April 20, 2023 Denver Freight Railroad Safety Study V5.1

City and County of Denver
Freight Railroad Safety Study
April 2023
Prepared for:
201 West Colfax Avenue

Denver, CO 80202
Prepared by:
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2450

Denver, CO, 80203
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2016 Denver Mayor, Michael B. Hancock, commissioned a study to review the City and County of
Denver’s (CCD or Denver) policies and practices for safety and hazard mitigation in areas near railroad
rights-of-way (ROW) (CCD, 2016). This study expands on the mayor’s study and reports on hazardous
material shipments by rail throughout Denver. The purpose of this study’s is to communicate current and
future risks associated with freight rail throughout Denver in relation to population growth, land use, rail
traffic patterns, and critical/sensitive facilities and resources. In addition to the mayor’s 2016 study, the
following documents were also reviewed and are incorporated throughout this study as appropriate:
• City of Calgary Baseline Risk Assessment of Land Development within Proximity of Freight Rail
Corridors (2018): The City of Calgary commissioned this study to review rail safety hazards and risk
assessment for the city following a large-scale disaster resulting from the derailment of a train
carrying hazardous materials. The study assessed Canadian rail traffic volumes and trends, land use
adjacent to railroad ROW, and rail operations and served as a model for the study being conducted
by Denver.
• Colorado State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Action Plan (2022a): The State of Colorado,
through the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), generated this plan in compliance with
the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Association (FRA) and Section 11401(b) of
the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, which divided the nation’s states into two groups:
those with higher numbers of grade-crossing collision incidents and those with lower numbers.
Under this Act, as part of the latter group, Colorado is required to develop a Safety Action Plan (SAP)
to address high-risk crossings and at-grade crossing incidents.
This study analyzes spatial and statistical data obtained from the Association of American Railroads (AAR),
the National Transportation Safety Board, FRA, and the City of Denver to summarize existing rail
conditions, road crossings, and trespassing incidents within the city and to identify the locations, causes,
types, and frequencies of rail-related accidents compared to the national, state, and local levels. As risk
factors such as overall rail traffic volume, hazardous materials shipments, and high-density residential
development near railroad ROW continue to increase, HNTB recommends a wide range of short-,
medium-, and long-term mitigation measures. These measures can be addressed by Denver and by the
railroads to decrease the likelihood of overall rail-related accidents in the city and to reduce the
magnitude of impacts on surrounding communities and sensitive environmental resources. Mitigation
measures detailed in this study include the following:
Short-term (less than 1 Year)

• Denver might develop and implement hazard management and evacuation plans.
• Denver might consider conducting a more comprehensive “parcel by parcel” study of emergency
access and identify areas for improvement.
• Denver could develop an outreach and education program for emergency service responders,
residents, and property owners near railroad ROW.
• Denver can request that the railroads manage vegetation near the railroad ROW.
• Denver Fire, in collaboration with the railroads, can monitor shipments of hazardous materials.
ES-1
Executive Summary
Medium-term (1 to 5 Years)
• Denver, with the help of state and federal funds, might consider grade crossing improvements,
pedestrian overpasses at areas identified as high-risk for pedestrians, as well as construction of
fencing along railroad ROW in high-trespassing areas.
• Denver can request that the railroads improve track conditions and install guard rails along ROW,
which are to be identified though later studies.
• Denver planners could consider guidelines and requirements for future development adjacent to
railroad ROW.
Long-term ( greater than 5 Years)

• Denver and the railroads might also consider a larger construction project to include grade-
separation of high-risk vehicle crossings and long-term improvement/and or relocation plans for the
freight railroad main lines.
• Denver could incentivize property owners on structural reinforcement of existing buildings along
railroad ROW.
With Denver ranking fourth in the nation (for similar sized cities) for most grade-crossing rail accidents,
HNTB identified 13 at-grade rail crossings in the city with a high frequency of accidents and the greatest
need for safety improvements. Site-specific mitigation measures to improve traffic control and
preliminary cost estimates are provided for each of the 13 crossings. Safety models predict more than a
50 percent decrease in risk at some of these locations if the recommended improvements are
implemented. The site-specific mitigation measures identified for the at-grade crossings include the
addition of pavement markings, warning lights, bells, signing, fencing, and gate systems; construction or
relocation of roadway features such as medians, curbs, and traffic lights; asphalt repairs; and measures to
improve visibility. Building off the risk assessment, HNTB proposes a list of potential funding sources and
grants to aid in the implementation of the recommended safety improvements.
ES-2
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... E-1
CHAPTER 1 − INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1
CHAPTER 2 − DENVER HAZARD MITIGATION FRAMEWORK .............................................................. 2-1
2.1 Hazard of Accidental Deaths in Context .................................................................................... 2-2
CHAPTER 3 − FREIGHT VOLUMES.....................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Hazardous Materials Shipments ................................................................................................ 3-2
3.2 Grade Crossing Accidents within Denver Limits ........................................................................ 3-4
3.3 Derailments and Accident Reporting......................................................................................... 3-5
3.3.1 Non-grade Crossing Equipment-Related Accidents...................................................... 3-5
CHAPTER 4 − RIGHT-OF-WAY ..........................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Current Residential Development along Right-of-Way ............................................................. 4-1
4.2 Current Tier II Facilities Along Right-of-Way ............................................................................. 4-2
4.3 Environmental Considerations .................................................................................................. 4-3
CHAPTER 5 − FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN DENVER......................................................... 5-1
CHAPTER 6 − HAZARDOUS RAIL TRAFFIC: PRESENT AND FUTURE ..................................................... 6-1
6.1 Uinta Basin Railway ................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 National Context for Oil Derailments ........................................................................................ 6-2
CHAPTER 7 − MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR TRAIN-RELATED ACCIDENTS AND DERAILMENTS ................ 7-1
7.1 Freight Railroads ........................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.2 Land Use Options ....................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Rail Crossings ............................................................................................................................. 7-2
CHAPTER 8 − SUGGESTED GUIDELINES AND CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 8-1
8.1 Potential Funding Sources ......................................................................................................... 8-3
CHAPTER 9 − REFERENCES...............................................................................................................9-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Risk and Methodologies
Appendix B – National Derailment and Accident Reporting
Appendix C – GradeDec.Net Results
Appendix D – FRA Accident Reports
Appendix E – Rail Crossing Risk Register
Appendix F – Denver Trespassing Records
Appendix G – Rail Equipment Accidents
Appendix H – Tier II Facilities
i
Table of Contents
TABLES
Table 2-1. Denver Hazard Assessment Rankings ....................................................................................... 2-1
Table 2-2. Accidental Deaths List in Denver County .................................................................................. 2-2
Table 3-1. Hazardous Materials Shipments List Within Denver Limits ...................................................... 3-3
Table 3-2. Number and Type of Hazardous Cargo Passing through Denver Limits (2021) ........................ 3-3
Table 3-3. Train Accident Causes in Colorado (2017-2021) ....................................................................... 3-3
Table 3-4. Train Accident Types in Colorado (2017-2021) ......................................................................... 3-4
Table 3-5. Grade Crossing Accidents within Denver Limits (2017-2021)................................................... 3-4
Table 3-6. Colorado’s Ranking in Grade Crossing Accidents Nationwide (2017-2021) ............................. 3-4
Table 3-7. Top 10 US Cities (Under 1 million population) with Most Grade Crossing Accidents .............. 3-5
Table 6-1. Freight Railroad Traffic - Hazardous Materials ......................................................................... 6-1
Table 7-1. Safety Treatments for 13 Specific Locations in Denver ............................................................ 7-4
Table 8-1. Overall Suggested Guidelines ................................................................................................... 8-1
FIGURES
Figure 3-1. Traffic Volume Changes between January 2020 and February 2022 ...................................... 3-1
Figure 3-2. Class 1 and Class III Railroads Within Denver Limits................................................................ 3-2
Figure 3-3. Non-grade Crossing Train Accident by County (2017-2021) ................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-4. Locations of Rail Equipment Accidents within Denver from 2017-2021 ................................. 3-6
Figure 4-1. Current Locations of Multifamily Developments Along Railroad ROW ................................... 4-1
Figure 4-2. Current Locations of Tier II Facilities Along Railroad ROW ...................................................... 4-3
Figure 5-1. High-Density Industrial Development Adjacent to ROW......................................................... 5-1
Figure 5-2. Growth Strategy Map from Blueprint Denver (2019).............................................................. 5-1
Figure 6-1. Map of Uinta Railway Route .................................................................................................... 6-2
Figure 7-1. Example of Train Containment: Railroad Guard Rail ............................................................... 7-1
Figure 7-2. Locations of Denver Grade Crossings with the Highest Incident Rates according to
FRA Data..................................................................................................................................................... 7-3
PHOTOS
Photo 4-1. Encore Evans Station Apartment Complex .............................................................................. 4-2
Photo 4-2. Glass House Condominiums at Union Station ......................................................................... 4-2
Photo 4-3. Railroad Track Crossing over South Platte River ...................................................................... 4-4
Photo 7-1. Deflection Wall ......................................................................................................................... 7-2
Photo 7-2. Example of Anti-Climb Fencing ................................................................................................ 7-2
ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AADT annual average daily traffic
AAR Association of American Railroads
ALARP as low as reasonably practicable
AM before noon
APS accident prediction and severity
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CCD City and County of Denver
CDBG Community Development Block Grants
CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Colorado
CPD Community Planning & Development
CRISI Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements
CY calendar year
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOT Department of Transportation
DOTI Department of Transportation and Infrastructure
DPHE Department of Public Health & Environment
EO Emergency Order
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
HMEP Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness
IIFR or IR Involuntary Individual Fatality Risk
mph mile per hour
OEM Office of Emergency Management
PM after noon
ROW right-of-way
RTDC Regional Transportation District C-Line
SAP Highway Rail Safety Action Plan
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
US United States
iii
Chapter 1 − Introduction
CHAPTER 1 − INTRODUCTION
In 2022, the City and County of Denver (CCD or Denver) authorized a study of freight rail safety hazards,
vulnerabilities, and risk mitigations. The outcome of the Freight Railroad Safety Study identifies risks,
therefore, HNTB proposes a wide range of mitigation options to improve safety. Knowing the risks and
mitigating them will help Denver become a safer community, while continuing to grow alongside the
railroads. Many risks commonly addressed by local governments have been quantified, measured, and
mitigated by means of regulations, codes, and standards. This study offers a framework for quantifying
and identifying potential risks and mitigation measures. It adds clarity to current conditions along the
railroad right-of-way (ROW) that are unknown or not well quantified but are susceptible to derailments
and hazardous material releases that could potentially impact nearby land users.
In 2013, a unit train carrying 73 cars of crude oil, operated by a one-man crew, expired on the hours of
service outside of Lac Mégantic, Quebec. The locomotive engineer, by railroad rules, must secure the
brakes on the locomotive before leaving the train unattended. If the engineer has time, he secures the
rest of the train, tying a varying number of brakes according to the tonnage and grade at the location. This
day on July 6, 2013, the engineer did not tie the train brakes. As air bled off the train line (a common
occurrence in trains), the three locomotive brakes could not hold the train, and it began to roll down a 1.2
percent grade into town. When the train rolled into the city it derailed, resulting in fires and explosions of
multiple tank cars. The result of this disaster was that 47 people were killed, twice that number were
injured, and more than 30 buildings were destroyed. More than half the town was contaminated by the
oil. The blast radius of this accident was more than half a mile. Damages to this city were over $200 million,
and the loss of life − immeasurable.
Since this disaster, a few studies have been created to assess potential risk mitigation measures around
rail operations. Previous studies have identified issues surrounding cities that have been developed along
the railroad ROW (CCD, 2016; CDOT, 2022a). In 2016, Denver Mayor, Michael B. Hancock, commissioned
a study to look at and review the city’s policies and practices around safety and hazard mitigation in areas
near the railroad ROW (CCD, 2016). The conclusions of the 2016 study made recommendations on what
needed to be considered to improve safety within the communities that surround the ROW. In 2018, the
City of Calgary commissioned a study that reviewed the rail baseline and risk assessment for the city. The
report looked at Canadian rail traffic volumes and trends, land adjacent to the ROW in Calgary, and
railroad operations within this city. Based on their findings, this study completed a risk assessment of the
area that is near the railroad ROW.
The National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compile reports
about train incidents and accidents from around the country (USDOT, 2021). These reports contain data
significant to any rail study and highlight the potential for rail incidents and damage within the community
where the accident occurs.
This study documents the existing freight rail conditions in Denver (e.g., rail volumes and commodity type)
and the surrounding land uses, grade crossings, and facilities that run adjacent to the rail lines. It is the
first step in identifying potential risks to life, property, and the environment and in recommending
mitigation measures.
1-1
Chapter 2 − Denver Hazard Mitigation Framework
CHAPTER 2 − DENVER HAZARD MITIGATION FRAMEWORK

In 2022, Denver updated its overall assessment of hazards that pose risks to the city including, but not
limited to, natural disasters, hazardous materials incidents, and transportation incidents. Individual city
departments take responsibilities for preventing, reducing, or mitigating the risks these hazards pose.
Table 2-1 identifies areas of risk in the hazards assessment conducted by the city (CCD, 2022).
Table 2-1. Denver Hazard Assessment Rankings
Likelihood of
Location/Spatial
Hazard Magnitude/Severity Future Significance
Extent
Occurrence
Communicable Disease Extensive Severe Likely High

Cyber Attack Significant Critical Likely High
Drought Extensive Moderate Likely High
Flooding Significant Moderate Likely High
Severe Thunderstorm Extensive Moderate Highly Likely High
Severe Winter Storm Extensive Moderate Highly Likely High
Extreme Temperatures Extensive Moderate Likely Medium
Dam Inundation Significant Critical Unlikely Medium
Earthquake Extensive Severe Unlikely Medium
Hazmat Incident Limited Moderate Highly Likely Medium
Critical Infrastructure Significant Moderate Occasional Medium
Failure
Social Unrest Limited Moderate Likely Medium
Space Weather Extensive Critical Unlikely Medium
Terrorism and Mass Limited Critical Occasional Medium
Violence
Tornado Limited Critical Likely Medium
Expansive Significant Minor Occasional Low
Soils/Subsidence
Transportation Incident Limited Moderate Occasional Low
Mass Influx of Evacuees Limited Minor Occasional Low
Urban Conflagration Limited Moderate Unlikely Low
Volcanic Ash Extensive Moderate Unlikely Low
Wildland Fire Limited Moderate Likely Low
Source: CCD, 2022
2-1
Chapter 2 − Denver Hazard Mitigation Framework
2.1 Hazard of Accidental Deaths in Context

Table 2-2 lists the common causes of accidental deaths and is intended to provide an understanding of
accidental deaths and the citywide planning efforts to prevent them. City planning is intended to protect
life, safety, and general welfare. With information and awareness, city-wide resources can then be
directed, according to each category of accidental deaths, to implement prevention measures.
While accidental deaths may seem unavoidable, a core tenet of Denver’s Vision Zero Action Plan (CCD,
2017) is that people should not be killed or seriously injured because of mobility. Humans make mistakes,
and physical/mechanical failures occur to cars, trains, and the underlying infrastructure; therefore, the
transportation system should be designed and maintained to minimize the consequences of those errors.
Table 2-2. Accidental Deaths List in Denver County
Cause 2020 2021
Drug Overdoses 323 411

Suicides 152 156
Homicides 87 96
Roadway Vehicle Accidents 57 84
Work-Related Accidents 5 12
Freight Railroad Accidents 4 3
Sources: CDOT, 2022b, 2022c; USDOT, 2021.
2-2
Chapter 3 − Freight Volumes
CHAPTER 3 − FREIGHT VOLUMES

Currently, there are two major railroads (Class I) and ten local railroads (Class III) that deliver freight in the
city. A Class I railroad is a railroad that has revenues of more than $504 million; a Class II railroad has
revenues between $40 million and $504 million; and a Class III railroad has revenues less than $40 million.
The major Class I railroads are the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR).
These major carriers account for 95 percent of the freight that passes through Denver.
The American Association of Railroads indicates that during the COVID-19 pandemic, traffic volumes
decreased, as seen on Figure 3-1 (Statista, 2022). These conditions occurred due to manufacturing and
product demand decreases during the pandemic and are slowly increasing as consumer product demands
increase.
Figure 3-1. Traffic Volume Changes between January 2020 and February 2022
Source: Statista, 2022
The State of Colorado has 2,640 miles of active rail line, with 41 miles within Denver limits, and
approximately 80 miles of industrial spur tracks, which are serviced by short line or Class III railroads (see
the freight rail lines route paths through Denver as shown on Figure 3-2.
Overall statistics for Colorado compared to the rest of the United States (US) show the following:
• Colorado ranks 25th in the nation for train volume with 16.8 million tons of freight originating in the
state.
• Colorado ranks 19th in tons of lading (freight or cargo that makes up a shipment) terminating within
the state with 30 million tons.
• Colorado ranks 32nd with 204,200 railcars originating in the state.
• Colorado ranks 22nd with 427,866 railcars that are destined for Colorado consumers.
3-1
The freight rail lines routes paths through Denver are shown on Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2. Class 1 and Class III Railroads Within Denver Limits
Source: HNTB, 2022
3.1 Hazardous Materials Shipments

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) defines hazardous materials as substances that can pose
an unreasonable risk to health, safety and property when transported in commerce. Class I carriers
indicate that the 2021 hazard shipments through the Denver area totaled 102,280 cars (see Table 3-1).
Although this is a decrease from previous years, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic should be factored
into this decrease. There has been a steady increase in car loadings over last year's numbers, indicating
that Denver could see over 200,000 car loadings within the next few years. The most carried hazardous
materials shipments are fuel/gasoline, petroleum crude oil, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, and non-
specified elevated temperature liquids. Denver has averaged 3.6 rail-related accidents per year from 2017
to 2021 (not necessarily hazardous-material related). Also, a recently approved train network addition
means a petroleum producer from Utah (Uinta Basin Railway) could add 10 more crude oil unit trains
through Denver, which will add to these estimates.
3-2
Table 3-1. Hazardous Materials Shipments List Within Denver Limits

Interval Hazardous Cars Non-Haz Mat Total
Daily 280 6,720 7,000
Monthly 8,524 204,576 213,100
Yearly 102,280 2,454,720 2,557,000
Uinta Basin Railway (projected)
Daily 781 Data Not Available Data Not Available
Monthly 23,430 Data Not Available Data Not Available
Yearly 281,160 Data Not Available Data Not Available
Combined Estimate 2025 (+14%)
Daily 1,061 7,760 8,821
Monthly 31,954 233,217 265,171
Yearly 383,440 2,798,381 3,181,821
Source: HNTB, 2022
Additional data provided by the Class I freight railroads for context is provided in Table 3-2 and describes
the transportation of hazardous cargo moving through Denver by intermodal (rail and truck)
transportation, as opposed to tank cars that move cargo from its origination destination to its end
location.
Table 3-2. Number and Type of Hazardous Cargo Passing through Denver Limits (2021)
Trains Cars/Day Trains Cars/Month Train Cars/Year Type of Cargo
177 5,373 64,473 Hazardous Material
66 2,000 23,997 Loaded Intermodal
37 1,145 13,740 Hazardous Material
0.2 6 70 Loaded Intermodal
Source: HNTB, 2022
Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 show train accident data between 2017 and 2021 that was obtained from FRA for
Colorado. Table 3-3 shows accident causes while Table 3-4 shows the types of accidents.
Table 3-3. Train Accident Causes in Colorado (2017-2021)

Major Cause Killed Injured Reportable Damage Distinct Incident Count
Equipment 0 1 $469,267 6
Human 0 0 $2,356,783 32
Miscellaneous 1 3 $1,521,200 8
Track 0 0 $3,501,516 18
Total 1 4 $7,848,766 64
Source: HNTB, 2022
3-3
Table 3-4. Train Accident Types in Colorado (2017-2021)

Accident Type Killed Injured Reportable Damage Distinct Incident Count
Collision 0 1 $571,998 4
Derailment 0 0 $6,198,622 53
Highway-rail crossing 1 3 $987,102 4
Other Impacts 0 0 $91,044 3
Total 1 4 $7,848,766 64
Source: HNTB, 2022
3.2 Grade Crossing Accidents within Denver Limits

Table 3-5 shows the grade crossing accidents for the last 5 years along the railroad lines within Denver, as
reported by the FRA.
Table 3-5. Grade Crossing Accidents within Denver Limits (2017-2021)
Year Number of Accidents
2021 4
2020 4
2019 4
2018 3
2017 3
Source: HNTB, 2022
The following tables show where Colorado and Denver stand among other states and cities, respectively,
in grade crossing accidents. Table 3-6 shows that Colorado ranks about in the middle of all states for
accidents within the nation.
Table 3-6. Colorado’s Ranking in Grade Crossing Accidents Nationwide (2017-2021)
Rank State Total Number of Accidents
1 Texas 641
2 Georgia 339
3 Indiana 313
4 California 268
5 Alabama 220
6 Ohio 210
7 Louisiana 201
8 Illinois 195
9 Pennsylvania 173
10 Tennessee 140
26 Colorado 70
Source: HNTB, 2022
3-4
Table 3-7 shows that Denver stands higher than average among the cities under 1 million in population,
in regard to grade crossing accidents.
Table 3-7. Top 10 US Cities (Under 1 million population) with Most Grade Crossing Accidents
Accidents per
Total Number of Accidents Total Number of Grade
Rank City State
2017-2021 Grade Crossings Crossing
2017-2021
1 Memphis TN 26 302 .086
2 Seattle WA 17 248 .068
3 Nashville TN 14 200 .070
4 Denver CO 12 212 .057
5 Detroit MI 10 190 .053
6 Portland OR 8 229 .035
7 El Paso TX 8 89 .090
8 Oklahoma City OK 5 138 .036
9 Las Vegas NV 1 22 .045
10 Washington D.C. 1 7 .143
Source: HNTB, 2022
3.3 Derailments and Accident Reporting

Derailments occur whenever track or railcars are outside of recommended tolerances or whenever
defective conditions exist. Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 213 1 sets standards on the
procedures required for upkeep of track and switches to be followed by all railroads. Despite these
regulations, metal fatigue, weather, and other conditions can influence the condition and state of these
items. In addition to this, human factor also plays a role in derailments. Hard coupling (when excessive
force is used to couple railcars together during switching operations), excessive speed (when going over
posted or prescribed speeds), Loads-empty or long-short car configuration (when excessively long cars
are coupled to short cars, which leads to train derailments; mostly occurs during switching operations)
also can contribute to potential derailments. Figure 3-3 shows locations of rail incidents in Denver from
2017-2021 including derailments and classification yards.
3.3.1 Non-grade Crossing Equipment-Related Accidents
Figure 3-3 shows the quantity of non-grade crossing incidents in all counties (excluding derailments in
classification yards) causing damage greater than the FRA 2021 monetary threshold notice of $11,200.
Figure 3-4 shows locations of all rail incidents in Denver from 2017-2021, including derailments and
classification yards causing damage greater than the FRA monetary threshold notice.
1 Title 49 CFR Part 213: Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2011-title49-vol4/CFR-2011-title49-vol4-part213.
3-5
Figure 3-3. Non-grade Crossing Train Accident by County (2017-2021)
Source: USDOT, 2022
Figure 3-4. Locations of Rail Equipment Accidents within Denver from 2017-2021
Source: USDOT, 2022
3-6
Chapter 4 − Right-of-Way
CHAPTER 4 − RIGHT-OF-WAY
4.1 Current Residential Development along Right-of-Way
Blueprint Denver (CCD, 2019a) is a citywide land use and transportation plan that was first adopted in
2002 and updated in 2019. The plan covers a 20-year period, and according to Blueprint Denver the city
population has grown by 150,000 between 2002 and 2019. Blueprint Denver goes on to state that Denver
could approach 900,000 residents by 2040. Thus far, Denver has seen significant development, including
high-density housing, near freight ROW over the last 20 years (see Figure 4-1). This is due to strategic and
intentional direction of growth to areas near passenger rail stations (light-rail and commuter-rail)
intended to reduce automobile trips and create a more livable city of complete neighborhoods connected
by complete transportation networks.
Figure 4-1. Current Locations of Multifamily Developments Along Railroad ROW
HNTB, 2022
For example, Photo 4-1 shows the Encore Evans Station apartment complex, which is 18 feet from the
edge of the railroad ROW, and Photo 4-2 shows the Glass House Condominiums, which is 26 feet away
from the ROW. The freight railroad ROW is generally 100 feet wide.
4-1
Photo 4-1. Encore Evans Station Apartment Complex
Source: DOTI, 2022
Photo 4-2. Glass House Condominiums at Union Station
Source: DOTI, 2022
4.2 Current Tier II Facilities Along Right-of-Way

According to Denver’s Hazard Mitigation Plan (CCD, 2022), there are two ways for potential hazardous
materials incidents to occur along railroad ROW – those that are being transported through Denver and
those that originate or are destined to locations that use and store chemicals daily within Denver limits (
known as Tier II facilities). Tier II facilities are those facilities that store 10,000 pounds or more of any
hazardous materials according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These facilities are
vital to the industrial and manufacturing economy, are tightly regulated, and often produce common
household products. See Figure 4-2 for locations of Tier II facilities near railroad lines.
4-2
Figure 4-2. Current Locations of Tier II Facilities Along Railroad ROW
Source: HNTB, 2022
As of October 2021, there were 300 Tier II facilities in Denver with mandatory reporting requirements to
the Denver Local Emergency Planning Committee; 15 of those facilities also have mandatory reporting
requirements to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. While almost half of the Tier II facilities do
not hold chemicals other than those used in batteries, there are several companies that use ammonia and
chlorine daily, and these are considered toxic inhalation hazards.
There is always the potential for a release from either the fixed sites or from a train going through Denver.
Based on National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association data, Denver averages around 19
hazardous materials incidents per year, including an average of one incident per year that results in
injuries or property damage. (CCD, 2022).
4.3 Environmental Considerations

Wildlife within the Denver area is monitored by the wildlife specialist. It appears that several species of
wildlife within the areas of Denver, Adams, and Arapahoe counties could be severely compromised if
there were to be a hazardous material release in the rivers or riparian areas located in Denver.
Photo 4-3 is an example, showing tracks crossing over the South Platte River in Denver. If a train derails in
this location, it could affect the wildlife that are present in or along the river or their habitat. In addition,
if a derailment occurs and hazardous materials are introduced into the river, river clean-up will be
necessary, and downstream safety measures will need to be implemented.
4-3
Photo 4-3. Railroad Track Crossing over South Platte River
Source: Google Maps, 2022. https://www.google.com/maps
Another major concern are tank cars containing hazardous chemicals or flammable liquids, such as
crude oil, falling into rivers or streams. A derailment like this occurred in Denver in February 2022;
fortunately, there were no hazardous cars on the train at the time. To protect the environment, FRA
issued an Emergency Order (EO or Order) in 2015 (USDOT, 2015a) to require that trains transporting
large amounts of Class 3 flammable liquid through certain highly populated areas, such as Denver,
adhere to a maximum authorized operating speed limit. The following is taken from the Emergency
Order:
“ This EO is necessary due to the recent occurrence of railroad accidents involving
trains transporting petroleum crude oil and ethanol… Under the EO, an affected train
is one that contains: 1) 20 or more loaded tank cars in a continuous block, or 35 or
more loaded tank cars, of Class 3 flammable liquid; and 2) at least one DOT
Specification 111 (DOT-111) tank car (including those built in accordance with AAR)
Affected trains must not exceed 40 miles per hour (mph) in high-threat urban areas
as defined in 49 CFR 1580.3. (USDOT, 2015.)”
4-4
Chapter 5 − Future Industrial Development in Denver
CHAPTER 5 − FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN DENVER

Blueprint Denver (CCD, 2019a) provides a plan for land use growth, including zones for greater density.
Along the rail corridor there are many types of industries. The production and manufacturing districts are
classified as heavy production, value manufacturing, and innovative/flex manufacturing. Many of these
facilities produce common household products and are vital to the industrial and manufacturing economy
of Denver.
Figure 5-1 correlates the locations of crossing incidents and industrial zoning. Blueprint Denver identifies
certain manufacturing areas to maintain their industrial character in the future. It's expected that some
businesses in these locations that have existing industrial zoning will continue to use the existing railroad
lines for shipping and receiving of materials; therefore, Denver should continue to expect a higher degree
of risk, based on rail-related incidents along these corridors and zones.
Figure 5-1. High-Density Industrial Development Adjacent to ROW
Source: HNTB, 2022
Blueprint Denver’s, growth strategy map (Figure 5-2) shows the aspiration for distributing future growth
in Denver. The map reflects community input on various growth scenarios received during the "Growing
a Better Denver Game" workshop and online survey. City staff worked with the State Demographer's
Office and the Denver Regional Council of Governments to develop projections for population,
households, and employment by 2040. This included an analysis of vacant and underutilized land available
through 2040 and the estimated development capacity of land based on these future places.
5-1
Chapter 5 − Future Industrial Development in Denver
Figure 5-2. Growth Strategy Map from Blueprint Denver (2019)
Source: HNTB, 2022
As Figure 5-2 shows, a portion of this new growth strategy lays along the rail corridor. Four “regional centers” (the highest intensity of
development) are located along railroad main lines because of the location of transit stations and transit-oriented development.
5-1
Chapter 6 − Hazardous Rail Traffic: Present and Future
CHAPTER 6 − HAZARDOUS RAIL TRAFFIC: PRESENT AND FUTURE

The state of hazardous freight rail traffic in and through Denver depends primarily on economic
conditions. In 2021 there were 102,280 hazardous carloadings or train cars that passed through Denver
that were carrying hazardous materials (See Table 6-1). Overall, Denver should expect to see growth in
rail traffic, including trains passing through the city carrying hazardous materials and trains originating
from or destined to industrial and manufacturing facilities within the city (CCD, 2019a). An example driver
of this growth is the Uinta Basin Railway Project currently under construction.
Table 6-1. Freight Railroad Traffic - Hazardous Materials

2025 Estimated with Uinta Basin
Hazardous Material 2021
Railway
Daily Cars 280 1,061
Monthly Cars 8,524 31,954
Yearly Cars 102,280 383,440
Daily Freight Trains Through Denver 38 45
Freight Cars with Hazardous Materials 4% 14%
Source: HNTB, 2022
6.1 Uinta Basin Railway

In 2022, the Surface Transportation Board approved the Uinta Basin Railway construction. The $1.5 billion
Uinta Basin Railway will be the largest new railroad project in the US in nearly 50 years. The project will
connect the Uinta Basin region to the national rail network, allowing crude oil to be transported over the
Rocky Mountains to refineries along the Gulf Coast (Woodruff, 2022).
Much of the additional crude oil produced because of the Uinta Basin Railway would be hauled through
Colorado on a route that passes through Glenwood Canyon along the Colorado River, then through the
Moffat Tunnel and central Denver (Figure 6-1). Up to ten 2-mile-long trains would travel the route daily,
and because the Uinta Basin produces a type of oil known as "waxy" crude, the tank cars used to transport
it need to be heated, which creates additional safety and environmental risks (Woodruff, 2022).
The Uinta Basin Railway Environmental Impact Statement projects an accident rate of two accidents per
million train miles on its new track. Once connected to UPRR, the rate drops to 0.5 to 2 per million train
miles. Dozens of cities, counties, and water districts along the route have voiced opposition to the project,
including Glenwood Springs, where city officials worry about potential impacts to the Colorado River
Basin, and Eagle County, which has joined environmental groups in suing the Surface Transportation Board
in a federal appeals court over its 4 to 1 vote to approve the project as a whole in December (Surface
Transportation Board, 2021).
6-1
Chapter 6 − Hazardous Rail Traffic: Present and Future
Figure 6-1. Map of Uinta Railway Route
Source: Jason Blevins, The Colorado Sun, 2022
6.2 National Context for Oil Derailments

For context, at least 21 oil train derailments have occurred in the US and Canada since 2013, according to
a 2021 report from the nonprofit Sightline Institute. Such incidents frequently result in fires and spills,
such as was the case with the 2016 derailment of an oil train in Oregon's Columbia River Gorge, in which
an estimated 42,000 gallons of crude oil were spilled. (Sightline Institute, 2021).
USDOT projects that nationwide, 278 mainline derailments of crude oil or ethanol-carrying trains could
statistically occur between 2015 and 2034 (not including derailments of other hazmat, other derailments,
or other rail hazmat incidents). These include 93 incidents in densely populated areas (33 percent); 85
incidents with at least one carload of released flammable liquid igniting and causing fire (30 percent); 12
incidents with at least 230,000 gallons of released flammable liquid (7 to 8 tank carloads) and large fires
(13 percent); and 2 derailments projected to be high consequence events or major disasters (less than
1percent). (USDOT, 2015b).
6-2
Chapter 7 − Mitigation Options for Train-Related
Accidents and Derailments
CHAPTER 7 − MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR TRAIN-RELATED ACCIDENTS

AND DERAILMENTS
There are multiple types of mitigation to help prevent large impacts associated with hazardous materials
spills and/or train derailments. This section discusses some of the more common ones that could be
implemented in Denver. The placemaking implications of these options is beyond the scope of this study
and would need to be addressed in the planning process.
7.1 Freight Railroads

Train containment (Figure 7-1) is a mitigation method that is designed to prevent conventional trains from
overturning or deviating away from its track. Typical containment includes guard rails, parapets, and
undercar guards. Specific locations that have relatively higher derailment risks such as bridges, switches,
and interlockings are chosen to install railcar containment. Installing train containment is technically
feasible for both existing and newly built shared operation settings. The containment methods are
installed by the railroads on conventional tracks. A guard rail, for example, is installed to contain the rolling
stock and prevent it from intruding the adjacent track when it derails. The cost of containment depends
on the type and length of containment (USDOT, 2019, p.40).
Figure 7-1. Example of Train Containment: Railroad Guard Rail
Source: Railway Structure, Reconnaissance, Construction, and Rehabilitation.

https://www.globalsecurity.org
7.2 Land Use Options

Along multi-family areas close to the ROW, supplementary barriers may be considered to prevent
derailment incursion. Buildings within 100 feet of the edge of the ROW would benefit the most from an
installation.
Mitigation options such as ROW defection walls (Photo 7-1) or similar would help mitigate potential risks
in case of a derailment. Structural barrier protection can help reduce or eliminate potential impacts into
structures from trains that derail.
7-1
Photo 7-1. Deflection Wall
Source: Reinforced Earth Company Risk Mitigation & Protective Structures. https://reinforcedearth.com
Anti-climb fencing (see Photo 7-2) can help mitigate risks of trespassers in areas identified by Denver’s
Office of Emergency Management and along high-density and areas along the railroad ROW, which are
prone to trespassing.
Photo 7-2. Example of Anti-Climb Fencing
Source: Ameristar – ASSA ABLOY. 2022.
7.3 Rail Crossings

Figure 7-2 shows the locations with the highest incident rates according to the available FRA data (2017-
2021).
7-2
Figure 7-2. Locations of Denver Grade Crossings with the Highest Incident Rates according
to FRA Data
Source: HNTB, 2022
FRA rates road risks by analyzing only past accidents that have actually occurred. FRA also provides a
statistical software called GradeDec.NET that allows the user to add alternative safety appliances that
subsequently change annual predicated accidents that are measured in percentage (USDOT, 2020). Each
grade crossing can be improved upon. Whether a full grade-separation is added, or a simple bell to notify
pedestrians, grade crossing safety is improved upon exponentially depending on the safety appliance
added. More details about the GradeDec.NET results and incidents are available in Appendices C and D,
respectively. Appendix E contains the risk register for this project that supports the minimum
recommendations. Appendix E also contains a menu of costs for a variety of safety devices and items that
can be applied to grade crossings.
California Department of Transportation (CDOT) rates road risks by the potential for future accidents to
occur. This is done by analyzing train traffic vs. vehicle traffic over a particular crossing, then assigning a
risk factor (the higher the traffic volumes, the greater the risk.) Conversely, FRA measures only the number
of incidents at a particular road crossing, and the number of safety appliances at that location. The greater
the number of safety appliances at a location the lesser the probability of an incident occurring due to
increased warning measures. According to CDOT analysis methods for future potential risk, there is one
crossing at 13th Avenue and Umatilla that requires risk mitigation appliances, in addition to the 12
identified through FRA’s accident data.
The 13 crossings shown in Table 7-1 are being recommended for safety treatments, ranging from highway
markings to crossing gates. The greater the traffic and potential incident rate, the stronger the urgency
for grade crossing improvements to be considered; however, there is no zero-effect here, even if the
crossing is closed, unless the railroad tracks are removed. For instance, if the crossing was closed, the
alternate predicted accident rate would be zero, due to no traffic flow, but incidents will continue to take
place due to human error and trespassing.
7-3
Table 7-1. Safety Treatments for 13 Specific Locations in Denver
Base Annual Alternate Annual

Accidents Accidents Preliminary
Crossing Location Possible Safety Treatments (Fatalities + (Fatalities + Estimated
Injuries+ Property Injuries+ Property Costs
Damage Only) Damage Only)
BNSF - South Extend median, add pavement 0.0398 0.02211 ~$230,000

Kalamath Street markings on all quadrants, add
warning lights, blank-out signs,
relocate signs, raise curb, and repair
asphalt.
RTDC - Quebec Add pavement markings, move traffic 0.04649 0.02583 ~$260,000
Street Southbound signal to the north side of the rail
Frontage Road crossing, add fencing, and add
preemption to traffic signal at
crossing.
BNSF - South Santa Extend median, add pavement 0.04118 0.02258 ~$560,000
Fe Drive markings on all quadrants, add
warning lights, blank-out signs, no-
right turn signs, relocate signs, raise
curb, and repair asphalt.
UPRR - Holly Street Add pavement markings on main 0.20451 0.09087 ~$360,000
street as well as on the industry road,
add warning lights, blank-out signs,
relocate signs, raise curb, repair
asphalt, and a two-quadrant gate
system.
BNSF - Dahlia Add pavement markings, add warning 0.10207 0.04535 ~$220,000
Street North Of 51st lights, and add two-quadrant gate
Street system.
BNSF - Alameda Add four quadrant gates, add median, 0.10397 0.00464 ~$550,000
Avenue add pavement markings, add warning
lights and bells, add pedestrian gates,
and ROW fencing.
UPRR - Monaco Add pavement markings, add warning 0.10286 0.04571 ~220,000
Street lights, add two-quadrant gate system.
BNSF – West Add median, add pavement markings 0.10337 0.04593 ~560,000
Mississippi Avenue on all quadrants, add warning lights,
blank-out signs, no-right turn signs,
system.
7-4
Base Annual Alternate Annual

Accidents Accidents Preliminary
Crossing Location Possible Safety Treatments (Fatalities + (Fatalities + Estimated
Injuries+ Property Injuries+ Property Costs
Damage Only) Damage Only)
BNSF – East 48th Add median, add pavement markings 0.1022 0.04541 ~560,000
Avenue at Ash on all quadrants, add warning lights,
Street blank-out signs, no-right turn signs,
system.
BNSF - 48th Avenue, Add two quadrant gates, pavement 0.10239 0.0455 ~370,000
West of Forest markings, warning lights, and signage.
Street
BNSF – East 50th Add two quadrant gates, pavement 0.10173 0.0452 ~370,000
Avenue markings, warning lights, and signage.
UPRR – East 47th Add four quadrant gates, fencing 0.10563 0.00845 ~500,000
Avenue and York along ROW, Wrong-Way sign on York
Street Ln., extend median, add pavement
markings, add warning lights, add
pedestrian gate, and relocate signs.
13th Avenue and Add four-quadrant gates, pavement 0.00663 0.00119 ~500,000
Umatilla markings, warning lights, and signage.
Add pedestrian crossing gates and
sidewalks
Combination of all Base Annual Alternate Annual Prelim
Crossings in this Average is 0.08945 Average is 0.03452 Estimated
Table Total Cost
is
$5,260,000
~ = approximately
RTDC = Regional Transportation District C-Line
7-5
Chapter 8 − Suggested Guidelines and Considerations
CHAPTER 8 − SUGGESTED GUIDELINES AND CONSIDERATIONS

Table 8-1 presents overall suggested considerations based on the analysis from the study, along with some
potential sources of funding for capital project improvements discussed in Section 8.1.
Table 8-1. Overall Suggested Guidelines

Lead City Responsible Time
Guideline Considerations
Agency Parties Horizon
Develop and implement hazard management plans for railroad Short
OEM OEM
corridors Term
Conduct a detailed study “parcel by parcel” of emergency access
Short
along the railroad ROW and identify areas / projects to enhance CPD CPD
Term
access
Develop and implement evacuation plans in the event of a Short
OEM OEM
hazardous materials release in high-risk areas Term
Support DFD staffing, training, and equipment for response to rail Short
DFD DFD
incidents. Term
Provide education and outreach to emergency service responders
and adjacent property owners/residents about railroad hazards
and response – information should be updated at least annually,
but more frequently if significant changes occur. Consider large- Short
DFD DFD, DPD
scale training exercises to simulate a train derailment with a large Term
hazardous material on-board on a regular basis. Include railroad
personnel on regular walkthroughs so that first responders are
familiar with the infrastructure/areas prior to an event.
Provide education to CCD staff about CCD’s recently adopted
Short
Hazard Mitigation Plan (2022) and ensure that the plan is OEM OEM
Term
considered when working in areas adjacent to railroad corridors
City for Public
Review current vegetation management requirements and Property,
Short
enforcement in areas adjacent to railroad corridors and explore CPD Private
Term
enhancements, such as xeriscaping that is fire-resistant. Property
Owners
Ensure that city and emergency response personnel have real-
time alerts on the Rail Crossing Locator app where first
responders can request to be notified in advance of a train that is Short
DFD DFD, OEM, PUC
going to go through Denver carrying certain petroleum products Term
in a quantity of 1 million gallons or more. This will allow for
proactive preparations in case of a derailment/spill.
Ensure that existing fire hydrants near railroads are accessible to Short
DFD DFD, CPD, DOTI
the railroad ROW Term
Consider designating projects as pilot projects to test mitigation Short
DOTI DOTI
measure effectiveness. Term
8-1
Lead City Responsible Time

Guideline Considerations
Agency Parties Horizon
Consider guidelines or requirements for new development along
railroad ROW to reduce the effect of derailments, especially in
areas with a higher risk of derailment. Development of
requirements or guidelines for development should be informed
by peer city research, an analysis of impacts and costs on
development, and stakeholder outreach. Potential guidelines
could include:
• Locating surface parking, access aisles, landscape buffers, or
other non-structural features adjacent to railroad ROW to CPD (see also
reduce the effect of derailments DOTI and PUC Medium
CPD
• Requiring reinforced columns in specific locations on below for Term
structures constructed adjacent to railroad ROW when other crossing)
mitigation is not feasible
• Elevating air intakes and adding chemical sensors to heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning equipment adjacent to
railroad ROW
• Using berms or walls to reduce the effect of derailments in
high-risk locations
• Elevating the first occupied floor above the railroad ROW
grade
Identify areas with sensitive environmental resources adjacent to
Medium
railroad corridors and work with railroad owners to add DPHE DPHE
Term
protection strategies, such as guard rails
Add fencing along the railroad ROW, beginning with areas where Railroads, DOTI, PUC Medium
higher concentrations of pedestrians and encampments occur DOTI Term
Implement grade crossing improvements as described in this Medium
DOTI DOTI, PUC
report Term
Consider adding pedestrian overpasses at areas identified a high Medium
DOTI DOTI, CPD
risk for pedestrians Term
Work with railroads to repair/upgrade switches, tracks, and other Medium
DOTI Railroads, DOTI
track-related infrastructure causing derailments Term
DOTI, Railroads,
Grade-separate high-risk crossings – underpasses or overpasses DOTI Long Term
CDOT, PUC
Place freight rail lines in below-ground (open-air) trenches with
access control, fire hydrants, fencing, and intrusion detection DOTI Railroads, DOTI Long Term
alarms
Work with railroads to eliminate higher-risk switches, wye tracks,
DOTI Railroads, DOTI Long Term
and other higher-risk track conditions
Consider incentivizing structural reinforcement of existing
CPD CPD Long Term
buildings along railroad ROW at high-risk locations
Consider new freight rail lines or routes that direct trains with Railroads,
DOTI Long Term
hazardous cargo away from densely populated areas CDOT, DOTI, PUC
DPH&E = Department of Public Health & Environment DOTI = Department of Transportation and Infrastructure
CDOT = Colorado Department of Transportation DPD = Denver Police Department
CPD = Community Planning & Development OEM = Office of Emergency Management
DFD = Denver Fire Department PUC = Colorado Public Utilities Commission
DOT = Department of Transportation
8-2
8.1 Potential Funding Sources

There are several grant programs available for things such as wildfire, flooding, training, etc. Some of the
grants wouldn’t work for a large corridor, but could work for high-risk, spot-specific areas where fire
reduction strategies need to be employed, for example. The sources of these grants include:
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs:
− The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provides funding to state, local, tribal, and territorial
governments so they can develop hazard mitigation plans and rebuild in a way that reduces, or
mitigates, future disaster losses in their communities.
− Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities supports states, local communities, tribes, and
territories as they undertake hazard mitigation projects, reducing the risks they face from
disasters and natural hazards.
− Flood Mitigation Assistance is a competitive grant program that provides funding to states, local
communities, federally recognized tribes, and territories. Funds can be used for projects that
reduce or eliminate the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings insured by the National Flood
Insurance Program. This isn’t the most applicable but may be applicable in certain
areas/instances.
− Non-Disaster Grants preparedness program funding to improve the capacity of state and local
emergency responders to prevent, respond to, and recover from a weapons of mass destruction
terrorism incident involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive devices and
cyberattacks.
• Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grants:
− In 1993, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration began issuing grants to assist
States, Territories, and Native American Tribes to "develop, improve, and carry out emergency
plans" within the National Response System and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
To-Know Act of 1986. The HMEP grant program is designed to allow grantees the flexibility to
implement training and planning programs that address differing needs for each location based on
demographics, emergency response capabilities, commodity flow studies, and hazard analysis.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - Transportation Security Administration Surface
Transportation Security Grants:
− DHS provides security grants to mass transit and passenger rail systems, intercity bus companies,
freight railroad carriers, ferries, and the trucking industry to help protect the public and nation’s
critical transportation infrastructure against acts of terrorism and other large-scale events.
• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG):
− The CDBG Program supports community development activities to build stronger and more
resilient communities.
• Federal Railroad Administration
− Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI):
 The CRISI grant program supports communities in improving at-grade crossings. Some of the at-
grade crossings in this report are already mentioned in ongoing CRISI grant applications for road
crossing improvements.
8-3
 Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program: This program provides funding for highway-rail or
pathway-rail grade crossing improvement projects that focus on improving the safety and
mobility of people and goods.
• Federal Highway Administration - The Railway-Highway Crossings (Section 130) Program:
− This program provides funds for the elimination of hazards at railway-highway crossings. The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, also known as the "Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law"), and Part 924 of title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR Part 924),
continues the annual set-aside for railway-highway crossing improvements under 23 U.S. Code
130(e).
8-4
Chapter 9 − References
CHAPTER 9 − REFERENCES
Ameristar – ASSA ABLOY. 2022. https://www.ameristarperimeter.com.
City of Calgary, 2018. Baseline Risk Assessment of Land Development Within Proximity of Freight Rail
Corridors - Calgary, AB. Available online at: chrome-extension:
https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com.
City and County of Denver (CCD). 2016. Report to Mayor Michael B. Hancock. 2016.
City and County of Denver (CCD). 2017. Denver Vision Zero Action Plan. October.
https://www.denvergov.org.
City and County of Denver (CCD). 2019a. Blueprint Denver. Available online at:
https://denvergov.org/files/assets/public/community-planning-and-development.
City and County of Denver (CCD). 2019b. Interactive Blueprint Denver Map. Available online at:
https://geospatialdenver.maps.arcgis.com.
City and County of Denver (CCD). 2022. City and County of Denver Hazard Mitigation Plan: Section 4 –
Risk Assessment: pg. 4-180. Available online at:
https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/public/executive-orders.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2022a. Colorado State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
Safety Action Plan (SAP) February 14, 2022. CDOT Project No. 18-HAA-XB-00076-ZD0028 SA 24385.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2022b. Department of Public Health & Environment
2022. Vital Statistics Program. https://cdphe.colorado.gov/center-for-health-and-environmental-
data.
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2022c. Department of Public Health & Environment
2022. State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System. https://cdphe.colorado.gov/center-for-
health-and-environmental-data.
Google Maps. (n.d.). [South Platte River]. Retrieved September 21, 2022, from
https://www.google.com/maps.
Jason Blevins, Colorado Sun. 2022. Utah Crude Trains Could Be Rolling Through Colorado After Forest
Service Denies Objections to New Rail Line. https://coloradosun.com/2022/07/11. July 11.
Sightline Institute, 2021. A Timeline of Oil Train Derailments in Pictures. Available online at:
https://www.sightline.org.
Statista, 2022. AAR Monthly U.S. Rail Traffic; Year-On-Year Change In Monthly Rail Freight Traffic in the
United States from January 2020 to February 2022 (compared to previous year). Available online at:
https://www.statista.com/statistics.
Surface Transportation Board, 2021. Unita Basin Railway Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Available online at: http://uintabasinrailwayeis.com/DocumentsAndLinks.aspx.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2015a. Federal Railroad Administration [FRA Emergency
Order No. 30, Notice No. 1] Emergency Order Establishing a Maximum Operating Speed of 40 mph in
High-Threat Urban Areas for Certain Trains Transporting Large Quantities of Class 3 Flammable
Liquids.
9-1
Chapter 9 − References
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2015b. Office of Hazardous Material Safety. Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis [Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082] (HM-251) High-Hazard Flammable
Trains Rule, pg.119.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2019. Hazards Associated with High-Speed Rail Operations
Adjacent to Conventional Tracks – Enhanced Literature Review Part II: Best Practices, pg. 40 and
Appendix C: pg.38.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2020. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), GradeDec.NET
Crossing Evaluation Tool. Retrieved online at: https://gradedec.fra.dot.gov.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2021. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Highway/Rail
Grade Crossing Incidents. Available online at: https://railroads.dot.gov/accident-and-incident-
reporting.
U. S Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2022. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
Accident/Incident Dashboards and Data Downloads. https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data/accident-
and-incident-reporting.
Woodruff, Chase, 2022. News from the States, “Plan for up to 10 oil trains a day through Colorado on
Track for Administration’s Approval”, July 08, 2022. Available online at:
https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article.
9-2
Appendix A − Risk and Methodologies
APPENDIX A. RISK AND METHODOLOGIES

APPENDIX A − RISK AND METHODOLOGIES

Risk
Risk is a measure of the effect of probabilities of occurrence of detrimental events and the consequence
of such events. For involuntary individual fatality risk (IIFR), also known as IR, arising from shipments on
rail of hazardous materials, including compressed natural gas and liquid natural gas, it is recommended
that the "acceptance" criteria shown on Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 be used to evaluate the IIFRs.
Figure A-1. Acceptance Criteria for Evaluating IIFR
Source: USDOT, 2020b
Notes:
< = less than
≤ = less than or equal to
ALARP = as low as reasonably practicable
IR = Individual Risk
5 x 10-5 = 0.00005, or 5 in 100,000
3 x 10-7 = 0.000003, or 3 in 10,000,000
Figure A-2. Risks
A-1
The following bullets explain how to interpret Figure A-1 and Figure A-2:
• If the IIFR is less than 3 in 10 million (3 x 10-7) per year, this falls into Zone 3 and the green
“Acceptable Risk” category.
• If the IIFR is above 3 in 10 million per year (3 x 10-7), this is unacceptable risk for sensitive
populations and places of public assembly (e.g., hospitals, schools, prison, houses of worship, major
event venues).
• If the IIFR is greater than 5 in 100,000 (5 x 10-5) per year, this falls into Zone 1 and the red
“Unacceptable Risk” category, which is for all populations.
• Conditionally acceptable if the IIFR value is between 3 in 10 million (3 x 10-7) per year and 5 in
100,000 (5 x 10-5) per year for non-sensitive populations that will reduce the risk to ALARP. This falls
into Zone 2 and the yellow “ALARP” category. (USDOT, 2020a)
Methodology
This section describes the methodology behind the two tools that were used in this report, FRA’s
GradeDec.Net and CDOT’s Hazard Rating formula procedure.
FRA GradeDec.Net
The GradeDec.Net is a web-based support tool that helps evaluate grade crossing improvements and gives
the user an idea of the current safety/risk factor at the crossing. The modeling framework was designed
by the FRA, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program to effectively support grade crossing projects. This simulation tool determines risk and
generates the results, which includes user quantified variables with an 80 percent confidence rate. This
process aids in determining risk (i.e., accidents, injuries) at the road crossing before and after safety
devices have been implemented. Risk is reflected in the probability distribution of the results. Figure A-3
is an example of the risk summary for the Holly Street crossing.
GradeDec.Net addresses two types of risk, 1) Accident risk, which is the probability of an accident
occurring at a crossing. The principal metric of accident risk is measured in GradeDec.Net using the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Accident Prediction and Severity (APS) model (USDOT, 2020b). 2) The
type of risk determines that aggravated risk occurrence and risk severity and allows for the assigning of
probability distributions to input variables of the analysis and determining the effects of uncertainty on
the outcomes. GradeDec.Net also has capabilities for risk analysis, distinct from accident risk, which is
concerned with quantifying uncertainty associated with forecasts.
The type of sampling used is repeated Monte Carlo sampling on several random variables that are inputs
to a model and repeatedly solving the model to arrive at probability distributions for the resultant
variables. Random sample variables take a random number on the 0 to 1 interval. The result is determined
by finding the variable whose cumulative probability equals "x" risk, accidents, and occurrence based on
the data. The methodology used to determine the values provided are consistent with Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review-1993). The criteria used is based on average annual daily traffic,
number of trains per day, and number of accidents in the previous 5 years.
The APS formulas used are based up regression analyses of accidents and grade crossing characteristics.
The APS model delivers risk values, and the lower the values the safer the crossing. In the DOT APS, the
incident metrics are "fatal accidents" (accidents with at least one fatality), "injury accidents" (accidents
with no fatalities and at least one injury), and "property damage only" accidents. This model uses the
A-2
same accident prediction methodology as the DOT model but has distinct accident severity formulas. The
model is based on an analysis of grade crossing accidents while focusing on the accident types (train strikes
vehicle, vehicle strikes train), the impact of severe derailment, and fatalities among train and highway
vehicle occupants.
The values required to calculate risk are as follows. Two elements (general and devices) require data from
the road crossing such as location and current devices. Highway and rail data provide location, traffic, and
speeds of both train and vehicle traffic. Once this data has been introduced, a score is produced in the
aggravated risk page (base and alternate) using the resource allocation method. The base model includes
the current road crossing safety configuration and measures the road crossing safety values. The alternate
model takes into consideration the additional safety devices and measures added to the crossing. The
aggravating factors result in a calculated score for occurrence between 0 and 60, and a score for severity
between 0 and 60. The occurrence score will scale the predicted accidents down by 30 percent for a score
of 0 and up by 30 percent for a score of 60. The more safety devices added to a location will decrease
occurrences and will reduce potential incidents (USDOT, 2020a).
Figure A-3. Example Risk Summary – Holly Street Crossing
A-3
CDOT Hazard Rating Formula Procedure (CDOT H.R.)

CDOT's Railroad Coordination Unit is responsible for inventorying public highway-rail crossings within the
State of Colorado (CDOT, 2022). The collected inventory data is used to identify those crossings that are
below minimum standards for crossing warning devices and to calculate a hazard rating for each crossing.
Numerous elements exist at a rail/highway crossing, and each can impact the calculation of a hazard
rating, and yet to consider each of these elements in a single formula would make the formula far too
complex to be of practical use.
The hazard rating is affected by whether a highway-rail crossing has active warning devices or passive
warning signs. Therefore, the Railroad Coordination Unit has revised previous versions of the procedure
to identify more applicable procedures, specifically for active warning crossings and passive warning
crossings. Crossing warning devices are categorized as being either passive or active. Passive type devices
(e.g., signs) are seen as informing the driver of the existence of a crossing, but it is still the driver’s
responsibility to determine independently whether a train is approaching and whether it is safe to cross.
On the other hand, active type devices (e.g., flashing lights and gates) are seen as offering a driver a
positive indication of an approaching train. If a driver can see the crossing while still having stopping sight
distance and the crossing has active crossing warning devices, then the procedure views the crossing as
being safer than if the crossing had only passive traffic warning devices. For this reason, sight distance to
the crossing for crossings treated with active warning is not a relevant calculation because the active
warning devices provide clear indication to approaching drivers, by means of their operation, that a train
is approaching.
Passive warning crossings, those with static signs, require additional evaluation that includes visibility by
approaching crossing users, in the absence of active warning. As such, the formula that the Railroad
Coordination Unit uses to determine hazard ratings for passive crossings is unique to Colorado because
there is no nationally recognized formula. The formula uses elements that have been selected as having
the largest impact on safety at a passive highway-rail crossing.
CDOT’s Railroad Coordination Unit evaluates the following elements finishing with a numerical value that
indicates the respective crossing hazard rating:
• The crossing’s existing crossing warning devices
• A vehicle’s stopping sight distance
• Ability of the driver to see approaching trains
• The highway’s annual average daily traffic (AADT)
• The railroad’s AADT
• The number and type of railroad tracks existing at the crossing
Active warning crossings, those with active devices such as flashing lights and/or gates, utilize the same
factors for calculating the hazard index, except for the vehicle’s stopping sight distance, and the ability of
the driver to see approaching trains. These two factors are not utilized at crossings having active warning,
as those devices at the crossing clearly indicate a train is approaching, eliminating the need for
approaching drivers to make this determination on their own.
One important element, grade crossing accidents, is not directly used in the Railroad Coordination Unit’s
hazard rating formula. This non-usage is not an oversight; instead, it is due to Colorado having very few
grade crossing accidents each year. As such, it has not been possible to determine a relationship between
accidents and physical crossing characteristics for use in a hazard rating formula. However, high accident
A-4
numbers at any given crossing should be considered subjectively by the railroad unit in coordination with
the Public Utilities Commission staff.
Active/Passive Crossing Hazard Rating Procedure Factor – Highway Traffic (AADT) and Railroad Train
Traffic (AADT)
Many of Colorado’s public rail/highway crossings have low volumes in both vehicles and trains. While an
individual crossing might have poor sight distances and inadequate crossing warning devices, if the
crossing has very little train or vehicle traffic, its accident potential is seen as being lower. The Railroad
Coordination Unit uses the following relationship as the amount of exposure due to the number of
vehicles and trains at both active warning and passive warning crossings:
[𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴]
100000
Where: 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = annual average daily traffic volume of vehicles using crossing (estimated).
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = annual average daily traffic volume of trains using crossing (from railroad).
One important assumption regarding AADT is that the arrival of both vehicles and trains is uniform
throughout the day — no attempt is made to determine the peak hours of vehicle and train usage. This
assumption is due to the Railroad Coordination Unit not having enough resources to measure each
crossing’s traffic volume characteristics and both the railroad’s and highway’s ever changing usage
characteristics. The factor of 100,000 normalizes the overall rating to a reasonable level.
Active/Passive Crossing Hazard Rating Procedure Factor – Number and Type of Tracks
The final element in the hazard rating formula is a factor for the number and type of railroad tracks that
must be traversed at each active and passive crossing. This factor [T] is found as follows:
• Take the number of non-mainline tracks and multiply by 0.3.
• The first mainline track equals 1.0
• Take the number of remaining mainline tracks and multiply by 2.
The sum of these numbers gives the [T] factor. As an example: if the number of tracks counted consisted
of two mainline tracks and one non-mainline track, the [T] factor would be as follows: [T] = (1 x 0.3) + (1)
+ (1 x 2) = 3.3.
Hazard Rating Index Formula – Active Crossings
Combining the last element with the first element produces the formula below for active crossings for
which the Railroad Coordination Unit calls a crossing’s hazard rating.
[𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴]
Hazard Rating = 𝑥𝑥 [T]
100000
The Railroad Coordination Unit gives extra consideration to public crossings along school bus routes. Also,
since Colorado has several tourist-based railroad companies that employ steam locomotives, extra
consideration should be given to those public crossings as well. An added factor of 10 percent is given to
each condition. Predicting when and where the next rail/highway accident will occur is impossible.
Understanding this, CDOT’s Railroad Coordination Unit considers each crossing in terms of exposure,
drawing the conclusion that accident potential is more likely to occur at those crossings having a higher
exposure, that is, a higher hazard rating.
Public crossings that experience higher usage of hazardous cargo trucks are considered during the
diagnostic reviews but are not given a separate added factor. The hazard rating formula is completely
objective in nature. (CDOT, 2022).
A-5
References for Appendix A

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2022. Colorado State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
Safety Action Plan February 14, 2022. CDOT Project No. 18-HAA-XB-00076-ZD0028 SA 24385
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2020a. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2020a.
GradeDec.NET Crossing Evaluation Tool. Retrieved online at: https://gradedec.fra.dot.gov/
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2020b. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2020b. New
Model for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident Prediction and Severity. Available online at:
https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/new-model-highway-rail-grade-crossing-accident-prediction-
and-severity
A-6
Appendix B − National Derailment and Accident
Reporting
APPENDIX B. NATIONAL DERAILMENT AND ACCIDENT REPORTING

Appendix B − National Derailment and Accident
Reporting
APPENDIX B − NATIONAL DERAILMENT AND ACCIDENT REPORTING

Title 49 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 213 2: Track Switches prescribes minimum safety requirements
for railroad track that is part of the general railroad system of transportation. In general, the requirements
prescribed in this part apply to specific track conditions existing in isolation. Therefore, a combination of
track conditions, none of which individually amounts to a deviation from the requirements in this part,
may require remedial action to provide for safe operations over that track. This part does not restrict a
railroad from adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent with this
part. Figure B-1 shows the summary statistics of national accident trends. This chart shows that there is a
high occurrence of derailments when compared to other accident types.
Figure B-1. Summary Statistics of National Accident Trends
Source: USDOT, 2020
For freight train accidents, derailments are both frequent and severe and thus fall in the upper-right
quadrant on Figure B-2. Collisions and derailments are still the most severe accidents among all accident
types. Although grade-crossing accidents are the most common type of accident, they are among the least
severe in their consequences. Collisions and derailments are caused by the interaction of two or more
trains in shared-use corridors regarding passenger train collisions with a derailed freight train, or vice
versa (USDOT, 2019, p.29).
2 Title 49 CFR Part 213: Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2011-title49-vol4/CFR-2011-title49-vol4-part213.
B-1
Appendix B – National Derailment and Accident
Reporting
Figure B-2. Frequency and Severity Graph of Mainline Freight Train Accidents by Accident Type
Source: USDOT, 2020
FRA Accident Investigations (General Criteria)

Whenever there is some negative occurrence on track, and/or with railcars, derailments can occur.
Railroads report accidents under the conditions listed below and jointly investigate accidents and
incidents with FRA as determined by the Accident Analysis Branch or regional management:
• Any collision (main or yard track), derailment, or passenger train incident resulting in at least one
fatality or serious injury to railroad passengers or crewmembers
• Any railroad-related accident resulting in death to an on-duty railroad employee, including an
employee of a contractor to a railroad, regardless of craft
• Any highway-rail grade crossing accident resulting in any of the following:
− Death to one or more people being transported in a commercial vehicle or school bus
− Serious injury to several persons being transported in a commercial vehicle or school bus
− Death to three or more persons in a private highway vehicle
− Accidents involving grade crossing signal failure or allegations of grade crossing signal failure
• Any non-casualty train accident resulting in derailment of a locomotive, 15 cars or more, and
extensive property damage
• Any train accident/incident resulting in a fire, explosion, evacuation, or release of regulated
hazardous materials, especially if it exposed a community to these hazards or the threat of such
exposure
• Any accident/incident involving a train transporting nuclear materials
• Any train incident involving runaway or rollaway equipment, with or without locomotives
B-2
Appendix B – National Derailment and Accident
Reporting
• Any collision involving maintenance-of-way or hi-rail equipment

• Any accident caused by failure of a locomotive or any part of a locomotive, or a person contacting
an electrically energized part that resulted in severe injury or death of one or more persons
• Accidents resulting from signal failure including positive train control-related failures and
malfunctions
• Any other train accident/incident likely to generate considerable public interest
• Most Amtrak accidents/incidents.
FRA recently amended their accident/incident reporting regulation December 9, 2020 (Title 85 Federal
Register 79130). This amended regulation requires railroads to report to the agency all rail equipment
accidents/incidents above the monetary reporting threshold (reporting threshold) for that calendar year.
For 2021, the monetary threshold was $11,200, and for 2022 it was raised to $11,300.
References for Appendix B

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2019. Hazards Associated with HSR Operations Adjacent to
Conventional Tracks – Enhanced Literature Review Part II: Best Practices, pg. 29
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2020. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2020b. New
Model for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident Prediction and Severity. Available online at:
https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/new-model-highway-rail-grade-crossing-accident-prediction-
and-severity
B-3
APPENDIX C. GRADEDEC.NET RESULTS

APPENDIX C − GRADEDEC.NET RESULTS

South Kalamath Street Crossing – MP 3.466, CDOT Hazard Rating 5
South Kalamath Street is a one-way street in the central part of Denver and in the BNSF Pikes Peak
subdivision (See Photo C-1 3). This crossing has seen three at-grade incidents. Appendix D provides specific
accident reports. The primary operating railroad at the South Kalamath Street grade crossing is BNSF, but
UPRR also operates less frequently at this crossing. This road crossing has no markings designating
direction.
Photo C-1. South Kalamath Street Crossing
Possible Safety Treatments

Traffic Control Systems
Extend the median, add pavement markings on all quadrants, add warning lights and blank-out signs
(automated warning signage that display specific instructions, such as road closures, no turn allowed,
etc.), relocate signs, raise the curb, and repair asphalt. Reduces risk from 4 percent to 2 percent.
• Estimated cost is ~$230,000
Viewing Considerations
Relocate telephone poles. Sometimes telephone poles obstruct the field of view and can create a hazard
to vehicular traffic. Removing or relocating them helps the driver’s field of view.
Results
Figure C-1 shows the base (current) predicted accidents at the studied road crossing and the alternate
(post-construction) predicted accidents. When this number in traffic volume increases, the percentages
of potential accidents will also increase. The greater number of safety appliances added, the safer the
overall crossing will be.
3 The source for all the photos in Appendix C is HNTB, 2022.
C-1
Figure C-1. South Kalamath Street Crossing
C-2
Quebec Street Southbound Frontage Road Crossing - MP 5.81,

CDOT Hazard Rating 10
The Quebec Street Southbound Frontage Road crossing is in the north part of Denver and in the Regional
Transportation District (RTD) C Limon subdivision (see Photo C-2). This crossing has seen two at-grade
incidents. Appendix D provides specific accident reports.. The primary operating railroad at the Quebec
Street Southbound Frontage Road grade crossing is the RTD A-Line. UPRR and BNSF also operate at this
crossing. There have been three trespassing incidents at this location.
Photo C-2. Quebec Street Southbound Frontage Road Crossing

Add pavement markings, move traffic the signal to the north side of the rail crossing, add fencing, and add
preemption to the traffic signal at the crossing. Reduces risk from 5 percent to 3 percent.
• Estimated cost is ~ $260,000
Viewing considerations are not applicable.
Results
(post-construction) predicted accidents. The prediction is based on a statical percentage, which is founded
upon current traffic flows. When this number in traffic volume increases, the percentages also increase
C-3
Figure C-2. Quebec Street Southbound Frontage Road Crossing
C-4
South Santa Fe Drive Crossing – MP 3.653, CDOT Hazard Rating 16

South Santa Fe Drive is in the central part of Denver and in the BNSF Pikes Peak subdivision (see Photo
C-3). This crossing has seen two at-grade incidents. Appendix D provides specific accident reports. The
primary operating railroad at the South Santa Fe Drive grade crossing is BNSF, but UPRR also operates at
the crossing. This crossing is intersected by access roads that lead into local industries. This crossing is
closest to South Kalamath Street and is the crossing within the CCD that has the second highest incident
rates. Road crossing safety measures are very minimal at this location, which include two gates and no
other signage.
Photo C-3. South Santa Fe Drive Crossing

Extend the median; add pavement markings on all quadrants; add warning lights, blank-out signs, and no-
right turn signs; relocate signs; raise the curb; and repair asphalt. Reduces risk from 4 percent to 2 percent.
• Estimated cost is ~$ 560,000
Relocate power poles
Results
C-5
Figure C-3 South Santa Fe Drive Crossing
C-6
Holly Street Crossing – MP 635.63, CDOT Hazard Rating 0.05

Holly Street is in the north part of Denver and in the UPRR Limon subdivision (see Photo C-4 ). The primary
operating railroad at the Holly Street grade crossing is UPRR. The hazard rating for this location is low
(0.05) because of low highway and train traffic volumes. However, this crossing has seen two at-grade
incidents over the last 5 years. Appendix D provides specific accident reports. There are industry access
roads without any signage in this area.
Photo C-4. Holly Street Crossing

Add pavement markings on Holly Street and on the industry road, add warning lights and blank-out signs,
relocate signs, raise the curb, repair asphalt, and add a two-quadrant gate system. Reduces risk from 20
percent to 9 percent.
• Estimated cost is ~$ 360,000
Relocate electric pole (if gate is installed)
Results
C-7
Figure C-4. Holly Street Crossing
C-8
Dahlia Street North of 51st Street Crossing – MP 3.18, CDOT Hazard Rating 0.01
Dahlia Street is in the north part of Denver and in the BNSF Denver Rock Island subdivision (see Photo C-
5). The primary operating railroad at the Dahlia Street grade crossing is BNSF. This crossing is located
within the industry area of North CCD and has seen one at grade incident without fatalities. Appendix D
provides specific accident reports. This crossing only has crossbucks (signage at highway-rail intersections
that indicate trains have the legal ROW) and a yield sign.
Photo C-5. Dahlia Street North of 51st Street Crossing

Add pavement markings, warning lights, and a two-quadrant gate system. Reduces risk from 10 percent
to 5 percent.
Results
C-9
Figure C-5. Dahlia Street North of 51st Street Crossing
C-10
Monaco Street Crossing – MP 635.136, CDOT Hazard Rating 0.04

Monaco Street is in the north part of Denver and in the UPRR Limon subdivision (see Photo C-6). The
primary operating railroad at the Monaco Street grade crossing is UPRR. This road crossing is located
within the CCD industrial area and has seen one at grade incident without fatalities. Appendix D provides
specific accident reports. There is limited signage and crossing safety devices located at this crossing.
Photo C-6. Monaco Street Crossing

Add pavement markings, warning lights, a two-quadrant gate system. Reduces risk from 10 percent to 5
percent.
Relocate telephone poles
Results
C-11
Figure C-6. Monaco Street Crossing
C-12
East 48th Avenue at Ash Street Crossing – MP 2.12, CDOT Hazard Rating 0.03
East 48th Avenue is in the north part of Denver and in the BNSF Brush subdivision (see Photo C-7). The
primary operating railroad at the East 48th Avenue grade crossing is BNSF. This road crossing is located
within the CCD industrial area and has seen one at grade incident without fatalities. Appendix D provides
specific accident reports. There is limited signage and crossing safety devices at this crossing.
Photo C-7. East 48th Avenue at Ash Street Crossing

Add median; add pavement markings on all quadrants; add warning lights, blank-out signs, and no-right
turn signs; relocate signs; raise the curb; repair asphalt; and add a two-quadrant gate system. Reduces
risk from 10 percent to 5 percent.
Relocate telephone poles
Results
C-13
Figure C-7. East 48th Avenue at Ash Street Crossing
C-14
West Mississippi Avenue Crossing – MP 4.62, CDOT Hazard Rating 0.03

West Mississippi Avenue is in the south part of Denver and on the BNSF Pikes Peak subdivision (see Photo
C-8). The primary operating railroad at the West Mississippi Avenue grade crossing is BNSF. This road
crossing is located within the CCD industrial area and has seen one at grade incident without fatalities.
Appendix D provides specific accident reports. There is limited lighting and signage at this crossing.
Photo C-8. West Mississippi Avenue Crossing

Add median; add pavement markings on all quadrants; add warning lights, blank-out signs, and no-right
turn signs; relocate signs; raise the curb; repair asphalt; and add a two-quadrant gate system. Reduces
risk from 10 percent to 5 percent.
Relocate power poles
Results
(post-construction) predicted accidents.. The prediction is based on a statical percentage, which is
founded upon current traffic flows. When this number in traffic volume increases, the percentages also
increase of potential accidents will also increase. The greater number of safety appliances added, the safer
the overall crossing will be.
C-15
Figure C-8. West Mississippi Avenue Crossing
C-16
East 47th Avenue and York Street Crossing – MP 2.98, CDOT Hazard Rating 0.68
York Street is in the north part of Denver and in the UPRR Greeley subdivision (see Photo C-9). The primary
operating railroad at the York Street grade crossing is UPRR. This road crossing is located within the CCD
between a residential and industrial use area and has seen one at grade incident without fatalities.
Appendix D provides specific accident reports. There is limited signage and crossing safety devices at this
location. However, CCD recently finished construction of a pedestrian crossing at this location.
Photo C-9. East 47th Avenue and York Street Crossing

Add four quadrant gates, fencing along the ROW, and a wrong-way sign on York Street; extend the
median; add pavement markings, warning lights, and a pedestrian gate; and relocate signs. Reduces risk
from 10 percent to 0.8 percent.
Remove old telephone pole on southeast corner on island (York Street and 47th Avenue)
Results
C-17
Figure C-9. East 47th Avenue and York Street Crossing
C-18
Alameda Avenue Crossing – MP 3.69, CDOT Hazard Rating 0.0716

Alameda Avenue is in the central part of Denver and in the BNSF Pikes Peak subdivision (see Photo C-10 ).
The primary operating railroad at the Alameda Avenue grade crossing is BNSF, but UPRR also operates at
the crossing. This road crossing is located within the CCD mixed use area and has seen one at grade
incident without fatalities. Appendix D provides specific accident reports. There is limited signage and
crossing safety devices at this location.
Photo C-10. Alameda Avenue Crossing

Add four quadrant gates, median, pavement markings, warning lights and bells, pedestrian gates, and
ROW fencing. Reduces risk from 10 percent to 0.5 percent.
Install cantilever for traffic semaphores (arms, flags, or poles that are held in certain positions to signal
drivers) and railroad warning lights and bells.
Results
C-19
Figure C-10. Alameda Avenue Crossing
C-20
East 50th Avenue Crossing – MP 1.843, CDOT Hazard Rating 0.0086

East 50th Avenue is in the north part of Denver and in the BNSF Brush subdivision (see Photo C-11). The
primary operating railroad at the East 50th Avenue grade crossing is BNSF. This road crossing is located
within the CCD industrial use area and has seen one at grade incident without fatalities. Appendix D
provides specific accident reports. There is limited signage and crossing safety devices at this location.
Photo C-11. East 50th Avenue Crossing

Add two quadrant gates, pavement markings, warning lights, and signage. Reduces risk from 10 percent
to 5 percent.
Results
C-21
Figure C-11. East 50th Avenue Crossing
C-22
48th Avenue, West of Forest Street Crossing – MP 2.69, CDOT Hazard Rating 0.021
48th Avenue is in the north part of Denver in the BNSF Brush subdivision (see Photo C-12). The primary
operating railroad at the 48th Avenue grade crossing is BNSF. This road crossing is located within the CCD
industrial use area and has seen one at grade incident without fatalities. Appendix D provides specific
accident reports. There is limited signage and crossing safety devices at this location.
Photo C-12. 48th Avenue, West of Forest Street Crossing

Add two quadrant gates, pavement markings, warning lights, and signage. Reduces risk from 10 percent
to 5 percent.
Results
C-23
Figure C-12. 48th Avenue, West of Forest Street Crossing
C-24
13th Avenue and Umatilla– MP 2.69, CDOT Hazard Rating 28

13th Avenue and Umatilla is in the La Alma-Lincoln Park neighborhood of Denver in the BNSF Brush
subdivision (see Photo C-13). The primary operating railroad at the 13th Avenue grade crossing is BNSF.
This road crossing is located within the CCD industrial use area and has seen zero at grade incidents, but
it is a high traffic area. Appendix D provides specific accident . There is limited signage and crossing safety
devices at this location.
Photo C-13. 13th Avenue and Umatilla

Add four-quadrant gates, pavement markings, warning lights, and signage. Add pedestrian crossing gates
and sidewalks. Reduces risk from 0.6 percent to 0.1 percent.
Remove or reduce vegetation to improve road traffic visibility.
Results
C-25
Figure C-13. 13th Avenue and Umatilla
C-26
APPENDIX D. FRA ACCIDENT REPORTS

APPENDIX D − FRA ACCIDENT REPORTS

Figure D-1. South Kalamath Street Crossing (1 of 3)
D-1
D-2
D-3
Figure D-2. Quebec Street Southbound Frontage Road Crossing (1 of 2)
D-4
Figure D-2. Quebec Street Southbound Frontage Road Crossing (2 of 2)
D-5
Figure D-3. South Santa Fe Drive Crossing (1 of 2)
D-6
Figure D-3. South Santa Fe Drive Crossing (2 of 2)
D-7
Figure D-4. Holly Street Crossing (1 of 2)
D-8
Figure D-4. Holly Street Crossing (2 of 2)
D-9
Figure D-5. Dahlia Street North of 51st Street Crossing (1 of 1)
D-10
Figure D-6. Monaco Street Crossing (1 of 1)
D-11
Figure D-7. East 48th Avenue at Ash Street Crossing (1 of 1)
D-12
Figure D-8. West Mississippi Avenue Crossing (1 of 1)
D-13
Figure D-9. East 47th Avenue and York Street Crossing (1 of 1)
D-14
Figure D-10. Alameda Avenue Crossing (1 of 1)
D-15
Figure D-11. East 50th Avenue Crossing (1 of 1)
D-16
Figure D-12. 48th Avenue, West of Forest Street Crossing (1 of 1)
D-17
Appendix E – Rail Crossing Risk Register and Menu of
Costs
APPENDIX E. RAIL CROSSING RISK REGISTER AND MENU OF COSTS

Appendix E – Rail Crossing Risk Register and Menu of Costs
Denver Freight Railroad Safety Risk Criteria

Risk Study and Analysis
CCD Project Risk Rating GradeDec CDOT Haz Index
Register Rank Rating Rating Rating
Draft Template Very High > 20% > 20% > 20%
High 14% - 20% 14% - 20% 14% - 20% Time Horizon

Medium 8% - 13% 8% - 13% 8% - 13% Near Term < 1 Year
Low 2% - 7% 2% - 7% 2% - 7% Mid Term 1 - 5 Years
Very Low <= 1% <= 1% <= 1% Far Term > 5 Years
Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Hazard Risk Response Plan (Mitigation Strategy)
Crossing Location Speeds Accidents Risks Incident Hazard Risk Type Time Horizon
Rating Rating
Index Short Term (What can we do here and now?)
Rank Rating
BNSF - SOUTH KALAMATH Extend median, add pavement markings on all quadrants, add warning lights, blank-out
30 3 1 33% 50% 42% Action 1. Near Term
STREET signs, relocate signs, raise curb, and repair asphalt.
RTDC - QUEBEC STREET

Add pavement markings, move traffic signal to the north side of the rail crossing, add
SOUTHBOUND FRONTAGE 40 2 2 25% 10% 18% Action 1. Near Term
fencing, and add preemption to traffic signal at crossing.
ROAD
BNSF - SOUTH SANTA FE Extend median, add pavement markings on all quadrants, add warning lights, blank-out
30 2 3 23% 155% 89% Action 1. Near Term
DRIVE signs, no-right turn signs, relocate signs, raise curb, and repair asphalt.
Add pavement markings on main street as well as on the industry road, add warning
UPRR - HOLLY STREET 10 2 4 20% 0% 10% Action 1. Near Term lights, blank-out signs, relocate signs, raise curb, repair asphalt, and a two-quadrant
gate system.
BNSF - DAHLIA STREET

10 1 5 10% 0% 5% Opportunity 3. Mid-Term Add pavement markings, add warning lights, add two-quadrant gate system.
NORTH OF 51ST STREET
Add four quadrant gates, add median, add pavement markings, add warning lights
BNSF - ALAMEDA AVENUE 10 1 6 4% 1% 3% Opportunity 3. Mid-Term
and bells, add pedestrian gates, and ROW fencing.
UPRR - MONACO STREET 10 1 7 4% 0% 2% Opportunity 3. Mid-Term Add pavement markings, add warning lights, add two-quadrant gate system.
E-1


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
Add median, add pavement markings on all quadrants, add warning lights, blank-
BNSF – WEST MISSISSIPPI
10 1 8 3% 0% 2% Opportunity 3. Mid-Term out signs, no-right turn signs, relocate signs, raise curb, repair asphalt, and a two-
AVENUE
quadrant gate system.
Add median, add pavement markings on all quadrants, add warning lights, blank-
BNSF – EAST 48TH AVENUE
10 1 9 3% 0% 2% Opportunity 3. Mid-Term out signs, no-right turn signs, relocate signs, raise curb, repair asphalt, and a two-
AT ASH STREET
quadrant gate system.
BNSF - 48TH AVENUE, WEST

10 1 10 3% 0% 1% Opportunity 3. Mid-Term Add two quadrant gates, pavement markings, warning lights, and signage.
OF FOREST STREET
BNSF – EAST 50TH AVENUE 10 1 11 3% 0% 1% Opportunity 3. Mid-Term Add two quadrant gates, pavement markings, warning lights, and signage.
Add four quadrant gates, fencing along ROW, Wrong-Way sign on York Ln., extend
UPRR – EAST 47TH AVENUE
20 1 12 2% 7% 4% Opportunity 3. Mid-Term median, add pavement markings, add warning lights, add pedestrian gate, and
AND YORK STREET
relocate signs.
RTDC - QUEBEC STREET
NORTHBOUND FRONTAGE 40 0 13 7% 10% 9% Decision 2. Far-Term Add: 4 quad
ROAD
UPRR - SANTA FE DRIVE 25 0 14 4% 5% 4% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad
BNSF - WEST 13TH AVENUE 30 0 15 4% 28% 16% Concern 1. Near Term Add: 4 quad
E-2


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
UPRR - KALAMATH STREET 10 0 16 4% 3% 3% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad
UPRR - BRIGHTON
10 0 17 3% 5% 4% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: Flashing lights
BOULEVARD
BNSF - WALNUT STREET 20 0 18 3% 7% 5% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad
BNSF - WEST BAYAUD

30 0 19 3% 7% 5% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad
AVENUE
UPRR - WEST 1ST AVENUE 10 0 20 3% 2% 2% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad
UPRR - WEST 3RD AVENUE 10 0 21 3% 1% 2% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad
UPRR - IRONTON STREET 10 0 22 2% 11% 7% Opportunity 2. Mid-Term Add: Flashing lights
UPRR - BRIGHTON
BOULEVARD
UPRR - BRIGHTON
BOULEVARD
UPRR - 47TH AVENUE 10 0 25 2% 10% 6% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: Flashing lights
BNSF – WEST COLFAX

30 0 26 2% 2% 2% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad
AVENUE
E-3


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
UPRR - HAVANA STREET 10 0 27 2% 9% 6% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: Flashing lights
UPRR - HAVANA STREET 10 0 29 2% 8% 5% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: Flashing lights
UPRR - KINGSTON STREET 10 0 31 2% 6% 4% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: Flashing lights
UPRR - YORK STREET 15 0 33 2% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
RTDC - HAVANA STREET 40 0 34 2% 11% 6% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad - 60' medians
UPRR - ONEIDA STREET 10 0 35 2% 3% 2% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: Flashing lights
UPRR - 36TH STREET 10 0 36 1% 2% 2% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: Flashing lights
RTDC - MONACO STREET 40 0 37 1% 5% 3% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad - 60' medians
E-4


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
UPRR - 39TH AVENUE 10 0 38 1% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
RTDC - HOLLY STREET 40 0 39 1% 3% 2% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad - 60' medians
RTDC - STEELE STREET 20 0 40 1% 4% 3% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad - 60' medians
RTDC - DAHLIA STREET 40 0 41 1% 9% 5% Opportunity 3. Far-Term Add: 4 quad - 60' medians
UPRR - 42ND AVENUE 10 0 42 1% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - EAST 42ND AVENUE 10 0 43 1% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - 44TH STREET 10 0 44 1% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - JOSEPHINE STREET 20 0 45 1% 0% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
E-5


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
RTDC - ULSTER STREET 40 0 46 1% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
BNSF - EVANS AVENUE 10 0 47 1% 0% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
RTDC - CLAYTON STREET 20 0 49 1% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - SANDOWN ROAD 10 0 50 1% 0% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - KALAMATH STREET 10 0 51 1% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - KEARNEY STREET 10 0 52 1% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
E-6


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
BNSF - W FLORIDA AVENUE 10 0 53 1% 0% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - EAST 47TH AVENUE 10 0 54 1% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - LIMA STREET 10 0 55 1% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - SANDOWN ROAD 10 0 56 1% 0% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - 51ST AVENUE 10 0 57 1% 1% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
BNSF - JEWELL AVENUE 10 0 58 1% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - DENARGO STREET 10 0 59 1% 0% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
E-7


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
UPRR - JASON STREET 10 0 60 1% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
BNSF - DAHLIA STREET AT

10 0 62 1% 0% 1% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
47TH AVENUE
UPRR - EAST 53RD AVENUE 10 0 63 1% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
BNSF - JASON STREET

NORTH OF MISSISSIPPI 10 0 65 1% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
AVENUE
E-8


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
UPRR - MOLINE STREET 10 0 67 1% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - JOLIET STREET 10 0 72 1% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
E-9


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
BNSF - COLORADO
BOULEVARD SOUTH OF 10 0 74 0% 1% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
50TH AVENUE
BNSF - WARNER PLACE 10 0 75 0% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
BNSF - WASHINGTON
STREET
BNSF – BROADWAY -AT

EAST 48TH AVENUE
UPRR - QUEBEC STREET

FRONTAGE
BNSF - UMATILLA NORTH

OF 13TH AVENUE
E-10


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
BNSF - LOUISANA EAST OF

LIPAN STREET
BNSF - 51ST EAST OF

LOGAN STREET
BNSF - WEST BAYAUD

AVENUE
BNSF - WEST NEVADA

PLACE
BNSF - WEST ALASKA PLACE 10 0 85 0% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
BNSF - WEST CUSTER PLACE 10 0 86 0% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
E-11


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
BNSF - FOREST STREET

NORTH OF E
BNSF - LIPAN STREET

VIRGINIA AVENUE
BNSF - BYERS PLACE

NAVAJO STREET
BNSF - LINCOLN STREET

NORTH
BNSF - 50TH AVENUE AT

EUDORA STREET
BNSF - WEST MAPLE

AVENUE
E-12


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
UPRR - SHOSHONE STREET 10 0 95 0% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
UPRR - RIO COURT 10 0 96 0% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
BNSF - NATIONAL WESTERN

DRIVE
BNSF - 50TH AVENUE WEST

OF ASH STREET
UPRR - EAST 35TH PLACE 10 0 101 0% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
E-13


Top Average
GradeDec CDOT
Rating Rating
Rank Rating
BNSF - 48TH AVENUE WEST

OF MONROE STREET
BNSF - EAST 50TH AVENUE 10 0 103 0% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
BNSF - EAST 50TH AVENUE 10 0 104 0% 0% 0% No Threat 3. Far-Term None
Source: HNTB, 2023

Note: Data was compiled from information collected from the FRA GradeDec.Net analysis
E-14
E-15
Appendix F – Denver Trespassing Records

APPENDIX F. DENVER TRESPASSING RECORDS

Appendix F − Denver Trespassing Records
Incident Railroad Age CASFATAL Railroad AM/ Event Injury NARR1 phyactdesc LATITUDE LONGITUDE
Date Group Class PM
4/18/2021 UP 20-29 Non-Fatal Class 1 PM Assaulted by Cut/laceration/abrasion, Walking 39.803849 -104.962583
other injuries to multiple body
part of relatively equal
severity.
3/20/2021 RTDC Unknown Fatal Class 3 AM Struck by on- Fatally injured, injuries SOUTHBOUND TRAIN 4051/52, 4061/62, TRIP 244, STRUCK AND FATALLY INJURED Standing 39.771819 -104.90207
track to multiple body part of A TRESPASSER JUST NORTH OF THE NORTHBOUND QUEBEC STREET CROSSINGON
equipment relatively equal severity. TRACK 2, MP 5.9. CASE CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION. AGE UNKNOWN
1/17/2021 UP 30-39 Fatal Class 1 PM Aggravated pre- Fatally injured, internal Laying 39.737787 -105.010188
existing injuries.
condition
12/2/2020 UP 40-59 Fatal Class 1 AM Aggravated pre- Fatally injured, internal Lying down 39.71438 -104.99926
existing injuries.
condition
9/26/2020 RTDC 40-59 Fatal Class 3 AM Struck by on- Fatally injured, injuries SOUTHBOUND TRAIN 4003/04, 4029/30, TRIP 114 STRUCK AND FATALLY INJURED Lying down 39.77132 -104.88564
track to multiple body part of A TRESPASSER UNDER THE SAND CREEK BRIDGE, MP 6.74. CASE CURRENTLY
equipment relatively equal severity. UNDER INVESTIGATION.
8/15/2020 BNSF 40-59 Fatal Class 1 AM Stabbing, Fatally injured, injuries TRESPASSER STABBED BNSF POLICE OFFICER WITH A KNIFE. TRESPASSER WAS Using, other 39.778551 -104.976865
knifing, etc. to multiple body part of FATALLY INJURED.
relatively equal severity.
6/26/2020 RTDC 60+ Fatal Class 3 PM Highway-rail Fatally injured, injuries INDIVIDUAL RODE BICYCLE AROUND CROSSING WARNING DEVICES INTO ACTIVE Riding 39.772035 -104.903477
collision/impact to multiple body part of CROSSING AND WAS STRUCK BY NORTHBOUND TRAIN 4058/57, 4020/19, TRIP
relatively equal severity. 185. INDIVIDUAL AGE IS UNKNOWN.
4/6/2020 RTDC 60+ Non-Fatal Class 3 AM Slipped, fell, Bruise/contusion, TRESPASSER CLIMBED ONTO THE OUTSIDE OF THE END OF SOUTHBOUND TRAIN Standing 39.771876 -104.902321
stumbled, other injuries to multiple body 4014 AND FELL OFF WHILE THE TRAIN WAS TRAVELLING.
severity.
1/13/2020 UP 30-39 Non-Fatal Class 1 AM Rubbed, Cut/laceration/abrasion, Standing 39.769262 -104.975984
abraded, etc. hand.
10/12/2019 RTDZ 40-59 Fatal Class 3 AM Struck by on- Fatally injured, PEDESTRIAN/TRESPASSER ASSISTING IN PUSHING/PULLING GROCERY CART OVER Jumping onto 39.7147 -104.9968
track unspecified CROSSING/TRACKS; CART BECAME STUCK ON UP TRACKS WHEN DEVICES
equipment ACTIVATED. ONE TRESPASSER EXITED TO WEST, THE FATALITY RAN TO THE EAST
AND IN FRONT OF THE LIGHT-RAIL TRAIN. DOA BY DENVER PARAMEDICS.
10/7/2019 RTDC Unknown Non-Fatal Class 3 PM Electrical shock Electrical shock/burn, INDIVIDUAL (AGE UNKNOWN) WAS WASHING WINDOWS FOR ADJACENT Lifting other 39.753429 -105.00048
due to contact injuries to multiple body BUILDING WHEN THE EXTENSION POLE HE WAS US ING MADE CONTACT WITH THE material
with 3rd rail, part of relatively equal OVERHEAD CATENARY SYSTEM.
catenary, severity.
pantograph
5/28/2019 BNSF 20-29 Non-Fatal Class 1 AM Struck by on- Amputation, toes. TRESPASSER WAS INJURED WHEN STRUCK BY TRAIN. Laying 39.767439 -104.991391
track
equipment
F-1
Denver Trespassing Records
Incident Railroad Age CASFATAL Railroad AM/ Event Injury NARR1 phyactdesc LATITUDE LONGITUDE
Date Group Class PM
2/6/2019 RTDC 13-19 Fatal Class 3 AM Struck by on- Fatally injured, injuries NORTHBOUND TRAIN 4019/20, 4027/28, TRIP 243, STRUCK AND FATALLY INJURED Lying down 39.771937 -104.902634
track to multiple body part of A TRESPASSER JUST NORTH OF THE SOUTHBOUND QUEBEC STREET CROSSING ON
equipment relatively equal severity. THE QUEBEC STREET BRIDGE, MP 5.85. CASE CURRENTLY UNDER INVESTIGATION.
9/1/2018 UP 20-29 Non-Fatal Class 1 PM Lost balance Cut/laceration/abrasion, Climbing 39.771409 -104.973419
injuries to multiple body over/on
severity.
7/11/2018 BNSF 13-19 Non-Fatal Class 1 AM Struck by on- Crushing injury, TRESPASSER WAS INJURED AFTER CRAWLING UNDER THE TRAIN. Crossing or 39.690422 -104.989674
track hips/buttocks/pelvis. crawling under
equipment
3/23/2018 UP 40-59 Non-Fatal Class 1 PM Caught, Crushing injury, lower Walking 39.764965 -104.98379
crushed, leg.
pinched, other.
11/18/2017 RTDC 60+ Non-Fatal Class 3 PM Struck by on- Amputation, INDIVIDUAL WAS AN ELDERLY FEMALE SUFFERING FROM ALZEIMERS AND Laying 39.847466 -104.673781
track thumb/finger. DEMENTIA WHO WANDERED AWAY FROM HER CAR.
equipment
10/29/2017 RTDC Unknown Non-Fatal Class 3 AM Slipped, fell, Cut/laceration/abrasion, TRESPASSER TRIPPED ON RAIL CAUSING HIM TO FALL AND SCRAPE HIS KNEES. Walking 39.753429 -105.00048
stumbled, other knee. TRESPASSER WAS TAKEN TO DENVER
5/5/2017 RTDC 13-19 Non-Fatal Class 3 AM Struck by on- Fracture, skull/scalp. Sitting 39.768669 -104.976657
track
equipment
2/27/2017 UP 20-29 Non-Fatal Class 1 PM Bitten by Animal/snake/insect Arresting/ 39.76925 -104.97648
animal bite, external injuries. apprehending/
subduing
11/6/2016 BNSF 40-59 Non-Fatal Class 1 PM Slipped, fell, Fracture, lower leg. Climbing 39.755765 -105.003186
stumbled, other over/on
10/2/2016 BNSF 40-59 Non-Fatal Class 1 PM Slipped, fell, Cut/laceration/abrasion, Climbing 39.76842 -104.990051
stumbled, other skull/scalp. over/on
9/25/2016 BNSF 20-29 Fatal Class 1 AM Struck by on- Fatally injured, injuries Laying 39.824618 -105.032857
track to multiple body part of
equipment relatively equal severity.
9/13/2016 BNSF 20-29 Fatal Class 1 AM Struck by on- Fatally injured, injuries Laying 39.701489 -104.990871
track to multiple body part of
equipment relatively equal severity.
6/3/2016 BNSF 40-59 Non-Fatal Class 1 PM Struck by on- Bruise/contusion, Sitting 39.746895 -105.01354
track elbow.
equipment
2/9/2016 BNSF 20-29 Fatal Class 1 PM Slipped, fell, Fatally injured, injuries Jumping from 39.747813 -105.012124
stumbled, other to multiple body part of
relatively equal severity.
F-2
APPENDIX G. RAIL EQUIPMENT ACCIDENTS
INCDTNO YR MTH DY HR MIN AMPM CARSHZD TRNSPD TYPSPD RAILROAD SUBDIV MILEPOST NARR1
PR0322103 22 3 6 3 0 AM 0 3 E BNSF BRUSH 541.3 Y-DEN5131-05 DERAILED 1 LOCOMOTIVE WHILE OPERATING LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES IN YARD TRACK 317 DUE TO
FAILURE TO CONTROL SHOVE MOVE IN TURN RUNNING OVER A DERAIL. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE
RELEASED.
PR0222118 22 2 21 2 15 PM 0 4 E BNSF BRUSH 540.4 Y-DEN1031-21 DERAILED 5 RAILCARS WHILE PULLING OUT OF YARD TRACK 138 DUE TO OVERLOADED RAILCAR
WITHSCRAP METAL FALLING FROM RAILCAR. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
PR0222115 22 2 18 5 30 PM 0 4 E BNSF BRUSH 541.3 Y-DEN1012-18 IMPACTED THE E-CRDSCM0-03 WHILE SHOVING YARD TRACK 541 DUE TO FAILURE TO CONTROL
SHOVEMOVEMENT AND RADIO COMMUNICATION FAILURE TO COMPLY. CAR COUNTS DID NOT STOP MOVEMENT
PRIOR TO IMPACT. RESULTED IN A TOTAL OF 5 RAILCARS DERAILED. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
PR0222115 22 2 18 5 30 PM 0 10 E BNSF BRUSH 541.3 Y-DEN1012-18 IMPACTED THE E-CRDSCM0-03 WHILE SHOVING YARD TRACK 541 DUE TO FAILURE TO CONTROL
SHOVEMOVEMENT AND RADIO COMMUNICATION FAILURE TO COMPLY. CAR COUNTS DID NOT STOP MOVEMENT
PRIOR TO IMPACT. RESULTED IN A TOTAL OF 5 RAILCARS DERAILED. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
PR0222114 22 2 18 4 35 AM 0 3 E BNSF BRUSH 540.3 Y-DEN3031-17 DERAILED 6 RAILCARS WHILE PULLING IN YARD TRACK 104 DUE TO TRACK WIDE GAGE DUE TO
WORNRAILS. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
PR0222108 22 2 12 7 22 AM 0 4 E BNSF FRONT 0.8 H-DENLAU1-11 DERAILED 7 RAILCARS WHILE SHOVING YARD TRACK 323 DUE TO EXCESSIVE LATERAL DRAWBAR
RANGE FORCEON A CURVE. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
1121GP032 21 11 17 7 8 PM 0 7 R UP MOFFAT 3.02 YDV71-R ESTABLISHED A RCL ZONE ON THE NORTH END OF THE YARD ZONE 2, 2B AND 3 AT 1845 AND WAS
TUNNEL SUB SWITCHING ON THE NORTH END OF NORTH YARD AFTER SETTING OUT A SINGLE CAR INTO TRACK 13. THE CREW
THEN WENTINTO TRACK 17 THINKING THAT THEY WERE LINED INTO THEIR ZONE. CREW PULLED OUT 22 LOADS
AND 4 EMPTIES.THE YDV71R WAS LINED TOWARDS THE NORTH LEAD INSTEAD OF INTO ZONE, SO ONCE CREW
PULLED NORTH, THEYRAN THRU THE HIGH STAND SWITCH NEXT TO 37 BLOCK AND FAILED TO CONTROL THEIR
TRAIN IN ACCORDANCE WITHSIGNAL INDICATION (RUNNING A RED BLOCK). WHEN THE CREW STARTED THEIR
SHOVE, DERAILING 3 CARS AS ARESULT OF THE RUN THRU SWITCH.
0321GP007 21 3 6 5 45 AM 0 3 E UP MOFFAT 3.22 MNYGR-06 CREW WAS GOING TO PUT THEIR POWER ON THEIR TRAIN. WHILE TRAVERSING THE NUMBER 4
TUNNEL SUB SWITCH AT THE NORTH END, THE SWITCH MOVED UNDER THE LOCOMOTIVE RESULTING IN THE REAR OF THE
LOCOMOTIVE UP7845 STARTING TO GO DOWN ANOTHER TRACK, AND DERAILING.
1220ME019 20 12 29 8 21 AM 0 5 E UP MOFFAT 2.29 WHILE MOVING LOCOMOTIVES INSIDE THE CIRCLE AT NORTH YARD, TWO LOCOMOTIVES DERAILED WHILE
TUNNEL SUB MOVING OVERA BROKEN SWITCH POINT.
PR0920108 20 9 17 3 15 PM 0 1 E BNSF FRONT 0.6 Y-DEN0311-17 DERAILED 5 RAILCARS WHILE SHOVING YARD TRACK 354 DUE TO TOO RAPID ADJUSTMENT OF
RANGE THROTTLE POWER. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
0920GP014 20 9 16 2 16 PM 0 8 E UP MOFFAT 2.9 LDV08-16, AFTER CLEARING FIVE CROSSOVERS, THE CREW WALKED THE AIR TEST FROM THE REAR TO HEAD END
TUNNEL SUB ONBOTH SIDES OF THE TRAIN. ONCE THE AIR TEST WAS COMPLETED, THEY DEPARTED NORTH, ONTO DENVER
BELTLINE. THE TRAIN TRAVELED APPROXIMATELY 1,388 FEET, WHEN THE TRAIN WENT INTO THE EMERGENCY,
DERAILING THE BNSF490482 AND THE BNGX31136. THE CAUSE OF THE DERAILMENT WAS DETERMINED TO BE A
MECHANICAL BLUEFLAG THAT HAD WEDGED UNDERNEATH AND CAUSED THE CARS TO LEAVE THE RAIL.
0720GP033 20 7 9 9 30 AM 1 5 E UP BRUSH BNSF 537.65 UP TRANSFER JOB YDV22-09 WAS PULLING INTO BNSF TRACK 146 AND DERAILED 6 RAILCARS DUE TO BROKEN
RAIL.ASPHALT WAS RELEASED FROM ONE OF THE CARS. BNSF REPORTED $35,000 IN TRACK DAMAGE. CAR#: CTCX
207857 ASPHALT, 20,000 GAL.
PR0720102 20 7 9 9 30 AM 0 0 BNSF BRUSH 540.6 FOREIGN TRAIN F-TUPBN1-09 DERAILED 6 RAILCARS WHILE PULLING INTO YARD TRACK 146 DUE TO TRACK
BROKENRAIL. APPROXIMATELY 20,000 GALLONS OF ASPHALT WAS RELEASED FROM 1 RAILCAR.
0620GP016 20 6 18 6 26 AM 0 2 R UP MOFFAT 2.45 MNYGR-18 WAS SHOVING THEIR POWER WESTWARD ON THE SOUTH LEG OF THE WYE. TWO UNITS PASSED POD
TUNNEL SUB WHEN THE THIRD UNIT DERAILED AXLE 5 AND 6. APPROXIMATELY A FOOT PRIOR TO THE POD HAD BROKEN RAIL.
PR0620106 20 6 13 11 30 PM 0 1 E BNSF BRUSH 541.1 H-DENPUE1-13 DERAILED 9 RAILCARS WHILE SHOVING YARD TRACK 2005 DUE TO TRACK WIDE GAGE. NO
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
PR0520113 20 5 21 6 0 PM 0 5 R BNSF BRUSH 540.8 Y-DEN2071-21 DERAILED 6 RAILCARS WHILE SHOVING YARD TRACK 132. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE
RELEASED. CAUSE WAS DETERMINED TO BE EXCESSIVE COUPLING SPEED.
G-1
0420GP031 20 4 28 5 13 PM 0 5 E UP MOFFAT 3.1 YDV21-28, AFTER DOUBLING 12 TRACK WITH 36 CARS TO 18 TRACK, PULLED PAST 37 BLOCK AND LINED THE
TUNNEL SUB SWITCH FOR THEIR MOVEMENT TOWARDS THE LOW SIDE OF TRACKS. THE FOREMAN WALKED TO THE
CLEARANCE CONE AT THE NORTH END OF 2 TRACK, AND THE BRAKEMAN GOT A RIDE TO THE SOUTH END OF 2
TRACK TO PROTECT THE SHOVE. THE REAR CAR WAS A LOADED LUMBER FLAT THAT WAS NOT RIDEABLE. THE
FOREMAN STARTED THE SHOVE INTO 2 TRACK AND THE BRAKEMAN TOOK OVER ONCE THE CARS WERE IN 2
TRACK. AT APPROXIMATELY 1713, WHEN THE BRAKEMAN GAVE A 15 CAR COUNT, THE FOREMAN NOTICED THE
CARS HAD DERAILED AND IMMEDIATELY TOLD THEIR ENGINEER TO STOP. AFTER INVESTIGATING, IT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED THE CAUSE OF THE DERAILMENT WAS A BOLTSTUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FROG THAT SPLITS
TRACKS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, 5, 6, 7 ON THE NORTH END. A TOTALOF 5 EMPTY RAILCARS DERAILED.
0420GP010 20 4 8 7 18 PM 0 9 R UP MOFFAT 3.15 YDV21-08, LEAD LOCOMOTIVE UP1510, WAS SHOVING A CUT OF CARS INTO ONE TRACK. CARS 9 - 12 FROM
TUNNEL SUB NORTHEND DERAILED ON FROG AND GUARD RAIL. DERAILMENT DAMAGED LEAD FROM 1 THROUGH 7 TRACKS. 1
DRUG POSITIVE - NOT DETERMINED TO BE A CAUSAL FACTOR.
PR0320115 20 3 28 9 15 AM 0 9 R BNSF DENVER 0.5 Y-DEN3051-27 DERAILED 6 RAILCARS WHILE PULLING INTO FOREIGN YARD TRACK 1 DUE TO TRACK DEFECTIVE OR
ROCK MISSING CROSSTIES. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
ISLAND
3282002 20 3 28 9 15 AM 0 0 DRIR STOCKYARDS 0.1 THE BNSF CREW WAS PULLING THE DRIR OUT BOUND BACK TO THEIR YARD WHEN THEY DERAILED 6 CARS. THE
CREWWAS PULLING THE CARS TO THE SINGLE POINT DERAIL AND STOPPED ONLY USING THE BRAKES OF THE
LOCOMOTIVETO DROP THE CONDUCTOR THERE TO CLOSE AFTER PASSING WHICH CAUSED THE CARS TO
ABRUPTLY BANG INTO EACHOTHER CLOSING THE SLACK FROM ALL THE DRAFT GEARS OF THE CARS. THE POINT
OF DERAILMENT WAS CLOSE TOMID CONSIST WHERE THE HIGH SIDE RAIL WAS ROLLED DUE TO THE LOADED CARS
BANGING TOGETHER, THEY THEN PULLED AHEAD FOR 250+- FT WITH THE WHEELS OF THE LOCOMOTIVE
SPINNING AS THERE ARE MARKS TO PROVE IT ALONG WITH SAND ON THE RAIL.
PR1219106 19 12 12 7 30 PM 0 4 E BNSF FRONT 2.3 RCO Y-DEN2012-12 DERAILED 1 RAILCAR WHILE INTO YARD TRACK 209 DUE TO TRACK SWITCH POINT GAPPED.
RANGE NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
PR0819111 19 8 27 7 0 AM 0 7 E BNSF BRUSH 540.9 Y-DEN3051-26 DERAILED 3 RAILCARS WHILE SHOVING YARD TRACK 103 DUE TO CROSS LEVEL OF TRACK
IRREGULAR.NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
0419GP037 19 4 16 11 14 AM 0 4 E UP MOFFAT 2.45 YDV68R-16 TRANSFERRED ZONE TO THE YDV72R-16 AT 0959. AT APPROXIMATELY 1114 CREW WAS NOTIFIED
TUNNEL SUB THEY WERE ON THE GROUND. CREW WALKED UP TO THE HEAD END. THEY HAD ZONE 2, 2A AND 3, AND FOUND
A DERAIL SOUTH SIDE OF NUMBER FIVE CROSSOVER INSIDE OF AN ACTIVE ZONE. CREW HAD PREVIOUSLY
TRAVERSED THE SWITCHES. TWO ENGINES AND ONE CAR DERAILED.
PR0319104 19 3 14 2 45 AM 0 4 R BNSF BRUSH 541.5 K-PUEPUE1-14 DERAILED 2 LOCOMOTIVES WHILE OPERATING LIGHT LOCOMOTIVES IN YARD TRACK 316 DUE TO
ICE AND SNOW BUILDUP ON TRACK. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
PR0119120 19 1 22 8 15 PM 0 4 E BNSF BRUSH 540.3 RCO Y-DEN2062-22 DERAILED 2 RAILCARS THAT IN TURN IMPACTED A CUT OF RAILCARS IN ADJACENT TRACK
WHILESHOVING YARD TRACK 130 DUE TO A SWITCH BEING IMPROPERLY LINED UNDER RAILCARS. NO
PR0119120 19 1 22 8 15 PM 0 0 E BNSF BRUSH 540.3 RCO Y-DEN2062-22 DERAILED 2 RAILCARS THAT IN TURN IMPACTED A CUT OF RAILCARS IN ADJACENT TRACK
WHILESHOVING YARD TRACK 130 DUE TO A SWITCH BEING IMPROPERLY LINED UNDER RAILCARS. NO
PR0119103 19 1 2 8 45 PM 0 6 R BNSF FRONT 0.7 Y-DEN2051-02 DERAILED 5 RAILCARS WHILE PULLING INTO YARD TRACK 354 DUE TO EXCESSIVE BUFFERING OR
RANGE SLACK ACTION. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE RELEASED.
1118DV009 18 11 22 9 35 PM 0 2 E UP GREELEY 2.63 AFTER FINISHING THEIR SHOVE INTO 802 THE ZLADV-21 LINED UP TO SHOVE 803 WITH THE CONDUCTOR RIDING
SUB THE POINT AS THEY WERE SHOVING WITH 4 UNITS AND 4 CARS AND 14 LBS OF AUTOMATIC BRAKES INTO THE
TRACK, THE ENGINEER NOTICED HIS SPEED DECLINING AND THROTTLED UP FROM NOTCH 2 TO NOTCH 4, AFTER
GETTING A WHEEL SLIP WARNING HE THROTTLED DOWN AND BROUGHT THE TRAIN TO A STOP. THE REAR THREE
LOCOMOTIVES AND SUBSEQUENT AUTORACK DERAILED. NO INJURIES.
G-2
0718DV002 18 7 3 3 43 AM 0 0 R UP MOFFAT 2.36 YDE36R-02, WAS PULLING OUT OF TRACK 5 AND DERAILED THE LEADING AXLE ON CAR GBRX700009, DUE TO A
TUNNEL SUB BROKEN RAIL IN THE TRACK 5 SWITCH. THE CREW PROCEEDED TO SHOVE NORTHWARD INTO TRACK 8, WHICH
CAUSED THE REST OF THE AXLES TO DERAIL. 2 ADDITIONAL CARS WHICH STRUCK ON ADJACENT TRACK 3. 1 DRUG
POSITIVE -- NOT DETERMINED TO BE A CAUSAL FACTOR.
0718DV002 18 7 3 3 43 AM 0 8 E UP MOFFAT 2.36 YDE36R-02, WAS PULLING OUT OF TRACK 5 AND DERAILED THE LEADING AXLE ON CAR GBRX700009, DUE TO A
TUNNEL SUB BROKEN RAIL IN THE TRACK 5 SWITCH. THE CREW PROCEEDED TO SHOVE NORTHWARD INTO TRACK 8, WHICH
CAUSED THE REST OF THE AXLES TO DERAIL. 2 ADDITIONAL CARS WHICH STRUCK ON ADJACENT TRACK 3. 1 DRUG
POSITIVE -- NOT DETERMINED TO BE A CAUSAL FACTOR.
0518DV021 18 5 27 4 0 AM 0 5 E UP MOFFAT 2.85 YDV25-26 WAS SHOVING 87 CARS INTO TRACK 2 AND HAD TRAVERSED THE CROSSING WHEN 4 CARS DERAILED
TUNNEL SUB AND THE MOVE CAME TO A STOP. THE UP5487 WAS ON AN ADJACENT TRACK AND WAS DAMAGED WHEN THE
TILX305078 DERAILED.
0518DV021 18 5 27 4 0 AM 0 0 E UP MOFFAT 2.85 YDV25-26 WAS SHOVING 87 CARS INTO TRACK 2 AND HAD TRAVERSED THE CROSSING WHEN 4 CARS DERAILED
TUNNEL SUB AND THE MOVE CAME TO A STOP. THE UP5487 WAS ON AN ADJACENT TRACK AND WAS DAMAGED WHEN THE
TILX305078 DERAILED.
PR0418113 18 4 19 6 5 PM 0 8 R BNSF BRUSH 541 Y-DEN1031-19 DERAILED 8 CARS DUE TO IMPROPER TRAIN HANDLING. NO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WERE
RELEASED.
0318DV003 18 3 4 10 30 AM 0 0 E UP GREELEY 2.14 YDE22R-04 WAS SWITCHING ON THE SOUTH END OF THE LEAD TRACK AND HAD A HANDLE OF 13 CARS. THEY
SUB PROCEEDED INTO TRACK 406, RELEASED THREE CARS, FOLLOWED BY A CUT OF TWO CARS. SPEED WAS 3 MPH,
THERE WERE FIVE HANDBRAKES TIED ON THE NORTH END OF TRACK 406, PER SUPERINTENDENT BULLETIN.
SUBSEQUENTLY THE YDE54R-04 WAS SWITCHING ON THE NORTH END OF THE YARD IN TRACK 411 AND PULLING
NORTH LINED OUT OF THE LEAD THROUGH TRACK 410, WHEN YDE54R-04 WENT INTO EMERGENCY. UPON
INSPECTION DISCOVERED THEY WERE STRUCK BY A ROLL OUT FROM TRACK 406. IMPACT OCCURRED WHEN CAR
ADMX16956 STRUCK CAR TILX257071, CAUSING A DERAILMENT OF SIX CARS.
0318DV003 18 3 4 10 30 AM 0 3 E UP GREELEY 2.14 YDE22R-04 WAS SWITCHING ON THE SOUTH END OF THE LEAD TRACK AND HAD A HANDLE OF 13 CARS. THEY
SUB PROCEEDED INTO TRACK 406, RELEASED THREE CARS, FOLLOWED BY A CUT OF TWO CARS. SPEED WAS 3 MPH,
THERE WERE FIVE HANDBRAKES TIED ON THE NORTH END OF TRACK 406, PER SUPERINTENDENT BULLETIN.
SUBSEQUENTLY THE YDE54R-04 WAS SWITCHING ON THE NORTH END OF THE YARD IN TRACK 411 AND PULLING
NORTH LINED OUT OF THE LEAD THROUGH TRACK 410, WHEN YDE54R-04 WENT INTO EMERGENCY. UPON
INSPECTION DISCOVERED THEY WERE STRUCK BY A ROLL OUT FROM TRACK 406. IMPACT OCCURRED WHEN CAR
ADMX16956 STRUCK CAR TILX257071, CAUSING A DERAILMENT OF SIX CARS.
PR0118109 18 1 15 3 51 PM 0 5 E BNSF BRUSH 540.4 RCO Y-DEN1142-15 DERAILED 4 RAILCARS WHILE PULLING OUT OF YARD TRACK 146 DUE TO BROKEN RAIL. NO
HNTB, 2023
Note: Data was compiled from information provided by UPRR and BNSF
G-3
Appendix H − Tier II Facilities
APPENDIX H. TIER II FACILITIES

Appendix H − Tier II Facilities
APPENDIX H. TIER II FACILITIES

Table H-1. Tier II Facilities
Name Address
Thermofluids Denver 4845 Forest Street Denver, CO 80022 USA

General Shale Brick Inc. Plant #60 1845 West Dartmouth Avenue
ChemTrade Solutions 5075 East 50th. Avenue Denver, CO 80216 USA
Mountain Cement Company 1630 35th Street Denver, CO 80216 USA
Safeway Denver Milk Plant 4301 Forest Street Denver, CO 80216 USA
Airgas USA LLC 2455 South Platte River Drive Denver, CO 80223 USA
US Mix Co 112 South Santa Fe Drive Denver, CO 80223 USA
AMERICAN BUILDING SUPPLY 5025 Florence Street Unit D Denver, CO 80238 USA
Colorado Salt Products 3910 Joliet Street Denver, CO 80239 USA
Note: See Figure 4-2 for locations of Tier II Facilities in the main document.
H-1

April 20, 2023 Denver Freight Railroad Safety Study V5.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

April 20, 2023 Denver Freight Railroad Safety Study V5.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

April 20, 2023 Denver Freight Railroad Safety Study V5.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City and County of Denver

Freight Railroad Safety Study

201 West Colfax Avenue

1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2450

Short-term (less than 1 Year)

Long-term ( greater than 5 Years)

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTER 2 − DENVER HAZARD MITIGATION FRAMEWORK

Table 2-1. Denver Hazard Assessment Rankings

Communicable Disease Extensive Severe Likely High

2.1 Hazard of Accidental Deaths in Context

Table 2-2. Accidental Deaths List in Denver County

Cause 2020 2021

Drug Overdoses 323 411

CHAPTER 3 − FREIGHT VOLUMES

Source: Statista, 2022

Source: HNTB, 2022

3.1 Hazardous Materials Shipments

Table 3-1. Hazardous Materials Shipments List Within Denver Limits

Table 3-3. Train Accident Causes in Colorado (2017-2021)

Table 3-4. Train Accident Types in Colorado (2017-2021)

3.2 Grade Crossing Accidents within Denver Limits

3.3 Derailments and Accident Reporting

1 Title 49 CFR Part 213: Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2011-title49-vol4/CFR-2011-title49-vol4-part213.

Figure 3-3. Non-grade Crossing Train Accident by County (2017-2021)

Source: USDOT, 2022

Source: USDOT, 2022

Figure 4-1. Current Locations of Multifamily Developments Along Railroad ROW

Photo 4-1. Encore Evans Station Apartment Complex

Source: DOTI, 2022

Photo 4-2. Glass House Condominiums at Union Station

Source: DOTI, 2022

4.2 Current Tier II Facilities Along Right-of-Way

Figure 4-2. Current Locations of Tier II Facilities Along Railroad ROW

Source: HNTB, 2022

4.3 Environmental Considerations

Photo 4-3. Railroad Track Crossing over South Platte River

Source: Google Maps, 2022. https://www.google.com/maps

CHAPTER 5 − FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN DENVER

Figure 5-1. High-Density Industrial Development Adjacent to ROW

Source: HNTB, 2022

Figure 5-2. Growth Strategy Map from Blueprint Denver (2019)

Source: HNTB, 2022

CHAPTER 6 − HAZARDOUS RAIL TRAFFIC: PRESENT AND FUTURE

Table 6-1. Freight Railroad Traffic - Hazardous Materials

6.1 Uinta Basin Railway

Figure 6-1. Map of Uinta Railway Route

Source: Jason Blevins, The Colorado Sun, 2022

6.2 National Context for Oil Derailments

CHAPTER 7 − MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR TRAIN-RELATED ACCIDENTS

7.1 Freight Railroads

Figure 7-1. Example of Train Containment: Railroad Guard Rail

Source: Railway Structure, Reconnaissance, Construction, and Rehabilitation.

7.2 Land Use Options

Photo 7-1. Deflection Wall

Photo 7-2. Example of Anti-Climb Fencing

Source: Ameristar – ASSA ABLOY. 2022.

7.3 Rail Crossings

Source: HNTB, 2022