historic context of maryland highway bridges built between 1948 ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SECTIONTHREEHistoric Contextresponse, the SRC reorganized and created a seventh district, spreading the heavy load a bit inthe ensuing years (State Roads Commission 1949:111; 1952:2).The DBD was initially divided into three sections, Design and Drafting; Specifications andContracts; and Hydraulics and Construction. Later a section dealing with Special Studies,Reports, and Permits was added (LeViness 1958:131; State Roads Commission 1952:46). TheDBD designed all types of highway bridges from the simplest of timber trestles to multi-milliondollar projects such as the Patuxent River Bridge. The design services of consulting engineeringfirms were typically utilized when projects had a short timeframe, such as the Baltimore-Washington Expressway, or were of a specialized nature, such as for the design and constructionof draw spans (State Roads Commission 1949:64, 69).During 1947 and 1948, the DBD completed preliminary studies, estimates, and schemes forconstructing more than fifty new and improved bridges as well as repairing and strengtheningexisting structures. The SRC‘s bridge engineers prepared all drawings, plans, specifications, andcontract documents for the projects and the DBD assumed the construction managementresponsibility for the more complex bridge projects, with as many as fifteen such projects undertheir supervision at any one time. Between July 1950 and June 1952, the DBD prepared 250 setsof construction plans for the repair, rehabilitation, and widening of existing bridges including abroad range of structure types from small drainage culverts to major, long span bridges crossingrivers and streams, highways and railroads. The DBD was also responsible for collectingtechnical data concerning load limits of trucks and for non-bridge projects such as bulkheads,jetties, weighing stations, maintenance facilities, and potential ferry systems. The Bureau wasalso responsible for the immediate replacement of structures destroyed by flash floods (StateRoads Commission 1952:46, 49). This level of activity continued through the 1950s.Between 1948 and 1950, the State Roads Commission increased the staff of the EngineeringDepartment, but was still unable to keep pace with the workload. Workweeks expanded from 40to 60 hours for many engineers. Finding qualified men to fill the ranks of the expandingengineering division was difficult, due to competition for trained bridge engineers in the climateof postwar improvements. Most of those available were recent college graduates. During thesummer months, engineering professors became temporary employees. Problems continued asengineers jumped to private industry in search of better financial compensation. It became evenmore difficult to hire adequately experienced staff during the Korean War (1950-1953) as asubstantial proportion of SRC employees were either in active military service or were ofmilitary age (LeViness 1958:162; State Roads Commission 1950:2).The SRC was chronically short-staffed and saw the logical solution to be the use of paidconsultants. The use of consulting engineers was nothing new. The SRC had used theengineering services of an outside consulting firm as far back as 1916 during the construction ofBaltimore‘s Hanover Street Bridge. Nevertheless, during the first half of the century this was theexception. The urgency of the postwar building programs however substantially increased theirinvolvement on large SRC projects (LeViness 1958:171; State Roads Commission 1949:1-2, 61;1950:67, 69).In 1954, the DBD became the Bureau of Bridges (the Bureau) as the Twelve-Year Programnecessitated a reorganization of the department. The Bureau became responsible not just for thedesign of bridges, but also for supervising the construction and maintenance of bridges. Due tothe work load in the period the Bureau increased its use of consulting engineering firms to design\15-SEP-11\\ 4-12
SECTIONTHREEHistoric Contextand prepare specifications. By 1956 more than half of the contracts put out for bid by the Bureauof Bridges were designed by consulting engineering firms (State Roads Commission 1956:59).The Bureau reviewed the work of outside consulting firms to ensure they conformed to theSRC‘s standard geometrics, types, details and specifications (State Roads Commission 1954:60).However, McKeldin‘s Twelve-Year Program created the need to establish a Reviewing Office inorder to oversee the work of the increasing numbers of consulting engineers. The expandedprogram of rehabilitating and constructing new highways greatly increased the volume ofengineering services required by the Bureau of Bridges. Between January 1954 and June 1956,the Bureau entered into 89 contracts with 30 local and out-of-state consulting engineering firms.Some contracts covered all services from preliminary studies through the supervision andinspection of construction. Others were more limited in scope and covered only those phases ofengineering work that could not be expeditiously carried out by the SRC‘s engineering staff(State Roads Commission 1956:11-12).In 1955, Maryland legislators launched an attack on the SRC for depending too greatly on the J.E. Greiner engineering firm. The criticism stemmed from the manner in which new right-of-waywas acquired for the 13.5 miles of approaches to the planned Baltimore Harbor Tunnel. The SRChad followed Greiner‘s recommendation and hired two real estate firms to acquire the right-ofwaybecause its own right-of-way department was overloaded with work and lacked theexpertise in the acquisition of industrial properties. The legislative committee attacked the SRCfor its ―extreme‖ dependence on consulting engineers that seemed to them a clear indication thatthe SRC had abdicated its responsibilities by allowing Greiner a greater share in policy decisionsthan was prudent (Engineering News-Record, December 15, 1955: 24).Criticism concerning the activities of the SRC had begun during the 1954 gubernatorialcampaign when the Democratic candidate accused Republican Governor McKeldin and the SRCof political favoritism in the granting of non-construction contracts. The Democratic-controlledGeneral Assembly had continued the attacks on the SRC following McKeldin‘s reelection(Engineering News-Record, December 1, 1955:25). The outcome was to replace the three-manState Roads Commission with a single director with control over administration and operations.Matters of policy were delegated to a three-man advisory board, of which the director was amember. The director would have two deputies, one in charge of administration and the otheroverseeing operations. An aide to the deputy for operations would be in charge of the Bureau ofEngineering and the Bureau of Maintenance. Separate divisions were created for Right-Of-Way,Traffic, and Research and Standards (Engineering News-Record, December 1, 1955:25).At the end of the 1950s, the SRC went through another reorganization. A Division of Planningand Programming was established to coordinate highway construction and location withstatewide and regional planning. A Division of Administration was created to handleadministrative functions of all divisions. The Commission itself expanded from three membersat-largeto seven members, six of whom represent regions of the State (State Roads Commission1960:20).\15-SEP-11\\ 4-13
Page 3 and 4: F I N A L R E P O R THISTORIC CONTE
Page 5: ERRATAURS completed this report in
Page 8 and 9: Executive SummaryHA-2046PG:68-100PG
Page 10 and 11: Table of ContentsConclusion and Rec
Page 12 and 13: SECTIONONEIntroductionTwenty one br
Page 14 and 15: 3. Section 1 ONE Methodolog ySECTIO
Page 16 and 17: SECTIONTWOMethodologyNineteen highw
Page 18 and 19: SECTIONTHREEHistoric Context1960 on
Page 20 and 21: SECTIONTHREEHistoric Contextcovered
Page 22 and 23: SECTIONTHREEHistoric Contextorigina
Page 24 and 25: SECTIONTHREEHistoric Contextexperie
Page 26 and 27: SECTIONTHREEHistoric Contextthe roa
Page 30 and 31: SECTIONTHREEHistoric Context4.7 IMP
Page 32 and 33: SECTIONTHREEHistoric Contextrespons
Page 34 and 35: SECTIONTHREEHistoric Contextof outs
Page 36 and 37: SECTIONFOURPost World War II Techno
Page 42 and 43: SECTIONFIVEConsulting Engineers and
Page 48 and 49: SECTIONSIXResults of Field Investig
Page 78 and 79:
SECTIONSIXResults of Field Investig
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
SECTIONSEVENConclusion and Recommen
Page 98 and 99:
SECTIONEIGHTReferences CitedCorddry
Page 100 and 101:
SECTIONEIGHTReferences CitedKaszyns
Page 102 and 103:
SECTIONEIGHTReferences CitedSeely,
Page 104 and 105:
Appendix A1948-1960 Maryland Bridge
Page 106 and 107:
Appendix BMaryland Bridges By Type
Page 108 and 109:
Appendix CResumes of Key Personnel\
Page 110 and 111:
Appendix DNotes From August 25, 200
Page 112:
Appendix DNotes From August 25, 200
show all

historic context of maryland highway bridges built between 1948 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?