Back to Mill Bridge Reconstruction


The Mill (Hayward) Covered Bridge Inspection Report In Brief:

Description: Constructed in 1883 by unknown* builder. The bridge is constructed with a multiple-kingpost truss, verticle members 8x6", braces 6x3.5". The deck 12x3" planks laid longitudinally. The siding is vertical 'inch' plank unpainted. Roofing is metal, abutments are cast concrete. Bridge measurements: Length: 72.1', Width: (c-c truss)17', Width inside clear: 16.04' Vertical clear: 12''.
*built by Arthur Adams per Tunbridge Historian, Euclid Farnham

Mill Bridge Interior. Photo by Joe Nelson, June 1992

Inspection report: April 1993
Structural Evaluation: Numerous bottom chord repairs and splices. Broken diagonal truss members. Failed corbels on truss vertcals, poor lateral bracing.
Traffic Study results: 1991:150 vehicles per day
Recommendations: For long term solution Option D - Rehabilitate for moderate traffic to capacity of 30,000 pounds.
The estimated cost (1993):

Replace current floor system = $60,000
Repairs = $40,000
Total = $100,000
For short term solution Option B - The community may continue to use the bridge for light vehicular traffic
Make repairs only = $40,000 Total
Inspection and recommendations rendered moot by destruction of bridge by ice.

The Covered Bridge Inspection Program:
In the spring of 1995, the Vermont Agency of Transportation completed the inspection of the seventy-five covered bridges that serve state and town highways. In the course of the survey, some of the bridges were found to be unsafe and were closed to traffic -- others were found to be in need of repair.

By Order of the Selectmen. Photo by Joe Nelson, July
       The inspection program was part of a long-range plan to oversee public safety, plan for current and future traffic needs, and to preserve all of the covered bridges in the state. The structure of each bridge was inspected for safety, and the bridge traffic was evaluated. The results of the study were turned over to the local communities with recommendations to help them decide whether to repair, rehabilitate, or replace their covered bridges. The towns, ultimately responsible for a share of the funding, will decide what work will be done.
       The recommendations include one of five options based on the condition of the bridge and the type of traffic the bridge supports:
Option A: The community may close the bridge to vehicular traffic, with traffic diverted to existing roads and bridges.
Option B: The community may continue to use the bridge for light vehicular traffic, with heavier truck traffic diverted to other routes.
Option C: The community may close the bridge to traffic and construct an adjacent bypass bridge.
Option D: The community may rehabilitate the bridge to support moderate traffic safely.
Option E: The community may replace the bridge and move it to a nearby preservation site.

Return to top

Joe Nelson
P.O Box 267, Jericho, VT 05465-0267

No part of this web site may be reproduced without the written permission of Joseph C. Nelson
Text Copyright © 1997, Joseph C. Nelson
Photographs Copyright ©, 1997, Joseph C. Nelson
Illustrations Copyright ©, 1997, Joseph C. Nelson
This file updated 1-17-00