HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-05 City Council (6)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Repor
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:AUGUST 5, 2002 CMR:366:02
SUBJECT:UPDATE ON STAFF EFFORTS TO ADDRESS RESIDENTS’
CONCERNS REGARDING TRAIN HORN NOISE
This is an informational report. No Council action is required.
BACKGROUND
Noise from train whistles has been an issue for some Palo Alto residents for a long .time. A
number of residents living close to the railroad tracks have complained to the Council about
the loudness of train whistles. On January 11, 1999, in response to a memo from Council
Members Rosenbaum and Mossar, Council directed staff to investigate and report back on
the process, cost, and likelihood of success should the City seek approval of supplemental
safety measures as a means of reducing train whistle noise.
On November 22, 1999, the Council reviewed and discussed the train whistle noise issue
and directed staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of
$30,000 to conduct a study to determine the fehsibility of installing supplemental safety
measures at all four railroad grade crossings in Palo Alto (CMR:380:99, Attachment A).
Council approved the BAO and the scope of work for the feasibility study in its meeting of
May 8, 2000.
DISCUSSION
As discussed in CMR:380:99, the requirement to sound train horns is vested exclusively in
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the Federal Railway Administration
(FRA). The CPUC preempts any local government from adopting an ordinance prohibiting
the sounding of train whistles at street crossings. In response to a request by Senator Becky
Morgan in 1986, the state Attorney General concluded that Section 7604 of the CPUC Code
preempts a city from adopting an ordinance prohibiting the sounding of train horns at street
crossings within the city.
In terms of federal law, the Swift Rail Development Act added Section 20153 to Title 49, of
the United States Code. This section directs that the Secretary of Transportation (delegated
CMR:366:02 Page 1 of 6
to the FRA) prescribe regulations requiring a train horn be sounded while a train is
approaching a street grade crossing. The FRA may provide an exemption from the
requirement to sound the horn at crossings if: (1) the FRA determines there is no significant
risk with respect to loss of life or serious personal injury; (2) the FRA determines the use of
a horn as a warning measure is impractical; or (3) in the judgement of the FRA,
"supplemental safety measures" fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided
by the horn.
The term "supplemental safety measures" refers to a safety system or procedure provided by
the community that is determined to be an effective substitute for the horn in the prevention
of street-rail casualties. Such measures include four-quadrant gates, which prevent motorists
from going around downed gates and thus diminish the need for sounding a horn. Where
supplemental safety measures are implemented, the sounding of a horn would then become
unnecessary and could cease. In 1999 staff understood that the FRA would soon issue a
final Environment Impact Statement (EIS) and ruling regarding the sounding of horns. This
ruling has not been issued because of repeated delays.
However, on January 13, 2000, the FRA issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)
to require locomotive engineers to sound the horn whenever a train was approaching a grade
crossing. This ruling reinforces the regulations already in effect by the CPUC and the
railroads’ own operating rules for sounding horns. The NPRM allows for a community to
apply for a "quiet zone" if specific requirements are met; however, a final rule has not been
published. Due in part to the large number of comments received, the FRA has indicated
that there is no timetable for the issuance of a final rule. Without clear direction from the
FRA, the responsibility for approving a quiet zone reverts to the CPUC.
A request for a waiver from the CPUC requirements to sound a whistle (CPUC Code
Section 7678) can be made. However, for a quiet zone to be considered by the CPUC, the
operating railroads, Amtrak, Caltrain and Union Pacific Railroad, and the property owner,
Peninsula Commuter Joint Powers Board (JPB), must also concur. Due to concerns over
safety, increased liability exposure, and property damage, the rail companies are reluctant to
agree to quiet zones. The CPUC is extremely unlikely to grant a request for a quiet zone
without the approval of the owning and operating railroads. Even with the approval of the
rail companies, it is not certain that the CPUC would grant a waiver to Section 7678. Thus,
until the FRA issues its final ruling, there appears to be no basis to apply for and implement
a quiet zone.
Once a ruling is issued by the FRA, considerable interest on the part of communities to
apply for implementation of supplemental safety measures and the designation of quiet
zones is anticipated. There could be a long waiting period for FRA approval of such
applications. In a meeting with. a representative of the FRA, staff was advised that the City
should conduct a study to determine the feasibility of installing supplemental safety
CMR:366:02 Page 2 of 6
measures at the street crossings in Palo Alto. This would help facilitate’filing an application
with the FRA for a quiet zone designation, as soon as the ruling was issued.StafFs
understanding is that such a study would be a pre-requisite for filing an application.
Staff retained Korve Engineering to conduct the feasibility study. Korve has completed the
study and a copy of the study report is attached (Attachment B). The purpose of the study
was to identify supplemental safety devices that could be installed, in order to file an
application with the FRA to create a "quiet zone" through the city. The consultant’s
recommendations for the creation of a quiet zone are based on the three "E’s" for grade
crossing safety, which are Education, Enforcement and Engineering. The goal of the
education program is to inform the public of the quiet zone and increase its awareness of the
safety issues associated with the railroad right-of-way. Regular and consistent enforcement
is considered an essential part of minimizing the potential for motorists, bicyclists and
pedestrians to trespass into the path of a train. Engineering efforts include installing four
quadrant gates, raised medians, and related signing and striping (shown in Exhibits 1
through 4 of Attachment B) at the four railroad crossings along Alma Street, at Charleston,
Meadow, Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue. The draft study report was discussed with a
number of interested community members, both from the City of Palo Alto and City of
Menlo Park. Public comments were mixed. Some members felt the City should pursue full
grade separations to minimize noise levels and improve safety, especially in view of JPB
plans to increase the number of trains and tracks in the area. Others believed that the City
should consider supplemental safety measures and establishment of a quiet zone recognizing
that grade separations may not be a reality. Some members suggested that the City should
work with the JPB to encourage the train operators not to sound the horn too loudly, since
the noise level seems to vary from train to train.
The current proposed rules for creation of a quiet zone include submitting a plan to
designate a quiet zone to the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety in Washington, DC.
The application should include: (1) proposed supplemental and alternative safety measures;
(2) a study and supporting data .that the proposed measures will enhance safety as per
guidelines contained in the rule; (3) a study and supporting data showing that the overall
reduction in predicted collision risk will compensate for the elimination of the engine horns;
and (4) city commitment to provide on-going enforcement and education. Filing of the
application would re~tuire support from the JPB, Amtral~, Union Pacific, CPUC, and
administrative and legal help to prepare the application and engineering safety studies.
Experiences of Other Cities
The City of Covina experienced a significant increase in railroad traffic in 1992. and
residents near the tracks urged the Council to implement a quiet zone. After a series of
negotiations between the railroad operator, FRA, CPUC and Covina, a plan similar to what
has been recommended in the Korve study, including four quadrant gates, medium islands,
signage, closure of one grade crossing and the assumption of additional, liability insurance,
CMR:366:02 Page 3 of 6
was developed. However, the quiet zone was not pursued further because of the cost of
closing one of the crossings and the additional liability.
The City of Placentia in Southern California is farther along in the creation of a quiet zone
than any other location, but does not have final approval from any agency or railroad. The
City has developed formal agreements on the improvements to be made, and agreed to
acquire additional liability insurance. The additional liability insurance is expected to cost at
least $130,000 per year, and could exceed $150,000. There will be additional costs for
added law enforcement, public education and street maintenance. These costs are estimated
to be at least $100,000 annually. The final agreement and request for a quiet zone is under
consideration by the CPUC.
Placentia’ is ahead of other cities due to a historic "gentlemen’s agreement," where the
railroad (Burlington Northern!Santa Fe formerly the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company) instructed locomotive engineers not to sound the horns within the city,
except in an emergency. This agreement was permitted due to language in the CPUC code
which~ says, °tin a city, the ringing of the bell or the sound of the steam whistle, air siren, or
air whistle shall be at the discretion of the operator of the locomotive engine" (CPUC Code
Section 7604(a)(1).
The agreement between the railroad and the city was first formulated when the area was
significantly less developed and contained long sight distances at most crossings. Recently,
due in part to increased development and as a result of a series of incidents, the ban has been
reduced to 10:00 pm to 7:30 am only.
The agency overseeing the proposed quiet zone in Placentia is the CPUC, as no federal
guidelines are in existence at this time, and thus the FRA has a strong advisory role only.
Once the drawings are completed and the plan submitted, the process is expected to take at
least two years to gain conditional approval. A four-month baseline period of data is
required, followed by a four-month study of the success Of the improvements after they are
installed. This is then followed by a four-month review period of the data. (Due to the long-
standing efforts of the city to implement a quiet zone, it is hopeful that it can receive a
conditional approval.)
Conclusions
1.. The most. prudent course of action appears to be to wait for the Federal Railroad
Administration to publish a final rule on the establishment 0f quiet zones.
2. Staff advises against proceeding with any design work or improvements for installation
of the supplementary safety devices, because there is no guarantee that the final ruling
will reflect the information and requirements in the Notice of Proposed Rule Malting by
the FRA.
CMR:366:02 Page 4 of 6
3. Given the extremely limited sight distances on the west side of the’ Churchill, Meadow
and Charleston grade crossings, which prevent a raili-oad engineer from viewing on-
coming street traffic, it is not feasible to attempt a Placentia-type agreement in Palo Alto.
4. Due to concerns over safety, increased liability exposure, and property damage, railroads
are reluctant to agree to quiet zones. The CPUC is extremely unlikely to grant a request
for a quiet zone without the approval of the owning and operating railroads. Even with
the approval of the railroad users, it is not certain that the CPUC would grant a waiver to
Section 7678.
5. In addition to the one-time cost, any quiet zone will require additional liability coverage
to be acquired by the City for the railroad operators, and additional law enforcement and
education on an on-going basis. These costs are estimated to be at least $250,000 per
year..
6. Developing a consensus between the railroads, regulators and community will be a
multi-year, project. Both the cities of Covina and Pla~entia have been worldng for more
than 10 years attempting to establish quiet zones.
Several residents have mentioned completely grade separating the tracks and the
intersecting streets as a long-term solution to help address the noise, safety and congestion
issues related to the railroad operations. This is a contentious issue, at best. However, such
a project is complicated due to the proximity of Alma Street immediately to the east of the
tracks, and the adjoining residential land uses. Obtaining the funding for the grade
separations (over $30,000,000 each) and developing a construction plan that is acceptable to
the community at large and residents of the surrounding single residential homes will be a
major undertaldng requiring direction, from C’ouncil, and additional staff and resources. The
City (both staff and residents), the JPB, Union Pacific Railroad, FRA and CPUC all need to
be involved in the creation of a fully-grade separated corridor through Palo Alto.
In view of the above staff will:
1.Continue to work with JPB and Amtrak to limit installation of new train horn equipment
to minimum sound levels.
2.Continue to work with JPB and Amtrak to replace louder train horns with quieter horns
consistent with minimum sound levels.
3. Work with the JPB to establish procedures to test any new train horn equipment, to make
sure that it operates close to the minimum sound level, before putting it in service.
4. Work with the JPB to train staff not to use the horns excessively.
5. Return to Council for direction when the FRA has issued a final ruling.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Currently no funds are available to do any further work. Should the City decide to file a
waiver to Section 7678 of the CPUC code or file an application with FRA to establish a
quiet zone, if and when the FRA makes a final ruling, it is anticipated that approximately $3
CMR:366:02 page 5 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
ATTN:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
DATE:OCTOBER 12, 1999 CMR:380:99
SUBJECT: TRAIN WHISTLE NOISE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee review and discuss the issue of
train whistle noise generated by train engineers blowing train whistles as they cross the
intersections of Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, Churchill Avenue and Palo Alto
Avenue at Alma Street, and, if appropriate, recommend that Council direct staff to
prepare a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $30,000 and a Request for Proposals for a
consultant to prepare a feasibility study for supplemental safety measures at railroad
crossings.
BACKGROUND
Noise from train whistles has been an issue for some Palo Alto residents for a long time.
A number of residents living close to the railroad tracks have complained to the Council
about the loudness of the train whistles. In February 1994, a meeting.was convened by
then Supervisor Dianne McKenna’s office with representatives of the Peninsula Corridor
Joint Powers Board (JPB), Amtrak, residents, former Mayor Gail Wooley and staff. At
that meeting, JPB and Amtrak staff presented a convincing perspective concerning the
careless manner in which many people both cross grade crossings and walk all along the
tracks, as well as the seriousness of the consequences to both the Victim and the train
engineer when an accident occurs. The consensus at that meeting was that Caltrain and
Amtrak staff would work with the engineers to sensitize them to the noise concerns. It
was recognized, however, that such an approach would require continued diligence and
attention if it was going to be effective.
More recently, in order to seek information and find possible solutions to the train whistle
noise problem, staff met on two occasions with representatives of the JPB, California
Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Amtrak, and the train engineers’ union. In addition,
staff met separately with Charlie Hagood, Regional Manager of the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA).
CMR:380:99 Page 1 of 4
On JanuarY 11, 1999, in response to a memo (Attachment A) from Council Members
Rosenbaum and Mossar, Council directed staff to investigate and report back on the
process, cost, and likelihood of success should the City seek approval of supplemental
safety measures as a means of reducing train whistle noise.
DISCUSSION
The requirement to sound train horns is vested exclusively in the PUC and FRA. The
PUC preempts any local government from adopting an ordinance prohibiting the
sounding of train whistles at street crossings.
Section 7604 of the California Public Utilities Code.requires that a bell of at least 20
pound weight be placed on each locomotive engine, be rung at a distance of at least 1,320
feet from the place where the railroad crosses any street, and be kept ringing until the
train has crossed the street. In response to a request by Senator Becky Morgan in 1986,
the state Attorney General concluded that Section 7604 preempts a City from adopting an
ordinance prohibiting the sounding of train horns at street crossings within the city.
In terms of federal law, the Swift Rail Development Act added Section 20153 to title 49,
United States Code. That section directs the SecretarY of Transportation (delegated to the
FRA) to prescribe regulations requiring that a train horn be sounded while each train is
approaching a street grade crossing. The. FRA may exempt from the requirement to sound
the horn at crossings: (1) that the FRA determines have no significant risk with respect to
loss of life or serious personal injury, (2) where the .FRA determines the use of a horn as
a warning measure is impractical, or (3) where, in the judgement of the FRA,
"supplemental safety measures" fully compensate for the absence of the warning
provided by the horn.
The FRA and th.e railroad industry recognize the sounding of train horns ~at grade
crossings contributes to railroad and road safety. Although the sounding of train horns is
the normal practice at most of the 162,0,00 public grade crossings in the nation, there are
approximately 2,200 crossings in 200 communities where train horns are not routinely
sounded.
In preparing for the rulemaking process required by 49 U.S.C. 20153, the FRA
established a public docket to enable local officials to offer their insight into issues that
surround whistle bans. Public comments included concerns that any regulation requiring
the sounding of horns could create adverse environmental impacts in the form of
increased noise. As a consequence, the FRA is preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
CMR:380:99 Page 2 of 4
The FRA is analyzing two alternatives in this environmental review, the "proposed
action" and the "no action" alternative. It is the "proposed action" alternative that could
be of interest to Palo Alto. The proposed action is to comply with the statutory mandate
and issue a regulation requiring the sounding of locomotive horns at every street crossing
in the riation, including those where horns are currently not sounded. It is staff’s
understanding that the proposed action alternative would .also identify a number of
supplemental safety measures that the states and communities could undertake to provide
improved safety at street crossings. The term "supplemental safety measures" refers to a
safety system or procedure provided By the community that is determined to. be an
effective substitute for the horn in the prevention of street-rail casualties. Such measures
include four-.quadrant gates. Four-quadrant gates prevent motorists from going around
downed gates and thus diminish the need for sounding a horn. Where supplemental
safety measures are implemented, sounding of horns would then becOme unnecessary and
could, cease.
Staff understands that the FRA is about to issue a final EIS and ruling regarding the
sounding of horns. This ruling, which has been repeatedly delayed, would establish a
procedure for consideration by the FRA ofproposals by st,ates and communities for
approval of new supplemental safety measures that would permit the designation of quiet
zones.
Once the ruling is issued, considerable interest on the part of communities .to apply for
implementation of supplemental safety measures and the designation of quiet zones is
anticipated. There could be a long waiting, period for FRA approval of such applications.
In the meeting with Mr. Hagood, he advised that the City shouid conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of installing supplemental safety measures at the street crossings
in Palo Alto. This would help facilitate filing of an application with the FRA for a quiet
zone designation, as soon as the ruling is.issued. To his knowledge, such a study would
be a pre-requisite for filing an application.
Feasibility Study
Since preparing a scope of work, retaining a consultant, and conducting a feasibility
study is a time consuming effort, staff has already prepared a scope of work to determine
the feasibility of installing supplemental warning devices at all four grade crossings in
Palo Alto (Attachment B). The study would include identification and evaluation of
supplementa1’ safety devices as required to meet the FRA requirements, including
schematic designs and cost estimates for design and installation of such supplemental
safety .devices. It is estimated that the study would cost $30,000, including $5,000 for
contingencies.
CMR:380:99 Page 3 of 4
RESOURCE IMPACT
The cost of conducting a study to determine the feasibility of installing supplemental
safety devices at all four grade crossings is estimated to be $30,000. This estimated cost
does not include any administrative or legal costs related to filing an application with the
FRA or installation of supplemental safety devices. Currently no funds are available for
the feasibility study.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
¯The discussions in this report are consistent with Council direction to evaluate the
process, cost, and likelihood of success should the City seek approval for implementation
of supplemental safety measures, ag a means of reducing train whistle noise.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The discussion in this report is not considered a project and is therefore exempt from
California Environmental Quality Act requirements.
ATTACHMENTS
A. January 6, 1999 Council Memo
B. Scope of Work
PREPARED BY:Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
G" EDWARD GA. W~and
Director ofPl~n}a~ g
Community ~n2clronment
Jf-~ I~L~V~I~I(J/ ’)
~y Manager ~//
CC"Kenneth L Koss, Public Utility Commission
Jerome Kirzner, Joint Powers Board
Harry Makler
Frits Vanderlinden
Chet DiLauro
CMR:380:99 Page 4 of 4
Office of the City Council
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
.FROM:
SUBJECT:
JanUary 6, 1999 "
City Council Colleagues
Council Members Rosenbaum and Mossar
Investigation of Grade Crossing Alternatives to Reduce Train Whistle Noise
A number of residents who live close to the Charleston Road rail crossing have complained
about the loudness of the locomotive whistles. A neighborhood representative spoke to us during
oral communications at the December 7, 1998, Council meeting. In October, at the request of the
residents, staff arranged a meeting with a group of railroad officials, including the president of the
train engineer’s union and a supervisor from the Railroad Safety Branch of the California Public
Utilities Commission.
While the meeting did not offer much hope for immediate relief, it did lead to some research
by the city attorney on possible approaches to the problem. State and federal law do not leave much
(if any) room for local regulation. However, federal law and administrative regulations establish a
process under which "supplemental safety measures" can be approved by the Secretary of
Transportation. Once approved, supplemental safety measures provide an alternative to sounding
train whistles at eachgrade crossing. Federal law defines supplemental safety measures toinclude
measures that are an:
"... effective substitute for the locomotive horn in the prevention of highway-rail
casualties. A traffic control arrangement that prevents careless movement over the
crossing (e.g., as where adequate median barriers prevent movement around crossing
gates extending over the full width of the lanes in the particular direction of travel),
and that conforms to standards prescribed by the Secretary under this subsection,
shall be deemed to constitute a supplementary safety measure."
The affected neighbors have identified several other possible solutions including stationary
whistles and improved four-way crossing gates. Given plans for increased train service, now seems
to be an appropriate time to begin serious analysis of noise-mitigating grade crossing safety
alternatives. We will mov~ that staffbe directed to investigate and report back on the process, cost,
and likelihood of success should the City seek approval of supplementary safety measures as a means
of reducing train whistle noise.
Supplemental Warning Devices Feasibility Study
Scope of Work
Consultant shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of installing supplemental
warning devices at four grade crossings in the City of Palo Alto. City desires to establish
a quiet zone where trains are no~ required to use their horns at these crossings. It is our
understanding thai FRA regulations currently being finalized will require that
supplemental warning devices be installed at the four crossings to ensure that public
safety is maintained when the train horns are not sounded.
The feasibility study will consist of the following work tasks:
No Site Inspections. Consultant will conduct a field inspection of each of the four
crossings to identify existing grade crossing warning .devices, including signs and
automatic gate equipment; traffic signal control equipment at the intersections on
Alma Street adjacent to the crossings including the traffic signal preemption
sequence and timing; railroad crossing control circuits and equipment, including
predictors or other constant warning time devices, event recording equipment,
power supplies, approach warning times, and island circuit operation; and crossing
and parallel street widths., number of lanes, sight distances for approaching ~ trains
from various points in the crossing area, distance between tracks and between
tracks and lowered crossing gates, and .other relevant geometric data, The field
inspections should be done together with the City Traffic Engineering staff so that
traffic cabinet equipment can be inspected and with railroad signal inspection staff
so that instrument case equipment can be inspected. Copies of intersection traffic
signal drawings will be provided by the City and railroad track plan and crossing
control circuit drawings will be obtained from the Railroad Company by the
consultant.
go Traffic and Accident Data Review. Consultant will review existing traffic count
data obtained from the City for the crossing and parallel streets; existing and
projected train counts, including counts of two trains at the same time if available;
and data that is as detailed as possible regarding train!vehicle and train/pedestrian
collisions at the four crossings.
Identify and Evaluate Supplemental Warning Devices. Consultant wilt identify
supplemental warning devices, as required to meet FRA quiet zone requirements,
including center line medians and four quadrant crossing gates as well as
supplemental train-activated warning signs, photo enforcement cameras,
pedestrian gates, and other improvements.
October 11, 1999
Page 1 of 2
go
Develop Recommendations and Cost Estimates. Consultant will develop
recommendafions with regard to the installation of supplemental warning devices
at the. four crossings, including schematics for the installation or construction of
proposed improvements, cost estimates, and a recommended plan for moving
forward to obtain FRA approval, as well as CPUC concurrence, for the proposed
improvements.
Prepare Feasibility/ Stud,/ Report..Consultant will prepare a Feasibility Sti~dy
Report that provides a summary of the data collected, data analysis and
alternatives evaluation, description of the recommended improvements, cost
estimates, and recommendations. Consultant will make one presentation of the
Feasibility Study findings and conclusions, at a time and location to be determined
b¢ the City. Consultant will conduct a walkthrough of the four grade crossings, to
be scheduled by the City to discuss the recommended improvements with FRA
and CPUC officials.
October 11, 1999
Page 2 of 2
Prepared for Prepared by
March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo A/to
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. ................1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .....................................................................................................3
2.1 Regulatory Requirements for Railroad Warning Devices ................ .......................3
2.2 Railroad Operations and Safety ...... .......... ................................, ..............................5
2.2.1 Caltrain .........................................................................................................5
2.2.2 Metrolink .........." .............................................................................................5
2.2.3 City of Covina ................................................................................................6
2.2.4 City of Placentia ...............................................: ..................... ......................7
2.2.5 Amtrak ........ ........... ................~ ..........................i.. ..........................................8
2.2.6 Union Pacific .................................................................................................8
2.3 Summary of Existing Conditions In the Field .. ........................................................8
2.3~1 Alma Avenue MP 29.78 ...............................................................................8
2.3.2 ChurchillAvenue MP 31.01 ......................................................................10
2.3.3 West Meadow Drive MP 32.99 .......................~ ..................~ ......................12
2.3.4 Charleston Road MP 33.33 .......................................................................14
3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY MEASURES ............; ............................................................17
3.1 Temporary Closure of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing ............................17
3.2 Four-quadrant Gate Systems ................................................................................17
3.3 Gates with Medians or Channelization Devices ...................................................18
3.4 One Way Streets with Gates ................................................................................18
3.5 Photo Enforcement ..........................................................................: ....................18
3.6 Programmed Enforcement ...................................................................................19
3.7 Public Education and Awareness .........................................................................19
3.8 In-Cab signals .......................................................................................................19
3.9 Way-side Horns ....................................................................................................19
4.0 QUIET ZONE APPROVAL PROCESS .................................................................. ............20
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................................21
5.1 Education ..............................................................................................................21
5.2 Enforcement ................................................................................................. .........22
5.3 Engineering ...........................................................................................................22
5.3.1 Alma Avenue .............................................................................................22
5.3.2 Churchill Avenue. ......................................................................................22
5.3.3 West Meadow Drive ..................................................................................23
5.3.4 Charleston Road .......................................................................................23
6.0 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATES .................................................................................24
A_9_pendix
Appendix "A’° Grade Crossing Review Matrix and Cost Estimates
Appendix"B" Conceptual Grade Crossing Improvements
Korve Engineering, Inc,March 20Q2
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
KoRvE Engineering, Inc. (KORVE) has been contracted by the City of Palo Alto to investigate
and recommend a series of supplemental safety measures that would permit the creation of a
"Quiet Zone" or whistle ban throughout the city. In order to accomplish this goal, supplemental
safety devices must be installed to warn vehicles and pedestrians of the approach of trains at
the four at-grade crossings within the city limits. From north to south these streets are:
,AImaAvenue - Milepost 29.78
.Churchill Avenue- Milepost.31.01
,Meadow Avenue - Milepost 32.99
,Charleston Road- Milepost 33.33
The purpose of this study is to determine what, if any, deficiencies exist in the current train
approach warning devices, signage and traffic controls, then to recommend supplemental safety
elements that can be added in order to create a "Quiet Zone" through the city. A quiet zone is
an area where the sounding of train’s warning horn is prohibited, except in emergency. The
close proximity of the railroad tracks to residential neighborhoods produces significant noise
impacts to the community, which will be reduced with the introduction of a quiet zone.
A number of factors must be taken into consideration in developing the plan for a quiet zone.
First and foremost is providing for the safety of the public, whether on the railroad or on the
right-of-way. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) the. federal agency charged with
ensuring safety on the nation’s railroads, in cooperation with the American Association of
Railroads (AAR), a trade association of major freight railroads and Amtrak, performed a detailed
study of the safety impacts of quiet zones. This study looked at data from January 1988 to June
of 1994 at over 2,100 crossings in 27 states. On average, the likelihood of an auto/train
collision was increased by 62% at crossing equipped with flashing lights and gates, where a
whistle ban was in effect. (The likelihood for a collision at a crossing only equipped with flashing
lights was increased by 119%.)
In the case of Palo Alto, the .first factor to take into consideration is the close proximately of
Alma Avenue immediately to the east of the railroad. This major artedal is less than 35 feet
from the tracks. Traffic signaling, lane striping, center medians, specialized signage are all
elements that will need to be considered in order to address this issue. The second factor is the
length of the zone itself. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) recommends that a quiet
¯ zone be at least 2,640 feet or one half mile in length to have any beneficial effects. It is
important to note that the trains will still need to sound the horn as they depart the station stops
at Palo Alto, Stanford and California Avenue.
The report details the existing warning devices, signals and signage at each crossing. The
report also provides a series of recommended supplemental safety measures for each crossing,
that, when combined with enhanced public education and enforcement of right-of-way laws, will,
in total, will provide sufficient improvements to the safety at the crossings in Palo Alto in order to
meet the FRA’s proposed criteda for a quiet zone.
Korve Engineering, Inc.March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossingsin the Cffy of Palo Alto
In order for a quiet zone to be established in Palo Alto, several agencies must give their
approval. These are the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) the federal and state agencies respectively charged with railroad
safetY. It should be noted that neither the FRA nor the CPUC have established formal
procedures for the establishment of a quiet zone.
In January 2000, the FRA has published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that
suggested a process for creating a quiet zone, however, a final rule has not been published.
Due in part to the large number of comments received, the F.RA has indicated that there is no
timetable for the issuance of a final rule. Without clear direction from the FRA, the responsibility
for approving a quiet zone reverts to the CPUC. A request for a waiver from the. CPUC
requirements to sound a whistle (CPUC Code Section 7678) could be made.
However, ’for a quiet zone to be considered by the CPUC, the operating railroads, Amtrak for
Caltrain and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) for freight, and the property owner, Peninsula
Commuter Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) must also concur. Due to concerns over safety,
increased liability exposure, and property damage, railroads are reluctant to agree to quiet
zones. The CPUC is extremely unlikely to grant a request for a quiet zone without the approval
of the owning and operating railroads. Even with the approval of the railroad users, it is not
certain that the CPUC would grant a waiver Section 7678.
Moreover, it must be noted that there are no existing quiet zones in the state of California. The
City of Placentia in Southern California is ahead of other cities in the creation of a quiet zone,
but does not have final approval from any agency or railroad. The City has developed formal
agreements on the improvements to be made, and agreed to acquire additional liabili.ty
insurance. The additional liability insurance is expected to cost at least $130,000 per year, and
could exceed $150,000. There will be additional costs for added law enforcement, public
education and street maintenance. These costs are estimated to be at least $100,000 annually.
The final agreement, and request for a quiet zone is under consideration by the CPUC.
Placentia is ahead of other cities due to a historic "gent emen’s agreement" where the railroad
(Burlington Northern/Santa Fe formerly the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company)
instructed locomotive engineers not to sound the horns within the city except in emergency.
This agreement was permitted due to language in the CPUC code allowing, "In. a city, the
¯ringing of the bell or the sound of the steam whistle, air siren, or air whistle shall be at the
discretion of the operator of the locomotive engine". (CPUC Code Section 7604(a)(1).
The agreement between the railroad and the city was first formulated when the area was
significantly less developed and contained long sight distances at most crossings. Recently,
due in part increased development and as a result of a series of incidents, the ban has been
reduced to 10:00 pm to 7:30 am only. Given the extremely limited sight distances on the west
at the churchill Avenue, Meadow Avenue and Charleston Road grade crossings, which prevent
an engineer from viewing the on-coming street traffic, it is not considered feasible to attempt a
Placentia type agreement in Palo Alto.
The long-term solution for the issue would be to completely grade separate the tracks and the
intersecting streets. However, such a project is complicated as noted above, by the close
proximately of Alma Street immediately to the east of the tracks, and the residential land uses
l~orve Engineering, Inc, 2 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in fhe City of Palo Alto
immediately to the west of the tracks. Obtaining the funding for the grade separations (over
$10,000,000 each) and developing a construction plan that is acceptable to the surrounding
community will take time and effort on the part of all parties involved. The city (both staff and
residents), the PCJPB, Union Pacific Railroad, FRA and CPUC all need to be involved in the
creation of a fully grade separated corridor through Palo Alto.
In summary, the existing situation regarding the establishment of quiet zones is:
1 )There are no formal quiet zones existing in the State.
2)The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has not issued, nor is likely to issue in the
near term, a final rule on the requirements to establish a quiet zone.
3)Without .federal guidelines, the regulatory authority reverts to the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC). CPUC Code Section 7678 requires the sounding of
train whistles at grade crossings.
4)The operating railroads (Amtrak and Union Pacific Railroad) are reluctant to agree to
quiet zones, even with additional liability coverage, due to safety concerns.
5)The CPUC is very unlikely to grant a request for a waiver from the requirements of
Section 7678, even with the approval of the railroad owners and operators.
6)The annual cost of a quiet zone including liabi!ity insurance, education and law
enforcement could exceed $250,000.
In light of the facts, the most prudent coarse of action appears to be to wait for the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) to publish a final rule on the establishment of quiet zones.
Design work on improvements and identification of funding (both capital and operating) could
begin, and the enhancements installed, ahead of the final rule. This approach would reduce the
time between the issuance of the final rule and the establishment of a quiet zone in Palo Alto,
however, there is no guarantee that the final rule will reflect the information and requirements in
the Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
2,0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Regulatory Requirements for Railroad Warning Devices
The PCJPB railroad along the corridor is a double tracked facility, maintained to FRA Class 4
(79 mph passenger/60 mph freight) standards. Caltrain operates 80 trains1 a day during the
week, from 5:00 am until 1:00 am. The Union Pacific Railroad operates a limited number of
freight trains along the route during the off-peak and early morning hours. The California Public
Utilities Commission Utilities Code 7678 enacted by the legislature in 1951 states:
April 29, 2001 Caltrain Schedule
Korve Engineering, Inc.Ma~h 2002
Final Repo#
Feasibility ~udy for Sup#lemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the C#y of Palo Alto
"Every person in charge of a locomotive engine, who before crossing any
traveled public way, omits to cause a bell to ring, a steam whistle to blow, or air
siren to sound at least 80 rods (80 rods = ¼ mile) from the crossing and up to it,
is guilty of a misdemeano¢’. ~
In addition, CPUC Code 7604(a) requires (in part) that:
"A bell, of at least 20 pound weight or of equivalent sound-producing capability,
shall be placed on each locomotive engine and shall be rung at a distance of at
least 1,320 feet from the place where the railroads crosses any street, road, or
highway, and be kept ringing until it has crossed the street, road or highway; or
a steam whistle, air siren, or an air whistle shall be attached, and be sounded at
the like distance, and be kept sounding at intervals until it has crossed the
street, road or highway..."
The Code of Federal Regulations Chapter 49, Parts 217.and 218, require that a railroad submit
an operating rulebook to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for approval before
beginning operations. The FRA inspectors as part of the agency’s safety oversight and
regulatory role then enforce the rules in the book. The rulebook used by both the UPRR, the
freight carrier on the corridor and Amtrak, the operating contractor to the PCJPB is the General
Code of Operating Rules (GCOR). The GCOR requires per rule 5.8.2 (11):
"Two long, one short and one long sounding of the whistle. Approaching public
crossings at grade with engine in front, start signal not less than ¼ mile before reaching
crossing... Prolong or repeat signal until the engine occupies the crossing."
The GCOR also requires (per rule 5.8.1) that the bell be rung:
Before moving, except when making momentary stop and start switching
movements.
¯When approaching public crossings at grade with the engine in front, as follows:
¯If distance permits, ringing must begin at least ¼ mile before the public crossing
and continue until the crossing is occupied.
Locomotive horns (wa[ning devices) are intentionally loud and disruptive. The sole purpose of
the device is to alert persons on or around the tracks of the approach of a train. 49 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 229.129 requires that:
"A warning device produce a minimum sound level of 96 dB (A) at 100 feet forward of
the locomotive in the direction of travel."
In the case of Palo Alto, the whistle is being sounded almost one third of the time the train is
traversing the community. The sounding of the bells and whistles to meeting the federal and
state mandated safety requirements causes a potentially significant impact on the residents
living near the crossings. All of the crossings within Palo Alto are situated in or near residential
land uses.
Korve Engineering, Inc.4 March 2002
Final Report
Fea~ibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in fhe City of Palo Alto
2.2 Railroad Operations and Safety
Railroads have been traditionally reluctant to implement quiet zones. The increase in the
potential for injury to their passengers and crews, and damage to tracks, signals and trains are
most often the reasons given for concern. There is additional concern over the increase in
liability exposure to the railroad operators and the track owners. KORVE spoke with
representatives of several commuter and passenger railroads in California to determine the
current attitudes toward quiet zones. All of the respondents indicated that the single major issue
was liability exposure from a quiet zone. One.method of limiting (but not eliminating) the risk is
to ensure that federal funding is obtained for each project, and that the FRA approval of the
quiet zone extends the entire length of the dty. The federal funding and FRA approval allows
the railroad and the city to use a "federal preemption" defense against claims arising from
trespasser fatalities.
KORVE spoke with Mr. Dick Dahllof,Construction Manager for the PCJPB/Caltrain. He stated
that Caltrain has taken no formal position on the implementation of quiet zones at this time. The
issue of a quiet zone would be presented to the Board for discussion on a case by case basis.
In general, Caltrain would prefer that grade crossings be eliminated through a program of grade
separations. It is understood that such a goal however, requires significant funding that is not
currently available. Mr~ Dahllof noted that Caltrain is moving forward with plans to increase the
number of trains in the next five years to 120 weekday trips. This goal is an increase of 50%
over the current levels. This increase in traffic will require the construction of a series of third
and fourth tracks along the corridor. None of these tracks are planned for the near term in the
study area.
2.2.2 Metrolink
KORVE spoke with Francisco Oaxaca, Manager of Media and External Communications for the
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), the agency that oversees the operation of
the Metrolink service, in the same fashion as the PCJPB oversees the Caltrain service. The
agency has two recent case studies regarding quiet zones. The first is the City of Covina,
located on the San Gabriel Subdivision of SCRRA, the second is the City of, Placentia, located
on the San Bernardino Subdivision of the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BN/SF)I a major freight
railroad that also hosts Metrolink trains. He explained that the SCRRA as a public agency, is
very sensitive to the concerns of the adjoining residents. In order to partially mitigate the issue,
SCRRA has installed quieter horns on its equipment, that focus the warning more along the
right-of-way on its equipment. However, the agency is equally concerned over the potential
liability impacts of a quiet zone, and the cost of such insurance.
KORVE spoke with Greg Graves, Manager of Claims Administration for SCRRA. Mr. Graves
explained that as a result of the September attacks~ liability insurance premium rates have
increased between 30% - 200%, and the rates are expected to remain high for several years.
He noted that the railroad is the underlying landowner, and that the cities have leases to allow
Korve Engineering, Inc.March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in ~he City of Palo Alto
the streets to cross the railroad property. The responsibility for the grade crossings, and the
associated insurance falls therefore primarily with the city, as the lease holder that requested
the street be permitted to cross the railroad right-of-way.
There are two policies under discussion for the quiet zone in Placentia. The first is a modified
"Railroad Protective" policy for the time during which the construction of the improvements is
taking place. This type of insurance is normally used to protect the railroad against damages
arising from construction w~3rk on or near the tracks. The amount of the policy is $10,000,000.
The premium is $130,000 annually, paid for by the city. The premium is based on the number
of trains, and is costing the city $100,000 for the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BN/SF) and
$30,000 for SCRRA trains.
Once the project is completed, a second policy to protect the railroads against trespassers and
vehicles that ignore the warning devices will be negotiated. This policy is to cover what is called
"contingency risk". The Placentia project is being funded partially with federal funds. As such, a
federal preemption exists to protect the city and rail users against liability claims that the grade
crossing warning systems were not adequate. However, to protect itself in the event that the
federal preemption is not sufficient~ the railroad requires the city to provide the contingency
policy. The discussions for the splitting of the premium between the railroads and the city are
still under going, however, a ratio of 70% (city) and 30% (railroads) has been proposed. The
actual cost of the policy has not been negotiated at this time,, but Mr. Graves indicated that it
would be over $100,000 annually, at a minimum.
2.2,3 City of Covina
KORVE spoke with Deadra Knox, a Management Analyst with the City of Covina.
The city experienced a significant increase in rail traffic with the initiation of commuter service in
1992. Traffic increased from three-trains a week to over 26 a day. Residents near the tracks
urged the City Council to implement a quiet zone. The city has twelve crossings over the tracks.
After a long series of negotiations between SCRRA, FRA, CPUC and the city, a plan was
developed for the creation of a quiet zone. The plan included signage, quad gates, medium
islands, closing of one grade crossing, and the assumption of additional liability by the city. The
city then took the plan to the public. The public was strongly opposed to the proposed plan,
particularly the closure of a crossing (which was the plan’s strongest feature in the eyes of the
FRA and CPUC) and the cost to the city of the increased liability insurance. The public
determined that the overall impacts to the community of the project outweighed the benefits of a
quiet zone and decided not to pursue the project any further. Ms. Knox noted that the issue will
rise again when Placentia implements its quiet zone. She also noted the importance of
involving the community in the planning effort from the very earliest stages, to ensure that there
is support over a wide range of interests for the proposed plans, Finally, she noted that to make
a quiet zone work, there needs to be a regional buy-in for the project from the adjoining
communities as well.
Korve Engineering, Inc.6 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Pale Alto
The city that is ahead of other cities in achieving a quiet zone in California is the City of
Placentia, located on the San Bernardino Subdivision of the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe
(BNISF), a major freight railroad that also hosts Metrolink trains. KORVE spoke with Chris
Becker, .the Director of Public Works for the city. He noted that the predecessor to the BN/SF,
the Santa Fe Railway, had restricted the sounding of horns, except in emergency, for over a
quarter of a century through the eleven grade crossings in the community, as part of a
"gentleman’s agreement" with the city. The agreement between the railroad and the city was
first formulated when the area was significantly less developed and contained long sight
distances at most crossings. Recently, due in part to increased development and as a result of
a series of accidents, the ban has been reduced to 10:00 pm to 7:30 am only. Given the
extremely.limited sight distances on the west at the Churchill Avenue, Meadow Avenue and
Charleston Road grade crossings, which prevent an engineer from viewing the on-coming street
traffic, it is not considered feasible to attempt a Placentia type agreement in Pale Alto.
No request for a waiver from the requirements of CPUCC 7678 was ever filed with the CPUC.
Instead, the city and the railroad relied on the portion of the code that allows for the discretion of
the operator of the locomotive/engine. The locomotive engineers were instructed not to sound
the horn unless it was necessary for warning.
The city and the railroad entered into a formal agreement to address the issue. A plan was
developed for the 11 crossings in the community to install quad gates, traffic stripping, pre-
signage, additional signage on the approaches, and medium islands (either new or extended).
The city also agreed to provide a programmed enforcement and public awareness campaign
along the right-of-way, and to monitor the effectiveness in monthly reports to the BN/SF. Lastly,
the city has agreed to acquire additional liability coverage for the railroad, as Well as actively
pursue funding to construct an entirely grade separated alignment through the community.
Mr. Becker noted that the city views the cost of the improvements (approximately $500,000 per
crossing) a good expenditure of public funds, given that the time required to fund and construct
acompletely grade separated alignment through the city is close to twenty years. He also noted
that the main issue with. the railroad is liability.. As noted above, the city is currently paying
$130,000 a year for protection, with the rates expected to rise significantly over the next few
years.
The agency that isoverseeing the proposed quiet zone in Placentia is the CPUC, working
closely with the FRAI As there are currently no federal guidelines are in existence, the FRA has
a strong advisory role only. Once the drawings are completed, and the plan submitted, the
process is expected to take at least two years to gain conditional approval. A four-month
baseline period of data is required, followed by a four-month study of the success of the
improvements after they are installed. This is then followed by a four-month review period of
the data. (Due to the long-standing efforts of the city to implement a quiet zone, they are hopeful
that they can receive a conditional approval.)
Kerve Engineering, Inc.Match 2002
Final Report
Feasibility S~udy for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossingsin the City of Palo Alto
KORVE spoke with Fred Jackson, Manger of Safety for Amtrak West, the operator of the
Caltrain passenger service for the PCJPB. Mr. Jackson explained that Amtrak’s legal
department in the process of developing a nation wide policy on whistle bans, and that he would
send KORVE a copy of the policy once it has been adopted. Until that time, Amtrak has no
official position either in favor or opposed to whistle bans.
2.2,6 Union Pacific
KORVE spoke informally with several of the local operating officials for the Union Pacific
Railroad (UPRR), the freight operator along the peninsula. These discussions uniformly
indicated a strong reluctance to impose a whistle ban, citing concerns over the emotional effects
on locomotive engineers after incidents, as well as liability issues.
2,3 Summary of E:.xisting Conditions In the Field
2.3.’i Alma Avenue MP 29.78
This principal arterial street crosses the tracks at the northern end of the community, in a
residential area. The crossing is approximately 0.3 miles north of the Palo Alto station. The
road crosses the tracks on a 59-degree angle from northwest to southeast. The average daily
traffic at the location is14, 200, of which 8% is comprised of truck traffic. There is a single traffic
lane in each direction. The train approach warning devices at the location consist of an
automatic gate with flashing lights and bells on each side of the crossing. There is no formal
sidewalk at this location, but a bikeway is provided in each direction. The crossing surface is
A/C paving, in fair condition. There are stop lines and railroad crossing symbols painted on the
street approaches to the crossing. The nearest intersection is Palo Alto Avenue, a local
collector street intersecting Alma Avenue from the east, approximately 150 feet south of the
crossing.
The Federal Railroad Administration does not have any record of accident or incidents at this
crossing in the last ten years.
Korve Engineering, Inc. 8 March 200z
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo AI~o
Alma Avenue looking southeast. Crossing has raised medians, bikeway,
and a single ate with flashing lights in each direction.
Alma Avenue crossing looking northwest, from the intersection with Palo Alto Drive.
Street makes a tight left hand turn immediately before crossing.
Korve Engineering, Inc,March 2002
Final Repo#.
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossingsin the City of Palo Alto
Western approach to Alma Avenue crossing.
2.3.2 Churchill Avenue MP
This urban local street crosses the tracks in a residential area. The crossing is approximately 1
mile south of the Palo Alto station. The special event platform at Stanford-is located
approximately 0.2 miles north of the crossing. The road crosses the tracks on a 90-degree
angle from west to east. The average daily traffic at the location is10,100, of which 15% is
comprised of truck traffic. There is a single.traffic lane in each direction. The train approach
warning devices at the location consist of an automatic gate with flashing lights and bells on
each side of the crossing. The sidewalks are covered by a smaller set of gates. The approach
of a train activates highway traffic signals at this location. The crossing surface is Omni
rubberized crossing panels in good condition. There are stop lines and railroad crossing
symbols painted on the street approaches to the crossing. The nearest intersection is Alma
Avenue, immediately to the east of the crossing. This principal arterial is less than 75 feet from
the crossing.
Since 1976, there have been a total of four train/auto incidents at this crossing. None of these
incidents resulted in an injury.
Korve Engineering, Inc."10 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
Churchill Avenue crossing looking east. Crossing has gates and flashing lights in
each direction. Sidewalks are )rovided on each side of the street.
Churchill Avenue looking west. Notice pedestrian gates on sidewalks, and short distance
between crossing and intersection with Alma Avenue.
Korve Engineering, Inc.11 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossingsin the City of Palo Alto
Vehicles stacked over tracks at stop signal at Churchill and Alma intersection.
2.3.3 West Meadow Drive MP 32.99
This urban collector street crosses the tracks in a residential area. The crossing is
approximately 1.1 miles south of the California Avenue station. The road crosses the tracks on
a 90-degree angle from west to east. The average daily traffic atthe location is 9,700, of which
5% is comprised of truck traffic. There is a single traffic lane in each direction. The train
approach warning devices at the location consist of an automatic gate with flashing lights and
bells on each side of the crossing. The approach of a train activates highway traffic signals at
this location. The crossing surface is Omni rubberized crossing panels in good condition.
There are stop lines and railroad crossing symbols painted on the street approaches to the
crossing. The nearest intersection is Alma Avenue, immediately to the east of the crossing.
This principal arterial is approximately 75 feet from the crossing.
The Federal Railroad Administration does not have any record of accident/incidents at this
crossing in the last ten years. ..
Korve Engineering, Inc,12 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
West Meadow Drive Iook{ng west. Notice "Do Not Stop on Tracks" signage,
pedestrian gates, and close proximately of Alma Avenue.
Korve Engineering, Inc.
West Meadow Drive looking east.
13 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossingsin the City of Palo Afro
West Meadow Drive looking east. Notice medium islands and closeness of
the Park Bou eva,rd Intersection.
2.3,4 Charleston Road MP 33.33
This urban minor arterial street crosses the tracks in a residential area. The crossing ~s
approximately 0.7 miles north of the San Antonio station. The road crosses the tracks on a 90-
degree angle from west to east. The average daily transit at the location is 14, 800, of which
8% is comprised of truck traffic. There are two eastbound and three westbound traffic lanes in
each direction. The train approach warning devices at the location comprise of an automatic
gate with flashing lights and bells on each side of the crossing. The approach of a train
activates highway traffic signals at this location. The crossing surface is Omni rubberized
crossing panels in good condition. There are stop lines and railroad crossing symbols painted
on the street approaches to the crossing. The nearest intersection is Alma Avenue, immediately
to the east of the crossing. This principal arterial is less than 75 feet from the crossing.
Since 1976, there have been a total of four train/auto incidents at this crossing. The records are
incomplete, but it appears that none of these incidents resulted in an injury.
Korve Engineering, Inc.14 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
Charleston Road looking west.
Notice pedestrian gates, and traffic/train warning SignalizatiOn coordination.
Korve Engineering, Inc,15 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in fhe City of Palo Alto
Charleston Road looking east. Notice traffic stacking over northbound tracks during red cycle.
Charleston Road looking east. Notice close proximately of Park Boulevard Intersection.
Korve Engineering, Inc.16 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY MEASURES
On January 13, 2000, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making (NPRM) in the Federal Register regarding quiet zones and describing the
supplemental safety measures that could be utilized to mitigate the sounding of train whistles at
a given location. After reviewing the comments ~’eceived from railroads, cities and other
stakeholders across the county, the FRA has withheld the issuance of a final rule until additional
data may be acquired. However, the NPRM remains the best source for information regarding
supplemental safety measures and the determination of the effectiveness of each measure in
maintaining the safety of the general public and the users of the railroad within a quiet zone.
The FRA conducted a nationwide study on the effectiveness of train horns as a safety measure.
Data was reviewed from 27 states and 17 major railroads. The time frame of the study was
from January 1988 through June 1994. The study indicated that the eliminationof the horn
increased the likelihood of an.accident by 62%. In order to compensate for the elimination of
the train horns, the supplemental safety measures must increase safety by an average of 38%.
The FRA study suggests that programs of public education and strict enforcement in and of
themselves, have the potential to produce the necessary safety enhancements. However, the
study also indicated that the most effective solutions were a combination of education,
enforcement and engineering. A discussion of supplemental safety measures is included in this
section.
3.1 .Temporary Closure of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
This measure requires that a crossing be closed for a period of time each day. There may only
be a single pedod of time each twenty-four hours, and the closure must occur every day. The
method used must. ensure that vehicles are physically unable to occupy the crossing such as
the placement of concrete barriers. As the crossing is effectively removed from the railroad .
using this supplemental safety method, the FRA rates this as 100% effective.
A four-quadrant gate system consists of gates placed to fully block highway traffic from
occupying the crossing when the gates are lowered. This method includes at least one gate for
each direction of travel on each approach. The four-quadrant gate system is designed to
prevent a driver from using the oncoming lanes of travel to avoid a lowered gate.2 The gates
must be within two feet of each other when in the lowered position. At crossings where there is
a median or channelization devices, the end of the gate must be no more than one foot from the
median or channelization device. The FRA is extremely supportive of this method of
2 It should be noted that the AAR does not share the FRA’s viewpoint on four quadrant gates, and feels
that more study is required. This may make gaining the approval of Amtrak and the UPRR more difficult.
Korve Engineering, Inc,17 March 2002
Final Reporf
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
supplemental safety, noting that no collisions were reported at the few locations where this
method of supplemental safety has been installed. The agency estimates that the use of four-
quadrant gates has a safety effectiveness of 77%.
Many issues must be addressed at each crossing where four quadrant gates are proposed..
The first is the exit gate delay time, the interval between the time the entry gate begins to
descend, and the exit gate descends. This interval must be of sufficient time to permit drivers
stacked on the tracks to clear the crossing before it is completely blocked. The second is that
the exit gates must be designed to fail in the up-right position, while the entry gates must be
designed to fail in the lowered position.
3,3 Gates with Medians or Channelization Devices
These are devices that keep highway traffic on both approaches to at grade crossing on the
proper traffic lanes. Medians and channelization devices deny the motorist the opportunity of
driving around the lowered gates into the opposing traffic lanes to cross the tracks. The FRA
proposed to consider medians/channelization devices as supplemental safety measures if the
following conditions are met:
1) Medians are bounded by barrier curbs.
2) Medians are bounded by mountable curbs equipped with channelization devices.
3)The medians/channelization devices must extend at least 100 feet from the crossing or
at least 60 feet if there is an intervening intersection.
3.4 One Way Streets with Gates.
This method requires that highway traffic can only approach the crossing in a single direction,
and that the gates cover all lanes of traffic. The gate in the lowered position must extend to
within one foot of the far edge of the pavement. If two gates are used, the arms must be within a
foot of each other when lowered. The curbs of the roadway must be designed to prevent a
motorist from driving aroundthe end of the gate via the shoulder. The FRA estimates that this
supplemental safety method has an effectiveness of 82%
3.5 Photo ~=nforcement
This is an automatic method of gathering valid photographic evidence of violations of traffic laws
at highway/rail grade crossings. This method is only effective if there is aculture of right-of-way
safety in the community, and the local law enforcement and judicial officials endorse strict
adherence to the traffic laws regarding highway/rail safety. The.NPRM does not require that
every crossing be continually monitored, provided that the motorists have the perception that a
violation of the law will more often than not, lead to sanctions. The existing California law
mandating a fine of at least $271 for a grade crossing violation is well in excess of the fine
suggested as sufficient deterrence to the average driver. A baseline rate of violations would
need to be established, then monitored over time to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the
Korve Engineering, Inc. 18 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
photo-enforcement program. The number of violationS/number of trains calculates the baseline
rate of violations for a period of time of at least four weeks. If the photo enforcement program is
accompanied by public notice or media coverage, then the baseline must be calculated over a
period of at least 16 weeks. A demonstrated reduction in violations of at least 49% must be
shown before the implementation of the quiet zone. This supplemental safety method is
estimated to have a 78% rate of effectiveness in reducing collision potential.
3.6 Programmed ~:nforcement
This safety measure requires local law enforcement officials to commit to a systematic and
demonstrable highway/rail grade crossing traffic law monitoring and enforcement program at all
crossings .within the quiet zone. In order to be evaluated for effectiveness, the establishment of
a valid baseline violation rate must be developed. The NPRM suggests that this may be
determined through automated or systematic manual monitoring or sampling at the effected
crossings.
This measure involves the dissemination of information about right-of-way safety and the
dangers of trespassing on railroad rights-of-way. It is intended to be implemented in conjunction
with the Programmed Enforcement discussed in Section 3.6. It is a program of public education
and awareness focused at motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and residents near the railroad
right-of-way. The goal is to emphasize the dangers associated with railroad crossings, and
trespassing on the right-of-way, by informing the public of the applicable laws and regulations.
3.8 I.-Cab sig.a|s
Caltrain representatives suggested that the installation of in-cab signals could be used to warn
the locomotive engineers when a crossing is blocked. The engineer could then sound the horn
only when necessary, limiting the impact on the surrounding community. This technology is
being tested on the East Coast. However, the implementation of such technology would require
a significant investment in control equipment, applied to all of the locomotives and cab-control
cars used on the corridor. It would also require that the Union Pacific Railroad install such
equipment on their locomotives that operate on the Peninsula. This concept is not addressed in
the FRA Notice of Proposed Rule Making, but is a potential long term solution to the issue, but
could only be deployed systemwide, and not as a specific Palo Alto project.
3.9 Way-s|de Horns
Wayside horns are a safety system where a horn is mounted at the crossing itself, instead of on
the locomotive. The approach of a train causes the horn to sound the FRA/CPUC required
warningl Two crossings in Nebraska have been equipped with such devices in a test being
conducted by the Volpe Transportation Research Center. The test period has not been
Korve Engineering, Inc.19 ~arch 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Pale Alto
completed at this time. However, the FRA has several concerns over the effectiveness of this
safety method. First, does wayside horns produce the same quality of warning as a locomotive
mounted horn? Second, does the lack of direction indication from a wayside horn hinder or
enhance the effectiveness of the device? Third, will the automatic nature of the device detract
from its creditability? Another issue is that the horns direct the sound directly into the
neighborhoods, not along the tracks. Residents between crossings will experience a lessening
of train horn noise. Unfortunately residents adjacent to the crossings, and along the intersecting
streets, will experience an increase of noise impacts. More pertinent to this report, the FRA has
not determined that wayside horns compensate for locomotive mounted horns at this time, and
will not consider such devices as part of a supplemental safety program.
QUI~=T :ZONe= APPROVAL PROC|=SS
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in
the Federal Register.on January 13, 2000 that would require a locomotive engineer to sound the
whistle whenever a train was approaching or occupying a public at-grade crossing. This rule
would reinforce the tules already in effect by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
and the railroads own operating rules. The NPRM allowed for a community to apply for a "quiet
zone" if specific requirements were met. Due to a variety of factors, the proposed rule has
never been placed into effect; however, it is the best available guideline for the development of
quiet zones.
The NPRM would have required that the state or local government, in this case the City of Pale
Alto, submit a plan to designate a quiet zone to the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety in
Washington, DC. The application would have to contain details describing the proposed
supplemental and alternative safety measures to be made at each crossing, and show
supporting calculations demonstrating that the measures taken will enhance the safety of the
crossing overall. The calculations would be based on the information contained in the rule. The
city would have to demonstrate through data and analysis that the implementation of the
supplemental safety measures creates a reduction in the risk to the public at highway/rail grade
crossings within the quiet zone. The risk would be assessed as the aggregate of the project, not
on a crossing by crossing basis. The application would have to show that the overall reduction
in predicted collision risk for the quiet zone as a whole must compensate for the elimination of
the locomotive whistles.
The city would have to indicate the length of the proposed quiet zone and the commitment of
the city to implement the program once it is approved. After the FRA has approved the
p~oposed quiet zone plan, then the city would then inform the railroads, the local law
enforcement and public safety agencies, and the public authority responsible for the crossings.
The engineering work would need to be completed before the quiet zone could be initiated.
Without the final FRA rule, a request for a waiver to the requirement to sounding the whistle
could be filed with the CPUC. However, for a waiver to establish a quiet zone to be considered
by the CPUC, the operating railroads, Amtrak for Caltrain and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) for
freight, and the property owner, Peninsula Commuter Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) must also
concur. Due to concerns over safety, increased liability exposure, and property damage,
Korve Engineering, Inc.20 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
railroads are reluctant to agree to quiet zones. The CPUC is extremely unlikely to grant a
request for a quiet zone without the approval of the owning and operating railroads. Even with
the approval of the railroad users, it is not certain that the CPUC would grant a waiver to avoid
sounding the whistle.
However, the current situation in California is that any quiet zone must be approved by the
CPUC, not the FRA. Until a final rule on quiet zones is published in the Federal Register, the
FRA is not directly involved. However, it would be prudent to include the FRA on the list of
agencies that must be contacted as part of the approval process. The application for relief from
the requirements of CPUCC 7678 would require the approval from Amtrak and UPRR, as well
as Caltrain. In addition, the local law enforcement and public safety agencies, and the agency
maintaining the crossings would need to approve of the program.
In light of the facts, the most prudent coarse of action appears to be to wait for the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) to publish a final rule on the establishment of quiet zones.
Design work on improvements and identification of funding (both capital and operating) could
begin, and the enhancements installed, ahead of the final rule. This approach would reduce the
time between the issuance of the final rule and the establishment of a quiet zone in Palo Alto;
however, there is no guarantee that the final rule will reflect the information and requirements in
the Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
The improvements recommended in this report for the creation of a quiet zone in the City of
Palo Alto are based on the Three "E"s of grade crossing safety. These are Education,
Enforcement and Engineering. All three are recommended as part of an overall package of
supplemental safety measures to allow the implementation of a quiet zone in Palo Alto. As a
starting point, the City could implement Education and Enforcement programs, and request a
nighttime whistle ban from the CPUC. This approach, if developed in conjunction with the
PCJPB, Amtrak, the Union Pacific and the regulatory agencies, may create a workable short-
term solution.
It is also important to stress that developing a consensus between the railroads, regulators and
community will be a multi-year project. Both the cities of Covina and Placentia in Southern
California have been working for over a decade attempting to establish quiet zones.
The next level of improvements could be the installation of traffic stripping at the crossings,
signage (both train approach activated and passive) at the crossings, with raised medians. The
final level could be the installation of quad-gates at each crossing. While there is a potential for
a phased program of implementation, it is likely that the railroads and the regulatory agencies
will require all improvements be in place before considering the initiation of a quiet zone.
The goal of this element is to inform the public of the quiet zone, and increase their awareness
of the safety issues associated with the railroad right of way. Residents along the-corridor
Korve Engineering, Inc,21 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossingsin the City of Palo Alto
would be informed by mass mailings of the proposed quiet zone, and their attention drawn to
the fact that the trains will not be sounding their horns approaching the crossings. The mailing
should be repeated every few months to provide the information to newly arrived residents.
Operation Lifesaver (a non-profit group dedicated to railroad right-of-way safety) programs
should be presented at least annually at each of the local schools, as well as whenever possible.
to adult groups. Pamphlets describing the quiet zone could be placed at the Palo Alto and
California Avenue Caltrain stations, and any public information kiosks under the control of the
City.
5.2 ~nforcernent
No matter what level of public education or safety engineering at a crossing, as long as there is
an at-grade crossing of the tracks, the potential exists for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians to
trespass into the path of a train. California law provides for a fine of $271 for driving around the
gates or through a crossing when the warning devices are activated. Working with Caltrain,
Amtrak and the UPRR, a regular program of "Officer On The Train", where local public safety
officials ride the cab of a train, and report grade crossing violations to officers along the right-of-
way could be implemented. The local judiciary would need to be informed of the critical role
they can provide by assessing the maximum fine whenever a grade crossing violation comes
before their bench. Strict enforcement of the law will aid in creating a culture of safety along the
right-of-way, necessary to convince the state and federal safety oversight agencies that the
proposed quiet zone is a safety enhancement.
5.3 Engineering
The recommendations are listed in detail by crossing. The installation of quad-gates, revised
signal timing, and raised medians where possible, are the primary supplemental Safety
measures recommended. In addition, additional signage on the street approaches, and
restrictions on turning movements from Alma Avenue .across the tracks are proposed.
Concept plans of these improvements are included in Appendix B.
5.3.’i
2)
3)
Alma Avenue
Four-quadrant gates, including pedestrian gates on bikeway.
Flashing lights at the intersection with Palo Alto Drive, activated by train approach.
Signage on the approach to the crossing from both directions, and the right turn lane
onto northbound Alma Avenue from westbound Palo Alto Drive, advising drivers that
trains will not sound horns on the approach to the crossing.
5.3.2 Churchill Avenue
1) Four-quadrant gates, including pedestrian gates on sidewalks.
Korve Engineering, Inc, 22 Man~h 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
2)Adjust the signal sequencing/interconnection with the train approach circuit at the
intersection of Alma Avenue and Churchill Avenue to allow additional time for vehicles to
clear the crossing before the gates descend.
3) Raised mediums on the west side approach to the tracks.
4) Signage on the approach to the crossing from both directions, and on the left turn lane
from northbound Alma Avenue to westbound Churchill Avenue, advising drivers that
trains will not sound horns on the approach to the crossing.
5)Add a "No Right Turn " illuminated sign that prohibits right turns from southbound Alma
Avenue onto westbound Churchill Avenue that is activated by a train approaching the
crossing.
5.3.3
3)
4)
5)
~tlfest Meado~f Drive
Four-quadrant gates, including pedestrian gates on sidewalks.
Adjust the signal sequencing/interconnection with the train approach circuit at the
intersection of Alma Avenue and West Meadow Drive to allow additional time for
vehicles to clear the crossing before the gates descend.
Raised mediums on the west side approach to the tracks,
Signage on the approach to the crossing from both directions, and on the left turn lane
from northbound Alma Avenue to westbound West Meadow Drive, advising drivers that
trains will not sound horns on the approach to the crossing.
Add a "No right Turn" illuminated sign that prohibits right turns from southbound Alma
Avenue onto westbound West Meadow Drive that is activated by a train approaching the
crossing.
Charleston Road
1)Four-quadrant gates, including pedestrian gates on sidewalks.
2)Adjust the signal sequencing/interconnection with the train approach circuit at the
intersection of Alma Avenue and Charleston Road to allow additional time for
¯ vehicles to clear the crossing before the gates descend.
3)Raised mediums on the west side approach to the tracks,
4)Signage on the approach to the crossing from both directions, and on the left turn
lane from northbound Alma Avenue to westbound West Meadow Drive, advising
drivers that trains will not sound horns onthe approach to the crossing.
5)Add a "No Right Turn" illuminated sign that prohibits right turns from southbound
Alma Avenue onto westbound Charleston Road that is activated by a train
approaching the crossing.
Korve Engineering, Inc,23 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
6.0 CONCEPTUAL COST ~ST|iVIAT~S
Conceptual cost estimates have been prepared for the improvements at each crossing. In
addition, there would be additional on-going annual expenses associated with the public
education, traffic safety enforcement and expanded liability coverage required. Depending on
the extend of the public education effort, and the actual costs of the insurance coverage, these
ongoing costs would range between $150,000 and $250,000 per year. The large variance is
primarily a result of uncertainties related to insurance coverage costs. The infrastructure
improvements that are recommended above have been estimated using data from Amtrak,
PCJPB, KORVE’s work on the Fremont -South Bay Commuter Rail Study, and manufacture’s
catalogues. Appropriate design and contingency multiples have been added to the costs. The
total infrastructure costs for each crossing are estimated to be:
Alma Avenue
Churchill Avenue
West Meadow Drive
Charleston Road
$525,000
$536,OO0
$537,0OO
$538,OOO
Please refer to Appendix "A", lower section, for a detailed breakout of the cost estimates.
Additional pictures from field review of July 2001 site inspection.
Alma Avenue looking northwest toward Caltrain crossing. Sight distance is
impacted by street alignment to the north:
Korve Engineering, Inc.24 March 2002
Final Report
Feasibility Study for Supplemental Safety Measures at Railroad Crossings
in the City of Palo Alto
Alma Avenue looking northwest. Notice street signage warning of tight
turn immediately before crossing.
Korve Engineering, Inc,25 March 2002
Appendix A
Grade Crossing Review Matrix and Cost Estimate
SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY MEASURES THE CffY OF PALO ALTO SUMMARY SHEET
Street Name
Alma Ave
Churchill Avenue
Meadow Drive
Charleston Road
Street Name
Alma Ave
Churchill Avenue
Meadow Drive
Charleston Road
Street Name
Alma Ave
Churchill Avenue
Meadow Drive
Charleston Road
LOCATION IDENTIFICATION
~ ~z ~ ~o ~o <~
754992N E-29.8 29.78 PCJPB City of PCJPB
Polo Alto CPUC
75499E
755010S
755011Y
14,200
10,100
9,700
14,800
E-31.0 31.01 PCJPB City of PCJPB
Pal0 Alto CPUC
E-33.0 32.99 PCJPB City of PCJPB
Polo Alto OPUC
E33.4 33.33 PCJPB City of PCJPB
Pato Alto CPUC
35
15 35
35
35
RAILROAD INFORMATION
80- PAS 70-PAS 2 0 8-A4-FRT 60-FRT
80- PAS 70-PAS 2 0 9-A4-FRT 60-FRT
80- PAS 70-PAS 2 0 9-A4-FRT 60-FRT
80- PAS 70-PAS 2 0 9-A4-FRT 60-FRT
STREET INFORMATION
8-A
8-A
8-A
8-A
Asphalt
Rubber Crossing
Panels
Rubber Crossing
Panels
Rubber Crossing
Panels
12
12
12
12
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
RECOMMENDATIONS
591 1 N/A No Yesdegrees
1 2 No 90 Yes No
1 1 No 90 Yes.No
3 2 No 90 Yes No
Eastbound Eastbound WestbouodWestbound
None Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Eastbound Westbound
None Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Eastbound
Westbound
125’east
30’ east
50’ east
, 50’east
x
×
x
x
x
x
x
x
IEastboundWestbo
und
Westbound
Westbound
Westbound
Federal Railroad
Administration
Safety Index
0.92
0.82
0.82
0.82
Raised Median Westbound
Length Cost per Totalfoot
80 $13.50 ~oso
0 $13.50 0
0 $13.50 0
0 $13.50 0
Raised Median Eastbound
Cost per :TotalLengthfoot
0 $13.50 $0
135 $13.50 $1,823
150 $13.50 $2,025
170 $13.50 $2,295
Train Does Not Sound
Estimated Costs
No Right Turn Illuminated Signage New Quad Gates Double Track**
-Total
$0
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
Number Cost per
Device
$398,000
$398,000
1
i
1
1
$398,000
$398,000
Total
$398,000
$398,000
:$398,000
$398,000
New 9-A Flashers for Quad
Whistle Signage
Number Cost per TotalSign
5 $175.00 $875
7 $175.00 $1,225
7 $175.001 $1,225
7 $175.00 $1,225
Gates
Cost per TotalDevice
$9,700 $19,400
$9,700 $19,400
$9,700 $19,400
$9,700 $19,400
New Pedestrian Gates
Number CostperSign
0 $3,000
!$3,000
1 $3,000
1.$3,000
Cost per
Device
$6,000
$6,000
$6,000
$6,000
Number
2
2
.2
2
* Costs are order of magnitude only and include a mark-up on material of 100% for installation and a 40% contingency factor.
**Costs are from Amtrak - California Passenger Rail Project Common Cost Estimation Methodology Technical Memorandum PBQ&D, February 2000
Number
4
4
4
4
Total
$24,000
$24,0O0
$24,000
$24;000
Total*
Cost per
Crossing
$524,994
$536,453
$537,02O
$537,776
9:12 AM1/2102
Appendix B
Conceptual Grade Crossing Improvements
LEGEND
"TRAIN DOES NOT SOUND HORN" SIGN
QUAD GATES/PEDESTRIAN GATES
"NO RIGHT TURN" ILLUMINATED,SIGN
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
CANTILEVER FLASHERS
~ OI’-V@
Engineering
PALO ALTO QUIET ZONE PROJECT
CHARLESTON ROAD CROSSING
1570 The Alameda, Suite 222
San Jose, CA 95126
(4-08) 298-2929 12/5/2.ool SCALE:l"= 5o’
LEGEND
"TRAIN DOES NOT SOUND HORN" SIGN
QUAD GATES/PEDESTRIAN GATES
"NO RIGHT TURN" ILLUMINATED SIGN
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
CANTILEVER FLASHERS
k( OI’-V@
Engineering
1570 The Alameda, Suite 222
S~n Jose, CA 95126
(408) 298-2929
PALO ALTO QUIET ZONE PROJECT
EADOW DRIVE CROSSING
121512001 SCALE:I"= 5o’
LEGEND
"TRAIN DOES NOT SOUND HORN" SIGN
QUAD GATES/PEDESTRIAN GATES
EXISTING RAISED MEDIAN
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
CANTILEVER FLASHERS
~ orv@
Engineering
PALO ALTO OUIET ZONE PROJECT
ALMA STREET CROSSING
1570 The Alumeda, Suite 222
Sun Jose, CA 95126(~-08) 298-:~929 12/5/2001 SCALE= 1"= 50’
~ OI’-V@
F-n9ineeri~ng
1570 The Alameda, SuH:e 22:2
San Jose, CA 95126
LEGEND
"TRAIN DOES NOT SOUND HORN" SIGN
QUAD GATES/PEDESTRIAN GATES
"NO RIGHT TURN" ILLUk41NATED SIGN
PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN
CANTILEVER FLASHERS
PALO ALTO QUIET ZONE PROJECT
CHURCHILL AVENUE CROSSING
(408) 298-2929 12/5/2OO1 SCALE : 1"= 50’[~A[O AI.~