THREE SISTERS BRIDGES
HAER No. PA-490
(Page 16)

Baker's upward revision of Shunk's recommendations posed serious grading problems, requiring the county either to buy more private property for longer approaches, or to increase the bridges' grade by about one percent. [62] Crucial in Baker's decision was the fact that Pittsburgh led the nation in steel production, an industry whose fate affected enterprises and commercial development across the nation. Both river and rail distribution played an important role in making the abundant iron ore and rich coal deposits of the area available to producers both local and outside of the area. Improvements along the Monongahela had made that river a better transportation route, especially for craft relying on stern-wheel equipment that often found its sister river unnavigable. [63]

Allegheny County owned six of the seven Allegheny bridges considered not in compliance: the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Sixteenth, Thirtieth, and Forty-third Street bridges. A seventh bridge, for the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway, was owned by a subsidiary of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. [64] For boats needing 32'-6" clearance (with lowered stacks), navigation was impossible for periods varying from 14 days at Thirtieth Street; 82 days at Seventh Street and the Fort Wayne bridge; 105 days at Sixth and Ninth streets; and for the entire year at Sixteenth and Forty-third streets. Baker rejected the suggestion that boat manufacturers be encouraged to build craft to meet available bridge heights, as well as the observation that certain bridges obstructed traffic for relatively few days. The Secretary of War asserted that the government's responsibility was to ensure navigation of current waters, using craft available locally, and to ensure reliable transportation for resources vital to the nation's industrial growth as well as to the local economy.[65]

The uneven pier locations along the river, particularly on the downtown structures within such close proximity, made for dangerous conditions because of the Allegheny's swift currents and frequent fluctuations in water level. [66] The Sixth, Seventh and Ninth Street bridges were 0.7, and 0.8 miles from where the Allegheny flowed into the Ohio. The Sixth Street Bridge's main span of 430'-0" lay on the left of the river, while the other two structures had spans of 422'-0" and 410'-0" over the center channels. Clearances were, respectively, 33.3', 47.1', and

----

[62] Covell, "Bridge-Raising Program," 86.

[63] War Department, Opinion, 5-6.

[64] War Department, Opinion, 6. Warren and Wetmore and H. G. Balcom designed the Sixteenth Street Bridge completed in 1923. The Forty-Third Street Bridge was razed and replaced in 1924 by one at Fortieth Street, designed by Benno Janssen and Charles S. Davis. See "Three New Allegheny River Bridges To Be Of Unusual Type," in Engineering News-Record 93 (1924): 995.

[65] War Department, Opinion, 6-7.

[66] War Department, Opinion, 7-8.




THREE SISTERS BRIDGES
HAER No. PA-490
(Page 17)

47.3' at the lowest portion of the superstructure during low water, and 3.5', 17.3', and 17.4' during high water.[67]

Baker's final ruling noted that raising the clearances would maintain cheaper river transportation as a vital component of the nation's transportation infrastructure and strengthen the country's commerce by not favoring land-based highways over water routes. He dismissed charges that the government's interest be dictated by the river's use at that time, asserting that the federal role was to help achieve the potential of a resource and not merely to sustain its current level of use. As a vital portion of the city's harbor, the downtown sites alone could justify clearance modifications on those bridges, regardless of whether the resources of the Allegheny river basin matched those of the slower-moving and more profitable Monongahela River. Finally, he asserted that waiting to make changes in the structures merely would increase the cost and inconvenience of the process. [68]

Focusing on the potential shipping load of the Allegheny River, rather than its second-class status compared to the Monongahela, proved an important point. Monthly freight records from the period just before construction began on the three downtown bridges reveals a large disparity in the shipping along the two rivers. Freight carried on the Allegheny in October 1924 paled in comparison to loads transported on the Monongahela and comprised only half of that on the Ohio. While commerce on the Allegheny totaled just more than 370,000 short tons, the Monongahela supported a robust trade of more than 2 million short tons. The Allegheny carried proportionately more coke and gasoline than the other rivers, nearly as much gravel as either of the other two bodies of water, and more sand than either. The location of steel mills along the Monongahela and Ohio rivers provided their heavy coal and steel cargoes. [69]

In separate notices to the county commissioners on 23 March 1917, the Secretary of War outlined specifications that the new bridges would be required to meet. The Sixth Street crossing needed three spans between present abutments, with at least 400.0' clearance between piers, the south end of the main span 416.0' from the building line of Duquesne Way at Federal Street. A 47.0' clearance above the Davis Island pool had to be maintained for at least 180.0' near mid-span, with clearances not less than 32.0'at abutments. At the Seventh Street location, the middle channel of a three-span structure needed at least a 350.0' clear width between piers, with the middle span's left pier 407.0' from the building line of Duquesne Way at Sandusky Street. The clearance had to be at least47.1' over the middle 180.0' and could drop no lower than27.5' toward the south abutment, or 31.7' at the north abutment. The Ninth Street Bridge had to provide the same 350.0' clear width, with its left pier 400.0' from building line at Anderson Street. The middle 180.0' needed a minimum clearance of at least 47.5', and the structure could

----

[67] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, List of Bridges over the Navigable Waters of the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1926),6-7.

[68] War Department, Opinion, 8-10.

[69] Norman F. Brown, "AIIegheny County Improvements Started in 1928 Total $43,680,000," Greater Pittsburgh, 22 Dec.1928.




THREE SISTERS BRIDGES
HAER No. PA-490
(Page 18)

drop no lower than 26.4' at the south abutment, or 27.4' at the city wharf to the north. All rip-rap within 10.0' of the water line had to be removed, forcing contractors to build piers deep enough to anchor the bridge without relying on significant rubble bracing the channel masonry. [70]

With the issue decided, the county bore responsibility for implementing the order to raise bridge clearances, move piers to ensure clear channel navigation, and make the changes as palatable to the bridge customers as possible. [71] World War I intervened to delay the 28 March 1917 order, which was suspended until one year later. After the armistice, the War Department renewed its demand in April 1919, revising the start date for work on the Seventh and Ninth Street bridges to 2 April 1920, with work on the Sixth Street Bridge to be started exactly one year later. All projects received another two-year extension. [72]

The county and bridge interests tried several tactics to convince the War Department to make the project easier to complete. In 1921 the department refused to allow changes along the lines of Shunk's lower clearances, and a Bridge Raising Board comprised of representatives from federal and municipal departments split over a 1922 report about grades. The majority supported increasing grades on the Sixth Street Bridge up to a total of 4.25 percent while maintaining approach grades, on the Seventh Street Bridge up to 4.5 percent with a 4.36' rise on Duquesne Way, and on the Ninth Street Bridge up to 4.5 percent while elevating Duquesne Way 2.63'. A 1922 meeting failed to present enough fresh evidence for yet another commander, Secretary of War J. W. Weeks, to reopen the case, and serious design efforts to meet the ultimatum began soon thereafter. [73]

Anti-toll sentiment emerged long before the fight between bridge companies and navigation interests erupted. State legislators debated parameters for allowing bridge companies to charge tolls on the Sixth Street Bridge as early as the original charter in 1810, and public support for free bridges grew significantly in the 1850s. [74] In 1907, the still-popular idea of freeing the Allegheny River bridges fueled a quid pro quo arrangement between consolidation supporters on either side of the waterway. The Chamber of Commerce formed a Special Committee on Free Bridges to lobby for purchase or condemnation of all toll bridges in Pittsburgh. In what the committee reported as a "promise" to consolidation supporters, the

----

[70] U.S. War Department, to Allegheny County Commissioners, 23 Mar. 1917, in Bridge Files: AL 02 (Sixth Street), Records Department, Allegheny County Department of Public Works, Pittsburgh, Pa. (hereinafter cited as ACDPW).

[71] War Department, Opinion, 11.

[72] Covell, "Bridge-Raising Program," 84-85.

[73] Covell, "Bridge-Raising Program," 86-87.

[74] Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce, Special Committee on Free Bridges, Report of Committee on Free Bridges (Pittsburgh, 1911), 3; and Baldwin, Pittsburgh: Story of a City, 206.




THREE SISTERS BRIDGES
HAER No. PA-490
(Page 19)

Chamber supported efforts to provide filtered water to the North Side and to eliminate tolls on Allegheny River crossings. [75]

The process entailed long discussions about whether Pittsburgh had the right to force bridge companies to sell their property, the limits of each company's charter for collecting tolls past the time the structures had been paid for, and whether condemnation proceedings were limited to only the municipal entities party to the original charter (in which case Pittsburgh would only have been able to condemn its half of the structures). [76] The city passed an ordinance arranging an offer to purchase the structures and a threat to commence condemnation proceedings if the offer was not accepted within thirty days. After rejecting buying the bridges outright in order to avoid charges of corrupt secret deals with the bridge owners, the city commenced a jury trial to condemn the Seventh Street Bridge. The sitting judge ruled that a state law would have to be passed allowing the city to condemn a structure not totally within its jurisdiction when chartered, however. City officials then lobbied successfully for a state law allowing municipalities many options, including condemnation or purchase, in order to free bridges [77]

When the War Department declared height specifications for the Allegheny River structures, the Chamber proposed that the county or city condemn and purchase the bridges from private companies. In 1909, the city's new mayor, William A. Magee, persuaded Allegheny County to become sole purchaser of the structures. The War Department's decision about navigational clearances encouraged some hesitation about purchasing the structures rather than waiting for the federal government to force the bridge companies to raze their own bridges. In 1911, Secretary of War Jacob M. Dickinson ruled bridges would not have to be raised, and ten days later on 16 March 1911, Allegheny County commissioners finalized the deal. [78]

The county commissioners enforced the legislative act allowing the county to take the bridges for fair market value, financing the purchase of the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Thirtieth Street bridges with a bond issue. [79] When the War Department ordered action in 1917 and again in 1919, the county -- and not the Bridge Company (Sixth Street), North Side Bridge Company (Seventh Street) or the Pittsburgh & Allegheny Bridge Company (Ninth Street) -- faced the dilemma of how to pay for the project.

Raising funds for the project proved as daunting as raising the bridges themselves. Municipal government had gained a reputation for corruption, leaving voters suspicious of undesignated allocations for public works projects such as a last-minute bond proposal initiated

----

[75] Special Committee, Report on Free Bridges, 3.

[76] Special Committee, vReport on Free Bridges.

[77] Special Committee, Report on Free Bridges, 4-7.

[78] Special Committee, Report on Free Bridges, 7-8.

[79] "The Chamber and the Bridges," Pittsburgh First, 6 Dec. 1924, 88.




THREE SISTERS BRIDGES
HAER No. PA-490
(Page 20)

by the county in 1920. The Chamber of Commerce recommended that the commissioners delay the $35 million bond election until the following spring to make more details available to the public and allow more time for advertising its merits. [80]

While Pittsburgh's voters strongly approved of a state bond issue for state-built highways in the 1920s, they refused to support county funding to demolish and rebuild the free bridges. Voters commonly believed massive public works projects to be byways of corruption. They rejected the 1921 bond issue that would have supplied $35 million for altering the three bridges, among other projects. [81] The Chamber supported the 1924 county bond issue that focused on bridge reconstruction and highway improvements after its leadership negotiated proposed wording for the bond election with county commissioners. [82]

In 1924, voters finally approved a $29.2 million bond issue to finance construction of new bridges, municipal buildings, and roadways. Allegheny County commissioners restructured public works-related offices to form a Department of Public Works that could work more closely with the commissioners in planning and completing bond-related projects. The organizational change aided in coordinating a massive infrastructural improvement plan focusing on bridge construction. Between those bridges funded by the bond issue and those constructed as part of the regular budget, forty-one new bridges costing more than $21 million were built in the county from 1924 to 1928. [83] Construction continued when a second bond issue focusing on infrastructure such as roads and an airport was passed on 26 June 1928, for $43.7 million. [84]

Civic boosters noted that the building program funded by the 1924 bond election allowed work that was "in essence a defensive maneuver rather than advance." Much of the work done during the program reconstructed existing transportation routes and structures that had not been updated in the previous two decades due to the war and a lack of local support. [85] Politicians and planners also argued that constructing the three bridges during a period of low construction prices gave an added cost advantage, making full use of the funds authorized by voters. Selecting construction plans that allowed contractors to complete work more quickly also proved a source of "savings" for the area's citizens, who then could gain transportation advantages even faster. [86]

----

[80] "The Chamber and Road Improvements," Pittsburgh First, 6 Dec.1924, 41.

[81] Covell, "Bridge-Raising Program," 86.

[82] Pittsburgh First, "The Chamber and Road Improvements," 41.

[83] Brown, "Allegheny County Improvements," 19.

[84] Brown notes in "AIIegheny County Improvements," 21, that the second bond issue of this construction period in 1928 authorized $43,680,000. It funded projects such as an airport, park improvements, road construction, and erecting bridges at sites that had not before had a crossing structure.

[85] Brown, "Allegheny County Improvements," 21.

[86] Brown, "AIIegheny County Improvements," 20.




Next Page

Page created:
Last modified: 05-May-2003

HAER Text: Haven Hawley, August 1998; Pennsylvania Historic Bridges Recording Project - II
visit site - "American Memory" at Library of Congress
visit site - National Park Service -- Historic American Engineering Record