HomeMy WebLinkAbout3455; Coastal Rail Trail-High Speed Rail; Coastal Rail Trail-High Speed Rail; 2002-11-11Coastal Rail-Trail
Oceanside to Carlsbad, California
Issues Related to Compatibility with High Speed Rail
November 11, 2002
prepared by Alta Planning -i- Design
www,altaplanning,cam
alta
PLANNING + DESIGN
The Coastal Rail-Trail:
Issues Related to Compatibility with High Speed Rail
November 11, 2002
by Alta Planning + Design
The Coastal Rail-Trail has reached a critical point in its development. Dokken
Engineering has produced 30 percent design plans for the portions traveling through
Solana Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad, and Oceanside. These four cities have been working
toward completion of the trail since 1996. The trail in this area will be in large part on the
right-of-way of tl;e North County Transit District (NCTD).
NCTD has expressed concem about the proximity of the trail to its tracks, which carry
many trains going 90 miles per hour. Their concems include:
• Potential hazards to trail users from wind and debris
• Likelihood of injuries in the case of a derailment
• Impact to NCTD future plans for double tracking
• Need for maintenance access
• Security and safety needs in the wake of the events of Sept 11, 200^ (
These are all important and valid concems to consider. Thus, NCTD ha^ contracted with
HDR Engineering (through IBI Group) to produce standards for where the trail will be
allowed on their right-of-way. Under contract to Dokken Engineering and the Cities of
Encinitas, Carlsbad, and Oceanside, Alta Planning + Design has been investigating
relevant available information pertaining to trail-high speed rail issues. This report is
presented in three sections;
• Section 1: Summary of research and recommendations
• Section 2: Presentation of detailed information
• Section 3: Detailed analysis of Coastal Rail-Trail corridor
Section 1:
Summary of Research and
Recommendations
The Coastal Rail-Trail: Issues Related to Compatibility with High Speed Rail
Section 1: Summary of High-Speed Rail-Trail Research
RWT Standards and Recommendations Specific to High Speed Rail
No standards currently exist as to where trails should be located for rail-with-trail (RWT) projects.
The 2002 Final Draft "Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned" study recommends:
• RWT designers should maximize the setback between any RWT and active railroad track.
The setback distance between track centeriine and 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.
• Relatively narrow setback distances of 3 m (10 ft) to 7.6 m (25 ft) may be acceptable to the
railroad, RWT agency, and design team in certain situations, such as in constrained areas,
along relatively low speed and frequency lines, and in areas with a history of trespassing
where a trail might help alleviate a current problem. The presence of vertical separation or
techniques such as fencing or walls also may allow for narrower setback.
• 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.
• 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.
The RWT report section on setback distance considerations includes;
"There is no consensus on either appropriate setback requirements or a method of
determining the requirement. Some trail planners use the AASHTO Bike Guide for
guidance. Given that bicycle lanes are set back 1.5 to 2.1 m (5 to 7 ft) from the centeriine of
the out-side travel lane of even the busiest roadway, some consider this analogous. Others
use their State Public Utilities Commission's minimum setback standards (also known as
'clearance standards') for adjacent walkways (for railroad switchmen.) These published
setbacks represent the legal minimum setbacks based on the physical siae of the railroad cars,
and are commonly employed along all railroads and at public grade crossings. The minimum
setback distance is typically 2.6 m (8.5 ft) on tangent and 2.9 m (9.5 ft) on curved track.
However, FRA and railroad officials do not consider either of these methods to be
appropriate for a RWT. This is because AASHTO's guidelines for motor vehicle facility
design are not seen as comparable to rail design, and the setback distance for the general
public should be much greater than that allowed for railroad workers."
"Other considerations when determining setback may be flying debris and maintenance
access. Trains throw up debris from the roadbed, including rocks and other objects
deliberately placed on the rails by trespassers. Fast moving trains have thrown up large
ballast rocks. Debris has been known to fall off trains, or, in some cases, to hang off rail
cars."
SECTION 1 - page 1 Coastal Rail-Trail Alta Planning + Design
The Coastal Rail-Trail: Issues Related to Compatibility with High Speed Rail
"Railroad companies need access to tracks for routine and emergency maintenance,
including tie and ballast replacement, cleaning culverts, and accessing switches and control
equipment. WhHe most railroad companies have the ability to maintain tracks from the
tracks themselves, it often is more cost effective and less disruptive to access the tracks from
maintenance vehicles operating alongside the tracks. At a minimum, railroads need at least
4.5 m (15 ft) from the track centerUne to provide reasonable access to their tracks."
"Further considerations when determining setback requirements may be physical constraints
on or adjacent to railroad corridors, presence of separation techniques such as fencing,
historical trespassing, and other problems. Finally, train densities can change at any time and
location, and railroads require flexibility in their operations to meet customer requirements.
Stmctures or right-of-way modifications that impede a railroad's ability to change or control
its operations are unacceptable."
"In the case of high speed freight or transit lines, RWTs must be located as far from the
tracks as possible and are infeasible if adequate setbacks and separation cannot be achieved."
High speed RWT Examples
Four examples (three existing, one planned for completion in Summer 2003) of trails adjacent to
high-speed rail are noted in the RWT: Lessons Learned report. The similarities and differences to
the Coastal Rail-Trail are noted with the description of each below. There are also examples of
sidewalks next to high-speed rail and a high-speed rail-trail example in Switzerland. These examples
are listed below.
• Norwottuck Rail Trail (MA) - 1.2 mi
- 6 Amtrak trains, up to 45 mph
- Minimum trail setback 32 ft, with no fence
NOTE: Trail is grade separated
• ATSF Trail (Irvine, CA) - 3.2 mi . ^ ^7
- 49 Amtrak, commuter and freight trains, up to 90 mph ' ^ ^ ^
- Minimum trail setback —50 ft, with 5 ft chain Knk fence
• Mission City Trail (San Fernando, CA) - 1 mi
- 32 commuter and freight trains, up to 70 mph
- Minimum trail setback 25 ft, with 6 ft wrought iron and chain link fence
• Anacostia Trail System (Prince George's Cty., MD) - 1000 ft
- 22 MARC commuter trains, up to 70 mph
- >100 D.C. Metro subway and 2 freight trains, up to 50 mph
- Minimum trail setback 32 ft, with 6' chain link fence
• La Crosse River State Trail (La Crosse, WI), 21 mi
-16 daily mainline commuter and freight trains, up to 80 mph
- Setback 100 ft
SECTION 1 - page 2 Coastal Rail-Trail Alta Planning + Design
The Coastal Rail-Trail: Issues Related to Compatibility with High Speed Rail
• Northeast Corridor Trail (Newark, DE) - 1.7 mi
- Planned for completion summer 2003
- >100 Amtrak Acela and commuter trains, up to 120 mph
- Minimum trail setback 30 ft, with 7' chain link fence
- Trail will be a shared railroad maintenance road
• Bem to Thun RWT (Bem Switzerland)
- Mainline commuter and freight trains, up to 100 mph
-Setback 15 to 30 ft
- Trail is depressed approx 10 ft, and separated by a low wall specifically provided to blunt
wind impacts
- No problems have been reported
• Coastal Rail-Trail
- A public sidewalk exists 18' feet from the centeriine ofthe tracks at on the east side of
' Encinitas Station.
High Speed Rail Safety Issues: Relevant Studies
The Federal Raihoad Administration conducted two reports in 1999 on the aerodynamic effects of
high-speed trains, one a literature review (Lee') and the other a computer modeling and field
research study (Liao^.
These reports identify that a passing high-speed train has four potentially harmful effects on
bystanders:
• sudden air pressure change
• initial rush of wind (the "bow wave")
• induced airflow (the "boundary layer")
• the wake wind following the train that can kick up dust and track debris
Air Pressure: The reports found that, "For trains passing at speeds up to 186 mph...the physiological
effects of pressure change on the eardrums of bystanders [on train platforms], while noticeable, wiU
not cause discomfort" (Lee, 14). Beyond 4 ft, the air pressure effects on bystanders of trains
traveling even at 150 mph are likely insignificant. (Lee, 27)
Wind Impacts: Literature review indicated that a flat-nosed train traveling at 90 mph should not
produce such winds beyond a distance of 23 ft. (Lee, 30) The computer modeling and field research
study confirmed the rate at which wind speeds decrease. Interestingly, it also found that those wind
speeds were consistentiy lower than had been predicted. (Liao, 43)
Wind Velocity Field Research
NCTD staff and consultants recentiy completed a series of field wind velocity tests. In the first
videos, shot injuiy 2002, a 20-lb mannequin was placed at different distances from the track
' Lee, H., Assessment of Potential Aerodynamic Effects on Personnel and Equipment in Proximity to High-Speed Train
Operations, USDOT-FRA, 1999.
^ Liao, S., The Aerodynamic Effects of High-Speed Trains on People and Property at Stations in the Northeast Corridor,
USDOT-FRA. 1999.
SECTION 1 - page 3 Coastal Rail-Trail Alta Planning + Design
The Coastal Rail-Trail: Issues Related to Compatibility with High Speed Rail
centeriine. As the train passes, the mannequin is shown blowing over, and its hat and scarf blowing
down the tracks.
A follow-up video was shot in August 2002 using live models (Alta staff Brian Hannegan and 12-
year old son Leo). Leo weighs approximately 80 lbs, 4' 11" tall and is 11 years old. Leo was
positioned at both 25' and 30' setbacks from the track centeriine. Brian Hannegan stood at a
setback distance between 13' to 15'. Staff from NCTD and HDR videotaped and recorded the
testing.
The test also included four to five mannequins set at various distances from the tracks. A Coaster
Train with a buffeted front end passed through at approximately 45 miles an hour. The train had an
insignificant wind impact, and the mannequins remained after. An Amtrak train then passed at
around 89 mph (the speed of the train was identified by the train engineer radio and a radar gun).
At 15 ft. away from the tracks with no barriers, the wind, debris and sound impacts were high. Leo
reported minimal wind, sand, and dust at 30'. Due to the potential for faUing debris, NCTD did not
allow us to stand closer than 50' from the tracks when the BNSF freight train came through.
NCTD staff placed mannequins and piles of flour next to the tracks to follow the wind patterns
when the freight train passed.
Alta Planning -I- Design staff also shot video at the Encinitas Station in October 2002, holding a
wind meter as the train passed at 90 mph. Staff stood 22 ft from the track centeriine, on the sidewalk
that is 18 ft from the track centeriine on the opposite side ofthe passenger platform in Encinitas.
Our observations of the wind effects were simUar to those cited in federal smdies — there were no
substantial wind effects at a distance of about 22 feet from the track centeriine, including wind from
a flat-nosed train passing at 90 mph.
An additional staff observation was that the back end ofthe train causes greater wind force than the
more aerodynamic front. If there were double tracks and a turnaround, it is presumed that the train
would always be traveling with an engine in front, thus reducing the wind impacts on adjacent trail
users.
Finally, a well-designed trail could provide mitigation measures for the wind impacts. These potential
design features include:
• Wind baffling materials such as fencing slats and vegetation
• Sound walls
• Creating a grade difference between the trail and tracks (e.g., build the trail onto a berm)
Trespassing
The RWT: Lessons Learned report found that RWT projects often help reduce trespassing,
dumping, and vandalism, particularly in areas with a history of trespassing problems. This is because
those that were walking on or along the tracks walk on the trail, and because RWTs channelize users
to safe crossings.
"With proper involvement, railroad companies can, in many cases, benefit from RWTs by
requiring design features that help reduce existing problems. These features include good
separation, (distance, grade, vegetation, or fencing), well-defined and designed crossings, on-
going maintenance, and user education. Where these features are not present, RWTs can
SECTION 1 - page 4 Coastal Rail-Trail Alta Planning -i- Design
The Coastal Rail-Trail: Issues Related to Compatibility with High Speed Rail
cause undue burden on the railroads in the form of increased trespassing, operation and
maintenance costs, and safety risks."
"Researchers observed few trespassers on tracks next to existing trails. Those few observed
were crossing or walking on tracks where fencing was not present to separate the trail from
the tracks. In corridors where trails are planned but no formal facility exists yet, researchers
observed more frequent trespassing. The most serious conditions were along the planned
Coastal Rail-Trail in California near Del Mar and Encinitas, where 155 trespassers were
observed over the course of two hours. On four traUs partially built during the course of this
study (Blackstone River Bikeway, Burke-Gilman Extension, Cottonbelt Trail, and Kennebec
River TraU), before and after comparison found either no change or a significant drop in
trespassing once the traU was buUt."
Among aU the traUs observed, most trespassers were crossing the track to access the ocean, a river,
or lake for surfing, fishing, or other recreational activity. The remainder were walking alongside the
tracks. Few were acmaUy on the track. Approximately 44 percent ofthe trespassers were foUowing a
path that would not be accommodated by the RWT, whUe about 32 percent followed a path that
likely wUl become the traU."
As part of the RWT report, researchers counted 119 trespassers in a one hour on, along, and
crossing the tracks in the area of the planned Coastal Rail-TraU in Del Mar. It should be noted that
NCTD has taken great strides to reduce incidents of trespassing in the past two years with stepped
up monitoring and enforcement. StiU, Alta staff observed many trespassers in the field in the FaU
2002. Because the NCTD tracks are located between homes and the coast, the attraction to cross
and walk along tracks to access the beach is obvious.
Legal Environment
One ofthe prime concerns with aU RWT projects is the potential for legal responsibility in the case
of traU user injuries. This issue has been analyzed in significant detail, for both the Coastal RaU-Trail
itself and for RWTs projects in general. The main conclusions are that the Califomia Recreational
Trails Act, California Recreational Use Statute, and California Tort Claims Act substantially limit the
potential liability of the trail managers, NCTD, and the train operators.
Safety of RWTs
The RWT: Lessons Learned smdy process included tremendous research into the history of crashes
and other safety issues on existing RWTs. Researchers:
• Analyzed pubUcly available accident data
• Reviewed trail manager interviews provided by the Rails-to-TraUs Conservancy for 61
existing U.S. RWTs
• Interviewed traU managers of over 21 traUs
• Interviewed representatives of aU Class I railroads, as weU as many Class II railroads, transit
agencies, and other train companies and agencies
SECTION 1 - page 5 Coastal Rail-Trail Alta Planning + Design
The Coastal Rail-Trail: Issues Related to Compatibility with High Speed Rail
The result of this research was the conclusion that very few accidents have occurred on existing
RWTs. The one known accident was in .Alaska where a boy cut through a fence and attempted to
jump on a passing train. The Municipality of Anchorage assumed Uability responsibiUty under its
RWT agreement with the Alaska RaUroad Corporation.
Most of the existing RWTs are not adjacent to high-speed U.S. rail Unes, and the potential for
serious injury increases as train speeds increase. However, the fact remains that there simply is no
history of accidents involving RWTs to be found. On the one hand, one can theorize that perhaps
there are too few in place, for too Uttie time, to observe an accident history. On the other hand, one
could speculate that traUs users obey the laws and have no reason to stray from the traU and onto the
tracks.
Conclusions and Recommendations
It is our conclusion that a weU designed Coastal RaU-TraU wiU provide a safe and useful facihty for
trail users without compromising train operations or safety. NCTD's concerns are vaUd and should
be considered in the design. The fact that the raU Une is high-speed relative to most of those in
existence today should not preclude its implementation, but shoiUd be incorporated into the design
of the traU. As shown in Section 3, we have analyzed the corridor in detaU. The bulk of the corridor
is over 200 feet wide, with adequate space for the trail. We recommend:
• The setback distance should be maximized to the extent possible.
• GeneraUy, the traU should be located no closer than 30 feet to the track centerUne
throughout the corridor whenever possible. In locations with less than a 30 foot setback,
wind baffUng materials or traU grade separation techniques should be used. This
recommendation is based on the foUowing:
o FRA's studies on wind velocity impacts of high speed trail at platforms lead us to the
conclusion that a 30-foot setback is more than adequate to address safety concerns,
o Field observations show that at a 30-foot setback, the wind impacts are negUgible.
• The trail should be separated by grade, drainage swale, fence, vegetation or other separation
technique throughout the corridor. Any separation should aUow for NCTD maintenance
personnel to access the tracks. From an aesthetic standpoint, a fence should be surrounded
by vegetation or landscaping.
• In space consttained areas, the trail should be used for NCTD track maintenance, with track
maintenance taking priority over trail use whenever necessary.
• TraU users should be channeUzed to existing (but modified) at-grade crossings and new
overcrossings.
Section 3 of this report includes specific recommendations for modifying the 30 percent design
plans such that setback is maximized.
SECTION 1 - page 6 Coastal Rail-Trail Alta Planning + Design
Section 2:
Presentation of Detailed
Information
November 11,2002
Coastal Rail-Trail Project • ........ ^."r-i-ft"
^^^^^^^^
Alta Planning + Design
••Hi
A3
cvc
••••Bj
i
SECTION 2 - slide 2 Coastal RaihTrail Praject Alta Planning + Design
What trains run, and how fast?
18 North Cou^ District (NCTD)
"fiMsters" daily Mon-Fri, and 8 on Saturday.
—: up to 60^mph
2§Aintrak''Pac^ Surfliners" daWy.
- up to 90 mph
Up to 48 San Diego Trolley trains weekly.
- up to 40 mph
5 freight trains weekly. ^' ;/ || .|^p
ia.up to 50 mph ^ \: -\ , :^' fS
it
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
.•*'.;:.h*w«:
Resea
•Hi ti,.
I
WmKBBfi
SECTION 2 - slide 4 Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning -t- Design
"Sa j.- "'.^ ,7
'jtol
Well-designed RWTs can bring numerous benefits to all 1
parties; They are not appropriate in every situation, however,
iahci should be carefully studied through a feasibility analysis.
Trail proponents:
Should assume the liability biirden for projects on private RR property.
- Should limit at-grade trail-track crossings.
- Should set trails back as far as possible from tracks, and provi
hysical separation through fencing, vertical distance, vegetation, e;
Railroad'companies:
Should understand commumty desires to create safe waUcing an
bicycling spaces.
IC^ fi-om reduced trespassing, dumping and vandalism.
- Can receive fmancial compensation.
«,l|->iw-Kliiv^l Ht-w •
rgn-rfli;!-! . .•
Coastal Rail-Trail Projecc Alta Planning -f Design
(' Setback' = distance between the paved trail edge and the railroad track centeriine)
There is not vet a national consensus on setbacks for RWTs.
Trail planners create solutk)ns that work for all pteies^^^a
consider these factors: ---y9,::''r
pfej speed and frequency of trains in the corridor
separation (of trail from track) techniques
OpSlfaplty;':
sight" distance '
maintenance requirements
historical problems
corridor ownership
liability assignment
Alta graphic
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
CCI
iR
.•|V, ni^^iir j— {jc. I
SECTION 2 - slide 7
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
iWTs in high-speed train situaticin
Anacostia Trail System (Prince George's Cty., MDy--^ f^^
- 22 MARC cornrnuter trains, iip to 70 rnph
- >100 D.C. Metro subway and 2 fi-eight trains,
- Minimum trail setback 32 ft. with 6' cMii link fenc
Nolllieast;Comdor:Trair
- Plarpied^^
Summer 2003
- >100 Amtrak y4ce/a and
commuter trains, up to 120 mph
Minimum trail setback 30 ft. with
' 7' chain link fence •
-ilTrail will be a shared railroad
maintenance road
Coastal Rail-Trail Project; Alta Planning + Design
Alta Planning + Design
Safety and Legal Concerns
Proposed Rails-with-Trails often bring up concems:
air users may be iniured by railroad activities:
- objects falling or protruding fix)m trains^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i^^ ^ i
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ -
- wind and blown objects resulting fix)m passing trairis^S
- derailments^ -
Mdents of trespassing aiid related injuries may be more frequent
V. .the Trail Manager, Railroad Operator or Track Owner may
high liabilitv for injuries and accidents;
What has been the experience of other Rails-with-Trailsl
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
•••^.!,^^:L^i?5^dii"^E•ii^!i!!^iIl!i
• Main Track aYard ^Slde :lndustiy
coke
50-69 moh
30-49 moh
11-29 moh
llL»
29 40 =
148 159 148 159 169 148 159 169
231 272 248 wt 231 272 248 231 272 248
BB —
231 272 248
BB —
301 340
248
BB —
301 340 384
^9
301 340 384
^9
301 340
^9
301 340
m>i-tO mph
190-109 mph
• 70-69 mph
150-69 mph
• 30-49 mph
• 11-29 mph
• 0-10 mph
SECTION 2 - slide 13 Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
Addressing Safetv Concerns:
AIR, WIND, AND DEBRIS
The Federal Railroad Administration conducted two reports* in 1999
on the aerodynamic effects of high-speed trains, one a literature review (lie'
^, a the other a computer modeling and field research study (Liao).
These reports identify that a passing
high-speed train has four potentially
ttermfiil effects on bystanders:
- sudden air pressure change
- initial rush of wind
(the "bow wave") I
- induced airflow
(the "boundary layer")
AIRFLOW AMB AIR PRESSUfUE
- the wake wind following the train that can kick up dust and track debris
Liao, S., The Aerod^cmic Effects of High-Speed Trams on People and Property at Stathns in the Northeast Corridor., USDOT-FRA, 1999.
Lee, \i.,Assessmmt ofPotentM Aerodynamic Effects on Personnel and Equipnent m Proximity to High-Speed Tram Operations, USDOT-FRA, 1999.
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
Addressing Safetv Concerns:
AIR, WIND, AND DEBRIS
if Pf essure - The reports found:
'Tor trains passing at speeds up to 186 mpk..the physiological effect
pressure change on the eardrums of bystanders [on tirain platfonns], while
lu5ticMble, yAll mt cause discoid
Beyond 4- ft!» the air pressure effects on bystanders of frains traveling
at 150 mph are likely insignificant. (I^e, 27)^^^^^^^^^^f -
Air pressure changes are therefore not an
issue for the Coastal Rail Trail.
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
Addressing Safetv Concerns:
AIR, WIND. AND DEBRIS (3
Wind " British Rail suggests that the pubhc not be exposed to wind spee
above 25 mph (a'light bree^^^^^
Literature review indicated that induced wind speed at Distances from Passing Uralns
Comparison of TtieorsM versus Uaasured Results
a flat-nosed train traveling at 90
mph should not produce such 1 ,A r==^^^^^^
^nds beyond a distance of LJ\ ..x..cR)»orA«^«Y^«
^23^ft.;(i^e,30) ^;
e|Coii$Mer niodeling and^^^ ^^^^^^^ I ^
ield research study confirmed ? | ^0\.
the rate at which wind speeds I" —
decrease. Literestmgly, it also • \: - f 0.3 • ^ \ ^—~—IIS^
found that those wind speeds,|o.2: \ "^''^•3^f°''°^„^—-^^^j^;;;;^
were consistently lower than '01
had been predicted. (Liao,43) oI—.—^—•—H—H—r...M ..M^
••-D—-a.^^ *x-...x....X"—X x-*"-^
DisiMnce n-oin Siife of Passing Train, {m)
4 4.5
Chart: Lkio, 43.
Coastal Rail-Trait Project Alta Planning + Design
Addressing Safetv Concerns:
AIR, WIND. AND DEBRIS (4
Wind (continued;) - In August 2002, Alta
lionducted field observations of the winds
created by the railway's fastest traii^ the
Amtrak Surfliner. Minimal wind impacts
were felt by a child standing al 30 ft
back.
In Octoberl0p2, additional field ^
obiefe^ltioris were made from, a public
sidewalk on the east side of the tracks at
Encinitas Station. The nearest edge of this
existing sidewalk is 18 feet from the
center of the track. There were no
substantial wind effects at a distance of
about 22 feet from the track centeriine, ;
iriclilding wind from a flat-nosed train
passing at 90 mph.
P.-i-iv^ iJ- • : •
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
Addressing Safetv Concerns:
AIR, WIND, AND DEBRIS
ebris - The "wake" effects that follow a passing train potentially have
the largest impact on bystanders. The turbulent winds created in the wake
of the train can kick up dustand debris.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^v^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^;^^^i3^^^
The reports found that, even
in a 'worst-case' scenario,
Ijpkgs^ifid^ flat-nosed
'frains traveling as fast as
125 mph would not exceed
13 mph beyond a distance
of 12 ft from the train.
(Liao, 42)
Hoitwntal liHluced Airflow Velod^ (Computer Model)
AniAetf "fi^iriM 125 pts^ k>w-lBUfil (no) pla^^
300 400 600 KO 1000
Chart: Lho, 41.
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
Addressing Safetv Concerns:
AIR. WIND. AND DEBRIS
Conclusion —
, 5 2^^^ findings of the federal studies, as well as observed
conditions on existing sidewalks and platforms, we can safely conclude that
y air pressure changes
kicked-up dust and debris
ated by passing trains, even in worst-case scenarios, will not adverse
affect trail users if the trail is at least 25 feet awa^
Table 3-2. Summary of Worst-Case Conditions at 2.5 Feet Above Platform,
Amfleet Trainset Passmg a Low-Level Platform on tlie Near Track at X25 mph
Induced Air Flow
Element
Maximum Air Velocity (in mph) at the
Distances Shown from the Side of the
Train
Beaufort Scale Numbers for the
Maximum Air Velocities at the
Distances Shown From Side of Train
Induced Air Flow
Element
3 ft 6 ft 9 ft 12 ft 3 ft 6ft 9 ft 12 ft
Bow Wave 13-25 13-25 <I3 <13 4-6 4-6 3 3
Boundary Layer >40 25-40 13-25 <13 >8 6-8 4-6 3
Wake 25-40 13-25 13-25 <13 6-8 4-6 4-6 3 Chart: Liao, 24.
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning -t- Design
Research indicates that RWTs may be an effective tool to manage
fespassing on corridors. Not only do they help channelize pedestrians intc
safe and legal pathways, most RWTs include a fence between the rail and
the trail, fto discouraging rail trespassing.
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning -*- Design
Addressing Safetv Concerns:
LIABILITY
Ws potentially liable fbr accklents on the trail? *
Trail Managers: Cities of San Diegoj Carlsbad, Oceanside, Encinita
'Mar, and\Solana Beach:';::;::;-;•;; :/c^^^^^^
ack Owner/Qperato r: North County Transit Districf San Die'
Northern Railway, ^;
iliroai Operators; North Countv Transit District, Amtrak, frei
operators, and San Diego Trolley, Inc.
Adiacent Landowners
Informatbn in this seaion based on VQt^Qv, A., Addressing Liability of Pails-with-Tmih,\996.
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
slide 22 Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning Design
Addressing Safetv Concerns:
LIABILITY
TRACK OWNER. RAILROAD OPERATORS, and
ADJACENT LANDOWNERS
Califomia Recreational Trails Act:
.1 :*!,iJ,ij_-tJ|j
"No adjoining property owner is liable lo any actions ofany type resuh
" om or caused by, trail users trespassing on adjoining property|and no
adjbihihg property owner is hable for any acfions of any type sS^^ or
taking place within, the boundaries of the trail arising out of the Mij' "
o1|ter^parties. :v •
alifornia Recreational Use Statute (RUS):
Applies to private landowners and private leaseholders, and proviides f ritnunit^
for liability towards "uninvited" persbns. Thus, private ad[jacent lahi&lill*
re protected in the event any nonpaying, uninvited recreational user leav<
le trail and is injured on private property.
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
Safety Concerns: CONCLUSIONS
Precedents
- Many well-used Rails-with-Trails already exist throughout the country
with trains as fast as 70 mph. Amtrak has already approved an RWT in
Delaware within 30 ft of its .4ce/a trains traveling at 120 inphjsa»,a,,«^^,,
iafety
Proper fencing and trail design will channelize
destrians and discourage trespassers:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ;:
assihg trains will not adversely affect trait users
if the trail is set Sack at least 25 feet from tracks.
Well-designed tmil0Ktp
discourage tre^assingB Liability discourage trespassmgS:
- If well-managed, a trail will not create liability burden for the railroa
Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
RECOAAMEN DATI ONS
The setback distance should be maximized to the extent possible. M be;
least 30 feet throughout the corridor whenever possible. In locations witH
less than a 30 foot setback, wind baffling materials or trail grade separation
techniques should bc used.
The trail should be separated by grade, drainage swale; fence, vegetation c
throughout the corridor. Any separation should
allow for NGTD maintenance personnel to access the tracks. Frorn art
aesthetic standpoint, a fence should be surrounded by vegetation b
p;isea|)iilg.;=;,;/'' •
In space-constrained areas, the trail should be used for NCTD track
maintenance, with track maintenance taking priority over trail use il
whenever necessary.;'•/-
il users should be channelized to existing (but modified) at-grade
Slpssings and new overcrossings.
Coastal Rail-Trail Praject Alta Planning + Design
SECTION 2 - slide 26 Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
Trail Design:
Encinitas
Typical trail offset in Encinitas would be 30 to 75 feet.
. T
'1
SECTION 2 - slide 27 Coastal Rail-Trail Project Alta Planning + Design
Trail Design:
Carlsbad
Trail offset in Carlsbad could be increased to 30 feet it this;i|
location and allow for paralbl raikoad
Alta Planning + Design
Trail Design:
Oceanside
Typical trail offset in Oceanside wouki be about 70 fe6t. "Fig
Alta Planning t Design
November. 2002
Alta Planning + Design
; 144 fSlE 28* Ave
Portland, OR 97232
' (503f23ra^
vvww.altaplannjng.com PLANNING + DESIGN
Section 3:
DetaUed Analysis of Coastal
Rail-Trail Corridor
Coastal Rail Trail
Looking south at Chesterfield Drive
Railroad parallels Pacific Coast Highway (left)
and San Elijo Avenue (right).
Coastal Rai! Trail,
City of Encinitas, Geometric Approval Drawings 1 through 6
(Dokken Engineering, May 23, 2002)
Plan Review and Coinments by Paul Smith, Alta Planning + Design
Sheet 1
Trail starts on the north side of Chesterfield Drive, POT 100+00, Trail is east of
rail and west of San Elijo Avenue. Total rail ROW is 150 feet wide at Chesterfield
Drive and widens to 200 feet at Liverpool Drive. Trail offset from rail centeriine
varies from 30 feet to 75 feet. Available ROW on east side of rail is 75 to 100 feet.
Sheet 2
Trail continues on east side of rail and and west of San Elijo Avenue. North of
Verdi Avenue, trail moves closer to San Elijo Avenue. Typical offset from rail is
50 feet. Trail is supported by low retaining wall on west side with slope down to
rail. Trail is behind utility poles which are 10 feet off San Elijo Avenue. Trail is
outside rail ROW and appears to be in ROW of San Elijo Avenue. Total rail ROW
narrows to 80 feet. Centeriine of single track is 30 feet from west ROW limit. Trail
re-enters rail ROW north of Cornish Drive and maintains a 45 foot offset. Offset
narrows to 30 feet, but it appears that it could be increased by moving trail into
land along San Elijo Avenue (probably is street ROW).
Sheet 3
Trail continues on east side of rail and west of San Elijo Avenue. Trail offset
initially is 30 feet and widens to 45 feet. Total rail ROW is 125 feet at 1 Street. Trail
moves closer to rail (35-foot offset) and then moves toward the street, terminating
at the intersection of Vulcan Avenue and G Street, 189^-70.06 (San Elijo Avenue
becomes Vulcan Avenue)
Comments
The trail segment shown on Encinitas Sheets 1-3 is 1.7 miles long. Typical trail
offsets are 30 to 75 feet. The rail trail connects to the street system at both ends.
Where the trait is offset from rail by 30 feet, it appears that the offset could be
increased (sufficient ROW available).
San Diego North Coastal Cities - Page 1 of 5
SECTION 3 - page 1 Coastal Rail-Trail Alta Planning + Design
EST
Coastal Rail Trail San Diego North Coastal Cities - Page 2 of 5
Area between railroad and Vulcan Avenue
I—,
Sheet 4 (Encinitas)
Trail starts on north side of Encinitas Boulevard on east side of the rail, POT
200+00. Total rail ROW is 100 feet in this section. Trail begins outside rail ROW
and is 75 to 95 feet offset from rail centerhne. North of Sunset Drive, the trai!
enters rail ROW and runs north with a 30 foot offset. It appears tliat the offset
could be increased to about 37 feet maintaining a 5 foot offset from Vulcan
Avenue, which the trail parallels, (check presence of trees, utility poles, and
sidewalk on west side of Vulcan Avenue).
Sheet 5
Trail continues on east side of rail and west of Vulcan Avenue.The trail offset
from rail centeriine, which is shown in section on the plans as low as 25 feet, can
probably be increased to 37 feet similar to that described under Sheet 4. For
example, the trail can placed 2 feet west of the utiUty poles along Vulcan Avenue
to maximize the offset to the rail line. At Leucadia Boulevard, the trail would
cross over to the west side of the railroad and be located between the railroad
and Highway 101. Using a portion of the Highway 101 ROW as a median
(separation), the trail could be located with an offset of about 37 feet from the rail
centeriine.
Sheet 6
Trail continues on west side of railroad between the railroad and Highway 101.
The trail offset from rail centeriine, which is shown in section on the plans as low
as 25 feet, can probably be increased to 37 feet similar to tbat described under
Sheets 4 and 5. A portion of the Highway 101 ROW would be used as a median
(separation) between the road and the trail. The trail ends opposite Grandview
Street at PT 345+14.68.
Comments
The trail segment shown on Encinitas Sheets 4-6 is 2.75 miles long. It connects to
tho street system at both ends. The total of both segments of the CRT in Encinitas
is 4.45 miles. The gap between the segments, where the CRT would an on-road
bicycle facility, is five blocks long. The Encinitas Train Station is located in this
five-block area.
North of Leucadia Boult'vai d
Area behveen railroad and Pacific Coast
Highway
Looking south at Leucadia Boulevard
SECTION 3 - page 2 Coastal Rail-Trail Alta Planning + Design
iSTCS
Coastal Rail Trail
tx^okin;^ north at MP 213
Area belvverii r.iil and A\enid.i FncinLi^s
Coastal Rail Trail,
City of Carlsbad, Geometric Approval Drawings 1 through 4
pokken Engineering, March 6, 2002)
Plan Review and Comments by Paul Smith, Alta Planning + Design
Sheet 1
Trail starts in vicinity of Carlsbad Poinsettia Coaster Station, POT 10+00
Trail is east of a double-track railroad and west of Avenida Encinas.
Trail is shown in section on plans with a 50 foot or greater offset from the nearest
rail centeriine. Trail moves within 30 feet of rail centeriine at Station 45+65.24 to
avoid a hill to the east. Further north, trail shown 22 feet from rail centeriine and
existing railroad maintenance road relocated from east of tracks to west side of
ROW.
Sheet 2
Railroad is double track within a 100-foot ROW. Trail is shown on east side of
ROW. Several altemative sections are shown for the trail. Altemative 2 modified
with a 2-foot shoulder abutting the east ROW limit would provide a narrower
path (10 feet wide) with a 21 foot offset from the centeriine of the closet track. The
double track railroad is located on a timber bridge over ^near PI 79+00. The
plans show a trail bridge with a 12-foot inside width, offset 19 feet east of the
centeriine of the east track on the railroad structure. Trail intersects Cannon Road
at PT 103+31.66. Length of trail on Sheets 1 and 2 is 1.95 miles.
Comments
Between the Carlsbad Poinsettia Station and Palomar Airport Road, it appears
that the trail offset could be significantly increased by moving the trai! eastward
(see photo left middle and bottom). Alta Planning + Design will investigate
ownership of the land between Avenida Encinas and the railroad.
North of Palomar Airport Road, an industrial park(s) is located east of the tracks
(see photos right upper and middle). With the cooperation of the landowners,
the trail could possibly be moved eastward increasing the offset to 30 to 35 feet.
If these changes were feasible, then existing maintenance road on east side of
track could remain in place.
San Diego North Coastal Cities - Page 3 of 5
North of Palomar Airport Road
Double track ends at Cannon Road
SECTION 3 - page 3 Coastal RailTrsil Alta Planning + Design
Coastal Rail Trail
Sheet 3
TraU crosses Cannon Road. Trail stationing is reset to POT 10+00. Single-track
railroad continues north in a 100-foot ROW. The trail offset shown in the first
section heading north could be increased to 35 feet by maintaining a 2-foot offset
from the existing fence at the east edge of the rail ROW (see photo left center).
North of the Encina Power Plant private road crossing, the trail offset from the
centeriine of the single track is shown as 34 feet Retaining walls are included in
the trail design of several sections between the private road crossing and Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. Trail offset narrows to 26 feet on south side of the lagoon,
ROW then widens to 200 feet. Trail crosses lagoon on independent trail bridge
(no plans available).North of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, the trail offset increases to
as much as 90 feet and no less than 50 feet. Trail intersects Tamarack Avenue at
PT 77+40.05. Length of trail on this sheet is 1.28 miles.
Sheet 4
Trail crosses Tamarack Avenue. Trail stationing is reset to POT 10+00. Railroad
continues north with a single h-ack in a 200-foot ROW. Trail is located on east
side of ROW with an offset of 64 to 72 feet Trail intersects Oak Avenue at PT
46+78.81. Trail length on this sheet is 0.70 mile.
Summary Carlsbad Sheets 1-4
Trail length - 3.93 miles.
Comments
Trail offset of 35 feet is feasible north of Carmon Street (see photos left column).
North of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, the trail offset increases to as much as 90 feet
and no less than 50 feet.
San Diego North Coastal Cities - Page 4 of 5
Looking north at Tamarack Avenue
North of Tamarack Avenue
Looking south at Oak Street
SECTION 3 - page 4 Coastal Rail-Trail Alta Planning + Design
Coastal Rail Trail San Diego North Coastal Cities - Page 5 of 5
Looking north at MP 228
Coastal Rail Trail,
City of Oceanside, Geometric Approval Drawings 1 and 2
(Dokken Engineering, May 17, 2002)
Plan Review and Comments by Pau! Smith, Alta Planning + Design
Sheet 1
Trai! starts north of Eaton Street POT 100+00. Trail is east of a single-track
railroad and west of Broadway. Typical trail offset is 72 feet. Railroad ROW is 200
feet wide. Trail crosses Cassidy Street at Pl 120+04.58. Trail offset narrows to 39
feet between Station 137+00 and 138+70. Trail turns west and goes under existing
railroad bridge at Station 139+40. CRT connects to existing trail on south side of
Loma Alta Creek at 140+00. This existing concrete path runs to Pacific Stieet. The
CRT segment from Eaton Street to Loma Alta Creek is 4,000 feet (0,75 mi) long.
Sheet 2
Trail begins again on north side of Oceanside Boulevard at PI 200+00, Trail is east
of rail and behind properties that front on South Cleveland Street. The railroad
ROW remains 200 feet wide. Typical trai! offset is 70 feet. Trail crosses Wisconsin
Avenue at PI 221+76.07. Offset narrows to 35 feet on both sides of Wisconsin
Avenue. Double track begins near CRT Station 205+00 (at end of Forster Street).
The second track is west of the ROW centeriine, which provides extra room for
trail on east side of ROW. Trail ends at Oceanside Transit Center lot (southwest
corner) at end of Missouri Avenue Pl 236+76.07. The CRT segment from
Oceanside Boulevard to the Oceanside Transit Center is 0.70 miles long.
Comments
The total length of rail tiail in Oceanside is 1,45 miles. Generally, the trail in
Oceanside is offset from the railroad by 70 feet or more within a 200-foot wide
right of way (ROW). The offset reduces to 35 to 39 feet near the crossing of
Wisconsin Avenue and at another location near Loma Alta Creek.
Trail is on Pacific Street from Loma Alta Creek
to Oceanside Boulevard,
Path under railroad at Loma Alta Creek Looking north at MP 227 (southbound Amtrak)
SECTIGN 3 - page 5 Coastal RailTrail Alta Planning + Dosign