The Detroit-Superior Bridge (also referred to as Superior-Detroit Bridge) is a 3,112-foot through arch bridge over the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio. Connecting Detroit Avenue in the west side of the city to Superior Avenue in downtown, the crossing was built by the King Bridge Company from 1914 to 1917.
In function, it replaced the aging Superior viaduct that was dedicated December 27, 1878.(32)
The proposal for a high level bridge across the Cuyahoga River was first brought up in the early 1900s as a means to alleviate chronic congestion on the existing and ailing Superior Viaduct. City engineer William J. Carter favored the construction of a bridge from Superior Avenue to Franklin Avenue NW – the Lorain-Huron site, and the diverting of the present Superior Viaduct to serve as a connection between Detroit Avenue NW and St. Clair Avenue NW.(25)
Col. J. McD. Townsend, a government engineer for the district, believed that a high-level bridge was not necessary if a ban on high mats on lake vessels was enforced.(31) Townsend believed that the masts were now used mostly for derrick purposes and did not need to be so high, as they carried just signal lamps.
The first bond issue, in the sum of $2 million, for a high-level bridge along the Superior Avenue route was held in 1905 and was passed 25,695 to 10,972.(32) But it was found that the ordinance was not properly advertised and the vote was declared invalid. The location of the bridge was then questioned, with some advocating for a span from Lorain to Huron Avenue, and the proposition was submitted twice more, each time being defeated.
In February 1908, Mayor Johnson stated that a high level bridge built exclusively for streetcars would be one of the connecting links between the west and east sides but did not believe that it would serve as an immediate solution of the problem, which was the rebuilding of the Superior Viaduct into a high-level span for cars.(29) The city engineer, Hoffman, believed that a dedicated streetcar bridge was a better solution than a subway across the Cuyahoga.
City engineer Hoffman asked Assistant city engineer Richards, who was the head of the bridge department, to prepare detailed estimates showing the cost of building a Superior and Central high-level viaduct.(27)(28) But further discussions focused on the cost and how to pay for such a bridge across the river. In August, former county commissioner William F. Elrick stated that if certain formalities are complied with the county, that the burden of constructing a Superior Avenue high-level span would be taken off the shoulders of the city and to the county.(26) Such a method would remove the need for the city to hold a municipal bond election, a process of which had become a burden in recent years. While a city issue vote required a two-thirds majority, a county bond issue needed just half.(32) The county would let a bond of $750,000 to $1 million for the erection of a new bridge.(26) A bond issue ultimately failed later that year.(35)
But there were legal issues surrounding the Elrick proposal. Current law stated that the county commissioners could only build on state and county roads, but there were only two such crossings across the Cuyahoga River – Cleveland-Milan Road and the Columbus Street bridge. This excluded the Lorain-Huron route which had been previously backed.(32)
Public hearings were held and the Cleveland-Milan county route was selected on July 13, 1910,(35) which was called the Superior-Detroit route.(32) The decision was immediately opposed on the ground that it would provide nearly two duplicate bridges on the same alignment. An injunction suite was started but the petition was dismissed by Judge Vickery in October. An appeal was filed and dismissed. On June 27, 1911, the supreme court dismissed yet another appeal.
In early February 1909, Assistant City Solicitor Wilkin proposed to let a bond of $2.5 million for a high level bridge.(23) City councilman Schwartzer believed that it would be met with favor since the city was reluctant to spend over a million dollars to repair the existing viaducts.
In order to reach the required height of 95 feet above the Cuyahoga River that a high level bridge would require, a 3.5% grade would be necessary, according to city engineer Hoffman on February 9.(22) If the grade is determined upon, the eastern terminus could be at West 9th Street instead of West 6th Street as originally suggested.
On February 23, the Cleveland city council voted 31 to 1 to authorize a special election on April 20 on the question of issuing $1,675,000 in bonds for the reconstruction of the Superior Viaduct into a high level span.(20) Councilman Walz was the only one who voted against, questioning the waste that a new bridge would entail.
Plans for a high level bridge to replace the Superior Bridge were submitted by Hoffman on March 30.(19) The estimated cost of a high level span would be $1,374,779, and if the cost would be significantly over, the bond issue could be safely revoked.(24) The proposed crossing would be erected just north of the present Superior Viaduct, and consist of numerous steel arches encased in concrete with columns extending from the arches to the floor, also of steel encased in concrete. The river crossing would be a steel arch with a span of 300 feet, allowing for a channel of 250 feet and a clearance of 93 feet. The bridge deck would be 58 feet wide with two 9.5 foot sidewalks.
During construction, traffic would be maintained by building a temporary bridge along old Detroit Street from the Erie railroad east to the swing span, and the swing span and east approach of the viaduct would be used for the remainder.(19)
The bond issue for the Superior Viaduct replacement failed,(35) 17,992 for and 20,898 against.(21)
In August, Mayor Johnson proposed a committee of six, composed of representatives of four of the leading civic organizations, to prepare a report on the replacement viaduct over the Cuyahoga River.(25)
A tentative plan and profile for a steel bridge across the Cuyahoga River valley was prepared by architect and engineer John Eisenmann in January 1910.(18) The proposed span would connect Superior Avenue NW and Detroit Avenue NW, requiring the condemnation of the Atwater Building at Columbus Road and Superior Avenue just south of the present entrance to the Superior Viaduct. The bridge would proceed westward and swing to the south and reach the west side of the river directly over a portion of Detroit Avenue that descended to the river. It would require the condemnation of several structures at West 25th Street and Detroit Avenue, with a western terminus at a traffic circle. The grade would be 3.5% with a clearance of 104 feet over the river at high water mark. A minimum clearance of 95 feet was required.
A report by the High Level Bridge Commission in June recommended that the Superior Viaduct be sold to the Cleveland Railway Company for the exclusive use by streetcars.(16) According to their plan, Superior Avenue NW and Detroit Avenue NW would be linked by a new high level bridge designed for automobiles and pedestrians. The Commission recommended that the new bridge start at Detroit Avenue at the crest of a hill, cross the Cuyahoga River in a northeast direction, go over the Commercial Milling Company’s mill, turn to follow Merwin Avenue NW to James Avenue NW where it would proceed east, cross the Erie railroad and depot, and connect to Superior Avenue at the Atwater Building. The Commission also recommended that the Superior Viaduct be rebuilt as a high level bridge to carry four streetcar tracks.
Others desired a bridge terminating at Franklin Avenue NW and West 25th Street from Superior Avenue NW.(17)
If only one bridge could be feasibly constructed, the Commission urged that the Superior Viaduct be rebuilt.(16) On June 21, Clerk John Goldenbogen of the board of county commissioners, along with Assistant Prosecutor Walter D. Meals, voiced their support to the Superior Avenue NW and West 9th Street to Detroit Avenue NW and West 25th Street route.(17) According to Meals, the opinion was only from a legality standpoint, however, it was one of three sites that the county could construct at. Meals also noted that the county could build as many approaches as financially feasible, and that it could even connect to the new viaduct mid-span.
The Commission found many difficulties in the potential for the closure of the Superior Viaduct.(16) It submitted plans for a temporary bridge that would cost $100,000 to handle some of the detoured traffic, while some would be redirected to the Central Viaduct and down into the Flats. To pay for the span, the county proposed a tax on all taxable property in the county.(35)
On November 8, the county bridge issue was carried by a majority vote – 33,957 for and 17,938 against.(32)
On January 3, 1911, the county chose the location of the new Detroit-Superior Bridge after a conference with representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Industry, Builders Exchange, Federation of Labor and the city.(11) Every major business interest was in favor of a Detroit-Superior route sans the Chamber of Commerce, who preferred a Superior-Detroit route,(14) stating that it would parallel existing facilities and be an unnecessary financial burden.(15) The Chamber desired a bridge midway between the Superior and Central Viaducts.
The new bridge was proposed to be 3,150 feet long with a width that varied from 81.6 feet at center to 94.9 feet at the approaches,(35) with a right-of-way of 120 feet.(11) A ten-foot buffer would be cleared to prevent business owners from constructing structures and gain access to the span other than the approaches. The center span over the Cuyahoga River was also proposed to be a 665-foot cantilever truss.
The bridge was designed with three concrete arches west of the river and nine east of the river, the longest with a clear span of 174 feet, the shortest at 58 feet.(35) Each concrete arch had four arch ribs to support the beam and slab streetcar deck on heavy spandrel columns, spaced 10 feet apart on center. The spandrel columns continued above the lower deck to support the roadway, also of beam and slab construction.
Arch no. 12, between piers no. 11 and no. 12, required a different design due to its travel over the Big Four Railroad.(35) Instead of centering, which would interfere with the railroad, a high rise curve using three hinged steel arches for both the erection and reinforcement was used.
The ratification of the site was made on February 4 in a public meeting at the courthouse.(12) One of the only opponents of the bridge was the Walton Realty Company, owner of a 120-foot strip of land that was in the path of the new bridge. The Lake Shore Railway also voiced concern that the viaduct would prevent the construction of a large joint warehouse which had been proposed along the river for the Big Four and Baltimore & Ohio Railroads.
The architect of the bridge, William F. Striebinger, desired the bridge to have classical proportions.(13) The plans were prepared under the direction of county engineer Frank R. Lander and county bridge engineer Pelgate.(35)
On February 29, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed off on the bridge.(32) On March 23, the first contract was awarded for test bearings, and the first bridge bonds were put on sale on June 28. A commission to appraise property included within the right-of-way was appointed on July 1. On May 4, 1912, a contract was awarded to the O’Rourke Engineering and Construction Company for the construction of two main piers. The bridge would be built under the direction of W.A. Stinchcomb and A.W. Zesiger, and K.D. Cowen, engineer of construction.(35)
The Chamber of Commerce desired the streetcar tracks on the upper level and automobiles and pedestrians on the lower level, and to eliminate one pier that would prevent a planned improvement of the Cuyahoga River to remove a bend, according to comments they made in September 1913.(8) It also requested that the bridge be raised even higher, which was at present 83 feet over the channel.(9) The Chamber also critized the change from caisson to cofferdam construction.(10) The county was opposed to the modification of the design of the bridge, but was open to the idea of removing a pier.
Work on the Detroit-Superior Bridge was scheduled to progress without the construction of subways along Detroit Avenue NW and West 25th Street on the west side of the Cuyahoga, and in Superior Avenue NW around Public Square on the east side.(5) The subways were suggested to connect into the bridge as a way to avoid congestion at the terminals of the bridge. The subway plans, prepared by County Surveyor W.A. Stinchcomb, augmented suggestions from Mayor Newton D. Baker and other county commissioners. The project would cost between $1.75 million and $2 million.
But people on the west side of the bridge were regarded as “hostile” when the discussion of subways was brought up that the matter was dropped.(5) The main opposition was on the ground property valuations of real estate in the vicinity of Detroit Avenue NW adn West 25th Street that would depreciate due to the distance from the subway station, according to property owners. The entrance on Detroit Avenue NW would be at the corner of West 29th Street and that on West 25th Street would be near Church Avenue NW.
The property owners urged the bridge to be completed as originally planned, as did W.J. Hunkin of the Hunkin-Conkey Construction Company.(3) The money saved could be used for another high level bridge, they stated. But the company was instructed to sink the foundations deep enough at the ends of the bridge to permit the building of the subways in later years.
Construction on the arches began by the King Bridge Company in the fall of 1912. A report on January 22, 1913 reported that excavation for the east river pier had been completed and that the bottom was being leveled for concrete. (35) By November 1, 1913 work started on two caisson piers on the west side of the river and seven concrete pile piers on the east side.(6) Construction was expedited at a cost of $2,500 to the county, and additional machinery and workers were brought in to allow for the erection of six of the secondary piers at once instead of four.(7)
Piers no. 1 and 2 were built by sinking caissons in open, dry excavation 60- to 65-feet below ground.(2)(35) Piers no. 5, 6 and 7 were sunk lower to provide for a possible diversion of the navigable channel. A double row of steel sheeting provided a cofferdam down 50 feet below river level. Piers no. 5 through 11 all rested on pre-cast reinforced-concrete piles ranging from 25 to 50 feet, driven with a 5-ton Vulcan hammer. Each were tested to carry a load of 60 tons for seven days, with a 1/4-inch maximum allowed settlement.(2)(35) Footings for pier no. 3 and 4, supporting the river span, were built in open offerdams built of interlocking steel sheet piling. The piers, 116 x 80 feet at base, rested on stiff blue clay 45 feet below river level.
By July 18, 1914, the caisson construction for piers no. 1 and 2 was underway, and excavation for pier no. 3 had started.(35) Piers no. 4 and 9 were complete, and concrete piles had been driven for pier no. 5. Test piles for pier no. 8 were down and concrete piles were about to be driven.
That work was nearly completed by December 11, 1914, nearly half of the time required.(6) The arches consumed 2,123,300 cubic yards of concrete and 9,385,000 pounds of steel.(2)
It was originally intended that the sequence of work begin on the easterly end of the steel span and proceed eastward, however, it could not be done because the erection of the center span across the river was already started by the King Bridge Company, who had subcontracted its erection to the Ferro Construction Company of Chicago.(35) in conjunction with the completion of the arch ribs by Hunkin-Conkey. It was decided to work with the second arch east of the steel span, between Piers 5 and 6, and progress eastward. This would produce considerable strain on Pier 5, but it was predicted that the soil pressure was safe within limits.(34)
In the winter of 1915, one rib of a 145-foot concrete arch span cracked and was discovered on May 1, 1916.(34) An examination of the crack found that water had intruded and froze, most likely during the pouring. An excess of water in the concrete may have been the cause, and the material, improperly worked, could not shed the water. It was not a tension crack as there was no tension at that point. The span, which was poured on May 27, 1915, was connected to Pier 5 that was being watched for any horizontal or tipping movement. Only the arch ribs were built between Piers 5 and 6, and the arch ribs and first floor between Piers 6 and 7, which increased the load further on Pier 5.
It was discovered that Pier 5 was moving westward due to an unbalanced load on the pier, and advanced so much as to threaten the structural stability of the uncompleted bridge. It was at this point that King Bridge had lowered the steel arch into place and had released the backstays that extended from Pier 4 to Pier 5.(34) The lower chords of those stays consisted of lattice girders, and it was decided to use those girders as struts between Piers 4 and 5 to prevent any further movement of Pier 5.
Pier 6 was also shifting with Pier 5.(34) But the first floor on the arches between Piers 5 and 6 proceeded, which increased the load on the arches and evened out the load, leading to no further movement of Pier 5; Pier 6 began to move eastward.
The Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company of Cleveland constructed secondary piers no. 1 and no. 2, and no. 5 through no. 11, and included setting the grillage material for the cast-steel bolsters that would carry the steel arch span.(35)
A saw mill and framing yard was built to construct the forms for the arches, with materials transported via the cableways.(2) The east span was built with the use of a double cableway with a span between the towers measuring 1,200 feet. The steel towers were 130 feet and 180 feet high, and the main cable was 2.5 inches in diameter. Each cableway could hold eight tons, but in emergencies could hold 12.5 tons.
Materials for the west approach were hauled via the Cuyahoga River, and then hauled up a 12% grade along Detroit Avenue to the hill on the west end of the site via motor trucks that were then novelties.(35) The trucks could haul 24 tons of materials, whereas horses could haul only three.
By the spring of 1915, the west approach was nearly completed.(35) Construction then proceeded on the 90-foot steel towers for the center Pratt truss. The towers were built with the aid of a gin pole, which was then dismantled and used for the identical east tower. Eyebar backstays held the half-arches in place until they were joined in the center. Work then started on the center truss, comprised of nickel and carbon steel, over the river on July 29 and was completed on October 8. On that day, the two arms were lowered beginning at 10:30 AM, and the arch was closed at 2:23 PM after a two-hour intermission. There was a gap of 1/8-inch, which was adjusted via a cable.
The plan to construct inclines for the streetcars to approach grade-level from the bridge was abandoned in February 1916 after the city planning commission agreed on plans to construct a subway, several hundred feet in length at each approach, to reduce interference with automobile traffic.(35) On the east side, the subway continued for 185 feet to a point on Superior Avenue at West 9th Street. On the west side, one subway continued west under Detroit Avenue to West 28th Street for 725 feet, and another south beneath West 25th Street to Church Avenue for 560 feet.
Four pedestrian entrances were located at Detroit Avenue and West 25th Street – one located in the Forst City Building on the southwest corner, and one on the south side of Superior Avenue at the bridge’s east approach.(35) The stations above ground were built as small, wood-framed buildings with hipped roofs. Below ground, they featured white glazed tile walls with recessed lighting, a waiting area, boarding platform and public toilets. Tunnels under the tracks at both stations gave access to east-, west- and south-bound trains.
By December 22, 1917, the lower deck was nearly prepared for regular streetcar use.(32) Work cars were running on the bridge conducting final preparations for regular use by Christmas. The railway installation was completed by the Cleveland Railway Company with track work under the direction of Charles H. Clark and overhead work under L.P. Crecelius.(35)
Construction was dedicated for traffic on Thanksgiving Day 1917 (1)(35) at a cost of $5,407,000 million. Broken down, the cost was $1,687,200 was for land, $989,900 for the approaches, $646,797 for the center arch, and $2,730,000 for the remainder.(2) No ceremony was held as it was during wartime.(35)
The first streetcar crossed on Christmas eve, carrying 50 prominent officials, including the Cleveland mayor.(35) The car left the West 25th Street station and headed east shortly before 4 PM. The mayor proclaimed that Cleveland was “getting more and more like New York.”
The completion of the span marked the first fixed high-level crossing, and the third high level span across the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland. It was the largest steel and concrete reinforced bridge in the world,(2) and was designed to relieve traffic on the Superior Viaduct.(1)
The upper level was designed for automobiles, while the lower level was intended for streetcars.(2) The span was completed with four sets of tracks, with room for two additional tracks, and two streetcar stations – both underground, were completed on both sides of the bridge. Two of the tracks were designed for high speed travel.(5) Entry portals for the streetcars was at West 6th Street and Superior Avenue, on West 25th Street and Detroit Avenue.(1)
The completion of the Detroit-Superior Bridge led to a real estate boom in Cleveland’s west side and Lakewood, and the latter’s growth was spurred by the completion of the new high level bridge.(35)
By 1927, there was a proposal to pave and use a portion of the streetcar track on the lower level for automobile use.(35) Automobiles had grown in popularity and in response, county bridge engineer Felgate stated that an unused portion of the lower deck could be converted into a roadway at a cost of $1.1 million and could accommodate 4,400 automobiles per hour. The Cleveland Times noted that it could provide relief to the “almost hopeless traffic congestion.” But no work progressed.
By 1930, the Detroit-Superior Bridge carried 70,400 vehicles per day and was one of the busiest in the United States.(1) Traffic was slightly relieved with the opening of the Lorain-Cernegie Bridge and the Main Avenue Bridge within the decade.
The construction of Bulkley Boulevard necessitated the reconfiguration of the west approach, and the wooden subway house on the northeast corner of Detroit Avenue and West 25th Street was demolished in 1939.(35) In addition, a stairwell was relocated and a new sandstone subway house was built.
But by 1946, the subway stations and the entrances at street level had become deteriorated and vandalized.(35) A December 1953 proposal by Mayor Anthony J. Celebreeze called for the lower deck to be converted into an auto-only thoroughfare, but it was dismissed by county engineer Albert S. Porter as “engineered murder.” A trial roadway was implemented for a short time, though, in February 1954.
But the streetcar was not long for the city. The last “free ride” celebration from Public Square to West 65th Street and Bridge Avenue, which crossed the Detroit-Superior, was held on January 24, 1954.(35) The last streetcar on the Detroit Avenue line had run several years prior on August 25, 1951, and the last car on the West 25th Street line had run on August 15, 1953. In May 1955, the city council passed an emergency ordnance that granted the city the right to fill in the streetcar wells. In November,(1) the open wells were filled with gravel and paved over. The spandrel arches closest to the approaches were sealed with cinder blocks, and the stairwells to the subways were closed and covered up, with the station houses removed.
In 1965, the county hired consulting engineers to inspect and conduct a rehabilitation study of the Detroit-Superior that concluded that “because of age and corrosive atmosphere, the bridge deteriorated to the point that normal maintenance is no longer adequate and the structural stability of some members has become questionable.”(35) The upper deck slab and sidewalk had failed in some areas and been covered with steel plates.
From 1967 to May 1969,(2) the span was rehabilitated at a cost of $6 million that added to two new traffic lanes to the bridge.(35) The width of the bridge increased from 44.9 feet to 72 feet, and the sidewalks reduced from 15 feet to 5 feet. The extra auto lanes were added by cantilevering the new lanes on the outside of the central arch. The roadway deck and sidewalk was rehabilitated, and new railings and lighting fixtures were replaced. The ornamental pylons were removed.
The Detroit-Superior Bridge was added to the National Register of Historic Places on January 18, 1974. On November 11, 1989, Veterans Day, the Detroit-Superior Bridge was renamed the Veterans Memorial Bridge.(1)
On September 9, 2002, Cuyahoga County Commissioners tentatively approved the conversion of the two outside traffic lanes added in 1969 for pedestrian and bicycle use.(3) The converted lanes will contain a wide pedestrian promenade, sheltered seating, racks and public art. It received final approval in July 2003. The project will cost $2.7 million, with 80% of the funding coming from the federal Transportation Enhancement program, distributed by the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency. The city paid for the remainder. The design was paid for by a grant from The Gund and Cleveland foundations to Cleveland Public Art. Construction began in 2004 after your years of planning.(4)
The lower level and subway stations are opened to the public for tours free of charge on certain days of the year.
- Type: Pratt truss (center span); arch
- Total Length: 3,112 feet; 5,630 feet (with approaches)
- Main Span Length: 591 feet
- Width: 81.6 feet-94.9 feet (upper deck); 44.9 feet (roadway width); 15 feet (sidewalks upper deck); 80 feet (lower deck)
- Height: 96 feet (river clearance); 144 feet (arch height); 196 feet (total); 15 feet (vertical clearance lower deck)
- “Veterans Memorial Bridge.” The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History. N.p.: Case Western Reserve University, 27 Mar. 1998. Web. 29 July 2012. Article.
- McMichael, Stanley L. The Detroit-Superior High Level Bridge. Bridges of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. N.p.: n.p., 1918. 7-10. Print.
- “Bridging the gap for Cleveland’s bicyclists and pedestrians.” EcoCity Cleveland, n.d. Article.
- “Detroit Superior Bridge.” LAND Studio, n.d. Article.
- “Forget Subways, Hurry Up Bridge.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 24 Jan. 1914: 1-16. Print.
- “Sees New Bridge Completed in 1915.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 1 Dec. 1914: 8. Print.
- “Gain Half Year on Span.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 3 May 1914: 22. Print.
- “Halt New Bridge? Never! Says Board.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 16 Sept. 1913: 14. Print.
- “Won’t Alter Plan For Higher Bridge.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 30 Sept. 1913: 2. Print.
- “Split on Bridge Piers.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 30 Mar. 1913: 16. Print.
- “Superior-Detroit Site Chosen for New Bridge.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 4 Jan. 1911: 4. Print. (map)
- “Interests Ratify High Bridge Site.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 5 Feb. 1911: 1-2. Print.
- “Wants Classic Bridge.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 3 Sept. 1911: 2. Print.
- “Declares Against High Bridge Delay.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 25 Nov. 1911: 4. Print.
- “New Bridge Plan May End Conflict.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 14 July 1910: 1, 16. Print.
- “Ask City to Sell Superior Viaduct.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 1 June 1910: 1-11. Print.
- “Bridge to Follow Superior Route.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 22 June 1910: 5. Print.
- “County is Ready With Bridge Plan.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 20 Jan. 1910: 10. Print.
- “Superior Bridge Plans are Ready.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 31 Mar. 1909: 4. Print.
- “Authorizes Vote for New Bridge.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 24 Feb. 1909: 8. Print.
- “Cassidy an Easy Victor; Bonds All Meet Defeat.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 21 Apr. 1909: 1. Print.
- “Working on Grade for Proposed High Level Bridge.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 10 Feb. 1909: 10. Print.
- “High Level Bridge Against Brought Up.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 30 Jan. 1909: 12. Print.
- “May Drop Bond Issue.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 25 Feb. 1909: 14. Print.
- “Mayor Originates Move for Bridge.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland], 19 Aug. 1909: 1, 8. Print.
- “Says County Can Build Big Bridge.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland] 7 Aug. 1908: 1, 7. Print.
- “To Study Bridge Cost.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland] 23 Aug. 1908: 12. Print.
- “Start Bridge Plans.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland] 5 Feb. 1908: 10. Print.
- “Favors a Viaduct for Street Cars.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland] 12 Feb. 1908: 3. Print.
- “Wants Change in New Bridge Plans.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland] 12 Nov. 1908: 12. Print.
- “Would Condemn All High Masts.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland] 18 Nov. 1907: 8. Print.
- Rose, W.B. “All in the Day’s Work.” Plain Dealer [Cleveland] 22 Dec. 1917: 8. Print.
- Waddell, John Alexander Low. “Arch Bridges.” Bridge Engineering. By John Alexander Low Waddell. Vol.1. New York: Publishers Printing, 1916. 631-32. Print.
- Zesiger, A. W. “Crack in New Concrete Arch Explained by Freezing of Pocketed Water.” Engineering News-Record 77.9 (1917): 356. Print.
- Miller, Carol Poh. Detroit-Superior High Level Bridge. N.p.: Historic American Engineering Record, 1978. Print.