Rails With Trails, a Non-starter

[enr2099]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...This is so surprising to me to hear of this concept....and then of actual construction having been done in some areas....How much space between the railroad and the trail in the Nanaimo situation and is there a substantial fence between the two...?

Nope, no fence. Although in some places a 20 ft. wide gap is between the trail and the tracks. The purpose of that gap is to protect the trail users from being injured in a derailment. The way it was designed, if the Budd Cars, and we're talking the Rail Diesel Cars, not the old SS coaches pulled by a locomotive, which run at 40 MPH along this stretch do jump the track, they'd end up in the dirt instead of on the trail. Freight trains have a max. permissable speed of 30 MPH, 25 along this stretch, if there was a derailment, the chances of the locomotive tipping over on its side are slim.

[Modelcar]

...Interesting....I still have a difficult time understanding how this concept of establishing walking and bike riding trails along side an active railroad track comes to reality regardless of what traffic is on it [the railroad]....No one can say for sure that people [kids], etc....wouldn't wonder over onto the tracks looking at something or for whatever reason because of no fence....etc...I am a full believer of good exercise trails for the walking and bike riding..as I've said before we have 20 miles of one here in Muncie and more being added to it's end for several years now and eventually will be 60 plus miles in length...and it's paved....I fully support that. It is located on the FORMER RoW of CSX...and hence NO trains now. But the other situation I have no other words to help understand what's going on....

[mudchicken]

enr: at 30 mph, 20--30 feet is not a buffer, it's more like an invitation to a fatality. At 10-15 mph, railcars and lading can scatter in all directions. The variables and dynamics are not as limited as you seem to think they are. (I've seen empty bilevels derail at 5 mph jacknife out to 50 feet because of the momentum of the following cars kept shoving until the brakes applied. At less than 40 MPH, I've seen cars shoved through apartment buildings 150 feet away from the track in South Pasadena. I don't buy the argument. One incident and E&N could be financially insolvent, never to recover.

WGM: Gas retrofits on diesel engines are somewhat common, but they create new safety and operating risks. The key is how well the conversion is carried out and how the piston rings, cylinder liners and injection particulate filters are installed and maintained. More common to utility power plants, the technology has been used on railroads with varying degrees of success.

Very few insurers carry or offer railroad protective policy because of the risk. Most folks do NOT realize that their regular insurance leaves them the minute they set foot on operating railroad property (again it's the calculated risk)....and it's ex$pen$ive!

The issues with the Budd cars goes with the " crashworthiness" issues set out in 49CFR200, 49 CFR229, 49CFR231 and 49CFR216. This is why the DMU's, RDC's, SPV's and the Colorado Railcars are the only ones allowed to operate over freight railroads (albeit with some restrictions)

Iron Feathers

[fuzzybroken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cbt141

the county in which i live has gone from an old agricultural community to a revitalized tourist and yuppie community. in the process the old warehouse districts which had developed along the southern railraod right of way have been brought back from abandonment and redeveloped as shops and walk in businesses. these areas are characterized by businesses and parking areas built within yards of the tracks, pedestrian traffic at grade level as well as several grade level vechicle crossings. the trains in this district are large coal and general freight and they move at a fair clip as they enter and leave the yards along the river. plenty of pace and weight to cause a great deal of hardship should there ever be a mishap.
i suspect that there are many such "reclaimed districts" in quite a few of the new south towns. "rails with trails" not withstanding a whole lot of people are being brought into close contact with the "row" all over the country.

We have that here in Milwaukee as well, on Virginia Street. Old industrial/tannery complex being remodeled into offices, condos, apartments, etc. -- and the CP runs right thru it! Only one grade crossing, and the horn sure echoes thru the brick canyon... [:)]

Here in southeastern Wisconsin, we have plenty of Rails-to-Trails, from sections of the Oak Leaf Trail in Milwaukee County, to former interurban on trails in Waukesha, Racine, Kenosha, Ozaukee Counties, to the Glacial Drumlin Trail (x-C&NW) from Waukesha to Madison. One section of the Oak Leaf Trail used to share the r-o-w with the C&NW in its early days, but the railroad is now long abandoned.

Another trail in Racine County, a former Milwaukee Electric inteurban route, runs along the lightly used UP Kenosha Sub at a distance of probably 50-100 feet. I've never heard of any incidents on this trail near rails involving derailments, pedestrains on the tracks, or stray lading. No fence either, only a ditch and some brush. I think that this trail actually keeps people OFF the tracks, as I don't ever remember seeing people on the tracks, except for beyond where the trail ends on the south.

I think that trails sharing r-o-w with a rail line should generally be avoided, but in certain circumstances may be acceptable. The E&N trail is one example of this, the trail parallels a lightly-traveled shortline and serves to keep people off the tracks. (Most intelligent people would much rather walk on a groomed or paved trail than a rough, uneven set of railroad tracks anyway. The ones that don't probably deserve to get picked off by a train that they didn't bother to look out for.) A trail along the the busy BNSF main mentioned in the story? DEFINTIELY bad idea!!! Even the trail mentioned needs a few "safety improvements", maybe even some re-routing to avoid the railroad tracks and keep the idiots out of the path of the trains.

[2c],
-Mark
See some of these Rail-Trails at:
http://www.geocities.com/fuzzybroken/bicycle.html

[Anonymous]

Having had to deal with those folks--well-meaning but uninformed--rails WITH trails is dumb and dangerous, and sets up a liability quagmire of unimaginable scale. The problem is that it makes the tracks an obvious attractive nuisance, and invites people into extraordinary close proximity--too close. Instead of the tracks just being there, now this directs people to them. It's a bad concept and should be discouraged.

Now as to rails TO trails and railbanking, this is a very useful program that preserves the ROW, eliminates a major eyesore, and gets public use for minimal investment.

MC--your #3 is so very painfully true.

[enr2099]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken

I don't buy the argument. One incident and E&N could be financially insolvent, never to recover.

I'd like to point out that my previous message was part of an email from the City of Nanaimo planning department regarding the E&N Trail.

I've been doing a little more reading on the "E&N Trail" and have discovered that RailAmerica has been trying to shut this trail down for the better part of two years. However, in the last 6 months they seem to have backed off, I'm not quite sure why though.

The email goes on to say that users of the trail do so at their own risk and that they have signs posted warning of the danger.

[Anonymous]

Generally most RR ROWS are on 25' centers meaning that the ROW extends approximately 25' in each direction from the center of the closest track. In certain cases the ROW is wider, some RRs have 100' or more in certain areas.

The problem is that you can't realistically fit a trail and the tracks safely within that space. Once you get off the ROW the trail folks have to acquire their own ROW for the trail which is very expensive. So the idea is to piggyback on the existing RR ROW.

Not only is their extreme risk from derailment and/or shifted loads or protruding banding, trailers, etc, there is also just the simple need of the RR to conduct it's ordinary MOW and operating activities. Have you ever watched a tie crane at work or a backhoe changing track ties?? Watch how far from the track the boom swings. Ever watched a ditcher or brushcutter?? Now picture where your trail wold be and how many pieces the nice fence would be in after the first pass by the tie gang...

WIth the trail there, the MOW activities are difficult to perform. Operations are difficult and at a MUCH greater risk. It just doesn't work. The people who suggest it see a possible free ride for their recreational trail. They don't understand the consequences of that free ride...

LC

[Anonymous]

Appreciate sensible and helpful comments. Re RailAmerica trying to shut down E & N Trail in BC, perhaps they gave in to pressure from tourism interests plus bike lobbies and bicycle industry. We have bikers galore attending all public meetings on the Rail Trail proposal. They even yell out, "We want our rail trail!" Recently bikers illegally enteried the UP rail corridor and put up signs that say, "Welcome to Rail Trail," when of course UP prohibiits trespassing and there is no trail. They're even "building their own trail" near Seabright Brewery in Santa Cruz. Some of the bike groups are connected to "Sensible Transportation" lobbyists (get out of gasoline and oil driven vehicles) in Washington DC, who have state offices and reps and according to "non profit" info websites, lots of millions to support so-called grassroots groups. Actually I'm worried about the bikers (mostly young people) digging along the rail line. County had a study done by Geometrix that shows visible areas of contamination along the rail line--spills, underground fuel tanks leaking, rusty chemical containers lying nearby an abandoned plastics factory, an auto dismantling place. Study looked at the corridor by air and also checked county environmental health records. Some of the chemicals and toxins that may be in the soils, air and underground water of the rail corridor are very scary--arsenic, PCBs, lead. They can cause neurological problems, cancer, birth defects. Shouldn't our county or the owners long ago cleaned up any contamination in this more than century old rail line? By the way, I'm pretty sure the county thinks the rail company that it's planning to contract with to run the Budd cars Tourist Train will pay for liability insurance. Two of the companies interested are Sierra and Big Trees.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

Google "dangerous california highways" and the top result is "California Highway 17" the main road to Santa Cruz. Commuters plan their trips assuming delays from fatal crashes. Highway 17 will kill more people in a typical month than a little spur line will in a century.

Having survived this Idiots Delight of a drive more than a few times while visiting my brother in Aptos, Ca. I can tell you its not so much the highway, but the orange-faced cheese-headed mofo's that insist on blast thru it at 80mph around corners that are designed for 50mph while drinking there Starfu*ks double soy latte while garping on the phone and trying to write down notes and fiddling with the DVD player at the same time!. Thank God someone got smart a few years ago and lined the whole damn thing with K rail barriers to keep the Bozo Brigade from spilling their coffee, loosing control hitting three cars and then head oning two or three cars in the opposing lanes...now they will only wipe out cars going in the same direction...

Dont be so sure about that spur not killing anyone, my experience with Santa Cruz is that it has more than its share of complete blitheringly clueless people who will think the train will stop for them while they are walking their dog along the ROW.

[Anonymous]

Why the silence? Are you making a comment on possible contamination in the corridor? I'm for cleaning that up, not being silent about it.

Please don't be put off by that guy writing about Highway 17. Sure, it's dangerous. I was on it today, driving from Aptos to San Francisco on Memorial Day. It's definitely easier with a "shotgun " person along to watch out for red Jeeps straying out of their lane, etc.

My daughter is pregnant. I'm not going to let her drive alone on Highway 17 on Memorial Day. Her husband is a firefighter and couldn't go with her to an important appointment in San Francisco.

Tonight I watched the World War II Memorial celebration in Washington DC. My late husband was a Sergeant in the Army Air Corps in WW II. I have traveled with a terrific church choir from Santa Rosa to sing on the beaches and in the water at Normandy, in praise and honor or our American soldiers and others who died there 60 years ago.

I'm a tough cookie. I'm not embarassed to say that I oppose a group of greedy developers who want to develop more passenger service on the Santa Cruz line, when we have no ridership for buses that travel the same line. They want to tax us for Redevelopment funds to pay for "appropriate railside commercial centers, housing centers." Please, I'm savvy to the fact that wealthy developers want poor people to live along rail lines, where they don't have tyo have gasoline-driven cars, while the wealthy live along "open spaces," way far away from train tracks, in pleasant setting set aside for large estates through philantropic donations.

[JLlamas]

Grandma:
The road in the front yard has got to be hundreds of times more dangerous than the railroad in the back. Contamination? Think about all those cars and trucks rocketing by and spewing all that nasty stuff in the air. Your concerns are in the wrong place.

[mudchicken]

WGM:

(1) Locating spill areas is a highly subjective topic and a creature of the last 40 years. Before that, it just was not an issue in public & private endeavors.

(2) Highly unlikely that the RDC operator would invest in a clean-up (a deal killer).

(3) The something for nothing bikers fit right in with Northern California's "great granola bowl" stereotype - frosted granola.(Would George Carlin or Gary Burbank ever have a field day with these idiots!)

(4) Sensible Transportation is just "blowing smoke"...they have no $$$ of their own. The bluff needs to be called one of these days so that they are shown to be as small and insignicant as these activist wannabes really are...

[Anonymous]

WGM--

As a consultant in the field with a lot of experience, including 2 graduate minors in environmental engineering and BS/MS education in CA (so I know where you are coming from and I empathize with you, but I don't do this work in CA so I have absolutely no vested interest in what happens in your area), (1) listen to MC--he knows what he's talking about and can provide a lot of useful information and assistance via this forum, and (2) if it's a choice between highway and rail, pick the rail, as long as it's done right (that means work to make them do it right). The environmental impacts are far, far less than the equivalent highway infrastructure, despite the horn honking (and there are ways to mitigate that). As an ex-Californian, please consider the fact that CA got itself in this mess originally by putting all its eggs in the highway basket, to the complete detriment of an already-existing and world-class public transportation infrastructure, which it then allowed to completely fall apart.

[Anonymous]

As someone who has watched from afar the trail people blocking expansion of light rail in the Baltimore and Washington areas, I find Rails with Trails an option worth considering. When looking at the risks, how close are people getting to the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend tracks that run in the middle of the street in Michigan City, Indiana. There is similar mainline street running in other parts of the country. How close are the elevated tracks to parallel streets in Chicago? I suspect that the distance from the closest NJT (ex DL&W) track to the I280 service road in East Orange, New Jersey isn't much more than 25 feet and may be less. (horizontal distance, since it is elevated). People on passenger train platforms all over the world are within a lesser distance. If I have a choice between trails with rails and trails precluding rails, I know which I will take.

In regard to the Monterrey case, I would support the return of rail if I lived there. People will take trains when they won't take buses. While the RDCs or other equipment won't take that much traffic off the highway, they at least will offer a better alternative. The pollution will be no worse than the buses. If you want to do something constructive, find ways to emulate Germany and other European countries where whistle blowing isn't mandatory at grade crossings and find a way to get UIC car strength requirements proved as safe as the current FRA requirements so we can have lighter equipment. Both the New Jersey River Line equipment and Ottawa O-train equipment are considered mainline equipment suitable for interruning with freight in Europe. This change will allow lighter equipment. If Monterrey is fortunate enough to get a decently designed rail service (get consultants who are familiar with German rural rail), you will find it far better patronized than you believe possible. Incidentally, I have riddent the Monterrey local bus service to the airport from a conference I was at in the early 1980's and would like to have been able to take a train.