Portageville Bridge Replacement, Future Tier Traffic

Speaking of Portageville, and building a new bridge, when was the western end relocated? And, if a new bridge is to be built, would they build it right next to the existing one, to reuse the ROW? Or are there better ways to approach the bridge?

RussNelson wrote:Speaking of Portageville, and building a new bridge, when was the western end relocated? And, if a new bridge is to be built, would they build it right next to the existing one, to reuse the ROW? Or are there better ways to approach the bridge?

Everything I've read regarding this subject says a new span will be built right next to the old one, which seems likely, although they'll need plenty of fill and ballast to do so on either side!

A while back I also saw an aerial graphic (thought that it was the Portageville Bridge briefing but it wasn't) that showed a realignment of the western approach to the "new" bridge that reduced the curve into the bridge from that direction.

Poppyl

I was just in the high bridge area at Portage this weekend and I see that the route of the newly proposed line approaching the area where the new arch bridge will cross the Genesee gorge is surveyed and survey markers are placed in this area. It appears that N&S is going ahead with their plans even though the funding they tried for was denied. It seems that the railroad can afford this bridge replacement and must go ahead with the project. If anyone knows more I would be interested to hear about it.
-Paleoman-

If you are interested, it might be worthwhile to wander around the NYSDEC website to see where the environmental permitting process stands for the project. That might reveal the latest planned start date. The NYSDOT website might also have something. I wouldn't expect an announcement from NS until actual site prep begins.

Poppyl

Matt Langworthy wrote:

DonPevsner wrote:Norfolk Southern can certainly afford the $39 million cost of a replacement bridge itself. It is disgusting to watch giant, for-profit and very profitable corporations hold their greedy palms out to Uncle Sam, through the intermediary facilitator of New York State. This rejected TIGER II grant of $17,750,000 should never have been applied-for in the first place.

I disagree. The state and federal funding that has been spent on highways, airports and Great Lakes shipping over the past 80 years has siphoned alot of traffic off what is now the Southern Tier Mainline. And here's the kicker: only about half that money currently comes from fuel taxes. The rest comes from income, sales and local taxes. Since the competition (including I-390 and Rt 17/I-86) is getting money for improvements, I can see why NS wanted taxpayer dollars for the Portageville Bridge project. It's the fair thing to do, IMO.

Quite frankly, the so-called "Southern Tier Mainline" is by no means vital. CSX's former NYC "Waterlevel Route" is the primary East-West rail corridor in New York State, and this former Erie route is nothing more than a secondary line, relatively speaking. If NS wants to invest in this line, it's a corporate decision. It might be a more lucrative decision for NS to come to terms with CSX for trackage rights, since the former Erie route originates very little traffic and if generally a very poor route for through freight.

I just wish the railfans out there would stop using the silly term "Southern Tier Mainline." It's almost as embarassing as the marketing term "Empire Link," which is used by a certain shortline.

Paleoman wrote:I was just in the high bridge area at Portage this weekend and I see that the route of the newly proposed line approaching the area where the new arch bridge will cross the Genesee gorge is surveyed and survey markers are placed in this area. It appears that N&S is going ahead with their plans even though the funding they tried for was denied. It seems that the railroad can afford this bridge replacement and must go ahead with the project. If anyone knows more I would be interested to hear about it.
-Paleoman-

Shocking! A private company investing private capital into an infrastructure project on private property. So the State and Federal money was never neccessary to begin with?

I wasn't going to respond. However, we're talking apples and oranges. Both are on a growth trend. 2011 will be a dramatic change for the ST Line.

Interesting points, particularly about "private property". The last time that I looked the bridge appeared to be entirely within the boundary of the state park but maybe the map was drawn incorrectly or the park's boundaries have been redrawn.

Poppyl

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: It might be a more lucrative decision for NS to come to terms with CSX for trackage rights, since the former Erie route originates very little traffic and if generally a very poor route for through freight.

There isn't a lot of traffic that originates online. But there sure is a lot of traffic that is destined for the Tier (and the secondaries off the Tier). There is salt, coal for the power plants, interchange traffic (R&S does a good amount of interchange) and then add in all of the gas drilling related traffic.....Plenty of money to be had...

And a very poor route for through freight? West of Binghamton is 50mph single track mainline (oops, did I say that?). East of Binghamton to Port Jervis could be brought up to 40mph (for the most part, there is some permanent speed restrictions). Running on Transit isn't a problem as long as the trains are timed right. It is done elsewhere.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

Matt Langworthy wrote:

DonPevsner wrote:Norfolk Southern can certainly afford the $39 million cost of a replacement bridge itself. It is disgusting to watch giant, for-profit and very profitable corporations hold their greedy palms out to Uncle Sam, through the intermediary facilitator of New York State. This rejected TIGER II grant of $17,750,000 should never have been applied-for in the first place.

I disagree. The state and federal funding that has been spent on highways, airports and Great Lakes shipping over the past 80 years has siphoned alot of traffic off what is now the Southern Tier Mainline. And here's the kicker: only about half that money currently comes from fuel taxes. The rest comes from income, sales and local taxes. Since the competition (including I-390 and Rt 17/I-86) is getting money for improvements, I can see why NS wanted taxpayer dollars for the Portageville Bridge project. It's the fair thing to do, IMO.

Quite frankly, the so-called "Southern Tier Mainline" is by no means vital. CSX's former NYC "Waterlevel Route" is the primary East-West rail corridor in New York State, and this former Erie route is nothing more than a secondary line, relatively speaking. If NS wants to invest in this line, it's a corporate decision. It might be a more lucrative decision for NS to come to terms with CSX for trackage rights, since the former Erie route originates very little traffic and if generally a very poor route for through freight.

I just wish the railfans out there would stop using the silly term "Southern Tier Mainline." It's almost as embarassing as the marketing term "Empire Link," which is used by a certain shortline.

I never once said that the Southern Tier Mainline was more important than the Water level Route. Nor did I even imply it!

You are also mistaken if you think the line generates little traffic. Among other things, the Southern Tier Mainline connects to at least nine shortlines (either directly or via haulage rights) west of Binghamton, the Patriot Corridor, a couple of power plants (that were active until very recently) and a salt mine near Ithaca. The economy of the Southern Tier would be badly damaged if the line didn't exist. And considering the amount of money that was spent by the state and the feds on transportation projects that took traffic away from the Southern Tier Mainline, I have zero objections to NS asking money to help get some of that traffic back. The government took away, so the government can give as well.

Trackage rights on CSX? That makes no sense to me. Under a trackage rights agreement, NS would have to give a cut of the revenue to CSX and be at the mercy of CSX dispatching. No thanks!

Finally, your comment about the term Southern Tier Mainline is ignorant of the facts. The term was officially coined by Conrail back in the '70s. Furthermore, it is still used by NS today: http://www.nscorp.com/nscportal/nscorp/ ... thaul.html

Are we still talking about the bridge replacement, or the Tier in general?

Does it matter? Reading this thread makes both seem pretty interelated. I don't see how you can discuss this potential bridge replacement and not the status of this line, or talk about the Tier in 2010 and bar discussion of this bridge.

I was in the area of the proposed Portage Bridge replacement this weekend and a question came up from a couple of friends I brought along. What is the right away distance that the railroad claims on each side of the middle of the track. If it is 75 - 100' then the markers that they have in place for the proposed railbed is within that range which I imagine would cut out a lot of red tape. The markers appear to be about 75' south of the current rail bed. I haven't been able to find out any more information as to a timeline when the bridge project will commence but I am guessing that this spring there may be some action in the area.

-Paleoman-

so is NS going to pay for this now? is this going to happen?