BISMARCK, N.D. — BNSF Railway’s plans to replace a more than century-old bridge across the Missouri River took another step forward Monday, while a preservation group’s effort to stop the bridge project sustained another setback.
The Bismarck Tribune reports the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality issued the water quality certification necessary for BNSF to build a structure to replace the Bismarck-Mandan Rail Bridge, parts of which date to 1882. At the same time, the department turned down a request from the Friends of the Rail Bridge to hold an administrative hearing on the permit request, saying no state or federal rules require one, and the concerns of the preservation group are beyond the scope of the department’s authority.
BNSF is seeking to build a new bridge about 20 feet upriver from the current bridge, after which it would tear down the current structure, which the U.S. Coast Guard has determined is the project’s best alternative. The hearing request was the latest effort by the Friends group to delay that process as part of its effort to preserve the current bridge as a walking and biking path [see “Preservation group seeks hearing …,” Trains News Wire, Dec. 9, 2022]. The bridge project is still awaiting a formal final decision from the federal government as well as a federal construction permit.
Another Trains post with comment section full of thoughtless assertions regarding “ownership” of the Missouri River. Working on the railroad for 30 or 50 years does not endow a person with understanding of the complexity or land ownership across the various US rail lines. A person could grasp the complexity, likely, but to understand the question of ownership of the Missouri River at Bismarck-Mandan, I would point the reader to the best work written on the topic to-date:
https://www.friendsoftherailbridge.org/s/Final-Memorandum-to-USCG-April-4-2022-Revised-4-5-22.pdf
What is kind of frustrating to watch is the generally conservative-leaning railroad “aficionados”, who would otherwise strongly champion states’ right and decry big government, throw their whole heart into asserting some sort of corporate rights that do not exist, to the detriment of principles of state sovereignty.
The Missouri River belongs to every North Dakotan as part of the Public Trust. This is why the railroad must apply for a Sovereign Lands Permit to build in the Missouri River. Because it belongs to North Dakota. Not to the railroad. And that section of the Missouri River happens to see the highest recreational traffic in the entire state. There is a significant obligation under the Public Trust to not screw up the riverfront for North Dakotans. This includes consideration of historic, recreational, and even aesthetic assets of the state.
FORB is not stating that a new bridge should not be built. Simply that the engineering be performed so that the new bridge does not undermine the historic bridge. Could FORB actually take out an insurance policy for a building on state property? The more likely agent for insurance would be NRIRF, the state insurance reserve fund, as that would be closest to the “owner” of the land (although the whole point of the Public Trust Doctrine is that We the People, not the State, own the land).
Further, at least leaving components of the historic bridge standing through the project, such as the piers now on dry land on either side of the river, would at least pay some minor bit of respect to the legacy of the river crossing. For some reason even this has been rejected. Because this solution would actually SAVE (a lot of) money in any scenario, it does beg the question of what is the true motive in the proceedings, if money is not at that point paramount. It is very likely the expanded capacity that would come with a double-track bridge that is driving the behavior of the railroad, though this aspect is being kept very, very quiet through this process.
I’ll let the salty retired railroaders take over again now with the rash one-liners. A guy can’t get through to them anyway. But everyone else take a second to consider what the word SOVEREIGN means for North Dakota’s greatest asset, its people, and its stewardship of the Mighty Missouri.
I like the idea I read somewhere of adding a safe walkway/bikeway to the underside of the new bridge structure, though the extra expense would still be high and have to come from somewhere. I think the Friends group is just looking for hiking/biking access across the river, no desire to preserve anything of historic value.
An abandoned bridge, regardless of who claims responsibility for it, is a trial lawyer’s dream. If the state wants to turn it into a walking trail and spend untold millions to render it safe and usable, then fine. Otherwise, tear it down. Not every old building or structure can be saved, it’s that simple. I feel bad for the preservationists, but without a substantial endowment to cover all immediate expenses and future costs, they should accept the fact that they lost the battle and quietly take their leave.
Like the NS Bridge they recently replaced at Lechworth State Park in New York, the old bridge was a liability and had to be removed
Is there any study about the old bridge’s casions? They might be subject to future scoring. I seem to remember that the KCS over the MIssissipi river at Vicksburg almost had one pier get in bad position due to scoring.
That is a very fair question. If this structure should pass from private to public hands then all manner of surveys: erosion, paint content, structural stability, et.al. shall have to be performed. Translation – $$$$$$.
Alan, yes there is a scour report as done by the USCG. While the scour is not considered critical today, that can change with the season based on amount of water flow, ice jams or perturbations.
In this case the caissons go down 38 feet of silt before landing on bedrock.
BNSF has proposed that they will removed the old pylons to 2 feet below the current riverbed and leave 36 feet of stone behind. This is to make sure that no ice jams can build up on the old pylons in the future.
That assumes the new owner will be a financially responsible entity for the lifetime of the structure. Otherwise, assuming liability means nothing.
Put a price on it, new owner assumes all liability. It’s private property just like anything we own.
If it’s not sold by demo day, down she comes.
Final question… if the bridge remains as a walking/hiking trail bridge, who and how would it be maintained?? Looking like another public funds/ tax drain to me… Just saying..
Thanks for the comments, Gerald. Good thoughts but I’ll make a couple of points of my own in response. (1) The lawsuits usually are federal, so it doesn’t matter what state. (2) Under your scenario of BNSF donating the bridge with a contingency, BNSF’s lawyers would say this: the contingency you propose if not backed by the enviros posting a bond is worthless. Which of course would be a poison pill. The enviros wouldn’t have the resources (or the desire) to post a bond, so BNSF’s lawyers would say No Way. The bridge comes down.
The Coast Guard might think that demolishing the old bridge after building the new one is the project’s best alternative, but that would then mean that also leaving the old bridge up is another alternative that doesn’t happen to be the best. If that’s the case was I running the BNSF what I’d do is build the new bridge, leave the old one up and donate it to the Preservation group give them 5 years to stabilize it as a walking/biking trail. If nothing was done within that 5 years to fix any defects or other potential problems with the old bridge then it gets torn down. Everyone wins, but no one has the brains to come up with these types of solutions. As for Charles remarks about lawsuits, this is North Dakota, not California, not every state allows everyone and their grandmother to sue to stop projects.
What you’re suggesting is mobilize a worksite for bridge construction, demobilize upon completion, wait five years, then mobilize a demo worksite to bring down the old bridge. Yeah, doesn’t work like that.
The “Friends” need to get it through their head that the bridge belongs to a private entity, ergo, money will have to be raised for a purchase and a continuous fund arranged for maintenance. Is the Peace Garden State ready to shoulder such an expense?
Preservation Group “Take 23″…like making a movie, “if we do this scene over enough times, we’ll get it right!”
It’s called “Private Property Rights”…
Let the lawsuits begin. Government by lawsuit. Five years from now, we’ll be commenting on these pages about the multitudinous lawsuits. Those of us who can count that high.