Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project

https://nec.amtrak.com/project/fourth-project/

The bridge’s movable span is a Bascule design in which one end is raised up to allow boats to pass. By law, the bridge must remain open from May through September for recreational boats to pass and closes only when trains approach. A century of operation in a marine environment, coupled with age of the structure has taken its toll and speeds are restricted to 45 mph. Many key elements of the bridge have reached the end of their design life and require extensive maintenance to remain in operable condition. The frequent opening and closing of the bridge – over 3,000 times per year – puts high demands on its aging components, increasing maintenance costs for Amtrak and reducing reliability for both railway and marine traffic.

Amtrak currently plans to replace the Connecticut River Bridge. An Environmental Assessment (EA) and Preliminary Design has been completed, awaiting Federal Railroad Administration approval. The new design and configuration of a replacement bridge would aim to improve reliability and offer higher speeds for Amtrak and Shore Line East trains. Amtrak will progress Final Design over the next two years, however, there are no identified funding sources for construction.

https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/c ... nt-project

https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/conn ... assessment

FONSI:

Environmental Assessment
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) completed the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed replacement of the Connecticut River Bridge. The EA evaluates the potential effects on environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic resources that could occur as a result of the project. The EA is prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et. seq.; its implementing regulation, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508; and the FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 1999). The EA is also prepared in accordance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (DOT Act), as set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f); and with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as revised in 36 CFR Part 800 (August 5, 2004).

The Connecticut River Bridge is located between the Town of Old Saybrook in Middlesex County and the Town of Old Lyme in New London County, Connecticut, along Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (MP 106.89). It spans the Connecticut River approximately 3.4 miles from its mouth at Long Island Sound and is one of several moveable rail bridges along the Northeast Corridor. The existing Connecticut River Bridge is nearing the end of its useful life. In addition, the operational reliability of the aging bridge results in cascading delays to rail and maritime traffic due to its failure to open and close properly. The purpose of the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project is to improve the aging bridge, enhance its reliability and long-term serviceability, and ensure continued passenger and freight rail operations along the Northeast Corridor and navigation along the Connecticut River.

Amtrak considered a No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives. Amtrak evaluated 21 build alternatives, including minor repairs, rehabilitation of the existing bridge, partial replacement, and complete replacement. Amtrak evaluated these alternatives and identified a Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative proposes a complete replacement of the existing superstructure with a two-track moveable bridge. Amtrak identified two feasible options for the Preferred Alternative. One option (Option A) will replace the existing bridge with a bascule bridge and will maintain the existing 150-foot channel width. The other option (Option B) will replace the existing bridge with a vertical lift bridge and provide a minimum channel width of 150 feet and a maximum of 200 feet.

Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment Appendices
The EA was available for public review and comment through June 30, 2014 at the Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library (2 Library Lane, Old Lyme, CT) and the Acton Library (60 Old Boston Post Road, Old Saybrook, CT).

Based on the analysis in the Environmental Assessment, the FRA has prepared and finalized a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). With the release of the FONSI, the NEPA review for this project is complete. Additionally, FRA has satisfied its compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA with the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with Amtrak and the Connecticut Historic Preservation Office.

For more information on the project or the EA, please contact:

Amishi Castelli, Ph.D.
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Program Delivery
One Bowling Green, Suite 429
New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Last updated: Friday, November 15, 2019

Mr. Smith, I can remember as a "very young Fairfield Navy Cadet" seeing the '48 varietal Baldwin Bridge being built. That replaced a draw bridge over the River.

Now that Amtrak is readying plans to replace the "movable" New Haven RR bridge, why can't they consider a fixed bridge with the 81' MHW clearance afforded by the present day Baldwin?

Now if Amtrak and its benefactors wanted to "get like Austria", they'd relocate the line along College St in Old Saybrook and tunnel under the River's mouth and nature preserve along CT 156 to Old Lyme. Wouldn't the NIMBYS love that!

It's probably a question of money and topography, but I would come down on the side of a three-track, fixed bridge high enough to clear boat traffic.

I haven't read the detailed study, but that would probably call for a much longer approach. Not sure why you'd need the third track.

There is a lot of marsh land in the area surrounding the bridge which would make permitting a nightmare if they want to make substantive changes.

I would think with an electrified line and very little freight, they could built a higher bridge with a steep approach(2 or 3%). That would shorten the length of the approach and hopefully eliminated the need for a lift bridge. The long term cost saving would be enormous.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 2:42 pm I haven't read the detailed study, but that would probably call for a much longer approach. Not sure why you'd need the third track.

More trains in the future than recently? Certainly more flexibility in running higher speed rail.

exvalley wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 3:06 pm There is a lot of marsh land in the area surrounding the bridge which would make permitting a nightmare if they want to make substantive changes.

They were proposing an entirely new alignment when they were discussing the bypass. Even a tunnel was mentioned at one point.

It's time that the Connecticut River Bridge on the NEC gets replaced. Any ideas of what the estimated speed limit will be on the new bridge?

Faster than it was before?

dgvrengineer wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 6:28 pm I would think with an electrified line and very little freight, they could built a higher bridge with a steep approach(2 or 3%). That would shorten the length of the approach and hopefully eliminated the need for a lift bridge. The long term cost saving would be enormous.

Yeah, that isn't going to happen. The town of Old Lyme on the east shore would flip out. Several historical homes in the area whose owners probably have the $$$ to sway the opinions of local leaders. Plus a higher bridge would look so awkward in the area. Not to mention all the marshes, wetlands, etc in the area.

What is interesting is that the existing piers were built to support a second 2-track bridge. Of course that never happened, but I wonder if you could build on the unused portion of the piers today and maintain existing service with limited track outages.

One of the problems with our civilization as presently configured is that our decision makers do way too much pre-compromise with NIMBYism

Amtrak is a federal agency, strictly speaking they don't need to prioritize the aesthetic preferences of a handful of Old Lyme homeowners, rather than a village council. Amtrak is responsible to a legislature including representatives from Connecticut, but their senate delegation represent three and a half million people who can benefit from faster and more reliable train service, and even the smaller portion of them that are directly beneficial tend to be somewhat well healed in that state. Even the congressman for the area is going to represent more than half a million, mostly not adjacent homeowners who can get where they're going faster.

Well a simple graceful arching bridge would be a hell of a lot more aesthetically pleasing than the present structure don't you think?

Oh I 100% agree. I'm just thinking realistically. With a sweeping curve on both sides of the river, I don't know what time savings you'd get by going to a high level span.

Connecticut boaters also put the whole electrification extension project in jeopardy in the mid 90s when they feared there would be so many trains that the bridges would remain closed and they wouldn't be able to get out of their harbors/rivers/marinas. So like it or not, they do have some "pull".

If a high level concept was feasible or in Amtrak's best interest, I would have thought they would have done something over the Thames and gotten rid of the grade crossings at the time. But again, curves and a station stop = less than high speed regardless of the ROW.

dgvrengineer wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 6:28 pm I would think with an electrified line and very little freight, they could built a higher bridge with a steep approach(2 or 3%). That would shorten the length of the approach and hopefully eliminated the need for a lift bridge. The long term cost saving would be enormous.

Or raise it some that most boats would not need it raised but not so much that it raises the cost substantially. If they could reduce the impact on boating traffic and get the coast guard off of there back