BISMARCK, N.D. — The state of North Dakota has declined for a second time to issue an opinion on the ownership of the Bismarck-Mandan rail bridge, and the U.S. Coast Guard is indicating it will move ahead with the process which would allow BNSF Railway to demolish and replace the bridge.
The Bismarck Tribune reports state Attorney General Drew Wrigley declined to offer an opinion in response to a request from state Sen. Tracy Potter (D-Bismarck), saying there are “some situations which are unsuited for an attorney general opinion, including when the question requires a factual determination.”
BNSF has sought for years to replace the bridge across the Missouri River, parts of which date to 1883; because of its age, it is the subject of a 25-mph slow order. But the effort has been slowed, in part, by preservation group Friends of the Rail Bridge, which hopes to save the structure as a pedestrian and bike path. Earlier this year, the Friends group claimed the bridge actually belongs to a state because of Congressional action predating North Dakota statehood [see “Preservation group claims …,” Trains News Wire, March 7, 2022]. BNSF has called that claim “absurd” and “frivolous.” [see “BNSF calls preservation group’s claim …,” News Wire, March 15, 2022].
A previous effort by the Friends group to obtain an opinion on its ownership claim was turned down by the attorney general’s office because no state entity was involved in the dispute.
Meanwhile, KFYR-TV reports that, in the absence of a ruling, the Coast Guard has told the Friends it will move ahead with BNSF’s request for a permit to demolish the bridge. The Friends group says it may take the matter to court; BNSF told the station it will defend its ownership at all costs.
The Coast Guard is involved in the matter because the bridge crosses a navigable waterway.
Charles,
I believe the issue here is that due to terrain, the BNSF wants to maintain the same alignment with the right of way for the new bridge; which necessitates removal of the old bridge. If that was not the case I am sure the BNSF would gladly turn over ownership of the old bridge to the friends.
Charlie
If the Friends want to the bridge, they can buy it. Buy it under the condition of posting a bond to ensure proper maintenance of the bridge, carrying of liability insurance, and ensuring safe navigation of the waters below, all those in perpetuity.
If the Friends don’t want to shoulder those expanses, there’s a simple solution — they can go away.
The “Friends” want it, but want someone else to pay for it.
It probably would have been easier and more effective in the long term to simply ask BNSF to add mounts for a pedway on the side of their bridge and have NDDOT pay for the decking and fencing.
Works for the Harahan Bridge in Memphis which carries UP over the Mississippi. They even installed LED lighting on it which make the bridge look pretty cool at night.
Offer the option and see if it is about pedestrians and bicycle access for recreation or about owning bridges.
From what I have read it sounds like ND DOT doesn’t want anything to do with the bridge either. I assume that is the same for County(s) highway departments as I believe two different ND counties would have to be involved if not mistaken. So made it only easier for State’s Attorney General.
.
I think everyone gets the whole Friends of the Bridge wanting to use an asset that would be a plus to the area at a significantly cheaper option then building a whole new pedestrian crossing on a rather wide section of river valley but time to let go when it can’t work out. Sometimes our society would be a whole lot better off if the litigation, threat of lawsuits would go away.