 |
Re: Trail only option in Santa Cruz
Author: Erik H.
Date: 02-22-2017 - 17:27
Hal Chase Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also ignored are the challenges of grade
> crossings. When asked, the trail-only types'
> standard answer is "but..but...Monterey...rec
> trail" which has little to do with the situation
> here and the number of grade crossings in Live
> Oak for example. Gates go down for a train
> because it will run your vehicle over and get you
> killed. How will grade crossings work for
> bicyclists and peds who will hurdle across vehicle
> traffic as rest assured many will not wait for
> cross traffic to stop?
I won't speak to the specifics of this trail, but a "trail-only" signal is pretty darn simple - it can be a signed crosswalk, a simple flashing yellow light, a HAWK ("Mickey-Mouse") signal, a rapid-flash beacon, or a full R-Y-G traffic signal.
But with a "rail with trail", now you all but have to have an interconnected R-Y-G traffic signal with the railroad crossing signal, which makes it quite a bit more complicated, plus having to work with two different entities to maintain the signal (the road authority plus the railroad).
Assuming many of the railroad crossing signals in place are older installations, these changes would likely require those signals to be upgraded to current standards, at the expense of the city/county/state (the railroad only pays to maintain them, not to install them). So that is an additional cost.
Granted, I know one "rail-with-trail" that is only signed (no signals for traffic, railroad or pedestrians) and I can tell you as a motorist and a cyclist, I hate that intersection. If the owner of the railroad wants to chime in, I know he will (I will protect the innocent until proven guilty.)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also ignored are the challenges of grade
> crossings. When asked, the trail-only types'
> standard answer is "but..but...Monterey...rec
> trail" which has little to do with the situation
> here and the number of grade crossings in Live
> Oak for example. Gates go down for a train
> because it will run your vehicle over and get you
> killed. How will grade crossings work for
> bicyclists and peds who will hurdle across vehicle
> traffic as rest assured many will not wait for
> cross traffic to stop?
I won't speak to the specifics of this trail, but a "trail-only" signal is pretty darn simple - it can be a signed crosswalk, a simple flashing yellow light, a HAWK ("Mickey-Mouse") signal, a rapid-flash beacon, or a full R-Y-G traffic signal.
But with a "rail with trail", now you all but have to have an interconnected R-Y-G traffic signal with the railroad crossing signal, which makes it quite a bit more complicated, plus having to work with two different entities to maintain the signal (the road authority plus the railroad).
Assuming many of the railroad crossing signals in place are older installations, these changes would likely require those signals to be upgraded to current standards, at the expense of the city/county/state (the railroad only pays to maintain them, not to install them). So that is an additional cost.
Granted, I know one "rail-with-trail" that is only signed (no signals for traffic, railroad or pedestrians) and I can tell you as a motorist and a cyclist, I hate that intersection. If the owner of the railroad wants to chime in, I know he will (I will protect the innocent until proven guilty.)
