Understanding the Difficulties of "Rail with Trail" on the U&D Corridor
Above is an illustration (2006 Alta Planning and Design U &D Rail + Trail Feasibilty Study p. 21) of what it takes to create a side-by-side rail with trail. Note that a span anywhere from 25-40' is required outside of the tracks to create a safe buffer distance, adequate drainage, an ASHTO (national standard) 10-12' trail with 2' shoulders on each side. Accordingly, rail with trail is almost always done on what is called a "double tracked" corridor, on which there are two rail corridors side by side, and one of them is converted (or there is a road or other corridor of some kind next to the rail and that is converted).
Almost the entirely of the U&D corridor however is what is called a "single tracked" corridor. In order to create any proper trail there is the need for a grade, sub-grade and surface. Conversion of single tracked corridors is economical because that the grade and sub-grade are already there. The grade and sub-grade often require massive amounts of fill and the railroads built those up when they created their rail corridors, constructing 'berms' on which the rails reside, as in the large base in the above illlustration. With a single tracked corridor, to create a rail trail, the need is only for the top surface, which is achieved essentially by removing the rails and ties, grading, and then applying the desired top surface materials (stone dust, pavement, even left as a rough grade). Salvage companies will often perform the rail and tie removal and rough grading in exchange for the scrap value of the rails.
Creating a whole new trail alongside a current railroad, in which there is no grade or sub-grade already there, requires adding retaining walls, trucking in what would be massive amounts of fill and creating a whole new 'berm' alongside or attached to the existing one as is illustrated above. The photos below show how difficult this would be for the Route 209-Hurley Mountain Road section of the corridor. The costs for doing this kind of addition are so prohibitive that there are no examples of it being done on single tracked corridors.
A cost estimate comparison done in 2014 by the Barton and Louguidice firm specializing in infrastructure engineering estimated the costs to convert the 2 mile stretch of corridor from Cornell Street to Route 209 as being $1.7-2 million, while the costs of constructing new trail alongside the rail to be $8-10 million.
Above is a photo of the Route 209-Hurley Mountain Road segment of the corridor. One can envision a 25-40' space to the left of the tracks for trying to create trail, which would put the trail nearly out of the frame,
requiring the tearing out of a huge line of mature trees, building a retaining wall and bringing in massive amounts of fill in order to create the needed grade and sub-grade.
TOP AND SIDE VIEWS OF 15-20 FOOT BERM NEXT TO HURLEY MOUNTAIN ROAD
This second section above is near Hurley Mountain Road, where the berm on which the rails rest is 15-20' high and ends in a wetland and pond. The other side descends to a cement plant. The challenge of trying to build a whole new trail alongside the rails here, if feasible at all, would be enormously expensive.
These last two images show the challenges of constructing new trail alongside the rail in the section in the Kingston Plaza extending to Washington Ave. As can be seen, the first section (25-40' extended from the tracks) necessitates tearing out of fencing and relocating utility poles, while the second involves more relocation of utility poles and the addition of fill and presumably retaining walls to contain it.
Summary and Implications:
The information on this page provides both an explanation of the technical, economic, and environmental difficulties of attempting to create a trail-alongside-rail or ‘rail with trail’ in a single tracked corridor, and several pictorial illustrations of how those difficulties translate into just the short segments put forward in the Compromise Proposal. The CMRR claim that ‘rail with trail’ is feasible is inaccurately and misleadingly supported by references to a report by the Rails to Trails Conservancy, whose examples throughout are of 'double tracked' corridors and therefore inapplicable to the U&D corridor.
The Compromise Proposal would extend the offer to the CMRR, or any other tourist railroad, to support claims of feasibility by submitting concrete plans for how to construct and fund even the short segments near the Kingston Plaza and between Route 209 and Hurley Mountain Road –partial segments of which are shown above. The CMRR immediately declared the provisions of the Compromise to be impractical for any tourist railroad and, given the above analysis, is a position with which this site wholeheartedly agrees.
The counter proposal by the CMRR however, of rail with trail on an even longer stretch, from Kingston all the way into the already- agreed-upon-as-trail-only section of the Ashokan is even more unrealistic. The proposed CMRR segment presents even greater financial and engineering challenges, with narrow rock cuts, drainage issues, and continued tall berms, none of which the CMRR has provided credible ways to address. A 2006 Alta engineering study, definitively declared the section as not feasible for side by side rail and trail, a conclusion which CMRR officials endorsed at the time, and which the above illustrations and photo examples support.
The Segmented Approach extended by Resolution 275, with benefits detailed on this site however, provides tourist railroad with an opportunity to create a vibrant operation in Shandaken without the expensive and illogical needs of attempting to create trail alongside rail in a single tracked corridor.