Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 21, 2016 Technical AdvisoryCOMM-TAC-00051 TIME: DATE: LOCATION: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. 10:00 A.M. November 21, 2016 Beaumont City Hall Conference Room #2 550 East Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 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 Riverside County Transportation Commission 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. Self -Introductions 3. Approval of September 19, 2016 Minutes 4. Public Comments (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. Election of Officers 6. Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 3 Update (Verbal Presentation) 7. Update on FFY 2016/17 Obligation Plan (Attachment) 8. 2016 Companion Study for Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Attachment) 9. Caltrans Local Assistance Update (Verbal Presentation) 10. November Commission Meeting Highlights • 1-15 Express lanes (Attachment) • TUMF Update (Attachment) 11. ATN Meeting Calendar (Attachment) 12. Other Business Technical Advisory Committee Meeting November 21, 2016 Page 2 13. Adjournment (The next meeting will be January 23 in Riverside.) 'hi 'Two ty avij)410 hti) •1 t'pa 6 n af(' a 1‘),' j'107 �QC ti • j v. is p i0 d $7,.wo /7/M-1 b'77=rb cr) elk or l G ,l .% W d f 0,4fti.. - 4.4 ti-r< /:71 0''/-//4 aaauOu3 AID loealuoa A loadoN paego! I aoloaaia s)poM oilgnd wualui zaullaeW ezlueW aaeOu3 aoluag suow!S lug aa6eueW o!Ignd SVIMOd 131NVa aaauOu3 Ainpoloaa!a s)poM oljgnd NOS13N NOS13N _Imago slim oggnd gouaad qog aa6eueW wpm e6egaa-sgq!0 •W 4lagez!13 lsAleuy svoM °Kind 1aen1S AIIoH SONINdS 10H 1213S3a VN02103 aaaul6u3 AID AOH NVH1VNOf V113H3V03 aaauOu3 �113 V1132103 NHOf aaa p6u3 eouelspsy pool louls!a ON113A NV3S aaau6u3 Al!3 NO1NHOH113VH31W uogelaodsueal to imago VNVOVW NI121VW s)laoM °rind jo aoloaa!a 3NOZZIa1V8 OaNVW2iV aaau6u3 Al!3poloana s>laoM o!lgnd 213HNVf 213WV slaoM ogind Jo aoloaa!a 6ugoy V13A INV A1131V21a3H1V3 3NVINOANV3 SNV2111V3 VS3W11V3 OVA3 3H1A18 1NOWf1V38 ONINNVS 11VW3 PUB 321f11VNJIS 3INVN 1NRId 31VN21311H 21381N3W °Vl A3N3Jd NI NOIS 3S113ld 91.0Z `1Z aaqu AoN 331111AIWOO AtIOSIACIV 1VOINH331 41 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 21, 2016 PLEASE SIGN IN AGENCY TAC MEMBER ALTERNATE PRINT NAME SIGNATURE EASTVALE HEMET INDIAN WELLS INDIO IJOE INDRAWAN STEVE LATINO City Engineer KEN SEUMALO - VICE CHAIR Public Works Director TIM WASSIL Public Works Director JURUPA VALLEY ROY STEPHENSON Public Works Director/City Engineer LA QUINTA TIMOTHY JONASSON Public Works Director/City Engineer LAKE ELSINORE MENIFEE BRAD FAGRELL City Engineer JONATHAN SMITH Public Works Director/City Engineer MORENO VALLEY AHMAD ANSARI Public Works Director/City Engineer MURRIETA NORCO BOB MOEHLING City Engineer CHAD BLAIS Public Works Director Craig Bradshaw Bondie Baker Assistant Engineer II Tom Rafferty Principal Civil Engineer Edward Wimmer Principal Engineer Jason Simpson Assistant City Manager Steve Glynn Eric Lewis Transportation Division Manager/City Traffic Engineer Jeff Hitch Public Works Construction Manager Bill Thompson Water and Sewer Utilities (-47;.oc.) KGtiI s'L trAAALo Wee4 bpo, i.ebsrS ��y iawy a-tr(VttfAfi 'i *449-W- aa6euen 6upueld llsue��l wiled 'W ellub' aoloana s)uoM ougnd - - VI0NYO W01 iaauOu3 ��l!O HOV110W 818b'H b'1110314131 3NnNf1S Oimovf NYS uogepodsueil;o aoloaala luelslssy eweleg payefoW OWON b'IORIl`dd AiNfl0O SOISN3AIN Je6eueW 6upaauOu3 ipewweyon piysae3 aaaui6u3 ��l!O sou3 II!9 lsileloadg 6upwei6oad pue 6upueld pisupeM ugsu>{ elea Z3NI LNYLN SINN s)uoM ollgnd to Joloaala 0118W`dS NNVIN 11ddf ami NVH0N iaauOu3 ��l!O NIVH0 " HOV110W 818VH Je6eueW l en� llsueil'. I13ONd100 30N030 '11 SOISN3AIN 39VNIIN OHONVN d121 SINN3d d1Md Jeaui6u3 Al!Ope6eueN AIIO luelsissy noydwey>{ leneS N3TIN Sf1Oavvi SONRIdS INl`dd Jeeul6u3 uoppodsueal sloieu NJeW ioeui6u3 ��l!O N3110 08 IN3S3a IN1Vd IIVW3 pue 321111VNJIS 31APdN 1NRId 31HNN311H 21381N3W ��dl A3N3JH NI NUS 3SV3id 91.0Z `I.Z aagLUOAON 33111WWO9 ANOSIACW 1VOINH031 h� o ')0A4per i4-d'% i 1�kxns •)--1 t') ,A109 ()t,Asa .-) puua8 flew Ja6eueh weJ6oid 6uezl sptio JeauOu3 AijoislioM o!IQnd �o Joloaliapa6eueh we}sissy )1210A Mda mywoc lIM uogepodsml imago 0210 213HdOlS12IH3 00021M 11111U pue 321111VNJIS 3WdN 1NRId 3IVNN311H 2l38W3W A3N3JH NI NOIS 3Sbt3-Id 91.0Z `1.Z aagaleAON 331111NWOO AtIOSIACIV 1V3INH931 c( z --o� j-+,►t� 1" °5"I-9h,^v4n- 174,a rd-o-toroir>1 a 5v),00r ` 9% 14,(..„77 tA:1 iat4nG -?ra- NI NOIS 3Sd3ld 91.OZ `I,Z aagaleAON 33111WW09 J121OSlnav 7VOINH331 10/2-rztviw NO-7 f s 140-(1,,9\, T i't" MINUTES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Monday, September 19 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Technical Advisory ' Committee (TAC) was called to order by Vice Chair Ken Seumalo at 10:01 a.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA. 2. SELF -INTRODUCTIONS Members Present: Others Present: Amer Attar, City of Temecula John Corella, City of Cathedral City Marcus Fuller, city of Palm Springs Tom Garcia, City of Temecula Christopher Gray, WRCOG Joe Indrawan, City of Eastvale Amer Jakher, City of Beaumont Tim Jonasson, City of La Quinta Steve Latino, City of Hemet Eric Lewis, City of Moreno Valley Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta Nelson Nelson, City of Corona Anita Petke, SunLine Transit Agency Patricia Romo, County of Riverside Mark Sambito, City of Rancho Mirage Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells Jonathan Smith, City of Menifee Michael Thornton, City of Calimesa Tim Wassil, City of Indio Sean Yeung, Caltrans Grace Alvarez, RCTC John Ballas Craig Bradshaw, City of Eastvale Mark Diercks, City of Palm Desert Ati Eskandari, City of Lake Elsinore Rebecca Forbes, Caltrans Shirley Gooding, RCTC Chenxia Li, RTA Anthony Liao, Caltrans LoreIle Moe -Luna, RCTC Thuy Nguyen, City of Riverside Roy Null, County of Riverside Mojahed Salama, County of Riverside Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 19, 2016 Page 2 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The May 16 2016 minutes were approved as submitted. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 5. CALTRANS LOCAL ASSISTANCE OVERVIEW Anthony Liao, Caltrans, presented a District 8 Local Assistance Overview of its role, funding, business framework, roles and responsibilities. He then responded to various questions. Sean Yeung, Caltrans, provided information regarding the Resident Engineers Academy that provides core training in state and federal regulations for local agency resident engineers. He reported that follow up documents for inactive projects are due by September 19. The next Southern California Local Assistance Management (SCLAM) meeting will be held in San Diego on September 28 at District 11. Mr. Yeung provided a Local Assistance staff assignment sheet and indicated that re Jenny Chan's permanent assignment is ATP Coordination and Ron Akers' permanent assignments are PE-10, DBE, and HSIP Coordination. Shirley Medina, RCTC, said RCTC staff regularly attends Federal Aid series meetings. She recommended that those who complete RFAs should attend the meetings. 6. UPDATE ON THE FINAL FFY 2015/16 AND FFY 2016/17 OBLIGATION PLAN LoreIle Moe -Luna, RCTC, stated it is the Commission's goal every year to 100 percent of its federal obligation meaning E76 approval is given. In FFY 2014/15, about 75 percent of the $43.2 million allocated to our region was obligated. For FFY 2015/16, about 35 percent of the $59.5 million has been obligated. Remaining OA may be loaned to other counties per AB 1012. As we enter into this FFY 2016/17, the federal aid process should be started to ensure the timely obligation of federal funds. A disadvantage to not making the OA goal is the region loses out on August redistribution of funds from federal highways. The August redistribution for FFY 2015/16 to California was $293.1 million. Riverside County did not receive any of those funds. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 19, 2016 Page 3 7. STATUS OF FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS Shirley Medina provided a Multi -Funding Call for Projects list indicating STP and CMAQ funded projects that was approved by the Commission January 2014. There are still STP projects that need their obligation. She indicated there are delays in the environmental phase. Then, Ms. Medina explained how the carryover of obligation authority funding can result in lapsing of funds if the carryover balance is not obligated after three years. RCTC had over $8 million of OA that was three -years old in FFY 2015/16 that was subject to lapsing but was saved due to a rather large obligation by the city of Temecula. 8. SCAG UPDATES ON THE 2016 RTP/SCS, 2015 FTIP AND 2017 FTIP 2016 RTP/SCS Grace Alvarez, RCTC, reported that the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016-2040 long-range planning document) was approved by the FHWA and the FTA on June 1, 2016. She summarized the background information in her September 19, 2016 staff report. RCTC is moving forward with the submission of the 2016 RTP/SCS Amendment No. 1. The anticipated federal approval is June 2017. 2015 FTIP Update The 2015 FTIP is set to expire mid -December 2016 when the 2017 FTIP is anticipated to be approved by the federal reviewing agencies. 2017 FTIP Update The 2017 FTIP process started July 20, 2015. On September 1, the SCAG Regional Council adopted it and authorized staff to proceed to secure the federal agencies approval, which is anticipated by December 16, 2016. There are 266 active projects on the state highway, local highway, and transit capital and operations with a combined value of $5.7 billion for the six -year period of programming (2017-2022). 9. FEDERAL EARMARK REPURPOSING UPDATE Ms. Medina pointed out the list of projects that staff submitted to Caltrans and Caltrans forwarded to FHWA to repurpose the funds. 10. FY 2017/18 CALTRANS SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANT OPPORTUNITY Ms. Alvarez introduced Rebecca Forbes, Grant Manager, Caltrans, who referred to the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program Application Guide that was included in the Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 19, 2016 Page 4 agenda. She stated that for all 12 Caltrans districts, there is $9.3 million available, including MPOs and RTPAs. She reviewed: • application preparation • grant application checklist • scope of work • project timeline • deadline to get application to SCAG (October 7) • deadline to get application to Regional Planning (November 4) Ms. Forbes then responded to various questions. 11. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (ATP) CYCLE 3 UPDATE AND SCAG'S SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING GRANTS ACTIVE TRANSPOTATION CALL FOR PROJECTS Ms. Moe -Luna reported there were 26 applications received in Riverside County by the June 15, 2016 deadline totaling $66.1 million in ATP funds. The available funding for Cycle 3 was approximately $240 million. She referred to the background information that was included in her staff report. 456 applications were submitted throughout the state totaling $977.6 million in ATP funds. The California Transportation Commission is expected to announce statewide recommended awards by October 28, 2016 for approval by the CTC at the December 7-8, 2016 meeting. She further reported that as part of the 40 percent of ATP funds allocated to MPOs, SCAG will receive approximately $51 million of which $2.5 million will be combined with SCAG's Sustainability Planning Grant (SPG) Program. SCAG anticipates a total of approximately $9 million will be available with additional local, state, and federal funding sources. 12. SEPTEMBER COMMISSION MEETING HIGHLIGHTS Shirley Medina reported that the following items were approved at the September Commission meeting: Action was taken on the following projects: • Cajalco Road Widening Programming Request - $3 million • Scott Road at 1-215 Interchange Programming Request - $8 million • Temecula French Valley Parkway IC Phase 1 savings moved to Phase II • Lake Elsinore's 1-15 Railroad Canyon Road Interchange Programming of $350,000 to complete PA&ED She announced the Commission's 40t" Anniversary Open House on September 29, 3:00-7:00 and invited the TAC members to attend. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting September 19, 2016 Page 5 13. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business presented. 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Technical Advisory Committee, the meeting adjourned at approximately 11:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Medina Planning and Programming Director AGENDA ITEM 6 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 6. AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 21, 2016 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Martha Durbin, Management Analyst Grace Alvarez, Planning and Programming Manager Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director SUBJECT: Obligation Delivery Plan Update — FFY 2016/17 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), RCTC is responsible for ensuring that federal funds for Riverside County are allocated and obligated. Federal Obligation Authority (OA) for the region is provided on an annual basis and has to be used in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) it is provided. The Commission's goal is to ensure that 100 percent of its OA is obligated. RCTC has been working closely with local agencies and Caltrans to ensure projects on the Obligation Delivery Plan are obligated and delivered. Many of these projects are from the 2013 Multi -Funding Call for Projects, 2013 RSTP Call for Projects, CVAG's 2014 CMAQ Call for Projects, and various other projects that had been awarded RSTP or CMAQ funds by the Commission. The attached obligation plan is an outline of the projects that have RSTP or CMAQ programmed in FFY 2016/17. The information provided in the attached obligation plan comes from milestone updates received from your agencies, discussions with project sponsors, and our monthly meetings with local assistance. As we continue into FFY 2016/17, it is recommended you begin your federal -aid process as soon as possible, and/or devote the resources needed to secure the federal approvals for obligation, ensuring the timely obligation of the federal funds. It is critical that local agencies awarded federal funds meet the milestones established to ensure local OA does not lapse. RCTC will be reviewing agreement dates and contacting agencies that have made little to no progress to discuss alternatives for the federal award. RCTC staff is available to assist cities with the processing of the RFA submittals and the overall navigation through the federal -aid process. Attachment: FFY 2016/17 Obligation Plan WORKING FFY 2016/2017 OBLIGATION PLAN As of 11/17/2016 Caltrans Staff/ Caltrans PM Agency System FTIP ID FPN Project Location CMAQ STP-L Fundin g Phase Project Approvals RFA Subm. To CT D8 (Projected) RFA Milestone Current Project Status FTIP Funding Year ROTC Comments PA&ED PA&ED Date Milestone Date RAN R/�ll Date Milestone Date On System Projects Chigo Dike Calimesa State RIV060116 CML 5460(008) I-10/Cherry Valley IC 443,000 PA&ED 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 7/3/2017 Planning FY 16/17 Calimesa is working on PSR-PDS with Caltrans, Chigo Dike Temecula State RIV130401 STPL 5459(024) Winchester Rd. Pavement Rehab 646,000 Con Cleared 9/3/2015 5/30/2016 Cleared 1/30/2016 6/30/2016 6/23/2016 7/3/2016 Con FY 16/17 RFA for FFY 2015/16 rejected due to the need for encroachment permit on the State Hwy. Enc permit with comments addressed submitted on 11/7/16. Albert Vergel de Dios Beaumont State RIV050535 DEM10 5209(008) SR60/Potrero Blvd. Interchange Ph. I 8,929,000 Con Cleared 5/15/2017 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 7/3/2017 PS&E FY 16/17 (pending approval or project schedule by Caltrans) Beaumont working with Caltrans on updating environmental and design approvals. Beaumont to AAA project. Anticipated Ready to List in Fa112017. Evita Premdas Caltrans State RIV071267 STPLN- 6208(025) 115 from SR 60 and Cajalco Rd 10,476,201 DB 6/30/2017 7/31/2017 7/30/2017 DB underway FFY's 2016/17 thru FFY 2019/20 RFA for DB Enhanced Oversight and Inspections submitted on 11/15/2016. Evita Premdas Caltrans State RIV071267 STPLN-6054-15 from SR 60 and Cajalco Rd 55,000,000 43,418,952 DB 6/30/2017 7/31/2017 7/30/2017 DB underway FFY's 2016/17 thru FFY 2019/20 RFA for DB submitted on 11/15/2016. Local Highways Chigo Dike Banning Local RIV130401 STPL 5214(011) Ramsey St. Pavement Rehab 182,000 Con 5/30/2017 6/30/2017 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 PA&ED FY 16/17 Albert Vergel de Dios Beaumont Local RIV130401 STPL 5214(011) 8th Street Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation 220,000 Con 5/30/2017 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 Planning FY 16/17 Caltrans Environmental working with the city to determine if an archeological survey is needed. Chigo Dike Calimesa Local RIV130401 STPL 5460(009) Calimesa and Avenue L Pavement Rehab 54,000 Con 5/30/2017 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 Planning FY 16/17 Calimesa proceeding to start obligation of federal funds. Albert Vergel de Dios Coachella Local RIV151217 STPL 5294(014) Ave 48 from Jackson to Van Buren 2,278,000 Con 5/15/2017 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 7/3/2017 PA&ED FY 16/17 Coachella, Caltrans Local Assistance and Environmental working on resolving environmental issues with studies. Albert Vergel de Dios Coachella Local RIV140816 CML 5294(010) Install 8.2 Mi. of Class II bike lanes on various city arterials 460,000 Con Cleared 4/7/2016 5/30/2017 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 7/3/2017 PA&ED FY 16/17 Project currently in design. Chigo Dike Corona Local RIV130401 STPL 5104 (045) Ontario Ave Pavement Rehab 832,000 Con Cleared 5/31/2016 5/30/2016 6/30/2016 7/3/2016 8/19/16 submittal Con FY 16/17 RFA submitted 9/8/2016. E-76 pending availability of new FFY 2016/17 funds. Chigo Dike Hemet Local RIV130401 STPL 5186(015) Gilbert St. Pavement Rehab 443,000 Con Cleared 6/2/2016 5/30/2016 6/30/2016 7/3/2016 7/3/2016 Con FY 16/17 10/5 - RFA package for construction submitted. ROW certification pending approval. Albert Vergel de Dios Indian Wells Local RIV130402 STPL 5401(003) Cook Street Rubberized Overlay 135,000 Con Cleared 12/7/2015 5/30/2016 Cleared 6/30/2016 10/1/2016 7/3/2017 Con FY 16/17 10/5 - currently in design with expected RFA in late fall 2016. Albert Vergel de Dios Indio Local RIV140819 CML- 5275(030) Four (4) residential roads in Indio 1,132,000 Con Cleared 7/12/2016 5/30/2017 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 7/3/2017 Design FY 16/17 10/5 - 90%design Albert Vergel de Dios Indio Local RIV151001 STPLN 5275 027 ( ) HWY 111 Widening 4,680,000 Con 5/30/2017 6/30/2017 12/31/2016 7/3/2017 PA&ED FY 16/17 Per Aaron Burton agency needs to resubmit revised NSR to CT for review. Once approved PA/ED can be met. Chigo Dike Moreno Valley Local RIV151202 CML 5441(065) Various Locations Signal Synchronization (TCM) 1,542,000 Con 5/30/2016 6/30/2016 1/1/2017 12/30/2016 PA&ED FY 16/17 10/5 - CT/City mtg on 9/20/16; still need to resolve tribal consensus. Page 1 of 2 WORKING FFY 2016/2017 OBLIGATION PLAN As of 11/17/2016 Caltrans Staff/ Caltrans PM Agency System FTIP ID FPN Project Location CMAQ STP-L Funding phase Project Approvals RFA Subm. To CT D8 (Projected) RFA Milestone Current Project Status FTIP Funding Year RCTC Comments PA&ED PA&ED Date Milestone Date RNV RAN Date Milestone Date Chigo Dike Vaolley o Local RIV151203 CML 5441(063) Cactus, Alessandro and Day (Dynamic Message Signs) 341,000 Con 5/30/2016 6/30/2016 1/1/2017 12/30/2016 PA&ED FY 16/17 10/5 - HPSR can be done by CT Env; ISA needs to be separated for 063 and 065; record search rec'd. Unknown Norco Local RIV130401 Pavement Overlay Various Locations 178,000 Con 5/30/2017 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 Planning FY 16/17 City trying to find an agency that will buy the federal funds. Albert Vergel de Dios Palm Springs Local RIV140818 CML 5282(044) Various Locations (Bike lanes) 402,000 Con Cleared 7/23/2015 5/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2016 7/3/2016 PS&E FY 16/17 11/7/2016 Revalidation approved to include the new bike lane locations. Albert Vergel de Dios Rancho Mirage Local RIV140814 CML 5412(017) Bob Hope Dr and Dinah Shore Dr 46,000 R/W 5/30/2017 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 7/3/2017 PA&ED FY 16/17 10/6/2015, PA&ED and PS&E Underway. Expect to start R/W in August 2016 FY 16/17 Albert Vergel de Dios Rancho Mirage Local RIV140815 CML 5412(016) Ramon Rd and Dinah Shore Dr 31,000 R/W 5/30/2017 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 7/3/2017 PA&ED FY 16/17 As of 10/6/2015, PA&ED and PS&E Underway. Expect to start R/W in Dec 2016 FY 16/17 Chigo Dike Riverside Local RIV151216 STPL 5058(102) Magnolia Ave from Buchanan to Banbury (Widening 4 -6 Ins) 2,620,000 Con 6/16/2016 12/302016 6/30/2017 7/3/2017 7/3/2017 PA&ED FY 16/17 10/5 - CT/City mtg on 9/27/16; cultural studies underway, approved bio, noise, traffic study, ISA needed Evita Premdas Riverside County Local RIV090903 STPL 5956(195) Cajalco Rd Widening 6,000,000 PA&ED 10/15/2016 12/30/2016 PA&ED FY 16/17 10/5 - RFA supplemental submitted Post programming for engineering anticipated in Oct 2016 Evita Premdas Riverside County (formely Jurupa Valley) Local RIV130401 STPL 5956(255) Van Buren Blvd. Pavement Rehab 387,000 Con Cleared 6/30/2016 6/30/2016 $42,634 9/21/2016 9/23/2015 9/23/2016 RFA for Con FY 16/17 9/27 - RFA submitted. Chigo Dike San Jacinto Local RIV130401 STPLN 5075(018) San Jacinto Ave Pavement Rehab 289,735 Con Cleared 5/27/2016 5/30/2016 $42,590 6/30/2016 9/26/2016 9/26/2016 Con FY 16/17 9/26/16 - RFA for cons submitted Chigo Dike Wildomar Local RIV151213 CML 5484(007) Grand Ave Bike Lanes (TCM) 614,000 Con 5/30/2016 6/30/2016 9/30/2016 12/30/2016 PA&ED FY 16/17 10/5 - Cultural studies/consultation underway Chigo Dike Wildomar Local RIV151214 CML 5484(008) Grand Ave Bike Lanes (TCM) 747,000 Con 5/30/2016 6/30/2016 9/30/2016 12/30/2016 PA&ED FY 16/17 10/5 - Cultural studies underway. $60,758,000 $81,768,888 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 21, 2016 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: LoreIle Moe -Luna, Senior Management Analyst, Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Draft 2016 Grade Separation Companion Study for the 2012 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive and incorporate comments on the Draft 2016 Grade Separation Companion Study; and 2. Forward to the Commission for final approval. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the last decade, approximately $500 million in local, state, and federal funding has been invested in constructing 14 railroad grade separations and closing two at -grade crossings to improve the movement of goods through Riverside County and reduce conflict points between rail and highway traffic on the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe main lines. These projects were implemented in part by funding strategies that RCTC developed in 2006 and 2008 that served as a blueprint for constructing many of these at -grade crossings. Most recently, at the May 2016 TAC meeting, staff recommended that the TAC form a small working group of Public Works Directors (or designees) with grade separations located in their jurisdictions to develop a 2016 Grade Separation Companion Study. The basis for the study is the 2012 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County), which prioritized the remaining 46 at -grade crossings by grouping priority categories ranging from tier 1 through 5, where 1 represented the highest priority level and 5 the lowest. Criteria that were taken into account include: accident rates, existing and future vehicle delay, vehicle emissions from idling, horn noise impacts on residential areas, adjacency to existing grade separations, local priority, project readiness, and isolated location. The purpose of the study is to address the following key questions: • Which crossings are grade separations still feasible and desirable to build within the next ten years? • Which locations are grade separations not feasible? • Which locations are grade separations desirable in the longer term future (more than 10 years)? • Which locations could be potential candidates for quiet zone implementation? Since the commencement of the analysis, staff and the consultant team have worked with the working group to gather information on the existing at -grade crossings. A summary of the findings and recommendations concludes the following: • Technical Feasibility: Of the remaining 46 at -grade crossings, four (4) locations have been deemed infeasible, four (4) locations require further study, and 38 are considered physically feasible. • Closure: Three (3) locations (California Avenue in Beaumont, Avenue 54 in Coachella, and Rutile Street in Jurupa Valley) are possible candidates for full closure, depending on the outcome of other circulation improvements in the vicinity. • Priority: The following 11 grade crossings are considered high priority for the next ten years: o County of Riverside — Avenue 66 o City of Corona — McKinley Street o City of Beaumont — Pennsylvania Avenue o City of Banning — San Gorgonio Avenue and Hargrave Street o City of Jurupa Valley — Bellegrave Avenue and Jurupa Road o City of Riverside — Jackson Street, Mary Street, Third Street, and Spruce Street • Quiet Zones: Technical analyses included in the report justify the establishment of quiet zones in the respective jurisdictions that have identified a need. • RCTC should explore funding opportunities through the National Highway Freight Program, which includes discretionary grants such as FASTLANE, and work with regional and local partners to pursue those funds. • Local jurisdictions should collaborate with RCTC and pursue funding for their higher - priority projects through sources available to them, including the TUMF and CPUC programs. • Local jurisdictions should continue to pursue the implementation of quiet zones where the need has been identified and the technical analysis included in this report supports the establishment of the quiet zones. Attachment: Draft 2016 Companion Study for: Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County), 2012 2016 Companion Study for: Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County), 2012 2016 Companion Study for: , Grade Separation Priority �. Update Study for Alameda I I Corridor East (Riverside County), 2012 Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street 34 Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 November 14, 2016 November 14, 2016 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Feasibility and Priority Updates 5 2.1 Methodology 5 2.2 Information Updates 5 3 Quiet Zone Analysis 10 3.1 QZ Methodology 10 3.2 QZ Analysis Overview 14 3.3 QZ Findings 14 4 Study Findings and Recommendations 18 4.1 Findings 18 4.1.1 Corridor Summary 18 4.1.2 County of Riverside 19 4.1.3 City of Banning 20 4.1.4 City of Beaumont 20 4.1.5 City of Calimesa 20 4.1.6 City of Coachella 20 4.1.7 City of Corona 20 4.1.8 City of Jurupa Valley 20 4.1.9 City of Palm Springs 20 4.1.10 City of Riverside 20 4.2 Recommendations and Next Steps 21 November 14, 2016 I a List of Tables Table 1.1: 2012 Grade Crossing Priority List 1 Table 2.1: Grade Crossing Questionnaire 7 Table 3.1: List of At -Grade Crossings Considered for Quiet Zone Analysis 12 Table 3.2: Summary of Quiet Zone Analysis 16 List of Figures Figure 1.1: Locations of -the 46 At -Grade Crossings 4 Figure 3.1: Locations and Land Use around 46 At -Grade Crossings Considered for Quiet Zone Analysis 11 Figure 3.2: Status and Corridors for Quiet Zones Analysis 13 Figure 3.3: FRA Guidance on Creating a QZ 17 List of Appendices Appendix A: City of Riverside Council Action, 05.05.15 A-1 Appendix B: Quiet Zone Analysis Background B-1 Appendix C: Quiet Zone Analysis and Calculations C-1 November 14, 2016 I b 1 Introduction In the Years 2000 and 2006, in response to the rapid increase in train traffic carrying goods coming through the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) conducted its first railroad grade separation priority studies. Those studies evaluated the 62 at -grade crossings along the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and BNSF Railway (BNSF) main lines in Riverside County, and prioritized 20 crossings as top candidates for grade separation. In 2006 and again in 2008, RCTC developed a funding strategy to serve as a blueprint for constructing grade separations for many of these at -grade crossings. Since 2006 approximately $500 million in local, state and federal funding has been invested in constructing 14 railroad grade separations and closing two at -grade crossings to facilitate goods movement through Riverside County and reduce conflict points between rail and highway traffic on the UP and BNSF main lines. In March 2012, RCTC adopted a Grade Separation Priority Update Study' (2012 Study) for the remaining 46 at - grade crossings located on the UP and BNSF main lines in Riverside County (see Table 1.1). The funding sources used to construct the 14 grade separations have now been expended. Of the remaining 46 crossings, funding commitments have been secured to grade separate one location (Avenue 66) and partial funding has been secured for one other (McKinley Street). The 2012 Study prioritized the 46 at -grade crossings using the same criteria as the 2000 and 2006 studies (accident rates, existing and future vehicle delay, vehicle emissions from idling, horn noise impacts on residential areas, adjacency to existing grade separations, and local priority), as well as two additional criteria; project readiness and isolated location. The 46 at -grade crossings were grouped in priority categories of 1 through 5, where 1 represented the highest priority level and 5 the lowest (presented in Table 1.1). Table 1.1: 2012 Grade Crossing Priority List Priority Ranking 1: 9 Locations 2:9 Locations Jurisdiction Riverside Corona Riverside Banning Riverside Corona Riverside Riverside Riverside Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley Rail Line BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) UP (LA SUB) 12012Grade Separation Priority Update Sludy For Alameda Corridor East, InfraConsult, March 2012 Cross Street Spruce Street McKinley Street Chicago Avenue Hargrave Street 3rd Street Joy Street Madison Street Adams Street Tyler Street Bellegrave Avenue Jurupa Road November 14, 2016 i 1 Table 1.1: 2012 Grade Crossing Priority List Priority Ranking Jurisdiction 11/ Banning Beaumont Banning Riverside County Riverside County Riverside I, Beaumont Corona i. Jurupa Valley i 5: 9 Locations Riverside Riverside 1 Corona 1. Beaumont Riverside County Riverside Riverside Riverside County Corona rRiverside • Riverside County !:Riverside Corona 1[Calimesa Riverside Coachella Riverside [Riverside Riverside Palm Springs Riverside Riverside Corona Rail Line UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) Center Street 4 Washington Street 7th Street Apache Trail —11111 Cota Street Broadway . _ - Jefferson Street Railroad Street Cross Street 22nd Street Viele Avenue San Gorgonio Avenue Avenue 62 ',,Avenue 66 Pierce Street California Avenue Sheridan Street Rutile Street M ary Street "Jackson Street Smith Avenue Pennsylvania Avenue 11111.1111 Buchanan Street UP (YUMA MAIN) 1111111San Timoteo Canyon Road BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 11Palmyrita Av (UP) UP (YUMA MAIN) 41111Vvenue 54 UP (LA SUB) Brockton Avenue BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge Street UP (LA SUB) Panorama Road UP (YUMA MAIN) Tipton Road BNSF (SB SUB) Harrison Street UP (LA SUB) Palm Avenue BNSF (SB SUB) Radio Road Novernoer 14 2016 2 Table 1.1: 2012 Grade Crossing Priority List Priority Ranking Jurisdiction Riverside County Riverside County Riverside Rail Line Cross Street BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Main Street UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 58 BNSF (SB SUB) Gibson Street Source: 2012 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East, InfraConsult, March 2012 Grade separations provide multiple benefits to the community, elimination of potential train -vehicle conflict at crossings, reduction of delay and emissions because vehicles no longer wait for trains at rail crossings, and elimination of noise impacts caused by train horns which must be sounded when the train approaches an at -grade crossing. The purpose of this Companion Study to the 2012 prioritization is to obtain updated information regarding the feasibility and desirability of improving each of the remaining 46 at -grade crossings. The study analysis provides information to address the following key questions: • For which locations is a grade separation feasible to construct, and for which is it not feasible? • For which locations are grade separations desirable in the near term (within the next 10 years)? • For which locations are grade separations desirable in the longer -term future (more than 10 years)? • Should any of the existing at -grade crossings be closed? Additionally, this study is also examining which locations could be candidates for quiet zone implementation in the near future. In recent years many communities around the country, including the City of Riverside, have been taking steps to reduce the noise impact of train horns on nearby residential communities by establishing "Quiet Zones" in accordance with procedures established by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Quiet Zones are not a substitute for grade separation because they are specifically intended to reduce train horn noise. To help the cities investigate the possibility of Quiet Zones this study also provides information about the feasibility of establishing Quiet Zones along the UP and BNSF main lines. Figure 1.1 presents the area covered for this study and identifies the location of each at -grade crossing. Chapter 2 presents updated information on grade separation feasibility, as well as local agency priorities for grade separation timing, closures, and Quiet Zones. Chapter 3 presents technical evaluation of Quiet Zone feasibility. Chapter 4 presents the study's findings and recommendations. November 14, 2016 13 .LOZ 'tL iar,.uawN HoH:3o1nos Fk+06 i r f� ":J LiDdip AYN'C:'J<I'd _ '•' MY1f.1. :�C7�• • • .•� YINYAI.lSNN3d Y,NLIOinvO- - 3113, • NGxNYG G?_GVu• ...403f1N3tiY f r t ee so .,. 4 es=_rIN3A, a . sun iSNE1 ...,.• .undo • - gala,eaas apw�j lo} papuni Rpepita uogrirdas ap•1papuni RIIni s6u{ssao open3 • 4N3J31 Vit••>y rr�w, ••.r ti.YH7lN• • � tl3�A1 NOSItierl- f_f NOSNOyC.N NCS919 SLNYQr .• _ NOSd3i331:f•, 7..'. Noswvve,f' 0,07d •. Nv016iH.S ti , OVGd,IVG 4 W Ve1GN.'d • ---n ?oQ,•3 • 3_f !2,',J• - v, d, 3n'eavTina - , • au:na• • r • s8uissa0apeJ0-1y917ay}-}osuopeooi:eJn6ij 2 Feasibility and Priority Updates 2.1 Methodology Updated information about the 46 remaining at -grade crossings was obtained in consultation with the staff of the local jurisdictions. At the onset of the project, a questionnaire was distributed to the cities that have at -grade crossings in their jurisdiction. Based on the questionnaire, updated information about the feasibility and desirability of improvements was obtained through a series of meetings between RCTC staff, the consultant team, and local agency staff. These meetings included staff from the cities of Corona, Jurupa Valley, Riverside, Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Coachella, Palm Springs, and the County of Riverside. The discussions explored issues related to improving each crossing, including whether: Grade separations are technically feasible, or still viable; • Recent events or circumstances have changed the project priority for the local agency; • Desired grade separations are near -term or long-term projects; • Any at -grade crossings should be completely closed; • Quiet Zones (QZ) with safety features are desired by the local jurisdiction for some areas. (This chapter presents the desires for QZ expressed by agency staff, and Chapter 3 presents a technical analysis of which areas qualify for QZ based on FRA criteria.) 2.2 Information Updates Key summary points from the local agencies' information updates are as follows: • Funding: Only two of 46 locations have any substantial funding for a grade separation identified — Avenue 66 is fully funded at approximately $39.08 millionz, and the City of Corona has obtained about $7.3 million3 (8% of the total cost of $91.3 million4) from various sources for a grade separation at McKinley. No funding has been identified for any of the other desired grade separations, and the prospects for obtaining needed funds are uncertain at best given the current status of potential funding sources. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) provides funding for grade separation projects, but this funding is highly competitive and is typically limited to about $15 million, distributed among three or four projects each fiscal year)5. A percentage of the 2015 federal transportation bill — the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act — is designated for goods movement projects such as grade separations, but it is not known how successfully Riverside County will be able to compete for these funds. Another potential source of funding is the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) which generates funds that are eligible for spending on grade separations for roadways on the TUMF network, but these funds are based on development activity, making it an uncertain funding source. 2 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program: Project List 3 Based on input from City of Corona's response to questionnaire 4 RCTC Metrolink and Amtrak Grade Separations Project, Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Funding Application, April 2016 5 Railroad Crossing Funding Programs, Section 190 Grade Separation Program (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=2891) November 14, 2016 15 " Priority: Local agency priority has changed for a few locations based on local circumstances and direction from elected officials. On May 05, 2015, the Riverside City Council adopted a policy establishing grade separation projects at Jackson Street, Madison Street, Spruce Street and 3rd Street as the City's current priority locations. (Full content of this council action is presented in Appendix A.). In the questionnaire for this study, the City indicated that the grade separation project at Madison Street has been replaced by Mary Street in the priority list In the 2012 study the crossings at Spruce Street, 3rd Street, and Madison Street were included in Priority Group #1, while the crossings at Mary Street and Jackson Street were included in Priority Group #3. " Technical Feasibility: Only four (Cota Street, Sheridan Street, Joy Street and Radio Road in Corona) of the 46 locations have been determined to be technically infeasible for constructing a grade separation. The County of Riverside indicated that grade separation feasibility at four locations within their jurisdiction (Apache Trail, Broadway, Avenue 58 and Avenue 62) is not certain at this time because feasibility studies have not been conducted; these will be assumed to be feasible for purposes of this analysis. " Desired Timing: Of the 42 locations that are feasible, 11 are desired in the near -term future (next ten years). This includes the fully -funded grade separation at Avenue 66, the partially -funded McKinley Street crossing, and nine with no identified funding  one in Beaumont (Pennsylvania Avenue), two in Banning (San Gorgonio Avenue and Hargrave Street), two in Jurupa Valley (Bellegrave Avenue and Jurupa Road), and four in the City of Riverside (Jackson Street, Mary Street, 3rd Street and Spruce Street). These 11 locations were either in Group 1 (McKinley Street, Hargrave Street, Spruce Street and 3rd Street), Group 2 (Avenue 66, San Gorgonio Avenue, Jurupa Road, Bellegrave Avenue), or Group 3 (Pennsylvania Street, Jackson Street and Mary Street) in the 2012 Study. " Closure: Three locations (California Avenue in Beaumont, Avenue 54 in Coachella, and Rutile Street in Jurupa Valley) are possible candidates for full closure, depending on the outcome of other circulation improvements in the vicinity. " Quiet Zones: Most of the at -grade crossings in the cities of Riverside and Corona are considered by the local agency as candidates for QZ, along with locations in Banning and the County of Riverside. This study's technical analysis of QZ feasibility in Chapter 3 applies technical criteria from the FRA's guidelines to evaluate which locations qualify for QZ application. The updated information about funding, priority, feasibility, timing, QZ and closure potential is provided in Table 2.1. November 14, 2016 16 Table 2.1: Grade Crossing Questionnaire Calimesa Beaumont Beaumor Beaumont Banning Banning Banning Riverside County Riverside Cou r' Palm Springs Coachella Riverside Counry Piverside County Riverside County Jurupa Valley Jurupa valley Jurupa Valley UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) P (YUMA MAIN) _UP (YUMA MAIN) P (YUMA MAIN) i UP (YUMA MAIN) Crod9:liS L aLion SanTimole° Canyon Road Veile Avenue California Avenue Pennsylvania Avenue 22nd Street San Gorgonio Avenue 2d1 t Palmy soup. a UP(YUMA MAIN) Hargrave Stre 1 UP(YUMA MAIN) Apache Trai' BMW UP ;YUMA MAW), Broadway. _ i iJP y'49RIA MI 1P IYUti1F :1/41At42; i H 0L0.11L' 1A:41 OF riLMA..1.14W} Tpt'APOW r:rlr.N2 {a Ateetue �5 Am nee t 5 a Funding Situation or Agency Priority Changed? Yes I No Nu r erdr-s r{c P-brl}. 'ieS M do 14n /2o `Ja He No Grade Separation Technically ! Physically Feasible? Yes 1 No I Not Available (NA) YEe re4 .Ye# Yrs ves Yes 0.1.5 #L� Grade Separation desired to be buik by 2026 (in the nerd 10 years) Nn kin He rag fio foi ilk MB NA .tinge • UF(illAtAWIl+, Avenueit: _ Y55. r_-9 UP (LA SUB) UP (LA SUB) UP (LA SUB) 8ellegrave Avenue Ruble Street Jurupa Road 2 Ne Possibility of Grade Separation built by 2036 (in the nerd 10.20 years) Candidate for Quiet Zone'? Yes !No Candidate for Full Closure? Yes I No Yos Pie tlo S 94- h�a IIo No 4ti Yes 7x tilx. I,o Yc YeS Na }'sa No -2) Notes fromOne•on•One Meetings Grade separation is essential for development access if new SR- 601Portrero Boulevard interchange not built Closure needs to be evaluated in conjunction with Vette crossing and SR-60!Portrero Boulevard interchange Beaumonfs top priority for grade separation Although possible, this project is constrained by she existing I- 101San Gorgonio Avenue undercrossing. Ys Yeh sO '95 Yes Nu •Ap _ .i145:- ...- .*. trts NO )10 Long term possibility of development in area x'e6 Ns !:`ois,bty City miahtconsiderpermanent closure . 141 NO NO Yes li4 Ng Na No No Y� •,,1'cs W No Y34 No Possibly Project fully funded and approved by California Transportaton Commission Date lorconsrueion yeaera5nala2i'ment Jurupa Valley priority#2; Preliminary design concepts previously compleledby County of Riverside Transportation & Land Management Agency (TLMA) Jurupa Valley priority #3, During current Jurupa Valley General Plan (GP) Update, staff .vll evaluate possible deleton of this GP roadway connection to Van Buren Boulevard This s to be resolved on adoption of GP Update Early 2017 Jurupa Valley priority #1; Previously committed funds transferred to No Clay Street Grade Separation Project Preliminary design compleed by TLMA November 14, 2015 1 Table 2.1: Grade Crossing Questionnaire Jurisdiction Rail Line Riverside UP(LASUB) Riverside UP(LA SUB) Riverside UP(LA SUB) Corona BNSF (SB SUB) Corona BNSF (SB SUB) Corona BNSF (SB SUB) Crossing Location 2012 Priority Group' Funding Situation or Agency Priority Changed? Yes lNo Palm Avenue 11 S No Brockton Avert o Panorama Road= No Smith Avenue Railroad Street Cola Street Corona BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan Street Corona BNSF (SB SUB) Corona BNSF (SB SUB) Joy Steel Radio Road Corona BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley Street Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Piverside BNSF (SB SUB) Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Buchanan Street, Pierce Street Tyler Street Harrison Street Gibson Street Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Jackson Street" P.iverside BNSF (SB SUB) Adams Street Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Jefferson Street Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Madison Street Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Riverside BNSF (SB SUB) Riverside BNSF 8 UP (RN) Grade Separation Technically / Physically Feasible? Yes / No / Not Available (NA) Yes .Yes ilikNA Yes gm Yes NA wit Yes 11111EY. es IMMY AimYes MYes i Yes - - - - - — o Yes Grade Separation desired to be built by 2026 (in the nerd 10 years) Possibility of Grade Separation built by 2036 (in the nerd 10.20 years) Candidate for Quiet Zone? Yes/No Most improvements recently constructed for AaiDiet Zone 0 �•No 7.3 M. allocated from various sources L6 No No No No No Y Funding: No Priority: Yes No No No NA Yes es o Yes momm(o 7•EtYes Na' tiNe e11 111FYes Yes Yes lE Yes M to HER Mr.. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA es Funding: No Prionty Yes Nc EllNA Washington StretAIM No NO NA Mary Street•' ANIELA .1111L No Yer Yes Cndge $ 4 1 Yes 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YES Yes Yes Candidate for Full Closure? Yes I No Notes from One•on•One Meetings No Active QZ project -in design No Active OZ project -in design No Active QZ project -in design No Corona priority#2- ideal candidate for Quiet Zone No Corona priority #3-ideal candidate for Quiet Zone No Corona priority #4-ideal candidate for Quiet Zone No Corona priority #1-ideal candidate for OuietZone No Corona priority#6- ideal candidate forQuiet Zone No Corona priority#S - ideal candidate forQwetZone Corona priority #1 Establish QZ .3rd quarter 2016 Establish QZ - 3rd quarter 2016 No Establish OZ • 3rd quarter 2016 No Establish QZ - 3rd quarter 2016 No Establish OZ-3rd quarter 2016 No Establish OZ- 3rd quarter 2016 No Establish QZ - 3rd quar+,Er 2016 No Establish OZ- 3rd auarnr2016 No Establish OZ-3rd quarter 2016 No Establish QZ - 3rd quarter 2016 No Establish QZ - 3rd quarter 2016 No Active QZ project- in design November 14, 2016 8 Table 2.1: Grade Crossing Questionnaire Jurisdiction Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside Riverside County Riverside County Rail Line BNSF 8 UP (SB SUB) BNSF 8 UP (SB SUB) BNSF 8 UP (SB SUB) BNSF 8 UP (SB SUB) BNSF 8 UP (SB SUB) BNSF 8 UP (SB SUB) BNSF 8 UP (SB SUB; Crossing Location 7ih Street 3rd Street' Spruce Street - Chicago Avenue Palm yrita Av (UP) re'g' M am Scree Funding Situation or Agency Priority Changed? Yes / No 2.012 Priority Group' Source: HDR '2012 Study priority ranking 1 (highest priority) — 5 (lowest priority) "Jackson Street, Mary Street, Spruce Street, and 3'a Street are the City of Riverside's current top prioritie, i No Grade Separation Technically / Physically Feasible? Yes f No / Not Available (NA) Yeti. Yet. res. Y Grade Possibility of Separation Grade desired to be Separation built built by 2026 (in by 2036 (in the the next 10 nerd 10.20 years) years) Ro Candidate Candidate for Quiet for Full Zone? Closure? Yes / No Yes / No Notes from One•on•One Meetings OK Yes No QZ Planned fir City FY 20202021 '/es No QZ Planned for City FY 20202021 Yes No QZ Planned for Ciry FY 20202021 Yes No Potential QZ (next5 to 10 Years) Yes No Potential OZ (next 5 to 10 Years) 'Yes No Yes No November 16, 2016 19 3 Quiet Zane Analysis Grade separations are capital intensive projects, and since funding for grade separations is scarce, QZs can be implemented as a means of reducing train horn noise impacts and enhancing safety at grade crossings near residential areas. QZs are not a substitute for grade separation because they are specifically intended to reduce the sounding of train horns while grade separations also eliminate vehicle -train conflict points as well as delay and idling of waiting vehicles. To help the cities investigate the possibility of QZ implementation, this chapter provides information about the feasibility of establishing QZ corridors along the UP and BNSF main lines. 3.1 QZ Methodology A QZ is a section of a rail line (at least one-half mile in length) that has one or more consecutive public highway -rail at - grade crossings where locomotive horns are not routinely sounded. A QZ is typically implemented to reduce the train - related noise in residential areas. The FRA has established guidelines and criteria for implementing quiet zones, which consider such factors as crossing location, adjacent land uses, train and vehicular traffic, and accident history data. Adjacent land uses were reviewed as the first screening criterion for determining which of the 46 at -grade crossings could be potential candidates for QZ implementation. The consultant team used GIS analysis to identify the land uses within a 1,200-foot radius of each crossing. Figure 3.1 provides a map showing the location of each grade crossing, along with the surrounding land uses. If there were no residential land uses within the buffer area, then that particular crossing was eliminated from further consideration. The following crossings were eliminated because there are no residential land uses within the 1,200-foot buffer: • Three locations the City of Corona on the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision: o Radio Road, Railroad Street, and Smith Avenue • One location in the City of Palm Springs on the Yuma Subdivision: o Tipton Road The second screening step identified locations that are already included in QZ projects and therefore do not need to be evaluated for QZ feasibility. This includes crossings that are included in QZ projects that have been implemented or are currently in development, as well as locations that already contain wayside horns, which is another method used to reduce the noise impact of trains. The following 11 locations are part of QZ being implemented by the City of Riverside (all locations are on the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision): • Buchanan Street • Gibson Street • Madison Street • Pierce Street • Jackson Street • Washington Street • Tyler Street • Adams Street • Mary Street • Harrison Street • Jefferson Street The following locations are either in the design stage and/or contain wayside horns: • In the City of Riverside, Brockton Avenue, Palm Avenue, and Panorama Road on the UP Los Angeles Subdivision contain wayside horns and are also currently in the QZ design phase; • In the City of Riverside, Cridge Street on the BNSF & UP Riverside Subdivision is currently in the QZ design phase November 14, 2016 110 14 I S. 0:: t Aewe,01,1 ?JOH .ealnoS r•Oldir, N•• N u:...t••2••••• • uowneaEi - , ti • 4 7.r?" - -; 31J3A =Min , "OPEN mrpazirs. • • NOANV") 0310AI1 NVS •Pi; rJA s,„ 7,DDelAl ASNS.•••, oun do - — /elate towonusupo lopun JP luauty, SegNirt Pue u•ellePP4suwi 1.11uneee upeauced pue =eels uado ue9e1Peelei ; reP1SePul Pee 1.1.,;aue..3 peen al leUlsnPul puwatuuno ME .Ine.P5V mins 0 sPuissorJ epeze • alloa-1 r 3r.N.SA, • ! anNanv v.; Tf, 'sr:AV — 4 *45. 141;-• - • ••• • . — O.. pss.ler,!:1 • t✓UOJ00 0 I (ue,f .„ A3111 I 'A OPI, . ... • • ":.?- ......:. ,,...t.f.-',.Jir•2.< NYNWHOrItl. ,..,....Y.: • A''';' ' ".2••., ...., ... . ,,,,•:!! ' 33L131.....1,,,,_,:/..., , ..., , , • •- Zi3l.ki., ..." v 1 "N05188u.H....-,.,.....) • •105,1"Or•P(.7•7.,:l.';' 1r:rid' „kijypp,..._-/N01%W.Pote. NJOtCP•ol?0--(,-";•' T.:-.. Ir. '..! - a:r i - 1;11.. Nosaadar .,,j,_ ..".%. • „....,.... ..."1 . . ...' .- " ..•'1.. .. ' NO.44;.,6tia•- I •• 04)i ,.f.) •11141:3111VP!..C' spAleuy auoZ le!a0.101 PaieNsuoo s6u!sswo ape.19-1V 917 punwe asn purl pue suopepoi For the QZ analysis, the remaining 27 at -grade crossings were grouped into 11 potential QZ corridors based on jurisdiction and railroad company ownership, and are presented in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: List of At -Grade Crossings Considered for Quiet Zone Analysis Jurisdiction Riverside County Riverside County Riverside County Beaumont 101" It& rCalimesa 1111111rUP (YUMA MAIN) Coachella UP(YUMA MAIN) Rail Line UP (YUMA MAIN) UP (YUMA MAIN) QZ Corridor Thermai QZ Cabazon QZ BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Highgrove QZ Corona 1i ;Jurupa Valley Riverside Source: HDR UP (YUMA MAIN) FF UP (YUMA MAIN) BNSF (SB SUB) BNSF (SB SUB) UP (LA SUB) BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Banning QZ BeaumontQZ Calimesa QZ Coachella QZ rona 1 OZ Corona 2 QZ ljurupa Valley QZ Riverside Eastside QZ Figure 3.2 shows how the at -grade crossings were grouped for the QZ analysis. Cross Street Location Avenue 58 Avenue 62 Avenue 66 (4In Street) Apache Trail Broadway Street Center Street Main Street 22nd Street ' San Gorgonio Avenue Hargrave Street Veile Avenue California Avenue Pennsylvania Avenue San Tim oteo Canyon Road Avenue 54 Cota Street Sheridan Street Joy Street McKinley Street Bellegrave Avenue Jurupa Road Rutile Street` Mission Inn (7r^ Street) 3rd Street Spruce Street Chicago Avenue Palm yrita Avenue November 14, 2016 1 12 OOH :ODLOOS A LU-Ove• .tV,4 U°4,4V 145/E*111/' Y4E10e0k rINLL \ 44191V4 NO) \I..D 0:4101,01 t41111.7. a ... a P. ±t, F 79 7:r!,1:4.,/,,v awl aSNS •• • eon cal AlF.1 vArg maw tour prwl Wouagisa.• oN amid urooci ssr ZO onrs.onld P AIJ.zrovotr ZO earM*2*Pdrrdor8 ZO 4oriaA *drum Lwrora ZO i aurmo . '20 L ,ord,o3 zp eaawar wow. ZO d*adal*0 - zo immune 70 Miura* www ZO i.<410H is IMM.Lawara ON2071 W. Fr 4'4' 139lik "44 ;WV ..e5 444,4444.- . F . A -44 rNa 3 -77 L • 'LI •••'- ale.: • 4:94 \ ,C.E4 ^4)1r444F,E49f SE41'7`4. NO4 . 19,1144'..9,0 HiaNN. NOISSIII 412/C 3onds. ' 4.43,1NDE - 3,110 VOIL1314S )401114, Or.7. . V1-0 S• gir OdOdli..A ..N.1 Arm spAieuv seuoz legioJoi sloppg)3 pue smels :z•E an6Id 3.2 QZ Analysis Overview This QZ evaluation addresses four mainline freight rail lines in Riverside County, owned by private freight operators BNSF and UP: • UP (Yuma Subdivision) • BNSF and UP (San Bernardino Subdivision) • BNSF (San Bernardino Subdivision) • UP (Los Angeles Subdivision) These rail lines accommodate freight service in addition to passenger service (Metrolink commuter rail service and limited Amtrak long-distance service). In 2005, the FRA adopted the Final Rule on the use of train horns at public at -grade crossings. The rule states that all trains must sound their horns at all public crossings; however, the rule also includes provisions for communities to establish QZs wherein locomotive horns are not sounded. QZs are established based on either Public Authority Designation or Public Authority Application to FRA. Details on background, overview, approval process and the methods of establishing a QZ are presented in Appendix B-1. The determination of the feasibility of a proposed QZ relies on two basic parameters: Risk Index and Safety Measures. Risk Indices measure predicted cost to society of casualties that are expected to result from collisions at an individual railroad at -grade crossing. These indices are measured as the following: • Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT) • Risk Index With Horns (RIWH) • Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) Safety Measures are improvements that are installed at QZs to maximize safety benefits and minimize risks, in the absence of train horns. The FRA Rule categorizes Safety Measures as being either: • Supplemental Safety Measures (SSM), or • Alternative Safety Measures (ASM) Details of Risk Index and Safety Measures are discussed in Appendix B-2. 3.3 QZ Findings The analysis was based on FRA's established online Quiet Zone Calculator for evaluating the feasibility of implementing a QZ. Inputs into the online FRA QZ calculator determine the risk at a particular crossing or within a corridor containing several crossings, and indicate whether or not a QZ is feasible. Details of data needs for this calculator are presented in Appendix C-1. In addition, since cities are responsible for all costs for implementation of safety measures in order to implement a QZ, a rough order -of -magnitude of cost was developed for each analyzed location; the cost estimates are also presented in Appendix C-1. Based on the results from the FRA Quiet Zone Calculator, there are 11 potential QZ corridors in the study area, which incorporate 27 at -grade crossings. Table 3.2 presents a summary of the 11 potential QZ corridors, including: (1) identification of the crossings that are included in each QZ corridor, (2) the safety measures that would be most appropriate or feasible at each crossing, (3) the estimated cost of the safety measures, (4) total estimated cost of implementing all safety measures in the corridor, (5) the risk analysis results for each QZ corridor when equipped with November 14, 2016 114 safety measures, and (6) whether or not the QZ qualifies for implementation considering the risk analysis. Copies of the FRA calculator worksheets for each location are included in Appendix C-2. A QZ qualifies for implementation if one of the following conditions is met • The QZRI is less than or equal to the NSRT (with or without SSMs or ASMs) • The QZRI is less than or equal to the RIWH (with SSMs or ASMs) • SSMs will be installed at every crossing A next step for local jurisdictions that are interested in implementing QZs is to work with the CPUC and the railroad company that owns the track to initiate the QZ establishment process. Both FRA and SCRRA have guidelines and procedures for QZ implementation. Figure 3.3 is a flowchart from the FRA that outiines the QZ creation process. The SCRRA's QZ Implementation Guidelines provide information that is applicable to some of the aforementioned QZs. The following items are excerpted from both FRA and SCRRA documents and highlight some of the critical steps necessary to implement a QZ: • Fund the project. • City pays railroad stakeholder engineering costs up -front • Conduct a diagnostic team meeting with all stakeholders. • Engineering design. • Obtain CPUC approval and submit CPUC GO 88-B applications. • City executes a Consfruction and Maintenance Agreement, at which time the City pays the full cost of the project. • Submit a Notice of Intent to Create a Quiet Zone to the affected parties. Parties will have 60 days to comment • Construct crossing improvements. • City obtains Railroad Liability Insurance (if deemed necessary). • City updates the FRA Crossings Inventory. • City provides Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment to affected parties in accordance with FRA Rule Section 222.43. • City installs required signage at each crossing in accordance with FRA Rule Sections 222.25, 222.27, and 222.35. November 14, 2016 115 Table 3.2: Summary of Quiet Zone Analysis Jund�.: on aiming Bealnrum Cato -ore ,comae Canna Corona Source IDR Potential QZ Corridor Banning OZ Beaumont OZ Callmsn CZ Conoeto OZ Corona 102 Corona 2 OZ. 2 Steel Sen Gorgon» Steel Hsi%eve Steel Made Avenue CaM's. Avenue PannsyNenlo Avenue San Tarobo Canyon Rood Avenue 54 y .§;.. Cob Steel .�� 51,440.000 Estimated Cost for each SSM S1.440.000 13 e480.000 12 316.000 13 w $1.S40.000 6 Si 440 000 12 315,000 13 $480 000 Standen Steele S1,4a0.o0o Joy Stec' • S0 N Keley Steal Meng 31.4400K 6w:berme Avenue ;t,e40.000 PrJk 9es,+,s —ai8i� - 51,440.000 trrzi Mai Ps/reran Avenue &linage Avenue Spruce Steel 3e Steel Mirann Innfln Steet Avenue 58 Avenue 62 Avenue 66 Aoaghe Trod Seoadvray Main Site! Caner Steel 13 13 jay icing) 13 (es ging) 13 12 12 13 ,000 614140,000 Estimated Total Cost w 111 3480 00C $1440000 S150CQ 515 o00 St 4400w 1I $4130.000 13 S480.000 6 SI 443000 N4h'aexdgb 6.3nir;tant4Well Threshold fqtri ; Y If•nnl `Lo I1x IrINi!I n QuietZone Risk Index Cnotified based onOZRI,NSRT, and RPM Conditions? (QZRI) SI.9359i t4rJ,tq 85.201.02 16.87576 $2 880000 14.34700 23.939 Sa 8.912 55 Yes 14,347.00 i ,13027 10,479.32 SSMa installed at every crossing Opbms 2or3 02NI 5 R10-1. and OZRI5 NSRT i I ts.= Possible Designation Options (refer to Table 2, in Appendix 13-11 Yes. SSMs instilled at every crossing and QZRIS RIMA1 Ya:. SSMs nsealed at every crossing OZRI 5 RPM. and OM 5 NSRT Yes. 14.347.00 'it6,331.19 3 984.25 SSMs nsnkd at every crosstng °mans 2 or 3 OZRI5 RIM. and 'URI5 NSW' ll7tta3P • ,132.93 I522.98 Yet SSMs Installed at every cussing .and OZN15 RIM- onion 2 OPS n 2 Citron 2 109,001S' 1+FL1.1 yeASS/As o.mled el every ansano and OZRIS RINai Option 11 SSMa misled at every coring and OZRI5 RhNi Onion 2 -A it irliS1,920 DM 29.72451 9121147 M' Ikea. SSMs installed al every cosang and OZRIS RIN41 Oo1on 2 27.938.75 Yet SSMs nstaled at every oossng and QZRI5 RIN41 Options. 2 or 3 Yes. 10.599.12 SSW, milted el everycrossing, OZRI5 RIMS and CZR15 NSRT Yes. 51,920000 � tA,347 _ 70.885.97 11.087.09 SSW n:s lad at everyoossng. OZPI 5 RPM, and QZRI 5 NSRT Colons 2 or 3 Onkna 2 or 3 November 14, 2016 16 Figure 3.3: FRA Guidance on Creating a QZ mom 1 �elhe "lx" Zxurgs with pubic. Industrial, or minerciai access/ Included? i Nationall(Update nventory to reflect 1 existing conditions v within months rior to notiricatiortl K QM' x Ft 8-0 muse trlire3 FRA approval Source: FRA QZ must be et ' ‘stall gates and r ,Least 1/2 mile 1.—M tights at elf public 14" crossings .Conduct diagnostic teem review of pvt Alga . Copy; diagnostic teams recommendations, ()Zs established on this pests subject to annual 'renew rRritify Parries« sllenoa:`� horns: find Wail sipn9�l, }- - at al otossirtge j Disclaimer. This summary of the ilteNg Seidl* Is foriniormatlaret purpottet only. Entities subject to the Interim final rule itield n lsie id the rifle text as published in the Federal Register on t)eoamber 18, 2006.191t11t1d.arty portliest of this summary conflict v+ith the interim final rube. the langtaile aseJManin final rule, she/govern, yes # <-4:driakatlorreifir nan'es, sKInverasey horns, and Install agnate • at all crossings yes ate Nattered) rneMoly �5;: 8A9nC0 .horns andk13181I3iQnag-)n Pt0.0.0tV<! ", (Qis established Oh this; basis supject to annual ' review November 14, 2016 17 4 Study Findings and Recommendations This study has provided information to address the following questions: • For which locations is a grade separation feasible to construct, and for which is it not feasible? • For which locations are grade separations desirable in the near term (within the next 10 years)? • For which locations are grade separations desirable in the longer -term future (more than 10 years)? • Should any of the existing at -grade crossings be closed? • Which locations could be candidates for quiet zone implementation in the near -term? The following section summarizes the study findings in regard to these questions, with a summary of the findings for the overall corridor followed by findings by jurisdiction. Recommended actions for RCTC and the local jurisdictions are presented in Section 4.2. 4.1 Findings 4.1.1 Corridor Summary Grade Separations Feasibility and Timing At most of the remaining 46 at -grade crossings it is physically feasible to construct a grade separation — four locations have been deemed infeasible and four others require more study. The local agencies have identified 11 grade separations that are desired within the next ten years, and another 14 grade separations within the following ten years. Though the needs for grade separation continue, the means to build them are not currently available. Full funding has been identified for one location, and partial funding has been assembled for another; otherwise no funds have been identified for any of the other desired grade separations The existing funding sources that offer specific application to grade separations may have limited potential. The CPUC provides funding for grade separation projects, but the funding is highly competitive and a grade separation can receive no more than $5 million from this source in a single year (up to $15 million distributed among three to four projects each fiscal year). The 2015 FAST Act established the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) program to provide financial assistance through competitive grants, known as FASTLANE grants, for goods movement projects including grade separations. The program is authorized to provide up to $4.5 billion for fiscal years 2016 to 2020, to nationally and regionally significant freight and highway projects6. Given that this amount is about $1 billion spread nationally for each fiscal year, it is uncertain whether Riverside County grade separation projects will be able to successfully compete for this funding. Currently, RCTC is working with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to prioritize critical urban freight corridors, which includes grade separations. Grade separations that have been identified thus far for these corridors in Riverside County include McKinley Road, Jurupa Road, and Third Street Projects such as these may also be submitted for future funding opportunities such as the next round of U.S. Department of Transportation Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) program grant application, due in December 2016. Funds generated by the Western Riverside County TUMF are eligible for spending on grade 6 FASTLANE Grants: https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/FASTLANEgrants November 14, 2016 118 separations for roadways on the TUMF network, but TUMF funding is uncertain because it depends on the amount of ongoing development activity. Other existing programs/funding sources that RCTC and the local agencies may be able to tap into are: • USDOT TIGER Discretionary Grants • USDOT FASTLANE Discretionary Grants • Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) • Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)' • Proposition 1B Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) Program • CPUC Highway -Rail Crossing Section 130 Program • CPUC Grade Separation Section 190 Program • Measure A Local Streets and Roads funding Potential Closures Full closure of low -volume at -grade crossings can reduce the potential for conflicts and thereby improve safety. Potential permanent closure of a grade crossing has been identified in three cities where nearby grade separations are available. Each city needs to evaluate the long-term adequacy of the local circulation system without the grade crossing before pursuing the closure. Quiet Zone Feasibility FRA train horn rules provide for communities to establish Quiet Zones wherein locomotive horns are not sounded when a train crosses a public at -grade crossing. QZs are implemented to eliminate horn noise where at -grade crossings are located near residential areas. The analysis used the FRA calculator to evaluate 11 potential QZs comprising a total of 27 at -grade crossings, and found that all 11 would be feasible QZs if implemented with Supplemental Safety Measures. 4.1.2 County of Riverside There are seven at -grade crossings in the County's jurisdiction — two in the Pass Area, three in the Coachella Valley, and two in Northwest Riverside County. Of these, one location (Avenue 66) is fully funded for a grade separation, and the other six have been identified for potential grade separation in the 10-20 year timeframe. The three areas comprising the seven crossings would qualify for Quiet Zones with implementation of Supplemental Safety Measures. 7 The unsuccessful FY 16 RCTC TIRCP grant application illustrated that standalone grade separation projects will likely not be competitive for TIRCP funds without accompanying track capacity and/or service increases, but some grade separation projects could possibly be funded in conjunction with a larger project (eg. Coachella Valley passenger rail) S Bond proceeds are fully committed; continuation of TCIF program is contingent upon enactment of new funding source, as envisioned by SBX 1 (Beall — pending). SBX 1 (Beall) proposes a 30 cent increase in the diesel excise tax and would deposit the attributable revenues (approx. $750 million/year) into the TCIF created by Proposition 1B (2006). The bill would require revenues apportioned to the state from the NHFP established by the FAST Act to be allocated for trade corridor improvement projects approved pursuant to these provisions. The original TCIF program funded many grade separations. The bill would also expand eligible projects to include rail landside access improvements, landside freight access improvements to airports, and certain capital and operational improvements. November 14, 2016 119 4.1,3 City of Banning There are three at -grade crossings in the City of Banning. Grade separations for two locations are desired in the next ten years and within 20 years for the third. This area would quality for a Quiet Zone with implementation of Supplemental Safety Measures. 4.1.4 City of Beaumont There are three at -grade crossings in the City of Beaumont. Grade separation of one location is desired in the 0-10 year timeframe and for a second location in the 10-20 year timeframe. The third crossing may be permanently closed if nearby planned circulation improvements are implemented. This area would quality for a Quiet Zone with implementation of Supplemental Safety Measures. 4.1.5 City of Calimesa There is one at -grade crossing in the City of Calimesa in San Timoteo Canyon. This location could be a candidate for grade separation in the 10-20 year timeframe depending on the area's development and traffic growth at the crossing. This location would quality for a Quiet Zone with implementation of Supplemental Safety Measures. 4.1.6 City of Coachella There is one remaining at -grade crossing in the City of Coachella. This location is a possible candidate for permanent closure if the nearby circulation system is adequate to serve planned development This location would quality for a Quiet Zone with implementation of Supplemental Safety Measures. 4.1.7 City of Corona There are seven remaining at -grade crossings in the City of Corona. Grade separation is desired for one of these in the 0-10 year timeframe (McKinley Street) and partial funding has been secured. Two locations are expected to need grade separation in the 10-20 year timeframe, and it would not be feasible to construct grade separations at the other four. The two areas identified as potential Quiet Zones would qualify with implementation of Supplemental Safety Measures. 4.1.8 City of Jurupa Valley There are three at -grade crossings in the City of Jurupa Valley. Grade separations are desired at two of these locations in the 0-10 year timeframe. The third location may be a candidate for permanent closure if the nearby circulation system is adequate to serve planned development This area would quality for a Quiet Zone with implementation of Supplemental Safety Measures. 4.1.9 City of Palm Springs There is one at -grade crossing in the City of Palm Springs. That location may be a candidate for grade separation in the 10-20 year timeframe if development occurs in the area and traffic volumes at the crossing increase. 4.1.10 City of Riverside There are 20 at -grade crossings in the City of Riverside — three on the UP Los Angeles Sub and 17 on the BNSF San Bernardino Sub. Four locations are desired for grade separation in the 0-10 year timeframe. For the other 16 locations November 14, 2016 120 the City is pursuing Quiet Zones. There is an active Quiet Zone project in design for the three crossings (Palm Avenue, Brockton Avenue, Panorama Avenue) on the UP line. A Quiet Zone is being established in 2016 that covers 11 crossings on the BNSF line (Buchanan Street, Pierce Street, Tyler Street, Harrison Street, Gibson Street, Jackson Street, Adams Street, Jefferson Street, Madison Street, Washington Street, and Mary Street) ; a Quiet Zone is planned for fiscal year 2020/21 for three crossings on the BNSF line (7th Street, 3rd Street, and Spruce Street); and a potential Quiet Zone has been identified for implementation in the next 5-10 years that covers the remaining two crossings on the BNSF line (Chicago Avenue, Palmyrita Avenue). The area comprising the five planned/potential crossings would qualify for a Quiet Zone with implementation of Supplemental Safety Measures. 4.2 Recommendations and Next Steps The local jurisdictions have identified 11 grade crossings as desirable for grade separation in the next ten years. These locations were all in the top three priority groups in the 2012 study — four were in priority ranking #1, four were in priority ranking #2, and the remaining three were in priority ranking #3 — so the current local priorities are generally consistent with the technical prioritization analysis of 2012. Therefore the recommended actions by RCTC and the local jurisdictions (see below) are focused on identifying and pursuing sources of funding for these 11 locations, which include: • One in the County of Riverside O Avenue 66 (fully funded) — priority ranking #2 in 2012 Study • One in the City of Corona O McKinley Street (partially funded) — priority ranking #1 in 2012 Study • One in the City of Beaumont O Pennsylvania Avenue — priority ranking #3 in 2012 Study • Two in the City of Banning O San Gorgonio Avenue — priority ranking #2 in 2012 Study O Hargrave Street — priority ranking #1 in 2012 Study • Two in the City of Jurupa Valley O Bellegrave Avenue — priority ranking #2 in 2012 Study O Jurupa Road — priority ranking #2 in 2012 Study • Four in the City of Riverside O Jackson Street — priority ranking #3 in 2012 Study O Mary Street — priority ranking #3 in 2012 Study O 3rd Street — priority ranking #1 in 2012 Study O Spruce Street — priority ranking #1 in 2012 Study The study's recommendations are as follows: • RCTC should explore the funding potential and process for obtaining grade separation funding through the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) and other applicable federal and state funding sources, and work November 14, 2016 121 with regional and local partners to pursue those funds if the potential return appears promising and the opportunity is realistic. • The local jurisdictions should collaborate with RCTC and pursue funding for their higher -priority grade separations through sources available to them, including the TUMF and the CPUC programs. • The local jurisdictions that have identified needs for Quiet Zones should continue to pursue their implementation. The technical analysis included in this report justifies the establishment of QZ where the need has been identified by the local jurisdiction. November 14, 2016 122 Appendix A: City of Riverside Council Action, 05.05.15 November 14, 2016 1 A-1 I� CITY OP RIVERSIDE Cite ?fArts & Innovation City Council Memorandum II III II I IIII II11II IIII III III III IIII II I III III III III IIII11,111III1III1I IIII III IIII11III III Il1a IIIIIII II IIIII IIIII IIII III III I II IIII II IIII IIII II III1III11II II IIII IIIII IIII IIII IIIII III I II I IIII IIIII IIII III Itl1II IIII III III III III III IIII III III1II IIII II11III III II1III III IIII IIIII IIII IIII II1II1III III III III IIIIII TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: MAY 5, 2015 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WARDS: ALL SUBJECT: PRIORITIZATION OF GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND FUTURE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES ISSUE: The issue for City Council consideration is to prioritize additional railroad grade separations for conceptual design and future funding opportunities. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Madison Street/Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Third Street/BNSF, Spruce Street/BNSF and Jackson Street/BNSF rail crossings for conceptual grade separation design and future funding opportunities. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 17, 2015: On March 17, 2015, the City Council received a report on the prioritization of grade separation projects. Following discussion, the City Council continued discussion of the Madison Street/BNSF, Third Street/BNSF, Spruce Street/BNSF and Jackson Street/BNSF rail crossings for up to 30 days and requested staff return with data on all locations including pedestrian, bicycle, and commercial traffic counts within 30 days. The results of the vehicle classification, pedestrian, and bicycle counts are summarized in Attachment 4. Per the 24-hour vehicle classification counts (Attachment 4), 38 large school and passenger buses cross the tracks at Madison Street daily. This figure does not include any small school buses which are classified under the two -axle six -tire vehicle count in the 24-hour vehicle classification counts survey. This explains the discrepancy with the number of school buses (115) supplied by Riverside Unified School District (Table 3). Staff have confirmed with RUSD that 20 large school and approximately 100 small school buses cross the tracks daily. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: On June 12, 2014, the Transportation Committee (Committee), with Chair Adams, Vice Chair Mac Arthur and Member Melendrez present, received a report on the prioritization of grade separation projects and unanimously recommended that the City Council prioritize the Madison Street/BNSF, Third Street/BNSF, Spruce Street/BNSF, and Jackson Street/BNSF rail crossings for conceptual grade separation design and future funding opportunities including providing alternative options for Madison Street and noting the importance of gathering input from all Grade Separation Update and Prioritization • Page 2 Councilmembers. BACKGROUND: Mitigating the impacts of the numerous at -grade rail crossings in the City has been a long-standing priority of the City Council. However, the high cost and limited funding available to grade separate at -grade highway -rail crossings poses a significant financial challenge. Beginning in the early 2000's, several State and Federal Legislators encouraged the City Council to work with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to prioritize future grade separation locations and complete as much design work as possible to get specific projects ready to bid. Consequently, on August 9, 2005, the City Council prioritized the six at -grade rail crossings listed in Table 1. Table 1 —2005 Grade Se•aration Priorit Rankin• 1. Columbia Avenue/BNSF 2. Magnolia Avenue/Union Pacific Railroad Co. (UP) 3. Third Street/BNSF 4. One grade separation between Arlington Avenue and Monroe Street with Madison Street as the preferred location and Mary and Adams Streets as the second and third alternate locations 5. Iowa Avenue/BNSF 6. Tyler Street/BNSF During this period, RCTC developed a Grade Separation Funding Strategy and Countywide project priority list which was adopted in 2006. Proposition 1 B was also approved by State voters in 2006 ultimately resulting in $152.7 million being allocated to grade separate 12 rail crossings in Riverside County. On July 24, 2007, the City Council directed the Public Works Department to eliminate the Arlington Avenue to Monroe Street study and approved Mary Street as the location of a grade separation in this corridor. The City Council also added Streeter Avenue/UP and Riverside Avenue/UP as priority crossings and directed the Public Works Department to begin preliminary design for each location. Work on the Mary Street grade separation was stalled due to a lack of funding and the project was removed from the priority ranking in October 2009. The Tyler Street grade separation was also removed from the priority ranking in 2009 after extensive studies determined that improvements to the Tyler Street/State Route 91 Interchange would more effectively reduce congestion. On April 10, 2008, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) approved $80.5 million under the Proposition 1 B Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) Program for six railroad grade separation projects in the City: 1) Columbia Avenue, 2) Iowa Avenue, 3) Third Street, 4) Riverside Avenue, 5) Streeter Avenue, and 6) Magnolia Avenue. All of the TCIF projects with the exception of Third Street are either complete or under construction. The City Council approved delaying the Third Street grade separation in February 2011. The project was subsequently removed from the TCIF program since the project was significantly underfunded and could not meet the TCIF deadline for start of construction. Although funding for additional grade separations is now very limited, it remains a top legislative priority for the City and RCTC. On January 30, 2014, RCTC conducted a workshop which included a presentation entitled "Goods Movement — What's Next". RCTC's presentation Grade Separation Update and Prioritization • Page 3 included a summary of their 2014 Legislative Platform for Goods Movement. The key points included: ensuring TCIF projects are delivered; supporting priority grade separations by seeking other funding opportunities such as State (Section 190) Grade Separation or High Speed Rail funds and issuing future calls for projects as funding becomes available; supporting a comprehensive approach including highway improvements in key areas, quiet zones and other safety improvements, and use of cleaner fuels; advocate for Federal support of freight projects; and protecting Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds by ensuring grade separations remain eligible. The City's strategy of prioritizing grade separation projects and completing early design has proven effective in securing State and Federal funds. To ensure local resources are directed to the highest priority projects and that the City continues to be in a strategic position to receive Federal and State funding as it becomes available, the Public Works Department is recommending the City Council adopt a second generation of priority rail grade separation projects. Recommended Priority Projects The Public Works Department began evaluating rail crossings using the RCTC Countywide ranking. RCTC completed their first technical ranking of all the mainline crossings in the County in 2006. The crossings were scored on: safety, existing and future daily vehicle delay, 2035 emissions, residential noise, adjacent grade separations, and local priority. The ranking was updated by RCTC in 2012 with added criteria for being an isolated location and project readiness. The crossings were then placed in five priority groups. The 2012 RCTC Countywide ranking is attached (Attachment 1). A listing of the remaining mainline at -grade rail crossings in the City along with average daily traffic volumes and accident statics is shown in Attachment 2. Based on a review of past City Council actions, RCTC ranking, freeway interchange locations, and local traffic patterns the Public Works Department is recommending the four crossings in Table 2 be prioritized for funding and conceptual engineering. Table 2 — Recommended 2014 Grade Separation Priorities* Madison Street/BNSF Third Street/BNSF Spruce Street/BNSF Jackson Street/BNSF *Locations are listed in no particular order. These crossings are: 1) strategically located on key arterials either adjacent to freeway interchanges or on arterials which provide cross freeway connectivity; and 2) fill in the gaps between existing grade separations (Attachment 3). The crossings, with the exception of Jackson Street/BNSF, are also identified as Priority Group 1 Crossings in RCTC's March 2012 Grade Separation Priority. The Jackson Street/BNSF crossing is identified as a Priority Group 3 crossing in the March 2012 study. Alternative Options for Madison Street Alternative locations for a grade separation in the vicinity include Mary Street and Washington Street to the east and Adams Street and Jefferson Street to the west. Table 3 compares the alternative locations to Madison Street in terms of traffic volumes, vehicle hours of delay, school bus crossings, accidents, freeway connectivity, regional priority, and cost. Of the five locations, Adams Street ranks the highest but would be extremely expensive in terms Grade Separation Update and Prioritization . Page 4 of right-of-way acquisition and will have a long-term negative impact on one of the City's most significant business centers and revenue generators. Consequently, Adams Street is not considered buildable due to the impacts to surrounding development and costs. The next highest ranking location is Madison Street which scores very well in all categories and can be constructed at a cost similar to other grade separation projects in the City. Mary Street ranks third but serves even less traffic and does not provide direct freeway access. Both Washington Street and Jefferson Street carry substantially less traffic and experience lower levels of vehicle delay and have limited accident history. Based on these factors, it is recommended that Madison Street be approved for further design development and be submitted for future funding opportunities. In addition, due to the direct freeway access provided by Madison Street and it being sufficiently close to the Lincoln Police Station, Utilities Operations Building, and the City's Corporation Yard Madison Street provides access to and from these facilities should a major event occur on the railroad. Table 3 — Alternative Options for Madison Street Location N 0 N a) CO N O U 73 a) as E 2 W Adams Street 16,020 22.9 76 3/1 1 Yes 100.0 Madison Street 14,700 19.8 115 1/1 1 Yes 35.0 Mary Street 11,600 14.1 103 1/1 3 No 35.0 Washington Street 9,010 10.2 112 0/1 3 No 30.0 Jefferson Street 7,500 8.9 109 0/1 4 No 30.0 (1) (2) Vehicle hours of delay per day takes queue length into consideration and quantifies the number of hours drivers are delayed per day at each crossing due to train activity. Number of school buses obtained from Riverside Unified School District - includes all large and small school buses. Next Steps Subsequent to the City Council's adoption of a priority list, the Public Works Department will prepare conceptual designs and return to the Transportation Committee with these concept designs. Public Works staff will also continue to work with RCTC on potential funding opportunities, including funds made available through the successor to the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP 21). Although MAP 21 expired this year, and a multi -year successor act may not be approved until after the 2016 Presidential Election, it is anticipated that some level of funding for goods movement and grade separations will be included in the next reauthorization. RCTC's funding strategy includes earmarking 25% of RCTC's Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality and Surface Transportation funds to grade separations and encourages local agencies receiving grant funds from RCTC to commit 10% of their Measure A Local Streets and Roads subvention to grade separation projects. Through the years, the City has done so on the assumption these funds would be used as annual debt service for grade separation projects. However, with the City's success in obtaining grant funds and moderate construction costs during the economic downturn, it has not been necessary to issue debt to complete the projects. The annual allocation of Measure A funds has been expended each year on the grade Grade Separation Update and Prioritization • Page 5 separation projects. The Public Works Department recommends that the City continue allocating 10°/0 of the Measure A funds to rail projects to allow for completion of the concept design of the second generation priority grade separation projects and to fund the extension of the proposed Quiet Zone to other parts of the City. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the General Fund associated with this report. Prepared by: Certified as to Availability of fund: Approved by: Approved as to form Thomas J. Boyd, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer Brent A. Mason, Finance Director/Treasurer Al Zelinka, FAICP, Assistant City Manager for Lee C. McDougal, Interim City Manager Gary G.Geuss, City Attorney Attachments: 1. RCTC Grade Separation Priority Update Study — Table 4.3: 2012 Priority Groups 2. Proposed Railroad Crossing Priority Ranking (2014) 3. Grade Separation Map 4. Vehicle, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Counts Appendix B: Quiet Zone Analysis Background November 14, 2016 I •1 B-1: Overview, Approval Process and Method of Establishing QZ Definition and Background Train horn rules are established by the FRA. In 2005, the FRA adopted the Final Rule on the use of train horns at public at -grade crossings. The rule states that all trains must sound their horns at all public crossings; however, the rule also includes provisions for communities to establish QZs wherein locomotive horns are not sounded. QZ refers to a segment of a railroad line that has one or more consecutive public highway -rail crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded. Under normal conditions within the QZ, train horns will not be used. However, when a locomotive engineer perceives a dangerous condition, such as trespassers on the railroad or a car stopped on the tracks, he or she can use the locomotive horn at their discretion. Additionally, railroad construction activities within a QZ require the locomotive engineer to sound the train horn as an added safely measure. The FRA Rule also allows for either 24-hour QZ or Partial QZ, which are in effect only during the evening or nighttime hours. Wayside Horns The FRA rule also allows cities to install Wayside Horns, which are stationary horns that emit a sound similar to a train horn, but directed perpendicular to the railroad right of way (ROW). The sound emanating from a Wayside Horn is aimed directly towards vehicles and pedestrians at the roadway thus minimizing and confining the "sound footprint" to a smaller area as compared to the sound footprint of a train horn. A wayside horn, also known as an Automated Horn System (AHS), consists of a post -mounted, stationary horn located at a highway -rail grade crossing that is designed to provide audible warning to oncoming motorists when a train is approaching. A wayside horn is controlled by the same track circuitry that is configured to activate automatic warning devices at highway -rail grade crossings. The audible signal supplants the need for the routine sounding of locomotive horns at railroad crossings. Figure 1 from an AHS vendor website (www.quietzonetech.com) shows the comparative sound -footprint of an AHS and a locomotive moving through a crossing. The figure indicates that at identical decibel levels, the "sound footprint' created by an AHS is significantly smaller than that from a train horn. Figure 1: Wayside Horn (AHS) Sound Footprint Train Horn Owl it NBA) Caaour.May <Tran Dhehon Automated Horn System 0.11 1 N8A} Canton, Yap 8.00 90 ()eke 14 an0 Abr. 80 - 90-Deoketx 7471 Benbrook Parkway • Bonbiook, TX 76126 • T 817 820 6350 • F 817 820 6340 • Qurot2arroToch.com EVAPartner ill Sal'ecywith RCL 10 Source: www.quietzonetech.com H-' -1 Quiet Zone Approval Process Establishment of a QZ is a city -initiated process. Each city would need to obtain approval from the railroad stakeholder, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the FRA. Table 1 provides a listing of the approving agency as well as its governing process and a contact person from each agency. Table 1: Agency Contacts for Quiet Zone Establishment Agency Caltrans CPUC FRA BNSF UP Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) Source: HDR Required Process, Procedure, or Guidelines GO 88-B Concurrence and potentially an Encroachment Permit General Orders (GO) GO-26D GO-75 GO 88-B 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229 Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings: Final Rule 49 CFR 222.43(b) Notice of Intent 49 CFR 222.43(d) Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment GO 88-B 49 CFR 222.43(b) Notice of Intent 49 CFR 222.43(d) Notice of QuietZone Establishment GO 88-B - SCRRA Quiet Zone Guidelines and Procedures and SCRRA Highway -Rail Grade Crossings Manual Methods for Establishing a Quiet Zone The FRA Rule describes two methods of establishing a QZ: • Public Authority Designation; and • Public Authority Application to FRA. Contact Person David Buzon (909)889-7867 Sergio Licon (213)576-7085 LeeAnn Dickson leeann.dickson@dotgov Jason L. Sanchez (909)386-4474 Daniel Z. Moreno (909)685-2288 Naresh Patel, PE (909)392-8401 Public Authority Designation With the Public Authority Designation method, a formal application to and approval by FRA is not required. A city, acting as the "public authority" must demonstrate that the implementation of SSM "reduces the risk index to a level that is equal to or less NSRT at gated crossings with horns, or the risk is reduced enough to compensate for the loss of the safety benefit afforded by a train sounding its horn." Two basic prerequisites that must be met under the Public Authority Designation Method are: • Each public crossing within a New QZ must at a minimum be equipped with gates and constant warning time devices. • A QZ must be at least one half mile in length. Table 2 presents details of the three options for a Public Authority Designation. Option Table 2: Public Authority Designation Options Description Option 1 A QZ may be designated if the existing QZRI, is below the NSRT. A QZ may be designated ifSSMs are applied to every public at -grade crossing within the QZ. A QZ may be designated if SSM s/ASMs are instituted and results in a reduction of the QZRI to a level belowthe NSRT, or to the risk level which would exist if locomotive horns sounded at all crossings within the zone. Option 2 Option 3 Source: FRA Reporting Requirements Periodic Update of Inventory Forms Every 2 1/2 to 3 years Every 4 % to 5 years Subject to Annual Review by the FRA Periodic updates required every 2 % to 3 years Public Authority Application to FRA The Public Authority Application method, which would employ ASMs or Modified SSMs, is desirable only as a last resort if the requirements of the Public Authority Designation method cannot be met. ASMs require FRA approval for that specific safety measure before construction can begin. B-1-ili B-2: Risk Index and Safety Measures Determination of the feasibility of a proposed Quiet Zone relies on two basic parameters: Risk Index and Safety Measures, described below. Risk Indices The term "risk index" refers to the predicted cost to society of casualties that are expected to result from collisions at an individual railroad at -grade crossing. The two components of a risk index are predicted cost of fatalities; and predicted cost of injuries. These costs are based on a formula published by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). The USDOT prediction formula allow users to rank crossings for safety improvements by the probability of a collision occurring. Outputs of the USDOT prediction formula include predicted collisions, probability of a fatal collision, and the probability of a casualty collision (which includes both fatalities and injuries). The following terms used in the formula are referenced throughout this report • Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT): The average Risk Index of all public gated highway -rail grade crossings in the nation at which train horns are routinely sounded. • Risk Index With Horns (RIWH): A measure of risk to the motoring public when locomotive horns are routinely sounded at every public highway -rail grade crossing within a quiet zone. • Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI): The average risk index for all public crossings in a proposed QZ, taking into consideration the increased risk caused by the absence of train horns and any decrease in risk attributable to the use of Supplemental Safety Measures (SSM) or Alternative Safety Measures (ASM). Quiet Zone Safety Measures The FRA rule describes two categories of safety measures that can be implemented to establish a QZ: • SSM — Supplemental Safety Measures • ASM —Alternative Safety Measures Supplemental Safety Measures SSM are infrastructure improvements, which when installed at highway -rail grade crossings within a QZ, would reduce the risk of a collision at the crossing. SSMs are installed to reduce the risk level either to the level that would have existed if the train horn were sounded (compensating for the lack of the train horn) or to a level below the NSRT. Approved SSMs include: • Four quadrant gates • Gates with medians or channelization devices Alternative Safety Measures ASM are safety systems or procedures provided by the appropriate traffic control authority which, after individual review and analysis, are determined by the FRA to be an effective substitute for the locomotive horn at specific highway -rail grade crossings. ASMs include: • Modified Supplementary Safety Measures: An SSM that has in some way been adjusted to accommodate unique circumstances existing at a specific highway -rail grade crossing and no longer conforms to the SSM requirements. Modified SSMs are considered ASMs. An example of a modified SSM would be traffic B-2-i channelization devices that due to a nearby intersection are only 45 feet in length instead of the required minimum of 60 feet • Engineering Alternative Safety Measures: Engineering improvements other than modified SSMs include improvements that address underlying geometric conditions, including sight distance, that are a source of increased risk at the crossing. • Non -engineering Alternative Safety Measures: Photo enforcement or a consistent and systematic program of traffic law enforcement, public education programs, or a combination thereof, that produces a measurable reduction of risk at designated QZ highway -rail grade crossings. Appendix C: Quiet Zone Analysis and Calculations November 14, 2016 I •1 C-1 : QZ Analysis Data Considered for Quiet Zone Analysis The FRA has established an online calculator tool for evaluating the feasibility of implementing a QZ. Inputs into the online FRA QZ calculator determine the risk at a particular crossing or within a corridor containing several crossings, and indicates whether or not a QZ is feasible. The FRA calculator requires the following factors in order to determine risk: Roadway factors for the arterial that crosses the at -grade crossing: • Traffic volume • Posted speed • Number of traffic lanes • Urban or rural location • Paved or non -paved roadway approaches • Accident history within the past 5 years Railroad factors at the at -grade crossing: • Maximum speed • Number of tracks, both main tracks and non -main tracks • Train counts: total trains, switching movements, through trains • Daytime and nighttime train movements. • Table 3 documents the existing conditions, roadway and railroad data for all 27 crossings that was input into the FRA QZ calculator to determine QZ feasibility. The 27 crossings have been grouped into ten potential QZ corridors based on jurisdiction and railroad ownership. The results of the FRA QZ calculator are presented in Appendix C-2 c-1 J9 Cc OS ES 09 91 09 pl 61 9l eL 91 61 91 09 Ov 09 04 09 r 9 Or SS Or OZ 0L 02 OZ OZ 09 9£ J9 9C 09 9£ 09 9C 62 9t 09 11 OS tl 09 Lt OS 21 09 09 It 09 Li 44046013 'prods 6upn0 Aep a±1 in Jad se,' yBncu41 xeu E JoJvguinN t £ 90 n' 901 d i Y 952'9 Z ZE 2C tl J • 61 9 2 ZE ZE 1>t 1 1 911'F 1 ZC ZE p 1 61C17 Z ZE 2£ 4 { CH . .. ZC 2C 0 £20 o. 6Z °LOU t 61 6L JOrf 6L 9t t Z OWL u 5/ fit t 6 I I zza. 6L 62 4 4 1 1 f09'11 04 Or 1 1 1Z2'2 2 64 r. o r 1 I east z or Ov a 1 SZZ'ZI C ZL ZC l Sault 0 ZL Zi 469E ZL 1 LIC tl LL 7 eta S ZF 2£ 0 . 211,Z 0 4C 4£ P. . lse Z Z 4C 4C 1 4 •1 19ZZ Z Z rC 4C c 2 S54'O1 2 2 PE 4C 0 0 'I LZ2'6 Z Z Z rC 4E c2121 2 4C 4C 0 f 1 2S[Lt Z fE VC c i 01.918 (raw' pue ultu) spell spell Lilco Jo Jo JagwnN JegwnN Idol 19LOZ)14e0 Prcu0R1 3 ea Jad vuttul 4oiwlS Jo JaqurnN 'Rol ,tea Jvd swell y6nayl IoJegwnN IRol Aeand s Juvwvn0y; uteJl loragwnN 'Rol 11121111:21 1 s,ea45 Jsed oyiv± s;u9P103V Jo,agwnN ueglrbl 'emus uogenoi 'tuna .uegtn svA _1 LPaned Asrey61H MOO 670 4emPeud spoil Apea oBmanv lanuuy O VIN n:•+slmul Z 04 9-9200 1.1014920 O V!N 210,4.99 4 Of9-8Z00 dl L49Z0 WN IM .uuo0 c 00 NS9100 :<269092 9 WN pan mmoJ Z 0935'8t00 8969092 v/4 IuaocA Z 09/299100' OlfL09L • WN f44.84w :4 Gni 93100 AOCL09L O ,r_atA 36010noty ..848po.. 06 FZ9-8100 FZCL051 • :1 + �. rp'1.4 Rvl Oe99Z00 Y19149Z0 =0 0 1.4s"o81 OZ'Eri-r3:00 mozo9Z0 O YIN NUmPN SL'69Z00 YS3v9Z0 VIN Jn.Y.1 01.99Z00 a91v9Z0 .0 unPclY 9mO �. .1'mq Ti6-8Z00 NOPr9Z0 egee+ewJwoN WN 14,8,3,4I 11:1r•f00 109:60t9 -0 WN 1.15IW11 3 LPet-t00 0626012 O VIN MJ%nPW. = 0113-600 da6015 O VrN rynrauuoj. . OZ1Z-8Z00 d61S9Z0 O V IJ po.wuo3 PC'4Z9Z00 V9ZS9Z0 0 ulnpay0 polo M+snp+ v Si CNN° 14Z99Z0 afges+aw,•uo,N • ON P.,snPVU Cj vl 3Z00 0; ZSSZ0 WN Pu./LoO v ZL'9t947t00 8PU12t6 v!N powyNcB Z 061,S59:00 191.905L 0 u®GWY qie`v M!,snpN. . OP1959L00 0S9909L . ygevaw,-uoN .) VIJ 9n isnPul OVC9S9:00 229909z O WN 2466491 OZ"29S9100 2999091 WN M,snpul OZ29S-AA° Or6905t O VM P19141PaB a 02'2959100 £569092 O YIN PWoPPoB 1 0/•24.0560 E16909L .31o1As0 6u ILLIOM 3vasald suns BuPslx3 9090 Purl B u±punoling eJeO uompue3 Bu0sP8 souei Aernpeoa ink n30d3 missed=d'sly6n=''sales = :saoNaO&Timm'nosed, 80H :amn09 I 13361S MIN zo a.i6NaH 13341S 831N30 13381S 1.VMOV088 ZO umego0 11011 NOVO Nuno; ap p.48 Z9 311N3Av 9S 3443AV ZO IPa+aqL (3I1N3AV 8199113381S Hlv 13381 S 301188S 3443AP V118A001V3 (133815 Hit) NNI NOISSIVI ZO aP±44't9 w4r.N8 aVsraMB 30613AV 00VJIH0 133819 08C 13381S 311108 ovou Vdoor ZO Awn vanmf AalvA untmF 3043AV 3AW4031138 13381S 13141NOYI ZO ZouomO vuomo 13381S NVO183HS 133811S ACe ZO touwo0 au040 193815 P109 4S 311N3AV ZO o043o440 uptgeo0 0608 NOLNVJ 0910111 NVS 20) asa80e0 asaute0 3483AV' 3113A 3i1N3AV VINVAIASNN3d ZO 814.88e48 locunea8 3043AV VIN80JI1V3 3043rtv =05809 NVS 133815 3AV898VH ZO 6uauu8 6uanie 13381S ONZZ ti100 I uoneooiBulssa0 Jopluo0 Z0 le04a30d uogo'pspnr sisAieuy auoZ;ample} palap)suop a;ep :c ape' Conceptual Cost Estimate Generally, cities are responsible for all costs for SSM implementation in order to obtain a QZ. Table presents the estimated unit cost for the SSM categories. Table 4: Unit Cost for Grade Crossing based on SSM Categories SSM Category 6 SSM Description Four -Quadrant Gates Upgrade from Two -Quadrant Gates, with Vehicle Presence Detection, Presumes Pedestrian Gates Required 12 Mountable Medians with Reflective Traffic Channelization Devices 13 Source: Caltrans Non -Traversable Curb Medians with or without Channelization Devices, Presumes Pedestrian Gates Required Estimated Cost $1,440,000 $15,000 $480,000 C-1-iii C-2: QZ Calculation Quiet Zone Calculation for Banning QZ: 111P.W.,"' Ilte V fc:cket1 keilrotd Artminkf htic, QuIE-r zoive CALCULA fart Home I Help I Contact I logoff Cancel I Change Scenario: I 8ANNING_3 48723 Print This Page 4141 411111111.M._ Continue I .... [Crossing 'Street Traffic Warning Device Pre-SSM SSM Risk 1 1760691G ;22t4DSTREET 14670IGates 0 6 13,935.391r MODIFY I Create New Zone i i 11278,31Gates . , 13 23,431,10r -MODI—F 780604C ISAN GORGONIO AVE rj • 1 Manage Existing Zones I :7606951 'HARGRAVE STREET II77561Gates . _ 1. 0 12. 13,261864r I40—DIFY— I Log Off te: by Step Instnictions: Step 1: To specify New Warning Device (For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Onle) and/or SSM. click the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE button.To generate a spreadsheet of the values on this page, click on ASM button —This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM calculations. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls belch,: the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, ckk the SELECT button Only Pubtc At Grade Crossings are listed, ALERT: Quiet Zone qualifies because SSI4 has been applied in each crossing. Click for Supplementary Safety Measures rssmi Click for ASM spreadsheet: ASH Note:The use of ASMs reqtfx-es an applicaVon to and approval from the PRA, Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: BANNING_3_XINGS Type: New 24-hour QZ Scenario: BANNING_3 48723 Estimated Total Cost: $156,000.00 Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold: /4347 .00 Risk Index with Horns: 46/22.97 Quirt Zona Risk Index: 16876.76 Select 1 C-2-, Quiet Zone Calculation for Beaumont QZ: QUIET ZONE CALCULATOR Create New Zone Home I Help ( Contact J log Cancel I ChangeScenano: BEAU MONT 3_48747 { Print This. Page:. Continue [Crossing Street 'Traffic ring Devk+ Pre-SSM SSM Rsk !76060.5D VEILE AVENUE )2261 Gates 7606851( 'CALIFORNIA AVENUE '9821 Gates 11111LMaitage Existing Zones 76068BY !PENNSYLVANIA AVEN 110455 Gates Log Off Step by Step Instructions: Step 1: To specify fle,. Warning Device ;For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSM, dick the MODIFY Button Step 2; Select proposed warning device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE button.To generate a spreadsheet of the values on this page, disk on ASM button —This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM cal:ulations. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. dote that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk rode. falls bebr: the NSRT or the Risk Index ,rth Horn, Step 3: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button My Public. At Grade Crossings are fisted. ALERT: Quiet Zone qualifies because SSM has been applied in each crossing. click for Supplementary Safety Measures ISSMI click for ASM spreadsheet: ASI4 I HotetThe use of ,=.Sots requires an application to and approvalfram the Fitt 0 5 434.69 ! i MODIFY J i10,238.711 MODIFY D �6 111,064.17,�c5-40DIFY_.i Summary —_^Proposed Quiet Zone: BE.AUMONT.3_XINGS Type: New 24•hour Q2 Scenario: BEAUMONT 3 48747 Estimated Total Cost: 5271,000,00 Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold: 24347 ,QO Risk Index. with Horns: 23939,84 Quiet Zone Risk Index:. 8912.55 Select C-2-ii Quiet Zone Calculation for Calimesa QZ: 'VW IS Federal Ftsilroas Admirestrecoo QUIET ZONE CALCUitATOirt Print This Page Home I Help I Contact 1 logoff - Cancel I Change Scenario: CALIMESA_1_48730 y Continue ICrossing 111triff -760678T 'SAN nmoTE0- ROAD Create New Zone 1116.Manage Existing Zones MEW Log Off Step by Step Instructions: Step 1: To specify New Warning Device (For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) andfor SSM, click the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE button.To generate a spreadsheet of the values on this page, click on ASt4 button —This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM calculations. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right clic of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the liSRT or the Risk index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button Only Publk- At Grade Crossings are - --- ITrafficiWarning Device --1-Pre-SSM sSM Risk I 12350 !Gates I 0 112 ,10,479.321F-MODIFY-1 . ALERT: 0:stet Zone qualifies because SSII has been applied in each crossing. Click for Supplementary Safety Measures fSSM1 Click for ASM spreadsheet: FA-4g * Note;The use of ASkts requ;res an appk a:ion to and approval from the ERA, Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: CALIMESA_1 XING Type: New 24-hour QZ Scenario: CALPIESA_1_40738 Estimated Total Cost: 513,000-00 Natiomvide Significant Mei Threshold: 14347 .00 Risk Index with Homg 25130,27 Quiet Zone Risk Index: 1.0470-02 Select- C-2-iii Quiet Zone Calculation for Coachella QZ: v r! Federal Railroad Adminia+a;' -, QUIET ZONE CALCULATOA AilaM Create New Zone Manage Existing Zones Log Off Step by Step Instructions: Step 1: To specify flek.' Warning Device (For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only} and'or SSM, click the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed earning device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE button.To generate a spreadsheet of the values on this page, click on ASM button —This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM cakulations. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the '..SELECF..button is shorn at the - bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shorn ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index fall belor the NSRT or the Risk index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue click the SELECT button Cancel 1 Crossing TStreet `9121048 iS4TH AVENUE. Change Scenano: COACHELLA'._-.9739 • Only Publ.< At Grade Crossinfis are Print This Page0.414 .... -. .,..._ Home I Help I Contact I logoff :-.::_ ..a,; :ou Continue Traffic Warning Device TPre-SSM SSM Risk 2418 Gates ALERT: Quiet Zane qualifies because SSM has been applied in each caossing. Click for Supplementary Safety Measures 1SSM1 Click for ASM spreadsheet; ASF41 s Note:The use of ASMs requires an appifc.a.5on to and approval from the FRA. 0 13 8,984.25 kuottirrj ... Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: COACHELLA_i X1NG Type: New 24-hour QZ Scenario: COACH E.LLA 48.739 Estimated Total Cost: 05,000.00 Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold: 14347 .00 Risk Index with Horns: 26931.19 Quiet Zone Risk Index: 8984.2S Select C-24 Quiet Zone Calculation for Corona 1 QZ: - ' 'T O rccoral Rat:., A.�mmiu:al:r.. Quiet ZONE�CALCULATOIZ Home I He, Cancel 1 Change Scenario: ..CORONAI 3„49010 T on q n1 it Print Thli P8 Warning Device 1Pre-SSM $$p Risk Create Nevi Zone. i026524L )OY STREET 11717 Gates 0 i13 ;29,980.43' 1026526A ISHERIDAN STREET 3894 Gates i 0 16 11,223.42 ManageExisting Zones i._......_.__..._...' ......._.__._..._....__.._....._..._...._....__._.__.._...._.___�_.__.__y.,�._._..__:.._. - - 1026527G 1COTA ST 5616 Gatos 0 I-6 11,998.08 i Log�b ` } Step by Step Instructions, Step 1: To specify New Warning Device (For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Hutton Step 2: Select proposed warning' . device m SSM. Then click the UPDATE button.To generate a spreadsheet of the :values on this page. click on ASM button —This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM calculations. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this p age. ..Note that the SFI. FCT„hutton.is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue. click the SELECT button Crossing Street Traffic w Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed. ALERT: Quiet Zone qualifies because SSP1 has been applied in each crossing. Click for Supplementary Safety Measures SSM Click for ASM spreadsheet: ASPS j * Note:The use of ASMs requires an application to and approval from the FRA. IFY 1111111.1.11.111111111 Proposed Quiet Zone; CORONAI 3 XINGS 'Ame; New 24-hour QZ _ Scenario; CORONAI 349010 Estimated Total Cost: $271,000.00 Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold: 14347 ,00 _ Risk Index with Homs: 50132.93 Quiet Zone Risk Index: 17733.98. ra Select C-2-y Quiet Zone Calculation for Corona 2 QZ: r ip �' FadcrQ Mb!Wd AdmuiNVei�'o� QUIET ZONE CALCUUkT011 Print This Page. Honte f,Help l Contact l logoff crystal.sang@hdrinc.c.M Cancel Change Seen ario: CORONA2_1_49011_11 Continue (Crossing Street iTrafficiWarning Device Create New Zone 026519P MCKINLEY ST 411151Cates i.................._.......__...._._._...........__.._......_....................,.........:....._....................... Manage Existing Zones Log Off Step by Step instructions: Step I:To specify New Warning Device (For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE button,To generate a spreadsheet of the values on this page, click on ASM button —This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM calculations. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until,the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button Only Public At Grade Crossings are listed, ALERT: Quiet Zone qualifies because SSM has been applied in each crossing. Click for Supplementary Safety Measures JSSM1 Click for ASM spreadsheet: '; ASM " Note:The use of ASMs requires an application to and approval from the FRA, IPre-SSM SSMIRisk -- i 0 '41,817.36i MODIFY 6 Summary Proposed Quiet Zoner —. CORONA2_1_XING Type: Scenario: New 24-hour QZ CORONA2_1 49011 Estimated Total Cost: $128,000.00 Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold: Risk Index with Horns: 14347 .00 109001.57 Quiet Zone Risk Index: i 41817.36 Select C-2-I Quiet Zone Calculation for Jurupa Valley QZ: "Tfir reocrzl RRR-chd Administ,ticn QuSc r ZONE CALCUL. Too.. Print This PY_ge" r Hemel Help ) Contact 1 logoff c ;c,cam. Cancel Change Scenano: 3URUPA.VAL 48626 T Continue Crossing Create New Zone iS10977P `BELLEGRAYE 810978W iftUTiLE Manage Existing Zones __. 4310979D 1311RUPA ROAD Log Off Step by Step Instructions: Step 1: To specify New Warning Device (For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) andfor SSM, click the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device or SSM. Then tick the UPDATE button.To generate a spreadsheet of the values on this page, click on ASM button —This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM calculations. • Step 3: Repeat -Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSP.T or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button Tfraffc Warning Device Pre-SSM TSSTRisk r Only Pubfr_ At Grade Crossings are iisted. 1122251Gates 18821 !Gates i139723Gates ALERT: Quiet Zone qualifies because SSM has been applied in each crossing. Click for Supplementary Safety' Measures FSSM1 Click for ASM spreadsheet: 3 ASM I*Notetrbeuse of ASMs requires an applkation to and approvai from the FRA 0 16 ;12.187.021 MODIFY 0 a -.I I27,609.61;1 610DIFY 152,717.591 MODIFY Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: Jurupa Valli 3 lings Type: Nt1a 24-hour QZ Scenario: JURUPA.VAL_48628 Estimated Total Cost: $384,000.00 Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold: 14347 .00 Reap Index with Horns: 80382.84 Quiet Zone Risk lndaa: 30838.OT Select I C-2-i Quiet Zone Calculation for Riverside Eastside QZ: ` R i'ede,al Railroad l.Jmin i•;!•aiiM�� C U1E r ZONE CALCULATOR. Create New Zone Manage Existing Zones Log Off Step by Step instructions: Step 1: To specify New lA'arning Devh_e ;For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSM, click the MODIF/ Button Step 2: Select proposed ,:arning device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE button.To generate a spreadsheet of the values on this page, click on ASM button -This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM calculations. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shoot 5: the bottom right side athis page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Inde. falls below the NSRT or the Risk Index - with Hom. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button Canczi F'rint This Page Home I Help I Contact I logoff _ _.:oT I Change Scenario R PEASTSID 48725 Continue Crossing (Street 'Traffic Warning Device Ipre-551d ggMlRisk 1126474X IPALMVRITAAVE 026476y CHICAGO'AVE 13806 11022 Gates Gates 0 { 0.. fi 13 0 12,62738 MODIFY. 169..29990 .__..-_ ILMODIFY , '026478M !SPRUCEST 119010Gates 0 170,141,70I.IdODYIFi 026480N3Ra 5T _...—.._.......__... 026485X 1IMI33ION INN AVE 111603 ...i.---.._.... 17850 {motes _._ ... _ Gates 1 } 0 0 0 13 356 288 36i( f1- - t47,700.22 t Romp( Only Pub& At Grade Crossings are Estad. ALERT: Quiet Zone qualifies because QZRI is less than Risk Index with Horns. Click for Supplementary Safety Measures fSSM1 Click for ASH spreadsheet: ASM I '' Note:The use of ASMs rc-quires an applcation to and approval from the FRA. Summary Ti Proposed QuietZone:1 .17/EASTSIDE_S XINGS Type: I New 24-hour QZ Scenarkn RIVEASTSID 48725 Estimated Total Cast: 6158,000.00 Nationwide Signif"rcant Risk Threshold: 14347 .00 Risk Index with Horns: 1 1 5867.08 Quiet Zone Risk Index:; 91211.47 - - Select C-2-ii Quiet Zone Calculation for Thermal QZ (Riverside County): poire.-" lir 1,, redcral Railroad Adntinistration t QUIET ZONE CALCULATth-t Cancel , Change Scenario: Print This Page: y Home I Help I Contact I logoff THEP,`AL 3 .48621 • Continue :Crossing 'Street Tragic Warning Device pre-SSM SSMIRisk Create New Zone 160730V 'SBTH AVENUE ..._..._...............i................................_.._._. 760731C 162NDAVENUE Manage Existing Zones -- " ---- 7607323 '4TH STREET Log Off Step by Step Instructions: k Step 1: To specify Ile,: Warning Device (For pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSS1. click the MODIFY, Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE button.To generate a spreadsheet of the values on this page, click on ASM button —This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM calculations. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is sho„n at the bottom right side of this page., Note that the SELECT button n-ibeWn ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index fats below the NSRT or the Risk Index with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button Only Public. At Tirade Crossnos ere *stied, 943 iGates 8378 IGates )8523'Gates 6 12,038.801 &wort 6 132 975.06Cyf9OIF11_j 13 - i2874.8A0LmomFy ALERT: Quiet Zone qualifies because. SSM has been applied in each crossing. Click forSUPPlementary Safety Measures. ISSMI Click for ASM spreadsheet: ',, ASM J r Note:Theuse of ASS% requires an applIcat on to and approval from the FRA., Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: Thermal_3 Xings Type: New 24-hourQZ Scenario: THERMAI_3 48621 Estimated Total Cost: ;2711,800.00 Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold: 14347 .00 Risk lode. with Horns: 0836.21 Quiet Zone Risk Imiea: 24587.29 Select C-2-III Quiet Zane Calculation for Cabazon QZ (Riverside County): lie 3 recvel Raiir.ad 4:1nunist,ti, Qui f ZONE CALCULAfOik Print This Page. d#'� Horne ) Help I Contact l logoff Cancel ` Change Scenario: CA.BAZON 2_49622 T Continue ICrossing iStreet i_ 760696R APACHE TRAIL ROAD Create New Zone 460697X BROADWAYROAD Manage Existing Zones Log Off Step by Step Instructions: Step 1: To specify New Warning Device (For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSM, click the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE button.To generate a spreadsheet of the values on this page, click on ASM button —This spreadsheet can then be used for ASM calculations. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. dote that the SELECT button is <_ho„n ONLY when the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls below the NSRT or the Risk Inde. with Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT, button Oniy Pablz At Grade Crossings are kstecl, LTraific.lWarning Device Pre-SSM ISSM Risk i3€16I6ates 0 16 I10,473 061 MpD L IEy 6#01 iCates �_._ . 0 ,1 10 725.19 [ 14ODipy� ALERT: Quiet Zone qualifies because SSM has been applied in each crossing. Click for Supplementary Safety Measures fSSM1 Click for ASM spreadsheet: ..ASM 1 ` Note:The use of ASMs r 7 -es an rppkation to and approval from the FRA. Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: Cabazon_2 Xings Type. New 24-hour QZ Scenario: CAEAZON 2 48622 Estimated Total Cost: S143,-000.00 Natiomvide Significant Risk Threshold: 14347 .00 Risk Diller with !toms: 2.9724,52 Quiet Zaete Risk Itgiey' 10599.12 Select C-2- Quiet Zone Calculation for Highgrove QZ (Riverside County): Paiwwgrifir QUIET ZONE CAICti LA r 0,4 Create New Zone Manage Existing Zones Log Off Step by Step Instructions: Step 1: To specify Nei: Warning Device (For Pre -Rule Quiet Zone Only) and/or SSM, clkk the MODIFY Button Step 2: Select proposed warning device or SSM. Then click the UPDATE button.To generate a spreadsheet of the values on this page, click on ASI•t button —This spreadsheet can then be used for ASbt calculations. Step 3: Repeat Step (2) until the SELECT button is shown at the bottom right side of this page. Note that the SELECT button is shown ONLY :hen the Quiet Zone Risk Index falls beb,.• the NSRT or the Risk Index t:rth Horn. Step 4: To save the scenario and continue, click the SELECT button Cancel Crossing 7Street 026470H !MAIN ST 026471P !CENTER ST 401 __ : 5 Home I Help I Contact I logoff c-,::a',.:.,n _!- -r,c,::•n Print This Page; Change licena-ic: . HICHGROVE_.8623 Continue Traffic 'Naming Device Pre-SSM 1SSM Risk A 113 10,160.901rM0DIFy 16 12,014.191,MODtFy ( 2456 !sates 5256 Gates Only Pubic At Grade Crossings are ksted, AL.ERTt Quiet Zone qualifies because SSM has been applied in each crossing. Click for Supplementary Safety Measures ISSM1 click for ASM spreadsheet: j ASM �' Note:The use: of ASMsrequires an appkatan to and approval from the FRA. Summary Proposed Quiet Zone: Highgrove_2_Xings Type: New 24-hour QZ Scenario: HIGHGRO'VE_48623 Estimated Total Cost: $143,000,00 Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold: 14347 .00 Risk Index with Horns: 30885.97 Quiet Zone Risk Index: 11087.09 Select C-2-i © 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2016 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2016 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County), 2012 2016 COMPANION STUDY FOR: November 21, 2016 RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) BACKGROUND PURPOSE AND PROCESS UPDATES ON AT-GRADE CROSSINGS QUIET ZONES RECOMMENDATIONS ��2000: Countywide railroad grade crossing priority study for 62 locations along BNSF and UP corridors ��2006 and 2008: Funding Strategy developed and adopted ��$500.3 Million from local/state/federal funding sources invested in: o Construction of 14 grade separations o Closure of 2 at-grade crossings ��2012 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for remaining 46 locations ��2016: Companion Study for the 2012 Grade Separation Priority Update Study 01: BACKGROUND ��Purpose: to obtain updated information regarding the feasibility and desirability of improving remaining 46 at-grade crossings ��Process: Questionnaire submitted to the County and Cities with at-grade crossings, followed by one- on-one meetings to understand whether: o Grade separations are technically feasible, or still viable; o Recent events or circumstances have changed the project priority for the local agency; o Desired grade separations are near-term or long-term projects; o Any at-grade crossings should be completely closed; o Quiet Zones (QZ) are desired. 02: PURPOSE AND PROCESS ��Funding o 46 at-grade crossings with $1.7 Billion total price tag to grade separate o One fully funded grade separation project (Avenue 66) o One partially funded project (McKinley Street in Corona, with $7.3 Million of funding which is 8% of total cost) ��Priority Changes o Changes in City of Riverside (Jackson Street, Spruce Street, 3rd Street, Mary Street and Madison Street) ��Technical Feasibility o Four infeasible in City of Corona (Cota Street, Sheridan Street, Joy Street and Radio Road) 03: UPDATES ON AT-GRADE CROSSINGS ��Near Term Grade Separation Projects o 11 desired in next ten years " One in Riverside County (Avenue 66) " One in Corona (McKinley Street) " One in Beaumont (Pennsylvania Avenue) " Two in Banning (San Gorgonio Avenue and Hargrave Street) " Two in Jurupa Valley (Bellegrave Avenue and Jurupa Road) " Four in the City of Riverside (Jackson Street, Mary Street, 3rd Street and Spruce Street) ��Potential Closures o Three locations (California Avenue in Beaumont, Avenue 54 in Coachella, and Rutile Street in Jurupa Valley) ��Quiet Zones o Desired in Riverside, Corona, Banning and County 03: UPDATES ON AT-GRADE CROSSINGS ��Quiet Zone Analysis done on 27 out of 46 locations. ��Remaining 19 out of 46 locations eliminated due to: o Quiet Zone being currently implemented (11 locations in Riverside) o No residential land use within 1,200-foot buffer (three locations in Corona and one location in Palm Springs) o Quiet Zone in design stage and/or contains Wayside Horn (four locations in Riverside) ��Analysis based on FRA s online Quiet Zone Calculator ��All 27 locations analyzed qualify for Quiet Zone 04: QUIET ZONES ��RCTC and local jurisdictions to explore funding potential of the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) and other applicable federal and state sources ��Local jurisdictions to pursue funding through sources available to them, including the TUMF and the CPUC programs ��Local jurisdictions to pursue implementation of Quiet Zones where need has been identified 05: RECOMMENDATIONS QUESTIONS? © 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.© 2016 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. AGENDA ITEM 9 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 9. AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2016 TO: Riverside County transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Plan of Finance BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Provide input and direct staff regarding the preliminary funding plan for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes project (Project); and 2) Approve an additional $50 million in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and/or Surface Transportation Flock Grant (STBG) funds for a total amount of $110 million in CMAQ and/or STBG funds for design -build costs related to the Project and direct staff to program the funding in the 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Project will construct two tolled express lanes in each direction between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the 15/60 interchange. All proposed improvements are anticipated to be constructed within existing Caltrans right of way with the majority of the improvements occurring within the existing 1-15 median. Right of way impacts will be limited, and some soundwalls will be built. With tolled express lanes, users benefit from reduced travel times achieved through congestion pricing. Tolls to be charged will vary by time of day based on congestion levels. The 1-15 Express Lanes will provide many travel choices including carpooling, vanpooling, express bus, and single occupant vehicle travel. A completely electronic toll collection system will be used, and all vehicles in the tolled express lanes will be required to have a FasTrak transponder. Environmental approval via a finding of no significant impact was obtained in May 2016, and the Commission adopted the environmental document at its July 2016 meeting. A project and construction management (PCM) team has been in place since April 2015. The investment grade traffic and revenue (T&R) study was adopted by the Commission in June 2016. The Project Agenda Item 7 222 finance team, including a financial advisor and underwriters, is in place and financial close is expected by mid-2017. Once financial close occurs, construction will begin. The projected Project opening is mid-2020. Preliminary Funding Plan In November 2015, staff presented to the Commission a preliminary funding plan for the Project that anticipates use of toll revenue bonds, a federal loan through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, Measure A sales tax bonds, Measure A sales tax revenues, and federal CMAQ and/or Surface Transportation Program (STP) grant funds. As a result of the passage of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), in December 2015, the STP was renamed as the STBG program. The toll revenue bonds and TIFIA loan are to be paid back by future tolls generated from express lane users. That preliminary funding plan was submitted in November 2015, to the TIFIA Joint Programs Office (WO) in a letter of interest for a federal TIFIA loan. In January 2016, the Commission was notified by the TIFIA JPO the Project was ready to advance to the creditworthiness phase. Based on updated cost estimates, the investment grade T&R study, and continuous financial modeling, staff developed a revised preliminary funding plan that was submitted to the TIFIA JPO in September for creditworthiness review. The revised plan currently reflects a significant decrease in toll revenue bonds and TIFIA loan offset by a significant increase in sales tax revenue bonds and Commission contribution. The significant change between toll revenue -supported debt and sales tax revenue -supported debt is based on the effects of applying more restrictive rating agency criteria in order to obtain preliminary investment grade ratings for the toll revenue - supported debt. A comparison of the preliminary funding plans as of November 2015 and November 2016, is presented in the following table: November 2015 2016 Sources: Toll revenue bonds, including premium $ 143,576,000 TIFIA loan 151,754,000 Sales tax revenue bonds, including premium 95,734,000 Investment earnings 3,054,000 CMAQ/STBG funds 60,000,000 RCTC contribution, including predevelopment costs 8,243,000 Uses: Commission and financing costs Design -Build and Toll Collection System costs $ 18,406,000 123,176,000 197,301,000 1,142,000 110,000,000 46,786,000 $ 462,361,000 $ 496,811,000 $ 164,016,000 $ 298,345,000 200,035,000 296,776,000 $ 462,361,000 $ 496,811,000 Agenda Item 7 223 The current preliminary funding plan also includes a Commission equity loan of approximately $21.2 million from sales tax revenues to fund a TIFIA debt service reserve of $18 million and toll debt service. The loan is anticipated to be repaid with interest from available surplus revenues. The Project finance team continues to evaluate rating agency criteria and implement financial modeling concepts in order to decrease the level of sales tax revenues and increase the level of toll -supported debt. The current preliminary funding plan is expected to change as the Commission progresses through the project financing work, including the TIFIA creditworthiness process. The final funding plan expected in spring 2017, will support the Commission as it negotiates a federal TIFIA loan, markets and sells toll revenue and sales tax bonds, and generally works to obtain financial close. Federal Funds CMAQ funds are available for transportation projects and programs that help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. STBG funds are flexible and can be used for various types of transportation improvements. The Commission is responsible for programming these funds and previously allocated CMAQ and STP funds directly to support Measure A projects, or through a call for projects. Given the high cost of the Project and the desire to minimize debt financing, the Commission approved an allocation of $60 million of CMAQ and/or STBG funds for this project in November 2015. CMAQ funding is not available for capacity increasing projects for single occupancy vehicles, but it is available for managed lane projects such as the Project that fall under the air quality category of Transportation Control Measures and is categorized in the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy as a Transportation Demand Management strategy. In Riverside County, CMAQfunds are primarily apportioned to two air basins in Riverside County — South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). The Commission allocates funds for the SCAB or Western Riverside County, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) allocates SSAB CMAQ funds in Eastern Riverside County. The $60 million previously programmed is comprised of three years of SCAB CMAQ apportionment levels, as the current annual apportionment level is approximately $26 million and would be programmed in the FTIP in FYs 2017/18 through 2019/20. As a result, CMAQ funds would be substantially maximized during these years. STBG funds are apportioned based on population across the county. Project categories eligible for STBG funds include, but are not limited to: capacity enhancements, high occupancy vehicle lanes, safety, road rehabilitation, active transportation, and intersection improvements. Annual apportionment levels are approximately $29 million, and staff recommends Commission approval for the programming of an aggregate amount of $50 million of STP funds in FYs 2017/18 through 2019/20. Agenda Item 7 224 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2017/18+ Amount: $496,811,000 2009 Measure A sales tax receipts and Source of Funds: sales tax revenue bonds; toll revenue bonds; TIFIA loan; federal CMAQ and/or Budget Adjustment: N/A STBG funds 003027 000 59102 262 3159102 (sales tax/toll revenue bonds) GL/Project Accounting No.: 003027 000 59102 262 3159102 (TIFIA loan) 003027 414 41403 262 3141401 (CMAQ/STBG funds) Fiscal Procedures Approved: \)/-414.40 Date: 10/19/2016 Agenda Item 7 225 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: November 9, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Program — Project Delivery Update WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file a status report on the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Per the 2008 TUMF restated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Commission and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) and the WRCOG Administrative Plan, the Commission receives 46.39 percent of TUMF revenues. Of the Commission's share, 50 percent is allocated to the TUMF Regional Arterial program with the remaining 50 percent allocated to projects designated under the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Program (CETAP) corridors. These corridors include Riverside -Orange County, Riverside -San Bernardino County, North -South, and East-West corridors. In 2004, the Commission approved a total of 24 projects for Western Riverside County TUMF Regional Arterial program in addition to funding allocated to the Commission's State Route 79 realignment project for a total of 25 projects. Of the 24 local agency regional arterial projects, two were substituted, and four projects were suspended. As a result, 20 local agency projects remain in the program. Total TUMF revenues and expenditures since inception reported by the Commission through June 30, 2016, are as follows: Agenda Item 6C 19 CETAP Regional Arterials Total Revenues, including interest $ 166,951,517 $ 166,705,596 $ 333,657,113 Expenditures (127,503,132) (135,537,300) (263,040,432) Balance 39,448,385 31,168,296 70,616,681 Outstanding Commitments (39,448,385) (16,361,821) (55,810,206) Uncommitted Balance $ 0 $ 14,806,475 $ 14,806,475 The majority of the regional arterial projects are under agreement. These projects have also either completed construction or are under construction, attached. The Commission approved one developer credit reimbursement agreement with the city of Corona in the amount of $3,051,636. The Commission approved an annual 10 percent set aside of budgeted Regional Arterial funds for this developer credit reimbursement and to date the developer has been reimbursed $2.5 million. There are three projects remaining to be programmed for the construction phase as follows: • Interstate 15/Railroad Canyon Interchange • Interstate 15/Limonite Avenue Interchange • Van Buren Boulevard, Washington Street to Wood Road Preliminary project estimates for the above projects would require $80 million or more to fully fund construction. FY 2016/17 TUMF revenue projections total $18.5 million, with $9.25 million for regional arterials and $9.25 million for CETAP. Based on current revenue estimates, it could take several years to accrue enough funds to complete funding for the above three projects. Therefore, staff does not anticipate including additional projects into the Regional Arterial program until such time these projects are fully funded. Attachment: TUMF Project Delivery Status Agenda Item 6C 20 ATTACHMENT 1 TUMF Regional Arterial Program - Current Project Delivery Status (Including Original 24 Projects Approved Sept 2004) Project Status No. # Agency Project Programming Status Pre -Cons Under Cons Cons Comp/ Invoicing Cons Complete/ Closed Out Comment 1 Corona Green River, Dominguez Ranch Rd -SR 91 Funding Complete X Funded phase. 2 Corona Foothill Parkway Extension Funding Complete X 3 Corona 1-15/EI Cerrito Rd Funding Complete X 4 Riverside Co. 1-15/Limonite IC * Needs Cons Funds X Substituted project that replaced I-15/Schleisman IC in 2012. Riverside Co. I-15/Schleisman IC Substituted Environmental issues. Replaced with Limonite IC. Riverside Co. I-15/Clinton Keith Rd Funding Complete X Project funded & completed with non TUMF funding sources. - Riverside Co. New IC at Eastern Bypass Suspended X In 2009, Commission approved suspension of the project and transferred funding balance to SR79. 5 Riverside Co. Bundy/Scott Road improvements Funding Complete X PA&ED funded phase. 6 Riverside Co. SR79 - widen Thompson-Domenigoni Funding Complete X 7 Riverside Co. Van Buren Bridge, Clay - SAR Funding Complete X 8 Riverside Co. Van Buren, Washington -Wood Needs R/W, Cons X Riverside Co. Eastern Bypass, Auld -1-15 Suspended In 2009, Commission approved suspension of project and transferred funding balance to SR 79. - Riverside Co. Potrero Blvd, San Tim -Oak Valley-SR79 Suspended No agreement for project. Postponed. 9 Riverside SR91/Van Buren IC Funding Complete X 10 Riverside Van Buren, Andrew - Garfield Funding Complete X 11 Riverside Van Buren, SAR -Jackson Funding Complete X 12 San Jacinto Ramona Expwy - Sanderson - WCL Funding Complete X - San Jacinto Ramona Expwy - Seventh - Cedar Substituted Environmental issues. Replaced with Sanderson -Eagle 13 San Jacinto Ramona Expwy Ext., Sanderson - Eagle * Funding Complete X In 2012, Commission approved as substitution. 14 Temecula I-15/French Valley Pkwy Funding Complete X Project phased. STIP funds programmed for Cons. 15 Temecula I-15/SR79 IC Funding Complete X 16 Temecula Western Bypass Study Funding Complete X Study complete. 17 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd, PVSD Lateral B - Cactus Funding Complete X 18 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd, Ironwood - Manzanita Funding Complete X 19 Lake Elsinore 1-15 Railroad Canyon IC Needs Cons funds X Project currently finishing PA&ED 20 Perris Perris Blvd, Ramona Expwy - PVSD Lat. B Funding Complete X Bolded projects require future construction programming. *Substitution Projects AGENDA ITEM II Li006 "dD'salaSuy sol aoolj 4,ZT '1S 4,L lsaM 818 salaSuy sol uad00:ZT-1111300:01. LTOZ 2r /tpW LI006 'd0 `sela8uy soi _mold 4,ZI '1S 4,L IsaM 818 salaSuy soi wdOO-ZT-11a000:0T LTOZ'ST Aionagad LI006 'b'0 `sala8ub soi aooli 4,ZT '1S 4,L lsaM 818 sala8uy soi uad00:ZT-LuD00:01- 9TOZ'9T aaquianoN pun TzJaquaa4daS (a3uaaaluawapin) aNii0 ons 09ZZ6 'VD `Vasa° waled 00Z al!nS •la SuueM pa-IJ OIL -EL Laasaa waled uadOO:ZT-wo00:0I LTOZ 2r Aow 09ZZ6 'VD 1Josaa waled 00Z al!nS •aa OuueM palJ OTL-EL vasaa ailed uadOO:ZI-LuD00:01- LTOZ 'sr i(annagad 09ZZ6 'VD `1-lasaa waled 00Z a}!nS •la BuueM paJJ OIL -EL vasaa waled uad00:ZT Alln00:01- 9TOZ'9T aaquianoN pun TzJaquaa4daS (a3uaaajuo3oapin) 9vAd TOSZ6 'VD 'aplsaaAN SO8 al!nS '1S 4,OT EOVE uMolumoa aplsJanla uad00:ZT -wo00:0T LTOZ 2r /tpw TOSZ6 'VD `ap!saan!a SO8 a;lnS '1S 4,0I EOVE uMolumoa aplsianpj uadOO:Zt-w000:0T LTOZ 'sr kionagad TOSZ6 'VD 'ap!saan!8 SO8 al!nS '1S 4,0T EOVE ummumoa aplsaamj uadOO:ZT-w000:01- 91-0Z'9T aagwanoN puo TzJaqura4daS a3g10 0V3S 2upds 1aa}u!M Ilied (LZOZ-9ZOZ) npualeD Sugaaw voimaNsueilaARDV OD AM