Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction ...... 1 Section 2: Existing Conditions ...... 4 Population and Employment ...... 4 Land Use ...... 4 Rail Operations in Galt ...... 6 Freight Operations ...... 6 Passenger Operations - Amtrak ...... 7 At-Grade Crossings Considered for a Quiet Zone...... 7 Twin Cities Road ...... 8 Spring Street ...... 9 Elm Avenue ...... 9 A Street ...... 10 C Street ...... 12 F Street ...... 12 Kost Road ...... 13 Gate Drops ...... 13 Pedestrian / Bicycle Traffic ...... 13
Section 3: Future Conditions ...... 15 Future Population and Employment ...... 15 Future Land Use ...... 15 Rail Operations in Galt ...... 17 Freight Operations ...... 17 Passenger Operations – Amtrak ...... 17 Future Traffic Conditions at Crossings ...... 17 Twin Cities Road ...... 18 Spring Street ...... 18 Elm Avenue ...... 18 A Street ...... 18 C Street ...... 19 F Street ...... 19 Kost Road ...... 19
Section 4: Performance of the Quiet Zone ...... 20 Measurements of Risk ...... 20 Application of the Quiet Zone Calculator ...... 21
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page i
Quiet Zone Safety Measures ...... 22 Supplementary Safety Measures ...... 22 Alternative Safety Measures ...... 24 Wayside Horns ...... 26 Use of Approved Safety Measures ...... 29 Quiet Zone Diagnostic ...... 29 Quiet Zone Concepts ...... 31 Concept 1 ...... 31 Concept 2 ...... 32 Concept 3 ...... 33 Other Concepts ...... 34 Capital Costs ...... 34 Ongoing Maintenance Costs and Other Costs ...... 36 Horn Blowing in Galt with a Quiet Zone ...... 37
Section 5: Evaluation ...... 38 Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 38 Overall Safety ...... 38 Capital and Ongoing Maintenance Cost ...... 38 Ease of Implementation ...... 39 FRA Review Requirements ...... 39 Summary Evaluation and Recommendation ...... 39
Section 6: Implementation Plan ...... 40 Next Steps ...... 40 General Order 88-B (GO 88-B) ...... 41 Ongoing Affirmations and crossing form updates ...... 42
Section 7: Funding Mechanisms ...... 43 Federal Sources ...... 43 Surface Transportation Program ...... 43 Community Development Block Grant Funds ...... 44 State Sources ...... 44 Regional Surface Transportation Program...... 44 Workforce Housing Reward Program ...... 44 State Transportation Improvement Program ...... 45 Proposition 1B ...... 45 County Sources ...... 46 County Sales Taxes ...... 46
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page ii
Local Sources ...... 46 General Fund and Other City Funds ...... 46 Redevelopment Agencies ...... 46 Benefit Assessment Districts ...... 47 City Departments ...... 47 City Fees ...... 47 Special Districts ...... 47 Private Sources ...... 48 Railroad Contributions ...... 48 Other Contributions ...... 48
Appendix A – New Quiet Zone Flow Charts Appendix B – At-Grade Crossing Inventory Reports Appendix C – FRA Accident Reports Appendix D – Quiet Zone Concept Cost Estimates Appendix E – Quiet Zone Concept Illustrations
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page iii
Tabulations and Illustrations
Table 1: Existing Freight Train Operations Summary ...... 6 Table 2: Existing Passenger Train Operations Summary ...... 7 Table 3: ADT and FRA Reportable Accidents at Study Area Crossings since 1975 ...... 8 Table 4: Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic at A, C, and F Street Grade Crossings ...... 14 Table 5: 2030 ADT at Crossings in the Galt Quiet Zone ...... 18 Table 6: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator without Improvements ...... 21 Table 7: Potential Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) for Galt At-grade Crossings ...... 25 Table 8: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator Concept 2 ...... 32 Table 9: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator Concept 3 ...... 33 Table 10: Evaluation of the Quiet Zone Concepts ...... 38
Figure 1: Study Area ...... 2 Figure 2: Existing Land Use/Zoning ...... 5 Figure 3: Bikeways ...... 11 Figure 4: Proposed Palm Park ...... 16 Figure 5: Illustrated Highway-Rail Separation ...... 23 Figure 6: Four-quadrant Gates ...... 23 Figure 7: Gates with Medians ...... 24 Figure 8: Wayside Horn Implementation ...... 27 Figure 9: Wayside Horns at Twin Cities Road ...... 28 Figure 10: Train Horn Noise Contour Approaching Spring Street ...... 35
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page iv 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 Galt Railroad Quiet Zone Study is to explore the potential for implementation of a quiet zone on the Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP) Fresno Subdivision through the City of Galt. 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 seven public at-grade highway-rail crossings on the UP’s Fresno Subdivision in Galt that are being considered for a quiet zone. From north to south, the crossings are: • Twin Cities Road (not in City) • Spring Street (not in City) • Elm Avenue • A Street • C Street • F Street • Kost Road
UP also operates trains on the Ione Industrial Lead, a branch line, which runs east of the City 27 miles to Ione. This line, however, is not included in the proposed quiet zone.
The study area is shown in Figure 1. The UP tracks are used daily by both passenger and freight trains, with freight trains more numerous than passenger 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 Galt would reduce the existing and future noise impacts from train horn soundings.
1 The regulation can be downloaded at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/trainhorn_2005/amended_final_rule_081706.pdf
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 1 GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
Twin Cities Road
Spring Street
Union Pacific Railroad
99
Elm Avenue
A Street
C Street
F Street
LEGEND Study Crossings City Limits
0 1/8 1/4 Miles NORTH Kost Road
STUDY AREA FIGURE 1 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
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 Galt and the County of Sacramento for any crossing(s) outside the city limits. 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 reporting2. 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 the UP.
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 for a quiet zone. A quiet zone’s 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, a discussion of next steps for Quiet Zone implementation, and potential funding mechanisms 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 2030 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 assesses the alternative concepts and describes the ongoing process for implementation of a quiet zone in Galt. • Section 6: Next Steps describes the ongoing process for implementation of a quiet zone in Galt. Also, strategies for further compliance are described. • Section 7: Funding Mechanisms identifies potential funding sources for implementing a quiet zone in Galt.
2 http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/trainhorn_2005/amended_final_rule_081706.pdf
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 3 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 Galt and details the seven 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.
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT According to the US Census for 2010, Galt had a total population of 23,647. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) reported that Galt businesses employed 4,690 workers in 2005. SACOG predicts a 2.51 percent annual increase in employment between 2005 and 2035. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Galt businesses employed about 5,300 workers in 2010.
LAND USE The UP Fresno Subdivision bisects the City of Galt from north to south. The tracks are to the west of major residential development occurring east of SR 99 in the northwestern quadrant of the City. The tracks run just to the west of Galt’s historic Downtown.
Between Twin Cities Road and Elm Avenue, land uses along the UP Fresno Subdivision are predominantly light industrial and open space. Between Elm Avenue and A Street, the UP tracks are surrounded largely by residential land uses. Between A Street and F Street, land uses surrounding the UP tracks are mostly commercial and public. Between F Street and Kost Road, residential uses predominate.
Land uses are noted in Figure 2.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 4 GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
Source: City of Galt, 2004: Mintier & Associates, 2004.
EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING FIGURE 2 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
RAIL OPERATIONS IN GALT The UP Fresno Subdivision provides an important link in the region’s freight and passenger rail network. Local and regional freight and passenger traffic traveling between Southern California, the Central Valley and the Pacific Northwest all rely on use of this corridor to move goods and people.
The UP right-of-way in the study area contains one and two main tracks. Double main track runs from Twin Cities Road in the north to a point 1,700 feet north of Elm Avenue. The second track in Downtown Galt is a lead to the aforementioned Ione branch line. Descriptions of the railroad trackage at each of the seven at- grade crossings in the study area are included in the respective crossing discussions.
FREIGHT OPERATIONS The UP and BNSF Railway operate freight traffic on the Fresno Subdivision through Galt. While the tracks are owned by UP, and UP operates the majority of freight service, BNSF runs limited freight trains on the corridor via trackage rights. In total, approximately 24 freight trains pass through Galt every day. Traffic includes local and through freight traffic. Freight train operations are summarized in Table 1 below.
The rail traffic mix includes traditional carload trains (boxcar, flatcar, tank car, gondola, hopper car, etc.) and intermodal unit trains (trailers and containers on flatcars on double-stack container cars). There are no rail traffic generators in the immediate vicinity of Galt. According to UP3, there are four switching trains operating through Galt per day. Some of these handle traffic on and off the Ione branch.
Table 1: Existing Freight Train Operations Summary Through trains per day 20 Switching trains per day 4 Trains per time of day Evenly spread through day Typical train length (average) 5,000' Maximum timetable speed 70 mph Typical speeds 40 - 60 mph Growth rate in trains 2.5% per year Train horn rules GCOR4
The train length figure above 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. The estimated 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.
3 Per conversation with J.H. Smith, UP, on June 1, 2011. 4 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
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 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 Galt. That noted, long distance Amtrak service through Galt occurs rarely. For example, when UP’s Coast Line is under repair, the Amtrak Coast Starlight (Los Angeles-Seattle) may be diverted to the Fresno Subdivision. Regional service through Galt is provided daily on the San Joaquins (Bakersfield-Stockton-Sacramento) services. Amtrak operates the San Joaquins, which do not stop in Galt.
Passenger train operations are summarized below in Table 2. In total, regular passenger operations consist of four daily San Joaquin trains running through Galt.
Table 2: Existing Passenger Train Operations Summary Trains per day (daily) 4 Operating hours 7am – 11pm Trains per time of day with 3 operating during the day and 1 during the night Typical train length (maximum) 485' Maximum timetable speed 79 mph Typical speed 79 mph Growth rate in trains Limited by UP agreement Train horn rules GCOR
Train length reflects a length assuming five cars and a locomotive. Depending on the season, the San Joaquins operate with four cars. Speeds reflect all passenger trains passing through Galt without stopping. Growth of new passenger trains is subject to the current operating agreement between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), sponsor of the San Joaquins, and UP.
AT-GRADE CROSSINGS CONSIDERED FOR A QUIET ZONE There are seven at-grade rail crossings in the study area. The at-grade crossings are all located on public roadways; the crossing configurations, warning devices, roadway traffic characteristics, accident histories are described below. A summary and photographic report of each crossing can be found in Appendix B. A crossing report (one sheet per crossing) is a compilation of the data required to run the Quiet Zone Calculator, and includes other information relevant for assessing the safety of the grade crossing.
Average daily traffic5 (ADT) at each of the seven crossings is shown in Table 3. Also shown is the accident history for each crossing. Records of accidents occurring at grade crossings are maintained by the FRA as
5 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. Except for Spring Street, ADT for all the streets in the proposed quiet zone was provided by the City’s Public Works Department; these were collected between February
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 7 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS part of its grade crossing database. From 1975 to the present, there have been four accidents reported in the FRA at-grade crossing collision database6 at the seven study area at-grade crossings. Within the last five years, there has been only one accident, and this was at Spring Street. The FRA accident sheets appear in Appendix C.
Table 3: ADT and FRA Reportable Accidents at Study Area Crossings since 1975 Averaged Accidents Accident Severity Crossing Daily Traffic Auto/Truck Pedestrian Killed Injured Twin Cities Road 4,830 2 0 0 1 Spring Street 530 1 0 0 1 Elm Avenue 6,610 0 0 0 0 A Street 6,200 0 0 0 0 C Street 1,630 0 1 1 0 F Street 3,900 0 0 0 0 Kost Road 2,750 0 0 0 0
Source: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) at-grade crossing collision database; http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/
The specific conditions at each of the crossings in the proposed quiet zone are discussed below.
TWIN CITIES ROAD This roadway runs along the northern boundary of the City of Galt west of State Route (SR) 99. East of SR 99, Twin Cities Road is also signed as SR 104. Approximately a quarter-mile west of SR 99, Twin Cities Road exits the city limits of Galt and in another quarter-mile crosses the UP Fresno Subdivision. In the vicinity of the crossing, Twin Cities Road is considered a rural arterial roadway, as it is outside the City of Galt.
Motor vehicle flow on Twin Cities Road is two-way over the UP Fresno Subdivision crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. Twin Cities Road has an interchange for SR 99, and provides access to the City’s Waste Water Treatment Plant to the west of the UP tracks and northwest of the railroad crossing. About seven and a half miles further west, the road has an interchange with Interstate 5. At the crossing, the roadway has the third highest traffic volume of the seven streets in the proposed quiet zone.
There are two main tracks at the Twin Cities Road crossing. Warning devices at the crossing include two- quadrant gates, warning bells, and flashing lights. Stop lines, railroad crossing symbols, and advance warning signs are also in place. There are no pedestrian provisions at this crossing.
2009 and September 2010 and are considered representative of current conditions. Counts for Spring Street were gathered by the study team in May 2011. 6 http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 8 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
On the south side of Twin Cities Road east of the crossing, there is a commercial driveway about 70 feet from the gate arm on the western approach lane7. West of the crossing, an access road heads north to the waste water treatment facility intersects Twin Cities Road about 50 feet from the crossing.
According to the FRA’s accident database, two motor vehicle-train accidents occurred at Twin Cities Road Street. On August 1, 1985, a truck moving across the tracks at just before 10:30 PM was struck by a 91-car former Southern Pacific Railroad (now part of UP) train. No injuries were reported, but $2,000 in damage to the truck was reported.
On September 14, 2004, a truck moving across the tracks shortly after 7 AM was struck by a four-car Amtrak train. The truck driver was injured in the accident, and $30,000 in damage to the truck was reported.
SPRING STREET Like Twin Cities Road, Spring Street crosses the UP Fresno Subdivision outside of the city limits of Galt. At the crossing, Spring Street is a rural local street. Motor vehicle flow on Spring Street is two-way over the UP Fresno Subdivision crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. Spring Street connects Christensen Road in the west with Stockton Boulevard running parallel to SR 99 in the east. At the crossing, this roadway has the lowest traffic volume of the seven streets in the study area.
There are two tracks at the Spring Street crossing. Warning devices at the crossing include two-quadrant gates, warning bells, and flashing lights. Stop lines, railroad crossing symbols, and an advance warning sign east of the crossing are also in place. There is no advance warning sign on the western approach. There are no pedestrian provisions at the crossing.
According to the FRA’s accident database, one motor vehicle-train accident occurred at Spring Street. On July 1, 2008, an automobile stopped on the tracks just before midnight was hit by a BNSF light engine move (two locomotives, no cars). The driver was injured, and $5,000 in damage was reported to the vehicle.
ELM AVENUE This urban minor arterial is one of the four main east-west routes across the central part of the City. Motor vehicle flow on Elm Avenue is two-way over the UP Fresno Subdivision crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. Elm Avenue has SR 99 on- and off-ramps. At the crossing, the roadway has the highest traffic volume of the seven streets in the study area.
There is one track at the Elm Avenue crossing. Warning devices at the crossing include two-quadrant gates, warning bells, and flashing lights. Stop lines, railroad crossing symbols and advance warning signs are also in place. A pedestrian walkway exists only on the south side of the crossing.
7 More specifically, from a point the same distance from the UP track as the gate arm on the western approach lane.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 9 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
The roadway is designated as Orr Road at McFarland Street, which parallels the UP tracks west of the crossing. According to the FRA database, the crossing is at Orr Road. This is because previously all of Elm Avenue was known as Orr Road.
The intersection of McFarland Street and Orr Road is less than 50 feet from the gate arm on the western approach lane. The intersection is not signalized. McFarland has two-way stop control at Elm Avenue.
A typical 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 the adjacent intersection at McFarland Street is not signalized, this should not be a concern, but such traffic studies should be considered if there are future plans to add traffic signals at the intersection.
A STREET This street is considered an urban minor arterial, and is another one of the four major east-west routes across central Galt. Motor vehicle flow on A Street is two-way over the UP Fresno Subdivision crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. At the crossing, the roadway has the second highest traffic volume of the seven streets in the study area. A Street has a Class II bikeway running across and east of the UP tracks, as seen in Figure 3.
There are two tracks at the A Street crossing. Warning devices at the crossing include two-quadrant gates, warning bells, and flashing lights on cantilevered bridges overhanging the crossing. Stop lines, railroad crossing symbols are in place. An advance warning sign is in place west of the crossing, but not in the east. Pedestrian provisions exist on the north and south sides of the crossing.
There are two adjacent intersections within 400 feet of the crossing as measured from the drop point of the warning gate arms. To the west, the intersection of McFarland Street and A Street is less than 50 feet from the gate arm on the western approach; to the east, the intersection of 4th Street and A Street is approximately 200 feet from the gate arm of the eastern approach. Neither intersection is signalized.
On the east side of the crossing, there are two driveways on the north side of A Street and one on the south side. All three driveways are within 130 feet of the western approach gate arm. The land immediately northeast of the crossing is undeveloped, and the driveways there permit turnarounds and parking. The driveway on the south side leads to a commercial establishment occupying the southeastern quadrant.
The Ione Industrial Lead departs from the Fresno Subdivision just over 900 feet north of the A Street crossing.
Between the A, C, and F Street crossings of the Fresno Subdivision, the spanning distance between 3rd and 4th Streets, inclusive of the UP track, is over 400 feet.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 10 GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
Source: City of Galt, 2011: Omni-Means, Inc., 2011.
EXISTING BIKEWAY FACILITIES FIGURE 3 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
C STREET This urban local street is the third major east-west route across central Galt. Motor vehicle flow on C Street is two-way over the UP Fresno Subdivision crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. At the crossing, C Street’s traffic volume is the second lowest of the seven streets in the study area.
There are two tracks at the C Street crossing. Warnings devices at the crossing include two-quadrant gates, warning bells, and flashing lights on cantilevered bridges overhanging the crossing. Stop lines, railroad crossing symbols and advance warning signs are also in place. Pedestrian provisions exist on the north side of the crossing.
There are two adjacent intersections within 400 feet of the crossing as measured from the drop point of the warning gate arm. To the west, the intersection of 3rd Street and C Street is approximately 200 feet from the gate arm; to the east, the intersection of 4th Street and C Street is also approximately 200 feet from the gate arm. Neither intersection is signalized.
East of the crossing, there is a driveway within 40 feet of the crossing on the south side of C Street. Though technically there is no driveway west of the crossing on the south side of C Street, vehicles clearly access the open space south of C Street between the tracks and 3rd Street by driving over a curb about 120 feet west of the crossing.
There are two parks near the crossing. These are Harvey Park to the southwest and SP Park to the northeast.
According to the FRA accident database, one pedestrian-train accident occurred at C Street. On February 20, 2004, a pedestrian was traversing the crossing just after 10 PM and hit by a 40-car BNSF train traveling at 50 miles per hour. The pedestrian was killed.
F STREET This urban minor arterial is the fourth major east-west route across central Galt. Motor vehicle flow on F Street is two-way over the UP Fresno Subdivision crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. At the crossing, F Street’s traffic volume is in a mid-range compared to the other streets in the proposed quiet zone. F Street has a Class II bikeway running across the UP tracks, as shown in Figure 3.
There is one track at the F Street crossing. Warnings devices at the crossing include two-quadrant gates, warning bells, and flashing lights on cantilevered bridges overhanging the crossing. Stop lines, railroad crossing symbols and advance warning signs are in place. Pedestrian provisions exist on the north and south sides of the crossing.
There are two adjacent intersections within 400 feet of the crossing as measured from the drop point of the warning gate arms. To the west, the intersection of 3rd Street and F Street is approximately 200 feet from the gate arm; to the east, the intersection of 4th Street and F Street is approximately also 200 feet from the gate arm. Neither intersection is signalized.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 12 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
West of the crossing, there is a driveway immediately adjacent to rail right-of-way on the north side of F Street, and another about 150 feet further west. East of the crossing, there is a driveway serving a commercial establishment on the south side about 110 feet from the gate arm.
KOST ROAD This roadway is an urban minor arterial, running from Lincoln Way west. Motor vehicle flow on Kost Road is two-way over the UP Fresno Subdivision crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. It is the southern-most arterial in Galt. Its volumes are not as high as those of F Street, but not as low as those of C Street. Kost Road has a Class II bikeway east of the railroad tracks.
There is one track at the Kost Road crossing. Warnings devices at the crossing include two-quadrant gates, warning bells, and flashing lights. Stop lines, railroad crossing symbols and advance warning signs are in place. East of the crossing, there is a driveway to the city water reservoir on the south side of the street about 70 feet on from gate arm. There are no pedestrian provisions that the crossing.
A cemetery exists northeast of this crossing.
GATE DROPS Generally speaking, 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 can average a total gate-down time of approximately 40-50 seconds. Due to the longer length and overall slower speed of most freight trains, gate down-times for freight trains on average are higher.
PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE TRAFFIC A, C, and F Streets attract significant pedestrian and bicycle activity as these roadways are links between residential areas to the west and commercial areas and other attractions to the east, including schools and government services.
To capture the extent of pedestrian and bicycle activity on A, C and F Streets, observations on a recent weekday morning (Wednesday, September 14, 2011) were performed. This study was focused on morning weekday activity as these crossings are utilized during home-work and home-school travel. Pedestrian and bicycle counts were taken from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. The findings are summarized below in Table 4.
As noted previously, crossing provisions exist on the north and south sides of A and F Streets and on the north side only of C Street.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 13 SECTION 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 4: Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic at A, C, and F Street Grade Crossings
Street A Street C Street F Street
Bicyclists Pedestrians Bicyclists Pedestrians Bicyclists Pedestrians
Time Period WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB EB
7:00-7:15 AM 0 2 4 1 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 2
7:15-7:30 AM 0 1 12 6 0 2 9 3 0 0 4 9
7:30-7:45 AM 0 3 6 19 0 0 3 28 2 0 1 5
7:45-8:00 AM 2 0 2 8 1 0 8 5 1 0 0 1
8:00-8:15 AM 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 6 0 0 1 2
8:15-8:30 AM 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 4
8:30-8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 2
8:45-9:00 AM 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Directional Volume 2 7 25 41 4 9 23 45 5 0 10 25
Total Volume 9 66 13 68 5 35 Peak Hour Volume: 8 58 7 58 3 22 7:00-8:00 AM Note: WB = westbound ; EB = eastbound Source: Wilbur Smith Associates; counts taken on Wednesday, September 14, 2011.
As Table 4 shows, many pedestrians and bicyclists utilize the three crossings in the morning period to access destinations across the railroad tracks. The majority of crossings occur in the eastbound direction, as work and school destinations are located primarily east of the railroad tracks, whereas many residential areas are situated west of the tracks. Compared to the number of pedestrians, bicycle trip crossings are significantly lower despite the availability of bicycle lane facilities at the A Street and F Street crossings. This observation indicates that many more local trips nearby are made by automobile and walking than by bicycling.
During the field observations, many pedestrians were seen crossing the railroad tracks between roadways, such as between Elm Avenue and A Street, A and C Streets, C and F Streets, and F Street and Kost Road. Most of these pedestrians were using a well-worn path located between A and C Streets in line with B Street. Apparently, these pedestrians were doing so because of the longer distances involved with using at-grade crossings and sidewalks. However, these types of crossings are particularly unsafe due to the double tracks in that area and the high speeds that most trains attain through Galt. A mitigation to discourage this unsafe behavior would be installation of fencing at least between A and C Streets, adjacent and parallel to the tracks.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 14 SECTION 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS
SECTION 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS
This section presents future conditions for the study crossings and surrounding area for this study’s horizon year of 2030. It describes future population, employment, land use, freight and passenger rail operations, and traffic conditions.
FUTURE POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT According to the SACOG, Galt’s population and employment in 2035 will be 39,429 and 9,877, respectively. Totals for 2030 would be less, and reasonable estimates, assuming SACOG predicted growth rates, would be in the neighborhood of 33,000 and 8,700, respectively.
FUTURE LAND USE Future land uses in the vicinity of the seven crossings will remain the same as they are today. That noted, the City of Galt has been planning the Central Galt Corridor Rehabilitation. This project includes improvements to C Street, east of the crossings, between Lincoln Way and Civic Drive. It also envisions a “Palm Park” between the east side of the UP Fresno Subdivision track and 4th Street, and between a point just south of A Street on the north and F Street to the south. The proposed park is shown in Figure 4. It is worth noting that the Palm Park concept includes a fence along the west side of the park along the UP right-of-way.
The goals of the project are to: • Provide a “draw” from the C Street/Central Galt Interchange through the Corridor to Old Town. • Improve parking on Lincoln Way and in Old Town. • Improve the vehicular and pedestrian experience through the Corridor.
This project is consistent with the Downtown Revitalization and Historic Preservation Specific Plan (1995), which was designed to help the City accomplish two major goals: • Economic revitalization of the City’s Downtown, especially the historic core area. • Preservation of the Downtown’s historic character.
Implementation of a quiet zone inclusive of the A, C and F Street crossings would support these endeavors and improve the experience for residents of and visitors to Downtown.
It is likely that development of the project will spur automobile and pedestrian traffic at the C Street crossing of UP Fresno Subdivision, beyond what could be expected absent this project. Indeed, a park parking lot is planned for the southerly side of C Street. Also, provisions for a fence between A and C Streets and between C and F Streets can be noted in Figure 4. The fence would prevent mid-block pedestrian crossings such as those noted recently by the study team.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 15 GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
Source: Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.; City of Galt, 2011.
PROPOSED PALM PARK FIGURE 4 SECTION 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS
RAIL OPERATIONS IN GALT It is estimated that the total number of trains per day through Galt on the UP Fresno Subdivision in year 2030 will increase to 48 from the existing train traffic of 28 trains per day. This volume would still be dominated by freight trains, though it is reasonable to assume that the Amtrak regional San Joaquins are also likely to grow in number as well, in light of chronic congestion on SR 99 and growing travel demand between Sacramento and Central Valley communities to the south.
FREIGHT OPERATIONS This analysis assumes that freight rail traffic on the UP Fresno Subdivision through Galt will grow on the order of 2.5 percent annually until 2030. While rail traffic (carloads) 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 an average of 5,000 feet in length today to 7,000-8,000 feet in 20 years). Future through train volume in 2030 is therefore assumed to be in the neighborhood of 32 through trains per day, versus about 20 today, with no change expected in switching traffic (four trains per day). The operating pattern and speed characteristics of this train traffic would be expected to remain around the same as today.
PASSENGER OPERATIONS – AMTRAK Any growth in the San Joaquins operating through Galt is subject to negotiation with UP. As the sponsor for these trains, Caltrans must come to an agreement with UP regarding future trains beyond the two San Joaquin roundtrips (four trains) allowed under the current agreement, and UP can be counted on for requiring expensive capacity enhancements to its lines before allowing more trains. However, 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 between Sacramento and cities to the south is likely to grow as well. Therefore, it is probable that Caltrans will seek to expand its train volumes. This study assumes that access to the Fresno Subdivision for an additional four roundtrips (for a total of six round trips, or 12 trains) can and will be negotiated with UP, and that the service addition will be implemented by 20308.
FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AT CROSSINGS To determine likely future traffic conditions in the study area, future vehicle traffic for Year 2030 was estimated per the 2030 Galt General Plan Final Traffic and Circulation Report. Where specific traffic ADT forecast for a crossing was not available, an estimate was derived from the from the City of Galt’s travel demand model output. Table 5 shows the anticipated ADT volumes for quiet zone crossings in the year 2030.
8 Per the Caltrans Division Rail on July 6, 2011, the current 25-year plan for the San Joaquins identify a total of six round trips to and from Sacramento, passing through Galt.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 17 SECTION 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS
Table 5: 2030 ADT at Crossings in the Galt Quiet Zone Street Crossing ADT Volume Crossing Tracks Twin Cities Road 14,200 Spring Street 800 Elm Avenue 7,500 A Street 9,100 C Street 11,000 F Street 10,100 Kost Road 1,100 Sources: 2030 Galt General Plan Final Traffic and Circulation Report, 2011; City of Galt traffic demand model; and Wilbur Smith Associates.
By 2030, the City of Galt is expected to see various transportation improvements on local roadways as part of the City’s General Plan and the Citywide Traffic Capital Improvements Program (TCIP), in addition to state and regional improvements along SR 99. The following improvements are anticipated to be implemented by the year 2030 for crossings within the study area.
TWIN CITIES ROAD In 2009, the City of Galt, as part of the update to the TCIP, anticipated that Twin Cities Road would be widened to a four-lane arterial in the vicinity of the railroad crossing. The interchange at SR 99 and roadway segments to the east of the crossing would be reconstructed and widened to a six-lane expressway.
As part of the Galt Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted in May 2002, a Class II bikeway was proposed to be constructed on the Twin Cities Road crossing by the year 2030. The bikeway would stretch from Midway Road in the west to Cherokee Lane in the east.
SPRING STREET No transportation improvements are anticipated for Spring Street by the year 2030.
ELM AVENUE The 2009 TCIP update proposed that Elm Avenue would be upgraded to a major two-lane collector in the vicinity of the railroad crossing, with sufficient capacity for future traffic volumes.
As part of the Galt Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted in May 2002, a Class II bikeway is proposed to be constructed on the Elm Avenue crossing by the year 2030. The bikeway would stretch from Sargent Avenue in the west to North Lincoln Way in the east.
A STREET At the railroad crossing, as part of the Traffic Capital Improvement Program, Northeast Area, and Capital Facilities Fee Update, Final Report (TCIP) of 2009, A Street was proposed to be grade separated from the
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 18 SECTION 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS railroad; envisioned was a two-lane bridge crossing. The date of implementation depends on the availability of funding. The total cost of the project is estimated at $10.7 million.
As part of the Galt Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted in May 2002, a Class II bikeway has been constructed on the A Street crossing. By the year 2030, this bikeway is anticipated to stretch from Sargent Avenue to Lincoln Way.
C STREET With the implementation of the Central Galt Corridor Rehabilitation (discussed above), motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic can be expected to increase faster that would be the case if the project did not occur. To be conservative, this analysis assumes that the rehabilitation project will be implemented.
As part of the Galt Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted in May 2002, a Class II bikeway was proposed to be constructed on the C Street crossing by the year 2030. The facility would stretch from Galt’s western city limit to Cherokee Lane east of the city limits.
F STREET As part of the Galt Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted in May 2002, a Class II bikeway has been constructed across the F Street crossing. By the year 2030, this bikeway is anticipated to go from Sargent Avenue to Lincoln Way.
KOST ROAD The 2009 TCIP update proposed that Kost Road would be upgraded to a minor two-lane collector in the vicinity of the railroad crossing. However, the forecast provided here suggests a decline in traffic volume from the present.
As part of the Galt Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted in May 2002, a Class II bikeway was proposed to be constructed at the Kost Road crossing by the year 2030. The facility would stretch from Sargent Avenue to Lincoln Way.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 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 Galt. The Federal Railroad Administration’s process for creating a new quiet zone (see process flowchart in Appendix A) 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 Galt and the County of Sacramento for Twin Cities Road and Spring Street) 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 December 29, 2010 when the NSRT was decreased from 18,775 to 14,007. • The Risk Index with Horns (RIWH), which is a measure of risk to the motoring public of accidents with trains despite locomotive horns being 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.9 The process for running the calculator is described below. A quiet zone may be established if the QZRI is at, or below, the NSRT. Under existing conditions, Galt does not qualify for quiet zone status as shown in Table 6. 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.
9 The Quiet Zone Calculator can be found at http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 20 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
Table 6: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator without Improvements Trains ADT Risk NSRT RIWH QZRI per Day Existing 2011
Twin Cities Road 4,830 28 48,114.75
Spring Street 530 28 86,397.20
Elm Avenue 6,610 28 39,132.44
A Street 6,200 28 36,681.41 14,007.00 26,081.62 43,504.15
C Street 1,630 28 27,105.96
F Street 3,900 28 34,859.4
Kost Road 2,750 28 32,237.85
Future 2030
Twin Cities Road 14,200 48 17,780.66
Spring Street 800 48 107,249.49
Elm Avenue 7,500 48 49,227.97
A Street 9,100 48 48,601.82 14,007.00 35,294.51 58,871.25
C Street 11,000 48 50,383.61
F Street 10,100 48 52,132.64
Kost Road 1,100 48 32,722.54
APPLICATION OF THE QUIET ZONE CALCULATOR The FRA’s Quiet Zone Calculator develops the QZRI (1) by 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 15 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
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 21 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
5. Total number of switching trains 6. Number of main tracks 7. Number of other tracks 8. Classification of roadway (urban or rural; arterial, collector, or local) 9. Paved roadway: yes or no 10. Maximum train timetable speed 11. Number of highway lanes 12. Existence of wayside horns 13. Existence of pre-existing Supplementary Safety Devices 14. Number of years for accident data (5 years; motor vehicle-train accident data only) 15. Number of accidents during accident data years
To assess the risk of a Galt quiet zone under existing conditions, the first 13 variables were entered manually. The Calculator provided the last two variables from a link with other FRA data. As shown in Table 6, the resulting QZRIs are well above the NSRT and RIWH. Therefore, the study crossings today would not qualify for quiet zone status without the implementation of Supplementary Safety Measures (discussed below).
In Table 6, future conditions are tested also. The test assumes the same NSRT as exists today. To be sure, there is no guarantee of this figure remaining unchanged, just as there is no guarantee about the accident histories at the crossings. Nevertheless, this test does portray conceptually that with higher train and traffic volumes than today risk will increase; and, absent implementation of safety improvements at the crossings, the QZRI will be even higher than today.
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 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 • Closure: temporary closure (i.e., nighttime closure) or permanent closure • Four-quadrant gates
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 22 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
Gates with medians or channelization devices, also known as traffic separators or delineators One-way streets equipped with gates that fully block the street
Illustrations of grade separations, four-quadrant gates and gates with medians appears as Figures 5, 6 and 7, respectively below.
The feasibility of each of the aforementioned SSMs vis a vis the seven crossings in the proposed quiet zone is assessed in Table 7.
Figure 5: Illustrated Highway-Rail Separation
Figure 6: Four-quadrant Gates
Photo courtesy of Adavant Consulting.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 23 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
Figure 7: Gates with Medians
Photo Courtesy of Adavant Consutling.
ALTERNATIVE SAFETY MEASURES 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.
A July 2011 diagnostic review of the crossings identified potential ASM treatments for Twin Cities Road, Elm Avenue and A Street. A discussion of the diagnostic findings follows later in this report.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 24 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
Table 7: Potential Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) for Galt At-grade Crossings
Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs)
Grade-Separation Closure 4-Quadrant Median (60 feet One-way with Crossing Gates min.) with Gates Gates
Twin Cities Not warranted. Not feasible. Feasible. Not feasible west Not feasible. Road Rural arterial. of crossing. Access No good paring (4,800 ADT) to wastewater opportunity. facility adjacent to crossing. Spring Street Not warranted. Feasible. Access Feasible. Feasible. Not feasible. (530 ADT) maintained on Delineators No good paring Twin Cities Rd. preferred due to opportunity. and Elm Ave. narrow street width. Elm Avenue Not warranted. Not feasible. Feasible. Not feasible. Not feasible. (6,610 ADT) Urban arterial. Crossing within 60 No good paring feet of McFarland opportunity. Street.
A Street Identified as an Not feasible. Feasible. Not feasible. Not feasible. (6,200 ADT) improvement, Urban arterial. Crossing within 60 No good pairing pending a funding feet of McFarland opportunity. source. Street. C Street Not warranted. Not feasible. Feasible. Feasible. Not feasible. (1,630 ADT) Local street No good paring providing opportunity. important east- west access. F Street Not warranted. Not feasible. Feasible. Feasible. Not feasible. (3,900 ADT) Urban arterial. No good paring opportunity.
Kost Road Not warranted. Not feasible. Feasible. Feasible. Not Feasible. (2,760 ADT) Urban arterial. No good paring opportunity.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 25 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
WAYSIDE HORNS One alternative which obviates the need for trains to blow their horns at crossings is installation of automated train horns (ATHs), 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 horns 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.
According to Quiet Zone Technologies, a railroad systems engineering firm in Benbrook, Texas, wayside horns follow the same sounding pattern as the train horns, beginning when the train is 20 seconds from the crossing and continuing until the approaching train enters the grade crossing. Wayside horn systems come with a confirmation signal, typically a flashing light, as seen in Figure 8. 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.
The sound level of train horns is established per federal regulations at 110 decibels. Using a graphic originally obtained from Railroad Controls Limited (a sister company to Quiet Zone Technologies), the sound contour of a train horn versus a wayside horn at Twin Cities Road is illustrated in Figure 9.
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. Consequently, wayside horns may not be a good solution for the Elm Avenue, and A, C, and F Street crossings, which are surrounded or bordered by residential land uses.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 26 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
Figure 8: Wayside Horn Implementation
Photo courtesy of Quiet Zone Technologies.
One potential location for installation of wayside-horns could be on Twin Cities Road or even Spring Street. Installation of the horns here would have the least effect on noise sensitive land uses. Assuming SSMs at all other crossings, wayside horns here would facilitate the qualification of the quiet zone, as a wayside horn is considered a one-for-one replacement for train mounted horn blowing. The total cost of a wayside horn system is estimated at $100,00010, inclusive of equipment costs, installation, site preparation, coordination with UP, and contingencies.
10 Per Robert Albritton, Quiet Zone Technologies, September 8, 2011.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 27 GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
Twin Cities Road 99
0 500 1000 ft NORTH
Train Horns 70 Db 80 Db 90 Db 100 Db
Twin Cities Road 99
0 500 1000 ft NORTH
Wayside Horns
TRAIN HORNS VS. WAYSIDE HORNS AT TWIN CITIES ROAD FIGURE 9 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
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 periodic updates fall into the following categories: • If SSMs were added to the seven public crossings in the Galt 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, the City of Galt must provide (1) affirmation that the quiet zone continues to conform to FRA requirements and (2) updated crossing inventory forms to the FRA. This reporting effort is estimated to consume one to two days of a city staffer’s time to perform11. • If SSMs are used at some but not every public crossing, the zone may also qualify for quiet zone status if the QZRI is at, or below, the RIWH or below 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. Qualification by this process will require more frequent reporting to the FRA than if SSM’s are used at each crossing. • The QZRI may also be reduced by implementing one or more ASM’s. 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 below the 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 ASMs.
QUIET ZONE DIAGNOSTIC On July 7, 2011, representatives of the City, the California Public Utilities Commission, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Union Pacific Railroad, along with the study’s project manager, toured each of the crossings in the quiet zone study area to identify an appropriate safety treatment (SSMs or ASMs) at each crossing, as well as to identify any other obvious safety enhancements for both motorists and pedestrians. The type of review is known as a quiet zone diagnostic. A diagnostic is a required procedure in the quiet zone process. The findings from the diagnostic are summarized below. • Twin Cities Road. There were two alternative solutions identified for this crossing. Alternative 1 involves four-quadrant gates – an SSM solution. The other involves a 60-foot median east of the crossing with new two-quadrant gates west of the crossing, having gate arms spanning the width of the
11 The time estimate was obtained from the City of Elk Grove, which recently completed a status report of its first Quiet Zone to the FRA. Elk Grove has two Quiet Zones and is investigating implementation of a third.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 29 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
street – an ASM solution. Regarding the latter, mountable curbs would be installed on the north and south sides of Twin Cities Road immediately east of the crossing to allow UP access to the rail right- of-way and block general traffic access. With either solution, pavement markings for stop lines would need repainting. “No Train Horn” language would need to be added to the advance warning signs. • Spring Street. 100-foot medians on either side of the crossing were identified as the appropriate SSM solution. Given the narrow width of the right-of-way, delinators, a series of three- to four-foot-high standing plastic reflectors, would be preferred, as these would have a narrower width than a non- mountable concrete barrier. However, as these can easily be destroyed when run over, a concrete median would be more durable and present less of a maintenance issue. To allow UP access to the right-of-way and block general traffic, mountable curbing would be installed west of the crossing, along the north and south sides of the street just west of the gate arm; and east of the crossing on the south side of the street just east of the gate arm. “No Train Horn” language would need to be added to the advance warning signs. • Elm Avenue. As with Twin Cities Road, two solutions were identified. The first is a four-quadrant gate solution – an SSM solution. The second would be a 100-foot median on the east side of the crossing and new two-quadrant gates on the west side – an ASM solution. Regarding the latter, mountable curbs would be installed on the north and south sides of Elm Avenue immediately east of the crossing to allow UP access to the rail right-of-way and block general traffic access. A second driveway on the north side, to an abandoned city well, should be closed. For both solutions, pavement markings should be repainted; hump crossings signs should be installed; and a pedestrian barrier should be installed on the north side of Elm Avenue east of the crossing, along with a crosswalk for pedestrians to the south side of Elm Avenue. New advance warning signs withn “2 Tracks” and “No Train Horn” language would need to be added closer to crossings. Subsequent to the diagnostic, the CPUC recommended adding medians both east and west of the crossing, if no SSM or ASM were otherwise implemented12. • A Street. Two solutions were identified for this crossing. The first would be a four-quadrant gate solution – an SSM solution. The second would be a 60-foot median on the east side of the crossing and new two-quadrant gates on the west side – an ASM solution. A driveway about 37 feet east of the gate arm on the westbound approach would need to be closed; and a mountable curb would be installed on the south side of A Street immediately east of the crossing to allow UP access to the rail right-of-way and block general traffic access. New advance warning signs withn “2 Tracks” and “No Train Horn” language would need to be added closer to crossings. Pavement markings should be repainted as well. Subsequent to the diagnostic, the CPUC recommended added medians both east and west of the crossing, if no SSM or ASM were otherwise implemented. • C Street. 100-foot medians on either side of the crossing were identified as the appropriate SSM solution. A mountable curb should be installed on the south side of C Street immediately east of the crossing to allow UP access to the rail right-of-way and block general traffic access. “2 Tracks” and “No Train Horn” language on the advance warning signs on the eastbound and westbound approaches would also be needed. The sidewalk on the south side of C street should be removed, pedestrian
12 Per David Stewart, CPUC, September 2, 2011.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 30 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
barriers installed, and signs at 4th Street erected directing pedestrians to cross on the north side of C Street. • F Street. 100-foot medians on either side of the crossing were identified as the appropriate SSM solution. Mountable curbs should be installed on the both sides of C Street immediately west of the crossing to allow UP access to the rail right-of-way and block general traffic access. A palm tree on the north side of C Street east of the crossing should be removed to improve visibility of the warning devices for the westbound approach lane. Yellow tactile warning striping should be added to the eastbound and westbound pedestrian approaches to the crossing on the south side of the street. “No Train Horn” language would need to be added to the advance warning signs. • Kost Road. A 60-foot median on the east side of the crossing and a 100-foot median on the west side of the crossing were identified as the appropirate SSM solution. Mountable curbs should be installed on both sides of Kost Road immediately west of the crossing to allow UP access to the rail right-of- way and block general traffic access. “No Train Horn” language would need to be added to the advance warning signs.
Not attending the July 7 diagnostic was representation from the County of Sacramento. If a quiet zone concept involving Twin Cities Road and Spring Street crossings, which are outside the city limits of Galt, were chosen, a separate diagnostic involving the County, the City, UP, the CPUC and the FRA would be required.
QUIET ZONE CONCEPTS Fourteen concepts for quiet zones in Galt were considered. All involved SSMs as a means to lower the QZRI to a level below 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. Based on this analysis, three quiet zone concepts in particular represent the range of solutions that could be employed. These are described below.
CONCEPT 1 This concept assumes that SSMs are added to each of the seven crossing in the quiet zone. If these improvements implemented, the quiet zone would be qualified without further approval from the FRA. Assumed are: • Twin Cities Road: four-quadrant gates • Spring Street: existing gates with delineators • Elm Avenue: four-quadrant gates • A Street: four-quadrant gates • C Street: existing gates with medians • F Street: existing gates with medians • Kost Road: existing gates with medians
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 31 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
CONCEPT 2 This concept assumes a quiet zone involving SSMs at four crossings, no SSMs at two crossings, and wayside horns at one crossing. As two of the crossings would not receive SSM treatments, this concept was tested in the FRA Quiet Zone Calculator13. The results appear below.
Table 8: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator Concept 2 Trains ADT Risk NSRT RIWH QZRI per Day Existing
Spring Street 530 28 17,279.44
Elm Avenue 6,610 28 39,132.44
A Street 6,200 28 36,681.41 14,007.00 25,620.93 18,655.46 C Street 1,630 28 5,421.19
F Street 3,900 28 6,971.88
Kost Road 2,760 28 6,447.57
Future
Spring Street 800 48 21,449.90
Elm Avenue 7,500 48 49,227.97
A Street 9,100 48 48,601.82 14,007.00 33,857.20 24,338.74 C Street 11,000 48 10,076.72 F Street 10,100 48 10,426.53
Kost Road 1,100 48 6,249.47
Just as the QZRI was calculated for the crossings given existing warning devices, this concept was tested with existing year 2011 and future year 2030 motor vehicle and train counts. The specific assumptions regarding warning devices at each crossing were: • Twin Cities Road: wayside horns • Spring Street: existing gates with delineators • Elm Avenue: no SSM
13 As noted on page 30, the CPUC recommended medians at the Elm Avenue and A Street, if no SSM or ASM were otherwise implemented. Installation of these improvements will likely be required by the CPUC for its support of the quiet zone.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 32 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
• A Street: no SSM • C Street: existing gates with medians • F Street: existing gates with medians • Kost Road: existing gates with medians
As the Twin Cities Road crossing would be equipped with wayside horns, the crossing was excluded in the analysis.
Because this concept’s QZRI is less than the RIWH, given year 2011 train and traffic conditions, the quiet zone is qualified without further FRA approval. The concept would also remain satisfactory given projected year 2030 conditions. In other words, this concept would work now and for the foreseeable future.
CONCEPT 3 This concept differs from Concepts 1 and 2 as only those crossings within the City of Galt are included in the quiet zone. Like Concept 2, no SSMs are assumed for two streets. As two of the crossings would not receive SSM treatments, this concept was tested in the FRA Quiet Zone Calculator for 2011 and 2030. The results appear below.
Table 9: Results of the Quiet Zone Calculator Concept 3 Trains ADT Risk NSRT RIWH QZRI per Day Existing
Elm Avenue 6,610 28 39,132.44
A Street 6,200 28 36,681.41
C Street 1,630 28 5,421.19 14007.00 20385.74 18930.90
F Street 3,900 28 6,971.88
Kost Road 2,760 28 6,447.57
Future
Elm Avenue 7,500 48 49,227.97
A Street 9,100 48 48,601.82
C Street 11,000 48 10,076.72 14007.00 27945.87 24975.51
F Street 10,100 48 10,426.53
Kost Road 1,100 48 6,249.47
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 33 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
The specific assumptions regarding warning devices at the crossings are: • Elm Avenue: no SSM • A Street: no SSM • C Street: existing gates with medians • F Street: existing gates with medians • Kost Road: existing gates with medians
Because this concept’s QZRI is less than the RIWH, given year 2011 train and traffic conditions, the quiet zone is qualified without further FRA approval. The concept even holds up with projected 2030 conditions. In other words, this concept would work now and for the foreseeable future.
An analysis of the effect of train horn noise going north toward Spring Street, which does not have an SSM solution and is located outside of city limits, was conducted to determine whether or not the absence of an SSM there would result in a significant noise impact to surrounding residential properties in the City of Galt. Figure 10 graphically displays the results: no significant impact on the residential properties in Galt.
OTHER CONCEPTS In addition to the above, 11 other concepts were considered. Four of these involved the ASMs that were identified in the July 7 diagnostic. However, because ASMs cannot be evaluated with the FRA Calculator, there is no clear way to evaluate them versus the others that do, without a separate consultation with and analysis by the FRA. Two streets for which ASM solutions were identified were Elm Avenue and A Street. Still, Concepts 2 and 3 have no SSMs for these two crossing, and the QZRI scores for these concepts qualified them for quiet zone status without further approval of the FRA. Therefore, there is little need to consider ASMs further.
CAPITAL COSTS Conceptual costs for the three concepts estimated below in total. Further detail on the costs estimates appear in Appendix D. Costs estimates below include SSMs, other safety enhancements for motorists and pedestrians identified during the July 7 diagnostic, contingencies, and support costs. • Concept 1. The cost for his option is $4.5 million, the highest of any option considered. Driving this cost estimate are the expensive four-quadrant gate solutions at Twin Cities Road, Elm Avenue and A Street. • Concept 2. The conceptual cost for this concept is $466,000. The difference between the cost of Concepts 1 is driven by the absence of costly four-quadrant gates at three crossings. The estimate assumed medians are added east and west of the Elm Avenue and A Street crossings, as recommended by the CPUC. As CPUC concurrence is essential for implementation of a quiet zone, its recommendation is in effect mandatory. Some mountable curbing was added as well.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 34 GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
Spring Street
99
0 500 1000 ft NORTH Elm Avenue
70 Db 80 Db 90 Db 100 Db
TRAIN HORNS AT SPRING STREET FIGURE 10 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
• Concept 3. The conceptual cost for this concept is $288,000, the lowest of any option considered. The cost difference between Concept 3 and the other concepts is a result of its smaller size – five crossings versus seven. As Concept 2, medians are added east and west of the Elm Avenue and A Street crossings as a safety enhancement. Some mountable curbing was added as well.
According to the UP website, a four-quadrant gate implementation could cost range between $300,000 and $500,00014. However, to be more conservative, a higher cost estimate for a new four-quadrant gate is assumed here, i.e., $750,000 before contingencies and support costs. 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 former UP civil engineer15 commented to this study’s project manager 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 for four-quadrant gates.
If a fence were installed between A and C Streets to prevent pedestrians crossing tracks mid-block, its cost would be about $57,00016, which would be additive to the totals above. However, as noted, this fence may be constructed as part of the planned Palm Park project and Central Galt Corridor Rehabilitation.
ONGOING MAINTENANCE COSTS AND OTHER COSTS In addition to the capital costs of installing the quiet zone improvements, UP will likely insist that the City of Galt cover the ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. The UP website 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 may be liability question should an accident occur between a car and a train at a quiet zone crossing when a train was not blowing its horn. It is the opinion of the FRA that, in such a case, the City should not be found liable.. Wording in the preamble of the Train Horn Final Rule, issued on April 27, 2005 (page 21846), reads, “FRA does not expect that future lawsuits will not arise over accidents within quiet zones, as such lawsuits may be due to factors other than the lack of an audible warning. However, this final rule is intended to remove failure to sound the horn, failure to require horn sounding, and prohibitions on sounding of the horn, at grade crossings located within duly established quiet zones, as potential causes of action.”17
14 http://www.uprr.com/reus/roadxing/industry/process/horn_quiet.shtm 15 Per conversation with Richard Gonzalez, formerly of UP and now of J.L. Patterson and Associates, in early April, 2008. 16 1,000’ distance A St. to C St. multiplied by $30/foot for chain link fence multiplied by 1.9 for contingencies and support costs (Appendix D). 17 http://www.wrgca.com/downloads/PDF%20Files%2005/HORN%20FINAL%20RULE%20HTML.htm
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 36 SECTION 4: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE
What is clear enough is that any concern with regard to increased liability has not stopped many cities in California from establishing quiet zones18. The aforementioned cost estimates do not include any costs for additional liability coverage triggered by a quiet zone.
The UP website also points out that “Safety regulations and policies require that a Union Pacific flagman may be required when an agency performs work on the Union Pacific’s property, and this cost shall be borne by the agency.” An engineer for the City of Sacramento, contacted in the course of this study, noted that if the City requests UP to perform any work, UP charges the City to a retainer of $10,000 up front for labor and materials.19 As noted, a day or two of a City staffer’s time would be required to make a periodic update the quiet zone’s performance and crossing inventory forms to the FRA.
HORN BLOWING IN GALT WITH A QUIET ZONE Implementation of a quiet zone in Galt will not result in an end to train horn blowing in the City. As noted in the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 222.23)20, “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 switching train on the Downtown siding is going to or from the Ione Industrial Lead (specified in Section 5.8.2 per the General Code of Operating Rules [GCOR] adhered to by Amtrak, UP and most other North American railroads). Thus, the study area will continue to be affected by these horns.
18 The cities include Elk Grove, Stockton, West Sacramento, Sacramento, Richmond, Orange, Pomona, Placentia, Fresno, among others. 19 Matthew Johns, Assistant Engineer, City of Sacramento, per conversation on September 8, 2011 20 http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/222-affect-sounding-horn-situations-19945519
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 37 SECTION 5: EVALUATION
SECTION 5: EVALUATION
Section 4 presented three concepts for implementing a quiet zone in Galt. All three concepts appear to be implementable. What follows is an evaluation of the concepts.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Here the three concepts are evaluated on four criteria. These were overall safety, cost, ease of implementation, and review requirements of the FRA. The alternatives were assigned a score between 1 and 3, 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
Capital and O&M Costs 1 2 3
Ease of Implementation 1 2 3
FRA Review Requirements 3 2 2
Total 8 8 10 (1) 4-quadrant gates at Twin Cities Rd., Elm Ave. and A St.; medians at C and F Sts. and Kost Rd. (2) Wayside horns at Twin Cities Rd.; delineators at Spring St.; medians at Elm Ave., A,C and F Sts. and Kost Rd. (3) Medians at Elm Ave., A,C and F Sts. and Kost Rd.
OVERALL SAFETY Concept 1 with SSMs in place at all crossings is inherently safer than Concepts 2 and 3, which have no SSMs at Elm Avenue and A Street. As noted by CPUC, medians at these two streets will enhance safety; are in effect a requirement; and thus are assumed. Nevertheless, Concept 1 receives a higher score on this criterion. It is recognized that Concepts 2 and 3 may see the implementation of a grade separation of A Street. Should that happen, the QZRIs for the latter two concepts will be reduced. Still, funding for that improvement has not been secured, and Elm Avenue will remain without an SSM treatment.
CAPITAL AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE COST Involving the installation of medians and related improvements at five crossings, Concept 3 is the least costly to implement. It will also have the least ongoing maintenance costs. Accordingly, Concept 3 earns the highest score on this criterion.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 38 SECTION 5: EVALUATION
EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION All concepts involve modifications of crossing warning devices. Modifications of warning devices will require approval from the CPUC. That being said, Concept 3 involves modifications to five crossings. Concept 1 and 2 involves modifications to all seven crossings. Furthermore, Concepts 1 and 2 will require coordination with Sacramento County as well, whereas Concept 3, involving only Galt crossings, will not. Accordingly, Concept 3 scores highest on this criterion.
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 frequent reporting requirements than the other concepts. With all concepts, Galt 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. With Concept 1, updates would be required every 4½ to 5 years; with Concepts 2 and 3, updates would be necessary every 2½ to 3 years. Accordingly, Concept 1 scores higher on this criterion.
SUMMARY EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION Given the evaluation method utilized above, Concept 3 accrued the highest point total. Its lower cost and comparative ease of implementation allow it to score best overall. However, the QZRI for Concept 3 is relatively close to the RIWH for both years 2011 and 2030. Should significant unforeseen increases in highway and/or rail traffic occur in future years, the quiet zone status under Concept 3 could be jeopardized and would require additional safety measures to maintain its quiet zone status. However, the medians assumed for Elm Avenue and A Street could be assessed as potentials ASMs, and should they be approved by FRA, would service to lower the QZRI.
It is important to note that the evaluation above gave equal weight to each of the four criteria. Arguably, the two more important criteria are overall safety and capital cost. Were just these two criteria considered, Concept 3 still performs better the Concepts 1 and 2. The same would hold true if capital and O&M costs alone were the sole criterion.
Accordingly, this study recommends Concept 3, should the City move forward with a quiet zone implementation. Schematics in Appendix E illustrate the quiet zone improvements envisioned for Concept 3, inclusive of the medians on Elm Avenue and A Street, as recommended by the CPUC. Also, to prevent pedestrians from crossing the UP tracks mid block between A and C Streets (a span of about 1,000 feet), the City may wish to consider fencing on at least one side of the rail right-of-way (as noted, such fencing is part of the current design for Palm Park). The aforementioned cost estimate for the fencing is $57,000. If the fence were included in the quiet zone implementation, the total cost estimate for Concept 3 would be $288,000 for the quiet zone improvements plus $57,000 for the fence, or $345,000.
It is further recommended that the City budget $5,000 per year for annual operating and maintenance costs for the quiet zone.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 39 SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
If the City of Galt seeks to move forward with quiet zone Concept 3, a series of next steps can be anticipated. These nest steps are outlined below
NEXT STEPS • Proceed with 10 percent to 15 percent design of improvements – This level of design will be sufficient to show the median and curbing improvements in relation to tracks. The City will need to contract for these design services. • 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.” Please see GO 88-B discussion below. • In parallel with the improvement design process, update the FRA/CPUC railroad crossing inventory This update is a specification of the quiet zone process, and will serve as a check of existing crossing safety devices versus what appears in the FRA inventory. • Once the 10 percent to 15 percent design drawings are finished, send them to the CPUC for its comment – This provides CPUC with an opportunity to participate early on in the design process with specific input on modifications beyond comments during the diagnostic. • Respond to CPUC comments, and then send the revised designs back for further review – There may be various design iterations involved. • Once designs approach the 50 percent level in coordination with CPUC staff, submit a Notice of Intent to Establish a Quiet Zone. The Notice of Intent will be submitted to all railroads operating over the crossings (UP, BNSF and Amtrak), Caltrans and the CPUC. Doing so will provide an opportunity for comments and further recommendations. The agencies and railroads will have 60 days to respond. 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 Galt’s tentative plans for implementing improvements within the quiet zone. 4. The name and title of Galt’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. Galt 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.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 40 SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
• Gather comment and prepare 100 percent design drawings (by City-contracted design firm). • Submit 100 percent design drawings to CPUC for approval – Establishment of the quiet zone will depend on the City’s ability to develop funding for construction. • Once the funding is obtained and the City moves ahead with construction, prepare the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment and send by certified mail 60 days prior to establishment of the Quiet Zone to the agencies and railroads specified by the FRA. The purpose of this notice is to provide a means for Galt 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 with 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. • In parallel with the aforesaid, work with the UP on a Memorandum of Understanding regarding access to the right-of-way and anything else UP as identified as must-do’s for the quiet zone. UP likely may require compensation for its time. Also, UP may insist on doing any work to occur on the right-of- way, other than medians, and bill the City for its effort. However, since no signalization improvements are recommended, it appears likely that any UP work would be minor and covered by the contigenices in the cost estimate.
Prior to the establishment of the quiet zone, the SSM’s (medians) must be installed.
GENERAL ORDER 88-B (GO 88-B) GO88-B 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.21”
The CPUC staff will provide information on the GO 88-B process.
It is advisable that a meeting of all interested parties be held to obtain direct input from the railroads, the CPUC and FRA at the initiation of the design phase. Specifically, this meeting would be to evaluate the proposed modifications to the crossings and identify any other matters that should be addressed as part of the modifications proposed. The City would 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 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 Galt), the crossings 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 (no
21 http://162.15.7.24/PUBLISHED/GENERAL_ORDER/33542.htm
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 41 SECTION 6: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN change recommended), 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.
ONGOING AFFIRMATIONS AND CROSSING FORM UPDATES Once the quiet zone has been established, the City of Galt 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 forms.
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 42 SECTION 7: FUNDING MECHANISMS
SECTION 7: FUNDING MECHANISMS
As part of the study, 11 cities and two county transportation authorities were contacted for their experience with regard to implementing quiet zones. Specifically sought was insight from these entities with regard to funding sources pursued and acquired for building the quiet zones. Noted below are various federal, state, local and private funding mechanisms that these public entities identified, along with others that would appear could candidates for quiet zone funding sources in California.
The discussion that follows is not meant to be an analysis of all possible funding mechanisms. Rather, it identifies mechanisms that have been or conceivably could be used for implementing quiet zone improvements. As such, it may provide concepts for funding strategies for the City of Galt quiet zone.
FEDERAL SOURCES
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM The Surface Transportation Program (STP), established as part of the 2004 Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects on any federal-aid highway, including the National Highway System, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities.
According to the US Code, Title 23, Chapter 1, Section 133, eligible projects for the STP include, “Highway and transit safety infrastructure improvements and programs, hazard eliminations, projects to mitigate hazards caused by wildlife, and railway-highway grade crossings.22”
In some cases, STP funds are allocated to local jurisdictions on based on a population formula. This formula allocation is known as STP-Local (STP-L). Eligible uses for these funds include highway safety improvements23.
Partial funding for the City of Riverside’s quiet zone is coming from the STP, as did funding for the City of Orange quiet zone. Partial funding from West Sacramento’s quiet zone also came the STP, more specifically, through the STP-Local program.
22 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_23_00000133----000-.html 23http://www.metro.net/about_us/library/images/Surface%20Transportation%20Program%20Local%20Lapsing%20o f%20Funds.pdf http://www.metro.net/about_us/library/images/Surface%20Transportation%20Program%20Local%20Lapsing% 20of%20Funds.pdf
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 43 SECTION 7: FUNDING MECHANISMS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
Per the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)24, “The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. Beginning in 1974, the CDBG program is one of the longest continuously run programs at HUD. The CDBG program provides annual grants on a formula basis to 1209 general units of local government and States.
State Administration - “Since States are in the best position to know, and to respond to, the needs of local governments, Congress amended the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCD Act) in 1981 to give each State the opportunity to administer CDBG funds for non-entitlement areas. Non- entitlement areas include those units of general local government which do not receive CDBG funds directly from HUD as part of the entitlement program (Entitlement Cities and Urban Counties). Non-entitlement areas are cities with populations of less than 50,000 (except cities that are designated principal cities of Metropolitan Statistical Areas), and counties with populations of less than 200,000. …
Eligible Activities - “Communities receiving CDBG funds from the State may use the funds for many kinds of community development activities including, but not limited to, construction or reconstruction of streets, water and sewer facilities, neighborhood centers, recreation facilities, and other public works; …”
While none of the public entities contacted used CBDG funds for quiet zone implementation, pursuing these funds does appear a reasonable strategy.
STATE SOURCES
REGIONAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM The Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) was established by California State Statute utilizing Surface Transportation Program Funds that are identified in Section 133 of Title 23 of the United States Code. Eligible projects include highway-rail crossing improvements25. Accordingly, RSTP funds would seem a potential funding sources for street improvements related to a quiet zone. In essence, this funding source is an STP funding source (see STP section above).
WORKFORCE HOUSING REWARD PROGRAM
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)26 , this program provides, “financial incentives to cities and counties that issue building permits for new housing affordable to very low or low-income households.
24http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programst p://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/programs 25 http://www.tahoempo.org/rstp.aspx 26 http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/whrp/
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 44 SECTION 7: FUNDING MECHANISMS
Eligible Activities - “Construction or acquisition of capital assets such as traffic improvements, neighborhood parks, bike paths, libraries, school facilities, play areas, community centers, police or fire stations.
Eligible Applicants - “Cities, counties, and cities and counties that, by the end of the 12-month period for which application is made, have adopted housing elements that HCD has found to be in substantial compliance with housing element law, and have submitted to HCD the annual progress report required by Section 65400 of the Government Code within the preceding 12 months.”
The City of Elk Grove has securing funding through this program to help implement its quiet zones.
STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) website27, the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is, “…a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the Transportation Investment Fund and other funding sources. STIP programming generally occurs every two years. …
“Local agencies should work through their Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), County Transportation Commission, or Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), as appropriate, to nominate projects for inclusion in the STIP.
Once projects are programmed, agencies may begin the project implementation process. It is important to note that there are timely use of funds rules associated with STIP projects that are established by statute and outlined in both the STIP Guidelines adopted by the CTC and Chapter 23 of the Local Assistance Program Guidelines.”
The City of Placentia relied on STIP for partial funding of its quiet zone.
PROPOSITION 1B According to an internal California Transportation Commission (CTC) memo entitled, Adoption of Proposition 1B Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety Account Guidelines Resolution GS1B-G-0708-0128, “On November 7, 2006, the voters approved Proposition 1B. It includes $250 million to fund the Highway- Railroad Crossing Safety Account (HRCSA) for two sub-programs – $150 million for highway-railroad grade separations derived from the California Public Utilities Commission’s Section 190 grade separation priority list and $100 million for non-Section 190 high-priority grade separations and crossing improvements.”
The City of Orange used Proposition 1B to partially fund its quiet zone project.
27 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/STIP.htm 28 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ibond/highway_rail_safety_cross_guidelines.pdf
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 45 SECTION 7: FUNDING MECHANISMS
COUNTY SOURCES
COUNTY SALES TAXES Cities which have used or may use their counties’ respective sales taxes for implementing their quiet zones include: • Orange, in Orange County • Stockton, in San Joaquin County • Elk Grove, in Sacramento County • Torrance, in Los Angeles County
LOCAL SOURCES
GENERAL FUND AND OTHER CITY FUNDS A city’s General Fund is one local source for improvements for quiet zones. Cities which have used or plan on using from their General Funds and other municipal funds for their quiet zones include: • Fresno • Placentia • West Sacramento • Bakersfield • Sacramento • Orange
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
According to the California Health and Safety Code, Section 3313129, a redevelopment agency “may: (a) From time to time prepare and carry out plans for the improvement, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of blighted areas. (b) Disseminate redevelopment information. (c) Prepare applications for various federal programs and grants relating to housing and community development and plan and carry out such programs within authority otherwise granted by this part, at the request of the legislative body.”
This is to say, city Redevelopment Agencies can be vehicles to generate funding for a quiet zone project that may contribute toward the revitalization of an economically challenged area.
29 http://law.onecle.com/california/health/33131.html
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 46 SECTION 7: FUNDING MECHANISMS
The City of Orange used city redevelopment funds to build its quiet zone, and the City of Riverside is planning on doing so.
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
According to California Property Task Information30, a Benefit Assessment District (Government Code §54710 et seq.), “can be used by any local agency including cities, counties, and special districts such as school districts or water districts. Approved uses include maintenance and operation costs of drainage systems, flood control systems, and street lighting. Additionally, any agency authorized to maintain streets and roads may impose a benefit assessment for maintenance costs of public streets and highways. Any agency authorized to provide drainage and flood control services may impose assessments for the installation or improvement of those facilities, in addition to an assessment for maintenance.”
While none of the public entities contacted formed a Benefit Assessment District to establish a quiet zone, pursuing these funds does appear a reasonable strategy.
CITY DEPARTMENTS The Port of Richmond, a department of the City of Richmond, paid for the establishment of a quiet zone on the BNSF Railway port lead crossing Second and Third Streets, just south of I-580. The quiet zone implementation was performed as a mitigation measure required by the Environmental Impact Report for the Port Honda project31.
CITY FEES
Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code32 allows cities to charge developers fees to mitigate impacts caused by the development. Indeed, the City of Stockton charged a developer Street Improvement Public Facilities Fees that went toward the street improvements related to the implementation of the Morada Lane quiet zone.
SPECIAL DISTRICTS Special districts or special-purpose districts are governmental districts organized to provide specific services not provided by local governments. They are independent from the local governmental units where they might be located. If a special district, such as a port or a business park, were to seek implement a project which would result in more train horn noise, that district could be looked to to at least partially fund a quiet zone improvement. While none of the entities contact pursued these funds for their quiet zones, doing so seems a reasonable strategy.
30 http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/1982BAdist.pdf 31 Joel Camacho, Associate Civil Engineer, City of Richmond, per e-mail of September 15, 2011. 32 http://www.monocounty.ca.gov/online_services/documents/cocode/level2/T3_C3.60.html
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 47 SECTION 7: FUNDING MECHANISMS
PRIVATE SOURCES
RAILROAD CONTRIBUTIONS A freight railroad also can be looked to as a source of funds for quiet zone improvements, where the improvements clearly will enhance safety at a crossing – and thus reduce the railroad’s risk of liability for accidents. According to the White Fish Pilot Online33, BNSF Railway recently contributed to a White Fish, Montana, quiet zone improvement including installing crossing gates and flashing lights at a crossing which had none before.
OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS The City of Fresno was able to obtain both a grant and a zero interest loan from the Central Valley Regional Medical Center for implementation of a quiet zone. The Medical Center saw the quiet zone improvement important for enhancing the quality of care it could provide for patients at the facility.
33 http://www.flatheadnewsgroup.com/whitefishpilot/article_331b1a8a-606b-11e0-bc49-001cc4c03286.html
GALT RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
105367 Page 48
APPENDICES
Appendix A New Quiet Zone Flow Charts 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 Reports City of Galt Railroad Quiet Zone Study Crossing Name: Kost Road Roadway Type: Urban Minor Arterial Railroad: Union Pacific Railroad FRA No: 752738E Subdivision: Fresno Milepost: 110.88
Crossing Information Highway Information Warning Device: Automatic gate & flashing lights No. of Traffic Lanes: 2 No. of Mainline Tracks 1 Paved Roadway: Yes
No. of Other Tracks: 0 RR Advance Warning Signs: Yes Smallest Xing Angle: 60 to 90 Pavement Markings: Stop lines & RR Xing symbols
No. of Total Daily Trains: 28 ADT (Average Daily Traffic): 2,760
No. of Daily Trains during Daylight hours: 12 Intersection Less than 400 ft: No No. of Switching Trains per Day: 4 Is Intersection Signalized: No
Max. Timetable Speed: 79 mph (passenger)/ 70 mph (freight) Accidents since 1975: 0 Land Use Information Accidents in last 5 years: 0 Type of Development: Industrial/Agricultural Bike Lane/Sidewalk: Yes/No
Roadway Looking East
Roadway Looking West
Railroad Looking North
Railroad Looking South
Crossing Surface: concrete
Page 1 of 7 10/17/2011
Wilbur Smith Associates B- 1 City of Galt Railroad Quiet Zone Study Crossing Name: F Street Roadway Type: Urban Minor Arterial Railroad: Union Pacific Railroad FRA No: 752739L Subdivision: Fresno Milepost: 111.50
Crossing Information Highway Information Warning Device: Automatic gate & flashing lights, cantilever No. of Traffic Lanes: 2 No. of Mainline Tracks 1 Paved Roadway: Yes
No. of Other Tracks: 0 RR Advance Warning Signs: Yes Smallest Xing Angle: 60 to 90 Pavement Markings: Stop lines & RR Xing symbols
No. of Total Daily Trains: 28 ADT (Average Daily Traffic): 3,900
No. of Daily Trains during Daylight hours: 12 Intersection Less than 400 ft: Yes No. of Switching Trains per Day: 4 Is Intersection Signalized: No
Max. Timetable Speed: 79 mph (passenger)/ 70 mph (freight) Accidents since 1975: 0 Land Use Information Accidents in last 5 years: 0 Type of Development: Residential/Commercial Bike Lane/Sidewalk: Yes/Yes, both sides
Roadway Looking East
Roadway Looking West
Railroad Looking North
Railroad Looking South
Crossing Surface: concrete
Page 2 of 7 10/17/2011
Wilbur Smith Associates B- 2 City of Galt Railroad Quiet Zone Study Crossing Name: C Street Roadway Type: Urban Local Railroad: Union Pacific Railroad FRA No: 752740F Subdivision: Fresno Milepost: 111.70
Crossing Information Highway Information Warning Device: Automatic gate & flashing lights, cantilever No. of Traffic Lanes: 2 No. of Mainline Tracks 1 Paved Roadway: Yes
No. of Other Tracks: 1 RR Advance Warning Signs: Yes Smallest Xing Angle: 60 to 90 Pavement Markings: Stop lines & RR Xing symbols
No. of Total Daily Trains: 28 ADT (Average Daily Traffic): 1,630
No. of Daily Trains during Daylight hours: 12 Intersection Less than 400 ft: Yes No. of Switching Trains per Day: 4 Is Intersection Signalized: No
Max. Timetable Speed: 79 mph (passenger)/ 70 mph (freight) Accidents since 1975: 1 Land Use Information Accidents in last 5 years: 0 Type of Development: Residential/Commercial Bike Lane/Sidewalk: Yes/Yes, north side
Roadway Looking East
Roadway Looking West
Railroad Looking North
Railroad Looking South
Crossing Surface: concrete
Page 3 of 7 10/17/2011
Wilbur Smith Associates B- 3 City of Galt Railroad Quiet Zone Study Crossing Name: A Street Roadway Type: Urban Minor Arterial Railroad: Union Pacific Railroad FRA No: 752741M Subdivision: Fresno Milepost: 111.90
Crossing Information Highway Information Warning Device: Automatic gate & flashing lights, cantilever No. of Traffic Lanes: 2 No. of Mainline Tracks 1 Paved Roadway: Yes
No. of Other Tracks: 1 RR Advance Warning Signs: Yes (west only) Smallest Xing Angle: 60 to 90 Pavement Markings: Stop lines & RR Xing symbols
No. of Total Daily Trains: 28 ADT (Average Daily Traffic): 6,200
No. of Daily Trains during Daylight hours: 12 Intersection Less than 400 ft: Yes No. of Switching Trains per Day: 4 Is Intersection Signalized: No
Max. Timetable Speed: 79 mph (passenger)/ 70 mph (freight) Accidents since 1975: 0 Land Use Information Accidents in last 5 years: 0 Type of Development: Residential/Commercial Bike Lane/Sidewalk: Yes/Yes, both sides
Roadway Looking East
Roadway Looking West
Railroad Looking North
Railroad Looking South
Crossing Surface: concrete
Page 4 of 7 10/17/2011
Wilbur Smith Associates B- 4 City of Galt Railroad Quiet Zone Study Crossing Name: Elm Avenue/Orr Road Roadway Type: Urban Minor Arterial Railroad: Union Pacific Railroad FRA No: 752742U Subdivision: Fresno Milepost: 112.45
Crossing Information Highway Information Warning Device: Automatic gate & flashing lights No. of Traffic Lanes: 2 No. of Mainline Tracks 1 Paved Roadway: Yes
No. of Other Tracks: 0 RR Advance Warning Signs: Yes Smallest Xing Angle: 60 to 90 Pavement Markings: Stop lines & RR Xing symbols
No. of Total Daily Trains: 28 ADT (Average Daily Traffic): 6,610
No. of Daily Trains during Daylight hours: 12 Intersection Less than 400 ft: Yes No. of Switching Trains per Day: 4 Is Intersection Signalized: No
Max. Timetable Speed: 79 mph (passenger)/ 70 mph (freight) Accidents since 1975: 0 Land Use Information Accidents in last 5 years: 0 Type of Development: Residential/Commercial/Agricultural Bike Lane/Sidewalk: No/Yes, south side
Roadway Looking East
Roadway Looking West
Railroad Looking North
Railroad Looking South
Crossing Surface: concrete
Page 5 of 7 10/17/2011
Wilbur Smith Associates B- 5 City of Galt Railroad Quiet Zone Study Crossing Name: Spring Street Roadway Type: Rural Local Railroad: Union Pacific Railroad FRA No: 752743B Subdivision: Fresno Milepost: 114.02
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: 0 RR Advance Warning Signs: Yes Smallest Xing Angle: 60 to 90 Pavement Markings: Stop lines & RR Xing symbols
No. of Total Daily Trains: 28 ADT (Average Daily Traffic): 530
No. of Daily Trains during Daylight hours: 12 Intersection Less than 400 ft: No No. of Switching Trains per Day: 4 Is Intersection Signalized: No
Max. Timetable Speed: 79 mph (passenger)/ 70 mph (freight) Accidents since 1975: 1 Land Use Information Accidents in last 5 years: 1 Type of Development: Open Space/Office Professional/Light Bike Lane/Sidewalk: No/No Industrial
Roadway Looking East
Roadway Looking West
Railroad Looking North
Railroad Looking South
Crossing Surface: concrete
Page 6 of 7 10/17/2011
Wilbur Smith Associates B- 6 City of Galt Railroad Quiet Zone Study Crossing Name: Twin Cities Road Roadway Type: Rural Minor Arterial Railroad: Union Pacific Railroad FRA No: 752892C Subdivision: Fresno Milepost: 114.53
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: 0 RR Advance Warning Signs: Yes Smallest Xing Angle: 60 to 90 Pavement Markings: Stop lines & RR Xing symbols
No. of Total Daily Trains: 28 ADT (Average Daily Traffic): 4,830
No. of Daily Trains during Daylight hours: 12 Intersection Less than 400 ft: No No. of Switching Trains per Day: 4 Is Intersection Signalized: No
Max. Timetable Speed: 79 mph (passenger)/ 70 mph (freight) Accidents since 1975: 2 Land Use Information Accidents in last 5 years: 0 Type of Development: Open Space/Light Industrial Bike Lane/Sidewalk: No/No
Roadway Looking East
Roadway Looking West
Railroad Looking North
Railroad Looking South
Crossing Surface: concrete
Page 7 of 7 10/17/2011
Wilbur Smith Associates B- 7
Appendix C FRA Accident Reports HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT/INCIDENT REPORT FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA) OMB Approval No. 2130-0500 Name Of Alphabetic Code RR Accident/Incident No. 1. Reporting Railroad BNSF Rwy Co. [BNSF] 1a. BNSF 1b. CA0708200 2. Other Railroad Involved in Train Accident/Incident 2a. 2b. 3. Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance Union Pacific RR Co. [UP ] 3a. UP 3b. XXX 4. U.S. DOT-AAR Grade Crossing ID No. 752743B 5. Date of Accident/Incident 07/01/08 6. Time of Accident/Incident 11:45 PM 7. Nearest Railroad Station 8. Division 9. County 10. State Code GALT CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO Abbr. 06 CA 11. City (if in a city) 12. Highway Name or No. SPRING ST Public Private Highway User Involved Rail Equipment Involved 13. Type Code 17. Equipment 4. Car(s) (moving) 8. Other (specify) Code C. Truck-trailer F. Bus J. Other Motor Vehicle 1. Train (units pulling) 5. Car(s) (standing) A. Train pulling- RCL A. Auto D. Pick-up truck G. School Bus K. Pedestrian A 2. Train (units pushing) 6. Light loco(s) (moving) B. Train pushing- RCL 6 B. Truck E. Van H. Motorcycle M. Other (specify) 3. Train (standing) 7. Light loco(s) (standing) C. Train standing- RCL 14. Vehicle Speed 15. Direction (geographical) Code 18. Position of Car Unit in Train (est. mph at impact) 0 1. North 2. South 3. East 4. West 3 1 16. Position 1. Stalled on crossing 3. Moving over crossing Code 19. Circumstance 1. Rail equipment struck highway user Code 2. Stopped on Crossing 4. Trapped 2 2. Rail equipment struck by highway user 1 20a. Was the highway user and/or rail equipment involved Code 20b. Was there a hazardous materials release by Code in the impact transporting hazardous materials? 4 1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither 4 1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither 20c. State the name and quantity of the hazardous materials released, if any
21. Temperature 22. Visibility (single entry) Code 23. Weather (single entry) Code 1 (specify if minus) 68 °F 1. Dawn 2. Day 3. Dusk 4. Dark 4 1. Clear 2. Cloudy 3. Rain 4. Fog 5. Sleet 6. Snow
24. Type of Equipment A. Spec. MoW Equip. 25. Track Type Used by Rail Code 26. Track Number or Name Consist 1. Freight train 4. Work train 7. Yard/Switching Equipment Involved (single entry) 2. Passenger train 5. Single car 8. Light loco(s) Code 3. Commuter train 6. Cut of cars 9. Main./inspect. car 8 1. Main 2. Yard 3. Siding 4. Industry 1 MAIN NO 2 27. FRA Track 28. Number of 29. Number of 30. Consist Speed (Recorded if available) Code 31. Time Table Direction Code Class Locomotive Cars R. Recorded 5 Units 2 0 E. Estimated 66 mph R 1. North 2. South 3. East 4. West 1 32. Type of 1. Gates 4. Wig wags 7. Crossbucks 10. Flagged by crew 33. Signaled Crossing 34. Whistle Ban Code Crossing 2. Cantilever FLS 5. Hwy. traffic signals 8. Stop signs 11. Other (specify) Warning 1. Yes Warning 3. Standard FLS 6. Audible 9. Watchman 12. None 2. No 2 Code(s) 01 03 20 sec warn min (1); 3. Unknown 35. Location of Warning Code 36. Crossing Warning Interconnected Code 37. Crossing Illuminated by Street Code 1. Both Sides with Highway Signals Lights or Special Lights 2. Side of Vehicle Approach 1 2 1 3. Opposite Side of Vehicle Approach 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 38. Driver's 39. Driver's Code 40. Driver Drove Behind or in Front of Train Code 41. Driver Code Age Gender and Struck or was Struck by Second Train 1. Drove around or thru the gate 4. Stopped on crossing 54 1. Male 1 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 2 2. Stopped and then proceeded 5. Other (specify) 4 2. Female 3. Did not stop 42. Driver Passed Standing Code 43. View of Track Obscured by (primary obstruction) Code Highway Vehicle 1. Permanent Structure 3. Passing Train 5. Vegetation 7. Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 2 2. Standing railroad equipment 4. Topography 6. Highway Vehicles 8. Not Obstructed 8 44. Driver was Code 45. Was Driver in the Vehicle? Code Casualties to: Killed Injured 1. Killed 2. Injured 3. Uninjured 2 1. Yes 2. No 1 47. Highway Vehicle Property Damage 48. Total Number of Highway-Rail Crossing Users 46. Highway-Rail Crossing Users 0 1 (est. dollar damage) $5,000 (include driver) 1 49. Railroad Employees 0 0 50. Total Number of People on Train 51. Is a Rail Equipment Accident / Code (include passengers and crew) Incident Report Being Filed 52. Passengers on Train 0 0 3 1. Yes 2. No 2 53a. Special Study Block 53b. Special Study Block 54. Narrative Description
55. Typed Name and Title 56. Signature 57. Date
FORM FRA F 6180.57 * NOTE THAT ALL CASUALTIES MUST BE REPORTED ON FORM FRA F 6180.55A HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT/INCIDENT REPORT FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA) OMB Approval No. 2130-0500 Name Of Alphabetic Code RR Accident/Incident No. 1. Reporting Railroad BNSF Rwy Co. [BNSF] 1a. BNSF 1b. NC0204201 2. Other Railroad Involved in Train Accident/Incident 2a. 2b. 3. Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance Union Pacific RR Co. [UP ] 3a. UP 3b. XXX 4. U.S. DOT-AAR Grade Crossing ID No. 752740F 5. Date of Accident/Incident 02/20/04 6. Time of Accident/Incident 10:15 PM 7. Nearest Railroad Station 8. Division 9. County 10. State Code SACRAMENTO NORTHERN CALIF SACRAMENTO Abbr. 06 CA 11. City (if in a city) 12. Highway Name or No. C ST Public Private Highway User Involved Rail Equipment Involved 13. Type Code 17. Equipment 4. Car(s) (moving) 8. Other (specify) Code C. Truck-trailer F. Bus J. Other Motor Vehicle 1. Train (units pulling) 5. Car(s) (standing) A. Train pulling- RCL A. Auto D. Pick-up truck G. School Bus K. Pedestrian K 2. Train (units pushing) 6. Light loco(s) (moving) B. Train pushing- RCL 1 B. Truck E. Van H. Motorcycle M. Other (specify) 3. Train (standing) 7. Light loco(s) (standing) C. Train standing- RCL 14. Vehicle Speed 15. Direction (geographical) Code 18. Position of Car Unit in Train (est. mph at impact) 1. North 2. South 3. East 4. West 3 1 16. Position 1. Stalled on crossing 3. Moving over crossing Code 19. Circumstance 1. Rail equipment struck highway user Code 2. Stopped on Crossing 4. Trapped 3 2. Rail equipment struck by highway user 1 20a. Was the highway user and/or rail equipment involved Code 20b. Was there a hazardous materials release by Code in the impact transporting hazardous materials? 4 1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither 4 1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither 20c. State the name and quantity of the hazardous materials released, if any
21. Temperature 22. Visibility (single entry) Code 23. Weather (single entry) Code 2 (specify if minus) 50 °F 1. Dawn 2. Day 3. Dusk 4. Dark 4 1. Clear 2. Cloudy 3. Rain 4. Fog 5. Sleet 6. Snow
24. Type of Equipment A. Spec. MoW Equip. 25. Track Type Used by Rail Code 26. Track Number or Name Consist 1. Freight train 4. Work train 7. Yard/Switching Equipment Involved (single entry) 2. Passenger train 5. Single car 8. Light loco(s) Code 3. Commuter train 6. Cut of cars 9. Main./inspect. car 1 1. Main 2. Yard 3. Siding 4. Industry 1 UP MAIN 27. FRA Track 28. Number of 29. Number of 30. Consist Speed (Recorded if available) Code 31. Time Table Direction Code Class Locomotive Cars R. Recorded 4 Units 2 40 E. Estimated 50 mph E 1. North 2. South 3. East 4. West 2 32. Type of 1. Gates 4. Wig wags 7. Crossbucks 10. Flagged by crew 33. Signaled Crossing 34. Whistle Ban Code Crossing 2. Cantilever FLS 5. Hwy. traffic signals 8. Stop signs 11. Other (specify) Warning 1. Yes Warning 3. Standard FLS 6. Audible 9. Watchman 12. None 2. No 2 Code(s) 01 02 20 sec warn min (1); 3. Unknown 35. Location of Warning Code 36. Crossing Warning Interconnected Code 37. Crossing Illuminated by Street Code 1. Both Sides with Highway Signals Lights or Special Lights 2. Side of Vehicle Approach 1 1 2 3. Opposite Side of Vehicle Approach 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 38. Driver's 39. Driver's Code 40. Driver Drove Behind or in Front of Train Code 41. Driver Code Age Gender and Struck or was Struck by Second Train 1. Drove around or thru the gate 4. Stopped on crossing 29 1. Male 1 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 2. Stopped and then proceeded 5. Other (specify) 2. Female 3. Did not stop 42. Driver Passed Standing Code 43. View of Track Obscured by (primary obstruction) Code Highway Vehicle 1. Permanent Structure 3. Passing Train 5. Vegetation 7. Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 2. Standing railroad equipment 4. Topography 6. Highway Vehicles 8. Not Obstructed 8 44. Driver was Code 45. Was Driver in the Vehicle? Code Casualties to: Killed Injured 1. Killed 2. Injured 3. Uninjured 1. Yes 2. No 47. Highway Vehicle Property Damage 48. Total Number of Highway-Rail Crossing Users 46. Highway-Rail Crossing Users 1 (est. dollar damage) (include driver) 1 49. Railroad Employees 50. Total Number of People on Train 51. Is a Rail Equipment Accident / Code (include passengers and crew) Incident Report Being Filed 52. Passengers on Train 3 1. Yes 2. No 2 53a. Special Study Block 53b. Special Study Block 54. Narrative Description
55. Typed Name and Title 56. Signature 57. Date
FORM FRA F 6180.57 * NOTE THAT ALL CASUALTIES MUST BE REPORTED ON FORM FRA F 6180.55A HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT/INCIDENT REPORT FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA) OMB Approval No. 2130-0500 Name Of Alphabetic Code RR Accident/Incident No. 1. Reporting Railroad Amtrak [ATK ] 1a. ATK 1b. 093951 2. Other Railroad Involved in Train Accident/Incident 2a. 2b. 3. Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance Union Pacific RR Co. [UP ] 3a. UP 3b. XXX 4. U.S. DOT-AAR Grade Crossing ID No. 752892C 5. Date of Accident/Incident 09/14/04 6. Time of Accident/Incident 07:12 AM 7. Nearest Railroad Station 8. Division 9. County 10. State Code TUS PAC SACRAMENTO Abbr. 06 CA 11. City (if in a city) 12. Highway Name or No. TWIN CITIES RD Public Private Highway User Involved Rail Equipment Involved 13. Type Code 17. Equipment 4. Car(s) (moving) 8. Other (specify) Code C. Truck-trailer F. Bus J. Other Motor Vehicle 1. Train (units pulling) 5. Car(s) (standing) A. Train pulling- RCL A. Auto D. Pick-up truck G. School Bus K. Pedestrian B 2. Train (units pushing) 6. Light loco(s) (moving) B. Train pushing- RCL 1 B. Truck E. Van H. Motorcycle M. Other (specify) 3. Train (standing) 7. Light loco(s) (standing) C. Train standing- RCL 14. Vehicle Speed 15. Direction (geographical) Code 18. Position of Car Unit in Train (est. mph at impact) 40 1. North 2. South 3. East 4. West 3 3 16. Position 1. Stalled on crossing 3. Moving over crossing Code 19. Circumstance 1. Rail equipment struck highway user Code 2. Stopped on Crossing 4. Trapped 3 2. Rail equipment struck by highway user 2 20a. Was the highway user and/or rail equipment involved Code 20b. Was there a hazardous materials release by Code in the impact transporting hazardous materials? 4 1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither 4 1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither 20c. State the name and quantity of the hazardous materials released, if any
21. Temperature 22. Visibility (single entry) Code 23. Weather (single entry) Code 1 (specify if minus) 70 °F 1. Dawn 2. Day 3. Dusk 4. Dark 2 1. Clear 2. Cloudy 3. Rain 4. Fog 5. Sleet 6. Snow
24. Type of Equipment A. Spec. MoW Equip. 25. Track Type Used by Rail Code 26. Track Number or Name Consist 1. Freight train 4. Work train 7. Yard/Switching Equipment Involved (single entry) 2. Passenger train 5. Single car 8. Light loco(s) Code 3. Commuter train 6. Cut of cars 9. Main./inspect. car 2 1. Main 2. Yard 3. Siding 4. Industry 1 MAIN 27. FRA Track 28. Number of 29. Number of 30. Consist Speed (Recorded if available) Code 31. Time Table Direction Code Class Locomotive Cars R. Recorded 4 Units 1 4 E. Estimated 79 mph R 1. North 2. South 3. East 4. West 2 32. Type of 1. Gates 4. Wig wags 7. Crossbucks 10. Flagged by crew 33. Signaled Crossing 34. Whistle Ban Code Crossing 2. Cantilever FLS 5. Hwy. traffic signals 8. Stop signs 11. Other (specify) Warning 1. Yes Warning 3. Standard FLS 6. Audible 9. Watchman 12. None 2. No 2 Code(s) 01 03 06 20 sec warn min (1); 3. Unknown 35. Location of Warning Code 36. Crossing Warning Interconnected Code 37. Crossing Illuminated by Street Code 1. Both Sides with Highway Signals Lights or Special Lights 2. Side of Vehicle Approach 1 3 3 3. Opposite Side of Vehicle Approach 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 38. Driver's 39. Driver's Code 40. Driver Drove Behind or in Front of Train Code 41. Driver Code Age Gender and Struck or was Struck by Second Train 1. Drove around or thru the gate 4. Stopped on crossing 1. Male 1 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 2 2. Stopped and then proceeded 5. Other (specify) 1 2. Female 3. Did not stop 42. Driver Passed Standing Code 43. View of Track Obscured by (primary obstruction) Code Highway Vehicle 1. Permanent Structure 3. Passing Train 5. Vegetation 7. Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 2 2. Standing railroad equipment 4. Topography 6. Highway Vehicles 8. Not Obstructed 8 44. Driver was Code 45. Was Driver in the Vehicle? Code Casualties to: Killed Injured 1. Killed 2. Injured 3. Uninjured 2 1. Yes 2. No 1 47. Highway Vehicle Property Damage 48. Total Number of Highway-Rail Crossing Users 46. Highway-Rail Crossing Users 0 1 (est. dollar damage) $30,000 (include driver) 1 49. Railroad Employees 0 0 50. Total Number of People on Train 51. Is a Rail Equipment Accident / Code (include passengers and crew) Incident Report Being Filed 52. Passengers on Train 0 1 24 1. Yes 2. No 1 53a. Special Study Block 53b. Special Study Block 54. Narrative Description TRAIN NO.#702 OPERATING WITH LOCOMOTIVE CDTX 2052 AND 4 CARS WAS STRUCK BY A CEMENT TRUCK IN THE SIDE OF C/8013 AT MP60.44, TWIN CITIES RD CROSSING.
55. Typed Name and Title 56. Signature 57. Date
FORM FRA F 6180.57 * NOTE THAT ALL CASUALTIES MUST BE REPORTED ON FORM FRA F 6180.55A HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT/INCIDENT REPORT FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA) OMB Approval No. 2130-0500 Name Of Alphabetic Code RR Accident/Incident No. 1. Reporting Railroad Southern Pacific Transportation Co. [SP ] 1a. SP 1b. E3955 2. Other Railroad Involved in Train Accident/Incident 2a. 2b. 3. Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance Southern Pacific Transportation Co. [SP ] 3a. SP 3b. E3955 4. U.S. DOT-AAR Grade Crossing ID No. 752892C 5. Date of Accident/Incident 08/01/85 6. Time of Accident/Incident 10:25 PM 7. Nearest Railroad Station 8. Division 9. County 10. State Code NEED SACRAMENTO Abbr. 06 CA 11. City (if in a city) GALT 12. Highway Name or No. TWIN CITYS RD Public Private Highway User Involved Rail Equipment Involved 13. Type Code 17. Equipment 4. Car(s) (moving) 8. Other (specify) Code C. Truck-trailer F. Bus J. Other Motor Vehicle 1. Train (units pulling) 5. Car(s) (standing) A. Train pulling- RCL A. Auto D. Pick-up truck G. School Bus K. Pedestrian B 2. Train (units pushing) 6. Light loco(s) (moving) B. Train pushing- RCL 1 B. Truck E. Van H. Motorcycle M. Other (specify) 3. Train (standing) 7. Light loco(s) (standing) C. Train standing- RCL 14. Vehicle Speed 15. Direction (geographical) Code 18. Position of Car Unit in Train (est. mph at impact) 15 1. North 2. South 3. East 4. West 3 86 16. Position 1. Stalled on crossing 3. Moving over crossing Code 19. Circumstance 1. Rail equipment struck highway user Code 2. Stopped on Crossing 4. Trapped 3 2. Rail equipment struck by highway user 2 20a. Was the highway user and/or rail equipment involved Code 20b. Was there a hazardous materials release by Code in the impact transporting hazardous materials? 1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither 4 1. Highway User 2. Rail Equipment 3. Both 4. Neither 20c. State the name and quantity of the hazardous materials released, if any
21. Temperature 22. Visibility (single entry) Code 23. Weather (single entry) Code 1 (specify if minus) 80 °F 1. Dawn 2. Day 3. Dusk 4. Dark 4 1. Clear 2. Cloudy 3. Rain 4. Fog 5. Sleet 6. Snow
24. Type of Equipment A. Spec. MoW Equip. 25. Track Type Used by Rail Code 26. Track Number or Name Consist 1. Freight train 4. Work train 7. Yard/Switching Equipment Involved (single entry) 2. Passenger train 5. Single car 8. Light loco(s) Code 3. Commuter train 6. Cut of cars 9. Main./inspect. car 1 1. Main 2. Yard 3. Siding 4. Industry 1 MAIN 27. FRA Track 28. Number of 29. Number of 30. Consist Speed (Recorded if available) Code 31. Time Table Direction Code Class Locomotive Cars R. Recorded 4 Units 6 91 E. Estimated 40 mph E 1. North 2. South 3. East 4. West 3 32. Type of 1. Gates 4. Wig wags 7. Crossbucks 10. Flagged by crew 33. Signaled Crossing 34. Whistle Ban Code Crossing 2. Cantilever FLS 5. Hwy. traffic signals 8. Stop signs 11. Other (specify) Warning 1. Yes Warning 3. Standard FLS 6. Audible 9. Watchman 12. None 2. No Code(s) 07 3. Unknown 35. Location of Warning Code 36. Crossing Warning Interconnected Code 37. Crossing Illuminated by Street Code 1. Both Sides with Highway Signals Lights or Special Lights 2. Side of Vehicle Approach 1 2 2 3. Opposite Side of Vehicle Approach 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 38. Driver's 39. Driver's Code 40. Driver Drove Behind or in Front of Train Code 41. Driver Code Age Gender and Struck or was Struck by Second Train 1. Drove around or thru the gate 4. Stopped on crossing 1. Male 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 2 2. Stopped and then proceeded 5. Other (specify) 3 2. Female 3. Did not stop 42. Driver Passed Standing Code 43. View of Track Obscured by (primary obstruction) Code Highway Vehicle 1. Permanent Structure 3. Passing Train 5. Vegetation 7. Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown 2 2. Standing railroad equipment 4. Topography 6. Highway Vehicles 8. Not Obstructed 8 44. Driver was Code 45. Was Driver in the Vehicle? Code Casualties to: Killed Injured 1. Killed 2. Injured 3. Uninjured 3 1. Yes 2. No 1 47. Highway Vehicle Property Damage 48. Total Number of Highway-Rail Crossing Users 46. Highway-Rail Crossing Users 0 0 (est. dollar damage) $2,000 (include driver) 1 49. Railroad Employees 0 0 50. Total Number of People on Train 51. Is a Rail Equipment Accident / Code (include passengers and crew) Incident Report Being Filed 52. Passengers on Train 0 0 1. Yes 2. No 2 53a. Special Study Block 53b. Special Study Block 54. Narrative Description
55. Typed Name and Title 56. Signature 57. Date
FORM FRA F 6180.57 * NOTE THAT ALL CASUALTIES MUST BE REPORTED ON FORM FRA F 6180.55A
Appendix D Quiet Zone Concept Cost Estimates Quiet Zone Safety Improvement Conceptual Cost Estimates - Concept 1 Last Updated on 10/28/11
Roadway Treatments
Kost Road F Street C Street A Street Elm Avenue Spring Street Twin Cities Road Item Description Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Capital Costs Four-quadrant Gates -$ -$ -$ 1$ 750,000 1$ 750,000 -$ 1$ 750,000 Two-quadrant Gates -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - Median (30 ft) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - Median (60 ft) 1$ 10,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - Median (100 ft) 1$ 16,700 2$ 33,400 2$ 33,400 -$ -$ -$ $ - Delineators (100 ft) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2$ 30,000 $ - Curb and gutter (mountable/non-mountable) in feet 60$ 2,700 60$ 2,700 30$ 1,350 -$ -$ 90$ 4,050 $ - Tree removal -$ 1$ 1,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - Pedestrian tactile warning stripping -$ 2$ 1,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - Sign (2 Tracks, No Train Horn) 2$ 400 2$ 400 2$ 400 -$ -$ 2$ 400 $ - Sign with post (adv. warning; no ped. crossing, etc.) -$ -$ 2$ 1,200 2$ 1,200 4$ 2,400 -$ $ - Pedestrian barrier -$ -$ 2$ 400 -$ 1$ 200 -$ $ - Railroad stencil / stop lines -$ -$ -$ 2$ 800 2$ 800 -$ $ - Crosswalk striping -$ -$ -$ -$ 1$ 1,266 -$ $ - Grade separation -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - Wayside horns -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - SUBTOTAL Capital Costs $ 29,800 $ 38,500 $ 36,750 $ 752,000 $ 754,666 $ 34,450 $ 750,000 Contingencies (40%) $ 11,920 $ 15,400 $ 14,700 $ 300,800 $ 301,866 $ 13,780 $ 300,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $ 41,720 $ 53,900 $ 51,450 $ 1,052,800 $ 1,056,532 $ 48,230 $ 1,050,000
Support Costs Planning/Pre-Design (5%) $ 2,086 $ 2,695 $ 2,573 $ 52,640 $ 52,827 $ 2,412 $ 52,500 Final Design (15%) $ 6,258 $ 8,085 $ 7,718 $ 157,920 $ 158,480 $ 7,235 $ 157,500 Environmental Clearances & Mitigation (5%) $ 2,086 $ 2,695 $ 2,573 $ 52,640 $ 52,827 $ 2,412 $ 52,500 Construction Admin. (10%) $ 4,172 $ 5,390 $ 5,145 $ 105,280 $ 105,653 $ 4,823 $ 105,000 SUBTOTAL Support Costs $ 14,602 $ 18,865 $ 18,008 $ 368,480 $ 369,786 $ 6,611 $ 367,500 TOTAL CAPITAL AND SUPPORT COSTS (Rounded to the nearest $1,000) $ 56,000 $ 73,000 $ 69,000 $ 1,421,000 $ 1,426,000 $ 65,000 $ 1,418,000 Quiet Zone Safety Improvement Conceptual Cost Estimates - Concept 2 Last Updated on 10/28/11
Roadway Treatments
Kost Road F Street C Street A Street Elm Avenue Spring Street Twin Cities Road Item Description Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Capital Costs -$ Four-quadrant Gates -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Two-quadrant Gates -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Median (30 ft) -$ -$ -$ 1$ 7,000 1$ 7,000 -$ -$ Median (60 ft) 1$ 10,000 -$ -$ $ 1 $ 10,000 1$ 10,000 -$ -$ Median (100 ft) 1$ 16,700 2$ 33,400 2$ 33,400 -$ -$ -$ -$ Delineators (100 ft) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2$ 30,000 -$ Curb and gutter (mountable/non-mountable) in feet 60$ 2,700 60$ 2,700 30$ 1,350 $ 60 $ 2,700 90$ 4,050 90$ 4,050 -$ Tree removal -$ 1$ 1,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ Pedestrian tactile warning stripping -$ 2$ 1,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Sign (2 Tracks, No Train Horn) 2$ 400 2$ 400 2$ 400 -$ -$ 2$ 400 -$ Sign with post (adv. warning; no ped. crossing, etc.) -$ -$ 2$ 1,200 2$ 1,200 4$ 2,400 -$ -$ Pedestrian barrier -$ -$ 2$ 400 -$ 1$ 200 -$ -$ Railroad stencil / stop lines -$ -$ -$ 2$ 800 2$ 800 -$ -$ Crosswalk striping -$ -$ -$ -$ 1$ 1,266 -$ -$ Grade separation -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Wayside horns -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1$ 60,000 SUBTOTAL Capital Costs $ 29,800 $ 38,500 $ 36,750 $ 21,700 $ 25,716 $ 34,450 $ 60,000 Contingencies (40%) $ 11,920 $ 15,400 $ 14,700 $ 8,680 $ 10,286 $ 13,780 $ 24,000 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $ 41,720 $ 53,900 $ 51,450 $ 30,380 $ 36,002 $ 48,230 $ 84,000
Support Costs Planning/Pre-Design (5%) $ 2,086 $ 2,695 $ 2,573 $ 1,519 $ 1,800 $ 2,412 $ 4,200 Final Design (15%) $ 6,258 $ 8,085 $ 7,718 $ 4,557 $ 5,400 $ 7,235 $ 12,600 Environmental Clearances & Mitigation (5%) $ 2,086 $ 2,695 $ 2,573 $ 1,519 $ 1,800 $ 2,412 $ 4,200 Construction Admin. (10%) $ 4,172 $ 5,390 $ 5,145 $ 3,038 $ 3,600 $ 4,823 $ 8,400 SUBTOTAL Support Costs $ 14,602 $ 18,865 $ 18,008 $ 10,633 $ 12,601 $ 6,611 $ 29,400 TOTAL CAPITAL AND SUPPORT COSTS (Rounded to the nearest $1,000) $ 56,000 $ 73,000 $ 69,000 $ 41,000 $ 49,000 $ 65,000 $ 113,000 Quiet Zone Safety Improvement Conceptual Cost Estimates - Concept 3 Last Updated on 10/28/11
Roadway Treatments
Kost Road F Street C Street A Street Elm Avenue
Item Description Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Capital Costs -$ Four-quadrant Gates -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Two-quadrant Gates -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Median (30 ft) -$ -$ -$ 1$ 7,000 1$ 7,000 Median (60 ft) 1$ 10,000 -$ -$ $ 1 $ 10,000 1$ 10,000 Median (100 ft) 1$ 16,700 2$ 33,400 2$ 33,400 -$ -$ Delineators (100 ft) -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Curb and gutter (mountable/non-mountable) in feet 60$ 2,700 60$ 2,700 30$ 1,350 $ 60 $ 2,700 90$ 4,050 Tree removal -$ 1$ 1,000 -$ -$ -$ Pedestrian tactile warning stripping -$ 2$ 1,000 -$ -$ -$ Sign (2 Tracks, No Train Horn) 2$ 400 2$ 400 2$ 400 -$ -$ Sign with post (adv. warning; no ped. crossing, etc.) -$ -$ 2$ 1,200 2$ 1,200 4$ 2,400 Pedestrian barrier -$ -$ 2$ 400 -$ 1$ 200 Railroad stencil / stop lines -$ -$ -$ 2$ 800 2$ 800 Crosswalk striping -$ -$ -$ -$ 1$ 1,266 Grade separation -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Wayside horns -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ SUBTOTAL Capital Costs $ 29,800 $ 38,500 $ 36,750 $ 21,700 $ 25,716 Contingencies (40%) $ 11,920 $ 15,400 $ 14,700 $ 8,680 $ 10,286 TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $ 41,720 $ 53,900 $ 51,450 $ 30,380 $ 36,002
Support Costs Planning/Pre-Design (5%) $ 2,086 $ 2,695 $ 2,573 $ 1,519 $ 1,800 Final Design (15%) $ 6,258 $ 8,085 $ 7,718 $ 4,557 $ 5,400 Environmental Clearances & Mitigation (5%) $ 2,086 $ 2,695 $ 2,573 $ 1,519 $ 1,800 Construction Admin. (10%) $ 4,172 $ 5,390 $ 5,145 $ 3,038 $ 3,600 SUBTOTAL Support Costs $ 14,602 $ 18,865 $ 18,008 $ 10,633 $ 12,601 TOTAL CAPITAL AND SUPPORT COSTS (Rounded to the nearest $1,000) $ 56,000 $ 73,000 $ 69,000 $ 41,000 $ 49,000
Appendix E Quiet Zone Concept Illustrations QUIET ZONE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT FIGURES
60’ median east of crossing. 100’ median west of cross- ing. Kost Road
Advance warning Mountable curb to allow UP signs to include access to rail right-of-way “No Train Horn” and private property access language. south of crossing.
North
SOURCE: Google Maps
Kost Road Improvements E-1 QUIET ZONE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT FIGURES
Mountable curb to allow UP access to rail right-of-way and block general traffi c from access. Remove palm tree to improve warning signal lights sight distance.
Advance warning signs to include “No Train Horn” language. 100’ median east of cross- ing.
Tactile yellow warning F Street striping for pedestrian approaches on south side of F Street.
100’ median west of crossing.
North
SOURCE: Google Maps
F Street Improvements E-2 QUIET ZONE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT FIGURES
Advance warn- ing signs which include “2 Tracks” and “No Train 100’ median east of cross- Horn” language. ing.
C Street
Mountable curb to provide UP access to signal control box and block general traf- fi c from access.
Close sidewalk on south side of C Street with barricades. 100’ median west of Post signs at 3rd and 4th crossing. Streets directing pedestrians to cross on north side.
North
SOURCE: Google Maps
C Street Improvements E-3 QUIET ZONE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT FIGURES
McFarland Street Close driveway east of crossing. Place curb at driveway to block general traffi c from access.
60’ median east of crossing.
Mountable curb to allow UP access to signal control box and block general traffi c 30’ median west of crossing. from access.
A Street
Advance warn- ing signs which include “2 Tracks” Repainting of pavement and “No Train markings. Horn” language.
North
SOURCE: Google Maps
A Street Improvements E-4 QUIET ZONE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT FIGURES
Mountable curb to allow UP access to rail right-of-way and block general traffi c from access.
Advance warn- Close driveway east of ing signs which crossing. Place curb at include “No Train driveway to block general Horn” language. traffi c from access.
100’ median east of cross- ing.
Elm Avenue
30’ median west of crossing.
Place barricade at sidewalk to prevent pedestrians from Repainting of pavement crossing on the north side markings. of Elm Avenue. Construct a crosswalk across Elm for pedestrians. Hump crossing signs to be placed in both crossing directions. Mountable curb to allow UP
McFarland Street access to signal control box and block general traffi c from access.
North
SOURCE: Google Maps
Elm Avenue Improvements E-5