Martinez Railroad Quiet Zone Study

Prepared for: City of Martinez

Prepared by:

February 10, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Introduction ...... 1 Section 2: Existing Conditions ...... 4 Population and Employment ...... 4 Land Use ...... 4 Rail Operations in Martinez...... 6 Freight Operations ...... 6 Passenger Operations - Amtrak ...... 7 At-Grade Crossings Considered for a Quiet Zone...... 9 Ferry Street ...... 12 Berrellessa Street ...... 14 Pedestrian / Bicycle Traffic ...... 15 Railroad Traffic...... 16 Section 3: Future Conditions ...... 17 Future Population and Employment...... 17 Future Land Use ...... 17 Future Railroad Operations...... 18 Freight Operations ...... 18 Passenger Operations – Amtrak ...... 18 Future Traffic Conditions at Crossings...... 19 Section 4: Performance of the Quiet Zone ...... 20 Measurements of Risk ...... 20 Quiet Zone Safety Measures ...... 21 Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs)...... 21 Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) ...... 21 Use of Approved Safety Measures ...... 21 Application of the Quiet Zone Calculator ...... 22 Quiet Zone Concepts ...... 24 Concept 1...... 24 Concept 2...... 24 Concept 3...... 25 Quiet Zone Concepts under Existing and Future Conditions ...... 25 Conceptual Cost Estimates ...... 27

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page i

Ongoing Maintenance Costs ...... 27 Wayside Horns ...... 28 Horn Blowing in Martinez with a Quiet Zone ...... 29 Other Crossing Improvements ...... 35 Section 5: Evaluation and Next Steps ...... 36 Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 36 Overall Safety...... 36 Pedestrian Safety ...... 37 Capital Cost ...... 37 Local Impact ...... 37 FRA Review Requirements ...... 38 Summary Evaluation ...... 38 Next Steps ...... 38

Appendices Appendix A: New Quiet Zone Flow Chart Appendix B: At-Grade Crossing Inventory

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page ii

List of Tables Table 1: Existing Freight Train Operations Summary ...... 6 Table 2: Passenger Train Operations Summary ...... 7 Table 3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic at the Ferry Street Grade Crossing ...... 15 Table 4: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator without Improvements...... 23 Table 5: Preliminary Screening of SSMs ...... 24 Table 6: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator – Concept 1 ...... 26 Table 7: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator – Concept 2 ...... 26 Table 8: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator – Concept 3 ...... 26 Table 9: Conceptual Cost Estimates ...... 28 Table 10: Evaluation of the Quiet Zone Concepts ...... 36

List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location...... 3 Figure 2: Existing Land Use/Zoning ...... 5 Figure 3: Martinez Intermodal Station...... 8 Figure 4: Martinez Intermodal Station...... 8 Figure 5: Station Platform...... 8 Figure 6: Waiting Area ...... 8 Figure 7: Ticket Counter...... 8 Figure 8: Historic Martinez Station...... 8 Figure 9: Aerial Photo of the Study Crossings ...... 10 Figure 10: Grade Crossing Diagram ...... 11 Figure 11: Quiet Zone Improvements – Concept 1...... 30 Figure 12: Quiet Zone Improvements – Concept 2...... 31 Figure 13: Quiet Zone Improvements – Concept 3...... 32 Figure 14: Train Horns vs. Wayside Horns at Ferry Street...... 33 Figure 15: Train Horns vs. Wayside Horns at Berrellessa Street...... 34 Figure 16: Before (left) and After Pedestrian Improvements in Burlingame ...... 35

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page iii SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

This introductory section includes the study purpose and a summary of the Quiet Zone process, and describes the contents of this study.

The purpose of the Martinez Railroad Quiet Zone Study is to explore the potential for implementation of a Quiet Zone on the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) corridor through the City of Martinez. 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 two public at-grade highway-rail crossings on the UP corridor in Martinez that are being considered for a Quiet Zone. These are at Ferry Street and Berrellessa Street, which cross the UP’s Martinez Subdivision in Downtown Martinez. The study area is shown in Figure 1. 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 as they approach at-grade crossings with roadways.1 The horn sounding is a safety measure, to alert motorists and pedestrians intending to cross the tracks that a train is approaching. In the future, the number of trains operating on this corridor is likely to increase, resulting in a greater frequency in train horn soundings. The implementation of a Quiet Zone for these crossing in Martinez would reduce the existing and future noise impacts from train horn soundings.

A Quiet Zone may be established by the public authority (city, county, or state) having jurisdiction over traffic enforcement, in this case the City of Martinez. To qualify for a Quiet Zone, the City must comply with the regulations established by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) related to grade crossing safety devices and periodic reporting. A diagram of the Quiet Zone process is included in Appendix A. In addition, a Quiet Zone would require the concurrence of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which shares safety oversight for these crossings with the FRA, and of the UP.

1 The regulation can be downloaded at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/trainhorn_2005/amended_final_rule_081706.pdf

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The FRA uses an assessment of risk to determine if the grade crossing safety devices used at a highway crossing are sufficient to meet FRA risk standards. The measurements of risk are based upon the highway and railroad conditions at the crossing and are calculated with the FRA’s Quiet Zone Calculator. The data collected for this analysis, evaluation of Quiet Zone scenarios, and discussion of next steps for Quiet Zone implementation are included in the following sections: • Section 1: Introduction • Section 2: Existing Conditions presents existing highway, railroad, and study area conditions that will be used in the Quiet Zone Calculator and for assessment of appropriate grade crossing safety devices. • Section 3: Future Conditions presents changes to highway and railroad conditions that would be expected by Year 2025 that could affect implementation of a Quiet Zone. • Section 4: Performance of the Quiet Zone describes the Quiet Zone process in detail and presents alternative Quiet Zone concepts for consideration. • Section 5: Evaluation and Next Steps assesses the alternative concepts and describes the ongoing process for implementation of a Quiet Zone in Martinez.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 2 MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

Carquinez Strait

Martinez Regional Shoreline

Martinez Waterfront Park

Ozal Yard

Joe DiMaggio Dr Future Overflow Parking

Martinez Ferry St Intermodal Foster St Station

Alhambra Ave

Berrellessa St Marina Vista Ave

Escobar St

Main St

Study Crossing

PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 1 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

This section presents the findings of the Existing Conditions analysis. It describes existing freight and passenger rail operations along the UP corridor in Downtown Martinez and details the City’s two at-grade railroad crossings that are being considered for a Quiet Zone. The understanding of rail operations and the circumstances applicable to each grade crossing are essential to the development of a plan to create a Quiet Zone. This section reviews rail operations and grade crossing conditions, including warning devices, vehicular traffic volumes, and accident experience. Land uses along the rail corridors and motor vehicle and rail traffic generators in the study area are also discussed. The study area is shown in Figure 1.

POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT According to the US Census reported in the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan for the Year 2000, Martinez had a total population of 35,900 with a Downtown population of 3,700. The City’s website2 reports a current city population of approximately 36,700 residents. The Martinez Downtown Specific Plan estimated that Downtown businesses employ approximately 1,800 workers with another approximately 1,300 workers employed at the County offices in Downtown Martinez.

LAND USE The Downtown is a mix of commercial, office, residential, and institutional land uses to the south of the UP right-of-way with large areas of industrial uses and open space to the north. Of particular note is the Martinez Regional Shoreline and Waterfront Park which provides hiking trails and open space for recreational activities. A map of land use/zoning in the Downtown area is included in Figure 2. Existing commercial, mixed-use, and government buildings are generally one to three stories tall with a few more contemporary high-rise structures for institutional uses.

The Downtown area is the cultural and historical heart of Martinez; buildings date from many eras. A Downtown Historic Overlay District has been established through parts of the Downtown in order to preserve its historic character. Commercial uses are generally concentrated around Main and Ferry Streets, while government facilities are clustered along Court Street. Residential development in the Downtown neighborhoods and the Grandview neighborhood are most affected by the train noise.

As reported in the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, approximately 32 percent of the Downtown is in institutional use with 30 percent devoted to residential uses. These two uses comprise almost two-thirds of the Downtown.

2 http://www.cityofmartinez.org/our_city/default.asp accessed on 12/3/2009.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 4 MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

Carquinez Strait

Martinez Regional Shoreline

Martinez Waterfront Park

Ozal Yard

Joe DiMaggio Dr Future Overflow Parking

Martinez Ferry St Intermodal Foster St Station

Alhambra Ave

Marina Vista Ave Berrellessa St

Escobar St

Main St

Legend

Residential

Commercial

Government Facility

Industrial

Open Space/Parks Study Crossing EXISTING LAND USE/ZONING FIGURE 2 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

RAIL OPERATIONS IN MARTINEZ The UP corridor in Martinez is located on the northern edge of the City between Downtown and the Carquinez Strait. As part of the UP Martinez Subdivision, these tracks provide an important link in the region’s freight and passenger rail network. Local and regional freight and passenger traffic traveling from the Bay Area to Sacramento, the Central Valley, and all along the West Coast from Seattle to San Diego all rely on use of this corridor to move goods and people.

The UP right-of-way contains two main tracks through Martinez along with parallel support trackage to support the Martinez Intermodal Station and the UP Ozal Yard, located to the west of the Berrellessa Street crossing. Description of the railroad trackage is included in the respective crossing discussions.

FREIGHT OPERATIONS The UP and BNSF Railway operate local and regional freight traffic through Martinez. While the tracks are owned by UP, and UP operates the majority of freight service. BNSF operates limited freight trains on the corridor via trackage rights. In total, approximately 8 freight trains pass through Martinez every day. Traffic includes local and through freight traffic. Freight train operations are summarized in Table 1 below.

There is also a significant amount of local traffic operating through downtown Martinez. The UP’s Ozal Yard, less than a half mile west of Berrellessa Street, supports these local train movements. The activity at the Ozal Yard would also account for the estimated 12 switching trains per day that operate through the crossings. The train length figure below reflects both longer through trains and shorter local trains. Similarly, typical train speeds reflect a mix of faster through train speeds and slower local train speeds. Growth in trains per year at 2.5 percent reflects that fact increasing rail traffic can be handled by making trains longer. A surrogate often pointed to for rail traffic growth is the historic growth of the Gross Domestic Product. GDP grew about 3 percent per year over the 40 years between 1968 and 2008.

Table 1: Existing Freight Train Operations Summary Through trains per day 8 Switching trains per day 12 Trains per time of day Evenly spread through day Typical train length (average) 5,000' Maximum timetable speed 30 mph Typical speeds 20-30 mph Growth rate in trains 2.5% per year Train horn rules GCOR3

3 A General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR) has been adopted by all western railroads as a common set of rules. Requirements to sound train horns under various conditions are included. The GCOR can be found at http://gsee.sdf-us.org/signals/docs/pdf/gcor/gcor_4-2000.pdf

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 6 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

PASSENGER OPERATIONS - AMTRAK Amtrak has rights under federal law to operate intercity passenger rail service on the UP tracks through Martinez. Long distance service occurs once a day in each direction with both the California Zephyr (Emeryville-Chicago) and the Coast Starlight (Seattle-Los Angeles). Regional service is provided daily on the Capitol Corridor (Sacramento-San Jose) and San Joaquin (Bakersfield-Oakland) services. The San Joaquin also offers Thruway Bus connections between the Martinez Intermodal Station and Santa Rosa, McKinleyville, and Napa. All these passenger services stop at the Martinez Intermodal Station, allowing passengers to board and alight. Passenger train operations are summarized below in Table 2.

The long distance services contribute 4 trains per day to the corridor, and the regional services add a total of 40 weekday trains (32 Capitol Corridor, 8 San Joaquin). In total, passenger operations consist of 44 weekday trains running through Martinez, and 4-5 trains per hour in both the AM and PM peak hours. There are 22 Capitols operating on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; all 8 San Joaquins are daily trains, as are the long distance Amtrak trains.

Table 2: Passenger Train Operations Summary Trains per day (weekday) 44 Operating hours 5am – 11pm Trains per time of day with 30 operating during the day and 14 during the night Typical train length (average) 700' Maximum timetable speed 40 mph Typical speeds 0-20 mph Growth rate in trains Limited by UP Agreement Train horn rules GCOR

Train length reflects an average length given the mix of Amtrak long distance and regional trains. Speeds reflect all passenger trains stopping at Martinez. Growth of new passenger trains is subject to the current operating agreement between the State of California and UP. There are two “unused” regional intercity train slots under the current agreements. Any new trains beyond that would require renegotiation of the agreements.

Martinez Intermodal Station The new Martinez Intermodal Station, opened in 2001, is located along the UP right-of-way just west of Ferry Street in Downtown Martinez. The former station currently used for storage, is located on the eastern side of Ferry Street. The station is open from 5:15am – 11:00pm weekdays and 6:30am – 11:00pm weekends. A staffed ticket office, Quick Trak machines for self-service ticket purchase, and checked baggage service are also available during station hours. The station has an enclosed waiting area with restrooms, pay phones, vending machines and a snack bar. Photographs of the station are included in Figures 3 to 8.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 7 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 3: Martinez Intermodal Station Figure 4: Martinez Intermodal Station

Figure 5: Station Platform Figure 6: Waiting Area

Figure 7: Ticket Counter Figure 8: Historic Martinez Station

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 8 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

AT-GRADE CROSSINGS CONSIDERED FOR A QUIET ZONE There are two at-grade rail crossings in Downtown Martinez (Ferry Street and Berrellessa Street) that are being considered for a Quiet Zone. An aerial of this area is included in Figure 9 with a detailed diagram of the crossings presented in Figure 10. The two crossings are close to each other on either side of the Martinez Intermodal Station with a distance of about two-tenths of a mile between them. These are crossings of public roadways with the crossing angles between the roadway and rail lines in the 60 to 90-degree category used by the FRA (non-skewed crossing). The crossing of Berrellessa Street is perpendicular to the rail lines. Ferry Street is at a slight skew from perpendicular but falls easily within the 60 to 90-degree category.

Both crossings are over four active tracks of the UP Martinez Subdivision. The Ferry Street crossing is located at milepost 31.7; the Berrellessa Street crossing at milepost 31.1. The two center tracks are the UP mainline. The northernmost track is a yard lead track serving the Ozal Yard at milepost 30.7. The southernmost track is the station track serving the Martinez Intermodal Station. This track merges to the mainline track at milepost 30.8 to the west and milepost 31.9 to the east. Concrete crossing panels are in place for all tracks.

Warning devices, crossing layout, land use, and accident history of each crossing is described in the following sections. Photographs of each crossing and summary of findings can be found in the crossing inventory report in Appendix B.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 9 MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

FERRY ST

BERRELLESSA ST

AERIAL PHOTO OF THE STUDY CROSSINGS FIGURE 9 MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

FERRY ST FERRY STOP

JOE DiMAGGIO DR

STOP EMBARCADERO ST Automatic Gate

1

2 5 3

4 5

STATION TO STATION PARKING STOP

1 Yard lead

2 Main Track 1 FERRY ST FERRY BERRELLESSA ST BERRELLESSA 3 Main Track 2

4 Station track NORTH 5 Platform NOT TO SCALE

GRADE CROSSING DIAGRAM FIGURE 10 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

FERRY STREET Motor vehicle flow on Ferry Street is two-way over the crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. Just north of the railroad corridor, Ferry Street is intersected by Joe DiMaggio Drive as the primary roadway to the east. The northern extension of Ferry Street continues for approximately 450 feet to terminate at a former industrial parcel. This crossing has the heaviest traffic of the two crossings with 2,980 Average Daily Traffic4 (ADT). There are two adjacent intersections within 400 feet of the crossing as measured from the drop point of the warning gate arm. To the north, the intersection of Ferry Street and Joe DiMaggio Drive is approximately 60 feet from the gate arm to the intersection stop line; to the south, the intersection of Ferry Street and Marina Vista Avenue is approximately 220 feet from the gate arm. Neither intersection is signalized.

A rule of thumb in traffic planning is that a distance of 400 feet or more between a crossing and an adjacent intersection should be sufficient to prevent queuing of traffic extending from the crossing into the intersection. Where the distance is less than 400 feet and the adjacent intersection is signalized, some additional traffic studies might be merited in order to enhance safety at the intersection which could be affected by queue overspill. Since neither adjacent intersection on Ferry Street is signalized, this should not be a concern, but such traffic studies should be considered if there are future plans to add traffic signals at either intersection.

Currently northbound traffic from Ferry Street to continue on Ferry Street past Joe DiMaggio Drive requires a left turn across oncoming Joe DiMaggio Drive traffic. Traffic volumes on both roadways are relatively low, especially for the left turn movement onto Ferry Street. However, there is very limited distance between this intersection and the railroad tracks; only 2-3 cars could be safely accommodated here before vehicles would extend into the railroad crossing. While this may not be a safety hazard given current volumes, it may be an issue with future activities that would increase traffic on the northern section of Ferry Street, such as the new overflow parking lot being constructed for the Intermodal Station.

In addition, there are several driveways entering onto Ferry Street in close proximity south of the railroad crossing. On the west side of Ferry Street, the access road to the Martinez Intermodal Station is less than 20 feet from the gate arm and a private parking lot for the neighboring business is located approximately 107 feet from the gate arm. On the east side, the driveway to the former train station, now a public parking lot, is approximately 83 feet from the gate arm.

4 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is defined as the total traffic volume during a given period (from 1 to 364 days) divided by the number of days in that period. Current ADT volumes can be determined by continuous traffic counts or periodic counts. Where only periodic traffic counts are taken, ADT volume can be established by applying correction factors such as for season or day of week. For roadways having traffic in two directions, the ADT includes traffic in both directions unless specified otherwise.

24-hour tube counts were taken by Baymetrics at the grade crossing locations on October 18-20, 2007 to measure ADT.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 12 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

Warning devices at the crossings include automatic two-quadrant gates, warning bells and flashing lights. Stop lines, railroad crossing symbols and advance warning signs are included on the northbound Ferry Street and westbound Joe DiMaggio Drive approaches to the crossing. The southbound approach of Ferry Street does not have railroad crossing symbols or advance warning signs.

Surrounding land uses are a mix of commercial, office, government, and open space. North of the railroad corridor is the Martinez Waterfront Park and Martinez Regional Shoreline. This open space complex includes picnic areas, ball fields, playgrounds, horse arena, marina and boat launch, fishing pier and trails through the marshlands and along the shoreline. Also to the north is the former industrial parcel which is being developed by the City with a temporary 250-space parking lot for train patrons. Ferry Street is designated as part of the planned Bay Trail between Escobar Street and Joe DiMaggio Drive with an extension north of the industrial parcel to connect to Berrellessa Street and trails of the Martinez Regional Shoreline. Bicycle lanes are striped on Ferry Street north of the railroad corridor and continuing on Joe DiMaggio Drive for about 400 feet into Martinez Waterfront Park. South of the railroad corridor are offices, stores and restaurants including the Hot Dog Depot, Erwan Thai Restaurant, La Beau’s Restaurant, and Sign Solutions. There are sidewalks or sidepaths on either side of the crossing leading to the rail tracks.

Observations at these locations show that the crossing gates tend to drop approximately 25-35 seconds prior to train arrival and remain down for 10-20 seconds following the train clearing the intersection. The total time that the gate is down depends upon the size and speed of the train. On average, passenger trains average a total gate drop time of approximately 50 seconds. Due to the longer length and overall slower speed of most freight trains, gate drop times on average were higher. Northbound passenger trains activate the Ferry Street gates as they approach to stop at the station. After approximately 60-90 seconds, the gates reopen until the train is ready to depart the station.

Records of accidents since 1975 occurring at grade crossings are maintained by the FRA as part of its grade crossing collision database5. Three accidents were reported for the Ferry Street crossing; details include: • Accident occurred between an automobile and a 6-car switching train during the mid-morning of June 25, 1994. The train was estimated to be traveling at 3 mph while the automobile was stopped on the crossing. The automobile driver was not injured, but $1,500 in damage to the car was reported. • Accident occurred between a truck and a 66-car freight train on the morning of November 20, 1991. The train was estimated to be traveling at 20 mph when it struck an automobile moving over the crossing after driving around or through the gates. The automobile driver was not injured, but $2,000 in damage was reported to the vehicle. • Accident occurred between a truck-trailer and a 51-car freight train midday on September 2, 1981. The train was estimated to be traveling at 15 mph when it struck an automobile stopped on the crossing. The automobile driver was not injured, but $10,000 in damage was reported to the vehicle.

5 http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 13 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

BERRELLESSA STREET Motor vehicle flow on Berrellessa Street is two-way over the crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. The roadway is unimproved with no curb/gutter or sidewalks. Motor vehicle traffic flows at this crossing are generally low with 680 ADT. There are two intersections in close proximity to the crossing. On the north, Embarcadero Street intersects adjacent to the railroad corridor on the west side of Berrellessa Street. This is an unsignalized intersection. To the south, the intersection with Foster Street is approximately 350 feet from the gate arm. In addition there are several driveways for the residential development north of the railroad corridor; to the south there is an entrance to an industrial use on the east side of Berrellessa Street approximately 98 feet from the gate. The gate to the industrial use on the west side, approximately 43 feet from the gate arm, appears to be closed.

Warning devices at the crossings include automatic two-quadrant gates, warning bells and flashing lights. Stop lines, advance warning signage, and railroad crossing symbols are located on most approaches. Average gate drop times are similar to those described for Ferry Street above.

Surrounding land uses are primarily industrial, residential, and open space. North of the railroad corridor, Berrellessa Street is lined with single and multi-family residential. The street ends at the Granger’s Wharf area of the Martinez Regional Shoreline which includes marshlands with trails and areas for wildlife viewing. The segment of Berrellessa Street from the railroad tracks to the north is designated as planned Bay Trail and connects to the segment on Ferry Street via a trail around the industrial parcel north of the tracks. From Berrellessa Street, the Bay Trail would continue west along the south side of the tracks. There is also an existing trail connection from Marina Vista Avenue along Alhambra Creeks which terminates at Berrellessa Street south of the tracks. Embarcadero Street includes industrial and other uses such as Cablecom, UP Ozal Yard, and the Martinez Sportsman’s Club. South of the railroad corridor, Berrellessa Street and surrounding roadways serve primarily industrial parcels such as Al’s Auto Detail, Eisen Environmental and Construction Services, and Telfer Oil.

Two accidents for the Berrellessa Street crossing were reported in the FRA database. Details include: • Accident occurred between an automobile and a 27-car switching train during early morning hours on November 23, 1988. The train was estimated to be traveling at 5 mph while the automobile was stopped on the crossing. The automobile driver was not injured, but $3,500 in damage to the car was reported. • Accident occurred between an automobile and a 23-car switching train during the middle of the night on September 30, 1986. The train was estimated to be traveling at 2 mph while the automobile was stopped on the crossing. The automobile driver was not injured, but $500 in damage to the car was reported.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 14 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE TRAFFIC As previously mentioned, there are existing and future pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the grade crossings. It is expected that Ferry Street would attract significant pedestrian and bicycle activity as this roadway provides access to the park lands north of the railroad corridor. Observations on a recent weekday morning (November 13, 2009) substantiated this finding for Ferry Street. No similar activity was observed at Berrellessa Street.

To determine the level of pedestrian and bicycle activity at the Ferry Street crossing, a more formal study of bicycle and pedestrian traffic was conducted. This study was focused on weekend activity as the prime time for recreational pursuits. Pedestrian and bicycle counts were taken at the Ferry Street crossing during the weekend midday (Saturday from 11:15am to 1:15pm) on December 5, 2009. The findings are summarized below in Table 3.

Table 3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic at the Ferry Street Grade Crossing

Bicyclists Pedestrians Motor Vehicles

Time Period NB SB NB SB NB SB

11:00-11:30 am 0 0 9 14 14 12

11:30-11:45 am 2 5 3 4 22 20

11:45-12:00 pm 1 1 2 1 28 20

12:00-12:15 pm 0 0 10 4 25 22

12:15-12:30 pm 1 0 2 6 25 27

12:30-12:45 pm 0 0 5 4 10 31

12:45-1:00 pm 0 0 8 4 34 20

1:00-1:15 pm 3 1 8 7 32 25

11:00-11:30 am 0 0 9 14 14 12

Total Volume 14 91 367 Peak Hour Volume: 10 47 204 12:15-1:15 pm

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates, Counts taken on Saturday, December 5, 2009.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 15 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

RAILROAD TRAFFIC As noted, rail traffic that passes through Martinez is a mix of local and long distance traffic. Rail traffic generators in the immediate vicinity of the two at-grade crossings are petroleum refining facilities to the east. Also, there is a UP rail yard at Ozal, less than a mile west of the crossings. The yard supports pick-ups and deliveries of railcars including: • At local oil refineries; • At shippers to the west in Crockett and Rodeo; and • At shippers to the east in Benecia and Fairfield, and in Pittsburg on the UP’s Mococo Line.

The Port of Oakland is a significant origin and destination for rail intermodal (container) traffic on the Martinez Subdivision. It is located about 31 miles southwest of the Martinez crossings. The port-related traffic is for the most part transcontinental traffic, that is, containers carried on double-stack trains bound to and from Midwestern urban areas. This traffic transits the Martinez crossings.

Other long distance trains through Martinez include intermodal and carload (boxcar, tank car, gondola, auto- carrying bi- and tri-levels, etc.) trains operating between the Pacific Northwest, Roseville, Oakland, San Jose and Southern California.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 16 SECTION 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

SECTION 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS

This section presents future conditions for the study crossings and surrounding area for the horizon year of 2025. It describes future population, employment, land use, freight and passenger rail operations, and traffic conditions.

FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT According to the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan, Downtown Martinez holds significant appeal as a residential area for some segments of the population and for some businesses as an employment location. It is unlikely to become a major job center, with the exception of the concentration of county employees, because of the Downtown’s distance from major transportation routes. The ABAG Projections 2008 estimates that Martinez will add approximately 5,000 new residents and 6,000 new jobs between 2000 and 2025 with the potential for Downtown to attract a share of the newcomers.

FUTURE LAND USE Existing land uses in the vicinity of the two crossings include residential, commercial, office, government, industrial, and open space. The Martinez Downtown Specific Plan was adopted in July 2006 to guide public and private investment in Downtown to ensure the future development helps realize the City’s goals and visions for the future of Downtown. These goals focus on “enhancing the quality of life for Martinez residents and bringing back commercial dynamism to the downtown business area”. The Specific Plan outlines the desired land uses for Downtown and provides appropriate design standards for the various Downtown sub-areas. In all cases, the Specific Plan is intended to promote smart growth and sustainability specifically by strengthening Downtown as a shopping and dining destination, capitalizing on the valuable open space resources in Downtown, creating new opportunities for a variety of housing types while preserving and enhancing the Downtown’s historic small-town character. Implementation of a Quiet Zone for the two crossings would support these endeavors and improve the experience for residents of and visitors to Downtown.

Two future projects would affect the Ferry Street crossing. First, a temporary overflow parking lot for the Martinez Intermodal Station is being developed on an industrial parcel north of the station and tracks. Initially this will include a 250-space parking lot to be replaced with a 450-space parking structure. The temporary parking lot is expected to open in the summer of 2011. There is no timeframe yet for the parking structure. Other uses for this parcel are being considered but nothing has yet been decided. Implications to pedestrian and vehicular circulation are discussed later in this section. Second, ferry service to Martinez currently does not exist but is being considered for the future by the San Francisco Water Emergency Transportation Authority along seven new routes on the Bay. An Antioch/Pittsburg to Martinez to San Francisco route is included for consideration with the trip from Martinez to San Francisco to take

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 17 SECTION 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS approximately 60 minutes. While ferry service would ease highway congestion, cut smog and global warming gases, and provide essential emergency access in the event of emergency, the source for funds to develop and operate the expanded ferry service is not yet identified. Specifically, development of the Martinez ferry service and terminal would provide an opportunity for Downtown economic redevelopment, emergency access to Contra Costa County if highway and bridge access is disrupted, and a good connection to Amtrak and waterfront recreational facilities. The ferry terminal would be located at the Martinez Waterfront accessed by Ferry Street and Joe DiMaggio Drive.

FUTURE RAILROAD OPERATIONS It is estimated that the total number of trains per day through Martinez in Year 2030 will increase to 80 from the existing train traffic of 64 trains per day. This volume would still be dominated by passenger trains, through freight train traffic will increase 50 percent. The primary driver of freight rail traffic is likely to continue to be Trans Pacific container volumes traveling on UP and BNSF trains between the Port of Oakland and Midwestern and Southern cities. Amtrak regional trains, the Capitols and the San Joaquins, are also likely to grow, in light of chronic congestion on I-80 and growing travel demand between the Bay Area and the Central Valley cities served by these trains. The assumption here is that access to the Martinez Subdivision for more regional intercity trains can and will be negotiated with UP.

FREIGHT OPERATIONS This analysis assumes that freight rail traffic on the UP Martinez Subdivision through Martinez will grow on the order of 2.5 percent annually until 2025. While rail traffic may grow at a slightly faster rate (e.g. 3 percent per annum, consistent with the historic growth in the national economy), train traffic would grow at a lesser rate, as trains can handle more traffic by becoming longer (e.g. growing from 5,000’ today to 7,000’ in 15 years). Future through train volume in 2025 is therefore assumed to be in the neighborhood of 12 trains per day, versus about 8 today with no change expected in switching traffic (12 trains per day). Other characteristics of this train traffic – operating pattern and speeds – would be the same as today.

PASSENGER OPERATIONS – AMTRAK Any major growth in Amtrak California trains, the Capitols and the San Joaquins, operating through Martinez is subject to negotiation with UP. Caltrans, the sponsor for these trains, must come to an agreement with UP regarding future trains beyond the single additional San Joaquin round trip (two trains) allowed under the current agreement, and UP can be counted on requiring expensive capacity enhancements to its lines before allowing more trains. Still, these trains are popular, and their ridership is high. As the Central Valley cities served by these trains are likely to experience strong job and population growth, travel demand from the Bay Area to these cities is likely to grow as well. Therefore, it is probable that Caltrans will seek to expand its train volumes. This study assumes passenger train volumes in 2025 would be in the neighborhood of 56 trains per day, versus the 44 operating today. They may include variants of existing services, including commuter trains and express or limited stop trains between versus all-stop trains today, etc. Other characteristics of this train

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 18 SECTION 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS traffic – train length and typical speeds – would be the same as today. No increase is expected in Amtrak long distance train services – the Coast Starlight or California Zephyr trains.

FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AT CROSSINGS To determine likely future traffic conditions in the study area, future vehicle traffic for Year 2025 was estimated for the at-grade crossings using findings of the Update of Traffic Impact Analysis for Martinez Intermodal Facility.6 This study found that the projected overall growth by 2025 for the Downtown Martinez area is rather small. Using two links from this study (Ferry Street north of Marina Vista Avenue and Alhambra Avenue south of Escobar Street) that are most closely located to the study grade crossings, it was estimated that future baseline traffic growth would amount to a 16 percent increase over existing conditions. This rate of increase is likely higher that what would actually occur at the study grade crossing since the representative study links are located closer to activity centers of Downtown and would, therefore, likely experience greater increases than the two study crossings. However, to take the conservative approach, the factor of 16 percent was used to calculate future baseline ADT.

Traffic from two future projects was added to this baseline. First, the future new parking facility north of the railroad corridor was estimated to add 1,260 ADT to the Ferry Street crossing. Second, ridership forecasts for future ferry service7 would generate approximately 1,133 daily Martinez passenger trips. Reducing these trips by 10 percent to account for carpools to the ferry terminal, approximately 1,020 ADT would be added to the Ferry Street crossing. The resulting future 2025 ADT is 5,740 and 790 for Ferry Street and Berrellessa Street, respectively.

Traffic volumes are not the only considerations for these new projects. Patrons parking at the new parking facility would require pedestrian facilities to get from their cars to the station. The City is currently working to provide a pathway with pedestrian-level lighting along the access road. Ultimately pedestrian access would be provided via a pedestrian overpass from the station to the parking structure. Vehicles using the parking lot will greatly increase the left turn movement from northbound Ferry Street across oncoming traffic on Joe DiMaggio Drive. While traffic volumes on Joe DiMaggio Drive are relatively low, there is limited room (40- 60 feet) for vehicles to stack up behind a vehicle waiting to make this turn without extending onto the railroad tracks. It may be necessary to control traffic on southbound Joe DiMaggio Drive to give the left turns priority and avoid traffic backing into the railroad crossing.

6 Update of Traffic Impact Analysis for Martinez Intermodal Facility, Carter & Burgess, Inc., January 19, 2007. 7 Water Emergency Transportation Authority website assessed on 12/3/2009, www. Watertransit.org/proposedRoutes/Antioch_overview.aspx.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 19 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

The purpose of this section is to identify the potential grade crossing improvements necessary for the qualification of a new Quiet Zone for the City of Martinez. The process for creating a new Quiet Zone as defined by the FRA is attached in Appendix A. In brief, the process requires that the Quiet Zone be qualified by meeting established risk measurements as described in the following section. Once the Quiet Zone is qualified, the local public authority having jurisdiction over traffic enforcement (in this case the City of Martinez) will install identified improvements and signage, submit proper notifications, provide updates to the national grade crossing inventory, and provide periodic updates to the FRA. In addition, a Quiet Zone would require the concurrence of the CPUC, which shares safety oversight for these crossings with the FRA, and of the UP.

MEASUREMENTS OF RISK There are three measurements of risk used in the calculation of a Quiet Zone. They are: • The Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT), which is calculated from collision data on a nationwide basis. The NSRT reflects the average level of risk at public highway-rail grade crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates and at which locomotive horns are sounded. The NSRT is routinely recalculated with the most recent update on September 1, 2009 when the NSRT was increased from 17,610 to 18,775. • The Risk Index with Horns (RIWH), which is a measure of risk to the motoring public when locomotive horns are routinely sounded at every public highway-rail grade crossing within a Quiet Zone. • The Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI), which is the average risk for all public crossings in a proposed Quiet Zone taking into consideration the increased risk caused by the absence of train horns and any decrease in risk attributable to the use of supplementary or alternative safety measures (discussed below) . The QZRI is the measurement used to determine if a Quiet Zone can be established and which, if any, improvements will be necessary.

RIWH and QZRI measurements of risk are calculated using the FRA’s Quiet Zone Calculator.8 The process for running the calculator is described below. A Quiet Zone may be established if the QZRI is at, or below, the NSRT or the RIWH. Under existing conditions, Martinez does not qualify for Quiet Zone status as shown in Table 4, page 23. The QZRI may be reduced by implementation of approved safety measures which have been rated by the FRA with a risk reduction credit. Using these credits, the QZRI can be reduced to a risk level to qualify for Quiet Zone status.

8 The Quiet Zone Calculator can be found at http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 20 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

QUIET ZONE SAFETY MEASURES The approved safety measures for a Quiet Zone include Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) and Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs). A brief description of each is included below. In addition, the potential for use of Wayside Horns as an alternative to the Quiet Zone is discussed later in this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY SAFETY MEASURES (SSMS) SSMs are engineering improvements, which when installed at highway-rail grade crossings within a Quiet Zone, would reduce the risk of a collision at the crossing. SSMs are installed to reduce the risk level either to the level that would have existed if the train horn were sounded (compensating for the lack of the train horn) or to a level below the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. SSMs include: • Grade separation • Temporary closure (i.e., nighttime closure) • Permanent closure • Four-quadrant gates • Gates with medians or channelization devices, also known as traffic separators • One-way streets equipped with gates that fully block the street

ALTERNATIVE SAFETY MEASURES (ASMS) An ASM is a safety system or procedure provided by the appropriate traffic control authority which, after individual review and analysis, is determined by the FRA to be an effective substitute for the locomotive horn at specific highway-rail grade crossings. ASMs include: • Modified Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) - An SSM that has in some way been adjusted to accommodate unique circumstances existing at a specific highway-rail grade crossing and no longer conforms to the SSM requirements. • Engineering Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) - Engineering improvements other than modified SSMs include improvements that address underlying geometric conditions, including sight distance, that are a source of increased risk at the crossing. • Non-engineering Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) - Photo enforcement, or a consistent and systematic program of traffic law enforcement, public education programs, or a combination thereof, that produces a measurable reduction of risk at designated Quiet Zone highway-rail grade crossings.

USE OF APPROVED SAFETY MEASURES The need for FRA approvals to establish a Quiet Zone and the frequency of periodic updates to continue the Quiet Zone will vary with the type of safety measures used. Periodic updates include 1) affirmation that the Quiet Zone continues to conform to the requirements of the Quiet Zone and 2) an up-to-date and accurate Grade Crossing Inventory Form for each crossing within the Quiet Zone. The requirements for FRA approval and peiodic updates fall into the following categories:

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 21 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

• If SSMs were added to the two public crossings in the Martinez Quiet Zone, the Quiet Zone would be qualified without additional FRA approval. The necessary improvements and notifications must be made before the horns are silenced. The periodic updates must occur every 4½ to 5 years from the time the Quiet Zone is established. • If SSMs are used at some but not every public crossing, the zone may also qualify for Quiet Zone status if the QZRI is lower than either the RIWH or the NSRT. If this is true, the Quiet Zone is qualified without additional FRA approval. The necessary improvements and notifications must be made before the horns are silenced. The periodic updates must occur every 2½ to 3 years from the time the Quiet Zone is established. • The QZRI may also be reduced by implementing one or more ASMs. The FRA must approve the use of ASMs and will do so if the QZRI will be reduced to a level at or below the RIWH or NSRT. The public authority must submit estimates of effectiveness for the ASM which may be based upon adjustments from the effectiveness levels provided by the FRA for SSMs or from actual field data derived from the crossing sites. It is recommended that the public authority consult with the FRA if considering the use of ASMs. The periodic updates must occur every 2½ to 3 years from the time the Quiet Zone is established. The CPUC must also approve the use of any modified SSMs or ASMs.

APPLICATION OF THE QUIET ZONE CALCULATOR To collect the data needed for running the Quiet Zone Calculator, the study team inventoried the two crossings late in 2009 and captured detail on the existing crossing characteristics, e.g. warning devices, number of railroad tracks, number of roadway lanes, paving status, and pavement markings and signage for the crossings. The existing conditions analysis was supplemented with information on the number and speed of trains obtained from available documents and contact with the UP. 24-hour hose counts were taken at the grade crossing locations in October 2007 to measure average daily traffic. Bicycle and pedestrian counts were taken at the Ferry Street crossing during the midday on a Saturday in December 2009 as representative of the peak pedestrian and bicycle traffic period. The team relied on accident history provided through the FRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Reports. Existing land use and demographic information was collected from the on-site visit and the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan. This data was compiled into the Martinez At-Grade Crossing Inventory report. The summary products of this effort can be found in Section 2: Existing Conditions and Appendix B.

Future land use and demographic information for the area was available in the Martinez Downtown Specific Plan. Growth in rail traffic was estimated at a rate based on projected trends for increases in freight and rail traffic. Future vehicle and pedestrian traffic for the crossings was estimated from the traffic impact analysis for the Martinez Intermodal Facility done in 2007. This study included estimates of parking use for the new parking facility north of the railroad corridor which would affect both vehicle and pedestrian traffic at the Ferry Street crossing. Details of this analysis can be found in Section 3: Future Conditions.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 22 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

The goal of these efforts was to capture the detail required for running of the FRA’s Quiet Zone Calculator for both existing and future conditions. This calculator develops the QZRI by 1) assessing the risk at each crossing and 2) by averaging the cumulative risk over the number of crossings in a Quiet Zone. The calculator determines the risk at each crossing given 14 variables: 1. Type of warning device 2. Number of highway vehicles per day 3. Total trains per day 4. Number of through trains per daylight hours 5. Total number of swithching trains 6. Number of main/other tracks 7. Classification of roadway (urban or rural; arterial, collector, or local) 8. Paved roadway: yes or no 9. Maximum train timetable speed 10. Number of highway lanes 11. Existence of wayside horns 12. Existence of pre-existing SSMs 13. Number of years for accident data (5 years) 14. Number of accidents during accident data years

The study team entered the first 12 variables. The Calculator provides the last two variables from a link with other FRA data. The results of the Calculator without improvements for existing and future conditions is included in Table 4. As shown, the resulting QZRI is well abobe the NSRT and QIWH. Therefore, the study crossings would not qualify for Quiet Zone status without the implementation of safety measures.

Table 4: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator without Improvements

ADT Trains/day Risk NSRT RIWH QZRI

Existing

Ferry Street 2,980 64 40222.67 18775.00 20266.67 33804.80 Berrellessa Street 680 64 27386.93

Future

Ferry Street 5,740 80 48900.60 18775.00 24462.68 40803.75 Berrellessa Street 790 80 32706.91

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 23 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

QUIET ZONE CONCEPTS Prior to evaluating Quiet Zone concepts with the Calculator, the study team did a preliminary screening for the suitability of the SSMs. The results of this analysis is shown below in Table 5. Because of the lack of alternate access roadways, location of parallel adjacent roadways, and configuration of the crossings, many of the SSMs would not be feasible. From this preliminary screening, three Quiet Zone concepts were identified for further study. These concepts are discussed below, followed by an analysis of the potential for the use of wayside horns as an alternative to or as part of the Quiet Zone.

The use of ASMs was not considered in this analysis because of the more stringent application and reporting requirements. The use of ASMs could be reconsidered for Martinez if funding is not available for installation of the SSMs.

Table 5: Preliminary Screening of SSMs Ferry Street Berrellessa Street SSM Grade Separation Not warranted Not warranted Not feasible. Not feasible. Closure Only access route across tracks Only access route across tracks 4-Quadrant Gates Feasible Feasible Feasible Would require closure of station Not Feasible access road. Could require Location of parallel roadway Medians reconfiguration of intersection with (Embarcadero Street) would not Joe DiMaggio Drive to mitigate support use of medians impact to left turns Not feasible. Not feasible. One-Way Street Only access route across tracks Only access route across tracks

CONCEPT 1 This concept assumes that the existing two-quadrant gates and lights are upgraded to four-quadrant gates and lights at both crossings. The installation of four-quadrant gates would include a Vehicle Presence System, which will permit vehicles inside a crossing to clear the crossing before gates come down. A schematic of Concept 1 is presented in Figure 11 at the end of this section.

CONCEPT 2 This concept assumes that the existing two-quadrant gates and lights are upgraded to four-quadrant gates and lights at the Ferry Street crossing only. The installation of four-quadrant gates would include a Vehicle Presence System, which will permit vehicles inside a crossing to clear the crossing before gates come down. No improvements would be made at the Berrellessa Street crossing. A schematic of Concept 2 is presented in Figure 12 at the end of this section.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 24 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

CONCEPT 3 This concept assumes that the existing two-quadrant gates and lights would remain for both crossings. The Ferry Street crossing would be upgraded to include an approximately 130 foot median to the north of the tracks and a 60 foot median to the south. The Quiet Zone regulations require a minimum 100 foot median. However, if there is an intersection within 100 feet of the gate, the median must extend at least 60 feet from the gate arm. Any intersection within 60 feet of the gate arm must be relocated or closed. This includes intersections with streets, alleys or driveways accessing commercial properties. To the north, measuring 60 feet from the gate arm would put the end of the median in the middle of the intersection of Ferry Street and Joe DiMaggio Drive. It is recommended that the median follow Joe DiMaggio Drive to the end of the curve for a distance of approximately 130 feet. To accommodate the left turns from northbound Ferry Street to continue on Ferry Street past the intersection with Joe DiMaggio Drive, the intersection of Ferry Street and Joe DiMaggio Drive would be relocated to the east. To the south of the railroad tracks, a 60 foot median is proposed ending before the driveway to the parking lot at the old train station. With this concept, the access road to the Intermodal Station must be closed at Ferry Street per FRA regulations; consequently station access would need to be rerouted to the other two available entries/exits. Impacts to emergency access would need to be considered before this concept could be implemented. A schematic of Scenario 3 is presented in Figure 13 at the end of this section.

QUIET ZONE CONCEPTS UNDER EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS The Quiet Zone Calculator was run for each of the Quiet Zone concepts to determine if they meet the requirements for a Quiet Zone. Tables 6 to 8 present the calculation of QZRI for the two crossings with the three potential Quiet Zone concepts under consideration. The resulting QZRI for Concept 1 is well below the NSRT for both existing and future conditions. Since both crossings would be treated with an SSM, the Quiet Zone would be qualified once the SSMs are installed. FRA approval would not be required. Following qualification, the City of Martinez would update the Grade Crossing Inventory Forms, submit notification of a Quiet Zone to the affected parties, silence horns and install signage at the crossings. Periodic updates to the FRA, as described earlier in the section, would be required every 4½ to 5 years to maintain the Quiet Zone status.

Concepts 2 and 3 would include SSMs at the Ferry Street crossing only. With the respective improvements (four-quadrant gates for Concept 2 and medians for Concept 3), the resulting QZRI would be below both the NSRT and RIWH under existing conditions and below the RIWH under future conditions. Following installation of the SSMs and signage, updates to the Grade Crossing Inventory Forms, and notifications to the affected parties, the train horns could be silenced. Again, FRA approval would not be required. For these concepts, periodic updates to the FRA would be required every 2½ to 3 years to maintain the Quiet Zone status.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 25 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

Table 6: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator – Concept 1

QZ Improvement Risk NSRT RIWH QZRI

Existing

Ferry Street 4-quadrant gates 9251.22 18775.00 20266.67 7775.1 Berrellessa Street 4-quadrant gates 6298.99

Future

Ferry Street 4-quadrant gates 11247.14 18775.00 24462.68 9384.86 Berrellessa Street 4-quadrant gates 7522.59

Table 7: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator – Concept 2

QZ Improvement Risk NSRT RIWH QZRI

Existing

Ferry Street 4-quadrant gates 9251.22 18775.00 20266.67 18319.07 No improvements from Berrellessa Street 27386.93 existing 2-quad gates Future

Ferry Street 4-quadrant gates 11247.14 18775.00 24462.68 21977.02 No improvements from Berrellessa Street 32706.91 existing 2-quad gates

Table 8: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator – Concept 3

QZ Improvement Risk NSRT RIWH QZRI

Existing Medians added to Ferry Street 8044.53 existing 2-quad gates 18775.00 20266.67 17715.73 No improvements from Berrellessa Street 27386.93 existing 2-quad gates Future Medians added to Ferry Street 9780.12 existing 2-quad gates 18775.00 24462.68 21243.52 No improvements from Berrellessa Street 32706.91 existing 2-quad gates

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 26 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES Following in Table 9 are conceptual, order-of-magnitude capital and operating cost estimates for Quiet Zone improvements in Martinez. Capital costs are stated on a per improvement basis. They are based on costs developed in the course of a recent rail line improvement study in Northern California.9 Also included below are conceptual operating cost estimates for maintenance of Quiet Zones. These estimates were obtained from the UP website.

According to the UP website, a four-quadrant gate implementation could cost about $500,000. However, it is the study team’s opinion that this cost is out-of-date. A realistic cost estimate for a new two-quadrant gate is $600,000. With a four-quadrant gate, the cost would be less than twice this figure, that is, more like $1 million. This is because, with a four-quadrant gate, there will be some economy as all four gates would be governed by one controlling device. An obvious question would be, why not use the existing gates and add to them as a way of lowering costs? While this seems reasonable enough, a conversation with a former UP civil engineer10 revealed that the UP typically prefers all new warning device equipment when crossing configurations are modified. In an effort to be conservative, this report assumes all new warning devices.

As expected, Concept 1 would be the most expensive alternative, at approximately $3 million. Concept 2 would total approximately half that amount at $1.5 million. Concept 3 is the least expensive at $150,000. However, of all the alternatives, Concept 3 would result in the most impact to existing circulation patterns in the study area. More discussion of the implications of each concept can be found in the Evaluation of Alternatives in Section 5.

ONGOING MAINTENANCE COSTS In addition to the capital costs of installing the Quiet Zone improvements, UP will likely insist that Martinez cover the ongoing maintenance costs. UP estimates these at between $4,000 and $10,000 per year for a Quiet Zone. Should the City pursue the implementation of a Quiet Zone, there will also be liability implications. These estimates do not include any costs for additional liability coverage triggered by the Quiet Zone. It is recommended that the City Attorney review the issues with the City’s insurance provider.

9 Service Expansion Analysis, San Joaquin Regional Rail Authority, 2008. 10 Per conversation with Richard Gonzalez, formerly of UP and now of J.L. Patterson and Associates, in early April, 2008.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 27 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

Table 9: Conceptual Cost Estimates Concept Improvement Units Unit Cost Total 4-quad gates 2 1,000,000 2,000,000 Construction Cost 2,000,000 1 Engineering 15% 300,000 Contingencies 30% 700,000 Total Cost $3,000,000

4-quad gates 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 Construction Cost 1,000,000 2 Engineering 15% 150,000 Contingencies 30% 350,000 Total Cost $1,500,000

60 foot median 1 10,000 10,000 130 foot median 1 20,000 20,000 Road closure 1 10,000 10,000 Relocated intersection 1 60,000 60,000 3 Construction Cost 100,000 Engineering 15% 15,000 Contingencies 30% 35,000 Total Cost $150,000

WAYSIDE HORNS One alternative which obviates the need for trains to blow their horns at crossings is installations of automated train horns, also known as wayside horns. These horns are mounted on poles at crossings and directed down the cross streets away from crossings. If they are in place, locomotive engineers do not have to blow their horns at crossings, as the wayside horn will blow automatically as trains approach and accomplish the same task of warning drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists of the oncoming train. Cost and installation of the horns are minor compared to the cost of some of the other improvements. With wayside horns, there is no requirement for new gates.

Strictly speaking, a wayside horn system is not an SSM. A wayside horn may be used in lieu of a locomotive horn at any highway-rail crossing equipped with an active warning system consisting of, at a minimum, flashing lights and gates. A wayside horn can be used within a Quiet Zone but is not to be considered in calculating the QZRI.

The noise intensity and extent of the train horn versus the wayside (or automated) train horn is illustrated in Figure 14 (Ferry Street) and Figure 15 (Berrellessa Street). As the diagrams show, the land area affected by the wayside horn is reduced from the area that is affected by the train horn. The wayside horn not only

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 28 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE reduces the land area adversely affected by the train horns but also reduces the maximum decibel reading or horn volume at all locations within the path of the wayside horns.

According to Railroad Controls Ltd. (RCL), a railroad systems engineering firm in Benbrook, Texas, wayside horns follow the same sounding pattern as the train horns, beginning when the train is a distance of ¼ mile from the crossing and continuing until the approaching train enters the grade crossing.11 Wayside horn systems come with a confirmation signal, typically a flashing light. When the locomotive engineer sees that the confirmation signal is flashing, he will not be required to sound his horn unless he detects an unsafe condition at the grade crossing.

Wayside horns may be considered a potential alternative to a Quiet Zone. However, it must be remembered that horns will continue to be sounded. While the area affected the wayside horns versus that affected by the train horns may be smaller, the noise will be concentrated at the crossings. Those areas affected by the wayside horns will be affected by a longer period of time than with the train horns. Consequently, wayside horns may not be a good solution for some land uses such as for the residences on Berrellessa Street and businesses on Ferry Street.

HORN BLOWING IN MARTINEZ WITH A QUIET ZONE Implementation of a Quiet Zone in Martinez will not result in an end to train horn blowing in the City. As noted in 49 CFP 222.23, “a locomotive engineer may sound the locomotive horn to provide a warning to animals, vehicle operators, pedestrians, trespassers or crews on other trains in an emergency situation if, in the locomotive engineer’s sole judgment, such action is appropriate in order to prevent imminent injury, death, or property damage.” It is not difficult to imagine that such instances will occur in the future as they do today, with or without a Quiet Zone. Ergo, horn blowing can be expected when safety requires.

In addition, sounding the train horn is required when a stopped train begins moving such as when a passenger train is leaving the station or freight train/engine is leaving Ozal Yard (specified in Section 5.8.2 per the General Code of Operating Rules adhered to by Amtrak, UP and most other North American railroads). Considering that Ferry Street is adjacent to the Martinez Intermodal Station and that Berrellessa Street is in close proximity to the Station and Ozal Yard, the study area will continue to be affected by these horns.

11 Per Rick Brown, RCL, 817-820-6300, on October 17, 2008; & RCL website: http://www.railroadcontrols.com/ahs/

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 29 MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

FERRY ST FERRY STOP

JOE DiMAGGIO DR

STOP EMBARCADERO ST Automatic Gate

STATION TO STATION PARKING STOP FERRY ST FERRY BERRELLESSA ST BERRELLESSA

NORTH NOT TO SCALE

QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS - CONCEPT 1 FIGURE 11 MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

FERRY ST FERRY STOP

JOE DiMAGGIO DR

STOP EMBARCADERO ST Automatic Gate

STATION TO STATION PARKING STOP FERRY ST FERRY BERRELLESSA ST BERRELLESSA

NORTH NOT TO SCALE

QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS - CONCEPT 2 FIGURE 12 MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY FERRY ST FERRY

FERRY ST FERRY

STOP JOE DiMAGGIOSTOP DR 130’ Median Relocate intersection to allow left turn access to Ferry Street May require reducing width of bike lanes JOE DiMAGGIO DR

STOP EMBARCADERO ST Automatic Gate

STATION No access to Ferry StreetTO STATION PARKING STOP

60’ Median Would not block driveways to parking lots May require loss of 3 parking spaces FERRY ST FERRY BERRELLESSA ST BERRELLESSA

NORTH NOT TO SCALE

QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS - CONCEPT 3 FIGURE 13 MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

Train Horns 70 Db 80 Db 90 Db 100 Db

Wayside Horns

TRAIN HORNS VS. WAYSIDE HORNS AT FERRY STREET FIGURE 14 MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

Train Horns 70 Db 80 Db 90 Db 100 Db

Wayside Horns

TRAIN HORNS VS. WAYSIDE HORNS AT BERRELLESSA STREET FIGURE 15 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE

OTHER CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS In discussion with the City, it was noted that there was interest in improving safety for pedestrians at the Ferry Street crossing. The recommended solution would be to install the following: • Pedestrian warning gates, including pedestrian level flashing lights and bells, across the pedestrian pathway to alert of an oncoming train; • Pedestrian push gates to allow pedestrians who are trapped in the crossing when the gates have lowered to exit the crossing; and • Fencing to channel pedestrian flows to use the pathway protected by the warning gates and push gates.

Recently the City of Burlingame upgraded the North Lane crossing to include these treatments. Before and after photographs of the crossing are included in Figure 16. WSA is in the process of studying the effectiveness of these improvements. The results of this analysis should be available in early spring 2010.

Figure 16: Before (left) and After Pedestrian Improvements in Burlingame

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 35 SECTION 5: EVALUATION AND NEXT STEPS

SECTION 5: EVALUATION AND NEXT STEPS

Section 4 presented three concepts for implementing a Quiet Zone in Martinez. Any of the three appear to be implementable. Two questions remain. First, which concept makes the most sense? And second, what are the next steps toward implementation of a Martinez Quiet Zone?

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Presented below is one approach to finding an answer to the first question. The study team evaluated the three alternatives on five criteria. These were overall safety, pedestrian safety, cost, local impact, and review requirements. The alternatives were assigned a score between 3 and 1, with 3 representing optimum performance on a particular criterion. The results appear in Table 10.

Table 10: Evaluation of the Quiet Zone Concepts

Criteria Concept 1(1) Concept 2(2) Concept 3(3)

Overall Safety 3 2 2

Pedestrian Safety 3 2 1

Capital Cost 1 2 3

Local Impact 3 3 2

FRA Review Requirements 3 2 2

Total 13 11 10 (1) Four-quadrant gates at both crossings (2) Four-quadrant gates at Ferry Street only (3) Medians, road closure and realignment at Ferry Street only

OVERALL SAFETY Concept 1 with SSMs in place at both crossings has a far lower QZRI rating than do Concepts 2 and 3. Thus, Concept 1 receives a higher score on this criterion. It is recognized that Concepts 2 and 3 will require changes in driver behavior. For example, drivers using the Berrellessa Street crossing must obey the warning gates (which they should anyway) as there will not be train horns to underscore the danger of crossing when a train is approaching.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 36 SECTION 5: EVALUATION AND NEXT STEPS

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Four-quadrant gates would be installed in such as way to come down across both sidewalks and traffic lanes, thereby more effectively deterring pedestrians from entering crossings when a train is approaching. Thus, Concept 1 is superior to all other options on this criterion. Concept 3 ranks lowest on this criterion as no four-quadrant gates would be used, and the median improvements would not enhance pedestrian safety in crossing the railroad tracks.

CAPITAL COST Concept 1 has the highest cost for implementation; Concept 3 has the lowest.

LOCAL IMPACT Concepts 1 and 2 would have little impact on traffic circulation or access in the immediate area baring additional attentiveness needed when crossing at Berrellessa Street without additional improvements under Concept 2.

With the installation of medians on Ferry Street, Concept 3 would significantly change local traffic patterns on Ferry Street and Joe DiMaggio Drive. To accommodate the medians it would be necessary to: • Eliminate access to the Intermodal Station from Ferry Street. • Relocate the intersection of Ferry Street and Joe DiMaggio Drive to a location east of the existing intersection. This modification would be necessary to maintain the left turn movement for northbound vehicles on Ferry Street to continue onto Ferry Street north of Joe DiMaggio Drive. While this movement currently does not now represent a significant percentage of the traffic crossing the railroad tracks (78 ADT or less the 3 percent of total ADT), the use of the northern segment of Ferry Street will increase once the overflow Intermodal Station parking lot is opened and demand for this turning movement increases. • The installation of the median would require a small reduction in width for travel lanes and parking. With a 2 foot median, it may be necessary to remove the three on-street parking spaces just south of the tracks to accommodate the median. The bicycle lanes north of the railroad tracks may need to be narrowed slightly, but they are currently wider than the Caltrans standard width (4 feet) for bicycle lanes on roadways without on-street parking. There are also narrower (and perhaps less attractive) median options that can be explored. Should a dedicated left turn to the overflow parking lot be needed, Joe DiMaggio Drive would need widening.

Based upon impacts to local circulation, Concept 3 may not be the best alternative; however, overall construction costs for Concept 3 would be considerably lower than the other options. To reduce the impacts of Concept 3 on local access, the City could apply for the use of a modified SSM for the southern leg of the grade crossing to maintain access from Ferry Street to the Intermodal Station. The modified SSM could include 1) a median of less than the minimum 60 feet to accommodate both entries and exits or 2) the 60 foot median combined with a right-turn-only exit from the Intermodal Station. It should be noted that the use of a modified SSM requires a more significant application and approval effort than the use of approved SSMs.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 37 SECTION 5: EVALUATION AND NEXT STEPS

FRA REVIEW REQUIREMENTS While none of the concepts would trigger a need for annual review by the FRA, there are still periodic reporting requirements. With SSMs installed at each crossing, Concept 1 would have less onerous reporting requirements than the other concepts. With all concepts, Martinez would have to provide periodic updates to the FRA including 1) affirmation that the Quiet Zone continues to conform to the requirements of the Quiet Zone and 2) an up-to-date and accurate Grade Crossing Inventory Form for each crossing within the Quiet Zone. an updated crossing inventory form With Concept 1; updates would be required every 4½ to 5 years; with Concepts 2 and 3, 2½ to 3 years.

Currently, all three concepts meet the requirements for Quiet Zone status under existing and future conditions. The resulting QZRI for Concept 1 falls well below the NSRT and RIWH. However, Concepts 2 and 3 do not score as well, especially under future conditions. Should significant unforeseen increases in highway and/or rail traffic occur in future years, the Quiet Zone status under Concepts 2 or 3 may be in jeopardy and would require additional safety measures to maintain the Quiet Zone status.

SUMMARY EVALUATION Given the evaluation method utilized above, Concept 1, assuming SSMs at both crossings, is the winner. However, the clear benefit to Concept 2 and especially Concept 3 are the significantly lower implementation costs. Concept 3 would have the greatest impact on local circulation with the closure of one access point to the Intermodal Station, although the station and the parking lots would still be accessible from Estudillo Street and Marina Vista Avenue.

NEXT STEPS If the City of Martinez seeks to move forward with any of the Quiet Zone concepts, the first requirement will be to provide a Notice of Intent to create a new Quiet Zone, which will trigger a 60-day comment period. The Notice of Intent will need to be provided to the railroads that would operate through the Quiet Zone and to the CPUC for their comment. The railroads and the CPUC have 60 days to submit comments.

The Notice of Intent must include five items: 1. A listing of each crossing in the Quiet Zone. 2. A statement of the time period within which horn blowing restrictions would apply (i.e. 24 hours a day) 3. A brief explanation of Martinez’s tentative plans for implementing improvements within the Quiet Zone. 4. The name and title of Martinez’s contact person for the Quiet Zone project. 5. A list of names and addresses of each party that will receive a copy of the Notice of Intent.

Martinez will not be able to establish a Quiet Zone within the 60-day comment period unless the railroads and the CPUC waive their right to provide comment on the Notice of Intent.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 38 SECTION 5: EVALUATION AND NEXT STEPS

After the 60-day comment period, Martinez would be able to issue a Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment. The purpose of this notice is to provide a means for Martinez to formally advise affected parties that a Quiet Zone is being established. The notices must be addressed to the railroads operating through the Quiet Zone, to the CPUC, and to the Assistant Administrator of the FRA. Just as for the Notice of Intent, there are numerous specific items which must be included, all cited in 49 CFR 222 Appendix C Section IV – Required Notifications.

Prior to the establishment of the Quiet Zone, the SSMs must be designed and installed. As the design is initiated, it is necessary to contact the CPUC to request “Staff for Authorization to Alter a Highway-Rail Crossing Pursuant to General Order 88-B”. GO-88B requires CPUC staff to authorize changes “in the type or addition of an automatic signaling device, crossing gate, crossing flagman or other forms of crossing protection or reduction of hours during which any such protection is maintained, or other minor alterations.”

The CPUC staff will provide information on the GO 88-B process, and advise Martinez on arranging a field diagnostic meeting to review proposed alterations to the crossings. The diagnostic meeting will then be held with all interested parties, namely the City of Martinez, its consultants, CPUC, FRA and the railroads. Thus, it is advisable to seek direct input from the railroads and FRA at the initiation of the design phase.

The diagnostic team will evaluate the proposed modifications to the crossings and identify any other matters that should be addressed as part of the modifications proposed. The City and its consultants will then be able to determine whether CPUC staff is in agreement with the proposed modifications and allow the other parties to form a basis for providing the required evidence of agreement.

After the field diagnostic meeting is held and modifications are generally agreed to, it will be necessary to complete the GO 88-B authorization request form provided by the CPUC which among other things includes information about the applicant (the City of Martinez), the crossing(s) proposed to be altered, a description of the proposed alterations, a description of the public benefits to be achieved by the proposed alterations, an explanation about why a separation of grades is not practical, a description of the existing and proposed crossing warning devices, a statement of temporary traffic controls to be provided during construction and evidence of agreement among the interested parties.

After the approval is granted by the CPUC, construction of the improvements can be initiated. After construction, an updated crossing inventory form with the description of the crossing devices and conditions needs to be provided to the FRA prior to the implementation of the Quiet Zone.

Once the Quiet Zone has been established, Martinez will need to make periodic affirmations to the FRA that the Quiet Zone continues to operate under the FRA’s regulations and provide updates to the FRA’s crossing inventory form.

MARTINEZ RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY

104030 Page 39

APPENDICES

Appendix A New Quiet Zone Flow Chart Chart 3 - Creating a New Quiet Zone or New Partial Quiet Zone using SSMs

Obtain QZ must be at Install gates and Select crossings cooperation from least 1/2 mile lights at all public for inclusion in QZ all affected long crossings jurisdictions

Pvt xings with Conduct Comply with public access and/or yes diagnostic team diagnostic team's pedestrian xings review recommendations included?

no

Update National Disclaimer: This summary of the rule is for informational purposes only. Entities Inventory to subject to the rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register on reflect existing August 17, 2006. Should any portion of this summary conflict with the rule, the conditions language of the rule shall govern.

Submit Notice of Intent to Create QZs established on this New QZ basis subject to annual review

! d e Submit notification, silence Send affirmation and updated i yes f i QZRI < NSRT? l horns, and install signage inventory form to FRA every a u at all crossings 2.5-3 yrs Q

no

no Install SSMs

yes

! d e Submit Notification, Send affirmation and updated i SSMs at every yes f Update National i l silence horns, and install inventory form to FRA every public xing? a Inventory u signage at all crossings 4.5-5 yrs Q

no

! d QZRI < RIWH e Submit notification, silence i yes f Update National i OR l horns, and install signage a Inventory QZRI < NSRT? u at all crossings Q

Send affirmation and updated inventory form to FRA every no QZs established on the basis of 2.5-3 yrs comparison with NSRT are ASM use Go to subject to annual review requires FRA Chart 4A approval Chart 4A - Creating a Quiet Zone using Modified SSMs

from go to Charts 1B, Only SSMs or no chart 4B 3 Modified SSMs used? yes

Strongly advised Determine QZs established on the basis of to consult FRA effectiveness of comparison with the NSRT proposed subject to annual review modified SSMs

Proposed QZRI < RIWH no or QZRI < NSRT?

yes

Send application to FRA and parties, include analysis and data

FRA no Not qualified approved?

yes

Install SSMs, modified SSMs

Qualified

Update National Inventory

Submit notification, silence horns, and install signage at all crossings

Send affirmation and updated inventory form to FRA every 2.5-3 yrs

Disclaimer: This summary of the rule is for informational purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2006. Should any portion of this summary conflict with the rule, the language of the rule shall govern. Chart 4B: Creating a Quiet Zone using engineering ASMs

Conduct field study Conduct field From to monitor change study to obtain Implement Chart 4A in violation rate baseline violation ASM (initial Violation rate Rate)

Determine ASM's effectiveness Strongly advised to consult with FRA

Make improvements; QZs established on the basis of install SSMs, comparison with the NSRT are modified SSMs subject to annual review

go to QZRI < RIWH no Chart OR 4C QZRI < NSRT

yes

Send application to FRA and parties, include analysis and data

FRA no Not qualified approved? Disclaimer: This summary of the rule is for informational purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the yes rule text as published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2006. Should any portion of this summary conflict with the ied! rule, the language of the rule shall govern. Qualif

Complete installation of SSM's, engineering ASMs

Update National Inventory

Submit notification, silence horns, and install signage at all crossings

Send affirmation and updated inventory form to FRA every 2.5-3 yrs Chart 4C: Creating a Quiet Zone using non-engineering ASMs

Conduct field study Develop plan for Conduct field From to monitor change implementation study to obtain Implement Chart 4A in violation rate and monitoring of baseline violation ASM (initial Violation ASM program rate Rate)

Strongly advised Determine to consult with FRA ASM's effectiveness

Make improvements; install SSMs, modified SSMs

yes QZRI < RIWH no or Not qualified QZRI < NSRT

QZs established on the basis of Apply to FRA, comparison with NSRT subject include to annual review analysis and data

! d e Notify Parties, silence yes i FRA Complete installation of f Update National i l horns, and install signage approved? SSM's, engineering ASMs a Inventory u at all crossings Q

no Send affirmation and updated inventory form to FRA every 2.5-3 yrs Not qualified

Disclaimer: This summary of the rule is for informational purposes only. Entities subject to the rule should refer to the rule text as published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2006. Should any portion of this summary conflict with the rule, the language of the rule shall govern.

Appendix B At-Grade Crossing Inventory Report

City of Martinez Railroad Quiet Zone Study Crossing Name: Ferry Street Railroad: Union Pacific Railroad FRA No: 751734Y Subdivision: Martinez Milepost: 31.70

Crossing Information Highway Information

Warning Device: Automatic gate & flashing lights No. of Traffic Lanes: 2

No. of Mainline Tracks 2 Paved Roadway: Yes

No. of Other Tracks: 2 RR Advance Warning Signs: Yes

Smallest Xing Angle: 60 to 90 Pavement Markings: Stop lines & RR Xing symbols

No. of Total Daily Trains: 64 ADT (Average Daily Traffic): 2,980

No. of Daily Trains during Daylight hours: 34 Intersection Less than 400 ft: Yes

Max. Timetable Speed: 40 mph Is Intersection Signalized: No

Land Use Information Accidents since 1975: 3

Type of Development: Commercial/Office/Government/Open Accidents in last 5 years: 0 Space

Railroad Looking East

Railroad Looking West

Highway Looking North

Highway Looking South

Crossing Surface: concrete

Page 1 of 2 1/27/2010

Wilbur Smith Associates City of Martinez Railroad Quiet Zone Study Crossing Name: Berrellessa Street Railroad: Union Pacific Railroad FRA No: 751733S Subdivision: Martinez Milepost: 31.10

Crossing Information Highway Information

Warning Device: Automatic gate & flashing lights No. of Traffic Lanes: 2

No. of Mainline Tracks 2 Paved Roadway: Yes

No. of Other Tracks: 2 RR Advance Warning Signs: Yes

Smallest Xing Angle: 60 to 90 Pavement Markings: Stop lines & RR Xing symbols

No. of Total Daily Trains: 64 ADT (Average Daily Traffic): 680

No. of Daily Trains during Daylight hours: 34 Intersection Less than 400 ft: Yes

Max. Timetable Speed: 40 mph Is Intersection Signalized: No

Land Use Information Accidents since 1975: 2

Type of Development: Industrial/Residential Accidents in last 5 years: 0

Railroad Looking East

Railroad Looking West

Highway Looking North

Highway Looking South

Crossing Surface: concrete

Page 2 of 2 1/27/2010

Wilbur Smith Associates