Train "Street Running"

[Finrod]

The old street running in Lafayette, Indiana was a regular heavy-rail line that shared space with traffic, pre-relocation of the line to along the river.  Near the end of this video (as well as in the middle), you can see traffic following the train.  That would seem to be literal "street running."

Yep, until both the 5th Street railroad and the railroad that ran diagonally NE to SW through Lafayette were relocated in the late 1990s or so.  The 5th Street railroad was also an Amtrak route, so Amtrak trains would stop in the middle of town (halting east-west traffic) to load and unload passengers.  Those railroad tracks were embedded in 5th Street for about 150 years.

[Bruce]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
When it comes to rail branches such as the one pictured, there's a binary situation:  it's either in operation or it isn't; the tracks are owned by the RR, and if there's a paying customer on the line, it'll remain in use and legally can't be removed (this is per FRRA/USDOT rules) without consent of all parties.  Of course, if it costs more to operate than the revenue received, the RR may elect to remove the tracks and provide truck service (usually by contract) to the customer.  The fact that the tracks likely date from the early part of the 20th century and are still there attest to the fact that there's enough business to maintain the tracks (which can be expensive, since pavement must be torn up and replaced if track work is necessary).  If urban advocates think removal of freeways is a difficult process, taking on privately owned and legally protected rail facilities is considerably worse -- the rail companies (in the case of Seattle, either BNSF or UP) can in effect raise their middle finger at such plans with impunity.   

This specific situation is different. This section is the "Missing Link" in the Burke-Gilman Trail, a long rail trail that was built in the 1970s/1980s along the abandoned Seattle Lakeshore and Eastern Railway. While there is some industry left in Ballard, it is largely maritime and does not rely on these tracks, which now belong to a shortline railroad whose sole purpose is to "use" these tracks occasionally to prevent them from being decommissioned. The business owners do not want the bike trails (going so far as to assault a city councilmember when he suggested them) but the rest of the community are in favor of it.

[Finrod]

Yep, until both the 5th Street railroad and the railroad that ran diagonally NE to SW through Lafayette were relocated in the late 1990s or so.  The 5th Street railroad was also an Amtrak route, so Amtrak trains would stop in the middle of town (halting east-west traffic) to load and unload passengers.  Those railroad tracks were embedded in 5th Street for about 150 years.

Here is a site with pictures and some video of Amtrak trains going down 5th Street:

http://indianarailroads.org/board/index.php?topic=12235.0

[stevashe]

Does the double-yellow line separate same-direction traffic? (Bikes and cars in one direction)

Seems like the double yellow should be between the bike lanes (as it is now), and a wider white buffer between traffic. At least if we are to reserve yellow for same direction traffic.

(For the record, I recognize that the bike lane was simply laid down over the old lane, but the double yellow should have been removed if I'm interpreting the situation correctly.

You are correct, it should be white. I even noticed this while working on a minor signage/crosswalk improvement in that area, however we decided to just leave it yellow since the road will be returning to its previous two-way operation anyway once the missing link is complete, which is supposed to be later this year! (Fingers crossed)

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
When it comes to rail branches such as the one pictured, there's a binary situation:  it's either in operation or it isn't; the tracks are owned by the RR, and if there's a paying customer on the line, it'll remain in use and legally can't be removed (this is per FRRA/USDOT rules) without consent of all parties.  Of course, if it costs more to operate than the revenue received, the RR may elect to remove the tracks and provide truck service (usually by contract) to the customer.  The fact that the tracks likely date from the early part of the 20th century and are still there attest to the fact that there's enough business to maintain the tracks (which can be expensive, since pavement must be torn up and replaced if track work is necessary).  If urban advocates think removal of freeways is a difficult process, taking on privately owned and legally protected rail facilities is considerably worse -- the rail companies (in the case of Seattle, either BNSF or UP) can in effect raise their middle finger at such plans with impunity.   

This specific situation is different. This section is the "Missing Link" in the Burke-Gilman Trail, a long rail trail that was built in the 1970s/1980s along the abandoned Seattle Lakeshore and Eastern Railway. While there is some industry left in Ballard, it is largely maritime and does not rely on these tracks, which now belong to a shortline railroad whose sole purpose is to "use" these tracks occasionally to prevent them from being decommissioned. The business owners do not want the bike trails (going so far as to assault a city councilmember when he suggested them) but the rest of the community are in favor of it.

OK -- this begs three related questions:  Is the short line that ostensibly operates these tracks owned by the local businesses that have lined up against the presence of the bike trails?  It's difficult to imagine a RR corporation set up to simply run up and down the line without generating any online revenue unless it's simply a technical ruse by said businesses to "gaslight" the bike-trail concept.  And second -- what is there about the presence of bike trails that has resulted in the businesses' opposition to their deployment -- is their development dependent upon track removal or, as the picture seems to illustrate, can the bike trail extend alongside the tracks?   And the third -- are the opposing businesses in question planning to actually employ the tracks as part of their future businesses?   If the rail-to-trail full-length concept was planned speculatively prior to actual acquisition or ceding of the rail property -- and, as described, the section in question is a "missing link" to connecting the dedicated ROW's seemingly desired by the trail advocates,  then what's happening is an impasse.   Bike trail supporters would need to legally prove that the operation of the track segment is not only unnecessary for the conduct of the business (and it's unlikely that the courts would accept simply statistical data regarding the commercial characteristics of the neighborhood) -- but that the current operation of that trackage is fraudulent.  That'll be a tough one;  as long as some cargo is being delivered or shipped from at least one of the on-line entities,  the precedent has been to consider the line in use and thus "untouchable" from a legal or administrative standpoint.  One would have thought that the planners of the rail-to-trail here would have had their ducks fully in a row prior to making promises about the complete deployment of their corridor.  The old adage about making assumptions certainly applies in this instance!   The trail may  have to consider an alternate alignment in the vicinity of the trackage if some sort of agreement can't be successfully reached.   

[Revive 755]

Second Street in St. Louis, MO, at least used to have street running.  There was another section on 2nd south of the Anheuser-Busch Brewery that went under I-55.

[jakeroot]

Does the double-yellow line separate same-direction traffic? (Bikes and cars in one direction)

Seems like the double yellow should be between the bike lanes (as it is now), and a wider white buffer between traffic. At least if we are to reserve yellow for same direction traffic.

(For the record, I recognize that the bike lane was simply laid down over the old lane, but the double yellow should have been removed if I'm interpreting the situation correctly.

You are correct, it should be white. I even noticed this while working on a minor signage/crosswalk improvement in that area, however we decided to just leave it yellow since the road will be returning to its previous two-way operation anyway once the missing link is complete, which is supposed to be later this year! (Fingers crossed)

For the record, there was a typo in that post. Should have said, "...reserve yellow for opposing traffic", not same direction traffic. Though I'm guessing you figured that out.

Regardless, I appreciate the explanation.

[stevashe]

OK -- this begs three related questions:  Is the short line that ostensibly operates these tracks owned by the local businesses that have lined up against the presence of the bike trails?  It's difficult to imagine a RR corporation set up to simply run up and down the line without generating any online revenue unless it's simply a technical ruse by said businesses to "gaslight" the bike-trail concept.  And second -- what is there about the presence of bike trails that has resulted in the businesses' opposition to their deployment -- is their development dependent upon track removal or, as the picture seems to illustrate, can the bike trail extend alongside the tracks?   And the third -- are the opposing businesses in question planning to actually employ the tracks as part of their future businesses?   If the rail-to-trail full-length concept was planned speculatively prior to actual acquisition or ceding of the rail property -- and, as described, the section in question is a "missing link" to connecting the dedicated ROW's seemingly desired by the trail advocates,  then what's happening is an impasse.   Bike trail supporters would need to legally prove that the operation of the track segment is not only unnecessary for the conduct of the business (and it's unlikely that the courts would accept simply statistical data regarding the commercial characteristics of the neighborhood) -- but that the current operation of that trackage is fraudulent.  That'll be a tough one;  as long as some cargo is being delivered or shipped from at least one of the on-line entities,  the precedent has been to consider the line in use and thus "untouchable" from a legal or administrative standpoint.  One would have thought that the planners of the rail-to-trail here would have had their ducks fully in a row prior to making promises about the complete deployment of their corridor.  The old adage about making assumptions certainly applies in this instance!   The trail may  have to consider an alternate alignment in the vicinity of the trackage if some sort of agreement can't be successfully reached.

The tracks in question are owned by the Ballard Terminal Rail Company, named after the neighborhood they're located in. According to Wikipedia, the company was formed in 1997 when BNSF abandoned the spur by the three remaining companies that were being serviced along the route. The article also states that as of 2008, only one company (Salmon Bay Sand and Gravel) still uses the rail line and this appears to still be the case today. However the rail company has expanded to two other short routes in the area, one between Woodinville and Snohomish, which is also the site of a proposed trail, and one in the Puyallup area, which appears to already have a parallel trail (I'm beginning to see a pattern here...)

Anyway, about the implications for trail development, yes, the track are actually legitimately used, though only at night so one would be forgiven for mistaking them as abandoned. However, the planners did indeed "have their ducks in a row" as you say since yes, the trail can go in alongside the tracks without necessitating removal, and the current iteration of the construction plans shows this, and previous ones did as well, as far as I'm aware.

The opposition of businesses in the area (both those using the rail line and not) seems to stem from not wanting a bike trail in the first place, which seems somewhat reasonable given the industrial nature of the area surrounding the missing link. However, their stated reason for opposition according to this article from 2003 is concerns over "safety and liability issues inherent in the convergence of trains, trucks, cyclists, and pedestrians" but I'd think having a proper trail to formalize conflict points and crossings between bikes, pedestrians, trains, and trucks would be safer than the mess we have now! Of course I'm sure there would be an increase in bike/ped traffic but I'm sure there's already significant usage now what with the trail continuing on either end.

At any rate the point seems to be moot now since construction has started. The trail will alongside the streets of NW 54th St and NW Market St, and run along both the tracks and the street on Shilshole Ave NW and NW 45th St (where the picture is from). More infor on the project can be found here.

[lepidopteran]

There was a unique situation in Savannah, GA.  River Rd., mostly narrow and cobblestone, had an active railroad running through an "old town" district.  When freight service was abandoned, the city turned it into a tourist trolley (no wires, only one car).  That appears to have been (temporarily) shut down.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Street_Streetcar

See also this Google MyMap for 9 former street-running locations.

[CtrlAltDel]

This doesn't really count, but a freight rail line travels in the median of US-64 in Tulsa for more than three miles, which I thought was interesting for something that isn't public transit.

[jakeroot]

This doesn't really count, but a freight rail line travels in the median of US-64 in Tulsa for more than three miles, which I thought was interesting for something that isn't public transit.

Reminds me of the 10 Freeway in Los Angeles, where there is a rail line right down the middle that's only used very occasionally:

https://youtu.be/xp-b4Ce4Mf4

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wow!  Great video; there must have been a huge number of WTF moments with drivers on I-10 that day! 

[Buck87]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wow!  Great video; there must have been a huge number of WTF moments with drivers on I-10 that day! 

"This is the most ridiculous left lane camper I've ever seen!"

[deathtopumpkins]

Reminds me of the 10 Freeway in Los Angeles, where there is a rail line right down the middle that's only used very occasionally:

That rail line in the median of the 10 is Metrolink's San Bernardino commuter rail line. Used a lot more than occasionally! There's even a station (Cal State LA) located within the 10/710 interchange as the rail line is transitioning from the north side of the ROW to the median: https://goo.gl/maps/6qcVrtAe8fpfD41K7

[sparker]

Reminds me of the 10 Freeway in Los Angeles, where there is a rail line right down the middle that's only used very occasionally:

That rail line in the median of the 10 is Metrolink's San Bernardino commuter rail line. Used a lot more than occasionally! There's even a station (Cal State LA) located within the 10/710 interchange as the rail line is transitioning from the north side of the ROW to the median: https://goo.gl/maps/6qcVrtAe8fpfD41K7

The line down the middle of I-10/San Bernardino Freeway was there long before any roadways flanked it; it was the main Pacific Electric (electric interurban greater L.A.-serving SP subsidiary) line east from central L.A., ending up in San Bernardino.  The Ramona Parkway was constructed by expanding the PE ROW outward; it extended out to Rosemead Blvd. by the mid-50's, even though the state highway (then US 60/70/99) diverged onto parallel Garvey Ave. in Monterey Park; the routes were moved to the parkway by 1957, at which time it was renamed to its current monicker.  The line was one of the routes traveled by the "Big Red Cars", massive self-propelled passenger cars that formed the backbone of the PE fleet.  Passenger service began being cut back in the early '50's due to diminishing ridership (parent SP was also trying to rid itself of most of its passenger service at the time); the last service on the line was in 1960.  The line was retained as a local freight server by SP (a couple of major lumber yards were trackside in El Monte and Covina), but was upgraded in 1970 as a second egress line for SP east of downtown L.A.; a new junction with the main SP line in El Monte was built then, and when Amtrak service began over SP in '71, the line was used for the westbound Sunset Limited to avoid freight traffic at the railroad's then-main container facility east of the L.A. River.  Even then, use was limited to the daily Amtrak train until Metrolink purchased it from SP in 1987, opening the line to commute service in 1992.  Today, both Amtrak and Metrolink passenger service use the line; all freights utilize the original SP line through Alhambra to the north.  Incidentally, the best free advertising Metrolink can have is the sight of their trains whizzing by at 75mph while traffic on adjacent I-10 is inching along bumper-to-bumper. 

[lepidopteran]

...a freight rail line travels in the median of US-64 in Tulsa for more than three miles

Not only that, but there used to be a spur that branched off of there. The tracks crossed the WB lanes -- and an off-ramp -- at grade.  The branch ran north, between backyards of a residential neighborhood to get to the Tulsa State Fair grounds.  The route it took is marked by trees, and a pave-over in the off-ramp is still visible on GSV. https://goo.gl/maps/dARZw4sUF3bhPVbBA

[debragga]

This doesn't really count, but a freight rail line travels in the median of US-64 in Tulsa for more than three miles, which I thought was interesting for something that isn't public transit.

There's a similar situation on the MoPac Freeway in Austin.

[Revive 755]

...a freight rail line travels in the median of US-64 in Tulsa for more than three miles

Not only that, but there used to be a spur that branched off of there. The tracks crossed the WB lanes -- and an off-ramp -- at grade.  The branch ran north, between backyards of a residential neighborhood to get to the Tulsa State Fair grounds.  The route it took is marked by trees, and a pave-over in the off-ramp is still visible on GSV. https://goo.gl/maps/dARZw4sUF3bhPVbBA

Appears the foundations for a former cantilver and crossing gate for the WB lanes may still be there.

[Max Rockatansky]

Santa Ana Street in Anaheim has a street running rail.  I posted about it on the Pacific Southwest board:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33805.msg2869902#new

[mgk920]

La Grange, Kentucky is another example.  The CSXT Cincinnati-Louisville main line runs down Main Street.  Here's a pic I took back in March:

Live video of his section of street running is a featured location on the Virtual Railfan website.  Search for 'la grange ky railcam' on YT to see it.

Mike