Rails-with-Trails:
Lessons Learned

Foreword

This report has been prepared at the direction of the U.S. Department of Transportation for the purpose of examining safety, design, and liability issues associated with the development of shared use paths and other trails within or adjacent to active railroad and transit rights-of-way. This document is intended to explore lessons learned from the experience of rails-with-trails (RWTs), and suggest practices to enhance safety and security for railroads, transit, and trail users.

The U.S. Department of Transportation does not actively promote RWT projects, but recognizes that RWTs already exist and that more are being planned and implemented. This report provides information for public agencies, railroads, legal interests, and trail organizations to make informed decisions.

NOTE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.

The contents of this report reflect the view of the contractor, who is responsible for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation.

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document.

Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned

Alta Planning + Design

Mia L. Birk (Project Manager)

Michael G. Jones

Philip K. Miller

George M. Hudson, RLA

Joshua Abrams

Daniel Lerch

Andrea Ferster, Esq.

Sprinkle Consulting

Jennifer Toole, AICP

Charles Denney, AICP

Texas Transportation Institute

Michele Brown

Jessica Franklin

ENSCO, Inc.

Eric Keller, PE

Rick Tannahill, PE

Karl Morell, Ball Janik LLP

CASE STUDY SUPPORT:
Peggy Gentry, Chapin Land Management, Inc.
Craig della Penna, Railroad Services Inc., Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
Suzan Pinsof

PRODUCTION SUPPORT:
Architecture 21
Grapheon Design
Terri Musser, Bicycles Etc.

PROJECT MANAGERS:
Christopher Douwes, Federal Highway Administration
Pamela Caldwell-Foggin, Federal Railroad Administration

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following people for their contributions to this report:

Doug Andrews, Operation Lifesaver Delaware
John Balicki, Maine Department of Transportation
Sgt. Belden, City of San Fernando, California
Robert Bernard, Portland (OR) Office of Transportation
Thomas Brooks, Alaska Railroad Corporation
Ron Campbell, Wildcat Mountain State Park, Wisconsin
Lionel Carver, City of Augusta, Maine
Officer Joe Cepeda, Seattle Police Department
George Church, Westmoreland Cty. (PA) Industrial Development Authority
Andy Clarke, Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals
Byron Cole, Ballard Terminal Railroad
Mark Conley, City of Kirkland, Washington
Seth M. Corwin, Operation Lifesaver New York
Michael Coty, City of Gardner, Maine
J.M. (Mike) Cowles, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company
John Dinning, Canadian National/Illinois Central Railway
Stephen Dockter, Columbus (GA) Consolidated Governments
Sylvanus Doughty, Citizens in Defense of Common Sense
Lt. John Drum, City of Portland, Oregon
Kevin Fazzini, Hickory Run State Park, Pennsylvania
G. Thomas Foggin III, Department of Geography, The George Washington University
Marianne Fowler, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
Edwin Galvez, City of San Fernando, California
Bill Gentilman, Buffalo & Pittsburgh Railroad
Bruce F. George, Federal Railroad Administration, retired
Mary Jean Gilman, Missoula (MT) Parks & Recreation Department
Gerri Hall, Operation Lifesaver, Inc.
Joshua Hart, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
W. Stephen Head, North Carolina Department of Transportation
Lt. Dewayne Herbert, Norristown (PA) Police Department
Larry Hodes, Coalition for the Metropolitan Branch Trail, Washington Bicyclist Association (WABA)
Steve Jantz, City of Carlsbad, California
Kenyon Karl
Richard Kotan, Omaha Public Power District
Roy Lapota, City of Newark, Delaware
Constable William Law, Canadian Pacific Railway Police
Earl Leach, Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP
Josh Lehman, Massachusetts Highway Planning
Sergeant Curtis Lockette, Columbus (GA) Consolidated Governments Police Department
Cpl. Christopher Lynch, Burlington (VT) Police Department
Michael Maher, Transplan PTY Ltd.
Richard Mather, R.A. Mather & Associates, Ltd.
Ron Mathieu, Southern California Regional Rail Authority/Metrolink
Sil Mazzella, City of Gaylord, Michigan
Sheriff James McBride, Otsego County, Michigan
Robert D. McCarthey, CIC, McCarthy Rail Insurance Managers
Mike McGinley, Southern California Regional Rail Authority/Metrolink
Sgt. Phillip McMillion, City of Gaylord, Michigan
Paul Meijer, Coalition of the Metropolitan Branch Trail
Zigisha Mhaskar, North County (CA) Transit District
Joe Moore, Grapevine (TX) Parks & Recreation Department
Jim Moorehead, Wildcat Mountain State Park, Wisconsin
Hugh Morris, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
Assistant Chief Wesley Mott, Columbus (GA) Consolidated Governments Police Department
Detective Bob Murphy, City of Grapevine (TX) Police Department
Capt. William Nufoski, City of Newark, Delaware
Daniel O'Brien, Massachusetts Dep't of Environmental Management
Luisa Paiewonsky, Mass Highway Bureau of Transportation Planning
Dave Papworth, North County (CA) Transit District
Naresh Patel, Southern California Regional Rail Authority/Metrolink
Jack Paulik, Five Star Trail
John Perlic, Parametrix, Inc
Jim Raffa, Reading & Northern Railroad
Jennifer Rice, Redwood Community Action Agency
Lt. Denis Riel, Lincoln (RI) Police Department
Malcome Ritchie, Ohio Central Railroad
Paula Rougny
Dick Samuels, Oregon Pacific Railroad
Mike Scime, Indiana DOT, Railroad Section Manager
Deborah Sedares, Providence & Worcester Railroad
Jan Seidner, Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Joe Simon, Kirkland (WA) Police Dept
Bruce Sleeper, JBG&H
P. Conrad Smith, Mesa Design Group
Phil Smith, City of Missoula, Montana
Russell Spinney, Maine Department of Transportation
John Stevens, Friends of the Riverfront
Les Town, Amtrak
Skip Tracy, City of Irvine, California
Dr. Jurg Tschopp, VCS Verkehrs-Club der Schweiz
Richard van Buskirk, Lake State Railroad
Stephen Vance, San Diego Association of Governments
Francoise Vermette, Velo Quebec
Officer Mark Warrington, City of Portland, Oregon
Robert Whalen, Burlington (VT) Parks & Recreation
Chip Willett, Willett Company
Phillip Williams, Maryland Mass Transit Administration
John Wood, Montgomery County (PA) Planning Commission
Tom Zeinz, Canadian National Railway
Lambri Zerva P.E., Rhode Island Department of Transportation

The authors also thank U.S. Department of Transportation staff who assisted in this project, as well as those who provided substantive comments and insights throughout this process, but chose to remain anonymous.

Contents

List of Figures & Tables

Executive Summary

This report offers conclusions about the lessons learned in the development, construction, and operation of "rails-with-trails" so that railroad companies, trail developers, and others can benefit from the history of trails in existence today. "Rail-with-trail" (RWT) describes any shared use path or trail located on or directly adjacent to an active railroad corridor. About 65 RWTs encompass 385 km (239 mi) in 30 States today. These trails are located adjacent to active rail lines ranging from a few slow-moving short-haul freight trains weekly, to high-frequency Amtrak trains traveling as fast as 225 km/h (140 mi/h). Dozens of RWTs are proposed or planned. While most are located on public lands leased to private railroads, many are on privately owned railroad property. Hundreds of kilometers of RWTs traverse Western Australia, Canada, and Europe.

RWT advocates and railroad company representatives often offer contrasting viewpoints. Trail planners view railroad property, often located in scenic areas with favorable topography, as a better alternative than bike lanes on roadways. They note that legal protections of varying degrees exist in all States, and that a litany of successful RWTs should provide comfort.

Baltimore York RWT, MD

Railroads generally oppose RWTs for the following business reasons: the trails are not related to railroad operations and generally do not generate revenue for the railroads; railroad rights-of-way may be needed for future enhancements to system capacity; poor design or maintenance of trails could lead to increased trespassing, with consequent increases in injuries and deaths; narrowing the railroad's portion of the right-of-way drives up the cost of maintaining track and structures (including complicating safety protection for roadway workers); and significant new populations of pedestrians close to the active track structure may result in additional stress on train crews seeking to ensure the safety of train movements. Railroad company representatives respond to assurances of legal protections by noting that the court system has not yet tested the lease and/or use agreements for existing RWTs. Railroads have borne the burden of litigation for many incidents on their property, even for crashes with at-fault trespassers or automobile drivers who ignored obvious warning systems. Further, they note that the railroad may be determined by civil courts to owe a higher duty of care to trail users than to trespassers, particularly at new, designated crossings.

Policy officials at the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have shared the railroads' public safety concerns. They also have pointed out that, for certain main lines, creation of a trail, under circumstances that could foreclose adding additional main line tracks or passing sidings to increase capacity, could result in a constriction of future freight rail service across the Nation or dramatically increased cost as a result of less-than-optimum routing. Nationally, railroads carry the highest percentage of freight of any mode on a "tonnage times distance" basis, and-for the bulk commodities they are well suited to handle-they do so at lower cost than trucks in terms of transportation charges, fossil fuel use, and greenhouse emissions. Although most existing service railroads could never replace the flexibility of trucking, the railroads will remain an essential transportation provider as the economy continues to grow into the future.

In the meantime, public pressure is increasing for railroads to free up space adjacent to rail lines for trail usage, pitting the railroad industry's safety, capacity, and liability concerns against trail proponents' desires to create shared use paths and other trails. This situation gave rise to the need to study the issue of RWTs to determine where they are appropriate, recommend design treatments and management strategies, find ways to reduce liability impacts on the railroad industry, and address other public interest considerations.

Data Collection and Analysis

The data collection and analysis for this study included the following:

• An analysis of existing literature, focused on RWT studies and projects, legal documents, and railroad safety experience.
  
  
• Focused case studies of 21 geographically diverse RWT projects representing a variety of railroad and trail characteristics. For each trail, researchers conducted interviews with railroad officials, trail managers, and law enforcement officials. They also gathered data about before-and-after conditions related to safety, trespassing, vandalism, and conflicts.
  
  
• Other research topics included the following:
  
  
  • Relevant laws and statutes, their effectiveness, and transferability;
    
    
  • Relevant legal case studies and precedents;
    
    
  • Ownership/use arrangements;
    
    
  • Railroad company policies toward RWTs, through a telephone survey of officials;
    
    
  • Analysis of current design practices;
    
    
  • Operations and maintenance issues, through interviews with train engineers and operations personnel; and
    
    
  • Educational efforts underway, through a survey and ongoing discussions with railroad officials, trail managers, and Operation Lifesaver officials.

Process

This report underwent extensive public review from 1999 to 2002. The input process included the following:

• Ongoing communication with more than 200 interested parties through an e-mail newsletter;
  
  
• Release and public review of three drafts (February 2001, December 2001, and April 2002);
  
  
• Incorporation of hundreds of comments from interested parties, including railroad officials, trail planners and managers, legal experts, and others;
  
  
• A legal symposium in Washington, D.C., (April 2001) for railroad representatives, followed by review and input on the proceedings from that meeting; and
  
  
• Presentations at numerous conferences, including the Transportation Research Board (2000 and 2001), Pro Bike/Walk (2000), Rails-to-Trails (2001), five regional Operation Lifesaver conferences (1999-2001), AASHTO (2000), RailVolution (2000 and 2001), and several State bicycle, trail, and pedestrian-focused conferences.

RWT Development Process

The current RWT development process varies from location to location, although common elements exist. Trail advocacy groups and public agencies often identify a desired RWT as part of a bikeway master plan. They then work to secure funding prior to initiating contact with the affected railroad.

The railroad agency or company typically lacks an established, accessible review and approval process. While some RWTs move forward quickly (typically those where the trail development agency owns the land), many more are outright rejected or involve a lengthy, contentious process. RWT processes typically take three to ten years from concept to construction.

The proposed Union Pacific RWT is feasible in parts

and must be rerouted in others. Cupertino, CA

Feasibility Review

Trail managers should undertake a comprehensive feasibility analysis of proposed RWTs. An RWT feasibility study should describe the setting, relationship to local planning documents, land ownership patterns, railroad activity, and other information necessary to determine feasibility. The study should identify and evaluate multiple alternative alignments, including at least one that is not on the railroad right-of-way, and determine a preferred alignment.

Assessing Potential Benefits

Identifying potential benefits to railroad companies is crucial to developing a successful RWT. Such benefits may include the following:

The Reading and Northern Railroad Company found a reduction in illegal dumping after the trail went in. Lehigh River Gorge Trail, Jim Thorpe, PA

• Reduced liability costs;
  
  
• Financial compensation;
  
  
• Reduced petty crime, trespassing, dumping, and vandalism;
  
  
• Reduced illegal track crossings through channelization of users to grade-separated or well-designed at-grade crossings;
  
  
• Increased public awareness of railroad company service;
  
  
• Increased tourism revenue;
  
  
• Increased adjacent property values; and
  
  
• Improved access to transit for law enforcement and maintenance vehicles.

Involving the Stakeholders

Involving the railroad and affected agencies early in the process is a common theme heard from surveys and interviews on existing RWTs around the country.

Stakeholders may include:

• Railroad companies, including representatives of real estate, operations, maintenance, and legal departments;
  
  
• Railroad customers (businesses that ship by rail or receive shipments by rail that are located on the line segment, such as passenger organizations, transit authorities, and State departments of transportation that may have an interest in funding new service on the line-either on the same tracks or on new tracks built within the right-of-way);
  
  
• Utility companies, such as telephone, cable, water, sewer, electric, and gas;
  
  
• Law enforcement officials;
  
  
• Other adjacent landowners;
  
  
• Trail user groups; and
  
  
• Transportation, public transit, parks and recreation, and health departments.

Stakeholders should be involved through a technical advisory committee or frequent communication via meetings, newsletters, phone calls, and e-mails.

Capacity Constraints

Privately-owned Class I railroads (see Appendix A: Definitions) tend to be reluctant to grant non-rail usage of their rights-of-way because loss of right-of-way width at any given location could reduce the ability of the railroad to add main track and sidings necessary to provide increased capacity and serve customer needs across the breadth of their systems. Freight railroads spent the decades of the 1980s and 1990s reducing excess capacity in order to control costs and survive in a competitive marketplace. This has resulted in concentrating more traffic on fewer lines and reducing the options for reaching given markets from other locations (e.g., there are essentially three corridors to the west coast from the Mississippi).

State departments of transportation and area transit authorities may have long-term plans for new service that could be foreclosed by permanent trail improvements on the particular line. To the extent the full width of the right-of-way may be needed for these purposes (including responding to air quality nonattainment requirements), the significant investments that would be required for a trail to cohabit with an active rail line may not be warranted.

It should be noted that the property interest held by railroads at many locations is an easement or similar right subject to an express reversionary interest should the line cease to be used for rail service. In many cases, the purpose for which the railroads hold the easement is to provide for intrastate rail transportation. If a portion of the right-of-way is allocated for trail use, and if this restricts allocation for later railroad demands for increased capacity, that is inconsistent with the purpose of the easement.

Trail designers worked with Conrail designers to ensure that their interests were addressed, concurrent to negotiation of the RWT agreement. Schuylkill River Trail. Norristown, PA

Liability

In the context of RWT, liability refers to the obligation of a trail manager or railroad to compensate a person who is harmed through some fault of the trail manager or railroad. Railroads have a number of liability concerns about the intentional location of a trail near or on an active railroad corridor:

• Trail users may not be considered trespassers if a railroad permits trail use within a portion of their right-of-way, and thus the railroad would owe a higher duty of care to trail users.
  
  
• Incidents of trespassing and injuries to trespassers will occur with greater frequency.
  
  
• Trail users may be injured by railroad activities, such as falling or protruding objects, hazardous materials, or a derailment.
  
  
• Injured trail users might sue railroad companies even if the injury is unrelated to railroad operations, incurring expensive legal costs.

The level of railroad company concern is dependent in part on the class of railroad and the type of operations they perform. The Class I railroads' perceived deep financial pockets make them a frequent target of lawsuits, and they see no financial benefits from RWTs that would offset any increased exposure. Transit and tourist train operators may support RWT projects because they often are quasi-governmental entities, with a mission of attracting people to their service. Finally, locally based short-line operators have less reason to be concerned about future track expansion, and may be inclined toward the potential financial rewards of permitting an RWT project along their rights-of-way.

Available Legal Protections

There is a range of options that can reduce railroad liability exposure. These include the following:

• State-enacted recreational use statutes (RUS) and rails-to-trails statutes. All 50 States have RUSs, which provide protection to landowners who allow the public to use their land for recreational purposes. An injured person must prove the landowner deliberately intended to harm him or her. Additionally, about 20 States have enacted specific laws to clarify, and in some cases, limit, adjacent landowner liability. This can range from protecting adjacent landowners from liability to making the RUS for the State specifically applicable to a rails-to-trails program.

Portland's regional government, Metro, acquired the railroad property in the 1990s to allow for RWT development. Future Springwater Corridor Trail Extension, Portland, OR

• Property acquisition. Governments under civil law are treated differently from private landowners due to their unique status as sovereign entities. Many States have recently enacted statutes that limit the amounts or kinds of damages recoverable against governments (Isham, 1986). Public agencies considering RWTs should be prepared to identify financial incentives for a railroad to consider. This may be in the form of land transfers, tax breaks from donated land, cash payments, zoning bonuses on other railroad non-operating property, taking over maintenance of the trail right-of-way and structures, and measurably reducing the liability a railroad experiences.
  
  
• Easement and license agreements that indemnify the railroad owner against certain or all potential claims. In most cases, the railroad will retain property control, thus the form of legal agreement will be an easement or license agreement that, to the extent permissible under State law, reduces the railroad's liability exposure. Because of the many jurisdictions that have some involvement in an RWT—including the owner of the right-of-way, the operator of the railroad, and the trail manager(s)—the license or easement agreement should identify liability issues and responsible persons through indemnification and assumption of liability provisions.
  
  
• Insurance. Railroads may be concerned that trail users might sue them regardless of whether the injuries were related to railroad operations or the proximity of the trail. In most instances, the trail management entity should provide or purchase comprehensive liability insurance in an amount sufficient to cover foreseeable railroad liability and legal defense costs.

The research team for this report was unable to find a history of crashes or claims on the existing RWTs. There is only one known case of a specific RWT claim (in Anchorage, Alaska). The railroad was held harmless from any liability for the accident through the terms of its indemnification agreement. Research on other relevant cases has found that the State RUSs and other statutes do hold up in court.

Design

No national standards or guidelines dictate RWT 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. Useful documents include the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1999), Americans with Disabilities Act publications for trails and pedestrian facilities, and numerous FRA documents regarding grade crossing safety and trespass prevention.

Trail designers should work closely with railroad operations and maintenance staff to achieve a suitable RWT design. The research in this report has shown that well-designed RWTs meet the operational needs of railroads, often providing benefits in the form of reduced trespassing and dumping. A poorly designed RWT will compromise safety and function for both trail users and the railroad.

Setback distance

The term "setback" refers to the distance between the paved edge of an RWT and the centerline of the closest active railroad track. Although RWTs currently are operating along train corridors of varying types, speeds, and frequencies, there simply is no consensus on an appropriate setback recommendation. Thus, trail planners should incorporate into the feasibility study an analysis of technical factors relating to setback distance. These should include the following factors:

• Type, speed, and frequency of trains in the corridor;
  
  
• Separation technique;
  
  
• Topography;
  
  
• Sight distance;
  
  
• Maintenance requirements; and
  
  
• Historical problems.

Another determining factor may be corridor ownership. Trails proposed for privately owned property, particularly on Class I railroad property, will have to comply with the railroad's own standards.

Setback of 7.6 m (25 ft) or greater often is needed for higher speed train corridors. Stavich Trail, OH and PA

Trail planners need to be aware that the risk of injury should a train derail will be high, even for slow-moving trains. Discussions about liability assignment need to factor this into consideration. For example, an RWT in a constrained area along a low frequency and speed train could be located as close as 3 m (10 ft) from the track centerline assuming that (a) the agency indemnifies the railroad for all RWT-related incidents, (b) separation (e.g., fencing or a solid barrier) is provided, (c) the railroad has no plans for additional tracks or sidings that would be impacted by the RWT, and (d) the RWT is available to the railroad for routine and emergency access. In contrast, along a high speed line located on private property, the railroad may require 15.2 m (50 ft) or more setback or not allow the trail at all.

Because every case is different, the setback distance should be determined on a case-by-case basis after engineering analysis and liability assumption discussions. The minimum setback distance ranges from 3 m (10 ft) to 7.6 m (25 ft), depending on the circumstances. In many cases, additional setback distance may be recommended. The lower setback distances may be acceptable to the railroad company or agency, RWT agency, and design team in such cases as 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 a narrower setback.

Narrower setback distances may be acceptable, as on this Union Pacific railroad bridge with slow-moving trains. Steel Bridge Riverwalk, Portland, OR

Separation

This refers to the treatment of the space between an RWT and the closest active railroad tracks, including fences, vegetation, ditches, and other items. More than 70 percent of existing RWTs utilize fencing and other barriers (vegetation, vertical grade, walls, and/or drainage ditches) for separation from adjacent active railroads and other properties. Fencing style varies considerably from chain link to wire, wrought iron, vinyl, steel picket, and wooden rail.

From the trail manager's perspective, fencing is considered a mixed blessing. Installing and maintaining fencing is expensive. Improperly maintained fencing is a higher liability risk than no fencing at all. In all but the most heavily constructed fencing, vandals find ways to cut, climb, or otherwise overcome fences to reach their destinations. Fencing may detract from the aesthetic quality of a trail.

To the extent possible, RWT planners should adhere to the railroad company's request or requirements for fencing.

Crossings

The point at which trails cross active tracks is the area of greatest concern to railroads, trail planners, and trail users. When it is necessary to intersect a trail with an active railway, there are three options: an at-grade crossing, a below-grade (underpass) crossing, or an above-grade (overpass) crossing.

Wrought iron fencing offers an aesthetically pleasing option. Mission City Rail Trail, San Fernando, CA

At-Grade Crossings

With many railroads actively working to close existing at-grade roadway-track crossings, consistent with U.S. Department of Transportation policy, new at-grade crossings will be difficult to obtain. Each trail-rail intersection is unique; most locations will require engineering analysis and consultation with existing design standards and guidelines. Issues that should be considered include the following:

• Train frequency and speed;
  
  
• Location of the crossing;
  
  
• Specific geometrics of the site (angle of the crossing, approach grades, sight distance);
  
  
• Crossing surface;
  
  
• Nighttime illumination; and
  
  
• Types of warning devices (passive and/or active).

Dual track grade crossing. Burlington, VT

Grade-Separated Crossings

Overpasses and underpasses are expensive and typically are installed in limited circumstances, such as locations where an at-grade crossing would be extremely dangerous due to frequent and/or high speed trains, limited sight distances, or other conditions. However, grade-separated crossings eliminate conflicts at trail-rail crossings by completely separating the trail user from the active rail line.

Issues to consider include the following:

• Existing and future railroad operations: Bridges and underpasses must be designed to meet the operational needs of the railroad both in present and future conditions. Trail bridges should be constructed to meet required minimum train clearances and the structural requirements of the rail corridor.
  
  
• Safety and security of the facility: Dark, isolated underpasses that are hidden from public view can attract illegal activity. Underpasses should be designed to be as short as possible to increase the amount of light in the underpass.

Undercrossing of Alaska Railroad Corporation tracks, Tony Knowles Coastal Rail Trail. Anchorage, AK

Overcrossing of Union Pacific tracks, Eastbank Esplanade. Portland, OR

• Maintenance: The decision to install a bridge or underpass should be made in full consideration of the additional maintenance these facilities require.

Other Design Issues

A whole host of other issues that must be considered in RWT design include the following:

• RWT-roadway crossings
  
  
• Utilities
  
  
• Future tracks and sidings
  
  
• Trestles and bridges
  
  
• Tunnels
  
  
• Environmental constraints
  
  
• Trailheads and parking areas
  
  
• Landscaping
  
  
• Drainage
  
  
• Lighting
  
  
• Signs and marking

Operations/Maintenance

Once a RWT is constructed, trail maintenance and operations should seek to minimize impacts on railroad companies and offer a safe and pleasant use experience. Representatives from railroad operating, track, and signal departments should be invited for technical discussions and advice in the feasibility analysis phase of an RWT.

RWT proponents should consider the maintenance and access needs of the railroad operator in the alignment and design of the RWT. In areas with narrower than 7.6 m (25 ft) setback, the trail likely will be used as a shared maintenance road. In all cases, the railroad should be provided adequate room and means for access to and maintenance of its tracks and other facilities. The feasibility study and easement/license agreement also should identify the designs and costs of any improvements that would become the responsibility of the RWT agency.

Steel Bridge Riverwalk. Portland, OR

Trail managers should develop a phasing and management plan and program for the RWT. Trail managers should consult with railroad engineering and operating departments to determine the appropriate steps, approvals, permits, designs, and other requirements. They should ensure that the proposed RWT does not increase railroad employee stress or decrease their safety.

An education and outreach plan should be part of the trail plan. Trail managers should provide supplemental information through maps, bicycle rental and support services, trail user groups, and other avenues. Trail managers also should develop, in coordination with local law enforcement and the railroad, a security and enforcement plan, and develop and post RWT user regulations.

Conclusion

Based on the lessons learned in this study, it is clear that well-designed RWTs can bring numerous benefits to communities and railroads alike. RWTs are not appropriate in every situation, and should be carefully studied through a feasibility analysis. Working closely with railroad companies and other stakeholders is crucial to a successful RWT. Trail proponents need to understand railroad concerns, expansion plans, and operating practices. They also need to assume the liability burden for projects proposed on private railroad property. Limiting new and/or eliminating at-grade trail-rail crossings, setting trails back as far as possible from tracks, and providing physical separation through fencing, vertical distance, vegetation, and/or drainage ditches can help create a well-designed trail. Trail planners need to work closely with railroad agencies and companies to develop strong maintenance and operations plans, and educate the public about the dangers of trespassing on tracks.

Railroad companies, for their part, need to understand the community desire to create safe walking and bicycling spaces. They may be able to derive many benefits from RWT projects in terms of reduced trespassing, dumping, and vandalism, as well as financial compensation. Together, trail proponents and railroad companies can help strengthen available legal protections, trespassing laws and enforcement, seek new sources of funding to improve railroad safety, and keep the railroad industry thriving and expanding in its services (freight and passenger).

Introduction

"Rail-with-trail" (RWT) describes any shared use path or other trail located on or directly adjacent to an active railroad corridor. Shared use paths are physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier. They may be used by multiple nonmotorized users (AASHTO Bike Guide, 1999, p. 3). The term "trail" will be used interchangeably with "shared use path" in this report.

About 65 RWTs encompass more than 385 km (239 mi) in 30 U.S. States today (see Figure 1.1). These trails are located adjacent to active rail lines ranging from a few slow-moving short-haul freight trains weekly, to high frequency Amtrak trains traveling as fast as 225 km/h (140 mi/h). Another 82 RWTs are proposed or planned; if all are built, there will be RWTs in 40 States. Hundreds of kilometers of RWTs traverse Western Australia, Canada, and European countries such as Switzerland, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

FIGURE 1.1 Map of existing rails-with-trails

"Being on rail property is a very dangerous pastime which can and does result in injury and loss of life. Juries have and will continue to award multi-million dollar settlements to the families of those who have been hurt or killed while on railroad property despite all good efforts to protect and warn."

WHEELING CORPORATION

"Rail corridors can be attractive sites for trails because they often provide a direct connection between popular community locations... At a time when demand for trails is increasing, finding land for them can be difficult. Placing trails alongside active rails can be an excellent method of securing land for safe, popular, and effective trail development."

RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY

Traction Line Recreational Trail. Morristown, NJ

Communities interested in improving conditions for bicycling and walking see rail corridors as prime opportunities. Rail corridors often offer scenic, unbroken stretches along rivers or canals. The alternative is typically a busy roadway without bicycle lanes. Thus, communities and their representative public agencies increasingly look to utilize railroad corridors to provide safe, shared use paths.

The railroad industry serves as an efficient and important component of the passenger and goods movement business. Railroads possess strategic corridors through urban and suburban areas that are virtually irreplaceable in the utility they provide. Freight and passenger rail movement is growing rapidly, thus many States, railroad companies, and transit agencies are considering additional service.

Railroad companies continue to improve their technological safety, including active warning devices, train lighting, and video monitoring of tracks. The railroad industry created Operation Lifesaver to educate the public about the dangers of disregarding crossing safety equipment. Railroad labor unions also advocate safety improvements. Railroad companies and unions are concerned that the addition of new adjacent trails will erode safety by attracting thousands of people close to railroad operations.

RWT advocates and railroad industry representatives often offer contrasting viewpoints. Trail advocates argue that legal protections exist in all States, and that a litany of successful RWTs show that they can be safely designed and operated. Railroad company representatives respond to assurances of legal protection by noting that the court system has not yet tested the lease and/or use agreements for existing RWTs. Further, railroads have borne the burden of litigation for many incidents on their property, even for crashes with at-fault trespassers or automobile drivers who have blatantly ignored obvious warning systems. In addition, they note that the railroad may be determined by civil courts to owe a higher duty of care to trail users than to trespassers, particularly at new, designated crossings.

In the meantime, public pressure is increasing for railroads to free up space adjacent to rail lines for trail usage, pitting the railroad industry's safety, capacity, and liability concerns against trail proponents' desires to create shared use paths. This situation gave rise to the need to study the issue of RWTs to determine where RWTs are appropriate, recommend design treatments and management strategies, find ways to reduce trail impacts on the railroad industry, and address other public interest considerations.

Bicycling and walking for transportation and recreation have increased over the past decade. This increase has been fueled to a large extent by a growing interest and concern about health and the environment. Since 1991, the Federal government has provided significant amounts of funding for shared use paths through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Additionally, communities nationwide are converting abandoned railroad corridors to trails (rails-to-trails).

The number of shared use paths nationwide has grown dramatically over the last decade, with more than 1,000 of these paths in operation nationwide. These include about 17,750 km (11,029 mi) of rail-trails (see Figure 1.2), including trails on both active and abandoned railways. The number of RWTs alone increased from 37 RWTs (246 km/152 mi) in 1996, to 49 (283 km/175 mi) in 1997, to over 60 (387 km/240 mi) in 2000 (see Figure 1.3). The number of rail-trail and RWT users has increased to an estimated 4.5 million annually.

A trespasser is someone who is on railroad property without permission. In 2000, the U.S. railroad industry experienced close to 900 trespassing casualties, including approximately 500 fatalities (see Figure 1.4). Research produces no singular profile of a trespasser, although regional differences in trespasser profiles do exist. Close to the borders, railroads report problems with undocumented aliens. In the East, youth trespassers dominate because of nearby schools and shopping centers. In other areas of the country, reported trespassers include substance abusers, the homeless, sportsmen, snowmobilers, and cyclists. Some trespassers intend suicide.

Because of this diversity, railroad companies use numerous measures, such as education programs and selective fencing, to help deter trespassing. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and Norfolk Southern Railway Company law enforcement departments have implemented comprehensive trespass abatement programs. While most States have trespassing laws for private property owners, only 32 States have trespassing laws with specific legal language for railroad property. Of those, only a handful prescribe a punishment for trespassing on railroad property and equipment. Enforcement of such laws is another problem. With this in mind, railroad companies are reluctant to support the idea of inviting thousands of people to walk and bicycle next to or on their property.

FIGURE 1.2 Number and kilometers of U.S. rail-trails*

FIGURE 1.3 Number and kilometers of existing U.S. rails-with-trails

FIGURE 1.4 Railroad trespassing casualties

Trespasser crossing Union Pacific tracks. Del Mar, CA

This study is a direct result of numerous public agencies and nonprofit groups seeking to develop RWTs and the resulting frustration on both sides of the issue. In 1997, the Federal government approved funding for planning and conducting a feasibility analysis for a 71 km (44 mi) proposed shared use path along the San Diego Northern Railroad right-of-way between San Diego and Oceanside, California. The high speed railroad corridor carried more than 30 passenger trains and six freight trains per day under public agency ownership, the North County Transit District (NCTD). In the project feasibility process, NCTD raised specific questions about liability. A follow-up legal analysis concluded that, to limit liability, the shared use path should conform to accepted guidelines for RWT crossings, fencing, setbacks, and other items (Ferster and Jones, 1997). Unfortunately, no such guidelines exist.

Appeals to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to provide guidelines came to the attention of the FRA, which held a meeting later in 1997 in Washington, D.C., to discuss the matter. Attendees of that meeting — representatives from the railroad industry, Federal agencies, trail advocacy groups, and State and local agencies — recommended a "best practices" study to review existing RWTs and draw conclusions from their operations.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), relying on a voluntary committee of interested railroad and trail representatives, agreed to sponsor such a "Best Practices Informational Report" in 1998. However, due to lack of funds to develop hard data on subjects such as trespassing, participants pushed for a more in-depth study of the issue. In 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), including the FRA, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) joined forces to sponsor this Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned report.

Four thousand student bicycle commuters use the Libba Cotton Trail daily. Chapel Hill, NC

Elliot Bay Rail Trail. Seattle, WA

The nationwide research team assembled for this report began with an analysis of existing literature, as summarized in Section I. The literature review focuses on RWT studies and projects, legal documents, and railroad safety experience.

Next, the research team selected 18 geographically diverse locations (see Figure 2.1, page 9) for focused case studies. They sought trails representing a variety of railroad and trail characteristics. Half the trails were in place at the outset of this study. The other half were planned to be complete by summer 2002 to allow for comparison of before and after conditions related to trespassing, accidents, vandalism, and other issues. Of these nine planned RWTs, only four were built in part by the conclusion of this study; the others experienced delays for various reasons.

For each trail, researchers conducted interviews with railroad officials, trail managers, and law enforcement officials. They also gathered data about before and after conditions related to safety, trespassing, vandalism, and conflicts. These case studies — summarized in Section II — offer guidance as to the best practices in developing and operating RWTs.

The ITE Rails-with-Trails Technical Committee draft paper, "Rails-with-Trails: A Best Practices Informational Report" (Jones, et al., 1999) also included case studies, which are included in Section II, bringing the number of case studies to 21. Furthermore, researchers used the information gathered by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) through surveys of trail managers. This information is contained in Rails-with-Trails: Design, Management, and Characteristics of 61 Trails along Active Rail Lines (Morris, 2000).

Finally, team members researched various other aspects of RWTs, including:

• Relevant laws and statutes — their effectiveness and transferability;
  
  
• Relevant legal case studies and precedents;
  
  
• Ownership/use arrangements;
  
  
• Railroad company policies toward RWTs, through a telephone survey of officials;
  
  
• Analysis of current design practices;
  
  
• Operations and maintenance issues, through interviews with train engineers and operations personnel; and
  
  
• Educational efforts underway, through a survey and ongoing discussions with railroad officials, trail managers, and Operation Lifesaver officials.

This report underwent extensive public review from 1999 to 2002. The input process included:

• Ongoing communication with over 200 interested parties through an e-mail newsletter;
  
  
• Release and public review of three report drafts (February 2001, December 2001, and April 2002);
  
  
• Incorporation of hundreds of comments from interested parties, including railroad officials, trail planners and managers, legal experts, and others;
  
  
• A legal symposium in Washington, D.C., (April 2001) for railroad representatives, followed by review and input on the proceedings from that meeting; and
  
  
• Presentations at numerous conferences, including the Transportation Research Board (2000 and 2001), Pro Bike/Walk (2000), Rails-to-Trails (2001), RailVolution (2000 and 2001), five regional Operation Lifesaver conferences (1999-2001), AASHTO (2000), and several State bicycle, trail, and pedestrian-focused conferences.

The intent of this report on RWTs is to summarize the lessons learned to date and offer conclusions regarding the development, construction, and operation of RWTs so that railroad companies, trail developers, and others can benefit from the history of trails in existence today. The research team strived to offer a neutral and balanced position that takes into consideration the perspectives of geographically diverse railroad officials, trail planners, law enforcement officials, and trail users. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, regulation, or endorsement of RWTs.

The report is divided into the following sections:

• Section I offers key selections from the literature review.
  
  
• Section II summarizes information from 21 U.S. RWT case studies.
  
  
• Section III focuses on the RWT development process, including trail feasibility and selection, planning, and policy.
  
  
• Section IV addresses legal issues, liability, insurance, and legislation.
  
  
• Section V offers recommendations regarding RWT design, including setback, separation techniques, signage, and crossing treatments.
  
  
• Section VI discusses operational aspects, including maintenance, education, and enforcement.
  
  
• Appendix A provides definitions for trail and railroad terminology and many acronyms.
  
  
• Appendix B is a matrix of existing State laws and statutes related to trails and rails-with-trails.
  
  
• Appendix C includes sample easement and indemnification agreements.
  
  
• Appendix D lists photo credits.

SECTION I: Literature Review Summary

Researchers focused on five areas of background research for this project:

• General RWT studies;
  
  
• Specific RWT project documentation;
  
  
• Legal analyses of the issues and cases that have defined the relationships between railroads, adjacent property owners, the public, and trail managers;
  
  
• Development of technologies to monitor trespass activity along active rail lines; and
  
  
• Current RWT practice in Australia, Canada, and Europe.

Since trails within active rail corridors represent a relatively new concept, most of the research relating to existing practices and facilities has been conducted within the past five years on a relatively small number of facilities. The following summary concentrates on those research findings with the most immediate application to RWTs.

Rail-with-Trail Studies

One of the earliest significant discussions on the topic of RWTs occurred as a result of an FRA-led forum held as part of the 1998 International Trails and Greenways Conference in San Diego. The major purpose of this forum was for both rail and trail stakeholders to identify the issues associated with RWTs and to determine their order of importance. Carolyn Cook (former Program Director, Crossing Safety, Railroad Commission of Texas; current Assistant Crossing and Trespass Prevention Region 5 Manager, Federal Railroad Administration) wrote an unpublished summary report, "A Working Outline of the Major Issues Related to Multi-Use Recreational Trails Located Near Active Rail Lines," a work in progress of the Rails-with-Trails Task Force initiated at a pre-conference meeting at the First Annual International Trails and Greenways Conference (Federal Railroad Administration, 1998).

Joggers on the Burlington Waterfront Bikeway. Burlington, VT

Key aspects identified were liability issues, planning process, design issues, highway crossings, illegal crossing and trespassing issues, security, crime and vandalism concerns, safety and education issues, RWTs co-existing with railroad operations and management, and trail operations and management.

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (Kraich, 1997) published Rails-with-Trails: Sharing Corridors for Transportation and Recreation. It listed 49 existing RWTs through surveys of trail managers. The study provided detailed information on the physical and operating characteristics of the facilities. The study summary states that trails are compatible with active railroads, even high-speed and high-frequency/density mainline tracks.

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (Morris, 2000) published a study update, Rails-with-Trails: Design, Management, and Operating Characteristics of 61 Trails Along Active Rail Lines. Again, relying on interviews with trail managers, the study offers an overwhelmingly positive overview of existing RWTs. The study makes the following conclusions:

• RWTs "are just as safe as other trails;"
  
  
• A wide range of successful designs exists;
  
  
• About one third of trail managers believe railroad officials are supportive of the RWT; and
  
  
• The vast majority of RWTs are insured through existing government coverage similar to other trails.

The railroad companies' perspective was examined in Rails with Trails (Wait,1998). The Wheeling Corporation, parent company of the Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway Company and the Akron Barberton Cluster Railway, privately produced and distributed this report. It presents a summary of the problems facing railroads, including vandalism, trespassing, injuries, and fatalities. The report outlines the circumstances (explained in more detail in Section III) under which the Wheeling Corporation will consider a trail. These include considerations of train speed and function, property availability, proper trail separation, suitable legal arrangements, property compensation, and clearly defined operations and maintenance responsibility.

Individual Studies and Master Plans

With respect to individual studies and master plans for RWT projects, very little has been written on safety and trespassing issues. Finding written documentation on RWT safety for individual projects was difficult because:

• A significant percentage of trails are built with no written master plan.
  
  
• For the trails that do have master plan reports, these reports are usually prepared before the trail is built, in the form of a master plan report and/or written agreement between the railroad and the trail developer/manager. The reports often do not cover, or only briefly touch on, safety issues related to the adjacent active line. After the trail has been built, documentation of safety issues is scarce.
  
  
• Master plan copies are rare for projects built before 1995. The master plan authors often are difficult to find, having turned over the management of the trail to other organizations or individuals.

For these reasons, the literature search concentrates on a sampling of RWT projects built later than 1995.

Three Rivers Heritage Trail Master Plan (Baldwin Borough Segment), Pennsylvania, 1999

The Baldwin Borough Segment of the Three Rivers Heritage Trail is a 4 km (2.5 mi) RWT in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that is yet to be constructed. The CSX railroad company operates at least one train per day at 65 to 80 km/h (40 to 50 mi/h). CSX was concerned about liability and trespassing during the negotiations for this trail. It therefore stipulated a number of design requirements as part of their agreement to grant right-of-way to the Friends of the Riverfront.

The "Master Plan for the Three Rivers Heritage Trail — Baldwin Borough Segment" (October 1999 Draft) notes that there are two central issues related to the shared use of this corridor:

• Maintaining access for railroad maintenance. An access road that is separate from the trail will be built by CSX for maintenance of the rail line and the utilities that share the corridor.
  
  
• Security of the railroad property. A chain link fence that is 1.8 m (6 ft) high will be placed between the trail and the active rail line.

Five Star Trail – Terms of Agreement with Railroad, Pennsylvania, 1996

The Five Star Trail is a 6.4 km (4 mi) RWT that links Youngwood to Greensburg, Pennsylvania. This freight line carries two trains per day (southern section) at a speed of approximately 32 km/h (20 mi/h).

The construction plan for the Five Star Trail details a number of safety features that were part of the right-of-way agreement between the Regional Trail Council and Southwestern Pennsylvania Railroad (SPRR). The bylaws of the Regional Trail Council state that its purpose is to "maintain good relations and communications with the Westmoreland County Industrial Development Corporation (WIDC) and the SPRR, and to satisfy the requirements of the right-of-way entry agreement between the Regional Trail Council, the WIDC and SPRR."

Officials expected the Five Star Trail to eliminate problems related to an unofficial jogging/walking trail that crisscrossed the active tracks and was only 0.9 to 1.2 m (3 to 4 ft) away from the active track.

The construction plan describes the following safety features for this RWT:

• Locate parking areas on the same side of the tracks as the trail, eliminating the need for people to cross the tracks.
  
  
• Construct the trail on one side of the tracks, with no crossings.
  
  
• Maintain a minimum distance of 1.95 m (6.5 ft) between the track centerline and the trail. Wherever physically possible, locate the trail further from the tracks.
  
  
• Maintain an area of rock ballast and vegetation between the trail and tracks.
  
  
• Place a 1.4 m (54 in) tall fence between the track and the trail in a few constrained locations with less than 3 m (10 ft) of buffer space available.
  
  
• Place markers every 61 m (200 ft) between the track and trail to explain rules and regulations.

The construction plan also notes that the proposed trail improvements would be beneficial to the railroad because the corridor had been poorly maintained for many years. In fact, the RTC removed more than 90 metric tons (100 U.S. tons) of trash from the corridor, improved drainage conditions, and continues to maintain the vegetation in the corridor.

Silver Creek Bike Trail, Minnesota, 1993

The Silver Creek Bike Trail is a 2.1 km (1.3 mi) RWT in Rochester, Minnesota. The Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad (DME) company operates a freight line that carries two trains per day. The funding application to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for this project describes the safety measures that had been agreed upon by the City and DME . The track right-of-way is 30 m (100 ft) wide with the rails in the center of the right-of-way. DME required a minimum 3.2 m (10.5 ft) setback from the track centerline to the edge of the trail, with no signs or other obstructions in that space. For most of the length, the trail is set back approximately 9.1 m (30 ft) without constructed barriers.

The application also describes the agreements made with DME for two at-grade crossings and one undercrossing (through an existing drainage culvert). Because of the slow speed of the trains (less than 16 km/h (10 mi/h)) and good visibility, the City installed no active warning devices at the at-grade crossing locations. According to the project contact, no safety problems have arisen since the installation of the RWT.

West Orange Rail-Trail Master Plan, Florida, 1996

The West Orange Trail extends along an active railroad for about a kilometer of its 8.8 km (5.5 mi) length. This section of trail is in downtown Winter Garden, Florida. CSX Corporation owns the freight line and carries one train per day at approximately 8 km/h (5 mi/h).

The "Master Plan for the West Orange Trail" describes the agreed-upon design features between CSX and Orange County. CSX granted an easement for trail construction. Since the trains move very slowly through downtown Winter Garden (8 km/h (5 mi/h)), they agreed on a low, 1.2 m (4 ft) tall chain link fence between the trail and the tracks. The minimum setback from the track centerline to the edge of the trail is 2.4 m (7.8 ft) as mandated by Florida statute.

Liability of Rails-with-Trails

Because RWTs have been recognized only recently in trail design, there is limited legal authority on this subject. The following three articles and publications are considered the most analogous to RWT issues.

The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, in cooperation with the National Park Service's Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, published Rail-Trails and Liability: A Primer on Trail-Related Liability Issues and Risk Management Techniques. Hugh Morris (2000) provides an overview of legal mechanisms that protect both trail managers and adjacent landowners, as well as a discussion on risk management techniques.

Morris concludes that most States have laws that substantially reduce public and private landowner liability for all types of trails, including RWTs. He states that experience shows that neither public agencies nor private landowners have suffered from trail development. "Adjacent landowners are not at risk as long as they abstain from ‘willful and wanton misconduct' against trespassers such as recklessly or intentionally creating a hazard. Trail managers minimize liability exposure provided they design and manage the trail in a responsible manner and do not charge for trail access."

Coastal Rail Trail. The trail is proposed to be located across the track from the station. Carlsbad, CA

The Coastal Rail Trail: Project Study Report (Ferster and Jones, 1997) includes a review of the liability issues associated with RWTs under California law. They discuss the legal liability for governments operating the trails, the railroads, and adjacent property owners. Ferster and Jones also analyze the impact of the California Torts Claims Act and California's recreational use statute (see Appendix B) on the issue of liability.

The report concludes that government liability will be limited with regard to RWTs by general governmental immunities. In addition, it concludes that operators, railroads, and adjacent property owners are protected from liability by a recreational use statute (RUS) that provides protection to landowners who allow the public to use their land for recreational purposes. All 50 States have such RUSs, as discussed further in Section IV. Ferster contributed significantly to this Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned study.

In an article from Public Management magazine titled "Putting Value on Rail-Trails," Howser (1997) writes of the economic and environmental benefits to be gained from converting abandoned rails to trails. The author raises the potential to restart a rail line if it is economically viable, as well as potential opposition from landowners who own reversionary rights along the right-of-way. These issues are relevant to RWTs because planners must understand future plans of railroads. Not only can rail lines be banked, but lines can be upgraded and expanded to double tracks. The author concludes that adjacent landowners, even those initially opposed, are ultimately happier — both aesthetically and economically — with the trail present.

Innovative Technological and Operational Improvements

Individual railroads, States, and the Federal government are constantly trying to increase safety along rail rights-of-way. While these efforts to date have not been focused on RWTs, the goal of improving the safety and security of areas close to train operations is a consistent concern.

Individual railroads have spent considerable time and effort in the development of monitoring technologies to control trespass activity along their properties. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) reported in Black (1999) on efforts to develop and implement a remote monitoring system for rail crossings that would be combined with an in-cab video system to record activity on tracks. These systems would record locations using Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and record the dynamics of the train (braking, whistles, lights) to develop information about trespassing. Such technology has application in the monitoring of trespass activity along RWT corridors.

BNSF also has been active with local and State governments in an effort to control trespass activity through the establishment of a Trespasser Abatement Program of active security intervention and a Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) that emphasizes efforts with local communities to educate citizens of the risks and consequences of trespassing on railroad tracks. SACP is a program developed and monitored by FRA to address various safety issues in partnership with railroad companies.

A significant effort to study and apply lessons from trespass injuries is presented in a study from the Centers for Disease Control (1999), Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, "Injuries Among Railroad Trespassers in Georgia, 1990-1996." This report summarizes a study of fatal and nonfatal injuries to railroad trespassers in Georgia from 1990 through 1996. The 17 railroad companies operating in Georgia, as well as other sources, provided trespasser injury data.

This research found that most injuries to railroad trespassers involved 20 to 49-year-old men, many of whom were intoxicated. Most trespassers either were walking or socializing near the tracks at the time of injury. In many incidents, trespassers did not hear the train horn or misjudged the speed or location of the train. This latter problem appears to be more common when a train is approaching on one track in multiple-track territory.

Although the number of deaths from motor vehicle collisions with trains at highway-rail crossings has decreased, trespasser deaths have increased. The decline in deaths at high-way-rail crossings is a result of multiple factors such as education efforts and engineering changes. Efforts to prevent trespasser deaths have been focused on public education and awareness and law enforcement. However, the target audiences, which vary in composition from region to region, are difficult to reach.

For RWT analyses, planners should strive to determine what types of trespassers are likely to be involved; what types of injuries can be expected; which railroad properties, operating characteristics and locations (urban or rural settings) are at high risk; how the incidents can be mitigated; and what types of actions and technologies the trail design can employ to enhance the safety of RWTs.

International RWT Research

Several other countries, including Switzerland, Denmark, Canada, and Australia, have extensive experience in the development of RWTs. However, researchers were unable to locate specific RWT-related studies in these countries. Instead, researchers commissioned a summary of Western Australian RWTs (specifically in Perth), Rails with Trails: The Western Australian Experience, Maher (2000) gathered brochures and other RWT promotional literature through surveys of Swiss and Danish trail representatives and gained access to ongoing dialogue and research being conducted by the Canadian Pacific Railways. Researchers sent information requests to all the major