SANDPOINT, Idaho — The U.S. Coast Guard has issued a favorable ruling for BNSF Railway’s efforts to build a second set of bridges on its main line near Sandpoint, a plan which has been fought by some local residents.The Coast Guard — which has jurisdiction because the bridge is over a navigable waterway — has issued “a finding of no significant impact” for the planned bridges over Sand Creek and Lake Pend Orielle, ruling an appropriate environmental assessment had been completed. It had asked for public comment on the project earlier this year. [See “Coast Guard seeking comments on BNSF bridge proposal in the Pacific Northwest,” Trains News Wire, Jan. 14, 2019.]
BNSF wants to build the bridge to ease a single-track bottleneck through the Sandpoint area.
Opponents, including Sandpoint Mayor Shelby Rognstad, are concerned the project will increase rail traffic and have voiced concerns about increased coal dust and potential damage to water quality from derailments, the Associated Press reports. The Coast Guard found the potential for traffic growth is influenced by market factors unrelated to the bridge.
The Bonner County Daily Bee reports that Helen Yost, a spokesman for environmental group Wild Idaho Rising Tide, issued a statement saying the Coast Guard decision “promotes ongoing industry excuses for BNSF’s $100 million gamble with the regional and global health and safety of air, water, climate, and economies, while ignoring and dismissing myriad citizen concerns about this railroad invasion of a significant North Idaho aquatic ecosystem.”
I thought Idaho was free of those California whiner types.
Henry Markwart – Idaho, for the most part, is. However, this is Sandpoint, a small city in the North, that until the late 80’s, was a gas, food, and lodging sign on a 2-lane road to Canada. Now it is a tourist trap for year round recreation. It is always buzzing with through traffic, that the locals want to fleece. Ma and Pa small campers are now replaced by half-million dollar motor homes from California. Unfortunately, a few of them stay. The locals have changed to appease their clientele. Beautiful country, but their brand of politicking forced us to sell our lands and head to Texas a few years back.
@Charles Landey:
In a ninety-floor Manhattan address
lives a watchdog called the National Press
and around his collar’s written the line
“The Protector Of Our Hearts And Minds”
When the ratings point the camera’s eye
They can state the facts while telling a lie
and then watchdog shows to the viewers at ten
he’s a bloodhound with a pad and pen
can’t pin the blame–he’s out of reach
just call the dog “His Royal Leech”
we held the rights for heaven’s sake
’til we gave this sucker an even break
When the godless chair the judgment seat
we can thank the godless media elite
they can silence those who fall from their grace
with a note that says “we haven’t the space”
well lookee there–the dog’s asleep
whenever we march or say a peep
A railfan can’t get equal time
Unless he’s a looney committing a crime
listen up if you’ve got ears
I’m tired of condescending sneers
I’ve got a dog who smells a fight
and he still believes in wrong and right
(Lyrics adapted: Meat The Press, Steve Taylor, 1982, UMG Publishing)
John Rice – You bring up an interesting point. We hear about oil tanker spills and other environmental disasters. The media never goes back five, ten, fifteen years later to see whether or not the Earth has healed itself.
Mister Schneider:
You may or may not be correct. The utility is in either the northern or the southern hemisphere. I can neither confirm nor deny.
The above comments are generic in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Go find your own lying sack of …
Anna:
PG&E? I’ve been watching their story with fascination…
I lived next to a hazardous spill by rail once. The tank cars derailed and leaked and the chemicals ran off into a nearby spring fed lake and killed off the fish, the fauna and broached the roots of several old trees.
The lake had to be drained dry and several trees cut down. The sediments were removed and hauled away (where, who knows?)
Today, 40 years later, you would barely know it had happened. The trees grew back around the lake. the spring and snow melt restored it and it was restocked with fish. No swimming allowed.
Driving by now, the only thing that never came back were the trees the tank cars took out as they rolled along the ballasted embankment.
The only change the railroad did is when they relaid the track, they increased the tilt a little.
No one moved away.
No one got sick.
Mister Landey:
I have another one. Believe it or not, attorneys do swap war stories.
An electrical utility somewhere in either the Northern or Southern hemisphere tried to trim the trees encroaching on their electrical lines. They were stopped by litigation and enjoined by court order from trimming the trees.
There was a range fire. The utility was held responsible for the fire because they had not trimmed the trees.
The utility tried to abandon service on the grounds that it was unreasonably dangerous to provide service given the requirements of the various courts involved. They were not allowed to abandon service.
The utility tried to pass on the costs of the range fire to the rate payers involved. This was denied.
The utility tried to bury their lines so they could remove the overhead wiring. The locals banded together and litigated against this move. The locals prevailed and the overhead wiring remained in place.
The above comments are generic in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. Go find your own sleazy ambulance chaser.
ANNA – There was a court case in ultra ultra ultra ultra ultra liberal far-left Madison, Wisconsin. Local NIMBYs went to court to try to stop Wisconsin and Southern from trimming trees on its own ROW. Of course the case was dismissed and WSOR was allowed to proceed.
Satisfactory outcome? No. WSOR should have been awarded damages. The far-left NIMBYs and their lawyer should have been fined for every penny they ever saw.
I think the danger of a derailment or environmental disaster would be greater if they keep using the old single-track bridge. With double track on a new bridge, trains can move through the community without having to stop, block intersections, idle while opposing traffic clears, etc. I would think a moving train would leave less overall contamination. I don’t know why these local leaders can’t see that.
“Potential damage to water quality from derailments”. How often are they having derailments? Are they scheduled, mayor? Someone is grasping at straws.
“are concerned the project will increase rail traffic”
Duh, why do you think BNSF needs the additional bridge to be built?
I kind of wish these groups would present a complimentary approach instead of outright objection. Complementary means, work with the rail entity on certain mitigation’s along the ROW in their area to address their concerns. Like landscaping or fencing to cut noise, landscaping to trap effluent in the event of derailments.
Railroads have shown responsiveness in the past if the opposing responses have been reasonable.
Mister Narita:
You have to remember something about the public mentality concerning railroad rights of way.
Largely, they are NOT fenced off, and largely, people can trespass on the property with impunity. This gives rise to the unconscious presumption that they are public property. As public property the locals expect that they have final say in what happens to and with the ROW.
You see this kind of mentality in other properties which are open to the public – frequently there is no recognition that it is in fact private property and it comes as a rude shock to these people to be informed that they are there by permission and not by right. Often they get quite upset about the situation.
Increasingly, the courts are agreeing with these people. If there is a piece of property, in actual fact private property but open to the public to come and go at will, it is possible for a prescriptive easement to form. For this reason property owners will sometimes periodically barricade their property against access, to prevent this from happening. The barricade may be temporary but you would not believe how bent out of shape the locals can get about being denied access to -> their <- whatever. It is not just for reasons of safety that the railroads sometimes crack down on trespassers. There was a case not too long ago in California. The property owner had an extensive piece of property with some high-rise buildings on it but also a nicely landscaped park that they allowed the public to use. Over the years, while the property was posted as private, they made no effort to periodically deny access to the property. This being California the property increased immensely in value and the owner wanted to build another structure on the property. The locals objected about losing their park, litigation ensued, and after a fairly ugly settlement the park remained a park but now the property of the local government – and at a fraction of its value. Ironically, last I heard the locals were suing the erstwhile property owner because they had ceased maintenance on the park, and the local government had not picked it up. The locals could easily win, forcing the erstwhile property owner to perform maintenance on a parcel they no longer own. So yes, I find it entirely believable that the locals in the case of this bridge feel that it is their exclusive call as to what happens to “their railway”.
The above comments are generic in nature and do not form the basis for an attorney/client relationship. They do not constitute legal advice. I am not your attorney. As Dick the Butcher says, “First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”.
Espee had a derailment in California years ago that poisoned an entire river killing everything in it for miles and miles.
Where has there been a derailment that destroyed a local environment? REALLY?
The entire center of the town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec was destroyed because of a derailment and 47 people were killed because the railroad was cheap, and safety was not anyone’s priority.
I’m not remotely saying this bridge should not be built, but as rail fans we have to be aware that insane things happen when hundreds of tons of explosive or poisonous cargoes are carried by any means, but particularly rail. If a truck crashes and explodes, that doesn’t tend to affect more than the interstate and people in the immediate vicinity.
If a train carrying oil or chlorine gas derails thousands can be affected in seconds by things that are massively beyond their control.
Agreed with Mr. Winters. Not to sound as though I would want one, but where has there been a derailment that has completely destroyed a local environment? (Of course, not belittling any tragic loss of life) Sure, they’re all ugly for a while, but before long the scars are gone. Again, not saying I want one, but nature bounces back from a derailment much quicker than it does from a new shopping center complete with Costco, Ulta and Starbucks…
Sounds like the NIMBY BANANA crowd hard at work. Next they’ll want to convert the railways right of way to a bike trail.
CAVE people again.
The comment from Helen Yost is quite amusing.. Lol She makes it sound as if BNSF is creating a doomsday for North Idaho’s aquatic environment.. Lol
John R, Ed & Charles all have great points. But you can’t be using logic or common sense in todays society. Its all about emotional scare tactics of a remote possibilty of a disaster, therefore we must oppose ALL progress. Where is my safe space. (sarc)