From: Ron Goodman
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2017 8:13 PM
To: Christophe Schneiter
Subject: Path fencing/spacing

Chris,

...I have a follow-up question about the source of 2 of the stated trail design requirements:

1)      That the trail must be 8.5’ from the tracks centerline (or larger on sharper turns).

2)      That a 54” fence is required between the trail and the tracks.

These requirements are mentioned in MBSST Master Plan, section 5.2, and is loosely attributed to Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000, Topic 1003. But after carefully reviewing Chapter 1000, I don’t seen mention of either of these topics.

In my research, I’ve found some states with something similar to the 1^st requirement – but not exactly. For example, in Michigan the *fence* would have to be 8.5’ from the centerline … but this requirement doesn’t apply to the trail itself or non-fixed objects (e.g. users of the trail) (see https://www.michigan.gov/documents/rcbook_55515_7.pdf – “safe space” section). Also, I haven’t found anything that shows this requirement applies to California or applies at the Federal level. But, even if it does, it only seems to apply to the fence and not the trail or its users.

The closest thing I’ve found to the fence requirement is that in Iowa, a 54” fence is required to prevent incursion by “cattle, horses and other livestock”. But I haven’t found anything about the 2^nd requirement that would apply to our situation, nor that applies to California or at the federal level. UP has a design document (https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/documents/document/pdf_rr_grade_sep_projects.pdf - section 4.7) that implies fencing off the ROW in general may be required on a case-by-case basis (4.7c) – although it describes an 8’ fence. If a fence weren’t required, this might impact the relevance of the 8.5’ requirement [and make it possible to build the trail closer to the tracks and lessen the need for retaining walls in the area behind Neary Lagoon].

There are certainly advantages to having the trail further from the tracks where space is available, e.g. I believe that train speed is limited based on proximity to a trail. But it would be valuable to know if that were a goal rather than a requirement. Similarly, if the fence were just “a good idea” it could have breaks during longer sections for safety/access, or could be removed in sections where trail design restrictions justified it (e.g. narrow sections, to preserve heritage trees).

Could you let me know what you believe to be the source of these requirements?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

   Ron Goodman

From: Christophe Schneiter
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2017 4:57 PM
To: Ron Goodman

Subject: RE: Path fencing/spacing

Ron,

The railroad requirement is 10 feet minimum and in special cases as close as 8.5'. Thats what the design is predicted on. The fence is required unfortunately by the railroad and RRM has confirmed that is what is typically done near an active railroad in California. The railroad originally wanted a minimum 6-8' foot high fence but we talked them out of it. The regulations are enforced by the CPUC. We have to follow California rules as well as federal. 

We are trying to stay as far from the track as possible which optimizes what can be done with the remaining rail area in the future. We are limited in some cases by trees we want to protect, grades, and private property, so we do swing closer to the track, but never less than 8.5'. Its too bad we have to do the fence. Seems silly since it can be climbed and is open at every street crossing. 

Chris

From: Ron Goodman
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2017 10:17 PM
To: Christophe Schneiter
Subject: RE: Path fencing/spacing

Chris,

According to a Rails-To-Trails survey, of the 61 rail trails next to active rail corridors, 28% have no barrier (https://www.railstotrails.org/resourcehandler.ashx?id=3491 page 19). Based on that, it’s hard to imagine there’s a federal requirement for a barrier. Although their survey doesn’t mention which states the rail+trails are in, I found nothing in my research to suggest that CA has unique requirements.

Furthermore, although it’s proof that I’m insane, I *read* the agreement between the RTC and SC/MB Railway Co. and saw nothing to suggest that they have any authority to require a fence.

As an aside, if there were something that granted them this authority, I think they would want it to be 10’ from the centerline of the track, and not next to the trail as is shown in the segment 7 plans. This is what I’ve seen in all examples of active rail w/trail. For example, the Watts Towers trail in L.A. has an active train and has fencing adjacent to the tracks, not the trail.

One other thing, if you’re interested in the Railway agreement, the RTC posted a non-searchable version of it. But, I converted it to a searchable PDF and it’s much more usable now – at http://www.bikeadvocacy.org/sctrail/RTC-Railway-ACLAgreement20121012.pdf

I also posted the segment 7 plans at http://www.bikeadvocacy.org/sctrail/ because I could no longer locate them on the city’s website.

-Ron

From: Christophe Schneiter
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 2:44 PM
To: Ron Goodman
Cc: various additonal recipients

Subject: FW: Path fencing/spacing

Hi Ron,

Here’s a more thorough response from Mike Sherrod on the standards question:

Two key items on this topic:

First, it’s important to know that no national standards or guidelines exist which dictate Rail-with-Trail design. Instead, guidance is pieced together from standards related to shared use paths, railroad facilities, and roadway crossings of railroad tracks. Therefore, the design, including when and where to use fencing, is a result of working closely with railroad operations staff and the rail ROW owners, the SCCRTC, to achieve a suitable design. The challenge is to find ways of accommodating both types of uses without compromising safety or function. Reference documents used for the Master Plan and Segment 7 include:

·     American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities”

·     U.S. Department of Transportation, “Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned”

·     California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) at-grade crossing requirements

·     Caltrans Chapter 1000, “Bikeway Planning and Design”

·     California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

·     Southern California Regional Rail Authority, “Rail-with-Trail Design Guidelines”

Second, Rail-with-Trail projects, from the owner’s perspective (the SCCRTC), improve alternative transportation options. However, from the rail operator’s perspective, Rail-with-Trail projects are primarily safety improvement projects that reduce trespassing and illegal track crossings through channelization of pedestrians and bicyclists to designated track crossing points using fencing as the channelization tool. That is why about 75% of Rail-with-Trail project include fencing. For the MBSST, we worked with both the rail operator and SCCRTC to come up with a balanced solution accommodating the trail users without compromising safety or function of the railroad. Also, some guidance documents prefer to use even taller fencing (up to six feet) between the track and trail, so Segment 7 is in pretty good shape with just a post and wire 54-inch fence.

To the point raised about placing the fencing at 10-feet from the track centerline instead of adjacent to the trail. The fence runs adjacent to the trail to provide as much rail operations space as possible. For example, along the reach of trail between Swift and Natural Bridges, the fence is adjacent to the trail (which is located along the outer edge of the ROW) so as not to conflict with future operational needs of the railroad such as adding track sidings.

Also, with the trail design we are maximizing future options (of any kind) for the rail row by keeping the rail as close to the coastal edge as possible, keeping in mind constraints associated with grades and trees. We are also concerned about arsenic contamination from previous weed abatement applications along the tracks. The closer we get to the track, the more the project will likely spend on testing and possible remediation.

Chris

From: Ron Goodman
Sent: April 03
To: Christophe Schneiter
Subject: RE: Path fencing/spacing

Hi Chris,

Thank you so much for this clarification.

I interpret Mike’s response to be that RRM believes:

• The fence was included based on guidance from various standards – but is not a requirement.
• Its adjacency to the trail, rather than the track, was meant to optimize space for rail operations – but that this positioning is not a requirement in all sections of the corridor.

So, while I get that there might be reasonable resistance to the idea, technically the trail in segment 7 phase 2 could:

1. Omit the fence from some or all of phase 2 design
2. Because there would then be no fixed raised element, the trail could be closer to the tracks (e.g. 6’ from centerline) without violating the “safe space” train rules. This would either enable widening the overall trail or reducing the extent of excavation needed for retaining walls – while simultaneously “opening” up the trail on one side.

Sincerely,

   Ron Goodman

From: Ron Goodman
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 11:30 PM
To: Christophe Schneiter
Cc: others
Subject: Distance from Centerline of Track

Hi Chris,

Following up on our conversation a few months ago about distance between the trail and the track and fences, please see this clip from Ecology Action/FORT on the San Clemente trail:

https://youtu.be/qe3gRU-bpWY?t=3m5s

Note, there is no fence and the trail is adjacent to a live track.

Do you know how were they able to put a trail right next to an operating train with no fence?

If we could do this, it would be like adding 6 or 7 feet of ROW in the most critical area – which could seemingly save profound amounts of money and reduce a lot of the tracks/no-tracks conflict pressure.

-Ron Goodman

From: Sherrod, Mike S.
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:02 PM
To: Christophe Schneiter
Cc: others
Subject: RE: Distance from Centerline of Track

Hi Chris,

That’s not the trail shown in the video – it’s the train platform at the pier. The San Clemente Beach Trail has a fence between it and the tracks the entire length of the trail. Also, it’s a DG path, not a paved AC path. I hope this clears things up.

From: Ron Goodman
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017
To: Christophe Schneiter
Cc: others
Subject: Distance from Centerline of Track

Thanks Chris. I did visit the trail and ran it. The southern end of the path has no fence.

I made a short movie to show it. See https://youtu.be/lDdqyAiqlGQ

It may not be officially part of the San Clemente Pedestrian Beach Trail, but as the movie shows, it is an open trail.

-Ron

P.S. The path is wide (generally ~16’ but it gets to be much wider in the populated area near the pier – I didn’t measure it here and it essentially opens up to the beach and is effectively unbound on one side for a while). Also, it’s not fenced on both sides except on a couple short bridges.