Third biennial report of the Oregon State Highway Commission — Context and Discussion

(0 User reviews)   2256
In Category - Civil Engineering
Benson, Simon, 1851-1942, Booth, R. A. (Robert Asbury), 1858-1944, Nunn, Herbert, 1877-1947, Thompson, W. L. Project Gutenberg 2011 Not confirmed
Highway engineering -- Oregon -- History; Water resources development -- Systems engineering -- Oregon -- History Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 51,054
Reading time 222 min
Text sections 12

Third biennial report of the Oregon State Highway Commission — Context and Discussion can be approached with a clearer sense of reading commitment from its source measurements: 51,054 words, 3 hr 42 min estimated reading time, and 12 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 12.0 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Highway engineering -- Oregon -- History,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Explore this collection

Compare your next read

These alternatives are selected using recorded categories and estimated reading time.

Search stored excerpts and compare books → Choose by your preferences →

How these choices and excerpts are prepared

Choices use stored catalog measurements. Estimates vary with reading speed. A shared category is a catalog label, not a claim that two books have the same argument or literary quality.

Search reads excerpt text stored with this catalog and links to its associated Gutenberg record. The connection is stored in the site database; this tool does not recheck that every excerpt is word-for-word identical to that external record. Excerpt search does not cover every chapter and does not verify historical publication dates.

Catalog snapshot checked: 2026-09-26. Coverage: 91 public books, 91 available source excerpts.

This 1919 report details Oregon's highway construction during World War I, with precise cost breakdowns for grading, bridges, and macadamizing. It reveals how private funds advanced public roads, the engineering challenges of steep terrain, and the interplay between state, county, and federal efforts.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.8/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Public-domain source text

Read the source text

The source text is kept in the dedicated reader, separate from this catalogue record and its commentary.

The Third Biennial Report of the Oregon State Highway Commission, covering December 1916 to November 1918, is a document of engineering and financial specificity. It opens with a letter of transmittal to Governor James Withycombe and proceeds through detailed cost statements for individual projects—grading, macadamizing, bridges, and retaining walls. The report does not merely summarize; it itemizes cubic yards of excavation, linear feet of pipe, and pounds of reinforcing steel, offering a granular view of early twentieth-century road building.

Notable is the role of private initiative: Commissioner S. Benson advanced personal funds to complete a critical section of the Columbia River Highway, later reimbursed by the legislature. This blend of public and private action, alongside federal cooperation and county supervision, shapes the narrative of a state forging its transportation infrastructure under wartime constraints.

Cost Accounting as a Window into Construction

The report’s detailed expenditure statements reveal the material realities of highway work. For the Rainier Hill grading section, costs are broken into engineering ($468.38) and construction items: common excavation at 30 cents per cubic yard, intermediate at 48 cents, solid rock at $1.25. Overhaul—moving earth beyond a free-haul distance—is charged per 100 linear feet. Such precision extends to culverts, rip-rap, and force account work for slides and widening.

On the Beaver Valley grading, the cost statement lists clearing and grubbing ($1,265.80), labor and teams ($17,124.07), explosives ($2,275.31), and pipe culverts ($313.04). These figures, drawn from actual projects, allow the reader to compare the relative expense of different tasks. The Prescott Hill section, built along a steep hillside, required retaining walls, half-viaducts, and guard fences. Its cost of $9,039.86 includes 438 cubic yards of rock for rubble masonry walls and a reinforced concrete crib cast on a dock in Rainier. The report thus functions as a ledger of engineering choices and their costs.

Terrain, Slides, and the Engineering Response

Oregon’s mountainous landscape repeatedly challenged the highway builders. The Prescott Hill section, built along a steep hillside, experienced slides that narrowed the roadbed to about eight feet, making it “very dangerous.” The solution involved building retaining walls on a slope of three-fourths to one, half-viaducts, and guard fences. The report describes a seventy-five-foot half-viaduct containing fifty-three cubic yards of concrete and 4,100 pounds of reinforcing steel, with standard bridge railing.

Similarly, the Beaver Valley grading before the Columbia River Highway opened required traversing a “narrow, dangerous, earth and corduroy road” passable for autos only three months a year. The grading work, partly completed by the county in 1914, was finished with private funds from S. Benson. These passages illustrate how engineers adapted to unstable slopes and seasonal limitations, using retaining structures and viaducts to secure the roadway. The report’s language—mentioning slides, narrow roadbeds, and dangerous conditions—grounds the technical descriptions in the physical hazards of the work.

Funding and the Interplay of Public and Private Actors

The report documents a complex funding landscape. State funds, county funds, and federal cooperation (through post road and forest road projects) all appear. But the most striking example of private involvement is S. Benson’s advancement of $20,978.22 for the Beaver Valley section. The 1917 legislature passed a bill refunding this amount, described as “a large portion of the amount expended by him.” This episode shows how personal initiative could bridge gaps in public funding.

Other projects were let on a “cost plus ten per cent” basis, as with Oscar Lindstrom’s work on Prescott Hill. The Goble Creek Bridge involved a pile foundation by the Warren Construction Company on a cost-plus basis and a superstructure built on a unit price basis by Lindstrom and Fiegeson. The report also lists bond sales, proposals received, and allotments to various highway funds. Together, these details reveal a system where state, county, federal, and private money intermingled, and where contracts could be either fixed-price or cost-reimbursable, depending on the project’s nature.

Readers should approach this report as a primary source on early highway engineering and public administration. The cost statements and project descriptions reward close reading: they show not only what was built, but how decisions were made under financial and physical constraints. The report’s value lies in its specificity—the cubic yards, the linear feet, the names of engineers and contractors. It offers a concrete foundation for understanding the infrastructure that shaped Oregon’s development.

Reading that Oregon highway report, I kept thinking how every mile of road was someone’s quiet, unpaid persistence—the same way I felt finishing Time and Time-Tellers — A Closer Reading. Both left me marveling at how ordinary hands measure what feels endless, and how slowly we truly build anything lasting. I still find myself remembering that.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

What did you think of this book?

Answer a few questions and save a private reflection on this device.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

How far have you progressed with this book?

2

What was your overall reaction to the book?

3

How likely are you to recommend this book?

4

Did the language feel accessible?

Related eBooks