NFS Form 10-900-b 1024-0018 (March 1992) RECEIVED 2280 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service OCT 2 9 1999 National Register of Historic Places NAT REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each Hem by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. X New Submission _ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing_____________________________ Historic Highway Bridges of Michigan, 1875-1948 B. Associated Historic Contexts__________________________ (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) The Evolution of Michigan's Highway Bridges, 1875-1948 Wayne County: An Exemplary Road Commission, 1906-1948 C. Form Prepared by________ name/title Charlene K. Roise and Clayton B. Fraser (Fraserdesign), Historians_____ organization Hessr Roise and Company______________ date August 1998 street & number 100 North First Street____________ telephone 612-338-1987_________ city or town Minneapolis state Minnesota____ zip code 55401 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth irf 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards /and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. (__ See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature ancTtitle of certifying officiaf State or Federal agency and bureau I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis XMatvaungg relatedreae properaes/ for listing in the Hati$al Register. Signature of the Keeper * Date NFS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section E Page 1 Highway Bridges in Michigan, 1875-1948__________ Name of Multiple Property Listing £. Statement of Historic Contexts The Evolution of Michigan's Roads And Bridges Introduction The area that became the state of Michigan was crisscrossed by trails long before the nineteenth century. Some of these paths were adopted by the settlers who swarmed into the region after 1805, when Michigan Territory was established. By the 1820s, the federal government was surveying and improving military roads, designed for long-distance travel, while the territory's new inhabitants were establishing dozens of local roads to serve their nascent communities. A number of nineteenth-century routes are echoed in the alignment of today's highways, such as U.S. 12 (the "Detroit-Chicago Road"), Interstate 94 (the "Territorial Road"), and Interstate 96 (the "Grand River Road").1 While little is known of the bridges built during this era, they presumably were as primitive as the rutted trails that carried scores of pioneers to the area and points further west. Travelers were forced to ford small streams or trust simple timber spans. Ferries provided passage over broader waterways. In the late 1830s, just as Michigan achieved statehood, railroads arrived on the scene. The Erie and Kalamazoo Railroad connected Adrian and Toledo in 1836; by 1849, tracks spanned the state from Detroit to Lake Michigan. The trains' speed and efficiency were far superior to other overland options. In response, ever short of funds to meet the growing demands of its population, the young state abdicated responsibility for its road system. Under Chapters 22 and 27 of the state code, bridges were put under the care of township road commissions. Townships were required to repair or replace a bridge when petitioned by twelve or more property owners. Road commissions could press local property owners into service to build and maintain structures, but were constrained by a mandate limiting their budget to $250. Communities could seek 1 Frank F. Rogers, "Notes on Some Early Michigan Roads," Michigan Roads and Pavements 22 (December 1925): 7, 8; Roger L. Morrison, "The History and Development of Michigan Highways," University ofMichigan Official Publication 39 (6 April 1938): 1-16. NFS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section E Page 2 Highway Bridges in Michigan, 1875-1948________ Name of Multiple Property Listing assistance from the county board if "unreasonably burdened" by the construction. In 1867, townships were granted the authority to issue bonds to fund bridge construction and repair. The sum raised in a given year could not exceed one percent of the township's assessed property value for the proceeding year; total indebtedness could not be greater than three percent of that amount.2 To stretch limited funds as far as possible, road commissioners turned to readily available materials. Stone was found in many areas in the state but required skill and energy to utilize. Timber from Michigan's abundant forests produced simple stringer spans which served adequately, albeit temporarily, for many minor crossings. Timber was also used alone, or in combination with iron members, for truss bridges. These combination structures, as well as completely iron structures, were prefabricated by companies that specialized in designing and erecting bridges. The companies boomed in the late nineteenth century when innovative milling technology facilitated the economical production of iron and steel on a large scale, and new ore mines in northern Michigan and Minnesota provided an abundance of raw materials. Steel proved extremely versatile and durable for structural use, and quickly supplanted wrought or cast iron for bridge construction after 1890. Many bridge companies also offered concrete designs when Portland cement became a common commodity in the early twentieth century. The bridge companies filled an important need as America's frontier galloped westward. They did not, however, always do it in the most efficient or ethical manner. Problems were fostered by the process local governments typically used to procure bridges. Road commissions advertised the letting of a contract for one or more bridges, often providing only the bare minimum of specifications, such as span length and structural type. Since township supervisors were rarely competent to judge the structural merits of proposals, bridge companies sometimes supplied inappropriate or inadequate designs to win the contract as the cheapest bidder. Even when good plans were submitted, unscrupulous contractors insisted on provisions allowing substitution of "like-kind" structural members. According to a 1910 article by John J. Cox, an engineer from 2 Monison, "The History and Development," 6-7; Laws of the State ofMichigan, relative to Highways and Bridges, and the Duties ofHighway Commissioners and Overseers ofHighways (Lansing: Hosmer and Fitch, 1855), 3-4, 23-24; Laws of the State ofMichigan, relative to Highways and Bridges, and the Duties ofHighway Commissioners and Overseers of Highways (Lansing: W.S. George and Co., 1871), 48-49. NFS Form 10-900a OMB No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section E Page._3__ Highway Bridges in Michigan. 1875-1948____________ Name of Multiple Property Listing Sturgis who was soon to organize the University of Michigan's engineering department, "what is familiarly known as 'skinning the bridge' is the result. That is, the plans appear attractive to the board and may call for a strong, heavy structure; but the contractor, taking advantage of the substitution clause in the contract and the lack of training of the board, actually builds a much lighter, weaker and consequently cheaper bridge." Remarking on typical bridge-letting practices, Cox concluded that "this loose method of contracting for bridges makes it practically impossible for even honest officials to procure a satisfactory structure, and opens up a way for dishonest officials and contractors to arrange a deal whereby the public comes out second best." Bridge companies also formed pools to fix bids, splitting high profits by eliminating real competition.3 Early Years of the State Highway Department Frustration with corruption, and with the growing inadequacy of the state's roads, led to reform efforts by the turn of the century. The movement was spearheaded by Horatio Earle who, like many other promoters of road improvements, was an ardent bicyclist. Seeking better routes for their sport, cyclists organized "Good Roads" groups that lobbied for the creation of a state agency to oversee Michigan's roads. In 1900, Earle was elected to represent Detroit in the state Senate on a good-roads platform. His reform efforts were slowed by opposition from farmers, who feared both higher taxes and the incipient invasion of the automobile into rural areas. It was not until 1903 that Michigan lawmakers established