HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 08/11/2015 - DRAFT 2015 RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR THE RIVERSIDATE:
STAFF:
August 11, 2015
Erika Keeton, Special Project Engineer
Rick Richter, Director of Infrastructure Services
Dan Coldiron, Chief Information Officer
Dan Weinheimer, Policy & Project Manager
Joe Olson, City Traffic Engineer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Draft 2015 Railroad Crossing Study for the Riverside Corridor.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to discuss and receive Council feedback on the draft report from the 2015 Railroad
Crossing Study for the Riverside Corridor (Union Pacific and Great Western Railway) which identifies potential
solutions to vehicular traffic congestion due to train switching activities. Council will also receive an update on the
City’s Quiet Zone waiver request of the Federal Rail Administration (FRA), the City’s OpenCity (Hackathon for
train-related app) event in which software developers collaborate on ways to utilize City traffic data to avoid train
caused delays and congestion, and information about the Greeley Connection railroad capital improvement
project in Greeley and LaSalle that may affect switching activities in Fort Collins.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have questions about the Draft 2015 Railroad Crossing Study findings and potential solution
strategies?
2. As the draft study report is finalized, are there other areas of concern where staff should focus?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The length of time railroad crossings are blocked in the Riverside Corridor due to train switching activities has
increased significantly in recent years. Council approved funding for a railroad study in the 2015 budget to identify
potential solutions to vehicular traffic congestion due to train switching activities.
The primary objective of the Railroad Crossing Study for the Riverside Corridor is to identify near and long term
improvements or solutions that may exist to address train and traffic operations at the Mulberry Street, Lemay
Avenue and Prospect Road railroad crossings along the Riverside Corridor. The draft study provides the
following:
Understanding of railroad operations along the corridor
Potential use of variable message boards to reroute motorists around a conflict
Evaluation of the Greeley Connection railroad capital improvement project, a joint undertaking of the
Union Pacific (UP) and the Great Western Railway (GWR), that should improve significantly motor vehicle
/railroad conflicts in Fort Collins
Conceptual level, potential rail and street near and long term infrastructure improvements and other
potential railroad operation solutions
Possible Railroad Operation solutions include:
Near Term (1-2 years)
Move switching from Riverside to North Yard
Seek more accurate blocking of GWR Interchange cars by UP
August 11, 2015 Page 2
Shift time of day that interchange and switching are performed
Encourage adherence to ten minute maximum crossing blockage when switching
Improve Railroad relationships
Long Term (5-20 years)
Greeley Connection Project
Railroad Interchange/Switching Yard Relocation
Possible City infrastructure solutions include:
Near Term (1-2 years)
Traffic signal operational improvements
Variable message signs
Long Term (5-20 years)
Grade separation improvement
In the near term, the study recommends the City should seek to maintain a closer relationship with UP and GWR,
and appoint a “point person” responsible for those relationships who should attempt to maintain a proactive,
friendly relationship with the railroads. This person should share the City’s concerns and work with the railroads
as partners, rather than antagonists, in seeking solutions to delay problems and other issues that may arise. It
suggests the City continue to collect, analyze and archive traffic preemption data like that presented in this report,
and proceed with plans to implement improved clearing of traffic once trains clear a crossing; an initiative of the
Fort Collins Traffic Department. The City should also proceed with planning a Phase 1 Variable Message Sign
pilot installation as proof-of-concept at the Lemay Avenue/Prospect Road intersection.
In the medium to longer term, and assuming completion and implementation of the Greeley Connection, the study
recommends a wait-and-see approach regarding major capital investments such as grade crossing separation
along the Riverside Corridor or funding the construction of a new switching yard. The completion of the
connection should result in a reduction in rail-caused delays along the Riverside Corridor. If the Greeley
Connection is delayed or expected reductions in delays don’t occur, the study recommends the City keep its
options open with respect to grade separation or switching yard relocation by limiting development and
purchasing additional land for future switching yard relocation.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Railroad Crossing Study DRAFT Report, July 30, 2015 (PDF)
2. Railroad Study Area Map (PDF)
3. UP-GWR Greeley Connection LaSalle Expansion (PDF)
4. Powerpoint Presentation (PPTX)
DRAFT REPORT
RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR STUDY
JULY 30, 2015
ATTACHMENT 1
PREPARED BY:
IN ASSOCIATION WITH:
Great Western Railroad and Union Pacific Railroad trains meet at Lemay Avenue in February 2015.
A Great Western Railroad train blocks the crossing at Lincoln Street while switching out a train in February 2015.
A recent picture of severe backup on South Lemay Avenue caused by train activity and switching in the region.
IMAGES ON THE COVER
DRAFT REPORT
RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR STUDY
R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc.
ECONOMICS | ENGINEERING | SERVICE PLANNING
JULY 24, 2015
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE iii DRAFT FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................. 1
TRAFFIC IMPACTS .................................................................................................1
STUDY GOALS .......................................................................................................2
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................2
EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 3
FORT COLLINS RAILROADS AND RAIL OPERATIONS ..............................................3
KEY ELEMENTS OF RAIL-CAUSED DELAYS ..............................................................5
UP OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................5
GWR OPERATIONS.................................................................................................6
RAILROAD RULES GOVERNING THE BLOCKING OF CROSSINGS ..............................7
INSIGHTS ..............................................................................................................8
MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM ..............................................................................9
RESIDENT COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES AND WEB SURVEY ................................ 14
TRAFFIC IMPACTS WHEN LENGTHY BLOCKAGES OCCUR ...................................... 15
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS .................................................................. 23
SEEK RAILROAD OPERATIONAL CHANGES IN FORT COLLINS ............................... 23
TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS BEING CONSIDERED ................ 24
VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS ................................................................................. 25
POTENTIAL GRADE-SEPARATION IMPROVEMENTS .............................................. 27
GREELEY CONNECTION PROJECT ........................................................................ 30
RAILROAD INTERCHANGE / SWITCHING YARD RELOCATION ................................ 31
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 36
DEFINITIONS .................................................................................. 38
APPENDICES
A. SURVEY FORM AND RESULTS .......................................................................... 39
B. POTENTIAL GRADE SEPARATION COST ESTIMATE ............................................ 48
C. POTENTIAL INTERCHANGE YARD COST ESTIMATES .......................................... 50
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 1 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS
Fort Collins residents and visitors often encounter frustrating motor vehicle delays resulting from train operations
on the tracks paralleling Riverside Avenue, particularly at Prospect Road, Lemay Avenue and Mulberry
Street (hereinafter the Riverside Corridor). The City of Fort Collins is well aware of the Riverside Corridor
problems. The situation was addressed in the Rail Issues Study Group Report of 2007, which demonstrated clear
understanding of the issue and documented one change made regarding blocking (sequencing of cars) in Union
Pacific (UP) trains. The City Traffic Department regularly monitors railroad crossing blockage. Earlier this year,
the City evaluated the enforceability of certain, current ordinances regulating railroad activities and concluded
that there are significant barriers to enforcement of local regulations of railroad traffic stemming from Federal
regulation of railroads. Most recently, the City commissioned this investigation by R.L. Bank s & Associates, Inc.
(RLBA) and subcontractor, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) (the Project Team), of what railroad activities cause the
delays and what feasible near and long term improvements or solutions may exist. The Project Team acknowledges
valuable and timely assistance from City staff.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
UP and Great Western Railway (GWR) tracks in the Riverside Corridor intersect three major arterial streets:
at Prospect Road, Lemay Avenue and Mulberry Street. All three streets are important parts of the City’s street
network. Recent traffic counts indicate Prospect Road hosted 31,000 vehicles per day (vpd), Mulberry Street
29,000 vpd and Lemay Avenue 24,000 vpd. Since 2007, motorists on these three streets have experienced a perfect
storm of increased traffic and increased duration of delays caused by rail activity. Data incorporating a three-
month period of 2014 included 139 rail-caused delays at Lemay Avenue over ten minutes including 26 over 30
minutes. The primary causes of delays are addressed explicitly in a separate section a few pages below.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 2 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
City residents are understandably upset about train delays and other railroad matters. The Project Team reviewed
complaints and inquiries recorded by the City. In addition, a web survey made available to citizens during the
Study drew over 5,000 responses.
Some resident quotes were:
t “I believe the train traffic and vehicle congestion on Lemay Avenue between Riverside and Vine has
reached a fever pitch. Mobility in the region has come to a standstill. While this is inconvenient and
causes temporary disruption, long term I now believe is stifling economic opportunities, day to day
commerce and property values in these areas.”
t I am once again waiting at Lemay and Riverside with my car turned off while a train moves backwards and
forwards, backwards and forwards. I have been here for 12 minutes as I write.”
t I was 40 minutes late for work this morning…”
STUDY GOALS
The City and the Project Team agreed that the study would:
t Provide near-term understanding of railroad operations which impact street traffic along the Riverside
Corridor;
t Identify near-term actions railroads could take if willing to improve the situation;
t Use city traffic data and minimize costly collection of new data;
t Focus on variable message boards or advanced warning systems to reroute motorists around a conflict;
t Evaluate the proposed Greeley Connection project and
t Consider at a conceptual level rail and street infrastructure projects including rail yard relocation that
could be evaluated in the future should other actions including the Greeley Connection not bring relief to
railroad-caused delay problems.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The Project Team recommendations are summarized here and presented in more detail at the end of this report.
In the short term:
t Pursue a closer, constructive relationship with the railroads with respect to Riverside Corridor delays and
other matters;
t Continue to collect, analyze and archive traffic preemption data like that presented in this report;
t Continue a Traffic Department plan to develop expedited means of clearing traffic once trains depart and
t Develop a pilot Variable Message Sign (VMS) program.
In the medium to longer term, defer pending completion of the Greeley Connection but maintain as future options
major capital investments such as Riverside corridor grade separations and funding the construction of a new
switching yard.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 3 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
EXISTING CONDITIONS
FORT COLLINS RAILROADS AND RAIL OPERATIONS
Fort Collins is served by three railroads: BNSF Railway, UP and GWR. BNSF operates the most trains, including
through trains between Denver and Cheyenne on the Mason Street corridor. Many BNSF trains pass through
the city without stopping but others stop at North Yard along Vine Drive to interchange cars and occasionally
exchange entire trains of sand, oil or wind turbine blades with GWR. BNSF and GWR activities at North Yard do
not directly affect the Riverside Corridor and are outside the study area and scope and therefore are not discussed
in following sections.
Fort Collins is the north end of the former BNSF Greeley Branch now operated by GWR which extends between
Fort Collins and GWR’s operational hub in Windsor. The City also is the norths end of UP’s Fort Collins
Subdivision which extends between the UP main line at LaSalle and the Holcim Cement facility north of Fort
Collins. GWR and UP connect in Fort Collins just south of Lemay Avenue. The interchange and switching
activities at and near that location and the resultant delays to vehicle traffic are the subject of this study.
Understanding rail operations in Fort Collins is enhanced by an understanding of UP and GWR trackage in the
area.
MAP 1
GREELEY & LA SALLE AREA RAIL NETWORK
Source: Union Pacific
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 4 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Map 1 was distributed by UP at a meeting with the City in April. It depicts the relevant UP and GWR rail lines and
shows key features including:
t The Fort Collins UP-GWR interchange;
t Great Western Industrial Park near Windsor where much of GWR’s traffic originates or terminates;
t La Salle, a UP yard where the UP local train serving Fort Collins is built from cars brought by trains from
Cheyenne and North Platte and
t The new Greeley Connection site, which will be discussed in detail later in this report.
Rail traffic handled on the Riverside corridor consists largely of:
1. Cars being interchanged between UP and GWR, consisting of Anheuser Busch traffic and cars to/from
Windsor and other GWR customers and
2. Cars being exchanged between GWR crews working out of the BNSF North Yard along Vine Drive and
GWR crews based in Windsor. This is mostly traffic:
a) delivered to GWR by BNSF at North Yard and destined for Windsor or other GWR customers and
the corresponding returning cars and
b) Windsor-based traffic delivered by UP along Riverside, switched by GWR along Riverside and
forwarded by (usually) another GWR crew to Windsor.
MAP 2
RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR TRACKS
Source: RLBA
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 5 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
KEY ELEMENTS OF RAIL-CAUSED DELAYS
Based on discussions with GWR and UP, this Project Team concludes that the primary causes of delay, in order of
longest to shortest typical delay, are as follows:
1. Assembling oil or other unit trains by either UP or GWR. When a step on/step off handoff of a unit train
is not made, unit trains usually must be split into two pieces because such trains usually do not fit between
Lemay Avenue and Prospect Road. The trains must be recoupled, continuity established between head
and rear locomotives and a brake test performed. Once the two parts of the train are reassembled, Lemay
Avenue typically is blocked until the air brake test is complete and the train can proceed south;
2. Switching at Lemay Avenue. GWR switches cars received from UP to separate Windsor cars from Fort
Collins cars. While this process does not require constant blockage of Lemay, it can go on for long periods
creating lengthy interference;
3. Switching at Riverside. UP switches and assembles its outbound train at Prospect Road.
4. Conducting a step on/step off handoff from one railroad to the other of a unit train. Because these trains
typically do not fit between Lemay Avenue and Prospect Road, crossing blockage occurs even when the
exchange is expeditiously conducted and
5. Interchanging blocks of cars between GWR and UP without switching individual cars. This causes
relatively short blockages at Lemay Avenue.
UP OPERATIONS
Cheyenne and North Platte both dispatch trains to LaSalle, arriving at night. Both trains contain cars blocked
(grouped) as GWR-Fort Collins and GWR-Windsor. But there are also cars with a classification of GWR where
Fort Collins or Windsor is not known. Accuracy of the blocks may be less than optimal based upon conversation
and observation. UP may have further comment on the blocking issue.
The Fort Collins local with a three person crew reports 6:30 AM Monday through Friday at LaSalle, although
occasional extra trains may be called. The local uses locomotives stationed at LaSalle. The crew gathers its cars
(recently in the range of 20 to 30 cars) and departs, with a general plan is to arrive in Fort Collins around 10:30 to
11:30 am.
The UP local sets off1 cars for GWR in the UP Passing Siding “UP Pass” on Map 2). (GWR already may have
placed some cars for UP on the south end of the UP Pass.) The UP local then proceeds north into the city to serve
Holcim Cement (Tuesday and Thursday at present) or to have lunch. GWR usually comes from North Yard during
that time and may bring additional cars for UP. GWR then picks up the inbound cars from UP and switches out
the Windsor cars from the Fort Collins cars. Windsor cars may be left on GWR’s Greeley Branch or, if the UP local
has made it past the GWR switching at Lemay Avenue en route to Prospect, GWR also might leave the Windsor –
bound cars on a UP track. When a clear UP track is available, the UP locomotives proceed to Prospect Road and
couple to the south end of the outbound UP cars at Prospect Road, the crew performs an air brake test and the
train departs. UP tries to depart Fort Collins by 3:00 pm.
1 - Definitions of railroad terms are found in the final section of this report.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 6 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
In addition to the regular and extra crews handling mixed freight, UP interchanges solid-commodity unit trains
with GWR, including oil, frac sand, wind turbine blades and grain. While standard procedure is that oil trains
are interchanged at Fort Collins and all others are interchanged at Milliken, a temporary bridge outage on GWR
(detailed subsequently) is causing all unit trains to be interchanged at Fort Collins. Unit trains are interchanged at
the same connection south of Lemay Avenue used by UP and GWR to exchange manifest traffic.
UP and GWR try to exchange unit trains at night to minimize interference with vehicle traffic and with the
daytime manifest interchange activities. GWR has a crew that reports at Windsor at 7:00 pm that brings unit trains
to Fort Collins and UP meets them there, or vice-versa. Ideally, UP and GWR crews are coordinated so that one
crew can step on and the other step off, minimizing delays to all concerned. The locomotives remain attached and
no air brake test is needed in that case.
However, at times, the crew of the receiving railroad is not yet in place when the train reaches Lemay Avenue.
Because unit trains are too long to fit in between the crossings at Lemay Avenue and Prospect Road, if the
receiving crew is not in place the train must be cut (uncoupled) into two parts and left standing on both sides of
Lemay Avenue or placed onto the UP Main and UP Pass tracks. When the receiving crew arrives, the train must
be reassembled (blocking Lemay Avenue) and an air brake test must be conducted. The resulting delays to traffic
on Lemay Avenue can be extensive.
GWR OPERATIONS
GWR, which is based in Loveland, Colorado, is a subsidiary of OmniTRAX, which is an affiliate of The Broe
Group, a Denver-based, a private investment and management company with interests in transportation, real estate
and energy. GWR bases one daily crew (the “103 crew”) at North Yard seven days per week with the primary
duties of shuttling railcars to the Anheuser Busch brewery, interchanging cars with Union Pacific along the
Riverside Corridor, interchanging cars with BNSF at North Yard and exchanging cars with other GWR Windsor-
based assignments along the Riverside Corridor or at North Yard. Extra crews are called as needed. Total GWR
traffic currently is in the range of 3,000 cars per month of which about 78 percent is interchanged with UP, or
approximately 2,340 cars per month or roughly 600 per week. (As previously noted, under normal conditions not
all GWR-UP interchange is performed at Fort Collins as many unit trains are interchanged at Milliken.)
A GWR crew brings cars destined for UP from Windsor and places and (“sets”) them on the UP Pass. The GWR
103 crew brings cars destined to UP from North Yard and places them on the UP Pass or the Downtown Track
either before the UP local arrives or while the UP crew is in Fort Collins. The 103 crew pulls the cars delivered by
the UP local from the UP Pass and switches them in order to separate Fort Collins cars from Windsor cars. This
switching can cause prolonged delays on Lemay Avenue and, to a lesser extent, on Mulberry Street, although it is
possible for the 103 crew to clear the crossing occasionally during the switching process. When the switching is
complete, the 103 crew leaves the Windsor cars on the Greeley Branch and takes Fort Collins–bound cars to North
Yard.
The 103 crew also receives cars (mostly destined to BNSF) from the Windsor crew and places cars destined to
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 7 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Windsor from BNSF on the Greeley Branch so that a Windsor crew can forward them to Windsor.
A temporary event is causing an increase in unit train interchanges and switching along the Riverside Corridor.
The GWR Poudre River Bridge south of Windsor on the Windsor-Kelim line is out of service as a result of this
spring’s rains and flood. This cuts off the south part of the GWR network from its hub at Windsor. Cars from the
UP to GWR customers south of the bridge are mixed into the Windsor blocks which are interchanged from UP to
GWR in Fort Collins. GWR switches these “south” cars into a block and delivers them back to UP along Riverside.
UP then backhauls the cars to Milliken and gives them back to GWR there. This means more switching and more
delays along Riverside. Also, unit trains (sand, blades and grain) usually interchanged at Milliken currently are
being interchanged in Fort Collins along Riverside.
RAILROAD RULES GOVERNING THE BLOCKING OF CROSSINGS
Rail operations of UP and GWR are governed by the General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR). In the Sixth
Edition, Effective April 7, 2010, rule 6.32.6 Blocking Public Crossings reads “When practical, a standing train or
switching movement must avoid blocking a public crossing longer than 10 minutes.” Some rail activities cannot be
conducted within ten minutes but it is also possible that crews could place more emphasis on planning interchange
and switching moves in a way that permits clearing crossings every ten minutes in compliance with the quoted
rule. Doing so may mean shoving cars farther into a track requiring crew members to walk greater distances.
Clearing the crossing more frequently may cause switching to take more time. It also is easier to maintain
occupancy2 of a crossing than to clear and then reestablish occupancy. These are reasons why crews may be
inclined to not observe the ten minute rule.
Discussions with FRA officials confirm that there is no federal standard with respect to railroads blocking
crossings.
INSIGHTS
INEFFICIENT SWITCHING AT LEMAY AVENUE
GWR, by choice or by necessity, uses the three tracks at the GWR/UP connection at Lemay Avenue to switch
individual cars. The Riverside Corridor is an inefficient and undesirable place to conduct switching. Both
railroads said so in interviews. In addition to the grade crossings of major streets, the proximity of those streets
to the switches where tracks join means that any movement of cars from one track to another requires that the
locomotive and the cars to be set over must be pulled onto a grade crossing. This is true at the UP and GWR
switches just south of Lemay Avenue, at both ends of the Downtown Track (affecting Mulberry Street and Lincoln
Avenue) and at the UP switch just north of Prospect Road.
A more efficient track configuration would be one in which the switches were far enough from the road crossings
that a cut of cars could be pulled out from one track and set onto another without blocking a crossing. However,
2 - During field observations, the Team observed one vehicle run the crossing gates at Mulberry Street and received a report of
another vehicle striking and breaking a gate at Lemay Avenue.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 8 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
even if it were physically possible to relocate the switches along the Riverside Corridor to provide sufficient track
length to pull out (called “head room”) without blocking crossings, it would cause the usable track length between
switches to be shortened and cause an unacceptable loss of track capacity.
When GWR is switching using all three tracks, UP is blocked from getting in or out of Fort Collins despite the fact
that UP owns two of the three tracks. Project Team members observed this on at least three occasions.
GWR’s single track Greeley Branch has no tracks upon which to perform switching without using UP tracks and
has no place where locomotives may “run around” (be placed on the opposite end) of a train or a cut of cars. This
causes GWR to make some of its movements from North Yard to Lemay Avenue as shoving movements, with the
locomotives on the rear and the conductor hanging onto the leading freight car. While this is an accepted and
sometimes necessary practice, it has the disadvantage of not having the locomotive (with its horn) leading over
grade crossings and tends to be slower, thus extending crossing blockages and, therefore, delays. The lack of a
runaround track on the Greeley Branch at Lemay Avenue causes operating inefficiencies to be incurred by GWR in
the form of having to operate locomotives “light” (no cars) between Windsor and Fort Collins.
MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
RAILROAD PREEMPTION DATA
The City of Fort Collins provided railroad preemption data for the Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection
for use in understanding the frequency, duration, etc. of intersection blockages. The word “preemption” is used
to describe when a train crossing a street “preempts” the normal operation of an adjacent traffic signal. Hence
preemptions, which the City is able to monitor, are a proxy for train occupancy of the adjacent crossing.
At the Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection, when a train crosses Lemay Avenue, it “preempts” the traffic
signal and places it in an operational mode that still allows movements to continue that are not affected by the
train crossing. In this situation, northwest/southeast vehicle movements along Riverside Avenue and northbound
left turns on Lemay Avenue still can occur. The signals provide an alternating sequence of traffic signal phases to
complete these non-conflicting movements while a train is blocking a crossing.
Railroad preemption data was provided by the City of Fort Collins and the following sections summarize
information on preemption frequency, duration, etc. The railroad preemption information was provided over
approximately three-month periods (September to December) and two years (2007 and 2014) to facilitate
comparisons.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 9 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
RAILROAD PREEMPTION FREQUENCY
The total number of railroad preemptions at the Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection has remained
relatively constant between 2007 and 2014. As may be seen see on Figure One, the number of occurrences was
about 950 during each of the three-month periods.
FIGURE ONE
TOTAL NUMBER OF PREEMPTIONS
Source: City of Fort Collins
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 10 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
RAILROAD PREEMPTION DURATION
The duration of each railroad preemption also was recorded and it can be seen from the data represented in Figure
Two that the typical duration of railroad preemptions has increased between 2007 and 2014. For example, the
highest number of occurrences in 2007 was in the 30 second to 60 second range, while the highest number of
durations increased to 1 to 3 minutes in 2014. And beginning with the 1 to 3 minute timeframe, each higher time
period had experienced a greater occurrence in 2014 than in 2007.
FIGURE TWO
DURATION OF RAILROAD PREEMPTIONS
Not only is the number of occurrences in these higher ranges of preemption length more frequent, the duration
length also increased. In 2007, all duration periods were 30 minutes or less, but in 2014, the duration periods
extended beyond 30 minutes and occasionally reached two or more hours. As such, it can easily be seen from this
graph that the duration level has increased over the years.
Source: City of Fort Collins
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 11 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
RAILROAD PREEMPTION BY DAY
It is also interesting to understand which days of the week exhibit the higher number of rail preemption
occurrences. Figure Three demonstrates that the greatest number of railroad preemptions occurred on Mondays
and Tuesdays in 2007, while the days of railroad preemption in 2014 were relatively more spread out across
the entire week with Fridays experiencing the highest levels of activity. Even Saturdays and Sundays tallied a
reasonable amount of activity.
FIGURE THREE
NUMBER OF PREEMPTIONS BY DAY OF THE WEEK
Source: City of Fort Collins
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 12 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
RAILROAD PREEMPTION START TIMES
Figure Four summarizes the times of when the railroad preemptions began. As you can see, the highest levels
currently occur primarily during normal daytime work hours between 8:00 am and 4:00 pm, with the greater
number of start times being between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm.
The 2014 pattern is different than the 2007 pattern. While the highest level of activity in 2007 matched the highest
level in 2014 (Noon to 2:00 pm), there was a higher frequency of 2014 activity in the non-traditional work hours,
with significant activity levels from 10:00 pm throughout the night until about 6:00 am.
FIGURE FOUR
RAILROAD PREEMPTION START TIMES
Source: City of Fort Collins
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 13 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
LEMAY AVENUE TRAFFIC BY TIME OF DAY
The City provided data concerning traffic on Riverside Avenue by time of day so the Project Team could compare
peak vehicle activity with the train activity displayed above. Examination of traffic on Lemay Avenue between
Riverside Avenue and Pennock Place in the week commencing May 30, 2012 indicates that traffic peaked between
noon and 6:00 pm with approximately 1,800 or more vehicles per hour as shown in Figure Five. This peak overlaps
the peak of rail activity between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm shown above.
FIGURE FIVE
LEMAY AVENUE TRAFFIC BY TIME OF DAY
Source: City of Fort Collins, RLBA
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 14 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
RESIDENT COMPLAINTS, INQUIRIES AND WEB SURVEY
The City of Fort Collins receives inquiries/questions from city residents and concerned citizens related to a variety
of railroad issues from crossing delays, to train frequency, the material being hauled, noise, etc. A one and one half
year list of these inquiries is summarized below.
INQUIRY LOCATIONS
Not all of the inquiries in the one and one half year period regarded crossings. The inquiries were sometimes
specific to a particular intersection, but sometimes they were general in nature. The following table summarizes
the number of inquiries associated with the three study crossings that were discernible from the correspondence.
Those that were related to crossings outside of the study corridor are summarized as “other locations.”
TABLE A
RAILROAD ISSUE INQUIRY LOCATIONS
INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
Riverside Avenue/
Mulberry Street
Riverside Avenue/ Lemay
Avenue
Prospect Road/
Timberline Road
Other Locations
215115
As can be seen in this table, the majority of inquiries concerned the Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection.
INQUIRY ISSUES
Various issues were addressed with the primary issue being the delay experienced by residents. Train noise
during differing hours of the day was also of concern. Being late for appointments, wanting grade-separations
and concern about emergency access also rated high. See Table B for a summary of the differing issues brought
forward.
TABLE B
RAILROAD ISSUE SUMMARY
While some of these issues are self-explanatory, some clarification is needed regarding some of these issues:
t Cargo – More than one inquiry related to the types of materials that are being transported through Fort
Collins, specifically oil products or hazardous materials.
t Clearance Signal Timing – One inquiry related to the traffic signal timing parameters that are used once a
train passes in relation to reducing vehicle queuing as quickly as possible. The City’s Traffic Department
plans to provide better clearance signal timing at intersections adjacent to railroad crossings are detailed
later in this report.
INTERSECTION LOCATIONS
Motorist
Delay
Train
Noise
Emergency/
Hospital
Access
Desire
for Grade
Separation
Late for
Work /
Appt.
Cargo Duration No
Alternate
Route
Frequency Clearance
Signal
Timing
28 12 5 5 5 4 4 3 2 1
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 15 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
WEB SURVEY
The Project Team and the City developed an on-line survey regarding citizen experiences at the subject grade
crossings and perceptions regarding potential variable message signs. (The survey questionnaire and summary
results are presented in Appendix A.) The City arranged for the survey to be available on line for over two weeks
and publicized it with a press release and on the City’s website. The survey was the subject of two stories in the
Coloradoan with instructions as to how to find it. The results of the survey can be found at: (City to insert web
address) There were over 5,000 response to the survey and some of the salient points of the results are:
t Almost 100% of the respondents have experienced train-caused delays at the railroad crossings on
Mulberry Street, Lemay Avenue or Prospect Road.
t The UP crossing adjacent to the Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection is of the greatest concern to
responders, followed by the Riverside Avenue/Mulberry Street intersection.
t Approximately 70% of responders indicated that they have experienced a delay of between 15 and 45
minutes.
t 89% of respondents have been late to work or they have missed an appointment.
t Responders believe that train delays are occurring more frequently that in the past (73%).
t 75% of those surveyed believe that advance messages of track blockages would have value, with the
Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue crossing being identified as providing the most benefit (58%).
t A variety of message types were proposed. Responses concentrated on alerting motorists of the upcoming/
existing blockages with an identification of how long the blockage may be or how much blockage time
remains.
t Text alerts, mobile phone applications, emails, and radio broadcasts were a few of the means of potential
alternative communication suggested by the respondents.
t Several study suggestions were provided:
t Construct grad-separations
t Limit blockage times
t Move the switching yard out of the City
t Provide permanent advance warning signs
t Publish train schedules
t Provide advance blockage alerts
t Provide alternate route suggestions
t Change switching times to off-peak hours
TRAFFIC IMPACTS WHEN LENGTHY BLOCKAGES OCCUR
Motorists know by experience that congestion and delays resulting from a lengthy railroad blockage are not limited
to the blocked intersection or the vehicles queued there. Impacts cascade as follows.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 16 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
MULBERRY STREET AT RIVERSIDE AVENUE
A train blockage at Mulberry Street primarily affects the Mulberry Street/Riverside Avenue intersection. Alternate
routes that are used typically include Lemay Avenue and/or Lincoln Avenue.
The largest vehicle queue challenge occurs at the Mulberry Street/ Lemay Avenue intersection. If the blockage is
long enough, the westbound left turn lanes become starved (i.e., motorists cannot proceed into the left turn lanes.
The result is a higher level of U-turns occurring along Mulberry Street.
The Mulberry Street/Riverside Avenue intersection is one that gets the most emergency pre-emptions (a lot of
ambulances). Long blockages at this intersection can affect response time.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 17 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
LEMAY AVENUE AT RIVERSIDE AVENUE
Blockages at this intersection tend also to impact the Mulberry Street/Lemay Avenue intersection, as well as the
Prospect Road/Timberline Road intersection. The impact at the Prospect Road/Timberline Road intersection is
large enough that traffic staff will alter signal timing at this location when possible. Longer than normal vehicle
queues are also experienced by westbound left turn movements at the Prospect Road/Lemay Avenue intersection.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 18 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
PROSPECT ROAD WEST OF TIMBERLINE ROAD
There are two railroad tracks in this area (referred to as the West and East tracks) and the most frequently used is
the west one of the two (nearest Riverside Avenue).
Both the Prospect Road/Riverside Avenue and Prospect Road/Timberline Road intersections are heavily impacted
by blockages. Northbound and southbound traffic on Timberline Road can continue to function; however, the
southbound traffic often is partially blocked by unaware westbound or northbound left turning motorists that
enter the intersection but cannot leave the intersection due to vehicle queuing in front of them.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 19 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
PROSPECT ROAD WEST OF TIMBERLINE ROAD AND TIMBERLINE ROAD SOUTH OF
PROSPECT ROAD
When the east railroad crossing on Prospect Road is blocked, it also blocks Timberline Road as well. In this
instance, the Prospect Road/Timberline Road intersection is, for the most part, gridlocked. A significant level of
U-turns result.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 20 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS DURING RAILROAD PREEMPTION
Mulberry Street/Riverside Avenue Intersection
This intersection is not equipped with railroad constant warning time (CWT) circuitry. Upon railroad
preemption, there is a twenty second track clearance period affecting phases 3 and 8 (westbound Mulberry Street
movements). During preemption, the traffic signal cycles between phases 2/6 (Riverside Avenue) and phase 7
(Mulberry Street eastbound left turn). There is no special exit plan (after train clearance); the traffic signal simply
returns to regular control.
Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue Intersection
This intersection is not equipped with railroad constant warning time (CWT) circuitry either. Upon railroad
preemption, there is a twenty second track clearance period affecting phases 2 and 5 (southbound Lemay Avenue
movements). During preemption, the traffic signal cycles between phases 4/8 (Riverside Avenue) and phase 1
(Lemay Avenue northbound left turn). There is no special exit plan (after train clearance); the traffic signal returns
to regular control.
Prospect Road West of Timberline Road
All three railroad crossings in the vicinity of Prospect and Timberline Roads (the two crossings to the west of
Timberline Road and the crossing to the south of Prospect Road) are more than 200 feet from the intersection
and therefore not connected to the railroad circuitry. A traffic signal preemption operation does not take place.
Having a connection to the railroad circuitry is something that could be considered so that non-conflicting traffic
signal phases can operate while a train is blocking motorists.
PTZ CAMERA DATA FROM CITY (PHOTOS/PICTURES REPRESENTING TRAIN DURATION
AND QUEUE LENGTHS)TO COME
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH EMERGENCY RESPONDERS
The Project Team held conversations with emergency responders that service the immediate area. Those
responders include the Poudre Valley Fire Department, the Fort Collins Police Department, 911 dispatch and
Poudre Valley Hospital - University of Colorado (UC) Health Emergency Medical Services, the ambulance service
in the area. Following is a summary of those conversations.
Poudre Valley Fire Department
Vehicles dispatched from Fire Station #1, located approximately one-half mile to the west of Riverside Avenue
on Peterson Street, are sometimes delayed by track blockages when responding to fires and other emergencies
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 21 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
to the east of Riverside Avenue. Depending upon the nature of the emergency, other Stations, #6 (located along
Timberline Road to the north of Mulberry Street) or #5 (located on Harmony Road at JFK Parkway) that may have
certain equipment needed to handle a particular emergency, are asked to provide equipment, based on equipment
options at each station.
The biggest issue faced by the Fire Department is not knowing how many crossings may be blocked, the
uncertainty of how long a crossing may be blocked and the extra time it takes to respond to an emergency once
a call is received. Station #1 staff experience train blockages a few times per month and each of those blockages
cause upwards of five to ten minutes of delay, depending on whether only the Mulberry Street crossing is blocked,
or if the Lemay Avenue or Prospect Road crossings are also blocked.
Dispatch staff is sometimes aware of existing track blockages based on input from emergency staffs that are along
the street system on non-emergency duties. As such, dispatch staff can advise Fire Department staff of blockages
as they depart their station(s).
Fort Collins Police Department
The main Fort Collins Police Department station is located along Timberline Road between Prospect and Drake
Roads; this is the location to which all 911 calls are routed and responses thereto are originated. Given that
location’s close proximity to the UP and GWR lines at Prospect Road, the Department is very familiar with the
number and length of blockages occurring in the Riverside Corridor.
Blockages of crossings typically affect Department call response times to the northwest and downtown areas of
Fort Collins when 911 calls are received. Riverside Avenue is the most direct route to downtown or the northwest
areas of the City and, therefore, the primary response route is blocked when police vehicles can’t reach Riverside
Avenue. If the number of blocked crossings is unknown, College Avenue is likely the best alternative route.
The Police Department is typically aware crossings being blocked based on the number of calls received from
disgruntled motorists; they believe that the Fort Collins Police Department can solve the blocked crossing issue.
Motorists sometimes have taken action into their own hands, specifically when railroad gates are down but a
train is not at/near the crossing (possibly due to a gate malfunction). There have been times when motorists have
physically raised a crossing gate, or have tried to rotate the gate horizontally, to let vehicles cross the railroad.
Obviously, this action can cause damage to the gating system. Motorists also have tried to go around downed
gates.
911 Dispatch
The 911 dispatchers are responsible for answering emergency calls and directing police, fire and ambulance
responders to emergency locations. One of the biggest concerns of dispatch staff is being able to direct emergency
responders to the locations prompting 911 calls due to the fluid nature of intersection blockages. While 911
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 22 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
dispatchers are typically aware of train blockages as they are occurring, due to calls received from non-emergency
staff, the routing or rerouting of responders is not an exact science. For example, an emergency vehicle could be
routed along a specific street only to find that a crossing that was thought to be usable at the beginning of the call is
actually blocked when the emergency vehicle reaches the crossing.
To compound the situation, 911 staff is not typically aware of when train blockages have cleared and, as a result,
may direct an emergency vehicle to the wrong crossing. In numerous cases, dispatchers need to send more than
one vehicle on different routes to an emergency location as a potential solution to blocked crossings. This method
is not very efficient and could limit the availability of emergency services at another location.
Emergency response routes are pre-built into the response system. While the response route of most emergencies
have a specific origin, i.e., police and fire stations have exact locations, the response route of ambulances are much
more dynamic since the location of an ambulance is determined based on previous calls or other factors that can
place them almost anywhere in the City. As a result, getting an ambulance to the location of an emergency can be
more difficult when combined with the uncertainty of train locations and subsequent blockages. And the response
time for ambulances can be a large factor in providing emergency care to those in medical need.
Possibly the biggest impediment to providing good emergency response when a crossing is blocked is that
numerous people call 911 to report the blocked crossing or that a police officer or ambulance is stuck in traffic.
With a staff of four dispatchers on duty, the level of train blockage calls can tie-up all of the 911 lines; thereby
making it difficult for true emergency calls to make it through to the dispatcher.
Poudre Valley Hospital - University of Colorado Health Emergency Medical Services
Ambulance service is provided through the Poudre Valley Hospital under the umbrella of the University of
Colorado Health system. A minimum of four ambulances are on duty at any one time, typically overnight, while
eight ambulances are is use in the peak times of activity during daytime periods.
When not responding to emergency calls, the ambulances are positioned within known areas that feature
higher concentrations of past emergency calls; those locations are based on historical call data. By doing so, the
ambulances are nearer to the hotbeds of emergency calls where their services are needed the most. The ambulance
service strives to have vehicles on both sides of the railroad tracks along the Riverside corridor in anticipation of
blocked crossings when a response call is received. While this approach provides benefits in responding to the
location of an emergency call, the return trip to the hospital may be impacted. There have been instances where all
of the crossings along the Riverside corridor, even ones beyond the study area, were blocked. The result of such a
blockage was a doubling of the maximum typical response time.
The number of ambulance calls has doubled over the past several years and a total of 47 instances that involved
train-caused delay occurred over an approximate four to six month period. There have been cases where an
ambulance is at a blocked crossing and is unable to proceed or move due to normal vehicle traffic behind it.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 23 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
SEEK RAILROAD OPERATIONAL CHANGES IN FORT COLLINS
MOVE SWITCHING FROM RIVERSIDE TO NORTH YARD
North Yard, which is used by GWR, is somewhat better configured to facilitate switching than is the UP-GWR
connection at Lemay Avenue, although North Yard also has major road crossings at both ends. However, GWR
does not believe it practical to move more switching there. GWR was asked, “[C]ould cuts of cars to be switched
be taken from Lemay Avenue to North Yard and switched there instead of being switched at Lemay Avenue?”
GWR replied, “Yes, the cars can be taken to North Yard and switched; however this isn’t always the best option.
The rail leading to North Yard is owned by the BN and we must request permission to be on its tracks. Depending
on the BN traffic flow, we might not be able to gain access to that track. Once in North Yard, there is always the
possibility that once the cars are switched we would not be able to get those Windsor cars back to the Greeley
Branch (because of BN train interference). Because we have such a small window for getting the cars from
interchange to Windsor, the Greeley Branch is the best and fastest location to switch out cars.”
ACCURATE BLOCKING OF GWR INTERCHANGE CARS BY UP
If cars interchanged by UP to GWR along Riverside were blocked accurately, meaning all of the Fort Collins cars in
one or two blocks and all of the Windsor (meaning here all other GWR points other than Fort Collins) cars in one
or two blocks, GWR’s activity at that location would consist of putting the various blocks on the appropriate tracks.
This would be much less time-consuming and delay-producing than the prevailing arrangement, which requires
GWR to perform extensive switching of single or small groups of cars.
The 2007 report stated that UP trains “are now blocked in Cheyenne.” As indicated previously, the completeness
and accuracy of the blocking appears suboptimal. GWR indicates that “Contractually neither party blocks cars
for one another.” UP has been asked for further clarification on the blocking issue, but there is no question that
the blocking could be better and the better the blocking, the less switching would have to be performed at Lemay
Avenue.
Because of the GWR Poudre River bridge outage, GWR currently is switching out cars for Windsor proper from
those destined south of the damaged bridge. Improved UP blocking would not address this problem unless the
two railroads arranged UP to deliver three blocks: 1) Fort Collins; 2) Windsor proper and 3) south of the Poudre.
SHIFT TIME OF DAY THAT INTERCHANGE AND SWITCHING ARE PERFORMED
The UP trains which bring Fort Collins and Windsor cars to La Salle operate at night and the Fort Collins local
operates during the day, advancing the cars to Fort Collins that the night trains brought to La Salle. As described
earlier the UP local and the GWR 103 crew coordinate movement in Fort Collins in order to interchange cars
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 24 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
using the inadequate facilities along Riverside. Significantly shifting the time of day that the switching takes place
along Riverside likely would require rescheduling all of the involved trains. Both railroads report that unit trains
are interchanged along Riverside at night, so rescheduling the manifest train operations might conflict with the
night unit train operations.
Both railroads were asked about the feasibility of rescheduling Riverside switching. UP has not yet responded and
GWR replied “We currently do the majority of switching around the UP interchange area at night, which is less
vehicle traffic.”
ADHERENCE TO TEN MINUTE MAXIMUM CROSSING BLOCKAGE WHEN SWITCHING
Eliciting crew adherence to the ten minute crossing blocking when switching will require ongoing emphasis by
railroad management. The City could maintain ongoing communication with UP and GWR supervisors to urge
maximum adherence to the ten minute standard voluntarily specified in the railroads’ rules. The City may find it
useful to occasionally monitor that adherence. This would require that City staff become knowledgeable enough of
rail operations to understand when it is or is not possible to clear a crossing after ten minutes.
RAILROAD RELATIONSHIPS
There likely are voices that are or will call for the City to “squeeze” the railroads until they take actions to reduce
delays. They might say that the City should use its leverage to make the railroads comply. The consultants
constituting the Project Team believe that attempts to confront railroad managements over riverside Corridor
motor vehicle delays would prove to be unsuccessful and counterproductive. Unsuccessful, because the City has
relatively little leverage over the operations of the railroads and counterproductive in that the City is more likely to
influence the railroads through mutual cooperation and good will.
The railroads believe, with justification, that they are already acting to resolve the problem on their own initiative
and at great expense to themselves in the form of the Greeley Connection (to be discussed later). Approaching
them on the basis of “we are glad to hear of the Greeley project, now let’s talk about what we can do in the interim”
is more likely to yield results than being confrontational.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS BEING CONSIDERED
The City of Fort Collins Traffic Department is working on a traffic responsive system that can be utilized at the
most heavily impacted intersections to clear traffic more efficiently once a train has passed. The design utilizes
system devices placed to detect vehicle queues on the intersection approaches to the railroad tracks. When a
certain queue threshold is reached, the signals will run with special, predetermined plans intended to clear traffic
more quickly than the normal time-of-day operating plans.
The first planned implementation is expected to be at the Lemay Avenue/Riverside Avenue intersection. The
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 25 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
devices will detect vehicle queues on Lemay Avenue as far as one-quarter mile from the UP crossing, and
once the train has cleared, provide additional northbound/southbound “green time” to clear stopped traffic.
Implementation is not planned until completion of the Mulberry Bridge project when traffic patterns return to
normal.
VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS
A potential improvement to assist motorists in reducing their delays would be the installation of variable
message signs (VMS’s) that can alert drivers to blocked crossings in time to choose another route to reach their
destinations. VMS’s can display differing message types and they can be of differing shapes and sizes; including
ones that can be tailored to fit within an urban environmental without being obtrusive.
VMS could be activated by City Traffic Operations staff based on any of three triggering events including: 1) an
observed preemption greater than some specified number of minutes; 2) notification by railroad personnel to
the Emergency Services Dispatch that the railroad anticipates a delay exceeding a specified threshold minutes
or 3) observation and report of a blockage causing backups by City employees (likely Police Services officers but
potentially including Engineering and Transfort staff as well).
The City’s traffic signal system can
communicate with a VMS when
railroad preemption occurs so that
messages can be placed on these
signs which can be installed at
varying locations when approaching
a blocked crossing. Following is
additional information relative to the
potential use of a VMS system.
Locations
Within the context of this project,
several locations were identified as
being appropriate for the installation
of a VMS and those locations are
shown on Figure Six. As can be seen
on this figure, these locations include
the following intersections, ones
which surround the main railroad
crossings within the study area:
t Lemay Avenue/ Lincoln
Avenue;
FIGURE SIX
VMS LOCATIONS
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 26 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
t Mulberry Street/ Timberline Road;
t Lemay Avenue/ Prospect Road;
t Summit View Drive/Prospect Road;
t Lemay Avenue/ Drake Road and
t Drake Road/ Timberline Road.
VMS’s can be placed on one or several of the approaches to each of these intersections and the number and
orientation at each location can vary. For example, when traveling west on Prospect Road from I-25, a VMS could
be placed in advance of the Summit View Drive intersection so that motorists could travel northward to Mulberry
Street instead. Other intersections may require more than one VMS when there is more than one approach to a
railroad crossing.
MESSAGES
The biggest advantage of a VMS sign is that it can present
varying messages to the traveling public (within certain
parameters related to sign/text size). As an example, a
simple message could be “Prospect Road Crossing Blocked,”
“Use Alternate Route.” This message conveys the blocked
crossing intent without specifying which alternative route
motorists should use, which may be the best solution since
more than one crossing could be blocked or be blocked
after motorists are directed to a different crossing.
If the installation of a VMS system proves beneficial to
the City, other messages could be tried, i.e., ones that may correspond to a certain route, length of disruption,
etc. Each added message type will likely require a higher level of functionality and intelligence to work properly,
however, given the uncertainty of the railroad operations, the duration of blockage, etc. The VMS’s can also be
used for non-railroad oriented messages, such as for special events, amber alerts, etc. so that the City maximizes
the use of its capital investment.
PILOT PROGRAM
A VMS system should be evaluated for its usefulness and value on a small scale. As such, the City should
consider installing a VMS sign at one of the subject intersections to verify that the communication of the railroad
preemption occurs properly and that the correct VMS message is being displayed. Discussions amongst City staff
indicate that the Lemay Avenue/Prospect Road intersection would be a good candidate for a pilot installation.
A pilot installation would need the following basic elements:
t VMS sign (size to be determined by the City);
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 27 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
t Support system and mounting hardware (on an existing structure, new pole, or sign posts for example);
t Communication (conduit and wiring between the traffic signal controller and the VMS);
t Power supply (potentially solar) and
t Cabinet for communication hardware and wiring.
The cost of a pilot installation can vary considerably depending upon the City’s sign and sign mounting
preferences. It is estimated that it could cost about $40,000 to $60,000 plus City staff time to install, test, trouble-
shoot, and manage the project.
The message-triggering mechanism(s) employed could be used to generate notice to emergency responders
concerning blocked crossings and expected duration if conveyed by a railroad.
Once the VMS pilot program is up and running, the City’s Information Technology Department could evaluate
using the same message-triggering mechanism to generate text or e-mail messages or other real-time alerts to
motorists.
POTENTIAL GRADE-SEPARATIONS
The City of Fort Collins has had many conversations over the years relative to the installation of grade-separations
to improve traffic flow across the several rail lines in the City. In fact, a total of seven grade-separations over the
BNSF or UPRR tracks were summarized and presented to City Council in April of this year. None of those seven
locations are along the UP or GW lines within the project study area, however.
Of course, a new grade-separation would improve the delays experienced by Fort Collins motorists at any of the
subject crossings. But the installation of a new grade-separation should not be taken lightly since it has a great
impact to the City related to construction cost, right-of-way impacts, business disruptions, etc. Regardless, a
conceptual design of a grade-separation (over the UP line) at the Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection has
been developed and an approximate cost range has been determined. Figure x is a representation of a potential
Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue grade-separation and it has been conceptually designed to the City’s arterial
street standards.
Figure Seven is a representation of a potential Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue grade-separation. Given the close
spacing of the Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection to the UPRR railroad, it will be necessary to elevate
the entire Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection above its existing grade so that the north segment of
Lemay Avenue can cross over the UP tracks.
Crossing over a rail line requires a 23’ clearance above the tracks. When also considering the depth of a new
bridge structure, the grade of Lemay Avenue will likely be in excess of 30’ above the grade of the existing street at
the UP tracks. Given the existing profile grade line of Lemay Avenue as it proceeds towards the Cache la Poudre
river (decreasing towards the river), the distance required to meet the existing grade of Lemay Avenue is such that
the bridge over the river would need to be replaced. A significant amount of retaining wall will be necessary also
to reduce right-of-way impacts and/or purchases (assumed along almost all roadways edges in Figure Seven). And
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 28 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
several access points along Riverside and Lemay Avenues would need to be elevated above their current levels
which may be sufficiently detrimental such that a property purchase may be required (Smart Shred driveways
along Riverside Avenue).
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE – RIVERSIDE AVENUE/LEMAY AVENUE INTERSECTION
A conceptual level estimate of potential construction costs was prepared to understand the magnitude of
constructing a new grade-separation (overpass) at the Riverside Avenue/Lemay Avenue intersection. Construction
elements such as new bridges, retaining walls, curb & gutter/sidewalk, earthwork, and asphalt pavement were
quantified to the extent possible, while percentage add-ons were included to account for items that are unknown
at this time such as drainage, utility relocations, landscaping, signing/striping, lighting, traffic control, etc.
Additionally, estimated costs for design and construction engineering are also included.
The conceptual estimate of probable construction costs is almost $30 million and it does not include any right-of-
way or easement costs. This estimate is relatively comparable to grade-separation cost estimates that were included
in the information provided to City Council in April, 2015 ($15-$20 million for the Vine Drive/Timberline Road
grade-separation and $25 million for the Vine Drive/Lemay Avenue grade-separation for example). Appendix B
presents a table summarizing the conceptual level estimate.
FIGURE SEVEN
CONCEPTUAL GRADE SEPARATION
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 29 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
EMERGENCY VEHICLE GRADE-SEPARATION
The potential to construct a grade-separation exclusively for emergency vehicles has been proposed on more than
one occasion. While this idea would improve emergency access for critical City services, there are some issues
related to having a grade-separation that is permitted for use only by emergency vehicles:
t Structure Composition – Using the Lemay Avenue crossing of the UP line as an example, an emergency
vehicle-only grade-separation would be required to cross not only the UP tracks, but also Riverside
Avenue. This results in a bridge structure of about 300’. As noted previously, the grade (roadway surface)
of the structure will need to be elevated about 30’ above the UP tracks which also requires about this same
amount of height over Riverside Avenue. As a result, a significant level of retaining walls is needed as is
also required for a grade-separation that serves all vehicles.
t Physical Location/Access – If the intent of an emergency vehicle-only grade-separation at this location
would be to provide dependable access to the Poudre Valley Hospital for emergencies that originate to the
northeast of the UP tracks, the grade-separation should be oriented for southbound movements across the
tracks and Riverside Avenue, i.e., located along the west side of Lemay Avenue. How emergency vehicles
access the grade-separation is critical to understand. An “exit/entrance ramp” concept could be designed
such that emergency vehicles would access the new grade-separation from the outside vehicle lane.
t Directionality – The structure could be designed and constructed as a one-lane bridge, but with some extra
width to the side walls. This concept essentially creates a one-way facility. If the intent would be to have
facilities that allow movements in both directions along Lemay Avenue, two options exist:
1. Separate structures could be constructed, one on either side of Lemay Avenue, or
2. A two-way facility could be constructed in the center of Lemay Avenue with access to it being
from the inside travel lane. This option would result in a longer grade-separation, however, since
the beginning and end points would need to be beyond the needed length of left turn lanes on
Lemay Avenue.
t Access Restriction – To assure that these structures are truly used only by emergency vehicles, a gate
system, similar to what is use along the Mason BRT corridor, would be needed to that regular motorists
do not use the grade-separation. Emergency vehicles would need to be equipped with devices to open the
gates when needed.
t Cost – A design for an emergency-only grade-separation has not been completed. It is estimated, however,
that depending on whether the facility would be designed for one or two-way operations, and upon their
physical location(s), the cost of such a facility could range from $10 to $20 million. As such, the cost for
an exclusive grade-separation for only emergency vehicles could be upwards of 50% or more of the cost for
a grade-separation that serves all motorists.
t Perception – With the construction of an emergency vehicle-only structure, motorists waiting at a blocked
UP crossing would likely become frustrated when looking at a gated, potentially unused structure, while
they are setting idle within a queue of other motorists.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 30 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
GREELEY CONNECTION PROJECT
UP and GWR have announced a project which has the potential to greatly reduce switching and resultant delays
along the Riverside Corridor. UP and GWR discussed the project in a meeting with City staff in April. The project
previously was made public in a story entitled “Railway plans fewer trains from Fort Collins to Windsor” in the
January 23, 2015 Coloradoan, which stated, “[T]he Great Western Railway of Colorado is undertaking a $14
million project that will reduce train traffic from Fort Collins to Windsor, according to Matt Despos, the company’s
divisional manager. Work on the railroad project will begin in February and be complete before the end of the
year, Despos said Monday during a Town Board work session in Windsor.”
The possibility of reinstalling the connection that formerly existed in Greeley between the UP and what is now
GWR was noted in the 2007 Study. It is a logical project because it restores and improves a connection that once
existed. The Project Team speculates that when the rail lines were owned by two rival railroads that had little
desire to share traffic, the connection became commercially redundant and was removed. Now that UP and GWR
are friendly connections and energy and other traffic is booming, the connection makes good commercial and
operational sense (see Figure Eight).
This Union Pacific Graphic shows the proposed Greeley Connection plan.
FIGURE EIGHT
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 31 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
The project is a joint undertaking of GWR and UP. As part of the project, GWR currently is rebuilding eight miles
of inactive track between Windsor and Greeley and has constructed a new interchange yard west of 35th Avenue
between Greeley and Windsor. In Greeley, UP will construct a “wye” connection between its main line and that
of GWR. The UP connection will feature power-operated switches and will be operated by a centralized traffic
control (CTC) signal system. UP reports that its target is to have the Greeley Connection in place by the end of the
year.
The project will enable UP trains to move between the UP main line and the GWR main track without stopping
the trains so that train crews can operate switches. Traffic will be exchanged between UP and GWR on the GWR
main track or on two newly constructed yard tracks which are 3,800 and 4,580 feet in length. Material furnished
by UP touts the following “Benefits:
t Capacity to handle increased business volumes
t Enables interchange traffic (unit trains & manifest) to by-pass La Salle Yard & Ft. Collins Interchange
t 40 miles shorter route to GWR Windsor Industrial Park …”
Project Team discussions with operating officers of UP and GWR indicate that exact plans as to how the carriers
will use the new connection are still fluid. Both companies expect unit trains to be exchanged via the connection.
This also means that the unit trains of oil tank cars which create the longest blockages along the Riverside
Corridor no longer would operate to Fort Collins at all. Also shifted to the new connection would be sand, grain
and wind turbine blade unit trains which now normally are exchanged at Milliken but which as of this writing
are being exchanged in Fort Collins due to a bridge outage on GWR. Both companies indicate that most or all
manifest (mixed merchandise) freight currently interchanged at Fort Collins probably would be shifted to the new
connection. If this were the case, the switching conducted by GWR at Lemay which frustrates motorists could be
expected to decline proportionately
Both companies stress that there some interchange activity still may take place in Fort Collins even if the
connection is built and operational. A temporary return to the current delay-causing railroad operating pattern
would be an option if some sort of outage or problems occurred at the new connection or at another critical
location. Despite protecting their future option to exchange traffic in Fort Collins, both UP and GWR tout this
project as the solution to most of the rail-caused delays along the Riverside Corridor. The Project Team believes
that it is in the economic and operational self-interest of both railroads to make maximum use of the Greeley
Connection. Further, the reported $14 million that the two companies are spending on the project represents an
investment that would not be made unless they expected to make substantial use of the new route.
RAILROAD INTERCHANGE/SWITCHING YARD RELOCATION
The 2007 study recognized that one means of reducing delay in Fort Collins would be to construct a new
switching/interchange yard at a more favorable location from the prospective of less impacts on motor vehicle
traffic. One option noted in the report was a connection in Greeley, as is currently under construction. If
that connection were not already under way, it would be examined in this section as a follow-on to the 2007
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 32 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
examination and a logical improvement.
Should the Greeley Connection not come to fruition or if, despite its completion, rail-caused the traffic delays
persist or grow, the City may have to evaluate the option of funding construction of a new interchange yard in or
near Fort Collins to relocate the interchange activity which currently takes place along Riverside Avenue. The
Project Team identified three candidate sites.
A new interchange yard should have room for at least two long interchange tracks of about 6,000 feet of usable
length with no road crossings. (See space requirements below). Ideally, at least one end of the yard would connect
with approximately 6,000 feet of mainline with no grade crossings. This “lead track” would permit blocks of cars to
be moved to/from yard tracks without interfering with street traffic. However, it may be difficult to find a location
that features that length of uninterrupted lead track and that ideal condition may not be met.
TABLE C
INTERCHANGE YARD LENGTH REQUIREMENTS
COMPONENT LENGTH (FT)
Usable length of tracks 6,000
Turnouts, clearance and derails: 300 feet each end 600
Total 6,600
Acquiring a parcel 110 feet wide by 6,600 feet long would allow for future expansion of yard capacity. Such a parcel
would be about seventeen acres. There could be additional needs such as access to the yard site from existing
roads, so land requirements likely would range from seventeen to twenty acres. The cost of land acquisition is not
included in any of the three cost estimates.
If a new interchange yard moves into the design phase, the sponsor, in concert with the involved railroads,
should revisit the question of track lengths and consider building even longer tracks based upon then-current
requirements and site capacity.
The Project Team sought sites that would not require UP and GWR to change their method of operation
significantly. Three potential sites meeting that criterion were identified where an interchange yard could be
constructed. Of course, future developments on or near the sites could affect their availability and suitability. Note
that the City already owns much of the land required at Site 1. Also note that especially if a yard were constructed
at either of the locations in/near Fort Collins (Sites 1 and 3), there might be an attendant opportunity to develop an
industrial park oriented to rail-served industries.
In a discussion of the concept of constructing a new switching yard FRA officials urged that the City investigate
Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) or other FRA funding programs. It was indicated that a
joint City-railroad could be a strong contended for funding.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 33 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
SITE 1. CITY OF FORT COLLINS PROPERTY BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 9 (NEAR ZIEGLER
ROAD) AND THE POUDRE RIVER NEAR I-25
The City owns land alongside the GWR between a point southeast of CR 9 and the Cache la Poudre River. (See
Map 3.) The parcel south of the GWR tracks is a potential site of a new interchange facility. It is possible that
the City might acquire the remaining land between what it already owns and County Road 9. The side of the
presently-owned parcel which parallels GWR is approximately 5,500 feet which is too short to host an optimal
facility. If the parcel northwest of the City
property extending to CR 9 were added, the total
length would be approximately 7,200 feet, which
should be sufficient to host a new yard. A related
improvement would be construction of a new
crossover connecting UP and GWR as far south
as possible of the existing connection near Lemay
Avenue. This would reduce the length of train
that would have to be pulled across Lemay and
Mulberry when UP trains would move between
UP and GWR tracks in going to/from the new
interchange yard. If the new crossover could be
constructed far enough south of the existing one,
this would be a useful improvement at modest
cost.
Advantages:
t Most of the property required is already
owned by the City and
t Distance from existing UP-GWR
connection near Lemay Avenue to the
site is only about 14,000 feet (2.6 miles)
so operational impacts would be modest.
Disadvantages:
t UP trains delivering cars to the new yard
would have to shove across Prospect,
Timberline and CR 9 and
t Trains moving long blocks of cars
between tracks at the southeast end of the yard could obstruct CR 5 (Main Street in Timnath).
Site 1 Cost
The cost to construct a new interchange yard at Site 1 is estimated at $10.5 million plus the cost of any additional
land which might need to be acquired. Details of the cost estimate are presented in Appendix B.
MAP 3
POTENTIAL INTERCHANGE SITE 1
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 34 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
SITE 2. EXISTING UP-GWR INTERCHANGE AT MILLIKEN
UP and GWR currently interchange sand and wind generator blade unit trains at Milliken. BNSF, owner of the
track that GWR operates, does not permit interchange of oil or manifest trains at Milliken because much of the
GWR trackage that accesses Milliken from Windsor is FRA Excepted Track, i.e., it does not meet FRA minimum
Class One safety standards. UP and GWR connect at Milliken via a wye connection and there are no interchange
tracks, so trains must be exchanged on the main track and only one train/block of cars may be exchanged at a time.
To upgrade the Milliken interchange to add the interchange functions performed along Riverside Avenue, two new
interchange tracks would need to be constructed. They would be located between Johnstown, to the east, and Little
Beeline Ditch (near SR 257) to the west. In addition, the GWR main track between Windsor and Milliken would
have to be upgraded to meet FRA Class One safety
standards.
Advantages:
t UP and GWR already interchange at this
location;
t UP interchange train trips would be
shortened as Milliken is about twenty miles
closer than Fort Collins to the UP main line
and yard at La Salle and
t GWR interchange trips would not be greatly
impacted as the distance between Milliken
and Windsor is less than four miles greater
than between Windsor and Fort Collins.
Disadvantages:
t Land acquisition would be necessary;
t Trains moving blocks of cars at the west
end would obstruct entrances to several
businesses in Johnstown and CR 48 ½;
t Trains moving blocks of cars at the east end
would obstruct either SR 60 (Broad Street in
Milliken) and Alice Avenue or SR 257;
t GWR track between Windsor and Milliken
(about 16.3 miles) would have to be upgraded to meet FRA Class One safety standards and
t Modifications may be necessary at what appears to be a small waste water treatment plant.
Site 2 Cost
The cost to construct a new interchange yard at Site 2 and to upgrade the GWR line connecting the site with
Windsor is estimated at $34.6 million excluding land. Details of the cost estimate are presented in Appendix B.
MAP 4
POTENTIAL INTERCHANGE SITE 2
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 35 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
SITE 3. PARALLELING UP BETWEEN US 287 AND CR 56 NORTH OF FORT COLLINS
Along UP tracks north of Fort Collins between existing industrial/agricultural buildings north of US 287 and the
crossing of CR 56 is approximately 9,600 linear feet of farm land with no intermediate road crossings. It may be
possible to develop a new interchange facility at this location. The site contains three existing bridges over streams.
The new yard would incorporate at least one of those
stream crossings, perhaps more, depending upon
final design. It may be necessary to slightly realign
UP’s main track through the site and use property
on both sides of the existing alignment to develop an
optimal yard design.
The UP train from La Salle uses this line segment
about twice a week to serve Holcim Cement. If
the new interchange yard were constructed, all
northbound UP trains from La Salle would continue
through Fort Collins without stopping and proceed
to the new yard. Upon completion of work there,
the trains could proceed south through Fort Collins
without stopping. GWR trains from/to Windsor
would operate in a similar manner.
Advantages:
t Simple operational concept and
t No shoving movements required except
during actual interchange switching.
Disadvantages:
t The UP line to/through the possible site is the far north end of the Fort Collins Subdivision. Only one
active customer is located north of Fort Collins on the line, Holcim Cement. UP’s long term decisions
with respect to maintaining, operating and retaining the portion of the line north of Fort Collins could be
affected by a change in the use of UP by the existing customer;
t Interchange traffic will have to be hauled approximately six miles farther north from the existing UP-GWR
connection near Lemay. This will entail using existing crossings of College Avenue/US 287, Willox Street
and the intersection of US 287 and Shields Street, creating new conflicts at these locations;
t At least one stream crossing would be required and perhaps one or two more and
t Switching activities at the north end of the yard would block CR 56 at times.
Site 3 Cost
The cost to construct a new interchange yard at Site 3 is estimated at $11.7 million excluding land. Details of the
cost estimate are presented in Appendix B.
MAP 5
POTENTIAL INTERCHANGE SITE 3
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 36 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, there is no miracle cure that will instantly end rail-caused delays along the
Riverside Corridor. The Greeley Connection is the City’s best hope in that regard. GWR is well along with the
construction of its portion of the improvements and UP intends to complete work by the end of the year.
The Project Team has several near-term recommendations. The City should:
1. Seek to maintain a closer relationship with UP and GWR and appoint a “point person” responsible for
those relationships. That staff member should be identified as the first person that railroads go to in any
matter involving the City. He/she should attempt to maintain a proactive, friendly relationship with the
railroads. Regular in-person meetings are recommended and railroad personnel should be introduced to
or meet with City staff other than the contact person when specific issues are discussed. The City should
work to make the railroads partners rather than antagonists in seeking solutions to The City should work
to make the railroads partners rather than antagonists in seeking solutions to delay problems and other
issues that may arise. While the railroads have responded to the following issues, generally identifying
little that could be done (although UP may have further comments), ongoing monitoring and dialog with
the railroads could cover:
t Adherence to the ten-minute crossing blocking standard. The Project Team believes there is room
for improvement in this area and that constant attention is needed;
t Amount of switching performed along the Riverside Corridor;
t Time of day that switching is performed and
t Improved blocking by UP.
Review above after final UP comments or reference still outstanding UP reply
The Project Team also recommends that the City and the railroads work together to keep the public informed as to
awareness that the City and the railroads recognize the public frustration with Riverside Corridor delays;
2. Continue to collect, analyze and archive traffic preemption data like that presented early in this report.
This will provide a statistical basis by which to track railroad performance and with which to document
any requested improvements in discussions with the railroads;
3. Proceed with plans to implement improved clearing of traffic once trains clear a crossing. This is an
initiative of the Fort Collins Traffic Department for which the Project Team claims no credit. But it is an
important plan relevant to the issue of rail-caused delays and is important to reference here.
4. Proceed with planning of a Phase 1 VMS pilot installation as proof-of-concept. The City should consider
installing a VMS sign at the Lemay Avenue/Prospect Road intersection to verify that the communication
of the railroad preemption occurs properly and that the proper VMS message is being displayed. Once
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 37 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
the VMS pilot program is up and running, the City’s Information Technology Department could evaluate
using the same message-triggering mechanism to generate text or e-mail messages or other real-time alerts
to motorists.
In the medium to longer term, pending completion and implementation of the Greeley Connection, the Team
recommends a wait-and-see approach regarding major capital investments such as grade crossing separation along
the Riverside Corridor or funding the construction of a new switching yard. If the connection is completed and if
it is used as anticipated, and as is in the self-interest of UP and GWR, there should be a large reduction in rail-
caused delays along the Riverside Corridor once the Greeley Connection is operational.
Recognizing the possibility that the Greeley Connection project could be derailed or the expected reduction in
delays might not occur or that, over time, the reduction in benefits could erode, it is recommended that the City
keep its options open with respect to grade separation or switching yard relocation. In particular, it should: 1)
resist any new development at the Lemay Avenue/Riverside Avenue intersection that would make it even more
difficult to accomplish a grade separation there and 2) consider proceeding with acquisition of the additional
parcel at Yard Site 1 and avoid competing land use on enough of the land adjacent to GWR at that location to
permit future switch yard construction, if desired.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 38 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
DEFINITIONS
Block: A group of freight cars destined to the same facility on the current railroad or on a different railroad after
interchange.
Cut: A group of freight cars.
Cut off: Uncouple (cars) and leave in a track.
Excepted track: Track which does not meet FRA Class 1 safety standards but which may be used under certain
restrictions.
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration, a U.S. Department of Transportation Agency which regulates railroad
operations.
Head room: Space to pull a cut of cars past a switch in order to then shove back into another track.
Interchange: Exchange of freight cars between railroads at a designated location.
Lead track (or “lead”): A track from which yard or side tracks diverged. Used for head room.
Light: Locomotives operating with no cars are operating light.
Manifest train: Train made up of mixed rail cars (boxcars, tank cars, piggyback cars, etc.).
Picking up: Adding cars to a train.
Run around: Uncouple locomotives from one end of a cut of cars, run the locomotives through another track to
the other end of the cut of cars and couple onto that end of the cut.
Setting over: Moving a cut of cars from one track to another track.
Setting off: Removing cars from a train and placing them on another track.
Shove: Movement with the locomotive on the rear end shoving.
Step on/step off interchange: Crew of the second railroad assumes control of the train directly from the crew of
the first railroad with no intervening time.
Unit train: Dedicated train set comprised of cars and locomotives that cycle continuously between origin(s) and
destination(s) carrying a single commodity.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 39 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX A
SURVEY FORM AND RESULTS
Railroad Delays Public Input Survey
Study Goals and Area
The study will examine train and traffic operations and impacts at the Mulberry Street, Lemay
Avenue and Prospect Road railroad crossings along the Riverside Corridor and consider the
announced restored Greeley Connection between Union Pacific and Great Western (learn more).
The study will:
x provide near-term understanding of railroad operations that impact street traffic along the
Riverside Corridor
x identify near-term actions the railroads could take, if any, to improve the situation
x summarize traffic impacts at the railroad crossings and at nearby intersections to
dimension the problem
x identify the location for variable message boards or advanced warning systems that can
inform motorists of railroad activity
x identify conceptual rail and street infrastructure changes that may be considered in the
future as warranted by need and funding
x develop order of magnitude cost information for potential new grade-separations or
railroad infrastructure
Railroad Map
1. Have you experienced train-caused delays at the railroad crossings at Mulberry, Lemay or
Prospect along Riverside Avenue?
x Yes
x No
2. Which crossing(s) typically are of your greatest concern?
x Prospect near Timberline
x Lemay at Riverside
x Mulberry at Riverside
3. What is the greatest train-caused delay that you have experienced at any of these crossings?
x Less than 15 minutes
x 15-30 minutes
x 31-45 minutes
x 46-60 minutes
x More than 60 minutes
4. Have train-caused delays caused you to miss appointments, be late for work and perhaps be
docked pay or otherwise significantly impacted your plans?
x Yes
x No
5. Please elaborate
6. In your opinion, are major delays occurring (choose one)...
x Less frequently than in the past?
x About the same as in the past?
x More frequently than in the past?
The study will investigate the use of Variable Message Boards which potentially could be placed
along major streets well in advance of the railroad crossings so motorists can learn of train
activity and consider other options.
7. Do you see value in having advanced messages so that you can possibly alter your travel
route?
x Yes
x No
8. For which crossing do you think Variable Message Boards would provide the most benefit?
x Prospect near Timberline
x Lemay at Riverside
x Mulberry at Riverside
9. What message(s) would you find most helpful?
10. What other real time communication methods do you think would be useful?
11. Do you have any suggestions for the study or suggestions as to remedies to train-caused
delays?
"# $ %&'( %& '(( ) % (' %&*+, - . '&*
%# %(/#&0
1)%')' %&*23 %' 4 * '&' &0
. '& %, %& - %# %( +, %# %(
. '& %, %&
- %# %(
+, %# %(
1)%)* %& '(( ) )#$ %&'(& 4)' %&*0
-)&%&
-4 J& )&%&) 0
. '& %, %&
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 48 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX B
POTENTIAL GRADE SEPARATION COST ESTIMATE
OPINIONOFPROBABLECOST DATEPREPARED July22,2015
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNITCOST TOTALCOST
1 EarthworkandRemovals CY 72828 $ 20 $ 1,456,552
2 Surfacing SY 15606 $ 65 $ 1,014,384
3 CurbandGutter LF 5180 $ 22 $ 113,960
4 Sidewalk SY 2108 $ 45 $ 94,840
SUBTOTAL(A) $ 2,679,736
5 StructuresͲBridge SF 29853.8 $ 150 $ 4,478,070
6 StructuresͲWall(w/Aesthetics) SF 82780 $ 80 $ 6,622,400
7 UPRRCoordination&Flaggin LS 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000
8 TrafficͲSigning/Striping %of(A) 5% $ 2,679,736 $ 133,987
9 TrafficControl %of(A) 15% $ 2,679,736 $ 401,960
10 UtilityRelocations %of(A) 7% $ 2,679,736 $ 187,582
11 ErosionControl/Environmental %of(A) 20% $ 2,679,736 $ 535,947
12 Landscaping %of(A) 5% $ 2,679,736 $ 133,987
13 Lighting %of(A) 5% $ 2,679,736 $ 133,987
14 DrainageͲNew %of(A) 5% $ 2,679,736 $ 133,987
15 DrainageͲModification %of(A) 15% $ 2,679,736 $ 401,960
SUBTOTAL(B) $ 13,238,867
16 TrafficͲSignals(New) EACH 1 $ 275,000 $ 275,000
17 Mobilization %of(A)+(B) 10% $ 15,918,603 $ 1,591,860
18 ForceAccountItems %of(A)+(B) 10% $ 15,918,603 $ 1,591,860
19 Contingency %of(A)+(B) 30% $ 15,918,603 $ 4,775,581
SUBTOTAL(C) $ 8,234,301
CONSTRUCTIONTOTAL(D) (A)+(B)+(C) $ 24,152,904
20 DesignEngineering %of(D) 8% $ 24,152,904 $ 1,932,232
21 ConstructionEngineering %of(D) 12% $ 24,152,904 $ 2,898,348
PROJECTTOTAL(E) Ψ Ϯϵ͕ϬϬϬ͕ϬϬϬ
In providing opinions of probable construction cost, the Client understands that Felsburg Holt & Ullevig (FHU) has no control over costs or
the price of labor, equipment or materials, or over the Contractor's method of pricing, and that the opinions of probable construction costs
provided herein are to be made on the basis of our qualifications and experience. These costs do not reflect escalation for future costs. FHU
makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to bid or actual costs.
RAILROAD CROSSING STUDY FOR RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR
PAGE 50 DRAFT FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX C
POTENTIAL INTERCHANGE YARD COST ESTIMATES
Site 1. New Interchange Yard in/near Fort Collins
Yard Number Tk Feet Tot units Unit price Cost
Construct new yard tracks 2 6,000 12,000 230 $ 2,760,000
Upgrade main track in yard 1 6,000 6,000 183 1,098,000
Construct new # 10 switches 4 4 200000 800,000
Drainage - culverts 5 - 9300 46,500
Earthwork - per mile 2 860000 1,954,545
Subtotal 6,659,045
Track Connecting to Yard Number Tk Feet Tot units Unit price Cost
Upgrade main track connecting to yard
Upgrade road crossings - -
Upgrade bridges -
New Crossover
Construct new # 10 switches 2 200000 400,000
New track 500 230 115,000
Earthwork per mile 500 860000 81,439
Drainage per culvert 1 9300 9,300
Subtotal 605,739
Construction Cost 7,264,785
15% 1,089,718
30% 2,179,435
Total Cost $ 10,533,938
Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management (% of Construction
Contingencies (% of Construction)
Site 2. New Interchange Yard in/near Fort Collins
Yard Number Tk Feet Tot units Unit price Cost
Construct new yard tracks 2 6,000 12,000 230 $ 2,760,000
Upgrade main track in yard 1 6,000 6,000 183 1,098,000
Construct new # 10 switches 4 4 200000 800,000
Drainage - culverts 5 5 9300 46,500
Earthwork - per mile 2 860000 1,954,545
Subtotal 6,659,045
Track Connecting to Yard Number Tk Feet Tot units Unit price Cost
Upgrade main track connecting to yard
Upgrade road crossings
Upgrade bridges
Main Line Upgrade
Upgrade 16.3 mile of track 86064 183 15,749,712
Replace panels at grade crossings 24 11250 270,000
Upgrade switches 6 200000 1,200,000
Railroad bridge upgrade
Construct new railroad bridge
Subtotal 17,219,712
Construction Cost 23,878,757
15% 3,581,814
30% 7,163,627
Total Cost $ 34,624,198
Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management (% of Construction)
Contingencies (% of Construction)
Site 3 - 16 July 2015 further revised draft
Site 3. New Interchange Yard in/near Fort Collins
Yard Number Tk Feet Tot units Unit price Cost
Construct new yard tracks 2 6,000 12,000 230 $ 2,760,000
Upgrade main track in yard 1 6,000 6,000 183 1,098,000
Construct new # 10 switches 4 4 200000 800,000
Drainage - culverts 5 - 9300 46,500
Earthwork - per mile 2 860000 1,954,545
Construct four new 50-foot railroad bridges 200 200 7085 1,417,000
Subtotal 8,076,045
Track Connecting to Yard Number Tk Feet Tot units Unit price Cost
Upgrade main track connecting to yard
Upgrade road crossings - -
Upgrade bridges -
Subtotal -
Construction Cost 8,076,045
15% 1,211,407
30% 2,422,814
Total Cost $ 11,710,266
Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management (% of Construction
Contingencies (% of Construction)
BNSF RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
E VINE DR
E PROSPECT RD
E LINCOLN AVE
RIVERSIDE AVE
S LEMAY AVE
WHEDBEE ST
SMITH ST
STOVER ST
PETERSON ST
REMINGTON ST
S TIMBERLINE RD
S COLLEGE AVE
S MASON ST
E PITKIN ST
E MULBERRY ST
MATHEWS ST
FRONTAGE RD
E ELIZABETH ST
LOCUST ST
E MYRTLE ST
LINDEN ST
12TH ST
N COLLEGE AVE
EAST DR
E PLUM ST
9TH ST
S HOWES ST
E OLIVE ST
EMIGH ST
E OAK ST
E LAKE ST
N TIMBERLINE RD
N LINK LN
BUCKINGHAM ST
EDWARDS ST
S LINK LN
AIRPARK DR
WILLOW ST
E SUNIGA RD
1ST ST
GARFIELD ST
AIRWAY AVE
HEATH PKWY
MAX GUIDEWAY
3RD ST
2ND ST
ZURICH DR
MORGAN ST
JAY DR
GREEN ST
WELCH ST
MAPLE ST
CAJETAN ST
W LAKE ST
10TH ST
COWAN ST
ATTACHMENT 3
2015 Draft Railroad Crossing Study
Riverside Corridor
August 11, 2015
Photo courtesy Fort Collins Coloradoan
2
Railroad Work Session Items
• Quiet Zone Update
• Train-related app contest
• Draft Report
– Riverside Corridor Study
• Union Pacific and Great
Western Railroads
– Greeley/Windsor
Improvements
Quiet Zone Waiver
• City requested Federal
Railroad Administration waive
requirements for gates and
flashers at every intersection
in Downtown for a Quiet
Zone
• Waiver is under review by
FRA safety board; decision
expected in August
• Will affect City’s future
application for a Quiet Zone
3
Train-Related App Contest
Open Source App Design Event
(“Hackathon”)
• February 2016
• Apps to avoid trains and
congestion
• Part of larger, community
Open City event
• Attract/engage community
software developers
4
2015 Draft Railroad Crossing Study
Riverside Corridor
Direction Sought from Council
• What feedback does
Council have
regarding the Draft
2015 Railroad
Crossing Study
findings and potential
solutions/strategies?
• As the draft study is
finalized, are there
other areas of concern
where staff should
focus?
6
Photo courtesy Fort Collins Coloradoan
Near Term Study Goals
• Understand railroad operations
impacting traffic along the
Riverside Corridor
• Identify near-term actions
railroads could take to improve
the situation
• Focus on advanced warning
systems to reroute motorists
around a conflict
7
Long Term Study Goals
• Evaluate the proposed
GW/UP Greeley Connection
project
• Conceptual consideration of
rail and street infrastructure
projects
8
9
Riverside Corridor Tracks
N
Rail-Caused Delays
10
• Assembling oil or other unit
trains
• Switching at Lemay or
Prospect
• Conducting a handoff of a train
from one railroad to the other.
• Interchanging blocks of cars
between GWR and UP
Riverside/Lemay Intersection
Number of Crossing Preemptions
11
• Relatively consistent
level between 2007
and 2014
• Average of ~10
crossing preemptions
daily
Duration of Railroad Preemptions
12
• Duration of
blockage has
increased
- 2007 (30-60s)
- 2014 (1-3 min)
Daily Distribution
13
• 2007 – Monday
and Tuesday
• 2014 – Tuesday
thru Friday
• Higher Sunday
use
Preemption Start Times
14
• Highest
concentration still
Noon to 2 pm
• Higher levels
overnight in 2014
Preemption Impacts
15
• Motorists try other
routes
• Increased U-turns
• Causes
congestion at
other intersections
• Vehicle queues
grow
Preemption Impacts:
Emergency Responders
16
• No advance warning
• No knowledge of blockage duration
• Requires routing flexibility by 911
dispatch
• Congests 911 lines due to public
notifications
• Response time impacts
- More than one vehicle needed
- Both trip directions
• Motorists take actions into their own
hands
Near Term Railroad Solutions
• Move switching from Riverside to
North Yard
• Seek more accurate grouping of GWR
interchange cars by UP
• Shift time of day that interchange and
switching are performed
• Encourage ten minute maximum
crossing blockage when switching
Near Term Traffic Solutions
• Traffic Signal Operational
Improvements
• Variable Message Signs
17
Near Term Solutions
Variable Message Signs
18
• Strategically placed
• Message flexibility
• Pilot implementation
• $40,000 to $60,000
Long Term Potential Solutions
Long Term Railroad Solutions
• Greeley Connection Project
• Railroad Interchange/Switching
Yard Relocation
Long Term Traffic Solutions
• Grade Separated Crossings
19
Grade Separated Crossings
20
Riverside /Lemay Example:
- Significant reconstruction limits
• Track clearance needs
- Requires new structures & retaining walls
- Impacts adjacent property owners
• Visibility and access
- Costly
• $30 million or more
• Maintain a proactive relationship with UP and GWR; assign a
“point person” responsible for those relationships
• Continue to collect, analyze, and archive traffic preemption data
• Implement plans to improve clearing of traffic once trains clear a
crossing (Traffic Operations)
• Proceed with Variable Message Sign pilot installation at the Lemay
Avenue/Prospect Road intersection.
21
Recommendations - Near Term
Recommendations - Long Term
Wait-and-see approach regarding major capital investments
• Greeley Connection should result in a large reduction in rail-caused
delays along the Riverside Corridor.
If the Greeley Connection is delayed or ineffective:
• Reevaluate grade separated crossing options at the Lemay/Riverside
intersection
• Consider acquiring the additional parcel at Yard Site 1 and avoiding
competing land use to permit future switch yard construction
22
Railroad Capital Improvements
Union Pacific Railroad
– Sara Thompson Cassidy, Public Affairs Director
Great Western Railway
– Matt Despos, Omnitrax Division
General Manager
23
Railroad Capital Improvements
24
25
Greeley Connection Project
Direction Sought from Council
• What feedback does
Council have
regarding the Draft
2015 Railroad
Crossing Study
findings and potential
solutions/strategies?
• As the draft study is
finalized, are there
other areas of concern
where staff should
focus?
26
Photo courtesy Fort Collins Coloradoan
2015 Draft Railroad Crossing Study
Riverside Corridor
August 11, 2015
S SUMMIT VIEW DR
DUFF DR
MACKINAC ST
HOFFMAN MILL RD
N MASON ST
N HOWES ST
LUKE ST
ROBERTSON ST
CHERRY ST
INTERNATIONAL BLVD
W OAK ST
W OLIVE ST
MCHUGH ST
LORY ST
JEFFERSON ST
LAGER ST
W PITKIN ST
BANNOCK ST
YEAGER ST
ANNABEL AVE
OSIANDER ST
TANA DR
YOUNT ST
W LAUREL ST
W MYRTLE ST
MAIN ST
RACQUETTE DR
N LEMAY AVE
LA PLATA AVE
PATTON ST
NEWSOM ST
COMMERCE DR
COLORADO ST
HAYS ST
JEROME ST
EDORA RD
SYKES DR
PASCAL ST
ALEUTIAN DR
OVAL DR
WALNUT ST
W MOUNTAIN AVE
SAISON ST
JENNIE DR
CIRCLE DR
ELLIS ST
11TH ST
ENDICOTT ST
A ST
ERIC ST
DARREN ST
WEBSTER AVE
DONELLA CT
ALAN ST
BOCK ST
ALFORD ST
SHEARWATER DR
E LAUREL ST
MEEKER DR
PINE ST
LESSER DR
BAKER ST
APEX DR
MONTEZUMA FULLER ALY
VICOT WAY
TERRY DR
E MAGNOLIA ST
LILAC LN
LAKE PL E
SUNDAY DR
COUNTRYSIDE DR
OLD FIREHOUSE ALY
PENNOCK PL
E OLIVE CT
ERIN CT
MARTINEZ ST
MOROCCO WAY
HOSPITAL LN
DAINE DR
MONTGOMERY ST
S COURT ST
LOPEZ CT
EDISON DR
DEINES CT
LINCOLN CT
VICOT WAY
MATHEWS ST
FRONTAGE RD
PATTON ST
E PITKIN ST
LUKE ST
E LAKE ST
AIRWAY AVE
FRONTAGE RD
Legend
BNSF RAILROAD
GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ¯
G
jk jk
jk
jk
Major Point State of Highway Access 14 from I-25
Major Point Prospect of Access Road from I-25
State Major287 Highway N/S Access
Poudre Valley Hospital
Colorado UniversSittyate
Riverside Corridor - Railroad Study Area
jk CROSSING LOCATIONS
- %# %(
+, %# %(
? )%')' %&*( )%&6C %,+*B (( #%(),&4%0
. '& %, %&
- %# %(
+, %# %(
/,)%&) 0
+ 4 J& )&%&) 0
;& %&%& 8 ( '' %&*2')&3
-4 J& )&%&) 0
/,)%&) 0
+ 4 J& )&%&) 0
%&
%&
%&
+ )&
%&
-)&%&
%&
%&
%&
+ )&
%&
/# *
(5#
+$
"# %& '(( '( % %&& ,4 6&( ) ,('6(
) %%*&%4%'& % '( &0