BISMARCK, N.D. — The preservation group seeking to block demolition of a 140-year-old BNSF Railway bridge has taken its effort to court.
The Bismarck Tribune reports that the group Friends of the Rail Bridge has filed an appeal with the state’s South Central District Court seeking to overturn a decision by the state Department of Water Resources granting permits for BNSF to replace the Bismarck-Mandan Rail Bridge, which crosses the Missouri River.
The department granted those permits — one allowing construction of a new bridge, and one for demolition of the existing structure — in April, ending a lengthy permitting process [see “BNSF gets final regulatory approval …,” Trains News Wire, April 25, 2023].
The appeal argues that the water resources board issued the permits without approval from the North Dakota State Historic Board and without adequately considering potential effects of the project. The Friends group also continues to contend there are questions regarding ownership of the bridge that were not considered. The group argues the bridge is actually owned by the state, although the state’s attorney general has said otherwise and various agencies have accepted BNSF’s ownership [see “North Dakota Attorney General indicates BNSF owns Bismarck bridge,” News Wire, March 6, 2023].
BNSF spokeswoman Amy McBeth told the newspaper the railroad is “dismayed by the appeal of such an important private infrastructure project benefiting North Dakota’s major industries and the nation’s supply chain.”
The Friends group wants the bridge, portions of which date to 1882, preserved for pedestrian and biking traffic, a project estimated in 2019 to cost $7 million. No funding has been secured for that project.
The bridge’s age means rail traffic is subject to a 25-mph slow order. BNSF began the permitting process for replacement five years ago; when it received the permits from the water resources board, it said the cost of the new bridge had risen from $60 million to about $100 million during that time.
In a sane world, the court would declare this lawsuit a frivolous action, throw it out and fine the FOTB a substantial sum. Here’s hoping that scenario will come to pass.
To all those who are proposing that BNSF finds a way to work with the preservation group, I don’t believe that’s an option. If I recall correctly, leaving the bridge in place is a showstopper for the railroad and its intended alignment for the new bridge.
Seems to me several posts have been made in past re the alignment issue.
I cannot understand this issue since the existing bridge will be in position and fully operational until the new bridge is completed and the approaching tracks connected to the new bridge.
They need this project to go forward asap for fear of a catastrophic failure.
Since there are two permits involved construction and removal could BNSF go to court to seek separation of the two subjects. This would allow BNSF to complete the construction The FOTB would then have a couple of years to fight the removal. If they win, the bridge is theirs to repair and use, If not BNSF can remove it. Question: has the FOTB even approached the ND Department of Water Resources for approval to operate the bridge as trail if they should win? Seems like it would be an important factor in the lawsuits.
What part of “No” doesn’t FOTB not understand? Maybe BNSF should counter sue them for “legal harassment”?
Perhaps BNSF should ask (through the Court) that Friends of the Rail Bridge post bond in the amount it will co$t BNSF to delay replacement of the bridge for one year.
I wonder how much this group has spent in litigation? When this first started didn’t BNSF offer to work with the group IF they could come up with proper financing to maintain and care for the bridge. No one but them sees any problem here. Maybe BNSF needs to counter sue for added expense and legal fees.
I can only take a guess, but according to their fundraising statements, they have spent somewhere in the order of $50k. That wouldn’t cover a day of work for BNSF General Counsel.
FOTB is a registered NFP and suing them for for expense and fees won’t get much traction nor funding. They would simply be unable to get board/trustee insurance going forward. They can simply re-register under a new name, write up a new business purpose and start over.
If this bridge means so much to this preservation group, do the smart thing and have fund raising events or solicit donations to buy the bridge or parts of it to save in and set up in a park or some nature preserve. The money being spent and wasted on lawyers and litigation as well as wasting time in a court case can be best applied to actually buying the bridge. If this preservation group would work in good faith with BNSF, a resonable settlement could be reached that satisfies both parties. Court cases and lawsuits only inflame the situation , create hostility and bad feelings and serves no purpose. There have been plenty of cases in the past where historical items including railroad artifacts, structures and equipment have been either donated or sold by the railroad to preservation groups through acting in good faith and good will and serious negotiation. This pending ligation and court case is a waste of time and money on the part of both sides with the final outcome going the way of the BNSF. The preservation group has nobody to blame but themselves when the BNSF wins this case and the bridge is demolished because they only see a court case to get their way
Joseph C. Markfelder
I really do not care for which way the law suit goes. However, it should be expedited within 30 days. These endless court delays are an affront to the workings of the justice system.
No offense to FOTB, but they will lose. Come up with the money and buy it. I am a big bridge fan myself but no dough, no go.
Couldn’t agree more. I’m all for trails and preservation but it requires buy in from the community. Everything I read is that the community leaders as a whole are unwilling to take on the old bridge, the liability and the rebuild for future trail because the constituents don’t support the outlay of funds needed so if the non profit wants to give i go great but it is on them to come up with the dough.
..
Unfortunately, we have become a society of litigation simply by the fact that people sue every time they don’t get or this case not given what they want. The lawyers win and everyone else loses.