DOCSLIB.ORG

Long Bridge Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Alternatives Development Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Long Bridge Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Alternatives Development Report Long Bridge Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Alternatives Development Report June 19, 2018 Long Bridge Project EIS Draft Alternatives Development Report Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. NEPA Requirements for Alternatives Development ..................................................................... 1 1.2. Purpose of this Report .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Concept Screening Process ........................................................................................................... 4 1.5. Organization of this Report .......................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Why is the Project needed? .......................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Will the Long Bridge consider bicycle and pedestrian access? .................................................... 8 3.0 Alternatives Development Process ................................................................................ 9 3.1. Pre-NEPA Alternatives Development (Phases I and II) ................................................................. 9 3.2. Scoping Process .......................................................................................................................... 10 3.3. Concept Screening Process ......................................................................................................... 14 4.0 Level 1 Concept Screening ........................................................................................... 19 4.1. Level 1 Concept Screening Criteria ............................................................................................. 19 4.2. Level 1 Concept Screening Analysis ............................................................................................ 22 4.3. Concepts Retained for Level 2 Screening ................................................................................... 34 4.4. Feedback from the Public and Agencies on the Level 1 Concept Screening ............................. 35 5.0 Level 2 Concept Screening ........................................................................................... 36 5.1. Level 2 Concept Screening Criteria ............................................................................................. 36 5.2. Level 2, Step 1 Concept Screening Analysis ................................................................................ 39 5.3. Level 2, Step 2 Concept Screening Analysis ................................................................................ 42 5.4. Feedback from the Public and Agencies on the Level 2 Concept Screening ............................. 54 6.0 Opportunities for a Bike-Pedestrian Crossing .............................................................. 57 Long Bridge Project EIS i Alternatives Development Report June 2018 i 7.0 Alternatives to Be Evaluated in the DEIS ..................................................................... 60 7.1. Action Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 60 7.2. No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................. 60 8.0 Conclusion and Next Steps .......................................................................................... 65 List of Figures Figure 1-1 | Long Bridge Corridor Map ......................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3-1 | Long Bridge Project Screening Process ................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-2 | Alternatives Development and the EIS Process ...................................................................... 18 Figure 5-1 | Alignment Options Evaluated in Level 2, Step 2 Concept Screening ...................................... 43 Figure 6-1 | Bike-Pedestrian Crossing Alignment Options ......................................................................... 58 Figure 7-1 | No Action Alternative Projects ................................................................................................ 61 List of Tables Table 3-1 | Summary of Pre-NEPA Public Outreach ................................................................................... 10 Table 3-2 | Preliminary Concepts Presented During Scoping ..................................................................... 13 Table 3-3 | Potential for Impacts Based on Location of New Tracks .......................................................... 16 Table 4-1 | Long Bridge Concepts for Screening ........................................................................................ 20 Table 4-2 | Level 1 Concept Screening Results ........................................................................................... 23 Table 5-1 | Results of Level 2 Concept Screening, Step 1 ........................................................................... 39 Table 5-2 | Results of Level 2 Concept Screening, Step 2 ........................................................................... 44 Table 7-1 | Train Volumes in the Long Bridge Corridor .............................................................................. 64 Appendix Conceptual Engineering Plans of Level 2 Concept Screening Alignment Options Long Bridge Project EIS ii Alternatives Development Report June 2018 ii 1.0 Introduction The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), jointly with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Long Bridge Project (Project).1 The Project consists of proposed improvements to Long Bridge and related railroad infrastructure located between the RO Interlocking near Long Bridge Park in Arlington, Virginia, and the L’Enfant (LE) Interlocking near 10th Street SW in the District (collectively, the Long Bridge Corridor, shown in Figure 1-1).2 This report describes the alternatives development process to identify alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIS (DEIS). 1.1. NEPA Requirements for Alternatives Development Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA require that Federal agencies “use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed action that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.”3 The regulations call for the EIS to “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.”4 Although the No Action Alternative was not formally evaluated in this report, analysis of a No Action Alternative is required pursuant to CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA.5 FRA and DDOT will utilize the No Action Alternative to serve as a baseline for comparing the impact evaluation to the alternatives studied in the DEIS. The No Action Alternative is described in Section 6.2. 1.2. Purpose of this Report This Alternatives Development Report documents the development of the Project concepts and the concept screening process that identified the Action Alternatives for evaluation in the DEIS. FRA and DDOT identified a broad and reasonable range of concepts, in addition to a No Action Alternative. They examined the results of a pre-NEPA two-phase feasibility study, considered input from the agency and public outreach process, and coordinated with railroad owners and operators (CSX Transportation [CSXT], Amtrak, and Virginia Railway Express [VRE]). FRA and DDOT screened these concepts in a two- level process using criteria and metrics based on the Project’s Purpose and Need statement, in addition to feasibility, to identify the Action Alternatives for evaluation in the DEIS. 1 42 USC 4321 2 Note that “RO” is the proper name of this interlocking. It is not an acronym. 3 40 CFR 1500.2 4 40 CFR 1502.14 5 40 CFR 1502.14 Long Bridge Project EIS 1 Alternatives Development Report June 2018 1 Figure 1-1 | Long Bridge Corridor Map Long Bridge Project EIS 2 Alternatives Development Report June 2018 2 1.3. Project Background The existing Long Bridge is a two-track railroad bridge, constructed in 1904, that is owned and operated by CSXT, a Class I freight railroad. The Long Bridge Corridor serves freight (CSXT), intercity passenger (Amtrak), and commuter rail (VRE). Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) service, which currently terminates at Washington Union Station (WUS) in the District, plans to expand across the Long Bridge to L’Enfant Plaza and Northern Virginia.6 Norfolk Southern (NS), also a Class I freight railroad, has trackage rights on the Long Bridge, but does not currently exercise those rights. Passenger, commuter, and freight railroad services play an important part in supporting the economic growth and vitality of the DC region. The Long Bridge
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Virginia Railway Express Strategic Plan 2004-2025
    VRE STRATEGIC PLAN Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................V Current State of the Railroad ..............................................................................................................v The Strategic Planning Process..........................................................................................................vi The VRE Ridership Market................................................................................................................vii Strategic Plan Scenarios and Recommendations .............................................................................viii Core Network Needs...........................................................................................................................ix Potential Network Expansion ..............................................................................................................x Phased Service Improvement and Capital Investment Plan ..............................................................xii Financial, Institutional and Organizational Issues ..........................................................................xiii VRE Moving Forward ......................................................................................................................xiv 1. CURRENT STATE OF THE RAILROAD..........................................................................................1 VRE SYSTEM OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • CSX Baltimore Division Timetable
    NORTHERN REGION BALTIMORE DIVISION TIMETABLE NO. 4 EFFECTIVE SATURDAY, JANUARY 1, 2005 AT 0001 HOURS CSX STANDARD TIME C. M. Sanborn Division Manager BALTIMORE DIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL INFORMATION SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DESCRIPTION PAGE INST DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 Instructions Relating to CSX Operating Table of Contents Rules Timetable Legend 2 Instructions Relating to Safety Rules Legend – Sample Subdivision 3 Instructions Relating to Company Policies Region and Division Officers And Procedures Emergency Telephone Numbers 4 Instructions Relating to Equipment Train Dispatchers Handling Rules 5 Instructions Relating to Air Brake and Train SUBDIVISIONS Handling Rules 6 Instructions Relating to Equipment NAME CODE DISP PAGE Restrictions Baltimore Terminal BZ AV 7 Miscellaneous Bergen BG NJ Capital WS AU Cumberland CU CM Cumberland Terminal C3 CM Hanover HV AV Harrisburg HR NI Herbert HB NI Keystone MH CM Landover L0 NI Lurgan LR AV Metropolitan ME AU Mon M4 AS Old Main Line OM AU P&W PW AS Philadelphia PA AV Pittsburgh PI AS.AT Popes Creek P0 NI RF&P RR CQ S&C SC CN Shenandoah SJ CN Trenton TN NI W&P WP AT CSX Transportation Effective January 1, 2005 Albany Division Timetable No. 5 © Copyright 2005 TIMETABLE LEGEND GENERAL F. AUTH FOR MOVE (AUTHORITY FOR MOVEMENT) Unless otherwise indicated on subdivision pages, the The authority for movement rules applicable to the track segment Train Dispatcher controls all Main Tracks, Sidings, of the subdivision. Interlockings, Controlled Points and Yard Limits. G. NOTES STATION LISTING AND DIAGRAM PAGES Where station page information may need to be further defined, a note will refer to “STATION PAGE NOTES” 1– HEADING listed at the end of the diagram.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington, DC to Richmond Third Track Feasibility Study HOUSE
    REPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Washington, DC to Richmond Third Track Feasibility Study TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA HOUSE DOCUMENT NO. 78 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND 2006 Third Track Feasibility Study December 2006 WASHINGTON, D.C. TO RICHMOND THIRD TRACK FEASIBILITY STUDY PREFACE This study was requested by the 2006 General Assembly session in HB 5012. In addition to an analysis of the feasibility of constructing a third track, this study responds to the General Assembly’s direction to expand the scope to: (i) Identify needed right-of-way parallel to existing tracks, including right-of-way owned by CSX or by other parties; (ii) Identify major environmental issues; (iii) Develop an implementation plan based on the most optimal options, including the schedules for each phase of the project as well as financing for the project; (iv) Review legal and regulatory issues; and (v) Estimate the cost of powering passenger trains by electricity for a Third Track from Washington, D.C. to Richmond. The Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) is charged with ensuring that the Commonwealth of Virginia achieves the highest public benefit for the dollars invested in our rail programs. There is no doubt that this is a high priority freight and passenger rail corridor that will require significant investment in order to maintain and improve mobility for people and goods. DRPT is taking a strategic approach in studying this high priority corridor. Our new approach is based on establishing public benefits, identifying public/private partnership opportunities, and providing realistic cost estimates based on a comprehensive plan that identifies all of the improvements and issues that need to be addressed in the provision of reliable, sustainable, expandable, and efficient freight and passenger rail operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Control Point Virginia Tower
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION New Designation __X___ Amendment of a previous designation _____ Please summarize any amendment(s) _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Property name _Control Point (CP) Virginia Tower_______________________________________ If any part of the interior is being nominated, it must be specifically identified and described in the narrative statements. Address __Southeast Corner of 2nd Street SW and Virginia Avenue SW, Washington, DC_________ Square and lot number(s) __0582 0856_________________________________________________ Affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission ______ANC 6D_____________________________ Date of construction __1904-1906____ Date of major alteration(s) __1930s___________________ Architect(s) __Unknown______________ Architectural style(s) ____________________________ Original use _Railroad Interlocking Control Tower_ Present use ___Railroad Infrastructure Property owner _CSX Transportation, Inc._____________________________________________ Legal address of property owner _500 Water Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ________________ NAME OF APPLICANT(S) _CSX Transportation, Inc.____________________________________ If the applicant is an organization, it must submit evidence that among its purposes is the promotion of historic preservation in the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee of 100 Comments on DEIS 09-28-2020
    September 28, 2020 Mr. David Valenstein Office of Railroad Policy and Development USDOT Federal Railroad Administration (MS-20 RPD-10) 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Founded 1923 Dear Mr. Valenstein, Chair Kirby Vining We are pleased to provide the following comments on the Washington Vice-Chair Union Station DEIS. Alma Gates We thank you for the opportunity to comment and look forward to Secretary working with you throughout this process. Please contact Monte Edwards at Erik Hein [email protected] or Erik Hein at [email protected] if you Treasurer have specific questions or other concerns. George R. Clark Sincerely, Trustees Charlie Bien Larry Hargrove Naima Jefferson Aidan Jones Nancy MacWood Kirby Vining, Chair Meg Maguire Committee of 100 on the Federal City David Marlin Sheldon Repp Cc: Phil Mendelson Andrea Rosen Mary Cheh Marilyn Simon Charles Allen Jim Smailes Marcel Acosta Pat Tiller Andrew Trueblood James Wilcox Jeff Marootian Evelyn Wrin Anna Chamberlin Stephen Hansen, Emeritus David Maloney Andrew Lewis Rebecca Miller 945 G Street, N.W. Betsy Merritt Washington, D.C. 20001 Drury Tallent 202.681.0225 www.committeeof100.net [email protected] A beautiful and livable Washington, DC for all. Comments Concerning the Union Station Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Released June 12, 2020) September 28, 2020 The Union Station Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) proposes an expansion plan that will cost between 5.8 and 7.5 billion dollars1 and require 11 to 14 years to build2. The plan focuses on bus and automobile parking, station concourses, platforms and retail. But the plan does not adequately address Union Station’s role as a train station.
    [Show full text]
  • DC State Rail Plan Website
    STATE RAIL PLAN: FINAL REPORT 2017 State Rail Plan Table of Contents Contents Chapter 1 The Role of Rail in District Transportation ............................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Federal Authority For States ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Institutional Governance Structure of The District’s Rail Programs .......................................... 1-2 1.4 Multimodal Transportation System Goals .................................................................................. 1-3 1.5 Rail Transportation’s Role within The District’s Transportation System ................................... 1-5 1.5.1 Role of Freight Rail ................................................................................................................ 1-5 1.5.2 Role of Commuter Rail .......................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5.3 Role of Intercity Rail ............................................................................................................... 1-6 Chapter 2 Approach to Public and Agency Participation ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Stakeholder Roundtables ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Howard Street Tunnel Finding of No Significant Impact
    Federal Railroad Administration Howard Street Tunnel Project FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT June 2021 Prepared Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c) By the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration and Maryland Department of Transportation Maryland Port Administration Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1 2. Study Area .................................................................................................................................2 2.1. Maryland ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Delaware ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3. Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................. 4 3. Purpose and Need Statement .....................................................................................................5 3.1. Purpose of the Project .................................................................................................................. 6 3.2. Need for the Project...................................................................................................................... 6 4. Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Potential Improvements to the Washington-Richmond Railroad
    Report to Congress VOLUME I Potential Improvements to the Washington⎯Richmond Railroad Corridor National Railroad Passenger Corporation May 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS . TC-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ES-1 . CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER 2: THE CORRIDOR TODAY . 5 CHAPTER 3: SERVICE GOALS . 24 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGIES . 29 CHAPTER 5: INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS . 37 . CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION . 56 List of Tables TABLE 1: Existing Railroad Services on the Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-5 TABLE 2: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2015 on the Washington-Richmond ES-10 Corridor . TABLE 3: Description of Project Groups . ES-14 TABLE 4: Preliminary Listing of Projects for the Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-15 TABLE 5: Potential Improvements by Category . ES-16 TABLE 2-1: Track Ownership and Operating Control . 7 TABLE 2-2: Station Ownership and Use . 11 TABLE 2-3: Existing Railroad Services on the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 13 TABLE 2-4: Amtrak Train Service in the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 14 TABLE 3-1: Railroad Services Envisioned for 2015 on the Washington-Richmond 24 Corridor . TABLE 3-2: Projected Train Movements by Direction Between Washington and 25 Alexandria Between 3:30PM and 7:30PM, Year 2015 . .. TABLE 5-1: Preliminary Listing of Projects for the Washington-Richmond Corridor . 54 TABLE 5-2: Description of Project Groups . 55 TABLE 5-3: Potential Improvements by Category . 56 List of Figures FIGURE 1: Washington-Richmond Corridor . ES-3 FIGURE 2: Southeast Corridor . ES-3 FIGURE 3: Demand for Intercity Corridor Train Services, Washington-Richmond ES-11 FIGURE 4: Selected Rail Lines in Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shipping Container and the Globalization of American Infrastructure by Matthew W. Heins
    The Shipping Container and the Globalization of American Infrastructure by Matthew W. Heins A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Architecture) in the University of Michigan 2013 Doctoral Committee: Professor Robert L. Fishman, Chair Associate Professor Scott D. Campbell Professor Paul N. Edwards Associate Professor Claire A. Zimmerman © Matthew W. Heins 2013 Acknowledgments I wish to express my sincere and heartfelt thanks to my advisor, professor Robert Fishman, who has provided such valuable guidance and advice to me over the years. Ever since I arrived at the University of Michigan, Robert has been of tremendous assistance, and he has played a vital role in my evolution as a student and scholar. My deepest gratitude also goes out to the other members of my dissertation committee, professors Claire Zimmerman, Scott Campbell and Paul Edwards, who have all given invaluable help to me in countless ways. In addition I would like to thank professor Martin Murray, who has been very supportive and whose comments and ideas have been enriching. Other faculty members here at the University of Michigan who have helped or befriended me in one way or another, and to whom I owe thanks, include Kit McCullough, Matthew Lassiter, Carol Jacobsen, Melissa Harris, María Arquero de Alarcón, June Manning Thomas, Malcolm McCullough, Jean Wineman, Geoffrey Thün, Roy Strickland, Amy Kulper, Lucas Kirkpatrick and Gavin Shatkin. My fellow doctoral students in architecture and urban planning at Taubman College have helped me immensely over the years, as I have benefited greatly from their companionship and intellectual presence.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Bridge Project Summary
    I-95 Corridor Improvement Plan Long Bridge Project Summary Long Bridge Long BridgeNew Virginia-owned Long Bridge across the Potomac River will Long Long Bridgehave dedicated passenger rail tracks To Virginia Avenue Tunnel Bridge To Union PreliminaryTransforming Rail Estimate: in Virginia Program $1.6 willB illion*facilitate an increase of Station To Virginia Avenue Tunnel Corridor To Union ThePreliminarythe new current Long bridge Bridge Estimate:from will twoincrease tracks capacity:$1.6 to four Billion* Station Washington, DC The• Over new 18,000 Long Bridgenew freight will increase and passenger capacity: train TWO TRACKS ON crossings NEW POTOMAC LongWashington, Bridge DC • Over 18,000 new freight and passenger train RIVERTWO TRACKS BRIDGE ON Potomac River • 1 million trucks taken off the roads NEW POTOMAC Long Bridge crossings RIVER BRIDGE Potomac River • 5• million1 million cars trucks taken taken off theoff roadsthe roads Virginia 6 MILES OF NEW FOURTH • Safety• 5 million improved cars taken by reducing off the crashesroads Virginia MAIN6 TRACKMILES OF NEW FOURTH • Safety improved by reducing crashes MAIN TRACK AF Train Current # of 2040 # of Percent Alexandria Operator Trains per Day Trains per Day Increase AF Train Current # of 2040 # of Percent Alexandria VREOperator Trains34 per Day Trains92 per Day 171%Increase Franconia MARCVRE 0 34 8 92 --171% To Manassas AMTRAKMARC 24 0 44 8 83%-- LortonFranconia To Manassas 8 MILES OF NEW CSXTAMTRAK 18 24 42 44 133%83% Lorton Auto THIRD MAIN TRACK Train 8 MILES OF NEW Norfolk SouthernCSXT 0 18 6 42 --133% Occoquan Auto THIRD MAIN TRACK Occoquan River Train Norfolk SouthernTotal 76 0 192 6 -- Occoquan Occoquan River Source: DDOT, LongTotal Bridge Draft EIS 76 192 Long Bridge Today Source: DDOT, Long Bridge Draft EIS �Long Two Bridgetracks operateToday at 98% capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Bridge Study
    District Department of Transportation LONG BRIDGE STUDY January 2015 Cover photo credits: Zefiro 280 High Speed Rail Train courtesy of Bombadier. LONG BRIDGE STUDY FINAL REPORT Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & ACRONYMS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Introduction 1 History 3 Bridge Structure 3 Purpose and Need 4 Bridge Condition and Current Operations 5 Alternatives 6 Railroad Alternatives 10 Alternative 1: No Build 10 Alternative 2: Two-Track Bridge 10 Alternative 3: Four-Track Bridge 11 Alternative 4: Four-Track Tunnel 11 Railroad and Other Modal Alternatives 11 Alternative 5: Four-Track Bridge and Pedestrian/Bicycle 11 Alternative 6: Four-Track Bridge with Pedestrian/Bicycle and Streetcar 12 Alternative 7: Four-Track Bridge with Pedestrian/Bicycle and Shared Streetcar/ General-Purpose Lanes 12 Alternative 8: Four-Track Bridge with Pedestrian/Bicycle, Shared Streetcar/General- Purpose Lanes and Additional General-Purpose Lanes 13 Transportation Analysis 14 Freight and Passenger Rail 14 Freight and Passenger Outlook 16 Analysis of Pedestrians and Bicycles 16 Analysis of Transit and Vehicular Modes 17 Engineering, Constructability and Costing 18 4-Track Concepts - Alternatives 2-4 20 Environmental Review and Resource Identification 21 4-Track Concepts - Alternatives 5-8 21 Findings 22 Project Coordination 24 Acknowledgements 25 CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW 1 Background 1 The Long Bridge 1 Study Area 2 Freight, Passenger, and Commuter Rail 4 Long Bridge History 5 Relationship to Other Studies 7 Southeast High-Speed Rail Market and Demand Study, August
    [Show full text]
  • Levees Schools
    transit waste water bridges roads solid waste rail energy par k s drinking water levees schools i n f r astr ucture r e por t c ard. o r g /dc beliefbeyond Courtesy: Flickr / BRIDGES B- What You Should Know about D.C.’s Bridges The District of Columbia has 265 bridge structures; 226 of the bridges are owned by the D.C. Department of Transportation (DDOT) and the remaining 39 are owned by the National Park Service (NPS). The average age of a bridge in D.C. is 58 years, and 80% of the bridges will need to be replaced or rehabilitated in the next 10 years. However, the District made significant strides to reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges from 8% to 3% in just three years. Despite this progress, more than 220,000 trips are taken over a structurally deficient bridge every day and a quarter of bridges have at least one major component in fair condition. Three of the eight structurally deficient bridges, including heavily travelled Arlington Memorial Bridge, are owned by NPS, which lacks a funding mechanism for large rehabilitations. Condition, Operations and Management Of the 265 bridge structures in D.C., 226 are owned by DDOT and 39 are owned by National Park Service (NPS). D.C.’s bridges have an average age of 58 years and with an average life span of bridge structures at 50 years, meaning more than 80% of D.C. bridges will need to be replaced or rehabilitated within the next 10 years. DDOT has been successful in steadily reducing the number of structurally deficient bridges, which are bridges that require significant maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement.
    [Show full text]