bridge, few besides a small body of enthusiasts have given them much thought. When examined in greater detail, covered bridges tell us much about our history, attitudes, ideas of progress, and sense of self. We seek to reflect about these matters in this book.
For those who simply enjoy visiting covered bridges, the rural or village setting, the rocky creek, or the chance to take some photographs of one’s children throwing stones into the water are sufficient attractions. For dedicated “covered bridge lovers,” however, there is much more to discuss and even debate. At one end of the spectrum are purists who desire that the bridges remain in their original condition, but at the other end are people who accept all manner of “preservation,” reconstruction, and alteration. The point where push comes to shove is in compiling the National Society for the Preservation of Covered Bridges’ World Guide to Covered Bridges, the edition of 2009 being the seventh (going back to 1956) and the official list of sanctioned covered bridges. Earlier editions began attracting controversy when they started listing some of the newly built covered bridges found on housing estates, private property, and in parks. These disagreements were a major reason why it took twenty years (1989–2009) to compile the latest edition, which now differentiates “authentic” covered bridges from ones deemed less authentic. In spite of the apparent agreement in the guide, not everyone is satisfied, and some argue for delisting of certain of the sanctioned bridges or adding ones that were omitted.
What is a Covered Bridge?
Defining a “covered bridge” would not strike most people as anything controversial. Is it not simply a bridge with a roof? But the discussion can raise hackles when questions of authenticity arise. For many years, the major divide was between those who accepted newly built, often undersized “fake” bridges and those who rejected them, at least with respect to including them in the World Guide or featuring them in Covered Bridge Topics, the National Society’s periodical. Today, the rapidly growing number of replicas—newly built copies—of original authentic bridges, where the original structure was either lost through arson, flood, or tornado or merely torn down and replaced by a new bridge using between a few and no original truss members, is creating new challenges. Resolving these questions turns on one fundamental question: how do we define a “covered bridge”?
If the descriptor—“covered”—defines the type, then any bridge with a roof and siding merits inclusion. But there are alternate ways to define the type as well. Some use the material as the critical element: the bridge must be all wood or a combination of wood and metal with wood dominating. According to this definition, then, stone arch bridges with wooden covers, often found in China, would not satisfy the criteria and would be excluded. For example, the now famous “Japanese Covered Bridge” in Hoi An, Vietnam, well known to thousands of Western tourists flocking to this UNESCO World Heritage City, does not qualify for inclusion since it is a pair of two small brick arches flanking a center span built on a stone slab, this base then covered with a small Buddhist temple.
Perhaps the most stringent definition is based on structure. To be “authentic,” the bridge must have a functional load-supporting truss system of some sort. As a consequence, “stringer bridges,” which have simple beams for support, do not qualify. Similarly, simple bridges having non-functioning simulated trusses also would not qualify. But excluding stringer bridges requires inconvenient exclusions because, here and there modest, homemade covered bridges have long been included in the “canon” of genuine entries, the World Guide. Delisting them after many decades will upset some.
Putnam County, Indiana’s Oakalla Bridge, which dates to 1898 and is a 152-foot Burr truss span, carries the light traffic of a classic country road. (A. Chester Ong, 2011)
A late example of the Paddleford truss, built in 1890, the Saco River Bridge sits within the town of Conway, New Hampshire, and remains open to traffic. (A. Chester Ong, 2010)
Although built late in the nineteenth century (1898), the Oakalla Bridge in Putnam County, Indiana, is a classic Burr truss typical of bridges built eighty or more years earlier. (A. Chester Ong, 2011)
Both to enhance the county’s long-running covered bridge festival and to provide a practical crossing, County Engineer John Smolen built the State Road Bridge in 1983 in Ashtabula County, Ohio, using a traditional Town lattice truss. (Terry E. Miller, 2006)
One of Smolen’s many “neo-traditional” bridges, the Caine Road Bridge, built in 1986 in Ashtabula County, Ohio, combines wood and steel to form a new version of the Pratt truss. (Terry E. Miller, 2009)
The Chua Cau (Pagoda Bridge) in Hoi An, Vietnam, usually called in English the “Japanese Covered Bridge,” has multiple stone arches and a wooden covered walkway along with a small temple over the water behind the bridge and entered from it. Built in the early seventeenth century by Japanese craftsmen who resided in Hoi An, the bridge is now an important part of this UNESCO World Heritage City. (Terry E. Miller, 2009)
Considering structure as the key factor also raises the question of which trusses are authentic. Some of the recently built “neo-traditional covered bridges,” such as Ashtabula County, Ohio’s State Road Bridge (35-04-58), built in 1983, make use of traditional trusses (in this case a Town lattice). But Ashtabula County has also constructed other new bridges using variants of the more modern Pratt truss (typical of metal bridges), such as the Caine Road Bridge constructed in 1986 and the Smolen-Gulf Bridge constructed in 2008. The Pratt truss is atypical among historical bridges, though not unprecedented.
Additionally, if having a “functional” truss is a requirement, then what about authentic bridges that have been reinforced to the point that the trusses, while present, no longer bear the load or merely support themselves and not the deck? When supports are added, these, rather than the trusses, support the bridge. Additional steel I-beams hidden beneath the deck to fully support the bridge render the trusses non-functional. By that standard, the 1894 Meems Bottom Bridge in Shenandoah County, Virginia, which was partially burned but could be saved and reopened supported by I-beams, would no longer qualify. The 1852 “double-barrel” bridge at Philippi, West Virginia, made famous as a battle site during the Civil War, is now a modern concrete and steel bridge housed over by the original trusses and roof and would also not qualify.
Less satisfactory is a definition that privileges age and date of construction. It is agreed that the “golden age” of covered bridges was the nineteenth century, but basing authenticity on age creates more problems than it solves. Virtually all of Oregon’s bridges were not only built after 1900 but continued to be built routinely into the 1950s. The same holds true for Québec and New Brunswick in Canada, where many bridges (all in New Brunswick) were built after 1900 and as late as the 1950s. Using date of construction as the determinant would also eliminate from consideration all newly cloned bridges, authentic in construction, but mostly built after 1990.
Ascertaining original intention is a difficult criterion. If the reason for building the covered bridge is purely pragmatic and functional, that is, as the best solution based on questions of efficiency and cost, then the bridge is arguably authentic regardless of age, truss, or material. Ashtabula County, Ohio’s Smolen-Gulf Bridge, dedicated in 2008 with Pratt trusses measuring 613 feet (making it the longest covered bridge in the United States, if accepted as authentic), was considered an appropriate choice by its
