Ulster Bridge

"Ulster - Sheshequin Bridge"

This historic landmark bridge was demolished September 25, 2007

The narrative below was written prior to demolition. Its content has been left in its original format to convey the circumstances under which this bridge was so wrongfully demolished. The demolition of this bridge represents one of the worst atrocities against historic bridges ever witnessed. The loss of this bridge is unforgivable and will leave a scar on Pennsylvania's cultural landscape for all time to come. We can only hope our children will forgive us for depriving them of such beauty.

Final Visit To Bridge: May 26, 2007

Help Save The Bridge!!! Your Help Needed!!!

There is not much time left for the Ulster Bridge. With demolition planned as early as July 2007, concerned citizens and organizations must move swiftly. At this time, it seems most realistic to try to convince PennDOT to simply leave the bridge standing, even if no further work is planned to restore the bridge for pedestrian use. Contacting both PennDOT officials and lawmakers and getting other people to do the same is important.

Jason Smith is a historic bridge enthusiast who has written an article on why saving the Ulster Bridge is something you could consider. Read his article here.

A number of lawmakers have been invited to a ribbon cutting ceremony for the new structure. Ask them to support leaving the historic bridge standing. Other Pennsylvania legislators should be contacted too.

About The Ulster Bridge: Just The Facts

The Ulster Bridge is an extremely large metal truss bridge. Consulting Engineers Skelly and Loy found that the Ulster Bridge is "One of the longest highway bridges in Pennsylvania, each of its 14 spans has 28 pin connections. It is the longest pin-connected truss bridge known to continue to carry traffic." This alone makes the Ulster Bridge very significant. Skelly and Loy's statement requires some clarification however. There are four large pin-connected Parker truss bridges with thirteen panels each, which form the main span of the structure. These spans would be considered large even if each was an individual bridge. The remaining 10 spans are approach spans on the eastern end of the bridge. These alone are significant in their own right as well. They are all long span Warren pony trusses with riveted connections and they feature vertical end posts. Vertical end posts are highly rare, and indeed multi-span pony trusses are uncommon also. If considered its own structures, these pony truss spans may combine to be one of the longest remaining pony truss bridges of any kind.

Thus, the bridge is noteworthy for an extremely long example of its type, and for remarkable historic integrity. The structure is old, and has served traffic for over a century.

The presence of both pinned connections on the main spans and riveted connections on the approach spans make this an important structure that clearly documents the transition from pinned to riveted connections. Apparently, at the time this bridge was built, rigid connections were a realistic option for smaller bridges, like the pony truss approach spans on the Ulster Bridge, but were unrealistic for larger spans. Concerns about skilled labor, availability and practicality of field riveting tools, and also concerns about accuracy in design with larger bridges, were all things that were problems to building truss bridges with riveted connections.

The historic integrity of the structure is also without compare. Although it was rehabilitated in 1960, these repairs do not seem to have damaged the historic integrity of the structure. The only notable alteration is the presence of a steel grating deck. The floor beams and railings are both original, these are elements often lost on bridges. There are no signs of massive alterations like many replaced diagonal members or rivets.

The bridge is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Historic Bridges of Michigan and Elsewhere awards the Ulster Bridge with a high HSR rating below that only a handful of bridges earn, a 10-10 rating. This is due to the fact that both the entire approach system of the bridge as well as the individual main spans of the bridge are all highly significant in their own right, when combined form a bridge with unparalleled significance that is likely unique.

An Overview of Pennsylvania

The story of Pennsylvania's historic bridges is a strange and twisted one. Three points deserve to be made explicit. First, it is worth noting that Pennsylvania has a large number of historic wooden covered bridges, and nearly all are preserved and appear frequently in tourism-related literature. Second, it is also worth noting that one of the most noteworthy and important parts of Pennsylvania's development and history revolves around the iron and steel industries that developed within the state, including Carnegie Steel and Bethlehem Steel and many others. Third, Pennsylvania has an unusually large number of rare and historic iron and steel truss bridges, scoring high marks in both truss bridge quantity and quality. Many of these bridges are just as rare and noteworthy as the wooden covered bridges in the state, and thus just as deserving of preservation.

Pennsylvania, in the past decades, has treated their metal truss bridges quite well. They have kept paint on them, and for unknown reasons, did not engage in alterations of these bridges that might damage their historic integrity. In contrast, states like Michigan are filled with rusted truss bridges that have not seen paint in decades, and/or have been abandoned due to lack of maintenance. West Virginia has many metal truss bridges that remain open with traffic, perhaps with paint on them, but many are scarred by alterations that damage the historic integrity of the structures. Compared with other states, Pennsylvania has done a good job in the past, even if this was done out of economy rather than historic preservation.

Despite these facts, Pennsylvania is demolishing their historic truss bridges at an alarming rate, despite the broad range of opportunities for preservation available. In many cases, the historic bridge in question is not even in the way of the modern bridge replacing it, which is often built on a slightly different alignment. Pennsylvania has mastered the system, and getting around the few historic preservation laws has become second nature. First they offer the bridge to a third party, as required by law. This is generally unsuccessful because the size of the bridge, originally a public resource, often makes relocation and restoration far too costly for a private party to do. Second, they may mitigate the demolition by taking a few photos of the bridge, or contracting Skelly and Loy consultants to create a small webpage on the county's truss bridges. Finally, they often will add stone-shaped patterns on the piers of the new bridge, apparently under the false assumption that the only thing historic on the old bridge is the substructure, and also that these impressions in the concrete will replicate the historic appearance of the historic bridge.

It is unfortunate both for the public and Pennsylvania itself that this is the fate of the historic bridges. An effective historic bridge preservation program should not restrict itself to a single bridge type like wooden covered bridges and stone arch bridges, but rather should focus on restoring a variety of bridge types, including metal truss bridges, concrete arch bridges, and where appropriate, stringer and plate girder bridges. If Pennsylvania would restore a number of its metal truss bridges, as it has done with its wooden covered bridges, then these truss bridges could be used in tourism literature, and act as a further draw for travel-related income. Although it is often possible and important to retain the original function of truss bridges to serve vehicular traffic in their original location, there is a wide variety of alternatives to demolition. For historic bridge preservationists, any of these options is preferred over demolition. There are so many options fitting such a wide varity of situations, that it seems like a demolition solution should only occur once in a long while.

What Is The Current Planned Fate For The Ulster Bridge?

PennDOT is nearing completion of the replacement structure for the Ulster Bridge. This new structure is location just south of the historic bridge. The entire bridge is designed to aim more southeasterly than the historic bridge, to line up with a road on the east side of the river. The new bridge will be able to function normally if the historic bridge is left standing. However, PennDOT currently plans to demolish the historic bridge when the new structure is completed. Demolition is planned for late Summer early Fall 2007.

What Should Be Done With The Ulster Bridge?

The Ulster Bridge is extremely important for having a great deal of historic significance and an extremely high level of aesthetic value. Given the alternatives to demolition above, the fact of the size of the Ulster Bridge and that the replacement bridge is already under construction, a couple options stand out. Option one is that the bridge could be restored for pedestrian use. Option two is that the bridge could be left standing with no further repairs, and perhaps closed to all traffic including pedestrians. The first option will result in the greatest benefit, making the bridge welcoming to tourists and also making the bridge look the best it possibly can, but at the current time might require a lot more effort to get Pennsylvania to agree to due to the likely increase in cost. The second option will retain a beautiful structure for people to enjoy looking at from the new bridge. It will also leave the door open for preservation in the future. It is likely that future years will see a dramatic increase in the awareness of metal truss bridges. Rapidly decreasing numbers of surviving metal truss bridges, particularly large ones like the Ulster Bridge, will lead to this. Plus, websites like this one will also help increase awareness! Future years  may also see better funding programs for historic bridge preservation projects.

In its current condition, the Ulster Bridge would likely stand for decades with no additional serious structural problems, a fact only strengthened with the absence of traffic on the bridge after the new bridge is completed.

 Is A Closed Historic Truss Bridge A Problem?

One reason for demolishing a historic bridge in Pennsylvania is often the fear of being sued if someone gets injured on the old bridge. However, statistics show that there is not a history of people suing DOTs and road commissions over a historic bridge injury. I got that information from a report at www.srifoundation.com. None of the participating Departments of Transportation could report a single incidence of a lawsuit. This is noteworthy, especially considering that states like Michigan have a lot of truss bridges abandoned, many in much worse condition than bridges that might be abandoned in Pennsylvania.

 Leaving the structure standing with no repair should be most appealing to Pennsylvania because it cost nothing more than any costs spent perhaps posting closed signs and possibly blocking off the bridge. They would also save the cost of demolition. Pennsylvania need not fear leaving a bridge standing, even if no work is done on the structure, for it will be in good company. Below is a list of bridges that have been left standing, either abandoned completely or bypassed by a modern structure.

It is clear that any unfounded fears of leaving a historic bridge standing are simply excuses to help proceed quickly to a demolition solution.