BN calls highway bypass plan deadly

SANDPOINT- A proposed Highway 95 bypass over Sand Creek is a deadly plan that forces cars and trains to speed along only 30 feet apart, Burlington Northern officials say.

Railroad officials are objecting to the bypass route, saying the railroad and public safety concerns are being ignored. The objections are detailed in a seven-page letter to the Idaho Department of Transportation.

"The Sand Creek alternative as presently proposed is unacceptable," Burlington Northern official Charles Lundgren wrote.

The $39.4 million route jeopardizes railroad expansion plans and its historic depot, and could cost millions of additional dollars to relocate track.

Burlington Northern's main line from Seattle to Chicago passes though Sandpoint and carries and average of 44 trains per day.

The current plan for the Sand Creek highway places it on the same grade and only 30 feet from the tracks.

"The proposal raises very serious safety questions that are not addressed at all. No crash barriers, elevation differences, or other safety measures are discussed," the company stated.

"BN is concerned that derailments...or occurances on the highway could pose danger to rail and highway users."

The Sand Creek route is the most favored by Sandpoint residents. The only other option is a highway through town.

The transportation department has not yet selected a final route, but expects to make that decision in December.

District Engineer Tom Baker said the concerns will be examined and a response will be included in a final environmental impact statement.

The statement will take at least six months to complete once a route is picked, he said.

Sand Creek route foes said Burlington Northern's concerns should come as no surprise.

"We had asked these same hard questions before and all we got were rocks thrown at us by everybody," said Gary Pietsch, chairman of the Sand Creek Coalition.

"Unfortunately this is going to put the bypass back to ground zero," he said.

"It is totally beyond belief that the ITD could get this far in the planning stages and not have worked these problems out."

The department has studied the issue for decades.

Pietsch praised Burlington Northern's for taking what some will view as an unpopular stand, adding that the coalitions not against a bypass.

"We want to solve the transportation problem, but everyone keeps looking for the quick fix and there isn't one," he said.

The Burlington Northern letter said the current bypass design likely will mean the railroad must be relocated. That could cost millions but has never been mentioned in any transportation department reports, Lundgren wrote.

A Sand Creek bypass will also halt BN plans to improve its main line, which now serves Amtrak, Montana Rail Link and Union Pacific.

"The area proposed to be taken for this project is one of the very few left for BN to build additional facilities," the company said. The railroad owns some of the right of way needed for the bypass.

"There are a host of alternatives for relocation of the proposed highway and/or the railroads that must be analyzed," the letter stated.

The tracks are sandwiched between Sand Creek and Lake Pend Oreille. The Burlington Northern depot, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is also in the path of the new highway.

To move the depot, Burlington Northern said that the transportation department must first prove there are no other reasonable places for the highway.

Burlington Northern's worries could also stall plans to consolidate track with Union Pacific and move a line that bisects Sandpoint.

The project, slated to begin this fall, would eliminate several miles of track on Fifth Avenue and 23 unprotected crossings in the city.

"BN suggests construction (of the project) be put on hold and, if feasible, combined with the proposed U.S. 95 relocation project," the company said.

Burlington Northern said it was willing to cooperate on finding solutions and has retained an engineer to work with the state.

A myriad of solutions for moving the railroad away from the highway were also suggested in the letter. The problem is the plans will cost several million more dollars than the current $39.4 million estimated to build the Sand Creek bypass.

"The design must recognize that highway and railroad uses are simply not compatible when forced together," the railroad said.