Rating:
No votes cast

Snow Hill Covered Bridge 14-24-09

Photos 

Overview

Photo taken by Tom Hall

BH Photo #102803

Map 

Description 

I refuse to call the current work restoration, as way to much of the original historic timbers are being replaced. From what I have seen so far the county would have been better off bypassing it with a new span or moving it to another location. Not sure how it can retain National Register status when most of the historic integrity is lost.

According to the "Whitewater Valley Explorer" of June-July 1996 the name of this bridge came from the family who lived on the hill overlooking the bridge.

Facts 

Overview
Covered bridge over Johnson Fork Whitewater River on Snow Hill Road
Location
Franklin County, Indiana
Status
Restored and open for traffic.
History
Built 1894 by William Butts and John Horn; rehabilitated 1987 and 2010-11
Builders
- John Horn
- William Butts
Design
Howe through truss
Dimensions
Length of largest span: 44.9 ft.
Total length: 83.9 ft.
Deck width: 14.4 ft.
Vertical clearance above deck: 13.4 ft.
Recognition
Posted to the National Register of Historic Places on March 3, 1995
Also called
Johnson Fork Covered Bridge
Approximate latitude, longitude
+39.32550, -84.85183   (decimal degrees)
39°19'32" N, 84°51'07" W   (degrees°minutes'seconds")
Approximate UTM coordinates
16/685166/4355099 (zone/easting/northing)
Quadrangle map:
Harrison
Average daily traffic (as of 2011)
203
Inventory numbers
INNBI 2400072 (Indiana bridge number on the National Bridge Inventory)
WGCB 14-24-09 (World Guide to Covered Bridges number)
NRHP 95000208 (National Register of Historic Places reference number)
BH 16164 (Bridgehunter.com ID)
Inspection report (as of October 2016)
Overall condition: Good
Superstructure condition rating: Good (7 out of 9)
Substructure condition rating: Good (7 out of 9)
Deck condition rating: Good (7 out of 9)
Sufficiency rating: 63.7 (out of 100)
View more at BridgeReports.com

Update Log 

  • June 14, 2018: New photos from Linda Daffron
  • July 22, 2011: Updated by Ed Hollowell: Naming information
  • February 18, 2011: Updated by Anthony Dillon: Updated status
  • November 22, 2010: Updated by Anthony Dillon: Changed status and added other information
  • November 9, 2010: New photo from Bill Eichelberger
  • May 18, 2010: New Street View added by Ed Hollowell
  • May 18, 2010: New photo from Bill Eichelberger
  • March 24, 2010: Updated by Bill Eichelberger: Added Google Street View.
  • October 28, 2009: New photos from Bill Eichelberger
  • November 6, 2006: Posted photo from Tom Hall

Sources 

Comments 

Snow Hill Covered Bridge
Posted March 20, 2011, by Alan Fulling

I think the main most important thing is that the number does not go down from 89 to 88. We need to focus on keeping every bridge intact. Traders point and Seal bridge need to be saved. Let's not worry about origional timbers, and be concerned with saving bridges.

Snow Hill Covered Bridge
Posted February 17, 2011, by Nathan Holth (form3 [at] historicbridges [dot] org)

Regarding the comment "Not sure how it can retain National Register status when most of the historic integrity is lost."

TransSystems commented in the Ohio Historic Bridge Inventory that "Most covered bridges are characterized by a high degree of replacement fabric, including roof, siding, decking, flooring systems, and substructure." This means that many covered bridges really are only historic in terms of structure type, not in terms of actual materials and fabric.

From what I have observed, historic integrity does not matter with covered bridges, nor does whether the bridge is significant in order to achieve NR Eligibility. All one need do is demonstrate that its a covered bridge and they slap a "Listed" status on it. For example, 1920s covered bridges are NR listed. Bridges this late are out of context (the type was largely abandoned 30 years earlier), are not early examples of kind, and lack innovative or distinctive details. A metal truss bridge this far out of context and this late an example of type would be shot down as Not Eligible.

In some cases this contrast is both offensive and utterly insane. For example this bridge was built in the 1940s!!! http://www.bridgehunter.com/pa/greene/307213056820230/ and was NR listed in 1979 when it was only 36 years old, and hadn't even met the 50 year mark? Only nationally significant under-50 bridges should be listed (Mackinac Bridge used to be an example). So this was listed after 36 years. Yet at the same time, PennDOT shot this 89 year old metal truss bridge http://www.historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowse... that retains near-perfect historic integrity down as Not Eligible.

Snow Hill Covered Bridge
Posted February 17, 2011, by Bill Eichelberger (wallyum [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Disappointing. Reminds me of this "restoration": http://www.bridgehunter.com/ky/bracken/bh37626/

Snow Hill Covered Bridge
Posted February 17, 2011, by Anthony Dillon (spansaver [at] hotmail [dot] com)

Unfortunately, this is almost like a new bridge as a large portion of the original timbers were replaced.

I would have preferred them to move it elsewhere and not compromise the historic integrity.

Snow Hill Covered Bridge
Posted February 17, 2011, by Alan Fulling (bigalbran [at] yahoo [dot] com)

For bridgers like us, you may be interested to know that the retoration on this bridge is complete. It looks great.