ORV bridge escorts prohibited

radsrh

New member
HOUGHTON - Those riding off-road vehicles will no longer be escorted over the Portage Lake Lift Bridge - the only means to get from Houghton to Hancock without the use of a trailer.

Skip Schulz, president of the Michigan Trails and Recreation Alliance of the Land and Environment in Ontonagon, said the group was notified by the Hancock City Police that escorts across the bridge were no longer being allowed. The only way to get to connecting trails between Houghton and Hancock is to be escorted over the lift bridge.

Schulz said at the moment, he is working quickly to resolve the issue and hopes to put together a meeting with state officials to work out the matter. The issue, he said, is it's illegal for police to escort vehicles across the bridge, as it is a liability

"Until this issue is resolved, please be aware that you will not have a way to cross from the city of Hancock, back to Houghton, via ORV," he said.

The Michigan Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over the Portage Lake Lift Bridge, which is the only means to get from Houghton to Hancock by any vehicle. ORV tourism, like snowmobiling, is popular in the local area, and Schulz said tourism will be affected greatly if the issue cannot be resolved.

ORV riders like to ride from Ontonagon to Copper Harbor, and Schulz said he fears all the work the Keweenaw ATV Club did to develop trails to Copper Harbor would be jeopardized.

"We can't even get to all the work they did," he said.

The only option would be to transport ORVs by trailer across the bridge.

"It would be nice if we could get it where there are certain times of the day where the bridge can be lowered, so the boaters know, and we wouldn't be breaking the law that we're trying to change," he said.

That law is an important issue to Rep. Matt Huuki, R-Atlantic Mine, and Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, who have been working to change the law to allow ORVs to use the shoulder of select state and federal highway bridges, along with select state and federal highway right-of-ways.

Schulz said if MDOT would agree to lower the bridge, much like what is done for snowmobiles to cross in the winter, ORVs wouldn't need an escort and would be able to cross at certain times.

"(The bridge) is always dropped in the winter," he said.

Schulz said Hancock City Police Chief Mike Beaudoin came up with the idea to lower the bridge for ORVs and also said the ban was not something the police wanted to do.

"... They simply do not want to break current Michigan State law," he said. "He understands and brought the idea up."

Beaudoin said escorting ORVs is technically against the law and because it's a liability, it's time to end the service.

"Snowmobiles cross underneath in the winter and the ORVs could cross in the summer if the state of Michigan would lower the bridge each time a group wanted to come, like they raise it for boats that go through," he said.

Beaudoin said for the previous system, ORV riders would call for an escort and there were some incidents where single riders would call and get mad if the police didn't come quick enough, he said. The police can technically provide an escort, but are liable if someone is injured while escorting, he added.

"It's not that we don't want to help these people," he said. "It's good for restaurant owners, the hotel owners and gas station owners. I'm for it."

Mi-TRALE will be taking down the signs stating riders have to call Houghton County Sheriff's Department, Houghton City Police or Hancock City Police to request an escort over the bridge.

In the meantime, Mi-TRALE is working on setting up a meeting with Houghton County Sheriff's Department, Houghton City Police, Hancock City Police and Michigan Department of Transportation.

Schulz said he will be traveling to Houghton soon to find a route through Houghton. The current trails end near the city of Houghton RV Park, he said, and an escort was given from that point to Hancock. What is preferred is to find a route traveling on the other side of Houghton that connects right with the bridge.

"I still have to get MDOT to approve lowering that deck," he said. "I'm still finding a way to organize a meeting so all the key players can be there."
 

Cat600

Member
I wonder if Michigan DOT has ever thought about building extended platforms on both decks on one side of the bridge (or both for one way traffic) so that sleds and ORV's could use that area instead of using the roadway itself.

Would definitely cause a lot less hassle IMO, especially for the only crossing point up there.
 

eao

Active member
That could cost millions of $$. The lift bridge portion is a balanced assembly and any additional weight would require extensive engineering expense. Also there is no way to get from the Houghton side of the bridge to the trail that does not require city streets or state hwy, which are not allowed.
 
Last edited:

handiman

Member
I've always wondered what they will do if (when) that bridge fails?
A second crossing point for ANY motorized traffic seems to be the easy answer, but $$ and aesthetics will stand in the way.
 
Yes, build another bridge. We now have three bridges crossing Sturgeon Bay. Sure does come in handy during the busy summer season.

Somebody needs to get the local economic director involved and start looking for $. It is out they, don't they know it's election time???

HH
 

snoluver1

Active member
What about a cable operated ferry across the canal? You could have an operator come down and push the on button at designated times of the day. Seems to me it could be a relatively speaking "cheap" solution to a lot of problems. Could also be utilized in emergency situations if a problem were to occur with the lift bridge.
 

mrsrunningbear

Active member
I was at the meeting today and the police and cities have resolved the situation. There will be 3 times a day where they will try to escort riders 9:15am - 1:15 and 6:15pm but you must call ahead to let the police know your going to need an escort and if they are not available to escort there are some local towing co that will load the ATV's up for around $5 each and haul you across. Signs are being made for the riders with phone #'s and the procedures. I'll post more info as I get it
 
Last edited:

anonomoose

New member
"...there is some local towing co that will load the ATV's up for around $5 each and haul you across."

I was just thinking that here is an employment opportunity for some smart guy who can be there in a few minutes and get folks across. Of course HE will now have to buy insurance to protect HIMSELF from issues. Once established the fuzz will be off the hook and glad to give up that parade process.

Or Michigan residents could vote to build another bridge and charge it to Ontario...who has money to burn in such matters. But then we would have to have a toll booth and signage and toll keepers and fuzz to watch that nobody runs the bridge without paying....oh my....this just gets worse and worser!!
 

eao

Active member
Another bridge will never happen. To many road blocks are already in place for it to get anywhere. First and bigest is that the channel is a Navigable waterway so that means it comes under federal jurisdiction, thats why boats have the right of way (ROW). Since it would be a another bridge (not a replacement) there is no federal highway to justify any money being spent. So the billion $ would have to come from state and local coffers. Good luck getting anywhere with that.
 
L

lenny

Guest
what to do,,,very busy bridge and a tough one to fix. It will be interesting t see the final remedy
 
Here in Door County WI., we have lots of tree huggers also, here but a new bridge was completed a few years ago. Our old downtown bridge built in the 1930's was failing and needed replacement.

The 'locals' wanted it torn down, but thankfully for outside 'visionaries', the money was found to rehab the old bridge and place it on the National Historical Register and also build a new bridge built. Sturgeon Bay channel is a navigational channel for both boats and Great Lakes boats, very busy to say the least.

No way should a populated peninsula only have one bridge serving it. From emergency response to daily traffic flow issues, a second bridge is almost a necessity now days.

A small but vocal group needs to come forward and start the process. Takes years, but it can be done. Never say never. People use the think that around here that something could not be done. WRONG!

I love seeing naysayers proven wrong.

HH
 
Top