Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (HEP)
Planning • Environment • Real Estate
Increased public awareness of the important service railroad companies provide
A California train operator noted that people have been surprised to hear that trains still operate in this country today. Users on several trails expressed that the highlight of their tour is when trains come by. The Wheeling Corporation (Wait, 1998) offered hope that RWTs will help "the public become more informed about our industry and the economic benefits of the rail carrier serving their area."
Possible benefits to the community may include the following:
FIGURE 3.1 Agency ownership of rail corridor, by percentage of trails
Increased tourism revenue
Along with other snowmobile trails in Michigan, the Railroad Trail brings in a reported $15 million of income to Ostego County and more than $100 million for northern Michigan. In Wisconsin, the LaCrosse River State Trail manager reported that the trail benefits local economies and greatly enhances the reputation of the State as a place to visit. However, it should be noted that trails increase the number of people in proximity to dangerous railroad operations, thereby enhancing the possibility of collisions and increased tort liability for the railroad.
Increased Adjacent Property Values
Desirable property is valuable property. Many studies have shown that trails enhance property values by providing community amenities for fitness and health, aesthetic experience, and reduced crime (National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse, 1995; Moore, et al., 1992; Moore and Barthlow, 1998; City of Seattle, 1987; Conservation Fund, 1995; PKF Consulting, 1994; RTC, 2000; Ryan and Wintarch, 1993; Strauss and Lord, 1996).
| Introduction/Setting: Project history, background, setting, affected parties, relevant plans, and railroad operations. |
| Needs Analysis: User groups and purposes, destinations, and projected usage. Key project benefits and costs. |
| Physical Setting Inventory * measurements * constraints * connectivity * adjacent land uses * sight distances * safety conditions |
| Alternatives Development Analysis: Develop, map, and evaluate alternative alignments within and outside railroad corridor. Pros and cons of alternative corridor alignments. Proposed solutions to trouble spots, including off-railroad corridor alignments. Map proposed design, setback distance, separation technique, crossings, constrained areas, sidings, trestles, and other features. Evaluate:
|
| Environmental Analysis |
| Preferred Alignment: Recommended after careful evaluation of criteria on a decision matrix. |
FIGURE 3.2 Steps in feasibility study
Government agencies (usually States, counties, and cities) own about half the RWT corridors nationwide. In the remainder, the railroad retains ownership. For 80 percent of these, the trail management agency purchases a use easement or license from the railroad or transit authority, utility, private landowner, or other government agency (see Figure 3.1, RTC, 2000).
Many of the trail management agencies purchased the trail right-of-way, obtaining their funding through a variety of Federal, State, county, city, and private funds. Railroad companies also may choose to donate the land, gaining a tax deduction.
Transfer of ownership is seen as the cleanest way to reduce liability risks, although indemnification agreements can have a similar effect, as explained in Section IV. Financial compensation also helps gain railroad company support for projects.
Return to TOCFeasibility Review
Trail managers should undertake a comprehensive feasibility analysis of the project. An RWT feasibility study will serve numerous purposes. It will summarize the goals of the agency seeking to build the project. It will clearly describe the setting, the relationship to local planning documents, the need for the project, land ownership patterns, railroad activity, and other information necessary to determine feasibility (see Figure 3.2). The feasibility study should identify and evaluate multiple alternative alignments, including at least one that is not on the railroad right-of-way, and identify a preferred alignment. Three RWT feasibility studies are profiled on the next two pages:
See References for additional examples.
Return to TOCCupertino RWT
DESCRIPTION: The California cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Campbell, and Saratoga are managing a feasibility study for this proposed 14 km (8.7 mi) RWT project that runs through the heart of California's Silicon Valley (Alta Transportation Consulting, 2001). Union Pacific Railroad (UP) owns the property. The Union Pacific services Hanson Permanente, a concrete plant, and runs approximately three freight trains per week. The trains move slowly, about 32 km/h (20 mi/h) and typically haul coal and cement products from Los Gatos to Cupertino.
DESIGN ISSUES: The right-of-way is 24 m (80 ft) wide in most spots but constrained in a few. A single set of tracks runs approximately 9.1 m (30 ft) offthe east right-of-way line, leaving about 15 m (50 ft) of right-of-way to the west of track centerline. For approximately 3.2 km (2 mi), a Pacific Gas and Electric right-of-way parallels the UP right-of-way, allowing an additional 26 m (85 ft) to the west of the tracks. Constrained points include a tunnel, several drainages, and portions that are paralleled by a sound wall.
The typical trail setback from track centerline will be 7.6 m (25 ft) with a 1.2 m (4 ft) high chain link fence. The RWT would cross 18 roadways and impact five creeks that provide habitat for protected species including the California spotted toad and steelhead trout. An existing privately permitted at-grade crossing serving vehicle access to the historic Hammond Snyder home is recommended to become a public crossing.
PROBLEM: At the corridor's north end, steep grades and a single track tunnel.
SOLUTION: Implementation of this segment should be postponed until the rail line is no longer in use.
PROBLEM: Narrow setback in several spots
SOLUTION: Trail will divert to an adjacent roadway with bicycle lanes. At bridge locations, the trail will utilize fencing, signage, and guardrails to keep trail users on the trail and off the tracks.
PROBLEM: Two major roadway crossings requiring grade separation.
SOLUTION: Three options: Construct overpasses, wait for abandonment of rail line and then make use of existing rail bridges, or divert to adjacent roadway.
PROBLEM: With addition of a barrier between the tracks and the trail, residents who currently trespass to use the corridor will not have good access to the trail.
SOLUTION: No easy solution. Trail developers would like to establish an at-grade crossing, while the UP representatives are opposed. An overcrossing would have an undesired impact on the community, while an underpass would not be environmentally feasible.
OTHER: Negotiations with the Union Pacific Railroad are underway as of this writing.
CONCLUSION Many parts of the project are feasible, while others are not. One end of the project will be delayed indefinitely, and some segments will divert to adjacent roadways.
Davis-Dixon RWT
DESCRIPTION: This 8 km (5 mi) long project linking the cities of Dixon and Davis was originally proposed in the 1994 Solano County Bicycle Plan. That plan identified an option along the Union Pacific Railroad mainline, which would provide a direct connection between the two communities.
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS: Design challenges included the need to cross both the tracks and Putah Creek. More importantly, the Union Pacific Railroad was concerned that this was an extremely high-speed and high-frequency mainline, and that additional tracks would be needed in the future. While the safety and liability issues could be addressed, the need for a future track was a major obstacle.
CONCLUSION Since there were viable on-road albeit less direct alternatives, this option was dropped from consideration.
