Building a Small Bridge

What do you want, Mate? A foot bridge? A road bridge? Single track, double track, six lane motorway? A rail bridge? Planks on poles? Rope bridge? Girder bridge? Suspension bridge? Bailey bridge? Pontoon bridge?

Oh, b*gg*r it. I give up. <splutter>

Stinky Pete I am not sure but it would have to hold equipment to build a house and regular car traffic. It must also meet all environmental concerns such as navigatable waters - 2 meters above the 12 foot high water mark - this is the height of the land on our side. 12 feet.

<...Is this within the average persons finances?...>

Does that person own the land each side of the watercourse?

Are those two pieces of land legally in the same "parcel", or is there a possibility of one being sold separately from the other?

Hi we own one side - the land side with an easement that has not been used in 25 years. We DO NOT want this crossing going in as it will destroy the creek, the look of our land and our peace and quiet. No one in the past has even considered doing this, we are not sure that this couple will have the resources as well. Thank you.

Eh? So why does the other landowner couple want to construct a bridge onto a piece of land that this person does not own without an easement to that effect that needs to be legally granted by the landowner on this side, and for which all due legal process will be required?

First cost does not need consideration if the legalities to do the work are not in place first!

Will the road be a public road or a private road?

Were the location to be the UK:

• If sketch owns the land one side and the couple owns the land the other then there is no scope for the bridge going in unless due legal process can be established for the couple to gain access to their land over sketches land.
• In the UK, a piece of land that is isolated from a public road by other privately-owned land requires an easement to be granted over the land that is not isolated in order for the isolated land's owner to gain access to the public road. If the two landowners cannot agree on the terms of the easement and undertake the due legal process, then any planning application to build a house on the isolated land would fail on the basis of change of use and its isolation from the road. The isolated land itself would then be of little value. Any construction work on the islolated land would then be unlawful, and any attempt to gain access to it over sketches land without sketches consent would be trespass, in which case sketch has a powerful hand of cards to play at law.
• Were the 70-foot creek to be also part of a statutory Navigation, then the Navigation authority is responsible for the waterway up to its banks. An easement would then also be needed to cross that waterway as well, and the Navigation authority would require certain conditions to be met with regard to passing clearances beneath it, and possibly construction method, prior to granting the easement.
• Were the watercourse to be non-navigable, then the Admiralty must be consulted prior to the bridge being designed and constructed so that the prospects of any future shipping requirements might be called into consieration.
• In either case the Environment Agency would stipulate conditions to be met during construction of the bridge, which would be enforced by the local authority planners.
• The local authority would also have a handle on the planning consent for constructing and using the bridge on the basis of aesthetics and suitability for purpose.
• If access to the public road for the couple's land could be gained by other means, then the bridge becomes unneccessary, and all sketch could object to is the planning application for the house on the basis of reduction of light and change of land use of the couple's land.

All of the above looks a bit expensive for the couple before even a penny is spent on designing and building the bridge. So the first cost of the engineered bridge is a fair way off yet.

Hi PWSlack, thank you for your time. Our laws are similar to yours, I am sure (Canada). The problem is there is an easement - as back in about 1920 a bridge was built. The bridge was swept away by highwaters 10 years ago (it was rotten 30 years ago). We do not know if the couple can significantly alter the topography of the land as the only type of road was a cow path that every once in a while someone drove a vehicle on. I know this is a bit off topic but the land we bought is a paradise not just a spot in the bush. Most people have known the cost was too much but this couple seem determined to work an angle - he was going to have his buddies haul some gravel and put in a 12 foot culvert to try to cross - we will of course stop that. I am just hoping the cost of such a bridge is well over 200,000. thank you so much again.

If the legal easement to cross sketches land already exists and is recorded on the land parcel registrations of both parties, then the only two things outstanding would be the planning application to re-establish the bridge and the environment agency or navigation authority's requirements for passage beneath it.

Without the easement on sketches side, the bridge could not be built legally, be it built from a rail flat car, or a tank-transported structure, or whatever, as the legal right for the other party to enter and cross sketches land would not be present. Therefore the planning application to establish the bridge would fail.

sketch still holds powerful cards.

Sketch,

I don't know whether you do or don't want the bridge.. but I happened to have just researched the purchase of a flatbed rail car from california.. The price was 22k$ for the unit, and they will cut it down to 70 feet. (original 89 feet) for no further charge, or make basic cut alterations for you. They (www.skip-gibbs.com) were able to come up with a transportation charge to the Red Deer AB, which was ~5k$ (all inclusive), so probably going to ON would be another 2k$ (Gox transport) There are no wheels or trucks on the cars, as GTX removes and reuses them.

I had originally contacted GTX, but they don't actually sell the cars themselves. The ones you can purchase are 30 years old or so.

Chris

Here is a link to a similar question on another forum.

thanks -good answer. No bridge will probably go in -we found out they made an offer to purchase and did not buy. Started out very misleading so would not be good neighbours. It will not close till sept but once they find out what is involved it should be over.

<...they made an offer to purchase and did not buy...>

Were they put off by the lack of access easements, one wonders?

very interesting conversations here but mostly on the why and why-nots of the bridge and not a how. I recently, or so it seems, saw an article on making bridge crossings of this nature by purchasing a used railroad flatbed car. 90 to o95% of the flat-bed rail cars being ordered in the recent new market are 80 to 85 feet in length. A railcar is structrually sound to carry far more than a road or driveway would ever demand of it. you simply build two foundations on either side of the crossing, spaced to receive your rail car and then set it in place with a crane. I kept this this tid-bit in mind because I have land out west and can make good use of the cheap instant bridge.

Good luck

How comes way after what, where, when, who and why. Always!

In India in villages poor people make very cheap Bridges. It is made by suspending wire rope at both ends, a trolley with a chair is pulled from either end by the person sitting on chair. Crude way but serves the purpose and is very cheap.

That person could also swim across....

Here in MA, building a bridge over a navigatable waterway is fraught with much paper work and numerous laws that must be met. One, the plans must be drawn up by a certified licenced civil engineer. Second, the Coast Guard and the EPA must be notified. The coast guard will want to reivew the design to ensure that the bridge meets their requirements for navigation and the EPA will want an environmental impact statement that is done by an environmental engineering firm. Third, permits must be pulled for the town(s) that the ends of the bridge rest on and a state permit also. IF, and only if the permits and the design is approved and everyone has signed off (Coast Guard, EPA, State, Town) on the design, then construction can begin. I think your neighbor is trying to bite of more than he can chew. The town I live in is trying to replace a 150 yr old iron bridge for the last 10 yrs and can't seem to get the job done. The Army Corp of Engineers is now erecting a Bailey Bridge as a temporary fix. I think that the cost would be too high for the average homeowner. Please let us know what happens

Good Luck

Hi, thanks all. We have similar coast guard and other laws that would have to be met. One of the reasons we would be so concerned is that the bridge would have to be 2 meters (about 6.5 feet) above the highwater mark. The highwatermark is the height of the land so in order to cross they would have to develop an approach half-way up our flat field that is in front of our home. We are hoping and 90% sure they cannot burden the land so much ( alter the topography). These people have come on our land 4 times without permission ( we did not know until we caugth them) the last time they brought a friend and his wife walked all over the land . My husband told him to leave and not come back without all paperwork in place. We then found out they have only made an offer to purchase and do not own the land. He accused my husband of not being a good neighbour but we are worried about having this type of individual as a potential neighbour (who would lie and try to do everything as cheap as possible). We are waiting to see if he backs out -as common sense would dictate ( all others have due to costs of crossing, building a road on theother side, hydro etc.) we will then go to a laywer to get a standard information paper made that will expalin to potential buyers all of the negatives. We bought the land knowing of the easement and willing to bear the burden as it is ( the easement cannot be seen in the field). That is why we would like to know the approx cost of a bridge. thanks again I know I am off topic. oh it is a spawning bed as well so do to width (70 feet) and the latter no culvert is possible .

I do believe that they can only build on what they own, and in most cases, one cannot build anything on an easement except a simple roadway. Good luck and hopefully they will get a smack of common sense and give up on this project.

How about a temporary bridge. Set up only when needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjB1RCV9Fu0

Given the red tape you may be facing with building a bridge, this approach may be cheaper.

<...this approach may be cheaper...>

Without doubt! Sketch is interested in preventing the bridge being built, not building a cheap one, though!

The first thing to do is to establish whether the other party has a legal right to bridge onto and cross sketches land, which will be on the land registration for the piece that sketch owns in the form of an easement conferring that right to the owner of the piece the other side of the river. If that easement does not exist, then in the UK, the laws of trespass would apply, as do the restrictions in place in the planning process.

"How", including "how much", comes a lot later - after all the legal work is done.

at the small jut out is where they want to cross. There is attached land on the other side but no easement.

this is what they think they may be able to do with a 12 foot culvert but MNR and coast guard will not let them, only a single span bridge

the highwater mark is 12 feet, 6 feet higher than in the pic, to the top of that grass, this is the jut out it has to cross just behind the rock on the other side.

this is how the easement looks on the field. It has always been just a clay path, no real road. they would have to build up a road that could go up a 7foot hill to the bridge. the bridge would go where the long grass is.

we live in a park in the wilderness, the couple before us life's work. We were judged to see if we were worthy to buy the land as you can see many people would have loved to have this. We do not want it destroyed. The original farm kept animals on the other side and the couple we bought from had to agree to the easement but he put a covenant on it that if any dev such as a subdivision (not a house as far as we can tell) occurs that easement would have to be moved. This is why it is so important to us. We will go to court if that is what it takes. Thanks again to all.

What a beautiful site! You guys are lucky that is your back yard. Again, good luck and enjoy your land.

Another suggestion is to provide small barge which can carry people and cars. In Goa tourist city on the beaches of India they cross ravines on the barges. No permission needed from authorities and cheaper solution.

thanks but we do NOT want any crossing. this would never work as they cannot park on our land, it would never be allowed in Canada -build ramps, car on a barge for crossing daily -large trucks and firetruck ? not even close.

70 ft bridge is long even for a foot bridge especially if it has to have a clear span for 70' long and app. 14' high. Without more detail I would say it would be out of the average persons finances to build a bridge such as this just for a single family's personal use.

HI all , thanks. It seems as if they have backed out. The land is listed again 70,000 cheaper. Even is if someone gave you the land I do not think it would be worth it to try and cross it 300,00 -400,000 even if you could get all the permits. We would also fight every inch of the way - yeah!

Is there any possibility of getting the existing easement removed from the title?

This would prevent any future attempt to bridge, barge or whatever to cross the water.

we would like that since it really is an easement to "nowhere". we will look into that

Back to the original topic:

Within the "average person's" finances? No.

The problem is the height of the bridge deck over the water. That means a pair of 7' (above grade) piers sturdy enough to hold up the bridge. Unless you have solid rock there, the foundation work for those piers is going to cost a fortune. And the environmental impact of the pier construction is a point against allowing the bridge to be built to serve just one family.

As far as the approaches, it might be cheaper for a prospective builder to simply buy two more retired rail cars and use them as ramps. Figure a 7' pier and a 70' rail car, that's only a 1-in-10 slope for the ramps.

Hi just to let you all know what has happened since you were kind enough to reply. Everything has settled down, no one can come on the land until a legal survey is done. The survey will cost 10,000 so no one wants to pay for that just to find out they cannot afford to cross. Coast Guard, MNR, Fisheries are all aware of what is going on and will be watching to ensure no one tries to do anything that will be outside of the law. We still are trying to find out if the easment is an easement since the owner had a burden to maintain the crossing years ago and did not. I do not think a crossing will ever go there now that we know what is involved both legally and financially. Thanks again to all who responded with valuable insight. Sorry for being off-topic but it ended up being the best place to get the correct info.

Sounds good, sketch. No worries now.

Greetings.

I skimmed through your comments and didn't see right off hand how long the bridge had to be.

I have seen railroad long flatcars used side by side over rivers to use for a bridge.

I beleve the length was around 70 feet long and the two were put side by side with concrete under each end. The top was decked with rough cut lumber. I suppose one flatcar would work but a low railing would be necessary to avoid water car trips.

Oly in Oly

HI I am back. We have heard thru the grapevine that the fellow is trying to have a local company come out by boat ( he won't pay for a survey) to give a cost of a bridge. The water this year is back to normal and so a boat may not work (although the highwater mark stays as noted forever) . The land itself is not worth much. They have no hydro but I think they think they do. Ontario hydro came and took down the hydro line and there is no hydro easement to the land. We, of course, will not give one now ( it was an oversight on the original division of the land as it was one piece and did not require an easement to run a line - yeah it was forgotten so no hydro). We also have documentation that the site is a spawning bed. We are quite sure that to build the type of bridge needed they would have to start 1/2 way up our field and build a road and a huge hill in the middle of our field to be able to have the correct approach to the bridge. We are hoping that this is just one more issue that will never allow the bridge to be built. The other side has a steep cliff and no real landing area ( well a little one where they used to jump out the old truck and push it up the hill). Any thoughts by anyone? We heard this fellow bought the land when our by-pass was being planned and he thought it was going to come near enough that he could put up a hotel and gas bar. It did not happen so he wants to unload the land as he is getting older now. THe creek is part of a major water-way with many lakes upstream.

hi guys - I am back!!!!

Well someone was foolish enough to buy the land. We have had it closely looked at and I am going to post some pics. Where my horses are grazing is where the bridge would come onto our land - well they are just at the beginning of that jut out area. The jut out was dumped there years ago to put the bridge in - 60 or more years ago - would be so illegal now - you can tell it is natural It will have to be removed - so we are wondering if when it is removed and the natural landscape comes back the width of the creek widens, wondering if they would be permitted to redump fill - hoping not. Anyway the other pictures shows a drawing from a ministry of what the bridge would look like. The area at the end of the picture is where my horses are and they would be covered with fill. the Fill would be at least 12 feet or higher depending on what is allowed at our creek edge. That means it would be a road 60 feet wide at least ( t hey do have a 66 foot easement - something to do with the old road being a town road at one time. Do you think someone could build a wall down our field and ruin our lives by doing so. THey do have an easement but we considered it abandoned when the previous owners did not maintain the bridge and it rotted away. We have had our lawyer offer an alternate site.

Question - what would this cost

trying to load pics

would it be allowed -legally, environmentally

can't seem to put my pics in - donot know why

HI I am back. THe fellow is taking us to court for unlawful interference and some other silly stuff. The interference was that we ensured that everything was by the book. All permits applied for ( he applied for none). Our MNR did send him a letter saying that he needs to work something out with us. we did offer another site that wold have a level approach and no spawning bed. it may or may not be longer depending on what the original bridge needed. No real worried on that.

Question. The approach on our side is a long downward slope - years ago - 80 or more people dumped a bunch a fill to narrow the creek and put in the old bridge that was there. It would not support a new bridge. The problem is if one removes the pile it would restore the shoreline back to its original location - which was like a small bay at the site, this would then make the bridge much longer by 20-30 feet. Since he cannot use that fill as support and the creek goes bakc on each side of the jut-out that is about 28 feet wide would he have to make the bridge that much longer?

THe slope down to the hill is between 20 and 30 degrees- that means tremendous amounts of fill would be needed to get to the deck of the bridge. THe fill cold be up to 13 feet in some areas and then tapering off. How wide would the entire road need to be ( with embankments on both sides)- he then requires dug out run-offs for sediment control. The cost just keeps going up - no he is not a millionaire and anyone with money would not waste it on such land and bridge. we have no idea what his mind is thinking. The land is not worth much and has no hydro available.

The deck would be above my horses and so the fill would cover them where they are. You can see the jut out that was made. The bridge is going to have to be closer to 100+ feet when all is said and done and will be 13 feet higher than where the horses are standing. I think you can tell the slope of the hill. THe bridge would come from the high rock on the other side of the creek.

THoughts anyone?