A GEOGRAPHECAL APPRAISAL OF THE BRIDGE Thesis fat the Degrae of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY DonaH G. Janeila 196.4 1111111111111111111111111111111111119111119111191119119111111 3 1293 1037 LIBRARY Michigan State University 3 ’fi____m HHHHH ‘9 "‘3 {11 fl )3 5 *3 A SEOGRAPHICAL APPRnISAL 0? THE BRIDGE by Donald G. Janelle The crossing of a river may be considered a human problem requiring man‘s application of ingenuity in satis- fying his needs. The bridge and its counterparts-«fords. ferries, and tunnels-aro products of man's innovative per~ caption which have enabled him to cross to the other side. In facilitating the expansion of his geographical base, bridges have become integral component: of man's spatial organization. Within such a system, each bridge may differ in role, significance, and impact. The role that each bridge plays in an organized aroa is dependent Upon such factors as its location, the nature of the traffic using it, and the nature and extent of the area by which it is served. The significance of a bridge, dependant upon the urgency and frequency of man's need to cross it, in relative. The "impact" of a given bridge upon the society that built it may be considered in terms of the human settlement nnd human movement focused upon it. Tho goal of this thesis is to c1assify bridges such that their individual roles, significancos, and "impacts" may be assessed according to their geographical implications. Donald G. Janelle This classification is a result of field research on the bridges crossing the Kennehec River in the state of Maine. It is based updn such criteria as the functions of bridges, the volume, nature, and origin of traffic crossing than, the accessibility of bridges to their surrounding areas, the nature of these areas, and the locations of competing bridges. The development and application of these criteria have led to the adoption of a classification that is both geographical and hierarchically nested. Thus, a bridge of a given order has all those characteristics of loweroorder bridges. The classification, in order of increasing hierarchical significance, includes the rural bridge, the intra-urhan bridge, the interregional bridge, the urban-interregional bridge, and the nodal bridge. Thus, whereas rural bridges serve only their immediate areas, intraaurban bridges also connect parts of nucleated settle- ments, and intarregional bridges serve as links on highways joining areas that have differing physical, cultural, or economic characteristics. When an interregional bridge is located in an urban setting, it is referred to as an urban- interregional bridge. It is the nodal bridge, however, that has the greatest significance and the greatest ”impact" upon nan. Thore few special bridges that have laid claim to nodality have played instrumental roles in helping to establish their sites as nodes of human movement and settlement. Considered in light of this classification, bridges are viewed not only as parts of the roads they Donald G. Janelle serve, but also as functional components of man's cultural landscape helping to interconnect his nodes of settlement into a workable pattern of human organization. A GEOGRAPHICRL APPRAISAL 0? THE BRIDGE BY t ‘flx {1. Donald Gi'Janelle If . A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Geography 1964 ACKI‘aIONLEDGMEINTS The fruit of a man's efforts are not only vested in their author but in all thoeo individuals who land a helping hand, an inspiring idea, a word of encouragement, or a manifestation of interest. This thesis, the first major undertaking of my academic career, would havo been lass profitable and enjoyable for no, and far less fruitful, were it not for such individuals. It is thus with great gratitude that I acknowledge the assistance of the following: Dr. Lawrenca M. Sommcrs, for making available to no the facilities of the Department of Geography at Michigan State University: Dr. Clarence L. Vingo and my major thesis advisor Dr. Allen K. Philbrick- Dr. Vingo for his helpful ideas on the techniques of research and the organization of material for writing, and Dr. Philbrick for his inspiring and original ideas and his abiding interest in this thesis topic. Finally, I extend my thanks to the many individuals of the Maine State Highway Commission and, in particular, Mr. Roger L. Mallar and Mr. George Hincklay of the Planning and Traffic Division for the time and efforts they devoted in my behalf and tho invaluable information that they made available. All of those individuals and many other: share ii in whatever value this study may have; but, only the author bears the responsibility for any errors contained herein. iii TASLS O? CENTEHTS AuhNCra'LEuaL.r"Soseoeeeeesesosess LIST O‘m LIST OF ILLUST? INTzwo Chapter I. II. CTICTJQ s a o s s s o o s e AOADS. E0383, Fulfilling, THE I”PACT OF A CH’ 'Qfi MLU do a s s o s s o s s a e e s a s s o ”10:13 0 s s e s o s o s e s s s s O O O C O O O O Aria 3::1JG 1:5. I O . R0633 and Bridges a e e e s s e s e s e Fords and Ferries a s e e s e o e s e e Ehe Use of Mai gas in the Lnited States The Location Of tridgcs e s s e e s s s BRIDG SS UPON HUflAfi gqufiLul‘JIIL M'D I.L.....:NT e s s s s s s s Bridges and Human Settlement. . . s e a The nodal L513 0 e a a e e e e s Kodal 331C998 n the United States. 0 e Bridges and Human i'ovement. . . . . . . GEOGRAPHICAL CLASSI? CATICII G? The Bridge Hinterland . . . . I O O O O {ural and National Bridges. . . s . . a Examples of National 8: iiges. . . . o . The Interregionel Bridge. . . e s c . . Intra-urban and Urban-interregional Bridges o e e s s s o e s e s s e e s PART I s s s e e e o e e s 9 iv Page ii vi vii (JGHhLfl I» TABLE 0? CO‘TZH’5-con.inuc PART II. THE GEOGRAPHY OF KENNEBEC RIVER CROSSINGS Chapter IV. THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPAY OF KEN} CROSSINTvs o o o 0 o a 0 o o o 383C 0.. Fords and Ferries on the Kennehcc . The Spacing of Ferries and Bridges. The First Bridge. . . ¢ . Eridging the Kcnnebec . . The LOW Bridge. 0 o o a o The Covered Toll ridges. Al3andoning a Bridge a o c Kennebec EoctLridges. . o COHCIQSIOH. o o o o o o o 0...... 00.... V. THE CLASSIFICATKCN C? K "I: HJLC 00.... 9‘ I. Classifying Bridges According to Functions 0 o o o a o o o o o o o o o o Clas sifyinq 'i3r13393 According to Traffic. ”he Issociation of Bridge Traffic with Different Indirect Keasures of Accessibility 0 o o o o o o o o a c o Bridges Classified According to Traffic Accessibilitya-neasuring the Local Hinterland Of a Bridge. 0 o o o o Bridges Classified According to Interregional Significance. The Geographical Classification of Kennebec Bridges. o c . o o Fall-Off of Out-of-State Traffic Across Raincu-uest to East 0 o o I c o 000...... Q CONCLUSION! PFPT II. o o o o o o o o o BIBLIOGRApHYo o o o o I o o o o o o o 0 0.0.0.... 0 Page 33 33 37 37 40 43 48 52 54 55 S7 S9 63 63 78 83 87 89 1o 2. 3o 4. 5. 6o 7. Kennabcc Eridges Classified According to tha iypes of Roadways Carried. The Relationshk: of Kcnnebec to Threa Indirect Reasures F 5-! U H Bridge Traffic of O O O O 0 Accessibility. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Index of the Average Extent of Kennebec Eridge Hinterlands o u u o O O o o o o o a nasic Traffic Survey Data for Kennebec River Bridges and Maine-How Hampshire Eordcr . . Cut-of~5tate Traffic Crossings of Kennehcc River and Raine-xew Hampshire Border . . . Geographical Classification of Kennebec Highway Bria Origin of Traffic Entering Raine from New Hampshire and Crossing the Kennebec from the 326 St 0 ‘V'll? ’L w. vi 0... Page 58 64 70 76 77 81 Figure 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9o 10. 11. 12. 13. L1 ST ‘1‘ ILLUL'S'I‘ RN71 CNS Map Showing the Location of Kcnnobcc River 13171313903.coo-00.0.0000... Map Showing the Historical Development of River Crossings on the Northern Half of thfi Kennoboc o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 Rap Showing the Historical Development of River Crossings on tho Southern Half of th@ Konnobec - o o o o o o o o I o o o 0 Photograph of Traffic Congestion at the BBth—W001W1Ch Ferry. 0 I o I o o o o o 0 Photograph of tho Bath Priojo. o . . o o 0 Photograph of tho Covered Eridgo at The FOIKS. a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Photograph Showing the Remains of the Patterson Bridge a o o o o o o a o o o 0 Photograph of the Skowhogan Footbridge . . Photograph of tho Ticonic Footbridge at watervillo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Graphs Showing the Average Daily Traffic on Kennebec Bridges . . . o o o . . . o o - Graph Showing the Trend of Traffic on Kennebec Eridgea o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Graphs Showing the Association of Hridge Traffic with Inoiroct fioasures of Bridge ACCGSSihilitYo o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Diagram Showing the Increase in the Area of Bridge Accessibility with the Increase in the Number of Roads Converging upon the Eridge o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 vii Page 41 42 45 47 48 51 53 S3 61 62 65 67 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS—~Continuod Figure Page 14. Map Showing the Local hinterland of the haterville Bridge. 0 o o o o o o o I o o o 68 15. Map Showing the Hinterlands of Kennabec River firidgflfi. a o o o o o o o o o o o o o 71 16. Graph Showing the Correspondence of Bridgo Traffic with the Average Outward Extent of 088.1 3:14:93 E-iintorlanis o o o o o o o o o 73 17. Rap Showing the Cut—of—Stnte Traffic Use of ‘ Kennebec Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . o . 79 18. Graph Showing tho Fall-Off of Outuof-State Traffic Across Kaine from west to East . . 86 viii I NT RODUCTI ON Of all the cultural innovations of man, the bridge must rank among the most significant; and yet. to many. it is considered as merely a part of the road. It in the contention of this thesis. however, that the bridge has apocial significance of its own: for unlike the road in its character as a continuous access route of lengthy alignment, the bridge is a focus of human movement and settlement at particular points in earth space. Like people, bridges differ in their degree of significance- each bridge has a different role to play, each bridge serves a different clientele. and each bridge has an impact varying in degree and kind upon the civilization that it was built to serve. It is to define these roles, to assess the geographical base of the traffic served. and to analyze the varying impact of individual bridges that this thesis is oedicated. PART I THE BRIDGE IN ITS CULTURAL AfiD PHYSICAL SETTIHGS CHAPTER I ROADS, FORDS, FERRIES, AND BRIDGES Cultural geography is a study of man's solutions to his problems and the changes in the cultural and physical landscapes resulting from his efforts. It is in this light that we shall view the bridge-a man-made structure created to solve a specific human problem. Man is both the force and the principal agent of his own cultural processes; he lives in a world of problems ranging from those which reflect his fundamental survival needs to problems associated with his complex social, economic, and political relationships. The nature and complexity of the problems he seeks to solve are in many ways a measure of the advancement of his civilization. Early man had the task of providing for his own basic needs; but, as his proficiency in meeting these increased, he was able to devote more efforts in fulfilling his desires for other less necessary material goods and in providing for the needs of others. These efforts eventually produced the innovative perception of the agricultural revolution. In practicing agriculture, special tools were needed as well as special techniques. Applying creative ingenuity to meeting these needs, man 3 4 was able to free himself for still wider productive pursuits; pursuits which. in turn. led to more problems, the solving of which led to still more opportunities and problems which required still more thought and imagination. In solving this perpetual spiral of increasing problems. man has expanded the geographical base of his operations. The increase of his self-created needs for more land and for new and more resources, for example, first gave him incentive to cross rivers, swamps, and eventually oceans. Today, the geographical base of his operations has been extended to areas heretofore con- sidered uninhabitable and unproductive, and incessant human curiosity has encouraged his genius to provide the means of venturing to other planets. The bridging of planets is indeed an ultimate fraught with far more complex problems than the bridging of a stream; but none— theless. each represents a stage in the advance of civi- lisation and a stage in the eXpansion of man's geographical base. At a relatively early date,5 man's commercial and social intercourse was able to move freely upon the rivers and ocean margins. This is evidenced by the settlement along the navigable waterways such as the Indus. Nile, Tigris. Euphrates,and Wei rivers. It was, however, the development of traffic transverse to rivers that enabled settlements to develop as break-in-bulk centers. As historic civilizations outgrew their river bank patterns S of human habitation. the intercourse of human society began to flow across streams as well as along them, and the hinterlands of river settlements achieved breadth as well as length. Honda and Bridgog Then, as now, it was a combination of curiosity and need that prompted man to venture to the other side of e river. Where permissible, he could ford the river; but, if his objective were to maintain the continuity of the road, he had to build e bridge. The bridge should thue be considered as part of the road, for the function of the road is to provide rapid and uninterrupted passage from one place to another. In this sense, the road is the progenitor of the bridge. and its understanding is therefore essential to an understanding of the bridge. Roads represent e complex of lines generated upon the earth's surface by the movement of man. The ability of such e road to surmount an obstacle to its path is dependent upon its ”strength." The strength of human commitment to a road varies directly with the volume and intensity of traffic that passes over it. As Christian Barman has noted. if the road is more powerful than the obstacle. ”. . . it will pursue its way unyieldingly. cutting a passage for itself out of the crest of the hill or even laboriously burrowing at its foot.”1 1Christian Barman and Frank Brangwyn. The Bridge: A Chapter in the History of fluilding (London: wJohn Lane the Bodley Head Limited,rl926). p. Z. 6 Where flowing water is encountered, the nature of the obstacle poses different probloma than thoso of the hill. Both the road and the stream cling to the earth's surface. yet each seeks to proceed on its way unhindered and undiminishad. Regardless of how powerful the road, it cannot dam the waters of tho stream. The strength of the water is cumulativa-tha more you resist it. the more it grows. Nan, however, can enable the road to escape its two dimensional bondage by building a bridge. The bridge not only maintains the integrity of the road, but its discontinuous piers or abutment supports permit the continuous flow of water beneath it. Thus. "the principle that governs . . . the behavior of the bridge towards the river in that of least possible interferenco."1 Eords and Ferries Fords and ferries are also used as a means of crossing to the other side of a river. For the ford, it is desirable that the road approach the river at an Optimum point of attack-owhero the water is sufficiently shallow and its flow is not too swift. in those cases wharc the water-flow is too swift or too deep, or the traffic transverse to the river is too great to permit the slow process of fording. it is likely that ”. . . the road may detach from itself one or more moving particlcs which travel to and fro across the water with a continuous 11bid., p. 175. 7 motion from bank to bank.”1 In this sense, the ferry is also considered a part of the road. In the settling of north America, ferries necessarily came into existence as early as roads. The smaller rivers and streams were crossed at suitable {ording places, but on the larger streams ferry service was frequently providedo-psrticularly on the stronger roads. The first ferry service was established at Boston in 1630. At New Amsterdam, the Dutch licensed a ferry across the Hudson in 1661. and in 1688 the Delaware River was crossed by ferry at Philadelphia. Early Camden was known as Cooper's Ferry.2 Many of the early bridges were to develop at the sites of ferries. for when the strength of the road and the velocity of the traffic exceeded the capacity of the ferry, it behooved the interest of man to build bridges as the next step towards increased road continuity. It is important to observe that the demands for increased road continuity at a particular site are dependent not only upon the strength and intensity of the traffic but also upon the productivity of the surrounding hinterlands. These hinterlands may be focused upon an individual river crossing. or the river crossing may be a 11bid., p. 9. 256: Wheaton J. Lane, "The Early Highway in America, to the Coming of the Railroad," Highways in Our National Life. ed. Jean Labatut and wheaton J. Lane IPrinceton: Princeton University Press, 1950). p. 70. 8 link on a highway connecting two points of focality having their own individual hinterlands. In either case, however, it is the social, economic, and political interaction of the focal center with its hinterland or the interaction between two or more focal centers joined in a higher order of areal organization that is reeponsitle for the increased road strength and traffic intensity that man perceives as a valid reason for building a bridge.1 The Use of Bridges in the United States By the middle of the seventeenth century England had about 900 bridges to accommodate its increasing mobility.2 In America, however, the strength of the roads generated at this time did not warrant so many bridges. Few of the large rivers in colonial America were openned before the Revolution. One notable exception was the Great Bridge built in 1663 across the Charles River at Cambridge.3 After the Revolution the Americans built a number of timber structures. By the eighteenth century even drawbridges and swinging bridges were in common use. Most of the cities on the Atlantic seaboard were established on the banks of navigable rivers and thus had sites advantageous as terminal and shipping points for 1For a discussion on the principles of areal functional organization see Allen K. Philbrick, "Principles of Areal Functional Organization in Regional Human Geography," Economic Geography, 33 (October, 1957), PP. 299-3360 2Barman and Brangwyn, 02. cit., p. 200. 3Lane, Highways in Our National_gife, p. 71. 9 gooos moving by ship. with the orpansion of trade and the spread of colonization beyond the riparian margin. however, there arose a dem.nd for permanent roads and bridges to accommodate the shift from waterborne to overland commerce. Turnpike and ferry companies were formed to pioneer in the dovolopment of this new line of communication. But, the increased migration eventually required that tho ferries be replaced by bridges. These bridges, valuable as time and labor saving devices, obviated the necessity of unloading goods and produce for transfer by ferry and reloading on the Oppo- site shore. These bridges alao helped to bring about a more closely knit physical, economic, and social union between the agrarian and mercantile centers. By 1888 there were in the United States 61,562 iron and wood truss bridges and 147,187 wooden trostlos.1 By 1950 thcro were over 90,000 steel railroad bridges and over 250,000 steel and concrete highway bridges in use.2 The great increase in the number of bridges has been stimulated not only by the railroad but, since about 1900. by the increased use of automobiles. Whereas there were only 8,000 motor vehicles in the United States in 1900 and only 2,000,000 in 1915. they had multiplied to 30,000,000 by 1940. Today, there are over 70.000,000 1Clarence P. Hornung, Uncola Across rmorica (New York: A. S. Barnes and 00.. 1059). p. 149. 2David B. Steinman, Famous Briflgos of the world (New York: Random House, 1953). p. 94. 10 motor vehicles using our nation's highways. The mobility provided by the automobile has resulted in the increased strength of roads. The need for more and greater bridges has correspondingly increased. _§he Locationfiof Eridges The specific problems of locating bridges involve the consideration of both the physical and cultural landscapes. For early man, bridges were limited to an occasional tree trunk felled in the right location or to the chance arrangement of stepping stones. The fording of rivers was usually accomplished at the junction of some tributary where sandbars were frequently found. It was discovered that the best locations for bridges were those possessing firm and relatively flat land facing each other on apposite sides of the river. where such conditions along a river were scarce, their locations were likely to develop as centers of human settlement. According to Arthur E. Smailos, a large number of towns had their original sites determined by such advantageous conditions for crossing rivers, for ". . . the approach of firm ground to the river bank offered both a well-defined constant channel to cross and Opportunities for the land- routo to reach the crossing-place, as well as advantages 1 for building near the rivor." As an example, Smailes mentions Cheater, Sngland. Chester is located on a ridge 1Arthur E. Smoilos, The Geogragh ogTowns (London: Hutchinson and Co. Ltd.. 1961), pp. 47-4 . ll of hard sandstone aituated at the head of the Dec hivcr estuary and below an extensive wot clay lowland. At Paris a bridge crossing was favored by the presence of islands below the confluence of tho Horne with the Seine. The numerous town names containing "ford” and "bridge" are froquontly indicative of settlements that developed where river crossings were favorable. In the apposite vein, when man is committed to a river site for either economic or political reasons. it is questionable that he would perceive the need for a bridge as a legitimate excuse for moving his community to a site offering a more favorable crossing. The economic and social inertia to such a move might prompt him, instead, to seek either another alternative for crossing the river, 1. e., ferry, or to make the necessary techno- logical advances that would facilitate construction of a bridge at the present site. This, then, leads us to the consideration of bridge location and human settlement. THE INPACT OF BRIDGES UPCN HUMAN SETTLBESHT AND HOVSfiSNT Bridges and human Settlement Hilairo Belloc mentions that an obstacle to travel has the feature that ". . . the point at which it is crossed . . . is certain to become a point of strategic and often commercial import-once."1 Though its certainty may be doubtod, it is true that many important settlements have developed near passages provided by narrows of the sea, at the gateway: to mountain passes. and near river crossings. Unlike narrows of the son and gateway: to mountain passes. however, the optimum point of crossing a navigable river is less clearly defined by nature. But, as with the passages between seas and over mountains. it is man that chooses the point at which he will cross a river. Depending upon his origin and destination, tho optimum point of crossing a river will vary from indi- vidual to individual. From the standpoint of society, however, the optimum crossing is that site which permits the greatest number to proceed from their origin to 1Hilaire Bolloc, The Historic Thames (London: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltdo. 1914). pi“ o 12 13 destination along the most direct route. Belloc argues that the optimum crossing should be as close to the mouth of the river as possible. To substantiate this claim. he indicates that the further upstream a bridge is, the longer the detour between the parts of the country traversed by the river. Assuming that coastal roads have greater traffic strength than inland roads, that the river is not fordable. and that the area's traffic patterns have not already been firmly established, Belloc's argument takes on some geometrical validity. The assumptions. however, are risky. with recent advances in bridge technology. it is now considerably easier for man to locate his bridge: at points optimunly situated with respect to the patterns of human settlement and movement. The notions of physical and geometrical determinants of Optimum crossing tend to lose their validity with the modern suspension. canti- lever. and continuous bridges. More significant are the human requirements that necessitate a bridge. These requirements will vary with the nature and extent of the bridge'a hinterland and man's perceptive use of its resources and with the locations of the focal centers that the road carried by the bridge joins together into functional units of human habitation. man, in building his bridges. has often fixed the convergence of land and water routes and has frequently set the inland limit to navigation. This is particularly 14 true of bridges constructed prior to men's commitment to his regional and interregionnl traffic patterns and prior to the development of the high-level and moveable bridges which permit unobstructed navigation. The commitment of man to a particular bridge site is augmented not only by the mere presence of the bridge but also by the settlement about it, the inducement of traffic to it, and the cost of its construction. The larger the settlement and the ‘ greater the traffic and cost, the greater the commitment to the site. The first bridge to be constructed over a navigable portion of a river or at the head of navigation so as to set the inland limits to oceanic transportation is, there- after. likely to have considerable impact upon the movement and settlement in its vicinity. Using the London Bridge as an example, we find that there is but one place on the upper reaches of the tidal estuary of the Thames that a bluff of high and dry land faces a spur of dry land on the Opposite bank. Smailes notes that the construction of a bridge at this site helped to facilitate the convergence of land routes. to set the inland limit of the seaport of the Thames at its estuary head, and to impose upon London a break-in—bulk function between sea~going and inland trade. Thus, as a focus of river crossing, we have at London ”. . . the endowment of situation with the priceless gift of nodality.”1 15m61103. OE. Cite. P. 560 15 Although Smeiles states in a recent study that ”for most of its history London remained essentially a singlebonk urban area. . . ."1 he does maintain that ”. . . the roads diverging from London Bridge . . . were 2 and the earliest ribbons of London's urban extension" that early settlement south of the river. though modest, was confined to the bridge approaches. That the great suburban expansion to South London occurred during and after the Industrial Revolution does not negate the sig- nificance of the London crossing as a node of settlement. Rather, the construction of a second bridge at London in 1750 indicates that complementary urban development on Opposite hanks during this period required the easier communications that an additional bridge could provide. The Hodal Bridge Not all bridges have played such a creative role as the London Bridge. and not all bridges are predestined to become the foci of great communities. But. those that have played such a role deserve our special consideration. we shall call them "nodal bridges.” The term "nodal bridge,” although originally introduced by Belloc. was more fully eXplainod by Barman. Barman use: the word "node" analogously to its definition in natural history as ". . . the point of a vegetable ntem from which the 1A. B. Smeiles. "Greater London-oThe Structure of a Kotropolis," Geographizche zeitschrift, Vol. III (August. 1964). p. l 21bid., p. 174. 16 leaves spring."1 This would imply then, that a nodal bridge, by its presence. induces life to come to it. Thus. the construction of a bridge whose situation confers upon it the title of "nodal" will lead to the human generation of roads converging at the bridge. Such was the case at London. and such was the case at Glasgow, Newcastle, and Rouen.9 It can be legitimately argued that, to a degree, all bridges are nodal. But, for our purposes. a nodal bridge will moot likely occur where a waterway of prime importance in crosned by a roadway of similar importance. And, as Hes true for the London Bridge, a nodal bridge is most often the first bridge built on the river that sets the inland limit to seaborne craft. Generally, the importance of a waterway is much greater in its tidal reaches, for it is here that its traffic is most apt to equal that of the road transverse to its course. The intersection of these two human pathways is the nodal point-the nodal bridge. This is not to say that any bridge carrying an important highway across an important waterway it neces- sarily a nodal bridge. Kany bridges on America's inter- state highway system epan important navigable waterways and. yet, are not the foci of great communities or traffic convergence. Because of the limited access to these 1Barman and Brangwyn, Op. cit., p. 47. ‘3 ‘Smailes, The Geography of Towns, p. 56. l7 highways and to the ponulnrity of high-level bridges, it is unlikely that such sites will develop breakein~bulk functions. Their oosential purpose is to serve as links on highways connecting the focal centers of distant hinterlands. The nodal bridge, on the other hand, is itself the focal center of a hinterland having the focal .centers of other hinterlands focused Upon it. Although this nodal position may befall tho first bridge to cross the novigotle portion of a river, it is not impossible for bridges constructed at a later date to develop into the nodal crossing. It is logically assumed, however, that the first bridge would have certain strategic advantages in attracting human pathways and settlement. In connidering the economic and political geography of his day, man may perceive a particular river site as an Optimum crossing point and as a possible transhipmcnt point for hreak-in-bulk. If, however, the pattern of man's economic and political hinterlands change through time, his per- ception of this optimum point may also change. If this should occur prior to a firm human commitment to given router of travel and to a degree that would warrant a reorientation of hinterlands about new focal centers, then it is possible that a later bridnc situated optimally with respect to new or changed hinterlands of human commitment would become that river's nodal bridge. tony of the bridges built across importent navigable waterways today are of high-level suspension, 18 arch, cantilever, continuous, or of bescule and swing construction. As a great number of these bridges neither obstruct navigation nor sot inland limits to the location of inland ports, it may he questioned as to whether or not they are candidates for the "nodal" label. The answer entails consideration of the historical development of the individual crossing site. Three cases come to mind. 1. 2. 3. If this bridge replaced a previous structure which limited navigation on a waterway of prime impor- tance, it is possible that any economic momentum generated by man in the hinterland focused upon the bridge-site would still hold true-«despite the new freedom for ships to proceed further upstream. In this case the existing capital investment in transhipmont and storage facilities might be suffi~ ciontly great to maintain community commitment to the site. If this is no, then the nodelity of the new structure should equal that of the old structure plus whatever may be accrued by the new facility's attraction of additional traffic and SQttIWGto Railroad bridges, aqueducts, and limited access highway bridges frequently fell into the class of high-level and moveable type bridges constructed over navigable waters where no crossing of any kind previously existed. These bridges are likely to represent changes in the transportation patterns in response to economic and technological develop- ments. Thus. recently discovered mining sites may be made accessible only by new highways and rail- ways; or, men may perceive the increasing mobility of the population as a need for expressways free of traffic bottlenecks-5uch as road intersections and roadside commercial establishments. Tho nodality of these bridges, however, is again dependent upon the importance of their sites as firmly committed centers of human settlement and -movement. when these sites are competing with already established focal centers having productive hinterlands. their chances of being designated "nodal" are diminished. The examples of San Francisco, New York, New Orleans, and other American cities where high- level bridges have replaced ferries, constitute 19 he third case. In such examples, the nodality of the bridgo would be a function of the nodality of tho ferr‘. the increased road strength induced by the new crossing facility, and the hinterland expansion resulting from the increased road continuity. Clearly, the concept of the nodal bridge is not static-nodality varies with changes in man's perceptions on the use of earth spaco and with the resulting settlement and movement patterns that evolve from his implementation of decisions designed to best satisfy these perceptions. Although there is no oingla determinant for a nodal bridge, there are certain conditions that favor its doveIOpment. These are: 1. "J 3. 4. 5. 6. the bridge should carry an important highway across a navigable waterway of similar importance, the bridge should preferably be the first to be built at or below the head of river navigation, the bridge should preferably set or be situated at the inland limit to soahorne craft. it should be situated at a site that is firmly committed to by a s zeable human settlement, this site should to the focal center of a hinterland that has the focal centers of other hinterlands focused upon it, and the bridge itself should play an instrumental role in establishing its site as a nodal point by attracting both traffic and settlement to it. Nodal Eriflgos in the United States In arsigning a nodal position to bricgcs in the United States, those in the famous bridge city of San ?rancisco rate our consideration. The city is located in a tidal area. Its Golden Cato Bridge, complet d in 1937. 2O spans the narrow neck of San Francisco 333 near its lowest possible point and carries U. 3. route lOl-«the major we: t coast artei ry of north~south traffic in the United States. The city's central position is augmented furthor by the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Sri;ice e, which permits U. S. highways 40 and SC to terminate in San Francisco. Both of thesa bridges replaced very profitable ferry services which linked the city to a hinterland of considerable economic groductivity. In terms of United 3t ates exports to the Far East, San Francisco was. in fact, the focal center for most of the " nitedo tater . By 1W 9 the Oakland Bay Ferry alone was annually carrying over four and one- half million vehicles.1 ?ct, in its first year of operction (1936~1937) tho Cakiand Ray Eridgo carried a :ra 'fic volu:no cfierAiiitely SQ per cent above what the projected increase for tho ferry would have been had it continued its service. For the Golden Gate firidgo, this increase was 78 per cent.? Such increases in traffic volume and road strength indicate the attractiveness of the continuous road over the intorrupted-the bridge over the ferry. In this example, it is evident that San ?roncisco was a nodal point prior to the construction of any bridge. 1Archibald Elack, 2? o Storxflof Brid;cs (2 ew York: thittlesey House, Wcfiraw in T11 Book Co. Inc., 936). p. 16. 2Covordale and Colpitts. Consulting Engineers. quort on Traffic and 3ovcnues. Proper ed Iiaclzinac Ftraitg Bridxc (New -ork: covcrfl‘lc and Colpitts, Janunry 22. 7‘ u Po 130 fl Nonetheless, the bringos constructed hero testify to man‘s acknowledgment of the city's nodal position in tho hier- archy of his areal organization. In becoming functional parts of this nodality. the bridges not only attained nodal significance but also served to augment the nofinl position of San Francisco ry attracting increased traffic through and to the city and by providing speedier communication between its central core and its hinterland. There are numerous other nonal bridge crossings in the United Statos--hcw York City on the Hunson ?iver, Fhiladolphia on the Delaware River, and New Orleans on the Kississippi River, to mention a few. Richmond developed as a nodal crossing at the head of the James niVQr estuary. But, because of advances in bridge technology. it may lose its nodal thunder to more recent crossings near the mouth of the river and across the entrance to Chesapeake Bay. It is possible that the induced traffic attracted to the Chesapeake Ray Brifge-Tunxcl crossing will help the Norfolknportsnouth and heuport News urban complex acquire additional noon status. Thus, the construction of new river crossings leads us to a consideration of bridges and the movement of man. .ggiggos and Human Movement When a new facility is constructed which benefits movoment of traffic, traffic volumes are likely to become greater than the number accounted for by diverted traffic, and the paths of human movement may change to take ?2 advantage of the new facility. A comparison of the first year's traffic carried by a new facility with projections of traffic that would have been carried by the old facility had it continued to Operate gives us an approximation of the "induced traffic" resulting from the presence of a new and better facility. This induced traffic may represent people making trips on the new facility who were formerly discouraged from making these trips because of tha traffic congestions or excess travel distances anscciated with the older facility. We have already noted the induced traffic of the Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (78 per cent and 64 per cent respectively) over that of existing ferry facilities. nccording to Coverdale c h. H O E n and Colpitts, the induce traffic for the ”acoma I Bridga was 81 per cent and that for the Philadelphia- Camdcn Bridge was 72 per ccnt.1 This bridge, built in 1926. was by 1931 carrying over twelve million vehicles annually.? The induced traffic for other river crc3sings after one year of cpcrntiun was as follows: Holland Tunnel. . . . . . b8 per cent 0 0 George tashingtcn Eridge. . o 65 " flrooklyn Battery Tunnel . . , 75 n Uclaware Memorial Bridge. . . 63 " *Chmsayaezke Lily bfiuge o o o o 100 n 1 . v‘L‘i"! . PSarn Ruth Watson and Wilbur J. Vatson, Brigggs in History anfl icgcnd (Cleveland: J. H. Jansen Co., 1937f} Po 0 Baeorge w. Burpee; "Traffic Estimaten for Express- ways and Cthcr lublic loll Acvcnue Projects," Tra'ii guarggglx, VII (January, 1953). p. 15. 23 All of these bridge and tunnel facilities replaced or augmentod ferries giving excellent service. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay ferries offcrcd departures every twelve minutes during the day and continuous service, although at longer intervals, during the night. The crossing time was only twenty minutes. The crossing at Philadelphia took only ten minutes. at Tacoma-«eleven minutes, and at Golden Gate-~twenty-four minutes. For tho Chesapeake Bay Bridge, the crossing time of half an hour by ferry (with frequent delays of several hours on week- ends) was cut to less than ten minutes. The magnitude of induced traffic indicates the importance of the increased road continuity provided by the bridge. Not only does the strength of the road encourage man to build bridges, but the bridgo itself, by inducing traffic. serves to augment the strength of the road. The replacement of a ferry by a bridge or a low capacity bridge by a more efficient structure induces traffic for two reasons: one, road continuity results in less loss of time; and two, road distances between two points are frequently shortened. to have already noted examples where road continuity saves time. Bridges may be strategically located so as to shorten travel distances. For instance, the longest bridgcntunnel in the world-tho Chesapeake Bay Bridge- Tunnel-—will not only link a coastal highway from Canada to Key West, Florida, but will result in a savings of 36 over sixty miles between southeastern United States and flew York City. Tourists, truckers, and businessmen are expected to use this bridge to bypafis the traffic congestion of the metropolitan Fall Line cities. CHAPTER III A GEOGRAPHICAL CLASSIFICATION OF BRIDGES The Bridga Hinterland Thus far, we havo conaidered the impact of the bridge upon the settlement and movement of man. The impact of any given bridge, of course, is dependant upon the strength of the road that it carries. This impact may be axpressad gaOgraphically by considering the extent of tho area from which the traffic originates. we have already noted the widespread impact of thoaa few bridges that have laid claim to "nodality." However. oven though the majority of bridge: will not meet the criteria of nodality. they navcrtholosa have a specific function in serving their specific areas. The traffic using a bridge originates from an area which we hava called the bridge hinterland. The size of this hinterland is expressed and partly dictated by the nature and strength of the roads converging upon the bridgo and the attractiveness of the bridge-site as a focus of movement and settlement. A bridge in an urban setting joining two cities or parts of a single city may carry large volunas of traffic but serve a comparatively small area. On the other hand. a bridge in a rural setting 25 26 may support moderate traffic. most of which originates from great distances. A: the hinterlands for individual crossings vary. a consideration of the situational factors, road strength. and road function will assist us in classifying them geographically. Aside from being geographical. this classification will be hierarchically nested, in the sense that a bridge of a given order will embrace those characteristics associated with bridges of lower order. This hierarchical classification of bridges based upon their geographical hinterlands includes: 1. first order bridges . . . rural, 2. second order bridges. . . intra-urban. 3. third order bridges . . . interregignal, 4. fourth order bridges. . . urban-interregigggl, and 5. fifth order bridges . . .‘gggg; (already considered). One other type of bridge, the national bridge, will be considered as a special case. 'figralwand Nationa;_§ri§ggg Barman. aside from the nodal bridge, noted the "rural bridge" and the ”national bridge.” The rural bridge nerves only the immediate rural area and occupies a lower place in the hierarchy of bridges than does the national bridge. Such bridges are likely to carry low traffic volumes. The national bridge, according to sermon. is also found in a rural setting; but in this instance. "the claims of the immediate locality [of the bridge] must be waived in 27 favor of other: more distant yet more authoritative."1 Bridges under this classification include aqueducts- carrying water to meet urban demands, railroad bridgcov— permitting the movement of produce and freight to motro~ politan centers, and bridges on the nation's interstate highway: which serve the distant authoritative centers more so than their own immediate localities. ‘ggnmplgo of_fiational Bridggg Even without procise means of dotormining the nature and size of a bridgo'a hinterland, it is possible to note obvious examples of bridges serving national functions. For instance, the completion of tho Carquinez Straits Eridgo in 1927 provided the last link in the Pacific coastal highway system extending from Canada to Mexico. The Lower Zambezi railroad bridge, built by the Portugoao in 1935, permitted easier access for the produce of Nyasaaland to the world market outlet at Boira. Another example of a bridge in a rural setting performing a more than local service is the railroad bridge built between onico and Guatemala. This bridge helped to open a land route for the shipment of coffee from Central America to the United states. Prior to construction. railway freight had to be unloaded and ferried across the border river. The Carquinoz, tho Lower Zambezi, and tho Suchiato River bridges are not only what Barman would consider an 1Barman and Brangwyn. 02. cit.. p. 170. :8 national bridges gracing the rural landscape: they are good examples of what this author calls an interrogional bridge. ghe Interregional Briogg The interregional bridge is a link on a road connocting arena having either physical, cultural. or economic characteristics complementary to each othcr. Difforoncos between regions encourage movement so that people can take advantage of what ono has to offer that the other does not. In this sense. the Carquinez bridge provided a path for the easier exchange of tho forest products of the Northwest and the citrus fruit of southern California; the Lower Zambezi bridge assurod the accoss of ocean transportation, otherwise not availablo for Nyassa— land's products; and, the Suchiato River bridge provided more efficient exchange between areas of coffee production and coffee consumption. Intro-urban and Urban-intorregional Bridgog Unlike Barman's national bridge, the author's interrogional bridge need not be located in a rural setting-othey are also found in urban areas. Those bridges serving only to connect the various parts of nucleated settlements will be referred to as intrgfurhan_bridgoq. But, bridges serving as linkn on highways of interregional significance and located within urban areas may bo referred to as urban-igtgrrgcignalfibridch. Of the classes of 29 bridges considered, the urbanninterregional bridge is the boat candidate for nodality. New York City offers good examples of both the intro-urban and the urban-interregional bridge. In 1954, over 76 million vehicles crosaed the Hudson River at New York City. 1 Today, this figure exceeds 80 million. For the mogt part, the Eanhattan, Williamsburg, and Queensboro bridges were designed to accommodate the movement of traffic tween the city's various boroughs. In contrast. the George Washington Bridge is a major link for U. S. highway 1-—funnelling traffic north into new England and south to New Jersey and beyond. The new Verrazano narrows Bridge, scheduled for completion in 1965, is expoctad to provide an additional bypass around new York City for the interregional traffic between New England and points south as well as quick and convenient vehicular interchange for the Borough of Richmond and its four sister boroughs. This bridge will thus serve both intro-urban and inter- reqional traffic. 1Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, Annug; EgportJ 1954 (New York: Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, march 7. 1955). p. 12. CONCLUSION x PPR? I Part I of this thesis has depicted the bridge as an integral part of man's geographical landscape. Originating by chance or human ingenuity, tho bridge has played a civilizing role that has permitted man to expand his goographical base-thua facilitating his commerce and cultural contact. Wo have seen that among tho many «lament: that prescribe the influence that a given bridge will have are its location, the strength of the roads converging upon it. and the extent and productivity of its hinterland. This is well illustrated by the nodal bridge, whose situational characteristics make it a focus of human settlement and movement. The nodal bridge is indeed the champion of all bridges] but whether a bridge be nodal. intorrogional. urban-interregional. national. intro-urban, or rural. it behooves the interest of the geographer to study the degree to which it is nodal. intorrogional, rural. and so forth. This will be one of the objectives o£ Part II. In Part II, the author has selected the Konnebec River in the state of Raina as being illustrative of man's quest to cross to the other side. In light of our findings in Part I, in Chapter IV we shall investigate the historic 30 31 and geographic development of Kennobec crossings from the ford and ferry to the present bridges. in Chapter v we shall attempt to classify individual Konnobec highway bridges according to the geographical classification dis‘ cussed in Chapter III. For our purposes. this classifi~ cation will be based upon the following criteria: 1. the functions of the bridge, 2. the volume and nature of traffic using the bridge. 3. the accessibility of the bridgo to its local hinterland, 4. the degree of a bridge's interroqional signifi- cmme,mm 5. the locational and spatial factors associated with the bridge. While it is realized that this classification may not be inclusive of all possible criteria for classifying bridges, it is believed adequate for the purpose: of this thesis, and it is hoped that it will provide information and raise questions that will serve as the basis for further investigation. The six weeks of field research for this study, though highly profitable. proved to bo far short of the time necessary to answer or to hypothesize answers for all questions raised. It is thus the policy of the author to keep the conclusions of this study pro- portional to the reliability of data and to single out any questions requiring furthor investigation. PART I; GSOGREFHY O? ZEENEBEC R173? TBS HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY C? KCE‘IZ‘ICBCC CRCSSIfiGS From its headwaters in fioosehead Lake. Maine's Kennebec River descends over 1,0C0 feet on its 140 mils plunge to the mouth of its tidal estuary. This river. onca the main avenue of Indian nations, the path of English settlement. the artery of fishing and trading vessels. and the famed route of Benedict Arnold. is today a sea of logs bounded by pulp and payer mills. fiat:toxins;.a farms, and forests. In comparison with yesteryear. today's Konnebec traffic is of minor consequence-«for more important is the movement transverse to its course. As shown in ?igure 1. fourteen highway bridges, a combination railroad and high- way bridge, six railroad bridges, three footbridgoa and a waterpipe bridge span this river from Bath to The Forks- no longer does the mighty Kennebec impede the movement of man. In this discourse, our prime concern will be the river's highway bridges. Fords and Ferries on the Konnobec The history of man's attempts to cross this watery divide date back to the days of the Kennobec Indians. At low water the Kennebec could be forced at many points- 33 34 LOCATION OF KENNEBEC BRIDGES 0 7° Manhood lot. YHE FORKS IINOHAM 45° CARAYUNK FALLS SOlON manuson . .sxowueom 4? 8 o nonwoewocx ' \ umcnsv Imusun 9s, ammo " wannvme % AUGUSTA \ LGARDINEI — Highway Itidgo \ 0-9 Railroad Bridge ..... “0.5,!” \ I'CHMOND h“I Waterpipo Bridge i =3 Highway ‘ Railroad Bridge \ t 44 BATH \ \ Miles 001 I964 35 chief of which. for the In? ians, were those above the falls‘ at Nadison and at waterville. Even for the Indians, the swiftly flowing water posed a danger, and below Augusta, the for 'ing of the Kenrehec V165 limited by depth to so few points that it was of necessity that man turned to ferries. fho first of these was Reyne's Ferry, established in 1718 at Bath. For the next $1: years the ferry was the prin- cipal means of crossing the hennetec any point south of Gardiner. Ey the 18?O's two dozen ferries were plying the waters of the Kennebect one for every 4.6 miles of its course between hath and The Forks. Many of these early crossings, such as the one at Vassslboro and the two between Skowhegen and ninckley (Prentiss' Ferry and Spearin's Perry) were short lived, but others were to become the foci of settlement and movement. The rishon and Noble Ferries, north of Fairfield. were the centers of life in their respective localities—~cattle were driven to these points to cross the river on their way to market, and in 1830 the Water~ ville to Canaan Stage used noble'e Ferry and later Pishon's Ferry to meet the stage from Bangor to Skowhegen.1 Taverns and accommodations for travelers developed at these places. Other crossings, such as those at Madison and Norridgewock, encouraged break-inubulk functions to develop. 1For a discussion on these crossings sec Clinton Old Home ”eek Association Old Home Week Clinton;L :sin_i August 7-14 1921 (Clinton.7 heIne: 015 Home “eek Association). p. 9. 36 The ferry at Bath was highly significant as a link between the early Brunswick to Eath Turnpike and the woolwich and wiscassot Pike, which in turn connected with the wiscasset and Augusta Turnpike. Such interconnections eased the communications in the area. Day's Ferry, a few miles above Bath, served a similar function. The last ferry to Operate on tho Kcnnoboc was the one at Hallowoll. It was discontinued in 1960. The ferry-«a skif holding nix passengers-was used by the residents of Chelsea to attond churches and schools in.Hallowoll. Host of the early ferries were powered by pulling on a cable suspended from bank to bank; but some, such as the ferry at Eingham, were poled through shallow water and powered by a ccull oar in deep water. the Binghom ferry had "driving bats" for foot passengers and a small soon for ox teams.1 The ferry between Embden and Solon used a windlasa and, with the aid of the wind and river currents, was guided by a cable suspended ovor the river. The ferry. as tho ford, was plagued by the forces of nature. During periods of high water, the Kennebec freshets made ferrying unsafe. in winter and spring, it was necessary to cancel service. At night, crossings were limited only to emergencies. Watervilla residents sought to overcome some of the difficulties of winter crossings 1The History Committee of the Bingham Sesquicen- tennial, Bingham Sguquicgntennial HistoryL_181?-1Q§g (Skowhegan, Maine: Skowhegan Press, 196?), p. 63. 37 by swinging a hUgo cake of ice across the current. As soon as the water on the sides of the river had frozen, they would cut on appropriate piece of ice for their bridge a 1 The Spacing of Ferries and Bridge; or tho bridges crossing tho Kennebec today, all but one, the new interstate highway bridge north of Fair- fiold, were preceded by ferries. But, not all ferries were followed by bridges. Compared with the average 4.6 mile apacing of river crossings in 1820 between Bath and The Forks. the average spacing of today's highway bridges in 7.4 miles. It can be inferred from this comparison that the intermediate ferry crossings that existed between the prosont hridgos were redundant features whose operations were no longer necessary. The ferry has been superseded by a higher order of river crossing-«tho bridge. By 1910 the only ferries in regular oervico on the Kennebec were those at Richmond, Both, and Hallowoll. The First Bridge Early settlers along the Kennobac were well aware of the advantages that might befall the site of the firrt bridge. The optimum point for such a crossing was indeed rolativo-doponding upon ono'o viewpoint and location. To 1william Mathews. "Rocolloctionoof Watorvilla in Olden Times,” zhe Centennial History of watervillo, ed. Edwin Corey Whittomoro (watervillo. Raine: oncUtive Committee of the Centennial Colebrotion. 1902). p. 141. 38 the fishing and shipping interest along the river, any point below the head of navigation was objectionable. but to the commercinl interests at Bath. an actuarial crossing at their site would have been welcomed—~3uch a triage, in setting the inland limits to sea navigation, might have imposed upon its site a nodal position. it was. howover, the donires of the fishing and shipping interosts that prevailed. Conzoquently, in the late 1700's a fight ensued between the citizens of The Hook (Hallowell) and those of The Fort (Augusta--then a part of Hallowoll) to see which would reap the potentially strategic benefits of the first bridge. Both settlements claimed to be at the head of navigation; but, finally, in 1796 the hassachusctts Legislature granted the charter for a bridge at The Fort to he built by a private company. That the whole river valley was concerned with the location of this bridge is reflected in the fiecoros of the flantation of Cannon and the Town ofiwCanqgn (Skowhegnn):i 1783-182l. At a May 6. 1795, Town heating it was . . . voted unanimously as the sense of this town that a bridge across the Konneheck River at the place called the Hook will be highly Injurioun to the Purlick by obstructing the Navigation of Vessels and Rafts . . o {and it was] voted unanimously that a bridge across the Kennebeck at the place called Fort western LAuqusta] will not be attended with the some Inconveniency, But will more extensively promote the Conveniency of travelling and better serve the Interest of the PUbliCko o o .1 1Tb. Plantation of Canaan and the Town of Canaan, Constablo's Office, accordgmof the Plantation of Canaan and the Town of Canaan (Skouhoqnn) 1733-18?l (Canaan{w ‘héino: fonstable’s Office. 1733- 21). p. lfié. 39 According to the historians Kingston and Deyo. the construction of the bridge at Augusta in 1797 “. . s settled the final question of supremacy between the villages and radically effected the future of both."1 The jealousy that resulted necessitated a division of the Hellouell civil unit. In the same year The Fort became known as "Harrington." only to be changed to "Augusta" shortly thereafter. This. the first bridge. was of great significance. for as James w. North states, the ”e . . roads as they were constructed in the surrounding country converged to it as e place of crossing. This gave to Augusta e centrel position and laid the foundation of much of her subsequent prosperity."2 Judging from North's conclusions on the early significance of this bridge and from Auguste's present significance as s bridging site for approximately thirty- three per cent of all vehicles crossing the Kennebec.3 we have some validity for considering this site, as historic celly, the river’s nodal crossing. Such s position for Auguste was favored by the meeting here of ocean and lend transportation. by the commitment of a sizesble community of people to its site, and by the convergence of 1Simeon L. Deyo and Henry D. Kingston. Illustrated History of Kennebec County Heine, 1625-1892 (New York: ire BIKE. end C00. W). P. 465. 2 James V. North, The Histo of Augusta (auguste, Maine: Chapp and North. I§755. p. gld. 3Based upon the most recent traffic data made available by the Planning and Traffic Division of the Maine State Highway Commission. 40 interregional routes to this point. The continued human commitment to these routes has maintained Augusta as the Kennebec's leading bridging point. That Augusta has maintained this lead reflects the significance of the first bridge. Prior to the construction of this bridge, both Hallowell and Bath had considerably larger populations than Augusta. However, since 1830, Augusta has ranked as the Kenneboc Valley's leading city in population. As ocean transportation is of little significance on the Kennebec today. Augusta no longer meets the criteria for nodality as established in Chapter II. It is important to recall. however, that, to a degree, all bridges used by man are nodal. And, though the Augusta Bridge is not comparable to the nodal London Bridge or to the Golden Gate Bridge. it is still the most significant crossing on the Konnebec. For information on the historical evolution of the Augusta Bridge or any of the other Kennehec crossings. refer to Figures 2 and 3. Bridging_the Kennebec The desire to replace the ferry with the continuous and uninterrupted bridge was soon voiced from one end of the Kennebec to the other. Twelve years later. in 1809, a second bridge was built across the Kennebec-this one at Shouhegan. This bridge was especially important as a crossing for the cattle droves and sheep flocks collected along the Canada road and driven through Skowhegan to the markets to the south. Louise H. Coburn reports that there TfiE FORKb: ~CCvered bridge CARATUNK: l l l l l 'Efigiéaf CARATUNK FALLS: -Forry Service around 1820's. ~Elijah Grovor built a bridge in 1880. destroyed by an ice froshot in 1846. —Rallroad bridge built in 1889. on map of 1860). by a steel bridge in 1932. ~Early fording point. It was "u \ THE HISTORICAL DEVELOP/Viril‘wl‘l‘ OF KENNEBEC RIVER CROSSINGS I The Forks lo Nobles Ferry N ~Fcrry seerce established in early 1820's. built about l85o. (Observed COVered bridge replaced i l -==== Highway Erldge Still in Use - - Abandoned Highway Bridge ~——— Railroad Bridge Still in Use r~~~4 Abandoned Railroad Bridge Converted to a Footbridge FLT” FOotbrldgc Former Ferry Site BINGHAH: —Ferry established by Bige Goodrich in 1820. -Steel bridge built in 1905 and strengthened in 1936. C) 5 1() ° ill.[:::]lll[:::]lllii ::j —-——45 AAILEES SOLON: -Ferry built at Thompson's Landing in early 1800's. It was taken over by the towns of Solon and Enbden in 1827. -The ferry was replaced by a bridgo in 1911. The bridge was strengthened in 195“. SKOHHEGAN: -Early fordlng and ferry site. Replaced by Patterson Covered Toll Bridgo in 1839. The bridge was partially wnshod away in 1917 and destroyed by fire in 1926. MADISON: -Doacon Benjamin Hoston built a ferry In 1786. -Nathan boughton built a toll bridge in 1810. It was replaced by the lorridgevock Falls Bridge in 1829. Bridge destroyed by froshct and replocod in 1832. Half of bridge was carried away in froshot of 1843. It WIS roplacod that same year. Bridge partially ? destroyed in 1855. Carried away by a fresher 5 and rebuilt in 1869. Destroyed in 1901 and '5' replaced by the present free bridge in 1902. ~Roilroad bridge built in 1875. Destroyed by fire and replaced in 1906. on...”- I NORRIDGEHOCK: ~Early Indian fording point. -Ferry established by John Clark in 1777. -Roplacod by wooden toll bridge In 1810. Partially corriod away by a fresher and replaced in 1811. Flooded away in 1826 and replaced in 1827. Carried away by the freshet of 1831 and replaced by a new bridge in 1835. Flooded out and rebuilt in 1839. Carried away by frosbot in 1846. ~Fbrry service resumed (18H6-1849). ~Coverod bridgo built in 1849. Blown over during construction and rebuilt. Destroyed by a freshot and replaced by present bridge in 1928. -Railroad bridge bu11t around 1870. Benjamin Noble. 1964 °N°b1"3 Fbrry established in 1785 by F -Benjomin Moor established a fbrry in 1785. Taken over by Edward Hartwell--1793-1809. -Covered toll bridges built in 1809. North span carried awry by a freshct and roplacod in 1855. Made free in 1884 and repaired in 1885 and in 1892. Replaced by a stool structure in 1904. --A suspension footbridge its built by John Turner in 1883. Collopsod in 1888. wan built a now footbridge in 1888. It was carriod away by fro-hot of 1901 and replaced in 1902. The 1902 bridge was dostroycd by a freshot in 1936 and rebuilt in 197. J'ho railroad bridgo was built in 1857. It was destroyed by a froshot and robuilt thot some your. Repaired in 1872 and replaced by an iron bridge ln 1880. Replaced by a steel bridge in 1910. Converted to a footbridge in early 1950's. «Daniel Horrzn entahllghod Forry in 179?. ‘ng. Discontinued shortly thororrtor. ‘3‘ «John Spoarin Forry established around "gr. 1800 and discontinued in 1807. \\ __ HINCKLEY: anigh-5'0”)! ootablishod by Charla: Pishon prior to '2 _1775. Fig. 2 "E;.F.rf3 rcplacod by a bridge in 1910. Bridge ’/}3 aastrengahonod in 1961. Abandoned in 1875: DGJ - u_____.i.__ ————J l7 42 ~00 I. \fllp‘ll 1'II ’ were Iota I It cuts as 1 dif; {to had he: Kot 109 ha: !u« I 4 Kc m. In M 43 were often as many an 500 sheep in a flock.1 One year later, in 1810. the river at Norridgewock was bridged by a structure that has since been the subject of more wash- out: than any other on the hcnnebec. Surprisingly, a bridge at waterville was not constructed until 1824. Yet, as Ernest narriner notes, it was precisely because of this difficulty in crossing the river to attend town meetings and church services that the peOple of Veterville separated from Winslow in 1802.2 It is reported that this structure had a favorable effect upon the business of the town and helped establish it as a center for stage coach operations. Rot until 1853 was a bridge built below Augusta; and then, this structure at Gardiner was approved only after great legislative debate and Supreme Court sanction.3 The bridge had a swinging span to allow for free navigation to Augusta. By 1910 there were ten bridges crossing the Kennobec above Gardiner. The Low Briggs Even in the 1920's. an era of debate over the location of a bridge south of Gardiner, there was conster- nation over possible obstruction to navigation. But this issue had little bearing with the advent of modern swing 1Louise Helen Coburn, Skowhegen on thg_Kennebec (Skowhegan. Maine: The Indepenflent Reporter Press,'l§£l). p. 417. 7Ernest Marriner. Kennetec Yesterda s (Waterville. Maine: Colby College Press. 1931). p. 65. a “north, OE. C1to; p. 6840 44 and lift bridges. More important was the fact that the state was cut in two by the Kennebec from its mouth to the Gardiner bridge, forty miles upstream. All coast-wise traffic from Bath to Bar Harbor had to halt at the brink of this bridgeless stream and wait for what the Lewiston Journal referred to as "an antique system of transpor- 1 tation." As The Kennebec Bridge Advocatg of September 15, 1925, noted. "one hundred and sometimes double that number of cars in line are awaiting transportation across the Kennebec River on a boat which has a capacity of but 16 or 13 cars. . . . [This is] the weakest link in the entire highway system of the state."2 Such delays were particu- larly great in the months of July through September, at the height of Raine'a tourist season. That this outmoded system of transportation had adverse effects upon the economy of the area is indicated by a Portland Press Herald editorial of February 13, 1923. The building of a bridge across the Kennebec River at or near Bath is essential to the proper development of a section of the state which. since the advent of the automobile . . a has been comparatively isolated. The break in the line of communication by the kennebec River has proved a serious handicap to the busine 3 interest of that [the eastern} part of the state." The rivalry to build a bridge south of Augusta began as early as 1799 when the people of Dresden sought to 1Lewiston Journal, January 9, 1923. p. l. 9The Kennebec Bridge Advocate (Bath, Maine). September 15, 1923. fl wrote Herald (Fortland, Kaine). February 13, 1923, 45 Figure 4.-—In 1925. traffic congostion was tho rule on the Bath. woo wich ferry. Photograph from tho K b r d Advocate. Soptombor 15, tapioca Gail's Parry with a bridgo. This schono was proposod again in 1805. but on both occasions it came to grief becauso of objections by navigation conscious poOplo who lived upstreamol At Bath. agitation for a bridge on: not officially hzoachod until 1860. six your: after tho construction of tho Gardiner bridge.2 It was not boforo 1to: information on than. proposals. so. sila- Adans. he Hist- of the T.- o; Bovdo“;1zw 7. - 9.2 (Fair-fie , a no: .1 r o ;. “Th I‘ng 0.. ' . .p. 1, and Charles Edwin Allan, Histogi g; Dgosdon Mains (Dresden, Haino: Bartram E. Packar , - . pp. - .- o 2 Hoary Wilson Owen. The Edward Ciaronco Fianna; Higggfix of Bath. Maine (Bath. “nine: Tho mos 60., 36). p. o 46 the 1920's. however, that a bridge at Eath became a matter of state rather than local concern. That the Bath ferry was placed under state control in 1921 is evidence that it had become an important link on a trunk highway. In 1923 the ferry carried 337,188 passengers, 88,000 automobiles, and 9.136 horse drawn vehicles.1 Such traffic volumes, along with the congestion and delays during the tourist season, warranted state action. The local jealousy of the citizens of Richmond and Dresden prompted them to seek a bridge crossing at the expense of Bath. The state. however, voted to build bridges at both locations. In 1930, a bridge with a swing span was completed at Richmond, and, in 1931. a three million dollar combination railway and highway lift-bridge was dedicated at Bath. In that year the Bath bridge carried an impressive 397.000 vehicles-orepresenting a great magnitude of induced traffic.2 aespito the many efforts to secure the bridge between Bath and Hoolwich. the Kennebec Journal of September 23, 1927, notes that there were many businessmen in both towns that believed a bridge would obviate the necessity of traffic to stop and thus threaten their existence. Traffic could sweep right through Bath and 11bid., p. 345. 2riaine State Planning Board, Naive State Planning anrd Report: Narch 15, 193§~Hnrch 13— 1935 (augusta, Reine: Kaine State Planning Board, 1 35 . p. 60. 47 Figure S.-—Thie modern combination high~ way and railway lift. bridge now spans the Kennebec et Beth. It was completed in 1931. 48 woolwich to Portland and Lewiston.1 Census counts of 1920 through 1960, however, show no signs of decay in either town e The Covered Toll Bridggg Most of the bridges built across the Kennebec prior to 1890 were covered wooden structures such as the one at The Perks, pictured in Figure 6. Although the covered bridge was built to outlast the open wooden structures by fifty years or more. few of the Kennebec covered bridges lasted more then s decade. The greet ice freshets or winter end spring carried sway a high toll in bridges. Figure 6.-This bridge at The Forks was built during the 1850's and was not repleced until 1932. The original photo (dated 1870) is in the possession of Mrs. Eve Ferley of The Forks. 1The Kennebec Journal (AMOUSt8)' 5‘9“mbcr 23’ 1927, p. T. 49 Norridgewock had six of its early crossings swept away by the raging ice. The greatest of these freshets was in 1832 when every bridge on the Kennebec went swirling down river. All bridges built before 1870 were constructed by private toll companies. At this time municipalities were, for the most part. unable to shoulder the expense of building adequate structures. But, as soon as they attained any degree of financial stability, they made the toll bridge the object of much dissatisfaction and sought to buy out the private companies and establish free bridges. By 1890 all of the bridges on the Kennebec were free to the public except the Nadison-Anson bridge which was not made free until 1902. (See Figures 2 and 3 for information on individual bridge crossings.) The state operated the Richmond and Bath bridges as toll crossings until their financing bonds were repaid. Presently, only the Augusta Memorial Bridge operates on a toll basis. Representative of the tolls charged on the early bridges are those of the proprietors of the Skowhegan bridge built in 1309.1 Chariot, coach or phaeton . 37-1/2 cent: .0. Single horse and chaise . . . . . 20 " Chaise drawn by two horses. . . . 2S " Foot passengers . . . . . . . . . 2 ” Rider on horse. e e e e e e e e 0 6-1/4 n Single horse drawing a sleigh . . 12-1/2 " Wheelbarrow or hand cart. . . . . 4 " Sheep or hOQS e e e e e e e e e e 6-1/4 ” per dOZGnO lfiarriner, OE. Cite. p. 6°e SO Despito the added convenience of the bridge over the ferry. toll charges of the Prentiss' Ferry (established in the same year as tho Skowhegan bridge and located just a feu'milos downstream). as shown below, were more than double those for the bridge.1 Passenger on foot 0 . . 5 cents Passenger and horse . o l2~ll2 " Pair of oxen and man. o 17 " Horse and chaise. . . . 25 " Very few of the early bridges operated at a profit, for the cost of rebuilding them after destruction by freshets ato up most of the earnings. After the 1832 freshet. atocks in the Ticonic Bridge at watervillo were selling at a low 25 cents a share.2 Abandoning a Bridge we have already seen the abandonment of ferry crossings after the construction of competing bridges. needless to say, bridges are sometimes abandoned as wall. Ono good example is tho old Patterson Bridge which crossed the river about five miles north of Kadison. This covered bridge. built in 1839, was unlike many of its sister bridges-1t defied tho successive annual frcahots for 78 years until part of it was washed away in 1917. Despite a state legislativa appropriation to repair the bridgo, the l 2Clement M. Giveen. A Chronolo of Municipal fiistory and Election Statistical_Waterv¥lle, Nainoi""1771~ T§5§ (Augusta, Maine: fiaino Farmer Press. 19587, p. 8;} Coburn, cg. cit.. p. 414. 51 county (Somerset) refused to maintain it. Finally in 1927, it was destroyed by fire. The reason for county abandon- ment was clear-the roads 1eading to this bridge were no longer commonly travelled routes. Today, there are no roads leading to this site, and only the granite piers remain as testimony to the existence of the Kennebec's most enduring covered bridge. Another Kenneboc bridge to be abandoned was the Hallouell bridge, built in 1860 and destroyed by freshets in 1869 and in 1870. As a toll structure could not operate profitably with a free bridge at Augusta, the proprietors of the Hallowell bridge deemed it unwise to rebuild the bridge. other abandoned bridges over the Xennebec include a footbridge and a highway bridge to the island at Fairfield. Figure 7.—-The remains of the Patterson Bridge-a covered wooden structure built in 1839 and destroyed by fire in 1927. U7 5.? Eenneboc Footbridggg Two of the most picturesque crossings of the Kennebec ere footbridges. one at Skowhegan and the other at waterville. In 1883 John Turner constructed e wire suspension footbridge across the south channel of the river from Skowhegan Island. This bridge was intended to give access to building lots which he was selling on the south side. Due to faulty cables the bridge collapsed in 1888, but it was replaced by the town that same year. Since then the bridge has been destroyed by two freshets—-the last in 1936. Today, the more sturdy structure shown in Figure B is in service. There is one other footbridge et Skowhegan. The railroad bridge, which has always had e footpath on it, was converted into a permanent footbridge following the abandonment of regular rail service to Skowhegen in the early 1950's. The Ticonic suspension footbridge at waterville was built by e private company in 1903 at a cost of $18,000.1 The bridge replaced e wooden structure that was erected in 1902 end swept downstream that some year. Traditionally. this bridge has been known as the "two cent bridge," but the cost of living has helped up the toll to five cents. The toll-keeper. who lives in e small house attached to one of the bridge towers. fifty feet above the water; estimates that Approximately one hundred people use the 1Henry Gretton Tyrrell, Histo of Bridle Engineering (Chicago: by the author, ¥§IIS. p. 551. riuice 8.-This footbridge at Skouhogan was built in 1937. Figure 9.-Tho Ticonic Footbridge. spanning tn. Kennobec hotuoen‘wutorviilc and Winslow. is one of the last toll footbridgas in tho United States. The small building to the loft is the hams of the toll-keeper. l'. A .1" "two cent br dgo" daily.1 Obviously, the bridge is not a paying proposition. In earlier years, when walking was the fashion, the bridge was made profitable by the hundreds of mill workers and travelers who crossed it each day. To attract clientele, the bridgo offered commuter rates-oone hundred tickets for $1.25. Pedzstrians now use the free city-owned bridge. one-half mile down river. The foot- bridge was recently purchased by a group of local citizens seeking to preserve it as a tourist attraction. According to harry A. Packard. this bridge is the last of its kind in New England and, perhaps, in the United states.2 Conclusion This brief survey of the hiotorical geography of tho Kennebec River crossings has sought to illustrate the evolution of man's attempts to solve the problem of river crossing and. to a lesser extent, it has touched upon the impact of these structures upon man's patterns of settle~ mont and movement. In the next chapter our emphasis will be on the present function of Konnoboc highway bridges as integral components of Maine's highway system. The nature. density. and origin of traffic using those bridges will be graphically and statistically scrutinized to givo us a more meaningful picture of the utility and classification of these bridges. 1Interview with tho toll~keeper of the Ticonic Footbridge. July 15. 1964. 2Harry A. Packard, "Bridging the Gap," The flow York Times, April 12. 1964. CHAPTER V Trifi‘. CLASSIFICATION OF KENI-ii‘IESC BRIDGES Having seen in the last chapter how the individual Konneboc River crossings have progressively advanced from the ford and ferry to the bridgo, uo shall now attempt to fit them into the geographical classification developed in Chapter III. This classification is geographical because it is based upon the areal extent and nature of tho bridgo's hinterland. The classification is also nested, in the hierarchical nonso, in that a bridge of given order will also include all lower order designations. As noted previously. the hierarchical order of this classification includes the: 1. first order bridges . . . 5253;. 2. second order bridges. . . intro—urban, 3. third order bridges . . . intorregional, 4. fourth order bridges. . . rbnn—interrogionol. and 5. fifth order bridges . . .‘ggggl. Thus. an urban-interregional bridge is also an inter- regional bridge, an intro-urban bridge, and a rural bridge. The national bridge, discussed in Chapter 111, belongs to a special class of bridges and does not fit into our hior~ archical classification. Sometimes in the future, it may 55 5G be feasible to include the inter-continental bridge in our classification. In this chapter we shall make the distinction between a bridgo's local hinterland and its interregional hinterland and proceed to clarify the two concepts by classifying bridges in accordance with the following criteria: vi. The function of individual bridges. 2. The volume and nature of traffic crossing thom. 3. The origin of traffic and the proportion of non- local (out-of—stnte) traffic using the bridge. 4. The traffic and bridge hinterland associations with: one, the number and orientation of roads served by the bridge: two, the population density of the area about the bridge; and three. the locations of neighboring bridges. 5.- Tho accessibility that a bridge has to its v“ surrounding area, as the principal criteria used in delimiting its local hinterland; and its proportion and volume of out-of-stato traffic. as themcritoria fordetermining_ita,interragional significance. Thirteen highway bridges along the Konneboc were classified according to the abovo criteria. Although this sample was deemed adequate for developing a foundation for classifying bridges geographically, it is clear that a more detailed study of a larger sample of bridges over a longer period would lead to more precise conclusions than is possible now. As the field study covered a six-week period at the height of Haine'a tourist season (August and September), it is realized that the greater than average volumes and the greater proportions of out-of-stnto traffic 57 using Raine highways during this period would have bearing upon any attempted conclusions. It has, therefore, been this author's objective to keep conclusions tentative, i. e., commensurate with the time and methods of field research and with the reliability of information and data used. With this in mind, we shall begin classifying the bridges Spanning thc Kennebec. Classifying B; does {ccordinq;to Runctiong —-..—— In the chapter on the historical geography of Konnetoc River bridges, we indicated the presence of foot- bridgos. a waterpipe bridge, railroad bridges, and highway bridges. This was a functional classification based on the nature of traffic crossing the bridge. In this sense: many bridges are multifunctional—«corrying both a footwalk and a vehicular highway. The Bath bridge combines a foot. automobile, and railroad crossing. In oscence. however, all bridges have the same functiona-to enable someone or something to cross or be carried to the other side without breaking the continuity of the pathway. In that our pri~ mary attention is focused upon automobilo bridges, we must seek a more detailed functional classification. Such a classification is found in Table 1. This classification is based upon the roadways carried by the bridge- interstate highways, U. S. highways, and state highways. The table shows the numhor of traffic lanes carried by the bridge. the nature of its water clearance for navigation. $8 oucaa»amu QMHMfiuouoa «can a can“ on m nemaocz ommu a anon on n xuozamuuuuoz ohm Huoailovmn umonu mound m _ .cuussvaou v “man ”Harm non .ammoanm m ounsoa< unaazoam cyan» on. Haaoauom zoom oeumuuuu amounum coma 0 «can on o mm .»:m .ucH whoJcOdm OuauouovcH ocamuuou noooaum uuaan .um nouaanom anunmt. ooaauamnu mourn . anemone Uduuonh .02 oucdum iii! it \*1 Igi‘rt‘nl’ . 5-9 “'1 and, in addition. historical data that of 0rd: us an idea P- O of the strength of human commitment to tho tr dg-. This classification will he of significance to us in a number of future cons do ntions. For instance. if a hr dge carries an interstate or a national highwa‘, we could expect it to handle greater volumes of interrogional traffic than it would if it carried a state highway. Those providing navigational clearance for river traffic help us to identify the portion of a river having the greatest potential for a nodal crossing. The year that the first bridge was built indicates how early human commitment to a site warranted a continuous crossing; and, the number of times that the bridge has been replaced, either after destruction by natural forces or after decay of an older structure, indicates the strength of this human commitment to the bridge crossing. In contrast with the abandonment of the Patterson Bridge. for example, the Norridgewock bridgo has been replaced nine times in 118 years-«six times after destruction by floods and ice freshets. The Madison bridge has been replaced seven times, and the waterville bridge has been replaced five times. The commitment to these river crossings is clearly evident. Classifying tridgos hecordingfito Traffic All but three of the bridges across the Kennebec are vestiges of the last century. These bridges, however, have been strengthened to meet the traffic demands 60 associated with this century's technological impact upon men‘s mobility. From the latest available traffic counts, it is estimated that approximately 85,000 motor vehicles cross the Kenneiec filver deily.1 As people tend to cis- tribute themselves unevenly over earth space and as different roafis have different degrees of human commitment or are "stronger" than others. it can be expected that certain of the Kennehec bridges will carry a greater burden of this traffic than others. This is shown in Figure 10 on the next page. 3y arranging those traffic volume figures in a diagram organized according to the geOgraphicnl posi- tioning of these bridges along the river north to south. we see that the primary area of river crossing lies along the river's lower middle course, from Skowhegen to Gardiner. Over seventy-five per cent of all treffic across the Kennehec is by way of the eight bridges along this forty mile stretch of the river. The Augusta and watervillo crossings alone account for over half of the traffic crossing the river. Since world war II the Augusta and Weterville crossings have shown significant traffic increase. This increase exceeds 100 per cent for the waterville bridge and for the Augusta homorial Toll Bridge. F5 shown by Figure 11, traffic on the other bridges has remained relatively v w 1E’rom counts made available by the Planning and Traffic Division of the Maine State Highway Commission. Average daily traffic is determined by taking the average weekday count, multiplying by 5, adding the average counts for Saturday and Sunday, and dividing by 7. 61 o. .u: “on o. z 0.0.5.5---»8 \l I ._|'_I .ll 32 ....... RH _ _\.I 83223. 02.303 _oo_------- w 2:5: 25» .0 AxumnA «no. ...... I o . pzDOU $0 at» bhk / 3023.302: :0 c: 35.1; 2 2 a. o. w o v u z<140 m0<¢m>< 62 : 6:. DHIVIL MIVO 39VI3AV VOIHOO .t‘OU #3: Nat“ ‘OBL (P‘O no 00 h“ V“ .n 0' “vo— _ d _ _ _ A _ _ _ _ a _ 2.22.:- £2.95- .IJT i I||1I||llr l‘ :1 11+ . 8°.“ [I'll I'lljxii... ‘ . I I. lulliillruit 1.. ---.+.--Tl-l . .ll 23‘ 35:... - - 000.0 090.. 006.0— 08.n- 0003— 000.0— moo—Infiop mmOn—Em Ummeva. ZO U...I<~:. >.:<0 m0< 63 scarlo since the war. Unfortunately3r u1ar counts are not made at a numier of those crossings; and no official counts were available for tho Ninckloy and Solon hrifiges. _:he Association of Briigo Traffic with 'iffnwnmt 7w‘~y‘~~ v“. iccggsioilitx - - 11;. - Picking It is logica l to suspect that the number of radiating paved roads converging upon a bridge, the spacing of bridges along the river, and the density of pepulation in the area about the bridge would have a bearing upon the frequency of bridge crossings. Table 2 has the Kennebec bridges ranked according to their average daily traffic volumes and shows the number of radiating paved roads con- verging within a three mile radius of each bridge midpoint, the distance from each bridge to the next nearost bridge, and the population densities for a selected area about each bridge. the values in Table ? are pro ented in graph form on page 65. As indicated by the graphs. these values reveal a general trend for traffic volumes to increase as tho number of radiating paved roads and the population densities inc; case nn.i as tho distance of the next noaros t bridge decreases. ridges :lnssified _ficcorcin: Eccess iiilit”’-FL3SUV171»tFB -. ii'Tt/‘rl and Of .21 E‘ridmn “QIL; As ind-icatc d in Shooter III, the hinterland of a bridge is that are: from which the :effic using the bridge 64 .coanuu«a «o aroa on» no «an» ace uoauaaunoa an» ocsauau oouaun naaovaum uncauuuoo any how nouamdw van .uamflxmo Mo_cxoa on» Mo «who find acauudsnoa on» «undead eavdun aoanathwanw>uo»ok on» you uuhaoau 0:9 .ndOn he ceauUOn and uuovuun on» snag) a« “unadum3caaa no «canny manna Adbdu on» aunauad «noun anonho um.ma v.nh "we.” 1;;o.m v aagoaum mm.” o.«c mm x ”.0" m nxuom use «v.mm o.sw «mm,v : m.« c ucoaauaa mm.nn >.mv qmw.n : o.m m xuosuovauuoa mv.mm ccvon bad.» x «or b namuvnz mv.mo o.po can.» . ~.n m uaaauuuoa aw.mma n.0n mvm.m : won an unaduumw no.u~« o.pm vn~.- a n.« p nuom »~.vwn s.~m umw.u‘ a o.m an ccooczoxn mo.mnm ”.95 Hmw.n~ z ~.m «a canapuouam mm.umn 0.00 omo.- acmaa «u «a nun“ uaaaoax .aaoo .aoa can“: .vm .aom noonaum .aou o unencummuwn unauum ua< mo nauuo a“ nauuoz #8.! fi n a anuuuoinou canMMHMDMWMMnMMMAHOdMMMWNHMno» no cucwuuqa nxnrzuum nevus no uoaaaz vouaux «Canaan NBHAHQHMMMUU< m0 mmmDM¢NE BUMMHQEH mummb 08 UHhm}+ \f/ 9 Sq. Mi. )LX23 Sq. Mi. > Increase in Area 8 Bridge —— Highway: 0 3 6 —— Bridge Hinterland Miles 061 Fig. l3 1. It must be a paved road that has either direct access to the bridge or that converges within a three mile radius of it onto a road having direct bridge access. 2. It must load to a connunity or other significant human establishment. or it must be paralleled by a significant alignment of settlement. 3. It must not run parallel within one and ononhalf miles of another road leading to the some focal cantor-5uch as roads paralleling both the right and loft banks of a river. The latter instance would ho counted as one road. A: an example or the procedure used in this study. lot us dolino the area of greatest accessibility for the watorvillo-winolou bridge. as shown on the map on the next pogo, thin bridge has twelve significant paved highways converging within a three mile radius of it. Average high- way alignment lines were assigned and oriented as cloaoly as possible with each of these roads. The two highways 68 LOCAL HINTERLAND WATERVILLE BRIDGE Area Having Greatest Theoretical Accessibility To The Bridge N Average Outward Extent of Bridge Hinterland f" Waterville-Winslow j ' local Hinterland of Waterville ' ”J Incorporated Limits ' Bridge: Paved Road Area Within 1.5 Miles or less B B _ d of Two Average Highway —- —- Average Highway Alignment ra ge Alignments Having Direct Access to the Bridge 1964 DGJ Fig. 14 69 paralleling the river north of the bridga counted as can average highway line. A three mile distance was then measured betnoen successive nets of average highway linos such that they formed isosceles triangles. Having done this, we have delimited an area in which all points aro within one and one—half miles of a road having direct access to the bridge. It is now posaibla to secure an index of the average extent of the Matervilla bridge hinterland by averaging the heights of the isosceles trin angles formod by the road alignnant lines and the three mile base. For the waterville bridge this was 4.86 miles. This procedure was followed for all of the Kennebec bridges. Tho rooults are ohown in the table on the next page and on the map on page 71. An analyois of the map enables us to visualize a number of significant factors concerning the Ecnneboc bridge hintorlands and to make compariaons among them. As a result, the following gonoralizations may be made: 1. Tho bridge hinterlands along the Kennebec tend to cluster into three groups: a. The Solon to watervillo group b. Augusta and Gardiner c. Richmond and Bath. Each of these clusters is associated with areas of more dense penulation than is to be found about the isolated bridge hinterlands of The Forks and Gingham. A) e There is an overlapping of bridge hinterlands in the more densely populated areas. This is noted between Augusta ind Gardiner, but is most pro» nounced between the Vatervillo and Fairfiold 7O .nouuqun mason odd hoauunuz on» you o~n¢aam>a you can: nunoou uummuuu anduo ooouo>uouo3 «n.m on «a auuau=< uncunuuuCMMOMMM ”Whooodu No whomenoaa< nmom «mowwmuwm MWMMMW>HMWE owummwwwmww< nnouum emauoha at» no novcH «0 “ones; annex nobnn no human: voucnm nookum . .11.. t! HHHHHHLM it- a 1g maxgmfizHS MUQHKQ Ummmz «HM «m0 «kahuna uméu>< v.38 two XMQZH n ”Humor“. S K R O F E H Tl LOCAL HINTERLANDS KENNEBEC RIVER BRIDGES j NA ~45 ijNGHAM ...... t 4 . l1... ....... ............ ................ .............. .............. .... .......... ----- ...... dddddd ..- ..- ...... ...... ..... .. . r... ...» . . M .WO‘OJWOwOD0000wOWPa '_ ;., SKOWHEGAN ........ ........... ( ,\ .. 05m. . . O 0 v ONO. O”OOOOOM .. .. .. ..... . .s ’.u.......... . . . . . .. MADISON HINCKLEY NORRIDGEWOCK“ IL E I F R F . . .. 3.. .. . NV .. XVvH. ..xsv NH. .\. . I x, . . ........ . WATERVILLE 1“ a»? . A AUGUSTA .. . N , O O , , O O n O. . v 0 0 O O. o ,. .Y J. .v A SECTOR OF A LOCAL HINTERLAND: \\ on...» .... .0 O . .. s. .. .. ,.M.n........ ; ..Jw \ THE AREA WITHIN 1.5 MILES OR LESS {gs GARDINER .0 . on... b ... , . .Opwbg .“ \ Oh ~N‘HOI. ..u. . . . . ...«....... ,, ..\ .K .o \ . DGJ OF TWO AVERAGE HIGHWAY ALIGN— MENTS HAVING DIRECT ACCESS TO OIJ 1| C... I. m Is m 51b 8 .I. E 1M H I. T OL -44 -—_____ I . . I964 "LMCHMOND I5 Fig. {if III 4lt’thI ILLIItl I 7‘ J" l b bridges. This overlapping could be referred to an a mutual invacion of bridge hinterlands. It will be recalled from the last chapter that it was competition with the Augusta bridge that forced the abandonment of the Hallowell bridge in 1873. lhere is. however, little danger of the Fairfield or Waterville bridge being abandoned. In fact, there is presently much talk about the neod for an additional bridge in this area. 3. Cf all the Kennebec hridgo hinterlands, the ones for the i:atervillo and Hadison bridges conform most closely to the theoretical circle of accessibility. This is due to a greater equality of angles formed by the highway alignment lines. 4. The significant skewness of the bridgo hinterlands for the Forks. Bingham, and Hinckloy is most likely the result of the uneven spread of population in directions outward from these bridges and, in this case, is associated with three of the valley's smaller communities. 5. The elongation of the hinterlands for the Augusta. Bath, and Skowhcgan bridges indicates either sig- nificant settlement aligned with the river or, as for Skowhogan, an alignment of settlement along the 01:1 Canada Road (now U. . .01) and along routes leading to the rccreationnl area about Vesscrunsett Lake. 6. As shown by the graph on the following page. there is a correspondence between the average daily traffic counts and the average extent of hinter- lands for the Konnebec bridges. Bridges Classified According to Enter. rggionaf Si3nificnnce Our efforts to develop an index of the bridge‘a area of accessibility have given us an indication of the geographical extent of its local hinterland. It is safe to assume that certain bridges, particularly thosc on well travelod national highways. also have an interrcgional hinterland. Although it is not essential to the purpose of this paper that the interregional hinterlands for these Augusto Wolerville Skowhegon Bath Gardiner Foirfiold Madison Ranked According to ADT Norridgowock BRIDGE TRAFFIC VERSUS ll ic hmond .,._.'5: _ - ’I , BRIDGE HI NTERLANDS The Forks 2:123:22; / ' ,’¢-IREND MN! I Binghom l 2 3 4 5 6 Outward Extent of Irldgo Hinterland (Milos) Trend lino Positioned Graphically DGJ Fig. 16 bridges be defined. it is incumbent that we be able to measure their interregionnl significance. The criteria for thin measurement will be the volume and proportion of interrogional traffic using each bridge. Consequently. tho states of origin are recorded for a sample of vehicles crossing thirteen of tho Kenneboc bridges. So that this study could be viewed in the framework of the broader picture. similar counts worn and. at key points on heino'o southwestern border. In this way, since the data may be noon-ed to be of a cooperablo nature. it was possible to 74 measure the fall-off of out—of~stato traffic across the state from west to east. The four border stations selected account for 1 and approximately 81 per cent of the total traffic approximately 90 per cent of all out-of—otnte traffic;5 crossing Maine's southorn and western borders. The greater proportion of this traffic enters the otate by way of the two Kittery crossings—~tho Enino Turnpike and U. S. highway 1. For the traffic surveys, only origins of vehiclcs entering noino or crossing the Kennebec from west to east were counted. It is safe to assumei however. that theso counts were representative of traffic crossing from both directions, for a: noted in a study conducted for the Washington State Highway Commission, "previous exporionco has shown statistically that interviews conducted in one direction give an accurate representation of two-way travel by assuming the opposite direction of travel is equal in volume but opposite in origin and destination.”3 1Maine State Highway Commission, Planning and Traffic Division,_§tato of rain? Trafficflflow fiagj 1961 (Augusta, Raine: Héine State nighway Commirrion. OctoBEr. 1962). (Interview with Roger L. Kallnr, fissistant Director of Planning and Traffic Division, Maine State Highway Commisaion, August 4, 1964. Sievieu and finalysis of a Rogort#on Second Lake goshington triage Looétlon; anglnucring Stuggos_onJ §sti~ mates by Dohouw and Co., A report préfiofafi by the Dept. of Hwys. Plangwbiv. (Ciympia; Washington: Washington State Highway Commission, Uecember, 1956), p. 6. 75 Where possible, all surveys were conducted during daytime hours at times of normal traffic flow. with a few exceptions, wcokuend surveys were avoided as the week-end out-of-atate traffic in Maine is estimated to run about 10 1 Maine traffic was per cont above the weekday average. subtracted from tho total counts for each crossing to determine the number and proportion of non-local (out-of- atate) vehicles crossing the Konneboc. To determine the number and proportion of non~local vehicles crossing the Maine-New Hampshire border, both Maine and new Hampshiro traffic was subtracted from tho total count. Table 4 shows the location, time. and duration of each count and records the total traffic counted and the percontngo of non-local vehicles using each bridge. To compare the significance of each bridge as a channel of interstate traffic. it is necessary to adjust the original counts to a one hour base. This is accom- plished in Table 5. This table shows the importance of the Bath and tho Skowhegan bridges as links on roads handling considerable intorregional traffic. Together, thorn bridges account for nearly half (46 per cent) of all out-of-stoters crossing tho Kennoboc. The two other bridges carrying a large total of out-of-state traffic across the Konnotoc are the Fairficld Bridge and the Augusta hemorial Toll aridge. The high degree of w W. 1Interview with Harold Houdlotto, homager of Augusta Remorial Toll Bridge, Auguat 13, 1964. 76 now undo: ocuuouno uauuouu .uooodun ooaoccox co cannon» .uucooo umouon and. cu 8&039 hum.m mn~.m an anouOH Ho.»m om Hem m momnzamH ..uaa oH .oam .o; .aocmooq .m oo.o on owe m rm mHo Hom.m w rchrms .ooa oH .oo< H .mx: .m .n mm.oo How.“ ~HH.¢ o romannn .oor mH .oom ouHocuoa .on nouuom ouqnuafiom rozlocuox ‘1 mmH.n mow.m on anuoo m~.m H mH H ramsrmH .co: 5H .oua aonuch mm.» H mm H rmvsrom .umm «m .o:« ooHom oo. 0 mm H xnmlaoH .uom mm .msc nmrmcum ¢«.so mm on H rcHHtraoH .uxu «a .o:« armor one «H.u n we H rowing“ .nuaro on .osr ascerUHm wh.v n mm H xmvlzmm .cor on .mac xuoaomowuuoz mm.s HH ooH H rmmvram .con on .m:¢ conHonz m«.mm oHo mHo.w m xaourqh .Hun oH .u:¢ oHoHuuHan oH.o Hm Hon H romammv ..usna ow .os¢ uncHoumo mo.Hv mHh mvh.H o ramHzrqo .uunno on .oo< sumo mo.- HoH wow H ramnme .coz «m .o:« nooorzoxm mm.hH won «mm.m m roouras .uuarw MH .ooc .ron munoozc pm.» we sum H rcHHsaroH .Huc Hm .934 oHHH>uouar ooaodum uo>dm uoaeqcox HGUOAIGOZ H6004 06900 1 unto you .uxo .Hmuoa .Hnuoo .uum ozHo xma cyan «ooHum «manor mmemor(x mmzumanmuw UHhmdmh UHmcm v mgmch. 77 «can: coca nunuo uoaoumm cadgununm son and on«¢:.odcu uczvo uoaaanu 863 2... non: Man 33. oo. o ...-:33 Ha. H ~32: 3. n :88 3. n 3920: mm. m xuoxoooduuoz Hm. HH goaHour Ho; Hm 35an «H.» an 3.3.. :5 8.62 no» use: you H38. 3.» «v 33qu a. 3.3 no .19. 339:. $4 on 8:33 .m 24H 3 3033.... 3.; «H £3.68 8:8 H3 ocular» 2....“ SH H 5.: .... .o «Hid 02 .33 8.3 3v 3.338 .0: ...: Jam :53 use: ...: :23 «3.3 .32. soon 32. no u umm 5: 833 ...-oz J3 no a. hr .9: noon—m on.» 3 ousting? van-8.x 05.2 535.1333 .n ......u: mmnmg mtzmme: animal?“ a»: ~3me Umfluxzwx #0 ngmeU UHEF Hhoc nooouun unhum ounoccoa no .vn:u:< ca onus .uucaoo nscdoduo och. 00.00“ mmn.m oo.ooa mm~.m Ignace on.“ mm ompm 0mm moons nonuo «a. «a nu. mm mason as. mm hm. mm uoqsucsum so: on. m cm. um unmaocn ow. mm am. an essence on. no on. Hm museum msoz an. a" no. «m acosuv> n. mu cm. «s anourunx Hm. ha «m. we unau0unamu Hm. mm no. no uuonauau mm. as no. so uncnouas om. mv am. no assess av. on «o. no ocsaxusn no. as cm. «5 euro ”m. mm em. or commanm no. n5 on.“ Hm ocaHmH moons so. om om.a~ mov,m ouazmdasm :mz ha.a hm ~m.~ om” sacs>axmcasd mm.« own ov.m mom noncon.roz mm.“ was mm.m mun unequumccoo mv.m so“ sh.m one show asz mv.o own ou.s~ was," nuuoussumnasx mn.ub omm.w mm.~m saw.“ coast ocox mcaanouu unom o» Mush ands: mc4u0ucm . a summary sauce .aox sensuouu unmusus Havoc aumwwmowcwwmwmm adouuo mo anew Han cuoHUdnm> hogan: mo ucou nod Hmm3 MZB £0m& Umflufiflmx NIB UZHmmomU 02¢ b Mdm¢9 HMHzmmfi v__ __ _, x __ _ A \x I . __ \ \\ \\ \ CONN. /54 \ \ 800 ~ ———~—-¥\ —- \ MASS. 1.4/6 \ NY 267 \ . . —l \ —— \ \ 4oo — — MASS. 536 _‘ ,, _ ,fi _. Crossing Info Moino Crossing Kounoboc From Now Hompshlro West to Eost Bosod on Hold Study: August, I964 DGJ Fig. 18 CCNCLUSI xi“! : PART I I Through this study of Kcnncbsc River crossings, we have not only observed the historical development of individual crossing sites, but we have considered the ford, the ferry, and the bridge within the realm of geography. This was facilitated by looking upon the bridge as a human innovation designed to solve a specific human problem. In meeting the task of spanning the Konnebec. man expanded the geographical baso of his operations and augmented his interrogionsl contacts. By studying the function of individual Kennebec bridges, by noting the volume, nature, and origin of traffic crossing them, and by measuring their accessibility to local traffic, we found that it was possible to classify bridges in accordance with their geographical hinterlands and to assess both their local and interregional significances. In Part II of this thesis we have used specific examples to illustrate the principles and concepts deve- 10ped in Port I. We have witnessed man's quest to assure the continuity of his pathways, noted the strength of his commitment to significant crossing sites. and his abandon- ment of outmoded and redundant ones. We have seen how traffic is induced to new and better crossing facilities, 87 88 and we have indicated the role of regional complementarity in conferring upon a bridge the designation "interregional." Be that as it may, this study has merely opened the door to a subjcct rich in rosearch potential. Many questions remain to be answered. What criteria should one use in dctormining the optimum point to cross a river with a bridge or in assessing the economic impact of the traffic induced to a new river crossing? It is possible that future research goarod to answering these and other queations may warrant ro-ovaluation of some of the con- clusions in this paper. But, in tho meantime, it is believed that this study sheds light upon a topic that throughout historic times has been the subject of human curiosity, human need, and human ingenuity. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott. John C.. and Elwell, Edward H. The History o: Maine. Augusta. Maine: 3. E. Knowles and C67. 2. Adams, Silas. The History of the Town of BowdoinhamJL 1762-1912. Pairfleld, Raine: Fairfield Pub: IIshIng Co., 1912. Allen, Charles Edward. History of Dresden, Maine. Dresden. Kaine: Bertram E. Packard 50.. 1931. Allen, william. The History of Norridgewock. Norridgowock. EaInez Edwara J. Poet. Publisher. 1849. Barman. Christian. and Brangwyn, Frank. The Bridgo: A Chaoter 1n the Histo of Bulldin . London: John 'iano tfio Bodley Head L mfted, 1 1 . Beck, Joseph T. line History of Augusta. Part II. Parmington, Kaine: Knowlton and McLeary Co.. 1963. ,x Belloc. Hilaire. Th3 Historic Thames. London: J. H. Dent and Sons Lt3.. 1 . _ Black, Archibald. _Ihe Story of Bridges. flow York: ggittloaeyflouse. EcGraw Hill Book Co.. Inc., 36. Burpee, George w. "Traffic Estimates for Expresswaya and Other Public Toll Revenue Projects." Traffic Quarterlx, VII, January, 1953. ~ Carpenter. J. C. “Proportionate Use of Maine Turnpike by Traffic Through Portsmouth-Portland Corridor," Proceedings of the Highwax Research Board, 32nd }nnual heetinfiT‘1953. “m Chace, J., Jr. Somerset County Ma . Raine. Portland. Raine: By the Author, $565. 89 i 90 A Chronolo of Hunicipal History and Election Statisticg. Va crv 1ez Maine1 ~19Q§. Edited by Clement E. Giveen. Augusta, Maine: Maine Farmer Press, 1908. Clark, Elma Folsom. History.of nadison. Radison, Naine: By the Author, 1962. Clinton Old Home week Association. Old Home Weoki,Clintoni Raine Au ust 7-14, l9?l. Clinton; Maine: Old O‘~ Home week Association, 1921. Coburn, Louisa Helen. Skowhogan on the Kennebec. Skowhogan, Maine: The Independent Reporter Press, 1941. ”’"Coffoo Shipment Expedited by Opening of New Bridge," Scioptiric American, Vol. CLXIX (July, 1943). X,Coverdalo and Colpitts. Consulting Enginaors. Report on _§raffic and Revenues;_Prqpo§ed Mackinac Strait?‘ Eridce. New York: Coverdale and Colpitts, Eanuory 22, 1952. Deyo. Simeon L.. and Kingston, Henry D. Illustrated history of Kennobec County1 Maine, 1355-1555. new York: H. Blake and Co.. 1892. Dwight, Timothy. Travels in flow England and New York. Vol. II. New Haven, Connecticut: By the nuthor, 1821. Hanson, J. w. History of the Old Towns of Horridgowock and Cannon. Boston: By the AuthOr, 1549. The History Committee of tho Gingham Sosquiccntennial. gingham Scsquicentennial History._181?~1962. Skowhegan. Maine: Skowhegan Press, . Hornung, Clarence P. wheels ficross Americg. New York: A. 3. Barnes and C00. 1959. Houdlettc. Harold. Personal interviow with Mr. Houdlette, the manager of Augusta Memorial Bridge. August 1 , 1964. Kendall. Coward Augustus. Travels Through the Northern Parts of tholvnitedwstates in the Years lBOViang 1353. Vol. III. flow York: ‘1} Riiéy Co.. 180?: ' Kirkland, Edward Chase. Hen. CitiesL and Trangportatiog. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Harvard1finiversity Press. 1948. \ VA 91 Lane, Wheaten J. "The Early Highway in America, to the Coming of the Railroad," in Highways in Our National Life. Edited by Jean Labatut snd‘Wheaton J. Lane. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Ledew, Vincent P.. and Snell, Katherine H. Historic Hallowell. Augusta. Kaine: The KenneEEc Journal Print Shop. 196?. "Maine's Greatest Traffic Need Is to Bridge the Kennebac," The Kennehec Bridge Advocate. Bath. Maine: Chapman and Newcombe, September 5, 1925. Maine State Highway Commission. Personal Interview with Roger L. hallar of Planning and Traffic Division. August 4, 1964. . Planning and Traffic Division. state of Paine Traffic Flow Mag: 1961. Augusta, Maine: Maine State Highway Commission, October. 196?. Marriner, Ernest. Kennehec Yesterdays. waterville, Maine: ColBy College Press. 1954. Mathews, william. "Recollections of Waterville in Olden Times," in The Centennial History of Waterville. Edited by Bahin Carey Whittemoro. Watervillc, Kaine: Executive Committee of the Centennial Celebration. 1902. Mitchell and Randall. The Fadison Registerlfil903. Kent's H111, Kaine: n. a. hitchell publishin§550.. 1903. North. James w. The Histo of Augusta. Augusta, Maine: Chapp and north._1 . Owen. Henry Wilson. The Edward Clarence Plummer History ofARathj Maine. Bath, Maine: The Times Co.. 19360 W Packard. Harry A. "Bridging the Gap," The New York Times. April 12. 1964. ' Philbrick, Allen K. 1"Principles of Areal Functional Organization in Regional Human Geography," Econo- mic Geography, 33, October,| 1957. The Plantation of Canaan and the Town of Canaan, Constable'a Office. Records of the Plantation of Canaan and th Town ofwtanaan (SkouhoganT; 178?— T 21. Canaan7"haine: ConstabIeTs Office. 1785: .1 o 92 Road, Pater McCobb. Histor of Bath and Environ . 1607- 1894. Portland. Raina: Lakeside Press, 1353. Smaller, Arthur 8. Th. ggggrafihy of Towns. London: Hutchinson O a g s g s Souvenir Booklet Committee. The Romance of Au sta. Augusta, Maine: Tho Augusta Press. 192;. Steinman, David 8.. and Watson. Sara Ruth. Bridges and Their Builders. New York: 6. P. PuEEEmis §ons 13C. ' s Thayar. Henry 0. "Fort Richmond. mains." Collections and Proceedings of the Kaine Histories soc o . Second Series. V0 . V.. . Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. Annual Ra rt 1954. New York: Triborough Bridge an R‘Efioruy, March 7, 1955. Tyrroll. Henry Gratton. History of Bridge Engineering. Chicago: By the u r, . U. 5. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Unitsd states Census of Population 1960: Maine. Genera; Eopuiation Characterist=gg. Washington, D. .: varnnsnf'FFIEEIE§"5??1ca. 1961. walkor. Ernest George. Embden Town of Yorc. Skovhegan. Mains: Independent ReporEEE 50.. 1929. Washington State Highway Commission. Review and Anal sis of a Regort on Second Lake washin ton E I3 Location. in Inserin gtuaias 333 Estimates of our}. 1 3y DaLeuwi_Ca or1 an Co on . A report prepared By the Department of Highways Planning Division. Olympia, washington: washington State Highway Commission, December. 1956. Watson. Sara Ruth. and watson, Wilbur J. Bridges in History and Legend. Cleveland: J. H. Jansen. Pg 801', :- 0 Whitney S. H. The Kennebec Valley. Augusta; Maine: ,Spragua, Burleigh, and F ynt. 1887. Williamson, William D. The History of the State of Maine From Its First Discove WA. 0. 1355 to the spars on, n. D. 1 Inc us_y_g. Ha owe 1. Mains: Glazier, Masters, and Co.. 1832. 93 Wood, Henrietta Danforth. Early Day: of Horridgegoqfi. Preeport, Maine: Tfie Freeport Press. 1933. 1 USE my ICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES || 3|||3 ||3 ||||3||||3||3 83|