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