That's no way to run a railroad! Or is it?

How many people are having a meltdown because the BNSF has the gall to think it should decide how many tracks it really needs, and whether another bridge is necessary?

The sky-is-falling crowd now has something new to focus on. Maybe the river will stop flowing downstream. Just maybe it’ll back up and flood everywhere. Maybe it’ll change life as we know it in all Bonner County. Putting in a second railroad bridge would be about as devastating as putting in a second highway bridge. No, wait, that was done 50 years ago and the water is still flowing downstream. A second railroad bridge might not be so catastrophic.

Granted there are significant risks when having railroads move anything, especially hazardous cargo. There are at least equal if not greater risks when the same necessary materials are moved by truck, barge, planes, etc. So what role should public input play in railroad decision making?

We do have freedom of speech and it is certainly a topic that deserves commentary. But the right to comment does not equate to the right to dictate railroad policy. For one thing, the BNRR is privately owned. It was a congressional land grant railroad, signed into law as the Northern Pacific Railroad by President Abraham Lincoln, no less. The grant was unbelievable, at least by today’s standards. The railroad was given a 300-foot wide swath all the way to the Pacific Ocean, together with every other section in a checkerboard fashion. Each section is about 640 acres, so an enormous amount of land was granted to the railroad. In exchange the private rail companies built the lines, opening up the West and building our country in the process. Like it or not it was done, and the railroads are still going strong as private entities.

So, who should decide whether a new line is needed? Surprisingly, a number of people feel one line/tracks is all that’s needed, so nothing new should be added or allowed. How many single-lane car roads do we have? The motoring public learned pretty fast that dual lanes speed the flow and help avoid head on collisions. Not many of us would be willing to pull over if meeting oncoming traffic.

It’s no different for rail traffic, just on a larger and more expensive scale. Sometimes using a railroad and letting one train wait while the other passes is sufficient. But when the volume of traffic increases, two-way traffic becomes more efficient and safer, too. It’s a judgment call and one to be ultimately made by the corporate business running the railroad, not the general public. The railroad pre-existed Bonner County, and even Idaho as a state. It already owns the 300-foot right of way and second track/bridge would be built on. Sandpoint came into existence largely because it was at the intersection point of other railroads and eventually highways. Just because a city or community has grown up/come into existence doesn’t translate into that entity owning or completely controlling the private railway, other than for necessary safety aspects.

If private railroads are negligent in operation and cause harm to others, they are liable, same as other business entities. If the railroad doesn’t maintain its tracks; has derailments, etc., it is liable to whomever is damaged and for cleanup. Whether a double track from Spokane through Sandpoint - and thus a second bridge - is necessary is ultimately a judgment call by those who operate the business, not a political call from those who don’t.

After all the political emotion dies down the second bridge will be of no significance to the general public. Remember all the hype and devastation to be caused by the bypass?

BRUCE GREENE

Sandpoint