Cobban Bridge to Be Replaced: Truss Bridge’s Future Unknown

CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN-  Imagine this situation for a second: You have an old but very unique historic bridge with a history that binds two communities together. After being built 120 years ago, it was relocated to its present site during its 20th year and remains in use until structural problems force the county to close the bridge and plan its replacement. The bridge is located near a bike trail that used to be a railroad line connecting the two communities. While the public is really attached to the bridge, the county insists on building a new bridge at its current site because the cost for even restoring the bridge is far more than just tearing it down and replacing it. Because of its history and unique design, the bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which makes funding for restoring the structure easier to achieve than it is when removing it using federal funds. Yet funding for restoring the bridge is hard to find. What do you do?

Do you:

  1. Proceed to tear the bridge down and replace it?
  2. Get a second opinion about the cost of evaluating the bridge and find ways to fix the bridge for continued use?
  3. Build a bridge alongside the sturcture and convert the old bridge into a pedestrian crossing?
  4. Build a new bridge at its original site but find constructive ways to relocate the bridge or use part of the structure- especially along the bike trail?

In the case of the Cobban Bridge, a two-span Pennsylvania through truss bridge spanning the Chippewa River southwest of Cornell in western Wisconsin, the situation is very precarious, for the historic bridge, considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places because of its history and unique design, has met the end of its useful life as a vehicular crossing. Yet costs for restoring vs. replacing the bridge have forced county officials to look at other options apart from rehabilitating the bridge in place or building a new structure alongside the old one. In other words, the bridge cannot remain in its current place and must go.

Since August 2, the bridge has been shut down to all traffic including pedestrians, and talks are underway for securing funding for the bridge’s removal in place of a new strucure. This also includes looking at options for reusing the bridge, which when looking at the drone video, it’s a real beauty:

Yet inspite of its beauty, the Cobban Bridge will most likely have to make its third move in its lifetime, unless financial support for reconstructing the bridge at its current location combined with constructing a new bridge alongside the structure is realized, not just on the government level but also from the private sector.

When the bridge was first built in 1908 by the Modern Steel Structures Company, based Waukesha, the two-span Pennsylvania through truss bridge was over the Chippewa River between the townships of Anson and Eagle Point. The bridge was christened the Yellow River Bridge even though it was located one mile north of the Yellow River itself. Replacing the iron bridge built years before, the structure had the same features as the one at its present location: it was made of steel, had pinned connections, overhead V-laced strut bracings and a three-rhombus Howe lattice portal bracings with 45° heel bracings. Ten years later, as part of the plan to construct a dam along the river near Chippewa Falls (and subsequentially inundate the crossing upstream), the bridge was relocated 15 miles downstream to cross the same river between Cornell and Jim Falls near the village of Cobban. The bridge has been in service since then- all 486.5 feet in length; each span, being identical and having a length of 241 feet.

Despite this, planning has been in the works to replace the Cobban Bridge, even though the two-span Pennsylvania through truss bridge is not only the last one of its truss type left in the state, but it is the only multiple-span bridge of its kind in the country! Inspections and estimates have revealed that restoring the bridge to be reused even for pedestrian purposes would be $13-14 million. A report presented by a well-known bridge builder, AECOM (whose regional office is based in Stevens Point in northern Wisconsin) revealed that replacing the bridge on a new alignment would cost $11 million, up from an estimated $7.2 million that was figured in March 2016. If delayed until 2025, the price would be lowered from $12.9 million to $8.6 million at the site where the bridge is located. Tearing the bridge down would cost $1.6 million. Established as a conglomerate in 1990, AECOM has its headquarters in New York but dozens of offices throughout the country as well as Europe. While its specialty is designing and building state-of-the-art buildings and modern bridges, for restoring historic bridges, its only focus has been on stone arch bridges, which included Grobler’s Bridges in South Africa and the Railroad Viaduct over the Neisse in Görlitz, at the German-Polish border. County officials and supporters of the Cobban Bridge are dissatisfied with the results provided by AECOM. Yet all parties have agreed to one thing, if the bridge is unsafe, then something has to be done about it.

Because of its design and historical integrity, the bridge is elgible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, which means environmental and cultural impact surveys (especially those in connection with Section 106 of the Preservation Laws) are to be undertaken before any work on replacing the bridge was to commence. According to Marilyn Murphy, who has started a facebook page on Saving the Cobban Bridge and has over 2000 followers, the surveys are already underway. As the project will require federal money, state and local authorities are mandated to allow the surveys be undertaken to determine the impact of replacing the Cobban Bridge, while looking at alternatives for reusing the bridge. Several other agencies have been involved in looking for options for the bridge, including the Texas-based Historic Bridge Foundation, as well as the Chippewa County Historical Society. The key variable that is known, according to Murphy, is that the county would like to relieve themselves of legal responsibilities for the bridge and would gladly like to give the bridge to any third party member wishing to take responsibility for maintaining the structure, including its relocation.

So with the bridge available for the taking, what options are available for the Cobban Bridge?

In the interview with the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles, Murphy presented a long list of possibilities for reuse. This includes using portions of the bridge along the Old Abe Bike Trail, which runs along the Chippewa between Lake Wissota and Brunet Island State Parks, relocating one or both spans back to the original Yellow River site, using one span for a state park, or even purchasing parts of the dismantled span (boards or beams) as remembrances. However, as mentioned earlier, there is interest in keeping the two spans in its original spot- a practical and most logical choice, yet two variables are lacking: funding and expertise. Funding because it is likely that regardless of ownership- be it through the state with the Department of Natural Resources (which owns the Old Abe Bike Trail), private-public partnership or simply pure ownership- funding will need to be found mostly through private sources, including donations from companies and citizens. This would be needed to renovate the bridge to make it a viable crossing for pedestrians and cyclists and incorporate it into the bike trail. Expertise would mean looking at companies that have restored bridges like this for recreational use, and there are enough both in-state as well as out-of-state to go around. Even if the bridge is to be relocated again, these two variables are going to be key in order for the bridge to live on.

What needs to be done in order to prevent the demise of the Cobban Bridge?

We know that the bridge has been declared off limits for all traffic, including pedestrians and cyclists- at least until the environmental impact and cultural surveys are completed, which can take 6-12 months or more to complete (including alternatives for reusing the bridge both in place and elsewhere).  Without that there is no federal funding that can cover 80% of the costs for the bridge. There has been a lot of public support and sentiment towards the Cobban Bridge and ways to save and reuse the structure, yet the approach of doing-nothing is not an option. This was already seen with the Wagon Wheel Bridge in Iowa, and its neglect, combined with vandalism and the lack of maintenance resulted in the “Triple GAU” consisting of arson, collapse and in the end, the removal of the remaining structure in 2016. There are a lot of ideas for reusing the bridge- be it in place or at a different location (even in segments), and the county is ready to hand over the keys that will unlock the gates that have closed off the structure since August, forcing travelers to detour to crossings at Jim Falls and Cornell. Yet, like with the Green Bridge in Des Moines, Iowa, which has been reopened since the end of last year, a group or alliance will be needed that will take over ownership and assume full responsibilities of the bridge and assure that it is safe for use. And speaking from experiences of others, the going may be tough at the beginning, but after a series of fundraisers and other events to help restore and reuse the bridge, the Cobban Bridge may have another life beyond that of horse and buggy, the Model T and lastly, the Audi.

If you would like to help restore and/or reuse the Cobban Bridge, you can visit its facebook page (here) and contact Marilyn Murphy at this address: mjmurphy1970@gmail.com. She’s the main contact for the bridge and can also provide you with some other contact information of others involved with the project. She and her husband Jim were nice enough to provide some pics of the bridge for this article.  The Chronicles will keep you posted on the latest on the Cobban Bridge and the steps that will be needed on the structure’s future, regardless of which direction it is taken.

   

Advertisements

Locals Fight to Preserve the Frank J. Wood Bridge in Maine

frank wood bridge
Photo courtesy of the Friends of the Frank J Wood Bridge

A couple weeks ago, the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) declared the historic Frank J. Wood Bridge, a three-span polygonal Warren through truss bridge with riveted connections and one-rhombus Howe lattice portal bracings to be a liability, deciding for the modernity with replacing the structure with a concrete one, to be built alongside the 1932 structure, with the old structure to be removed shortly afterwards. This was confirmed through multiple news outlets as well as the agency’s website.

In the eyes of locals, the news story is considered fake news and have an alternative news story to share, one that sheds light on MDOT’s neglect of historic structures. As the environmental surveys are going to be carried out, much of which in connection with Section 106- 4f of the Historic Preservation Laws of 1966, locals, like John Graham, a realtor in Topsham and one of the members of the committee to save and restore the bridge, are stepping up to the plate and planning to turn the heat on MDOT, to force the agency to rescind the decision and look at constructive ways to keep the bridge in service, using more than enough notable examples to go around.

bhc interview new

In an interview with the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles, Mr. Graham provides us with a glimpse of the historic significance of the Frank Wood Bridge, why MDOT has not taken historic bridge preservation seriously- following the path of neighboring New Hampshire- and measures that are planned to fight for the preservation of their prized historic landmark.

 

  1. First and foremost, how significant is the Frank J Wood Bridge in terms of its history and ties with the communities of Brunswick and Topsham?  

The bridge was built in 1932.  It crosses what was three natural falls, one being so high it stopped the sturgeon from going any high to spawn and was one of the best fishing areas for the Native Americans and there is recorded history as early as 1620 of settlers using it as a fishing spot.  The bridge is flanked on each side by mill building which still stand and were both in operation one into the sixties and the other into the eighties.  The mills have both been redeveloped but retain their historical nature and the three structures- the two mills and the bridge create a recognized Industrial district.  If the bridge is removed the district will no longer exist.  The bridge has been the meeting place of both towns and held Memorial day parade celebrations every year.  President Johnson crossed it in his motorcade once. Pictures of the bridge appear on numerous websites, on last year’s phonebook cover, it is the one instantly recognizable icon of both communities (Topsham and Brunswick).

  1. The bridge was named after Frank J. Wood. Who was he and how important was he to the communities/ area?

Frank J. Wood was a local farmer and paper maker- worked in the Topsham Mill.  He is credited with suggesting the current location of the bridge and died childless shortly after the bridge was completed.

A write-up on the bridge and its history can be viewed by clicking here.

  1. How long has MaineDOT been trying to replace this bridge? What are their arguments for replacing it?  

MDOT has been systematically not maintaining older thru truss bridges for decades.  The last time the bridge was painted was 1980.  They proposed removing in 2004 (?) and then again in 2015.  They have very weak arguments- mainly cost.

Note: There are some examples of historic bridges in Maine that have been taken down, solely for that reason. Click on the following bridges below:

Waldo-Hancock Bridge

Steep Falls Bridge

Bar Mills Bridge

Lisbon Falls Bridge

Sara Mildred Long Bridge

Memorial Bridge

Richmond-Dresden Bridge

Wadsworth Bridge

Stevens Bridge

Littlefield Bridge

  1. Your arguments against replacing the bridge- why should the bridge be preserved?  

Why not?  The bridge is exceptionally wide for its time (30 feet) and tall (14.8 feet).  It was built to have two lanes of traffic and a coal car trolly line down the center.  The bridge if properly maintained could be around for many more generations.  The State is rapidly losing what was once a fairly common bridge type and the location and setting of this one is exceptional.  It is also not functionally obsolete like so many are.  MDOT had a plan in the mid eighties to put three lanes of traffic across it.  It can easily handle two ten foot travel lanes and two five foot bike lanes.  Just up stream is a restored suspension walking bridge.  Maine has few economic things driving it currently and our historical downtowns and historical structures create a unique sense of place.  This drives our tourism industry and attracts both business and residence to the area.  The new “low cost” alternative does not fit the location.

  1. Maine DOT had presented four proposals for the bridge, two of which had to do with rehabilitation. Can you describe how the bridges would be rehabilitated?  Which of the two plans do most of the people favor?  

The rehabilitated bridges would both have completely new decks installed and minor repair to one bottom cord and a complete paint job.  The other alternative adds a second side walk.  It is unclear if a second sidewalk is favored or not.  MDOT has really created dialogue of only new or old and rusty. I personally do not see the need for a second side walk and look at the New Hope- Lambertville Bridge between PA and NJ as a great example of a bridge between two historical downtowns that has only one side walk and handles as many as 14,000 pedestrians in a single weekend.  That bridge is actually longer and also has a newer bypass bridge, although the bypass here is closer.

Please click here to view the page of the New Hope- Lambertville Bridge

A couple other bridge examples from Minnesota also follow the same pattern, such as the Broadway Avenue Bridge in St. Peter as well as the Washington Avenue and Merriam Street Bridges in Minneapolis, for example.

  1. After the DOT’s decision to replace the bridge, you presented a counter-statement, claiming that the agency had not done enough to conduct feasible studies on the bridge, specifically looking at the options carefully and selecting the rehabilitation option. Can you explain further what they didn’t do that they should have done, let alone what they did which would be considered illegal in your terms?

They never have seriously considered rehabilitation and have hired a consulting firm that does not have experience in rehabilitation.  The quotes that they have made public are wildly high according to the experts we have ran the numbers by.  They have used this method to sway public opinion.  MDOT came out with a preferred alternative- the new upstream bridge before the 106 process even begin.  This is not how the process is meant to take place.  They need to hire a qualified firm to give realistic rehab and long term maintenance costs for the bridge.  The main thing they initially failed to do was to say they were going to conduct a full Environment assessment EA. They have since (this week) notified us that they now plan to do so.  If it is necessary to sue it will be after the EA is complete and the 4f process is done.  We are gearing up for the 4f process because this is the law that actually has some teeth and where we can win.  MDOT has publicly stated that it is feasible to rehab the bridge.  We had several small victories during the 106 process where we were able to get them to agree the  rehab with one side walk fit the purpose and need and that the removal of the bridge would be both a adverse affect to the bridge itself and also to the industrial district mentioned above.

  1. In light of the decision by the DOT, what steps are you considering taking at this point?

We were all fully expecting this decision as they had made it a over a year ago and we forced them to follow the law and actually do a real 106 process.  We are gearing up for the 4f and a possible legal battle there.  We are in the process of securing an engineering firm to do an independent analysis of the bridge rehabilitation costs.  This has proven very difficult because no firm in the East will go up against MDOT for they are a big client.  Many have spoken to us off record but none will actually put a report together.  We have found several from across the country that are willing.  The battle now is all in the term “prudent”.  We have forced MDOT to only rely on  life cycle costs to make this argument. Cost we believe are overstated for this sole purpose.

  1. Who else has been helping you with supporting the bridge in terms of consultancy, legal action, fundraising, meetings, etc.?

There is a core group of about 10 of us with two very generous financial backers.  We have an excellent local attorney and engineers and professors from around the country that we have been meeting with.

  1. Should the DOT be forced to rescind their decision and favor restoring the bridge, are there going to be any fundraising options, etc. for the bridge?

When MDOT is forced to maintain the historical structures they are charged with maintaining; the State and Federal government will pay for it.  The fundraising option in this case is called taxes.  That said there is talk of creating a yearly festival centered around the bridge which we would raise money for.

  1. With regard to restoring the bridge, what would the newly restored bridge look like in comparison to the proposed replacement? Would there a park area, etc.?

The restored bridge would look identical to the bridge we have but painted with a new coat of green paint.  The only difference would be the deck would no longer have metal grates down each side and would have slightly narrower travel lanes and actual bike lanes painted on.  The new bridge is a flat highway overpass bridge.  You can see pictures of both on the Facebook page.

 

  1. What is the general mood at the moment in response to the DOT’s wanting to replace the bridge?

The groups mood is one of continued optimism.  We have been expecting this day.  It is just another step closer till we can save the bridge.  The community is torn between in favor and not in favor although the not in favor have been fed really misleading information from MDOT.

While some communities and regions have stepped aside to let the DOTs and other local agencies tear down their structures, many of which had been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, there are enough pocket of examples of people, like the communities of Brunswick and Topsham are working to impede the progress of MDOT, using experts from across the country to prove that just because one bridge part is bad, does not mean the whole bridge needs to come down. Instead they want to set an example for other DOTs in the US, proving that the age of wasting materials and destroying heritages is not in the best interest, no matter how the arguments are packaged and presented. It is hoped that this successful trend will force others to think about their own infrastructure and use rational thinking instead of the mentality which means, haste makes waste.

The Chroicles will keep you informed on the latest with the Frank Wood Bridge. You can also follow the Friends of the Frank Wood Bridge by clicking onto its facebook page here.

Special Thanks to John Graham for his help in the interview and best of luck in efforts to stop the replacement process, slated to begin next year.

bhc logo newest1

Interview With Kaitlin O’shea (Preservation in Pink)

img_7382
Kaitlin O’shea

bhc interview new

Every column needs a mascot, logo or a slogan, something that stands out in the eyes of the readers and one that shows significance to the themes we cover in society.  The Bridgehunter’s Chronicles has logo with the beloved Fehmarn Bridge in Germany, and the slogan: Preserving our past for the future, bridge by bridge.  Its sister column, The Flensburg Files has a slogan the sailboat and the flags of Germany and the US symbolizing its topic on cultural affairs and current events affecting the two countries. For Preservation in Pink, their mascot is the flamingo. There is an interesting story behind this beloved animal, as will be explained by its creator Kaitlin O’shea.  A preservation consultant for a firm in Burlington in Vermont, Kaitlin has been running the online column for 10 years and it has expanded it coverage to include various forms of social media, with the goal of providing coverage on topics on preserving places of historic interests, including historic bridges. They include live examples of preserved artifacts, preservation practices and the like. Kaitlin is no stranger to preservation, as she  received her B.A. in Historic Preservation from the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, VA. and a Master of Science in the same field at the University of Vermont. In between, sheI worked for the Fort Bragg (North Carolina) Cultural Resources Program for the U.S. Army (Independent Contractor, not military), conducting a 3 year oral history project on a 10,000 former Rockefeller estate that abutted Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, which included interviews, completed transcriptions, conducted archival research, and wrote the oral history book for the project. After obtaining her Master’s  Kaitlin  worked for the Vermont Agency of Transportation for 5 years, conducting historic preservation review of all projects. Since May 2015, she has worked as a Preservation Planner for VHB (an engineering + environmental firm) focusing on the regulatory side of preservation, except with state environmental laws.

d9ba3-10838391_376003302567488_782023004_n
Pittsford Railroad Bridge in Vermont

I had a chance to interview Kaitlin about Preservation in Pink (PiP), how it has developed over time and played a role in preserving places of historic interests in the US. Given her in depth experience and knowledge in her field, I figured a little time to pick her brain and talk about preservation would give me, as well as the readers a little insight on the successes and drawbacks historic preservation is. Here are her comments to the questions I posed:

  1. What inspired you to create Preservation in Pink?

The short version. After graduating college, I missed my close preservation classmates and friends. Although I was working in historic preservation and enjoying my job, I missed the diversity of subjects from my classes and the varying conversations my friends and I would have late at night while working or studying in the preservation drafting lab. I was afraid that we might be stuck in our jobs and jaded, no longer the optimistic college students who believed in preservation and its capacity to save the world. To fill that void of conversation, I started a newsletter. The newsletter was a medium for us to share our ideas with friends and to continue to find the fun in preservation. I had experience in layout and editing and writing, so a newsletter seemed like a perfect fit. If you want the longer version, click here:  https://preservationinpink.wordpress.com/about/

  1. And what does the flamingo stand for?

The short story: In college, my classmates and I watched a video about Ashland, VA. The people in Ashland were divided over pro/anti Walmart sentiments. Those who opposed Walmart chose the tacky pink flamingo lawn ornament as their mascot. In the end, the opponents lost. And as passionate college students studying the evils of big box stores, we took this as our battle cry: We hate Walmart, we love flamingos!

From there, it snowballed. We started drawing flamingos on chalkboards, giving each other flamingo items, and even flamingo-ing our professors fronts lawns (out of love, of course). When we graduated college, the flamingo remained a symbol of friendship and our love for preservation. To this day (10 years later, we still call each other flamingos and send each other flamingo cards and tchotchkes). Pink flamingos were the whimsical, fun side of preservation.

The name Preservation in Pink references pink flamingos. I chose that name because I didn’t want it to be mistaken for a serious, academics-only newsletters. I wanted people to find preservation approachable and fun. And it was my newsletter, so I thought, why not?

A longer version of the story you can find here: https://preservationinpink.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/why-do-all-preservationists-love-flamingos/.

  1.  What was the purpose of PiP? Has that mission changed through the years?

The purpose of PiP has remained steadfast over the years, though how the mission is achieved has changed. The mission is:  to encourage communication between new and seasoned preservationists with and about the world around them. And to show everyone that historic preservation is everywhere you look and makes a positive difference in the world.

4.  When you created PiP, you had regular newsletters before switching to digital news coverage. When did you do this and why do such a change?

When I started PiP, newsletters made the most sense. Blogs hadn’t become popular yet, so it didn’t cross my mind. However, after creating the first newsletter, I realized that I needed a digital, accessible place to keep the newsletter so readers did not have to find it through a PDF in an email. However, creating a newsletter required getting articles on time from friends (whom I couldn’t pay). As the internet changed, newsletter weren’t fast enough. I wanted to be able to reach audiences on a less formal basis, a shorter format. On the blog, I could post here and there and keep people’s attention, and hopefully their interest in between newsletters.

As my writers, and I, became busier with careers or grad school, and blogs became more popular and newsletter less popular, I decided that it was time to let the newsletter go. It was an organic process. I enjoyed blogging all of the time, and a blog written mostly by me seemed more appropriate than a newsletter entirely by me.

20130510-013114
Proctor Marble Bridge in Vermont

5. PiP has experimented with several social apps, including that of photos. Why those and not facebook?

Over the years, the social media apps have changed in purpose, as we’ve all seen. PiP did have a Facebook page until then end of 2013. However, at that time I wanted to delete my personal FB, and I couldn’t have a PiP FB without my FB. (Maybe that’s changed, but I haven’t been interested in checking.)

I do keep the apps linked, because I know some readers use one and not the other. I do that through IFTTT, which allows an instagram post to become a wordpress post, which is then publicized on Twitter.

Yet, I do use each app for their own purposes. On Twitter, I like to find interesting stories and news, and communicate with social media friends. Instagram is my favorite app because preservation is very visual. It’s fun to see what other preservationists photograph and post, and learn about what they’re up to.

I’ve relied on Instgram to WordPress post capabilities heavily over the past couple of years. As my schedule became busier and there was less time for writing long blog posts, I could still micro-blog/photo-blog using Instagram.

  1.  What topics have you covered in PiP? 

The topics have changed as my career has changed and as I have changed, and that is quite varied as I worked in oral history in rural North Carolina for three years, and then attended graduate school and worked for the Agency of Transportation in Vermont, and now for an environmental + engineering firm, VHB, in Vermont. I’ve covered preservation news, preservation basics, preservation education, travel to historic places, abandoned buildings, oral history, road trips, preservation ABCs, guest posts, interviews with fellow preservationists…. anything and everything that can be connected to historic preservation, I’m up for writing about it.

  1. Also for historic bridges?

During my years working for the Agency of Transportation, I worked on a lot of bridge projects, and wrote about a lot of bridges: covered bridges, truss bridges, concrete bridges. I have an affinity for decorative concrete railings. I’ve written about photographing bridges, the history of particular bridges, bridges as gateways to historic districts, and I’ve posted a lot of bridge photographs over the years.

  1. While you have focused on historic places in Vermont and the New England states, you have started to “invade” Canada. Can you tell us about your adventures there? Any other countries and places in the US on your places to visit list in the future?

Your “invade Canada” observation made me laugh! My writing and my photography is, of course, going to be focused on where I live. My work is primarily in Vermont, so that accounts for many of my posts. I live in Burlington, VT, which is only 2 hours from Montreal, 4 hours from Quebec City, and 3.5 hours from Ottawa. For reference, Boston is about 4 hours from Burlington! So, by travel time alone, if I want to get to a big city, Montreal is my best bet! I love exploring new cities, and Canada has such beautiful cities. My significant other is from Montreal, which makes traveling in Canada more fun, too. He’s an excellent Canadian tour guide + travel partner.

Actually, I’ve never been out of the country, other than Canada! I would love to visit Europe: Italy, France, Germany, Austria, Ireland, Spain. In the near future? I don’t have any big trips planned, but San Francisco remains high on my list, as well as New Orleans. I love exploring the United States. One day, I’d love to take a cross-country train trip.

  1.  Word has spread that while Vermont prides itself on historic bridges, including the metal structures, other states, like Maine and New Hampshire are tearing them down systematically despite their historic significance. Can you explain why this is the case? And is this problem widespread in the US?

I can only speak to this generally. Many states (maybe most) delay necessary maintenance on bridges, which then adds to the repair cost. By the time the bridge comes up for repair/replacement/rehab, people just want a new bridge. I would say that this is a widespread problem in the US.

Covered bridges tend to be loved. Truss bridges don’t receive as much love. And concrete bridges have the worst fate usually, simply due to the ephemeral nature of concrete and the harsh climate conditions of the northeast (freeze/thaw cycles, and salt/sanding of the bridge). And the bridges that aren’t as loved, probably will not be high up on the preservation list.

While some of us love truss bridges; other people see just the peeling (sometime lead) paint and the hulking metal structure, rather than a beautiful historic structure. Sometimes this has to do with geometry and safety guidelines. Historic bridges have narrower lanes, no shoulders, or low clearances, and they are not always safe. On major thoroughfares, these bridges can pose problems. For those reasons, some bridges have to go.

  1. What could you say about the care and preservation of HB in Vermont (giving a grade, in comparison with nationwide)? Why?  (Based on historic places you’ve photographed that were not in the best condition)

ud to work for the Vermont Agency of Transportation, and proud of the work we did as an Agency, especially in the Environmental Section. While we do demolish historic bridges in Vermont (like I said, we cannot save them all), replacement bridges are designed with context sensitive solutions in mind. That means that if the bridge is in a historic district, the design will be compatible with the setting. Vermont is known for rehabilitating covered bridges, and we have metal truss success stories, too, such as the Checkered House Bridge in Richmond, VT.  I haven’t worked on bridges in other states, but I think Vermont should be proud of its work.

  1. When photographing bridges, what features are important, in your opinion? (Choose the main bridge types you’ve visited). 

Here’s my “How to Photograph a Bridge” post: https://preservationinpink.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/how-to-photograph-a-bridge/.

The most important features to me are elevation shots, context shots, and details. Details can include connections ( is it a pin connected truss? Bolts? Rivets? Hand hewn timber?) and date plaques.

12.When a person wants to preserve the bridge for reuse, what are some important aspects to keep in mind, especially when maintaining the structure?

  • What is the current condition of the bridge?
  • How will it be transported to the new location?
  • How will it be used? What does the load rating have to be?
  • Who will maintain the bridge? Is there an annual maintenance agreement? Who will pay for it?
  • Will the location benefit the public?
  1. Do you still talk history over a coffee? (I owe you one for this interview if you come to Germany, BTW)

Yes, I do! Okay, often it’s preservation over wine – depending on the time of day, of course. I will take you up on that when I make it to Germany.

14. What is your favorite bridge in VT? US? North America? The World?

Oh, that is a tough one. In Vermont, I have an attachment to the new Lake Champlain Bridge because working as the Historic Preservation Monitor for the bridge replacement project was my first job in VT. But, as for historic bridges? I’m not sure I can pick a favorite. I love finding bridges on back roads that most people wouldn’t see. The Proctor Marble Bridges (rehabilitated) is one of my favorites: https://preservationinpink.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/proctor-marble-bridge/

In the US? I love the Verrazano Narrows Bridge in New York, because I have many memories of driving over it with my parents + sisters to visit family, and later with college friends on our many routes up and down the east coast.

In the world? I’d love to see the Fourth Rail Bridge in Scotland.

20130510-013138
Close-up of the ballustrades of the Proctor Marble Bridge

If you want to know more about PiP, check out her website and follow her to get updates on some preservation successes and policies. You can follow PiP on twitter, instagram and other social networks. Some of her articles will appear in the Bridgehunter’s Chronicles as guest columnist.

Link: https://preservationinpink.wordpress.com/

And let the coffee-laden flamingos go wild in preserving America’s history and pride! 😉

bhc jacob