[IndianaTrails] Fwd: Rails with Trails

[Kevin Heber]

Good info for those not on the national listserv...

----- Forwarded message from jandrews at gwi.net -----
     Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:43:03 -0500
     From: John Andrews <jandrews at gwi.net>
Reply-To: John Andrews <jandrews at gwi.net>
  Subject: RE: [trails-and-greenways] Building Trails with Rails
       To: tim at greendiamondtrails.com, "'Vance, Stephan'"  
<sva at sandag.org>, 'Allen Tacy' <npcrr at neteze.com>
       Cc: trailsandgreenways at yahoogroups.com

About two years ago, I examined the relative fatality rates for rail  
corridor without trails and those with trails.  A summary of the data  
and conclusions can be found at  
http://www.easterntrail.org/rwttrespass.html

The posted Web data when posted had one error and is now getting dated.

At the time of posting, it was widely understood that there had been  
one RWT fatality and that it happened in Anchorage,. When checking  
with recreation managers, the library and newspapers, I learned that  
there has been no RWT fatality in Anchorage. There has never been a  
single rail-with-trail fatality in the United States. If you like  
math, the data on the Web site shows a 14-to-1 reduction in fatalities  
when trails are added to rail corridors. (The math assumed there had  
been that one RWT fatality.)

In fact, as there has never been a fatality in a RWT corridor, the  
reduction in fatalities per mile could be claimed to be infinite.   
Divide by zero!  But if we assume that with twice as much RWT  
experience that there will be one fatality, then the rate would be  
about a 25-to-1 reduction in fatalities. 4% of the rate for rail  
corridors without trails.

500 trespassers are killed each year in America's rail corridors. One  
every 18 hours. Railroads are terrified of lawsuits resulting from  
these fatalities.  They also pay high medical costs for engineers who  
are traumatized by watching people die in front of their trains. But,  
if every rail corridor had a parallel trail, we could save about 480  
lives each year.

Although the results have been widely distributed to the Federal  
Railroad Administration, to Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, and others,  
no one has disputed the math.

History is on the side of adding trails to rail corridors.  The common  
wisdom will become that adding trails saves lives, not the opposite  
which still prevails.

Good luck,

John Andrews,
President, Eastern Trail Alliance

At 02:16 PM 1/23/2007, tim at greendiamondtrails.com wrote:

> Message-ID: <005601c73f1e$dcd23180$0501a8c0 at MX3417>
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11

John Andrews
P.O. Box 852
Saco, Maine 04072
207-282-1979
www.EasternTrail.Org
www.SacoBayTrails.Org
www.TrailsforaHealthyMaine.Org


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



----- End forwarded message -----

-------------- next part --------------
About two years ago, I examined the relative fatality rates for rail corridor without trails and those with trails.  A summary of the data and conclusions can be found at http://www.easterntrail.org/rwttrespass.html

The posted Web data when posted had one error and is now getting dated. 

At the time of posting, it was widely understood that there had been one RWT fatality and that it happened in Anchorage,. When checking with recreation managers, the library and newspapers, I learned that there has been no RWT fatality in Anchorage. There has never been a single rail-with-trail fatality in the United States. If you like math, the data on the Web site shows a 14-to-1 reduction in fatalities when trails are added to rail corridors. (The math assumed there had been that one RWT fatality.)

In fact, as there has never been a fatality in a RWT corridor, the reduction in fatalities per mile could be claimed to be infinite.  Divide by zero!  But if we assume that with twice as much RWT experience that there will be one fatality, then the rate would be about a 25-to-1 reduction in fatalities. 4% of the rate for rail corridors without trails.  

500 trespassers are killed each year in America's rail corridors. One every 18 hours. Railroads are terrified of lawsuits resulting from these fatalities.  They also pay high medical costs for engineers who are traumatized by watching people die in front of their trains. But, if every rail corridor had a parallel trail, we could save about 480 lives each year.  

Although the results have been widely distributed to the Federal Railroad Administration, to Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, and others, no one has disputed the math.   

History is on the side of adding trails to rail corridors.  The common wisdom will become that adding trails saves lives, not the opposite which still prevails. 

Good luck,

John Andrews,
President, Eastern Trail Alliance

At 02:16 PM 1/23/2007, tim at greendiamondtrails.com wrote:

>Message-ID: <005601c73f1e$dcd23180$0501a8c0 at MX3417>
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 

John Andrews
P.O. Box 852
Saco, Maine 04072
207-282-1979
www.EasternTrail.Org
www.SacoBayTrails.Org
www.TrailsforaHealthyMaine.Org


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_indianatrails.org/attachments/20070124/118008bc/attachment.html