DOCSLIB.ORG

VALERO BENICIA CRUDE by RAIL PROJECT Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2013052074 Use Permit Application 12PLN-00063

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
VALERO BENICIA CRUDE by RAIL PROJECT Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2013052074 Use Permit Application 12PLN-00063 VALERO BENICIA CRUDE BY RAIL PROJECT Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2013052074 Use Permit Application 12PLN-00063 Prepared for August 2015 City of Benicia VALERO BENICIA CRUDE BY RAIL PROJECT Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2013052074 Use Permit Application 12PLN-00063 Prepared for August 2015 City of Benicia 550 Kearny Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego Santa Cruz Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 202115 TABLE OF CONTENTS Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Page 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Document .................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Recirculation and Public Comment ..................................................................... 1-5 2. Revisions to the Draft EIR ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 DEIR Executive Summary .................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 DEIR Chapter 1, Introduction ............................................................................ 2-16 2.3 DEIR Chapter 2, Summary of Environmental Impacts ...................................... 2-19 2.4 DEIR Chapter 3, Project Description ................................................................ 2-19 2.5 DEIR Chapter 4, Approach to the Analysis of Impacts ..................................... 2-23 2.6 DEIR Section 4.1, Air Quality ............................................................................ 2-25 2.7 DEIR Section 4.2, Biological Resources ........................................................... 2-42 2.8 DEIR Section 4.3, Cultural Resources .............................................................. 2-46 2.9 DEIR Section 4.4, Energy Conservation ........................................................... 2-48 2.10 DEIR Section 4.5, Geology and Soils ............................................................... 2-52 2.11 DEIR Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................ 2-53 2.12 DEIR Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................... 2-62 2.13 DEIR Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................. 2-124 2.14 DEIR Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning ..................................................... 2-126 2.15 DEIR Section 4.10, Noise ............................................................................... 2-127 2.16 DEIR Section 4.11, Transportation and Traffic ............................................... 2-137 2.17 DEIR Chapter 5, CEQA Statutory Sections .................................................... 2-141 2.18 DEIR Chapter 6, Analysis of Alternatives ....................................................... 2-167 2.19 DEIR Chapter 7, Report Preparation .............................................................. 2-168 2.20 DEIR Chapter 8, Glossary and Acronyms ...................................................... 2-170 2.21 Chapter 9, References .................................................................................... 2-170 Appendices A. Air Quality and GHG Emissions Supplement ............................................................... A-1 B. Updated Methodology for Assessment of Health Risk and PM2.5 Concentrations at the Refinery near Locomotive Tracks in Fairfield, CA ........................................... B-1 C. Methodology and Results for Project Health Risk Assessment at Project-Specific Uprail Locations Between Roseville, CA and the Oregon and Nevada Borders ....... C-1 D. Qualitative Assessment of Cumulative Contribution of Health Impacts near Rail Lines in Auburn, Chico, Marysville, Redding, and Truckee, California ...................... D-1 E. Sensitive Biological Resources within 300 Feet of Rail Routes ................................... E-1 F. Quantitative Risk Analysis of the Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project ....................... F-1 G. Preemption of CEQA by the ICCTA ............................................................................. G-1 H. Valero Benicia Refinery Statement re: Preemption ...................................................... H-1 Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project i August 2015 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Page List of Figures 1-1 North American Freight Railroads .......................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Union Pacific Crude Network ................................................................................. 1-3 1-3 Uprail Routes ......................................................................................................... 1-4 1-4 California Class I Rail System ................................................................................ 1-6 ES-1 Regional Location .................................................................................................. 2-4 ES-2 Valero Refinery Boundary ...................................................................................... 2-5 ES-3 Site Plan ................................................................................................................ 2-7 4.7-1 Santa Barbara County Injury and Fatality Risk Thresholds Evolution of Rail Industry Tank Car Standards for Crude Oil ....................................................... 2-88 4.7-2 Risk Associated with CPC-1232 Tank Car Mainline Crude Oil Unit Train Transportation – 50 Car Unit Train to California Border .................................... 2-96 4.7-3 Risk Associated with CPC-1232 Tank Car Mainline Crude Oil Unit Train Transportation – 100 Car Unit Train to California Border .................................. 2-97 4.7-4 Risk Associated with DOT-117 Tank Car Mainline Crude Oil Unit Train Transportation – 50 Car Unit Train to California Border .................................... 2-99 4.7-5 Risk Associated with DOT-117 Tank Car Mainline Crude Oil Unit Train Transportation – 100 Car Unit Train to California Border ................................ 2-100 4.7-6 Risk Associated with DOT-117R for CPC-1232 Tank Car Mainline Crude Oil Unit Train Transportation – 50 Car Unit Train to California Border ................. 2-101 4.7-7 Risk Associated with DOT-117R for CPC-1232 Tank Car Mainline Crude Oil Unit Train Transportation – 100 Car Unit Train to California Border ............... 2-102 4.7-8 Worst Case Facility Thermal Radiation Hazards .............................................. 2-109 4.7-9 Risk Associated with Valero Unloading Facility Crude Oil Spills and Fires ........ 2-110 4.10-3 Typical Levels of Ground-borne Vibration .......................................................... 2-131 4.10-4 Noise Impact Criteria for Rail Projects and Allowable Increases in Cumulative Noise Levels ................................................................................................... 2-134 5-1 Cumulative Mainline Crude Oil Unit Train Transportation Risk – CPC-1232 Tank Cars to the California Border ................................................................. 2-161 5-2 Cumulative Mainline Crude Oil Unit Train Transportation Risk – DOT-117 Tank Cars to the California Border ................................................................. 2-162 5-3 Cumulative Mainline Crude Oil Unit Train Transportation Risk – DOT-117R Tank Cars to the California Border ................................................................. 2-163 List of Tables ES-1 Proposed Project vs. Alternatives, Summary of Environmental Impact Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 2-10 ES-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Valero Crude by Rail Project .............................................................................................................. 2-16 4.0-1 Potential Rail Routes to Refinery ......................................................................... 2-25 4.1-9 Maximum Cancer and Noncancer Risks in the Bay Area Basin .......................... 2-29 4.1-10 Maximum Cancer and Noncancer Risks in the Sacramento Basin ...................... 2-30 4.1-11 Miles Traveled Within Air Districts from Roseville to State Line ........................... 2-31 4.1-12 Project-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions – Oregon to Roseville Route.......... 2-33 4.1-13 Project-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions – Nevada to Roseville (Northern) Route ................................................................................................................ 2-34 4.1-14 Project-Related Criteria Pollutant Emissions – Nevada to Roseville (Southern) Route .............................................................................................. 2-35 4.1-15 Locomotive and Marine Vessel Emissions Factors Comparison for 1,000,000 Barrels Delivered per 1,000 Miles Travelled ..................................................... 2-36 4.1-16 Examples of Total Net Emissions, Including Outside of California ....................... 2-37 Valero Benicia Crude by Rail Project ii August 2015 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Page List of Tables (continued) 4.1-17 Maximum Cancer Risk, Chronic Hazard, and PM2.5 Concentrations Along the Three Train Routes Uprail of the Roseville
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Consequences-Of-Rail
    Consequences of Rail Vulnerability Explore the assets, sectors and vulnerabili5es within the county most likely to impact economic ac5vity and goods movement, and consider if local solu5ons can reduce both local and regional consequences. Creeks Infrastructure Marine Oil Terminal Refinery Rail Lines ¸ Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rlwy Union Pacific RR 0 1 2 Miles Copyright: ©2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ 6. Increased congestion impacts transit dependent commuters, GHG emissions and air quality 2. Goods movement affected (Society & Equity + Environmental (Economic Consequences) Consequences) 5. Increased truck traffic 3. Impacts on co-located assets and congestion 1. Railroad (Varied Consequences) (Economic + Society & Vulnerabilities Equity Consequences) 4. Disruption of seaport 7. Interstate operations at Port of Vulnerabilities Richmond and Oakland (Economic + Society & Equity Consequences) 1 Railroad Vulnerabilities Fourteen miles of rail line in the project area is within or passes over the current 100-year floodplain. Seven more miles (or a total of twenty-one miles) may be exposed to a 100-year coastal storm with as little as 6 inches of sea level rise, and a total of forty- one miles may be exposed to a 100-year coastal storm with 30 inches of sea level rise. Lack of information • There is insufficient information available on the UP and BNSF rail lines in the project area to thoroughly evaluate the vulnerability of the rail infrastructure. Governance challenges • Some segments of rail located on the shoreline serve as the first line of defense against flooding, while some are protected by lands owned by others or levees paid for by the public. Not built to withstand flooding • Rail lines are not constructed or maintained to withstand flooding, storm events, wave action or rising groundwater.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • 40Thanniv Ersary
    Spring 2011 • $7 95 FSharing tihe exr periencste of Fastest railways past and present & rsary nive 40th An Things Were Not the Same after May 1, 1971 by George E. Kanary D-Day for Amtrak 5We certainly did not see Turboliners in regular service in Chicago before Amtrak. This train is In mid April, 1971, I was returning from headed for St. Louis in August 1977. —All photos by the author except as noted Seattle, Washington on my favorite train to the Pacific Northwest, the NORTH back into freight service or retire. The what I considered to be an inauspicious COAST LIMITED. For nearly 70 years, friendly stewardess-nurses would find other beginning to the new service. Even the the flagship train of the Northern Pacific employment. The locomotives and cars new name, AMTRAK, was a disappoint - RR, one of the oldest named trains in the would go into the AMTRAK fleet and be ment to me, since I preferred the classier country, had closely followed the route of dispersed country wide, some even winding sounding RAILPAX, which was eliminat - the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804, up running on the other side of the river on ed at nearly the last moment. and was definitely the super scenic way to the Milwaukee Road to the Twin Cities. In addition, wasn’t AMTRAK really Seattle and Portland. My first association That was only one example of the serv - being brought into existence to eliminate with the North Coast Limited dated to ices that would be lost with the advent of the passenger train in America? Didn’t 1948, when I took my first long distance AMTRAK on May 1, 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Report FY19 Rider Profile CAPITOL Corridorticket JOINT Type POWERS AUTHORITY WORK/ BUSINESS 67%
    Performance Report FY19 Rider Profile CAPITOL CORRIDORTicket JOINT Type POWERS AUTHORITY WORK/ BUSINESS 67% Ticket WithWelcome FY2019, the Capitol Corridor Aboard! celebrated five straight years of Type record-breaking ridership and revenue, with a new all-time high of 10-RIDE 1,777,136 riders and $38.03 million in revenue. ThisWORK/ growth is reflected 18% FAMILY/ BUSINESS OTHER 1% 67% REC/in the FareboxFRIENDS Ratio, which reached a previously unattained 60%. SCHOOL 3% LEISURE 15% 12% ROUND-TRIP/ To build upon this success, and to ensure the Capitol Corridor’s place as ONE-WAY a premier travel choice, the CCJPA is making progress on infrastructure 50% improvements, safety upgrades, customer service enhancements, MONTHLY and service expansion projects. These efforts aim to maintain Capitol 32% Corridor as a quality, convenient,OTHER 1% cost-effective, and flexibleFAMILY/ option for REC/ FRIENDS years to come. SCHOOL 3% LEISURE 15% Rider Profile Ticket Type 12% SHOP/VACATION 2% WORK/ BUSINESS 21 Years of Improvement* 67% SERVICE REVENUE-TO- LEVEL RIDERSHIP REVENUE COST RATIO +275% +284% +508% +100% Rider Customer Satisfaction Profile 10-RIDE WORK/ 18% FAMILY/ BUSINESS OTHER 1% 67% FY 2019 FY 2019 FY 2019 REC/ FYFRIENDS 2019 30 DAILY 1,777,136SCHOOL 3% $38.03MLEISURE 60%15% TRAINS 12% ROUND-TRIP/ ONE-WAY 50% MONTHLY 90% 87% 90% 91% 89% 89% 87% 89% 88% 85% 90% 32% OTHER 1% FAMILY/ FY 1998 REC/ FRIENDS 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SCHOOL 3% 2018 2019 (PRE-CCJPA) FY 1998 FY 1998 FY 1998 LEISURE 15% 8 DAILY (PRE-CCJPA) (PRE-CCJPA) (PRE-CCJPA) SHOP/VACATION 2% 12% TRAINS 463,000 $6.25M 30% *CCJPA assumed management of the service in 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa County Department Of
    CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT 651 Pine Street, North Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Telephone: (925) 335-1201 Fax: (925) 335-1300 TO: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair; Supervisor Mary N. Piepho) FROM: John Greitzer, Transportation Planning Section DATE: September 29, 2008 SUBJECT: Potential reactivation of Mococo freight railroad line RECOMMENDATION: Review this report, discuss with Union Pacific officials at the Committee meeting, and consider providing a report to the full Board or other action as appropriate ATTACHMENTS: • Maps (2) provided by Union Pacific Railroad • Contra Costa Times article, August 18, 2008 • County maps (2) showing street crossings and schools along Union Pacific line The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee has asked staff to provide a report on the potential reactivation of the “Mococo” freight railroad line in eastern Contra Costa County, as reported in recent newspaper articles, and the possible impacts of this action on communities along the route. This report responds to that request. Union Pacific Railroad staff will attend the meeting to discuss the issue with the Committee. Railroad representatives also are meeting with officials in the cities along the Mococo line. Background The Mococo line is the portion of the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) system between Martinez and Tracy in San Joaquin County. The name Mococo is short for Mountain Copper Company, a long- gone smelting operation just east of Martinez that used the railroad line in the early 1900s. From Martinez heading east, the tracks go through the Concord Naval Weapons Station, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, Oakley, Brentwood, and Byron, and continue southeast along Byron Highway to Tracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Williams' Presentation California Zephyr
    Three Railroads 2532 Miles Of Gorgeous Scenery Five Vista Domes The Most Talked About Train In America... Silver Thread to The West The History of the California Zephyr March 20, 1949 -March 20, 1970 Beginnings 1934 Pioneer Zephyr Streamlined Ralph Budd (CBQ) meets Edward Budd (Budd Corp.) Stainless steel and shotwelding Wildly successful = willing to take risks Beginnings Exposition Flyer – 1939 First through car train for CB&Q/DRGW/WP “Scheduling for Scenery” Dotsero Cutoff / Moffat Tunnel Traded time & distance for scenic beauty CZ Fun Fact #1 Beginnings 1940 Joint Meeting 1943 Informal Discussions Post-war RR's Awash With $ October 1945 Joint Contract First orders to Budd 1945 Revisions in 1946 & 1947 First deliveries 1948 Beginnings 1944 Cyrus Osborn's (General manager of EMD) grand idea 1944 trip Glenwood Canyon The Dome Car is born by rebuilding a standard Budd chair car (originally Silvery Alchemy) CZ Fun Fact #2 Dividing The Cost And Costs were dividedProfits by percentage of CZ route mileage (the Exposition Flyer route) CB&Q = 41% DRGW = 22% WP = 37% Profits were divided by percentage of short line route (the Overland Route), which cost WP 10% compared to CB&Q and DRGW share Dividing The Cost And Profits CB&Q owned 27 cars DRGW owned 15 cars WP owned 24 cars PRR leased 1 car Planning Menus Timing Governed by need to have the train in the Rockies and Feather River Canyon during daylight Layover time for through car was a casualty Staffing The Zephyrettes CZ Fun Fact #3 The Zephyrettes Planning
    [Show full text]
  • ESCI Report Template Version C
    Pinole Fire Department Pinole, California REGIONAL FIRE SERVICE DELIVERY STUDY ADDENDUM March 2020 Regional Fire Service Delivery Study Addendum City of Pinole Fire Department TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ iii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... iv SECTION I: EVALUATION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS ...................................................................... 1 Current Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 2 Organizational Overview ............................................................................................................................ 2 Service Area & Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 5 Staffing Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Emergency Management ........................................................................................................................... 7 Fire Prevention ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Training ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Host Railroad Report Card &
    Host Railroad Report Card & FAQ 1) What is a “host railroad”? Most of Amtrak’s network is on tracks owned, maintained, and dispatched by highly-profitable freight railroads, known as “host” railroads where Amtrak uses their tracks. Most of the trains on these rail lines are the freight railroads’ own freight trains. Because the freight railroads make all dispatching decisions about which trains have priority in using the rail line, the freight railroads have a tremendous amount of influence over Amtrak’s operations on their lines. Prior to Amtrak’s creation in 1971, the privately-owned railroads had a common carrier obligation to operate passenger trains themselves – an obligation that dated back to when the railroads were built in the 1800s. Because the railroads were losing money on their passenger trains, Congress created Amtrak and relieved the private railroads of their obligation to operate passenger trains. A very important part of the deal was that Amtrak would still have access to the railroads’ lines in order to operate passenger trains. Every year Amtrak pays host railroads $142 million for using their tracks and other resources needed to operate Amtrak trains. 2) What distinguishes hosts with good Amtrak performance? Hosts typically achieve good Amtrak performance through a combination of: a) Commitment to providing quality service for Amtrak’s passengers, b) An active partnership with Amtrak, where both sides work cooperatively and the hosts respect Federal law which protects the rights of our nation’s passengers, and c) A well-disciplined operation that benefits both Amtrak and freight customers alike. 3) What does “Delays per 10,000 train miles” mean? It is a measure of how much delay each host railroad causes to Amtrak trains.
    [Show full text]
  • CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR ROSTER of CARS (All Car Names Carry the Prefix "Silver", Which Has Been Omitted Here) VISTA DOME
    CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR ROSTER OF CARS CAR NAME OWNER NUMBER CURRENT DISPOSITION 10 ROOMETTE 6 DOUBLE BEDROOM SLEEPER (All car names carry the prefix "Silver", which has been omitted here) Point CB&Q 423 Scrapped 1977? Shore CB&Q 424 Rail Passenger Services, Inc. CAll IWm OWRER NUMBER CUllREKT DISPOSInON Butte CB&Q 425 ? Bchgrv. ,IN Cliff CB&Q 426 Canadian Pacific RR - Canada VISTA DOME CHAIR CARS Falls CB&Q 427 Bridle CB&Q 4716 Alaska RR? - Alaska Valley CB&Q 428 AMTRAK Lodge CB&Q 4717 Alaska RR - Alaska Crag CB&Q 429 AMTRAK Lariat CB&Q 4718 C. Burt Herme y - Chatsworth, CA Chasm CB&Q 430 AMTRAK Ranch CB&Q 4719 Salt Lake G&W Pass D&RGW 1130 Mexico Rifle CB&Q 4720 Project 2472 - San Francisco, CA Summit D&RGW 1131 Mexico Saddle CB&Q 4721 Scrapped Gorge D&RGW 1132 Mexico Stirrup CB&Q 4722 Alaska RR - Alaska Creek D&RGW 1133 Mexico Bronco D&RGW ll05 D&RGW - Denver Glacier D&RGW 1134 Mexico Colt D&RGW 1106 Alaska RR - Alaska Rapids PRR 8449 Dave Goodhart Mus tang D&RGW 1107 Alaska RR - Alaska Arroyo WP 861 Mexico Pony D&RGW 1108 Alaska RR - Alaska Canyon WP 862 Southern Pacific - Oakland, CA Dollar WP (Ill Anbel Corp. - Brownsv ille, TX Mountain WP 863 Mexico Feather WP ~12 Jim Stephenson, Houston, TX Palisade WP 864 Mexico Palace WP 813 Merle Haggard - Palo Cedro, CA Range WP 865 Mexico Sage WP 814 ?Ronald Buhro - Walbridge, Ohio Bay WP 866 Mexico Schooner WP 815 Surf WP 867 Mexico Scout' WP 816 Wilson Engineering - Cleburne, TX Thistle WP 817 Ralph Orlandella - Sacramento, CA 16 SECTION SLEEPER (Converted to chair cars 1963-64) Maple CB&Q 400 AMTRAK VISTA-DOME DORMITORY-BUFFET-LOUNGE Larch CB&Q 401 AMTRAK CA Cedar CB&Q 402 AMTRAK Club ' CB&Q 250 Wil lia~ Barmore - Rancho Palos Verd~, Lounge CB&Q 251 Charles Barenfanger - Vandalia, IL Aspen D&RGW 1120 Fantasia Trains, Colorado Roundup CB&Q 252 Wrecked 1970 Pine D&RGW 1121 C&NW ? Shop D&RGW 1140 D&RGW - Denver, CO Palm WP 871 ? - Florida Chalet WP 831 Dave Rushenburg - St.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Technical Background Report September 2014
    Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Technical Background Report September 2014 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 What is a Multi-State Rail Plan? ................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Why the Southwest?.................................................................................................................................. 8 1.4 Geographic Scope of Study ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.5 Study Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................. 10 1.6 Guiding Principles for Southwest Multi-State Rail Network Planning ..................................................... 11 Chapter 2. Planning Context ................................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 Overview of the Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Population and Travel Demand ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • California Department of Transportation
    STAll': OF CALIFORNIA-- - BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 1120 N STREET P. 0. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 Flex your power! PHONE (916) 654-5266 Be energy efficient! FAX (916) 654-6608 TTY 711 February 18, 2009 The Honorable Alan S. Lowenthal, Chair Senate Transportation Committee P.O. Box 942848 Sacramento, CA 94248-0001 The Honorable Mike Eng, Chair Assembly Transportation Committee P.O. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0001 Dear Senator Lowenthal and Assembly Member Eng: Chapter 756, Statutes of 2008 (AB 268, Committee on the Budget) added Section 8879.52 to the Government'Code. The section calls on the California Department of Transportation (Department) to prepare a one-time report regarding certain types of projects funded from the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund program established by Proposition 1B of 2006. Specifically, the legislation requires that: (e) On or before February 18, 2009, the department shall report to the policy committees of each house of the Legislature with jurisdiction over t~ansportation matters, a summary of any memorandum of understanding or any other agreement executed by a railroad company and any state or local transportation agency as it relates to any project fimded with moneys allocated from the TClF. This letter constitutes the report called for by Government Code section 8879.52. BACKGROlJND: In April 2008, the California Transpmtation Commission (Commission) adopted a 79 project, $3.1 billion TCIF program. Of the 79 projects in the initial program, 33 were grade separations, seven were traditional mainline or shortline rail freight projects, ten were on the rail system within the publicly owned Port of Long Beach, two were within the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System owned by San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway's San Ysidro yard, and two were projects on publicly owned intercity or commuter rail rights-of-way "Caltrans impro>·es mobiliTy across California" The Honorable Alan S.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Report.Psd
    Emeryville Railroad Quiet Zone Study Draft Report Prepared for Redevelopment Agency of the City of Emeryville Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates in association with Adavant Consulting June 2, 2008 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of the Emeryville Railroad Quiet Zone Study was to explore the potential for implementation of a quiet zone on the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) corridor through the City of Emeryville. A railroad quiet zone is an area where locomotive engineers are not required to sound train warning horns as they approach an at-grade crossing. There are three at-grade highway-rail crossings in Emeryville. These are at 65th, 66th, and 67th Streets, all of which cross the UP’s Martinez Subdivision in northwestern Emeryville. The UP tracks are used daily by both passenger and freight trains, with passenger trains more numerous than freight trains. According to federal regulations, engineers of all these trains must sound their train horns when approaching the grade crossings. In the future, the number of trains operating on this corridor will increase, resulting in a greater frequency in train horning soundings. The implementation of a quiet zone in Emeryville would greatly reduce the existing and future noise impacts from train horn soundings. QUIET ZONE PROCESS The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the federal agency with oversight responsibility for safety on the national railroad system, has established a process for implementing a quiet zone. A quiet zone can be established if the Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) or risk for a train-motor vehicle accident occurring in the quiet zone is less than or equal to National Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT).
    [Show full text]