Road Building in Pennsylvania

From the colonial era to the early 1900s, road building in Pennsylvania was predominantly a local affair. The Road Law of 1762 designated townships as the entity responsible for financing, building, and maintaining roads. The law authorized the election of township road commissioners who responded to petitions for roads and taxed residents for the costs of supplies and equipment. Residents had the option to pay the taxes or to "work the taxes off" through labor. Major trunk routes might be built by the state or, after 1790, toll companies, but most roads were local, meant to connect neighboring farms and those farms to market towns. Bridges, which were more expensive and technically more difficult to build, over time became the responsibility of the counties (see below).

With the advent of canals in the 1820s and then railroads beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, the "Farm-to-Market" nature of roads only increased. By the 1870s, railroads and canals handled nearly all long-distance freight and passenger traffic. Roads served to bring the people and products of Pennsylvania to rail heads. Roads were predominantly unfinished in nature and frequently impassible in bad weather.

A shift in travel began in the 1880s. The "Good Roads Movement" lobbied for improved roads. The movement gained momentum in the early twentieth century, thanks to the increased popularity of the automobile. In 1903, Pennsylvania became one of the first states to establish a State Highway Department. Its purpose was to provide state road aid to second class townships. No state aid was available to counties, cities, boroughs, or first class townships. In 1911, the State Highway Department's responsibilities expanded. It gained control over a newly-created, 8,500-mile state highway system, with a mandate to bring the system to modern standards. The system linked county seats and market towns. Over time, the State Highway Department gradually assumed control over more and more roads. By 1939, the Pennsylvania state highway system had grown to 33,500 miles, and included many roads formerly owned and maintained by the townships (Lichtenstein and Associates 1999:IV-1-27).

The Bridge Construction Process

As with road construction, bridge building was primarily a local affair well into the twentieth century. The county government played a dominant role. The division of responsibility between county and municipal governments was based on an amended version of the Road Law of 1762, which provided that county commissioners could take responsibility for bridges only after local residents had petitioned the county court and secured the concurrence of court-appointed viewers and a grand jury. A provision passed in 1879 gave the county commissioners the option to furnish money to the township to build bridges without future liability for maintenance, repair, or rebuilding the bridges (Lichtenstein and Associates 1999:IV-30-31). The effect of these laws, over time, was to make the county government the key player in bridge construction until the 1920s. Consequently, most of Bradford County's truss bridges were designed by the county, who then contracted with bridge fabrication companies to manufacture and erect the bridges.

The process of constructing a new or replacement bridge generally began with a petition from local landowners to the county Court of Quarter Sessions. By the late nineteenth century, when truss bridges began to be built in great number, the process was nearly formulaic, steeped in a routine developed over a 100-year period. The petitions invariably stated that a bridge was "much needed" at a location, that the expense of constructing such a bridge was too great for the township to bear, and that the county government should therefore build, and maintain, the structure. In response, the Court would appoint viewers to inspect the proposed crossing and report on whether a bridge was warranted at that location. The petition and viewers' report would then be presented ("laid before") a Grand Jury, which would recommend whether a bridge was necessary. If the Grand Jury found it was, the findings would next be conveyed to the County Commissioners, who would vote on whether to accept the bridge as a county bridge. If they did, the commissioners would then have specifications or formal design drawings prepared and advertise for construction bids. By the dawn of the twentieth century, as other bridge types became common (such as reinforced concrete and girder bridges), the bid specifications often asked for bridge designs in different formats, for example, for building a metal truss or a reinforced concrete arch bridge. Bridge fabrication companies would respond, presenting bridge designs and prices, with the low bidder generally awarded the contract. Following completion of the structure, the Commissioners would appoint inspectors who would insure that the bridge was built according to specifications.

The County Engineer

The bridge construction process afforded two entities with a great deal of influence over bridge construction: the County Engineer and bridge fabrication companies. By the first decade of the twentieth century, most counties employed a County Engineer, either as a salaried employee or as a contractor. The County Engineer would draw up the bridge plans and specifications used in the bidding process. He would meet with representatives of bridge fabricating companies at the proposed bridge location to discuss site factors and bridge design ideas. He would review incoming bids for technical correctness and appropriateness. Consequently, the County Engineer held great sway over both the final design of the bridge and the fabrication company chosen to build it.

Most of Bradford County's twentieth century truss bridges reflect the influence of County Engineer David A. Keefe. Keefe, an engineer from Athens, Pennsylvania served as Bradford County Engineer from about 1907 until his death in 1943. Keefe prepared bridge design and bid specifications for nearly all county-built bridges during that time. Five of Bradford County’s 30 remaining metal truss bridges were designed by Keefe. In addition to truss bridges, Keefe also designed some of the earliest reinforced concrete bridges constructed in Bradford County, bridges noteworthy for their attenuated details. Keefe's hand in truss bridge designs accounts for the stylistic similarity of Bradford County's twentieth century truss bridges, even when those bridges had been fabricated by different bridge companies.

Pennsylvania State Highway Department

The Pennsylvania State Highway Department was created by the Sproul-Roberts Act of 1903. Its purpose was to provide state road aid to second class townships. No state aid was available to counties, cities, boroughs, or first class townships. The State Highway Department's mandate changed following the passage of the Sproul Act of 1911. The act created, and gave the State Highway Department control over, an 8,500-mile state highway system (expanded to 9,700 miles in 1913). However, existing county-owned bridges on the state highways remained the responsibilities of the counties, and continued to be their responsibilities until 1929. Passage of the landmark Federal-Aid Road Act in 1916 made federal funds available to, among other things, construct bridges under the supervision of State Highway Department officials. The passage of the act, coupled with increased state funding allocations and directed tax revenues, marked the beginning of a shift in bridge construction away from county to state responsibility. During the 1920s, the State Highway Department designed more than 1,400 new bridges. For longer spans, the Department preferred riveted through truss spans. By the mid-1920s, the Department was also maintaining or replacing most county-owned bridges on state highways, as they did by relocating State Route 212-2 (now U.S. Route 6) in North Towanda and Burlington Townships (Lichtenstein and Associates 1999:IV-35-40, 43-46).

Pennsylvania Bridge Act of 1895

An exception to local control over bridge construction were structures built under the Pennsylvania Bridge Act of 1895. The act provided assistance to local municipalities for the rebuilding of county bridges destroyed by fire, flood, or other natural disasters. Counties requesting rebuilding assistance were required to petition the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County (the location of Harrisburg, the state capital), stating that the bridge had been destroyed by flood, fire, or other casualty, and giving the estimated cost of replacing the bridge. The court would appoint five viewers, who would visit the location of the destroyed bridge and recommend, among other things, the cost and needs of the planned bridge for both travelers and local residents.

If the majority of the viewers favored rebuilding the bridge, and the court agreed, an agency of state government called the Board of Public Grounds and Buildings was to "immediately...proceed and have prepared in conformity with the report of the viewers such plans and specifications of the proposed bridge as may be necessary." After advertising for bids, the board was to "proceed to let the contract for the rebuilding of such bridge to the lowest and best bidder, and on behalf of the Commonwealth enter into the contract for the same" (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1895). The Masontown (1902), Ulster (1904), and Luthers Mills (1912) bridges were built under the auspices of this act.

EXAMPLE OF PROCESS

Woodruff Bridge (County Bridge No. 17), LeRoy Township

The construction of the Woodruff Bridge, a single span, pin-connected, 125-ft Pratt Through Truss bridge over Towanda Creek in LeRoy Township, illustrates both the bridge construction process, and the reach of bridge fabrication companies.

A petition by local residents was filed with the Bradford County Court of Quarter Sessions on April 19, 1904 for a replacement bridge at Woodruff. The new bridge was "much needed," as the existing bridge was in poor repair. The court assigned viewers, who issued their report on May 5. The viewers agreed that a new bridge was necessary, but recommended that it be much longer than the existing 70 ft bridge. The original petition and the Viewers' Report were laid before the Grand Jury, who agreed with the Viewers' recommendation on August 25, 1904 (Bradford County Court of Quarter Sessions 1904:6/345).

The County Commissioners, for unknown reasons, waited almost one year before accepting the bridge as a county bridge, acting on June 21, 1905. A construction estimate and specifications were prepared by Hiram E. Bull, the County Surveyor. The commissioners advertised for bids the same day. The advertisement solicited bids for six county bridges, including the 125 ft Woodruff Bridge (Bradford County Board of Commissioners 1905a).

The possibility of securing as many as six bridge construction contracts drew bids from 10 different bridge companies. At least four were from Pennsylvania: the York Bridge Company; the Penn Bridge Company of Beaver Falls; Nelson & Buchanan of Chambersburg; and the Eyre Construction Company of Philadelphia. At least three were New York-based: the Owego Bridge Company of nearby Owego; the Syracuse Bridge Company; and the Rochester Bridge Company. One bidder, the Massillon Bridge Company, was headquartered in Ohio. It is assumed from its name that the Old Dominion Company was a Virginia company, while the location of E. Whalen (who won three contracts, and was probably a local craftsman) is unknown. The Owego Bridge Company submitted three separate bids for the Woodruff Bridge, undoubtedly for three separate bridge types. Superstructure construction went to the York Bridge Company for $2,648. The substructure contract, awarded the day before, went to the local MacAffee Construction Company (Bradford County Board of Commissioners 1905b).

Bridge Construction and the State Department of Highways

The construction of two truss bridges over Sugar Creek in the early 1920s demonstrates the shift from local to state oversight of bridge construction activities. In the early 1920s, the Pennsylvania State Department of Highways, using funding authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Acts of 1916 and 1921, sought to improve and in many cases relocate U.S. Route 6, then known as Route 212-2 or the Towanda-Troy Route. Plans called for new bridges over Sugar Creek near Luthers Mills in Burlington Township and north of Towanda in North Towanda Township. Initially, Bradford County was responsible for constructing the bridges. County government followed standard procedures. In 1923, the Court of Quarter Sessions assigned viewers, who concluded that the bridges were necessary, and County Engineer David Keefe prepared specifications. Exceptions to the viewers' report were filed, however, stalling construction. Nearly two years later, in 1925, the clearly frustrated county commissioners resolved to pay for some of the costs of a second State Highway Department project in the county "with the understanding that the rebuilding of the roadway and bridges on the unfinished section of Route #212 in North Towanda and West Burlington Townships will be awarded to some contractor during the year 1925." In other words, the county commissioners passed the responsibility of the bridge construction on to the State Highway Department, who had the Luthers Mills and North Towanda bridges built ca. 1925.