Ambridge Bridge

"Ambridge-Woodlawn Bridge / Ambridge-Aliquippa Bridge"

Bridge Documented: July 3, 2006

PennDOT has plans to demolish this historic bridge!

The only thing that Pennsylvania and Preservation have in common is the same first letter.

This bridge appears to be commonly referred to as the Ambridge-Aliquippa Bridge for the two towns it runs between. However the plaque on the bridge lists the real name for the bridge, the Ambridge-Woodlawn Bridge. Woodlawn appears to be another smaller dot on the map town. Considering this confusion, I thought it best to simply list the bridge on the website as the "Ambridge Bridge." Its less of a mouthful anyway!

The Pennsylvania Historic Bridge Inventory's entry for this unique cantilever truss bridge, which features both pinned and riveted connections, is a perfect example of why the historic bridge inventory was partly a failure, if the intention was indeed to identify historic bridges for the purpose of preservation. The inventory did list in one column, that the bridge was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but in their discussion of the bridge, they assess the bridge as non-historic. I assume the column that listed it as eligible was an error, based on their description. I however do find their apparent assessment that the bridge is non-historic to be incorrect, and I will attempt to back up my claim below.

Why is the assessment of the bridge as non-historic wrong in my opinion?First off, they did not evaluate all the characteristics of this bridge which make it noteworthy and historic. Although by 1927, the idea of the cantilever bridge and the engineering used here at Ambridge may have not been a new thing, the physical appearance of the end product is unique and significant. I imagine one would be hard pressed to find another bridge that looks like this. Most cantilever bridges have only two towers/piers. See the Rochester-Monaca Railroad Bridge or the C&O Railroad Bridge in Ohio for examples of how a classic cantilever bridge is configured. The Ambridge Bridge has twice as many piers, giving it a very different appearance, and making the bridge rare and perhaps even unique.

Second, the Historic Bridge Inventory did not consider the significance of the bridge in association with the town it is in, Ambridge. The name of Ambridge is no coincidence. It is essentially a company town formed in 1910 by the American Bridge Company, who erected a huge factory there, hence the name AmBridge. While I have no idea whether the factory in Ambridge was responsible for the construction of the Ambridge Bridge, it seems likely that it might have been. Regardless, the bridge stands today as a beautiful example of why the town of Ambridge came into existence. I am surprised that PennDOT hasn't incited a riot in the town by discussion demolishing the bridge. Perhaps people no longer care about their heritage in Ambridge. But I am certain that there are enough people outside who care about heritage, or at least a scenic Ohio River drive, that preserving the bridge to enhance a tourism experience in Pennsylvania would make sense. In my mind though, the bridge is historic because of its location near a town directly associated with its builder. In other words, the bridge's setting provides it additional historic value.

Next, I do not know if here in the United States, aesthetic value is a consideration when bridges are reviewed by people such as PennDOT, but it probably isn't. I should not however that in Ontario it was, when they surveyed historic bridges along the Grand River. A bridge being reviewed was scored on a points basis, and in Ontario, a bridge could get points for having aesthetic value. People here in the United States should speak out against the demolition of this bridge because of its beauty, and ask that PennDOT consider preserving bridges based on aesthetic value as well. Indeed, aesthetics should be a consideration when determining the historic value of a bridge. The study of bridges of the past is in fact a study of bridges with greater intricacy of design, and also a greater attention to appearance, both resulting in bridges with higher levels of aesthetic value. The extensive network of v-laced and latticed trusses on this bridge are an example of the intricacy of design, while the decorative finials on top of the tower sections of the truss are an example of the attention to appearance. The bridge present today in Ambridge offers a lot more visually, than a simple modern beam bridge would offer the Ohio River.

Finally, while historic integrity should be a consideration when determining whether a bridge is historic or not, one should use caution when condemning a bridge based on how much it has been repaired. The Ambridge Bridge has indeed been repaired, and many of the repairs were not done in harmony with the original design. However the historic bridge surveyors position that the modifications make the bridge non-historic is a paradox. If the bridge has not yet been determined to be historic, why should anyone repair it using historic restoration methods, and so when they repair it using non-historic methods it voids the chances of the bridge becoming historic in the future. That doesn't really provide a clear path to preserving our nation's transportation heritage. Also, I should note that this bridge has been modified in some places, not all over. Just because someone replaced a few rivets with bolts and replaced a diagonal rod doesn't mean the whole bridge is worthless and should be bulldozed! Apparently, someone feels that we can learn more about history from a modern bridge than a modified 1920s truss bridge. This is not true! Plus, the modifications do not affect the overall appearance of the bridge. Even up close, the majority of the structure is riveted, and v-lacing and lattice remain all over the bridge. From a distance, a person wouldn't even know it had been modified. It still is an excellent example of bridge design of the past. Again, the province of Ontario stands to set an example for Pennsylvania to follow. The Blackfriars Bridge has a huge number of modifications on it, yet it is still listed in their heritage bridge list.

Given the significance I have described above, preservation seems a logical course of action. However, there is more reason than just history to keep the existing bridge around. I cannot imagine the cost of demolishing a bridge as large as the Ambridge Bridge. To me, it makes sense, if the government is truly fulfilling their obligation to spend taxpayer dollars sensibly and efficiently, they would restore this bridge. The combined cost of historic bridge demolition and modern bridge construction would likely be equal to or less than restoring the existing bridge. Just another reason to not demolish this bridge.

Given that PennDOT has an abysmal track record of bridge preservation, and also a deaf ear to logic, they undoubtedly will end up demolishing this bridge anyway. As a result, during my Pennsylvania trip I spent extra amounts of precious time at this bridge gathering more photos of this bridge than I did for others on this trip. I have compiled an extensive gallery, which is sorted out into categories for easy viewing. The view photos button will take you to the menu from where you can access the galleries you want to view.