The proposed construction of a rail overpass in downtown Ridgefield. The crooked thick white line roughly bisecting the image is the shoreline buffer, which the project needed to receive permits in order to build in those areas to the right of the line.
RIDGEFIELD — An overpass over a rail line cutting the town of Ridgefield in two moved forward Jan. 5 as a Washington state hearings examiner approved two permits for the project.
About a dozen members of the public were in attendance for the hearing, which saw the third phase of development of an overpass approved by hearings examiner Joe Turner for two permits — a shoreline substantial development permit and a critical area permit.
Eric Eisemann, Ridgefield’s consulted land use planner, explained that the project would need a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit as a portion of the project is within shoreline jurisdiction, or 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lake River. The critical area permit was needed as the project would impact such areas both within and without the shoreline zone.
The project would feature a continuation of Pioneer Street over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad to the west, with the road then curving to the right and descending north to an intersection with Mill Street west of the rail line. Mill Street’s intersection from the east would be rounded off heading north, making the road flow directly into Railroad Avenue while eliminating its railroad crossing.
Eisemann said that the impacts to shorelines by the project were “fairly insignificant and small,” listing about 150 feet of Pioneer Street west approach, six bridge piers on the bridge’s west side, 250 feet of the bridge itself and accessories (stormwater and street lamp utilities).
For critical areas, the small amount of project area within the riparian buffer zone would not have any significant impact, Eisemann explained. The area amounts to that of one pier — or about 350 square feet of space.
Ridgefield City Engineer Bryan Kast explained access points were a chief engineering concern for the city, with Kast explaining that the city sought a secondary point for emergency access location. Both the City and the applicant, the Port of Ridgefield, agreed that keeping Division Street as an emergency access point would be ideal.
If the project were to eliminate the crossing arms there would need to be some sort of blockage to deter pedestrian traffic over the rails.
Of the individuals who testified at the hearing, all were in support of the plan though they expressed their concerns with the proposed emergency train crossing.
Clark County Fire and Rescue Division Chief Tim Dawdy spoke from experience how a viable emergency crossing was needed. He raised the question about what would happen if weather conditions or accidents end up cutting off bridge access and how that would affect the department’s ability to respond to the West Ridgefield community on the water.
Dawdy said through the International Fire Code the official in charge of the fire code (in this case, Dawdy) can request a second access route in such a situation. For the Division Street crossing Dawdy said the department was happy with the road gated off and with locks that every fire engine would have access to in the event of needing to use the route.
One of the suggestions was using bollards (the usually bright-colored stakes restricting vehicle access on some roads and pathways) which Dawdy disapproved of given their tendency to freeze into the ground in cold temperatures, making their removal difficult.
Dawdy still wanted to make sure the rail line was gated off to keep pedestrians from using the easier, but much more dangerous route.
“But if we do an overpass and we don’t fence that (railway) off, what are pedestrians going to do? They are going to take the shortest, easiest route, and they are also going to take the route they have been taking for the last 100 years,” Dawdy remarked, stating the need for the crossing fenced off.
“I’d think we’d rarely use it (but) I think it’s really a prudent idea,” Dawdy remarked about the emergency access route.
Tim Fredricksen, Ridgefield resident as well as locomotive engineer for Amtrak, admitted he was fairly biased to be in support of the bridge, being both a resident and employed by a rail line. He did stress the grave necessity of some sort of signals to remain at the emergency crossing, explaining that the speeds of trains on the tracks was between 53 and 65 miles per hour maximum.
“At 65 miles an hour … if a fire truck is coming across there, If I brake, it’s too late,” Fredricksen remarked. He said that due to the curvature of the track, as well as the lack of visibility inherent in putting something over the track, anything going over the track can easily misjudge the speed and distance of a train passing.
Dawdy posited that the city could ask to have the current signals kept in place, but silenced in order to keep any noise impact from returning. Fredricksen said that might be possible, but for the city to work something out with the railroad owner, BNSF Railroad, it would likely come with a price tag.
Port of Ridgefield Vice President of Operations Laurie Olin said that she has spoken with representatives of BNSF who were fine with the possibility of keeping the gate in place. She added that the railroad was interested in performing an audit of the gate equipment, though, which could lead to replacement ranging from $200,000 to $300,000.
“They’re very workable,” Olin commented about the railroad, adding that the port needed to talk with BNSF more about both the warning signal at the emergency crossing as well as the ability to put up fencing on or near the rail right-of-way.
Kast agreed that the city needed to sit down with the port and BNSF, saying that particulars like emergency crossing safety would be taken into account through the engineering process.
