Paved Roads & Public Money. Richard DeLuca
to or from trunk line routes were also added to the system. A combination of state and local funds was used to improve these secondary highways, which in the early years of the program were designated as “state-aid” roads. Those roads that were left at the bottom of the highway hierarchy were considered town roads, and they remained the responsibility of the local community.8
From the beginnings of the state-controlled program in 1907 to about 1923, MacDonald’s objective was simple: to pave over as many miles of dirt highways in the state as possible, with routes included in the trunk line system being given the highest priority. The objective in these early years of the new program was simply to keep pace with the growth of traffic created by the increasing number of automobiles and trucks registered in the state, which grew from 2,700 autos and 60 trucks in 1907 to 153,000 autos and 30,000 trucks by 1923—with no letup in sight. And that did not include traffic created by out-of-state vehicles entering Connecticut from New York and Massachusetts, an important element of travel in the region since the earliest days of the Connecticut colony.
BRIDGES AND FERRIES IN THE EARLY AUTO AGE
Preparing the state’s major river crossings to accommodate automobility presented its own set of difficulties. First, there was the matter of seven toll bridges around the state, some of which were still in private hands as of 1887. These seven toll bridges included three over the Housatonic River: the Washington Bridge at Stratford, the Zoar Bridge at Oxford, and Bennett’s Bridge at Southbury. Since the first two toll bridges were already town owned, and Bennett’s crossing abandoned by its private owner, the General Assembly in 1889 was able to enact a simple bill that allowed for the transfer of these bridges into the hands of Fairfield and New Haven counties, who were to maintain the crossings from that point forward, sharing the costs equally.9
More problematic were the three privately owned bridges across the Connecticut River in Hartford County: the Dixon Bridge at Suffield, an old timber crossing last rebuilt in 1832; a new suspension bridge at Warehouse Point that had only been completed in 1886 by the Windsor Locks & Warehouse Point Bridge and Ferry Company; and Hartford Bridge at Hartford, a covered wooden bridge last rebuilt in 1818. The seventh toll crossing, Rope Ferry Bridge, spanned the Niantic River in East Lyme.
Unlike turnpike roads, most of these toll bridges were profitable enterprises that paid dividends to their stockholders. To free such a bridge, a dollar value would have to be determined for the assets of the corporation—bridge, toll house, perhaps some adjacent lands—that was satisfactory to all concerned, and the assets purchased by a public agent of the state, often the town(s) involved. And then there was the matter of maintenance, which in the case of a bridge meant not only small ongoing repairs but also the eventual rebuilding of the structure, a much more expensive undertaking.
The most important of these Connecticut River toll bridges was the one at Hartford. As an important crossing on the upper Post Road to Boston, Hartford Bridge was well used throughout the nineteenth century. But as commerce and traffic increased following the Civil War, so did the public’s weariness at having to stop and pay a toll as they crossed the river. As one newspaper suggested, “The public … are sick of groping for pennies in their pockets and chafe in these days of easy communication at the idea of barriers across the highways.”10
In 1887, a petition containing ten thousand signatures was submitted to the legislature asking that the Hartford Bridge be freed at once. As a result, and consistent with the tradition of town responsibility for highways, a law was passed that session appointing three commissioners to estimate the cost of purchasing the existing bridge, decide which towns benefited most from the bridge, and assess the cost of the purchase against those towns “in such proportion as said commissioners shall find to be equitable.” Though existing law would have assessed the bridge purchase against Hartford and East Hartford, the towns on either shore, the legislature was apparently looking for a way to spread the burden among any and all towns that benefited from the bridge, leaving it to the commission and the Superior Court to decide which towns those might be. Once the corporation had been bought out and the bridge freed, the act authorized the creation of a “Board for the Care of Highways and Bridges across the Connecticut River,” composed of representatives of the chosen towns, to maintain the structure.11
The Hartford covered bridge as it appeared in the 1890s.
Crossing the Connecticut, by George E. Wright, 1908
After holding several public hearings on the matter, the commissioners filed their report with the superior court on August 14, 1888. The report set damages to the bridge company at $210,000, and assessed the damages against the five towns of Hartford, East Hartford, Glastonbury, South Windsor, and Manchester in the amounts of $95,000, $66,000, $25,000, $12,000, and $12,000, respectively. However, when the five towns objected to the arbitrariness of the assessments, which had been determined without regard to any particular formula using, say, population or grand list, the court postponed any further action.12
To ease the burden on the five towns, the following spring the legislature enacted a law requiring the state to contribute 40 percent (or $84,000) toward the total cost of the bridge purchase. With the assessments of each of the five towns reduced accordingly, the new scheme was approved by the courts, and when the last town assessment was received by the state treasurer on September 11, 1889, Hartford Bridge became a free crossing.13
“Quite a crowd had gathered by this time, and a line of sprinters had been formed, from those who were eager for the distinction of being first over the free bridge. Patrick Turley was the Mercury of this band and he easily won the contested honor … a curiosity gatherer, purchased the last silver dollar, paid to the bridge man for toll, for $1.50. There was plenty of fun-making by the spectators … everyone was evidently in the best of spirits.” Except perhaps for the bridge company shareholders, who were sorry to see their investment come to an end.14
Once Hartford Bridge became a free crossing, however, problems began to appear. The five-town Board for the Care of Highways and Bridges across the Connecticut River soon entered into a contract with the Hartford & Wethersfield Horse Railway Company to build and operate a horse railroad across the bridge from Hartford to East Hartford. The horse railway company was to install its tracks on new planking and afterwards maintain the bridge deck for two feet on either side of its tracks, thereby easing the cost of maintenance for the five bridge towns. However, two years later, when the railway company decided to electrify the line, an inspection of the bridge indicated that the wooden structure, by then more than seventy years old, was “in rather poor shape” and in places was beginning to move away from its brick foundation piers, likely a result of vibrations caused by the operation of the horse railroad.15
Once it became apparent that the crossing would have to be replaced sooner rather than later, the board hired a law firm to lobby the legislature on behalf of a bill that would transfer ownership of Hartford Bridge to the state for the sole purpose of reconstruction. In June 1893, the General Assembly acquiesced to the board’s wishes, and a new law declared that Hartford Bridge and its approaches “hereafter be maintained by the state of Connecticut at its expense.” That July, the legislature appointed three commissioners to oversee the rebuilding of the bridge, and they in turn contracted with the Berlin Iron Bridge Company to construct a new steel span.16
With the bridge replacement project underway, a scandal erupted when it was discovered that the commissioners had used $35,000 in public bridge funds to lobby for the bill transferring ownership to the state, an action contrary to their status as agents of the state. In addition, it was discovered that the contract for a new bridge had been entered into without the commissioners keeping proper records of their actions. As a result, Morgan G. Buckeley, former governor of Connecticut and a well-respected Republican political boss, took legislative charge of the matter and—once again consistent with the Connecticut tradition of town responsibility for highways—introduced a bill to repeal the act of 1893 and return the bridge to town ownership for reconstruction and future maintenance. Hearings were held and arguments were made, pro and con, for weeks. In the end, the Buckeley