#1) An article in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader says there will be meetings to discuss historic bridges and culverts on the upgraded DM&E. Really? They do this kind of stuff?
article:
Public meetings scheduled on DM&E’s expansion plans By staff reports Published: July 25, 2007
The federal agency that approved the Dakota Minnesota & Eastern Railroad’s reconstruction and expansion will hold five meetings in South Dakota and Minnesota in August to take comments and explain how it will decide what measures the DM&E must take to save historic bridges and culverts.
Representatives from the Surface Transportation Board’s Section of Environmental Analysis and DM&E technical experts will be at the Wall Community Center Aug. 13 from 5-8 p.m.; the Pierre Chamber of Commerce Aug. 14 from 6-9 p.m.; the Huron Events Center Aug. 15 from 5-8 p.m.; Shetek Bend in Tracy Aug. 16 from 6-9 p.m. and the Winona County Historical Society in Winona Aug. 20 from 5-8 p.m.
The STB approved the DM&E’s plan to reconstruct 600 miles of existing line across Minnesota and South Dakota and to extend the railroad 280 miles to Wyoming coal fields. The approval is contingent upon the DM&E meeting 147 environmental conditions. These include the DM&E following a specific agreement for identifying and either protecting or mitigating adverse effects on historic properties along the route. In Minnesota and South Dakota, these primarily include bridges and culverts that will be replaced or modified during rail reconstruction.
Historic Preseveration officials in Wyoming, South Dakota and Minnesota, and federal agencies with jurisdiction including the Federal Railroad Administration, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land management, U.S. Forst Service, Bureau of Reclamation and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation all signed off on the agreement. The STB also consulted 33 tri
Actually, I believe in the art of triangulation. So if I was to mess up a BNSF switch I’d wear a UP hat, and vis-versa. That way the goons from each megacorp can cut down on each other, and the little guys like DM&E and MRL will step in a fill the void once the giants have killed each other. Ah ha ha ha ha![oX)]
BTW - does the STB mean for DM&E to keep bridges and structures that cannot support modern freight car weights and train speeds?
How much do you want to bet that Mayo and Crochester use the preservation of old bridges as the new avenue to derail the expansion?
I see it now:
“Greedy Scheiffer and the DME want to ruin our great heritage! Take your corporate greed off of our architectural works of art, man!”
“The DME hates history. And children.” (Just in case you weren’t upset enough…)
“If the DME would give up its coal addiction, future generations would be able to enjoy the beautiful bridges that would be destroyed in the powder river expansion. Don’t you want our children to enjoy these bridges? Do you hate children? Oh, and by the way, the railroad is unsafe.”
This has nothing to do with anything contrived by the Mayo Clinic or any DME opposition group- the reason for this hearing is because in 1993 the State of South Dakota created a Multiple Property Documentation form to the National Register of Historic Places in regards to the historical bridge (and culvert) types found in South Dakota. The document is provided for reading on the NRHP website- it’s 86 pages long and covers the gamut of bridge types included in the MPS. Since the CNW (now DME) line across the state was one of the pioneering lines in South Dakota there is a good amount of bridges and culverts on the line that fall under this MPS submission. The hearing reflects the concerns of the state to ensure the items named under the MPS do not get destroyed or modified without notification- you can see the document at the National Register of Historic Places website- under the search function there is a section for MPS submissions- look under South Dakota and it will come up on the first page.
I’m not suggesting that there is a boogie-man behind the bridges/culverts meetings. I just had never heard of this before. Additionally, I can’t help but wonder, how you fix up a 100+ year old bridge or culvert to carry heavy coal traffic.
The Rock Island had some neat, pink quartzite, arched culverts on the line going southeast from Sioux Falls. Thet are now conversation pieces/skunk habitats in people’s back yards.
It may be less expensive to ‘shoofly’ around these bridges and culverts, leaving them as they are. But ‘Oh my’ what will all of the bueaucrats do if they cannot monitor all this ‘preservation’ which is left just as it has been. Better hire some more people to find something else to harass any enterprising endeavor.
There are no specific bridges or culverts named in the MPS for preservation by the NRHP- the MPS merely lists all the various examples of historical types of bridges and culverts that can be found in the state and who built them. There are locales that have been identified in the state as fitting the parameters and are listed on the NRHP- but this does not guarantee that the bridge or culvert is protected from removal or retrofitting. This provision was put in place by the state years before the DME ever thought of building to the PRB- the first drafts were submitted in 1987. I have a feeling the railroad bridges and culverts on the CNW were added to the MPS since in the mid-80s the CNW was talking about abandoning this line before they found a buyer in DME- if the lines had been abandoned these historical structures would have been an easier target for preservation (much like those RI culverts mentioned). (Also in the MPS were locations on MILW lines- but the state already owned those.) Strange how things change so much in 20 years- a line from the brink of extinction to potential coal artery…
It may be more expensive to build around the existing bridges and culverts. Additional property would need to be acquired (possible condemnation procedures) and possible federal permits if a wetland is involved, the definition of wetland in the statute is pretty broad. With a credit crunch looming in the fallout from subprime mortgage defaults, any sizable delays could kill this project.
There was a tidbit of news in “Railway Age” yesterday in the digital thing I get sent to my e-mail inbox here at my job at CPRS. It was in regard to DME pondering its own sale to several prospective buyers that included private-equity firms and Class I railroads although it didn’t specify whom nor did the article identify any interested parties. It did go on to say the DME has made several presentations to potential buyers but again, it did not identify to whom the presentation(s) were made to. Just really makes me wonder how this whole thing is going to shake out although in the end, I just hope the DME gets the funds it needs to do this.
My comment that it ‘may be’ less expensive to avoid dealing with ‘historic sites’ was not meant to say ‘one size fits all’. But some times these things can get ridiculous, especially considering the time involved (time means money also) and if another way presents itself a prudent business will take it.
Some of the more important historical artifacts at Golden Spike NHS are culverts that were built by the Chinese, Irish, and Mormons in 1869 and are still unmodified. Several have been preserved/protected by using a more modern culvert. Thus, in about 1 mile of ROW, GSNHS has nearly 100 years of engineering history.