Trail crossing not part of the Susquehanna Bridge project (yet)

The Susquehanna River Bridge was recently given a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

The federally-funded engineering and environmental study, released May 31, identifies Selected Alternative 9A for the new alignment; replacing the existing two-track single bridge with two bridges with two tracks each, structures capable of supporting more passenger rail service along the East Coast. The current 112-year-old bridge spans the Susquehanna River between the Town of Perryville, in Cecil County, MD, and the City of Havre de Grace, in Harford County, MD. The bridge is owned by Amtrak and used by Amtrak intercity trains, MARC commuter trains and Norfolk Southern Railway freight trains.

This is great for rail traffic on the East Coast, but so far it remains to be seen if this will help cyclists. Since planning began the East Coast Greenway and bicycle activists have been pushing for the bridge to include a bicycle and pedestrian path. While that hasn't happened, the Hatem Bridge was opened to bike traffic on weekends and holidays.

On February 10, 2016, Maryland Secretary of Transportation Pete Rahn announced that the Thomas J. Hatem Memorial Bridge – one of the four connecting Perryville and Havre de Grace – will open to bicycles beginning July 1, 2016.

This is good, but it's not as good as a trail crossing - open at all times - would be. The project planners "received substantial public input requesting inclusion of a bicycle and pedestrian river crossing into the Proposed Project." And so, while it's not included in this yet, there is hope still.

While bicycle and pedestrian facilities were not expressly addressed in the scope of the project grant, as part of the public involvement process, FRA, MDOT, and Amtrak are working with government agencies and interested organizations to assess the feasibility of coordinating the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project with potential bicycle and pedestrian access across the river.

Furthermore, to respond to the input received regarding a multi-use path, MDOT and Amtrak are conducting a feasibility evaluation. The evaluation entails: reviewing prior studies of Susquehanna River bicycle/pedestrian crossings; ensuring that the Proposed Project does not adversely affect the existing bicycle and pedestrian trails within the Proposed Project’s study area; making efforts not to preclude the potential for a future multi-use path across the Susquehanna River; and assessing the feasibility of constructing a multi-use path in conjunction with a new rail bridge.

The Project Team is considering a multitude of factors, including visual impacts, safety and security, constructability, effects to rail alignments, cost, noise and vibration, in-water impacts, functionality, and community impacts. The Project Team will continue to evaluate the feasibility of accommodating a multi-use path within the project limits in coordination with the high-speed rail project. The Project Team is conducting a Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing Hazard Analysis and Security Risk Assessment. If deemed feasible, a separate project would be required for design, environmental review, and identification of potential funding for a bicycle/pedestrian crossing

I can't find any information on that feasibility study, only the similar one done in 2002 which includes the option of a gondola (deemed too expensive). That study answered my question of why not use the existing piers? A: the Coast Guard won't allow it (without raising it up to 90 feet above the waterline), but it didn't consider using the Amtrak Bridge. That study recommended using boat or car ferries to get people across. 

Comments

[drumz]

There are a bunch of bridges around the area (particular on 66 inside the beltway) where the bridge is 4 lanes while the rest of the road is two lanes. Clearly they built all of these bridges with the expectation that the roads themselves would be widened even though its been decades now and some of those bridges have even been rebuilt.

All of which to say, strange how that's automatic but adding an extra 10 feet onto a bridge that can accomodate pedestrians and cyclists (which basically weigh nothing) can't be done.

[washcycle]

On the flipside, there are quite a few bridges with sidewalks that don't connect to anything - TR Bridge downstream and East Capitol Downstream come to mind.

[drumz]

That's not great. But when I think about an old commute that had cross a different highway* on a bridge without any sidewalk I think if I had to pick I'd pick the well done bridge with crappy approaches than the opposite.

*that was also tough because of all the on-ramps and people who just could not wait to merge onto a highway that was bumper to bumper anyway.