03.03.2015 Views

TOMORROW'S ROADS TODAY - Maryland State Highway ...

TOMORROW'S ROADS TODAY - Maryland State Highway ...

TOMORROW'S ROADS TODAY - Maryland State Highway ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

17<br />

<strong>State</strong> Struggles<br />

The SRC also provided a second report, The <strong>Maryland</strong> Transportation Authority Annual<br />

Toll Facilities Report, to the BPR for inclusion in Toll Roads. 18 These reports made clear that<br />

the state’s transportation agency sought ways to improve its statewide highway system,<br />

particularly a new highway connecting Baltimore with Washington, DC. The SRC, as well as<br />

the <strong>Maryland</strong> <strong>State</strong> Planning Commission, believed that US 1 had been widened and straightened<br />

as much as possible. Despite these efforts, the agencies could not keep up with the rapidly<br />

increasing traffic on the highway. In 1928, the average vehicles per day was 5,274, but by 1932,<br />

the average vehicles per day rose to 10,006 with a peak of over 27,000 automobiles and trucks<br />

during holiday travel periods. By 1935, the <strong>Maryland</strong> <strong>State</strong> Planning Commission concluded:<br />

Had this large increase in traffic that developed immediately upon<br />

completion [of the US 1 improvements in 1932] been visualized, it<br />

would have been apparent that an entire new road constructed on a<br />

modern alignment and grade and right-of-way to prevent<br />

encroachment would have been more economical. 19<br />

The traffic on US 1 was a combination of local traffic from Washington and Baltimore suburban<br />

communities like College Park and Elkridge, as well as vehicles traveling between the<br />

northeastern states and Washington, DC. These long distance motorists also found Baltimore to<br />

be a choke point because of the need to negotiate the city’s streets. In new towns like Greenbelt,<br />

workers carpooled to Washington, but such activities did little to reduce the growing local<br />

suburban traffic because there was limited public transportation in these areas in the 1930s<br />

(Figure 3). As the agencies discussed a new highway to the south, the crossings of three rivers<br />

and the Chesapeake Bay also demanded the SRC’s attention. 20<br />

18 Greiner Engineering Company, Baltimore, MD 1941<br />

19 <strong>Maryland</strong> <strong>State</strong> Planning Commission, Ten Year <strong>Highway</strong> Construction Program for <strong>Maryland</strong>, Baltimore (March<br />

1935), p. 10<br />

20 <strong>Maryland</strong> <strong>State</strong> Roads Commission, Preliminary Report of the <strong>Maryland</strong> <strong>State</strong>-wide <strong>Highway</strong> Planning Survey,”<br />

Baltimore, MD, in cooperation with the United <strong>State</strong>s Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Public Roads, 1938

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!