WP Bike trail on new trestle?!

Discussion in 'Fallen Flags' started by John Barnhill, Mar 21, 2007.

  1. John Barnhill

    John Barnhill TrainBoard Member

    Idiots!! The bike trail crosses the river just a mile, mile and a half west of here on the old Sacramento Northern railroad bridge. Cut the garbage and go to the other bridge. :angry:


    Bicyclists and runners in Sacramento are asking Union Pacific to include a bike trail on a new railroad trestle now under construction after the old elevated trestle near Cal Expo burned down last week.

    Proponents of the plan said adding a trail on the trestle and bridge over the American River could connect the existing American River Parkway on the north side of the river with the River Park neighborhood on the south side of the river.

    The old trestle, located parallel to the Capital City Freeway, was designed only for trains.

    "There's a railroad bridge and there's a freeway that crosses the American River in this ideal spot right across from Cal Expo, right across from east Sacramento and midtown Sacramento," said Mark Murray, a trail advocate. "We need to have a pedestrian bridge that provides that same access."

    Backers of the idea said they understand that the railroad is busy just trying to rebuild the trestle but added that they would just like to talk to UP about the idea sometime in the future.

    The trestle, which was made of wood, burned to the ground last Thursday. Crews removed the remnants over the weekend and are now driving piles for a new steel and concrete structure that will soon be constructed. - KCRA-TV3, Sacramento, CA, courtesy Coleman Randall, Jr
  2. Mr X

    Mr X TrainBoard Member

    Seriously what will people think of next! The entire point of exercise is to get a work out correct? Well then walk a little further ... bike a little further. Build your own bridge if you need one closer. I would really doubt if the railroad gives in but you just never know any more.

    Mr X
  3. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 Administrator Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    Stupidity knows no bounds.


    Boxcab E50
  4. HemiAdda2d

    HemiAdda2d Staff Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    Yikes--they better have a good cage of a fence around this 'trail', otherwise, I wouldn't wanna be a crew on a train over that bridge. Too many dumb tourists and bikers would be a huge hazard...:eek:mg:
  5. Stourbridge Lion

    Stourbridge Lion TrainBoard Member TrainBoard Supporter

    I can see both sides of this so the bigger question is who is putting up the $$$ to build & maintain, can it be done safely without impacting UP operations, and if their is a injury is it UP's problem or not.

    Bascially, why have two bridges if one will work and get bicyclists off the streets and walking trails.

    On the flip side I would fully support UP saying NO WAY! if they could get stuck with any $$$ related to this, now or in the future.

    I have friends that are serious Bicyclists and trust me they can get moving at 40MPH themselves and thus having their own trail in places is a good thing to keep Bicyclists, Cars, and Walkers from having an accident between them but I'm not wanting to add Trains into the combination either.

    Like I said, I can see both sides...

    :thumbs_up: :thumbs_down: :thumbs_up: :thumbs_down: ​
  6. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 Administrator Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    UP should not accept any obligation for such an idea. Should not even consider it.

    No matter what is done to protect, the exposure to liability will be too great for UP. Some joker will hurt themselves, and end up trying to sue the RR.

    If there's desire for a seperated bike route, let them raise their own funds, private sector, and get it done. Without bothering others.


    Boxcab E50
  7. Stourbridge Lion

    Stourbridge Lion TrainBoard Member TrainBoard Supporter

    This is why I'm looking at from the angle that if Sacramento, CA wants to put up the $$$ for the Trail extension and the liability for it's usage then it might make since to do something jointly; otherwise, I agree UP should not consider it.

    :lightbulb: :lightbulb: :lightbulb: :lightbulb: ​
  8. Gats

    Gats Administrator Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    Agreed, UP is under no obligation to do so.

    I'm thinking along the same lines as Darren. If the city/state comes to an undertanding with UP regarding this proposal that it will not impact railroad operations, is willing to fund the additional cost of widening the structure and provision of protective/demarcating fencing and any other required infrastructure (lighting etc.), and agrees it is solely liable for injury or loss to the public, unless there is a railroad-specific incident, whilst using the trail/pathway, then it does make sense to add the bit of width to the structure. It's being built anyway.

    But, I imagine they could build two replacement trestles whilst the legal departments split hairs over the finer points of any joint use.
  9. jpf94

    jpf94 TrainBoard Member

  10. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Member

    Agree with Darren, as long as it's set up such that UP has no Liability concerns, then I don't see why anyone should care if a bike trail uses the same pilings.

    Of course, there is a bike trail/bridge in place already, but that's not really the point here.
  11. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 Administrator Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    Our legal system was falling apart long ago. And when a lady spilled coffee, burned herself, then won that suit, the dam burst.

    This is the entire problem. There is absolutely no way to ensure with 100% certainty, that UP is protected from all liability.

    The rebuild is under way. And I'd think UP has already ordered up what they need. A redesign of the project, mid-stream? Am betting they're in no way interested in being slowed down.

    Boxcab E50
  12. John Barnhill

    John Barnhill TrainBoard Member

    The whole problem is the bridge, not the new trestle. Sure, they could build the new trestle wide enough for a trail but then you get to the bridge which is only wide enough for a double track train line, then what??? As read earlier, over 40 trains a day are using the Binney Jct bypass. That means over 40 trains a day will be using this bridge. On top of that, just down river only another mile or so, there is a bridge entirely dedicated as a foot/bike path. I'm sorry but I wouldn't want to be caught on the bridge when trains come. Crazy!!! They'd be better off to put a bike lane on the shoulder of Business 80.
  13. Richard320

    Richard320 TrainBoard Member

    I just looked at a map of the area. How come the activists aren't after Caltrans to add a bike lane to the Capital City Freeway bridge? It's real close. http://saccycle.com/bikewaymaps/AR_Biketrail.pdf For some reason, people who would never, ever venture onto the freeway on foot will show no hesitation walking down the middle of a train track. My experience with mountain bikers has mostly been negative - fences and signs are seen as a challenge by them.

    Who are the idiots that want to mix these people with a busy rail line?
  14. Train_Dave

    Train_Dave TrainBoard Member

    The existing bridge does not have any capacity for a bike lane so adding one to the tresle does no one any good. Sacramento is more than capable of building a bike/people bridge if needed, there is one a mile up stream and one a few miles down stream.
  15. HemiAdda2d

    HemiAdda2d Staff Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    Good point!

    Why all the sudden are they annoying UP with this?
    They honestly think they'll get a freebie?

    My experience with anything--no trespassing signs, stop signs, all the way to wet paint signs; all get challenged because people feel the need to be rebellious, and find out for themselves. Like you said, a challenge. 'Hmm, how can I get around that? Does it really mean "No Trespassing"?'

    I love that last line, Richard320!:zip:

Share This Page