Long Bridge across the Potomac – Community Wed, 27 Jan 1600-1900 L’Enfant Plaza

[dbb]

Long Bridge Study
January 2016
The Long Bridge Phase II
Community Meeting

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) invite you to attend a community meeting for the Long Bridge Phase II Study:

Wednesday, January 27, 2016
4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
L’Enfant Plaza Club Room, Promenade Level
470 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, DC
L’Enfant Plaza Metro Station

The community meeting will provide the public an opportunity to express their views on the possible replacement or rehabilitation of the Long Bridge across the Potomac River in Washington, DC. The existing two-track rail bridge was constructed in 1904 and serves freight (CSX Transportation), intercity passenger (Amtrak), and commuter rail (Virginia Railway Express) traffic. The community meeting will focus on recent project activities, next steps in the planning process, and provide a general overview of the environmental resources which have been identified within the project corridor.

DDOT completed an initial (Phase I) feasibility study of the Long Bridge in January 2015, which conducted a preliminary evaluation of various concept designs for upgrading the existing bridge, identified opportunities for multimodal connectivity and operational improvements, and determined existing and future capacity needs of the bridge.

The Long Bridge Phase II Study, currently underway, is expanding on the information from Phase I to advance the project through the initial stages of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. FRA and DDOT anticipate that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the project. In an effort to streamline the NEPA process, the Phase II Study will prepare a draft purpose and need statement, and conduct a preliminary screening and analysis of alternatives for the bridge replacement.

For more information, visit http://www.longbridgeproject.com or call (202) 479-2707.

Topic

[dbehrend]

@lordofthemark 183249 wrote:

I expressed precisely that concern on twitter – there is not yet a funding source definitively identified for either the RR bridge of the bike/ped bridge, so it was my concern the RR bridge could be built and the bike/ped bridge deferred indefinitely due to lack of funds.

I have since learned that one of the environmental issues created by the new RR bridge is loss of park space where the RR bridge takes NPS property. Apparently NPS considers the bike ped bridge to be mitigation for that (the bike ped/bridge will presumably be owned by NPS?) and the Environmental Impact Statement would say so, ergo the bike/ped bridge would legally have to be completed along with the new RR bridge. IIUC.

Thank you for the additional info! That helps clarify the inclusion of the bike bridge in the section on potential mitigation options.

[Dewey]

@lordofthemark 183249 wrote:

(the bike ped/bridge will presumably be owned by NPS?)

Please no, if that happens NPS would extend their trail ban on ebikes from using it, bad enough the DCMR still need revising to permit ebikes using the bridge sidewalk paths on any of the Potomac river crossings.

[dbehrend]

The Washington Post had an article on the Long Bridge project today:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/expanding-the-long-bridge-is-key-to-regions-growing-rail-needs-officials-say/2018/12/22/19301c02-fa59-11e8-8d64-4e79db33382f_story.html?utm_term=.72affbd06000

Regarding funding the article noted:

Funding for the project has not been identified. But as the study moves forward, officials in the District and Virginia say they will be working as a region to secure grants and have a funding plan in place by the time the study is complete. Virginia rail officials say $30 million has been budgeted for design and engineering — $15 million from state rail funding and a $15 million pledge from CSX Transportation, which owns the bridge.

[mstone]

@dbehrend 184155 wrote:

Regarding funding the article noted: [$30 million has been budgeted for design and engineering]

To put that into perspective, the new Wilson bridge was $2.35 billion.

Also interesting: the long bridge was built in 1814, rebuilt in 1863, rebuilt again in 1872, rebuilt again in 1884, rebuilt again in 1904, and then nothing changed in the next 114 years, and it’s expected that the 1904 bridge will continue to be used indefinitely. The 1904 bridge wasn’t even a new bridge: they reused spans taken from a bridge over the Delaware in Trenton. I wish those guys were still around to design our current infrastructure!

[dbehrend]

@mstone 184165 wrote:

To put that into perspective, the new Wilson bridge was $2.35 billion.

The article and meeting materials streetsmarts linked to both mentioned an estimated cost of $1.3 – 1.6 billion for the preferred alternative. It sounds like the relevant entities support the project, so hopefully, that support translates to funding.

@mstone 184165 wrote:

Also interesting: the long bridge was built in 1814, rebuilt in 1863, rebuilt again in 1872, rebuilt again in 1884, rebuilt again in 1904, and then nothing changed in the next 114 years, and it’s expected that the 1904 bridge will continue to be used indefinitely. The 1904 bridge wasn’t even a new bridge: they reused spans taken from a bridge over the Delaware in Trenton. I wish those guys were still around to design our current infrastructure!

The history and lifespan of the bridge is impressive. I also read somewhere that CSX had completed a rehabilitation project on the bridge within the last few years.

[accordioneur]

@dbehrend 184174 wrote:

estimated cost of $1.3 – 1.6 billion for the preferred alternative.

Maybe someone needs to start a GoFundMe.

[lordofthemark]

Last night there was a public meeting on the Bridge EIS. Having been informed by Judd Lumberjack of the meeting, and it being on my way home, I attended, and spoke in favor of the preferred alternative including the bike/ped bridge as mitigation. I got there relatively late, so not sure if anyone I knew spoke earlier, I did see Zach D (forum handle?) there. Stewart Schwartz of CSG spoke just before me. I don’t think ANYONE spoke against the bike ped bridge, and I think because its mitigation its clear it will happen IF and WHEN the RR bridge is done (AFAIK still no funding). I did ask someone from the project team if NPS will own the bike-ped bridge or DDOT – they did not know. Of course now NPS ownership would not necessarily be more restrictive of ebike usage than DC law.

There ARE some concerns remaining. I think there is some question about the width of the bike-ped bridge – planned for 14 feet, but its been suggested it could (and should) be wider for modest added cost. The turn onto the bridge from the ramp from the MVT appeared in the plans shown to be a tight 90 degree corner – difficult for many and particularly a problem for long tails, trailers, etc.

[Starduster]

I know many of us wanted the ped/bicycle bridge as an integral part of the new railroad span. Maybe it is better that it be its own span. First, there was the train derailment on a railroad bridge in Harper’s Ferry that knocked out the bicycle/hiker crossing across the Potomac for months. Now this, in Tempe, AZ: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/massive-fire-sparked-train-derailment-arizona-n1235191?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR06O-VXFejWeMpoF-NXi73mosZRgdioV81UdKXiFuCXOl5bHSE68C0SgQs. Even an empty freight car is quite heavy and will not stop for you.

[Judd]

@Starduster 201944 wrote:

I know many of us wanted the ped/bicycle bridge as an integral part of the new railroad span. Maybe it is better that it be its own span. First, there was the train derailment on a railroad bridge in Harper’s Ferry that knocked out the bicycle/hiker crossing across the Potomac for months. Now this, in Tempe, AZ: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/massive-fire-sparked-train-derailment-arizona-n1235191?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR06O-VXFejWeMpoF-NXi73mosZRgdioV81UdKXiFuCXOl5bHSE68C0SgQs. Even an empty freight car is quite heavy and will not stop for you.

IIRC the preferred alternative was a separate bridge and that the plan was to construct it after the new rail bridge was built. Since projects often overrun their budgets, having the ped bridge connected to the rail bridge would be a way to mitigate the risk of the ped bridge not being built due to cost overruns.

I don’t know if this risk is offset by the fact that the ped bridge is the proposed mitigation to the Park Service for the impact of the rail project on NPS land.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbb]

I think the reason for the separate bike/ped bridge was security for the rail bridge (although I don’t recall they used the term “scofflaw cyclist”). They concluded a separate structure would have fewer security concerns. As a result, reattaching it to the rail bridge may be more difficult.

[mstone]

@Judd 201946 wrote:

IIRC the preferred alternative was a separate bridge and that the plan was to construct it after the new rail bridge was built. Since projects often overrun their budgets, having the ped bridge connected to the rail bridge would be a way to mitigate the risk of the ped bridge not being built due to cost overruns.

This. I don’t think anyone thought “wow, a bridge stuck on the side of the rr bridge is the best possible outcome”, they just thought “the chances of getting a bike/ped bridge without making it disappear into a billion dollar car or rail project are really low”.

[arlcxrider]

Perhaps a better outcome is to scrap this vanity project altogether, and redirect the money toward improving the east and west approaches to the 14th St bridge, and widening the godawful TR ped/bike path.

14th St bridge span is already the best DC/VA river crossing, but the approaches are a mess. That includes the recent half-assed “fix” to the DC side, with its lumpy bumpy pavement and the highway sign supports right in the middle of the path (the football goal-post padding added to the supports is a really nice touch…)

[Steve O]

@arlcxrider 201956 wrote:

Perhaps a better outcome is to scrap this vanity project altogether, and redirect the money toward improving the east and west approaches to the 14th St bridge, and widening the godawful TR ped/bike path.

14th St bridge span is already the best DC/VA river crossing, but the approaches are a mess. That includes the recent half-assed “fix” to the DC side, with its lumpy bumpy pavement and the highway sign supports right in the middle of the path (the football goal-post padding added to the supports is a really nice touch…)

Both. Why can’t we get the new bridge built AND fix the 14th St. approaches? I’m in favor of pushing for everything. We already often get the dregs and compromise down to “adequate” instead of “excellent.” Besides, I think the funding for these would come from different places anyway.

[Judd]

@Steve O 201960 wrote:

Both. Why can’t we get the new bridge built AND fix the 14th St. approaches? I’m in favor of pushing for everything. We already often get the dregs and compromise down to “adequate” instead of “excellent.” Besides, I think the funding for these would come from different places anyway.

It’s all about the Benjamins, Steve O. There’s always the challenge of asking for the moon and hoping that if it gets pared back, you’re still getting something good. I think sometimes we start from something reasonable and it then gets pared down to something crummy.

The Long Bridge project is part of a project to increase rail capacity from Northern Virginia. It’s going to significantly increase both freight and VRE and Amtrak trips. I think it’s a good project with a significant societal benefit. Rail transport is efficient. The bike/ped bridge was squeezed into the scope of this project through advocacy efforts. We could have pushed for improvements around 14th St Bridge as the mitigation for the impacts of the new bridges on NPS land, but getting an entirely new crossing is a megabucks, once in a lifetime opportunity. I think the project has a lot of value. It’s going to connect National Landing and the great facilities at Long Bridge Park directly to East Potomac Park. There’s still an advocacy push to build a connection from the new bridge to the Case Bridge which would provide a direct connection from National Landing to L’Enfant Plaza and the Wharf. That might not be a big deal for folks that know how to navigate their away through all the turns and road riding to get their now, but for a casual rider, that opens up a lot of new possibilities.

There’s no specific project to improve the access to 14th Street Bridge. The recently released Mount Vernon Trail Safety Study had a general recommendation for an improvement and identified it as a high conflict location. Arlington and Alexandria are applying for a $20 million dollar SMART SCALE grant to widen the MVT from Jones Point to TR Island that would likely also address current issues at trail juncture likes 14th St Bridge and the Four Mile Run Trail connection. Widening the trail was a recommendation of the MVT Safety Study and it’s good to see the jurisdictions immediately identifying a possible funding source for the Park Service.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Judd]

The Long Bridge Final Environmental Impact Statement was released a couple of weeks ago. Not many changes from the Draft EIS. The preferred alternative is a new rail bridge north of the existing bridge and a 14′ wide bike/ped bridge north of that. Governor Northam announced Virginia was funding a huge chunk of it with Amtrak and VRE kicking in some funding, but that was last December prior to COVID and it’s impact on budgets. The bike/ped bridge is a mitigation for impacts on NPS land. More words and a couple of pictures at:

https://mountvernontrail.org/2020/09/09/long-bridge-final-environmental-impact-statement-released/

Also, a big thank you to everyone who attended meetings and wrote letters along the way to push for the bike/ped bridge and putting it in the mind of NPS as mitigation.

[Author]

Replies