The East River Bridge

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The Board of Consulting Engineers of the East River Suspension Bridge, to connect Brooklyn with New York, have lately held several meetings to consult on the plan of the proposed structure in its details, with such results as will serve to remove many of the doubts in the minds of the unprofessional and induce them to share the confidence of the Board. The gentlemen comprising the Board are the well-known engineers, Horatio Allen, W. J. McAlpine, J. Dutton Steel, Benjamin H. Latrobe, John Serrell, J. P. Kirkwood, and J. W. Adams. They unanimously decided, after a careful and detailed examination of Mr. Roebling's plans, that there is no insurmountable obstacle to building a suspension bridge of 1,600 feet span and even much greater. The problem of a proper foundation for the towers presents the greatest difficulties. On the Brooklyn side it had been found by borings that there was a substratum of boulders which could not be disturbed by the current, and here a firm foundation could be obtained. But on the New York side the borings indicated only sand and decomposed rock, and the question was' earnestly discussed whether the current of the estuary might not, in time, wash and scour out this sand, rendering the foundation of the tower insecure. By careful comparison of old charts with the present state of the river bed the Board concluded that the narrowing of the channel by artificial encroachments while increasing the force of the current, had not materially affected the margins, nor tended to scour the New York shore. Mr. Roebling firmly believed that it would not be necessary to dig as low as 107 feet below low water mark, at which point solid rock was found, and his opinion that a depth of 70 feet would be sufficient was concurred in by the Board. On digging the foundation for the dry dock, which is near the proposed site of the New York tower, Mr. McAlpine found the sand capable of sustaining a weight of ten tuns per square foot. The weight of the bridge towers is to be only four tuns to the square foot. The area of the foundation will be 165 by 100 feet, composed of heavy timber, the mass to be 20 feet thick and securely bolted together. On this the tower, of heavy stone masonry, is to be erected, 300 feet high. On the Brooklyn side it is believed no timber substructure will be required, the masonry resting directly on the rock. The rigidity, sustaining power, and durability of the bridge were severally considered, and the plans submitted to secure each of these elements were unanimously adopted; the great work will, it is believed, be very soon commenced. The Cincinnati bridge (of which we shall shortly give an engraving and description) has a span of 1,057 feet, and the second Niagara bridge one of 1,264 feet,—336 feet less than that of the proposed East River bridge.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 20 Issue 13This article was published with the title “The East River Bridge” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 20 No. 13 (), p. 201
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican03271869-201b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe