[7] On the New York side is the river's level flood plain, extending back roughly a thousand feet (300 m) from the bank, beyond which the land begins to rise again.

There is a smaller beach just downstream from the bridge as well, where Beaverdam Creek, a minor tributary of the Delaware that rises in the nearby hills, flows into the river.

[8] From the portal, Route 371 passes in the narrow gap between two hills, ascending gently into the small center of Damascus.

The southern continuation of River Road, designated unsigned State Route 1004, intersects an oblique angle 300 feet (91 m) to the west.

[9] Settlement of the region, previously limited to only a few communities along the river, grew so quickly that Sullivan County was formed in 1809.

[5] In 1817 construction of the first bridge began; the 550-foot (170 m) wooden structure, supported by a single pier midriver, opened two years later.

Due to the patriotic atmosphere that prevailed following the recent War of 1812, all members of the military crossing the bridge were exempt from the toll.

The turnpikes ceased collecting tolls around 1850; the companies that ran them dissolved themselves after the Civil War, turning the roads over to the towns (in New York) and townships (in Pennsylvania) in which they were located.

By the middle of the century the bridge was showing the effect of carrying far more automotive traffic between the states than had been thought possible at the time of its construction, and the commission moved to replace it.

In 1950 New York's Department of Public Works, acting on the commission's recommendation, awarded the $750,000 contract for a new bridge to Thomas D'Angelo, a Binghamton sole proprietor who did business as Triple Cities Construction.

[2] It was built 300 feet (100 m) downriver from its predecessor;[6] one of the original abutments remains on the Pennsylvania side and the residential power line across the river still follows the old bridge's path.

The state moved to have the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that he should have really sued the commission as the party which was ultimately responsible for initiating the work.

Further, the court said, "[t]he procedure followed and the instruments employed clearly indicate an intention that construction agreement was between the State and the claimant only", naming neither the commission nor Pennsylvania.