Katie Hanzlik tweeted today on her crash on light rail tracks on K Street, while using an e-bike (a bike-share bike?). She used the term “Midtowners Who Have Crashed an e-Bike on the Light Rail Tracks” Club. These crashes were very common when bike share first came to Sacramento, and seem less common now, but still occur. We don’t have the statistics. I know from looking at the bike-share bikes that most of them have crashed, but don’t know the settings. No doubt some are on light rail tracks.

The gap adjacent to the light rail tracks is called the flangeway gap. It is where the flange of the railcar wheel goes.

These gaps can capture bicycle wheels, most likely with narrow tired bicycles, but even with wider tired bicycles such as the bike-share bikes. They can also capture wheelchair wheels, particularly the front guide wheels, and pedestrian mobility devices such as walkers and canes.

Anecdotally, the majority of the light rail track crashes are in the block of K Street between 9th and 10th Streets, where there is a cross-over, or switch, allowing railcars to be moved between the two tracks. Crossovers don’t just capture bicycle wheels, but guide them in unexpected directions, and trap them against the rails. Crossovers are important so that if there is a disabled train, other trains can go around and not shut the whole system down. Which is also why double-tracking is so important, and single-tracking should be minimized. However, it could be argued that this location on K Street is not the best location for a crossover.

Due to the higher danger of the block with the crossover, it would probably be appropriate sign this particular block. The sign below was apparently developed in Portland, Oregon, which had issues with bicycle and track conflicts on their light rail and streetcar transit malls. So far as I can determine, this is not an official MUTCD or CA-MUTCD sign, but it does communicate well. Portland partially addressed the issue by providing higher quality bikeways on parallel streets, to reduce conflicts, but since everyone can and should be able to bicycle where then want, parallel routes only reduce the issue, not eliminate it.

As though you don’t know, J Street to the north (eastbound) has a bicyclist-hostile design, and L Street to the south (westbound) is not quite as hostile, but doesn’t have bicycle facilities. One has to go further north or further south to find bicycle facilities, but there is absolutely no reason to expect bicyclists to go more than one block out of their way to find convenient and safe bicycling.

And yes, crashes do occur anywhere the light rail tracks are embedded in the street, without exclusive trackways. K Street, 12th Street, 7th Street, and 8th Street all have tracks parallel to the direction of trails. The locations where curving tracks cross the path of travel are particularly hazardous, particularly along H Street. Of course separated trackways solve the issue, but the SacRT light rail system does have a number of such shared roadway locations in the central city.

The bicyclist best practice is to always cross tracks at the most perpendicular angle possible, but that is not always possible, and it doesn’t help with parallel travel.

See the NACTO Transit Street Design Guide, Bicycle Rail Crossings page for design guidance on bicycles and tracks.

Flangeway Gap Fillers

Flangeway gap fillers solve the issue. They are flexible rubber (polymer) inserts that close the gap and provide something close to a smoother surface. The heavy railcars compress the filler, but bicycles and other device do not. The diagram below shows this situation. We aren’t aware of any locations where the filler has been installed for blocks. They are generally used for the crossings of walkers and bicyclist. Not that they couldn’t be installed for distances, but I suspect it would be expensive. It isn’t clear whether the fillers can be installed through crossovers.

So, readers, what do you think? What has your experience been?

• SacRT light rail