HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/22/2013 - RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY UPDATEDATE: January 22, 2013
STAFF: Amy Lewin
Mark Jackson
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Railroad Quiet Zone Study Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Train horn use is governed by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which allows for
establishing Quiet Zones in which train horns are not routinely sounded. This agenda item provides
an update on the City’s analysis of what it would take to implement Quiet Zones in Fort Collins.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback does City Council have regarding the possible courses of implementation
action that will be presented to the public?
• Are there other options that should be included?
• Are there options which should be deleted from further consideration?
2. Is there additional information that City Council would like provided as part of the Quiet
Zone Study?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Train Horn Use and Quiet Zones
Train horn use at public crossings is governed by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
through its Final Rule on Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (Final Rule).
The rule was made effective in June 2005 and last amended August 2006. The Final Rule requires
the locomotive horn to be routinely sounded while trains approach and enter public highway-rail
crossings except when a “Quiet Zone” has been established. Quiet Zones require the
implementation of Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs) or Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs)
that maintain safety at highway-rail crossings where locomotive horns have been silenced.
Examples of SSMs are provided in Attachment 1 and include:
• Four-Quadrant Gates
• Raised Median with Approach Gates
January 22, 2013 Page 2
• Wayside Horns1
• Crossing Closure
It is important to note that a new Quiet Zone must have a minimum length of one-half mile along
the railroad right-of-way. This requirement has an impact on the potential implementation of Quiet
Zones in Fort Collins because of the closely spaced crossings (i.e., less than one-quarter mile from
each adjacent crossing) in the downtown area and on the Colorado State University (CSU) campus.
Fort Collins Railroad Quiet Zone Study
The Railroad Issues Study Group was authorized by the Fort Collins City Council in July 2007 to
examine railroad issues that impact Fort Collins. The Railroad Issues Study Group Final Report
(December 2007) recommended that a Quiet Zone study be conducted to determine costs and the
ability to secure crossings to receive FRA Quiet Zone approval.
The Quiet Zone Study’s area of analysis includes crossings within downtown, the CSU campus, and
farther south along the BNSF Railway to Trilby Road. The Quiet Zone Study includes a technical
analysis of crossing improvement options and an overall implementation plan. The technical
analysis of the crossings was analyzed divided in two phases. The Phase 1 technical analysis was
conducted in 2010-11 with the support of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and
focused on the downtown area. The Phase 2 technical analysis began in August 2012 and focuses
on the crossings on the CSU campus south to Trilby. The reports from both phases include an
inventory of existing conditions, documentation of Quiet Zone requirements, potential Quiet Zone
improvements at each crossing, and notes on implementation. The Phase 1 Technical Report is
available at fcgov.com/transportationplanning/quiet-railroad.php, and a draft version of the Phase
2 Technical Report is available upon request.
Several of the crossings analyzed are planned to receive improvements as part of the MAX Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) construction, but these improvements are not enough to warrant granting of
a Quiet Zone. The recommendations for Quiet Zone compliance in both reports are in addition to
the improvements to be installed with the BRT.
Because of the short distances between most of the crossings, only the five southernmost crossings
would be eligible to be implemented individually as “stand-alone” Quiet Zone crossings, as shown
in Attachment 2. The remaining crossings in the downtown area and at CSU need to be grouped and
considered as a corridor due to their proximity to one another.
Stand-Alone Quiet Zone Crossings
The crossings from Trilby through Drake are typical single-track crossings with adequate distance
between subsequent crossings to be treated with standard Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs)
and can be pursued for Quiet Zone establishment individually. These crossings include:
1 Wayside horns are FRA-approved stationary horns that may be used in lieu of locomotive horns at individual or
multiple highway-rail crossings, including those within Quiet Zones. These are also considered as an SSM option,
but it should be noted that a wayside horn provides an audible warning to oncoming motorists of the approach of a
train and would thus not eliminate all noise at the crossing.
January 22, 2013 Page 3
• Drake Road • Harmony Road
• Swallow Road • Trilby Road
• Horsetooth Road
Grouped Quiet Zone Crossings
The crossings from Prospect Road north through College Avenue do not have the minimum one-
quarter mile distance between each adjacent crossing, and therefore must be considered as a corridor
for pursuit of Quiet Zone establishment.
Note: The crossings from Pitkin Street to Old Main Drive are under the jurisdiction of CSU
and would require CSU involvement in order to pursue Quiet Zone establishment. All other
crossings are under the jurisdiction of the City.
Options
• Implement Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs)
Implementing FRA-approved SSMs is the most streamlined and straightforward approach to
establishing Quiet Zones but also likely the most expensive.
The SSM options for Quiet Zone improvements at the five stand-alone crossings are summarized
in Table 1. The improvement options are listed in order from least expensive to most expensive, and
the range of conceptual costs for each location and overall is also provided. Among the crossings
from Drake to Trilby, Swallow Road would be the least expensive crossing to pursue for Quiet Zone
designation initially. Much of the equipment necessary is in place or being upgraded as part of the
BRT project. Implementation of all five stand-alone Quiet Zone crossings is expected to range
between $700,000 and $1.59 million. Additional details are provided in Attachment 3.
Table 1. Stand-Alone Quiet Zone Crossing Options and Conceptual Costs
Crossing Options Cost Range*
Drake Road • Wayside Horns
• Four-Quadrant Gates
$160,000 to $390,000
Swallow Road • Raised Medians
• Four-Quadrant Gates
$60,000 to $260,000
Horsetooth Road • Raised Median/Wayside Horn
• Wayside Horns
• Raised Median/Exit Gate
• Four-Quadrant Gates
$135,000 to $260,000
Harmony Road • Raised Median/Wayside Horn
• Raised Median/Exit Gate
• Four-Quadrant Gates
$145,000 to $260,000
Trilby Road • Wayside Horns
• Raised Median/Approach Gates
• Four-Quadrant Gates
$200,000 to $415,000
TOTAL $700,000 to $1,585,000
*Note: These are conceptual costs that do not include items such as surveying or detailed design.
January 22, 2013 Page 4
The conceptual cost of implementing approved SSM improvements at all downtown crossings and
at CSU would range from $4.21 million to $4.90 million, depending upon the improvement (see
Attachment 4 for more details).
Other Options Explored
Given the magnitude of costs and challenges to implement Quiet Zone designations at these
locations, other possible opportunities to achieve silencing of train horns (other than treating each
crossing with an approved SSM) were researched and, where appropriate, discussed with the FRA.
These options are detailed in Attachment 5 and described below.
The options explored include:
• Pursuing waivers from the FRA regulations
• Making improvements at College and Cherry
• Implementing corridor solutions that stay below Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
(NSRT)
• Becoming a test site city for new technology
• Proposing an amendment to the Final Rule for nighttime horn use in urban areas
Waivers
The Final Rule allows for waivers to be requested as a temporary or permanent modification of
Quiet Zone requirements. Based on staff’s research, two successful types of waivers were noted:
one type is related to not installing circuitry on tracks where it is impractical and one is related to
an exception in median design. Neither of these conditions addresses the City’s needs.
The FRA was contacted regarding the potential to formalize a varied horn pattern in areas of closely
spaced crossings (such as downtown and CSU) to reduce the continuous horn noise that currently
results. The FRA responded that the minimum of 15 seconds of warning prior to a crossing could
not be varied, even if the previous crossing is so close that the train horns are overlapping, as occurs
in Fort Collins. Therefore, pursuing a waiver to establish Quiet Zones does not appear to be a viable
option for the City.
College and Cherry Improvements
These crossings are very close to being Quiet Zone compliant; however, the close spacing of the
crossings would cause the locomotive engineer of a southbound train to violate the Quiet Zone at
the Cherry Street crossing every time it approaches Maple Street. This would be unacceptable
practice to the FRA and BNSF, even though the crossings at Cherry and College would truly be
silent for northbound trains, once past Maple. Thus, it would not be cost-effective for the City to
complete the additional access and median improvements at Cherry and College for pursuit of a
Quiet Zone specifically at these two crossings. However, these should be considered as part of the
Quiet Zone risk index corridor calculations, as described in the next item.
January 22, 2013 Page 5
Corridor Solutions below Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT)
The FRA Final Rule does provide alternatives to installing SSMs at every public road crossing
within a proposed Quiet Zone. One possible alternative involves calculating the risk index along
the proposed corridor, with the crossing warning devices present today. The existing condition risk
index is then compared to the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT), which represents the
average risk at public highway-rail crossings nationwide that have flashing lights and gates, and at
which locomotive horns are sounded. If the risk of the proposed Quiet Zone corridor is higher than
the NSRT, additional SSMs must be implemented in an attempt to bring the risk number down
below the nationwide threshold. This is a trial and error process in which, for example, four-
quadrant gates might be added at two of the crossings, and the risk with those added features is
calculated. The resulting risk number is again compared to the NSRT, and if it is still higher than
the NSRT, more SSMs must be added, and so on until the calculated risk along the proposed Quiet
Zone corridor is below the NSRT.
The disadvantage of this option is that over time, as public highway-rail grade crossings nationwide
become safer, and the NSRT continues to drop, eventually the calculated risk for the City’s proposed
Quiet Zone may exceed the NSRT. At this point the community would need to reassess the Quiet
Zone risk calculator and add additional treatments to the corridor until the risk index is once again
below the NSRT. The NSRT is thus a “moving target” of sorts that will require monitoring by the
City.
The Quiet Zone Calculator program on the FRA Website does not allow credit to be given for
unusual warning installations, such as the post-mounted flashers on all four quadrants of
crossings/intersections on Mason Street. The program also does not have a way to account for
crossings where vehicular traffic is also controlled by traffic signals. Because the calculator does
not account for the actual conditions of the crossings in downtown Fort Collins along Mason Street,
it is likely overestimating the improvements needed to bring the calculated risk for the corridor
below the NSRT. The project team has initiated conversations with the FRA to see if the calculator
can be updated and/or if special methodology can be arranged to better reflect the conditions on
Mason.
Test Site for New Technology
The Final Rule provides instruction on how new measures can be tested and approved by the FRA
as an effective substitute for the locomotive horn in the prevention of collisions and casualties at
public highway-rail grade crossings. The pursuit of this type of proposal would involve finding a
manufacturer that has developed a product for this specific use, negotiating cost for installation and
testing, and compiling the appropriate application to the FRA for consideration.
Some options that have been discussed, but not pursued for approval by the FRA, include retractable
bollards and in-line security gates. Retractable bollards are posts that can lower into the ground.
These have been tested in Michigan with regards to deterring vehicles from driving around the
railroad gates, as described in the next paragraph and in Exhibit D of Attachment 5. Note that the
installation in Michigan was not specifically for the purpose of Quiet Zones, so if this option is
pursued, Fort Collins would likely be the first city to pursue acceptance by the FRA of retractable
bollards for Quiet Zone establishment.
January 22, 2013 Page 6
Fort Collins may be a good test site for installation and monitoring of retractable bollards, given the
small footprint of bollards and the limited available street area through downtown Fort Collins. In
addition to the crossings being closely spaced, existing development along the corridor edges does
not allow for roadway widening to accommodate additional railroad equipment within the street
envelope to truly isolate the track corridor during presence of a train. The bollards could be installed
in line with the curb on each side of the tracks across a test crossing downtown and connected with
adjacent traffic signals. This type of new technology testing could be offered as a research project
to the Engineering Department of CSU, as their involvement would provide analysis and monitoring
by an independent third party, as well as may offer the opportunity for the university to pursue grant
funding for the research project. The results would be unbiased and the resulting report could be
used in support of the City’s pursuit of the use of bollards for Quiet Zone establishment downtown.
Nighttime Horn Use Amendment
Periodically, the FRA will provide notification in the Federal Register inviting comment with regard
to specific activities or rules. The “rulemaking” process can lead to the issuance of a new rule, an
amendment to an existing rule, or the repeal of an existing rule. It would be through this process that
the City could propose an amendment to the Final Rule with regard to nighttime horn use in urban
areas.
Currently, the FRA does not have any Notices of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the Train Horn
Rule that would be appropriate for comment regarding an amendment to the rule.
Funding Options
There is no specific funding mechanism at the federal or state level that is in place to fund Quiet
Zone improvements. However, federal and state funds are in place for a variety of improvements
related to crossing safety, and there are also other funding mechanisms, such as the Safe Routes to
School Program, which could be applied to crossing improvements at crossings meeting the
conditions of the funding program.
Possible funding sources include:
1. Categorical Section 130 funds – these funds are specific to the elimination of hazards at
existing highway-rail at-grade crossings;
2. Other categorical safety programs, such as the Safe Routes to School Program; and
3. Regular federal-aid highway funds that may be used for safety improvements.
Other potential funding sources include:
• Local General Fund
• Transportation Fund
• Sales tax revenue
• Special districts
• Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
• Street Maintenance Funds
January 22, 2013 Page 7
• Special capital project tax packages, such as Building on Basics (BOB)
• Development/Redevelopment Impact Fees
• Federal earmarks
Next Steps
A near-term next step is to finalize the Phase 2 Technical Report by the end of January 2013.
The Study will then shift towards an implementation plan based on Council guidance. Possible
implementation actions include:
1. Pursuing one or more stand-alone Quiet Zone crossing improvements.
2. Pursuing grouped/corridor Quiet Zone crossing improvements.
3. Continuing discussions with the FRA regarding updating the Quiet Zone Risk Index
Calculator to better reflect the crossing warning devices present today, which would
decrease the resulting risk index for the corridor and may reduce the improvements needed.
4. Considering identifying a downtown crossing to serve as a test site for installation of a new
technology, such as retractable bollards, and engage in discussion with the FRA regarding
tasks and timeline for this process.
5. Continuing to monitor the FRA website for notices of rulemaking that may provide an
opportunity for comment regarding horn use at close-proximity crossings or horn use during
nighttime hours.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Supplemental Safety Measure (SSM) Examples
2. Quiet Zone Study Area
3. Stand-Alone Quiet Zone Crossing Summary Figure
4. Downtown and CSU Quiet Zone Crossing Options and Conceptual Costs
5. Phase 1 Draft Final Addendum Memo
6. Powerpoint presentation
Attachment 1
Railroad Quiet Zone
Supplemental Safety Measure (SSM) Examples
January 22, 2013
Four‐Quadrant Gate
Wayside Horn
Raised Median with Approach Gates
Crossing Closure (curb and gutter and open ballast
prevents crossing)
Attachment 2
Railroad Quiet Zone
Study Area
January 22, 2013
DOWNTOWN
STAND-ALONE
QUIET ZONES
CSU
COLLEGE
PROSPECT
NOT TO SCALE
DRAKE
TRILBY
Attachment 3
Railroad Quiet Zone
Stand‐Alone Crossing Summary
January 22, 2013
HARMONY Approx. Cost
Raised Median/
Wayside Horn $145,000
Raised Median/
Exit Gate $175,000
Four-Quadrant Gates $260,000
Costs are slightly lower because
improvements are being done as
part of the BRT.
HORSETOOTH Approx. Cost
Raised Median/
Wayside Horn $135,000
Wayside Horns $160,000
Raised Median/
Exit Gate $165,000
Four-Quadrant Gates $260,000
Costs are slightly lower because of
BRT improvements. Allowable
median break width for the Mason
Trail crossing is still being confirmed
with FRA.
SWALLOW Approx. Cost
Raised Medians $60,000
Four-Quadrant Gates $260,000
Costs are slightly lower because of
BRT improvements. Allowable
median break width for the Mason
Trail crossing is still being confirmed
with FRA.
DRAKE Approx. Cost
Wayside Horns $160,000
Four-Quadrant Gates $390,000
Costs are slightly lower because
improvements are being done as
part of the BRT. The only SSM
treatment silencing horns here is the
four-quadrant gate option.
TRILBY Approx. Cost
Wayside Horns $200,000
Raised Medians/
Approach Gates $205,000
Four-Quadrant Gates $415,000
Costs are slightly higher because no
improvements are being done as
part of the BRT.
DRAKE RD
HORSETOOTH RD
HARMONY RD
TRILBY RD
SWALLOW RD
Note: These are conceptual costs that do not include items such as surveying or detailed design.
NOT TO SCALE
Attachment 4
*Note: These are conceptual costs that do not include items such as surveying or detailed design.
**Note: These crossings are under the jurisdiction of Colorado State University (CSU); all other crossings
are under the jurisdiction of the City.
Railroad Quiet Zone
Downtown and CSU Quiet Zone Crossing Options and Conceptual Costs
January 22, 2013
Area Crossing Options Cost Range*
DOWNTOWN
College - Raised Median $20,000
Cherry - Raised Median
- Four‐Quadrant Gates $35,000 to $300,000
Maple - Four‐Quadrant Gates $380,000
Laporte - Four‐Quadrant Gates $380,000
Mountain - Four‐Quadrant Gates $380,000
Oak - One‐Way Street
- Four‐Quadrant Gates $260,000 to $330,000
Olive - Four‐Quadrant Gates $330,000
Magnolia - Four‐Quadrant Gates $380,000
Mulberry - Four‐Quadrant Gates $280,000
Myrtle - Four‐Quadrant Gates $330,000
Laurel - Four‐Quadrant Gates $380,000
Subtotal $3,155,000 to $3,490,000
CSU
Plum/Old Main** - Wayside Horns
- Four‐Quadrant Gates $310,000 to $430,000
Ped Crossing** - Upgraded Signage $20,000
University** - Wayside Horns
- Four‐Quadrant Gates $270,000 to $360,000
Ped Crossing** - Closure $0
Pitkin** - Wayside Horns
- Four‐Quadrant Gates $160,000 to $225,000
Lake - Wayside Horns
- Four‐Quadrant Gates $160,000 to $210,000
Prospect - Wayside Horns
- Raised Median/Wayside Horn $135,000 to $160,000
Subtotal $1,055,000 to $1,405,000
TOTAL $4,210,000 to $4,895,000
January 22, 2013 DRAFT FINAL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amy Lewin, PE - City of Fort Collins
FROM: Stephanie Sangaline Anzia, PE – Felsburg Holt & Ullevig
SUBJECT: Fort Collins Phase I Quiet Zone Addendum Memo
(Post-2-Way Conversion/Track Rehabilitation Construction)
FHU Reference No. 12-126-01
The following information is provided as an Addendum to the Phase I Quiet Zone Study, dated July
6, 2011, completed for the City of Fort Collins with regard to the BNSF Railway crossings of Mason
Street downtown, and additional BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad crossings of streets
north and east of downtown.
Phase I Study
It should be noted that the recommendations provided in the Phase I Study still apply. Those
recommendations offer Supplemental Safety Measure (SSM) concept options at each of the
crossings. SSM treatments are those that have already been approved by the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), and necessitate only a Notification process with the FRA. These options are
the most costly, but are also the options that provide the City with a permanent Quiet Zone at each
of these crossings.
Purpose of this Addendum
The focus of this addendum is to identify other possible opportunities to achieve silencing of the
train horns, other than treating each crossing with an approved SSM. There are several avenues to
be explored, in particular for the downtown portion of Mason Street, due to the urban environment
and multitude of railroad and traffic warning devices present within this corridor.
The following options have been researched and, where appropriate, discussed with the FRA
Regional Manager for Grade Crossing Safety & Trespass Prevention:
A. Opportunities for Waivers from the FRA Regulations
B. Improvements at College and Cherry
C. Quiet Zone Risk Index Calculator and Level of Crossing Treatment
D. New Technologies – Entertaining being a Test Site City
E. Proposing an Amendment to the Final Rule for nighttime horn use in urban areas
Some options have been vetted with the FRA and final information is provided within this memo.
For those options still being considered by FRA, or still being researched, information is provided
describing the scenario and possible avenues for the City to consider.
Attachment 5
January 22, 2013
Memorandum to Amy Lewin, PE – City of Fort Collins
Page 2
A. Opportunities for Waivers from the FRA Regulations
The term ‘waiver’ is defined within the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the
Interim Final Rule for the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings as: A
temporary or permanent modification of some or all of the requirements of the final rule as
they apply to a specific party under a specific set of facts. Waiver does not refer to the
process of establishing quiet zones or approval of quiet zones in accordance with the
provisions of the rule.
The FEIS indicates that ‘a regulation or specific section of a regulation, while appropriate for
the general regulated community, may be inappropriate when applied to a specific entity.’ It
goes on to say – ‘An extension of time to comply with a regulatory provision may be
needed, or technological advancements may result in a portion of a regulation being
inappropriate in a certain situation. FRA may grant a waiver from its regulations in such
instances.’
In Summary, the waiver process is as follows:
A petition for a waiver is received by FRA;
A notice of the waiver request is published in the Federal Register;
An opportunity for public comment is provided; and
An opportunity for a hearing is afforded the petitioning or other interested party.
In researching the FRA website for examples of successful waivers, two scenarios exist: 1)
waivers have been granted for not installing Constant Warning Time (CWT) circuitry where
it is not practical (i.e., industry/siding tracks that are infrequently used and at low speeds);
and 2) a waiver has been granted for eliminating the non-traversable curb on one side of a
median, such that vehicles stopped on the tracks could drive onto the median in the event
of an approaching train.
For downtown Fort Collins, the FRA was contacted regarding Final Rule Pg. 47637, Section
222.21 (a) which states “Sounding of the locomotive horn with two long blasts, one short
blast and one long blast shall be initiated at a location so as to be in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section and shall be repeated or prolonged until the locomotive
occupies the crossing. This pattern may be varied as necessary where crossings are
spaced closely together.”
The FRA was asked if the train horn pattern through downtown Fort Collins, which can vary
in accordance with the Rule, could be formalized due to the close spacing of the crossings.
The following explanation was provided:
The idea in the regulation of varied pattern language is not to provide less horn sounding.
The regulation will not allow the horn to be sounded less than 15 seconds minimum. The
provision to be able to vary the pattern where crossings are closely spaced is 49 CFR
222.21(a) which recognizes that there are situations in which it may not be feasible to
complete the sounding pattern that is required in this section. This means that a railroad
would still be in compliance with 222.21(a) if the train only was able to provide two long
blasts instead of the required pattern of 2 longs, one short and one long because the
crossings are closely spaced. Section 222.21(a) does not override the requirement to
begin sounding the horn between 15 to 20 seconds prior to the crossing as required in
222.21(a)(2). There are scenarios where engineers will shorten up frequencies to get a
January 22, 2013
Memorandum to Amy Lewin, PE – City of Fort Collins
Page 3
whole sequence in or restart the pattern and not getting done with it as the train is already
occupying the next crossing when crossings are in close proximity.
This is better understood by reviewing attached Exhibit A. Sheet 1 of Exhibit A shows the
distance between each crossing (measured from end of concrete crossing material at one
crossing to end of concrete crossing material at the next crossing) through downtown.
Sheet 2 of Exhibit A shows the length of time the train horn needs to be sounded by a train
moving at 20 MPH, in order to provide a minimum of 15 seconds of warning and a
maximum of 20 seconds of warning.
For example, the distance the train horn needs to be blown by a 20 MPH train to provide 15
seconds of warning is 440 feet in advance of the crossing. The distance between the
crossing material at Magnolia and the crossing material at Olive is 390 feet. So in order to
provide the required 15 seconds of warning at Olive, a northbound train moving at 20 MPH
would need to begin sounding the horn while still occupying the Magnolia crossing, and
seemingly, still in the final stages of the horn pattern for the Magnolia crossing.
There is no language in the FRA Rule that allows for a variance from the minimum 15
seconds of warning in advance of a crossing, even if the previous crossing is so close the
train horn patterns are overlapping.
B. Improvements at College and Cherry
There are two existing crossings of the BNSF Railway on the north end of downtown that
already have the majority of the necessary equipment for Quiet Zone establishment using a
standard SSM installation, and only need minimal extra work. The two crossings are at
College and at Cherry. Both crossings have all of the railroad equipment already in place.
However both also have one commercial access within 60 feet of the gate arm that needs
to be relocated or closed, and both need medians extended. The concept improvement
figures for these crossings from the Phase I Report are included in Exhibit C.
In discussing this possibility of completing the necessary access and median work at these
crossings, and pursuing Quiet Zones at these two crossings, the issue of distance between
the crossings came up. Typically in areas where crossings are not closely spaced,
achieving ¼ mile of track distance in advance of an at-grade crossing is more realistic.
However, this is not the case through downtown Fort Collins.
The issue of the close spacing of the crossings would cause the locomotive engineer of a
southbound train to violate the Quiet Zone at the Cherry Street crossing every time as it
approaches Maple. The minimum distance for 15 seconds of warning is 440 feet, and the
distance between Cherry and Maple is 425 feet. Therefore the train horn would need to
begin sounding within the last 15 feet of the Cherry Street crossing, on its approach to
Maple. This known and expected violation is not acceptable practice for either the FRA or
the railroad, even though the crossings at Cherry and College would truly be silent for
northbound trains, once past Maple.
The conclusion of this discussion is that it would not be cost effective for the City to
complete the additional access and median improvements at Cherry and College for pursuit
of a Quiet Zone specifically at these two crossings. This would not likely be accepted by
FRA. However, in the next section through discussion of the Quiet Zone Risk Index
calculation, the improvements at Cherry and College would be a major contributing factor to
January 22, 2013
Memorandum to Amy Lewin, PE – City of Fort Collins
Page 4
reducing the overall risk through all of downtown when assessed as part of the downtown
corridor.
C. Quiet Zone Risk Index Calculator and Level of Crossing Treatment
The FRA Final Rule does provide alternatives to installing SSMs at every public road
crossing within a proposed quiet zone. One possible alternative involves calculating the risk
index along the proposed corridor, with the crossing warning devices present today. The
existing condition risk index is then compared to the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
(NSRT), which represents the average risk at public highway-rail crossings nationwide that
have flashing lights and gates, and at which locomotive horns are sounded. If the risk of the
proposed quiet zone corridor is higher than the NSRT, additional SSMs must be
implemented in an attempt to bring the risk number down below the nationwide threshold.
This is a trial and error process in which, for example, 4-quadrant gates might be added at
2 of the crossings, and the risk with those added features is calculated. The resulting risk
number is again compared to the NSRT, and if it is still higher than the NSRT, more SSMs
must be added, and so on until the calculated risk along the proposed quiet zone corridor is
below the NSRT.
The downside of this option is that over time, as public highway-rail grade crossings
nationwide become safer, and the NSRT continues to drop, eventually the calculated risk
for the proposed quiet zone may exceed the NSRT. At this point the community would need
to reassess the quiet zone risk calculator and add additional treatments until the risk index
is once again below the NSRT.
SSMs and Risk Indices for Scenarios in Fort Collins
The following table summarizes several possible scenarios and the resulting Risk Index
calculations for the crossings along the BNSF Railway corridor through downtown Fort
Collins, beginning with College Avenue on the north, and ending with Laurel Street on the
south. The calculation worksheets from the FRA website are included in Exhibit B. Notes to
be considered with regard to these findings follow the table.
Crossing
Conditions
Description Quiet
Zone
Risk
Index
Nationwide
Significant
Risk Threshold
(NSRT)
Current existing
conditions
College, Cherry (gates/flashers/bells/CWT) 24,504
(est.)
13,722
Maple, Laporte, Mountain, Oak, Olive,
Mulberry, Laurel (post mounted
flashers/bells on each quadrant of each
intersection)
Magnolia, Myrtle
(cross bucks on each cross street
approach)
Added 4-
quadrant gates
to Laurel and
Mulberry
All other crossings remain the same. At
Laurel and Mulberry, post mounted flashers
would be removed and 4-quadrant gates
would be installed in line with the median
January 22, 2013
Memorandum to Amy Lewin, PE – City of Fort Collins
Page 5
Crossing
Conditions
Description Quiet
Zone
Risk
Index
Nationwide
Significant
Risk Threshold
(NSRT)
Added 4-
quadrant gates
to Laurel,
Mulberry and
Maple
All of other crossings remain the same. At
Laurel, Mulberry, and Maple, post mounted
flashers would be removed and 4-quadrant
gates would be installed in line with the
median curb on each side of the tracks
15,714.38
(too high)
13,722
Added 4-
quadrant gates
to Laurel,
Mulberry, Olive
and Mountain
All of other crossings remain the same. At
Laurel, Mulberry, Olive and Mountain, post
mounted flashers would be removed and 4-
quadrant gates would be installed in line
with the median curb on each side of the
tracks
13,578.57
<NSRT
13,722
NOTES:
1. The College Avenue crossing and the Cherry Street crossing have the benefit of
being nearly Quiet Zone compliant today. Including them in the risk calculation for
the corridor improves the overall risk index.
2. The Quiet Zone Calculator program on the FRA Website is a bit antiquated. It does
not allow credit to be given for unusual warning installations, such as post-mounted
flashers on all four quadrants of a crossing/intersection.
2. The Quiet Zone Calculator program does not have a way to account for crossings
where vehicular traffic is also controlled by traffic signals. This should have a safety
benefit, as vehicular traffic will be stopped at red traffic signals at all of the active
warning crossings upon notification of a train approaching.
In order to use the Quiet Zone Risk Calculator in a way that may better reflect the actual
conditions of the crossings in downtown Fort Collins along Mason Street, a conversation
with the FRA has been initiated including the following questions:
1. Is there a way to use the Quiet Zone Risk Calculator in a way that may better reflect the
actual conditions of the crossings in downtown Fort Collins along Mason Street?
2. Has anyone at FRA provided assistance with input data to the Calculator program to
provide some credit for traffic signals or post flashers at a crossing or range of
crossings?
3. Has anyone proposed (or could Fort Collins propose) a methodology for supplementing
January 22, 2013
Memorandum to Amy Lewin, PE – City of Fort Collins
Page 6
Visual Impacts
Currently, the active warning crossings through downtown are treated with post-mounted
flashers on each quadrant of each intersection. Each post has a set of flashers facing in
each direction, for a total of 16 flashing lights per post (8 flashing pairs).
To evaluate the visual impact of installing 4-quadrant gates along the track envelope at
some of the crossings, a Photoshop rendering was created. For comparison, the views of
two active warning crossings at Olive and Mulberry, are provided as they appear today.
Directly below each existing approach view, is the Photoshopped view with the post-
mounted flashers removed, and the 4-quadrant gates installed. These comparison views
are provided in Figures A and B on the following pages. Plan view concepts are included in
Exhibit C (attached).
Visually, the amount of equipment is not more than what exists today. The equipment is in a
different location, but given the amount of vehicular warning devices, signs, and mature
landscaping, the replacement of the post-mounted flashers with the gates does not appear
any more obtrusive than the equipment that exists currently.
D. New Technologies – Entertaining being a Test Site City
The Final Rule provides instruction regarding the manner in which the Associate
Administrator of the FRA might entertain new Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs) or
Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) that are not currently listed within the Final Rule. The
specific language from the Final Rule regarding this process is included in Exhibit D.
Generally, the device or technology would need to be tested and determined, by the
Associate Administrator, to be an effective substitute for the locomotive horn in the
prevention of collisions and casualties at public highway-rail grade crossings. The pursuit of
this type of proposal would involve finding a manufacturer that has developed a product for
this specific use, negotiating cost for installation and testing, and compiling the appropriate
application to the FRA for consideration.
Some options that have been discussed historically, but have not been pursued for
approval by the FRA include retractable bollards and in-line security gates. While either of
these options would have a smaller footprint of space needed for installation and operation,
there are risks of damage by and to vehicles and the potential for the mechanism to be
pushed onto the tracks into the path of an oncoming train by an errant vehicle.
Retractable bollards were installed at a railroad crossing in Wayne County, Michigan in
December 2007 for a 17-month testing and monitoring period until the Spring of 2009. The
results of that testing period are not readily available. This installation in Michigan was not
for the purpose of Quiet Zone establishment, but rather to deter vehicles from driving
around the railroad gates. Information regarding the Michigan study as well as photos of the
bollard installation is provided in Exhibit D.
Test Site City
With the completion of the track rehabilitation project through downtown Fort Collins, the
existing BNSF Railway tracks are no longer in pavement and accessible to vehicles for the
entire length of Mason Street. Raised curb and gutter encloses the ballast section
surrounding the tracks in between each cross street. This infrastructure improvement not
only isolated the tracks from vehicles within each block, it allowed for railroad and City
installed warning devices (post-mounted flashers, signing, traffic signals) to be added or
January 22, 2013
Memorandum to Amy Lewin, PE – City of Fort Collins
Page 7
Figure A. Mulberry Street at Mason/BNSF
Existing View with Post Mounted Flashers on each corner
Proposed View with 4-Quadrant Gates along track envelope
January 22, 2013
Memorandum to Amy Lewin, PE – City of Fort Collins
Page 8
Figure B. Olive Street at Mason/BNSF
Existing View with Post Mounted Flashers on each corner
Proposed View with 4-Quadrant Gates along track envelope
January 22, 2013
Memorandum to Amy Lewin, PE – City of Fort Collins
Page 9
reconfigured at the specific cross streets to restrict vehicular movement during approach of
a train.
The remaining limited available street area through downtown Fort Collins provides
challenges to the City for pursuit of a Quiet Zone. In addition to the crossings being closely
spaced, existing development along the corridor edges does not allow for roadway
widening to accommodate additional railroad equipment within the street envelope to truly
isolate the track corridor during presence of a train. It is due to these factors that Fort
Collins may be a good test site for installation and monitoring of the retractable bollards
specifically for pursuit of a Quiet Zone.
In this instance the bollards would be installed in line with the curb on each side of the
tracks across a test crossing downtown. The bollards could be interconnected to the traffic
signal cabinet, and receive its activation signal in logical coordination following the
clearance cycle of the traffic signal. This type of new technology testing could be offered as
a research project to the Engineering Department of CSU, as their involvement would
provide analysis and monitoring by an independent third party, as well as may offer the
opportunity for the university to pursue grant funding for the research project. The results
would be unbiased and the resulting report could be used in support of the City’s pursuit of
a Quiet Zone downtown.
Note that the retractable bollards tested in Michigan were installed in addition to approach
railroad gates, flashers and crossbucks. The FRA’s acceptance of the retractable bollard
may include requirements for some level of immediately adjacent railroad equipment.
However, the testing of a site in downtown Fort Collins would include documentation of the
existing post-mounted flashers and traffic signal restrictions, that may, in combination with
the bollards, be an acceptable Quiet Zone treatment to FRA.
E. Proposing an Amendment to the Final Rule for nighttime horn use in urban areas
Periodically, the FRA will provide notification in the Federal Register inviting comment with
regard to specific activities or rules. The ‘rulemaking’ process can lead to the issuance of a
new rule, an amendment to an existing rule, or the repeal of an existing rule. It would be
through this process that the City could propose an amendment to the Final Rule with
regard to nighttime horn use in urban areas.
There are several steps in this process including a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), a comment period, evaluations (such as environmental or economic), possibly
interim rules, and in most cases a Final Rule is issued.
The Federal Docket Management System is available to the public and is the complete,
official record of rulemakings, guidance documents, adjudicatory actions, peer reviews,
data quality and other documents. This government-wide, on-line database includes the US
Department of Transportation's (DOT) public docket.
The rulemaking docket is the file in which DOT places all of the rulemaking documents it
issues (e.g., the NPRM, hearing notices, extensions of comment periods, and final rules),
supporting documents that it prepares (e.g., economic and environmental analyses),
studies that it relies on that are not readily available to the public, all public comments
related to the rulemaking (e.g., comments that may be received in anticipation of the
rulemaking, comments received during the comment period, and late-filed comments), and
other related documents. The DOT also prepares and places in the docket, summaries of
January 22, 2013
Memorandum to Amy Lewin, PE – City of Fort Collins
Page 10
any substantive, public, oral communications (sometimes referred to as "ex parte" contacts)
that concern a rulemaking that the FRA/DOT may receive.
Currently, the FRA does not have any Notices of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the Train
Horn Rule that would be appropriate for comment regarding an amendment to the rule.
Possible Courses of Action
1. Continue discussions with the FRA regarding working with the Risk Calculator to better
reflect the crossing warning devices present today which would decrease the resulting risk
index for the corridor, and which may reduce the improvements needed.
2. Consider a downtown crossing to serve as a test site for installation of a new technology,
such as the retractable bollards, and engage in discussion with the FRA regarding tasks
and timeline for this process.
3. Continue to monitor the FRA website for notices of rulemaking that may provide an
opportunity for comment regarding horn use at among close proximity crossings or horn
use during nighttime hours.
Attachments
Exhibit A
Distance Between Crossings Exhibit
Current Approximate Train Horn Distance Exhibit
Exhibit B
Quiet Zone Calculator Results Spreadsheet
Exhibit C
Phase I Concept Views: College, Cherry
Phase I Concept Views: Mulberry, Olive
Mason 2-Way Conversion Exhibit
Exhibit D
Final Rule, Part 222.55 – Approval of New SSMs or ASMs
Examples: Retractable Bollards, In-Line Security Gates
Exhibit A
Distance Between Crossings Exhibit
Current Approximate Train Horn Distance Exhibit
EXHIBIT A
2400’
450’
425’
540’
570’
390’
380’
390’
350’
Myrtle Street
Laurel Street
390’
630’
Fort Collins, CO
BNSF Crossings: Linden to Laurel
Distance Between Crossings Exhibit
NOTE: Distances are from end of crossing
material to end of crossing material
between each crossing.
January 22, 2013
EXHIBIT A
Myrtle Street
Laurel Street
Fort Collins, CO
BNSF Crossings: Linden to Laurel
Current Approximate Train Horn Distance
Exhibit
NOTE: Distances are measured in advance of
the end of crossing material of the crossing
being approached.
January 22, 2013
20
15
Legend:
587 ft in advance of
crossing; this is the location at
which trains must begin sounding
their horns for 20 seconds of
warning when approaching a
crossing at a speed of 20 MPH
440 ft in advance of
crossing; this is the location at
which trains must begin sounding
their horns for 15 seconds of
warning when approaching a
crossing at a speed of 20 MPH
FOR INFORMATION AND REVIEW ONLY
Exhibit B
Quiet Zone Calculator Results Spreadsheet
Exhibit C
Phase I Concept Views: College, Cherry
Phase I Concept Views: Mulberry, Olive
Mason 2-Way Conversion Exhibit
Exhibit D
Final Rule, Part 222.55 – Approval of New SSMs or ASMs
Examples: Retractable Bollards, In-Line Security Gates
1/4/2013
1
MICHIGAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SUMMIT
RAIL CROSSING SAFETY
Wayne County, Michigan
www.nationalssc.com www.ibarrier.com
1/4/2013
2
Model 100
Delineator
• Developed as a safe and easy way to redirect traffic
• Fl Flexible, ibl highly hi hl durable dbllitti polymeric construction
material withstands repeated vehicle impacts
• Self‐contained, recessed cartridge can be raised or
lowered
• Patented smooth bore shaft drive system protects
motor f from i impact damage d during di operation i
• Integrated bilge pump, sealed motor housing, and
optional rubber encapsulated heaters provide
environmental protection in extreme climates
DENTON ROAD TEST
1/4/2013
3
Denton Road Layout
Denton Road
Installation
1/4/2013
4
Denton Road
Installation
Denton Road
Installation
1/4/2013
5
Denton Road
Installation
Itsdelineator™
Model 100-Flexible
Security Barrier
Model 300
Security Barrier
Model 400
INTELLIGENT PERIMETER SYSTEMS
www.ibarrier.com
Traffic Control Medium Security High Security
Government Certified
US/UK
K12/PAS68
1
Railroad Quiet Zone Study
City Council Work Session
January 22, 2013
Transportation Planning
ATTACHMENT 6
2
BACKGROUND
• Train horn use governed by Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) – “Final Rule”
• FRA regulates implementation of Quiet Zones as
alternative
• Quiet Zones:
– Crossings at which locomotive horn not
routinely sounded
– Typically established with Supplemental Safety
Measures (SSMs)
– Must be at least ½ mile long
3
EXAMPLES OF QUIET ZONE SSMs
Raised Medians with Approach Gates
4
EXAMPLES OF QUIET ZONE SSMs
Four-Quadrant Gates
5
OTHER QUIET ZONE SSM OPTIONS
Crossing Closure
6
OTHER QUIET ZONE SSM OPTIONS
Wayside Horn
• Replaces locomotive horn from
train with locomotive horn on
post
• Reduces impact of noise away
from crossing
7
RAILROAD QUIET ZONE STUDY
• Railroad Issues Study Group (2007)
recommended
• BNSF line from Downtown to Trilby Road (~15
trains per day)
• Technical analysis
– Phase 1 Downtown (July 2011)
– Phase 2 CSU to Trilby (draft)
• Implementation plan (if desired)
8
FEEDBACK SOUGHT FROM COUNCIL
1. Guidance on the possible courses of action:
– Move towards implementation?
– Add/remove options?
2. Additional information that City Council would like
to see?
9
STUDY AREA
TRILBY
DOWNTOWN
STAND-ALONE
QUIET ZONES
CSU
COLLEGE
PROSPECT
DRAKE
NOT TO SCALE
10
STAND-ALONE CROSSINGS:
DRAKE TO TRILBY
• Could be implemented
individually or as a
group
• Many crossings
receiving
improvements with
MAX
• Fairly streamlined
implementation
DRAKE RD
HORSETOOTH RD
HARMONY RD
TRILBY RD
SWALLOW RD
NOT TO SCALE
RAILROAD
11
STAND-ALONE CROSSING OPTIONS
AND CONCEPTUAL COSTS
Crossing Options Cost Range
Drake - Wayside Horns
- Four-Quadrant Gates
$160,000 to $390,000
Swallow - Raised Medians
- Four-Quadrant Gates
$60,000 to $260,000
Horsetooth - Raised Median/Wayside Horn
- Wayside Horns
- Raised Median/Exit Gate
- Four-Quadrant Gates
$135,000 to $260,000
Harmony - Raised Median/Wayside Horn
- Raised Median/Exit Gate
- Four-Quadrant Gates
$145,000 to $260,000
Trilby - Wayside Horns
- Raised Median/Approach Gates
- Four-Quadrant Gates
$200,000 to $415,000
TOTAL $700,000 to $1,585,000
12
OTHER CROSSINGS:
COLLEGE TO PROSPECT
• Includes 16 roadway crossings, 2 pedestrian
crossings
• CSU and City jurisdiction
• Standard SSM implementation:
– Downtown: $3.2 - $3.5 million
– CSU: $1.1 - $1.4 million
13
FUNDING
• Total cost of standard SSM implementation:
$5 - $6.5 million
• No funding source identified
• Some potential options:
– Safety programs
– Local General Fund
– Transportation Fund
– Sales tax revenue
14
OTHER OPTIONS EXPLORED
•Waivers
• College and Cherry Improvements
• Corridor Solutions below Nationwide Significant
Risk Threshold (NSRT)
• Test Site for New Technology
• FRA Final Rule Amendment
15
WAIVERS
• Successful waivers on record:
– Exemption from circuitry
– Exception to median design
• FRA response to customize our train horn pattern:
not viable
16
COLLEGE AND CHERRY
IMPROVEMENTS
• College and Cherry very close to Quiet Zone
compliance
• Maple too close for southbound train to not blow
horn
• FRA not likely to approve Quiet Zone
17
CORRIDOR SOLUTIONS BELOW
NATIONAL THRESHOLD
• Reduces level of investment needed
• Calculated corridor risk must be lower than
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold
• Requires monitoring, reporting, and potential
additional improvements so corridor risk stays
below updated threshold
• Current FRA Calculator doesn’t give credit for
improvements Downtown
• In discussions with FRA about updates
18
NEW TECHNOLOGY
• Retractable bollards
• Tested in Michigan for safety
• Would work with manufacturer
• Need to get FRA approval
19
FRA “FINAL RULE” AMENDMENT
• FRA doesn’t accept unsolicited comments
• Current comment period not applicable
• 2013 may have comment period we can use
20
POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION
• Pursue one or more stand-alone crossing Quiet
Zones
• Pursue grouped/corridor crossing Quiet Zones
• Continue discussions with FRA about Risk
Calculator
• Pursue being a test site for new technology
• Continue to monitor FRA website for opportunities
to comment on “Final Rule”
21
NEXT STEPS
• Finalize Phase 2 Technical Report – January
2013
• If Council/community support:
– Draft Implementation Plan – Spring 2013
22
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Project Website:
fcgov.com/quietzone
Contact: Amy Lewin
alewin@fcgov.com
or
(970) 416-2040
the results of the Quiet Zone Risk Calculator with hand calculations/modeling results for
‘special circumstances’ in order to gain additional credit in the form of points toward
reducing the final risk number and better reflecting actual conditions?
4. Is the Risk Calculator software being considered for upgrade or additional modules that
would allow for additional manual information to be input providing credit for features
the program is not currently equipped to assess?
The responses to these questions are being considered by the FRA at the time of this
writing, and will be shared with the City upon receipt from FRA. If it is possible to accurately
assess the risk through downtown with representation of the existing warning devices, the
result may be a lower current calculated risk index, which would then require less additional
equipment installation in order to reduce the risk below the NSRT.
curb on each side of the tracks
17,391.53
(too high)
13,722