Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned

SECTION V: Design

No national standards or guidelines dictate rail-with-trail facility design. Guidance must be pieced together from standards related to shared use paths, pedestrian facilities, railroad facilities, and/or roadway crossings of railroad rights-of-way. Trail designers should work closely with railroad operations and maintenance staff to achieve a suitable RWT design. Whenever possible, trail development should reflect standards set by adjacent railroads for crossings and other design elements. Ultimately, RWTs must be designed to meet both the operational needs of railroads and the safety of trail users. The challenge is to find ways of accommodating both types of uses without compromising safety or function.

The recommendations in this section are based on:

• Extensive research into all existing RWTs.
• In-depth case studies of 21 existing and planned RWTs.
• Interviews with railroad officials, trail managers, and law enforcement officials.
• Review of existing train and trail safety literature.
• Analysis of publicly-accessible trespassing and crash data.
• Input from a panel of railroad officials and experts, trail developers and managers, trail users, lawyers, railroad operators, and others.
• Extrapolation from relevant State transportation manuals, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999) (hereafter referred to as the AASHTO Bike Guide), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) publications for trails and pedestrian facilities, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, 2000), and numerous Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and other Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) documents.
• The experience and expertise of researchers and reviewers, including experienced railroad and trail design engineers, landscape architects, safety specialists, trail developers and managers, trail users, lawyers, railroad operators, operations officials, and others involved in this study.

The design recommendations should be considered a toolkit, rather than standards or guidelines. More research will be needed to develop standards that can be incorporated into AASHTO's design guides and the MUTCD. Each RWT project is different; the design should be based on the specific conditions of the site, requirements of the railroad owner, completion of a feasibility study (as discussed in Section III), State and other regulatory requirements, and engineering judgment.

Overview of Recommendations

Elliot Bay Trail. Seattle, WA

1. RWT designers should maximize the setback between any RWT and active railroad track. The setback distance between a track centerline and the closest edge of the RWT should correlate to the type, speed, and frequency of train operations, as well as the topographic conditions and separation techniques.

2. Subject to railroad and State and Federal guidelines and the advice of engineering and safety experts, exceptions to the recommended setbacks may include:
   1. Constrained areas (bridges, cut and fill areas)
   2. Low speed and low frequency train operations

   In these cases and in areas with a history of extensive trespassing, fencing or other separation technique is recommended.

3. When on railroad property, RWT planners should adhere to the request or requirements for fencing by the railroad company. Fencing and/or other separation techniques should be a part of all RWT projects.

4. Trail planners should minimize the number of at-grade crossings, examine all reasonable alternatives to new at-grade track crossings, and seek to close existing at-grade crossings as part of the project.

5. RWT proposals should include a full review and incorporation of relevant utility requirements for existing and potential utilities in the railroad corridor.

6. The feasibility process should clearly document the cost and environmental impact of new bridges and trestles.

7. Trails should divert around railroad tunnels; if they need to go through a single-track railroad tunnel, they likely are not feasible.

8. Where an RWT is proposed to bypass a railroad yard (such as in Seattle, Washington), adequate security fencing must be provided along with regular patrols by the RWT manager. High priority security areas may need additional protection.

9. An environmental assessment should be conducted concurrent with, and usually independent from, the feasibility analysis, and should include project alternatives located off the railroad corridor, if at all possible.

Rail Characteristics and Setting

Over half of the 65 existing trails run along Class I mainline or other freight railroad lines, with the remainder split between short lines and public transit (see Figure 5.1). Most of the RWTs are either adjacent to railroad property or on publicly-held land that is used or leased by freight or passenger railroad companies. At least 11 known RWTs (approximately 17 percent) are on privately held Class I railroad properties, and others are on privately-held Class II, shortline, or excursion lines (see Table 5.1). There is considerable variance in the frequency of train operation, from three to nine trains per hour (16 percent) to just a few trains a week (13 percent) (see Figure 5.2). In many cases, the peak hours of rail use correspond with peak trail use hours. The average maximum train speed is 51 km/h (32 mi/h), with a range of 8 to 225 km/h (5 to 140 mi/h). All but three trains in RWT corridors travel at speeds less than 97 km/h (60 mi/h). The three fastest trains are:

*Properties acquired by Norfolk Southern from Conrail.

		NOTE: Where a range of frequencies was given, the most frequent service was taken.
Source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy		Source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
FIGURE 5.1 Type of railroad adjacent to existing RWTs (Note: Railroads identified their function by a variety of names. Because more than one type of railroad may operate in a corridor, percentages add up to more than 100%.)		FIGURE 5.2 Frequency of trains, by percentage of existing RWTs

		(Total number of trails = 61)
Source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy		Source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
FIGURE 5.3 Type of terrain through which trails pass (Because trails pass through more than one type of terrain, percentages add up to more than 100%.)		FIGURE 5.4 Width of full corridor, by percentage of trails (Note: corridor widths often vary.)

• Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Commuter Rail and Amtrak (Southwest Corridor Park, Boston, Massachusetts), maximum speed 225 km/h (140 mi/h), setback over 6.1 m (20 ft), separated by concrete wall and chain link fence.
• Orange County Transportation Authority and Amtrak (see ATSF Trail case study, p.11).
• State of Wisconsin and Amtrak (see La Crosse River State Trail case study, p. 18).

The existing U.S. RWTs are located in 20 States, encompass 385 km (239 miles), and traverse a wide variety of terrain, including urban, suburban, residential, rural, commercial, nature preserve, industrial, and agricultural lands (see Figure 5.3).

The RWT corridor widths average 38 m (126 ft), while the trails are typically 2.4 to 3 m (8 to 10 ft) wide (see Figures 5.4 and 5.5).