Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.c. Railroad Crossing Horn UpdateAGENDA ITEM: Railroad Crossing Horn Update AGENDA SECTION: i PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Enginee t`% AGENDA NO. 2.. C ATTACHMENTS: Memo from WSB; Executive Summary from March 22, 2006 Council Work Session APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: June 14, 2006 BACKGROUND: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY See attached memo and Executive Summary from the March 22, 2006 Council Work Session. G TRAINS \RRCrossingHomCws6 -1406 doc WSB Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South Associates, Inc Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541 -1700 Memorandum To: Andy Brotzler, P.E. City of Rosemount From: Peter Langworthy, AICP Chuck Rickart, P.E. Date: June 8, 2006 Re: Automated Wayside Train Horns 1005 -99 The purpose of this memorandum is to address wayside train horns in greater detail than in our previous memorandum, dated March 16, 2006, on the Final Federal Train Horn rule. The information provided in this memorandum is based upon various sources of information including the following: Review of studies and literature on wayside horns. Telephone conversations with representatives of the City of Ames, Iowa, the City of Mundelein, Illinois These are cities which have extensive expenence with wayside train horn programs. Telephone conversation with a representative of Railroad Controls Limited (RCL). RCL has the patent of the wayside horn technology, and is the only supplier of this type of system in the United States. Technology Overview Traditionally, audio warning of trains approaching roadway crossings has been performed by locomotive engineers sounding on -board train horns. Typically, the engineer begins sounding the horn approximately 1/4 mile from a given crossing. To be heard over this distance, the train horn must be very loud. This situation of a high volume being broadcast over an extended distance leads to undesirable noise impacts. The basic approach of the wayside horn system is to place the broadcast source of the audio warning where it is most needed at the crossing itself. Speakers are used to produce sounds which simulate train homs, and efficiently direct these sounds to the roadways and bike /pedestrian facilities at the crossing. Wayside horns must be used in conjunction with, at minimum, conventional gates and flashers at the given crossings. Wayside Train Horn Information June 8, 2006 G: \TRAINS\memo wayside homs 060806.doc Wayside horns have been used in a number of communities in the United States. The first systems were implemented in the late 1990s. Information from RCL indicates wayside horn programs in the following cities: Ames, Iowa Maysville, Kansas Parsons, Kansas Wichita, Kansas Gering, Nebraska Richardson, Texas Mundelein, Illinois Roseville, California We have reviewed detailed studies analyzing the performance of the systems at Ames and Mundelein These studies concluded that the systems have very effectively reduced noise impacts to residents and businesses, with no apparent reduction in safety conditions. General Implementation Considerations For the most part, the cities which currently have wayside hom systems, implemented them before the recent Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) train horn rules which establish procedures to create "quiet zones." For example, the Mundelein representative indicated that they "had to do something," because of widespread public frustration with train horn noise, and creating a quiet zone was not an option at that time (2001). Quiet zones were covered in some detail in our March 16, 2006 memorandum. Wayside horn systems can be an effective altemative approach to quiet zones if creating a quiet zone poses substantial difficulties. Such difficulties would generally have to do with the implementation of Supplemental Safety Measures (SSM's) which may be required to establish quiet zones: High cost of a 4- quadrant gate system Insufficient space for center median (used to keep motorists from bypassing the gate for a given lane or lanes) Operational difficulty associated with closing a crossing or making it one -way According to a representative of RCL (suppliers of the wayside horn system), the typical cost for their system is $75,000 per crossing. This includes matenal, installation, and electronic /circuitry connections. Annual maintenance is performed on a contract basis and is generally between $500 and S750 per year per crossing. Summary Information regarding Ames, Iowa Wayside Horn Program Wayside homs at six crossings, first installations in 1998. Ames has approximately 60 train crossings per day. Program has shown very successful results in reducing noise impacts from train horns, with no apparent reduction in safety conditions. Public acceptance of the system has been very positive. Wayside Horn Information June 8, 2006 City is considering establishing a quiet zone. If it follows through with this, some of the wayside horns installations may be removed. While the wayside horns have greatly reduced noise impacts from train operations, a quiet zone could reduce such impacts further. City staff reports that locomotive engineers sometimes sound horns when they are not required and/or supposed to do so, creating unnecessary noise. Summary Information regarding Mundelein, Illinois Wayside Horn Program Wayside horns at nine crossings, program initiated in 2001. Mundelein has approximately 75 train crossings per day. City staff indicates that the program has been very successful. Noise complaints have been reduced from frequent to almost none. No apparent ieductions in safety conditions. Some railroads are much more accepting of wayside horns than others, this is a significant factor in the successful implementation of wayside horn programs. Railroad companies may consider the necessary coordination regarding technical systems and operations bothersome and/or may feel that it is confusing to have engineers sound the train horn in some communities, but not in others Railroad companies can't stop the implementation of wayside horn systems, but can be quite non responsive in coordination efforts. It was the experience of Mundelein that the Railroad required extensive legal indemnification regarding the implementation of the program Mundelein has not experienced the problem of locomotive engineers sounding horns more frequently than necessary. For residents directly adjacent to the wayside horn speakers, the noise conditions are approximately the same as prior to implementation to the program. Even though they are close to the sound source for a longer period of time than with on -board horns, the sound is directed at the roadway and is less "harsh" than on -board horns. City is considenng implementing a quiet zone under new FRA rules. If they do this, some wayside horns would be removed, but others would likely be retained to maximize safety conditions. The rationale for creating a quiet zone would be to reduce noise associated with trains even further than what has been accomplished, and also to reduce maintenance costs and issues associated with the wayside horn network (by reducing the number of wayside horns). Summary Considerations for Rosemount It is clear that wayside homs represent a viable technology which can be implemented to substantially reduce train noise impacts to residents, with no known reductions in safety conditions. Relative to SSMs which may be required to establish a quiet zone (e g. four quadrant gates), they are inexpensive. They do not require raised medians or other forms of channelization. If the City were to establish a quiet zone, this would substantially reduce any incentive to also implement wayside horns. Indeed, the point of creating a quiet zone would be to eliminate the need for any type of audio warning system. It could be argued that a quiet zone plus wayside horns at strategic crossings would optimize safety factors under certain conditions. Wayside Horn Information June 8, 2006 The most comprehensive way to reduce noise impacts associated with train horns available to the City, while meeting applicable safety standards, is to create a quiet zone under Federal Railroad Administration rules. However, this may be a very costly approach, and/or difficult to implement due to physical constraints regarding medians or other factors. The costs associated with creating a quiet zone cannot be confidently determined without further analysis. If it is ultimately determined that implementing a quiet zone is not the preferred option due to cost or other factors, wayside horns should be considered. A key factor in assessing wayside homs for implementation appears to be the need to work and coordinate with the applicable railroads In the case of Rosemount this would be Union Pacific, Canadian Pacific, and Progressive Rail. Wayside Horn Information lune 8, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Railroad Crossing Update AGENDA SECTION: PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer AGE e e. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum APPROVED BY: i C,t RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion 4 ROSE MOUNT City Council Work Session: March 22, 2006 BACKGROUND: CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In June 2004, Staff presented to Council preliminary information on the interim Federal Railroad Adtrumsttation (FRA) rules and tequuements for the establishment of Quiet Zones at railroad crossings. Since that time, the FRA has adopted the final rules enutled "Use of Locomotive Horns at I- Iighway -Rail Grade Crossings" which became effective June 24, 2005. Attached for Council mfoimauon and consideration is a memorandum from Chuck Rickart that provides an overatew of these rules and how they relate to the at -grade railroad crossings in Rosemount. As the City regularly receives inquiries from residents about the use of train horns at railroad crossings, Staff would like to update Council on the final rules and options available for Council consideration to work towards modifications to the current use of train horns at railroad crossings. Chuck Rickart will be m attendance at the meeting to address questions or comments that Council inay have on this matter. G \railroad crossings \mdroadcrosung CCWS3 -22 -O6 doc WSB Associates, Inc. To: Andy Bretzler, P.E. City of Rosemount From: Chuck Rickart P.E. Peter Laltgworthy, AICP Date: March 16, 2006 FJSB Associates, Inc. 701 Xema A venue S'. Swte#300 Mnmeapola, MN 55416 (763) 541 -4800 (763) 541 -1700 (fax) Re: Final Federal Train Horn Rule Overview Memorandum In May 2004, WSB prepared a memorandum and reported to City Council on the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) new train horn rules. At that time, the Council directed staff to continue monitoring the program and update the Council over tune as potential crossing improvement opportunities arise within the City. The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Council as to the current tram horn rules and potential opportunities for the City On December 18, 2003, the FRA published an interim final rule addressing the need to sound train horns at roadway crossings. After receiving and addressing numerous comments on the interim rule, the FRA promulgated the final rule, "Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings," effective June 24, 2005. Discussed below is a summary of the key elements of the final rule and point out any significant differences between the interim rule and the final rule The final rule and its provisions (49 CFR Parts 222 and 229) are quite involved, and this memorandum is only intended to provide the most pertinent summary information for the City of Rosemount's circumstances. Purpose of Rule Prior to the FRA Horn Rule, the sounding of horns was regulated by state and local authorities. The FRA Hon) Rule establishes a federal requirement that train horns be sounded at all at -grade roadway crossings, except within "quiet zones." The FRA Horn Rule establishes safety measures and administrative procedures which communities may use to establish Quiet Zones. Requirements /Procedures to Establish a New Quiet Zone The public entities which are responsible for the traffic control and law enforcement at public highway rail grade crossings are the only organizations which can designate or apply for a Quiet Zone. Private companies, citizens or neighborhood groups are not able to create a Quiet Zone independent of local authorities. G b arbor& es or mrgsVram horn e-mail memo 031606 do( Mr. Andy Brotzler, P.E. March 16, 2006 Page 2 Quiet Zones must be a minimum of one half pule in length They must also have active grade crossing warning devices at all crossings, comprising both flashing lights and gates in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The creation of Quiet Zones is based upon risk analysis. The local authority performs risk analysis for the proposed Quiet Zone corridor using procedures established by FRA. The Quiet Zone Risk Index (for the targeted railroad segment) must be calculated to be equal to or less than the Nationwide Significant Risk Index, or less than the Risk Index for the targeted section if the horns were still sounded (without improvements). Local authorities may use Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs) and /or Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs), which result in risk reduction credits in the calculations referenced m the previous paragraph. The SSMs identified and allowed by FRA are as follows. Closure of the roadway Four quadrant gate systems Gates with medians or other channelization on the approaches (to avoid bypassing the gate for the given lane) One way street with gates (all lanes must be blocked with gates) ASMs include the following: Modified SSMs (where the SSM cannot practicably be fully implemented) Non- engineering measures (such as program enforcement, education, photo enforcement) Engineering ASMs (may include addressing underlying problematic geometric conditions such as sight distance) ASMs are subject to review by FRA to determine allowable risk reduction credits. These credits will generally be based upon field data and observations compiled by the local authority (violation rates before and after implementation of the ASM). It should be noted that the local authority may bypass the risk analysis procedures and many monitoring and reporting requirements by installing one or more SSM at all grade crossings in the proposed Quiet Zone Changes from the Interim to the Final Rule An overview of changes to the interim rule is provided in 49 CFR Parts 222/229, Supplementary Information (Part 5). Relative to the situation in Rosemount (no existing quiet zone), the most significant change is that the final rule provides for "Partial Quiet Zones." Communities wishing to create a New Partial Quiet Zone will be required to comply with New Quiet Zone standards. Unless a waiver is granted, all New Partial Quiet Zones must restrict locomotive horn sounding between the hours of 10 p m and 7a.m. 0 RAILROAD CROSSINGSTRAIN HORN &MAIL MEMO .0] 1606 DOC Mr Andy Brotzler, P.E. March 16, 2006 Page 3 There are also new pedestrian related requirements, such as the need to use automatic bells at grade crossings subject to pedestrian traffic. For cities that have existing quiet zones established under state or local regulation, some significant changes were made (e.g a one year "grace period" for full compliance for certain situations). There are other changes, but not substantial relative to the purpose of this memorandum. Quiet Zone Application Process The FRA Quiet Zone Rules provides a clear process to follow when implementing new quiet zones. This report initiates that process by establishing a quiet zone location and identifying the highway -rail grade crossing to be included in this process. It is vital that the city involve affected jurisdictions at the beginning of this process, since these stakeholders will be review the final request. The stakeholders should include, but not be limited to all railroads operating over the public highway -rail grade crossings; the state agency responsible for highway and road safety; and the state agency responsible for grade crossing safety. It should be noted that even though the stakeholders do not control the quiet zone decision, their comments are taken into consideration by the FRA during the approval process. The process to apply for a quiet zone is as follows: 1. Submit a notice of intent to all railroads operating over the public highway -rail grade crossings; the state agency responsible for highway and road safety; and the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety. Documentation should include a list of each public highway -rail grade crossing, private crossing, and pedestrian crossing within the quiet zone, identified by both US DOT National Highway -Rail Grade Crossing Inventory Number and street or highway name, a brief explanation of the public authority's tentative plans for implementing improvements within the proposed quiet zone, a specific reference to the regulatory provision that would provide a basis for the quiet zone, the name and contact information of the person who will act as the point of contact during the quiet zone development process, and a list of all parties that are included in the notification. 2. Determine the exact quiet zone locations and crossings to be included within the zone. 3. Verify existing conditions and that selected quiet zone crossing locations have the minimum requirements for application submittal (i.e., gates and Lights with a power out indicator). 4. Update the National Inventory to reflect existing conditions. 5. Make revisions to the FRA risk evaluation based upon updated information and input from stakeholders. This evaluation will include analysis with and without the additional SSMs. 6. When a plan is in place to meet the risk index regulations, submit the notification It is strongly encouraged to submit the application to FRA and stakeholders for review and comment before implementing the SSMs. 7. Upon receiving written approval from the FRA, provide the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment, silence horns, and install advance warning signage at all crossings. If additional SSMs are put in G \RAILROAD CROSSINGSITR \IA HORN E MAIL MEMO 031605 DOG Mr. Andy Brotzler, P E. March 16, 2006 Page 4 place, update the National Inventory with this information. Additionally, the SSMs must be subject to prior testing and evaluation before the rule is put in place. 8. An update on the inventory form must be submitted to FRA every 2.5 -3 years. It should be noted that quiet zones that are established using the risk index comparison (meaning quiet zones that do not have SSM's at every highway -rail grade crossing) are subject to annual FRA review. If the risk index has exceeded requirements, the quiet zone will terminate six months from the date of receipt of notification from the FRA. During the six month period, there is an opportunity to keep the quiet zone by providing an action plan to reduce the risk index to allowable levels. The SSM must be installed within three years of the original FRA notification. Use of Wayside Horns Wayside horns have been brought to the attention of the City as a possible noise mitigation /safety measure. The advantage of wayside horns is that they are physically closer to those requiring the warning (motorists on the crossing roadways) than to those not needing warning and likely to be disturbed by the horn (residents close to the train when it sounds its horn). Subject to requirements, the FRA final rule allows wayside homs to be used in lieu of locomotive horns at any roadway -rail grade crossing equipped with an active warning system consisting of, at minimum, flashing lights and gates. Wayside horns may be used as locomotive horn replacements in Quiet Zones or non -Quiet Zones If wayside horns are proposed as part of Quiet Zones, the final Horn Rule establishes that they do not result in a risk reduction credit in the risk analysis procedures referenced previously in this memorandum. However, wayside horns can be used to reduce noise impacts associated with roadway -rail crossings without the need to create Quiet Zones. Next Steps If the City is interested in creating Quiet Zones, a study of the intersections would need to occur prior to submission of application to FRA. The intersections that would be included in the Quiet Zone study include: 1. 160` Street 2. CSAH 42 3. 145 Street 4. Biscayne Avenue Several of these intersections were included in the Downtown Study and, therefore, some information is cuirently available. This data will be used in preparation of the final study and application to the FRA. The anticipated scope of work to prepare the crossing study for Quiet Zones and submit the application would be as follows: G \RAILROAD CROSSINGSTR AIN HORN E.MAIL MEMO. 031606O0C Mr. Andy Biotzler, P.E. March 16, 2006 Page 5 Task 1 —Data Collection This task would include collecting all pertinent traffic and railroad data for the crossing. It would include updating existing traffic counts, reviewing existing as -built construction plans, determining the surrounding topography, collecting crash data at the crossing, and collecting all pertinent railroad data. Task 2 Risk Index Calculation This task would include determining the existing risk index based on the current conditions at the crossing. Once the existing risk index is calculated, supplemental safety measures, such as four quadrant gates will be evaluated to determine what would be required at each crossing to bring it into compliance. Task 3 Crossing Improvement Cost Estimates Based on the required supplemental safety measures, a crossing improvement cost estimate will be developed for each crossing This will include researching potential funding sources for the crossings. Task 4 Report Preparation An Engineering Report will be prepared outlining the data collection, risk indices calculations, and crossing cost estimates for each crossing. This report will be prepared and submitted to City staff for review. The final report will be presented to City Council for approval. Task 5 Agency Coordination As part of the project, meetings and coordination will be required with several agencies including the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Dakota County, and the impact railroads. Task 6 Quiet Zone Application Preparation Following approval of the Engineering Study, WSB would prepare the actual Quiet Zone Application for submission to FRA and the railroad for approval. Based on this Scope of Services, it is estimated that for each crossing a cost ranging from $3,000 to $7,000 would be required. Depending on the number of crossings that are analyzed and if crossings are packaged together in the final application to FRA, these average costs per intersection could be reduced. I will be available at the City Council workshop on March 23, 2006, to discuss this issue if the Council is so inclined. lh G \RAILROAD CROSSINGS TRAIN HORN EMAIL MEMO. 031606 DOC