|
 |
|
| Key Facts |
| Bridge Name | Facility Carried / Feature Intersected | Location | Structure Type | Construction Date and Builder/Engineer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ! |
Ironton-Russell Bridge
| Campbell Avenue and Etna Street Over Ohio River | Ironton and Russell: Greenup County, Kentucky and Lawrence County, Ohio | Metal Cantilever 24 Panel Rivet-Connected Baltimore Through Truss, Fixed and Approach Spans: Metal 7 Panel Rivet-Connected Camelback Through Truss, Fixed | 1922 By Builder/Contractor: Wisconsin Bridge and Iron Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin |
| Technical Facts |
| Rehabilitation Date | Main Span Length | Structure Length | Roadway Width | Main Spans | Approach Spans | NBI Number |
| 1962 | 725 Feet (221 Meters) | 2401 Feet (731.8 Meters) | 21 Feet (6.4 Meters) | 3 | 27 | 4401255 |
This magnificent cantilever bridge is a beautiful historic monument, uniting the towns of Ironton and Russell. Large cantilever bridges were built throughout the 20th Century, and remained a popular option for large river crossings until the late 20th Century when the cable-stayed bridge took off as the preferred option. Overall, the structure type did not change much over the years, which might lead some to believe that a bridge like the Ironton Bridge is not historically significant because its type was continued to be built up to such a recent date. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although the overall structure type remained in use, the methods of construction, materials used, and complexity of the trusses changed vastly, making older surviving examples extremely important historic artifacts. Compared to newer cantilever truss bridges, the Ironton-Russell Bridge has a much more complex network of trusses and bracing. Newer bridges might be larger and wider, but they actually have less sway bracing and truss elements, using smaller numbers of larger, stronger members to do the job that many smaller members do on a bridge like the Ironton-Russell Bridge. This complex network of trusses on the Ironton-Russell Bridge show the extent of the engineering and erection work that was needed to build this bridge. Thus, this suggests the historic importance of the Ironton-Russell Bridge as an engineering feat. This network of trusses and bracing also creates a more beautiful structure with a complex geometric art that is a pleasure to look at and an exciting experience to cross. In addition, the Ironton Russell is even more visually impressive for its use of built-up members and chords that utilize v-lacing and lattice. Built-up members were used to form large structural steel elements, at a time when rolling an i-beam of that size was impossible or inefficient. Built-up beams on older truss bridges (generally, pre-1940) will usually feature extensive v-lacing and lattice, which was to hold the parts of the built-up beams together, but also creates a strong aesthetic element to the bridge as well. Since built-up beams do not appear on modern bridges, truss bridges should be considered historically significant for their use of built-up beams. Thus relatively old cantilever truss bridges, such as the 1922 Ironton-Russell Bridge, are historic and are worthy of preservation.
However, this bridge falls under the jurisdiction of the Ohio Department of Transportation who has decided that this rare, beautiful, and historic bridge must be demolished and replaced. Fortunately, they ran out of money and are not currently able to replace the bridge for a few years. As a result, this would be a great time for concerned citizens who do not want to lose this beautiful landmark to lobby ODOT and members of Congress to save this bridge. ODOT has said that the bridge is in poor condition and in the long run it would cost more to continue to maintain this bridge than to demolish and replace it. It is doubtful however that ODOT included the value of this bridge to the nation as a historic monument, nor possible tourist dollars this bridge might produce in future years, as other historic bridges continue to be demolished, making this bridge even more rare and significant. In addition, Michigan's success in maintaining the 1938 Blue Water Bridge, also a cantilever, to faithfully carry one of the busiest international border crossings in the country suggests that if repaired, the Ironton-Russell Bridge could satisfy the needs of its service area. ODOT has cited the narrow width of the deck as one reason for replacement. There is a narrow sidewalk on the bridge that could be eliminated to secure a bit more width to make drivers a bit more comfortable when crossing the bridge. In any case, it is essential that this structure be saved from demolition. The number of historic bridges of any kind that have been preserved in this country is very small, but the number of landmark-sized bridges preserved is even smaller. There however have been numerous demolitions of old cantilever bridges on the Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri and other large rivers in this country. Because there is a limited number of bridges of this size in the country, it is imperative that legislators act to fund only the rehabilitation of these older structures lest this nation find itself without any preserved historic landmark cantilever bridges.
Above: 1930s postcard of bridge.
Maybe when they were new, and there were only a few in the country these cable-stayed bridges might have been interesting. But now there are so many of them they are not unique. And regardless of whether or not someone might think the cables or towers might be interesting, nobody can deny that the entire deck and supporting deck stringers as well as the substructure are no more than the typical ugly prestressed concrete bridges that plague so many smaller rivers and crossings in this country today. Drawing and renderings from the design plans are shown below.
Finally, the below rendering is the draft of the interpretive signage that is intended to fill the void left behind by the pointless demolition of the landmark historic bridge. The sign conveniently omits the fact that the construction of the new bridge did not require the demolition of the historic 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.
|
Original / Full Size Gallery
Original / Full Size Photos |
For the best visual immersion and full detail, or for use as a desktop background, this gallery presents selected overview and detail photos for this bridge in the original digital camera resolution. 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. |
|
Structure Overview
Mobile Optimized Gallery |
A collection of overview photos that show the bridge as a whole and general areas 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 |
|
Structure Details
Mobile Optimized Gallery |
A collection of detail photos that document the parts, construction, and condition 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 |
© 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.
