middletown-old town san diego quiet zone - sandag ::home:: … · 2019. 4. 10. · forecast, the...

Project Study Report

Middletown-Old Town San DiegoQuiet Zone

(MP 264.1 to MP 266.5)

San Diego Association of Governments City of San Diego County of San Diegowww.sandag.org www.sandiego.gov www.sandiegocounty.gov

March 14, 2019

M i d d l e t o w n - O l d T o w n S a n D i e g o Q u i e t Z o n eP r o j e c t S t u d y R e p o r t

Submitted: _____________________________________________ Date__3/14/19_____Christopher Poli, P.E.WSP

Revision Author Organization Date Description0 K. Carlson, C. Poli, J. Pham,

V. KanevskiyWSP 10/18/18 First draft of report

1 L. Culp SANDAG 10/24/18 Second draft of report2 K. Carlson, C. Poli, J. Pham,

V. KanevskiyWSP 11/2/18 Third draft of report

3 L. Culp SANDAG 11/8/18 Fourth draft of report4 K. Carlson, C. Poli, J. Pham,

V. KanevskiyWSP 11/29/18 Fifth draft of report

5 K. Carlson WSP 3/14/19 Updates for recentlyadopted community plans,addition of site visitsummary

No. 50401Exp. 06-30-2019

1


Project Description

The Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Project comprises modifications to five at-gradecrossings at Palm, Sassafras, Washington, Noell, and Taylor Streets along the Los Angeles-SanDiego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor in the City of San Diego pursuant to regulationsestablished by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). This section of the rail corridor is ownedby the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and, on behalf of MTS, is operated andmaintained by the North County Transit District (NCTD). Commuter and intercity passenger railservices share the corridor with freight trains. These improvements would facilitate a quiet zoneto minimize the effect of train horns as long as certain conditions and criteria are met.

In 2012, the Civic San Diego/City of San Diego completed the Downtown San Diego Quiet ZoneProject, establishing a quiet zone for the 12 crossings of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor between LaurelStreet and Broadway and continuing south along the portion of the rail corridor owned by BNSFRailway to Fifth Avenue. The project included installation of a number of safety measures andrequired extensive coordination with Amtrak, BNSF Railway, NCTD, MTS, FRA, the California PublicUtilities Commission (CPUC), the City of San Diego, and adjacent property owners. Planning beganin 2005; construction began in 2010, and the quiet zone became operational in 2012. Based onan FRA report dated October 16, 2018, this is one of 56 quiet zones within California. In San DiegoCounty, the City of Oceanside is in final design for a quiet zone and the City of Encinitas hascompleted a conceptual study of a potential quiet zone.

In 2018, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) examined the feasibility ofestablishing a quiet zone in the project area at the request of the County of San Diego and City ofSan Diego. In support of this assessment, conceptual plans were developed that include theimprovements necessary to meet FRA requirements for the establishment of a quiet zone, as wellas conceptual cost estimates, and other details summarized in this Project Study Report (PSR). Inaddition, the appendices include details on the proposed improvements at each crossing, detailedcosts, results from the quiet zone calculator described below, and minutes from the project teammeetings.

Stakeholder Coordination

A project development team (PDT) was formed to guide the feasibility study from these agencies:

· SANDAG· City of San Diego· County of San Diego· MTS

· NCTD· CPUC· FRA

What is a Quiet Zone?

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49, Part 222 dictates that a locomotive engineer mustsound a train horn when approaching a public highway-rail grade crossing (typically a locationwhere a roadway crosses a train track at the same grade). The rule also dictates the duration andpattern in which the horn is sounded, as well as the volume level of the horn. The final federaltrain horn rule, which is administered by FRA, took effect on June 24, 2005.

2


This regulation provides an opportunity for cities and other localities to minimize the effects oftrain horn noise by establishing a “quiet zone.” A quiet zone is a section of a railroad corridor inwhich train horns are not routinely sounded as the trains approach a grade crossing. A quiet zonemust be at least one-half-mile long and contain one or more grade crossings.

Because train horns are not routinely sounded for a grade crossing within quiet zones, the agency(or agencies) with jurisdiction over the roadway—in this case the City of San Diego—must, in orderto establish a quiet zone, show that the crossing(s) will be as safe under a quiet zone condition asit is (currently) when the horn is sounded. This can be accomplished through the installation ofsupplemental safety measures (SSMs) as defined in the FRA Train Horn Rule (CFR Title 49 Part222). In some cases, these SSMs may already be in place, while in other situations, theirinstallation is necessary prior to approval of the quiet zone. These measures may include, but arenot limited to, four-quadrant gates that fully block vehicular traffic from entering the crossing, orgates with raised medians or other channelization devices (e.g., fencing). 49 CFR Part 222provides an effectiveness score for each SSM, and the agency establishing the quiet zone mustshow that the risk resulting from not sounding locomotive horns is sufficiently mitigated with thechosen SSMs.

It should be noted that despite their name, quiet zones may be more accurately described as“reduced noise zones” due to two important caveats:

· Quiet zones do not apply to stationary bells and horns mounted at crossing locations.· Trains in quiet zones may still sound their horns in emergencies per FRA regulations or at

the discretion of the train operator.

Eliminating the routine sounding of train horns would provide noise benefits for residents wholive adjacent to and farther away from the grade crossing. However, it is possible that the SSMsrequired for implementation of a quiet zone may result in increases in noise emanating from thecrossings as a result of the addition of grade crossing signal assemblies or stationary horns. Bellnoise can still be an issue for those who live closer to the project area because the noise generatedfrom bells at the crossing is continuous while the crossing gates are activated, which begins atleast 20 seconds before the arrival of a train at the crossing. These stationary horns and crossingbells may not be detectable by those who live farther from the grade crossing.

The design of rail crossings must be authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUCor Commission). If the interested parties are in agreement, including CPUC staff, an informalauthorization process can be used (“GO 88-B”). However, if an interested party does not providewritten agreement, a formal application would be required to modify the crossing. Hearings atthe Commission may be held to investigate the safety of the proposed design, potentially resultingin a Commission Order establishing the requirements for each crossing.

3


Project Location

The project area is in the Middletown-Old Town segment of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor in the Cityof San Diego between Mile Posts (MP) 264.1 and 266.5, with Control Point Friar (CP Friar) locatedto the immediate north. The specific at-grade crossings (from south to north) are Palm Street,Sassafras Street, Washington Street, Noell Street, and Taylor Street (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Project Location – MP 264.1 to MP 266.5

The project area is located in an urban corridor in the City of San Diego, which is currentlyoccupied by single-family and multi-family residential units, commercial and office spaces,industrial zones, and the San Diego International Airport to the west (Figure 2). Multi-familyresidential and mixed-use developments are forecast to increase by 2035, resulting in a higherdensity throughout the project area (Figure 3). According to the SANDAG Regional GrowthForecast, the City of San Diego’s population is expected to increase by 35 percent, and the region’sby 29 percent between 2012 and 2050. The increase in population and housing needs will putadditional demands on the city’s transportation system, including additional rail service.According to San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, adopted by SANDAG in 2015, and othercorridor improvement documents, commuter service between the cities of San Diego and

4


Oceanside is planned to increase from 22 trains per day currently to 54 trains per day in 2035,while the Pacific Surfliner intercity service will increase its service from 24 trains per day currentlyto 36 trains per day in 2030. Overall, the number of train operations is planned to nearly double.

Project Purpose and Need

The LOSSAN Rail Corridor is the second busiest corridor nationwide and is shared betweencommuter and intercity passenger and freight rail services. The noise resulting from routinelocomotive horn sounding near grade crossings can be an annoyance. However, soundinglocomotive horns when approaching and passing through public highway-rail grade crossings isan important element of railroad system safety and one regulated by FRA. Pursuant to regulationsfor the establishment of a quiet zone, specific measures along the project area have beenidentified in order to address community concerns related to noise and safety.

The latest, currently available traffic volumes for the crossings obtained from the City of San Diegoare as follows:

Roadway/Crossing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Year

Palm Street 3,700 2013

Sassafras Street 14,200 2018

Washington Street 14,600 2016

Noell Street 3,100 2013

Taylor Street 19,500 2014

Other characteristics of the project area that are important to keep in mind for this projectinclude:

· Multiple train tracks· Proximity to multiple trolley tracks· Multi-lane roadway crossings· Trolley stations adjacent to three of the five crossings· Nearby alleyways and driveways· Nearby vegetation as well as utilities, walls, and other structures· Relatively heavy volumes of pedestrian and vehicular activity

5


Figure 2: 2017 Land Use Map

6


Figure 3: 2035 Land Use Map

7


Existing Conditions

On May 3, 2018, project engineers visited each of the five grade crossings and surroundingintersections to document existing conditions, summarized below, particularly in regard toconditions relevant for the establishment of a quiet zone. For the descriptions that follow, it isassumed that at all crossings the tracks are in a north-south direction and the grade crossing isoriented in an east-west direction.

Palm Street Crossing

· There appears to be an alley (later determined to be California Street) that runs alongsidethe tracks in the southwest quadrant (Figure 4). This alley connects to Palm Streetbetween the signal gate arm and the track. A signal gate assembly would be required atthe entrance to the alley to prevent access to the crossing from the alley when a train isgoing through the crossing. Currently, there is nothing to stop someone travelingnorthbound on the alley from turning right onto the tracks while the crossing safetyequipment is activated. However, California Street is a one-way street in the southerlydirection at its intersection with Laurel Street (south of Palm Street), but that is not clearat Palm Street.

· The platforms at the Middletown Station extend, essentially, all the way to the crossing.As a result, it could be challenging to keep pedestrians disembarking from a Trolley fromaccessing the crossing during a crossing signal activation as there is insufficient room toprovide pedestrian barriers. Additionally, at a project team meeting held on September24, 2018, a representative of FRA stated that an existing wall between the light rail transit(LRT) platform and the LOSSAN tracks (Figure 5) can block views of oncoming trains onthe LOSSAN tracks.

· The crossing currently has rubber grade crossing panels. These panels will likely need tobe upgraded to current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards as part of thequiet zone implementation process.

· There are constrained right-of-way conditions at this crossing, which make installation ofpedestrian gate arms at each quadrant a challenge if such features are requested byregulatory agencies during the quiet zone application process. The overall area haslimited space within the existing street and/or railroad right-of-way to install bothpedestrian signal gates and emergency swing gates.

8


Figure 4: Alley near Palm Street

Figure 5: Wall between LRT and LOSSAN Tracks

9


Sassafras Street Crossing

· Traffic is significant in the westbound direction. A pre-signal1 east of the tracks in thewestbound direction may need to be considered to prevent vehicles from stopping on thetracks, particularly since it is a wide four-track crossing.

· Ramps to and from Interstate 5 are elevated in proximity to the crossing. This conditionmay present a challenge in regard to accommodating four-quad gates, particularly at thenorthwest quadrant (Figure 6). An existing non-mountable curbed median on thewestern side could be extended as a SSM in lieu of quad gates2.

· Similar to Palm Street, space is limited within the existing right-of-way. Installation ofpedestrian gate arms may still be feasible; however, the overall area may not have enoughroom within the existing right-of-way to install both pedestrian signal gates andemergency swing gates without needing right-of-way acquisition or relocation of otherexisting utilities.

· The crossing currently has rubber grade crossing panels. These panels will likely need tobe upgraded to current ADA standards as part of the quiet zone implementation process.

Figure 6: Sassafras Street crossing and I-5 Ramps

1 Pre-Signal: a traffic signal that controls traffic approaching a highway-rail grade crossing in conjunction with a trafficsignal that controls traffic approaching a highway-highway intersection beyond the tracks. Pre-signals are typically usedwhere there is insufficient vehicle storage between a signalize intersection and a grade crossing.2 Quad gates: the case where there is a standard flashing light signal assembly with gate arm in each quadrant of ahighway-rail crossing, i.e., in both directions at both the entrance to and exit from the crossing.

10


Washington Street Crossing

· Similar to Palm Street, it could be challenging to keep pedestrians disembarking from atrolley at the Washington Street Station from accessing the crossing during a crossingsignal activation as there is insufficient room to provide pedestrian barriers.

· Additionally, at a project team meeting held on September 24, 2018, a representative ofFRA stated that an existing wall between the LRT platform and the LOSSAN tracks canblock views of oncoming trains on the LOSSAN tracks (Figure 7).

· There is sufficient room to accommodate four-quad gates.

· There is insufficient room to accommodate a pedestrian gate in the northeast quadrant.

· Overall, space is limited and accommodating both pedestrian signal gates and emergencyswing gates may be challenging at all four quadrants.

· The crossing currently has rubber grade crossing panels. These panels will likely need tobe upgraded to current ADA standards as part of the quiet zone implementation process.During a September 24, 2018, project team meeting, MTS indicated the rubber mats forthe LRT tracks will be replaced in October 2018.

Figure 7: Washington Street Crossing and Wall Between LOSSAN and LRT Tracks

11


Noell Street Crossing

· A driveway/alley in the southwest quadrant runs alongside the tracks, which connects toNoell Street between the signal gate arm and the track. This driveway/alley has a signalflashing assembly but would also need to have a gate to prevent vehicles from crossingthe tracks when a train is approaching.

· A pedestrian signal gate would not be effective in the northwest quadrant due to KurtzStreet, a one-way street that runs north from Noell Street alongside the rail right-of-way(Figure 8). Specifically, a pedestrian signal gate would need to block Noell Street and KurtzStreet. Overall, the area is tight and accommodating both pedestrian signal gates andemergency swing gates may be challenging if requested during the quiet zone applicationprocess.

· The crossing currently has rubber grade crossing panels. These panels will likely need tobe upgraded to current ADA standards as part of the quiet zone implementation process.

Figure 8: Kurtz Street adjacent to LOSSAN Tracks

12


Taylor Street Crossing

· The Taylor Street crossing is an extremely wide four-track crossing (Figure 9).

· There may be sufficient space to accommodate pedestrian signal gates in the refuge areabetween the Trolley and LOSSAN tracks.

· There is limited space between the crossing and the intersection of Taylor Street andCongress Street, located east of the crossing. It is important that the traffic signals forthis intersection be interconnected to the rail signal system for pre-emption. A queuecutter3/pre-signal west of the mainline tracks may be required. Exit gates are likelyrequired for eastbound Taylor Street traffic.

· There appears to be room available for pedestrian signal gates and emergency swing gateassembly.

· The crossing currently has rubber grade crossing panels. These panels will likely need tobe upgraded to current ADA standards as part of the quiet zone implementation process.During a September 24, 2018, project team meeting, MTS indicated the rubber mats forthe LRT tracks will be replaced in October 2018.

Figure 9: Taylor Street Grade Crossing Looking West

3 Queue cutter signal: “a traffic control signal that is intended to prevent vehicle queuing across tracks at a highway-railgrade crossing and is activated for one direction of travel by either an approaching train, actuation from downstreamqueue detection, or coordination with adjacent traffic control signals.”

13


Current and Proposed Rail Service

San Diego Trolley Service

The Green Line runs adjacent to the LOSSAN Rail Corridor between Downtown San Diego and theOld Town Transit Center (OTTC) and then continues to points east. The Green Line currentlyoperates at 15-minute headways during peak and mid-day off-peak periods.

Currently in construction, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will extend the Blue Line servicefrom Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego north to the University City community, servingmajor activity centers such as Old Town, the University of California San Diego, and Westfield UTC.The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will operate with 15-minute headways during mid-day off-peak periods in the opening year. Ultimately, the project will operate with 7.5-minute headwaysduring peak and mid-day off-peak periods. Revenue service is scheduled to begin in 2021.

The following railroad operators use the LOSSAN Rail Corridor through the project location:

COASTER Commuter Rail Service

NCTD operates COASTER commuter rail service, serving eight stations located in coastalcommunities between Oceanside and San Diego. COASTER trains serve both the OTTC and SantaFe Depot. The COASTER service provides 22 trains per day Monday through Friday (11 in eachdirection) (24 during baseball season), along with 4 additional trains on Friday nights from Aprilthrough September. COASTER weekend service provides 12 trains per day on Saturday and 8trains per day on Sunday. Cities served are Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, and SanDiego. The San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015) identifies 20-minute peakperiod headways and 120-minute off-peak headways for the COASTER by 2035.

Amtrak

Amtrak operates 24 Pacific Surfliner trains daily between San Diego and Los Angeles, includingsome through trains serving areas north to Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. Major cities servedare San Diego, Solana Beach, Oceanside, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo. PacificSurfliner trains serve both the OTTC and Santa Fe Depot.

BNSF Railway

The BNSF Railway operates freight rail service throughout the San Diego portion of the LOSSANcorridor, seven days per week. Typically, four to six freight trains per day are operated, withservice provided during off-peak periods. The BNSF freight service is both local and national inscope, with the LOSSAN corridor connecting to the entire North American rail network.

14


Other Projects Proposed within the Project Area

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will provide additional modifications near the OTTC andWashington Street Trolley Stations, specifically to streets surrounding the Taylor Street andWashington Street grade crossings. These changes are shown in blue on the conceptual planincluded in Appendix A.

The San Diego Regional Airport Authority has developed final design plans for changes to SassafrasStreet, in order to accommodate planned increased traffic accessing the Consolidated Rental CarFacility on Pacific Highway and additional airport traffic. These plans involve converting the single18-foot eastbound lane into two lanes and moving the median north four feet.

SANDAG is designing a regional bikeway facility along Washington Street, connecting to theMission Hills and Hillcrest sections of the City of San Diego and to other regional bikeway facilitiesover the next five years. A connection to the Washington Street Trolley Station is currently underdesign.

Community Plans

The Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan was adopted by the City Council on September 17,2018. Section 9.1 of the community plan states that freight trains, Amtrak, Coaster, and Trolleytrains generate high but brief and intermittent noise events in the vicinity of grade crossingswhere horns and bells are sounded. The plan goes on to state “To minimize excess train hornnoise, the federal government allows the establishment of train horn ‘quiet zones.’ This requiresthe implementation of safety measures to compensate for the loss of the train horn usage.Additionally, the Mobility Element supports roadway-rail grade separation, since this willeliminate the need for bells and horns at the existing grade crossing and reduce noise.” Policy NE-1.5 calls for coordination with rail operates to establish a train horn “quiet zone” at WashingtonStreet and Noell Street at-grade rail crossings as an interim measure to roadway-rail gradeseparation.

The Old Town San Diego Community Plan was adopted by the City Council on October 29, 2018.Section 4.3 of the plan states that rail transit can conflict with pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehiclesat the Taylor Street grade crossing. The plan envisions reducing these conflicts through near-termimprovements, including signal timing changes and pedestrian crossing arms. Long term, gradeseparation is an option and could include either partial separation for pedestrians and bicyclistsor full separation for automobiles as well. Policy ME-4.9 requires coordination with SANDAG,CPUC, MTS, and NCTD to evaluate enhancements at this crossing, including grade separation, toimprove pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular circulation and safety.

Similar to the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Plan, Section 10.1 of the Old Town San DiegoCommunity Plan recommends establishment of a quiet zone at the Taylor Street at-grade crossingas an interim measure to grade separation (Policy NE-1.1).

15


Project Benefits

The quiet zone project will provide benefits in terms of eliminating the noise associated with theroutine sounding of train horns as the trains travel through the five grade crossings included inthe project area. Safety at these crossings will be maintained through the installation of SSMs.

Scope of Work

Supplemental Safety Measures Identified During This Phase of Evaluation

Based on the May 3, 2018 site visit and coordination with members of the project developmentteam, SSMs were proposed at each of the five crossings. These improvements are shown in theconceptual plans included in Appendix A to this PSR. The FRA Quiet Zone Risk Calculator was runbased on the existing conditions at each location and the proposed SSMs; the calculator resultsare included in Appendix B. In some locations, SSMs were already existing at the crossing; thesewere also factored into the FRA Quiet Zone Risk Calculator and are identified on the plans. Signagewill also be required at all grade crossings; signage is not identified on the plans included inAppendix A. With the addition of the SSMs at each crossing, the Quiet Zone Risk Index shown inAppendix B is reduced below the Risk Index with Horns and thereby qualifies the Middletown-OldTown segment for Quiet Zone eligibility.

The SSMs and other improvements proposed for each crossing are summarized as follows:

Palm Street:

· Install a CPUC Standard 9E exit gate for both the eastbound and westbound directions ofPalm Street

· Reconstruct the median west of the crossing with a non-mountable curb· Install vehicle detection loops· Maintain existing CPUC Standard 9A entrance gates

Sassafras Street:

· Install CPUC Standard 9E exit gates for both the eastbound and westbound directions ofSassafras Street

· Install a CPUC Standard 8 flashing light signal assembly in the median just east of the gradecrossing

· Install vehicle detection loops· Maintain existing CPUC Standard 9A entrance gates· During a PDT meeting, it was mentioned that vehicles departing the WallyPark parking

structure driveway may be able to bypass gates; access control for this driveway will befurther considered during the next phases of project development

Washington Street:

· Install CPUC Standard 9E exit gates for both the eastbound and westbound directions ofWashington Street

16


· Install pedestrian gate assembly per CPUC Standard 9 gate in the southwest quadrant ofthe grade crossing

· Install pedestrian gate assembly per CPUC Standard 9 gate and emergency swing gate inboth the northwest and southeast quadrants of the grade crossing

· Construct a sidewalk to and from the emergency swing gates· Widen the existing raised median located west of the crossing· Install vehicle detection loops· Maintain existing CPUC Standard 9A entrance gate

Noell Street

· Install CPUC Standard 9E exit gates for both the westbound and eastbound directions ofNoell Street

· Remove existing CPUC Standard 8 flashing light signal assembly located at the alley in thesouthwest quadrant and replace with a CPUC Standard 9E exit gate

· Install vehicle detection loops· Maintain existing CPUC Standard 9A entrance gates

Taylor Street

· Install CPUC Standard 9E exit gates for both the westbound and eastbound directions ofTaylor Street

· Install vehicle detection loops· Maintain existing CPUC Standard 9A entrance gates

Additional Crossing Improvements

The SSMs proposed in the prior section are those that are required to meet the necessary Riskcalculator results for the crossings. Per discussions with FRA and CPUC, it is likely that additionalsafety enhancements may be implemented at the crossings in the project area due to heavy trafficvolumes, close proximity of trolley service, and other circumstances that are unique to eachcrossing. These enhancements will likely consist of pedestrian gates and/or other means ofchanneling pedestrians near the grade crossings, extended medians, queue cutters, and/or pre-signals. These enhancements will be determined during the next phases of implementation,through further coordination with FRA and CPUC.

Site Visit with Project Development Team

On February 12, 2019, the project development team visited each of the five grade crossings aspart of a joint field review. The purpose of the site visit was to allow project stakeholders theopportunity to jointly review existing conditions at each crossing in the field. Additionally, thesite visit provided the opportunity for representatives from the regulatory agencies (i.e., FRA andCPUC) to identify safety concerns at each crossing between and including Palm Street and TaylorStreet. This meeting should not be considered a “diagnostic team review” meeting for thepurposes of Quiet Zone establishment. A thorough diagnostic team review will be performedduring the subsequent stages of project development. A summary of the meeting and notesprovided by the team members are included in Appendix D.

17


Next Steps

A new quiet zone is feasible for the crossings between and including Palm Street and Taylor Street.The scope of work associated with a new quiet zone is described below. The project area is moreindustrial than the area associated with the Downtown San Diego Quiet Zone and, therefore,some of the lessons learned from that quiet zone may not be applicable to the Middletown-OldTown corridor (see Appendix D). Because of this and in consultation with the project team, it isrecommended that a new quiet zone be pursued instead of amending the existing quiet zonebetween Park Boulevard and Laurel Street.

Additionally, three specific comments provided by the PDT will influence the next steps of theproject; these comments are:

1. Consider conducting an updated traffic study including collection of more current trafficcounts

2. Develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the project early in theplanning/engineering process rather than waiting until the later stages of design orimplementation.

The following steps have been adapted from The Guide to the Quiet Zone Establishment Processpublished by FRA (2013) and expanded to be applicable to California. These steps identify thetypical process to establish a quiet zone:

1. Determine which crossings will be included in the quiet zone; the length of the quiet zonemust be at least one-half mile.

2. Identify any private highway-rail grade crossings within the proposed quiet zone. If theyallow access to the public or provide access to active industrial or commercial sites, adiagnostic review must be conducted and the crossing(s) treated accordingly.

3. Update the U.S. Department of Transportation Crossing Inventory Form to reflect currentphysical and operating conditions at each public, private, and pedestrian crossing.

4. Provide a Notice of Intent to all of the railroads that operate over the crossings in theproposed quiet zone, the state agency responsible for highway safety (if applicable), andthe state agency responsible for crossing safety (in the case of the Midtown-Old Townquiet zone, CPUC is the applicable state agency). The railroads and agencies have 60 daysto provide comments to the public authority on the proposed plan.

5. If Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs)4 are going to be used to reduce risk (rather thanSSMs), an application to FRA must be made. The application must be sent to all railroadsoperating over the crossings, the entity having jurisdiction over vehicular traffic at thegrade crossings (in this case, the City of San Diego), the landowner having control overany private grade crossings, the state agency responsible for highway and road safety, theCPUC, and the Associate Administrator for a 60-day comment period.

6. Determine the SSMs and, if necessary, run the FRA Quiet Zone Risk Calculator for thequiet zone.

4 Alternative Safety Measures: a safety system, other than SSMs, that aid in the prevention of highway-rail casualties;ASMs include engineered and non-engineered measures.

18


6A. Develop final plans, specifications, and estimates.6B. Submit application for modification of a grade crossing (General Order [GO] 88-B)

7. Complete the installation of the SSMs and any alternative safety measures and otherimprovements determined by the diagnostic team at all crossings.

8. Ensure that signage at each crossing is installed.9. Establish the quiet zone by providing a Notice of Quiet Zone establishment to all of the

parties identified in Step 6.

Because this quiet zone is located in California and would involve installation of additionalsignaling devices, crossing gates, and/or other forms of crossing protection, a GO 88-B applicationmust be submitted to CPUC.

19


Project Schedule

Pending funding for this project, the potential schedule of work is outlined below. Overall, designis scheduled to take at least 18 months and construction at least 12 months, resulting in a high-level project schedule of at least two and a half years.

Milestone Date

Project Study Report (PSR) November 2018

Preliminary Engineering NTP + 9 Months

Environmental Documentation

Begin Documentation (assumes CategoricalExclusion (CE)) NTP + 3 Months

End Environmental Documentation (CE) NTP + 6-9 Months

Right-of-Way Certification (If Applicable) NTP + 21 Months

Notice of Intent (NOI) NTP + 9 Months

NOI Comment Period NOI + 2 Months (aka NTP + 8 Months)

Quiet Zone Application (QZA) NOI + 2 Months (aka NTP + 8 Months)

QZA Comment Period QZA + 2 Months (aka NTP + 10 Months)

FRA QZA Processing & Approval QZA + 4 Months (aka NTP + 12 Months)

Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)

Begin PS&E NTP + 9 Months

CPUC GO 88-B Application NTP + 10-15 Months

End PS&E Phase (Ready to List for Advertising) NTP + 18 Months

Construction Notice to Proceed (CNTP) NTP + 21 Months

Construction Complete CNTP + 12 Months

Notice of Establishment (NOE) CNTP + 12 Months

Quiet Zone Activate NOE + 21 days

Closeout Phase CNTP + 15 Months

20


Environmental Clearance and Permits

Projects are subject to applicable federal, state, and local environmental regulations andguidelines. Local (TransNet) and State-funded projects are subject to the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA). Federally funded projects are subject to the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and/or FRA regulations. Each project isevaluated to determine the applicable environmental regulations.

Construction of projects and facilities within existing interstate railway rights-of-way already inuse are generally exempt from CEQA requirements pursuant to CEQA Statute Section 21080(b)(10). Additionally, as a part of the national railroad system, maintenance and operations aregenerally exempt from local ordinances and state environmental regulations.

The LOSSAN Corridor is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Surface Transportation Board(STB). State and local environmental regulations have been found to be pre-empted by federalstatute (49 U.S.C. 10501(b)) in those cases where the STB has licensing authority over railroadactivities (i.e., LOSSAN Corridor and Sprinter Corridor). An example of STB’s ruling on the matterof pre-emption (NCTD’s Encinitas Passing Track) is provided in Appendix D (August 19, 2002), TheSTB Ruling is applicable for railroad projects constructed when the tracks are used for interstatefreight transport and/or intercity passenger service (i.e., freight (BNSF) and Amtrak). The STBRuling is based on the premise that projects that improve railroad reliability and capacity on tracksused for interstate commerce are not subject to regulatory compliance with state and localregulations due to the interstate commerce clause in the United States Constitution.

Project and Related Funding

Potential sources of funding for this project include local funding sources such as the local streetsand roads portion of the TransNet transportation sales tax program available to the County of SanDiego and the City of San Diego, developer fees, or other future sources.

While Quiet Zones are specifically not eligible, Caltrans administers the Railroad-Highway GradeCrossing Program (RHGCP), also known as the Section 130 Program, as provided by Title 23,United States Code, Section 130 (23 U.S.C. 130). This program provides federal funds for theelimination of hazards at existing at-grade highway-rail crossings (crossings). The program isfunded at a 90% Federal contribution and 10% local matching contribution through Caltransfunds. The purpose of the RHGCP is to reduce the number, severity and potential of hazards tomotorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians at crossings. The RHGCP is a cooperative effort between theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA), Caltrans, CPUC, railroad companies and local agencies.It is important to note that not all crossings are eligible for this program. Funding cannot be usedfor improvements for the sole purpose of qualifying a local agency to apply for a Quiet Zone.

21


Project Cost Estimate

It is anticipated that total project cost (construction, non-construction, and design) for a quietzone at the five crossings between and including Palm Street to Taylor Street would beapproximately $4.5 million. At this stage of the project development, no property acquisitionshave been determined to be necessary to implement the proposed SSMs, and therefore, no right-of-way acquisition costs were included in the estimate. The breakdown of this cost is shownbelow and a detailed breakdown by crossing is included in Appendix C. This estimate includescontingency in the event that additional safety enhancements are implemented throughcoordination with FRA and CPUC.

Project Study ReportJeannie Pham

Item Quantity Unit UnitPrice Amount Subtotal

DESIGNAgency Design Admin. 3.00% x CCE $ 51,600Agency Program Management x CCE $ -Agency Design Admin.(NCTD/MTS) 1.00% x CCE $ 17,200Alternative Analysis & Environmental x CCE $ -Design - Preliminary to 30% 10.00% x CCE $ 171,900Design - 30% to 60% and Permits 10.00% x CCE $ 171,900Design - 60% to Final PS&E 10.00% % CCE $ 171,900Independent Peer Reviews x CCE $ -

$ 584,500

RIGHT OF WAYTemporary R/W, Easements Acre $25,000 $ -Slope Easements Acre $6,250 $ -Footing/Utility Easements Acre $25,000 $ -Property Acquisition Acre $100,000 $ -Appraisals & ROW Consultant 25 % R.O.W Costs $ -Right-of-way Contingency (10% to 35%) 30 % R.O.W Costs $ -

$ -

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE $ 1,719,050

ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTSAgency Construction Admin. 5.00% x CCE $ 86,000Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. x CCE $ -Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 3.00% x CCE $ 51,600Design Support During Construction 5.00% x CCE $ 86,000Construction Management 20.00% x CCE $ 343,800NCTD Signal & Maintenance Support & Testing 3.00% x CCE $ 51,600Allowance for Signal House Upgrades $ 1,500,000 LS 1 $ 1,500,000Flagging Services 500 Hr $65 $ 32,500Busing Passengers 0 AWW $75,000 $ -

$2,151,500

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE IN 2018 DOLLARS $4,455,050

Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet ZonePROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:November 1, 2018 Estimated By:

DESIGN TOTAL

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS

22


Track Charts

23



Appendix A: Intersection Conceptual Plans

SCALEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

DATE

DRAWING NO. SHEET NO.

SANDAG CONTRACT NO.

SANDAG

Pha

m14:04

26-

NO

V-2018

halfclr.pen

0

General

Notes.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES

0 1 2

FAX +1 619.338.8123

TEL +1 619.338.9376

SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

SUITE 1650

401 B STREET

WSP USA Inc.

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

SANDAG

401 B STREET, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-4231 | (619) 699-1900

QUIET ZONE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

MIDDLETOWN-OLD TOWN SAN DIEGO

PRELIMINARY

Poli, C.

Malinao, C.

Poli, C. 10/18

10/18

10/18

NO SCALE

ABBREVIATION: TERM:

FLASHING LIGHT SIGNAL ASSEMBLY

AUTOMATIC GATE ARM

FLASHING LIGHT SIGNAL ASSEMBLY WITH

ROADWAY ON A CANTILEVERED ARM

FLASHING LIGHT SIGNALS OVER THE

AUTOMATIC GATE ARM AND ADDITIONAL

FLASHING LIGHT SIGNAL ASSEMBLY WITH

STANDARD 8 STANDARD 9-E

STANDARD 9 AND

STANDARD 9-A

CPUC STANDARDS:

GENERAL NOTES

STANDARD 8-A

CANTILEVERED ARM

SIGNALS OVER THE ROADWAY ON A

WITH ADDITIONAL FLASHING LIGHTS

FLASHING LIGHT SIGNAL ASSEMBLY

SDRBDT

MCCTP

LRT

LOSSAN

CPUC

SAN DIEGO RIVER BRIDGE DOUBLE TRACK

MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT

LOS ANGELES-SAN DIEGO-SAN LUIS OBISPO RAIL CORRIDOR

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

W PALM ST

P

P

P

P

UB

TS

P

P

VC

P

TS

TS

VC

P

22.9

23.3

P

TS

UB

UB

UB

UB U

B

RS

UB

UB

36.8

UB

UB

UB

P

P

P

39.6

P

P

RS

P

RS

RS

RS

UB

UB

45

UB

50

P

DE

CK

P

P

55.5

PP

UB

UB

UB

VC

60.6

UB'S

UB

UB'S

P

VC

P

P

UB

66.8

VC

TS

SCALEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

DATE


SANDAG CONTRACT NO.

SANDAG

Pha

m14:06

26-

NO

V-2018

halfclr.pen

1

Pal

m

St.dgn


IS IN INCHES

0 1 2

FAX +1 619.338.8123

TEL +1 619.338.9376

SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

SUITE 1650

401 B STREET

WSP USA Inc.


SANDAG


1"=20'QUIET ZONE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS


PRELIMINARYW PALM St

1

2

3

10

CA

LIF

OR

NI

A

St

MI

DD

LE

TO

WN

ST

ATI

ON

Typ7

2

10

11

Poli, C.

Malinao, C.

Poli, C. 10/18

10/18

10/18

LOSSAN TRACKS

LRT TRACKS

1

1

LEGEND:

RECONSTRUCT MEDIAN WITH NON-MOUNTABLE CURBS

W PALM St

PROPOSED CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATE

KE

TT

NE

R

Blvd

PA

CIFIC

Hwy

EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 9A ENTRANCE GATE7 VEHICLE DETECTION LOOP

AND REPLACED WITH CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATECPUC STANDARD 8 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

11 EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 8

3

11

13

13 EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 8A

PER MCCTP

SIGNAL HOUSE

SCALEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

DATE


SANDAG CONTRACT NO.

SANDAG

Pha

m14:07

26-

NO

V-2018

halfclr.pen

2

Sassafras

St.dgn


IS IN INCHES

0 1 2

FAX +1 619.338.8123

TEL +1 619.338.9376

SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

SUITE 1650

401 B STREET

WSP USA Inc.


SANDAG




PRELIMINARY

SASSAFRAS ST

UB U

B

34.2

UB

UB

34.5

UB

UB

UB

35.4

UB

RS

CONC

CONC

CONC

VC

UB

UB

UB

UB

UB

TS

57.7

CO

NC

59

UB

P

P

80

85

90

UB

RS

SASSAFRAS St

SASSAFRAS St

1 7 VEHICLE DETECTION LOOP

10

10

4

7Typ

LOSSAN TRACKS

LRT TRACKS

1

1

Poli, C.

Malinao, C.

Poli, C. 10/18

10/18

10/18

LEGEND:

IN

TE

RS

TA

TE 5

ON-

RA

MP

IN

TE

RS

TA

TE 5

OF

F-

RA

MP

KE

TT

NE

R

Blvd

SO

UT

HB

OU

ND

IN

TE

RS

TA

TE 5

NO

RT

HB

OU

ND

IN

TE

RS

TA

TE 5

CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECTSTREET IMPROVEMENTS PER MID-COAST

4 PROPOSED CPUC STANDARD 8

EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 9A ENTRANCE GATE

10AND REPLACED WITH CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATECPUC STANDARD 8 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

PER MCCTP

SIGNAL HOUSE

W WASHINGTON ST

20.5

20.5

20.9

AS

PH

22.4

UB

VC

UB

VC

VC

24.8

UB A

SP

H

UB

UB

UB

TS

28.5

29.3

29.6

29.6

UB

29.8

RS

29.9

CO

NC

RS

TS

TS

TS

VC

VC

RS

UB

UB

UB

RS

UB

UB

UB

UB

UB

UB

UB

UB

UB

RS

AS

PH

UB

UB

UB

UB

RS

UB

UB UB

VC

UB

UB

UB

RS

RS

40.3

AS

PH

UB

UB

P

44.2

44.3

P

UB

TS

TS

P

45.5

P

UB

P

P

46.3

47.5

PP

48.6

P

48.6

P

P P

P

PP

PP

P

SCALEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

DATE


SANDAG CONTRACT NO.

SANDAG

Pha

m14:09

26-

NO

V-2018

halfclr.pen

3

Washi

ngton

St.dgn


IS IN INCHES

0 1 2

FAX +1 619.338.8123

TEL +1 619.338.9376

SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

SUITE 1650

401 B STREET

WSP USA Inc.


SANDAG




PRELIMINARY

W. WASHINGTON St

KU

RT

Z

St

W WASHINGTON St

WA

SHI

NG

TO

N

St

ST

ATI

ON

1

2

5

6 EMERGENCY SWING GATE

7 VEHICLE DETECTION LOOP

2

9

5

5

6

6

7

LOSSAN TRACKS

LRT TRACKS

1

Typ

1

10

Poli, C.

Malinao, C.

Poli, C. 10/18

10/18

10/18

LEGEND:

9 CONSTRUCT CURB AND WIDEN RAISED MEDIAN

8

8

8

PA

CIFIC

Hwy

ON-

RA

MP

FR

ON

TA

GE

Rd

FR

ON

TA

GE

Rd

HA

NC

OC

K

St

TO/FROM EMERGENCY SWING GATECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK NEEDED FOR PATHWAY CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT

STREET IMPROVEMENTS PER MID-COAST

PROPOSED CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATE

5

STANDARD 9 GATEPEDESTRIAN GATE ASSEMBLY PER CPUC


10AND REPLACED WITH CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATECPUC STANDARD 8 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

NOTES:

IS SIGNALIZED.INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON St. AND FRONTAGE Rd

2.

1.

IS SIGNALIZED.INTERSECTION OF WASHINGTON St. AND HANCOCK St.

1011

11 EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 8

2

PER MCCTP

SIGNAL HOUSE

SW

NOEL ST

VC

VC

VC

UB

RS

RS

23.2

23.9

VC

24.3

24.3

UB

24.7

24.8

UB

24.9

25.0

25.1

UB

CONC

UB

UB

UB

UB

UB

VC

VC

34.7

34.7

CO

NC

35.2

35.4

35.5

UB

CO

NC

CO

NC

UB

VC

40 45

SCALEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

DATE


SANDAG CONTRACT NO.

SANDAG

Pha

m14:10

26-

NO

V-2018

halfclr.pen

4

Noell

St.dgn


IS IN INCHES

0 1 2

FAX +1 619.338.8123

TEL +1 619.338.9376

SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

SUITE 1650

401 B STREET

WSP USA Inc.


SANDAG




PRELIMINARY

NOELL St

NOELL St

1

2


2

1

7Typ

10

LOSSAN TRACKSLRT TRACKS

1

Malinao, C.

Poli, C.

Poli, C.

10/18

10/18

10/18

LEGEND:

10K

UR

TZ

St H

AN

CO

CK

St

PROPOSED CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATEAND REPLACED WITH CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATECPUC STANDARD 8 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED


PER MCCTPSIGNAL HOUSE

PER MCCTPSIGNALS

10

9.3

UB UB

UB

12.5

VC

PB

12.5

12.6

VC

TS

TS

UB

12.7

TS

VC

VC

TS

UB

VC

VC

VC

13.1

TS

P

13.4

13.4

13.4

ASPH P

13.5

UB

13.5

UB

UB

UB

VC

SWSW

VC

13.8

13.9

VC

VC

ASPH

14.1

ASPH

RS

14.2

14.2

UB

14.2

RS

VC

P

CONC

UBUB

P

RS

RS

RS

RS

RS

RS

UB

UB

UB

UB

UB UB

TAYLOR ST

UB

UB

TS

TS TS

TS

SCALEDESIGNED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

DATE


SANDAG CONTRACT NO.

SANDAG

Pha

m14:11

26-

NO

V-2018

halfclr.pen

5

Taylor

St.dgn


IS IN INCHES

0 1 2

FAX +1 619.338.8123

TEL +1 619.338.9376

SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

SUITE 1650

401 B STREET

WSP USA Inc.


SANDAG




PRELIMINARYTAYLOR St

1

10

Typ7

10

10

LOSSAN TRACKS

LRT TRACKS

1

12

Poli, C.

Malinao, C.

Poli, C. 10/18

10/18

10/18

LEGEND:

CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECTSTREET IMPROVEMENTS PER MID-COAST


12


NOTES:

1.IS SIGNALIZED.INTERSECTION OF TAYLOR St. AND PACIFIC Hwy

2.IS SIGNALIZED.INTERSECTION OF TAYLOR St. AND CONGRESS St.

12 EXISTING CPUC STANDARD 9 ENTRANCE GATE

AND REPLACED WITH CPUC STANDARD 9E EXIT GATECPUC STANDARD 8 PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED

PER MCCTP

SIGNAL HOUSE

PER SDRBDT

SIGNAL HOUSE

TAYLOR St

TA

YL

OR St

ST

ATI

ON

TR

AN

SIT

CE

NT

ER

OL

D

TO

WN

CO

NG

RESS St

PA

CIFIC

Hwy


Appendix B: FRA Quiet Zone Risk Calculator Results

Print This Page

Home | Help | Contact | logoff [email protected]

Create New Zone

Manage Existing Zones

Log Off

Step by Step Instructions:

Step 1: To add more crossings to thezone Click the ADD CROSSING.

Step 2: To Make changes to thedefault information, select the crossingfrom list. Enter the changes in theappropriate box, then click theUPDATE button.

Step 3: To permanently remove acrossing from the zone, select Crossingfrom list. Click the DELETE CROSSINGbutton.

Step 4: Verify All Crossing InformationProvided is correct. Then Click theCheck Box, then CONTINUE button .

* Note: To see a list of SSMs, click on"Pre-Existing SSM".

Update and Verify Crossing Information CONTINUE

Zone:Quiet Zone Type : New 24-hour Quiet Zone

026852D TAYLOR STREET026856F NOELL STREET026857M WASHINGTON STREET026859B SASSAFRAS STREET026861C PALM STREET

* = Not Public At Grade Crossing** = Closed Crossing

To verify ALL CROSSING INFORMATIONPROVIDED is correct, click on the check box here.

ADD CROSSING DELETE CROSSING

026852D TAYLOR STREET

Present warn device: Gates Gates

Number of highwayvehicles per day: 015000 19500

Total trains: 270 60

Day through trains : 97 54

Total SwitchingTrains : 6 6

Number of maintracks: 2 2

Number of othertracks: 0 0

Urban(U.)/Rural(R.):U.MinorArterial U.Minor Arterial

Highways paved: Yes Yes

Maximum timetablespeed mph: 65 65

Number of highwaylanes: 5 5

Number of yearsaccident data: 5 5

Number of accidentsin accident data

years: 0 0

Wayside horn: No

Pre-Existing SSM: No

UPDATE

Note: Updating Crossing information on the Quiet ZoneCalculator DOES NOT update the crossing inventory. Besure that an updated current and accurate inventory formis also submitted.

Page 1 of 2FRA - Quiet Zone Calculator

11/28/2018https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/myzone_2.aspx?zoneid=44150

Print This Page


Create New Zone


Log Off













026856F NOELL STREET





Total Switching Trains : 6 6

Number of main tracks: 2 2

Number of other tracks: 0 0

Urban(U.)/Rural(R.): U.Local U.Local





Number of accidents inaccident data years: 0 0

Wayside horn: No


UPDATE




Print This Page


Create New Zone


Log Off













026857M WASHINGTON STREET














Wayside horn: No


UPDATE




Print This Page


Create New Zone


Log Off













026859B SASSAFRAS STREET














Wayside horn: No


UPDATE




Print This Page


Create New Zone


Log Off













026861C PALM STREET














Wayside horn: No


UPDATE




Print This Page


Create New Zone


Log Off


Step 1: To specify New WarningDevice (For Pre-Rule Quiet Zone Only)and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Button

Step 2: Select proposed warningdevice or SSM. Then click the UPDATEbutton.To generate a spreadsheet ofthe values on this page, click on ASMbutton—This spreadsheet can then beused for ASM calculations.

Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until theSELECT button is shown at the bottomright side of this page. Note that theSELECT button is shown ONLY whenthe Quiet Zone Risk Index falls belowthe NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn.

Step 4: To save the scenario andcontinue, click the SELECT button

Cancel Change Scenario: MIDDLETOWN_53923 Continue

Crossing Street Traffic Warning Device Pre-SSM SSM Risk

026852D TAYLOR STREET 19500 Gates 0 0 84,221.89 MODIFY

026856F NOELL STREET 3100 Gates 0 0 50,633.33 MODIFY

026857M WASHINGTON STREET 14600 Gates 0 0 344,640.08 MODIFY

026859B SASSAFRAS STREET 14200 Gates 0 0 64,458.96 MODIFY

026861C PALM STREET 3700 Gates 0 0 238,984.41 MODIFY

* Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed.

Click for Supplementary Safety Measures [SSM]

Click for ASM spreadsheet: ASM * Note:The use ofASMs requires an application to and approval from the FRA.

Summary

Proposed Quiet Zone: MIDDLETOWN-OLDTOWN_2TRACK

Type: New 24-hour QZ

Scenario: MIDDLETOWN_53923

Estimated Total Cost: $0.00

Nationwide Significant RiskThreshold: 14723 .00

Risk Index with Horns: 93877.54

Quiet Zone Risk Index: 156587.73



Print This Page


Create New Zone


Log Off


Step 1: To specify New WarningDevice (For Pre-Rule Quiet Zone Only)and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Button

Step 2: Select proposed warningdevice or SSM. Then click the UPDATEbutton.To generate a spreadsheet ofthe values on this page, click on ASMbutton—This spreadsheet can then beused for ASM calculations.

Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until theSELECT button is shown at the bottomright side of this page. Note that theSELECT button is shown ONLY whenthe Quiet Zone Risk Index falls belowthe NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn.

Step 4: To save the scenario andcontinue, click the SELECT button

Cancel Change Scenario: MIDDLETOWN_53923 Continue

Crossing Street Traffic Warning Device Pre-SSM SSM Risk

026852D TAYLOR STREET 19500 Gates 0 6 19,371.03 MODIFY

026856F NOELL STREET 3100 Gates 0 6 11,645.67 MODIFY

026857M WASHINGTON STREET 14600 Gates 0 6 79,267.22 MODIFY

026859B SASSAFRAS STREET 14200 Gates 0 6 14,825.56 MODIFY

026861C PALM STREET 3700 Gates 0 6 54,966.41 MODIFY

* Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed.

ALERT: Quiet Zone qualifies because SSM has beenapplied in each crossing.

Click for Supplementary Safety Measures [SSM]

Click for ASM spreadsheet: ASM * Note:The use ofASMs requires an application to and approval from the FRA.

Summary

Proposed Quiet Zone: MIDDLETOWN-OLDTOWN_2TRACK

Type: New 24-hour QZ

Scenario: MIDDLETOWN_53923

Estimated Total Cost: $640,000.00

Nationwide Significant RiskThreshold: 14723 .00

Risk Index with Horns: 93877.54

Quiet Zone Risk Index: 36015.18

Select


11/28/2018https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/scen.aspx?zoneid=44149


Appendix C: Preliminary Cost Estimate

Project Study ReportJeannie Pham


DESIGNAgency Design Admin. 3.00% x CCE $ 51,600Agency Program Management x CCE $ -Agency Design Admin.(NCTD/MTS) 1.00% x CCE $ 17,200Alternative Analysis & Environmental x CCE $ -Design - Preliminary to 30% 10.00% x CCE $ 171,900Design - 30% to 60% and Permits 10.00% x CCE $ 171,900Design - 60% to Final PS&E 10.00% % CCE $ 171,900Independent Peer Reviews x CCE $ -

$ 584,500

RIGHT OF WAYTemporary R/W, Easements Acre $25,000 $ -Slope Easements Acre $6,250 $ -Footing/Utility Easements Acre $25,000 $ -Property Acquisition Acre $100,000 $ -Appraisals & ROW Consultant 25 % R.O.W Costs $ -Right-of-way Contingency (10% to 35%) 30 % R.O.W Costs $ -

$ -

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE $ 1,719,050

ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTSAgency Construction Admin. 5.00% x CCE $ 86,000Agency Construction Prog. Mgmt. x CCE $ -Agency Construction Admin. (NCTD/MTS) 3.00% x CCE $ 51,600Design Support During Construction 5.00% x CCE $ 86,000Construction Management 20.00% x CCE $ 343,800NCTD Signal & Maintenance Support & Testing 3.00% x CCE $ 51,600Allowance for Signal House Upgrades $ 1,500,000 LS 1 $ 1,500,000Flagging Services 500 Hr $65 $ 32,500Busing Passengers 0 AWW $75,000 $ -

$2,151,500

OFF-SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION

Tidal Wetlands Permanent Impact Mitigation Acre $610,000 $ -Tidal Wetlands Temporary Impact Mitigation Acre $310,000 $ -Other Wetlands Permanent Impact Mitigation Acre $185,000 $ -Other Wetlands Temporary Impact Mitigation Acre $135,000 $ -Uplands Permanent Impact Mitigation Acre $125,000 $ -Uplands Temporary Impact Mitigation Acre $65,000 $ -Other Acre $ -Subtotal $0

TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE IN 2018 DOLLARS $4,455,050

COST ESCALATIONYear of Expenditure Cumulative Estimated Escalation

0.0% $ - $ -0.0% $ - $ -0.0% $ - $ -0.0% $ - $ -0.0% $ - $ -0.0% $ - $ -0.0% $ - $ -0.0% $ - $ -

TOTAL EXPENDITURES IN 2018 DOLLARSTOTAL COST ESCALATION $ -

PROJECT COST IN YEAR OF EXPENDITURE DOLLARSNote: Project Risk Category based upon the SANDAG Design Procedures Manual is: Medium Risk

0.0%0.0%0.0%

0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%

Annual %

Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet ZonePROJECT COST ESTIMATE Design Level:November 1, 2018 Estimated By:

DESIGN TOTAL

RIGHT OF WAY TOTAL

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ESTIMATE (CCE)

ANCILLARY CONSTRUCTION COSTS

NOT USED

QuietZoneCost_2018-1102

Palm AvenueProject Study Report

Jeannie Pham


CONSTRUCTIONSite Civil

Demolition and Removal of Pavement 100.00 SF $5 500$Saw Cut Existing (AC/PCC) 50.00 LF $5 250$Remove Pavement Markings 0.00 SF $4 -$Remove CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 EA $5,000 -$Remove Curb 50.00 LF $10 500$Remove Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 -$Minor Concrete (Curb) 50.00 LF $35 1,750$Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, 6" THK) 100.00 SF $25 2,500$Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 -$Regulatory Sign W10-9P (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 600$Regulatory Sign W48(CA)(2) (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 600$Pavement Marking (KEEP CLEAR) 2.00 EA $500 1,000$Median Striping 100.00 LF $2 200$

Subtotal $7,900

SignalCPUC No. 9E Warning Device 2.00 TF $47,000 94,000$CPUC No. 9 Warning Device 0.00 TF $49,000 -$CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 TF $28,000 -$CPUC No. 9 Pedestrian Warning Device 0.00 EA $35,000 -$Vehicle detection system and conduit improvements 1.00 LS $35,000 35,000$Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 3,000$

Subtotal $132,000

Site MitigationSWPPP LS $60,000.00 -$Water Pollution Control 1 LS $2,000.00 2,000$Permanent Erosion control (TYP Hydroseed) SF $1.00 -$On-site Non-Coastal Wetlands Acre $135,000 -$On-site Uplands Acre $65,000 -$Monitors - Environmental/Biological hrs $150 -$Monitors- Paleo/Archeology hrs $150 -$Subtotal $2,000

Base Construction Estimate (BCE) 141,900$

Contractor Mobilization 7.50% x BCE $ 10,600Contractor Demobilization 2.50% x BCE $ 3,500Traffic Handling 10.00% x BCE $ 14,200Contingency 30% x BCE $ 42,600Subtotal $70,900

$ 212,800

NOTES AND EXCLUSIONS:

2. No utility relocations were assumed to be necessary.3. Real estate acquisition costs are not included.4. Escalation to Year of Expenditure is not included.

1. Estimates are based on conceptual design exhibits dated October 15, 2018.

Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE (CCE)

Design Level:Estimated By:

Construction Cost EstimateRevised: November 01, 2018


Sassafras StreetProject Study Report

Jeannie Pham



Demolition and Removal of Pavement 0.00 SF $5 -$Saw Cut Existing (AC/PCC) 0.00 LF $5 -$Remove Pavement Markings 0.00 SF $4 -$Remove CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 EA $5,000 -$Remove Curb 0.00 LF $10 -$Remove Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 -$Minor Concrete (Curb) 0.00 LF $35 -$Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, 6" THK) 0.00 SF $25 -$Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 -$Regulatory Sign W10-9P (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 600$Regulatory Sign W48(CA)(2) (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 600$Pavement Marking (KEEP CLEAR) 2.00 EA $500 1,000$Median Striping 0.00 LF $2 -$

Subtotal $2,200

SignalCPUC No. 9E Warning Device 2.00 TF $47,000 94,000$CPUC No. 9 Warning Device 0.00 TF $49,000 -$CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 1.00 TF $28,000 28,000$CPUC No. 9 Pedestrian Warning Device 0.00 EA $35,000 -$Vehicle detection system and conduit improvements 1.00 LS $30,000 30,000$Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 3,000$Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 3,000$Subtotal $158,000




$ 243,400





Construction Cost Estimate Design Level:Revised: November 01, 2018 Estimated By:



Washington StreetProject Study Report

Jeannie Pham



Demolition and Removal of Pavement 660.00 SF $5 3,300$Saw Cut Existing (AC/PCC) 215.00 LF $5 1,075$Remove Pavement Markings 0.00 SF $4 -$Remove CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 EA $5,000 -$Remove Curb 135.00 LF $10 1,350$Remove Landscaping & Irrigation 120.00 SF $10 1,200$Minor Concrete (Curb) 135.00 LF $35 4,725$Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, 6" THK) 200.00 SF $25 5,000$Landscaping & Irrigation 120.00 SF $10 1,200$Regulatory Sign W10-9P (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 600$Regulatory Sign W48(CA)(2) (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 600$Pavement Marking (KEEP CLEAR) 2.00 EA $500 1,000$Median Striping 200.00 LF $2 400$

Subtotal $20,450

SignalCPUC No. 9E Warning Device 4.00 TF $47,000 188,000$CPUC No. 9 Warning Device 3.00 TF $49,000 147,000$CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 TF $28,000 -$CPUC No. 9 Pedestrian Warning Device 3.00 EA $35,000 105,000$Vehicle detection system and conduit improvements 1.00 LS $50,000 50,000$Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 3,000$Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 3,000$Subtotal $496,000




$ 777,650








Noell StreetProject Study Report

Jeannie Pham



Demolition and Removal of Pavement 0.00 SF $5 -$Saw Cut Existing (AC/PCC) 0.00 LF $5 -$Remove Pavement Markings 0.00 SF $4 -$Remove CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 1.00 EA $5,000 5,000$Remove Curb 0.00 LF $10 -$Remove Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 -$Minor Concrete (Curb) 0.00 LF $35 -$Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, 6" THK) 0.00 SF $25 -$Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 -$Regulatory Sign W10-9P (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 600$Regulatory Sign W48(CA)(2) (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 600$Pavement Marking (KEEP CLEAR) 2.00 EA $500 1,000$Median Striping 0.00 LF $2 -$

Subtotal $7,200

SignalCPUC No. 9E Warning Device 2.00 TF $47,000 94,000$CPUC No. 9 Warning Device 0.00 TF $49,000 -$CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 TF $28,000 -$CPUC No. 9 Pedestrian Warning Device 0.00 EA $35,000 -$Vehicle detection system and conduit improvements 1.00 LS $18,000 18,000$Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 0.00 LS $3,000 -$

Subtotal $112,000




$ 181,800








Taylor StreetProject Study Report

Jeannie Pham



Demolition and Removal of Pavement 0.00 SF $5 -$Saw Cut Existing (AC/PCC) 0.00 LF $5 -$Remove Pavement Markings 0.00 SF $4 -$Remove CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 EA $5,000 -$Remove Curb 0.00 LF $10 -$Remove Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 -$Minor Concrete (Curb) 0.00 LF $35 -$Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, 6" THK) 0.00 SF $25 -$Landscaping & Irrigation 0.00 SF $10 -$Regulatory Sign W10-9P (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 600$Regulatory Sign W48(CA)(2) (On Existing Post) 4.00 EA $150 600$Pavement Marking (KEEP CLEAR) 4.00 EA $500 2,000$Median Striping 0.00 LF $2 -$

Subtotal $3,200

SignalCPUC No. 9E Warning Device 3.00 TF $47,000 141,000$CPUC No. 9 Warning Device 0.00 TF $49,000 -$CPUC No. 8 Warning Device 0.00 TF $28,000 -$CPUC No. 9 Pedestrian Warning Device 0.00 EA $35,000 -$Vehicle detection system and conduit improvements 1.00 LS $50,000 50,000$Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Taylor St) 1.00 LS $3,000 3,000$Traffic Signal Timing Modification (Pacific Hwy) 1.00 LS $3,000 3,000$Subtotal $197,000




$ 303,400









Appendix D: Project Development Team Meeting Summaries

Middletown Quiet Zone Feasibility Study Project Development Team Meeting #1Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Page 1 of 3

Project: Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Feasibility Analysis

MeetingDate &Time:

Tuesday, April 24, 201810:00 am

Meeting Location: SANDAGConference Room 8A

Subject: PDT Meeting #1

Notes for PDT Kick Off Meeting – Tuesday, April 24, 2018

A. Introductions – attendance sheet is attached.

B. Review Scope of Work

Linda and Kristin reviewed the scope of work:

· Three meetings will be held throughout the duration of the feasibility analysis: (1) Kick offmeeting (today’s meeting), (2) proposed safety measures review meeting, (3) wrap-up meeting

· The study is very high level and will explore feasibility of implementing a quiet zone.

· Deliverables include: the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) quiet zone calculator resultsand proposed safety measures, conceptual layout plans for each of the five intersections in theproject boundaries, cost estimate, draft project study report (PSR), and a final PSR.

Attendees indicated that the proximity of the crossing gate bells to residences, and duration ofthe warning sound, created a problem along the existing quiet zone. A land use map around theproject area will be added to the project study report to identify residential areas.

C. Review Project Schedule

· Begin Date: April 2018 to Expiration Date: December 2018

D. Initial Feedback – Opportunities or Constraints Moving Forward

The group discussed lessons learned from previous quiet zone efforts:

· MTS:

Fred noted that bell noise is a concern to take into consideration. Quiet zones help residentswho live further from the tracks; however, bell noise can be an issue for those who live closerto the project area because of the excessive noise resulting from the longer duration of gatedown time. Only install the minimum number of bells required. MTS also stated they can workwith SANDAG to identify locations where the bells could be installed that would minimize noiseat adjacent land uses. Attendees agreed that bells should be of less concern for the study areabecause it is more industrial. Linda noted that a land use map would be added to the PSR toidentify planned residential areas.


Page 2 of 3

Fred recommended that the signals and circuitry changes required as part of the Mid-CoastCorridor Transit Project be considered.

Fred cautioned about conducting noise studies based on experience in what was required forthese studies previously.

Signal houses may need to be upgraded; this should be taken into consideration during thepreparation of the cost estimate.

· NCTD:

Don noted that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and FRA will need to provideinput into the proposed project. Representatives from these agencies should be included in theconversation sooner, rather than later, as they may identify features that need to be consideredas part of design. The group discussed the option of involving them in the second PDT meeting(proposed safety measures review meeting). The proposed safety measures would be sharedwith MTS, NCTD, and the City of San Diego prior to sharing the measures with FRA and CPUC.

Don noted that Washington and Sassafras may be difficult as FRA and CPUC have expressedconcerns associated with these crossings. The crossings are currently compliant withrequirements, but the quiet zone process will reopen the crossings to discussions with FRA andCPUC.

Don also emphasized that implementation of quite zones is governed by FRA rules establishinga boundary for the regulatory approvals.

The team involved in the prior quiet zone stated there were surprises in how pedestrian trafficneeded to be handled to implement the quiet zone.

Fred noted that the visibility of flashers is a concern because they are an added safety featurealong quiet zones. Periodic maintenance is needed to trim tree overgrowth. Future projectsshould take the quiet zone into consideration when planning landscaping in the area.

Linda asked about extending the existing quiet zone north through the project area versusestablishing a new quiet zone? An extension of a quiet zone has never been done, but could bepossible. New regulations have been passed since the downtown quiet zone was established.An extension could create an “open door”, which could subject previous work done on the initialquiet zone to updates.

Linda asked about any concerns regarding Positive Train Control (PTC). The group discussedthat no changes are anticipated.

It was clarified that all five intersections will be evaluated, with no potential gaps left in theproject area. Linda did note that there might be a question with the complexity of Taylor Streetabout whether a quiet zone could include that crossing, but that is at the northern end.

· City of San Diego:


Page 3 of 3

Steve noted that the downtown quiet zone was paid for by a source of funds that no longerexists. Grants usually do not apply towards the implementation of quiet zones. State andFederal funding is possible if other improvements are necessary, as identified by CPUC and/orFRA.

· The group also discussed current projects in the area, noting that all work is relatively minorand should not impact the study.

· Kristin did not believe that traffic signal preemption was a requirement to implement a quietzone. FRA guidance provides a list of measures that can be applied to crossings. Don agreed andstated that an average index rating is used among all of the crossings, there is not a safety factorapplied for each specific crossing.

· Any changes to traffic signals would require consideration of the mitigation requirements of theMid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.

E. New Action Items

· Linda will reach out to the CPUC and FRA and invite them to join the second PDT meeting witha date tentatively scheduled in August.

· Jazmin will develop a land use map to be added to the PSR.· Don will send Linda contact information for the FRA’s new crossing division.· Kristin will research the requirements for advanced preemption at the crossings.

Next Team Meetings:

· Proposed safety measures review meeting - tentative date in August· Wrap-up meeting - tentative date in November

Middletown Quiet Zone Study Task Order #7 Project Development Team Meeting #2 Monday, September 24, 2018

Page 1 of 4

Project: Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone Feasibility Analysis

SANDAG Contract No 5007814

Meeting Date & Time:

Monday, September 24, 2018 1:00 pm

Meeting Location: SANDAG Conference Room 8B

Subject: PDT Meeting #2 Task Order #: 7

Notes for PDT Kick Off Meeting – Monday, September 24, 2018

A. Introductions (See Attached)

B. Project Review and Status

Linda gave an update on the project status stating that this high-level study will explore the feasibility of implementing a quiet zone in the project corridor. WSP has created preliminary concept plans (for review), and a draft project study report (PSR) is in progress. The project will conclude with high level concept plans and a PSR that includes scope, schedule, budget, and next steps.

C. Review and Comment on Preliminary Concept Plans

WSP staff provided an overview of measures proposed at each crossing.

FRA and CPUC staff reviewed plans and had the following comments:

General Comments (Applies to all Crossings):

• The FRA is a proponent of grade-separation. Studies should be done to measure their feasibility and state why they are or are not possible for each crossing.

• As an alternative to grade separation, changing the traffic flow could be considered. One-way streets could be considered at each of the crossings.

• FRA supports the measures proposed at the crossings in addition to sounding of locomotive horns.

• Proposed safety improvements should be based on future projections and projects in the area, not only the existing conditions seen today.

• Outlying areas should also be considered, not just the crossing itself. • The length of the medians should be identified on all of the plans. Medians need to meet the

existing standard of 60 to 100 feet if they are to be used for credit for calculating the risk index.

• All safety issues that would slow or impede vehicular traffic should be shown in the plans.


Page 2 of 4

• The system should be studied in totality. Eliminate trip hazards, vehicular hazards, etc. • CPUC has held design meetings/team review of all crossings except Noell. CPUC has

documents that will be provided to SANDAG for consideration as part of this study. It was acknowledged there are constraints to implementation of some safety measures.

• FRA stated that a diagnostic meeting should not be held until the team has identified what is truly feasible for each crossing. This meeting is a good first step towards identifying measures.

• Safety during construction of the measures should also be considered.

Palm Street:

• Some cross street names are labelled incorrectly. • All proposed capital specific projects in the area need to be included on all plans as overlays,

including SANDAG’s Palm Street project, if they will be existing at the time the quiet zone is established.

• The Middletown-Old Town project area is the highest risk railroad corridor in San Diego, and accidents have occurred north of Palm Street. As a result, very thorough plans are necessary. Palm and Washington Streets were both identified as high risk.

• The wall between the mainline tracks and the (trolley) station platform is suggested to be re-engineered to facilitate safe pedestrian crossing and sight distance for trolley riders.

• California Street would also need treatment. • Diagnostic meetings of this crossing have been done in the past and CPUC has identified

pedestrian improvements at this crossing.

Sassafras Street:

• Chris stated that I-5 is elevated in proximity to the grade crossing, but it is anticipated that a normal arm length for the gate should fit.

• MTS mentioned at the Washington and Taylor Street crossings, concrete panels for LOSSAN tracks and rubber mats for LRT tracks are scheduled to be replaced during an October AWW.

• Kristin noted that the blue arrows on the plans depict geometric changes that will be implemented as a result of Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.

• Entrances and exits to/from driveways need to be treated appropriately, including, in some cases, closed if warranted. This is true even if the driveways are not utilized.

• The design team should consider changes to the traffic flow if needed. One-way streets could help improve safety.

• There is a project proposed by the Airport Authority between Kettner Boulevard and Pacific Highway that includes lane and traffic flow reconfiguration for the Consolidated Rental Car Facility (CONRAC). A follow up conversation regarding the project is necessary.


Page 3 of 4

Washington Street:

• Diagnostic meetings of this crossing have been done in the past. • A traffic study should be completed studying the “worst-case” scenario. Major events in San

Diego and in proximity to the airport affect traffic in the area. A high-level traffic study is necessary to address potential issues. This is also a thoroughfare to I-5 which creates a bottleneck.

• The Department of Defense is located in proximity to this crossing; there is no control over what they do.

• Encroachment into railroad right of way should be deterred. Fencing should be installed to ensure that the public cannot enter the railroad right of way. Signage should also be implemented.

• Vegetation removal should be taken into consideration because of its ability to obstruct visibility.

• The wall between the light and heavy rail tracks hinders the visibility of oncoming trains and may have been a factor in fatal accidents as pedestrians leave the trolley station.

• Channelization may be needed at the trolley platforms due to train speed. Warnings should be added to both ends of the platform.

• It was recommended that the trolley platform be shortened or shifted north. MTS indicated that shifting the platform north should be feasible.

• Use prior diagnostic review documents as resources. • FRA pointed out that there was a short length for queuing onto Frontage Road and

recommended consideration of queue cutting or pre-signals. The pre-signals should tie into the other side of I-5.

•

Noell Street

• It may not be possible to install the gate in the southwestern quadrant of the intersection (CPUC 9E Exit Gate). Review the gate at Laurel or Hawthorne to see how a similar condition was treated.

• Kurtz Street needs to be labelled as one-way on the plans to avoid confusion. Wrong way movements are likely and should be taken into consideration.

• The medians should be depicted as their new proposed length in the plans as appropriate. • Installing a gate on the south side of Kurtz Street may be difficult. Delivery trucks load and back

out at this location because it is not a through street. Closure of Kurtz Street may not be feasible because of emergency response issues.

Taylor Street:


Page 4 of 4

• Taylor Street has decreased in terms of risk due to safety improvements made at this crossing. • FRA stated there is a significant need for pedestrian treatment, including gates, at this crossing. • There is limited visibility by the building located near the light rail tracks. • There is limited space for pedestrians queuing, especially during major events, and they may

step back onto the live tracks. • The engineer has the authority to sound their horn if they feel it is necessary, even in a quiet

zone. • Think of the various types of people who use this station (commuters, homeless, students,

tourists, etc.) A cookie-cutter design for one type of person is not sufficient. Consideration of pre-signals, queue cutters, and channelization of pedestrians is needed.

Brittany noted the number of items brought up about safety issues and concerns in the project corridor and asked who is fiscally responsible and why these problems have not been fixed. The CPUC has the authority to allocate costs to different agencies and cities if necessary; however, typically it is best to avoid a formal process of allocating costs. The quiet zone is ultimately approved by the FRA and the CPUC is consulted.

D. Review Remaining Project Schedule and Deliverables

• Linda reviewed the remaining project schedule and noted the last wrap-up meeting would be scheduled for October or November. A draft PSR will be provided to meeting participants prior to the meeting.

E. New Action Items

• The design consultants will review the comments from the meeting and revise the plans accordingly.

• CPUC to send documentation from prior diagnostic meetings at these crossings.

Next Team Meetings:

• Wrap-up meeting - tentative date in late October or November

Middletown Quiet Zone Study Task Order #7 Project Development Team Meeting #3Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Page 1 of 2

Project: Middletown-Old Town San DiegoQuiet Zone Feasibility Analysis

SANDAG Contract No5007814

MeetingDate &Time:

Tuesday, November 13, 20181:00 pm

Meeting Location: SANDAGConference Room 8A

Subject: PDT Meeting #3

Notes for PDT Meeting #3 – Tuesday, November 13, 2018

A. Introductions (See Attached)

B. Draft Project Study Report (PSR) Overview and Comments

Linda presented an overview of each section of the draft PSR including an added section in the PSRthat suggests additional safety improvements that can be made based on FRA and CPUC’s requests. Allmeeting minutes also are included in an appendix. The following comments and feedback wereprovided by members of the PDT:

Overall:

· Fred suggested that any interactions with Mid-Coast need to be studied before any finaldecisions are made. Everything needs to be designed to fit with the new Mid-Coast design. Forexample, any available space in the existing signal houses for quiet zone equipment and theneed for new signal houses should be assessed. LED lights and batteries should not beoverlooked. Joe stated that all Mid-Coast designs need to be added to the plans.

· Joe noted that footing locations for new MidCoast signal houses are now in place since the lastPDT meeting. These locations should be overlaid on the plans.

· Joe noted that a new traffic study is needed to update all Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data. Atminimum, the report requires ADT and the percentage of trucks in the project area. Linda notedthat there isn’t sufficient budget to conduct updated traffic counts in this phase but this taskwill be added to the next steps section of the PSR. Kevin noted that CPUC will conduct aninventory of ADT numbers, however, this data may not be available for a couple of years.

· Joe reiterated that supplemental safety measures are required at all crossings to qualify for aquiet zone. He will contact headquarters for clarification on the requirement of constantwarning time with light rail transit in the vicinity of a quiet zone. Fred noted that AC trackcapacity is not compatible with constant warning time. Joe agreed that train detection systemsare vastly different.

· Joe indicated the minimum standard for medians is 6” high and squared off.

· Joe stressed the importance of an inter-agency MOU early in the process that describes rolesand responsibilities.

Middletown Quiet Zone Study Task Order #7 Project Development Team Meeting #3Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Page 2 of 2

· Kevin stated that pedestrians and queuing are core issues, but not entirely addressed in thesupplemental safety measures. Almost all accidents along the railroad corridor are pedestrianrelated.

Sassafras Crossing:

· Fred noted that the Regional Airport Authority has plans for a project on Sassafras Street. WhileJoe asked that these plans be overlaid, Linda noted that SANDAG will inquire about whether ornot that project is fully funded.

· Joe mentioned blocked visibility due to fencing and vegetation when walking southbound onSassafras Street. Additional pedestrian treatments may be necessary.

· He also stated that Wally Park driveway does not show a median extension. Illegal right turnsfrom the driveway need to be prohibited.

Noell Street

· Joe noted that the Noell Street crossing may be a candidate for closure. Consider gradeseparation where possible.

Quiet Zone Calculator

· Kevin noted a possible discrepancy in the number of total trains and day-through trains. Thisseemed odd because there are usually more trains in the day versus night. Kristin mentionedthat WSP will check these numbers for the final version.

Cost Estimate and Funding

· Joe asked if it would be possible to look at the hard costs of the Downtown San Diego quietzones to make sure there aren’t any elements that were missed in the cost estimate. Lindanoted that the cost estimate would be old, however, we have reviewed the cost estimates forthe City of Oceanside Quiet Zone currently under design to make sure elements are similar.

· Joe and Kevin suggested removing the Section 130 program from the possible funding section.Linda noted that text is included that the Section 130 program cannot be used for a quiet zonebut could be used for additional safety improvements. This text will be strengthened.

C. Next Steps

· A PDT field visit of the project corridor to be scheduled in January 2019.

Comments regarding the Draft Project Study Report for the “Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone” Kevin Schumacher, CPUC Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch November 9, 2018 Summary California Public Utilities Commission staff of the Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch (RCEB) provides the following comments to SANDAG in response to the recent draft Project Study Report (PSR) for the “Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet Zone”. The PSR discussed five crossings at Taylor Street, Noell Street, Washington Street, Sassafras Street, and Palm Street. The PSR provides discussion and preliminary concepts for each crossing. However, the PSR does not discuss the details of many design elements that need consideration. While CPUC staff supports the installation of vehicular exit gates, additional design elements would be necessary to address the primary factors involved in past incidents at these crossings. The PSR development process did not include field meetings, which would provide a better opportunity for input by all stakeholders. Prior to moving forward with a proposed Quiet Zone, a diagnostic team review should be held at each of the five crossings, and design issues raised by the team should be documented in greater detail. Specific recommendations regarding the draft PSR are provided below:

1. Clearly state that CPUC authorization is required to modify a rail crossing. 2. Add a section discussing safety. 3. Discuss the need for diagnostic team reviews.

Details

1. Clearly state that CPUC authorization is required to modify a rail crossing. The design of rail crossings must be authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission). If the interested parties are in agreement, including CPUC staff, an informal authorization process can be used (“GO 88-B”). However, if an interested party does not provide written agreement, a formal application would be required to modify the crossing. Hearings at the Commission may be held to investigate the safety of the proposed design, potentially resulting in a Commission Order establishing the requirements for each crossing.

2. Add a section discussing safety. The PSR should include an additional section that discusses safety, including the following:

a. The sounding of the locomotive horn results in a higher level of pedestrian and motorist safety when compared to not sounding the locomotive horn.

b. These crossings have the primary characteristics associated with higher rates of accidents, injuries and/or fatalities at rail crossings:

High train and traffic volumes (and projected increases)

Train speeds (higher than prior downtown Quiet Zone)

High number of tracks (4 tracks), multiple lanes

Nearby intersections c. Pedestrian/cyclist safety

CPUC comments re Middletown QZ November 9, 2018 Page 2

The train horn currently allows most pedestrians to identify the direction of an approaching train

Pedestrians may not expect another train on a different track

Pedestrians regularly violate the activated warning devices at these crossings

There are stations near 3 of the 5 crossings

Visibility of an approaching train or warning devices may be limited by structures, walls, utility poles, other trains, etc.

Most of the fatalities and injuries at these crossings involved pedestrians d. Queuing safety issues

Queues extend onto the tracks at these crossings (particularly Taylor, Washington, and Sassafras)

The issue may occur more frequently with future increases in train and vehicle traffic.

There is additional risk on multi-lane roads. e. Alleys/driveways near the tracks

Alleys or driveways near the track may result in motorist confusion, turns onto the tracks, queuing near the crossing, warning device violations, conflicts with pedestrians or motorists moving away from the tracks, and other safety issues.

3. Discuss the need for diagnostic team reviews. A diagnostic team review should be held at each crossing during the project development process. Design details are not fully investigated in the draft PSR. The following design elements need further consideration through a diagnostic team review involving all stakeholders:

a. closure or reconfiguration of alleys/driveways, b. median design (minimum length, non-mountable, adequate width for signs or signals where necessary) c. station elements (wall, platform, ramp, etc.), d. additional traffic signals (pre-signals, queue cutters), e. railroad preemption interconnection wiring, f. railroad preemption timing, g. pedestrian automatic gate arms, h. pedestrian swing gates, i. pedestrian channelization (fencing, barriers, delineators, etc.) j. use of additional pairs of flashing light signals (facing pedestrians, facing vehicles, facing other

approaches, on median, minimum clearance, etc.) k. utility relocation (utility pole in sidewalk, etc.) l. right-of-way acquisition, m. placement of detectable warning and pedestrian warning markings (consistent configuration, placement

relative to train dynamic envelope), n. slope of sidewalk near the tracks (curb ramps and curb along sidewalk should be eliminated adjacent to

the track), o. maximum gaps (surface specifications and maintenance), p. bells, q. signs, r. markings, and s. street lights (overhead illumination).

of 2

Project:Middletown-Old Town San Diego Quiet ZoneFeasibility Analysis

MeetingDate &Time:

Tuesday, February 12, 20199:00 am – 12:30pm

Meeting Location: Taylor, Noell, Sassafras, Washington,and Palm Grade Crossings

Subject: Joint Field Review

Meeting Notes

Attendees:

Linda Culp, SANDAGCheryl Mason, SANDAGJazmin Amini, SANDAGJoe Petito, FRADarrell Fizer, FRAStephan Fordham, NCTDFred Sandoval, NCTDKevin Schumacher, CPUC

Matt Bond, CPUCDuncan Hughes, City of San DiegoSteve Celniker, City of San DiegoBrittany Bailey; City of San DiegoKristin Carlson, WSPVladimir Kanevskiy, WSPChris Poli, WSP

A. Meeting PurposeThe purpose of the site visit was to allow project stakeholders the opportunity to jointly review existingconditions at each crossing in the field. Additionally, the site visit provided the opportunity forrepresentatives from the regulatory agencies (i.e., FRA and CPUC) to identify safety concerns at eachcrossing between and including Palm Street and Taylor Street. This meeting should not be considered a“diagnostic team review” meeting for the purposes of Quiet Zone establishment. A thorough diagnosticteam review will be performed during the subsequent stages of project development.

B. Main ObservationsThe site visit began at the Taylor Street crossing and proceeded south stopping at each crossing. At eachcrossing, a safety briefing was provided followed by a discussion of the measures proposed in support ofimplementation of a quiet zone. Next, attendees discussed existing conditions including geometricconstraints, surface improvements, traffic and pedestrian circulation, among other topics. Below is asummary of issues/concerns noted by the group at each crossing site. Notes taken by participants duringthe site visit are attached to this meeting summary.

Taylor Street- Sight distance is restricted for pedestrian traffic in the westbound direction on north side of crossing

due to vegetation and fencing- Sight distance is restricted for pedestrian traffic in the westbound direction on the south side of the

crossing due to a building- The Taylor Street pedestrian crossing east of the tracks may need to be relocated east Congress Street

of 2

- Pedestrian warning strips appear to be placed too close to the tracks and grade of sidewalk as itapproaches crossing may need to be adjusted to be more gradual

- Flashing light signals have reduced size backgrounds- Pedestrian channelization may be necessary to prevent congregation between MTS and LOSSAN tracks

Noell Street- Pedestrian access appears to be substandard- Protection measures at intersection with Kurtz Street and access to business parking require further

study- Southwest quadrant is most challenging for safety measures

Washington Street- Screen wall between LRT platform and LOSSAN tracks limits visibility for pedestrians crossing LOSSAN

tracks- Close spacing between signalized intersections, signal interconnection/preemption will need further

study

Sassafras Street- Attendees discussed modifications proposed as part of Airport Authority project, including schedule for

implementation- Screen wall between LRT platform and LOSSAN tracks limits visibility for pedestrians crossing LOSSAN

tracks- Building in the southeast quadrant is close to the tracks and limits pedestrians’ sight distance- Pedestrians’ sight distance at northeast corner is blocked by fencing and greenery- Gates are down with bells ringing for a long duration before the train appears at the crossing

Palm Street- Protection measures at intersection with California Street need further study – currently California

Street is in the confine of the gate- Median improvements on the south side of the crossing may be necessary- Striping and sidewalk improvements needed; crosswalk on southwest corner to northwest corner is

missing

carlsonk

Text Box

Cheryl Mason

carlsonk

Text Box

Kristin Carlson

carlsonk

Text Box

Vladimir Kanevskiy

carlsonk

Text Box

Jazmin Amini

From: Schumacher, Kevin <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 12:00 PMTo: Culp, Linda <[email protected]>Cc: 'Joseph Petito ([email protected])' <[email protected]>; Bond, Matthew<[email protected]>Subject: RE: Middletown-Old Town Quiet Zone Site Visit

Thank you for organizing the site visit. I think it was helpful for the group to observe these crossings.

Please state clearly in the notes that the visit was not considered a ‘diagnostic team review’ for thepurposes of Quiet Zone establishment. A thorough diagnostic team review should allow sufficient timeto walk to all four quadrants, as well as adjacent station approaches, and discuss comments from anyattendees. It is important that both rail agencies be in attendance at the diagnostic team review. Dueto the complex issues at these locations and the number of organizations involved, a diagnostic teamreview would take more time.

General comments regarding safety considerations:1. The proposed placement of exit gates, in the absence of significant additional improvements,

will not significantly address the past and current safety concerns at these crossings.2. Due to the high frequency of trains and presence of 4 tracks, a second train may often approach

the crossing on a different track while the warning devices remain activated. A number ofapproaches have very limited sight distance toward approaching trains. The horn is a valuablesafety measure in this situation, particularly for pedestrians.

3. There are safety concerns and past incidents related to:a. vehicles stopping on the tracks,b. pedestrians walking onto the tracks while the warning devices are activated, andc. vehicles mistakenly turning onto the track.

4. Based on the site visit, there are additional considerations:a. Streets, alleys or driveways are present adjacent to some crossings.b. Station platforms are adjacent to some crossings.c. Most locations have sightline restrictions such as buildings, walls, or equipment

bungalows.

Kevin SchumacherUtilities Engineer

California Public Utilities CommissionSafety and Enforcement DivisionRail Crossings and Engineering Branch

T: (415) 310-9807http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/crossings/

middletown-old town san diego quiet zone - sandag ::home:: … · 2019. 4. 10. · forecast, the...

Documents