Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 4-quadrant gates $ 400,000 - $ 500,000 each <br /> Crossing closure $ 15,000 - $ 20,000 <br /> Medians $ 15,000 - $ 20,000 <br /> One-way conversion $ 60,000 - $ 100,000 <br /> <br />Four-quadrant gates are the preferred SSM at High Street, which has the highest FRA Risk Index <br />number. It is difficult to show calculated QZ feasibility in the corridor without addressing the High <br />Street crossing. Due to the crossing geometry and intersection with Fifth Avenue, the High Street quad <br />gate is estimated at $500,000. Madison and Lincoln are the best candidates for street closure. Because <br />of the impacts to business driveways and street intersections Lawrence and Van Buren are the best <br />candidates for median treatment. Washington and Jefferson offer the best potential for one-way <br />conversion. <br /> <br />Quiet Zone Process <br />Since the new rule went into effect, 22 new Quiet Zones have been established nationally. FRA is aware <br />of Notice of Intent for five others. Prior to the rule, there were about 220 pre-existing Quiet Zones in 29 <br />states. Wisconsin has 64, including three new zones. Missouri has 36, including one new zone. There <br />are three, pre-rule, whistle-free zones in Oregon: Pendleton, the Dalles and Umatilla. Five Oregon <br />jurisdictions have seriously discussed new QZs with the ODOT Rail section and only one (Klamath <br />Falls) is proceeding. ODOT Rail staff believes the cost of the required safety improvements discourages <br />jurisdictions from pursuing a QZ. Nationally, various funding strategies have been used, including <br />assessments to adjoining and benefited properties, special business taxes or surcharges and local general <br />funds. <br /> <br />Federal and State Rail Safety Initiatives <br />The U.S. Department of Transportation announced an initiative to improve safety at the nation’s railroad <br />crossings. The Secretary of Transportation, in a June 2004 Action Plan, called for the elimination of <br />25% of all at-grade crossings. An excerpt from that Action Plan is included as Attachment B. Projected <br />growth in rail freight traffic and increasing efforts at improving rail crossing safety will result in <br />increasing federal and ODOT Rail pressure on the City to close unnecessary, redundant or hazardous <br />crossings. This initiative resulted in ODOT recently requesting the City agree to the closing of two <br />unused crossings. Funding to accomplish crossing closure and improvements to consolidated crossings <br />is provided by Federal Section 130 funds, administered by the ODOT Rail Section. Section 130 funds <br />cannot be used for the purpose of making crossings improvements to establish a Quiet Zone. The <br />ODOT program guidelines for active crossings state that half the crossings in a corridor must be closed <br />in order to qualify for ODOT funding for improvements to the remaining crossings. Recent discussions <br />with ODOT indicate a willingness to negotiate with the City to fund safety improvements to some <br />corridor crossings in exchange for closure of less than half of the crossings in the corridor. According to <br />ODOT and FRA sources, the decreased risk represented by crossing closure and ODOT safety <br />improvements can be used as credit toward a QZ. The area containing six crossings in six blocks <br />(Lincoln, Lawrence, Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe streets) has been specifically <br />mentioned as having “redundant” crossings. ODOT Rail would like to see four of the six crossings <br />closed. The city has no current established process for closing streets at railroad crossings. Attachment <br />C discusses the prioritization and potential for closing specific crossings in the corridor. Madison and <br />Lincoln are the most likely candidate streets for closure, followed by Jefferson. Even if the council <br />chooses to not proceed with crossing closure, ODOT Rail Section can still push for future crossing <br />closures based on the safety history or redundancy analysis. <br /> L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060626\S060626C.doc <br /> <br />