Susquehanna River Bridge Replacement study

The engineering study for replacing the Susquehanna River bridge has officially begun. The study is funded by a $22 million HSIPR stimulus grant to complete the EIS and PE for the replacement bridge. A website has been set up for the study which is light on documents at this point as it has just gotten started. The first public outreach meeting is scheduled for April 28 in Havre de Grace if anyone in the area is interested in attending. From the NEC planning documents, it appears to me that they have pretty much settled on a 4 track or a split two 2 track replacement bridge, but in the alternative analysis phase, they have to address the no-build and refurbing the current bridge options.

The new bridge and track access is likely to impact park land and property in Havre de Grace, so the project may run into some opposition. The study area covers 3 miles on either side of the bridge, so it is not just the bridge itself, but the track configuration and placement leading to the bridge. With the study taking 3 years, it will likely take at least several more years after that before construction can even begin depending on how long it takes to get the funding.

Amtrak posted a news release on the official kick-off: Amtrak and Partners Advance Planning for New Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. Start of the news release:

"Amtrak, in conjunction with the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), has launched a preliminary engineering study for rehabilitation or possible replacement of the 108-year-old Susquehanna River Rail Bridge. The study will comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and examine various alternatives while considering environmental and historical impacts to the community.

The existing two-track bridge is a crucial link along the busy Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC), but is nearing the end of its useful life. Along with Amtrak and Maryland’s MARC Commuter Rail passenger trains, this section of the NEC is used by Norfolk Southern Railway to carry freight across the Susquehanna River. The bridge is owned by Amtrak."

Baltimore Sun article on the start of the study with comments from the officials in Perryville and Havre de Grace: Amtrak continues to study Susquehanna River bridge's future

I have not seen one yet, but I would expect that a website will be set up for the $60 million B&P Tunnel replacement study and engineering design. Perhaps someday every major bridge and set of tunnels on the NEC will have its own website!

Updating this one post thread ( ), there was a public outreach presentation for the Susquehanna replacement bridge study on December 10. The crux of the study status is that the Alternative analysis has narrowed down to 3 alternatives: all with 4 tracks with two 2 track bridges with different alignments for 140, 150, and 160 mph max speeds. The alignments vary in the amount of property that would have to be acquired and the impact on the Perry substation.

Page with the viewgraphs from the December 10 presentation (which can only be expanded one page per tab instead of flipped through).

PDF viewgraph page with the Alternatives Comparison Matrix summarizing the different alternatives.

I vote for Alternative 9A with 160 mph speeds!

I'd vote 160mph speeds also. We really have to think the next century.

How high is the bridge going to be? In this location, resistance to flooding, debris washing downriver during floods, hurricane-force winds, and storm surge are important considerations.

Also, I sent in my comment saying that a pedestrian bridge is *badly* needed. Next one to the north is 40 miles away.

I suspect the same height as the current one. Not sure how high it is now, but it's fairly high (at least compared to many of the other NEC bridges). Of course there's not too much boat traffic to worry about.

StriderGDM said:

I suspect the same height as the current one. Not sure how high it is now, but it's fairly high (at least compared to many of the other NEC bridges). Of course there's not too much boat traffic to worry about.

Click to expand...

The vertical clearance of the proposed alternatives is listed in the comparison matrix viewgraph. The current bridge is a movable swing span bridge with, according to a February 2014 Trains Magazine article on the movable bridges of the NEC, a vertical clearance of 30'. The Susquehanna rail bridge only opens an average of 6 times a year, but a movable bridge is still a maintenance headache.

The alternatives all call for a fixed span bridge with a 60' vertical clearance and a horizontal clearance of at least 200', so the replacement bridges are to be noticeably higher. With a modern bridge design with fixed spans, the tracks may not be 30' higher, but the increased elevation will likely require long approach ramps to reduce the grade for the freight and passenger trains. I suspect the estimated price tag for the the replacement will go up.

One goal for upgrading the NEC has become to replace the movable bridges south of CT - Bush River, Susquehanna, Portal, Pelham Bay - with fixed span bridges, except for the Dock bridge which is just east of the Newark NJ Station.

Just as a point of reference, what's the current track speed over the bridge?

afigg said:

StriderGDM said:

I suspect the same height as the current one. Not sure how high it is now, but it's fairly high (at least compared to many of the other NEC bridges). Of course there's not too much boat traffic to worry about.

Click to expand...

The vertical clearance of the proposed alternatives is listed in the comparison matrix viewgraph. The current bridge is a movable swing span bridge with, according to a February 2014 Trains Magazine article on the movable bridges of the NEC, a vertical clearance of 30'. The Susquehanna rail bridge only opens an average of 6 times a year, but a movable bridge is still a maintenance headache.

The alternatives all call for a fixed span bridge with a 60' vertical clearance and a horizontal clearance of at least 200', so the replacement bridges are to be noticeably higher. With a modern bridge design with fixed spans, the tracks may not be 30' higher, but the increased elevation will likely require long approach ramps to reduce the grade for the freight and passenger trains. I suspect the estimated price tag for the the replacement will go up.

One goal for upgrading the NEC has become to replace the movable bridges south of CT - Bush River, Susquehanna, Portal, Pelham Bay - with fixed span bridges, except for the Dock bridge which is just east of the Newark NJ Station.

Click to expand...

Hmm, you're right. I thought it was a higher fixed span. I forgot it was that low and hand the swing segment.

Yeah, could probably get at least part of the height increase simply on the approaches on the bridge itself and bias the higher end to the southern section since you're limited on the Perryville side.

neroden said:

Also, I sent in my comment saying that a pedestrian bridge is *badly* needed. Next one to the north is 40 miles away.

Click to expand...

The press articles and coverage of the replacement bridge have discussed the need to build a pedestrian and bike path with the new rail bridge. The nearest pedestrian and bike crossing is at the Susquehanna dam, which as you note, is way upriver to the north. I expect Maryland would have to pay for the ped/bike path component. The comparison matrix charts states the alternatives do not preclude a bike/ped path, so it is part of the study and design analysis criteria.

MattW said:

Just as a point of reference, what's the current track speed over the bridge?

Click to expand...

90 mph for the bridge itself. Track speeds are, according to a map I have, 125 mph due south of the bridge and 110 to 115, then to 130 mph on the north (or east) side. So Acelas and Regionals have to slow down for the bridge.

The Susquehanna Bridge replacement assessment has released a new report on the continuing alternative analysis with a downselect to 2 alternatives from a skim read. The November 2015 report link is at the bottom of this website page (11.7 MB PDF). Appears that the selected Alternatives are 9A amd 9B, both with a total of 4 tracks, but would build two 2 track bridges. One bridge would have 90 mph tracks, the second would be 160 mph (9A) versus 150 mph (9A) alignments. But this is based on a skim read.

For anyone interested, there is a public open house session on November 10 in Perryville. Go fill out those public comment cards in favor of the 160 mph alignment, regardless of property taking!

There was an April 14, 2016 public outreach meeting with updates on the analysis study for the bridge replacement. The presentation slides are available on this webpage, but there is a link for each slide which makes it tedious to read each of them. The summary is that the study has narrowed down to two alternatives, 9A and 9B (slide summarizing the alternatives). Both alternatives call for two 2 track bridges for 4 tracks total.

Alternative 9A would allow for 160 mph speeds across the new bridges, but takes more property.

Alternative 9B would allow for 150 mph speeds with only 0.34 acres of property taken.

There are no cost projections on the slides, but this Baltimore Sun article lists the price tag for the new fixed span Susquehanna bridge(s) at $800 million to $1 billion: For faster train travel, Amtrak wants to fix railway bottlenecks in Maryland. The article discusses both the B&P Tunnel replacement and the Susquehanna bridge replacement studies. The B&P tunnel plans are encountering resistance, much of it ill-informed in Baltimore as I would expect. Of course, the catch is where the funds come from to pay for the 2 critical NEC projects.

The projects will have to vie for funding with the multibillion-dollar Gateway project to update century-old rail tunnels under the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey.

Amtrak initially slated the two Maryland projects for completion by 2025, but it'll likely be closer to 2040, DelSignore said.

"They haven't gotten off the ground yet," he said.

Click to expand...

Edit: clicked before writing bulk of post....

New article from the Baltimore Sun. It is mostly focused on the impacts to Havre de Grace residents from the reconstructed approach to the span; the expected schedule and cost are probably of most interest here though.

Also according to the project website there is an upcoming section 106 meeting this Tuesday. I am not sure if these meetings are open to the public, but I wouldn't be able to make it there anyway.

10 years seems like a long time to build a bridge.

Thirdrail7 said:

10 years seems like a long time to build a bridge.

Click to expand...

A bridge (well actually 2) that size, that doesn't seem too unreasonable. Once the ROD is recorded, early next year is when that should happen, they can proceed to look for funding for final design and construction. It'll probably take at least a year for the design, and at least a couple of years to get the funding together. Then probably almost a year after that before construction can actually begin and I would think probably 4 years under construction.

If its complete within 10 years, I would be think they have done well, considering that there are several other large projects also in line.

Is anyone thinking about replacing the Rockville bridge north of Harrisburg PA? It opened in the spring of 1902. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockville_Bridge

It is still the longest stone arch railway bridge in the world.

Thirdrail7 said:

10 years seems like a long time to build a bridge.

Click to expand...

It's a BIG bridge.

tomfuller said:

Is anyone thinking about replacing the Rockville bridge north of Harrisburg PA? It opened in the spring of 1902. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockville_Bridge

It is still the longest stone arch railway bridge in the world.

Click to expand...

If built and maintained properly stone arches can last forever. There are Roman bridges still in use IIRC.

It's two, 2-track bridges, built one after the other. The first one is built off the the side, rail traffic shifted, then the second one is built on the alignment of the existing bridge. Total construction time to complete both bridges is five years.

neroden said:

tomfuller said:

Is anyone thinking about replacing the Rockville bridge north of Harrisburg PA? It opened in the spring of 1902. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockville_Bridge

It is still the longest stone arch railway bridge in the world.

Click to expand...

If built and maintained properly stone arches can last forever. There are Roman bridges still in use IIRC.

Click to expand...

Makes one wonder why they don't still build 'em that way?

railiner said:

neroden said:

tomfuller said:

Is anyone thinking about replacing the Rockville bridge north of Harrisburg PA? It opened in the spring of 1902. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockville_Bridge

It is still the longest stone arch railway bridge in the world.

Click to expand...

If built and maintained properly stone arches can last forever. There are Roman bridges still in use IIRC.

Click to expand...

Makes one wonder why they don't still build 'em that way?

Click to expand...

There are a few reasons.

(1) Over wide rivers, stone arch bridges create a serious problem: they obstruct the flow of the water. (You can't make one giant stone arch, so you have to make a lot of little ones, so there are a lot of piers in the water.) This causes all *sorts* of hydrological problems, flooding being only one. This is considered highly undesirable (and you probably can't even get a permit for it these days), so nowadays stone arches are only done over narrow streams where you can span the whole stream with one arch.

(2) Over narrow streams, it's often way cheaper to build culverts. When it isn't, it's still often way cheaper to do a steel box girder bridge.

(3) Even where stone arches already exist (so no new hydrological issues), the maintenance and repair of them requires expert masons -- who are expensive these days, compared to the cheap construction workers who put in culverts and box girders.

(4) The stone itself is way more expensive than it used to be, while concrete and steel are relatively-speaking significantly cheaper.

The Susquehanna project website has added the presentation from the section 106 meeting last October. Key points, they are going forward with alternative 9A (that is the alignment that allows for 160 mph MAS) and from the drawings used it looks like they have made good progress on the preliminary engineering.

The EA (Environmental Assessment) for the replacement of the Susquehanna River Bridge replacement has been released. The EA can be found at the project's website here, it consists of twenty chapters and five appendices. There will be a public outreach meeting in Perryville, MD on Wednesday the 15th (this week). The public comment period for the EA is open until April 6th.

While the engineering and design isn't complete, the current construction time estimate given in the document is 77 months including 12 months of building new OCS and transmission structures before any actual bridge construction begins.

CraigDK said:

While the engineering and design isn't complete, the current construction time estimate given in the document is 77 months including 12 months of building new OCS and transmission structures before any actual bridge construction begins.

Click to expand...

They're obviously going to have to do something about the substation and transmission lines to Safe Harbor. This may be a good thing especially with the owner of the substation upstream raising the rates.

Thirdrail7 said:

CraigDK said:

While the engineering and design isn't complete, the current construction time estimate given in the document is 77 months including 12 months of building new OCS and transmission structures before any actual bridge construction begins.

Click to expand...

They're obviously going to have to do something about the substation and transmission lines to Safe Harbor. This may be a good thing especially with the owner of the substation upstream raising the rates.

Click to expand...

The Perryville substation is Amtrak-owned and will not be significantly impacted by the bridge work. That is the switching terminus of four 132kV circuits that originate at Safe Harbor. The four-circuit transmission line from Safe Harbor will require relocation of the tower on the north side of the tracks, but otherwise is unaffected.

The electric traction preliminary work involves new catenary and transmission overbuild structures for about a mile north and south of the bridge to accommodate the track relocations for the new bridges along with permitting the installation of constant-tension catenary. With those new structures in-place, traffic disruptions for cutovers when tracks are shifted will be minimized.

The issue of the step-up substation at Safe Harbor is another can of worms which will ultimately be decided by the PA PUC, and maybe whether Amtrak decides to buy the substation outright or by eminent domain. I have s suspicion that PP&L (the substation owner) would be more than happy to unload that hunk of junk to Amtrak, and the "rate increase" is a means to an end. Of course, for Amtrak to buy it, they would have to cough up some serious capitol cash (something they would probably like to use elsewhere), and then they would have a substation to upgrade and maintain that is well off the system. That is not ideal from Amtrak's perspective.

I suspect that Amtrak is perfectly happy with the status quo, but with equipment needing replacement, PP&L is not. Regardless, the hydro power Amtrak gets from Safe Harbor is almost free, so there is no way they walk away from that.