Long Bridge - Present & Future: A Multimodal Analysis

Transcription

1 Long Bridge - Present & Future: A Multimodal Analysis Edward La Guardia P.E. American Public Transportation Association (APTA); American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of- Way Association (AREMA); American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Michael Baker International, Inc., 1818 Market Street, Suite 3110, Philadelphia, PA , Edward.LaGuardia@mbakerintl.com 3906 words ABSTRACT DDOT received an ARRA grant from the Federal Railroad Administration to analyze the bridge along with the rail infrastructure effecting rail traffic from both the VA and DC effected zones. In 2011, the FRA awarded the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) a grant to study the short-term and long-term needs of the Potomac River Long Bridge. The Long Bridge is a two-track railroad bridge that was constructed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is the only railroad bridge that connects the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia). The Long Bridge is owned and maintained by CSX Transportation (CSX). The bridge carries rail traffic from three operators: CSX, Amtrak, and Virginia Railway Express (VRE). Norfolk-Southern (NS) also has trackage and haulage rights on the CSX RF&P Subdivision between Alexandria, Virginia and Landover, Maryland, which includes the mainline tracks across the CSX Long Bridge. While the Long Bridge is not owned or maintained by DDOT, it is an important component of the District s multimodal transportation system. The Long Bridge provides an important rail connection across the Potomac River and is a key element of the Northeastern national rail system. The study included a preliminary evaluation and analysis of the structural integrity of the Long Bridge; identification of rail and non-rail alternatives, assessment of multimodal connectivity; opportunities for operational improvements; and long-term multimodal capacity improvements, including the future opportunity for high-speed and intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, freight rail, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and vehicular traffic. INTRODUCTION The Long Bridge is a two track multi-span railroad bridge crossing the Potomac River between Washington, DC and Arlington VA. The bridge has a significant history of construction, modification and rehabilitation. The current bridge was constructed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The bridge is the only railroad access connecting the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia). Because of this limited connection, all rail traffic from AMTRAK, Virginia Railway Express and CSX freight must use this bridge. In addition to the passenger traffic and CSX freight, the bridge carries additional freight traffic from Norfolk-Southern (NS) through a trackage and haulage rights agreement on the CSX RF&P Subdivision between Alexandria, Virginia and Landover, Maryland. The agreement includes the mainline tracks across the CSX Long Bridge. The structure has a history of varying ownership as follows: 1809: Opened 1814: Burned and restored to service in s: Freight drawn by horse 1863: Parallel structure built for locomotive use 1870: Federal government ceded control of Long Bridge to the Pennsylvania Railroad 1904: New structure built and after 1906 the 1863 structure was demolished 1918: Pennsylvania Railroad officially became the owner 1942: Current Upgrades and improvements as dictated by World War II 1962: Last Time Swing Span opened (struck by lightning in 1978) 1968: Combined ownership with merger of New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroad, which formally became Conrail in : CSX Transportation, Inc. acquired ownership 504 AREMA 2016

2 * National Park Service owns the landings and riverbed **Navigable channel maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard While the Long Bridge is not owned or maintained by DDOT, it remains an important resource within the District s multimodal transportation system. The research was aimed at identifying and evaluating the rail capacity and/or expansion needs and resources with regard to the river crossing and associated rail infrastructure. The tasks addressed transportation analysis of railroad and other modal alternatives. The study identified short-term structural remediation requirements for the bridge. It included the evaluation and preliminary analysis of the structural integrity of Long Bridge that included short- and longterm needs and recommendations for continuous uninterrupted use. A cursory inspection was performed with observations as follows: Bridge length 2,529 feet 22 through girder spans and a double span swing truss for a total of 24 spans Two tracks approximately 36-6 wide (narrows to ~28-8 at the swing trusses) The vertical clearance is limited to 21 at the swing trusses A visual inspection was performed and rated the structure. Estimated that a detailed inspection may find the superstructure would be rated Poor Table 1 provides the superstructure and substructure rating of the different sections of Long Bridge. The acceptable ratings for the substructure were also considered to be speculative, and depending on the piers and piles condition under water could be rated lower. TABLE 1- Structure and Rating The study evaluated long-term capacity opportunities for operational improvement including rail sidings and main line track reconfiguration and upgrades to improve operations. The options included the AREMA

3 evaluation of the related interlockings and the required train access through the region. The train moves and various plans for usage are detailed later in this document. The study developed alternatives that would include the addition of multimodal options and future needs including high-speed and intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, freight rail, transit, vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The evaluation included an extensive stakeholder and public involvement process to establish the purpose and need of improvements and proceed with the selection and evaluation of different rail and non-rail alternatives. STUDY NEED The first phase of the Long Bridge Study established the need to continue with evaluation of improvements and options for the bridge. Based on evaluation of the bridge and review of related data, several study needs were identified. Improve the overall structural condition of the bridge: The existing multi-span thru girder bridge was constructed and later rehabilitated with varying vintage bridge elements. The floor system was replaced during the Second World War to accommodate additional freight demands existing during the war effort. The current condition, the existence of the now fixed-span swing thru truss along with the rail traffic demands all indicate that remedial work, along with long-term performance and planning are needed for this structure. Increase the Long-term capacity: Passenger rail service and options continue to develop further into VA as VRE expands to respond to community development in the region. AMTRAK maintains traffic through the region requiring access to the bridge to provide regional and long haul service to multiple southern lines. AMTRAK access needs will continue to increase as their service increases. In addition, the anticipated development of high speed rail through the region was considered. These needs in addition to consistent increasing freight demands required evaluation of the existing two track structure and alternative options in order to meet growing capacity demands. Provide Operational improvements: Along with consideration of the two track bridge structure for capacity, there is a need for evaluation of the rail infrastructure and rail systems on both sides of the river crossing for the most effective infrastructure available to provide improved rail travel through the region. The areas that were addressed required consideration of higher throughput demand and increased local area development and the real need for passenger access in these areas. This need coupled with interlocking improvement considerations for better train moves for freight traffic were an essential part of the study. Consider Inter-modal connectivity: Included in the study was the need for evaluation of heavy rail travel along with other forms of mass transit and transportation uses. The inclusion of light rail, bus and personal vehicle access needed to be evaluated as part of DDOT s mission to consider all modes of transportation for a project of this magnitude. These considerations along with the bike / pedestrian requirements were to be considered. The modal elements were to include the associated linkage of these systems with routes to connections on either side of the bridge in order to be considered effective. The study included a thorough review of modal options including; various alternatives, their impacts to the surrounding affected locations and how the bridge would meet future transit demands. Address the needs of the infrastructure surrounding the bridge structure: Any current analysis along with future planning for the Long Bridge must consider and address the surrounding locations that are impacted by the bridge. This includes the the CSX interlocking and rail 506 AREMA 2016

4 yard in Virginia directly south of the bridge, and the land directly south of the bridge owned by the National Park Service. In addition, there is a need for passenger station access from more than one track at Crystal City Station island platform. The reconfiguration of rail routing improvements in DC including the interlocking changes to improve freight separation; and consideration of an island passenger station at the existing L Enfant side platform location. To address additional rail traffic, trackage and the inclusion of additional modes, the analysis included the following affected zones for consideration and focus: Virginia Waterfront, Potomac Park, L Enfant Plaza, the Southwest Waterfront, and the bridge structure itself. ALTERNATIVES The project conceptualized specific criteria based on the purpose and need to develop alternatives, systematically defining over 180 alternative options and then refining a list of alternatives for further analysis. The criteria were grouped into eight specific elements for alternatives development consideration. Table 2 lists the criteria and options under each criterion. TABLE 2 - Criteria for Defining and Advancing Alternatives 1. Track Configuration 2 existing rail tracks, rehabilitated Number of rail tracks needed to accommodate the existing and 2 existing + 1 new rail track future freight, commuter, and 2 existing + 2 new rail tracks passenger rail demand 2 existing + 2 new rail tracks + streetcar/transit 2. Modes Freight Passenger/Intercity/Commuter High Speed Rail (HSR) Streetcar Bus/Rapid Transit General-Purpose Bicycle/Pedestrian 3. Distance/Travel Market Local Regional Long Distance 4. Footprint Existing Footprint Expanded Footprint New Footprint Long-term multimodal travel needs in the region and the future operating requirements of freight, high-speed and intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, transit, vehicular traffic, and pedestrian/ bicycle use. Travel markets that would be served by local, regional, and long distance travel patterns. Long Bridge serves as a vital north-south connector on the Eastern Seaboard and freight and passenger trains on the current bridge move commodities and people long distances. Also considers the need for more regional and localized travel as well as expanded long distance service such as highspeed rail. Alignment will determine if a new bridge would utilize the existing footprint, expand from the existing bridge or create a new one. AREMA

5 5. Alignment Options southeast of existing bridge Options northwest of existing bridge 6. Span Types Bascule Swing Vertical lift Retractable Low level fixed High level fixed 7. Bridge Types Deck Arch Through Arch Suspension Truss Cable Stay Girder Extradosed/Cable-stayed Bi-level Bridge Tunnel 8. Aesthetics and Architecture Pier Treatments Deck Treatments Will the future Long Bridge use the existing alignment or determine a new one to connect to the railroad network? How does the bridge best serve the desired travel destination and intermodal connections? Will the bridge be fixed or open and what type of span could be utilized? What type of bridge could fit the context and environment? A tunnel is also included for analysis to see if it best serves future needs. What colors, textures, ornamentation, and lighting best suit this location? The alternatives considered for evaluation were presented to the stakeholders and reviewed for advancement. Based on stakeholder determination, the evaluators advanced eight alternatives for further consideration. The alternatives both advanced (A) and rejected (R) are listed below: 4 Alternatives - Rail Only Options Alternative 1 - No Build (A): Existing configuration with continued two track use. Alternative 2 Two Tracks Improved (A): Rehabilitation or reconstruction of the existing structure. Three Tracks (one new track) (R): Existing bridge with one single track bridge constructed adjacent to the existing structure. Alternative 3 - Four Tracks (two additional tracks) (A): Existing bridge remains in-place. Construct new two track structure adjacent to existing bridge. Possible to reuse existing bridge for two tracks or build four new tracks on new structure converting the existing bridge for others modal uses. 508 AREMA 2016

6 Three Track Tunnel (R): Construct a ROW that provides maximum slopes for connection to a three track rail-only tunnel to be built under the Potomac River. Alternative 4: Four Track Tunnel (A): Construct a ROW that provides maximum slopes for connection to two rail-only tunnels with two track each to be built concurrently or separately under the Potomac River. 4 Alternatives - Rail + Surface Transportation Alternative 5 - Four Tracks + Bike/Pedestrian (A): Construct four track structure including bike/pedestrian path at east end of Long Bridge Park to continue across the Potomac River to Maine Avenue with connection to S/W waterfront bike/pedestrian trail system. Alternative 6 - Four Tracks + Bike/Pedestrian + Two Streetcar Lanes (A): Construct four track structure with bike/pedestrian path and street car connections on Potomac Park to west bridge abutment in Virginia at Long Bridge Park and east bridge abutment at Maine Avenue where separation of street car and bike/ pedestrian trail occurs. Alternative 7 - Four Tracks + Bike/Pedestrian + Two Shared Streetcar/Auto Lanes (A): Construct four track system with bike/pedestrian path, auto and street car connection at center of Potomac Park to west bridge abutment at the east end of Long Bridge Park to continue across the Potomac to Maine Avenue where separation of auto, street car and bike / pedestrian trail occurs. Four Tracks + Bike/Pedestrian + Two Streetcar Lanes + Two Auto Lanes (R): Construct four track System with bike/pedestrian path, two dedicated auto lanes and two dedicated street car lanes. Auto Lanes connect to local roads near Maine Avenue in DC and local roads in Long Bridge Park in Virginia. Street car connection at center of Potomac Park to west bridge abutment at the east end of Long Bridge Park to continue across the Potomac to Maine Avenue. Alternative 8 - Four Tracks + Bike/Pedestrian + Two Shared Streetcar/Auto Lanes + Two Auto Lanes (A): Construct four track structure with bike/pedestrian path, four auto lanes of which two are shared street car auto lanes. Lanes connect to local roads near Maine Avenue in DC and local roads in Long Bridge Park in Virginia. No auto connections to Potomac Park but includes streetcar stops at the park. Bridge Options - Engineering, Operational Performance, Constructability and Costing The project included considerable conceptual engineering analysis including right of-way assessment, bridge load capacity analysis, an existing bridge conditions assessment and a bridge/tunnel concept report similar to a type, size and location report. A number of different bridge types were considered including arch bridge and cable-stayed bridges as illustrated in Figures 1-4. AREMA

7 FIGURE 1 - Deck Arch FIGURE 2 - Tied Arch FIGURE 3 - Through Arch FIGURE 4 - Extradosed Cable Stayed Operational analysis and projections of future operations were conducted for passenger and freight rail, streetcar, bus and vehicular travel. Baseline 2013 rail service is shown in Tables 3 and 4. Operational results for rail service baseline and future delay and on-time performance for different track configurations is provided in Table 5. Table 6 shows transit passengers across the Potomac River. 510 AREMA 2016

8 TABLE Baseline Passenger Trains by Carrier and Freight Trains by Commodity TABLE Rail Operations Summary (2, 3, 4-Track) Scenario Tracks Daily Freight Trains Daily Passenger Trains Daily Trains Typical Delay% Passenger Freight Passenger On-Time Performance Existing 2-Track % 30.7% 99.0% Track % 30.1% 99.0% 4-Track 0.9% 5.1% 99.0% 2-Track 3.4% 72.1% 97.0% Track % 45.3% 98.2% 4-Track 1.8% 6.4% 98.5% AREMA

9 TABLE Projected Daily Passengers for Transit Existing Bridge Short Term Repair Costs Cost estimates were prepared for different scenarios including the rehabilitation of the existing bridge or construction of a new bridge. Tables 6 and 7 provide an estimate of short-term repair costs to the existing bridge. Tables 8 and 9 detail the estimated construction costs for the eight selected alternatives for different bridge design types and incudes costs for the Alternative 4 tunnel option. TABLE 6 - Estimated Repair Costs 512 AREMA 2016

10 TABLE 7 - Costs and Constructability Short Term TABLE 8 - Costs and Constructability (Alternatives 2-4) AREMA

11 TABLE 9 - Costs and Constructability (Alternatives 5-8) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The environmental review identified potential environmental constraints within the human and natural environment in the study area. For the purposes of this review, a 500-foot wide corridor was established around each of the alternatives, including the No Build Alternative (Alternative 1). The corridors are 250 feet to either side of the centerline of the proposed alternative, providing a total corridor width of 500 feet. The environmental review and resource identification process provided: Identification of sensitive resources within the project area in light of current regulatory requirements; Identification of potential fatal flaws for any of the build alternatives; and, Identification of and possible future studies necessary to obtain environmental clearances in accordance with the NEPA requirements and related environmental regulations and executive orders. Areas identified in this environmental review are the same as those typically evaluated during the NEPA process. This environmental review is intended to highlight the environmental resources present in the study area and help plan a future environmental study to determine the most appropriate NEPA document. Twelve elements were discussed as part of the environmental review as shown in Table AREMA 2016

12 TABLE 10 - Environmental Elements Land Use Community Facilities and Services Environmental Justice Air Quality Noise and Vibration Hazardous Materials Section 106 Historic Resources Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources Aesthetics Water Resources Protected Species and Critical Habitat Federal Action and Permits Throughout the environmental review for the study, a number of potential environmental issues were identified. Potential and interrelated issues need to be considered for the approval of an environmental document for this project, as they would relate to Section 4(f), Section 106, and NEPA for an expanded or new bridge across the Potomac River. The NEPA process will build on the collaboration and cooperation established in this study with many federal, state, local, and resource agencies and involve their expertise and oversight of the environmental resources. All the other resources addressed as part of the environmental review for this study are typical of the NEPA process and will be assessed in detail in the NEPA process. All the resources addressed as part of the environmental review for this study are typical of the NEPA process. The NEPA process is detailed in nature and requires extensive analysis, but the requirements for this project are not seen as insurmountable obstacles that would stop a project to expand or replace the Long Bridge. CONCLUSION The conduct of this study and the associated analysis process identified a number of viable options to meet future freight and passenger rail needs for crossing the Potomac River. The study considered rail options as well as expanded alternative concepts that accommodated new streetcar, vehicular, and pedestrian/bicycle modes. Major results from the study were as follows: The Long Bridge is an important railroad crossing in the District. It carries local, regional, and national freight, passenger, and commuter traffic. The Long Bridge will continue to play an important role in the national railroad network due to the commuter, passenger, and freight rail needs and future high-speed rail. The current Long Bridge structure will require regular inspection and maintenance and likely a major rehabilitation to support the continued operation of passenger, commuter, and freight service. The existing bridge has a two-track system, which creates operational challenges, even for existing operations. The existing superstructure and substructure of the bridge cannot accommodate any further addition of tracks due to the limited width available for expansion and inability to support any additional loads. Future passenger, commuter, and freight service will require expansion if the crossing is to meet the future demands. The bridge should be able to accommodate double-stacked trains. The bridge should be able to accommodate electrified trains. The Long Bridge is part of the future high-speed rail network and provisions should be made to accommodate high-speed rail on the bridge. The Long Bridge area possesses high transportation demand for all surface transportation modes. The future Long Bridge could be built to accommodate modes such as transit, general purpose, and pedestrian/bicycle. The study developed a number of alternatives that can meet the future demand. If other non-rail modes are introduced, safety provisions will have to be made to accommodate those modes, which may require physical separation, physical barriers, and separate bridge spans. The land use on both sides of the Long Bridge is showing continued growth. Access to and from these sites and connectivity to these land uses should be considered in any future Long Bridge improvements or bridge design. AREMA

13 The Long Bridge is adjacent to the District s monumental core. Any future bridge improvements should complement the historic and monumental context of the District in design and architecture. The Long Bridge area includes several sensitive environmental resources such as national parks, historic landmarks and areas, and water bodies, which will require detailed analysis. A tunnel can be built to provide for future rail needs in addition to the existing bridge or as a replacement for the bridge. Any future extensive improvements to the bridge, such as bridge replacement or reconstruction, would require substantial funding. The future of the Long Bridge will require coordination among many stakeholders and users for continued success effiecitvely moving people and goods across the Potomac River. The Long Bridge is an important railroad crossing in the District of Columbia and the national railroad network. It carries local, regional, and national freight traffic, along with passenger and commuter traffic. It is the only Potomac River railroad crossing directly connecting Virginia to the District. Due to future highspeed rail, commuter, passenger, and freight traffic planned in this area, the Long Bridge will remain a very important piece of the national railroad network and remain critical to moving passengers and freight on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. FUTURE STEPS 2015 TIGER Grand Funding 2016 Pre-NEPA Determination of Service Plans 2017 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - environmental analysis Funding Sources Right of Decision (ROD) Future infrastructure ownership determination ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) completed this study for the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) through a FRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant (ARRA No. FR-HSR-00074). The study represents an important step in determining the future needs of the Long Bridge and the service it provides to freight and passenger service. The Long Bridge Study included input from a number of public meetings, workshops, and stakeholder meetings that provided valuable input that helped guide the study and the preparation of this final report with the help of Michael Baker International as our lead consultant. The study could not have been completed without the support of CSX, Virginia Railway Express and Amtrak for information sharing and coordination throughout the project; and the FRA for serving as the federal oversight agency for this study. FIGURE 1 - Deck Arch FIGURE 2 - Tied Arch FIGURE 3 - Through Arch FIGURE 4 - Extradosed Cable Stayed TABLE 1- Structure and Rating TABLE 2 - Criteria for Defining and Advancing Alternatives TABLE Baseline Passenger Trains by Carrier and Freight Trains by Commodity TABLE Rail Operations Summary (2, 3, 4-Track) TABLE Projected Daily Passengers for Transit TABLE 6 - Estimated Repair Costs TABLE 7 - Costs and Constructability Short Term TABLE 8 - Costs and Constructability (Alternatives 2-4) TABLE 9 - Costs and Constructability (Alternatives 5-8) TABLE 10 - Environmental Elements 516 AREMA 2016

14 LONG BRIDGE - PRESENT & FUTURE: A MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS Review of the Potomac River Crossing a Rail Resource for the Washington, DC Region and Beyond Presenter: Edward La Guardia P.E. Michael Baker International AREMA

15 INTRODUCTION Two track multi-span railroad bridge crossing the Potomac River between Washington, DC and Arlington VA. Significant history of construction, modification and rehabilitation. The current bridge was constructed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The only railroad access connecting the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia). All rail traffic from AMTRAK, Virginia Railway Express and CSX freight along with Norfolk-Southern (NS) through trackage rights utilize this bridge. HISTORY OF VARYING CONSTRUCTION AND OWNERSHIP 1809: Opened 1814: Burned and restored to service in s: Freight drawn by horse 1863: Parallel structure built for locomotive use 1870: Federal government ceded control of Long Bridge to the Pennsylvania Railroad 1904: New structure built and after 1906 the 1863 structure was demolished 1918: Pennsylvania Railroad officially became the owner 1942: Current Upgrades and improvements as dictated by World War II 1962: Last Time Swing Span opened (struck by lightning in 1978) 1968: Combined ownership with merger of New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroad, which formally became Conrail in : CSX Transportation, Inc. acquired ownership * National Park Service owns the landings and riverbed **Navigable channel maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard SHORT-TERM STRUCTURAL REMEDIATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BRIDGE Cursory inspection provided: Bridge length 2,529 feet 22 through girder spans and a double span swing truss for a total of 24 spans Two tracks approximately 36-6 wide (narrows to ~28-8 at the swing trusses) The vertical clearance is limited to 21 at the swing trusses Visual inspection performed w/ condition rating Estimated - detailed inspection would rate - Poor 518 AREMA 2016

16 SUPERSTRUCTURE & SUBSTRUCTURE RATING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF BRIDGE STUDY ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS Evaluation included extensive stakeholder/public involvement, purpose and need of improvements, selection/evaluation different rail and non-rail alternatives. additional multimodal options include high-speed and intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, freight rail, transit, vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. ALTERNATIVES DEFINING CRITERIA 1. Track Configuration 2 existing rail tracks, rehabilitated 2 existing + 1 new rail track 2 existing + 2 new rail tracks 2 existing + 2 new rail tracks + streetcar/transit 2. Modes Freight Passenger/Intercity/Commuter High Speed Rail (HSR) Streetcar Bus/Rapid Transit General-Purpose Bicycle/Pedestrian ALTERNATIVES DEFINING CRITERIA 3. Distance/Travel Market Local Regional Long Distance 4. Footprint Existing Footprint Expanded Footprint New Footprint 5. Alignment Options southeast of existing bridge Options northwest of existing bridge ALTERNATIVES DEFINING CRITERIA STUDY ALTERNATIVES 6. Span Types Bascule Swing Vertical lift Retractable Low level fixed High level fixed 7. Bridge Types Deck Arch Through Arch Suspension Truss Cable Stay Girder Bi-level Bridge Tunnel Extradosed/Cable-stayed 8. Aesthetics and Architecture Pier Treatments Deck Treatments AREMA

17 STUDY ALTERNATIVES - NOBUILD STUDY ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 8 ALT 8 (A) Streetcar Connection to Maryland Avenue SW ALT 8 (A) Streetcar Connection to Maine Avenue SW Streetcar connection to Long Bridge Park, Convention Center, and Columbia Pike streetcar line Bike/Ped pathway to Park General Purpose Street Tidal Basin/SW Waterfront Bike/Ped Mt. Vernon Trail Bike/Ped Ohio Drive Bike/Ped Deck Arch Through Arch Tied Arch Extradosed Cable-Stayed INCREASE THE LONG-TERM CAPACITY Rail service options are developing further into VA. VRE, AMTRAK, increasing freight demands and future High Speed Rail service. BASELINE 2013 PASSENGER & FREIGHT L'Enfant Plaza Station Crystal City Station 520 AREMA 2016

18 2040 PASSENGER & FREIGHT FORECAST AFFECTED ZONES Virginia Waterfront Potomac Park L Enfant Plaza Southwest Waterfront Long Bridge structure * Typical Delay and On-Time Performance under optimal conditions without any introduction of randomized incidents or delays PROVIDE OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS Along with the existing two track bridge structure capacity of rail infrastructure rail systems on both sides of river crossing Increased local area development requiring passenger rail access Interlocking improvement considerations for better freight movement through area BRIDGE AREAS NORTH BRIDGE AREAS NORTH Complexity of tracking construction to accommodate right-of way restrictions Improvements in DC interlocking changes island platform passenger station at the existing L Enfant Plaza KEY EXISTING BRIDGE PROPOSED BRIDGE EXISTING TWO-TRACKS PROPOSED TWO-TRACKS AREMA

19 BRIDGE AREAS SOUTH INTER-MODAL CONNECTIVITY CSX interlocking and sidings in Virginia south of the bridge Land directly south of bridge - National Park Service passenger station access at Crystal City Station Island Platform INTER-MODAL CONNECTIVITY EXISTING SUPERSTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE COSTS 522 AREMA 2016

20 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS The environmental review and resource identification process provided identification of the following: Sensitive resources per current regulatory requirements Review potential fatal flaws for any of the build alternatives Possible future studies needed to obtain environmental clearances per NEPA requirements & related environmental regulations and executive orders Areas identified are the same as the typical NEPA process CONCLUSIONS Study/Analysis options; Current & future freight, passenger rail, other modal needs Bridge - Major study results: Important resource for local, regional, and national passenger & freight traffic Existing Long Bridge requires inspection and maintenance, and future major rehabilitation to remain in service The existing bridge poses operational challenges. The structure width and condition limits any expansion CONCLUSIONS (continued) Future service considerations: accommodate double-stacked trains. accommodate electrified trains. provide service for future high-speed rail routes Multiple modes were studied to consider meeting the current and future high transportation demand generated throughout the study area. Potential non-rail modes will require safety provisions/physical separation/separate bridge spans. CONCLUSIONS (continued) Long Bridge is adjacent to the District s monumental core. Future designs should complement the District s historic and monumental context/architecture. The Long Bridge is located within several sensitive environmental resources. The national parks, historic landmarks/areas, and water bodies, requiring analysis. Any future extensive improvements, reconstruction, or replacement, including tunnels would require substantial funding. Discussion AREMA