Trains.com

Coast Guard Authority

2995 views
16 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Saturday, June 24, 2017 10:52 PM

gregc
in general, the more maneuverable vehicle must yield to the less maneuverable.

Listeners on the St Lawrence Seaway navigation channel for the St Lawrence River (Ch 13) are used to hearing "Security, Security, Security, the [name of ship] is downbound in the American Narrows at Rock Island Light."

While two ships can potentially pass in the narrows, it's a tight squeeze.  And with increased flows of the river due to the high level of the Lakes and the river, downbound maneuverability is really questionable at times.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    July 2009
  • From: lavale, md
  • 4,678 posts
Posted by gregc on Saturday, June 24, 2017 8:25 AM

in general, the more maneuverable vehicle must yield to the less maneuverable.

for aircraft, a other aircraft must yield to baloons, then gliders and airships (blimps) (91.113).    float planes must yield to watercraft (91.115)

other boats must yield to sailboats and boats moving against the tide or upstream in a river must yield to boats moving with the flow.

so it makes sense that a train must yield to a boat moving downstream and requiring a bridge to be opened.

 

greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, June 24, 2017 7:12 AM

Until recently, the Calumet River handled a fair amount of commercial traffic.  Every fall, Conrail would post a legal notice in the Chicago newspapers stating that the bridge next to the Skyway would not be manned for the off-season, usually about November 30 through April 1.  A phone number to contact Conrail for raising the bridge would be included in the notice.

Similarly, the City of Chicago would post notices indicating that a certain downtown bridge would not be raised during certain hours to allow for the passage of a specific parade (Polish Constitution Day, St. Patrick's Day, etc.).

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Friday, June 23, 2017 11:47 PM

The "default"rule for moveable bridges over navigable waterways is that they must be opened on demand.  But there are lots of moveable bridges on navigable waterways (both RR and highway) which don't have to be opened on demand.  There are pages and pages of special Coast Guard rules in 33 CFR Part 117 applicable to particular bridges or waterways which are exceptions to the "open on demand" requirement.  For example, those readers who live in Chicago may be familiar with the annual ritual of bridge openings on the Chicago River  (a Coast Guard regulated navigable waterway) for recreational vessels going to and from Lake Michigan.  The openings have to be pre-arrranged and are definitely not required on demand. 

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • 707 posts
Posted by tdmidget on Friday, June 16, 2017 10:46 PM

MidlandMike

He did. The federal government refused to fund a bridge high enough at Baton Rouge and to this day ocean going vessels are pretty much blocked by the Airline Highway bridge

 

 
challenger3980

...

 It could be an Excellent way to generate traffic though, put a low bridge over the Mississippi River, and block all the river traffic, just might end up with a lot more business, IF, they could get a way with it Wink.

Doug

 

 

 

IIRC depression era Louisiana Gov Huey Long wanted to build a bridge across the Mississippi that would block ocean going ships from going further up the river, so his state would capture all that business..

 

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Friday, June 16, 2017 10:16 PM

challenger3980

...

 It could be an Excellent way to generate traffic though, put a low bridge over the Mississippi River, and block all the river traffic, just might end up with a lot more business, IF, they could get a way with it Wink.

Doug

 

IIRC depression era Louisiana Gov Huey Long wanted to build a bridge across the Mississippi that would block ocean going ships from going further up the river, so his state would capture all that business..

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, June 16, 2017 9:11 PM

samfp1943
[I would bet, that (tree68) Larry,could confirm through his F.D. affiliation, what happens when some 'incident involving a 'spill' takes place.]

Isolate and contain.  

On land, we're in touch with the Department of Environmental Conservation for anything more than an incidental spill (a little fuel from an overturned vehicle - although there are parameters).

On the lake (Ontario) and river (St Lawrence) the Coast Guard and the Seaway Authority would be the chief responding agencies, although local fire departments (and DEC) may be involved as well.   There are booms and other spill control materials pre-placed along the river.

Usually spills on the water in this area are of fuel - gas or Diesel during refueling.  Some years ago, however, a barge carrying fuel oil sunk in the river, and made quite the mess along the river...

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 1,568 posts
Posted by CandOforprogress2 on Friday, June 16, 2017 3:12 PM

Would that include a private sailboat or yaght?

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, June 16, 2017 12:51 PM

diningcar:

  The wreck of AMTRAK'S Sunset Limited, in September of 1993, at the CSX bridge over Big Bayou Canot, in Alabama.  That's a pretty good example of someone operating a towboat who is less than qualified. 

 At trial, the information came out that the towboat operator was not qualified, and in the fog lost his way, turning up the wrong waterway off the normal channel, struck the bridge; causing damage to the bridge structure that later (within about 10 minutes) derailed the Sunset Ltd. into the bayou. Close to 50 were killed and over 100 passengers and crew were injured.

 

 


 

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by diningcar on Friday, June 16, 2017 10:23 AM

The BNSF, former Santa Fe, bridge over the Mississippi River at Fort Madison, IA has had many unfortunate incidents because the power controlling barges, and pushing if in upstream mode, was piloted by 'less than capable operators'.

The bridge is a swing span design and must be pivoted on its central axis so that when open for barge traffic the swing span is parallel with the flow of the river. This allows the barges to pass through between piers on timber pilings with appropriate side and deck timbers which have been constructed strongly enough to withstand occasional bumping which may be expected. However, too frequently, the operators have been either sleepy, tired or under the influence of ??? and have ramed into the piers with the result that both the railroad and the river traffic is shut down. This is usually caused by operators going downstream but occasionally going upstream where just shutting down the power would result in minimal delay and damage to the piers. Efforts by the Coast Guard to control the licenceing of operators has helped but too many are allowed without appropriate screening.

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, June 16, 2017 8:11 AM

The interesting side of this issue is how the Coast Guard, and 'navigable waterways' come into play in "some situations".  [spill incidents- depends upon the hazardous/toxicity (?) of the substance being 'released'].

 I have been involved in incidents when a quantity of diesel fuel was released;  those incidents occurred in an area, where a drainage ditch flowed into a local river, which then had a flow into a navigable waterway, or lake.  

[I would bet, that (tree68) Larry,could confirm through his F.D. affiliation, what happens when some 'incident involving a 'spill' takes place.]

  The local first responding organization, notified the next higher(a State entity) organization in their incident response profile; that organization then notified the Coast Guard, whose responsibilty, was environmental protection of navigable waters.  Their(U.S. C.G.) responsibilities then control the level of responses to the 'spill'.  One cannot imagine, the demands made on the organization that was the cause of the 'spill', to mitigate that damage caused.

 As to bridges, over navigable waters, before anything can be built, it HAS to have been approved, by a Federal Regulatiory body;  either the Corps of Engineers, or the Coast Guard, or both, it then move into the State bureaucy, and down to the next government level of bureaucy.  Which is why permitting has become such a major part of any large construction project.

 

 

 

 


 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Friday, June 16, 2017 7:59 AM

Railroad(under)-Highway(over) blunder was in Delaware. (That was the state (DelDOT) violating a state statute regulation)....The clearance regulations have been pretty much fixed in place since the late 1950's (national model law) and highway design engineers have to be reminded by the railroads constantly that such a regulation, causing design changes and frustrated red faces. Some day maybe the statute will sink in with the design engineers? Overhead and side clearance problems also play havoc with architects.

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Rhododendron, OR
  • 1,516 posts
Posted by challenger3980 on Friday, June 16, 2017 7:14 AM

Really not that hard to understand, especially in the case of a navigable waterway that already has traffic when a bridge is built. A railroad has the option of going over under or around an obstruction, these are not options for a waterway.

 In the case of a waterway that already has traffic, it would be no different than a Highway dept. or utility putting a bridge or utility line 10' above the railhead of an existing track, how do you think the railroad would react to that?

 Actually, IIRC there was a case awhile back where an overpass was built over an exisiting rail line, and there was some confusion over measuring the clearence, and it was too low for exess height cars such as double stacks (the impeded traffic the RR was upset over) and auto racks. "Normal" rollingstock would fit, but not IIRC plate F cars, the railroad justifiably refused to pay for the remediation.

 It could be an Excellent way to generate traffic though, put a low bridge over the Mississippi River, and block all the river traffic, just might end up with a lot more business, IF, they could get a way with it Wink.

Doug

May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, June 16, 2017 6:56 AM

If I remember my constitutional law class correctly, the powers implied in the navigation clause are virtually absolute.  Due process of law still has to be followed, but it's pretty hard to fight.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, June 16, 2017 5:32 AM

A local canal museum wanted to put a floating canal boat as a display in a remnant of said canal alongside their museum.  

This was not allowed, as the waterway, closed as a canal since 1925 and far from being navigable in any sense of the term, is still considered navigable and this would block it...  Even a kayak would have trouble getting more than a few hundred yards from the museum site on the remnants of the canal.

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 3,139 posts
Posted by chutton01 on Thursday, June 15, 2017 11:15 PM

Well, from this USCG site concerning bridge permitting:

1. These Acts include Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the General Bridge Act of 1946.

a. The purpose of these Acts is to preserve the public right of navigation and to prevent interference with interstate and foreign commerce. The General Bridge Act of 1946, as amended, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, and the Act of March 23, 1906, as amended, all require the location and plans of bridges and causeways across the navigable waters of the United States be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security prior to construction. The General Bridge Act of 1946 is cited as the legislative authority for bridge construction in most cases.

b. These Acts placed the navigable waters of the United States under the exclusive control of the U. S. Coast Guard to prevent any interference with their navigability by bridges or other.


The control of bridge permitting was transfered to the USCG in 1966/67 from the US Army Corp of Engineers.

Now, apparently there have been several U.S. "River and Harbor" acts over the years, the first one apparently in 1824 (there must be one earlier than that), but I can't seem to find the text of these acts outside of paywalls to figure out which ones deal with bridges across navigable waterways. But clearly, when much internal commerce moves by rivers during the immediate post revolutionary period (and the canal period for that matter), making sure these waterways stay navigable by controlling the location and construction of bridges over the rivers or dams across them seems rather important.

 

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Coast Guard Authority
Posted by zardoz on Thursday, June 15, 2017 10:21 PM

On page 35 in the July 2017 issue of Trains, the author mentions that regarding the Petaluma River, "since the river is a Coast Guard-controlled navigable waterway, the bridge must be opened on demand for marine traffic".

When and how did waterways get such authority over railroads?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy