDO t^-
CD
,^
— 00 in
-r
d
d
Oicioco-Tcno-*
t--'^0 05 t^
I^
Cl -5;b-
^s^
00
oc
-r 00 r-^ o c>J ^ CO c
in 00 CO CO CO
00
M
C3
T— CO in -f CO
t^
t^ oc CO
oo
I^ QC O O CO OO CO TJ
OC
QO oco_oc
IC
O-
oococ
n
d
d
CT-:ui-«" — ">o'oc —
CO cTin
o=
O? CO
CO
00
Z
•^
w
00
^
^
<«
«^
6«
«e
ee
w>
««
««
«e
05 f ^
^COO
-f — O COCO
00 — CE
loo
-f CO
f^
^oo
UDO t-
oc
OOOC COCOCO
c<i
oiinci
t^
"i
t^ccr^
in ci ^ i^ c]
o
r^icec
o r- CO t^ o-
CO r^co
r-
00
^- ^- <— .
oc — --
"^
r^ in in CD ic
5
oc Cl oo
O OC
oo
d
CO — 'oc
CO cf CO 05 — -
^
im'
CO c
in"
Z
in ^
cc c^
c^
00 ' —
CJ
"~
^
•9
»e
€^
M
«^
^
»»
««
OC CO C CI O OC 0-. CO
USOJI-COC
135 oo —
00
^- m
CO
t^ lO c^-r « CI oc t-^
co-;"3;C3C
c
C
05 00CO
o_in
in
ci CO o; »d cc CO ci c
^
00 05 CD CO in
o
00 -r in
05
— r-
cx5
«
mo — o —
c
IT
CD — oc
Oi
Cl CO
m
•<
di o "O OC' t^ CO c:5_ t^
M- lOCO -^o
-*oqcc
Oi_
•^ —
in
1
-r cT co' co' ci" co' ^
-r co"ci'o"co
'^
O
in-r"^
-r
oo"-r
d"
CO c) CO ^ o; lo cj
CO
^
r-
o
H
CO CI
oc
CD ""
in
^
w
«»
c«
«B
«i&
««
«.
«e
"o
ti
^
c
0 i
1
>■
i)
(^
3
3
!d
£
-m
z
■o
2P
c
H
M
E
o
•z.
z
E-
a
z
Q
1 "
n C
c
c
c-
>
1
.2
II
11
2 >
. - c
-T3
C
c
c
a:
i_
E;
0
-a «
3 t.
1 a.
>
.3
is
2 >
.ti c
"c
-c
c
c
' c
o
B
%
E-
c5
Q
Q
-3
J 3
_>
•" C9
1
■c
(5
-c
>
cS
_&
6
Hi
<
z
K
Q
1
hj
-»;
Eh
'3
-o
CS
1^
c
c
-g
;
c
1
«
K
eg
o
o
>>
Roads — Surl
Patchin
Base an
Joint C
Dust Pi
Mud Ja
Oiling—
Oiling—
Oilinff-
E^
Roads — Sho
Patchin
Dust Pi
Oiling—
Oiling-
Oilinir-
o
Drainage St
over 20-ft
Bridges
Curbs a
Catch 1
O
IccS
3
CO
e2
1
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
269
CD «3 -^ C-^
00
- 0(JO-. -
^
03
■^ 1 OO -r o -^ r^ c
>rac
-< ■*
CDCO CO CXI
CO CO i^ oi
t^
O 1 CO O O* 00 00 CO ^' o
i i 1 CD
0O»O »OCO
CO
<M 00003
D (Mt^O — COCD(»a
3 Oi 1
CO CO coos
CO_ O 00
CO
en (M_»0 -r ofD-M 00 OID --
t^X Mt-T
CO
■^ -^
Oi
o' co'oc irf w:5co"-^'o"c'
D »0 co' 1 oi"
00 '-' (M
CO ^^ 1 t^
^^
U5 — —
■" ^
««>
e&
^
«»
99 «»
e^ 99 ««
1
o=cD ma,
t^
f OO
'oi
^
CKl 1 <M CO 00 CD 03 (M -f< C
3 t^ ^
■1 0
^^0> C-) 00
>ra
CO CO
•n^
H lO (» lO Oi -* CFi -H If
5 (33 c
h^^ OO ui
'o*
CO
\ii 1 -r OO (=>-;« (>j -p o.
■0 -r \ ^
TfCO — OJ
o; t^
05 1 ^ CO CO (3:1 •— O CD o-
- ^
—_(>> — U5
i— '
! o
OO
c-
1 occoiocomcocoo-
t-
^
a O'^'OOCO (M ^'CC5
i" 0' 1 -T
«o-^ e<i
>o 1 CO — (33-r —
0 c
1- ^
00
^
<«
e^
€1%
»
«e «« «^
Tf 00 C»5 t^
cq
i>- cc* M r^ c^
CO
iOco^^-^-riot-'
CD 00 U5
Oi CO c^o
CO
'tj; l>.CO ^ Oi cv
c
!>; M OO ^_ OO M -r CC
^ t^ 1 (M
00 CO i^ cc5
>ri
e<i t-^ r^ o: t^ c^
<x
5 lO Ir^ 1— " cm" to C: w -■
ui a
' ^
co« oco
lO
— - CO Ol ic-t- c^
(MCMiooo^ocr. r^
t^ '-
cot^ inco
-^^ MO-f^^CftO
1— '
r^cor^cMcoc^icocc
_ en (» 1 0
ojco" co'oT
>o
^^ kci ~' >:£ iri f:^
-1^'
s CD co' -h' co' u:5 r-' ^^ cv
- tC -p-
'V
c
s r^ ^ to CD ^ ^
r. 1 ^
^^
^-
D —
CO 1 0
-r
«e
«^
^
«/&
M
> «•
-1 -r
t^ CO ICOO
CO
OS t^oo w
CO
c
OOCOOi^l>-(Mt-^^
00 c
00
O CO I^IM
^ CO OS CD
OiMcD'-HOi^^c^
«n 1 (>
t^O COCO
t^
1^ TTCS CO
00
CCCOCvJOCOCCiOO
(^
^
OS
OO Ot^iC
t^
O(M00t--0]O<Nt--
00
t^O <M —
^-<
CO
00 t^ to CD O O CO C
c^
b-
oio" t^"
aS
cd^'cm'
r-T
\c
t-T I>r iO 00 to t^" CD CS
■*" 1 a
00"
t
CDCOOOt^ CM ^
CT
to
"
CC
Z '-
CO^
a&
«*>
e©^
»l>
tf
» ««
«« «^
«&
03-- CO^
,^
M 00 t^ o
,^
CC
oo^or-r>-ooC'C^
cr
CC
to
QO.^ — CO
r^
(30
cio-rot^oi'Tc:
ui-f c-ici
z6 ui " -r*
crj
o-
^'I>;cDtrtCO'-^CMC^
to
QOCO 00 —
C^ CI Crs CO
o
ir
lOt^^t^^-CO — t^
03
^ ^ CO -f
-p
C^
r^tooooci<Mtcoc
CO
^05 ^QO
o"
-^ i-T
co'
CT
CM t-' Os" t-" ^* OO' OO'
00
t^i-t ^
"
c^
1-* to "^ OS CO I—"
c^
(i
t^
c«
M>
^
t»
9^
e«
e^
9i
e©
taoi O)-*
o
CSI CDOOOOOIOO
^
(N
O^C^tOCDOtOCT
oc
t^
f^
CO W3 <M t^
csi c^^ ^ o o u:
'p
(=
-rOi^cDCM<M--'|-^
■ct
CD
Qood coco
(^
CO CO cdoo h-^CO
^
CC
tn o -p c-i i^ o CO c
1-
to
^ COt^— ' (MIC
CC
CCO^COOi-t^COC^q
c^
CO
(M_CO 001^
<M t^ CO COOO C<
t^
tM CO CO too -^-f CC
t^
CC
CD
uSuS coi-^
lO
^~ -rr -roo~cc
"O
CC
-r c^ ci" r^ (>! cd" CD ^
Os"
-H l^CO
c
CD ^ C^l CD CM
(3
(3-
OS
(M
0-
e«
«^
^
»»
««
M
9%
91
««
•-^03 (M r^
(=:
OO -r Oi CDO 00
w
c
CiOC^COOitOCOCC
t^
1-^
^
.
t^
-fl'^ CO CO "^ 05 CO
tOOCO'— ''MO'— 'CD
CC
u-
1- 03 icoi
00
Oi --^ oi o i:d c^
o
t^ fvj oi "^' r-^ CO CO -f
OC
OC
CD
O ^ t^ 05
Oi
10^0:1— »OCO-*CM
oc
(M
0
coo -PO
CQ i-^ O O 'T C<
^^
t-
— tOCDtOcoOO(M
oc
a-
JOO" ^"
o"
lo c<r — ' oc tC -r
(50
o-
o'o'-r to'cMco'co"
IT-
00
00 ^H ,— «
o
(=
(^
~
CC
00
«^
«"
6@
«e
SI
e^
91
«^
€^
" lO (MOO
CO
CO -* lO OOOOS
lO
OOOtOt^OiM-I^M
(M
CO
0-. X5 CV) QC
«o
t^ t^iOOi OSCS
(M
s
ocotor>.'^i>^cot^
ir
C'-
00
Sfc: H2"
03
■^* 00 CO CO 1—^ o
CO
Tt^iOtOioCDCD-^'c^
oc
^
Oi 00 Tt^ ^^
'^
lO h-<:o co<N o
OO
(3
^toc^oo^ootoo-
c^
(3-
O CO (MM
(3=
lO coo MC^ lO
c
r-t^-^ic-ooiio
Ofcsf 00 CO
OO
co" »ocd-f'(?<rco
T^
OS 'T 00 -T co' 00' to' 0
(=
^
■v ,-. oooa
CO
1— CO (M t^(M
t-~-^^rc::,f::<i<:r.'^'^
a
COrt (M
o_
«
CC
CO CM oc t^ —
CO
«'
«»
«»
e«&
99
w
««»
s
e©
1
(» •
z
s^
■<
J
bO
o
-Em
"
f^
1
>■■• be
-a
5
>
Q
Q
Z
•<
E
1
1
.J
nj
z
Ed
5 2
fc
^
^c
3
c
[£
&
0
c
hoi
>
1
s
-M ea c .-2
&d
I 3
ojoO
° <
J z
■< &.
(J f-
s ■=
II
1
§
so
M.SK
0
nd Dividing Pai
ig Grass and Cl(
'ay Beautificatic
ing, Fills, Cuts
'alls. Borders, E
ral of Debris
2 ■
<: <
(S ^
1 '^
(M-C
fc 5
-a j3
S E
'g.S'5
H 1 1
3t3X
H
O
Q
s
cEs:
ay Signs and M
e Markings and
c
c
;S'2fc
5.
z
0
H
(B
^;
0 a
E-
C
oadside a
Cuttin
Highw
Widen
Remo'
f-
ges (o^
Floors
Balust
Painti
Lighti:
Draw
Draw
H
H
Servi*
Highw
Surfac
Snow .
IceTr
Traffic
Traffic
Ercctii
Flnnd
H
H
■"B
0
"1
rt
pq
E
1
0
2
270
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
3
H
n
S
CC>£
a-
.Ed
8=
Ha
fc.CC
Z
H
O !M1«
cc
_
,^
oo
_.
ai-r
■r<,
CO
in
1 CO
cc
^
r^
^
^
li«
o 'M ira •
•C0 0 05
oo
OOIM CO
lO
I^M»0
«
ui-rt-^ :
: a: oi id
^
ccf^c^ : -:
cc
cd
oioc-M'
^'
o'cc
cc
C5C1^ .
. t- C3-. —
r;
CD (— o;
cc t^
o
.l~-r o
>o?] : "
oo
00
core CO
-T
t^ cc
C5
;-T oc-
lO
r-T
ITS CO
oc —
o"
Z
—
Zl
2
lO
(M
-
•»
«•
w
w
«ft
•»
M
«•
OS coo -- -us-r 03
-r
osco ■
— n
OS
^
^-coo>
"cc"
O CO
CO
cs) o — as -oco 00
cc
CMM •
t~ta
00
CO
ict^— .
■^
00 00
CO
oc 00 cj id : -r oi r-;
id
05 O'
t-^d
cc
CO -r --
«5
cc —
•o-r
o
^O lO
CO-r
«0(-«5 : raooc^i
05
oio :
00
-r
MS
o
OS
d
-r— "r-' ^"— '«
e->
oo'
^
o"
^
-1''
>d
Cq
CM
Z
lO — <M
o
■o
^^
■"
««
t»
«»
«
-
-
«•
w
«
CC — t- 1- I-. -.C — "2
1 o
cc coo — —
1 _
1 w
1 t-OSCO
CI
1 OS —
o
1 ^^
O iC QC_ cc cc
o
cc
CO CM i«
CI
coco
cc
'£ '^ TZ '.- 2^ "^"^
o — ' cc O: c^
cd
cd
1 r "^ CD r-^
OS id
id
1 ^-'
ini~o>rao-.
1 CDCIO
o
— 1
fi ri 5. rt 3E i: lO C-)
1 lO
cc CO CD
00
d
— 'r^'oC c-i'oc'iotd
QC
cc -T -r
rsi
cc
CO
-r
-r'
■^
X
CC
t2
GD
lO
CM
CM
c^
««
a»
e>e
<«
1 **
<»
Vt
<*
CC M OS
as coo to
1 (^
1 r^ O- CO — C-l
o
^ r^c*i
o
-rx
1
— — co^
1 "?
CM-r t^oocc
OS
r>^
t-CMM
e^
t^CKl
O
1 ^
»d — cdr^ —
OS
CO -r lO
cd
C^ OS
CM
1
OC ^ C)
OCD — lO
O — — C-l CO
i^ cor^
CC
5
I~tOlO
lO— _I^_CO
o
c^
o:
I>» CD ^^
CO
int—
d
C-l -T
CO
o' oc'co"
CO
OS
id
oo'
/C
•^
cc
: a
•"
'*
■"
'^
c«
w
•»
•»
o»
«*
««
1 ^
m
'i
tC ^00
C>J1^C= —
o
o ■
^
o
,^
CO CM OO
cc
lOCO
_
c; --T
o -T oc tn
cc
T ■
o
*r
^-
^o-^
OOS
o
:
cc ■ C'j
M 1^ ^ OC
ro
oj :
ai
oo
^
^ ^-^
cd
o —
CM
c: .1(5
accit-m
o
oe :
crs
cc
^ oo»o
(
c-j cc C^I o^
OS
CO
CO-T^O
00
00 CJ
.—
d
td • cd
'-^aS^'T
cc
.-T^iC
cm' —
;
Z
g :
— t=
CO
CO ■
to
oc
^
•» '
•»
«» '
Q«
«*
«ft
«»
«»
<*
1
oo :^
ooocr^ U5
o
oeocooo-s-
CO
cc
— ^t^
OS
r^ t^
-f
1^ CQ
C (NO <M
O (MOO — cc
CO
~ ' ai
id>d«dcc
0-.
o' r~: t^ t>; 00
o
^
CDQOeO
00
oo-r
CC
c^
(M -r COW
o
o
CJOOCD
w ; cc
— — — IC
-f
a-, -r CB t~
o
C-1
-T
in
d
^r 1-'
cc
cg -r" (3s' —
OS
oc
CO' CM
cd
fC
iC
Z
^
r
en
OS
^
- :
•»
«*
M
«»
CA
•»
m
— t^rv,
CO-TCC
cc
cc 'co-r m
00
o
-r
lO
(3S
or-
^
GCii^OO
CO — -roc
o
o
t^
ceo
cc
O c: »«
— o'u:
c.^
cd ;»d -1- cr
CO
oi
c4
^«
OS-
o
— t- oc
a 1^ ic c^
•o
CO
OO
00 oo
\
;*? cc -r
or~c
o
oo :cc — cc
a
OS
e^
OS
d
— ' cC
oJc: —
(.s
o -Old —
o
oo
o"
cc"
-r
—
—
Z
1 ^-
CM
C-l
««
1
1*
1 ** :
«e
«»
1 •*
«»
««
in
oc ^ »o sr
cc oc cc CO
,^
1 CO O -M lO 1^
lo
CCIO —
~03
OS CO
C') ic rrj »r
■oo tco
CO r- 00 -r (N
a-
c
C3SI>.—
-TOO
•ri --^ «D oo CO o oo tft
<M t^ id id-r
«:
lO
c*;
idc^
-M ^ 1- re c^ »0 »o cc
CO
ooo — r^ o-
cc
CO — lO
o
<
1 - CM_ c; -r i'^ — _ cc r-
oc
I0 05C^ o c^
CO
W5 0S OS
-i
ooS
m
t-^ tc re «D i-T o CO
1 o-
-T asaSt
f
oco'-r
cc
•dec
OS
Ij;. — iC O CO —
T -r CC
cc
o
o
r-"
s
c
m
«»
w
w
!•*
M
»»
1 *•
•»
1
+»
o
' 1-
>
5
o
tc
C
c
a
s
<
a.
3
-5
"5
£f
«
3
C
'n
•S
to
a
Q
1
■c
=
■ 1
a
c
E-
1
a
■<
i
:,£
b
1
o:
2
c
a
■"•
■ t
■ 'c
-5
_3
1
c
•<
z
a
C
E-
'5
-c
c
a
a
OS
z
C
-c
c
E-
1
c
1
2
^1
: &
3 ^
c
E^
b-
■^ !iffl
«|J
0 c
^
5
oads—
Patch
Base !
.Joint
Dust
Mud ,
Oiling
Oiling
c
S.
c
l-ll:s
||-i
-c
.='E 3 a
o 3 a
g — c c 5 c
c
«oaco
Sccc
EC
«
K
(X
Q
-^
&
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
271
t^ O O CO
CO
oq
o
CD
o
o
OO
o
o
CO
lOO
CO
00
_,
t^ O; O lO
a; >fltooo
Ol
COC^CDi— it-HCSJOS-rf
o
I^
-r 00 CO ^
r~^ r^ lO o
CO
O
CD
CO CO C<l O^
iT,
-^
0000(?5cOiO-fC0CS
C]
t^
CO
lOcS 05
t^
C*f '— '
-r
o^
(m" lO — ' CO rvf c^' -r" T-^
-r'
co"
o
o ^ c^
o
OCOC^ OO Cs] ^
00
~
lO
Ol
'^
00
««
«^
«»
««
ee
«&
««
««&
■^ (M CO O
ro
_^ COOQOl
iO
j^
OS — OCOiCOOiOOi
Oi
^
^
0O(M(Mr-
o
CO t^ t^ oc
Oi
oc
t^ iO ^ CO -r t^ 00 1^-
CT
oc
cc
lOQOt^OC
CT
CO CJSCT CO
OS
QO
^' r-^ o CO o -^" o oi
ijr-
^
OJ
CC
o
cr. — coiocomt^cM
o t^ o
Oi
lOCICDO^iCiOCO
o
o
coo"— "od
CO
— ' T-T
<>]
05
^ o" — ^" t -' -f' CC Ol
C-l
O]
-r
CO — (M
O
1
^
CO rM CO cr. —
?^
-
OC
««&
»@
1
1 9S>
e^
6«&
e^
e'^
«A
-r c^^ t^o
CO
1 CO CO lOO -t-o
oo
OS
CO-^-fiOOOM-CDCM
CD
CO
00
o-r c^ro
^
-; CO o CO -r r-
coOiCOOlOOiCs
-I'
lO
o wi o o od cr
CD '^ CvJ 05 -f" I>1 .-i' -—
t^
CO •— r^ CO
Oi
(M oi »o c^i CO a-
":>
csi':D»oO'ri--'MO
r^
OS
cjT-rio
QO CO o CO r-
00
00
(M oc. o; OO o o o oo
t^
CO
o i-Tco"-!-
00
I^CO c^
~v
1^
00* -f' CO OT O lO M CO
CM
--
CM
cr
iC
t^^CO<M — . ^^
O
"
0-.
1
^
2"
99
m
e^
^d
«@
«^
^
«►
COTCO —
_
1 CO 050 -H
CO
£33
1 OS-l'iMlCCMCOOCn
f^
\n
„
-:f
o
iC t- CO UD iC r^ QO CO
t-
ira -t* CO CO
C
o" 00 -<■ o
-H
CO
lO r^ o o CO ui i>^ o
,—
cc
C-l
CD OO CK
CO
00 -r — o
-I
.—
lO C5 C' iO O Oi -:f__00
ly.
r^
CM
--'lo
iO oo cf oo' trS o" lo" to
CO
O C^ CO
CO
o
I- CO CO O CM ^ '—
o
CO
"
CO
o_
^
«
&%
««
««
w&
W'
c^
oo — r^ t^
CO
(N CO oo
CO
^
ic iC t^ -M cr; lO r^ QO
id
CT)
^
I0 0i»0»0
,— CO O;
t^
»OOiCCiCOO — 03
o: (m' CO <M
oc
OC -;oo'
a
■.^
-li ^' lO O oo CO ^' I--
CS
^
C0 030 T
t--
w;
W5
o
,— -H
cr.
■**■
OiOSQOOOM-lCCOCO
-:f
CO c^c^Tws
C^i" ^ IC CO M OT O" CO
If
Oi
t^ -r
CO
C3J
CD
<X) *0 <M oo IM <M ^
Oi
-ff
«^
M
«©
M
m
«^
e«e
««
CO CO r^o
o-
05 C^ W3 W3 U5 CJ
OO
en
-:J1
-r -i--r CO
cr
— co« — co-r
OC
c^
r- oo CO' oi CO Oi o oc
If.
n
□d-r C3CO
»c
t-| Cvi CO oc' m c
CV
C\
GCooifi-raJcdooc^
to
CM
<M OCO CO
oc
cocn-fco-H-TCT)^
ir
CD
o
0_05CO —
•^
03 CD CO 0_ -r C
OC
CO
t^
-r* ufo'c:^
cy
o
-r
oo'
---.coco
o-
•o
lO ^ ^ CO CSI ^
oo
^-
e«
«^
e^
^
M
^
««
«^
c^ cD-ro
^
CO Oi -- -r -f --
wt
Tfl
CT-
00
— -f 03 QC
c'
c; o CO r~. oc t^
ccioo<y30o -r cc
cr
im' o co' CO
c^
o o CO ai --' t^
oc
'Tf
'T CO — : eg CO oi -r O
t^
»0 t^ 0-) I^ w —
O
-t*(MiC(MOC^t^O-
CO
CO o oo oc
c:
cc
CO
-r -H oo_ c^3_ — _ o -r o-
CD
o
o_
CO
1 - oo' oc* -f.' c^
CT-
oc —
o
c
o-
CO ^ — . -.
I&
o-
oo
^
«
«^
e^
««
^
1-
«^
-r — -- -t-
c
^r T— ooco CO cv-
(M
»n
OiOiCCCOt^OOCOC
OC
t--
o
O COCOI-
t-^
o o --t^rooc
t'-
'^
coosc<ioii>-'^cqeo
CO
CO <m' --^ c^
Cs
CD N -: oq ui c=
C<
cr
oo CM* '-H T-^ »rS CO o" ic
cr
t-^
o
a-
cr
or^^r^r^ootO(>
t^
— O t~. CO
u:
CO cnco — CM oc
Tj
r-- CO lO CO (M CM r^ ""
i>
«=
— 'iO— 'lO
CO
oo" e-i"!M"— "oTcT
T
cc
ic go' co' CD -r 'T oT cc
CO
CCO-TCO
»c
O oo t^ W2 (>) I^ — t-.
CO -^ cq
c^
.-.
c
ir
^f ^ '-H -r •— '
tf.
o
o^
'^
t^
««
9S
9&
«
e^
e^
e^
S.
lo"
H
3
OS
3
»
-a
z
fa
o
m
la
^
C.
3
CO
•<
!Z
a
z
u,
c
fL.
>
'^^
1
t
S-
E
•<
J
z
c
>
£
S
'^
^
C
CJ
z
■
53
E^
Q
m ^
S
CD £2
S
fo
C
<
■a
c
z
<
-<
.2 o
2
1
o
[X.
O
Z
viding Pa
and Cleai
tification
3, Cuts, a:
c
^
JS
2 & a
tr
^
_S"5
^' b£-^
o
c
c
'c'
n
1-
c
c
1
2 S.t:
1
Roadside and Di
Cutting Crass
Highway Beau
Widening, Filli
Removal of D.
Bridges (over 20-
Floors and Joii
Balustrades, H
and Sidewall
Paintinu
1
c
RAFFIC Services:
Highway Signs a
Surface Marking:
1
c
O
si
.ill
2 £ =
O
1
H
272
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
H
;?:
p
1^
Q
U
Q
;?:
H
03
U)
>H
b
nJ
>5
-<
O
u
kM
rr
H
l-H
u
kE,
U)
H
;z;
K
o
O
u
Efa
>-
r/)
H
U
^;
«
u>
P
o
H
u
Z
U
&4
X
u
H
U
U
1-9
o
tf
Oh
&H
o
H
Z
»
S
u
H
<
H
W
erw o a: :^
(^ iC ift
— CO lO
I,.
•Jos
!^ S — .
S — 05
— <M C3C
CO —
o I 53
>«>o o
I * I
I** I
1— lO
^ CM
— cr.
_ I
I** I
£2"
3 =
z c:^
SB
cn
s
'-
i
o
in
cc
cc
oc
1-1
««
en» 1
«
" 1
*
o
o
l>)
2
«^
6« 1
T^
O
|^^ 1
=5
o
TO
U5
«,
M
1 ««
1 oo
1 "" 1
lO
IT
CO '
'"
9&
1 ««
1 '°
s
TO
•o
■o"
e«
1 ^
ill s
> =
-Is
<J5
M-S ^'-S aij'-S ^ S.H
•= c c m t« cr o -e.S
oo g.S a4: 2^ -S M
Ob
<
C3
"s
£
<
3
3
-o
E E
E
lO
fc.
c<i
'H
^
-? -o
»n J= IC js -
: c ci 2
: ^ P.E
■ Bi-ac
Q^
Qi2,
r- 3C°«=C
^ CM
. CC CO O CO
o o o o
■ CO CO CO CO
5g
CI -r
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 273
o
to
O 00 —
III
OS
to
ctT
§
CO
^1
S 78,419.00
108,134.29
140,822.68
90,848.09
o
o to
o o
OC (M
O
o'
2 S
00' 5
42.679.91
31,147.29
12.49472
OC' ^
00 OC
crs' —
— u5
to lO
r^ CM
OQ t^
— " U5
to -r
OS
^*
to_
$ 59,550.80
461.10
500.00
.•inn on
*
to en
C^ CM J.
6»
Os"
to
:* S5*
CO
0&
to
• o
. ^
o
c>
<M_
« * » X * *
* *
*
— OO
co>o
OS
05
o
1
oo
o
o
OS
TO
(m'oo
iOto_
<M
o
- -^
o"
o
CO ■
o :
oo ,-• ^r ^t*
00 COCO o
<i^" o" co"
00
to
Os"
CO to
i
co"
CD
00
i
o
im"
o
o
Oi
CD
99
(M
OS
§
00
o
o
o
00
oo
9&
CO r-^ ,-^ to oo 05
IM lo OS o -r to
to 00 ^ CO OS
ao~f — "o" — "
««
as
lO"
CM
i
o
mioos OS
— to_ — _ oo_
o
o
o
o
CECIL COUNTY
.4 mile surface treatment
CHARLES COUNTY
Stabilize with a bituminous surface treatment
2.5 mi. surface treatment
4 mi. double bituminous surface treatment
Total
e E § 2
t« ce £ .3
M M 5f £
>l 1 ^ 1
11 il £l 1
Sf S^ 2 111
fe? H = g £ s a-^
j5 o Q 5 OC o-.- S
£-s uj's < -s £ oi =
o| £1 =l"3.°
Q c :l. c'o'o'o _=;
•a -o ■aoSoMf-'
< '■< '-^'i '€'§.=
-2 — 13 3 2 = fc
2 2 2 is t i S
-a -^ -O 3 C C'Tn
S ^ a! o o o ")
E
oBl
11 1
■a o H
^1
•f §
6t.O
11 ^3 ^11
sg =. -s ?^ §
a^ *; g a a
gs f i g g
1^ I Til
.ca . ^ S =« J?
> ^ 5-' 3 -r ^ b
^ft J-S If -1 &
^li'S-a-g 1 2 feS .3
.3 3 3-T3 O '^ = 3.3 . S
-a cr 01 rt - ^^ o'-a m o
2 §>>&.§ -g bS -^ H
« PhcoO ro(M Phjm c~i
>
(-
z
o
"^^
'^.'a 3
UJ dj t. M M
" O M= 3
^ .3 MM --■
X * g «
i's'a'e
^ OS -J -5
Md. 310 to S.Bohemia Mills
Ripley to Md. 484
Gilbert Swamp Road
Rison to Ironsides
Dorchester County
Frederick County
Harford County
Bridge to carry Grier Nursery Road over Deer Creek
Bridge over Winters Run on Pleasantville Road
Bridge over Bynum Run on Hooker Mill Road near
Abingdon
Howard County
Bridge over Deep Creek on Hanover Road
Massey to Delaware line
Chestertown By-pass from U. S. 213 to Md. 20
Pomona to Langford
Bridge over Stillpond Creek 2.25 mi. northeast of
Smithville
Pomona to Langford
Millington at Md. 313 to Md. 71; Browntown to Md.
447
Langford to Md. 20
Coleman— Stillpond Neck Road; Smithville to Newton
Md. 447 at Chesterville to Blacks
Bridge over Captain John's Branch on Riverdale Road
Wheeler Road from D. C. line to St. Barnabas Road
Bridge over Henson Creek on Bock Road
Bridge over Henson Creek on Temple Hills Road
Ce 403X
Ch 310X
Ch311X
Ch313
o TO_<Mt-^oo OS— icoui oooo-r
U5
"5
O
1
1
T
1
•M
1
*tl
CO »0»i5 to to
lO U5 kO *0 lO
OC 00 CO '-' 03
^ IM CO(M
CO C>> 00 lO 00
it
1
u
X
274
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
c
o
'^
P
•-»
Q
Q
Z
CO
g s "^ ^ ~-
S fc P ~"g
= Z = > '
— "O C^ 3C
•M OC O
- cs o -f* — »c c
I CO QC I— O c^ t>- I^ CO C<J CO — ' CO i^ CO
i c; oc i — r oc o tri 1^ -r o c^_ --; c- —
- CO CO o cc oc tc r-^ -r t-^ c^' « t-^ t-
"»o-Tcr;occc — -re. cocccr-c^a
z
Oi
»
H
o
o
H
Z
CO
= . = ., c
— Si
? c "« -p ~ S i~.Ot~=
;Sr:C.S;xCc5^CCs:zxsCoQX^'^(£i£c
O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'D'O-O'O'CO'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'O'
{ 1 I I I I I I I I I I I f 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I [ I I I I
C'j C'jc^c^jc^c^ic^ic'jc^c^c-ic^c^c^c^ojc^ CI ^-'— •—•--'— ^---^---■— —-----•—•— Y'T'T'TV
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
275
^oo
^
lO
CO
CO OO-^ Oi
t^CDCOt^
s
1
COCO-f
M
—
^
"'cooco[roco»oost---a5'>jcooi'— ''MO:iC
- 00 ic c
3 CO t^ Oi C
■" fM CO ^ C
I0050c»ioco-r-
J CO CO (M — ' C
^OiOO-HOl'-'COO;lOO^C^
r-. t^ C*3 '— ' *0
M CO Csf T-7cO
****#■«■*
.-- CO 00 CO O CO
rvj -r -h' CO cc oi
ex CO O t- OC' »o
r->- CO oo c
lO CT- -i c
ico'Ocor^u:)'— 'oooooooococ^oos
^ CO cii CO o c^i lO -r o6 o6 --^ r-^ -1^* o^ r^
ic-icocotM-— '05-rcoc-)C^r^(>3r-.oi
I O lO O — ' 05 --H CO Ol »0 Oi oi oo_ u^ ^
r^' (m'^' (m'^ .-t c<r CO cs o-f
CM -^ — O
Oi (■>._ io_ -r
lO od co" -f'
W5 OS -^ CO O CO lO to
^ 1-^ ^ lO o6 C=5 oi o6
OOO'Ol^iC'O'-'CO
'"l'^."*!'^-' ^ 'O CO 00
t ^ oT c^ CO c^ oi" c<r
B|a_s |.
■gj'g'i-g'g
bD he bfi c ho W]
rf M a; M 2
S.S 2.S S
3 3 3 m 3 3
> s >
> rt
^ '22
} fac hC_^ hO W)
:T3-o-a c'aT3
hC t
hD c
) htj rt bjD (
^c g ca ta c gag
'5-a'S'^'S-n'S'2 ^
"^hi-.-hL-.a,
t^_C hC hD hCG bp bfi o
— - '-B -3 '"^ '
g ea
__ } bC . ho t
_ ■ CO I^ CD I - TO >0 • ,
aa
3=r: t't
rgE-
; ^ co^
=^ =^^-£3 2;;i:;+j'-^
fTl
cfl
a
p
xi
p
in
is
u
?
■^
?^
3
^
^^
^1
g
3
3
"a
E
lO
p'f
S
P
<^i
"■■;
■-■i
t^
t^
3 1- _ o
3 :>,:* '^ S 5
"^ .^ o o
S bo'^-oOn
« ?3:a at:
"c 3 3^.mKii«:s
; o o tr
'"poo
fe > ^ -T3 rr^ !>, O O O O O
bfi bo-^ hO §j"
^ -^ -J- 3 3 ca 4^ tcH
o o j= js a' 3' ca
S S
■^(^<.:§
^ ^ c o
S 'om'E^
r. TO o^-aO „
o CM ■s is ,„ !?
ms:s-^g
^tt-|fS o 2
.^ is
E
3
Q'p c.
o o>-'
;^ guS.bcC-a
^PhOOh^ I o-^
>2^^>2Ǥ
a-d-d-d 5 o'o fP
'-fiO*CiOtOiC»0»0»C
CO CO CO CO CO I--
O'O'O'O'O'O*
W3 10 10 10
iCiOW^iCiCiOtCiOC^t^t
. l:-^ l>. t^ t^ t-- t
3iOiO»OiOiCiOiOif5>0»0»OtOW3tCiCt
276
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
T3
O
o
i
X
Q
Q
Z
<
.J
CO'
Q
Z
z
2 X
I" S
C P
GO
H
Q
X
Eh
i-»
O
o
H
^;
H
-««!
H
GO
1^ -^ :j: TZ — in ■::. \ri ^i
: :c :c *c — ac
O ?C OS — Oi iO CO *C ^ re C; ^ — t-; Ci Csi t^ GC iC
c: t-^ ci O ci M c<i QC t^ o lO :c C;' cc oc — cc — ' o
O -r t^ -M^ -r T :£ o r^ oc oc oc o r^ r-- oc t-- Ci re
«:: -^j cc o
5 ai f- S^ ac
o S ,^ c a ^
— \n OC O 1/5 O »0 C»J OC Ol CC to W5 t-* ^- oo
c^ c^; i^c^ccoocoioi'Taciccc'TODiO
^ c: O t^ CD O « OC OC t^ '-^ o :o GC o* ui
^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ * "■){■ 22'"'"^^^^^?^^^^'^'-^^^^
c^' »ft -T —" lo cc •^* ffc ic -r c^ cc -r W3
c£9i3g
»0-^ ^•'«9" 0«
00 — ^^lO «
M CD
oc -r
r^ oc c:
«
M- —
— ::
&
~ ^
-O rt
?i
■ox
'^T.
-rr =:
■C
5 =«
^ t£
,-, 5'm
H t;
M 6C,=
-■=
-£ 3
c C
s 2 -
i, J
bf "^ ^ — *^
< c
S5
bJ =
I- =^
C3 J:,M
5 1:!:
-JJ M ^ >- I- g _. _. 3 >- t. ■- 3 M I. 1-
:-3 *= c~-5 5 £ £•=• c =||«-5 E'E E-s's'i'i
Ccc*C C C -^ — CO Ct-^t>- CCCM ic»o*o ^C^iOiC
5 c^ ^ *^ — — X — * ^ ^ — * — ■ CL, — .' -^ '^J — —: — ■ ^ '': ^' ^*
J -■?l'^'=^J«a|jjir-r = = c:«
tUMglt^=^4^-^i^
Qg
^-5'.— =iA =^ S ^c _3 ^£ ^£ Is c ^ « .i ^ 4: ,= -^ ,c ,=
xxxxxxx xxxxx_xxxxxxxxxx
E 2 ^ i' ^ 3 ^ S 'iS S U '3 U [; i^ U Lr !i C: E S 5 S
CC Xi Oi M M Ti M 33 03 CO 33 M 02 03 02 03 73 Xi tC !/2 02 03 03
GC OC OC OC GC 00 !M CI C^ C^ CM C* ^ -- C". * CT. ~ ~ r: C". O —
:is ^
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 277
CC
c^
c
u, I-
nil
— . to-5; o-
r='.
o
oi CO ^ *r
CC
r-
-f ooo tc
X
C<l
OOtDIM IM
CM
oo
c-'cm'cdqc
oc
■^"'
c^
CO 1 '^ II M
?r
M
e^
^P]!||
CO
t^
tii
* » * «
ec
<M
O
C<1
1
o
&%
w
o
^
•*c
-T
IC
o
o
lO«
C3
c
o
oicc
<y
r-
cc
CC
CC
t>-
o
e3i
«e
«o
M
-
M-*tO0C
,—
t»
^ eooq -*
oico ^' CT
-^
t^
^ oo a> t--
o
00 CO " r--
o'c-fcc -f
~r
co'
CC
§
«rO
M
w
1?
• S OS
^
a^
3 >.
2
2g
£
> >
►- t
*- S M
SE-Q
Z^-E
= 1
= 3^
o 8
O M^
O 0-
W-a „
o 1
EC S.2
t-5 c
bJ ^-.S
H bfi-^
-iJ += -*J -t-
0.2
0'3 rt
c c c c
nil
=-s .
c« rt rt rt
^1
5T--S
SiSi
►J
^.sl
. — Oj (L' CU Q,
■^
.-a
-a 0;
2 ■*^
2 S S Si fe
6 L^ b. L> ».
c
O
'■a-
'^ S
u 3 3 3 =
t- 3
o'S E's'i
tb
^
M <m' ^' —
ii c
g,o
rt =
rC->
s&
'o-^
■s^
o^^
= o
0&
s'E
O CO
ts
-=
go
_(^
>
■s^-=
^^°
rt o c
=
«TJ
^«i
C
^S
■a <L Jjec
c
1
=r 5 C £9
QOOfl.
X><<X><
O -< iMC-
cotOtOtC
CC CC CO c
_o
o o o c
ss
^eSsss:
to CO cose
1
S'S
278
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
O J P i-
M H O Z
a. z P --
< z K o
O
o
a P &
ill
« S o
nn CO u
zo:
c
o
CM_0
COO
-r CD
na
£ £; °
III
o
O ^ <£>
O M -!
o o -^
CD -— 'cO
IC U5 ■^ CO »0 PO b^
mc <M
o o o t4 m
o
'-' CO
oco=P«-i;
toe o
O O C OC CO
2 JO g TO oc
o
o -r
^O QC — —
occ^i >oo o
OS IC -^
Os_
>pac CD 1-
CD
,— CD
4,702
5,628
5,385
4,381
1,026
05 o O
f; a ? ^-■^ ^.
5 ^2
3 H a
B O
< g S
; o f5
5 J g
; z " .
^2"
-^ ■ E ffl g X z
? fc "o H P- "S ^
C3 c
rt
;»
coa
= ?:•= _ f--
« o =* o c °
o o z
z o
o cs z
Ok S W
c '^ w
Z ««
- O O O X
B H Z
S Z C
fr < E
3-c £:
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
279
: '■
§
§
CO -^ !
CD-*
-V cm"
; CO
■ o
CO
to
Ol
o'
: is
U50-
(>ioc
-t* 00 -
com"-
3 ■ OOO 05
j : roo t-:
V ■ ar^' — "
:?__ ■ 05_co CO
00
CO ■
(m"
o
o
o
o
o'
; i :
O
1
o_
CM
CO
o
CO
oo
o -^
O 05
§
$ 3,882,467.81
11,635,650.80
3,124,665.77
11,612,444.09
165,702.01
5,596.73
6,000.00
147,299.40
162,933,000.00
2,546,642.56
3,453,280.06
45,064,240.46
135,407,162.80
1,979,219.28
2,.351,970.00
321.347.99
co"
a^ 1
K
O
>
p| i
< z
a
5r
>gc
: 3
• >
If
be g
% ^
2l'
: z g
■ o &
■ E'^
"1 H °
iP Z -^
= Hg
SI
i K ^
-^ U o
For Further Costs
Reserves Created With Chesapeake Bay Ferry
System Funds:
For Chesapeake Bay Bridge Costs
"2
1 1
.-ell
^1"
• H
• O
■ C
• S
;«
: o
Uj z
ll
I- o
O K
■a .
State Equity Represented By:
Portion of Bond Proceeds, Net Investment Income
and Project Revenues Invested In:
Su.squehaniia River Toll Bridge
Potomac River Toll Bridge
Chesapeake Bay Toll Bridge
Patapsco Tunnel Project
Federal Grant Invested in Susquehanna River Toll
bC-3
•r-o
— s
o >
>-S
§^
IS
-gpa a
lj^
W
1
3 O O
"S e fc
>£.SS
oo' I ^%^
s
"S
g
m
a
3
«
%
J?-°
ca
rt
%
^
^
^
-o
o
c:
>,
/)
s
-o
ni
3
£
o
c3
%
^
-c
c^
T3
-o
■a
3
n
C
C J=
i
«
r^
3
>
O
H
"K
c
J3
1
"
c.
a
280
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit O, Schedule 1
1, 1954,
FUNDS ADMINISTERED UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER
RELATING TO BRIDGE AND TUNNEL REVENUE BONDS
STATE OF MARYLAND BRIDGE AND TUNNEL REVENUE BONDS
(PAYABLE SOLELY FROM REVENUES OF BRIDGES AND TUNNEL)
SEPTEMBER 30, 1958
Maturity
Principal
Amount
Interest
Rate
Serial Bonus:
October 1, 1960
$ 1,920,000.00
1,980,000.00
2,040,000.00
2,100,000.00
2,170,000.00
2,240,000.00
2,310,000.00
2,380,000.00
2,450,000.00
2,530,000.00
2,610,000.00
2,690,000.00
2,770,000.00
2,860,000.00
2,950,000.00
126,933,000.00
1 75%
October 1, 1961
1 80%
October 1, 1962
1.90%,
October 1 1963
2.00%
2.10%
October 1 , 1964
October 1, 1965
2.25%
October 1, 1966
2.30%
October 1, 1967
2.40%
2.50%
October 1, 1968
October 1, 1969
2 50%
October 1, 1970
2.60%,
October I, 1971
2.60%,
October 1, 1972
2.70%
October 1 , 1973
2.70%
October 1, 1974
2.70%
Term Bonds:
October 1, 1991
3 00%,
TOTAL
$162,933,000.00
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 281
Exhibit P
FUNDS ADMINISTERED UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 1, 1954
RELATING TO BRIDGE AND TUNNEL REVENUE BONDS
STATEMENT SHOWING CHANGES DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30
1958, IN RESERVES CREATED UNDER ARTICLE V OF TRUST AGREEMENT
DATED OCTOBER 1, 1954
Maryland Toll Revenue Projects
Revenue
Fund
Operations
Reserve
Fund
Sinking Fund
Bond Service
Account
Reserve
Account
Redemption
Account
Balance, October 1, 1957
S 153,381.53
$4,052,657.76
$ 425,090.00
$9,892,781.43
$1,035,708..30
Additions:
Total Income
111,651,030.23
Income from Investments
$ 134,355.54
160.16
135.00
4,268.24
$ 49,361.95
$ 334,629.66
Proceeds from sale of property
Proceeds from sale of plans and specifications
Property damage recovery
Transfer from Patapsco Tunnel Construction Fund to provide
for Term Bond Interest payable April 1, 1958. . .
2,042,190.00
1,983,735.00
Transfer from Patapsco Tunnel Construction Fund to provide
for Term Bond Interest payable October 1, 1958
Transfer from Reserve Account
$ 909,271.09
8,432,535.54
Transfer from Maryland Toll Revenue Projects Revenue Fund. .
99,289.03
1,334,255.53
Total Additions
$11,651,030.23
$ 238.207.97
$5,409,542.48
$ 334,629.66
$9,341,806.63
TOTAL
$11,804,411.76
$4,290,865.73
$5,834,632.48
$10,227,411.09
$10,377,514.93
Deductions:
Expenses, excluding General and Administrative Expenses
$1,276,145.12
224,171.94
$ 535,473.49
8,727..33
160.48
295,218.37
6,832.85
General and Administrative Expenses
Expenditures for Patapsco Tunnel Northern Approach Extension:
Legal and Administrative
Construction
Engineering
Transfer to Interest and Sinking Fund:
Bond Service Account
1,334,255.53
8,432,535.54
99,289.03
Redemption Account
Transfer to Operations Reserve Fund
Transfer to Redemption Account
$ 909,271.09
Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Terni Bonds purchased
$9,064,317.50
28,785.00
Premium paid on Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Term Bonds pur-
chased
Accrued interest paid on Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Term
Bonds purchased
$ 63,624.11
2,408,825.00
2,329,085.00
Interest due April 1, 1958
Interest due October 1, 1958
$11,366,397.16
$ 846,412.52 $ 4,801,534.11 | $ 909,271.09 $9,093,102.50
$ 438,014.60
$3,444 453 21 | HI OM nos .'<7 1 *QSi8iinnn 1 ij oai no i-i
' ' ' I
, ^J, *v..v/v 1
282 Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit Q
FUNDS ADMINISTERED UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 1, 1954,
RELATING TO BRIDGE AND TUNNEL REVENUE BONDS
STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSES OF SUSQUEHANNA RIVER, POTOMAC
RIVER, AND CHESAPEAKE BAY TOLL BRIDGES, AND PATAPSC O TUNNEL
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1958
Income:
Toll income based on toll transactions:
Cash tolls
Ticket tolls
Charge tolls
Total toll income based on toll transactions
Collections in excess of calculated tolls— net
Unredeemed toll tickets issued from October 1, 1954 through
September 30, 1955
Sale of stickers for use with commutation tickets
Deposit on commutatiou. tags, transferred from reserve
MLscellaneoas revenue
Total
SrSQDEHANNA
River Toll
Bridge
1111,745,373.70
791,902.45
65,196.10
TOTAL INCOME
Expenses, Excllding Administr.\tive and (;ENf;HAL Expenses:
Operating —
Revenue Fund:
Salaries
Electricity for lighting
Fuel for heating
Printing, including toll tickets
Automobile expenses, including employees' meals
Supplies
Telephone
Uniforms ; .'
Armored car service
Other
Maintenance:
Revenue Fund:
Salaries
Materials and other exi)eiises
Independent contractors
Insurance
OperatioiLs Reserve Fund:
Materials and other expenses
Insurance
Capital properties acquired — renewals
$11,602,472.25
2,037.83
35,524.67
5,849.50
3,822.50
1,323.48
$1,759,509.90
217,025.25
316.80
$11,651,0.30.23
Total Expenses, Excluding Adminis-
trative AND General Expenses:
Revenue Fund
Operations Reser\'e Fund
Total.
Net Operating Income
Ad.ministrative and General Expenses:
Revenue Fund:
Salaries
Expenses for administrative officers and employees.
Trastees fees
Fiscal agents' fees
Accounting and legal fees
Consulting engineer's fees
Printing, slationerj- and office supplies
Association dues
Insurance
Telephone and telegraph
-■Automobile and traveling expense
Publicity and advertising
Office furniture and fixtures
Miscellaneous expenses
Operations Reserve Fund:
Insurance
Capital properties acquired — renewals
Total.
Less:
Revenue Fund:
.\mount received from Patapsco Tunnel Construction Fund
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1958
Amount received from State Roads Commission for services
in connection with operation of \\ illiamsport Bridge
Refund in insurance premiimi paid
Refund of overpayment
Damage reimbursement
Total.
REMAINDER — Net Administrative and
General Expenses
886,716.66
78,944.05
9,016.24
14,022..33
8,412.82
10,859.05
10,466.15
4,195.92
2,721.88
25,176.25
163,941.64
50,.300.43
10,.399.22
972.48
31,158.61
315.203.65
189,111.23
$1,976,851.95
441.70
15,662.87
2.554.50
3,1.34.50
29.42
$1,998,674.94
172,059.22
4,423.11
2,040.01
7,004.14
87.07
2,965.14
2,049.19
1,757.83
Potomac Chesapeake
River Toll Bay Toll
Bridge Bridge
1,879.70
31.42
$2,173,638.32
90,708.79
3,060.04
516.54
983.20
458.85
665.46
2.052.19
594.83
$1,276,145.12
5.35,473.49
$1,811,618.61
$9,839,411.62
264.64
753.13
6.36.42
121. .35
417.52
,.500.00
111.73
000.00
,090.71
399.68
,688.61
,771.52
,865.70
447.07
,794.20
,933.13
$ 241,795.41
5,000.00
3,750.00
97.86
20.00
28.28
8,896.14
$ 232,899.27
NET INCOME $9,606,512.35
6.920.42
14,821.05
5,945.34
416..32
410.62
49.649.66
166,618.99
$ 220,899.46
216.268.65
$ 437.168.11
$1,561,506.83
4,127.94
10.846.45
1,9.35.31
34.37
201.12
20.58
52.583.57
4.571.13
$3,773,954.45
221, .363.75
53,886.70
$4,049,204.90
527.35
17.982.10
554.00
688.00
106.59
$4,069,062.94
$ 116,185.09
57,175.28
$ 173,360.37
$2,000,277.95
138.139.52
5.343.24
2.088.63
3,.356.04
342.12
1,4.35.78
2.156..38
931.40
2,001.88
10,633.42
42,026.23
12,449.32
1,46.3.93
360.74
31,138.03
201,399.66
16,429.89
$ 222,728.63
248,997.58
Patapsco
Tunnel
$3,073,616.35
.331,0.53.55
422.00
$3,405,091.90
665.08
2,741.00
1,156.05
$3,409,654.03
485,809.13
66,117.66
4,.371.06
2,678.95
7,524.78
5,792.67
4,208..39
911.86
720.00
3,494.47
96,247.(11
29,970.4H
8,484.00
11,570.76
1,491.22
$ 471.696.21
$3,597,366.73
$ 716.331.94
13.061.98
$ 729.393.92
$2,680,260.11
284
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Pi
xn
Q
H
Z
n
o
K
pa
X
A
Q
Q
»
Q
Z
O
»
o
O
to"
-r
o
o
s
to
(m"
Patapsco
Tunnel
Construction
Account
oo
o o
QCO"
o
o
o
§
o
CO
CO
t^-oo
O
U5
o'
Oi"
z
o
B n H
O B 2
ape
=! g O
z<
o
oo
05
ooo r~
0CC-)O_
C^' 00 CR
O C-J lO
-^'lO-iO
i
i
Ph
e
z
o
E-
e
z
D
Z
»
o
z
z
z
S f
s o
a "
i
o
i|
1 j
- 1
PS<
re
s
C5
--
o
o
i
of
en
* 1
CO g
o*
s
115
o
§
wi
^11
Z la
2 > o
511
o
i
o
i
o'
CD
to 1
t^ 1
o 1
1
1"
o
o
o
c
oT
US
o
8S
U5IO
—'to
o* r-^-^
O C5 CR
o -r »
to' lO
CO
(M
Total
S 5,740,000.09
50,000.00
43,804.45
25,003.00
18,500.00
31,500.00
197,834.44
48,136,161.70
6,000.00
497.00
5,994.85
4,702,861.84
5,628,250.06
45,359,002.75
109,947,736.45
723,879.77
172,146,000.00
i
{2 1
S^ 1
S 1
0)
hI
z -^
>
c
£
1
c
3
C
t
-a
.-2
-c
z
1
O
%
c
•a
5
2
o £
11
2 c
as
i
i
3
1
1
15
a
z
<
fa
o
z
c
i
s
o
1
B
f;
E
o
o
1
i
:
o
e-
1
Z
z
Z
>
z
•<
Z
1
■<
pp
t-
3
B
- H
^ g
o?
si
o
B
•<
5i
E-
o =
3
E
O
1
"3
"a
i
1
H g
£S
(2
D
O
<
o
Future Toll Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Encum-
bered AND Portion of Existing Sinking Fund
Available for Paying Principal of Bridge and
Tunnel Revenue Bonds
■<
<
1
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
285
^
o
o
o
§
CO
c
o
CO
HI"
o c^
OS »ri
Oa»C
Oi'wD
CD r-
O_co
OS
CO
U5
o
si
im' o o
c-J to' >c
en — ■ -r
§
OS
oo
o
1
in
m
00
oo
CO
00
00
§
o
§
§
o
o
$ 4,052,657.76
-
CC
CD
CO
CD
Oi
CD
"5
n
o t^o
$ 4,206,039.29
11,353,579.73
19,009,929.03
19,375,595.27
192,237.71
5,596.73
6,000.00
102,443.77
3,871.00
172,146,000.00
2,546,642.56
3,453,280.06
45,064,240.46
110,671,616.22
1.979,219.28
2,351,970.00
294,762.29
o
o_
CO
Oi
LIABILITIES
Reserves Created Under Article V of Trust
Agreement:
For oneratine exoenses and other costs
1
Oh
1
H
T3
"3 £
i
o
o
l-H
gg
a -^
n
O c
^ s
^ =
gi
r
1
a
!-
a
<
" 1
5 1
.- >
ill
IP
1
■§
a-o
a c
Is
o
i
1
1
£
e
o
o
a
■<
a
a
K
oa
b.
O
a
p
z
a
^
a
S
o
K
..3
z
o
a
<
|g
PQ
State Equity Represented By:
Portion of Bond Proceeds, Net Investment Income and
Project Revenues Invested In:
SiLsniiphanna River Toll Rridirp
T
(E
"c
t-
t-
>
c<
E
- c
1
>
c
c
■|
1
I
>
2
c
i
D
T3
•1
C
c
O ^
6
m
E
=
c
P~
^c
>
c
1
C
)—
T
i
1
c
a
COffi
fe >
... «
li
)
<
<
286
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
Exhibit S
FUNDS administered UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 1, 1954,
RELATING TO BRIDGE AND TUNNEL REVENUE BONDS
STATEMENT SHOWING CHANGES DURING THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1957, IN RESERVES CREATED UNDER ARTICLE V OF TRUST
AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 1, 1954
Maryland Toll Revenite Projects
Revenxte
Fund
Operations
Reserve
Fund
Sinking Fund
Bond Service
Account
Reserve
Account
Redemption
Account
Balance, October 1, 1956
$ 202,298.20
9,166,233.39
$3,631,813.96
$ 425,090.00
$10,293,424.45
$ 167.92
Additions:
Total Income
Income from Investments
77,650.02
3,279.38
3,575.82
883.39
69,970.53
336,836.50
Return of premium on Faithful Performance Bond
Transfer from Patapsco Tunnel Construction Fund to provide
for term bond interest payable April 1, 1957
2,146,635.00
2,107,035.00
Transfer from Patapsco Tunnel Construction Fund to provide
for term bond interest payable October 1, 1957
737,479.52
801,872.92
737,524.62
6,966,485.86
Total Additions
$9,166,233.39
$ 887,261.53
$5,061,165.15
$ 336,836.50
$7,703,965.38
TOTAL
19,368,531.59
$4,519,075.49
$5,486,255.15
$10,630,260.95
$7,704,133.30
DEorcTiONs:
$ 534,929.41
174,337.25
$ 173.972.30
142.85
4,307.50
452.13
271,935.86
15,607.09
General and Administrative Expenses
Expenditures for Patapsco Tunnel Northern Approval Extension:
Administrative and Legal
Land and Rights-of-Way
Construction
Engineering
Transfer to Interest and Sinking Fund:
Bond Service Account
737,524.62
6,966,485.86
801,872.92
Redemption Account
Transfer to Operating Reseri'e Fund fAccount of 1956-57,
$370,161.95; Account of 1957-58, $431,710.97)
Transfer to Redemption Account . .
$737,479.52
Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Term Bonds purchased . . .
$6,668,425.00
Accrued interest paid on Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Term
Bonds purchased
$ 61,760.15
2,532,125.00
2,467,280.00
Interest due April 1, 1957
Interest due October 1, 1957
ToT.4L Deductions
$9,215,150.06
$ 466,417.73
$5,061,165.15
$ 737,479.52
$6,668,425.00
Balance, September 30, 1957
$ 153,381.53
$4,052,657.76
$ 425,090.00
$9,892,781.43
$1,035,708.30
p
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland 287
Exhibit T
FUNDS ADMINISTERED UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED
OCTOBER 1, 1954, RELATING TO BRIDGE AND TUNNEL REVENUE BONDS
STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSES OF SUSQUEHANNA RIVER, POTOMAC
RIVER, AND CHESAPEAKE BAY TOLL BRIDGES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1957
Total
Susquehanna
River Toll
Bridge
Potomac
River Toll
Bridge
Chesapeake
Bay Toll
Bridge
Income:
Toll income based on toll transactions:
Cash tolk
$8,593,570.50
482,311.34
63,335.55
$1,481,479.15
217,981.29
386.70
$2,207,197.20
17,286.40
10,447.80
$4,904,894.15
247,043.65
52,501.05
Ticket tolls
Charge tolls
Total toll income based on toll transactions
19,139,217.39
2,131.22
19,069.09
5,557.00
258.69
$1,699,847.14
122.81
8,826.19
4,520.00
32.48
$2,234,931.40
631.71
$5,204,438.85
1,376.70
10,242.90
Collections in excess of calculated tolls— net
Unredeemed toll tickets issued from October 1, 1953, through September 30, 195-1
Sale of stickers for use with commutation tickets
1 037.00
Miscellaneous revenue. . .
129.16
97 05
TOTAL INCOME
19,166,233.39
$1,713,348.62
$2,235,692.27
$5,217,192.50
Expenses, Excluding Administrative and General Expenses:
Operating —
Revenue Fund:
Salaries
$ 389,114.46
12,092.76
4,855.59
9,423.13
1,382.63
3,638.47
2,518.49
2,144.71
1,249.42
1,264.44
72,702.34
19,932.57
3,6.35.96
3,239.60
7,734.84
22,541.35
28,691.38
122,739.57
$ 172,185.85
4,297.15
2,160.69
7,085.77
366.99
2,120.73
643.89
961.13
$ 83,194.91
3,045.58
569.35
562.80
298.35
548.11
733.62
461.60
$ 133 733 70
Electricity for lighting
4,750.03
2,125.55
1 774 56
Fuel for heating
Printing, including toll tickets
Automobile expenses, including employees' meals
717.29
Supplies
969 63
Telephone
1,140.98
721 98
Uniforms
Armored car service
1,249.42
Other
571.48
14,804.40
5,935.90
2,271.85
1,. 324.55
2,265.81
63.89
14,034.25
3,198.91
76.98
720.38
3,831.89
629 07
Maintenance:
Salaries
43 863 69
10 797.76
Independent contractors
1 287 13
1,194.67
1 637 14
Capital properties acquired — new
Operations Reserve Fund:
Independent contractors
22,541.35
Insurance
7,865.65
89,479.44
8,570.80
30,092.95
12 254 93
Capital properties acquired — renewals
3,167.18
Total Expenses, Excluding Administrative and General
Expenses:
Revenue Fund
S 534,929.41
173,972.30
$ 216,996.19
97,345.09
$ 111,340.62
38,663.75
$ 206,592.60
Operations Reserve Fund
37,963.46
$ 708,901.71 $ 314,341.28
$ 150,004.37
$ 244,556.06
Net Operating Income
18,457,331.68 | $1,399,007.34
$2,085,687.90
$4,972,636.44
Administrative and General Expenses:
Revenue Fund:
Salaries ....
$ 106.905.08
489.80
28,022.50
11,541.59
8,955.59
12,000.00
4,400.00
4,447.38
1,000.00
2,831.32
1,509.87
4,188.79
8,337.68
3,629.49
942.57
142.85
Expenses for administrative offices and employees
Trustee's fees
Fiscal agent's fees
Accounting and legal fees
Consulting engineer's fees
Office rent
Association dues
Telephone and telegraph
Automobile and traveling expense
Publicity and advertising
Office furniture and fixtures
Miscellaneous expenses
Operations Reserve Fund-
Capital properties acquired — renewals
Total
$ 199,344.51
Less:
Amount received from State Roads Commission for services in con-
nection with operation of '\\ illiamsport Toll Bridge
Amount received from Baltimore County Revenue Authority for
services in connection with operation of Bear Creek Toll Bridge. .
Amount received from Patapsco Tunnel Construction Fund
$ 5,000.00
3,000.00
15,000.00
36.40
1,828.01
Sale of waste paper
Refund of compensation insurance premium
Total
$ 24,864.41
REMAINDER— Net Administrative and General Expenses.
$ 174,480.10
■JET INCOME
$8,282,851.58
288
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
FUNDS ADMINISTERED UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 1,
RELATING TO BRIDGE AND TUNNEL REVENUE BONDS
STATEMENT SHOWING DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS, PATAPSCO TUNNEL
CONSTRUCTION FUND, BY PERIODS, FROM DECEMBER 7, 1954,
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1958
Exhibit U i
1954,
December 7,
1954, TO
September 30,
1956
Fiscal Year
Ended Sept-
ember 30, 1957
Fiscal Year | December 7,
Ended Sept- . 1954, to
EMBER 30, 1958 September 30,
1958
Deposits:
Proceeds from sale of Bridge and Tunnel Revenue Bonds dated October
1, 1954, and sold December 7, 1954, including accrued interest of
$947,866.33
Less:
Portion applied toward redemption of Bridge Revenue
Bonds (Series 1948) $34,037,000.00
Accrued interest from October 1, 1954, through Decem-
ber 7, 1954, deposited with the Trustee to the credit
of Bond Service Account 947,866.33
$178,841,866.33
34,984,866.33
Remainder
Proceeds from sale or redemption of United States Obligations (Invest-
ment Securities)
Interest on United States Obligations:
Earned
Recovery of accrued interest purchased
Recovery of payments made in connection with acquisition of rights-of-
way, etc
Sale of plans and specifications
Sale of land not needed for rights-of-way
Sale of material, etc., not needed
$143,857,000.00
90,3.33,192.58
2,893,329.13
469,679.91
263,606.48
26,327.00
Total Deposits
Withdrawals:
Expenditures for Patapsco Tunnel Project Costs:
Preliminary expenses
Land and rights-of-way
Construction
Engineering
Administrative and legal
Maintenance and office equipment and supplies
Transfer to Bond Service Account for interest on outstanding term
bonds
Financing expenses
Total
Purchase of United States Obligations (Investment Securities)
Accrued interest on United States Obligations purchased
Expenditures made in connection with acquisition of rights-of-way, etc.,
subsequently recovered
Purchase of land subsequently sold
Purchase of material subsequently sold
Total Withdrawals.
$237,843,135.10
$ 455,121.80
7,914,968.10
34,923,615.52
5,151,873.19
161,233.31
12,709.78
7,821,870.00
165,928.85
$56,607,320.55
$178,712,792.07
469,679.91
263,606.48
$236,053,399.01
Excess of Deposits over Withdrawals .
Cash Balance at Beginning of Period .
Cash Balance at End of Period
Investment in L'nited States Obligations — at cost.
Total Cash and Investments at End of Period . . . .
$ 1,789,736.09
$ 1,789,736.09
88,300,000.00
$ 90,089,736.09
110,537,623.13
1,593,259.49
87,199.44
97,030.35
529.34
6,150.00
8,914.77
$112,330,706.52
$ 1,491,226.73
45,142,.327.80
2,295,567.38
72,714.99
84,909.00
4,253,670.00
$53,340,415.90
$56,837,701.39
87,199.44
97,030.35
6,150.00
8,914.77
$110,377,411.85
$ 1,953,294.67
1,789,736.09
$ 3,743,030.76
.34,642,493.54
$ 38,385,524.30
97,282,262.80
719,360.89
134,935.36
37,619.27
900.00
4,610.00
98,179,688.32
$ 1,005,696.54
17,300,467.13
1,287,506.93
425,335.95
388,403.33
4,025,925.00
$24,433,334.88
$76,066,793.32
134,9.35.36
37,619.27
4,610.00
$100,677,292.83
* 2,497, 604. .51
3,743,030.76
$ 1,245,426.25
13,491,683.61
$ 14,737,109.86
$178,841,866.33
34,984,866.33
$143,857,000.00
298,153,078.51
5,205,949.51
691,814.71
398,256.10
27,756.34
6,150.00
13,524.77
$448,353,529.94
455,121.80
10,411,891.37
97,366,410.45
8,734,947.50
659,284.25
486,022.11
16,101,465.00
165,928.85
$134,381,071.33
$311,617,286.78
691,814.71
.398,256.10
6,150.00
13,524.77
$447,108,103.69
$ 1,245,426.25
$ 14,737,109.86
Italics indicate red figures.
Report of the State Roads Commission of Maryland
289
Exhibit V
Susquehanna River Toll Bridge:
Passenger cars, etc.:
Rate through October 31, 1957
Rate effective Xovember 1, 1957 . .
Ruses on Schedule Run (local) (commutation rate)
Passenger cars, etc.— Maryland tags (commutation rate)
Passenger cars, etc.-Out of state tags (commutation rate)
2-Axle vehicles:
Rate through October 31, 1957
Rate effective November 1 , 1 957 .....!.''! !
3-Axle vehicles
4-Axle vehicles:
Rate through October 31, 1957
Rate effective November 1, 1957. ... ..'.
2- Axle vehicles (commutation rate)
3-Axle vehicles (commutation rate)
4-Axle vehicles (commutation rate) . . . .
5-Axle and unusual vehicles
Official duty vehicles '
Toll
Rate
Total .
$ .20
.25
.15
.01
.03
.25
.30
.40
.40
.45
.20
.30
.30
.55 Min.
Free
Potomac Rh'er Toll Bridge:
Passenger cars, etc
Passenger cars, etc. (commutation rate)
Passenger cars and 1-axle trailers
Motorcycles
2-Axle vehicles
3-Axle vehicles [
4-Axle vehicles
5-Axle vehicles
Buses
Unusual vehicles
Official duty vehicles
Total.
$1.00
.50
1.40
.40
1.10
1.50
2.50
3.00
1.50
5.00
Free
Chesapeake Bav Toll Bridge:
Passenger cars, etc. (Rate through October 31 1957)
Passenger cars, etc. with extra passengers (Rat« effective
November 1, 1957)
Passenger cars, etc. with driver' only' (Rate effective
November 1, 1957)
Passenger cars, etc. commutation, with driver only
Passenger cars, etc. commutation, with extra passengers
(Rate effective November 1, 1957)
Passenger car and one-axle trailer:
Rate through October 31, 1957
Rate effective November 1, 1957
Passenger car and two-axle trailer:
Rate through October 31, 1957
Rate effective November 1, 1957
Buses on scheduled run \
2-Axle vehicles
3-Axle vehicles
4-Axle vehicles
5-Axle vehicles
Motorcycles
Unusual vehicles
Official duty vehicles
Total Motor Vehicles .
Passengers in vehicles 25
Passengers in vehicles (commutation rate) . . . . . . . . . . .10
S1.40
1.50
1.25
.35
2.10
1.90
2.80
2.50
1.50
2.25
3.50
4.50
5.00
1.00
5.00
Free
Total Passengers .
Total.
Patapsco Tunnel*
Passenger cars, etc
Passenger cars, etc. (commutation rate) .
2-Axle vehicles
3-Axle vehicles
4-Axle vehicles
5-Axle or more vehicles
Buses ' '
Official duty vehicles
Total .
$ .40
.25
.60
.70
.85
.95
.70
Free
Fiscal Year Ended September 30,
1958
Traffic
Volume
368,158
5,107,808
722
1,262,649
159,002
16,285
172,531
230,892
54,051
537,564
76,236
121,821
447,255
4,. 3,34
24,264
8,583,570
Toll
Income
1,794,578
10, .300
26,365
1,518
.38,438
32,370
90,909
365
5,702
1,264
.3,127
; 73,631.20
1,276,952.00
108.30
12,626.49
4,770.06
4,071.25
51,759.30
92,,356.80
21,620.40
241,903.80
15,247.20
36,546.30
134,176.50
11,082.,35
1957
Traffic
Volume
81,976,851.9
2,004,936
$1,794,578.00
5,150.00
.36,911.00
607.20
42,281.80
48,555.00
227,272.50
1,095.00
8,553.00
6,320.00
$2,171,323.50
158,324
1,484,523
416,866
97,367
52,652
1,735
19,179
4,359
7,517
84,377
61,672
94,005
902
1,118
1,065
42,104
2,528,404
t
8,270
5 221,653.60
2,226,784.50
521,082.50
34,078.45
2.3,693.40
3,643.50
36,440.10
1,789.20
10,897.50
11,275.50
189,848.25
215,852.00
423,022.50
4,510.00
1,118.00
5,325.00
$3,931,014.00
117,363.90
827.00
$ 118,190.90
6,121,855
657,693
191,692
217,0.39
594,425
1,858
25,654
145,384
7,955,600
$4,049,204.90
$2,448,742.00
164,423.25
115,015.20
151,927.30
505,261.25
1,765.10
17,957.80
$3,405,091.90
5,455,210
2,836
1,277,780
222,818
204,013
Toll
Income
$1,091,042.00
425.40
12,777.80
6,684.54
51,003.25
247,171
600,860
76,080
150,736
419,046
4,275
23,854
98,868.40
240,,344.00
8,684,679
1,882,566
8,802
25,894
1,798
.39,946
36,915
79,124
266
6,045
801
2,814
15,216.00
45,220.80
125,713.80
12,551.15
$1,699,847.14
2,084,971
2,356,253
$1,882,566.00
4,401.00
36,251.60
719.20
43,940.60
55,372.50
197,810.00
798.00
9,067.50
4,005.00
$2,234,931.40
$3,298,754.20
23,338
4,671
6,950
85,400
68,414
82,863
1,789
1,472
684
41,342
57,078.00
49,009.80
13,078.80
2,836,256
3,794,227
92,168
3,886,395
10,425.00
192,150.00
239,449.00
372,883.50
8,945.00
1,472.00
3,420.00
$4,246,665.30
948,556.75
9,216.80
$957,773.55
$5,204,438.85
* Open to traffic 12:01 A. M., November 30, 1957.
T From November 1, 1957 number of passengers is indeterminate.
A History
OF
Road Building in Maryland
State Roads Commission of Maryland
1958
FOREWORD
The story of road building in Maryland is fascinating. It typifies the
march of civilization, its strivings, its mistakes, and its amazing accom-
plishments. It is really the story of road building in America.
It takes us from Colonial footpaths — Indian trails and buffalo traces —
to our modern dual-lane expressways with their grassy, landscaped
median strips and their spectacular interchanges — to bridges over our
great rivers and Chesapeake Bay and to the tunnel under Baltimore's
harbor.
Maryland's mountains, marshes, rolling valleys and broad fields, to-
gether with her rivers and vast expanses of water, furnish the road
builder challenges which have produced many significant contributions
to highway development in the United States.
For fifty years Maryland's highways have been the concern of the State
Roads Commission. On its Golden Anniversary the Commission presents
*'A History of Road Building in Maryland."
Charles T. LeViness did the necessary research and recorded the facts.
He has written an illuminating tale. He has been assisted by other mem-
bers of the Commission's staff and by J. William Hunt of Cumberland,
who has edited portions of the text. The Commission is indebted to them
and to all others who have helped in the preparation of this interesting
and informative story.
We particularly want to express our appreciation to the Bureau of
Public Roads, which made available source material and illustrations ;
and to William T. Claude, the Commission's photographer, for many of
the current photographs.
A HISTORY OF ROAD BUILDING IN MARYLAND
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Part I
Highways and Byways of the Past
Chapter I — The Maryland Road System in Washington's Day 1
Chapter II —The National Road That Opened the West 19
Chapter III —The Road the Maryland Banks Built 29
Chapter IV —The Good Roads Movement 39
Part ii
The First Twenty Years of the State Roads Commission (1908-1928)
Chapter V —The First State Roads System 51
Chapter VI —Meeting the Problems of World War I 63
Chapter VII — Maryland Roads in the Roaring Twenties 69
Chapter VIII — Washington Boulevard — Rise and Fall of No. 1 75
Chapter IX — Highway Housekeeping — Study of Maryland Maintenance 87
Chapter X —The "Lab" 97
Part III
The Second Twenty Years of the State Roads Commission (1928-1948)
Chapter XI — Depression Strikes the Road System 101
Chapter XII — Slow-down in Construction Ill
Chapter XIII — The Planning Agencies — Blueprint of the Future 115
Chapter XIV — Spanning the Early Waterways 121
Chapter XV —Modern Bridges 131
Chapter XVI — The Chesapeake Bridge and the Primary Program 139
Chapter XVII —World War II and the Access Roads 149
Part IV
The Last Decade (1948-1958)
Chapter XVIII— The Post-War Boom 157
Chapter XIX —The Twelve Year Program 165
Chapter XX —The Interstate System 177
Chapter XXI —The Baltimore Tunnel Thruway 185
Chapter XXII —The New Techniques 193
Chapter XXIII — The Commission's Lawyers 201
Chapter XXIV— The Multi-Colored Facets of the Traffic Division 205
Chapter XXV —Picnic Sites and the Litterbug 215
Chapter XXVI— The Roads Commission Today 219
Conclusion — The Road Ahead 237
FIFTIETH BIRTHDAY. The golden anniversary meeting of the State Roads Com-
mission in 1958 is preceded by the cutting of a birthday cake. On the table are the
"golden milestones" won by the Commission in 1954 and 1956 for excellence in high-
way programming. In the picture are, from left, Commissioner Edgar T. Bennett,
Chairman Robert O. Bonnell, Governor Theodore R. McKeldin and Commissioner
John J. McMtdlen.
A HISTORY OF ROAD BUILDING IN
MARYLAND
Part I
HIGHWAYS AND BYWAYS OF THE PAST
Chapter I
THE MARYLAND ROAD SYSTEM IN WASHINGTON'S DAY
When George Washington dehvered his Farewell Address in 1796,
Maryland was 162 years old — just half of her present age as this is
written.
Founded in 1634 as an English province, Maryland had become in that
time a comparatively rich and powerful member of a new union of in-
dependent states. As an example of her wealth she was able in 1796
to lend the struggling federal government $100,000 to start a building
program in the new city of Washington — but prudently required three
personal endorsements to guarantee repayment.^
In the concert of the thirteen states strung along the Atlantic seaboard
Maryland's voice was relatively powerful. Her record in the recent War
for Independence had been excellent. Her representatives in the several
congresses had been men of strength and vision. The first President of
the re-formed Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation
had been a Marylander, John Hanson — eight years before Washington
became President under the new constitution.
The province had pushed through almost single-handedly the Mary-
land Plan for the new government, a keystone of the constitution which
assured that the rich territory west of the mountains and beyond the Ohio
should be public lands and even states some day.
Part of Maryland's strength in those days undoubtedly was due to her
geographical location. Although one of the smallest of the original states,
Scharf's History of Maryland, Baltimore (1879), Vol. II, page 572.
2 A History of Road Building in Maryland
she had the seacoast, the mountains, the great Bay and numerous ports
of entry for foreign ships. Also the new federal capital was being built
on the banks of the Potomac on land Maryland had ceded for the purpose.
Maryland was then, as she is today, the natural corridor for land trans-
portation up and down the Atlantic Coast. Situated at half-way point
in the new union, the state was criss-crossed by post routes carrying the
mail from north to south; and interstate coach and wagon trails served
both passengers and freight.
By 1796 most of the great through-traffic routes of today were in serv-
ice— and on substantially the same locations.
In addition, there were several important interstate arteries in use
w^hich do not even exist today — trails hacked through forest and moun-
tain to serve necessity and which were allowed to revert to nature when
the need ended.
These early roads of Maryland were not planned, in the sense that
our engineers lay out routes today. Like Topsy, they just grew.
In the early days of the province Maryland's great transportation sys-
tem was made up of the Chesapeake Bay and its countless tributaries
which have been compared to the heart, arteries and veins of the human
body.-
Naturally enough, the first roads stemmed from the little settlement at
St. Mary's ; they connected heads of rivers and ran to public landings.
The first long road of the province is said to have been from St. Mary's
City south to Point Lookout, a distance of twelve miles and now a part
of State Route 5.
The First Road Law
Maryland's first road law — the original ancestor of hundreds which
have followed throughout the years — was passed by the colonial Assembly
in 1666. -^ It required the County Commissioners of each county to lay out
a road system that would make the heads of rivers and creeks "passable
for horse and foot." The act further provided for the appointment of
overseers to build and maintain the roads, a tax against the inhabitants
which could be paid in tobacco or in labor, and fines for non-performance.
- Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 110.
Note: — The "Geological Survey" references are to the bound volumes of the
reports of the Maryland Geological Survey Commission printed in Baltimore
between 1897 and 1910 and found in the Enoch Pratt Free Library and other
places. Their highway reports contain a wealth of information on the condition
of Maryland roads at the time as well as historical data from the past.
'Acts of 1666, Chapter 134; Ibid, page 112.
The Maryland Road System in Washington's Day 3
From the language of this law several conclusions may be drawn.
Even in a community where major travel was by water-ways, roads were
necessary to join the heads of streams. No wagons or coaches were con-
sidered. Travel was strictly by horse and foot.
The public authorities were to build and maintain the roads and the
agency selected was the county government— a policy that continued al-
most without interruption until establishment of the State Roads Com-
mission in 1908.
Thereafter a number of trails were hewn out of Southern Maryland
forests for short distances and at least one inter-county road for pack-
horses was built from Port Tobacco, then county seat of Charles. It ran
through Allen's Fresh and Chaptico to Leonardtown, in St. Mary's County,
Here it connected with the existing road to the provincial capital at St.
Mary's. Nearly fifty miles in length, it was for many years one of Mary-
land's principal thoroughfares.
Meanwhile the little colony was expanding. Both northern Maryland
and the Eastern Shore were being populated by settlers attracted by the
rich and virgin farm land and the prospects of trade.
The Herman Highway
In 1662 Augustine Herman, who had made the best early map of the
province, was granted a large tract of land in what is now Cecil County.
He called it Bohemia Manor after his homeland.
At this point the Delmarva Peninsula is only twenty miles wide and
Herman promptly built a road across it to connect the Chesapeake Bay
region with the Delaware River. ^ When Cecil County was established in
1674 the county government built other roads from the Susquehanna to
the Sassafras rivers, including a primitive version of present-day U. S.
213.
In 1956 Herman was given belated recognition for his early interest
in road-building. The State Roads Commission having re-built U. S. 213
to modern standards, officially proclaimed it the "Augustine Herman
Highway."
By the end of the Seventeenth Century the province had expanded
northward and eastward so rapidly that it had completely outgrown its
early capital at St. Mary's City. The seat of government was transferred
to the thriving town of Annapolis, which had become the cultural as well
as the population center of Maryland.
Johnston's History of Cecil County (1881), page 74.
4 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Baltimore was non-existent but there were a number of promising
settlements around the head of the Patapsco. Baltimore County was
busy building roads but having trouble keeping them up. The Eastern
Shore had been settled all along the Chesapeake and roads of a sort con-
nected the towns and ports, of which the busiest was Oxford in Talbot
County, then called "William Stadt."
Maryland's First Post Road
It was at this time in the life of the province, in the closing years of
the Seventeenth Century, that the first post road was established in
Maryland.
If England could have prevented post roads in America there might
have been no revolution and no union of separate states. No one factor
gave the colonies a greater feeling of unity than the interchange of mail,
newspapers and magazines. Before the post their eyes were turned to
England and the mail boats brought them news of the motherland. There
was little communication among the colonies. After the post they turned
to each other.
To Annapolis came pamphlets from Boston, New York, Philadelphia
and Charleston. From Annapolis went a variety of printed matter, in-
cluding The Maryland Gazette, a Seventeenth Century newspaper still
being printed today and the oldest weekly in the United States.
Maryland's first established mail route was opened in 1695. It furnished
service by a postman on horseback eight times a year from the Potomac
to Philadelphia. The service started at or near Cobb Island in Charles
County, where it picked up mail from Williamsburg and the South. From
there it went through Aliens Fresh to Benedict, where it crossed the
Patuxent by ferry and generally followed the course of present State
Route 2 to Annapolis. Thence it crossed the Bay by sail to Oxford, up
the Shore by the general course of U. S. 213 and through Herman's Plan-
tation to New Castle. The last leg of the trip was by water up the Dela-
ware to Philadelphia, where it connected with other posts from the north.
Maryland cleared or opened no new roads for the first post. The post-
man, John Perry, received a salary of fifty dollars a year and rode the
pack-horse trails of the day.''
Trails Widened For Carts
At about the same time the first post was organized, carts for hauling
freight began to appear on Maryland foot-paths. There was no law to
"Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 119.
The Maryland Road System in Washington's Day 5
bar them from the roads but the traffic problem suddenly became acute.
There was talk of legislating them out of existence but also there was sup-
port for another measure to meet the crisis: widen the roads.
The first record of widening roads to accommodate wheeled vehicles is
found in Baltimore County and the first road ordered to be so improved
was the predecessor of our present U. S. 40 east of Baltimore.
By 1695 this road had been in existence for some years as far east as
Havre de Grace. In that year the county authorities ordered the road
widened to thirty feet to make it passable for carts. It also ordered the
substitution of bridges for ferries. However, this order was not fully
carried out as ferries continued to ply the rivers and it was many years
before the road attained a thirty-foot width.
The example of Baltimore County had an important impact on the
colonial Assembly, for in 1704 it passed a sweeping law requiring all main
roads in the province to be widened to twenty feet."
Viewed in retrospect, this road-building program was a crude and sim-
ple job. First, the roadway was cleared and grubbed to a width of twenty
feet. Then ditches were dug along the edges for drainage and the earth
so removed was thrown on the road toward the center, forming a crown.
There was no rolling or leveling as traffic was relied on to compact the
surface.
The resulting product was a fairly good driving surface in dry weather
but when it rained the road was muddy and sometimes impassable. Every
spring the road had to be almost entirely rebuilt.
Simple as the task may seem to modern generations, the road program
of 1704 presented a serious problem to the people; for no money at all
had been appropriated for the project.
The county overseers were required to conscript what labor was needed.
Plantation owners were forced to send to the local overseer "all their tax-
able male servants." Freemen also were required to work the roads.
Heavy penalties were assessed against all delinquents, including the over-
seer himself if he should "neglect to clear the roads under his charge."
Aside from labor, which was the critical problem, the other details of
road construction were easier. Property owners gladly donated the land
needed for rights of way, road machinery was pick-and-shovel and road
material was merely the earth itself.
The records do not show how soon or in what mileage the principal
roads of the province were widened to twenty feet. Slowly in some
"Acts of 1704 (Bacon's Laws) Chapter 21; Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill,
page 120.
6 A History of Road Building in Maryland
quarters, more rapidly in others, a road system developed in Maryland
capable of handling the new carts — and later the wagons and the stages.
American Athens
The first half of the Eighteenth Century was the golden age of Annap-
olis and many roads were built to connect it with all corners of the
province. By 1699 the seat of government had been transferred there,
a port of entry established, an academy founded named King William
School (now St. John's College) and Annapolis was well on her way to
becoming what she was universally called, "The Athens of America."
The Rolling Roads
Since the economy of the new capital was securely anchored to the to-
bacco trade, one of the first acts was the building of four "rolling roads" '
into the city. The records do not disclose the location of these special
paths but their utility was obvious. They were built to roll hogsheads of
tobacco from nearby plantations down to the port of Annapolis. Their
motive power, in addition to gravity, was at first slaves and later oxen.
One of the early "rolling roads" built to carry hogsheads of tobacco fro))i the planta-
tions to the ship waiting to transport it to England.
' Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 124.
The Maryland Road System in Washington's Day 7
The building of these rolling roads spread to every tobacco-growing
section of the colony but their use did not long outlive the coming of sturdy
w^agons. At least one such trail survives today by name and probably by
location. It is Baltimore County's Rolling Road. It begins in Rockdale
at Liberty Road, runs through Catonsville and ends at Relay, across the
Patapsco from the then thriving port of Elkridge. It is said to have
been built in 1714 by William Summers, of Garrison.^
From Annapolis roads soon fanned out in all directions. One of the
first was a new overland post route to Philadelphia on the north and
Williamsburg on the south. Jonathan Dickinson of Philadelphia wrote
in 1717 : "We have a settled post from Maryland and Virginia whereby
advices from Boston to Williamsburg are complete in four weeks, from
March to December, and in double that time in the other months of the
year." ••
Poor Richard's Almanac for 1733 gives the northern route of the post
road as follows: From Annapolis to Patapsco Ferry (Baltimore), Gun-
powder Ferry, Susquehanna Ferry, North East, Elk River, New Castle,
Chester and Philadelphia, a total distance of 145 miles.
This road ran up the south shore of the Severn River along what later
was called the General's Highway (so named because Washington used
it when going to Annapolis at the close of the Revolutionary War to sur-
render his commission as Commander-in-Chief) . It is now State Route
178.
It crossed the fledgling settlement of Baltimore by Great Eastern Road ^•'
which then bisected what is now Charles and Saratoga Streets. It fol-
lowed the route of Old Philadelphia Road (State Route 7) on the general
course of Pulaski Highway, present-day U. S. 40 northeast from Baltimore.
Annapolis Becomes Chief City
From Annapolis southward the early maps show two main post routes.
One led directly from Annapolis to Oxon Hill on the Potomac, where
ferries carried the mail to Alexandria and the south. The other branched
off from the first about one mile west of the Patuxent River, ran through
Upper Marlboro and ended at Piscataway, which then was a busy port
on the Potomac.^^
Since Mount Vernon is directly across the river, this road was a favorite
route for Washington on his many trips through Maryland. Both of
^Baltimore Sun Library: "Rolling Roads."
"Watson, Annals of Philadelphia, Vol. II, page 392.
'"Owens, Baltimore on the Chesapeake (1941), page 28.
" Griffith's Map of Maryland, 1794, Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore.
8
A History of Road Building in Maryland
these roads have long since disappeared although sections no doubt still
exist as parts of current highways.
The road from Annapolis to Bladensburg was built in mid-Eighteenth
Century. From Bladensburg the road branched off to Rockville and Fred-
erick. A second road to Baltimore was built before the end of the cen-
tury. It crossed the Severn at Annapolis and followed the north shore
of the river, along the course of our present Ritchie Highway (State
Route 2).
Thus Annapolis, for a time the chief city of the province, had a system
of roads well befitting its station. It had a splendid race track, was the
political hub of Maryland and established the first social club in America,
the South River Club, still in active existence.
The Rise of Baltimore
But Annapolis had a relatively short-lived pre-eminence both in popu-
lation and in commerce. Baltimore, chartered 21 years after the Amer-
ican Athens, eclipsed it by the end of the Eighteenth Century.
The Patapsco basin had the makings of a great port and the people
of Baltimore soon transformed its shallow harbor and marshy banks into
a maritime center. Grain was ex-
ported to Europe and the manu-
factured products of England and
the continent were brought back
in return.
Baltimore quickly developed an
affinity with southern Pennsyl-
vania which had been settled by a
sturdy German stock. The first
roads of consequence were those
planned to connect these sections.
The farmers of York County
found that they were only about 50
miles from the Patapsco port
while they were some 90 miles
from their Pennsylvania port of
Philadelphia.
A direct wagon road from York
to Baltimore was a natural and in-
evitable result of economics and
geography. It was built by both
The Maryland Road System in Washington's Day
GETTYSBURG
P E /VX^ SX^^ V A N I A
UTTLESTOWN
communities in the early 1740's.
It was an instant success and in a
single month after its opening "no
less than sixty wagons loaded with
flaxseed came down to Baltimore
from the back country." i-
It followed, with remarkably
little change through the centuries,
the present course of U. S. Ill
which is now supplemented by the
almost-completed Baltimore-Har-
risburg Expressway.
West of York lies Adams Coun-
ty, even farther from Philadelphia,
and this area was penetrated in
the 1740's by two main routes
from Baltimore. The first ran
through Reisterstown and West-
minster to Littlestown and Gettys-
burg (the present route of U. S.
140). The second branched off
from the first at Reisterstown and
went almost due north to the sub-
stantial Dutch settlement of Han-
over (State Route 30).
In the latter part of the Eight-
eenth Century a second road from
Baltimore to the northeast was found necessary to tap the rich fields of
Pennsylvania's Lancaster and Chester counties and to bring the farm
products of Baltimore and Harford counties directly to the markets and
the port.
This road started at or near dockside, ran out Baltimore's present
Bel Air road through the settlements of Perry Hall, Kingsville and Bel
Air, crossed the Susquehanna at or near Conowingo and ended at Oxford,
in Pennsylvania. Here connections were made with Philadelphia (the
present route of U. S. 1). A branch from this road was built due east
from the present site of Rising Sun and led to Newark and Newcastle,
thus connecting Baltimore by another direct road with the Delaware
River ports. This branch may be identified on 195S maps as State
Route 273.
^- Morse, American Geography, page 466; Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page
132.
10 A History of Road Building in Maryland
The Eastern Shore Has A Flourishing Roads System
Meanwhile the Eastern Shore had been settled and a whole network of
local dirt roads connected the various towns.
The first post road of 1695 which ran from Newcastle south to Oxford
was widened in the Eighteenth Century and extended southward across
a Choptank River ferry to Cambridge, Vienna, Salisbury and as far as
St. Martin's (near present-day Berlin), where it stopped at a junction
with an inter-colony road which ran the whole length of the Delmarva
Peninsula.
This north-south highway,^-^ roughly the U. S. 13 and U. S. 113 of today,
started at Newcastle, ran through Dover, Milford and Georgetown in
Delaware, St. Martin's, Snow Hill and Pocomoke in Maryland, and then
proceeded down the Eastern Shore of Virginia to Cape Charles, a 200-mile
short-cut or bypass of Maryland's western shore. This gave the lower
Eastern Shore a direct route to the North.
The Eastern Shore's economy in those days was based entirely on farm-
ing, hunting and fishing. The Bay was a formidable obstacle and the
natural markets of the people soon became Newcastle, Wilmington and
Philadelphia over the wagon routes above outlined. This early diversion
of Eastern Shore commerce from Baltimore always has been a matter of
serious concern to her tradespeople and to all Baltimoreans generally.
The barrier still exists to some extent, although the 1952 Chesapeake Bay
Bridge has done much to lower it.
A Lost Road — The Monocacy
Since the early settlements of Maryland were along the Bay and its
tributaries, it is natural that the mountainous western part of the prov-
ince was the last to be colonized. In fact, the first road to be cut through
the wilderness, or at least developed from an early Indian trail, was not
built by Marylanders at all but by Pennsylvanians.
Known as the "Monocacy Road," this pack-horse trail connected Phila-
delphia, Lancaster and Hanover with the Winchester section of Virginia.
In use at least as early as 1730, it wound through some fifty miles of
Maryland from an entrance near Taneytown in Carroll County to an exit
at the Potomac near Williamsport in what is now Washington County,
although those towns did not then exist as such. The road at first forded
the Monocacy River but by 1739 it had been widened to a wagon road, at
least in its northern section, and a ferry was in service over this winding
stream.
Griffith's Map of Maryland, 1794.
The Maryland Road System in Washington's Day
11
The heavy black line shows the old Monocacy Road by which missionaries and early
settlers f)-om Pennsylvania migrated into Weste)-n Mai-yland and the Winchester sec-
tion of Virginia. The Maryland portion of it was not in use after 1800 and it has been
called a "lost road."
By this ancient thoroughfare, long since abandoned, many Pennsylvania
Dutch migrated into Maryland, giving that section of our State a flavor
of German industry, thrift, culture and architecture which still survives.
The trail appears on Dennis Griffith's 1780 map as the "Great Wagon
Road to Philadelphia" ; it is omitted from his 1794 map.
This is another example of a road v^hich sprang up through the exigen-
cies of travel, served a useful purpose for many years and then simply
disappeared when new, shorter and better roads were built to serve that
purpose.
The Founding of Frederick
Some of these better roads issued from a new city called Frederick,^^
settled in 1745 and named in honor of the son of the province's Proprietor.
Most of its early settlers were of German birth or descent and many
of them traveled the Monocacy trail to get there. Frederick was a thriv-
ing little city from the start and during part of the last century it was
second only to Baltimore in wealth and population.
No navigable stream flowed through the new town so it was entirely
dependent on roads ; and these it proceeded at once to build. Within a
few years serviceable wagon trails led from the new settlement to Balti-
more, Annapolis and Georgetown.
The first of these trails ran through New Market, Ridgeville, Poplar
Springs, Cooksville and Ellicott City. It is readily recognizable as the
route of the old Frederick Pike which, with some improvement, served
Baltimore as the great road to the west for two hundred years. A sec-
Scharf s History of Maryland, Vol. I, page 423.
12 A History of Road Building in Maryland
tion of U. S. 40, it was supplanted bv a new dual highway completed in
1954.
The road to Annapolis followed the Baltimore road to near New Market
and then branched off in a more or less straight line.'"' This road does
not exist today although portions of it may have been absorbed into such
modern roads as State Routes 75, 80 and 108. The Georgetown Road
was the progenitor of our current U. S. 240 (The Washington National
Pike) .
Somewhat later in the Eighteenth Century an inter-colony road was
opened through Frederick which connected central Virginia with Penn-
sylvania, This road served the same purpose and was partially on the
same location as present-day U. S. 15.
John Hager's Town
In 1744 ferry service was established across the Potomac at the mouth
of Conococheague River, near the present site of Williamsport, and a road
or trail was soon built across this narrow part of Maryland into Pennsyl-
vania. It followed generally the course of today's U. S. 11. On this road
a town was laid out in 1762 by a German named Captain John Hager.
Roads quickly connected Frederick with Hager's town and with the above-
mentioned Potomac ferry, operated by Evan Watkins.'"
Colonel Cresap Builds A Road
At the time of the French and Indian War, this ferry was the western
outpost of the province. No roads led over the Maryland mountains.
Nevertheless, far across these forbidding Appalachians, settlers were
beginning to trickle in and take up land near what is now Cumberland.
One of the first of these was the colorful early Marylander, Colonel
Thomas Cresap, who about 1742 built a home-fort on the Potomac on the
site of an Indian village now known as Oldtown.'" An Indian trail led
northerly to Wills Creek, now Cumberland, and southerly along the north
bank of the River for several miles.
Colonel Cresap performed the first road construction in Allegany
County in 1750 by widening this 25-mile trail for wagons. It is now
State Route 51.
West of Cumberland, through a vast wilderness and over even higher
mountain peaks, lay the Ohio River and the rich valley beyond it. "The
Ohio Company" was formed to explore this country.
^^ Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 156 (Map showing travel routes in
Maryland before 1776).
^''Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 128, footnote 4.
^'Thomas and Williams' History of Allegany County (1923), page 198.
The Maryland Road System in Washington's Day 13
Colonel Cresap and Christopher Gist, aided by a Delaware Indian named
Nemacolin, blazed a trail through these mountains from Cumberland to
what is now Pittsburgh in 1751. This path followed an old Indian trail,
which in turn followed a well-established buffalo trace.
First Location Engineer?
Thus it might be said that the first location engineer for what is now
U. S. 40 west of Cumberland was the buffalo.
As Hulbert says in The Old National Road: "The course of the buffalo
through Maryland and Pennsylvania to the Ohio River is the most his-
toric route in America and one of the most famous in the world." ^^
Washington Follows the Buffalo
George Washington, just turned 21, followed this trail in 1753 when
the Virginia colonial government sent him to confer with the French at
Fort Duquesne. He was not successful in trying to persuade the French
to withdraw peaceably from their American holdings so he was ordered
to take their positions by force.
He returned the following year to Cumberland with a detachment of
troops, followed by wagons of ammunition and stores. Because this road
was not wide enough for his gear, he sent sixty men ahead to widen the
trail to six feet.
Since the buffalo followed the high ground where the snow was blown
clear in winter, this six-foot road ran out of Cumberland along present
Green Street in almost a straight line to nearly the top of Wills Mountain,
a very steep grade. Thence it descended to level ground at Sandy Gap
and proceeded on its tortuous course across Savage and Negro Mountains
to the Great Meadows of Pennsylvania.^''
Here Washington's campaign ended in defeat at Fort Necessity, about
fifteen miles north of the Pennsylvania Line. He made a miraculous
escape and thus was spared for later service.
The first actual construction of the great road west of Cumberland,
therefore, while only six feet wide, may be credited to the man who was to
become the Father of his Country.
Braddock's Route Through Maryland
The road was doubled in width in 1755 and thereafter became Brad-
dock's Road, in memory of the English soldier who labored long on road
construction, only to meet defeat and death before he reached his goal.
'^Archer Butler Hulbert's The Old National Road, Columbus, Ohio, (1901), page 18.
'* Lowdermilk's History of Cumberland (1878), page 52, 53.
14
A History of Road Building in Maryland
1755 BRADDOCK'S ROAD
BUREAU OF POSLIC ROAP3 — PEPARTMENT OF COMMtRCe
General Braddock's march through Maryland in that year gives an
illuminating picture of the Maryland roads of the day. While the physical
condition of the roads is not spe-
cifically recorded, they were ade-
quate to transport his regiments
in normal marching time. Accom-
panying his men were heavy artil-
lery, hundreds of loaded wagons,
thousands of horses and mules, to-
gether with women and camp fol-
lowers.
The general himself rode as far
as Fort Cumberland in a handsome
chariot, or "coach and six," which
he had just purchased from Mary-
land's Governor Sharpe.-*'
Braddock's detachment entered
Maryland from Alexandria, pro-
ceeded to Rock Creek (now a part
of Washington) and marched
north on the Georgetown-Fred-
erick Road. His Orderly Book re-
corded the distance as 45 miles and the time consumed as three days to
Frederick.-^
After a layover in Frederick, during which time he arranged with
Benjamin Franklin to get him 200 additional wagons, his army headed
westward.
The army followed the wagon road from Frederick to Watkins Ferry
(the general route of present-day Alternate U. S. 40 through Braddock
Heights and Boonsboro and on to Williamsport by State Route 68).
Here it crossed the Potomac by "float" and traveled 70 miles across
northern Virginia (now West Virginia). The army re-entered Maryland
by crossing the river near the mouth of little Cacapon River, four miles
east of Town Creek. It proceeded to Cumberland by Cresap's road, now
State Route 51.
Braddock measured the distance from Frederick to Cumberland as 129
miles and the time consumed as 11 days, including two of rest.
The distance today over U. S. 40 is some 90 miles and can be traversed
by motor car in about two hours.
This map shows the li)ie of mcnch of Gen-
eral Braddock's troops on the ivay to the
ill-fated campaign which ended in his de-
feat and death. One detachment under Sir
Peter Halket marched from Alexandria to
Cumberland by tvay of Winchester, Va.
Colonel Dunbar's regiment, which was led
by the general himself riding in a new
chariot, took the road to Frederick, present-
day Williamsport, Oldtown and Cumber-
land as here described.
*" Lowdermilk, Ibid., page 114; Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 136.
" Braddock's Orderly Book, Lowdermilk, Ibid., Appendix xviii, xxvii.
The Maryland Road System in Washington's Day
15
Braddock Widens Washington's Road
Washington's 6-foot roadway across the mountains west of Cumberland
was considered too narrow for Braddock's artillery and wagon trains.
He thereupon ordered it widened to twelve feet and a detachment of 600
men set out in advance to perform this task, following Washington's
route over Wills Mountain. --
Near the top of the mountain, however, a young English lieutenant
named Spendelow observed a valley skirting the mountain-side which
looked like an easy and natural way out of Cumberland.-'^ Returning,
he surveyed the passage from the ground and the result was the building
of the Narrows Road, the first important re-location of what was to be-
come the route of U. S. 40.
This road was built in four days by an engineer and 100 men and be-
came the route for those elements of Braddock's troops which had not
yet crossed Wills Mountain.
In 1755 the road west of Cumberland was widened to twelve feet to accommodate the
heavy wagons of General Braddock on the march to his famous defeat. Here one of
Braddock's officers directs the clearing of the right of way which first had been traced
by the buffalo and later tvas an hidian trail.
" George R. Stewart's U. S. 40 — Cross Section of the United States of America.
Boston, 1953, page 89; Jordan's, The National Road (American Trail Series) New
York (1948), page 49.
-^Thomas and Williams' History of Allegany County, Ibid., page 24.
16 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Spendelow's road through the Cumberland Narrows has become one of
the most famous and picturesque travel-routes of America. It was fol-
lowed by the railroads as well as by the later highway builders.
Following the present general course of U. S. 40 through Allegany and
Garrett counties, Braddock's army marched leisurely westward while his
men widened the road ahead.
In the meantime the French and Indians had time to reinforce and the
results were what every schoolboy knows — Braddock's Defeat.
But the road remained, a military passage until 1789, a county road
until 1811, then a national road and now a trans-continental highway.
Completing the Road From Baltimore to Cumberland
Following Braddock's ill-fated campaign, bands of Indians terrorized
all Western Maryland and at least one group rampaged within 30 miles
of Baltimore,
The Maryland Legislature of 1755 took immediate action and appro-
priated money to build a huge stone fort and a road leading to it, twelve
miles west of Williamsport. Called Fort Frederick, this massive edifice
is still standing and is enshrined as a state park on the Potomac, south
of present-day Clear Spring on U. S. 40 in Washington County. The road
they built, leading to it from the east, can be identified as the course of
State Routes 68 and 56.
By now nearly all early settlers had fled from Allegany County but
Fort Cumberland was recognized as a strategic military site. However,
it was cut off from the rest of Maryland by high and roadless mountains.
This gap in the Maryland road system, that trackless stretch which
caused Braddock's detour into Virginia, was filled a few years later by
another appropriation of the Legislature as a war measure. A legisla-
tive committee which investigated the matter found that an all-Maryland
route between Fort Frederick and Fort Cumberland would cut the travel
distance between the two points from 80 to 62 miles. The road they built
went through Hancock, followed the north bank of the Potomac and
entered Cumberland by that same road past Colonel Cresap's place.
This was the first inter-county road built by the province and it was
constructed as a military road to connect two forts in wartime. It was
finished in the 1760's.
The legislative committee which recommended this rugged wagon trail
over the mountains had a significant eye to the future. After pointing
out the immediate need for prosecution of the war, it said the road also
30
3/
Z6
38
liiuuiiumiii uiiHiHiiiiiu iniiiiiuiiui mm.
The Maryland Road System in Washington's Day • 17
would "induce many people to travel and carry on a trade in and through
the province, to and from the back country." -'
This was prophetic language, as coming events demonstrated in the
next century.
Thus the French and Indian War advanced the opening of Western
Maryland by many years. This new road, together with Braddock's Road,
both war measures, gave a direct if extremely rough connection between
Baltimore, Annapolis and the far western parts of the province.
A third military road was built by Washington's troops in 1758.-"^ It
connected Cumberland with Bedford, Pennsylvania, to permit reinforce-
ment of Fort Cumberland from the north. It is the present course of
U. S. 220.
Roads System Extensive — But Rough
By the time of Washington's Farewell Address, Maryland's system of
roads was extensive. But the roads themselves were wretched. They
were always rough and frequently impassable. There was little or no
maintenance despite stringent laws on the subject. Marylanders were on
the move in all directions and they demanded better roads.
So the dawn of the Nineteenth Century witnessed the building of the
first all-weather roads in the State, the turnpikes and the most famous
of them all — the National Road west from Cumberland which now will
be described.
-* Maryland Assembly Proceedings, December 15, 1758, page 74; Geological Survey
Reports, Vol. Ill, page 138.
-° State Roads Commission Historical Marker No. 18.
co-«
Chapter II
THE NATIONAL ROAD THAT OPENED THE WEST
America's great superhighway of the Nineteenth Century was the road
that ran west from Cumberland, crossed the mountains, the Ohio River,
the plains and almost reached St. Louis, Missouri.
It was the first and only inter-
state highway ever built by the
federal government. It followed
the trace of the buffalo, the trail
of the Indian and the path of
George Washington and General
Braddock.
1840 THE NATIONAL PIKE
BUREAU OF PUBUC ROADS — DCPARTMINT OF COMMERCE
The National Road started at Cumberland
and ran nearly to St. Louis. Original plans
were to contiyiue it to Jefferson City, Mo.,
hut the federal government stopped mak-
ing appropriations before the famous pike
reached the Mississippi River.
It is the route of U. S. 40 today.
This road, cut through high hills
and across deep gorges one hun-
dred and fifty years ago, was the
first great pathway of continental
progress — the passage that pene-
trated the mountains and popu-
lated the middle west.
Because this national freeway
had its beginning at Cumberland, it was of prime importance to Mary-
land and to the development of Baltimore in the early years of the Cen-
tury. At its height the road carried the heaviest traffic ever handled up
to that time by an American thoroughfare.
Four and six-horse wagons ran so close together that the lead horses
were said to have their noses in the spare feed baskets hanging from
behind the wagon ahead. Between these wagon trains came passenger
stages, as well as droves of cattle, sheep and hogs.
Most of this traffic coming across the mountains from the West was
headed into the markets and the port of Baltimore, the pay-off place for
produce, the pot of gold at the end of the Appalachian rainbow.
19
20 A History of Road Building in Maryland
The congressional act of 1802 by which Ohio became a state, together
with subsequent legislation, appropriated two percent of the money de-
rived from federal land sales in the new state for the purpose of building
roads "from the navigable waters emptying into the Atlantic to the river
Ohio." 1 In 1806 Congress formally authorized the road, specifying that
it should start at Cumberland and run to the State of Ohio.-
Four Cities Are Considered
The congressional committees that worked on the matter followed the
law by considering four other starting points, all of which were on navi-
gable waters leading to the Ocean. They were Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Washington and Richmond, all well established and thriving port com-
munities.^
Cumberland, which was a frontier village at the time, just recently
recovered from the ravages of Indian raids, was on the Potomac River.
The Potomac was not then and is not now "navigable waters" in its upper
reaches. Cumberland made no effort to get the road and never considered
itself eligible under the law.
Why Cumberland?
Then why was this little town picked as the beginning point of the
Nineteenth Century's greatest highway?
The selection obviously was a congressional compromise dictated by
expediency, economy and geography. Philadelphia and Baltimore were
rival ports, each struggling for supremacy. For the Government to select
one as a terminal would inevitably alienate the other.
Since the money to be derived from the sale of public lands was indefi-
nite and at that point non-existent, the farther west the road started the
less money would be needed.
The fact that the Potomac was not navigable did not seem to enter the
picture.
An over-riding factor in the selection of Cumberland was the initiative
and zeal of Maryland in her road-building program.
As previously noted, through roads already existed before the close of
the Eighteenth Century from Cumberland to Frederick and from that
'Act of Congress, April 30, 1802; Act of Congress, March 3, 1803; Geological Survey
Reports, Vol. Ill, page 181, 182.
- "An Act to Regulate the Laying and Making a Road from Cumberland, in the
State of Maryland, to the State of Ohio." Act of Congress, March 29, 1806; Geological
Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 183.
^^ Jordan's The National Road (American Trail Series), New York (1948), page 73.
The National Road That Opened the West 21
town east to Baltimore and south to Georgetown, which by then had
become a part of the new capital of Washington.
By 1805, when the final Senate report ^ was presented to Congress,
Maryland had definite plans to improve these roads by hard-surface turn-
pikes with easy grades over the mountains. Already a charter had been
granted and an impressive start made on an all-weather road from Balti-
more as far west as Boonsboro.
The Cumberland starting point, it was concluded, thus would serve
both Baltimore and Washington and, through Washington, the Richmond
area. Philadelphia's geographical position was against her, the relative
distances being carefully noted by the senators.
The bill to establish the road finally passed Congress in 1806 but it had
rough going in the House. Both Pennsylvania and Virginia bitterly
fought the Cumberland terminal. The Quaker State voted against it 13
to 4 while Virginia opposed it by a vote of 16 to 2. It finally passed with
Maryland's militant leadership, Ohio's full blessing and scattered votes
from other states.-''
Westward Ho!
The first contract was let in 1811 and the road was opened to Wheeling
on the Ohio by 1818.
Although the roads east of Cumberland were far from complete by
that time, U. S. mail coaches immediately began service between Wash-
ington and Wheeling and were followed over the mountains by a con-
tinuous stream of traffic which increased year by year. Forging west-
ward, the road reached Columbus in 1833 and the Indiana state line five
years later.
In 1838 Congress made its last appropriation for The National Road.
By that time it had been "grubbed, graded and bridged" across the entire
State of Indiana and in Illinois the right of way had been established as
far as Vandalia, where some clearing was done.
Work on the road stopped but not the traffic. It kept moving west
over whatever roadbed it could find.'^
Thirteen Thousand A Mile
The federal government spent $6,824,919 on both the finished and un-
finished parts of the highway from Cumberland to Vandalia. Of this
*U. S. Senate Reports. Ninth Congress, First Session, Report No. 195; Jordan,
supra, page 74; Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 182.
^ Jordan, supra, page 74.
"Stewart's U. S. 40— Cross Section of the United States, Boston (1953), page 116.
22 A History of Road Building in Maryland
amount about $1,700,000 was spent on the section between Cumberland
and Wheeling, an average cost for the 132 miles of about $13,000 a mile,
including extensive rebuilding in the 1830's.'
The road was built on a cleared right of way 66 feet wide. Roots
were "grubbed and grunted" out, ditches dug and a 30-foot roadway
leveled. Their equipment was picks and shovels with oxen and horses
to pull out the stumps. Hills were cut down, hollows and valleys filled.
Their specifications called for a maximum five percent grade and with
some exceptions they attained this objective.
A distance of twenty feet of the roadway surface was covered with
irregular-sized stones to a depth of twelve to eighteen inches. Over this
was strewn smaller stone. This stone was broken on the roadside by
gangs of men sitting on the hard ground, using one-pound hammers.""
Other gangs built bridges, the stone masons hand-cutting and fitting
each stone separately.
Throughout the building of the road "traffic was maintained," not be-
cause of courtesy to the public but because there were no detour roads
and the people could not be stopped in their push to the West.
Wagons loaded with chests and children picked their way through the
construction work and the travelers camped at night beside the road
laborers.
There was no provision in the law for payment of right of way claims.
Most farmers were glad to have the road come through ; but where one
balked he had to be talked into it or the road carried around his poorly-
defined boundaries, adding more curves to the mountain passes.
The road was built according to the best standards then known to
American engineers. It was hailed as the finest in the United States
and its heavy stone foundation was compared to the Appian Way.
Early Collapse of the Road
Yet before the road reached Wheeling serious faults and abuses were
reported by David Shriver, the young Marylander who was superintendent
of construction.
Locking wagon wheels cut deep ruts in the loose stone finishing. Land-
slides and heavy rains cut holes and ridges across the road. In 1815 the
sum of $1200 of construction funds had to be used to repair the first 16
" John Pendleton Kennedy's The National Road — Cumberland to Wheeling, A Docu-
mentary History. Los Angeles, Cal. (1934) pp. 1-718 (Library of the U. S. Bureau
of Public Roads, Washington, D. C.) ; Thomas B. Searights' The Old Pike, Uniontown,
Pa. (1894), pp. 100-106.
** Jordon, supra, page 84 et seq.
The National Road That Opened the West 23
miles out of Cumberland, as Congress had provided no money for main-
tenance.
During the 1820's Congress appropriated hundreds of thousands to
push the road across Ohio but nothing for repairs to the Cumberland-
Wheeling section.
In 1823 the Postmaster General observed that the road would "cease
to be useful unless repaired." •• By 1826 the loose stones on the rock base
were almost entirely washed away, or sunk under the foundation, leaving
the large stones on top. In places, even the foundation was gone, leaving
broken links in the road. It was reported that on the eastern slope of Big
Savage Mountain hardly a handful of earth was left and the culverts,
drains and ditches were filled with the loose stones.
Shriver complained that natural depreciation was bad enough but the
depravity of man was worse. Bridge walls had been pried off, gravel
from the road stolen for personal use, fences, yards and gardens built
inside the right of way and even the course of the road altered by adjoin-
ing property owners. ^*^
U. S. Gives It to the States
The future of the road as a federal highway looked black from the day
in 1822 when President Monroe vetoed a bill for its "preservation and
repair," a measure that would have set up a federal toll system to make
the road pay-as-you-go.^^ In 1832 Congress passed an act transferring
the road to the states through which it passed. ^-
Maryland and Pennsylvania accepted the road only on condition that
the federal government repair it to their satisfaction and pay for the
erection of toll houses and gates. In 1834 Congress agreed to these terms
and placed Army Engineers in charge of the job.
Road Completely Rebuilt
Maryland's Governor James Thomas insisted that the road be com-
pletely rebuilt by the new macadam process which, for the first time in
the United States, had been used a few years earlier on the Boonsboro-
Hagerstown Turnpike (post, page 33).
"Report on the Cumberland Road, House Executive Documents (1823), Seventeenth
Congress, Second Session, Documents 3, 16; Jordan, snp)-a, page 98.
^"Jordan supra, pp. 97-100.
"Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Richardson), Vol. II, page 142 (May 4,
1822); Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 185.
'- Twenty-second Congress, First Session, Chapter 153,
24
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Rebuilding the National Road in 183A. Workmen sit on the ground breaking stone
with a small hammer. The inspector at left is testing the stone to see if it will pass
through a 3-inch ring. The one next to him is weighing each stone to keep it down
to U ounces. At right laborers spread the fine stone on the prepared roadbed with
horse rakes. The surface was rolled smooth and compacted by the traffic that iised it.
The steam roller had not been invented.
Thus the great road west of Cumberland — "the Appian Way of
America" — was completely uprooted down to its lowest foundation stones
20 years after it was built.
The young engineers of the War Department, many of them West Point
graduates, tackled the task with vigor and enthusiasm. They lifted the
entire pavement from the old road and deposited it stone by stone off the
roadbed. They drained and graded the new bed so that it was three inches
higher in the middle than at the sides. Ditches were dug so that the
highest level at which water could stand was 18 inches below the lowest
part of the surface of the road.
The old roadway had been paved to a width of 20 feet. The new surfac-
ing was 30 feet wide. Composed of limestone, flint or granite, the stones
were broken by hand to a size so small they could pass through a three-
inch ring and to a weight not more than 4 ounces. This stone was spread
over the graded earth roadbed by horse-rakes to a uniform depth of three
inches.
Then traffic was allowed to compact it. After a time another such
layer was spread and compacted, and then another. This gave a 9-inch
The National Road That Opened the West 25
small-stone surface rolled hard by the wheels of many Conestoga wagons.^^
The difference between the macadam method and the earlier construc-
tion was in the use of the small stones throughout, so thoroughly com-
pacted that they formed practically a solid base. The new system was a
success.
Relocated Through the Narrows
The first section of the National Road leading out of Cumberland in
1811 had run out present Greene Street and over Wills Mountain.
Captain Richard Delafield, senior Army Engineer on the job, returned
to the Braddock route through the Narrows when he rebuilt the road in
1834. He reported that this road, which ran out Mechanic and Center
Streets and was a little longer, required "very few culverts and only two
small bridges over Braddock's Run of about 15-foot spans each." ^^ He
decided to use the level and smooth bottom of the creek for the road by
building a 10-foot wall, throwing the stream on the opposite bank.
Thus for the second time in 80 years the road was relocated to utilize
the level spaces of the famous Narrows.
Heaviest Traffic in the Country
By 1837, when the road had been macadamized throughout its entire
length to Wheeling and beyond, the Pike was said to have reached its
peak of perfection.
Traffic was the heaviest in the United States. The stages stopped at
inns about twelve miles apart. There were wagon stands or taverns
every mile or so all along the road from Baltimore to Wheeling. Here a
wagoner, for an overnight bill of $1.75, could get grain and hay for a
6-horse team, room and board for himself plus "all the whiskey he could
drink." ^^
Now A State Toll Road
The State took over administration of the road in 1835 and operated
it as a toll facility. It set up two toll houses, one just west of Cumberland
(the brick octagonal building still standing) and the other west of Frost-
burg (the building is gone but the toll gate posts stand today).
The statute provided for the appointment of a superintendent of the
road and such "toll gatherers" as may be necessary. All tolls, after de-
ducting the collection expenses, were to go to the repair and preservation
' Jordan, supra, page 101.
' Kennedy's The National Road, supra, page 532.
' Searight's The Old Pike, supra, page 16.
26
A History of Road Building in Maryland
of the road. If there was surplus it went into the State Treasury in a
special account called "The United States Road Fund." ^^
The tolls were set on the road-use principle followed today on the new
turnpikes (trucks pay more than passenger cars, 4-axle vehicles more
than 2-axle, and so on). A score of cattle (12 cents) cost more than a
score of sheep (6 cents). Horse and rider were 4 cents, a sulky driven
by one horse 6 cents, while a 4-wheel coach with 2 horses cost 12 cents.
Wagons were charged according to the width of their wheels as it was
thought that narrow rims tended to rut the road. Thus if the rims were
between four and six inches wide, the fare was 3 cents, if between six
and eight inches wide 2 cents, while wheels exceeding eight inches in
breadth were given a free ride.^' They acted as rollers and so protected
the road surface.
Bells on the Horses' Necks
Partly to avoid payment of tolls huge wagons were built with rear
wheels ten feet high and tires twelve inches broad. These mammoth
Scene of the National Road as it appeared in 1915.
"= Thomas and Williams' History of Allegany County (1923), page 185.
''Toll-board (still standing). Maryland Toll House, U. S. 40, five miles west of
Cumberland.
The National Road That Opened the West 27
freight wagons were driven by twelve horses and were capable of carry-
ing 10-ton loads. ^s
The road was literally filled with gaily painted stages, droves of animals
and canvas-covered wagons with bows of bells over their horses' collars.
As one traveler noted : "Within a mile of the road the country was a wil-
derness, but on the highway the traffic was as dense and continuous as on
the main street of a large town." ^^
The road not only was colorful and picturesque; it opened the West
years ahead of the railroad and had a profound impact on the economy of
early Maryland and the growth of the Port of Baltimore.
Yet the National Road was but half the story. For Cumberland stands
midway between Baltimore and Wheeling on the Ohio.
The other half is the road to the eastern part of the State.
'"F. J. Wood's Turnpikes (1919), page 22.
^'Harpers Monthly, November 1879, "The Old National Pike."
Chapter III
THE ROAD THE MARYLAND BANKS BUILT
Perhaps the strangest chapter in the history of Maryland roadbuilding
— and of Maryland banking too, for that matter — is the story of the turn-
pikes the Maryland banks built to connect Baltimore with Cumberland.
The National Road to the west had been commenced at Cumberland
on the assurance that Maryland was building a hard-surface road to con-
nect it with Baltimore. Without such a connection the great western
road would have been quite meaningless.
Dawn of the Turnpike Era
It was an interim period when the needs of the times called for stone
roads to promote commerce but the people were not yet ready to appro-
priate money for the purpose.
To fill this breach, a number of private companies were organized in
the State to build hard roads and finance them by tolls.
In 1805 the Baltimore and Frederick Town Turnpike Road had incor-
porated with an initial capital of $220,000 to build an all-weather road
from Baltimore through Frederick to Boonsboro in Washington County,
a distance of about 62 miles. Work commenced immediately and by 1808,
when Secretary Gallatin made his report to the United States Senate,
he was able to state that 20 miles out of Baltimore were finished, at a
cost of $9,000 per mile, and that 17 additional miles were under construc-
tion at $7,000 per mile.^
This example of Maryland enterprise was impressive and there were
those in the halls of Congress who predicted that the Baltimore turnpike
would reach Cumberland before the National Road was ever begun.
However, quite the opposite was true.
The federal road crossed higher mountains and reached Wheeling in
1818 before some sections of the Baltimore turnpike were even started.
Geological Survey Reports, Volume III, page 170.
29
30
A History of Road Building in Maryland
The plain fact was that no Maryland capital wanted to tackle the moun-
tains of Western Maryland. To Baltimore in 1808 the rugged peaks of
Sideling Hill, Town Hill, Polish and Martin Mountains must have seemed
as impregnable as the Alps.
The logical candidate for the task was the Baltimore-Frederick Com-
pany which was building the road to Boonsboro. Jonathan Ellicott, how-
ever, speaking for this organization, declined the honor and suggested
that the State or federal government build it.-
The turnpike dead-ended at Boonsboro for a number of years while a
debate raged as to whether the main road would go through Hagerstown
or take the shorter, more direct route nearer Williamsport. In any event,
it would cross the Conococheague River about 8 miles west of Hagers-
town and this seemed a good place to start the road to Cumberland —
if the money could be found.
The Banks Are Called On
The money was found, in the coffers of Maryland banks — money that
belonged to depositors and stockholders. This capital was virtually con-
fiscated by the Maryland Legislature under circumstances which are
unique to this day.
Bank charters in the early Nineteenth Century were not perpetual as
they are today but were renewable periodically by the Legislature. In
the session of 1812 sharp-eyed legislators noted that all bank charters
in the State would expire in 1816 unless renewed.''
P E N N ^:.- S y L V A N \ I A
"Ibid., page 171.
^Williams, History of Washington County (1906), Vol. I, page 151 et seq.
The Road the Maryland Banks Built 31
They also were extremely worried about the Baltimore-Cumberland
road. The first ten miles of the National Road were already under con-
struction and Maryland did not even have a sponsor for its mountain
crossing, estimated to cost over $400,000.
''Who in Maryland besides the banks," asked one Senator, "has that
kind of money?"
So the banks were called on to finance and build the road, on penalty
of being put out of business. They bitterly resisted, pointing out that
such tactics were unprecedented, that the money was held in trust for
depositors and that by law and custom they were required to invest it
conservatively. The Pike, they said, was practically wildcat speculation.
However, the Legislature passed the bill which extended all bank char-
ters until 1835 and required those named in the statute to subscribe to
stock in a new turnpike company 'Mn proportion to their respective paid-
in capitals for as much stock as will cover the expense of completing
the road." ^
The same bill imposed an additional tax on the helpless banks of 20
cents on every $100 of their capital stock for the establishment of the
public school system of Maryland — a story in itself.
The banks undertook the strange assignment reluctantly but with good
grace and good business practices. Their first act was to incorporate
a company called the Cumberland Turnpike Road to which they sub-
scribed to stock as required by the statute in the following amounts :"'
Union Bank of Maryland $142,353.00
Bank of Baltimore 75,413.00
City Bank of Baltimore 54,585.00
Mechanics Bank of Baltimore 42,938.00
Commercial & Farmers Bank of Baltimore 41,059.00
Farmers & Merchants Bank of Baltimore 31,197.00
Franklin Bank of Baltimore 27,842.00
Bank of Maryland 20,127.00
Hagerstown Bank 16,722.00
Marine Bank of Baltimore 15,766.00
Conococheague Bank 10,566.00
Cumberland Bank 7,547.00
$486,165.00
Acts of 1812, Chapter 79; Acts of 1813, Chapter 122.
Thomas and Williams, History of Allegany County (1923), page 108.
32
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Bank Road Completed in 1821
They completed their plans and surveys, drew specifications and were
ready to advertise for bids by the end of 1815. Work commenced the
following spring and the famous Bank Road entered Cumberland five
years later.
There is no surviving record of the actual road construction but an
indication may be found in the minimum standards set by statute. The
road was to be paved at least 20 feet wide on an artificial roadbed of
"wood, stone or gravel well compounded together a suflficient depth to
secure a solid foundation." The surface was to be gravel or pounded
stone "so as to secure a firm, and, as near as possible, an even surface."
Grades were not to exceed four percent except over certain mountains
where "an angle of six degrees will be tolerated." (Grades actually were
built eight percent and steeper over some ranges). Perpetual mainte-
nance was required "to keep the same in good and perfect order and
repair." ^
The road ran a distance of 58 miles westward from the west bank of
the Conococheague.
View of the old Bank Road (taken in 1915).
Acts of 1815, Chapter 125.
The Road the Maryland Banks Built 33
Hagerstown to the Fore
The construction of these two turnpikes connected Baltimore with the
National Road at Cumberland, except for the 15-mile section between
Boonsboro and the west bank of the Conococheague. Several private
groups were interested in this project which would have passed south of
Hagerstown, nearer Williamsport.
But Hagerstown, while off the direct route, was not to be neglected.
In 1818, to be sure it was not bypassed, it organized the Hagerstown
and Conococheague Turnpike Company and built a toll road from the
Hagerstown public square to the west bank of the Conococheague, includ-
ing a fine stone arch bridge over this stream/ The road was finished
in 1819.
The Banks Build Another One
There still remained, however, an embarrassing gap in the Pike, the
relatively short section from Boonsboro to Hagerstown. Travelers told
of taking five to seven hours to cover the ten miles in bad weather over
this only unpaved stretch of the whole 268 miles from Baltimore to
Wheeling.
While private interests bickered, the Legislature of 1821 again called
on the State banks to fill the breach. It agreed to extend bank charters
another ten years — to 1845 — if they would build the road.
The Baltimore banks were in serious trouble at the time and the City
Bank had closed its doors as a result of the 1819 panic* They did not
relish these legislative hold-ups but on the other hand, having finished
the Cumberland road, they saw the importance of protecting this invest-
ment by paving the last ten miles on the whole throughway.
They incorporated a company known as the Boonsboro Turnpike Com-
pany, with the same subscribers as before except the City Bank of Balti-
more, the Conococheague Bank and the Cumberland Bank.*^
First Macadam in U. S.
To the Maryland banks go the distinction of introducing macadam into
the United States. This road-building process which has been described
in Chapter II had just proved its eff'ectiveness in England where it was
invented and first applied by the Scotchman, John Loudon McAdam.
Scharf, History of Western Maryland (1882), Vol. 2, pp. 995-998.
Owens, Baltimore on the Chesapeake (1941), page 225.
Scharf, History of Western Maryland (1882), Vol. 2, page 997.
34
A History of Road Building in Maryland
For the first time in this country it was used to pave the Hagerstown-
Boonsboro Pike in 1823.i«
1823
FIRST AMERICAN
MACADAM ROAD
p
F
N N Si^Y
1.
V /a N 1
A
HawoockV- -
^^y^
<M
lij
/
_^
^ ^
^
i4ii.S-^*^5^ .
^?
r c
A,
Afv »^*-^%C
^
m°BOONSBOROUGH
> r
^ m TUFl>ffIK£ .
^'■^y
\c
5 ^^ROAD" ( -y
^r
J^
» t
^^BOONSBOflO
oV
^ /
Q
/ I
Si
rvi
H
/
^^
*^
^(^
*UvS
4 •
FREDERICKTOWN^
/
j
r
Of PUBLIC SOAPS —DEPARTMtNT Of COMMERCE
The heavy line shows the route of the first
macadam road. It was built as a toll
highway by a group of Maryland banks.
The road was finished the fol-
lowing year and the "Baltimore
Pike" was complete.
Also First Roadside Planting
This short stretch of road may
also claim another first. In 1827
the citizens of Hagerstown and
Funkstown planted an avenue of
Lombardy poplars along both sides
of the road between the two towns,
a distance of three miles. Al-
though all of them died, this is the
first known act of roadside beauti-
fication in the State.^^
With the completion of this section and the rebuilding of the National
Road in the 1830's, Maryland could boast of the finest all-weather road
in the United States and one of the longest. As the new road sections
opened, both passenger and freight traffic increased.
Fast stages carried passengers over the smooth new paving. In 1825
the passenger rates were $2.00 from Baltimore to Frederick, $2.00 from
Frederick to Hagerstown, $5.00 from Hagerstown to Cumberland and
$8.25 from Cumberland to Wheeling.^-
Baltimore Prospers from the Road
The eff'ect of this traffic on Baltimore was prodigious. Its population
had increased 500 percent in 30 years and in 1830 stood at 80,625, against
Philadelphia's 80,462.i-^
Jared Sparks, the famous biographer of Washington, said of Baltimore
in 1825: "Among all the cities of America, or of the Old World, there
is no record of any one which has sprung up so quickly or to so high a
degree of prominence as Baltimore." The reasons he gave were "the
energetic spirit of the people," the fast sailing vessels, the geographic
situation "presenting the nearest market to the western country" and
'" Historic American Highways, a publication of the American Association of State
Highway Officials, Washington* (1953), page 52.
"Williams, History of Washington County (1906), Vol. I, page 155.
"Scharf, History of Western Maryland (1882), Vol. 2, page 1336.
"Owens, Baltimore on the Chesapeake (1941), page 244.
The Road the Maryland Banks Built 35
the seven turnpikes entering the City. "And now," he continued, "the
line of communication is complete between Baltimore and Wheeling over
one of the best roads in the world." ^^
But Do the Banks?
But what of the banks of Maryland? Did they win or lose by their
forced flyer in the road-building business?
In one of their reports during construction they said, "The Company
has but one grievance to complain of, and that is being compelled to make
this road. It is a severe and oppressive tax upon the banks, and one
which, under present circumstances, their business does not enable them
to meet without great embarrassment." ^^
However, after the two bank roads were finished, they found they had
a natural money-maker. The huge traffic and great prosperity that flowed
through Cumberland, Hagerstown and Frederick had to pass through
their toll gates. Other turnpikes complained of "shun-pikers," travelers
who in good weather used parallel free roads.
Not so the bank turnpikes. They had an absolute monopoly. Theirs
was the only road over the mountains.
They paid dividends as high as 20 percent for many years and the road
paid for itself over and over again. ^*^
The road never lost money. Before that day arrived the banks folded
their toll gates and silently stole away.
As one writer said in 1879: "So far from being a burden to them, it
proved to be a most lucrative property for many years, yielding as much
as twenty percent, and it is only in later years that it has yielded no
more than two or three percent." ^'^
Spread of the Turnpikes
The turnpike fever in Maryland was severe but localized. It ran for
over a hundred years. The Eastern Shore and Southern Maryland had
no turnpikes at all, except one in Cecil County. Ninety percent of them
were located in Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick and Washington counties.
The seven turnpikes mentioned by Jared Sparks as contributing so
much to the prosperity of Baltimore in 1825, together with their modern
route numbers, were Baltimore to Havre de Grace (U. S. 40), Baltimore
"North American Review (1825), Vol. 2, page 99.
'^Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 175.
'"Scharf, History of Western Maryland (1882), Vol. 2, page 1331,
"'Mark Searle, Turnpikes and Tollbars (1879), Vol. II, page 847.
36 A History of Road Building in Maryland
to Bel Air (U. S. 1), Baltimore to Bladensburg and Washington (U. S. 1),
Falls Road (State Route 25), Baltimore to York (U. S. Ill), Baltimore
to Frederick and the west (U. S. 40) and Baltimore to Reisterstown
(U. S. 140).
The last named forked at Reisterstown, one branch continuing to West-
minster and Gettysburg (U. S. 140) and the other to Hanover (State
Route 30).
Frederick and Hagerstown were hubs of turnpike wheels with spokes
leading out in all directions.
Hagerstown's most ambitious project, started in 1816, was a direct
40-mile run east to Westminster to connect with the above-mentioned
Baltimore road. It was claimed that this route was four miles shorter to
Baltimore than by way of Frederick.
Another was chartered in 1828 to run from Hagerstown to Gettysburg.
Here it connected with the Pennsylvania system. It was advertised that
travelers from Philadelphia to Wheeling had an uninterrupted drive over
all-weather roads of 333 miles. ^^
The Railroad Casts A Long Shadow
The supremacy of the Maryland turnpike reached its peak in the first
half of the Nineteenth Century, a period which coincided with the growth
of Baltimore from a collection of little villages around the head of the
Patapsco River to the nation's second city.
On the Fourth of July 1828 aged Charles Carroll of Carrollton, one of
Maryland's original signers of the Declaration, helped fellow Baltimoreans
lay the cornerstone for the construction of America's first rail line. The
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, as its name suggests, was designed to tap
the rich Ohio valley for the benefit of Baltimore merchants and shippers.
It thus was planned as a direct and modern competitor of both the Bank
roads and the National Road.
The shadow of the iron horse lengthened over the turnpike year by
year as the railroad chugged slowly but majestically westward, freeing
town after town from utter dependence on stages, wagons and hard-
surface roads.
In 1842 the B. and 0. reached Cumberland, in 1853 Wheeling, and the
golden age of the turnpike had passed.
A Baltimore merchant would not ship by wagon over the mountains
when the railroad could deliver his product quicker, safer and cheaper.
'* Scharf, History of Westeni Maryland (1882), VoL 2, page 996.
The Road the Maryland Banks Built 37
The stagers and wagoners on the great National Road bitterly fought
the competition of the new steam engine, cutting costs, slashing rates
and playing up the glamor of the turnpike and the taverns dotting its
roadsides.
For all of them stood to be put out of business by the mechanized
behemoth on rails.
Two Main Toll Roads Close
The State's two toll houses on the Pike between Cumberland and the
Pennsylvania line north of Keysers Ridge steadily lost revenue. By 1870
the "United States Road Fund" in the Maryland Treasury was exhausted,
the road needed repairs and there was no money for the job.
A bill was introduced in the Maryland Legislature requesting an appro-
priation of $27,000 *'to restore the Pike." After much debate and an
opinion from Attorney General Jones the request was turned down.^^
The road and its early glory had departed.
In 1879, with the consent of Congress as required by earlier legisla-
tion, Maryland bowed out of the toll road business. The toll houses were
closed, the gates removed and the road abandoned to Allegany and Garrett
counties.-" It remained as a little-used country road until the dawn of
the Auto Age and the coming of the State Roads Commission.
Now it is part of a transcontinental highway starting in Atlantic City
and ending in San Francisco. Today it re-lives in some measure the color
and glamor of its youth.
In 1889, ten years after the toll gates came down on the National Road,
the Bank Road also ceased to operate as a turnpike. A storm had wrecked
all the bridges between Conococheague River and Sideling Hill and the
banks did not rebuild them. Instead they surrendered their charter and
the famous old road reverted to Washington and Allegany counties.-^
But Turnpike Era Not Yet Over
It will be noted that the toll roads here mentioned were for compara-
tively long distances, inter-county and inter-state. It was such roads as
these that were put out of business by the railroads.
But the turnpike era did not end in Maryland with the coming of the
steam engine on tracks. It merely changed character. Even more turn-
pikes sprang up as short-distance feeders to the rail lines.
In 1850 there were 263 miles of turnpike roads in the State.
^"Thomas and Williams, supra, page 186.
-"Jordan, supra, page 175.
''Williams, History of Washington County (1906), Vol. 1, page 158.
38 A History of Road Building in Maryland
By 1900, when travelers were paying about $140,000 a year in tolls,
there were 497 miles operated by 51 separate companies, an average of
less than ten miles per turnpike. Indeed, 15 companies operated lines
of less than 5 miles and one in Washington County ran only 1.3 miles."
Yet all of them served a need, to get the farmer to market, and so set
the style for the Twentieth Century.
-Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, pages 178, 262.
Chapter IV
THE GOOD ROADS MOVEMENT
By 1900 there were 14,483 miles of roads in Maryland of which 13,118
miles were dirt^ — which meant mud in wet weather and dust in dry
weather.
Of the remaining 1,365 miles of improved roads in the State, 890 were
stone roads, 225 were surfaced with gravel and 250 miles were spread
with oyster shells.-
At the 1900 estimate of 58,000 bushels of shells per mile, this meant
the use of 14,500,000 bushels for construction of the 250 miles. Mainte-
nance consumed another 2,000 bushels per mile each year. The result
was a satisfactory, if soft, crunchy surface in wet weather; in dry spells
the oyster shell surface was hard and dusty — a fine, white, powdery, ad-
hesive dust that penetrated the nostrils of both man and horse and per-
meated the clothing of the traveler.
Of the stone roads, 497 miles were operating toll roads and 130 aban-
doned turnpikes, leaving only 263 miles which had been built by Mary-
land's counties.
Some of these stone roads were in frightful condition and were being
bypassed in favor of dirt roads. For instance, on the Rockville Pike, a
stone turnpike which had lapsed to Montgomery County, wagon traffic
had cut its own dirt trail along the roadside, a track so worn by years
of use that it had sunk 12 feet below the surface of the rough stone road.^'
The Dark Ages
The last half of the Nineteenth Century has been called the Dark Ages
of American roads. The rail lines were in complete dominance and filled
the bill for all but local traffic.
Yet it was this local traffic that sparked a move during the Nineties
to get Maryland out of the mud. The movement was strictly rural at
^ Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 191.
" Ibid, page 204.
'Ibid, page 416.
39
The Good Roads Movement
41
first. Since time immemorial farmers in most localities had been cut off
from town in winter and during spring thaws. This isolation kept them
not only from market but from church, school and the numerous social
gatherings of the period.
The stone roads built on the macadam principle were few and far
between. But many farmers had seen samples of them ; and some actually
lived on them. As one farmer said: "I would not sell my house and
accept another worth $7,000 as a gift and be obliged to live in it two
miles from a macadam road. No farmer in the neighborhood would buy
a farm not located on a macadam road. Now that they have a sample
of the road they all want it." "*
The Day of the Bicycle
The farmers were joined in their clamor for good roads by a new and
unexpected element of the population. The bicycle fever was sweeping
America. They were as noisy a
group, and as enthusiastic and de-
termined, as the later auto clubs.
They needed smooth roads near
the towns to show off their new,
low-lined two-wheelers. There
were literally thousands of bicycle
clubs, races, shows and associa-
tions. They organized nationally
as the League of American Wheel-
men, which had a membership in
Maryland of 30,000.
The automobile was still a sput-
tering novelty, its huge potential
quite unforeseen. It had nothing
to do with the revived interest in
road-building in the Nineties.
The march for macadam in
Maryland was led by the farmers'
clubs, the bicycle league, the State
Road Convention, the Road League and numerous influential individuals
such as Conway W. Sams and Samuel M. Shoemaker.'' Their approach
to their mission was a time-honored one.
They went to the Legislature for an appropriation ($10,000), a study
by impartial experts and a report or recommendation. They intended
* Ibid, page 400.
"Ibid, page 30.
The bicycle craze was at its height in the
late)' part of the Nineteenth Century and
the early part of the Twentieth. The de-
mand for smooth pavements helped spark
the Good Roads Movemeyit.
A group of cyclists seem to be coufused by
the broken road sign. One is trying to
figure out their location from a ynap. An-
other prefers the easier way — ask the
farmer.
42 A History of Road Building in Maryland
to convince the public, and through it the Legislature, that good roads
were good business and worth many good dollars.
The Contribution of the Geological Survey
In 1896 the Legislature had set up a small agency to investigate and
report on the various types of geological material found in the State. It
was called the Maryland Geological Survey Commission
and its superintendent was William Bullock Clark, State
Geologist.
The farmers and the bicyclists hitched their good
roads movement to this metallic star. The Legislature
of 1898 ordered the Geological Survey to investigate
"the question of road construction in this State" and
report thereon. Governor Lowndes promptly signed the
bill and in this manner there was created the Survey's
"Highway Division," the progenitor and immediate pre-
Mr. Clark decessor of the State Roads Commission established ten
years later.*'
The Geological Survey's study of roads was, from the first, closely allied
with the Johns Hopkins University, then but 22 years old and housed in
temporary buildings on Howard Street in Baltimore.
State Geologist Clark was professor of geology at Hopkins and superin-
tendent of the Survey. He brought into the roads study such eminent
Hopkins men as Harry Fielding Reid, St. George L. Sioussat, Edward B.
Matthews, George B. Shattuck, and L. A. Bauer."
Professors Clark and Reid began their work by a tour of New Jersey,
Connecticut and Massachusetts, each of which had road-building programs
under way. In Boston they were shown around by Arthur N. Johnson
of the staff of the Board of Highway Commissioners of Massachusetts.
Clark called him "one of the best trained of their younger engineers."
They hired him to round out their first highway team.
Johnson moved to Maryland in June 1898 with the title of Highway
Engineer and remained with the Survey seven years. He later became
dean of the School of Engineering of the University of Maryland.
He at once launched upon a 2500-mile trip through every section of the
State where he observed Maryland's amateurish road construction with
the eye of the professional highway engineer.
Acts of 1898 (April 9, 1898).
Geological Survey, Vol. Ill, page 31.
The Good Roads Movement
43
Roads Meander Through Hill and Dale
As previously noted, Maryland's road system evolved from the necessi-
ties of travel in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries. By 1800^ all
the principal roads or trails had
been hacked out of the countryside
and were in daily use. With a few
exceptions, such as the National
Road, no attempt had been made
to "locate" the roads. Most of
them meandered across the coun-
try, up and down hill, with no
apparent regard for the topogra-
phy. This resulted in excessive
and unnecessary grades.
Great responsibility had rested,
unconsciously no doubt, on the
men who cut the first roads
through Maryland's terrain.
Towns sprang up along these
primitive paths and their inhabi-
tants resisted any attempt to
change the courses of the roads to any great extent. No town wanted
to be bypassed.
The one great chance to relocate the roads came with the advent of the
turnpikes. But the Legislature would not allow any tampering with
established routes. In 1805 an Act was passed chartering several turn-
pike companies and setting the style for future construction. The char-
ters specifically provided that "the roads are to be made over, and upon
the beds of the present roads . . ." ^
Thus the original curves, hills and gullies were preserved, with remark-
ably little change, for the travelers and road engineers of the Twentieth
Century.
Even on the flat coastal plains of Southern Maryland and the Eastern
Shore Johnson found at stream crossings and elsewhere grades as steep
as ten percent.
On the other hand, he noted that the National Road west of Cumber-
land which crosses Maryland's highest mountains "was so carefully
planned that there are no grades over eight percent." ^^ This road, it
will be recalled, was re-built in the 1830's by West Point engineers.
This was one of tlic better roads at the
turn of the Century. Of the H,000 ■miles
of .roads in the State, only 225 miles were
surfaced with gravel like this. Note the
steep hill ahead. No effort was made by
the early road builders to cut down a grade.
They merely surfaced the trails of the past.
^ Ibid, page 265.
*Acts of 1805, Chapter 150.
" Geological Survey, Vol. Ill, pp. 192, 194.
44 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Getting Maryland Out of the Mud
Much of the mud which had aroused the farmers was unnecessary,
Johnson found. It was due to almost a total lack of proper road drainage.
To prevent water from the road running into private lands, he noted,
"storm water is frequently kept in the road-bed until some water-course
is crossed." ^^ The proper use of ditches, cross-ditches and side-drains
was little understood and less practiced.
Johnson went about the State preaching grading, drainage and other
fundamentals to the hundreds of county road supervisors, all untrained
men who in a county such as Wicomico received wages of $1.25 for each
day they worked upon the roads (average: 50 days a year).
Strange to their ears were such statements as "the surfacing of an
ungraded road simply preserves it in a bad condition. The object of a
pavement is to furnish a wearing surface and a protection for the founda-
tion from water and consequent softening. It is in reality a roof. It is
the rolling which makes the roads." ^-
Johnson pointed out that the best roads did not necessarily have the
thickest pavements. Most of the Maryland turnpikes were at least
eighteen inches thick with the lower course of large stones ten inches or
more in diameter (telford construction).
"The macadam road," he told them, "rolled to a thickness of six inches
has been found everywhere to be all-sufficient." ^-^ He carefully made the
point that the thinner the surface the less money the road would cost.
In fact, he showed that much of the money spent on roads in Maryland
was entirely wasted.
Showing the People Good Road Samples
On the theory that "seeing is believing" a one-half mile sample of
modern road construction was built in the summer of 1898 between Kings-
ville and Fork in Baltimore county. It embodied the latest principles of
highway engineering known at the time and the construction was super-
vised by an expert of the federal office of Road Inquiry of the Department
of Agriculture, the parent organization of the present Bureau of Public
Roads.
The foundation was first shaped and rolled by steam roller, then cov-
ered with a layer of two and one-half inch stone which in turn was thor-
oughly rolled. The second layer of stone was then spread and rolled. A
^'Ibid, page 271.
'-Ibid, pp. 201, 2.55, 277, 282, 284.
''Ibid, page 286.
The Good Roads Movement 45
thin binder course was added making the total thickness of the pavement
about six inches. The road was constructed 12 feet wide and the cost for
the one-half mile was computed at $2,268. The road material was trap-
rock found in abundance at the roadside.
It will be noted that this construction was essentially the same as the
first macadam laid in 1823 on the Boonsboro Pike and again on the
National Road in 1834,^^ except that in 1898 the compaction was made
by road roller instead of wagon traffic.
When this model stretch was completed, Maryland had its first recorded
"road opening." The leading citizens of the State were there, and ad-
dresses were delivered on the virtue of good roads.
Exhibit at Timonium Fair
A year later a second model strip 100 yards long was constructed as an
exhibit at Timonium Fair. Built in sections, this sample showed the
different stages of construction from the properly prepared subgrade to
the fully rolled surface. As reported at the time: "Many people visited
the road and great interest was manifested in the latest and most ap-
proved methods which were exhibited in its construction." ^-^
Appealing to the Pocketbook
The Geological Survey continued its campaign of public education by
hammering hard at the economic advantage of good roads. It discovered
that the average cost in Maryland of hauling farm produce by wagon
was 26 cents per ton per mile, against 12 cents over improved roads in
northern states and 10 cents in England. From these and other figures
it concluded that by building good roads Maryland would save some
$3,000,000 per year.
But how much would such a program cost? The Survey was ready by
1899 with its figures. It estimated an average cost of $4,000 a mile for
approximately 1500 miles of main roads, or $6,000,000. In addition, it
made a rough calculation of a million dollars to buy out the turnpikes,
or seven million "to improve all the important roads of the state."
It admitted : "this is a large sum and the wisdom of expending it should
be thoroughly discussed." It then suggested a ten-year program of
$700,000 per year, the cost to be divided equally between the State and
the counties.
''Ante, pp. 24, 33.
'^Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, pp. 44, 45.
46 A History of Road Building in Maryland
It pointed out that the people were ah-eady paying some $600,000 a
year on roads and bridges, in addition to $140,000 in tolls on turnpikes.
It recommended a state highway commission to supervise the program.^*^
Mixing Politics and Large Rocks
But the legislatures of 1900 and succeeding years were not ready for
state supervision of roads.
In most counties the old methods persisted, causing the Survey to say :
"and with the old result of no practical improvement, each season remov-
ing ah traces of the previous season's work." ^'
The local county commissioners clung to their time-honored system,
about which one farmer commented : "They mix politics and large rocks
and have no good roads."
The Geological Survey took note of this aspect of the matter in 1903
when it said : "The elimination of political influence from the disburse-
ment of the road money is perhaps too much of a reform to expect, but
it is not too much to hope that at no distant time it will be found to be
good politics to make good roads." ^"^
Local Pressure Sparks Road Reform
The pressure for reform came from the people. In county after county
mass meetings were held by such groups as the Vansville Farmers' Club
of Prince George's County, the Third District Road League of Elkton and
many others.
Short stretches of sample roads were built in various parts of the State
as reminders to the people of what could be done.
An example was a one-mile section in Queen Anne's County just south
of the Chester River, surfaced with slag shipped by barge from Sparrows
Point. The County Commissioners put up $500 to pay for the material
and the citizens furnished all the labor needed.^"
The State Aid Road Law^
An important break-through for the good roads movement was the pass-
age in 1904 of the so-called Shoemaker Act,-" the first significant statute
^'Ibid, pp. 409, 426-28.
" Geological Survey Reports, Vol. IV, page 97.
^« Ibid, Vol. V, page 145.
''Ibid, Vol. V, pp. 146, 184.
^Acts of 1904, Chapter 225; Geological Survey Reports, Vol. VI (1906) page 298,
The Good Roads Movement 47
for state financial aid and state supervision. The act
took its name from Samuel M. Shoemaker of Baltimore
County who with Conway W. Sams and others has been
referred to as a leader of the march to get Maryland out
of the mud.
This statute appropriated $200,000 annually from the
State Treasury to build modern macadam roads in the
State, provided the counties matched this money on a
fifty-fifty basis. Thus a potential fund of $400,000 a
year was set up to modernize the highway system.
^FathlToTfirsi ^^ ^^^ "^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^ $700,000 the Geological
state-aid Survey had said was necessary in its 1899 report; never-
road law theless it was a long stride in the right direction and
the principle suggested was adopted : state aid up to
fifty percent and state supervision.
Under the Act the counties were to select the roads to be improved sub-
ject to approval of the Geological Survey which was the state agency
named to administer the new law. Upon approval the State made surveys,
drew up plans and specifications and made initial cost estimates. The
County Commissioners then advertised for bids, which were publicly
opened and read, and the contract awarded the lowest responsible bid-
der, provided the bid was not more than the State's estimate. The State
was charged with supervision of the work through inspectors. Any land
acquisition costs were to be assumed entirely by the counties. The money
was to be apportioned to the counties on the basis of their road mileage.
Upon completion of a contract satisfactory to the State the road became
a county road and the county commissioners were required to keep it in
good repair, under penalty of a taxpayer's mandamus suit if they failed.
There was much opposition to the statute as radical legislation both
during its stormy passage through the halls of Annapolis and afterwards.
It was said to infringe on the principle of local rights and to give the
State too much power. It was promptly attacked in the courts as uncon-
stitutional on the "internal improvements" theory. The Court of Appeals
sustained the law nearly a year after it was passed and it went into effect
in February 1905.-^
However, the proponents of the legislation, while glad to get half a loaf,
kept pressing for greater state powers over main roads and for the cre-
ation of a state highway commission.
Ihid, pp. 295, 323.
48 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Dust and Other Problems of the Infant Auto
The dawn of the Auto Age was given official recognition in Maryland
toward the end of 1907. The highway reports of the Geological Survey
mention the automobile for the first time — with respect and some concern.
The building of the macadam roads up to that time, it was said, "was
simply to design a surface fit to protect the road foundation from the
destructive effects of weather, the shod feet of animals and of hard-tired
wheels running at a moderate rate of speed." It recognized the "modern,
high-powered, fast-speeding, rubber-tired automobile as an inevitable
condition to be henceforth considered and provided for."
The auto was apparently here to stay. What provision, if any, should
be made to receive it?
The chief objection to speeding automobiles, doing fifteen and twenty
miles an hour down macadam roads, was the dust they raised. It was
admitted that temporary improvement could be obtained by sprinkling
the dry macadam surface with water. Properly refined oils with an
asphaltum base were more permanent, however, while the use of coal-tar
was still better.
"Properly built and tarred macadam may yet prove a solution for the
question," the 1907 report stated.
"Breakers" In the Road or "Governors" on Cars?
The dust nuisance of the auto, it was said, was entirely due to its speed.
If it passed along the roads as slowly as horse-drawn vehicles there would
be no complaint. The weight of the machine w^as not as great as a loaded
wagon and the rubber tires were actually beneficial to the road surface.
But that speed !
The highway officials of 1907 came up with two constructive suggestions
to handle the problem of auto speeding: (1) the building in the road at
frequent intervals of artificial ridges or breakers extending across the
road high enough "to absolutely deter the most rabid 'scorcher' from more
than one attempt to maintain an excessive speed over a road so con-
structed"; and (2) "regulation of the gearing of high-powered machines
so that excessive speeds are impossible." -- This was the early governor
suggested for cars.
Roads Cost $8,000 A Mile
The Geological Survey, through its highw^ay division, handled state
road matters from 1898 to 1908 when the State Roads Commission was
^"■^ Geological Survey Reports, Vol. VIII (1908), pp. 37-40.
The Good Roads Movement 49
created. This new agency will be described in succeeding chapters. After
1908, the Survey ran parallel to the Roads Commission for two more years,
administering the Shoemaker Act and other matters.
The highway division of the Survey was abolished in 1910 and all of
its duties transferred to the new commission.
In five years it had completed under the State Aid Act 125 miles of
state roads at an average cost of $8,016 per mile including bridges.-" In
addition, 20 miles had been constructed of a 30-mile road between Balti-
more and Washington at a cost of about $12,000 per mile.
Public Relations Campaign
The Survey's main value to the State, however, was educational.
Through studies, press releases and the building of model roads, it con-
ducted what today would be considered an intensive campaign of public
relations in the good roads field.
In turning over its powers, duties and property to the Roads Commis-
sion in 1910 Professor Clark, who for twelve years had been the spark
plug of the Survey, made this closing remark : "It also acquires the other
assets of the Highway Division, not the least of which is the sure appre-
ciation by the public of the good roads movement." -^
'■'Ibid, Vol. IX (1910), pp. 89, 99.
-'Ibid, Vol. IX (1910) pp. 82, 94.
Part II
THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS
OF THE STATE ROADS COMMISSION
(1908 — 1928)
Chapter V
THE FIRST STATE ROADS SYSTEM
Governor Austin L. Crothers, who has been called the father of the
state roads system, came into office in 1908 on a good roads platform.
He steered through the Legislature a bill providing
for the building of such a state-wide network in seven
years and lubricated this legal machinery with a whop-
ping $5 million appropriation.^
To administer this program the Legislature estab-
lished the State Roads Commission.
The Commission was to use its judgment in selecting
the system, which in general was to run through all the
counties of the State and connect all the county seats
with Baltimore.
The plan involved no new construction on new loca-
tions. Existing roads of the past were to be chosen and
brought up to modern standards: that is, hard-surfaced.
The new Commission began its seven-year assignment with the vigor
of youth and accomplished its mission on schedule. However, the cost
ran nearly double the original appropriation.
By the end of 1915 there had been constructed and accepted 875 miles
of all-weather roads on the main system at a cost of $9,817,000 or $11,225
a mile.
GoiK Crothers
^ Acts of 1908, Chapter 141.
51
52 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Thirteen Hundred Miles
Some 190 miles of privately-owned turnpikes had been purchased, and
in some cases improved. In addition, it had completed the Washington
Boulevard begun by the Geological Survey, had constructed a new Balti-
more-Annapolis road, and had absorbed into the new system many miles
of State-aid road built both before and after the Commission was created.-
The completion of the program therefore gave Maryland about 1,300
miles of interconnecting highways which penetrated into every corner of
the State. It not only connected the county seats, but it joined many of
them with isolated but important points, such as the road from Princess
Anne to Crisfield.
The 1915 report of the Roads Commission pointed out that it was now
possible to ride from one end of the State to the other "over trunk lines," -^
mentioning the 405-mile direct run from Oakland to Ocean City by way of
Cumberland, Hagerstown, Frederick, Baltimore, Elkton, Chestertown,
Denton and Salisbury. By use of the Bay Bridge this distance has now
been cut to about 310 miles.
The state roads system as originally laid out touched neighboring states
at but few points. The system was strictly intra-state, to connect the
counties with each other.
Thus the York road was improved as far as Parkton, but not to the
Mason-Dixon Line; and present U. S. 13 and U. S. 113 stopped dead at
Pocomoke, four miles north of Virginia.
Of course, the dirt roads of an earlier era were still there, but hardly
anyone used them. Interstate travel, as well as the great majority of
transportation inside the State, was by railroad.
Early Road Metal
The type of roads built was of the greatest variety, but generally con-
structed of material found in the locality.^ There was sand clay construc-
tion, broken stone macadam, gravel macadam, shell macadam, pitched
macadam, brick, stone block and sheet asphalt pavements, the latter ma-
terials being used in and near the metropolitan centers. Experimental
work was undertaken on inferior local materials by mixing them with
cement and bitumens with satisfactory results.
==SRC 1908-12, pp. 12, 17, 79; SRC 1912-1.5, pp. 29, 116; SRC 1927-30, p. 18.
Note: The "SRC" references given here and subsequently are to the bound volumes
of the reports of the Roads Commission on file in the office of the Commission
Secretary. They have been published every four years, every three years and in
recent vears biennially.
' SRC 1912-15, page 16.
' SRC 1908-12, pp. 52, 57.
The First State Roads System
53
The dust menace of the automobile, so lamented by the Geological Sur-
vey, continued to plague the new Commisson. Discussing the dust prob-
lems on dry stone roads it said in one of its early reports, "It apparently
has never been suggested that a remedy for this state of affairs is the
abolition of the motor vehicle. On the contrary, their increase in numbers
and their development for all sorts of purposes seems to be inevitable
and probably fortunate,"
So the Commission engineers adopted the policy of oiling the dry stone
roads soon after construction and building surfaces with bitumens or
pitches. Of the latter material the Commission by 1911 had adopted a
rule-of-thumb : where the average daily traffic was less than 20 motor
cars, the dust problem was insignificant; where the daily traffic exceeded
20, the road should be treated with bitumen either during or immediately
after construction."'
First Concrete Paving
Concrete paving was first introduced into the state roads system in
1912, in the middle of the "seven-year-program," although its use for
other building purposes such as
bridges and even city streets was
well-known. The first use of Port-
land cement concrete for rural
roads in the United States was in
1909 in Wayne County, Michigan,
now a part of the city of Detroit.*"
After a personal inspection of
the Michigan experiment in 1912,
the Roads Commission laid five ex-
perimental sections of concrete
that summer, totalling in length
three miles. Three sections were
on the Washington Boulevard at
Bladensburg, Paint Branch and
Laurel, while the others were in
Charles and Cecil counties." The
sections were subjected to heavy
cost of maintenance was found
To combat thv dtist jji-obleni of tlic sjned-
iiig auto on ch-ii stone )-oads, the first Com-
mission expe)i)iie)ited ivith nnme}-ous oiling
devices. This scene shotvs earltj application
of coal tar and crude oil.
traffic, they stood up well, and the
negligible.
'■SRC 1908-12, page 105.
''Highway Engineering, Ronald Press (1951) page 601.
' SRC 1912-15, page 48.
54
A History of Road Building in Maryland
The use of concrete was extended until by the completion of the pro-
gram in 1915 a total of 190 miles had been laid at a minimum price of 90
cents per square yard.
This material was found cheaper
than macadam on the Eastern
Shore, where stone had to be
transported long distances, and
many miles of it were laid there.
A 14-foot concrete road was built
in 1914 and 1915 from Salisbury
to near Ocean City, the longest
stretch in the State. Most of this
early Maryland concrete is still in
m. £ ^ ^ • 1 ■ 1 ■ TM place, although long since covered
The first concrete paving was laid m Mary- t-^"^--? " ^* & &
land in the summer of 1912. Here a hay with one or more bituminous COat-
wagon and a couple of flag-bedecked early
cars try out the new surface. ings.
The First Roads Commissioners
The members of the Roads Commission are appointed by the Governor
and serve at his pleasure without Senate confirmation.
This arrangement was established by the General Assembly of 1908
and has been sanctioned by successive legislatures. The governmental
theory is that, since roads are so close to the people, road commissioners
should be immediately answerable to an executive who in turn is responsi-
ble to the people.
The first commission was set up with a five-man mem-
bership, and Governor Crothers proceeded to make his
appointments at once.
His choice of chairman was John M. Tucker, a fellow
Cecil countian. Known as "Crothers' right-hand man"
and with no experience in road matters, finance or ad-
ministration. Tucker at forty years of age plunged into
his new duties with great determination. He gave up
his private interests and put full time, and indeed over-
time, in this $2,500 a year post. He was at his office
day and night, and when not behind his desk was all
over the State inspecting road construction.
The law provided for two other salaried members, at $2,000 each, and
two non-salaried members. For the first two the Governor named Francis
C. Hutton, a graduate civil engineer and Montgomery County farmer.
Mr. Tucker
The First State Roads System 55
and Samuel M. Shoemaker, the Baltimore County farmer who for years
had been a militant good roads enthusiast. Shoemaker
maintained a lifelong interest in civic affairs, and at his
death in 1933 was chairman of the Board of Regents
of the University of Maryland.
The non-paid members were from the Geological Sur-
vey: State Geologist Clark and Dr. Ira Remsen, presi-
dent of the Johns Hopkins University.
This quintet was sworn in by the Governor on the
morning of April 30, 1908 at the old Rennert Hotel,
then a leading hostelry situated at Saratoga and Cathe-
dral streets. They set up executive offices in the Union
Trust Building at Charles and Fayette streets, and engi-
Dr. Remsen neering offices at the old Geological Survey headquarters
in the Johns Hopkins University buildings at 522 North Howard street.
Experienced Man for Chief Engineer
For their first Chief Engineer they chose Walter W. Crosby, who also
was chief engineer of the Survey. Crosby was a trained highway engineer
who had come to Maryland in 1901 from the Massachusetts Highway
Commission. He was brought here by Shoemaker to be the first Highway
Engineer of Baltimore County, which was the first sub-division in the
State to establish such an office. He transferred to the Survey in 1904.
The Commission had the benefit of Crosby's trained staff, the back-
ground of the Survey's studies, and the excellent work done by the testing
laboratory. For a new agency, it got off to a smooth and auspicious start.
Roads System Planned on Town Meeting Principle
Its first task was to select a roads system that would carry out the
mandate of the statute. In a forthright, democratic manner it decided
to go to the people and find out what roads they wanted. So it set up a
series of hearings in all sections of the State to sound out public opinion,
on the time-honored town meeting principle. Such a gathering, arranged
by Chairman Tucker, was held in Frederick in June, 1908, and was typi-
cal of others.
The Chairman rounded up three automobiles, a majority of his com-
missioners, the chief engineer, the new secretary of the Commission,
J. C. Bowerman, and Governor Crothers, who under the law was an
ex-officio member of the Commission.
This caravan motored to the Courthouse at Frederick, and was greeted
by an overflow crowd composed of farmers, townsfolk and members of
56 A History of Road Building in Maryland
the Good Roads League of Frederick, Carroll, Howard and Montgomery
counties.
Governor Crothers opened proceedings with a little speech explaining
the objectives of the law, and closing with these words: "The spirit of
the law is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of persons.
There are difficulties to be overcome at every turn, and we want the
assistance and support of you people to help us over the rough places." ^
Then they asked for suggestions as to where the new roads should go.
Nearly everyone who spoke had a different road in mind, and usually it
was the one that ran past his house. Frederick County had 1,151 miles
of roads at that time, the largest road mileage in the State.'-'
When the commissioners left town, their three motor cars sputtering
over old Jug Bridge, they carried suggestions for stone roads which, if
adopted, would have used up their entire mileage for the State, and ex-
hausted the whole appropriation of $5 million. And so it went all over
the State.
Back in Baltimore, the Roads Commission held further hearings in an
effort to cut down the suggested mileage to a realistic figure. By April 1,
1909, they had finally selected a state road system of about 1,300 miles,
and on that day announced it to the public.
In June they let their first contract, a one-mile section from Federals-
burg to the Dorchester line. By the end of the year they had 111 miles
started, and by the end of their term in 1911 they had completed 168
miles, with an additional 176 miles under construction.^^
Nine Thousand A Mile Thought Too High
The first Commissioners let contracts to low bidders on 80 sections of
state roads totalling 258 miles. However, on 32 sections totalling 90 miles
they made other arrangements for the construction because they thought
the prices they were getting from contractors were too high.
In Washington County they arranged with interested private citizens
to perform the work. In other counties they farmed out the work to
County Commissioners. In eight counties they hired and organized their
own forces while in three counties individual commissioners undertook
the task.
For instance, in Cecil, Chairman Tucker was authorized to build six
miles of road according to his own ideas. He employed superintendents,
* Baltimore Sun, June 6, 1908.
" Geological Survey Reports, Vol. IV, page 296.
^« SRC 1908-12, pp. 14, 15, 19.
The First State Roads System 57
labor, teams and bought the materials. Although without experience, he
personally supervised the performance of the road-building.
This departure from the bid system had been authorized by the Legis-
lature.^' It was a frank experiment to find the best and cheapest method
to rebuild Maryland's road system.
Low Bid System Found Best
The results were not satisfactory. In his 1911 report, Chief Engineer
Crosby gave the figures : work done by contract under the low bid system,
$9,650 per mile; work done by counties and by the Commission's own
forces, $12,026 or 25 percent higher; work performed by individual com-
missioners, $14,218 or 47 percent higher.
Crosby was critical of Chairman Tucker's performance in Cecil: "It
was said that the character of the results secured was not as good as that
usually had from contract work. The excessively high cost of this work
was undoubtedly due to inefficient management of the work." ^-
Disagreements between the Chief Engineer and the Chairman resulted
in a rift in the Commission itself, where a definite division was noted
between the "scientific men" (Remsen and Clark) and the "practical men"
(Tucker and Hutton), with Sam Shoemaker in the middle. In this em-
barrassing situation. Governor Crothers sided openly with the Chairman
without, however, exercising his right to remove any of the others. He
frequently appeared at Commission meetings and, as ex officio member,
cast his vote to back up his Chairman.
At mid-term in 1910 an Act was passed increasing the membership of
the Commission from five to seven. The Governor did not immediately
use this new power, however, but held it as a sort of threat to the men
of science. In some important matters, such as the purchase of the turn-
pike from Baltimore to Boonsboro, the Commission divided evenly
(Crothers, Tucker and Hutton versus Remsen, Clark and Shoemaker),
and no action at all was taken.'-'' Finally, in the closing year of his ad-
ministration, the Governor took control by appointing one additional mem-
ber, a political associate named Charles B. Lloyd.
The Weller Administration
In 1912, Phillips Lee Goldsborough, of Dorchester, moved into the
Executive Mansion. As his chairman of the Roads Commission he ap-
"Acts of 1908, Chapter 141, Section 32-D.
^^'SRC 1908-12, pp. 117, 118, 139-143.
''' Baltimore Sun, October 18, 1910.
58 A History of Road Building in Maryland
pointed Ovington E. Weller, of Arlington, then Baltimore County, to
finish the Seven-Year Program.
Weller was a man of many facets. Born in Reisterstown, he was
graduated from the United States Naval Academy with the class of 1881.
He studied law at the National Law University in Wash-
ington, and for some years was associated with the Bos-
ton investment firm of Hornblower and Weeks. He later
became a United States Senator from Maryland.
He was a man of some means and was able to devote
full time and more to the low-paid post at the Roads
Commission. He did a top-notch job, reorganizing it
from top to bottom, and setting a pattern that successive
commissions have found generally useful.
The Governor at first kept the two "scientific men,"
Remsen and Clark, but appointed three others to assure
Weller a working majority. They were Walter B, Miller,
Mr. Weller ^ Salisbury business man, Andrew Ramsey of Mount
Savage, Allegany County, and E. E. Goslin, a former State Senator from
Caroline County who had been Secretary of the Commission since 1910,
succeeding Bowerman who had resigned. To succeed Goslin as secretary,
the Commission appointed William L. Marcy, postmaster of Annapolis
and a Goldsborough lieutenant in Anne Arundel County.
Two 3'ears later, in 1914, three new faces appeared on the Commission.
Dr. Remsen, who had just retired as president of Johns Hopkins, asked
to be relieved of his Roads Commission duties. So did William Bullock
Clark. These two men, both dedicated scholars, had served their State
in the good roads movement without compensation since 1898.
The Legislature then voted salaries for these posts. In the meantime
Senator Goslin had died. For the three vacancies the Governor appointed
Thomas Parran, of Calvert County, J. Frank Smith, of St. Mary's County,
and John M. Perry, of Queen Anne's County.
But regardless of the subordinate memberships, the Commission was
run throughout the four years by "Old Man Weller," as he was aff"ection-
ately known throughout the State.
One of Weller's first acts as Chairman of the Roads Commission in
1912 was to create a new position of "assistant chairman," an office de-
signed to handle the administrative details of the Commission and leave
the Chairman free for policy matters. To this post the Commission
named Frank H. Zouck, a native of Baltimore County, president of the
Reisterstown Savings Bank.
The First State Roads System 59
Shirley Is New Chief Engineer
To round out the first team in 1912, the Commission appointed Henry
G. Shirley to be chief engineer in place of Walter W. Crosby, who had
resigned. Shirley had succeeded Crosby once before, in
1904, when Crosby left the position of Roads Engineer
of Baltimore County to become Chief Engineer of the old
Geological Survey.
The Weller administration assured its own success and
the prompt fulfillment of the Seven Year Program the
day it appointed Henry Shirley. For he became one of
America's finest highway engineers. To him goes much
of the credit for Maryland's high rank as a good roads
state before World War I. As the Baltimore Sun said:
"He finished a primary road system ahead of any
state." "
^ . „, . , Native of West Virginia, a graduate of the Virginia
Military Institute, Shirley moved from his Baltimore
County roads post to the State Roads Commission at the age of 38. He
came to build a road system, and when he finished his assignment he went
on to other fields. He left Maryland in 1918 to become Secretary of the
Federal Highway Council during the War, and was a member of the Com-
mitee of Highway Transport of the Council of National Defense.
Shirley Highway Named For Him
In 1922 Shirley was appointed Chairman of the Virginia Highway Com-
mission at a salary of $12,500 a year, then one of the highest in the
country. He was reappointed by successive Virginia governors, and held
this position until his death in 1941. He was charter member and first
president of the American Association of State Highway Oflficials, and
also served as president of the American Road Builders Association.^^
"Shirley Highway" in Virginia — officially the Henry G. Shirley Me-
morial Highway — was named for this former chief engineer of the Mary-
land Roads Commission. Known on the maps as Route 350, it runs south
from Washington and is one of the Old Dominion's finest freeways.
The District Men Ride Motorcycles
One of Shirley's first acts for the 1912 Roads Commission was a reor-
ganization of the Engineering Department and the establishment of the
' Baltimore Siin, Library sketches.
'Archives, Virginia Department of Highways, Richmond, Va.
60 A History of Road Building in Maryland
"District Engineers" system. The first Commission had one engineer
for construction and another for maintenance, with separate staffs work-
ing out of Baltimore headquarters. Shirley consolidated these positions
and divided the State into eight geographical sections, each in charge of
a resident engineer who was responsible for all construction and mainte-
nance therein.
Each district engineer was equipped with a motorcycle and it was a
common sight to see these men, wearing goggles and leggings, dashing
about the Maryland countryside inspecting the work in their districts.
The system started by Shirley survives in principle today.
Among the early district or resident engineers appointed by Shirley
were William F. Childs, Jr., who later became Chief Engineer and retired
in 1955, and Austin F. Shure, who after 49 years retired in 1958 from
the position of Assistant to the Chief Engineer.
The new system reduced travel expenses, railroad fares and inspection
trips and was claimed to have "saved the State thousands of dollars yearly
in expenses and in increased effectiveness." ''' Regular meetings of these
district men were called several times a year in Baltimore for conference
with the top echelon at headquarters and for the comparison of problems
and procedures. A similar system is in effect today.
Offices Moved to Garrett Building
The new Commission made a complete inventory of all machinery and
tools and opened an equipment ledger with one person in charge of all
physical property. It organized a Purchasing Department requiring writ-
ten requisitions for all items bought, a system which the Commission
reported "saved the State $59,500 in three years and four months."
It installed a new accounting system set up by the outside accounting
firm of Haskins and Sells, requiring monthly statements. It provided
for appointments and promotions on a strictly merit basis, thus anticipat-
ing by some years the State Merit System.
In 1913 the Commission moved its offices and also its engineering de-
partment to the Garrett Building in Baltimore, occupying the entire sixth
floor. The testing laboratory was set up in specially-designed quarters
in the basement. Thus for the first time all of the Baltimore operations
of the Commission w'ere under one roof.
The financing of the road construction under the Seven Year Program
and for other projects was entirely by biennial bond issues authorized
by successive legislatures. Through 1914 the amount authorized was
"SRC 1912-15, page 9.
The First State Roads System
61
$15,770,000, the sale of which netted the Commission $15,376,524 for
an average rate of 97.5049 percent.'"
Pre-Award of Contracts Saves Quarter Million
The 1914 appropriation of $6,600,000 was not made until April 16,
late in the season to organize a construction program. So the Commission
took the unusual step of "pre-awarding" the contracts. During the winter
of 1913-14 it advertised for bids and awarded some 80 contracts, subject
to sufficient money being provided by the Legislature to cover them.
When the money was appropriated, the Commission was ready with
its notices to proceed and the contractors lost no time in going to work.
This practice reaped the benefit of low bids and sharp competition
from many contractors unemployed during the winter. It also resulted in
bidding by many out-of-state contractors, furthering competition. The
Commission claimed a saving of from $250,000 to $500,000 "over what
this work would have cost if it had not been advertised until after April
16, as was the case in 1912." ^^
Program Completed on Schedule
With this head-start 1914 became the Commission's finest year. By
year's end it had completed 225 miles of hard-surface roads and had un-
der construction 204 more.
The year 1915 was the deadline
;-^";^-^»^'' ■ for completion of the seven-year
assignment begun in 1908. Be-
cause of the large amount of work
done in 1914 and previous years,
this target date was relatively easy
to reach. The commissioners built
187 miles in 1915 and by Novem-
ber were able to announce that the
state roads system was "about
completed." '••
Example of eurly road co)ist)'uctio)i under
the "seveii-year prog)-am" of 1908. Ox carts
and flivvers share the iviprovements on an
equal basis.
Prices Up Since 1908
The 1908 Legislature had hoped
the job could be done for $5,000,-
000, the amount of its initial ap-
'' Ibid, page 17.
^^ Ibid, page 12.
'" Ibid, page 16.
62 A History of Road Building in Maryland
propriation. But it actually cost nearly twice that amount — and the
Legislature made appropriations as needed.
During the period costs rose sharply, not only for labor but for stone
and the freight charges to ship it. In 1913 Governor Goldsborough re-
ported that road construction costs were up 20 to 40 percent over 1908
prices.
The $11,000 a mile cost of the first state road system was considered
by many legislators a pretty high price to pay for good roads.
Chapter VI
MEETING THE PROBLEMS OF WORLD WAR I
After the frantic spurt of the previous seven years, the period 1916-
1920 was one of relative inactivity.
Although the Legislature appropriated $5,700,000 "to fill in all the gaps
in the secondary system," and for other purposes, only $2,816,780 was
spent and only 191 miles con-
structed ^ — not as much as in the
one year of 1914.
A new commission was inducted
in the Spring of 1916. In 1917 and
1918 the War was on, and by 1919
prices had skyrocketed.
Construction which cost $12,833
per mile in 1916 and 1917 had
reached the staggering figure of
$20,468 in 1919. So the Commis-
sion built the roads that were con-
sidered of first priority and let
the rest ride unimproved into the
Twenties.
The designers of the first state road system
had not anticipated the heavy army equip-
ment of World War I. The pavements
were not wide enough or thick enough to
stand up under this kind of traffic.
New Commissioners
A new administration was back
in Annapolis by 1916, and the Leg-
islature reduced the membership of the Roads Commission from seven
to three.
Governor Harrington promoted Frank H. Zouck to the chairmanship
and appointed as his associates G. Clinton Uhl of Allegany County and
John F. Mudd of Charles County.
The Commission selected as assistant chairman John E. George of Sud-
lersville, who had been Maryland's first Automobile Commissioner. Clyde
^ SRC 1916-20, pp. 5, 14.
63
Meeting the Problems of World War I
65
H. Wilson of Hagerstown was elected Secretary. These men served out
the four years.
Mackall Now Chief Engineer
Henry G. Shirley remained as Chief Engineer until
his resignation in 1918 when his place was taken by a
young engineer from the University of Maryland, named
John N. Mackall, a native of Calvert County who had
spent all his adult life in state road work. Mackall had
joined the staff of the old Geological Survey in 1905, and
had transferred to the Roads Commission in 1908, where
he served as Engineer of Surveys and in other capacities.
For about two years before his appointment as Chief
Engineer, he had left state service and was connected
with the Pennsylvania Highway Department.
Mackall had a thorough knowledge of the Maryland
Mr. Zouck YQ^^ system and of the Marylanders it served. He
brought force, enthusiasm and imagination to his post.
The Country's First Concrete Shoulders
During his first summer as Chief Engineer, he developed another
'Maryland first" — the use of the concrete shoulder. This inexpensive
and ingenious device enabled the early road commissions
both to widen and improve road surfaces, and to better
serve heavy wartime traffic. It was widely copied else-
where and became known as the "Maryland plan" ; al-
though in highway terminology the roadway shoulder is
and was then the area of the roadbed immediately ad-
jacent to the traveled way.
The Maryland shoulder was a concrete strip two to
three feet wide laid along each side of an old macadam
road. It was built to such a height above the edge of
Mr. Mackall ^]^q pavement that road metal, generally a bituminous-
type backfill, could be added on the sides of the macadam.
Shoulders were first laid in Maryland in 1918 on the Bel Air Road and
on the Baltimore- Washington Boulevard. As in the case of so many other
improvements, necessity was the mother of invention. Some way had to
be found both to widen and strengthen the roads to accommodate the
huge Army vehicles that were rushing back and forth through the State.
The Washington Boulevard took the worst beating because of its prox-
imity to a new Army camp called Fort Meade. So an 18-mile stretch of
66
A History of Road Building in Maryland
this highway was rebuilt with shoulders in 1918, increasing the width to
20 feet.
Concrete shoulders had many advantages. They were easily and quickly
built. They could be constructed one side at a time so that traffic was
maintained thus avoiding detours so common in those days. The backfill
at the road edge added much-needed strength where the surface was
w^eakest and failures most frequent. They reduced the crown and thus
promoted safety of travel. -
Use of Sheet Asphalt
Another road improvement tried by the Commission in 1918 and 1919
was the use of sheet asphalt on heavily-traveled roads outside of Balti-
more. This material was first applied on old Philadelphia Road (State
Route 7) and placed in the proportion of one inch of binder to one and
a half inches of top on an old macadam base.-'
Sheet asphalt was also used during the period as a surfacing for early
concrete roads pounded by traffic to the point of failure. This type sur-
The Roads Commission met the proble.yi by rebuilding and widening the roads with
concrete shoulders. Here are typical construction scenes during and after World
War I.
-Concrete Highivay Magazine, Vol. VI, No. 8, page 174 (August, 1922) Article by
Harry D. Williar; SRC 1916-20, pp. 34, 39.
== SRC 1916-20, page 41.
Meeting the Problems of World War I
67
Concrete shoulders not only widened the roadway hut allowed for strengthening the
surface. The space between the raised shoulder and the center or crown of the road
will be filled with road material.
facing was found by the engineers to be generally satisfactory as a road
covering and economical to maintain.
Years of the Locust
The years of World War I were years of the locust for Maryland roads.
Truck traffic was everywhere replacing wagons, bringing to roadbeds a
weight problem unforeseen by the earlier road-builders.
The State was dotted with factories making the tools of war, and with
military camps and installations. Each produced its quota of new and
heavy traffic. War restrictions prevented new construction of roads and
shortages of labor and materials hampered adequate maintenance.
The road system just completed in 1915 was in many places severely
damaged by 1919.
Chapter VII
MARYLAND ROADS IN THE ROARING TWENTIES
In 1920 Albert C. Ritchie became Governor of Maryland and remained
in that office for fifteen years.
By this time the primary road system had been built, and much of it
rebuilt. In many quarters, Maryland was regarded as the "best-roaded
state in the nation" and her policies and practices were freely copied else-
where.
The emphasis now was to be on improving safety and comfort on the
main roads while building up the secondary system of the State, the farm-
to-market network of feeder highways.
For his chairman of the Roads Commission the Governor selected John
N. Mackall, the career-man who had been made chief engineer just two
years before. Omar D. Crothers of Cecil County, a nephew of Governor
Crothers, was named an associate member. He had been a state senator
for two terms, and upon his resignation from the Roads Commission in
1925 moved over to the State Industrial Accident Commission. He was
succeeded by R. Bennett Darnall, an Anne Arundel County lawyer.
For the minority membership the Governor appointed D. Charles Wine-
brenner of Frederick. Upon Winebrenner's resignation in 1924, the
minority post went to William W. Brown, publisher of the Daily News,
of Cumberland.
The nine years of the Mackall administration were the boom years
for Maryland and America — the Boom that preceded the Bust.
The Boom Years
It was the Roaring Twenties, the time of the hip-flask, the coon-skin
coat and the Charleston ; the period of Teapot Dome, calm Calvin Coolidge
and Al Smith's brown derby; the era of unlimited expansion, low income
taxes and the dizzy spiral of an always rising stock market.
It also was the day of the flivver, that remarkable automotive contrap-
tion which in 1925 Henry Ford built to sell for $500, complete with side-
69
70 A History of Road Building in Maryland
curtains. The country took to the roads Hke children let out from school.
In Maryland, for instance, the number of motor vehicles increased from
103,000 in 1920 to 320,000 in 1929.
Maryland was ready for the resultant growth in motor car traffic —
as ready as she ever had been — or would be again for many a year. In
1920 there were some 2,000 miles of hard-surfaced roads in the State.
Much of this mileage had been widened by concrete shoulders.
In its 1923 report the Commission said : "Maryland's road system is
undoubtedly the best in the Union but widening has improved it in many
places." ^
It was now time, the Commission felt, to give the motorist that little
extra fillip of comfort and safety. The pioneer days of sheer road-buildup
were over; the time was ripe for a few refinements.
Signposts and the Flashing Lighthouse
Directional and distance signs were erected along the entire road sys-
tem. Every cross road was earmarked with wooden signs, 20 by 30
inches, giving the name of the road and the distance to each nearby town
or hamlet.- Many of these signs are still in service, and have become
landmarks of the Maryland countryside.
At the edge of each center of population was erected a 10 by 10-foot
map showing the routes through the town. Mackall said : "It's harder
to get lost in Maryland than to find your way through any other state." ^
At the state lines where some states say merely "WELCOME," the
Commission erected 15 by 25-foot sign boards, on which were summaries
of the State's motor vehicle code.
Other large signs were built on mountain tops instructing inexperienced
drivers how to go down hill. Among such words of advice the signs
offered this one : "Descend in second gear with ignition cut off." One
motorist complained he followed this instruction and blew out his muffler,
which cost him $9.54.^
Although the law prohibited commercial advertising within the right
of way, the Commission had the 1922 Legislature make an exception for
the "flashing lighthouse," a familiar object on the highways for many
years. At curves and other spots a round ball constantly flashed the
danger signal while the post which supported it advertised commercial
products.
^ SRC 1920-23, page 14.
^ Ibid, page 16.
^Concrete Highway Magazine, Vol. VI, No. 5 (1922), page 103.
^Baltimore Sun, November 13, 1922.
Maryland Roads in the Roaring Twenties
71
Typical flashing lighthouse on Maryland
roads in the Twenties. It flashed the danger
signal at the top of a hill. This one ad-
vertised golf balls.
The Commission report for 1923
said : "These are maintained with-
out expense to the State Roads
Commission by the advertising
space carried on them. They are
proving eminently satisfactory and
it is hoped to continue this or simi-
lar marking." "'
The Commission also instituted
white lines down the center of
roads, the banking of curves, and
was the first highway department
to commence snow removal. In
1922 Mackall said : "The Maryland
system of roads is second to none
in the Union and it is kept in per-
fect maintenance." ^'
The new Commission of 1920 abolished the position of assistant chair-
man created in 1912. For assistant chief engineer it selected Harry D.
Williar, Jr., a University of Maryland engineering graduate who had
been with the Commission since 1908 except for the War years when he
was a member of the Engineering Department of Baltimore City.
The new Secretary was Lamar H. Steuart who had joined the staff in
1908 and left to work in a war plant in 1917. Steuart remained as Sec-
retary for 29 years.
Two Jobs
Occupying the combined posts of Chairman and Chief Engineer was
John Mackall, causing the Baltimore Sun to say : "He holds a unique posi-
tion among state officials."
Mackall early advocated removing all maximum speed limits in the
State and enacting minimum limits instead. "The slow driver is the real
cause of trouble on the road," he said.
He took his campaign to the Legislature that year and the maximum
limit in rural areas was increased from 35 to 40.
He devised a plan to buy the Susquehanna Bridge from private toll
operators and make it an ultimately free crossing.
SRC 1920-23, page 16.
Baltimore Sun, January 22, 1922.
72 A History of Road Building in Maryland
The Commission instituted truck weighing patrols to protect the new
highways from overweight trucks, and set up the first "camp sites" in
the East, roadside retreats which were the forerunner of the picnic area
program of today."
The Gasoline Tax
Probably the most important innovation insofar as the Roads Com-
mission was concerned was the adoption during Governor Ritchie's ad-
ministration of the gasoline tax law of 1922.
Before that year all road financing had been by successive bond issues
and thus was a charge against all taxpayers generally. The gas tax
shifted the burden to the motorist on the theory that he who uses the
highways should pay for them.
The first tax of one cent a gallon was raised to two cents in 1924.
Three years later the tax was doubled and a half cent was earmarked to
finance the grade-crossing elimination program of 1927. The tax became
five cents in 1947 and in 1953 six cents, its present level.
With the federal government's three cent tax, motorists in Maryland
in 1958 pay nine cents tax on each gallon of gasoline bought in the State
for use on public roads.
The gas tax has been the solid bulwark of road financing for 35 years.
It is collected for the State through the gasoline service stations and other
retail outlets and has been found generally satisfactory.
Grain Highway
During the Ritchie administration the Roads Commission built the
Grain Highway, now U. S. 301. It was the first new road constructed
on a new location since colonial days.
The whole 2,000-mile system built from 1908 to 1922 had consisted of
the surfacing of old trails hacked through the province before the Revolu-
tionary War. The Grain Highway, named for a Baltimore lawyer who
was its chief backer, set out boldly on a direct route to connect Baltimore
with deep Southern Maryland.
The Legislature of 1922 appropriated a million dollars to build this
new highway from Mattawoman in Charles County to Benfield in Anne
Arundel County, a distance of 32 miles. Here it connected with the Gen-
eral's Highway from Annapolis north through Glen Burnie to Baltimore
(State Route 178 ).»
• SRC 1924-26, page 21.
«SRC 1920-23, page 10; SRC 1924-26, page 15.
Maryland Roads in the Roaring Twenties
73
The superhighway of the Twenties ivas the Grain Highway — long, straight and the
first on new location since the Eighteenth Century. It is yiow being rebuilt as one
lane of newly-dualized U. S. 301. The original road cost $40,000 a mile.
The road was started in 1922 with ground-breaking ceremonies at
Upper Marlboro, where a monument was erected by private interests to
commemorate the event, and was completed five years later by the Roads
Commission at a total cost of some $1,250,000, or about $40,000 a mile.
It was opened in 1927 with pomp and ceremony befitting the occasion —
said to have been the most elaborate road opening conducted by the Com-
mission before or since.
The Shortage
In 1928 it was discovered that a number of employees centering around
the Purchasing Department, together with outsiders, had stolen from the
State property and money totalling $376,000. The thefts were from the
Commission's revolving fund, and the bulk of them was perpetrated
through fictitious supply and material purchases.
A Baltimore grand jury investigated the charge. Fifteen men were
indicted, thirteen pleaded guilty or were convicted. Eleven of them were
sentenced to terms in the State Penitentiary.
These sensational developments produced a grand inquest by the Legis-
lature and the appointment by Governor Ritchie of a citizens' committee
composed of outstanding men and with John J. Nelligan as its chairman.
74 A History of Road Building in Maryland
The Nelligan Committee spent many months probing into every corner
of the Roads Commission's activities, duplicating in some respects the
work of the grand jury. The Committee found that various changes
were needed in the accounting system, that the peculations were solely
for the benefit of the employees involved, and did not benefit "directly or
indirectly any higher officials," and that "the road work of the Commis-
sion has been carried on with ability and thoroughness."
The group exonerated all other persons except those who had been con-
victed, and it specifically cleared the three commissioners who had noth-
ing to do with the unfortunate matter.
In discharging the Nelligan Committee Governor Ritchie said : "This
proves the excellency of the roads system and the honesty and efficiency
with which it has been administered. I have complete confidence in John
Mackall." •'
Notwithstanding this confidence, the three commissioners resigned in
1929 to make way for a sweeping reorganization of the Commission and
its accounting methods.
The State's loss of $376,000 was in part offset by the recovery of
$146,625 through surety companies, lawsuits and otherwise.^*^
These events interrupted but did not impede the Roads Commission
in its forward march to better highways.
Baltimore Sun, August 2, 1929.
"Ibid, September 29, 1931.
Chapter VIII
WASHINGTON BOULEVARD: RISE AND FALL OF NUMBER ONE
From earliest times the historic travel route between Baltimore and
Washington has been Maryland's principal problem road.
Colonial travelers bemoaned its mudholes and Twentieth Century
motorists its accident rate, one of the worst in the country.
It was the first road paved by the State and became known as State
Road No. 1. As a vital part of an Atlantic coastal route from Maine to
Florida, it later became U. S. Route 1.
It was the first new road torn to pieces by the heavy army trucks of
World War I and when it was rebuilt, it was the first road in the country
widened by concrete shoulders.
In recent years it has earned such sobriquets as "bloody Mary," **bill-
board boulevard," and "hot-dog highway."
Its history is a story of futility and of frustration.
This highway headache may be over.
Since 1954 new ribbons of concrete have joined the two cities by a
park-like freeway, the peer of any in the nation.
In addition, as a part of the new federal interstate highway program,
a third expressway is in the planning stages.
Historically the road dates back more than 200 years. The first sec-
tion built in 1741 connected Baltimore with Elkridge, then a thriving
port. The Patapsco there was crossed by a sort of raft operated by Ed-
ward Norwood and to many travelers was known for years as Norwood's
Ferry. In 1749 the road was continued to Georgetown on the Potomac.^
It was a dirt road built by the counties under the 1704 Act requiring
cart roads of twenty-foot width. It passed through Waterloo, Laurel and
Bladensburg on practically the same location known to modern times.
The City of Washington had not been built.
Wagons Dodge Stumps in the Roadbed
The original ancestor of the Washington Boulevard was "only a line,
in a very rude condition," according to one writer. Yet stagecoaches
^SRC 1912-16, pp. 68, 70.
75
f!
^
s
^
r'~'~'**%'
:-\..
"^
Washington Boulevard — Rise and Fall of No. 1 77
plied back and forth and loaded wagons dodged stumps left in the roadbed.
Travelers reported it sometimes took four hours to make 13 miles in
the low Patapsco region but that the last 12 miles to the Potomac "seem
pretty good as to road." The fare by stage from Baltimore to George-
town was four dollars, the distance 45 miles.-
Once constructed, this road, like others in the province, received little
attention. In some places the county road supervisors found it easier to
cut a new passage through the trees than to mend the old road.
As a traveler observed : "It is very common in Maryland to see six or
seven roads branching out from one, which all lead to the same place.
A stranger, before he is acquainted with the circumstances, is frequently
puzzled to know which he ought to take." In other places they mended
the roads by filling the ruts with saplings or bushes and covering them
over with earth.
George Washington Gets Stuck in the Mud
This haphazard maintenance continued for over fifty years and until
after the District of Columbia was carved out of Maryland and the
capital city named for the first President.
In fact, Washington himself was stuck in the heavy mud on the road
near a branch of the Patuxent River and his carriage pulled out by ropes
and poles furnished from a neighboring house.
Maryland's early lack of care of this road — the principal thoroughfare
from New York and Philadelphia to the new capital — was notorious as
early as 1796. The travel writer Weld exclaimed : "The roads passing
over these bottoms are worse than any I ever met with elsewhere." He
added : "That the Legislature of Maryland can be so inactive and not take
some steps to repair this high road to the city of Washington is most
wonderful." ^
Turnpike Brightens Travel
The Legislature remained inactive for over a hundred years but relief
soon came with the advent of the turnpike period in Maryland. A private
company was incorporated in 1796 to build a toll road over the old right
of way, but had money troubles and gave up. Sixteen years later, a sec-
ond company obtained a charter but the War of 1812 and the capture of
Washington by the British slowed up construction. Finally, in 1820 a
turnpike on a 60-foot right of way was built between the cities.
^Transportation in the United States Before 1860 — Carnegie Institute of Washing-
ton (1917) pp. 54, 74.
^Weld's Travels through North America (1796), page 16, — note; Geological Survey
Reports, Vol. Ill, page 161, 162.
78 A History of Road Building in Maryland
During all of this period of indecision and delay, and during construc-
tion of the toll road, traffic was streaming over whatever roadbed could
be found and this travel increased year by year. For this road, if it
could be called a road, was the only entrance into the nation's capital
from Baltimore and the North.
The toll road was built of stone and gravel and it vastly brightened
travel conditions. At first it used Norwood's Ferry to cross the Patapsco
at Elkridge but in 1817 a timber toll bridge was erected^ by another
company, thus causing stage passengers to pay two fees for the trip.
First Telegram in U. S.
But the days of this turnpike were numbered almost from the start by
the coming of the railroads. Soon two rail companies and later an elec-
tric line gave quick and easy passage between the two cities.
In 1844 Morse sent his first telegraph message from Washington to
Baltimore, over wires strung on poles set inside the right of way of this
road. "What hath God wrought" further reduced the need for travel
between these points.
The turnpike folded in 1865 when it was condemned by the State be-
cause it was not kept in proper repair. It reverted to the counties from
which it sprang and again became a county road. The Elkridge toll bridge
survived only four more years when its owner sold it to Baltimore and
Howard counties for $5,000.
Wanted: $285 to Pave Hyattsville
With the surge of the Good Roads movement in the Nineties renewed
efforts were made to repair the road.
But on all sides resistance was met from the people who, not averse to
road improvements, nevertheless refused to raise money for such projects.
For instance, inside the limits of Hyattsville, which the Boulevard tra-
versed for a distance of one-third of a mile, the Maryland Geological
Survey '-' measured a grade of seven and a half percent, a steep slope for
a horse and wagon.
The grade could be reduced to four percent and the whole distance
paved with gravel for $285, the Survey found. Prince George's County
offered to pay half if the incorporated town would pay the other half.
The town refused and the matter was dropped. And so it went all along
the line.
* SRC 1912-16, page 69.
^ Geological Survey Reports, Vol. IV, page 153.
Washington Boulevard — Rise and Fall of No. 1 79
First State Road
In 1906, with both bicyclists and fans of the new automobile beseech-
ing it, the Maryland Legislature took action — at long last. It decided to
make the rebuilding of this highway a state project and to call it State
Road No. l.«
This was a significant and radical change in State policy and was bit-
terly assailed in the legislative halls, especially by the Eastern Shore and
other sections which did not stand to gain by it. Since 1666 the policy
had been that each county build what roads it wanted — and pay for them.
The new scheme would have all the counties contributing to a road which
ran through only three.
The state-road advocates were successful, however, and the Legisla-
ture appropriated $90,000 to reconstruct the thirty miles between Balti-
more and the District line. The Geological Survey started the road and
the State Roads Commission finished it. It was built to a 14-foot width
of macadam, gravel and in some sections, concrete. Grades were reduced,
some parts straightened and relocated and four of the seven dangerous
railroad grade crossings eliminated.
A new concrete bridge replacing a former iron structure, was built
on old stone masonry piers at the Elkridge crossing of the Patapsco and
new concrete girder bridges were built over Eastern Run and Anacostia
River near Bladensburg.
First Boulevard Cost $20,000 A Mile
When the Boulevard was finally completed in 1915 it was found to have
cost a total of $628,553," including bridges, or $20,950 per mile — the high-
est price yet paid in Maryland and a real shocker to the people.
Sunday Drive to Washington
But the people of Maryland had a prize road, one of the finest in the
country. In goggles, caps and dusters they mounted their 1915 flivvers
and breezed over the smooth surfaces and fancy new bridges.
Travel from Baltimore to Washington and back became a popular Sun-
day afternoon pastime. Little shacks sprang up on the roadsides to cater
to the pleasure cars. Blacksmith shops became garages and signs ap-
peared on the Boulevard such as "We Fix Flats."
The future of "hot dog highway" was assured.
"Acts of 1906, Chapter 312; Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Vlll, page 49.
'SRC 1912-16, page 71.
80
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Road Ruined After Three Years
World War I brought a new and unforeseen enemy to the road — the
steady pounding of solid rubber tires of thousands of army trucks. Built
to stand up under light pleasure
cars the road crumbled and turned
to rubble. The winter of 1917-
1918 produced a record cold and
still further damage.
So three years after it was built,
Maryland's proud State Road No.
1 lay a torn and twisted mass in
spots, far worse than the earlier
dirt road.
Heavy Aiiuy trucks damaged the new road
surface.
Rebuilt with Concrete
In 1918 and 1919 the Boulevard
was rebuilt at an outlay of some $350,000, making the total cost to the
Roads Commission from 1908 to the end of 1919 a sum of $973,352,'^ or
more than $32,000 a mile.
Many sections which were lost beyond repair were rebuilt with concrete
twenty feet wide; sections of macadam which could be redeemed were
widened to twenty feet with con-
crete shoulders and resurfaced.
A sharp turn in the road one-
half mile south of Elkridge already
had had so many fatal accidents
that is was known as "Dead Man's
Curve." This place was eliminated
in 1919 by relocation and the Com-
mission announced : "This has en-
tirely removed the source of
danger." ■'
Other new and hitherto untried
safety measures were installed.
All culverts, telephone poles and
headwalls were whitewashed and the Commission said : "Travel, especially
at night, is much more satisfactory as well as less dangerous."
ijt^
Ma
•emoved in 1919.
" SRC 1916-1920, page 67, Exhibit E.
"Ihid, pp. 7, 8.
Washington Boulevard — Rise and Fall of No. 1
81
U. S. 1 In 1925
In 1925 State Route 1 became part of U. S. 1, the main street of the
East Coast from Fort Kent, Maine to Key West, Florida.
This promotion in status brought an even greater flow of interstate
travel and new roadside services. About 6,000 cars and trucks a day
were roaring along the road, crowding its twenty-foot pavements and
leaving in their wake a trail of crashes, injuries and violent death. So,
once again, the old highway was rebuilt.
Rebuilt Ten Years Later
From 1928 to 1930 the roadway was doubled in width to forty feet and
resurfaced.!" This meant extending all the bridges. The improvements
cost over a half million dollars but it was believed that now the traffic
problem was licked.
By this time the edge of the road in many places lay right against the
doorsteps of countless buildings that had sprung up along the Boulevard ;
no further expansion was possible without costly condemnation.
During the Thirties the road became the midway of America, a sort
of flying carnival as more and still more traffic zoomed over the four-
lane undivided highway.
Birth of Billboard Boulevard
Billboards and other advertising signs grew up in every size, shape and
color. Mrs. Edward H. McKeon, a Baltimorean prominent then, as now,
in garden club and other civic work, rode along the road and counted the
billboards. Total: 1,099 or 39 to a mile.^^
By 193i there ivere over a thousand hiUhoards on the road.
SRC 1927-30, page 252.
Baltimore Sun, July 22, 1934.
82 A History of Road Building in Maryland
The Boulevard was dotted with pottery stands and blanket stalls. With
repeal of Prohibition in 1933, roadside speakeasies pulled up their blinds
and called themselves restaurants and bars. One was built like a Missis-
sippi sidewheeler, another like a Western dude ranch. As one motorist
reported : "The atmosphere is not bucolic but alcoholic." ^-
By 1938, when 18,000 cars and trucks were passing by daily, the hun-
dreds of roadside merchants had organized into a Baltimore- Washington
Boulevard Association. ^'^ Each stop of the motorist, of course, meant one
more interruption to the orderly flow of traffic : a deceleration, a pull-out,
a frantic dash into the traffic lane and a speed-up.
The Association was in favor of any and all improvements the State
Roads Commission could make to the old road in order to keep the tourist
dropping by. It was dead-set against a new highway on another location.
New Highway Only Way Out
Yet a new highway was coming. That was the only way out of the
frightful mess of U. S. 1. The latter simply could not be improved. Its
closely built-up roadsides with their unlimited entrances had given it
hardening of the traffic arteries. It was a nightmare.
In 1939 Governor Herbert R. O'Conor and Maryland's road officials
met other highway chiefs in New York to talk about a superhighway
running from Boston to Washington.
As the Washington Times-Herald described the meeting: "This new
road would supplant historic and ruined old 'U. S. One,' the most heavily
traveled and deadliest stretch of road in the world. One of the most im-
portant proposals is to junk that section of U. S. One between Washington
and Baltimore and replace it with a modern parkway.
"There has been plenty of easy talk about this from Maryland poli-
ticians for years and we have been stung time and again on believing
them. Somehow we like to believe Mr. O'Conor is going to be different." '^
The new expressway finally came, a joint effort of Maryland and the
Federal Government. It was the dream highway of mid-century — every-
thing that old U. S. 1 was not.
Right of Way Up to Three Hundred Feet Wide
It ran as a parkway through thirty miles of gently rolling Maryland
countryside with no crossroads, no stop-lights, no billboards and no road-
side establishments.
"^Ihid, June 23, 1940.
'^ Baltimore-Washington Boulevard Traveler, June 1938.
" Washington Times-Herald, December 14, 1939.
Washington Boulevard — Rise and Fall of No. 1
83
The Baltimore-Washington Expressway connects ut its sotithern terminus with the
Kenilworth Interchange, Maryland's most complex grade separation structiire.
Both Baltimore and Washington caught the spirit of the times and
built elaborate and costly new approaches to it.
The expressway was designed, not as a dual highway with a median
strip, but as two separate roadways, each to fit the terrain as a single
road. Thus the travel-strips may run on different elevations, close to-
gether or far apart, depending on land contours and other factors. At
places one roadway is not visible from the other.
The right of way varies from a minimum of 300 feet to 400 feet. This
was not a new design standard when the ribbons were cut in 1954, but
neither was it very old. The parkway was strictly up to date.
84 A History of Road Building in Maryland
A Million A Mile
Under leadership largely furnished by Maryland's Representative
George H. Fallon, Chairman of the House sub-committee on Public Works,
the Federal Government built 19 miles, including three bridges and fifteen
grade separation structures, at a round figure cost of $16,500,000.
About one-half of this mileage was on the federally-owned property
of Fort Meade and the National Agricultural Research Center. However,
the government spent some $450,000 on right of way in the heavily built-
up lower end, a project on which it saved money by starting as early as
1946.
The State Roads Commission spent about $14,200,000, including two
long bridges and fifteen grade structures, on its ten miles adjacent to
Baltimore. The whole project averaged $1,060,000 a mile.^"*
Grades do not exceed three and a half per cent, nor curves three de-
grees. The paving is mostly portland cement concrete, the federal section
having eight-inch concrete slabs and the Maryland part ten-inch. The
federal portion was built to parkway standards — which meant no trucks.
In Maryland trucks may use any public highway so the state-built section
carries mixed traffic — passenger cars and trucks, ^'^
In addition to the built-in safety features of the road, there are such
added factors as new reflectorized signs and special protective guard rails
on a railroad overpass — aluminum-tubed arches over the sidewalks."
In 1955, the first year the expressway was fully open, it carried an
average daily traffic of 18,000 vehicles, which by 1958 had increased to
an average of 27,000 vehicles. U. S. Route 1 was still carrying 17,000
vehicles per day, and the traffic on State Route 29 between Baltimore and
Washington has doubled in 15 years.
Federal Part to Maryland?
The pavement was hardly dry on the final sections before the federal
authorities made overtures to give its part to Maryland.
Like those for the National Road before it, the congressional appropri-
ations had been entirely for construction and not for subsequent upkeep.
This maintenance fee was estimated at $3,000 a mile, or $57,000 a year.
Maryland was a reluctant beneficiary of this federal largess. It, in
effect, looked the gift-Cadillac in the mouth. As one observer reported:
^^Engineering News-Record, New York, January 28, 1954.
" Highway Builder, November 11, 1953.
'• Engineering Neivs-Record, New York, April 14, 1955.
Washington Boulevard — Rise and Fall of No. 1 85
"The United States is having trouble giving away its share of what is
perhaps the most highly publicized free highway in the country." ^^
Service on the Expressway?
Travelers on the expressway will find new accommodations if present
plans of the Roads Commission materialize.
As an experiment, a service area is planned south of the Dorsey road
interchange where a gasoline station and a restaurant will be built by
private interests under a competitive bid lease arrangement with the
State.
Patterned after the service areas on the turnpikes in the northern
states and Boston's circumferential highway, this facility will be the only
place to buy gas, food or service between Washington and U. S. 40 east
of Baltimore, for motorists who use the expressway and the tunnel system.
Planning For A Third Road
During the summer of 1958 travelers to and from Washington were
being stopped by a corps of young men doing an "origin and destination"
study. This was part of the planning for a future third highway in the
tale of two cities, one that will connect with high-speed cross-city express-
ways envisioned under the Federal Interstate Highway Act of 1956.
'^ Transport Topics, April 18, 1955.
Chapter IX
HIGHWAY HOUSEKEEPING— STUDY OF MARYLAND
MAINTENANCE
The Roads Commission early recognized that keeping up the new roads
was just as important as building them.
In 1910, before the first mile of the state road system had been com-
pleted, a Maintenance Division was established by the Commission and
heralded with the statement: "It is useless to construct expensive roads
unless they are to be protected from the traffic."
Chief Engineer Crosby observed that "the requirements of maintenance
work demand the careful performance of little things — 'many a little
makes a mickle'." ^
Neglected Stepchild
This awareness of the need for highway maintenance was significant.
Throughout recorded history, the repair of roads has been a neglected
step-child. The classic example was the method of the Federal Govern-
ment itself. Appropriating millions to build the National Road out of
Cumberland, it nevertheless at first refused to spend a cent on upkeep,
with the result that the great road to the west broke up almost as soon
as it was laid.
But Uncle Sam was merely following a long and tragic policy that
seems to be grounded in human nature: road-making is creative and
somewhat spectacular so men will spend money on construction; upkeep,
like housekeeping, is dull business, so the public and legislators tend to
neglect it.
Sins Forgiven If They Work the Roads
The Romans partially solved the maintenance problem on their 53,000-
mile road system by using slave labor. In old England there were no
slaves so the Church in many places took on the job of road repair.
^SRC 1908-12, pp. 26, 101.
87
88 A History of Road Building in Maryland
In 1411 Bishop Stafford granted an "indulgence," or remittance of
punishment for sins, to those persons who would work on the roads near
Plymouth. In fact the clergy who wrote most wills often included a legacy
for the upkeep of highways.
In 1435 such a bequest left ten pounds sterling "for the repair of foul
roads and feeble bridges." The maintenance thus provided, however,
was fragmentary: "sticks and rocks thrown into potholes and covered
with earth and stones."
The first general road-repair law w^as passed by Parliament in 1555
and set the standard for the later American colonies. It required land
owners to "send their carts, horses, men and tools, four days in every
year, for mending the roads." -
In Maryland early road maintenance was entirely a matter of private
concern. Abutting property owners and those who wished to use the
primitive trails kept them in makeshift repair. Even the first road law
of 1666 dealt only with construction although it provided for a system
of road overseers.^
Early Marylanders Required to Work Roads
The important road act of 1704 first took official notice of maintenance
in Maryland. It ordered the overseers to keep their roads clear, under
penalty of a fine of 500 pounds of tobacco. It also required land owners
to furnish "male servants" for road work when called upon by the over-
seer, on the pattern of the English law of 1555. An act of 1732 exempted
from this law any "white man or slave employed in any iron-works." ^
This was the beginning of "statute" or forced labor on Maryland roads.
It was important for two reasons. The Legislature recognized the need
for a general state-wide law for the upkeep of the highways. It filled
the need in an equitable manner by causing all citizens to work on the
roads either personally or through their slaves or employees, thus avoiding
road taxes.
Forced Labor Unsuccessful
The system was a failure. The overseers were petty officials appointed
by county authorities. They had complete discretion in calling for labor
contributions from the citizens. There was therefore unlimited oppor-
- Public Roads of the Past, Washington (1952), a publication of the American
Association of State Highway Officials, page 28.
^ Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 110.
'Acts of 1732, Chapter 17; Geological Survey Reports, pp. 120, 124.
Highway Housekeeping — Study of Maryland Maintenance 89
tunity for favoritism and abuse. Those summoned resented being forced
to work.
The character of work was inadequate. The overseers generally were
ignorant in road matters. They had but the haziest notions of proper
drainage and grading. Their equipment was primitive and labor was list-
less. After every rain the road once again was a sea of mud.
This state-wide statute remained in effect down to the Twentieth Cen-
tury, but county after county had local laws passed by the Legislature
exempting them from its requirements and setting up their own system.
By 1900 only Wicomico and Worcester retained forced labor and here the
citizens were permitted to pay for a substitute.'^
The first sub-division to break away from statute labor was Baltimore
County in 1766. By 1794 twelve counties had made provision for road
taxes for highway maintenance.^
Regardless of the system employed in Maryland, no substantial im-
provement was noted in road maintenance during the Nineteenth Century.
Great effort was expended but the mountain labored and brought forth
a mouse. Discussing sandy Eastern Shore roads in 1898 a report said
they were in poorest condition when dry but "if too wet they are also
bad and there is seldom just the right proportion of moisture to render
the road at all firm." ^ There was not much that could be done with dirt
roads.
Poor County Maintenance
By 1900 each county had an organized road department operated by
the county commissioners who hired the supervisors and assigned each
one certain mileage for which he was responsible. These supervisors
were untrained part-time men.
In reporting on this procedure, a 1900 statement of the Maryland Geo-
logical Survey said : "Supervisors feel called upon to leave a trace of their
work at every point along the roads allotted to them, with the old result
of no practical improvement, each season removing all traces of the pre-
vious season's work. The thin veneering of improvement is soon lost
and the roads return to their former condition." ^
SRC Maintenance Work Starts
The new Maintenance Division of the Roads Commission began its work
in the summer of 1910.
^Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 257.
«Acts of 1794, Chapter 52; Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, pages 147, 148.
' Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 196.
' Ibid, Vol. IV, page 97.
90 A History of Road Building in Maryland
It started with a background of knowledge and experience accumulated
by the now superseded Survey Commission, In fact, the first Maintenance
Engineer came to the Commission as an inheritance from the Survey.
He was William D. Uhler, of Caroline County. In its first few months
the Division assumed jurisdiction over 71 miles of the new state road
system opened at the end of that year.
To combat the dust nuisance of the automobile it oiled and pitched this
mileage at once. Its work in this field soon received national attention
as other states also were looking for ways to accommodate the new motor
vehicle. In 1911 the Chief Engineer reported that the use of bituminous
materials for maintenance "has attracted much attention from the other
states and even from abroad. The results secured compare favorably with
those had elsewhere." ^
The Man with the Gold-Lettered Cap
Maryland was one of the first states to establish a separate Mainte-
nance Division. It also was one of the first — if not the first — to organize
its maintenance work by assigning every mile of its roads to the care of
specially equipped persons known as patrolmen.
Each one of these men was given into his charge a section of newly
completed macadam road. He generally lived in the neighborhood and
was assigned from four to eight miles as his territory, the extent depend-
ing on the density and character of traffic as well as other factors.
The patrol system of maintenance, established in 1910, was an integral
part of road upkeep until 1930. It was considered highly satisfactory
and was abandoned only because
motorized equipment was making
such hand labor unnecessary. By
1915 there were 76 patrolmen in
charge of 501 miles of road, aver-
^ aging 6.6 miles per man.
^^ The road patrolman was a color-
ful figure not easily forgotten by
early habitues of the Maryland
road system. Each one wore a cap
marked in gold letters "STATE
PATROLMAN." He wore a num-
ber on his arm and carried a red
A 1920 patrolman with his tools and sup- flag which he placed on the ground
^ ^^^' as a protection against motorists,
» SRC 1908-12, page 58.
f ^
Highway Housekeeping — Study of Maryland Maintenance
91
and also as a sig-nal that he was on the job if a District Engineer dashed
by on his motorcycle.
The value of the system lay in its immediate attention to damage. If
a surface was neglected until a hole formed, the maintenance work was
multiplied.
But a vigilant patrolman did not let the damage go that far. As soon
as he noticed the slightest wear he planted his red flag and went to work.
Usually, all he needed to do was paint the bare spot with bituminous
material, cover it with stone chips and tamp it down, bearing out the old
saying that a stitch in time saves nine.
Patrolmen were inspected and rated constantly by the resident main-
tenance engineer. They vied with each other over these ratings as each
wanted his strip of road to look the best and get the highest mark. Under
the Mackall administration cash prizes were awarded patrolmen for the
best sections and signs were erected on the roadside advising motorists
of this fact.
For their work, patrolmen were paid between $2 and $2.50 per day
for a 10-hour day. Sometimes instead of a wheelbarrow they used a horse
and cart, in which event they were allowed fifteen cents an hour extra
for its hire.^°
Highway Work Reduces Prison Idleness
In June 1917, under pressure of wartime labor shortages, the Com-
mission launched a program of road maintenance by labor from Mary-
land's penal institutions. Gov-
ernor Harrington worked out the
plan which started with 18 prison-
ers and by 1919 used 327. They
were engaged mainly for oiling
work and spreading chips behind a
bituminous distributor.
The practice had a venerable
historical precedent.
In 1788 the Legislature passed
a statute directing the courts to
order vagrants and persons con-
victed of certain crimes to labor
upon the roads of Baltimore
County.
Since the passing of the patrol system,
maintenance work has become mechanized
as shotvn in this ctirvent photo.
^°SRC 1908-12, page 102; SRC 1912-16, pp. 38-40; A. F. Shure, personal remin-
iscences.
92 A History of Road Building in Maryland
One writer of the period called them "wheelbarrow men" and told of
seeing large groups of prisoners working on the highways near Balti-
more. "Accompanying each group is an overseer," he said, "wearing side-
arms and often carrying a musket."
With the Dark Ages of the highway following the coming of the rail-
road and with the development of the penitentiary system, the use of such
labor was suspended.
The present system dates from 1938. The first camp for fifty prisoners
was opened on Warehouse Creek near Chester, Kent Island. The Chief
Engineer of the Roads Commission that year was able to say: "The first
two months of the new prison labor road program has been a distinct
success." ^^
There are now camps at Chester, at Quantico in Wicomico County and
at Hughesville in Charles County. Some 350 prisoners regularly work on
the roads during the construction season.
During the past twenty years the program has been uniformly success-
ful, reducing prison idleness while at the same time helping in highway
housekeeping.
Maintenance Deficits Start Early
The Legislature from the first has recognized that construction and
maintenance of state roads should be financed separately. In 1910 it
passed the "Automobile Law" ^" setting up a special fund for maintenance
entirely apart from the construction fund financed by successive bond
issues.
The fund so provided came from license fees paid by Maryland motor-
ists on the 4,500 motor vehicles licensed in that year. During the first
year the Commission was awarded $26,576 for its portion and in the fifth
year $190,334, reflecting both the increase in completed state roads and
in motor vehicle registration (30,000 in 1915).
When Governor Goldsborough assumed office in 1912 he was immedi-
ately concerned with the inadequacy of this maintenance fund. "The
people demand the roads and are willing to pay for them," he said. "It
is folly to put money in them unless they are kept up." ^'^ On his recom-
mendation the Legislature provided for a one-cent direct annual State
tax for maintenance. By the end of 1915 this tax was yielding $95,893
a year in addition to funds under the license tax.
^^ Baltimore Sun, May 9, 1938; Ibid, July 30, 1938; Ibid, October 13, 1939; Sutcliff's
Travels in North America, Philadelphia (1812), page 48; Geological Survey Reports,
Vol. Ill, page 159.
^'Acts of 1910, Chapter 207.
'^Baltimore Sun, October 4, 1912.
Highway Housekeeping — Study of Maryland Maintenance
93
Both of these revenue sources proved inadequate, however, to finance
the ravenous demands for repairs during the war years. With the new
and heavy trucks burning up the thin road surfaces, and with wartime
costs up, a deficit mounted in the maintenance account year by year.
So in 1920 construction funds were first transferred to use of the Main-
tenance Division.^^
But a new source of revenue was found in 1922. The one-cent gasoHne
tax imposed that year provided that the first receipts should be used to
liquidate the balance of the deficit in the maintenance account. License
fees and other highway users' taxes have continued through the years
as the principal revenue for maintenance, but they have never been
sufficient.
Today the Commission maintains about 5,000 miles of roads, counting
dual highways as double maintenance. The budget for the current year
is $9,772,424, of which four million comes from tax revenues in the Con-
struction Fund.
The District Engineers
The maintenance work in the field is directed through seven divisions
or districts, each in charge of a district engineer. This system was
A road drag designed for maintenance of gravel roads in Southern Maryland in 1916.
" SRC 1908-12, pp. 26, 42, 66; SRC 1912-16, page 43; SRC 1916-20, page 59; SRC
1920-23, pp. 12, 128.
94 A History of Road Building in Maryland
founded by Chief Engineer Shirley in 1912 and has worked satisfactorily
through the years.
Each district engineer has an assistant with a district-wide assign-
ment whose duties are to coordinate and direct the manifold maintenance
activities. Each district engineer also has an assistant for construction.
Most of these men are natives or long-time residents of the localities
which they serve. They are uniformly men of substance and standing in
their communities. The vast majority of people in their sections think of
these men whenever a roads question is mentioned.
Now Seven Districts
The first district, comprising the four lower counties of the Shore, is
presided over by C. Albert Skirven of SaHsbury. The second district is
composed of the five upper counties. The district engineer, Rolph Town-
shend of Chestertown, was detached in 1958 from that district and given
supervisory maintenance duties in all nine counties of the Shore, operat-
ing under division headquarters in Baltimore. C. Roland Sharretts of
Chestertown is serving as district engineer.
The third district is made up of the two counties of Prince George's
and Montgomery and is in charge of Lisle E. McCarl, with headquarters
at Laurel. Baltimore and Harford counties comprise the fourth district
under Enoch C. Chaney of Reisterstown.
The fifth district takes in the four Southern Maryland counties and its
district engineer is Edward G. Duncan whose office is at Upper Marlboro.
The three far-western Maryland counties compose the sixth district, under
G. Bates Chaires of Cumberland.
The seventh and final district includes the counties of Frederick, Carroll
and Howard whose district engineer is Thomas G. Mohler of Frederick.
Director of Highway Maintenance for the State until his 1958 retire-
ment was P. A. Morison, a career man whose period of service with the
Commission dates back to 1911. From 1922 to 1946 he was district engi-
neer for the first district and lived at Salisbury. State Maintenance Engi-
neer is Frank P. Scrivener, who came to the Commission in 1922 and has
held his present post since 1931.
Snow — The Good Lord Put It There
Prior to 1920 no effort was made by the Roads Commission or any other
agency to clear snow from public roads. Snow was considered an Act
of God and a heavy storm closed the roads. General thinking was neatly
Highway Housekeeping — Study of Maryland Maintenance
95
expressed by the man who said : "The Good Lord put it there and if you
give Him time He'll take it away."
Maryland was one of the first states to hasten the work of nature by
an organized snow-removal campaign. In the winter of 1920-1921 500
miles of principal highways were kept open. The following year 1,500
miles were cleared and in the winter of 1922-1923 the service was ex-
tended to the entire state system which then totalled some 2,000 miles.
Snow Removal A Waste of Money?
Many people in Maryland wanted the service, pointing out that lives
might be saved if physicians could get through to sick patients in rural
areas. Others thought it a complete waste of money since the snow would
melt anyway, eventually.
The Roads Commission made careful tests in the winters before 1920
to determine if the practice could be justified not only on humane grounds,
but also economic. The results were reported as follows : "After consider-
able experimenting, it was demonstrated that the great amount of snow
and hail that was allowed to remain on the road did much damage and it
was further shown that the cost of removing the snow, at least on the
main lines, would be entirely offset by the cost of repairs to the surface
in the spring."
For the winter 1922-1923, when the snow averaged 22.5 inches, the
2,000 miles were cleared at an estimated cost of $20,000 or $10 per mile.^^
'H
b
^i
In
1^
%.
fy
Ik •*
^
.. --^
ms^^"*
_
Before the days of the heavi/ mechanized
equipment, snow removal often was by
hand shovel or horse-drawn plow.
This is a type of rotary snow tractor in
use in Western Maryland today.
SRC 1920-23, page 17; SRC 1924-27, page 20.
96 A History of Road Building in Maryland
The cost now is about $120 a mile in a normal winter.
Chairman Mackall described the first plan of snow removal in a national
trade journal in 1922: "Special warnings of snow storms are sent out by
the U. S. Weather Bureau to the district oflfices so that equipment may be
started at the beginning of the storm, for it has been clearly shown that
snow removal can be effectively carried on only when work is begun
immediately." ^^'
1958: The Heaviest Snows
Oddly enough, the most damaging snow storms and the most costly
snow experience of the Roads Commission occurred in the anniversary
year of 1958. The price tag for snow removal ran to a record figure of
$1,419,625 in comparison to a recent average year's cost of about
$600,000.1^
The 1958 test was the most severe in the 38 years of snow removal.
"Concrete Highway Magazine, Vol. VI, No. 5 (May 1922), page 103.
'■ SRC Maintenance Division records.
Chapter X
THE "LAB"
Maryland's early road building pre-eminence can be traced in large
measure to its scientific testing of road materials.
The Roads Commission's testing laboratory is its oldest division and
antedates the Commission itself by ten years. The Highway Division
of the Maryland Geological Survey Commission, the immediate predeces-
sor of the Roads Commission, established the "lab" in 1898 as one of its
first acts.^
At that time the testing of road materials was practically unknown in
the United States. Counties and municipalities bought such materials in
the same manner as they bought other supplies — largely on the recom-
mendation of sales representatives.
After the early laboratory had rejected a shipment of inferior material
sent into the State, a shocked factory representative paid a hurried visit
to Baltimore to find out what was wrong. On being shown the results
of the tests he exclaimed : "If we had supposed you were testing materials
in Maryland we would have shipped a better product."
In its final report in 1910 the Survey cited this incident and added :
"How much saving has been effected by the mere existence of the testing
laboratory it would be difficult to estimate."
Early Tests Made on Cement and Brick
With the advent of concrete construction in road building, provision
was made by the Survey for the testing of cement and much work was
done not only for the State but also for the counties and towns. Brick
roads and streets were popular in the early days of the century and the
Survey made some 900 tests of various bricks.
In its final months the Survey was starting bituminous tests and its
farewell words on the work of the Lab in 1910 were these:
"Still more recently tests have been undertaken to establish the com-
parative values of bituminous materials for use on roads and this experi-
' Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 326.
97
The "Lab" 99
mental work must be continued if the State is to preserve its roads from
the destructive effects of automobile traffic." -
The Lab was then, as it is today, the watch-dog of road materials used
on the State system.
Thus, by the time the Survey's highway division was transferred to
the new State Roads Commission, the Laboratory had a nation-wide stand-
ing in its field.
Materials Department Established
The period from 1915 to 1930 was one requiring great expansion of
activities as the motor car appeared in ever-increasing numbers. The
highway engineer had discovered that by putting aside outmoded prac-
tices and designing highways according to new and improved principles,
extensive testing was necessary.
By this time the Laboratory had grown to such an extent both in per-
sonnel and activities that a controlling force was necessary to coordinate
it. In 1931, a "Materials Department" under the direction of a "Materials
Engineer" was created, bringing together under one head previously
scattered activities. Under such a unified arrangement, inspection and
testing became more detailed and policy evolved resulting in a smooth-
working organization. The result was better control and a demonstra-
tion that certain economies could be readily eff'ected.
Control outside the Laboratory was also increasing and, with the
greater complexity of highway design, new inspection procedures had to
be considered. Road roughness was measured with a newly-designed in-
strument and checks of the thickness of concrete pavements were made
by drilling cores at regular intervals in the completed highways.
Lab Gets National Award
As the testing facilities expanded to include all phases of highway con-
struction, more laboratory technicians and inspectors were required. By
1937, the Laboratory was acknowledged as a modern facility of that
period. While the emphasis had been on control, a constant effort was
evident to increase proficiency in the testing field. This effort was recog-
nized by the award of a Certificate of Accuracy from the Cement Refer-
ence Laboratory of the U. S. Bureau of Standards.
Among the many materials investigated were bituminous concrete, air-
entraining cement and new formulations for paint.
^Geological Survey Reports, Vol. IX (1910), page 84.
100 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Experiments in Re-Surfacing Old Concrete
The use of bituminous concrete, a mixture of aggregates and asphalt
mixed and placed while hot, proved a good method of resurfacing twenty-
to-thirty-year-old concrete pavements. This system was a challenge and
offered the opportunity to devise specifications which make maximum
use of more economical local materials. Studies of acceptable combina-
tions were determined and used to advantage.
Glass Beads on the Roads
During the early 1950's the Commission began using reflectorizing glass
beads in conjunction with paint to improve the night visibility of traffic
lines. Several years of investigation and tests preceded the generalized
use of this material. The beads, sprayed on the centerline stripe as it is
applied to the road, increase the visibility of the stripe at night by seven
to fifteen times, dependent upon atmospheric conditions. As a result of
tests, specifications were adopted to control the quality of the beads. A
visibility meter was acquired, capable of checking the eff'ective brightness
of the beaded line on the road or in the laboratory.
Since 1954 the Laboratory and its various functions have been known
as the Bureau of Soils and Materials. It is under the direction of
J. Eldridge Wood, Materials Engineer.
Part III
THE SECOND TWENTY YEARS OF THE STATE ROADS
COMMISSION
(1928 — 1948)
Chapter XI
DEPRESSION STRIKES THE ROADS SYSTEM
During the decade of the twenties the road-building emphasis in Mary-
land had been on the secondary system, the network of feeder roads that
brought the people to the principal highways built before World War I.
From 2,000 miles of hard-surfaced roads on the state system in 1920
the total in 1930 had grown to 3,200.^ Most of the new mileage repre-
sented local roads.
This shift in policy was in accordance with the mandate of the good
roads movement : to get the farmer out of the mud.
Moreover, the primary system was considered adequate. It not only
had been well built and regarded as a model for other states ; it also had
been widened, resurfaced once or twice, and in some cases rebuilt, as for
example the Washington Boulevard.
Yet by 1930 this primary system had become inadequate. Its builders
had not foreseen trailer-trucks, the huge freight cars on wheels that had
begun to appear. Nor had they anticipated the tremendous increase of
passenger cars.
Other states that began later than Maryland profited from fresher
traffic forecasts and higher design standards. Maryland's primary system
rested on its laurels.
This static state of affairs was recognized by the Roads Commission
in 1934 when it summed up the situation in these words:
SRC 1927-30, page 20.
101
;s a.
Depression Strikes the Road System 103
"Through the period 1915 to 1925 Maryland was generally acknowl-
edged throughout the entire United States as the best-roaded state in the
Union. About this time other states began issuing bonds in large amounts
for the construction of roads, and in building them benefited by the ex-
perience of Maryland and other pioneer states in highway construction." ^
But the 1930's and the early 1940's were not years in which vast high-
way programs could be launched. The depression was a period of re-
trenchment on all fronts. During World War II expansion was impossible.
So a modern highway system, which should have been started in the
late Twenties, was deferred until the late Forties.
There were nearly twenty lean years in Maryland's struggle to keep
afloat in the stream of modern traffic.
Reorganization
Following the resignation of his three commissioners in 1929 Governor
Ritchie sought to give his Roads Commission a new look and restore a
shaken public confidence in the administration of state roads finances.
To accomplish this he drafted two prominent Baltimore business men:
Howard Bruce and John K. Shaw.
For Chairman he named G. Clinton Uhl, the Allegany
County merchant who had been an associate member of
the Commission in the Harrington administration.
An engineering graduate of Virginia Military Insti-
tute, Bruce had a reputation in Baltimore at the time
as a trouble-shooter, a good hand at reorganizing and
building up whatever shaky foundation he touched.
Shaw was the minority member, a respected business
leader of Baltimore County.
The new commissioners made three new appointments.
Mr. Uhl To fill the Mackall vacancy as Chief Engineer they pro-
moted his assistant, Harry D. Williar, Jr. William A.
Codd, who came from the Accounting Department of Baltimore City, was
appointed to the new position of Chief Auditor with instructions to install
a new accounting system. Another new post, that of Treasurer, was
filled by Waring P. Carrington.
The first order of business was revision of the accounting set-up, to
which all the new officers directed their energies. They called in as con-
sultants the guardian of the taxpayer's dollar, the Commission on Govern-
mental Efficiency and Economy, a privately financed civic group.
-"SRC 1931-34, page 12.
104 A History of Road Building in Maryland
The Treasurer's Division was created to record re-
ceipts, account for disbursements and to perform other
such functions. This sub-unit does not exist today, its
duties having been absorbed by the Accounting Depart-
ment.
Robert M. Reindollar, who had been Engineer of Sur-
veys, was made Williar's Assistant Chief Engineer.
The Engineers Carry On
In the meantime, definite progress was being made
Mr. Williar ^^ ^^e construction field.
In 1915 the state roads system made few connections
at state fines because interstate travel was negligible. By 1930 it had
made fifty such connections.
A Maryland sector of the Northwestern Turnpike had been built across
the southern part of Garrett County, becoming Maryland's portion of the
new transcontinental highway, U. S. 50.
Other new highways built up to 1930 included a road from near Upper
Marlboro southeast to Sunderland (now State Route 416), connecting
Washington with the Calvert beaches ; a road from Salisbury to Snow
Hill (State Route 12) ; a direct run from Mt. Airy to Westminster (State
Route 27) ; and an "Eastern Shore Boulevard" from the new ferry slip
at Matapeake to Queenstown, Wye Mills, Hillsboro and Denton (now
U. S. 50 and State Route 404).
Eliminating Railroad Grade Crossings
The gasoline tax, which started in 1922 at one cent a gallon, was four
cents by 1929. Of this sum, one-half cent was earmarked for the elimina-
tion of railroad grade crossings, a program in which the respective rail-
roads participated to the extent of fifty percent. The railroads benefited
by the elimination of crossing gates, 24-hour watchman service and the
reduction of damage suits. By 1930 the Roads Commission had elimi-
nated 21 grade crossings with plans for eliminating 13 more.
New Faces
In 1931, twenty-eight months after their appointment, Howard Bruce
and John K. Shaw resigned, their mission accomplished.
To replace them, the Governor named E. Brooke Lee of Montgomery
County and Robert Lacy of Baltimore. Lee was a real estate broker and
Depression Strikes the Road System
105
a former Speaker of the House of Delegates,
neer. Clinton Uhl continued as Chairman.
Lacy was a Baltimore engi-
New Road to the North
The State's principal new construction of the early Thirties was a road
from Baltimore to Aberdeen, a thirty-mile divided highway that was
strictly modern and designed to end the crippling congestion on old Phila-
delphia Road.
This highway on new location, paralleling the railroads and by-passing
the towns, was built not without serious misgivings on the part of many
interested persons.
New locations and bypasses were novel in those days. They meant
serious loss of business and even bankruptcy for some establishments
along the old route. It was a time of economic difficulty. The citizens
who came to the Roads Commission office to state their views were ten to
one in favor of improving the old road.
The road was finally built on a new location only because the Federal
Government, which was putting up half the money under the Federal-Aid
program, would not approve the widening of the old road.
Such was the slender thread upon which our present U. S. 40 East
rested, then a bitterly-fought but thoroughly modern highway, now a
road which because of uncontrolled access is over-burdened with marginal
friction and is about to be replaced by a modern freeway.
Maryland Tries Three-Lane Roads
Typical three-lane road of the Thirties.
This photo ivas taken on Bel Air Road.
The early Thirties saw the de-
velopment throughout the country
of a new feature in highway
travel, the three-lane highway.
Traffic engineers concluded that
any road carrying more than 4,000
vehicles a day should be wider
than two lanes. But how wide?
Thirty feet? Forty feet? Here
the engineers diff'ered, but agreed
that the ideal for such heavy traf-
fic would be a four-lane road with
center separation."
« SRC 1931-34, page 15.
106 A History of Road Building in Maryland
In Maryland a number of three-lane or 30-foot roads were built, but
only as a temporary expedient or "stage construction" until wider roads
could be obtained. The engineers recognized from the first the inherent
danger of the third or middle strip used for passing.
Among the early roads scheduled for widening to three lanes were Rock-
ville Pike (U. S. 240), the National Pike between Catonsville and Ellicott
City, eliminating a reverse curve known as Devil's Elbow (U. S. 40) and
the Bel Air Road between Joppa Road and Bel Air (U. S. 1).
Today the three-lane road survives only in short strips on mountain-
sides where the right-hand lane is reserved for slow-moving traffic going
upgrade, an example of which is Sideling Hill relocation in Washington
County.
Nine-Foot Roads
An outstanding example of getting as much paving as possible for the
least cost was Kent County's experiment with nine-foot concrete roads,
built in 1930 by the Roads Commission for the County at its expense.
Even in passing, at least two wheels were on hard surfaces in wet
weather. Fifty miles were built in one year. The project was widely
copied outside the State. ^
Salisbury Bypass Becomes A City Street
By 1934, in the process of widening busy thoroughfares to 30 and 40
feet, the Commission had discovered the economy as well as the efficiency
of building entire new road sections on new locations around congested
areas.
In widening the Baltimore-Washington Boulevard to 40 feet, for in-
stance, it was found that in "certain developed sections property dam-
ages incident to acquiring rights of way for the additional width were
so costly that it was actually cheaper to build an entirely new 40-foot
road on a new location than to widen the existing road from 20 to 40 feet.'^
Thereafter, the Commission constructed a number of short relocations
circumventing busy traffic centers. The first major bypass so built was
the relocation of U. S. 13 around Salisbury. It provided a 56-foot road-
way between curbs and the Commission predicted "it will relieve the
present congested traffic conditions on U. S. 13."
At that time limitation of access was little known and less practiced.
So what the Commission unwittingly did was to build a new street for
Salisbury.
*SRC 1927-30, page 79; Records in the Maryland files (1930), Bureau of Public
Roads, Washington, D. C.
' SRC 1931-34, page 16.
Depression Strikes the Road System
107
Main Street merchants moved out to the bypass, creating new con-
gestion there and a near-bhght downtown. Today, the relocation of
U. S. 13 is built up almost solidly with stores and factories on each side
of a wide urban boulevard. The traffic advantage of the bypass is en-
tirely lost.
A bypass of the bypass is clearly indicated for the future, this time
with control-of-access features.
New Annapolis Boulevard Begins
Construction of a new dual highway from Baltimore south to Annapolis
was commenced in 1934. The first contract, three miles southward to-
ward Furnace Branch, consisted of two 20-foot roadways separated by a
six-foot median strip. It was built along the old road alignment at a cost
of $90,000 a mile.
Saving the Old Trees
The first attempt by the Roads
Commission to brighten up the
highways with trees and shrubs
came in the early Thirties.
Before 1934 it had been the com-
mon practice of highway contrac-
tors, before starting work on a
new project, to clear the right of
way of every tree and bush in or-
der to have room to maneuver
their equipment. On the new Phila-
delphia Road, for instance, all
trees in the median strip were first
removed; then after the road was
finished, young saplings were
planted to take their places.
On the new Annapolis Boule-
vard the same practice was begun
as the road was dualized south
from Glen Burnie. But from Jones
Station south to Annapolis the
trees already growing in the cen-
ter strip were retained.
The difference is distinctly no-
ticeable, even today. The heavy
These two pictures graphically point vp the
Commission's policy of savijig trees on road-
side^ and center strips. The photos shotv
sections of the Baltimore-Annapolis Boule-
vard.
108 A History of Road Building in Maryland
foliage from the ancient trees on the Annapolis end of the road stands
out in sharp contrast to the twenty-year saplings on the northern portion.
This happy circumstance is due to an alert young road inspector named
William T. Claude. Sensing the folly of cutting down old trees only to
replace them with new, Claude pleaded with his superiors for a change of
policy that would preserve all possible foliage as the new highways un-
folded. Since then, every tree that can be saved is spared.
Claude has since become the Roads Commission's official photographer
and his friends throughout the length and breadth of the state roads sys-
tem call him "Scoops."
First Modern Roadside Planting
The first extensive planting of major highways occurred in the Thirties
on the new Philadelphia Road and the Annapolis Boulevard.
Since these were then Maryland's show-roads, with grassy malls down
the center strips, every eflFort was made by the Commission and interested
private groups to beautify the roadsides.
Of the Philadelphia Road, Chief Engineer Williar said in 1934 : "It will
blend into the landscape instead of sticking out upon it like a sore thumb.
Changes in the contour of the land will resemble plastic surgery rather
than butchery."
In that year $18,000 became available to Maryland under a Public
Works Administration grant for roadside beautification. Williar said
the entire sum would be invested in planting on this one highway.
Earnest appeals were made to commercial interests to keep the new
highways free from billboards and at first these efforts were successful.
However, as time went on, both of these highways began to build up with
marginal services. This was especially true of the new Philadelphia
Road, which was christened Pulaski Highway.
In 1940 a traveler noted on the roadside a rifle-range, a children's play-
ground, many restaurants, dance halls, bars and a menagerie containing
three monkeys and two bears.
On the Annapolis Boulevard he found the State's first, and at that time
only, open-air movie which advertised performances every night "rain
or moon."
In the face of such competition, interest in flowering shrubbery notice-
ably withered.
Controlled access would have prevented this condition. But the time
for this essential innovation had not yet come.
Depression Strikes the Road System 109
New Commissioner
In the summer of 1984 two vacancies occurred in the membership of
the Roads Commission. Chairman Uhl died in office and E. Brooke Lee
resigned.
The Governor left the chairmanship vacant but filled the other post by
appointment of State Senator William D. Byron, a Washington County
industrialist. Byron remained on the Commission nine months.
Chapter XII
SLOW-DOWN IN CONSTRUCTION
The
fifteen
The
crash,
administration of Governor Ritchie closed with the year 1934 after
years of feast and famine for Maryland, as for all America,
prosperous years of the Twenties had ended in the stock market
and one of the country's worst depressions. Banks were closed,
factories were idle and businessmen sold apples in the
streets.
The new state administration in 1935 was headed by
Governor Harry W. Nice.
For the chairmanship of the Roads Commission the
Governor chose Dr. Homer E. Tabler of Washington
County.
The second appointment went to C. Nice Wilkinson
of Cumberland. The minority membership went to
Frank F. Luthardt, a lawyer, of Baltimore.
Tabler
Nathan Smith Now Chief Engineer
The 1935 Commission promptly appointed a new Chief Engineer,
Nathan L. Smith, who had cut his eye-teeth with the Roads Commission
back in 1912 and had been a Baltimore City Highway
Engineer since 1927.
Smith served as acting Chairman of the Commission
during the first four months of 1935 while the Governor
was pondering his permanent appointments.
At the close of his term he became a consulting engi-
neer and later chief engineer of Baltimore City. In 1947
he became Chief Engineer of Baltimore County and in
1951 Director of Public Improvements of Maryland. He
died in 1955 at the age of 66.
Dr. Tabler remained in office 38 months during a
period of varied problems, chief of which was a tie-up
111
Mr. Smith
112 A History of Road Building in Maryland
of federal funds in Washington. Because of right-of-way and other diffi-
culties, the Roads Commission was unable to get many of its important
projects approved.
Beginning in 1933 and continuing throughout the Nice administration,
the Legislature had diverted certain motor vehicle revenues to the gen-
eral fund in a desperate effort to balance tight budgets in the lean years.
The depression itself reduced automobile driving which in turn was re-
flected in lower motor vehicle revenues. All these difficulties further
darkened the financial picture of the roads unit.
In 1938 Dr. Tabler resigned to resume his medical practice.
New Chairman
In the meantime, Commissioner Wilkinson had died and was succeeded
in the spring of 1938 by J. Glenn Beall who had been a member of
Allegany County's roads board.
Governor Nice promoted him to the chairmanship in
the summer of 1938.
Beall, who was 42 years old at the time, rounded out
the Nice administration to become Congressman from
the Sixth District. Since 1952 he has been a United
States Senator.
When Beall became Chairman, the position he vacated
as a member was filled by Elmer R. Jarboe, a St. Mary's
County highway contractor. He disassociated himself
M): Beall from his firm and served out the last months of the Nice
administration.
George F. Obrecht, Sr., of Baltimore, served on the Commission a few
months in 1938 and 1939, succeeding Frank Luthardt.
The Roads System Inches Onward
In 1935 the great new dual highway from Baltimore to Frederick was
planned and work was started. Designed on new location, this highway
was an extension of Edmondson Avenue in Baltimore and bypassed both
Catonsville and the narrow, crooked streets of ancient Ellicott City. It
was graded and drained as far as Pine Orchard in Howard County and a
new bridge built over the Patapsco. By the end of 1938 one lane had
been paved for a distance of 3.6 miles.
The road is now U. S. 40 west of Baltimore.
The Annapolis Boulevard was completed in 1938 as a dual highway
from Baltimore and named in honor of Governor Ritchie who died in 1936.
Slow-Down in Construction
113
The new Philadelphia Road, now U. S. 40 east of Baltimore, was com-
pleted as a modern dual highway to Havre de Grace. Plans were drawn
for a new Susquehanna Bridge
and for the continuation of the
dual road to the Delaware line.
Work on the Salisbury bypass con-
tinued and State Route 5 in
Charles County was rebuilt.
BEFORE AND AFTER. A vieiv of the
yiew Pulaski Highway {U. S. 4^0) when
completed in 1938. The lower photo shows
old Philadeljihia Road which it supple-
mented.
Grade Crossings Are Removed
The elimination of railroad
grade crossings, begun in the
Twenties, continued on schedule
during this period. By 1938 a
total of 67 overpasses or under-
passes had been built and three
crossings had been by-passed by
road relocation.
However, four of these struc-
tures had already become obsolete
because of the suspension of serv-
ice of two rail lines, the Chesa-
peake Beach Railway and the
Washington, Baltimore and An-
napolis Railroad. Furthermore,
many of the early bridges built
in this program were, by 1938,
found too narrow.^
A total of 150 other grade crossings in the State system were still to
be eliminated.
^Preliminary Report of the State Highway Planning Survey (1938), page 31.
Chapter XIII
THE PLANNING AGENCIES— BLUEPRINT FOR THE FUTURE
The first road-building program of the Roads Commission was handed
to it by the 1908 Legislature. It was to build a system of roads that
would connect all the county seats and get the job done by 1915.
This seven-year plan was executed on schedule, as noted in Chapter V.
Other programs have not fared so well. In the Thirties and Forties
there were a four-year plan, a five-year plan, a ten-year plan and a twenty-
year plan.
The current trend is toward less periodic programming and more con-
tinuous planning with sights set ahead on the reasonably foreseeable traf-
fic needs of twenty or thirty years.
The Wolman Report
One of the first agencies to cast a critical eye at the road picture was
the Maryland State Planning Commission which called for a ten-year
program to rebuild Maryland's primary highway system between 1935
and 1945.1
Under the chairmanship of Dr. Abel Wolman of Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, and aided by Roads Commission data and personnel, this group found
the secondary roads of the State generally too advanced for the traflfic
they carried and the principal roads too retarded.
The Roads Commission, the report declared, had followed a policy of
recognizing "sectional groups" each of which wanted extensively paved
roads in its own locality. As a result, there were hundreds of miles of
excellent pavement on the lightly-traveled byways of the State.
By contrast, it found that the primary system was totally inadequate
for modern high-speed traffic.
It pointed out that the early Roads Commissions had merely paved over
the wagon trails of antiquity and had not planned a system "on a basis
' State Planning Commission Reports (March 1935) — Ten Year Highway Program
of Maryland.
115
116 A History of Road Building in Maryland
of anticipated traffic volumes and lines of flow" ; and that even up to 1935
this policy persisted except for minor revisions in widening and surfacing.
TopsY-TuRVY Roads?
The Planning Commission cited as an example of bad planning the
Defense Highway (U. S. 50) built between 1920 and 1926. It said: "It
was adequate only for the traffic at the time it was built; almost at once
it was found exceedingly unsafe."
Pointing out other "examples of waste" because of lack of foresight,
the Commission called for a complete rebuilding of the primary system
largely on new location. It did not discuss the question of financing the
new construction.
The Roads Get Scientific Treatment
The most thorough check-up given the ailing roads system was the four-
year study made in the late Thirties by the State Highway Planning Sur-
vey headed by Clarence P. Taylor, a Massachusetts traffic engineer called
in to diagnose the patient.
This group had a budget in excess of $200,000 and employed over 100
persons - to give Maryland's roads the most complete going-over they
had ever had.
It was one of 46 other surveys conducted throughout the country by
the highway departments in cooperation with the federal Bureau of Pub-
lic Roads.
Taylor's principal assistants were William F. Childs, Jr., Road Inven-
tory Manager ; George N. Lewis, Jr., Traffic Survey Manager ; and William
P. Walker, Financial Survey Manager. Both Childs and Lewis were
Roads Commission personnel; Walker was a tax expert on loan from the
University of Maryland. When Taylor left in 1938 Childs headed the
Survey with the title of State Manager. Their work was finished in late
1940. ^
Riding A Stadia Rod Car
The Highway survey started out by making an inventory of every mile
of every public roadway in the State, checking surface, width, condition,
grades and alignment of each section.
To accomplish this they organized twelve parties, each containing three
men and a specially-equipped automobile called a stadia rod car, carrying
cameras, telescopes and equipment for measuring degrees of curvature.
SRC 1939-40, page 77.
The Planning Agencies — Blueprint for the Future 117
grade of hills, sight distances and the like. This procedure was stand-
ardized by the Bureau of Public Roads.
One result of the inventory was the preparation of a series of county
maps showing all public roads in each county. These maps have been
kept current and the latest edition of each is available today.
The survey parties also rated all bridges in the State and computed
estimates of replacement costs in case of future damage or destruction.^
How Many Cars on the Roads?
A full-dress traffic survey was made, checking volume, character and
density. For instance, it showed that in 1936 motor vehicle owners
traveled over three billion miles on Maryland roads and streets.
Traffic counts showed travel conditions on all roads, including the
weight of the vehicles ; and information was gathered to determine the
character of future roads and the type of construction needed to carry
the weights discovered.
Such procedure is standard today but was novel in the Thirties. It
was the first attempt to put road location and design on a scientific basis.
The early road builders played the game pretty much by ear.
Orphan Roads
One of the unusual features turned up in the investigation was the
mileage of public roads claimed by nobody and maintained by no public
agency.
The Survey reported it had found 1,238 miles of roads open to unre-
stricted public use but for which no public body accepted responsibility.
About 100 miles were in unincorporated places and special taxing areas,
mostly built by real estate developers. Some 76 miles were built through
State forests and parks by the then defunct Civilian Conservation Corps,
a Roosevelt depression agency.
However, a good thousand miles of such unclaimed or orphaned roads
were spread throughout the Maryland counties, consisting of unimproved
or primitive roads which were barely passable, of graded and drained
roads and also of surfaced roads no longer used and not maintained by
any county.^
The surveyors also reported "lost roads" — stretches which appeared
as lines on maps but could not be physically located. In one such case a
section of 16-foot gravel road was found in a field overgrown with weeds
^Preliminary Report of the State Highway Planning Survey (1938) pages 5, 6.
* Preliminary Report, supra, page 37.
118 A History of Road Building in Maryland
and brush. A new location had been built around it some distance away
and the old road no longer used.'
Needs of the Future
From the studies extending over four years came a voluminous docu-
ment which the Roads Commission submitted to the 1941 Legislature. It
was entitled "Maryland Highway Needs 1941-1960" and was signed by
William F. Childs, Jr., State Manager of the Survey.
It presented a five year plan for immediate needs to cost $55,272,000
and a twenty year plan of full modernization to cost $216,947,000.
It was an eye-opener for the legislators and the public generally, for
nothing like it had ever been produced before.
It also was a model for other states, since Maryland was the first of
the states to complete and publish the results of its Survey — another
Maryland first.
The Survey had found a total of 18,127 miles of roads in Maryland,
more miles of road per square miles of land area than in any of 44 other
states. Of this mileage, 4,057 was in the state road system; the rest was
county, municipal and unclaimed roads.
Road Deficiencies Listed
Using national standards adopted by the federal Bureau of Public
Roads, the Survey coldly listed deficiencies in the state network: 5,911
curves too sharp for safety, 1,438 grades of more than five percent in
non-mountainous country, 16,113 places where the sight distance was
less than the prescribed 500 feet, 145 grade crossings of railroad tracks,
400 bridges too narrow for the traffic they carried, 13,957 miles of roads
of all types under twenty feet in width and 7,613 miles of roads inade-
quately surfaced, or not covered at all.
It further found many roads with stub-ends leading nowhere, 900 miles
over-developed for the light traffic they carried and 860 miles under-devel-
oped for bearing heavy traffic.
For Maryland's highways carrying more than 5,000 vehicles a day the
minimum standards called for dual highways on a 200-foot right of way
with 24-foot divided pavements and ten foot shoulders.
The Survey said that only one road in the state carrying such traffic
measured up to minimum specifications, U. S. 40 east of Baltimore — then
just completed.
Baltimore Sun, July 16, 1938.
The Planning Agencies — Blueprint for the Future 119
It did not list specific roads to be improved on a priority schedule. But
it did come up with a method of financing which included increasing the
tax on trucks. It said "truck owners are not paying their proportionate
part of the highway cost but are being subsidized by passenger car
owners."
The report was referred to as "the most exact analysis of the State's
highways, as they are and as they should be, that has ever been made." ^'
Plan Pigeonholed by War
But nothing immediately came of it.^ In 1941 highway thinking was
in terms of defense highways and access roads to industrial plants mak-
ing tools for fighting.
The War was just around the corner.
In the meantime, a program of bridge construction had been devised
and plans prepared for a system of new toll bridges.
This important phase of Maryland road-building will now be examined
— preceded by a preliminary glance into the past at Maryland's fine
bridges of an earlier era.
" Baltimore Evenmg Sun, February 7, 1941.
" Other investigations also were made in these years in an effort to determine what
was wrong with Maryland's road picture. See "Highway Betterments 1937," a publi-
cation of the State Roads Commission, presenting an inventory by district engineers
and a $48 million modernization program; and "Report of the Highway Advisory
Committee" to Governor Nice, February 9, 1937.
Chapter XIV
SPANNING THE EARLY WATERWAYS
Maryland is a geographical paradox. It is cut in two by a great bay
which once was a boon to travel but now is a barrier.
Maryland is a small state, at one point less than two miles wide, yet
parts of Garrett County are farther from Baltimore than the State of
Connecticut.
Except for the Great Lakes states, Maryland has more water area than
any state in the union. Of 12,300 square miles in the State, 2,400 are
water, or twenty percent.
Both the Chesapeake and the Potomac are fed by hundreds of streams
that interlace every corner of the State. It is hard to drive ten miles in
Maryland without crossing water.
The Roads Commission in its struggle to provide smooth motoring is
constantly building, rebuilding and repairing bridges. There are 1,177
bridges of twenty feet or more in length on the state system, with count-
less others on the local roads.
The Ferries
Yet before there were any large bridges there were the ferry boats.
Early Maryland probably had more ferries than any colony on the
continent. On a trip from Annapolis to Elkton there were ferries over
the Patapsco, the Gunpowder, the Bush and the Susquehanna. By 1748
there were no less than 15 ferries across the Potomac between Maryland
and Virginia.^
Some ferries survive today such as White's Ferry over the Potomac
upstream from Washington and the picturesque Oxford-Bellevue Ferry
in Talbot County. The most notable ferry system of recent times was
the Chesapeake crossing which retired into the wings of yesterday with
the bridging of the Bay in 1952.
'Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 128.
121
122 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Wooden Bridges
The earliest bridges in this country were simple wooden beams to which
a flooring was nailed. They were built as short as possible, timber spans
extending from bank to bank.
Since nature had cut streams well below the surrounding terrain, in
many places this meant precipitous grades on both sides. One of the early
complaints of the traveler was the steep approaches to the little bridges.
Crossing the larger streams were found bow-trussed bridges with heavy
curved upper chords built up from planks bolted together. To protect
some of these bridges from the weather a covering of light boarding com-
pletely enclosed the whole superstructure.- Thus they were called cov-
ered bridges.
A few of the covered bridges are still in use in Maryland and are curi-
osity pieces. Automobile clubs show their location on maps and direct
tourists how to reach them.
An aura of romance has grown up around them : legend has it they
were covered to favor the younger generation, similar to the "tunnels of
love" of early Twentieth Century amusement parks. However, they were
thoroughly utilitarian.
Stone Arch Bridges
No stream crossing was a finer example of hand-built sturdiness than
the stone-arch bridge of the early Nineteenth Century; and no State had
more conspicuous examples of this ancient art than Maryland.
The Chinese are said to have originated the principle of arch construc-
tion about 2000 B.C. The Egyptians, the Romans and the Incas were
early developers, both in bridges and viaducts. The arch is as old as
civilization.
The Romans transplanted the principle to Britain where many fine ex-
amples of this type of bridge architecture have survived the centuries.
In this country some of the most elaborate of these bridges are found in
this State, each stone hand-cut and hand-placed with the deftness of a
surgeon using his scalpel.
The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in its westward movement chugged
over many stone-arch bridges. The Thomas Viaduct just west of Balti-
more is one of the classic examples of stone-arch construction. Built 125
years ago it is still in daily use. But the B. & 0. was merely following
in the footsteps of the builders of Maryland's turnpikes.
= Ibid, page 206.
Spanning the Early Waterways 123
JUG BRIDGE. One of the earliest examples of stone-arch construc-
tion was the bridge across the Monocacy River east of Frederick. Con-
taining four arches of hand-cut native stone, this bridge was built in 1809
by the Baltimore-Fredericktown Turnpike Company as part of its toll
road to the west. The bridge was decorated at its eastern end with an
inscribed monument in the form of a huge demijohn or jug, from which
the bridge took its name.
Local legends have it that the jug was filled with whiskey and sealed
at the time it was built, or that a bottle of whiskey was placed in the jug
by the builder, or that a quantity of whiskey was hidden in the jug by
Civil War soldiers."
General Lafayette stood on the bridge and addressed a delegation of
Frederick citizens on his last visit to Maryland in 1824.^
In 1939 it developed "staggers" and its arches were strengthened. But
three years later, twenty feet of the bridge fell into the river and it was
never rebuilt. However, a temporary bridge was placed in service until
a new and modern concrete arch bridge was completed by the Roads Com-
mission a short distance down stream in 1945.
The ruins of the old masonry abutments still remain, including the
famous jug on its eastern approach.
In the dualization of U. S. 40 a third bridge was built at this site in
1955. It is longer and much higher than the second, to avoid the steep
up-grade which the Monocacy has cut through the Catoctin foothills. This
new bridge is now the east-bound lane of the transcontinental highway.
Thus at this one point, standing silently side by side, may be seen three
examples of distinctive Maryland bridge architecture.
CASTLEMAN RIVER BRIDGE (also spelled Casselman). This 80-
foot single span was the largest stone arch in America when built in 1813
by the Federal Government as part of the National Road west of Cumber-
land. Located near Grantsville in Garrett County, this bridge was in
continuous use for 120 years. It was closed in 1933 when a new concrete
and steel structure was erected by the Roads Commission to give better
alignment and a wider roadway.
The huge arch of the old bridge was so unusual at the time it was built
that many citizens shook their heads and predicted it would fall as soon
as the supports were removed. This apprehension was so general that
the contractor's confidence in his own work was undermined. To avoid
embarrassment on the day of the formal opening, he slipped out secretly
^ Frederick Public Library.
* Frederick Neivs, March 4, 1932.
124
A History of Road Building in Maryland
the night before and removed the arch-support timbers, discovering that
the bridge stood "as though created from solid stone." ■'
The Roads Commission early appreciated the need for preservation of
these old bridges. In its 1911 report it said: "This Department (Engi-
neering) has begun the saving of the old stone arches and similar struc-
tures existing on these former turnpikes. Many of these are important
and valuable both physically and historically." ''
It found the Castleman Bridge "dangerously out of repair" and pro-
ceeded to put it in first class condition by pointing up the stone work,
rebuilding its solid guard wall and decorating the rail with a concrete
cap, a modern touch in 1911 not anticipated by the old bridge's stone
masons.
The bridge is still standing in an excellent state of preservation a few
hundred feet upstream from its modern successor.
WILLS CREEK BRIDGE. This was a stone arch example consisting
of two 60-foot spans of such unusual design that it is frequently referred
to in modern treatises on this type of bridge. It was part of the recon-
The bridge over Coiiococheague Rive)', west of Hage)stoiv)i.
•'"'The Highway Magazine, June, 1938; September, 1957; Garrett County Centennial
History 1849-1949, Sincell Press, Oakland, Md. (1949), page 4.
" SRC 1908-12, page 80.
Spanning the Early Waterways 125
struction of the National Road at Cumberland in 1835. A modern con-
crete arch structure was built in 1932, but the old bridge was allowed
to stand. It was later removed as part of the Cumberland flood control
work conducted by the United States Army's Corps of Engineers.
WASHINCxTON COUNTY BRIDGES. There were more stone-arch
bridges built in Washington County than in any other, part of the State.
It is said that at one time there were fourteen such structures over one
stream alone — historic Antietam Creek. This was an average of one
bridge every two miles. Many are still in active use.
The largest in the county was the Conococheague bridge built in 1819
as part of the turnpike from Hagerstown to the west bank of the Cono-
cocheague River. A structure of exceptional grace and beauty, this lime-
stone bridge still stands in good condition and is used for local traffic.'^
It was replaced in 1936 by a modern structure, a triple span, open
spandrel, reinforced concrete arch bridge with a 44-foot roadway. The
new bridge stands a hundred yards downstream from the old, affording
the observer an excellent on-the-spot comparison of nineteenth and twen-
tieth century bridge architecture.''
The influence of the old stone-arch bridge was noticeable in the con-
struction of stream crossings on relocated U. S. 40 between Frederick
and Hagerstown, built in the mid-thirties. Many of these are faced with
granite to simulate the old bridges of the County, the largest of this type
being the crossing of Antietam Creek near Hagerstown.
Iron Bridges
Cast-iron for bridge construction was introduced into the United States
from England in the 1830's.
The first such structure was built at Brownsville, Pa. as a part of the
reconstruction of the National Road by the Federal Government. Both
the design and the plans were prepared by the young West Point engi-
neers who had charge of this work. It consisted of nine cast-iron hollow
elliptical sections bolted together.-'
This principle of bridge construction was soon adopted in Maryland
because of the many iron deposits found here. One of the earliest was
the Dover bridge across the Choptank between Caroline and Talbot coun-
ties.^° Another crossed the Potomac at Brunswick in Frederick County.
' The Highway Magazine, June, 1938 ; September, 1957.
« SRC 1935-36, page 51.
■'Public Roads of the Past (Historic American Highways), a publication of the
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington (1953) page 65.
^^ Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 206.
A History of Road Building in Maryland
The old iron bridge over the Susquehanna River at Co)iou'ingo. It ivas dest)-oyed to
make icay for the artificial lake above Conowingo Da)n in 1926.
THE BRUNSWICK BRIDGE. Built in 1892, this extremely heavy
bridge was 1,770 feet long and constructed entirely of wrought iron. It
rested on steel columns which in turn stood on the old masonry founda-
tions of an earlier bridge. Fifteen feet wide, the flooring was of timber
joists and planking.
This dangerously narrow bridge was removed in 1955 to make way for
a modern concrete and steel structure 2,400 feet long and costing $2,500,-
000, which not only spanned the river, but the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal, the Brunswick yards of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and part
of the town as well.
Brunswick has run the gamut of Maryland stream crossings. Ferries
operated before 1856 when a covered wooden bridge was built on stone
masonry piers. In 1861 General Lee destroyed the bridge and McClellan
built a pontoon bridge to take his Army of the Potomac into Virginia.
Then came the iron bridge and now the one of concrete and steel. ^^
Early Roads Commission Bridges
Since the turn of the Century bridges have been built of steel and later
of steel and reinforced concrete.
" Records of the Brunswick Board of Trade.
Spanning the Early Waterways
127
Those crossing navigable streams were built with movable spans pro-
viding channel openings. Most of the later bridges have been constructed
high enough to afford full clearance for the largest ships and thus require
no movable spans.
The first bridge built by the State Roads Commission was a steel cross-
ing of the Nanticoke River at Sharptown between Dorchester and Wicom-
ico counties. Erected in 1910 as part of a special legislative appropria-
tion, it was 651 feet long and cost $72,539. It had a draw span of the
swinging type operated at first by hand and later by electric motor. It
still serves modern traffic.
HANOVER STREET BRIDGE. The largest early bridge constructed
by the Commission was the Hanover Street Bridge in Baltimore, com-
pleted in 1917. It joined the city with Brooklyn, then in Anne Arundel
County.
THE OLD AND NEW. The narrorv iron bridge at Brunsivick (upper right) was
supplanted in 1955 by the modern one shoivn in the center photo. A close-up of traffic
using the new bridge is depicted at lower left.
128
A History of Road Building in Maryland
This crossing of the Patapsco is one of Baltimore's early and historic
travel routes. Before the City was founded, both a post route and a stage
crossing used this site, the passage being made in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries by a succession of private ferries.
A private toll bridge was built of timber in 1856 at the foot of Light
Street and in 1880 was purchased jointly by the City and County. The
1914 Legislature directed the Roads Commission to build a new bridge
and the Hanover Street location was selected.
The structure was built of concrete on wooden piles driven from 75 to
100 feet below the surface. Its overall length from the foot of Hanover
Street to First Street in Brooklyn is 1.6 miles. It contains a bascule
span with 150 foot clearance. It was built at an overall cost of about
$1,200,000.
Within its fifty-foot roadway, flanked by two eight-foot sidewalks, space
was provided for a double-track streetcar line.
This was the most imposing piece of work the Commission had under-
taken since its creation, as it involved the largest reinforced concrete
ttil
First vehicle to pass over the Hanover Street Bridge, Baltimore. Built by the State
Roads Commission — 1914-15-16-17. (1) Governor Harrington, (2) Chairman Zouck,
(3) Chief Engineer Shirley, (4) State Treasurer Dennis, (5) Andersoji (Star), (6)
Brattan (American), (7) Harman (News), (8) Gibson (Sun), (9) Wroe (Res. Engr.),
(lO)Lockard (Secty. to Gov.), (11) Browning (Br. Engr.), (12) Officer McLaughlin,
(13) Wilson (Secty.)
Spanning the Early Waterways 129
highway bridge in the State and one of the most difficult kinds of bridge
engineering construction in the country. The type of construction was
most unusual in the Middle Branch section since the design was of canti-
lever construction of so-called umbrella type, which could be erected with-
out the use of falsework.
This bridge remained as the only traffic crossing of the Patapsco in
the Baltimore area until the opening of the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel in
1957. The bridge is still structurally sound but overcrowded by the motor
cars of the Fifties. Its traffic density, especially at peak hours, clearly
calls for another crossing in the years ahead.
OTHER EARLY BRIDGES. Other bridges built by the Roads Com-
mission were the College Creek bridge at Annapolis, the Peach Blossom
Bridge over the Miles River in Talbot County and a crossing of the
Patapsco at Ellicott City which replaced the 1812 bridge built as part of
the early turnpike to the west.
In 1915 the Commission prepared standard plans for all bridges of
spans up to 36 feet, thus simplifying the work of the engineers on the
smaller bridges.^-
Bridges Now Too Small
After World War I a general re-appraisal was made of Maryland's
bridge system. Like the roads, the bridges were found to be both too
narrow and too weak for the ever-increasing traffic. A long-range pro-
gram of reinforcement and reconstruction was planned which kept the
bridge engineers busy well into the Thirties.
This led to the creation of a separate department within the Roads
Commission to handle river crossings and other such structures. This
new unit of the Roads Commission has for the past 38 years been in
charge of bridge construction, including the Primary Bridge Program of
1938 which will be taken up separately in Chapter XVI.
^-SRC 1912-16, pp. 23; 57, 61, 67.
c5
C^
OQ
Chapter XV
MODERN BRIDGES
Because of a greatly expanded bridge program following World War I,
the Roads Commission set up a separate Bridge Division in 1920. Walter
C. Hopkins was named its first Bridge Engineer.
He served in this capacity until 1948 when he became Deputy Chief
Engineer and in such position has acted for the Engineering Department
of the Commission in the construction of both the Chesapeake Bay Bridge
and the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Throughway.
Hopkins was one of the pioneer men in the Roads Commission family,
having joined the organization in 1914 as a draftsman. He designed or
supervised all the stream crossings for 28 years and also handled the
grade crossing elimination program authorized by the Legislature of 1927.
Since 1948, one of Hopkins' assistants, Albert L. Grubb, has been the
Bridge Engineer.
One of the first bridges built by the new department was a concrete
structure at Pocomoke. Construction is now in progress to supplement
it by a new 35-foot vertical-clearance fixed span as a part of the Pocomoke
Bypass.
A system of timber jetties protecting the Ocean City highway was
started in the early Twenties as was a new Severn River bridge at
Annapolis.
Spanning the Severn
The old timber bridge across the Severn had long been a thorn to local
traffic. It had been in use in one form or another since the close of the
Seventeenth Century.
One of the Roads Commission's early acts was to take over this bridge
in 1912 for state maintenance. It was in bad shape, narrow and danger-
ous. A new structure was clearly indicated.
After the war a "roads and bridges fund" became available and the
long-delayed Severn crossing was built of concrete and steel, 1,850 feet
long, with a 22-foot roadway flanked by two sidewalks. Costing $800,000,
131
132 A History of Road Building in Maryland
it was the finishing touch to the Baltimore-Annapolis Boulevard, com-
pleted in 1915. It is still in active use although over-shadowed by a new
bridge upstream which is part of U. S. 50,
The opening of this Severn bridge in 1924 was the signal for the big-
gest celebration then known in Maryland highway history. There were
bands, floats, parades, speeches and a buffet supper on the grounds of
the United States Naval Academy.
Replacing One-Way Bridges
One of the most pressing problems of the Commission's early years
was the replacement of many of the single-lane bridges built in the Nine-
teenth Century — timber structures so narrow they accommodated but one
line of vehicles at a time.
First priority was given to rebuilding these structures and by 1926 the
Commission was able to announce that the traveler now could drive from
Baltimore to the West Virginia line near Oakland, "a total of 200 miles,
without a single one-way bridge in its entire length, indeed a most satis-
factory result, and as far as known, the only highway of this length with
such a status." ^
The Gold Mine Bridge
The crossing of the Susquehanna at Havre de Grace deserves special
mention. Now a part of U. S. 40, this is one of the historic stream
crossings of the State. A succession of ferries made the trip for two
hundred years and it was not until 1910 that a vehicular bridge was
opened.
The Pennsylvania Railroad had built a single track wrought-iron bridge
across the river in 1873. By 1904 the railroad replaced it with a new one
and off'ered the old bridge to any public or private agency that would
take it, to avoid the cost of removing it. The authorities of both Cecil
and Harford counties turned down the off"er.
However, a group of seven citizens of the two counties accepted the
gift on condition that the railroad convert it into a highway bridge.
Among this group were Murray Vandiver, former State Treasurer,
Thomas H. Robinson, who became Attorney General, Michael H. Fahey
and Omar D. Crothers, who later served on the Roads Commission. Each
put up $100 to get the project started.
The private owners charged a graduated toll beginning at sixty cents
for passenger car and driver. Between 1910 and 1923 they netted
^SRC 1924-26, page 59.
Modern Bridges
133
Tlic old SnsqKclui niia Rircr Ihidf/c <>ii U. S. iO ivhirl,
I inix <
Id able -de eked in 1HJ6.
$370,000 in profits and then sold the structure to the State for $585,000,
a total of $955,000.
For each dollar they invested, they made $1,364.
To a generation of Marylanders, this structure was known as the
"gold mine bridge." It was in fact more profitable than most gold mines.
The State did not do badly on its investment, either. The Roads Com-
mission took it over at the beginning of 1923 and continued the same rate
of tolls. In five years the bridge earned $1,250,000, enough to pay the
purchase price, extensive improvements and all maintenance charges.
By 1928 the bridge was free.-
The Gold Mine Gets A Double Deck
Being a converted railroad bridge, the structure was extremely nar-
row. It had a roadway only thirteen feet wide. For years heavy trucks
inch-inched past each other over the 3,300-foot length of the structure.
There were many side-swiping accidents and to be safe, traffic moved at
a snail's pace.
In 1926 the Roads Commission built a second level or top deck on the
ancient structure, converting each level into a one-way run. This was
'SRC 1920-23, page 57; Baltimore Sun, January 10, 1923; Ibid, October 1, 1928.
134 A History of Road Building in Maryland
considered one of the most ingenious bridge engineering feats of the
generation.
In addition to the double-decking of an antiquated superstructure,
never designed for motor traffic, the approaches had to be built in such
a way that the two lines of opposing traffic would not conflict. The end
spans at both Havre de Grace and Perryville were lowered in order to
provide easy grades to the new^ upper level."'
The new deck had a vertical clearance of only twelve and a half feet,
barely sufficient for the traffic of the Twenties. By 1938 it was said:
"frequently trucks stacked high with freight became wedged between the
deck and the overhead structure, making it necessary to deflate the tires
to allow the truck to pass." ^ This, of course, held up traffic on a trans-
continental highway.
The need for a new and modern structure was obvious.
Experiments in Design
The Thirties were a period of great activity for the Bridge Division.
By 1940 there were 850 bridges on the state system of which more than
250 had been built within the decade.' Of special significance was the
great variety of design in an eff'ort to discover the most efficient and least
expensive means of spanning Maryland's streams in a period of increas-
ing traffic.
For instance, in building the South River Bridge on State Route 2 in
Anne Arundel County, a new method of construction was tried. The
sub-structure consisted of concrete placed within steel cylinders, elimi-
nating the use of costly coff'erdams. A steel I-beam super-structure with
concrete deck afforded a 22-foot roadway while a swing span gave a
70-foot clearance for navigation.
The Bohemia River Bridge built in 1932 on U. S. 213 was a concrete
pile trestle type with super-structure of reinforced concrete girders. The
Dover Bridge across the Choptank near Easton consisted of three through-
truss spans, one of which swung open to provide for an 80-foot ship
channel.
Two new bridges of the early Thirties connected important points on
the Eastern Shore and formed links in a new and shorter route between
the upper and lower counties. One of these was the longest bridge in
the state up to that time, the crossing of the Choptank at Cambridge."
It shortened the distance between Easton and Cambridge by 15 miles.
^'SRC 1924-26, page 63; SRC 1927-30, page 129.
* J. E. Greiner Company's Primary Bridge Report (1938), Vol. 1, page 15.
"SRC 1939-40, page 53.
"SRC 1931-34, page 46; SRC 1935-36, page 51.
Modern Bridges I35
The bridge across the Sinepiixent Bay at Ocean City.
The other was the crossing of the Nanticoke at Vienna by a 1,016-foot
concrete structure built on piling. The eastern approach was a marsh
requiring 350,000 cubic yards of fill. The bridge connects Dorchester
and Wicomico counties.
The two bridges are now vital parts of U. S. 50 carrying traffic from
the Bay Bridge south to Salisbury and Ocean City where a third major
bridge on this route was completed in 1941.
The new Ocean City bridge crosses the Sinepuxent Bay upstream from
the old structure. Of reinforced concrete, the bridge is 2,300 feet long
with a 46-foot roadway to accommodate four lanes of traffic. It con-
nected with a 1942 dual highway that ran west from the Sinepuxent to
near Berlin.'^
During the Thirties, studies resulted in the adoption of several modern
types of structures combining economy, utility and appearance. One of
these types was the Wichert continuous steel bridge.
A standard design also was adopted for the load limit or carrying
capacity of bridges on the primary road system. This design was meas-
ured by the weight of a 20-ton truck, a process known as the H-20 load-
ing of the Bridge Specifications of the American Association of State
Highway Officials.^
Flood Destroys Four Bridges
The spring thaw of 1936 caused the Potomac River to rise to unpre-
cedented heights. At Cumberland the water in some places was almost
^SRC 1931-34, page 41; SRC 1939-40, page 54; SRC 1941-42, page 78.
"SRC 1937-38, page 72.
136 A History of Road Building in Maryland
up to second-floor windows and people moved along several streets in
rowboats.
Martial law was declared by Governor Nice and National Guardsmen
patrolled the stricken area. Serious concern was felt for the City of
Washington as the flood slowly moved down the valley of the Potomac.
At last it subsided, and the Capital was saved, but not before a number of
Maryland's bridges had been washed away or seriously damaged.
HANCOCK BRIDGE. An old toll bridge at this location, purchased
by Maryland and West Virginia in 1923, was partially destroyed by the
flood. A new bridge was constructed by the two states. A total of 3,168
feet in length, it comprised a series of 20 Wichert-type truss and girder
spans and 7 steel-beam spans. Besides spanning the river, the structure
crossed the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, the Western Maryland Railway
and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, thus eliminating grade crossings.
SHEPHERDSTOWN BRIDGE. A private toll bridge at this Washing-
ton County site was washed away by the flood. Maryland and West Vir-
ginia built a new steel bridge to replace it, upstream from the old one.
HARPERS FERRY BRIDGE. This structure was completely de-
stroyed by the flood and was replaced by a modern bridge 2,247 feet long
joining Sandy Hook in Maryland with Loudon County in Virginia, along
U. S. 340.
The building of this bridge was delayed by wartime restrictions and
was completed in 1947. In the meantime, for eleven years, the B & 0
shared its railroad bridge with motor traffic. The State built a wooden
floor between the tracks of this picturesque structure and cars, trucks
and trains rumbled over it together.
POINT OF ROCKS BRIDGE. This Potomac crossing of U. S. 15,
formerly a private toll bridge, was destroyed by the flood. It was re-
placed by Maryland and Virginia jointly, the plans and engineering work
being performed by the Maryland Roads Commission. Of steel construc-
tion, it is 1,688 feet long and spans the B & 0 tracks as well as the river.
These four bridges are in active use today and are deemed adequate
for the traffic they carry. The flood hastened their construction by many
years.
SRC Builds Baltimore City Bridges
During the Thirties the Roads Commission built a number of struc-
tures in the City under various arrangements respecting the allocation
of federal funds.''
*SRC 1931-34, page 48; SRC 1935-36, page 51.
Modern Bridges
137
One of the most impressive is the Bath Street Viaduct constructed in
1935. Over 2,000 feet in length, it provides the City with a major east-
west traffic artery. It extends from St. Paul Street east to Gay Street
and spans Jones Falls and a railroad yard. It contains a 54-foot road-
way flanked by sidewalks.
Construction Flourishes in the Postwar Years
During the years since 1948, many bridges have been constructed over
waterways, highways and railways on the state system.
Among the larger projects were four crossings of the Potomac. The
bridge from McCool in Allegany County to Keyser, West Virginia, is a
high-level structure spanning not only the river but two railroads and
several streets in the towns on both sides of the Potomac.
At Cumberland a new "Blue Bridge" in the heart of the city now sup-
plants the old iron structure. At Kitzmiller in Garrett County a modern
bridge has been built in place of an old iron one-way structure. The
handsome new bridge at Brunswick in Frederick County has already
been described.
A new high-level bridge across the Severn was built in 1953, as part
of U. S. Route 50.
Other structures have been built over Tuckahoe Creek between Easton
and Denton (State Route 328), over Kent Narrows as part of the east
approach to the Bay Bridge, over the Chester River at Crumpton (State
Route 290), a long structure at Taylors Island (State Route 16) in Dor-
--?
Cumberland's 7iew Blue Bridge.
138 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Chester County and three steel girder bridges over the northwest branch
of the Anacostia River in Prince George's County on U. S. 1, alternate
U. S. 1 and U. S. 50.
The Patuxent Toll Bridge
Ever since the earliest settlements, the broad Patuxent has divided
Calvert and Charles counties. Ferries plied back and forth for three
hundred years until the State built a bridge across the river at Benedict,
the Charles County community where the British landed for their march
on Washington during the war of 1812.
The bridge was one of the major structures erected by the Roads Com-
mission during the postwar period. About a half mile in length, it was
built of 56 fixed I-beam spans, in addition to a draw span. It was sup-
ported by a foundation of concrete pile bents.
The construction and financing of the bridge was provided by a 1949
Act of the Legislature under a $2,500,000 bond issue upon which the
State's credit was pledged.
The bridge operated as a toll structure from the day of its opening,
December 1, 1951, until 1955 when it was made a free bridge by a subse-
quent legislative act.
Bridges Acclaimed
The variety of design of the Maryland bridges has brought recognition
outside the State. In the annual "aesthetic bridge" contests of the Amer-
ican Institute of Steel Construction, Maryland has frequently been hon-
ored, the last award being First Honorable Mention in the Class 3 section
for 1958 — the Shell Road Ramp Bridge at the south approach to the
Baltimore Harbor Tunnel.
Chapter XVI
THE CHESAPEAKE BRIDGE AND THE PRIMARY PROGRAM
The keystone of coast-wise travel in Maryland today is a system of
three bridges and a tunnel-expressway built and operated by the Roads
Commission as a self-liquidating combined toll facility.
Taken together, they offer coastal motor traffic two major routes
through the State.
They also relieve traffic congestion on urban streets and rural roads
and join sections of the State separated by waterways, thus serving local
as well as national interests.
The first of these routes crosses the Susquehanna River Bridge, the
Baltimore tunnel thruway and the Potomac River Bridge into Virginia.
The second uses the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and the Potomac crossing.
Revenue from the four projects is pledged to secure a $180 million
revenue bond issue payable solely from tolls. The state's credit is not
pledged to the redemption of the bonds.
This system of water passages and connecting expressways, so vital to
orderly movement of traffic, evolved out of a checkered past of planning,
interminable debate and wartime delay.
There was a space of seventeen years between the completion of the
Susquehanna Bridge in 1940 and the opening of the tunnel in 1957. Yet
long before that, the vision was there; and many men had spent many
hours over maps and drafting boards.
The Bay Was in the Way
The Chesapeake Bay, long Maryland's principal thoroughfare and
major travel route, became in the Auto Age an exasperating impediment
to traffic. Ferries crossed the Bay but these were slow and often crowded ;
som.etimes they stopped entirely when there was a heavy fog or ice.
So the first project in a bridge program contemplated a crossing of
the Bay.
139
The Chesapeake Bridge and the Primary Program 141
As far back as 1907 State Senator Peter C. Campbell of Baltimore told
his legislative associates that a bridge might bring to Baltimore the
Eastern Shore produce that then was going north to Wilmington and
Philadelphia. The following year Baltimore's Merchants and Manufac-
turers Association appropriated $1,000 to look into the matter of a pri-
vately financed bridge between Bay Shore and Tolchester.
There was talk of a double-deck structure for motor traffic, rail lines
and trolley cars; and there were suggestions for crossings between other
points. In fact, there was no subject that so captured the imagination
of many Marylanders as a long and stately bridge across the Bay.
Stopped by the Crash
In the late Twenties a group of Baltimore businessmen made the first
serious effort to raise the capital to launch the venture as a privately
financed toll project. But the 1929 stock market crash put a stop to their
planning.
The State took its first formal step to bridge the Bay in 1930. A citi-
zen's committee headed by B. Howell Griswold, Jr., Baltimore investment
banker, was appointed by Governor Ritchie to study the feasibility of a
public bridge in case private capital did not proceed.
This committee expanded its study to cover the whole area of state
waterways and connecting highways. It recommended a state bridge
commission to develop a program of toll bridges and tunnels crossing-
many waterways and shortening travel distances, a commission that
would market bonds without pledge of state credit, patterned after the
model of the Port of New York Authority.
Four Crossings Emerge
During the administration of Governor Harry W. Nice an Act ^ was
passed giving statutory authority to the State Roads Commission to form-
ulate a comprehensive plan for the construction of bridges and tunnels
financed wholly from tolls.
The plan developed by the Roads Commission, which was ratified by
Congress in 1938 under its regulatory powers over navigable streams,
came to be known as Maryland's Primary Bridge Program and provided
for the following crossings :
(1) A bridge across the Susquehanna paralleling the overtaxed double
decker.
' Acts of 1937, Chapter 356.
142
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Completion of the four toll facilities gives Atlantic Seaboard traffic two major routes
through Maryland.
The Chesapeake Bridge and the Primary Program 143
(2) A bridge or tunnel across the Patapsco in Baltimore from the
mouth of the northwest branch to Fairfield.
(3) A bridge across the Potomac near Ludlow's Ferry to the opposite
shore of Virginia.
(4) A bridge across the Chesapeake from (a) Millers Island in Balti-
more County to Tolchester or (b) a bridge or tunnel or combina-
tion thereof from near Annapolis to the opposite shore of Kent
Island.
The 1937 Act of the Legislature also set up a Bridge Supervising Com-
mittee of seven citizens headed by Dr. Abel Wolman of Baltimore. This
committee possessed full power to approve or veto actions of the State
Roads Commission under the statute.
The Roads Commission in 1938, under Chairman J. Glenn Beall, made
application to the War Department for approval of the plans and applied
for financial assistance from the federal Public Works Administration. It
also employed the consulting engineering firm of J. E. Greiner Company
to draw plans and make a report.
Greiner was a Baltimorean with a nation-wide reputation in the con-
struction field, having designed many bridges and other structures both
in the United States and abroad. In 1938 he was in partnership with
Herschel H. Allen, also a Baltimorean, who had obtained his professional
start as a bridge designer for the State Roads Commission in 1912.
Greiner has since died, but his firm has continued under his name with
Allen as the senior partner. This company has designed and supervised
construction of all Maryland's primary bridges and the tunnel, and other
related work for the Commission.
Bridge, Not Tunnel, Recommended at Baltimore
It is interesting to note that Greiner considered the program in two
parts.
Project number 1 was a "national north-south highway" including
crossings of the Susquehanna, Patapsco and Potomac, avoiding Baltimore
and Washington traffic and cutting travel time and distance between
Philadelphia and Richmond. Project number 2 was the Chesapeake cross-
ing between the eastern and western shores, "a necessary link to connect
the highway systems of these now divided sections." -
This passage was not envisioned as part of a through travel route in
its own right, as it has since become.
J. E. Greiner Company's Primary Bridge Report (1938) Vol. I, page 2.
144 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Greiner also recommended a bridge rather than a tunnel as a Patapsco
crossing. He estimated that at 1938 prices a two-lane tunnel would cost
$15,977,000 while a four-lane bridge would cost $11,050,000.
These figures did not include elaborate approaches in either case. The
plan then was to pick up southbound traffic at Boston and Quail Streets
in Canton and deposit it at Patapsco Avenue and Shell Road in Fairfield.'^
Baltimore City could widen or build new connecting streets if it so chose.
The Greiner report was prepared during the summer of 1938 and in-
volved a heavy load of engineering spadework. Roads Commission field
forces pitched in and helped with tests, borings, plans and traffic counts.
A total of 147 surveys were made that summer by the Plans and Surveys
Division to help speed the program.^
Two Projects Get the Go Sign
The application to the War Department for approval of the four-
pronged plan resulted in the green light for the Harbor Bridge, the Sus-
quehanna Bridge and the Potomac Bridge.
The Chesapeake crossing was a delicate issue as it spanned the main
ship channel to the port of Baltimore. Approval was deferred pending-
further study.
The request for aid from the Public Works Administration resulted
in grants of 45 percent of the cost of the Susquehanna and Potomac
bridges, the balance to be financed by revenue bonds. The P.W.A. took
no action at that time on the other two projects.
So the Roads Commission promptly went ahead with the two projects
for which the federal authorities had given the go-sign and held the others
for later action.
Both the Susquehanna and Potomac bridges were started in 1938 dur-
ing the Nice administration and were completed before the end of 1940.
No. I : Crossing the Susquehanna
The dual highway from Baltimore to Havre de Grace, built on new
location and carefully landscaped, was completed in 1937. An extension
of this modern thoroughfare from Perryville to the Delaware line, by-
passing Elkton and overpassing all railroad crossings, was on the draw-
ing boards of the Commission.
The new bridge over the Susquehanna between Havre de Grace and
Perryville supplied the missing link in this traffic artery.
^ Ibid, page 94.
' SRC 1937-38, page 68.
The Chesapeake Bridge and the Primary Program
145
Coverdale and .Colpitis, the New York traffic engineers, estimated that
the structure would carry an average of 2,474,000 vehicles per year for
the first five years. It actually carried 3,695,000 motor vehicles in its
first full year of 1941 and in 1956 carried 8,894,600.-^
The toll was set at 20 cents for a passenger car and remained at this
figure until 1957 when it was raised to 25 cents. The bridge cost
$4,500,000.
No. 2: The Potomac Bridge at Morgantown
After the Crain Highway was built in the Twenties to connect Balti-
more with Charles County a southern extension across the Potomac into
Virginia seemed inevitable.
Motorists southbound on U. S. 1, who had just studied in considerable
detail the white-step architecture of Baltimore, complained that it took
up to an hour to get through metropolitan Washington.
So Crain Highway, now U. S. 301, was extended to the river, Virginia
built a connecting road and a beautiful new two-mile toll bridge was
built by Maryland across the broad expanse of water which divides North
from South.
The Susquehanna River Bridge at Havre de Grace.
SRC 1941-42, page 325; SRC 1955-56, page 472.
146
A History of Road Building in Maryland
The Potomac River Bridge at Morgantown.
New Route to the South
This $5,400,000 structure replaced no old bridge, as was the case at
Havre de Grace. It was new construction on a new location and gave
the public an entirely new route to the South.
Since the Potomac is navigable below Washington, the bridge was built
high enough to accommodate the largest ships that might enter the waters
of the Capital. There is a vertical clearance of 135 feet.
The traffic engineers estimated the bridge would average 136,000 ve-
hicles per year for the first five years. In 1942 the bridge carried 171,600
motor vehicles, in 1950, 1,008,000 and in 1956, 1,958,000." The toll was
set at 75 cents per passenger car at first, but has since been raised to $1.00.
The Chesapeake Crossing
In the Greiner Company's 1938 report on the primary bridge program,
it was estimated that a bridge from Sandy Point near Annapolis to Kent
Island could be constructed for $14,110,000 including approaches." When
the structure was finally finished in 1952 it had cost some $45,000,000.
After the War Department's deferment of approval in 1938 and 1939,
and following failure to get PWA funds, the project was temporarily
abandoned. The State instead purchased and improved the ferry system
across the Bay.
•SRC 1941-42, page 326; SRC 1949-50, page 360; SRC 1955-56, pag:e 472.
■^ Greiner Report, supra, page 154.
The Chesapeake Bridge and the Primary Program 147
The Old Ferry System
Ferries had shuttled back and forth between Maryland's two shores
since the Seventeenth Century. One of George Washington's favorite
routes to the north was from AnnapoHs by sail to Chestertown.
By 1938, however, there were only three ferries left, the Love Point
and Tolchester ferries operating out of Baltimore and the service from
Annapolis to Matapeake.'*
This ferry system had been operated for some years by a private com-
pany headed by former Governor Harrington. Its steamboats, all named
for Maryland's public officials, were land-marks on the local scene. They
first ran from Annapolis to Claiborne, taking about two hours. In the
Twenties, the State built an Eastern Shore Boulevard to meet these boats.
In later years the eastern terminal had been shifted to Matapeake on
Kent Island, speeding the crossing to about forty minutes.
In 1941 the Roads Commission bought the ferry system from the
Harrington interests, moved the western terminal to Sandy Point, pur-
chased a new boat and improved the service to a 25-minute trip. Gov-
ernor Herbert R. O'Conor engineered the purchase which was financed
by revenue bonds and cost the State $1,020,810, including vessels, termi-
nals, real property and other items.^
In 1953, after the Bay Bridge was in use, the State sold its ferry boats
to the State of Washington.^" The "Harry W. Nice" has been renamed
the Olympic. The "Herbert R. O'Conor" is now called the Rhododendron.
Both have runs on Puget Sound, out of Seattle.
Lane Takes the Lead for A Bay Bridge
When Governor Lane assumed office in 1947 he made the Bay Bridge
his first priority construction project.
A legislative act prepared by him provided for the pooling of revenues
from the Susquehanna and Potomac bridges, both of which had been uni-
formly successful since their openings seven years earlier. This paved the
way for the financing of the bridge as a toll revenue facility and for the
beginning of work early in 1949.
Longest in the World
The bridge was built by the Roads Commission between Kent Island
on the Shore and Sandy Point in Anne Arundel County, some two miles
" Ibid, page 127.
" SRC 1941-42, page 331.
'" SRC 1953-54, pp. 293, 466.
148 A History of Road Building in Maryland
north of Annapolis. It is 4.03 miles long, the largest continuous entirely
over-water steel structure in the world.
To safeguard shipping in the Baltimore Harbor, the vertical clearance
under the suspension bridge is I86I/2 feet and the horizontal clearance
is 1,500 feet.
Bridge Crosses Bay in Gentle Arc
The bridge has been widely acclaimed as one of the great engineering
feats of the Century and one of the most beautiful structures in the
country.
It crosses the Bay in a long gentle arc, the curve being necessary to
comply with federal regulations that a bridge must cross at right angles
to the main ship channel.
It rests on reinforced concrete piers supported on steel piles driven
into the Bay bottom. The deepest piles penetrate 203 feet below the
surface.
Underwater work was started and the first permanent piles were driven
in 1950. By the end of that year, the bridge was more than one-third
complete. The underwater work had been finished, including the massive
concrete piers to support the main towers and the anchor piers to hold
the suspension-span cables.
Work Finished Under McKeldin
The change in state administration that occurred in 1951 brought re-
newed directives, now from Governor Theodore R. McKeldin, to exert
every eff'ort toward completion of the bridge. Three years and seven
months after the start of construction, the hope of many years for a
fixed Bay crossing became a reality.
Elaborate ceremonies dedicated the structure in midsummer 1952.
Bridge Is Bypass of City Traffic
The bridge has furnished a short-cut for north-south traflfic, an effective
bypass of Baltimore and Washington traffic. With a traffic capacity of
8,500,000 motor vehicles a year, it carried 1,919,000 in 1953 and 2,836,000
in 1957.
Toll rates were set at $1.40 for passenger car and driver, but these
were reduced in 1957 to $1.25.
Maryland's primary bridge program now was three up and one to go.
The greatest of them all, the Patapsco crossing at Baltimore, will be
discussed in Chapter XXI.
Chapter XVII
WORLD WAR II AND THE ACCESS ROADS
Governor Herbert R. O'Conor came into office in 1939 full of hope and
promise for the State Roads picture.
Federal funds tied up in Washington had been partially shaken loose.
Preliminary findings of the planning surveys had shown what was wrong
with the roads, and where. And Governor O'Conor's
campaign utterances had assured the people a top-flight,
non-political appointment as Roads Commission Chair-
man.
The Governor found his man in Ezra B. Whitman
of Baltimore. A Cornell engineering graduate, Whit-
man had practiced his profession in the City with only
one prior interlude in public office, a term as Chairman
of the Public Service Commission. The Governor was
instrumental in having the Chairman's salary raised
from $6,000 a year to $10,000.
The associate members were P. Watson Webb, a Cambridge banker and
newspaper publisher, and W. Frank Thomas, the minority member, who
was a retired highway contractor and lived in Westminster.
The new Chief Engineer, succeeding Nathan L. Smith
who resigned, was Wilson T. Ballard who, like Whitman,
was a practicing Baltimore engineer and a Cornell grad-
uate. He had served briefly as a regional chief engineer
for the Public Works Administration.
Governor O'Conor was instrumental in solving a prime
problem, the diversion of gasoline tax revenue to the
general budget. He also helped release some three mil-
lion dollars in federal funds tied up in Washington
which the government had held because rights-of-way
Mr. Ballard ^^ certain projects had not been cleared.
Mr. Whitman
149
H >i
^ . t'
;Q3
^.Lf«J
5>Ds
^is;
World War II and the Access Roads 151
New Right of Way Law
Before the O'Conor Administration, property needed for the new roads
could not be taken by the State, unless the owner agreed, until the last
court appeals had been tried in condemnation suits. This sometimes held
up the building of a road for years.
In 1942 a constitutional amendment was adopted changing this situa-
tion. After that the State could enter property and commence construc-
tion at once upon paying into court what the Roads Commission believed
was a fair value for the land. The legal disputes might continue indefi-
nitely but, in the meantime, the highway construction went forward.
This new legislation helped speed up right-of-way acquisition.
Later legislation limited the right of the Commission to enter property
occupied by certain types of buildings, such as dwelling houses or com-
mercial establishments.^
Four Year Plan
The new Commission announced its own program of arterial highway
construction, a four-year plan to cost forty million dollars and to be
financed partly by bond issue.
The dualization of U. S. 40 west of Baltimore would be continued ; and
another dual highway to be known as the Eastern Shore Boulevard would
bisect the Shore from Elkton to Ocean City. There were plans for an
Annapolis Bypass, a new Back River bridge and many other projects.
Previously Authorized Construction Pushed
While this Four Year Plan was being discussed and compared with
previous programs, the Commission went ahead with the construction
work already committed.
A six-mile section of U. S. 213 (now U. S. 50) from Peach Blossom
Creek to Trappe was completed on a new location as one lane of an ulti-
mate dual, to be a part of the Shore Boulevard. Work on the Frederick-
Hagerstown relocation continued and a relocation of U. S. 40 in the Han-
cock area was started with a new bridge over Tonoloway Creek.
The Potomac bridge was built, together with a 1.6 mile connection to
it from Newburg as the first lane of a projected dual. The road through
Southern Maryland leading to the bridge, built as the Crain Highway
' State Constitutional Amendment. Proposed by Acts of 1941, Chapter 606— rati-
fied by the People, November 1942; Acts of 1956, Chapter 59, Sec. 9E.
152 A History of Road Building in Maryland
and also known as State Route 3, now became U. S. 301 in deference
to its interstate status.
The Susquehanna Bridge was also constructed and the dualization of
U, S. 40 northward to Delaware was finished.
Connecticut Avenue and Old Georgetown Road were widened to accom-
modate the increased traffic in the Washington area. The dualization of
North Point Boulevard was commenced and a brand new northern en-
trance to Ocean City was constructed of a new type of road material, a
sand-bituminous roadway built along the ocean to Fenwick at the Dela-
ware line.
In the first two years of the O'Conor administration P.W.A. construc-
tion of more or less minor projects in all sections of the State ran to
$1,843,583, of which the Federal Government contributed about 60
percent.
A traffic division was organized in the Commission in 1940 to carry on
the traffic and other studies made by the Highway Planning Survey,
which completed its work that year.
War Closes In
During 1940 and 1941 the dark clouds of impending war were encom-
passing the country. There was a certain electrifying current in the air.
The great depression, which had been felt throughout all the Thirties,
not only lowered spirits but also the personal income of almost all Amer-
icans. State employees, for example, had been required to take an across-
the-board cut in pay.
Then suddenly the tempo changed. With the outbreak of war in
Europe, America became the arsenal of democracy.
Factories such as the Glenn L. Martin Company at Middle River re-
ceived huge contracts for bombers and other war planes. The steel mills
and shipyard at Sparrows Point buzzed with an activity not experienced
since World War I. The military installations at Meade, Edgewood,
Aberdeen and many other places in the State hummed with huge expan-
sion programs.
And so it went, all through Maryland and all through the nation. The
sluggish economy of the Thirties was giving way to a wartime boom of
the Forties.
With Pearl Harbor in 1941 we were no longer merely the arsenal of the
Allies ; we were in it ourselves with material and manpower and every
reserve of our resourceful country.
World War II and the Access Roads 153
War Shelves Integrated Road Programs
The made-work programs of the Federal Government to cope with
unemployment ground to an abrupt halt. There soon developed an acute
shortage of manpower as more and more of highway contractors' and
Roads Commission personnel went into the armed services or into war
plants.
The several fine programs for scientific development of arterial net-
works were put into pigeonholes. In their place came urgent demands
for "defense highways" and "military access roads" in various sections
of the State.
Access Roads Are Order of the Day
Federal aid of all types was immediately cut off" as of December 7, 1941,
the day war was declared, and all previously approved programs were
cancelled. From that time on federal funds were distributed under the
Defense Highway Act of 1941, which provided for construction of roads
leading to war plants and military installations.
Under this authorization the Commission built Martin Boulevard and
extended Eastern Avenue to the Martin Plant. It completed the dualiza-
tion of North Point Boulevard to the Sparrows Point area, built the clov-
erleaf connecting this Boulevard with Erdman Avenue and overpassing
U. S. 40, constructed a new approach to Edgewood Arsenal and a U. S. 40
grade separation at the access road to Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
It constructed an access road (State Route 235) to the Patuxent Naval
Air Test Center in St. Mary's County.
It built a Waterview Avenue approach and overpass at Hanover Street
and a new approach to the Fairfield Shipyard area from Hanover Street.
It rebuilt the road in Calvert County between Prince Frederick and the
military bases near Solomons Island and constructed the Camp Ritchie-
Pen Mar Road in Washington County. The cost of this work and other
similar projects was some $28,000,000 of which $13,000,000 was federal
aid.
Although built solely as wartime measures, the Commission was able
to say after the War: "Without exception those projects now continue to
serve as highly valuable parts of the peace-time highway system."
Personnel Becomes Big Problem
The years of the War were trying ones for the Roads Commission, and
for business generally.
154 A History of Road Building in Maryland
It was next to impossible to hold together a staff to turn out the work.
Some of the best men were in the armed services ; others were in war
plants where engineering services were at a premium.
Of these years Chief Engineer Ballard reported : "They will be remem-
bered as part of the most difficult period in the history of the Commis-
sion in its efforts to retain an adequate organization, and to carry on
effectively its work of designing and planning, maintenance of highways
and new construction of State and county roads, including those of mili-
tary necessity."
Rift Appears in the War Clouds
However, the picture brightened somewhat in 1944 after the Normandy
landings. There seemed to be a general feeling throughout the country
that "it's just a question of time, now."
This cautious optimism resulted in a noticeable loosening of federal
restraints on both material and manpower.
In the summer of 1944 the Roads Commission submitted to the War
Production Board a list of twelve "urgent and immediate" projects not
directly connected with the war effort.
Eight of these were approved involving expenditures of some
$4,600,000.
One not approved was the completion of the Frederick-Hagerstown
relocation. This ambitious and scenic mountain route had been half-built
when war broke out and remained so into the post-war years.
Bridge Engineer Hopkins presented what he called a "pre-postwar"
program for the construction of nine bridges, and several of these were
approved.
New Federal Policy
Later in the year, in preparation for the postwar period, Congress
passed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944, which represented a new
approach to federal highway financing.
It recognized three principal categories of highways : rural primary,
secondary or farm-to-market roads, and urban streets and roads. Mary-
land's share of the federal allotment for the first year beginning in 1945
was about $4,790,000, which was to be matched by the State or cities
on a fifty-fifty basis.
In the meantime the Commission went ahead with its planning, its
road designs on important postwar contracts and the programming of
huge interconnecting projects, such as a new Baltimore-Washington
Parkway.
World War II and the Access Roads 155
War's End — Strikes and High Prices
The surrender of Germany and the fall of Japan in 1945 thus found
the Roads Commission prepared for the postwar construction period —
on paper, at least.
But the country was still economically dislocated. Relations between
management and labor, which had been kept static during the tremendous
effort of wartime, suddenly broke asunder. Prices which had been kept
within bounds by wartime controls shot sky-high as fast as controls were
lifted. Projects which had been estimated on prewar prices had to be
re-examined, re-considered and in some cases deferred.
As the Chief Engineer pointed out at the close of 1946 : "Nationwide
labor problems and strikes in basic industries soon after the war's end
have brought about and are continuing to cause increasing shortages and
mounting costs of all materials and labor — and budgeted amounts have
been rather completely upset."
Harbor Planning Continues
The eight-year administration of Governor Herbert R. O'Conor was one
of frustration and delay, so far as road-building was concerned. Yet
much construction work was done which fitted into the pattern of the
following years. And the delay gave time for a re-evaluation of plans.
For instance, the Baltimore harbor crossing at the beginning of the
O'Conor term was planned merely as a bridge between Canton and Fair-
field, using city streets for access. By the end of the period, however,
the plans had blossomed out on both sides into a great municipal express-
way, connected on the south with a new Washington freeway.
Delay is not always time lost.
Reindollar Becomes Chairman
Two changes in Commission membership occurred in 1945. W. Frank
Thomas died in office and was succeeded as minority member by Russell
H. McCain, an engineer from Frederick. Ezra B. Whitman resigned as
Chairman and was succeeded by Robert M. Reindollar, who at the time
was Assistant Chief Engineer.
Bob Reindollar was the second chairman to have risen from the ranks ;
Mackall was the first.
Reindollar started with the Commission in 1910, having been trans-
ferred from the old Maryland Geological Survey when the two units
merged. From office boy and then rodman on a survey party he worked
156
A History of Road Building in Maryland
his way up through various departments until in 1929
he was made assistant chief engineer in charge of both
construction and maintenance activities.
His reputation was more than merely local. He was
author of the "Reindollar plan" to link Boston with
Washington by a system of superhighways. He was
active in many national associations in the highway field,
Reindollar was one of that hard core of Roads Com-
mission men whose lives almost paralleled the period of
this history, the first fifty years. As such, he played a
vital part in the transformation of the Maryland high-
way scene from oyster shell roads to expressways of concrete and
blacktop.
Mr. Reindollar
Part IV
THE lAST DECADE
(1948 — 1958)
Chapter XVIII
THE POSTWAR BOOM
In
that
1948 Maryland launched its greatest road building program up to
time — one which laid the groundwork for the major construction of
the Fifties.
The plan had been unveiled before the 1947 Legis-
lature which had given it enthusiastic approval. It
was designed to give Maryland "a system of high-
ways second to none in the nation," in the words of
its author, Governor William Preston Lane.^
In the four fiscal years of the Lane Administration
the Roads Commission built or rebuilt 757 miles of
roads at a cost of $106,300,000,- planned and com-
menced construction of Maryland's expressway sys-
tem of today, and started work on the Chesapeake
Bay Bridge which united the State and was Governor
Lane's pet personal project.
During the quadrennium the Commission's road-
building spending increased from an average of
$7,000,000 a year to $33,300,000.
Govcrnur Lane oper-
ates earth moving
equipment to start
one of the new proj-
ects.
The First Advisory Council
Such an expanded program threw a heavy burden
on the Commission which was just recovering from
wartime labor shortages.
^ Lane Inaugural Address, January 1947.
= SRC 1947-48, page 2; SRC 1949-50, pp. 1, 3.
157
The Post-War Boom 159
To help the Engineering Department reorganize and to counsel the
Commission on its fiscal policies, the Governor appointed a committee
which became the Commission's first "advisory council," a policy of out-
side assistance which has been continued through the past decade.
The first chairman of this body was Howard Bruce, who had been a
Commission member during the Ritchie administration.
The Council calculated that the seven-million annual expenditure of the
past should be adjusted to a figure of ten million due to the still rising
prices of the post-war period. It further estimated that from the Lane
road program of 1947 the Commission would have available between 35
and 40 million dollars a year for the next five years.
Only one change was made in Roads Commission membership. Robert
M. Reindollar was retained as chairman and Russell H. McCain as min-
ority member. The Eastern Shore membership was transferred from
P. Watson Webb, who resigned, to Joseph M. George, a prominent grain
and feed merchant in Queen Anne's County.
George was his county's State Senator. His father, John E. George,
had served on the Roads Commission in the Harrington administration.
Childs New Chief Engineer
For its new chief engineer, the Lane Commission selected William F.
Childs, Jr., who had a background of thirty years Commission experience.
A native of Anne Arundel County and a Cornell engi-
neering graduate, he had been district engineer at both
Frederick and Salisbury, consultant on several location
studies of Potomac structures, manager of the state-
wide highway planning survey, director of the trans-
portation study of the Baltimore metropolitan area and
first head of the Commission's traffic division.
Under his guidance, a number of changes were made
in an effort to streamline the Engineering Department.
.. ^,., , The Engineering Reorganization
Mr. Childs
The Commission created the position of deputy chief
engineer (Walter C. Hopkins from the Bridge Division) ; assistant chief
engineer for maintenance (P. A. Morison) ; and assistant chief engineer
for construction (Gerald S. Rinehart who shortly thereafter left the Com-
mission service and was replaced by Cordt A. Goldeisen).
The Plans and Surveys Division, which was one of the Commission's
oldest agencies and had been inherited from the old Geological Survey in
160 A History of Road Building in Maryland
1908, was abolished to make way for a new unit entitled Division of Road
Design. Allan Lee, a Johns Hopkins engineering graduate who had been
in the Bridge Division, headed this section which had two principal divi-
sions, both greatly expanded to handle the new workload : designs and
plans (Walter A. Friend) and surveys and locations (Norman M.
Pritchett).
To handle the increased amount of contract cost estimating and other
statistical work, the new position of Office Engineer was created and
filled by A, F. DiDomenico, who had come from Baltimore City's Engi-
neering Department and had been Childs' assistant in the metropolitan
transportation study.
George N. Lewis, Jr. succeeded Childs as Director of the Traffic Divi-
sion and Albert L. Grubb succeeded Hopkins as Engineer of Bridge
Design.
The Accounting Department was reorganized to cope with the expanded
program. Carl L. Wannen, a certified public accountant, who had been
a deputy state auditor and was familiar with the financial set-up of the
Roads Commission, became the first Comptroller. William A. Codd re-
mained as chief auditor and handled the growing problems of toll
facilities.
The office s!:aff of the Commission itself was expanded and Albert S.
Gordon was selected as Executive Assistant to the Chairman. Lamar H.
Steuart resigned after 29 years as Secretary of the Commission and was
replaced by Charles R. Pease, a businessman brought in from outside
the organization, •■
All in all, the number of employees on the Roads Commission payroll
increased in the Lane administration from 1,970 to 3,005, a 52 percent
jump.
Financing the Program
Governor Lane's five-year highway program was presented to the Legis-
lature in a special message delivered at the regular session of 1947.
To finance it he asked for a 100-million-dollar bond issue, an increase
in the gasoline tax from four to five cents, an increase in motor vehicle
license fees with emphasis on the heavy trucks, allocation of the titling
tax fees to the Roads Commission instead of to the general funds of the
State, support of the State Police out of general revenues instead of motor
vehicle receipts and a re-distribution of such funds on a 50-30-20 basis
to the Roads Commission, Baltimore City and the counties which there-
after were to finance their own road construction and maintenance.
SRC 1947-48, page 1; SRC 1949-50, pp. 1, 2.
The Post-War Boom iqi
In all, his plan would cost $200 million.
Referring- to the urgent need of road rehabilitation he said : "It has not
been possible, because of lack of materials, scarcity of labor and other
handicaps, to do much with the highway system during the war." -^
The Governor got most of the legislation he asked for and the new
roads program was ready to roll in the construction season of 1948.
Adoption of Controlled Access
One of the great contributions of the Lane administration to the high-
way system was the planning and partial construction of some express-
ways designed on the controlled-access principle.
The Baltimore-Washington Expressway, the Baltimore-Harrisburg Ex-
pressway, and the Washington National Pike south from Frederick were
planned with full control of access except at traffic interchanges.
Some other highways were planned to follow the principle of partial
control, such as the section of U. S. 40 from Pine Orchard to West Friend-
ship and the eastern approach (U. S. 50) to the Bay Bridge, then being
constructed. On these roads access was denied except at certain selected
public road crossings.-^
Controlled access was slow to catch on in Maryland, as in the other
states. From time immemorial people had gained access to their roads
wherever they wanted ; they did not take kindly to long detours to get on
roads in front of their properties.
Yet the arguments in favor of controlled access were incontrovertible
from the point of view of both safety and convenience to the highway user.
The Lane administration made the courageous move to begin whole
new highways on this principle — a worthy inheritance to future motorists
of Maryland and to the next administration. This step was formalized
by the Expressway Act of 1947."
Some fine new highways were started which the planners knew could
not be finished within the $200 million program. Chairman Reindollar
* Governor Lane's Special Message to the Legislature, March 6, 1947.
■>SRC 1949-50, pp. 110, 126.
" This statute defined an "expressway" as a major thoroughfare containing two or
more lanes in each direction with the following characteristics, among others: (1)
median divider separating opposing traffic lanes, (2) grade separation structures at
all intersections and (3) points of access and egress limited to predetermined loca-
tions. Such highways are known as "limited access" roads.
It further defined a "controlled access arterial highway" as one with the same
characteristics as an expressway except that the conflict of cross streams of traffic
need not be eliminated at every intersection by grade separation structures. These
highways are known as "controlled access" roads. Acts of 1947 (special session).
Chapter 47; Code, Article 89B, Sec. 18.
k
162 A History of Road Building in Maryland
frankly stated : "Our policy is to start a number of roads all at once and
go as far as the money will permit."
The Lane administration hoped that when the people saw the new con-
struction they would want it completed.
Sharp Cost Jump
One of the alarming aspects of the new program was the rapidly rising
cost of construction — increases out of proportion to the rising cost-of-
living index.
Since the removal of wartime price controls, an inflationary period had
set in and costs of basic items were fifty to a hundred percent higher
than before the war. But road costs were even higher.
For one thing, design standards had been changed by the inclusion of
built-in safety features. Twenty-foot pre-war pavements were now
twenty-four feet wide. Reduction of grades required expensive excava-
tion, pavements were thicker to carry the heavier traffic. Wide shoulders
called for much wider rights of way. On controlled-access expressways
the grade separations and interchanges ran up the cost.
Chairman Reindollar reported in 1950 that simple widening and resur-
facing projects built to the improved designs were costing $70,000 a mile.
New single-lane highways without access control, such as the Wye Mills-
Easton road (U. S. 50), ran to $100,000 a mile including rights of way
for an ultimate second lane. The new controlled-access expressways, he
said, were averaging $600,000 a mile while such superhighways as the
Baltimore-Washington Expressway had reached the astronomical figure
of a million a mile.
Many people wondered whether it would not be better to ditch the
expressway program, concentrate on improving the existing roads and
wait for more normal times.
Korea and Inflation
But normal times — if there ever have been such — showed no signs of
an immediate return.
Instead, the Korean campaign caused a shortage of material, a new
inflationary spiral and another personnel problem for the Commission.
The Construction Division, for instance, reported that of 345 men on its
staff assigned to inspection work, 70 were in some branch of the military
service, and 153 others were in the military age bracket between 19 and
26 years old.^
' SRC 1949-50, page 91.
The Post-War Boom 1^3
Shall We Finish the Job?
Yet the Lane administration stuck to its guns and built, as far as it
was able, the roads it knew were best in the long run for the ever-increas-
ing traffic.
Chairman Reindollar, whose salary of $10,000 a year had been raised
during his term to $15,000, resigned his office at the end of 1950 to enter
private business. He was offered a position as consultant to the Roads
Commission but declined.
In a parting statement he said that the Lane highway program was
but half-finished and that the $100 million bond issue would be exhausted
by 1952. He added : "The question before the people of Maryland today
is whether they want to finish the job."
Reindollar later became president of the American Roadbuilders Asso-
ciation. He died in 1956.
The shadows were lengthening on the administration of Governor Lane.
A new governor as well as a new legislature were ready to take over in
1951. As a short-term appointment the Governor made
Senator George chairman of the Commission and ap-
pointed a new member to succeed Reindollar, Leonard
E. Kolmer, Baltimore manager of the Automobile Club
of Maryland and a former editor of the Frederick Post.
The farsighted activity of the last four years had laid
a solid foundation for the future. But it was only a
start.
The very factors that had made Maryland the "best-
roaded state" in the Twenties had operated against her
Mr George ^^ ^^^ Thirties. States slower to start went ahead with
new techniques while Maryland merely added shoulders.
Satisfactory as temporary expedients, concrete shoulders to widen pave-
ments were no answer to the heavy trucks and busses of the Forties.
They merely perpetuated the poor grades and alignments of the turn-
pike era.
New vision, relocation of roads and a radical change of policy were
needed. These Reindollar helped supply.
2^fif S
Chapter XIX
THE TWELVE-YEAR PROGRAM
Governor Theodore R. McKeldin came into office in 1951 on a platform
that called for a careful examination of the previous administration's
highway-building and financing policies.
He had a thorough study made of both future road needs and the State's
capacity to pay for them. There was time for such a study since the
Lane $100 million bond issue would carry the plans for two to three more
years.
Thus when the Governor went before the 1953 Legislature he was able
to present a package of road building and financing deemed adequate for
the foreseeable future.
This plan came to be known as the Twelve-Year Program and was
designed to rebuild Maryland's highway system by 1965.
Its keynote was a scheduled priority system of improvement so that
each county would know in advance which roads were to be built or im-
proved, and when.
The package carried an estimated price tag of $568 million, based on
the 1947-52 cost figures.
New Commission and Council
For his new chairman of the Roads Commission, Governor McKeldin
appointed Russell H. McCain, of Frederick, who had been
the minority member of the Commission since 1945, serv-
ing during both the O'Conor and Lane administrations.
McCain brought to the chairmanship an engineering
background and the experience of over five years on the
Commission.
The second member of the new team was Avery W.
Hall, a Salisbury insurance broker. When he resigned
after three years he was succeeded by another Salisbury
businessman, Edgar T. Bennett, who had been State
McCain Senator from Wicomico County.
165
166 A History of Road Building in Maryland
The minority member appointed in 1951 was David M, Nichols, a Balti-
more real estate executive. In 1954 Nichols resigned and his place was
taken by another Baltimore realtor, Bramwell Kelly.
The Governor also appointed a highway advisory council to work with
the Commission in formulating its program. The Chairman was Dr. Abel
Wolman, the Johns Hopkins engineer who had headed a State Planning
Commission roads survey in the Thirties. The two other members were
Charles S. Garland, senior partner of the investment banking firm of
Alexander Brown & Sons, and E. Asbury Davis, chairman of the board
of the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.
Those unpaid posts were no sinecures and the McKeldin council mem-
bers proved it by devoting many laborious hours to a survey of the Mary-
land roads picture.
MiLE-BY-MiLE Inventory
Roads Commission engineers during 1951 and 1952 laid the groundwork
for the new program by making a physical inventory of each one of the
4,736 miles in the state roads system, a mileage which had grown year
by year since 1908.
This inventory disclosed what was wrong with the present system, how
many curves were too sharp for modern speeds and kindred matters.
The next step was to determine what improvements were necessary
to bring the system up to "approved standards." These standards had
been prepared and adopted by the Commission in 1948.
The mileage built and under construction in the Lane program together
with certain other mileage was found generally satisfactory. However,
of the 4,736 miles in the system, 3,159 or 67 percent were found to need
improvement or reconstruction, together with 291 miles of new roads
on new locations.
Among these was an Eastern Shore expressway to connect the new
Bay Bridge with the Delaware line, thus giving Atlantic Seaboard traffic
a new route through the State. A new U. S. 40 east of Baltimore was
also found to be required.
Of this latter route the engineers reported :
"At the time the 1940 program was prepared it was generally believed
that the then recently completed U. S. 40 — a four-lane divided highway
between Baltimore and the Delaware line — would be adequate to serve
traffic for many years beyond 1960. Today this road is inadequate to
handle safely and expeditiously the traffic using it.
"Poor planning cannot be blamed — rather it is the encroachment on the
margin by sundry and assorted commercial enterprises which has made
The Twelve Year Program 167
it necessary to consider an entirely new location rather than purchase
additional rights-of-way.
"It is ironical that the highway which brought prosperity and high
land values to these roadside businesses has become functionally obsolete
because of lack of control of access."
Also recommended were the beltway routes around Washington and
Baltimore, a dual highway between Baltimore and Reisterstown (U. S.
140) and others.
Concern Over Costs
The report on the Twelve-Year Program was made during the infla-
tionary period following the Korean crisis and both the Roads Commis-
sion and its Advisory Council were deeply concerned about the costs.
"It is most unfortunate," they said, "that the recognition of this problem
comes at a time when our national economy is geared to defense produc-
tion, taxes have reached an all-time high, and labor and material costs
have advanced to previously unequalled heights."
They found that the 1951 dollar had a value of 51 cents compared to
the 1941 dollar ; and further that the increase in the unit cost of highway
construction and maintenance "has far exceeded the increase in the cost
of living."
In 1952 the Commission and Advisory Council could not foresee
whether construction costs would go up or down in the years ahead. It
hardly seemed likely they could or would go much higher. In projecting
a program for the Legislature, however, they had to estimate costs over
its entire 12-year length. So using their composite best judgment they
based their cost estimates on "the performance and experience gained dur-
ing the past five years of higher-cost road construction" (1947-1952).
They added : "Assuming that these costs will remain reasonably stable,
the total cost of the program will be as indicated" ($568 million).
In 1958, as prices have continued to rise, and in future years as they
will surely fluctuate, it is important to remember that the Twelve-Year
Program was estimated on the cost index for the years 1947-52.
Control of Access and Toll Roads
The Twelve-Year report recommended control of access on the new
roads to prevent them from becoming "typical Washington Boulevards."
Control of access on bypasses around towns was also recommended "to
prevent encroachments that will eventually necessitate the bypassing of
a bypass."
168 A History of Road Building in Maryland
The Commission and Advisory Council also recommended a thorough
study of toll roads and partial toll projects. They suggested as toll possi-
bilities the new highway from Annapolis to Washington (U. S. 50), the
Washington National Pike (U. S. 240), and the Eastern Shore Express-
way from Queenstown to Warwick. They estimated that some $50 million
might be gained in this manner and the money used or released for other
highway projects.
They called attention, however, to a 1947-48 survey by traffic experts
which indicated there were no roads in Maryland which could be entirely
self -liquidating as revenue bond projects.^
Paying for the Program
Ordinary revenue for road purposes under existing laws was calculated
to produce over the 12-year period 1954-65 the sum of $256,340,000. To
finance a construction program involving anything like $568 million,
approximately $311 million more was needed.
The Roads Commission and its advisory council planned to raise this
extra money in three ways : a new bond issue, an increase from 5 to 6
cents in the State gasoline tax, and an increase in motor vehicle regis-
tration fees.
Because of rising costs of maintenance some $2 million annually was
being diverted from the construction to the maintenance fund. This, over
the period of the program, would amount to $24 million. It was proposed
to redeem this sum by the State's share of an increased registration fee.
The increase asked was relatively small on passenger cars and propor-
tionately higher on trucks and busses.
Broken down, the financial plan to raise the new money was as follows :
State's fifty percent share of the one-cent gas tax
increase $ 50,512,000
Proceeds from sale of additional bonds 330,000,000
Elimination of transfers from construction to main-
tenance fund, by registration fee increases 24,000,000
Total $404,512,000
Deduction: Sinking fund requirements 92,627,000
Net additional funds provided $311,885,000-
^ State Roads Commission Twelve-Year Program (October 27, 1952), pp. 1-13.
-Ibid, pp. 29-46.
The Twelve Year Program 169
The Legislature of 1953 passed the entire Twelve- Year Program sub-
stantially as proposed except that the increase in the registration fees
was postponed to April 1, 1955, instead of 1954 as requested.--
Subsequently, the Legislature postponed it again and finally repealed
the increase altogether, thus eliminating one of the important arches of
the 3-arch financial structure. The raids on construction funds for main-
tenance continued.
Previous Projects Go Forward
In the meantime, while the massive new program was formulating and
grinding through the legislative mill, progress was being made on other
projects previously authorized.
Chief among them was a seven-mile relocation of U. S. 40 over Sideling
Hill in Washington County, the first of a continuing program of leveling
hazardous mountain tops on Maryland's scenic route to the west.
The Eastern Shore expressway, or Blue Star Memorial Highway as it
came to be known, was commenced with construction of a 10-mile con-
trolled-access dual highway from the Bay Bridge east to Queenstown. An
interchange was built here, dividing the traffic headed up the Shore from
that moving southward to Salisbury and Ocean City. A new dual high-
way (U. S. 50) was started from Queenstown to a connection near Wye
Mills with the Denton road (State Route 404).
U. S. 40 west of Baltimore was dualized for ten more miles, to Ridge-
ville; U. S. 140 was dualized for seven miles from Finksburg northward;
a new Annapolis-Washington expressway was constructed for ten miles as
far west as U. S. 301 ; and work continued on the controlled-access high-
ways begun under the Lane program. And there were many others, as
dirt flew on highway projects in every section of the State.'*
New Chief Engineer
At the end of 1953, with the Twelve-Year Program adopted and sched-
uled to start the following month, Chief Engineer Childs resigned to make
way for a younger man who might be expected to see the project through
to completion.
Childs was 68 years old at the time and under State law would retire
automatically in two more years. He had been one of the first district
engineers in the State and as Chief Engineer had been in charge of both
the Lane and the McKeldin programs.
Acts of 1953, Chapter 657.
SRC 1951-52, page 3.
170 A History of Road Building in Maryland
He remained with the Commission as Advisory Engi-
neer until 1956 when he retired. He is now a consulting
engineer.
The man tapped to carry on the new program was
Norman M. Pritchett.
He is a career man, having started with the Commis-
sion in 1928 as rodman on a survey party. As a result
of his highway location work he is completely familiar
with the road system in all its ramifications.
Mr. Pritchett Pritchett, a registered professional engineer and land
surveyor, was made the Commission's first Location Engineer in 1946
and headed the new Location Division separated from the Road Design
Division in 1951.-"^
In addition to a forceful prosecution of the Twelve- Year Program,
Pritchett has shown a deep understanding of the long-range problems
of the Commission by a continuing interest in highway research.
He sparked the Joint Highway Research Program of the Roads Com-
mission and the University of Maryland in 1956, and served as the first
chairman of the administrative board, working with Dean S. S. Steinberg
of the University's College of Engineering.
Ten- Year Comparison
Before 1948 the Commission was handling a construction program that
averaged an expenditure of about $7 million a year. The Lane 5-year
plan stepped up road construction to some $33 millions annually. The
engineering staff was reorganized to handle the increased load and, as
has been indicated, the personnel of the Commission was increased 52
percent to a total of 3,005 persons.
The Twelve-Year Program has doubled production with only a small
expansion of departments and facilities. The engineering and accounting
departments today are organized substantially along the lines of the 1948
set-up.
The employed personnel in 1958 stood at 3,204 (an increase of 7%),
not including the new employees hired to operate the Harbor Tunnel
who are paid from toll receipts.
The Use of Consultants
Aside from a heavy burden of extra work shouldered by many em-
ployees, involving extra and largely uncompensated hours, the problem
SRC 1951-52, page 1.
The Twelve Year Program 171
was partially solved by using outside consulting engineers to design many
of the new highways.
This was not new. They had been utilized to advantage as far back
as 1915 in the construction of Baltimore's Hanover Street bridge; but
their use was increased with the advent of the new program.
The use of outside consulting firms on the large projects, some admin-
istrative changes and the employment of new techniques and scientific
equipment made possible the handling of an increased work volume.
During the first four years of the program, 1954-57 inclusive, the Com-
mission spent or committed $276,895,000 on construction, engineering
costs and rights of way, or an average of nearly $70 million a year.
In order to coordinate the work of the consultants with the regular
work of the Commission, a liaison department was created in 1956 known
as the Office of Special Services. It is headed by Hugh G. Downs.
Other personnel changes made by Chief Engineer Pritchett included
the appointment of Warren B. Duckett as Construction Engineer in place
of Thomas M. Linthicum, a veteran employee who retired in 1956 at the
mandatory age of 70 ; Clarence W. Clawson as Engineer of Road Design ;
and Frank V. Dreyer as Location Engineer, the post vacated by Pritchett.
The rapid expansion of all departments of the Roads Commission to
carry out the Twelve-Year Program affected the Right-Of-Way Division
more than any other — and revealed a weakness in that particular phase
of the work.
From an expenditure of $2,000,000 a year before the Twelve-Year plan
was started, right-of-way purchases jumped to $12,000,000 annually in
fiscal 1954 and 1955, an increase of 600 percent.
In the wake of this enormous expansion, with experienced personnel
spread thin, came the so-called DuPre case which led to numerous changes
in administrative setup and right-of-way acquisition procedures.
Briefly, this episode in State Roads history involved the right-of-way
engineer (Ben DuPre) in charge of the area that comprised the Wash-
ington National Pike and the Circumferential Highway. In mid-1955
it was charged that DuPre was selling the commission's plans for future
highway locations to two Washington real estate operators. This enabled
them to buy land at low prices where new rights-of-way were to be pur-
chased, and then sell at a quick profit. Following an expose, DuPre was
discharged from state service and went to Mexico City, his native place.
When brought back in 1956 under legal immunity as a state witness, he
admitted his part in the transactions and that he was paid $8,500 for the
advance information he supplied. The two real estate men who profited
were convicted of conspiracy and fined.
172 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Subsequent investigation revealed that DuPre was the only state em-
ployee involved.
The state's ultimate loss, after recoupments of one kind or another,
was approximately $12,000, according to a board of real estate appraisers.
One of several studies precipitated by the DuPre case was made by
the Governor's Commission on State Programs, Organization and Finance,
headed by Baltimore attorney Harry J. Green and referred to as the
Green Commission.
This group made a report late in 1955 regarding the Commission's
organization, administrative setup and procedures, its right-of-way acqui-
sitions and other administrative matters. It also recommended that the
three-man system be supplanted by a single highway director aided by a
three-man advisory board to assist in policy matters.''
The Legislature of 1956, at the request of the Commission's Legal
Department, moved to plug the loophole revealed by the DuPre case. A
statute was passed providing for the preparation of plats or maps show-
ing the location of new highways and the Commission's valuation of each
property concerned, such plats to be filed with the Commission "and not
to be open to public inspection," with certain exceptions."
It was thought that such procedure would prevent land grabs in the
path of future highway construction.
A Change at the Top
By the close of 1955 Governor McKeldin decided to make administra-
tive changes in his Roads Commission. Commenting on the recommenda-
tions of the Green Commission, he said : "Even more obvious has been
the need for a strong hand of direction and authority in the affairs of
the Commission."
The Governor found his "strong hand" in Robert 0. Bonnell, a Balti-
more banker, whom he appointed chairman in 1956 as successor to Russell
McCain, who, after eleven years on the Commission, became an executive
assistant to Governor McKeldin.
At the same time the Governor appointed a new minority member,
John J. McMullen, president of the Times and Alleganian Company, Cum-
berland, and publisher of the Times and the Neivs in that city. Senator
Bennett remained as the third member.
® Improving Road Administration in Maryland. A Report to the Governor of Mary-
land by the Commission on State Programs, Organization and Finance (November
15, 1955), page 4.
' Acts of 1956, Chapter 59.
The Twelve Year Program 173
The new chairman, a native of Indiana, received his college degree in
California. He came to Baltimore in 1930 as president of the Morris
Plan Bank, later the Public Bank of Maryland. When it
merged with the Fidelity Trust Company in 1944 he be-
came a director and a vice-president of that institution
and later a vice-president of the Fidelity-Baltimore Na-
tional Bank.
He had been president of the Community Chest, the
Association of Commerce, the Symphony Orchestra and
the Maryland Hospital Service (Blue Cross). He was
chairman of the Baltimore Aviation Commission when
it built Friendship Airport and co-chairman of the Mary-
Mr. Bomiell ^^^'^^ Joint Port Commission which set up the present
Maryland Port Authority.
The salary set for the greatly enlarged duties of Maryland's Road
Commission chairman under the reorganization is $25,000 a year.
Meetings in the Counties
The new Commission wasted no time in making some administrative
changes. Chairman Bonnell became the full-time administrator. To bet-
ter understand and appreciate the problems and the needs of the various
parts of the State, the Commission held meetings in all counties. To
these meetings were invited the County Commissioners, the State Senator
and the County Delegates to the General Assembly. The relationship thus
established proved exceedingly helpful in solving local problems and pro-
moting a better state-wide understanding of the Commission's program
for highway development.
The Commission immediately set about to lighten the heavy adminis-
trative burden which had been imposed upon the Chief Engineer — in
addition to the engineering responsibilities that the twelve-year plan and
the federal interstate program entailed.
The Right of Way Department, with LeRoy C. Moser at its head, which
had been reporting to the Chief Engineer, was made directly responsible
to the Chairman. The Executive Assistant to the Chairman, Albert S.
Gordon, was made the Commission's liaison with that department. Henry
Kaltenbach, a right of way consultant, was employed on a part-time basis
to assist in improving techniques.
The employment of a skilled Personnel Director, reporting to the Chair-
man, gave the Chief Engineer relief from an endless amount of detail —
much of it foreign to his proper function.
174
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Tightening Administrative Procedures
To assure the Commission that the contractors who bid on highway
projects were qualified by experience, know-how, equipment, and finances,
and to assure bidders that those competing for State Roads projects were
responsible, the prequalification of all contractors was required before
their bids would be considered.
A survey of the Commission's equipment, its use and acquisition re-
sulted in the selection of an Equipment Engineer, who improved that
operation immeasurably.
The State Roads Commission is installing a two-way radio communica-
tion system, the application for which has been approved by the Civilian
Defense, which is sharing in the cost. The facility will be installed as
soon as approved equipment is made available.
This installation is deemed invaluable in dealing with emergencies —
storms, hurricanes, floods, etc. Application has been made for a micro-
wave system.
Another new technique adopted by the Commission in 1958 was the
method of xerography for reproducing engineering drawings. It is a
direct, positive, dry electrostatic reproduction process that requires no
negative. It is clean, economical and more rapid for quality and quantity
production, providing greater versatility than the process the Commis-
sion previously employed. This process is a great time and expense saver.
The Commission, aided by the garden clubs of Maryland, successfully
supported legislation to control outdoor advertising on limited-access
highways.
Progress of the Program
The work of the Twelve-Year Program progressed with unabated vigor.
During the fiscal years 1955 and 1956 Chief Engineer Pritchett reported
completion of 208 improvement
projects covering 320 miles of
Maryland highways. These in-
cluded the final leg of the con-
trolled-access dual highway from
Ridgeville to Frederick (U. S. 40),
a section of the Baltimore Beltway
north of Towson and new bridges
across the Potomac at Cumberland
and Kitzmiller. Dualization of U.
S. 301, U. S. 13 and other high-
ways proceeded.'*
A new section of U. S. 13 south of Salis-
bury.
«SRC 1955-56, page 3.
The Twelve Year Program
175
Golden Milestones
In 1954 the National Highway Users Conference began the practice of
singling out certain states for special commendation for present and
future highway programming.
Composed of the principal users of the roads such
as the auto clubs and the truck and bus companies,
this organization wanted to encourage long-range
planning and the effective presentation of such pro-
grams to the public, in place of the haphazard or
year-to-year highway building of the past.
The device selected for the award was a replica
of the golden milestone that stood in the Roman
Forum, the point of beginning of the road system
of the Empire in the days when "all roads led to
Rome." The award was made every two years —
in 1954, 1956 and 1958.
Maryland won the award in 1954, along with four
other states, for the Commission's "scheduling of
projects on a priority basis."
It won again in 1956, sharing the honor with but
three other states, for a report which "showed the accomplishment of the
past two years and related them to the over-all Twelve-Year Program."
Mr. McCain accepted the honors for 1954 and Mr.
Bonnell accepted the 1956 award.
The two golden trophies are currently on display in
the Tjonference room at Commission headquarters in
Baltimore.
The Golden Milestojie
Gov. McKeldin
Governor McKeldin and the Roads
Throughout the fifty-year period each of the eight gov-
ernors has taken a personal interest in highways and
the problems of the Roads Commission.
None has devoted more personal interest to highway
development than Governor McKeldin during his eight
years in Annapolis.
He sat in on many sessions of the Advisory Council as the thorny prob-
lems of the Twelve-Year Program unfolded.
He took bus tours with the press over new and unfinished roads in
every section of the State. He rode jeeps over partially-graded rights-
of-way — and at the end of the line he got out and walked. He cut rib-
176 A History of Road Building in Maryland
bons opening more than 100 stretches of highway and he mounted bull-
dozers to break ground on many of the new projects.
Labor leaders on one project protested that no non-union man could
operate earth-moving equipment, even temporarily. So the Governor
joined the union — and went ahead with the ground-breaking.
Governor McKeldin's favorite project was the Baltimore Harbor Tun-
nel, the largest public enterprise in the State's history. He was present
at every important stage of construction, from preliminary sub-surface
borings in 1954 to the elaborate ribbon-cutting ceremonies in 1957.
UNCLE SAM AND THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM
Chapter XX
The Federal Government has poured many billions of dollars into the
nation's roads systems in the last forty years, almost all of which up to
1956 came from general funds in the United States Treasury.
A small but comparatively prosperous state such as Maryland con-
tributes relatively more highway user revenues at the national level than
it gets back in the form of federal-aid funds.
Financial aspects aside, however, federal assistance has been of in-
calculable benefit to the development of an orderly and intelligent roads
program in Maryland and in the other states. The influence has been
felt in the field of research, in the adoption of standards, in the selection
of routes to form an integrated national system of highways, and in
many other fields.
For instance, when the Maryland Roads Commission of the early Thir-
ties planned to widen old Philadelphia Road rather than build a new
highway on new location, the federal Bureau of Public Roads felt it should
not allocate money for the project. It insisted on the new road which
became Pulaski Highway (part of U. S. 40). Viewed in retrospect, im-
provement of the old road would have been an almost complete waste of
money.
Object-Lesson Roads
The Bureau of Public Roads had its beginning in 1893 as the office of
Road Inquiry, then a division of the Department of Agriculture. Its early
functions were largely educational. One of its methods was the building
of short "object-lesson" roads in various sections of the country so the
people could see what good roads actually looked like.
Among the first of these were the two samples built in Maryland in
1898 and 1899, the latter being at Timonium Fair.
Another object-lesson road in Maryland was the paving of Westmin-
ster's Main Street in 1910. The federal report on the project described
it as giving "practical instruction to local road builders on standard
177
The Interstate System I79
methods of construction and demonstration of new materials and new
methods." ^
The street was paved with bituminous macadam, a new road material
in 1910, and the cost of the project was at the rate of $10,588 a mile.
This was high-priced roadbuilding in those days, especially in view of
the labor costs listed for the project: $1.50 per day for a ten-hour day.
In 1911 the federal agency built a stretch in Maryland called the "Con-
necticut Avenue Experimental Road" which it described as the "begin-
ning of a series of thoroughly organized experiments in road construc-
tion."
The section selected, a 3,300-foot strip between Bradley Lane and the
District of Columbia line, was paved with eight different kinds of road
metal, from water-bound macadam to asphaltic concrete. Careful cost
records were kept of both construction and maintenance, traffic counts
were taken and the condition of the paving noted regularly over a period
of 16 years.
The results of these experiments were published and furnished valu-
able information to highway builders throughout the country.-
First Federal Am Was in Maryland
In 1916 Congress passed and President Wilson signed the first Federal-
Aid Road Act, which set up a continuing program of federal assistance
to the states on a matching basis. The present Bureau of Public Roads
was also established by Congress at the same time.
Federal aid for road building had been tried once before — and in Mary-
land. Construction of the National Road west from Cumberland by the
United States a hundred years earlier has already been described. But
in 1822 President Monroe vetoed a bill providing for the collection of tolls
to repair it, on the theory that repair work asserted federal jurisdiction
over the roadways and therefore was an invasion of states' rights.
The 1916 Act sidestepped this constitutional question by providing that
the states should build and maintain the roads. Federal aid was limited
to money grants and approval of plans and other details. The law was
patterned after the several "state-aid" statutes then in effect which fur-
nished state assistance to county roadbuilders, of which Maryland's 1904
Shoemaker Act was one of the first (ante, page 60).
The Federal Highway Act of 1921 required the states to designate a
system of principal interstate and inter-county roads, limited to seven
' AnnuaT Reports of the Office of Public Roads, Washington, D. C, (1893-1911),
page 8.
-Public Roads Magazine, Washington, D. C, Vol. IX, No. 3 (May 1928), pps. 49-59.
180 A History of Road Building in Maryland
percent of the total mileage of rural roads then existing. Use of federal
funds was restricted to this system.
This congressional act is important, because, with a few modifications,
it has continued through the years and is still the basis of federal-state
roadbuilding relations. It has been called the parent of the present
system.
Federal grants under the 1921 Act are apportioned to the states accord-
ing to formulas in which weight is given to the relative area, population
and rural mail-route mileage in each state. These grants are matched
on a fifty-fifty basis by the states. The states retain the initiative in
proposing roads to be constructed or improved, and the type of improve-
ment. They also are responsible for surveys, plans, specifications, right-
of-way acquisition, the letting of contracts and the supervision of con-
struction, all subject to the approval of the federal Bureau of Public
Roads.
Stub-End Roads
One of the first visible benefits from the new statute was the selection
of a system of continuous interstate highways, so that a motorist could
drive from one state into another without encountering a muddy, pot-
holed dirt road beyond the state line.
The Maryland roads system, when completed in 1915, did not even
extend to state lines in most cases. Built to connect county seats, it had
no particular concern for interstate travel, which was almost entirely by
railroad anyway.
Other states had similar stub-end roads, described by one writer as
follows: "State boundaries in 1916 often seemed like canal locks separat-
ing a high level of highway improvement on one side from a lower rate
of progress upon the other." ^
The new federal bureau set out at once to coordinate the main interstate
roads in the same manner that the previous state-aid road laws had inte-
grated the county road systems.
SRC Ready with Plans
Because it was organized, and Chief Engineer Shirley was ready with
his plans, the Maryland Roads Commission was one of the first in the
country to match federal money under the new law. It extended most
of its roads to connections at state lines and built other projects to take
full advantage of the federal allocations.
^Public Roads of the Past (Historic American Highways), a publication of the
American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D. C. (1953), page 111.
The Interstate System
181
1916 — Mud at the State line
In the first five years of the program, from 1917 to 1922, it constructed
167 miles of federal-aid roads, at a cost of $4,805,000, or about $28,000
a mile."'
Setting Up the Surveys
In 1934 Congress passed the Hayden-Cartwright Act fathered by Ari-
zona's "silent senator," Carl Hayden. The act was designed to help the
states plan orderly road systems rather than merely surface the trails
of the past.
Federal aid by this time was running in excess of one hundred million
dollars a year in a frantic and often futile effort to keep the nation's
roads abreast of growing traffic. The act set aside up to one and a half
percent of federal funds for planning purposes, to be matched by the
states.
Under this authorization, 46 states, including Maryland, set up plan-
ning surveys to blueprint the roads of the future on a scientific basis.
This statute is still in force and has resulted in continuous study and a
storehouse of information on which to plan new construction and improve
old, on the theory of "look before you leap."
*SRC 1916-19, page 8; SRC 1927-30, page 46.
182 A History of Road Building in Maryland
City Streets Are Added
The first quarter-century of federal aid was confined to the surfacing
of rural roads and their development into an integrated national system.
But by the time of World War II it was apparent that many major cities
such as Baltimore were in even greater need of assistance because of
narrow streets and paralyzing traffic congestion.
In 1941 Congress extended the planning system to include urban high-
way development, and in 1944 initiated a large-scale program of joint
action by federal, state and local governments to solve the city traffic
problems, with specific federal-aid money earmarked for the purpose.
The ABC Program
The 1944 Act also provided for use of federal funds for purchase of
rights of way, and set up a new division of highway allocation known as
the federal-aid secondary system, the first organized effort by Congress
to build up the farm-to-market roads.''
Thus by the end of World War II there was developed the system of
federal aid which is in effect today, containing specific allocations for
primary, secondary and urban projects, and which came to be known as
ABC funds.
Since these allotments are made up to two years in advance to enable
the states to raise the matching money and otherwise make their plans,
the 1960 apportionment was announced in 1958. Of the nine hundred
millions appropriated by Congress, Maryland's share will be $9,846,985,
of which $3,735,897 is for the State's primary highway system, $2,289,320
is for secondary or feeder roads, and $3,821,768 is for urban highways.*^
The Interstate Highway System
The most comprehensive and expensive public works program in the
country's history was launched by the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1956.
It authorized funds for an integrated national system of 41,000 miles
and provided for its improvement to high standards.
The groundwork for the interstate system was laid by the above men-
tioned congressional statute of 1944, a section of which directed the selec-
tion of the roads to comprise it.
By 1947 the principal network of the system had been adopted, con-
sisting of 37,700 miles of the most heavily-traveled roads of the federal-
° The Administration of Federal Aid for Highways, a pamphlet of the Bureau of
Public Roads, Washington, D. C. (January 1957), pages 2, 3.
" National Highway Users Conference Information Service Bulletin, Washington,
D. C. (July 29, 1958).
The Interstate System 183
aid primary system. An additional 2,300 miles of urban connections and
beltways were chosen in 1955.
Under appointment by President Eisenhower in 1955, General Lucius
Clay headed a committee which made a series of recommendations predi-
cated on the expenditure during the 1955-65 decade of $101 billion, an
over-all figure including ABC and all other funds supplied by federal,
state and local governments.
This amount was $54 billion more than would have been spent in the
period by normal revenues, and the Clay Committee recommended that
the difference be financed on a pay-as-you-go basis by increasing highway-
user taxes. It also firmly endorsed limited- or controlled-access on the
entire network of interstate highways, either through relocation, land
acquisition or otherwise.
The Bureau reported in the two-year period the completed construction
of 1,952 miles, with another 3,159 miles under way. The program is
headed by Federal Highway Administrator Bertram D. Tallamy, who
was formerly chairman of the New York State Thruway Authority. His
first assistant is Ellis L. Armstrong, Commissioner of Public Roads. The
Bureau of Public Roads is now a part of the Department of Commerce.
Maryland's Interstate Roads
Maryland's share of the 41,000 mile interstate system is 350 miles, in-
cluding the belt roads around Washington and Baltimore and the mileage
in Baltimore City. Locations of the highways are U. S. 40 from the Dela-
ware line westward to north of Hancock; U. S. 11 through Washington
County; U. S. Ill, the Baltimore-Harrisburg Expressway; U. S. 240, the
Washington National Pike ; and a new road of the future between Wash-
ington and Baltimore.
In addition, the Roads Commission has applied for 194 more miles if
and when the system is expanded.
Maryland's 1960 apportionment of federal funds for the interstate
system was $56,043,375, about six times greater than the combined allot-
ment of all ABC funds for that year. The 1960 allocation was the first
made on the basis of the actual needs of the state.
Money Back?
Maryland had not waited for the 1956 interstate statute to start build-
ing its interstate system.
Shortly after the routes were selected in 1947, the Roads Commission
began building the Baltimore-Harrisburg Expressway and the Washing-
184
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Maryland's Interstate System
ton National Pike. Later, work started on the Baltimore Beltway, the
Washington Circumferential Highway and the Frederick Bypass, which
became a section of U. S. 40 this year.
All five of these projects were limited-access, in the sense that there
are no grade crossings or other entrances except at interchanges. Thus
they complied with the high federal standards set by the Interstate Act
and qualified as part of the system.
The Baltimore-Harrisburg Expressway and the Washington National
Pike were more than half completed when the 1956 Act became effective
and noticeable progress, involving many millions of dollars, had been
made on the other three projects.
States that had made no start whatever on an interstate program until
1956 will have their entire system financed under 90-10 money from
Washington. Unless some method of reimbursing the progressive road
states is adopted, the states that held back will gain and such states as
Maryland will be penalized for their initiative and enterprise.
As of 1958 the question of ultimate reimbursement had not been re-
solved.
Chapter XXI
THE BALTIMORE TUNNEL THRUWAY
The 16-mile Baltimore tunnel system is a financial and engineering
feat of many distinctions. Among these may be counted the fact that it
was built within the original cost estimates and that it was opened ahead
of schedule — by two days.
Planned to start service on December 1, 1957, the first toll was collected
at midnight November 29. Among its first customers were football fans
attending the Army-Navy game in Philadelphia on November 30.
The opening was the signal for celebration on a scale befitting the occa-
sion. The huge toll plaza adjacent to the administration building in
Fairfield was crowded with thou-
sands of well-wishers, among
whom were City and State leaders
and numerous representatives of
other states.
Chairman Bonnell presided and
Governor McKeldin made the prin-
cipal address.
The Tunnel is a traffic improve-
ment of major national impor-
tance. It was widely heralded as
breaking the Baltimore bottleneck.
It was long overdue.
For more than two hundred
years horse-drawn and motor traf-
fic had crawled through the nar-
row streets of the city on the only
direct route between Philadelphia and the south.
In the Thirties, travel bureaus were reportedly routing clients from
Philadelphia through Gettysburg to Washington in order to avoid the
bottleneck. By 1944 the Administrator of the U. S. Bureau of Public
GovcDior McKeldin cuts yellow and black
ribbons at the opening ceremonies. With
him are Mrs. McKeldin and Chairman
Bonnell.
185
The Baltimore Tunnel Thruway
187
Roads was calling Baltimore "the worst city in the United States, as far
as I know, on the matter of taking care of its through traffic." '
This notoriety was immediately wiped out with the building of the
tunnel system, ninety percent of which is a metropolitan expressway.
Bridge First Proposed
Maryland's Primary Bridge Program, adopted by the Legislature in
the Nice administration, included a crossing of Baltimore's harbor.
The long delay in beginning that crossing gave time for full considera-
tion of the issues and for many refinements in plans. As originally pro-
posed, a bridge was scheduled to span the Patapsco River, connecting
with existing streets on both sides of the harbor. In 1943 the Roads
Commission drew up a new plan providing for a combination bridge and
highway project starting on the north at U. S. 40 and Erdman Avenue
and ending on the south at U. S. 1 on Washington Boulevard.-
FoRT McHenry Crossing Considered
Baltimore City interests wanted a Fort McHenry-Canton crossing, be-
lieving this route would better serve local traffic and at the same time
speed the interstate traveler through the city. Aviation and shipping
interests opposed a bridge as harmful to navigation.
The Roads Commission finally decided upon a Canton-Fairfield cross-
ing as the best solution to the through as well as local traffic problem from
the point of view of the rapidly developing state highway system.
A tunnel was selected instead of a bridge when the traffic experts dis-
covered that a twin-tube facility, carrying two lanes in each direction,
could be built within the funds
reasonably expected from toll rev-
^ ^^^^^^^^^^^M^ enue over the years.
Now
View of the Tunnel interior:
Primary Bridge Program
Complete
The project was financed from a
$180 million bond issue which re-
tired all outstanding bonds on the
three toll bridges and left some
$130 million to pay for the double-
barreled tube and its approaches.
' Baltimore Sun, February 23, 1944.
"Roads Commission Report to Governor O'Conor (November 1, 1943).
188 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Thus the revenues from the tunnel and the three other members of the
quartet are pledged as security for payment of the bonds. The State's
credit is not involved.
The tunnel system is the largest public project ever undertaken by
Maryland and it completed the Primary Bridge Program. No other
projects in the future can be tied into it without consent of the bond-
holders.
Tunnel Thruway Makes Many Connections
The thruway picks up traffic on U. S. 40 at Moravia Avenue, near
Erdman Avenue, and whisks it through the city at open-country speed.
The southern end has two prongs, one hooking into Ritchie Highway
(State Route 2) and U. S. 301 South, while the other proceeds westerly
to the Baltimore-Washington Expressway and the Washington Boulevard
(U. S. 1). Connections are made at the Glen Burnie Bypass and at the
Baltimore Beltway, under construction as a 40-mile limited access belt
route around the city. Other connections are made at numerous city
streets.
On the north it connects with the proposed Northeastern Expressway,
to be constructed to the Delaware line.
Building the Double Tunnel
The twin-tube structure was considered a marvel of modern engineer-
ing. It was built by the open-trench method, which means that prefabri-
cated tunnel sections were sunk in a trench dredged in the river bed and
the sections joined together under water.
Each of the tunnel's 21 twin-tube sections is 300 feet — the length of a
football field — and was built in shipyards and launched like a ship.
There are today some 16 subaqueous vehicular tunnels in operation
or under construction in the United States and in Europe. About one-
half of these were built by the trench method and the other half by the
shield method. Where conditions are favorable the trench method is
preferred by engineers both because of the lower cost of construction
and because of the absence of the health hazard of compressed air in-
herent in the shield method. New York's Hudson tubes were built by
the shield method, bored through rock and other materials below the
bottom of the Hudson River.
Largest Trench-Type Tunnel
Conditions at Baltimore were considered favorable for the trench
method and the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel became by far the largest
The Baltimore Tunnel Thruway
189
|||M||J trench tunnel project ever built.
"^^Hr- '- r- It is 6,300 feet long and has four
lanes of traffic, whereas all other
vehicular tunnels built by this
method in the United States have
but two lanes.
After the welded structural steel
sections were launched at the ship-
yards, they were towed to a shape-
up basin on the south side of the
harbor. Here exterior protective
pneumatic mortar was placed on
the steel shells. At the same time
interior concrete was poured as a
lining and the rough base of the
roadway was laid. When the sections became so heavy that they were
barely awash they were then ready for sinking into position beneath the
harbor floor.
The section of trench previously dredged across the harbor was care-
fully prepared with a foundation course of sand and screeded to exact
grade at the bottom of the trench. The tunnel sections were aligned by
means of temporary masts which projected above the water surface.
They were lowered under control of derricks and the end-to-end sections
were joined by steel pins, wedges and steamboat ratchets placed and
adjusted by divers.
The tunnel sections, each the length of a
football field, were towed to this shape-up
basin in Fai)'field. Here much of the i)i-
terio)- rvo)-k was done, including the layi)ig
of the roadway.
B.OW Fresh Air is Brought In
All of this is an intricate procedure but the real trick in building a
vehicular tunnel is the ventilating system — provision for removing the
noxious fumes of thousands of automobiles constantly
using the facility.
And that brings Ole Singstad into the picture.
Senior partner in the New York consulting engineer-
ing firm of Singstad & Baillie, he is considered the
world's greatest authority on vehicular tunnels. He was
brought to Baltimore to design and furnish field engi-
L-'w^ neering supervision and inspection for the harbor proj-
§ ect, under contract with the Roads Commission.
■K Singstad had devised a new tunnel ventilating system
for New York's Holland Tunnel in the 1920's and he
adapted it for use in Baltimore.
M)\ Si)igstad
190
A History of Road Building in Maryland
The ventilation plans provided for the erection of one ventilating shaft
and building at each terminus of the tunnel. Fresh air is supplied through
a duct under the roadway distributed through air flues placed at close
intervals along the tunnel on each side just above the roadway.
Foul air is drawn off into the duct above the tunnel ceiling. Motor-
driven fans that supply the fresh air and draw off exhausted air are
located in the two terminal ventilating buildings.
Singstad: Tunnel to Last 1,000 Years
Ole Singstad took a great personal interest in the project. He was in
Baltimore frequently and liked to see for himself how each phase of the
job was progressing. When State authorities were planning a celebration
at the time of the sinking of the first tunnel section, with Governor
McKeldin personally at the winches, Singstad caused nine postponements
of the event because he was not satisfied with the grade of sand spread
along the bottom of the tunnel trench.
"After all," he said, with a twinkle in his eye and in his rich Norwegian
accent, "nothing is too good for Baltimore. I am building you a tunnel
to last one thousand years."
Contract for the building of the tunnel was let by the Roads Commis-
sion in March 1955 to Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation at its bid
price of $29,894,081.
Sixteen Miles of Approaches
The approach expressways, which in mileage are ninety percent of the
project, are limited-access dual highways cut through some of Baltimore's
most highly congested industrial
and residential property. All in
all, they run 16 miles in length.
The interchanges were designed
so that when a motorist once en-
ters the facility he cannot get off
until he has passed through the
tunnel (and particularly the toll
booth). However, having once
crossed under the river, the trav-
eler may exit at one of several
interchanges or may continue on
to the terminus.
The approaches required the fol-
lowing structures : six bridges,
The wet pavement of the Tunnel toll plaza
shines after a night rain. There are four-
teen toll booths. The Administration Build-
ing, headquarters of the Toll Facilities Di-
vision, is in the left backgronnd.
The Baltimore Tunnel Thruway 191
thirty-six highway grade separation structures and nine railroad grade
separation facilities.
The roadways have wide pavements in each direction with adequately
surfaced shoulders. The median divider is 40 feet wide in rural areas
and 4 feet (concrete curb) in urban areas.
Approach grades are limited to a maximum of three and one-half per-
cent. Design speed is 70 miles per hour for rural areas and 60 for
urban. Actual speed limits are 60 in open areas, 50 in the city and 45
through the Tunnel.
Four Toll Structures Operate as Unit
All four of Maryland's toll facilities are managed as a unit by the Mary-
land Roads Commission. The annual estimated cost of maintenance
and operation, including payments made to the Operations Reserve Fund,
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1959, is as follows :
Tunnel $1,293,500.00
The three bridges 924,000.00
Administrative expenses chargeable to the four
toll facilities 265,500.00
Total $2,483,000.00
Consulting engineer on the project was J. E. Greiner Company, of
Baltimore. The Commission's toll facilities department is managed by
Louis J. O'Donnell.
Like Riding Through A Park
White marble steps are a thing of the past to travelers through Balti-
more, for the approaches to the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel will feature
landscaping the like of which is now seen only on Connecticut's Merritt
Parkway.
Desirable from an esthetic point of view, practical considerations for
the extensive landscaping include reduction of on-coming headlight glare ;
screening of unsightly views ; blending the character of the roadway with
that of the contiguous countryside ; assistance in the stabilization of side
slopes to prevent erosion ; and lessening of traffic noise.
Thruway A Great Traffic Success
The tunnel was instantly successful from a traffic point of view. It
was authoritatively reported that up to 40 percent of the truck traffic
was removed from certain streets in Baltimore.
192
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Tolls were set at 40 cents for a passenger car and proportionately
higher for other vehicles.
A Second Tunnel?
Before the first or honeymoon year of the Tunnel had closed, Roads
Commission officials were making studies for a second tunnel across the
Patapsco downstream from the first.
The site is between Hawkins Point in the Marley Neck section of Balti-
more City and Sollers Point in the Dundalk area of Baltimore County.
While the proposed facility will not be needed for ten or more years,
according to present forecasts, engineers see it as a logical extension of
the Baltimore Beltway to make a complete loop around the city.
Such a structure, together with its approaches, in eflfect would form
the buckle of the belt, the device that ties the whole Beltway together.
Accordingly, the Roads Commission secured an option on 15.6 acres
at Hawkins Point for a future southwest entrance to a second tunnel,
if and when.
Experience had taught that in road right-of-way matters, it pays to
have the eye cocked some years into the future.
TUNNEL INTERCHANGES
- Frederick ond rhe West
J Horrisburj, Po
How the Tunnel system broke the Baltimore bottleneck.
Chapter XXII
THE NEW TECHNIQUES
Of all the changes in the first fifty years of the Roads Commission,
none has been more spectacular than the development of new methods and
equipment in design and construction.
These include the electronic computer, the tellurometer, photogram-
metry, the use of pre-stressed concrete and a variety of new road-building
machinery.
All of these have developed since World War II and some so recently
that their potential cannot yet be appraised. Their future use is vast
and unlimited.
For two thousand years prior to the Twentieth Century, road-building
techniques remained practically static.
The Appian Way — Hand-Made Highway
The most famous and durable piece of early road-building was the
Appian Way, a 400-mile superhighway across southern Italy, part of
which is still in use.
Macadam Roads
In 1816 a Scotsman, John Loudon McAdam, was appointed road super-
visor at Bristol, England, and developed the process which bears his
name. McAdam used men to lift the heavy stones and women and chil-
dren to break them to six-ounce size by hammer.
But no new road-making tools had been invented.
The National Road was built in Western Maryland in 1811 by picks
and shovels.
McAdam's "Mouth Test" for Stones
The McAdam principle rested on the use of these small stones through-
out, laid on a prepared roadbed and compacted to a thickness of from six
to nine inches. He issued orders that each stone should be small enough
193
The New Techniques 195
to fit into a man's mouth; and road foremen were instructed to test ma-
terial in this manner.
One day, on an inspection trip, McAdam saw a large pile of stones far
in excess of his prescription of six ounces. He called to the foreman
and asked why these stones had not been given the mouth test. The
foreman said they had and, as McAdam recounts it, "he opened a mouth
of extraordinary capacity and completely devoid of teeth, the largest such
cavity I had ever seen." ^
After that, McAdam made a number of two-inch rings which were
issued to the foremen for testing the stones. These two- and three-inch
rings became standard practice for macadam roads.
It was a common sight on the Boonsboro Pike and other early American
roads in the 1820's to see men sitting on the ground breaking the stones
small enough to pass through their rings.
The Rock Crusher and the Steam-Roller
By 1900 this hand method of breaking stone had been supplanted by
mechanical rock-crushers. Carroll County owned one and Frederick had
four, each of which cost $700.-
In addition, the road-rollers were now pulled by oxen — and sometimes
by horses or mules.
The principle of the steam engine had been applied to these machines
and in 1900 there were four "steam-rollers" in Maryland, but the reports
say "only two of these, those owned by Baltimore County, have been used
to any extent upon the county roads." -^
Otherwise, the road machinery was picks, shovels, hammers, sledges,
scrapers and a few hand scoops, the same equipment used by the Romans.
Revolution in Road Building
The application of power machines to road construction is almost en-
tirely a development of the past fifty years; and the most effective of
these have appeared in the past ten.
War, ever a stimulus to scientific advance, has left its imprint in this
century on Maryland road-building.
While the tractor principle was not new in the second decade, never-
theless the primitive tank of World War I led to the crawler tractor in
^ Devereux, Life of John Loudon McAdam, Oxford Press, New York (1936), pp.
49-63.
=^ Geological Survey Reports, VoL III, pp. 225, 233.
Ubid, page 259.
196 A History of Road Building in Maryland
road construction in the Twenties. Power shovels appeared — heavy,
slow copies of earlier steam-driven rigs; and trucks supplanted horse-
drawn wagons for hauling stone.
The Bulldozer Leads the Way
During the Thirties diesel engines were developed, together with many
different types of dig-and-carry scrapers.
But World War II produced the machines which fathered the road-
building implements of today; and chief of these was the modern bull-
dozer.
This useful and ever-present gadget was nothing more than a tractor
with a metal blade attached to its nose. But in wartime it cleared the
beaches, hauled artillery, built airstrips almost overnight and used its
blade as a shield against bullets.
Admiral Halsey said the bulldozer was one of the four machines that
won the War in the Pacific.^
Since the War the horsepower of these modern juggernauts has nearly
doubled ; yet power-steering has made them easily maneuverable.
Mobile Asphalt Plants and Concrete Finishers
Led by the versatile bulldozer, a whole squadron of new and powerful
machines has marched on the Maryland roads system, leveling mountains,
filling valleys and paving the long, sleek sections of the new highways.
Earthmovers with 27 cubic-yard capacities race across the raw ground
at speeds up to 28 miles an hour. Tractors are moved from place to place
by heavy transporters, with diesel generator to power electric motors
for each wheel.
Portable crushers, fed by drag-line buckets, now convey, crush and
screen up to 450 tons of gravel and sand an hour.
Mobile asphalt plants, driven to the site and set up by one man, deliver
blacktop mix to waiting trucks. Float finishers move by their own power
over newly-poured concrete, smoothing road surfaces and replacing four
to six hand-finishers.''
And this seems to be just the beginning in a revolutionized industry
as the new federal inters' ate highway program unfolds.
Roads Commission Maintenance Keeps Pace
The Roads Commission in its maintenance work has kept pace with the
highway contractors in the use of modern equipment. In 1910 it had nine
* Time Magazine (June 24, 1957)
' Constructioneer magazine (May 19, 1958); Time, supra.
The New Techniques
197
road-rollers and four stone-crushers " but most of its tools were similar
to those used in the building of the Appian Way.
In 1958, with 2,773 pieces of equipment,' it is one hundred percent
mechanized and its physical plant compares favorably with that of any
state highway department.
Electronic Robot Aids Engineers
As an aid in executing huge new road programs without a correspond-
ing increase in personnel, the Roads Commission has eagerly turned to
the products of modern science. One of the most promising is the elec-
tronic computer which was installed in the Road Design Division in 1957.
As an example of what this mechanical brain can do, the engineers
cite its proficiency in earthwork computation. For instance, a test on
a 12-mile section of new highway containing a deep cut showed amazing
results.
The manual method required 750 man-hours of laborious calculation.
The electronic computer did the job in 75 man-hours, including 16 engi-
neering man-hours, 54 non-engineering man-hours, four hours of com-
puter time and one hour of listing time — a ninety percent man-hour
saving. A similar saving has been noted in tests on design problems.
In studies for relative stiffness and other factors in continuous struc-
tural beam characteristics, the engineers find the new machine an even
more spectacular time-saver. The
old method consumed 40 man-
hours of an experienced structural
engineer. The computer can do the
job in 54 minutes — one-forty-
fourth of the manual time.
In the short time the computer
has been in use its work has been
eflFective mainly in calculating
earthwork : profile grade and pave-
ment edge elevations for use on
both single and dual-lane high-
ways. However, its scope has been
extended to verification of contrac-
tors' bid, cost analyses for con-
struction items, estimates of costs
Governor McKeldin inspects a section of
the new Univac.
SRC 1908-12, page 49.
' SRC Equipment Division Records.
198 A History of Road Building in Maryland
of State projects, traverse work for the Location Division, calculation of
tests of soil samples and analyses of origin and destination traffic studies.
The Traffic Division is planning to use the machine for computing and
tabulating commercial vehicle-mileage, gasoline consumption and regis-
tration fees paid. The Accounting Department has developed a program
for computing and tabulating the accumulation of various costs of operat-
ing equipment. Many other uses are anticipated as the full potential of
this revolutionary calculator is developed in the future. Its use and de-
velopment is in general charge of Philip R. Miller, an associate engineer
of the Roads Design Division.^
Air Photos Help Build Roads
One of the new techniques developed in the last few years is the use
of aerial photography and photogrammetry in the preparation of plans
for the new highways.
The first such project in Maryland was the Rising Sun bypass, a three-
mile relocation of U. S. 1, opened in 1957.
Photogrammetry is of great value in the preparation of engineering
reports on several alternate lines through difficult terrain conditions.
For instance, in the mountain areas of Western Maryland, it would take
many months to send survey parties to make even the roughest of recon-
naissance surveys ; and in winter months it would be practically impossi-
ble to get through. A basic survey of these difficult areas can be made by
aerial methods in a matter of weeks with the basic map prepared by
photogrammetry. Engineers can locate a number of alternate lines be-
tween desired terminal points and compute quantity estimates on all the
lines in a reasonably short length of time.
Drainage patterns and accurate drainage areas can be determined from
these maps and the drainage analysis in turn is a major aid in helping to
place a proposed line in its most favorable position.
Very often a mosaic of the area in question is an invaluable help in a
study of the properties in the early stages of route planning. Property
lines are easily distinguished on these mosaics and with minor inquiry
in the area and reference to tax maps, a good preliminary property-
mosaic can easily be prepared.
With this in hand, the engineer studying the preliminary location can
set a line which will cause the least amount of damage to the properties
involved.
* The State Roadster, a monthly employees' publication of the Roads Commission,
Vol. I, No. 12 (June 1957); Vol. II, No. 6 (December 1957); Vol. II, No. 10 (April
1958); Vol. II, No. 11 (May 1958).
The New Techniques 199
Aerial photographs are also of great help in an appraisal of raw mate-
rial supply for road building needs. Interpreters who are trained in the
art and who have a good knowledge of geology can pick out locations of
various deposits, such as gravel and sand, which are either useful or
detrimental to road building activities. By skillful interpretation, areas
of very poor soil can be avoided and areas of satisfactory soil traversed.
In addition, the sites of suitable sources of borrow — the additional
earth needed and which is not on the selected route — can be located.
Use of Pre-Stressed Concrete
The first highway bridge built in Maryland with pre-stressed concrete,
and one of the first in the United States, was the Shawan Road overpass
of the Harrisburg Expressway, erected in 1954.
If you move a half-dozen books from one shelf to another, you squeeze
the end books so the center ones will not fall out. This pressure induces
compressive stresses throughout the row and the books can be lifted as a
unit even though the center volumes are unsupported.
Simply stated, this is the principle of pre-stressed concrete, a process
which adds strength and durability to the beams while at the same time
reducing the amount of reinforcing steel required.
Pre-stressed concrete can be "pre-tensioned" in a factory and hauled
to location, like the pre-fabrication of housing units. Both the Princess
Anne and the Flintstone bypasses, now under construction, have bridges
built in this manner.
On larger structures the result is usually obtained by "post-tension"
with the work done at or near the site of the bridge. The Shawan over-
pass was an example of this latter method.
The Roads Commission has designed and constructed about fifteen pre-
stressed concrete bridges ; and five similar structures are now under con-
struction or design. This new use of concrete affords durable and esthetic
structures at a cost which compares favorably with bridges built of other
materials.
Electronic Surveying — Another Maryland First
George Washington, who was something of a surveyor himself in his
younger days, would not recognize the new electronic equipment which
is supplementing the old-time rod-and-chain method of surveying.
The Tellurometer — from the Greek words meaning "earth and "meas-
urement" is a radar-type device enabling engineers to save both time and
money in measuring distances and plotting the new highways.
200
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Surveying — the old and the new methods.
In 1957 engineers from the Union of South Africa introduced this
equipment into the United States. It was designed primarily to meet
requirements of geodetic accuracy.
The Maryland Roads Commission was the first — and one of three high-
way departments in the nation — selected by the federal Bureau of Public
Roads to determine the tellurometer's usefulness in conjunction with sur-
veys pertinent to the highway system. These experiments are continuing
under the Roads Commission's Traffic Division.
The tellurometer is extremely accurate and it saves both time and
money. The Bureau of Public Roads estimates at least a sixty percent
saving in cost over the conventional triangulation or traverse studies.
The Roads Commission's experiments with this new device began in
1958 with equipment it is purchasing for $15,000, under an arrangement
by which the Federal Government will pay the major part of the cost.
This is another example of how modern science is helping build the
new road system of America — and how the Maryland Roads Commission
is moving swiftly to take advantage of each new technique as it develops.
Chapter XXIII
THE COMMISSION'S LAWYERS
Of all the Roads Commission's sub-divisions, the Legal Department is
the only one over which it has no direct control.
The Commission's lawyer is the Attorney General of the State and,
through him and by his appointment, a Special Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral is assigned to the Roads Commission.
In private business the owner not only may select his own lawyer but
may disregard his advice or even fire him if he chooses. But in Mary-
land, all state departments are bound by the official opinions and rulings
of the Attorney General's Office.
The State Roads Commission seeks the advice of its Special Assistant
Attorney General on many matters. Often the legal opinions are merely
advisory. On important or controversial legal matters the Commission
frequently requests an official opinion from its Legal Department and in
these instances the legal opinion thus rendered must be followed, since
an official opinion of the Attorney General has the force and effect of law
unless it is overruled by a court of record.
The Roads Commission is a multi-million-dollar business enterprise
with many more legal problems and court appearances than most of our
largest corporations, due to its public nature. Therefore it might be
expected that this anomalous situation would cause frequent friction be-
tween client and attorney.
Yet there is no instance, throughout the entire period of nearly half
a century, of any major conflict or friction between the Commission and
its statutory legal advisor.
As a matter of fact, during 14 of the 42 years that this unusual arrange-
ment has been in force, including the present time, the Attorney General
has been a member of a different party from the Governor who appoints
and is responsible for the roads commissions.
The Roads Commission has kept to its field of policy-making and con-
struction. The Attorney General's office has called the legal balls and
strikes.
201
202 A History of Road Building in Maryland
That the system has worked so well is a tribute both to the many roads
commissioners and to the lawyers assigned to advise them.
In 1908 the legal set-up was different. The Roads Commission, like
other state agencies, employed its own counsel. The first was Carville
D. Benson, a distinguished attorney of his day. His fees and expenses
for all legal work from 1908 to 1912 amounted to $6,243, including draft-
ing of the state roads bill, nursing it through the Legislature and all
services for the first four years. ^
Legal fees as well as road-building costs were lower in those days.
When the Goldsborough Commission came into office in 1912 it retained
a new lawyer, Leon E. Greenbaum, a prominent Baltimore attorney.
In 1915 Albert C. Ritchie was elected Attorney General of Maryland.
Through appropriate legislation he provided for the abolishment of all
private counsel for state departments and the substitution of the Attorney
General as their sole legal advisor. He established the present State Law
Department on October 1, 1916.-
Since the new system multiplied his work, he appointed a small stafi"
of assistants to help him. Before Ritchie, the many distinguished At-
torneys General, an office which dates back to colonial days, had operated
from their own law offices on a part-time basis.
His first assistants included Philip B. Perlman, who later became Soli-
citor General of the United States, and the late Ogle Marbury, who became
Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals. These men were among
the first to handle Roads Commission affairs under the new system.
The first Special Assistant Attorney General assigned exclusively to
Roads Commission affairs was John B. Gray, Jr., appointed in 1931. He
is now a judge in the Southern Maryland counties. He
was followed in 1935 by the late Thomas M. Jenifer who
instituted the annual reports of the office and also first
codified the state roads laws.-''
The late Edmond H. Johnson served the Commission
from 1940 to 1943 when he was appointed judge in the
lower Eastern Shore counties. He was succeeded by
K. Thomas Everngam and later by Robert E. Clapp, Jr.
In 1942 Fred A. Puderbaugh became the first special
attorney and has rendered continuous service since then.
Mr. Biischer With the steady growth of legal work connected with
^SRC 1908-12, page 48.
-Acts of 1916, Ch. 560; Report and Official Opinions of the Attorney General,
Vol. I (1916).
^'SRC 1935-36, page 116.
The Commission's Lawyers 203
the expanding program and especially with land acquisition matters, the
Legal Department today consists of eight special attorneys headed by the
Special Assistant Attorney General, Joseph D. Buscher.
Originally appointed in 1949 by Attorney General Hall Hammond,
Buscher has been re-appointed by successive legal chiefs and is regarded
as a man it would be very difficult to replace.
Chapter XXIV
THE MULTI-COLORED FACETS OF THE TRAFFIC DIVISION
For sheer variety of functions, the Traffic Division sets a fast pace for
the other departments of the Commission.
Although a relatively youthful branch of the Roads unit, it performs
one of its oldest and most painstaking tasks, the preparation of accurate
road maps.
At the other end of the scale it also does the field work involved in a
continuing physical inventory of the roads — basic not only to orderly high-
way planning but to the meticulous art of the map makers.
Stop and Go Signs
In between these varied duties, Traffic dabbles with the primary colors
so familiar to motorists and so vital to safe passage on the highways —
the green, the red and the yellow. For it is responsible for the location,
erection and maintenance of all the automatic traffic signals on the state
system.
It also plans and locates all other signs on the roads, such as the many
"Stop" signs at principal intersections and the "miles-per-hour safe speed"
signs at certain curves.
Safety Is Its Byword
In addition, it makes traffic studies in incorporated towns, maintains
automatic and manual traffic-counter stations all over the State, reviews
plans for access to the state roads from private businesses such as shop-
ping centers, and maintains a uniformed patrol force, part of which is on
duty every hour of the week on the lookout for overloaded trucks.
The main purpose of the Division is traffic safety. Quietly and effi-
ciently, it is on the job every day in the year to keep traffic moving stead-
ily, expeditiously and — most of all — safely.
205
206 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Founded in 1940
The four-year planning survey made for the Roads Commission in the
late Thirties furnished a physical inventory of every mile of Maryland
road and has been the basis of all later improvement programs.
To keep this information up-to-date, and to perform other related func-
tions, the Traffic Division was founded in 1940.^ Its first director was
William F. Childs, Jr. who had managed the survey during its last two
years. When he became Chief Engineer in 1948, George N. Lewis, Jr.,
who had been Childs' principal assistant, was made Director of the
Division.
Colonial Traffic Signs Cut Into Trees
One of the more practical functions of the Traffic Division is its plan-
ning for highway signing and marking. While the motorist today takes
adequate road signs for granted, they are almost entirely a development
of the past 35 years.
The first Maryland law requiring roads to be marked was passed by
the provincial Assembly in 1704. It required directional signs to be
hacked on trees by axe-blade.
Roads leading to churches or a county courthouse "shall be marked
on both sides the road with two notches," the Act specified, while roads
leading to a ferry "shall be marked with three notches." All roads lead-
ing to Annapolis had to be marked with two notches plus the letters "AA"
set with marking irons — and colored. The notches, said the law, "shall
be marked on the face of the tree in a smooth place cut for that
purpose." -
This method of directing travelers was crude but eff'ective and the
custom persisted for many years in Maryland. In fact, one road in St.
Mary's County is still known as Three Notch Road, although the par-
ticular ferry to which it led is lost in the limbo of the past.
The great National Road built as a freeway by the federal government
was well marked. The distances were indexed by mileposts all along the
way showing the mileage from both Cumberland and Wheeling. Some
of these 150-year old milestones are still in service.
Forty Gates to Washington
During the dark ages of the roads following the coming of the railroad,
travel on the public ways was not only unmarked but was definitely dis-
couraged in many places.
^ SRC 1941-42, page 61.
^ Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 120.
The Multi-Colored Facets of the Traffic Division
207
Still standing, this is
one of the original
markers on the Na-
tional Road west of
Cumberland. It was
erected in 1815.
Since many roads ran through large estates, prop-
erty owners frequently erected gates across the
roads to keep their cattle from wandering away.
They found it easier to confine stock in this way
than to build fences on each side of the road.
Thus the traveler was frequently compelled to
get down from his vehicle, open a gate, drive
through and then go back to close the gate. In
1858, for example, it was necessary to open forty
gates across the main road in traveling from Upper
Marlboro to Washington, a distance of about fifteen
miles.
By 1900 such gates were banned by law in some
counties and permitted in others only upon payment
of a fee, as for example one dollar a year in Kent
County. And in some counties local laws required
the County Commissioners to erect "guide-boards"
to direct the traveler.-^
Sign Posts Used as Targets
But even where special laws required sign-boards at cross-roads, the
system was generally ineffective because of wide-spread vandalism. Al-
most as soon as guide-posts were erected they were hauled down and
carted off as souvenirs or for firewood.
Those that remained were frequently used as targets by trigger-happy
farm boys.^
The authorities despaired of replacing them, for experience showed it
was usually a waste of public money; so the roads of Maryland remained
in most places completely anonymous down to the days of the State Roads
Commission.
The traveler had to pick his way by compass or instinct — or ask the
farmer.
Modern Road Signs
The modern marking of the Nation's highways dates from the mid-
1920's when a uniform system designed for the country was adopted by
the several state highway commissions under the leadership of the Amer-
ican Association of State Highway Officials. These included the "U. S."
'Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, page 339 (footnote).
' Geological Survey Reports, Vol. Ill, pp. 339, 434.
208
A History of Road Building in Maryland
numbers on special highways of an interstate character, such as U. S. 40
and U. S. 1.
Other state highways not U. S. -numbered are given state numbers, as
"Md. 2" (the Ritchie Highway) and "Md. 410" (East-West Highway in
Montgomery and Prince George's counties).
Soon a new and different road sign will be added to the Maryland
scene: the U. S. Interstate Highway designation for the new expressways
being built under the Federal-aid Highway Act of
1956.
INTERSTATE
Maryland was one of the first states to provide
adequate roadside marking. In the early twenties
the Roads Commission inaugurated a comprehen-
sive system of directional and distance signs at
crossroads throughout the State.
First Sign Shop
The manufacture of these early Maryland road
mo7-e and Washing-
ton.
This route marker
will designate the
proposed Northeast- signs was by outside contract. However, in 1930
The ^neZ'^'Sterstafe ^^e Commission established its own sign shop. The
road between Balti- first signs made resulted from passage of the Boule-
vard Act of 1929 which required persons entering
from a side road upon a designated principal thor-
oughfare to come to a full stop. The sign shop
made and installed throughout the
State thousands of "Stop-Thru
Traffic" signs.''
In 19.38 the Commission began
replacing the square directional
signs of the Twenties with the rec-
tangular signs in use today.''
The sign shop has manufac-
tured, painted and refinished many
thousands of road signs through-
out the State. It also operates a
paint crew and is responsible for
the white center lines and the
The Traffic Division is
■ij/un.^ihle for all
road signs and markings on the state si/s-
tem. Here the Ritchie Highway is being Other markings seen On modern
painted with edge stripes for safety. hiffhwavs
••SRC 1927-30, page 98.
"SRC 1937-38, page 19.
The Multi-Colored Facets of the Traffic Division 209
White lines at pavement edges, a safety experiment tried first in Mary-
land in 1954, is rapidly being extended on principal highways generally.
It has been found a potent safety factor.
Currently, some 24,000 gallons of white paint are being used annually
down the center of 2,500 miles of pavement and along the edges of 350
miles of dual highways.
The sign shop is under the direction of Louis S. Pfarr whose title is
Supervisor of Highway Markings. It is a part of the Maintenance Divi-
sion but much of its work is directed by the Traffic Division.
Coming of the Traffic Light
The first automatic traffic light made its appearance on the state roads
system in the late twenties. It was erected in the heart of Glen Burnie
at the intersection of Crain Highway (U. S. 301) and old Annapolis
Boulevard (State Route 648). For many years it was the only one in
the State.
The present extensive system of traffic lights began in 1937 when the
Commission installed five, three of which were on the Washington Boule-
vard (U. S. 1). The following year it erected 22 and the practice has
grown with the increase in traffic'
The Traffic Division today maintains 253 automatic traffic lights
throughout the State.
On the Lookout for Overloaded Trucks
The Traffic Division also has the job of enforcing the truck-weight
laws of the State.
This operation is conducted through four permanent weighing stations
and a ''floating" truck patrol consisting of sixty men.
Of some 900,000 trucks now weighed each year, less than one percent
is found to be overweight.
Upon trial and conviction, the offending carrier is fined at the legal rate
of two cents a pound for the first 5,000 pounds of overweight and six
cents a pound for overweight in excess of 5,000.
The purpose of the law is not to produce revenue, however, but to
protect the highways. During World War I severe damage was inflicted
on the main routes by heavy army vehicles. The Roads Commission met
the problem in two ways. It rebuilt the highways with wider and heavier
pavement. It also recommended laws limiting truck weights.
■SRC 1937-38, page 66.
i
210
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Left photo shows a 1927 t)'uck ircighing operatio'n btj portable scales. Right, the bnstj
weighing station at Fays Hill in Cecil Conuty opened i)i 195^.
These laws were duly passed and the first permanent scale house for
weighing loaded trucks was erected in 1924 on the Washington Boulevard,
near Elkridge.
In 1930 the Commission said : "More damage is done to the highways
by the overloaded vehicle than from any other one cause." "^
The success of the Commission's truck-weighing program is largely
psychological. The presence of weighing stations and mobile crews con-
stantly roaming the roads has a strong deterrent effect on truck owners
tempted to throw on a few extra thousand pounds.
The Truck Patrol consists of fifteen crews, each containing two uni-
formed patrolmen and two semi-skilled laborers. Some of these crews
operate as mobile units on schedules which vary from day to day both as
to time and location. The element of surprise is a strong factor in their
work.
Other crews are stationed for varying periods at the permanent weigh-
ing stations.
All of these stations now in service have been constructed in the past
six years and are equipped with the most modern weighing machinery.
They are located at Foys Hill in Cecil County (U. S. 40), Pine Orchard
in Howard County (U. S. 40), north of Salisbury (U. S. 13) and south
of Upper Marlboro (U. S. 301).''
"0 and D" Studies
Among the many activities of the Traffic Division are the "origin
and destination" studies made under actual traffic conditions to determine
the need of specific new or proposed travel routes.
^^SRC 1927-30, page 97.
■■'State Roadster, VoL II, No. 3 (October 1957).
The Multi-Colored Facets of the Traffic Division 211
In 1953, for instance, such a program was conducted to ascertain poten-
tial traffic on the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway, opened in 1957.
Motorists were stopped and questioned on all major arterial routes lead-
ing- into Baltimore. Operating with teams, each composed of fifteen men
working on shifts around the clock, the Traffic Division obtained 670,000
interviews from motorists passing through the interview stations. This
field study required eleven weeks and developed information on where
motor car operators came from and whether their destination was beyond
Baltimore or in it, and if so where in the City.^*'
From the data so gathered, traffic experts were able to determine with
surprising accuracy the number of motorists who would use the Tunnel
facility. In fact, the approximate rates of tolls necessary to finance the
project were computed from this information long before the actual work
on the Tunnel was started.
In 1955 a similar study was made for the Northeastern Expressway,
for the purpose of ascertaining its traffic potential and also whether it
could be profitably operated as a toll road.^^
The Traffic Division, in close cooperation with the Bureau of Public
Roads, Highway Research Board, University of Maryland and other in-
stitutions and agencies interested in traffic operations and traffic safety,
has participated in a number of research projects in this field.
Publishes Guide Book
In 1955 the Division published a manual of Traffic Control Devices used
to guide state and local police and highway officials in the proper signing
and marking of streets and highways, a definite factor in promoting high-
way safety.^-
A report on traffic engineering activities of the Roads Commission is
made each year to the National Safety Council; and in 1954 it was
awarded second place in its group (northeastern states) for its record
of traffic engineering achievements. ^-^
Again this year it received an award for its outstanding traffic engi-
neering program from the Institute of Traffic Engineers for the year 1957.
Counting the Cars
The Division now maintains thirty traffic-counter stations where travel
volumes are recorded each hour of the day on a year-round basis. These
"> SRC 1953-54, page 244.
" SRC 1955-56, page 230.
" SRC 1955-56, page 227.
" SRC 1955-56, page 226.
212
A History of Road Building in Maryland
photo-electric devices are a familiar sight on Maryland highways and
provide invaluable information on the use of the roads system at various
times of the day and throughout the seasons.
Through these counters the Commission knows, for instance, that in
July 1948 a total of 425,300 motor vehicles used U. S. 40 at Bush River,
whereas in July 1958 the figure was 886,188, a jump of more than one
hundred percent in ten years.
MARYLAND
State Highway Maps
Doubtless the most popular function of the Division is the preparation
and distribution each year of handsome tourist maps of the State.
The first Roads Commission, in its work of laying
out Maryland's initial roads system of 1,300 miles
in 1909, felt the need of a comprehensive road map.
However, at that time portions of at least five coun-
ties had not been surveyed, presenting a problem
of no small proportion to the early map makers.
Not-'vithstanding this handicap, the Maryland
GeohgxCal Survey in that year prepared the State's
first road map and on it was laid out the first state
roads system (ante, page 73).
The map makers reported that without complete
surveys "the map had to be made from such infor-
mation as could be secured, as it seemed wiser not
to delay the whole map until the surveys were com-
pleted but rather to publish the best information
obtainable." ^^
" " '""" """"~"""' Since 1954 the back of the State map has con-
tained photographs in color of points of interest
within the State. Each year's edition has carried a diff"erent set of
photographs.
At present, 200,000 of these maps are published annually and distrib-
uted free to the public.
HIGHWAY MAP
1958
State Mileage
Another function of the Traffic Division is keeping an accurate account
of the mileage in the State system.
'^Geological Survey Reports, Vol. IX (1910), page 34.
'WjT^'^1
The Multi-Colored Facets of the Traffic Division 213
In recent years an exchange system has been in effect between the
Roads Commission and the several counties by which many miles of state
roads have been transferred to counties and other mileage of county roads
has been taken over by the State.
It was found that, over the years, many short sections of State high-
way had been built which do not now form a link in a well-integrated
state-wide system. On the other hand, certain sections of county roads
built in the early days now fit into a continuous routing on the State
system.
To clear up this situation and to reduce maintenance costs for both
the State and the counties, the program of exchange was adopted.
An interesting result of this policy is that, despite the heaviest build-
ing program in the State's history, mileage on the state roads system is
actually less than it was in 1952, before the start of the Twelve Year
Program.
This is because, in the execution of the exchange plan, the State has
transferred to the counties 247 more miles than it has received from them.
The State system, which totalled 4,736 miles when the Twelve Year
Program was prepared in 1952, now stands at 4,707 miles.
Chapter XXV
PICNIC SITES AND THE LITTERBUG
In 1951 Governor McKeldin asked the Roads Commission to explore
the possibilities of building safe, permanent and inexpensive picnic ac-
commodations adjacent to but entirely off the roads.
Half A Million Use Them
From this happy thought has grown the Commission's roadside picnic-
area program which serves more than 500,000 people each year.
Each of these sites contains picnic tables, benches and trash cans.
Some areas are small ; others contain fireplaces as well as numerous tables.
Seventeen are so large they are combined with fishing ponds.
Now 100 IN State
All are built on state property — small excess portions taken in right
of way negotiations — or on land donated to the State for the purpose.
They cost little to build and maintain and their use demonstrates their
popularity. They add to the safety of travel by furnishing plenty of
pull-out space and parking area.
As of 1958 there were one hundred such picnic places scattered at
strategic and convenient locations throughout the State, with at least
one in every county.
Rest Areas of Tomorrow
Today the Commission is investigating a new type of accommodation,
the so-called "rest area" to be built along the expressways constructed
under the federal interstate highway program.
The road of tomorrow will be long, straight and with no cars darting
in and out of roadside establishments. On the turnpikes already in use
it has been found that drivers tire of the monotony.
The rest area is a place where the motorist can pull off the road, get
out and stretch, rest his eyes for a few minutes.
215
216
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Present thinking is that such areas will be built every 25 miles or so
on each side of the new dual superhighways, with long accelerating and
decelerating lanes for safety.
This work, together with other roadside development, is under the
general supervision of Landscape Superintendent Charles R. Anderson,
who came to the Commission in 1958.
"Keep Maryland Beautiful"
One of the most striking and effective adjuncts to the work of the Com-
mission has been the anti-litter campaign conducted in recent years by a
volunteer civic group known as the Governor's Committee to Keep Mary-
land Beautiful.
The pioneer work of this body has been acclaimed nationally. It was
the first such state committee to affiliate with the national movement
known as "Keep America Beautiful."
HtLP
KMB operates through Boy Scout and other urganizatious in pushing its anti-litter
cmnpaign.
Picnic Sites and the Litterbug 217
Organized in 1954, this group has been determined and unrelenting in
its war on highway trash. It proceeds on the theory that tossing refuse
out of a car window is a thoughtless habit, one that will be broken if a
motorist is caused to think about it.
"Don't Be A Litterbug"
It therefore has launched a vigorous and continuing campaign of public
education aimed at making people litter-conscious. Such slogans as —
"Don't Be A Litterbug," and "Keep the Highways As Clean As Your
Living Room" have flooded the State in newspapers, radio and television
announcements and many other media.
Enforcing the Anti-Litter Laws
In addition to appealing to civic pride, there is another potent weapon :
enforcement of long-standing laws against highway littering. At the sug-
gestion of the Committee, hundreds of signs have been erected by the
Roads Commission warning the motorist of the penalty for throwing
trash on the public roads.
The State Police have been brought into the picture in this aspect of
the work.
The Committee operates through many channels, one of the most im-
portant of which is the school system. When there is a question of form-
ing new community habits of highway neatness, the Committee believes
in "getting them young."
Clean-Up Week
While the group works on an around-the-calendar basis it concentrates
on one seven-day period each spring which the Governor proclaims offi-
cially as "Maryland Clean-up Week." Thousands of volunteers turn out
to rid the roadsides, other public places and even private property of the
winter's accumulation of assorted debris.
Litter Bags for Every Car
Some of the most effective work is done through litter-bags for cars
and gasoline service stations which furnish receptacles for emptying them.
The Roads Commission has given the Keep Maryland Beautiful group
its full blessing, from the early cooperation of its public relations division
to the use of its sign shop and the clean-up work of its district forces.
The Commission also helps with the financing.
218 A History of Road Building in Maryland
It is aware that the more successful the Committee becomes, the less
trash will be left for the maintenance men to pick up — and the more
money will be saved the State.
Results Encouraging
Results to date are encouraging. Current figures show Roads Com-
mission forces collected 570 loads of trash from the highways in the first
eight months of 1958, against 761 in the comparable period of 1957, a
25 percent drop. The good work of "Keep Maryland Beautiful" is cred-
ited with most of this improvement.
While countless citizens have freely devoted many hours to the work
of this Committee, which was appointed by Governor McKeldin, the spark
plug has been its organizer and four-year chairman, John E. Clark. He
is ably assisted by Miss Phoebe Albert, the Committee's executive secre-
tary.
Chapter XXVI
THE ROADS COMMISSION TODAY
The golden anniversary year of the Roads Commission finds it in vigor-
ous prosecution of the most comprehensive road building program in
State history.
Started in 1954 as a Twelve-Year Program, by 1958 it had become a
fifteen-year plan. Cost estimates of $568 million to finance the original
plan, based on the 1947-52 cost index, had advanced by 1958 to a figure
exceeding a billion dollars to cover the revised program and the cost of
federal interstate projects.
The cost of building a mile of road has increased at a steady pace
throughout the fifty-year period.
in building the first road system between 1909 and 1915, even $9,000
a mile was thought too high and various expedients were tried by the
Roads Commission in an effort to lower this cost {ante, page 56).
Today a mile of modern 24-foot road without access control and in a
rural area costs about $250,000, reflecting not only rising costs but vastly
improved design standards for traffic service and safety.
Maryland's Model Roads
In an effort to stimulate origi-
nality in building the new inter-
state highway system, the federal
Bureau of Public Roads in 1957
cited five examples of "imagina-
tion in detail of design." The Bu-
reau complained of the "sameness
and monotony" of most of the dual
highways for which plans had been
submitted.
Of the five, three were in the
great-turnpike class : the Ohio
Turnpike, the New York Thruway
•-aSK-
This is one of the Maryland expressways
that showed ''imagination in detail of de-
sign," according to the federal Bureau of
Public Roads. The photo shoivs a section
of the Washington National Pike.
219
The Commission Today 221
and the Garden State Parkway in New Jersey. The other two were in
Maryland— the Baltimore-Washington Expressway and the Washington
National Pike.^ This national tribute to present day Maiyland i-oad-
building is significant.
Both of these expressways were planned and built to the highest design
standards before passage of the federal act of 1956. Each of the dual
lanes is built as a separate roadway, fitting naturally into the landscape.
Each takes full advantage of the rolling Maryland terrain through which
it passes.
Program Marches Onward
The Baltimore-Washington Expressway has been completed and in
service for four years.
The Washington National Pike has passed Rockville in its southward
progress from U. S. 40 at Frederick and has reached the Washington
Circumferential Highway, one section of which is open from Wisconsin
to Connecticut Avenues.
This important link, one of the most scenic areas of the State, runs
across a part of Rock Creek Park and its landscaping has been designed
to parkway standards.
The Circumferential, a tightly-drawn belt highway slicing through
most of the Washington surburban areas in Maryland from the Potomac
north of the Capital to the Potomac across from historic Alexandria, is
ahead of schedule as planned in the Twelve-Year Program, due to its
inclusion in the federal interstate highway system.
Problems in the Washington Area
The rapid growth of traffic in the Washington suburbs has given the
Maryland Roads Commission one of its most persistent highway head-
aches.
Four radials leading from the City have been rebuilt in the last few
years : New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Branch and Kenilworth Avenues.
The latter connects with Kenilworth Interchange, opened in 1957 and the
State's most complex grade separation structure. It is the meeting place
of traffic originating on the Baltimore- Washington Parkway, River Road,
Kenilworth Avenue and, when completed, the John Hanson Highway.
This latter expressway will link Maryland's capital and the national capi-
tal. It is now in service from the Ritchie-Revell Interchange at Annapolis
State Roadster, Vol. II, No. 4 (October 1957),
222
A History of Road Building in Maryland
westward to George Palmer Highway, five miles from Washington. The
last section to be completed was opened in 1957.
Built or now under construction
as dualized tie-ins between these
radial roads are such heavily-
traveled thoroughfares as Viers
Mill Ptoad, University Boulevard
and the Circumferential itself,
construction of which will be ac-
celerated under the federal inter-
state program.
Fifty-Two Miles of Divided
Highway in Baltimore County
In the Baltimore area steady
progress is being made to widen
and improve the traffic-packed
roads serving the City and its fast-
growing suburbs.
Of the 319 miles of state roads
in Baltimore County, 52 miles
have been dualized and others are
under construction as modern
duals. Chief among these from
a traffic point of view is the Balti-
more Beltway, in use from Falls
Road east to Dulaney Valley Road
and now complete to an extension
of Loch Raven Boulevard.
Charles Street, which from the
earliest beginnings has been Balti-
more's principal thoroughfare,
was extended in 1958 to join the
Beltway. Traveling on relocation
in its northern reaches and run-
ning far under Joppa Road, this
handsome dual highway funnels
traffic from the Harrisburg Expressway and the Beltway into downtown
Baltimore.
Viers Mill Road, upper photo, was dualized
in 1956. The middle picture shows it in
19U6, widened by concrete shoulders. The
lower photo shotvs the same road iv 1936.
The Commission Today 223
The Harrisburg Expressway itself is under contract as a complete dual
facility with full control of access from the Baltimore Beltway north to
the Mason-Dixon line where it will meet an already-completed Pennsyl-
vania section running to the York bypass, now under construction. This
highway is a federal interstate project and is being fmanced under the
90-10 formula.
All but four miles of Maryland's part of this expressway is open and
that four miles will be finished in 1959.
In the southwestern Baltimore area a new six-mile section of the Belt-
way was completed in 1958 from U. S. 40 to the Baltimore-Washington
Expressway. This new Beltway connection removes a substantial amount
of through east-west traffic from Baltimore's streets by shunting it
through the Harbor Tunnel, thus facilitating interstate travel while easing
local congestion.
Other projects are humming in all sections of the State as the revised
Twelve-Year Program advances. Chief Engineer Pritchett reported that
at the end of the fiscal year 1958 contracts over the last two years had
been awarded for building or rebuilding 903 miles, with contracts for 43
additional miles advertised but not awarded as of mid-1958.
Leveling the Mountain Tops
Two of the most conspicuous recent road improvements were the relo-
cation of U. S. 40 over Martin and Polish Mountains, considered the
toughest and most forbidding passages of Maryland's part of this trans-
continental highway. The Martin Mountain improvements were com-
pleted in 1957. The Polish Mountain project, opened in 1958, contained
the deepest cuts and largest fills ever engineered in the State.
Hagerstown — First Interstate Project
The first interstate highway started in Maryland under the federal
act of 1956 was completed late in 1958. It is the section of U. S. 11 run-
ning from U. S. 40, west of Hagerstown, north to the Pennsylvania line.
Built to the high federal standards of access only at traffic interchanges
and beautifully landscaped, this new dual facility bypasses the busy
streets of Hagerstown as well as the big plant of the Fairchild Aircraft
Company.
A second section of U. S. 11 is in the planning stage and will run south
from U. S. 40 to Williamsport and across the Potomac on a new bridge,
224
A History of Road Building in Maryland
The Polish Moioitai)! relocation oti V. S. UO, opened in 1958. The inset shows the
road it supplanted — the old Bank Road built I4O year earlier.
near the Evan Watkins' Ferry of General Braddock's time. Pending
construction of this southern leg and a U. S. 40 interchange, the northern
section joins U. S. 40 at grade.
Another bypass of Hagerstown's congested thoroughfares is on the
drawing boards and scheduled for early construction. It is a relocation
of U. S. 40 around the southern suburbs of the city. Also a part of the
federal interstate system, this new highway will run from the Pennsyl-
vania line north of Hancock, eastward to the Frederick Bypass. Its east-
west portion was completed as a through-traffic artery late in 1958.
Finishing Touches on Frederick Bypass
This bypass, begun in 1954 and completed in 1958, was constructed
to interstate standards before passage of the 1956 federal act. It sur-
rounds Frederick on three sides and affords easy access to such impor-
tant highways as U. S. 15, U. S. 240, U. S. 340 and U. S. 40. It is an-
other example of Maryland enterprise in starting the interstate system
before the availability of federal ninety-percent money.
Other Projects
Many other projects in the State were completed, under construction
or in the advanced planning stage at the close of 1958.
The Commission Today 225
One of the most important was the Blue Star Memorial Highway across
the Eastern Shore. The final section was opened in 1956. This con-
trolled-access highway connects the eastern terminus of the Chesapeake
Bay Bridge with the Delaware state line at Warwick, in Cecil County
and leads to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. At present it is dualized
as far east as Queenstown and from there to Warwick the road consists
of one lane of an ultimate divided highway. It has been designated State
Route 71.
Two town bypasses were opened on the same day in 1957: the Rising
Sun bypass, a relocation of a section of U. S. 1 in Cecil County; and a
north-south bypass of Berlin, in Worcester County, a relocation of U. S.
113. Today an east-west bypass of Berlin is under construction as part
of the dualization of U. S. 50.
Acquisition of rights of way, preliminary engineering work and actual
construction continued in 1958 on three of the State's great throughways,
at Cumberland, Hagerstown and Salisbury.
The Crisfield Boulevard (State Route 413) was completed in 1958,
furnishing that seafood center a principal divided highway. The Prin-
cess Anne bypass is under construction and work is progressing on a
Pocomoke bypass, both projects being part of the dualization of Mary-
land's entire length of U. S. 13 from the Delaware line at Delmar to the
Virginia state boundary.
The final dualization of U. S. 301 continues at a fast pace from the
new Glen Burnie bypass south to the Potomac River Bridge at Morgan-
town. The improvement of U. S. 301 is of major importance since it
gathers up southbound traffic from both the Baltimore Tunnel Thruway
and the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. The sections not already dualized are
all under contract.
Northeastern Expressway
A new U. S. 40 east of Baltimore is one of the most urgent projects of
the immediate future. The present Pulaski Highway, built in the thirties
as Maryland's first dual facility, has become entirely inadequate for the
traffic it carries — the heaviest in the State on the section near Baltimore.
Roadside establishments populate its margin since it was built before
the advent of access control.
The 1955 Legislature authorized construction of a new and modern
expressway as a toll facility. However, the following year Congress
passed the Interstate Highway Act providing ninety percent financing
for this highway which is part of Maryland's 350 miles on the interstate
226
A History of Road Building in Maryland
Dualization of U. S. 301 in Southern Maryland is progressing. This is a completed
section in Charles County. The iyiset shows a section of the old road where one
slow-moving vehicle could hold uj) a line of cars.
system. The road will be built under the federal program and conse-
quently will be free of tolls, as are all the new roads constructed on the
interstate system.
It will run from the Baltimore City line to Delaware where it will con-
nect with a new expressway to carry traffic directly to the Delaware
Memorial Bridge. These two highways will forge the last link in a con-
tinuous expressway system from the New England states to Washington.
The first section from the Baltimore City line to the Baltimore County
Beltway has been advertised and construction will be under way early
in 1959. To be known as the Northeastern Expressway, this new Mary-
land road will be north of and parallel to present U. S. 40.
New Advisory Group
In 1956 Governor McKeldin appointed a new body of citizens to confer
with and advise the Roads Commission in the progress of its long-range
building program.
Known as the Program Review Committee, this group is composed of
Francis V. du Pont, a resident of Dorchester County, former Chairman
of the Delaware State Highway Department and once Commissioner of
The Commission Today 227
the federal Bureau of Public Roads; Dr. Abel Wolman of Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins engineer, who has served on several other Roads Commis-
sion advisory boards over the past twenty years; William Purnell Hall,
president of the Maryland Shipbuilding Corporation and a resident of
Baltimore County; Ellsworth R. Roulette, Washington County lawyer;
and two retired business executives: Donaldson Brown of Cecil County
and Herbert Ryerson of Charles County. Mr. Ryerson has since resigned
from the Committee.
The Sufficiency Ratings
In preparation for its report to the 1958 session of the General Assem-
bly, the Roads Commission launched in 1957 an exhaustive study of the
actual condition of the roads system.
As originally laid out in 1909 this system connected the county seats
with each other and with Baltimore.^ It measured 1,300 miles. A net-
work of secondary roads, built in the twenties, brought the 1930 mileage
to 3,200.3
Following the slow-down of the depression and war years, a road-
building spurt in the past decade brought the 1958 roads system to
4,707 miles.
Roads Rated Like School Marks
Every part of this system was given a mile-by-mile check in the 1957
survey.^ The results were computed in what the engineers call a "suffi-
ciency rating," similar to the old-fashioned markings in the public school
system, from zero to one hundred.
Any road rated 60 or under was deemed in need of improvement.
Roads achieving grades of between 60 and 70 required "careful watch-
ing." Stretches rated 70 to 100 were in the category of "fair to ex-
cellent."
Maryland Rates 65 in Green Book
After every mile was studied and rated an average was struck for the
State system as a whole. It was found that the Maryland roads system
rated a mark of 65 — "careful watching."
The results of this test were incorporated, together with maps showing
the county ratings in detail, into a volume known as the "Green Book."
It augmented the "Yellow Book" of 1953 which had been the basis of
legislative action on the Twelve- Year Program.
"^SRC 1908-12, page 12.
='SRC 1927-30, page 20.
' SRC 1957-58, page 2.
228 A History of Road Building in Maryland
However, there was an important difference. The new study embraced
all mileage in the state system and was not confined to the 3,159 miles
scheduled for improvement in the Twelve-Year Program. Thus many
miles deemed adequate in 1953 were found wanting in 1957 and were so
reported to the Legislature.
New and Higher Cost Estimates
On completion of the survey, estimates were prepared which reflected
current construction and right of way costs for projects in the remaining
part of the Program — inevitably a big jump in view^ of the constant rise
in the price index.
Highway Research
One of the most important if least publicized units of any large organi-
zation is its research division. In modern highway practice this field
includes not only development of adequate design standards but also
keeping abreast of the new and ever-changing techniques of highway
engineering, a big order in this age of electronics.
The Roads Commission's research division operates on a modest budget
under Research Engineer Allan Lee.
One of the interesting investigations currently under way is designed
to eliminate the interminable ack-ack sounds caused by closely-placed
transverse joints in concrete pavement. All motorists are familiar with
this slight noise and take it for granted as a necessary part of highway
travel. However, this minor nuisance soon may be a thing of the past.
Definite progress is being made in developing continuously reinforced
pavements for long stretches, doing away with the great majority of these
joints. The main objective of this investigation, however, is to simplify
construction techniques and reduce maintenance costs. This study is a
part of a joint research program conducted with the University of Mary-
land and Lehigh University,
Another project under the same program is the control of erosion on
roadside slopes, designed to prevent the unsightly and costly washouts
on highway embankments following heavy rains.
Also under way in cooperation with the University is a three-year
engineering training course for Commission personnel. Including gen-
eral engineering fundamentals in the highway field, this program allows
promotional credits to employees who successfully complete it. It also
provides them with full reimbursement of tuition fees if they complete
the course while in the Commission's employ. The first class got its cer-
tificate in 1958.
The Commission Today 229
A series of research projects conducted by the Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity in cooperation with the Commission and completed in 1956 investi-
gated, among others, such varied subjects as swamp drainage, efficiency
of roadside guard rails and proper functioning of pipe culverts. Hopkins
researchers and the Roads Commission also published a report — unique
in its field — on the design of storm water inlets which the Commission
heralded as filling "a long-felt need." ^
Capital Improvements
Another new development is the formation of a capital improvement
program for the construction of new State Roads Commission buildings
and the improvement of old ones.
The Commission has seven district oflfices, 44 garages and miscellaneous
other buildings scattered throughout the State. In addition, it owns
buildings in Baltimore, including a garage on Southern Avenue, in the
Hamilton section. A few of these buildings are new and modern ; many
of them are old and very inadequate.
The Commission in 1957 launched a program to develop standard plans
for district offices, shops and garages which can be adapted for use in all
parts of the State, reducing costs of replacements. The first garage to
be built under the new system is now under construction at Snow Hill.
The first District oflfice building, at Frederick, was advertised for bids
in 1958.
New Quarters
For the first fifty years the Roads Commission occupied space in a
succession of downtown office buildings in Baltimore.
Starting in the Union Trust Building, it also rented quarters in the
Garrett Building and later in the Federal Reserve Bank Building.
In 1942 it purchased for $182,679 the Chesapeake Potomac Telephone
Company building at 108 East Lexington Street which has been its head-
quarters for sixteen years. In the past three years extensive alterations
costing $109,988 have been made in an eff'ort to modernize the building
and increase its floor space.
In the meantime headquarters needs have far outgrown the structure
and many departments are housed in parts of three other ofl^ce buildings
scattered about the downtown section.
Beginning with the second half-century in 1959, the Baltimore person-
nel, except for the staff at the Laboratory, once again will be under
one roof.
•■^SRC 1953-54, page 261; SRC 1955-56, page 249.
230 A History of Road Building in Maryland
A six-story State Roads Commission building, providing 83,000 square
feet of floor space, has been constructed in the Hoffman Street-Fifth
Regiment Armory area as part of a State Office Building center. A much
larger building to house most of the other state departments is under
construction nearby.
Meanwhile the building on Lexington Street is scheduled to be retained
by the State to house agencies that will not move to the new area.
New Real Estate Department
One of the byproducts of the highway construction program is the inci-
dental acquisition of excess property taken in right of way negotiations.
Some of this land is unimproved while some parcels contain houses
or other buildings. In many cases these have potential value for rental
and eventual sale. Other property taken for highway construction con-
tains buildings that either must be demolished or, where possible, sold
and moved intact to another location.
While the Roads Commission is not and definitely does not want to be
in the real estate business, it has the duty to dispose of this property
in the State's best interest.
To this end it established in 1957 a real estate section which this year
was expanded into a department. Its function is the management of all
rental properties and the custody and disposition of excess land acquired
by the Commission. The department now has jurisdiction over more than
1,000 pieces of property, of which some 400 are improved by buildings.
Administrator of the new unit is Carl E. Wyant, Jr., who formerly was
an assistant Right of Way Engineer. He is assisted by Robert S. Bennett,
Property Agent.
A committee of private citizens, headed by S. Page Nelson, president
of the Savings Bank of Baltimore, has been appointed to consult with
and advise the new department. Other members of the Committee are:
Mr. John E. Weyer, Mr. Burton Guy, Mr. Walter C. Pinkard, Mr. John
A. Magee, Mr. E. Randolph Wootton and Mr. Guy T. 0. Hollyday.
Modernizing Right of Way Procedures
During the past year the Right of Way Division has been decentralized
in an effort to streamline its operations and to bring right of way engi-
neers more closely in touch with conditions in the areas they serve.
Before 1957 all acquisition of property was handled by six assistant
right of way engineers centered in Baltimore. In the interest of efficiency
The Commission Today 231
the Roads Commission last year shifted the field operations to a district
level.
The right of way department now maintains an office in each of the
Commission's seven districts under a resident District Right of Way
Engineer who reports to the Chief Right of Way Engineer in Baltimore,
LeRoy C. Moser.
In announcing the new program in the fall of 1957 Chairman Bonnell
pointed out the expediency of the move and the fact that it would save
the State a considerable sum of money in travel costs. He said the resi-
dent right of way engineers will be able to "get the feel" of the communi-
ties in which they live and "will acquire an intimate knowledge of the
direction of growth, the local real estate market, property values and
sales. It also should improve our public relations in the right of way
field."
No branch of Roads Commission activities has felt the strain of expan-
sion more keenly than the right of way department whose expenditure
for needed land has increased from about $2 million a year before the
Twelve- Year Program to an average of more than $12 million during
the past four years.
Land Owners Once Gave Property for Roads
No other part of a highway program so intimately touches so many
people as negotiating for rights of way. In the last four fiscal years,
some 9,700 separate pieces of property in all sections of the State have
been acquired, for which the Commission paid an average of a little over
$5,000 per parcel.
The payment of substantial sums of money to citizens for putting a
road through their properties is a relatively new wrinkle in highway
construction.
In 1821 engineers surveyed several different routes for the Boonsboro-
Hagerstown Turnpike. Property owners on each route competed against
each other for the privilege of giving their land to the turnpike company.''
It was considered not only a matter of prestige but an enhancement of
property value for a public road to run through a man's land.
In the early days of the Roads Commission very little money was paid
for rights of way. Sometimes the district engineers, who handled all
such matters, would pay as little as a dollar as legal consideration for a
deed to the needed land. The people were eager for the new hard-sur-
faced roads and wanted them as close to their homes as possible.
^Williams, History of Washington County (1906), Vol. I, page 152.
232 A History of Road Building in Maryland
In 1915 a one-man right of way section was created under Frank H.
Zouck, then assistant chairman. There was so little work to do that the
section was abandoned the next year and the duty of obtaining the land
returned entirely to the districts.
The Grain Highway (now U. S. 301), the first modern road built on
new location and running 33 miles through Southern Maryland, was
planned and financed in 1922 without any appropriation at all for rights
of way. John Mackall, who was then Chairman, said: "If it is not suflfi-
ciently advantageous for the property owners to give us the rights of
way, we had better not build the road."
Department Started with One Man
The present Right of Way Department dates from 1930. It consisted of
one man, LeRoy W. Kern, whose duty it was to take over negotiations
with the owners when the property could not be secured "at reasonable
prices by the District Engineers." " In 1932 six right of way examiners
were working out of Baltimore but by 1935 the field forces were reduced
to one man and most of the work had been turned back to the districts.
In 1936 the department was reorganized. The concentration of work
in Baltimore as well as a marked increase in right of way claims dates
from that time. About 500 parcels of land were being purchased an-
nually.
Kern remained as head of the unit until 1951 when he retired and his
place was taken by LeRoy Moser, one of his assistants.
Sometime between the mid-twenties and the mid-thirties the public
attitude towards road rights of way underwent a noticeable change. From
an early eagerness to give land in exchange for the roads, there developed
a more cautious approach on the part of many land owners.
The high cost of procuring rights of way today has added many mil-
lions to the price the people pay for good roads, money that otherwise
could go into building more mileage at a faster pace.
$79 Million Needed for Interstate System
One of the major projects of the right of way department is the prep-
aration of detailed cost estimates for purchase of the land needed in
Maryland's 350 miles of the federal interstate system.
At 1958 prices the conclusions are that these rights of way will total
approximately $79 million, exclusive of Baltimore City where the Jones
SRC 1927-30, page 99.
The Commission Today 233
Falls Expressway and an east-west expressway will be built under the
federal interstate system.
Buying Property for Future Needs
One of the most important functions of the right of way department
is the purchase of land needed for long range expansion of the highway
system.
The history of the Roads Commission is replete with instances where
failure to buy property at the time when it was available and cheap has
greatly multiplied the later cost. In some instances this lack of fore-
sight has made needed widening prohibitive, as in the case of the Wash-
ington Boulevard. Here a whole new expressway on new location has
been found necessary within a mere 25 years because of initial failure
to acquire sufficient right of way.
Modern highway planning keeps a careful eye on the needs of the
future, especially in sections of the State where heavy build-up is indi-
cated for the years ahead. This policy is noted in the 1958 report of the
Roads Commission where it is said: "The continuing spread of urban
areas and the accompanying increase in land values make it imperative
that the attempt be made to acquire as many properties as possible that
will be needed for future programs before certain areas are so heavily
built up as to make future roadway expansions economically prohibitive
in these sections."
The wisdom of such a policy is obvious in view of many past experi-
ences. It is also obvious that great care must be taken, based on the
most reliable forecasts available, to make certain that the land purchased
today actually will be needed in the foreseeable future.
Road System's Book Value
At June 30, 1958, the book value of the State Highway
System, plus the cost of construction in progress was : $679,580,883
This figure includes all bridges except toll facilities.
The investment in toll facilities operated and admin-
istered under the terms of the Trust Agreement dated
October 1, 1954, aggregated on June 30, 1958: 189,243,581
Service facilities of the Commission include land,
buildings and equipment used by the districts and
divisions. Their book value on June 30, 1958 was: 10,896,855
$879,721,319
234 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Developing the Maryland of Tomorrow
The tremendous scope of the future highway system in the State and its
impact on the building industry is underscored by the creation of another
new unit within the Roads Commission known as the development engi-
neering division.
Established in 1957 by Chief Engineer Pritchett, its purpose is to coor-
dinate state highway planning with local planning agencies and land
developers.
Since World War II Maryland has witnessed its greatest surge of home-
building, the majority of which has been concentrated in the great metro-
politan suburban centers surrounding Baltimore and Washington.
Most of this new housing has been built by real estate developers who
have taken whole tracts or subdivisions and converted them into pleasant
living areas. The metamorphosis of green pastures into suburban home
sites and shopping centers, each requiring all the usual services of water,
utilities and roads, has given local governmental bodies their greatest
postwar problem.
On the state level it is necessary for the Roads Commission to plan
expressway service that will do the most good for the greatest number
and the least damage to existing built-up properties.
Examples already planned and under construction are the Baltimore
Beltway and the Washington Circumferential, both of which slice through
new and old developments and furnish suburbanites easy access to the
radials running into the two cities.
Other state highway facilities will be built in the future while present
routes will be widened and improved. It is toward this Maryland of
tomorrow that the new development division directs its activities.
For instance, it reviews all building and zoning applications submitted
to county authorities for possible conflict with Roads Commission plans
in the locality.
It works closely with county and regional planning commissions and
coordinates their plans with such Commission departments as location
and right of way.
In its first year the division already has proved its usefulness by secur-
ing dedication or reservation of areas required for future Roads Com-
mission construction, denial of rezoning in areas of future improvement,
and the relocation of proposed structures to avoid conflict with planned
highways.
Such activity serves both the State and the property owner and saves
untold dollars in future right of way costs.
The Commission Today 235
At present the work of the division is confined to the six counties in
the metropolitan areas of Baltimore and Washington. Its head is C. Stuart
Linville, with the title of Development Engineer. He formerly was
Assistant Engineer for Location and Planning in the Commission's third
district, comprising Montgomery and Prince George's counties.
In a modern highway department, planning for the future ranks closely
in importance with prosecution of the great building programs of the
present.
CONCLUSION
THE ROAD AHEAD
In this age of electronics, satellites and shots at the moon, one would
be rash indeed to predict the types of vehicles or the design of the roads
in the next fifty years.
Some foresee a more general use of aircraft for the longer trips and
helicopters for the shorter ones, thus lessening our dependence on roads.
On the other hand, a group of editors recently made these predictions
for the year 2000 : Expressways not only will multiply but will be double-
decked with built-in heating devices to keep off ice and snow. Duplicate
sets of such roads will appear — one for pleasure cars and the other for
business vehicles. Cities will be free of above-ground traffic. Workers
will use fast transit lines below the surface to get about the city and out
to the clusters of spacious and efficient homes which will replace today's
suburbs.^
Others predict accident-proof cars — vehicles equipped with radar de-
vices that will stop them before a collision occurs. And some foresee a
future requiring neither roads nor cars. Transportation, they say, will
be by nuclear-powered wings, on the order of those used by Icarus but
with far superior qualities.
The Future in Maryland
Highway engineers are neither prophets nor the sons of prophets.
Until a more reliable method has been perfected, they continue to fore-
cast the future from the facts of the present and the past.
They note, for instance, that pack-horse trails in early Maryland had
to be widened to accommodate the new carts which began to appear.
^ Editors of certain architectural engineering- and construction magazines painted a
composite picture of the America of the year 2000 which they sealed in the corner-
stone of the new Washington headquarters building of the Associated General Con-
tractors of America. The stone is to be opened at the dawn of the Twenty-first
Century. Baltimore Sun, June 7, 1958.
237
238 A History of Road Building in Maryland
Later, toll roads were built by private capital so that coach passengers
could purchase a few miles of smooth travel. The infant auto created
a demand for a state-wide system of roads and a state highway commis-
sion to build and administer it.
The first state road system of 1,300 miles was completed in 1915. It
now measures some 4,700 miles. When Maryland's first Commissioner
of Motor Vehicles was appointed in 1910, he registered 4,500 cars that
year. In fiscal 1958, motor vehicle registration in the State had exceeded
a million vehicles.
Today there are 200 times as many cars and trucks using less than
four times as much state road mileage as there was in 1915. The roads
have been widened and improved to handle this great traffic increase.
But they are still inadequate for the demands.
Nationwide, there are today some 75 million motor vehicles on the
roads with 100 million expected by 1975. Based on past experience and
current population trends, traffic engineers forecast highway use twenty
years ahead.
In Maryland, because of priority scheduling and the impetus of the
federal Interstate Highway Act of 1956, the immediate future is clearly
foreseeable. The program and planning already started should continue
on not less than the present scale. Otherwise, the State will be engulfed
in the flood of ever-increasing traffic.
New Administration Coming Up
As 1958 closes, a new governor and a new legislature stand ready to
take over the aff"airs of state and the prosecution of the roads program.
Governor-elect J. Millard Tawes will be the ninth executive responsible
for a state roads system. His burden will be no lighter than that of
Governor Crothers who started the system in 1908.
Costs Still Up
If the past is a portent of the future, road-building costs will continue
to rise. But the principal concern of the people must not be the high cost
of good roads but the cost to the economy of bad ones.
Let's Go
The road ahead is plainly marked. The "good roads movement" of
fifty years ago started something that is gaining momentum with each
passing year.
The sign on the road ahead says GO.
-^J
-A
^*-jf^
>*
A
Printed by
MAURICE LEESER CO.
Baltimore, Md.
• -•»!
■■■- ^\-^^
^0^^^"^
^■^
UNIV^ OF MD COLLEGE PARK
3m30 03fli02flfl 7
iV)
^Ot
Oto
^
47>
i
m
liillllll iliisi ;i liii iillii?^
ill lliiffi
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11