BISMARCK, N.D. — A state judge in North Dakota has dismissed a permit appeal by the preservation group seeking to block demolition of BNSF Railway’s 140-year-old bridge over the Missouri River.
The Bismarck Tribune reports that South Central Judicial District Court Judge Jackson Lofgren on Friday dismissed on technical grounds the appeal by the Friends of the Rail Bridge. The group was seeking to overturn a decision by the state Department of Water Resources in April to grant BNSF the two permits needed to replace the Bismarck-Mandan Rail Bridge, parts of which date to 1882. One of the permits allows construction of the new bridge, and one is for demolition of the existing structure.
Lofgren said state law requires a party “aggrieved by an action or decision” of the Water Resources department to request a hearing from the department in 30 days. Only after that hearing can the decision be appealed to district court.
The department issued the permits in April; the Friends group took its appeal to court in May. The preservation group contends that its request in December 2022 for a hearing on the proposed permit fulfilled the hearing requirement, but Lofgren disagreed, and said that the court therefore “lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
The Friends of the Rail Bridge and the group’s attorney did not immediately comment. BNSF said in a statement that it looks forward “to continuing work to build our new bridge so we can serve our customers in North Dakota and beyond.”
The Friends group has mounted a lengthy effort to preserve the existing bridge for use as a pedestrian and cycling route, and has previously indicate it might sue to save the bridge if all other efforts, such as the permit appeal, fail.
A BNSF representative said when the permits were issued that during the five years it has pursued permitting, the cost of the new bridge has reached $100 million, an increase of about $40 million [see “BNSF gets final regulatory approval …,” Trains News Wire, April 25, 2023].
Having followed and read much of the backstory of FORB’s work on the preservation of this bridge, I have found that some of the items raised by FORB has had material benefit to BNSF in the general design of the new bridge, such the ice flow resistance the new bridge must have and how the old pedestals for the retired span must be removed adequately. Some of these items raised by FORB have had the impact of raising BNSF costs, but in good measure I must add.
I still believe the legal methodology FORB is progressing with is a long shot and a reach, but reading their history they seem to have more of an issue of understanding how the permitting system works in the state and some periodic lapses in that understanding has cost them in court reviews. This is not uncommon when the legal avenue that has been taken up is being supplemented by a non full time legal team. In clearer words, their lack of funding for legal support is impacting their ability to be comprehensive in their court petitions.
FORB should focus their petitions in the court that matters the most and that is the one of public opinion. They have exhausted the political one, and are not doing well in the judicial one, should probably ask their local jurisdiction if they would pay (anything) to keep the bridge. And as part of doing so provide the facts, not visionary statements, of what it will take in hard cash to do so.
FORB has every right to raise a petition and should be free to do so until their options are exhausted. As a student of history, I too would like to save a lot of bridges, but choices must be made that fall within the public interest.
The bridge from what I read in the article is in Columbus, Montana, which would be the main line ex NP.
These folks want a bridge, one became available on the Yellowstone River today. Transportation costs extra.
Mr. Messara is referring to a bridge collapsed under a Montana Rail Link train in Yellowstone County, Montana, today. Reported on foxnews.com.
Someone can enlighten us if this was main line or branch.
Also, who is responsible for bridge inspection, owner BNSF or tenant MRL?
Some assembly required.
It would seem that the real winners in this never ending saga and soap opera of saving an old bridge is the law firms and lawyers working on this case. It certainly does pay these days to be a lawyer or have a lwa firm. They certainly make out very well for themselves in addition to amassing a fortune for their firms. Not surprising that law firms these days can engage in fierce advertising campaigns on Tv and the media for clients and customers. There is plenty of money and fortunes to be made being a lawyer or working for a law firm.
Joseph C. Markfelder
BNSF now has to spend $40 MILLION dollars more to replace this bridge, a part of THEIR business, not some frivolous expenditure, but an important piece of infrastructure, because of a bunch a busy bodies who should go and try and save some old barn, or something……..
All these suits cost a lot of money. Where is this group getting its finances?
“FORB” as they are called is a legal non for profit organization registered in the state of North Dakota. They perform their fundraising under an umbrella organization that assists small NFP’s so they can fundraise at little or no additional costs.
At the last financial filing I looked up (about 5 months ago) FORB has raised roughly $50k, most of which has been for legal costs and filing fees.
While preservationist have a point and as a lover of history, I have mixed feelings. i.e. Memphis TN has some very old RR bridges. Recently a bridge was lighted and made into a walkway for “outdoor” people. I would be curious the people count on use of same, now that this million dollar project was made. For one thing the entry is NOT in a very friendly area, and the other end (is really THE end) in Arkansas is absolutely nowhere.
In the case of this article, if kept by historians, what would be the attraction for people to use it. General public input on interest, rather than biased opinion of preservation groups (and I lean towards that group, liking history). Progress has to dash the hopes of us folks wanting everything saved. Solution? General public speaks as to what is due saving, because of some who want all to be saved. Same for destruction. Is it sometimes being caused by only a powerful individual who selfishly wants something gone. endmrw0624231040
Does anyone know who gets the scrap value of the existing bridge? I would assume BNSF, but I wonder if there are any legal issues involved.
Sounds like the judgment was without prejudice, meaning that if the Friends follow the technical requirement they can start over and drag it out another few years. Might have been better if the judge ruled on the merits and sent the Friends away for good.