FM BNSF bridge closures sparking concerns

FORT MADISON - The ongoing closures of the BNSF bridge at Fort Madison have become a top priority for local economic development officials, business leaders, and commuters, as the community grapples with the economic and logistical fallout.
It should be noted at the outset that multiple attempts were made to contact BNSF officials for comment on the story, but neither phone calls nor email attempts to reach those officials were responded to at any point with the exception of one media representative who gave the following emailed statement:
“BNSF has no plans to close the roadway deck on the Fort Madison bridge. We are still on track to re-open the roadway deck, following the completion of repairs, in early November.”

Economic Impact
According to Emily Benjamin, President and CEO of the Lee County Economic Development Group, the bridge—closed from September 15th to November 7th—remains a critical commuter route for the local workforce.
“When it closes, local retailers report sales declines of 20–30%. Those short-term closures for maintenance have been manageable so far, but longer or permanent disruptions would have devastating consequences for Fort Madison businesses,” Benjamin said.
Alternate crossings exist, but they add significant time and expense to daily commutes, diverting retail activity to other communities. Frustration is mounting among commuters and employers, with concerns about the pace and communication of maintenance work.
“Greater transparency and efficiency would go a long way in restoring public confidence and minimizing the economic impact of these necessary projects,” Benjamin added.

Bridge Closure Timeline
According to city officials, since August 2024, the highway deck of the bridge will have been closed to vehicle traffic for 178 days - about 39% of the time as of the scheduled reopening of Nov. 7. In 2025 alone, there have been 107 days of closure, with 71 days in 2024. The closures have forced businesses and residents to adapt, often at significant cost.
BNSF officials did work with city groups to have the bridge open during the 2024 and 2025 Tri-State Rodeos and Mexican Fiestas, but then closed the bridge again following those events to continue to work on repairs. Truck traffic has been embargoed on the bridge since 2008.
An assumption of costs created by ChatGPT gives a rough overarching view of the impact to local commuters and businesses that considers among other things driver/commuter detour costs: business impacts, broader economic/indirect costs; and maintenance vs closure tradeoffs.
Using assumptions of 1,000 vehicles a day on average crossing the bridge (in 2018 an Iowa DOT mapping showed that figure to be 2,540 total vehicles – some of which were roundtrip), and the added 25 miles to the nearest crossing (50 miles round trip) using a theoretical $15/hour value of time to drivers and a fuel/vehicle cost of .75/mile, an analysis can be generated in a conservative format.
Any extra trip for commuters to bridges in Keokuk or Burlington would be 50 miles and take roughly an extra hour. Using the metrics above, that would be $37.50 in mileage and $15 in time or $52.50 per trip in theoretical value. One wouldn’t assume that all 1,000 vehicles would make the extended trip to get to Fort Madison, but even if 250 had to for work, childcare, health care or other reasons, that value climbs to $13,125 per day.
Over the span of 178 days that figure climbs to $2.34 million since August of 2024. The railway also loses revenue that is used for maintenance of $3 per vehicle, or $3,000 per day in the above scenario. That figure is $534,000 over the span of the closures in 2024 and 2025.
We also would have to include lost revenue to retail and service outlets in neighboring communities, but those are much harder to quantify with theoreticals.
Mayor Matt Mohrfeld said he’s been contacted by officials with large retailers and some of those are seeing sales dips of up to 20% during bridge closures.
Using even a reduced figure of 7.5% and a hypothetical annual daily sales of combined retail and restaurant of $50,000 per day for Fort Madison, the daily average loss would in sales would be $3,750 per day. Over the 178 days of closures, that figure climbs to $667,500 in an ultra conservative calculation. Combined with the personal costs of the closure, you get a rough cost to residents and businesses of about $3 million since the summer of 2024.

Ownership and Oversight Questions
The bridge, owned by BNSF, is unique in that it serves both rail and vehicular traffic, connecting public roads in Iowa and Illinois. However, oversight and inspection responsibilities have been a source of confusion. Recent federal rule changes now require private bridge owners to provide inspection data to state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) if the bridge connects public roads on both ends. The new rule was put in place in 2022 and creates timelines that private companies have to turn in inspection data but some of those timelines extend 72 months or six years, which could give BNSF until 2028 to turn over data on what inspections have revealed on the bridge.
Jim Nelson, a bridge engineer with Iowa DOT’s Bridges and Structures Bureau said DOT officials do not inspect the bridge and never have that he’s aware of. He also confirmed he has not seen any inspection data from BNSF.
“That is a private bridge, so BNSF does the inspections. They hire consultants, but those consultants do not report to us.”
Paul Wappell, a public information officer with Illinois DOT confirmed they have not inspected the bridge in the past decade, as it is privately owned, and they have not received any inspection data from BNSF. Wappell also said he’s unaware of any interest in the part of Illinois DOT officials to participate in the replacement of the bridge connecting Iowa and Illinois and no funds have been set aside by Illinios Gov. J.B. Priztker through the 2031 multi-year plan.

Calls for a New Bridge
Discussions about building a new, publicly-controlled bridge have circulated for years. Feasibility studies commissioned by the City of Fort Madison in 2004 and again in 2018 examined options for improving the bridge’s geometry and lifting truck restrictions. Estimates for a new crossing range from $124 million (similar to the Blackhawk Bridge near Dubuque, which was bid this year) to more than $300 million for larger projects. Nelson  said Fort Madison would probably be looking at costs similar to the Dubuque project.

According to the 2018 feasibility study commissioned by the City of Fort Madison, “The obsolete design of the roadway approaches presents a safety hazard to large trucks, resulting in an embargo that prevents trucks beyond a certain weight and length limit from using the bridge.”
Despite the need, funding and jurisdictional challenges remain.
“All parties, including BNSF, agree that a separate passenger crossing is the best solution. The challenge is how to fund and execute such a project,” said Stu Anderson Director of Planning, Programming, and Modal at Iowa DOT.
Anderson said conversations did take place at the state level regarding possibly using former President Joe Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) following the pandemic in 2021 to build a passenger bridge at Fort Madison, but those conversations never blossomed.
Truck traffic is one of the primary motivators for improving the bridge or building a separate highway bridge. According to the 2018 feasibility study in 2016, more than 2,000 trucks per day were using the Burlington and Keokuk bridges.
Economic development officials have said that several local industries would be interested in getting truck traffic across the river at Fort Madison, rather than traveling north or south to other crossings.
Options in the 2018 study included changing the approaches north from the current location at a projected cost of $8 million to $14 million depending on which alternative is chosen. Another option was to utilize 1st Street to connect to a proposed new highway bridge north of the current BNSF bridge at a cost of slightly more than  $70 million in 2018 dollars. That option would’ve required reconstruction of Avenue E between 1st and 2nd streets to include a new bridge over Fork Creek. It also would have avoided the at-grade crossing at Hwy. 2 and Avenue H.

Community Impact
The closures have affected not just businesses, but also families and professionals who rely on the bridge for childcare, work, and daily life. “It’s not just inconvenience—it’s lost wages, increased daycare costs, and wear and tear on vehicles,” said Mohrfeld.

Next Steps
Local officials and business leaders are calling for greater transparency from BNSF and more active involvement from state and federal agencies. As the bridge approaches its 100th anniversary in 2027, the community is seeking long-term solutions to ensure safe, reliable river crossings and economic vitality. The 2018 study indicated long-term economic and environmental studies would need to be completed as well as coordinated fundraising at local, state, and federal levels. Private stakeholder conversations would also be integral to getting a project going.

History
On March 3, 1887, Congress enacted an authorization for the Chicago, Santa Fe, and California Railway Company, or its successors, to build and maintain a railroad, wagon and foot passenger bridge across the Mississippi so as not to interfere with the free navigation of the river beyond what is necessary to carry out the authorization.
“Said bridge shall be constructed to provide for the passage of railroad trains, and for the passage of wagons and vehicles of all kinds for the transmit of animals and for foot-passengers, for such reasonable rates of toll as may be fixed from time to time by the Secretary of War.”
The Fort Madison and Illinois Railway and Bridge Company was organized in 1882 to build the first bridge, completed in 1887.  It was an eight-span single-track through truss bridge with wagon lanes on the outside, designed by Octave Chanute. It cost approximately $580,000.
According to a Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), in 1927 the Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe Railroad completed construction of the current combination double-track railroad and two-lane highway bridge in Fort Madison to replace the original bridge which could no longer handle weight loads from increased sizes of locomotives and rolling stock.
The new bridge was constructed by the American Bridge Company and Union Bridge and Construction Company of Kansas City for $5.5 million over two years from 1925 to 1927. It is assumed that the swingspan design was chosen because that design was familiar to Santa Fe and the War Department and was technologically feasible in the swift current of the Mississippi.

Show me the money
According to the most recent feasibility study, major river crossings for public vehicular traffic traversing a state boundary are typically led by one of the two state’s departments of transportation and funded by the two states with a 50% split.
The City of Fort Madison has in the past coordinated with the Southeast Iowa Regional Planning Commission (SEIRPC) to initiate the use of diversified funds in the planning phase for the proposed project. However, efforts and conversations around it have chilled since the last study was done. Those conversations are heating up again.
Federal transportation funds are also frequently leveraged by using state DOT funds. A blend of funds is recommended to ensure funding for the variety of needs associated with a major project. Additional state level funding could be accessed by working with Illinois DOT in a bi-state project benefiting the overall economic development and connectivity of the two states.
Local funding strategies could include special funding districts where property owners are willing to work with governments through TIF or other incentives, as well as impact fees or general revenue bonds.
State and federal resources would include Surface Transportation Block Grants (STBG); Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) funding; Revitalize Iowa’s Sound Economy (RISE) grants; or Linking Iowa’s Freight Transportation System (LIFTS) Program, and/or other Congressional appropriations.