Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-08 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONO~BLECITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING May 8, 2000 CMR:127:00 BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 FOR A FEASIBLITY STUDY FOR SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY MEASURES AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council: Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A) appropriating $30,000 to the Planning Department budget for a study to determine the feasibility of installing supplemental safety measures at all four railroad grade crossings in Palo Alto, and 2. Approve in principal the scope of work for the study. 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 feasibility of installing supplemental safety measures at all four railroad grade crossings in Palo Alto (CMR:380:99, Attachment C). DISCUSSION As explained in CMR:380:99, the requirement to sound train horns is vested exclusively in the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and Federal Railway Administration (FRA). The PUC 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 PUC CMR:I27:00 Page 1 of 4 Code preempts a city from adopting an ordinance prohibiting the sounding of train horns at street crossings within the city. However, 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 if: (1) the FRA determines there is 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 judgementof 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.-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 Environment Impact Statement and ruling regarding the sounding of horns. This ruling, which has been repeatedly delayed, would establish a procedure for consideration by the FRA of proposals by states and communities for approval of new supplemental safety measures that would permit the designation of quiet zones. It is this part of the federal law that has the potential to help reduce train whistle noise. 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 a representative of the FRA, staff was advised that the City should conduct a study to determine the feasibility of installing supplemental safety 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 is issued. Staff’ s understanding is that such a study would be a pre-requisite for filing an application. Feasibility Study Typically in the beginning of each fiscal year, staff requests both the Policy and Services and Finance Committees to indicate their preference if one or the other committee would be interested in reviewing the scope of work for consultant studies over $25,000. Since this is a new project, neither Committee had an opportunity to indicate a preference regarding reviewing the scope of work. Given that the City may wish to file an application with the FRA for a quiet zone designation, as soon as the ruling is issued, CMR: 127:00 Page 2 of 4 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, and requests that Council, as a whole, review and comment on the scope of work (Attachment D). The study would identify and evaluate supplemental safety devices needed to meet FRA requirements, including schematic designs and cost estimates for design and installation of the devices. Staff has also received a letter from the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Attachment E) offering to work with staff and assist with the scope of work. Staff has reviewed the scope of work with JPB staff and their comments are included in the attached Scope of Work. 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 design and installation of supplemental safety devices. Approval of the Budget Amendment Ordinance will permit staff to begin the feasibility study process, as soon as possible. The funds are requested at this time rather than with the 2000-01 budget to enable the feasibility study process to begin prior to July 2000. The attached BAO requests an additional appropriation from the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) of $30,000. No future year General Fund ongoing costs are anticipated as a result of this BAO. Attachment B summarizes the BAOs approved to date in 1999-00 that impact the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. This attachment also estimates future year ongoing costs associated with BAOs approved to date to provide a projection for the future resource needs from the General Fund for those programs approved after the adoption of the 1999-00 budget. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with Council direction. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15306 (Information Collection) of the CEQA Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS Budget Amendment Ordinance Budget Amendment Ordinances Impacting the General Fund Approved to Date in 1999-00 CMR:380:99 Scope of Work JPB Letter CMR: 127:00 Page 3 of 4 PREPARED BY:Ashok Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer DEPARTMENT HEAD: G. EDWARD Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: HARRI Assistant City Manager Kenneth L Ross, Public Utility Commission Jerome Kirzner, Joint Powers Board Harry Makler Frits Vanderlinden Chet DiLauro CMR: 127:00 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $30,000 FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RELATING TO TRAIN WHISTLES WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 28, 1999 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 1999-00; and WHEREAS, Palo .Alto residents have often expressed concerns about the noise level of train whistles; and WHEREAS, as part of an effort to address the noise from train whistles, Council directed staff to explore the possibility of installing supplemental safety measures as a means of reducing train whistle noise; and WHEREAS, an appropriation of $30,000 is needed to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of installing supplemental safety measures at all four railroad grade crossings in Palo Alto; and WHEREAS, the additional appropriation of funds from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is a one-time cost and no future year General Fund ongoing costs are anticipated. WHEREAS, City Council authorization is needed to amend the 1999-00 budget as hereinafter set forth. SECTION i. The sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) is hereby appropriated to non-salary expenses in the Transportation and Parking Management Functional Area in the Planning Department, and the Budget Stabilization Reserve is correspondingly reduced. SECTION 2. This transaction will reduce the Stabilization Reserve from $13,335,753 to $13,305,753. Budget SECTION 3. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 4. This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15306 (Information Collection) of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.350 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Services Administrative Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT B Budget Amendment Ordinances Impacting General Fund Reserves Approved-To-Date in 1999-00 BAO Description Cost Revenu~ Placeholders Already In t~e Impact on the Estimated General Fund Future Year199900 AdoptedBudget BSR Ongoing Costs Estimated Beginning Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) Balance Adopted Budget Addition to BSR Downtown Urban Design Improvements, CIP 19608 Salary and Benefit Increases Retroactive to July 1, 1999 for Management and Confidential Employees City Manager Executive Recruitment Friends of the Palo Alto Library Grant Arts Council of Santa Clara County Grant Palo Alto Art Center Foundation Donation Cost of Sound Wall for Tennis Facility at 3005 Middlefield Rd. IT Strategic Plan Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS) Local Law Enforcement (LLE) Block Grant Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study, CIP 19530 Golf Course Management Agreement Police Department Table of Organization Change Animal Services Fees Major Intersection Improvements, CIP 19073 Johnson Park Lighting Improvements, CIP 19903 Telecommunications Consulting Midyear Report City Manager Compensation Package Crossing Guards Acquisition of PAMF sites Infrastructure Staffing Public Library Fund Grant Performing Arts Center Feasibility Study Outside Legal Counsel Services Train Whistle Noise Control ($120,349) ($432,2O0) ($26,000) ($58,000)$58,000 ($5,407)$5,407 ($10,000)$10,000 ($50,000) ($250,100)$60,534 ($135,901)$135,90t ($26,192)$26,192 ($308,000) ($34,100)$103,900 ($1o,ooo) ($1,2oo)$1,75o ($30,100)$30,100 ($19,693) ($62,500) $0 ($58,700) ($43,000) ($6,929,155) ($125,000) ($16,400) ($103,108)$103,108 ($50,000) ($50,000) ($30,000) $189,566 $16,400 $20,591,000 $949,000 ($120,349) ($432,200) ($26,000) $0 $0 $0 ($50,00O) $0 $0 $0 ($308,0o0) $69,800 $0 $550 $0 ($19,693) ($62,500) $0 ($58,700) ($43,000) ($7,o54,155) $o $o ($50,000) ($50,000) ($30,00O) ($432,200) ($317,917) ($7,000) $1,700 ($79,500 ($43,000 ($ 512,000 ($125,300 BSR Balance After BAO’s I $13,305,753 TO: ATTN: ATTACHMENT C City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DATE:OCTOBER 12, 1999 SUBJECT:TRAIN WHISTLE NOISE CMR:380:99 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 I 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 the 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 162,000 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" altemative. 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 nation, including those where homs are currently not sounded. It is staff’s understanding that the proposed action altemative 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 hom 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 hom. 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 of proposals by states 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 should 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 waming devices at all four grade crossings in Palo Alto (Attachment B). The study would include identification and evaluation of supplemental 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 det6rmine 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, as 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 Director ofPlar~, g and " Community ~’n/~ironment .... ,) ~yManager Q_~ 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: January 6, 1999 City Council Colleagues Council Members Rosenbaum and Mossar SUBJECT: Investigation of Grade Crossing Altematives 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 altemative to sounding train whistles at each grade crossing. Federal law defines supplemental safety measures to include measures that are an: "... effective substitute for the locomotive horn in the prevention of highway-rail casualties. A traffic control arrangement that ~revents 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 move that staff be 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 PaloAlto. City desires to establish a quiet zone where trains are no( required to use their horns at these crossings. It is our understanding that FRA regulations currently being finalized will require that supplemental warning devices oe 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: 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. Bo 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 will 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 Eo Develop Recommendations and Cost Estimates. Consultant will develop recommendations 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 Study Report. Consultant will prepare a Feasibility Study 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 by 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 ATTACHMENT D 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 not required to use their horns at these crossings. It is our understanding that 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. Accordingly, it is essential that the Consultant be cognizant of current and pending regulation by the FRA and PUC concerning whistle bans. The feasibility study will consist of the following work tasks: SRe 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 waming 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. C0 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 will 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, April 28, 2000 Page 1 of 2 Do Eo pedestrian gates, and other improvements. In addition, Consultant will explore alternatives to reduce train whistle noise. Develop Recommendations and Cost Estimates. Consultant will develop recommendations 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. Any proposed changes to the existing signal system would comply with current JPB signal standards, including signal design and installation. PrePare Feasibility Study Report. Consultant will prepare a Feasibility Study 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 by 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. April 28, 2000 Page 2 of 2 13,1999 9~n Cedes, UA June Fleming, City Man~er City of PaSo Alto P,O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 SUBJECT:POLICY AND SERVICE COMMITTEE CALTRAIN WRISTLE NOISE ATTACHMENT E Dear Ms. Fleming: Jerry Haugh, the JPB Executive Dkector, is away this w~k, but has asked me to omm~uzica1~ our iater~-t and eonc~z with the issue of Caltraln whistle noise on l~ght’s agenda of the PoLicy and S~rviccs Cozn~tt~. We l¢,amcd of the me~tlag late yesterday through media queries. The staffreport we subsequently received suggests a fcaslbility study on supplemental wamtug devices at the gr~le crossing~ ~ question. Our R~I Services pez-sOnncl, ~g~LheZ" with the Amtrak management team tl~t operates Cal~tin service, can offe~ significant technical contributions ~o a work program for this project. We would be happy to provide this input immediately. Significantly, David Obedoza, ~B Rail S~-r~4ces Manager of Comm~mications and Signals, will be in Coll=ge Station, Texas, th~ weekend attending "The New Millennium: 1999 Highway Rail Grade Crossing SafeV Confu~n~e" at Texa~ A&M Unive~’sity. The conference is sponsored by the Texas Trar~ortation I~titut~ Rail Research Center the Associa60a of Ara~t’iean Railroad~. It v~I1 focus on the least innovafion~ and technologies i. gr,~ crossing ~fety, and wo~ld appear to bo directly applicable to the issue of supplemental safety measur~, Although pr©viou~ commitments prohibit teclmloal representation from Amtrak and tho JPB at tonight’s meeting, t would triturate our d~sh~ to confer with city ~ elected offldala and homeownezs at any time for a meaningful exploration of this perplexing aad importmzt isle, C: O~ld T. Fiaugh Jerome K~rzner David Nog~r