1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 : 9 : 10 : 11 : 12 : 13 : 14 : 15

The Union Bridge [Problems]

Meanwhile, we must return to the Union Bridge, the first of all the Point spans, that with its stolid wooden trusses and its ornamental Italianate portals was still doing duty at the turn of the century, albeit it also needed repairs after 25 years' service.

Unfortunately, from the very beginning there had been complaints about the bridge on the score of obstructing navigation on the Allegheny River. At low water the clearance height of the span was 37 to 40 feet, but at high water only 7 to 9 feet. (39) In 1902 the dissatisfaction became so acute that a petition was sent to the Secretary of War by persons, corporations, and companies in and about Pittsburgh -- "There can be no doubt that this bridge is an unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the Ohio, Allegheny, and Monongahela Rivers on account of insufficient height . . . We respectfully request that you will investigate this matter, having full confidence that after making such an investigation you will find it to be your duty to take action against its owners under provisions of

Section 18 of the River and Harbor Act approved 3 March, 1899. The Union Bridge is an old wooden structure and will soon need, in fact it already needs extensive repairs to make it safe for public use." (40)

The matter was referred by the Secretary of War to the proper officers of the Engineering Corps of the Army for examination and report. Under the date of 8 December, 1902, Captain Sibert, Captain of Engineers, who conducted the examination reported and recommended to the Chief of Engineers that the company be given notice to make alterations. On 16 December, 1902, the Chief of Engineers transmitted that report to the Secretary of War.

On 20 January, 1903, Mr. Root, then Secretary of War, issued notice to the company to alter the bridge, giving them 18 months in which to comply.

At the request of the company the time was extended by successor Secretary Taft to 1 December, 1904, and again extended by him to 1 January, 1905. Subsequently, a rehearing was requested by the company but was refused by Secretary Taft, who in his reply said that at the time the bridge was erected, the Army engineer in charge of the district, Colonel Merrill, publicly announced that the bridge was an obstruction to navigation.

Finally, the last court of appeal, the Supreme Court, ruled that the company must comply with the government order. Rather than alter the aging structure, the company decided to close and dismantle it. The date for the beginning of demolition on file at the Department of Public Works in Pittsburgh is 4 May, 1907. The Pittsburgh Chronicle-Telegraph for 3 May, 1307, goes on to say that "The Dravo Construction company was the contract for dismantling the bridge . . . The bridge charter is now on the market (there is no record in the charter books at Harrisburg that it was ever sold). One million feet of timber are being removed -- principally white pine -- and it is in remarkably good condition. Within the next thirty days all timber will be down and then the work of taking down the piers and abutments will begin. If a new bridge is built it must be 72 feet above low water mark and have a channel span of not less than 100 feet."

Thus passed the archaic wooden bridge at the Point; it was essentially an artifact of early nineteenth century America and could not have endured much longer in any event. In old photographs its rough spans betray a curious stilted awkwardness, and for all the provincial sophistication of its "architectural" portals, it still looked crude, homespun and egregiously out of fashion. A "rugged individualist" bridge, built in a free-wheeling age by rugged individualists who took no account of navigable streams, it vanished because it could not survive in the twentieth century. But as a document of medieval industrial America, its history is instructive.

Unfortunately, the passing of the Union Bridge left its important and strategic site bridgeless and an increasing volume of traffic was thrown upon the bridges farther up the Allegheny -- the Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Street bridges. Many former patrons of the bridge, especially baseball "fans" who had used it to reach the old Exposition Park on the North Side, watched its demolition with regret. (41) Despite the need of a new bridge, the fact that toll bridges over the rivers were rapidly becoming a thing of the past, made it very unlikely that any bridge company would buy the charter of the old Union Bridge. A new bridge would have to be built either by the City of PIttsburgh or Allegheny County.

Even before the old bridge was demolished there was talk of a new bridge -- "Many influential citizens of Pittsburgh and Allegheny are said to favor a bridge plan that was outlined by Director E. J. McIlvain, of the Department of Public Works of Allegheny . . . lt is proposed to build an immense bridge to span the Allegheny River from a point near the Exposition Buildings (on the Pittsburgh side) to Coleman Street with an elevated approach spanning the Baltimore and Ohio tracks and yards, Rebecca, Lacock, Ann, Robinson, and Kilbuck Streets, the approach to extend to Coleman Street by Monument Hill." (42)

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 : 9 : 10 : 11 : 12 : 13 : 14 : 15