B. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING

Transcription

1 Chaper 2: Projec Alernaives A. INTRODUCTION This chaper reviews he alernaives developmen and screening process, describes he No Acion Alernaive and he Build Alernaives reained for deailed sudy, and idenifies he Preferred Alernaive. The esimaed projec coss and a lis of poenial permis and approvals required o build he Proposed Projec are also provided. The Proposed Projec is locaed beween Philadelphia and Washingon D.C. along he Naional Railroad Passenger Corporaion s (Amrak) Norheas Corridor (NEC). The direcion on he rail line from Philadelphia o Washingon D.C. is souh. Therefore, unless oherwise noed in his Environmenal Assessmen (EA), norh is owards Philadelphia, souh is owards Washingon D.C., eas is downsream or owards he Chesapeake Bay, and wes is upsream or owards he Conowingo Dam. Proposed Projec consrucion is scheduled o commence in Year 2025 is analyzed as he Proposed Projec build year (he year when he Proposed Projec elemens are scheduled o be fully conneced o he NEC). For long-erm planning his EA also considers a 2040 analysis year. This EA is based on concepual engineering alignmens. The disclosure of effecs is based on he design informaion available a he ime of concepual design compleion. The engineering design has since progressed and furher refinemens and changes will coninue o be made. While he Projec Team assessed reasonable wors-case effecs ha are anicipaed for he Proposed Projec based on he concepual design, i is possible ha fuure design changes could lead o adverse effecs ha are no known a his ime. If as a resul of design changes he Projec Team idenifies he poenial for addiional or greaer adverse effecs in he fuure, he Projec Team will prepare a follow up argeed environmenal review. B. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING The Projec Team developed a rigorous alernaives developmen and screening process for he Proposed Projec. This process considered boh alignmen alernaives as well as bridge ype alernaives. Appendix A, Alernaives Screening Repor and Bridge Types, includes a deailed repor describing alernaives developmen; inpu solicied from he public, agencies, and oher sakeholders; and he mehodology used o screen alernaives and seleced hose reained for deailed sudy. The secion below presens a summary of ha process. DEVELOPMENT OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES The Projec Team (including FRA and MDOT) idenified design facors o be incorporaed ino he concepual alernaives. These design facors, which were considered independenly and collecively: Geomery any feasible concepual alernaive mus consider he exising geomery of he NEC. Exising alignmens of commuer and freigh faciliies were also considered including use of Norfolk Souhern Railway s (NS) Por Road roue and service o/from he Perryville 2-1

2 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Projec Maryland Area Regional Commuer (MARC) Saion. Furhermore, Amrak has sandard plans and specificaions ha provide deailed geomery requiremens for racks carrying Amrak passenger service. These sandards are required o mee federal regulaions, assure passenger comfor, and provide a safe, mainainable design. Design Speed A criical elemen of he projec s Purpose and Need is o reduce rip imes and opimize infrasrucure o accommodae fuure high-speed rail operaions along he NEC. This approach is consisen wih he congressional mandae placed on Amrak o reduce ravel imes along he NEC and he desire o idenify 160 miles per hour (mph) as he maximum auhorized speed, wherever feasible. Feasible concepual alernaives mus provide a leas wo racks for high-speed rail service, and a leas one rack primarily for freigh and commuer rail service (supporing speeds of up o 90 mph). Bridge Spacing Mainaining coninuous rail service during consrucion canno preclude navigaion for exended periods of ime. Increasing he disance beween bridges more han necessary would resul in greaer propery acquisiions. For hose concepual alernaives involving wo bridges across he Susquehanna River, a phased consrucion of he bridges will generally be required o mainain coninuous rail raffic across he river (i.e. wo bridges will no be buil simulaneously nor could he exising bridge be removed from service unil a replacemen bridge has been consruced). Navigaional Clearances A emporary winer closure of he exising movable span may be necessary during he consrucion period. This closure will emporarily resric navigaion of high-mas vessels during he winer monhs, which is he ime of he year wih he leas navigaion aciviy. A navigaion sudy 1 for he projec deermined ha a verical clearance of 60 fee above he mean high waer (MHW) elevaion for any new river span is he opimal balance beween he needs of mariners and of he passenger and freigh rail providers. The navigaion sudy also deermined ha while he exising horizonal clearance (wo 100-foowide channels) is sufficien, furher widening of he horizonal clearance could increase sigh disance, reduce vessel congesion, and aid ug boa and barge navigaion hrough he bridge opening, increasing safey and resilience agains poenial bridge and fender sysem srikes. Grades Amrak's sandards generally permi up o a 1.5 percen compensaed grade on mainline racks. This grade is consisen wih indusry sandards for maximum grades on freigh and passenger mainline rack. However, he exising grades on NS's Por Road and Amrak's NEC are less han his maximum, ranging from 0.14 percen o 0.24 percen for he NS Por Road roue and beween 0.3 percen and 0.68 percen norh and souh of he bridge. The concepual designs considered he exising maximum effecive or ruling grade for he roue. In coordinaion wih NS, he Projec Team deermined ha, for his projec wih curren and anicipaed freigh rain usage, a 0.65 percen maximum grade is appropriae for racks primarily dedicaed o freigh operaion. Relaionships o Oher Projecs The Projec Team designed all concepual alernaives so as no o preclude adjacen and relaed planned ransporaion projecs. Such projecs include freigh rail improvemens (e.g., he Chesapeake Connecor Projec), Maryland Transi Adminisraion s (MTA) MARC Norheas Mainenance Faciliy and Penn Line exension, he Federal Railroad Adminisraion s (FRA) NEC FUTURE, regional bicycle and pedesrian rails, and ohers. 1 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Reconsrucion and Expansion Projec Navigaion Sudy, daed January 21, 2014, HNTB Corporaion. 2-2

3 Chaper 2: Projec Alernaives Using he design facors described above, he Projec Team idenified 18 concepual alernaives. The approximae locaions of each of he 18 concepual alernaives are shown in Figure 2-1. A brief descripion of each of he concepual alernaives is deailed in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Descripion of 18 Concepual Alernaives Alernaive Alernaive Descripion* New high-speed 2-rack bridge o eas of exising bridge; second bridge in 1A place of exising bridge Up o 4 racks oal; max speed of 140 mph Similar o 1A bu closer o exising bridge, requiring emporary closure of 1B swing span Up o 4 racks oal; max speed of 140 mph New high-speed 2-rack bridge o he wes of exising bridge; second bridge in place of exising bridge 2A Flyover srucure in Perryville Up o four racks oal; max speed of 135 mph Similar o 2A bu closer o exising bridge; requiring emporary closure of 2B swing span Up o 4 racks oal; max speed of 135 mph New curved high-speed 2-rack bridge o eas of exising bridge; second bridge 3A in place of exising bridge Up o 4 racks oal; max speed of 160 mph Similar o 3A bu closer o exising bridge, requiring emporary closure of 3B swing span Up o four racks oal; max speed of 160 mph New high-speed 2-rack bridge o eas of exising bridge; second bridge in place of exising bridge 4A Requires reconsrucion of Lewis Lane overpass Up o 4 racks oal; max speed of 160 mph Similar o 4A bu closer o exising bridge, requiring emporary closure of 4B swing span Up o four racks oal; max speed of 160 mph Similar o 4B bu wih reduced speed 4C Up o 4 racks oal; max speed of 135 mph New high-speed 3-rack bridge o he eas of exising bridge Requires reconsrucion of Lewis Lane overpass and emporary closure of 4D swing span 3 racks oal; max speed of 160 mph Similar o 4D bu wih reduced speed 4E Requires emporary closure of swing span 3 racks oal; max speed of 135 mph 2-3

4 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Projec Alernaive A 8B 9A 9B Table 2-1 (con d) Descripion of 18 Concepual Alernaives Alernaive Descripion* New high-speed 2-rack bridge o eas of exising bridge; second bridge in place of exising bridge Subsanial curve o avoid righ-of-way impacs Up o 4 racks oal; max speed of 130 mph New high-speed 2-rack bridge o eas of exising bridge; second bridge in place of exising bridge Elevaed hrough Havre de Grace; exensive, complicaed double decker srucure Requires emporary closure of swing span during winer season Up o 4 racks oal; max speed of 160 mph New high-speed 2-rack bridge o eas of exising bridge; second bridge in place of exising bridge Significan curvaure o avoid Perryville subsaion Up o 4 racks oal; max speed of 160 mph Similar o 1B bu wih reduced speed; requires emporary closure of swing span Up o 4 racks oal; max speed of 120 mph New high-speed 3-rack bridge o he eas of exising bridge Requires emporary closure of swing span 3 racks oal; max speed of 120 mph New 90-mph bridge o he wes of exising bridge; high-speed 2-rack bridge in place of exising bridge Requires reconsrucion of Lewis Lane Bridge and emporary closure of swing span 4 racks oal; max speed of 160 mph New 90-mph bridge o he wes of exising bridge; high-speed 2-rack bridge in place of exising bridge Requires reconsrucion emporary closure of swing span 4 racks oal; max speed of 150 mph The Projec Team also considered: Rehabiliaing he exising bridge wihou modifying he rack alignmens; Convering he swing bridge ino a lif bridge during rehabiliaion; and Rehabiliaing he exising bridge for non-rail use. Afer he Projec Team developed he 18 concepual alernaives and he Rehabiliaion Alernaive ( Rehab ), i idenified hree addiional concepual alernaives ( CE ) and considered wo alernaives suggesed by he public ( P ) and a value engineering alernaive ( VE ). These addiional alernaives are described in Table

5 763 Pearl S ree on A ven ue Uni Nor h Nor ain Po S r e e Alignmen - 1A Alignmen - 3A Alignmen - 1B Av enu e en ya C Fou n 4h S Mar ke Sre e Bou rb o ns ree 3rd S ay ew ue Sou h S ok es S r e e Lan e h F re e dom ree h S oke s S Nor Sre e ree in ue 2nd S n Av e s S ress Ave n on A ven ue hia Rd Perryville ue B ha d am Aik Loc us Sre e A da ms rive Leg ion D h J uni a a S Av en Sou elp Philad 1s S Susquehanna River Dr D Avenue Sre e re e aa Avenue A Nor ree S John Sain h J uni B r o ad S C Ellis Gre en S r e e Con g S ou er S inney McLh klin S Pen nin g ds r e e Elm S Fra n Gira r Osego S S Sre e nic k Co nc ord Harford War re n ing C Os ego Sre e S Fron S ree Sree Waer Havre de Grace io S d ens L an Ow On ar Cherry S nna A ve Susqueha 40 Locus S Dalley Erie Sre e Ho n Alle Ro ad y wa gh i H oad Ri ve r ive a L Evans ki Ale Arch S s la Pu Dr ree Bridge Nor h Sre e Ohi o rk Pa or S Haem Rd Roa d ld rfie Ga pe ri French o w nr Su 155 5h S Legend Alignmen - 4C Alignmen - 6 Alignmen - 9A Alignmen - 3B Alignmen - 4D Alignmen - 7 Alignmen - 9B Alignmen - 2A Alignmen - 4A Alignmen - 4E Alignmen - 8A 1,000 f Sudy Area Alignmen - 2B Alignmen - 4B Alignmen - 5 Alignmen - 8B Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Projec ¹ ,060 Fee Figure 2-1 Concepual Alernaives Developmen

6 Chaper 2: Projec Alernaives Alernaive CE1 CE2 CE3 P1 P2 VE Table 2-2 Descripion of Addiional Alernaives Alernaive Descripion Consrucion of wo 1-rack bridges on eiher side of he exising bridge A hird bridge replacing he exising bridge Uilizaion of an abandoned grade-separaed crossing, locaed norh of he exising bridge Consrucion of a 3-rack high speed bridge, locaed wes of he exising bridge Consrucion of an underground unnel for high speed rail Alernaive suggesed by a member of he public Rerouing he NEC o join he exising CSX bridge, locaed o he norh of he exising Amrak bridge Alernaive suggesed by a member of he public Two 2-rack bridges on eiher side of he exising bridge Developed during he value engineering sudy In all, he Projec Team developed 25 alernaives hroughou he course of he alernaives developmen process. ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS As deailed in Appendix A, he Projec Team used a wo-sep screening process o evaluae hese 25 alernaives. The firs sep enailed a faal flaw screening and he second sep enailed a deailed screening. Throughou he screening process, he Projec Team considered inpu provided hrough public oureach effors, coordinaion wih local officials, Secion 106 consuling pary meeings, ineragency review meeings, and oher sakeholder meeings. The faal flaw screening evaluaed he 25 alernaives based on heir abiliy o saisfy he following crieria. These crieria were developed from he Projec s Purpose and Need Saemen and hrough coordinaion a Ineragency Review Meeings (IRM). Rail conneciviy; Navigaional requiremens; Logical ermini; Feasibiliy and consrucabiliy; and Avoidance of criical propery impacs. As shown in Table 2-3 (and discussed furher in Appendix A), he faal flaw screening eliminaed he Rehab alernaive and nine of he 18 concepual alernaives. Of he six oher alernaives (CE, P, and VE), he VE concepual alernaive passed he faal flaw screening. 2-5

7 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Projec Table 2-3 Faal Flaw Screening of Concepual Alernaives Faal Flaw Screening Crieria Avoids Al # Build Scenario Rail Conneciviy Navigaional Requiremens Logical Termini Feasibiliy and Consrucabiliy Criical Propery Impacs Pass or Fail 1A 1 No Yes Yes Yes No Fail 1B 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass 2A 2 No Yes Yes No No Fail 2B 2 No Yes Yes No No Fail 3A 1 No Yes Yes Yes No Fail 3B 1 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Fail 4A 1 No Yes Yes Yes No Fail 4B 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass 4C 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass 4D 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass 4E 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass 5 1 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Fail 6 1 No Yes Yes No Yes Fail 7 1 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Fail 8A 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass 8B 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass 9A 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass 9B 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass Rehab N/A Yes No Yes No Yes Fail CE1 N/A No Yes Yes No Yes Fail CE2 N/A No Yes No Yes No Fail CE3 N/A Yes Yes Yes No Yes Fail P1 N/A No Yes No No Yes Fail P2 N/A No Yes No No No Fail VE N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pass The Projec Team based he second sep of he screening process on a more deailed evaluaion of each of he 10 remaining alernaives. The deailed screening considered each alernaive s impacs o environmenal resources human and naural as well as each alernaive s abiliy o mee he projec s operaional and engineering goals. Concurren o concepual engineering, he Projec Team invenoried environmenal resources in he sudy area, and facored ha informaion ino he deailed screening. Propery impacs were furher evaluaed beyond he criical propery assessmen used in he faal flaw screening, as discussed in Appendix A. The Projec Team considered inpu received during public and agency meeings during he screening process. Each concepual alernaive s abiliy o mee he following goals and objecives of he Proposed Projec were compared and conrased: Improve rail service reliabiliy and safey; - Abiliy o eliminae operaional disrupions and delays; 2-6

8 Chaper 2: Projec Alernaives - Abiliy o connec o NS wye and provide grades accepable for freigh operaions; - Abiliy o provide adequae number of bridge srucures; Improve operaional flexibiliy and accommodae reduced rip imes; - Abiliy o reduce operaional conflics; - Abiliy o eliminae or reduce speed resricions for inerciy rains; - Abiliy o provide flexibiliy for operaional and mainenance work windows; Opimize exising and planned infrasrucure and accommodae fuure freigh, commuer, inerciy, and high-speed rail operaions; - Abiliy o eliminae wo-rack secion in his porion of he NEC; - Abiliy o no preclude fuure high-speed rail; - Abiliy o minimize impacs o Perry Elecrical Subsaion; - Abiliy o allow for poenial shared corridor wih bike/pedesrian pah; Mainain adequae navigaion and improve safey along he Susquehanna River; - Abiliy o provide suiable verical and horizonal clearance; - Consrucion-period effecs o navigaion (i.e. wheher he alernaive requires emporary winer closure of movable span). As described above, a oal of 10 concepual alernaives proceeded o deailed screening: Alernaives 1B, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, and VE. All required decommissioning and removing he exising bridge. Among he 10 remaining concepual alernaives, he maximum achievable speed ranges from a low of 120 mph (which does no mee he design crierion) o a high of 160 mph (which mees he design crierion). Every opion includes eiher hree or four racks. A deailed Alernaives Comparison Marix evaluaing all human environmenal consideraions, naural environmenal consideraions, and operaional and engineering consideraions for each of he 10 concepual alernaives is presened in Figure 2-2. Based on he deailed screening, he Projec Team reained Alernaive 9A and Alernaive 9B for deailed sudy in he EA. The primary reasons for selecing Alernaives 9A and 9B for deailed sudy included: maximum auhorized speed, poenial propery impacs, and he oal number of racks across he river. Based on curren operaional informaion, he Projec Team deemed a four-rack river crossing (or a hree-rack river crossing wih he poenial for he addiion of a fourh rack) superior o a hree-rack river crossing. Addiionally, a maximum auhorized speed of 160 mph is needed o opimize he NEC as a high-speed rail corridor. The Projec Team deermined ha Alernaive 9A and Alernaive 9B bes mee he goals and objecives of he projec, while minimizing environmenal and propery impacs. The raionale for eliminaing each of he oher alernaives, as well as he ineragency and public consulaion process used during he alernaives screening process is deailed in Appendix A. BRIDGE TYPE ALTERNATIVES Independen of he alignmen alernaive screening process and selecion of alernaives for deailed sudy, he Projec Team reviewed four bridge ypes for he projec. The bridge ypes are independen from he wo-sep screening process, since any of he bridge ypes could be feasible wih he alernaive alignmens under consideraion. 2-7

9 Alernaives Comparison Marix - Operaional and Engineering Consideraions EVALUATION CRITERIA Unis Alernaive 1B Alernaive 4B Alernaive 4C Alernaive 4D Alernaive 4E Alernaive 8A Alernaive 8B Alernaive 9A Alernaive 9B VE Improve rail service reliabiliy and safey Eliminaes operaional disrupions/delays Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Connecs o NS wye and provides grades accepable for freigh operaions Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Number of bridge srucures # Reduces operaional conflics Excellen Excellen Excellen Fair Fair Excellen Fair Excellen Excellen Excellen Eliminaes or reduces exising speed resricions for inerciy rains Level a which Eliminaes Eliminaes Eliminaes Eliminaes Eliminaes Reduces Reduces Eliminaes Eliminaes Eliminaes Provides flexibiliy for operaional and alernaive mees mainenance work windows crieria Very Good Very Good Very Good Good Good Very Good Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Abiliy o provide for NS/MARC Operaions during Consrucion Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Excellen Excellen Good Eliminaes wo-rack secion in his porion of NEC and mees corridor wide improvemen needs along NEC # of racks provided by alernaive Improve operaional flexibiliy and accommodae reduced rip imes Opimize exising and planned infrasrucure 4 racks 4 racks 4 racks 3 racks 3 racks 4 racks 3 racks 4 racks 4 racks 4 racks Mees fuure planned 160 mph corridorwide improvemen wihou fuure speed resricions for inerciy rains Y/N - Maximum allowable speed (mph) No mph Yes mph No mph Yes mph No mph No mph No mph Yes mph No mph No mph Impacs o Perry Elecrical Subsaion Level of impac Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Minor Minor Major Wheher Allows shared corridor wih Bike/Ped pah alernaive Does no preclude Does no preclude Does no preclude Does no preclude Does no preclude Does no preclude Does no preclude Does no preclude Does no preclude Does no preclude (feasibiliy evaluaion in progress) precludes Provides suiable verical clearance (a leas 60') Mainains or widens horizonal clearance (a leas 200') Requires emporary winer closure of movable span? Y/N - Clearance provided (fee) Mainain adequae navigaion and improve safey along he Susquehanna River Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 60' Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Yes - 200' + Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Reained for furher evaluaion No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Eliminaion Raionale Lower maximum allowable speed han 9B wih comparable environmenal impacs Impac o Lafayee Senior Housing Faciliy Impac o Lafayee Senior Housing Faciliy and low maximum auhorized speed Impac o Lafayee Senior Housing Faciliy; provides hree racks only Impac o Lafayee Senior Housing Faciliy; offers low maximum auhorized speed and hree racks only Undesirable maximum auhorized speed Undesirable maximum auhorized speed N/A N/A Higher propery and naural environmenal impacs, bu lower speed han 9B Firs Tier of Impacs Second Tier of Impacs Third Tier of Impacs Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Projec Figure 2-2 Deailed Alernaives Comparison Marix

10 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Projec GIRDER APPROACH / ARCH MAIN SPAN Under his bridge design ype, he proposed eas bridge would have a oal of 19 in-waer piers. The proposed wes bridge also would have 19 in-waer piers. Sixeen piers would be removed from he exising bridge and 11 remnan piers (from he prior 1860s bridge) would be removed for a ne gain of 11 piers. The girder approach / arch main span bridge design is based on ypical 170-foo approach spans. As par of he ongoing design effor, longer spans are under consideraion. DELTA FRAME APPROACH / ARCH MAIN SPAN This bridge design ype consiss of a nework ied arch over he navigable channel wih dela frames for he approach spans. Under his bridge design ype, he proposed eas bridge would have a oal of 13 in-waer piers. The proposed wes bridge would have 13 in-waer piers. Sixeen piers would be removed from he exising bridge and 11 remnan piers would be removed for a ne reducion of one pier. The dela frame approach / arch main span bridge design is generally based on 200-foo approach spans. Approach spans ranging from 230 o 260 fee were also considered. TRUSS APPROACH / TRUSS MAIN SPAN Under his bridge design ype, he proposed eas bridge would have a oal of 13 in-waer piers. The proposed wes bridge would have 13 in-waer piers. Sixeen piers would be removed from he exising bridge and 11 remnan piers would be removed for a ne reducion of one pier. The russ approach / russ main span bridge design is generally based on 260-foo approach spans. GIRDER APPROACH / TRUSS MAIN SPAN Under his bridge design ype, he proposed eas bridge would have a oal of 19 in-waer piers. The proposed wes bridge would have 19 in-waer piers. Sixeen piers would be removed from he exising bridge and 11 remnan piers would be removed for a ne gain of 11 piers. The girder approach / russ main span bridge design is based on ypical 170-foo approach spans. SELECTED BRIDGE TYPE FRA and MDOT have seleced he girder approach / arch main span bridge ype for he Proposed Projec. The Projec Team based his selecion on an array of facors, including: environmenal resources consideraions; engineering and operaional facors; agency feedback; and public and mariner inpu. A various public oureach informaion sessions, he girder approach / arch main span bridge design received he mos suppor. The op facors of public preference, based on inpu received, are he overall look, cos minimizaion, and opening up views o he Susquehanna River. The bridge design ypes also were presened o various federal and sae agencies, and evaluaed for heir poenial o affec various environmenal resources including surface waer, submerged aquaic vegeaion, and hisoric resources. Overall, he girder approach / arch main span bridge design is more favorable han he oher bridge design ypes wih respec o environmenal resources. From an engineering and operaions perspecive, he girder approach / arch main span bridge design is superior in erms of ease of mainenance for approach spans, srucural redundancy for approach space, ease of consrucion, respasser resisance from waer and land, side-span navigaion clearance, and esimaed cos. For a deailed discussion of he bridge ype screening process, see Bridge Design Selecion Memo in Appendix A. 2-8

11 Chaper 2: Projec Alernaives C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Acion Alernaive assumes he Susquehanna River Rail Bridge would remain in service as-is, wih no inervenion besides minimal repairs and coninuaion of he curren mainenance regime. The No Acion Alernaive will no include any changes o he exising rack configuraion. Service over he bridge would worsen in he fuure under he No Acion Alernaive. The bridge would coninue o age, problems would occur more frequenly, and he bridge would remain as a boleneck. The No Acion Alernaive is used as a baseline scenario agains which poenial projec impacs are measured. The No Acion Alernaive includes major planned ransporaion projecs wihin he sudy area ha are expeced o be compleed by 2025, which is he Proposed Projec build year. Such projecs include he following: Amrak Sae of Good Repair and Service Improvemens: The No Acion Alernaive would include elemens of Amrak s Sae of Good Repair program, which involves invesmens along he NEC o mainain a sae of good repair, address deferred mainenance projecs, and replace infrasrucure ha has reached he end of is useful life. MARC Norheas Mainenance Faciliy: The MARC Norheas Mainenance Faciliy would enail consrucion of a new operaion, mainenance, and sorage faciliy locaed on a 115-acre sie in Perryville, adjacen o he NEC. The Federal Transi Adminisraion (FTA) issued a Finding of No Significan Impac (FONSI) o conclude he Naional Environmenal Policy Ac (NEPA) review bu MTA lacks funding for final design, righ of way acquisiion or consrucion. For he analysis of he Proposed Projec, i was assumed ha by he MARC Norheas Mainenance Faciliy would be consruced and operaional by 2040, he Proposed Projec long-erm analysis year. D. BUILD ALTERNATIVES Based on he deailed screening, he Projec Team reained Alernaive 9A and Alernaive 9B for deailed sudy. Boh would improve rail service and reliabiliy, improve operaional flexibiliy, accommodae reduced rip imes, opimize exising and planned infrasrucure, mainain adequae navigaion, and improve safey along he Susquehanna River. These Build Alernaives vary slighly by alignmen and by maximum achievable speed. The Build Alernaives would consruc wo new high-level fixed bridges. These Build Alernaives could accommodae a four-rack scenario or a hree-rack scenario wih an opion of a fuure fourh rack expansion. For purposes of a conservaive environmenal review, he EA analyzes he poenial environmenal impacs of a full four-rack river crossing. ALTERNATIVE 9A Alernaive 9A would consruc a new wo-rack 90 mph bridge 2 o he wes of he exising bridge and a second new wo-rack 160 mph bridge on he exising bridge alignmen (see Appendix B, Engineering Alignmens ). The bridge o he wes of he exising bridge would be consruced firs. Under normal operaions, his bridge would be used primarily by MARC commuer rail and NS freigh rail service. 2 Accommodaing speeds of up o 100 mph on his bridge is under consideraion as par of he ongoing design effor. 2-9

12 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Projec Once he new bridge o he wes is compleed, he exising bridge would be aken ou of service, demolished, and replaced. A new high-speed passenger rail bridge would be buil in he cener of he righ-of-way of he exising bridge alignmen. The Alernaive 9A design would lessen he curve in Havre de Grace, allow for 160 mph speeds, and require propery acquisiions (see Chaper 4, Land Use and Communiy Faciliies ). Since he wes bridge will be buil firs, freigh, MARC and Amrak operaions can be mainained hroughou consrucion of boh bridges. As shown in Appendix B, Engineering Alignmens he souh wye rack (connecing he NS Por Road o he NEC in Perryville) would be realigned o accommodae he revised configuraion of Perry Inerlocking. Alhough his alernaive is based on a four rack scenario, i could accommodae a hree-rack scenario wih an opion of a fuure fourh rack expansion. Alernaive 9A would modify Perry Elecrical Subsaion bu a subsanial reconfiguraion is no required. This alernaive would also demolish he remnans of he former Havre de Grace rain saion and require shifing of he Perry Inerlocking Tower. The Proposed Projec would exend he Havre de Grace abumen souh owards Freedom Lane. A summary of all affeced exising infrasrucure is provided in Table 2-4. Alernaive 9A has an esimaed 5-year consrucion period and an esimaed consrucion cos of $930 million (2015 dollars), based on he consrucion of he girder approach / arch main span bridge ype. PROFILE CHANGES For Alernaive 9A he rail bridge srucures would exend across he Susquehanna River and Union Avenue in Havre de Grace and Avenue A in Perryville. In Havre de Grace, he rack would be suppored on an embankmen wih a reaining wall. On he eas side, a reaining wall would exend from Union Avenue o a poin beween Juniaa Sree and Lewis Lane. On he wes side, he reaining wall would exend from Union Avenue o Juniaa Sree. Souh of he Havre de Grace Middle/High School ahleic fields o Oak Inerlocking, he rack would remain in is exising roadbed a grade, excep near Lewis Run o mainain an exising Amrak access road wes of he racks. In Perryville, he rack would be suppored by an embankmen wih a reaining wall, exending roughly from Avenue A o Mill Creek on he eas side and from Avenue A o he exising souh access road on he wes side. Norh of hese limis o Prince Inerlocking, he rack would remain in is exising roadbed a grade. The rack would also remain a grade along he souh wye rack. The proposed profile will raise he elevaion of he racks beween Perryville Saion and Adams Sree in Havre de Grace. The approximae limis of he raises in elevaion (i.e., he increase in rack heigh from exising elevaion o proposed) are as follows: Access Road Undergrade (UG) in Perryville - 1 foo Norh Abumen, Susquehanna River Rail Bridge in Perryville fee Navigaion Channel of he Susquehanna River - 14 fee Souh Abumen in Havre de Grace - 6 fee Sokes Sree in Havre de Grace - 3 fee Adams Sree in Havre de Grace - 2 fee Alernaive 9A provides a verical clearance of 60 fee above MHW a he channel span. Boh he eas and wes bridges would be approximaely 38 fee wide wih a op-of-rail elevaion of 72 fee above MHW. The op of he proposed arch srucure spanning he navigaion channel would be approximaely 152 fee above MHW. The op of he ransmission lines would be 190 fee above MHW. 2-10

13 Chaper 2: Projec Alernaives APPROACH STRUCTURES There are hree exising undergrade srucures (locaed below he railroad) locaed on he Perryville approach ha will require modificaion o accommodae he proposed rack alignmens. There are seven undergrade srucures and one overhead srucure beween he Susquehanna River and Grace Inerlocking in Havre de Grace ha will require modificaions o accommodae he proposed rack alignmens (including reconsrucion of he Lewis Lane Bridge). The improvemens o Grace Inerlocking require Track 4 o shif six fee wes, resuling in permanen disurbances exending 35 fee from he exising Track 4. This will require exending he culver a he Lily and Lewis Run crossings. The required modificaions o hese srucures are shown in Table 2-4. Alernaive 9A requires long secions of rack o be buil away from he exising corridor on fill. Reaining walls are recommended in order o minimize righ-of-way acquisiion. Table 2-4 Summary of Affeced Exising Infrasrucure Wes Side of Corridor Replace ballas deck bridge 59.52, over Access Road in Perryville Reaining wall in Perryville o suppor he wes-bridge racks New permanen higher-level UG Bridges in Havre de Grace for new wesern Tracks Freedom Lane - exend exising arch Sokes Sree - new span Cenennial Lane - exend exising arch Adams Sree - new span Juniaa Sree - new span Eas Side of Corridor Relocae C&S/hird-pary uiliy duc bank Exend exising masonry arch culver 59.01, Mill Creek UG Bridge in Perryville Relocae signal bungalow "59.0" in Perryville Exend ballas deck bridge 59.39, over Access Road in Perryville Relocae Perry Inerlocking signal equipmen Relocae or demolish Perry Tower in Perryville Replace ballas deck bridge 59.52, over Access Road in Perryville Consruc reaining wall and viaduc suppor srucures in Perryville Modify Perry Elecrical Subsaion in Perryville New permanen higher-level UG Bridges in Havre de Grace for new easern racks Freedom Lane - exend exising arch Sokes Sree - replace exising span Cenennial Lane - exend exising arch Adams Sree - new span Juniaa Sree - new span Sream (Lily Run) - exend exising culver Lewis Run (also referred o as Unnamed ribuary o Lily Run) exend culver Reconsruc Lewis Lane Bridge o accommodae rack shif (Alernaive 9A only) Source: HNTB. 2-11

14 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Projec ALTERNATIVE 9B The main difference beween Alernaive 9A and Alernaive 9B occurs in Havre de Grace along he eas side of he corridor from Lewis Lane o he Susquehanna River. Alernaive 9B lessens he curve in Havre de Grace and would limi he speed o a maximum of 150 mph. This lower speed, as compared o Alernaive 9A, reduces he amoun of propery acquisiions required, including a he T&D Enerprise parcels and he avoidance of he Havre de Grace Middle/High School ahleic fields (see Chaper 4, Land Use and Communiy Faciliies, Chaper 9, Draf Secion 4(f) Evaluaion, and Chaper 10, Secion 6(f) Evaluaion ). Reconsrucion of he Lewis Lane Bridge would no be required. Alernaive 9B has an esimaed 5-year consrucion period and an esimaed consrucion cos of $890 million (2015 dollars) based on he consrucion of he girder approach / arch main span bridge ype. Alernaive 9B is very similar o Alernaive 9A. Like Alernaive 9A, Alernaive 9B would resul in a new wo-rack 90 mph bridge wes of he exising bridge and a second new wo-rack bridge replacing he exising bridge. Alernaive 9B would also realign he souh wye rack and modify Perry Elecrical Subsaion, while mainaining freigh, MARC, and Amrak operaions hroughou consrucion. Alernaive 9B would resul in idenical profile changes o he rail bridge srucures as Alernaive 9A, including a verical clearance of 60 fee above MHW a he channel span. In addiion, all impacs o he approach srucures locaed in Perryville are he same for Alernaive 9A and Alernaive 9B. A summary of all affeced exising infrasrucure is provided in Table 2-4. ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS In addiion o he new bridges and heir approaches, he Proposed Projec would require modificaions o various railroad componens including communicaion sysems, signal sysems, racion power, caenary, and rail inerlockings. While his ype of work would be he same for eiher Alernaive 9A or Alernaive 9B, a brief descripion is provided below. RAIL SYSTEMS Communicaions Sysem Coninuiy of he Open Transpor Nework (OTN) sysem mus be mainained during all phases of consrucion. I is a communicaion sysem ha can connec he saions, he conrol ceners, rackside equipmen, signal boxes, and oher rail infrasrucure. New signal houses and block poins will be inerfaced via local fiber cable and conneced o he OTN for communicaions o Cenralized Elecrificaion and Traffic Conrol (CETC). Signal Sysem The signal sysem design will be based on he new rack configuraion. New Grace Inerlocking will be consruced o exend he lengh of he inerlocking souh. A new signal sysem will be insalled a Grace, Perry and Prince Inerlockings. New signal houses will be insalled a Grace Inerlocking beween Perry and Prince Inerlockings. Tracion Power Amrak s Perry Elecrical Subsaion is locaed adjacen o he exising righ-of-way. Alernaive 9A and Alernaive 9B would require minimal modificaions o Perry Elecrical Subsaion, wihin he exising subsaion fooprin. Reaining wall consrucion immediaely adjacen o he 2-12

15 Chaper 2: Projec Alernaives ransmission ower on he wes side of he racks is under consideraion o poenially avoid he relocaion of he ransmission ower. Overhead Conac Sysem Tracks 2 and 3 wihin he projec s limis will be upgraded o an auo-ensioned syle caenary. The proposed auo-ensioned caenary will be designed o suppor he new rack speeds in accordance wih Amrak and American Railway Engineering and Mainenance-of-Way Associaion (AREMA) sandards. New caenary srucures, wires and power secionalizaion configuraions will be proposed for Grace, Perry and Prince Inerlockings based on he rack opions and saging plans. IMPACTS TO INTERLOCKINGS Prince Inerlocking Prince Inerlocking is locaed a MP 57.3, norh of he exising bridge. The limis of Prince Inerlocking will no change wih Alernaive 9A or Alernaive 9B. Wihin Prince Inerlocking, an exising 45 mph rack swich will be removed and replaced wih an 80 mph rack swich. A second 45 mph rack swich will be removed from service. Perry Inerlocking Perry Inerlocking is locaed a MP 59.5, souh of Prince Inerlocking, bu norh of he exising bridge. Boh Alernaive 9A and Alernaive 9B require raising he grade of he racks a Perry Inerlocking. In addiion, hey require a reconfigured layou o suppor he bridge alignmens and operaional requiremens. The porion of Perry Inerlocking ha leads o he NS Por Road Branch will have he norh and souh rack swiches upgraded from 40 mph o 45 mph. Grace Inerlocking Grace Inerlocking is locaed a MP 61.5, souh of he exising bridge and souh of he curve in Havre de Grace. Modificaions o he curve in Havre de Grace are required o suppor speed improvemens. The spirals of he curve in Havre de Grace exend ino he exising urnous a Grace Inerlocking. Grace Inerlocking will be subsanially modified wih eiher Alernaive 9A or Alernaive 9B. The souhern limis will be exended and he hree exising 80 mph rack swiches will be removed and replaced wih seven 80 mph rack swiches. Changes o Grace Inerlocking will require exending he culver a he Lily and Lewis Run crossings. Oak Inerlocking Oak Inerlocking is currenly locaed a MP No changes o Oak Inerlocking are anicipaed wih eiher Alernaive 9A or Alernaive 9B. E. REQUIRED APPROVALS Boh Alernaive 9A and Alernaive 9B would poenially require a number of federal, sae, and local permis and approvals (see Table 2-5). In addiion o hese permis, he projec mus comply wih numerous laws, including hose regarding worker and public safey, use of parkland and hisoric resources, and endangered and proeced species. 2-13

16 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Projec Table 2-5 Lis of Poenial Federal, Sae, and Local Permis and Approvals Permis/Approval Responsible Agency Aciviy Secion 106 Secion 7 Consulaion Secion 4(f) Secion 6(f) Secion 404 Permi Secion 10 Permi Secion 9 Permi Hazards o Navigaion Assessmen Nonidal Welands and Waerways Permi, Waer Qualiy Cerificaion, Consrucion wihin a 100-year floodplain Waer Appropriaions Permi Tidal Weland License Maryland Reforesaion Law/Fores Conservaion Ac compliance Federal Railroad Adminisraion, Advisory Council on Hisoric Preservaion, Maryland Hisorical Trus Naional Marine Fisheries Service/US Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Deparmen of Inerior (USDOI) (poenially including concurrence from local eniies) USDOI Unied Saes Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) USACE Unied Saes Coas Guard (USCG) USCG Maryland Deparmen of he Environmen (MDE) MDE MDE/Board of Public Works Maryland Deparmen of Naural Resources (DNR) Consulaion pursuan o Naional Hisoric Preservaion Ac Impacs o federally-lised rare, hreaened, or endangered species Consulaion for Secion 4(f) Evaluaion Consulaion for Secion 6(f) Evaluaion for impacs o properies purchased or developed wih Land and Waer Conservaion Funding (LWCF) Discharge of dredged or fill maerial ino he waers of he U.S. Consrucion of srucures in navigable waers Consrucion/modificaion of a bridge over navigable waers Obsrucions in navigable waers Discharge of dredged or fill maerial ino waers of he U.S., welands, and 100-year floodplains Dewaering of surface and groundwaer during consrucion Filling of open waer and vegeaed welands and consrucion of piers and associaed srucures Impacs o foresed areas 2-14

17 Chaper 2: Projec Alernaives Table 2-5 (con d) Lis of Poenial Federal, Sae, and Local Permis and Approvals Permis/Approval Responsible Agency Aciviy Sae-Lised Rare, Threaened, and Endangered Species Sormwaer Managemen Approval Erosion & Sedimen Conrol Approval Maryland Criical Area Commission Approval Maryland Heriage Areas Auhoriy, Lower Susquehanna Heriage Greenway Noe: Oher permis may be required. DNR MDE MDE Criical Area Commission for he Chesapeake Bay Maryland Deparmen of Planning, Maryland Hisorical Trus (MHT) Impacs o rare, hreaened, or endangered species Inclusion of appropriae drainage srucures and/or Environmenal Sie Design (ESD) echniques o manage sormwaer runoff Applicable erosion and sedimen conrol pracices during consrucion Impacs wihin he Criical Areas resuling from earh disurbance, removal of vegeaion, placemen of fill, and impervious area Coordinaion on he proecion and enhancemen of naural resources and sies, srucures, disrics, or landscapes which are deemed o be of hisoric, archeological, or archiecural significance. F. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE In selecing he Preferred Alernaive, FRA and MDOT compared he wo Build Alernaives and he No Acion Alernaive for he abiliy of each alernaive o mee he projec s purpose and need and goals and objecives. Since he Build Alernaives were developed in consideraion of hese goals and objecives, here are few differences among he Build Alernaives; however, a key operaional consideraion is he Proposed Projec s abiliy o opimize exising and planned infrasrucure by providing for a maximum auhorized rain speed of 160 mph, while aking boh benefis and poenial impacs ino consideraion. As described above, Amrak developed he NEC Maser Plan wih planned speed increases up o a maximum auhorized speed of 160 mph for his locaion along he NEC. Amrak s NEC Maser Plan is consisen wih he congressional mandae placed on Amrak o reduce ravel imes along he NEC. In addiion, USDOT has developed a way o value ime ravel saving, based on minues saved per passenger by value of ravel ime savings per hour. As discussed above, Alernaive 9A would allow for a maximum speed of 160 mph, while Alernaive 9B would limi he speed o a maximum of 150 mph. Therefore, Alernaive 9A is consisen wih operaional goals and wih broader plans along he NEC. In addiion, Alernaive 9A would reduce ravel imes, which would in urn lead o associaed cos savings. Alhough Alernaive 9A would resul in a minimal increase in impacs (e.g., a commercial displacemen, Havre de Grace Middle/High School impac and floodplain, sreams, weland, fores, and Chesapeake Bay Criical Area impacs) as compared o Alernaive 9B, hese addiional impacs can be miigaed and poenially reduced during final design. Addiionally, one of he anicipaed 2-15

18 Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Projec benefis of a reliable high-speed passenger rail sysem would be a reducion in greenhouse gas emissions associaed wih vehicular ravel and roadway congesion. FRA has herefore seleced Alernaive 9A as he Preferred Alernaive. 2-16