I. Why Are California Automobile Clubs Interested?

The combined membership of the two State Automobile Associations exceeds 71,000. It is the purpose of these clubs to promote better highways and to advance and protect the interests of the automobile public. These two corporations have given substantial aid to secure the adoption of an aggregate of $73,000,000.00 of State and $42,000,000.00 of county bonds for highways; a total of $115,000,000.00. About half of this great sum remains unexpended. The State now has available nearly $39,000,000.00 for future work without the Federal aid contributions.

The clubs have taken keen interest in the passage of the Motor Vehicle Act and all general road legislation. Under the Motor Vehicle Act, members of the automobile associations. are contributing in license fees a total of $760,000.00 annually to the State. This fund is divided equally between the State Highway Commission and the counties, and is available for road maintenance; therefore, the two institutions have a vital interest in the policy of the State Highway Commission. This policy not only has a direct bearing on the taxation of 535,000 automobiles and 35,000 trucks in the commonwealth, but also involves the future life and efficiency of the highways. The clubs are gravely concerned with the safety of the motoring public and feel a responsibility to the public in all projects connected with motor traffic. The two associations realize the difficulties under which the State Highway Commission was compelled to pursue its earlier work. The construction programs of 1913, 1914, and 1915 are highly commendable. The mileage of roads built in the periods enumerated, in the face of an unsaleable 4% State bond, is a most creditable achievement. Cleanness of administration and absence of scandal have been noticeable. Wilful waste and extravagance cannot be charged and honesty of purpose is freely admitted.

Failures of paved highways in California have become frequent in the past two years. In consequence criticism of State Highway standards and State construction methods has been so general that the Board of Directors of the two clubs have considered it timely to institute an engineering and economic study of all the paved State highways to determine their present condition, their sufficiency in width and the adequacy to carry the ever-increasing volume and weight of traffic.

Incompleted sections of main trunk and lateral highways; the addition of an extensive mileage to the original program; the costs of work and the possibility of completing the system with the funds available furnished additional motive for this investigation.

The Governor of California was invited to appoint a State representative to act with the engineers of the automobile clubs, but declined since a similar investigation has been authorized by him under the direction of the Federal Bureau of Roads. However, the State Highway Commission has cheerfully furnished from its records all data that has been requested. The engineers of the Automobile Clubs began their studies in July, 1920. The work has been continuous and uninterrupted up to the present time, and involves expenditures exceeding $30,000.00. Valuable data has been collected concerning weight, speed and volume of traffic; detailed inspections have been made of all paved roads on the State system; laboratory tests are being conducted at the State University; an elaborate highway bibliography has been assembled. In addition, the engineers of the two clubs have prepared extensive reports which have been filed with the respective organizations.

Mr. J. B. Lippincott, Consulting Engineer for the Automobile Club of Southern California, acknowledges the assistance and co-operation of the following gentlemen:

Committee on Sub-Base:

Robert Morton, Highway Engineer, San Diego County, Chairman.
Lawrence Moye, County Surveyor, Tulare County.

Committee on Thickness, Width and Reinforcement of Concrete Slab:

Charles Petit, County Engineer, Ventura County, Chairman.

Charles Derleth, Jr., Dean of Civil Engineering Department, University of California, Berkeley.

Owen O'Neill, County Engineer, Santa Barbara County.

Committee on Maintenance:

George Jones, Road Commissioner, Los Angeles County, Chairman.

E. E. East, Road Engineer.

S. H. Finley, Supervisor, Orange County.

Committee on Laws:

D. R. Faries, Attorney for the Automobile Club of Southern California, Chairman.
Watt Moreland, Truck Manufacturer.

C. H. Richards, Engineer.

While these reports may seem critical, it has been the first object to be constructive in criticism. Where road failures have been found, these reports attempt a determination of the cause and indicate possible remedies; this with a sincere desire to profit by successes and failures made, that California's future roads may be more substantially constructed to meet the requirements of an unparalleled increase and change in the character of traffic.

The brief discussion following is a synopsis of the various matters covered and analyzed in detail in the two reports referred to:

I. Why are California Automobile Clubs interested? (See page one.)

II. Promises made by the Highway Commission.

III. Highway Commission policies.

IV. Present condition of the State Highways.

Recommended types of construction.

V.

VII. Highway bonds and life of pavements.

VIII. Present and future traffic-traffic laws and their violation.

IX. Comparison of California Highways with those of other states.

X. Research and experimental investigation.

II. Promises Made by the Highway Commission

Records in the offices of the Automobile Associations show that prior to the July, 1919, election on the $40,000,000.00 bond issue, the California Highway Commission agreed to carry out the following construction program:

1. To complete all gaps and grade or pave all main trunk highways. These were definitely specified in the campaign previous to the 1919 election and involved 58 different sections.

2. To take over and construct entirely at State expense the county lateral system. These also were definitely specified for eight different sections

3. Thirty-one additional roads were listed and added to the bond issue as desirable roads. As many of them were to be built as the balance of funds would permit.

The Automobile Associations, having always been very active in the promotion of good roads, finding that the two original bond issues (the first for $18,000,000.00 and the second for $15,000,000.00) had not completed any of the main trunk lines between large centers of population (either along the coast or through the great inland valleys), were very insistent with the Highway Commission that a definite program be established if these associations were to go before the public again and spend time, money and effort in aiding the California Highway Commission to carry the $40,000,000.00 bond issue to a successful conclusion. Upon

these understandings the above schedule was adopted as a program for the 1919 campaign. Facts show that the program as agreed upon is not being fulfilled.

III. Highway Commission Policies

The Commission has lacked foresight and vision by failing to carry out adequate and sufficient experimentation, research and investigation on a broad and comprehensive scale. It has not taken advantage of the few experiments it did make.

Until October, 1920, the Highway Commission followed a rigid policy. It used practically the same type of construction throughout the State, irrespective of the requirements of traffic, subsoil and drainage. Such a policy is economically and structurally unsound and open to grave criticism. Even the last pronouncements of October, 1920, propose a specific requirement of steel bar reinforcement for all concrete roads, no matter how the subsoil conditions may vary.

The Commission apparently has no stated program directed toward aiding county highway departments. It should adopt an adequate and liberal policy at once, that the counties may profit by the successes and failures in State Highway experience. The selection of type of road, width and thickness, reinforcement, suitable materials for construction, standard structures, surfacing, and numerous other details are of grave importance to the taxpayers of every county. Highway routings, bridges, etc., are so closely related to possible future State Highway locations that they demand uniform and concerted action between State and county if wasted effort and consequent additional expense are to be avoided.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the California Highway Commission has failed to profit by a very varied and costly experience taught by innumerable failures of 4-inch concrete roads. Despite these failures it has continued to build the light 4-inch road sections in numerous instances under practically the same conditions upon heavy subsoils of questionable and uncertain character. California has continued a 4-inch pavement program when other states increased the thickness to 6 inches and 8 inches.

Through a headquarters policy which must be classed as both narrow and short-sighted, the responsibility of the division engineer has been so circumscribed that at times his work has resolved itself into mere routine, such as the transmission of bill schedules, work and purchase orders and general requests for headquarters' approval. The position of division engineer is an important one, but he has lacked the authority to decide pressing and local questions. He has been obliged to refer the most minor items to Sacramento for decision. This robs the division of its individuality, takes away that responsibility which naturally should belong to the division engineer; kills his initiative and therefore effects the entire division organization.

Just criticism of the State Commission arises from the constantly recurring delays in payments of accounts of all kinds. Bills for supplies and general expense are frequently held either in the office of the Highway Commission or of the Board of Control for months, and it is difficult to find any logical reason for this unbusinesslike procedure. Contractors' prog

ress payments and final estimates have suffered in the same way, frequently causing great hardship if not serious financial loss to the contractor.

The Commission's attitude toward highway contractors of excellent standing has been the cause of severe criticism from contractors of the soundest reputation. Highway contractors in the past have found little profit in highway work. The list of contracting firms who have become bankrupt is astonishing. Numerous instances of rigid and drastic rulings involving considerable losses to the contractor have been cited causing some contractors to claim that the Commission's policy has been one of alienation rather than one of co-operation. Such policies can only have one result; an increase in the future prices bid.

The experience of the State Highway Commission is that day labor work is not economical, therefore the contractor who must build our highways should be dealt with fairly and be encouraged to undertake the work under conditions which may realize him some profit. Any other course is not in the interest of the State or of ultimate economy.

There is much room for improvement and development in the Commission's future attitude towards: 1. Accounting and cost keeping; 2. Equipment accounts; 3. Amendments to specifications and contracts; 4. Yearly traffic records; and a number of other pertinent subjects, all of which are dealt with in detail by the Club reports.

Our examinations do not justify the statement made by the Chairman of the Highway Commission on June 19, 1920, viz., "that in his opinion 90% of the State highways thus far built in California are as good as the day they were laid." In Southern California, field inspections indicate that as high as 30.5% of the concrete pavements are in poor condition, requiring reconstruction either now or at an early date. An additional 19.3% is in only fair condition, serious failure having already begun. This leaves only 50.2% of the pavements in this section in what may be termed good condition. In general, inspections in the southern part of the State have indicated higher percentages of failure than in the northern portion, where failure area is only 17.7% and pavements in fair condition aggregate 20%, leaving 62.3% of these pavements in good condition.

Inspections show that pavement failures are closely related to soil conditions and imperfect drainage. In Southern California, of roads built on clay and adobe soils, 70% have failed, and in Northern California approximately 61%. On sand, gravel, decomposed granite and similar soils from 70% to 75% of the concrete roads are in good condition.

V. Recommended Type of Construction

Since these investigations were begun by the Automobile Clubs the State Highway Commission has increased the thickness of its standard pavement to 5 inches and proposes to reinforce it all. A 5-inch concrete slab is not thick enough to meet heavy traffic requirements.

We cannot endorse a policy that contemplates the use of expensive steel reinforcement irrespective of conditions of sub-soil, traffic and drainage. The amount of steel reinforcement that is practical and economical is variable. The amounts specified by the Highway Commission are too much where sand, gravel, decomposed granite and similar soils are encountered and too little on boggy subgrades or on clay and adobe sub-soils, especially where the thin 5-inch concrete minimum slab now specified is used.

It has been stated by the Chairman of the Highway Commission that: "The consensus of opinion of our engineers is that the reinforcing of the concrete highway is the equivalent of thickening it at least two inches." Tests show that a 6-inch plain concrete slab has a greater traffic capacity than 5-inch sections reinforced as proposed; therefore this statement. has little foundation in fact.