BISMARCK, N.D. — BNSF Railway has blasted a preservation group’s claim that a railroad bridge over the Missouri River belongs to the state of North Dakota, rather than the railroad, as “legally absurd,” asking the U.S. Coast Guard to move forward with the permit process for a replacement bridge.
The Bismarck Tribune reports the railroad cites an act of Congress and North Dakota case law as affirming its ownership of the bridge, portions of which date to 1883. The group Friends of the Rail Bridge seeks to preserve the structure as a pedestrian bridge while the railroad wants to build a new structure to replace one which, because of its age, restricts rail traffic to 25 mph.
The railroad’s letter to the heads of the Coast Guard’s bridge programs and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation says the claim by the group Friends of the Rail Bridge regarding the Bismarck-Mandan Rail Bridge is “frivolous” and “should be seen for what it is — another effort to delay the project.”
The Friends group made its claim of state ownership in February, saying that ownership of the bridge was originally held by the federal government but transferred to North Dakota upon statehood [see “Preservation group claims …,” Trains News Wire, March 7, 2022]. The state attorney general subsequently declined to address the group’s claim.
The railroad and preservation group entered an agreement with the Coast Guard in 2021 over steps necessary to preserve or replace the bridge. The Coast Guard has jurisdiction because the bridge is over a navigable waterway.
The railroad says the latest claim shows the Friends group has not acted in good faith, and that “the only fair conclusion of the process must be to finalize and execute a Memorandum of Agreement” allowing replacement of the bridge.
In response, the Friends group told the newspaper that BNSF had not provided documentation showing it owns the bridge and that the group was prepared to take the matter to court.
Is BNSF going to upgrade it like TRRA upgraded the Merchants Bridge in St Louis?
TRRA and Walsh Construction simply encased the existing 1880 era masonry pylons in a new casing of reinforced concrete down to the bedrock. Then floated new steel spans up river and jacked them up on the pylons after removing the old one.
The bridge would close for a few days while they pulled down the old one and jacked up the new one. They did this three times, one for each arched span, until all of them were replaced.
If this is BNSF plans, then I could see where this movement by “Friends” could be intrusive. If BNSF has to build a net new span with new pylons and abutments anyway, then the Friends delay is meaningless and they could start construction while the courts and the Coast Guard finish their legal proceedings.
If the friends want a pedestrian bridge, they need to come up with the funds (State, Local, Donations, what ever) to pay for refurbishing and ongoing plus insurance. Or for the state DOT or Parks to provide it. The BNSF might then donate it, otherwise I believe it will be scrapped.
If BNSF owned the title to the Missouri River, the same as to land on either side, would also have rights to fence the river, restrict access, pursue trespassers (boaters), mine minerals, impound and extract water, and sell those rights to others? Of course not, because the river is property of We the People, in this case the State of North Dakota. This is the difference between having an easement for right-of-way with authorization to construct and operate a railroad, versus ownership. They’ll have to overcome the fact that the river was expressly set aside under conditions separate and distinct from those of lands above the high-water mark, and that the river was defined as the riverbed and anything embedded in it. While other court cases have dealt with questions regarding bridges, they haven’t addressed this question of ownership of the Missouri River.
Likely just a ploy to get BNSF to eventually agree to adding a pedestrian/bike lane on replacement. Crazy smart if you ask me.
If nothing else they are creative.