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

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