Susquehanna Bridge Repair/Replace Status

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 6:39 am Mr. Moore, if you would be reluctant to X on your trike over the Norman Wood Bridge (PA 372), try the one over the Conowingo Dam, which is US1. I did that once in this life, playing "shunpike" on a drive from Wash to Greenwich. That was in an auto - and guess what is coming the other way - a semi!!!!

Of course, the best way to see the Susquehanna was to ride the C&PD; something possible during "early Amtrak"; A-Day until circa '74, and on a fan trip or two afterwards.

Yeah, no, I've driven that more than once and while I'm a pretty fearless at times on the bike, Conowingo gets far too narrow for my tastes for far too long of a stretch.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just run a bike lane under one of the new bridges?

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 8:08 pm Wouldn't it be cheaper to just run a bike lane under one of the new bridges?

I'd think so. Is the existing a movable bridge? Imagine the expense to send an operator to move the bridge for passing boats, on a bike bridge.

I'm a pretty big cycling fan - I ride for more trips than I drive. I bring saddle bags or the kiddie-trailer to the grocery store. But I'm still dubious of that idea.

ryanwc wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 10:32 am

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 8:08 pm Wouldn't it be cheaper to just run a bike lane under one of the new bridges?

I'd think so. Is the existing a movable bridge? Imagine the expense to send an operator to move the bridge for passing boats, on a bike bridge.

I'm a pretty big cycling fan - I ride for more trips than I drive. I bring saddle bags or the kiddie-trailer to the grocery store. But I'm still dubious of that idea.

Yes, and it is an involved process to open the bridge.
Even if they aren't having to unweld and weld rail, it's still a 100+ year old bridge, which will need maintenance, and it's not worth the expense for bikes. That said, having been in the area a lot, a safe multimodal route would get used , especially on nice days.

Railway Age: Troubled NEC Bridge Over Maryland Waters

Amtrak is working on a plan to replace the 117-year-old Howe deck truss bridge over the Susquehanna River between Perryville and Havre-de-Grace, Maryland, railroad west from Delaware and on the way to Baltimore along the Northeast Corridor (NEC). Perryville is located in Cecil County, which borders Newark, Delaware, and currently serves as the northeastern limit of the MARC Penn Line from Washington, D.C. through Baltimore. Amtrak trains do not stop there. No trains serve Havre-de-Grace, which is in Harford County, the county that contains Aberdeen, which has limited Amtrak service. Now there is also a competing proposal. It was recently unveiled by Scott R. Spencer, Chief Operating Officer of AmeriStarRail, which has also proposed a new operating plan for the NEC.
...
Amtrak’s plan includes four tracks, outlined as Alternative 9A of the project study: a new two-track, 90-mph bridge to the west of the current bridge alignment, and demolishment of the existing span, replace it with a two-track, 160-mph bridg. Study documents and other materials can be found on the Amtrak website in a section about the project. Spencer’s proposal would build a different bridge, while re-purposing the existing one, instead of demolishing it, and that proposal is gaining traction among local officials.

Spencer unveiled the AmeriStarRail plan at an event in Perryville, near the existing elevated railroad structure, on Sept. 26. He is a long-time railroader and currently Chief Operating Officer at AmeriStarRail. Project details, including the full proposal, can be found on the company’s website. According to the site: “Unlike Amtrak’s plan to replace its current bridge, built in 1906, with twin bridges by the Year 2036, AmeriStarRail, in collaboration with Kleinfelder and Toole Design, propose that Amtrak and Maryland DOT finance and build just one bi-level bridge to be completed by 2030 without demolishing the current bridge. This would allow the existing Amtrak bridge to be converted into the Trailway Across the Susquehanna.” The Kleinfelder firm works in the field of railroad design, while Toole Design works in the field of city and town planning.
...
Amtrak is skeptical about the proposal. As Jane Bellmyer reported in a comprehensive story for the Cecil Whig (the paper was founded in 1841, when the Whig Party was the political opponent to the Democrats, before the Republicans took over that role) on Sept. 29, Amtrak listed a nuseveralcerns about it. Amtrak spokesperson Beth K. Toll told me: “As discussed in the Susquehanna River Bridge project description and the website for the environmental review of the project, the FRA/MDOT-led environmental review for replacement of the 1906 Susquehanna River Bridge began in 2013 and took more than four years. This process involved extensive stakeholder outreach and consideration of 25 different alternatives (including those proposed by the commentors) before the current plan to replace the bridge was selected. Final design of the replacement bridge, funded in part by a $20 million federal grant secured with the support of Maryland’s Congressional delegation, is underway. Amtrak is also currently seeking a Federal State Partnership for a State of Good Repair Grant from the FRA.”
...

Let me bold the operative statement here.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Tue Oct 17, 2023 8:50 am Amtrak is skeptical about the proposal. As Jane Bellmyer reported in a comprehensive story for the Cecil Whig (the paper was founded in 1841, when the Whig Party was the political opponent to the Democrats, before the Republicans took over that role) on Sept. 29, Amtrak listed a nuseveralcerns(sp?) about it. Amtrak spokesperson Beth K. Toll told me: “As discussed in the Susquehanna River Bridge project description and the website for the environmental review of the project, the FRA/MDOT-led environmental review for replacement of the 1906 Susquehanna River Bridge began in 2013 and took more than four years. This process involved extensive stakeholder outreach and consideration of 25 different alternatives (including those proposed by the commentors) before the current plan to replace the bridge was selected. Final design of the replacement bridge, funded in part by a $20 million federal grant secured with the support of Maryland’s Congressional delegation, is underway. Amtrak is also currently seeking a Federal State Partnership for a State of Good Repair Grant from the FRA.”

This tells me that AmeriStarRail not only half-assed the proposal, they didn't do their due-diligence in researching the existing process and the existing proposals that were flat-out rejected.

Someone's money is getting wasted.

Who is funding these guys, all their proposals show a lack of site visits.. which is scary, at they made a presentation at the location.
It'll be much cheaper to have a bike lane on the new 90 mph bridge, than trying to maintain a 100+ year old bridge.
Plus, trains on the bridge won't ever get to 90mph, as a have de grace MARC station is on the books.

Since when does Amtrak stop there?

The Boring Company appears to be engaged primarily in preventing investment in public transportation infrastructure and I'm guessing that the owner of that company thinks he profiting immensely by that. I can't say the backers of AmeriStarRail are acting the same way, but given their attack on the Amfleet and causing local officials to (re)question existing plans, the cynic in me thinks their backers want to force delays in Amtrak's projects to the point where the cost of the investment is considered untenable and the NEC just ceases to function.

FRA Award (PDF): FRA.DOT.GOV

Maryland – Susquehanna River Bridge Replacement Program (Up to $2,081,215,100)

The proposed project includes final design and construction for two new fixed, two-track bridges over the Susquehanna River between Havre De Grace and Perryville, MD, replacing the current 117-year-old, two-track structure that is beyond its useful life. The new spans will improve upon the 90-mph speed on the current structure, with one span designed to support 125-mph operation and the other for up to 160-mph operation, reducing travel time for thousands of daily passengers along the Northeast Corridor. The crossing is used by Amtrak’s intercity services, Maryland Area Regional Commuter service, and freight service. The project will improve state of good repair and provide additional capacity to meet future growth. As matching funds for final design, Amtrak is providing $11,219,839 and Maryland is providing $750,000. Amtrak is providing $508,333,936 in matching funds for construction.

Consistent with the Inventory and NOFO, this Major Capital Project was Highly Rated and is therefore eligible for a Phased Funding Agreement. FRA is selecting the project for a Phased Funding Agreement with a total award amount of up to $2,081,215,100. Following selection, FRA will work with the recipient to establish and obligate the Phased Funding Agreement. FRA anticipates an initial obligation of FY22-23 funds under the agreement of up to $520,303,775, with contingent commitments from Advance Appropriations in FY24-26 providing the balance of funds. The initial funding is anticipated to be sufficient to fund all remaining design activities and continue advancing the project into construction.

The language used in the announcement implies that the plan for Amtrak and MARC service dispatch north of Baltimore is to use one pair of tracks for Amtrak services and the other pair of tracks for MARC and NS freight services. The current layout of PERRY, GUNPOW and BAY interlockings implies that there will need to be a grade separation somewhere north of the Gunpowder River so that the MARC and NS services can use the existing southern pair of tracks (A and 1) south of the Gunpowder River and then get across the formation to reach the Perryville station platform and the Port Road. Are there any online resources explaining how the route will be dispatched once all the bridges are replaced and the fourth track is installed?