Maybe you boys ought to read this story from the Novato Advance. It didn't come from rail opponents. It came from John Williams.....

Doubts about SMART trail
Freight operator says trail too close to track
By Tim Omarzu
Managing Editor
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 2:01 PM PDT



The SMART commuter train proposal on the November ballot calls for building a 70-mile-long bicycle and pedestrian path alongside the track from Cloverdale to Larkspur.

But John Williams, the man who hopes to run freight trains on the same track as SMART, says the proposed trail won’t be safe, because it will be too close to the rails.

For about 40 percent of the trail’s length, or some 28 miles, the trail will be 15 feet away from the centerline of the track, according to Williams. He says that trains will speed by at more than 80 miles an hour.

“I don’t think that’s safe,” said Williams, the president of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad Co.

Williams said that due to the threat of train derailment, the trail should be at least 100 feet away from the centerline of the track. But that’s not possible along the SMART track, he said, because the rail corridor is too narrow — 60 to 80 feet, generally, he said.

“I’m concerned about derailments. Am I concerned about liability? Of course,” Williams said. “(More importantly) I don’t want to hurt somebody. “As long as a trail is safe … I’m not opposed to trails.”

Williams may have found a sympathetic ear in the California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC.

George Elsmore, program manger for the Rail Operations and Safety Branch of the state agency, wrote in an Aug. 12 letter to Williams that CPUC staff shared Williams’ concerns about the proximity of the trail to the track.

It’s not just derailments that concern Elsmore.

“We do worry about stuff flying off,” he said. “They might ship trash or lumber.”

When lumber is shipped on flatcars, it’s typically secured with metal bands, Elsmore said.

“It’s not unheard of for that banding to come undone,” he said. It can flap alongside the flatcar, creating a hazard.

“That’s just one example. There’s … chains, there’s brake shoes … that commonly fall off of these cars.”

Elsmore said that it’s so common for material to come loose from freight cars that freight train lines will install “dragging-equipment detectors” every 10 or 15 miles alongside tracks. That way, a train can be stopped if something is dragging in the right-of-way.

Patrick Berdge, staff attorney for the utilities commission, said that rail cars extend 8-and-a-half feet from a railroad track’s centerline.

With SMART’s proposed 15-foot setback, “That leaves about 6 and a half feet from the side of the railroad car … that’s not a whole lot of room,” Berdge said.

Elsmore said that the public utilities commission doesn’t have minimum setback standards for trails near rails.

“We’ve always evaluated them on a case-by-case basis,” he said.

SMART spokesman Chris Coursey said that SMART has long planned to build a safety barrier for the entire 70 miles between the trail and the track. It’s estimated cost is $5 million, he said.

“It varies in height according to the distance away from the tracks and the speed of the trains,” Coursey said. “The highest it will be is 6 feet; most of it will be 5 (feet tall).”

The barrier’s construction will vary from “split rail fences out in the country where it’s not close to the track to metal fencing,” Coursey said.

In areas where the setback is less than 25 feet and trains travel more than 45 mph, the barrier will include baffling to reduce wind and wake effects from passing trains, he said.

Coursey cited a U.S. Department of Transportation report titled “Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned,” that looked at trails near tracks that had setbacks ranging from 7 feet to 100 feet.

Researchers wrote in the report that, “Based on the almost nonexistent record of claims, crashes, and other problems (researchers) were unable to determine a correlation between setback distance and trail user safety.”

Coursey added, “The PUC has had several years to raise any objections to this and has participated in our EIR reviews. They have never expressed either concerns or objections to SMART.” He also said that the PUC has participated in planning the barrier between the path and the tracks.

But Berdge told the Advance that the utilities commission can still exercise its authority.

“If there’s a safety problem, we’re going to have a say in that.”

A barrier wouldn’t protect trail users from a derailment. Elsmore said that in some places, trails near tracks have been built below ground level in sort of a channel, or ditch, to protect trail users from derailment.

Williams, whose office is in Palo Alto, said he’s worked in the train business all of his life including as a brakeman, conductor, assistant train master and train master.

“What some people don’t understand is there’s different branches of the PUC. I’m not sure (SMART) talked to the right person.”

Longtime SMART opponent Mike Arnold said, “A political bomb will go off, if what Mr. Williams contends is true.

“Someone has to ask, ‘Why are we learning so late in the game that the bike path may not even be possible?’”

Coursey said, “They’re making this out to be some kind of unusual situation — and it’s not. They’re making it out to be some kind of revelation — and it’s not. The PUC has reviewed this for years.”