



![]()
|
|
|
| Key Facts |
| Bridge Name | Facility Carried / Feature Intersected | Location | Structure Type | Construction Date and Builder/Engineer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X |
Fort Steuben Bridge
Stanton Bridge | Freedom Way Over Ohio River | Steubenville and Weirton: Jefferson County, Ohio and Brooke County, West Virginia | Metal Pony Truss Stiffening Wire Cable Suspension, Fixed | 1928 By Builder/Contractor: Dravo Contracting Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania |
| Technical Facts |
| Rehabilitation Date | Main Span Length | Structure Length | Roadway Width | Main Spans | NBI Number |
| 1972 | 688.75 Feet (210 Meters) | 1585 Feet (483.1 Meters) | 20.25 Feet (6.17 Meters) | 3 | 4101987 |

This beautiful wonder of engineering is a classic 1920s
wire-cable suspension bridge. The total suspended length is
1251.75 Feet (381.5 Meters), the center suspension span length is
688.75 Feet (210 Meters), and the approach suspension span length
consists of two spans at
283 Feet (86.26 Meters) each. Navigational vertical underclearance is
86 Feet (26.2 Meters) and the vertical underclearance at the railroad
line is
20.3 Feet (6.2 Meters).
The bridge features a lattice design for the tower structure. Speaking of which, lattice can also be found, along with v-lacing in some areas of on the bridge, although no members of the stiffening truss have either. The top chords of the trusses have v-lacing however, and the towers have lattice. The bottoms of the towers have an attractive arch to them. Both Carnegie and Jones and Laughlin brands can be found on the various steel parts of the bridge. Compared to the fairly nearby Market Street Bridge, the towers on this bridge feel very tall and impressive. Some of this is due to the fairly narrow roadway width, which gives the illusion that the towers are taller. The bridge retains good overall historic integrity for a bridge of this size, although i-beams have been added that run parallel to the top chord of the stiffening truss. Other modifications include replacement of connection rivets with bolts.
"When ODOT's not out plowing snow or repairing the roads we also enjoy blowing up old bridges." -Quote from Ohio Department of Transportation describing the official video of the demolition.

According to the above statement from the Department, the Ohio Department of
Transportation takes pleasure in irreversibly destroying extremely rare historic
bridges. Its hard to argue with their statement, given the number of historic
bridges that Ohio has demolished in recent years. States like Ohio and
Pennsylvania make the number of historic bridges destroyed in World War II in
Europe seem modest. Indeed, ODOT and the hired demolition contractor carried out
the complete destruction of this landmark far more efficiently and effectively
than any wartime bomb could have, evidence of how much experience demolition
contractors have the opportunity to gain, thanks to highway agencies like ODOT.
When the Fort Steuben Bridge was built, engineers and contractors of the time
could not have imagined how the demolition of a bridge like this could be
brought down to a science that would destroy what they spent years designing and
building in a matter of seconds. It is unfortunate that the
Department might not instead take pleasure in preserving beautiful historic
landmarks that would enhance the quality of life in Ohio.
Despite its obvious historic and aesthetic value, and potential for reuse as
a non-motorized crossing, this historic bridge was demolished. The DOTs who owned this bridge
said that every year the structure continued
to deteriorate, and so the weight limit had to keep being lowered. Perhaps this
was
instead an indication that the DOTs are failing, not the
bridge. Perhaps if the bridge had been properly maintained it would not be
falling apart. Although it is the same age, Michigan and
Ontario's Ambassador Bridge
continues to serve traffic as the busiest North American international crossing
with a major user being heavy fully-loaded semi trucks!
Even at the time of demolition, the Fort Steuben Bridge could have and should
have been restored. But
instead, WVDOT and ODOT insisted on wasting $2.3 Million to demolish this
bridge. Millions of valuable taxpayer dollars that could be used for anything
from preserving this historic bridge to simply making area highways smoother and
safer are instead being used to destroy this bridge just for the sake of wiping
it off the face of the earth. They should instead focus funding into restoring
this historic landmark and allowing it to continue to beatify Steubenville,
Weirton, and the Ohio River. Such a graceful structure as a suspension bridge
deserves to be left standing. Even people who are not generally "bridge
enthusiasts" will often stop and photo a suspension bridge, because they are so
large and impressive. To demolish a bridge such as this one is an atrocity to be
sure. Both Ohio and West Virginia should be ashamed of themselves, not only for
failing to maintain this bridge in the past, but also for not choosing to
restore the bridge and make up for their past errors. Particular blame for this
wasteful decision must be laid at ODOT's feet, since they acted as lead agency
for the project. The demolition of
the Fort Steuben Bridge is ridiculous.
Think of all the material waste that demolition causes. The steel of the bridge, which could have been left in place, restored, and reused for a pedestrian crossing, are instead turned into scrap metal. This means that fuel and resources must be used to ship the steel to a scrap yard (possibly as far as China) where extensive energy must be expended to melt down and reuse the steel. Other materials on the bridge must also be shipped away and disposed of. Sure, historic bridge demolitions bring some jobs and profit to demolition contractors. But perhaps if more historic bridges were preserved, these contractors could retool their people and equipment to engage in the good work of preservation.
One of the piers of the historic bridge was left standing. This pier will support a bridge structure that is to be constructed at the cost of a quarter million dollars to provide what is described as a lookout. Seriously?! The beautiful landmark has been destroyed! What is there left to look at? Additionally, why were the stiffening trusses of the historic bridge not saved and reused for this purpose? At least this would have saved a part of the historic bridge superstructure. A portion of the Rock Island Bridge in Minnesota was saved and reused in this manner. Instead, materials have been wasted and a new structure is to be used for this purpose. Even better, why could the entire bridge not have been the outlook? If the entire bridge had been left standing, both citizens of Weirton and Steubenville could have enjoyed the facility. Instead, officials opted for a solution that leaves the citizens of Weirton short-changed.
The bridge may be gone, but HistoricBridges.org remains. HistoricBridges.org makes it a goal to encourage the preservation of historic bridges. When a historic bridge is demolished, HistoricBridges.org work continues by maintaining a page like this designed not only to document the appearance and design of the historic bridge, but to record the circumstances surrounding the demolition of the historic bridge.

Above: Historical postcard of bridge.
![]()
Click on a thumbnail or gallery name below to visit that particular photo gallery. If videos are available, click on a video name to view and/or download that particular video.
|
2010 Photo-Documentation
Original / Full Size Photos |
The 2010 Documentation builds on previous documentation of the bridge by offering additional overview angles, particularly views from the south and east quadrants, as well as additional details of the West Virginia approach. For the best visual immersion and full detail, or for use as a desktop background, this gallery presents the photos for this bridge in the original digital camera resolution. |
|
2010 Photo-Documentation
Mobile Optimized Gallery |
The 2010 Documentation builds on previous documentation of the bridge by offering additional overview angles, particularly views from the south and east quadrants, as well as additional details of the West Virginia approach. View the photos for this bridge in a reduced size which is useful for mobile/smartphone users, modem
(dial-up) users, or those who do not wish to wait for the longer
download times of the full-size photos. Alternatively, view this photo gallery using a popup slideshow viewer (great for mobile users) by clicking the link below.
Browse Gallery With Popup Viewer |
|
2006-2009 Original / Full-Size Gallery
Original / Full Size Photos |
2006-2009 Documentations of the Fort Steuben Bridge. This original documentation of the Fort Steuben Bridge includes a comprehensive combination of overview and detail photos. Overview photos are primarilly from the north quadrant of the bridge. For the best visual immersion and full detail, or for use as a desktop background, this gallery presents the photos for this bridge in the original digital camera resolution. |
|
2006-2009 Structure Overview
Mobile Optimized Gallery |
A collection of overview photos that show the bridge as a whole and general areas of the bridge. 2006-2009 Documentations of the Fort Steuben Bridge. This original documentation of the Fort Steuben Bridge includes a comprehensive combination of overview and detail photos. Overview photos are primarilly from the west (Ohio) side of the bridge. View the photos for this bridge in a reduced size which is useful for mobile/smartphone users, modem
(dial-up) users, or those who do not wish to wait for the longer
download times of the full-size photos. Alternatively, view this photo gallery using a popup slideshow viewer (great for mobile users) by clicking the link below.
Browse Gallery With Popup Viewer |
|
2006-2009 Structure Details
Mobile Optimized Gallery |
A collection of detail photos that document the parts, construction, and condition of the bridge. 2006-2009 Documentations of the Fort Steuben Bridge. This original documentation of the Fort Steuben Bridge includes a comprehensive combination of overview and detail photos. Overview photos are primarilly from the west (Ohio) side of the bridge. View the photos for this bridge in a reduced size which is useful for mobile/smartphone users, modem
(dial-up) users, or those who do not wish to wait for the longer
download times of the full-size photos. Alternatively, view this photo gallery using a popup slideshow viewer (great for mobile users) by clicking the link below.
Browse Gallery With Popup Viewer |
|
Bridge Demolition
Mobile Optimized Gallery |
Photos taken by Ohio Department of Transportation showing demolition of this historic bridge. View the photos for this bridge in a reduced size which is useful for mobile/smartphone users, modem
(dial-up) users, or those who do not wish to wait for the longer
download times of the full-size photos. Alternatively, view this photo gallery using a popup slideshow viewer (great for mobile users) by clicking the link below.
Browse Gallery With Popup Viewer |
|
|
Bridge Demolition Full Motion Video |
Official demolition video, taken by Ohio Department of Transportation. WARNING: This video contains scenes of wanton and gratuitous violence toward historic bridges. Viewer discretion is advised. Historic bridges were harmed in the making of this video. Streaming video of the bridge. Also includes a higher quality downloadable video for greater clarity or offline viewing. |

© Copyright 2003-2013, HistoricBridges.org. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer: HistoricBridges.org is a volunteer group of private citizens. HistoricBridges.org is NOT a government agency, does not represent or work with any governmental agencies, nor is it in any way associated with any government agency or any non-profit organization. While we strive for accuracy in our factual content, HistoricBridges.org offers no guarantee of accuracy. Information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. Information could include technical inaccuracies or errors of omission. Opinions and commentary are the opinions of the respective HistoricBridges.org member who made them and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else, including any outside photographers whose images may appear on the page in which the commentary appears. HistoricBridges.org does not bear any responsibility for any consequences resulting from the use of this or any other HistoricBridges.org information. Owners of bridges have the responsibility of correctly following all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, regardless of any HistoricBridges.org information.