A highway beginning at or near Oxnard in Ventura County, California, and extending to a point near San Juan in Orange County, California; and A highway from the western boundary of Kern County, California, to the State highway near Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County, California. In August of 1917 the State Engineer passed to the Commission the jurisdiction formerly held by him over the special appropriation roads and they have been cared for since by allotments from the State Motor Vehicle Fund. The roads under this caption of interest to Southern California are as follows: Mono County Routes 13 and 23-Sonora Pass to Bridgeport Route 40-Mono Lake Basin... Route 40-Tioga Pass to Mono Lake Basin River. Route 23-Alpine County line to Little Antelope Valley. Route 23-Little Antelope Valley to junction Sonora-Mono road Total In San Bernardino County Route 43-End of county pavement to most easterly point of Great Bear Lake, approximately 50 miles. Practically all of these mountain roads are unpaved. Three-Million-Dollar Laterals The second State Highways Act of 1915 set aside the sum of three million dollars for the construction of extensions from the trunk lines to various points in the State. These in Southern California are as follows: An extension connecting the San Joaquin Valley trunk line in Tulare County with the coast trunk line in Monterey County by the continuation of the lateral between the cities of Visalia and Hanford through Coalinga: An extension connecting the San Joaquin Valley trunk line at or near Bakersfield with the coast trunk line in San Luis Obispo County, through Cholame Pass: An extension of the San Bernardino County State highway lateral to Barstow in San Bernardino County: An extension connecting Antelope Valley, in the County of Los Angeles, with the City of Los Angeles: An extension of the San Bernardino County State highway lateral to the Arizona State line near the town of Yuma, Arizona, via the cities of Brawley and El Centro, in Imperial County. The act provides that the expense of acquisition, construction and improvement of the extensions enumerated and the acquisition of rights of way therefor shall be partly borne by the counties in which such extensions lie, the extent and character of such division of expenses between the State and county shall rest for final determination with the State Department of Engineering. These several extensions were included in the second bond issue without knowledge of cost, there being no surveys. As per the First Biennial Report of the California Highway Commission the estimated total cost for these extensions in 1917 was $8,963,675. Since there were $3,000,000 provided for these extensions, there remains the sum of $5,963,675 which would have to be paid by the counties. When these estimates were made the Supervisors of the several counties interested were invited to a conference with the Highway Commission. This meeting occurred in September, 1917. It was agreed that the roads should be of permanent type. The plan of apportionment of funds proposed by the Commission was accepted. The list following shows the schedule for Southern California projects to be paid for by the State: Coalinga Extension San Bernardino to Barstow. San Bernardino to Yuma. Total .$ 502,860.00 448,320.00 178,770.00 756,510.00 . $1,886,460.00 The remainder of $3,750,244 was estimated as the counties' share. The Antelope Valley to Los Angeles road is not included in these figures. But little work was done under this act. The bond issue of 1919 in the amount of forty million dollars further provided for the con struction of these extensions by the State alone. The Vehicle Act and Maintenance State highway maintenance work is financed wholly by the motor vehicle fund which is derived from the fees paid annually by motor vehicle owners and operators into the State treasury. Under the present law (Vehicle Act of 1915, amended 1917, Chapter 218), after deducting from the total receipts of the Motor Vehicle Department the operating expenses of that department, the balance remaining is divided into two equal parts, one part going to the State Motor Vehicle Fund for use in maintaining the State highways, the other part being paid to the several counties of the State for their use in construction or maintenance of roads. The commission claims that their portion for State highway maintenance is not sufficient. The Commission states that in general the permissible loads which may be legally carried are reasonable, and that the difficulty is in the non-observance of the rules prescribed by the act and the inability or negligence of the police authorities in their enforcement.** The Commission believes that until inspectors are appointed by the State to enforce the law, the highways are bound to suffer from overloading. Right of Way* By a provision of the Act of 1910, which created the California Highway Commission and provided for the construction of a system of highways, it was required that all right-of-way upon which State highways were built should first be deeded to the State of California. Through an arrangement with the Supervisors of the various counties, it was agreed to secure at county expense or otherwise all necessary right-of-way and to make transfer of same from private owner, or county, to the State. The width of these rights of way is generally sixty feet. Type of Road (Page 54, 1918 Report, C. II. C.) At the outset it was determined by the Commission to construct concrete roads. In 1893 New York had built a short length of concrete pavement and Ohio did the same in 1894. Wayne County, Michigan, in 1909, started building four-inch concrete roads. These Michigan roads were well constructed and gave good service for a short period. This was about the only precedent that the California Commission had.† Width (Page 54, 1918 Report, C. H. C.) A width of fifteen feet was adopted by the Commission for standard pavements. It was the intention to later widen the roads by building oil, macadam or concrete shoulders. Thickness (Page 54, 1918 Report, C. H. C.) A four-inch thickness of slab was adopted. It was claimed that owing to the lack of frost and the general character of the soil over which roads were to be built that this thickness would be ample. It was the intention of the Commission, as occasion demanded, to re surface these roads. Because a large percentage of the present four-inch highways have failed, the Commission in October, 1920, adopted a uniform thickness of five inches reinforced. Subgrades (Standard Specifications Cal. Highway Commission) The specifications for preparation of subgrade required that all fills should be brought up in layers and properly compacted to a uniform width of twenty-four feet. Cuts were taken out to a width of twenty-one feet. Before placing pavement all subgrade was to be cultivated and wet down, after which it was to be thoroughly compacted over the full width of twenty-four or twenty-one feet, as the case might be, by a roller weighing not less than two hundred pounds per inch width of tire. Where unsuitable material was encountered in the subgrade it was to be removed. This method of preparing subgrade is the one used today. Drainage Drain tile has been used in some sections particularly on the Ridge Route and in San Diego County, Section 2-D. Rock drain ditches have been used in many cuts along the coast line. Bridges (Pages 34 and 113, First Biennial Report, C. H. C.) Most of the large bridges on the State highways have been paid for by the counties in which they are located, and estimating roughly it is conservative to say that not less than $4,500,000 have been spent by the counties in this manner, and $2,500,000 by the State. The plans for these bridges in nearly all cases were either made or checked by the Commission's engineers. After their completion and acceptance these bridges became a part of the State highway system and are maintained by it. The elimination of railroad crossings is of great importance, and to this end a number of overhead crossings and subways have been installed at the joint cost of the State and counties, and the railroad companies. California has no statutes fixing a basis for the division of costs in cases of separation of grades as between the railroads and the State or counties. This is left to the determination of the Railroad Commission of California.* The railroad companies have co-operated with the California Highway Commission in joint enterprises for the mutual protection of the railroads and the traveling public. 34, 1918 Report, C. H. C.) Appropriations Under the Acts of Legislature (Page The method of payment of the principal and interest of the various bond issues is set forth in the Acts providing for them. The State Highways Act of 1909 (Stats. 1909, Chapter 383, Page 647) provided for the issuance of bonds in the sum of $18,000,000. This issue consisted of 18,000 bonds of the par value of $1,000 each. They bear date of July 3, 1911. The rate of interest is four per cent per annum from the date of issuance. The principal of these bonds was payable as follows: The first four hundred (400) on July 3, 1917 and four hundred (400) more were payable on the 3rd day of July of each and every year thereafter until 1961. The interest accruing on all bonds sold is made payable semi-annually on the third days of January and July of each year. The State Highways Act of 1915 (Stats. 1915, Chapter 404, Page 650) created a bond issue of $15,000,000 for the completion of the original system and the addition of certain laterals. These bonds were also of the par value of $1,000 each and were numbered from one (1) to fifteen thousand (15,000) inclusive. They bear date of July 3, 1917. The interest is four and one-half per cent. *(Page 35, First Biennial Report, C. H. C.) |