 |
  |
|
Key Facts |
Bridge Name | Type | Road | Location | City | Crossing |
| Blue Rock Road Bridge | Truss | Blue Rock Road (Old Alignment) | Hamilton County, OH | New Baltimore | Great Miami River |
|
Technical Facts |
|
Construction Date |
Structure Length | Main Span Length | Truss Height | Roadway Width | Builder |
| 1914 | 465 Feet | 460 Feet | 71 Feet | 22 Feet | Brackett Construction Company of Cincinnati, OH |
Note: This narrative describes the end of this bridge and my opinion of the bridge's fate. To read the official narrative, which discusses the history and technical features of the bridge, scroll down or click here.
I will never forget the fateful day of October 11, 2006, the day this bridge was annihilated by the corrupt Hamilton County in what is in my opinion an unparalleled, wicked act of barbarism. It seemed like that weekend even Mother Nature herself wanted to punish Hamilton County for demolishing this bridge, for as this bridge fell, one of the coldest and most powerful cold fronts ever seen so early in October roared through the Great Lakes area and made its way down into and beyond the Ohio River valley. By the end of the day, the very air in Hamilton County was almost as cold as the hearts of the officials that decided the fate of this bridge.
I really feel for the citizens of the unincorporated community of New Baltimore. I can recall when I visited the bridges, one of the residents briefly spoke with Rick and I. He had been a steelworker, and had great respect for the mammoth bridge that had been a landmark for a tiny community since 1914, and was not happy to know the bridge was coming down. Hamilton County's commissioners however apparently have no concern for such a small community in the county.
Some time ago, a county meeting took place which finalized the authorization of the demolition of the bridge, which was supported by the county engineer as well as the county commissions who approved the resolution agreeing with the assessment "...that the public convenience and welfare require the demolition of the Blue Rock Road Bridge." I am unsure how removing a crossing that was still being used by pedestrians increased convenience, nor how the loss of a beautiful landmark that brought a sense of identity to the small community of New Baltimore benefits the public welfare. The only convenience it offered was to the officials of Hamilton County who no longer have to worry about improving the quality of their county through preservation of a beautiful historic landmark. Hamilton County officials are nothing more than cheap, lazy people who are anything but stewards of their county's welfare.
One might ask if I am being selfish in condemning Hamilton County when they have preserved bridges like Blome Road and are also restoring an extremely rare bowstring truss bridge. I firmly say that I do have that right. Preserving a bowstring is as essential as preserving a bridge like Blue Rock Road Bridge but at the same time, preserving one does not absolve them from their sin of demolishing the other. They both must be preserved, and at any cost. I can point to a number of counties that have preserved over a dozen over-rated wooden covered bridges, so why should genuinely historic truss bridges be any different? The answer is that they are not. One by one, Hamilton County demolished the giant truss bridges of the Great Miami River, and Blue Rock Road was the last of these. And although in my opinion, Blue Rock Road was always the most visually striking, a couple of the others which had already been demolished before I made it down there were much older, and much more beautiful in terms of decorative elements. None of these bridges should ever have been demolished. Blue Rock Road was Hamilton County's last chance to at least retain one of these great bridges, and they couldn't even do that. Keep in mind that this bridge was a quarter mile away from its replacement bridge, and was not in the way of anything. The only real excuse given for demolition was that FEMA had some flood regulation that the bridge didn't meet. I remain unconvinced that FEMA would not have granted an exception for the bridge. Also, as Hurricane Katrina proved, FEMA doesn't seem to have any power anyway! I believe this was just an excuse given by Hamilton County for demolishing the bridge, and avoiding having to consider preservation. Hamilton County joins many other counties in this country that are the shame of our nation.
In closing comment, a tribute to the bridge's builders. The new, ugly slab of concrete that serves Blue Rock Road Bridge is five spans. The historic Blue Rock Road Bridge was a single span structure. Have we really moved forward in technology and skill? It took 21st century builder four piers to do what early 20th century builders did with only abutments! Also, not to downplay their jobs, but the people today who work on bridges today, as well as the people who work in the steel mills today, as admirable and important as their jobs are, face none of the pain, suffering, low wages, and lack of safety that the people who made the Blue Rock Road Bridge a reality. These people sacrificed so much to help unite this country's roads, and in one day a priceless memorial to these people has been erased under the direction of the clueless white collar officials of Hamilton County, who likely cannot comprehend the amount of effort that went into building the Blue Rock Road Bridge.
Both in terms of beauty and fate this bridge is the Shanley Road Bridge of Ohio. Unlike the Shanley Road Bridge, I was thankful for the sunny skies which gave me the ability to photo this bridge in a way that does this magnificent structure justice.
This mighty feat of engineering provides a single clear span across the Great Miami River. The result of such a large span is that the bridge is awe-inspiring, with such high trusses, and a complex modified Parker truss configuration, resulting in a bridge that has unparalleled aesthetic qualities. Although not the oldest truss bridge, with a 1914 construction date it is, like the Quebec Bridge (the largest cantilever span in the world, built in the 1910s) significant because of its size and beauty. To get a sense of the size of this bridge, look at the lower right photo on this page above. To the left of the photo, you can see the portal bracing for the bridge, large enough to allow two lane traffic to pass under it. Seeing the small size of the portal in that photo, you can see how tall the bridge is, as well as how long.
This bridge is apparently known locally as the "Singing Bridge," possibly named such due to the wooden deck originally on the bridge. The metal grating deck added in 1984 probably only furthered this nickname's cause. It certainly is an elegant name for an elegant bridge. Unfortunately, the Singing Bridge will soon be silenced forever. This bridge will be reduced to rubble this summer, nearly a quarter mile from its completed replacement slab bridge.
This special version of my standard bridge info page has been created with an eye of being a source of information leading up to this summer's demolition of the bridge. After which, slight revisions (mainly conversion of text to the past tense!) will convert this page into a special memorial page for one of most impressive bridges I have ever seen. Please explore the photo gallery page. When I created this page in May of 2006, no other bridge on my website had more photos. Considering this, I separated the photo gallery into sections so that those with slower connections can enjoy the photos as well. These sections can be accessed by clicking the "View Photos" buttons on this page. I have organized this bridge narrative into two sections, first a technical discussion of the bridge and its history, for those just interested in the facts. The second section is my strong emotional opinions on the fate of this bridge, which I hope some people appreciate reading, but understand that others may find annoying. The separation of these two categories of text should allow people to read the stuff they are most interested in.
This is a through truss bridge with pinned connections, featuring a Parker truss configuration. One might argue that the horizontal members make this technically a Pennsylvania truss configuration, but HABS HAER listed this bridge as a Parker truss, and so I will call it a modified Parker, meaning a truss configuration that is mostly Parker with a couple members added that do not follow the pattern. It is a large single span bridge, with 17 panels composing the 460 foot span that this bridge produces. The bridge features extensive v-lacing and lattice, includes unusual box members that feature v-lacing or lattice on all four sides. The height of the bridge's trusses is 71 feet. A bridge that has trusses of that height must feature extensive sway bracing, and indeed this bridge is no exception. Some of the sway bracing lines up with the horizontal members on the truss, forming a box-like shape overhead on the bridge. The railing on the bridge is modified, although the west side of the bridge has not had the double set of Armco railings added, and original lattice railings remain, albeit with a piece of steel welded above it. Hamilton County engineered the structure, in response to a flood that wiped out the bridge preceding the truss bridge. The superstructure of the bridge was built in 1914 by the Brackett Construction Company. The Van Camp Brothers constructed the ashlar (stone) abutments (later covered in concrete in 1983) and did the approach work. The bridge was built in about a year, with the contact for the bridge having been awarded only a year before completion. Regarding the contract and bids for the superstructure, HABS HAER mentions that only one other company had submitted a bid on building the bridge - the Massillon Bridge Company, which had been a prolific company in the pre-twentieth century years of metal truss bridge building. The Brackett Construction Company won however, with the $2000 lower bid of $56,990. The bridge was originally built with a wooden deck, which was replaced with another wooden deck in 1947. A 1983 renovation replaced the deck with the metal grate deck seen in the photos. By 1996, the county was seeking replacement of the bridge a mitigation-effort HABS HAER documentation took place in August of that year. In 2001, the bridge was closed to traffic, after the completion of the new bridge nearly a quarter mile east of the truss bridge. The new alignment of the modern bridge turned Blue Rock Road into a smooth bypass around New Baltimore. The truss bridge however continued to serve local New Baltimore pedestrians (whether the county wanted this or not) who used it to access the park on the south side of the bridge. By 2006, when I visited the bridge, the bridge retained only small amount of apparently white paint, and rust had mostly taken over the bridge. The rust had not yet damaged the bridge much however. A plaque that HABS HAER had taken a photo of was removed when I visited the bridge.
When this bridge was built back in 1914, it would have most likely been considered a plain, utilitarian type of bridge with little decorations and aesthetic value. It may have been noteworthy for its size, but the arch-like polygonal shape of the bridge would have been well-known in the area, with bridges such as this demolished bridge in Hamilton County listed by HABS HAER that had the arched shape and also included decorative portal bracing. There was another bridge, now demolished in Hamilton County that had ornate finials on it. Although I did not waste time photographing the remains, you can see one of these finials acting as a pitiful "mitigation effort" memorial at the former location of the bridge where a modern slab bridge stands today. Compared to these two late 1800s bridges (which were built by the noteworthy and prolific King Bridge Company) the 1914 Blue Rock Road Bridge might have seemed a letdown to locals. Today, with both King Bridge Company Bridges demolished, and a world a v-laced and latticed structural steel, as well as truss bridges themselves, long past the Blue Rock Road Bridge is the crown jewel of Hamilton County roads. Its arch shape, created by a polygonal top chord, is appealing to view, and the complex geometry that makes up the bridge could be viewed as an art form. The fact that this bridge spans a long distance for a single span, at 460 feet, means that the truss itself is large and impressive, and serves to inspire awe in all who look at it and ponder its construction. Actually, the height of the trusses are 71 feet. You can find many pony truss bridges of decent size, like the poor 27 Mile Road Bridge, on this website that could be stood on end and not be as high as the trusses of this bridge.
The bridge retained excellent historic integrity, based on my inspection of the bridge. I did however note some modifications. The railings were partially replaced, as discussed previously. Also, some portions of the diagonals have been replaced or modified. Lateral bracing under the deck had also been replaced. The wooden deck had been replaced with a metal grate deck. Otherwise, I noted good historic integrity on the bridge. The Ohio State Historic Preservation Office had noted that the bridge was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge is significant as an example of an uncommon bridge type, the pin connected Pennsylvania truss. It is also a very large example of the structure type. Despite some minor modifications, I feel the bridge retained enough integrity to represent the structure type very well.
The bridges that are demolished often seem to be those for which preservation is possible and purposeful. An example: not to downplay this significant and beautiful skewed bridge, but Hamilton County "preserved" the Blome Road Bridge, and brags about it on their website. Other than the skew, this is a basic pin connected Pratt through truss. Moreover, it serves moderate vehicular traffic and is a one-lane bridge, and could possibly bottleneck traffic or present a safety hazard. Well, actually it really isn't a safety hazard in my opinion (no more than a four-way stop intersection), but on the other hand my point in saying that is because I would say that the Blome Road Bridge has a greater risk factor than restoring the Blue Rock Road Bridge for pedestrian traffic. As a result, the county has no room for excuses of liability surrounding a restored historic Blue Rock Road Bridge, or even a left-as-is Blue Rock Road Bridge. If they can restore Blome Road for vehicles, they could have saved Blue Rock Road Bridge for pedestrians without concern of liability. Regarding cost, a total restoration of the Blue Rock Road Bridge for pedestrian traffic might have cost more than restoring the Blome Road Bridge, or have cost more than demolishing the bridge. But would it? The weight of pedestrians on the bridge would be negligible. The only concern would be to make sure the bridge didn't collapse. Considering the fairly massive members on the bridge, perhaps some minor repairs to the floor-beams and abutments might have kept the bridge serving pedestrian traffic for a couple decades. 20 years down the road, I bet the bridge would have been much more important to people, and more money to preserve the rest of the bridge would become available.
Not to be bitter, but there is not an army of people fighting for historic metal truss bridges as there are for other issues in our nation to launch a successful protest. On the other hand, I feel there are enough people who care about seeing the bridges restored, plus those who might wish to simply use a restored bridge (but maybe not fight to save a bridge), to make more than enough cause for bridge preservation. In addition, we should consider future generations who will be interested in the bridges who are not yet able to speak out for the bridge. Vern Mesler, project manager for Historic Bridge Park, has argued that metal truss bridges are a "craftsman's record." This idea encompasses another reason to preserve a bridge like the Blue Rock Road Bridge. It is a memorial to people who worked hard to make this bridge a reality, from the steel mill workers to the engineers who designed it, to the people who put the bridge together. On a bridge as large as this one, I would not be surprised if people died to make this bridge a reality. It is not right to simply demolish a bridge that so many people risked their lives to build. There was little or no safety regulations in both the steel mills and in the field where the bridges were erected when this bridge was built. And how do we thank those who constructed this bridge? We obliterate it.
The cost of wiping this bridge off the face of the earth is $200,000. Granted, this is pocket change to the government today, it still begs the question whether is is a wise use of money. This money could have gone toward restoring the truss bridge for pedestrian traffic, where it could become the centerpiece to the park it is next to, and also provide New Baltimore with easy access to the park. Whether you have a care for historic bridges or not, you should at least care about how the government spends your hard-earned money.
Words cannot describe the feeling of loss and helplessness I feel as a historic bridge enthusiast when time and time again bridges with unequaled beauty and history are demolished by their government owners. Anyone who has explored my site can likely see the various strong emotions I feel about the way historic metal truss bridges are treated today, repeated in many of my pages, for bridges both large and small. Far too often however, it seems the most significant bridges are the ones that are demolished. In the end, it is sad for me, because my website ends up serving not as a tourist's guide for visiting attractions in a county, nor do these narratives serve as an inspiration for government and public to work for preservation. Instead, my website turns into a museum and a memorial to things lost. My narratives that once spoke in favor of preservation for a bridge become more lamentations and complaints about the loss of the bridge.
Daniel Alward told me that he encountered this same situation and it depressed him as well, and even discouraged him from continuing to maintain his excellent website. I take a different viewpoint with my website. Whether the bridges are saved or not, I will continue to maintain this website, and visit more bridges and add them to the site. Whether through successful preservation or my pages featuring photo-documentation, one way or another metal truss bridges, large and small, will not be forgotten completely. I will not allow it! Nor will I allow people to forget the circumstances under which the bridge was demolished, and the options both citizens and government had to save the bridge.
