Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.A. Shakopee Train Safety/Quiet Zone Workshop 111111111 General Business 8. A. SJ OP EE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bruce Loney, Public Works Director DATE: 09/01/2015 SUBJECT: Shakopee Train Safety/Quiet Zone Workshop (E) Action Sought Council direction and feedback on the strategies moving forward on the Train Safety/Quiet Zone Study. Background The City of Shakopee hired SRF Consulting Group to conduct a Train Safety/Quiet Zone Study. This study has been proceeding with a June 30, 2015 Diagnostic Meeting with representatives from Union Pacific, Federal Railroad Administration, MnDOT and the City. Also there have been two meetings with the Railroad Safety Committee whose members include Councilors Luce and Lehman, city administrator and city engineer. The attached power point presentation has the background information of the Train Horn Rule and what measures are needed to install a quiet zone. SRF Consulting Group representatives will make the presentation and be able to answer questions on the study and quiet zone requirements. Also quiet zone scenarios are included and need to be discussed with the Council. Staff would be looking for further direction on strategies moving forward and what scenarios are acceptable or should be eliminated. Recommendation To discuss the Train Safety/Quiet Zone Study process and scenarios and provide direction to the strategies moving forward. Budget Impact Potentially a significant cost depending on what scenario is selected and Railroad cost participation. • Relationship to Vision This supports Goal E: Deliver effective and efficient public services by a staff of well-trained, caring and professional employees. Requested Action Council direction and feedback on the strategies moving forward on the Train Safety/Quiet Zone Study. Attachments: Power Point of Study 1011111: ,.. , , =.. T SHAKOPEE TRAIN SAFETY/,� � ia�,iti : s QUIETZONE WORKSHOP ;. •,,,,,,,-:... . —_- i-,,, ..,........, , ,:. -- litt . ,.., a.- . -----,-- ---. ._ _ . .:, .,, ._ , , , 4 0101110.1110 IW . . r JO�* ��'% -.'� '0 Shakopee City Council Meeting ( ''P I ' '- September 1, 2015 t STOP ON RED ' , STOP SIGNAL SRF if SIGNAL s � nmult n;(�n nil i.Im p Train Horn Rule Background ili • 1994 : Congress mandates Federal regulation of horns at grade crossings with exceptions to allow "quiet zones" _ , • 1994-2003 : FRA solicits input from stakeholders • 2005 : Train Horn Rule goes into effect RF Minimum Requirements • Quiet Zone must be at least 1/2-mile long and include all crossings within the quiet zone limits • All public grade crossings must meet pre-qualifying criteria : — Gates and flashing lights — Power-out indicators — Constant warning time detectors CRF Two-Quadrant Vehicle Gates, Warning Lights, Constant Warning Time — — • Cost = $400K (Typically $250K) • Required for quiet � zone designation Railroad controls: talk CEP — installation kid — scheduling — requirements — — — cost RF Hill Co 101 'r�^64.i io do d '''‘'• d d4 C'S 4d li dO, S St,nkn r n -47. 47 19 �1 n a ii 7 d4 Sr d� •• l `foSp o �i4 d� �s 0�. �"x��a �d 10 (jell- ii0(i4'e-4N%.'",p Cd -es 'Po Ord /�d� �� Ld ", �Z 4' ,$�F o e'Jr o",p .s. %1 �-`9..r r Sr r(�d . or r e ii d ��� err ^d0 Sr S% 4 . 0' d' �d sf FO e 115111t tt .. 77 , • Public Crossing with Gates . I . $41. Public Crossing, no Gates . T ,',X, Private Crossing, no Gates "` 169 —1--I Union Pacific Railroad 31:1UA a I 0 0.5 1 a A Sources:Esri,HERE,DeLorme,USGS,Intermap,increment P Corp.,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI, Miles SA; Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,Mapmylndia,©OpenStreetMap contributors,and o the GIS User Community INN' Shakopee Quiet Zone Shakopee Train Safety I Quiet Zone Study Figure 1 City of Shakopee Quiet Zone Risk Levels • Quiet Zone Implementation based on risk analysis • DOT Accident Prediction Model reiltaMMegtAMA/A040arAd — Highway volumes and speed — Rail volumes and speed — Crossing surface and geometry — Previous crash history (5 years) — Estimated cost by crash type Quiet Zone Risk Levels • Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) — Risk level after crossing improvements and no -• -- - horn sounding • Risk Index With Horns ( RIWH) — Existing conditions with horns • Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT) — National average of risk for all crossings in the U.S. — Adjusted annually (Current level = 14,347) Supplementary Safety Measures ( SSMs ) • Four-quadrant vehicle gates - - • Medians/channelization devices • Closure (temporary or permanent) • One-way street • Wayside horns SRF Four- Quadrant Vehicle Gates - - • Cost w/ detection = $900K Exit _-__ — Entrance Gate \_: --,__::‘, Gate • Railroad agreement • Maintenance costs = / t.-' 1-1 $5-10K annually -24 Track • Railroad controls: Crossing — Installation requirements 0 -) ' 7 Area — Construction schedule JL — Cost Y L _, _ • No access impacts X _ __I: .4-' -=._ • 77-82% risk reduction 16RF Four- Quadrant Gate Example vl . ,. Ts._ i • . - - 2 7, _ _Mr'riligr-e- r ,...........„,...... ''''....'"'.. . 1 )1%64 . •, ',., ' ..... ... I e 43 CI r r , - I , ,F 44‘Rgii,4416,440 - '114 ,R4cKsip, . 1 . . , ..4,..._ i , _ ,Il.' -77:- - - _.-., ' 1 . -----. V.,' , - - .--,,a,liem .y'. \ i '' —17,- 1-1111711011,41411rA ":'..-''.. . ; ..• , .,.. 0 1 , grOil-,,P.It-,.0" ,.., . ..", . ' ' ' _ t"'_2_'... " ' ' ,Ast,Viti - s• _ -, .,, '..3 ..,0Aim -I i 1 .,' - "-. - ' -JD , fi f 7 1 1 , = II I - - A Ail . . .4. n i II vi 47,.. NMI ' . 14.7 NO' , —..t.' : . ii M 111 '.at ' ..../j :''' up-.:,- I : 111 ' * 1 Lajil . l''' '' ' ' ,•I • 1111 i , I 8 I '' • , ".4 ' .'..-. 7 " l°11- -. '.; 0 -' 11il ' l' .''- r - ..3: ' 1, ' , t ,1 r..... ...,.-- -- - ' r .,,,,:-..-- t- . in/ •, -- lli liii ___ 11191 II€. , . ':'''+' ',' ---- =‘'..',; SRF Non -Traversable Medians! Channelization Devices Raised median may physically prevent ! _ • Cost = $ 10 - 100K motorists from driving around the lowered •=• Minimal maintenance crossing gates iri costs , r iiiii -- L — — • • City controls : or --, % ci- - ~ - — installation MO 1 % Aim. 4611 IIIII is - - - - — - - - - — scheduling SO — Cost -- -- Intended motorist --- — path blocked by • 75-80% risk reduction -- -- raised median -SRF Non -Traversable Median Example a:, f�. ' '``�'*� F Y'r Y Y' '�', i�.�T� I/`,��d6"%lY� iA' ? FF�`��,4� .-f - ± r. 1M11T` s ` ' t x A 1, 4 A d, 777, ♦ y ..a tS {a i ? '4 .Itom � 1A :. � w*mss ', j e § ` i 'p': f �7:1 1 ' 7 11 ' ',w, ^.0 §. era '..r ,1 , 1' .,.h"pr �7, /r9�i.7i7 ,ti '.i,14'$. S1�C l:�k t` iiil5, 1 '�'� T `t L vt lA4IM' c% tie'.g A` m/ t r r `.'+r.w ' !, e :�6�� t 1 tl �: ` 'R f,_' rs ' > fN- �!, �• r e - Leh ;t R + - ~ 'may, .i. i 4f: O•• ; jj , ,[ � 3 ' 1111 , ''s' •�"^f' I, +f, p °>`\ \ j �'� s�AyVXy�ki r Is,l'�! �Y /7�; f,�°y`�. - .%� r , Lr ._ ,.� \ ,y P d P fio, /',� 'fi b a �4 ? f R,jy t. . u e 1 LTr X 1 • at-r-li. it, , ?I' i1I :rr�• — — — r� d r x .,a0. . �,. - Tl1 .� aft q, te Baa.? r� B torr -11464.441046 f t "%ririt 4w ., SRF Channelization Device Example .... _ _ ., • ....„.. , ,..,,.. , `1. r, s : K l - J y • ,4. i„� . RN x ti ++ • • TRAINS DO • Imo •, j� , ,••y • .� r r OT SOUND + � •� HORN iiIIV -- SRF Crossing Closure __ ., ._..... ...._... ..,.. . , ,...7.. , 1 Ir • *� r . ........ . ..... %,.,v,. ....r.„....7..:-.:.:;,...,...,_ .. __,. ....,, .• ..?... . .. • . . , ... .,..., : *.... ,,, , ,:.• ... . : I," ..,H,...#4,40,,_ ...4„„,„„...„, ...__ i . ._•.:,... ,;..;;.:.n,... . . ..., ........ _..4...i • a ' .1 „. ,,.. f „, Ei . ..,_, :, .0::,)---iii ......... _______,,,z,..„ ! . .- CLOSED - - 1 81 C :1::'.: =.1.1 .......,HVILL, :: '' j,..2,,I,..... . • "" ri . ` r III. Y One -Way Street Vehicle gate prevents • Costs variable : motorist from entering the crossing area when _ $400K (Upgrad e) 1111 Street Conversion Costs • Typically done as _ — — one-way pairs • 82% risk reduction RF Wayside Horns • Cost w/ detection = $100K • Annual maintenance costs = $5K i "" Scholl • Stationary horn sounded in place of train horn ,,, �; . • Railroad installs train detection „ system — requires RR Agreement Orat • No access impacts yg • Less expensive than four-quadrant gates ..4 ter. • Equal risk to train horn RF Alternative SafetyMeasures • Reduced Length Non -Traversable .....:...:..... . Medians/Channelization""iimmiNaim Devices w IN ..,._„, , . . ' \. • . ., . . . - - L . ., . _ . . . . , .. , ,. , , . ... .. ,, . :,: ,.., , .. ,,. ,:,,,A, . .:60,,, - Ipw ,, ,..• , v ,, ., . . , ._, , ..„...,.....„ . . .v ,..,--,,,,,,,,,.. .. - , - .-- ., ,...- :,:,,, . „ .. , ,. „,. , , _,. . *4' , 7 / , , - ' ' ''C '. ..,,c;,., -' ,-,10, ...,,,r7.::::," 44.,_. . ....• ., __ • f.: \ i b • R V Implementation Steps 1. Diagnostic Meeting 2. Determine Necessary Crossing Improvements 3 . Notice of Intent ----- - 4. Application Required if ASMs are Used - "` 5 . Install Crossing Improvements 6. Notice of Establishment Typical Quiet Zone Project takes 1-2 Years Shakopee Diagnostic Meeting • Held on June 30, 2015 ` • Representatives from — City of Shakopee — Union Pacific Railroad ( UP) — Federal Railroad Administration ( FRA) — Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MnDOT) — Private crossing representatives SRF Shakopee Diagnostic Meeting • Minimum upgrade costs — Higher than typical due to constant warning time complexity (closely-spaced crossings) • Closures — UP wants as many closures as possible — Funding available from UP/MnDOT ( For full closures only, not pedestrian conversions) — Fencing at closed crossings is recommended, but not required • West 3rd Avenue public/private status • Signal cabinet locations RF Potential Improvement Options • Medians/Channelization Devices — Proposed at Marschall, Sarazin, and Shenandoah • Closures: — Best candidates are Fuller and Minnesota • Four-Quadrant gates — Effective, but expensive • One-way street pair — Best candidates are Holmes and Sommerville • Additional improvements not required at every crossing. Quiet Zone Scenarios • Scenario 1 : Minimal Improvements — Meets NSRT Threshold Only .�. ,, • Scenario 2 : Closures Used • • Scenario 3 : One-Ways Used • Scenario 4 : No Closures or One-Ways CRF Quiet Zone Scenarios Scenario la Scenario lb Scenario 2a Scenario 2b Scenario 4a and 4b: (10 mph): (25 mph): Scenario 3a and 3b: Minimal Minimal (10 mph): (25 mph): One-Ways Used No Closures I Improvements Improvements Closures Used Closures Used or One-Ways APGAR ST None None None None None None SCOTT ST None None None None None None ATWOOD ST None None None None None None FULLER ST Minimum Close Close Close Minimum Minimum Upgrades Upgrades Upgrades HOLMES ST Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum One-Way Four-Quadrant Upgrades Upgrades Upgrades Upgrades Conversion Gate LEWIS ST Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Four-Quadrant Four-Quadrant Upgrades Upgrades Upgrades Upgrades Gate Gate SOMMERVILLE ST Minimum Minimum Minimum Four-Quadrant One-Way Four-Quadrant Upgrades Upgrades Upgrades Gate Conversion Gate SPENCER ST Minimum Minimum Four-Quadrant Four-Quadrant Four-Quadrant Four-Quadrant Upgrades Upgrades Gate Gate Gate Gate MARKET ST Minimum Minimum Four-Quadrant Four-Quadrant Minimum Minimum Upgrades Upgrades Gate Gate Upgrades Upgrades MINNESOTA ST Minimum Close Close Close Minimum Minimum Upgrades Upgrades Upgrades MARSCHALL ROAD None Channelizers on Channelizers on Channelizers on Channelizers on Channelizers on Existing Medians Existing Medians Existing Medians Existing Medians Existing Medians SARAZIN ST None Medians with Medians with Medians with Medians with Medians with Access Closure Access Closure Access Closure Access Closure Access Closure SHENANDOAH DRIVE None Medians Medians Medians Medians Medians TOTAL COST $ 2,800,000 $ 2,077,500 $ 3,077,500 $ 3,577,500 $ 3,937,500 $ 4,877,500 SRF Train Speed Risk Impact 10- 25 m hp Risk Index: Risk Index: Risk Index: Existing Warning 10 mph with Existing 25 mph with Existing 25 mph with Additional Crossing Street Devices Conditions Conditions Improvements Improvement Estimated Cost 185336H APGAR ST Gates 3,054 A 4,- 4,575 None 185335B SCOTT ST Gates 2,432 3,630 3,630 None 185334U ATWOOD ST Gates 5,777 7,682 7,682 None 185332F FULLER ST Flashing Lights 5,639 7,499 5,537 Gate Upgrade $400,000 185331Y HOLMES ST Flashing Lights 6,187 8,228 6,209 Gate Upgrade $400,000 185330S LEWIS ST Flashing Lights 6,138 8,162 6,147 Gate Upgrade $400,000 185329X SOMMERVILLE ST Flashing Lights 6,513 8,661 6,622 Gate Upgrade $400,000 185328R SPENCER ST Flashing Lights 8,866 11,791 9,969 Gate Upgrade $400,000 187077F MARKET ST Flashing Lights 5,411 7,157 5,245 Gate Upgrade $400,000 1853271 MINNESOTA ST Flashing Lights 5,078 6,754 4,879 Gate Upgrade $400,000 5,509 7,414 6,050 $2,800,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 E 0 I I I ill di iii iii III 1 lb III APGAR ST SCOTT ST ATWOOD ST FULLER ST HOLMES ST LEWIS ST SOMMERVILLE SPENCER ST MARKET ST MINNESOTA ST ST Train Speed Risk Impact 10- 25 m hp Risk Index: Risk Index: Risk Index: Existing Warning 10 mph with Existing 25 mph with Existing 25 mph with Additional Crossing Street Devices Conditions Conditions Improvements Improvement Estimated Cost 185336H APGAR ST Gates 3,054 4,575 4,575 None 185335B SCOTT ST Gates 2,432 3,630 3,630 None 185334U ATWOOD ST Gates 5,777 7,682 7,682 None 185332F FULLER ST Flashing Lights 5,639 7,499 5,537 Gate Upgrade $400,000 185331Y HOLMES ST Flashing Lights 6,187 8,228 6,209 Gate Upgrade $400,000 185330S LEWIS ST Flashing Lights 6,138 8,162 6,147 Gate Upgrade $400,000 185329X SOMMERVILLE ST Flashing Lights 6,513 8,661 6,622 Gate Upgrade $400,000 185328R SPENCER ST Flashing Lights 8,866 11,791 1,794 Four-Quad Gates $900,000 187077F MARKET ST Flashing Lights 5,411 7,157 5,245 Gate Upgrade $400,000 185327J MINNESOTA ST Flashing Lights 5,078 6,754 4,879 Gate Upgrade $400,000 5,509 7,414 6,050 $3,300,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 E 0 0 :110 s 1 1 1 di ili ili ill II. di III 0 APGAR ST SCOTT ST ATWOOD ST FULLER ST HOLMES ST LEWIS ST SOMMERVILLE SPENCER ST MARKET ST MINNESOTA ST ST Quiet Zone Decision Process 440 yP� City o%pi of Shakopee ........... QUALITY OF LIFE SRF Questions ? Andy Mielke, AICP Chris Ryan, PE SRF Consulting Group, Inc. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. amielke@srfconsulting.com Cryan@srfconsulting.com 763-475-0010 763-475-0010 SRF