Dual use of Railroad Bridges - Pedestrian/Bike co-use

[Anonymous]

We are looking at a creating a dual use of an existing single track railroad bridge. We want to add a pedestrian/bike section to use the existing bridge support structure and, most likely, cantilever this new section to the side. I am looking for any similar dual use conversions that may have been done. I am interested in technical details as well as dealing with the railroad and other legal issues. It would be a government entitiy that would build and maintain the pedestrian/bike way.

David Rudawitz
Lake Oswego, Oregon

[dehusman]

No railroad in their right mind would agree to it.
Liability
Liability
Liability

Dave H.

[Modelcar]

....That's the first thing I thought of reading your post of the dual use R R bridge....Liability...! We have a converted CSX single track bridge here in Muncie for our Cardinal Greenway Bike and walking Trail...but the complete R R ROW has been converted to the Trail route. The bridge conversion is great and does great serving that use now. Nothing should break it down.

[mudchicken]

David:

It would be prudent (and in the end run, cheaper) to consider relocating your pedestrian/ bicycle bridge totally off the railroad.

(1) You would not be able to afford the insurance required to cover such a thing. Most personal and corporate insurance quits the minute you enter railroad property. Railroad Protective Liability coverage is EXTREMELY expensive and hard to obtain. Government agencies (local type) are usually given a cold shoulder in this regard. (see news items about certain Louisiana Parishes threatened with loss of insurance for grade crossings after a rash of stupid motorist stunts....The perceived risk is just too great to insure against.)

(2) AREMA (American Railway Engineering & Maintenance Association - The folks who would be the source of "technical details") just put out an edict that any recreational or pedestrian trails near railroads be simply PROHIBITED. I sat through several discussions on what would be needed to protect peds and pedallers on railroad property against normal railroad operations and risks, It would be simpler to build Sherman Tanks around each individual wandering out on the R/W. Attaching a structure to a single track railroad bridge for pedestrian use would require a bridge larger than the existing structure by the time you "protected" the ped or bike.

(3) Dave H is quite correct in his statement.

(4) There is too large a collection of statistics on tresspassing pedestrians or bicyclists struck by trains in this country. The frightening part is that the numbers are RISING. Railroads and the FRA/DOT are doing everything they can to separate trains from pedestrians et. al. ---plus trying to keep personal injury lawyers as unemployed as is humanly possible. Take the time an look at Oregon's Operation Lifesaver website (http://www.trainweb.org/olif/) and rethink what you're doing.

(5) Oregon's OrDOT-Rail Division would have to approve any such structure attached to an operating railroad bridge and the safety issues would be insurmountable. They would kill the idea before the Public Works Engineers at P&W or UP even got to comment on it.

Try to find some other way to get from A to B without involving the railroad.

Mudchicken

[kenneo]

MC

I hear you loud and clear; 5 by 5; and now just to blow your mind a wee bit.

City of Portland and UP have a walkway attached to the Steel Bridge (double track lift bridge) at rail level attached to the side of the bridge.

The POTB has a mandate to permit fishermen and hikers to use their mainline between Salmonberry and Cochran. Foot traffic and no vehicles. FRA OK'ed it. THAT blows my mind.

I would presume, given where Mr. Rudawitz lives, he has in mind the Willamette River bridge between Oswego and Milwaukee. What he is proposing would be an improvement over the existing situation where people (lots of them) walk the ties across the bridge which is, including approaches (pile trestles) about 1,000 and no place to go when the train does come.

Given the above statements, not on my railroad, not on my watch, not out of my pocketbook.

Dave is correct. Liability. Liability. Liability for ever and ever. Amen.

[Modelcar]

....I cannot imagine how any railroad could turn their head and condone pedestrians walking across a 1000' trestle....What are they thinking...

[RudyRockvilleMD]

CSX's Shenandoah Subdivision crosses the Potomac River at Harpers Ferry WV, and the National Park Service's pedestrian bridge crossing the Potomac River appears to be cantilevered from the CSX Shenandoah Subdivision's bridge.

[mudchicken]

Kenneo:

Some of those outcomes of the AREMA meetings happened late last year at Vancouver, just north of Portland. We saw what you are talking about and it spooked the living daylights out of most of us there... small world...

And on my little railroad: Never, NO how, no way!

MC[:O][:D]

[CShaveRR]

I don't blame anyone who says that it shouldn't be done, but two examples of co-habitation (not necessarily with bikes) come to mind.

1. The New River, at Thurmond, West Virginia: that roadway is cantilevered to the railroad's truss bridge. I haven't heard of problems with traffic of any sort getting in the way of the trains on that branch, and with the rafting concerns that were there at one time (don't know whether they still are), there was the potential for pedestrian traffic as well. The railroad bridge is a truss bridge, so any attempts to walk on that portion would have to be very deliberate. A railing or fence should not be a problem if something were placed alongside a trestle, or girder bridge.

2. The UP (CNW) crossing of the Fox River in Illinois. Talk about creative...this is one of the busiest main lines in the country. Fortunately the piers of this double-track bridge were designed in such a way that, decades later, somebody saw the potential for building a trail beneath the tracks, using the bridge's piers as its own. The trail is covered, so users are protected from routine things (ballast, etc.) that may fall from the bridge when a train uses it. As far as I know, everybody's happy.

Carl
(a railroader who also happens to be a cyclist)

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....I cannot imagine how any railroad could turn their head and condone pedestrians walking across a 1000' trestle....What are they thinking...

They are not turning their head. But unless you can keep security 24/7/365 on each end of the bridge, there is not any way you can keep the public off of it.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Kenneo:

Some of those outcomes of the AREMA meetings happened late last year at Vancouver, just north of Portland. We saw what you are talking about and it spooked the living daylights out of most of us there... small world...

And on my little railroad: Never, NO how, no way!

MC[:O][:D]

Did you get out to any of the shortlines? P&W, W&P, POTB, or others?

[Anonymous]

If I recall properly, I think that SOME of the bridges built by Henry Flagler through the Florida Keys for his FEC railway featured an open pedestrian path. And of course, when the railroad failed, and The US government decided to re use the roadbed to build US 1 in its place, they devised a fairly creative scheme to run one lane headed one way through the bridge, and the lane headed the opposite way over the top of the trusses.

I bring up the latter because, if your railroad balks at the liability issue, you might want to consider this possible, albeit more expensive alternative, and see if they will go for that

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Kenneo:

Some of those outcomes of the AREMA meetings happened late last year at Vancouver, just north of Portland. We saw what you are talking about and it spooked the living daylights out of most of us there... small world...

And on my little railroad: Never, NO how, no way!

MC[:O][:D]

Did you get out to any of the shortlines? P&W, W&P, POTB, or others?

Not intentionally - our reason to be there was a field trip to Castle Rock, WA to look at a solution to a slope failure in some huge cuts, protection against the river undercutting the railroad to the southwest of there and touring a pre-cast concrete plant that made railroad culverts. The other sidetrips were an ad-hoc thing to see the Williamette BR that the UP & BNSF people were upset talking about.

MC

[Anonymous]

The one in Harpers Ferry WV.....it was originally a 1 track and one road bridge, that was converted to a 2 track and a walkway that connects the C&O Canal park to the Harpers ferry park. To tell you the truth, its kind of cool when you'r on the bridge and a train coes by. once I even got to talk to one of the crew members of a train while they waited for the signal to change.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rudawitzd

We are looking at a creating a dual use of an existing single track railroad bridge. We want to add a pedestrian/bike section to use the existing bridge support structure and, most likely, cantilever this new section to the side. I am looking for any similar dual use conversions that may have been done. I am interested in technical details as well as dealing with the railroad and other legal issues. It would be a government entitiy that would build and maintain the pedestrian/bike way.

David Rudawitz
Lake Oswego, Oregon

What everyone's said on liability issues is true, however you have told us the nature of the bridge. What is it crossing? A creek? A stream? A major river? A highway? A ditch? How big is this bridge you have in mind? I looked up Lake Oswego, OR on the map and see a major river there. If you're talking about a high steel through truss bridge over the Willamente that's differnt than a small wooden bridge over a drainage ditch.

And I'm no expert on bridges, but I do know bridges are quirky things where, technically speaking, you just don't add stuff to them. They were designed and engineered for specific purposes and even adding a pedestrian walkway could counteract it's load capabilities. Others have already pointed out examples where pedetrian thruways have been successfully attached to railroad bridges, but for the most part the bridges that have these combinations were already built that way in the begining. Examples would be the Brooklyn Bridge or other major bridges that cross major rivers in places like New York or San Francisco for example. Seeing how Lake Oswego is on the outer edges of Portland, a major metropolitan area, your options may be limited crossing whatever major river you intend to cross, based the geography of the location.

It wouldn't hurt to ask the railroad. You also haven't told us if the rail line is active and what company it belongs to. Find out from them if they'll allow it, get the costs of insurance, construction, and maintainence and then compare that with other options.

If it's a matter of geographic limitation you may have no choice, but if there are other ways it would a good idea to keep those options open too.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

David:


...
(4) There is too large a collection of statistics on tresspassing pedestrians or bicyclists struck by trains in this country. The frightening part is that the numbers are RISING. Railroads and the FRA/DOT are doing everything they can to separate trains from pedestrians et. al. ---plus trying to keep personal injury lawyers as unemployed as is humanly possible. Take the time an look at Oregon's Operation Lifesaver website (http://www.trainweb.org/olif/) and rethink what you're doing.
...

I wanted to respond to this seperatly. As far as safety bridges in general, there are people intetially taking more and more risks by climbing on them intentionally. I don't if anyone else has come across a program on TV where teens and kids in the 20s go looking for briges, buildings, or other tall man-made structures to climb on. I've seen a couple times where these kids go out and scout a location over period of a day or two and then come back at night and one or two climb the high steel trestle bridge (located in the middle of major metropolitian area). They walk up casually and a couple on the ground are the "look outs" while one or two shinny up stucture. AND THEY VIDEO TAPE THIS ALL! They interview themselves on why they do it and they don't know why they do it. Something about just because it's there or it's thrilling. They say the know the danger of doing but I don't think they really do. They don't even bring any climbing equipment. Some of them wear nice looking suits or clothes to climb in. Possibly looking well dressed draws the least amount of suspicion? I don't know, I'm not a psychologist or sociologist. But these kids climb on railroad bridges, street bridges, buildings, whatever is big and tall. I've yet to see one get killed or caught. Well, one DID get caught and arrested and got angry he was arressted. Go figure. Once I was in Nashville walking downtown one Saturday night and one on the ground was video taping another kid skateboarding on the roof of parking garage who looked like he was getting ready to jump over the ledge. I realized what was happening and stopped too watch. I asked the kid with camera he did know that illegal and dangerous, right? He ignored me. I got some other passers-by to stop and watch, saying this kid is getting ready to jump off the roof. A crowd started to form and the two kids got real embarassed and went and hid. It was in December and 10 degrees and windy out so the crowd disbursed quickly. Later while I was in a restaurant down the the street I heard sirens and figured maybe, hopefully, those kids got caught. I kept watching TV for that show but never saw another one or those kid's tape in Nashville.

The point of all this is there are people out there like this looking for ways to get into danger and trouble and video tape it for bragging purposes. They'll pick all kinds of structures including railroad bridges (especially ones that make it possible to climb upward on).

The purpose of Operation Lifesaver is to keep the public informed of the dangers of trespassing on railroads and that it's illegal because, believe it or not, there are people who don't know or realize or never been told it's dangerous and illegal. It never crossed their minds. Then there are those who do know all the dangers and illegalities and do it anyway, like in the senarios I put above. For those who really don't know what's wrong with trespassing that's just sad [:(], but those who know better and do it anyway makes me mad [:(!].

[locomutt]

We have the old "Big 4" bridge here in Louisville,across to Jeffersonville,In.
That our city's Waterfront Park Comm. is trying to buy just for that reason.
A pedway across the Ohio River. Thus far no one has really mentioned
anything or problem with anykind of liablity for such. And then there is the old
"L & N" bridge connecting Newport,Ky. to Cincinnatti,Oh. This is used by
pedestrians daily. Thus far I have neither read or heard of problems resulting
from this.As a matter of fact,since this bridge was opened to the public,it
has received some of the best publicity around.(that and it's painted purple)

[DSchmitt]

There are examples from the past of mixed use bridges. The Tower Bridge crossing the Sacramento River in Sacramento, CA (a vertical lift bridge) had until the 1960's when the track was removed, the Sacramento Northern down the middle, lanes for autos on one each side of the track, and sidewalks.

The I Street bridge, just up stream, (a swing bridge) is a double decker, it has the double track UP main line on the lower deck and a 2 lane roadway with sidewalks on the upper deck. People still walk on the tracks, though, because the access to the sidewalks is 300' + (guess) from the bridge on each side.

Of course thse bridges were designed multiple use.

Incidently there is a nice shot of the I Street Bridge in the wedding scene, of the movie Chattanooga Choo Choo, which takes place on the turntable of the California Railroad Museum.

[Anonymous]

I saw a commercial that shown some bozos on a bridge that looked like it was still in use and that it was used often.

[Anonymous]

If your worried about counterballancing the bridge, add a counterweight to the opposite side to level out the average ballance.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

Kenneo:

Some of those outcomes of the AREMA meetings happened late last year at Vancouver, just north of Portland. We saw what you are talking about and it spooked the living daylights out of most of us there... small world...

And on my little railroad: Never, NO how, no way!

MC[:O][:D]

Did you get out to any of the shortlines? P&W, W&P, POTB, or others?

Not intentionally - our reason to be there was a field trip to Castle Rock, WA to look at a solution to a slope failure in some huge cuts, protection against the river undercutting the railroad to the southwest of there and touring a pre-cast concrete plant that made railroad culverts. The other sidetrips were an ad-hoc thing to see the Williamette BR that the UP & BNSF people were upset talking about.

MC

The Willamette Draw at Willbridge (BNSF/UP/AMTK), the Steel Bridge in downtown at Union Station (BNSF/UP/AMTK) or the Oswego bridge (now P&W but once SP). Most of the area between the Toutle River and Kelso is unstable in the cuts when it gets wet.
It appears that the iron feathers are working well?

[daveklepper]

It may be possible that the new South Jersey Light Rail (diesel light rail) of New Jersey Transit has such bridges. One person to contact, who would possible also be very helpful in specific design considerations to meet the liability questions with good barrier-railing construction is Bill Vigrass, one of the top engineers in the USA who has a major responsibiliity for making the 1st SUCCESSFUL automated rapid transit system work, also the first diversion of highway funds (for a second Ben Franklin Bridge) to rail transportation. I think the "River Line" has such bridges. It will continue to be used for freight when the light rail cars are not operating . This is also a very historic line, the original "Camden and Ambay" which hosted the "Stoubridge Lion." For many years it was a PRR freight overflow line. You can contact Bill at:

[e-mail]

He may appreciate the lead for a future job for his firm. But he is also a first class railfan in every way.
Dave Klepper

[Anonymous]

Several comments, based on our design experience in TX. First, I agree with MC, Dave H etc and would strongly urge you to find another way to cross--the risks are just too high compared to the benefits (perceived or otherwise). That said, I would note that the examples cited by some of the folks involving dual use are for BIG bridges where one can successfully segregate the RR and non-RR uses, date from an earlier era when these issues were not considered to be quite as important, and thus are likely apples/oranges comparisons. Which leads me to a second point: under some unique circumstances you might be able to make something work IF you can very effectively completely ISOLATE AND PROTECT the pedestrian function from the RR, either by elevation, distance or by effective solid barrier (or some combination), and I do not mean a chain link fence or similar. You would have to protect from interference as well as from dragging equipment and loads shiftted if falling off the cars. Third, while you might be right about the additional pedestrian/bicycle (live) load on such an addition, it is not a foregone conclusion that the structural (dead) load of the addition itself will not overstress or reduce the load rating of the existing bridge. This issue is extremely important with the move to the 286,000 lb. weight limit and accompanying requirement to restress the bridge and piers (some of these can be pushed to the limit and will actually be overstressed in use, say by occasionally running a unit and a loaded 100 ton car very slowly over a 210,000 lb rated structure).

Assuming that we all haven't talked you out of the idea, I would encourage you to (1) get the concept to the RR now, and pay extremely close attention to what they say, (2) if the RR will even consider the concept (which I really doubt, unless the government itself owns the railroad line and they're willing to take big risks) have a competent and experienced independent, licensed railroad bridge structural engineer (current Oregon P.E. license, in your case) with adequate Professional Liability insurance, do a very careful study of the structural issues and provide you a complete report and recommendations under his/her seal (if he/she isn't willing to seal it, it's not worth the paper it's printed on), and (3) get out your checkbook, because it likely is not going to be cheap.

Probably the biggest problem that we have seen here on publicly funded RR projects is the erroneous idea (usually in the name of intermodalism) that you can freely mix pedestrians and, worse, some bicyclists (no offense, cyclists, but you know the types I'm referring to) with heavy railroad traffic, just because the trains don't run all that often. It doesn't matter how infrequent they are if some person rightfully using your facility gets whacked because they happen to be there at the "wrong" time.

If the RR line is being abandoned, that's a different issue.

Please give your idea extremely careful thought, consideration and defensible study before doing it. Safety is paramount.

E. P. Hamilton III, Ph.D., P.E. (TX)