Crumpton and Dudleys Corner. In the Dorchester County case, ac-
cording to State Roads Commission figures, the road carried 627
vehicles a day in 1954 and is estimated to carry 1, 447 vehicles a day
in 1975. In the Queen Anne's County case, the road carried 905
vehicles a day in 1954 and is estimated to carry 2, 058 cars a day in
1975. From the best information I am able to obtain, it appears that
acceptable and nationally recognized standards do not call for the
construction of a dual lane divided highway until a traffic volume far
in excess of the figures mentioned in either of these cases for 1975 is
reached. I am further advised that this same situation has occurred
in numerous instances throughout the State.

Not only do I doubt the wisdom of this type of highway planning,
but I feel it is an unwise expenditure of State highway funds. First,
because it deprives the owners of the use of the land, and unless
the State Roads Commission expends money for maintenance, it is
likely to cause an unsightly roadside condition. Second, by taking
the land off the assessable county tax rolls, it deprives the counties
of a source of taxation. And third, the payment by the State Roads
Commission for this additional land from highway construction funds
means that the Commission has actually less money to spend for
construction on urgently needed projects.

It should be pointed out here that the cautious approach toward
acquiring land not needed in the foreseeable future should in no
way preclude the Commission from taking bold and far-sighted steps
when the future need for dual highways is clearly indicated. In this
respect, I propose that the new State Roads Commission and the
Director of Highways adhere to acceptable and nationally recognized
engineering standards. The traffic count should justify dual lane
construction in the foreseeable future before rights-of-way wide
enough to accommodate a dual lane divided highway are purchased.

As a result of further information and my own observations, I am
of the opinion that if the Commission is to function with the maxi-
mum effectiveness and efficiency, the internal organization of the
agency should be streamlined and modernized.

The duties and functions of the office of the Chief Engineer should
be changed so that the Chief Engineer, as the title implies, be directly
in charge of the engineering functions of the Commission. His office
should not be burdened with the general problems of office admin-
istration, and he should not be required to concern himself with
administrative decisions. The Chief Engineer should be in charge
of all the engineering functions of the Commission, and the several

16