Wooden Bridge At Howell

[hobojim]

Dose not matter, it is owned by CSX, there for is CSX already has it closed, meaning no traffic, CSX could come and tear it down tommrow.

What about muninciple ROWs? IF that was true, couldn't the RRs close all the crossings they wanted? My question is what has priority, CSX or the fact it is used as a public road?

[Gov. Crappo]

they just cant pull crossings "willy nilly"...bridges or whatever....in Howell back in the late 80's CSX wanted to pull the last road crossing in Howell heading east Fowler St...crossed just east of the elevator...CSX petitoned the city to take the crossing out "...to lengthen usable siding area" and also petitioned to remove the Isbell st bridge.....city said ok to Fowler st...IF they left the bridge as it would be the only unblockable crossing in Howell (for atleast 2.5 miles in either direction)...so it was a boob for tat...this time i dont know...other then what Bob has posted im not in the loop this time around but i bet its "closed" pending resolution of a petition to tear it down

[Raildudes dad]

Grade crossings are under the jurisdiction of the MDOT Rail Safety section. Anything that "happens'" usually is accompanied by an "order' for the activity sometimes even to get maintenance done . RR's are responsible from 1 foot outside the crossing to 1 foot outside the crossing- 8'6" ties mean the RR is responsible for 10' 6". The highway authority is responsible beyond that. Signals are the responsibility of the RR, but they bill the highway authorities a yearly fee set by law. Bridges are the responsibility of the"owner" unless there's an agreement. RR over highway is usually the RR's responsibility. Highway over rail is usually the highway authority. The Class 1's have required the highway authority to take responsibility for the abutments fro RR over highways in recent years.

In this case, it obviously was designed and built by the RR. Childsdale over the ex GR&I then MIGN was Pennsy built and maintained.It was very similar to this bridge. At the end MDOT owned Childsdale , CSX is responsible for maintaining the Howell bridge. These old structures, however, reach a point where maintaining is no longer an option. A civil engineer someplace has inspected this bridge and would have to put his professional license on the line to allow the structure to be open (Been there, done that - sometimes you have no choice but to order the structure to be closed for the safety of the public).

The solution to this one most likely will be CSX sells it to Howell for $1. MDOT will accept a Local bridge fund application for it's replacement with a new highway bridge. Since it's closed due to structural failure, it scores high in the application process.

If the city wants to keep it for pedestrian traffic or car traffic only, they "might" be able to get an enhancement grant to rebuild it in and keep it's historical character.

Was it restricted to cars only before it was closed?

[CAT345C]

The bridge had a 3 ton limit on it, it was a lot more shakey than the one near Newago. But that was just the boards flexing, wasn't like it was going to fall over anytime soon.

[GreatLakesRailfan]

The bridge had a 3 ton limit on it, it was a lot more shakey than the one near Newago. But that was just the boards flexing, wasn't like it was going to fall over anytime soon.

From the sound of things, with the supports nearly rotten through on one side of the tracks, it wasn't going to fall over anyway. It would have simply collapsed instead...

[BL2-1843]

they just cant pull crossings "willy nilly"...bridges or whatever....in Howell back in the late 80's CSX wanted to pull the last road crossing in Howell heading east Fowler St...crossed just east of the elevator...CSX petitoned the city to take the crossing out "...to lengthen usable siding area" and also petitioned to remove the Isbell st bridge.....city said ok to Fowler st...IF they left the bridge as it would be the only unblockable crossing in Howell (for atleast 2.5 miles in either direction)...so it was a boob for tat...this time i dont know...other then what Bob has posted im not in the loop this time around but i bet its "closed" pending resolution of a petition to tear it down

The Railroad had wanted to close the Fowler Street crossing for years, but the City Of Howell did not want it closed. When Ogihara came to town, it came time to extend McPherson Park Drive, which ended at the west property line of International Paper and make a grade crossing to tie into Highlander Way. At this point, the railroad said NO, but, using leverage, they city agreed to close Fowler Street in lieu of the new Highlander Way Grade crossing.

Regarding what Raildudes Dad said, this very thing was mentioned to me by B&B people this week when inquiring, that it would be very easy for the railroad to sell it to the city for a buck, and have the city apply for state and federal grants, and the grants could pay up to 90% of the cost to build a new bridge. This may very well happen now that CSX wants to tear it down. Like the closing of Fowler Street crossing, the city and the CSX could scratch each others back to get an agreement that would benefit both parties. Beside that, it would behove the city to have a bridge that would enable traffic to go across in both directions. I can not remember when, but its been a LONG TIME, since the city made it one way traffic going south.

[Raildudes dad]

95% - 90% Fed- 5% state - city will only have to put up 5% plus design engineering and construction engineering costs. "Been there done that" a few times over the past 37 years (this June 26th) . PKS -want to to a little pro bono? You and I could do it together

[PSK at CH45.2]

PKS -want to to a little pro bono? You and I could do it together

Sure...as long as you do the bridge and leave the approaches for me. I don't think anyone would be allowed to drive on the thing if I tried to design it...I'm a road guy. It'll be 21 years this May 23rd.

[Raildudes dad]

PKS -want to to a little pro bono? You and I could do it together

Sure...as long as you do the bridge and leave the approaches for me. I don't think anyone would be allowed to drive on the thing if I tried to design it...I'm a road guy. It'll be 21 years this May 23rd.

I've done a few box beam bridges in my past, including a couple over RR's. I actually miss it . We've reduced staffing levels so I get to supervise consultants doing the bridge design plus lots of other stuff. My boss used to work for CSX and has given me an antique brass C&O fire extinguisher and the guys found a 1950's fireman's helmet in a house we bought so now I'm prepared to "put out fires" at work

[intocable83]

Well, if they tear it down how sad but there is always Knaggs bridge between Durand and Bancroft over the CN line.

[RRTTF]

In the past year or so, immediately after the collapse of the I-35W highway (non-railroad) bridge in Minneapolis, the FRA came up with enhanced guidelines for railroads to follow in inspecting their bridges. In Michigan, every railroad must inspect every bridge on their line every 2 years and provide an affidavit of said inspection to MDOT. In all liklihood, the Howell bridge issue came up as part of a routine inspection under the new (more stringent) inspection criteria.

It is frowned upon to wait under said bridge collapses before one does necessary repairs! You can also bet your Sweet Bippy (I may have just dated myself with that phrase) that CSX did not make the determination on their own, that the local road authority had input and involvement AND make the actual decision to close the road, as even if CSX "owns" the bridge (doubtful that they "own" it; the bridge is a public road right-of-way), CSX cannot legally and independently close a public road. Only the road authorities have that ability.

[Raildudes dad]

I
even if CSX "owns" the bridge (doubtful that they "own" it; the bridge is a public road right-of-way), CSX cannot legally and independently close a public road. Only the road authorities have that ability.

The one media report I can find on line has the city acknowledging that CSX owns the bridge. It's a very typical railroad "overhead" of that era. RR's built many timber trestles for their use and adapted the same type of construction for a highway bridge. You would find them usually in substantial cuts where it was cheaper to build a bridge than moving all the dirt with horse drawn scrapers to build a grade crossing. I have photos of road construction in the early 20's where they were using a steam powered shovel to load horse drawn wagons. The timber overheads predate that era. We had two timber overheads in Kent County that I remember, one on the GT (Crahen Ave) and one on the old GR&I (Childsdale) both built and owned by the railroads. The GR&I had a poured concrete overhead on Packer Dr. dated from about 1905 (IIRC). All three predated the re codification of the Michigan RR Statue but in the case of Crahen Ave, the RR posted a 10 ton limit w/o notifying the highway authority. In the case of Childsdale, the highway authority's engineer notified the DOT (owner of the RR ROW by that time) that their bridge had structural problems and would be posting it until they (DOT) could review the structure. It was posted for a few years before the highway authority notified the DOT it needed to be repaired or closed.

[PAT.C]

HEY GOV.CRAPPO-HOW LONG DID YOU WORK FOR THE RR ?
KEEP POSTING THE OLDER PICS. IT'S NICE TO SEE THE COMPARISONS WITH THE CURRENT.

[sparrow24]

Noticed signs on both sides of the wooden bridge today reading "unsafe structure - do not use"
I don't recall seeing these signs previously... and they do not appear on Google Street View. I wonder if there is any change to the status of this bridge politically or otherwise?

[BL2-1843]

Noticed signs on both sides of the wooden bridge today reading "unsafe structure - do not use"I don't recall seeing these signs previously... and they do not appear on Google Street View. I wonder if there is any change to the status of this bridge politically or otherwise?

New signs have been there about a month, erected by the city. Nothing more than a CYA in case someone gets injured crossing it. Not enforced as far as I know as all the regulars, including myself still use it when needed. The city itself installed a new railing on the west side from the center to the north last year, and am sure charged the railroad for it, regardless if they got any compensation for it or not. I was there when the did it.

The east side railing in the same location is now breaking down. Its all a matter of time before it collapses if you were to see how bad its deteriorating from underneath. For a while, the city installed a snow fence to prevent people from crossing but they just knocked it down in the center in order to step over it. (It wasn't me) It needs to have tall solid concrete barriers on each end to keep people (including myself) off. I, as many would miss it badly if that ever happened. I have only lived nearby this bridge for almost 80 years.

[sparrow24]

I appreciate the response, Bob. I figured you would chime in.

[LansingRailFan]

Well, if they tear it down how sad but there is always Knaggs bridge between Durand and Bancroft over the CN line.

Womp Womp