BISMARCK, N.D. — BNSF Railway’s long-delayed effort to replace its aging bridge between Bismarck and Mandan, N.D., is on the verge of getting federal and state approval — but the preservation group that wants to save the structure is considering mounting a legal effort to stop demolition of the existing structure.
The Bismarck Tribune reports the U.S. Coast Guard has finished its environmental review of the project, which would replace the structure with piers dating to 1883 and spans from 1905 with a new bridge over the Missouri River. That clears the way for a formal decision next month approving demolition of the current span, built by Northern Pacific; North Dakota’s Department of Environmental Quality has said it intends to approve the project.
The Coast Guard has jurisdiction in the matter because the bridge crosses a navigable waterway. Its final Environmental Impact Statement concludes the bridge “needs to be replaced to safely move future rail traffic,” and that the best alternative is to remove the current bridge and build a new one about 20 feet away.
BNSF has long sought to replace the bridge, in part because its age requires a 25-mph slow order, but its efforts have been slowed by the Friends of the Rail Bridge group, which hopes to save the structure as a pedestrian and bike path. At one time, the railroad and Friends group were party to an agreement to allow preservation efforts to proceed, but BNSF said in 2021 the group failed to live up to terms of the agreement and asked the Coast Guard to allow demolition efforts to move forward [see “BNSF seeks end to Missouri River bridge preservation efforts …,” Trains News Wire, May 3, 2021]
The preservation group subsequently claimed the bridge was actually owned by the state, an argument the railroad called “absurd” and one the state declined to support [see “State again declines to address Bismarck rail bridge ownership,” News Wire, May 10, 2022].
But the head of the Friends group says that the opportunity still existed to save the bridge “based on the numerous legal shortcuts and errors in the EIS.” The group also claimed the ownership issue has still not been adequately addressed, and compared the bridge’s significance to the Bismarck area as comparable to that of the Eiffel Tower for the people of France.
Charles, some trails do bring in revenue to local communities. One I can point to is the Great Allegheny Passage between Cumberland and Pittsburgh. Which also brings revenue to Amtrak as many riders take the train to either Pittsburgh or Cumberland and at the other end take the train home. They also tend to use hotels and services. So not all trails are non revenue. But John is correct. This group has failed on all counts and keeps throwing stuff at the wall to see if anything will stick. As he suggested, work with BNSF on including a pedestrian/bike way as part of the new bridge.
While the “Friends of the Bridge” arguments sound all very plausible, they unfortunately aren’t supported by law. They signed a contract with BNSF under no duress and were unable to meet the terms they agreed to.
So to now go looking under every rock seeking a “gotcha” legal argument, especially one that has no supporting case law, is frankly wasting a great deal of time and money.
I get it, the bridge is historical and it is cool to retain. I love rails to trails that are able to keep their bridges….But they are very expensive to keep up and the piers use 1885 style stone work which is very easy to disrupt with a localized tremor, let alone all of the scour that has occurred underwater.
Honestly it would be better & cheaper to simply have BNSF design an attached pedway to their new bridge and let the bikers and walkers use that.
So what is Bismarck’s counterpart to the Louvre?
From the article:
“The group also claimed the ownership issue has still not been adequately addressed, and compared the bridge’s significance to the Bismarck area as comparable to that of the Eiffel Tower for the people of France.”
Hyperbole much?
Nut cases need to have their heads cracked
There is no place for violence in this forum.
Bike trails even on dry land (if properly constructed) cost real money and bring in no revenue. As for this bridge, the only place to find that amount of dollars is from governmental agencies. Which aren’t interested.