DOCSLIB.ORG

UPRR Blockage Issues at SE 11Th/12Th Avenue

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Train Operations in SE Portland Bill Burgel – Railroad Consultant PFC July 9, 2020 2 1 Agenda 1. Railroad Yard and Train Types 1. In General 2. In Portland 2. Shipping Patterns 3. Inbound (southbound) train operations 4. Outbound (northbound) train operations 5. Courses of Action: 1. Escape Route? 2. Union Pacific 3. Over-crossings ideas 6. Potential Impacts on I-5 What’s changed? 1. More folks living in SE Portland. Development along SE Division essentially complete. 2. SE Portland and Milwaukie plus the entire City all benefit by TriMet’s New Orange Line 3. The State of Oregon and the Greater Portland Area benefit by Union Pacific’s consolidation of intermodal (truck by rail) traffic. Now operating longer trains. HOWEVER Our Neighborhood is Paying the Price Train Types (or, How a Railroad makes Money) Type Yard Commodities Work Events * Manifest Classification/Hump All Many Intermodal Intermodal All Few Unit None Bulk None * Work Event = Number of times the operating railroad “touches” a rail car. Yard Types Classification Yard – Albina Inbound train is broken up and cars sorted into numerous tracks, many fairly short, create “blocks” of cars which are then placed in a certain order into a train. Opposite procedure occurs at destination. Creates many, many work events, including spotting a railcar at industry. Yard Types Intermodal Yard – Brooklyn Yard Inbound/Outbound Trains are left fairly untouched. Containers & trailers are removed from or are taken to train. Oregon products entrained or detrained. A few long tracks with shorter tracks that are paved so that gantry crane can access railcars placed on the shorter tracks. Minimal work events. Intermodal Car One intermodal car consists of 3 to 5 platform cars that can handle 40’, 48’ or 53’ domestic containers. International containers are either 20’ or 40’ long. The intermodal rail car pictured below is one car, 384 feet in overall length. It can handle 40’ containers as a bottom load with 40’, 48’ or 53’ containers as a top load for a total of 10 containers per car. So, a 3-car fill (30 containers) is over 1,000 feet long! Precision Scheduled Railroad (PSR) West Coast Shipping Lanes Outsource Potential is directly proportional to Supply Chain Costs 1.0% Prince Rupert 6.8% 5.7% Roberts Bank, Vancouver, BC 5.0% 18.0% Percentages = Total of North American Intermodal Volume Los Angeles/Long Beach North American Intermodal Traffic Roberts Bank, Vancouver, BC • US Freight Rail System = most efficient in the world • 3PL’s • One ton of freight, 470 miles on one gallon of fuel • Results in US having lowest supply chain costs of 8%, Europe = 15%, China = 20% USA Intermodal Traffic PNW Intermodal Yards Portland Catchment: Rail Yards Vancouver – BNSF Portland & Manifest Vancouver, WA Barnes Yard –UPRR Unit or Bulk Albina Yard – UPRR Manifest Area of Discussion Brooklyn Yard- UPRR Intermodal Union Pacific To Seattle/Tacoma Infrastructure north of To Midwest Brooklyn Yard To Union Station Single Track 12 passenger trains daily 6 MPH Curves Double Track 13 At-Grade Road Crossings Area of Discussion To California Intermodal Trains Entering or Departing Brooklyn Yard • Most Intermodal Trains are 6,500 to 8,500 feet long (longer in other parts of the country) • Trains to/from Midwest, California and Seattle/Tacoma • Add/Subtract Containers – not necessarily Railcars • Add/Subtract Road Locomotives • Typically High-Priority Traffic • Schedules dictated by ship arrival/ departure and longshoremen work rules Brooklyn Yard 1910 4,200 feet long Southern Pacific Transportation Company Initial Construction began at SE Division in 1869 Transcontinental Connection = 1887 Most switching performed at SP’s Eugene Yard Sold to Union Pacific in 1997 Inbound (Southbound) Intermodal Train – 6,500 feet long Automated Derail – Brooklyn Yard North End – Brooklyn Yard Previous Situation 800 feet to the hand-throw yard switch Recent Photo (August 2019) from Lafayette Bike/Ped Bridge 8 Automated Switches 3300 feet 3200 feet Inbound Train Yard switches 6500’ Actual Google Earth Image of Train 6500 ft train Inbound Double-Over 6,500 foot train Initial track: 4,200 feet Double-Over track: 2,300 feet Outbound Train Double-Over 4,200 feet Double-Over + Fill = 3,400 feet (or more) Union Pacific To Seattle/Tacoma Infrastructure north of To Midwest Brooklyn Yard To Union Station Single Track 12 passenger trains daily 6 MPH Curves Double Track 13 At-Grade Road Crossings Area of Discussion To California Outbound Train Double-Over 4,200 feet Double-Over + Fill = 3,400 feet (or more) 3,400 feet (1) Departing outbound train: 6500 feet plus pick-up (say 3 cars) for total train length of up to 7,600 feet. (2) Once double over completed, rules state air test must be performed with brakeman 4,200 feet observing rear car to make sure braking system is operative. (3) Brakeman returns to head end of train. (4) Process can take up to 45” to 50”. Longer if defective railcar is detected. Vicinity Map Existing Conditions Too Complicated? 5 signalized roadways 1 busway 4 tracks Several Bikeways Several Pedestrian Walkways (1) Union Pacific = 24-30 TPD, 6 intermodal trains enter/depart Brooklyn Yard plus several road power moves daily (2) Amtrak = 6 TPD Designated High Speed Rail Corridor (3) TriMet = Orange Line = 144 TPD Busses #2, 9, 70 plus proposed BRT TPD = Trains per Day Too Great an Area? 520 feet from one end of the intersection to the other Frustration: You can’t see what you’re waiting for. Too Exasperating! First a bicyclist, then a TriMet northbound, then a freight train, then a TriMet southbound…now, you’re late….and upset. Mitigation Strategies Collect Data: You can’t go to City Hall with Anecdotal Evidence Mount a camera?, Ask TriMet to report Bus #2& #70 reroutes? Create a reporting system? “Quick Fixes” 1. Gideon Street Bike/Ped Overcrossing (under construction) 2. SE 11th Avenue “Escape Route” Intermediate Fixes 3. Work with Union Pacific on a solution Long Range 4. Design, Fund and Construct Overcrossing 5. Relocate functionality of Brooklyn Yard SE Gideon Bike/Ped Overcrossing SE Clinton MAX Station Gideon Overcrossing Now under Construction SE Gideon Street Overcrossing (looking south) SE Gideon Street Overcrossing Photo taken: July 2020 SE Gideon Street Overcrossing (looking east) SE 11th Avenue “Escape Route” 4,500 sq ft 15 feet West End Escape Route East End Escape Route Concept: Grade Separation over Union Pacific and TriMet (1) SE Milwaukie and SE 11th & SE 12th (2) SE Milwaukie and SE 7th SE 7th Avenue SE 11th and SE 12th SE Division Union Pacific and TriMet Corridor SE Milwaukie SE 11th & SE 12th to SE Milwaukie Critical dimension = 500 feet (yellow line) needed to rise 30 feet at 6% slope over 23.5 feet RR clearance Structure Area = 95,000 SF Fatal Flaw? (1) Constructability (2) And… SE 11th & SE 12th to SE Milwaukie Critical dimension = 500 feet (yellow line) needed to rise 30 feet at 6% slope over 23.5 feet RR clearance No At-Grade Crossing Structure Area = 95,000 SF Here and at SE 8th Avenue Fatal Flaw? (1) Constructability (2) Bike Path (in Blue) SE 7th Avenue Option SE 7th Avenue Option SE 7th to SE Milwaukie Structure Area (blue) = 95,700 SF Roadway Area (red) = 64,000 SF Fatal Flaw? 3rd Option – SE 7th Division Transit Project 3rd Option – SE 7th Design & Cost Issues Bridge and Roadway Costs Structure - $250/SF Roadway - $150/SF Engineering – 10% Environmental -10% Property Acquisition - TBD Who Pays? Contingency – 30% Constructability Union Pacific – 5% of cost of Under vs Overpass structure over ROW Other Factors: TriMet Schedule City of Portland Street Closures (required) Others? What do We Gain with a Grade Separation? 1. A more livable neighborhood with less disruption and congestion. 2. More predictable commutes by car, bike and/or pedestrians. 3. Increased safety for all. 4. Potentially an “engine” for improved routing of inner-city traffic flow. Union Pacific To Seattle/Tacoma Infrastructure north of To Midwest Brooklyn Yard To Union Station Single Track 12 passenger trains daily 6 MPH Curves Double Track 13 At-Grade Road Crossings Area of Discussion To California Coalca = 7,340 feet Coalca Hito to Coalca Coalca to Milwaukie Central Eastside Industrial District Exit 300 Intermodal Train traveling at 6 MPH blocking SE Taylor Street Traffic trying to turn onto SE Yamhill are blocked by the slow moving train; also note that the southbound lane on SE Water Avenue is blocked Exit 300 from I-5 providing access to the Central Eastside Industrial District When Water Avenue backs up onto I-5, access to eastbound I-84 is jeopardized. Yamhill Street is blocked as well as… SE Stark Street Reduce Curvature from 17 degrees to 8 degrees increasing track speed from 6 MPH to 20 MPH Thanks for Listening! Bill Burgel 503 789 4147 [email protected].
Recommended publications
  • 216 Part 218—Railroad Operating Practices

    216 Part 218—Railroad Operating Practices

    Pt. 217, App. A 49 CFR Ch. II (10–1–12 Edition) APPENDIX A TO PART 217—SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES 1 Willful viola- Section Violation tion 217.7 Operating rules: (a) ............................................................................................................................................ $2,500 $5,000 (b) ............................................................................................................................................ $2,000 $5,000 (c) ............................................................................................................................................ $2,500 $5,000 217.9 Operational tests and inspections: (a) Failure to implement a program ........................................................................................ $9,500– $13,000– 12,500 16,000 (b) Railroad and railroad testing officer responsibilities:. (1) Failure to provide instruction, examination, or field training, or failure to con- duct tests in accordance with program ................................................................. 9,500 13,000 (2) Records ............................................................................................................... 7,500 11,000 (c) Record of program; program incomplete .......................................................................... 7,500– 11,000– 12,500 16,000 (d) Records of individual tests and inspections ...................................................................... 7,500 (e) Failure to retain copy of or conduct:. (1)(i) Quarterly
  • Fec Railroad Grade Separation Feasibility Study

    Fec Railroad Grade Separation Feasibility Study

    FEC RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION FEASIBILITY STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Martin Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) initiated this feasibility study to identify, evaluate and plan for potential roadway and non-motorized pedestrian/bicycle grade separations along the Florida East Coast Rail Line (FEC) through Martin County. The study has been performed in phases including: Tier 1: Perform an initial assessment of all the mainline rail at grade crossings (25) in Martin County and identify 10 roadway candidate crossings for potential grade separation. Review adjacent land uses between crossings and known areas of pedestrian trespassing on the rail corridor to identify 5 candidate locations for non-motorized crossings. Tier 2: Perform detailed evaluation and rank the roadway and non-motorized candidates for the need and justification to implement grade separations. Tier 3: Prepare concepts and assess the feasibility and impacts of grade separations at 4 potential crossing locations: o Conceptual plans for up to 2 crossings for roadway grade separation, and o Conceptual plans for up to 2 crossings for non-motorized uses Assess the impacts and cost-benefit of the concepts developed for this study. The final results include concepts, costs and benefits developed for an Indian Street/Dixie Highway elevated roadway crossing, a Monterey Road/Dixie Highway depressed roadway crossing, a Railroad Avenue to Commerce Boulevard elevated pedestrian/bicycle grade separation and a Downtown Stuart elevated pedestrian/bicycle grade crossing. Each concept is provided below from south to north by roadway and non-motorized category. Note 11x17 sheets are provided in Chapter 4, Figures 18 to 21. Potential Indian Street / Dixie Highway Elevated Roadway Grade Crossing over the FEC Railroad E - 1 FEC RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Potential Monterey Rd/Dixie Highway Depressed Roadway Grade Crossing over the FEC RR Potential Railroad Ave.
  • Grade Separations Info Sheet: February 2020 5

    Grade Separations Info Sheet: February 2020 5

    GO Expansion Update Grade Separations Info Sheet: February 2020 5 Metrolinx is increasing its services as part of the GO Expansion program, which will increase train frequency and the number of trains on the GO rail network. To increase traffic flow and transit capacity , Metrolinx has identified the need to build a number of grade separations. This Info Sheet describes: • What is a grade separation? • Why are grade separations needed? What are the benefits? • What is involved in designing a grade Rendering of a road underpass separation? • What is involved in building a grade separation? What is a grade separation? • How will Metrolinx design, build, and address effects of grade separation? A grade separation is a tunnel or a bridge that allows a • Why doesn’t Metrolinx move tracks instead road or rail line to travel over or under the other, without of the road? the need for vehicles travelling on the road to stop. If the road is lowered below the rail line, it is called rail over road, while if it is raised above the rail line, it is called What are the benefits of grade road over rail. separations? Why are grade separations needed? • Improved traffic flow and elimination of the potential for conflicts between trains Although each rail line is different, trains may run as little and vehicles; as one or two times per hour on some Metrolinx • Increased on-time performance and corridors. This means that each road crossing may need operational reliability; to be temporarily closed about once or twice an hour to • Better connections and crossings for let the trains pass.
  • Nurail Project ID: Nurail2012-UTK-R04 Macro Scale

    Nurail Project ID: Nurail2012-UTK-R04 Macro Scale

    NURail project ID: NURail2012-UTK-R04 Macro Scale Models for Freight Railroad Terminals By Mingzhou Jin Professor Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering University of Tennessee at Knoxville E-mail: [email protected] David B. Clarke Director of the Center for Transportation Research University of Tennessee at Knoxville E-mail: [email protected] Grant Number: DTRT12-G-UTC18 March 2, 2016 Page 1 of 6 DISCLAIMER Funding for this research was provided by the NURail Center, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign under Grant No. DTRT12-G-UTC18 of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research & Technology (OST-R), University Transportation Centers Program. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. March 2, 2016 Page 2 of 6 TECHNICAL SUMMARY Title Macro Scale Models for Freight Railroad Terminals Introduction This project has developed a yard capacity model for macro-level analysis. The study considers the detailed sequence and scheduling in classification yards and their impacts on yard capacities simulate typical freight railroad terminals, and statistically analyses of the historical and simulated data regarding dwell-time and traffic flows. Approach and Methodology The team developed optimization models to investigate three sequencing decisions are at the areas inspection, hump, and assembly.
  • Failure-Free Operation of Classification Yards Through Technology Optimization

    Failure-Free Operation of Classification Yards Through Technology Optimization

    Badania Liudmyla V. Trykoz, Irina V. Bagiyanc Failure-free operation of classifi cation yards through technology optimization The railway operation practice has proved that the condition of The development of new or refurbishment of existing classifi - technical equipment considerably infl uences the processes of traf- cation yards require analysis of the maximum possible number fi c organization and making-up/breaking-up trains. Operational of cars to be sorted in a specifi c time, i.e. a required capacity failures lead to a lower estimated capacity of sorting facilities which takes into account station functions, features connected and, consequently, to a lower carrying capacity of stations and with its location within the rail network and industrial area. The sections. Besides, they infl ict losses on both Ukrzaliznytsia and required capacity of the main sorting unit is determined on the wagon/freight owners, thus affecting train and wagon fl ows. The base of the forecasted average daily volume of operation, es- objective of the study is to analyze the infl uence of failures in sort- tablished by economic studies for calculated operation periods. ing facilities on their estimated capacity and to search for ways to Thus, the subject matter of the study is the scheduled break- minimize their negative impact. Methodology of the study is com- ing-up of freight trains on rail classifi cation facilities with their putational simulation and graphical interpretation of a 24-hour es- consequent making-up. The scope of the study is the support of timated capacity of the sorting hump and the lead track, the most capacity of the classifi cation facilities with the optimized techni- signifi cant parameters of which are weight average values, and cal equipment.
  • Chapter 14 Yards and Terminals1

    Chapter 14 Yards and Terminals1

    CHAPTER 14 YARDS AND TERMINALS1 FOREWORD This chapter deals with the engineering and economic problems of location, design, construction and operation of yards and terminals used in railway service. Such problems are substantially the same whether railway's ownership and use is to be individual or joint. The location and arrangement of the yard or terminal as a whole should permit the most convenient and economical access to it of the tributary lines of railway, and the location, design and capacity of the several facilities or components within said yard or terminal should be such as to handle the tributary traffic expeditiously and economically and to serve the public and customer conveniently. In the design of new yards and terminals, the retention of existing railway routes and facilities may seem desirable from the standpoint of initial expenditure or first cost, but may prove to be extravagant from the standpoint of operating costs and efficiency. A true economic balance should be achieved, keeping in mind possible future trends and changes in traffic criteria, as to volume, intensity, direction and character. Although this chapter contemplates the establishment of entirely new facilities, the recommendations therein will apply equally in the rearrangement, modernization, enlargement or consolidation of existing yards and terminals and related facilities. Part 1, Generalities through Part 4, Specialized Freight Terminals include specific and detailed recommendations relative to the handling of freight, regardless of the type of commodity or merchandise, at the originating, intermediate and destination points. Part 5, Locomotive Facilities and Part 6, Passenger Facilities relate to locomotive and passenger facilities, respectively.
  • Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Conversions Guidebook

    Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Conversions Guidebook

    Office of Operations 21st Century Operations Using 21st Century Technology Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lane Conversions Guidebook U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration June 2007 Considerations for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes Conversions Guidebook Prepared for the HOV Pooled-Fund Study and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Prepared by HNTB Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean, VA 22102 Under contract to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) June 2007 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or the use thereof. The contents of this Report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible for the accu- racy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation. This Report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers named herein. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of this document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HOP-08-034 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Consideration for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) to High Occupancy Toll June 2007 (HOT) Lanes Study 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Martin Sas, HNTB. Susan Carlson, HNTB Eugene Kim, Ph.D., Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
  • The Ten Commandments of Model Railroad Yard Design

    The Ten Commandments of Model Railroad Yard Design

    The Ten Commandments of Model Railroad Yard Design By Craig Bisgeier Sample Yard Layout You may find it helpful to print out this diagram before reading the article. Having a hard copy of the diagram to refer to as you are reading will probably be a big help for some of the more difficult concepts. This is definitely a case of a picture being worth a thousand words... One of the most often modeled -- and misunderstood -- layout design elements is the yard. Nearly everyone has one on their layout, whether it's used simply for car storage or as an actual operating tool. Unfortunately, many of them don't work very well. Common design mistakes are made over and over again by beginner and intermediate modelers. They can't be faulted, though, because the info on how to design a good yard is very hard to find. Even when the hobby press gets it right, it's short-lived, because if you missed the issue you didn't see it. Most of the time you see poor examples (like the hated Timesaver) which are often published by the hobby press without comment, and therefore accepted by those who do not know better as good design. So the "secrets" of good yard design are difficult to for most to uncover, because the good nuggets of information appear in wildly different places like out of print magazines or books, special interest publications, or even word of mouth among advanced modelers. not many modelers have that kind of library or access. What is needed is a repository where all the good ideas can be collected, stored, edited and presented as one all-encompassing primer on the subject.
  • Barrier Versus Buffer Separated Managed Lanes

    Barrier Versus Buffer Separated Managed Lanes

    EMERGING ISSUES: BARRIER VERSUS BUFFER SEPARATED MANAGED LANES PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Georgia Department of Transportation HNTB Corporation Office of Planning 3715 Northside Parkway 600 West Peachtree Street NW 400 Northcreek, Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30308 Atlanta, GA 30327 Phone: (404) 631-1796 Phone: (404) 946-5708 Fax: (404) 631-1804 Fax: (404) 841-2820 Contact: Michelle Caldwell Contact: Andrew C. Smith, AICP January 2010 c Georgia Department of Transportation FINAL Barrier Versus Buffer Separated Managed Lanes January 2010 Atlanta Regional Managed Lane System Plan Technical Memorandum 17B: Advantages and Disadvantages of Barrier Versus Buffer Separated Managed Lanes Prepared for: Georgia Department of Transportation One Georgia Center, Suite 2700 600 West Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Prepared by: HNTB Corporation Atlanta Regional Managed Lane System Plan Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of Planning FINAL Barrier Versus Buffer Separated Managed Lanes January 2010 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF BARRIER VERSUS BUFFER SEPARATED MANAGED LANES WHITE PAPER Introduction The purpose of this white paper is to explore the advantages and disadvantages associated with the separation of managed lanes from the general purpose lanes by means of a barrier or buffer system. A number of factors contribute to the selection of a buffer or barrier system including issues of design specifications, costs, access, safety, congestion pricing operations, enforcement and public perception. The advantages and disadvantages of barrier and buffer separated managed lanes facilities are fully elaborated on in the sections below. Each corridor within Atlanta should decide for itself, based on its current and projected needs, operational guidelines and ultimate goals, which system, or combination thereof, works best for their area.
  • IC Rebuilds Classification Yard

    IC Rebuilds Classification Yard

    I. C. Rebuilds Cla$sification Yard And Installs New System of Control trolled from four towers each of which· handled the retarders and switches in their corresponding areas. Within a few years after the The control of switches is automatic after being original yards at ~'larkham were initiated by push-button in panel at the crest placed in service, a new group ar­ rangement of tracks was developed of the hump, and all of the retarders are con­ for use in yards being installed on trolled by one man in a tower near main lead other roads, the object of which was to reduce the number of retarders, because one retarder on the lead to each group serves to apply final A NEW system of control for pow- the first yards to be equipped with retardation to cars routed to all of er switches and retarders has been car retarders of commercial manu­ the tracks in that group. installed by the Illinois Central in facture. Original installations were Having rendered 23 years service, its southbound classification yard at based on the ladder principle, with the retarders, switch machines, con­ :Markham Yards, located 20 mi. retarders down the hump and the trol machines and rail in the Illinois south of the passenger station at throat leads, as well as on the upper Central southbound yard were due Twelfth Street in Chicago. This end of each classification track. for replacement. A decision was southbound yard, as well as the The southbound yard with its 43 made that the replacement program northbound yard nearby, were built classification tracks, 43 power should include a change from the in 1926, and at that time they were switches, and 72 retarders was con- old ladder-track layout to the more Th~ man in the tower controls the retarders in the entire yard 346 R A I I, W A Y S I G N A l I N G cmd C 0 M M u· N I C A T I 0 N S June, 1950 modern grouping of tracks, as well as a change in grades.
  • HOV Degradation Report and Action Plan (2018)

    HOV Degradation Report and Action Plan (2018)

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF TRAFFIC OPERATIONS P.O. BOX 942873, MS–36 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273–0001 Making Conservation PHONE (916) 654-2366 a California Way of Life. FAX (916) 653-6080 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov September 28, 2020 Mr. Maiser Khaled Director, Technical Services Federal Highway Administration California Division 650 Capitol Mall, Suite 4-100 Sacramento, CA 95814-4708 Dear Mr. Khaled: Enclosed is the 2018 California High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities Degradation Report and Action Plan (2018 HOV Report and Action Plan) prepared by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as required by U.S.C. Title 23 §166. Caltrans appreciates the collaboration and partnership from the Federal Highway Administration as an active member of the Managed Lane Working Group (Working Group). The Working Group develops and supports the implementation of strategies to optimize the performance of the HOV facilities. Caltrans is committed to implement the strategies presented by the Working Group and make progress toward bringing degraded HOV facilities into compliance with federal performance standards. Caltrans has already initiated various minor and major infrastructure projects to improve the performance of HOV facilities. Some projects were underway in 2018, while others will begin within the next one to three years. Caltrans will assess the feasibility of implementing additional strategies presented by the Working Group and make good faith efforts to improve the performance of degraded HOV facilities. If you have any questions regarding the 2018 HOV Report and Action Plan, please contact Joe Rouse, Managed Lane Functional Manager, Office of Mobility Programs, at (916) 952-6436, or by e-mail at <[email protected]>.
  • Tensar® Grade Separation Solutions

    Tensar® Grade Separation Solutions

    Tensar® Grade Separation SoLUTIONs Tensar® Geogrids We provide innovative Tensar’s Grade Separation Solutions owe their engineered, economical solutions long-term performance and durability to high strength Tensar® Uniaxial (UX) Geogrids. Due to for grade change requirements their stiff interlocking capabilities, these geogrids stand the test of time, performing better than other in the residential, commercial commercially available geosynthetics. For more information on our patented soil reinforcement and transportation markets. systems, please visit www.tensar-international.com. Proven Solutions and Technologies > Tensar International (TI) is the leading developer and Our expertise focuses primarily on the following fields manufacturer of high-performance products and of grade separation systems: engineered solutions. Our manufacturing facilities enable • ARES® Modular Panel Walls us to satisfy and exceed customer needs by providing a wide range of geosynthetic solutions for your common • ARES Full-Height Panel Walls earthwork problems. • Mesa® Segmental Retaining Walls By providing innovative application technologies and • SierraScape® Stone-Faced Wire Formed Walls specialized technical services, we supplement our products with value-enhancing alternatives to traditional • SierraScape® Vegetated-Faced Wire Formed Walls materials and practices used in earthwork construction. • Sierra® Steepened Slopes Together, these products, technologies and services ® constitute engineered systems that serve a variety • Tensar Temporary Walls of commercial and industrial markets. For over 25 years, Tensar International has been Simply put, we are a full service provider of specialty providing economical solutions for the most challenging products and engineering services and offer grade change requirements. We are committed to economical solutions to common infrastructure serving our client’s global interests by providing and site development needs.