The study by the university’s Department of Architecture and Landscape Architecture places the costs of the conversion of the bridge at almost $6.9 million, the Bismarck Tribune reports.
The bridge’s future has been a long-running problem for BNSF, which wants to replace the current structure — built in 1905 using piers dating to 1882 — with a modern bridge, and maintains the current bridge must come down because of the complex logistics of replacement. [See “BNSF focuses on regulatory challenges with NRC presentation,” Trains News Wire, Jan. 8, 2019.] The U.S. Coast Guard is involved because the bridge crosses a navigable waterway, and a local group — Friends of the Rail Bridge — wants to save the structure because it is a local landmark. The preservation group used a grant to pay for the North Dakota State study.
BNSF took issue with the study, the Tribune reports, noting that no funding for the project exists. “Without funding sources, identified and committed, we are looking at years of potential delay,” BNSF spokeswoman Amy McBeth told the paper. The railroad estimates that retaining the current bridge would add up to $30 million to the project, which previously had been estimated at $40 million, and could lengthen the replacement process by two to three years.
there looks to be 300-500 feet of usable space to the north of the current bridge?
Thank you for that explanation, John. Until you posted, I also had no idea why BNSF would need to remove the current bridge. From looking at the BNSF subdivision map, it looks like this bridge is at the junction of two minor subdivisions so I’m sure they’re prepared to sever through service for a couple of years.
OK, I get it now.
BNSF Head of Engineering has to take down the old piers period just to get the new bridge built.
-BNSF does not have enough ROW width on both sides of the river to support a side by side arrangement.
-The 1882 piers were made of non-reinforced masonry (no rebar). Any large scale hydraulic events nearby (like the use of a caisson) could cause the masonry to fracture and fail.
– BNSF is not looking for any federal grants, they wish to pay for it themselves within the confines of their ROW
– The Historic Preservation Act has no specific rules or guidelines for permitting construction in or around a historic object. That authority was delegated to local and state authorities.
– BNSF says they can’t plan a large capital expense around a nebulous set of permitting events, it has to be predictable
Interesting comment from BNSF Engineering. “When the permitting rules change faster than we can plan budgets for, nothing happens”. His comments on “constant moving of the goalposts” was made.
So there you have it.
I don’t get it. Why does the viability of the new bridge so dependent on the old one being gone? You move the rails over and that is it.
Are they worried about scour of some kind? Is there a fundamental design challenge having the old one next to the new one? A safety risk if it topples in a seismic event? Rusting eyebars in the 1905 span? I assume BNSF was just going to leave the 1882 piers in place and let them crumble naturally. That is what 99.9% of all railroads do when they leave a bridge behind.
I will have to do more research on why BNSF is so adamant the old span has to come down. It just doesn’t make sense.
The heck with the NIMBY’s who want to make it into a pedestrian bridge. It’s BNSF’s property to do with as they see fit.
Give the NIMBYs six weeks to come up with the $6.9 million and a full set of plans signed by the Registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Dakota. If they don’t, then game is over and BNSF can decide what to do with its own property.