City of Berkeley Railroad Quiet Zone Study

City of Berkeley Railroad Quiet Zone Study Final Report Prepared for the City of Berkeley April 13, 2009 2 Adavant Consulting

City of Berkeley Railroad Quiet Zone Study Final Report Adavant Consulting April 13, 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the Berkeley Railroad Quiet Zone Study is to explore the potential for implementation of a Quiet Zone on the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) corridor through the City of Berkeley. This assessment looked at existing and future conditions for the Berkeley rail corridor, identified potential Quiet Zone improvements, evaluated the performance of Quiet Zone scenarios and presented an outline of next steps for implementing a Quiet Zone. The following findings and recommendations resulted from the Berkeley Quiet Zone Study. According to federal regulations, trains are required to blow their horns as they approach at-grade crossings with roadways. The horn sounding is a safety measure to alert motorists and pedestrians intending to cross the tracks that a train is approaching. Seven at grade crossings are located in the Berkeley corridor including (from north to south) Gilman Street, Camelia Street, Cedar Street, Virginia Street, Hearst Avenue, Addison Street and Bancroft Way. The Berkeley corridor carries both freight and passenger rail traffic with 74 trains per day sounding their horns ¼ mile prior to each of the seven crossings as required by federal safety regulations. In addition, horns are sounded by the 32 daily Capitol Corridor trains as they depart the Berkeley Station. Passenger trains operate from 4:40 am to 10:00 pm; UP and BNSF freight trains operate 24 hours a day. Another 30 freight and passenger trains could be added by 2030. Implementation of a Quiet Zone pursuant to federal standards could reduce up to 94% of existing soundings of train horns across the seven Berkeley railroad crossings. However, the 32 horn soundings from the Capitol Corridor trains departing the Berkeley Station and additional soundings at the engineer s discretion due to activity in the rail right-of-way would continue. Quiet Zone safety measures (SSM) include o Four-quadrant gates o Gates with medians or channelization devices, also known as traffic separators o One-way streets equipped with gates that fully block the street o Temporary closure (i.e., nighttime closure) o Permanent closure (including grade separation) Wayside horns can be used as an alternative to the sounding of train horns. Wayside horns are installed at the crossing facing down the crossing street towards oncoming traffic on either side of the crossing; their sound is directional, concentrated on the approach. Wayside horns are not a Quiet Zone safety measure as horns are still sounded but can be used as a replacement to train horns. The safety risk with implementation of the Quiet Zone is estimated using the Federal Railroad Association s Quiet Zone Calculator. To qualify for Quiet Zone status, the corridor must have a risk level 101752 Page ES - 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY below a national standard, employ SSMs at each crossing, or implement SSMs at some crossings to reduce the level of risk to an acceptable level. Assuming a grade separation at Gilman Street, the cost of potential improvements (2008 dollars) is estimated at $4.3 million to $8.9 million for Quiet Zone improvements at six the remaining crossings. The grade separation at Gilman Street, considered desirable for circulation and Quiet Zone improvements, is estimated at minimum cost of $20.2 million (2009 dollars). Transportation staff is endorsing further review of an under-crossing rather than an over-crossing option. Six Quiet Zone improvement scenarios were analyzed: For all scenarios, four quadrant gates (estimated at a cost of $1.25M each) were recommended for Hearst Avenue, Addison Street, and Bancroft Way. Camelia and Virginia Streets were considered for four-quadrant gates, roadway closure ($50,000), or no change. Cedar Street was considered for a median ($25,000) or four quadrant gates. Gilman Street was considered for a grade separation, wayside horns or four-quadrant gates in two different scenarios each. The lowest cost scenario included three installations of four-quadrant gates, a median at Cedar Street, no improvements at Camelia or Virginia Streets, and a wayside horn at Gilman Street. A modified median now under consideration at Addison Street will not qualify as an SSM for the Quiet Zone; but if the overall risk was lowered for the proposed Quiet Zone, this improvement might be allowable. Additional reporting or initial steps to qualify might be necessary. Current risk vs. national standard Currently the national risk standard (a threshold Berkeley would ideally not exceed) is just 17,610 while Berkeley is with horns operating at a risk of 52,288. All analyzed scenarios can improve upon the Berkeley risk with horns (RWIH), and four of six analyzed scenarios reduce risk below the national standard (NSRT). Additional safety concerns. In addition each crossing has access issues that will require action pertaining to private property access as follows: o Gilman Street Access to property with sole access from 3 rd Street railroad right-of-way (ROW). o Camelia Street Parking on the railroad ROW. o Cedar Street Driveway within the safety gates. o Virginia Street - Parking on railroad ROW. o Hearst Avenue Queuing at Truitt and White Lumber s driveway may back onto tracks, day laborers standing near the tracks may increase horn use and place laborers at risk. o Addison Street Driveway within safety gates. o Bancroft Way Driveway within safety gates. Partial Quiet Zones, Phased Quiet Zones, and wayside horns were all considered as alternatives to a complete Quiet Zone. With the exception of using a wayside horn as an interim strategy for Gilman Street, these other options were dismissed as inadequate given Berkeley s conditions, i.e. numerous adjacent crossings and continued night-time noise impacts. 101752 Page ES - 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Study Context...1-1 Quiet Zones and the Quiet Zone Process...1-3 (1) Local Agency Designation...1-3 (2) FRA Review and Designation...1-4 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS Rail Operations in Berkeley...2-1 Freight Operations UP and BNSF...2-1 Passenger Operations Amtrak...2-2 At-grade Crossings in Berkeley...2-4 Gilman Street...2-6 Camelia Street...2-6 Cedar Street...2-7 Virginia Street...2-8 Hearst Avenue...2-9 Addison Avenue...2-10 Bancroft Way...2-11 Roadway Characteristics...2-12 Grade Crossing Layouts and Adjacent Intersection Configuration...2-12 Motor Vehicle Traffic and Delay...2-12 Emergency Access...2-14 Pedestrian/Bicycle Traffic...2-14 Safety Issues...2-15 CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS Future Demographics...3-1 Land Use Assumptions...3-1 Approved and Potential Development...3-2 Future Railroad Operations...3-2 Freight Operations...3-2 Passenger Operations Amtrak...3-2 Future Vehicular Traffic Conditions at Crossings...3-3 Future Grade Separation...3-4 101752 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 4: QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS Measurements of Risk...4-1 Quiet Zone Safety Measures...4-2 Methodology...4-3 At-grade Crossing Characteristics...4-4 Evaluation of Grade-crossing Improvements...4-5 Considerations for a Partial Quiet Zone...4-6 Considerations for Phased Implementation of the Quiet Zone...4-7 Wayside Horns...4-7 CHAPTER 5: PERFORMANCE OF THE QUIET ZONE Quiet Zone without Improvements...5-1 Quiet Zone Concepts...5-2 Quiet Zone Performance with Existing Traffic Conditions and Safety Improvements...5-3 Quiet Zone with Future Traffic Conditions and Safety Improvements...5-7 Conceptual Cost Estimates...5-11 Ongoing Maintenance Costs...5-12 ASM Applications...5-14 Liability...5-14 Physical and Existing Use Constraints of Improvements...5-14 Comments from CPUC and FRA...5-15 Horn Blowing at Berkeley Station...5-17 CHAPTER 6: EVALUATION AND NEXT STEPS Evaluation of Alternatives...6-2 Overall Safety...6-2 Capital Cost...6-3 Local Impact...6-3 FRA Review...6-3 Recommendations...6-3 Next Steps...6-4 101752 Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables Table 2-1: Freight Train Operations Summary...2-2 Table 2-2: Passenger Train Operations Summary...2-3 Table 2-3: Berkeley At-Grade Crossings (north to south)...2-5 Table 2-4: At-Grade Crossing Accidents...2-5 Table 2-5: Average Daily Traffic, Level-of-Service, Queuing and Delay...2-13 Table 3-1: Average Daily Traffic, Level-of-Service, Queuing and Delay - Existing and Future 2030 Conditions...3-5 Table 4-1: Recommended Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) for Berkeley At-grade Crossings...4-10 Table 5-1: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index - No Improvements Existing Conditions...5-1 Table 5-2: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 1 Existing Conditions...5-4 Table 5-3: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 2 Existing Conditions...5-5 Table 5-4: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 3 Existing Conditions...5-5 Table 5-5: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 4 Existing Conditions...5-6 Table 5-6: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 5 Existing Conditions...5-6 Table 5-7: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 6 Existing Conditions...5-7 Table 5-8: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 1 Future Conditions...5-8 Table 5-9: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 2 Future Conditions...5-8 Table 5-10: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 3 Future Conditions...5-9 Table 5-11: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 4 Future Conditions...5-9 Table 5-12: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 5 Future Conditions...5-10 Table 5-13: Berkeley Quiet Zone Risk Index-Scenario 6 Future Conditions...5-10 Table 5-14: Conceptual Cost Estimates for Quiet Zone Improvemenmts (2008 Dollars)...5-13 Table 6-1: Alternative Scenario Summary...6-1 Table 6-2: Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios...6-2 Table 6-3: QZRI Measures and Construction Costs...6-2 101752 Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Figures Figure 1-1: Study Area...1-2 Figure 2-1: Berkeley Amtrak Station...2-3 Figure 2-2: Signage inconsistencies...2-15 Figure 2-3: Warning gate in track alignment...2-16 Figure 2-4: 3rd Street sign...2-16 Figure 2-5: Vehicle access to rail ROW...2-16 Figure 2-6: Vehicles parked in rail ROW...2-17 Figure 2-7: Driveways near rail ROW...2-18 Figure 2-8: Driveways in rail ROW...2-18 Figure 2-9: Queuing at Hearst Ave driveway...2-19 Figure 2-10: Pedestrians in railroad right-of-way...2-19 Figure 2-11: Pedestrian/bicycle access...2-20 Figure 4-1: Decibel contour map for train horns versus wayside horns...4-9 Appendices Appendix A: At-Grade Crossing Inventory Report Appendix B: Queuing, LOS and Delay Analysis Appendix C: New Quiet Zone Process Flowchart Appendix D: Crossing Treatment Memo 101752 Page iv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Berkeley Railroad Quiet Zone Study is to explore the potential for implementation of a Quiet Zone on the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) corridor through the City of Berkeley. This assessment is presented in the following chapters: Executive Summary Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Description of Existing Conditions Chapter 3: Description of Future Conditions Chapter 4: Identification of Potential Quiet Zone Improvements Chapter 5: Performance of the Quiet Zone Scenarios Chapter 6: Evaluation of Scenarios and Next Steps The study area and existing at-grade crossings are shown on Figure 1-1 on the following page. STUDY CONTEXT According to federal regulations, trains are required to blow their horns as they approach at-grade crossings with roadways. 1 The horn sounding is a safety measure to alert motorists and pedestrians intending to cross the tracks that a train is approaching. The western portion of Berkeley surrounding the UP rail corridor has historically been devoted to industrial land uses while 3 blocks east is a long standing single family residential neighborhood. These existing residents having increasingly complained of additional trains and longer horn blasts. Current development pressures are adding more office, commercial and residential development in the area. While train horns had little impact on adjacent industries, the horn noise has a much greater effect on residents and office workers and the attractiveness of these properties for this type of development. Adjacent residents and employees report that they cannot open windows or doors and that sleep is disrupted due to train noise. The increase in train noise along the corridor can be attributed to: Increase in train traffic. While the other passenger train service has maintained it frequency over the years, the Capitol Corridor has increased frequency since 2000 from 14 to 32 daily trains. In addition, freight traffic through this corridor has increased by approximately 50 percent in that same time frame. Consequently, the UP tracks through that carried 46 trains per day in 2000, now carry 74 trains per day. Frequency and/or length of train blowing. With the increase in traffic and trespass activity in the railroad corridor, train operators are likely to use the horns more vigorously to warn of the train s approach. 1 The regulation can be downloaded at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/trainhorn_2005/amended_final_rule_081706.pdf 101752 Page 1-1

F g Harrison St. LEGEND! b Kains Ave. Evelyn Ave. asonic Ave. wy te Blvd. Blvd. At-Grade Railroad Crossings Amtrak Station Tevlin St. Po Buchanan St.!! Gilman St. Camelia St. Page St. Jones St. East Shore State Park Union Pacific Railroad 580! 80! }þ 123 4th St. 2nd St.! 5th St. 6th St. Cedar St. 7th St. 8th St. 9th St. Virginia St. Delaware St. Hearst Ave. San Pablo Ave. University Ave. Francisco St. Delaware St. Curtis St. Chestnut St.Browning St. b! Addison St. Allston Way. Byron St.! Bancroft Way. Channing Way. 10th St. Berkeley Aquatic Park Dwight Way. Cutter Way. Parker St. STUDY AREA FIGURE 1-1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION A potential solution to reduce the impacts of train horn noise is to establish a Quiet Zone for the seven at-grade crossings in Berkeley. Quiet Zones are areas where locomotive engineers are not required to sound train warning horns as they approach an at-grade crossing. Quiet Zone designations are authorized by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the federal agency with oversight for the safety of the national rail system. Though the Quiet Zones will eliminate the requirement for train operators to sound their horns when approaching grade crossings, the Quiet Zone does not mean an absolute elimination of train horn noise. There still will be instances when the horns will be blown, specifically: When leaving the Berkeley Station after boarding/alighting passengers (see Chapter 5); and Whenever the train operator feels it necessary for safety purposes such as when trespassers are seen ahead of the train within the rail corridor right-of-way. QUIET ZONES AND THE QUIET ZONE PROCESS Quiet Zones may be established by the public authority (city, county, or state) having jurisdiction over traffic enforcement by one of two alternative methods: (1) Local Agency Designation The local public authority may designate Quiet Zones when the safety measures at each grade crossing comply fully with one or more FRA pre-approved sets of measures (termed Supplemental Safety Measures or SSMs) that have been determined to provide sufficient risk reduction. The SSMs must be sufficient to reduce the Quiet Zone risk index below the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, or below the Risk Index with Horns. The approved safety measures include: Installation of four-quadrant gates with constant warning time devices and power out indicators. Gates must meet prescribed requirements to extend across the entire span of the roadway. Installation of two-quadrant gates with constant warning time devices and power out indicators, and with median dividers or similar roadway channelization to preclude vehicles crossing the center of the road to drive around lowered gates. Temporary or permanent closure of a grade crossing. Temporary closing allows closing during night hours so a locomotive horn does not need to be used, but requires use of the horn during daytime hours when the grade crossing is in use. Another means of potentially eliminating the sounding of train horns is the installation of wayside horns. The FRA considers wayside or trackside horns a replacement for train horns. Wayside horns face down the crossing street on either side of a crossing; their sound is directional, concentrated on the approach. For a more detailed discussion of wayside horns, see Chapter 4. 101752 Page 1-3

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION (2) FRA Review and Designation At the request of the local public authority, the FRA may designate Quiet Zones having safety measures other than FRA s pre-approved measures. The local public authority must form a diagnostic team to evaluate each crossing and recommend actions sufficient to determine risk. In addition, the community must undertake periodic monitoring and reporting to ensure that risk levels remain acceptable. FRA provides an on-line calculating program to aid in determining the reduction in risk levels that the safety measures provide. Safety measures may include combinations of the following: Four-quadrant or two-quadrant gates that do not meet the strict SSM standards that apply to locally designated Quiet Zones. Additional non-engineering Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) such as programmed enforcement, public education, and photo enforcement. Periodic monitoring and reporting is required. Additional engineering ASMs including any measures not specified. An example of an engineering ASM would be adjustment of crossing geometry or sight distances to reduce risk. Periodic monitoring and reporting is required. For both methods of establishing a Quiet Zone, some common steps apply: The local public authority must provide notice to the railroad, state agencies, law enforcement, private crossing owners, and to other interested parties describing the safety measures to be employed, and affording the public an opportunity to comment. The local public authority and/or the railroad must provide updated information for FRA s grade crossing inventory. Once the local public authority decides to establish a Quiet Zone (or alternatively the FRA approves a Quiet Zone), the public authority must notify the railroad and other agencies of the effective date, and must periodically reaffirm that all requirements are met. Should the authority ultimately determine that a Quiet Zone no longer serves its purpose or that it does not meet the basic requirements, it may terminate the Quiet Zone. Any local public authority considering establishment of a Quiet Zone is encouraged to work informally with both the affected railroad company, the FRA, and the California Public Utilities Commission (which shares safety oversight at rail-highway crossings with the FRA) prior to initiating the formal steps necessary to designate a Quiet Zone. Successful implementation of a Quiet Zone will require concurrence by the California Public Utilities Commission and Union Pacific Railroad. 101752 Page 1-4

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter presents the findings of the Existing Conditions analysis. It describes existing freight and passenger rail operations in Berkeley and details the City s seven at-grade railroad crossings. The understanding of rail operations and the circumstances applicable to each at-grade crossing are essential to the development of a plan to create a Quiet Zone. This chapter reviews rail operations and grade crossing conditions, including warning devices, vehicular traffic volumes, and accident history. Land uses along the rail corridor and motor vehicle and rail traffic generators in the study area are also discussed. RAIL OPERATIONS IN BERKELEY Rail service in Berkeley is provided along the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) right-of-way within the 3rd Street corridor of Berkeley. Although this corridor is often referred to as the 3rd Street corridor, it is reserved for rail use only and does not include through traffic access. The corridor is located on the west edge of Berkeley adjacent to Interstate 80 between the bulk of the city and the waterfront. The UP Martinez Subdivision tracks provide an important link in the region s freight and passenger rail network. Local and regional freight and passenger traffic traveling from the Bay Area to Sacramento, the Central Valley, and all along the West Coast from Seattle to San Diego all rely on use this corridor to move goods and people. The UP right-of-way contains only two main tracks through Berkeley. Passing sidings, east and west of the main tracks, are currently out-of-service. The tracks to the west remain in place though in disrepair. The tracks to the east have been removed except for the segments in each crossing. In the past, a number of local spurs from the UP mainline provided connections to the manufacturing and industrial areas in Berkeley. While these connections are no longer in use, many of the physical rail lines are still embedded in local streets creating an impediment to bicycle and pedestrian travel and complicating auto and heavy vehicle travel in the area. UP staff, Garry Wilmoth, has stated UP opposes removal of any trackage in the 3 rd Street right-of-way. Freight Operations - UP and BNSF The UP and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) operate local and regional freight traffic through Berkeley. While the tracks are owned by UP and UP operates the majority of freight service, BNSF operates freight trains on the corridor via trackage rights. In total, approximately 30 freight trains pass through Berkeley every day. Since there are no longer any rail shippers served within the study area, all freight traffic is through traffic. Freight train operations are summarized in Table 2-1 below. Trains in the northbound direction are primarily headed for UP s major Northern California classification yard in Roseville or for transcontinental destinations such as Chicago, Kansas City or St. Louis. Southbound, most trains are headed to the Port of Oakland or UP s Oakland area classification yards. Trains are also bound for shippers along the East Bay rail routes to San Jose and also to Southern California. Freight trains 101752 Page 2-1

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS include various sorts of traffic, from containers and trailers on flatcars or double-stack intermodal cars, to set-up automobiles and general carload traffic, such as boxcars, gondolas, tank cars and lumber carriers. The existing double-tracked mainline could support upwards of 80-100 trains per day. Estimates for freight volumes in Year 2030 are between 50-60 trains per day, leaving little room for passenger train expansion. The addition of a third track through the corridor would support both freight and passenger expansion plans. Table 2-1: Freight Train Operations Summary Trains per day 30 Trains per time of day Typical train length (average) Maximum timetable speed Typical speeds Growth rate in trains Evenly spread through day 7,000' 70 mph 50 mph 3% per year Train horn rules GCOR 1 Passenger Operations - AMTRAK Amtrak has rights under federal law to operate intercity and long distance passenger rail service on the UP tracks through Berkeley. Long distance operations occur once a day in each direction on both the California Zephyr (Emeryville Chicago) and the Coast Starlight (Seattle Los Angeles). Regional service is provided daily on the Capitol Corridor (Sacramento San Jose) and San Joaquin (Bakersfield Oakland) services. Only Capitol Corridor trains stop at the Berkeley Amtrak Station, located below the University Avenue overpass. Passenger train operations are summarized in Table 2-2. The long distance services contribute four trains per day to the corridor and the regional services add a total of 40 daily trains (32-Capitol Corridor, 8-San Joaquin). In total, passenger operations contribute to 44 daily trains running through Berkeley, and 4-5 trains per hour in both the AM and PM peak hours. Currently, the Capitol Corridor service has reached the peak in terms of allowable trains it can run on Caltrans current contract with the UP. (Caltrans sponsors the Capital Corridor and San Joaquin trains; Amtrak operates the service.) Allowing additional passenger trains through this agreement may result in a compromise of freight activity that the UP would have to agree to. 1 A General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR) has been adopted by all western railroads as a common set of rules. Requirements to sound train horns under various conditions are included. The GCOR can be found at http://gsee.sdf-us.org/signals/docs/pdf/gcor/gcor_4-2000.pdf 101752 Page 2-2

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS When the Capitol Corridor train is stopped at the Berkeley Amtrak Station, a hold out rule applies which prohibits other trains traveling in either direction to enter the station area to board and alight passengers. Trains that do not stop at the station, such as the California Zephyr, San Joaquin and Coast Starlight passenger trains and freight trains, are allowed to pass through the station on the westside track when a train is boarding on the eastside track adjacent to the station. Northbound trains stopped at the Berkeley Station also trigger the crossing gates at Hearst Avenue and Addison Way to drop, even if a train does not block the intersection. This results in two gate drops (one while the train is stopped at the station and one while it passes through) and two disruptions to the roadway traffic stream on each street. Table 2-2: Passenger Train Operations Summary Trains per day 44 Trains per time of day Operating hours 6am 10pm Typical train length (average) 700' Maximum timetable speed Typical speeds Growth rate in trains Train horn rules 79 mph 50-60 mph Limited by UP Agreement GCOR Berkeley Station The Berkeley Amtrak Station is located at University Avenue and 3rd Street, below the University Avenue overpass (Figure 2-1). The station is unstaffed but is equipped with two ticket vending machines that allow passengers to pre-purchase boarding passes. The University Avenue overpass provides shelter for passengers waiting on the platform below. The station is also equipped with a pay phone and wayfinding map for the City of Berkeley and waterfront areas. A $2.4 million upgrade of the station was completed in September 2005 by the Berkeley Redevelopment Agency. Figure 2-1: Berkeley Amtrak Station 101752 Page 2-3

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS AT-GRADE CROSSINGS IN BERKELEY There are seven at-grade rail crossings in Berkeley as shown in Table 2-3 and on Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1. The at-grade crossings are all located on public roadways; the crossing configurations, warning devices, roadway traffic characteristics, land uses and the issues which may affect the application of a Quiet Zone are described below. A summary and photographic record of each crossing can be found in the crossing inventory report in Appendix A. The crossing sheet is a compilation of the data required to run the Quiet Zone calculator, and includes other information relevant to assess the safety of the grade crossing. The land use composition along the Berkeley rail corridor between the Gilman Street and Bancroft Way atgrade crossings is a mix of industrial, office and commercial facilities. This westernmost portion of the area was developed as part of the East Bay industrial belt that has slowly integrated a mix of commercial and residential uses. A residential core comprised of primarily single family, bungalow style properties is located between Camelia Street and Dwight Way, from 6th Street to just west of San Pablo Avenue. The closest existing residential properties 2 are three blocks (approximately 1000 feet) from the railroad corridor. New residential units are being built adjacent to the tracks on the east side at Addison and proposed to the west at this same crossing. Vibrant commercial corridors are present along the full length of San Pablo Avenue and University Avenue and on 4th Street between University Avenue and Virginia Street. University Avenue and San Pablo Avenue have historically been strong commercial corridors while 4th Street has been seen the introduction of commercial activity in the past 20 years. New infill along San Pablo Avenue and changes along University Avenue east of San Pablo Avenue may lead to new developments in West Berkeley. This discussion also includes the accident history for each crossing. Records of accidents occurring at grade crossings are maintained by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as part of its grade crossing database. From 1975 through December 2007, 22 collisions were reported in the FRA at-grade crossing collision database 3 at the seven Berkeley at-grade crossings and are summarized in Table 2-4 on the following page. In addition to the grade crossing incidents, two other incidents occurred within proximity of the quiet zone but not at grade crossings. A man was struck and killed on November 15, 2007 by a California Zephyr train as he was crossing the tracks heading for a gap in a fence on the west side of the tracks across from the Berkeley station. Also, a man was struck and killed by a southbound Amtrak train on July 16, 2008 as he was crossing the tracks north of the Gilman Street crossing. While not occurring at a grade crossing, these incidents and the factors surrounding them could affect the Quiet Zone analysis in that the CPUC may use these incidents to highlight the hazard of trespassers in the rail corridor as an unresolved safety issue that must be addressed before approval of the Quiet Zone. 2 This does not include the Live-work project at the Tannery (at 4 th and Gilman) 3 http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov 101752 Page 2-4

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Table 2-3: Berkeley At-Grade Crossings (north to south) Crossing AADT Land Use Gilman Street 19,900 Industrial/Office/Vacant Camelia Street 400 Industrial/Vacant Cedar Street 3,400 Industrial/Office Virginia Street 1,800 Industrial/Office Hearst Avenue 5,600 Addison Street 2,500 Commercial (with heavy truck traffic from building supply store) Industrial/Vacant/Mixed Use Residential (under construction) Bancroft Way 800 Industrial/Office/Vacant At-Grade Crossings Table 2-4: At-Grade Crossing Accidents User Involved in Accidents Auto/ Truck 1 Pedestrian Other 2 Total At- Severity Grade Accidents Injuries Fatalities Gilman Street 0 1 0 1 0 1 Camelia Street 5 0 0 5 0 1 Cedar Street 5 0 0 5 1 0 Virginia Street 1 0 0 1 1 0 Hearst Avenue 1 0 0 1 0 0 Addison Street 7 0 1 8 2 1 Bancroft Way 0 1 0 1 0 1 Total 19 2 1 22 4 4 1. Auto/Truck users include standard size automobiles, vans, buses, and heavy vehicles. 2. Other users include motorcycles, bicycles, and various other motorized vehicles. Source: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) at-grade crossing collision database; http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ 101752 Page 2-5

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Gilman Street Gilman Street, the northernmost crossing, crosses the Martinez Subdivision Tracks 1 and 2. In addition, there are two out-of-service drill (support) tracks, one on either side of the active tracks. Concrete crossing panels are in place for all four tracks. Motor vehicle flow is two-way over the crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. This crossing has the heaviest traffic of the Berkeley at-grade crossings with 19,900 Annual Average Daily Traffic 4 (AADT). Gilman Street, a designated arterial, connects Interstate 80 to the west and runs eastward into the City of Berkeley. The interchange with Interstate 80 is located about 700 feet west of the grade crossing accounting for the heavy traffic volumes. Railroad advance warning signs, railroad crossing symbols, and stop lines are included on both approaches although the pavement markings on the westbound approach are quite faded. The at-grade crossing is protected by automatic two-quadrant gates, warning bells and flashing lights. Gilman Street is designated as part of Berkeley s emergency access network. Surrounding land uses are industrial and office uses. Specific establishments include The Tannery, Berkeley Recycling, Pacific Steel Casting Company and Terminal Manufacturing. One grade crossing accident was reported at the Gilman Street at-grade crossing occurring on December 1, 2007 when a pedestrian was struck and killed by a passenger train while crossing the tracks. The train was traveling at approximately 79 mph. The incident occurred in early evening hours under clear weather conditions. In addition, an incident occurred approximately 300 feet north of the Gilman Street crossing when a man was struck and killed by a southbound Amtrak train on July 16, 2008 as he was crossing the tracks. Since this incident did not occur at a grade crossing, it would not factor into the Quiet Zone calculator but could be a factor in consideration of the hazards of trespassers in the rail corridor. Camelia Street Camelia Street crosses the Martinez Subdivision Tracks 1 and 2. In addition, there are two out-of-service drill tracks, one on either side of the active tracks. The easternmost drill track has mostly been removed; the warning gate has been placed within this track alignment. Concrete crossing panels are in place for all four tracks. Motor vehicle flow is two-way over the crossing with one traffic lane in each direction and terminates at 2 nd Street and does not connect to Eastshore Highway. This crossing carries the least traffic of the Berkeley atgrade crossings with only 400 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Railroad advance warning signs, 4 24-hour tube counts were taken at the grade crossing locations on January 22-26, 2008 to measure AADT. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) - is defined as the total traffic volume during a given period (from 1 to 365 days) divided by the number of days in that period. Current AADT volumes can be determined by continuous traffic counts or periodic counts. Where only periodic traffic counts are taken, AADT volume can be established by applying correction factors such as for season or day of week. For roadways having traffic in two directions, the AADT includes traffic in both directions unless specified otherwise. 101752 Page 2-6

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS railroad crossing symbols, and stop lines are included on both approaches. The at-grade crossing is protected by automatic two-quadrant gates, warning bells and flashing lights. There are additional flashing lights cantilevered over the eastbound approach. Surrounding land uses are primarily industrial including Berkeley Forge and Tool, Flint Ink, Pacific Steel Casting Company, and the Trumer Brauerei. Five grade crossing accidents were reported at Camelia Street resulting in one fatality. These include: On November 3, 1980, an automobile stopped on the tracks was struck by a freight train traveling at approximately 38 mph. The incident occurred in early morning hours under foggy conditions. No injuries were sustained; $500 in property damage was reported. On August 24, 1994, an automobile stalled on the tracks was struck by a passenger train traveling at approximately 55 mph. The incident occurred in late evening hours under clear conditions. No injuries were sustained; $2,500 in property damage was reported. On January 26, 2001, a truck-trailer stopped on the crossing was struck by a passenger train traveling at 40 mph. The incident occurred during midday under cloudy weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $15,000 in property damage was reported. On September 3, 2001, an automobile drove around the gates and was struck by a passenger train while moving over the crossing at 15 mph. The train was traveling at approximately 60 mph. The incident occurred during the late morning under clear weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $2,375 in property damages was reported. On October 15, 2002, an automobile stopped on the crossing was struck by a passenger train traveling at 77 mph. The incident occurred during evening hours under cloudy weather conditions. The automobile driver was killed; $5,000 in property damage was reported. Cedar Street Cedar Street crosses the Martinez Subdivision Tracks 1 and 2. In addition, there are two out-of-service drill tracks, one on either side of the mainline, and one out-of-service spur track connecting to the western drill track. The easternmost drill track and the westernmost drill track south of the grade crossing have mostly been removed; the warning gate has been placed within the easternmost drill track alignment. Concrete crossing panels are in place for all five tracks. On this collector street, motor vehicle flow is two-way over the crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. This crossing carries 3,400 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Railroad advance warning signs, railroad crossing symbols, and stop lines are included on both approaches. The at-grade crossing is protected by automatic two-quadrant gates, warning bells and flashing lights. There are additional flashing 101752 Page 2-7

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS lights cantilevered over the eastbound approach. Cedar Street is designated as part of Berkeley s emergency access network. Surrounding land uses are a mix of industrial and office uses including JM Recycling, Potters Studio, Stonehouse California Olive Oil, OC Jones & Sons, and Berkeley Ready Mix Company. Five accidents were reported on the Cedar Street grade crossing resulting in one injury. These include: On July 15, 1975, a truck did not stop at the warning gates and was struck by a freight train. Both vehicles were traveling less than 5 mph. The incident occurred at midday under clear weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $100 in property damage was reported. On November 4, 1977, a truck did not stop at the warning gates and was stuck by a freight train. The truck and train were traveling at 30 mph and 50 mph, respectively. The incident occurred during midday under cloudy weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $2,000 in property damage was reported. On January 15, 1981, an automobile moving across the tracks was struck by a light loco (engine with no cars). Both vehicles were traveling at less than 5 mph. The incident occurred during the evening under cloudy weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $400 in property damage was reported. On March 8, 1986, an automobile stalled on the tracks was struck by a freight train traveling at an estimated 52 mph. The incident occurred during late night hours under rainy conditions. No injuries were sustained; $3,000 in property damage was reported. On December 6, 2000, a truck drove around the gates and was struck by a passenger train traveling at 45 mph. The incident occurred during early evening hours under clear weather conditions. The truck driver was injured; $15,000 in property damage was reported. Virginia Street Virginia Street crosses the Martinez Subdivision Tracks 1 and 2. In addition, there are two out-of-service drill tracks, one on either side of the active tracks. The easternmost drill track has mostly been removed outside the crossing; the warning gate has been placed within this track alignment. Concrete crossing panels are in place for all four tracks. Motor vehicle flow is two-way over the crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. This crossing carries 1,800 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Railroad advance warning signs, railroad crossing symbols, and stop lines are included on both approaches although the pavement markings are quite faded on both approaches. The at-grade crossing is protected by automatic two-quadrant gates, warning bells and flashing lights. 101752 Page 2-8

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Surrounding land uses are primarily industrial and office uses including Hanson Aggregate (Berkeley Ready Mix Company), office buildings and two parking lots (serving office uses). One accident was reported at the Virginia Street grade crossing on August 9, 1999, and involved an automobile moving across the tracks at 8 miles per hour after having driven around the gates. The accident occurred during the late morning hours under cloudy conditions when the vehicle passed by a first train and was struck by a second train (passenger) traveling at 54 miles per hour. The driver was injured during the incident, and $18,000 in property damage was reported. Hearst Avenue Hearst Avenue crosses the Martinez Subdivision Tracks 1 and 2. In addition, there are two out-of-service drill tracks, one on either side of the active tracks. The easternmost drill track has mostly been removed; the warning gate has been placed within this track alignment. Concrete crossing panels are in place for all four tracks. On this collector street, motor vehicle flow is two-way over the crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. This crossing carries 5,600 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Railroad advance warning signs, railroad crossing symbols, and stop lines are included on both approaches. The at-grade crossing is protected by automatic two-quadrant gates, warning bells and flashing lights. Surrounding land uses are primarily commercial including the stores, restaurants, and parking lots of the 4th Street shopping area to the east of the tracks and Truitt and White Lumber (major building supply store which generates significant truck traffic) to the west of the railroad corridor. This section of Hearst is also signed as a pick-up zone for day laborers. The Truitt and White Lumber yard is located on the west side of the railroad corridor. Vehicles entering the lumber yard driveway were observed to cause queuing of the westbound traffic on Hearst Avenue. Located approximately 150 feet from the railroad corridor, queuing at this driveway could cause vehicles to be caught on the tracks in front of an approaching train. The Berkeley Amtrak Station is located approximately 500 feet south of this grade crossing under the University Avenue overpass. One accident was reported at the grade crossing with Hearst Avenue on February 27, 1982 when an automobile stalled on the tracks was hit by a freight train traveling at an estimated 48 miles per hour. The incident occurred in late night hours under cloudy conditions. No injuries were sustained, but $500 in property damage was reported. 101752 Page 2-9

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Addison Street Addison Street crosses the Martinez Subdivision Tracks 1 and 2. In addition, there are two out-of-service drill tracks, one on either side of the active tracks. The easternmost drill track has mostly been removed; the warning gate has been placed within this track alignment. Concrete crossing panels are in place for all four tracks. Motor vehicle flow is two-way over the crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. This crossing carries 2,500 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Railroad advance warning signs, railroad crossing symbols, and stop lines are included on both approaches. The at-grade crossing is protected by automatic two-quadrant gates, warning bells and flashing lights. There are additional flashing lights cantilevered over the westbound approach. Addison Street is designated as a bikeway between 4th and 2nd Streets providing access to Aquatic Park as well as a connection to the pedestrian/bike bridge over Interstate 80. Surrounding land uses are primarily industrial to south including Takara Sake, vacant warehouse and biotech development at Plexxikon Inc. and residential development proposed to both east and west of tracks on north side. The properties to the north are both currently vacant with demolition complete or demolition planned. One of two Berkeley entrances to Aquatic Park is to the west of this grade crossing. Eight accidents were reported at the Addison Street grade crossing resulting in one fatality and two injuries. These are: On July 2, 1976, a truck did not stop at the crossing and was struck by a freight train. The truck and the train were traveling at 15 mph and 55 mph, respectively. The incident occurred in morning hours under clear weather conditions. The truck driver was killed and a railroad employee was injured; $10,000 in property damage was reported. On October 5, 1980, an automobile was stalled on the crossing and struck by a passenger train traveling at 40 mph. The incident occurred in the evening hours under clear weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $500 in property damage was reported. On August 17, 1981, an automobile was stalled on the crossing and struck by a passenger train traveling at 40 mph. The incident occurred in the evening hours under clear weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $500 in property damage was reported. On March 26, 1988, an automobile was stalled on the crossing and struck by a light locomotive (engine with no cars) traveling at 52 mph. The incident occurred in the evening hours under clear weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $3,000 in property damage was reported. On April 6, 1988, a truck was stopped on the crossing and struck by a freight train traveling at an estimated 55 mph. The incident occurred in the late night hours under clear weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $3,000 in property damage was reported. 101752 Page 2-10

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS On July 21, 1999, an automobile was stopped on the crossing and struck by a freight train traveling at an estimated 8 mph. The incident occurred in the late evening hours under clear weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $3,000 in property damage was reported. On August 18, 2001, a motorcycle was stalled on the crossing and struck by a passenger train traveling at an estimated 17 mph. The incident occurred during the evening hours under clear weather conditions. The motorcycle driver was injured; $1,000 in property damage was reported. On May 8, 2002, an automobile drove around the gates and was struck by a freight train. The automobile and train were traveling at 45 mph and 48 mph, respectively. The incident occurred at midday under clear weather conditions. No injuries were sustained; $5,000 in property damage was reported. Bancroft Way Bancroft Way crosses the Martinez Subdivision Tracks 1 and 2. In addition, there are two out-of-service drill tracks, one on either side of the active tracks. The easternmost drill track has mostly been removed; the warning gate has been placed within this track alignment. Concrete crossing panels are in place for all four tracks. Motor vehicle flow is two-way over the crossing with one traffic lane in each direction. This crossing carries a low traffic volume with 800 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Railroad advance warning signs are included on both approaches; the crossing does not have pavement railroad crossing symbols or stop lines. The at-grade crossing is protected by automatic two-quadrant gates, warning bells and flashing lights. Bancroft Way is designated as a bicycle route between 9th Street and its terminus at Aquatic Park. Surrounding land uses are primarily industrial and office uses including American Soil and Stone Products (vacant), Aquatic Gardens office park, Peerless Lighting (vacant with mixed use development in preliminary development), and H & B Auto Repair. One of two Berkeley entrances to Aquatic Park is to the west of this grade crossing. A single accident was reported at the Bancroft Way grade crossing on February 1, 2005, when a pedestrian crossing the tracks was struck and killed by a freight train traveling at 40 miles per hour. The incident occurred in the early morning hours under clear weather conditions. 101752 Page 2-11

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Grade Crossing Layouts and Adjacent Intersection Configuration All of the crossing angles between the roadway and rail lines are in the 60 to 90-degree category used by the FRA (non-skewed crossing). In fact, all of the seven at-grade crossing roadways are perpendicular to the rail lines. The rail lines are located between and parallel to 4th and 2nd Streets. Each grade crossing roadway intersects with 4th and 2nd Streets at approximately 300 feet from the rail crossing; none of these intersections are signalized. Queuing caused by left-turning vehicles at these intersections would not likely back up onto the railroad tracks since the queue length would need to exceed 10-15 cars and there is adequate room in the intersection for through vehicles to safely pass the left-turn vehicles on the right. Queuing across the tracks could, however, result from left-turning vehicles at adjacent driveways as in the case on Hearst Avenue. In the case of adjacent signalized intersections, a rule of thumb in traffic planning is that a distance of 400 feet or more between a crossing and an adjacent intersection should be sufficient to prevent queuing of traffic extending from the crossing into the intersection. Where the distance is less than 400 feet and the adjacent intersection is signalized, some additional traffic studies might be merited in order to enhance safety at the intersection which could be affected by queue overspill. This potential queuing is currently not a concern for the Berkeley at-grade crossings; however, the impact of queue overspill on the grade crossing must be considered where signalizing the 2nd or 4th Street intersections is proposed as part of future development, such as at the intersection of 4th Street and Hearst Avenue. Improvements on Gilman Street, the only street in the study area with a higher AADT at the tracks then Hearst Avenue, would also need to consider this impact. Motor Vehicle Traffic and Delay Traffic delay and queuing at the grade crossings is a factor of volume of vehicular traffic and delay time due to warning gate drop times. Observations at these locations show that the crossing gates tend to drop approximately 20 seconds prior to train arrival and remain down for 10 seconds following the clearing of the intersection. The total time that the gate is down depends upon the size and speed of the train. On average the San Joaquin trains occupy the intersection for 5 seconds and the Capitol Corridor trains for 20 seconds. Average total gate drop time for San Joaquin trains is about 30 seconds with 40 seconds for Capitol Corridor trains. Due to the longer length of most freight trains, gate drop times on average were higher, averaging 4 minutes based on typical freight speed and a train length of 700 feet. Each gate is down for 2.5 hours each day under these conditions with almost 4 hours per day expected by 2030. Average Daily Traffic and Level-of-Service for each crossing is shown in Table 2-5. With the exception of Gilman Street, vehicle traffic at the crossings is relatively low for an urbanized area, and the crossings operate at acceptable levels-of-service. Gilman Street operates at LOS F. Primary traffic generators in the 101752 Page 2-12

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS area include Interstate 80 on/off-ramps at Gilman Street including bypass traffic to avoid Interstate congestion and the 4th Street shopping area. A summary of the methodology to evaluate vehicular traffic delays and queuing at the study area crossings as it has been applied to this study can be found in Appendix B of this report. 5 With the exception of Gilman Street, the findings show that the average delay for each vehicle that was delayed due to train movements was between 1.5 and 4.1 minutes. Time of delay averaged over total traffic using the crossing ranged from 9.0 to 25.7 seconds. The calculations of delay account for the double gate drop at Hearst Avenue and Addison Street for the Capitol Corridor trains. The average queue length of motor vehicles stopped at the crossing per lane ranged from 0-1 vehicles for Camelia Street and Bancroft Way, approximately 1 vehicle for Cedar Street, Virginia Street and Addison Street, and 2 vehicles for Hearst Avenue. Gilman Street has an average delay for each vehicle delayed of 8.8 minutes, an average delay per vehicle of 48.8 seconds and an average queue length of approximately 15 vehicles. Future plans to gradeseparate the Gilman Street rail crossing would mitigate this delay and queuing. Table 2-5: Average Daily Traffic, Level-of-Service, Queuing and Delay Cross Street Name Average Daily Traffic Level- of- Service Average Delay for each Vehicle Delayed (min/veh) Average Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) Average Queue Length per Lane (feet) Gilman Street 19,900 E 8.8 48.8 370 Camelia Street 400 B 1.5 9.0 0 Cedar Street 3,400 C 3.9 21.2 35 Virginia Street 1,800 C 3.5 20.0 20 Hearst Avenue 5,600 D 4.1 25.7 60 Addison Street 2,500 D 4.6 28.8 30 Bancroft Way 800 B 1.7 9.0 5 Source: Adavant Consulting, 2008 5 The analysis methodology used to evaluate vehicular traffic delays and queuing at the study area crossings has been taken from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 288, Evaluating Grade-Separated Rail and Highway Crossing Alternatives, published by the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C., in 1987,Appendix A, Section IV, pages 34 through 36. Additional methodology information was obtained from the Transportation Research Record (TRR) 1754, Paper No. 01-3051, Methodology for Evaluating Highway-Railway Grade Separations, Washington D.C., 2001, pp. 77-80. 101752 Page 2-13

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Emergency Access The City of Berkeley General Plan has designated an emergency access and evacuation network must be maintained for emergency access and emergency evacuation in case of a major disaster, such as fires, earthquakes, floods, reservoir rupture, or hazardous materials release. Among the roadways with at-grade crossings of the railroad corridor, Gilman Street and Cedar Street are included in this network. Pedestrian/Bicycle Traffic The bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the at-grade crossings include a designated bikeway on Addison Street and a bicycle route on Bancroft Way. Both these facilities provide connection to Aquatic Park, the bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Interstate 80, the Berkeley Marina, and the Bay Trail. Many of the roadways do not have sidewalks. Even when sidewalks are provided, the pedestrian connection is not carried across the railroad tracks. In some locations there are significant hazards to pedestrians, bicycles, and disabled persons. (This space is left blank intentionally.) 101752 Page 2-14

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS SAFETY ISSUES The following safety issues were noted during site visits to the study area. It will be necessary to address these issues to establish a Quiet Zone in Berkeley either to satisfy the FRA s pre-approved sets of measures (termed Supplemental Safety Measures or SSMs) or non-engineering Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs). The number of tracks to be crossed is noted on both the advance warning signage and also on the warning gates themselves. At the grade crossings in Berkeley, this signage is not consistent as shown in Figure 2-2. There is confusion as to how many tracks are actually present since some are active and others are not. To resolve this, signs should be changed to correctly reflect the number of active tracks being crossed. In fact, some of the trackage has been removed on either side of the crossing panel. The warning devices have been placed within the easternmost track alignment with the exception of Gilman Street (Figure 2-3). Camelia Street Cedar Street Figure 2-2: Signage inconsistencies 101752 Page 2-15

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Camelia Street Cedar Street Virginia Street Bancroft Way Figure 2-3: Warning gate in track alignment Figure 2-4: 3rd Street sign Although the rail corridor is referred to as 3rd Street (Figure 2-4), there is no publicly maintained street within the right-of-way. Concrete barriers and fences have been installed at most of the crossings to minimize trespassing by both vehicles and pedestrians. However, there are some parcels that do not have other access except for the 3rd Street. As shown in Figure 2-5, public access is available; sometimes the railroad right-of-way is fenced off but sometimes it is not. In particular, vehicles could access the railroad rightof-way on the west side of the Gilman crossing and the east side of the Camelia crossing with access from Jones Street. Gilman Street Camelia Street Figure 2-5: Vehicle access to rail ROW 101752 Page 2-16

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Parking in most of Berkeley as well as the study area is at a premium. Vehicles were seen parked within the railroad right-of-way at the Gilman Street, Camelia Street and Virginia Street crossings. Cars were parked directly on the out-of-service tracks and very close to the mainline tracks as shown in Figure 2-6. Cars were parked both perpendicular and parallel to the tracks, in some cases no more than 15 feet from live rail. To exit the right-of-way, vehicles often must back up close to or over the active rail line. Gilman Street Camelia Street Figure 2-6: Vehicles parked in rail ROW All of the at-grade crossings have driveways or access roads that enter the roadway within 60 feet of the track as shown in Figure 2-7. At the Cedar Street, Addison Street and Bancroft Way crossings there are driveways located within the quadrant protected by the warning devices. It is likely that these configurations are remnants of abandoned spur lines. As a result, an exiting vehicle could cross the tracks inside the warning gates; the driver would not be warned or required to stop in the case of an approaching train. Examples of this configuration are shown in Figure 2-8. 101752 Page 2-17

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Gilman Street Cedar Street Virginia Street Virginia Street Hearst Avenue Bancroft Way Figure 2-7: Driveways near rail ROW Cedar Street Cedar Street Addison Street Bancroft Way Bancroft Way Figure 2-8: Driveways in rail ROW 101752 Page 2-18

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 2-9: Queuing at Hearst Ave driveway Driveways located within 60 feet of the track are also an issue for vehicles entering the driveways. Depending on the volume entering a particular driveway there may be a potential for vehicles to be stopped on the railroad right-of-way because of queuing at driveway entrance as shown in Figure 2-9. This encroachment is a safety concern with or without a quiet zone and would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis to find the appropriate measures to stop this behavior. Design treatments, such as closing the subject driveway or eliminating the turning movement causing the queue, and/or improved crossing warning controls are possible solutions. Loitering, trespassing and pedestrian crossings within the railroad right-of-way are a consideration for establishing a Quiet Zone as well as a general safety concern for the City (Figure 2-10). Pedestrian activity is especially high near the Amtrak Station and the 4th Street shopping area. In addition, Hearst Avenue is a designated pick-up location for day laborers within close proximity to the railroad corridor. Workers waiting in this area and vehicles stopping in the vicinity of the tracks should not be encouraged. Gilman Street Hearst Avenue Figure 2-10: Pedestrians in railroad right-of-way The pedestrian pathway across the tracks is generally not improved even at locations where sidewalks are provided on either side of the tracks as shown in Figure 2-11. Industrial land uses and high volumes of truck traffic are generally not conducive to walking; pedestrian facilities are usually limited and, when provided, in poor repair. In particular, improvements should be provided to Addison Street as the primary pedestrian and 101752 Page 2-19

CHAPTER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS bicycle route to Aquatic Park and the pedestrian/bicycle overpass over Interstate 80. Pedestrian conditions were especially poor at the Camelia Street crossing (parked cars were blocking access causing pedestrians to walk in the traffic lane) and at Bancroft Way, a secondary access route to Aquatic Park (broken sidewalks and hazardous drainage pits). None of the crossings met the American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement for tactile treatments at intersections. Cedar Street Virginia Street Bancroft Way Addison Street Figure 2-11: Pedestrian/bicycle access 101752 Page 2-20

CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS This chapter presents the findings of the Future Conditions analysis. It describes future demographics, land use assumptions, future vehicular traffic conditions at crossings, and future freight and passenger rail operations in Berkeley and details the City s seven at-grade railroad crossings. FUTURE DEMOGRAPHICS According to the City s Draft General Plan EIR, Berkeley s population will increase from 109,463 in 2000 to 110,900 by 2020. The 2020 figure was projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in 2000. The Draft General Plan EIR points out that the City s population could reach as much as 116,000 in 2020 if the City adds 167 units annually, per ABAG s Housing Needs Allocation. The ABAG projections also point a more employment growth in the City. Berkeley s Year 2000 job figure of 76,160 should grow to 84,870 in 2020. Figures for 2030 population and employment were not available, but it is reasonable to believe they will be higher than the 2020 figures considering the growth that is anticipated in the shorter term. With more residents and more employment in the City, motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic crossing the UP tracks in Berkeley can be expected to increase. In addition, a larger population of residents and employees in the City can be expected to be impacted by train horn noise. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Land use designations used here are the same as those used for the City of Berkeley General Plan (2001). Existing land uses in the vicinity of the seven crossings consist of Manufacturing, Manufacturing Mixed Use, Avenue Commercial, Low Medium Density Residential, and Open Space. Of these, the predominant land uses along the rail corridor is Manufacturing and Manufacturing Mixed Use. Avenue Commercial occurs along the 4 th Street retail strip north and south of University Avenue and along Addison Street on both sides of the tracks. Open Space land uses along the corridor include Harrison Park north of Gilman Street and east of the UP tracks and Aquatic Park south of Addison Street and west of the UP tracks. Land uses along the rail corridor are not expected to change in type with the exception of several projects planned in specific spots and the reuse of areas now or soon to be vacant.. 101752 Page 3-1

CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS APPROVED AND POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT There are a multitude of development projects either approved, being evaluated, or are conceptualized for the study area. These projects are detailed in the Future Conditions Report of the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan (April, 2008). That report assumed existing land uses, approved projects, projects under evaluation, and conceptualized build-out opportunities for its 2030 Scenario traffic analysis. They are assumed here as well. If the 2030 Scenario is realized, there will be greater motor vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic over the seven West Berkeley rail crossings. FUTURE RAILROAD OPERATIONS It is estimated that the total number of trains per day through Berkeley in Year 2030 will increase to 106 from the existing train traffic of 74 trains per day. This volume would consist almost equally of freight and passenger trains. The primary driver of freight rail traffic is likely to continue to be Trans Pacific container volumes traveling on UP and BNSF trains between the Port of Oakland and Midwestern and Southern cities. Amtrak California trains, the Capitols and the San Joaquins, are also likely to grow, in light of chronic congestion on I-80 and growing travel demand between the Bay Area and the Central Valley cities served by these trains 1. Freight Operations This analysis assumes that freight rail traffic on the UP Martinez Subdivision through Berkeley will grow on the order of 2 to 3 percent annually until 2030 2. This rate of growth is consistent with the historic growth in the national economy. Future train volume in 2030 is therefore assumed to be in the neighborhood of 50 trains per day, versus about 30 today. Characteristics of this train traffic train length and typical speeds is expected to not change from what is experienced today. Future freight train growth will largely be a function of growth experienced at the Port of Oakland. Recent improvements requested by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) would help the port increase its level of activity, thus increasing rail activity through Berkeley. Twelve improvement projects were recently proposed including a $325 million truck-train terminal at the port and $315 million worth of track improvements between Richmond and Martinez. Passenger Operations Amtrak Any major growth in Amtrak California trains, the Capitols and the San Joaquins, operating through Berkeley is subject to negotiation with UP. Caltrans, the sponsor for these trains, must come to an agreement with UP regarding future trains beyond a single additional San Joaquin round trip (two trains) allowed under the current 1 The practical capacity of a double-track main line with frequent sidings is assumed to be 150 trains per day; thus, this analysis assumes the existing UP Martinez Subdivision infrastructure can handle the future volume of trains. 2 Annual growth is assumed to be 3 percent in the near term, tapering off in the longer term. 101752 Page 3-2

CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS agreement, and UP can be counted on requiring expensive capacity enhancements to its lines before allowing more trains. Still, these trains are popular, and their ridership is high. As the Central Valley cities served by these trains are likely to experience strong job and population growth, travel demand from the Bay Area to these cities is likely to grow as well. Therefore, it is probable that Caltrans will seek to expand its train volumes. This study assumes passenger train volume in 2030 would be in the neighborhood of 56 trains per day, versus the 44 operating today. Characteristics of this train traffic train length and typical speeds would be the same as today. No increase is expected in Amtrak long distance train services the Coast Starlight or California Zephyr trains. FUTURE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AT CROSSINGS To determine likely future traffic conditions in the study area, future vehicle traffic for Year 2030 was calculated for the at-grade crossings using output from the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) model in conjunction with traffic analysis prepared for the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan. The highway network in the AC CMA model includes major streets and arterials in Berkeley, such as Gilman Street, Cedar Street, and Hearst Avenue but does not include minor streets such as Camelia Street, Virginia Street, Addison Street and Bancroft Way. Thus, it was necessary to develop a growth factor to estimate future motor vehicle traffic at the crossings. To accomplish this, a comparison of daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour link volumes from the AC CMA model for Year 2005 and Year 2030 and AM peak hour and PM peak hour volumes from the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan was made for the roadways surrounding the study area. In addition, the impacts of future projects that have been identified and would directly affect traffic at the grade crossings were considered. Average annual growth rates for each grade crossing resulted from this analysis. This growth factor was applied to the existing AADT obtained from traffic counts conducted in the field to arrive at future 2030 AADT 3 as shown below in Table 3-1. Detailed calculation sheets for this analysis and the calculation of LOS, delay and queuing can be found in Appendix B. The future AADT was used to evaluate vehicle traffic delays and queuing at the study area crossings using the same traffic analysis methodology as applied for existing conditions. This methodology considered the increase in roadway traffic as well as train traffic. Under future conditions, the findings show that the average delay for each vehicle that was delayed due to train movements was between 2.0 (Camelia Street) and 17.7 minutes (Gilman Street). Increases in delay at the crossings varied from a 100 percent increase over existing conditions 3 24-hour tube counts were taken at the grade crossing locations on January 22-26, 2008 to measure AADT. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) - is defined as the total traffic volume during a given period (from 1 to 365 days) divided by the number of days in that period. Current AADT volumes can be determined by continuous traffic counts or periodic counts. Where only periodic traffic counts are taken, AADT volume can be established by applying correction factors such as for season or day of week. For roadways having traffic in two directions, the AADT includes traffic in both directions unless specified otherwise. AADT differs from Peak Hour volumes which were used in the West Berkeley Circulation Master Plan (CMP). Peak Hour volumes provide a more descriptive representation of existing and future conditions and so appropriately were used for the West Berkeley CMP. AADT volumes were used for this Quiet Zone Study because of the requirements of the FRA Quiet Zone Calculator. 101752 Page 3-3

CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS at Gilman to less than 20 percent increases at Cedar and Addison Streets. 4 The remaining crossings had increases of 30-40 percent. The average delay per vehicle ranged from 18 seconds (Camelia Street) to 150 seconds (Gilman Street). Average delay increased at most crossings by 100 percent or more. As expected, Gilman Street had the greatest average per lane queue length of motor vehicles (61 vehicles) stopped at the crossing based upon a vehicle length of 25 feet. Remaining crossings had an average queue length of five vehicles or less. Under future conditions, the crossing at Gilman Street will operate at LOS F with Hearst Avenue and Addison Street at LOS E. The remaining crossings are expected to operate at LOS D or better. FUTURE GRADE SEPARATION In 2007, the City of Berkeley s Engineering Department commissioned a study sponsored by the Redevelopment Agency investigating a potential grade separation for the Gilman Street crossing of the UP s Martinez Subdivision. Alternatives included three overcrossings and one undercrossing. No design decision has been made with regard to a grade separation of Gilman Street and the UP tracks though the City has applied for funding to design, review, and construct a preferred alternative. Further, given the increasing motor vehicle traffic on Gilman Street and likely higher freight and passenger train traffic on the UP, a grade separation there in 2030 seems to be a reasonable assumption. 4 There is currently one project under construction (700 University) on the east side of the tracks and one project being considered (651 Addison Street) on the west side of the tracks immediately adjacent to the Addison Street crossing. Although these projects are not individually incorporated into the Alameda County travel demand model used in this analysis, they are considered as part of the future City growth on an aggregated basis at the TAZ level which was used to forecast future traffic volumes at the crossing. 101752 Page 3-4

CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS Table 3-1: Average Daily Traffic, Level-of-Service, Queuing and Delay Existing and Future 2030 Conditions Cross Street Name Annual Average Daily Traffic Level- of- Service Average Delay for each Vehicle Delayed (min/veh) Average Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) Average Queue Length per Lane (feet) Gilman Street Existing 19,900 E 8.8 48.8 370 Future 26,800 F 17.7 150.4 1,535 Camelia Street Existing 400 B 1.5 9.0 0 Future 400 C 2.0 18.0 0 Cedar Street Existing 3,400 C 3.9 21.2 35 Future 4,600 D 4.6 39.1 80 Virginia Street Existing 1,800 C 3.5 20.0 20 Future 1,900 D 4.4 37.9 35 Hearst Avenue Existing 5,600 D 4.1 25.7 60 Future 5,900 E 5.9 54.9 135 Addison Street Existing 2,500 D 4.6 28.8 30 Future 5,200 E 5.3 48.5 110 Bancroft Way Existing 800 B 1.7 9.0 5 Future 900 C 2.3 20.0 10 Source: Adavant Consulting, 2008 101752 Page 3-5

CHAPTER 4: QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS The purpose of this chapter is to identify the potential grade crossing improvements necessary for the qualification of a New Quiet Zone in the City of Berkeley. A Quiet Zone is defined as a segment of rail line at least one half mile in length encompassing one or more consecutive public highway-rail grade crossings at which routine sounding of locomotive horns is restricted pursuant to 49 CFR Part 222. Quiet Zones which were established before October 9, 1996 and continued to be in operation on December 18, 2003 are defined as Pre- Rule Quiet Zones. Intermediate Quiet Zones were placed in operation between these two dates. As no Quiet Zone currently exists in Berkeley, any Quiet Zone established in the City would be considered a New Quiet Zone. The process for creating a New Quiet Zone as defined by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is attached in Appendix C; the FRA is the federal agency which oversees the Quiet Zone process. In brief, the process requires that the New Quiet Zone be qualified by meeting established risk measurements as described in the following section. Once the Quiet Zone is qualified, the local public authority having jurisdiction over traffic enforcement (in this case the City of Berkeley) will submit proper notifications, install identified improvements and signage, and provide periodic updates to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Any modifications to warning devices at crossings will require the approval of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). MEASUREMENTS OF RISK There are three measurements of risk used in determining qualification of a Quiet Zone. They are: The Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT), which is calculated on a nationwide basis. The NSRT reflects the average level of risk at public highway-rail grade crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates and at which locomotive horns are sounded. The Risk Index with Horns (RIWH), which is a measure of risk to the motoring public when locomotive horns are routinely sounded at every public highway-rail grade crossing within a Quiet Zone. The Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI), which is the average risk index for all public crossings in a proposed Quiet Zone taking into consideration the increased risk caused by the absence of train horns and any decrease in risk attributable to the use of supplementary or alternative safety measures (discussed below). The QZRI is the measurement used to determine if a Quiet Zone can be established and which, if any, improvements will be necessary. These measurements of risk are calculated using the FRA s Quiet Zone Calculator. The process for running the Calculator is described in the Methodology discussion below. A Quiet Zone is qualified if the QZRI is at, or below, the NSRT. Under existing conditions, Berkeley does not qualify for Quiet Zone status, as shown in Table 5-1, Chapter 5. To reduce the QZRI, the jurisdiction must implement approved safety measures which have been rated by the FRA with a risk reduction credit. Using these credits, the QZRI can be reduced to a risk level to qualify for Quiet Zone status. The credits for safety measures and resulting QZRI are calculated with the Quiet Zone Calculator. 101752 Page 4-1

CHAPTER 4: QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS QUIET ZONE SAFETY MEASURES The approved safety measures fall into two categories including: Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) - SSMs are engineering improvements, which when installed at highway-rail grade crossings within a Quiet Zone, would reduce the risk of a collision at the crossing. SSMs are installed to reduce the risk level either to the level that would have existed if the train horn were sounded (compensating for the lack of the train horn) or to a level below the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold. SSMs include: - Four-quadrant gates - Gates with medians or channelization devices, also known as traffic separators - One-way streets equipped with gates that fully block the street - Temporary closure (i.e., nighttime closure) - Permanent closure (including grade separation) Alternative Safety Measure (ASM): A safety system or procedure provided by the appropriate traffic control authority which, after individual review and analysis, is determined by the FRA to be an effective substitute for the locomotive horn at specific highway-rail grade crossings. ASMs include: - Modified Supplementary Safety Measures (SSMs) - An SSM that has in some way been adjusted to accommodate unique circumstances existing at a specific highway-rail grade crossing and no longer conforms to the SSM requirements. - Engineering Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) - Engineering improvements other than modified SSMs include improvements that address underlying geometric conditions, including sight distance, that are a source of increased risk at the crossing. - Non-engineering Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) - Photo enforcement, or a consistent and systematic program of traffic law enforcement, public education programs, or a combination thereof, that produces a measurable reduction of risk at designated Quiet Zone highway-rail grade crossings. If SSMs are added to every public crossing within the Quiet Zone, the Quiet Zone is qualified and required notifications and improvements can be made. If SSMs are used at some but not every public crossing, the zone may also qualify for Quiet Zone status if the QZRI is lower than either the RIWH or the NSRT. Qualification by this process will require more frequent reporting to the FRA than if SSMs are used at each crossing. The QZRI may also be reduced by implementing one or more alternative safety measures (ASMs) which include modified SSMs (an SSM which has been modified to accommodate the unique characteristics of the crossing), engineering ASMs (engineering improvements other than modified SSMs which address underlying geometric 101752 Page 4-2

CHAPTER 4: QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS conditions which are a source of increased risk at the crossing), and non-engineering ASMs (public education programs, photo enforcement, or engineering measures that reduce risks). Use of ASMs requires FRA approval. Wayside Horns An alternative to the sounding of train horns is the use of wayside horns at a crossing. Wayside horns are installed at the crossing facing down the crossing street towards oncoming traffic on either side of a crossing; their sound is directional, concentrated on the approach. Wayside horns are not a quiet zone safety measure as horns are still sounded but can be used as a replacement to train horns. There are benefits and limitations to wayside horns over train horns which are discussed in more detail later in this chapter. Since wayside horns are not a quiet zone safety measure, use of wayside horns is not considered in the quiet zone calculator but is given the same level of risk as train horns. METHODOLOGY The study team first inventoried the seven crossings in the study area. The team visited each crossing early in 2008 and captured detail on the crossing characteristics, e.g. warning devices, number of railroad tracks, number of roadway lanes, location of adjacent driveways, paving status, and pavement markings pertaining to crossings. The team photographed each crossing. The team supplemented this detail with information on the number and speed of trains obtained from available documents. 24-hour hose counts were taken at the grade crossing locations in January 2008 to measure average daily traffic. The team relied on accident history provided through the FRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident Reports. The data, required for running of the FRA s Quiet Zone Calculator, was summarized in the Berkeley At-Grade Crossing Inventory Report in Appendix A. The calculator develops the QZRI by 1) Assessing the risk at each crossing and 2) Averaging the cumulative risk over the number of crossings in a Quiet Zone. The calculator determines the risk at each crossing given 10 variables: 1. Type of warning device 2. Number of vehicles per day 3. Number of trains per day 4. Number of trains per daylight hours 5. Number of tracks 6. Paved roadway: yes or no 7. Maximum train speeds 8. Number of highway lanes 9. Number of years for accident analysis 10. Number of accidents during analysis years 101752 Page 4-3

CHAPTER 4: QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS AT-GRADE CROSSING CHARACTERISTICS The characteristics of the crossings as presented in Chapter 2: Existing Conditions are summarized below. Gilman Street This crossing carries heavy traffic volumes (19,900 AADT 1 ) and provides access to on/off ramps for Interstate 80. Fencing of the railroad right-of-way has been opened on the southwest corner to allow access to adjacent properties which have no alternative access. Parking was observed within the railroad rightof-way, and there are several commercial driveways located within 60 feet of the warning gates 2. Camelia Street This crossing carries very low traffic volumes (400 AADT). Parking was observed in or adjacent to the railroad right-of-way on all four corners of the crossing. Two commercial driveways are located within 60 feet of the warning gates. Cedar Street This crossing carries medium traffic volumes (3,400 AADT). The commercial driveway on the southwest corner is located within the quadrant protected by the warning gates. Two other commercial driveways (northwest and northeast corners) are located within 60 feet of the warning gates. Virginia Street This crossing carries low traffic volumes (1,800 AADT). Parked vehicles were observed directly adjacent to the railroad right-of-way on the northeast corner. Commercial driveways on the southeast and northwest corners are located within 60 feet of the warning gates. Hearst Avenue This crossing carries medium traffic volumes (5,600 AADT) and has significant pedestrian traffic due to proximity of the designated pick-up location for day laborers, the 4 th Street shopping area, and the Amtrak Station under the University Avenue overpass. Commercial driveways on the northeast and northwest corners are within 60 feet of the warning gates. Queuing for the driveway on the south side Hearst Avenue west of the railroad tracks has the potential to cause backup onto the railroad crossing. Addison Street This crossing carries low traffic volumes (2,500 AADT) and is one of two entrances to Aquatic Park. In addition, it is designated as a bikeway between 4 th and 2 nd Streets providing access to Aquatic Park and connection to the pedestrian/bike bridge over Interstate 80. The commercial driveway on the southwest corner is located within the quadrant protected by the warning gates. Another driveway to a vacant lot on the northeast corner is located within 60 feet of the warning gates. Bancroft Way This crossing carries very low traffic volumes (800 AADT) and provides entry to Aquatic Park. It is designated as a bicycle route from 9 th Street to its terminus at Aquatic Park. The commercial driveway on the northwest corner exits directly onto the grade crossing. The driveway on the southeast corner is located within 60 feet of the warning gates. 1 AADT stands for average annual daily traffic, a measure of the typical daily traffic volume. 2 The existence of a commercial driveway within this 60-foot distance has implications bearing on the potential for application of a SSM involving gates with medians and channelization. 101752 Page 4-4

CHAPTER 4: QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION OF GRADE CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS For the Berkeley Quiet Zone, it is recommended that improvements focus on use of SSMs for risk reduction credit. SSMs do not require advance approval by the FRA and have less stringent reporting requirements for future years. Because these crossings are located in a densely-populated urban area and carry significant highway vehicle and pedestrian traffic, the SSMs can provide a greater level of safety for both the railroad and roadway users. The SSMs being considered in Berkeley and FRA requirements for use are included below. The SSMs being considered for the Berkeley Quiet Zone are: Grade separation of the public highway-rail grade crossing. Implementation costs can vary dramatically, and can total in the tens of millions of dollars per separation. The Gilman Street grade separation is estimated to cost $20,200,000 but is likely to face escalated cost given complexity of project. 3 Closure of the public highway-rail grade crossing must completely block highway traffic from entering the grade crossing; it is required that the crossing surface also be removed. A lump sum cost estimate per crossing in the study area would be $50,000, a total sufficient to cover removal of existing warning devices and installation of traffic barriers, e.g. Jersey barriers. One-way streets with gates The gates must be installed such that all approaching highway lanes to the grade crossing are completely blocked. A lump sum conceptual cost estimate for two sets of gates and flashing lights required for a one-way couplet would be $1,794,000, inclusive of engineering and contingencies 4. Four-quadrant gates upgraded from two quadrant gates with vehicle presence detection requires that the gates be installed to fully block highway traffic from entering the crossing when the gates are lowered including at least one gate for each direction of traffic on each approach. A lump sum conceptual cost estimate for four gates and flashing lights would be $1,495,000, inclusive of engineering and contingencies. Gates with medians or channelization devices which must be installed on both highway approaches to deny the highway user the ability to circumvent the approach lane gate by switching into the opposing traffic lane and driving around the lowered gates to cross the tracks. Medians or channelization devices must extend at least 100 feet from the gate arm or if there is an intersection within this 100 foot zone, the median or channelization devices must extend at least 60 feet from the gate arm. Intersections within 60 feet of the gate arm must be closed or relocated. Driveways for commercial purposes are considered intersections in this context. A lump sum conceptual cost estimate for two non-mountable, 100-foot medians (one on either side of a crossing) would be $45,000, inclusive of engineering and contingencies. 3 In 2009 dollars. Adjustment by WSA of Don Todd and Associates 2007 estimate of $19.2 million. 4 The cost estimates assume replacement of all existing warning devices. 101752 Page 4-5

CHAPTER 4: QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS The specific SSM recommendations by grade crossing are presented in Table 4-1 appearing at the end of this chapter. Each SSM was assessed for suitability based upon traffic volumes, circulation, surrounding land uses, crossing configuration, parking and pedestrian use of the railroad right-of-way, and adjacent driveways. Feasibility and requirements for implementation of the SSMs are included. In summary, the study team felt that grade-separation would only be warranted at Gilman Street. Other crossings do not have the traffic volumes or circulation patterns to make grade-separation a feasible or costeffective solution. Crossing closures, a relatively low cost and low maintenance alternative, was considered a possibility for Virginia and Camelia Streets. Both these streets carry low traffic volumes; alternative access would be available from adjacent streets. The use of one-way streets was considered but no good couplet pair exists among the grade crossings; accordingly, this option was not considered further. Virginia and Cedar Streets were the best likely candidates; however it would not be possible to change Cedar Street to one-way because of its emergency route status. Four-quadrant gates are feasible for all crossings but would require the reconfiguration or closure of access to the railroad right-of-way at Gilman Street and closure or relocation of driveways at Cedar Street, Addison Street and Bancroft Way. These driveways enter the grade crossing from within the quadrant protected by the warning gates so that traffic exiting the driveway is not prohibited from entering the crossing even though the gates may be lowered. Finally, medians were problematic at many of the grade crossings because most of the crossing streets have driveways located within 60 feet of the warning gate. The median is used to prohibit drivers from using the opposing traffic lanes to drive around the gates when they are lowered for an approaching train. Cedar and Addison Street may be feasible for medians. For both streets, the use of medians would require closure or relocation of driveways located within 60 feet of the gates both for existing and new development under consideration. Considerations for a Partial Quiet Zone A partial Quiet Zone is a Quiet Zone in which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded at public grade crossings for a specified period of time each day, for example during the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Per the Code of Federal Regulations, New Partial Quiet Zones must comply with all of the requirements for New Quiet Zones. That is, the appropriate grade crossing improvement to qualify for Quiet Zone status would need to be installed whether the zone is in operation for part of the day or the whole day. The key difference is in the case of a crossing closure: the crossing would be open to traffic during daytime hours (non-quiet Zone period) but closed between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. To implement this alternative, it would be necessary to get FRA approval of the road barrier design as well as the plan for opening and closing of the barrier on a daily basis. Based upon the regulations and difficulty of managing the opening/closing of the barriers, the study team felt that there would be no cost savings to implement a partial Quiet Zone. In fact, it could be more costly in the long term if city staff were necessary to open and close the gates on a daily basis. In addition, land uses in operation during daytime hours, such as offices and retail establishments, would continue to be impacted by train noise with implementation of a partial Quiet Zone. Hence, implementation of the partial Quiet Zone was not investigated further. 101752 Page 4-6

CHAPTER 4: QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS Considerations for Phased Implementation of the Quiet Zone As stated on Page 4-1, a Quiet Zone is required to be a minimum of one-half mile in length. The Quiet Zone proposed by this study is approximately 1.1 miles in length. Under these circumstances, it would appear possible to phase implementation of the Quiet Zone to allow one segment of the Quiet Zone to be completed while funding for the second phase is being secured. For example, Phase 1 would be a Quiet Zone encompassing the Gilman Street through Hearst Avenue crossings. Phase 2 would be the extension of the Quiet Zone to cover the Addison Street and Bancroft Way crossings. There are both benefits and disadvantages to this approach. Phased implementation would allow a portion of the Quiet Zone to be implemented without waiting for funding for improvements for all seven crossings to be secured. It should be noted that all improvements must be in place before the Quiet Zone can take effect. The drawbacks to this approach are 1) southbound trains would blow their horns for Addison and Bancroft while still in the Phase 1 Quiet Zone, and 2) the City would be required to reapply for Quiet Zone status, including the crossings already qualified, when the funds became available to add the second phase of the Quiet Zone. Wayside Horns One alternative which obviates the need for trains to blow their horns at crossings is installations of automated train horns, also known as wayside horns. These horns are mounted on poles at crossings and directed down the cross streets away from crossings. If they are in place, locomotive engineers do not have to blow their horns at crossings, as the wayside horn will blow automatically as trains approach and accomplish the same task of warning drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists of the oncoming train. Cost and installation of the horns are minor compared to the cost of two- and four-quadrant gates. With wayside horns, there is no requirement for new gates. Strictly speaking, a wayside horn system is not an SSM. A wayside horn may be used in lieu of a locomotive horn at any highway-rail crossing equipped with an active warning system consisting of, at a minimum, flashing lights and gates. Thus, a grade crossing equipped with a wayside horn is not to be considered in calculating the QZRI. The noise intensity and extent of the train horn versus the wayside (or automated) train horn is illustrated in Figure 4-1. As the diagram shows, the land area affected by the wayside horn is greatly reduced from that affected by the train horn. The wayside horn not only reduces the land area adversely affected by the train horns but also reduces the maximum decibel reading or horn volume at all locations within the path of the wayside horns. According to Railroad Controls Ltd. (RCL), a railroad systems engineering firm in Benbrook, Texas, wayside horns follow the same sounding pattern as the train horns, beginning when the train is a distance of ¼ mile from the crossing and continuing until the approaching train enters the a grade crossing. 5 Wayside horn systems 5 Per Rick Brown, RCL, 817-820-6300, on October 17, 2008; and RCL Web site: http://www.railroadcontrols.com/ahs/ 101752 Page 4-7

CHAPTER 4: QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS come with a confirmation signal, typically a flashing light. When the locomotive engineer sees that the confirmation signal is flashing, he will not be required to sound his horn unless he detects an unsafe condition at the grade crossing. These horns, which can be incorporated into a Quiet Zone, would seem a possible solution for Gilman Street, as commercial land uses continue east of the UP crossing to San Pablo Avenue, where residential land uses begin. The distance from the tracks to San Pablo Avenue is one-half mile. There are no residential land uses west of the UP tracks. Scenarios 2 and 4 assume implementation of wayside horns at Gilman Street. Wayside horns do not appear to be a good solution for the other crossings, as they would be very close to existing and planned residential land uses. Residential land uses today east of the UP tracks begin at 6 th Street, a little over a 10th of a mile away. Furthermore, current city planning assumes residential development adjacent to the tracks between University Avenue and Addison Street. 101752 Page 4-8

CHAPTER 4: QUIET ZONE IMPROVEMENTS Figure 4-1: Decibel Contour Map for Train Horns versus Wayside Horns Source: Railroad Controls Ltd web site at www.railroadcontrols.com 101752 Page 4-9