F-7-117 Bridge (Bridge No. 1008500)

Architectural Survey File

This is the architectural survey file for this MIHP record. The survey file is organized reverse- chronological (that is, with the latest material on top). It contains all MIHP inventory forms, National Register nomination forms, determinations of eligibility (DOE) forms, and accompanying documentation such as photographs and maps.

Users should be aware that additional undigitized material about this property may be found in on-site architectural reports, copies of HABS/HAER or other documentation, drawings, and the “vertical files” at the MHT Library in Crownsville. The vertical files may include newspaper clippings, field notes, draft versions of forms and architectural reports, photographs, maps, and drawings. Researchers who need a thorough understanding of this property should plan to visit the MHT Library as part of their research project; look at the MHT web site (mht..gov) for details about how to make an appointment.

All material is property of the Maryland Historical Trust.

Last Updated: 11-18-2019 MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST NR Eligible: yes jL DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY FORM

Property Name: MD 355 over Monocacy River (Bridge No.1008500) Inventory Number: F-7-117

Address: Urbanapike(MD 355) Historic district: X yes

City: Frederick Zipcode: 21704 County : F rederi ck

USGS Quadrangle(s): Buckeystown

Property owner: MDOT SHA Tax Account ID Number:

Tax Map Parcel Number(s): TaxMapNumber: 86

Project: MD 355 overMonocacy River Bridge l008500 Agency: MDOTSHA

Agency prepared By: MDOT SHA

Preparer's Name : Sarah Groesbeck Date prepared: 07/13/2019

Documentation is presented in:

Preparer's Eligibility Recommendation : X Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended

Criteria: X A 8 X C D Considerations: A a C D E F G

Complete if the property is a contributing or non-contributing resource to a NR district/property:

Name of the District/Property: Monocacy B attlefield

InventoryNumber: F-3-42 Eligible: yes Listed: X yes

Site visit by MHT staff yes X no Name: Date:

Description of property and Justiflcation: /P/eczse fl//crc.fo map c#dp¢o/o/

Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration determined MDOT SHA Bridge No. 1008500 eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) on February 27, 2001 as part of its Historic Bridge Inventory during the late l990s/early 2000s. MHT concurred with this finding on April 3, 2001. A more thorough investigation of the site's history by NPS and MDOT SHA has produced additional information about the bridge's history not included in the July 1997 inventory form. The purpose of this Determination of Eligibility form is to expand the bridge's history section to include the history of the bridge's abutments and pier, which predate the construction of the 1930 metal truss superstructure. The form also re-evaluates the bridge's areas of significance and contributing status to Monocacy Battlefield in consideration of the additional information about the bridge.

Description

No significant alterations to the bridge have occurred since the 1997 inventory form. This description provides additional information about the stone substructure, since the original form does not include a detailed description of the stone abutments and pier. NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM

F-7-I 17 MD 355 over Monocacv River (Bridge No.1008500

The bridge's north and south abutments are constructed of uncoursed rubblestone. The tops of both abutments were altered in 1930 when the current superstructure was constructed. At that time, several courses of stone were removed from the top and replaced by reinforced concrete caps with a two-foot coping. Both abutments' wingwalls are battered. The wingwalls flare outward from the abutment, acting as retaining walls for the road, which slopes upward to the bridge. The end of each wingwall flairs out slightly. Wingwalls are capped with poured concrete, added in 1979-1980 when the original stone parapets were removed. In sections of both the north and south abutments mortar has been replaced, particularly on the north abutment's south face and the south abutment's north face.

The north abutment's east and west wingwalls each have three battered stone buttress supports. The north abutment's west wingwall shows signs of repair or alteration. The upper half of the wall's north end is constructed of a darker stone which continues at a diagonal above the tops of the two buttresses to the south. The east wingwall's north end is covered by vegetation, but it does not appear to have a similar change in stonework at its north end.

The south abutment's wingwalls are shorter than those to the north because the structure is built into an embankment. The faces of both wingwalls are covered by vegetation and the embankment's slope but appear to have at least one battered stone buttress Support.

The stone pier at the center of the bridge's two spans is constructed of coursed ashlar blocks and poured concrete. It appears that the pier's foundation, which was partially covered by stones and debris, has been reinforced with poured concrete. The stone portion of the pier rises 10 courses above the concrete foundation. Above that level, the original stone was removed in 1930 and replaced with reinforced concrete approximately 4 feet high on which a two-foot concrete cap rests. The pier's east face has a wedge-shaped end, forming a cutwater on the bridge's upstream side.

History

The 1997 inventory form and prior Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties (MIHP) forms for the bridge note that that the stone abutments and pier were unusual for a 1930 metal truss bridge, but all documentation accepted that these elements were built in 1930. The stone substructure predates the 1930 superstructure byjust over 100 years. It was most likely built in 1828-30 as part of the original covered bridge carrying the Georgetown Turnpike over the Monocacy River.

During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century Americans focused on infrastructure to improve access to inland areas of the . Many of the road improvements were made through private turnpikes, state-chartered joint-stock companies which raised construction funding through stock. Once the road was opened, the company charged tolls along the route to pay for maintenance. Turnpikes rarely made a profit for stockholders. Instead, these roads indirectly benefited the businessmen, farmers, and residents who invested by allowing trade and travel beyond local areas.

The Georgetown Turnpike (also known as Washington Turnpike or Urbana Pike, now MD 355) was constructed by the Washington Turnpike Company, incorporated by an act of the Maryland General Assembly in 1805 and chartered to make a turnpike between Georgetown and Rockville. In the late 1820s the Maryland General Assembly chartered the Frederick County Bank and the Farmers' and Merchants' Bank of Frederick County -independent of the Washington Turnpike Company -to complete the turnpike between Georgetown and Frederick by constructing a road between Frederick and the Monocacy River and building a "substantial bridge" over the river (United States Congress, Senate 1829, 2). The banks contracted with Lewis Wemwag ( 1769-1843) to build the Monocacy Bridge for S 13,800 and hired John MCAleer to construct the road from Frederick to the Monocacy for S12,225 (United States Congress, Senate 1829, 6). An advertisement to bridge builders in May 1828 specified

MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW

E]igibi]ity recommended Eligibility not recommended

Criteria : A 8 C D Considerations: A BC DEFG

MHT Comments:

Reviewer, Ofrice of Preservation Services

Reviewer, National Register Program NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM

F-7-1 17 MD 355 over Monocacv River /Bridge No.1008500

® that the bridge was to be approximately 300 feet long, with two 13-foot lanes, stone abutments, a 30-foot tall pier, and covered with a white pine or cedar shingle roof and weatherboard siding (Reed 2004, 8-27). In January 17,1829 George Baer, director of the road from Frederick to the Monocacy, reported that the structure was under construction, its south abutment and pier built 10- 15 feet above the low water mark and the north abutment's foundation being dug. Timbers for the bridge's superstructure were being collected to be "shaped and prepared" for the bridge in the spring. The bridge was to be completed "on or before the first day of October next .... " (United States Congress, Senate 1829, 6). It is unclear whether that date was met, or whether Baer was referring to October 1829 or 1830. Most modern sources altemately date the bridge's completion to 1830 or early 1831; no contemporary sources were found describing the completed bridge.

Baer's letter describes Lewis Wemwag as a "celebrated bridge-builder." By the time Wemwag was hired to construct the Georgetown Pike bridge he had been building bridges for almost twenty years. Born in Germany, Wemwag immigrated to Philadelphia in 1788 and built water-powered mills in and around the area. His first known bridge was in Pennsylvania, across the Neshimany Creek on the Philadelphia to Bristol road. Both this bridge and his second over Frankford Creek near Bridesburg, Pennsylvania, were drawbridges with simple lift spans, following his "Economy" bridge desigri comprising wood and iron cantilevered trusses (Griggs 2004, 34). Following these two bridges, Wemwag designed his most well-known bridge, commonly known as the Colossus. When this single-span 340-foot bridge crossing the Schuykill River was built, it was the longest clear span timber bridge in the world and second-longest timber span. In total, Lewis Wemwag constructed more than 30 bridges in Mid- Atlantic and Midwest states (Bennett 2012, 20). In Maryland, Wemwag constructed the Conowingo Bridge over the Susquehanna River, a ten-span, I,744-foot covered bridge, in 1818. Other known Maryland bridges included the Jones Falls covered bridge in ( 1818); the 1823 pile and trestle bridge over the Choptank in Cambridge; bridge over the Gunpowder River in 1823-5; and the Bridgeport Bridge, a two-span covered bridge over the Monocacy on the Emmitsburg-Taneytown Pike ( 1827-1830). Circa 1829, Wemwag reconstructed portions of Theodore Burr's Port Deposit Bridge over the Susquehanna River after they were damaged by a fire. Just upstream from the Georgetown Pike Bridge, Wemwag constructed a bridge over the Monocacy for the Baltimore and Ohio (8&0) Railroad, the first wooden railroad bridge in the United States, which opened in 1831. He may also have built a covered bridge at Goman, Garrett County, in 1837. Wemwag died in August 12,1843 at Harper's Ferry (Bruder 2009; Griggs 2004, 35-36). Although none of wemwag's bridges survive, the abutments of several bridges have been identified. In Maryland, the only other known extant remnant structure is the Bridgeport Bridge (site) over the Monocacy River (CARR-829).

There are no depictions or detailed descriptions of the original Georgetown Pike covered bridge other than a few Civil War-era sketches including the bridge. Although mostly lacking detail, the drawings show abutments similar in size, construction, and placement to those on the extant bridge: the north abutment's long approach and the shorter abutment to the south along the river's steeper embankment. Francis H. Schell's 1862 sketch entitled "Rebel cavalry crossing the Georgetown turnpike bridge over the Monocacy near Frederick Junction Maryland" (Schell 1862) and Alfred R. Waud's 1862 "Destruction of the R.R. bridge, over the Monocacy River near Frederick, Md" differ (Waud 1864) both indicate that the abutments had parapets, but Waud's drawing shows the distinctive stepped faeade on the covered bridge's gable end, indicative of wemwag bridge design. This fagade type is similar to an early twentieth century photograph of the Bridgeport Bridge, built contemporaneous to the Georgetown Pike bridge (Boone 2004). The Camp Nelson Covered Bridge in Kentucky fagade was more stylized, but also had Wemwag's a stepped front, upon which the triangular shape of the gable was superimposed to suggest a pediment ("Kentucky" 1914,14).

During the early years of the Civil War, both Union and Confederate troops encamped in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. At the confluence of major transportation routes, Frederick Junction was a central strategic point for both sides during Confederate incursions into Maryland from 1862 through 1864. Although undated, the Waud sketch showing the destruction of the 8&0 railroad bridge is likely the September 8, 1862 destruction of the 8&0 bridge by Confederates while their troops were encamped at the junction. A contemporary account describes abandoned camps littered with dead horses (Engelbrecht 2001, 952), as shown and labeled in Waud's drawing (the Library of congress record provides an estimated date of July 9,1864, but the 8&0 bridge NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM

F-7-I 17 MD 355 over Monocacv River (Bridge No.1008500

® was not destroyed during the battle). The bridge is included in the midground of his sketch, looking northeast toward the destroyed 8&0 bridge. Although not the subject of the drawing, Waud's inclusion of the stepped fagade, a unique detail of the bridge in an otherwise rough sketch, suggests that it was a defining feature of the structure.

Two years later the Georgetown Pike bridge was at the center of the . In July 1864, Confederate General Robert E. Lee sent General Jubal Early to Maryland to threaten or capture Washington, DC, and destroy the 8&0 Railroad and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. His troops were met at the Monocacy by Major General Lew Wallace, who was severely outnumbered. Hoping only to delay Confederate troops long enough for reinforcements to reach Washington, Wallace chose his defensive position along the Monocacy River to cover the Georgetown Pike Bridge, the Frederick Junction 8&0 Railroad Bridge, and the Baltimore Pike stone bridge to the north. His strategic decision for his outnumbered troops concentrated defense on the major transportation routes to Washington and Baltimore, as well as the vitally important 8&0 railroad supply route for Union forces. Wallace assumed the main point of attack to be at the Georgetown Pike Bridge leading to Washington and ordered General Ricketts' more experienced troops to hold the bridge and the high ground to its south.

Once fighting began the moming of July 9, even Early's superior numbers were not sufficient to immediately overwhelm the Union troops' defensive position; the Union army held the Georgetown Pike and 8&0 Railroad bridges during the moming fighting. As Wallace's lines faced pressure from the north and south, he ordered the Georgetown Pike Bridge to be burned to slow Confederate advances. Confederate troops tried and failed to destroy the 8&0 bridge over the Monocacy but destroyed all railroad buildings and the Georgetown Turnpike bridge over the railroad. Fighting continued until approximately 5 pin, when Union troops were forced to retreat to the Baltimore Pike. Though overwhelmed, Wallace succeeded in slowing the Confederate advance. Early's troops encamped on the battlefield that night before proceeding toward the Capital on July 10. The delay allowed time for reinforcements to fortify Washington's defenses and halted Early's attempt on the city. Although Wallace was initially criticized for the defeat, he was soon after hailed as a hero and the Battle of Monocacy designated as the battle that saved Washington.

A new bridge at the Georgetown Pike's Monocacy crossing was not built for over two years after the battle, seriously impairing transportation and trade to Frederick from south of the river. On December 5,1866 the Frederick Examiner reported that a new bridge was under construction, with a `1rack" (most likely a bridge deck) laid down for pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The new superstructure, rebuilt atop the existing abutments and pier, was also a covered bridge, its builder and truss system unknown. A a circa 1872 photograph taken from the northeast shows the north abutment, its wingwalls supported by stone buttresses. Rising above the road grade, the stone parapets had stone coping. The substructure in the photograph is recognizably the same as the extant stone substructure, despite twentieth century alterations. The superstructure's truss system is covered by vertical board siding and a gable roof (Photographic Views of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and its Branches from the Lakes to the Sea 1872).

The 1866 covered bridge stood until the superstructure washed away during flooding caused by heavy rainfall May 30-31, 1889. A photograph dated June I, 1889, taken from the heights northeast of the bridge shows floodwaters covering all but the parapets on the north abutment andjust below road grade to the south (Byerly Studio 1889). The Frederick County Board of county Commissioners quickly awarded contracts for rebuilding multiple bridges over the Monocacy, including the Georgetown Turnpike. On June 19 the commissioners awarded the King Bridge Company of cleveland, Ohio, a contract to build an iron bridge with a 22-foot roadway (The News 19 June 1889, 3). Several photographs in the archives of Heritage Frederick show repair work, particularly on the south abutment. No detailed descriptions of flood damage or the extent of repairs exist, but one photograph shows workers stacking stone courses at the top of the abutment. Although the 1889 photographs do not show it, repair work may have included repairing or rebuilding parapets, since a change in stonework is currently visible on the north abutment's west wingwall. Most of the physical evidence of the 1889 rebuilding has been destroyed by subsequent changes in 1930 and 1979 that removed portions of the stone abutments.

MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW ELigibility recommended Eligibility not recommended

Criteria : A 8 C D Considerations: A 8 C D E F G

MHT Comments:

Reviewer, Ofr]ce of Preservation Services

Reviewer, National Register Program NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM

F-7-I 17 MD 355 over Monocaov River /Bridge No. 1008500

Repairs to the "east" (presumably south) abutment were completed August 30,1889 (The News 30 August 1889, 3). Work was likely finished by the end of the year, when county commissioners paid The King Bridge Company S 11,353 for the bridge (The News 27 December 1889, 4). The new iron bridge was a Pratt truss. This bridge stood until June 19,1930, when the north span of the bridge collapsed, killing three people. The bridge was under repair and in weakened condition when a truck, heavier than the posted weight limit, entered and caused the bridge supports to buckle and the span collapse (The Sun 8 July 1930, 24).

The State Roads Commission (SRC), which had acquired the turnpike road in Frederick County circa 1916, awarded a contract for a new bridge costing about $50,000, and work started by early July (The Sun 3 July 1930, 7). The new Parker truss bridge was designed with a greater weight capacity than the previous bridge. As-built plans for the 1930 bridge show that the existing 1828 stone substructure was reused for the current bridge. The SRC removed stone courses along the top of the abutments and pier to construct reinforced poured concrete caps on which the 1930 superstructure rests (SRC 1930). By the end of september, the steel superstructure was mostly complete, and the Baltimore Sun reported that the bridge would reopen to traffic by mid-October (The Sun 21 September 1930, Slo). A year later, the SRC completed the 1931 bridge over the CSX railroad and realigned MD 355 by shifting it east. Before and after photographs indicate that there were no changes to the bridge other than minor grading at the north approach for the new road.

Since 1930, the only maj.or changes to the bridge have been the 1979-1980 deck replacement. As part of this project MDOT SHA removed the original stone parapets along the abutments and wing walls, which were capped at-grade with concrete (MDOT SHA 1980). In December 2017 a truck that exceeded the structure's posted height restrictions struck the bridge's south abutment portal and vertical members of the east and west truss on Span 2. MDOT SHA replaced the damaged east and west trusses, the abutment portal, and lateral sway braces in-kind after the bridge was determined to be unsafe for traffic.

Evaluation

The bridge was previously determined individually eligible under Criterion C as part of MDOT SHA Historic Bridge Inventory on April 3, 2001. The bridge has not been signiflcantly altered since that time and retains integrity. The bridge retains integrity of setting, location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and conveys its significance as a 1930 metal Parker truss a bridge.

The abutments and pier ofMDOT SHA Structure No.1008500 are eligible as a contributing resource in the Monocacy Battlefield, listed in the NRHP on November 12,1973. The battlefield is significant under Criterion A as the site of the July 9,1864 battle between Confederate troops led by General Jubal Early and General Lew Wallace's Union forces. The Georgetown Turnpike Bridge was central to the battle, as it afforded the most direct route for Early's troops to reach Washington, DC. General Wallace defended all three Monocacy crossings, but he assumed that the route to Washington via the Georgetown Turnpike Bridge was Early's target and focused defenses on the turnpike bridge.

As the only remaining physical features of the bridge burned during the Battle of Monocacy, the bridge's pier and abutments are important to the battlefield's ability to convey the location of the Georgetown Turnpike Bridge in 1864 and the alignment of the turnpike itself at the time of the battle. Although the original superstructure was burned during the battle and replaced multiple times, the current bridge retains its original substructure, one of the few structural features remaining in the Monocacy Battlefield that date to the 1864 battle, particularly at Frederick Junction. None of the buildings at Frederick Junction remain. Upstream, the 8&0 Railroad bridge was replaced in the late nineteenth century. The Georgetown Turnpike Bridge over the 8&0 Railroad was burned during the battle and later replaced; subsequent bridge replacements have altered the alignment of the bridge along the road.

MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW

Eligibility recommended Eligibility not recommended

C riteria : A 8 C D Considerations: A 8 C D E F G

MHT Comments:

Reviewer, Ofrice of Preservation Services

Reviewer, National Register Program NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM

F-7-117 MD 355 over Monocacv River /Bridge No. 1008500

The design of the 1930 superstructure removed portions of the original substructure, as did the 1980 deck replacement project, but the abutments and piers are architecturally and visually distinct from the superstructure and are identifiable as dating from the nineteenth century. Therefore, the abutments and piers retain integrity to convey their significant association with the Battle of Monocacy. They have not been moved since the time of the battle and retain integrity of location. The current bridge has retained the crossing's alignment, as well as the approximate height and roadway width of the original bridge. The substructure's setting is intact, since the area immediately surrounding the bridge remains rural and its spatial relationship to farms and other important battlefield landmarks is relatively unaltered with some modem intrusions on the landscape. The abutments and piers have integrity of materials and workmanship, in-eluding the original stones and wingwall's buttresses. The abutments and piers have integrity of feeling and association with the Battle of Monocacy, since they retain the aesthetic and sense they had on the day of the battle and have a direct link to the event.

Works Cited

Photographic Views of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and its Branches from the Lakes to the Sea. Baltimore: Cushings & Bailey and Hagadom Brothers,1872

Bermett, Lola. 2012. Covered Bridges NHL Context Study. National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form. Washington, DC: Heritage Documentation Program, National Park Service.

Boone, Tyler J., Ed. 2004. Images of America: Taneytown. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing.

Bruder, Anne. 2009. Bridgeport Bridge (site) over the Monocacy River (CARR-829). Maryland Historical Trust Determination of Eligibility Form. https://mht.maryland.gov/secure/Medusa/PDF/Carrol I/CARR-829.pdf.

Byerly Studio.1889. "Monocacy showing abutments of Georgetown Bridge June lst 1889." Photo Files. P540 oversize. Monocacy River at Georgetown Bridge Flood of 1889. Heritage Frederick. Frederick, MD.

Engelbrecht, Jacob. 2001. The Diary of Jacob Englebrecht. William R. Quynn, ed. Frederick, MD: Historical Society ofFrederick County.

"Kentucky." 1914. Better Roads and Streets. Volume 4. July 1914. https://books.google.com/books?id=6J4xAQAAMAAJ.

MDOT SHA.1980. Replacement of Bridge Deck for Bridge No.10085 on MD Rte. 355 over Monocacy River. General Plan and Elevation. As Built Plan. Sheet 2 of 8.

Reed, Paula S. 2004. Monocacy Battlefield (Additional Information). National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. https://mht.maryland.gov/secure/Medusa/PDF/Frederick/F-3-42.pdf.

Schell, Francis H.1862. "Rebel Cavalry Crossing the Georgetown Turnpike Bridge, Near Frederick Junction, Maryland," September 1862. The Becker Collection. https://beckercollection.bc.edu/items/show/2913.

State Roads Commission.1930. Monocacy River Bridge on Urbana Pike MD 355 at Frederick Junction Proposed Alterations to Substructure. As-built plans. Sheet 3 of 5.

MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW

Eligibility recommended ELigibi]ity not recommended

Criteria : A 8 C D Considerations: A 8 C D E F G

MHT Comments:

Reviewer, Ofrice of Preservation Services

Reviewer, National Register Program NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM

F-7-1 17 MD 355 over Monocacv River (Bridge No.1008500

United States Congress, Senate. 1829. "Letter from Nathan Lufborough, President of the Washington Turnpike Company, in relation to the bill before the Senate, for the subscription of stock in the said company." 20th Congress, 2nd Session. Senate Document 68. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office. https://congressional.proquest.com/.

Waud, Alfred R.1862. "Destruction of the R.R. bridge, over the Monocacy River near Frederick, Md." [9 July 1864]. Library of Congress. https://www.Ioc.gov/item/2004660067/.

®

MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST REVIEW

E]igibi[ity recommended Eligibility not recommended

Criteria : A 8 C D Considerations: A 8 C D E F G

MHT Comments:

Reviewer, OfrLce of Preservation Services

Reviewer, National Register Program r==;:+l,i ` :`1,1` i _i-.\` P} , ..i -. `---i+

WFFITrvfiRffAIfff;I;; +i--,rii,,-\| Difif,?``€_`

`.``- `ultastsngk,

"*`. - MD 355 Over Monocacy River Structure No.1008500

` i , ttr

-=

€--jtfl

kyl()N()Cl£¢,Y htATlnhr^SL /,fJi B:iTrLEF,IELI}

I I -':j.~. Jr-r L \-I ,-.

I \

`T i ,

'f ,l` i _..`5E-gr ``, -

MD 355 over Monocacy River (Structure No.1008500)

MIHP No. F-7-117 Buckeystownt Topo Quad

Frederick County 1 Miles Scale 1 : 24,000 MD 355 over the Monocacy River MIHP # F-7-117

FIGURE 1: 1862 Sketch by Alfred R. Waud, `'Destruction of the R.R. bridge, over the Monocacy River near Frederick, MD."

® MD 355 over the Monocacy River MIHP # F-7-117

FIGURE 2: Circa 1872 Photo of the 1866 Covered Bridge in Photograph/.c V/.ews o/ the Bcr/I/.more crnd Oh/.o Railroad and its Branches from the Lakes to the Sea. ®

® MD 355 over the Monocacy River MIHP # F-7-117

®

FIGURE 3: 1889 View of Repairs to the North Abutment after July Flooding (Heritage Frederick Catalog # 2008.16).

® MD 355 over the Monocacy River MIHP # F-7-117 ®

®

FIGURE 4. June 20,1930 View of Collapsed North Span, Looking Toward the North Abutment (MDOT SHA)

® MD 355 over the Monocacy River MIHP # F-7-117

Fr €cl €rLC,'EL |® y.c.+.„`

FIGURE 5: September 20,1930 Photograph of Almost-Completed Parker Truss Bridge, North Abutment Looking Southeast (MDOT SHA)

® F-7-Ill

PHOTO 1: South Abutment, East Face, Looking West

® PHOTO 2: South Abutment and Wingwall, East Face, Looking Southwest F-7-Ill

PHOTO 3: South Abutment, West Side, Looking North to the Pier ®

® PHOTO 4: Pier, South Face, Looking North F -7-I \7

PHOTO 5: North Abutment and Wingwall, East Face, Looking Southwest ®

PHOTO 6: North Abutment and Wingwall, West Face, Looking Southeast Maryland Historical Trust

Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties number: __(~,.>-~-· __...... ---,_T~·-· _..,_,,,_l_\ _j_'------Name: \"AD ·:sSQCZ~vc_·[W~ ~~ \ The bridge referenced herein was inventoried by the Maryland State Highway Administration as part of the Historic Bridge Inventory, and SHA provided the Trust with eligibility determinations in February 2001. The Trust accepted the Historic Bridge Inventory on April 3, 2001. The bridge received the following determination of eligibility.

" MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST Eligibility Recommended X: Eligibility Not Recommended ___ Criteria: __A __B __C __D Considerations: _A _B _C _D _E _F _G _None Comments:------

Reviewer, OPS:_Anne E. Bruder______Date:_3 April 2001 __ Reviewer, NR Program:_Peter E. Kurtze______Date:_3 April 2001_ MARYLAND INVENTORY OF HISTORIC BRIDGES MHT No. F 7-117 HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION/ MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST

SHA Bridge No. 10085 Bridge name MD 355 over the Monocacy River

LOCATION: Street/Road name and number [facility carried] MD 355 (Urbana Pike)

City/town Frederick Vicinity _x_

County Frederick

This bridge projects over: Road__ Railway___ _ Water X Land

Ownership: State _x_ County _ Municipal Other ------

HISTORIC STATUS: Is the bridge located within a designated historic district? Yes X No National Register-listed district ___x National Register-determined-eligible district _ Locally-designated district Other------

Name of district Monocacy National Battlefield

BRIDGE TYPE: Timber Bridge Beam Bridge ___ Truss -Covered Trestle Timber-And-Concrete

Stone Arch Bridge

Metal Truss Bridge _X~--

Movable Bridge __: Swing ______Bascule Single Leaf_ Bascule Multiple Leaf ___ Vertical Lift ____ Retractile____ _ Pontoon------

Metal Girder.______Rolled Girder ___ Rolled Girder Concrete Encased ____ Plate Girder ___ Plate Girder Concrete Encased _____

Metal Suspension ____

Metal Arch ____

Metal Cantilever ____

Concrete Concrete Arch___ Concrete Slab Concrete Beam Rigid Frame ___ Other Type Name ______

405 f-1- 111

DESCRIPTION: Setting: Urban _____ Small town ___ Rural _x_

Describe Setting:

Bridge 10085 carries (Urbana Pike) over the Monocacy River in the vicinity of the city of Frederick, Frederick County. Route 355 runs generally in a north-south direction in the area while the Monocacy River flows north-south. The bridge is situated in a small wooded valley within the boundaries of the Monocacy National Battlefield.

Describe Superstructure and Substructure:

Bridge 10085, constructed in 1930, is a two-span, Parker truss measuring 96 meters (315.08 feet) in total length. Both truss spans are identical, measuring 46.6 meters (153 feet) between bearings, and having nine panels with diagonal endposts. The top chord is a built-up section of two channels with lattice bracing connected by rivets. The bottom chord consists of steel beams connected with rivets. The floor system has sixteen steel stringers and steel floorbeams. All verticals and diagonals are steel beams, and all connections are riveted. The width of the roadway is 7 meters (23 feet) on the north span and 6.87 meters (22.56 feet) on the south span. The distance between the centerline of the trusses on the north span is 7.7 meters (25.38 feet) while the south span distance is 7.6 meters (24.94 feet). There is no sidewalk on the bridge and the truss members are protected by concrete highway barriers. The bridge, which is aligned 90° to the streambed, is not posted and has a sufficiency rating of 47.5. The abutments are concrete capped stone masonry with a concrete capped stone masonry pier and flared concrete capped stone masonry wing walls.

Discuss Major Alterations:

Records indicate that the bridge deck was replaced, concrete highway barriers were installed, and the abutments and wing walls were capped with concrete in 1978. Inspection reports from 1997 detail that the structure has some areas of corrosion, particularly on the bottom chords, and there are areas of cracked and spalled concrete.

HISTORY:

WHEN was the bridge built 1930 This date is: Actual _x_ Estimated ______Source of date: Plaque __ Design plans __ State bridge files/inspection form ~X__ Other (specify): _

WHY was the bridge built?

The bridge was constructed in response to the need for more efficient transportation network and increased load capacity.

WHO was the designer?

State Roads Commission

WHO was the builder?

State Roads Commission 406 WHY was the bridge altered?

The bridge was altered to correct functional or structural deficiencies.

Was this bridge built as part of an organized bridge-building campaign?

The bridge was constructed by the State, as part of a campaign to increase load capacity on secondary roads during the 1930s.

SURVEYOR/HISTORIAN ANALYSIS:

This bridge may have National Register significance for its association with: A - Events B- Person ______C- Engineering/architectural character X

Bridge 10085 was previously surveyed by the Maryland Historical Trust in 1980; however, a determination of eligibility was not made. The bridge is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C, as a significant example of a metal truss bridge. The structure has a high degree of integrity and retains such character-defining elements of the type as the original truss members, connections, abutments, and wing walls. This bridge is located within the boundaries of the Monocacy National Battlefield, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge is not mentioned in the National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form for the Monocacy Battlefield, dated 1973. The bridge does not contribute to the significance of the battlefield; it was constructed in 1930, after the historic events of 1864 which give the battlefield its significance.

Was the bridge constructed in response to significant events in Maryland or local history?

This bridge was one of a large number of metal truss bridges built in Maryland in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Metal trusses built in the late nineteenth century were frequently of wrought iron construction and featured pinned connections. By the tum of the century, steel was the material of choice and connections were sometimes pinned and sometimes rivetted. By 1920, the truss type exhibited more heavily configured members and rivetted connections.

General Truss Bridge Trends

The first metal truss bridges in the United States were built to carry rail and canal traffic. A rapidly expanding railroad network, with needs for long spans, heavy load capacity and rapid construction, served as the impetus for advances in metal truss technology from the mid-nineteenth century to its close. The earliest metal truss forms of the United States were patented and introduced between 1830 and the Civil War, including the popular Pratt (1844) and Warren (1848) types.

From the Civil War through the end of the century metal truss technology improved in response to increasing loads and speeds, and new transportation needs; steel began to replace iron; numerous ''bridge works" and "iron works" were established in the eastern U.S. for fabricating and shipping the truss components to the bridge site; and expanding road networks required a low cost, expedient bridge type.

General Trends in Marvland

In Maryland, the earliest metal truss bridges carried rail lines, including the Baltimore & Ohio (B&O) and the Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroads. As early as 1849, B&O Chief Engineer 407 F-l-117

Benjamin H. Latrobe recommended the construction of metal truss bridges for "large crossings"; in 1850 he reported "much satisfaction" with the future of iron bridges after constructing the metal truss bridge at Savage.

Numerous metal truss bridges were manufactured in Baltimore, the early industrial hub of bridge building activity in the state, from the 1850s through the 1880s. Among the early bridge builders in the 1850s and 1860s were former B&O employees, B.H. Latrobe and Wendell Bollman, founders of competing Baltimore bridge building companies. Historical research identified more than twenty­ five bridge companies in the region that built truss bridges in Maryland between 1850 and 1920. Among these were the Wrought Iron Bridge Company, King Iron Bridge Company, Patapsco Bridge and Iron Works, Baltimore Bridge Company, Pittsburg Bridge Company, Penn Bridge Company, Smith Bridge Company, Groton Bridge and Manufacturing Company, Roanoke Iron and Bridge Company,YorkBridgeCompany,VincennesBridgeCompany,BethlehemSteelCompany,American Bridge Company.

The location of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, Baltimore bridge fabricators, and the urban needs of the city and its environs resulted in the erection of numerous early truss bridges in Baltimore and the surrounding area. Initially constructed for the railroads, their use quickly came to replace the earlier timber bridges on Baltimore roads.

From Baltimore, the use of the metal truss spread to other parts of the state, with County Commissioners in the Piedmont and Appalachian Plateau counties erecting numerous metal trusses from the 1870s to the early twentieth century. Frederick County erected numerous truss spans during that time. Records indicate that in the early twentieth century the York Bridge Company built a number of metal trusses there, primarily Pratt but also Warren and Parker trusses. In the same county, King Iron Bridge Manufacturing Company erected several bowstring pony truss bridges.

Bridge 10085 is a Parker truss. A Parker truss is a subtype of the Pratt truss. The Pratt truss was first developed in 1844 under patent of Thomas and Caleb Pratt. Prevalent from the 1840s through the early twentieth century, the Pratt has diagonals in tension, verticals in compression, except for the hip verticals immediately adjacent to the inclined end posts of the bridge. Pratt trusses were initially built as a combination wood and iron truss, but were soon constructed in iron only. The Pratt type successfully survived the transition to iron construction as well as the second transition to steel usage. The Pratt truss inspired a large number of variations and modified subtypes during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Parker truss was developed by C.H. Parker in a series of patents he filed between 1868 and 1871. Characterized by Pratt design but with an inclined top chord, the Parker truss was popular for longer spans well into the twentieth century.

When the bridge was built and/or given a major alteration, did it have a significant impact on the growth and development of the area? ·

There is no evidence that the construction of this bridge had a significant impact on the growth and development of this area.

Is the bridge located in an area which may be eligible for historic designation and would the bridge add to or detract from the historic/visual character of the potential district?

This bridge is located within the boundaries of the Monocacy National Battlefield, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The bridge is not mentioned in the National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form for the Monocacy Battlefield, dated 1973. The bridge does not contribute to the significance of the battlefield; it was constructed in 1930, after the historic events of 1864 which give the battlefield its significance. 40&

------··-·-·--·------Is the bridge a significant example of its type?

The bridge is a potentially significant example of a truss bridge, possessing a high degree of integrity.

Does the bridge retain integrity of important elements described in Context Addendum?

The bridge retains the character-defining elements of its type, as defined by the Statewide Historic Bridge Context, including the original truss members, connections, abutments, and wing walls.

Is the bridge a significant example of the work of a manufacturer, designer, and/or engineer?

This bridge is a significant example of the work of the State Roads Commission in the 1930s.

Should the bridge be given further study before an evaluation of its significance is made?

No further study of this bridge is required to evaluate its significance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

County inspection/bridge files _ SHA inspection/bridge files _x_ Other (list):

Maryland Historical Trust, Maryland Historical Trust Inventory Form for State Historic Sites Survey # F 7-llZ 1980.

National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form, Monocacy Battlefield. 1973.

P.A.C. Spero & Company and Louis Berger & Associates, Historic Highway Bridges in Maryland: Historic Context Report. Prepared for the Maryland State Highway Administration.

SURVEYOR:

Date bridge recorded July 1997

Name of surveyor Caroline Hall/Ryan McKay Organization/Address P.A.C. Spero & Co .. 40 W. Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 412. Baltimore, Maryland 21204 Phone number 410-296-1635 FAX number 410-296-1670 //C~--~/'0 CLIFF EVERGREEN Maryland Historic Highway Bridges POINT I Bridge Type METAL- Jl{V'?~ ,,~~{· Map FP.ECE~1c.1< c -9 ' [§:] County fil.cDett~ \<:,,,.--~-!/ .. Bridge# and name...... 100...... ~~S" ______..... Ol I ~t MO '3SS' l>Jf.P.. MON~C."1' ~'"ER #f

-~ oo., DOUBLE \-..---.;..'.:._,,, TREE \--:; c,~~--E-S_T,,--A_T_E_s_ 7 \ \

\. \

REELS MILL

; ..{ /

i

MARYLAND SHERIFFS ! BOYS RANCH •

//7

( 17

11 'I

117 tr I F-7-117 1930 Monocacy River Bridge Frederick vicinity public (unrestricted)

The Monocacy River Bridge carries Maryland Route 3.55 over the Monocacy River outside of Frederick, Maryland. It consists of two Parker steel through trusses, each 154 feet in length, set end to end. The juncture of the bridges rest on a stone pier with concrete coping. Similar stone abutments with concrete coping support each end 0£ the bridge. The use of such stone wing walls and cutwater is unusual in association with steel truss bridges, and especially with a Parker truss.

Erected in 1930, this structure was designed by the Maryland State Roads Commission, under the chairmanship of G. Clinton Uhl, H.D. Williar, Chief Engineer, and W.C. Hopkins, Bridge Engineer.

The Monocacy River Bridge is one of six historic truss bridges -- part of Maryland's state road system in Frederick County, and one of 26 bridges of the same general structural type throughout the state road network -- identified by the Maryland Historical Trust for the Maryland Deaprtment of Transportation in a jointly conducted survey during 1980-81. F-VII-117 SHA# 10085 MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST NA~ t °* it7H7 3~17 INVENTORY FORM FOR STATE HISTORIC SITES SURVEY

6N'1ME

HISTORIC Monocacy River Bridge AND/OR COMMON flLOCATION

STREET & NUMBER Maryland Route 355 and the Monocacy River CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT SW of Frederick Jct, v1c1N1TY OF 6th STATE COUNTY Maryland Frederick DcLASSIFICATION

CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE _DISTRICT ~PUBLIC ~CCU PIED -AGRICULTURE _MUSEUM _BUILDING{S) _PRIVATE -UNOCCUPIED _COMMERCIAL _PARK ~STRUCTURE _BOTH _WORK IN PROGRESS _EDUCATIONAL _PRIVATE RESIDENCE _SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE _ENTERTAINMENT _RELIGIOUS _OBJECT _IN PROCESS _YES RESTRICTED _GOVERNMENT _SCIENTIFIC

_BEING CONSIDERED -*YES UNRESTRICTED _INDUSTRIAL ~TRANSPORTATION _NO _MILITARY _OTHER DOWNER OF PROPERTY

NAME State H.ig h way Ad min• i s t ra t.ion DOT Telephone #: .~~~~~~~~~~~~~-"~~~~~~~-~~~~~~ :!>TREET & NUMBER 301 West Preston Street

CiTY. TOWN STATE" Zl.p code Baltimore _ VICINITf OF Maryland 21.cOl llLOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Liber #: COURTHOUSE. Folio #: REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC Frederick County Courthouse STREET & NUMBER

CITY. TOWN STATE Frederick Maryland II REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE

DATE _FEDERAL _STATE _COUNTY _LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS

CITY. TOWN STATE B DESCRIPTION F-1-111

CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE

_EXCELLENT _DETERIORATED .X..UNALTERED X..ORIGINAL SITE ..XGOOD _RUINS __ALTERED _MOVED DATE ____ _FAIR _ UNEXPOSED

DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

The Monocacy Bridge carries Maryland Route 355 over the Monocacy River in Frederick County, in a generally NW to SE direction, It consists of two Parker steel through trusses of 154' in length, each, set end to end, their junction resting on a cutwater of ashlar with a concrete coping, There are wing-wall abutments at the extreme of the bridge which are also ashlar, All con­ nections are riveted,

CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY II SIGNIFICANCE F-7-//7

- PERIOD AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW tEHISTORIC -ARCHEOLOGY-PREHISTORIC _COMMUNITY PLANNING _LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE _RELIGION _1400-1499 -ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC _CONSERVATION _LAW _SCIENCE _ 1500-1599 -AGRICULTURE _ECONOMICS _LITERATURE _SCULPTURE _1600-1699 -ARCHITECTURE _EDUCATION _MILITARY _SOCIAUHUMANITARIAN

_1700-1799 -ART X-ENGl~EERING _MUSIC _THEATER _ 1800-1899 _COMMERCE _EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT _PHILOSOPHY X... TRANSPORTATION Al 900- _COMMUNICATIONS _INDUSTRY _POLITICS/GOVERNMENT _OTHER (SPECIFY! _INVENTION

SPECIFIC DATES 1930 BU I LDER/ ARCHITECT

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE State Roads Comm, design H,D, Williar, Chief Engineer W,C, Hopkins, Bridge Engineer

The stone wing-walls and cutwater of this structure are unusual oy their association with a steel truss bridge, especially with a Parker truss, one of the rarest of truss­ types to be found in the state, The bridge plaqu£- identi­ fies the State Roads Commission with Clinton Uhl as chair­ man and Howard Bruce and John Shaw as commissioners. (see Uhl notes, M,DOT Survey general bridge significance, attached),

CONTINUE ON SEPARATE SHEET IF NECESSARY r-1-111 IJMAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Files of the Bureau of Bridge Design, State Highway Admin­ istration, 301 West Preston Street, Baltimore, Md, drawer 92,

Condit, Carl, American,Building Art, 20th Century; New York, Oxford University Press, 1961,

CONTINUE ON SE~.ARATE SHEET If NECESSARY IIIJGEOGRAPHICAL DATA ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY..---.,..------,,_--­ Quadrangle Name: Buckeystown, MD Quadrangle Scale: 1:24 000 UTM References: 18.294050.4360250

VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES

STATE COUNTY

STATE COUNTY mFORM PREPARED BY NAME I TITLE John Hnedak/M/DOT Survey Manager ORGAN!ZA TION DATE Maryland Historical Trust Summer 1980 STREET & NUMBER TELEPHONE 21 State Circle (301) 269-2438 CITY OR TOWN STATE Annapolis Maryland 21401

The Maryland Historic Sites Inventory was officially created by an Act of the Maryland Legislature, to be found in the Annotated Code of Maryland, Article 41, Section 181 KA, 1974 Supplement.

The Survey and Inventory are being prepared for information and record purposes only and do not constitute any infringe­ ment of individual property rights.

RETURN TO: Maryland Historical Trust The Shaw House, 21 State Circle Annapolis, Maryland 21401 ( 301) 267-1438

PS• I IOI GENERAL BRIDGE SIGNIFICANCE

The significance of bridges in Maryland is a difficult and subtle thing to gauge, The Modified significance cri­ teria of the National Register, which are the standard for these judgements in Maryland, as in most states, must be broadly applied to allow for most of these structures, In particular the 50 year rule which specifies a minimum age for structures can be waived, and is more commonly done so for engineering structures than for others, Questions of uniqueness and typicality, exemplary types, etc,, must set aside for now, because they presuppose a wider knowledge of the entire resources than is presently available, Indeed, this survey is an initial step toward understanding the extent to which Maryland's bridges are part of her cultural resources. Aesthetic considerations may have to be side­ stepped entirely, for such structures as these are generally considered mundane and ordinary at best, and sometimes a negative landscape feature, by the layman, It does take a specialized aesthetic sense to appreciate such structures on visual grounds, but a case for visual significance can be made, The remaining criteria are those of historical associations, The relative youth of most of these struc­ tures precludes a strong likelihood of participation to events and lives of import, The best generalization can be made for most bridges is that they are built on site of early crossings, developing from fords and ferries through covered bridges and wooden trusses to their present state, This significance inheres in the site, however, and in most cases would not be diminished by the adsense of the present structure,

These criteria may also be addressed positively, The primary significance of these bridges, those which were built between the two World Wars, consists in their asso­ ciation with rapidly changing modes and trends in transpor­ tation in America during the period, The earliest of them saw the appearance of the automobile and its rise as the pregminent means of getting Americans from place to place. Roads were being improved for increased speeds and capacity, and bridges, as potential weak links on the system, became particularly important, The technology for producing them was not new, and would not change significantly during the period, According~y, great numbers of easily, quickly and relatively cheaply built concrete slab, beam and arch bridges were built to span the samll crossings, or were multiplied to cover longer crossings where height was no problem, f- 7- // 7

Truss bridges with wajor structural members of compound beams, of either the Warren or Pratt types, while ~ore expensive and considered more intrusive on the landscape, were built to span the larger gaps,

With an aesthetic which allowed concrete slab bridges to have classical balustrades, or the application of a jazz-age concrete relief; with the considerable variety possible in the construction of medium sized metal trusses; and with the lack of nationwide standards for highway bridge design, the result­ ing body of structures displays considerable variety, The sameness of appearance of currently produced highway bridges leads one to believe this variety will not reappear, For that reason alone it is wise to keep watch over our existing bridges, Regardless of ones taste and aesthetic preference, one must be admitted that these older bridges add their va­ riety and visual interest to the environment as a whole, and that it is often the case that their replacement by a stan­ dard highway bridge results in a visual hole in the land­ - scape,

In situations requiring decisions of potential effect on these structures, they should receive some consideration, As the recording and subsequent understanding of Maryland's Cultural resources grows, they will be recognized as a sig­ nificant part of that heritage,

It should be noted that two non-negligible classes of structure have been omitted from this set, The first is the huge number of concrete slab or beam bridges of an average of twenty feet or less in length, These are so nearly u­ biquitous and of such minor visual impact (they are often easy to drive across without noticing) that they were not inventoried, They are considered in the general recommen­ dations section of the final report of this survey, however,

The second category is that of the "great'' bridges, the huge steel crossings of the major waterways, While they are awesome and aesthetically appealing, they are not included in this inventory because they do not share the problems of their more modest counterparts, They do not lack for recognition. they have not been technologically outmoded, and are in no danger of disappearing through re­ placement, In a sense, they are not as rare; hundreds of these great bridges are known nationally, and there is little doubt as to the position of any one bridge with­ in national spectrum. There seems little point in in­ cluding them with the larger inventory of bridges. From an arbitrary point of view, their dates are outside the 1935 limit which we set for the consideration of bridges. We have departed from that limit on occasion, but will not in this case. These bridges, too, will be considered in the final report.

Moveable bridges deserve a special note regarding their significance. They are rare, and all but the most recent of them have been listed by this survey by virtue of that fact alone. They are, by their nature as inter­ mittent impediments to the smooth flow of traffic, threat­ ened. We rarely tolerate disruptions to what we perceive as our progress. This has been demonstrated recently by the replacement of the drawbridge at Denton, on one of the major routes to the Atlantic Coast from the rest of Maryland.

However much we are inconvenienced by them, we must admit that moveable bridges contribute a share of interest to the landscape. As with significance judgements in general, we here enter a realm which is governed by taste and opinion. Some of us might not enjoy being forced to site back for a while to look at the surroundings which we would otherwise totally ignor~, especially if the en­ gine is in danger of boiling over. But there are those who are fascinated by the slow rise of a great chunk of roadway, moved by quit, often invisible machinery; who are amused by the tip of the mast which skims the top of the temporary wall; or who reflect on the nobility inherent in a river and the fact that we have not subdued every waterway with our autos, while knowing that we can if we want to. r-7-117

G. Clinton Uhl (1871-1934)

This bridge has been associated with the name of Clinton Uhl, either by direct reference or by the coin­ cidence of its date of construction with Mr, Uhl's tenure as chairman of the State Roads Commission,

Mr, Uhl's life is but sketchily known at present, His name is physically incribed on more bridges of this period than that of any other individual: and it may be inferred that he was to some not-inconsiderable extent responsible for the shape taken by the state's road and bridge system in the middle 1930s, and possibly, at least in terms of construction policy, for some time beyond that,

From Uhl's obituary, found in the Balitmore Sun of 6 August 1934, we learn that he became interested in roads at age 20 because of difficulties encountered while trying to excute the duties of a delivery boy, in the employ of the McMullen Brothers of Cumberland, He was sufficently energetic and ambitious to establish "Clinton Uhl and Company", a general store~ the Maryland Shoe Com­ pany; both in Cumberland; the Greenbriar Quarry; and the Mt, Savage Fuel Company, He became a member of the board of road directors of Allegany County in 1905, In 1916 he was appointed to the State Roads Commission, becoming its chairman in 1929 and serving until his death, The one dark spot in his career seems to have been an accusation by a West Virginia contractor that he (the contractor) was denied a contract for refusing to buy stone from the Green­ briar Quarry, Uhl was cleared of all charges of miscon­ duct with the help of Governor Ritchie, The roads of Allegany were considered to be the best in the State dur­ ing Uhl's tenure there,

,"-- BUCKEYSTOWN QUADRANGLE MARYLAND-VJRGJNIA 1-,£. ~:. - - ,' ._ --· , 7. 5 MINUTE SERIES (TDPOGRAPHIC) ;:-;;;=.. ::..:::. ::; ~.. - ,_ '. - '::- ... _:· : v

77°22'30'

N on()Cqc 1 ~•ver Br•oJf~

1 (.;lrbQn c:( f'. U. € (/'-'fb ].)SJ OV"C" f'l'tJnOCUl '/ f?- \JCr

Cs. t-c.. dr c ovt.f'( ~ br.J,d~ d-'" ,'hp b.n .JI t)

I o ., ic-.: .. }' &.J

Je nn ; -('c r fl.. C O.f~ d "h 11/7/z.007

b i .J ~ +... ( .)1,. ay-< @MJ-1- T

f-"7- JI 7 t; On i> (.q l '1 '2 Iv-tr "IJ,,· d;J e

u r b Q"' ~ ./, i'C ( l'1 b -:JS :S j /> v C r

Yr O l'I d t: o. C '1 Cl ; vC r { J ; +<._ tJ -{:

(. ~"(. t' ( ~ j,,. , ~_,e ~\)V•hy 6" J,-+/<.J L"I>~ ,,...,~ "'iw ~t,,,, ,Fc,_,.,. /~ .c.o .1hQ~ r/7/z_o")

t= /,//7 M onvcta <'1 <2.v<.r 'Br·~.,.e

Vr hon" fJ, Jt!..e. (N 0 J J 5j ()\/CI' rf t)"'O e.,£" ef {2.; V( J..-o

{, S , +-~ tt--..P Covt f t ~ b I'" • j) ,_., .J ~r . .,,y fo"" H·k~

L• vJt!. • .,., j I€" -f-rl>,.,. f\J J 11 O-" ..rn-, t "1../...

,...~ ....I C.oJJ,",..,., St ,.,, : ~,,... ,.._.

1'/7/zo•)

r- - 7-117

(40,..,~cu.< ...1 ~.~..- Br.'~.7~ u r h a ~ "'- l? · /L....e ( r< ~ J S S") C> vc ,,.. /1 (),, 6 c a ( y fl.• v C -

( .! it-c a-f ("A).v-C.l't"} b ;,' ~~ ~ ~ v r,>? !i' bo f..,eJ Lt) L ,;;1 t> 1<- ~., .1 IV W

J' e. .,., "' # • Fe r I~. C<>..rh u "">"' 11/7/i,o rJJ

0;.1; -hi I ,m«~ (f!2 ivH T

F- VII-117 Md 355/Monocacy M/DOT Hnedak/Meyer Summer 1980