Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/04/2022 10. Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Over Yakima Trolley Bridge Y�'1114'+ BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 10. For Meeting of: October 4, 2022 ITEM TITLE: Proposed Pedestrian Crossing Over Yakima Trolley Bridge SUBMITTED BY: Sara Watkins, City Attorney SUMMARY EXPLANATION: City Council requested that the Yakima Valley Trolleys and the William O. Douglas Trail Foundation attend the council meeting to present on this item. Each party will have 20 minutes to present on the issue, after which there will be time for questions. The Legal Department has provided a memo with information we have obtained from B NS F Railway regarding its easement and the use of its easement. At the end of the presentations and questions, the Council may choose to take one, or none, of the following actions: 1. Move to have the William O. Douglas Trail foundation provide a detailed proposal which includes the pedestrian component of the bridge, engineering and plans regarding access to and from the bridge from the Greenway, cost estimates, financing information regarding the project, and a maintenance and operation plan to City Staff for review. 2. Move to retain the trolley bridge as is for railroad and trolley purposes only. 3. Move to table for further discussion—instructing one or both parties, or staff, to come back with answers to questions that may have arisen. These are not the only options, but some options that the Council may wish to consider on October 4, 2022. ITEM BUDGETED: No STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Partnership Development APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL BY THE CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: 2 ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type ❑ Memo BNSF RR Re Trolley Bridge 9/12/2022 Cotter Memo D Exhibit 1 9/12/2022 Exhibit ❑ Exhibit 2 9/12/2022 Exhibit ❑ Exhibit 3 9/12/2022 Exhibit D trolley presentation 9/28/2022 Cotter Memo ❑ WOD letter to council 9/29/2022 Cotter Memo ❑ WA State Historic Preservation 9/29/2022 Cotter Memo D no effects Historic Pres 9/29/2022 Cotter Memo ❑ WSDOT no effects 9/29/2022 Cotter Memo ❑ safety standards 9/29/2022 Cotter Memo D UTC BNSF approval RR ROW 9/29/2022 Cotter Memo ❑ Stanton academy 9/29/2022 Cotter Memo ❑ David-Ramierez letter 9/29/2022 Cotter Memo D K-12 curriculum 9/29/2022 Cotter Memo ❑ Carmody 9/29/2022 Cotter Memo 3 -0Yy (.....„,..---- •:.�• rry r t • + 0 q . ah +'1+1,,`FOR FOR ATV, $ Office of the City Attorney City of Yakima MEMORANDUM September 9, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Bob Harrison, City Manager FROM: Sara Watkins, City Attorney SUBJECT: Correspondence With BNSF Railroad Regarding Trolley Bridge The City Legal Department was tasked with reaching out to BNSF regarding the proposed pedestrian crossing over the existing trolley bridge. The trolley bridge sits within an easement belonging to BNSF. BNSF in 1912 (through its predecessor in interest Pacific Railway Company) granted the trolley (through its predecessor in interest the Yakima Valley Transportation Company) a fifty (50) foot easement "to occupy and use for its main line, single or double track railway." The Legal Department reached out to BNSF's representative regarding whether BNSF would agree to allow an additional use in the easement—specifically a pedestrian crossing over the currently-existing trolley bridge. We received the following response from Stephen Semenick, PE, Manager Engineering—NW Division: If at some point the City would like to discuss a larger scale pedestrian trail project that would utilize the trolley bridge, BNSF will participate. If that proposal includes a long segment of a trail within our ROW, it will not be approved. Attached to this memo are: 1. Email correspondence between Ryan Bleek and Stephen Semenick; and 2. BNSF Position on At-Grade Trails and Parallel Roadways. 200 South Third Street,2"d Fl. I Yakima,WA 98901 P:509.575.6030 I F:509.575.6160 4 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Bob Harrison, City Manager September 9, 2022 Page 2 In response to the William O. Douglas Trail Foundation's assertion that BNSF previously approved the use of the easement as a trail, the Legal Department also asked Mr. Semenick about the previous correspondence regarding fencing in the right of way. As you can read in the attached email, Mr. Semenick provided his opinion regarding whether BNSF had previously approved use of the trolley bridge as a trail during the City's 2008 Grade Crossing Protective Fund grant application. That grant application, made in conjunction with the Yakima Valley Trolleys and BNSF, provided funding for fencing to address unlawful pedestrian use of the BNSF line. As part of the proposal, there was a statement that "a pedestrian pathway is planned to be constructed across the trolley bridge within the next couple of years. Fencing as shown on the attached drawing would deter pedestrians from accessing the railroad bridge." Even though the 2008 grant application indicates that BNSF personnel supported efforts at the time to channel pedestrians away from its property, Mr. Semenick does not believe that the application provides proof of prior or current BNSF approval for use of the trolley bridge's railway as a pedestrian crossing. A copy of the application is attached for your reference. sw Attachments 5 Watkins, Sara From: Semenick, Stephen <Stephen.Semenick@BNSF.com> Sent: Thursday,August 18, 2022 5:08 PM To: Bleek, Ryan Cc: Watkins, Sara Subject: RE: Yakima Valley Trolley bridge Ryan, The UTC petition provides evidence that BNSF supported a fencing project to reduce trespassing within our ROW. While the trail project was referenced in the application, I do not believe it would suggest we supported that project. If at some point the City would like to discuss a larger scale pedestrian trail project that would utilize the trolley bridge, BNSF will participate. If that proposal includes a long segment of a trail within our ROW,it will not be approved. Thanks, Stephen Semenick, PE Manager Engineering—NW Division BNSF Railway Company 44 South Hanford Street, Building C Seattle,WA 98134 Office: 206.625.6152 Cell: 817.422.2486 From: Bleek, Ryan<Ryan.Bleek@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 3:49 PM To: Semenick,Stephen <Stephen.Semenick@BNSF.com> Cc:Watkins,Sara <Sara.Watkins@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Subject: RE:Yakima Valley Trolley bridge *** This email includes an ATTACHMENT from outside of BNSF and could contain malicious links. Ensure email is from a trusted sender before opening the attachment. Never enter your login credentials if prompted. Click the Email Alert button on the Outlook toolbar to send SPAM email to Security. EXTERNAT EMAIL Steve, I've been provided with a bit more background regarding the City's request for BNSF's current position on pedestrian/bicycle use of the trolley bridge,specifically. Attached you'll find on pages 1—4 an application from 2008 to the UTC for funding to build a fence to channel pedestrians away from the railroad bridge that runs parallel to the trolley bridge. On page four BNSF signed a Railroad Commitment form supporting the application. On the one hand,the Commitment form doesn't explicitly endorse pedestrian/bicycle use of the trolley bridge. On the other hand,the application itself makes it clear that the request to fund the fencing is in the specific context of plans to i 6 construct a pedestrian trail on the trolley bridge, so one could interpret the Commitment form as an implicit endorsement of the pedestrian/bicycle trail. Either way,that was 2008 and it's now 2022. I know that you just provided me with BNSF's current formal position paper on at-grade trails and parallel roadways,and I can presume that that represents your current position with respect to the trolley bridge. However, in an attempt to anticipate the position of those who are advocating for a pedestrian/bicycle trail, I can imagine the argument that the position paper represents BNSF's general position, but the 2008 Commitment form and UTC funding application represents BNSF's contrary position for the specific trolley bridge in question. I apologize for imposing on your time,but it would be quite helpful to have BNSF's explicit position on the issue in order to unambiguously and definitively advise City Manager and Council as to the same. Thanks, Ryan Bleek Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Yakima Legal Department 200 South Third Street 2' Fl I Yakima WA 98901 P: 509.575.6030 I F: 509.575.6160 roan.beek c(77,yakimawa.q ov Privileged &Confidential: Covered by the Attorney-Client&Attorney Work Product Privileges From: Semenick, Stephen<Stephen.Semenick@BNSF.com> Sent: Thursday, August 18,2022 9:07 AM To: Bleek, Ryan<Ryan.Bleek@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Cc:Watkins,Sara <Sara.Watkins@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Subject: RE:Yakima Valley Trolley bridge Ryan, See attached for BNSF's formal position paper on at-grade trails and parallel roadways. Thanks, Stephen Semenick, PE Manager Engineering—NW Division BNSF Railway Company 44 South Hanford Street, Building C Seattle,WA 98134 Office: 206.625.6152 Cell: 817.422.2486 From: Bleek, Ryan<Ryan.Bieek@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Sent: Thursday, August 18,2022 8:27 AM To: Semenick,Stephen<Stephen.Semenick@BNSF.com> Cc:Watkins,Sara <Sara.Watkins@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Subject: RE:Yakima Valley Trolley bridge 2 7 EXTERNAL Steve, I received the copy of the map of BNSF's right-of-way,and as expected it shows that the City's trolley bridge falls within the ROW.Thanks again for your help with that. The potential pedestrian/bicycle use of the trolley bridge to cross the river continues to be an issue of debate among members of the community. It is my understanding from your previous correspondence with Ken Johnsen of Yakima Valley Trolleys that as a general matter BNSF opposes trails parallel and/or attached to railroad bridges within BNSF's ROW. Could I impose upon you (or whomever)to draft a brief letter on BNSF letterhead to the City Manager(Bob Harrison)specifying the railroad's official position with respect to pedestrian/bicycle use of the particular bridge in question? I assume that it will align with your general policy, but either way, having BNSF's formal position in writing will be very helpful in bringing the issue to resolution. I greatly appreciate your time and assistance. Thanks, Ryan Bleek Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Yakima Legal Department 200 South Third Street 2nd FI I Yakima WA 98901 P: 509.575.6030 I F: 509.575.6160 roan.bleek(a7vakimawa.aov Privileged &Confidential: Covered by the Attorney-Client&Attorney Work Product Privileges From: Semenick, Stephen<Stephen.Semenick(a)BNSF.com> Sent: Friday,June 10, 2022 5:41 PM To: Bleek, Ryan<Rvan.Bleek@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Subject: RE:Yakima Valley Trolley bridge Hi Ryan, Thank you for following up and I apologize for the delayed response. I wasn't able to find a copy of the easement document for the structure, but BNSF has a third party representative that may be able to dig into archives I do not have access to.The link below will direct you to the webpage where you can submit a request for the desired information. There is a $75 fee for the associated research. If you choose to submit a request please reference that you have coordinated with me on the project. Location details to include would be LS 48 MP 91.5—92.0.There are other prompts for project details, so please include a brief summary on the project. It may take a week or two for Bartlett and West to find the information, but it should result in the City's desired outcome. If you have any questions please let me know. https://www.bartlettwest.com/services/rail-ma ps Thanks, Steve From: Bleek, Ryan<Rvan.Bleek@YAKIMAWA.GOV> Sent: Friday,June 10, 2022 2:55 PM To: Semenick,Stephen<Stephen.Semenick@BNSF.com> Subject: RE:Yakima Valley Trolley bridge 3 8 EXTERNAL Stephen, I thought I'd check in one last time. I won't bother you again. Thanks either way,and have a nice weekend. Ryan Bleek Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Yakima Legal Department 200 South Third Street 2nd Fl I Yakima WA 98901 P: 509.575.6030 I F: 509.575.6160 roan.bleek& vakimawa.gov Privileged &Confidential: Covered by the Attorney-Client&Attorney Work Product Privileges From: Bleek, Ryan<> Sent: Thursday, April 14,2022 4:39 PM To: 'stephen.semenick@bnsf.com'<stephen.semenick@bnsf.com> Subject: RE:Yakima Valley Trolley bridge Good afternoon,Stephen. I'm following up on my email below. If a copy of the easement isn't something you have, then no worries. I just thought I'd check. Thanks, Ryan Bleek Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Yakima Legal Department 200 South Third Street 2nd Fl I Yakima WA 98901 P: 509.575.6030 I F: 509.575.6160 roan.bleekavakimawa.aov Privileged &Confidential: Covered by the Attorney-Client&Attorney Work Product Privileges From: Bleek, Ryan Sent: Tuesday,April 5, 2022 10:44 AM To: 'stephen.semenick@bnsf.com'<stephen.semenick@bnsf.com> Subject:Yakima Valley Trolley bridge Stephen, I got your contact info from Ken Johnsen of Yakima Valley Trolleys. In the email that you and Ken exchanged on March 16th, you mentioned that the trolley bridge is on an easement within BNSF's right-of-way. Do you happen to have a copy of the easement that you could share with me? If BNSF won't authorize a trail on your easement,then it seems like that is rather dispositive of any internal debate within the City on the issue,and documentation of the easement/right-of-way could put the issue to rest. Thanks! Ryan Bleek Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Yakima Legal Department 200 South Third Street 2nd Fl I Yakima WA 98901 P: 509.575.6030 I F: 509.575.6160 roan.bleekavakimawa.aov Privileged &Confidential: Covered by the Attorney-Client&Attorney Work Product Privileges 4 9 5 10 BNSF Position on At-Grade Trails and Parallel Roadways This generally addresses Agency Sponsored projects that include parallel roadways or pedestrian, bicyclist,or multi-use trails on or adjacent to BNSF right-of-way(ROW). Parallel trails and roadways: • In general, public parallel roadways or trails are not allowed on BNSF property. BNSF ROW is reserved for railroad infrastructure to ensure that current customer demands are met and to support future expansion needs. • BNSF's maintenance and inspection roads are for the duties of operating, maintaining,and inspecting track. Public uses of railroad service roads are not acceptable for public roadway or trail use. • BNSF rail bridges are designed to carry train traffic and are not designed for multimodal use.Trails parallel and/or attached to railroad bridges are not allowed. • If trail is adjacent to BNSF property, fencing should be installed along the trail to keep users off of BNSF property. • Trail construction and maintenance shall not reduce the BNSF ROW or adversely impact train operations during construction. • Increased pedestrian activity adjacent to active track increases exposure points to train movement and potential for trespassing. Efforts to deter trespassing should be included in any trail project. BNSF will consider accommodating parallel roadways within BNSF ROW when the new roadway will eliminate one or more at-grade crossings. Trails crossing BNSF tracks at-grade: • BNSF may accommodate trails that cross the tracks or BNSF ROW. • Trails crossing the tracks at-grade must cross adjacent to an existing public at-grade crossing.Stand-alone at-grade trail crossings are not allowed. • The trail should cross the railroad tracks at a 90-degree angle. • Trail crossing must meet the requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, (MUTCD). • Trail owners must enter into the proper license agreement with BNSF and be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the trail. • BNSF may require specific trail features at its discretion. Trails combined with drainage structures are not allowed. For guidance on grade separated trails, refer to the Union Pacific Railroad—BNSF Railway Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects. BNSF publishes position statements to clarify BNSF's position on the subject matter. The information contained in a position statement is neither exhaustive nor exclusive to all circumstances or individuals. The relevance and implementation of these recommendations may be affected by local,state, or federal statutes, other rules or regulations, and differing project conditions. Position statements are not intended to provide any approval of a public agency project. Nothing in this position statement supersedes or supplements the terms of a governing agency agreement with BNSF. The position statement should not be relied upon as being inclusive of all BNSF's policies on the subject matter, but only as a resource. BNSF takes great care in publishing position statements and reserves the right to rescind or modify these statements at any time. Approved by Craig Rasmussen,AVP Engineering Services and Structures Date Approved: August 16,2017 11 V) - 6409 WASHING CON 1300 S.Evergreen Park Drive SW PO Box 47250 Olympia,WA 98504-7250 (360)664-1257 or(360)664-1100 Fax:(360)586-1150 UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION Web:w:(360) 86-11ov COMMISSION E-mail:rccords(a?utc.wa.gov GRADE CROSSING PROTECTIVE FUND APPLICATION FOR FUNDING The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission(commission),through its Grade Crossing Protective Fund(GCPF),funds projects that eliminate or mitigate public safety hazards at railroad crossings and along railroad rights-of-way in Washington State.Any public,private, or non-profit entity may submit an application to the commission for GCPF monies. Please complete and submit the following information as part of the application process: Applicant Information Applicant Name: Dick Zais,City Manager Organization: City of Yakima Address: 129 North Second Street,Yakima,WA 98901 Phone: (509)575-6040 E-mail: Fax: (509)576-6335 Please list all other companies,organizations or state or local agencies that may be involved in implementing this proposal and the contact name,address and phone number for each. Yakima Valley Trolleys ta Kenneth G.Johnson P.O.Box 796 *t Yakima,WA 98907-0796 -=; yaldmavalleytrolleys@hotmail.com • Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company rv_ - Daniel MacDonald,P.E. Managing Engineer—Seattle 2454 Occidental Avenue South,Suite 1_A Seattle, WA 98134 (206)625-6150,Fax(206)625-6115 daniel.macdonald@bnsf.com 12 Grade Crossing Protective Fund Application Form Project Information I. Provide a detailed summary of the hazard being addressed Include: • Any information about accidents or incidents at the site. 1 ■ Photographs, drawings or other materials that supports the application. Currently,there are only two pedestrian crossing facilities for crossing the Naches River at the northern city limits of the City of Yakima. One is located at the eastern city limits(1-82)and the other is at the western city limits(Powerhouse Road). Due to this lack of pedestrian facilities,and despite"No Trespassing"signs,pedestrians occasionally use the BNSF railroad bridge to cross the Naches River. On July 12, 2007,a man and woman who were crossing the Naches River on the railroad bridge were struck by a passing train and seriously injured. On several occasions recently,railroad police hired by BNSF have had to remove trespassers from the railroad property in this vicinity. 2. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project and explain how it will eliminate or mitigate the hazard. Include any drawings or construction plans for the proposed project. This project will construct six-foot chain link fence to impede pedestrian and motor vehicle trespass onto BNSF property in the vicinity of the Naches River Bridge. As part of the William 0.Douglas Trail project,a pedestrian pathway is planned to be constructed across the trolley bridge within the next couple of years. Fencing as shown on the attached drawing would deter pedestrians from accessing the railroad bridge. The fence would begin where Gordon Road crosses underneath the railroad tracks,then heads west approximately 150 feet across the trolley tracks to approximately 8-feet west of the trolley tracks,then head in a northwesterly direction parallel to the trolley tracks for approximately 670 feet,then make a 90 degree turn across the trolley tracks,then head in a northeasterly direction for approximately 70 feet to end adjacent to the BNSF south bridge abutment. At both locations where the fence crosses the trolley tracks,20-foot gates will be installed. The fencing will continue east of the BNSF bridge for approximately 150 feet parallel to the Greenway Path. In addition to improving safety,this fencing project may reduce the railroad's requirement for police enforcement. 3. Provide cost estimates. Include: • Total costs of the project. • Names ofparties contributing to the project and the amount each is contributing. Total project costs are estimated to be$37,000. The City is requesting a grant of $20,000 toward this total from WUTC. 2 13 Grade Crossing Protective Fund Application Form 4. Provide the name of the party responsible for long-term maintenance. The City of Yakima and/or the Yakima Greenway Foundation will provide longterm maintenance of the fence. S. Provide an estimated timeline of project, if approved. Weather permitting; the project will be completed this fall. If not, the project will be completed next spring 6. Provide a description of how the project's success would be measured. Success of this project can be measured by demonstrating a decrease in trespass incidents and pedestrian accidents on the BNSF Bridge. 7. Provide any other information the applicant believes would be useful to the commission in considering the project. At several recent meetings,BNSF personnel have expressed their encouragement and approval of our plans to channel pedestrians away from railroad property and to reduce trespass by means of fencing. 8. If the project involves any construction, modification or demolition on a railroad right-of-way, complete the attached Railroad Commitment form. This includes fencing, gates or other structures located near enough to the tracks to be on the railroad right-of-way, modification to a grade crossing or any other project that involves railroad property or rights-of-way. See accompanying email from BNSF engineer Daniel MacDonald expressing the railroad's concurrence with this project. Submitting the Application After completing the GCPF application,please send the original to: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Attention: Grade Crossing Protective Fund 1300 S.Evergreen Park Drive SW PO Box 47250 Olympia,WA 98504-7250 A signed application may be filed electronically at records a,utc.wa.gov. When filing electronically,please specify"Grade Crossing Protective Fund"in the subject line. Assistance For questions or assistance,please contact: • Kathy Hunter at(360)664-1257 or by e-mail at khunter a,utc.wa.gov. • David Pratt at(360)664-1100 or by e-mail at dpratt(a,utc.wa.gov. 3 14 _ y O `1 Oy l Railroad Commitment - ! TR-072009 - �r� The undersigned represents the Railroad Company in the GCPF application described;§.(enter al Y �Y brief description): r• S The City of Yakima has applied for GCPF funds to erect fencing for trespass abatement -n erg • ur oses. The City's trolley bridge and the adjacent BNSF Railway bridge cross the Naches River at the northern end of Yakima City limits. See attached photos for location of fencing. It is believed the BNSF has a 200 ft.right-of-way at this location and much of the fencing would be on that right-of-way. The City of Yakima and/or the Yakima Greenway Foundation will provide lone-term maintenance of the fence. • We have reviewed the application and are satisfied the conditions are the same as described by the applicant in this matter.We agree to allow construction,modification or demolition on a railroad right-of-way as described in the application. See &1 -fes befog. 1ohr~. t-.; Printed name of Railroad Representative • Signature of ilroad Representative Mcj#r, fl bl;c Pry je-'fr Title 2-06' 6)-S. 6/ 46 Phone J0/1n. (i 6-6ns f. Ceram • E-mail Date: 4 A f /0 Et • Notes: f3tisF stcfpor1 fs app k cah`sm for. csItiee ihipt-vveineees. d b •►.o,1 e f ncest'dn -I. 2 Gn Will t� .Ge -�, d s��n � �'' � 11 � �din � I olte l3NSF Tnbr- -try its �`ns`fa lla�►'s». Tie G'�de/�ni a/s Lan e A�ol insu.i�►ce 1erM.� T'v i f3NSF t,Jifi?t C, rrewt- t i—s aKd W a 3a-day C&,leo11044i chase, i-f- feciarl NesiM be. or, B,'1SF/5 Ri jitt elf - waV. 15 From: MacDonald.Danniel To: Wavenberp.Karen Cc: Polnickv.Bruce K;Aaee.David W Subject: RE: Yakima,WA-UTC Grant Application Date: Friday,October 05,2007 3:24:51 PM Ms.Wayenberg, Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Yakima's UTC GCPF application. BNSF supports this application for safety improvements. The final design and location of the fencing will need to be approved by BNSF prior to its installation. We look forward to working with the City of Yakima address this safety concern. Please contact me if you need additional information regarding BNSF's participation. Again,we look forward to working with the City on this issue. Respectfully, Dan Danniel MacDonald, P.E. Manager Engineering - Seattle BNSF Railway Company 2454 Occidental Avenue South, Suite 1A Seattle, WA 98134 Office: (206) 625-6150 Fax: (206) 625-6115 danniel.macdonald@bnsf.com From: Wayenberg, Karen [mailto:kwayenbe@ci.yakima.wa.us] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:53 PM To: MacDonald, Danniel Subject: RE: Yakima, WA- UTC Grant Application Thanks for reviewing our application and the page requiring BNSF signature. Feel free to call me or reply to this email. From: MacDonald, Danniel[mailto:Danniel.MacDonald©BNSF.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:47 PM To: Wayenberg, Karen Subject: Yakima, WA- UTC Grant Application Ms.Wayenberg, With reference to our conversation this afternoon, my contact information is following. I look forward to reviewing this application. Respectfully, Dan Danniel MacDonald, P.E. 16 TR - 07Z00q Boston, Bob(UTC) From: Sheffield, Brett[bsheffie@ci.yakima.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:59 AM To: Boston, Bob(UTC) Subject: Grade Crossing Protective Fund Grant Attachments: YVT Fence.pdf Bob, • As we have discussed, part of the William O.Douglas Trail will include a pathway across the Trolley Bridge to allow pedestrians access across the Naches River. I believe that the description in the original application should have been modified to read like the following: This project will construct six-foot chain link fence to impede pedestrian and motor vehicle trespass onto BNSF property in the vicinity of the Naches River Bridge. As part of the William O. Douglas Trail project,a pedestrian pathway is planned to be constructed across the trolley bridge within the next couple of years. Fencing as shown on the attached drawing would deter pedestrians from accessing the railroad bridge. The fence would begin where Gordon Road crosses underneath the railroad tracks,then heads west approximately 150 feet across the trolley tracks to approximately 8-feet west of the trolley tracks,then head in a northwesterly direction parallel to the trolley tracks for approximately 670 feet, then make a 90 degree turn across the trolley tracks,then head in a northeasterly direction for approximately 70 feet to end adjacent to the BNSF south bridge abutment. At both locations where the fence crosses the trolley tracks,20-foot gates will be installed. The fencing will continue east of the BNSF bridge for approximately 150 feet parallel to the Greenway Path. In addition to improving safety,this fencing project may reduce the railroad's requirement for police enforcement. I have also attached a drawing showing the proposed fencing project. If you have any questions or require additional information,please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks for your help. Brett H. Sheffield, P.E. Chief Engineer City of Yakima PH.(509)576-6797 Fax(509)576-6305 t I 17 THEr- buY4KIM ► '_T LEY 1 1 .._. __ _ -_ ,I SINCE 1907 Yakima Valley Trolleys September 26, 2022 Dear Yakima City Council and Staff, The Yakima Valley Trolleys organization has operated, preserved, and maintained the City's YVT trolley railroad through an operating agreement for the last 21 years with a perfect safety record. We wish to keep it that way. There is a proposal before you from an outside trail group wanting to build a walkway and fences in the middle of the track on the City's railroad bridge for non-railroad purposes. This would create a very dangerous and unsafe condition which would expose the City to great liability, severely disrupt trolley operations, and threaten our chances of giving the City its first National Historic Landmark. We ask that you carefully read and view the enclosed information. Then at your October 4th meeting, reject the trail group's proposal. Let's end this controversy, which has gone on for 17 years, and move forward in positive directions for the City's historic trolley railroad. Sincerely, Ken Johnsen, President Yakima Valley Trolleys P.B. Box 796, Yakima, WA 98907 18 % F 1 - Vr - -' -: -- --S " ""`----- --7 -'kqi iitri ••... / 1 .% - \ \ i I b SW 4f: ,ii:M a ll\1 I. T. , , —� 1 -..74,gt. t. .:, .-,,, i I- . , ,t 4 ,. ,\ r< . _ o.. ,,, , , -;:,! / ' \ \:%\l" 1 1 i i 1 ' t:4'lls ' r K • 'it I 1' 1 A r:- .. wr• • J \ , THE HISTORIC YVT PEGRAM TRUSS BRIDGE OVER THE NACHES RIVER (OR, PEDESTRIANS AND TRAINS DO NOT MIX!) 1. Pedestrians and trains do not mix! 2. Public safety and City liability 3. National Historic Landmark 4. Historic appropriateness 5. Far better alternatives 6. "Spatial and Temporal Separation" is not realistic in practice 7. Ending the controversy September, 2022 Yakima Valley Trolleys 19 1. Pedestrians and trains do not mix! The William O. Douglas Trail Foundation is promoting a dangerous proposal to build a trail pathway down the middle of the active YVT trolley railroad, over the confined bridge crossing the Naches River. In so doing, they are demonstrating total disregard of railroad operation and safety procedures. Even professional railroad employees are instructed never to walk in the middle of a railroad track. It would be hard to imagine a worse possible choice for locating a hiking trail boardwalk than between the rails of an active railroad, over a 300-foot long railroad bridge that is 40 feet above the river, and has no escape route for pedestrians other than to try and outrun the trolley to the other end of the bridge. The Yakima Valley Trolleys' officers and board of directors unanimously condemn the trail group's proposal advocating a pedestrian pathway to be built on the bridge. This is not the first time the trail group has made this reckless proposal. Over the past 17 years their previous attempts have been met with refusal by the City Attorney, the City Council, and the City Manager. It is time to put this issue to rest once and for all. Please carefully read the following pages to learn all the ramifications the proposal would have on the City and trolley railroad, as well as a couple of excellent alternatives that could be used to meet everyone's needs. 20 2. Public safety and City liability Washington ranks fourth in the nation in trespassing railroad fatalities. Implementation of the William O. Douglas Trail Foundation's irresponsible plan could easily boost Washington to an even worse ranking. Trespassers have already died on the YVT trolley railroad bridge and also on the adjacent BNSF railroad bridge. The Yakima trolley railroad is in use year-round. In addition to its regularly scheduled runs, there are maintenance runs, weed spraying runs and weed spraying company calibration tests of their equipment, rock removal and track repair in Selah Gap from rocks falling on our track. In addition, we offer charters over the entire railroad 365 days a year. There is no "safe" time for pedestrians to be on our railroad and no logical reason for them to be there in the first place. Imagine what a disruption it would make to trolley operation if every time we took a load of passengers to Selah we would have to stop at the bridge and wait many minutes for hikers to get off. Because of the extreme danger to life and limb posed by the trail group's plan, the liability to the City of Yakima, as owners of the railroad, would become enormous! It would be hard to find an insurance company willing to insure the City for liability with such a dangerous scheme. It should be obvious that putting pedestrians in harm's way on our working railroad would be a very unwise move for the City of Yakima. And the precedent it would set would forever kill the City's defense in any litigation arising from injuries or deaths on the bridge. Once people are allowed to walk on the bridge, they are "invitees", not "trespassers". The liability would be untenable. The trolley railroad and bridge pass over the right of way of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad by means of an easement. We agree with, and strictly adhere to, the rules of the BNSF regarding trails on railroad right of way and additions to railroad infrastructure on railroad right of way. The letter from BNSF in this section clearly states that BNSF will not allow any type of trail walkway to be constructed on our bridge, nor routed over our tracks. And in addition to the disruption of trolley service to Selah, the WODTF proposal would place a liability on the operators of the trolley railroad that Yakima Valley Trolleys are not willing to accept. 21 A OPERATION WASHINGTON OPERATION LIFESAVER LIFESAVER ' P.O. BOX 47250 Washington Olympia, WA 98504-7250 Rione:(360)701-1612 _ ��•:.,=,c�.+,a-„rnr> June 17, 2022 Washingtonoperation Ken Johnson, President Lifesa'er Executwe Yakima Valley Trolleys Committed 306 West Pine Street Washington utilitiesand Yakima,WA 98902 Transportation Commission Sent via email to bohnsen(&vakimavallevtrolletvsore( Washington State Patrol Dr. Mr. Johnson: Washington state Thank you for contacting Washington Operation Lifesaver(WAOL) DepTransportation of regarding the City of Yakima's proposal to add pedestrian access TrarLsportatan to an existing railroad bridge.WAOLwnrks in partnership with Amtrak Operation Lifesaver, a non-profit organization that provides public education programs in states to prevent collisions, injuries and BISE Railway Go. fatalities on and around railroad tracks and highway-rail grade Union Pacific Railroad crossings. Superintendent of Public WAOL takes no position on the merits of the project but offers Instruction these rail safety reminders to consider. Federal Railroad • Always expect atrain from either direction, at any time. Administration • Walking on or near railroad tracks is illegal. Washington Traffic Safety • Trains have the right of way 100% of the time. Commission • Cross train tracks at designated public crossings with a crossbuck,flashing red lights or a gate and follow all Brotherhood of warning signs and signals posted there. LocomotNe Engineers • Stay off railroad bridges and trestles,there is only room for United Transportation the train. union • Stay alert around railroad track. Sound Transit Thank you for the opportunity to offer these important rail safety reminders. For more information, please visit oli.org. Sincerey, 'K,wtks/4-fatter Kathy Hunter, State Coordinator Washington Operation Lifesaver SAVING LNES AT NIGNWAY-RAILGRADE CROSSINGS AND RAILROAD RIGHTSOF-WAY E DUCAT ION....E NGI NE ER ING....E MO RC E ME NI' Trespassing Casualties by State I Operation Lifesaver 22 Trespassing Casualties by State Top 15 States Ranked by Total Trespass Casualties (Based on Preliminary 2021 Federal Railroad Administration Statistics) UPDATED 7/13/22 According to FRA statistics,1,144 pedestrian rail trespass casualties(fatalities+injuries)occurred in 2021.There were 617 trespass-related fatalities and 527 trespass injuries across the U.S. in 2021.Approximately 69%of all 2021 trespass casualties occurred in the 15 states listed below. RANK STATE TOTAL CASUALTIES DEATHS INJURIES 1. California 243 142 101 2. Texas 119 57 62 3. Florida 58 36 22 4. New York 49 23 26 5. Washington 40 24 16 6. Illinois 39 20 19 . 7. Ohio 35 15 20 8. Pennsylvania 34 19 15 This website uses cookies to improve your experience. 23 From: Semenick, Stephen <Stephen.Semenick@bnsf.com> Date: Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 10:24 AM Subject: RE: Railroad Safety Issue for BNSF and YVT To: Ken Johnsen <kjohnsen@yakimavalleytrolleys.or6> Ken, I agree that a pedestrian path (or shared use path) attached to a railroad structure is a bad idea. The public safety points you made below are valid and I'd share the same concerns. It does look like the trolley bridge is operating on an easement within BNSF's ROW. With that in mind, I've attached BNSF's formal position paper on at-grade trails/parallel roadways. BNSF does not approve of trails within our ROW, particularly ones that are proposed to be attached to railroad infrastructure. Although I haven't seen the proposed alignment, I'd bet a portion of the proposed trail would fall within railroad ROW. Feel free to forward this message to City staff that are reviewing the proposal, as they may ultimately have to work with BNSF if they decide to proceed with some variation of a trail in that area. BNSF will not authorize any type of trail running parallel to our mainline or within the ROW. A separate structure for pedestrians/bicyclists spanning the river is what I would recommend. Thanks, Stephen Semenick, PE Manager Public Projects -WA, OR, & S.C. BNSF Railway Company 44 South Hanford Street, Building C Seattle,WA 98134 Office: 206.625.6152 Cell: 817.422.2486 24 BNSF Position on At-Grade Trails and Parallel Roadways This generally addresses Agency Sponsored projects that include parallel roadways or pedestrian, bicyclist,or multi-use trails on or adjacent to BNSF right-of-way(ROW). Parallel trails and roadways: • In general, public parallel roadways or trails are not allowed on BNSF property. BNSF ROW is reserved for railroad infrastructure to ensure that current customer demands are met and to support future expansion needs. • BNSF's maintenance and inspection roads are for the duties of operating, maintaining,and inspecting track. Public uses of railroad service roads are not acceptable for public roadway or trail use. • BNSF rail bridges are designed to carry train traffic and are not designed for multimodal use.Trails parallel and/or attached to railroad bridges are not allowed. • If trail is adjacent to BNSF property, fencing should be installed along the trail to keep users off of BNSF property. • Trail construction and maintenance shall not reduce the BNSF ROW or adversely impact train operations during construction. • Increased pedestrian activity adjacent to active track increases exposure points to train movement and potential for trespassing. Efforts to deter trespassing should be included in any trail project. BNSF will consider accommodating parallel roadways within BNSF ROW when the new roadway will eliminate one or more at-grade crossings. Trails crossing BNSF tracks at-grade: • BNSF may accommodate trails that cross the tracks or BNSF ROW. • Trails crossing the tracks at-grade must cross adjacent to an existing public at-grade crossing.Stand-alone at-grade trail crossings are not allowed. • The trail should cross the railroad tracks at a 90-degree angle. • Trail crossing must meet the requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, (MUTCD). • Trail owners must enter into the proper license agreement with BNSF and be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the trail. • BNSF may require specific trail features at its discretion. Trails combined with drainage structures are not allowed. For guidance on grade separated trails, refer to the Union Pacific Railroad—BNSF Railway Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects. BNSF publishes position statements to clarify BNSF's position on the subject matter. The information contained in a position statement is neither exhaustive nor exclusive to all circumstances or individuals. The relevance and implementation of these recommendations may be affected by local,state, or federal statutes, other rules or regulations, and differing project conditions. Position statements are not intended to provide any approval of a public agency project. Nothing in this position statement supersedes or supplements the terms of a governing agency agreement with BNSF. The position statement should not be relied upon as being inclusive of all BNSF's policies on the subject matter, but only as a resource. BNSF takes great care in publishing position statements and reserves the right to rescind or modify these statements at any time. Approved by Craig Rasmussen,AVP Engineering Services and Structures Date Approved: August 16,2017 25 PAUL D. EDMOND S ON Attorney-at-Law 313 NORTH THIRD STREET YAKIMA, WA 98901 (509) 452-7963 June 23, 2022 Ken Johnsen, President Re: Pedestrians on City Railway Yakima Valley Trolleys PO Box 161 Renton, WA 98057 Dear President Johnsen: You have inquired about a proposal to permit pedestrians to use the City-owned railroad tracks now used by Yakima Valley Trolleys over the Naches River between Yakima and Selah, WA. I understand that the group asking for City permission is a hiking group interested in traversing the Naches River bridge into Selah Gap where the tracks are located along a narrow shelf adjacent to the BNSF mainline tracks which are used for mile-long 100 car freight trains returning to North Dakota from Western Washington oil refineries. I further understand that the Naches bridge has no special accommodation for pedestrians or hikers although an adjacent freeway bridge a short distance downriver does have pedestrian facilities to allow foot access into Selah from the Yakima Greenway. From a legal perspective the most serious issue obviously confronting the City is the enormous expansion of City liability in endorsing pedestrian use of a railroad bridge and narrow right-of- way expressly built for railway use only. I know of no other city in America which has done so. I also do not know of the position of BNSF, the owner of the right-of-way, as opposed to the City— owned easement upon which the tracks lie. Since the easement is 26 for railway purposes only the addition of pedestrian use would obviously be beyond the scope of the easement and unlawful, thereby exposing the City to possible litigation and damages from BNSF who I am quite sure do not want people hiking on their right-of-way adjacent to long oil trains. - At the present time the right-of-way is posted to warn trespassers to keep out. If the City decides to invite pedestrian use of the bridge and tracks the legal doctrine of an "attractive nuisance" would appear to become relevant. A common example is a homeowner's liability for a swimming pool in his backyard which is used by kids in the neighborhood. This creates substantial risk for the owner who has "invited" the users explicitly or impliedly. This is the reason for the warning signs presently posted in Selah Gap and by the bridge. In addition from the aforementioned dangers it should be noted that the Selah Gap hillside next to the trolley tracks is very steep. In places it is a vertical rock wall right next to the trolley tracks and the oil trains on the downhill side. Every Spring large two- man boulders fall down the hillside onto the tracks below creating a dangerous situation for rail traffic, not to mention pedestrians. Every Spring and Summer weekends trolley members clear out these boulders to keep the tracks clear and safe. Encouraging people to walk in this narrow corridor anytime during the boulder season is obviously not in the City's interest. In summary, permitting pedestrians on city railroad tracks is just asking for litigation by invitees, no longer trespassers. It is unthinkable as a matter of prudent public policy. Very truly yours, Pa-we 1J g•-1--ge"-$4"--- ws 3 /' 363 / / S ell 4 4 8'7 • 6-0 /f XN Z87f° fir - It - .. Li t. ' .i . I I.'' „N N 1. a! Ai to E R- , _ , ,,, . ._ . �µ 1tt: _:. TRESPASSING G a ; . ii ES - _ '' . KEEP OFT BRFDGE -- ..v...E _ BNSF Y CO - TTT— J 1\i- 0 BNSI. 411 � Kici 0 TRESPASSING 0 WAY?NSF RAIL 2 VIOLATORS WILL 1-800-832-545 -tic' POLICE BE PRO'-':UTED ' ill, , Ilk pi," h. a,, YVT trolley bridge showing gates and signs posted by BNSF to keep people off the bridge Original easement granted by Northern Pacific to YVT in 1912 clearly was safety conscious and dick$ not allow pedestrians on the right of way. See section 9. T:'IS AURE PI4T made this 15th day of January A. D. 1912, between the 1:ORTHERt1 P1:CIPIC RAP_,TEY C0?1'AjY, hereinafter called the "Pacific Cor any", and the YAKIMA VAL=1 TRA SPORTATI01I COMPANY, hereinafter called the "Valley CorIa'ty", r'IITNESSETH: WaY-74A.S, the Pacific Company owns a right of way four hundred (400) feet in width, being two hundred (200) feet on each side of ti,e center line of its railway as now constricted through and over sections one (11 and twelve (i2) in township thirteen (13) North, Range eia'hteea (18) E. W. V. , in Ys1r:a County, Washington; the said right o: way and railway t2'.ue, as shown or. the map hereto attached, marked "Exhibit A" and made a part hereof, and; WHER3AS, the Valley Car•.peny deeires to construct a single or double track railway on the rrant of ray aforesaad, and, for each purpose the pacific Gompany is willing to grant to tiB Valley Company ran eaaament to occupy perpetually, for a main line rai?r,ay, a strip of land upon said right of way fifty (50) feet in width; provided the right so granted shall no; in any manner interfere with the occupation of any other portion of the aforesaid ritri.t of way by the pacific Company, and shall not cause any addition- al burden or e::pense to tie Pacific Ocmpany in occup;;.Eng or using the same: THEREPORE, in consideration of the sum or One Dollar ($i.00) to it paid and the covenante to be performed by the galley Company the Pacific Company does hereby grant to the Valley Company, to the full extent of its legal right to make such grant the right perpetually to occupy and use for its main line, single or double track railway, the strip of land fifty (50) feet in width over and upon the Pacific Company's right of way aforesaid, which is colored in red as shown upon 3chibit A; Provided, however, that the location of said strip may be changed as hereinafter provid- ed. Said grant being subject to the following conditions and covenants: Section S The center line of the Valley Company's nearest or northerly track shall be initially constructed at leaea fifty-four (S(i) feet from the present center line of the main track of the Pacific Company as shown on Exhibit A. The Valley Company's road-bed shall be so constructed as to enable the Pacific Company to excavate, use and occupy a strip of ground Forty (40) feet in width parallel to and southerly from tyre present center line of its main track, and at suck time as the Pacific Company snail elect to revise its alignment by reducing its present 6 degree curve to a maximum of 3 degrees, the i)alley Com- pany will either remove its tracks to arch distance from the re- vised center line as will enable the Pacific Company to similarly occupy a strip of grouxtd Forty (40) feet in width upon the southerly side of said revised center line, or pay the extra cost of re- constructing the pacific Company's railroad upon a center line re- established satiafaotorily to the Pa.ific Company, which shall not increase the present total curvature, or exceed a maximum rat 'e' of 3 degrees; and in the event that the tracks of the Valley Company are moved us in this sentence provided, then the location of the 50 foot strip, the right to ase which is i:y this instrument granted to the Valley poapany, shall be changed to correspond. A true copy 29 Such slopes of cuts and fills of the the Valley Company's road-bed as shall encroach upon said forty foot strip shall be removed by the Valley Company whenever said strip is desired for occupation by the Pacific Company, and the Valley Company, at all times at its sole expense, will build and maintain such retaining walls as the Pacific Company may deem necessary properly to protect said strip for unobstructed use by the Pacific m mpany, The Valley Company, at all times and at its sole expense will build and maintain such snow shear, rock sheds or other protective structures, made necessary as a result of the construc- tion of the i:ralley Company'e line, when and as the same are required by the Pacific Company to protect i is operation f- ' snow, rock, gravel or other material. The elopes of the Valley Company's road-bed, either permanent or tempvear,;, shall be retained at least ten (10) feet from the center line of the Pacific Company's nearest track or the siding as shown upon said Exhibit A. Seat&on2. ?he Valley Company shall have the right to- extend the slopes of its main line road-bed beyond the limits of the right of wav hereby granted, subjeot to the conditions contained in Section 1 hereof. Both of the said companies shall have the right to joint occupation of such portion of the slopes between their respective road-beds as lies upon the fifty (50) foot right of way granted the Valley Company for telegraph, telephone and signal wires or apparatus. Section 3. In case it shall at any time in the future become necessary for the Pacific Company to occupy a greater width than the forty (40) foot strip before defined, the Valley Company at its sole expense will remove its tracks to such increased distance from the Pacific Company's line as shall be necessary therefor; but in that event the Pacific Company will pay the Valley- Company the value of any wokkdone by it, which it would have been necessary for the Pacific Company to do had the Valley Company not occupied the right of way hereby granted. Section 4. The grant herein contained is subject to all the terms and conditions of the contract existing between the Pacific Company and the State of Washington, providing for the occupancy of the right of way of the Pacific Company .� the State and the right of the State of Washington to take rock therefrom; the Pacific Company hereby consenting to the chase in the location of the Stockade and buildings belonging to the State as indicated upon Exhibit A. The Valley Company will secure the consent of the State of Washington to such proposed change. The Valley Company agrees that it will construct its line of railroad in a manner that will not interfere with the operation of the rock crusher belonging to the rtste of Washington, situated adjacent to and served by the Pacific Company's line, provided it shall be permitted to occupy the temporary alignment at the said crusher, shown upon the said Exhibit A, and marked thereon"'emporary Alignment!, so loose as such occupation does not interfere with the requirements of the pacific Company or the State of Washington in connection with the operation of the rock crusher, and upon notice of such interference free either the Pacific Company or the State, the Valley Company will move its track or tracks to the extant necessary to avoLd such interference. -2- 30 Section 5. This grant is made su'.:ject to the rights of the public in and to any county road now existing upon the right of way of the Pacific Company, and the Valley Company assumes all liability and expense arising from interference with or relocation of any such road caused ty its occupation of said right of way. Section 6. It is further agreed that rock excavations in uts adjacent to the Pacific Com any's operated track will be handled by the Valley Company, with s.:;,rene care, and in such manner as to avoid in every poeeible ti,+. interference with the operation of the tretns, telegraph or c lephone lire s of the Pacific Company, and any injurr,, to its property of every nature. Section 7. The Valley Company assumes, indemnifies and insures the pacific Company against all loaa and damage whatsoever suffered by the Pacific company or ty and other pers)ns or corpora- tion caused or in any way growing out of the construction, reconstruc- tion or repair of any work •:hich the Valley Company may do hereunder, or out of the operation of the Valley Company's line, except when occurring from the negligence of the employes of the Pacific Com- pany. The Valley Com;ary further agrees to rimburse the Pacific Company for any increased cost of constructing additional tracks, over what would have been the cost of the came ccnstruction had this grant not ueeu made; ouch payment till be made ao and when such increased expenditurea are incurred. By reason of the fact that the rights granted to is Valley Company are granted without any substantial consideration to the pacific Company, the Valley Company hereby releases and agrees to hold harmless the Pacific Company from any loss, cost damage or injury which the Valley Company, itn passengers, employee or property in its possession may suffer by reaa, n of the construction of addi- tional tracks by the pacific Company whether caused by the Negligence of its contractors, agents, servants or employes, or otherwise, but the Valley Company may recover from contractors of the Pacific Company for the negligent acts of such m ntractors. Section 8. In case any claim for damage is made against the Pacific Company, which damage the Valley Company has assumed 1 under the provisions of this contract, the Pacific Company may give written notice to the Valley Company of the claim or the pendency of suit thereon, and thereafter the Valley Company may handle the compromise of the claim or the deferis,e of any action brotght thereon in the name of tha pacific Company, bat-at the sole east and expense of the valley Company. Section 9. The right herein granted is for the purpose of main line operation only by the Valley Company and it will not receive or deliver passengers or freight at any point upon the right of way herein granted. _iothin; herein contained shall in any way restrict the right of the Pacific Company to make such use as it may deem proper of the remainder of its right of way not covered ty this agreement and the right is reserved to make crossings for any purpose of the right of way strip granted to the Valley Company, provided such crossings are made in a safe and substantial manner so as not to interfere with or endanger the operation of the Valley Company's railway or its telegraph, telephone or power transmission lineao -3- d � 31 Section 10. Each covenant in this agreement shall be construed to extend to anc: bind the successors and assigns of the parties obligated thereby and the benefit of each covenant hereof, shall inure to tie successors and assigns of the parties benefited. IN TESTfl 0b'Y HEREOF, the : espective parties hereto have caused these presents to he executed 1:y their respective officers, thereto duly authorized, the day and year above written. :SEAL) Attest: NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY R.H. Reef, By Howard Elliott, T.C. Asset Secretary President. YAM{[MA VALLEY Tf?ANSPORTATION CO PANY (SEAL) Attest: Py N. C. Richards, R. E. Allingham President. Secretary. 32 I 'l�; i 1 !` � F --\ it �1' \ 1 1-')Ii!- i, I. I_ ,t-- tF 11' k i t li 33 Loa_j ZSu� i � 7/1 ''J a a AM et- • • . • .�/ 1 %- -Y- di c ? ,. .t r , flL, , p\, .1 , / 14 %.•• : ,..et • a. 'I 4 I I 0 I ip.. '- C..-._. ., .‘ ` J yam,; . p90 -;, �� 4 ; -S-z." �j/S Historic Trail NPRR • Wagon Road • (6th Aim) • ..... .... .... • \ . �r /_lit a am: • _ NI v • > • 0 • 1:11' ilk: • 1 /%� \.. Ott, .-:- USGS Topographic Map ca. 1905 34 3. National Historic Landmark For 30 years the YVT railroad has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the last intact early 20th Century electric interurban railroad. In early 2021 , the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation advised us that our railroad meets the qualifications of national importance to make it designated a National Historic Landmark, and offered to help us nominate it to the National Park Service. The City of Yakima enthusiastically agreed that the YVT should become a National Historic Landmark and sent us a letter "wholeheartedly supporting the application" and "standing firmly with you in your efforts to have the YVT designated a National Historic Landmark." As a National Historic Landmark, "the ability of YVT to become eligible for [large] grants such as Save America's Treasures, would be greatly enhanced." The two primary criteria for becoming a National Historic Landmark are 1 .) Relating in some way to the national history of the United States, and 2.) Being in as unmodified, original condition as possible. Our existence as an interurban railroad satisfies the first criterion, and our time capsule-like collection of historic buildings, equipment, bridge and trolleys satisfies the second. Any alteration to the bridge, such as building a pathway and fences on it, would be a diminishment of the historic integrity of the YVT system, and thus materially reduce the chances of becoming a National Historic Landmark. The bridge is so rare, and so highly valued by bridge experts because it has remained completely unchanged over the last 127 years, that all the scholars and experts in historic preservation strongly advise the City to avoid any alterations to the bridge. Please carefully read the following letters. 35 1:4, .• "' ' . 'a, OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 129 North Second Street ":k City Hall, Yakima, Washington 98901 ate'Nair/�' , '1 Phone(509) 575-6050• Fax(509) 576-6335 March 3rd, 2021 Dr. Kenneth Johnson, President Yakima Valley Trolleys P.O. Box 796 Yakima, Washington 98907 Dear Dr. Johnsen, The Yakima City Council and the City of Yakima are proud to wholeheartedly support the application to the National Park Service to designate the combined facilities and rolling stock of the Yakima Valley Transportation Company (YVT) a National Historic Landmark. The YVT is beloved in the Yakima community and for more than a century has served our area. The YVT's unique status as the last historically intact early 20'h century electric interurban railroad in America makes it an ideal candidate for designation as a National Historic Landmark. The remarkable dedication and commitment of many people over the years has ensured the survival of the YVT. The YVT has endured multiple challenges to its continued existence, not the least of which is adequate funding to maintain and operate the historic fleet of streetcars and locomotives, five miles of track and overhead electric lines, and other associated facilities. Being designated a National Historic Landmark would open new doors and create additional funding opportunities for the YVT. The ability of the YVT to be eligible for grants, such as a Save America's Treasures grant, would be greatly enhanced were the YVT to be given the highest level of historic recognition in the U.S. The YVT's historic significance was formally recognized nearly three decades ago when it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Now is the time for the YVT to be recognized for its national significance by being named a National Historic Landmark. The YVT has long been a key element of the tourism industry in the Yakima Valley drawing people from across the country and around the world to experience the enchanting journey between Yakima and Selah aboard a historic streetcar and tour the original electric substation, repair barn, and other YVT facilities. The elevation of the YVT to National Historic Landmark status would undoubtedly boost its impact on tourism in our community. Thank you for the outstanding devotion you and so many other volunteers have demonstrated to make the YVT the jewel of the Yakima Valley that it is. The Yakima City Council and the City of Yakima stand firmly with you in your efforts to have the YVT designated as a National Historic Landmark. Sincerely, i /L.1 eOf Patr' is Byers Mayor Yakima txttd IOU 2015 1994 36 dah Pole Y,he Posh aflape Ode W,uia Allyson Brooks Ph.D.,Director State Historic Preservation Officer June 9, 2022 Bob Harrison, (Yakima City Manager), Sara Watkins, Yakima City Attorney, and City Council Members City of Yakima 1 29 N 2nd St Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Yakima City Officials, I am writing to stress the importance of preserving the Yakima Valley Transportation Company Naches River Bridge (also known as the Pegram Truss Bridge). Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992 as part of the Yakima Valley Transportation Co. Electric Interurban Railroad, the bridge is an important component of telling the story of this unique historic linear resource. At the time of listing, the bridge was considered a contributing resource. Since then, its significance has been further recognized by the discovery of its engineering significance. Designed by noted Union Pacific RR civil engineer George H. Pegram, the bridge truss design was named after him and remains one of the few standing projects by him in the nation (and the only one in Washington State). Such significance links the bridge as an important element within a proposed National Historic Landmark (NHL) nomination. Over the last year, I have been working with the Yakima Valley Trolley organization to nominate their facilities and infrastructure to this higher level of recognition. NHL status is the highest level of historic designation a resource can receive, and is reserved for the best of the best. In fact, currently Washington State has only 25 such designations. The proposed altering of the 1912 bridge will jeopardize this listing. Given its active use to this day and its high level of architectural and material integrity, the DAHP recommends avoiding any structural interventions that would compromise its integrity. While we often supported reactivating vehicular or locomotive bridges as pedestrian crossings or "rail-to-trails", we find those types of changes are best reserved for abandoned, decommissioned, or structural outdated structures. The Yakima Valley Transportation Company Naches River Bridge does not fall under these categories and is still being actively used for its original purpose. The DAHP hopes that you consider helping to preserve this unique bridge and come up with alternatives to trail project which will meet everyone needs. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 890-2634. STATE o State of Washington • Department of Archaeology& Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia,Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 ;ittirrillil www.dahp.wa.gov ':r. "yo 37 Sincerely, Michael Houser State Architectural Historian, DAHP (360) 586-3076 E-Mail: michael.houser@dahp.wa.Rov CC: Huy Pham, WA Trust Preservation Programs Director, Ken Johnsen, President Yakima Valley Trolley kiohnsen@yakimavalleytrolleys.ora STATg o,) State of Washington • Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation s P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 <iiii, 'J9 www.dahp.wa.gov Ay1880� 38 w WASHINGTON TRUST Y' FOR HISTORIC T PRESERVATION March 21,2022 Bob Harrison,Yakima City Manager Sara Watkins,Yakima City Attorney [sent via electronic mail] Dear Yakima City Officials, We,at the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation,are writing to support Yakima Valley Trolley's preservation efforts of the Pegram Truss Bridge over the Naches River,in conjunction with the nomination of the Yakima Valley Transportation railroad line as a National Historic Landmark The Washington Trust is a nonprofit organization dedicated to saving the places that matter in Washington State and to promoting sustainable and economically viable communities through historic preservation.We are Washington's only statewide nonprofit advocacy organization working to build a collective ethic that preserves historic places through education,collaboration,and stewardship. The Trust has recognized the importance of the Yakima Valley Transportation railroad line as early as 1989 when it was first listed on our"10 Most Wanted"list,a precursor to our Most Endangered Places list.The railroad line was deemed"saved"in 1992 when it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and then in 1994,the late Les Tonkin,an architect and former president of the Washington Trust,began to devise its total restoration plan.Now more than a century old,the Yakima Valley Transportation railroad line is being operated by the non-profit passionate volunteer group Yakima Valley Trolleys and is passing on the love of the trolley to younger generations. We return our attention today specifically towards the Pegram Truss Bridge and conversations around its potential adaptive reuse and contribution to the National Historic Landmark status.The bridge has remained in regular service over the Naches River,unaltered,for over 109 years and a total lifespan of 127 years and is one of only ten remaining Pegram Truss bridges in the United States.Given its active use to this day and its high level of architectural and material integrity,the Trust recommends avoiding any structural interventions that would not only jeopardize its said use and integrity,but also its subsequent eligibility for National Historic Landmark status.While we have often supported reactivating vehicular or locomotive bridges as pedestrian crossings or"rail-to-trails",we find those interventions as best reserved for abandoned, decommissioned,or structural outdated structures,whereas the Pegram Truss Bridge has astonishingly avoided such a fate likely due to the stewardship of Yakima Valley Trolley and Les Tonkin. We hope that you consider the unique conditions of the Pegram Truss Bridge over the Naches River and its contribution to Yakima Valley Transportation railroad line as a National Historic Landmark during Yakima City's planning processes.We look forward to the opportunity to continue conversations about these important issues. Sincerely, Huy Pham Preservation Programs Director CC: Ken Johnsen,President Yakima Valley Trolley kjohnsenOyakimavalleytrolleys.org STIMSON-GREEN MANSION,1204 MINOR AVENUE,SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101 T 206-624-9449 F 206-624-2410 I preservewa.org 39 � .t®ricBridnes,,c) Nathan Halth 269-290-2593 nathan@historicbridges.org �eM0fl tae� ee the Preservation of our tram °p tton Subject: Yakima Valley Trolley Bridge Proposed Trail August 4, 2022 To Whom It May Concern: I would like to express disagreement with the proposed plan to construct a cantilevered sidewalk on the historic Yakima Valley Trolley Bridge. It is my understanding that a trail has been proposed on this bridge to commemorate Supreme Court Chief Justice William O. Douglas walking across the bridge as a child. There are several reasons why I am in disagreement to this plan. First, as some background, the Yakima Valley Trolley Bridge is a historic metal truss bridge originally fabricated in 1895 in Kansas, and later moved to this location in 1912. Relocation of truss bridges is related to the ease with which they can be relocated, and unlike houses and buildings, their relocation does not diminish their historic significance because relocation is part of the unique engineering significance of metal truss bridges. The most significant part of this bridge is its truss configuration (the arrangement of the members that form the truss). The bridge is the only example in the state of a Pegram truss bridge, a patented design by George Pegram and is notable as one of the unique designs used as engineers tried to find new and effective ways of constructing truss bridges. I disagree with both proposed deck placements. A cantilevered sidewalk will obstruct the clear view of the Peg ram truss design. Examples of added cantilever sidewalks in the Chicago area and in Memphis, TN are shown below. The Chicago view from the river shows the obstruction of the truss itself. The Memphis view shows a view on the walkway, and illustrates the extent to which fencing may be required to separate pedestrian traffic from the railroad itself. Further, the other proposed plan to put a walkway in the middle of the bridge deck represents a major safety hazard, and is unheard of on bridges carrying through railroad traffic. Unless a special (expensive and not historically accurate) deck is used (which carries a risk of increased dirt and corrosion to the rails, increasing maintenance costs), there will be a trip hazard, plus the safety risks of train engineers needed to watch for pedestrians. For example, small children running out into the walkway might not be visible from the engineer's cab. 1111 4= ; � ♦y�� _..0 - " ` �. '��� AEG V se:V4 • , - t. HistoricBridges.org Promoting the preservation of our transportation heritage. Second, such a walkway, if commemorated to Douglas, will create a false sense of history. DougNs did not cross using this bridge, instead he crossed the adjacent Northern Pacific Railway Bridge (today an active railroad bridge used by BNSF). I understand and expect that BNSF would not allow such a walkway on its active bridge, however despite that fact, it does not change the fact that Douglas did not walk on the Yakima Valley Trolley Bridge. Constructing this walkway would also be redundant, as an existing crossing for pedestrians is present on I-82, and adding a walkway here would simply duplicate the existing trail, as the existing trail connects to the same places as the Yakima Valley Trolley's railroad line. A better use of funds would be to place interpretive signage on the existing Yakima Greenway at the southeast quadrant of the Northern Pacific Railway Bridge. This is an ideal solution as the trail already goes right by the bridge, and allows visitors to safely view the bridge from a public area. These proposed alterations could also affect the bridge's current listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and adversely affect the railroad's present ongoing program to become a National Historic Landmark, which is a designation that is very hard for a bridge to achieve and requires outstanding historic integrity with no major alterations. Further, being as a trail system already passes by both of these bridges, access on the bridges themselves is not needed to provide public viewing. The visitor experience could be improved through some tree clearing, and perhaps viewing platforms. Finally, another option would be to construct a "Memorial Footbridge" for Douglas in a completely new location where there would be greater benefit in terms of expanding the existing trail system. In a different location, the bridge could still be a memorial to Douglas. One way of making such a bridge a unique signature crossing would be to construct the pedestrian bridge using a relocated and preserved historic metal truss bridge. Such bridges are available across the country. And just like the Yakima Valley Trolley Bridge, an existing highway bridge could be dismantled, repaired, and shipped to Yakima for assembly. Many different bridges are available. Learn more about available bridges at this website: https://historicbridgefoundation.com/links/bridges/ and here is a website for Bach Steel, a company that works across the county to relocate and restore historic bridges like these and can do it in a way that respects the original design and materials, including historically correct hot riveting. Visit their website here: https://bachsteel.com/ and see below a couple example bridges Bach Steel has restored. _ s: tryp ��yy� .:a — 01,1P,if t '' t ' ..;'7' ,-t"r t r i6�.- �'''A �,r dl - 1 �9 t ;�e i Z t 11 - — 1 s .. �� Sys � � t �. it ., ',44 t, 1 111 _ ' .' ,- ... 2.,1;1441: ;, — — Y' _ r sue._. . s Sincerely, 191/ Nathan Holth Author/Webmaster, HistoricBridqes.orq HistoricBridges.org Promoting the preservation of our transportation heritage. 41 August 9, 2022 Mr. Ken Johnsen, President Yakima Valley Trolleys 306 W. Pine St. Yakima,WA 98902 Dear Mr.Johnsen: Thank you for contacting me regarding the proposed alterations of the historic Naches River Bridge (also known as Pegram Truss bridge) to allow for pedestrian access. In 2005, when I served as the interim executive director of the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, our organization supported a grant request that included the bridge in a proposal expanding the William O. Douglas trail. Recently I have become aware of efforts to nominate the historic trolley system to National Historic Landmark status. I write to you as a private citizen concerned about the future of this amazing resource. My personal opinion is that the system is eminently eligible for NHL listing. The process, however, is exacting and arduous and requires that a property maintain a high level of integrity. In my view, altering the bridge could jeopardize this effort as it is such an integral part of the overall system,and is the only remaining Pegram-designed bridge in Washington. With only two dozen NHLs listed in Washington, I believe we should fiercely protect those resources that have potential to be so designated. If successful, the trolley system would join a prestigious group of the most important historic sites in the nation. While I also support the development of historic trails that can tell the full stories of places, I believe alternatives exist to altering this bridge that can achieve both objectives. I look forward to seeing a partnership that expands safe access to both the historic trolley system and the story of William O. Douglas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, r /7 • L---- , Z4X-1- "( --'' e-16-19-(-1,17--- --e -A- Mary M.Th pson 74 Brigantine Bay Rd. Anacortes, WA 98221 RUSSELL I®LTE1 PRINCIPAL HISTORIAN • 253.905.1381 PO BOX 722,TACOMA,WA 98401 - C U LT U RA L' WWW.CULTRUALRECONNA1SSA.NCIE.COM r, f c i N N A 1 S E A N a E August 8, 2022 Honorable Mayor Janice Deccio Yakima City Councilmembers City of Yakima 129 N 2nd St. Yakima, WA 98901 Re: Consultation on W.O. Douglas Trail Development Honorable Mayor Deccio, With a measure of embarrassment, I feel compelled to write to you regarding the disingenuous use of my correspondence, dated January 29, 2008, regarding the William O. Douglas Trail development between the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). Several important issues with this process should be brought to your attention. Having been the regulatory compliance specialist for the state of Washington for 15-years, part of my duties was to educate grant applicants on the applicability of federal law and SHPO policy regarding consultation requirements. To that end, project consultation originates either with the Federal Agency or the agency's designee. In this particular case, the designee was (and still is) Trent DeBoer. The undertaking is viable so long as consultation between parties continues. SHPO policy states that if the chain of consultation stops or is otherwise suspended for a length of time (five years), a re-initiation of consultation must take place between the project proponents (trail advocates, WSDOT, and others.) with the SHPO and her staff.Jaime Dudman, Records Manager for the SHPO, recently confirmed that correspondence regarding this undertaking was initiated in 2007. No official correspondence has occurred regarding this undertaking between consulting parties since 2014. The project proponents wish to include a connection to said trail utilizing taxpayer funds while affecting a cultural resource deemed by the SHPO as eligible as a National Historic Landmark; therefore,the federal undertaking is subject to Section 4(f) of the National Transportation Act of 1966. Under Section 4(f) of the Act,the Lead Agent (or designee) must compel the project proponent (the trail advocates and their consultants) to analyze all feasible and prudent alternatives. In that analysis, if any feasible and prudent alternative exists that minimizes harm to known cultural resources, then the Lead Agency must give preference to that alternative. In the case of the William 0 Douglas Trail, a feasible alternative exists that nullifies any potential harm to the National Register of Historic Places structure: The 1-82 bike/ped crossing. As proposed, moving Research I Survey and Inventory I Cultural Resource Assessments I Training 43 the trail to the YVT Naches River bridge could jeopardize the pending listing as a National Historic Landmark. This is due to the fact that the standards for achieving this status are significantly higher than the National Register as defined by the Secretary of the Interior. Finally, it should be obvious that the official correspondence from 14-years ago, cannot be construed as an endorsement of the plans of the project proponents. Furthermore, over time, my comments could in no way reflect the current opinions of my former supervisor, Dr. Allyson Brooks, the State Historic Preservation Officer. Therefore, consultation on this undertaking must be reinitiated by defining the area of potential effect. Federal law allows local governments, such as Yakima, to access information on specific undertakings (36CFR800.2c(3)). I want to encourage the City Council to designate a city staff person to engage the Lead Agency designee, Trent DeBoer, at WSDOT's Highways and Local Programs Office, for the most up-to-date and complete information regarding the viability of the project proponent's plans and their 4(f) analysis. My successor at SHPO is Holly Borth. I recommend she, too, be consulted. Withall due respect, / ,_ Russell Holter (---/,--/-6- Historian Cultural Reconnaissance Cc: Allyson Brooks, SHPO Trent DeBoer, WSDOT Chris Moore, WA-Trust Ken Johnsen, YVT Museum 44 City of Yakima Historic Preservation Commission At its meeting of July 27, 2022, the City of Yakima Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to write a letter to the City of Yakima urging them not to allow any modifications to the YVT Pegram Truss bridge, and also to tell the trail group to look at other alternatives for getting across the river. The letter was not yet available at press time for inclusion in this information packet, but the Y-PAC video of the meeting of July 27th clearly shows the commission's intent. 45 4. Historic appropriateness (or lack thereof) For years we have been told that William O. Douglas used the trolley bridge to get across the Naches River on his hikes. Recent research has shown those claims to be completely groundless. In fact, Douglas actually used the Northern Pacific Railway (today's BNSF) bridge as the following pages will attest. So there is no historical connection between William O. Douglas and the YVT trolley bridge. The railroad is owned by the City of Yakima and is preserved and operated by the Yakima Valley Trolleys through an agreement with the City. Unlike the trolleys, the WOD trail group has no official connection with the City. 46 WHICH BRIDGE DID WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS REALLY USE? It is very clear that William 0. Douglas used the Northern Pacific Railway (today's BNSF) bridge and not the YVT bridge to cross the Naches River. Here are the facts: * Ask the experts. The William 0. Douglas Trail Foundation's website states that Douglas used the Northern Pacific Railway bridge to cross the Naches River. * To illustrate which bridge Douglas used, the William 0. Douglas Trail Foundation's website posted a photograph of the Northern Pacific Railway bridge. * William 0. Douglas stated in his autobiography ("Go East, Young Man") that he used the Northern Pacific Railway bridge to cross the river when he was hiking to strengthen his legs after contracting polio. * William 0. Douglas made his treks up into the hills in 1910 and 1911. The YVT bridge over the Naches River was not installed until 1913. * The Northern Pacific Railway bridge has dedicated walkways on it beside the track. There is no room for a walkway on the YVT bridge and there never has been one. So it is no surprise that William 0. Douglas would use the Northern Pacific Railway bridge to cross the river rather than the YVT bridge. * In Douglas' memoirs he noted that he went back to the Northern Pacific Railway bridge in his later years to talk with hoboes and wobblies. 6/22/2017 William O.Douglas Trail:Selah Gap Hiliclimb • 47 •WILLIAM 0 DOUGLAS - ..,.„"tomit,.. ...zotl..._:.,:iii.t.,-.47:2-,;,:...j:142.,.... :,...._:::...1 ....1.... 7,.7.i..,_, . _ ,.. mriiii , f,.7: t iilmimiemmiYAKIMA TO MOUNT RAINIER ,'" '!' .c ,.Ian • _ , `'. . •• ' MiVT+.r�6:�.s_$! Si --.3ti�i ill -. tiR _ - .-- - • `I—"--, Li ,, Ecosystem Hikes About W.O.D. Donate Selah Gap Hiliclimb QJISA `O® _ - - Mail Checks to: - " :' '-*---.' - - lli 4001 Summitview ''. r j Ave, Suite 5-45 , ?�) .`M ,•*f••. " Yakima, WA 98908 .`ii` r. . f -z Vf � > 'Featured Hikes 4` - Rocky Top s f9 71 _� �► 3r ;. • �, Featured Links Y R�,. �< �' }� , . 1'i Y ` , WTA Article • %�►¢� ."cam ;, 4. National Historic ,_', ��}. ,4 _' �?.r- t....4 '. Trail Proposal William 0. Douglas was 5 years old when his father died in 1904. Also struggling from a Climbing Mt. bout with infantile paralysis, Douglas was left greatly weakend during childhood. In 1910 Rainier in 1881 he decided to strengthen his legs by hiking north from his 5th Avenue house in Yakima, along North 6th Avenue to the Naches River bridge and then up into the hills near Selah Contact Us Gap. Douglas describes his condition in the book Go East, Young Man, Send us an Email By boyhood standards, I was still a cripple, unable to compete physically. . . . I was a failure. If I were to have happiness and success, I must get strong. And so Find Us On f I searched for ways and means to do it. I got myself a set of barbells and facebook practiced day after day, trying to strengthen my legs, back, and arm muscles. Even so, strenuous exercise still made me feel faint. Sometimes I would vomit, sometimes I'd get a severe headache. So I decided to start hiking the sagebrush hills that rim Yakima. Thus I started my treks, and used the foothills as one uses weights or bars in a gymnasium. First I tried to go up them without stopping. When I conquered that, I tried to go up without a change of pace. When that was achieved, I practiced going up not only without a change of pace but whistling as I went. http://www.williamodouglastrail.org/selahgap.htrni 1/3 6/22/2017 William O.Douglas Trail:Selah Gap Hlllclimb 48 -r:<:. _ -�. .4•sI0 I • . Is l 3. ` , Ra• ilroad bridge next to j Is.,. _ - - - '-• - former Native American /, 'ate village of Ti mani. r ,ram:. • 9- c_ _ t_. 9 ,� "`s , ,� ` ?Y ,45. _-.. M c. 1910 Yakima Vnl'ey MIISPum I always went alone. The hills to the north of Yakima were only about two miles away, I often crossed the [Naches] River on the Northern Pacific Railroad bridge (where later I was to spend much time with hoboes and Wobblies) and then went up the hill. That fall and winter the exercise began to work a transformation in me. By the time the next spring arrived, I had found new confidence in myself. My legs were filling out. They were getting stronger. I could go the two miles to Selah Gap at a fast pace and often reach the top of the ridge without losing a step or reducing my speed. My heart filled with joy, for I knew I could accept the invitation [to get acquainted with the mountains]. I would have legs and lungs equal to it. My love of the mountains, my interest in conservation, my longing for the wilderness - all these were lifetime concerns that were established in my boyhood in the hills around Yakima and in the mountains to the west of it. It was at Father's funeral that Mount Adams made its deepest early impression on me. Indeed, that day it became a symbol of great importance. . . . I happened to see Mount Adams towering over us on the west. It was dark purple and white in the August day and its shoulders of basalt were heavy with glacial snow. As I looked, I stopped sobbing. My eyes dried. Adams stood cool and calm, unperturbed by the event that had stirred us so deeply. Suddenly the mountain seemed to be a friend, a force for me to tie to, a symbol of stability and strength. Yakima Tito-aid-Republic.Saturday,September 10,20, ‘• --- an........ tivi,______ ii . � 1 , .. •R,\-\"e^ 6 -„.. Ar -i Ncii, , - ...t..4., - il i-' l � - L, w-, T ..w, •-•ek,. Over the hills or by railway Louis Pooldis hegote his yak ea no token pert In to Inaugural hike ebrq the flaw WAhnm O. a ed ob . em . Don,tep ins Th ill le 75aMt unth/st nBnM of Dwnan;inItig.h T hSwduro ol thodywlekVktteoCMhfibpp,AaeOVihleeorMtn W 1Op1o1dad)tUoWVnkOimOagoy MueprenroDCo honor ghose Y04,o Ixmgoyod on w,i mwn,Ino non of th.,hail cow the next four days. http://vvww.williamodouglastrail.org/selahgap.html 2/3 49 5. Far better alternatives There are at least two excellent and appropriate alternatives for the William O. Douglas Trail crossing of the Naches River. One is already in place and would be no or low cost to the trail group. It is the bicycle-pedestrian bridge across the Naches River that is attached to the Interstate 82 freeway bridge,just 1300 feet to the east of the YVT bridge. People walking on the Greenway already use this freeway-attached bridge to go over the river because that is what it was designed for. It carries with it none of the problems associated with the railroad bridge. It is there just waiting to be used by the William O. Douglas trail. Another alternative would be for the William O. Douglas trail to cross the river via a dedicated bridge. A simple prefabricated span or a repurposed decommissioned truss bridge brought over from another location could be built to cross the river just west of the YVT bridge, using the route formerly used by the Selah-Yakima wagon road to cross the river. See the letter from the Historic Bridges.org for more information on repurposing decommissioned truss bridges. And all of the alternatives avoid the problems of public safety, liability to the City, disruption of trolley operation and risk to National Historic Landmark designation. And they would not be as "scary" as it is to walk across the YVT Pegram Truss bridge high above the river. oe Selah Ridge 9 aac s,S N. 0‘4es dr Nacres Glegovi too .- A Are ec se a ee<9�"�0 fake _ O hes R`�et + Nac Go gle GosdonRd Gordon Rd 6 `a% A — i - iitio. - : : ,....,iik,„., _,- 0,,,--7,1.--,v,,,,.Atriti......- ____—>___—_;; .„..,- r. _ r— r I-82 Eastbound: South side of Naches River Bridge showing pedestrian walkway over river. Source: Google Maps Streetview(November 2021). AnlliVAi„P.•. .tip? .. - - - . _ T IIIMUMW .i,i,IN 11 V . _ i _- - t . -:_ - ; ; _ � � ±"111111111111111111. �- , .e. ��.*., 1 C .az.a35gs,' Amu - \\\\\�� Yakima Greenway Access to I-82 crossing of Naches River. Source: Google Maps Streetview (November 2021). ,. .,4,6, r \ \' •, yF �� Ski d�.vo `. 82 • \\, - .— . _ . 1\1\ , 64/ , • 0. • >- • 'St t \ \ „At, • 'z'44 OF • S ♦. _.� �1 ._ Gee / , 4r�- • - t ' / , \ \ Aerial view of Yakima Greenway Access to I-82 crossing of Naches River. Source Google Maps (2022). N Selah Ridge® co* N. sP�dh N. Po, 4 17 H� y\ 'v •# Ea - f i meµ\�s.G�ee^�aY� Privado Security g ey�\� t <4eec• C421°r >for�e gec9,��d�ake Stale Wide co r Naa- co - don Rd Gordon Rd Gordon Rd O Gor 53 6. "Spatial and Temporal Separation" is not realistic in practice The proposal to allow pedestrian use of the YVT bridge hinges on the notion that pedestrians will be safe due to "spatial and temporal separation" from railroad operations, i.e. trains and pedestrians will not be allowed on the bridge at the same time. Unfortunately, this is a promise which sounds convincing when dressed in somewhat technical jargon, but is not realistic in practice. Today, the bridge is not pedestrian friendly and looks rather foreboding. Signage clearly prohibits pedestrian transit of the bridge, and yet trespassers do so regularly. Fortunately for the City and the trolley organization, the legal system clearly recognizes these individuals as trespassers and the liability is lessened, should the worst occur. Imagine the situation if the bridge is made to be inviting to pedestrian traffic. If trespassers cannot be fully deterred today, they will certainly not be deterred by a sign telling them to give way to trolley traffic during specific times to ensure spatial and temporal separation. Stop signs and traffic lights are all means of providing spatial and temporal separation, and yet traffic accidents are commonplace. Why? Human error and reckless decisions inevitably creep in. The best engineered systems accept human error as a reality and attempt to mitigate it through design. Thus, the longstanding and common-sense practice of grade-separation between trains and pedestrians. The Yakima Valley Trolleys are not aware of any other bridge in the nation where pedestrians and trains share a common right of way without absolute physical grade separation. Is Yakima ready to be the first? Everywhere else across the nation, pedestrian and bicycle advocacy groups demand physical grade separation wherever possible— separated cycle tracks, curbs, dedicated bike paths, car-free streets, etc. Why? Because grade separation works, while "spatial and temporal separation" does not. 54 7. Ending the controversy We sincerely wish to end the 17-year controversy and adversarial relationship with the William O. Douglas Trail Foundation. Both groups have much to offer the citizens of Yakima. If City Council will act definitively to confirm that the YVT bridge is unfit for pedestrians, both organizations can move forward on their own paths, making productive, positive contributions to the community. We therefore ask that the City Council carefully and thoughtfully evaluate the information presented here and take action on the following items: 1 . Reject the present proposal from the William O. Douglas Trail Foundation to put a walkway on the YVT Naches River Bridge. 2. In the future, refuse to allow anyone to make alterations to the historic YVT Naches River Bridge, and refuse to allow any kind of pedestrian or bicycle use of the bridge. Because the BNSF perpetual easement prohibits pedestrians on the right of way, pass a resolution refusing to consider any future proposal that puts pedestrians on working railroad bridges. 3. Direct the City Attorney's office to create an ordinance which will prohibit and make illegal any type of pedestrian or bicycle use of City- owned railroad bridges, and enact the ordinance at the earliest possible date. The Yakima Valley Trolleys stand ready to help the William O. Douglas Trail Foundation in any way we can and form a cordial, neighborly relationship with their organization. We share common goals of preserving Yakima's history and enhancing cultural opportunities. However, as responsible stewards of the City's trolley railroad, and as concerned citizens, we cannot stand for a proposal which would imperil public safety, expose ourselves and the City to legal liability, and diminish the historic integrity of the YVT bridge when we are on the road to becoming a National Historic Landmark. Let's end this controversy permanently, so both organizations can move forward in the service of the people of Yakima! Ken Johnsen, President Yakima Valley Trolleys kjohnsen@yakimavalleytrolleys.org WILLIAM 0 DOUGLAS September 28, 2022 Nil II it 111 Yakima City Council I \ 129 N. Second Street TRA Yakima, WA 98901 YAKIMA TO MOUNT RAINIER Dear City Council Members: About 15 years ago, the Yakima City Council and Yakima County Commissioners unanimously approved the William O. Douglas Heritage Trail program, which was designed to preserve and enhance two unique historic resources: the Yakima Trolleys and the William O. Douglas Trail. The trolley and trail share the same historic route starting at the Pine Street Trolley Barn and Davis High School,then north along 6th Avenue and across the Naches River at Selah Gap. By combining trolley and trail in a complementary, synergistic program,the City was able to leverage $2.7 Million that would not otherwise have been available. These trail grant funds were spent to improve the 6th Avenue trolley/trail corridor, purchase and repair the trolley barn, and repair/restore the Naches River Bridge for joint use by the trolley and trail. Over $300,000 in multimodal trail funds were spent to repair/restore the deteriorating trolley bridge, along with a commitment to install a "shared use (trolleys & pedestrians) pathway." A key grant deliverable was the pedestrian bridge walkway for public access to the William O. Douglas natural area on the north side of the river--this 70-acre destination property was recently purchased using almost $200,000 contributed by many Yakima businesses and individuals. To overcome polio and poverty while growing up in Yakima, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Douglas frequently walked the historic trail/wagon road from his 5th Avenue house up 6th Avenue, crossed the Naches River on this historic route, and then ascended Selah Ridge. Justice Douglas was on the Supreme Court longer than any other justice in U.S. history and was a strong advocate for First Amendment rights and protected natural areas. Today,the William O. Douglas Trail Foundation (WODTF) proposes to improve public safety and health by enabling broad community access to the historic trolley and historic trail via a safe pedestrian walkway on the Naches River Bridge for educational, scientific, and recreational uses. Dimensional lumber planks would be installed on the bridge deck using private funds, while complying with federal historic preservation standards. Historic Preservation Will Be Enhanced by Adding Pedestrian Side Path to Bridge The Washington Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP) recently determined that the unique connection between the Trolleys and William O. Douglas Heritage Trail enhances the historic significance of the Naches River Bridge.' DAHP said they have many examples where historic rail bridges have accommodated pedestrian use. 1 Letter from State Architectural Historian Michael Houser(September 16,2022),superseding a June 9,2022 initial reaction letter that was prematurely issued due to incomplete project information. 56 The City of Yakima previously completed an extensive process under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act which culminated in DAHP's formal determination that the pedestrian bridge path "will not adversely affect" the Naches River Bridge or the YVT Historic District.2 This "No Adverse Effects" Determination was approved and supported by the WA State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), federal funding agencies, and historic preservation experts under contract with the City. The Yakama Nation Historic Preservation Officer was also consulted. The bridge path previously approved by historic preservation officials will be physically separated from the streetcar tracks and is based on a design to place the path parallel to the existing rails, between the face of the trusses (no outside cantilever), using dimensional lumber attached directly to the existing bridge ties, and with no structural modification. To protect historic integrity, all work will comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Structures in 36 CFR § 67.7. In accordance with federal historic standards,the added walkway planks are "Reversible" — they can all be removed without affecting the historic character-defining features of the bridge. Historic materials and structural elements will not be changed nor damaged. The Pegram trusses will not be altered or obscured. The walkway will improve public access to history. Tourist trolley excursions will not be affected by adding the bridge walkway. In addition to spatial separation, the structural engineer specified controls to prevent trolleys and pedestrians from using the bridge at the same time. The trolley operating season is late May to September, on weekends and holidays. Pedestrians prefer to use that area in fall, winter, and spring-- not during the summer trolley operating season when it's too hot to hike up the hill. The State Historic Preservation Department wants to facilitate further discussions among the City, Trolley, and Trail groups to serve as a national example of stewardship and cooperation. National Historic Landmark designations are governed by federal law. A key designation criterion is "National Significance." The association of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas with this bridge and the Naches River Crossing will significantly strengthen a National Historic Landmark nomination because Justice Douglas is nationally significant in the history of the United States -- NHL criterion 2 under 36 CFR § 65.4(a)(2). Public Safety Enhancements — UTC & BNSF Approvals of Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Path The trolley car is 8'-0" wide, and Naches River Bridge is 15'-8" wide (inside trusses). So, 7'-8" is the unused space on the bridge that is available for a separated pedestrian walkway. 2 "No Adverse Effects" Determination from Department of Archaeology&Historic Preservation (January 29, 2008), which under federal rules has no expiration date.See also: Determinations from WSDOT Archaeologist Trent de Baer(January 2, 2008)and Cultural Resources Consultants Technical Analysis(October 1, 2007)that Naches River Bridge pedestrian walkway will have "No Adverse Effect"on the historic integrity or aesthetic qualities of the bridge. 57 The City previously hired a structural engineer to design repairs of the deteriorating bridge structural elements and to design a safe pedestrian walkway. At the City's request, WODTF recently hired the same engineer to update the walkway plans and specifications, who certified that the walkway meets and exceeds all applicable safety standards and codes.' In addition to physical separation from the streetcar tracks, the structural engineer specified temporal separation so trolleys and pedestrians will not use the bridge at the same time. Under city ordinances,the trolley has a maximum speed limit of 12 MPH and should have a flagman on the trolley to help warn pedestrians about the trolley's movements. There is a history of serious pedestrian &train collisions on the downstream, high-speed BNSF bridge. To improve public safety, BNSF Railway supported and approved Yakima's 2008 grant application to the State Utilities & Transportation Commission (UTC) for safety fencing around the BNSF tracks. The purpose of this fencing was to prevent pedestrians from crossing the BNSF bridge and divert pedestrians away from BNSF tracks to the City's upstream trolley (multimodal) bridge pathway, thereby enabling safe pedestrian river crossings. In application correspondence filed with UTC, the City stated: part of the William O. Douglas Trail will include a pathway across the Trolley Bridge to allow pedestrians access across the Naches River. UTC approved funding for this safety project. The City committed to long term maintenance of fencing to divert pedestrians to Yakima's bridge path. Yakima Valley Trolleys, Kenneth G. Johnsen, and BNSF were listed as involved in implementing the project. UTC orders & project agreements are binding upon agents and all persons acting through the parties. The bridge path will enable safe, no-cost public access to the historic bridge and historic trail on the William O. Douglas Hill Climb property at the bridge north end, for educational, scientific, and recreational uses.4 No Feasible Alternative There is no practical alternative to cross the Naches River via a safe and historically authentic route used by Justice William O. Douglas. Rerouting the W.O.D. Trail to cross a modern highway bridge 0.4 mile downstream on the Greenway path into downtown Selah does not accomplish the purpose of the W.O.D. Trail, which is to access the historic trail on the Naches River north bank and hike up Selah Ridge. Furthermore, building a new trail starting from the modern downstream highway bridge has significant technical, environmental, and fiscal challenges -- uncertainties about constructing a new trail in floodplains, and whether it would be feasible to tunnel near structural piers under the BNSF and trolley pier structures next to the river. 3 Safety Standards Compliance Memo for Naches River Bridge Path (July 11, 2022). °See attached letters from Stanton and Davis High Schools and Curriculum Concepts for Environmental and Cultural Literacy. 58 Historic Preservation Funding Opportunities Tragically during 2005-2006,thieves removed, cut up, and sold off the copper running and feeder wires that historically powered the interurban streetcars along 6th Avenue and into downtown Selah. The electric bridge catenary was removed. Until the historic power system is re-engineered and rebuilt, the trolley needs to use a diesel fuel power car. In an April 2016 memo, City Economic Development Manager Sean Hawkins told City Council that the remaining trolley infrastructure was deteriorating and about $9 Million was then needed in upgrades. Historic preservation experts advise that federal and state funding opportunities are much greater when a historic property is part of a multimodal transportation system. In August 2022 the Yakima Valley Museum hosted an event at the Yakima Convention Center honoring former U. S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell. Secretary Jewell and other attendees wanted to hike the William O. Douglas Trail to Selah Ridge. This group visited the historic Naches River Bridge and discussed historic preservation funding opportunities. The group learned that federal historic preservation funds are very limited and extremely competitive nationwide. An association with U. S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas and his historic trail would significantly improve the prospects for federal funding along with National Historic Landmark designation. At the state level, the Washington Legislature recently allocated $5.4 Billion for multimodal active transportation, i.e., walking, bicycling, and rolling. Conclusion WODTF respectfully requests City Council direction for Yakima Valley Trolleys and William O. Douglas Trail Foundation to work together with City Staff to: (1) strengthen a Naches River Crossing National Historic Landmark application by including the Naches River Trolley Bridge in association with the historic William O. Douglas Trail, and (2)find a win-win accommodation that promotes the complementary community interests in the historic trolley and historic trail. Thank you for your consideration,® Raymond L. Paolella, President William O. Douglas Trail Foundation P. O. Box 2003 Yakima, WA 98907 59 lobo �•• Payson Brooks Ph.D..Director • State Historic Preservation Officer September 16, 2022 • Bob Harrison, (Yakima City Manager), Sara Watkins, Yakima City Attorney, and City Council Members City of Yakima 129 N 2nd St Yakima, WA 98901 RE: Yakima Valley Transportation Co.Trolley Bridge & William O. Douglas Trail Dear Yakima City Officials, I am writing to update you as to recent discussions that we have had with various parties involved in the future of Yakima Valley Transportation Co.Trolley Bridge which spans the Naches River. While visions may slightly differ on the best way to utilize this resource, I think all of the parties can agree that the bridge is an exceptional historic structure which is unique in many ways, with connections to several aspects of our history; transportation, engineering and for its connection to William O. Douglas.Such laying of history only enhances its significance. However, discussions about its use, alterations and long-term maintenance should be carefully considered and weighted. My initial reaction to proposed alterations to the bridge may have been premature. At the time I did not have the chance to see any specific design details or drawings. I have also been made aware that preliminary plans were approved by our office when the bridge was under-going rehabilitation in the early 2000s. While National Register listing does not require formal review by our office on changes to buildings and structures (unless there is federal nexus), we are more than happy to serve in a consulting capacity. I have offered to meet with the various groups within the next couple of weeks to discuss the project and prosed changes in more detail. Additions/Changes to bridges can easily affect eligibility, but the devil is in the details, and we have many examples where rail bridges have accommodated pedestrian use as well. I am optimistic that everyone's concerns can be meet and the project can serve as a national example of stewardship and cooperation among the various parties. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 890-2634. ,;�SATe O State of Washington • Department of Archaeology& Historic Preservation 4•I'' s P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia. Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 { tifr ;ls www.dahp.wa.gov J''I ; 3q o 60 Sincerely, Michael Houser State Architectural Historian, DAHP (360) 586-3076 E-Mall:mlchael.houserredaho.wa.aov CC: Huy Pham,WA Trust Preservation Programs Director, Ken Johnsen.President Yakima Valley Trolley UIohnsen@vakirnuvallevtrollovs.ora Michael Sullivan,consultant Ray Paolella,William O.Douglas Trail Aye STnYe State of Washington • Department of Archaeology&Historic Preservation ,,;; t£ P.O.Box 48343• Olympia,Washington 98504-8343• (360) 586-3065 ;i i' w.'vw.dahp.wa.gov J: 'i" 1:94 IBBB�Y 61 SI AT ? .Iw i �Y'/'e I.re. 1IIIiIII t lIII;;III;;"S' STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1083 S. Capitol Way, Sulfa 108 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360)586-3065 • Fax Number(360)586-3067 • Websile: www.dahp.wa.gov RECE1 VEfi January 29,2008 Mr 'pent de Hoer FEB 0 4 ?r : Aichaeulugist CITY oF WSDOT,Highways&Local Programs PLAN YAKlh14 I N 1'O Box 47390 Ni3 Div. Olympia,WA 98504-7332 In future correspondence please refer to: Lug: 010207-42-FHWA Property: William O.Douglas Trail,60i Ave Greenway Interconnect, Fed Aid 11 STI'E-1485(020) Re: Determined Eligible Dear Mr.de Boer: Thank you for contacting our ollice. I have reviewed the materials you provided to our office and we concur with your professional opinion that the following historic properties arc eligible or listed on to the National Register of Historic Places: • YVTC—Nachos River Bridge • YVTC--Trolley line between Yakima and Selah • YVIC--Car Barn • YVTC—Stone shed • YVTC—Substation I also concur with your professional opinion that thc undertaking. as proposed,will not adversely affect S the Yakima Valley Transportation Company Historic District or the YVTC—Naches River Budge. 1 would appreciate receiving any correspondence or comments from concerned tribes or other panics that you receive as you consult under the requirements of 36CFR800A(a)(4)and thc survey report when it is available. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36CFR800. Sincerely, Russell Halter Project Compliance Reviewer RusselliJoltcr[rddahp.wa goy Cc: Matthew Sterner(DAHP) Vaughn Mctnde(Yakima) ��DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY& HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1 Fe'tc.'re^.:7L S'rn.(-V:e i u.ire 62 Management Summary A cultural resources assessment was conducted for the proposed William O. Douglas Trail in Yakima,Washington. Survey did not result in the identification of any new historic properties; however, portions of a National Register District,the Yakima Valley Transportation Company (YVTC) Historic District,are within the project area of potential effects. As presently planned, the proposed trail will not adversely affect the district. 1. Administrative Data Report Title- Cultural Resources Assessment for the William O. Douglas Trail, Yakima, WA Author(s): Glenn D. Hartmann Report Date: September 19,2007,revised December 14,2007 Location- The project is located in Yakima,Washington. Legal Description: The project is located in the Sections 12 and 13,Township 13 North, Range 18 East,Willamette Meridian. 11SGS 7.5'Topographic Map(s): Selah,WA(1985) Total Area Involved(acres)• less than 5 Objective(Research Design): Survey was conducted to identify any previously unrecorded pre-contact or historic-period sites that could potentially be present in the area of potential effects(APE)for this project.The project consisted of review of the design plan, related reports,and other information,as well as field investigation. Previously Unrecorded Cultural Resources Identified and Recorded: Yes[ J No[x[ No new sites were identified.There are no previously recorded archaeological sites in the project APE.The project includes parts of the Yakima Valley Transportation Company Historic District, a National Register of Historic Places property. Project Background: The City of Yakima is proposing to construct a bicycle/pedestrian pathway approximately one mile in length.This path would begin at the intersection of 1 Street and N.6w Avenue,continue along the west side of N.6w Avenue and end across the historic Naches River Trolley Bridge(Figures 1 and 2).The purpose of this project is to provide safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists between the cities of Yakima and Selah.The proposed trail over the Naches River Trolley Bridge would be a component of an existing,large-scale,transportation. system consisting of the William O. Douglas Trail,the Yakima Valley Transportation Company (Trolley),and the Yakima Greenway/Pathway. As this project would receive funding from the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)through the Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)it has a federal nexus. The project footprint along N. 6th Avenue is ca. 15-20 feet—wide.Approximately 3-inches of asphalt would be installed over a 6—inch gravel base.The portion of the trail constructed on the CRC Technical Memo 0708L-5 Wiliam O.Douglas Trail,Yakima,WA Page 2 63 et OK(fr g05 7iWashington State Transportation Building Department of Transportation 310 Maple Park Avenue S.E. Paula J. Hammond, P.E. P.O.Box 47300 Secretary of Transportation Olympia,WA 98504-7300 360-705-7000 ITV: 1-800-833-6388 www.wsdoLwa.gov January 2, 2008 Dr. Allyson Brooks Washington State Historic Preservation Officer P. O. Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 City of Yakima Wm 0. Douglas Trail and Heritage Trail Continuing APE Consultation Fed Aid#STPE 1485 (020) DAHP Log#: 010207-42-FHWA Dear Dr. Brooks: As you know,the City of Yakima is proposing to extend the William O.Douglas Trail with the assistance of Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)funds. The Washington State Department of Transportation Highways and Local Programs Division is assisting the city and acting on behalf of the FHWA in processing federal environmental compliance documentation. Enclosed please fmd a copy of Cultural Resource Consultants' assessment for the project (dated September 19,2007; revised December 14,2007). Also enclosed is a CD with electronic historic property inventory forms.As you'll note in the report,the consultant did not identify any new cultural resource sites during their survey of the project's area of potential effects (APE). The APE includes a portion of the Yakima Valley Transportation Company(YVTC)National Historic District, as well as the National Register-eligible Naches River YVTC Bridge.The project will not adversely affect the District or the bridge. I look forward to your concurrence with our determination of no adverse effect to historic properties for this project.An analogous letter was sent to the Yakama Nation. Please contact me at(360) 705-7879 or deboert@wsdot.wa.gov if you have any questions. Sincerely, Trent de Boer,RPA WSDOT Archaeologist Highways&Local Programs Division TDB:ac Enclosures cc: Liana Liu,FHWA,MS 40943 ,_RogerArnii1S.ouTECentral Local Programs-Engineer , 64 2 XS 0 r Engineering and Inspection Services 40 Scott Drive Victor, ID 83455 July 11, 2022 MEMO: Yakima Valley Transit (YVT) Bridge —Trail Addition Project Project Progress Plans TO: William O. Douglas Trail Foundation FROM: Kevin B. Hinkley, P.E., S.E. Attached are the engineering final plans for the proposed William O. Douglas Trail walkway across the multi-modal Naches River Bridge. As stated in the General Notes on sheet S1, the design satisfies the stated applicable safety standards and codes, including AASHTO and WSDOT. Sheet S2 defines the use zones for the bridge corridor to provide a safe crossing area for the defined users of the bridge. The design has laid out the best use provisions for crossing the bridge by providing two pedestrian walkway zones —each walkway is designated to be signed for one-way pedestrian traffic on each side. Each walkway has a clear width of 2'-101/4". On sheet S2 of the plans, there is a Typical Section showing the walkways located adjacent to the trusses, and away from the trolley tracks. As mentioned above, please note that this walkway design specifies a zonal use concept that maintains spatial and temporal separation between users. There is a trolley "RAIL TRAFFIC ZONE" in the middle of the bridge centered about the trolley tracks, whereas the pedestrian "WALKWAY ZONE" is located away from the tracks next to the trusses. Pedestrians are not allowed in the Rail Traffic Zone, and vehicle traffic is not allowed in the Walkway Zone. I look forward to your review and comment of the attached plans, and I hope you find the plans acceptable for construction as attached. If you have any comments, these will be considered and incorporated into the final set of plans for construction. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, - A\ of WA s/i Kevin B. Hinkley, P.E., S.E. Civil and Structural Engineer • _ 26096 ��' c' AURAL Cs S/ONAL ` \ \ 65 WASHING TON 1300 S.Evergreen Park Drive SW PO Box 47250 Olympia,WA 98504-7250 (360)664-1257 or(360)664-1100 Fax:(360)586-1150 UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION Web:www.wutc.wa.uov COMMISSION E-mail:records(aiutc.waeov GRADE CROSSING PROTECTIVE FUND APPLICATION FOR FUNDING The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission(commission),through its Grade Crossing Protective Fund(GCPF),funds projects that eliminate or mitigate public safety hazards at railroad crossings and along railroad rights-of-way in Washington State.Any public,private, or non-profit entity may submit an application to the commission for GCPF monies. Please complete and submit the following information as part of the application process: Applicant Information Applicant Name: Dick Zais,City Manager Organization: City of Yakima Address: 129 North Second Street,Yakima,WA 98901 Phone: (509)575-6040 E-mail: Fax: (509)576-6335 Please list all other companies,organizations or state or local agencies that may be involved in implementing this proposal and the contact name,address and phone number for each. Yakima Valley Trolleys Kenneth G.Johnson • P.O.Box 796 Yakima,WA 98907-0796 - t J { yakimavalleytrolleys@hotmail.com • " Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company Daniel MacDonald,P.E. Managing Engineer—Seattle • 2454 Occidental Avenue South,Suite 1_A Seattle,WA 98134 (206)625-6150,Fax(206)625-6115 daniel.macdonald@bnsfcom 66 Grade Crossing Protective Fund Application Form Project Information I. Provide a detailed summary of the hazard being addressed. Include: • Any information about accidents or incidents at the site. • Photographs, drawings or other materials that supports the application. Currently,there are only two pedestrian crossing facilities for crossing the Naches River at the northern city limits of the City of Yakima. One is located at the eastern city limits(1-82)and the other is at the western city limits (Powerhouse Road). Due to this lack of pedestrian facilities,and despite"No Trespassing"signs,pedestrians occasionally use the BNSF railroad bridge to cross the Naches River. On July 12, 2007,a man and woman who were crossing the Naches River on the railroad bridge were struck by a passing train and seriously injured. On several occasions recently,railroad police hired by BNSF have had to remove trespassers from the railroad property in this vicinity. 2. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project and explain how it will eliminate or mitigate the hazard. Include any drawings or construction plans for the proposed project. This project will construct six-foot chain link fence to impede pedestrian and motor vehicle trespass onto BNSF property in the vicinity of the Naches River Bridge. As part of the William 0.Douglas Trail project,a pedestrian pathway is planned to be constructed across the trolley bridge within the next couple of years. Fencing as shown on the attached drawing would deter pedestrians from accessing the railroad bridge. The fence would begin where Gordon Road crosses underneath the railroad tracks,then heads west approximately 150 feet across the trolley tracks to approximately 8-feet west of the trolley tracks,then head in a northwesterly direction parallel to the trolley tracks for approximately 670 feet, then make a 90 degree turn across the trolley tracks,then head in a northeasterly direction for approximately 70 feet to end adjacent to the BNSF south bridge abutment. At both locations where the fence crosses the trolley tracks,20-foot gates will be installed. The fencing will continue east of the BNSF bridge for approximately 150 feet parallel to the Greenway Path. In addition to improving safety,this fencing project may reduce the railroad's requirement for police enforcement. 3. Provide cost estimates. Include: • Total costs of the project. • Names ofparties contributing to the project and the amount each is contributing. Total project costs are estimated to be$37,000. The City is requesting a grant of $20,000 toward this total from WUTC. 2 67 Grade Crossing Protective Fund Application Form 4. Provide the name of the party responsible for long-term maintenance. The City of Yakima and/or the Yakima Greenway Foundation will provide longterm maintenance of the fence. 5. Provide an estimated timeline of project, if approved. Weather permitting; the project will be completed this fall. If not,the project will be completed next spring 6. Provide a description of how the project's success would be measured. Success of this project can be measured by demonstrating a decrease in trespass • incidents and pedestrian accidents on the BNSF Bridge. 7. Provide any other information the applicant believes would be useful to the commission in considering the project. At several recent meetings,BNSF personnel have expressed their encouragement and approval of our plans to channel pedestrians away from railroad property and to reduce trespass by means of fencing. 8. If the project involves any construction, modification or demolition on a railroad right-of-way, complete the attached Railroad Commitment form. This includes fencing, gates or other structures located near enough to the tracks to be on the railroad right-of-way, modification to a grade crossing or any other project that involves railroad property or rights-of-way. See accompanying email from BNSF engineer Daniel MacDonald expressing the railroad's concurrence with this project. Submitting the Application After completing the GCPF application,please send the original to: Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission Attention:Grade Crossing Protective Fund 1300 S.Evergreen Park Drive SW PO Box 47250 Olympia,WA 98504-7250 A signed application may be filed electronically at records@a,utc.wa.gov.When filing electronically,please specify"Grade Crossing Protective Fund"in the subject line. Assistance For questions or assistance,please contact: • Kathy Hunter at(360)664-1257 or by e-mail at khunter@utc.wa.gov. • David Pratt at(360)664-1100 or by e-mail at dpratt@utc.wa.gov. 3 68 y /fM O i m ro Railroad Commitment rye_ TR-072009 =i N =C The undersigned represents the Railroad Company in the GCPF application described;§{enter a� brief description): The City of Yakima has applied for GCPF funds to erect fencing for trespass abatement -v purposes. The City's trolley bridge and the adjacent BNSF Railway bridge cross the Naches River at the northern end of Yakima City limits. See attached photos for location of fencing. It is believed the BNSF has a 200 ft.right-of-way at this location and much of the fencing would be on that right-of-way, The City of Yakima and/or the Yakima Greenway Foundation will provide long-term maintenance of the fence. We have reviewed the application and are satisfied the conditions are the same as described by • the applicant in this matter.We agree to allow construction,modification or demolition on a railroad right-of-way as described in the application. See Ao-tes be(Ot.,, • Johhh Li Printed name of Railroad Representative Signature of ilroad Representative Ma.rte fer, 2„6/,'c Ipy-+�`evts Title 20& 6)-.. 6i46 Phone jo/in. (1l6nsr. tee E-mail Date: 4/2( /0 Notes: (6N5F .su,tp -ts +&is opp/ico-t'e-y, -fr csAfe lmprvueineies. -rte j desir mac{ f novhson Of -His n&si 1-7) be o f fr'wd oNsF Tnbr it, its ins'talla tie>•1. -tie at�, w;// also rrea --o of avn �. ��Ld.� y U J / t 'PerMr`f t'3NSF 6Jifi� t^i1M"YYi►vr IY1�eMf7r� (cut G (MiGI a,.Of wry a 3o-do y Can ceAa ts-tl c(at t5e, ;:f -tie CAnl Nogi/d be, do B,v5F.'s R,jht of - (A-41. j 69 From: MacDonald Danniel To: Wavenbera Karen Cc: Polnirkv Bruce K;Aaee.David W Subject: RE: Yakima,WA-UTC Grant Application Date: Friday,October 05,2007 3:24:51 PM Ms.Wayenberg, Thank you for the opportunity to review the City of Yakima's UTC GCPF application. BNSF supports this application for safety improvements. The final design and location of the fencing will need to be approved by BNSF prior to its installation. We look forward to working with the City of Yakima address this safety concern. Please contact me if you need additional information regarding BNSF's participation. Again, we look forward to working with the City on this issue. Respectfully, Dan Danniel MacDonald, P.E. Manager Engineering - Seattle BNSF Railway Company 2454 Occidental Avenue South, Suite 1A Seattle, WA 98134 Office: (206) 625-6150 Fax: (206) 625-6115 danniel.macdonald@bnsf.com From: Wayenberg, Karen [mailto:kwayenbe@ci.yakima.wa.us] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:53 PM To: MacDonald, Danniel Subject: RE: Yakima, WA- UTC Grant Application Thanks for reviewing our application and the page requiring BNSF signature. Feel free to call me or reply to this email. From: MacDonald, Danniel[mailto:Danniel.MacDonald©BNSF.com] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 12:47 PM To: Wayenberg, Karen Subject: Yakima,WA- UTC Grant Application Ms.Wayenberg, With reference to our conversation this afternoon, my contact information is following. I look forward to reviewing this application. Respectfully, Dan Danniel MacDonald, P.E. 70 $ s s / ' i 9a � s, �� t IX op i /f .' , 'A :� Yakima Herald-Republic b Friday,July 13,2007 's% 5 `b`, r ap'h` °� e"i mr�". v�"'^� cjk� '." "$ t-i l�a t 8 v C .1 C :;'r o,ll n;+r. S t y p''*i t e r.(49� t>N;it e(A lam infi . r4 a41 . 41.4a', lr f ' A ryL tA 1'' f 6 yd .f : ) .xe i, ^''Nv- S i Set'` nwy,Y1 . " . ,a ,. "K y3 X r 31 �,.P :gi r„ , h.. � 11{ M 11ti e ^ '�0. ° a v I ' o- r t 135 . „, ...{ a'n � t w) f t ( r g t- 1 .,„4� ] 1 hNsp I Ir W,1 I Y � Y , w s.. s 8 7 a • l ;1 i �`t.. Q iy' y •vottd � . -- 1 s4 .. y e � '� 1 S°ytA ,71' p' W2.' '� uX X;° ` " 5.�.ass a'�y +4 ' r,a OCAICKIN KINGRec,ma Ikn`d.RrAnmlt A woman Is placed In an ambulance after nearly being struck by a train near Berglund Lake In Yakima on Thursday.She was injured when she was thrown oft the tracks by a companion as the train approached. Man hit by train after saving companion °'RO° He tosses woman from the tracks 1 ,'" N, w YAK��uA NERAt6REVUaLIC �., �,� Amanwasstruckbyatrain man,who attempted to get them ation,"he said."But this time of .. off; Thursday morning after Yakima both to safety But he ended up year we see an increase in tres- ' police said he saved a woman throwing her down 310 to 15 foot passing situations. �/[�`� �i moments earlier by throwing her embankment moments before be- "People take shortcuts and l}:� ` 8Z. from a trestle as the train bore ing struck,police said, risks often by crossing railroad `iR1,, a, ,,j. ' and we down The man,who has not been bound YakimThe crew a day the switcher in,an re-ast- piblicrto use designateencourage areas.' '-t� t'ii d`y- - identified.suffered scriou in. turning from Ellensburg with two Yakima police initially said juries and was taken to Seattle's locomotives and two refrigerated the man may have suffered back *i «.. Harborvlew Medical Center. boxcars of corn,tried to warn the Inluries.Authorities initially sal --`~� The two were among four group by sounding the horn and it appeared the woman,who was TJMULLINAIN'amneUe,ad'Reppbap people attempting to walk across then applying emergency brakes, also not identified,broke a leg a railroad bridge over the Neches said Burlington Nor kern Santa when she landed on rocks below handled the initial investigation, River shortly after 8a.m. Fe spokesman GusMelonas. the trestle. It has been handed off to BNSF Although two of the men The train had slowed from35 Melonas later said she suffered investigators. reached safety,the woman fell on mph to between 10 and 15 mph only cuts and bruises.'f here was Melonas said nine people have the tracks,police said.She was when it struck the man,he said. no immediate word on their eon- been killed on railroads this year helped to her feet by the third 'This is an unfortunate situ- dltions.Although Yakima police. in Washington state. -- 71 ■ he is now at Yakima Memorial Gra Nci doubt t Form hospitaL Brown,26.was taken to Seattle's Harborview Med i- eal Center,where be was listed j he saved iusenous condition after undergoing surgeryFliday. Boitano said doctors there told her he suffered multiple injuries.includ- ing MY 'I ,twooroken kenleanasbroten pel- t vis,a broken jaw and a broken arm. llire5 1 "He would have been okay if he 1 had just jumped,if he hadn't stopped to help me,"she said. i Earlier that morning,the four had Train encounter broke watched the sunrise from the ridge between Yakima and Selah-They victim's leg, pelvis i were walking the tracks back to Ya- kima,and were crossing the bridge ihr gob Junin shortly after 8 a.m. araHERALD-REPUBLIC Boitano said two of her friends s theycrossed the bridge over had nearly reached the end of the g }A the Nachos River,Lisa Boitano about halfway across. was telling her three friends how cool it bridge;she and Brown were only would be to see a SEE TRAIN PAGE SA passing train from up close. t ; That's when they saw the locomo- tive bearing down. From her hospital bed Friday, Boitano recalled her friend Mark „ , . *# Browns reaction. "Ile said,'You inight get your chance—run.'.. tt�r 'a But as they ran,Boitano fell,and r , her right leg slipped and became stuck between the wooden ties. ' r., !JA- I was freaking out and tried to pull myself up."she said."ButMark came up behind me,grabbed both ` arms and pulled me out "No doubt he saved my life." As the two prepared to leap off the tracks to an embankment about 10 to `: ` 15 feet below the tracks,they were struck. Ifeltthetrainhitmylowerback, a� but he got the full force of it,"said 21- :` . . .^ year-old Banana. p,v.:.',. .:('t^. ,..a ' r l,t'� v' The impact threw them about20 E ,..„ •, �,;�Sa. feet into the rocks below.Boitano said she broke her nose and fractured SARA GETTYSIYaklma fier&4-Repatfic her right leg and pelvis.But then she Lisa Boitano recovers in Yakima looked up she saw that Brown,or Valley Memorial Hospital on Friday, Green as he is known to his friends, after being hit by a train while she was burl men worse. and three others were crossing the "It was the scariest tbingl'veever , trestle over the Neches River. `, seen.Blood waaeverywhere,"she said."I kept saying,'Green,don't die. I Green,don't die Wake up,wake up."' TRAIN Boitano said that the horn trespassing, came too late—the train was All she does know is that almost en them when it sound- Brown,a man whom she de- ed.And while braking probably scribed as being like a brother saved their lives,she had no to her for the past four to five The crew of the train,an idea at the time that the train years,was willing to sacrifice eastbound Yaldma day switcher had slowed at all, himself to save her The two met returning from Ellensburg "It sure as hell d id n'tfeel while she was a teenager living with two locomotives and two like it was going 15 mph when It on the streets and have been boxcars,spotted the group and hit us,"she said close friends ever since. began sounding the horn and Although Melones said that "I would have been stuck in applying emergency brakes, technically the four were tres- the tracks if he hadn't helped which slowed the train from passing on railroad property, me out,"she said."He's just a 35 to about 10 to 15 mph,Bur- he did not say whether BNSF wonderful person." Wigton Northern Santa Fe would pursue charges. spokesman Gus Melons said Boitano said she and her +RodMlwre ranteraathedffi577.7628or Thursday. friends did not know they were =toe@yaltirwhwatdaxn. 72 - - — -....- 4 1 t • ''' I .• 2 - • • 1 r Y a 1 I -? I ' • 1 il l k 1 i ' q i -ail 4 4 , : 1 1 CC ,• , , --p-,, 2 ((I! 1 fr . r - I • • 1 aft 5,2 • • '1. e -a tf S ` S ca. t• .... • • • I'' [ Piri. 4411•L ss 1: _-‘61.11 I,I,, li I 1 V ' ::::r4S• + ' -• •44 C A k • rb I a 1 .••• di It",,c ic• . kr-, t 4,11+- 1 ,..• as I- : :: it :: •• ••1 ... ,,t •4 II° '''''• '4 4 4 14 ‘• .,4• , . ift .4.AlAa41/44 \ i [11) Jirs":::::, It • 4 •• b—. ...4.• :44 !sit` t: t t t 4 •4 4 4 4 pit *4 .4 4 i t I '11 •el: tititti: 2 I, 72 • . :.et.t ttl 21 e . ,Zsz 4 I ;ktt I: • I'1.• wits* 4 .,.., t.-- c t:4 ta:41 Tn. ' ' , /-54,ta'i•it- Sge.l. test es..1 .4 4. -..... , r• 1.• 4•10. li Alt 1%44 I S -)1Ittee to, Ib. ” ilI. Ietl' it; tst.:•:-....-• - lob ..•-•4 .4*4.. ' Ir. '•. 4.::::::" r . ", I qt • ......:-.•:: I" • tiiieit sor 'tcl - L •:.:::: 1 II t '4 , 4.c.-44s2 i 4-:•:::-,._ 41IL !IV 1 1:Atr AIL t ti t it'. •„C• ' I__ 73 TR - 72Dog Boston, Bob (UTC) From: Sheffield, Brett[bsheffie@ci.yakima.wa.usj Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:59 AM To: Boston, Bob(UTC) Subject: Grade Crossing Protective Fund Grant Attachments: YVT Fence.pdf Bob, As we have discussed, part of the William O. Douglas Trail will include a pathway across the Trolley Bridge to allow pedestrians access across the Naches River. I believe that the description in the original application should have been modified to read like the following: This project will construct six-foot chain link fence to impede pedestrian and motor vehicle trespass onto BNSF property in the vicinity of the Naches River Bridge. As part of the William O. Douglas Trail project, a pedestrian pathway is planned to be constructed across the trolley bridge within the next couple of years. Fencing as shown on the attached drawing would deter pedestrians from accessing the railroad bridge. The fence would begin where Gordon Road crosses underneath the railroad tracks,then heads west approximately 150 feet across the trolley tracks to approximately 8-feet west of the trolley tracks,then head in a northwesterly direction parallel to the trolley tracks for approximately 670 feet, then make a 90 degree turn across the trolley tracks,then head in a northeasterly direction for approximately 70 feet to end adjacent to the BNSF south bridge abutment. At both locations where the fence crosses the trolley tracks, 20-foot gates will be installed. The fencing will continue east of the BNSF bridge for approximately 150 feet parallel to the Greenway Path. In addition to improving safety,this fencing project may reduce the railroad's requirement for police enforcement. I have also attached a drawing showing the proposed fencing project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks for your help. Brett H. Sheffield, P.E. Chief Engineer City of Yakima PH.(509)576-6797 Fax(509)576-6305 1 Ii I4 I 74 4 Stanton Academy i 802 River Road•Yakima,WA 98902 • 573-1200 y �S" rdl William O. Douglas Trail Foundation 4001 Summitview Avenue, Suite 5-45 Yakima, WA 98908 Vision Statement: To whom it may concern: I am currently the principal at Stanton Academy located on River Road to the Beginning with the end in west of 6th Avenue. We have direct access to the William O. Douglas Trail. mind Our students utilize the trail on a daily basis, coming to and departing school. A basic requirement for our students to graduate is the knowledge of United States History. What better opportunity than to explore the early life of one our Supreme Court Justices? The local effort to preserve this important part Mission Statement: of history is a movement our students should be involved in. Students,families, and staff During the 2015-2016 school year, we had one third of our students working together towards participate in an outdoor activity that spanned many content areas. In order to graduation. do this transportation, was a large detractor to planning. The activity included history, hiking, natural sciences, and sustaining nature. Having grown up in the area and hiked and biked in the proposed area, I personally support the project. To have access to an area such as the proposed Selah Ridge Area and the William O. Douglas hill climb would be a boon for us. 2015-2016 School Focus: Our students get most of their experience of the city, state, and federal Literacy government through text or multimedia presentations. The opportunity to Relationships participate in this effort at whatever level will support their acquisition of local Collaboration history, local government processes, and the federal court system. Students will have the chance to participate in the improvements in the city infrastructure along the route they travel on a daily basis. As this effort progresses, I hope that we may participate in some way to help the project succeed. Stanton Academy has a strong sense of family. The values that this project is built upon is to bring a sense of community, history and pride which being a part of a family includes. These are a few of the reasons that I, as principal of Stanton Academy and an educator in the Yakima School District for 34 years can support this effort. Dave Chaplin Sincerel Principal Rod Bryant David Chapli Dean of Students Principal * \A , 11111164. _ t # y S ? ., fJ� i'p11j Yakima School District encourages workforce diversity and complies with all state and federal laws prohibiting unlawful discrimination. 75 Stanton Academy 802 River Road• Yakima,WA 98902 • 573-1200 City of Yakima 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Vision Statement: To whom it may concern: "Beginning with the end in I am currently the principal at Stanton Academy located on River Road to the west of 6 Avenue. We have direct access to the William O. Douglas Trail. mind..." Our students utilize the trail on a daily basis, coming to and departing school. A basic requirement for our students to graduate is the knowledge of United States History. What better opportunity than to explore the early life of one Mission Statement: our Supreme Court Justices? The local effort to preserve this important part of history is a movement our students should be involved in. Students,families, and staff During the 2015-2016 school year, we had one third of our students working together towards participate in an outdoor activity that spanned many content areas. In order to graduation. do this transportation, was a large detractor to planning. The activity included history, hiking, natural sciences, and sustaining nature. Having grown up in the area and hiked and biked in the proposed area, I personally support the project. To have access to an area such as the proposed Selah Ridge Area and 2015-2016 School Focus: the William O. Douglas hill climb would be a boon for us. Literacy Our students get most of their experience of the city, state, and federal Relationships government through text or multimedia presentations. The opportunity to Collaboration participate in this effort at whatever level will support their acquisition of local history, local government processes, and the federal court system. Students will have the chance to participate in the improvements in the city infrastructure along the route they travel on a daily basis. As this effort progresses, I hope that we may participate in some way to help the project succeed. Stanton Academy has a strong sense of family. The values that this project is built upon is to bring a sense of community,history and pride which being a part of a family includes. These are a few of the reasons that I, as principal of Stanton Academy and an educator in the Yakima School District for 34 years can support this effort. Dave Chaplin Principal Sincerely, Rod Bryant Dean of Students David Chaplin je Principal • ,�► " r Yakima School District encourages workforce diversity and complies with all state and federal laws prohibiting unlawful discrimination. 76 • A.C. Davis Nigh Schools • '" z9 � International 4 ��; 212 South 6th Avenue Baccalaureate Yakima, Washington 98902 aF) i 509-573-2700 Leadership Yakima Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 1490 Yakima,WA 98907 Dear Leadership Yakima Team: I would like to write in support of the Naches River Bridge Walkway proposed by Leadership Yakima and the William O. Douglas Trail Foundation.The Yakima School District and the staff of A.C. Davis High School endeavor to provide the highest quality educational programs and leaning opportunities for our students. Part of the educational protess is teaching students the significance of our heritage. The William O. Douglas Trail presents an excellent opportunity to teach students about local history and the environment. Davis High School plays an important role at the start of this trail because Douglas attended and served on the faculty of this institution. Several teachers have guided students on interpretive hikes to the Selah Gap area. These treks have enabled us to integrate important aspects of natural history, literature, and social studies in a manner that is not always possible in the classroom. Many students learn best when the theories or concepts acquired in the classroom are linked to"hands on"or"on the ground"learning. The Selah Gap and NacheslYakima Rivers Confluence Area possesses a rich storehouse of local history, natural history, and landfomts within the urban area that enhance such learning. Installation of a pedestrian walkway on the trolley bridge will enable students,faculty,and community members to access this important resource area at the confluence of the Yakima and Naches Rivers.We hope to see this project completed to promote these unique leaning opportunities and healthy outdoor activities for the community. Sincerely, Ben Ramirez, Principal A.C. Davis High School We educate students for success: life-long learning,employment and social awareness. "Yakima School District encourages workforce diversity and complies with all state and federal laws prohibiting unlawful discrimination." 77 William O. Douglas Trail Foundation and Educational Service District 105 K-12 Curriculum Concepts for Environmental and Cultural Literacy State Law: • Schools shall give instruction about conservation, natural resources, and the environment in an interdisciplinary manner through science, social studies, and the humanities. [Row 28A.230.020 & WAc 392-410-115] • Schools shall incorporate curricula about Native American Heritage and Community Cultural Exchanges [Row 28A.320.170 & WAo 392-410-120] Environmental & Sustainability Literacy Plan [OSPI 20111 • Healthy Environment • Vibrant Economy • Equitable Society "Since Time Immemorial" Cultural Curriculum [OSPI 20151 • Inquiry-Based • Place-Based • Integrated Social Studies Units Selah Gap/William O. Douglas Heritage Trail: A unique resource in the Yakima- Selah urban area for "hands-on," outdoors experiential learning and regionally specific place-based education about: • Ecology • Native American Culture — "Since Time Immemorial" • Euro-American History in Central WA • U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas • Geography and Geology of Central WA • Northern Pacific Railroad/Yakima Valley Transportation Co. • GPS/GIS Mapping • Fish & Wildlife • Smart Phone App Technology • Water Education — Project WET • Trail Volunteer Opportunities Washington State K-12 Learning Standards • Next Generation Science and Mathematics • Social Studies and History • Language Arts and Humanities • Health and Physical Education Email for info: nikki.cannon@esd105.org; mike.brown@esd105.org; williamodouglastrail@gmail.com MEYER, FLUEGGE & TENNEY, P.S. 78 ROBERT C.TENNEY ATTORNEYS &COUNSELORS MARK D.WATSON* JAMES C.CARMODY JEROME R.AIKEN* 230 SOUTH SECOND STREET, SUITE 101 JACOB A.LARA JOHN A.MAXWELL,JR. P.O.BOX 22680 KINDRA K.CRAWFORD PETER M.RITCHIE** YAKIMA,WASHINGTON 98907-2680 ROBERT S.URLOCKER *Also admitted in Oregon PARDIES ROOHANI **Also admitted in Oregon& Virginia OF COUNSEL GARY E.LOFLAND carrnody@mftlaw.com September 28, 2022 Yakima City Council 129 N. Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 Re: City of Yakima—Naches River Bridge Dear Council Members: We have worked with William O. Douglas Trail Association for decades with respect to preservation, enhancement, use and public access to this unique historic community asset. An integral component of the historic trail is the Naches River Bridge. Yakima Valley Transportation (YVT) has raised concerns with regard to the joint trolley and pedestrian use of the bridge. I am writing to respond to a number of the articulated concerns and provide the City Council with some further background on the history and safety considerations of a joint use arrangement. Historic Considerations on Use of Naches River Bridge. Let me begin by recognizing both William O. Douglas Trail Association and YVT have a historic interest in the Naches River Bridge. There is more than 110 yeas of history for your consideration. A short summary is attached. Attachment A. Depailiuent of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP) has recognized the mutual historic significance of the bridge to both YVT and William O. Douglas Trail Association.' DAHP acknowledged that they"...have many examples where rail bridges have accommodated pedestrian use as well." It was further recognized that a collaborative approach by all concerned would "...serve as a national example of stewardship and cooperation among the various parties." We believe that a cooperative and collaborative effort will result in maintenance of a public treasure and serve as an example of this community's commitment to historic preservation. 1 By letter dated September 16,2022,Michael Houser(State Architectural Historian)clarified DAHP's position with respect to the mutual interests of YVT and William O.Douglas Trail Association. He provided the following observation: While vision may slightly differ on the best way to utilize this resource,I think all of the parties can agree that the bridge is an exceptional historic structure which is unique in many ways,with connections to several aspects of our history: transportation,engineering and for its connection to William O.Douglas. Such laying of history only enhances its significance. A copy of DAHP letter of September 16,2022 is attached as Attachment B. Telephone 509-575-8500 ■Fax 509-575-4676 •www.mftlaw.com 79 City Council Page 2 Comment on Concerns Raised by YVT. We feel compelled to respond to issues and concerns raised by YVT in their recent correspondence and communications. A full understanding of the facts and background on these issues should be helpful in your consideration and management of this community effort. 1. History and multimodal use of the Naches River Bridge. YVT's primary objection is to recognizing the historic pedestrian use of the bridge. The concerns were outlined in Paul D. Edmondson's letter of June 23, 2022. Attachment C. He contends that joint use will result in an enormous expansion of City liability and that he "...knows of no other city in America that has allowed multimodal use of a bridge." This is an odd statement in light of the DAHP's statement that "...we have many examples where rail bridges have accommodated pedestrian use as well." The fact is that multimodal use is recognized and accepted in these situations and circumstances. Let me begin with some history. In January of 1912, Northern Pacific Railway (NPRR) allowed YVT to use and occupy a portion of the railroad's right-of-way "...subject to the rights of the public" to use the historic trail/wagon road near the NPRR tracks. YVT agreed to assume "all liability and expense from interference with or relocation of "the road" caused by the YVT's trolley line. The seminal steps contemplated and required multimodal use of the right-of-way. Trolley passenger service across the Naches River Bridge ended in 1935. In 1947, all street car service ended in downtown Yakima. In 1985, the Interstate Commerce Commission issued a formal order of abandonment and all YVT operations ended. During 2005-2008,the City of Yakima,William O. Douglas Trail Foundation and Yakima County partnered successfully to seek 2.7 million dollars in grant funding from WSDOT, RCO, and UTC to do historical research,purchase land and develop the William O.Douglas Heritage Trail starting at the YVT Trolley barn and going 80 miles through 12 distinct ecological zones to Mt. Rainier. A history of funding and bridge restoration is attached hereto. The point is that William O. Douglas Trail Foundation has been and integral partner in preservation and restoration of the Naches River Bridge. 2. Pedestrian and Trolley safety initiatives. In 2008, City of Yakima submitted a funding application to Washington Utilities&Transportation Condition ("UTC") for safety improvements related to pedestrian access to the bridge. There had been a history of serious injuries from pedestrians/train collisions on the downstream BNSF bridge, where there were frequent high-speed trains. To improved public safety, BNSF supported and approved Yakima's 2008 grant application for safety fencing around the BNSF tracts. The purpose of this fencing was to prevent trespass on the BNSF bridge and divert pedestrians away from BNSF tracks to the City's upstream multimodal bridge pathway, thereby enabling safe 80 City Council Page 3 pedestrian river crossings. In application correspondence filed with the UTC, the City stated: Part of the William O. Douglas Trail will include a pathway across the Trolley Bridge to allow pedestrians access across the Naches River. UTC approved funding for this safety project. The project was supported by Yakima Valley Trolleys and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company (BNSF).2 Safety and controlled pedestrian access have always been a concern with respect to the bridge. 3. Engineered multimodal bridge design for Naches River Bridge. William O. Douglas Trail Association has specifically developed engineered plans for a walkway across the multi-modal Naches River bridge. Attachment D. The design was developed in compliance with all applicable safety standards and codes,including AASHTO and WSDOT. The design applied best use provisions for crossing the bridge by providing two pedestrian walkway zones — each walkway separated from the rail area and placed on opposite of the bridge. Signs will be placed for one-way pedestrian traffic on each side. The specific design can be seen in the attached materials. The shared use physically separates pedestrian pathways from rail tracks. Engineering design requires "temporal separation", so trolleys and pedestrians will not use the bridge at the same time. It should also be noted that YVT operates trolleys during summer weekends and does not cross the Naches River bridge on more than ninety percent (90%) of the calendar days in a year. And unlike high-speed BNSF trains, Yakima Municipal Code sets a maximum trolley speed limit at 12 mph and requires street car flaggers to ensure pedestrian safety. The bridge design and standards actually improve safety and reduce municipal liability risks. City Liability Related to Multi-Modal Pedestrian/Trolley Use of Naches River Bridge. Mr. Edmondson asserts that from"...a legal perspective the most serious issue obviously confronting the City is the enormous expansion of City liability in endorsing pedestrian use of a railroad bridge ...." As mentioned earlier in this correspondence, the proposed bridge design was developed by a licensed 2 In his correspondence,Mr.Edmondson made the following statement: At the present time the right of way is posted to warn trespassers to keep out. If the City decides to invite pedestrian use of the bridge and tracks the legal doctrine of"attractive nuisance"would appear to become relevant. This concern was the specific focus of the 2008 safety improvements. In the City's application,it offered the following justification: Due to the lack of pedestrian facilities,and despite"No Trespassing"signs,pedestrians occasionally use the BNSF railroad bridge to cross the Naches River. On July 12,2007,a man and woman who were crossing the Naches River on the railroad bridge were struck by a passing train and seriously injured. See Attachment C. 81 City Council Page 4 engineer in compliance with all applicable federal and state standards and requirements. The bridge design specifically separates pedestrian and rail traffic, imposes temporal constraints, and meets all applicable standards. Municipal liability arises only when there is a failure to comply with applicable standards governing the use and construction of the public facility. In this case, the proposed improvement actually reduces civil liability risks to the City of Yakima. Second, municipal facilities typically have multimodal uses and users. City streets require sidewalks and other improvements to assure safe use by both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The same principle is applicable to the Naches River Bridge. It should also be noted that the rail use on the Naches River Bridge is significantly different than commercial rail activities. The municipal ordinance limits operating speed and requires flaggers. An abundance of caution has been applied to both rail and pedestrian use of this facility. City of Yakima has exceeded all applicable standards for pedestrian safety. Third, the doctrine of attractive nuisance simply does not apply to this situation. The general rule is that a landowner owes no duty to a trespasser, except to refrain from causing willful or wanton injury to him. Ochampaugh v. City of Seattle, 91 Wn.2d 514, 518, 588 P.2d 1351 (1979). The standards for"attractive nuisance"have been summarized as follows: (1) The instrumentality or condition must be dangerous in itself, that is, must be an agency which is likely to, or probably will, result in injury to those attracted by, and coming in contact with it; (2) It must be attractive and alluring, or enticing, to young children; (3) The children must have been incapable, by reason of their youth, of comprehending the danger involved; (4) The instrumentality or condition must have been left unguarded and exposed at a place where children of tender years are accustomed to resort, or where it is reasonably to be expected that they will resort, for play and amusement, or gratification of youthful curiosity; and (5) It must have been reasonably practicable and feasible either to prevent access to the instrumentality or condition,or else to render it innocuous, without obstructing any reasonable purpose or use for which it was intended. Id. In this case,the bridge design and standards for operation of rail activities are well defined, controlled and managed in accordance with applicable laws. It is not an inherently dangerous situation. Pedestrian pathways are separated from rail use areas. All aspects of the facility meet applicable state and local standards. 82 City Council Page 5 Conclusion For 110 years, the pedestrian and rail facilities have contemplated joint use of the facilities. YVT is obligated to incorporate public access into the use of the bridge. And all design requirements for the multimodal facility will meet local, state and federal regulations and requirements. We agree with DAHP that this should be a collaborative effort that can serve as a national example of stewardship and cooperation among the various parties. There is no reason not to work together. Very truly yours, MEYER, iLUEGGE &TENNEY, P.S. -WfJ es . Carmo Attachment A: Short Summary Attachment B: DAHP letter of September 16, 2022 Attachment C: Paul D. Edmondson's letter of June 23, 2022 Attachment D: Engineered Plans for Walkway U:\DebbieG\William 0 Douglas Trail Foundation\Council Letter 09.28.2022.docx 83 1 ATTACHMENT A 84 For 110 years, the historic trolley and historic trail have been inextricably linked at Selah Gap. A 1912 agreement between YVT and NP contains a continuing requirement that YVT preserve public access to the historic trail/pioneer road on both sides of the river-- Portions of the historic trail were subsumed within the trolley line during 1912-1913 but other portions remain and are still used by pedestrians. HISTORIC TRAIL CROSSING THE NACHES RIVER (PRE-1910) An 1865 U. S. General Land Office survey map shows a trail crossing the Naches River on a southeast-to-northwest alignment approximating the current trolley route through Selah Gap. This historic trail provided pedestrian access to the "Selah Fishery" as shown on maps from 1855-1856. During the Yakama War in early 1856, U. S. Army General John Wool designated the Selah Fishery just above Selah Gap as a strategic target to be captured during the May/June salmon runs. Travelling north from Ft. Dalles on the Columbia River in May 1856, over 500 soldiers with wagons and howitzers got stuck for over a month on the Naches River south side and unable to ford the river due to high water. Finally on July 24, 1856 Colonel George Wright was able to cross the Naches River with a detachment of Dragoons. He traveled on the historic Selah Gap trail to reach the Selah Fishery. The Northern Pacific Railway was constructed in 1885 on top of portions of the Selah Gap trail. To preserve public access, the railroad relocated the trail slightly uphill. Pioneers widened the trail to accommodate wagons and stagecoaches that travelled between North Yakima and the Selah Valley. There were a number of drownings when people attempted to ford the river during high water. To improve safety, a wooden bridge was built across the river close to the current trolley bridge. On December 8, 1901, a serious train wreck with multiple fatalities occurred on the Northern Pacific line just north of the Naches River Crossing. The attached photo shows people lined up on the old pioneer road,just uphill from the railroad tracks. HISTORY OF WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS CROSSING NACHES RIVER Growing up in Yakima, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, was challenged by poverty and life-threatening illness. In a rags-to-riches story, Douglas overcame infantile paralysis, excelled academically in Yakima Public Schools, served prominently on the U.S. Supreme Court, and came close to becoming President of the United States. Douglas was on the Supreme Court longer than any other justice in U.S.history—he was a strong advocate for Equal Protection, Privacy, First Amendment rights of expression, assembly, and religion, and he wanted to "get government off the backs of the people." His influence on our nation's laws continues to be strongly felt. He was an extremely important figure to Native Americans and a very effective champion of preserving wilderness all over the Nation, including the William O. Douglas Wilderness, Olympic National Park, Glacier Peak Wilderness, Sequoia National Park, and C&O Canal National Historic Park. 85 Douglas nearly died as a child and was left greatly weakened. When he was 12 or 13, he decided to strengthen his legs by hiking north from his 5th Avenue house in Yakima up into the hills near Selah Gap. He frequently walked the historic trail/wagon road up 6th Avenue, crossed the Naches River, continued on the historic trail, and then ascended Selah Ridge to Lookout Point. Published books and unpublished documents in the Library of Congress indicate that Douglas crossed both Naches River bridges many times as a teenager and young adult until 1926 when he left Yakima to teach in New York. While climbing Selah Ridge, Douglas studied nature, contemplated the meaning of life, and considered whether to leave Yakima for his legal career. Later in life, William O. Douglas frequently spent time during court recesses at his Goose Prairie cabin and at the nearby Double K Mountain Ranch operated by Kay Kershaw and Isabelle Lynn. He was also a prolific author, writing dozens of books and hundreds of magazine articles about his adventure travels and outdoor recreation. Douglas narrowly missed being selected as FDR's Vice-President in 1944, which would have made him President upon FDR's death in April 1945. HISTORY OF TROLLEY CROSSING THE NACHES RIVER In a January 1912 Agreement,Northern Pacific Railway (NPRR) allowed Yakima Valley Transportation Co. (YVT) to use and occupy a portion of the railroad's right-of-way--under Section 5, YVT's right to use NPRR right-of-way is "subject to the rights of the public"to use the historic trail/wagon road just uphill from NPRR's tracks. YVT agreed to assume "all liability and expense from interference with or relocation of"the road caused by YVT's trolley line. During 1912-1913, much of the trolley line up 6th Ave. and over the Naches River was constructed on the pre-existing historic trail/wagon roadbed. Trolley passenger service from Yakima to Selah began in 1913. In 1920, YVT reached its maximum size of 48 track miles with overhead electrical wires, including the Selah line. By 1926, YVT ridership and revenues had declined due to the proliferation of automobiles, and YVT unsuccessfully sought permission from the City to replace electric powered street cars with gasoline powered buses. Trolley passenger service across the Naches River Bridge ended in 1935. Freight service continued. In 1947, all streetcar service ended in downtown Yakima. After a 39-year hiatus in trolley interurban service, a limited schedule of tourist trolley excursions began in 1974 using two trolleys acquired from Porto, Portugal. In 1985, the Interstate Commerce Commission issued a formal order of abandonment and all YVT operations ended. Congdon Orchards obtained a court order severing the Wiley City and Henrybro interurban lines. Pursuant to a 1993 court decision,trolley tracks and overhead electrical wires located within the City of Selah were dismantled except for a 630-foot-long strip of track/wires at the southern boundary of Selah(Southern Avenue). 86 Tragically, during the winter of 2005-2006, thieves dismantled most of the remaining overhead electrical wire/catenary between Davis High School and Selah, including on the Naches River Bridge and along 6th Avenue. This historic and valuable copper wire was cut up and sold off. After 2005, trolleys could not use the Selah line because the original copper electrical wires that powered the trolleys were gone. The Naches River Bridge was not used for several years. City of Yakima records indicate there was no trolley operating agreement between 2005 and 2013. In 2013, the City granted YVT a new operating agreement, and trolleys resumed use of the Selah line using a towed diesel fuel generator car. It is hoped that funding can be secured to replace the stolen copper wires with aluminum wires on the Selah line so that diesel powered travel will no longer be needed. In 2015, a rockslide at Selah Gap blocked use of the Selah line for 2 years. As of 2016, the Trolley system needed about $9 Million in upgrades -- in an April 2016 memo, City Economic Development Manager Sean Hawkins told City Council: "While there is general community support for the nostalgic and historical attraction of the Yakima Valley Trolley system, the remaining trolley infrastructure is deteriorating so quickly that a decision must be made to either invest in its upgrade or close down the system." During 2016-2019,the City contributed $100,000 in tourism/lodging tax funds as match for a legislative appropriation of$49,926.53 for YVT system capital improvements, which included trolley barn parking lot, HVAC, painting, restrooms, and windows & doors. In addition,these funds were used to clear the Selah Gap rockslide. HISTORY OF WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS TRAIL GRANT PROGRAM During 2005-2008, the City of Yakima, William O. Douglas Trail Foundation, and Yakima County partnered to successfully seek$2.7 Million in grant funding from WSDOT, RCO, and UTC to do historical research,purchase land, and develop the William O. Douglas Heritage Trail starting at the YVT trolley barn and going 80 miles through 12 distinct ecological zones to Mt. Rainier. Structural Engineer's Conclusion(2005): The trolley bridge needed repairs to prevent impending structural failure. The City committed to use "multimodal"trail funds to repair and restore the deteriorating bridge and add a"shared use (trolleys &pedestrians)pathway" on the bridge to access the historic trail and 70-acre W.O.D. Hill Climb. The grant application stated: "The Naches River Bridge is integral to the whole experience of using the William O. Douglas Trail." A related grant deliverable was to purchase and repair the YVT trolley barn that was at risk of the walls collapsing. Over$300,000 in William O. Douglas Trail grant funds were used to repair, restore, and save the historic bridge.About$950,000 was spent to build the 6th Avenue pathway leading up to the bridge. However,the 330' bridge path installation was delayed by a decade due to the extensive time needed to negotiate and fundraise for the 70-acre hill climb purchase. 87 To preserve the historic integrity of the bridge, the proposed side path was reviewed by federal, state, and tribal agencies based on a design to place the path "parallel to the existing rails" between the face of the trusses (no outside cantilever), "using dimensional lumber attached directly to the existing bridge," and with "no structural modification." The Department of Archaeology&Historic Preservation issued a § 106 Determination that this bridge path would not adversely affect the historic bridge. There is a history of serious injuries from pedestrian/train collisions on the downstream BNSF bridge,where there are frequent high-speed trains. To improve public safety, BNSF supported and approved Yakima's 2008 grant application to the State Utilities & Transportation Commission(UTC) for safety fencing around the BNSF tracks. The purpose of this fencing was to prevent trespass on the BNSF bridge and divert pedestrians away from BNSF tracks to the City's upstream multimodal bridge pathway,thereby enabling safe pedestrian river crossings. In application correspondence filed with UTC,the City stated: • part of the William O. Douglas Trail will include a pathway across the Trolley Bridge to allow pedestrians access across the Naches River. UTC approved funding for this safety project. Yakima Valley Trolleys,Kenneth G. Johnsen, and BNSF were listed as involved in implementing the project. UTC project agreements are binding upon agents and all persons acting through the parties. The Yakima City Council authorized and directed implementation of trail project, and the WSDOT/City agreement says grant fund will be used for"construction of a shared use (trolleys &pedestrians)pathway" over the City bridge. WSDOT multimodal transportation funds were pledged as "match" for the "William O. Douglas Trail Connections" grant awarded by the State Recreation& Conservation Office. See City Resolutions R-2005-121, R-2006-64, R-2006-87, and R-2008-98. These State grants anticipated that the Greenway trail would connect to the W.O.D. bridge path via property previously leased to Yakima County for the Greenway. The City of Yakima, Yakima County, and WODTF were co-applicants for W.O.D. Heritage Trail grant funds. At the north end of the City's Naches River Bridge, WODTF purchased 70 acres of land as the destination for pedestrians using the bridge path and historic trail.Partners and supporters included the Cities of Yakima& Selah, Yakima County, Yakima Schools, Yakima Rotary and Lions Clubs, Yakima Greenway Foundation, State Parks& Recreation Commission, Yakima Valley Museum, Cowiche Canyon Conservancy, Greater Yakima Chamber of Commerce, Kershaw Fruit, Congdon Orchards, and the James Stone and Cathleen Douglas Stone Foundation. 88 Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties 36 C.F.R. § 67.7 (1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. (2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. (3) Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. (4) Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. (5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. (6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. . (7) Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. (8) Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. (9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. ATTACHMENT B 90 Allyson Brooks Ph.D.,Director State Historic Preservation Officer September 16, 2022 Bob Harrison, (Yakima City Manager), Sara Watkins, Yakima City Attorney, and City Council Members City of Yakima 129 N 2nd St Yakima, WA 98901 RE: Yakima Valley Transportation Co. Trolley Bridge & William O. Douglas Trail Dear Yakima City Officials, I am writing to update you as to recent discussions that we have had with various parties involved in the future of Yakima Valley Transportation Co. Trolley Bridge which spans the Naches River. While visions may slightly differ on the best way to utilize this resource, I think all of the parties can agree that the bridge is an exceptional historic structure which is unique in many ways, with connections to several aspects of our history; transportation, engineering and for its connection to William O. Douglas. Such laying of history only enhances its significance. However, discussions about its use, alterations and long-term maintenance should be carefully considered and weighted. My initial reaction to proposed alterations to the bridge may have been premature. At the time I did not have the chance to see any specific design details or drawings. I have also been made aware that preliminary plans were approved by our office when the bridge was under-going rehabilitation in the early 2000s. While National Register listing does not require formal review by our office on changes to buildings and structures (unless there is federal nexus), we are more than happy to serve in a consulting capacity. I have offered to meet with the various groups within the next couple of weeks to discuss the project and prosed changes in more detail. Additions/Changes to bridges can easily affect eligibility, but the devil is in the details, and we have many examples where rail bridges have accommodated pedestrian use as well. I am optimistic that everyone's concerns can be meet and the project can serve as a national example of stewardship and cooperation among the various parties. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 890-2634. ti'Th'tF, State of Washington • Department of Archaeology&Historic Preservation `"it , P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia,Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 l! 'f fit www.dahp.wa.gov I "fast ct 91 Sincerely, Michael Houser State Architectural Historian, DAHP (360) 586-3076 E-mail:michaethouser@daho.wa.gov CC: Huy Pham,WA Trust Preservation Programs Director, Ken Johnsen, President Yakima Valley Trolley klohnsen@vakimavallevtrollevs.orq Michael Sullivan, consultant Ray Paolella, William O. Douglas Trail State of Washington • Department of Archaeology&Historic Preservation P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia,Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 p„ :a www.dahp.wa.gov jyr 1as�'c> 92 ATTACHMENT C 93 PAUL D. EDMOND S ON Attorney-at-Law 313 NORTH THIRD STREET YAKIMA, WA 98901 (509) 452-7963 June 23, 2022 Ken Johnsen, President Re: Pedestrians on City Railway Yakima Valley Trolleys PO Box 161 Renton, WA 98057 Dear President Johnsen: You have inquired about a proposal to permit pedestrians to use the City-owned railroad tracks now used by Yakima Valley Trolleys over the Naches River between Yakima and Selah, WA. I understand that the group asking for City permission is a hiking group interested in traversing the Naches River bridge into Selah Gap where the tracks are located along a narrow shelf adjacent to the BNSF mainline:tracks which are used for mile-long 100 car freight trains returning to North Dakota from Western Washington oil refineries. I further understand that the Naches bridge has no special accommodation for pedestrians or hikers although an adjacent freeway bridge a short distance downriver does have pedestrian facilities to allow foot access into Selah from the Yakima Greenway. From a legal perspective the most serious issue obviously confronting the City is the enormous expansion of City liability in endorsing pedestrian use of a railroad bridge and narrow right-of- way expressly built for railway use only, I know of no other city • in America which has done so. I also do not know of the position of BNSF, the owner of the right-of-way, as opposed to the City— owned easement upon which the tracks lie. Since the easement is 94 for railway purposes only the addition of pedestrian use would obviously be beyond the scope of the easement and unlawful, thereby exposing the City to possible litigation and damages from BNSF who I am quite sure do not want people hiking on their right-of-way adjacent to long oil trains. At the present time the right-of-way is posted to warn trespassers to keep out. If the City decides to invite pedestrian use of the bridge and tracks the legal doctrine of an"attractive nuisance" would appear to become relevant. A common example is a homeowner's liability for a swimming pool in his backyard which is used by kids in the neighborhood. This creates substantial risk for the owner who has "invited" the users explicitly or impliedly. This is the reason for the warning signs presently posted in Selah Gap and by the bridge. In addition from the aforementioned dangers it should be noted that the Selah Gap hillside next to the trolley tracks is very steep. In places it is a vertical rock wall right next to the trolley tracks and the oil trains on the downhill side. Every Spring large two- man boulders fall down the hillside onto the tracks below creating a dangerous situation for rail traffic, not to mention pedestrians. Every Spring and Summer weekends trolley members clear out these boulders to keep the tracks clear and safe. Encouraging people to walk in this narrow corridor anytime during the boulder season is obviously not in the City's interest. In summary, permitting pedestrians on city railroad tracks is just asking for litigation by invitees, no longer trespassers. It is unthinkable as a matter of prudent public policy. Very truly yours, po,,, W5I3 6 363 1 , //s5l 46 7 Cold XNzg?/a► 95 RESPONSE to PAUL EDMONDSON letter to YVT PRESIDENT KEN JOHNSEN (dated JUNE 23, 2022) • The proposal is not to permit pedestrians to use City-owned tracks. Rather,the bridge side path is physically separate from the streetcar tracks, in space not used by trolleys. • Pedestrians will not walk on tracks "located along a narrow shelf adjacent to the BNSF mainline tracks." • Pedestrians will not be on steep hillside prone to landslides where boulders frequently fall onto the streetcar tracks. • Pedestrians do not seek "foot access into Selah from the Yakima Greenway." Rather,the destination of pedestrians is the historic William O. Douglas hill climb natural area on the north side of the bridge. • Trolley operates on summer weekends—trolley does not cross the Naches River Bridge on more 90% of the calendar days in a year. Engineering design requires "temporal separation," so trolleys and pedestrians will not use the bridge at the same time. Structural Bridge Engineer certified that the side path meets or exceeds all applicable safety standards/codes.' • Bridge walkway reduces liability and increases safety because BNSF and the State wanted fencing installed to stop people from going across the BNSF high speed bridge with multiple mile-long trains every day. The City committed (in State grant agreements) to provide a safe pedestrian side path on trolley bridge, and the City committed to WA UTC and BNSF to maintain state-funded fencing to divert pedestrians away from BNSF to trolley bridge path. • BNSF and WA Utilities &Transportation Commission both approved trolley bridge path in a proceeding that YVT was party to— UTC orders are binding on parties and agents. •. , c, Jo' i� • ._ '' - • Unlike high-speed BNSF trains, Yakima Municipal Code sets the maximum trolley speed limit at 12 MPH and requires streetcar flaggers to ensure pedestrian safety. • In exchange for state trail grants to repair/restore deteriorating bridge, City designated bridge as a multimodal, "shared-use (trolleys & pedestrians) pathway." • In a 1912 "Agreement," Northern Pacific Railway allowed Yakima Valley Transportation Company (YVTC)to use a portion of NP right-of-way"subject to the rights of the public"to continue using the historic road (same historic route used by William O. Douglas). YVTC assumed "all liability and expense from interference with or relocation of"the road. Part of the historic route was subsumed within the YVTC line built just uphill from the NP tracks from 1912-1913 • No evidence supporting Edmonson's claims that oil trains use Selah Gap line. Ecology says oil trains use Columbia River route, without going through Yakima County.2 • There is no practical alternative to cross the Naches River via a safe and historically authentic route used by Justice William 0. Douglas. Rerouting the WOD Trail to cross a modern highway bridge 0.4 mile downstream has significant technical, environmental, and fiscal challenges-- uncertainties about constructing a new trail in floodplains, and whether it would be feasible to tunnel near structural piers under the BNSF and trolley pier structures next to the river. 1 Safety Standards Compliance Memo for Naches River Bridge Path(2KS Consulting Engineers,July 11, 2022) 2 I,ttps://amps.ecalogv.wa.goviwaslalatlasNoryIn 3ps/spillslspill; stn.I tml [Dept.of Ecology Estimated Oil Trains in Washington Counties] - 96 ATTACHMENT D II 97 2 M _ .,__,._„„ Engineering and Inspection Services 40 Scott Drive Victor, ID 83455 July 11, 2022 MEMO: Yakima Valley Transit(YVT) Bridge—Trail Addition Project Project Progress Plans TO: William O. Douglas Trail Foundation FROM: Kevin B. Hinkley, P.E., S.E. Attached are the engineering final plans for the proposed William O. Douglas Trail walkway across the multi-modal Naches River Bridge. As stated in the General Notes on sheet S1, the design satisfies the stated applicable safety standards and codes, including AASHTO and WSDOT. Sheet S2 defines the use zones for the bridge corridor to provide a safe crossing area for the defined users of the bridge. The design has laid out the best use provisions for crossing the bridge by providing two pedestrian walkway zones—each walkway is designated to be signed for one-way pedestrian traffic on each side. Each walkway has a clear width of 2'-101/4". On sheet S2 of the plans, there is a Typical Section showing the walkways located adjacent to the trusses, and away from the trolley tracks. As mentioned above, please note that this walkway design specifies a zonal use concept that maintains spatial and temporal separation between users. There is a trolley "RAIL TRAFFIC ZONE" in the middle of the bridge centered about the trolley tracks, whereas the pedestrian "WALKWAY ZONE" is located away from the tracks next to the trusses. Pedestrians are not allowed in the Rail Traffic Zone, and vehicle traffic is not allowed in the Walkway Zone. I look forward to your review and comment of the attached plans, and I hope you find the plans acceptable for construction as attached. If you have any comments, these will be considered and incorporated into the final set of plans for construction. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, AV. of WASH, ft-4/9:".--• 143 • ,S1' ft. lita •C',. Kevin B. Hinkley, P.E., S.E. dt .?4 -4 Civil and Structural Engineer f � ;� yd �G 26096 . . �o RA L 0I"' , 1 ANAL 0 f 1 98 2KS consulting`. Engineering and Inspection Services 564 225th Lane N.E.,Suite A202 Sammamish,WA 98074 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS for the Yakima Valley Transit (YVT) Bridge Trail Addition Project For William O. Douglas Trail Foundation (a Washington non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation) Attn. Ray Paolella 1108 Hillman Road Yakima, WA 98908-9151 Project No. 2157 B • NI A o� WASri N. 26096 4 . T°RAL S7ONAL 1 } 1 Page 1 of 16 99 2K Engineering and Inspection Services 40 Scott Drive Victor, ID 83455 Project: Yakima Valley Transit (YVT) Bridge Trail Addition Project Project; The project is to provide a trail planking design for the existing bridge in Yakima over the Naches River. Structural Engineering analysis and design includes a single phase construction for walkway passage on the east and west sides of the bridge and between the existing truss members. The design performed was similar the preliminary designs from 2008 for Alternatives 8A & 8B with the exception for chain-link fencing preferred for the railings and fall protection. The rail height is 3'-6" to accommodate pedestrian-only traffic. The trail will not be open for use until the decking plus railings and fall protection is constructed. Vehicular traffic will not be utilized unless it is during maintenance activity. Vehicle traffic is limited to rail mounted vehicles only. Trolley activity will be accommodated as the primary user of the rails and the safety during shared use activities will be the responsibility of the rail user. The cantilevered trail support will be provided by steel channels between the existing ties and the channels will be fastened without penetration to the existing bridge girders. Design Criteria, Materials & Codes: 1. ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS SPECIFICATION FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION DATED 2022 (ENGLISH), AND AMENDMENTS. 2. THE DESIGN OF WALKWAY STRUCTURE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, CUSTOMARY U.S. UNITS, 9TH EDITION, 2020 WITH INTERIM REVISIONS AND THE WSDOT BRIDGE DESIGN MANUAL, SEPTEM 2020. 3. BRIDGE TRAIL WALKWAY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE"WALKWAY ZONE"AND RAIL TRAFFIC SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE"RAIL TRAFFIC ZONE". 4. BRIDGE SHALL BE POSTED ON EACH END: "NO MOTOR VEHICLES ALLOWED". THE SIGN SHALL BE DESIGNED, POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA. THE SIGN DESIGN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 5. BRIDGE SHALL BE POSTED ON EACH END: "WALKWAY ZONE-ONE WAY TRAFFIC- KEEP RIGHT". THE SIGN SHALL DELINEATE THE CORRECT WALKWAY TO BE USED ON EACH SIDE OF THE BRIDGE AND THE SIGN SHALL BE DESIGNED, POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA. THE SIGN DESIGN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. Design Criteria Page 1 Page 2 of 16 100 2 XI1��n 1.7_ilit fi Engineering and Inspection vervices 40 Scott Drive Victor, ID 83455 6. BRIDGE SHALL BE POSTED ON EACH END: "RAIL TRAFFIC SHALL YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS". THE SIGN SHALL BE DESIGNED, POSTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA. THE SIGN DESIGN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 7. THE EXISTING BRIDGE IS A REGISTERED HISTORICAL STRUCTURE AND NO MODIFICATIONS OR PENETRATIONS SHALL BE MADE. 8. ALL NEW STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A36 AND HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED AFTER FABRICATION. 9. ALL WOOD SHALL PRESERVATIVE TREATED LUMBER (PTL). 10. ALL FASTENERS SHALL BE GALVANIZED. 11. ALL OPTION 1 FENCING SHALL BE GALVANIZED AND VINYL COATED, COLOR BLACK AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ALL OPTION 2 RAILINGS &WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 12. FALSEWORK SUPPORTED BY THE BRIDGE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY. ALL FALSEWORK SHALL BE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT ALL LOADS NECESSARY TO PERFORM CONSTRUCTION. FALSEWORK SHALL BE CAREFULLY RELEASED TO PREVENT ANY SUDDEN OR UNIQUE STRESS IN THE STRUCTURE. ALL WORKERS SHALL WEAR APPROVED FALL-PROTECTION UNTIL WALKWAY HAS BEEN COMPLETED. 13. THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE BASED ON RECORD INFORMATION FROM ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS FIELD MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED DURING BRIDGE INSPECTION AND BY CLIENT PROVIDED INFORMATION. IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS STRUCTURE ARE INTENDED TO MATCH THE EXISTING BRIDGE. ALL MEASUREMENTS SHALL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FABRICATION AND CONSTRUCTION. THE DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN SHALL ALSO BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN THE FIELD. 14. THE WALKWAY SHALL NOT BE OPEN TO PEDESTRIANS UNTIL ALL WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED. DESIGN LIVE LOAD LIMITS FOR "RAIL TRAFFIC ZONE": 1. TROLLEYS#1776&#1976: MAX. CAR WIDTH: 8'-0" TRUCK WHEELBASE: 7'-81/2" TOTAL WEIGHT: 26 KIPS ON 2 AXLES 2. TROLLEYS#21 &#22: MAX. CAR WIDTH: 8'-6" WHEELBASE PER TRUCK(DBL. TRUCK CAR): 5'-4" DIST. BTWN. TRUCK CENTERS: 17'-5" TOTAL WEIGHT: 33.6 KIPS ON 4 AXLES Design Criteria Page 2 Page 3 of 16 101 2 fo)0- gliltili Engineering and Inspection Services 40 Scott Drive Victor, ID 83455 3. LINE CAR#A: MAX. CAR WIDTH: 9'-3" WHEELBASE PER TRUCK(DBL. TRUCK): 6'-4" DIST. BTWN. TRUCK CENTERS: 23'-0" TOTAL CAR WEIGHT: 46 KIPS on 4 AXLES 4. LOCOMOTIVE#298: MAX. CAR WIDTH: 9'-7" WHEELBASE PER TRUCK(DBL. TRUCK): 7'-3" DIST. BTWN. TRUCK CENTERS: 18'-4" TOTAL CAR WEIGHT: 100 KIPS ON 4 AXLES DESIGN LIVE LOAD LIMITS FOR "WALKWAY ZONE": 1. VEHICLE LIVE LOAD: NOT ALLOWED IN WALKWAY ZONE. VEHICLES ONLY ALLOWED IN "RAIL TRAFFIC ZONE", AND VEHICLES SHALL BE RAIL MOUNTED. 2. PEDESTRIAN LIVE LOAD ON DECK: 85 POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT 3. FENCE LIVE LOAD: 200 POUNDS CONCENTRATED PLUS 50 POUNDS PER LINEAR FOOT APPLIED HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY AT EACH HORIZONTAL ELEMENT Design Criteria Page 3 Page 4 of 16 5/18/2018 Section 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 102 The load factor for temperature gradient, YTG, should be The load factor for temperature gradient should be considered on a project-specific basis. In lieu of project-specific determined on the basis of the: information to the contrary,YTG may be taken as: • Type of structure, and • 0.0 at the strength and extreme event limit states, • Limit state being investigated. • 1.0 at the service limit state when live load is not considered, Open girder construction and multiple steel box girders have and traditionally, but perhaps not necessarily correctly, been • 0.50 at the service limit state when live load is considered. designed without consideration of temperature gradient, i.e., YTG= 0.0. The load factor for settlement,YsE, should be considered on a project-specific basis. In lieu of project-specific information to the contrary,YsE, may be taken as 1.0. Load combinations which include settlement shall also be applied without settlement. For segmentally constructed bridges, the following combination shall be investigated at the service limit state: DC+DW+EH+bV+ES+WA+CR+SH+TG+EL+PS (3.4.1-2) Table 3.4.1-1-Load Combinations and Load Factors DC Use One of These at a Time DD DW EH EV LL ES IM EL CE PS BR Load Combination CR PL Limit State SH LS WA WS WL FR TU TG SE EQ BL IC CT CV Strength I(unless noted) Yp 1.75 1.00 - - 1.00 0.50/1.20 YTG YSE - Strength II Yp 1.35 1.00 -- 1.00 0.50/1.20 YTG YsE - - Strength III Yp - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 0.50/1.20 YTG YSE - - - - - Strength IV Yp -- 1.00 - -- 1.00 0.50/1.20 - - - - - - - Strength V VP 1.35 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50/1.20 YTG YSE - - - - - Extreme Event I 1.00 yEQ 1.00 - - 1.00 - - - 1.00 - - - - Extreme Event II 1.00 0.50 1.00 - - 1.00 - - - - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00/1.20 YTG YSE - - - - Service II 1.00 1.30 1.00 - - 1.00 1.00/1.20 - --- - - - - - Service III 1.00 YLL 1.00 - --- 1.00 1.00/1.20 YTC YSE - - - - - Service IV 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00/1.20 - 1.00 - - - - - Fatigue I-LL, IM& CEonly --• 1.75 - - - - - - - - - - -- - Fatigue II-LL, IM&CEonly - 0.80 - - ---- - - - - - - - - - Table 3.4.1-2-Load Factors for Permanent Loads,yp Load Factor Type of Load, Foundation Type, and Method Used to Calculate Downdrag Maximum Minimum ' De Component and Attachments 1.25 0.90 DC::Strength IV only 1.50 0.90 http://Irfdus8.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://Irfdus8.digital.transportation.org/LRFDUS/8/LRFDUS-8/Irfdus-8_sect03 e-Lefole.aspx?layout=AL 5/18/2018 Section 3-LOADS AND LOAD FACTORS 1 J3 DP. Downdrag Piles, a Tomlinson Method 1.40 0.25 Piles, A Method 1.05 0.30 Drilled shafts, O'Neill and Reese(2010) Method 1.25 0.35 DW. Wearing Surfaces and Utilities 1.50 0.65 EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure • Active 1.50 0.90 • At-Rest 1.35 0.90 • AEP for anchored walls 1.35 N/A EL: Locked-in Construction Stresses 1.00 1.00 EV. Vertical Earth Pressure • Overall Stability 1.00 N/A • Retaining Walls and Abutments 1.35 1.00 • Rigid Buried Structure 1.30 0.90 • Rigid Frames 1.35 0.90 • Flexible Buried Structures o Metal Box Culverts, Structural Plate Culverts with Deep Corrugations, and Fiberglass Culverts 1.50 0.90 • Thermoplastic Culverts 1.30 0.90 o All others 1.95 0.90 ES: Earth Surcharge 1.50 0.75 Table 3.4.1-3-Load Factors for Permanent Loads Due to Superimposed Deformations, yp Bridge Component PS CR, SH Superstructures-Segmental 1.0 See yp for DC, Table 3.4.1-2 Concrete Substructures supporting Segmental Superstructures(see 3.12.4, 3.12.5) Concrete Superstructures-non-segmental 1.0 1.0 Substructures supporting non-segmental Superstructures • using /9 0.5 0.5 • using /effectuve 1.0 1.0 Steel Substructures 1.0 1.0 Table 3.4.1-4-Load Factors for Live Load for Service III Load Combination, y« • Component VLL Prestressed concrete components designed using the refined estimates of time-dependent losses as specified in Article 5.9.5.4 in 1.0 conjunction with taking advantage of the elastic gain All other prestressed concrete components 0.8 r , Where prestressed components are used in conjunction with steel girders, the force effects from the following sources shall be considered as construction loads, EL: • In conjunction with longitudinal prestressing of a precast deck prior to making the deck sections composite with the girders, the friction between the precast deck sections and the steel girders. • When longitudinal post-tensioning is performed after the deck becomes composite with the girders, the additional forces http://Irfdus8.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://Irfdus8.digital.transportation.org/LRFDUS/8/LRFDU S-8/Irfdus-8_sect03 -rdct=..aspx?layout=AL 5/18/2018 Section 13-RAILINGS The crash test specimen for a railing system may be 104 designed to resist the applied loads in accordance with Appendix A13. Provision shall be made to transfer loads from the railing system to the deck. Railing loads may be taken from Appendix A13. Unless a lesser thickness can be proven satisfactory Preliminary design for bridge decks should comply during the crash testing procedure, the minimum edge with Article A13.1,.2. A determination of the adequacy of thickness for concrete deck overhangs shall be taken as: deck reinforcement for the distribution of post For concrete deck overhangs supporting a deck- anchorage loads to the deck should be made during the • mounted post system: 8.0 in. rail testing program. If the rail testing program satisfactorily models the bridge deck, damage to the • For a side-mounted post system: 12.0 in. deck edge can be assessed at this time. • For concrete deck overhangs supporting concrete In adequately designed bridge deck overhangs, the parapets or barriers: 8.0 in. major crash-related damage presently occurs in short sections of slab areas where the barrier is hit. 13.7.3.2—Height of Traffic Parapet or C13.7.3.2 Railing These heights have been determined as satisfactory Traffic railings shall be at least 27.0 in. for TL-3, 32.0 through crash tests performed in accordance with in. for TL-4, 42.0 in. for TL-5, and 90.0 in. in height for NCHRP Report 350 and experience. TL-6. For future deck overlays, an encroachment of 2.0 in., The bottom 3.0-in. lip of the safety shape shall not be leaving a 1.0-in. lip, has been satisfactorily tested for increased for future overlay considerations. safety shapes. The minimum height for a concrete parapet with a vertical face shall be 27.0 in. The height of other combined concrete and metal rails shall not be less than 27.0 in. and shall be determined to be satisfactory through crash testing for the desired test level. The minimum height of the pedestrian or bicycle railing should be measured above the surface of the sidewalk or bikeway. The minimum geometric requirements for combination railings beyond those required to meet crash test requirements shall be taken as specified in Articles 13.8, 13.9, and 13.10. 13.8—PEDESTRIAN RAILING 13.8.1—Geometry C13.8.1 The minimum height of a pedestrian railing shall be 42.0 in. measured from the top of the walkway. A pedestrian rail may be composed of horizontal and/or vertical elements. The clear opening between elements shall be such that a 6.0-in. diameter sphere shall not pass through. When both horizontal and vertical elements are used, the 6.0-in. clear opening shall apply to the lower 27.0 in. of the railing, and the spacing in the upper portion shall be such that an 8.0-in. diameter sphere shall not pass through. A safety toe rail or curb should be provided. Rails should project beyond the face of posts and/or pickets as shown in Figure A13.1.1-2. http://Irfd us8.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://ladus8.digital.transportation.org/LRFDUS/8/LRFDUS-8/Irfdus-8_sect1 9-$_flicte.aspx?layout=AL 5/18/2018 Section 13-RAILINGS 105 The rail spacing requirements given above should not The size of openings should be capable of retaining apply to chain link or metal fabric fence support rails and an average size beverage container. posts. Mesh size in chain link or metal fabric fence should have openings no larger than 2.0 in. 13.8.2—Design Loads C13.8.2 The design live load for pedestrian railings shall be These live loads apply to the railing. The pedestrian taken as w= 0.050 klf, both transversely and vertically, live load, specified in Article 3.6.1.6, applies to the acting simultaneously. In addition, each longitudinal sidewalk. element will be designed for a concentrated load of 0.20 kips, which shall act simultaneously with the above loads at any point and in any direction at the top of the longitudinal element. The posts of pedestrian railings shall be designed for a concentrated design live load applied transversely at the center of gravity of the upper longitudinal element or, for railings with a total height greater than 5.0 ft, at a point 5.0 ft above the top surface of the sidewalk. The value of the concentrated design live load for posts, PLL, in kips, shall be taken as: P, = 0.20+0.050L (13.8.2-1) where: L = post spacing (ft) The application of loads shall be as indicated in Figure 13.8.2-1, in which the shapes of rail members are illustrative only. Any material or combination of materials specified in Article 13.5 may be used. Iw Iw • 1 --0 T-w" 0 4, E z z ct Walkway I Walkway • Surface j Surface-1 :• Figure 13.8.2-1—Pedestrian Railing Loads—To be used on the outer edge of a sidewalk when highway traffic is separated from pedestrian traffic by a traffic railing. Railing shape illustrative only. The design wind load for chain link or metal fabric fence shall be taken as 0.015 ksf acting normal to the entire surface. The wind load need not be applied simultaneously with live load. 13.9—BICYCLE RAILINGS http://Irfdus8.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://Irfdus8.digital.transportation.org/LRFDUS/8/LRFDUS-8/Irfdus-8_sect1 e-8_0$c18.aspx?layout=AL 5/18/2018 Section 13-RAILINGS 13.9.1—General 106 Bicycle railings shall be used on bridges specifically designed to carry bicycle traffic and on bridges where specific protection of bicyclists is deemed necessary. 13.9.2—Geometry C13.9.2 The height of a bicycle railing shall not be less than Railings, fences, or barriers on either side of a shared 42.0 in., measured from the top of the riding surface. use path on a structure, or along bicycle lane, shared Bicycle railings shall have rail spacing satisfying the use path or signed shared roadway located on a respective provisions of Article 13.$.1. highway bridge should be a minimum of 42.0 in. high. The 42.0-in. minimum height is in accordance with the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, Third Edition (1999). On such a bridge or bridge approach where high- speed, high-angle impact with a railing, fence, or barrier are more likely to occur (such as short-radius curves with restricted sight distance or at the end of a long descending grade) or in locations with site-specific safety concerns, a railing, fence, or barrier height above the minimum should be considered. If deemed necessary, rubrails attached to the rail or The need for rubrails attached to a rail or fence is fence to prevent snagging should be deep enough to controversial among many bicyclists. protect a wide range of bicycle handlebar heights. If screening, fencing, or a solid face is utilized, the number of rails may be reduced. 13.9.3—Design Live Loads If the rail height exceeds 54.0 in. above the riding surface, design loads shall be determined by the Designer. The design loads for the lower 54.0 in. of the bicycle railing shall not be less than those specified in Article 13.8.2, except that for railings with total height greater than 54.0 in., the design live load for posts shall be applied at a point 54.0 in. above the riding surface. The application of loads shall be as indicated in Figure 13.9.3-1. Any material or combination of materials specified in Article 13.5 may be used. Ew iw ; :_w_o:,,, I— __„._y,, ,,,,, E j w�1 E �yyFI Z E Q. E o L F c F- Wes , E z w--} � zri N v V' cr oc z z .., , cslw • (NI d � S Bikeway Bikeway i , Surface Surface ,� _ 1 s__ * L.�_ Figure 13.9.3-1—Bicycle Railing Loads—To be used on the outer edge of a bikeway when http://Irfdus8.digital.transportation.org/Print.html?file=http://Irfdus8.digital.transportation.org/LRFDUS/8/LRFDUS-8/Irfdus-8_sectl' -itpic11E$.aspx?layout=AL 5/18/2018 Section 13-RAILINGS highway traffic is separated from bicycle traffic 107 by a traffic railing. Railing shape illustrative only. 13.10—COMBINATION RAILINGS 13.10.1—General The combination railing shall conform to the requirements of either the pedestrian or bicycle railings, as specified in Articles 13.8 and 13.9, whichever is applicable. The traffic railing portion of the combination railing shall conform to Article 13.7. 13.10.2—Geometry The geometric provisions of Articles 13.7, 13.8, and 13.9 shall apply to their respective portions of a combination railing. 13.10.3—Design Live Loads Design loads, specified in Articles 13.8 and 13.9, shall not be applied simultaneously with the vehicular impact loads. 13.11—CURBS AND SIDEWALKS 13.11.1—General Horizontal measurements of roadway width shall be taken from the bottom of the face of the curb. A sidewalk curb located on the highway traffic side of a bridge railing shall be considered an integral part of the railing and shall be subject to the crash test requirements specified in Article 13.7. 13.11.2—Sidewalks C13.11.2 When curb and gutter sections with sidewalks are Raised sidewalks on bridges are not usually provided used on roadway approaches, the curb height for raised where the approach roadway is not curbed for sidewalks on the bridge should be no more than 8.0 in. pedestrians or the structure is not planned for If a barrier curb is required, the curb height should not pedestrian occupancy. be less than 6.0 in. If the height of the curb on the For recommendations on sidewalk width, see Figure bridge differs from that off the bridge, it should be 13.7.1.1-1 and AASHTO's A Po/icy on Geometric Design uniformly transitioned over a distance greater than or of Highways and Streets equal to 20 times the change in height. During stage construction, the same transition considerations will be given to the provision of ramps from the bridge sidewalk to the approach surface. 13.11.3—End Treatment of Separation Railing The end treatment of any traffic railing or barrier shall meet the requirements specified in Articles 13.7.1.2 and 13.7.1.3. 13.12-REFERENCES http://Irfdus8.digitaLtransportation.org/Print.html?file=http://Irfdus8.digital.transportation.org/LRFDUS/8/LRFDUS-8/Irfdus-8_sect'F3 slLetc1S.aspx?layout=AL 108 KS .consuLtiagi Engineering and Inspection Services YAKIMA VALLEY TROLLEY (YVT) BRIDGE - DECK LOADS & DESIGN A. CHANNEL LOADS: LOAD LOAD LOAD DESCRIPTION LOAD DIRECTION SPACING MOMENT SERVICE LOP TYPE ARM MOMENT FACT( (lb.) (ft.) (ft.) 1 Live FENCE Top Rail - Uniform 50.0 Horiz. 8 4.438 1,775.000 2 Live FENCE Top Rail -Concentrated 200.0 Horiz. 1 4.438 887.500 3 Live FENCE Mid. Rail - Uniform 50.0 Horiz. 8 1.531 612.500 4 Live FENCE Mid. Rail -Concentrated 200.0 Horiz. 1 1.531 306.250 5 Live PED. Pedestrian Live Load on Deck 212.5 Vert. 8 2.833 4,816.661 6 Dead FENCE Self Weight 20.0 Vert. 8 3.063 490.000 7 Dead ANGLE Fence Post Support 10.0 Vert. 1 3.063 30.625 8 Dead ANGLE Decking Support 10.0 Vert. 8 2.833 226.666 9 Dead WOOD Decking 12.5 Vert. 8 2.833 283.333 10 Dead CHANNEL Deck Support Member 11.5 Vert. 1 0.063 0.719 TOTAL SERVICE MOMENT= 9,429.254 ft. lbs. TOTAL FACTORED MOMEP A. CHANNEL DESIGN: Fb= 36,000 psi phi = 0.9 F'b= 32,400 psi = M/S S<req'd>= M<factored>/F'b = 5.921 in."3 Therefore, use C 8 x 11.5 Channel Beam (Sx=8.15 in.^3) YAKIMA VALLEY TROLLEY(YVT) BRIDGE- LOADS AND DESIGN 109 B. CHANNEL BOLT LOADS: LOAD LOAD LOAD DESCRIPTION LOAD DIRECTION SPACING MOMENT SERVICE SERV TYPE ARM MOMENT FOR( (lb.) (ft ) (fl.) 1 Live FENCE Top Rail - Uniform 50.0 Horiz. 8 4.438 1,775.000 2 Live FENCE Top Rail-Concentrated 200.0 Horiz. 1 4.438 887.500 3 Live FENCE Mid. Rail- Uniform 50.0 Horiz. 8 1.531 612.500 4 Live FENCE Mid. Rail -Concentrated 200.0 Horiz. 1 1.531 306.250 TOTAL SERVICE MOMENT= 3,581.250 ft. lbs. BOLT SPACING = 4.000 inches ONE-HALF (due to decking nailed for support)SERVICE SHEAR FROM MOMENT= 6,231.375 lbs. 5 Live PED. Pedestrian Live Load on Deck 212.5 Vert. 8 6 Dead FENCE Self Weight 20.0 Vert. 8 7 Dead ANGLE Fence Post Support 10.0 Vert. 1 8 Dead ANGLE Decking Support 10.0 Vert. 8 9 Dead WOOD Decking 12.5 Vert. 8 10 Dead CHANNEL Deck Support Member 11.5 Vert. 1 TOTAL SERVICE SHEAR FROM VERTICAL LOAD= 2,061, B. CHANNEL BOLT DESIGN: Total Shear Force= 6,564 lbs. Allowable Shear Stress for A325 Bolt= 21 k.s.i. 3/4" Diam. Area = 0.442 in.^2 Allowable Shear Force for A307 Bolt= 9,278 lbs. Therefore, use 3/4" Diam. A325 Bolts CAP ST ) .GE- LOADS AND DESIGN 110 LOAD LOAD LOAD DESCRIPTION LOAD DIRECTION SPACING MOMENT SERVICE LOP TYPE ARM MOMENT FACT( (Ib.) (ft.) (ft.) 1 Live FENCE Top Rail - Uniform 50.0 Horiz. 8 1,391.000 2 Live FENCE Top Rail -Concentrated 200.0 Horiz. 1 695.500 3 Live FENCE Mid. Rail- Uniform 50.0 Horiz. 8 228.500 4 Live FENCE Mid. Rail-Concentrated 200.0 Horiz. 1 114.250 TOTAL SERVICE MOMENT= 2,429.250 ft. lbs. TOTAL FACTORED MOMEI C. POST CONNECTION DESIGN: Fb= psi phi = F'b= 32,400 psi = M/S S<req'd> = M<factored>/F'b = 1.575 in.^3 Therefore, use L 3 x 3 x 5/16 Angle (Sx=1.75 in.^3) D. SPANNING ANGLE LOADS YAKIMA VALLEY TROLLEY(YVT) BRIDGE- LOADS AND DESIGN 111 LOAD LOAD LOAD DESCRIPTION LOAD DIRECTION SPACING SERVICE LOP TYPE MOMENT FACT( (lb.) (ft.) 5 Live PED. Pedestrian Live Load on Deck 212.5 Vert. 8 850.00 9 Dead WOOD Decking 12.5 Vert. 8 50.00 TOTAL SERVICE MOMENT= 900.000 ft. lbs. TOTAL FACTORED MOMEP D. SPANNING ANGLE DESIGN Fb = 36,000 psi phi = 0.9 F'b= 32,400 psi = M/S S<req'd> = M<factored>/F'b = 0.574 in."3 Therefore, use L 3 x 3 x 1/4 Anctle (Sx=1.47 in.^3) D. SPANNING ANGLE DEFLECTION w= 112.5lb/ft. 9.375 lb/in. L= 96 in. E= 3E+07 = 1.51 in. ^4 Delta= 5*w*L^4/384*E*I 0.237 L/360= 0.267 Therefore revise to use L 3 x 3 x 5/16 Angle E. DECKING LOADS I YAKIMA VALLEY TROLLEY(YVT) BRIDGE- LOADS AND DESIGN 112 LOAD LOAD LOAD DESCRIPTION LOAD DIRECTION SPACING SERVICE TYPE MOMENT (Ib.) (ft.) 5 Live PED. Pedestrian Live Load on Deck 212.5 Veil. 2.4375 78.91 9 Dead WOOD Decking 12.5 Vert. 2.4375 4.64 TOTAL SERVICE MOMENT= 83.551 ft. lbs. TOTAL SERVICE MOMENT(5.5" PLANK) = 38.294 ft. lbs. E. DECKING DESIGN Fb = 500 psi Fb = = M/S S<req'd> = M<factored>/Fb = 0.919 in."3 2x6 SECTION PROPERTY= 2.063 Therefore, use 2x6 PTL Wood Decking F. WELDING CONNECTION LOADS I YAKIMA VALLEY TROLLEY(YVT) BRIDGE- LOADS AND DESIGN 113 LOAD LOAD LOAD DESCRIPTION LOAD DIRECTION SPACING SERVICE TYPE LOAD (lb.) (ft-) 5 Live PED. Pedestrian Live Load on Deck 212.5 Vert. 8 1,700.000 6 Dead FENCE Self Weight 20.0 Vert. 8 160.000 7 Dead ANGLE Fence Post Support 10.0 Vert. 1 10.000 8 Dead ANGLE Decking Support 10.0 Vert. 8 80.000 9 Dead WOOD Decking 12.5 Vert. 8 100.000 10 Dead CHANNEL Deck Support Member 11.5 Vert. 1 11.500 TOTAL SERVICE SHEAR FROM VERTICAL LOAD= 2,061.500 ft. lbs. F. WELDING CONNECTION DESIGN Fv= 70,000 psi reduction = 0.3 F'v= 21,000 psi Weld Area = 0.53 inA2 (3"wide and 1/4"weld) Weld Strength = 11,135 lbs. Therefore, use 3" wide and 1/4" weld YAKIMA VALLEY TROLLEY (YVT) BRIDGE- LOADS AND DESIGN Tr {^ T ---7 r I 1 J gli?m 4pr 5 i i .--P> IR y�_,z I fli I I I 1 �e gr.,x+sacny ■ 7j ` h. b '''' ••• ®� I a m i `a, _ y IIMV.2''- Am ag o ON i i 1--mik o I '..3 j;r T o 1 0111 I I r 2 a� , y. A�1.' ,` a o Alf d 1i , i � ZR'._ uTR1 py p q rri_ Alier p `A I E ' b T ar, . s $ I — � ptip.. /\ A o EJ gggg1 e mi an I a O h! 1!t1 tiki -1-i --- .441k Is Y i L n o ` i 1 R•A 11111111? /I1 A ® e i T r 1 I* i 1 ill ! 41 r^-'' 111 11 li OW.'1 4 N r tSH k, i„ A15+7"" Ib 1 % Ti 1 OP P,,, . to g y *Will I ) '1 gi g� Tn yON`nt i 4« xmz'n t a g � HOP ,�.o�", m�$ o a� nN o 'o" mJ!! ,mix`m" U iimn�i -,BUJ RTTl m(n Tg pal b"'� � ,n A2mt7,n ,n n'n H nW N rn pal Wiiai 41 ,1 Am oz `h 4i ZFn n, oon2 Mg 1 ) �' < �nno'zn2 oho�c os-• y a ap vzio aV`� mo'Fm m� ^r ynx' va`�G t` if Z 7 To'zmnn soo'nni :4% ,xn' a 0 5' na 'TTA a Tx ;e' z�4 Z ,I�.ala I 11" o F141 obi „ H Zr A3 ' mz,on a :g ma3 %o 020^' m� m a " T ;"io bozo 0o oy AAn R;oa 71 O s MyP m`2 2 ay2 0^ m ;Az2 G) _ A NrjNc„'�'mu m.,cTi A sl ^ ?A "2 amp` om4 mm vs,, '_1- y a W - ;-�, z � � B ion mz� o� >_� "2T �`na 8 l-o z��a nvF� An g"�+ooe: r4Ioy gi o a ,=,,, " mz,'1'a Wi''. V o o f o'er n " mfi r.iA A a�N 2 yN T �L m �y m m To2�giT WO o00 � � n� ^mioA ,n n2 yla 220 '-la ��T � �i' •-•. rE'OM WO PI m n OrTi oa g man Az r ♦_ aTmyo v2 „A' a !oM1 -th mmna mod N ' ZW T y�] ,n �'00,2 a4acx '''P 7 0 �"1, T N Amn 4 o`ng W. nl o i.00 Qr' ' Mq o T 0 4--,oT£ nm -` P ,-fin Z � 4 Am-p!'f' 2,';, A o To o rr:1 my<T 4 ,n `T,AT RP m n k z jt,' T tno �o 2 o W WI <M i z`''o Dam e x ,ni, "T_'�m'nzi ' ' A. Tm 2 W zc g.. PI yy R r 7 oT r ,0 r n m 22 .: ______f— L - -t nR.YYr-wba.-IP.Ja,..,,.e-r " $ YAKIMA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION(YVT)MULTI-MODAL BRIDGE x sry� _.,aL, " s� >B TRAIL ADDITION PROJECT OVER NACHES RIVER,WA Ks ({[r�{1 7J� ry "R. yy1 Ali'^ u, N,CR3 RWER OROSSR,O-YAKIMA,WA y ��I I-^",+^I':='+ /� A +i' dog MA,em o.oo�yma hY>f ro��aouo�,o we:nmyto�norp,ort sa,(�1(�7�or�o,oRo� E� C7NdX4'lEG�iC.YA T o $ P�>x o ,a sroe o�,., o _ <N� BRIDGE TRAIL LAYOUT & GENERAL NOTES : ,o eaasi �� , lyti �" y) � ouwlw,u .a viu.o.w-w-w.aceo-w.a.+ort-wp-vuau.e.i 2. z 5% c 115 oo a o"a roll' _ _ . .� oP2 Noma y m��ag�g zA y oa� 2 00 ,_ ... „ . --"*--,4 v,?,?,-,`,YA ....), I g3 '') ,....4_,, 'frl ‘ LW ♦� a�a�a • a ?mac �OO�,' • OOa<p x U �2N � Z `` _[ j ,ny22� 4. U o- m.-�'i ors' g n m- ym aim n R z m gr4 n 1 P. t. "Z • t • i g o' q ox gill a • 1 CI i r-, ilpm. ‘‘,. 1 [''S P r1 2 -I 1iI: O H i ! Zo G) 11�� r• a on hh a� -. : ro ' ti 2 '- `-_- I‘ -"A 4.44 40 z r 2 to 44* al e o eF v t r yw..• it rs; 7I + et 1 A Pt r. la m k ®a o rg' I . L 4♦ k Mk n "' ,4�— _ I _ i. f,t. +6� I H el,/ psi 2 ii o m }y aR o` s iiiji O n O � .g 111111111 v b q•..6• o 13 n i .0 1 i� $ ,, v a a,n zt n I •� Ir x 2 Z rg ,,, "��1Aa ti 2n�nA cN 2^1P 01D4 oar nc 2Z2�< Foy 1HS.4Y2-I1.4t.•fiu.J..y A Si - X ' 1 , YAKIMAVAllEY TRANSPORTATION(}'VT)MULTI-MODAL BRIDGE c ,at4o':.Ii! N R .4. , TRAIL ADDITION PROJECT OVER!ACHES RIVER,WA 12 V u C+ �+° •- s. 11p0,.A Nulls.haC rm..e.c M1 •..,Jn .,A mn-p.TA.50a0)[.]I..,a,,,, erlAwesatowcibi5Y vta + ! Y L' PG=o BRIDGE TRAIL OPTION 1 05co 00. Co v = e • SECTION, PLAN & ELEVATION _AA10 5 I % "- ,l own 11_4_� i Ao^ 0 - a, ntm _Li - -fir [ H C �' I,na m Erma x �I 11111111BEL1 or�g-. gaA a 2 �zan \ y o� = y sk I■_■■ E■■ agate n Z><c am rom moz �� =r.r k-ho r _- ' A ai■ BEES aw11a n U �nm 1 ^ w ' I mrorfl �} m$N _f FE .■■■!e ■■■ R12� 2 k �. � M"m EE�4C�r [�7 A NA �2� o — 3.'4i t I"`n�I 1 1�r�. I.I�Iw nl Qi is z m 1 #iiI 1■-■III p a --__ - — 1 m z F:- Jiiuui . c mm y m m. q n S�'�■A■I ■ �� .'pc,v Ai2a �v 'z y S a R o R. m' • Q ■■■■ i w4� 00 a r _.. r.pi ED P rrl 1 i 141Er, , R. Z iiJIr . i1Mill O ra 1 1 N ill. 1 Z - - iii.l liiii —- ^ § -■■■■■ ,, .M1111111 4 F - x �` '�iiii� iiii Z y , MR y F ME-' €EE E y- 2 a m i ci, g'S= —• = IR E: ! ESE o .'■ gram , ®55! 1Sill A Ilfi 1� -1 In - a II p I. il II; 1 � Fa a ' . Q • R n ti :n R R m i m �m �2z .• + C_■I g [ o .1 li lip I ■ ipli ll 4 i n � Oil i i5�Me: ireamal 155m-IA H �2 wi.l1 5. 1 m Ilk o c Iti�n EZI o Aa x Tr' .Z ti n Y Smo 41.11.11111 y 2 b • O nl 'o o x n y m tiH I , x a m r x =A ar no n a s A a 1 ernes-rwl.puw.v w i I 1 I e YAKIMA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION(YVT)MULTI-MODAL BRIDGE I \S�D�K.Nyr r —---k sE TRAIL ADDITION PROJECT OVER NACHES RIVER,WA ; r^he `� " A - o fag NACRES RIVER CROSSING-YAKIMA.WA I��.((-1•,I.I .1�'_;I I.+`> Ti &AAz William O.Douglas Troll Foundallon,a Washington non-pralil 501(c)(3)corporalian -C -„_ I y r i P�=g BRIDGE TRAIL OPTION 2 �^-v,,'�;"1 �+ `:' c° w 9 SECTION, PLAN & ELEVATION } 1,.1-- e •_,ouar.ervo.p.moa____� iR )� , G .. i "G 4 \ , [� t & ' i .`�, 4 2 � � 5 � ®z \ 2 ` § 9 ! � [ F«_ ■ ( \mG R \/� \\ lcf 2 $2 ) 4L !k;� 1$7 )§ , r � E4 \\/ » mRm Ilt , , ) r. r 11 \ : � din \ � , 41 [ /�/ - 11 G V § \ VA ,! \k § � , Z% Pc.'q §& / \ a / , \a 0 § \ /§ '§\\ � .--, . !\ § 0 / G k * | _ , & �G , #m!§ k �k•� ; \ ( FILE: " v @v�r�oga )MULTI-MODAL »& . ° � ' {! �m/PROJECT OVER� RIVER,WA yg 2-- - - , , 7 »±.. . , a__ 2KSE ,Ecticn sa - , BRIDGET�EDETILS " \72 . \ y / § ,_� p1 ---=� c:W....\rcm.\ ....\_E. .,\zls_a.rnn-am,-1,ymtif-si .wpm-Raay<--i oema..g Co� 118 0 orli l r V. in Z ZD-o8(0C••-Z-i)-.)i •- I .t'1 �Y O Iw 1‘7.'. /..,—T,,..i..,,,,„>....„_'W<__r _ ,t,A,,, -„_,l t_ I T 1 2 Z wX om o Z - n 8 E } a, ,, I �zy8 w1 i o m' Hi 21 Ap ; ma , mO° 1ri; $2 2R am RI rna- y x ,IN H oxi i 3 n ' L r� z iiiTI ,,iT rri a,,tiooa fo7 \: PM m is• 2 '' "'to' x $r s, _ ,y2gw kwm�,1 ,R.,,,, `z.v 2 t4 � 0 4' oz o2, QYAm z 0 ,1 w N O I a- m n I I , -- d w x x O. .r w Et 11 v O rV, >•• ak'di 2 • ril , n n1N r-- O ��R. "fi I V I nrl 2 0 2 na ate. PIM mx %y 4'' sn rIIL-WI- --T,.-t wl d.y VD a N i ' m n YAKIMA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION(YVf)MULTI-MODAL BRIDGE t.0`o4�W' 6, v," s9: rg TRAIL ADDITION PROJECT OVER NACHES RIVER,WA 2 KS,.,.i ,.. 1 NS$ A r z NUFF3 RIVER CROSSM—YAKIMA,WA .r 1.1 .•1'. , G J ig o gN$$ o e+Na,..o.oouyms mtl Foundo0on,a wasninglon non—vmOL 5OI(c)(s)wmoralmo troteres 1,` Crl v P .o BRIDGE TRAIL DETAILS ", 2 OF 2 v 0,ID 155 44 l.1w.w•,{+ whpu1.m..-f.-s+ners-e--r..1101,-,,.q,.1:1.R..,o-1 0 0 Lb a 02 R'i ao ao 119 p W ice. RR 2' �. C)A�g cry? 1 A_ L ( z ( r ~� rn Xi 9 "t n I� : -- j 1 1 � I ., r p `9 I \ �( rrl a a • s YCO ��11I �. 1 ^ o o !yl n 5 m ,fia a ` " ' - --- k T c) m ro x w nl o v H O -� m 2,..i .. Rl 1-)z 1. I� i • O n r '7 ▪ A -y w I I - ri,n$a s)'-� HOST NZ k r 12 -qo x m 47 yiw ---' G] c m a i'I►-1 '' m io zz c�� § s L n k Nc2� Nc o � Z a cam m Zt���rn ` n V c) :\ Z rn O 10:( —III- : rrl c. a= Dow ^^ g, * o f� k x z -�' o �oo m r A_'x mw i " A ,,, N c^om' yNa CID �� �AVc `2o o en "- m te• '-aao kw i^ ~ ` 'o m!000 ': Ha i�oa ! o a liy 0:Aa 4y ~n U �A," . --' y V 'a -. x20 rr c, iT 1 - RZj m� r x iliK z� ( O Aar - F. r O zmg X i M ` w . L-- 2 o c - I Tie r r : 4D An 0 FILE:WI-Y.MY•-frol-LdoP.L.1.1 „I i I 1 m , YAKIMA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION(YVT)MULTI-MODAL BRIDGE etio ,, /. s rn v i! n 5 TRAIL ADDITION PROJECT OVER NACHES RIVER,WA o Rc '^ NACHES RIVER CROSSING-YAKIMA,WA ' �'(': I�j� '� $ o „, z William O.Douglas iron Foundation.a WashInglon non-Rant,SOI(o)(s)corRorolmn -£rc�rel grdhcerij s.,,,. T. '. CS A ^W BRIDGE TRAIL DETAILS 2 OF 2 v la ID ROl ES w CO C so 9 by 120 oa om �q 3,1 �z 0 1 ':1 z if• l IL 3J i + I I I :----- -''''''''''''''''H on'1 I + 2nE I + • . : t .- - 1! rti -'1m� I• 4+ 4 I %•G R• R nt,1,., _ I II a chi Oy a I 4 4 a?I I t ¢. ^��j 0 22 a 2 a + 4 4 + 4 •4 4 + i + AN I '`--- — 1 m a T + i • • ( + I_ • 1 4 I( I zC cfL+11 + _ Li' 1. OaI ! I• II• 1 t . I I + rm N >y F y Aa: 11 as �� + . nrnx + 1 2my I 1 o'm r - +' I I + aa� L+ +4 +I I I + o0 I + m + 4 I 1 +I t I �2a I 111111 e 4 i b +-I I Nx 11 aI • A + 41 •I( • f 111 .1 1.. 1 h rA Y Hk �3y 0 a mA a `R m MI,WI-I i4prirdr-;••.I.esq C i 1 o YAKIMA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION(Y T)MULTI-MODAL BRIDGE N�2"A' 1 2 — �P — " _ ,so, > TRAIL ADDITION PROJECT OVER NACHES RIVER,WA T�y,�ff.���/f,����,,����JnnJ l 6 15, % s s p h NACRES RNER CROSSING-VISIMA WA __. "• r�EA?Y��i1 r4- j-,�A Y S < A�g� William O.Douglas Tmil Foundalian,a Washinglan non-prolil 501(c)(])corparallon E e�� , _'",^� co R•Y'-"0 S.Drrve I C/, `�0_ BRIDGE TRAIL — DECKING LAYOUT PLAN G,cA..ID ISSN 00 » gs f AI.51 1IIV W...l .� $A� Stfi,�§$s•. �Fi'g-i A m aF „ m , ar 02 1 2o6n o bi 1 zn$naF Co �ca0 �n a -El "a -oo zo n g ay1,�4�o n ni �t,';-` !' ooa ?oo� Z..wyw-6+.�ws.+a�r m " om nF m4,r`,jrrr,2 , -' Da?3T.i�-gign n mS yy29 • b � T,ya$ zN. 2ix on ng a mii 'Jo' a a z� g o '�' F . t?� zzi mn- x'�maziv Yn H moo< A l�aw.. .�dwMnm_ aooa$ • "I m oTsno sx ao iPmm bagao ,n C 'cn.a n� o Doo:�V1H ' oAo-y 2.2Hil ma7'$moI§Rcn-^ amo io; 1Q1 a "Zz �""g-n yom$fing ,�Zh 1p! 2A o;1m i nlm g$„Gaaedil !Za yonla ni � .A z �1$ n!� � an ih4mo-4A' a i o !2i Pgm 1aAm1 mu^A az:- y,zi, a`', ? oto 'o \ _?ogo419 ;i�c 4pP11 t3 v^ron a hni o " 4j Znoz m ,mmna a s• , ael $I Zi lQ n� oo:7,1: ? `-`4m i'h,l iacx-'a b" A m' m mn!,'ma $�Zb a *ot_o gm An A,Q, i o�N �z ii�!l „ra , m a40-,2 ,nrCgoa6'A'"Oa 3timpa '' ''" 5y ,o,!a«ia v 1"ma §$ico yasoN ao Oi$�a� A l o � aA lnzg $ ob gi4� ri!,m g oo3 m $ o - 1I$ 1 Fso -10 ry io2c „ N §1',1iAoi"?z coma 'am 146 � aiIv �it�IA:' a,Io>d�tqo a!, 2> Dh IsA mz o r%i-'m1: ; o?iiF2m "m mkroa A ~oi $ apo bz-." ! ia nli`4Nmo 0ka' iOxfa Ili a� o ill on zoAma2iZ!riaSy o yi,ox ioxo ihia, mlt, a"3ma " Aoa ;04mzmaz `o1�,nm'iiax' :,'-d!-II11:41NrEli!,:i x m�a11s 4 a i 'gcb ihg bi a'a 'n-z,A mz omfn o a y'ip 2m ; c zi $acacn i Aii 'n,! o oa a,: 4 , i il! �im ;,�m 1 �:- g mo�yY"tigl m zmoc0rA'm . abboaN y " D m yhy'on, '"m , i m0m-Na, tio H9iaZ1 z1,;', : mmn y 4n a al aa$ cz;owm �zam0 $ c,!,4-,o ,nc ao$ 4 n 0 N gT aAlo COoOli0 mail $ 2�'' 1ysmm anu u ; zA ma 2u'$ ay Qmmoan2;yn <'n,n H :I, 8 §eZ.' z'mFzS ; zm - y oan nAPi! Gs bxaC:2 z n mr '":^ -4-bmgaa6z YNs ina ; ,-m.' pl SoFv P xoyioaroI --~�m" n,zm " i1 22N " Am�IoonF e zos}nAnmAam $ 11 bi :`,1 Ngmoao '4 a�a'.' o - .T io? z,„� � � no n` mo` 1 ADi o ill TAm N ' �`i 11bAy ` ' aqIa H o?ymaob Doi!lpo o5y! cg i !:: !1!m1 y; i 'm^ ma1$oa!I'l ao��gm�$mci 11m a^y, i' 2a yO l' m " an>_m$n,1 m" lg. o 32Ta y N= 4 olzi< za�o el ay-2$ bF a„ '-',',A.',--'-',',A.',--,;-ay a .ma17m " m ovo§AAA m z coa$aB Po y:IH o arag am '"rk 3< v " mb :-,' A-z oP `1a-'m 0 mo? ? zi 'r nZ1'.1�m k 4yi3z m4 b i" ae a• o• saA am ^ n N "a31;aF4nViy" o g .m ANg ao m o na "a$F-Im'p�' 'o .. tik A�� Ao' h �o air, mE=nA m o or �no$ 1,9 rt-L v Ei s o YAKIMAVALLEYTRANSPORTATION(YVT)MULTI-MODALBRII)GE �y�t��per! -- --- w o I N TRAIL ADDITION PROJECT OVER NACHES RIVER,WA rfi ii ', NACHES RNE'CROSSING—v22'.WA �` J _ of-1 W'lliom O.-''''s Tmll Fauntlallon,a WasM1inglon n n-prolit 5G1(c)(3)corpomllon I 7/ V g STRUCTURAL NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS a¢ r