Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-01-22 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Tuesday, January 22, 2019 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 11 days preceding the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. Public comment may be addressed to the full City Council via email at City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE HEARD THIS EVENING 2.CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY Subject: Written Liability Claim Against the City of Palo Alto By Mary Bartholomay (Claim No. C17-0057) Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(e)(3) REVISED 5:00-5:15 PM 2 January 22, 2019 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 5:15-5:25 PM Oral Communications 5:25-5:55 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Consent Calendar 5:55-6:00 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Approval of a Revenue Agreement With the County of Santa Clara in the Amount of $250,000 Over two Years for Support of Intensive Case Management in Connection With Housing Subsidies to be Provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless 4.Review and Acceptance of the Annual Status Report on Developers Fees for Fiscal Year 2018; and Adoption of a Resolution Making Findings Regarding Unexpended Stanford Research Park/El Camino Traffic Impact Fees in the Amount of $1,376,491 and San Antonio/West Bayshore Area Traffic Impact Fees in the Amount of $828,208 Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:00-6:15 PM 5.PUBLIC HEARING: on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of a Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 14, 2019)6:15-7:30 PM 6.Approval of the Second Amended and Restated Agreement for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Compostable Materials Collection and Processing Services With GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc. in the Estimated Average Annual Amount of $22,183,000; and Approval of an Addendum to the 2008 Mitigated Negative Declaration for City-wide Waste Hauling Service as Adequate and Complete Under the California Environmental Equality Act (CEQA)7:30-10:00 PM 7.Discussion and Project Update on Connecting Palo Alto and Consideration of the Following Actions: A) Separate From Study all Alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing (Closure and Hybrid) and Include Palo Alto Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning Effort; B) Separate From Study the Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing of the Caltrain Corridor in the Vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and Assess Feasibility in a Future Study; C) Address the Rail Committee’s MEMOW/ VIDEO 3 January 22, 2019 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Recommendation Regarding a Tunnel by Modifying the Alternative to be South of Oregon Expressway Only and Further Explore the Scope and Budget for an Alternative With Freight Trains on the Surface and Passenger Trains Underground for the Meadow and Charleston Crossings; and D) Adopt a Modified List of Grade Separation Alternatives (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 17, 2018) State/Federal Legislation Update/Action Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 January 22, 2019 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Informational Report City of Palo Alto Utilities Update for the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2018 Public Letters to Council January 22, 2019 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9142) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/22/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Revenue Agreement - SCC - Homeless Services Title: Approval of a Revenue Agreement With the County of Santa Clara in the Amount of $250,000 Over two Years for Support of Intensive Case Management in Connection With Housing Subsidies to be Provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve, and delegate signature authority to the City Manager to execute the attached contract (Attachment A) with the County of Santa Clara (County), authorizing the City of Palo Alto (City) to provide funding in the amount of $250,000 over two years for support of Intensive Case Management in connection with housing subsidies to be provided by the County of Santa Clara for Palo Alto’s Homeless. Background A collaboration between the County and City for the North County Integration Program (NCIP) was first approved by Council on October 7, 2013 as a means to positively impact homelessness in Palo Alto, particularly in light of the (then) homeless situation at the Cubberley Community Center. There have been two previous, two-year contract periods; June 24, 2014 – June 30, 2016 and July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2018. Funding for the continuation of this collaboration was included as part of the FY2019 budget. The contract states that the City will provide funding in the amount of $250,000 ($125,000/year for two years) for the support of one, full-time intensive case manager (CM), in collaboration with housing subsidy funds provided by the County, to assist up to 20 Palo Alto homeless individuals with finding housing and continuing to support these individuals once housed. The participants in this collaboration are being provided with “permanent supportive housing”, which is an evidence-based housing intervention that combines non-time-limited affordable housing assistance with wrap-around case management and supportive services. At present, 14 individuals are currently housed as part of this collaborative. These individuals will continue to be served under the terms of the new contract. Eligibility requirements under the terms of the contract ending June 30, 2018, limited City of Palo Alto Page 2 participants to individuals who have contact with the criminal justice system, have a high chance of recidivism, significantly impact County, State or local resources and are currently homeless. Program referrals were made by local social service agencies and/or the Palo Alto Police Department. The reason for the stipulation of criminal justice involvement on behalf of the client stems from the original funding source the County had been using to pay for the housing subsidies. The County is interested in continuing the same contractual relationship with the City, but with a new set up eligibility requirements; see details under “discussion” below. The County is scheduled to review this contract on January 29, 2019. Discussion As the contract with the County has been approved for two previous two-year terms, staff felt it important to provide a review of the collaboration to share the successes and challenges of the program. NCIP Program Review: 35 individuals have been provided with intensive CM services funded by the City since the inception of the contract in 2014, during both the housing search process and once an individual has been housed. Of these 35 individuals, 24 were placed in housing; this includes 21 individuals housed as part of NCIP program and 3 by other housing options identified by the CM. Due to a variety of circumstances, such as death, non-compliance with program rules, relocation out of the area, 7 individuals are no longer housed through the NCIP program. 14 individuals are currently housed as part of the NCIP program. Staff does not have statistics on the individuals placed in housing through other programs as they are no longer tracked as part of the NCIP program. Individuals housed as part of the NCIP program are primarily housed in rental units owned by private landlords, not units owned by the County. 100% of participants have been connected to a medical home. 100% of participants have been connected to a behavioral health home if appropriate 64% of participants have had no subsequent involvement with the criminal justice system. 9 participants have been assisted to access substance use services and have maintained long-term sobriety. 7 participants have been approved for long-term disability benefits. Other services provided by the CM to the client include: Complete bio-psychosocial assessment of each enrolled client. This assessment guides the care plan and the services offered to each client based on their individual need. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Connection to regular medical care, substance use and mental health services if appropriate, basic needs, utility assistance, in home supports such as IHSS, home health, food resources, legal assistance etc. are the most common. As clients housing, physical and mental health and/or substance use is stabilized, CM discusses resources and ideas for higher level needs such as connection to social supports, meaningful daily activity and volunteer opportunities. 94% Housing retention rate - Of the individuals housed under this program, 94% retained their housing for a minimum of 12 continuous months. 18 referrals were provided outreach services and either declined or did not engage in intensive case management services Observations and Challenges: The clients served under this contract presented with significantly higher functional impairments related to substance use and/or mental health issues than initially expected. It was anticipated that a much larger population of individuals would be capable of returning to the workforce. While there are some clients that are working or have/are participating in employment services, the majority have qualified for long-term disability benefits such as SSDI/SSI due to physical health or mental health issues. The current rental market, particularly in North Santa Clara County, presents significant challenges to locating appropriate housing, even with a rental subsidy. The case management agency that the County contracts with for this collaboration has encountered fewer landlords/properties that are willing to accept tenants with a rental subsidy in North Santa Clara County. Average rents often exceed rental limits established by both the Housing Authority and Abode Services, the County’s administrator for the subsidy program. Additional barriers related to criminal background and credit screening criteria further limit units available in this geographic area. New Contract Conditions: The proposed agreement includes some changes from the previous agreements. While staff believes it is crucial to continue assisting homeless individuals with a criminal record, due to the complexity of their needs and the difficulty in finding landlords to house them, City staff has requested and the County has approved a revision to the eligibility requirements for referrals to the NCIP program to allow individuals without a criminal record. The County also required a change in that all referrals to the NCIP program must come from the “Community Queue”, a ranking of all homeless individuals in the County who have completed an assessment tool called VI-SPDAT Palo Alto based homeless outreach workers are no longer able to refer a specific candidate, however to be eligible for NCIP, an individual must indicate Palo Alto as their city of residence before becoming homeless and/or where they are currently homeless. This change was required by the County with all its new contracts. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Resource Impact This agreement has a total expenditure of $250,000 or $125,000 per year for two years. Fiscal Year 2019 was included adopted Budget for the Community Services Department. Funding for the second year of the agreement will be incorporated into the development of the Fiscal Year 2020 Operating Budget. Attachments: Attachment A - Revenue Agree Palo Alto_exp Jun 2020 Final ES REVENUE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO This Revenue Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into by and between the County of Santa Clara (the "County") and the City of Palo Alto (the "City"), acting by and through the City's Community Services Department, (individually, a "Party" and, collectively, the "Parties") in order to provide the County with funding for and to establish roles, rights and responsibilities related to the North County Community Reintegration Program (the "Program"). RECITALS A. WHEREAS, meeting the housing needs of individuals who have had significant involvement with the criminal justice system is a strategic priority of the County's Adult Reentry Strategic Plan; B. WHEREAS, on October 22, 2013, the County Board of Supervisors approved various actions to allow the County staff to implement the County's Reentry Housing Plan, of which the Program is one component; C. WHEREAS, the County set aside approximately $500,000 over a two-year period for the Program to pay for housing subsidies and subsidy administration to serve approximately 20 households from the north county region; D. WHEREAS, the Program is intended to be a partnership between the County and its cities in order to share costs, prioritize services to individuals who significantly impact cities and their neighborhoods, and to establish ongoing operational relationships; E. WHEREAS, the County, at no cost to the City, expanded the Program by adding 20 additional slots to serve chronically homeless individuals in Northern Region of the County; F. WHEREAS, the County and the City entered into an agreement to end homelessness for 20 of the City's most vulnerable homeless residents in June 2016 which will expire in June 30, 2018; G. WHEREAS, on June 30, 2018, the City set aside $250,000 over two years to fund the intensive case management and other supportive services (the "Services") that the Program clients will need in order to obtain and maintain permanent housing; H. WHEREAS, the County and the City seek to assist homeless residents in obtaining and maintaining rental housing, while minimizing administrative expenses of the Program. In consideration of the foregoing Recitals, and the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT I. TERM The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2018, and will continue thereafter until June 30, 2020 unless extended by mutual written consent or terminated as provided below in Section IV. II. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES A. The Parties shall each designate a Program Manager to implement the terms of this Agreement and ensure successful implementation of the Program. The City hereby designates the Manager of the Office of Human Services for the City. The County hereby designates the Director of the Office of Supportive Housing or his/her designee as the Program Manager for the County. B. Upon receipt of invoice from the County, the City shall reimburse the County for expenses associated with the Program's Services in an amount not to exceed $250,000 through June 30, 2020, thus allowing the Program to serve approximately 20 unduplicated Program clients from Palo Alto (the "Clients"). County shall invoice City on a monthly or quarterly basis. C. The City's Program Manager shall: 1. Serve as the liaison to the City's departments, Council, and community groups; 2. Ensure that referrals come from the Community Queue with eligibility criteria as residents from Palo Alto; 3. Participate in the Program management meetings, which will be held as needed; 4. Actively assist the development, management and refinement of the Program to ensure that the Program meets its goals; and, 5. Review and process all invoices from the County. D. The County shall provide or subcontract for the Program's Services. E. The County's Program Manager shall: 1. Serve as the liaison to County departments; 2. Plan and lead Program management meetings, which will be held as needed; 3. Lead in the development, management and refinement of the Program to ensure that the Program meets its goals; and, 4. Review and submit all invoices from the County. F. The Parties will work collaboratively to: 1. Establish the Program's referral criteria and procedures that are consistent with the Santa Clara County Continuum of Care's (CoC) Coordinated Entry System (CES); 2. Establish the Program's goals and outcome measures, which would be consistent with the Santa Clara County CoC's system-wide performance measures; 3. Identify ways and resources that would enable the Program to more effectively use County-funded rental subsidies, provide interim housing, or provide other support services. G. The Parties will jointly convene coordinating meetings with appropriate community-based organizations and stakeholders to ensure the Program's success. Meetings will be held monthly or as needed until the Program reaches full capacity. H. The Parties will establish regular meetings at which to discuss the performance and progress of the Program's contractor(s). When appropriate, the Parties will jointly develop corrective actions to be implemented by the Program's contractor(s). I. The Parties will jointly monitor the Program's expenses and outcomes. Based on the availability of the City's funds in future years and the Program's outcomes, the Parties will determine whether to continue, expand, contract or terminate the Program at the end of the Term. III. Amendments This agreement may only be amended by a written instrument signed by the Parties. IV. Conflicts of Interest City shall comply, and require its subcontractors to comply, with all applicable (i) requirements governing avoidance of impermissible client conflicts; and (ii) federal, state and local conflictof interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, California Government Code section 1090 et. seq., the California Political Reform Act (California Government Code section 87100 et. seq.) and the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission concerning disclosure and disqualification (2 California Code of Regulations section 18700 et. seq.). Failure to do so constitutes a material breach of this Agreement and is grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement by the County. In accepting this Agreement, City covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Agreement, City further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ any contractor or person having such an interest. City, including but not limited to contractor's employees and subcontractors, may be subject to the disclosure and disqualification provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), that (1) requires such persons to disclose economic interests that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making or participating in making decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interests. If the disclosure provisions of the Political Reform Act are applicable to any individual providing service under this Agreement, City shall, upon execution of this Agreement, provide the County with the names, description of individual duties to be performed, and email addresses of all individuals, including but not limited to City's employees, agents and subcontractors, that could be substantively involved in "making a governmental decision" or "serving in a staff capacity and in that capacity participating in making governmental decisions or performing duties that would be performed by an individual in a designated position," (2 CCR 18701(a)(2)), as part of City's service to the County under this Agreement. City shall immediately notify the County of the names and email addresses of any additional individuals later assigned to provide such service to the County under this Agreement in such a capacity. City shall immediately notify the County of the names of individuals working in such a capacity who, during the course of the Agreement, end their service to the County. If the disclosure provisions of the Political Reform Act are applicable to any individual providing service under this Agreement. City shall ensure that all such individuals identified pursuant to this section understand that they are subject to the Act and shall conform to all requirements of the Act and other laws and regulations listed in subsection (A) including, as required, filing of Statement of Economic Interests within 30 days of commencing service pursuant to this Agreement, annually by April 1, and within 30 days of their termination of service pursuant to this Agreement. V. Governing Law, Venue This Agreement has been executed and delivered in, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Proper venue for legal action regarding this Agreement shall be in the County of Santa Clara. VI. Assignment No assignment of this Agreement or of the rights and obligations hereunder shall be valid without the prior written consent of the other party. VII. Waiver No delay or failure to require performance of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of that provision as to that or any other instance. Any waiver granted by a party shall be in writing and shall apply to the specific instance expressly stated. VIII. Compliance with All Laws, Including Nondiscrimination, Equal Opportunity, and Wage Theft Prevention A. Compliance with All Laws: City shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, rules, and policies (collectively, "Laws"), including but not limited to the non-discrimination, equal opportunity, and wage and hour Laws referenced in the paragraphs below. B. Compliance with Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Laws: City shall comply with all applicable Laws concerning nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in employment and contracting, including but not limited to the following: Santa Clara County's policies for contractors on nondiscrimination and equal opportunity; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Sections 503 and 504); the Equal Pay Act of 1963; California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code§ 12900 et seq.); California Labor Code sections 1101, 1102, and 1197.5; and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. In addition to the foregoing, City shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, political belief, organizational affiliation, or marital status in the recruitment, selection for training (including but not limited to apprenticeship), hiring, employment, assignment, promotion, layoff, rates of pay or other forms of compensation. Nor shall City discriminate in the provision of services provided under this contract because of age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, political beliefs, organizational affiliations, or marital status. C. Compliance with Wage and Hour Laws: City shall comply with all applicable wage and hour Laws, which may include but are not limited to, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and, if applicable, any local minimum wage, prevailing wage, or living wage Laws. D. Definitions: For purposes of this Subsection H, the following definitions shall apply. A "Final Judgment" shall mean a judgment, decision, determination, or order (a) which is issued by a court of law, an investigatory government agency authorized by law to enforce an applicable Law, an arbiter, or arbitration panel and (b) for which all appeals have been exhausted or the time period to appeal has expired. For pay equity Laws, relevant investigatory government agencies include the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Violation of a pay equity Law shall mean unlawful discrimination in compensation on the basis of an individual's sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, race, color, ethnicity, or national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, or California Labor Code section 1197.5, as applicable. For wage and hour Laws, relevant investigatory government agencies include the federal Department of Labor, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the City of San Jose's Office of Equality Assurance. E. Prior Judgments, Decisions or Orders against Contractor: By signing this Agreement, City affirms that it has disclosed any final judgments that (A) were issued in the five years prior to executing this Agreement by a court, an investigatory government agency, arbiter, or arbitration panel and (B) found that City violated an applicable wage and hour law or pay equity law. City further affirms that it has satisfied and complied with - or has reached Agreement with the County regarding the manner in which it will satisfy - any such final judgments. F. Subcontractors City shall impose all of the requirements set forth in this Subsection Hon any subcontractors permitted to perform work under this Agreement. This includes ensuring that any subsequent subcontractor receiving a Final Judgment for violation of an applicable Law promptly satisfies and complies with such Final Judgment. IX. Termination Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time for convenience and without cause, upon providing a thirty (30) day notice to the other Party at the addresses set forth in Section N below. The notice shall state the effective date of the termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time for cause upon providing notice to the other Party at the addresses set forth in section N below. The notice shall state the effective date of the termination. In case of termination by City, City shall reimburse County for services rendered in accordance with this Agreement on or before the effective date of termination. X. California Public Records Act The County is a public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). If City's proprietary information is contained in documents or information submitted to County, and City claims that such information falls within one or more CPRA exemptions, City must clearly mark such information "CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY," and identify the specific lines containing the information. In the event of a request for such information, the County will make best efforts to provide notice to City prior to such disclosure. If City contends that any documents are exempt from the CPRA and wishes to prevent disclosure, it is required to obtain a protective order, injunctive relief or other appropriate remedy from a court of law in Santa Clara County before the County is required to respond tothe CPRA request. If City fails to obtain such remedy within the time the County is required to respond to the CPRA request, County may disclose the requested information. City further agrees that it shall defend, indemnify, and hold County harmless against any claim, action or litigation (including but not limited to all judgments, costs, fees, and attorney's fees) that may result from City’s failure to disclose documents, decision to withhold documents, and/or City’s request to County that County withhold documents. G. INDEMNITY Each Party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party from any claim, liability, or loss resulting from the willful, wrongful, or negligent act or omission of the indemnifying Party, its members, officers, directors, trustees, agents or employees for its or their performance or failure to perform the provisions of this Agreement. Each Party shall notify the other Party, in writing, of any claim of injury or damage related to activities performed pursuant to this Agreement. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in the investigation and disposition of any claim arising out of the activities of this Agreement, provided that nothing shall require either Party to disclose any documents, records, or communications which are protected under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product privilege. The provisions of this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. H. ASSURANCE Each Party represents and warrants that it has the authority to enter into this Agreement. I. RELATIONSHIP Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed or construed by the Parties or any third party to create the relationship of partners or joint ventures between the City and the County. J. CONFIDENTIALITY The Parties agree that by virtue of entering into this Agreement they each will have access to certain confidential information regarding the other Party's operations. Each of the Parties shall not disclose confidential information and/or materials without the prior written consent of the other Party, unless such disclosures are required by California law. Where appropriate, resident releases will be secured before confidential resident information is exchanged. K. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This instrument contains the entire agreement between the Parties, and no statements, promises or inducements made by either Party or the designated agent of either Party that are not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding. L. MODIFICATION This Agreement may not be enlarged, modified, or altered, except if it is evidenced in writing, signed by the Parties and endorsed to this Agreement. M. SEVERABILITY If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to beinvalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. N. NOTICES Notices to the Parties in connection with this Agreement shall be given personally or by mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid with return receipt requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties as follows: SANTA CLARA COUNTY Ky Le Director of Office of Supportive Housing 3180 Newberry Dr. Ste 150 San Jose, CA, 95118 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO Minka van der Zwaag Manager, Office of Human Services 4000 Middlefield Rd. T2 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Notices delivered personally will be deemed communicated as of actual receipt; mailed notices will be deemed communicated on the date of delivery. O. COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. P. CONTRACT EXECUTION Unless otherwise prohibited by law or County policy, the parties agree that an electronic copy of a signed contract, or an electronically signed contract, has the same force and legal effect as a contract executed with an original ink signature. The term "electronic copy of a signed contract" refers to a transmission by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic means of a copy of an original signed contract in a portable document format. The term "electronically signed contract" means a contract that is executed by applying an electronic signature using technology approved by the County. INWITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be entered into as of the day and year of execution of this Agreement. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CITY OF PALO ALTO S. Joseph Simitian, President Board of Supervisors Date: Ed Shikada City Manager Date: Signed and certified that a copy of this document has been delivered by electronic or other means to the President, Board of Supervisors: ATTEST Megan Doyle Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Date: _ APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY Tony LoPresti Tim Shimizu Deputy County Counsel Deputy City Attorney, City of Palo Alto Date: _ City of Palo Alto (ID # 9913) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 1/22/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Annual Status Developers’ Impact Fees FY2018 Title: Review and Acceptance of the Annual Status Report on Developers’ Fees for Fiscal Year 2018; Adoption of a Resolution Making Findings Regarding Unexpended Stanford Research Park/El Camino Traffic Impact Fees in the Amount of $1,376,491 and San Antonio/West Bayshore Area Traffic Impact Fees in the Amount of $828,208 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the Annual Report on Developer Fees for the period ending June 30, 2018 (Attachment A). In addition, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment B) regarding the continuing need for the unexpended funds in the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Transportation Impact Fund, and San Antonio/West Bayshore Traffic Impact Fund. BACKGROUND State law (Government Code Section 66006) requires that each local agency that imposes development impact fees prepare an annual report providing specified information about those fees. This requirement is part of the law commonly referred to as AB 1600 or the Mitigation Fee Act. It codifies the legal requirement that fees on new development must have the proper nexus to any project on which they are imposed. In addition, AB 1600 imposes certain accounting and reporting requirements with respect to the fees collected. The fees, for accounting purposes, must be segregated from the general funds of the City and from other funds or accounts containing fees collected for other improvements. Interest on each development fee fund or account must be credited to that fund or account and used only for the purposes for which the fees were collected. Government Code Section 66006 contains comprehensive annual reporting requirements for development impact fees. This statute requires that, within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year, the agency that collected the fees must make available to the public the following information regarding each fund or account: City of Palo Alto Page 2 • Brief description of the type of fee in the fund. • Amount of the fee. • Beginning and ending balance in the fund. • Amount of fees collected and interest earned. • Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditure on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees. • Identification of an approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement. • Description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the loaned funds will be expended, and in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. • Amount of any refunds made due to inability to expend fees within the required time frame. This report must also be reviewed by the City Council at a regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public. In addition, notice of the time and place of the meeting shall be mailed at least 15 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for such a mailed notice. An early packet consisting of Exhibit A only was made available to the public and included in the packet for the December 3, 2018 meeting of the City Council. The law also provides that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the fund and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make findings with respect to any portion of the fee remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted. The finding must: • identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put; • demonstrate a nexus between the fee and the purpose for which it was originally charged; and • identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements along with the approximate dates on which the anticipated funding is expected to be deposited into the fund. City of Palo Alto Page 3 If the agency no longer needs the funds for the purposes collected, or if the agency fails to make required findings, or to perform certain administrative tasks prescribed by AB 1600, the agency may be required to refund to property owners a prorated portion of the monies collected for that project and any interest earned on those funds. DISCUSSION The City of Palo Alto development fees covered by AB 1600, and documented in Attachment A, include the following: • Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real traffic impact fees (PAMC Ch. 16.45): Fee for new nonresidential development in the Stanford Research Park/El Camino Real Service Commercial zone, to fund capacity improvements at eight intersections. • San Antonio/West Bayshore Area traffic impact fees (PAMC Ch. 16.46): Fee for new nonresidential development in the San Antonio/West Bayshore area to fund capacity improvements at four intersections. • Housing impact fees imposed on commercial developments (PAMC Ch. 16.47): Fee on commercial and industrial development to contribute to programs that increase the City's low income and moderate-income housing stock. • Parks, Community Centers, and Libraries impact fees (PAMC Ch. 16.58): Fee on new residential and non-residential development to provide community facility funds for parks, community centers, and libraries. • Charleston-Arastradero Corridor pedestrian and bicyclist safety fees (PAMC Ch. 16.59): Fee on new development and re-development within the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor to provide for pedestrian and bicyclist improvements. • Citywide Transportation impact fees (PAMC Ch 16.59): Fee on development in all parts of the City to fund transportation projects and programs to reduce congestion. • Public Safety facilities (PAMH Ch. 16.58): Fee on residential and non-residential development to fund police and fire facilities, including fire apparatus and vehicles. • General Government facilities (PAMH Ch. 16.58): Fee on residential and non-residential development to fund facilities associated with municipal administration. AB 1600 requires the City to make specified findings in the event any funds are not expended within five fiscal years of collection and every five years thereafter. While there are several funds containing collected fees that have not been expended in five or more years, the required City of Palo Alto Page 4 statutory carryover findings have been made for those funds in recent years and no further findings are required at this time. There are two funds that require statutory findings this year. (These proposed findings are contained in Attachment B.) The Stanford Research Park/El Camino Fund has an unexpended balance of $1,376,491 that was collected in fiscal year 2013 and prior. The San Antonio/West Bayshore Fund has an unexpended balance of $828,208 that was collected in fiscal year 2013 and prior. RESOURCE IMPACT If the council does not make the findings contained in Attachment B, the development fees described therein might be required to be refunded. This would have fiscal impact of $2,204,699. Attachments: • Attachment A: Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for FY2018 • Attachment B: Resolution Adopting Findings with Respect to Unspent Impact Fees Attachment A City of Palo Alto Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Period Ending June 30, 2018 Stanford Research Park/San Antonio/West FUND El Camino Fund Bayshore Fund Purpose and Authority Traffic impact fees imposed on new Traffic impact fees imposed on new for Collection nonresidential development in the nonresidential development in the Stanford Research Park/El Camino San Antonio/West Bayshore Areas Real CS zone to fund improvements to fund capacity improvements at at eight identified intersections.four identified intersections. PAMC Ch. 16.45 PAMC Ch. 16.46 Amount of the Fee $12.42 per square foot $2.55 per square foot Fund Balance July 1, 2017 $3,273,857 $890,209 Activity in 2017-18 Revenues Fees Collected 1,217 12,546 Interest Earnings 64,659 18,539 Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (51,018)(17,078) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Revenues $14,858 $14,007 Expenditures Inter-agency expenses (1,000,000)0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenditures (1,000,000)0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ending Balance June 30, 2018 $2,288,715 $904,216 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Net Funds Available $2,288,715 $904,216 Unexpended balance at next finding date (FY 2017-18)$1,376,491 $828,208 USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES: Expenditure in FY 2018 include $1M to County of Santa Clara for support of intersection improvements at Page Mill Road/Hanover and Page Mill Road/Hansen concurrent with construction of the project at 1050 Page Mill Road. FUTURE USE OF FEES:$2.2M budgeted in FY19 to County of Santa Clara for support of intersection improvements at Page Mill Road/Hanover and Page Mill Road/Hansen concurrent with construction of the project at 1050 Page Mill Road No expenditures have been made from this fund in Fiscal Year 2018. FUTURE USE OF FEES: $0.9M budgeted in FY19 to CIP Project PE-86070, resurfacing, slurry seal, crack seals, and road reconstruction. Page 1 of 10 Attachment A City of Palo Alto Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Period Ending June 30, 2018 Commercial Housing University Avenue Parking FUND Fund In-Lieu Fund Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on large commercial Fees collected from non-residential for Collection and industrial development to development within the University Ave. contribute to programs that increase Parking Assessment District in lieu of the City's low income and moderate-providing the required number of income housing stock.parking spaces. PAMC Ch.16.47 PAMC Ch 16.57 Amount of the Fee $20.37 per square foot $67,730 per space Fund Balance July 1, 2017 $19,277,863 $3,562,575 Activity in 2017-18 Revenues Fees Collected 275,001 1,894,981 Interest Earnings 160,749 107,699 Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (181,187)(89,134) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Revenues 254,563 1,913,545 Expenditures Salaries and Benefit (23,188) Other Contract Services (10,102) Liability Insurance (35) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenditures (33,325)0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ending Balance June 30, 2018 $19,499,101 $5,476,120 Other Commitments/Appropriations Reserve for Notes Receivable include:$1,290,000 for 2811 Alma, and $4,137,254 for 801 Alma, $7,700,000 for Bueva Vista Mobile Home Park.(13,127,254) Reserve for Encumbrance (8,975) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Net Funds Available $6,362,872 $5,476,120 Unexpended balance at next finding date (FY 2017-18)0 $0 USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES: Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2018 are for $23.0K for 0.15 FTE of Senior (Housing) Planner and 0.01 FTE Management Analyst salaries and benefits, $10.1K for consultancy fees. The additional $7.7M Reserve for Notes Receivable is a loan to Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) for the purchase of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. No expenditures have been made from this fund in Fiscal Year 2018. FUTURE USE OF FEES: $5.5M budgeted to be used for the New Downtown Parking Garage (PE-15007) in FY 2019 Page 2 of 10 Attachment A City of Palo Alto Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Period Ending June 30, 2018 Residential & Non-Residential Residential & Non-Residential Community Facilities Community Facilities FUND Parks Community Centers Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on new residential and Fees imposed on new residential and for Collection non-residential development approved non-residential development approved after Jan 28, 2002 for Parks. after Jan 28, 2002 for Community Centers. PAMC Ch. 16.58 PAMC Ch. 16.58 Amount of the Fee Residential: Single family $11,917 per residence (or $17,795 per residence larger than 3,000 sq ft); Multi-family $7,801 per unit (or $3,944 per unit smaller than or equal to 900 sq ft) Residential: Single family $3,089 per residence (or $4,626 per residence larger than 3,000 sq ft); Multi-family $2,033 per unit (or $1,026 per unit smaller than or equal to 900 sq ft) Nonresidential: Commercial/Industrial $5,061 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel $2,288 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof. Nonresidential: Commercial/industrial $286 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel $129 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof. Fund Balance July 1, 2017 $4,446,289 $5,869,478 Activity in 2017-18 Revenues Fees Collected 331,880 93,461 Interest Earnings 91,453 114,687 Unrealized Gain/Loss (86,316)(84,642) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Revenues $337,017 $123,506 Inter-Agency Expenses (2,500,000) Operating Transfer to Capital Projects Fund (250,000)0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenditures (250,000)(2,500,000) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ending Balance June 30, 2018 $4,533,306 $3,492,984 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $4,533,306 $3,492,984 Unexpended balance at next finding date (FY 2021-2022)4,196,289 $3,369,479 Page 3 of 10 Attachment A City of Palo Alto Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Period Ending June 30, 2018 USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES: Budget transfers in FY 2018 were made to Capital Project fund in the amount of $150K for Dog Park Installation (PG- 18001) and $100K for Turf Management Plan (PG-18002). FUTURE USE OF FEES: Budget transfers in FY 2019 budgeted to Capital Project fund in the amount of $100K for Baylands Athletic Center 10.5 Acre Expansion Plan (PG-19001) and $350K for Park Restroom Installation (PG- 19000) Expenditure in Fiscal Year 2018 is payment of $2.5M to Avenida. This is a grant funding to make necessary seismic and other improvements to the existing building at 450 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA. FUTURE USE OF FEES: $1M budgeted to CIP Project AC-18001 in FY19 for JMZ renovation Page 4 of 10 Attachment A City of Palo Alto Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Period Ending June 30, 2018 Residential & Non-Residential Residential Housing Community Facilities In-Lieu Fund FUND Libraries Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on new residential and Fees collected from residential for Collection non-residential development approved developments of three or more units in after Jan 28, 2002 for Libraries. lieu of providing the required below- PAMC Ch. 16.58 market rate unit(s) to low and moderate income households. PA Comprehensive Plan and PAMC Chapter 18 Amount of the Fee Residential: Single family $1,079 per residence (or $1,606 per residence larger than 3,000 sq ft); Multi-family $645 per unit (or $355 per unit smaller than or equal to 900 sq ft)Varies Nonresidential: Commercial/industrial $272 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel $114 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof. Fund Balance July 1, 2017 $1,005,487 $22,696,317 Activity in 2017-18 Revenues Fees Collected 35,996 869,530 Webster Wood Property Rental 5,850 Interest Earnings 20,959 280,715 Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (19,595)(194,174) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Revenues $37,360 $961,921 Expenditures Salaries and Benefits (23,188) Contract Services (159,784) Liability Insurance (34) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenditures 0 (183,006) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ending Balance June 30, 2018 $1,042,847 $23,475,232 Other Commitments/Appropriations Reserve for Reappropriations (310,477) Reserve for Encumbrances (34,023) Reserve for Notes Receivable include $375,000 for 3053 Emerson, $3,804,850 for Tree House Apts, $747,734 for Sheridan Apts., $2,285,026 for 801 Alma, $923,372 for Palo Alto Housing Project, $600,000 for 2811-2825 Alma St., $203,561 for Colorado Park Housing, $64,523 for El Dorado Palace, and $6,800,000 for Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.(15,804,066) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $1,042,847 $7,326,666 Page 5 of 10 Attachment A City of Palo Alto Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Period Ending June 30, 2018 Unexpended balance at next finding date (FY 2021-2022 Residential & Non Residential Housing Communities Facilities Libraries, FY2017-18- Residential Housing In-Lieu)$1,005,487 $0 USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES: No expenditure of funds have been made from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2018. Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2018 include $23.2K for 0.15 FTE Senior (Housing) Planner and 0.01 FTE Management Analyst salaries and benefits, $140K to Palo Alto Housing Corp for BMR admin fees and $20K for consultancy fees. The additonal $6.8M Reserve for Notes Receivable is loan to Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) for the purchase of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Page 6 of 10 Attachment A City of Palo Alto Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Period Ending June 30, 2018 Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Citywide Transportation Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety FUND Purpose and Authority Fees collected from new development and Transportation impact fees imposed for Collection re-development within the Charleston-on new development in all parts of the Arastradero Corridor to provide for pedest-City to fund congestion reduction rian and bicyclist safety improvements.projects. PAMC Ch. 16.60 PAMC Ch. 16.59 Amount of the Fee Residential: $1,306 per residential unit; Commercial: $0.38 per sq ft $3,575 per net new PM peak hour trip Fund Balance July 1, 2017 $8,862 $2,967,955 Activity in 2017-18 Revenues Fees Collected 11,614 238,810 Interest Earnings 241 48,479 Unrealized Gain/Loss (160)(43,412) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Revenues $11,695 $243,877 Expenditures Operating Transfer to Capital Projects Fund (12,000)(1,378,361) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenditures (12,000)(1,378,361) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ending Balance June 30, 2018 $8,557 $1,833,471 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $8,557 $1,833,471 Unexpended balance at next finding date (FY2017-18-Charleston- Arastradero, FY2017-18 Citywide Transportation)$0 $0 USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES: Budget transfer of $12K was made to Capital Project Fund in FY2018 for Charleston Arastradero Corridor Improvements Project (PE-13011) Budget transfers to Capital Project Fund in Fiscal Year 2018 in the amount of $1M for Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway (PL- 14000) and $378K for Traffic Signal and Intelligent Transportation System (PL- 05030) FUTURE USE OF FUNDS: $506K Budgeted to the Capital Project Fund in FY 2019 for Traffic Signal and Intelligent Transportation Systems Upgrade (PL- 05030) Page 7 of 10 Attachment A City of Palo Alto Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Period Ending June 30, 2018 New Public Safety Facilities General Government Facilities FUND Purpose and Authority Fees imposed on residential and Fees imposed on residential and non- for Collection non-residential development to fund residential development to fund facilities police and fire facilities (including fire associated with municipal administration. apparatus and vehicles)PAMH Ch. 16.58 PAMC Ch. 16.58 Amount of the Fee Residential: Single family $1,036 per unit; Multi-family $829 per unit Residential: Single family $1,305 per unit; Multi-family $1,044 per unit Nonresidential: Commercial $579 per 1,000 sq ft. or fraction thereof; Industrial $193 per 1,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel $772 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof. Nonresidential: Commercial $729 per 1,000 sq ft. or fraction thereof; Industrial $243 per 1,000 sq. ft. or fraction thereof; Hotel/Motel $974 per 1,000 sq ft or fraction thereof. Fund Balance July 1, 2017 $87,160 $109,820 Activity in 2017-18 Revenues Fees Collected 59,841 75,406 Interest Earnings 2,237 2,818 Unrealized Gain/Loss (2,459)(3,098) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Revenues $59,619 $75,126 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenditures 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ending Balance June 30, 2018 $146,779 $184,946 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $146,779 $184,946 Unexpended balance at next finding date FY 2019-20 $1,596 $2,011 USE OF FEES:USE OF FEES: No expenditure of funds have been made from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2018. No expenditure of funds have been made from this Fund in Fiscal Year 2018. Page 8 of 10 Attachment A City of Palo Alto Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Period Ending June 30, 2018 (INFORMATION ONLY) Public Art Fund Parkland Dedication FUND Purpose and Authority for collection Fees imposed on new commercial develoments (including mixed use projects), including new construction, remodels, additions and reconstruction that (i) have a floor area of 10,000 sq. ft. or more, and (ii) have a construction value of $200,000, or more, exclusive of costs for architecture, design, engineering, and required studies; and all new residential projects of five or more units to fund public art for private developments. Fees on parkland dedication imposed on new residential and non-residential development. Govt Code Sec. 66477 (Quimby Act) PAMC Ch. 16.61 Amount of the Fee 1% of first $109.36 million construction valuation and .9% of construction valuation for valuation in excess of $109.36 million Single Family: $60,474 per unit; Multi- Family: $41,683 per unit. This applies only to residential projects that require a subdivision or pacel map. Land dedication is required for subdivisions resulting in more than 50 parcels. Parkland Dedication Fee - Land: Single Family: 531 sq. ft, per unit; Multi-Family: 366 sq. ft. per unit. When parkland dedication applies, park impact fees do not apply. Fund Balance July 1, 2017 $550,763 $3,331,902 Activity in 2017-18 Revenues Fees Collected 211,268 699,069 Interest Earnings 11,548 70,240 Unrealized Gain/Loss Investments (11,869)(66,902) Operating Transfer from General Fund 154,824 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Revenues $365,771 $702,407 Expenditures Salaries and benefits (186,214) Liability Insurance (1,127) Transfer to Capital Projects Fund (400,000) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Expenditures (187,341)(400,000) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ending Balance June 30, 2018 $729,193 $3,634,309 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Net Funds Available $729,193 $3,634,309 This fund is not subject to AB1600 requirements and is listed only for information purposes. This fund is not subject to AB1600 requirements and is listed only for information purposes. Page 9 of 10 Attachment A City of Palo Alto Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Period Ending June 30, 2018 (INFORMATION ONLY) FUND Water and Wastewater Collection Purpose and Authority Capacity fees charged to developers that for Collection are adding load to the water and sewer systems effective July 1, 2005. California Government Code Sect 66000 Amount of the Fee Water Capacity Fees: 5/8 in., 3/4 in E- Meter. $5,000, 1 in. E-Meter $9,400, 1 1/2 in. E-Meter $18,850, 2 in. E-Meter $56,250 , 4 in. Compound Meter by est. $125/FU (min. 5,000 FU) , 6 in. Compound Meter by est. $125/FU (min. 7,000 FU) Fire Service Capacity Fees: 2 in. $750, 4 in. $9,000, 6 in. $22,530, 8 in. $43,080, 10in. $69,510 Sewer Capacity Charges: 4 in. connection with 5/8 in Water Meter (WM) $5,250, 4 in connection. with 1-in WM $15,750, 4 or 6 in. connection with 1-1/2 in WM $31,668, 6 in. connection with 2 in. WM $94,500, 6 in. and larger connection with 4 in. or larger WM by est. at $210/FU Activity in 2017-18 Capacity Fees Collected Water $531,348 Wastewater Collection 328,545 Total USE OF FEES: The fees are used exclusively for water and sewer system improvements Page 10 of 10 Attachment B 1 016 Yang\2018-11-01 RESO Unspent Impact Fees Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making Findings Regarding Continuing Need for Unexpended Stanford Research Park/El Camino Transportation Impact Fees in the Amount of $1,376,491; and San Antonio/West Bayshore Area Traffic Impact Fees in the Amount of $828,208. R E C I T A L S A. Government Code Section 66001(d) requires the City to make certain findings with respect to development impact fees collected which remain unexpended or uncommitted five of more fiscal years after deposit of such fees; and B. As authorized under Chapter 16.45 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the City has collected a development fee known as the “Stanford Research Park/El Camino Transportation Impact Fee” for the purpose of funding capacity improvements at the intersections identified in that Chapter; and C. The sum of $1,376,491 represents fees collected pursuant to Chapter 16.58 that remain unexpended five or more years after deposit of the fees, together with accrued interest thereon (“unexpended Stanford Research Park/El Camino TIF funds”); and D. As authorized under Chapter 16.46 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the City has collected a development fee known as the “San Antonio/West Bayshore Traffic Impact Fee” for the purpose of funding capital expenditures needed to provide operational improvements at certain intersections identified in that Chapter; and E. The sum of $828,208 represents fees collected pursuant to Chapter 16.46 that remain unexpended five or more years after deposit of the fees, together with accrued interest thereon (“the unexpended San Antonio/West Bayshore TIF funds”); The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The Council makes the following findings: Stanford Research Park/El Camino TIF funds 1. The unexpended Stanford Research Park/El Camino TIF funds were collected pursuant to Chapter 16.45 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to be used for the purpose of funding capacity improvements at the intersections identified in that Chapter. 2. The unexpended Stanford Research Park/El Camino TIF funds in the amount of $1,376,491 are intended to be used to fund improvements in conjunction with Santa Clara County at the intersections of Page Mill Road/Hanover Street and Page Mill Road/El Camino Real, as described in the Page Mill Road Expressway Corridor Study Report. The improvements include additional and/or longer left turn lanes, modifications to enhance Attachment B 2 016 Yang\2018-11-01 RESO Unspent Impact Fees bicycle and pedestrian accommodations through the intersections, Class II bicycle lanes and Class I shared-use path at Hanover Street approaches to the intersection and a 8-phase signal conversion for the Hanover intersection. 3. The City has committed to contributing $3.2 million to fund these improvements. These funds have not been expended to date to allow for coordination with Santa Clara County, and will be expended upon receipt of an invoice from the County. 4. The need for the improvements for which the Stanford Research Park/El Camino TIF funds were collected was identified in an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) certified by the City Council in conjunction with the City’s 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan; the need for the retention of these funds was identified in the 2015 Page Mill Road Expressway Corridor Study Report commissioned by Santa Clara County. 5. The unexpended Stanford Research Park/El Camino TIF funds continue to be required in order to fund the improvements specified in Chapter 16.45 and in this resolution. 6. Based on the foregoing, a continuing need for the unexpended Stanford Research Park/El Camino TIF funds has been demonstrated. San Antonio/West Bayshore TIF funds 7. The unexpended San Antonio/West Bayshore TIF funds were collected pursuant to Chapter 16.46 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to be used solely for the purpose of funding capital expenditures needed to provide operational improvements at certain intersections identified in that Chapter. 8. The City plans to spend the unexpended San Antonio/West Bayshore TIF funds in the amount of $828,208 to fund resurfacing of the San Antonio Road/Highway 101 overpass and improvements at the intersection of San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road to increase pedestrian safety and vehicular capacity. Updated estimates for this work total in excess of $1.75 million. 9. These funds have not been expended to date because the City is continuing to refine the planned intersection improvements. A transfer of funds for the San Antonio Road/Highway 101 overpass is anticipated in FY 2019 or FY 2020. 10. The need for the improvements for which the unexpended San Antonio/ West Bayshore TIF funds were collected was identified in the San Antonio/West Bayshore EIR. 11. The unexpended San Antonio/West Bayshore TIF funds continue to be required in order to fund the improvements specified in Chapter 16.46 and in this resolution. Attachment B 3 016 Yang\2018-11-01 RESO Unspent Impact Fees 12. Based on the foregoing, a continuing need for the unexpended San Antonio/West Bayshore TIF funds has been demonstrated. SECTION 2. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ City Manager ________________________________ ______________________________ Deputy City Attorney Director of Administrative Services ______________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto (ID # 9790) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/22/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Public Hearing on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption Title: PUBLIC HEARING: on Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated (Continued From January 14, 2019) From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that Council hold a public hearing to hear and consider any objections to the proposed destruction and removal of weeds, and adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto contracts with Santa Clara County Agriculture and Resource Management to remove and destroy weeds, as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.08. This hearing allows all those affected and listed on the County’s 2019 Weed Abatement Program Commencement Report (Attachment B) to be heard and have their objections and comments considered by Council before the Council adopts a Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City. Background The Council adopted Resolution 9801 on November 26th, 2018 and declared weeds to be a nuisance and ordered the abatement of that nuisance as called for in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.08. Resolution 9801 provided for a public hearing date of January 14th, 2019 and required notice to interested property owners and the public. Discussion The Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Resource Management maintains the contract for abatement of weeds within the City of Palo Alto. Upon notification of the City Council’s November 26th, 2018 action declaring weeds to be a nuisance and ordering abatement thereof, the Department of Agriculture and Resource Management took steps to notify each property owner by mail of the proposed weed abatement action on respective City of Palo Alto Page 2 properties and posted, on the public notice bulletin board, a list of the properties affected. The Department of Agriculture and Resource Management has furnished copies of the property listing to the City Clerk and the City Fire Marshal. The City Clerk also posted and published notice of the hearing as required. At this public hearing, property owners may appear and object to the proposed weed destruction or removal. After the hearing and consideration of any objections, the Council may sustain or overrule any or all objections. If objections are sustained, the Council may remove properties from the weed abatement commencement report. Upon adoption of the a resolution confirming the weed abatement commencement report and ordering weed nuisances abated, the County will be asked to perform the abatement work to destroy and remove any weeds. Resource Impact All Charges for the weed abatement services are included as a special assessment on bills for property taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land, which are considered liens on these properties. Policy Implications This procedure is consistent with existing City policies and Municipal Code Chapter 8.08. Environmental Review Santa Clara County has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Sections 15308. Attachments: Attachment A: RESO_2.Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated Attachment B: 2019 Palo Alto Commencment report Not Yet Adopted 1 Resolution No. ___ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated R E C I T A L S A. On November 26, 2018 the Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution No. 9801 declaring weeds to be a nuisance and setting January 14, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Civic Center as the time and place for a hearing of objections to the proposed destruction and removal of weeds; and B. In accordance with said Resolution, notice of such hearing was given in the manner provided by law, as appears from the affidavits on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and C. All persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to said weed abatement were fully heard and considered by this Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Any and all objections to the proposed destruction and removal of such weeds are overruled. SECTION 2. The Fire Chief hereby is ordered to do all things necessary and authorized in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to abate such nuisance, or cause the same to be abated by contract with the County of Santa Clara. // // // // // // // // Not Yet Adopted 2 SECTION 3. The County of Santa Clara as lead agency has determined that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 as an action by regulatory agencies authorized by state or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Fire Chief _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 2019 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY/STATE ts76 999 1938 103 l 2385 2075 946 669 260 tJ5 135 425 743 3 t0l 3489 149 22 l8 0 0 23t 220 280 HAMILTON EMBARCADER CHANNING EMBARCADER ST FRANCIS LOUIS EL CAJON EVERETT BYRON RAMONA MELVILLE STANFORD COLORADO MIDDLEFIELD COWPER ELDORADO ROOSEVELT ROOSEVELT OLIVE FERNANDO MATADERO MATADERO AV 003-24-010 RD 00341-068 AV 003-42-039 RD 003-42-060 DR 003-48-021 RD 003-50-021 wY 003-52-057 AV 120-02-017 sr 124-02-034 sr pa-27-463 AV 124-15-A2B AY 124-31-A27 AV 127-34-101 RD 127-53-007 sr 132-05-108 AV 132-25-022 cL 132-29-A67 cL 132-29-069 AV 132-32-037 1 32-33-050 AV 132-34-019 AVE132-34-025 AV 132-34-031 0 Po Box I179 999 EMBARCADERO RD 506 EISENHOWER ST IOI8I ADzuANAAV 2385 ST FRANCIS DR 2075 LOUIS RD 9468L CAJON WY 669 EVERETTAV 260 BYRON ST PO BOX 156 I35 MELVILLEAV 425 STANFORDAV 743 COLORADOAV 4861 SALLYCT 3489 COWPER ST 3143 GREERRD 22 ROOSEVELT CL 18 ROOSEVELT CL IO6OO DEANZABL STE 2OO N 1700 Space Park Dr. 23I FERNANDOAV 186 CAMELIADR 19066 AUSTIN WY PALOALTO PALOALTO DAVIS CUPERTINO PALOATTO PALOALTO PALOALTO PALOALTO PALOAIjIO SOUTH DOS PALOS PALOALTO PALOALTO PALOALTO UNION CITY PALOALTO PALOALTO PALOALTO PALOALTO CUPERTINO SANTACLARA PALOALTO DALYCITY SARATOGA I 576 HAMILTON AVENUE LLC GE, RUIFANG AND WANG, PEIYU HALET PHILIP H TRUSTEE & ETAL OMEGACLOUD CORPORATION ZADTK,YAIR AND LINDA KELLER, JEFFREY R PILLSBURY, HELEN BANDALBERT F GOLUB, BENJAMIN TRUSTEE & ET LIVERIGHI MICHAEL KODA, ROSS K TRUSTEE POPPY, JAMES CAND SYLVESTER" NICHOLLS, MARIE L TRUSTEE HUANG, HSINGYETAL FISHERLLC MC CALLEY, RODERICK C ETAL QUAN, STEVEN YAND LILLIAN M CHIOU, REN-KANG AND TENG, HSIU- Amfu D. Bernstein, Trustee SI 45 LLC Linda Allen GOODzuCH, EVELYN LAND GEORGE AJLOLTN ENTERPRISES LLC ROSE ROCK PROPERTY CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 94304 94303-3050 9s616 9s0t4-1125 94303-3136 94303-34s2 94303-3408 9430r-1342 94301-1307 9366s 94301-3541 94306-1149 94303-39t3 94s87 94306-3617 94303-4027 943064216 943064216 95014 95054 94306-2815 94015 95070-6405 23 records of 66 Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Page I 2019 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF PALO ALTO Situs APN AV 132-34-Q32 BL 132-34-050 BL 132-34-052 132-35-445 AV 132-39-037 sr 13240-A01 AV 13241-072 BL 13243-025 AV 137-01-059 sT 137-02-024 sr 137-05-095 sr 137-06-036 sr 137-06-088 137-11-A7B AV 137-21-034 DR '137-21-064 137-24-434 AV 137-25-005 AV '137-25-088 AV 137-25-108 AV 137-25-109 AV 137-25-113 AV 137-26-001 CITY/STATE 290 3605 3561 3705 42r 3550 405 4032 613 2321 2250 2195 2120 3700 4031 795 4146 4115 590 575 s67 4170 4155 MATADERO PARK PARK ELCAMINO FERNANDO ORINDA CURTNER PARK STANFORD WELLESLEY COLUMBIA COLUMBIA COLUMBIA ELCAMINO AMARANTA CEREZA ELCAMINO ALTAMESA MAYBELL MAYBELL MAYBELL AUTAMESA AMARANTA MOLINTAIN VIEW PALOALTO SAN JOSE PALOALTO STANFORD PALOALTO SAN JOSE LINION CITY PALOALTO BERKELEY PALOALTO PALOALTO PALOALTO LOSALTOS PALOALTO PALOALTO ATHERTON PALOALTO PALOALTO Cupertino PALOALTO PALOALTO PALOALTO 94040-1415 94306-28s3 95136-2s3s 94301-2403 94309-0089 94306-2842 9s129-3107 94587 94306-t412 94704 94306-6178 94306-1233 94301-343s 94024-5744 94306-3843 94306-3t4s 94027 94306-3931 94306-3817 95014 94303 94306-3930 94306-3903 RUEHL, KARLKAND SIGzuD T BROSZ, KAROLYN MAHAL, JASWINDER WIRON COURT II LLC WILLIGER, EDWARD M RODRIGUEZ, AGUSTTN E TRUSTEE & CURTNER INVESTMENT GROUP LLC ZÍTIJ,LI AND WAN, FANNY TRUSTEE BAUMANN, JOHN R CULPEPPER, BENJAMIN J TAGGART, KENNETH AND CYNTHIA EDELMAN, ANDREA TRUSTEE HALL, LOIS M TRUSTEE KSS INVESTMENT LLC SOOD, RAKESH TRUSTEE & ETAL LAMB, MARYELLEN JUAN, SU CHEN AND CHLING- ALINA, MYRNA AND MYRNAALINA VILKIN, PETER Golden Gate Home LLC GOLDEN GAIE HOMES LLC WU, MIKE CAND TSAI-FENG CORLAI NANCY 2391 GABRIELAV 3605 PARK BL 180 PARK SHARON DR 725 ALMA ST 0PoBox20089 3550 ORINDA ST 5526 BIGOAK DR 33345 7TH ST 613 STANFORDAV 335 PANORAMIC WY 0 Po Box 61178 2195 COLUMBIA ST II35 HOPKINSAV I38O MIRAVALLEAV 4218 YNIGO WY 795 CEREZADR 6ATHERTON OAKS LN 4I75 ALTAMESAAV 673 MAYBELLAV 19925 Stevens Creek Blvd. Ste. 222'BAYSHORE RD 4ITOAUTAMESAAV 4I55AMARANTAAV CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 46 records of 66 Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Page 2 2019 WEED, ABATEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OF PALO ALTO Situs AMARANTA AV COULOMBE DR DEERCREEK RD DEERCREEK RD RUTHELMA AV CHARLESTON RD WHITCLEM DR CFIARLESTON RD MONROE DR SILVA CT ARASTRADER RD OAK HILL AV OAK HILL AV MESA AV OAKHILL AV MANUELA CT OLDTRACE RD MOCKINGBIRD LN OLDADOBE RD ALEXIS DR EDMONDS, BRIAN WAND PARSA, TANA, CHININ TRUSTEE & ETAL LELAND STANFORD JRIJNIV BOARD LELAND STANFORD JR LINIVERSITY SHIU, BOON W HE, SHUDONG AND CHEN, ZHENG HUANG, HAIHUA AND JIANG, MIN O-YUAN, SHAN AND CHENG, TANG PALOALTO CAI4LLC YIN, JUN AND DUANMU, LAN STONE, VIRGINIAAAND BRADLEY K BACHRACH, VIRGINIA R TRUSTEE BACHRACH, VIRGINIA R TRUSTEE TLT LLC KAMAIH, SWATI P TRUSTEE WEAKLAND,ALAN TRUSTEE & ET SMITHWICK, ALTON D AND URSULA JOSHI, VIVEK TRUSTEE & ET AL GROVE, EVAKTRUSTEE HWANG, CHERNG-DAW AND BI- 4I53AMARANTAAV 4I7O COULOMBE DR 150 PORTOLARD 35OO DEER CREEK RD 2478 GEARYBL 295 CHARLESTON RDW 6665 CLIFFORD DR 3I7 HARTSTENE DR 2316 WAHSATCHAVN #63I 4388 SILVACT 3516 BAJAMONT WY 17I EVERETTAV I7I EVERETTAV 0 Po Box 1667 4158 OAKHILLAV 515 FLOWER STS FLOOR 25 0 Po Box 60065 890 MOCKINGBIRD LN 171 MAIN ST278 2946 ALEXIS DR (]ITY/STATE PALOALTO PALOALTO PORTOLAVALLEY PALOALTO SAN FRANCISCO PALOALTO CUPERTINO REDWOOD CITY COLORADO SPRTNGS PALOALTO CARMICHAEL PALOALTO PALOALTO PALOALTO PALOALTO LOSANGELES PALOALTO PALOALTO LOSALTOS PALOALTO APN 4158 4170 3495 3500 4208 295 262 28s 144 4388 633 4179 4169 849 4158 4243 4103 890 0 2946 137-26-027 137-26-112 142-16-062 14246-466 148-02-002 MB-42-010 148-42-444 148-03-033 148-06-001 148-12-028 167-06-016 175-01-425 175-01-026 175-01-037 175-01-051 175-O2-O53 175-20-078 175-24-082 175-20-092 18240-004 CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CO CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 94306-3905 94306-3801 94025 94304 9411s-3317 94306-4128 950144530 94065 80907 943064422 95608 9430t 94301 94302 94306-3720 90071 94306 94306-3719 94022 94304-r30r 66 records of 66 Santa Clara County \ileed Abatement Program Page 3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9752) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/22/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Council Priority: Environmental Sustainability Summary Title: Approval of GreenWaste Amended and Restated Agreement #2 Title: Approval of the Second Amended and Restated Agreement for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials and Compostable Materials Collection and Processing Services With GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc. In the Estimated Average Annual Amount of $22,183,000 and Approval of the Addendum to the 2008 Mitigated Negative Declaration for City-wide Waste Hauling Service as Adequate and Complete Under the California Environmental Equality Act (CEQA) From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendations Staff recommends that Council: 1) Approve the Second Amended and Restated Agreement for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials and Compostable Materials Collection and Processing Services with GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc. ; and 2) Approve the Addendum to the 2008 Mitigated Negative Declaration for City-wide Waste Hauling Service as Adequate and Complete under CEQA. Executive Summary Staff is returning to Council as directed (Staff Report #9237) with an amended and restated agreement with GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc. (GreenWaste) that would facilitate the implementation of new zero waste initiatives, replace older waste collection vehicles and extend the agreement from 2021 to 2026. City of Palo Alto Page 2 A new Zero Waste Plan was accepted by Council in August 2018 containing new initiatives needed to meet the City’s sustainability and zero waste goals. The amended GreenWaste agreement includes new services that would facilitate some of these new initiatives including: an expanded Clean Up Day program focusing on recyclables and reusable materials, and increased efforts to clean up commercial recyclable materials so these materials can continue to be accepted by markets that have implemented stricter contamination standards. New construction related waste management collection services and a new fee structure are also included in this amended agreement but are contingent on Council approval of an ordinance expected in the spring of 2019. This amended and restated agreement would also extend the agreement for an additional five years beyond the current termination date of June 30, 2021. This extension is recommended to lock in local collection and processing facility capacity before a number of other neighboring cities conduct solicitations in the 2021 timeframe. An extension would also ensure continuity of existing services and more fully utilize new waste collection vehicles over their useful life. The new scope of services in this amended and restated agreement would have an ongoing annual cost of approximately $1.4 million per year and one-time costs for new vehicles of $9.8 million over three Fiscal Years. Ongoing near term costs will be offset by excess Refuse Fund revenues (above expenses) and the one-time costs can be funded by the rate stabilization reserves (RSR). The RSR has risen above City Guidelines and the $9.8 million vehicle purchase will reduce the RSR closer to the guideline range. No rate increases for FY 2020 are anticipated. Background GreenWaste was awarded the contract as the City’s waste contractor in 2009 after a competitive solicitation process. The previous waste contractor, PASCO, had been the City’s waste contractor for over 50 years prior to GreenWaste taking over the service in 2009. The City developed a zero waste plan in 2007 prior to the GreenWaste contract award. The plan included zero waste programs which raised the City’s waste diversion levels from 64% to approximately 80% in 2018. An updated 2018 Zero Waste plan was developed in response to a Sustainability/Climate Action Plan Framework that the Council adopted in 2016, which set a new goal of 95% of waste generated to be diverted from landfills by City of Palo Alto Page 3 2030. The City currently has three significant refuse management agreements all ending in 2021: 1) GreenWaste - all refuse collection and materials processing from blue and green containers, and collection and processing of construction and demolition debris (C&D); 2) Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT) - garbage processing facility for the contents of black containers; and 3) Waste Management, Inc. - landfill disposal of residual garbage. The following is a simple diagram of these agreements and their refuse management function. On August 27, 2018, Council directed staff to develop and negotiate a contract amendment and extension of the GreenWaste contract to continue service through 2026 and implement key elements of the 2018 Zero Waste Plan, as well as to replace aging waste collection vehicles that have been in operation since the start of service under the agreement in 2009. (Staff Report #9237, Recommendation #2) “2) Direct staff to develop a contract amendment to add scope and extend the term of the current contract with GreenWaste of Palo Alto, Inc. (GreenWaste) for collection of all refuse containers, processing recyclable and compostable materials (contents of blue and green containers), and implementation of key Zero Waste Plan initiatives;” Curbside Collection (GreenWaste) Garbage Processing (Sunnyvale -SMaRT) Recyclables and Compost Processing (GreenWaste) Construction Waste Processing (GreenWaste) Landfill Disposal (Waste Mgmt. Inc.) City of Palo Alto Page 4 Discussion The proposed second amended and restated agreement with GreenWaste includes provisions to implement six new (programmatic) related initiatives that are included in the 2018 Zero Waste Plan. These new initiatives include: Zero Waste Plan Intiatives 1, 2 and 4 – Construction-Related Waste Management A new scope of services component has been added to allow GreenWaste to manage new construction related waste requirements (deconstruction and source separation of materials), if an ordinance is approved by Council in the spring of 2019. The primary goal of the new construction-related waste ordinance would be to increase the amount and quality of recyclable materials recovered from all construction and demolition projects. GreenWaste would provide small bins to construction contractors to sort separated materials during projects, and would manage and process these materials. The diversion potential is estimated to be greater than 7,500 tons per year (about 16% of City’s total landfilled waste). Zero Waste Plan Initiatives 3 and 20 – Recyclables Clean-up Efforts Under the proposed contract amendment, GreenWaste would expand and improve outreach and enforcement of sorting requirements for commercial customers and add an additional recyclables collection route to improve the quality of these materials which would reduce rejection of the materials from being sold. GreenWaste would provide additional sorting of marginally contaminated recyclables at their processing facility to ensure the marketability of the materials. GreenWaste would also provide additional personnel to support the City’s refuse enforcement program and enhance the management of commercial recyclables that are routinely contaminated with food or garbage with a primary goal of cleaning up the City’s recyclables so that they will be accepted as manufacturing feedstock in world markets whose standards for recyclable cleanliness have become much stricter. The diversion potential is 2,450 tons per year (about 5% of the City’s total landfilled waste). Zero Waste Initiative 10 – Add and Enhance Clean Up Day Collection Program Under the amended agreement, GreenWaste would implement an expanded Clean Up Day service to residential customers and modify the collection to focus on reusable items, excess recyclable materials, small amounts of contruction- related waste as well as waste oil, filters and batteries. GreenWaste has committed to forming a relationship with non-profit organizations that would City of Palo Alto Page 5 accept the reusable items. There will be two collection events per year, organized by neighborhoods at no additional cost to residential customers. Customers who need additional service can request it through GreenWaste at a cost, as it is available currently. Individual customers with special circumstances can contact GreenWaste to discuss alternatives and options. The diversion potential of this expanded program is 390 tons per year, it would utilize the best and highest use of discards and save an estimated 1,730 MTCO2e (greenhouse gas emissions). New GreenWaste Scope of Services and Related Annual Ongoing Costs Ongoing Programs Annual Cost New Construction Materials Management Initiatives (Contingent upon Council approval of an ordinance) • Additional GreenWaste Personnel (1 Driver, ½ Admin. Assistant, ½ Environmental Outreach Coordinator) • Processing surcharge for overweight boxes (estimate) Subtotal $297,000 $270,000 $567,000 Recyclables Clean-up Efforts • Additional GreenWaste Personnel (1 Driver) • Additional sorting of contaminated recyclables • Enforcement Support (½ Environ. Outreach Coordinator) Subtotal $165,000 $234,000 $ 70,000 $469,000 Enhanced Clean Up Day Program • Additional GreenWaste Personnel (1 Driver) • Expanded outreach and noticing to customers Subtotal $165,000 $57,000 $222,000 Other GreenWaste Ongoing Costs $165,000 Total Estimated Additional Annual Ongoing Cost $1,423,000 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Percent Increase in GreenWaste Compensation for FY20 (FY19 GreenWaste Compensation = $16.25m) +8.8% Percent Increase of Overall Refuse Fund Budget for FY20 (FY19 Refuse Fund Budgeted Expenses = $29.75m) +4.8% GreenWaste Infrastructure Upgrades This new amended and restated agreement would facilitate the replacement and upgrading of aging GreenWaste infrastructure by compensating GreenWaste to replace older trucks purchased at the inception of service under the agreement in 2009 that have reached their end of useful life. Other infrastructure needed are: 1) additional containers to support new programs; 2) one-time additional maintenance expense to compensate GreenWaste to maintain the older fleet until new vehicles can be ordered and delivered; 3) new customer database software; and 4) a small scale to weigh bins containing source separated construction-related waste before consolidating into larger boxes. GreenWaste One-Time Costs Distributed by Fiscal Year One-Time Costs Items Estimated Cost FY19 FY20 FY21 TOTAL New Replacement Vehicles* $216,000 $7,073,000 $1,843,000 $9,132,000 Additional Debris Boxes for Deconstruction and General Use** $75,000 $231,000 $306,000 Additional Maintenance on Older Vehicles $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 Customer Database Program Replacement $125,000 $125,000 Small scale for construction related materials collection** $12,000 $12,000 Total Estimated One-Time Costs $516,000 $7,416,000 $1,843,000 $9,775,000 *These costs for new vehicles would be incurred in the year the vehicles are received and put in use. Due to longer manufacturing lag time a few vehicles would not be received and paid for until FY21. **Costs related to construction materials management contingent on Council approval of a construction related waste ordinance. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Future Fee considerations after 2021 This amended and restated agreement contains two compensation changes that would become effective during the extension period after the current term of the agreement ends on June 30, 2021. 1) The commercial compost per ton fee would increase by approximately 5% above the current fee. GreenWaste has communicated that the City currently pays the lowest fee for commercial compost (food related materials) out of all of their customers processing organic material at their Zero Waste Energy Development Facility. 2) Recyclables fee impacts - China has stopped accepting most of the world’s recyclable materials and current markets have implemented much stricter contamination standards. As a result, recyclables no longer have the same monetary value as in the past few years, and some recyclables have been rejected by recyclables brokers and disposed in landfills. In response to these events, the revised fee structure in the GreenWaste agreement would eliminate the credit to the City that represented the value of recyclable materials. Instead, after June 30, 2021, the City would pay GreenWaste a fixed fee of $25 per ton for the recyclables collected and processed by GreenWaste, and would be eligible for a 50%-50% revenue share for sale of the City’s recyclables when certain triggers are achieved. If conditions change and the price of marketable recyclables rises, the City could redirect its recyclables elsewhere if better pricing can be achieved. Environmental and Social Impacts of Processing Recyclable Materials As mentioned above, overseas markets for recyclable materials have imposed much stricter contamination standards on recyclable materials (mainly mixed paper and plastics). This has forced waste companies, including the City’s refuse hauler GreenWaste, to find other markets internationally and domestically, or worse case, to dispose of rejected materials in landfills. In addition, there are also concerns about the quality of overseas recycling facilities, specifically with worker safety, pay, child labor and whether discarded materials are being properly disposed. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Staff has added a new attachment to the GreenWaste Agreement (Attachment K- 3: Environmental and social impacts of processing recyclable materials) to the agreement to address these concerns. The attachment verbiage states that the recycling commodity market is unstructured and brokers may only have limited information about the ports to which commodities are being shipped. Once at the ports, materials are sent to various plants and manufacturers, making the full life- cycle of materials extremely difficult to track. The following provisions have also been added to the GreenWaste agreement to address these issues: 1) GreenWaste shall attempt to gather information on the environmental and social implications associated with the full life-cycle of Palo Alto’s recyclable materials by requesting from purchaser, once per year, to provide information regarding the disposition of recyclable materials. 2) Once the information has been obtained, GreenWaste will conduct an analysis of publicly available evidence from credible media, authoritative institutions and civil society organizations to assess for risk of human rights and/or environmental violations in the locations provided in item 1 above. 3) The City may establish a policy covering human rights and environmental standards to guide City involvement with at-risk purchasers/secondary processors and may direct GreenWaste to utilize alternative purchasers and/or secondary processors if environmental or social issues are found to exist in association with recyclables processing. 4) Should the City direct GreenWaste to utilize alternative markets, City would compensate GreenWaste for increased cost as negotiated. 5) City will have the option to incentivize domestic processing locations or locations without human rights and/or environmental violations. 6) On July 1st of each year, available domestic processing options, together with comparative costs, shall be presented to the City. The City will determine whether to direct GreenWaste to utilize domestic markets. Timeline Upon Council approval of this restated and amended agreement, the contract will be extended to expire on June 30, 2026. Staff will direct GreenWaste to begin ordering new waste vehicles that could take over 12 months to be manufactured and delivered. Staff will also begin preparation to implement key short term initiatives such as changes to the Clean Up Day and commercial recyclables clean- up efforts. No budget request is needed until FY20. Staff forecasts bringing a City of Palo Alto Page 9 construction-related materials ordinance to Council in spring 2019. Resource Impact In the past few years, the Refuse Fund has been realizing more revenue than expenses. This trend is expected to continue at least through fiscal year 2021 with the exception of the large one-time costs mentioned above. Staff is forecasting no rate increases will be needed until FY22 at the earliest. An annual analysis of revenues will be completed each year to ensure revenues will continue to cover expenses. If revenues continue to grow, rate decreases (primarily in the commercial sector) will also be considered. Staff determined the expense increase for FY19 can be absorbed in the existing contract budget. Funding of the contract for FY20 and beyond is subject to Council approval as part of the budget development process. Staff proposes to compensate GreenWaste in FY20 and FY21 for the one-time expenses to purchase new vehicles using rate stabilization reserves. This option avoids the Refuse Fund to pay for ongoing vehicle depreciation during the extended term of the agreement through FY26 and would save the City finance charges of $200k per year for a total of $1.2M. The one-time cost would also bring the rate stabilization reserve amount down closer to the City’s recommended range. The table below shows the financial impacts and Refuse Fund’s rate stabilization reserve balance for FY19, FY20, FY21, assuming Council’s approval of staff’s recommendations and the budget implications. Refuse Fund Summary and Forecast (with GreenWaste amendment) Budget Category In Millions FY18 (CAFR) FY19 (Budget) FY20 (Estimate) FY21 (Estimate) Revenues $34.6 $33.1 $34.1 $34.1 Expenses $28.3 $29.7 $39.3 $34.8 Operating Income $6.4 $3.4 <$5.2> <$0.7> Rate Stabilization Reserves $14.7 $18.1 $12.9 $12.2 As mentioned above, Staff recommends compensating GreenWaste for the one- City of Palo Alto Page 10 time expenses using rate stabilization reserves instead of paying GreenWaste for depreciation during the term of the agreement (through 2026) for the following reasons: • The City would save the finance charges - $200k per year (through FY26) for a total of $1.2M; • The one-time cost would bring the rate stabilization reserve amount down and closer to the City’s recommended range. Staff will obtain Council approval separately as part of the budget development process for selective expenses (ongoing and one-time) presented in this staff report. Policy Implications The City adopted sustainablilty and Zero Waste goals in the SCAP framework in 2016. The new amended and restated agreement would facilitate implementation of short term initiatives to help the City meet these goals. Environmental Review An Addendum to the 2008 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for City-Wide Waste Hauling Service has been completed. The analysis shows that the proposed modifications to the approved project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts, and that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines §15162 have occurred. Therefore, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 1513 have not been triggered and a Subsequent MND or EIR is not required. City of Palo Alto (ID # 9993) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/22/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Project Update and Possible Action on Rail Grade Separation Alternatives Title: Discussion and Project Update on Connecting Palo Alto and Consideration of the Following Actions: A) Separate From Study all Alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing (Closure and Hybrid) and Include Palo Alto Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning Effort; B) Separate From Study the Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing of the Caltrain Corridor in the Vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and Assess Feasibility in a Future Study; C) Address the Rail Committee’s Recommendation Regarding a Tunnel by Modifying the Alternative to be South of Oregon Expressway Only and Further Explore the Scope and Budget for an Alternative With Freight Trains on the Surface and Passenger Trains Underground for the Meadow and Charleston Crossings; and D) Adopt a Modified List of Grade Separation Alternatives (Continued From December 17, 2018) From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that Council receive a project update on Connecting Palo Alto and consider the following actions: a) Separate from study all alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing (closure and hybrid) and include Palo Alto Avenue in a separate comprehensive planning effort; b) Separate from study the bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the Caltrain corridor in the vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and assess feasibility in a future study; c) Address the Rail Committee’s recommendation regarding a tunnel by modifying the alternative to be south of Oregon Expressway only and further explore [the Scope and Budget] for an alternative with freight trains on the surface and passenger trains underground [for the Meadow and Charleston crossings]. City of Palo Alto Page 2 d) Adopt a Modified List of Grade Separation Alternatives: - SOUTH PALO ALTO | Rail Tunnel - CHURCHILL AVE. | Full or Partial Closure & Add Improvements (CAX) - MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. | Hybrid (MCL) - MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. | Rail Trench (MCT) - MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. | Viaduct (MCV) Executive Summary This report and recommendation (with the exceptions noted below), was provided to Council and the public at the December 17, 2018 Council meeting. At the December 17, 2018 Council meeting public comments were heard on this item, and Council discussion and action were continued. Additional public comments and recommendations for Council consideration are being taken up at the January 22, 2019 Council meeting. Two revisions have been made to the December 17th recommendation: • Recommendation c) has been revised from “south of California Avenue” to “south of Oregon Expressway.” This recognizes the short distance between the two streets and avoids necessarily requiring reconstruction of the Oregon Expressway undercrossing. • The reference to “Trench or Tunnel” for alternative MCT has been reduced to “Trench” only. This clarifies the distinction between this alternative and the new South Palo Alto Rail Tunnel alternative. Connecting Palo Alto, the City’s rail corridor grade separation planning effort, is approaching the goal of selecting a preferred solution by February 2019. The current stage of the process focuses on narrowing the remaining grade separation alternatives based on Rail Committee recommendations, Community Advisory Panel (CAP) suggestions, public feedback, technical design development, and ultimately City Council direction. For the City’s four at-grade crossings, the City Council voted and gave staff direction at the May 29, 2018 City Council meeting to narrow the alternatives down to ten grade separation alternatives. The ten alternatives were further narrowed to eight at the June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, due to the elimination and modification of alternatives at Churchill Avenue. At the January 22, 2019 meeting, the City Council has an opportunity to further narrow the list of remaining alternatives before the February City Council meeting which, based on the current schedule, is the target meeting for selecting a preferred solution. The current alternatives still in consideration based on the City Council direction in June 2018 are listed here. In addition to these alternatives, at the November 27th Rail Committee meeting, the Committee recommended that staff and the consultant further explore [the scope and budget for] an alternative with freight trains on the surface and passenger trains underground. Members of the public advocated for this additional alternative with the intention for it to be specific to the Meadow and Charleston crossings as opposed to citywide though that specificity was not provided in the Rail Committee’s recommended motion. Rail Alternatives Still in Consideration as of June 19, 2018 Council Action: City of Palo Alto Page 3 a. WBP CITYWIDE | Deep-Bore Rail Tunnel City-wide deep-bore railroad under roadway tunnel within Palo Alto city limits with two new underground rail stations; b. PAH PALO ALTO AVE. | Hybrid Continue proposed Menlo Park railroad over roadway hybrid and/or viaduct across San Francisquito Creek and Palo Alto Avenue; c. PCX PALO ALTO AVE. | Full Closure Palo Alto Avenue Crossing Closed; improvement options include: build an Everett Avenue bike/pedestrian undercrossing and widen University Avenue; d. CAX CHURCHILL AVE. | Full or Partial Closure & Add Improvements Study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts; c. MCL MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. | Hybrid Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/pedestrian crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard; d. MCT MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. | Rail Trench or Tunnel Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway over railroad trench or tunnel Alma street would not be within trench or tunnel (maintains Alma Street connections to Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) with Alma Street in its existing alignment or a new alignment; e. MCV MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. | Viaduct Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway viaduct. f. MCR MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. | Reverse Hybrid Meadow Drive & Charleston Road roadway over railroad reverse hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/pedestrian crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard. On August 15, 2018 Rail Committee recommended merging this alternative with MCT. Since the June 19, 2018 City Council meeting, the Rail Committee and CAP discussed potential policy considerations for the Palo Alto Avenue crossing given its unique context near Downtown and the Transit Center, and potential land use coordination opportunities. Staff recommends that the City Council at the January 22, 2019 meeting consider putting the Palo Alto Ave grade crossing alternatives analysis on a separate but parallel planning track as part of a Downtown Coordinated Area Planning effort. If Council agrees, this would remove the PAH and PCX alternatives above from study. In addition to the action related to the Palo Alto Avenue crossing, staff is also recommending that the City Council at the January 22, 2019 meeting consider removing from study the bicycle and pedestrian crossing of the Caltrain corridor in the vicinity of Loma Verde Avenue and assess feasibility in a future study. This study was included in the June 19, 2018 City Council motion for the Meadow Drive and City of Palo Alto Page 4 Charleston Road hybrid alternative (MCL). Due to the need to coordinate bicycle access with crosstown circulation, staff recommends that this be removed from study with the grade separation alternatives. Further technical analysis, conceptual engineering, and interagency communication related to the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road alternatives illuminated key differences between the three options for these two crossings. In addition to the greatest construction cost and disruption, the trench option (MCT) has substantial engineering and regulatory challenges related to drainage, groundwater, and creek diversion. The viaduct (MCV) and hybrid (MCL) are expected to have relatively lower capital construction cost but would introduce visual changes along the affected areas of the corridor and potentially new noise impacts. A detailed comparison of the alternatives is presented in the Discussion section of this report. Background and Project Update The following is a summary of the eight grade separation design alternatives presently under consideration as part of Connecting Palo Alto, and direction received at two City Council meetings which informed the scope and extent of these alternatives. While Council has discussed grade separation at many past City Council meetings, this report highlights Council decisions which concern selection of the narrowed ten design alternatives and subsequent action to narrow the range of alternatives in pursuit of a preferred solution by early 2019. This section of the report will primarily summarize City Council action, key Rail Committee recommendations, CAP suggestions, and interagency feedback as it relates to the remaining alternatives. Full summaries and minutes of CAP and Rail Committee meetings are available via the project website: connectingpaloalto.org. Attachment A also contains a list of meetings held related to this project. City Council Action on Grade Separation Alternatives Initially narrowed by City Council: May 29, 2018 Revised by City Council: June 19, 2018 MAY 29, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING – TEN ALTERNATIVES City Council selected ten discrete grade separation alternatives for further study at the May 29, 2018 Council meeting, representing a significant milestone in the Connecting Palo Alto planning process. In project nomenclature, this decision constituted a transition from a vast constellation of design “ideas,” to ten design “alternatives.” Design “ideas” are general in nature and “alternatives” are more distinctly defined to allow for more detailed study and community discussion. This action initiated the current stage of the Connecting Palo Alto planning process, which involves continual refinement and narrowing of alternatives until a preferred solution is reached. JUNE 19, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING – CHURCHILL AVENUE To date since the May 29, 2018 Council meeting, City Council met once to discuss and act upon rail design alternatives (on June 19, 2018). As a result of City Council direction received at this meeting, the Churchill Avenue Hybrid and Reverse Hybrid were removed from further consideration and the Churchill Avenue closure alternative was modified to remove the widening of the Embarcadero Road underpass from the description of the closure option. Instead, traffic impacts of the closure would be evaluated through a comprehensive traffic study. Finally, a “partial closure” alternative at Churchill Avenue was added as part of the closure option. Following City Council’s direction at this meeting, City of Palo Alto Page 5 the number of alternatives under study reduced from ten to eight and one alternative was modified. The outcome of this decision is reflected in the list of alternatives shown in the Executive Summary. . Summer & Fall Developments In the months following the June 19, 2018 Council meeting, several Rail Committee and CAP meetings centered on technical issues related to the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings. Also discussed were the policy, planning, and coordination opportunities around the Palo Alto Avenue crossing and its relationship to Downtown and the Transit Center and land use issues. City staff and the consultant team conducted interagency meetings with Caltrain and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to augment project design criteria and identify areas of risk or where deviation from standard practices would be necessary. AUGUST 15, 2018 RAIL COMMITTEE – MEADOW DR & CHARLESTON RD. REVERSE HYBRID MERGER As a result of the property impacts projected as part of the Churchill Avenue hybrid alternative, staff and the consultant team accelerated design development of the four alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road to ascertain the degree of potential property impacts. The design progression revealed two key findings for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road: no full property acquisition was required and few geometric differences existed between the reverse hybrid and full trench alternatives to warrant further study as separate alternatives. Based on conceptual designs, permanent property impacts for the Meadow and Charleston hybrid consisted of modifications to existing driveways. The trench alternative was found to require minimal property acquisition above ground (Note: analysis conducted later in the fall revealed a need for underground easements for a structural anchor system to support the trench). The viaduct requires no property acquisition. The second outcome of this process revealed the design of the reverse hybrid (Alternative MCR) had few benefits as a discrete alternative relative to the full trench alternative (Alternative MCT). Accordingly, the Rail Committee recommended that variations in the vertical alignment of the rail trench be considered as part of Alternative MCT, the full trench alternative. Due to this recommendation, staff focused analysis effort on Alternative MCT and presented results to the CAP, Rail Committee, and at the November 28 Community Meeting. OCTOBER 2018 – CALTRAIN & SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT INTERAGENCY MEETINGS During October, City staff and the AECOM consultant team met with counterparts at Caltrain and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to discuss technical engineering issues related to the grade separation design alternatives. Discussion topics included approval processes and criteria for designs with railroad grades steeper than one percent; maintenance responsibilities for grade separation structures during their lifespan; and drainage design criteria related to below-grade alternatives. Caltrain engineering indicated that grades steeper than one percent were permitted at the recently-completed San Bruno grade separation project, but that such exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis. The City sent a letter to Caltrain seeking additional clarity on these matters and are awaiting a response. A copy of the letter is attached to this report as Attachment B. One meeting and subsequent correspondence with SCVWD concentrated on issues related to the four locations where creeks cross the rail corridor within the city. Of concern were scenarios where below- City of Palo Alto Page 6 grade alternatives obstruct existing creek beds, necessitating an engineering method to divert creek outflow around the below-ground rail structures. Comments from SCVWD staff (Attachment C) regarding the design alternatives and their relationship to waterways are discussed in greater detail in following sections. NOVEMBER 27, 2018 RAIL COMMITTEE – MODIFIED TUNNEL WITH FREIGHT ON SURFACE At the November 27, 2018 Rail Committee meeting they recommended the City Council direct staff and the consultant team to further explore [the scope and budget for] an alternative with freight trains on the surface and passenger trains underground. Members of the public advocated for this additional alternative with the intention for it to be specific to the Meadow and Charleston crossings as opposed to citywide though that specificity was not provided in the Rail Committee’s recommended motion. Based on very preliminary estimates, the technical analysis, 3-D rendering, conceptual schematics and costing for the tunnel alternative currently assumes that both the passenger and freight trains are in the deep bore tunnel for the citywide tunnel. To conduct the same level of study for a passenger train only in the tunnel and freight train on the surface for the Meadow and Charleston crossings, additional budget and time will be needed. Depending on the analysis scope, the increased costs to conduct the analysis is expected to be at least $100,000. Beyond the cost and schedule needed, the AECOM consultants have indicated that the construction cost savings for a passenger only tunnel are unlikely to yield significant savings compared to a tunnel that includes freight. In addition, the land value capture of a tunnel is lost if freight remains on the surface, which is also something to consider. However, the issues raised could be evaluated by refocusing the current citywide tunnel to South Palo Alto only. If the City Council directs staff to proceed with the additional study, staff will return to the City Council with a budget change order request. NOVEMBER 28, 2018 COMMUNITY MEETING – MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. FOCUS A summary of the main feedback received at the community meeting will be provided at the City Council meeting. A meeting summary will also be available online on the connectingpaloalto project website. Discussion and Key Findings As noted above, the focus of staff and the consultant team centered on the three active grade separation alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The Citywide Rail Tunnel and Churchill Avenue alternatives are under development with results scheduled for distribution and feedback at the CAP, City Council, and public in early 2019. The following section highlights key aspects of the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road alternatives based on the City Council adopted screening criteria; recommendations regarding Palo Alto Avenue alternatives; and developing information around creeks, groundwater, and drainage. Drainage, Creek Crossings, & Groundwater Presently, conceptual designs for the two below-ground alternatives, the Citywide Deep-Bore Rail Tunnel (WBP) and the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road trench (MCT), obstruct existing creek corridors, are within areas of shallow groundwater, and would require extensive stormwater drainage systems. Groundwater and stormwater can be managed with pump systems, but the creek crossings are of greatest concern from an engineering feasibility, regulatory, and maintenance cost standpoint. Presently, staff is not recommending the below-grade options be removed from consideration as further engineering analysis is required and underway. However, staff wanted to share the following City of Palo Alto Page 7 preliminary findings as they will figure prominently in forthcoming feasibility evaluations. Alternative WBP would obstruct Adobe Creek and Alternative MCT would obstruct Adobe and Barron Creeks. This occurs due to the physical geometry requirements and project limits defined in the alternative descriptions. Based on preliminary analysis, a pump system, known as a lift station, appears to be the only solution potentially capable of managing the water flow rates within the affected creeks, but further engineering feasibility of this pump system is necessary and is underway. Should an engineering solution be technically possible, the City would need to obtain approval from various state, regional, and federal agencies with regulatory authority and meet strict environmental regulations. The following are a summary of preliminary standards and criteria from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for engineering solutions to the creek obstructions introduced by the below-ground alternatives: • Provide the same conveyance capacity as existing conditions; • Provide equivalent SCVWD maintenance requirements as the existing condition and not increase District maintenance costs; • Be functional during all flow events with sediment and debris loading; • Allow fish passage; • Be designed to not increase the potential for flooding or adversely impact existing flooding conditions; • Be permitted by various regulatory agencies, potentially including but not limited to: California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and • Waterways within or related to a FEMA floodplain must also be examined by the City’s Floodplain administrator to demonstrate the project will not adversely affect the risk of flooding or follow the process to modify floodplain boundaries. If all engineering and environmental criteria are satisfied, the pump and lift stations will require ongoing maintenance to ensure reliable operation during storms. Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Exclusive of the citywide tunnel, three grade separation options for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings have been analyzed and developed to a greater degree: MCT, MCL, and MCV. This approach was based on a CAP suggestion that it would be beneficial to center on Meadow Drive and Charleston Road at the November 28 Community Meeting, culminating with the citywide tunnel, Churchill Avenue, and Palo Alto Avenue at the next Community Meeting. Development of the reverse hybrid alternative (MCR), and an ancillary feature of the hybrid alternative, the Loma Verde bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing, was not advanced. The former was not advanced based on Rail Committee recommendations and staff finding there were few practical differences between the reverse hybrid (MCR) and trench (MCT) as discrete alternatives. Staff is recommending City Council merge MCR with MCT due to the previous findings and Rail Committee recommendation. The general location of the Loma Verde bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing, which is presently included as part of the hybrid (Alternative MCL), was ultimately found to be outside the construction City of Palo Alto Page 8 limits for Alternative MCL and introduces design challenges which would benefit from analysis in a future study. This finding was based on a preliminary feasibility analysis of the crossing, conducted as part of the City’s 2016 Midtown Connector Feasibility Study. Challenges noted in the study include obtaining right-of-way to complete the connection on the west side of the rail corridor to Park Boulevard. On the east side of Alma, utility relocation would be necessary to construct the undercrossing tunnel portal. Accordingly, staff is recommending City Council remove the Loma Verde bicycle and pedestrian crossing from further study within Connecting Palo Alto and resume detailed analysis in a future effort. For the remaining three alternatives, as described in the Attachment D engineering memos, the Council- adopted screening criteria are a critical tool for evaluating the differences between the three alternatives at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The consultant team, in collaboration with staff and the CAP worked to assign values on an “impact-improvement” scale for each criterion. Of the ten screening criteria, the discussion will focus on the six where key differences exist between the design options. Criteria A, B, C, and H will not be further discussed at this time since each option offers a similar degree of improvement toward meeting that goal. While the Council Criteria were initially broken down into Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria, staff is working under the assumption that there is less need for the tiers and instead only the need to use one set of criteria to be more consistent with Council direction. The chart below is the matrix which applies the Council Criteria to the Meadow and Charleston alternatives. Council Adopted Evaluation Criteria Applied to the Meadow and Charleston Alternatives: Criteria Trench (MCT) Hybrid (MCL) Viaduct (MCV) A Improve east-west connectivity B Reduce traffic congestion and delays C Provide clear, safe routes for pedestrians and bikes D Support continued rail operations E Finance with feasible funding sources F Minimize right-of-way acquisition G Reduce rail noise and vibration H Maintain or improve local access I Minimize visual changes along the corridor J Minimize disruption and duration of construction 5 years 4 years 2 years K Order of magnitude cost $600M- $800M* $200M- $250M* $400M- $450M* Impact-Improvement Scale Improvement Impact *Total preliminary construction costs in 2018 dollars (subject to change) City of Palo Alto Page 9 CRITERIA D | SUPPORT CONTINUED RAIL OPERATIONS The viaduct was ranked with the highest color tile since it has the least impact to rail operations both during and after construction. During construction, both the hybrid and trench alternatives require temporary railroad detour tracks, known as a “shoofly,” whereas the viaduct can be constructed without the shoofly track. Following completion, the trench option will have greater maintenance costs due to the required pump systems for groundwater storm water, and at the Barron and Adobe Creek crossings. CRITERIA E | FINANCE WITH FEASIBLE FUNDING SOURCES Further financial analysis is underway. More detailed analysis will be presented in February. The current information is available on the connectingpaloalto website in the Community Meeting Presentation materials. CRITERIA F | MINIMIZE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITON Based on results from this stage of the design process, full property acquisition is not necessary for any of the three alternatives. The trench alternative requires the most property acquisition, but primarily in the form of underground easements to permit construction and protection of a permanent structural anchor system. These anchors would radiate horizontally away from the trench walls and function as structural support to the wall system. Building and landscaping would be restricted within the easements to protect the integrity of the anchor system. The extent of the easement is contingent on the number of anchors required based on soil conditions and the project team are presently conducting further analysis on this factor. A secondary potential property need for the trench is for the pump stations which are necessary at the creek crossings and at one or more locations along the trench to remove stormwater and groundwater. The hybrid will require some modifications to existing driveways where the roadways approaching the undercrossing are lowered from their existing height to go beneath the railroad. The viaduct is currently shown to require no property acquisition. CRITERIA G | REDUCE RAIL NOISE AND VIBRATION All alternatives eliminate train horn noise and warning bells and have some degree of noise impact or improvement. In a trench, noise could reflect off walls and impact properties farther away, but noise levels adjacent to the rail corridor could be reduced. The viaduct and hybrid alternatives could elevate wheel noise levels. In all cases, mitigation is possible, but would require further analysis. CRITERIA I | MINIMIZE VISUAL CHANGES ALONG THE CORRIDOR The trench has train below grade with landscaping option limited to bushes or plants with shallow root systems; the hybrid has train approximately 15 feet above grade with feasible landscaping with trees for screening. Attachment E identifies how to access the visuals for each of these alternatives. CRITERIA J | MINIMIZE DISRUPTION AND DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION The trench has extended road closures at Meadow and Charleston during construction; hybrid has extended road reductions at Alma, Meadow, and Charleston during construction; viaduct has minimal road closures (weekend/ nights only). Among the MCT, MCL, and MCV options each one has benefits and tradeoffs based on the screening criteria, but the trench appears to have the greatest degree of impact with the exception of noise and City of Palo Alto Page 10 potential visual changes. Furthermore, substantial engineering challenges around drainage, groundwater, and creek diversion. Palo Alto Avenue The Palo Alto Avenue crossing is characterized by its unique setting. Situated in the shadow of the El Palo Alto tree, adjacent to the historic rail bridge spanning San Francisquito Creek, and at the edge of Downtown and Downtown North, and the transit center, the crossing is worthy of its “Primary Gateway” designation in the Comprehensive Plan 2030. These characteristics, among other factors, are the primary reasons for staff recommending separating the Palo Alto Avenue crossing from the current Connecting Palo Alto analysis and completing separate parallel planning effort as part of a Downtown Coordinated Area Plan. See Attachment F for a defined problem statement and recommendation for Council. The two alternatives under consideration for Palo Alto Avenue, the closure (PCX) and hybrid (PAH) would benefit from the holistic analysis of the coordinated area plan process, as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan 2030. Impacts of the closure option would benefit from a circulation analysis that accounts for potential land use changes and projects such as the pedestrianization of University Avenue, which is identified in the comprehensive plan as a vision to consider. Modified Deep Bore Tunnel The AECOM team had begun initial evaluations of the citywide deep bore tunnel concept before being redirected to prioritize the development of alternatives for Meadow Avenue and Charleston Road crossings. By that time, however, they had identified a number of key constraints, such as the cost and physical limitations of station impacts at the Caltrain Palo Alto (University Avenue) and California Avenue stations, the location and property impacts of bore pits in north and south Palo Alto, and property impacts for shoofly construction-period rail realignments. As noted above, the Rail Committee directed staff to bring back information to further evaluate an alternative involving a south Palo Alto deep bore tunnel for passenger rail only with freight trains at surface level. This variation raises some of the same issues as a deep bore tunnel for both passenger and freight rail, while potentially avoiding station impacts. While recognizing significant issues with either concept, staff notes that City Council direction on January 22, 2019 to modify the deep bore tunnel to South Palo Alto only (south of California Avenue) would facilitate this evaluation. All letters to Council about rail grade separation received between late September and early December 2018 are included with this report in Attachment G. Policy Implications Connecting Palo Alto is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan 2030 goals, policies, and programs: Policy L-1.7: Use coordinated area plans to guide development, such as to create or enhance cohesive neighborhoods in areas of Palo Alto where significant change is foreseeable. Address both land use and transportation, define the desired character and urban design traits of the areas, identify opportunities for public open space, parks and recreational opportunities, City of Palo Alto Page 11 address connectivity to and compatibility with adjacent residential areas; and include broad community involvement in the planning process. Program L4.8.1: Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown. Policy L-9.7 Strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial districts; Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real and between Palo Alto and Stanford. Program T1.11.1: Collaborate with Stanford University, VTA, Caltrain and other agencies to pursue improvements to the Palo Alto Transit Center area aimed at enhancing the pedestrian experience and improving circulation and access for all modes, including direct access to El Camino Real for transit vehicles. Policy T-1.25: Pursue transportation funding opportunities for ongoing transportation improvements that will help mitigate the impacts of future development and protect residents’ quality of life. When other sources are unavailable, continue to fund improvements, operations and maintenance through the general fund. Policy T-1.26: Collaborate with adjacent communities to ensure that Palo Alto and its immediate neighbors receive their fair share of regional transportation funds, proportional to the need and demand for transportation improvements within these communities to address region-wide transportation issues. Program T1.26.1: In collaboration with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, identify and pursue funding for rail corridor improvements and grade separation. Policy T-3.15: Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority. Program T3.15.1: Undertake studies and outreach necessary to advance grade separation of Caltrain to become a “shovel ready” project and strongly advocate for adequate State, regional and federal funding for design and construction of railroad grade separations. Program T3.15.2: Conduct a study to evaluate the implications of grade separation on bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Policy T-3.18: Improve safety and minimize adverse noise, vibrations and visual impacts of operations in the Caltrain rail corridor on adjoining districts, public facilities, schools and neighborhoods with or without the addition of High-Speed Rail. Resource Impact Funding for grade separation alternatives evaluation is included in the Fiscal Year 2019 Adopted Capital Budget in CIP PL-17001, Railroad Grade Separation. Environmental Review The proposed action is part of a planning study for a possible future action, which has not been City of Palo Alto Page 12 approved, adopted, or funded and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. The future decision to approve construction of any one of the identified potential alternatives would be subject to CEQA and require preparation of an environmental analysis. Attachments: • Attachment A-List of Meetings Held • Attachment B-Palo Alto Letter to Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) • Attachment C-Water District Letter to Palo Alto • Attachment D-AECOM Meadow and Charleston Alternatives Memos • Attachment E-Project Plans • Attachment F-Palo Alto Ave University Problem Statement 121018 • Attachment G- Letters to Council Regarding Rail Grade Separation- Sept-Dec. 2018 Attachment A: Summary of Key Meetings Held Related to Grade Separation Project List of Engagement Meetings: In addition to all of the meetings mentioned in the staff report, the following meetings have occurred related to Palo Alto’s Rail Grade Separation: Community Meetings • August 23, 2018 – focused on getting feedback on progress to date. • November 28, 2018 – focused on the Meadow and Charleston alternatives with 3D visuals of each; early conversation about traffic study and financing options. • Upcoming: January 23, 2019 – will focus on Palo Alto Ave., Churchill Ave., and the citywide Tunnel alternatives with 3D visuals and follow up traffic and financing information. Rail Committee Meetings • April 18, 2018 • June 13, 2018 • August 15, 2018 • September 26, 2018 • October 17, 2018 • November 14, 2018 • November 27, 2018 Community Advisory Panel (CAP) Meetings • August 15, 2018 • September 17, 2018 • October 10, 2018 • November 7, 2018 • December 12, 2018 • Upcoming: January 9, 2019 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings • November 5, 2018 • December 10, 2018 Stakeholder Meetings • Santa Clara Valley Water District • Caltrain • Safe Routes to School (community partners and City staff) Upcoming City Council Meetings • December 17, 2018 • February 2019 Screening Criteria & CAP review • CAP input to focus each community meeting by location Attachment B-Letter to Caltrain Attachment C - Santa Clara Valley Water District Letter to Palo Alto Connecting Palo Alto Follow-Up questionnaire to SCVWD & Hyperlinks to Grade Separation Design Options 1.What are the key regulations that apply to lowering or covering an existing creek corridor? There are four creeks that are crossed by the Caltrain corridor (owned in fee title by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board) being analyzed for grade separation. The District has no right of way at the San Francisquito Creek crossing. The District has easement at the Matadero Creek, Barron Creek, and Adobe Creek crossings. Modifications to creeks where the District has easement will require a District Water Resources Protection Ordinance encroachment permit. Prior to issuance of a District encroachment permit to lower or cover an existing creek, the District must make the findings defined in Section 2.3.3A of the Water Resources Protection Ordinance, which may be found here: https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/WRPO.pdf 2.What other regulatory agencies have oversight of creeks, such as the RWQCB and Army Corps of Engineers? Lowering or covering any of the four creeks will require regulatory approval from other agencies, including but not limited to California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, in areas within a FEMA floodplain, the City’s floodplain administrator must follow National Flood Insurance Program regulations to demonstrate the project will not adversely affect the risk of flooding or follow the process to modify the floodplain limits. 3.Have syphons or other engineering solutions been used to redirect creek corridors for projects of similar magnitude? District staff does not recall an instance where a creek corridor has been placed in siphons to accommodate an infrastructure crossing (i.e. highway, road, utility, rail, etc.) or for any other reason. The infrastructure crossings of creeks in Santa Clara County involve crossings over the top of the creek via a bridge or culvert structure. Any creek modification will need to provide the same conveyance capacity as existing conditions, provide equivalent District maintenance requirements as the existing condition and not increase District maintenance costs, be functional during all flow events with sediment and debris loading, allow fish passage, be designed to not increase the potential for flooding or adversely impact existing flooding conditions, and be permitted by various regulatory agencies (depending on the proposed creek modification). Additionally, a siphon design will need to address flooding impacts which may result from sediment, debris loads, and blockages at or in the siphon during high flow events. 4.Can SCVWD remove sediment in the creek? •Does SCVWD have an existing permit for this type of maintenance? If yes, are there restrictions? ENCLOSURE Page 1 of 3 5.What are the historic flows within Matadero, Barron, and Adobe creeks? •Has there been historic flooding in these creeks? If so, when? •What are the ordinary high water elevations at Alma Street? Please see attached exhibit for recorded historic flooding limits (excluding the flooding limits from the Christmas flood of 1955 prior to District flood protection improvements on each channel) on Matadero, Barron, and Adobe creeks. Also, on the exhibit is a table of flows and corresponding water surface elevations on each creek at a point just upstream of the Caltrain crossing for the 100-year flow and “ordinary flow” or 2.33-year event. The District has completed improvements on each of the three creeks to provide 100-year flood protection in areas that include the Caltrain crossing. 6.Who owns the Matadero, Barron, Adobe, and San Francisquito creek right-of-way? •Is flood control also in the SCVWD jurisdiction? See answer to Question 1 on District right of way at the crossings owned in fee title by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. In accordance with the District Act (https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/Santa%20Clara%20Valley%20Water%20District%20- %20District%20Act.pdf ), the District provides flood protection to Santa Clara County, in addition to providing wholesale water supply and advancing stream stewardship. Hyperlinks to Remaining Design Options 1.Citywide Tunnel: https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Citywide-Tunnel-WBP- Profile.pdf 2.Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Hybrid: https://pagradesep.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/Meadow-Dr-Charleston-Rd-Hybrid-MCL.pdf 3.Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Viaduct & Full Trench: https://pagradesep.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/Meadow-Dr-Charleston-Rd-Viaduct-Full-Trench-MCV-MCT.pdf 4.Palo Alto Avenue Hybrid: https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Palo-Alto-Ave- Hybrid-PAH.pdf The District has several permits to remove sediment from creeks in accordance with our Stream Maintenance Program (SMP). Information on our SMP, including our permits to conduct the program, can be found on our website at: https://www.valleywater.org/flooding-safety/stream-maintenance- program The SMP and our regulatory permits have several limitations, including how much sediment can be removed, where it can be removed, when it can be removed, mitigation requirements, etc. A siphon design will have to consider equipment access and address working in confined spaces in order to remove sediment. Page 2 of 3 Adobe C r e e k Barro n C r e e k Mata d e r o C r e e k De e r C r e e k Ha l e C r e e k Sta n f o r d C h a n n e l Mata d e r o B y p a s s C h a n n e l Purissima Cre e k B a r r o n D i v e r s i o n C h a n n e l Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Recorded Historical Flooding on Adobe, Matadero, & Barron Creeks Legend Creek Route 1982 Flooding 1983 Flooding 1995 Flooding02,300 4,6001,150 Feet Page 3 of 3 1 of 3 To: Robert De Geus City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CC: Millette Litzinger, AECOM John Maher, AECOM AECOM 300 Lakeside Drive Suite 400 Oakland CA 94612 aecom.com Project name: Palo Alto Rail Program Management Services Project ref: 60577356 From: Etty Mercurio Date: December 13, 2018 Memo Subject: Narrative Description for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Trench (MCT) Alternative The following is based on a conceptual engineering evaluation and is intended for discussion purposes only. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Trench (MCT) This narrative describes the railroad and roadway geometry required to lower the railroad tracks in a trench under Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. At the end of the narrative is a listing of an initial assessment of potential impacts associated with this alternative. Railroad Description during Construction Phase: Temporary tracks (also referred to as a shoofly) are required to bypass the existing/permanent tracks and structures in order to maintain rail service during construction. The temporary tracks will be constructed on the east side of the existing tracks. Starting at the north end and travelling south, the tracks will swing eastward starting around Loma Verde Avenue, run parallel to the existing tracks and Alma Street and then swing back westward into the existing tracks near Ferne Avenue about 600 feet before the north end of the San Antonio Caltrain Station platform. An existing track crossover located within this 600 feet (before San Antonio Station) would need to be relocated. The shoofly will be constructed to the same elevation (grade) as the existing track for the entire length between Loma Verde Avenue and Ferne Avenue. The temporary tracks will not encroach onto Alma Street between intersections, but they will encroach approximately 20 feet into Alma Street at its intersections with Meadow Drive and Charleston Road with the southbound right turning lanes eliminated during construction; however, the turning movements will still be allowed. The total length of temporary track is approximately 8,400 feet. The temporary track would also have an overhead catenary system for train electrification. The temporary tracks are designed with the required safety and construction clearances and for a maximum speed of 75 mph. Railroad protection devices would be provided at the temporary track grade crossings at Meadow and Charleston and would include standard vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle gates, flashing warning lights, and bells. Railroad Description Post-Construction: The proposed mainline vertical alignments (profiles) are controlled by the required length of vertical curves, length of tangents between curves and the overall length of new track that can be built once the temporary track is offset 25 feet from the new track. The permanent horizontal alignment will match the existing track. At Meadow and Charleston crossings, the trench will be a minimum depth of 29.5 feet from the top-of-rail elevation to the roadway surface. This assumes a 24.5-foot clearance to the bottom surface of the bridge and an assumed 5-foot bridge structure depth. A 2% grade will be required to achieve the 29.5-foot depth (it should be noted that Caltrain design criteria specifies a 1% maximum grade and that grades exceeding 1% would require a design exception approval from Caltrain on a case-by-case basis for new construction). The permanent tracks would begin descending into a trench 900 feet south of Loma Verde Ave and continue at a depth of approximately 30 feet crossing under Meadow and Charleston and then rising at Attachment D - Memos from AECOM Regarding Meadow and Charleston Crossings Memo – Narrative Description for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Trench (MCT) Alternative AECOM 2 of 3 2% to meet the existing Caltrain tracks 1,200 feet north of the San Antonio Station. The total length of mainline construction is 6,300 feet. Roadway Description: The roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road would have the same configuration that exists today once construction is completed with some minor adjustments. However, during construction of the roadway bridges over the proposed trench, Meadow Drive would be closed to all traffic (vehicles, pedestrian and bicycles) while the roadway structure is constructed over the trench at Charleston Road. Once the Meadow structure is completed, Charleston Road would be closed to all traffic and the Charleston structure would be completed. Class II Buffered Bike Lanes will be provided on Charleston Road, which is consistent with the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project. Drainage Description: The preliminary trench alignment and elevations would obstruct the passage of Adobe Creek and Barron Creek. In order to maintain the existing drainage pattern of the creeks a culvert that consists of an inverted siphon and a pump/lift station would be required at both crossings. The inverted siphon would conceptually consist of a drop structure at the upstream end of the creek that would capture the flow from the creek and would drop to an elevation that is under the proposed trench elevation plus the required cover depth. The culvert would then convey the flow to the downstream end of the creek at a minimal slope. Once the trench section has been cleared, an additional drop structure would be constructed at the downstream end of the culvert. The downstream drop structure would discharge into the existing creek. A significant amount of flow could pass through the inverted siphon through the pressure of the hydraulic grade. However, for large storm events and for maintenance purposes, a pump/lift station would be required on the downstream end of the inverted siphon to increase capacity and to remove standing water from the siphon low point. The location of the pump/lift stations has not yet been determined. A pump/lift station that would convey the necessary flow rates to mitigate any increases in water surface elevation upstream during large storm events would be significant and would require continuous maintenance and a reliable energy source. A major risk would be potential upstream flooding if the pump/lift station were to fail during a large storm event. Similar designs have been implemented before, but not on the scale that would be required for this project, which would require a full creek diversion with 100-year flow rates greater than 2,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). Due to this, the regulatory risks and challenges are difficult to estimate. There are several regulatory authorities that would need to review and approve the proposed design including FEMA, Santa Clara Valley Water District, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and California Fish and Wildlife. In addition, a pump station for groundwater seepage and for stormwater removal within the trench will be required at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. Properties will need to be identified and acquired to accommodate a pumping plant for each location. Initial Assessment of Potential Impacts: • Removal of all existing trees in the buffer between Alma Street and the mainline tracks (east side) to construct the temporary double tracks and maintain the Caltrain revenue service. • To accommodate the temporary tracks, the width of Alma Street will be temporarily reduced approximately 20 feet at the intersections of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road where there are turning lanes – there would be no dedicated right- turning lanes from Alma Street during construction. • Easements will be required for a ground anchor system to support deep trench retaining walls. The ground anchor system will encroach below Alma Street and below backyards west of the Caltrain right-of-way. Buildings and landscaping will be restricted within easements. Plants with large root systems such as trees will not be permitted as they can impact the structural integrity of the ground anchor systems. • Utility relocations are required at the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway crossings. • Construction will close Meadow Drive and Charleston Road when erecting bridge structures over the trench impacting automobile, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. At least one crossing will remain open during construction. • Fire protection measures will be required in the trench that will require standpipes and fire department hose connections. Memo – Narrative Description for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Trench (MCT) Alternative AECOM 3 of 3 • Emergency egress locations, from inside the trench, will be required that may require additional right-of-way. • High fencing will be required along trench walls for safety to protect high-voltage lines. • The trench will obstruct Adobe Creek and Barron Creek, requiring inverted siphons to pass the stormwater under the trench. There are no inverted syphons within Santa Clara Valley Water District’s system. These types of systems have high maintenance issues/costs and can be prone to blockage with sediment with potential to cause upstream flooding. • Modification to Adobe and Barron Creeks will require approval from regulatory agencies including FEMA, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and California Fish and Wildlife. • The trench will require a pump station for groundwater seepage and for stormwater removal. Property will need to be identified and acquired for pumping plant. • Design exception approval required from Caltrain for 2% grade. • Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at-grade crossings with grade separations. In the trench, noise could reflect off the walls and impact properties further away; however, this can be mitigated. 1 of 2 To: Robert De Geus City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CC: Millette Litzinger, AECOM John Maher, AECOM AECOM 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 aecom.com Project name: Palo Alto Rail Program Management Services Project ref: 60577356 From: Etty Mercurio Date: December 13, 2018 Memorandum Subject: Narrative Description for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Viaduct (MCV) Alternative The following is based on a conceptual engineering evaluation and is intended for discussion purposes only. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Viaduct (MCV) This narrative describes the railroad and roadway geometry required to raise the railroad tracks in a viaduct over Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. At the end of the narrative is a listing of an initial assessment of potential impacts associated with this alternative. Railroad Description during Construction Phase: The existing tracks will remain in service during construction. New tracks, the viaduct and an overhead catenary system for train electrification, will be constructed between the existing tracks and Alma Street. An existing track crossover located north of the San Antonio Caltrain Station will be relocated. Upon completion of the new tracks and viaduct, the existing tracks and the railroad crossing gates and warning lights at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will be removed. Railroad Description Post-Construction: The new tracks and viaduct will be located between the existing tracks and Alma Street. Starting at the north end and travelling south, the tracks would swing eastward beginning at a point 400 feet north of Loma Verde Avenue, run parallel to the existing tracks and Alma Street and then swing back westward into the existing tracks 500 feet south of Ferne Avenue. The tracks will encroach into Alma Street approximately two feet for the portions north of Meadow Drive and south of Charleston Road, resulting in reduced lane widths on Alma Street. There will be no encroachment between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. The total length of the new track is 8,400 feet and is designed for 110 mph. The proposed mainline vertical alignments (profiles) are controlled by the required length of vertical curves, length of tangents between curves and the overall length of new track that can be built once the temporary track is offset 25 feet from the new track. At the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road crossings, the viaduct top-of-rail elevation will be a minimum of 20.5 feet above the existing roadway. This assumes a 15.5-foot vertical clearance from the roadway surface to the underside of a bridge structure and an assumed 5-foot bridge structure depth. The new tracks will begin rising 700 feet south of Loma Verde Avenue at a 1.0% grade. They will be on retained fill for approximately 700 feet and then continue on the viaduct structure over Meadow Drive, stay on an elevated viaduct structure over Charleston Road, and then descend at 1.4% (it should be noted that Caltrain design criteria specifies a 1% maximum grade and that grades exceeding 1% would require a design exception approval from Caltrain on a case-by-case basis for new construction). The viaduct will end at a point 600 feet south of Charleston where the tracks will again be on retained fill for approximately 500 feet. The total length of retained fill is 1,200 feet. The total length of viaduct is 4,200 feet. Memo – Narrative Description - Grade Separate Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Viaduct (MCV) Alternative AECOM 2 of 2 Roadway Description: The roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road will have the same configuration that exists today or match what is proposed/under construction for these roadways currently. During construction, falsework (scaffolding) will be constructed above Meadow Drive and Charleston Road to allow motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists to continue to use these roads without disruption during weekdays. Falsework construction will require either weekend or night-time closures to erect (assemble) and to take down (disassemble) the falsework. Class II Buffered Bike Lanes will be provided on Charleston Road, which is consistent with the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project. This will require expanding the width of the road to maintain bike lanes through the underpass of the railroad to accommodate the new column to supporting the railroad structure. There appears to be sufficient space to accommodate this width and, ideally this could be provided as a Class IV separated bikeway given the change in vehicle lanes at the column location. Initial Assessment of Potential Impacts: • Removal of all existing landscaping, including trees, in the buffer area between Alma Street and the existing tracks in order to construct the new tracks. • To accommodate the new tracks, the width of Alma Street will be reduced approximately two feet for the portions north of Meadow Drive and south of Charleston Road, resulting in reduced lane widths on Alma Street. There will be no encroachment between Meadow and Charleston. • The tracks will encroach into Alma Street approximately two feet for the portions north of Meadow Drive and south of Charleston Road, resulting in reduced lanes on Alma Street. There will be no encroachment between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. • No private property impacts. • No impacts to existing creeks. • Minor utility impacts. • Visual impacts with the elevated structure. • Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at-grade crossings with grade separations. With the elevated track, train wheel noise could radiate out, however, this can be mitigated. • Construction will require falsework over roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road, but access for all modes will be maintained at most times. • Design exception approval required from Caltrain for 1.4% grade. • Opportunity for landscaping upon construction completion between new tracks and properties to the west. 1 of 2 To: Robert De Geus City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CC: Millette Litzinger, AECOM John Maher, AECOM AECOM 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 aecom.com Project name: Palo Alto Rail Program Management Services Project ref: 60577356 From: Etty Mercurio Date: December 13, 2018 Memorandum Subject: Narrative Description for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Hybrid (MCL) Alternative The following is based on a conceptual engineering evaluation and is intended for discussion purposes only. Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Hybrid (MCL) This narrative describes the railroad and roadway geometry required to raise the railroad tracks and lower the roadways at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. At the end of the narrative is a listing of an initial assessment of potential impacts associated with this alternative. Railroad Description during Construction Phase: Temporary railroad tracks (also referred to as a shoofly) are required to bypass the existing/permanent tracks and structures in order to maintain rail service during construction. The temporary tracks will be constructed on the east side of the existing tracks. Starting at the north end and traveling south, the tracks will swing eastward starting 350 feet south of Loma Verde Avenue, run parallel to the existing tracks and Alma Street and then swing back westward into the existing tracks 250 feet north of Ferne Avenue. The shoofly will be constructed to the same elevation (grade) as the existing track for the entire length between Loma Verde and Ferne Avenue. The temporary tracks will not encroach onto Alma Street between intersections, but they will encroach approximately 20 feet onto Alma Street at its intersections with Meadow Drive and Charleston Road with southbound right turning lanes eliminated during construction; however, the turning movements will still be allowed. Vertical clearance under Meadow Drive and Charleston Road would be temporarily limited to 12 feet during construction, which will require a design exception from Caltrain. The total length of temporary track is approximately 6,400 feet. The temporary track would also have an overhead catenary system for train electrification. The temporary tracks are designed with the required safety and construction clearances and for a maximum speed of 75 mph. Standard railroad protection devices would be provided at the temporary track grade crossings, including vehicle and pedestrian gates, warning lights, and bells. Railroad Description Post-Construction: The proposed mainline vertical alignments (profiles) are controlled by the required length of vertical curves, length of tangents between curves and the overall length of new track that can be built once the temporary track is offset 25 feet from the new track. The permanent horizontal railroad alignment will match the existing track. The permanent track will rise near El Verano Avenue at a grade of 1.0% on retained fill into a 350-foot long vertical curve over Meadow Drive. This places the top-of-rail 14 feet above the existing Meadow Drive roadway elevation. It continues at a slope of 0.4% into a 760-foot long vertical curve over Charleston Road. This places the top-of-rail 14 feet above the existing Charleston Road roadway elevation. The track then descends at a 1% grade on retained fill to meet the existing mainline track 1,150 feet north of Ferne Avenue. The Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadways will be lowered to provide a minimum 15.5-foot vertical clearance between the road surface and the bottom of the rail bridge structure. The total length of mainline construction is 5,000 feet. Memo – Narrative Description for the Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Hybrid (MCL) Alternative AECOM 2 of 2 Roadway Description: Between Park Boulevard and Alma Street, Meadow Drive will be lowered at a maximum grade of 5%. Beginning at Park Boulevard to the west, it will be lowered a maximum of seven feet from existing grade below the railroad tracks and then it will rise to meet the existing grade approximately 170 feet east of Alma Street. The total length of roadway impacted on Meadow Drive is 460 feet. The total length of roadway impacted on Alma Street 680 feet, 280 feet to the north and 400 feet to the south of Meadow Drive. Alma Street will be lowered a maximum of four feet from the existing grade to maintain the existing intersection with Meadow Drive. The maximum grade on Alma Street will be 1.5%. The design speed for Meadow Drive is 25 MPH and 35 MPH for Alma Street. Between Park Boulevard and Alma Street, Charleston Road will be lowered at a maximum grade of 5%. Beginning at Park Boulevard to the west, it will be lowered a maximum of seven feet from the existing grade below the railroad tracks and then it will rise to meet the existing grade approximately 190 feet east of Alma Street. The total length of roadway impacted on Charleston Road is 530 feet. The total length of roadway impacted on Alma Street is 540 feet, 270 feet to the north and 270 feet to the south of Charleston Road. Alma Street will be lowered a maximum of 4 feet from the existing grade to maintain the existing intersection with Charleston Road. The maximum grade on Alma Street will be 2.0%. The design speed on Charleston Road is 25 MPH and 35 MPH on Alma Street. Class II Buffered Bike Lanes will be provided on Charleston Road, which is consistent with the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project. This will require expanding the width of the road to maintain bike lanes through the underpass of the railroad to accommodate the new column to support the railroad structure. There appears to be sufficient space to accommodate this width and, ideally this could be provided as a Class IV separated bikeway given the shift in vehicle lanes at the column location. Drainage Description: A pump station for groundwater seepage and for stormwater removal may be required between Meadow Drive and Charleston Road. Properties will need to be identified and acquired to accommodate a pumping plant at each location. Initial Assessment of Potential Impacts: • Removal of the existing trees in the buffer area between Alma Street and the existing tracks to construct the temporary tracks (shoofly) in order to maintain Caltrain service during construction. • During construction the width of Alma Street will be temporarily reduced approximately 20 feet at the intersections of Meadow Drive and Charleston Road to accommodate the temporary tracks. There would be no dedicated right-turn lanes from Alma Street, but all turns would be permitted. • Property impacts are relatively minor (driveway modifications only). • Major utility relocations for utilities located in Alma Street, Meadow Drive and Charleston Road are required to accommodate the excavation for the lowered roadways. • A pump station may be required for each of the lowered roadways (to pump surface runoff from lowered roadways). Properties will need to be identified and acquired to accommodate a pumping plant at each location. • Visual impacts with elevated railroad embankment. • Train horn noise and warning bells will be eliminated with the replacement of the at-grade crossings with grade separations. With the elevated track, train wheel noise could radiate out, however, this can be mitigated. During construction, one lane in each direction would be closed on portions of Alma Street, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road to permit excavation at the undercrossings. • Grade changes on Charleston Road will increase challenges for bicyclists, especially less confident bicyclists, and may create challenges for passing. • Design exception approval required from Caltrain for temporary roadway vertical clearance of 12 feet during construction for both Meadow and Charleston. Attachment E Conceptual Project Plans & 3D Animations for Meadow Drive & Charleston Road Alternatives Conceptual plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1.Go to: https://pagradesep.com/community-engagement/ 2.Scroll to the bottom of the page and locate the section entitled: “Community Meeting, November 28, 2018” 3.Click on the desired document Direct Link to Plans & 3D Animations: MCL MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. | Hybrid Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway hybrid and build Loma Verde Avenue bike/pedestrian crossing to connect to Margarita Avenue bicycle boulevard 3D Animation | Conceptual Plans MCT MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. | Rail Trench or Tunnel Meadow Drive and Charleston Road roadway over railroad trench or tunnel Alma street would not be within trench or tunnel (maintains Alma Street connections to Meadow Drive and Charleston Road) with Alma Street in its existing alignment or a new alignment; 3D Animation | Conceptual Plans MCV MEADOW DR. & CHARLESTON RD. | Viaduct Meadow Drive and Charleston Road railroad over roadway viaduct. 3D Animation | Conceptual Plans Attachment F: Palo Alto Avenue Problem Statement Palo Alto Avenue/University Avenue/Palo Alto Caltrain Station Transportation/Land Use Planning Problem Statement As part of its citywide Connecting Palo Alto effort to ensure safety and community compatibility of the Caltrain corridor, the City of Palo Alto is evaluating a range of options for improving the existing rail/street crossing at Palo Alto Avenue. Based on the analysis completed to date, it has become increasingly clear that factors, such as engineering constraints, land use plans and urban design, and access needs, affecting design options as part of the Downtown University Avenue vicinity require a more comprehensive planning effort. Such an effort for this location needs to be separated from the current citywide grade separation planning project. Location The existing crossing of the Caltrain tracks at Palo Alto Avenue is one of the four at-grade crossings being evaluated for possible grade separation. This crossing is also referred to by various landmarks, including the Palo Alto/Menlo Park city limit, Palo Alto Avenue, El Camino Real, San Francisquito Creek, and historic landmarks of the El Palo Alto namesake tree and trestle bridge. The evaluation of grade separation alternatives and potential property impacts highlighted the interdependency of options at this location and University Avenue (located less than 2,000 feet from Palo Alto Avenue). University Avenue is grade separated from Caltrain and is the location of Caltrain’s “Palo Alto” Station (which is the second-busiest Caltrain station after San Francisco’s Fourth and King Station). Transportation Context Major arterial streets in the area reflect the high activity level of the Downtown Palo Alto/Stanford University interface, with Alma Street (south of the Caltrain Station) carrying 29,000 vehicles per day, University Avenue carrying 12,000 vehicles per day, Lytton Avenue carrying 11,000 vehicles per day, Hamilton Avenue carrying 8,000 vehicles per day, Palo Alto Avenue (west of Alma Street) carrying 13,000 vehicles per day, and El Camino Real carrying 36,000 vehicles per day. Palo Alto Avenue is a key connection between El Camino Real and Downtown Palo Alto given the concentration of multimodal activity at University Avenue. The Palo Alto Caltrain Station services the second highest volume 2 of riders on system, following the San Francisco Station and roughly 50% higher than the San Jose Diridon Station. The University Avenue transit station also serves VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, and Stanford Marguerite buses. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the Caltrain station as well as between Downtown and Stanford is highly constrained. Land use Context The Palo Alto Avenue and University Avenue vicinity (downtown area) is distinct from the other existing Palo Alto at-grade crossings given the activity level as a bustling downtown area and the interface between Downtown Palo Alto and Stanford University. The County of Santa Clara is currently considering an application for proposed development (General Use Permit, or “GUP”) from Stanford University for up to 2.275 million square feet of academic and support facilities and 3,150 net new housing units/beds. This GUP application is currently undergoing environmental review. Narrow parcels located between Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks are currently developed with surface parking. Larger parcels located between Caltrain and El Camino Real are currently developed with the transit center north of University Avenue and a Sheraton Hotel south of University Avenue. Recommended Planning Approach The complexity of transportation and land use interfaces suggest that planning for this vicinity requires evaluation of issues beyond the scope of “simple” grade separation alternatives analysis. In order to continue progress on the evaluation of grade crossing options at Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston, the City would remove Palo Alto Avenue from the ongoing “Connecting Palo Alto” work effort and begin scoping an independent planning effort to address Downtown issues. The City of Palo Alto uses a planning process known as a Coordinated Area Plan to guide land use and transportation alternatives evaluation, as well as community and stakeholder engagement. Planning for this vicinity would presumably also need to address forecasted ridership increases at the Caltrain Palo Alto Station. This is especially important given growth at Stanford University, as well as potential development of properties located between Alma Street and El Camino Real. This recommendation is in alignment with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan regarding University Avenue and Downtown. The specific policy areas include: Policy L-4.7 Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Policy L-4.8 Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art, trees, bicycle racks and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists. Program L4.8.1 Prepare a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown. 3 Program L4.8.2 Study the feasibility of converting parts of University Avenue to a pedestrian zone. Financial Considerations There are two current issues related to funding. The first is the availability and application Santa Clara County Measure B funds. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) recently began discussion of their approach to implementation of voter-approved funding for Caltrain grade separations in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. While this program approach is not yet active given pending Measure B litigation, VTA staff has suggested an approach that emphasizes the need to set priorities among prospective grade separation projects, potentially setting up a competition among the cities for funding. This reinforces the importance of Palo Alto positioning projects as “ready to go” as quickly as possible. The greatest opportunities to finalize locally preferred alternatives are at the Churchill, Meadow, and Charleston crossings. The costs for these crossings alone will likely exceed funding available through Measure B and ensure Palo Alto remains in position for use of Measure B funds. The second issue is funding of the anticipated planning effort and ultimately construction of any recommendations developed for improving Downtown circulation. Upon approval of the recommended approach, staff will pursue external funding for a coordinated area planning effort. As the interface between transportation and land use is a regional and statewide priority with implications for national economic and urban planning significance, we anticipate that several federal, state, and private funding sources can be sought for the work required. Similarly, the outcomes of this planning effort may involve land use and multimodal improvements such that staff anticipates separate (non-Measure B) funding will be sought. Next Steps Based on the expanded scope involved with a Coordinated Area Plan or similar planning effort, staff will seek city council approval to remove the Palo Alto Avenue crossing from the ongoing evaluation of citywide grade separation alternatives. The Connecting Palo Alto evaluation will then focus on the other existing at-grade crossings at Churchill Avenue, Charleston Road, and Meadow Drive crossings. Initiation of a Coordinated Area Plan for Downtown circulation will depend on scoping, identification of funding, and staff capacity to support plan development. At this time, we anticipate that planning work could begin in late 2019. Attachment G – Letters to Council About Rail Grade Separation This document contains the following: 1. Letters to Council about Rail Grade Separation Received in the Month of December to Date 2. Presentations Shared by CAP Members at the December 12th CAP Meeting 3. The Townsend Legislative Letter Presented to the Rail Committee on November 27, 2018 4. Letters to Council about Rail Grade Separation Received in the Month of November 2018 5. Letters to Council about Rail Grade Separation Received in the Month of October 2018 6. Letters to Council about Rail Grade Separation Received in the Month of September 2018 1 Carnahan, David From:martin@sommer.net Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:arobeso@menlopark.org Subject:Attn: Rail Committee, Palo Alto Email sent to Angela Obeso, City of Menlo Park: Please address the issue of: a) closing the Palo Alto Ave rail crossing, in conjunction with b) taking Alma directly across the creek between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Thank you! Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." -------- Original Message -------- Subject:Great meeting you last night Date:2018‐12‐06 10:24 From:martin@sommer.net To:arobeso@menlopark.org Good morning Angela, It was great meeting you last night at the Menlo Park Caltrain meeting. I had proposed the idea of closing the Palo Alto Ave rail crossing in Palo Alto, and taking Alma directly across the creek between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. I had also suggested moving the small El Palo Alto Park to the other side of the tracks, and extend the El Camino Park. This idea would: a) eliminate the cost of another grade separation, b) eliminate train noise wrt to current crossing, and c) lower the number of track crossings, between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Please let me know, if I can help you explain this idea to Menlo Park and/or Palo Alto stake holders. Thanks again, Martin 2 -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." 1 Carnahan, David From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, December 3, 2018 6:45 PM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed Cc:Neilson Buchanan; John Guislin; Paul & Karen Machado; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; evergreen-park- discuss@yahoogroups. com Use THis One Subject:Fwd: No teamwork for train Dear City Council and city managers, it seems Palo Alto has not gotten in touch with its neighbors reg/ a common approach to build a tunnel underneath the majority of our cities along the Peninsula. Would you think now is maybe the right time to start this work? thank you Wolfgang ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:23 PM Subject: No teamwork for train To: Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Embarcadero and Palo Alto Ave Concepts David Shen, Tony Carrasco, Jason Matlof V5 12-10-18 Ideas from December 12 CAP Meeting Embarcadero Ave Why talk about Embarcadero? •1930s structure overdue for upgrade. •Alma on bridge necks down from 4 to 3 lanes. •Embarcadero underneath necks down from 4 to 3 lanes. •Traffic flow between two arterials, Alma and Embarcadero, is not optimal •Not enough protected access ramps to/from each road and in all directions. •Traffic flows through neighborhood streets to make transition •Traffic lights at Town and Country and El Camino do not encourage good flow Goals •Upgrade/update old 1930s structure. •Reduce traffic flow in neighborhood streets. •Increase safety and access for pedestrians and cyclists. •Preserve/enhance pedestrian and cyclist access under Alma with rebuild. •Improve Paly student pedestrian light with another option, ie. Ped/bike underpass. •Fix traffic lights between Alma and El Camino. •Remove a light or two if possible. •Coordinate lights to improve traffic flow. •Do all this without property takings •“Minimize eminent domain” Concept Goals •STIMULATE THINKING AND POSSIBILITIES •NOT ACTUAL SOLUTIONS TO BE DEBATED •NEED FURTHER DESIGN AND STUDY •TREAT TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS IN PALO ALTO AS A SYSTEM •NOT AS INDIVIDUAL INTERSECTIONS Concept 1: Josh Mello –Curve Embarcadero to the south, add exit loop onto Embarcadero West. Exit loop Orange= original path of Embarcadero Traffic light Traffic light Concept 2: Josh Mello –Curve Embarcadero to the south, add left exit lane from Alma North onto Embarcadero West. Left exit lane Orange= original path of Embarcadero Traffic light Traffic light Exit ramp from Kingsley to Embarcadero West Orange= original path of Embarcadero Traffic light Traffic light Concept 3: Exit ramp from Alma North onto Embarcadero West. Curve Embarcadero to south Concept 4: Tony Carrasco –Create traffic circle between Alma and Embarcadero Palo Alto Ave Goals •Maintain access from Alma to El Camino into Menlo Park. •Improve traffic flow •Maintain pedestrian/cyclist access •Create separated ped/bike access path alongside roadway •Protect historic bridge and El Palo Alto tree. •Do all this without property takings •“Minimize eminent domain” Concept Goals •STIMULATE THINKING AND POSSIBILITIES •NOT ACTUAL SOLUTIONS TO BE DEBATED •NEED FURTHER DESIGN AND STUDY •TREAT TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS IN PALO ALTO AS A SYSTEM •NOT AS INDIVIDUAL INTERSECTIONS Concept 1: Shift new road to El Camino to the south, take over park area of El Camino Park. Add sloping down road alongside Alma to drop down to underpass. If 2% grade, slope down begins at Everett. Adjacent drop down 2 lanes, approx. 2-3% grade 2 lanes slope up to meet El Camino, approx. 2-4% grade Traffic light governs flow Train tracks remain at same level Concept 1a: Shift new road to El Camino to the south, take over park area of El Camino Park. Add sloping down road alongside Alma to drop down to underpass. If 5% grade, slope can start in/around Hawthorne. Adjacent drop down 2 lanes, approx. 5% grade 2 lanes slope up to meet El Camino, approx. 5% grade Traffic light governs flow Train tracks remain at same level Concept 2: Tony Carrasco –Create rail viaduct from Menlo Park through Palo Alto downtown, change path of train tracks around historic bridge FINAL WORD •AGAIN: CONCEPTS TO STIMULATE THINKING AND CREATIVITY •ADVOCATE FOR EMBARCADERO TO BE INSERTED INTO THE WORK PLAN NOW •FURTHER WORK AND STUDY IS NEEDED •ADVOCATE FOR MORE STUDY ON PALO ALTO AVE •GOALS: •MAKE PALO ALTO OVERALL A BETTER ENVIRONMENT FOR CARS, BIKES, AND PEDESTRIANS •PRESERVE *ALL* NEIGHBORHOODS’ INTEGRITY •DO IT ALL WITHOUT PROPERTY TAKINGS APPENDIX About Grade and Grade Standards Megan Kanne Downtown Neighborhoods & Palo Alto Rail Crossings Professorville Downtown North University South Embarcadero Underpass ❖Thank you to David, Jason, and Tony ❖Interesting ideas worthy of study Embarcadero Underpass ❖Removed from the scope of work in June1 ❖Measure B funds can’t be used ❖Limited resources are available, both with respect to funding and in manpower, to study additional alternatives at this time 1 See City Council Action Minutes June 19, 2018 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=83343.25&BlobID=65728 Traffic Study ❖Comprehensive and multimodal ❖Account for GUP/Stanford’s growth (3k new units) ❖Make the raw traffic study data public ❖Implement test closures of the Churchill Ave. and Palo Alto Ave. crossings, both separately and potentially together “No Build” Options ❖Include the “No Build” options in the options matrix ❖Including a ped/bike tunnel or Homer-style underpass ❖Determine the economic impact of “No Build” options Process ❖Improved outreach using City resources (email, Twitter, etc) ❖Signage at the crossings themselves announcing the project to the public ❖Take the time to gather data and feedback before decisions are made to close these vital east/west traffic arteries Thanks! Nadia Naik December 17th, 2018 Palo Alto City Council Design Alternative for ONLY Meadow and Charleston Presenter version 2018.09.01 info@calhsr.com www.calhsr.com Problem l PA residents prefer an underground solution. l Tunnels at stations are costly (high cost of burying station) l Trench under Meadow and Charleston may be fatally flawed because of the creeks l Hybrid and Viaduct options are not well liked Goal of this concept: l Creative solution l Addresses community preference for underground solution l Increases design alternatives l Minimize costs and impacts Design Challenges: l Caltrain and Freight must maintain operations during construction l Temporary “Passing Tracks” during construction are highly disruptive and expensive l Underground utility relocation is complicated and costly l Matadero, Barron and Adobe Creeks create obstacles to underground alternatives l Freight trains can’t handle steeper grades and constrain design alternatives l Diesel freight tunnels require extra ventilation that electric trains don’t need (>$). 3 Existing Opportunities? l Only 3 freight trains per day in PA – all at night and don’t impact circulation l Freight makes up less than 5% of operations on the corridor l Without freight, we have more design flexibility l Future Dumbarton Rail Corridor improvements could reduce or eliminate freight trains l Future freight could be electrified New Design Alternative: A short, electric train only tunnel under Meadow and Charleston ONLY with a single track of freight on the surface. Requires two twin bore tunnels (TBM) We are NOT advocating this as a SOLUTION Only that it be included as an ALTERNATIVE for further study This is a NEW idea that developed based on the early issues identified by preliminary AECOM engineering – it was NOT part of the original Master List of Alternatives 5 Electric train tunnel with 1 track of freight on surface Single track Freight At-grade Caltrain/HSR Tunnel Alameda Trench Corridor (E. Compton Blvd and Alameda Street, Compton ) 7 • NOTE: This shows a TRENCH – we are proposing TUNNEL • Right of Way (ROW) is 100 feet (same as South Palo Alto) • This ROW fits 4 tracks – PA would have 2 Caltrain (in tunnel) and one freight track (at grade) • A simple curve is needed to separate the single freight track • 3 tracks enter a trench in Alameda instead of a tunnel – but similar concept Conceptual example Considerations: l Electric only tunnel can be >2% grade (design flexibility) l Goes under creeks (avoiding potential fatal flaw) l Tunnel goes under the utilities, reducing the cost. l Can maintain Caltrain/Freight operations during construction l Tunnels without a station are much cheaper l Tunnels are faster to build. l Construction time is much shorter - less work window issues and little to no road disruption. Additional Considerations: l Temporary passing tracks (shoo-fly tracks) only at tunnel portal entrance & exit vs entire right-of-way (saves money) l With careful planning, TBM’s can be reused by other cities l Some or all future freight may be re-routed over Dumbarton Rail route (currently being studied) leaving space for other land use options. l Needs further study: Temporary space for the tunnel portal may be necessary and could require minimal commercial or residential eminent domain that could be returned to the commercial/housing stock on completion of the project Source on TBM Reuse: https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/services/global-services/tbm- refurbishment.html Comparative Project: Central Subway Tunnel in SF l Built in 2014 in downtown San Francisco l Two twin bore machines (TBM) with 20.7 ft diameter for 1.7 miles l $234 million dollars (2014 dollars) l Built under an active BART line l Went through various soils: soft to thinly bedded siltstone, shale and sandstone bedrock l Some soil even deemed “Potentially Gassy with Special Conditions” by Cal/OSHA. l Navigated steep, turning alignment l Worked with low cover, urban utilities, and sensitive structures requiring precautions to limit settlement impact and ensure the structures in downtown SF were safe. 10 Source: http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ 11 View of Central Subway Twin Bore Tunnels View of TBM Extraction Point (above) View of Low Clearance under which Central Subway was built (and under ACTIVE BART line!) Cost Comparisons Hybrid Viaduct Trench Short Tunnel (no freight) Estimated Cost 2018 $ $200M - $250M $400M - $500M $800M – 950M $400M - $550M* 12 *CARRD estimated the Short Tunnel (No freight) alternative based on 2x price of similar 2014 SF Central Subway tunnel project in downtown SF Note: Costs could potentially be reduced further (next slide) In 2014, Hatch Mott MacDonald estimated a trench under Meadow and Charleston (2% grade) would be $480 M. (Source: HMM Study 2014) In 2018, AECOM estimated same trench would be $800 - $950 M – so costs have almost doubled since 2014. (Source: PA Community Meeting 11/14/18 slide 41) Reducing Tunnel Cost further l Reducing the tunnel diameter helps lower costs l 2014 – HSR White paper on Tunneling - significant cost reductions by reducing max operating speeds assumptions from 220 to 200 mph thus reducing tunnel diameters from 29.5’ to 28’ ID (Inside Diameter).* l AECOM studying City Wide tunnel with freight used 28’ Inside Diameter (assumes 200 mph) l Tunnel diameter can be reduced since Caltrain/HSR will only operate max 125 mph on Peninsula l Caltrain Electrification EIR shows that San Francisquito Creek bridge will have a maximum clearance of just 19ft. (See CARRD’s previous public comments re: Vertical Clearance assumptions) 13 *Source: California High-Speed Rail Program Whitepaper On Cost Reduction Strategies, 7/25/14 Direct Comparison of Tunnels Central Subway No freight PA Short Tunnel No freight Length: 1.7 miles 1.6 miles Tunnel Diameter: 20.7 ft 28ft* (could be reduced) Constraint: Built under active BART Under active Caltrain Soil types: 5 various soil types including hazardous soils Unknown but PA Tunnel White Paper says suitable for tunneling Setting: Dense urban setting Empty suburban ROW Conditions: Steep, turning alignment with vertical clearance issues Relatively flat, straight alignment with no vertical clearance issues Special Circumstances: Required special planning to support adjacent tall buildings No buildings in ROW and no adjacent skyscrapers 14 Final Thoughts l CARRD is NOT advocating that this is THE alternative – only that it be given further analysis l Further preliminary analysis and study is needed and warranted for this alternative given strong community preference for underground solution. l Too early to evaluate is this is the right solution vs. other design alternatives – need more info Appendix 16 Palo Alto Right Of Way Widths 96 ft 85 ft 79 ft *Approximate – not perfectly to scale. Not official diagram. State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383 Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555 Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Central California Office ▪ 744 P Street • Suite 308 • Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030 MEMO To: James Keene, City Manager Ed Shikada Assistant City Manager Rob de Geus, Deputy City Manager Heather Dauler, Intergovernmental Affairs Officer From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. Niccolo De Luca, Senior Director Alex Gibbs, Senior Associate Date: November 26, 2018 Subject: Suggested strategy regarding grade separation funding and opportunities SUMMARY Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this memo for the City of Palo Alto outlining potential opportunities to secure grade separation funding, the various aspects to consider, proposed next steps, and other items. This memo is intended to provide background, identify some of the challenges we would face, and make recommendations for the City to consider. TPA has secured grade separation funds over the years and we have first hand knowledge on what it takes to be successful. 1. Overview Successfully securing grade separation funding takes time, patience, and persistence. The top priorities for these competitive funds are to support goods movement and address safety and mobility issues. TPA will tell our Palo Alto-specific story, help build up a regional coalition, work with our legislative delegation and others to first educate and then work on funding opportunities. 2. Recommended strategy Phase 1 Due to the competitive nature of these funds, and the large price tag involved, we recommend education as the first phase of advocacy. We need to create briefing materials that explain the problem, what we are doing to address it locally, and why additional outside funding is needed for project completion. We need to be able to clearly articulate what problem we are trying to solve and provide data to back it up such as estimated design and construction costs, future traffic counts, future bicycle and pedestrian counts, negative air quality from cars idling, the benefits of commuting, as well as any potential negative impact of electrification on neighborhoods. 3. Recommended strategy Phase 2 Once our materials are complete, we recommend multiple advocacy trips to Sacramento to meet with decision makers, legislators, and members of the new Administration. It would be very helpful if this delegation would include the Mayor or others on the Council. 2 Meetings targets would include, but not be limited to: • The State Transportation Secretary a. More than likely Governor-Elect Newsom will appoint his own Secretary • The Executive Director of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and her top staff • Caltrans executives who oversee rail • Palo Alto’s legislative delegation Senator Jerry Hill and Assembly Member Marc Berman • Neighboring members such as Senator Wiener, Assembly Members Mullin and Ting • Senate Transportation and Housing Chair Jim Beall and his committee staff • Assembly Transportation Chair Jim Frazier and his committee staff • Vice Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee • Vice Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee After our advocacy trips, we will have briefed many stakeholders and decision makers. From our experience, its prudent to keep them continuously updated and in the loop so they become vested in our efforts. The form of these updates can be in person briefings, email updates, or written updates. 4. Multiple funding sources We recommend identifying multiple funding sources as the final price tag of the overall grade separation needs in the City could be high. This includes federal, state, regional and local funding sources. Funding opportunities including the following existing programs, and, fortunately, with the SB1 funds withstanding a recall, there are other options available, such as: California Public Utilities Commission: • The Section 130 Grade Crossing Hazard Elimination Program provides federal funds to local agencies (cities and counties) and railroads to eliminate hazards at existing at-grade public highway-rail crossings. • The Section 190 Grade Separation Program provides state funds to local agencies to grade-separate at-grade crossings (crossings), or to improve grade-separated crossings. California Transportation Commission: • Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP). The purpose of the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program is to provide funding to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion throughout the state. • Local Partnership Program (LPP). The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) created the Local Partnership Program, which is modeled closely after the Proposition 1B State Local Partnership Program. The purpose of this program is to provide local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees with a continuous appropriation of $200 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement projects. 3 5. Opportunities for partnerships The electrification of Caltrain will have an impact on Palo Alto and other cities throughout the Peninsula. This works to our advantage for two reasons. The first is it helps us build a coalition of municipalities and other organizations to frame this as a regional matter. The second is by growing our coalition we can increase the likelihood of securing funding or better yet creating a specific funding source for cities to access for grade separation projects. 6. Potential barriers As highlighted in the overview section, it could take multiple years to secure all the funds needed to fully address grade separation locations throughout the City. Other potential barriers could include requests for design exemptions, state wide demand for these funds, and regional needs. 7. Next steps Depending on the feedback and discussion to the points above impacts our next steps. However, we recommend the creation of briefing documents as soon as possible so we can then shift to briefing and educating decisions makers in Sacramento. From:Sumita Debata To:Council, City Subject:[Request] Underground the Train option Date:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:25:44 AM Attachments:IMG_20161228_102715.jpg IMG_20161228_103701.jpg Subject: Intent to voice vote for underground the train option. Hi Team, In 2016 December there was a CALTRAIN accident near Charleston. The train and car crash rolled into my backyard in Park Blvd. Almost 10-15ft inside my backyard breaking the fence. I live with my family and kids and it's was very scary seeing the train car crash inside my backyard. Train above the ground is very dangerous option having been through personally. My vote is to underground the train. Train accident after crash picture attached for reference. Thanks, Sumita NOVEMBER 2018 EMAILS TO CITY.COUNCIL ABOUT CONNECTING PALO ALTO GRADE SEPARATION From:Larry and April Alton To:Council, City Subject:Alma street train crossing Date:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:13:09 PM Dear Council Members, I believe the best train crossing for Alma would be tracks under the road and creek. Alma is one of the main entrances to Palo Alto and we want itto be beautiful and representative of our high class city! This is certainly possible from an engineering standpoint and the additional cost would not be that great considering the overall cost of the train route thru Palo Alto. Thanks, Larry Alton From:Florence LaRiviere To:Council, City Subject:Caltrain Electrification Date:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 4:46:01 PM Dear Rail Committee and City Council members, I ask you to please add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train tunneled, freight at grade) to the AECOM work plan for further detailed review. Some have suggested that moving the tunnel eastward towards Alma would be a less impactful location. Please spend the time and resources to seriously study the underground options in this part of town. It seems like it is time to eliminate or merge the raised options. Rail Committee members, we respectfully request that at your meeting tomorrow the above issues be added to the City Council agenda so that AECOM can proceed. Thank you for the work done so far in this complex and far reaching project. Yours sincerely, Florence and Virginia LaRiviere From:Florence Keller To:Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com;tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com Cc:Palo Alto Citizens Subject:Charleston/Meadow Rail Crossings Date:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 3:58:40 PM Dear Board Members. First, thank you for all you do. Thank you also for responding to the sensitivities of Palo AltoResidents by assiduously avoiding invoking eminent domain in yourconsideration of how best to address the issues posed by the enhancednumbers of trains projected to travel though our intersections. Thetruth is, however, that for the neighbors most immediately affected byCaltrain (I do not count myself among these), the notion of having a 14foot (or 40 foot when there is a train passing),berm or a Viaduct intheir backyard--eliminating even the pretense of pleasure or privacy inone's backyard, may be worse than eminent domain. (I choose not todwell on the horrors of living in these houses during the constructionperiod of whatever choice you make,) And economically speaking, thosefolks whose properties immediately abut the railroad, are about to beslammed. I noticed this weekend that the sales prices of two housesthat are for sale and situated immediately adjacent to the rails betweenCharleston and Meadow have been reduced . I do not believe either ofthem have yet been sold. You worry about what citizens of Palo Altowill have to pay for a trench or a tunnel, but those living in theneighboring residences will, I expect, end up paying substantially more,financially, acoustically, and visually, if a berm or viaduct is thesolution selected by you. Palo Alto is too important, and frankly too rich, to make majordecisions based primarily on economics. And, in considering thevarious solutions to problems posed by the increased numbers of trains,I hope you will not, as Boards in the past have so frequently done, putthe greatest burden on South Palo Alto residents. A tunnel, or at leasta trench, is the only humane approach to this problem. Sincerely, Florence Keller 4124 Wilkie Way From:Phil BurtonTo:De Geus, RobertCc:Council, City; "Chris Logan"; Carrasco, Tony; "Dave Shen"; "Greg Brail"; "Inyoung Cho"; "Megan Kanne"; "Kari Hodgson"; "Mandar Borkar"; "Parag Patkar"; "Patricia Lau"; "Nadia Naik"Subject:Concern and frustration about lack of effective communicationsDate:Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:41:37 PMAttachments:image002.jpg Rob, At the most recent City Council Rail Committee meeting, the third of three handouts was a June 28, 2017 letter from then mayor Scharff to Francisco Castillo, Director of Public Affairs, Union Pacific Railroad. I was surprised to read the following: “The electrification of Caltrain will allow for higher grades, as electric service can easily deal with up to a two percent grade.” [my italics] The maximum grade has been a central point of both Rail Committee and CAP meeting discussions, because of the impact on construction costs as well as feasibility of certain alternatives. To the best of my knowledge, no one on staff ever stated that the elected officials or staff already understood this point. When several speakers, including me, made this point at various meetings, there was no staff response in the spirit of, “We already understand this point, and are prepared to raise it with Caltrain and/or UPRR.” I find it surprising and a bit frustrating that CAP members and members of the general public (speaking at Rail Committee meetings) aren’t aware of the full history of this key issue. With full awareness of the history, CAP members can be more effective as intermediaries between project staff and residents of our respective neighborhoods. The online search “Union Pacific RR shortline RFP process” yields a link http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Public+Affairs/pdf/UP+Agreement+FAQs.pdf, a March 1, 2017 Caltrain / UP Agreement. The FAQ contains this question and answer: However, the link in the answer is no longer valid. Thus we have no way to know if and how the UP responded to Mayor Scharff’s letter, yet an understanding of their response, if any, might have a vital bearing on current discussions of this issue. Is there any way for staff to provide CAP members, or the general public, with copies of the relevant documents? The other key issue involving UP is vertical clearance above top of rail. Has there been any correspondence with UP on this issue? I would like to point out that electric multiple-unit trains can easily climb a grade of well over 2%. I am personally familiar with grades on the New York City Transit System, which also uses electric MU trains. You can read here that there are several locations on this system with grades over 4%. https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/39935-what-is-the-steepest-grade-that-subway-cars-can-handle/ Respectfully, Phil Burton From:Rachel Kellerman To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Gaines, Chantal Cc:Tom Kellerman; Megan Kanne; Barbara Ann Hazlett; YORIKO KISHIMOTO Subject:Connecting Palo Alto Mailer - Neighborhood Traffic Impacts Decision Criteria Not Included Date:Thursday, November 8, 2018 12:26:14 PM Attachments:IMG_8200.JPG Dear Honorable City Council Members, Mr Shikada, Mr de Geus, Ms Gains, I attended the CAP meeting yesterday and was dismayed that the decision making criteria concerning the local traffic impacts of all rail grade crossing options was omitted from theConnecting Palo Alto mailer that is being sent to all Palo Alto addresses. Criteria bullet point 8 on the mailer reads: Maintain or improve local access while on the Connecting Palo AltoFact Sheet posted on the Connecting Palo Alto webpage it reads: Maintain or improve local access while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets. (References:https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/City_of_Palo_Alto_FactsheetV2.pdf I have also attached my copy of the mailer-apologies for the scribbles.) Why is this important? Council has instructed staff to consider neighborhood traffic impactswhen weighing all rail grade crossing options. Neighborhood traffic impacts should not be an afterthought, but an integral part of the consideration process. I don’t have enoughneighborhood input to speak authoritatively on a number of issues related to rail grade crossings, but I know without a doubt that neighborhood traffic is a huge concern forProfessorville neighbors if Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue are closed to East/West traffic. Neighborhood traffic reduction criteria also did not appear on the “decision matrix” slides thatwere presented yesterday. We are not asking for the mailer to be reprinted but we are asking that all future communication, especially the decision making matrices that are presented at communitymeetings, include the entire criteria as agreed upon by the Council and posted on the CAP webpage: Maintain or improve local access while reducing regional traffic on neighborhoodstreets. As always, we greatly appreciate all your hard work on this difficult and complicated matter. Regards, Tom and Rachel Kellerman From:Marilyn Bauriedel To:Council, City Subject:Further concerns about Rail Crossings in Palo Alto Date:Monday, November 12, 2018 9:27:24 PM Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members: As you continue to work on the options and plans for the Palo Alto rail crossings I would urge you to do the following:Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel to the AECOM work plan for next level detail; Have AECOM explore moving the trench towards Alma (Eastward) to further reduce the impact on residential properties, and Eliminate or merge the raised options; eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; spend more time and resources on studying underground options. I live in the Fairmeadow Eichler neighborhood and will be very much affected by how these new crossings are handled. Thank you. Marilyn Bauriedel3673 South Ct Palo Alto Marilyn U. Bauriedel mbauriedel@ursu.com From:Tracy Mallory To:Council, City Subject:grade separation of rail crossings Date:Monday, November 19, 2018 10:03:34 AM As one of many residents commenting on the project, I’d like to ask if the project evaluation criteria ever included loss of property value with the various options, and also ask again whythe reversed hybrid option has been dismissed? If an above gade-level option for the train of any kind is selected the increase in noise, especially at night and the visual blight (especially during the day;-) will obviously have adramatic effect on the value of properties on either side of the tracks, with greater reductions closer to the rail line. It should not be hard to get some “real” estimates, but the following is more likely to be lowthan high. Conservatively: 1 mile of significanlty impacted housing, call it 50 lot lengths along the route, but could betwice this 5 lots deep on each side seriously affected - lose 10% property value 10 lots further on each sidely moderately affected - lose 5% property value 10 lots further mildly affected - lose 2.5% property value On east side average property value is ?? 2.5MOn west side average property value is ?? 2M ((250 * 2M) + (250 * 2.5M)) * 0.1 + ((500 * 2M) + (500 * 2.5M)) * 0.05 +((500 * 2M) + (500 * 2.5M)) * 0.025 = $281,250 It’s pretty clear why a lot of residents are very upset about the direct cost to them of a cheap solution. It is not acceptable to compare this to existing raised track solutions farther north.Once you get to Redwood city there are relatively few houses along the route, but south Palo Alto is all single-family housing. I’m surprised that the “other” hybrid option of raising the roads an lowering the rail line hasbeen dismissed. I would be very distressed by having my house taken as a result of eminent domain needs, but losing ten houses, perhaps paying the owners twice what they are worth,would be much, much cheaper than impacting thousands of homeowners for the rest of their lives and dividing the south end of the city permanently with visual as well as a physical wall.We don’t need massive structures of the magnitude of San Antonio Road. Although fairly wide, the roadway could have quite a low load limit, requiring trucks to use San Antonio orOregon as today. Sink the train 15 feet(not 30) which would put it 17 feet below where it is today(it’s above grade now) and raise the road 10 feet and everyone except for a few well-compensated home-owners will be much happier than with any of the current plans. Sincerely, Tracy Mallory 650-279-0037 PS: Here’s the math: >>> expr \( \( \( 500 \* 2000000 \) + \( 500 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 5 \/ 100 \) \+ \( \( \( 500 \* 2000000 \) + \( 500 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 25 \/ 1000 \) \+ \( \( \( 250 \* 2000000 \) + \( 250 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 10 \/ 100 \) 281250000 From:Nadia Naik To:Council, City Cc:De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Elizabeth Alexis; Megan Kanne; Parag Patkar; Mandar Borkar; Goodwin Eileen; Keene, James; Chris Logan; Dave Shen; Philip Burton; Carrasco, Tony; Inyoung Cho; Greg Brail; Levin, Adina; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; Kari Hodgson; Patricia Lau; Penny Ellson Subject:Grade Separation Suggestion: Alternate Viaduct Design Date:Thursday, November 29, 2018 4:04:41 PM Dear City Council, As we consider viaduct alternatives, I wanted to send along another idea for aviaduct that has a lower profile - a "U-shaped grade separation." The full details are available here: https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-u-shaped-grade-separation.html Nadia Naik From:Roland Lebrun To:Council, City Cc:Nadia Naik; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; apexstr@pacbell.net; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com Subject:London"s high speed tunnel diameters and costs Date:Wednesday, November 28, 2018 1:25:12 AM Attachments:HS1 Tunnel diameters.bmpSlide1.GIFSlide1.GIF Dear Council members, Further to Nadia Naik's comments about reduced tunnel costs achieved through context- sensitive tunnel design, London's high-speed tunnels were designed with a 23.5-foot internal diameter and were tested at 160 MPH: https://youtu.be/Uv14ylJjqvM Please refer to the attached file for the cost of the tunnels, portals (including a freight connection), vent shafts and the 1/4 mile open trench station 25 seconds into the video Sincerely, Roland Lebrun Eurostar test train running at255 kmh in London Tunnels This is the only footage available of a Eurostartest train running at Maximum Test Speed + 10%(255 km) on the Section 2 of the London Tunnelson the Channe... youtu.be From:The Cowies To:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com;Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg;electcormack@gmail.com Subject:Please tunnel the train at Meadow and Charleston Date:Monday, November 12, 2018 10:48:50 PM Hi Folks, Please keep working on getting the train tunneled at Meadow and Charleston. It’s super important in so many ways. Thanks for all you are doing!! Liz Cowie El Dorado Ave Palo Alto From:Nadia Naik To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Goodwin Eileen; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; Elizabeth Alexis Subject:Public Comment: Request to add an alternative for study for the Meadow/Charleston Grade separations Date:Monday, November 12, 2018 9:11:22 PM Attachments:CARRD Comment - Short Electric tunnel only recommendation.pdf Dear City Council Members, We support the Staff Report recommendation to not eliminate any grade separation alternatives at this time. While the Viaduct is the least favored alternative, it remains worthy of further analysis because it is the lowest cost and allows more connectivity than a Hybrid (which functions effectively as a wall). In addition, we would like to propose an alternative that was mentioned previously: a short tunnel for electrified trains, with freight remaining at the surface. Please see the attached letter for further details. If you have any questions, please let me know. Nadia Naik Co-founder, CARRD November 12, 2018 Subject: Recommendation of adding alternative of short tunnel for electrified trains only with freight at the surface for Meadow and Charleston alternatives. Dear City Council Members, We support the Staff Report recommendation to not eliminate any grade separation alternatives at this time. While the Viaduct is the least favored alternative, it remains worthy of further analysis because it is the lowest cost and allows more connectivity than a Hybrid (which functions effectively as a wall). In addition, we would like to propose an alternative that was mentioned previously: a short tunnel for electrified trains, with freight remaining at the surface. The slope, clearance, ventilation and Fire Life Safety requirements driven by freight and other diesel trains in the tunnels add significant costs to the tunnel proposal currently under consideration. Freight tentatively remaining at the surface for the present would not liberate all of the ROW land for other uses, but the vehicular crossing capacity issue would be addressed. A key condition has recently changed along the corridor making this a feasible alternative; Caltrain is no longer considering running both diesel and electric trains and will now have a fully electric fleet. In addition, the Dumbarton Rail project recently received approval to begin its investigation of whether to rebuild the old rail bridge that formerly carried freight across the Bay. If this came to fruition, freight might be partially or fully diverted to a Dumbarton route and no longer pass through Palo Alto, leaving the right-‐of-‐way above the tunnel free for other uses. We have identified a similar tunneling project, the San Francisco Central Subway Tunnel, which seems to indicate that tunneling may even be much cheaper than a trench. HMM Trench Study: As you may recall, in 2014, HMM gave a rough estimated cost for a trench below Meadow and Charleston at $488 Million (in 2014 dollars). Here was the breakdown: 2 Central Subway Tunnel Without Freight Also in 2014, the Central Subway project in San Francisco completed a 1.7 mile dual subway tunnel using two 20.7 ft diameter tunnel boring machines (TBM). While the overall cost of the project is very high, the vast majority of the cost is related to several very deep and complex stations. The cost to complete the tunnel portion of the project: $234 million dollars (2014 dollars). For reference, the distance from Loma Verde Ave to San Antonio Road in Palo Alto is 1.6 miles. Palo Alto would likely have a additional costs beyond what was needed on the subway project (signaling, larger diameter bore, etc.) but the price difference is worth investigating and maybe minimal with the use of a single bore tunnel. Unlike Palo Alto’s right of way, these tunnels were built in densely urban San Francisco and under an active BART line1. The TBMs went through various soils ranging from soft soils to thinly bedded siltstone, shale and sandstone bedrock -‐ with some area designated as “Potentially Gassy with Special Conditions” by Cal/OSHA2. The TBMs also had to navigate the 1 http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ 2 http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ 3 steep and turning alignment in an area where they dealt with low cover, nearby utilities, and sensitive structures requiring analyses and precautions to limit settlement impact and ensure the structures in downtown SF were safe. Given Palo Alto is in a suburban area with less constraints, it seems reasonable to consider this alternative closely. Palo Alto Short Tunnel Another way to reduce the cost of a tunnel is to reduce the diameter. In 2014, the High Speed Rail Authority’s White Paper on Tunneling describes how they achieved significant cost reductions by reducing maximum operating speeds assumptions in the tunnels from 220 mph to 200 mph, thereby allowing them to reduce tunnel diameters from 29.5’ to 28’ ID (Inside Diameter). 3 CARRD requested from AECOM information on the tunnel assumptions being used for the City wide tunnel (which include freight) and they responded that they are using a “28 ft Inside Diameter Tunnel” which would large enough to allow 200 mph speeds. A significantly smaller diameter would be required to accommodate planned speeds of 110 mph. And, as noted in our previous public comment on height clearances, the Caltrain Electrification EIR specifically notes that the clearance levels at the San Francisquito creek bridge (where freight passes today) is actually 19ft. It is therefore worth investigating whether the tunnel dimensions for a short, electrified train only tunnel in Palo Alto where maximum speed for both Caltrain and HSR is 110 miles per hour would allow us to have a tunnel diameter that is less than 28’. Other key things to consider for the short tunnel with freight on the surface (EOT) option: • Without freight, the 1% grade requirement could more readily change to 2% or even 3% grade, which would allow for more design flexibility. • Caltrain and freight could continue operations during construction with minimal disruption except at the site of tunnel boring machine entrance and exit. • Traffic during construction would be minimally disrupted • Tunnels in stations are expensive, but this option would not impact stations • Tunnels are faster to build. Construction time is dramatically reduced because the work window issues and the phasing required on the road side are much less. • It would go under the utilities, reducing the cost. • It could go under the creeks. • It does not impact the streets. • The equivalent of shoofly tracks are needed near the portal, but not along the entire right-‐of-‐way. 3 California High-Speed Rail Program Whitepaper On Cost Reduction Strategies, July 25, 2014 4 • With careful planning and analysis, TBM’s can be reused -‐ perhaps by other cities along the corridor. 4 • In the future, some or all freight could be re-‐routed over the Dumbarton Rail route (currently being studied) thus freeing up space along the right-‐of-‐way for other potential land use options. • Temporary space for the tunnel portal may be necessary and could require minimal eminent domain that could be returned to the housing stock on completion of the project. • The ROW closer to San Antonio road is much wider than other parts of the City (150 ft wide). If the TBM was launched from that end, then the removal requires less space. To see the space required for extracting a TBM, see this video showing the removal of the TBMs used on the Central Subway project in SF. https://bit.ly/2PpntNC Note the size of the extraction point is quite small. Summary: Preliminary design of grade separations are vague and costs climb when one considers the issues of staging, prolonged construction, utility relocation, ground water issues, and maintaining operations on a heavily trafficked railway during construction. What initially seems like a cheaper solution, can become expensive quickly when these costs are all tallied up. For this reason, we support the inclusion of a short electric train only tunnel with freight on the surface. If you would like any additional information or have any additional questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Nadia Naik and Elizabeth Alexis Co-‐founders CARRD 4 https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/services/global-services/tbm-refurbishment.html From:Gregory Brail To:Council, City Subject:Public comment: Request to stop removing grade separation options Date:Monday, November 12, 2018 10:31:29 PM Dear City Council Members: In advance of Wednesday's Rail Committee meeting, I am writing to request that the Council hold off on eliminating any more grade separation options for South Palo Alto until theCouncil and staff are able to gather more information and hear more public input. At the previous Rail Committee meeting, a proposal was made to eliminate the viaduct option from consideration. I urge the Council and Committee to wait until we all have moreinformation before making this decision. As a member of the Community Advisory Panel on Grade Separation, I am concerned that the Council is moving quickly to limit our choices without giving the staff and the CAP enoughtime to understand the options and share them with the entire city. When all is said and done, I believe that the viaduct may not be as obvious a non-starter as many believe. For example: Without detailed engineering drawings and 3D graphics, it is premature to make assumptions about the visual impact of a 20' viaduct versus a 15' embankment.Similarly, without a thorough understanding of the impact of a 30' deep trench on our creeks and on the surrounding community, it is premature to move this solution closer toreality by eliminating an alternative. I hope that the Council can instead continue to carefully study the matter, reach out to thecommunity, staff, and the CAP. We will all be able to make a considered decision together in a few months. Gregory Brail 2046 Edgewood Drive greg@brail.org From:Laurie Winslow To:Council, City Subject:Put the train Underground Date:Friday, November 9, 2018 11:03:41 AM Dear City Council, On the subject of what to do with Caltrain through the City of Palo Alto, my vote is to put thetrain Underground or at the very least in a trench. Underground would have the added advantage that we could have bike paths and walking paths and a linear park on the top. It alsodoesn't divide the city the way the current proposal to close roads would. Laurie Winslow From:Lindsay Joye To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; "Mandar Borkar" Subject:Rail Committee Motion Request Date:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 2:03:50 PM As a 25 year resident of Palo Alto with a home on Park Blvd. adjacent to the Caltrain Right of Way, I am requesting that the Rail Committee motion to place the following items on the next City Council meeting agenda for approval: 1. Add the Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM’s work plan for further detailed analysis. 2. Direct AECOM to explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to residential properties. This will mitigate visual, noise, and vibration impacts as well as the requirement to ban trees and possibly ADU construction in adjacent Park Blvd. backyards to install trench wall anchors. 3. Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; Spend more time and resource on studying underground options; Thank you! - Lindsay Joye From:Ben Tarbell To:Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com;tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com; Keene, James;Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert Subject:Rail Committee Request Date:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 10:20:07 AM Dear City Council members and city staff, Thank you for your service to our city. I am a 12 year resident of South Palo Alto (off E. Meadow) and writing to request further consideration of tunnel or trench train track options at Charleston/Meadow. Please add theseoptions to the AECOM work plan so we can investigate them further. If required to do so, please eliminate the viaduct option or merge it with the hybrid option to allow for more timeand resources to continue investigation of the underground options. Rail committee, please make a motion to add this to the next city council meeting agenda for their approval. Thank you for your consideration, Ben Tarbell From:Lindsay Joye To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Mandar Borkar Subject:Rail Grade Separation Date:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 2:03:04 PM I am a 25 year resident of Palo Alto with a home on Park Blvd. adjacent to the Caltrain Rightof Way. I am requesting that the Rail Committee motion to place the following items on the next City Council meeting agenda for approval: 1. Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel(passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) toAECOM work plan for next level detail. 2. Suggest AECOM to explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that itfurther reduces impact to residential properties; (This will mitigate visual, noise, and vibration impacts as well as the requirement to ban trees and possibly ADU construction inadjacent Park Blvd. backyards to install trench wall anchors.) 3. Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; Spend more time and resource on studying underground options; Thank you! - Lindsay Joye From:James Taylor To:Council, City Subject:Rail options in Palo Alto Date:Sunday, November 18, 2018 2:35:31 PM Hi A quick bit of feedback from someone currently living in Greenmeadow who grew up in England living near electrified trains (at grade in one case, elevated on an embankment in theother case - both within 2 house widths, one MUCH more frequent than caltrain dreams of). It seems to me that the only realistic option is to run the trains at grade level and close Charleston, Churchill and Meadow. The track could be raised a little to allow a pedestrian /cycle path such as the one at N. California to pass under (allowing the majority of Gunn, Paly and Fletcher students to make the crossing). San Antonio/Oregon/University/Embarcadero aresurely enough crossings for what is, at the end of the day, a small city. Once they were closed traffic would sort itself out and the city could then invest in improving the new hotspotscreated. All the other options are either prohibitively expensive (tunnels), thoroughly unpleasant for those living nearby (viaduct) or just utterly impractical given the water table (trench andprobably tunnel too). As a city we need and should want a regular electric rail service. This means the at-grade crossings have to go. Closing them is the only option as no matter what people say, they won'tbe will be willing to pay the taxes necessary for anything else. I appreciate you listening to the local population but you should be realistic about what can be done. And a tunnel is too expense, the trench seems unlikely and the viaduct will never makeit past the voters. Thanks for listening James From:Laurie Winslow To:Council, City Subject:Rail UNDERGROUND Date:Monday, November 12, 2018 3:47:16 PM The rail UNDERGROUND isn't a rock band! It's me voting as a citizen to ask that you consider more strongly the idea of putting the train in a tunnel preferably or a trench. Thatintroduces some problems but it solves more long-standing problems and some of the new ones that extra trains will create.Laurie Winslow From:Michal Sadoff To:Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; robert.deGeus@cityofpalotalto.org Subject:Request for Rail Committee and City Council regarding items for AECOM work plan Date:Tuesday, November 13, 2018 9:52:01 AM Hello to the Rail Committee, City Council members, and City staff. I am a resident in Greenmeadow. The matter of our future rail design matters greatly to me. For reasons of aesthetics, preservation of the character of our city, and noise, I am NOT in favor of a viaduct or hybrid. I DO want the city to put more resources into exploring a tunnel, as I do not think that has gotten sufficient exploration. I understand that now is the time to ask that the Rail Committee members place onto the City Council agenda a recommendation that the council approve that AECOM work on the below items, and that the Council approve these: 1. MOST IMPORTANT: Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM work plan for next level detail. 2. Suggest that AECOM explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to residential properties; 3. Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; Spend more time and resource on studying underground options; Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my request. Sincerely, Michal Ruth Sadoff 431 Adobe Place From:Miriam Madigan Brown To:Shikada, Ed; Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.o; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external);kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg;electcormack@gmail.com; Keene, James; Council, City Cc:Mandar Borkar Subject:REQUEST: Add further rail options to AECOM Work Plan Date:Monday, November 12, 2018 8:59:04 PM Greetings City Council and City Staff: My family and I are residents of the Ventura neighborhood in Palo Alto, we bought a homehere 15 years ago. We have two children in the neighborhood public schools, and my husband and I are active members of the community - volunteering in youth sports leagues, in theschools, and with local organizations such as PACCC. We care a great deal about the community and are deeply invested in ensuring that Palo Alto remains a community that prioritizes quality of life for residents. With this in mind, I ask that you please help us guide toward wise long-term decisions in therailway planning that is currently taking place. What is under consideration right now will be with our community for a long, long time - decades (centuries?) into the future. It is criticalthat we not take short-sighted approaches, but rather look at this work through a truly big- picture lens - asking "how might we" work toward a plan that meets both the needs for moretransportation, AND increases livability rather than eroding it further. More specifically, I ask that the rail committee make a motion on Wednesday to add to the next City Council agenda approval to have AECOM work on the following: 1. TOP PRIORITY: Add Charleston/Meadow tunnel (passenger train in tunnel and freight at grade) to AECOM work plan for next level detail. 2. Direct AECOM to explore moving the Trench towards Alma (Eastward) so that it further reduces impact to residential properties; 3. Eliminate or merge raised options; Eliminate Viaduct and/or merge with Hybrid; Spend more time and resource on studying underground options Adding these options to the work plan will ensure that we are able to fully consider and weigh the tradeoffs of a range of options as we make this critical decision for our community. Please support this full consideration by adding these items to the AECOM workplan. Thank You, Miriam Brown Fernando Ave. From:Deborah Waxman To:Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg Subject:Support for under grounding the train Date:Friday, November 9, 2018 3:16:50 PM Dear City Council Members, I live in Palo Alto near the Charleston/Alma intersection. I’ve lived here for more than a decade, through the many suicides at the Charleston and the West Meadow intersections and through the increasingly dense noise and traffic. The current trains already pose a significant hazard and a cost to our quality of life. Adding above grade options will greatly exacerbate these issues. I strongly oppose an above-grade rail design as unsafe, unsightly, and a huge contributor to the already severe traffic congestion at this intersection. I understand your concern about costs, but I also know the cost to safety, property values, and quality of life that will endure for decades. We have already lost two families, who have moved away because they can’t endure the options that have been proposed. I urge you to consider the long-term impacts of this project rather than succumbing to short-term cost concerns. Underground tracks will minimize train noise and safety issues, and free up land for better, more neighborhood friendly uses. It would also save many families from the loss of their homes through eminent domain. I can only hope that you will consider a tunnel option and allow the communities to find ways to fund a tunnel rather than peremptorily deciding against an option that will do so much good for the community. Thank you for your consideration, Deborah Waxman 4166 Park Blvd Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Amie Neff To:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; Adrian Fine; Filseth, Eric(external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg;electcormack@gmail.com Subject:Train Committee Meeting Feedback Nov 14 Date:Wednesday, November 14, 2018 1:16:40 PM Attachments:image.png image.png Hi All, I'm sorry we were forced to an early conclusion, I was looking forward to hearing more aboutthe passenger tunnel, freight above option. I have 2 thoughts to share: 1) Given the constraints currently making the City Wide Tunnel and even shallow trench options difficult (drainage, subsurface right-of-way claims, maintenance, costs, venting, trainrecovery, etc.), we may be at a better advantage if we can eliminate the freight and put Cal- Train below grade. I am in favor of investigating this option. While it doesn't eliminate thetracks running through the city, it does give us an opportunity to decouple the issue of freight from our city-wide response to increased Cal-Train frequency and ridership, and this is smart. I would like to Echo Nadia Niak's request that AECom remain impartial in presenting each option with an equal amount of enthusiasm and skepticism. It is not in our best interest tofollow the desires of our consultant. That I am now painfully aware of the 1st choice of our consultants makes this process feel like lip-service. 2) Eddie briefly mentioned her team was looking at relocating the viaduct to the shoeflylocation, but declined to go into further detail. It seemed as if Lydia Kou, another speaking member of the community (whose name I forget) and myself all had the impression thatpushing the viaduct into the shoefly, might mean that Alma street, (when the viaduct was completed) would be bifurcated by the viaduct overhead. This isn't a bad idea. If we couldpush the viaduct over far enough into our current existing traffic lane, then we would stack transportation vertically, instead of taking up valuable land required to put the train adjacent toAlma. The viaduct doesn't demand the same width as an at-grade train, and the space below is freedup for alternate uses. Putting a park beneath isn't realistic, but putting cars beneath? Why not? Shifting the viaduct away from people's back yards is a nice idea. Plus, you'll be able to leavethe train in place during the bulk of construction. Of course, the train will have to shift back to the original track, and Alma will have to be adjusted to accommodate that shift, but if you didit away from the existing crossings, near, for example, Bruce Bauer lumber on the South end, and near El Dorado on the North end, you could avoid impacting any roadway crossings. Thebike lane could then roughly link San Antonio Station with the new development at Fry's. Here are a couple of imperfect images to sample: image.png image.png I'd love to see details on AECom's suggestion, and investigate how far over we could push thetrain viaduct into Alma. Thanks All.-- Amie NeffM.Arch, LEED® AP--cell: 650/ 396/ 9146amie.neff@gmail.comwww.capabledesign.com From:Wolfgang Dueregger To:Council, City Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Paul & Karen Machado; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; David Schrom; John Guislin Subject:tunnel Date:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:06:57 PM Dear City Council, here is an update about what the Boring Company is doing in LA. Did you receive a bid in the meantime for our tunnel? https://la.curbed.com/2017/12/4/16734696/elon-musk-tunnels-boring-company-map Wolfgang Dueregger From:gmahany@aol.com To:Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric(external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg;electcormack@gmail.com Subject:Viaduct noise cansulation at grade railcrossings Date:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 12:08:38 PM hello all I know that there is a reflex to say that a viaduct is just an eye sore but for affordability we may have to accept an eye sore. However, when I am not looking at the viaduct, I do not want to hear it. Noise cancellation features to the viaduct design are a must have. AECOM consultants show sound walls for noise cancellation, this is a good design feature. Other noise cancellation features like resilient material to isolate the rails from rail platform should also be used especially on the bridges over Charleston Rd and Meadow Ave. Gary Mahany 1 Carnahan, David From:Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:41 PM To:De Geus, Robert Cc:Council, City; 'Chris Logan'; Carrasco, Tony; 'Dave Shen'; 'Greg Brail'; 'Inyoung Cho'; 'Megan Kanne'; 'Kari Hodgson'; 'Mandar Borkar'; 'Parag Patkar'; 'Patricia Lau'; 'Nadia Naik' Subject:Concern and frustration about lack of effective communications Rob, At the most recent City Council Rail Committee meeting, the third of three handouts was a June 28, 2017 letter from then mayor Scharff to Francisco Castillo, Director of Public Affairs, Union Pacific Railroad. I was surprised to read the following: “The electrification of Caltrain will allow for higher grades, as electric service can easily deal with up to a two percent grade.” [my italics] The maximum grade has been a central point of both Rail Committee and CAP meeting discussions, because of the impact on construction costs as well as feasibility of certain alternatives. To the best of my knowledge, no one on staff ever stated that the elected officials or staff already understood this point. When several speakers, including me, made this point at various meetings, there was no staff response in the spirit of, “We already understand this point, and are prepared to raise it with Caltrain and/or UPRR.” I find it surprising and a bit frustrating that CAP members and members of the general public (speaking at Rail Committee meetings) aren’t aware of the full history of this key issue. With full awareness of the history, CAP members can be more effective as intermediaries between project staff and residents of our respective neighborhoods. The online search “Union Pacific RR shortline RFP process” yields a link http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/_Public+Affairs/pdf/UP+Agreement+FAQs.pdf, a March 1, 2017 Caltrain / UP Agreement. The FAQ contains this question and answer: However, the link in the answer is no longer valid. Thus we have no way to know if and how the UP responded to Mayor Scharff’s letter, yet an understanding of their response, if any, might have a vital bearing on current discussions of this issue. Is there any way for staff to provide CAP members, or the general public, with copies of the relevant documents? The other key issue involving UP is vertical clearance above top of rail. Has there been any correspondence with UP on this issue? I would like to point out that electric multiple‐unit trains can easily climb a grade of well over 2%. I am personally familiar with grades on the New York City Transit System, which also uses electric MU trains. You can read here that there are several locations on this system with grades over 4%. https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/39935‐what‐ is‐the‐steepest‐grade‐that‐subway‐cars‐can‐handle/ Respectfully, Phil Burton Carnahan, David From:Tracy Mallory <tracylists1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 19, 2018 10:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:grade separation of rail crossings As one of many residents commenting on the project, I’d like to ask if the project evaluation criteria ever included loss of property value with the various options, and also ask again why the reversed hybrid option has been dismissed? If an above gade‐level option for the train of any kind is selected the increase in noise, especially at night and the visual blight (especially during the day;‐) will obviously have a dramatic effect on the value of properties on either side of the tracks, with greater reductions closer to the rail line. It should not be hard to get some “real” estimates, but the following is more likely to be low than high. Conservatively: 1 mile of significanlty impacted housing, call it 50 lot lengths along the route, but could be twice this 5 lots deep on each side seriously affected ‐ lose 10% property value 10 lots further on each sidely moderately affected ‐ lose 5% property value 10 lots further mildly affected ‐ lose 2.5% property value On east side average property value is ?? 2.5M On west side average property value is ?? 2M ((250 * 2M) + (250 * 2.5M)) * 0.1 + ((500 * 2M) + (500 * 2.5M)) * 0.05 + ((500 * 2M) + (500 * 2.5M)) * 0.025 = $281,250 It’s pretty clear why a lot of residents are very upset about the direct cost to them of a cheap solution. It is not acceptable to compare this to existing raised track solutions farther north. Once you get to Redwood city there are relatively few houses along the route, but south Palo Alto is all single‐family housing. I’m surprised that the “other” hybrid option of raising the roads an lowering the rail line has been dismissed. I would be very distressed by having my house taken as a result of eminent domain needs, but losing ten houses, perhaps paying the owners twice what they are worth, would be much, much cheaper than impacting thousands of homeowners for the rest of their lives and dividing the south end of the city permanently with visual as well as a physical wall. We don’t need massive structures of the magnitude of San Antonio Road. Although fairly wide, the roadway could have quite a low load limit, requiring trucks to use San Antonio or Oregon as today. Sink the train 15 feet(not 30) which would put it 17 feet below where it is today(it’s above grade now) and raise the road 10 feet and everyone except for a few well‐ compensated home‐owners will be much happier than with any of the current plans. Sincerely, Tracy Mallory 650‐279‐0037 PS: Here’s the math: >>> expr \( \( \( 500 \* 2000000 \) + \( 500 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 5 \/ 100 \) \+ \( \( \( 500 \* 2000000 \) + \( 500 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 25 \/ 1000 \) \+ \( \( \( 250 \* 2000000 \) + \( 250 \* 2500000 \) \) \* 10 \/ 100 \) 281250000 1 Carnahan, David From:James Taylor <jamet1234@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, November 18, 2018 2:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail options in Palo Alto Hi A quick bit of feedback from someone currently living in Greenmeadow who grew up in England living near electrified trains (at grade in one case, elevated on an embankment in the other case ‐ both within 2 house widths, one MUCH more frequent than caltrain dreams of). It seems to me that the only realistic option is to run the trains at grade level and close Charleston, Churchill and Meadow. The track could be raised a little to allow a pedestrian / cycle path such as the one at N. California to pass under (allowing the majority of Gunn, Paly and Fletcher students to make the crossing). San Antonio/Oregon/University/Embarcadero are surely enough crossings for what is, at the end of the day, a small city. Once they were closed traffic would sort itself out and the city could then invest in improving the new hotspots created. All the other options are either prohibitively expensive (tunnels), thoroughly unpleasant for those living nearby (viaduct) or just utterly impractical given the water table (trench and probably tunnel too). As a city we need and should want a regular electric rail service. This means the at‐grade crossings have to go. Closing them is the only option as no matter what people say, they won't be will be willing to pay the taxes necessary for anything else. I appreciate you listening to the local population but you should be realistic about what can be done. And a tunnel is too expense, the trench seems unlikely and the viaduct will never make it past the voters. Thanks for listening James 11/27/2018 Caltrain launches public process in San Jose on ambitious 20-year business plan -Silicon Valley Business Journal FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF CNSBUCHANAN@YAHOO.COM From the Silicon Valley Business Journal: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/11/27/caltrain-business-plan-electrification- ridership.html Caltrain launches public process on ambitious 20-year business plan Nov 27, 2018, 5:57am PST Subscriber-Only Article Preview I For full site access: Subscribe Now Electric trains from Gilroy to San Francisco. Speeds topping 100 miles per hour. BART-like frequencies. No grade crossings. Caltrain has begun working on its first business plan in years, one that looks ahead two decades to a time when the railroad could be carrying nearly a quarter-million passengers a day, four times as many as now, taking a bigger bite out of the Peninsula travel market. "This corridor is the envy of nearly every city that has a commuter railroad," Sebastian Petty, Caltrain's senior policy advisor, said Monday night at a community meeting in San Jose. The meeting was the last of three in each of the Caltrain-served counties that's being used to kick off the public part of the two-year work schedule to develop the plan. CAL TRAIN An artist's rendering of one of the new electric trains that Caltrain has ordered from Stadler Rail AG in Switzerland. The trains are now being built in Stadler's Salt Lake City plant. "There's no way we could build this railroad today where it is because it goes right through the center of every city we serve." Not only did Peninsula cities sprout around stations on the 155-year-old line -exactly the kind of transportation hubs modern city planners dream of -but Silicon Valley's growth has created two-way commutes filling seats on trains in both directions, efficiencies that simply don't exist on the vast majority of similar railroads elsewhere in the world. Petty said plans being explored for the future rely heavily on two assumptions: That the full railroad will be converted to electric operation and that high-speed rail, which has planned since 2013 for its trains to share its tracks, will actually be built so that that project can continue to share in the costs of upgrading and maintaining the line. "This is really not a 'greenfield exercise,"' Petty said. "The Caltrain corridor is about as far from a green field as you can get. We're talking about visions, not blue-sky planning, that really exist within this framework of existing policy decisions. There a number of those but probably biggest one is the commitment to high- speed rail." In its most recent two-year business plan, the California High-Speed Rail Authority extended its plan for "blended service" -conventional and high-speed trains sharing track between Sa n Francisco and San Jose https://www.bizjoumals.com/sanjose/news/2018/11 /27 /caltrain-business-plan-electrification-ridership.html?s=print 1/2 11/27/2018 Caltrain launches public process in San Jose on ambitious 20-year business plan -Silicon Valley Business Journal -all the way south to Gilroy, Caltrain's current terminus. That would save money for high-speed rail construction and allow Caltrain to switch exclusively to faster electric trains. It's also the kind of improvement that was endangered in early 2017 when California's Republican congressional delegation temporarily blocked the federal share of funding to begin Caltrain's $1.9 billion electrification project on the Peninsula because it would help high-speed rail. Electrification work is now under way with about a third of funding coming from high-speed rail. The first electric Caltrain service is scheduled for 2020. Petty said one of the most immediate challenges for the plan to address is how to reduce or eliminate the 42 street grade crossings that still exist on the line, which means traffic backs up when trains pass through and railroad speeds are limited. It costs about $100 million to convert each crossing to a bridge or underpass, he said. Jody Meacham Reporter Silicon Valley Business Journal https:l/www.bizjoumals.comlsanjoselnewsl2018111127 lcaltrain-business-plan-electrification-ridership.html?s=print 212 November 12, 2018 Subject: Recommendation of adding alternative of short tunnel for electrified trains only with freight at the surface for Meadow and Charleston alternatives. Dear City Council Members, We support the Staff Report recommendation to not eliminate any grade separation alternatives at this time. While the Viaduct is the least favored alternative, it remains worthy of further analysis because it is the lowest cost and allows more connectivity than a Hybrid (which functions effectively as a wall). In addition, we would like to propose an alternative that was mentioned previously: a short tunnel for electrified trains, with freight remaining at the surface. The slope, clearance, ventilation and Fire Life Safety requirements driven by freight and other diesel trains in the tunnels add significant costs to the tunnel proposal currently under consideration. Freight tentatively remaining at the surface for the present would not liberate all of the ROW land for other uses, but the vehicular crossing capacity issue would be addressed. A key condition has recently changed along the corridor making this a feasible alternative; Caltrain is no longer considering running both diesel and electric trains and will now have a fully electric fleet. In addition, the Dumbarton Rail project recently received approval to begin its investigation of whether to rebuild the old rail bridge that formerly carried freight across the Bay. If this came to fruition, freight might be partially or fully diverted to a Dumbarton route and no longer pass through Palo Alto, leaving the right-‐of-‐way above the tunnel free for other uses. We have identified a similar tunneling project, the San Francisco Central Subway Tunnel, which seems to indicate that tunneling may even be much cheaper than a trench. HMM Trench Study: As you may recall, in 2014, HMM gave a rough estimated cost for a trench below Meadow and Charleston at $488 Million (in 2014 dollars). Here was the breakdown: 2 Central Subway Tunnel Without Freight Also in 2014, the Central Subway project in San Francisco completed a 1.7 mile dual subway tunnel using two 20.7 ft diameter tunnel boring machines (TBM). While the overall cost of the project is very high, the vast majority of the cost is related to several very deep and complex stations. The cost to complete the tunnel portion of the project: $234 million dollars (2014 dollars). For reference, the distance from Loma Verde Ave to San Antonio Road in Palo Alto is 1.6 miles. Palo Alto would likely have a additional costs beyond what was needed on the subway project (signaling, larger diameter bore, etc.) but the price difference is worth investigating and maybe minimal with the use of a single bore tunnel. Unlike Palo Alto’s right of way, these tunnels were built in densely urban San Francisco and under an active BART line1. The TBMs went through various soils ranging from soft soils to thinly bedded siltstone, shale and sandstone bedrock -‐ with some area designated as “Potentially Gassy with Special Conditions” by Cal/OSHA2. The TBMs also had to navigate the 1 http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ 2 http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ 3 steep and turning alignment in an area where they dealt with low cover, nearby utilities, and sensitive structures requiring analyses and precautions to limit settlement impact and ensure the structures in downtown SF were safe. Given Palo Alto is in a suburban area with less constraints, it seems reasonable to consider this alternative closely. Palo Alto Short Tunnel Another way to reduce the cost of a tunnel is to reduce the diameter. In 2014, the High Speed Rail Authority’s White Paper on Tunneling describes how they achieved significant cost reductions by reducing maximum operating speeds assumptions in the tunnels from 220 mph to 200 mph, thereby allowing them to reduce tunnel diameters from 29.5’ to 28’ ID (Inside Diameter). 3 CARRD requested from AECOM information on the tunnel assumptions being used for the City wide tunnel (which include freight) and they responded that they are using a “28 ft Inside Diameter Tunnel” which would large enough to allow 200 mph speeds. A significantly smaller diameter would be required to accommodate planned speeds of 110 mph. And, as noted in our previous public comment on height clearances, the Caltrain Electrification EIR specifically notes that the clearance levels at the San Francisquito creek bridge (where freight passes today) is actually 19ft. It is therefore worth investigating whether the tunnel dimensions for a short, electrified train only tunnel in Palo Alto where maximum speed for both Caltrain and HSR is 110 miles per hour would allow us to have a tunnel diameter that is less than 28’. Other key things to consider for the short tunnel with freight on the surface (EOT) option: ¥ Without freight, the 1% grade requirement could more readily change to 2% or even 3% grade, which would allow for more design flexibility. ¥ Caltrain and freight could continue operations during construction with minimal disruption except at the site of tunnel boring machine entrance and exit. ¥ Traffic during construction would be minimally disrupted ¥ Tunnels in stations are expensive, but this option would not impact stations ¥ Tunnels are faster to build. Construction time is dramatically reduced because the work window issues and the phasing required on the road side are much less. ¥ It would go under the utilities, reducing the cost. ¥ It could go under the creeks. ¥ It does not impact the streets. ¥ The equivalent of shoofly tracks are needed near the portal, but not along the entire right-‐of-‐way. 3 California High-Speed Rail Program Whitepaper On Cost Reduction Strategies, July 25, 2014 4 ¥ With careful planning and analysis, TBM’s can be reused -‐ perhaps by other cities along the corridor. 4 ¥ In the future, some or all freight could be re-‐routed over the Dumbarton Rail route (currently being studied) thus freeing up space along the right-‐of-‐way for other potential land use options. ¥ Temporary space for the tunnel portal may be necessary and could require minimal eminent domain that could be returned to the housing stock on completion of the project. ¥ The ROW closer to San Antonio road is much wider than other parts of the City (150 ft wide). If the TBM was launched from that end, then the removal requires less space. To see the space required for extracting a TBM, see this video showing the removal of the TBMs used on the Central Subway project in SF. https://bit.ly/2PpntNC Note the size of the extraction point is quite small. Summary: Preliminary design of grade separations are vague and costs climb when one considers the issues of staging, prolonged construction, utility relocation, ground water issues, and maintaining operations on a heavily trafficked railway during construction. What initially seems like a cheaper solution, can become expensive quickly when these costs are all tallied up. For this reason, we support the inclusion of a short electric train only tunnel with freight on the surface. If you would like any additional information or have any additional questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Nadia Naik and Elizabeth Alexis Co-‐founders CARRD 4 https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/services/global-services/tbm-refurbishment.html 1 Carnahan, David From:gmahany@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 12:08 PM To:Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Council, City; cory.wolbach@gmail.com; adrianfine@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com Subject:Viaduct noise cansulation at grade railcrossings hello all I know that there is a reflex to say that a viaduct is just an eye sore but for affordability we may have to accept an eye sore. However, when I am not looking at the viaduct, I do not want to hear it. Noise cancellation features to the viaduct design are a must have. AECOM consultants show sound walls for noise cancellation, this is a good design feature. Other noise cancellation features like resilient material to isolate the rails from rail platform should also be used especially on the bridges over Charleston Rd and Meadow Ave. Gary Mahany 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:36 AM To:Council, City Cc:Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner Subject:SOS for the Rail Committee meeting Nov 27 Attachments:181127 Caltrain 20 year business plan SV Biz Journal Nov 27 2018.pdf SOS = seriously out of sync When I read the attached SV Business Journal coverage [Nov 27] of Caltrain and HSR, I had an out of body experience. Should I even be concerned at age 74; I have actuarial probability of 11.7 more years of life. Based on Caltrain record of success, I don't seriously consider Caltrain's 20-year planning. 20-year planning does not have to be totally fact-based but some of Caltrain's HSR options may not exist for me or anyone else. It is very hard to reconcile the gap between our Caltrain grade crossings' pressures and the happy- face projected by Caltrain's senior policy adviser. I urge Palo Alto and other SC County cities create more order out of this chaos. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:36 AM To:Council, City Cc:Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner Subject:SOS for the Rail Committee meeting Nov 27 Attachments:181127 Caltrain 20 year business plan SV Biz Journal Nov 27 2018.pdf SOS = seriously out of sync When I read the attached SV Business Journal coverage [Nov 27] of Caltrain and HSR, I had an out of body experience. Should I even be concerned at age 74; I have actuarial probability of 11.7 more years of life. Based on Caltrain record of success, I don't seriously consider Caltrain's 20-year planning. 20-year planning does not have to be totally fact-based but some of Caltrain's HSR options may not exist for me or anyone else. It is very hard to reconcile the gap between our Caltrain grade crossings' pressures and the happy- face projected by Caltrain's senior policy adviser. I urge Palo Alto and other SC County cities create more order out of this chaos. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 2 Monday, December 3, 2018 Dan Richard Chairman of the Board of Directors California High Speed Rail Authority Dan‐ Here is a Fresno Bee article re the fireworks in Sacramento over the auditor's report: https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high‐speed‐ rail/article222399890.html?utm_source=Morning+Roundup&utm_campaign=3764128db3‐ EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_03_04_29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_165ffe36b2‐3764128db3‐ 78450701&mc_cid=3764128db3&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3 No doubt some of the criticism is valid, but the bulk of the opposition comes from Republicans who want to deny the American people the lavish lifestyle that we provide to the Japanese, Germans and other Europeans and to the Koreans. I think the Republicans are bribed and bribed lavishly to do that. Seen in that light, the rich Republicans who bankroll the opposition to high speed rail in California are revealed as the borderline traitors that they are. The United States supplies a free military defense for all of Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, and a lot of other places, and we have done so since 1945. Those countries then spend their military money on high speed rail, affordable universities, magnificent national health care systems, and a lot more. All over the world, the American people are held in contempt for letting their government kick them around like that. The American political system is now hard‐wired to ruin the lives of the American people and to enrich the lives of the people of Europe, Japan and Korea. This total Republican opposition to California high speed rail is emblematic of that perversion. The Republican scum who are trying to stop California high speed rail rely on the ignorance of the American voters. The schools in the United States are some of the worst in the world, by design. Trump's defense budget is $716 billion. That of Britain is 50 billion pounds. A U.S. defense budget of $400 billion would probably be an obscene waste of money. The American people are bled white to pay to defend much of the free‐loading world. They get high speed rail, and we get little border‐line traitors like Jim Patterson yelling his head off in Sacramento trying to deny HSR to the American people. The American people should wake up to this fraud and remove people like Patterson from our political life. He's a paid hatchet man for the Republicans. The American people need to take action against the Republican scum who work tirelessly to ruin their lives. We need a political revolution in the United States, if not a real one. Then we need to see our money spent to improve the lives of the American people. I think we have done enough to atone for defeating Germany and Japan in WWII, if that is what this is about. It is mainly about keeping the population of the Central Valley ignorant and exploitable by the rich Republicans who rule the roost here. To have educated, high income Silicon Valley people buy homes here would be to open the eyes of the poor people who exist here now. To enable people here to get high‐paying jobs in Silicon Valley would be to empower them, and the Republicans who own the Central Valley want to keep them powerless. Again, just consider that we spend $716 to provide a free military defense for much of the world, many of whom have high speed rail, and the Republicans fight desperately to deny it to the American people. That starts to meet the definition of treason. I have very strong feelings about the Republicans, and I restrain myself from expressing them fully. Please hang in there, Chairman Richard. You have done an impossible job very well. L. William Harding Fresno From:Amie Neff To:Council, City Subject:Elimination of the viaduct Date:Wednesday, October 17, 2018 10:49:29 AM I vehemently oppose elimination of the viadct option without also eliminating the hybrid option. Between the two above ground options I feel the viaduct offers a much better option for thecommunity for the following reasons: It opens up space below the raised rail for landscaping, possible bike or walking lanes, and should train ever become obsolete, offers the community a walking path option to reclaim. The hybrid will visually divide our city, it will severely degrade housing values, block light inpeople's yards, and be a general eyesore. If you plan on keeping any elevated options on the table at all, which I believe is a different question entirely, do not eliminate the viaduct. Thank youAmie Neff OCTOBER 2018 EMAILS TO CITY.COUNCIL ABOUT CONNECTING PALO ALTO GRADE SEPARATION From:Jagdish Pamnani To:Council, City Subject:Grade separation at Meadow and Charleston rail crossings Date:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:33:50 PM Dear City Council Rail Committee, I live a few blocks from the Meadow rail crossing. My strongly preferred choice for both the Meadow and Charleston crossing is the shallow trench option as it significantly reduces thenoise of passing trains, hides the train below grade level and allows a slightly elevated road over rail. However, to make this choice as cost-effective as possible, we need to do thefollowing: 1. Get Caltrain to approve a 2% grade, publish the progress of this issue as a standing agenda item for the CAP and city council meetings. 2. Get Caltrain to approve 18.5ft top of rail to bridge clearance instead of 24.5ft, publish theprogress of this issue as a standing agenda item for the CAP and city council meetings. The residents (550 of them who signed the petition) also need an update on the "Tunnel Option". AECOM / Rail Committee cannot make the unilateral decision to suddenly stop thetunnel option and merge this option with the Shallow Trench. There are two distinct options: Shallow trench and the Tunnel for Charleston/Meadow shouldbe analyzed with Caltrain electric for tunnel and freight single rail at grade. The CAP/Residents need to be provided with detailed analysis on both these options. Also to keep the options to three, merge the least popular options of raised rail ( Hybrid andViaduct) into one. Items 1, 2 will significantly reduce costs of whatever final option is chosen so it is extremely important for the council to get answers to these questions before making any final decision. Regards, Jagdish From:Wolfgang Dueregger To:Council, City Cc:Paul Machado; Neilson Buchanan; Carol Scott Subject:Grade separation Date:Monday, October 22, 2018 4:58:51 PM Dear City Council, there has been a lot of discussion, lots of money spent on studies (in the hundreds ofthousands) but so far no actionable solution has been found how/if to separate the rail tracks from the car crossings along the train tracks running through Palo Alto. We always hear tunneling is too expensive. Is it? Can you show us the numbers from an actualbid received from the Boring Company? Please read on: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/elon-musk-says-his-first-tunnel-will-open- december-n922726 This happens 400 miles south of us. And we, Palo Altans, always wanting to be ahead of everybody else, cannot ? Why have you, Dear Council, not done this so far? Once the numbers are on the table one can tackle the difficult question of how to raise themoney, but first we need to know what the numbers actually are. Please do not loose even more time by trying to solve problems (like over/underpass) for which you will not get a majority from the residents but start working on something that canbe a solution, i.e. tunneling through the whole length of Palo Alto. And once Palo Alto puts the stakes into the ground, it would be very surprising if neighboring cities would not followsuit and join Palo Alto in a deep tunnel bored by the Boring Company. thanks Wolfgang Dueregger P.S.:I have no affiliation whatsoever with Tesla, Elon Musk or the Boring Company. From:Amie Neff To:Council, City; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert Cc:Mandar Borkar Subject:Public Comment , Wednesday October 17th. Caltrain Grade Separation Date:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:16:43 AM Good Morning Council and Rail Committee Members, I'd like to address the committee and and our city transportation specialists about a fewclarifications and requests I believe are crucial before moving forward with the very costly and important decision about how to address Caltrain's pending electrification and increasedridership goals. I would like to thank the committee for their time, and the city for providing access to the big Design Boards that were presented at the August 23rd meeting. I was not able to attend thatmeeting and am glad to be able to see what is being discussed with more time and attention. You provided enough information that I see where each option begins and ends, the depth orheight of the tracks, and the slope profile. There are notable omissions on the "Typical Section" images which makes it difficult to understand how each alternative might look. PLEASE SEE: https://pagradesep.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Meadow-Dr-Charleston-Rd-Viaduct-Full-Trench-MCV-MCT.pdf The 100' graphical scale in the right hand bottom corner is only applicable to the already graphed section and mapped segment. That scale doesn't apply to the "Typical Sections" of thetrain in the trench, or elevated options on either board. In fact, the Typical Sections, (images which are most relatable to us,) have no scale, no context and no dimensions. Other than information about track height or depth, I have no wayof understanding, if I live along Park, how close that wall or viaduct will to be to my back deck or roofline or how high it is in relation to my house. I know the average home heightsalong the track are 12'-0", if the tracks might be 3'-0 or even 8'-0" above the top of my house, how high will the train be? How tall is a train? I hope that we can ask the team who put together these boards to go a small step further ingiving us a sense of the proposals that corresponds to our understanding of the real world. It doesn’t take much to draw in a tree, a house, a car, or a person for context, but it informs ourunderstanding enormously. More importantly, I want to make it clear that without an approval from CalTrain that we can design with a 2% grade, the option to trench in South Palo Alto is not on the table. Whycontinue to entertain a trenching option without that approval? I would ask that the City Council do their due diligence. Request the following design assurances and clarificationsfrom Caltrain: 1) Grant us permission to design for 2% grade due to the streams we are working around.2) Elsewhere clearance height for trains is 18-1/2', why are we being held to different design standard of 24-1/2'? Can we shoot for the lower clearance?3) We would like clarification about what options we have to reclaim the space returned to us in the right of way now occupied by the rails should we chose to construct a tunnel or a viaduct. Will that space be available to Palo Alto's community? Finally, I would like the committee to leave among our options the construction of a short,shallow tunnel between San Antonio and Cal Ave stations that allowed the freight to remain in place above and CalTrain to go in a tunnel below. It can be lumped into the city wide tunneloption. Many Regards, -- Amie Neff M.Arch, LEED® AP From:pol1@rosenblums.us To:Council, City Subject:Rail Committee Agenda Item 1 October 17th 2018 Date:Saturday, October 13, 2018 2:45:33 PM Members of the Rail Committee: I have long been an advocate for the city wide tunnel option because I believe it offers the best outcome for the long term future of Palo Alto. There would be complete east west connectivity with the railroad right of way no longer blocking views or minimizing the number of cross connections. I do not accept the position that any option for grade separation that does not make the situation worse is acceptable, For a community with our values and wealth it should be possible to come up with a more fitting solution such as Berkeley was able to do with their BART tunnel. Financing is the main issue and needs to be looked at seriously with all options on the table. This has not been done. I outright reject any option that allows the rail bed to rise above ground level as this requires the construction of a long dirt wall which would further separate the east and west sides of our city with an even more visually imposing physical barrier with NO likelihood of improved east-west connectivity. For this reason, I urge you all to put the alternative of rail on raised pylons (viaduct) as one of the alternatives on our list. To me it is the second best alternative to a bored tunnel as it allows full east- west connectivity, allowing passage under the tracks as deemed suitable by future traffic studies and our Comprehensive Plan. The area under the tracks could become a green space or developed commercially. As has been pointed out many times by Nadia Naik in the past and Council Member Wolbach recently, we need to do some serious investigation into the issue of freight traffic on the right of way. This has extremely serious cost and noise issues associated with any chosen solutions. If it were possible to buy out the freight option, this might offer a very cost effective solution. Stephen Rosenblum Santa Rita Ave, Palo Alto From:Kellerman, Thomas W. To:De Geus, Robert Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Megan Kanne; Rachel Kellerman Subject:Rail Crossing Planning Process Date:Sunday, October 21, 2018 7:01:43 PM Attachments:Rail Committee Ltr.docx Dear Mr. de Geus: Please see the attached letter regarding the Palo Alto rail crossing planning process. Residents of the Professorville and University South neighborhoods would like to arrange a meeting with the appropriate City staff to discuss the inclusion of mitigation measures in the scope of the alternatives under consideration. We are writing to you given that the position formerly held by Josh Mello is currently vacant. Please feel free to contact us to arrange a time that fits within your schedule or to identify the appropriate staff member with whom we should meet. Thank you. Regards, Tom and Rachel Kellerman DISCLAIMER This e-mail message is intended only for the personal useof the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged andconfidential and/or it may include attorney work product. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately bye-mail and delete the original message. From:gmahany@aol.com To:Council, City Subject:rail noise mitigation Date:Monday, October 15, 2018 9:27:21 AM Attachments:RAIL SYSTEM NOISE AND VIBRATION CONTROL.pdf IPOL-TRAN_ET(2012)474533_EN-one.pdf Hello Rail Committee Please find attached the some information on how noise from railroad trains and tracks are generated and how to muffle that noise. DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES TRANSPORT AND TOURISM REDUCING RAILWAY NOISE POLLUTION STUDY This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism. AUTHORS Uwe CLAUSEN Claus DOLL Francis James FRANKLIN Gordana Vasic FRANKLIN Hilmar HEINRICHMEYER Joachim KOCHSIEK Werner ROTHENGATTER Niklas SIEBER RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Piero SOAVE Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: poldep-cohesion@europarl.europa.eu EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Nora REVESZ LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN. Translations: DE, FR. ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: poldep-cohesion@europarl.europa.eu Manuscript completed in March 2012. Brussels, © European Union, 2012. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES TRANSPORT AND TOURISM REDUCING RAILWAY NOISE POLLUTION STUDY Abstract 12 million EU inhabitants are affected by railway noise during the day and 9 million during the night. This study lists measures, funding and regulations to reduce it. The introduction of modern rolling stock will lower noise most significantly. In the short run, the replacement of cast iron by composite brake blocks on rail freight cars is most important. Developing a regulation scheme for a staged process towards low-noise rolling stock is the heart of a rail noise abatement strategy. IP/B/TRAN/FWC/2010-006/LOT4/C1/SC2 2012 PE 474.533 EN Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5 LIST OF TABLES 7 LIST OF FIGURES 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 1. DEFINITIONS AND EFFECTS OF NOISE 15 1.1. Noise and railway noise 15 1.2. Measurement of noise 15 1.3. Effects of noise 16 1.4. Results of noise mapping 17 1.5. Environmental groups and affected inhabitants 19 2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 23 2.1. General recommendations, limits and thresholds for environmental noise 23 2.2. Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC 29 2.3. Recast of the First Railway Package 41 2.4. TSI Noise 42 2.5. Measuring and computing of railway noise 43 3. RAIL NOISE – SOURCES AND PREVENTION MEASURES 47 3.1. Sources of railway noise 47 3.2. Noise emissions in relation to rolling stock 50 3.3. Measures to avoid railway noise 53 3.4. Result for main reduction measures 63 3.5. Number of rail freight wagons to be retrofitted 68 4. CASE STUDIES 71 4.1. General descriptions of environmental railway noise in selected areas or countries 71 4.2. Detailed analysis of selected sections 83 5. EVALUATION 93 5.1. Economic incentives 93 5.2. Analysis of regulation possibilities 98 5.3. Analysis of stakeholder remarks on economic incentives and regulation 100 6. CONCLUSIONS 103 6.1. Recommendations of measures 103 6.2. Recommendations for parliamentarian activities 107 3 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ REFERENCES 109 Annex I Environmental noise emissions in Member States and agglomerations (reference [ETC 2010]) 117 Annex II Maximum noise levels of rolling stock according to TSI noise 119 Annex III Comparison of coverage of bogies from different modern rolling stock equipment 121 Annex IV Important and analysed regulations 123 4 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AEA AEA Technology Rail BV, Netherlands BIMSchV Bundes-Immissions-Schutz-Verordnung (Traffic Noise Ordinance of Germany) BMVIT Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (Federal Minister for Transport, Innovation and Technology of Austria) BS British Standard BVU Beratergruppe Verkehr + Umwelt (Consultants for Transport + Environment) CER Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies DB German Rail (Deutsche Bahn) DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of UK DG Directorate-General of the European Commission DG ENTR Directorate-General Entreprise and Industry DG ENV Directorate-General Environment DG Research Directorate-General Research DG TREN Directorate-General Transport and Energy DIR Directive EC European Council ECML East Coast Main Line EEA European Environment Agency EMU Electric multiple unit EP European Parliament ERFA European Rail Freight Association ETC LUSI European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information EU European Union FM Friction modifier FS National railway of Italy - Trenitalia (former Ferrovia dello Stato) K-block Composite brake block 5 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LDAY Average Noise Level Index day time LDEN Average Noise Level Index total day LL-block Low-low brake block LNIGHT Average Noise Level Index night time NDTAC Noise Depending Track Access Charge ÖBB Österreichische Bundesbahn (Federal Railway of Austria) PPG Planning Policy Guidance RENFE Spanish Railways (Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles Españoles) RFI Italian railway infrastructure management company - (Rete Ferroviaria Italiana) SBB Swiss Federal Railway (Schweizer Bundesbahn) STIB Municiple Public transportation company of Brussels (Société des transport intercommunaux de Bruxelles TAC Track Access Charge TOC Train Operating Company TOR Top of Rail TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability UIC International Union of Railways (Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer) UIP International Union of Private Wagons (Union Internationale des Wagons Privé) UIRR International Union of combined Road-Rail transport companies (Union internationale des sociétés de transport combiné Rail-Route) UITP International Assosiation of Public Transport UNIFE Association of the European Rail Industry VDV Association of German Transport Companies (Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen) VPI German Association of private wagon owners (Vereinigung der Privatgüterwagen-Interessenten) WCML West Coast Main Line WHO World Health Organisation 6 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Affected people by environmental noise according to first round of noise mapping 17 Table 2 Thresholds for environmental noise at night time to avoid health risks according to WHO recommendation 24 Table 3 German Federal Environment Agency recommendations of thresholds for action planning 25 Table 4 German maximum environmental noise levels for new built or modified transportation infrastructures 26 Table 5 Austrian values of thresholds for action planning reference 26 Table 6 UK values of thresholds for indoor noise caused by environmental noise 26 Table 7 Noise exposure categories for dwellings 27 Table 8 Noise levels corresponding to exposure categories for dwellings 28 Table 9 Spanish values of thresholds for action planning 28 Table 10 Road map for implementation of Directive 2002/49/EG 30 Table 11 Additional steps in noise mapping according to [Dir. 2002/49/EC] 31 Table 12 Schedule for noise mapping and noise reduction planning 31 Table 13 Status of implementation of Directive 2002/49/EG 32 Table 14 Actions by European Countries for noise abatement on railways where data are available 33 Table 15 Analysis of studies about the eligibility of rail noise incentives 45 7 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 16 Importance of noise sources 48 Table 17 Maximum and realised noise emissions of existing high speed trains 51 Table 18 Maximum and realised noise emissions of new freight wagons 51 Table 19 Measures, effects and costs 63 Table 20 Age structure of freight wagon fleet in the year 2000 69 Table 21 Prediction of numbers of trains on Rheintalbahn 72 Table 22 Share of numbers of trains on Rheintalbahn between day and night time 73 Table 23 Affected inhabitants of railway noise in Freiburg 73 Table 24 Affected inhabitants of railway noise in Offenburg 74 Table 25 Results of the Austrian rail noise abatement programme 77 Table 26 Example of railway traffic data in the Susa Valley; Number of trains for an average workday 78 Table 27 Range of noise reduction 84 Table 28 Impacts of noise reduction measures in the Middle Rhine Valley 85 8 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Share of people affected by railway noise outside agglomeration according to EEA data 18 Figure 2 Protests in Rüdesheim May 2011, noise map Loreley LDEN 20 Figure 3 Upper Rhine Valley: Plans for Weil am Rhein and protests in Offenburg 21 Figure 4 LDEN planning values for residential area 25 Figure 6 Sources of railway noise according to train speed 48 Figure 7 Development of noise sources while train passing 49 Figure 8 Noise emission development of Swiss rolling stock 50 Figure 9 Noise levels of Austrian self-propelled rail vehicles 52 Figure 10 Noise levels of Austrian rail engines 52 Figure 11 Comparison of tread and disc brakes 54 Figure 12 Ring damped and perforated wheel 56 Figure 13 Wheel-tuned absorbers 56 Figure 14 Wheel web shields 56 Figure 15 Tata Steel SilentTrack tuned rail dampers 58 Figure 16 Left: Saargummi rail pad Right: Pandrol Vanguard resilient web support 59 Figure 17 Slab track section SA42 from Quiet Rail Traffic project 59 Figure 18 Principle of way-side lubrication systems for friction modifying 61 Figure 19 Shield of pantograph of Japanese Shinkansen Series 700 62 9 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 20 Porous coating of pantographs 62 Figure 21 Shift of noise levels on German railway lines due to introduction of composite iron soles for rail freight wagons 65 Figure 22 Cost benefit analysis of measures to reduce noise in STAIRRS project 66 Figure 23 Effect on total noise according to share of wagons equipped with K- or LL-blocks 67 Figure 24 Estimated number of freight cars 69 Figure 25 Direction of sound spreading (sound rays) during day 75 Figure 26: Direction of sound spreading (sound rays) during night 76 Figure 27 Impacts of noise protection barriers in Jenbach, Inn Valley, Austria 78 Figure 28 Noise pollution in the Fréjus Corridor 79 Figure 29 Noise pollution index (NPI) due to simultaneous exposure to rail and road sources 80 Figure 30 Interpretation of the NPI values 80 Figure 31 Effects of rail noise barriers on the number of inhabitants of agglomerations in England 82 Figure 32 Important Areas, Noise Action Plan for Sheffield, England 83 Figure 33 Section Koblenz - Bingen, impacts of measures 84 Figure 34 Left: View of Blackfriars Railway Bridge from the south bank [Thameslink 2005]. Right: First Capital Connect Class 319 EMU. 86 Figure 35 Overview of viaducts/bridges near Blackfriars station [Thameslink 2005] 87 Figure 36 Measured noise levels in Blackfriars area 88 Figure 37 Predicted noise increase by 2026 at nearby facades as a result of daytime railway operation 89 10 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY According to Member State reports compiled by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 2010, railway noise affects about 12 million EU inhabitants at day time, with a noise exposure above 55 dB(A), and about 9 million at night time, with a noise exposure above 50 dB(A). In fact, the real figures are undoubtedly higher since the EEA’s European noise mapping initiative concentrates on agglomerations with over 250,000 inhabitants and on main railway lines with over 60,000 trains per year. The railway noise problem is concentrated in central Europe, where the majority of the affected citizens live and the volume of rail freight transport is highest (primarily Germany, Italy and Switzerland, but traffic density is high also in Poland, Austria, the Netherlands and France, and noise mapping indicates that significant population is affected in Belgium and Luxembourg). Noise is an annoying phenomenon, contaminating the environment and adversely affecting the health of people exposed to high ambient noise levels above 70 dB(A) – or even less. The discussion about railway noise has become very important in several European countries as railway transport increases and plays a more important role in greening transportation. For implementing the sustainability goals formulated in the EC 2011 Transport White Paper and the Greening of Transport package, the environmental impact (carbon, energy, noise, etc.) of railway operations needs to be minimised to maintain rail’s position as a green transport mode – and thereby promote a modal shift to rail, to reduce the environmental impact of transport overall. In order to analyse the noise situation in Europe, following current EC legislation, the Member States have to provide noise maps and noise action plans. Noise action plans describe the measures taken to lower environmental noise for identified affected inhabitants. However, legal conditions differ widely across Europe as Member States have different limits or threshold limits for environmental noise emissions, and usually these limits are tested only when building new infrastructure or during major redevelopment. In general, three different sources of railway noise are identified: Engine noise Rolling noise Aerodynamic noise. Railway noise is largely a problem of freight trains and trains containing older wagons or engines, and is a particularly severe problem during the night. Rolling noise is generally higher from poorly maintained rail vehicles, and from trains running on poorly maintained infrastructure. Aerodynamic noise is particularly relevant for high speed lines where, in most cases, noise limiting measures like noise barriers are implemented; noise barriers reduce the impact of rolling noise, but are usually too low to have any effect on noise originating at the pantograph. Engine noise is most relevant at lower speeds up to about 30 km/h, rolling noise above 30 km/h and aerodynamic noise dominates above 200 km/h. The most important noise source is rolling noise, which affects all kinds of train. To reduce railway noise pollution, passive measures at the place of disturbance can be distinguished from active measures at the noise source. The most important passive methods used to reduce the impact of railway noise on the environment are noise protection walls and insulating windows, and for the most part action plans and 11 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ investments of the Member States concentrate on these methods. However, they are only locally effective, requiring huge investments to protect wider parts of railway networks. In contrast, source-driven measures lower noise across the whole railway system if they are widely introduced. As an example, the problem of noisy rail freight cars can be reduced by the replacement of cast iron brake blocks by composite brake blocks. This is currently being investigated by the railway industry and would affect about 370,000 old freight wagons. Also, wheel absorbers, aerodynamic design of pantographs and noise insulation of traction equipment (e.g., locomotive engines) are measures to reduce noise at source. According to the current Technical Standard for Interoperability (TSI Noise), rolling stock which was introduced since the year 2000 (including engines and passenger coaches or passenger power cars) are required to lower noise emissions by about 10 dB(A) compared to the equipment of the 1960s and 1970s. In the authors’ opinion, noise should ideally be reduced at the source because these measures have a network-wide effect. Where track infrastructure causes increased noise levels (e.g., structure-radiated noise from viaducts or curve squeal in narrow radius curves), or where the local environment is particularly sensitive to noise (e.g., areas of natural beauty or urban environments with residences very close to the railway line) then additional trackside noise mitigation measures may be necessary. Such measures include friction modifiers, rail dampers, floating (or isolated) slab tracks and of course noise bunds and barriers in various heights. Vehicles and track should all be maintained to eliminate unnecessary sources of noise, e.g., corrugation. Retrofitting of existing rail freight cars with composite K- or (if approved) LL-brake blocks is the most cost-effective measure on the vehicle side. Additional measures on the vehicle side are wheel absorbers, vehicle-mounted friction modifiers (most effective in urban or sub-urban networks) and (for high-speed trains) aerodynamically optimised pantographs (e.g., shielding or coating). These measures are effective network-wide. Additional research could be made for modified wheel constructions as they are very effective but experiences with accidents lead to reluctance to use new wheel constructions replacing mono block types. On the infrastructure side, friction modifiers, rail dampers and slab track are cost-effective measures for reducing noise. In densely populated environments and highly trafficked railway sections, the use of noise barriers or coverings cannot be avoided. However, if there is a wide introduction of vehicle-related measures, the number of noise barriers or covers can shrink significantly. Additionally, wheels and rails need frequent monitoring and maintenance to reduce noise. The surface quality of wheels and rails is a key factor determining rolling noise and deteriorates naturally over time; severely damaged surfaces (out of round wheels or corrugated tracks) are a major noise source. The European Parliament and European Commission try to encourage the Member States to take more action to reduce railway noise, e.g., by introducing noise-dependent track pricing schemes. Such economic incentives (rail track charging differentiated according to noise emissions) can help to: stimulate the use of low-noise technology for the rolling stock; foster the use of routes which avoid hot spots for noise; foster noise-reducing operational routines and speeds in sensitive areas. 12 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ On the regulative side, the Japanese top-runner scheme1 is an example to come to a long term reduction of noise. The TSI Noise is an appropriate basis for noise regulation in the medium and long term. Presently, the standards for noise emissions are valid for new or modified vehicles only. In the medium and long-term view the TSI can become compulsory for all vehicles. The noise levels in TSI Noise should also be lowered from time to time according to technical development similar to the Japanese example. In principle, there are three approaches to a noise-dependent track pricing, and each can be configured as a mix of bonus and penalty components: 1. The train-related noise emissions can be measured at critical points in densely populated areas and/or low distances to residential zones and then allocated to the trains causing the noise. The noise mark-up for the track charge then would vary with the local noise level and eventually with the noise exposure of the residential population. 2. The wagons can be classified into noise categories and charged with a noise mark- up or granted with a bonus according to the noise category. The train operator would pay the charge to, or get the bonus from, the infrastructure manager, and pass the bill or grant the bonus to the car owner or operator. 3. Trains can be classified on the basis of the rail car types from which they are composed. In the case of freight trains, the emission category of a train could vary with every change of the train composition in marshalling yards. The first approach would directly correspond to the polluter-pays principle, but causes high transaction costs for implementation and control. The second approach is the most simple and easy to implement, but neglects the nature of rail noise; a high percentage of noise- reduced cars is required in order to achieve a substantial reduction of train-related emissions. The third approach does not require a sophisticated payment system but needs a functioning (eventually international) information system for wagon control. The charging schemes can be embedded into appropriate legislative regulations to set a clear framework for long-term activities to reduce railway noise. The following instruments for regulation are possible: Limits for stationary and pass-by noise for freight wagons and locomotives; Operation and maintenance rules; Noise-limiting technology for new rolling stock according to the Japanese top-runner scheme. This scheme aims at reducing energy consumption and climate impact by dynamic setting of emission targets on the basis of current best practice (“top runners’ performance”); Retrofitting programmes for vehicles currently in service (phased obligation schedule). 1 This scheme aims at reducing energy consumption and climate impact by dynamic setting of emission targets on the basis of current best practice (“top runners’ performance”). 13 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Noise depending track access charges (NDTAC) should be introduced to encourage the vehicle owners to invest in noise reduction measures. At the first stage they should focus on rail freight wagons but the scheme can include other vehicles or measures later or focus on noise limits without regard to measure to reach the limit. Importantly, NDTAC should be realised so that no burdens for competitiveness for the rail sector appear. Investment and higher operational costs should be covered. NDTAC should be harmonised in the Member States and each vehicle operating in a national network should be included (also foreign vehicles). To meet the fact that significant noise reductions are only to be achieved if trains are completely equipped with low noise equipment, the NDTAC should favour trains which are nearly fully equiped with these vehicles. To avoid losses in competitiveness lower TAC for low noise vehicles a substantial part should be financed by the Member States. To motivate an early switch to low noise vehicles or retrofitting of existing freight cars also direct funding of investments should be considered for a few years. Summary of recommendations As rail freight wagons commonly travel across wider international distances, it is essential to harmonise noise legislation policies across Europe. As a result the authors recommend focusing on the following actions: Retrofitting the existing freight wagon fleet with low noise braking systems especially by replacing the cast iron by composite brake blocks as the most important and effective first step of source related noise reduction measures. Establishing funding schemes to cover the retrofitting and additional operating costs of the new noise reduction technologies to avoid a reduction of the rail sector’s competitiveness; a substantial part of costs should be covered by the Member States, since quieter trains will reduce the need for, and therefore the cost of, infrastructure noise mitigation measures. Introducing rail track charging systems which differentiate the train charges according to the noise category of a train. The noise classification of a train should be determined by the wagon with the highest noise emission level. Making activities concerning NDTAC or noise limit regulation depending on the same actions in road transport to avoid losses of competitiveness for the rail sector. Making noise limits by TSI Noise ([TSI Noise 2011] also compulsory for existing rolling stock 10 or 12 years after introduction of funding schemes and noise limits for new rolling stock. Adjusting limits of TSI Noise in a phased process for a medium and long-run future to foster the development of new noise reduction technologies. Monitoring and maintenance of noise development due to abrasion to assure low noise levels also during operation over long periods. 14 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. DEFINITIONS AND EFFECTS OF NOISE KEY FINDINGS Noise is sound which is unwelcome but the annoyingness depends on the individual. Noise can be harmful. The noise pressure level is measured in dB(A) (deci Bel) with a logarithmic scale. 10 dB(A) increase of noise represents a ten-fold increase of noise pressure. A change of 3 dB(A) is detectable by the human ear, with it representing a doubling of noise pressure. Local resistance against railway noise increases especially in Central Europe where most rail freight transport is realised. The majority of rail transport is realised in France, Germany and Poland. 1.1. Noise and railway noise Noise is sound that is unwelcome, because of its volume or structure, and can be harmful. Since not everyone responds equally to sounds and the perception is dependent on constitution and mood, noise also contains a subjective component. Therefore, there is no fixed value at which a sound is perceived as noise. Rail noise is sound emissions arising from the operation of trains and trams. There are a wide variety of sources and causes of rail noise, such as locomotives accelerating, freight wagons braking, squeal noise in curves, vibration from rail corrugation and out-of-round wheels, vehicle coupling in shunting yards, and even the pantographs of high-speed trains. 1.2. Measurement of noise Sound is vibrations in the air around us causing our eardrum to vibrate. The human ear is sensitive to frequencies in the range 20 Hz – 20 kHz. These vibrations in the air cause pressure changes, and the change in pressure is called sound pressure. Sound, and therefore noise, is measured by measuring the sound pressure. How loud we perceive the sound depends on sound pressure level and duration, but also on frequency and bandwidth. Psychology also affects our perception and tolerance of sound. Besides sound pressure level, the duration of the sound, the time of day, the composition and frequency of the sound must be considered in the assessment of noise. Also, the tonality ("squeak") and impulsiveness ("hammer") play a role. The measurement of sound pressure level, usually referred to as volume, has the physical unit Bel. Normally the term decibel (dB) (i.e., one tenth of a Bel) is used. The additive (A) 15 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ behind the unit dB expresses that the noise measurement is A-weighted (a filter defined by IEC 61672:2003 norm), i.e., tuned to the perception of the human ear. While the human ear can perceive an increase in sound volume as sound energy increases, the relationship is logarithmic. If two identical 10 dB noise sources are placed together, the perceived increase is not a doubling of the volume but rather a 3 dB increase. If ten such noise sources were placed together, the increase would be 10 dB – multiplying the sound energy (and thus the real exposure) by a factor of ten, multiplies the perceived sound volume by a factor of two. As such, a sound level increase from 45 dB to 55 dB may not look like much on paper, but it represents a ten-fold increase in sound energy and its impact on human health. Humans are usually able to sense a change of 3 dB in sound level, which corresponds to a factor-of- two change in sound energy, but that is about the limit of sensitivity. Measures to reduce noise levels by less than 3 dB would, by themselves, be of no real value. Sound can also be transmitted as vibration through the ground and directly into the body, and this is also a form of noise pollution. Three standard measures of average sound pressure level, defined by ISO 1996-2:1987, are Lday, Levening and Lnight, where day is typically 07.00 – 19.00, evening is 19.00 – 23.00, and night is 23.00 – 07.00; these are long-term average A-weighted measurements of all days, evenings and nights, respectively, over the course of a year. Lden is a weighted average of these three, adding 5 dB(A) to Levening and 10 dB(A) to Lnight; this is defined in Annex 1 of European Commission Directive 2002/49/EC. The UK uses also LAeq,16h which is an average of Lday and Levening. 1.3. Effects of noise The faintest audible sound is at 0 dB(A); the pain threshold is about 120 dB(A). If it is louder than 120 dB(A), there is a risk of injury. At a detonated blast of 150 dB(A) the eardrum can rupture. Noise exposure during sleep such as night flight noise is regarded as particularly critical. So night noise causes health hazards already at individual levels below 45 dB(A), if the difference between the individual level and the background noise is more than 3 dB. Noise above 55 dB(A) is considered as noise pollution. If noise above this level lasts for an extended period of time, the efficiency and well-being of a person will be reduced. Noise in the range 65 to 75 dB(A) causes stress to the body. This can lead to arterial hypertension (high blood pressure), cardiovascular disease and myocardial infarction (heart attack). Noise can also provide for a reduction of gastric secretion and be the cause of stomach ulcers [WHO JRC 2011]. In the workplace, above 85 dB(A), a contractor is responsible to ensure his employees have suitable hearing protection available. If the noise level is over 90 dB(A), employees must wear hearing protection. 16 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.4. Results of noise mapping According to Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, all Member States have to provide noise maps and noise action plans (for details see section 2.2 on page 29). The report on the implementation of Directive 2002/49/EC [EC 2011] summarises the number of affected people by environmental noise in the first round of strategic noise mapping (see Table 1). Table 1: Affected people by environmental noise according to first round of noise mapping SECTION NUMBER OF AFFECTED PEOPLE BY NOISE LEVELS ABOVE 55 DB(A) LDEN [MILLION] NUMBER OF AFFECTED PEOPLE BY NOISE LEVELS ABOVE 50 DB(A) LNIGHT [MILLION] Agglomerations > 250,000 inhabitants All roads 55.8 40.1 All railways 6.3 4.5 Industrial zones 3.3 1.8 Important infrastructures outside agglomerations Main roads 34 25.4 Main railways 5.4 4.5 Main airports 1 0.3 Source: EC 2011, Table 2. The European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information (ETC LUSI) publishes noise maps on the internet according to Directive 2002/49/EG. The maps are available at [NOISE 2011]. The maps present the population in each country affected by rail noise (distinguishing agglomerations from main lines outside agglomerations). Also, affected population by industry, main road traffic and aviation can be identified. A spreadsheet2 shows detailed and aggregated figures according to data sent until 30 June 2010. In Annex I of this study (pages 120 - 121) the results of noise mapping for the rail sector are shown for all countries inside and outside agglomerations. According to EEA data, the following states in Europe are mostly affected by railway noise according to the share of their population that is affected by railway noise with more than 55 dB(A) LDEN: Austria (9.3%), Slovakia (9.0%), Switzerland (7.5%), France (5.5%), Germany (4.3%), Czech Republic (3.8%), the Netherlands (3.8%) and Latvia (3.0%) (see Figure 1). The following Figure 1 shows the share of affected people in each European country according to the figures delivered by the states to fulfil the requirements of Directive 2002/49/EC. 2 Summary of noise exposure data – file name is “END_DF4_Results_101005_ETCLUSI_inclBG&SW.xls” 17 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 1: Share of people affected by railway noise in each European country according to EEA data Source: Figure elaborated by the authors with EEA data. 18 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Analysing the figures in Annex I, it can be seen that about 85% of people affected by railway noise (over 55 dB(A) LDEN or 50 dB(A) LNIGHT) are located in the following six countries in Europe: Germany, France, UK, Austria, Poland and Switzerland. About 60% are located in Germany and France. If only areas outside agglomerations are considered the figures change significantly. In this case the six countries mentioned above represent 89% of affected people. The share of people affected in agglomerations and outside agglomerations differ very much between the countries. In Germany about 75% of affected people live outside agglomerations whereas in Poland this share is 0 (Switzerland: 15%, Austria: 59%, the UK: 17%, France: 44%). Although the number of people affected by rail noise is about eight times smaller than that affected by road transport noise, the total number remains high. In total 11.8 million inhabitants are affected by railway noise during the day (LDEN) and 9 million are affected at night time (LNIGHT). The limit in noise mapping remains much higher than the recommendations from WHO (see Table 2 page 24). 1.5. Environmental groups and affected inhabitants On 7 May 2011, about 1,000 protesters came together in Rüdesheim to protest against the rail noise in their hometowns along the middle Rhine Valley. They carried banners demanding a speed limit of 50 km/h in settlement areas and a ban on night trains, word- playing with the “Deutsche Bahn” as “TaliBahn” and blocking the railway line for 40 minutes. The protests were organised not only by a number of local initiatives, but also by communities and district administrations. The main discussion is currently about freight trains as they are identified as the main source of noise, and they mostly operate at night. A recent survey [Schreckenberg et al. 2011] showed that 45% of the inhabitants along the middle Rhine region are highly annoyed by rail noise, compared to only 13% by road noise. The reason is easy to understand: The topography forces the trains to pass through a narrow valley between Koblenz and Bingen. Four tracks, two on either side of the Rhine, cause unbearable noise disturbances in the ears of the inhabitants. Noise maps published recently show noise levels (LDEN) above 65 and 70 dB(A). These extremes are caused by 400 trains per day, oncoming trains, old infrastructure, and noise reflections on the steep valley and on the water. Additionally, the EU plans for a European freight corridor from Rotterdam to Basel will double the number of freight trains of presently 150 per day to 300 per day. Further protests are expected. Further details concerning the Rhine axis will be elaborated in Section 4.2.1, page 85. 19 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 2: Protests in Rüdesheim May 2011, noise map Loreley LDEN This is not the only protest at the Rhine against rail noise. The plans to increase capacities on the upper Rhine valley caused massive protests from Offenburg to Basel, where presently around 10 local action groups are active. In Offenburg, 45,840 objections were made against the infrastructure plans of Deutsche Bahn, and finally the planning was not approved by the regional administration. As a result, DB started negotiations about a rail tunnel under Offenburg and an alignment with the motorway. In other towns, groups protest against the visual impact of “ugly noise protection barriers” and demand a covered deep-level track near settlements. The local action groups are supported by a number of environmental NGOs that operate on a national or international level. The wide range of demands concerning rail noise may be summarised as follows: Freight trains should bypass settlement areas or be guided through deep-level tracks, tunnels or fully enclosed tracks. Equal priorities for noise reduction on existing tracks and new construction projects are required. Regarding the legal framework, the equivalent continuous sound pressure level should be complemented by a maximum level measurement combined with frequencies (in other words, peak sound levels and noise frequencies should be considered, not just averaged sound levels). Set noise emissions ceilings on railway tracks, in relation to land use and population density. Reduction of the permitted night time noise level to 45 dB(A). Introduce protection against vibrations into relevant laws and regulations. Set a speed limit of 50 km/h for trains in settlement areas. Revise the noise standards for new railway rolling stock (TSI Noise). Establish a binding framework for the use of market-based instruments to ensure the polluters pay for their noise costs, including road charges and a framework for rail track access charges which will create an incentive for fast and prioritised retrofitting of rail wagons with quiet brake blocks. 20 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 3: Upper Rhine Valley: Plans for Weil am Rhein and protests in Offenburg Analyses of transportation data from EUROSTAT show that in 2009 almost 27% of the total rail transportation volume in Europe affected Germany. This underlines the importance of central Europe as a transit region as well as an industrial region and presents the reason why the discussion, or even the battle, concerning noise is the strongest in Germany. Poland in the second place has a share of rail freight volume of 12% and France in the third place has 9%. Concerning passenger transport, Germany has a 20% share and France 21%. Analyses of the noise mapping results show that the problem is most severe in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland. These two aspects are the reason why data, comments, available studies and national policy activities concentrate mostly on central Europe and, there, especially on the German speaking countries and the Netherlands. Regarding the main rail transportation axes in Europe, Germany, Austria and Switzerland are affected by a large volume of transit transportation. This will even rise according to transportation volume forecasts. The future development of rail freight transport will potentially extend noise problems to other countries through which the TEN-T Corridors pass and which will see rising rail transportation volumes. However, the measures to reduce railway noise which are proposed in this study can help to prevent problems in corridors where transportation will rise in future. 21 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 22 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK KEY FINDINGS WHO recommends environmental noise limits between 32 and 42 dB(A) at night to avoid risks for health. About 1 million years of healthy life are lost every year in the EU due to noise reasons. National noise limits or thresholds differ very much between the Member States and exceed the WHO recommendations. Noise limits are mostly only binding for new build infrastructure. Directive 2002/49/EC requests the Member States to provide noise maps and noise action plans. This has been fulfilled for the first round of noise mapping which covers main railways, roads, airports and agglomerations. The second round (realised until 30 June 2012) will include smaller railways, roads, airports and agglomerations. 12 million inhabitants are affected by railway noise above 55 dB(A) at day time and 9 million inhabitants are affected by railway noise above 50 dB(A) at night time (major infrastructure and agglomerations). The Recast of the first railway package will request the Member States to introduce noise depending track access charges to compensate investments for noise reduction measures for railway operating companies. The TSI Noise sets noise limits for new rolling stock. The reader can find an overview about all identified and analysed regulation schemes in Annex IV. 2.1. General recommendations, limits and thresholds for environmental noise In this section some recommendations and thresholds for environmental noise will be introduced. 2.1.1. WHO recommendations on environmental noise WHO published in 2011 a study about the burdens of disease from environmental noise [WHO JRC 2011]. The study used a quantitative risk assessment approach for the estimation. One result of the study is that, about 1 million years of healthy life are lost in the EU every year due to noise reasons. 23 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Already in 2009 the WHO working group for preparing guidelines for exposure to noise during sleep published recommendations for thresholds of environmental noise levels [WHO 2009]. The recommendations are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Thresholds for environmental noise at night time to avoid health risks according to WHO recommendation EFFECT INDICATOR THRESHOLD [DB(A)] Change in cardiovascular activity see footnote 33 see footnote 3 EEG awakening LAmax,inside 35 Motility, onset of motility LAmax,inside 32 Biological effects Changes in duration of various, in sleep structure and fragmentation of sleep LAmax,inside 35 Waking up in the night and/or too early in the morning LAmax,inside 42 Prolongation of the sleep inception period, difficulty getting to sleep see footnote 3 see footnote 3 Sleep fragmentation, reduced sleeping time see footnote 3 see footnote 3 Sleep quality Increased average motility when sleeping LAmax,inside 42 Self-reported sleep disturbance LAmax,inside 42 Well-being Use of sleeping pills, etc. LAmax,inside 40 Medical conditions Environmental insomnia4 LAmax,inside 42 Source: WHO 2009, page XII. According to the recent UIC study [CE Delft et al. 2011], the social costs of transportation noise are estimated at about 35 billion Euro across the EU plus Switzerland and Norway in 2008, of which about 90% are related to passenger cars and trucks. The costs of rail noise amounts to 953 million Euro or 6% of total noise costs and distributes rather evenly to passenger and freight traffic. 2.1.2. Limits or recommendations for maximum noise limits in the Member States The European Environment Agency published a comparison of LDEN limits of 14 Member States5 in November 2010 [EEA 11/2010]. 3 Although the effect has been shown to occur or a plausible biological pathway could be constructed, indicators or threshold levels could not be determined. 4 Note that “environmental insomnia” is the result of diagnosis by a medical professional whilst “self-reported sleep disturbance” is essentially the same, but reported in the context of a social survey. Number of questions and exact wording may differ. 5 The EEA report does not specify which 14 Member States provided the information. 24 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 4: LDEN planning values for residential area (as reported by 14 Member States) Source: EEA 11/2010, page 22. A standardisation might be useful in order to avoid health risks at the same level in every Member State and to balance competitiveness of all industrial sectors (including transport) as all Member States have to meet the same conditions. The figures required as well as recommended by Member States are often much higher than the recommendations of the WHO. Some national limits or recommendations for environmental noise are introduced as examples below. Table 3 shows recommendations for values of threshold for action plans for environmental noise reduction according to the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) (2006). These figures are not obligations so that the residents cannot claim any specific mitigation measures from these recommendations, if they are affected by environmental noise above these limits. Introduction of measures is a voluntary measure by public bodies. Table 3: German Federal Environment Agency recommendations of thresholds for action planning TARGET OF ACTION PERIOD LDEN LNIGHT Avoiding health risks Short-term 65 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Lowering of large disturbances Middle-term 60 dB(A) 50 dB(A) Avoiding of large disturbances Long-term 55 dB(A) 45 dB(A) Source: 16. BIMSchV 2006. On the other hand, the levels introduced by German Federal Emission Regulation (Bundesimmissionsschutzverordnung) are required for new built or modified transportation infrastructures; environmental noise levels have to fall below the values mentioned in [16. BImSchV 2006]. 25 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 4: German maximum environmental noise levels for new built or modified transportation infrastructures LDEN LNIGHT Near hospitals, schools, sanatoriums 57 dB(A) 47 dB(A) Pure residential areas and small colonies 59 dB(A) 49 dB(A) In central areas, villages or mixed areas 64 dB(A) 54 dB(A) In industrial areas 69 dB(A) 59 dB(A) Source: 16. BIMSchV 2006. In comparison to the German legislation the following table presents the Austrian limits or thresholds for noise reduction action planning. Table 5: Austrian values of thresholds for action planning TARGET OF ACTION LDEN LNIGHT Road traffic 60 dB 50 dB Air traffic 65 dB 55 dB Rail traffic 70 dB 60 dB Industrial areas 55 dB 50 dB Source: Bundes-LärmV 2006. Finally, the British Standard 8233:1999 “Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings – Code of practice” [BS 8233:1999] states noise limits in the UK for indoor noise caused by environmental noise. Table 6: UK values of thresholds for indoor noise caused by environmental noise DESIGN RANGE CRITERION TYPICAL SITUATION Good noise level Reasonable noise level Heavy engineering 70 dB(A) 80 dB(A) Light engineering 65 dB(A) 75 dB(A) Reasonable industrial working conditions Garages, warehouses 65 dB(A) 75 dB(A) Department store 50 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Cafeteria, canteen, kitchen 50 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Wash-room, toilet 45 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Reasonable speech or telephone communications Corridor 45 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Reasonable conditions for Library, cellular office, museum 40 dB(A) 50 dB(A) 26 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Staff room 35 dB(A) 45 dB(A) study and work requiring concentration Meeting room, executive office 35 dB(A) 40 dB(A) Classroom 35 dB(A) 40 dB(A) Church, lecture theatre, cinema 30 dB(A) 35 dB(A) Concert hall, theatre 25 dB(A) 30 dB(A) Reasonable listening conditions Recording studio 20 dB(A) 25 dB(A) Living rooms 30 dB(A) 40 dB(A) Reasonable resting/sleeping conditions Bedrooms 30 dB(A) 35 dB(A) Source: BS 8233:1999, page 19. British standards give acceptable noise levels for properties, and requirements for noise insulation. However, there are no relevant formal limit values in force in England with regard to environmental noise from railways. The Noise Insulation Regulations, defined in British Standard; Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings [BS 8233:1999], define a threshold level as part of the eligibility criteria. Furthermore, there are guideline levels to be found in Planning Policy Guidance that provides guidance on land use with respect to noise from railways. Environmental impact is considered as part of the planning permission process for construction, etc., in the UK. Planning Policy Guidance 24 [PPG 24 2006]: “Planning and Noise” provides guidance to local authorities in England on how to minimise noise impact (The Scottish Office issues Planning Advice Note 56 “Planning and Noise” with similar categorisation of noise levels.). [PPG 24 2006] defines exposure categories for residential development. These categories define action depending on noise level categories. Table 7: Noise exposure categories for dwellings CATEGORY DESCRIPTION A Noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission, although the noise level at the high end of the category should not be regarded as a desirable level. B Noise should be taken into account when determining planning applications and, where appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise. C Planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is considered that permission should be given, for example because there are no alternative quieter sites available, conditions should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise. D Planning permission should normally be refused. Source: PPG 24 2006, Annex 1. Noise levels corresponding to the categories are shown in Table 8. 27 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 8: Noise levels corresponding to exposure categories for dwellings NOISE EXPOSURE CATEGORIES NOISE SOURCE A B C D Road traffic 07.00 – 23.00 <55 55 – 63 63 – 72 >72 23.00 – 7.00 <45 45 - 57 57 - 66 >66 Rail traffic 07.00 – 23.00 <55 55 – 66 66 – 74 >74 23.00 – 7.00 <45 45 - 59 59 - 66 >66 Air traffic6 07.00 – 23.00 <55 55 – 66 66 – 72 >72 23.00 – 7.00 <48 48 - 57 57 - 66 >66 Mixed sources 07.00 – 23.00 <55 55 – 63 63 – 72 >72 23.00 – 7.00 <45 45 - 57 57 - 66 >66 Source: PPG 24 2006, Annex 1. Sweden has decided long-term goals for noise limits in 1997. Indoor levels should not exceed 30 dB(A) (LDEN) and 45 dB(A) LNIGHT. Outdoor levels should not exceed 55 dB(A) LDEN and 70 dB(A) as a maximum on a patio [Blidberg 2011]. According to Royal Decree 1367/2007 in Spain, noise action plans are to be made according to the following table [Sierra 2011]. Table 9: Spanish values of thresholds for action planning TIME FOR ACTION Situation LDAY LEVENING LNIGHT LMAX Up to 2020 Existing 65 65 55 - Now New 60 60 50 85 Source: Sierra 2011. Bedrooms in houses located in the 60/60/50 noise contour have to meet 40 dB(A) LDAY, 40 dB(A) LEVENING and 30dB(A) LNIGHT. Thresholds for noise action planning differ between countries. The differences are even in classifying noise protection areas. In Germany, action plans which lead to a maximum level of noise in defined areas are only required for new built and modified infrastructures. 6 Aircraft noise: daytime values accord with the contour values adopted by the Department for Transport which relate to levels measured 1.2m above open ground. For the same amount of noise energy, contour values can be up to 2 dB(A) higher than those of other sources because of ground reflection effects. 28 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Austria requires noise action planning for certain environmental noise levels, depending on the source of noise. UK recommendations do not require any action, except in the workplace or for new built and modified infrastructures, and levels depend on use of the rooms; local authorities have a number of legislative powers to control noise emission. Mostly the obliged figures are based on the highest level of the German Federal Environment Agency recommendations. These examples of legislation rules or national recommendations differ from the WHO recommendation and are often only relevant for new or modified infrastructure. The result of this comparison shows that reducing environmental noise is a very important action for the environment/health of the population. Many people are affected by rail noise that exceeds the lowest level the WHO Recommendation according to [WHO 2009] demands. 2.2. Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC The Environmental Noise Directive [Dir. 2002/49/EC] has the following aim7: “Monitoring the environmental problem; by requiring competent authorities in Member States to draw up "strategic noise maps" for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations, using harmonised noise indicators LDEN (day-evening-night equivalent level) and LNIGHT (night equivalent level). These maps will be used to assess the number of people annoyed and sleep-disturbed respectively throughout Europe” “Informing and consulting the public about noise exposure, its effects, and the measures considered to address noise, in line with the principles of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, known as the Aarhus Convention, and signed on June 25, 1998. “Addressing local noise issues by requiring competent authorities to draw up action plans to reduce noise where necessary and maintain environmental noise quality where it is good. The Directive does not set any limit value, nor does it prescribe the measures to be used in the action plans, which remain at the discretion of the competent authorities.” “Developing a long-term EU strategy, which includes objectives to reduce the number of people affected by noise in the longer term, and provides a framework for developing existing Community policy on noise reduction from source. With this respect, the Commission has made a declaration concerning the provisions laid down in article 1.2 with regard to the preparation of legislation relating to sources of noise.” According to the Directive 2002/49/EG, all Member States have to provide noise maps and action plans for noise reduction. The Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Directive on environmental noise in accordance with Article 11 of 7 Expressions coming from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive.htm, last visited 14 September 2011. 29 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Directive 2002/49/EC from 1 June 2011 [EC 2011] shows the current status of implementation of the Directive in the Member States. 2.2.1. Status of implementation of Directive 2002/49/EG The Directive is implemented in all Member States since October 2007 according to [EC 2011]. The 148 Member States which did not transpose by 18 July 2004 achieved that by October 2007. According to the EEA Study “Laying the foundations for greener transport” [EEA 7/2011] the data provided is 96% complete in mid 2011. In fact [EEA 7/2011] confirms many aspects concerning limits and the potential risks and limits to avoid risks as the WHO did in its two studies [WHO 2009] and [WHO JRC 2011]. The road map of the Directive is represented in [EC 2011] as follows. Table 10: Road map for implementation of Directive 2002/49/EG IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE ISSUE REFERENCE DIRECTIVE 2002/49/EC UPDATES 30 June 2005 Information on major roads, major railways, major airports and agglomerations according to the upper thresholds, designated by MS and concerned by 1st round of mapping Art. 7-1 Mandatory every 5 years 18 July 2005 Establishment of competent bodies for strategic noise maps, action plans and data collection Art. 4-2 Possible at any time 18 July 2005 Noise limit values in force or planned and associated information Art. 5-4 Possible at any time 30 June 2007 Strategic noise maps for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations according to the upper thresholds9 Art. 7-1 18 July 2008 Action plans for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations Art. 8-1 Mandatory every 5 years 31 December 2008 Information on major roads, major railways, major airports and agglomerations according to the lower thresholds, designated by MS and concerned by 2nd round of mapping Art. 7-2 Possible at any time 30 June 2012 Strategic noise maps for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations according to the lower thresholds10 Art. 7-2 Mandatory every 5 years Source: EC 2011, page 4. 8 AT, BE, CZ, DE, EL, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, PT, SE, SL, UK. 9 Upper thresholds are agglomerations > 250.000 inhabitants, roads > 6 millions of vehicles per year and railways > 60.000 trains per year. 10 Lower thresholds are all agglomerations > 100.000 inhabitants, roads > 3 millions of vehicles per year and railways > 30.000 trains per year. 30 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional to the information shown in Table 10 according to [EC 2011] the Directive 2002/49/EC [Dir. 2002/49/EC] defines one more step. In the first round of noise mapping and action plans only big agglomerations and intensive frequented transportation infrastructure is concerned. The second round also concerns smaller agglomerations and transportation infrastructures. Table 11: Additional steps in noise mapping according to [Dir. 2002/49/EC] IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE ISSUE REFERENCE UPDATES 18 July 2013 Action plans for all roads, railways, airports and agglomerations where limits are exceeded Art. 8-2 Mandatory every 5 years Source: Dir. 2002/49/EC. Concerning noise mapping the following table shows details for the first and second rounds of noise mapping. Table 12: Schedule for noise mapping and noise reduction planning ACTION AGGLOMERATIONS > 250.000 INHABITANTS AND MAIN RAIL LINES > 60.000 TRAINS / YEAR AGGLOMERATIONS AND MAIN RAIL LINES > 30.000 TRAINS / YEAR Announcement of railway lines and agglomerations which belong to categories mentioned June, 30th 2005 (must be updated every 5 years) December, 31st 2008 (must be updated every 5 years) Elaboration of noise maps June, 30th 2007 June 30th 2012 (must be updated every 5 years) Action plans for noise reduction July, 18th 2008 July, 18th 2013 (must be updated every 5 years) Source: Dir. 2002/49/EC. Table 13 shows the details of the current status of implementation. 31 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 13: Status of implementation of Directive 2002/49/EG CASE DESCRIPTION FULL IMPLEMENTATION PART IMPLEMENTATION Indication of noise indices and limits Member States shall indicate their national legal environmental noise limits or recommendations. A European wide noise level was not introduced. Limits by 19 Member States (AT, BG, BE, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FR, DE, EL, IT, LV, LT, LU, NL, PL, PT, SL, SI); currently reviewed in 3 Member States (LT, LV, RO); recommendations by 4 Member States (FI, IE, SE, UK) Strategic noise maps The Member States have to provide noise maps for main transport infrastructure and agglomerations. They must be updated frequently (5 years) and the update shall indicate the situation in the year before the update. 12 Member States (BG, CZ, EE, HU, IE, LT, LV, LU, PL, PT, SI, UK) 11 Member States reported completely with a few omissions (AT, BE, CY, DK, FI, DE, NL, RO, ES, SE, SK) 3 Member States reported only for part of the sources of noise (FR, EL, IT) 1 Member State did not report (MT) Source: EC 2011 The range of limits and recommendations for environmental noise differ very much between the Member States. Only four of them considered health care orientated limits (EE, LU, PT, SL and the administration of Brussels in BE). 2.2.2. Noise action plans Several studies by UIC (see [UIC 2010]) and CER together with UIC (see [CER UIC 2007]) and additional surveys by the authors lead to an overview of the existing noise abatement actions in the Member States and also in other European countries. All data available are presented in Table 14. 32 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 14: Actions by European Countries for noise abatement on railways where data are available COUNTRY ACTIONS SOURCE Very important topic in particular in urban and mountainous areas Noise maps since 1993; environmental noise plans implementing DIR 2002/49/EC (www.laerminfo.at) 250,000 people exposed to excessive rail noise Complex national and state legislation 1.7 million sq. m [m2] noise barriers constructed along 803 track-km, 2/3 of the planned construction works are completed Most of the highly affected inhabitants are protected against noise, annually some 10- 15,000 new protected citizens Financial means amount to €16 – 25 million p.a.; 50% of the costs are covered by ÖBB and 50% by the federal states and the community; equipment of new tracks 100% funding by ÖBB Equipment of 4,500 out of 31,000 wagons from Rail Cargo Austria and Rail Cargo Hungary with K-block brakes through new units. Retrofitting and noise related access charges are not foreseen Participation at UIC-Project EuropeTrain for testing LL-block brakes Interviews with country representatives in September 2011 Until 2009 450 km of noise barriers for € 355 million [UIC 2010] Austria Critique to noise action plans: lag of new ways to deal with noise, no concrete specification [Justice and Environment 2009a] Belgium Regional noise legislation, no national legislation existent Flanders, Brussels: noise limits Wallonia: no limits No programme by SNCB; however protection for new or upgraded lines [CER UIC 2007] Bulgaria Only interest in composite brake blocks for noise reduction Interview with Bulgarian railway operator (BDZEAD) in September 2011 Cyprus Since 1951 there is no railway line in Cyprus in effect. So rail noise is no problem for Cyprus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cyprus_Government_Railway 33 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ COUNTRY ACTIONS SOURCE Noise abatement compulsory for new railway lines Upgrading of existing lines with noise barriers Action plans for END (Directive 2002/49/EC) will form framework of noise abatement programmes Pilot project with LL brake blocks [CER UIC 2007] Until 2010 about 115 km of noise barriers [UIC 2010] Czech Republic Critique to noise action plans: merely containing only measures which have been planned anyway; no estimate of costs and deadlines [Justice and Environment 2009a] Few noise barriers in Denmark: 58 km Passive noise abatement strategy, mostly done at houses [CER UIC 2007] Denmark Research and Testing programmes for optimisation of track construction, acoustic rail grinding, noise partnership with the inhabitants and noise communication management Until 2009 46 km noise barriers, windows in 8,300 houses, total costs 65 million € [UIC 2010] Up to 2013 22,100 dwellings will be protected by noise screens and/or offered grant to improved sound insulation Offer of grant to improved sound insulation of 17,700 dwellings, of which 4.650 dwellings (~26%) have got improved sound insulation. Intensified grinding of rails on all main railway sections (2009 –2014) Target: Less fluctuation in rail smoothness and reduced noise Tests of rail dampers on a short section - effect 2,7 dB(2007) Project Optimized Railway Superstructure (2009 –2014): Survey on influence of different rail pads on noise and vibration at Holmstrup (2010-2011) [Blumensaadt 2011] Estonia TSI Noise is transformed into national law. Noise action plans for the City of Tallinn (May 2009) and for major road links (Dec. 2008) have been established. These are not legally binding and are not referring to rail transport. Road measures including noise barriers only. Provisions by the Tallinn noise action plan to be taken until 2013: o Technical measures at noise sources o Selection of quieter sources o Reduction of sound transmission (e.g. tramway speed reduction) [Justice and Environment 2009a] [Justice and Environment 2009b] 34 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ COUNTRY ACTIONS SOURCE Estonian legislation has delayed the deadline for preparing noise maps beyond 30.6.2007 and action plans. This constitutes a conflict with EC legal provisions Noise protection for new or upgraded lines implement noise control at hot spots – mostly noise barriers and noise protection windows – track absorbers homologated research projects [CER UIC 2007] France Combined optimisation of rail and wheel dampers. Homologation of wheel dampers (STARDAMP project) Noise plan with € 193 million for noise barriers and rail dampers [UIC 2010] Noise abatement package being considered by parliament, no retrofitting Problem of noisy Russian freight wagons [CER UIC 2007] Finland Some noise barriers [UIC 2010] For the 7 agglomerations, Finnish Transport Agency (FTA) has contracted with the city authorities to include the main roads and railways in their assessments, paying a part of their costs The total cost for FTA will be about € 800,000, about € 1.50 per probable noise zone inhabitant (cost with roads!) Experiences with low height barrier come to a reduction of about 10 dB(A) [Pokolainen 2011] Germany Strong political pressure from citizen’s groups and associations Long-term goal of German railway DB: cut rail noise emissions 2000 -2020 by half, i.e., a noise reduction of 10 dB(A). Costs: € 2.3 m, with € 100 m p.a. duration of programme expected at 25 years Noise differentiated track access charges will be introduced in December 2012. Wagon holders will receive a bonus financed by 50% through government. The bonus will be paid through a fund that is financed equally by increased track charges and the Noise Protection Programme of the German government 180,000 wagons are eligible to be retrofitted with new brakes. Costs amount to € 300 m. Number of wagons presently retrofitted: 6,350 Programme ”Quiet Rhine“ started that will retrofit 1,150 wagons with new brakes Voluntary noise remediation programme for existing tracks of the federal railways Research project ”silent train on real track” Interviews with representatives from DB and national authorities in September 2011 35 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ COUNTRY ACTIONS SOURCE testing innovative vehicle-side technologies Research programme “silent track” testing track dampers and low noise barriers with funding from the Economic Stimulus Package II Acoustic rail grinding programme on-going Testing innovative infrastructure measures: Rail dampers, friction modifiers, low height barriers, absorbers for steel bridges, under sleeper pads Work on realistic rail/wheel contact: improvement of wheel/rail contact, wheel vibrations and acoustic optimisation of pavement € 100 million per year, total costs of 2.3 billion until 2030 including noise barriers and windows Most activities are related to infrastructure side measures Retrofitting up to 5,000 freight wagons with K- and LL-blocks up from the year 2009 Definition of a practical approach for the use of LL-blocks Definition and pre-evaluation of noise differentiated track access charging models [UIC 2010] In fact, Germany currently invests significant money in noise protection walls in the Konjunkturpaket 211 Additional information by the authors The national law obligates noise protection on new or modernised railways [CER UIC 2007] Hungary Action plans are not binding and have no implication for national budget rules Good public involvement in action plan design by establishment of noise committees [Justice and Environment 2009a] Greece The density of railway lines in Greece is very small. 60% of all railway kilometres belong to one single connection between Thessaloniki and Athens (1565 km). A very small percentage of all Greece inhabitants is affected by railway noise http://www.griechenland- travel.com/eisenbahn.htm In the Dublin area traffic is the major noise source, but railways do not have a major impact on overall noise levels. Major measures: Promoting walking, cycling, public transport and quieter motor vehicles [Dublin City 2008] Ireland Outside agglomerations 23 km of track are above 60,000 passages p.a., but without affecting [King et al. 2009] 11 « Konjunkturpaket 2 » (Economic Stimulus Package II) is an extra investment programme of the German government following the recent economic crisis 2008/2009 to support the building industry. 36 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ COUNTRY ACTIONS SOURCE population with LDEN>55 dB(A) Strict noise legislation including existing lines action plans implementation until 2020 measures to be considered on about 8000 km costs about € 6.8 billion legislation does not allow retrofitting [CER UIC 2007] Measurements of all assets (rolling stock) for noise emissions – example: modification of software of the ETR 500 High Speed trains to lower ventilation and cooling noise Most measures indeed concentrate on noise barriers and insolating windows Development of cast iron brake blocks for freight wagons Answer from Trenitalia (FS) on authors survey in September 2011 Italy For the next 15 years on about 3,675 km of existing lines noise barriers and building insulation is foreseen with a budget of about 8.31 billion € (9,025 single actions) Answer from RFI on authors survey in September 2011 Latvia Strategic Noise Mapping was completed in 2008 including only major road sections. It can thus be concluded that rail noise does not play a significant role in Latvia [EIONET 2011] Lithuania Detailed information on noise action plans have not been available; Communications from the Ministry for Transport and Communications only mention noise reduction programmes for road and air transport But modal shifts to rail by a cooperation between Lithuanian Railways (JSC) and CargoBeamer (Germany) on combined transport is expected to reduce noise pollution from road haulage [SUMIN 2011] Luxembourg Luxemburg has submitted a draft Noise Action Plan to the EC, which is not accessible to the public [EIONET 2011] Malta Since 1931 there is no railway line in Malta in effect. So rail noise is no problem for Malta http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Schienenverkehr_auf_Malta Netherlands Noise abatement legislation since 1987 Introduction of noise differentiated track access charges in 2008. The bonus is fixed at € 0.04/ wagon-km and is applied to both passenger and freight vehicles with a maximum of € 4,800 over two years. The bonus is granted on a system of self- declaration Noise Innovation Programme: Launching of numerous studies and pilot projects to test composite brake blocks Noisy trains will be prohibited starting in 2015 [CER UIC 2007] 37 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ COUNTRY ACTIONS SOURCE Target noise reduction: 10 – 12 dB(A) Also measures for shunting yards are planned € 430 million for noise barriers, windows and rail dampers Lubrication, removing of rail joints, noise barriers and window insulation in shunting yards Research projects for friction modifiers against curve squeal, influencing rail roughness Monitoring noise ceilings and capacity management [UIC 2010] Norway Rail grinding planned but not yet implemented, noise from freight terminals, tonal noise from accelerating and decelerating trains Passive noise abatement strategy, mostly done at houses [UIC 2010] [CER UIC 2007] Romania12 National noise action plans in preparation since 2008 [CER UIC 2007] Poland Environmental law includes noise abatement track grinding noise barriers (50 km), noise protection windows on new and upgraded lines [CER UIC 2007] Portugal Noise protection is obligated on all railway lines Nearly all freight cars are equipped with LL- blocks (no need of admittance of these cars in other countries as Portugal has broad gauge track and so there is no exchange of wagons with the other European countries) More than 50 km of noise protection walls and in future more are planned [CER UIC 2007] Action plans are considered very vague and general and not binding and have no implication for national budget rules [Justice and Environment 2009a] Slovak Republic To date only Action Plans for road transport have been submitted to the EC [EIONET 2011] Slovenia Action plans are considered very vague and general and not binding and have no implication for national budget rules [Justice and Environment 2009a] Spain Directive 2002/49/EC is completely implemented in national legislation and for major railway lines and agglomerations noise maps are existing, second phase of noise Interview with the RENFE in December 2011 12 According to an Interview with the Romanian Railway Authority there are no problems with noise in this country. 38 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ COUNTRY ACTIONS SOURCE mapping will be fulfilled in 2013 Currently 62% of rail freight transport is done with low noise wagons (equipped with composite brake blocks) 32% of all freight wagons are already equipped with composite brake blocks (30,58% K- and 1,37% LL-blocks, as well as Portugal Spain has broad gauge) Equipment of freight wagons with K- or LL- blocks goes on (600 expected for 2012) 95% of passenger rolling stock is already equipped with disc brakes and new rolling stock will only have disc brakes According to Sweden´s noise mapping: problems also outside of mapping areas; noise mitigation measures such as rail grinding, rail dampers and low height barriers are being studied Passive noise abatement strategy, mostly done at houses [CER UIC 2007] Noise abatement programme including insulated windows and local barriers for good acoustic indoor environment and noise protected patio area [UIC 2010] Sweden Sweden also favors retrofitting braking systems of existing rail cars but serious problems are still not solved concerning the braking performance in severe winter conditions [Blidberg 2011] Noise legislation enacted 1987 Noise differentiated track access charges introduced in 2010 using a bonus system for low-noise wagons railway noise abatement largely financed through road traffic specific legislation for railway noise: – retrofitting of all Swiss rolling stock until 2014 (direct subsidies) – noise barriers with cost-benefit restriction – noise protection windows [CER UIC 2007] Switzerland The total national freight wagon fleet will be equipped with composite breaks which lower rolling noise (for details see Section 3.3). The programme is financed by the government which shifts earning from road pricing to the rail sector. Also a noise-dependent track price system has already been introduced and is currently in discussion for enhancements A cost benefit analysis should show which additional measures will be taken: rail grinding, stand by noise, rail dampers and [UIC 2010] 39 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ COUNTRY ACTIONS SOURCE steel bridges are among the issues studied By 2009 111 km of noise barriers and windows, and by 2015 300 km of noise barriers are planned for € 1 billion Switzerland publishes very detailed information about the status of rail noise abatement and the approach for private persons to gather funding for noise insulating windows for instance (see www.laerm-sbb.ch) Strict planning policy requires new railway developments to consider noise impact during construction and operation [CER UIC 2007] British Standards give acceptable noise levels for properties and requirements for noise insulation Most (approximately 75%) of UK freight wagons have disc brakes or composite brake blocks The UK uses a variety of noise mitigating technologies including noise barriers, rail lubricators and friction modifiers, rail absorbers, and, usually in tunnels, resilient baseplates and floating slab track DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) is responsible for the UK's noise mapping and noise action plans The UK has identified a number of Important Areas for the relevant transport authorities to focus on, as well as a subset of First Priority Locations and a timeline for implementation Interviews held by partners in September 2011 United Kingdom Long-term strategy: Framework for noise abatement incorporating infrastructure provider (NetworkRail) and train operators Concentration on night time noise and integration of transport and land use planning [AEA et al. 2004] Source: Different sources; see column SOURCE. 40 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Reports have been suspended for Greece, Malta and Cyprus due to marginality or non- existence of rail networks. Switzerland and Norway are mentioned as non-member countries as they are also members of UIC as the concerned railway organisation. UIC (in [UIC 2010]) also mentions an initiative by the group of The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Italy ([UIC 2010], page 25). In the Rotterdam - Genoa project, the governments of the states mentioned analysed possibilities to promote retrofitting of freight cars with low noise equipment (particularly composite brakes). The study finally recommended harmonised solutions for bonus systems (not only along the corridors) and to avoid penalty systems. By the end of 2005, in Europe 1,000 km of noise barriers have been built and approximately 60,000 buildings have been endowed with noise protection windows. The measures resulted in noise protection for about 1,250,000 citizens. The measures comprised annual investments of 150–200 million Euros. The estimated total costs for infrastructure measures are estimated at up to € 10 billion. Most national activities and investments so far concentrate on infrastructure: noise barriers, rail damping and friction modifiers. Many countries and projects also concentrate or integrate source driven measures like wheel dampers or composite brake blocks. Interviews conducted with rail industry representatives from DB and ÖBB suggest that noise bonus regulations shall be unique across Europe to increase the incentives for wagon owners and operators to retrofit old rolling stock and to minimise market distortions among rail transportation companies. 2.3. Recast of the First Railway Package The First Railway Package consists of Directives 2001/12/EC (amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways), 2001/13/EC (amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings) and 2001/14/EC (on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification). This was designed to open the international freight market by setting out the conditions for licensing freight operators in Europe, to define the roles of the infrastructure managers and railway undertakings, and to set out a policy for capacity allocation and infrastructure charging. The Second Railway Package includes the Railway Safety Directive (Directives 2004/49/EC and 2008/110/EC) and EC Regulations 881/2004 and 1335/2008 which required the establishment of national safety authorities and investigatory bodies who report to the European Railway Agency, responsible for rail safety and interoperability as well as drafting legislation for a harmonised European rail system. The Second Package also includes the Interoperability Directive (2008/57/EC) which defines how the Technical Standards for Interoperability (TSIs) should be developed, e.g., TSI Noise relating to “‘rolling stock – noise’ of the trans-European conventional rail system”, Commission Decision 2011/229/EU (see Section 2.4, page 42). The Third Railway Package focuses on opening up international passenger services to competition within Europe, and includes Directive 2007/58/EC (amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways and Directive 2001/14/EC on 41 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure). On September 17th 2010, the European Commission delivered a proposal for a Recast of the First Railway Package [COM(2010) 475]. Article 7 of Dir. 2001/14/EC covers “Principles of charging”. Noise is not mentioned explicitly in Dir. 2001/14/EC, but the directive allows infrastructure charges to be modified based on environmental impact. This enables Member States to introduce noise-dependent track access charges if this is introduced also for competitive transportation modes or the total turnaround for infrastructure companies does not rise. Article 31 of the proposed Recast, based on Article 7 of Dir. 2001/14/EC, explicitly allows differentiation of track access charges based on the noise emission characteristics of the rolling stock if the same is introduced for road transport. 2.4. TSI Noise The basis for all subsystems (infrastructure, energy, control-command and signalling, operation and traffic management, telematics applications, rolling stock and maintenance) of the railway system are the “European Railway Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs)”. The elaboration of TSIs is introduced in Directive 2008/57/EC. The European Railway Agency (ERA) is responsible for the coordination of development of the TSIs. For this, ERA organises working groups for the different subsystems which consist of experts and authorities. The ERA pays attention that all relevant stakeholders are represented in the working groups. All TSIs are directly valid for each Member State for new build or modified subsystems. If exceptions must be made, the Member States have to declare this precisely. General exceptions are only possible for underground, tram and regional rail systems; infrastructures / networks which are separate from the rail network and are only used for local and urban transport; private rail infrastructure and vehicles which are only used on the private infrastructure which is only used for freight transport for the owner; infrastructures and vehicles which are only for local use or historical and touristic uses. The new European Railway Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) for Noise (TSI Noise), document No. 2011/229/EU (published on April, 4th 2011) defines maximum noise levels for rolling stock [TSI Noise 2011]. This TSI is part of the subsystem rolling stock. It replaces the version of 2006 [TSI Noise 2006]. Maximum noise levels are defined for stationary and for pass-by noise on defined rail reference tracks and at defined speed. For engines, starting noise levels and interior noise within the driver's cab are also defined where applicable. Interior noise within the driver's cab is not relevant for this study. Details are presented in Annex II. According to Directive 2008/57/EG these limits are directly valid for new build vehicles. Pass-by noise is defined at a distance of 7.5 metres from track centre line and 1.2 metres above upper surface of the rail. Details about the reference track are to be found in the TSI Noise. The reference track is defined by its roughness and its dynamic behaviour (described by the vertical and lateral track decay rates). In Commission Decision of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 96/48/EC (2002/735/EC) noise limits were set to rolling stock of high speed trains [Com 2002/735/C]. 42 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.5. Measuring and computing of railway noise 2.5.1. Legislation according to Environmental Noise Directive The EU Directive 2002/49/EC demands in its Annex 1 the following formula to calculate the relevant day-evening-night level (on the basis of measured noise levels): in which: Lday is the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in [ISO 1996-2: 1987], determined over all the day periods of a year, Levening is the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in [ISO 1996-2: 1987], determined over all the evening periods of a year, Lnight is the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in [ISO 1996-2: 1987], determined over all the night periods of a year, Lden is the average noise level for a period of 24 hours (day, evening and night) and in which: the day is 12 hours, the evening four hours and the night eight hours. The Member States may shorten the evening period by one or two hours and lengthen the day and/or the night period accordingly, provided that this choice is the same for all the sources and that they provide the Commission with information on any systematic difference from the default option, the start of the day (and consequently the start of the evening and the start of the night) shall be chosen by the Member State (that choice shall be the same for noise from all sources); the default values are 07.00 to 19.00, 19.00 to 23.00 and 23.00 to 07.00 local time, a year is a relevant year as regards the emission of sound and an average year as regards the meteorological circumstances; and in which: the incident sound is considered, which means that no account is taken of the sound that is reflected at the façade of the dwelling under consideration (as a general rule, this implies a 3 dB correction in case of measurement) (see [EC 2002], Annex I). Noise indicators can also be computed (necessary for predictions). Directive 2009/49/EG defines in its Annex II computing methods which have to be used if the Member States have no own legislative computing method which is adapted to Annex I of the directive. For railway noise the calculation method of the Netherlands is prescribed (”Reken- en Meetvoorschrift Railverkeerslawaai ’96, Ministerie Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, 20th November 1996“) [ReMR 1996]. The calculation scheme defines nine train categories where noise levels for pass by of one of these trains are indicated. Together with the total number of trains of one type, the averages LDEN and LNIGHT level can be calculated. Supplement factors are indicated for different types of bridges. 43 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Germany for example has its own calculation scheme. They use the “Preliminary calculation method for the environmental noise at railways” (Vorläufige Berechnungsmethode für den Umgebungslärm an Schienenwegen) – VBUSch 2006“ [VBUSch 2006] for calculations for noise mapping. All calculations schemes are very complex and exceed the scope of this study, but all schemes classify trains into classes. For each class an emission factor must be calculated and the addition of all factors is done with a logarithmic function. There are currently two main discussions about the calculation schemes - the different results of different schemes and the rail bonus in calculation. Both aspects will be discussed in the following sections. 2.5.2. Different results of different computing schemes The Dutch scheme uses nine train type categories where the indicators mentioned in the German scheme are already integrated in general calculation factors for the train category. The calculation in Germany has a common factor for all train types, modified by individual bonus or penalty factors according to indicators, whereas the Dutch calculation scheme has already defined global calculation factors for train categories. So calculation results can differ according to the scheme used; Lercher elaborated an example of these differences in ALPNAP project [ALPNAP 2007-2]. Figure 5 which comes from the ALPNAP project [ALPNAP 2007-2] shows an example of the result of different calculation methods for people annoyed by railway noise. The figure compares BASS3 (INTEC)13, the MITHRA-SIG14 and the Standard set by the Environmental Noise Directive. Figure 5: Comparison of noise calculation methods in ALPNAP project Source: ALPNAP 2007-2, page 124. Clearly there would be value in a European calculation (and measuring) standard to make noise effects on the population more comparable. 13 BASS3 is an implementation of ISO 9613 (acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors) by INTEC-University of Gent. 14 MITHRA-SIG is an implementation of the French standard method NMPB (Méthode de Prevision du Bruit des Routes). 44 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.5.3. Rail noise bonus discussion In former, and in some current, calculation or measuring methods (see German Schall 03, for example) a general bonus for rail noise is included. These incentives transfer measured or calculated environmental noise emissions into a balanced value. Railway noise is often seen as less annoying than other noise sources. Amongst others this is accounted due to more times without noise emissions at all. The general discount is between 3 and 10 dB in different countries [ZEUS Möhler 2010]. Recently, several studies analysed whether this discount is suitable and eligible. The study “Lärmbonus bei der Bahn?” (Noise bonus for rail?) [ZEUS Möhler 2010] by Möhler + Partner München; ZEUS GmbH, Hagen, analysed several studies for the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt). The following table shows the suitability of railway noise incentives according to analysed studies: Table 15: Analysis of studies about the eligibility of rail noise incentives TYPE OF STUDY ELIGIBILITY OF RAIL NOISE DISCOUNT Case studies Laboratory studies Total Yes for a general rail noise bonus 2 6 8 Different kinds of bonus or penalty 6 0 6 No for a general rail noise bonus 0 5 5 Neutral concerning rail noise bonus 1 1 2 Total 9 12 21 Source: Zeus Möhler 2010, page 49. About 8 out of 21 studies came to the result that a rail noise bonus is eligible. 11 of the 21 studies came to the result that either the incentives have to be variable (for example depending on time, area influenced, noise level; even a penalty should be included), or the rail noise bonus is not eligible. 2 of the studies remain neutral. If only case studies are considered, only 2 of 9 studies agreed that a general rail noise bonus was acceptable, whereas 6 studies suggested a variable noise bonus/penalty system was necessary. The authors of that study also identified mistakes in the studies considered. The rail noise bonus/penalty must be further elaborated, especially considering the current modal split in transportation and the effects of noise at night (interruption of quiet phases), or different noise levels, for instance. ZEUS GmbH and Möhler+Partner published an article about a census concerning the annoyance by rail and road noise at different times of day (Daytime-related harassment by road and rail traffic noise – Method and empirical results / Tageszeitsbezogene Belästigung durch Straßen- und Schienenverkehrslärm - Methode und empirische Ergebnisse) [ZEUS Möhler 2005]. The authors questioned people about their feeling of harassment from railway and road noise. The most important result is that during the evening and night the noise coming from railways harassed more than at during the day. This would justify a rail noise penalty at evening and night time. 45 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ As a result of the ALPNAP15 project, Lercher et al. studied the use of sleeping pills by people affected by rail noise [Lercher et al. 2007]: Use of sleeping pills is increasing already at low levels of railway noise from 50 dB(A) upwards. The environment noise level of 60 dB(A) at night which leads to the necessity of action plans is considerably too high. This leads to the general result that a rail noise bonus is not justifiable both at evening and night time but only eligible during the day and not in the night. 15 ALPNAP = Monitoring and Minimisation of Traffic-Induced Noise and Air Pollution Along Major Alpine Transport Routes, see http://www.alpnap.org (last visit June, 30th 2011). 46 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. RAIL NOISE – SOURCES AND PREVENTION MEASURES KEY FINDINGS Main source of railway noise is rolling noise coming from rail freight wagons. Of minor importance is engine noise (at lower speeds) and aerodynamic noise (high speed trains). Locally also squeal noise can be important. Rolling stock which is introduced from the year 2000 on is about 10 dB(A) less noisy then rolling stock from the 1960s and 1970s. Against each source of noise an enormous number of measures has been developed in the last years. Rolling noise and wheel noise can be reduced by composite brake blocks (freight wagons), resilient wheels or wheel dampers. Rail noise can be reduced by rail dampers, resilient track pads and combinations with noise barriers of different heights. Track side or vehicle side lubrication systems can avoid squeal noise and are well introduced in tram way systems. The most efficient measure to achieve network wide noise reduction is the retrofitting of freight cars with composite brake blocks. This chapter will identify the main sources of railway noise and measures to prevent or to protect from it. 3.1. Sources of railway noise Many studies and publications exist concerning sources of rail noise. The Working Group Railway Noise of the European Commission published its Position Paper on the European strategies and priorities for railway noise abatement in 2003 [EC 2003]. The International Union of Railways (UIC) published its “Environmental Noise Directive Development of Action Plans for Railways” in April 2008 [UIC 2008]. Both studies (and others, see, e.g., the comprehensive review given by [Thompson and Gautier 2006]) identify the following sources for railway noise: Rolling noise Power equipment noise Aerodynamic noise. The severity and relative proportions of these noise sources depend on train speed. At low speed, power equipment noise is the dominant source, whereas at medium speed the 47 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ dominant source is rolling noise. Only at very high speed does the aerodynamic noise become an important factor. This effect is illustrated in the following figure. Figure 6: Sources of railway noise according to train speed Source: UIC 2008, page 7. This figure shows that between 30 and 200 km/h rolling noise is the dominant source. This is also the speed range which affects most people living near railway tracks. Low speed is only to be found in shunting yards, near stations or on factory railways. Speeds of more than 200 km per hour are only to be found on high speed lines. The range between 30 and 200 km/h applies to most other railway lines. Mostly these are older lines built in a time where noise protection was not obligatory. Currently these lines have the right of continuance. There is mostly no obligation to invest in noise protection measures but according to Directive 2002/49/EC, many states in Europe already introduce actions to lower environmental railway noise. The speed range between 30 and 200 km/h is also the speed where freight trains operate (about 100 km/h). Many sources identify freight trains as the noisiest trains and they mostly operate outside high-speed lines. The following table shows the importance of noise sources, depending on train type. Table 16: Importance of noise sources ACTION ROLLING NOISE POWER EQUIPMENT NOISE AERODYNAMIC NOISE Freight trains ++ + Not relevant High speed trains ++ + ++ Intercity or other long distance trains ++ + Not relevant City railways (tram) ++ + Not relevant Source: EC 2003, page 18. 48 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The table confirms the importance of rolling noise. [EC 2003] considers that passenger trains are already quieter as they are equipped with disc brakes. This measure was not introduced for noise reduction but to enhance performance at speeds above 140 km/h. The following figure shows the effect of power equipment noise (here a diesel hydraulic engine, built 1968 to 1979, German type 218), when a train passes. The engine noise has a large influence at the beginning of the train passage, but after a few seconds the main influence is the rolling noise. Figure 7: Development of noise sources while train passing Source: UIC 2008, page 13. Concerning shunting yards: there were no reports identified which elaborate this aspect in detail. However, noise sources from shunting yards include: Engine noise from shunting engines especially many acceleration and braking phases must be considered Rolling noise from the wagons (especially in the train splitting siding zone behind the hump) Brake noise o Incoming trains o Braking of shunting engines o Braking of wagons by hump retarders (one of the loudest noise sources) o Testing of brakes of ready trains Noise from shunting impacts Most shunting yards are located outside housing areas and their number has dropped over the years. Single wagon transport has even been abandoned in some countries. On the other hand, single wagon transport is still important and may play an important role in modal shift. There was no literature found concerning noise from shunting yards. Other shunting areas are mostly industrial railways where industrial noise protection rules must be met. Here railway noise is treated together with other noise aspects and is part of the total noise measurement or calculation for industrial plants. 49 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Engine noise is relevant at lower speeds and so mostly near stations. This concerns especially acceleration noise when engines (especially diesel engines) work at high power drain (high motor speed, high inverter and converter noise). Summary: The most important source of noise is rolling noise, as this is relevant for both freight and passenger trains. Aerodynamic noise, especially from pantographs, is very important for high-speed trains. 3.2. Noise emissions in relation to rolling stock For existing wagons and engines no changes need to be made according to TSI Noise [TSI 2011]. Only in the case of renewal or upgrading of the wagon or engine is there the need for a new authorisation (to be defined by the national authority); the noise levels must be met with the new authorisation. The following examples show the development of noise emissions concerning engines and wagons in the past. Since the year 2000, many new vehicles have been introduced all over Europe in freight and in passenger transport. In its brochure “Ruhe bitte” (silent please) [SBB 2011], Schweizer Bundesbahn (SBB – Swiss Federal Railway) showed how pass-by noise differs between old and new rolling stock. The following figure shows the changes between old stock (designed in the 1970s, or earlier) and new rolling stock (designed at the end of the 1990s). For each of the vehicle types, the noise emission measured according to TSI Noise is shown. Figure 8: Noise emission development of Swiss rolling stock Source: SBB 2011. The engine Re 460 (also known as Lok 2000) is still one of the quietest engines and was the quietest vehicle of all trains until the introduction of the IC2000 passenger double deck coaches. Detailed photographs of the modern Swiss rolling stock show that the bogies are well covered by the whole engine body (Annex III). 50 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The TSI Noise demands a maximum pass-by level of 85 dB(A) for electric engines and of 80 dB(A) for passenger wagons at 80 km/h. The Swiss examples are already below the noise level of current European legislation. This is even more interesting as the Lok 2000 was introduced in 1991 and the IC 2000 passenger cars were introduced in 1997. [Mather 2006] presented an analysis of sources of noise in comparison with the TSI Noise. This shows the current performance of rail vehicles in comparison with the demands of the TSI. The results are shown in the following tables. Table 17: Maximum and realised noise emissions of existing high speed trains SPEED MAXIMUM NOISE EMISSION ACCORDING TSI NOISE CURRENT EMISSION OF GERMAN HIGH SPEED TRAINS DIFFERENCE 250 km/h 87 dB(A) 87 – 94 dB(A) 0 – 7 dB(A) 300 km/h 91 dB(A) 91 – 95 dB(A) 0 – 4 dB(A) 320 km/h 92 dB(A) 92 – 96 dB(A) 0 – 4 dB(A) Source: Mather 2006. Table 18: Maximum and realised noise emissions of new freight wagons AXLES PER WAGON LENGTH MAXIMUM NOISE EMISSION ACCORDING TSI CURRENT EMISSION OF WAGONS DIFFERENCE 0.15 axles per metre (new car / retrofit car) 82 dB(A) – 84 dB(A) 92 / 94 dB(A) 8 – 12 dB(A) 0.15 – 0.275 (new car / retrofit car) 83 dB(A) – 85 dB(A) 91 – 95 dB(A) 6 – 12 dB(A) > 0.275 axles per metre (new car / retrofit car) 85 – 87 dB(A) 92 – 96 dB(A) 5 – 11 dB(A) Source: Mather 2006. The result is that most actions are still to realise at rail freight wagons and less on passenger trains and modern engines. Bukovnik, in a presentation about development and measures in rail noise abatement, gives a comparison of old and new rolling stock [Bukovnik 2010]. The following figure shows the effect of new self-propelled vehicles for suburban railways. The vehicle type 4020, built between 1978 and 1987, is - at all speeds - about 8 – 10 dB(A) noisier than the type 4024 (Bombardier electric Talent) built since 2006. At 80 km/h, type 4024 meets or goes below TSI recommendations. 51 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 9: Noise levels of Austrian self-propelled rail vehicles Source: Bukovnik 2010. Similar to self-propelled passenger trains, the following figures show pass-by noise emissions of diesel and electric engines. Red lines show electric and blue lines show diesel engines. Figure 10: Noise levels of Austrian rail engines Source: Bukovnik 2010. 52 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ L1042 and L1044 are old electric engines, designed between 1963 and 1995. L1116 (Taurus) is a new electric engine built since 2000. L2123 is an old diesel engine built between 1964 and 1977; L2016 (Eurorunner) is a new diesel engine built since 2002. A reduction of about 8-10 dB(A) has been realised. With 80 dB(A) at a speed of 80 km/h the new engines are much below the TSI recommendation of 85 B(A). This shows that the introduction of new rolling stock can lower noise in a big range. Halving of noise was realised since the 1960s and 1970s. Nevertheless there are also negative examples of new rolling stock that may even be noisier than the old equipment. Many sources recognise the modern Class 66 engine as well as the Blue Tiger engine as being as noisy as engines from the 1960s. Both engines were constructed in the 1990s and built since 1998. The great breakthrough to lower noise of engines came according to this since the beginning of the 21st century. Nevertheless the noise emissions of about 80 dB(A) for new and modernised rolling stock do not lead to a reduction of noise below the WHO levels. Also the levels of the example countries cannot be met with the new rolling stock. But the reduction at the source can lower the additional needs for local noise protection as they can be less extensive or avoided in regions where people live far away from railway lines. There quieter rolling stock can lower the noise measured at far distance to an applicable level. Summary: Rolling stock introduced since the year 2000 is about 10 dB(A) less noisy in comparison with equipment from the 1960s and 1970s. So the replacement of old equipment with new ones helps to reduce rail noise. 3.3. Measures to avoid railway noise Sources of railway noise can be divided into the following aspects: Roughness-Induced Rolling Noise Wheel Noise Rail Noise Squeal Noise High Speed Trains Other Sources of Noise The mitigation methods studied or already realised in demonstrators or practice will be introduced with the source of noise. 3.3.1. Roughness-Induced Rolling Noise A major, unavoidable source of noise is wheel and rail roughness. Rail corrugation (which causes intense ground vibration and can increase noise level by 20 dB [CER UIC 2007]) and wheel flats (regular thuds) are extreme versions of this, but poor rail or wheel surface condition should be avoided. Regular grinding of rails and turning of wheels helps to minimise noise. Special ‘acoustic’ grinding can reduce noise levels by about 3 dB [Thompson 2008-1]; grinding strategies to reduce noise levels were studied in the MONA project [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. 53 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Both Speno and Schweerbau offer general purpose grinding, which can reduce noise levels by 10-12 dB, and special acoustic grinding, which can achieve a further 3-4 dB reduction [Licitra 2006]. UIC’s 2007 report on the state of the art [CER UIC 2007] states that poorly maintained track increases noise levels, so that track renewal can achieve about 10 dB noise reduction, and acoustic grinding can achieve a further 1-3 dB. Cast iron tread brakes, which are very common in European freight vehicles, tend to induce a corrugation in the wheels which increases noise levels significantly [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. By contrast, disc brakes, which are prevalent in passenger vehicles, are typically about 8 dB quieter [Hemsworth 2006]. The difference between tread brakes and disc brakes is shown in Figure 11. With tread brakes, the brake blocks press against the wheel directly on the running surface (the tread), i.e., the wheel surface which is in contact with the rail; whereas with disc brakes an extra disc is placed on the axle and brake blocks press against this to brake the vehicle. Because tread brakes, particularly with cast iron blocks, damage the wheel, the running surface becomes rough and can develop out-of- roundness, increasing the rolling noise. Figure 11: Comparison of tread and disc brakes Source: Hemsworth 2006. Disc brakes are very expensive and can only be introduced with new freight wagons or expensive retrofitting of existing wagons (the whole bogie needs to be changed). The EU Project EuroSabot (1996-1999) looked into possibilities for retrofitting vehicles with a low- noise replacement for cast iron brake blocks [EUROSABOT 2011], [Hemsworth 2006], [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. This started the quest for composite brake blocks with friction characteristics similar to cast iron brake blocks, and suitable for retrofit; these are called ‘LL-blocks’. ‘K-blocks’ are composite brake blocks used in new vehicle designs. The advantage of LL-blocks is that the braking system of the wagon does not need to be modified, whereas for K-blocks there is additional effort necessary besides changing the blocks. This is because LL-blocks have similar friction characteristics to conventional cast- iron blocks, whereas K-blocks have a higher coefficient (2.5 times higher). Both types (K- and LL-blocks) reduce noise levels by 8-10 dB; life cycle costs for K-blocks are similar to life cycle costs for cast iron brake blocks; life cycle costs for LL-blocks are still to be determined [CER UIC 2007] concerning operation costs. Concerning K-blocks, some manufacturers or wagon owners recently detected higher costs due to higher wheel wear [Gilliam 2008] and [Saabel 2011]. 54 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The EU Project Euro Rolling Silently (2002-2005) developed three prototype LL-blocks. By 2009, two LL-block types (IB 116* and Jurid 777) were reportedly safe for use in Europe [Dörsch 2009]. ICER Brakes S.A. sell organic LL-blocks which reduce noise by 8 dB compared to cast iron brake blocks [Licitra 2006]; organic LL-blocks are also produced by the Federal-Mogul Corporation. However, although the new composite LL-blocks are effective at reducing noise, there are still problems to be solved before they can be implemented across Europe. In tests with LL- blocks, the wheels’ equivalent conicity increases over time, affecting the dynamic stability of the vehicles. To address this, a consortium of brake manufacturers and vehicle operators has established the EuropeTrain project ([EuropeTrain]) which is using a real train travelling around Europe to speed up testing of LL-blocks. If the LL-block could be introduced and certified the migration would be relatively easy, simply replacing the existing cast iron blocks by LL-blocks. Concerning the accreditation of LL blocks, Mr Lochman from CER expects certification by the end of the year 2011 and the beginning of introduction mid-2012, whereas Mr Pennekamp, Mr Fleckstein, Mr Mather and Mr Theis from DB expect certification sometime during 2012.16 As a result, the authors of this study expect certification by the end of 2012, which is more practical. In addition to EuropeTrain, the following two composite brake projects are being conducted in Europe: Leiser Rhein includes the retrofitting of vehicles, especially in the Rhine Valley, and LäGiV develops improved K-and LL-blocks. Summary: Roughness of rails and wheels, especially corrugation in rails and out-of- round wheels, is a major cause of rail noise and needs to be monitored and controlled. Infrastructure managers and train operators already have maintenance programmes to control rail and wheel quality, and infrastructure managers use axle load checkpoints to monitor passing traffic and detect severely damaged wheels. Tolerances may need to be tightened to improve quality and reduce noise, requiring additional maintenance. The use of composite brake blocks rather than cast iron brake blocks will significantly improve the wheel running contact surface and reduce noise levels. Retrofitting existing wagons with composite brake blocks is possible, and the use of LL-blocks in particular (requiring the least effort and cost to retrofit) is currently being investigated by UIC’s EuropeTrain consortium. There are still questions about the long-term degradation and the life cycle costs of the new LL-blocks that are holding up widespread implementation. 3.3.2. Wheel Noise The EU Project Silent Freight (1996-1999) looked at possibilities of reducing noise emission from wheels [Dörsch 2009], [Hemsworth 2006], [Thompson and Gautier 2006]: ring dampers reduce noise by 6 dB; 16 These statements are the results of interviews held by the project team in July 2011. 55 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ perforation of the wheel is ineffective; wheel-tuned absorbers reduce noise by up to 7 dB; wheel web shields reduce noise by up to 9 dB. The following figures illustrate the systems. Figure 12: Ring damped and perforated wheel Source: Hemsworth 2006. Figure 13: Wheel-tuned absorbers Source: Hemsworth 2006. Figure 14: Wheel web shields Source: Hemsworth 2006. 56 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Further noise reduction can be achieved through the use of a bogie shroud [Hemsworth 2006]. Fundamental redesign of the wheel to reduce noise is difficult due to the need to fit with existing tread braking systems and the need to dissipate the heat generated during braking. Reducing the wheel diameter makes the wheel more susceptible to wheel-rail roughness interaction and can increase noise levels. The RONA project (wheel optimisation for high-speed lines) developed a new wheel design, JR13, which reduced noise levels by about 3 dB. The RONA project also developed a wheel, Alu4, with a thick aluminium web and wheel dampers, with a predicted noise reduction of 12 dB. However, following the Eschede derailment in 199817, caused by a broken tyre, the industry has been wary of multi-material wheels. Other incidences with broken axles on freight wagons or ICE trains18 will make innovations of wheels and axles more difficult. The EU Project HIPERWHEEL (2000-2004) tested a constrained layer damping treatment on the ETR500 high speed train in Italy and measured a noise reduction of 4-5 dB between 200 and 300 km/h (see [Thompson and Gautier 2006]). Lucchini19 offers a range of special low-noise damped wheels. Syope is a constrained layer damping treatment; Galene uses tuned absorbers to reduce squeal noise for trams; Hypno is a friction damping steel design for tread-braked freight wagon wheels. Valdunes20 also integrates damping systems into wheels, for example, using damping rings to reduce squeal noise by 10-15 dB (see [Licitra 2006]). Heathcote Industrial Plastics offers constrained layer dampers which eliminate squeal noise and reduce under-vehicle noise by up to 30 dB. GHH offers wheel absorbers (5-15 dB noise reduction) and damping rings. VSG Vibration Absorbers offers wheel vibration absorbers (10-30 dB noise level reduction at squeal noise peak frequencies). Schrey & Veit offers wheel absorbers which almost completely eliminate squeal noise, and reduce the noise level by 8 dB if squeal does occur (see UIC Curve Squeal Project WP3 [Müller et al. 2003]). Summary: Resilient wheels can reduce noise and improve ride quality, and can be very effective at reducing squeal noise in tight curves. A variety of technologies are available and in use in high-speed and metro applications. Following the Eschede disaster in 1998, there is still a reluctance to use non-monoblock wheels in high-speed rail vehicles. 3.3.3. Rail Noise Rail dampers – steel masses embedded in an elastomer, fixed to the rail web – were developed in the 1990s by ERRI in the OFWHAT (Optimized Freight Wheels and Track) 17 At Eschede the broken separate tyre caused the high-speed ICE train to derail at a switch. The rear bogie of one carriage followed the turnout on to a parallel track, and the carriage subsequently hit bridge supports. The bridge collapsed onto the train and the following cars crashed into the broken bridge and cars. 101 people died and a further 88 sustained injuries. The separate tyre technique was only used with ICE trains to solve a primary damping problem with this train type whereas other high speed trains only use full monoblock wheels. 18 Breaking of an axle of an ICE3-train in Cologne on 9 July 2008; freight train derailment in Viareggio (Italy) 30 June 2009. 19 Lucchini RS [http://www.lucchinirs.it/] is an Italian company which produces high-speed wheelsets; this is separate from the Russian-owned steel manufacturer Lucchini. 20 Valdunes [http://www.ghh-valdunes.com/] is a major European wheelset manufacturer based in Germany, France and Belgium. 57 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ project and SNCF in the VONA project (low-noise track designs for high-speed lines) [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. The EU Project Silent Track (1997-2000) developed these rail dampers further; the new design reduced noise by 6 dB [EUROSABOT 2011], [Hemsworth 2006], [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. The Dutch IPG project21 tested rail dampers and found the silent track dampers and also the Schrey and Veit (S&V) VICON- ASMA 5RQ absorber to be effective, reducing noise levels by 3 dB [Thompson 2008-2]. Further testing of rail dampers is presented by van den Dool [van den Dool 2007]. Figure 15: Tata Steel SilentTrack tuned rail dampers Source: Tata Steel; images from product brochure. Tata Steel offers the ‘SilentTrack’ tuned rail damper system (see Figure 15), with a noise reduction of 3-7 dB. The rubber at both sides of the metal rail causes the noise reduction. Over 200 km of SilentTrack are in operational use around the world, including the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. Trackside barriers can also be used to reduce noise levels [Hemsworth 2006], [Thompson and Gautier 2006], but rail dampers can make barriers and screens unnecessary [van den Dool 2007]. The VONA project also developed optimised rail pads which reduced noise levels by 3-4 dB [Thompson and Gautier 2006]. Rail pads were also developed in the Silent Track project, reducing noise levels by 2 dB. Saargummi and CDM offer a range of resilient rail pads designed to damp noise and vibration; CDM and Getzner Werkstoffe offer under-sleeper pads and ballast mats and a range of solutions for slab track and embedded track systems [Licitra 2006]. Pandrol’s VANGUARD uses resilient padding to attenuate noise, but also supports the rail at the web to prevent rail roll. This system is used in the London Underground (Victoria Line) and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, for example, and recently in the new development of Belgrade Central where vibration reduction was a key consideration. When tested in Hong Kong’s MTRCL test track on plain slab track, the VANGUARD system reduced average noise levels by 7.3dB in the 20Hz-500Hz range; and by 13dB in the 40Hz-80Hz range. These tests showed even greater noise reduction was possible by using the VANGUARD on an Isolated Slab Track (IST); IST has a rubber ballast mat and is easier to install than floating slab track, but is not as effective. 21 Innovatieprogramma geluid (IPG) voor weg- & spoorverkeer [http://www.innovatieprogrammageluid.nl/]. 58 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 16: Left: Saargummi rail pad; Right: Pandrol Vanguard resilient web support Source: Licitra 2006 Source: Pandrol Vanguard; product brochure The Silent Track project developed a new rail section with a narrower fit, along with a new fastening system and a new twin-block sleeper design; this reduced noise levels by 3 dB. The Dutch project Quiet Rail Traffic (STV) developed a new, smaller rail section, SA42, for slab track (see Figure 17); the rail is continuously supported by a stiff embedding material, and this acts as a damping mechanism. The noise reduction compared to slab track with UIC 54 rails is 5 dB. Barriers at the side of the track, with a height of 0.7 m, further reduced noise levels by 6 dB (see [Thompson and Gautier 2006]). Figure 17: Slab track section SA42 from Quiet Rail Traffic project Source: Thompson and Gautier 2006. The Edilon Corkelast embedded rail system, which provides a noise reduction of 5 dB, has been implemented in the rail steel bridge over the Arno in Pisa [Licitra 2006]. Balfour Beatty Embedded Rail System (BBERS) has been shown in a test in Medina, Spain, to reduce noise level by 2 dB or more, compared to ballasted track [InnoTrack D2.3.3]. Summary: Noise and ground-borne vibration are a major concern in urban areas, and bridges and underground railways require special measures. Resilient rail pads are a common solution, but for locations where a greater level of damping is required then floating or isolated slab track is a possibility, or under-sleeper pads and ballast mats for ballasted track; an alternative to 59 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ rail pads is a more advanced resilient rail support system such as VANGUARD. Resilient rail support solutions interact with each other and also with resilient wheel technologies, and the whole system needs to be considered and modelled in order to minimise noise and vibration in the required frequency range. Noise barriers have a large on-going maintenance cost, have a high visual impact and create problems for track access. Rail dampers can be tuned to the local needs of the railway and left in place for the life of the track; these can be an effective alternative to noise barriers. 3.3.4. Squeal Noise and Friction Modifiers Squeal noise is the high pitch noise (2-4 kHz) sometimes emitted when vehicles are curving. This is caused by lateral stick-slip behaviour of the contact between the wheel and rail exciting high-frequency resonances in the rail and wheel. Many wheel and rail damper solutions target squeal noise. Friction modifiers are used to change the interaction of wheel and rail to prevent squeal noise and corrugation. As of 2005, UIC’s position on friction modifiers was that there is no optimal solution. Friction modifiers can be lubricants, e.g., greases, designed to reduce friction to 0.2 or less, and usually applied to the gauge face of the high rail in curves where the wheel flange often makes contact, creating a grinding sound and high levels of wear. Lubrication is primarily used to reduce wear, and is not desirable on the top of the railhead where high levels of friction are required for traction (train acceleration and braking). Top- of-rail (TOR) friction modifiers (FM) control friction to be in the range 0.3-0.35. To prevent squeal noise, friction modifiers need to have ‘positive friction’ characteristics, so that friction increases when the wheel slips. TOR FM can also be effective at reducing short-pitch corrugation (a major noise source) on the low rail in curves, and has been used successfully in the Heathrow Express to combat corrugation22. Alternatively, special asymmetric rail sections can be used to prevent squeal (‘Anti-Squeal Profile’), and the track layout can be adjusted to avoid dynamic conditions of the vehicle which cause squeal noise. Special surface layers or coatings can be designed with special friction characteristics, such as Duroc AB’s particle-impregnated rail surface. Based on laboratory tests, this layer has a low coefficient of friction when dry, and is also effective at reducing rail wear, and even the corresponding wheel wear is relatively smooth (see [Hiensch et al. 2007]). The EU Project Q-City (2005-2009) tested vehicle and track lubricators for squeal noise suppression. On-board lubrication was tested in the Antwerp network and found to be effective at reducing squeal noise, and for a relatively low cost. A wayside lubrication system was tested at the STIB depot; the wayside lubrication was very effective, decreasing squeal noise by at least 16 dB. In general, electric power is required on site for wayside lubricators, and access to hydraulics for maintenance may be difficult in urban 22 M. Chestney, N. Dadkah and D. Eadie (2009) The Effect of Top of Rail Friction Control on a European Passenger System: The Heathrow Express Experience, 8th International Conference on Contact Mechanics and Wear of Rail/Wheel Systems (CM2009), Firenze, Italy. [For a summary of this, and a general look at TOR FM, see also: http://www.therailengineer.com/railtex2011/Day-2-No-06-Kevin-Portec.pdf]. 60 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ environments (see [Q-City 2009]). These techniques, indeed, are only tested for municipal railways (light rail, underground systems). Figure 18: Principle of way-side lubrication systems for friction modifying Source: Q-City 2009. The particular through-hole lubricator prototype developed by Lion Oil was found to be unreliable (see Figure 18). The figure shows the injection device to lubricate the rail-wheel- contact area. Other similar systems are on the market, and the annexes of [Q-City 2009] give quotations for: (A) Clicomatic rail through-hole grease lubrication system; (B) FluiLub rail lubrication systems (vehicle-mounted and track-based). ELPA d.o.o. offer another through-hole wayside application for suppressing squeal noise, both in curves and during braking (particularly useful at marshalling yards) [ELPA], [Licitra 2006]. The ELPA system uses an environmentally friendly composite friction modifier. Other track-based rail lubrication / friction management systems are: Portec trackside Friction Management System (5-15 dB noise reduction); Schreck-Mieves Electronic Rail lubrication; and KLS Lubriquip. Other on-board friction management systems: REBS (rail lubrication, 20-28 dB reduction at 2500 Hz, and wheel-flange lubrication); TracGlide (rail lubrication); Vogel AG (wheel-flange lubrication); Kelsan/Lubriquip (wheel-side, 2-7 dB reduction); Barnt Green Birmingham (water spray); SBB (water spray) (see UIC Curve Squeal Project WP 3 [Müller et al. 2003]). Summary: Gauge-face lubrication is the traditional means for controlling wear of the high rail in narrow-radius curves, which has a secondary effect of reducing noise levels, including squeal noise in some cases. The main technological developments in this area focus on the applicators. Top-of-rail friction modifiers are a relatively new extension of this technology, and are used to prevent corrugation of low rails and squeal noise in curves, as well as brake squeal in shunting yards. 61 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.3.5. High-Speed Trains Aerodynamic noise becomes significant at high speed (over 200 km/h) reaching a noise level similar to rolling noise. For electric trains, pantograph noise is also significant at high speed. Pantographs and the leading bogie are the two main sources of aerodynamic noise. Pantographs can be shielded (see Figure 19) and/or carefully shaped, and thereby achieve noise reductions of 5-10 dB in each case (see [Talotte 2000], [Talotte et al. 2003]). [Sueki et al. 2009] have shown that porous covers can reduce aerodynamic noise of pantographs. Figure 19: Shield of pantograph of Japanese Shinkansen Series 700 Source: Talotte 2000. Figure 20: Porous coating of pantographs Source: Sueki et al. 2009. Vibrations caused by vehicle-track interaction travel through the ground at a speed that depends on the ground type; propagation is slower in softer soil. If train speed exceeds the ground vibration propagation speed, then this creates a ground-borne vibration ‘boom’, analogous to a sonic boom when aircraft break through the sound barrier. In practice this means there is a threshold train speed above which ground vibration increases sharply. For peat and clay soils, this critical speed can be as low as 150 km/h, but bogie spacing and axle spacing also influence the critical speed [Madshus and Kaynia 2000]. Concerning high speed trains on high speed lines, often ballast-less tracks are used. As this superstructure is a hard soil the noise can increase due to the hard concrete plate, low absorption of noise and strong transference. The normal solution is to cover the ballast-less tracks with dampers. Summary: Pantographs are generally higher than noise barriers, and for high-speed trains these are a major source of noise. Rather than making noise barriers 62 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ even higher or all-enclosing, an alternative approach is to focus on aerodynamic design and new materials. 3.3.6. Other Sources of Noise Other sources of noise include locomotive exhaust, traction motors, cooling fans, bridges and train horns [Talotte et al. 2003]. Resilient baseplates are effective at reducing bridge noise (the Pandrol VIPA system reduced noise by 6 dB in one study [Wang et al. 2000]). Schrey & Veit (S&V) also offer a tuned absorber system for railway steel bridges [Licitra 2006] with also approximately 6 dB noise level reduction. It should be noted, finally, that poor or infrequent maintenance can cause increased noise levels, particularly from components with moving parts, e.g., bearings, vehicle suspension. 3.3.7. Other options to reduce noise Other options, such as speed limits and land-use planning, are rejected in [UIC 2008]. Speed limits need to be substantial (50 km/h) to have a considerable noise impact and thus “are not compatible with the operation of a commercially competitive railway” (although the benefits of speed reduction should be considered on a case-by-case basis). Land-use planning measures are of little effect, since further than 50 metres from the source “noise level is insensitive to even medium changes in distance”. The redirection of trains is not always suitable. In some cases there may be alternative lines, but here also people can be affected. So this solution may only be a shift of the problem. In some cases, for example the Rhine axis, there are no (realistic) alternatives. 3.4. Result for main reduction measures The following table shows a summary of measures, effects and costs, collected from the different sources. Table 19: Measures, effects and costs MEASURE AVOIDED SOURCE OF NOISE IMPACT (LOCAL, NETWORK WIDE) EFFECT COSTS / UNIT23 K-blocks Rolling noise network wide Up to 8 dB(A) – 10 dB(A) 4,000 – 10,000 € per wagon24 LL-blocks Rolling noise network wide Up to 8 dB(A) – 10 dB(A) 500 – 2,000 € per wagon25 General grinding of bad track Rolling noise local 10 – 12 dB(A) (up to 20 dB(A) at very bad tracks) Shall be established in normal maintenance 23 Cost information comes from [UIC 2008] page 25. 24 Retrofit, for new wagons there are no additional costs; additional operating cost still to be analysed. 25 Retrofit, for new wagons there are no additional costs; additional operating cost still to be analysed. 63 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ IMPACT AVOIDED (LOCAL, COSTS / SOURCE OF EFFECT MEASURE UNIT23 NETWORK NOISE WIDE) Special acoustic grinding Rolling noise local 1 – 4 dB(A) (depending on local rail roughness conditions), mostly around 2 dB(A) attended Disc brakes Rolling noise network wide 10 dB(A) Meanwhile mostly established in passenger cars Wheel-tuned absorbers Wheel noise network wide 2 – 7 dB(A) 3,000 – 8,000 € per wheel (24,000 – 64,000 per 4- axle wagon) Bogie Shrouds together with low height barriers Wheel noise local 8 – 10 dB(A) Rail dampers Rail Noise local 3 – 7 dB(A) (mostly around 3 dB(A) attended) 300 – 400 € per metre (two rails) Slab tracks Rail noise local 5 dB(A) Rail pads Rail Noise local 3 – 4 dB(A) Different measures to lower squeal noise Squeal noise local Up to 20 dB(A) depending on local conditions Shielding of pantographs High speed trains Global but only at high speed up from 200 km/h 5 – 10 dB(A) Barriers 2 meter high All sources local 10 dB(A) 1,000 €/m Barriers 3 – 4 meter high All sources Local 15 dB(A) 1,350 €/m (3 metres high) 1,700 €/m (4 metres high) Insulated windows All sources In house only 10 – 30 dB(A) 3,000 – 8,000 € per house (4 windows) Source: Elaborated by the authors from different sources. 64 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Deutsche Bahn has published two graphs in its Statement for Noise Reduction [DB 2010] Figure 21 shows, on the left, the current noise levels on German railway lines; and, on the right, the results of a simulation with the assumption that composite brake blocks for rail freight wagons have been introduced. The graphs show that the network affected by high noise emissions will shrink by introducing modified tread brake blocks. Fewer lines will be affected by noise levels between 70 – 75 dB(A) and 65 – 70 dB(A). Nevertheless, there are many lines which will remain affected by these noise levels. However, the introduction of low noise wagons with the help of composite blocks lowers the number and length of rail sections where local (expensive) measures must be taken. Figure 21: Shift of noise levels on German railway lines due to introduction of composite iron soles for rail freight wagons Source: DB 2010, page 3. The UIC published in its report “Railway Noise in Europe – A 2010 report on the state of the art” a diagram where the costs and benefits of different measures and combinations are presented [UIC 2010]. Figure 22 represents the main result of the STAIRRs Project (funded by the EU 5th Framework Programme). The graph shows that the most cost effective measure to lower railway noise is the retrofitting of freight wagons with composite blocks. It costs about 5–10 billion Euro and lowers noise for about 100 million people. The combination of composite blocks with rail-tuned absorbers will raise costs up to 20–40 million and affect 100–150 million people. In comparison, noise barriers (without any changes in vehicle technology) will cost about 80 billion Euro and affect about 180 million people. As a result, the introduction of composite brakes saves a considerable amount of money in comparison with noise abatement only realised by noise barriers. 65 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 22: Cost benefit analysis of measures to reduce noise in STAIRRS project Source: UIC 2010, page 15. Concerning the equipping of freight wagons with composite blocks: The noise reduction effect of a complete train depends in a logarithmic form on the number of wagons equipped with composite blocks. This effect is illustrated by [Bukovnik 2010]. The red line in Figure 23 is the relevant one. It shows the effect of the total noise emission (y-axis) of a train in which a certain share of wagons is equipped with low noise brakes (x- axis). The assumption for Figure 23 is that wagons equipped with composite brakes cause noise emissions of 78 dB(A), whereas the others cause emissions of 92 dB(A). The figure shows that noise reduction for a whole train follows the share of noise-reduced wagons and is disproportionately low until about 75% of the wagons have composite brakes, and after that the total noise decreases faster. 66 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 23: Effect on total noise according to share of wagons equipped with K- or LL-blocks Source: Bukovnik 2010. If 50% of the wagons were equipped with composite blocks the total noise would only be reduced to a noise level of 89 dB(A) (21% of total possible lowering). Only if about 98% of wagons were equipped would a total level of 80 dB(A) (86% of possible lowering) be reached. This means that the lead time until significant noise reduction is achieved will be very long if the modified wagons are introduced by normal replacing of old wagons by new ones after the normal operation time of a wagon (about 40 years). To achieve a significant and noticeable effect, a large share of wagons has to be equipped with K- or LL-blocks as soon as possible. LL-blocks can be completely introduced according to the normal operational lives of blocks (which in some cases is less than one year as normally – operation time for cast iron blocks is about 60,000 km, whereas wagons for combined transport run about 100,000 km per year). K-blocks can be introduced in about 6–8 years providing the possibility for wagon owners to modify the braking system with the general inspection. 67 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Conclusion: Regarding the costs and the associated effects, and current experience of noise measures, the authors conclude that: Noise should ideally be reduced at the source because these measures have a network-wide effect. A relatively cheap way to reduce noise on freight routes is to retrofit braking systems of rail freight wagons with composite brake blocks as quickly as possible. o Freight trains are currently identified as the noisiest trains. o Most freight trains operate at night which is the most sensitive time of day. o Most passenger trains already have disc brakes due to higher speeds and enhanced comfort for passengers, so these trains are quieter than freight trains. o Wheel dampers are very expensive and cause additional efforts for maintenance but can significantly reduce noise emission. In case of high-speed trains, advanced pantograph designs should be considered, especially for routes through noise-sensitive areas where noise bunds and barriers shield against rolling noise but may not shield pantograph noise. Where track infrastructure causes increased noise levels (e.g., structure-radiated noise from viaducts or curve squeal in narrow radius curves), or where the local environment is particularly sensitive to noise (e.g., urban environments with residences very close to the railway line (especially agglomerations) or areas of natural beauty) then additional trackside noise mitigation measures may be necessary. o Rail-tuned absorbers can be effective against curve squeal and rolling noise, reducing noise levels typically by 3-7 dB(A). These can be a low-cost solution which avoids visually intrusive noise barriers. o Noise bunds and barriers can be effective against noise propagation, but can create problems for track access and have high on-going maintenance costs. o Curve squeal and corrugation of the low rail can be prevented using top-of- rail friction modifiers. In the long term, new wheel concepts can be introduced, but these need more research and testing before they can be introduced especially into high speed vehicles. In dense populated areas with high frequencies of trains, noise protection walls or insulating windows still need to be introduced. Their number could shrink in case of well introduced source related measures or modified tracks. 3.5. Number of rail freight wagons to be retrofitted To identify the value of retrofitting freight cars with composite brake blocks, an analysis of the age structure of the fleet must be done. One question is the number of wagons it is worth retrofitting. Another is the number of wagons that will be replaced by new ones in the near future, since these are not worth retrofitting. Unfortunately the only study available concerning the freight wagon fleet is from the year 2004 [AEA et al. 2004]. The figures from that report will be updated by some recent reports or news from European railways, wagon owners and wagon manufacturers. 68 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The AEA study mentions on page 38, that Trenitalia has made a detailed survey of the European fleet in the year 2000. If a retrofitting programme had begun in 2005, the retrofitting would have affected 650,000 wagons out of 1.2 million. In general, the AEA study points out that determining the size of the fleet is very difficult due to the lack of data from some countries. Also, the authors did not get data from each of the railway companies or countries because the number and age of freight cars is often confidential for competition reasons. The estimated total number of freight cars in Europe is given in Figure 24. The age structure of the total fleet of the year 2000 is presented in Table 20. Figure 24: Estimated number of freight cars Source: AEA et al. 2004, page 39. Table 20: Age structure of freight wagon fleet in the year 2000 Building year Share Before 1970 10% Between 1970 and 1980 46% Between 1980 and 1990 22% after 1990 10% Source: AEA et al. 2004, page 42. To update the figures given in the AEA-study, the authors have made additional analyses using other sources. Recent documents from VDV, UIC and others indicate that in Europe 600,000 rail cars still exist or are relevant for noise reduction programmes. The UIC indicates a total number of 600,000 old wagons to be retrofitted [UIC 2009]. Also VDV together with VPI, DB Schenker 69 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ and DB Netz indicate 600,000 wagons where retrofitting must be checked [VDV et al. 2010]. For retrofitting activities the railway alliances UIC, CER, UIRR, ERFA, EIM and UIP together answered a Consultation document of the Commissions Services [UIC et al. 2007]. Their statements concerning the worth of retrofitting focus on the number of years a retrofitted wagon will be used. This is about 4–6 years (one revision cycle) but realistically 10 years. The normal durability of a freight wagon is about 40 years, so the oldest wagons to be retrofitted may be about 30 years old. According to the figures mentioned in Table 20, only 264,000 of the fleet of the year 2000 are valid for retrofitting (only the categories up from the year 1980). General figures about the total number of wagons currently operating in Europe are 600,000 or 650,000. The difference between the wagons up to 30 years and the highest number of wagons in operation makes 386,000 wagons which either have been built since the year 2000 or before 1980. Estimating that the normal life time of freight wagons is 40 years, almost 80% of wagons produced between 1970 and 1980 are still in use. That makes about 300,000 wagons. So about 86,000 wagons must have been produced since the year 2000. Together with the fleet worth retrofitting, from between the years 1980 and 2000, this makes a total of 350,000 wagons. An interview with Mr Kerth from VDV by the authors came to an estimate of 350,000 to 370,000 wagons to be retrofitted. Also KCW indicates a total number of 370,000 freight cars to be retrofitted [KCW 2009]. Summary: Although the exact number is not known, a reasonable estimate is that there are currently 370,000 freight wagons suitable for retrofitting with composite brake blocks. 70 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. CASE STUDIES KEY FINDINGS This section describes some general noise situations in regions and rail sections and effects of realised or proposed measures to lower / avoid noise. On the Rhine Axis the situation on the currently realised/planned upgraded line between Karlsruhe and Basel and the existing line in the narrow Rhine Valley between Bingen and Koblenz is described. A simulation of the introduction of noise barriers on the one hand and of composite brake blocks on the other hand is made. For alpine regions general findings from a research project on noise are represented. For the Inn Valley in Austria the current situation, development of rail transport and the intensive activities of Austria concerning the installation of noise protection walls are described. For the Fréjus Corridor between France and Italy the noise situation is described. For the UK activities and noise situations for the new built projects Thameslink and the two High Speed Lines are represented. This chapter is divided into two main sections. Section 4.1 on page 71 describes selected regions or countries and includes some general local aspects of noise emission and noise spreading in mountain areas. Section 4.2 on page 83 analyses selected railway lines in more detail. The effects of sample measures which are described in Section 3.3 on page 53 are calculated. 4.1. General descriptions of environmental railway noise in selected areas or countries 4.1.1. Rhine Axis The Rhine Axis beginning at the ARA ports and ending in Basel with the continuance via Gotthard and Lötschberg to north Italy represents one of the most important freight corridors. The main areas where the discussions about railway noise are currently the strongest are the section between Bingen and Koblenz and the new build “Rheintalbahn” between Karlsruhe and Basel. The section Bingen – Koblenz is the narrowest section of the Rhine Axis where railway lines are located on both sides of the Rhine. The rail track follows the river with many sharp turns. The section Bingen – Koblenz will be described in Section 4.2.1 on page 84. This section focuses on the Rheintalbahn. 71 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ In 1993 the first sections of two extra tracks between Karlsruhe and Basel were introduced for operation on the “Rheintalbahn”. In the following years more and more sections got into operation. They are mostly located next to the existing railway line but also some of the new sections are constructed next to the motorway A5 (example: bypass Freiburg for freight trains) or use completely new corridors (like the Rastatt tunnel or the Katzenberg tunnel). The sections between Rastatt and Offenburg are in operation. The sections Karlsruhe – Rastatt and Offenburg – Basel are still in planning or partly under construction. There are many objections against the project especially due to noise pollution reasons. BMU and Intraplan Consult published a prediction about numbers of trains between Offenburg and Basel. The study firstly comes to the result that about 1,300,000 people are living in the affected area of the railway26 line ([BVU INTRAPLAN 2008], page 11). The following table gives the result of predicted numbers of trains for sample sections (rural and urban areas). Table 21: Prediction of numbers of trains on Rheintalbahn SECTION (SAMPLES) TRAIN TYPE 2007 2015 2025 Long distance trains 66 76 78 Regional trains 124 152 190 Freight trains 160 286 304 Denzlingen – Freiburg (agglomeration) Share of freight trains 47% 56% 53% Long distance trains 66 76 78 Regional trains 50 76 76 Freight trains 160 280 304 Müllheim – Auggen (rural area) Share of freight trains 58% 65% 66% Source: BVU INTRAPLAN 2008, page 38. The predictions for regional trains as well as for long distance trains come from existing planning for extensions of public transport services. The figures show that in the corridor the number of freight trains will rise about 100% in all sections. In the Freiburg agglomeration, the number of regional trains also will rise. The share of freight and passenger trains differs between agglomeration and rural areas. In agglomerations the share of freight trains is about 50% whereas in rural areas the share will rise up to 66%. So the influence on total noise is different. The share of trains during day and night time for 2015 is shown in the following table. 26 Cities of Freiburg, Ortenaukreis, Landkreise Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, Emmendingen and Lörrach. 72 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 22: Share of numbers of trains on Rheintalbahn between day and night time SECTION (SAMPLES) TRAIN TYPE DAY (6 – 22 H) NIGHT (22 – 6 H) Long Distance trains 60 16 Regional trains 132 20 Freight trains 129 155 Denzlingen – Freiburg (agglomeration) Share of freight trains 40% 81% Long Distance trains 60 16 Regional trains 64 12 Freight trains 125 155 Müllheim – Auggen (rural area) Share of freight trains 50% 85% Source: BVU INTRAPLAN 2008, page 39. At night the share of freight trains rises from 40 / 50% up to 81 / 85%. Almost 55% of freight trains are operated at night. As night time is a period with a higher sensitivity to noise this is important. The figures show that a concentration on measures to reduce noise at the source - for freight wagons, as the first step - is an important measure to reduce or avoid extra railway noise. The current situation is represented by the noise action plans of the cities of Freiburg and Offenburg. In its noise action plan the city of Freiburg published the number of inhabitants affected by railway noise. Table 23: Affected inhabitants of railway noise in Freiburg LDEN LNIGHT Noise level [dB(A)] Affected inhabitants Noise level [dB(A)] Affected inhabitants > 45 – 50 32,820 > 55 – 60 22,820 > 50 – 55 19,020 > 60 – 65 8,950 > 55 – 60 7,530 > 65 – 70 4,380 > 60 – 65 3,820 > 70 – 75 2,680 > 65 – 70 2,410 > 75 2,340 > 70 1,880 Total 41,170 Total 67,480 Source: Freiburg 2009, page 5. 73 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ According to the noise action plan, Deutsche Bahn is currently installing about 9 – 10 km of noise protection walls and noise protection windows in about 1,500 apartments. The target of Deutsche Bahn is to meet the emission levels of 70/72/75 dB(A) at day time and 60/62/65 dB(A) at night time (residential zones / mixed zones / industrial zones). In the noise action plan of the city of Offenburg [Offenburg 2009] the number of inhabitants affected by railway noise is published as follows. Table 23: Affected inhabitants of railway noise in Offenburg LDEN LNIGHT Noise level [dB(A)] Affected inhabitants Noise level [dB(A)] Affected inhabitants > 55 – 60 7,150 > 50 – 55 5,890 > 60 – 65 2,910 > 55 – 60 2,310 > 65 – 70 920 > 60 – 65 770 > 70 – 75 450 > 65 – 70 410 > 75 450 > 70 410 Total 11,880 Total 9,790 Total above 70 900 Total above 60 1,590 Source: Offenburg 2009, page 6. Actions for environmental railway noise mostly consider the building of a freight train tunnel for the next section of the new Rheintalbahn and noise action plans in special areas. Concerning the new built areas and sections of the third and fourth track, mostly noise protection walls are foreseen. Discussions with the neighbours are often made due to different opinions of calculation about the associated noise emissions and the resulting number, length and height of noise protection walls. Especially the difference between the calculation scheme for noise mapping according to Directive 2002/49/EB [VBUSch 2006] and for new build infrastructure [Schall 2003] (for details see Section 2.5 on page 43) is currently in discussion. The rail noise bonus which is still valid for German infrastructure caused many struggles. In Offenburg the planning foresees to build the new tracks along a new corridor through the city. Noise emissions will affect many people. Alternatives like a tunnel solution are presented by citizens´ initiatives. As this solution is very expensive it is refused by the building owner. The current plans of the building owner were refused by the planning and authorisation body (Regierungspräsident Freiburg) as they were not finished and could not meet legal checks. In Rastatt a tunnel already was planned but it was adjourned indefinitely at the beginning of 2010. Local action groups are struggling against this as noise pollution in Rastatt is expected. The Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development argues that Rastatt is not a bottleneck and the building activities have to concentrate on the section Offenburg – Basel. 74 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ In fact, for high frequency railway lines and, especially for construction of new railways, the citizens become more and more aware of noise items. This must be kept in mind for all planning. 4.1.2. Alpine regions 4.1.2.1. General aspects This section provides general aspects concerning railway noise in Alpine and mountain regions and presents details about two railway corridors in the Alps. Important and interesting aspects about noise impacts in alpine regions come from the ALPNAP project. ALPNAP has been a European research project [ALPNAP 2007-2] funded by INTERREG IIIB in ERDF Funds. The main target was to develop exact but also practical calculation methods for air and noise pollution prediction. As there is a gap between difficult scientific calculation and practical approach (easy formulas and assumption methods), the project aimed at the development of methods that were acceptable and sufficiently precise. The project partners made many measurements for pollution and environmental noise emissions in defined areas like the Brenner corridor with Inn Valley and Edige/Etsch valley and the Fréjus corridor with Maurienne valley and Susa valley. Concerning environmental noise (in general) one important result of the project is that the spread of noise depends on weather conditions and time of day. Examples are shown in the following figures. Figure 25: Direction of sound spreading (sound rays) during day Source: ALPNAP 2007-1, page 10. During the day, the temperature decreases with height and the sound is refracted upward. In the dotted blue areas (“acoustical shadow zones”) on the valley bottom the noise is reduced significantly because the upward refracted sound rays cannot reach there. 75 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 26: Direction of sound spreading (sound rays) during night Source: ALPNAP 2007-1, page 10. During the night, the temperature increases with height in an inversion layer (shown grey) and the sound is refracted downward. Acoustical shadow zones do not appear. Instead the sound is reflected at the ground. Wind speeds and wind directions have an impact on environmental noise. Also, in valleys reflections can spread environmental noise up to high altitudes. Mostly low frequencies are spread very wide as higher frequencies are well absorbed by air. The most severe problem for transportation and its emissions in mountain areas is that transportation infrastructure (both rail and road) as well as residential or industrial zones are concentrated in (partly narrow) valleys. So all sources of noise are located very close together. Noise in mountain regions is even more annoying or economically harmful as the area is used for tourism which is an important employment factor. The figures above also show one important incident for protection measures. As noise in valleys can spread up to very high altitudes where also inhabitants can be affected by noise, protection walls have a lower influence on noise reduction. 4.1.2.2. Alpine regions - The Inn Valley The Inn Valley between Kufstein and Innsbruck is the major access line to the Brenner railway line where a tunnel has been planned for a long time. The Inn Valley was examined in the ALPNAP project and will become more important for freight trains when the Brenner tunnel is opened. An estimation of future rail traffic was made. In the year 2005, 40 regional passenger trains, 16 long distance passenger trains, ([Kummer et al. 2006], page 24) and about 100 freight and RoLa-trains are operating on the Brenner line. Taking into account the rise of freight trains - about 4.3% per year between 1999 and 2005 - a total rise of about 52% is expected for 2015. ÖBB (Austrian Federal Railway) expects 186 freight trains in 2016 ([Kummer et al. 2006], page 25). Passenger trains will remain at about 46 regional and 26 long distance trains. This shows that freight trains have a share of 64 to 68%. So they have the majority on the Brenner line which affects the Inn Valley. 76 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Austria may be considered as good practice regarding rail noise abatement. More than 12 years ago noise emission inventories were compiled and on this basis plans for the implementation and financing of noise abatement measures along railway lines were developed. In recent years, the annual financial means amounted to some 30 million Euros. It is expected to spend the same amount in the years to come as well. The costs are carried 50% by the Austrian railways ÖBB and the remaining 50% by the federal states and the community [ÖBB - BMVIT 2008]. Through this programme, Austria has realised considerably more protection measures as foreseen in the first phase of the EU Noise Directive 2002/49/EC. In 2008, the programme had achieved the following results: Table 24: Results of the Austrian rail noise abatement programme ACTION FIGURES Planning in communities 236 Implementation in communities 185 Inhabitants covered in plans 250,280 Inhabitants benefitting from implementation 183,603 Noise barriers [m2] 1,263,706 Length of noise barriers [m] 413,016 Source: ÖBB – BMVIT 2008. In 2008, 72% of the citizens covered in the plans benefited from noise protection measures. Since then, the size of the rail noise barriers has increased to some 1.7 million sq. m [m2]; in 2011 two thirds of the planned construction works are completed and most of the severely affected inhabitants are protected against noise. Through the continuation of the programme, 10–15,000 additional citizens annually will be protected against rail noise. The effects of noise barriers in the mountainous Inn Valley can be seen on the map below, where the inhabitants of the small town of Jenbach are protected against high noise levels that show up in the unprotected outskirts of the settlement. However, the map shows as well the effects of noise reflection from the adjacent mountains. 77 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 27: Impacts of noise protection barriers in Jenbach, Inn Valley, Austria Source: Austrian Noise mapping, http://gis.lebensministerium.at/geoinfo). 4.1.2.3. Alpine regions – The Fréjus line The Fréjus line is the rail freight corridor between France and Italy. Additional to this it is part of the planned high speed and rail freight corridor between Lyon and Turin. The Frésjus-Coridor, especially the Susa (between City of Susa and Modane) and the Maurienne Valley (between Modane and Aiguebelle), was also examined in the ALPNAP project. For the Fréjus line the numbers of daily trains on the Italian side (Susa Valley) of the total line are published in [ALPNAP 2007-2] on page 241. The table is represented below. Table 25: Example of railway traffic data in the Susa Valley; Number of trains for an average workday SECTION TYPE OF TRAIN DAY EVENING NIGHT SPEED [KM/H] Regional 35 14 3 120 International 3 3 0 130 Freight 21 11 13 85 Borgone Susa – Bussoleno Goods 49 23 29 95 Regional 18 7 3 120 International 0 0 0 130 Freight 0 0 0 85 Bussoleno – Susa Goods 0 0 0 95 78 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TYPE OF SPEED SECTION DAY EVENING NIGHT TRAIN [KM/H] Regional 9 4 0 110 International 2 2 0 110 Freight 11 5 6 75 Bussoleno – Salbertrand Goods 24 12 14 85 Regional 17 7 0 110 International 3 3 0 110 Freight 21 11 13 75 Salbertrand – Bardonecchia Goods 49 23 29 85 Regional 1 0 0 75 International 3 2 0 75 Freight 21 11 13 70 Bardonecchia – Modane Goods 49 23 29 70 Source: ALPNAP 2007-2, page 241. Here freight and goods trains have the majority on the main line, especially at night (as in the Inn Valley) and in the sections between Bussoleno and Modane. The share of freight trains is higher than on the Brenner line / in the Inn Valley. The study has already shown that rolling noise is the most important environment noise source from trains at speeds between 30 and 200 km/h and that freight trains are the noisiest trains. Considering this, the most important starting point to lower noise, particularly in mountain areas, is to avoid rolling noise directly at the original source (contact zone of rail and wheel). For the Fréjus Corridor the ALPNAP project produced a noise pollution index which shows the number of people which are affected by a certain noise pollution index (see Figure 28). The meaning of the indices is declared in Figure 29 and Figure 30. Figure 28: Noise pollution in the Fréjus Corridor Source: ALPNAP 2007-2, page 288. 79 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ The noise pollution index defined by ALPNAP project is represented in the following figures: Figure 29: Noise pollution index (NPI) due to simultaneous exposure to rail and road sources Source: ALPNAP 2007-2, page 154. Figure 30: Interpretation of the NPI values Source: ALPNAP 2007-2, page 154. The NPI shows the exposure to noise in dependence of the LDEN noise level caused by both road and rail traffic. Although train traffic is high in the Fréjus-Corridor, about 30,000 out of 146,000 people (see [Alpnap 2007-2] page 286) are affected by NPI levels higher than 1. An interesting result of the ALPNAP Study is that a modal shift from road to rail will lead to an increase of people affected by NPI 5 to NPI 6. The reason is that the motorways in the Fréjus-Corridor are already well equipped with noise protection walls in populated areas in comparison with the railway lines. There are many protests against the project of a high speed railway line between Turin and Lyon especially concerning the affected valleys. In detail the high-speed line will consist of about 200 km new build railway lines including the new Mont-Cenis-Base-Tunnel (56 km). This tunnel will completely pass by the Susa-Valley between Modane and Susa. On the Italian side the Bussoleno-Tunnel will directly follow the Mont-Cenis-Base-Tunnel (12 km) so only a short part of the railway line will remain outside in the area of Susa. On the French side also two long tunnels (Bolledonne Tunnel, (20 km) and Chartreuse Tunnel (20km – freight trains only) are foreseen passing by big parts of the Maurienne-Valley 80 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ [Transalpine]. With all these tunnels only short parts of the new line remain uncovered in the Valleys. Protests against this project concern air pollution (due to excavations of asbestos and uranium), general threats for the nature of the valleys and disturbances due to building works (15 – 20 years). During the building phase economic losses due to shrinking of tourism in the affected areas are expected. Noise is also mentioned in some of the publications but is not a main aspect of the protests. Most relevant are disturbances during the building phase. 4.1.3. United Kingdom The UK uses a variety of noise mitigating technologies including noise barriers, rail lubricators and friction modifiers, rail-tuned absorbers, and, usually in tunnels, resilient base plates and floating slab track. Approximately 75% of the UK freight wagon fleet has disc brakes or composite tread brakes instead of the noisier cast-iron tread-braked wheels. In England27, 23 Noise Action Plans were designed to address the management of noise issues and effects in agglomerations. According to these plans, 1.3 million inhabitants of agglomerations are affected by rail noise; of these, 68% live in Greater London. Outside agglomerations, only 4,000 inhabitants are included in Noise Action Plans. The theoretical study in this section estimates the potential impact of building noise barriers with 2m height along all railway lines in English agglomerations. It is assumed that noise barriers reduce the noise levels by 5–10 dB(A). Due to these rough assumptions, only the magnitude of the impact may be estimated. The number of affected inhabitants would decrease by 54–84%. This implies that in English agglomerations only 200,000 to 600,000 inhabitants would be affected by rail noise, compared to 1.3 million without noise protection measures. Figure 31 shows the range of impacts of noise barriers in English agglomerations. The environmental cost of rail noise in English agglomerations may be estimated at 144 million Euros per year. These costs would be reduced through the implementation of noise barriers by annually 86 to 126 million Euros. 27 UK not including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 81 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 31: Effects of rail noise barriers on the number of inhabitants of agglomerations in England Source: calculation by the authors according to Noise Action Plans in England. For rail noise protection in England it has been decided that the important areas with respect to noise from major railways will be where the 1% of the population that are affected by the highest noise levels from major railways are located according to the results of the strategic noise mapping (“Important Areas”; see Figure 32). In addition, those locations where the LAeq,18h is at least 73 dB(A) according to the results of the strategic noise mapping have been identified as “First Priority Locations”. The following timeline for railways was developed: April 2010 – Oct 2011 Relevant rail authorities investigate Important Areas (giving priority to those that contain First Priority Locations) April 2011 onwards Relevant rail authorities implement any actions or secure budget for actions April 2012 onwards Relevant rail authorities investigate remaining Important Areas and implement any actions or secure budget for actions An example of Important Areas arising from the English Noise Action Planning is given in Figure 32. 82 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 32: Important Areas, Noise Action Plan for Sheffield, England Source: DEFRA 2010. 4.2. Detailed analysis of selected sections This section describes effects of noise reduction measures for selected sections of the rail network. Assessments for effects of noise reductions are made with the use of defined measures from Section 3.3 on page 53). The authors made a general analysis of the sections as detailed examinations in real situations were not possible. Some generalisations have been made. For example, noise barriers were assumed to be built in each location where inhabitants are affected, not taking into account if this will be technically feasible or whether installations already exist. Therefore, a range of noise impacts of the different measures had to be defined as given in Table 26. These figures were again adapted to the local conditions, i.e., used rolling stock, number of trains and share of train types (long distance, regional, freight trains). For replacement of cast iron by composite block brakes or equipment of freight cars with wheel absorbers, a 100% endowment of all relevant wagons is assumed. Calculations were made with the actual state and the if-case (if-case = the measure is introduced completely in the section). 83 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 26: Range of noise reduction MEASURE MIN REDUCTION MAX REDUCTION Composite brake blocks on freight wagons 8 dB(A) 10 dB(A) Noise barriers (2m high) 5 dB(A) 10 dB(A) Wheel absorbers 2 dB(A) 7 dB(A) Rail tuned absorbers 3 dB(A) 7 dB(A) Source: own summary according to section 3.3. The following elaboration also includes an assumption of noise reduction effects by reduction of external rail noise costs. For cost calculation the same method was applied as the study “External Costs of Transport in Europe 2008” commissioned by the International Railway Union (UIC) in 2011 [CE Delft et al. 2011]. The study quantifies the monetary impacts of steady noise exposure of people at different levels by a review of European studies of housing prices and assesses additional medical costs by the increased risk of cardiac infarctions based on latest epidemiological research. The resulting non-linear noise exposure cost function is then applied to national statistics on noise affected inhabitants by 5 dB(A) LDEN noise classes. 4.2.1. The Rhine Axis section Koblenz – Bingen The selected section between Koblenz and Bingen represents an area in a narrow valley with high frequency railway lines on one of the main European transportation corridors (see also Section 4.1.1 on page 71). The location of the section is given in Figure 33. The valley has four tracks, two on each river bank. The essential data and results of the assessment are given in Table 27. Figure 33: Section Koblenz - Bingen, impacts of measures Source: Own calculation by the authors. 84 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ In this section of the Rhine Valley, nearly 68,000 people are affected by rail noise above 55 dB(A). Rail noise causes damages in the order of 11 million Euros per year. However, these may be reduced significantly: The strongest impacts are achieved through the construction of noise barriers. If - theoretically - the whole valley were protected, only 17,000–36,000 inhabitants will still be affected afterwards and the environmental costs will be reduced by 47%–72% (Figure 33). However, this would imply considerable costs, as well as strong visual intrusions. If new brake blocks were implemented, the environmental costs could be reduced by 51-57%. The lower value is due to the fact that passenger trains are not affected by this measure. Wheel absorbers reduce environmental costs by 21-58%. Table 27: Impacts of noise reduction measures in the Middle Rhine Valley ITEM VALUE No of freight trains / day (both directions) 265 No of passenger trains / day (both directions) 157 No of remaining inhabitants affected by rail noise (>55dB(A)) Without measures With noise protection barriers With low-noise brake blocks (K and LL) With wheel noise absorbers 67,550 16,850 – 36,200 28,985 – 32,907 28,460 – 55,010 Remaining annual external rail noise costs [million €] Without measures With noise protection barriers With low-noise brake blocks (K and LL) With wheel noise absorbers 10.7 4.4 – 8.4 4.6 – 5.2 4.4 – 8.4 Source: Own calculation by the authors. 4.2.2. United Kingdom section Thameslink near Blackfriars in London In order to have an example about a railway line in a dense populated agglomeration with a large frequency of trains per hour, Thameslink was chosen as a case study. Rail noise of railway lines in metropolises by nature affects a lot of people. So it is very important to find good solutions for inner-city lines. Thameslink is considered to be a good example because it represents an area with dense population and a planned extension of traffic. Thameslink runs through the heart of London, crossing the River Thames at Blackfriars Bridge, operating along a 225km route between Bedford in the north and Brighton on the south coast. The service stops at King’s Cross / St Pancras International, Luton Airport and Gatwick Airport, and an offshoot (the Wimbledon Loop) passes through south-west London. An estimated 75000 people every day use Thameslink to get in and out of London. Thameslink 2000 is a £5.5bn programme28 to increase service capacity and frequency on the Thameslink route, with longer trains and eventually new rolling stock. The route from St Pancras to London Bridge is being upgraded, and Blackfriars station is being rebuilt to 28 Thameslink 2000 Programme website: http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/. 85 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ span the river, with a new entrance on the south bank; the station will be ready for 12-car trains by December 2011, and completed in time for the 2012 Olympics. The Thameslink 2000 project was originally proposed in 1991, and, following a public inquiry in 2005, planning permission was finally granted in 2006. As a result of the public inquiry, many of the relevant documents are available to the public through the Inquiry’s website29 or on request. As part of the Environmental Impact Assessment, Temple Environmental consultants Ltd produced the ‘Noise & Vibration Specialist Report’ in June 2004 [Thameslink 2004], and the ‘Blackfriars Noise Assessment Report’ in 2005 [Thameslink 2005]. These reports include calculations and predictions of rail noise, using ISVR’s NORBERT30 model, and make recommendations regarding the use of noise mitigation technologies. One of the goals of the Thameslink programme is to run 24 trains per hour, each way, between Blackfriars and St Pancras Midland Road; and 18 trains per hour, each way, between Blackfriars and London Bridge. Blackfriars Railway Bridge is a steel decked bridge across the Thames (see Figure 34 and Figure 35) with ballasted track. In 2004, the traffic across the bridge during the day was 233 Thameslink trains and 133 other trains; during the night, the traffic was 39 Thameslink trains and 11 other trains. The target is to increase this to 672 Thameslink trains and 70 other trains during the day, and 74 Thameslink trains during the night. Figure 34: Left: View of Blackfriars Railway Bridge from the south bank. Right: First Capital Connect Class 319 EMU. Source: Thameslink 2005. In addition to increasing the number of trains, capacity will be further increased by replacing 8-car trains with 12-car trains during peak hours; during off-peak hours, 4-car trains will be replaced by 8-car trains. To some extent the increase in noise from the additional traffic will be offset by the introduction of quieter rolling stock. In 2004, Thameslink operated Class 319 EMUs primarily, and have since acquired all Class 319 vehicles still operational31. These are disc-braked; the last of the Class 421 and 423 EMUs with cast iron tread brakes were phased out during 2004. The Class 319 fleet was manufactured during 1987-90. First Capital Connect (who took over the Thameslink franchise in 2006) have recently acquired 23 Class 377/5 EMU 4-car trains (Electrostars), 29 Thameslink 2000 Public Inquiry website: http://www.tl2000inquiry.org.uk/. 30 ISVR’s NORBERT model calculates structural radiation of bridge noise using a detailed model of track and bridge structure, rail roughness and rolling stock type. (Thompson, D.J., Jones, C.J.C., Bewes, O.G., 2005, ‘NORBERT – Software for Predicting the Noise of Railway Bridges and Elevated Structures, Version 2.0,’ ISVR Contract Report, CR 05.12; also see David Herron, 2009, ‘Vibration of railway bridges in the audible frequency range,’ Thesis submitted for Engineering Doctorate, University of Southampton.) 31 The Class 319 is a dual-voltage EMU, and therefore able to operate both north of the River Thames, which uses a 25kV AC overhead supply, and south of the river, which uses a 750V DC third rail. 86 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ manufactured in 2008-09. The train noise correction for the Class 377/5 is 8.4 dB(A), compared to 11.3 dB(A) for the Class 319. Figure 35: Overview of viaducts/bridges near Blackfriars station Source: Thameslink 2005. Regarding further rolling stock noise mitigation measures: wheel dampers may provide a cost-effective means of reducing curve squeal and flange contact noise; for vehicle mounted lubricators or wheel dampers Network Rail will work with TOCs and other stakeholders to install them to the existing rolling stock where it is found that such measures are reasonably practicable. However, the EMUs are disc-braked and there is little scope to reduce rolling noise; future design innovations in the suspension systems are not expected to reduce ground borne noise and vibration; and, in general, train speed is not an effective means of vibration reduction. 87 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 36: Measured noise levels in Blackfriars area Source: Thameslink 2004. Noise level projections for 2026, with or without the Thameslink upgrade, were used to assess the impact of noise on local properties. The Thameslink programme was predicted to reduce the number of affected residential properties from 44 to 24, and the number of non- residential properties from 14 to 8. In either case, the majority of these impacts are either slight or moderate. The reason why so few properties are affected is that, even close to the railway, rail noise does not dominate over the ambient noise level. Predicted noise level increases near Blackfriars Railway Bridge are shown in Figure 37. 88 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Figure 37: Predicted noise increase by 2026 at nearby facades as a result of daytime railway operation Source: Thameslink 2004. One distinctive source of noise at Blackfriars is the jointed track, which gives rise to the characteristic ‘pounding’ noise. Removal of joints will reduce the noise level by about 3.1 dB(A), and will significantly improve the subjective impression of the bridge noise. Regarding track renewals and remodelling between Blackfriars and London Bridge: All jointed track will be removed as far as practical where track is renewed and replaced with Continuously Welded Rail or Long Welded Rail. Any unnecessary Switches and Crossings (S&Cs) will be removed and joints to remaining S&Cs will be welded. All new or replacement expansion joints will be scarfed. Another source of noise, about 6 dB(A), is flange contact on the curve south of the bridge (Falcon Point). As part of the renewal programme, this section will be replaced with modern track to a high specification, avoiding sudden changes in curvature at rail joints. Where necessary, flange lubricators will be installed or replaced. Network Rail has a regular inspection and maintenance programme, and is committed to removing any corrugation. In addition, vehicles are monitored for wheel flats. No significant benefit in noise level is expected from imposing more frequent grinding or an enhanced wheel set maintenance regime. 89 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Where effective and safe, Network Rail is willing to use rail dampers32. However, rail damping is not effective when used with stiff rail pads. In the Blackfriars area (in 2005), the rail was supported on stiff pads or no pads at all. Rail dampers would not have affected the bridge noise component, and only a 0.8 dB(A) reduction would have been achieved in the direct rolling noise. Noise barriers are a visual intrusion, particularly since they are a target for graffiti; they have a high cost, and cause problems for track access. Their effectiveness depends on their absorption properties, their height, and the proximity of the barrier to the noise source and/or to the receiver. At Blackfriars, noise barriers will not be particularly effective since the railway is multiple-track, and many of the affected properties overlook the track. However, the new station roof will incorporate sound absorbent material which will help to increase the noise attenuation provided by the barriers, and a new Vitreous enamel clad Bridge 412 enclosure will shield 1 Puddle Dock. A variety of noise mitigating trackforms were considered for reducing noise levels around the Blackfriars Railway Bridge, including ballast mats (which can be problematic for maintenance and tamping), resilient baseplates, booted sleepers, and Pandrol’s VANGUARD (which clamps the rail around the web and under the head, as well as under the foot) on ballasted track; and slab track with soft rail pads or baseplates. While these track designs reduce noise levels significantly when compared with the reference design, they do not provide any meaningful reduction in overall train noise levels. At Falcon Point, railway noise is expected to reduce by 3–4 dB at the upper floors closest to the Bridge. This benefit would affect some 6 dwellings. The cost will be disproportionately high in relation to the scale of the potential benefit. There is no justification to install resilient baseplates on Blackfriars Railway Bridge. 4.2.3. Noise Impact of High Speed Lines in the UK The East Coast Mainline (ECML) operates between Edinburgh and London King’s Cross and the West Coast Mainline (WCML) operates between Glasgow and London Euston. The lines are rated for 200 km/h for the most part, and even for 225 km/h in places. However, UK legislation requires in-cab signalling for train speeds over 200 km/h, which has prevented operation at 225 km/h on these lines. Currently the only line in the UK operating at speeds over 200 km/h is High Speed 1 (HS1). High Speed 2 (HS2) is currently in the early planning stages and is expected to start operation in 2025. 4.2.3.1. High speed 1 (HS1) High Speed 1 is the route from London to the Channel Tunnel which started operation in 2007. After leaving St Pancras, the line crosses the ECML and immediately enters a tunnel which passes underneath London for 20 km (line speed for this stretch is 230 km/h, but other tunnels on the route have a speed limit of 270 km/h); the bridge across the ECML to the tunnel entrance is fully enclosed by a tube with acoustic grey cladding to shield the local environment from noise (although this is not completely effective). Pandrol’s VANGUARD and a variety of other noise mitigation technologies are implemented along the route: noise bunds and barriers (including low barriers on viaducts), Sateba booted sleeper track system (Slab track SAT SB12), and GERB’s floating slab track (also used in London’s Docklands Light Railway). 32 Blackfriars Station will be the first site in the UK to install Tata Steel’s SilentTrack noise damping system – this is scheduled for February 2012. 90 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ There is no noise map for HS1, but there are a few comments on noise in the written evidence in the Transport Committee HS2 report: ‘experience in Kent and elsewhere shows how the noise footprint of HSR trains can be mitigated’ ‘the experience of HS1 is that fears expressed before its construction have mostly not been realised’ ‘it would appear from the lack of complaints related to HS1 operation that the noise impact can be overrated by objectors at the planning stage’ ‘HS1’s impact has been masked to some extent by the route passing close to existing busy roads’ Overall, HS1 has been a positive development with very few complaints about noise. 4.2.3.2. High Speed 2 (HS2) This section refers to the Tenth Report of Session 2010-12 of the House of Commons Transport Committee, regarding High Speed Rail (HSR), specifically High Speed 2 (HS2), and associated written evidence. HS2 is planned for 2025. Remit: ‘HS2 Ltd was established as a Government company to examine the case and develop proposals for a new high-speed railway line between London and the West Midlands, and potentially beyond. Its remit was to identify a route between London and the West Midlands with the primary aims of increasing passenger capacity on the corridor and optimising journey times. It was a requirement of the remit that the route should include an interchange between HS2, the Great Western Main Line and Crossrail, with convenient access to Heathrow.’ Proposal: ‘HS2 Ltd has proposed a London – West Midlands route that avoids any significant demolition of property except for the Euston station area; about half the route would be in deep cutting or tunnel, to reduce noise and visual intrusion on adjacent areas.’ The proposal focuses on 400 km/h high speed rail route. This is expected to free up capacity on the West Coast Mainline and allow greater rail freight utilisation. Noise Issues: No Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out for HS2, and none is planned until after the current consultation exercise. An Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS) has been published which includes a technical report on noise and vibration. Following England’s Noise Action Plan and the Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations, the noise measure LAeq,18h (noise averaged over the period 06.00–24.00) has been used as the primary indicator of noise level, with an imposed limit of 73 dB – since noise levels higher than this would make the route a ‘First Priority Location’, i.e., an immediate target for noise mitigation. 91 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ While such a strategy might be acceptable for already noisy areas, part of the proposed route runs through an Area of Natural Beauty (AONB) where the environmental impact of the railway is a major concern. Consequently, there has been fierce opposition to HS2 along this section of the route, including complaints about noise levels: ‘Acceptable’ noise levels do not follow WHO guidelines or English Planning Permission (PPG24) guidelines. The latter would limit noise levels to 66 dB, or even less considering the rural environment. The former recommends that peak noise levels be considered, not just the average, and for high speed trains the difference between these is large. Concern over the visual impact of noise barriers, coupled with the concern that these will not block aerodynamic noise from pantographs. In addition, in the noise prediction modelling, pantograph noise has been modelled as a noise source at rail track height, which is not appropriate and underestimates the noise impact. (The AoS assumes a 3 dB reduction in noise emissions based on improved noise control measures in future rolling stock, and notes the importance of mitigating the source of aerodynamic noise. 100 km of 2–3 metre high noise barriers are included in the model.) The noise impact from the ground-borne Raleigh shock wave of high-speed trains travelling at 400 km/h over flood plains, soft alluvial ground, etc., has not been considered, nor has the cost of mitigation measures against this. The number of trains used in the noise modelling is 432 per day, but the potential train throughput could be up to 576 trains. The system needs to be modelled at full operational capacity, otherwise noise regulations will put a severe constraint on route utilisation. Noise modelling has been carried out for a maximum speed of 360 km/h, even in places where the design speed is higher. In summary, the HS2 assessment of noise levels both uses an arguably too-high definition of acceptable noise level, and underestimates noise levels arising from pantographs, ground-borne shock waves and full system capacity. This highlights the need for a full Environmental Impact Assessment and a clearer remit on noise and vibration levels in the AONB. The strongest arguments against HS2 can be countered by lowering the line speed from 400 km/h to, e.g., 240 km/h in sensitive areas. Although this will increase journey time, and weakens the economic case for HS2, it will significantly reduce the environmental impact of construction and of operational noise and energy requirements. A lower design speed also allows the route to follow the existing M1 motorway, further reducing environmental impact. 92 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. EVALUATION KEY FINDINGS There are different possibilities for financial support and regulative activities to foster the introduction of noise reduction measures. Noise depending track access charges are one possibility next to direct support for low noise measures. Noise depending track access charges shall bear in mind that relevant noise reduction effects are only coming from trains which are (nearly) completely equipped with low noise rolling stock and that noise reduction measures may cause extra operative costs (next to investment cost). Regulation can focus on the TSI Noise where noise limits for new rolling stock are regulated. They shall be compulsory for existing rolling stock after about 10 – 12 years and lowered from time to time according to latest technical possibilities. Currently Switzerland and the Netherlands have introduced noise depending track access charges, Germany is planning to introduce them at the end of the year 2012. Competitiveness of rail transport in comparison with other transportation means must be borne in mind in all activities, so all financial and regulative measures shall not burden the rail sector. This chapter describes and evaluates different methods for financial support of noise reduction measures with the focus on promoting the retrofitting of freight wagons with new braking systems. This is currently the most important discussion. Regulation possibilities are also discussed. 5.1. Economic incentives Economic incentives through rail track charging differentiated according to noise emissions can help to: stimulate the use of low-noise technology for the rolling stock, foster the use of routes which avoid hot spots for noise and foster noise-reducing operational routines and speeds in sensitive areas. In general, there are two possibilities for the design of mark-ups for noise emissions: First, the mark-ups can be added to the rail infrastructure charges of high noise polluters while low noise polluters would be free of additional charges. In this case revenues are generated which can be used for subsidising noise abatement investments for railway cars.33 Second, the mark-ups can be designed in a way that they are neutral with respect to the total burdens from rail track charging, i.e., additional charges would be levied on high noise 33 We discount the option to allocate the revenues to the infrastructure manager, because they do not reflect infrastructure costs. 93 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ polluters while low noise polluters would receive a bonus. Penalty and bonus payments would balance after aggregation. This scheme would be comparable to the charging scheme for heavy goods vehicles on motorways according to Directive 2006/38/EC (variant of differentiating the charges on the base of EURO emissions standards). The recast of Railway Directive 2001/14/EC foresees the differentiation of rail track charges according to noise (see [Com(2010) 475] Article 31. There are several options to be analysed: Differentiation of rail track charges according to measured noise emissions (see Section 5.1.1 ); Differentiation of charges for wagons according to their noise classification (see Section 5.1.2 ); Differentiation of charges for trains according to the composition of wagons (see Section 5.1.3 ); Bonus payments for new and retrofitted cars (see Section 5.1.4 ); Combined bonus systems (see Section 5.1.5 ). 5.1.1. Differentiation of rail track charges according to measured noise emissions The object of charging would be the train. The train-related noise emissions would have to be measured at critical points in densely populated areas and/or low distances to residential zones and then allocated to the train. The noise mark-up for the track charge then would vary with the noise level, eventually in a progressive way. Such a scheme would perfectly implement the polluter-pays principle. It works independently from the car or wheel technology and cannot be manipulated by wrong classification or changing electronic identification plates. However, it would require many measurement posts or gentries alongside the tracks and a complex information, payment and administration system. As a result, the implementation cost of such a system could be very high.34 As the charge will be paid initially by the train operator, the question is open how the train operator (the railway enterprise) will pass on the costs to the cars’ owners/operators or to the shippers. 5.1.2. Differentiation of charges for wagons according to their noise classification The simplest way to differentiate track charges according to noise is to classify the wagons into noise categories and charge each wagon separately with a noise mark-up. The train operator would pay the charge to the infrastructure manager and send the bill to the car owner or operator. 34 Some form of infrastructure for dynamic measurement and reporting of vehicle noise may be necessary anyway to reflect changes in the vehicle’s status, e.g., wheel out-of-roundness, which significantly affect noise levels; this could be coupled with existing trackside measuring stations. Higher-than-expected noise levels may indicate an urgent need for vehicle maintenance. 94 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ This scheme presupposes the introduction of noise standards for rail wagons (comparable to EURO categories for road vehicles) and a rail-car-based km charge. While the technology of charging, control and monitoring can be kept simple there is one serious caveat: The noise emission curve is shaped in a strictly concave way (“diminishing marginal noise emissions”) with increasing share of low noise cars. This means that a 50% share of low noise cars in a train will lead to a noise reduction of only 1.5 dB(A) compared with a high noise train, so that the exposed population will hardly notice the progress. The share of low noise cars should be very high to achieve a significant noise reduction of a train. If, for instance, 100% of freight cars are equipped with silent brakes the noise reduction can be as much as 10 dB(A), which implies cutting noise by half.35 In conclusion, this scheme is simple to implement, but does not fully reflect the polluter- pays principle, i.e., a train composed of 50% low noise cars would pay reduced charges for 50% of the cars although the noise reduction is negligible. There is a risk, furthermore, that identification plates (e.g., RFIDs) are manipulated to get wagons classified in favourable categories. 5.1.3. Differentiation of charges for trains according to the composition of wagons To avoid the caveats mentioned in Section 5.1.2 on page 94, an alternative is to classify the trains instead of the wagons. In this case, the trains will be classified on the basis of the rail car types from which they are composed. This presupposes the introduction of noise standards for rail wagons (as in 5.1.2 on page 94) and, in addition, the classification of trains on the basis of the expected noise emissions. In the case of freight trains, the problem arises that the emission category of a train would vary with every change of the train composition in marshalling yards (single wagon traffic). Indeed, the problem is that only block trains which do not change wagon types from start to end can be easily classified. In single wagon transport, this classifying is much more difficult as train composition changes with every shunting activity. If charging followed the polluter-pays principle, then adding a few high-noise cars to a low-noise train would imply a very high mark-up for the train, while adding a low-noise car to a high-noise train would not lead to a change of the train charge. This will not be accepted by the market players (i.e.: investment in low noise cars will not pay if these cars are often integrated in high noise trains), so such a scheme should be modified in a more pragmatic way. Nevertheless, the problem remains that the railway undertaking would have to charge the car owners/operators/shippers, accordingly. 5.1.4. Bonus payments for new and retrofitted cars Against the background of the manifold problems of noise-related rail track charging and the possible second round effect of losing market share to road transport, if the noise charges are really high but lead to the desired noise reduction, the easiest way to come to low noise technologies is to pay public subsidies for new low-noise cars and for retrofitting used cars. Certainly this is the approach which will be most readily accepted by the market players. 35 Because of the logarithmic scale of the noise curve, details see Section 3.4 and Figure 23 95 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ While this burden should not fall on the tax payer, nevertheless this instrument can be an element of an overall strategy to introduce an incentive-based system and to achieve a high rate of penetration within a short period of time – much shorter than the lifetime of railway cars, which can be estimated at about 40 years. 5.1.5. Combined bonus systems Whenever charging schemes are considered, companies worry about higher costs and the possibility of losing market shares to the road transport mode. This is a relevant argument, in particular in a political environment which aims at increasing rail freight market shares for environmental reasons and to meet climate challenges. Public financial assistance should be given in the initial phase of a charging scheme with noise mark-ups. This could be implemented by a bonus payment for the purchase of new cars which are equipped with noise reducing technology, and/or for retrofitting used cars. 5.1.6. Current status of track charges As the European Commission has decided on 27 September 2011 to allow charging for emissions of road vehicles (see Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as published OJEU L 269 on 14.10.11 [Dir. 2011/76/EU]) the way is also free for track charges according to noise emissions on railways without regard for total earning of the infrastructure company (see Recast of Railway Directive 2001/14/EC in [Com(2010) 475] Article 31). The European Commission established a working group in 2011 to harmonise and implement Trace Access Charge systems including noise depending instruments. The recommendations from this study shall be considered by this group. UIC has published (in [UIC 2010]) an overview about the current status of noise abatement legislation in different countries. The Netherlands and Switzerland already have track charges with a noise bonus and penalty. Since 2002, Switzerland has granted a bonus for all wagons which are equipped with low noise brakes of 0.01 CHF (0.0075 €, exchange rate November 2010) per axle-kilometre. The bonus is financed by the state, as well as the retrofitting programme of all Swiss wagons. The Netherlands grants a bonus of 0.04 € per wagon kilometre for all low noise wagons. The bonus is granted for two years up to a total maximum of 4,800 € per wagon. In Germany, a system will be introduced in 2012 in which a bonus will be granted only to single freight wagons which are newly retrofitted with low noise equipment like composite brake blocks after the introduction of the bonus scheme. Furthermore, a bonus is planned for whole freight trains which consist of only low noise wagons. In this second part of the bonus scheme, new and recently retrofitted wagons are also considered. Both parts of the bonus will be realised as a discount on the track charge according to wagon kilometres. This will be granted directly from the infrastructure company to the wagon owner. In Switzerland there is a discussion about modifying the existing system. Both the German and Swiss plans include a funding of owners of low-noise freight cars. The funding will be organised and calculated by the infrastructure companies. They rely on the owner notifying 96 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ which freight cars are low-noise. The funding depends on axle-kilometres in both countries. There are also discussions about the costs for the implementation and operation of the accounting system. For VDV (in [KCW 2011]), KCW calculated the operating costs for different kinds of funding systems for low-noise freight wagons. Funding for new wagons which are equipped with LL-blocks (if they are admitted) is currently being discussed. In detail, Germany plans to fund retrofitted freight cars with 0.0028 € per axle-kilometre on German tracks up to a total of 1,688 € per axle. The total comes from estimated investment costs of about 2,120 € per axle minus 432 € as opportunity saving for replacement of an old cast iron block by a new one. The costs for the bonus will be covered 50% by the German state and 50% by a general increase of track prices for all freight trains. In a study for the European Commission, KCW proposes a funding of 0.008 € per axle- kilometre for K-block equipped wagons and 0.0025 € per axle-kilometre for LL-block equipped wagons [KCW 2009]. The figures mentioned are for a funding period of 8 years. For a potential funding period of 12 years the figures are 0.0045 € per axle-kilometre for K- blocks and 0.002 € for LL-blocks. Irmhild Saabel from WASCOSA AG held a presentation at Forum Güterwagen (forum freight wagons) in May 2011 about costs coming from K-blocks [Saabel 2011]. The total costs for blocks and wheels increase by a factor of 1.5 to 2.6. Although K-blocks have a life cycle of about 110,000 to 130,000 km, the wheels need reprofiling each 120,000 to 310,000 km (instead of 450,000 to 500,000 km) and have a life cycle of about only 360,000 to 1,140,000 km (instead of 2,700,000 to 3,500,000 km). Also Mr Gilliam from the AAE reports higher operating costs, from first experiences, caused by abrasion of wheels with modified blocks36. Costs for railway undertakings or wagon owners, related to composite brake blocks, arise not only from investment but also from operating. To harmonise NDTAC on an EU-wide scale in 2011, the Commission established an expert group under the DERC Committee [Rapacz 2011]. The main aim: to discuss and propose practical solutions on how to harmonise NDTAC schemes across Member States, focusing on financial aspects. The result of the work of the group could be a set of guidelines for the Member States on NDTAC harmonisation / implementing measure adopted by the Commission on the basis of the recast. The group is to be restarted in 2012, following the recast developments. 36 Early trials with composite tread brakes in the UK in the 1970s–80s found similar results. 97 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.2. Analysis of regulation possibilities The number of regulations on railway noise in the EU Member States is large. A brief overview of the national noise measures is listed in Annex IV. In 2003, the Working Group on Railway Noise of the European Commission [EC 2003] was of the opinion that “a solution to the major railway noise issues is possible within 10 years if the proposals are implemented as a cost-effective combination of the instruments described”. The most relevant standardisation issues for railway rolling stock have been formulated in the TSI documents (Technical Specifications for Interoperability). In the latest TSI Noise [TSI Noise 2011], the following regulations for noise emissions of rail vehicles are defined: Limits for stationary and pass-by noise for freight wagons and locomotives (for details see Annex II of this study), Operation and maintenance rules, Application to new rolling stock, and Retrofitting programmes. While the rail noise problem is well understood and the technical possibilities are clearly described in the European Commission documents, a timetable for introducing new noise standards – comparable to the Euro standards for HGVs – is missing until now. However, because rail cars are clustered tightly (i.e., grouped as trains), the equipping of rail cars with low noise technology is only effective if a large proportion of the cars use this technology (see Section 1.2 on page 15). Retrofitting the current freight fleet with composite brake blocks will be a slow process since a charging scheme is required that creates an incentive to retrofit without increasing the overall cost of rail freight transport relative to other transport modes. The planned funding in Germany (see Section 5.1.6 on page 96) is not attractive enough for a part of wagon owners, since a negative impact on railway transport costs would be inevitable. Therefore, developing a regulation scheme for a staged process towards low-noise rolling stock must be the heart of a noise abatement strategy for railways. The economic instruments developed in Section 5.1 on page 93 then would serve as incentive engines, for instance as a motivation for top runners to start early with retrofitting or purchasing new noise-reduced cars and for the followers to reduce their costs. 5.2.1. Regulating technology for noise emissions? Currently the discussion focuses on the braking system of rail cars. Most noise in railway operations is caused by rough running surfaces of wheels and tracks. If both can be kept smooth, noise can be reduced significantly [CER UIC 2007]. The conventional cast-iron brake blocks cause a fast deterioration of wheels and rough wheel surfaces and high noise levels are a consequence. If this braking technology can be exchanged by modern composite brake blocks the noise emissions can be reduced by up to 10 dB(A). Retrofitting with composite brake blocks targets brake noise and elevated rolling noise, but there are other sources of noise, locations which require an even greater noise reduction 98 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ than can be gained by retrofitting alone, and there are many railway vehicles which do not have cast-iron tread brakes. Noise reduction can also be achieved by rail- and wheel-tuned absorbers and other technical measures. Furthermore, technological development may yield new technologies in the next years to come. This brings up the question whether the regulation towards a particular noise reduction technology makes sense. In any case, the regulation should allow for alternative technologies if they have proved to achieve at least the same reduction performance. The Japanese Top-runner scheme gives an example for an incentive compatible regulation scheme. The current best technology is set as a standard in the medium term (e.g.: 5–7 years). An alternative way of regulation consists of setting upper limits for local noise emissions. Directive 2002/49/EC gives the basic definitions of indicators, methods of measurement and mapping of exposed population. The Member States are obliged to identify hot spots where noise limits are exceeded and to prepare action plans not later than July 2013. The national legislation for noise control is well developed for new investments which lead to additional traffic and noise production. The big challenge remaining is the noise protection of population alongside existing railway tracks. In principle it would be possible to prepare a noise directive comparable to the Air Quality Directives 1999/30 and 2008/50, which limit the local concentration of exhaust emissions like NOx and PM. Analogously, a noise quality directive could limit the noise levels alongside the tracks at maximum thresholds, depending on the environment and the exposed population. The advantage of emission dependent regulation is that the industry is free to find the best technologies to meet the limit values set. A disadvantage is that it will take some time to achieve a consensus of the Member States on noise limit values. After the painful experiences gained with the introduction of Directive 1999/30 (Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air) one can expect that the Member States will check such values carefully to avoid massive investments in their transport infrastructure for noise abatement. Therefore, the most promising way for the medium term future is to start from the platform of TSIs and the Recast of the Railway Packages (see [TSI Noise 2011] and [Com(2010) 475]). This can be formulated in a way that the expected noise reduction is clearly defined while the technology used is not specified in detail, leaving options open for technological progress. 5.2.2. Regulation authorities The European Railway Agency (ERA), established in 2006 in Valenciennes following the second railway package, is responsible for TSIs and can take responsibility for developing the appropriate noise regulation for railway cars as well. This regulation can be controlled by the national railway regulation authorities – following the first railway package the establishment of national railway regulators is obligatory for each Member State. From this follows that the existing national bodies can be involved in the control of rail noise emissions more intensively and with the necessary administrative power. A close coordination with the road and air transport regulators is necessary to avoid market distortions stemming from unbalanced regulation. 99 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.3. Analysis of stakeholder remarks on economic incentives and regulation Since it is not possible to reflect the position of each railway stakeholder in Europe within this framework, the position of the International Railway Union (UIC) is provided. UIC makes frequent statements of the issue which generally acknowledge the need for noise reduction measures. UIC favours the following strategies [UIC 2010]: Reduce the noise of all new freight vehicles by introducing TSI limit values. Promote the retrofitting of existing freight vehicles with composite brake blocks. Build noise barriers and install noise insulated windows. Pursue further solutions in special cases such as acoustic rail grinding, rail absorbers, wheel absorbers, friction modification against curve squeal, etc. The precondition is regular maintenance. UIC considers LL-brake blocks to be a “promising noise reduction measure; however they still require further improvement before they can be used on a large scale in Europe”. Other options, such as speed limits and land-use planning are rejected [UIC 2008]. Speed limits need to be substantial (50 km/h) to have a considerable noise impact and thus “are not compatible with the operation of a commercially competitive railway”. Land-use planning measures are of little effect, since at distances further than 50 metres from the source “noise level is insensitive to even medium changes in distance”. UIC's main concern is that noise reduction measures might burden the railways in a manner that the competition with the road sector is distorted. The burden may be created either through high investment costs or excessive administrative tasks. “Due to fierce competition, wagon owners do not have sufficient resources to finance the retrofitting of their fleet. Any incentive system should neither weaken the overall market share of the freight sector nor disadvantage any freight market player” [UIC 2011]. Therefore, the cost efficiency of the measures (see Section 5.1 on page 93) is a major UIC decision criterion. For example, the retrofitting with composite brake blocks is considered as more efficient than the construction of noise barriers. UIC argues that an incentive scheme should be developed, where public funds for retrofitting are diverted from the railway network operators to the wagon owners. Additionally, UIC criticises the above- mentioned studies commissioned by the EU [PWC 2007] and [KCW et al. 2009] for its “too low cost assumptions related to the use of composite brake blocks. These assumptions combined with too high an estimate of the average annual mileage may lead to a differential track access charge which is insufficient for promoting retrofitting.” Since direct funding does not take into account the wagon mileage, [UIC 2011] proposes a bonus system combined with access charges: “national authorities should fund the retrofitting of freight wagons by means of a noise reduction bonus … [which] would be granted based on the mileage travelled on lines of the respective national networks. The bonus would compensate the investment costs as well as the additional operating, transaction and administrative costs.” 100 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ In an interview with the authors in July 2011, Mr Kerth from VDV mentioned that the total costs for retrofitting are about 0.008 € per axle-km if the additional operating costs and financing costs are included in the calculation. Currently, the interest of the wagon owners in retrofitting existing wagons due to this funding scheme is very low. A problem for the rail sector can also rise because part of the financing of the bonus system will be financed by an increase of track prices for the total freight train sector. This increase also affects existing wagons which are already equipped with composite brake blocks. The press release of VDV and VPI concerning the financing of the bonus from July 5th 2011 announces the 50% share of the rail sector as unfair [VDV VPI 2011]. It is the first time a transportation mode would be burdened by costs for noise and it would only fund recently retrofitted wagons, while existing low-noise or new-build wagons have to carry the increased track prices. In general, the planned funding scheme in Germany is accepted by the rail sector as it is a direct funding of wagon owners and the system is not too complicated. The implementation costs seem to be acceptable (see the elaborations in [KCW 2011]). Nevertheless, many details still have to be clarified and agreed, such as the size of the bonus and its financing. Also the inclusion of additional operating costs is still in discussion. If they are included, this could lead to a lower share of the German state as this part of the funding is limited to 152 million Euros per year [VDV-2011-2]. VDV expects only 15% share of costs will be carried by the Germany state if the additional operating costs remain to the rail sector. UIC, CER, UIRR, ERFA, EIM and UIP comment in their position paper on a Consultation document of the Commission concerning rail noise abatement measures in 2007 [UIC et al. 2007]. In this respect they point out that the funding scheme should not burden the rail freight sector with additional costs and the funding and monitoring scheme should not be cost-intensive itself. 101 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 102 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. CONCLUSIONS Reducing railway noise is an important activity for the environment and citizens' health in Europe and for the acceptance of the railways as a driving force for ecological and economic development of Europe. Therefore, the acceptance of railways by citizens living near railway lines, especially the main rail freight corridors, is vital. In freight corridors, the number of trains will increase, and so noise for the citizens will increase as well. Therefore, measures to reduce noise levels are essential to prevent health risks and to have the acceptance of the neighbours. Without this acceptance, the risk remains that the increase of capacity on main railway lines will be inhibited for a long period of time, which will cause losses for the rail sector and for the total economy. 6.1. Recommendations of measures The recommendations cover the following three main aspects, considering the revival of the rail sector as one of the most important measures for greening transportation and meeting climate change targets: identifying effective technical measures; providing effective regulation and economic incentive schemes which do not distort competition with other transportation modes; funding the necessary investments. Technical Measures On the technical side, the noise reduction measures focus on two pillars: vehicle-related measures and infrastructure-related measures. There are several vehicle-related measures: LL-blocks: One of the main sources of railway noise is freight wagons, particularly those with cast-iron tread-brake blocks. The cast-iron blocks damage the running surface of the wheels, making the surface rough and increasing the noise level at the wheel-rail interface. High-speed trains and passenger trains use disc brakes rather than tread brakes; new vehicles can be fitted with composite tread brake blocks (K-blocks), but these are not suitable for retrofitting. There are still about 370,000 freight wagons with cast iron brakes which are worth being retrofitted in Europe, and finding a cost-effective composite brake block replacement (LL-blocks) for retrofitting is a priority for many railway operators. The current estimate for retrofitting the 370,000 freight wagons is between 2.2 and 4.2 billion Euros, but the impact of LL-blocks on wheelset maintenance costs is yet to be established. Noise can also be a problem on railways with no freight traffic, so other vehicle-related measures are important: Wheel absorbers are used to reduce rolling noise and can be effective against curve squeal. A range of wheel noise absorption technologies and products have been developed. The interaction of wheel noise absorbers and any track noise absorbers needs to be considered for optimum system performance. 103 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ A number of modified wheels have been developed in recent years but the accident with an ICE in Eschede in 1998 has left the industry wary of modified wheels for high-speed trains. However, these developments have had significant noise reduction potential and it is worth continuing research in this area. Vehicle-mounted top-of-rail friction modifiers (TOR FM) or flange lubrication systems can be used to combat curve squeal (as well as to reduce wear). A range of technologies and products are available. These are appropriate for closed systems where the vehicles are regularly monitored and maintained, such as local commuter networks; urban systems also have tighter curves and consequently more problems with curve squeal. Pantograph noise is a problem with high-speed electric trains, particularly since the pantograph is usually higher than noise barriers, if present. Aerodynamic designs like shielding or special materials like porous coating of pantographs can be used to reduce aerodynamic noise. Additionally, new rolling stock, introduced since the year 2000, already have lower noise emissions by 10 dB(A) in comparison with equipment produced in the 1960s and 1970s. This shows the importance of replacing old rolling stock as soon as possible. The effectiveness of vehicle-related measures has the best cost-benefit ratio. So the introduction of composite brakes on freight wagons should be approached with the highest priority. Other measures can be done complementarily. A wide variety of infrastructure-related technologies have been developed to combat noise and vibration. Mostly these fall into three categories: Noise barriers and bunds are usually large earth mounds creating an artificial cutting for the railway; these require several metres of land to the side of the railway which is not normally an option for existing railways or urban environments. Noise barriers, on the other hand, are suitable for existing railways and urban environments, but to be effective they need to be at least two metres high. Noise barriers have a poor visual impact, especially since they are a target for graffiti; they create problems for track access and incur a high on-going maintenance cost. Special acoustic enclosures are sometimes used to surround the railway above as well as at the sides. Track-side lubricators are a traditional method of reducing curve squeal (as well as reducing wear) and friction modifiers are used also to reduce brake squeal (in shunting yards, for example). Top-of-rail friction modifiers (TOR FM) are also effective at reducing corrugation (a major noise source) on the low rail in curves. Resilient track forms and technologies include: floating slab track, ballast mats, resilient base plates, rail pads of various stiffnesses, rail clips that clamp the web under the railhead, tuned rail dampers, and booted sleepers. Tunnels under urban environments, such as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and Crossrail in London, are targets for such technologies. (As noted earlier, the interaction of wheel noise absorbers and track noise absorbers needs to be considered for optimum system performance.) 104 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional considerations: Wheels and rails need to be monitored so that (a) out-of-round wheels (and especially wheels with flats) can be turned, and (b) corrugated rails can be ground. Out-of-round wheels and corrugated rails are a source of increased rail noise, as well as a cause of increased wheel-rail forces and consequent damage. Track geometry and substructure should be designed and maintained to avoid sudden changes in direction or stiffness, both of which increase noise emission, wheel-rail forces and consequent damage. Rail joints should be avoided (insulated rail joints are an exception) and continuously welded rail used instead; expansion joints should be scarfed. Large infrastructure-related investments have already been made in several countries, including Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, France, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Portugal. These measures are necessary, particularly in densely populated areas. Noise-reducing infrastructure-related measures are usually introduced with new construction or major redevelopment of railway links according to new standards where these measures are a requirement, whereas for the existing infrastructure there is no obligation to lower noise. Intelligent combinations of vehicle- and infrastructure-related measures help to bring rail noise down to long-term sustainability levels for a reasonable cost. The analyses of this study show that infrastructure-related measures can be reduced if effective vehicle-related measures are also taken. Therefore, a fast retrofit of the existing freight wagon fleet is the most urgent action to be taken. Regulation and economic incentive schemes International examples such as the Japanese top-runner scheme37 underline that a sound regulation scheme is the heart of any successful pollution reduction strategy. This holds in particular for noise, because an effective reduction of noise through vehicle-related measures presupposes that almost all internationally operating rail wagons are equipped with low-noise technology. The TSI Noise is an appropriate basis for noise regulation in the medium and long term. Presently, the standards for noise emissions are valid for new or modified vehicles only. In the medium and long-term view the TSI can become compulsory for all vehicles. The time schedule for validation of the noise levels for all vehicles should be long enough to allow for an adjustment of technology without major additional investment costs. We propose a time period of 10–12 years, which covers 1–2 revision cycles and is half of the normal life time of rolling stock (a quarter for freight wagons). The noise levels in TSI Noise should also be lowered from time to time according to technical development. Economic incentive schemes consist of charging and bonus/penalty systems. Rail track charging is an important element of an incentive-compatible penetration strategy for low- noise rail technology. The principles and request for introducing noise emissions into the track access charging system are formulated in the Recast of the First Railway Package (proposed in 2010) and can be implemented by the Member States as the revision of 37 This scheme aims at reducing energy consumption and climate impact by dynamic setting of emission targets on the basis of current best practice (“top runners’ performance”). 105 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Directive 2006/38/EC (Eurovignette) has been adopted on 27 September 2011 (see [Dir. 2011/76/EU]) as the existing Directive 2001//14/EC already allows NDTAC if the same is allowed for other transportation means. The Directive 2011/76/EU allows for mark-ups reflecting environmental costs (including noise) for HGVs on motorways and highways. This means that in the future a balance can be found between road and rail pricing for noise emissions which does not disturb competition between the transport modes. It is important to take into consideration that a substantial noise reduction requires that a large proportion of rail cars are equipped with modern technology. This suggests that lower tariffs should be offered only to trains which consist entirely of noise-reduced cars. Such a system can be implemented without installing further electronic devices in the rail cars, if an effective reporting system is established. The example of the proposed German rail track charging and retrofit-funding scheme shows that this requirement can be fulfilled. This underlines that the transaction cost of a noise-differentiated charging system can be held low, which is an important argument, because many objections against the introduction of such systems are based on the presumed high transaction costs. Further alternative or complementary incentives can be introduced through bonus/penalty systems. In particular, in the transitory phase, bonus payments can motivate the rail car operators to switch to new technology as early as possible. The railway companies will call for wide use of this instrument if the state pays for the bonus. From the viewpoint of setting incentives right, at least a part of financial contributions should be covered by the rail car owners/operators. Funding schemes After assessing the best combinations of technical and economic measures, the financial implications have to be considered and the impacts on stakeholders have to be analysed. In our view, the adjustment of braking systems is the most urgent and promising strategy, complemented by infrastructure-related measures at noise hot-spots. There are different funding sources, which have to be developed for these measures. Infrastructure-related measures are financed by the state and/or the rail infrastructure managers. In the latter case, the additional costs for the infrastructure managers are passed on to the railway undertakings through the rail track charges. This implies that the state will have to cover a substantial part of the infrastructure-related costs if the competitive balance between road and rail is not to be affected.38 Vehicle-related measures have to be financed by the car owners/operators in the long term. In the short and medium term, subsidies by the state or the European Union, for instance bonus payments for retrofitting, can accelerate the change of technology. Member States will have to decide on the magnitudes of bonus payments and the method of refinancing. In this context it is crucially important that the territoriality principle will be fully applied with the rail track charging system, which means that retrofitted rail cars get a lower tariff regardless of which country they have been licensed in and where the owner/operator is located. The vehicle-related funding scheme should be a limited programme for some years (e.g., 10 years) and should focus on retrofitting existing vehicles. Existing low-noise vehicles can also be included if the cost of the noise-reduction measure can be verified (former 38 Note that the mark-ups for noise, as suggested by the Commission, are rather low for HGVs on motorways and freeways and the Member States are not obliged to implement them. 106 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ retrofitting without funding of the measure, price differences between normal and low noise vehicle of the same type). Funding and regulation schemes should be harmonised in the EU to minimise distortions of competition as many freight transport companies are operating internationally, carrying a high share of freight rail cars cross-border. “Noise leakages” should be avoided, which could occur if noisy freight cars, registered in a “low noise cost” country, are operating in “high noise cost” countries. Therefore a common regulation scheme is necessary, accompanied by a widely harmonised system of pricing and funding. Variations from this general rule could only be accepted to the positive side, i.e., to motivate top runners to start early with appropriate actions. In this context, the trade-off between low noise policy and competition policy could be more balanced in favour of low noise in the medium-term. The reason is that rail freight as a whole may lose market share in the medium term if the noise problems cannot be solved appropriately, and the resistance of the affected population might impede full capacity utilisation and the removal of capacity bottlenecks. 6.2. Recommendations for parliamentarian activities To support and accelerate the introduction of noise reduction measures, the European Parliament could – in the second reading of the Recast of First Railway Package – only accept the Recast if the following issues are fulfilled: Including an obligation for a harmonisation of charging of railway noise in all Member States within a reasonable short time period. Integrate the dependence of the introduction of Noise Depending Track Access Charges (NDTAC) from the same introduction in road transport. Including an obligation to create “Noise Depending Track Access Charges (NDTAC)” for the introduction and use of noise reducing measures in each Member State according to the levels in TSI Noise (COMM. DEC. 2011/229/EU). o The NDTAC could include funding / covering of higher operational costs if the noise reduction measure causes extra costs. o The NDTAC could also include a significant special bonus for trains which are completely equipped with noise reduction measures (in addition to funding of individual equipment of single rolling stock units). Including an obligation for the infrastructure managers to maintain the infrastructure in a way to avoid noise caused by poor infrastructure conditions (rail roughness). Additional to this, the European Parliament could request the European Commission: Creates an European Funding Scheme for vehicle-related noise-reduction measures, and to motivate Member States to introduce noise-reduction funding for internationally operating rolling stock. Modifies the latest TSI Noise, introduced with Commission Decision (2011/229/EC) of 4 April 2011, so that the maximum noise levels are also obligatory for existing rolling stock about 10–12 years after introduction of the modification of TSI Noise. 107 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Lowers the maximum noise levels introduced by TSI Noise in a staged process for the long-term future, with adjusted obligations for new and existing rolling stock (top runner scheme). To harmonise the competitiveness between rail and road sectors, the European Parliament could request the European Commission: Prepares a Directive for a network-wide regulation and charging of lorry noise, at least for the TEN-T roads (comprehensive network) – eventually embedded in a concept of full internalisation of external costs under explicit consideration of noise- reduction targets, extending the optional noise-related motorway charging as in Directive 2011/76/EU. To lower noise at hot spots which cannot be solved by the introduction of vehicle-related measures, the European Parliament could: Observe the introduction and fulfilment of noise action plans concerning hot spots in rail and road sectors. Include noise-reduction measures at noise hot spots of the TEN-T (comprehensive network including existing links and nodes) into the EU funding facilities (in particular the Connecting Europe Facility). 108 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ REFERENCES 16. BImSchV 2006, Sixteenth regulation implementing the Federal Pollution Control Act (Traffic Noise Ordinance - 16 BImSchV);Germany (Original language: Sechzehnte Verordnung zur Durchführung des Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetzes (Verkehrslärmschutzverordnung - 16. BImSchV); Deutschland) (http://www.gesetze- im-internet.de/bimschv_16/BJNR010360990.html last visit January 3rd 2012). AEA et al. 2004, AEA Technology team, UIC, UIP, UIRR CER and UNIFE; Status and options for the reduction of noise emission from the existing European rail freight wagon fleet; January 10th 2004. ALPNAP 2007-1, Heimann D., de Franceschi M., Emeis S., Lercher P., Seibert P. (Eds.), 2007: Living near the transit route - air pollution, noise and health in the Alps. ALPNAP brochure. Università degli Studi di Trento, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Trento, Italy, 20 pp. ALPNAP 2007-2, Heimann D., de Franceschi M., Emeis S., Lercher P., Seibert P. (Eds.), 2007: Air Pollution, Traffic Noise and Related Health Effects in the Alpine Space − A Guide for Authorities and Consulters; ALPNAP comprehensive report; Università degli Studi di Trento, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Trento, Italy, 335 pp. Blidberg_2011,Karin Blidberg, Railway noise issues in Sweden, Presentation held on 7th Annual Workshop on Railway Noise, Paris November 8-9, 2011. Blumensaadt_2011, Jens Erik Blumensaadt Jensen, Current noise mitigation, Railway noise issues in Denmark, Presentation held on 7th Annual Workshop on Railway Noise, Paris November 8-9, 2011. BS 8233:1999, British Standard: Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings; Ð Code of practice; ISBN 0 580 33009; published under the authority of the Standards Committee and comes into effect on 15 August 1999. Bukovnik 2010, Monika Bukovnik (psiA Consult GmbH): Ausgewählte Kapitel zur Eisenbahnlärmbekämpfung (selected aspects concerning rail noise abatement), Presentation at University of Natural Ressources and Life Sciences; Vienna 2010 (http://www.rali.boku.ac.at/fileadmin/_/H85/H856/_temp_/Bahn2_WS10.pdf (last visit July 14th 2011)). Bundes-LärmV 2006, Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management on the methods and technical specifications for the collection of ambient noise (the Federal Environmental Noise Regulations - Federal LärmV) Federal Law Gazette II No. 144/2006; April 5th 2006; Austria (Original language: Verordnung des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft über die Methoden und tech-nischen Spezifikationen für die Erhebung des Umgebungslärms (Bundes-Umgebungslärmschutzverordnung – Bundes-LärmV) StF: BGBl. II Nr. 144/2006; 5. April 2006;Österreich). BVU INTRAPLAN 2008, BVU consultant for Transport + Umwelt GmbH Intraplan Consult GmbH Dr. Kristina Birn Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Ulrich Mann: Forecast of transport demand and the numbers of trains on the Upper Rhine route 2025, on behalf of the Government 109 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Council of Freiburg; January 2008 (Original language: BVU Beratergruppe Verkehr + Umwelt GmbH Intraplan Consult GmbH Dr. Kristina Birn Dipl.-Ing. Hans-Ulrich Mann: Prognose der Verkehrsnachfrage und der Zugzahlen auf der Oberrhein-strecke 2025; im Auftrag des Regierungspräsidiums Freiburg; Januar 2008). CE Delft 2011, Arno Schroten; Huib van Essen: External Cost Calculator - Methodology report Delft; CE Delft, September 2011. CE Delft et al. 2011, Huib van Essen, Arno Schroten, Matthijs Otten (CE Delft), Daniel Suter, Christoph Schreyer, R Arno Schroten; Remo Zandonella, Markus Mainach (INFRAS), Claus Doll (Fraunhofer-ISI): External Costs of Transport in Europe - Study to the International Union of Railways (UIC); Delft, October 2011. CER UIC 2007, CER and UIC: A 2007 report on the state of the art - Noise Reduction in Rail Freight; Authors: Jakob Oertli, SBB (jakob.oertli@sbb.ch), Peter Hübner, UIC (peter.huebner@bluewin.ch); Version: March, 2008. Com(2010) 475, Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a single European railway area (Recast), introduced by the European Commission on September 17th 2010) (COM(2010) 475). Com 2002/735/C, COMMISSION DECISION of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem of the trans- European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 96/48/EC (notified under document number C(2002) 1952) (2002/735/EC). DB 2010, German railway: Position Paper, - Efficient noise protection - retrofitting of freight wagons conveying; German Railways - Transport Policy; Berlin, September 2010 (Original language: Deutsche Bahn: Positionspapier - Effizienter Lärmschutz – Umrüstung von Güterwagen Fördern; Deutsche Bahn AG – Verkehrspolitik; Berlin, September 2010). DEFRA 2010, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Noise action plans: web-site where all noise action plans of the UK status March 15th, 2010 are provided; see http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/noise/environmental-noise/action- plans/ (last visit January 3rd 2012). Dir. 96/48/EC, Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system. Dir. 2001/14/EC, Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification. Dir. 2002/49/EC, Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise. Dir. 2008/57/EC, Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community. Dir. 2011/76/EU, Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as published OJEU L 269 on 14.10.11. 110 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ DEFRA 2010, Noise Action Plan Major Railways (outside first round agglomerations). Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006, as amended. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Crown Copyright, 16th March 2010, London. Dublin City 2008, Dublin Agglomeration Action Plan Relating to the Assessment & Management of Environmental Noise. Doublin City Baile Atha Cliath, Doublin. Dörsch 2009, Dr. Stefan Dörsch: State of the Art - UIC-Project, Technology of Composite Brake Blocks; Paris, 10.11.2009; presentation in Paris November, 10th 2009. EC 2003, Working Group Railway Noise of the European Commission: Position Paper on the European strategies and priorities for railway noise abatement Luxemburg, Publications Office, 2003. EC 2011, REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the directive on environmental noise in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2002/49/EC from June, 1st 2011. EEA 2/2010, European Environment Agency: EEA report No. 2/2010: Towards a resource-efficient transport system; Copenhagen, 2010; Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union, 2010. EEA 11/2010, European Environment Agency: EEA Technical report No 11/2010: Good practice guide on noise exposure and potential health effects; Copenhagen, 2010; Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union, 2010. EEA 7/2011, European Environment Agency: EEA Report 7/2011: Laying the foundations for greener transport, TERM 2011: transport indicators tracking progress towards environmental targets in Europe. EIONET 2011, EEA Reporting Obligations Database (ROD). European Environment Agency (EEA), Copenhagen (URL: rod.eionet.europa.eu). ELPA, ELPA: Rail Noise and Wear - Out Reduction Technology; http://www.railway- technology.com/contractors/noise/elpa/; last visit: January, 3rd 2012. EP 2011, European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 November 2011 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a single European railway area (recast) (COM(2010)0475 – C7-0268/2010 – 2010/0253(COD)) see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011- 0503&language=EN (last visit: January 5th 2011). ETC 2010, European Topic Centre on Land Use and Spatial Information: Population exposure to noise from different sources in Europe; File “END_DF4_Results_101005_ETCLUSI_inclBG&SW.xls” to download via “http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet- circle/etcte/library?l=/2009_subvention/113noise/data&vm=detailed&sb=Title”; last visit January, 3rd 2012. 111 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ EUROSABOT 2011, Web-site of the EUROSABOT-Project: http://ec.europa.eu/research/growth/gcc/projects/in-action-rail.html; last visit January, 3rd 2012. EuroTrain, Web-site of the EuroTrain-Project: http://europetrain.uic.org/; last visit: January, 3rd 2012 Freiburg 2009, City of Freiburg: Noise action plan according to 47d of Federal Pollution Control Act; Freiburg, December 2009) (Original Language: Stadt Freiburg i. Br.: Lärmaktionsplan gemäß § 47d Bundes-Immissionsschutzgesetz; Freiburg, Dezember 2009. Gilliam 2008, Dietmar Gilliam, AAE Ahaus-Alstätter railway: Practice experiences with K-Blocks- presentation on VAP Autumn Meeting November 2008 (Original language: Dietmar Gilliam, AAE Ahaus-Alstätter Eisenbahn: „Praktische Erfahrungen mit K-Sohlen“ - Präsentation auf der VAP-Herbsttagung November 2008). Hemsworth 2006, Brian Hemsworth: Noise Reduction at Source - EU Funded Projects; presentation held on conference RailNoise 2006; Pisa, 9-10 November 2006. Hemsworth 2008, Hemsworth, Brian (2008): Environmental Noise Directive, Development of Action Plans for Railways, UIC April 2008. Hiensch et. al 2007, Martin Hiensch, Babette Dirks, Jaap Horst and Jakko van der Stelt; Rail head optimisation to reach a sustainable solution preventing Railway Squeal Noise - presentation at INTER-NOISE 2007; Istanbul, Turkey, 28-31 AUGUST 2007. ISO 1996-2:1987, International Norm: Acoustics - Description and measurement of environmental noise - Part 2: Acquisition of data pertinent to land use. Justice and Environment 2009a, Make some Noise. Shadow Report on the Implementation of the Environmental Noise in Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia. Justice and Environment, European Network of Environmental Law Organisations. LIFE+ programme of the European Commission. Dvorakova, 2009. Justice and Environment 2009b, Make some Noise. Shadow Report on the Implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive – Estonia. Justice and Environment, European Network of Environmental Law Organisations. LIFE+ programme of the European Commission. Dvorakova, 2009. KCW et al. 2009, KWC, Steer Davies Gleave, TU Berlin (2009): Analyses of preconditions for the implementation and harmonisation of noise-differentiated track access charges - final report; submitted to European Commission, TREN/E2/287-2008. KCW 2011, KCW GmbH: Study on measuring transaction costs of various incentive schemes for the retrofitting of the existing fleet of freight cars-composite brake blocks; Berlin, 2011 (Original language: KCW GmbH:, Studie zur Ermittlung von Transaktionskosten verschiedener Anreizmodelle für die Umrüstung der Güterwagen- Bestandsflotte auf Verbundstoff-Bremssohlen; Berlin, 2011). King et al. 2009, Implementation of the EU Environmental Noise Directive: Lessons from the first phase of strategic noise mapping and action planning in Ireland. E. A. King, E. Murphy, H.J. Rice, Trinity College Dublin and University College Dublin. 112 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Kummer et al. 2006, Sebastian Kummer, Philipp Nagl, Jan-Philipp Schlaak: The efficiency of rail infrastructure construction projects on the example of the Brenner base tunnel; Vienna University of Economics and Business, Institute for Supply chain Management 2006 (Original language: Sebastian Kummer, Philipp Nagl, Jan-Philipp Schlaak, Zur Effizienz von Schieneninfrastrukturbau-Vorhaben am Beispiel des Brenner- Basistunnels - Forschungsbericht 1/2006; Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien. Institut für Transportwirtschaft und Logistik 2006). Lercher et al. 2007, Heimann D., de Franceschi M., Emeis S., Lercher P., Seibert P. (Eds.), 2007: Living near the transit route—air pollution, noise and health in the Alps. - ALPNAP brochure; Università degli Studi di Trento, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Ambientale, Trento, Italy, 20 ppt. Licitra 2006, Gaetano Licitra; Railway noise mitigation at source: an overview of possible solutions; presentation held on conference RailNoise 2006; Pisa, 9-10 November 2006. Madshus and Kaynia 2000, C. Madshus, M. Kaynia: High-speed railway lines on soft ground: dynamic behaviour at critical train speed; Journal of Sound and Vibration (2000) 231(3), 689}701. Mather 2006, Dr. Matthias Mather, Rail Environmental Center, Noise sources in transport and their significance: Rail transport, Cologne May, 16th 2006 (http://www.fv-leiserverkehr.de/pdf-dokumenten/Seminar_Verkehrslaerm/5-Mather.pdf (last visit: January 3rd 2012) (Original language: Dr. Matthias Mather, Bahn Umwelt Zentrum, „Geräuschquellen im Verkehr und ihre Bedeutung: Schienenverkehr“ Köln 16. Mai 2006). Müller et al. 2003, Bernhard Müller, Erwin Jansen, Fred de Beer (2003): UIC curve squeal project wp 3 – Tool Box of existing measures (http://www.uic.org/IMG/pdf/annex_1.3.pdf; last visit: January 3rd 2012). NOISE 2011, Noise Observation and Information Service for Europe – NOISE; Web-site where Noise maps according to Directive 2002/49/EC are provided; http://noise.eionet.europa.eu/index.html (last visit January, 3rd 2012). ÖBB - BMVIT 2008, Environmental Noise Action Plan, Austria, 2008, Part B11 - railroad tracks in the jurisdiction of the Federal Minister for Transport, Innovation and Technology (Original language: Umgebungslärm-Aktionsplan Österreich 2008, Teil B11 - Schienenstrecken, im Zuständigkeitsbereich der Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie). Offenburg 2009, City of Offenburg: Noise reduction planning – Noise action plan 2009; Offenburg 2009 (Original language: Stadt Offenburg: Lärmminderungsplanung – Lärmaktionsplan 2009, Offenburg 2009). Pokolainen 2011, Erkki Poikolainen, Noise Mapping - Low height barrier - Finnish experiences; Presentation held on 7th Annual Workshop on Railway Noise, Paris November 8-9, 2011. PPG 24 2006, Department for Communities and Local Government: Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise; Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU, 5th May 2006. 113 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PWC 2007, PWC: Impact assessment study on rail noise abatement measures addressing the existing fleets - Final Report prepared on behalf of the European Commission Directorate General Energy and Transport; Reference Tren/A1/46-2005; December 10, 2007. Q-City 2009, Project Quiet City Transport (Q-City) DELIVERABLE D5.3; Brussels – Quiet tram vehicles on quiet tracks Performance report of applied squeal measures; Brussels, December 2009. Rapacz 2011, Piotr Rapacz, EU Rail Noise Policy – perspective of DG MOVE, Presentation held on 7th Annual Workshop on Railway Noise, Paris November 8-9, 2011. ReMR 1996, Ministry Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment: Calculation and Measurement Regulations Rail Traffic ‘96; November 27, 2001 (http://www.stillerverkeer.nl/rmv/RMVR/RMVR96.pdf; last visit January, 3rd 2012) (Original language: Ministerie Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer: Reken-en Meetvoorschrift Railverkeerslawaai ‘96; 27 november 2001). Saabel 2011, Irmhild Saabel, WASCOSA AG: Liberalisation, Noise and Safety– how much costs are caused by ECM, TSI Noise and Viareggio; Presentation on Forum Güterwagen May, 19th 2011 (Original language: Irmhild Saabel, WASCOSA AG: Liberalisierung, Lärm und Sicherheit – was kosten ECM, TSI Noise und Viareggio; Präsentation auf dem Forum Güterwagen; 19. Mai 2011). SBB 2011, Swiss Federal railway: Brochure Silence please, (http://www.sbb.ch/content/sbb/de/desktop/sbb-konzern/die-sbb-bewegt-die- schweiz/der-umwelt verpflichtet/laerm/_jcr_content/relatedPar/contextmenu_1/downloadList/download_1.s pooler.download.pdf; last visit:January, 3rd 2012) Original language: Schweizer Bundesbahn: – Broschüre Ruhe bitte!. SBB Lärmschutz, www.laerm-sbb.ch/ ; web-site from Swiss Federal Railway (SBB) containing public information about content and current status of noise protection program and about funding possibilities for noise reduction measures for private persons. Schreckenberg et al. 2011, Dirk Schreckenberg, Wolfgang Eberle, Gunther Möller: Survey of sleep due to harassment and rail traffic noise in the Middle Rhine Valley and Rheingau / Rheinhessen; Noise abatement Bd. 6 /2011) No. 3; Mai 2011Original language: Dirk Schreckenberg, Wolfgang Eberle, Gunther Möller: Befragung zur Belästigung und zu Schlafstörungen durch Schienenverkehrslärm im Mittelrheintal und Rheingau/Rheinhessen, Lärmbekämpfung Bd. 6 (2011) Nr. 3; Mai 2011. Sierra 2011, Marta Ruiz Sierra, Noise Control Measures in Spanish Planning and Management, Presentation held on 7th Annual Workshop on Railway Noise, Paris November 8-9, 2011. SUEKI et al. 2009, Takeshi Sueki, Mitsuru Ikeda, Takehisa Takaishi: Aerodynamik Noise Reduction using porous Material and their Application to High-speed Pantopraphs; QR of RTRI, Vol 50, No. 1, February 2009. Talotte 2000, C. Talotte (SNCF): “Aerodynamic noise: A critical survey”; Journal of Sound and Vibration (2000) 231(3). 114 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Talotte et al. 2003, C. Talotte, P.-E. Gautier, D.J. Thompson, C. Hanson: Identification, modelling and reduction potential of railway noise sources: a critical survey; Journal of Sound and Vibration 267 (2003) 447–468. Thameslink 2004 Temple Environmental Consultants Ltd: Noise and Vibration Specialist Report; prepared for Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, June 2004. [Thameslink 2005 Inquiry: CD219]. Thameslink 2005, Temple Environmental Consultants Ltd: Blackfriars Noise Assessment Report; prepared for Network Rail [Thameslink 2005 Inquiry: CD220]. Thompson 2008-1, David Thompson: Noise control through rail grinding; Presentation at IPG-Rail Final Seminar; Doorn, The Netherlands, December 2008. Thompson 2008-2, David Thompson: Rail dampers; Presentation at IPG-Rail Final Seminar; Doorn, The Netherlands, December 2008. Thompson and Gautier 2006, D J Thompson (University of Southampton) and P-E Gautier (SNCF): Review of research into wheel/rail rolling noise reduction; JRRT79 IMechE 2006JRRT79 IMechE 2006. Transalpine, www.transalpine.com; Web-side of the committee transalpine for planning the railway corridor between Turin and Lyon (last visit February 15th 2012). TSI Noise 2006, COMMISSION DECISION of 23 December 2005 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock — noise’ of the trans-European conventional rail system (notified under document number C(2005) 5666). TSI Noise 2011, COMM. DEC. (2011/229/EC) of 4 April 2011 concerning the technical specifications of interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock – noise’ of the trans-European conventional rail system. UIRR 2010, International Union of combined; Road-Rail transport companies: UIRR Annual Report 2010; Rue Montoyer 31/box 11, B-1000 Brussels, Brussels 2010. UIC et al. 2007, UIC, CER, UIRR, ERFA, EIM and UIP: Position paper on CONSULTATION DOCUMENT OF THE COMMISSION'S SERVICES - Rail noise abatement measures addressing the existing fleet; July, 27th 2007. [UIC 2008], Brian Hemsworth - Noise Consultant LLP: Environmental Noise Directive Development of Action Plans for Railways; prepared for International Union of Railways (UIC). UIC 2010, International Union of Railways (UIC): Railway Noise in Europe – A 2010 report on the state of the art; ISBN: 978 2 7461 1880 5; Paris, September 2010. UIC 2011, Oertli, Jakob (2011): Railway Freight Noise Reduction, 6th annual workshop: bringing things together, in UIC Focus, No 6 April 2011. van den Dool 2007, ir. Ph.(Philip) H. van den Dool: Rail Dampers, rail infrastructure gets quiet; presentation at INTER-NOISE Istanbul, Turkey, AUGUST, 31st 2007. 115 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ VBUSch 2006, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety and Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development Preliminary calculation method for the environmental noise at railways) – VBUSch; published May, 10th 2006 (Original language: Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit und Bundesminsterium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung; “Vorläufige Berechnungsmethode für den Umgebungslärm an Schienenwegen; Veröffentlich im Bundesanzeiger 22. Mai 2006). VDV 2011, Association of German Transport Companies: Rail Noise: provide incentives for retrofitting of freight wagons; Press Release Berlin, May 20, 2011, (Original language: Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen: „Schienenlärm: Anreize zur Umrüstung von Güterwagen setzen“; Presseinformation Berlin, 20.Mai 2011). VDV VPI 2011, Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen und Vereinigung der Privatgüterwageninteressierten: Lärmabhängiges Trassenpreissystem des Bundes ist ungerecht; Pressemitteilung Nummer 15, Köln, 05.07.2011 Association of German Transport Companies and Association of private freight waggon owners: Noise- dependent pricing system is unfair press release No. 15, Cologne, 05.07.2011. Wang et al. 2000, A. Wang, S. J. Cox, D. Gosling, J. E. W. Prudhoe: Railway bridge noise control with resilient baseplates; Journal of Sound and Vibration (2000) 231(3), 907}911. WHO 2009, World Health Organization: Night noise guidelines for Europe; WHO Regional Office for Europe Scherfigsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark ; ISBN 978 92 890 4173 7; http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf, last visit January, 3rd 2012). WHO JRC 2011, WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn Office, WHO Regional Office: Burden of disease from environmental noise Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe; ISBN: 978 92 890 0229 5; http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf, last visit: January 3rd 2012. ZEUS Möhler 2005, ZEUS GmbH and Möhler+Partner; Daytime-related harassment by road and rail traffic noise - method and empirical results; www.verkehrslaermwirkung.de/05UFS2206.pdf (last visit January, 3rd 2012 (Original language: ZEUS GmbH and Möhler+Partner: Tageszeitsbezogene Belästigung durch Straßen- und Schienenverkehrslärm - Methode und empirische Ergebnisse). ZEUS Möhler 2010, ZEUS GmbH, Centre for Applied Psychology, Environmental and Social Research - Hagen ; Möhler + Partner, consulting engineers for sound insulation and building physics – Munich: Noise bonus for railways?; study on behalf of Federal Environment Agency; published as Texts 23/2010, ISSN 1862-4804, Postfach 14 06, 06813 Dessau Original language: ZEUS GmbH, Zentrum für angewandte Psychologie, Umwelt- und Sozialforschung - Hagen; Möhler + Partner, Beratende Ingenieure für Schallschutz und Bauphysik - München: Lärmbonus bei der Bahn?, Ist die Besserstellung der Bahn imVergleich zu anderen Verkehrsträgern noch gerechtfertigt?, Studie im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes; erschienen als Texte 23/2010; ISSN 1862- 4804; Herausgeber: Umweltbundesamt, Postfach 14 06, 06813 Dessau-Roßlau. 116 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ANNEX I: ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE EMISSIONS IN MEMBER STATES AND AGGLOMERATIONS Rail noise outside agglomerations Nr of people exposed to different noise bands (Lden) [dB(A)] Nr of people exposed to different noise bands (Lnight) [dB(A)] Country km 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 >75 50-55 55-59 60-64 65-69 >70 Austria 217,300 121,700 47,900 16,900 7,500 194,200 98,900 36,700 13,300 5,600 Belgium 33,300 19,700 16,100 13,400 3,900 25,700 17,200 15,000 7,500 1,800 Czech Republic 270 13,300 2,600 1,100 300 0 6,700 2,000 800 200 0 Denmark 1,776 20,200 5,500 1,900 1,200 100 12,100 3,300 1,600 800 0 Finland 15,100 5,900 2,300 200 0 8,800 4,000 800 0 0 France 1,435 624,200 420,000 250,300 139,500 105,200 519,600 348,400 207,100 112,900 70,000 Germany 17,282 1,588,700 693,400 218,200 87,900 58,000 1,392,500 547,600 175,700 73,100 44,800 Hungary 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ireland 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Italy 591 89,900 61,900 37,300 33,000 24,800 87,000 67,300 35,600 31,300 25,400 Luxembourg 20 100 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Norway 4,500 2,600 2,000 700 900 3,600 2,100 1,300 500 600 Poland 16 900 200 100 0 0 700 100 100 0 0 Portugal 115 21,200 11,600 8,000 7,200 4,400 14,900 9,400 7,500 5,500 1,100 Romania 3,900 1,000 0 0 0 5,500 3,400 700 0 0 Slovenia 68 5,600 2,600 1,100 400 300 4,700 2,400 1,000 400 300 Spain 742 45,700 23,500 11,000 1,600 0 34,900 19,300 6,000 500 0 Sweden 58,100 33,800 12,300 4,800 1,700 43,900 21,200 7,700 2,500 1,200 Switzerland 39,500 23,600 12,500 8,800 3,800 30,400 16,700 10,700 6,100 2,400 United Kingdom 80,800 50,300 32,500 14,100 2,100 56,400 36,400 18,500 3,800 100 Total general 2,862,300 1,480,000 654,600 330,000 212,700 2,441,700 1,199,700 526,800 258,400 153,300 Total EU 27 2,818,300 1,453,800 640,100 320,500 208,000 2,407,700 1,180,900 514,800 251,800 150,300 117 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Rail noise in agglomerations Nr of people exposed to different noise bands (Lden) Nr of people exposed to different noise bands (Lnight) Country Inhabi- tants 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 >75 50-55 55-59 60-64 65-69 >70 Austria 1,610,578 107,000 81,100 57,900 35,500 9,500 101,900 76,700 41,900 28,800 4,100 Bulgaria 2,084,000 18,400 5,800 500 100 0 16,300 6,100 200 0 0 Czech Republic 1,852,955 74,800 59,500 65,900 14,500 0 63,300 69,800 32,000 400 0 Denmark 1,071,714 19,400 7,400 2,600 1,000 100 12,500 4,900 1,500 600 0 Estonia 401,140 10,600 6,900 3,500 900 0 9,000 5,700 2,500 300 0 Finland 560,905 27,500 25,400 16,700 200 0 27,600 21,500 2,000 0 0 France 13,664,912 1,488,600 208,800 117,700 63,500 43,000 1,426,900 148,200 63,700 34,300 12,800 Germany 17,265,322 478,300 246,700 122,400 31,400 5,700 393,800 194,400 75,800 16,700 3,300 Hungary 2,065,230 132,500 50,600 19,600 7,900 1,200 110,700 40,900 16,400 6,000 700 Ireland 1,150,000 10,600 6,800 2,800 500 0 7,700 3,500 1,400 100 0 Italy 4,190,684 34,000 30,900 24,800 6,400 1,400 34,500 37,800 19,500 4,600 2,100 Latvia 806,993 28,400 20,100 6,300 800 100 25,500 9,400 4,700 400 0 Lithuania 932,847 9,100 5,000 1,100 300 0 8,600 2,800 800 200 0 Netherlands 5,026,059 118,600 60,700 25,000 8,800 1,000 94,100 40,800 12,700 4,100 1,200 Norway 822,800 19,200 15,500 16,000 4,900 0 18,300 18,100 7,900 600 0 Poland 7,446,365 323,600 197,900 98,100 38,500 6,900 191,800 108,100 37,300 700 100 Romania 4,079,364 135,700 90,700 15,700 1,300 100 184,200 111,700 44,600 4,800 200 Slovakia 528,129 95,100 67,600 38,500 16,600 3,700 92,300 54,200 32,900 8,700 2,600 Slovenia 266,251 6,700 3,500 900 0 0 5,800 2,300 500 200 0 Spain 8,116,104 16,300 7,200 1,300 500 0 9,700 2,900 1,000 200 0 Sweden 1,548,886 84,900 37,800 13,400 5,400 1,500 56,300 22,100 7,100 2,800 300 Switzerland 5,300,000 182,700 126,600 98,500 62,300 25,900 156,100 107,700 85,000 41,600 16,900 United Kingdom 25,613,309 395,500 291,400 157,900 46,800 6,000 321,000 193,700 69,600 14,000 2,200 Total general 106,404,547 3,817,500 1,653,900 907,100 348,100 106,100 3,367,900 1,283,300 561,000 170,100 46,500 Total EU 27 105,581,747 3,615,600 1,511,800 792,600 280,900 80,200 3,193,500 1,157,500 468,100 127,900 29,600 Source: ETC 2010. 118 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ANNEX II: MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS OF ROLLING STOCK ACCORDING TO TSI NOISE Table 1: Limiting values LpAeq,Tp for the pass-by noise of freight wagons Wagons LpAeq, Tp in dB New wagons with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) up to 0,15 m-1 at 80 km/h 82 Renewed or upgraded wagons according Article 20 of Directive 2008/57/EC with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) up to 0,15 m-1 at 80 km/h 84 New wagons with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) higher than 0,15 m-1 up to 0,275 m-1 at 80 km/h 83 Renewed or upgraded wagons according Article 20 of Directive 2008/57/EC with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) higher than 0,15 m-1 up to 0,275 m-1 at 80 km/h 85 New wagons with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) higher than 0,275 m-1 at 80 km/h 85 Renewed or upgraded wagons according Article 20 of Directive 2008/57/EC with an average number of axles per unit length (apl) higher than 0,275 m-1 at 80 km/h 87 Table 2: Limiting value LpAeq,T for the stationary noise of freight wagons Wagons LpAeq, Tp in dB All freight wagons 65 Table 3: Limiting values LpAeq,T for the stationary noise of electric locomotives, diesel locomotives, OTMs, EMUs, DMUs and coaches Wagons LpAeq, Tp in dB Electric locomotives and OTMs with electric traction 75 Diesel locomotives and OTMs with diesel traction 75 EMUs 68 DMUs 73 Coaches 65 119 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 4: Limiting values LpAFmax for the starting noise of electric locomotives, diesel locomotives, OTMs, EMUs and DMUs Vehicle LpAFmax in dB Electric locomotives P < 4 500 kW at the rail wheel 82 Electric locomotives P >/= 4 500 kW at the rail wheel and OTMs with electric traction 85 Diesel locomotives P < 2 000 kW at the engine output shaft 86 Diesel locomotives P >/= 2 000 kW at the engine output shaft and OTMs with diesel traction 89 EMUs 82 DMUs P < 500 kW/engine 83 DMUs P >/= 500 kW/engine 85 Table 5: Limiting values LpAeq,Tp for the pass-by noise of electric and diesel locomotives, OTMs, EMUs, DMUs and coaches Vehicle LpAeq, Tp in dB Electric locomotives and OTMs with electric traction 85 Diesel locomotives and OTMs with diesel traction 85 EMUs 81 DMUs 82 Coaches 80 120 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ANNEX III: COMPARISON OF COVERAGE OF BOGIES FROM DIFFERENT MODERN ROLLING STOCK EQUIPMENT Well covered bogies by engine body of Swiss Engine type RE 460 (Lok 2000) Open bogie of modern Bombardier Engine Traxx (example German type 186) 121 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Well covered bogies of Swiss passenger wagon IC2000 Open bogie of modern German double deck wagons 122 Reducing Railway Noise Pollution ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ANNEX IV: IMPORTANT AND ANALYSED REGULATIONS EU Political Papers and Directives Relevant Contents with Respect to Railway Regulation and Railway Noise Political Papers White Paper 2001 EU transport policy for 2010. Shifting the balance between the modes of transport. Revitalising the railways. Towards multi- modal corridors giving priority to freight. White Paper 2011 A true internal market for railway services. Standards for controlling noise pollution. Among the ten goals for achieving a competitive and sustainable transport system: Shift 30 (50)% of road freight over 300 km to rail and IWW by 2030 (2050). Directives Directives 1991/440 Framework and legal requirements for a competitive railway system. Commercial organization of companies. Separation of infrastructure management and service undertakings. Open access to the railway network. Liberalized cross-border transport. Directives 2001/12-14 Comprehensive railway regulation framework, e.g.: Clear separation of public and commercial issues. Freeing companies from old debt. Separate bookkeeping and balance sheets for infrastructure management and service provision. Capacity provision and pricing for infrastructure provision. Railway Packages 2001, 2002, 2004 Specification of open access, essential facilities. Specification of regulatory requirements. Establishment of national and EU regulatory bodies (European Railway Agency). Rail track charging principles (marginal cost plus mark-ups). Market opening for freight (2007) and passenger long-distance (2010) transport. Regulation of passenger rights and freight transport quality. EU train driver license. Recast of the First Railway Package 2010 Status: Under discussion. Comprehensive specifications for establishing a single European railway area. General objectives: Establish an internal railway market with high degree of competitiveness and harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities. Revitalization of railways, modal shift. Horizontal objectives: Legal simplification, clarification and modernization to facilitate implementation. Specific objectives: Ensuring sustainable funding of the infrastructure. Avoiding distortions of competition. Providing effective and independent regulation. Applied principles of rail track charging under consideration of external effects (e.g. noise). 12 appendices with detailed specifications for application 123 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 124 Related COM Decision COM 2006/66 (TSI Noise) Technical Specifications for Interoperability related to the subsystem ‘rolling stock-noise’. Functional and technical specification of the sub-system. Limits for pass-by and stationary noise. Limits for locomotives, multiple units and coaches. Measurement, assessment, application to new and existing rolling stock. Related Directives Directive 2002/49 Assessment and management of environmental noise. Noise indicators, noise measurement and assessment. Obligation to publish noise maps. Obligation to develop noise action plans. Obligation for reviews and regular reporting. 6 Annexes with detailed specifications. Report from the Commission to the EU Parliament and to the Council on the Implementation of Directive 2002/49 First implementation report based on the implementation deadlines 2005 – 2012. Noise indicators and limit values widely transposed. Significant achievements with harmonized measurement and statistical reporting/noise mapping. Difficulties still existing with health-based noise assessment and heterogeneous situation with country-based action plans. Directive 2006/38 revised Charging heavy goods vehicles on motor- and freeways for infrastructure use. Basis: Allocated infrastructure costs plus mark-ups for noise and air pollution. This was the pre-condition set in Dir. 2001/14 for including noise costs in the rail track charging scheme. From:Florence LaRiviere To:Council, City Subject:Rail Separation Date:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:22:51 PM Dear Council members, We live in South Palo Alto a block from the train. We have lived here since 1950. We favor the trench/tunnel option for Meadow and Charleston railroad crossings. By the way, what is the status of the partial tunnel with single rail at grade for freight? Apparently a crucial step that needs to take place is to get Caltrain to approve the 2% grade (the consultants did their plans based on the 2% grade). We respectfully ask that you and city staff let us know progress on this issue. Also, please work with Caltrain to lower the top of the rail to bridge from 24.5 feet to 18.5 feet and keep us informed about those efforts. Thank you so much for the time and effort already put into this project. Again, our preference is trench/tunnel. The idea of the train on a wall/viaduct is out of the question and would badly degrade the surrounding neighborhoods. Please listen to those most affected by the Caltrain electrification. Let’s put equal energy and consideration for the south part of Palo Alto. If all parties are truly heard and valued, we can come up with the least intrusive option that is also the least divisive politically and physically to our city. Respectfully yours, Florence LaRiviereVirginia LaRiviere 453 Tennessee Lane Palo Alto, Ca 94306 From:Jay E. Thorwaldson To:Sharleen Fiddaman Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Cal-Train issue Date:Monday, October 22, 2018 8:21:50 AM Thanks, Sharleen. Sorry about the mental typo of the $150,000 cost of grade separations instead of the $150 million estimate. Have you heard of anyone pushing actively for a new election on high-speed rail based on the later cost projections? Seems that $33 billion is wildly off base, and perhaps only a third of the real cost of the system. -jay From: "Sharleen Fiddaman" <sf@sharleenfiddaman.com> To: "jaythor" <jaythor@well.com> Cc: "city council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2018 7:23:23 PM Subject: Cal-Train issue Dear Jay Thorwaldson, I’ve been a Palo Alto resident for 50+ years and have read many of your articles. I think theOct. 19th one in the Weekly is most important. I’m very concerned about the Cal-Traindecision and our resulting quality of life in Palo Alto. When the issue of electrifying Cal-Train was first discussed many years ago, a visualpresentation was made to the District Board of Realtors who met at the Senior Center onFriday mornings. This presentation had great impact! It showed drawings of options. One drawing showed the electrified train, elevated 15’ over the roadway with the required 15’ tower of wires overhead. This was horrifying to see! So ugly, and dividing our fine city. Thisalone in any scenario, elevated or trenched, would surprise residents who probably assume the electrified train operates like an electric car – just turn a switch, not so. As is said, a pictureis worth a thousand words! One drawing showed the electrified train in an underground tunnel with a green park-like fieldover it. A beautiful solution. Ideal. We need more open useful space. This brings to mindthe wonderful modern underground parking garage at Stanford University which has a hugepark over it. I’ve observed students relaxing, reading, playing Frisbee, etc. on the expansivelawn. If they can do it, Palo Alto can do it! I definitely favor the tunnel solution for Cal-Train. Major cities of the world haveunderground transportation. I know the argument is that it is too expensive. Palo Alto is quiteaffluent and could make it happen. Where there’s a will there’s a way! Please see if you can find these drawings and print them in the newspaper, and sharethem with study groups, city council, all media and neighboring cities. I feel that people aremaking decision without full information of the implications! I have not seen any renderings. It’s a permanent solution…our future! We should do it right! Sharleen Fiddaman Old Palo Alto Virus-free. www.avast.com From:Ken Joye To:Council, City Subject:study session on traffic 22 October Date:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:36:37 PM I will not be able to attend the study session on traffic scheduled for 22 October 2018, so write you here instead. I wish to propose that you and staff consider prioritizing cross-rail traffic at the Charlestonand Meadow crossings. I believe that this can be done by re-programming the traffic light signals at those two intersections. I concede that I am not a traffic engineer and so my naiveidea may have fatal flaws. Nonetheless, I believe it worthy of your consideration. Currently, when a train approaches those intersections, the crossing arms come down and these things happen: all directions are shown a red light except for traffic headed towardMiddlefield Rd, following which traffic on Alma is given a green light (first “southbound, then “northbound” after southbound left-turning). From that, the normal cycle ensues. I propose a fundamental change: when the crossing arms descend, give a red light to alldirections except for traffic headed toward Middlefield Rd, followed by a red light in all directions until the rail tracks are clear and the crossing arms are lifted. At that point, beginthe normal cycle with “westbound” traffic toward El Camino Real, followed by “eastbound” traffic toward Middlefield Rd, then Alma “southbound” and “northbound”. That is, don’thave every crossing arm trigger a north/south flow on Alma St. The effect of this will be to reduce wait time for Palo Alto residents attempting to cross the rail tracks, favoring that movement over the out-of-town traffic between Mountain View and PaloAlto. Obviously this would be a considerable change and would need to be validated by a proper traffic study. I believe that the time currently between the green light to southbound and thelifting of the crossing arms is approximately 20 seconds. This would not be an overly long time to delay traffic movement and would considerably improve cross rail travel. thank you for your consideration,Ken Joye Ventura neighborhood From:Svetlana Yepanechnikova To:Council, City Subject:Trench/Tunnel Option Date:Monday, October 15, 2018 10:55:37 AM October 15, 2018 To: Rail Committee RE: Tunnel/Trench vs. Hybrid and Viaduct Dear City Council and City Staff, As a longtime resident of Palo Alto and the property owner on Park Boulevard, I would like to state that you have my full support on Tunnel/Trench option. As young mother with two kids I do care for safety and decreased/eliminated noise level this option provides. I would like to ask City Council and City Staff to get Caltrain to approve 2% grade. Please publish those efforts as a standing agenda for the CAP and for all the committee/councilmeetings. As I see it, this is the one most critical factor that will reduce the cost irrespective ofthe option chosen. Additionally, I would like to ask to get Caltrain to approve 18.5ft top of rail to bridge clearanceinstead of 24.5ft". Please publish those efforts as a standing agenda for the CAP and for all the committee/council meetings. An update on the Trench/Tunnel Option would be greatly appreciated. AECOM / Rail Committee cannot make unilateral decision to suddenly stop or merge this option withShallow Trench. These are two different options. The Tunnel for Charleston/Meadow shouldbe analyzed with Caltrain electric for tunnel and freight single rail at grade. CAP/Residentsshould be provided with detailed analysis on the Trench/Tunnel option. While the Shallow Trench should continue to be explored assuming 2% grade is approved by Caltrain. Sinceunderground is a preferred choice, all options from this category should have detailedanalysis. Furthermore, I would like to ask for Raised rail options to be merged to one - Hybrid andViaduct option. In conclusion, I would like to restate that Tunnel/Trench is my preferred choice and ourpetition for the LOWERED RAIL has 555 signatures as of today. Respectfully, Svetlana Yepanechnikova From:Yuriy To:Council, City Subject:Tunnel/Trench vs. Hybrid and Viaduct Date:Monday, October 15, 2018 12:07:22 PM Dear City Council and City Staff, As a longtime resident of Palo Alto and the property owner on Park Boulevard, I would like to state that you have my full support on Tunnel/Trench option. As young father with two kidsI do care for safety and decreased/eliminated noise level this option provides. I would like to ask City Council and City Staff to get Caltrain to approve 2% grade. Pleasepublish those efforts as a standing agenda for the CAP and for all the committee/councilmeetings. As I see it, this is the one most critical factor that will reduce the cost irrespective of the option chosen. Additionally, I would like to ask to get Caltrain to approve 18.5ft top of rail to bridge clearance instead of 24.5ft". Please publish those efforts as a standing agenda for the CAP and for all the committee/council meetings. An update on the Trench/Tunnel Option would be greatly appreciated. AECOM / Rail Committee cannot make unilateral decision to suddenly stop or merge this option withShallow Trench. These are two different options. The Tunnel for Charleston/Meadow shouldbe analyzed with Caltrain electric for tunnel and freight single rail at grade. CAP/Residents should be provided with detailed analysis on the Trench/Tunnel option. While the ShallowTrench should continue to be explored assuming 2% grade is approved by Caltrain. Sinceunderground is a preferred choice, all options from this category should have detailedanalysis. Furthermore, I would like to ask for Raised rail options to be merged to one - Hybrid andViaduct option. In conclusion, I would like to restate that Tunnel/Trench is my preferred choice and ourpetition for the LOWERED RAIL has 555 signatures as of today. Respectfully, Yuriy Yepanechnikov From:Cedric de La Beaujardiere To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert; Transportation; Gennady Sheyner; de La Beaujardiere, Cedric Subject:Room for a raised rail between Alma and retained Western Track, keep option on the table Date:Wednesday, September 26, 2018 2:14:03 AM Attachments:ViaductBetweenWestTrackAndAlma.Overview.MeadowCharleston.png ViaductBetweenWestTrackAndAlma.NearVenturaAtGrade.png ViaductBetweenWestTrackAndAlma.AtMeadow.png ViaductBetweenWestTrackAndAlma.AtCharleston.png Members of the City Council Rail Committee, I believe there is room to build a raised rail structure between the western track andalma, and I have done a graphical analysis to show this is possible. The benefit of this is thatthe Western track could be left in place and potentially continue to carry rail trafficwhile the raised tracks are constructed, thus avoiding the expense and impact oftemporary tracks down Alma. In addition, the infrequent freight trains could stay at grade on that Western track, reducing noise propagation and potentially allowing a 2% grade for theraised portions. A further benefit of this alignment is that it pushes the passenger rail line asfar away as possible from the houses along Park Blvd. There would be room to put treesbetween the western track and the houses to shield the structure from view. I would like to point out that it would likely be a financially disastrous mistaketo prematurely remove the viaduct options from consideration before they have been fairlyevaluated from a cost perspective. The cost of a viaduct structure has never been estimated by the city staff. The closest was a set of preliminary estimates (on page 23 of Types of GradeSeperations and Constraints, Sep 16, 2017) including a hybrid of partially raised rail and partially lowered road, at $180M. Of note in that same estimates chart that: leaving the rail at grade and loweringthe road under the rail was 4 times the cost of raising the road over the rail, and similarly, lowering the rail under the road was over 6 times the cost of raising the rail slightly (and thelowering he road a bit). One sees then that trenching anything appears to be 4x to 6x thecost of raising it instead. Further, One can then reasonably assume that the cost of entirelyraising the rail is in the same order of magnitude as partially raising the rail, and many times less expensive than trenching the rail. I recognize that the current political pressure is from those who live closest to the rail, and thepolitically expedient thing to do is to bend to their pressure. However, if you remove raised rail on wall or viaducts from consideration, we'll be left with the options of trenching at anastronomical cost, or closing intersections, with no middle ground. At that point, when it comes time to somehow scrape together $2B, you will be faced with much different politicalpressure as the rest of the city and taxpayers begin to realize the financial burden you then plan to place upon them and the city. A raised rail option appears to be a middle-groundsolution which achieves grade separation and much lower construction and lifetime maintenance cost. Below are some images from my graphical analysis. Here I used the Right of Way (ROW)maps available from the CA HSR website, and standards for horizontal clearance laid out in Peninsula Corridor JPB Standards for Design Structures.pdf which call for 10' clearancefrom track center lines to the face of a barrier, and 15' clearances between two adjacenttracks. In my calculation of the distance of the structure from the western track, I assumed a 1' thick outeredge on each side of the structure, where a soundwall could be installed. Thus, east of the Western track's Center Line (CL), I leave a 10' space, then a 1' thick structure western edge, SEPTEMBER 2018 EMAILS TO CITY.COUNCIL ABOUT CONNECTING PALO ALTO GRADE SEPARATION then 10' clearance to the first track CL, 15' to the second track, 10' to the inner edge of thestructure, and a 1' thick eastern edge. For illustration purposes I created segments of such a structure, each 0.1 mile long (528 feet), and laid these out on a map of the rail ROW. One cansee from this illustration that there is room for such a structure without encroachingonto Alma. For my distance calculations of the rail ramping up and down I have a 10 km radius curve togo from horizontal to reach a 1% slope, followed by another 10km radius curve to reach horizontal, then back down again. If the ground is level the whole time, the ramp length is justunder 1900' feet long to go from 0' to a clearance height of 15.5' above the road. Here is an overview of the segment over West Meadow and Charleston: Below is the northern edge of the structure, reaching grade near El Verano Ave and Ventura Ave.The light green lines with tick marks indicate the 10' + 1' + 10' + 15' + 10' + 1' spacings. The light green lines are extending from a thicker black line which indicates the Westerntrack's Center Line on the ROW maps. The pink double-dashed lines represent the ROW boundary. Below is the segment crossing West Meadow.Here i have made the structure semi transparent to show the ROW boundary line below, which it would slightly overhang, but still be well outside of the Alma ROW Below is the segment over Charleston, totally within the JPB ROW and totally outside of the Alma ROW, even with Alma's right-turn pocket on the north side of Charleston: Respectfully, Cedric de La Beaujardiere From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, CitySubject:September 26, 2018, Rail Committee Meeting, Item #1: Agreement with CaltrainDate:Tuesday, September 25, 2018 7:19:50 PM Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302 September 25, 2018 Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 ATTN: RAIL COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 26, 2018, RAIL COMMITTEE MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1: AGREEMENT WITH CALTRAIN Dear City Council: Why is this agreement appearing on your agenda a month after the Joint Powers Board started work in Palo Alto on theCaltrain Electrification Project. According to the August 27, 2018, press release from Caltrain(http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_to_Hold_Public_Meeting_on_Electrification_in_Palo_Alto.html),construction activities were set to begin that week. Of the 19 cities and counties requiring Construction & Maintenance agreements with Caltrain, only Atherton and Palo Altohad not signed an agreement for a long time, while San Francisco had signed its agreement by November 30, 2017, butstill needs to sign a Condemnation Authority agreement. Sincerely, Herb Borock From:Letha DiLauro To:Council, City Subject:train crossing Charleston and Meadow Date:Sunday, September 2, 2018 10:11:34 PM Dear City Council, I want the train or tunnel. I do not it on a wall. The wall will make the train louder, it is an ugly choose for Palo Alto and we do not deserve a better than an eyesore. We will live wit the decision for the next 100 years. Do what is right. We have enough noise with airplane traffic and the train. We do not need any additional noise pollution. I have lived here for 47 years and am losing my hearing. Do you think the train could have anything to do with it? Before my husband’s passing in 2016 he was also losing his hearing. Why are we still studying the train on the wall? Put the money into a decision. Has anyone brought up the concern over suicide prevention? Thank you for reading y email. Letha DiLauro 4131 Park Blvd. Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-493-4278 TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ROBERT DE GEUS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER JANUARY 22, 2019 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7-CONNECTING PALO ALTO GRADE SEPARATION In the Connecting Palo Alto grade separation discussion this evening at the January 22 Council meeting, continued from December 17, 2018, staff will share a new animation just completed by the consultant team (AECOM) related to the Citywide Tunnel Alternative. The animation is and should be viewed as a concept for discussion only and not a specific proposal. Though staff just received it, the animation is particularly relevant to the recommendation to remove from consideration the Citywide tunnel, and to further study a South Palo Alto only tunnel. As shown in the animation intended for discussion purposes only, the property impacts in North Palo Alto to construct a tunnel entrance could be very significant and staff believes Council should have this information as they consider how best to proceed. Staff will also post the PowerPoint presentation online. Animation link: https://vimeo.com/312275948 Deputy City Manager Ed Shikada City Manager 1of1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9928) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 1/22/2019 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Utilities Q4 FY 2018 Quarterly Report Title: City of Palo Alto Utilities Update for the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2018 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation This is an informational report and no Council action is requested. Executive Summary This update, on water, gas, electric, wastewater collection and fiber utilities, efficiency programs, legislative/regulatory issues, utility-related capital improvement programs, operations reliability impact measures and a utility financial summary, is for the Council and Utilities Advisory Commission’s (UAC’s) information. This update has been prepared to keep the UAC and Council apprised of the major issues that are facing the water, gas, electric, wastewater collection and fiber utilities. Items of special interest for FY 2018 include: • FY 2018 Hydro generation was modestly below average, resulting in higher than expected supply costs, but this was offset by other factors leading to minimal change in Electric Utility net revenues. • Water use has continued to increase as Palo Alto exited the drought, leading to increases in water supply costs and revenue, with a net positive impact on water utility reserves. • Gas use has also continued to increase, with a positive impact on gas utility reserves. • Several customer programs are being started or re-started, including programs focused on small and medium business customers, a program to facilitate EV charging in multi-family buildings, a refrigerator recycling program, and other programs. • The City is currently using a marketing partner for 2018 Bay Area Sunshares program for solar and EVs, with the highest response rate among all the marketing partners. City of Palo Alto Page 2 • Various communications efforts for the past year are summarized, including news that the utility achieved a Diamond level rating as a Reliable Public Power Provider for electric utility operational excellence, was recognized with the Tree Line USA award by the Arbor Day Foundation for excellence in tree care near utility lines, and that the City of Palo Alto won the Voice of the People award for Excellence in the Natural Environment based on National Citizen Survey responses. • A summary of the legislative session and current regulatory proceedings is provided. Notable bills include SB 100, which increased Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements and set a policy goal of 100% clean energy by 2045. AB 3232 was passed, requiring the CEC to develop a plan to ensure that by 2030 new buildings are zero emissions and to achieve a 50% reduction in GHG emissions from buildings. SB 901 addressed wildfire mitigation plans. The FCC passed regulations related to utility pole attachments to increase “small cell” deployment for 5G wireless. Attachments: • Attachment A - Utilities Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 Utilities Quarterly Update Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2018 December 2018 ATTACHMENT A Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 i Utilities Quarterly Update Table of Contents I. Electricity ................................................................................................................... 3 Electric Supplies ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Electric Budget and Portfolio Performance Measures for FY2018 ............................................................... 6 II. Natural Gas................................................................................................................. 9 Gas Supply Retail Rates ................................................................................................................................. 9 Gas Budget and Portfolio Performance Measures ....................................................................................... 9 III. Water ....................................................................................................................... 12 Water Availability ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Water Use ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Recycled Water Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................... 13 Water Budget Performance Measures ....................................................................................................... 13 IV. Fiber Optics .............................................................................................................. 14 Commercial Dark Fiber Service ................................................................................................................... 14 Citizen Advisory Committee ........................................................................................................................ 15 V. Efficiency Programs .................................................................................................. 15 VI. Communications Highlights ....................................................................................... 17 VII. Innovation and Pilot Programs .................................................................................. 18 Program for Emerging Technologies ........................................................................................................... 18 Electrification Activities .............................................................................................................................. 19 VIII. Legislative and Regulatory Issues .............................................................................. 20 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 State regulatory proceedings ...................................................................................................................... 23 IX. Utility Financial Summary ......................................................................................... 23 Electric Utility Overview .............................................................................................................................. 23 Gas Utility Overview.................................................................................................................................... 24 Water Utility Overview ............................................................................................................................... 24 Wastewater Collection Utility Overview ..................................................................................................... 24 Fiber Optic Utility Overview ........................................................................................................................ 25 Residential Bill Comparisons ....................................................................................................................... 27 Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 ii List of Figures Figure 1: Electric Supply Resource Actual and Projection, 2017 to 2019 (as of July 3, 2018) ...................... 4 Figure 2: CY 2018 Monthly Electric Supply Resource Projection (as of July 3, 2018) ................................... 5 Figure 3: Northern California Peak Electric Prices (as of July 3, 2018) ......................................................... 6 Figure 4: Q3 FY 2018 Electric Load and Resource Balance ........................................................................... 7 Figure 5: FY 2018 Electric Market Prices ....................................................................................................... 8 Figure 6: CPAU’s Gas Commodity Rates—July 2010 through March 2018 .................................................. 9 Figure 7: Natural Gas – Budget vs. Actual ................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8: Natural Gas Prices ($/MMBtu) – Forecast vs. Actual ................................................................... 11 Figure 9: Cumulative Redwood Pipeline Cost vs. Market Benchmarks ...................................................... 12 Figure 10: Potable Water Use ..................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 11: Water Consumption and Cost – Budget vs. Actual .................................................................... 14 List of Tables Table 1: Q3 FY 2018 Electric Load and Generation Compared to Budget Projections ................................. 7 Table 2: Q3 FY 2018 Electric Utility Supply Cost Summary ........................................................................... 8 Table 3: Status to date of all applications to the Program for Emerging Technologies ............................. 19 Table 4: Financial Projections, Q3 FY 2018 ................................................................................................. 26 Table 5: Operations Reserves, Q3 FY2018 ($000) ....................................................................................... 26 Table 6: Residential Electric Bill Comparison ($/month) ............................................................................ 27 Table 7: Residential Natural Gas Bill Comparison ($/month) ..................................................................... 27 Table 8: Residential Water Bill Comparison ($/month) .............................................................................. 27 Table 9: Residential Wastewater Collection (Sewer) Bill Comparison ($/month) ...................................... 27 Table 10: Median Residential Overall Bill Comparison ($/month) ............................................................. 28 Table 11: FY 2018 Q3 Reserve Report from the City’s Financial System (‘000) .......................................... 29 Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 3 I. Electricity Electric Supplies Western Area Power Administration (Western) Issues 2017 was a historically wet year that resulted in very high reservoir levels across the state. Although 2018 has been drier than average so far, reservoir storage levels remain at roughly long-term average levels for this time of year because they started the year so full and a series of storms in March and early April added additional water. Nevertheless, hydro operators are likely to attempt to conserve water in the event that 2019 and 2020 are also drier than normal years. For FY 2018, Western delivered 357 GWh to the City (98% of long-term average levels, but 28% lower than in FY 2017). For FY 2019, Western is projected to supply 391 GWh (7% above long-term average supply levels). This projection also represents a 7% increase from the projection provided in the last quarterly report. Calaveras Hydroelectric Project Issues Although storage levels at New Spicer Meadow Reservoir remain roughly equal to long-term average levels as of the beginning of October, the low snowpack levels seen this year mean that generation levels for the year are projected to be slightly below long-term average. For FY 2018, Palo Alto’s share of the Calaveras project’s generation was 113 GWh (14% below the long-term average level, and 47% below FY 2017 supply levels). For FY 2019, Calaveras is projected to supply 110 GWh (16% below long-term average levels, and 48% below FY 2017 supply levels). Electric Load and Resource Balance The size of the committed and planned market purchases over the last calendar year (CY) (shown in Figure 1 below) reflects a historically high level of hydroelectric output, which led to large quantities of market energy sales. For CY 2017, due to hydroelectric conditions and new solar projects coming online, the City was a net seller of 100 GWh of energy on a fixed-price forward basis, and a net seller of 269 GWh of energy on a short- term (spot market) basis. For CY 2018, somewhat below average levels of hydro output are projected, and for CY 2019, somewhat above average levels are projected. In addition, long-term renewable resources (landfill gas, wind and solar) are projected to provide about 56% of the City’s total load each year. Overall electric supply resources were surplus to load by about 28% for CY 2017, while for CY 2018 they are currently projected to be equal to load and for CY 2019 14% surplus to load. However, some periods are expected to see significant surplus positions while other periods see deficit positions (see Figure 2 below, representing the monthly load and resource balance for CY 2019). Some of the surplus positions will be sold as generic energy ahead of the prompt month while the rest will be settled in the spot market through the California Independent System Operator, thus allowing the City to retain full credit for the environmental attributes of our renewable and hydroelectric generation. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 4 Figure 1: Electric Supply Resource Actual and Projection, 2017 to 2019 (as of November 6, 2018) Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 5 Figure 2: CY 2019 Monthly Electric Supply Resource Projection (as of November 6, 2018) Electric Market Price History and Projections As of November 6, 2018, the price for on-peak energy for December 2018 in Northern California was $57.12 per megawatt-hour (MWh)1, while the prices for January and February 2019 were $52.73/MWh and $48.52/MWh, respectively. These values are approximately $11/MWh (or 28%) higher than they were at the time of the last quarterly report.2 On-peak prices for calendar year strips are in the range of $40 to $45/MWh for 2019 through 2021. These prices are approximately $4/MWh higher than they were at the time of the last quarterly report. Figure 3: Northern California Peak Electric Prices (as of November 6, 2018) below illustrates historical monthly on-peak prices and projected monthly forward prices for Northern California from 2005 through 2023. 1 Note that $57 per megawatt-hour is equal to 5.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. 2 Market prices for the previous quarterly report were from July 3, 2018. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 6 Figure 3: Northern California Peak Electric Prices (as of November 6, 2018) Electric Budget and Portfolio Performance Measures for FY2018 Electric Load, Generation, and Supply Cost Summary Compared to Budget Estimates Table 1 and Figure 4 below summarize the City’s electric supply sources through FY 2018. Load was about 3.6% lower than budget. Supply is typically greater than loads assuming average hydro generation. However, hydro generation from Calaveras and Western were 20.9% below budget. Although load was lower than forecasted, and solar generation was 7.8% above the budget forecast, CPAU still had to purchase power on the spot market due to lower than expected hydro generation. Net market purchases for the year were roughly 14 GWh, or 3.7% of load. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 7 Table 1: FY 2018 Electric Load and Generation Compared to Budget Projections Figure 4: FY 2018 Electric Load and Resource Balance Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 8 Table 2 below shows the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU’s) supply cost by cost category through FY 2018. Supply costs were $1.92 million (-2.2%) under budget primarily due to higher than expected market sales. Table 2: FY 2018 Electric Utility Supply Cost Summary Electric Market Prices Figure 5 shows monthly market prices. Electric market prices experienced fluctuations throughout FY 2018. Figure 5: FY 2018 Electric Market Prices Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 9 II. Natural Gas Gas Supply Retail Rates The commodity portion of CPAU’s retail gas rates for all customers varies every month depending on the market price of natural gas. Figure 6 below shows the actual commodity rates charged from FY 2013 through FY 2018. Gas commodity rates have been fairly steady for the past few years. Figure 6: CPAU’s Gas Commodity Rates—FY 2013 through FY 2018 These rates can also be found on the web at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30399. On September 15, 2014, Council adopted Resolution #9451 authorizing the City’s participation in a natural gas purchase from Municipal Gas Acquisition and Supply Corporation (MuniGas) for the City’s entire retail gas load for a period of at least 10 years. The MuniGas transaction includes a mechanism for municipal utilities to utilize their tax-exempt status to achieve a discount on the market price of gas. On November 1, 2018, gas will begin flowing under this program reducing the City’s gas commodity cost by about $1 Million per year and saving gas customers approximately 10% on the commodity portion of their bills. Gas Budget and Portfolio Performance Measures Supply Volumes and Costs: Budget vs. Actual Figure 7 compares actual natural gas supply volumes and costs with the FY 2018 budget. Natural gas use through the fourth quarter of FY 2018 was 2.3% higher than the budget forecast, but costs were 13% lower than budgeted amounts. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 10 Figure 7: Natural Gas – Budget vs. Actual Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 11 Figure 8 shows actual gas prices at Malin, PG&E Citygate and Palo Alto Net Purchase Cost. Due to the swap deals during the summer season, Palo Alto commodity net purchase costs have been lower than Malin prices. Figure 8: Natural Gas Prices ($/MMBtu) – Malin, Citygate and Palo Alto Net Purchase Costs Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 12 Value of CPAU’s Share of Redwood Pipeline Capacity Figure 9 shows the value of the Redwood gas transmission line at month-ahead market prices and the volumetric cost of using that transmission line. The Redwood pipeline allows the City to buy gas at the receipt point of Malin, Oregon and transport the gas to “PG&E Citygate”, which is normally a higher priced receipt point. The City’s share of the Redwood pipeline was a net benefit to the Gas Utility of $294,019 through FY 2018. This is the difference between the cumulative value of Redwood capacity of $1,098,613 (the difference of the monthly index prices at the ends of the Redwood pipeline in Malin, Oregon and PG&E Citygate) and the cumulative transportation cost of using the Redwood pipeline of $804,594. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 13 Figure 9: Cumulative Redwood Pipeline Cost vs. Market Benchmarks III. Water Water Availability As of October 1, the total Regional Water System storage was 87% full, and therefore no water supply shortage is anticipated. As the rainy season progresses, more updates will be provided. Water Use Palo Alto’s mandated water conservation target remains at zero. Water use in FY 2018 was greater than in FY 2017 but has not rebounded to 2013 levels. Water use this summer will reveal more about the extent to which Palo Altans invested in permanent water use reductions during the drought. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 14 Figure 10 shows the monthly water purchases from SFPUC in FY 2018, compared with FY 2013 and FY 2017. Figure 10: Potable Water Use Recycled Water Strategic Plan Work continues on the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (see Staff Report 6700). Ninety percent is being funded by the SCVWD (not to exceed $1.8 million) and the remaining ten percent is being paid by all the partners of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The UAC discussed the business plan for the non-potable Phase 3 pipeline to Stanford Research Park at its August meeting and other water reuse Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 15 alternatives at its October meeting. More detailed project-level information and a request for recommendation to Council on water reuse will be forthcoming in 2019. Water Budget Performance Measures Figure below compares actual water supply volumes and costs to the FY 2018 budget projections. Actual water supply purchases through FY 2018 was 10.1% higher than budget estimates. Actual supply costs through FY 2018 were 3.7% above budget. Figure 11: Water Consumption and Cost – Budget vs. Actual Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 16 IV. Fiber Optics Commercial Dark Fiber Service The total number of commercial dark fiber customers at the end of FY 2018 Q4 remained at 94 accounts (93 commercial accounts and 1 City account). The total number of active dark fiber service connections serving commercial and City customers is 193 (some customers have multiple connections). Commercial customers generate approximately 81% of the dark fiber license revenues. Fiber Optic Network Rebuild Project The rebuild project will install new aerial duct or substructure (conduit and boxes), in addition to fiber backbone cable to increase capacity for sections of the dark fiber ring that are at or near capacity. This project will allow CPAU to meet customer requests for services. The project areas primarily cover the Stanford Research Park, Palo Alto Internet Exchange (PAIX)/Equinix at 529 Bryant, and Downtown areas. This project basically “overlays” new fiber over existing fiber routes in the network. Existing fiber will continue to serve City facilities and commercial dark fiber customers. Rebuild Work Completed The route from PAIX at 529 Bryant to the Park Boulevard Substation has been completed. This phase of the project included substructure work, fiber pulling and cabinet installation. The new fiber installed for the backbone rebuild is 312-count single-mode fiber (2 x 144-count single-mode fiber, plus 24-count single-mode fiber). Due to a temporary lack of staff and other priorities, upcoming project work is on hold, but will resume in the next few months. Work to be completed is as follows: • Route from Park Substation to Hansen Substation • Route from Hansen Substation to Stanford Research Park • Additional phases/routes to be determined. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 17 The estimated cost for the rebuild is between $500,000 and up to $1,000,000 for substructure work. Another $250,000 for the overhead portion of the work is allocated for the project. CPAU crews will perform the equipment installation, cable pulling and terminations. CPAU’s substructure contractor will install the conduit and boxes. Fiber-to-the-Node Request for Proposal Staff is currently working on the following tasks related to fiber expansion: On August 21, 2017, the City Council directed staff to develop a business case for a municipal-provided Fiber- to-the-Node (FTTN) network. The directive asked staff to: • Engage a Management Consultant (“Consultant”) to develop the business case, funding plans, identify potential partners and/or service providers; • Prepare a high level network design; • Engage an engineering firm to design a FTTN network including an expansion option to build a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) network. Note: Engagement of an engineering firm is dependent on the outcome of the business case, identification of potential public-private partnership opportunities, and other findings and recommendations developed by the consultant. Another RFP may be issued to engage an engineering firm to prepare a detailed design and cost estimate for an FTTN network, including an expansion option to build a citywide FTTP network. Issuance of such an RFP would be contingent on the outcome of the business case and City Council approval to proceed. • Draft ordinances that will lower the City's fiber construction costs, such as a Dig Once, String Once (a.k.a. One Touch Make Ready), Microtrenching and Multi-unit housing access. An RFP to retain a consultant was issued on May 24, 2018. The FTTN network scope of work includes the development of the business case, funding plans and regulatory assessment; identification of potential partners and/or service providers; preparation of a high-level network design; market assessment and community interest survey, and identification of draft ordinances that may incentivize private builders/operators to build in Palo Alto. Contingent on the outcome of the business case, a second RFP may be issued to engage an engineering firm to design a FTTN network, including an expansion option to build a citywide FTTP network. The RFP vendor response submittal deadline was June 28, 2018. Staff is still evaluating the vendor responses and will make a decision by the end of the calendar year. Citizen Advisory Committee Staff continues to meet on a regular basis with the committee regarding fiber and wireless initiatives. The most recent meeting of the committee occurred on October 25, 2018. The meeting included a presentation by AT&T representatives about their network upgrades in Palo Alto (4 nodes to date), in addition to new products and market development initiatives and the availability of gigabit-speed broadband and pricing. AT&T plans to upgrade another 25 nodes in 2019 based on customer demand. V. Efficiency Programs Utilities Program Services (UPS) evaluating RFP responses – UPS issued a Request for Proposal for five tasks to help increase our energy savings, greenhouse gas reductions, customer satisfaction and increase staff efficiencies. The five tasks included: 1) a small/medium business efficiency program, 2) a residential Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 18 comparison program, 3) assistance to increase participation in our EV charger rebate program for multifamily, non-profits and schools, 4) an online residential marketplace for efficiency and sustainability merchandise, and 5) a software tool to make it easier to report and analyze program savings. Staff is currently evaluating the proposals and is looking to sign contracts by early CY 2019. Refrigerator Recycling Program – CPAU applied for a BAAQMD grant for greenhouse gas emissions avoidance and was awarded $130,000 as the lead agency in partnership with Silicon Valley Power (SVP). CPAU and SVP will be working with ARCA, Inc. to re-launch the residential refrigerator recycling program which enables CPAU to recycle the ozone depleting refrigerants to a standard that meets the US EPA Responsible Appliance Recycling program requirements. The greenhouse gas offsets generated from the program may be able to be used as a small part of CPAU’s gas portfolio offset obligation. Program is expected to launch in early 2019. SunShares 2018 Solar Group-Buy Program - For the fourth year in a row, the City of Palo Alto is participating in Bay Area SunShares, a solar group-buy program administered by Building Council for Climate Change (BC3). In addition to vetted contractors and discounted pricing for rooftop solar, the program offers discounts on zero-emission vehicles--the Nissan Leaf and the Toyota Mirai. Program registration opened on August 1 and closes on November 30, and contracts for solar installations must be signed by December 31. As of October 31 Palo Alto is in first place amongst cities participating in SunShares, with 106 residents registered and 7 solar contracts signed. Twelve 2018 Nissan Leaf EVs have been sold so far through SunShares throughout the Bay Area, five of those (or 42%) to Palo Altans. CPAU held a free educational SunShares workshop on Saturday September 29 attended by roughly 40 residents. Online Solar Calculator Tool Now Includes Battery Storage Module The City’s solar web pages include an online Solar Calculator tool that enables Palo Alto residents to get a quick estimate of the economics of installing rooftop solar. The tool generates side-by-side comparisons of financing options, basing estimates on rooftop characteristics and electricity use as well as CPAU electricity rates and available tax credits. In October, the City opted to go live with a new user interface for the software tool, including a battery storage module feature. Customers can now choose to add storage to their rooftop solar system and see the impact on the system’s payback period. Values for battery peak power, capacity and cost can be changed giving the user the ability to create estimates tailored to specific products and see price levels needed in order for battery storage to become cost effective. Home Efficiency Genie House Call Refund - Beginning in October, Palo Alto residents can receive a full refund on the cost of a Home Efficiency Genie House Call if they complete a qualifying home efficiency improvement within 90 days of their assessment. The refund will be covered by CLEAResult, the City’s contractor for the Genie program. This offer is intended to encourage action for energy efficiency upgrades, in line with the City’s sustainability goals. New Solar for Palo Alto Unified School District – On Friday, September 28, Utilities joined Palo Alto Unified School District staff at Nixon Elementary School to talk about newly installed solar photovoltaic arrays at the school. School District staff arranged two assemblies for students in kindergarten through fifth grades. Solar shade structures will now provide enough electricity to meet all of the school’s electricity needs, equivalent to powering about 38 average Palo Alto homes. Nixon is one of six school sites in the District installing solar. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 19 From left to right: Rebecca Navarro, Sustainability Program Manager, PAUSD, Mary Pat O’Connell, Principal of Nixon Elementary, and Lisa Benatar, Program Manager, CPAU Upcoming and Recent Events and Workshops – www.cityofpaloalto.org/workshops • Maintaining Native Gardens and Leak Detection – December 8 • Designing Native Gardens – December 1 • Irrigation Equipment Upgrades & Landscape Water Use Efficiency - October 27 • Is an Electric Vehicle Right for You? - October 23 • Emergency Preparedness and Crime Prevention Fair - October 13 • SunShares Workshop - September 29 • Midtown Residents Association Ice Cream Social - September 16 • Electric Vehicle Ride & Drive Event – September 16 • Re:Maker Fair - June 23 • Leveraging Blockchain for Sustainable Energy - June 7 • Maintaining Native Gardens and Leak Detection – May 26 • Is an Electric Vehicle Right for You? – May 17 • Municipal Services Center Open House – May 12 • Heat Pump Water Heater Workshop – April 24 VI. Communications Highlights This section summarizes communications highlights, updates on major campaigns and noteworthy events. Copies of all current and past ads and bill inserts are available online at cityofpaloalto.org/UTLbillinsert City & VMware Explore Microgrid Partnership – On November 1, VMware announced its intent to explore developing a microgrid at its headquarters campus with the City of Palo Alto. The project will serve as a testbed for the company and City to explore the potential of microgrids to advance resiliency at the corporate and community level. Palo Alto and VMware will also explore a partnership to use this microgrid to augment the community’s emergency services by providing a charging site for the City’s emergency command vehicles Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 20 and an emergency communications node that can be used during major emergencies that cause extended power outages and fuel shortages. Celebrating Public Power & Public Natural Gas Week - We are #CommunityPowered! – October 7-13, 2018 was Public Power Week and Public Natural Gas Week, two national campaigns organized to build awareness of the benefits of public utilities. Our community-owned utility has been empowering Palo Alto for over 100 years, with our electric utility founded in 1900, followed in 1917 by a natural gas distribution system. CPAU participated in the campaign and created a video of employees pausing a moment to pose and show how we are #CommunityPowered. City Wins Voice of the People Award - In August, the National Research Center, Inc. announced that the City of Palo Alto had won the Voice of the People Award for Excellence in the Natural Environment. This award is only given to top performing jurisdictions that best listen and act for the benefit of their communities. Based on responses from The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS™), residents in our community reported the highest ratings for this category compared with all other participating jurisdictions. Utilities Rates Outreach – The fiscal year 2019 financial plans and proposed utility rate adjustments were approved by City Council in June. An overview of these rate changes was published on our website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/RatesOverview and shared via CPAU’s social media and neighborhood outreach channels to help inform customers. CPAU Named Tree Line USA Fourth Year in a Row - For the fourth year in a row, CPAU was recognized with the Tree Line USA award by the National Arbor Day Foundation. Tree Line USA recognizes a utility for achieving five core standards of Quality Tree Care, Annual Worker Training, Tree Planting and Public Education, a Tree-Based Energy Conservation Program and Arbor Day Celebration. The City is among an elite group of communities that are recognized as a Tree City USA, with a Tree Line USA Utility, and also a Tree Campus USA with Stanford. City Open House Takes Community Behind the Scenes - Thanks to everyone who joined us at the 2018 City of Palo Alto Open House. Close to 400 people came to see a behind the scenes look at how the city operates. View our photos and video slideshow of this year's event. RP3 Designation – CPAU was recognized in April as a “Diamond” level Reliable Public Power Provider (RP3) by the American Public Power Association (APPA). Diamond level is the highest honor in this award category! The RP3 program recognizes community-owned, not-for-profit public power utilities that exhibit operational excellence and demonstrate leading practices in: Reliability, Safety, Workforce Development and System Improvement. VII. Innovation and Pilot Programs Program for Emerging Technologies CPAU’s Program for Emerging Technologies, or PET, (www.cityofpaloalto.org/UTLInnovation) provides the opportunity for local businesses and organizations to submit proposals for innovative and impactful products to CPAU for review as a prospective partner. The goal is to find and nurture creative products and services that will manage and better use electricity, gas, water and fiber optic services. From the program’s inception in Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 21 June 2012 through the fourth quarter of FY 2018, the program has received a total of 78 applications. Table 3 below summarizes the status of all applications through the fourth quarter of FY 2018. Table 3: Status to date of all applications to the Program for Emerging Technologies Deadline Total Received Under Review Declined/Closed Active Completed FY 2013 13 0 11 0 2 FY 2014 15 0 11 1 3 FY 2015 15 0 11 2 2 FY 2016 14 0 9 0 5 FY 2017 10 4 3 2 2 FY 2018 10 5 4 0 1 TOTAL 78 15 53 5 15 Electrification Activities Heat Pump Water Heater Pilot Program The City launched a Heat Pump Water Heater (HPWH) pilot program in late Spring 2016 to encourage residents replace their gas water heaters with efficient HPWHs. The pilot program website provides information such as rebate levels (up to $1,500), qualifying models that meet the minimum efficiency standard required by the California Energy Commission and installation considerations. In May 2017, the program was expanded to include rebates (at a lower rate) for new construction projects as well. The HPWH pilot website was updated with a new look and feel in December 2017. As of October 2018, the City has paid a rebate to 30 households, including 13 rebates paid to a new, all electric multi-family building, with another 43 applications in progress. The City will partner with BayREN to implement a regional HPWH market transformation program. This program has been awarded grant funding from BAAQMD and will provide contractor training, consumer messaging, and a mid-stream HPWH incentive to distributors throughout the Bay Area (nine counties.) The regional program approach can catalyze market transformation and address the many persistent barriers that cannot be addressed on a local scale. This program is expected to launch in early 2019. Other key partners in this HPWH market transformation program include local governments and CCAs and non-profit organizations. EV Charger Rebate Program The City began offering rebates in March 2017 for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations installed at schools, multi- family complexes, and non-profit buildings with common area charging accommodations using funds from Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Credits. Rebates up to $30,000 are available for schools and non-profits and up to $18,000 are available for multi-family and mixed use buildings. As of November 2018, we have paid EV charger rebates out to 6 properties. We currently have active applications from 11 multifamily complexes and 2 non-profits. A couple of large apartment complexes are ready to participate in our program as well as a number of religious centers. In September, CPAU issued an RFP for EV charger installation technical assistance for the multifamily properties and non-profits. Staff is currently reviewing proposals and expects to have a contract in place by early 2019, making it easier for these market segments to install EV Chargers. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 22 On September 16, CPAU co-sponsored a Ride and Drive Event with Acterra, during National Drive Electric Week. Over 520 test rides/drives were conducted in a three hour period. For reference, at the ride and drive we co-hosted with Acterra at the Great Race in April, 164 rides were conducted. Staff plans to continue sponsoring 2 EV Ride and Drives per year. Survey results indicate that the percentage of people who had a "very positive" perception of EVs jumped from 65% to 88% after the test drives, and 74% of participants indicated that their test drive helped accelerate the timing of their future EV purchase/lease. In October, CPAU co-hosted our third EV workshop with Stanford’s Health Improvement Program which attracted 80 attendees. Stanford surveyed previous EV Workshop attendees and found that 13% (53 EVs) went on to purchase an EVs after attending our workshop. The latest ICCT (International Council On Clean Transportation) white paper on EV markets, reports that EV adoption rates in Palo Alto are still the most aggressive in the country. In 2017 the EV adoption rate in Palo Alto went from 1 in 5 new vehicles in 2016, to 1 in 3 new vehicles being EVs. Multifamily Gas Furnace to Heat Pump Retrofit Pilot Program In July 2018, CPAU was awarded a 2018 Climate Protection Grant in the amount of $296,220 from BAAQMD to implement a Multifamily Gas Furnace to Heat Pump Retrofit Pilot program. The pilot will target up to 3 low- income apartment buildings to replace existing in-unit gas wall furnaces with high efficiency air source heat pumps. Heat pump systems are far more energy efficient than gas furnaces, eliminate GHG emissions associated with gas-fired space heaters, while improving air quality within the dwelling units. This pilot will identify the technical and logistical hurdles of retrofitting the gas wall furnaces with heat pump units, and will document the retrofit cost, energy savings and avoided GHG emissions in a case study. CPAU plans to issue an RFP to implement this pilot in November 2018. VIII. Legislative and Regulatory Issues While the City operates on the Fiscal Year (July through June), the State legislature and Congress operate on the Calendar Year, and federal agencies follow the Federal Fiscal Year (October to September). In order to provide accurate information in this report, staff notes here current issues, regardless of each entity’s operating year. Summary The State legislature officially ended its session in August and the Governor finalized action on all bills in September. A post-session legislative report will be presented at the UAC in December. Below is a summary of the final disposition on key tracked bills: State bills Water AB 2370 (Holden) Lead exposure: child day care facilities: family day care homes. Requires the State to adopt regulations for the testing of drinking water at licensed child care centers to ensure that the drinking water is lead free. Signed into law. AB 3206 (Friedman): Water conservation: water meters: accuracy and performance standards. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 23 Requires the Energy Commission to set accuracy standards for water meters by 2020. Requires the State Water Board to adopt water meter sampling and testing protocols. Through CMUA, the Utilities Department is supporting this bill. Failed. SB 623 (Monning): Water quality: Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund. Holdover from 2017. Imposes a two year fee on the utility bills of every water customer to fund a new state program. Money is distributed to communities lacking safe drinking water. The fee amount depends on the size of the water meter. Through CMUA, the Utilities Department is opposing this bill. Failed. SB 998 (Dodd): Discontinuation of residential water service: urban and community water systems. Prohibits water systems from shutting off water for non-payment until certain steps are taken. Through CMUA, the Utilities Department is opposing this bill. Signed into law. SB 1422 (Portantino): California Safe Drinking Water Act: microplastics. Requires the State Water Board to adopt regulations for the annual testing and reporting of microplastics in drinking water. Signed into law. Electricity SB 100 (de León). California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases. Increases the 2030 Renewables Portfolio Standard target from 50% to 60%. Creates the policy of planning to meet all of the state's retail electricity supply with a mix of RPS-eligible and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045, for a total of 100% clean energy. Signed into law. AB 2450 (Quirk). Electrically conductive balloons. Requires manufactures of Mylar balloons to place a warning on the balloons about the dangerous risk of fires from balloon contact with an electrical power line. Twice in June 2018, Mylar balloons have caused a power outage in Palo Alto. Through CMUA, the Utilities Department is supporting this bill. Signed into law. AB 813 (Holden): Multistate regional transmission system organization: membership. Provides for the formation of a multistate regional transmission organization. (Regionalization). The bill does not address concerns surrounding benefits to the State, transmission charges, federal preemption, final governance approval, and so on. Through CMUA and NCPA, the Utilities Department is opposing this bill. Failed. AB 893 (E. Garcia): California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. Imposes a new geothermal resource procurement mandate. Through CMUA and NCPA, the Utilities Department is opposing this bill. Failed. SB 1369 (Skinner): Energy: electrolytic hydrogen Requires the CEC and CPUC to consider the existing and potential uses for electrolytic hydrogen when evaluating an integrated resource plan (IRP). Signed into law. Other AB 3232 (Friedman): Zero-emissions buildings and sources of heat energy. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 24 Requires the CEC to develop a plan to ensure that all new residential and nonresidential buildings be zero- emission buildings and a strategy to achieve a 50% reduction in GHG emissions generated by the state's residential and nonresidential building stock by 2030. Signed into law. SB 821 (Jackson): Emergency notification: county jurisdictions. Allows counties to develop a mechanism to access the contact information of utility accountholders for the sole purpose of enrolling residents in a county-operated public emergency warning system. Any mechanism developed would include procedures to enable any resident to opt out. Contact information a person’s name, address, phone number(s), and email address. Signed into law. SB 782 (Skinner): Energy data transparency. Expands the definition of “covered buildings” found in current law such that owners of additional types of properties may receive information about the energy usage of their buildings. Signed into law. SB 901 (Dodd): Wildfire mitigation plans and measures. Mandates POUs modify wildfire mitigation measures to include a description of the factors used to determine when it’s necessary to reenergize lines and deactivate reclosers. Measures must include notification procedures. Through CMUA, the Utilities Department is supporting this bill. Signed into law. Federal bills H.R. 2371 (Goser R-AZ): Western Area Power Administration Transparency Act. Requires the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) to establish a 7 year pilot project to provide increased transparency for customers. Status: Passed the House, to the Senate H.R. 4858 (Eshoo D-CA): Clearing Local Impediments Makes Broadband Open to New Competition and Enhancements Act (CLIMB ONCE Act). Clarifies that the federal Pole Attachment Act does not limit the ability of a State to adopt a “one touch make ready” policy for pole attachments. Status: House committee hearing H.R. 5127 (Napolitano D-CA): Water Recycling Investment and Improvement Act. Would provide financial assistance for building water recycling plants and modernizing water infrastructure. Through the Western Recycled Water Coalition, the Utilities Department is supporting this bill. Status: No movement since introduction in February, 2018. S. 3157 (Thune R-SD): The STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act Attempts to streamline the citing of pole attachments (small cells). Status: No movement since introduction in June, 2018. Federal regulatory item The Federal Communication Commission passed regulations aimed at increasing the pace of “small cell” deployment, infrastructure placed on poles (including utility poles) to allow for 5G wireless implementation. As the move forces cities to change practices and procedures, Palo Alto opposed the regulations. Read more here. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 25 State regulatory proceedings Below, staff notes the issues we are currently tracking or engaging in with various agencies. California Air Resources Board GHG planning targets, Cap-and-Trade California Energy Commission IRP, Power Source Disclosures California Public Utilities Commission While the CPUC maintains jurisdiction over IOUs and not POUs such as Palo Alto, we engage in some of their efforts. These include: IRP requirements, a GHG accounting methodology, General Order 95 (relating to overhead electric lines), utility physical security, a potential new pole database, and implementation of the above SB 901. State Water Board 2018 Water Plan Update PG&E Rate Case On November 17, 2017 PG&E filed its 2019 Gas Transmission and Storage (GT&S) application, requesting a rate increase. If adopted without changes, PG&E’s rate proposal would increase Palo Alto’s costs by $1.8M per year or 13%. The proposed cost increases are largely due to the 2015 Aliso Canyon storage leak and the resulting storage field regulations effective in the near future. Additionally, PG&E’s storage facilities will require significant upgrades. Part of PG&E’s plan involves retiring older storage fields that will be too expensive to operate under the new rules and relying heavily on Independent Storage Providers (ISPs) to provide the needed storage services on the system. Palo Alto is a party to the proceeding and has joined a coalition of other parties with similar interests. The hearing concluded in October. A decision is expected sometime in the next few months. IX. Utility Financial Summary This section describes the unaudited actual financial results for FY 2018 for all Utilities funds. The Council- adopted long-term Financial Plans for the Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection, and Water Funds have been updated for FY 2019 during the budget review process. Electric Utility Overview Sales for FY 2018 were 0.9% lower than budgeted, with revenues consequently lower than budget by about 0.5%. Deliveries from Western and Calaveras hydroelectric resources have been lower than projected. Purchased electricity cost for FY2018 was 4.6% lower than in last year’s financial plan. The Electric Supply Operations Reserves was below the FY 2018 reserve minimum guideline levels based on the figures in Table 5 below. In the FY18 and FY19 Financial Plans, several proposed transfers from the Hydro Rate Stabilization ($1 million) and Rate Stabilization reserves ($9 million) were proposed and approved, as well as an additional $6 million from the Electric Special Projects reserve as a short term loan. The City has not Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 26 executed the transfers, but after they are performed, Electric Supply Operations Reserves will be above minimum levels. The Electric Utility CIP Reappropriation and Commitment Reserves totaled $14 million at the end of Q4 FY 2018. Gas Utility Overview Sales for the Gas Utility in FY 2018 are slightly higher than last year’s forecast, with sales being 3.7% above projections, however, revenue was 3% lower than forecast due to lower gas prices (with a corresponding drop in gas supply cost). Capital investment cost related to the Upgrade Downtown project including Gas Main Replacement (GMR) Project 22 was substantially higher than budgeted in FY 2018. There were multiple reasons for the increase in cost, which required Council approval of $6.7 million in additional project funding. City staff believes that the multi-faceted downtown project, busy local construction industry, high mobilization costs, and elevated demand of materials resulted in higher prices than anticipated. The higher quote is appropriate for the complexity and scope of this project (i.e., tight construction schedule, traffic impacts, and multiple trades). This can be attributed to the booming construction industry in the San Francisco Bay Area where local contractors have been unable to keep up and are more selective on project bids. In addition, the GMR 22 budget was based upon previous capital project data in 2012. Going forward, staff will update outer future year CIP budgets based on the most current market data available. The Gas Operations Reserve was within guideline levels but the Rate Stabilization Reserve is projected to be exhausted by the end of 2019 to help smooth rate increases over several years. The Gas Utility CIP Re-appropriation and Commitment Reserves totaled $7.5 million at the end of Q4 FY 2018. Water Utility Overview Water usage has continued its relatively rapid post-drought recovery, and was 13.3% above projections made in the FY 2018 Financial Plan, with additional revenues at 10.3% or $4.4M above forecast (and a corresponding increase in water supply cost). While water usage is projected to plateau and possibly decline somewhat in the future, as seen in previous drought instances, the place where that leveling off occurs is difficult to predict. Increased usage has increased purchases as well, although the costs will be more than offset by the higher than expected revenues. Since actual water usage was approximately 10% higher than projected in FY 2018, the Water Operations Reserve is currently above the max guideline range. Even though FY 2018 revenue was higher than projected, staff projects revenues to be below expenses for the three subsequent years FY 2019 to FY 2021. The Water Utility CIP Reappropriation and Commitment Reserves totaled nearly $11 million at the end of Q4 FY 2018. Wastewater Collection Utility Overview Wastewater revenue in FY 2018 was 4.3% lower than forecasted. Capital improvement costs increased by around $0.8 million for main replacement project design costs not included in last year’s projections. Another contributing factor is that staff projects higher treatment costs due to increasing capital and operations costs at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The RWQCP is facing the need for major upgrades in coming years, due to aging equipment and changing environmental regulations. Additionally, revenue from Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 27 connection and capacity fees and interest were lower because actual revenues from these sources were lower than projected in FY 2017. The Wastewater Collection Operations Reserve was above the guideline levels for FY 2018, primarily due to delays of sewer main replacement projects in FY 2017 and FY 2018 to enable staff to complete previous year projects. The Wastewater Collection Utility CIP Reappropriation and Commitment Reserves totaled $1.2 million at the end of Q4 FY 2018. Fiber Optic Utility Overview Fiber sales and expenses through FY 2018 were $4.6 million and $2.7 million respectively. Expenses have dramatically increased over the past few years, primarily due to the Fiber Optic System Rebuild CIP project. The dark fiber network was constructed in the early 1990s. Several sections of the dark fiber system have either reached capacity or are in need of repair, thus limiting the City’s ability to add new customer connections. In addition, staff completed installation of fiber optic service connection for Public Works Department to monitor pump stations and creek levels at 17 locations. As shown in Table 11, the Fiber Optics Distribution Reserve and CIP Reappropriation were $26 million and $1.8 million respectively as of the end of Q4 FY 2018. Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 28 Table 4: Financial Actuals, FY 2018 Sales Volumes Revenue ($000) Expense ($000) Net Reserve Change ($000) Electric Utility Financial Plan 908,459 MWh 158,675 (158,360) 315 FY 18 Actuals 899,833 MWh 157,916 (157,903) (13) Change from Financial Plan (8,626) MWh (759) 457 (302) (0.9%) (0.5%) (0.3%) Gas Utility Financial Plan 27,434,000 therms 38,225 (40,098) (1,873) FY 18 Actuals 28,444,156 therms 37,066 (41,978) (4,912) Change from Financial Plan 1,010,156 therms (1,159) (1,880) (3,039) 3.7% (3%) 4.7% Water Utility Financial Plan 4,037,731 CCF 42,391 (43,493) (1,102) FY 18 Actuals 4,574,124 CCF 46,752 (45,619) 1,133 Change from Financial Plan 536,393 CCF 4,361 (2,126) 2,235 13.3% 10.3% 4.9% Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Plan 19,170 (17,613) 1,557 FY 18 Actuals 18,338 (17,317) 1,021 Change from Financial Plan (832) 296 (536) (4.3%) (1.7%) Fiber Optic Utility Financial Plan 4,891 (4,144) 747 FY 18 Actuals 4,571 (3,951) 620 Change from Financial Plan (320) (6.5%) 193 (4.7%) (127) Table 5: Operations Reserves, FY2018 ($000) Electric Supply Electric Distribution Gas Water Wastewater Collection Fiber Optic * Beginning 12,891 7,022 13,549 19,791 6,393 25,420 Change (3,354) 3,341 (4,912) 1,133 1,021 620 FY 2018 Ending 9,537 10,363 8,637 20,924 7,414 26,040 Reserve Minimum 17,841 8,285 6,215 6,787 2,779 664 Reserve Maximum 35,682 13,165 12,429 13,573 5,559 1,329 * For Fiber Optics, the Reserve is the Rate Stabilization (not the Operations) Reserve Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 29 Residential Bill Comparisons Table 6: Residential Electric Bill Comparison ($/month) As of November 1, 2018 Season Usage (KWh/mo) Palo Alto PG&E Santa Clara Roseville Winter (Nov - Apr) 300 $38.61 $64.61 $35.18 $56.06 453 (Median) 66.19 107.97 53.78 71.52 650 104.17 164.67 77.73 98.87 1200 210.20 320.70 144.59 181.86 Table 7: Residential Natural Gas Bill Comparison ($/month) As of November 1, 2018 Season Usage (therms per month) Palo Alto Menlo Park, Redwood City, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Santa Clara (PG&E Zone X) Roseville (PG&E Zone S) Winter (Nov-Apr) 30 $40.89 $41.30 $41.30 54 (Median) 64.86 74.33 74.33 80 102.24 121.67 122.68 150 212.10 257.28 258.29 Table 8: Residential Water Bill Comparison ($/month) As of November 1, 2018 Usage CCF/month Palo Alto Menlo Park Redwood City Mountain View Santa Clara Hayward 4 45.07 52.61 50.10 37.32 23.92 35.20 (Winter median) 7 67.57 76.35 70.56 57.93 41.86 56.62 (Annual median) 9 85.93 92.17 84.20 71.67 53.82 70.90 (Summer median) 14 131.83 133.58 128.86 106.02 83.72 108.51 25 232.81 225.68 247.97 222.79 149.50 201.02 Based on the FY 2013 BAWSCA survey, the fraction of SFPUC as the source of potable water supply was 100% for Palo Alto, 95% for Menlo Park, 100% for Redwood City, 87% for Mountain View, 10% for Santa Clara and 100% for Hayward. Table 9: Residential Wastewater Collection (Sewer) Bill Comparison ($/month) As of November 1, 2018 Palo Alto Menlo Park Redwood City Mountain View Los Altos Santa Clara Hayward 38.66 93.83 78.24 37.75 37.36 42.91 32.85 Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 30 Table 10: Median Residential Overall Bill Comparison ($/month) As of November 1, 2018 Utility and Usage Palo Alto Menlo Park Redwood City Mountain View Santa Clara Hayward Electricity (453 kWh/mo) $ 66.19 $ 107.97 $ 107.97 $ 107.97 $ 53.78 $ 107.97 Gas (54 th/mo) 64.86 74.33 74.33 74.33 74.33 74.33 Wastewater 38.66 93.83 78.24 37.75 42.91 32.85 Water (9 CCF/mo) 85.93 92.17 84.20 71.67 53.82 70.90 TOTAL 255.64 368.30 344.74 291.72 224.84 286.05 Quarterly Update for Fourth Quarter of FY 2018 December 2018 31 Table 11: FY 2018 Reserve Report from the City’s Financial System (‘000)