

![]()
| Key Facts |
| Bridge Name | Facility Carried / Feature Intersected | Location | Structure Type | Construction Date / Builder or Contractor |
| Fort Street Bridge | Fort Street (M-85) Over River Rouge | Detroit: Wayne County, Michigan | Metal Riveted Pratt Deck Truss, Stationary | 1926 By: Chicago Bascule Bridge Company |
| Technical Facts |
| Structure Length | Roadway Width | Navigation Vertical Clearance | Main Spans | Approach Spans |
| 282 Feet (85.9 Meters) | 56 Feet (17 Meters) | 12.8 Feet (3.9 Meters) | 1 | None |
This deck truss bascule bridge is similar to Dix Avenue Bridge. Alongside the Dix Avenue Bridge, the Fort Street Bridge is the last of its type in Detroit, and indeed all of Michigan. The only other highway truss bascule bridge in Michigan is the nearby Jefferson Avenue Bridge, which is a pony truss rather than a deck truss. The trusses of the Fort Street Bridge retain good integrity, as does the bridgetender structure. Original cable car towers remain in excellent condition on the bridge as well. Railings and deck are not original however. Despite these modifications, the Fort Street Bridge remains an important, historically significant transportation related resource. It is historically and technologically significant, and is one of the most important movable historic bridges in the entire state.
The Wisconsin Bridge and Iron Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin was the superstructure contractor. The Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Company was the substructure contractor. Kuehne Electrical Company was the electrical contractor. George P. Cullen Incorporated was the contractor for the bridgetender buildings.
Beyond its technological significance, the bridge is also historically significant for association with a historic event, the 1932 Ford Hunger March. The marchers stood on this very bridge. Five people were killed during the event.
Despite the obvious historic significance of this attractive bridge, MDOT plans to demolish the bridge. MDOT cites issues with the bridge that make preservation difficult or impossible. They mention that this bridge's abutments are built on clay rather than bedrock, and the bridge is, in basic terms, slowing sliding into the river. They can not do anything to stop this movement because of utility lines below the abutments. However, it is unclear to Historic Bridges of Michigan and Elsewhere as to why these utility lines could not simply be bypassed by new utility lines.
Because they will be demolishing a historic bridge using some portion of federal funds, MDOT is required to follow Section 106 protections for historic bridges. Therefore, as required mitigation for the demolition of this historic bridge, MDOT reports that they will be saving the operators house, as well as the abutment that is part of it, as a memorial to this bridge. This is certainly better than nothing. However, it is important to note that it is really the superstructure... the trusses... that make this bridge important, and that those are going to be destroyed.
Any time an agency wants to demolish a historic bridge, which is quite frequently, they always have a list of excuses that they present in a fashion that makes it appear as though preservation is impossible. Perhaps this is done to discourage preservationists from trying. Either way, examples of preserved examples elsewhere call into question MDOT's assessment that preservation is impossible or not feasible. In particular, Cook County, Illinois which includes Chicago, is a shining example. Within the county there are dozens of historic truss bascule bridges, many very similar to Fort Street. Very few of these bridges have been replaced. Most have been well maintained and preserved. Some of these bridges are even designed to serve the same sort of freighter traffic as the River Rouge, particularly those on the Calumet River. Those who know the history of Chicago might know that the area Chicago is now was originally a mucky swamp that was filled in. Thus, it seems appropriate to assume that at least some of Chicago's bridges sit on unstable ground like the Fort Street Bridge, yet these bridges continue to act as key links to the third largest city in the United States. If Chicago can preserve dozens of bridges under these conditions, why can Detroit not save the three it has?

Information and Findings From MDOT
|
![]()
![]()
