Loading...
03 March 23, 2009 Plans and Programs86711 RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 1:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, March 23, 2009 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside * * * COMMITTEE MEMBERS * * * Bob Botts, Chair / Don Robinson, City of Banning Karen Spiegel, Vice Chair / Steve Nolan, City of Corona Robin Lowe / Eric McBride, City of Hemet Patrick Mullany / Larry Spicer, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Ben Godfrey, City of Indio Jesse Molina / Bonnie Flickinger, City of Moreno Valley Frank Hall / Malcolm Miller, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris James Potts / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Scott Farnam / Bridgette Moore, City of Wildomar Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V *** STAFF *** Anne Mayer, Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director * * * AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY * * * State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program New Corridors Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare) Air Quality and Clean Fuels Regional Agencies, Regional Planning Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs Congestion Management Program Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.15 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1:30 p.m. Monday, March 23, 2009 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three (3) minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda March 23, 2009 Page 2 Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. - APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 23, 2009 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. if there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. CONSENT CALENDAR — All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. • 8. AMENDMENT WITH ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA • FOR DESIGN OF A LA SIERRA STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION Page 1 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-33-029, Amendment No. 7 with Engineering Resources of Southern California in the amount of $12,362 to perform station design services for a total not -to -exceed agreement amount of $909,603; 2) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve a budget adjustment to increase preliminary engineering expenditures by $108,254; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda March 23, 2009 Page 3 9. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Page 8 10. AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT FORMULA 5307/5311 TRANSIT FUNDING ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 16 1) Approve the project list recommendations for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) formula 5307 funding allocation for Riverside County transit projects; 2) Approve amendment of the FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the city of Corona, city of Riverside, Commission/Metrolink, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency to reflect the inclusion of the ARRA projects; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. PROPOSITION 1 B FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM — CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND AND SUPPORTING RESOLUTION Page 20 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 09-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Approving the Allocation of FY 2008/09 Proposition 1 B-6161-0002 California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) Population Funds"; 2) Allocate the CTSGP-CTAF discretionary funds totaling $1,553,822 for the lead project sponsors per Attachment 1; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda March 23, 2009 Page 4 12. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECT REPROGRAMMING Page 26 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request to reprogram federal and local funds remaining on completed and yet -to -be started capital projects from FY 2004/05 — 2007/08 grant years to cover immediate FY 2008/09 capital needs originally programmed primarily with State Transit Assistance (STA) funds; 2) Approve the $783,382 excess and unassigned STA funds resulting from the reprogramming structure be retained by RTA to be utilized for other capital projects that will be identified in later years; 3) Amend RTA's FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH STUDY Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 29 • 1) This item is for the Committee to receive and provide input on the Environmental Justice (EJ) draft toolkit entitled Hea/thy Communities and Healthy Economies - A Toolkit for Goods Movement; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 14. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 15. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. • Plans and Programs Committee Agenda March 23, 2009 Page 5 • 16. ADJOURNMENT The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 27, 2009, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • Absent County of Riverside, District I J7i 0 County of Riverside, District County of Riverside, District City, of. Banning City of Corona Heme City of Indian Wells City afnklidio City of Moreno Valley City ofNorco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ROLL CALL March 23, 2009 Present City of Perris City of San :Jacinto City of Wildomar RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS SIGN -IN SHEET MARCH 23, 2009 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS fipAV3polL, away?, 444� 4W,re,eitos.0,% ••\;..,-,..\4.,V.,.�`,L;v t-. 1� @e, G�sNfr--) fv\Avx C, ..._, nc. . sp y .,..,o,,z c C�� ; - ..p . N A R i ofAC A- K Ai Lz \/ p\ v r`7zr, 0. c ,,,,-,� e .'v, PC :e SA -ea c JFt c r no r V C? C 1\'CO LI -_, (--< / /n ) / 402/144g J/aWfi��IM "logce COP7I f'J" /17.- riQ� / w fr-:41/4/,-7Viefz.[ ,--rile_ s sf Moc.✓N4-- NoRe:rUU1/A-L GE 1,53EM ceNcv4L- ate • AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, February 23, 2009 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chair Pro Tem Dick Kelly at 1:36 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Bob Buster led the Plans and Programs Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Bob Botts Daryl Busch Bob Buster Frank Hall Dick Kelly Robin Lowe Glenn Miller Jesse Molina Patrick Mullany Karen Spiegel Roy Wilson 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Members Absent Scott Farnam Steve Poug net There were no requests to speak from the public. RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes February 23, 2009 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 27, 2008 M/S/C (Busch/) to approve the minutes of October 27, 2008, as submitted. Abstain: Miller, Potts, Spiegel 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS At this time, Chair Pro Tem Kelly opened nominations for the slate of officers. Commissioner Robin Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Patrick Mullany, nominated Commissioner Bob Botts for the Chair position. No other nominations were received. Chair Pro Tem Kelly closed the nominations. Commissioner Botts was unanimously elected as the Plans and Programs Committee's Chair. At this time, Commissioner Botts assumed the Chair. Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Buster, nominated Commissioner Karen Spiegel for the Vice Chair position. No other nominations were received. Chair Botts closed the nominations. Commissioner Spiegel was unanimously elected as the Plans and Programs Committee's Vice Chair. 7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There was a revision to Agenda Item 10, Attachment 2. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. M/S/C (Lowe/Spiegel) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 8A. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE 1► Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. • • RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes February 23, 2009 Page 3 • 9. • OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENT STUDY FOR THE ORTEGA HIGHWAY/ STATE ROUTE 74 Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director, presented the operational improvement study for the Ortega Highway/State Route 74. In response to Chair Botts' concern regarding major safety and increased capacity issues, Cathy Bechtel replied that Caltrans has strict guidelines for safety improvements. This study provides an overview of the existing conditions and makes recommendations for projects that will improve intercounty mobility. Additionally, there are no short term plans for increased capacity at this time. M/S/C to receive and file the Operational Improvement Study for the Ortega Highway/State Route 74. 10. SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN BUDGET AND REVENUE ESTIMATE Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director, provided an overview of the preliminary SRTP budget. At Commissioner Lowe's request, Robert Yates explained the restrictions on the carryover balances. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's request, Robert Yates clarified that the continuing resolution occurs on an annual basis as part of the Short Range Transit Plan process. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, noted that staff is being conservative with the revenue estimates related to transit services. Staff will notify the transit operators as updates are received. M/S/C to receive and file the preliminary revenue estimate for the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) budget process. 11. LOCAL MATCH CONTRIBUTION FOR SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECT APPLICATION TO THE MOBILE SOURCE REDUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE CALL FOR PROJECTS Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director, presented a request from the cities of Corona, Moreno Valley, and Riverside for a joint project application local match contribution for a signal synchronization project. RCTC Plans and Programs Committee Minutes February 23, 2009 Page 4 M/S/C (Busch/Lowe) to approve a contribution in the amount of $50,000 of 1989 Measure A Commuter .Assistance reserves for a joint project application by the cities of Corona, Moreno Valley, and Riverside for signal synchronization. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR No items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. 13. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT 13A. Anne Mayer announced: • There is a special reception aboard the Union Pacific Heritage Fleet on Monday, March 2, 2009; and • There will be a second Perris Valley Line public hearing on Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, juuQ i ck_a_v\ow-.- Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board • • AGENDA ITEM 8 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager Mark Massman, Bechtel Project Manager Bill Biehl, Bechtel Project Coordinator THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Amendment with Engineering Resources of Southern California for STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 02-33-029, Amendment No. 7 with Engineering Resources of Southern California in the amount of $12,362 to perform station design services for a total not -to -exceed agreement amount of $909,603; 2► Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Approve a budget adjustment to increase preliminary engineering expenditures by $108,254; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Project Information The Commission owns approximately 4.6 acres of undeveloped property next to the La Sierra Metrolink station. There is an opportunity to expand the parking facility on this vacant property and dramatically improve the multimodal benefits of the station. The Commission's Commuter Assistance Program has identified a significant need for a dedicated park and ride facility for carpools and vanpools in Riverside along State Route-91. This expanded facility would also support a transfer location for the Orange County Transportation Authority / Riverside Transit Agency (OCTA/RTA) Commuter Route to Orange County. The proposal is to expand the station parking facility and add approximately 500 parking spaces. In addition, a new street entrance will be provided along Indiana Avenue and the facility will have dedicated bus stops and passenger loading area. Initial construction estimates for the parking expansion are at $2 million. Funding for the Agenda Item 8 1 construction is proposed as Proposition 1 B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) and Commuter Assistance 1989 Measure A funds. To initiate this project, staff will require the amendment of an agreement with Engineering Resources of Southern California (ERSC) to prepare the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for the construction of the La Sierra Metrolink station parking expansion. This team is uniquely qualified to perform this work since it has been involved in previous parking lot expansions at La Sierra and Downtown Riverside. Engineering Resources Contract History In November 2001, the Commission entered into Agreement No. 02-33-029 with ERSC to provide engineering and design services for the Downtown Riverside and La Sierra Metrolink stations. The original not -to -exceed amount of the agreement was $196,295. Over the years, the agreement has been amended six times by the Commission. Although Amendment 4 for design of a temporary parking lot at the Downtown Riverside station was approved by the Commission in an amount of $52,638, the amendment itself was never executed. However, the agreement increase was picked -up in Amendment 5, which was also approved by the Commission and carried forward for a current not -to exceed total contract value of $897,241. Under Amendment No. 7, ERSC will prepare the PS&E for the construction of the new La Sierra Metrolink station parking lot expansion. The ERSC proposal is attached to this report. The engineering scope of services is estimated at $108,254, which will exceed the currently adjusted contract balance by $12,362. Staff recommends that the Commission approve Amendment No. 7 to add the La Sierra Parking Lot expansion engineering scope and $12,362 to this agreement. This will increase the total not -to -exceed amount of this agreement to $909,603. Staff intends for this to be the final modification of this contract and will solicit Statements of Qualifications for future work. The funding to cover the PS&E for this project will come from Measure A Commuter Assistance funds. Agenda Item 8 • • 2 • • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $108,254 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 221 33 81101 P3809 $108,254 226 41 97002 P3809 $108,254 Transfer from Commuter Assistance to Rail Capital 221 33 54001 P3809 $108,254 Transfer to Rail Capital from Commuter Assistance Fiscal Procedures Approved: \ ;;01-aor Date: 3/13/09 Attachment: Agreement No. 02-33-029-07 Agenda Item 8 3 • • • Agreement No. 02-33-029-07 AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO AGREEMENT No. 02-33-029 FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WITH ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement for preliminary engineering and environmental services is made and entered into as of this day of 2008, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("Commission") and ENGINEERING RESOURSES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Consultant"). Both Commission and Consultant may also be referred to individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties." 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Agreement dated November 14, 2001 (Agreement No. 02-33-029) for the purpose of providing preliminary engineering and environmental services (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 On or about July 10, 2002, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 1 (Agreement No. 03-33-003) to amend the Master Agreement to provide for the final PS&E design for Phase II of the expansion of the existing Riverside -La Sierra Metrolink station and other miscellaneous services including preparing and/or performing solar panel final design, ALTA Survey, Biological Survey and RCC Import Borrow Plan. 2.3 On or about November 26, 2002, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 2 (Agreement No. 03-33-020) to amend the Master Agreement to provide for additional final design services, to reimburse the cost for required City of Riverside Permit Fees, and to provide Design Construction Support Services for Phase I and Phase II expansion of the Riverside -La Sierra Parking Lot and for the expansion of the Downtown Riverside Station Parking Lot. Engineering Resources - Amendment No. 7 Page 1 4 2.4 On or about October 22, 2003, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 3 (Agreement No. RO-03-33-062) to amend the Master Agreement to provide preliminary design and environmental services, including preliminary site expansion design and property acquisition assistance, for a new parking lot on the east side of the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station. 2.5 On or about November 12, 2003, the Commision authorized the Parties to enter into Amendment No. 4 (Agreement No. 04-33-038) to amend the Master Agreement to provide for final design and construction support services, including project management, development of preliminary plans and estimates, completion of final plans for upgrade and bid support services, for the conversion of the westerly temporary Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station main parking area to a permanent facility. The authorized amount was Fifty two thousand, six hundred thirty eight dollars ($52,638). Amendment 4 was not executed. 2.6 On or about August 26, 2005, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 5 (Agreement No. 06-33-504) to amend the Master Agreement to provide final design and construction support services for the new Riverside- Downtown Metrolink Station East Side Parking Lot. 2.7 On or about August 11, 2008, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 6 (Agreement No. 02-33-029) to amend the Master Agreement to provide for the completion of engineering as -built drawings and preparation of design and specifications for walkways and parking lots surfaces, as assigned, for the Riverside -Downtown and La Sierra Metrolink Stations consistent with the Master Agreement 2.8 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement to provide for final design and construction support services, including project management, development of preliminary plans and estimates and completion of final plans for the conversion of the RCTC property adjacent to the La Sierra Metrolink Station main parking area to a permanent parking facility consistent with the Master Agreement, as heretofore amended. 3. TERMS 3.1 The term of the Master Agreement is hereby extended for an additional term (the "First Extended Term") until December 31, 2009, unless earlier terminated as provided in the Master Agreement. Engineering Resources - Amendment No. 7 Page 2 • • 5 • • • The Scope of Work for the Agreement shall be amended to include Services, as that term is defined in Section 3.1 of the Agreement, to provide for final design and construction support services, including project management, development of preliminary plans and estimates, completion of final plans for conversion of the RCTC property adjacent to the La Sierra Metrolink Station main parking area to a permanent parking facility Services to be provided pursuant to this Amendment include, but are not limited to, project management and preparation of construction drawings and project specifications. 3.2 The services described in this Amendment shall be compensated in the same manner as set forth in the Agreement and shall not exceed a base value of One Hundred Eight Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty Four Dollars ($108,254). The current authorized total compensation for this Agreement is Eight Hundred Ninety Seven Thousand Two Hundred Forty One Dollars ($897,241). However, Amendment Number 4 was not executed (in the amount of Fifty Two Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Eight Dollars ($52,638)). As such, the current authorized total compensation should be Eight Hundred Forty Four Thousand Six Hundred Three Dollars ($844,603) after adjustment for Amendment No. 4. The maximum compensation provided under the Master Agreement, as heretofore amended, is changed by this Amendment in the amount of Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000). The total compensation for the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4 (not executed), Amendment No. 5, Amendment No. 6 and this Amendment No.7 shall not exceed Nine Hundred Nine Thousand Six Hundred Three Dollars ($909,603). 3.3 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as previously amended by Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4(not executed), Amendment No. 5 and Amendment 6, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. Engineering Resources - Amendment No. 7 Page 3 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 02-33-029-07 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. By: Anne Mayer, Executive Director Signature APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Name Title Engineering Resources - Amendment No. 7 Page 4 • • 7 illMAIZAA AA) loom* I Seltflid Illrld 011101/110 .1.17/1 014113411Vd AA ,AAAA0 NOISNVdn 101 ONI>I8Vd NOISSININI00 N01.1V180dSNVEll NOILVIS )1N11-10&12V1 V112015 V1 301S21.3AIN AiNnoo 301S2i3AIEI z ' s3"°", WRF,'2'agr,3711,113,,t3 EINFIO A71131SSAA AO A SaLON N01.1.0111113N00 sd018 133HM tbamtcs).Jsa-rti* 2""m°4°"" "-an k..in*.r*..6 1971111000_ ''''4""'""'"' 0111611111IN1 M-- 806i .A.inr wv 1)10 Le mama clAf IA AMAX) AMAIAA • • ,-1....1,•••••••••:..••••••...,.••• • . • 1.. . ••••• ••:•••••••••••••••:••••••1••...• z) mou rIANAJAV / / / / \ / / / \ / AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Inland Empire -Orange County Weekend Service Performance 2000 — 1600 — 1200 — 800 — 400 — 0 Q3 FY 08/09 IEOC Weekend Passenger Trips ism Last Year — 0 -•Current Year )�• • ��•OA� ��0�� gN 1' ^�' rIeN'F Daily passenger trips on the year-round Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Metrolink weekend service have continued to grow into the third quarter, providing 41,302 passenger trips quarter to date. This is an increase of over 22.87% over the 33,615 trips provided at this point last year, attributed to increased gasoline prices and continued promotion. The success of this service is due in large part to the coordinated marketing efforts among the Commission, Orange County Transportation Authority, and San Bernardino Associated Governments. Most all responsibilities for marketing of the service have transitioned to Metrolink, including revised seat drops, branding, and consolidation of the various weekend services under a single promotional umbrella. Agenda Item 9 8 Riverside Line 6,000 5,600 w a 5,200 H c 4,800 4,400 4,000 Passenger Trips Riverside Line CO <<Q) � PQ` �a�� °`�o� .so Des 44 G`�� °,00 Apo a o9 m P � o )' Fro Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of February averaged 5,111, a decrease of 255, 5 % less than the month of January. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily increase of 103 passenger trips. This is nearly 2% more than a year ago. On Time Performance (95% Goal) Riverside Line 100 R 90 m 85 L. 80 a a 75 70 00 00 o4i Ao Ao 00 ow ow oo Ao A$ Ao Leo der Pig � �Jc �J\ PJA �09 O61 �64 peg' lac k Month February on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (4% less than January) and 91 % outbound (6% less than January). There were nine delays greater than five minutes during the month of February. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 9 9 • • Inland Empire -Orange County Line Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line 6,000 5,600 N ✓ 5,200 F O 4,800 4,400 4,000 (5% o`t b Ah 5p ob p� oC AACb 5§b o� (0' 4 Pf? 4<b )J� )J` PEA g04 O°� \-4)4 po° )Qc (<0 Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's IEOC Line for the month of February averaged 4,422, an increase of 17, no change from the month of January. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of 399 passenger trips. This is nearly 8°% less than a year ago. 100 m 95 co 90 m 85 U 80 ao a. 75 70 On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line �Cb oCb oq3 A`- A� A� ob c§) 67) A§) A°' o°' F0'. 4e, PQ� 0.\ )�� )J* p p g0Q O6k �64 p0c, )0t` F0� Month February on -time performance averaged 95% inbound (1 % more than January) and 94% outbound 11 % less than January). There were nine delays greater than five minutes during the month of February. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 9 Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 10 91 Line 2,800 2,600 °- 2,400 H c 2,200 2,000 1,800 Passenger Trips 91 Line E d' d' 00 pb Aw Ao 00 00 oO A'b Ao 09 �`�� PQ� �a� �Jr �J\ QJ°' god Oc' pm'c' �`ac �e� Month Daily weekday passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of February averaged 2,275, a decrease of 15, 1 % less than the month of January. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily decrease of 120 passenger trips. This is nearly 5% less than a year ago. On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 100 d 95 .�„.�o /111 '` ll o 90 y 85 80 a 75 70 o`� ,zp 5p 633 PJ� coo 0 �- � p�G �`tfr Month February on -time performance averaged 98% inbound (3% more than January) and 96% outbound (1 % less than January). There were nine delays greater than five minutes during the month of February. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 9 • • 11 • • • Connecting Transit Service Performance The Commission's role facilitating interconnectivity between Metrolink and connecting transit services is essential to ongoing system viability. Such services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as help mitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at the Commission stations. The Commission is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit connections. In order to meet these requirements, the Commission has worked with Metrolink and local transit operators to offer connecting services to and from Riverside County Metrolink stations at no cost for those with valid Metrolink tickets. Within Riverside County, services include free transfers to routes operated by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), RTA's Commuter Link service and Corona Cruiser. The following graphs show total monthly Metrolink transfer passenger trips on each of the three services. Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 0 S' 00 09) 00 4o cA 00 0� o°j cP' eceo 48' PQt Asa �J� �J� PJ� c" 0o� �o'' O� �ac� fed Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's connecting fixed routes (1, 3, 15, 16, 21, 29, and 38) totaled 2,240 for the month of February, a decrease of 260 trips, and - 10.40% less than the month of January. Monthly trips decreased by 193 or -7.93% over the year. Agenda Item 9 12 10,000 9,000 a 8,000 'C F- 7,000 w 8,000 5,000 4,000 0' 0) 00 o0 4*. PQ` 40 1 Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link 05 0 0 0 0 0 PJ�o �z�o o4`�g' o�p 3a�o@moo°' Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's Commuter Link routes (202, 204, 206, 208, and 210) totaled 5,777 for the month of February, a decrease of 497 trips, and 7.92% less than the month of January. Monthly trips have decreased by 773 or 11.80% over the year. 700 600 a 500 . F- 400 300 200 100 N.9 o' ,JcAo Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser ,J�oO oho§ ob c� o�oo 0 P Gig O Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on the Corona Cruiser totaled 644 for the month of February, an increase of 40, +6.62% from the month of January. Monthly trips have decreased by 31 or -4.59% over the year. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger Trips 2) Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary - Weekday Service Agenda Item 9 • • 13 4°m9 e°19,AiimW WeelGel WPM OW %0 %9- %8- %b %Z 9'09 %b %8- %Z 80 qasn 60 qaA a6ueyo % %Z- %V %0 %£- %9- %Z- %0 %Z- %0 60 uer sn 60 9GA a6uey0 % %Z- E4£'£4 9LZ'Z ZZb'4 654'L 41.4`9 £8L 494`£4 £OL'9 66Z'17 609ad %£ 886`£4 06Z'Z 904717 98£'L 99E'9 96/ 884'£4 49Z'9 LO£'b 60 uer %8- 491'Z4 04Z'Z MI, 9L6'9 404'9 4£L L84'Z4 Z9L`9 9ZZ'17 80 aao %0 4£4'94 ZOS'Z L1.117 081'L L04'9 66L L9L'E4 OZO'L Z94'b 80AoN %Z- 999'94 944'Z 6Z0`S L79'1 ZZS'S S6L L91'El SLL'L 9/Z17 80 PO %4 Z8E'L4 Z94'Z 494'9 L98'L Z4£'9 86L Z98`£4 LZ9'L 09Z'17 SO daS %Z- 444`L4 £04`Z £64'9 b59`L L££'S 89L 8£9'£4 LL9'L 1.1.5'17 80boy %4 BSZ`84 ltVZ 484'9 4E0`8 949'9 908 41.1'£4 Z176'L 999'17 801nf %9 OE6'L4 LO4'Z ZZ£`S 998`1. 949'9 46L Z46'El ZbL'L L8£'4 80 unf %4 £4614 89Z`Z OL617 llL'L 68£'9 99L ££5t4 LSZ'L 694'17 80LeW %4 1.61'44 69E'Z 800`9 £9VL 944'5 LLL 99Z'£l ££8'9 1.4Z'17 80ichi %£ 064'44 00VZ 1786'b £6L'L 094'9 09L 966`Z4 SLL'9 ££Z'b 80MN %0^ 84£'E4 96£'Z 29'4 9L8'9 900`9 64L bZ9'Z4 L99.9 81217 809aA .�`_� to .., �'% k cNFa e, . �J�C�^�if pY'1 yi �y ,t'M t} F....:, CJEE .p�;i". ^`e?i y., r i . e'y `kTMr) 1 �l M1i� Yti. .^,V �i;a :+.. i1 \3 C h t .�`i'il i°l lo- tM i fW �-, JL` �'N WA {j �' r }rt.{��i mAR,�� h l f �ef)i'i --,rtJ �-� t. i yy a^�FM1.m?. i K, i��,. ,fit W i`.. l 'A.L�i�J,-lro�J - N .:H k' �. f Ytp t; n �'�ti r`.S�'C"uy,�'i ! ��f ... V�.41 +. y� YJT, `F.'f t.j�'t �.�.t iSy S"'},. Iw,r ;�° '� .S ,yyy biC .. j( 4.�.{JJ"J .e.+. x* J T ^S-, y t_ �.`u ,5�.0 .+"dam �� `F JT S 1 R?.y7 c.a �y Xr w d, �... Y r'y .�...,�s " p{y�y,+y0w'w if,;_, '''9vtl n.;f 'St v. r.` t1V daYAn �.'t Y� }j� .]� '.a1 ti.. i ... .. }........... w{ _ `J, . ... amsnrav AVC1110H - MOamm H1NOW N3311l1H1 Sd12112130N3SSVd Avam33M 30VIGAV mnoa13W • • McNoWC1.1O %£6 °A %96 !%£6 %OOL %06 %Le wo!;e!noleo awp-uo ay; u! papn!ou!;ou aye su!en paruub •uopeu!wa; Jo;uiod;e awp-uo alarm Law l! 10 paiep!suoo aye supp mammal •sAe!ap apienapai Jo' apew uaaq aney s;uaw;snipe oN %96 %00 L °%176 %96 !%6L %1.6 %Le %L8 swell papa )feed so coed awll palnpa4os Jo seLouSAL S ultelm po!aad lead %£6 %£6 %46 %96 %96 %46 %96 %£6 %S6 °%L6 %96 %96 %66 %96 %96 %49 %99 %26 %E6 60 Qad %b6 %96 %46 %96 7096 %1.6 %96 %be %46 °%96 %86 %96 %66 %96 %be %99 %SS %96 %Z6 80 uef %46 %96 %48 %96 %S6 %L6 %96 %46 %b6 %98 %96 %86 %66 %96 %46 %99 °%S9 %66 %96 90090 %46 °%E6 %96 %99 %L6 %L6 %Z6 %L6 %Z6 %96 %66 %96 %L6 %SS %96 %SS %46 %98 %96 90 ^oN %96 %96 %96 %L6 %Le %Z6 %98 %96 %le %66 %96 %L6 %OOL %L6 %L6 %06 %S6 %96 %96 80 PO °%46 %46 %96 %/.6 %66 9/0Z6 %86 %b6 %SS °%86 %66 %96 °%L6 %be %96 %99 %99 %96 %E6 SO des °%96 °Mt %96 %Z6 %96 1/4£6 %96 °%96 %SO %S6 %96 %66 %66 %96 %96 %89 %99 °%L6 %96 90 6ny °%96 %96 %S6 %96 %46 %L6 %46 %96 %46 %96 %96 %96 %96 %96 %96 %l6 %£6 %96 %L6 ao Inf %96 %96 %96 9696 %S6 %46 %96 %L6 %46 %96 %96 %66 %OOL %176 %96 %06 %Z6 °%L6 %86 80 unf %96 %96 °%96 °%be %96 %96 %96 %Z6 °%be °%66 %96 %OOL %COL %96 %86 %L6 %Z6 °%L6 %96 aoAm %96 %96 %L6 °%L6 %L6 %46 %96 %£6 %96 %Z6 °%BB %66 %86 %LB %86 %£6 °%E6 %88 %OOl 90 Jdtl °%LB %LB %96 %66 %66 °%Z8 °%16 %L6 %LB %86 °%96 %96 %66 4686 %86 %96 %£6 %96 %96 BO Jell %L6 %L6 %L6 %96 %96 %96 °%86 °%96 %£6 %96 °%96 %66 %OOL %96 %96 %96 %L6 %OOL %66 90 clad .'.::.. ;:=:: x.�.:eY F::. n.. :.`aV .... 'N4t .' ..., �iYrX.•t.}.mI.f. ._ J fW'.. J ... . ,. :1 4 +,qgM =Fp� a, tf !7,1 kyS 1....�iJx.X,4 ": �- y"x Pgg : ?.414?*Pa.TS: • s . , ... k -f�Cyy i50:iiai*:IL� ..( uro.0P OK py�.t1.41r.XYd -C •,'.: < .'. : • SHINOIN £L 1saLvi elull pempe4o5;o swum 8 u143lM Buln! W sule.Ll;o eequeoied 331A213S At/amaaM - Aavuouns 33N32131-101► 3ina3HaS mNl"1omim • • alppdn Hell aainunuop 'q•d•ua l•b (sdols imm •H•d•W) paads uaaisi(s a6eaany (%L+) 983'917 (oea-io0) saapiH Nunoalan AepiaaM a6aaany poi zE Aupunsipemied0 sup' afiaaany 9t7 i(epanies/paimad0 sup' a6aaany 6.17 1- Aup ieemperend0 suiall_ a6aaany Z 1-9 samW ainoa 99 eoinaas ui suoReis L sainoH jo aagwnN '1661 ui pa woo (MOS) AlPoipny RI] ieuoi6al eponeD uaaglnoS aims of Jou depq WO7SUleljyUllallAW nylley leuolSatl eIWoNIe) Waxryno5 (Seagn$) nun andlnd m234V — 0ey lOn) auk (Rey Iti6n) au4l une)9 onnel (KY «OM awi anln aneVl — *mins) auil pay mla4V .w...-. n laW. 1 pale(adp 10(p1110)Z Ilea F=..o AlUO iaucns'wed leAlwy xtx fV7 uMra Uti7c0 • nofair j . apeoave auk 16 ••••••• aun inuno) a6Ue10-andW 3 punpn awn puno.) a6uen) rwrW lIPllOktiY1 041 aplilaNy s ann OUlpleUIN UPS aun iGunoO emluaA suopelS Wlof Ovb1 Z KY ;I eJIWy/Aullceah LOOZ't lagwalda5 aropeij 3 kerugad ui apuewmpad au LL-u0 %E6• 800Z kerugad WOJJ °seam! %Z• Merugad ui sdP4 T T'T'S• Liwon ,a0 0� o° a5 ca C �S �� ad yS� )> 6° 65 m° c§S e°� era �°� ��J w°� o°' e°' e°� Wow \pC�� O), eya Q 60 0 00 00 0 0 0 � 00 00 00 00 00 OL 9 � , - 000'17 S8 (D 009'4 =, —� OS66 - _- _" OOZ'9 v OOl m - --_-- 009'S w 000'9 aull aplsJanla (Ie00 %96) aauewmped awll u0 aun aplsaanw sdulia6uessed 3ueuaa0iaad apisaania kenagad ui apuew.iojaad api-u0 %L6• 800Z kenagad aseanap %s• kenagad ui sdpl. sLZ'Z• yWOW o° t°� O°a o° cb° w° e° o° e° w° �� m° m° 9L S8 06 .A.1111111111-- - 00l eun l6 (Ie00 %96) aouewwo}gad awll u0 gluing ae› ,sQ,C 4,6 co? <,() �05 Ica \°c �rC FQS� as yS� a?i 0 0 °° 0° d5 e 0° e° e° 45 eV ci5 43 4 008' 000'8 002'2 ■-- 00b'2 __ 009'8 008 2 °tin 1.6 sdpi JaBuassed 0 H a N Aierugad ui aDuaLuopad quail-u0 %S6• 800Z klenagad way asaanap %8• Aienagad ui sdpi. zzt/o) Lnua W e° eC ,P6 �`' �`{J °Do`' . A ��C ��C Fed 1� c`\ e 65 6eo °- e° e e° e° is 45 eis OL SL oe Se S O6 S6 oot eun Alunop eBueip andw3 puelui (pop ok46) aouewio;gad awil up 4wow A°� �C °� c°a �°� A°�' Fic'a �cC �cC hw� �'d �eS� Qa� FP oV e� e� c e° e° e� e° e� e° oo °° 000'b OOb'b 00e'b 00VS 009'9 000'9 elm Munop a6ueip ei!dw3 puelui sdpi ie6uassed 03ueuaa04a0d auri 3031 ssauaaeme paseanui pue siJoija leuonowa d o4 pa4ngia44y• aeaA Ise! iuiod siu4 wag aseanui 0/0L87Z+0 60/80 Ad 8b ui sal4 Z0£'Ttb• '6 2 4 e)) ��m ��b 4�� •e• Quo 42S oo� ooa 66a 6�0 �ocS �� 6�� CS JEaA }UaJJf1'° 1E9J, ISE1 0 00V 009 00ZI 0091 000E sdn aa6uessed pualaaM 3031 60/80 Ad CO 031naag puwleeNt 3031 800Z /Caenagad aapun %6S17• kiprugad ui sdpi H7g• 800Z keruciad aapun %OT T T • keruga j ui sdp4 LLL'S• 800Z Aierugad aapun %86'L• AJerugad ui sdP1 Of7Z1Z• 41uo yy 6� 05 05 0 000 0 0�\ 00 0 0—. o° e° 001 00a 00£ OOb 1 009 m 009 OOL Jeslru3 euoio3 sdpi Ja6uassed 4wopy ?°� S0C ° °� ,PO din C'8a 6S' b�3, Aga 41, a°� 4, es 0,s is 4 45 os e° 45 m° 0 Cg 000'b 000'9 000'9 000'L 000'8 000'6 000'0l 11.111 JOVILLItuo'J V11i sdul aa6uassed 41uoW '› FP 6�0S 04P �tl1o2 e°�° a�a6 m��� m��cc m�Jcc GPF e° 0 0Q0� Ibua6y psuwal apisaam emoa pexuvili sdp11061.13MM 000' 1 ... 009' l as 000'a 009'Z a 000'£ N oo9'£ zsNolis3no • AGENDA ITEM 10 i • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Formula Transit Funding Allocation and Distribution 5307/5311 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the project list recommendations for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) formula 5307 funding allocation for Riverside County transit projects; 2) Approve amendment of the FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) for the city of Corona, city of Riverside, Commission/Metrolink, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency to reflect the inclusion of the ARRA projects; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. DISCUSSION: As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Riverside County, the Commission is designated as the authorizing agency to make funding and programming decisions for ARRA funds. ARRA has many funding categories and the transit formula 5307/5311 funds provided under ARRA are the subject of this report. ARRA Capital Transit Assistance Program (CTAP) funding for Riverside County totals $30,647,319. These ARRA CTAP funds allow 180 days to get the projects obligated and grants awarded. ARRA transit funds are subject to redistribution if 50% of the funds are not awarded by the September 1, 2009 deadline. The remaining 50% must be obligated no later than March 5, 2010. If funds are not fully obligated by the March 5, 2010 deadline, it will be subject to redistribution. Attachment 1 represents ARRA formula allocations by urbanized area (UZA) for the urbanized zone 5307 funds and by apportionment area (Riverside County) for the rural 5311 funds. It should be noted that these formulas are for capital projects only and do not allow for the inclusion of transit operations. Agenda Item 10 16 For clarification, while the Commission can approve projects and allow for the allocation of the 5307 ARRA funds directly to its operator partners, the 5311 rural funds are under the administration of Caltrans, via a project application process. Accordingly, the recommended project list contained in Attachment 2 is for the urbanized 5307 fund only. Applications for the 5311 funds are due to Caltrans on April 17, 2009. Staff will continue to work with the Commission's operator partners on the application and grant approval process for the 5311 funds and will provide an update on the distribution and identify the projects at a later date. Staff has reviewed numerous projects that were submitted by the Commission's operator partners over the course of the past two weeks. Attachment 2 represents the list of recommended projects by operator and the distribution of funds recommended for those projects. Staff in developing this recommendation, has relied on historical precedent in the determination of the funding apportionment amongst the operators. The apportionments contained herein closely match those previously made for 5307 funds using revenue miles, passenger miles, and operating costs as the evaluation criteria. As previously mentioned, ARRA funds are subject to stringent obligation requirements. Staff will continue to work with the Commission's operator partners in structuring the approved projects in Transportation Electronic Award and Management System, which will ensure the timely obligation and result in Riverside County making full use of all ARRA funds allocated. Each operator shall also submit to the Commission for staff approval, a revised SRTP (table 4) so that these funds are formally reflected in the budgetary process for the current fiscal year. Attachments: 1) ARRA 5307 and 5311 Funding Allocation Summary 2) ARRA 5307 Recommended Project List by Operator Agenda Item 10 17 • ARRA 5307 and 5311 Funding Allocation ATTACHMENT 1 Capital Transit Assistance Program Federal Stimulus Funding for Sec 5307 & 5311 Riverside County: ARRA - Federal Register 3/5/09 Fund Source Urbanized Area Population Area ARRA FY 09 Apportionment FTA 5307 1,000,000 or more Riverside" $19,361,048 Bus (62.7313%) $12,145,436 Rail (37.2687%) $7,215,612 200,000-999,999 Indio -Cathedral -Palm Springs $4,714,391 Murrieta/Temecula $4,066,829 50,000 - 199,999 Hemet $2,505,051 Total 5307 $30,647,319 TA 5311 Riverside County Total $1,181,974 7 Westem Co. (RTA) 61.70% $729,278 Coachella (SunLine) 38.30% $452,696 'Note: 2009 FTA 5307 RIV/SAN UZA ARRA Total Apportionment = $36,415,543. Riverside = $19,361,048 Riv/Sbdno % split based on FY 09 Inter -County Apportionment: 53.17% (Riverside); 46.64% (San-Bdno); .19% (IA) FY 2009 5307 ARRA Apportionment by Mode Mode Area Agencv/Operator RAIL Western Riverside RCTC-Rail $7,215,612 BUS Westem Riverside RTA/Corona/Riverside $18,717,316 Coachella Valley SunLine $4,714,391 Riverside County TOTAL $30,647,319 18 • • • ATTACHMENT 2 ARRA 5307 Staff Recommended Project List by Operator City of Corona $360,000 Purchase of (4) paratransit Type 11 CNG vehicles. $240,000 Bus stop amenities $600,000 Total ARRA funds recommended for City of Corona City of Riverside $560,000 Purchase of a new farebox system. $140,000 Equipment to support the CNG maintenance facility operation $700,000 Total ARRA funds recommended for City of Riverside RCTC/Metrolink Staff recommends that the Commission direct RCTC's share of ARRA 5307 rail funds to Metrolink to further fund expanded safety efforts. These are projects identified by Metrolink that will meet the obligation requirements of ARRA and can be delivered within the required timeframes. $4,785,612 $1, 670,000 $ 760,000 $7,215,612 Positive Train Control (PTC). Rehabilitation and maintenance of signal and communication system. Security upgrades. Total ARRA funds recommended for RCTC/Metrolink Riverside Transit Agency $8,639,192 $1,871,732 $ 5,612,123 $1,107,096 $ 187,173 $17,417,316 Preventive Maintenance ADA Operating Assistance Capital Cost of Contracting COP Debt Service Transit Enhancements Total ARRA funds recommended for Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency $3,250,000 $ 500,000 $ 964,391 $4,714,391 Maintenance Building Expansion Bus stop shelters Intelligent Transportation Systems project implementation Total ARRA funds recommended for SunLine 19 AGENDA ITEM 11 • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Proposition 1 B Fiscal Year 2008/09 California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Fund and Supporting Resolution STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 09-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Approving the Allocation of FY 2008/09 Proposition 1B-6161-0002 California Transit Security Grant Program — California Transit Assistance Funds (CTSGP-CTAF) Population Funds"; 2) Allocate the CTSGP-CTAF discretionary funds totaling $1,553,822 for the lead project sponsors per Attachment 1; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1 B in November 2006, includes a program of funding in the amount of $1 billion to be deposited in the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA). The FY 2008/09 appropriation in the Budget Act of 2008 includes $60 million for the TSSSDRA. Sixty percent of those funds are being made available for eligible transit system safety and security projects under the CTSGP-CTAF. The CTAF is administered by the Governor's Office of Homeland Security (OHS). Of these funds, fifty percent shall be allocated by the State Controller to eligible transit agencies using the formula in Section 99314 of the Public Utilities Code (operator allocation), and fifty percent shall be allocated by the State Controller to regional transportation agencies such as the Commission using the formula in Section 99313 of the Public Utilities Code (population allocation), subject to the provisions governing funds allocated under those sections. Agenda Item 11 20 For the current fiscal year, the Commission expects to receive $1,553,822 in population funds per Section 99313. The Commission is responsible for calculating eligible amounts for each project sponsor under its authority. The transit agencies within Riverside County will receive the CTAF non -discretionary operator funds totaling $231,221, as identified in Attachment 2, directly from the State Controller per Section 99314. These funds are designated to be used for transit capital projects that provide increased protection against a security or safety threat including, but not limited to, the following: • Construction or renovation projects that enhance security of public transit stations or other transit facilities; • Explosive devise mitigation and remediation equipment; • Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear explosives search, rescue or response equipment; • Interoperable communications equipment; • Physical security enhancement equipment; • Installation of fencing, barriers, etc. to improve security at transit stations or other transit facilities; • Capital expenditures to increase the capacity of transit operators to develop disaster response transportation systems that can move people, equipment, etc. in the aftermath of a disaster; or • Other security related projects approved by the Office of Homeland Security. Funds will be allocated directly to the project sponsors upon receipt of Commission approval. Project sponsors have three years to complete all eligible projects. The OHS is requiring a resolution from the Commission regarding population funds per Section 99313. This resolution is needed in order to successfully complete the grant submittal process. Attachment 1 is Resolution No. 09-005 to approve and authorize the project sponsors to apply for the CTSGP-CTAF population funds through the OHS. Financial Impact Since the funds are directly allocated to the project sponsor, the only Commission financial impact is for the allocation of funds to the Commuter Rail Program in Riverside County, estimated at $347,600, which is comprised of $263,580 of population funds per Section 99313 and $84,020 of operator funds per Section 99314. These funds have been included in the FY 2009/10 Commission budget. Agenda Item 11 • • 21 • • • Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2009/10+ Amount: $ 347,600 Source of Funds: Prop 1 B CTSGP-CTAF Population Funds Budget Ad ustment: N/A GLA No.: 221 33 41510 Prop 1 B Fiscal Procedures Approved: \10.1tun Date: 3/13/09 Attachments: 1) Recommended Prop 1 B-Security Fund Distribution By Operator 2) Draft Resolution of Approval and Authorization Agenda Item 11 22 • • ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 09-005 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF FY 08-09 PROPOSITION 1B-6161-0002 CALIFORNIA TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM- CALIFORNIA TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS — POPULATION FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the designated regional transportation planning agency for Riverside County, and is therefore, eligible to receive and allocate funds under Government Code 8879.58(a)(2) based upon population; and WHEREAS, RCTC has been identified as the recipient of Proposition 1 B CTSGP-CTAF Population Funds in the amount of $1,553,822; and WHEREAS, RCTC approves the allocation of the Population Funds to eight local transit agencies for the purpose of enhancing safety and security on public transit systems throughout Riverside County; NOW, THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby finds that: RCTC approves the allocation of $1,553,822 in Proposition 1B CTSGP-CTAF Population Funds to the following entities and following amounts: Western Riverside County — • City of Banning $ 48,818 • City of Beaumont $ 27,783 • City of Corona $ 32,423 • City of Riverside $ 27,673 • Riverside Transit Agency $ 797,813 • RCTC Commuter Rail $ 263,580 Coachella Valley - • SunLine Transit Agency $ 331,800 Palo Verde Valley — • Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency $ 23,932 23 • APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April 2009. Robert E. Magee, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • 24 0GTle16E; 4R/2008 ReVlsed: 5/20/08 • ATTACHMENT 2 FY 2008/09 Prop 1B (6161-0002) Funding Allocation Governor's Office of Homeland Security FY 2008/09 Transit Security Grant Program / California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) Prop 18 - Transit Security Application Submitted: January 21, 2009 • Printed: 9/17200e 11:04 AM Western Riverside Western Riverside (Actual Coachella Valley Coachella ; ': Valley (Actual Palo Verde Valley P5) Yerd,e Valley '; (Actual."; Total (Available) Total (Amount Applied for) (Available) Applied for) (Available) Applied for) (Available) , Applied for) Bus Services: 78% Rail Services: 22% 1,198,090 1,198,090 934,510 934,510 263,580 263,580 48,818 27,783 32,423 27,673 797,81.3 City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside Riverside Transit Agency 48,818 27,783 32,423 27,673 797,813 158,475 City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside Riverside Transit Agency RCTC's Commuter Rail 1,182 717 2,577 2,327 67,652 84,020 1,356,565 158,475 1,1821 717 2,577 21327`. 67,652 84,020 1,356,565; 331,800 71,808 403,608 800 71.508:, 4Q3608=% 23,932 938 24,870 932i 24,870 1,553,822 231,221 1,785,043 1,553,822 231,221 1,785,043 Population Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit (1/1/07) Area Population Western 1,566, 504 77.11 % Coachella Valley 433,830 21.35% Palo Verde Valley 31,291 1.54% 11.M0.Attach 2. Prop 18. Security Funding Allocation by Appodionmeni Area2.sts Available&Actual Request 25 AGENDA ITEM 12 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency Capital Project Reprogramming STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request to reprogram federal and local funds remaining on completed and yet -to -be started capital projects from FY 2004/05 — 2007/08 grant years to cover immediate FY 2008/09 capital needs originally programmed primarily with State Transit Assistance (STA) funds; 2) Approve the $783,382 excess and unassigned STA funds resulting from the reprogramming structure be retained by RTA to be utilized for other capital projects that will be identified in later years; 3) Amend RTA's FY 2008/09 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the July 9, 2008 Commission meeting, the FY 2008/09 operating and capital funding allocation for Riverside County transit services were approved. For its capital budget for FY 2008/09 was heavily funded with STA compared to prior years. The agency's capital budget is historically funded primarily with Federal 5307 funds utilizing STA or Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds as local match, but due to declining LTF for operational needs, its operating budget was supplanted with Federal 5307 funds, which is typically used for capital funding. With this year's funding constraints, RTA's FY 2008/09 capital budget was reduced to minimal levels and heavily funded with STA. After the Commission's approval of FY 2008/09 funding, the state's financial crisis worsened. In October 2008, Riverside County's STA fund allocation was reduced by 57% and consequently, in March 2009, the STA allocation was again reduced by one half of the October funding levels. To alleviate this significant shortfall in STA, RTA staff prepared a capital restructuring plan that reallocates funding from several existing projects and sources from prior years to ensure that critical capital needs currently programmed in FY 2008/09 are met. The attachment details RTA's proposed reprogramming plan. Agenda Item 12 26 A shift of $6,114,997 of existing funds from several RTA projects that have been completed or soon -to -be started projects from FYs 2005 - 08 grant years will be used to cover $5,331,613 of FY 2009 capital needs that were originally funded heavily with STA funds. The reprogramming plan yielded a balance of $783,382 of excess and unassigned STA monies, and RTA is requesting that this amount be retained by the agency to cover other capital projects planned for later years. Unfortunately, in the wake of the recent state budget agreement, the provision for STA funding was completely eliminated for public transit operators; however, the carryover or excess funds are still retained and can be made available to RTA for this purpose. Commission staff is in support of RTA's request to reprogram the funds and recommends approval of its capital modification plan contingent upon FTA's approval to reprogram the federal portion of the funding. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2008/09 Amount: $783,400 (STA only) Source of Funds: Transportation Development Act LTF & STA - Western County; Section 5307 and Prop 1 B funds Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.: 241-62-86102 P2201 ($783,400) Fiscal Procedures Approved: \141,azduvite.Date: 3/13/09 Attachment: RTA Capital Project Restructure Summary Table • Agenda Item 12 27 • • • RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FY 2008/09 COVERAGE OF STA SHORTFALL CAPITAL PROJECT RESTRUCTURE SUMMARY March 13, 2009 Reprogramming Funding Source (FROM) Grant Project Description Year Federal State LTF MV Settlement Prop 1B TUMF Total Revenue Vehicles FY07-08 $ 6,911 $ 939,975 2,891,058 $ 3,837,944 Revenue Vehicle Equipment FY07-08 79,219 79,219 Non -Revenue Vehicles FY05-06 3,562 949 4,511 Bus Stop Amenities FY04-08 315,467 94,709 410,176 Fare Revenue Collection Equipment FY0607 529,450 132,362 661,812 BRT Transit Enhancements FY05-06 134,600 325,400 87,250 547,250 Maintenance FY07-08 15,067 3,768 18,834 Communications & Info Systems FY07-08 51,993 12,883 116 64,992 General & Administrative FY05-06 47 807 177 1,031 ADA/DAR Projects FY05-06 489 228 489,228 Total $ 1,053,535 $ 1,592,684 $ 88,492 $ 489,228 $ 2,891,058 $ $ 6,114,997 Reprogrammed Funding (TO) Grant Project Description Year Federal State LTF -MV Settlement Prop 1B TUMF Total Revenue Vehicles FY08-09 $ 47 $ 27,603 $ 22,718 $ 2,891,058 $ 2,941,425 COP Debi Service FY08-09 406,471 406,471 Non -Revenue Vehicles FY08-09 4,511 6,264 10,775 Trolley Refurbish FY08-09 170,620 111,426 22,954 305,000 Maintenance Spare Pads FY08-09 634,235 163,234 5,250 428.294 1,231,013 Capitalized Tire Lease FY08-09 187,229 49,740 38,217 275,186 Maintenance FY08-09 9,411 22,626 53,907 85,944 Communications & Info Systems FY08-09 51,993 23,691 116 75,800 Total $ 1,053,535 $ 809,302 $ 88,492 $ 489,228 $ 2,891,058 $ - $ 5,331,615 Unassigned Funds (FY08 STA) $ 783,382 Note: Amounts are subject to rounding differences 28 AGENDA ITEM 13 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 23, 2009 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Environmental Justice Analysis and Community Outreach Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) This item is for the Committee to receive and provide input on the Environmental Justice (EJ) draft toolkit entitled Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies - A Toolkit for Goods Movement; and 2) Forward to Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2007, the Commission entered into an agreement with Ca!trans for $200,000 in grant funds from the EJ Context -Sensitive Transportation Planning Grant program to supplement the work of the Multi -County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP). In addition to committing $6,000 in local funds, the Commission entered into funding agreements with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for the local funding match of $24,000 in support of the EJ grant ($6,000 from each agency). Since that time, OCTA opted out of the EJ community outreach study and as a result, the Commission provided an additional $2,000 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds to pay its proportionate share of the $24,000 match requirement. Metro and SANBAG also provided additional match funding of $2,000. Through a competitive selection process, the Commission retained the consulting firm of Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc. WIG) to conduct the three -county environmental justice study. Consultant staff will provide an overview of the study at the Committee meeting. The purpose of the study was to: • Expand the region's understanding of goods movement impacts on communities of concern; and • Identify strategies for the region, and case study communities, to address these impacts and maintain or enhance quality -of -life, all while supporting the expansion of goods movement. Agenda Item 13 29 The toolkit was designed to focus solely on goods movement related issues and was not designed to discourage the development of alternative commute strategies and/or other congestion reduction strategies such as commuter or light rail.. The Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies — A Toolkit for Goods Movement is attached. The toolkit is currently in draft format as at the time of writing this staff report, the document was being reviewed by both technical advisory committee (TAC) and community feedback group (CFG) members. Once input is received from the Plans and Programs Committee as well as the TAC and CFG, comments will be incorporated into the final document and made available at the April 8 Commission meeting. Impacts of Goods Movement As the nation's two largest ports, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handled $221 billion in imports and $35 billion in exports in 2005. Despite the late 2008 downturn in the economy, the amount of goods shipped is expected to triple by 2030. Participants in the EJ study recognize that the region's goods movement system has both positive and negative effects. It influences the area's local economy, environment, and quality of life. It is also an economic driver for the region, creating jobs and money for the local economy. However, activities from goods movement can negatively impact local communities, creating air pollution, noise, traffic and blight. There are also health risks associated with goods movement particularly among low-income and minority populations. Study Approach The EJ study integrated technical analysis from developed transportation plans such as the MCGMAP and best practices and solutions for environmental justice issues. This effort was coordinated with a broad -based community outreach approach involving technical staff from the railroads, ports and warehousing industry together with representatives of EJ communities. The TAC, consisting of industry staff and community representatives, as well as CFG members from each of the participating counties, guided the study team in developing the toolkit. A total of four communities participated in the EJ study: County Geographic Area Los Angeles South Gate Riverside Mira Loma and Coachella Valley San Bernardino South Colton A series of CFG meetings were held to solicit feedback from areas most impacted by goods movement. Representatives from the impacted communities, local city and county planning departments, public works departments and staff from various Agenda Item 13 30 • • • industries attended the TAC and community meetings. Whenever possible, feedback provided on local issues and impacts related to goods movement activities were incorporated into the toolkit. To provide a balanced and fair perspective, the toolkit acknowledges the major contributions that the logistics industry contributes to the economy. Information gleaned from the TAC and CFGs were incorporated into the Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies: A Toolkit for Goods Movement. While the focus of the study was on EJ communities, the principles and practices developed through the study can be applied to any community that is potentially impacted by the movement of freight. Why Was The Toolkit Developed? The toolkit was developed to provide potential strategies to assist community members as well as public and private agencies in resolving goods movement - related problems. It provides a starting point and source of ideas for how Southern California's goods movement system and the communities that experience the negative impacts can co -exist. The toolkit is not a policy document and does not offer a set of requirements or minimum standards to address impacts. While many communities may experience similar impacts each setting will have a unique combination of conditions and people involved; the toolkit provides an opportunity to create tailored solutions to fit each situation. How Will The Toolkit Be Utilized? The toolkit is a starting point for addressing specific goods movement related projects. Depending on the information needed, the toolkit offers: • Basic information about how the goods movement system works; • Its benefits to communities and the region; • Its impacts on communities and the region; • The roles of organizations that regulates the goods movement system and operations; and • Experiences from communities that have been affected by goods movement related issues. The Commission will use the toolkit at the May 28, 2009 workshop entitled Advancing Goods Movement through the Inland Empire. The workshop is currently being developed in partnership with the Southern California Association of Governments and the Western Riverside Council of Governments. The focus of the workshop will be to provide an overview of the latest developments in the goods movement system in Southern California, with a special emphasis on the Inland Empire's role, opportunities and impacts. It's anticipated that workshop attendees will contribute to the dialogue about how the Inland Empire should position itself to Agenda Item 13 31 ensure that the area benefits from goods movement developments and initiatives. Congressman Ken Calvert will serve as the keynote speaker providing perspective from the federal level about the effect of future transportation bills on local goods movement. Additionally, the toolkit can be used as a source of information at the state and federal level to further demonstrate the Commission's efforts in partnering with local jurisdictions and communities related to goods movement issues. Attachment: Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies — A Toolkit for Goods Movement (Draft) Agenda Item 13 • • 32 a T o o l k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r a f T m a r C h 2 0 0 9 | 2 - 1 Goods movement is an important part of the economy of southern California. the industry includes wholesale trade, warehousing, and freight transportation. the industry provides merchandise to the region’s shoppers and jobs to the region’s workers. the industry also provides a number of entry-level jobs with above-average pay. the region’s unique location and transporta- tion infrastructure attract a massive amount of goods movement operations to the area. Goods movement generates an estimated $170 billion economic benefit annually to southern California.3 Benefits of Goods Move M e nt to the Re G i onal e c ono M y the goods movement industry is one of the most important employers in southern California. Goods movement provides more than 10% of the jobs in the six-county southern California region.4 the goods movement sector is the fourth largest employer in the region, after the manufacturing (1st), retail (2nd), and health care (3rd) industries (see Figure 2-1 next page).Goods movement is also a strong source of job growth for the region. the number of jobs in the goods economic impacts of goods movement chapter two 2 - 2 | h e a l T h y C o m m u n i T i e s a n d h e a l T h y e C o n o m i e s movement industry grew by 18% in the region during 1998-2006. the number of total jobs in the region grew by 14% during this period. Goods movement has grown independent of southern California population growth patterns.5 the current national economic downturn may hamper the growth of the goods movement industry. However, the industry is expected to continue to grow in southern California in the longer term. chapter two fi gure 2-1 e m ploymen T by indus Try, six-Co un T y sou T h ern C alifornia r e gion (2006) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 manufacturingretail tradehealth caregoods movementhotels/restaurantsfinance/insurance/real estateadmin/support/waste mgm’tprofessional/scientific/techconstructionotherinformationeducationarts & recreationmgm’t of companies/enterprisesother transportationutilitiesprimary industriesSource: County Business Patterns 2006. Excludes government and self-employed. Excludes some data points forreasons of confidentiality. a T o o l k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r a f T m a r C h 2 0 0 9 | 2 - 3 economic impact of goods movement Workers in the goods movement industry spend their earnings within southern California. Goods movement operations buy goods and services from other regional businesses. these purchases stimulate the economy and indirectly support other employment in the region. through this cycle of rein- vestment, each job in the goods movement industry supports two new jobs in the regional economy.6 southern California’s economy sees $1,375 billion in economic activity annu- ally.When the indirect impact of the goods movement industry is considered, the industry is responsible for $170 billion in economic activity,7 or morethan 12% of all economic activity in the region.8 development and expansion of goods movement facilities can bring eco- nomic benefits to local governments and communities, too. Building of new goods movement facilities creates construction jobs. Warehouses and other commercial developments bring property taxes to local government coffers – both secured property taxes (for the land and buildings) and unsecured prop- erty taxes (for equipment on site). Because these facilities often create little new demand for city services, they can result in a net fiscal benefit to for local governments. these revenues can be applied to services and infrastructure that support the entire community such as public safety, libraries, parks and recreation, and many other important aspects that make communities healthy and desirable places to live. Jo B s in Goods Move M e nt Goods movement operations employ nearly 700,000 people in the six-county region. approximately 66% of these jobs are in wholesale trade businesses, 9% are in truck transportation and another 9% are in transportation services. Jobs in goods movement range from entry-level to white-collar manage- rial positions. Goods movement operations depend heavily on two types of jobs: 1) transportation and material moving occupations, and 2) office and administrative support occupations. the goods movement industry also employs salespeople, business and financial experts, maintenance and repair technicians, managers, and computer technicians (see Figure 2-2 on following page). many goods movement jobs pay better than the average job. in the southern California, employees in goods movement make an average of $54,000 annu- ally, $6,000 higher than the average annual pay. note that this average salary includes airline pilots, who are high-skilled employees who earn a higher wage each job in the goods movement industry supports two more jobs in the regional economy. chapter two 2 - 4 | h e a l T h y C o m m u n i T i e s a n d h e a l T h y e C o n o m i e s Table 2-1 e mploymen T in goods movemen T in T h e six-C o un T y region (2006) Business Type Employees Wholesale trade 464,000 Truck transportation 62,000 Support services for transportation 62,000 General warehousing and storage 42,000 Non-local couriers 36,000 Air transportation 23,000 Water transportation 3,000 Rail transportation <3,000* Total 692,000 source: County business patterns 2006 * There is conflicting data on the size of the rail transportation industry in the six-county region. employment in the rail industry is estimated to be equal to or less than employment in water transportation. f i gure 2-2 California g o ods m o vemen T i n dus T r ies: o CC u paT i ons e m ployed (2006) Source: California Industry-Occupational Matrix 2006-2016, CA EDD business/financial operations 4%installation/ maintenance/repair 4% transportation/ material moving 34% management 7% office/admin support 29% production 2% computer/math 2% sales/related occupations 16% other 2% economic impact of goods movement a T o o l k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r a f T m a r C h 2 0 0 9 | 2 - 5 than most other goods movement jobs. But some other types of goods move- ment jobs also pay more than the average. Wholesalers, the primary employer in the industry, pay their employees an average of $10,000 more per year than the regional average (see Figure 2-3). f i gure 2-3 average a n nual pay for e m ployee, s i x-Coun T y r e gion (2007) 0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, CA EDD (2007) Note: These figures do not account for the number of hours worked by employees, but reflect the average amount paid to each person employed. Therefore, an industry with a high proportion of part- time employees will show lower annual average pay. air transportation wholesale trade support activities for transportation all goods movement water transportation couriers truck transportation warehousing/storage rail transportation $53,834 average for all industries ($48,000) chapter two 2 - 6 | h e a l T h y C o m m u n i T i e s a n d h e a l T h y e C o n o m i e s many of the jobs available within the industry are entry-level jobs, suitable for workers with little to no higher education or training. in California, 75% of jobs in the goods movement industry require workers to have only short-term or moderate-term on-the-job training (see Figure 2-4 below). Unskilled workers can gain entry into the labor force with starting pay above minimum wage and benefits packages. Goods movement jobs allow workers to develop new skills and increase their income as they gain experience.10 Case s T u dy m i ra l o ma The Mira Loma community hosts a major railyard and warehouse facilities, which are significant parts of the region’s goods movement system. Yet Community Feedback Group members describe challenges by local residents in securing permanent, stable positions at these facilities, finding that temporary, lower-paying positions are more commonly available for unskilled workers. f i gure 2-4 m i nimum Training l evel for g o ods m o vemen T Jobs in California (2006) Source: California Industry-Occupational Matrix 2006-2016, CA EDD associate degree 1% bachelor’s degree 7%long-term on-the- job-training 1% moderate-term on- the-job-training 36% work experience 7% post-secondary vocational educaton 2% short-term on- the-job-training 39% work experience, plus a bachelor’s or higher 6% master’s degree less than 1% economic impact of goods movement a T o o l k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r a f T m a r C h 2 0 0 9 | 2 - 7 d i st R i B u tion of e c ono M i c i M pacts the economic benefits of goods movement are not necessarily distrib- uted equally across the cities and resi- dents of southern California. Goods movement jobs tend to be clustered near the ports of Los angeles and Long Beach, and near key highway and rail interchange points, including san Bernardino and riverside coun- ties. Like many other industries, those holding jobs at goods movement facilities often do not live in the com- munities where they work. thus, some communities may bear the brunt of goods movement environmental impacts without experiencing the economic benefits of well-paying jobs. By working in partnership with companies providing goods movement services, communities can help to ensure that local residents are made aware of and considered for new jobs in these businesses. Truck rou T e s in T h e region make up an ex Tensive road neT work. in Los a n geLes co un Ty aLo ne, T r uck rouT es inc L u de 892 mi L e s of highways and 21,000 mi L e s of L o caL sT r ee T s. This neT work provides cri Tica L access T o T h e region’s porT s , airporTs, and rai Lyards. in addi T i on, inT ers TaT e s Li nk T h e region T o ou T side des T inaT i ons. a T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r a f T m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 3 - 1 Trucks carry more goods Than any other mode in the region. on-road trucks include tractor-trailer combination trucks and single-unit trucks. These trucks are used for urban pick-up and delivery, waste hauling, and construction. carB defines “heavy-duty trucks” as trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (gVWr) of more than 8,500 pounds. This 8,500 pound threshold is roughly the difference between trucks used for personal travel (e.g., 4-tire pick-ups and suVs) and trucks used for commercial purposes (4-tire or 6-tire trucks). Truck transportation moves goods door-to- door between shippers and receivers and transfers goods between ports and distribu- tion centers. heavy-duty trucks transport freight in one of three ways. 1. Local transport carries freight on highways and streets from its origin— ports, railyards, and distribution centers—to a destination within the six-county region. 2. Long haul trucking primarily uses the interstate highway system to take goods to destinations outside the region. 3. Intermodal drayage service moves freight in short trips between ports, railyards, and distribution centers. Truck routes in the region make up an extensive road network. In Los angeles county alone, truck routes include 892 miles of highways and truck routes chapter three Throughout Sections 3 – 7 of this Toolkit, potential strategies listed in bold are described in more detail in Section 8. chapter three 3 - 2 | h e a L T h y c o m m u n i T i e s a n d h e a L T h y e c o n o m i e s 710 Long Beach, Jct. Rte. 91, Artesia Freeway 222,000 38,584 17% 19.3 605 Santa Fe Springs, Jct. Rte. 5, Santa Ana 268,000 37,842 14% 16.5 710 Lynwood, Jct. Rte. 105, Glenn Anderson Freeway 234,000 37,417 16% 17.4 605 Whittier, Jct. Rte. 72, Whittier Boulevard 258,000 36,430 14% 15.9 710 South Gate, Firestone Boulevard Interchange 213,000 36,210 17% 16.8 91 Long Beach, Jct. Rte. 710, Long Beach Freeway 251,000 35,190 14% 16.2 91 Bellflower, Jct. Rte. 19, Lakewood Boulevard 236,000 33,087 14% 15.2 605 Norwalk, Jct. Rte. 105, Glenn Anderson Freeway 300,000 30,810 10% 13.2 710 Long Beach, Del Amo Boulevard Interchange 183,000 28,896 16% 14.9 605 Santa Fe Springs, Telegraph Road Interchange 253,000 28,842 11% 11.2 Source: Caltrans 2006 Truck Traffic (available online at http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/); Emissions estimated by ICF using EMFAC 2007. 21,000 miles of local streets. This network provides critical access to the region’s ports, airports, and railyards. In addition, interstates link the region to outside destinations. Local highways within the region carry some of the highest truck volumes in the country. Trucks logged 22.4 million miles within the region in the year 2000. Truck traffic is concentrated on major routes connecting population centers, ports, border crossings, and other major hubs of activity.11 Tables 3-1 through 3-3 show the distribution of port-related truck trips on free- ways. I-710 is the primary corridor for port-specific traffic, with nearly 40,000 truck trips on an average weekday. a significant share of truck traffic is related directly to activity at the ports of Los angeles and Long Beach. Tab L e 3-1 L os a n ge L es c o unTy h ighway s e gmen Ts wi T h h i ghes T Truck vo L u me, 2006 Highway Segment Location Total Daily Traffic Volume Daily Truck Volume % Trucks PM2.5 Emissions per Mile (kg / day) truck routes a T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r a f T m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 3 - 3 60 Jct. Rte. 15 158,000 24,806 16%9.1 10 Jefferson Street/Indio Boulevard 68,000 22,984 34% 13.1 10 Jct. Rte. 62 North 87,000 22,794 26% 11.3 10 East Ramsey Street 121,000 22,143 18% 12.0 10 Indian Avenue 88,000 20,768 24% 11.8 10 Jct. Rte. 111 89,000 19,491 22%9.1 10 Banning, Sunset Avenue 135,000 19,305 14%8.3 10 Beaumont, Jct. Rte. 79 South 133,000 19,285 15%7.9 215 Jct. Rte. 60 East 170,000 18,530 11%7.2 15 Jct. Rte. 60 223,000 18,286 8%6.8 Source: Caltrans 2006 Truck Traffic (available online at http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/); Emissions estimated by ICF using EMFAC 2007. Tab L e 3-2 r i verside c o unTy h ighway se gmen T s wi T h h i ghes T Truck v oL u me, 2006 Highway Segment Location Total Daily Traffic Volume Daily Truck Volume % Trucks PM2.5 Emissions per Mile (kg / day) chapter three 3 - 4 | h e a L T h y c o m m u n i T i e s a n d h e a L T h y e c o n o m i e s Air Qu A l ity air Quality impacts heavy-duty trucks are responsible for approximately 40% of the small par- ticles (particulate matter or Pm) coming from diesel engines and other goods movement-related sources in southern california.12 The amount of truck emissions depends heavily on the size of truck. For example, the heaviest trucks produce particulate matter emissions at a rate more than three times the rate of smaller diesel trucks. Table 3-4 shows aver- age emission by truck size for heavy-duty diesel trucks in 2010. arB maintains tools for calculating emissions from freight trucks in california. The emFac model provides emissions factors that describe emissions from trucks per vehicle-mile of travel. Total truck emissions can be calculated by mul- tiplying the appropriate emission factor (see Table 3-4) and the total truck-miles traveled. more information about emFac can be found at arB’s website.13 60 ontario, Jct. rte. 83 227,000 27,785 12% 13.1 60 central avenue 226,000 27,662 12% 13.0 60 Los angeles/san Bernardino county Line 225,000 27,540 12% 13.0 60 grove avenue 222,000 27,173 12% 12.8 10 colton, Jct. rte. 215 239,000 26,290 11% 9.3 10 mountain View avenue 202,000 24,846 12% 9.1 10 ontario, Jct. rte. 15 240,000 24,552 10% 11.5 10 etiwanda avenue 226,000 23,128 10% 10.8 10 Fontana, cherry avenue 226,000 23,128 10% 10.8 15 Jct. rte. 215 160,000 22,064 14% 10.4 Source: Caltrans 2006 Truck Traffic (available online at http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/); Emissions estimated by ICF using EMFAC 2007. Tab Le 3-3 sa n b e rnardino co un T y hi ghway s e gmen T s wiTh h ighes T Truck v o L u me, 2006 Highway Segment Location Total Daily Traffic Volume Daily Truck Volume % Trucks PM2.5 Emissions per Mile (kg / day) truck routes a T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r a f T m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 3 - 5 ROG 0.13 0.18 0.19 1.37 NOx 5.14 6.40 9.04 16.36 PM2.5 0.03 0.04 0.21 0.70 *Calculated from ARB’s EMFAC model TabL e 3-4 e mission fa c T o rs in g r ams per m i L e , 2010* Pollutant Light Heavy- Duty Diesel 1 (8500-10000 lbs GVWR) Light Heavy- Duty Diesel 2 (10001-14000 lbs GVWR) Medium Heavy- Duty Diesel (14001-33000 lbs GVWR) Heavy Heavy- Duty Diesel (33,000+ lbs GVWR) Truck emissions are expected to decrease in future years with the implemen- tation of stringent new emission standards. u.s. environmental Protection agency (ePa) emission standards will encourage the reduction of emissions from new trucks, while arB in-use standards will reduce emissions from trucks currently on the road. due to the more stringent ePa standards, total truck emissions are expected to decline by approximately 60% between 2010 and 2020, and 25% from 2020 to 2030. The benefits of the new emission standards will compensate for added emissions from the growth in truck miles traveled (VmT) from 2010 to 2030. Figure 3-1 shows projected Pm2.5 emissions from heavy-duty trucks in the south coast air Basin. Pm2.5 is a category of tiny particles (particles less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter). f i gure 3-1 b a seL i ne h e avy-d u T y Truck p m 2 .5 e m issions in T h e s o u T h c o as T ai r b asin Source: 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District Note: Baseline does not reflect proposed CARB standards for in-use trucks or the Ports’ proposed Clean Truck Program 0.0 1.0 2.0 2010 2020 2030 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Light Heavy Duty Medium Heavy Duty Heavy Heavy Duty chapter three 3 - 6 | h e a L T h y c o m m u n i T i e s a n d h e a L T h y e c o n o m i e s air quality studies show that vehicle traffic, including truck traffic, directly affects air pollution. more traffic generates higher concentrations of traffic- related pollution. research reveals that living close to freeways and high traffic roads can have serious impact on health, including cancer and asthma. studies report connections between living close to high traffic roadways and a variety of health effects. non-cancer health effects include respiratory symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and decreased lung function in children. key study findings include: • Asthma and bronchitis symptoms in Southern California schoolchildren were associated with nearness to high traffic roads.14 • Increased occurrence of asthma in Southern California children was associ- ated with nearness to freeways.15 • Increased asthma hospitalizations were associated with living within 650 feet of heavy traffic and heavy truck volume.16 • An increase in medical visits among San Diego was seen in children living within 550 feet of heavy traffic.17 • Reduced lung function in children is linked with traffic density, especially trucks, within 1,000 feet, and is strongly linked with traffic density within 300 feet.18 another study found that the intensity of vehicle-related pollution decreased within 300 feet of freeways in southern california (see Figure 3-2).19 Vehicle- related pollution includes: black carbon, carbon monoxide, and ultrafine particles. f i gure 3-2 d e crease in c oncen T r aT i on of f r eeway d i ese L pa rT i cu LaTe m aT T er (d pm ) e m issions wi Th di s Ta nce Source: Zhu Y, Hinds WC, Kim S, Sioutas C. 2002. Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major highway. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association. September. 52: 1032-1042. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 0 200 400 600 Distance from Freeway (feet)Total Particle Number (cm3)800 1,000 405 freeway—Diesel <5% 710 freeway—Diesel >5% truck routes a T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r a f T m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 3 - 7 Particle number concentration was 25 times higher near freeways than it was at locations not near freeways (back- ground locations). The concentration of ultrafine particles decreased within 300 meters downwind of freeways. air Quality improvement a number of strategies can help to reduce the impact of truck emissions on local communities. These strate- gies include: • New technologies for cleaner engines and exhaust (equipment replacement and equipment repowering) • Advanced fuels, such as biodiesel blends • Strategies that change truck usage patterns (designating truck routes) • Virtual container yards • Land use strategies that reduce local exposure to pollution (land use siting). most new technologies target either engine improvements that reduce emissions or exhaust retrofits that remove pollutants. new trucks (equipment replacement) and truck engines (equip- ment repowering) meet stringent emissions standards and are cleaner than older trucks and engines. Trucks can use advanced fuels, such as biodiesel blends, to reduce emissions. Truck emissions can also be reduced with a retrofit filter in the engine, which removes pollutants from the exhaust stream. These filters vary in effectiveness; some can capture more than 85% of pollutants. operational practices that reduce freight trips can also reduce truck emissions. empty containers account for a significant number of truck trips—500,000 trips at the Port of Los angeles alone. containers can be filled with export cargo at facilities so that they do not return empty to the ports.20 a virtual container chapter three 3 - 8 | h e a L T h y c o m m u n i T i e s a n d h e a L T h y e c o n o m i e s yard strategy can coordinate full containers. Loading empty containers can eliminate truck trips and emissions. such matching services could be an effec- tive tool to reduce emissions. Local communities can reduce exposure to truck emissions through land-use policies and development regulations. such policies move residents away from sources of truck pollution, protect residents from nearby emissions, and discourage new development near truck routes. Land-use siting policies typically focus on the location of community service, such as schools and day care centers. The state of california recommends that schools be set back 500 feet from major roadways, to reduce exposure to exhaust. Local govern- ments may be able to re-route truck traffic from sensitive areas by designat- ing truck routes. Noise noise impacts goods movement projects impact noise levels in neighboring communities. mobile-source noise is noise from truck traffic traveling along roadways. mobile-source noise can impact sensitive land uses such as homes and schools located near truck routes. other noise impacts can occur if a project builds truck lanes and/or moves truck traffic closer to existing sensitive land uses. The significance of noise impacts depends on the distance between the truck routes and the land uses, and the amount of increased traffic along truck routes. While excess noise is often considered a quality-of-life impact, it can become a health risk at high levels. hearing damage to residents may occur when exposed to noise levels of 80 dB, approximately the noise level of heavy truck traffic. doubling traffic on any given roadway causes a noise increase of approxi- mately 3 dBa, which is considered barely audible to most people. When evaluating noise impacts of a road construction project, it is necessary to consider the noise emitting characteristics and the traveling speeds of dif- ferent vehicles. Truck traffic noise can be measured in terms of automobile traffic noise. For example, a heavy duty truck can produce noise similar to 11.5 automobiles. Information regarding noise impact analysis procedures can be found in the caltrans Technical Noise Supplement (Tens). c a se s T u dy c i T y of s o u T h g aT e With a high volume of truck traffic on local city streets due to its proximity to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, City traffic engineers have installed rubberized asphalt material on some city streets, which has led to noticeable decreases in noise impacts. truck routes a T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r a f T m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 3 - 9 noise impact improvement several strategies help to reduce noise impacts from trucks include: • Planning traffic to reduce noise exposure • Soundproofing affected dwellings • Installing noise barriers along land uses. Typical measures to shield residents from freight noise include the instal- lation of noise barriers, and sound- proofing of structures. Local communities can reduce noise exposure from trucks through traffic planning and/or land-use policies. such strategies and policies move truck traffic away from residents, reduce noise exposure, or discourage new development near truck routes. Traffic planning and land-use policies typically focus on the location of com- munity services, such as schools and day care centers. alternative strategies re-route truck traffic through designated truck routes, away from residential neighborhoods. enforcing strict speed limits on truck routes may reduce noise impacts on adjacent land uses. t r A f fic A N d s A f ety Traffic and safety impacts Trucks contribute to traffic delays on regional highways, arterial streets, and local roads. The Los angeles metropolitan area’s highway network is among the most congested in the nation.21 In 2005, traffic congestion resulted in more than 490 million hours of delay, which cost drivers $9 billion in lost time and consumed nearly 400 million gallons of excess fuel. Truck traffic worsens traffic congestion. It is estimated that 15—20% of truck volume occurs on congested c a se s T u dy mira L o ma With a major railyard and ware- housing located near residential and school zones, the Mira Loma community experiences heavy truck traffic on local streets. The Community Feedback Group prioritized establishing clearly designated and signed truck routes away from sensitive land uses as a strategy to improve public safety. chapter three 3 - 1 0 | h e a L T h y c o m m u n i T i e s a n d h e a L T h y e c o n o m i e s roads, which ultimately increases shipment costs by 50—250%.22 Truck traffic also impacts highway users’ safety. In the six-county region, truck accidents account for 6% of all vehicle collisions and 7% of vehicle fatalities. Truck accidents tend to damage the other vehicle and cause injury to its occupants. eighty-four percent of fatalities in large truck accidents are passengers in other vehicles.23 Traffic and safety improvement Federal, state, county, and city gov- ernments can reduce congestion and improve safety by reducing contact between trucks and passenger cars. strategies to improve traffic and safety include: • dedicated truck lanes, and • designated truck routes. separating the flow of trucks from the flow of passenger cars is an effec- tive way to reduce accidents. Truck traffic can be limited to slower lanes or to dedicated truck lanes. Truck traffic can be separated with designated truck routes. separating truck traffic into specified corridors can also reduce traffic congestion and improve safety. truck routes a T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r a f T m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 3 - 1 1 3.5 A esthetics aesthetic impacts a truck route could have negative aes- thetic, or visual, impacts if it degrades scenic qualities or visual character. For example, a truck route can affect a scenic vista or block views of trees, rock outcroppings, and historic build- ings within a state scenic highway. These types of impacts are generally limited to rural areas or where a new highway is under construction. The amount of visual impact depends on the change between the character- istics of the scenic landscape before construction and the characteristics after construction. a freeway project may have little visual impact if it is built level with the terrain and landscaped, or it could have significant visual impact if it is an elevated roadway or overpass. Truck routes could also have aesthetic impacts when they create substantial light or glare, which could affect day or nighttime views in the area. aesthetic impact improvement The aesthetic impacts of truck routes—both highways and local roads—can be reduced either during construction or afterwards. strategies include: • landscaping to obscure the road from residents, and • barrier walls. Freeways add spillover light or glare to a surrounding community. These impacts can be reduced by covering light sources (hooding of light sources) or mounting streetlights at a lower level.24 While local communities may not be able to directly influence the equipment used on nearby rail corridors, local communities can take steps to reduce the exposure of local residents to locomotive exhaust. a t o o l k i t f o r G o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 4 - 1 The BurlingTon norThern SanTa Fe railway (BnSF) and the union Pacific railroad (uP) own and operate most rail lines in the six-county region. Pacific harbor lines is a short-line railroad, moving cars and equip- ment in and between the San Pedro ports and intermodal railyards. There are three main locomotive types operating in this region: 1) line-haul freight locomotives, 2) yard or switching locomotives, and 3) pas- senger locomotives. line-haul and switching locomotives are involved in goods movement and account for the majority of the region’s rail line environmental impacts. uP and BnSF own five main rail alignments in the area and the majority of rail freight moves along these main lines. BnSF’s main line is the San Bernardino Subdivision between Barstow and downtown los angeles. The line is comprised of over 64 miles of tracks. uP’s main lines are the los angeles Subdivision and the alhambra Subdivision. These two alignments include 119 miles of track. uP currently handles over 50 freight trains per day and BnSF handles over 100 along their most heavily used rail line segments.25 of special note is the alameda Corridor (Corridor), a 20-mile freight rail expressway running between the ports of los angeles and long Beach and the transcontinental railyards near downtown los angeles. The Corridor primarily transports imports and exports that move to and from rail lines chapter four photo by Bruce Montgomery chapter four 4 - 2 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s the ports to outside regions. approximately half of the port cargo is imports and exports. half of the Corridor is the Mid-Corridor-Trench, a ten-mile, below-ground railway that eliminated many at-grade railroad crossings. The Corridor currently handles an average of 55 train movements per day but is built to handle up to 150.26 Passenger train locomotives, such as those operated by aMTraK and Metrolink, are not involved in goods movement. however, they are often con- sidered together with freight locomotives as part of the total regional railroad system since freight and passenger trains share the same track in many parts of the region. f i G ure 4-1 up and b nsf re G i onal r a il system (not to scale) 15 215 210 10 5 Barstow Cajon Hiland Yuma JunctionEl MonteCity of IndustryPomonaFullertonAtwoodWest ColtonColtonIndioUP Palmdale Line UP Yuma Line RiversideUP San Gabriel Line BNSF Line East LA San Fernando UP Alhambra LineDowntown LA Ports of LA and Long Beach Irvine Alameda Corridor UP Lines BNSF Lines Other Lines rail lines a t o o l k i t f o r G o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 4 - 3 Air Qu A l ity air quality impacts railroad locomotives currently contribute 5-7% of total goods movement emis- sions in the region. as a result of the new ePa standards, locomotive particulate matter (PM) emissions will decline by 2020. More than 80% of railroad PM emis- sions come from line-haul freight locomotives. railroad locomotives will produce 0.76 tons of PM emissions (PM2.5) per day in 2010, as shown in Figure 4-2. like truck emissions, locomotive emissions are concentrated in corridors and at intermodal stations or railyards. The levels of emissions vary depending on the number of trains per day, the number of locomotives per train, and the types of locomotives. The busiest segments (such as the BnSF Colton Crossing—West riverside segment) produce a significant amount of particulate matter per day. The magnitude of rail line emissions is generally much smaller than highway f i G u re 4-2 b a seline r a ilroad p m 2.5 e m issions in s o uth c o ast a i r b a sin Source: California Air Resources Board, adjusted to reflect new EPA locomotive emission standards adopted March 14, 2008. 0.00 0.10 0.20 2010 2020 2030 0.30 0.40 0.50 PM2.5 emmissions (tpd)0.60 0.70 0.80 Passenger Freight Yard/Switch Freight Line-Haul chapter four 4 - 4 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s table 4-1 train v olume and e m issions, 2006 Rail Segment Average Train Volume (trains/day) Freight Passenger PM2.5 Emissions per Mile (grams / day bnsf railway Barstow—San Bernardino 108 4 1,828 San Bernardino—Colton Crossing 100 19 1,782 Colton Crossing—West Riverside 116 19 1,980 West Riverside—Atwood 72 30 1,310 Atwood—Fullerton 64 14 1,110 Fullerton Jct.—Hobart 64 64 1,376 Hobart—Redondo 38 64 985 truck emissions. For example, the busiest truck corridor (i-710) produces ten times more emissions per mile than the busiest rail corridor. Table 4-1 shows the primary freight rail segments in the region with their corresponding daily train volume and PM2.5 emissions per mile. railroad emissions are greater where there is a large amount of train travel, such as in the inland empire (riverside and San Bernardino Counties). in com- parison, truck traffic and truck emissions are greatest in los angeles County. The health impact of highway or rail segment emissions are greater in areas where population is dense. the busiest truck corridor (i -710) produces ten times more emissions than the busiest rail corridor. continued rail lines a t o o l k i t f o r G o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 4 - 5 ta ble 4-1 t r ain v o lume and em issions, 2006 Rail Segment Average Train Volume (trains/day) Freight Passenger PM2.5 Emissions per Mile (grams / day union pacific railway Indio—Garnet 51 2 793 Garnet—Colton Crossing 51 2 793 Colton Crossing—West Colton 35 2 596 West Colton—City of Industry (Alhambra Line) 29 2 488 City of Industry—Yuma Jct.27 2 450 Yuma Jct.—Pasadena Jct. 19 0 305 Pasadena Jct.—Ninth Street 24 12 448 West Riverside—Mira Loma 43 12 775 Mira Loma—East Los Angeles (San Gabriel Line) 39 12 748 East Los Angeles—Ninth Street 26 12 525 Yuma Jct—Santa Clarita 4 25 190 alameda corridor San Pedro Bay Ports—Downtown LA 55 0 902 Note: Emissions estimates reflect rail lines only and do not include railyard emissions (discussed in Section 5). Source: Train volumes based on Leachman, R., Hicks, G., Fetty, G., Rieger, M. (2005): Inland Empire Railroad Mainline Study—Final Report; emissions calculated by ICF. chapter four 4 - 6 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s air quality improvement Strategies to improve air quality include: • biodiesel fuels, • gen-set locomotives or hybrid locomotives, • building filtration systems, and • restrictions on siting. rail line emissions can be reduced by replacing older locomotives with newer, cleaner engines, using alternative fuels (including biodiesel), or retrofitting the locomotive. The two major railroads in Southern California (uP and BnSF) currently operate locomotives that meet ePa emission standards. More stringent standards will begin to take effect in the next several years. in the future, railroads can reduce their emissions by replacing their locomotives or by rebuilding existing engines. gen-set locomotives or hybrid locomotives save fuel and produce fewer emis- sions on short-haul railroad trips. Many of these locomotives are already in use in the region. While local communities may not be able to directly influence the equipment used on nearby rail corridors, local communities can take steps to reduce the exposure of local residents to locomotive exhaust. These strategies include building filtration systems and restrictions on siting new community services (e.g., schools, daycare centers) near the corridor. Noise noise impacts locomotive and freight car pass-bys, train horns and whistles, and wheel friction on tight curves are the main rail line noises. noise impacts vary depending on the number and types of locomotives, the weight of freight cars, and the design of the track. The level of train noise depends upon the distance from the track, the elevations of noise sources, and the duration of a train pass-by. The FTa and Fra developed models and methods to estimate passenger trains noise impacts.27,28 The same tools can be applied to freight train noise impacts. rail lines a t o o l k i t f o r G o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 4 - 7 The basic train noise unit of measure is called the sound exposure level (Sel), also known as the “single-event level.” The Sel describes the amount of noise exposure from a single event, such as a freight train passing by one residence. Table 4-2 shows some typical Sel values for freight trains. For perspective, an ambulance siren at 100 feet has a typical sound level of 90 dBa, while a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet has a typical sound level of 70 dBa (see appendix for more information). ta ble 4-2 t y pical s o und e x posure l evels for fr ei G h t trains at 50 f e et Noise Source Sound Exposure Level (dBA) Freight Locomotive 97 Freight Car 100 Horn 114 Source: Federal Railroad Administration. 2005. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Office of Railroad Development. October. noise exposures from trains are often calculated as one-hour or twenty- four-hour averages. Train noise is influenced by several factors, including the lengths of the locomotive(s) and freight cars, the train speed, and the condi- tion of the track. Figure 4-3 on the following page shows the average expo- sures for typical train configurations. Many cities and counties have noise exposure standards. The FTa’s noise impact criteria assess the significance of noise impacts. The FTa defines three categories for land uses that are sensitive to noise impacts, or “sensitive receptors.” Categories 1 and 2 include land uses for which quiet is an essential element (e.g. recording studios, outdoor amphithe- aters, and residences). noise impact criteria are most restrictive for Category 1 and 2 land uses. The FTa criteria are stated in two alternative forms. The first photo by Scott Ashman chapter four 4 - 8 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s applies when surrounding noise levels are below 43 dBa leq and the second form is a set of total, or absolute, noise levels. The absolute noise criteria are shown in Table 4-3. line-haul noise impacts along rail lines have been evaluated under the California environmental Quality act (CeQa) and the national environmental Policy act (nePa). Summaries of these evaluations provide examples of the types of train operations noise impacts. f i G ure 4-3 t ypical frei G h t train noise exposures 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 0 100 15050 250 300200 350 400 Distance from Tracks (feet)Hourly Average North Exposure500450 600550 650 1 Train/Hour 2 Trains/Hour 3 Trains/Hour 4 Trains/Hour 5 Trains/Hour rail lines a t o o l k i t f o r G o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 4 - 9 ta ble 4-3 fta no ise i m pact c r iteria Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)Allowable Project Exposure (dBA) 45 51 50 53 55 55 60 57 65 60 70 64 75 65 Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Office of Planning and Environment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May. noise impact improvement Several strategies reduce noise impacts from trains and include: • land use planning to avoid incompatible uses, • soundproofing of affected dwellings, • installation of noise barriers, • quiet zone infrastructure improvements, and • operational changes to reduce train horn noise. noise shielding at specific locations is a common strategy. installation of noise barriers along affected properties and/or soundproofing of affected structures can reduce noise impacts. Providing noise shielding along the railroad right- of-way may be effective in some cases if the barrier is located close to the rail line. in general, a noise barrier is typically not effective unless located close to the source or to the affected party. infrastructure improvements along rail lines can reduce the need to sound train horns, thus reducing noise impacts to communities near a railroad crossing. infrastructure improvements include a quiet zone (with certain safety measures installed), grade-separation, or dead-end streets. however, these infrastructure c a se s t udy south colton Located at the crossing of two main lines and near a major rail- yard, the South Colton commu- nity experiences constant noise from locomotive horns. The Community Feedback Group identified soundproofing of homes and quiet zone infrastruc- ture as possible improvements for consideration. chapter four 4 - 1 0 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s improvements may be costly. local communities can reduce noise exposure from trains through land-use planning and policies. Such strategies and poli- cies move residents away from train traffic, reduce noise exposure, or discour- age new development near rail lines. t r A f fic A N d s A f ety traffic and safety impacts rail lines can affect local and regional traffic in several ways. rail lines can have significant local traffic impacts at railroad crossings. The interrupted flow of traffic at railroad crossings can cause heavy local congestion, with local resi- dents losing time and adding fuel expenses. Congestion levels at intersections are expressed in terms of level of Service (loS), a letter grading system ranging from a (best) to F (worst).30 grades are assigned based on the average delay per vehicle (in seconds per vehicle). intersections with loS a operate with little delay, while intersections with loS F experience heavy congestion. This grading system is presented in Table 4-4. rail lines a t o o l k i t f o r G o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 4 - 1 1 ta ble 4-4 l evel of s e rvice d efinitions at Grade c r ossin G s Level of Service Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) A < 5 B 5—10 C 10—20 D 20—30 E 30—45 F > 45 Source: Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual, 4th ed. National Research Council. Washington, DC. Vehicle delay is greater at busy rail crossings, and depends on both the amount of vehicle traffic and rail traffic (see Table 4-5).31 other factors that influence delay include the train length and the number of roadway lanes. at-grade railroad crossings with relatively low vehicle traffic volumes and few train trips, the loS will be C or better. in locations with moderate or frequent train movements, rail crossings operate at or below loS e. ta ble 4-5 d e lay and l e vel of s ervice at r a il c r ossinG s Vehicle Traffic Rail Traffic Low 25 trains / day Moderate 50 trains / day High 100 trains / day Delay hrs/day LOS Delay hrs/day LOS Delay hrs/day LOS Low: 10,000 vehicles / day 0.11 C 0.46 D 1.46 F Moderate: 25,000 vehicles / day 0.32 C 1.30 E 4.15 F High: 40,000 vehicles / day 0.60 D 2.41 F 7.70 F Source: ICF International 2008. Analysis of Goods Movement Emission Reduction Strategies, Task 1 Final Report. Prepared for Southern California Association of Governments. January. chapter four 4 - 1 2 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s traffic and safety improvement rail crossing traffic and safety problems can be reduced by: • reducing the volume of cars, or • separating the rail crossing from cars (grade-separated). local communities can calm traffic with methods that redirect traffic to grade-separated crossings, which are not delayed by trains. Communities can improve safety at rail crossings by installing or upgrading traffic control systems. These systems alert cars of approaching trains and restrict car move- ment across rail lines. These systems also redirect traffic by timing nearby stoplights. Vehicle-train conflicts can be eliminated with grade-separation infrastructure. grade-separation involves construction of a roadway bridge over railroad tracks or an underpass. More than 40 grade separation projects have been proposed for the uP and BnSF lines in the region. These infrastructure proj- ects are costly. The Trade Corridor improvement Fund estimates most planned grade separations to cost between $30 and $90 million, with one as high at $189 million.31 c a se s t udy south colton The South Colton community has a rail spur that runs in the middle of a city street with multiple crossings across a short distance. To address safety and traffic con- gestion impacts, the Community Feedback Group identified the need to study redesigning local traffic circulation and improved crossing infrastructure. rail lines a t o o l k i t f o r G o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 4 - 1 3 Aesthetics aesthetic impacts The most significant aesthetic impacts of a rail line occur when a new line is constructed and it degrades the exist- ing scenic qualities or visual character of a site. Such impacts are not likely to occur in the urbanized areas of the region. The height of train cars also contributes to visual impacts. Freight trains with double-stacked container cars can reach a height of up to 20 feet, which can reduce views of scenic vistas. aesthetic impact improvement Many of the strategies to reduce visual impacts are similar to those for truck routes, including: • setbacks, • barrier walls, and • selective landscaping. unlike truck routes, rail lines are typi- cally unlit, except at railroad crossings and railyards (discussed in Section 5). There is typically no need to address spillover light or glare at rail lines. railyards support a variety of operations including: locomotives, on-road and off-road trucks, cargo-handling equipment, transportation refrigeration units, maintenance shops, and other stationary sources. a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 5 - 1 RailyaRds aRe anotheR majoR com- ponent of the goods movement system in southern California. Railyards are used for switching rail cars to make up or break down trains. many railyards contain facilities that transfer containers and trailers between trucks and rail cars. some railyards include locomotive maintenance facilities. they are often sited in mixed industrial and residential areas. there are nine major railyards in the southern California region, shown in Figure 5-1. all are owned and operated by either the UP or BnsF railroads. these railyards support a variety of operations including: locomotives, on-road and off-road trucks, cargo-handling equipment, transportation refrigeration units (tRUs), maintenance shops, and other stationary sources. activity at railyards can be measured in a variety of ways including: the number of locomotives and their time of operation, truck counts at facility gates, the number of pieces of cargo-handling equipment and their time of opera- tion, or the number of container “lifts.” railyards chapter five chapter five 5 - 2 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s 5 Yuma JunctionEast LA San Fernando UP Alhambra LineDowntown LA Ports of LA and Long Beach LATC (UPRR) Hobart (BNSF)Commerce/Eastern (part of Hobart-BNSF)Commerce (UPRR) Dolores/ICTF (UPRR)Watson (BNSF) San Bernardino (BNSF)Colton (UPRR) Mira Loma (UPRR) City of Industry (UPRR) San P e d r o B a y Air Qu A l ity air quality impacts Railyards contain locomotives, cargo-handling equipment, on-road trucks, as well as off-road vehicles and stationary sources. Railyards equipped to handle truck to train transfer of goods (intermodal facilities) attract heavy truck traffic. all of these sources burn diesel fuel and emit toxic air contaminants such as diesel particulate matter. the number of locomotives and intensity of their use, the volume of on-road trucks serving the facility, and the activity of other diesel equipment used in the railyard contribute to railyard emissions. in 2005, UP, BnsF and aRB agreed to reduce railroad pollution.32 this agree- ment requires that health Risk assessments (hRas) be conducted for 17 designated railyards in the state of California. a number of railyard hRas were conducted in the region in 2007 and 2008. these assessments focused on the health risks associated with diesel pollution. each assessment included analy- sis to estimate potential cancer risk associated with railyard emissions. the sources of diesel particulate matter (dPm) and the total emissions per year were identified. locomotives were the dominant source of dPm emis- sions for all of the railyards evaluated in the region. aRB collected data on the f i gure 5-1 l os a n geles area—major class i railyards railyards a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 5 - 3 types of locomotives and what locomotives were doing (i.e., moving, idling, or undergoing maintenance testing). aRB estimated locomotive emissions and modeled the air quality impacts on the surrounding community. emissions vary by source type and railyard. total emissions from the southern California region’s nine major railyards range from 4.9 tons per year to 23.9 tons per year, with the highest level of emissions recorded at the BnsF hobart yard, one of the largest railyards in the nation, which is located just south and east of downtown los angeles. locomotives tend to be the highest emitting source, followed by cargo handling equipment and on-road trucks. off-road trucks and stationary sources have the lowest emissions among source types. table 5-1 shows the types of emission sources in the region’s eight major railyards. health Risk assessments focused on potential cancer risk. Cancer risk is evalu- ated as the number of chances of getting cancer in a certain population (one million people). the risk of cancer at multiple distances from the railyard was estimated. the risk of cancer was also estimated at the point of maximum impact (Pmi). the Pmi is the location with the highest cancer risk level outside ta ble 5-1 r a ilyard dpm e m issions by s o urce type (tons/year) and p e rcent c ontribution, 2005 Railyard Locomotives Cargo-Handling Equipment On-Road Trucks Off-Road Trucks and Stationary Sources Total BNSF San Bernardino33 10.6 48% 3.7 17% 4.4 20%0.75 3%22.0 UP Colton34 16.3 99% NA NA 0.2 01%0.05 0.3%16.5 UP City of Industry35 5.9 54% 2.8 26% 2.0 18%0.3 3%10.9 UP ICTF/ Dolores36 9.8 41% 4.4 19% 7.5 32%2.00 8%23.7 UP Commerce37 4.9 40% 4.8 40% 2.0 17%0.4 3%12.1 UP LATC38 3.2 44% 2.7 37% 1.0 14%0.50 7%7.3 UP Mira Loma39 4.4 90% NA NA 0.2 4%0.2 4%4.9 BNSF Hobart40 5.9 25% 4.2 18% 10.1 42%3.70 15.5%23.9 BNSF Watson 1.9 100% NA NA <0.01 <1% 0.04 <1%1.9 chapter five 5 - 4 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s of the railyard boundary. table 5-2 summarizes the cancer risk estimates in railyards in southern California. the highest potential risk of cancer was associated with the BnsF san Bernardino and the BnsF hobart railyards. the largest cancer risk area ranged from 3,000 to 3,300 chances per one million individuals. Risk decreased at the boundary of the railyard, and continued to decrease outside the boundary of the railyard. the UP iCtF/dolores Railyard had the highest potential cancer risk at its boundary. Potential cancer risk was estimated to be 700 chances per one million people. in practically every assessment, potential cancer risk decreased outside the boundary of the railyard. Cancer risk remained the same (greater than 250 chances per one million individuals) at 0.5 mile from ta ble 5-2 c ancer r i sk e s timates r eported by h ra s of s o uthern c alifornia r a ilyards, 2005 Railyard Risk At PMI (per One Million) Risk At Boundary (per One Million) Risk per One Million (by Distance from Boundary of Railyard) 200 yards 400 yards 0.5 miles 1 mile 1.5 miles 2 miles 4+ miles BNSF San Bernardino41 3300 > 500 NA NA 100 50 NA 25 NA UP Colton42 575 > 250 250 100 50 25 NA ≤10 NA UP City of Industry43 480 100-250 NA NA 50 25 NA 10 NA UP ICTF/ Dolores44 1200 700 NA NA NA 100 NA 25 ≤10 UP Commerce45 650 > 500 NA >250 100 50 NA 25 ≤10 UP LATC46 430 100-250 NA NA 50 25 NA 10 NA UP Mira Loma47 160 50 NA NA 25 NA 10 NA NA BNSF Hobart48 3000 > 500 NA >250a >250b 100 NA 50 10 Note a: Of the four railyards evaluated, potential cancer risk was estimated to be over 250 chances in one million within a half-mile of the railyard boundary at the two smaller railyards. Note b: Of the four railyards evaluated, potential cancer risk was estimated to be over 250 chances in one million within one mile of the railyard boundary at the two larger railyards. railyards a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 5 - 5 the boundary of the four Commerce Railyards. Risks consistently decreased, however, at 2 miles and 4+ miles from the boundary. the health assessments concluded that diesel emissions from all railyard sources can exceed 20 tons per year. Pmi potential cancer risks associated with railyards may range from 160 to 3,300 chances per one million individ- uals. studies predicted that potential cancer risk decreased with greater distance from railyards. the potential cancer risk at 2 or more miles from the railyard is significantly lower than the risk at railyard boundaries. air quality improvement strategies to improve air quality include: • Hybrid and generator-set, or “gen-set” locomotives, • Appointment and scheduling systems, • Infrastructure improvements, • Exhaust retrofits, • alternative fuels (such as biodiesel), • Building filtration systems, and • Restrictions on siting new community services. the emissions at railyards can be reduced by operating cleaner locomotives. Potential strategies tend to target switcher locomotives, which move rail cars in the yard and may be old equipment retired from line-haul use. new tech- nologies for switcher locomotives, such as hybrid and gen-set locomotives can substantially cut emissions and save fuel costs for the railroads. chapter five 5 - 6 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s Railyard emissions can also be reduced by limiting the idling of locomotives. a number of strategies reduce idling times when there is no operational need for engine idling. strategies include operator training and technology use, such as an auxiliary power unit (aPU) or an automatic engine start-stop (aess) device. Railyards with significant truck traffic can reduce emissions with policies and programs to streamline truck use. these policies include: appointment and scheduling systems, as well as infrastructure improvements at loading plat- forms and parking facilities. these policies allow trucks to move goods with less downtime and congestion, and reduce fuel consumption. many railyards use yard trucks, cranes, and other types of cargo handling equipment. emissions from this equipment can be reduced with exhaust retro- fits, alternative fuels (such as biodiesel), engine repowering, or electrification. local communities can take steps to reduce the exposure of local residents to railyard air pollution. these strategies include building filtration systems and restrictions on siting new community services near railyards. also known as sensitive receptors, these community services include schools and daycare centers. Noise noise impacts noise from railyards can significantly impact neighboring communities. noise sources associated with railyard operations include: locomotive engines, horns and whistles, and switching and moving operations. in addition, noise from associated truck and railroad traffic can impact nearby communities. the significance of the impacts depends on the distances between railyards and sensitive land uses, and background noise levels. Railyard-related noise impacts have been evaluated by recent studies prepared under CeQa. noise impact improvement several strategies reduce noise impact from railyards, including: • Land use planning, • Soundproofing of affected dwellings, • Installation of noise barriers along sensitive land uses, and • Operational practices to reduce noise generation (operating restrictions). railyards a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 5 - 7 typical measures provide noise shield- ing and can include the installation of noise barriers along affected proper- ties and soundproofing of affected structures. the noise source can also be shielded. Given the size of the railyard, a noise barrier at the railyard’s property line may not be effective. Railyard operators can reduce noise generation with operating restrictions and programs, which include limiting idling time and reducing train speed. operation practices reduce noise emissions at lower cost than noise shielding. local communities can reduce noise exposure from railyard operation through land-use planning and poli- cies. these strategies discourage new development near railyards. t r A f fic A N d s A f ety traffic and safety impacts Railyards and facilities contribute to traffic congestion and safety problems on roadways when they generate large numbers of truck trips. the flow of trucks entering or exiting a railyard can cause congestion, which affects cars and other trucks, and can affect residential and commercial areas. truck traffic to and from railyards can be high. the main source of traffic is from drayage trucks, which transfer cargo containers between railyards and local freight facilities including ports and distribution centers. typically, railyards are connected to nearby freeways by only a few routes that are built to handle truck traffic. Because of this, residents along these truck routes can experience large impacts from these truck trips. in southern California, some of the greatest railyard truck impacts occur near the UP dolores / iCtF intermodal yard in long Beach. this railyard, which is chapter five 5 - 8 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s four miles from the ports of los angeles and long Beach, generated more than 2,500 truck trips per day in 2005.49 While the railyard has sufficient freeway access (it is positioned near the intersections of i-710 and i-405 freeways), it has only two established heavy truck routes. of these two routes, the south- bound route is of most concern, since it passes through residential neighbor- hoods in West long Beach. this community is deeply affected by the traffic and air quality impacts of railyard truck traffic. truck traffic at many railyards is expected to grow significantly over the next decade as the volume of intermodal freight movement grows. For example, UP is planning a modernization project within iCtF, which will greatly expand cargo capacity of rail traffic. as a result, truck traffic to and from the railyard is projected to double, to nearly two million truck trips per year. BnsF is plan- ning a new near-dock railyard project south of the iCtF yard, which will further increase railyard truck traffic in the area. traffic and safety improvement strategies to reduce railyard traffic and safety impacts are similar to those for other large truck trip generators. Designated truck routes limit traffic conges- tion in some locations, and direct trucks away from residential areas, reducing the noise and air quality impacts. Aesthetics aesthetic impacts Railyards have negative visual impacts when equipment or facilities block vis- tas or create excessive light or glare. the sheer size of railyards can potentially make these impacts more severe. Colton Railyard, for example, is 5.5 miles long and almost 1/3 of a mile wide. Because of the space required, railyards are predominantly located in industrial areas, where their visual impacts tend to be less significant. c a se s t udy mira loma Community activists in Mira Loma successfully engaged the local railyard operator in re- aligning truck access points to reduce truck traffic on nearby residential areas. To further reduce these impacts, the Community Feedback Group prioritized establishing clearly designated and signed truck routes away from sensitive land uses as a strategy to improve public safety. railyards a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 5 - 9 aesthetic impact improvement Railyards share many attributes with other industrial land uses. many industrial area strategies for aesthetic impacts apply to railyards. many cities have guidelines that apply to all industrial land uses including: • bordering walls, • lighting controls, and • landscaping. Bordering walls block visual impacts and reduce noise impacts. many zoning regulations, such as setback requirement and height restrictions, reduce railyard visual impacts. local city and county governments can use landscaping, such as trees, shrubbery, vines, and groundcovers as a visual barrier between railyards and the sur- rounding community. Imported goods are merged and sorted at many s outhern Cal I forn I a d I s tr I but I on Centers for del I v ery to dest I n atIo ns aC ross the natIo n. a t o o l k I t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r C h 2 0 0 9 | 6 - 1 Warehouses and distribution centers are an important part of the regional goods movement system. these centers are used to receive, deliver, consolidate, distribute, and store freight. imported goods are merged and sorted at many southern california distribution centers for delivery to destina- tions across the nation. Many others serve as distribution hubs for the large retail market in southern california. the locations of distribution centers overlap with manufacturing facilities and connec- tion points between freeways, ports, where freeways connect with ports, airports, and railyards. the region’s warehousing, distribu- tion, and intermodal facilities account for 15% of the total u.s. market and 60% of the West coast market.50 the largest distribution centers can encompass mil- lions of square feet. Figure 6-1 on the following page shows the location of distribution centers in the region. Many distribution centers are clustered around major transportation links. riverside and san bernardino counties support the largest cluster of ware- houses, near ontario airport. other warehouse clusters are found close to railyards near the intersection of i-5 and i-10, and along i-710. warehouses and distribution centers chapter six chapter six 6 - 2 | h e a l t h y C o m m u n I t I e s a n d h e a l t h y e C o n o m I e s Air Qu A l ity air Quality Impacts Warehouses and distribution centers can be a significant source of air pollu- tion for local communities. emissions from these facilities are caused by truck traffic to and from the centers, truck idling, and the operation of equipment. the impacts of truck idling can be large; a recent warehouse study showed that 15 minutes of idling caused emissions that were 50% more than one truck trip’s emissions.51 additional emissions can be caused by diesel-powered transportation refrigeration units (trus). trus are used for perishable goods (often called “reefers”). tru diesel emissions can pose a health risk to indi- viduals living or working near refrigerated distribution centers.52 arb has adopted several control measures to reduce diesel emissions associ- ated with warehouses and distribution centers. one measure targets truck idling by prohibiting unnecessary idling for more than five minutes at one fI g ure 6-1 l oCat Io n of Warehouses and d I s tr I but I o n Centers I n the s C ag r e g Io n Source: Southern California Association of Governments. 2006. Inland Port Feasibility Study. warehouses and distribution centers a t o o l k I t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r C h 2 0 0 9 | 6 - 3 location.53 a second measure, phased in between 2008 and 2019, requires cleaner emission standards for trus currently in use. a third measure will require existing (in-use) trucks to meet emission reduction standards begin- ning in 2010 these warehouse-specific regulations, when combined with other ePa and arb truck standards (section 3.2), will improve air quality in neighborhoods surrounding ware- houses and freight facilities. the emissions from warehouse construction can also have impacts, due to the size and power of diesel equipment involved in construction projects. While construction emissions can be difficult to measure directly, they can be calculated using the urbeMis emission model supported by the south coast air Quality district (scaQMd). urbeMis combines data from other arb models to characterize construction equipment, and uses a detailed schedule of construction tasks to estimate the total number and hours of equipment utilized. More information about urbeMis can be found at the scaQMd website.54 the health risk of emissions from distribution centers has been documented in prior environmental studies. in 2007, arb completed a health risk assessment (hra) on the uP Mira Loma auto Facility railyard.55 the Mira Loma railyard is an automobile distribution center where new automobiles are delivered by train, unloaded, and sorted. in 2005, about 702,000 new vehicles were deliv- ered to the railyard. the facility operates 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. the hra reported that approximately 91% of these Mira Loma emissions are attributable to locomotives. on-road trucks and off-road equipment contrib- ute the remaining 9% of diesel emissions. diesel particulate matter emissions from the railyard and within a one mile radius of the railyard were approxi- mately 35.6 tons per year. chapter six 6 - 4 | h e a l t h y C o m m u n I t I e s a n d h e a l t h y e C o n o m I e s studies show that downwind concentrations of diesel pollution decreases by 80% at approximately 1,000 feet from the Mira Loma facility (see Figure 6-2). the Mira Loma hra indicated that the greatest cancer risk is located on the northeast fence line of the property and is estimated to be 160 chances per million people. the cancer risk at the boundary of the facility is estimated to be 50 chances per million. cancer risk decreases with increased distance from the facility: 25 chances per million at 0.5 miles from the facility, and 10 chances per million at 1.5 miles from the facility. air Quality Improvement Limiting truck idling is one of the most effective strategies to reduce emissions at distribution centers. strategies include: • truck idle reduction, and • limitations on emissions from truck trailers or containers. as described above, arb has adopted a statewide regulation that limits truck idling. truck idling can be reduced through on-site truck idle reduction poli- cies enforced by distribution center owners and operators. fIg ure 6-2 s ensI t I v I t y of C o n C entrat Io n to doW n WI n d d I s tanCe f rom a d I s tr I but I o n C enters W I t h t r us Source: California Air Resources Board. 2007. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Mira Loma Auto Facility Railyard. November. 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Distance (feet)Rel. Conc.4,000 5,000 6,000 warehouses and distribution centers a t o o l k I t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r C h 2 0 0 9 | 6 - 5 additional strategies limit emissions from truck trailers or containers with transportation refrigeration units (trus), or “reefers.” reefers are a significant source of pollution since they operate continuously and tend to be concen- trated in one location. in 2004, arb attempted to reduce reefer emissions by requiring tru upgrades. the ruling is currently unenforceable and is pending a waiver from u.s. ePa.56 truck owners can upgrade to equipment with better emission controls. Noise noise Impacts Warehouses and distribution centers can create noise impacts to neighbor- ing communities. typical noise sources include truck idling, truck entry and exit, and operating heavy-duty equipment. these noise impacts are greatest when heavy truck flow associated with a warehouse passes through residential neighborhoods and other sensitive land uses. in addition, warehouse activities such as freight loading and unloading can create additional noise impacts for nearby residents. since warehouses and distribution centers are typically sited in industrial zones, noise impacts from their on-site operational activities are often lower than impacts from related truck and railroad traffic. doubling traffic on any given roadway causes a noise increase of approxi- mately 3 dba, which is considered barely perceptible to most people. When evaluating traffic noise impacts from warehouses and distribution centers, it is necessary to consider the noise-emitting characteristics of different vehicles. truck traffic noise can be measured in terms of automobile traffic noise. For example, a medium-duty and a heavy-duty truck traveling at 55 miles per hour can produce noise similar to 5 and 13 automobiles, respectively.57 noise impacts from warehouses and distribution centers have been evaluated by recent studies prepared under ceQa. CEQA Example: Noise Impacts of Oakmont Industrial Building, City of Perris the proposed project is the development of an approximately 697,578-square foot warehouse building within the city of Perris in riverside county. three homes are located south of the project site approximately 100 feet from the site boundary and 200 feet from the truck court and loading docks. it is estimated that 986 trucks would access the facility daily and 60% of the traffic chapter six 6 - 6 | h e a l t h y C o m m u n I t I e s a n d h e a l t h y e C o n o m I e s would occur on the southern portion of the site. the loudest noise occurs when a truck turns on its backup warning horn. on-site truck activity noise is estimated to be 66.6 dba Leq at the closest home. truck activities on the south end of the site would create significant noise exposures for residences located only 100 to 370 feet away.58 noise Impact Improvement several strategies reduce noise impacts from warehouses and distribution centers, including: • Land use planning, soundproofing of affected dwellings, • Installation of noise barriers, and • Operational design features or practices to reduce noise generation. typical measures, such as installing noise barriers along affected properties and soundproofing affected structures, provide noise shielding at affected land uses; the noise source can also be shielded. noise shields could screen particular stationary equipment or along perimeter of the warehouse and distribution center. Warehouse and distribution center operators can adjust operation practices to reduce noise generation. Practices to reduce noise generation include limit- ing loading and truck activities during evening and/or nighttime hours, and limiting unnecessary truck idling time. operation practices may reduce noise emissions at lower cost than noise shielding. Local communities reduce noise exposure from warehouse and distribution operation through land-use planning and policies. such strategies and policies discourage new development near the warehouse and distribution center. t r A f fic A N d s A f ety traffic and safety Impacts residents near warehouses and distribution centers can experience higher traffic congestion due to heavy truck traffic. the scale of these impacts depends on the distribution center size, amount of use, and traffic levels on connecting roads. traffic studies estimate that distribution centers in the inland empire region generate between 330 and 530 daily truck trips per mil- lion square feet of warehouse space.59, 60 the amount of warehouse vehicles warehouses and distribution centers a t o o l k I t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r C h 2 0 0 9 | 6 - 7 other than trucks causes additional traffic impacts. Vehicle trips vary between 1,100 and 1,600 daily vehicle trips per million square feet of ware- house space.61, 62 truck and vehicle trip impacts can be greater if there are peaks during morn- ing and evening hours. studies show that most sites do not have peak peri- ods.63 of 11 analyzed sites, only three showed peaks in passenger car trips and one showed peaks in truck trips. traffic and safety Improvement strategies to address traffic from distribution centers are similar to strategies for other freight facilities. strategies include: • designated truck routes, and • facility improvements. designated truck routes can help to limit traffic congestion in some locations, can channel trucks away from residential areas and reduce noise and air quality impacts. Loading or unloading delays within a distribution center can lead to truck queues that spill over onto local roads, causing congestion. delays occur when the number of shipments exceeds a facility’s capacity. Facility improvements that allow for faster unloading, additional truck parking or additional waiting areas for trucks can reduce traffic congestion on local roads. traffic design in addition to adding to the number of vehicles on local streets, large trucks require more space than cars to make turns onto streets or into driveways. Yet not all streets and intersections were originally designed to accommo- date large trucks. similarly, how driveways are positioned at facilities can force trucks to make tight turns or require backing into the facility, which may Case s t udy CI t y of south gate Trucks frequently block local streets to back into warehouse facilities in the City of South Gate, causing traffic delays and unsafe conditions. The Community Feedback Group identified a number of potential strategies including painting backing zones on streets and adding signage at such facilities, and considering new City permit and code requirements that limit or prohibit backing at such facilities. chapter six 6 - 8 | h e a l t h y C o m m u n I t I e s a n d h e a l t h y e C o n o m I e s require the truck to block the connecting street and cause traffic delays and safety impacts. Local communities can require new facility designs to ease truck traffic; well- designed access points provide easy maneuvering and are located away from nearby sensitive uses whenever possible. specific intersections that accommo- date high truck volumes and turns can be improved for safer truck travel and turns. Aesthetics aesthetic Impacts distribution centers can create visual impacts during construction and on- going impacts in operation. if a new facility is built on a site with scenic or aes- thetic characteristics, there are visual impacts during construction. on-going impacts may be caused by excess light, by the industrial nature of building architecture or activities, or by shipping container stacking. distribution centers are scattered throughout southern california and some are in close proximity to residential areas. as a result, many communities may be affected by the visual impacts of distribution centers. aesthetic Impact Improvement aesthetic impact improvement strategies include: • landscaping requirements, and • spillover light controls. communities can adopt regulations that target the visual impacts of distri- bution centers. Zoning regulations include landscaping requirements, such as trees, shrubbery, vines, and groundcovers, which serve as a visual shield between distribution centers and residential areas. these regulations can specify the number and location of plants and the total landscaping coverage. Case s t udy C o a C h ella valley Located in the eastern portion of Riverside County, the com- munities in the Coachella Valley anticipate significant community development in the long term, potentially including expan- sion of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport as an inland port along with nearby support- ing industrial and warehousing spaces. The area is also located close to State Route 86S (also known as a key part of the emerging “NAFTA Corridor” route connecting the California/ Mexico border with points north) and Interstate 10. The Community Feedback Group identified advance land use and circulation planning for optimal placement of future facilities, residential and commercial land uses to maximize economic benefit and minimize potential impacts. warehouses and distribution centers a t o o l k I t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r C h 2 0 0 9 | 6 - 9 communities can adopt regulations to limit the amount of excess light caused by light-industrial build- ings. spillover light controls include specifications on the type and loca- tion of light sources, and limits on the amount of spillover light from the property. For example, some cities require that lighting posts be less than 18 feet tall and include reflectors to direct light away from adjacent properties. Zoning regulations stipu- late that spillover light be lower than a certain level. communities face different chal- lenges in mitigating the visual impacts of distribution centers than they do with railyards and ports. the size of distribution centers can vary greatly from several thousand square feet to millions of square feet. this prevents a “one size fits all” approach. communities must adapt improvement options to the size and operation of each distribution center, which are commonly operated by individual, independent corporations. therefore, unlike railyards and ports, each “owner” will need to be approached individually to determine contacts and an approach to community enhancement. The PorT of Los AngeL es occu P i es 4,300 A cres of LA n d ALo ng 43 mi L e s of wATerfron T. iT is T h e LAr gesT P o rT in T he u .s . A n d 13T h L A rges T wor L d- w ide. The PorT of Long BeA c h is Th e second Bu sies T P orT in Th e coun T ry And uses 3,200 Ac res of L And A n d con TA i ns 10 P i ers A n d 80 shi P docks. A T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r A f T m A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 7 - 1 The Los AngeLes AreA is served by The seaports of Los Angeles, Long beach, and hueneme (in ventura County). The ports of Long beach and Los Angeles are com- monly referred to as the san Pedro bay (sPb) ports. These ports handle 80% of California’s and 30% of the nation’s sea trade ship- ments.64 The majority of trade is international. More than 81% of sea shipments are foreign imports. The san Pedro bay port complex is by far the largest in the nation and the 5th largest in the world.65 After cargo arrives at the port, it is transferred to its final destination by truck or rail. half of container cargo travels by rail—21% is loaded onto rail cars at the dock and 20% is trucked to local railyards. Transporting goods by rail minimizes truck trips and reduces the number of trucks, which lowers emis- sions and increases safety in the region. The region’s goods movement system is more productive with efficient railyards.66 Port of Los Angeles The Port of Los Angeles uses 4,300 acres of land along 43 miles of water- front. it is the largest port in the U.s. and 13th largest worldwide. The port handled 8.3 million containers in 2007. The port handled $240 billion in cargo and 1.2 million cruise ship passengers in 2006. businesses at the port employ 22,800 workers in trucking, warehousing, shipping, and other non-cargo jobs.67 ports chapter seven chapter seven 7 - 2 | h e A L T h y c o m m u n i T i e s A n d h e A L T h y e c o n o m i e s each year 2,700 ships come to the Port of Los Angeles. This includes 80 ship- ping lines and 15 cruise lines.68 The port has 27 major cargo terminals, includ- ing eight container terminals that handle bulk cargo. Most bulk cargo includes furniture, apparel, toys, electronic products and automobile parts. There are 71 cranes at these eight terminals. seven of the terminals have on- dock rail (direct ship to rail car) facilities. An additional on-dock railyard will be constructed in 2009.69 railyards help to reduce truck trips to and from the port. The port is served by the Pacific harbor Line, a small dispatching railroad. Port of Long Beach The Port of Long beach, adjacent to the Port of Los Angeles, occupies 3,200 acres of land and contains 10 piers and 80 ship docks. The port handles over $140 billion in cargo and 7.3 million containers. it is the second busiest port in the country. businesses at the port employ 29,800 in terminal operations, cargo, packing, retail, and other areas. 70 The port’s terminals handle container and bulk shipments; many import fin- ished goods and export raw and recycled materials. The top imports include electronics, plastics, furniture, and clothing, while the top exports include waste paper, chemicals, scrap metal, and plastic. The port has seven major container terminals that operate 73 cranes. Five of the terminals have on-dock rail facilities. Like the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Long beach is also connected to both UP and bnsF railroads via the Alameda Corridor, and is served by the Pacific harbor Line. Air Qu A l ity Air Quality impacts Marine port activities create air pollution, which impacts the region and local communities. diesel engine-powered ocean-going ships, harbor craft, cargo handling equipment, trucks, and locomotives produce pollution. Ports are one of the biggest sources of diesel pollution in California. it is a top priority for the Arb and region governments to reduce diesel pollution at the ports, in surrounding communities, and throughout California. The Ports generated 21% of diesel pollution emissions in the south Coast Air basin, producing 2,236 tons of diesel pollution in 2006.71 Table 7-1 shows the sources of port diesel emissions. ports A T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r A f T m A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 7 - 3 ships are the largest source of diesel pollution at the sPb ports. ships, or ocean-going vessels (ogvs), produced 54% of the port’s diesel emissions in 2006. ocean-going vessels include container ships, tanker ships, bulk carriers, automobile carriers, general cargo ships, roll-on roll-off ships, and cruise ships. Container ships generate most of ship diesel pollution (62%), followed by tankers (13%) and cruise ships (11%). diesel pollution comes from ship forward motion, engines, and smaller sources. ship diesel emissions are shown in Table 7-2 on the following page. Freight trucks are the second largest source of emissions at sPb ports, accounting for 32% of diesel emissions in 2006. The remaining source types, harbor craft, cargo handling equipment, and locomotives, together account for 13% of diesel emissions. Commercial harbor craft, cargo-handling equipment, and locomotives also produce diesel pollution. Commercial harbor craft, including tugboats, fer- ries, small excursion craft, supply vessels, dredges, and service boats, help move large ships and provide supplies to the port. Commercial harbor craft includes: tugboats, ferries, small excursion craft, supply vessels, dredges, and service boats. harbor craft tend to run on smaller diesel engines than larger ships. Tugboats produce over 50% of diesel pollution from commercial TA BL e 7-1 di ese L PArT i cu L ATe m ATT e r (dP m) em issions from The PorT s of Los Ange L e s An d Long Be A c h in 2006 Source Type Port of Los Angeles Port of Long Beach Both Ports tons/yr percent tons/yr percent tons/yr percent Ocean Going Vessels 546 49%670 60% 1,216 54% Harbor Craft 52 5%47 4%99 4% Cargo Handling Equipment 51 5%40 4%91 4% Locomotives 72 6%47 4%119 5% Heavy-Duty Vehicles 404 36%307 28%711 32% Total 1,125 100%1,111 100% 2,236 100% Source: Port of Los Angeles. 2008. 2006 Air Emissions Inventory. July; Port of Long Beach. 2008. 2006 Air Emissions Inventory. June. chapter seven 7 - 4 | h e A L T h y c o m m u n i T i e s A n d h e A L T h y e c o n o m i e s harbor craft. Cargo-handling equipment moves containers and bulk ship- ments. Cargo-handling equipment includes yard tractors, cranes, forklifts, and picks. Construction equipment may include tractors, loaders, dozers, excavators, and backhoes. yard tractors are the most common type of han- dling equipment. yard tractors produce 60% of cargo-handling equipment emissions. A study of emissions exposure conducted by Arb indicates that cancer risk is elevated more than 15 miles from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long beach due to diesel pollution.71 near the port boundaries, potential cancer risk exceeded 500 chances per million people. Potential cancer risk decreases with distance from the ports. The ports cause other health effects including prema- ture death, asthma attacks, work loss days, and minor restricted activity days. estimated health cases each year include: • 29 premature deaths for individuals over the age of 30; • 750 asthma attacks; • 6,600 days of work lost for individuals aging from 18 to 65; • 35,000 minor restricted activity days for individuals ages 18 to 65. TA BL e 7-2 d P m em issions from oc e A n -go ing ve sseLs AT The PorTs of Los Ange L e s And Long Be A c h in 2006 Vessel Type Port of Los Angeles Port of Long Beach Both Ports tons/yr percent tons/yr percent tons/yr percent Bulk Vessel 33 6%53 8%86 7% Container Ship 345 63%404 60%749 62% Cruise Ship 82 15%51 8%133 11% Tanker 57 10%98 15%155 13% Other 30 5%64 10%94 8% Total 547 100%670 100% 1,217 100% Source: Port of Los Angeles. 2008. 2006 Air Emissions Inventory. July; Port of Long Beach. 2008. 2006 Air Emissions Inventory. June. ports A T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r A f T m A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 7 - 5 The study also indicates that that there are approximately 120 annual premature deaths associated with the ports’ pollution. other studies also show that the areas surrounding the ports are affected by port pollution. An ePA study showed that diesel pollution from the ports was found in an area approximately 12 times the size of the Port of Long beach. similarly, diesel pollution was found in an area approximately 9 times the size of the Port of Los Angeles.72 Air Quality improvement Air quality improvement strategies include: • Vessel speed reduction • Shore power/cold ironing • Cleaner marine vessel fuels The ports of Los Angeles and Long beach have developed a plan to reduce port pollution. The plan includes goals, emission reductions, and funding needs through 2011.73 it includes 12 measures to control emissions from all major emission sources at the ports. The plan includes the Ports’ Clean Truck Program, which includes a ban on older trucks. A fee placed on containers will fund the replacement and retrofit of these trucks. The plan could reduce port diesel emissions by more than 50%. The ports’ vessel speed reduction (vsr) program limits ship speeds 24 miles from the coastline to reduce ship pollution. There is a proposal to extend the boundary to 40 miles from the coastline. Pollution from ship engines in the port can be eliminated using shore power/ cold ironing strategies. instead of running an engine, ships are electrically powered from the terminal. This strategy requires improvements to both terminals and ships to work. chapter seven 7 - 6 | h e A L T h y c o m m u n i T i e s A n d h e A L T h y e c o n o m i e s switching to cleaner marine vessel fuels with lower sulfur content also reduces diesel pollution. Most ships use residual oil bunker fuel, which has high sulfur content. Arb will require the use of lower sulfur fuel when ships are near the port in the future (within 20 miles). extending that requirement to a larger area or requiring the use of low sulfur fuel could further reduce pollution. barriers to carrying out these strategies include fuel costs, methods to enforce rules, and legal challenges. Noise noise impacts noise impacts from port operations occur on-site as well as on nearby roads and rail lines. often, the noise impacts from the on-road and rail lines are greater than those from port property since truck and rail traffic tend to be closer to residential areas that are sensitive to noise. Container ships, assist tugboats, cargo handling equipment, short-haul trucks, and switcher locomotives generate noise at ports. Particularly loud noises include “clanking” of containers when moved and truck horns. Loud noises from railways include locomotive engines, train horns, rail cars starts and stops, and rail car linking.74 industrial equipment also produces noise. off-port noise sources include diesel trucks and trains. noise impact improvement Most of the noise impacts from ports are from truck and rail activity, rather than on-site activity. several strategies reduce noise impact from trucks, including: • traffic planning, • soundproofing of affected dwellings, or • installation of noise barriers. This section discusses effective strategies to reduce traffic noise impacts. More information about each strategy can be found in section 8. Typical strategies provide noise shielding at affected areas. Measures include installation of noise barriers along affected properties and/or soundproofing of affected structures. Providing noise shielding along the railroad right-of-way is also possible. noise barriers are effective when located close to the noise source or the affected area. ports A T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r A f T m A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 7 - 7 Local communities can reduce noise exposure from ports through traffic planning and/or land-use policies. such strategies and policies move truck traffic away from residents, reduce exposure to noise, or discour- age new development near truck routes. Traffic planning and land-use policies typically focus on sensitive community services, such as schools and day care centers. Traffic planning and/or land use policies designate truck routes, to reduce truck traffic in neighborhoods. reducing and enforc- ing truck speeds with strict speed limits may also reduce noise impacts. Land-use planning and policies can reduce train noise impacts as well. such strategies and policies discourage new development near rail lines. t r A f fic A N d s A f ety Traffic and safety impacts Traffic impacts near the Ports of Los Angeles and Long beach are especially severe. The number of trucks and vehicles, the size of local roads, and the number of vehicles on regional freeways all contribute to congestion. i-710 and i-110 have the most port truck traffic because they link the ports to major yards and east-west freeways. A traffic analysis conducted by the Port of Los Angeles determined that sixteen nearby intersections operate in a congested state in the morning or evening. Average daily trips at the Port of Los Angeles and Long beach exceed 49,500 truck trips and 34,000 auto trips.78 ”drayage” trucks travel to and from ports and railyards. drayage trucks account for nearly 6 million truck trips in the region (see Table 7-3). As port activity grows, so will the number of truck trips to and from the ports. The number of drayage truck trips is projected to increase 50% by year 2014.79 drayage trucks mostly move empty containers or empty truck frames to and from the ports. one study suggests that only 2% of empty containers are reloaded before returning to ports.80 TA BL e 7-3 c o n TA i ner Truck Tri Ps AT i n T ermod A L r A i LyA r ds Associ AT e d wi T h T h e PorT s of Los Ange L es A n d Long Be A c h (2007) Container Type One-Way Trips Import 2,565,320 Export 431,314 Empty 2,782,894 All 5,779,528 Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking—Proposed Regulation for Drayage Trucks, Appendix B: Emissions Estimation Methodology for On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy Duty Drayage Trucks at California’s Ports and Intermodal Railyards. chapter seven 7 - 8 | h e A L T h y c o m m u n i T i e s A n d h e A L T h y e c o n o m i e s Traffic and safety improvement The impacts of port truck traffic can be reduced using several strategies, such as shifting trips to off-peak times or using rail transportation. To shift trucks to off-peak times, the ports participate in the PierPass program, which offers incentives to trucks to operate at nights and on weekends. Trucks must pay a fee if they visit the port during peak daytime hours. This program could be expanded by raising user fees or prolonging the hours fees are charged. however, an expanded pro- gram may result in higher noise and emissions impacts during evenings and weekends. Truck trips can be further shifted from peak to off-peak times using a schedul- ing or appointment system. Under this system, truck traffic is tied to specific hours in the day. The Port of Los Angeles’ “Terminal gate Appointment system” streamlines truck arrivals and departures at certain terminals. scheduling systems keep labor costs low compared to extended hours of operation. directly transferring cargo to rail at ports can reduce truck trips. This requires expanding the rail infrastructure. On-dock rail reduces the number of truck trips to rail stations. Currently, 21% of cargo at the ports is transferred directly to rail at on-dock rail facilities. A proposed increase in on-dock rail would eliminate 30,000 daily truck trips by 2035. Aesthetics Aesthetic impacts existing port facilities located along scenic shoreline can have large visual impacts on surrounding communities. however, impacts from new port termi- nals and facilities at existing facilities are relatively small as they do not tend to change the visual character of the port. ports A T o o L k i T f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n T d r A f T m A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 7 - 9 since many ports operate throughout the day, spillover of lighting or glare frequently impacts surrounding areas. due to the large size of the ports, most spillover light falls on adjacent port property rather than on resi- dential property. spillover lighting at ports is not a great concern. Aesthetic impact improvement since ports encompass such a large area, many construction projects on port property are removed from residential areas. Thus, visual impacts from port projects can be small. Ports or local governments can choose strategies to reduce the visual impacts of port projects, including: • landscaping, • barrier walls, and • lighting restrictions. .•• . • ••, • ••.. l . Y . f�f-rT �. . • ► 1 • .: - r .P• r•• �• � ■�•. • . 0 �; • Y" 11;.••- • r • r �•r • • • �}}.�� , •.:•#:.. f�: A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 1 This section contains one-page fact sheets for the following strategies: strategies chapter eight TAb le 8-1 su M MA ry of s T r ATe G i es, Type of s T r AT eG ies, A n d f r ei G h T Mode continued Strategy Category Freight Modes Air Quality Noise Traffic Aesthetics Trucks Rail Railyards Distribu- tion Centers Ports section 8.1: Air Quality strategies Building Filtration Systems •• • • • • Land Use Siting •• • • • • Truck Idle Reduction •• • • Alternative Fuels—Biodiesel •• • Alternative Fuels—Natural Gas •• Engine Replacement •• Exhaust Retrofit—Diesel Oxidation Catalyst •• • Exhaust Retrofit—Flow-Through Filter •• • Exhaust Retrofit—Diesel Particulate Filter •• • Accelerated Truck Replacement •• Hybrid-Electric and Hybrid- Hydraulic Trucks •• • chapter eight 8 - 2 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s TAb le 8-1 su M MA ry of s T r ATe G i es, Type of s T r AT eG ies, A n d f r ei G h T Mode continued Strategy Category Freight Modes Air Quality Noise Traffic Aesthetics Trucks Rail Railyards Distribu- tion Centers Ports Locomotive Idle Reduction •• •• Accelerated Locomotive Replacement or Rebuild •• • Hybrid or Gen-Set Locomotives •• Ocean-Going Vessel Speed Reduction •• Ocean-Going Vessel Fuel Requirements •• Shore Power / Cold Ironing •• section 8.2: noise strategies Noise Barrier •• • • • • Soundproofing Features •• • • • • Project Design and Operation Features ••• • • Quiet Zones •• section 8.3: Traffic and safety strategies Traffic Planning Tools •• • • •• • • Truck Parking Regulations • • •• • • Designated Truck Routes ••• • Highway Incident Management for Trucks •• Rail-Highway Grade Separation •• Upgraded Rail Crossing Systems •• Traffic Redirection •• continued strategies: air quality A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 3 Key to strategy timeframes A general guide to the relative timeframe necessary to implement each strategy. These ranges are: Short: 0–5 years Mid: 5–10 years Long: 10+ years key to strategy costs A general guide to range of estimated costs is indicated for each strategy ($, $$, $$$ or $$$$). These ranges are: $: less than $10,000 $$: $10,000—$100,000 $$$: $100,000—$1 million $$$$: greater than $1 million TA b le 8-1 s uM MA ry of s T r AT e G i es, Type of s T r AT eG i es, A n d f r ei G h T Mode continued Strategy Category Freight Modes Air Quality Noise Traffic Aesthetics Trucks Rail Railyards Distribu- tion Centers Ports Scheduling and Appointment Systems ••• • • Extended Hours of Operation ••• • • Expansion of On-Dock Rail Service ••• Virtual Container Yard •• section 8.4: Aesthetic impact strategies Spillover Lighting Controls •• • • Landscaping •• • • continued chapter eight 8 - 4 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S Strategy: Building Filtration Systems Description Filtration systems can be installed in residential and commercial buildings to provide fresh air filtration, reducing exposure to diesel particulate matter (PM). Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems can be equipped with high efficiency filters for particulates and a carbon filter can remove other chemical matter. Ventilation systems can thus protect people, especially chil- dren, elderly and those with health conditions from diesel emissions coming from trucks, locomotives and yard equipment. The placement of the air intake for HVAC systems needs to be done so that it deals most effectively with the sources of air pollution (this is pre-determined through modeling and scientific analysis). Regular maintenance for the HVAC and filtration systems should also be planned to ensure that intake isn’t blocked and filters and systems are working most effectively. The Port of Long Beach provides grants to schools, preschool and daycare centers near its facility to purchase and install high efficiency filters and HVAC systems. Benefits • A well-designed system would remove 80% of fine particulates and have added health benefits in terms of reducing allergens in the air. Challenges • Best suited for buildings near large pollution sources, such as freeways or railyards. Costs • Filtration systems can be added to current HVAC systems at modest cost. AT A Gl A n ce Building filtration systems can remove particulates from indoor air, reducing exposure to children at school. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 5 strategies: air quality po T en Ti A l l oc Al Ac Tio ns A nd pA rTne rs Action Timeframe Relative Cost Encourage schools and childcare facilities to add PM filtration systems if they are located near PM sources. Potential Potential Partners: Local communities, school districts, cities, Air Quality Management District, First Five Agencies, Department of Public Health. Short $ Require health risk assessment studies for new childcare centers to determine if filtration sys- tems are necessary. Potential Potential Partners: Cities and counties, Department of Public Health. Short $ Seek grants for existing child care centers to upgrade HVAC systems. Potential Potential Partners: Cities, coun- ties, Air Quality Management District, First 5 Commissions of California (provide funding for programs for children ages 0-5), Department of Public Health. Short $ Recommend filtration systems for new buildings constructed near pollution sources. Potential Potential Partners: Cities, coun- ties, Department of Public Health, Air Quality Management District. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 6 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued AT A Gl A n ce When schools are sited at least 500 feet away from freeways, students benefit from cleaner air and health risks are avoided. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Land Use Siting Description Local and regional governments and school districts can protect children and other sensitive individuals by siting new schools, libraries, day care centers, and senior centers away from diesel emission sources. ARB recommends siting new land uses likely to serve sensitive individuals at least 500 feet away from freeways or high-traffic roads. Siting these land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance railyard or directly downwind of ports should also be avoided, according to ARB. Benefits • Fewer children and other sensitive individuals are exposed to diesel PM emissions. • Also reduces noise exposure. Challenges • More practical to control the siting of new facilities than relocate existing facilities. • Financially- or space-challenged facilities have difficulty finding affordable sites away from these pollution sources. • Local and regional governments are typically not involved in school sit- ing issues. These topics are addressed by school districts and the state government. Costs • New school complexes are expensive—Los Angeles Unified School District estimates $46,000 per student, or at least $50 million per school. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 7 strategies: air quality po T e n T i A l l o c Al Ac T i ons A n d pA rTn ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Locate new schools away from freeways. Potential Partners: School Districts, children’s health advocates, Public Health Departments, cities, counties. Long $$$$ Encourage new daycare and senior centers to locate away from freeways. Potential Partners: Cities, Children’s health advo- cates, Department of Public Health. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 8 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued AT A Gl A n ce Distribution centers can reduce idling emissions by enforc- ing idle reduction policies for delivery trucks. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Truck Idle Reduction Description Equipment at freight facilities can be left to idle for a significant amount of time, resulting in unnecessary fuel consumption and emissions. This strategy involves implementing idling reduction technologies or operational policies to eliminate unnecessary idling. Many facilities limit truck and yard equipment idling to less than five minutes, in compliance with ARB regulations. Benefits • Fewer people are exposed to diesel PM emissions. • Benefits accrue throughout the life of the newly relocated facility. Challenges • Idling reduction might be required for all vehicles and equipment across- the board regardless of proportion of benefit or feasibility. • Trucks and locomotives coming into a business, yard or warehouse are operated by others and technology strategies cannot be implemented by the facilities themselves. Costs • Truck anti-idling devices (Auxiliary Power Units) cost between $3,000 and $5,000. • At freight facilities, idle reduction programs may require additional truck parking or loading bays. po T en Ti Al l oc A l AcTions A nd pA rTners Action Timeframe Relative Cost Encourage freight facilities to adopt anti-idling policies. Potential Partners: States, councils of govern- ment, cities, counties, air districts, facility opera- tors. Short $ Require signage at freight facilities to inform truck drivers of CARB idling restrictions. Potential Partners: State, cities and counties. Short $ Ensure that new development projects provide adequate truck loading and unloading. Potential Partners: Cities, counties, facility operators. Short $ Promote regulations to keep trucks from idling outside of freight facilities. Potential Partners: State, councils of govern- ment, cities and counties. Short $ Encourage trucking / rail companies to install anti-idling technology. Provide funding incentives. Potential Partners: State, councils of govern- ment, cities and counties, facility operators. Short $$ A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 9 strategies: air quality po T en Ti Al l o c A l AcTi ons A n d pA rTners Action Timeframe Relative Cost Encourage freight facilities to adopt anti-idling policies. Potential Partners: States, councils of govern- ment, cities, counties, air districts, facility opera- tors. Short $ Require signage at freight facilities to inform truck drivers of CARB idling restrictions. Potential Partners: State, cities and counties. Short $ Ensure that new development projects provide adequate truck loading and unloading. Potential Partners: Cities, counties, facility operators. Short $ Promote regulations to keep trucks from idling outside of freight facilities. Potential Partners: State, councils of govern- ment, cities and counties. Short $ Encourage trucking / rail companies to install anti-idling technology. Provide funding incentives. Potential Partners: State, councils of govern- ment, cities and counties, facility operators. Short $$ chapter eight 8 - 1 0 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S continued Strategy: Alternative Fuels— Biodiesel Description Biodiesel is a renewable fuel made of vegetable oils, animal fats, and recycled cooking oils. It is most commonly used as a blend of 20% biodiesel and 80% conventional diesel (B20). While B20 reduces emissions as compared to diesel, it may require modifications on older locomotives. Higher blends of biodiesel, up to pure biodiesel (B100), can also be used in many applications, but require special handling. Biodiesel blends also require upgrades to seals, gaskets and hoses. While pure biodiesel has slightly less energy content than regular diesel fuel, the energy content of B20 biodiesel blend is nearly equal to that of regular diesel. There is a 2% loss of energy content when switching from diesel to biodiesel. Benefits • Use of B20 results in approximately a 10-15% reduction in particulate matter (PM) emissions. PM reductions increase with the percentage of biodiesel. Biodiesel also reduces emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocar- bons (HC). However, emission results vary depending on engine size. Challenges • Biodiesel can slightly increase oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions (a precur- sor to smog). • There are few biodiesel fueling stations, and biodiesel must be transported by truck or rail, instead of by pipeline. • Truck or locomotive fueling systems must be inspected or upgraded to ensure compatibility with biodiesel. Costs • The retail price of B20 is very similar to conventional diesel, due in part to a federal excise tax credit. • Development of biodiesel fueling stations can be prohibitively expensive. AT A Gl A n ce A blend of 20% biodiesel can be used in most existing diesel engines to reduce emissions at minimal additional cost. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 1 1 strategies: air quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002): A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions - Draft Technical Report. EPA420-P-02-001. -80% -50% -60% -70% -40% -20% -30% -10% 0% 10% 20% 0 20 40 80 10060 Percent biodieselPercent change in emmisionsHC PM CO NOx po T e n T i A l l o c Al Ac T i ons A n d pA rTn ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Develop infrastructure for biodiesel distribution and sale. Potential Partners: Federal and State govern- ments, Ports, local councils of government. Short to Mid $$$$ Partner with truck fleet owners and freight facili- ties to encourage voluntary use of biodiesel. Potential Partners: Ports, Trucking Associations, Local councils of government. Short $ Use biodiesel in municipal fleets (refuse trucks, fire engines, buses, etc.). Potential Partners: Local councils of government, cities, counties. Short $$ chapter eight 8 - 1 2 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce Natural gas equipment can reduce port and railyard emis- sions, but requires refueling stations. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Alternative Fuels— Natural Gas (LNG) Description With commercially available low emission vehicles and fueling stations, natural gas is the leading alternative fuel in California. In 2004, there were just over 2,400 natural gas heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S., with about two thirds in California. By some estimates, more than 120,000 heavy-duty trucks can be fueled by LNG nationwide every year. Natural gas options are also available for cargo handling and yard equipment, as well as locomotives. Currently BNSF is operating four LNG switching locomotives (used to combine and re- combine cars into trains) in Southern California. Natural gas vehicles store fuel in one of two forms: compressed natural gas (CNG) is stored as a gas in high-pressure cylinders, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) is stored as a liquid in cryogenic tanks. While both LNG and CNG vehicles produce fewer emissions than diesel vehicles, each has different strengths. LNG tanks store much more fuel than CNG tanks and can power vehicles further before refueling, but LNG requires more expensive refueling stations. In contrast, CNG tanks carry less fuel but are much lighter and more appropriate for smaller vehicles such as forklifts and cargo loaders. Benefits • Natural gas equipment reduces emissions through cleaner combustion. • A new natural gas truck can reduce emission by more than 80% compared to a pre-2007 truck. Challenges • Because natural gas has less energy per gallon, a LNG or CNG vehicle has a 40-75% reduction in operating range as compared to diesel vehicles. • This strategy requires development of LNG & CNG fueling infrastructure (stations, getting fuel from where it is generated to the site, etc.). • High-purity natural gas is required for current BNSF LNG switcher locomotives. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 1 3 strategies: air quality Costs • Cost of new natural gas equipment can exceed cost of new diesel equipment. • LNG vehicles have higher maintenance costs and require additional equip- ment and expertise as compared to diesel vehicles. • While prices vary, natural gas can be more expensive than diesel. However, recent natural gas prices are below diesel prices. Potential Local Actions and Partners p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Provide incentives and regulation to encourage facility operators to upgrade cargo handling equipment to natural gas. Potential Partners: California Air Resources Board, Ports. Short $ Build out natural gas fueling & distribution infrastructure. Potential Partners: LNG Providers, Ports, local communities. Short to Mid $$$$ Use natural gas in municipal fleets (refuse trucks, buses, etc.). Potential Partners: Cities, Counties. Short $$$ chapter eight 8 - 1 4 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce New, efficient engines can replace older engines to save fuel and reduced emissions. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Engine Replacement Description Engine replacement strategies are similar in approach to strategies to replace the entire vehicle, but can be more cost effective. Diesel engines last much longer than gasoline-powered engines; 20-year-old engines are not uncom- mon. Many older vehicles are powered by engines built prior to the imple- mentation of clean air standards. By replacing the current engine with a new engine or a newer used engine, owners can reduce pollutants significantly without replacing the entire vehicle. This strategy is most cost effective in freight trucks. Benefits • Engine replacement can introduce improvements faster than a replacement strategy. • While engine retrofits are cheaper than retiring and replacing vehicles, the emission reductions are smaller. Challenges • Older trucks are often owned by individuals or small businesses, who can’t afford to invest in engine upgrades. • While grant and loan programs can reduce program costs, funding of these programs competes with other public funding priorities. • Model year 2007 and newer engines are not compatible with pre-2007 truck bodies. Costs • The cost of engine repowering ranges from $20,000 to $40,000. This strat- egy can be more cost effective than vehicle replacement strategies. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 1 5 strategies: air quality p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Provide incentives for equipment owners to upgrade to new engines. Potential Partners: Ports, local councils of gov- ernment, Federal and State government. Short $$ Inform equipment owners about ways to comply with ARB regulations for trucks that are in service. Potential Partners: Ports, Trucking Associations, councils of government. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 1 6 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce DOCs are more economical than other filters, but offer less benefit. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Exhaust Retrofit—Diesel Oxidation Catalyst (DOC) Description A DOC retrofit system (a similar technology is known as a “particulate trap” when used on buses) consists of either an in-line engine muffler replacement or an add-on control device. The DOC sits in the exhaust stream of a vehicle and all exhaust from the engine passes through it. Retrofits of DOCs have been under way for more than 20 years in the off-road vehicle sector, with over 250,000 engine retrofits, most notably in the underground mining industry, on some public transportation industry buses where CNG isn’t in use on over 1.5 million heavy duty highway trucks in the U.S since 1994. Benefits • DOCs are certified by the California Air Resources Board to reduce PM emissions by at least 25%. Challenges • DOCs must be sized for each engine, and fit within existing engine com- partment dimensions and design. • DOC technology cannot be directly transferred from truck engines to loco- motive engines. • As of 2009, DOCs are an experimental technology for locomotive use, but may become viable in the future. Costs • Costs vary according to engine size and application. • On-road trucks: $1000 - $4000. • Off-road and marine vehicles: significantly more expensive, vary by horsepower. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 1 7 strategies: air quality po T e n Ti A l l o c Al Ac Ti ons A n d pA rTners Action Timeframe Relative Cost Provide incentives for equipment owners to upgrade to new technology (per truck). Potential Partners: Federal, state and local gov- ernments, Ports. Short to Mid $$ Inform equipment owners that grants and loans are available to upgrade vehicles with DOCs and other exhaust retrofits. Potential Partners: ARB, Ports, Trucking Associations. Short $ Retrofit municipal diesel vehicles with DOCs. Potential Partners: Cities and counties. Short $$ chapter eight 8 - 1 8 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce FTFs can capture more pollution than DOCs, but at greater cost. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Exhaust Retrofit— Flow-Through Filter (FTF) Description Monetary incentives for truck retrofit can encourage emissions reductions from the in-use fleet at relatively low cost. As with DOCs, FTF devices often can be retrofitted to existing trucks with only minor modifications to the exhaust system. This section analyzes scenarios for the installation of FTFs on trucks that can accept this technology. FTFs are appropriate for applications that may be unsuitable for traditional filters, which can become blocked when used on equipment with a stop-and- go duty cycle and low exhaust temperatures. Benefits • FTFs are certified by the California ARB to reduce PM emissions by at least 50%. • Applicable to older, dirtier engines without size or design restrictions of other technologies. Challenges • Limited commercial production. • FTF technology cannot be directly transferred from truck engines to loco- motive engines. • As of 2009, FTFs are an experimental technology for locomotive use, but may become viable in the future. • Current FTF equipment is only approved for trucks built after 1991 Costs • More expensive than DOCs. • On-road trucks: $6,000-8,000. • Off-road and marine vehicles: unknown costs but likely to be considerably more expensive. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 1 9 strategies: air quality p o Te n T iA l l o c A l Ac T ions And pArT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Provide incentives for equipment owners to upgrade to new technology (per truck). Potential Partners: Federal and State govern- ment, Ports. Short to Mid $$ Inform equipment owners that grants and loans are available to upgrade vehicles with DOCs and other exhaust retrofits. Potential Partners: ARB, Ports, Trucking Associations. Short $ Retrofit municipal diesel vehicles with FTFs. Potential Partners: Cities and counties. Short $$ chapter eight 8 - 2 0 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce DPFs are the most effective technology to remove particulate matter from engine exhaust. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Exhaust Retrofit—Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) Description As with DOCs and FTFs, DPF devices often can be retrofitted to existing trucks with only minor modifications to the exhaust system. Around the world, more than 200,000 DPFs have been installed as retrofits and more than 1 million DPF-equipped cars have been sold in Europe. DPFs have also been used successfully on a variety of off-road engines since the mid-1980s. DPFs are required in all new on-road 2007 and newer diesel vehicles. Benefits • Several models of DPF are certified by the ARB to reduce PM emissions by at least 85%. • DPFs also reduce CO and HC emissions. Challenges • DPFs can significantly increase back-pressure on the engine, which can reduce engine life. • DPF technology cannot be directly transferred from truck engines to loco- motive engines. • As with DOCs, DPFs must be properly sized for each engine. Costs • DPFs are generally more expensive than FTFs. For on-road mobile sources such as cars and trucks, the price ranges from $6,000-$15,000. • For construction equipment, the cost of a DPF will increase as engine horsepower increases: $6,000-$9,000 for a 250 hp engine found in equip- ment such as large bulldozers and construction cranes. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 2 1 strategies: air quality p o T e n T iA l l o c A l Ac T ions And pArT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Provide incentives for equipment owners to upgrade to new technology (per truck). Potential Partners: Federal and State govern- ment, Ports. Short to Mid $$ Inform equipment owners that grants and loans are available to upgrade vehicles with DOCs and other exhaust retrofits. Potential Partners: ARB, Ports, Trucking Associations. Short $ Retrofit municipal diesel vehicles with DPFs. Potential Partners: ARB, Ports, Trucking Associations. Short $$ - $$$ chapter eight 8 - 2 2 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce Replacement strategies phase out the oldest, dirtiest equip- ment, but can take many years to implement. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Accelerated Truck Replacement Description Many trucks in operation today were built before the adoption of stringent federal and state emission standards. By retiring older vehicles and replacing them with newer trucks with modern engine and exhaust technology, emis- sions can be significantly reduced. Retired trucks should always be scrapped to ensure that they are not sold and continue to cause pollution. Monetary incentives for truck replacement can promote more rapid turnover of the truck fleet. Currently, the ARB and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have several programs in place to speed up the process of upgrading truck fleets. Local governments in the area impacted by port-generated traffic and pollution, led by the Gateway Cities, took an early lead in finding funding for truck replacement. Benefits • Can reduce PM and NOx emissions by 90%. • New equipment can reduce operating or maintenance costs for vehicle owners. Challenges • Older trucks are often owned by individuals or small businesses, who can’t afford to invest in vehicle upgrades. • Grant and loan programs can assist these owners, but funding for these competes with many other government needs and programs. Costs • New heavy-duty trucks can cost more than $75,000. • It is cheaper to replace old trucks with newer used trucks (1 or 2 years old), but there is less benefit as well. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 2 3 strategies: air quality p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Provide incentives for equipment owners to upgrade to new vehicles (per truck). Potential Partners: Federal and State govern- ment, Ports. Short $$ Inform equipment owners about ways to comply with ARB regulations for in-use trucks. Potential Partners: ARB, Ports, Trucking Associations. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 2 4 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce Hybrid trucks can save fuel and reduce emissions, especially in stop-and-go delivery vehicles. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Hybrid-Electric and Hybrid-Hydraulic Trucks Description Hybrid vehicles contain a secondary energy source (usually batteries or hydraulic accumulators to absorb energy lost in braking) in addition to the primary engine, and electronic control systems to allow both energy sources to power the truck in varying combinations depending on operating condi- tions. Hybrid truck technology is developing rapidly. Diesel-electric and diesel-hydraulic medium-duty trucks for specific applications have entered commercial production, and hybrid heavy-duty trucks are expected to be widely available by 2010. A truck replacement strategy with hybrids would be implemented the same way as a pure diesel strategy, except that the target markets or truck populations must be more precisely defined in order to gain the emissions benefits of hybrid technology. Benefits • Estimated for current technology: 30% reduction in fuel use, PM and NOx. • Benefits may increase as technology matures. Challenges • Hybrid technology needs to be developed further before it can be applied to many truck types. • Only certain, smaller types of vehicles such as parcel delivery trucks, are in testing as of 2009. Costs • Cost to purchase a hybrid truck is much higher than a comparative conven- tional truck. • How much a hybrid freight (tractor-trailer) truck would cost isn’t known yet, since this type is currently not being manufactured. • Cost effectiveness expected to be lower than that of diesel-for-diesel truck replacement. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 2 5 strategies: air quality p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Educate truck operators about new develop- ments and options for hybrid trucks. Potential Partners: Trucking associations, coun- cils of government, Air Quality agencies. Short $ Provide financial incentives for truck operators to adopt hybrid technology. Potential Partners: SCAQMD, State and Federal governments, Ports. Short $$ chapter eight 8 - 2 6 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce In recent years, railyards have greatly reduced emissions from idling. Further reductions bring air quality improvements. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Locomotive Idle Reduction Description Idling locomotives are responsible for a large portion of emissions at railyards. Locomotives idle at railyards to power cabin equipment, communications, air conditioning, and brakes. Idling is often necessary for maintenance purposes and while waiting for dispatch orders, but some idling time is unnecessary for operations and can be eliminated. Idling can be reduced through railroad policies, operator training, and new technology. As part of a 2005 agreement with ARB, the UP and BNSF have installed idling reduction devices on nearly all of their locomotives that operate within California. The devices shut down the engine after 15 minutes in cases where idling is unnecessary. Rail employ- ees are also being trained to shut down locomotives that idle in excess of 60 minutes, and the railroads are subject to fines if a locomotive idles unnecessar- ily for longer than this. Benefits • Depending on how a locomotive is operated, idling reduction strategies can reduce idling emissions 25-75%. • Annual fuel savings can be greater than $1,000 per year per locomotive. Challenges • While most new and recent-model locomotives are equipped with anti- idling devices, older locomotives still need to be upgraded. • Many line-haul locomotives operate across multiple states and may not be subject ARB’s agreement with the railroads. Costs • Typical locomotive idle reduction devices cost $10,000 plus $3,000 for installation. • Anti-idling devices save money over time—the lifetime fuel savings are greater than the upfront cost. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 2 7 strategies: air quality p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Encourage railroads to adopt facility-wide anti-idling policies (locomotives, trucks, cargo equipment). Potential Partners: FRA, ARB, cities and coun- ties, railroad and facility operators. Short $ Encourage railroads and ARB to extend idle reduction agreements to interstate locomotives. Potential Partners: ARB, FRA, railroad operators. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 2 8 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce Replacement strategies phase out the oldest, dirtiest equip- ment, but can take many years to implement. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Accelerated Locomotive Replacement or Rebuild Description Locomotives have a long service life. This strategy would accelerate the replacement or rebuilding of existing locomotives with those meeting the new federal emission standards. The new standards will require that locomotives built after 2004 meet lower emission standards when they are rebuilt as part of normal service intervals. Starting in 2015, new locomotives will be required to meet more stringent standards. UP has acquired (by mid-2009) almost 3,600 new EPA certified (Tiers 0, 1, 2) locomotives out of 8,500 total, and has been focusing its Tier 2 locomotives on trains to / from Southern California. Benefits • The Tier 2 rebuild standards will reduce PM by 50% compared to existing Tier 2 engines. • When available beginning in 2015, Tier 4 locomotives will reduce emission by 75-90% compared to existing Tier 2 engines. • By 2010, railroads in Southern California will have upgraded locomotives to reduce NOx by 67%. Challenges • Tier 4 standards don’t become effective until 2015. • Railroads are national, so keeping upgraded locomotives concentrated in areas with the greatest air quality impact, such as Southern California is voluntary. Costs • A new long-distance (line-haul locomotive) costs more than $2 million. A new switcher locomotive designed to move cars locally from route to route (a switcher locomotive) costs more than $1 million. • EPA estimates Tier 4 locomotives will cost $100,000 more than current generation locomotives • Grant and loan programs can reduce program costs. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 2 9 strategies: air quality p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Provide incentives for railroads to upgrade to cleaner locomotives. Potential Partners: Federal, state and local governments. Short $$$$ Work with railroads to encourage deployment of cleaner locomotives in Southern California service. Potential Partners: local legislators, councils of government, cities, Ports. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 3 0 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce Hybrid locomotives can reduce emissions more than 60%. They are best suited for railyard activities. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Hybrid or Gen-Set Locomotives Description This strategy involves replacing a fraction of locomotive yard/switching engines with a hybrid-electric or generator set (“gen-set”) switching engine. Hybrid-electric (“Green Goat”) engines use a combination of a 50,000 lb. heavy-duty battery rack to supply electrical power, and a small diesel genera- tor to provide additional prime power, and charge the battery rack. A gen-set switching locomotive is similar to the Green Goat, but is entirely powered by two, three, or perhaps four smaller diesel generator engines meeting lower emission standards than the current locomotive standards. Hybrid and gen-set locomotives are appropriate for switching activities at railyards, which involve significant periods of idling or low-power use. This technology is currently not feasible for line-haul locomotives, which are much higher horsepower units that haul large loads over long distances at high power settings. As of 2009, UP is operating 61 gen-set locomotives and 10 hybrid switchers in the South Coast Air Basin. Benefits • Hybrid: reduce fuel consumption 40-60%, reduce emissions by 80-90%. • Gen-Set: reduce emissions by 80-90% and fuel consumption 16-37%. Challenges • The technology is still in development. • Few models are currently in production. • While gen-set switchers are as powerful as existing switchers, hybrid switch- ers are not as powerful. • Green Goats are less reliable than Gen-Sets because of challenges with the battery packs. • Railyards need two Green Goat locomotives to replace one diesel locomo- tive, since the Green Goats need downtime to recharge batteries. • Personnel must be trained to maintain new technology switchers. Costs • Initial cost of hybrid switcher: $750k for 1000 HP locomotive. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 3 1 strategies: air quality p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Support research programs to develop new retrofit options since it is cheaper to retrofit existing switchers than replace them. Potential Partners: Air regulatory agencies, ports, railroads, councils of government, cities and counties. Short $ Support incentive programs to defray the cost of new switchers. Potential Partners: Air regulatory agencies, ports, railroads, councils of government, cities and counties. Short $ Replace switcher locomotives at railyards. Potential Partners: Railroads. Short to Mid $$$ chapter eight 8 - 3 2 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce If ships reduce their speed near port, they emit up to 25% less pollution. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Ocean-Going Vessel Speed Reduction Description Ocean-going vessels (OGVs) or cargo ships typically operate at reduced speed within 25 miles of the coastline. Beyond this boundary, they operate at full cruising speed. At full speed, ships have much higher emissions. This strategy extends the coastal zone further away from shore, to reduce ship emissions. Since May 2001, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have enacted a voluntary speed reduction program to encourage ships to reduce their speed from cruise to 12 knots (approximately 14 miles per hour) within 20 nautical miles or 23 land miles of Point Fermin (in San Pedro, Los Angeles County), both during entrance and exit. Benefits • Expanding the current speed reduction zone would result in 26% less nitrous oxide (NOx). Challenges • Voluntary speed reduction programs require participation from shippers. However, participation can be encouraged through incentives and fee rebates. Costs • Ship operators face highest costs due to added delay. • Expanded program: $4.4 million (Port costs), $39 million (delay costs) annually. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 3 3 strategies: air quality p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Initiate pilot project with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Potential Partners: Ports, councils of govern- ment, State of California, U.S. EPA. Short $ Coordinate with shipping companies to change operating practices. Potential Partners: Ports, councils of govern- ment. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 3 4 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Ocean-Going Vessel Fuel Requirements Description Most OGVs use high-sulfur bunker fuel in their main and auxiliary engines. In 2007, the ARB began enforcing a rule mandating the use of low-sulfur fuel in auxiliary engines. This ruling is projected to decrease PM emissions from ships within 24 miles of the coastline. This strategy extends the fuel requirement to main engines, so that all fuel consumed is low-sulfur. Main engines on OGVs are responsible for approximately 60% of total OGV NOx emissions and 80% of total OGV PM emissions at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. While ARB’s adopted Auxiliary Engine Rule requires use of lower sulfur fuel in OGV auxiliary engines, there is currently no similar regulation for main engines. Benefits • Reduce NOx emissions by 7% and PM emissions by 62% by the year 2035. Challenges • Expenses of fuel replacement could lead to further diversion of cargo and/ or price increases of imported goods. Costs • Infrastructure costs to shippers for upgrading ships to accommodate new fuel type. • Incremental fuel costs due to price differential between bunker fuel and low-sulfur fuel. • Both the port / terminal and the ship owner must install expensive electrical infrastructure. AT A Gl A n ce By substituting conventional marine bunker oil with cleaner diesel fuels, ship operators can reduce marine emissions. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 3 5 strategies: air quality p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Coordinate with fuel suppliers to bring cleaner fuels to port. Potential Partners: Ports, cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Air Quality Management District, councils of government. Short $ With EPA or ARB, develop clean-fuels pilot program. Potential Partners: Air Quality Management District, councils of government, Ports. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 3 6 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce Shore power allows berthed ships to operate using electric- ity rather than auxiliary diesel engines. 8.1 A ir Qu A l ity Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Shore Power/Cold Ironing Description According to the most recent assessment of the sources of pollution-causing emissions almost half of the emissions from ocean going vessels in the South Coast Air Basin occur at the berth where the ship unloads or loads and lays over while waiting to depart. Cold ironing enables ships to shut down their (diesel) auxiliary engines and run off the shore-side electrical power grid to supply power at the dock for refrigeration, electricity, and other needs. The U.S. Navy has been using shore power for many decades to provide elec- tricity to its ships while docked for long periods of time. A growing number of U.S. West Coast and European ports are also adopting shore power to reduce emissions from commercial vessels. Benefits • Reduce berthed emissions by 90-95%. Challenges • Both the port / terminal and the ship owner must install expensive electrical infrastructure. Costs • The ARB calculated per-ship costs at $500,000 per vessel. • ARB reported port costs to be $3.5 million per terminal plus $1.5 million per berth. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 3 7 strategies: air quality p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Work with ARB and EPA for shore power pilot projects. Potential Partners: Ports, councils of govern- ment, cities. Short $ Provide incentives to ship owners to upgrade vessels. Potential Partners: Air Quality Management District, Federal and State government, ports. Short $$$ chapter eight 8 - 3 8 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.2 n o i S e Str At egie S Strategy: Noise Barrier Description A noise or sound barrier is a natural or man-made feature (such as a wall or a berm) designed to reduce noise experienced by people in buildings, parks or homes near a noise source and a receiver that reduces noise. When a direct path along the line of sight between the noise source and the receptor is interrupted, some of the acoustical energy will be transmitted through the barrier material and continue to the source, albeit at a reduced level. The amount of this reduction depends on the barrier material’s mass and rigidity, and is called the transmission loss. The remaining direct noise is either partially or entirely absorbed by the noise barrier material (if sound absorptive), and/ or partially or entirely reflected (if the barrier material is sound reflective). A smooth, hard barrier surface, such as masonry or concrete, is considered to be almost perfectly reflective. A barrier surface material that is porous with many voids is said to be absorptive. Benefits Typically, when a barrier just breaks the line of sight between the source and the receiver, the sound level at the receiver is reduced by approximately 5 dB. As the height of the barrier increases above the line of sight, the noise reduc- tion at the receiver increases. A noise barrier is most effective when located closer either to the source or the receiver. For instance, barriers close to vehicles can provide noise reduc- tions of 6 to 10 dB. For barriers further away, such as the right-of-way line or for trains on the far track, the height must be increased to provide equivalent effectiveness. Challenges • A noise barrier is ineffective for reducing noise for a receiver located much higher than the barrier. • Barrier height restrictions. • Property rights to construct noise barrier at the receiver. • May create additional maintenance costs. • Graffiti and lack of maintenance may cause aesthetic problems (although barrier may have aesthetic benefits as well if it hides unsightly land uses). AT A Gl A n ce Natural and man-made barriers absorb noise and reduce visual impacts. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 3 9 strategies: noise Costs • As a rule of thumb, sound walls cost $150 to $280 per foot of length, assum- ing a wall 6 to 8 feet high. • Sound barriers are easier to install at ground level. Costs may be twice as high on bridges and elevated railways. • Maintenance costs may increase due to graffiti. p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Install sound walls along property line of affected sensitive land uses. Potential Partners: Agency or company with oversight of the affected property: Caltrans, cit- ies, counties, rail operators, facility operators. Mid $$-$$$ Require developers to consider sound barriers as an option for mitigating noise impacts. Potential Partners: Cities, counties, Caltrans. Short $ For existing facilities, work with facility operator to focus operations away from properties not separated by sound barriers. Potential Partners: Cities, counties, facility operators. Short $ If highway or rail projects are expected to cre- ate excess noise, install sound walls along the right-of-way. Potential Partners: Caltrans, rail operators, cities, counties. Short $$$ chapter eight 8 - 4 0 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.2 n o i S e Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Soundproofing Features Description By installing soundproofing features, homes affected by noise can be insu- lated against that noise. The two main methods of soundproofing are reduc- ing the sound and/or absorbing the sound. Typical soundproofing features include installation of dual-pane/soundproofing windows, and/or sound- proofing doors with higher sound-blocking ratings, known officially as Sound Transmission Class, or STC ratings. STC ratings are the official way to measure noise reduction through a parti- tion, such as a window. It is roughly equivalent to the decibels (dBs) that are blocked. Every 10 STC points reduces noise by 50%. Double-paned windows can block more sound than many typical windows but often, to achieve signifi- cant noise reduction, soundproof windows and walls need to be installed. The table below shows the range of noise reduction for typical installations. Benefits • Soundproofing using proven materials has been successful near major facil- ities in Southern California. Currently, the Federal Aviation Administration is working with Los Angles World Airports (LAWA) to fund soundproofing in residential areas near LAX and Van Nuys Airports. Approximately 8,200 residents are eligible for home upgrades as part of this program. • Requires significant funding but avoids need for relocation of either residence or freight line/facility (which can be much more costly and disruptive). AT A Gl A n ce Soundproofing features insulate residences from excess noise. Single-Pane Window Double-Pane Window Soundproof Window Soundproof Window over Double Pane Regular Wall Sound- Proofed Wall STC “Points”15-24 24-29 (or higher) 33-40 43-49 34-38 35-58 Percentage Increase in Noise Blocked --0-50%61-76%80-87%--1-78% A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 4 1 strategies: noise Challenges • Soundproofing projects require cooperation from owners of affected dwellings. • Determining responsibility for requiring, funding and implementing sound- proofing programs –cities cannot require retrofit of existing facilities so incentives or cooperative programs are required. • Windows must be completely closed to reduce noise; this can be a prob- lem in hot weather, and it may be necessary to install ventilation and air conditioning systems. (This may already be a problem along noisy transpor- tation corridors.). • Does not address noise intrusion on outdoor activities. Costs • A typical double-pane window costs about $350 to $900, depending on the size and specifications. • Typical cost to add soundproof windows to existing windows is $350 to $800 per window. p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Add soundproofing features to local building codes in areas affected by excess noise. Potential Partners: Cities, counties. Short $ Instruct developers to pay for soundproofing for affected home owners when new projects cause noise impacts. Potential Partners: Cities, counties. Short $ Research ways to secure funding (for example, grants and new legislation) for programs which would help homeowners sound-proof windows and doors. Potential Partners: Cities, counties. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 4 2 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce Noise reduction features, such as barriers and shielding can be installed at the noise source. 8.2 n o i S e Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Project Design and Operation Procedures Description Noise can be reduced at the source by making changes to how a project is designed or operated. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, shielding of on-site stationary equipment, locating noise-generating activi- ties or equipment away from adjacent sensitive land uses such as homes and schools, and increasing the distance between the source of the noise and the adjacent residents and businesses. Benefits • Reduce noise generation from the source. Challenges • Limited effectiveness on a small site. • There may not be enough room for an increased distance or buffer zone between the source of the noise and the people affected by it in highly- developed areas. • Requirements cannot be dictated by cities or counties for railroads. Costs • The costs vary depending on project scope. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 4 3 strategies: noise p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost For new projects, require shielding of noise- generating equipment. Potential Partners: Cities, counties. Short $ For new projects, require noise-generating activities or equipment to be located away from adjacent sensitive land uses such as homes, schools and hospitals. Potential Partners: Cities, counties. Short $ For existing and new projects, facilitate commu- nication between operators and local communi- ties to build mutual awareness of operational needs, impact concerns, and potential solutions. Potential Partners: Cities, counties, facility operators. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 4 4 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce Quiet zone regulations reduce noise from train whistles, but require additional safety measures. 8.2 n o i S e Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Quiet Zones Description Federal safety regulations require locomotives to sound horns when approach- ing public rail crossings. Due to local concerns with locomotive horn noise, the FRA has published regulations allowing the creation of zones where locomo- tive horns could be silenced under non-emergency circumstances. The FRA requires that the railroad crossings in quiet zones be upgraded so drivers are aware of upcoming trains. These upgrades may include concrete barri- ers preventing drivers from circumventing the gates, sealed or “quad” gates or automatic whistles (also called wayside horns) mounted at the crossing. Beyond major infrastructure improvements, in specific circumstances there could be options for reduced horn length, volume and/or frequency that still meet FRA requirements. Benefits • Minimizes excess noise from train horns impacting neighborhoods near rail crossings. Challenges • Very high cost if it involves multiple crossings in densely-developed areas. • Dead-end streets can limit access for residents, businesses and emergency vehicles. • Requires coordination among local government, rail operator, and the FRA. • It is the responsibility of local jurisdictions to fund and maintain quiet zones. Costs • Four-quadrant gate systems cost approximately $2,000,000. • Maintenance of quiet rail crossings would cost approximately $10,000 a year. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 4 5 strategies: noise p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Explore opportunities with railroads for reduced horn use, frequency and or volume at specific locations that still meet FRA requirements. Potential Partners: Railroads, FRA, cities, coun- ties. Short $ Designate a section of rail corridor as a “quiet zone.” Potential Partners: Railroads, FRA, cities, coun- ties. Short $ Search for funding from legislation and grants for new rail crossing systems, compatible with quiet zone regulations. Potential Partners: councils of government, cities, counties. Short $ Install four-quadrant gates at rail crossings. Potential Partners: Railroads, FRA, cities, coun- ties. Mid $$$$ Install permanently mounted whistles at grade crossings to replace sounding of train horns. Potential Partners: Railroads, FRA, cities, coun- ties. Mid $$ chapter eight 8 - 4 6 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s AT A Gl A n ce Traffic planning tools are used by local governments to make their streets “freight friendly.” 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S Strategy: Traffic Planning Tools Description Traffic planning encompasses a number of tools that local governments can use to reduce the impacts of freight trucks on local streets. These strategies, which can be implemented either at the time of new development or as road- side redevelopment, can reduce the frequency of trucks blocking passenger cars. However, it can be very costly to correct design decisions after they are installed. Some specific strategies include: • Require that new freight facilities be designed with sufficient space for truck queuing inside the facility. • Position driveways so trucks can turn in and out without blocking intersec- tions. To the extent possible, locate driveways and loading docks away from sensitive receptors. • Intersection improvements: widen turning radii, provide sufficient through- and turn-lanes. • Discourage loading and unloading on public streets. • Require new warehouses and distribution centers to specify driveway and circulation details when plans are submitted for review and approval. • In new communities, design street systems to facilitate truck movement and minimize queuing. Benefits • Reduces local road congestion. • Improves roadway safety. • Allows freight facilities to be a “good neighbor” to share public roads with local residents. Challenges • Once design decisions are made, it is costly to rebuild existing lanes or intersections. Costs • Public works projects can cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. • Many planned projects can be made “freight friendly” at little additional cost. • When a new freight facility is built, a portion of the infrastructure costs could be paid by the developers, if specific infrastructure improvements reduce impacts caused by the facility. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 4 7 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Coordinate impacts of new roadway connec- tions with adjacent cities and counties to ensure consistent design and operations. Potential Partners: City public works depart- ments, facility operators. Short $ Assess truck volumes and travel patterns on roadways to identify priority improvement areas. Potential Partners: City public works depart- ments, Caltrans. Short $$ Coordinate signal systems with adjacent jurisdic- tions, and with county transportation agencies and Caltrans. Mid $$$ Assess the need for industry or truck impact fees in local communities to support financing of infrastructure improvements. Potential Partners: City public works depart- ments. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 4 8 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Truck Parking Regulations Description Truck parking on local streets can be a significant problem in some residential areas, creating visual and noise impacts. Trucks park on local streets when they are waiting for access to a port terminal, delivery dock, railyard, or other freight facility. In some cases, trucks may be parking overnight in residential areas. To minimize the impact of truck parking on communities, local governments can require proposed freight facilities to set aside sufficient truck parking for their operations. Cities can also establish and enforce parking restrictions in residential areas, and can designate alternative areas that are acceptable for truck parking. Benefits • Reduces the noise and aesthetic impacts of parked trucks. • Creates more available parking. • Allows freight facilities to be a “good neighbor.” Challenges • Cities have little leverage to expand or change existing facilities. • Truck parking regulations may be opposed by truck operator associations. Costs • Public works projects can cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. • In the planning stage, parking can be added to freight facilities at low cost. AT A Gl A n ce Cities and counties can reduce truck parking on public streets through a variety of codes and ordinances. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 4 9 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Enact planning codes to ensure that new freight facilities have adequate truck parking. Potential Partners: City/county planning and public works departments. Short $ Post street signage pointing truckers to desig- nated truck parking sites. Potential Partners: City/county public works departments, Caltrans. Short $ Cities and counties can pass ordinances to pro- hibit vehicle parking on certain roadways. Potential Partners: City/county planning and public works departments. Short $ Design and install traffic calming measures, i.e. oblique parking spaces, can make road seg- ments friendlier to cars and pedestrians. Potential Partners: City/county public works departments, Caltrans. Mid $$$ Create or designate areas for truck staging or resting (public or private facilities) in areas out- side of residential and other sensitive land uses. Potential Partners: City/county planning and public works departments. Short $-$$$ In addition to enforcement, communicate new or existing route information to truckers through trucking companies or places where truckers are, such as rest areas or fueling stations. Potential Partners: City/county public works departments, trucking companies and associa- tions. Short $ Assess the need for industry or truck impact fees in local communities to support financing of infrastructure improvements. Potential Partners: City/county. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 5 0 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Designated Truck Routes Description Due to the forecast growth in freight traffic, a system of designated truck routes can maintain and leverage Southern California’s competitiveness as a hub for international trade. Designated truck routes concentrate trucks on roads with adequate truck capacity, while preserving other lanes or roads for passenger vehicles. This tool is best suited for communities and corridors with high levels of truck volumes passing by residential areas. Reduction in local road congestion results in travel time savings for drivers. Another benefit is safety, separating trucks from local traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. As an alternate or companion approach, cities can designate residential streets or neighborhoods as “truck free zones.” This would minimize noise and traffic impacts on local residents. Benefits • Dedicated truck routes can direct truck traffic away from homes, schools and other “sensitive receptor” sites, minimizing pollution exposure. • By reducing the number of truck / passenger car interactions, this strategy can increase roadway and pedestrian safety. • Can speed truck travel and save companies money. Challenges • Enforcement is key to success—requires coordinated monitoring by local law enforcement. • Requires coordinated traffic planning among cities on the route and, in some cases Caltrans. Costs • Low implementation costs, once appropriate truck corridors are identified. • Truck companies may save money due to time savings from reduced congestion. AT A Gl A n ce Designated truck routes sepa- rate truck traffic from passen- ger cars, speeding traffic and increasing safety. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 5 1 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Identify truck corridors that would most benefit from designated truck routes. Potential Partners: Caltrans, city/county public works and planning departments, councils of government, major trucking companies/local warehouses. Short $ Designate “truck free zones” on streets or in neighborhoods. Potential Partners: City/county public works and planning departments, local residents. Short $ Require new distribution centers to establish truck routes through local neighborhoods and add on-site signage to direct trucks exiting the facility. Potential Partners: City/county public works and planning departments, distribution centers. Short $ Implement truck routes on selected corridors. Potential Partners: Caltrans, city/county public works department, councils of government, major trucking companies and distributors. Short $$ Repave roadways with “quiet pavement” materials that reduce road noise. Potential Partners: City public works depart- ment, state highway department. Short to Mid $$ In addition to enforcement, communicate new or existing route information to truckers through trucking companies or places where truckers are such as rest areas or fueling stations. Potential Partners: City public works depart- ment, trucking companies. Short $ Assess the need for industry or truck impact fees in local communities to support financing of infrastructure improvements. Potential Partners: City public works and finance departments. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 5 2 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Highway Incident Management for Trucks Description Incident management programs seek to detect and clear roadway incidents such as accidents, stalls and spills quickly and effectively, thereby minimizing their congestion impacts. The strategy can be applied region-wide or can be focused on a specific corridor, and can address delay caused by traffic incidents (crashes, stalls, cargo spills) or non-traffic incidents (bridge collapse, emergency road work). Freeway service patrol programs currently exist for passenger cars throughout Southern California. This strategy would extend freeway service patrol programs to be able to service heavy duty trucks in selected areas. Benefits • Reduce congestion and increase average speeds. • By one estimation, over half of total roadway delay is caused by traffic incidents. Challenges • Requires coordinated communication among Caltrans, CHP and local traffic management and reporting systems to detect and report events. • Truck tow services are currently being tested by Metro and are not widespread. Costs • The estimated cost is $1.6 million annually for equipment, labor, fuel, and maintenance for the Big Rig Service Patrol being operated by Caltrans and Metro on the I-710 and SR-91 freeways. AT A Gl A n ce Coordinated systems for quick response to accidents or stalls (Highway incident management systems) can reduce traffic con- gestion by quickly identifying vehicle incidents and dispatch- ing assistance. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 5 3 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Secure funding for incident management pilot program. Potential Partners: Local transportation commis- sions, councils of government, Ports and cities. Short $ Search for public-private partnerships to imple- ment a program. Potential Partners: Local transportation commis- sions, councils of government, Ports and cities. Short $ Provide incident management services along truck corridors. Potential Partners: Caltrans, CHP, local transpor- tation commissions. Mid $$$$ chapter eight 8 - 5 4 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Rail-Highway Grade Separation Description Unseparated (at-grade) street-railroad crossings increase traffic delay and pose a safety risk due to the possible collision of vehicles and trains. They can also delay emergency service vehicles such as ambulances. Grade-separated crossings eliminate these risks, since roads and rail tracks no longer intersect. Grade separation can be accomplished by building road overpasses or under- passes around the rail line. Local governments can reduce traffic congestion as well as noise and air qual- ity impacts by aggressively pursuing grade separation projects. Benefits • Elimination of traffic delay due to passing trains. • Safety benefits. • Reduced pollution and fuel savings. • Improved access for emergency vehicles. Challenges • More practical to build grade-separation when constructing new roadways than to retrofit existing rail crossings with new infrastructure. • Grade separation projects are very expensive. Costs • The Trade Corridor Improvement Fund estimates most planned grade separations to cost between $30 and $90 million, with one as high at $189 million. AT A Gl A n ce By grade-separating railroad crossings, both trains and vehicles can travel through the crossing with no delay or safety impacts. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 5 5 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Pursue funding opportunities to fund grade separation projects. Potential Partners: councils of government, County transportation commissions, Caltrans, local communities. Short $ Identify crossings which benefit most from grade separation. Potential Partners: Local communities, railroads, councils of government, County transportation commissions, Caltrans. Short $ With state or federal partners, replace at-grade crossings with grade-separated crossings. Potential Partners: Caltrans, FRA railroads, councils of government, County transportation commissions, local communities. Mid $$$$ chapter eight 8 - 5 6 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Upgraded Rail Crossing Systems Description Rail crossing systems prevent conflicts between vehicles and oncoming trains. “Second Train Coming” systems alert drivers to situations in which one train follows another while crossing gates are down. Upgraded rail crossing systems can improve overall traffic flow by coordinat- ing signals with nearby traffic lights. With coordinated signals, traffic can be redirected away from the railroad crossing, or stopped at intersections before reaching the crossing. Further, photo-enforced systems can reduce traffic violations in which motor- ists drive around rail crossing gates. In Los Angeles, a photo enforcement system reduced violations by 92%. Benefits • Increase safety by discouraging drivers from driving around crossing gates. • Reduce traffic delays using intelligent traffic lights at nearby intersections. Challenges • Larger systems require electrical and communication infrastructure for expanded coordination with nearby signals. • Funding and implementation responsibilities are often unclear, leading to lack of action. Costs • Average cost of crossing signal system is $150,000. • Costs potentially can be shared among state and local agencies, and may be eligible for legislative funding or grants. AT A Gl A n ce Rail crossing systems can reduce delay and increase safety at a much lower cost than building grade-separated rail crossing. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 5 7 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Identify at-risk traffic intersections. Potential Partners: City/county public works department, community members, rail opera- tors, Caltrans. Short $ Coordinate with state agencies and rail opera- tors to select and implement crossing signal system. Potential Partners: County transportation com- mission, FRA, city/county public works depart- ment, rail operators, Caltrans. Short to Mid $$$ Work with state and federal agencies as well as rail operators to minimize safety hazards and congestion at rail crossings. Potential Partners: County transportation com- mission, FRA, city/county public works depart- ment, rail operators, Caltrans. Short $$ chapter eight 8 - 5 8 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Traffic Redirection Description Communities can alleviate congestion at busy at-grade rail crossing by divert- ing or redirecting vehicles to less-congested intersections. This strategy is most effective when traffic is directed to a nearby grade-separated crossing, where all vehicles can cross the rail corridor without any delay. Even when there is no nearby grade-separated crossing, traffic redirection can reduce delay by moving vehicles from overly congested crossings to under-used crossings. Traffic redirection plans can be implemented using additional signage to inform drivers, and roadside improvements to increase the number of vehicles that can travel through grade-separated crossings. In addition, traffic calming techniques, such as speed bumps and dead-end streets, can redirect vehicles away from railroad crossings. Traffic redirection strategies are implemented by local transportation agencies and public works departments, not by railroad companies. Benefits • Traffic redirection reduces costs associated with congestion and accidents. • Communities experience regional benefits from improved traffic flow. • Cars are directed to safer crossings. Challenges • Implementation requires coordination among local governments and regional traffic agencies. • Traffic calming measures may inconvenience local community members traveling to and from work and other activities. • Dead-end streets can limit access for residents, businesses and emergency vehicles. Costs • Implementation costs will vary depending on degree of new construction. AT A Gl A n ce By redirecting traffic away from rail crossings to grade sepa- rated lanes, municipalities can reduce traffic congestion and safety risks. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 5 9 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Identify crossings best suited for traffic redirec- tion. Potential Partners: City public works depart- ments, councils of government, local community members. Short $ Develop alternative vehicle routes & determine if street upgrades are necessary. Potential Partners: City public works depart- ments, local community members. Short $ Implement redirection strategies. Potential Partners: City public works depart- ments. Short $$ chapter eight 8 - 6 0 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Scheduling and Appointment Systems Description This strategy schedules the arrival of vehicles to ports and intermodal (truck/ rail) facilities to reduce congestion on roadways. Efficient scheduling can reduce idling time and loading time, helping to reduce emissions and noise impacts. The Port of Los Angeles “Terminal Gate Appointment System” schedules truck arrival times at nine terminals. Appointment systems are also used at railyards to smooth the flow of truck traffic. BNSF operates a “pre-mount” appointment system in which truck operators can reserve a container for pickup the following morning. The PierPass system for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach provides incentives for delivery of goods during less-congested times. Benefits • Freeway congestion reduced by moving truck trips to off-peak times. • Less idling at freight facilities. • Significant reductions in pollutants caused by congestion and idling. Challenges • System must have approval of all parties: facility operators, shippers, truck and rail operators. • Shifting trips to off-peak times may conflict with driver hours-of-service restrictions. • Evening and nighttime operation may increase noise and light impacts on neighboring communities. Costs • Transactions with appointments take longer than transactions without appointments—potentially lower efficiency for terminals. • At the Port of Los Angeles, terminals operating appointment systems are exempt from PierPass charges for peak-time shipments. AT A Gl A n ce Truck scheduling systems reduce traffic congestion both at the freight facility and on nearby streets. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 6 1 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Coordinate with freight facilities on implement- ing scheduling system. Potential Partners: Ports, shipping companies, cities, trucking companies. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 6 2 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Extended Hours of Operation Description Many freight facilities handle the majority of truck volume during the daytime, when roadway congestion is high due to auto use. Modified operating hours can reduce truck traffic during peak traffic times (morning and evening com- mute periods). The resulting drop in truck volume reduces impacts on free- ways and local roads during the most congested periods. Extended hours-of-operation strategies have been implemented at a number of ports, with mixed results. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach partici- pate in the PierPass program, which encourages off-peak operation. Marine container terminals offer extended hours of operation (currently 6pm-3am Monday-Thursday and 9am-6pm Saturday) with up to 40% of containers being moved by truck occurring during off peak hours. In addition, many rail intermodal stations operate with extended hours. The BNSF Hobart railyard near Los Angeles operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Benefits • Increases utilization of current port and railyard terminals, lifts and other infrastructure. • Reduced truck traffic on roadways during peak congestion and commute times. Challenges • Implementation requires coordination among shippers, facility operators, and truck operators. • This strategy puts more trucks on the road in early morning and late eve- ning hours, causing additional noise impacts. • For short trips, there may be conflicts if the shipper operates with extended hours, but the receiver does not. • Port terminals bear additional operating costs due to expanded labor needs. Costs • Main costs are operating and labor costs associated with extended hours. AT A Gl A n ce By extending operating hours, ports, railyards and warehouses can load trucks outside of peak traffic times. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 6 3 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Coordinate with freight facilities on extending hours-of-operation into off-peak periods. Potential Partners: Shippers, Ports, truck opera- tors, local communities. Short $ For existing and new projects, facilitate commu- nication between operators and local communi- ties to build mutual awareness of operational needs, impact concerns, and potential solutions. Potential Partners: Cities and counties, local operators. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 6 4 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Expansion of On-Dock Rail Service Description Although approximately 50% of freight from and to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is intermodal, only about 20% is loaded directly to/from the rail docks . The remaining cargo is shipped using rail terminals located away from the ports (off-dock), and requires the use of local, or drayage trucks for transportation between the terminals and the rail and distribution yards. Because the transfer or drayage trucks tend to be older and emit more pollu- tion, elimination of drayage trips can result in significant health and air quality benefits. Infrastructure improvements can increase the capacity and utilization of on-dock rail ramps at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Railroad operational improvements are also necessary. The Ports are currently pursuing on-dock rail strategies, but face significant cost and regulatory hurdles. Benefits • By shifting truck traffic to rail, on-dock rail can eliminate 30,000 daily truck trips by 2020. • Reduction in traffic congestion, especially near the ports. • Reduction in pollution and improved air quality. Challenges • Requires major infrastructure changes to bring new rail service to terminals. • On-dock rail projects require lengthy environmental review. Costs • The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have analyzed $1 billion of new projects to increase on-dock rail capacity. AT A Gl A n ce On-dock rail replaces truck trips from ports with direct rail service. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 6 5 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Support efforts to increase on-dock rail and coordinate with ports and terminal operators to build on-dock rail. Potential Partners: Ports, port-adjacent com- munities, railroads, terminal operators, councils of government. Short $ Expand on-dock rail infrastructure at ports.Long $$$$ Expand rail line capacity to handle additional port shipments, especially targeting bottlenecks in the rail network. Potential Partners: Ports, railroads, port-adjacent communities, terminal operators, councils of government. Short to Mid $$$$ chapter eight 8 - 6 6 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.3 t r A f fic Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Virtual Container Yard Description When a container delivery is unloaded, the empty container is returned to a storage location or another shipper. Moving empty containers from place to place is unproductive and creates unnecessary congestion and cost. Currently, only about 2% of emptied import containers are matched with shippers need- ing an export container. The rest are typically brought back to the ports. This strategy would electronically match shippers needing containers with nearby empty containers so that unnecessary container movements are avoided. Benefits • Reduces truck trips and truck vehicles miles traveled associated with mov- ing empty containers. • Reduces emissions of all pollutants. Magnitude depends on effectiveness of strategy. Challenges • In order to implement a virtual container yard, shippers must coordinate with truckers, ports, and customers to manage the flow of containers. • Institutional, risk, and legal issues may also exist. Costs • Several companies offer Virtual Container Yard internet services. Truck operators and shippers pay a monthly fee for participation. • Trucking companies will save money, by reducing VMT, which lowers fuel and maintenance costs. AT A Gl A n ce A Virtual Container Yard electronic system pairs ship- pers with receivers to reduce the number of empty container trips. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 6 7 strategies: traffic p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Partner with private firm to publicize and roll out virtual container yard services. Potential Partners: councils of government, Ports, Cities. Short $$ chapter eight 8 - 6 8 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.4 A e S t hetic S A n d A p pe A r A n ce Str At egie S Strategy: Spillover Lighting Controls Description Ambient levels of lighting from freight facilities can be intense according to the density of site development. Installation of new lighting structures can lower the amount of light entering neighborhoods from adjacent and nearby facilities such as ports, distribution centers and railyards. Some communities in other areas have adopted “nighttime sky” ordinances requiring lowered light levels. What is called spillover lighting can be reduced or eliminated by setting limits on allowable types or sizes of outdoor lighting, or specifying how the lighting should be shielded. Shielding regulations may specify the shape of shielding fixtures or the angle of lighting with respect to the ground, all designed to reduce or eliminate light leaking into adjacent areas or communities. Benefits • Reduced spillover light and nighttime glare for adjacent residents. Challenges • Lighting specifications must shield residents while allowing sufficient light for project site. • While relatively simple for cities to require for new construction projects, they have less ability to place requirements on pre-existing facilities. • Cities have no jurisdiction over railroad facilities. Costs • Low cost—does not require new implementation technologies. AT A Gl A n ce Spillover light can create distractions for local residents. Lighting controls limit spillover light. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 6 9 strategies: aesthetics and appearance p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost For new facilities: Include lighting specifications in building codes and zoning ordinances. Potential Partners: City planning departments, freight facilities, distribution centers, manufac- turers. Short $ For existing facilities: Promote lighting controls and encourage owners of existing facilities to modify lighting. Potential Partners: City planning and public works departments, freight facilities, distribution centers, manufacturers. Short $ chapter eight 8 - 7 0 | h e A l T h y c o M M u n i T i e s A n d h e A l T h y e c o n o M i e s 8.4 A e S t hetic S A n d A p pe A r A n ce Str At egie S c ontinued Strategy: Landscaping Description Freight facilities can have high visibility from surrounding roadways and resi- dential zones. These visual impacts can be reduced using landscaping to block or soften aesthetic characteristics of the site. Landscaping can create a buffer zone between land uses, and allow freight facilities to better match the visual characteristics of surrounding communities. The selection of landscaping plants, shrubbery, or trees is often made with priorities given to native plants, fast-growing plants, and landscaping that requires less water and upkeep. Benefits • Hides or soften visual impacts of freight facilities from surrounding residents. • Some funding is available from the federal government through Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) grants. Challenges • Must be compatible with project site, must be maintained by responsible party. • Cities cannot place requirements on railroad owned and operated facilities. Costs • Landscaping is a low-cost strategy for reducing the visual impact of facilities. AT A Gl A n ce Landscaping in front of freight facilities can soften their appearance from the road or nearby housing, reducing visual impacts. A T o o l k i T f o r G o o d s M o v e M e n T d r A f T M A r c h 2 0 0 9 | 8 - 7 1 strategies: aesthetics and appearance p oTe n T i A l lo c A l Ac T i ons A n d pA rT n ers Action Timeframe Relative Cost Include landscaping ordinances and mainte- nance plans in zoning regulations. Potential Partners: City planning departments, current distribution centers. Short $ Coordinate with Caltrans and county transporta- tion agencies to provide landscaping on state roads. Potential Partners: Caltrans, County transporta- tion commissions, councils of government, local communities. Short $ Provide funding to maintain landscaping on or near public property. Potential Partners: Cities, counties, councils of government, local communities, Federal Highway Administration. Short $$ Create design guidelines to promote the best features of a landscaping project. Potential Partners: Caltrans, councils of govern- ment, local communities, city/county planning and public works departments. Short $ community members, public agencies and goods movement representatives must work together in a way that builds common under- standing, trust and agreement on desired outcomes. a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 9 - 1 Goods movement is GettinG more and more attention. this toolkit gives an idea of some of the phrases—or keywords—that are used to describe goods movement issues and projects. now that you have an idea of these keywords and possible strategies to address impacts, how do you get started? Where can you go for more information? Who can help in your efforts to take action? Following are potential first steps to consider. monitor agendas and news items and attend meetings most communities have a Planning Commission, Public Works Commission and/or traffic/transportation Commission that advises the city or county and elected officials on decisions about community development including land use, transportation and community design. agendas are posted on city/county websites. newspapers (especially local community papers) report on upcoming issues and meetings. By attend- ing meetings when related issues come up you can become familiar with others (elected officials, staff, freight-related industries and operators and interest groups) who are involved in goods movement. You can also con- tact community and homeowner associations, attend their meetings, ask questions and find sources of support for addressing local impacts. how to get involved chapter nine chapter nine 9 - 2 | h e a l t h y c o m m u n i t i e s a n d h e a l t h y e c o n o m i e s contact local planning, transportation and other resource agencies as described in Chapter 1 of this toolkit, local planning and transportation or public works departments deal most directly with goods movement. staff members can provide much information on the history of and potential future efforts related to the impacts in question. they can let you know when General Plan updates are scheduled and how specific concerns or issues are being addressed through the planning process. other resource agencies such as councils of governments, transportation commissions, and regional transpor- tation planning agencies work closely with local agencies on specific projects and have additional information. the quickest way to access this information is on their websites, but a call to the agency asking to speak to the department dealing with freight or goods movement issues is another way to find useful information and contacts. contact your local elected official (councilmember or supervisor) Local elected officials and their staffs (a councilmember in an incorporated city, or a supervisor in an unincorporated area) are particularly important in keeping current and making sure the community is informed about goods movement- related programs and actions. they direct their planning and transportation departments and request support from other resource agencies to find solu- tions to community problems. in addition to directly contacting a local elected official’s office, you may attend their regularly scheduled meetings to speak during public comment periods and meet others who are involved in resolving goods movement-related issues in the community. how can everyone work together? Creating the right solutions to address impacts is not always simple or easy. one solution could be very helpful for a goods movement representative, but may not meet the needs of a local community that experiences impacts. Likewise, a local community may decide that there is only solution they will accept, but is impossible for a goods movement representative to include in their operations, or is not enforceable by a public agency. How can everyone work together to create meaningful, realistic solutions that keep goods mov- ing and reduce or eliminate impacts on communities? there is no universal approach, but there are guiding principles to consider when taking action. in general, community members, public agencies, and goods movement representatives must work together in a way that builds how to get involved a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d s m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | 9 - 3 common understanding, trust, and agreement on desired outcomes. Here are guiding principles to consider: • Bring everyone together: invite everyone to the table including goods movement representatives, residents, businesses, local agencies, and any others with a stake in the impacts. • Create a clear, open process for understanding the impacts and develop- ing potential solutions. • Establish ground rules to support an atmosphere of mutual respect and productive discussion. • Identify roles: ensure that everyone understands how their participation is part of the process, and how decision-making occurs. • Keep clear records of communications and discussions. • Make the process accessible to everyone: Hold open public meetings at times and locations for the greatest number of people. Post communica- tions and discussion records at local information sources such as public buildings and on websites. Let others contribute ideas and comments in ways other than attending and speaking at meetings. Several rating Sc ale S have been developed to analyze adver Se e ffectS of community noi S e on people. Since environmental noi S e fluctuate S over time, the S e Sc aleS con Sider that the effect of noiS e o n people depend S largely upon the total acou S tical energy content of the noi S e , a S well a S the time of day when the noi S e o ccurS . a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d S m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | a -1 Sound iS a preSSure wave tranSmitted through the air. it iS described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), fre- quency or pitch (measured in hertz [hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). the decibel (dB) scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. “Logarithmic” is a scale of measurement in which an increase of one unit represents a tenfold change in the quantity measured. the pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensi- tivity. the a-weighted decibel scale (dBa) provides this compensation by discriminating against upper and lower frequencies in a manner approxi- mating the sensitivity of the human ear. the scale is based on a reference pressure level of 20 micropascals (zero dBa). the scale ranges from zero (for the average least perceptible sound) to about 130 (for the average human pain level). the normal range of conversation is between 34 and 66 dBa. Between 70 and 90 dBa, sound is distracting and presents an obstacle to conversation, thinking, or learning. above 90 dBa, sound can cause permanent hearing loss. examples of various sound levels in different environments are shown in table a-1 (typical Sound Levels). characteristics of sound appendix appendix a -2 | h e a lt h y c o m m u n i t i e S a n d h e a lt h y e c o n o m i e S table a-1 typical Sound l evelS Common Sounds A-Weighted Sound Level in Decibels Subjective Impression Oxygen Torch 120 Pain Threshold Rock Band 110 Pile Driver at 50 feet 100 Very Loud Ambulance Siren at 100 feet 90 Garbage disposal 80 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet 70 Moderately Loud Air Conditioner at 100 feet 60 Quiet Urban Daytime 50 Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 Quiet Bedroom at Night 30 Recording Studio 20 Just Audible 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 Source: Aviation Planning Associates. 1978. Calculations of Maximum A-weighted Sound Levels (dBA) Resulting from Civil Aircraft Operations. a noise environment consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. these local sources can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtu- ally continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway. to the human ear, a sound that is 10 dBa higher than another is judged to be twice as loud; 20 dBa higher is four times as loud; and so forth. in general, a differ- ence of more than 3 dBa is a perceptible change in environmental noise, while a 5 dBa difference typically causes a change in community reaction, and an increase of 10 dBa is perceived by people as doubling of loudness. noise measurement Scales Several rating scales have been developed to analyze adverse effects of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales con- sider that the effect of noise on people depends largely upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. those that are applicable to looking at freight-related issues in communities are as follows: characteristics of sound a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d S m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | a -3 • Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such as 1 minute, 15 minutes, 1 hour, or 24 hours). thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. • L90 is a noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given loca- tion; it is often used as a measure of “background” noise. • CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBa “penalty” added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and a 10 dBa penalty added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and night-time. the logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBa 24-hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL. • Ldn, the day-night average noise, is a 24-hour average Leq with an additional 10 dBa “penalty” added to noise that occurs between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The Ldn metric yields similar values (within 1 dBA) as do the CNEL metric. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equiva- lent and are treated as such in this assessment. noise attenuation the noise level from a particular source generally declines as the distance to the receptor increases. other factors such as the weather and reflecting or shielding also intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. typically, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBa. exterior noise levels can normally be reduced by 15 dBa inside buildings constructed with no special noise insulation. the u.S. epa esti- mates that residences in “warm” climates provide at least 12 dBa of exterior-to- interior noise attenuation with windows open and 24 dBa with windows closed. noise from traffic on roads depends on the volume and speed of traffic and the distance from the traffic. a commonly used rule of thumb for traffic noise is that for every doubling of distance from the road, atmospheric spreading over “hard” or “soft” sites reduces the noise level by about 3 or 4.5 dBa, respec- tively. For a stationary source, the noise is reduced by at least 6 dBa for each doubling of distance. Further, because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel scale, a doubling of traffic on any given roadway or doubling a stationary source would cause a noise increase of approximately 3 dBa. a -4 | h e a lt h y c o m m u n i t i e S a n d h e a lt h y e c o n o m i e S glossary California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): California Environmental Quality Act, enacted in 1970, requires government agencies in California to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions, and avoid or mitigate those impacts if possible. CEQA applies to all projects undertaken by public agencies, as well as to private projects that are subject to the review or approval of a public agency. Cargo Handling Equipment: Cargo-handling equipment refers to equipment used at ports, railyards, and other freight facilities to moves containers and bulk shipments. examples include yard tractors, cranes, forklifts, top picks, and side picks. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM): diesel particulate matter is the particulate component of diesel exhaust from diesel fuel, which includes diesel soot and aerosols such as ash particulates, metallic abrasion particles, sulfates, and silicates. Drayage Trucks: drayage trucks are those that travel short distances to move goods to and from ports and rail yards. EMFAC: The EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model is used to calculate emission rates from all motor vehicles, such as passenger cars to heavy-duty trucks, operating on highways, freeways and local roads in California. Developed by the California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2007 is the most recent version of this model. Gen-set Locomotive: a generator set (“gen Set”) locomotives uses a series of smaller diesel engines (each approximately 700 horsepower) to directly power the traction motors. one or two of the engines can be shut down in operations with lower power demand, saving fuel and reducing emissions. glossary and acronyms a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d S m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | a -5 glossary and acronyms Grade Crossing: a grade crossing is the intersection of a roadway and a railroad line “at grade,” so vehicles must wait when a train is passing through the crossing. Harbor Craft: Commercial harbor craft help move large ships and provide supplies to the port. they include tugboats, ferries, small excursion craft, sup- ply vessels, dredges, and service boats. Health Risk Assessment: heath risk assessments are used to estimate whether current or future chemical exposures will pose health risks to a broad population, such as a city or a community. the u.S. environmental protection agency (u.S. epa) is a leading risk assessment agency at the federal level. in California, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) has the primary responsibility for developing procedures and practices for performing health risk assessments. Hybrid Locomotive: a hybrid-electric locomotive uses a small, low-emission diesel engine to charge a battery pack that powers the traction motors. these engines can also recover braking energy to improve fuel efficiency. used in rail yards, these locomotives use less fuel and reduce emissions compared to conventional switcher locomotives. Intermodal: intermodal transportation involves the use of more than one mode of transport for a journey. intermodal freight typically refers to ship- ments that travel by both truck and railroad. Level of Service (LOS): Level of Service (LoS) is a letter grading system rang- ing from ranging from a (best) to F (worst) that measures the congestion levels on roadways or at intersections. grades are assigned based on the average delay per vehicle. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): the national environmental policy act of 1969 requires agencies to evaluate the environmental impacts of any “major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environ- ment.” nepa applies to any action that involves the use of federal funds, the need for federal approval in the form of permits, or a location on federal land. Ocean Going Vessels (OGV): ocean going vessels or ships include container ships, tanker ships, bulk carriers, automobile carriers, general cargo ships, roll- on roll-off ships, and cruise ships. a -6 | h e a lt h y c o m m u n i t i e S a n d h e a lt h y e c o n o m i e S glossary and acronyms Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx): oxides of nitrogen are compounds of oxygen and nitrogen such as nitric oxide (no), nitrogen dioxide (no2) and nitrous oxide (n2o). along with reactive organic gas (rog), nox is the main ingredient in ground level ozone, commonly called smog. Particulate Matter (PM): particulate matter is the term for solid or liquid particles found in the air. Some particles are large or dark enough to be seen as soot or smoke. Because particles originate from a variety of mobile and stationary sources (diesel fuel, woodstoves, power plants, etc.), their chemi- cal and physical compositions vary widely. particulate matter can be directly emitted or can be formed in the atmosphere when gaseous pollutants such as So2 and nox react to form fine particles. pm10 refers to particles less than or equal to 10 microns and pm 2.5: refers to particles less than or equal to 2.5 microns), also called fine particulate matter or “Fine particles” such as those found in smoke and haze. Reactive Organic Gas (ROG): reactive organic gas are organic chemical compounds that react in the atmosphere (nitrogen oxides) to form ground level ozone, commonly called smog. they are released by a variety of sources including burning of petroleum fuels, use of solvents, petroleum processing and storage, and pesticides. the u.S. epa refers to these gases ad volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Sound Exposure Level (SEL): SeL is the basic noise unit, also known as the “single-event level.” the SeL describes the amount of noise exposure from a single event, such as a freight train passing by one residence. Switching locomotive: Switching locomotives are just used in the rail yards to move rail cars to tracks for loading or unloading intermodal containers or move rail cars onto a track to assemble an outbound train. Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs): transportation refrigeration units (trus), or “reefers”, are gasoline and diesel powered cooling units that are installed on vehicles used in transporting produce, meat, dairy products, and other perishable goods. trus are found on refrigerated vans, trucks, trailers, and railcars. URBEMIS: the urBan emiSsions (urBemiS) is a software program which is used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of land use devel- opment. The URBEMIS 2007 model uses the California Air Resources Board’s EMFAC2007 model for on-road vehicle emissions and the OFFROAD2007 model for off-road vehicle emissions. a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d S m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | a -7 glossary and acronyms a c ronyms aeSS automatic engine Start-Stop device apu auxiliary power unit aQmp air Quality management plan arB air resources Board B100 Biofuel blend, 100% biodiesel B20 Biofuel blend, 20% biodiesel BnSF Burlington northern Santa Fe railway CA EDD California Employment Development Department CARB California Air Resources Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFG Community Feedback Group CHE Cargo Handling Equipment CHP California Highway Patrol CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNG Compressed Natural Gas CO Carbon Monoxide COG Council of Government dB decibel dBa decibel adjusted DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst dpF diesel particulate Filter dpm diesel particulate matter EMFAC ARB EMission FACtor model a -8 | h e a lt h y c o m m u n i t i e S a n d h e a lt h y e c o n o m i e S glossary and acronyms epa environmental protection agency Fhwa Federal highway administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Fra Federal railroad administration Fta Federal transit administration FtF Flow-through Filter GCCOG Gateway Cities Council of Governments gvwr gross vehicle weight rating HC hydrocarbon hp horsepower hra health risk assessment HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning System ICTF Intermodal Container Transfer Facility LauSd Los angeles unified School district Lawa Los angeles world airports LaX Los angeles international airport Leq equivalent Sound Level Lng Liquefied natural gas LoS Level of Service mSw municipal Solid waste naFta north america Free trade agreement nepa national environmental policy act nhtSa national highway traffic Safety administration nox oxides of nitrogen a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d S m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | a -9 glossary and acronyms ogv ocean-going vessel opr California Office of Planning and Research phimF puente hills intermodal Facility pm particulate matter pm-10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter pm-2.5 Fine particulate matter (less than 2.5 micron2 in diameter) pmi point of maximum impact poLa port of Los angeles poLB port of Long Beach rog reactive organic gas SanBag San Bernardino associated governments SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SeL Sound exposure Level SpB San pedro Bay STC Sound Transmission Class tea transportation enhancement activities grant tru transport refrigeration unit up union pacific railroad urBemiS urBan emiSsion model uSdot united States department of transportation vmt vehicle-miles traveled vSr vessel Speed reduction a -1 0 | h e a lt h y c o m m u n i t i e S a n d h e a lt h y e c o n o m i e S 1 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008. 2008 Regional transportation plan goods movement report. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, http://www.aqmd.gov. 3 Wilbur Smith Associates, Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan. April 30, 2008. 4 Comprised of Los Angeles, Orange, Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. 5 husing, John. Logistics & distribution: an answer to regional upward Social Mobility. Southern California Association of Governments, 2004. 6 Wilbur Smith Associates, Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan. April 30, 2008 7 Wilbur Smith Associates, Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan. April 30, 2008. 8 Wilbur Smith Associates, Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan. April 30, 2008. 9 Wilbur Smith Associates, Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan. April 30, 2008. 10 husing, John. Logistics & distribution: an answer to regional upward Social Mobility. Southern California Association of Governments, 2004. 11 Wilbur Smith Associates, Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan. April 30, 2008. 12 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management district. 13 More information on EMFAC can be found at ARB’s website: http://www.arb. ca.gov/msei/msei.htm 14 McConnell R, Berhane K, Yao L, Jerrett M, Lurmann F, Gilliland F, Künzli N, gauderman J, avol e, thomas d, peters J. 2006. traffic, susceptibility, and childhood asthma. environmental health perspectives. may: 114(5): 766-772. references a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d S m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | a -1 1 references 15 Guaderman WJ, Avol E, Lurmann F, Künzli N, Gilliland F, Peters J, McConnell R. 2005. Childhood asthma and exposure to traffic and nitrogen dioxide. epidemiology. november. 16(6): 737-743. 16 Lin S, Munsie JP, Hwang SA, Fitzgerald E, Cayo MR. 2002. Childhood asthma hospitalization and residential exposure to state route traffic. environmental Research. February. 88(2): 73-81. 17 english p, neutra r, Scalf r, Sullivan m, waller L, Zhu L. 1999. examining Associations Between Childhood Asthma and Traffic Flow Using a Geographic information System. environmental health perspectives. 107(9): 761-767. 18 Brunekreef B, Janssen NA, de Hartog J, Harssema H, Knape M, van Vliet P. 1997. air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in children living near roadways. 19 Zhu Y, Hinds WC, Kim S, Sioutas C. 2002. Concentration and size distribu- tion of ultrafine particles near a major highway. Journal of air and waste management association. September. 52: 1032-1042. 20 port of Los angeles (2006): goods movement projects. available online at http://www.portoflosangeles.org/development_goods.htm 21 texas transportation institute. 2007. annual urban mobility report. 22 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008. 2008 Regional transportation plan goods movement report. 23 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008. 2008 Regional transportation plan goods movement report. 24 Rincon Consultants. 2002. visual impacts Study for the uvp interchange Portion of the UVP Extension / Interchange Project. 25 Leachman, r., hicks, g., Fetty, g., rieger, m. (2005): inland empire railroad mainline Study – Final report. 26 Leachman, r., hicks, g., Fetty, g., rieger, m. (2005): inland empire railroad mainline Study – Final report. 27 Federal transit administration. 2006. transit noise and vibration impact assessment. office of planning and environment. Fta-va-90-1003-06. may. 28 Federal railroad administration. 2005. high-Speed ground transportation noise and vibration impact assessment. office of railroad development. october. 29 Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual, 4th ed. National Research Council. Washington, DC. 30 ICF International 2008. Analysis of Goods Movement Emission Reduction Strategies, Task 1 Final Report. Prepared for Southern California Association of governments. January. 31LAEDC, 2008. Southern California Consensus Group Projects TCIF application economic analysis. January. a -1 2 | h e a lt h y c o m m u n i t i e S a n d h e a lt h y e c o n o m i e S references 32 Particulate Emissions Reduction Program at California Railyards. June 2005. Memorandum of Understanding between California Air Resources Board, union pacific, and BnSF railroads. 33 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Draft Health Risk Assessment for the BnSF railway San Bernardino railyard. april. 34 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Draft Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Colton Railyard. April. 35 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Health Risk Assessment for Union Pacific Railroad City of Industry. April. 36 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Health Risk Assessment for the UP Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) and Dolores Railyards. April. 37 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Commerce Railyard. November. 38 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Los Angeles Transportation Center Railyard. November. 39 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Health Risk Assessment for the union pacific railroad mira Loma auto Facility railyard. november. 40 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Health Risk Assessment for the Four Commerce Railyards. November. 41 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Draft Health Risk Assessment for the BnSF railway San Bernardino railyard. april. 42 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Draft Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Colton Railyard. April. 43 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Health Risk Assessment for Union Pacific Railroad City of Industry. April. 44 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. Health Risk Assessment for the UP Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) and Dolores Railyards. April. 45 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Commerce Railyard. November. 46 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Los Angeles Transportation Center Railyard. November. 47 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Health Risk Assessment for the union pacific railroad mira Loma auto Facility railyard. november. 48 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Health Risk Assessment for the Four Commerce Railyards. November. 49 air resources Board, “health risk assessment for the up intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) and Dolores Railyards,” April 2008. available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/up_ictf_hra.pdf a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d S m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | a -1 3 references 50 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2006. Inland Port Feasibility Study. 51 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003. North Rialto Distribution Warehousing Project, Environmental Impact Report. City of Rialto. 52 City of Rialto. 2003. North Rialto Distribution Warehousing Project, environmental impact report. 53 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2004. Rulemaking on Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. Final Approval. July. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/idling/idling. htm. 54 AQMD website about the URBEMIS model: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/urbe- mis.html 55 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Health Risk Assessment for the union pacific railroad mira Loma auto Facility railyard. november. 56 Details about the ARB TRU regulations are available online at: http://www.arb. ca.gov/diesel/tru.htm more information about the pending epa waiver is available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/tru/documents/status_update_12_08.pdf 57 Caltrans. 2002. Highway Traffic Noise Training Modules. February. 58 draft environmental impact report (deir), oakmont industrial Building Project. 2006. City of Perris. December. 59 City of Fontana 2003, Truck Trip Generation Study. August. 60 national association of industrial and office properties. 2005. San Bernardino / Riverside County Warehouse / Distribution Center Vehicle Trip Generation Study (inland empire Study). January. 61 national association of industrial and office properties. 2005. San Bernardino / Riverside County Warehouse / Distribution Center Vehicle Trip Generation Study (inland empire Study). January. 62 National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. 2008. Western Riverside County Warehouse / Distribution Center Trip Generation Study. May. 63 national association of industrial and office properties. 2005. San Bernardino / Riverside County Warehouse / Distribution Center Vehicle Trip Generation Study (inland empire Study). January. 64 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2002. Goods movement program white paper. January. 65 american association of port authorities. 2007. north american port Container Traffic 2007 66 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2008. 2008 Regional transportation plan goods movement report. a - 1 4 | h e a lt h y c o m m u n i t i e S a n d h e a lt h y e c o n o m i e S references 67 Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, 2007. ACTA Port Impact Study 68 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2002. Goods movement program white paper. January. 69 Port of Los Angeles Website. Available at: http://www.portoflosangeles.org/ faq.htm. 70 Port of Long Beach Website. Available at: http://www.polb.com/html/1_about/ overview.html. 71 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2006. Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure assessment Study for the ports of Los angeles and Long Beach – Final report. april. 72 ICF. 2007. Estimation of diesel particulate matter concentration isopleths for marine harbor areas and railyards (revised). memorandum for epa. September. 73 port of Los angeles and port of Long Beach (2006): Final 2006 San pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan, Technical Report, November 2006. Available at www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/CAAP_Tech_Report_Final.pdf 74 Los Angeles Harbor Department and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/ DEIR), Berths 136-147 [TraPac] Container Terminal Project. December. 75 Los Angeles Harbor Department and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Re-Circulated Draft Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR), Berths 97-109 [China Shipping] Container Terminal project. april. 76 City of Los Angeles. 2006. The Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide: Your Resource for Preparing CEQA Analyses in Los Angeles. 77 Los Angeles Harbor Department and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/ DEIR), Berths 136-147 [TraPac] Container Terminal Project. December. 78 port of Los angeles 2004, port of Los angeles Baseline transportation Study. april. 79 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Staff Report: Initial Statement of reasons for proposed rulemaking – proposed regulation for drayage trucks, appendix B: emissions estimation methodology for on-road diesel-Fueled Heavy Duty Drayage Trucks at California’s Ports and Intermodal Railyards. 80 Tioga Group (2002): Empty Ocean Container Logistics Study, report prepared to Gateway Cities Council of Government, Port of Long Beach, and Southern California Association of Governments. 81 SCAQMD. July, 2007. eir, SeS Long Beach Lng import terminal, appendix d6 82 PierPass website, available at http://pierpass.org/offpeak_information 83 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2008. Multi-County goods movement action plan. a t o o l k i t f o r g o o d S m o v e m e n t d r a f t m a r c h 2 0 0 9 | a -1 5 references 84 u.S. epa. 1974. information on Levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of Safety. march. 85 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2008. Multi-County goods movement action plan. 86 U.S. EPA. 1978. Protective Noise Levels. Condensed Version of EPA Levels Document. Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, DC. EPA- 550/9-79-100. November. 6000 `EZ 1-19.10/11 osmium° sweiBoid pue susid uo ssivauao3 uoRei odsusal Aiunoo emsaenia �a�n� runuxuo tf It u0:0 tte tie emun- Agij aH sluaWuaan00 palepossy ouipaeuaae ueg — uoissiwwoo uoRepodsuau. Alunoo apisaania — Aliao4nnb' uoRepodsuail ueijiodogaW /lunoo saia6uy sod — saauped . g pug s}pia}si4 suameo - :sapua6y peai . SJOUTied APIS aan�n� au� ui aigelapdn — sunsaa 6uRsel pue apaanseaua saonpoad — eiep wean° ui papunoae — spaau pazneool pue leuoibaa sassaappy — spadw! WauaanoW spoob ssaappe seep! Jo «nuaw„ e sapinaki — ���u� nom e elm° . spAleue leoiuuoal Lap Aijunwwoo aupwoo . uoRewiolui wewenow spoob pue rD ini6upeew aleaao . sanRoafg0 pue sieog Nunoo ouipaeuaa8 ueS) uoijoo Aijo . AalleA eIla1-10B00 . euao-i eaiW . (-0 sdnoag )pegpaad Apnwwoo - aapwuaoo Aaosinpy leoiuuoal - dool )pegpaal snonupoo aleijiped . 9Jr11.0111TS AJOS!ApV door Noeqpeed snonuRuoo shod puelui . spodeaS . saawa° uoRngiaisip pug asnouaae/A . spaeA aofen . sauanion uiaq. Aneay u}inn sauil I!ea • og.}eaT )ionij Aneay ylinn sAennu6iH . senweed wewenoN spoog siiiauaq pue spedwi - OpOU00a • sewpgRedwoo ash puei • iensin • sweua8 uoRonpa}d uoRsabuo0 • espN • uTieaH pue suo!ss!w3 a!b • spAieuv spedwi sdiysaauped - s}iouaq pug s}sod - suonipuoo Aijunwwoo - :uo paseq Aijunuauaoo upea suoRnios aW00 pue apseallsoua Amuapi . Aijunuauaoo - spedwi pug Aijiped - :Jo adA1 paaoHel . saoRoad Isaq uo pase8 . suoRnps pug se!baleijs saanosaa leuonippy - saipnqs aseo . sai6alailg . spedwi . :sapow luawanoua spoo6 owoadS - }uawanow spoo6 j.o soiseq pug punoalloe8 - luawanoW spoof ao} 1N100l . saiba}al}s pug sanssi `ssaooad - ou.pads-Aliunwuaoo - sawoomp pug ssaooad :podaa i(Jewwng . Heieno.sewoomo Apnls swelled uopinaip pool 6uiAnpoua aapisuo0 - s}uawanoaduai Ala}es wiaa}ui aapisuo0 - suoproasaawi Asia-}e Arnua131 - suopaedas apea6 Tonalsuoo - :skennpeoa pug sou!' uaanniaq suopauuoo pue s}oiijuoa aonpaa . se!beleils--AelleA ellegoe00 seaaB ieRuapisaa yainn ap}eduaooui - :sasnouaaenn doianap ol aanssaad bupuRuo0 . seaae reRuapisaa ul — siooyos aeaN — :64pi pug buwed tugenan. sianal . ulieau Aijunwwoo uo spedwi Aijienb air bu!obuo . spedwi--ewoi aim! suoispap asn puei aano loawoo [Boo! lo )ioei . sijjauaq oiuiouooa ueyn. aaoW sPBdu.Ii Wauianow spoo6 aouaiaadxa swapisaa leooi . suieg paddols ao nno's u,oij suoRoasaam pa>lool8 • spedwi--ewoi aqn sluiod ssapoe >ional - saaiaaeq punos - auanion pug Aouanbaa} uaoH - :suoilaiado paeA Hal aol seep! nnau Amuapi . S6UISSOn HL'J IilIM suoi}oasaa}ui Asia-ie ssaappe pug Apluapi . sainoa >pm nnau aalo}ua pue luauaaiduai . se!balags--ewoi eaiW spoo diysaautied s,uoissivawoo ay} aziseudw3 - :sianal impel pue ems aaeyg . (60N `8Z AeW) doys)aonn aaidcu3 puem ayi y6noM luawanoW spoof 5upuenp y aamead . suoi}eziueaao paseq-Apnwwoo - sapua6e pool pug aaulaed - :o} ppol aingia1sia . sdels ixeN muope leuq a01 uoissivaw00 ol. paennaod . pue :ijmool. l}yap auk uo indui apinoad pug ania08a . uoRepuauawooatd gels uonepodsueli 4uno9 apisaania