YELLOW MILL BRIDGE CT-146 Route 130 (Stratford Avenue ...

YELLOW MILL BRIDGE Route 130 (Stratford Avenue), spanning Yellow Mill Channel Bridgeport Fairfield County Connecticut

PHOTOGRAPHS

WIUTTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRTPTIVE DATA

HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERJNG RECORD National Park Service

Chesapeake/ Allegheny System Support Office US. Custom House 200 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106

HAERNo. CT-146

Location:

Date of Construction:

Engineer: Builder: Steel Fabricator:

Present Owner:

Present Use:

Significance:

Project Information:

HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD

YELLOW MILL BRIDGE HAER No. CT-146

Route 130 (Stratford Avenue), spanning Yellow Mill Channel Bridgeport Fairfield County, Connecticut

UTM: Quad:

1927-1929

18.652910.4559740 Bridgeport, Conn., 1 :24,000

Edwin J. Beugler Blakeslee-Bridgeport Corporation American Bridge Company

State of Connecticut Department of Transportation Newington, Connecticut 06103

Highway Bridge ( operable lift span)

Constructed in 1927-1929, the Yellow Mill Bridge is a rare and relatively intact example of a bascule highway bridge. Located on a site that has been bridged since the late eighteenth century, the bridge has important historical associations with the development of Bridgeport's transportation infrastructure during the early twentieth century. Cost overruns and charges of fraud during construction of the bridge created a scandal that altered the course oflocal politics and was a significant contributing factor in the eventual election of Mayor Jasper McLevy, one of the few Socialist party candidates ever elected to govern a city in the United States.

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT), in association with the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), is proposing to rehabilitate the Yellow Mill Bridge, a structure determined potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places by the Connecticut Historical Commission (CHC, SHPO). A Memorandum of Agreement among the FHA, SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, with concurrence from ConnDOT, stipulated that the bridge be documented to HAER standards before the commencement of the rehabilitation project.

Gregory Galer Public Archaeology Laboratory Inc. 210 Lonsdale A venue Pawtucket, Rl 02860

PART I. DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION


(Page 2)

The Yellow Mill Bridge carries Route 130 (Stratford Avenue) over Yellow Mill Channel in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The bridge is located in an urban commercial/industrial area. Immediately adjacent to the eastern side of the bridge is a former gas station converted into a car wash and an abandoned and demolished industrial site, fenced and strewn with rubble. Entrance and exit ramps to Interstate 95 are nearby with the highway itself visible to the north. Immediately adjacent to the western side of the bridge are two small boatyards. Further down Stratford Avenue to the West are several late nineteenth and early twentieth century houses in various, but mostly deteriorated, condition. Downtown Bridgeport is approximately one-mile east, just over another of the city's movable bridges. Visible to the south of the Yellow Mill Bridge is an electric power plant with its coal conveyors and oil storage tanks; Long Island Sound is in the distance beyond.

The Yellow Mill Bridge is a double-leaf, rolling bascule bridge of the Scherzer-type. 1 The deck girder bascule is reached by three steel-girder approach spans and concrete-walled abutments. The bascule span is constructed ofriveted plate-girder beams as are the approach spans. The exposed steel of the approaches, however, is coated with 1-1/4" of gunite reinforced with 3/8" steel rods.2 The uncoated steel bascule leaves taper in depth toward the center of the span where they meet, imitating an arch in a form common to deck bascules.3

There are concrete sidewalks on both sides of the bridge, parallel to the roadway. The deck surface of the bridge is asphalt over a base of reinforced concrete except for the surface of the lift spans and the areas immediately adjacent to them. Although originally decked with wood, the lift span is currently decked with a steel, lattice grate. Although open to the water below for the majority of the leaves, this grating is filled with concrete at both ends (toes and heels) of each bascule leaf for several feet. A solid steel plate covers the breaks in the bridge floor between each bascule and adjacent fixed spans; similar steel plates extend through the sidewalks at the trunnion (tail) ends of each of the bascules as well as at the location where the toes meet. A narrow concrete, median separating opposing lanes of traffic runs the length of the bridge.

The bridge is supported by five basic supporting elements: two abutments and three piers (numbered west to east). Each element is built upon wooden piles and is composed largely of reinforced concrete. Some surfaces are faced with stone, some scored, and some unfaced. The abutments extend the adjacent street grade with a slight rise along their lengths. The roadway is carried on fill constrained by concrete retaining walls. These walls are partially faced with stone and each is supported by three buttresses. The lowest portions of the abutment walls are faced with stone salvaged from the piers of the bridge replaced by this

10tis Ellis Hovey, Movable Bridges (NY: McGraw Hill, 1926), vol. 1, 101-109. Figure 4N (107) of this standard reference show a movable bridges very much like Yellow Mill. Hovey describes this figure as "a typical, small, double-leaf highway bridge."

2Bridgeport, Connecticut City Engineer's Office, "Yell ow Mill Contract Plans," Drawing No. 11401 (February 1927), "Approach Spans-Cross Sections and Floor Details," Sheet 135. These plans will herein after be noted as "YM Plans."

3Hovey, vol. 1, 24.


(Page 3)

span (this stone is entirely below the water line at high tide). On the retaining walls themselves, the stone is topped with an unfaced concrete surface. The buttresses are faced with new stone above the old; this new stone placed up to Elevation 23 (as specified on the plans) which is the top of such stone facing for all buttresses on the bridge abutments and the bridge piers. This new stone is specified to be "ranged ashlar or red quartzite or other similar stone. "4 The original construction documents indicate an exterior stairway on the eastern abutment, but this element was never built.

Pier one stands between two fixed approach spans on the western side of the bridge. This rather narrow supporting element is only six feet wide where it supports the steel beams which rest upon it. Constructed of concrete and faced with stone, the pier is similar in design to other elements of the bridge.

Piers two and three support the bascule spans, ends of the fixed approach spans, and the operating houses for the bridge. The control mechanisms and all mechanical components required for lifting the bridge leaves are located within these piers, which were constructed to enclose large open areas for the mechanics and the counterweights for the lift spans. These weights are enclosed by the piers when the bridge is both in the closed and open positions. The similarity of style of construction between these piers and the others of the bridge ( concrete surface below which is newer then old facing-stone resting on a concrete and wooden pile substructure) provided a unified appearance for the bridge. Unlike the other piers, however, the unfaced concrete surface on these larger piers is adorned by false pointing, giving the appearance of walls constructed oflarge stone blocks. Additionally, these concrete walls are pierced by small windows.

The deck of the approach spans and abutments are sided by low pierced arch concrete railings that run between square piers with recessed panels. The concrete rails above the elevation of the deck have a brushed surface finish, exposing dark, gravel-like aggregate. Tapered concrete lamp posts rise from eight ofrailing piers. The 23 ft. tall poles once held decorative light fixtures but currently retain only lamp mounting brackets. 5 In addition, four metal posts (no longer extant) supported light fixtures on the bascule span. All lights were DC arc lamps similar to those used for lighting Bridgeport's downtown in its "White Way" lighting program, a venture for improving the urban environment throughout much of America at the time. 6

Eight modem light poles have been installed to replace the missing light fixtures.

Sitting atop piers two and three on the south side of the bridge, adjacent to the bascule spans, are two buildings. The western building is the operator's house; the eastern building, although specified as a comfort

4Yellow Mill Bridge Commission. "Contract Form and Specifications for the Construction of A Bridge at Stratford Avenue Over Yellow Mill Pond," (February 1927) in Bridgeport, Connecticut Common Council, Official Proceedings (1928-29) 176.

5YM Plans, "Retaining Wall Section and Railing Details," Sheet 20.

6Y ellow Mill Bridge Commission, 197; Nye, David. Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, 1880-1940 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990).


(Page 4)

station7 or gateman's house8 in the bridge plans and specifications, is empty and was historically used for storage. The buildings have a modified octagonal plan with alternating long and short sides. The southernmost third of the buildings extend out from the piers. The upper parts of the buildings are faced with red brick and have arched and rectangular windows that permitted the operator a 360-degree view. The middle sections have concrete walls, scored to mimic stone blocks. Several small rectangular windows pierce the walls to provide light for mechanical areas contained within. The roofs of the buildings are hipped and are covered with standing-seam sheet metal. The upper rooms of the building are elevated above the bridge deck and are accessed by two steps leading from the sidewalk to the entrances. On the lower step of the eastern building a "National Ocean Service Bench Mark" was placed in 1990.9 Although many of the windows, particularly on the eastern building are boarded shut, extant metal window frames appear to be of original construction. The arched areas at the tops of some of the windows of the western house have been covered by wood on the outside, but the window frames are intact. A plaque indicating the members of the Yellow Mill Bridge Commission as well as the names of associate engineers, general contractor and steel contractor is mounted on the western operator's house. Another plaque containing unknown information has been removed from the eastern building.

On the northern side of the bridge, across from the buildings, are pedestrian alcoves that rest on foundations similar to those under the buildings; these areas contain manhole covers which permit secondary access to the mechanical areas below. The primary means of access to the mechanical areas is through the operator houses.

The bascule span retains its original steel railing, consisting of pipe rails and newels that support decorative panels with steel rod balusters topped by small circles. The original swing-type traffic control gates have been replaced with modem control gates. The vertical elements which acted as the fulcrum for the original gates are extant at three of six locations on the bridge deck. 10 Protecting the bascule piers at their bases is a pair of wooden fender wing walls. The walls run underneath the bascule, parallel to the piers' inner walls and diverge to the east and west as they emerge from beneath the bridge. Although likely to have been modified slightly through maintenance, the fender system appears to largely match that drawn in the bridge plans.

The bridge mechanism is divided into four sections under the bascule spans, a northern and southern machinery area for the eastern and western bascules. These machinery areas are identical and a description of one is representative for all. Each quadrant of the bridge is lifted by a motor geared down through several gear sets to the two pinion gears which engage fixed racks ( two for each quadrant), against which the bridge is lifted. Each quadrant is driven by its own motor, but the pair of mechanical equipment for each leaf is linked to provide uniform lifting of the entire leaf. In order to provide sufficient torque and appropriate

7Ibid.

8YM Plans, "General Plan & Elevation,"Sheet 1.

9The marker reads, "National Ocean Service Bench Mark 7150B, 1990."

1°YM Plans, "Bascule Span-General Plan," Sheet 38.


(Page 5)

speed, motor rotation is adjusted by four changes in gear ratio. Since two of these changes are made before the power is split for each of the two pinion gears, six sets of gears are used for each quadrant, or twenty-four for the lifting of the entire bridge. The mechanisms are fitted with service and emergency brakes.

The entire lifting operation of the bascule is controlled from within the western operator's house. The first floor contains the operator's control panel and status displays. The floor below contains large electrical panels with main power switches, magnetic motor and break controllers, and resistance banks which allow variation in motor speed. The operator's control panel or bench board, although modified several times over the years, matches that in the bridge plans. The panel contains switches to control lights both inside and outside the bridge structure as well as the sirens used to warn of a bridge opening. The bascule leaves and a locking mechanism (no longer functioning) are controlled by lever-type controllers which move in an arc and provide control over motor speed. A separate panel contains levers and indicator lights for operating the traffic control gates. In addition, two wall-mounted panels provide electrical power information (voltage and current) to the operator.

An unusual feature of this bridge is the provision for hand powering the lifting mechanism. Although long disabled and possibly never used, the bridge was constructed so that both leaves could be raised with eight men providing the power. Each quadrant of the bascule is provided with two cranks and a semicircular platform on which the men could stand as the bascule lifted around them. Perched in the upper levels of the bridge piers amongst the machinery and greasy gears, this would have been a strange and likely strenuous assignment. The crank connected to the lifting mechanism through a chain loop connected to sprockets; the chain has been removed.

A tail locking mechanism located in the western pier was used to prevent the bridge from moving when it was in the closed position. It was driven by motors located on the basement floor of the western control house and at the same elevation on the northern side of the west bascule pier. The motors, which were affixed with a crank system for alternate human power, drove a shaft which runs the entire width of the bascule. This shaft carried pinions which moved two l 'x7" eye-bar-like pins which were driven into holes in the heel of the bascule when the bridge was closed in order to hold it in the closed position. The tail lock has been disabled for many years.

Where the bascule leaves meet, the bridge is fitted with a center locking system which requires no active mechanism. This tongue-and-groove system takes advantage of the fact that Scherzer-type spans move outward as the spans swing open and back inward as the spans close. As the leaves close and advance, the tongue-and-groove ends of the spans meet and engage, locking the leaves together.

Although on preliminary investigation the bridge appears to be in reasonably good condition, a more detailed examination reveals significant deterioration of some elements. Concrete at several locations has deteriorated to the point that the reinforcing re bar is exposed. Steel structural elements of the bascule span suffer from a significant amount of corrosion. Due to problems with the lifting mechanisms, the bridge was opened less than ten times in 1993. During a visit to the bridge for photography in June of 1994, the operators were hesitant to open the span, fearing that it might not close.

Modifications and Modem Alterations


(Page 6)

Since it was opened in 1929, the Yell ow Mill Bridge has undergone a number of minor modifications to keep up with the changing demands of highway traffic and to meet increasing safety requirements. In the 1930s, the traffic control gates and traffic lamp standards were slightly altered. 11 At some later date the original gates were replaced with those in use today. World War II nearly forced the city to leave the bridge in the open position when repairs to the bridge's electrical system required wire that was unavailable due to war rationing. 12 Plans for re-decking the bridge were completed in 194613, and the wooden deck of the bascule span was replaced with a steel grate in 1950.14 The original light fixtures were removed and replaced by modem light poles in 1966 as part of an East Side improvement program. 15

By 1962 the demands of highway traffic had taken precedence over water-born traffic. The mayor proposed requiring twenty-four-hour notice for opening the span, thus eliminating the need for a permanent bridge tender. In addition, he recommended a prohibition on opening the bridge during the heavy traffic periods of each day (morning and afternoon rush hours as well as lunch time). Today, the bridge is not manned and requires twenty-four-hour notice for an opening.

Recent work to the bridge has been minimal. In 1987 the supports of the pinion gear racks, critical components of the bridge's mechanics, were rehabilitated. Soon after the state took control of the bridge from the city in 1992, some repairs were completed. Those stringers (beams) that were dangerously deteriorating were replaced to strengthen the deck, navigational lights were installed to replaced those taken by vandals, and electrical panels were enclosed to improve operator safety. 16

11 Bridgeport, Connecticut City Engineer's Office, "Traffic Lamp Standards at Yell ow Mill Bridge," Drawing No. 11403, October 17, 1934.

12Bridgeport Post, March 1942.

13Bridgeport, Connecticut City Engineer's Office, "Re-decking," Drawing No. 11405, 1946.

14Bridgeport Post, March 24, 1950.

15Bridgeport Post, August 10, 1966.

16Interview with Robert Polaski, Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bridge Maintenance Division, April 30, 1993.

PART Il. filSTORICAL INFORMATION

Site History


(Page 7)

The Yellow Mill Bridge stands at a site that was first bridged in the late eighteenth century. Sources conflict over who was responsible for constructing the first bridge. Most secondary sources indicate that John Benj am.in built the bridge in either 1 786 or 1792.17 The West Stratford Town Minutes, however, list Asa and Aaron Benjamin as the property owners and builders of the bridge. 18 At the time of the bridge's construction, Yellow Mill Channel formed the border between Bridgeport and West Stratford.19

In 1792 the town of Stratford granted to Joseph Walker rights to construct a dam at or near Benjamin's Bridge in order to provide water power for a tidal mill to be built adjacently to the crossing. 20 Walker's dam was constructed along Benjamin's Bridge, which was a crude wooden structure supported by numerous piles in a causeway-like construction,21 to impound water from the incoming tide and create a mill pond on the north side of the bridge. The grist mill was four stories high and painted yellow.22 It contained six runs of millstones to grind cornmeal and wheat. 23 After construction of this mill the name "Benjamin's Bridge" fell into disuse, and locals began to refer to it as "Yellow Mill Bridge." During construction of the current Yell ow Mill Bridge ( 1927-1929), mill gates, foundations, abutments and piles from the Yellow Mill, its dam, and earlier bridges were found below the water line and removed.24 The mill itself was destroyed by fire in 1884. At that time it was owned by George F. Cook.25

17 Rev. Samuel Orcutt, The History of the Town of Stratford and the City of Bridgeport (1877), 406; Bridgeport Post (28 August 1927); Arthur H. Hughes and Morse S. Allen, Connecticut Place Names (1976); George C. Waldo, Jr.,HistoryofBridgeportand Vicinity, (S.J Clarke, 1917), 55; Lewis G. Knapp,InPursuit of Paradise (Phoenix Publishing, 1989), 103.

18 Town of Stratford Land Records v16, p.519.

19Knapp, 156. West Stratford was annexed by Bridgeport in 1889.

200rcutt, 406-408.

21"Proposed New Yellow Mill Bridge," Bridgeport Post, August 28, 1927).

22Hughes and Allen.

23Knapp, 103.

24"0ld Mill Gate Supports Found," Bridgeport Post, December 3, 1927; "Weather Aids Bridge Work," Bridgeport Post, February 3, 1928; "Yellow Mill Bridge to Cost $1,590,000," Bridgeport Post, October 4, 1928.

25Waldo, The "Standard's" History of Bridgeport (Bridgeport: The Standard Association, 1897), 55; Orcutt, 408.


(Page 8)

Benjamin's Bridge was succeeded by one or two other fixed wood and stone bridges before a movable span was installed at this location. 26 Little information is available about these spans. A photograph of the Yell ow Mill and adjacent bridge appears in Waldo's "Standard's" History of Bridgeport (page 55). The bridge pictured is a relatively crude structure of stone piers and wooden-beam spans, and is one of the possibly two spans that replaced Benjamin's Bridge.

In 1895 a survey and schematic layout for a new bridge at Yellow Mill was completed by the city of Bridgeport, indicating that the city was considering replacing the existing bridge.27 In 1897, the Federal Government appropriated funds to dredge the former mill pond and create a new navigable channel from Bridgeport Harbor up Yellow Mill Channel to the factory of the American Ordnance Company. The city agreed to build a new Yellow Mill Bridge with a movable span to permit navigation along the waterway and improve the roadway crossing at Stratford Avenue. George Waldo, in his The "Standard's" History of Bridgeport written that same year, wrote that the waterway would create " [a] most important water front for manufacturing purposes .... 1128

In 1897, the Bridgeport city surveyor, H. G. Scofield, prepared a preliminary sketch showing a proposed new bridge at Yell ow Mill Channel. 29 By 1898 the city had readied additional plans and specifications, and the bridge was constructed between 1901 and 1903. The general contractor was the Keystone Bridge Company, which was founded as an independent company in 1865 but by 1900 was a division of the American Bridge Company. Keystone constructed the foundations, and the ironwork was completed by the larger American Bridge Company itself. This moveable bridge consisted of five plate girder approach spans and a 182' through-truss draw (swing) span.30

Despite being constructed by reputable firms, with national reputations for providing quality construction, the bridge needed several structural repairs relatively soon after its completion. In 1906 the city made repairs to girders on the bridge, and in 1914 the draw span was repaired. By 1916, major repairs were required to deal with binding of the swing span where it met the fixed approaches. Apparently, the fixed spans were not sufficiently rigid to allow the swing span to easily open and close. An additional 480 pile supports (sixteen

26"Proposed Yellow Mill Bridge," Bridgeport Post, August 28, 1927; "Fourth Yellow Mill Bridge Being Constructed," Bridgeport Post, September 11, 1927.

27Bridgeport, Connecticut City Engineer's Office, "Plan/Survey for Yellow Mill Bridge," Drawing No. 2609, 1895.

28Waldo, 55.

29Bridgeport, Connecticut City Engineer's Office, "Proposed Yell ow Mill Bridge," prepared by H. G. Scofield, Drawing No. 2600, January 1897.

30Bridgeport, Connecticut City Engineer's Office, Street Layout Book, 116; Complete plans for this bridge are on file in the Bridgeport City Engineer's Office, Drawing No. 2615, 1901. A stipulation in the Memorandum of Agreement for the Yell ow Mill Bridge Rehabilitation project calls for these plans and those for the current Yellow Mill Bridge to be transferred to the University of Connecticut's Industrial Archives.


(Page 9)

sets of six piles for each fixed span) were driven into the mud and rock beneath the bridge in an attempt to firm up the bridge's substructure. In 1922 more pilings new box girders were added to provide further support for the swing span. In a final attempt to stabilize the bridge, concrete reinforcing was added to the center pier.31

Planning, Design, and Construction of the Yellow Mill Bridge

Just three years after this last attempt to repair the 1897 Yellow Mill swing bridge, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under its authority over navigable waterways, mandated that Bridgeport replace the bridge over Yell ow Mill Pond. The clear channel provided by the open swing bridge was determined insufficient to meet the needs of boat traffic. 32 An open passage was needed to permit access to several commercial enterprises up Yellow Mill Channel including lumber mills, oil stations, and tow-boat services.33

Narrow channel clearance was an inherent problem resulting from the geometry of swing spans, and nationally many swing bridges were replaced with bascules to improve channel width. The center pier required to support a swinging draw bridge reduced the open channel size available for water traffic. Additionally, structural constraints presented limitations to the length of the swing span, and thus the width of the channel around the center pier was restricted.

Bascules offered many advantages over swing bridges. Bascule bridges operated more rapidly than swing spans, and often only a partial opening of a bascule was sufficient to allow all but the tallest boats to pass. In addition, unlike a swing bridge in which the structure passed out into the channel as it opened, a bascule operated above the channel, allowing waterborne traffic to move adjacently to the bridge before it opened and quickly pass through the bridge once the opening was sufficiently large, thus minimizing the total time of the opening. For a swing span, boats were required to wait for the bridge to open at a distance from the actual crossing in order to permit the span to swing open without hitting the boat. The bascule design reduced the time in which highway traffic was stopped from that required with a swing bridge. Bascule spans also provided the opportunity for a wider span to accommodate highway traffic than did swing bridges; bascules could be built wider initially, and if additional highway width was needed, it was much easier to construct a parallel bascule span than to construct a parallel swing span in which the spans of each bridge must be constructed far enough apart to avoid interference as they open. Finally, the open leaves of a bascule span provide a natural safety mechanism for highway traffic, blocking vehicles from driving off the end of

31Bridgeport, Connecticut City Engineer's Office, Index Card File for Drawings and Plans; "Repairs to Girders," Drawing No. 2610, December 1906; "Plans of Temporary Pile Supports for Fixed Spans," Drawing No. 3060, March 17, 1916; "Plans of Three Repairs," Drawing No. 9067, March 11, 1922; "Proposed Concrete Reinforcing of Center Pier," 1924.

32Roth and Clouette, Historic Bridge Inventory Forms, 1990; City of Bridgeport Municipal Register, 1925, 29.

33"Proposed Yellow Mill Bridge: Bridgeport Post, August 28, 1927.

an open bridge. 34


(Page 10)

In June 1925 Connecticut State Legislature approved an act authorizing the city of Bridgeport to issue $800,000 in bonds for construction of a new Yellow Mill bridge. This act also empowered Bridgeport Mayor F. William Behrens, Jr. to appoint a seven-member Yellow Mill Bridge Commission to oversee the construction of the new bridge.35 Formed in January 1926, the commission consisted of Mayor Behrens, Henry A. Bishop, John J. Farmer, Will I. Nichols, Richard H. Murphy, William B Meyer, and Frank L. Cogill. Cogill was quickly replaced due to illness by George T. McCarthy, Jr.36

In April 1926 Edwin J. Beugler, a New Haven-based engineer, was hired as Consulting Engineer to oversee the project. According to the Mayor Behrens, Beugler was "an engineer of national reputation. "37 Beugler was educated at the Lowell Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his early experience was with the operation and construction of railroads, including the Bloomsburg and Sullivan (Pennsylvania); Philadelphia and Reading; New York, New Haven and Hartford; and the Boston Terminal Company. From 1905 to 1920 he held several engineering positions at Westinghouse Church, Kerr and Company. He entered private practice as an engineer in 1923.38

Beugler was responsible for preparing preliminary general plans and specifications as well as cost estimates for the new bridge. Once these plans were approved by the Commission, Beugler, working with City Engineer James A. McElroy prepared more detailed contract drawings and specifications sufficient for obtaining bids for the bridge's construction. For his services, Beugler was paid $50 per day.39 Once the project was bid and under construction Beugler maintained a supervisory role.

Other engineers hired for this project included associate engineer Ernest W. Wiggin of Keller and Harrington, a New Haven engineering firm. Charles A. Bowman, taking leave as an assistant in the New Haven City Engineer's Office, was hired as the resident engineer, and he was assisted by Allen M. Beardslee

34George A. Hoole and W. S. Kinne, Movable and Long-Span Steel Bridges (NY: McGraw Hill: 1943) 1.

35City of Bridgeport Municipal Register, 1925, 450-1. This act is cited as Senate Bill No. 600, Chapter 418 of the "Private Acts of 1925" in Report of the Yellow Mill Bridge Investigating Committee, March 4, 1929 in Bridgeport, Connecticut Common Council, Official Proceedings, 1928-1929, 115.

36Bridgeport, Connecticut Common Council, Official Proceedings, 1925-1926, 98.

31City of Bridgeport Municipal Register, 1926, 31.

38 Yellow Mill Bridge Investigating Committee.

39lbid., 123-124.


(Page 11)

of the Bridgeport City Engineer's Office.40 Bowman's duties included general supervision and inspection as well as giving lines and grades along with City Engineer McElroy. Inspectors for the project, in addition to the inspections provided by those noted above, were William A. Lewis and John J. Farmer, Jr., a son of Bridge Commission member Farmer.

Beugler prepared a detailed set of drawings and specifications that went beyond plans for erection of the bridge that stands today. The set included specifications for construction of a temporary roadway and streetcar crossing of Yellow Mill Pond to be used during construction of the new bridge. The contract also encompassed demolition of the 1897 span and removal of the temporary span once the new bridge was in operation. 41 Beugler prepared an extensive set of bid documents which included information on several test borings and test piles. With the exception of a few lump sum items, bids were based on approximate quantities of materials determined and specified in the bid set provided by Beugler. Sixty drawings and thirty-eight pages of specification comprised the bid documents.

Bids were requested from six companies, but only two were received by the deadline, January 6, 1927. Both bids surpassed the available funds by more than $200,000 and were therefore rejected. Later that month an additional $350,000 bond issue was secured from the Legislature. The project went out to bid a second time, and bids were received on May 12 from five companies. The lowest bidder, the firm of C.W. Blakeslee and Sons of New Haven, Connecticut, was awarded the contract.42

In July 1927 C.W. Blakeslee assigned the contract to a subsidiary called Blakeslee-Bridgeport Corporation. The American Bridge Company was subcontracted to complete the steel work. American was, by this time, a huge national bridge-building company and a division of Carnegie Steel. It had a near lock on the bridgebuilding industry as it owned more than one-half of the nation's bridge fabricating capacity.43

In order to maintain a crossing and operable waterway at Yell ow Mill Channel during construction of the new bridge, a temporary span was constructed approximately 350 feet north of the permanent bridge. This temporary span was a timber structure on wooden pilings, designed and built to accept the steel-truss swing span of the old Yellow Mill Bridge. On an evening high tide in September of 1927, the draw span was floated from its foundation and moved to the opening in the temporary span where it serviced highway, streetcar, and channel traffic until the new Yellow Mill Bridge was completed.44

40Roth and Clouette; "Bowman Starts Bridge Duties," Bridgeport Post, June 2, 1927; "Floating Yellow Mill Bridge," Bridgeport Post, September 22, 1927.

41Yellow Mill Bridge Commission, 150-202. The contract specifications are detailed and may be found in Bridgeport, Connecticut Common Council, Official Proceedings.

42Yellow Mill Investigating Commitee, 115-6.

43Victor C. Darnell, Directory of American Bridge-Building Companies, (Washington, D.C.: Society for Industrial Archeology, 1984) 85-6.

44"Floating Yellow Mill Bridge," Bridgeport Post, September 22, 1927.


(Page 12)

The bridge specifications recommended conventional methods of construction for the permanent concrete and steel span at Yell ow Mill. Cofferdams or open caissons were to be used to enclose the construction areas for the three piers and the two abutments of the bridge. The bid drawings detail both methods. All necessary dredging, gravel filling, pile driving, and concrete pouring was to be completed in these confined areas to provide the substructure for the piers which would carry the spanning elements of the bridge. In order to permit waterborne traffic to pass during construction of the new bridge, the bascule portion of the span was constructed in the open position, with the mass of the counterweight slowly increased as erection proceeded in order to maintain the balance between the counterweight and the bascule leaves. The final weight of the counterweight of each bascule leaf was estimated to be 394,800 pounds.

The designers of the bridge took advantage of the span they were replacing in several ways. Reuse of existing masonry elements such as piers and abutments was a common technique in bridge construction in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. New trusses with greater load capacity could often be installed to replace older spans while using the existing abutments with little modification of the masonry substructure. In the case of the Yellow Mill Bridge, major reconstruction was necessary, but existing masonry elements were still incorporated into the bridge. Although the inner edge of the new abutments was to be more than seventy feet closer to the center of the channel than the old ones (78' on the east abutment and 91' on the west), the abutments were not removed. Instead, the new structure was built around them, and the loadbearing capacity of the old masonry approaches. 45

The second manner in which old masonry was utilized in the new span was by direct reuse of old stone. The plans called for the use of the masonry in the old piers to be removed and that "the sound and suitable stones ... be used in the approach retaining walls, abutments and piers. "46 The reused stone was used on the lower portions of the bridge, covering the area between mean low and high water.

Beugler also specified the reuse of timber pilings. Given that 2,602 obsolete timber piles removed for construction of the new bridge (2,049 more than projected by Beugler), however, it is unlikely that Blakeslee took advantage of "piling within the limits of new work which may be used in the new structure. "47

Of most interest in the area of reuse of materials from the 1897 bridge is the use of steel elements. The adaptive use of the entire swing span for the temporary bridge has already been noted. Additionally, 201.5 tons48 of structural steel from the old bridge approaches were integrated into the permanent replacement span. Drawings and specifications for the 1920s Yell ow Mill bridge clearly indicate the reuse of many girders and beams from the fixed approach spans of the old bridge.

Item 1. Removing Fixed Spans, Present Superstructure:

45Yellow Mill Bridge Commission, 170.

46Ibid., 172.

47Ibid., 172.

48Y ell ow Mill Investigating Cornmitee, 131.

Item 27.


(Page 13)

All of the girders, twelve floor beams and certain stringers (about seventy) ... are to be removed ... so that they can be altered as provided under item No. 27 for use in the new bridge.49

Refitting and Erecting Old Steel for Approach Spans: This item will include the cleaning, straightening and refitting all old structural material from the present bridge that is used in new work, together with erection of the same in place ready for the concrete floor. Necessary holes for gunite protection and for the connections with new material shall be drilled ... New stiffeners, wear plates and floor beam connections shall be accurately fitted and riveted in place. 50

Bridge drawings reveal the old and new locations and dimensions of the girders and floor beams to be recycled as well as the modifications to be made to them for their application in the replacement span. The outermost girders of the approach spans (10 in all) were reused as girders under the new approach spans closest to the bascule leaves. These were supplemented by four new girders. Twelve floor beams were reused as the entire set of girders on the westernmost approach span of the new bridge. Seventy-one old Ibeams of varying lengths were cut and drilled for application as floor beams in construction of the current bridge.51

While the Yellow Mill Bridge was under construction, city officials began discussing the potential of reusing the old swing span which was doing duty on the temporary bridge at Yellow Mill. The city hoped to be able to continue to store the swing at the temporary bridge location until a new home for it could be found. 52 By 1929, however, the city realized that moving the span would create some difficult engineering problems and require funds that were unavailable. The bridge commission placed advertisements to try to sell the span, but received no responses. Despite a desire to move the span to nearby Seaside Park, officials agreed to scrap the span within sixty days of the opening of the new Yell ow Mill bridge. 53 Despite persistent rumors within the city of Bridgeport today that the span was in fact moved and now serves as the Pleasure Beach Bridge ( carrying Central Avenue over Lewis Gut), this is not true. The Pleasure Beach bridge was built in 192754 and comparison of the physical structure of this span with that once at Yellow Mill reveals clear differences between the bridges.

49Yellow Mill Bridge Commission, 172.

50Ibid., 180.

51YM Plans, "Approach Spans-[various]," Sheets 29-34.

52"City Hopes to Store Old Mill River Bridge Where It Is Now," Bridgeport Post, October 4, 1928.

53"0ld Yellow Mill Bridge is 'White Elephant' to City," Bridgeport Post, February 5, 1929.

54"New Bridge Opens," Bridgeport Post, May 25, 1927.


(Page 14)

Cost Overruns and Scandal

By June of 1927 it was apparent that original estimates for cost of the new Yellow Mill Bridge were too low, and city representatives to the State legislature petitioned for the right to issue additional bonds to pay for the cost overruns of the bridge. In addition, the Bridgeport representatives attempted to obtain state funding to defray some of the additional costs of the bridge, but their plea was rejected.55 City officials did manage to convince the Connecticut Railway and Lighting Company, a street railway company which ran in Bridgeport until 193 7-38,56 to contribute $30,000 toward construction of the new Yellow Mill Bridge which carried its tracks along Stratford Avenue.57

As construction continued, cost overruns and charges for extras continued to mount. The general contractor levied additional charges for many extras, materials and services required for construction but not indicated on the bridge specifications or plans. Extras included removal of old masonry, 58 foundations, abutments, and pilings from previous structures that were hidden below the water line and to deal with softer-than-expected subaqueous soil conditions. By November of 1928 city officials were estimating insufficient funds for completion of the bridge amounting to $425,000 with the bridge's total cost at $1,590,000.59

In December the Bridgeport Common Council formed Yell ow Mill Bridge Investigating Committee to investigate the cost overruns. In its report to the Council the following March, the Committee detailed all items related to the cost of the bridge. The original bids received in May 1927 were included along with tables showing the revised bids using actual quantities approved through December 31, 1928. The hiring, qualifications, and contract of Engineer Beugler were also included.

Regarding ownership of the Blakeslee-Bridgeport Corporation, the committee found that George McCarthy Sr., the father of a member of the Bridge Commission, owned 48 of 100 shares of this company for which he paid only $4,800. In just thirteen months he received $82,250 in dividends from this small investment. Unfortunately, the committee was unable to question McCarthy for he was out of state and did not reply to correspondence sent to him. The report demonstrates Blakeslee-Bridgeport as a dummy company acting as a front for C.W. Blakeslee and Sons. It owned no physical assets; charges for materials, supplies, rental equipment, supervision, administration, etc. were funneled through C.W. Blakeslee and Sons. BlakesleeBridgeport seemingly did little more than collect overhead charges. Although Clarence Blakeslee insisted that company was legitimate, the committee concluded that "An air of secrecy surrounded the activities of

1937.

55Bridgeport Post, June 10, 1927.

56"Alas! The Poor Trolley! It Will Soon Be a Museum Piece," Bridgeport Sunday Post, June 20,

57Bridgeport Post, February 3, 1928.

58"Extras at Yellow Mill Bridge $2,724; Cost $79,218 in June," Bridgeport Post, July 6, 1928.

59"Yellow Mill Bridge to Cost $1,590,000," Bridgeport Post, November 3, 1928.

this Corporation. "60


(Page 15)

The committee reached several conclusions regarding the overcharging, the most significant of which faults the contractor and its chosen method of construction of the bridge foundations for the bulk of the additional costs.

It is apparent from a study of the Contract, Specifications and Plans that the Consulting Engineer who designed the Foundation Plans intended the work to be done either by the Coffer Dam method or the Open Caisson method. The Contractor elected to use the Coffer Dam method but instead of excavating the sites of the Piers after having driven the Sheet Piling, and then driving the Piles within the Coffer Dam, he practically excavated the material from shore to shore by dredging down to a point somewhat below where the Piles were to be cut off and then drove the piles in the open, after which the Steel Sheet Piling was driven, enclosing the Piles.

In our opinion, the result of this is that an excessive amount of material was removed ... and the only one benefitted was the Contractor. The quantities of various items was increased thereby, resulting in a heavy charge to the city ... The method also necessitated leaving in, permanently, the Steel Sheet Piling enclosing Pier No. 2 for which the City had to pay about $41,000 ... increasing the thickness of the seal course ... at a cost ofabout $17,000 . . . increas[ing] the amount of excavation below the areas of the Piers and Abutments and increas[ing] ... the amount of ... masonry.

In addition to these items, the number of yards of Gravel Fill required was greatly increased, additional old Piles were removed and this expense would not have been incurred had the intended Coffer Dam method been followed.61

The report then enumerates item by item the estimated and actual quantities for construction materials along with an explanation of each discrepancy. For some items the differences were huge such as for removal of old piles. This item was estimated at 552 piles but the city was charged for 2,601 piles.62 The committee also discovered extra work completed and billed withoutpreapproval, among other violations of the contract. It is also revealed that when Mr. Beugler took steps to prevent the contractor from making some of these expensive changes to the plans he was removed from his supervisory position to a consulting capacity by the bridge commission.63 He was relieved of his supervisory duty from about February 1 to June 1, 1927.64

60Yellow Mill Bridge Investigating Committee, 127.

61Ibid., 128.

62Ibid., 128.

63Ibid., 138.

64Ibid., 144.


(Page 16)

The investigating committee reached several conclusions:

1. The city was grossly overcharged for some items such as dredging and excavation for which the contractor charged $2.50 and $14.50 per cubic yard but for which he only paid a subcontractor 55 cents per yard.

2. Most overruns resulted from the excavation method chosen by the contractor. The limits of dredging should have been more clearly defined on the specifications and drawings.

3. The City Engineer should have been more involved with the project and should have been an advisory member to the Commission.

4. A Commission member should not have been permitted who maintain "a material interest in the Contract."

5. The general contractor violated the contract by not providing "in writing a definite plan of doing the work" as specified in the contract, by utilizing an unspecified method for construction of the Piers, and for completing extra work without authorization.

The Committee recommended that "a substantial part of the overpayment, $183,442 . . . should be recovered. "65 The group voted, however, not to press criminal charges. The mayor asked for and received the resignation of George McCarthy, Jr. from the bridge commission.66 Not surprisingly, with the establishment of the Investigating Committee in late 1928, accusations of overcharging and fraud on the part of Bridgeport Blakeslee began to mount in the local press. Although reports focused on details of items for which the city was overcharged, there were also accusations of a bribe in the form of a gold watch given to a city employee by the general contractor.67 The Bridgeport Times Star ran a very lengthy article in February of 1929 which largely transcribes Investigating Committee hearings in which Clarence Blakeslee responded to accusations of overcharging on the bridge. Blakeslee admitted to the seemingly excessive amounts indicated, but said that what appeared to be overcharging was in reality overhead costs that had been spread throughout the project. Blakeslee defended the quality of the work on the bridge and defended costs, claiming the approval of all charges by Edwin Beugler, the city-hired consulting engineer. 68

By August of 1929, however, Blakeslee succumbed to pressure and offered to reduce charges for the bridge by $100,000 and the bridge commission voted to approve this offer. Democrats, crying foul-play and stating that the city would lose $83,000 in the deal, utilized an obscure and little used law which allowed the State's

65Ibid., 142-157.

66"The Bridge Report," The Bridgeport Post, March 5, 1929.

67"City Engineer First Suggested Using Sheeting, Probe Discloses," Bridgeport Post, January 16, 1929.

68"Senior Scores Blakeslee for Overhead Items," Bridgeport Times Star, February 8, 1929.


(Page 17)

Attorney to appoint three Justices of the Peace to continue to probe the bridge scandal.69 Regardless of this probe, however, in November of 1929, the city made a final payment to Blakeslee under the agreement which reduced the total cost by $100,000; the final bridge cost was $1,379,839.70 In March of 1931, the Connecticut State Senate repealed the 200-year-old law which permitted Justices of the Peace to probe illegal activities, thus ending investigation of the Yell ow Mill Bridge construction. 71

Although an all-encompassing search of Bridgeport newspapers was not made for this project, the number of articles relating to the Yellow Mill scandal appearing in clippings files at the Bridgeport Public Library certainly indicates extensive coverage of this incident by the local media. The construction of the bridge itself, cost overruns, charges of corruption and overcharging as well as the hearings and investigations into the Yellow Mill Bridge construction were reported in thorough detail by the press. This scandal was certainly an event of which Bridgeport residents, and likely members of surrounding communities, were well aware. One would assume that fraud and mismanagement such as occurred in this project would generate an air of skepticism in the local government's ability to manage the affairs of the city, and this assumption is confirmed by consequent political events.

The Yellow Mill Bridge scandal played a major role in the Bridgeport mayoral election of 1929. Mayor Behrens, a Republican, was in charge throughout the Yellow Mill project and obviously had the most to lose as a result of the city's financial loss in this project. He was opposed in the election by Edward T. Buckingham, Democrat, and Socialist Party candidate Jasper McLevy.

Buckingham was the candidate who pushed the Yell ow Mill Bridge case to the top of the agenda, promising to clean up city hall by ending cost-plus contracts and the pay-as-you-go philosophy that exacerbated the problems at Yellow Mill. McLevy used this blundered bridge project as one of many examples of his larger campaign issue, city debt and public referenda for all bond issues.

Every proposed bond issue should go before the voters to be decided on its own merits .. . The original bonds for the Yellow Mill Bridge were not to exceed $800,000. If the commission had to go before the people for the extra bonds, in all probability there would never have been a bridge scandal because it would have been an open political issue in the election calling for the extra bonds.72

McLevy's main indictment ofBehren's administration was not the fraud demonstrated by Yellow Mill but the city's financial condition at the conclusion ofBehren's term; under his administration Bridgeport's debt rose more than $3.5 million.

69"Bridge Cost Settlement Plan Meets With Mixed Comments," Bridgeport Post, August 20, 1929.

70"City Makes Final Bridge Payment," Bridgeport Post, November 3, 1929.

71nJustices of Peace Loose Probe Powers," Bridgeport Post, March 19, 1931.

72Alan H. Olmstead, "The Great Jasper," unpublished manuscript, Bridgeport Public Library, c. 1943-1944, 132.


(Page 18)

The results of the election demonstrate that it was in part the fraud and political chicanery epitomized by Yellow Mill rather than the fiscal mismanagement of the city which motivated voters. Buckingham won the 1929 election by more than 6,000 votes (17% of the vote). 73 Buckingham held onto his office in the 1931 election as well, but by a smaller margin, defeating McLevy by less than 3,000 votes (7%).74

McLevy ran again in 1933, this time putting scandals such as Yellow Mill (by now some four years past) and more recent events on the front burner. Mayor Buckingham had resigned in the summer of 1933 to pursue his appointment on the State Commission for Workmen's Compensation full time. Therefore, McLevy opposed Buckingham's appointee, Acting Mayor James Dunn and Republican John Schwarz, Jr.75

In this campaign Mc Levy focused not on the overall fiscal problems of the city as he had in 1929 but on the corruption of the Bridgeport political machine. In a 1933 radio address he stated:

Waste, inefficiency and extravagance are the logical outgrowth of the spoils system with its political contracts, duplication of office and exorbitant salaries for political pets. The object of our party is to place the city on a strictly business basis so that at any time any person can see what is being done with the city's money.76

Mclevy won this election by more than 6,000 votes (13%), becoming one of only a few socialists ever elected mayor in the United States. 77 Mclevy went on to serve for 24 years, by far the most of any Mayor of Bridgeport.

Certainly one cannot determine conclusively that the scandal of the Yell ow Mill bridge was the issue that led to McLevy's election. It is unlikely that any one event could have such an effect. It is apparent, however, that the problems at Yellow Mill were a significant issue in Bridgeport politics and the mayoral campaigns of 1929 and 1933. Buckingham ran a campaign that focused on fraud and specifically the problems at the bridge. Four years later, McLevy returned to these issues and revived the Yellow Mill Bridge scandal as a powerful image of poor government which was the main attack of his successful campaign.

73The results of the 1929 election are as follows: Edward R. Buckingham - 20,995 (56% ), F. William Behrens-14,660 (39%), and Jasper McLevy-1,968 (5%). CityofBridgeportMunicipa!Register, 1930,495.

74The results of the 1931 election are: Buckingham - 17,889 (42%), McLevy - 15,084 (35%), and Republican candidate William Mason - 9,374 (22%). City of Bridgeport Municipal Register, 1932, 443.

75Cecelia Frances Backi, The Pursuit of Political Power: Class, Ethnicity, and Municipal Politics in Interwar Bridgeport, 1915-1936. PhD Dissertation Univ. of Pittsburgh (1991) 407.

760lmstead, 187.

77The results for this elevtion are: McLevy-22,445 (48%), Dunn-16,375 (35%), Schwarz- 7,321 (16%). City of Bridgeport Municipal Register, 1934, 308.

PART III. SOURCES OF INFORMATION

A. Engineering drawings:


(Page 19)

Bridgeport, Connecticut Office of the City Engineer. "Center Pipe Roadway Gate for Yellow Mill Bridge," Drawing No. 11408, November 10, 1947.

__ . "City of Bridgeport, CT, Yellow Mill Bridge Contract Plans," prepared by Yellow Mill Bridge Commission and Edwin J. Beugler, Drawing No. 11401, February 1927.

__ . Drawing No. 11408, November 10, 1947.

__ . "Plans for Three Repairs - Yellow Mill Bridge," Drawing No. 9067, March 11, 1922.

__ . "Plans of Temporary Pile Supports for Fixed Spans," Drawing No. 3060, March 17, 1916.

__ . "Plans of Yellow Mill Bridge," Drawing No. 2615, 1901.

__ . "Plan/Survey for Yellow Mill Bridge," Drawing No. 2609, October 1895.

__ . "Proposed Concrete Reinforcing of Center Pier," 1924.

__ . "Proposed Yellow Mill Bridge," prepared by H.G. Scofield, Drawing No. 2600, January 1897.

__ . "Repairs to Girders," Drawing No. 2610, December 1906.

__ . "Re-decking," Drawing No. 11405, 1946.

__ . "Traffic Lamps Standards - Yellow Mill Bridge," Drawing No. 11403, October 17, 1934.

B. Historic Views:

Ca. 1930 View of Yellow Mill Bridge with Former, ca. 1901, Yellow Mill Bridge in inset. Located at the Bridgeport Public Library, Bridgeport, CT.

C. Interviews:

Brilvitch, Charles, Bridgeport City Historian. Interview by author, 30 April 1993.

Plaski, Robert, Connecticut Department of Transportation Maintenance Division. Interview by author, April 30, 1993, June 22, 1994.

D. Bibliography:


(Page 20)

Bacld, Cecelia Francis. "The Pursuit of Political Power: Class, Ethnicity, and Municipal Politics in Interwar Bridgeport, 1915-1936." Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh, 1991.

Bridgeport, Connecticut Office of the City Engineer. Index Card File for Drawings and Plans.

__ . Street Layout Book, 116.

Bridgeport Industrial Capital of Connecticut. The Bridgeport Printing Company, n.d. [Souvenier Booklet at Bridgeport Public Library, Historical Collections].

Bridgeport Post. 1927-1966

Bridgeport Times Star. 1929.

City of Bridgeport. "Yellow Mill Bridge Contract Plans," February 1927.

City of Bridgeport Municipal Register, 1925-1934.

Darnell, Victor C. Directory of American Bridge-Building Companies. Washington, D.C.: Society for Industrial Archeology, 1984.

Historic Resource Consultants. Connecticut Historic Bridge Inventory. Report prepared for the Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1990.

Hoole, George A. and W.S. Kinne. Movable and Long-Span Steel Bridges. New York: McGraw Hill, 1943.

Hovey, Otis Ellis. Movable Bridges. New York: McGraw Hill, 1926.

Hughes, Arthur H. and Morse S. Allen. Connecticut Place Names. Hartford: Connecticut Historical Society, 1976.

Knapp, Lewis G. In Pursuit of Paradise: History of the Town of Stratford, Connecticut. West Kennebunk, Maine: Phoenix Publishing, 1989.

Nye, David. Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, 1880-1940. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990.

Bridgeport, Connecticut Common Council. Official Proceedings. 1925-1935.

Olmstead, Alan H. "The Great Jasper," unpublished manuscript, Bridgeport Public Library, c. 1943-1944.

Orcutt, Rev. Samuel. The History of the Town of Stratford and the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut, New Haven: Press of Tuttle, Morehouse & Taylor, 1886.


(Page 21)

Roth, Matthew and Bruce Clouette. Bridge #3637 - Yellow Mill Bridge. Historic Bridge Inventory Form prepared for the Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1990.

__ . Bridge #4455 - Pleasure Beach Bridge. Historic Bridge Inventory Form prepared for the Connecticut Department of Transportation, 1990.

Town of Stratford, Connecticut. Land Records. Vol. 16.

Waldo, George C. The "Standard's" History of Bridgeport. Bridgeport: The Standard Association, 1897.

____ , ed. History of Bridgeport and Vicinity. New York: S.J. Clarke, 1917.

Yellow Mill Bridge Commission, "Contract Form and Specifications for the Construction of a Bridge at Stratford Avenue Over Yellow Mill Pond, February 1927." In Bridgeport, Connecticut Common Council. Official Proceedings. 1928-29, 150-202.

Yell ow Mill Bridge Investigating Committee, "Report of Yell ow Mill Bridge Investigating Committee, March 4th, 1929," In Bridgeport, Connecticut Common Council. Official Proceedings. 1928-29, 115-147.

Yearbook of Bridgeport Year of Trade, 1905.


(Page 22)

USGS Location Map

;..! I BRIDGEPORT, CONN. N4107.5-W7307.5/7.5

' [;le:,

I' ~ 1970

~ AMS 6366 II NW-SERIES V816

SCALE 1:24000

1.,_ ~ ,oo, o l ""' , 2000 7 """' ,ooo ""', ""';:/m .C.N E:C::E3::::E3:=E3::=:E3::::E==:==:==:==:==::==========

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET DATUM IS MEAN Sl;:A LEVEL

DEPTH CURVES AND SOUNDINGS IN FEET-DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER SHORELINE SHOWN REPRESENTS THE APPROXIMATE LINE OF MEAN HIGH WATER

UTM GRID AND 1970 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

THE MEAN RANGE OF TIOE IS APPROXIMATELY 6.8 FEET

I MILE

Site Plan


(Page 23)

Date post:	13-Apr-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

YELLOW MILL BRIDGE CT-146 Route 130 (Stratford Avenue ...

Documents