Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C: Railroad Quiet Zone ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Railroad Quiet Zone Meeting Date: February 25, 2008 Agenda Item Number: C Department: Public Works Maintenance Staff Contact: Tom Larsen www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-4959 ISSUE STATEMENT Following council direction, staff has engaged in extensive public involvement and analysis of requirements, costs and public support for various options related to establishing a railroad quiet zone in which the routine sounding of train horns at specific railroad crossings would cease. Analysis and input was focused on specific supplemental safety measures designed to reduce risk levels sufficiently to obtain a quiet zone designation from the Federal Rail Administration (FRA). Among the measures considered were closing streets, converting two-way streets to one-way operation, constructing quad gates and installing other apparatus to warn people of approaching trains and/or keep them off the tracks. This work session is an opportunity for council to review the analysis and input and provide additional direction. BACKGROUND The City Council held a railroad quiet zone work session on July 20, 2005. At that session, staff presented information about a new Federal Railroad Administration rule allowing local jurisdictions to obtain a quiet zone designation. Quiet zones are considered a local quality of life issue and no federal funding is available specifically for obtaining one. At that session, the council directed the City Manager to further refine cost estimates for specific construction of several of the supplemental safety measures required to obtain a quiet zone and to monitor the quiet zone process and evaluate the progress made by other jurisdictions. On June 26, 2006, the council held another railroad quiet zone work session. At that work session, the council directed the City Manager to study the necessary steps to close up to four railroad crossings and convert streets to one-way at railroad crossings in order to obtain federal Title 23 Section 130 funding for crossing safety improvements. These funds are administered by Oregon Department of Transportation Rail Division (ODOT Rail). The council also directed that no closings or conversions will be constructed until a public process has been completed and the council has given final approval. Analysis of Supplemental Safety Measures Risk-mitigation supplemental safety measures (SSMs) were considered for 10 at-grade railroad crossings in the downtown area, from Hilyard Street (near the EWEB entrance on Eighth Avenue) on the east to Van Buren Street on the west. A map of the area is included as Attachment A. Potential risk- management strategies included closing streets to all forms of through traffic, installing quad gates, F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080225\S080225C.doc constructing median barriers, converting two-way streets to one-way traffic, and leaving some crossings unchanged. Each potential strategy at each specific at-grade crossing was evaluated based on a number of criteria, including ability to reduce risk based on a “risk index” used by the FRA, costs (initial capital costs and on-going maintenance costs), engineering feasibility, public acceptance, and conformance with traffic safety standards and other policies related to the local transportation system. Closing at-grade rail crossings is the safety measure most preferred by the FRA, ODOT Rail and the Union Pacific Railroad, which owns and operates the rail lines that run through the downtown area. Closing redundant or unsafe railroad crossings is a goal of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The likelihood of obtaining non-City funding from these agencies increases with the number of at-grade crossings that are closed. However, closing at-grade rail crossings is the safety measure least supported by the public. The FRA process to obtain a quiet zone requires ODOT Rail, Union Pacific and the City to all agree on the SSMs proposed. None of the parties can force a quiet zone or other changes to railroad crossings without the consent of the others. Based on analyses of the federal criteria necessary to obtain a quiet zone and a sense of public acceptance, staff has developed a conceptual design that would likely result in a quiet zone. The scenario displayed in Table 1 describes the different supplemental safety measures needed to reduce the risk index from the current level of 17,689 to 11,029. Guidelines stipulate that implementation of a quiet zone shall result in a reduction of the risk index for the segment under consideration. Table 1 Crossing Location Treatment Van Buren Median Monroe None Madison Close Jefferson One-way Washington One-way Lawrence Median Lincoln None Pearl None High Quad gates 8th and Hilyard Quad gates Risk Index 11,029 Estimated Cost $1,350,000 This scenario assumes only one street closure and is likely to qualify for only $50,000 of ODOT Rail- administered Section 130 funds. If the City decides to pursue more street closures to increase the likelihood of non-City funding, staff considered five potential closures: Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, Lawrence and Lincoln streets. Given the lack of public support for multiple street closures in this area, staff did not fully analyze a scenario involving multiple closures, other than to determine that there would be significant impacts to business access, neighborhood connectivity, bicycle and pedestrian routes and emergency response. In 2007 the FRA updated its risk index calculator to take into account a train-pedestrian crash at the Eighth and Hilyard crossing. The risk index at that crossing increased almost five-fold, and the average F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080225\S080225C.doc risk index for the 10 crossings in the potential quiet zone went from about 14,000 to over 17,000. In previous alternative analyses and as presented at several public forums, staff proposed no changes at Eighth and Hilyard. However, to reduce the overall risk index to quiet zone levels it is likely that quad gates must be added at this crossing, increasing the cost of a quiet zone by approximately $400,000 over any of the previous scenarios. Results of Public Input Process During the summer and fall of 2007, Public Works staff completed a comprehensive public outreach process to gather input on the implications of creating a railroad quiet zone in Eugene. In total, four public forums were held. Additional comments were sought using an online survey hosted on the City’s web portal. The public involvement process began with a widely advertised public forum that attracted participants with various levels of interest in the quiet zone study. The second forum was targeted at commercial property and business owners in the general vicinity of the study area, but was also open to the general public. The third forum was held at the Ya-Po-Ah Terrace to reach a less mobile, yet very interested group of nearby residents. The final public forum was attended by a variety of interested participants including neighborhood residents, property and business owners, residents from outside the study area, and staff from the railroad. The final forum provided staff an opportunity to report back on comments and input gathered previously while also collecting any final input and detailing the next steps of moving forward with an official quiet zone. As directed by the council, staff set out to study public support for closing up to four railroad crossings to obtain federal funding to implement safety improvements that would result in a quiet zone. At each of the public forums, staff presented a range of potential scenarios that could feasibly result in a quiet zone; these scenarios ranged from closing zero to five of the 10 at-grade crossings. Throughout the public process, staff heard general community support for the concept of a quiet zone. Although participants favored implementing a quiet zone, virtually none were in favor of closing crossings as a prerequisite. Staff found that when provided a scenario with one closure, participants were more supportive. There was minimal support for multiple closures as a means of obtaining outside funding. Any opposition to the concept of a quiet zone was rare and more focused on being against spending City resources to implement a quiet zone. When potential funding mechanisms were discussed, staff found opposition for special assessment districts, particularly in the Whiteaker neighborhood. Many participants suggested implementing a quiet zone even if it cost the City millions of dollars because of the positive effect it would have on the local quality of life. A summary of comments received at the public forums and through the online survey is included as Attachment B. Cost Estimates The scenario detailed on page 2 of the memo would cost approximately $1.4 million. In addition, the annual maintenance for quad gates, which would likely become a City financial liability, is estimated to cost approximately $10,000 for each quad gate ($20,000 a year for the two quad gates in the scenario). In recent discussions, ODOT Rail has reiterated its policy on state-administered federal Section 130 funding. Currently, to be eligible for Section 130 funding, half (five) of the 10 crossings in the proposed quiet zone would need to be closed in order for ODOT Rail to fully participate in safety improvements to the remaining five crossings at a level necessary for the City to obtain a quiet zone designation. If less than half of the crossings are closed, ODOT Rail has offered $50,000 per closure to be applied F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080225\S080225C.doc towards safety improvements at other crossings within the proposed quiet zone. In other words, if the City closed one crossing, we could expect ODOT Rail to put $50,000 toward the total cost of the supplemental safety measures necessary to obtain a quiet zone designation. No local funding source has been identified or programmed for construction of SSMs to obtain a quiet zone. Potential sources of local funding include the General Fund, Community Development Block Grants, urban renewal funds, and assessments levied through a local improvement district. Staff is not aware of any non-local sources of funding that could pay for creation of a quiet zone. RELATED CITY POLICIES 2007-2008 City Council Goal - Neighborhood Empowerment: ?Redesign the neighborhood initiative to support the neighborhoods which includes public participation in the livability and protection of neighborhoods and identifies specific redevelopment strategies that preserves the integrity of residential uses, including design standards, site review, down-zoning, infill regulation, and bolstering and empowering neighborhood associations to get more involvement. Adopted Growth Management Policies: ?Policy 1: Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to increase density and use existing vacant land and under-used land within the boundary more efficiently. COUNCIL OPTIONS Staff has identified four options for the council to consider in providing direction on this issue: Option 1: Appropriate $60,000 from the council contingency to retain a consultant that would finalize the design of the quiet zone through negotiations with appropriate regulatory agencies. This assumes a commitment of local funding at the conclusion of the negotiation process. Option 2: Continue to monitor the evolving practice of creating quiet zones in the United States. If there are considerable changes to current practice including non-local sources of funding, staff will provide this information to the council. Option 3: Indicate council support for closing up to five at-grade crossings, and proceed to negotiate for a quiet zone with no expenditure of local funds. Option 4: Cease the study of implementing a railroad quiet zone in Eugene. F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080225\S080225C.doc CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Direct the City Manager to continue to monitor the evolving practice of creating quiet zones in the United States. The City Manager does not recommend moving forward with quiet zone implementation at this time because of the impacts to programs that are dependent on the local sources of funding that would be required to create a quiet zone. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to direct the City Manager to continue to monitor the evolving practice of creating quiet zones in the United States. ATTACHMENTS A. Map of study area B. Summary of public involvement process FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Tom Larsen Telephone: 682-4959 Staff E-Mail: tom.c.larsen@ci.eugene.or.us F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080225\S080225C.doc RRQZ AIS 2/25/08 ATTACHMENT B Eugene Railroad Quiet Zone Study Public Input Report January 31, 2008 Background As directed by City Council in the fall of 2006, City staff developed and completed a public involvement process to measure community support for closing up to four at- grade rail crossings to obtain funding for a railroad quiet zone in Eugene. The 1.5 mile th study area includes ten crossings at 8 and Hilyard, High, Pearl, Lincoln, Lawrence, Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, and Van Buren Streets. In addition to four advertised public forums, input was gathered through an online survey on the project website, emailed comments, and several telephone calls to City staff. The input process began in August of 2007 and was completed following the last public forum on October 16, 2007. Not unlike other projects of a particularly narrow geographic scope, gathering representative public input on the implications of establishing a railroad quiet zone in Eugene presents a challenge. Regardless of their sentiment or leanings, most participants in the public involvement process reported living, working, or owning a business within fairly close proximity to the rail tracks. Staff used a process to allow for all interested parties to comment or provide feedback whether through public forums, an online survey, or vie email or telephone. The public meeting schedule follows: Public Meeting #1 – August 28, 2007 Campbell Center, 155 High Street, Eugene 7:00 to 9:00 pm 60+ Attendees Facilitators: Tom Larsen and Rob Inerfeld Other City Staff present: Eric Jones, David Roth and Lindsay Selser Business Meeting – September 6, 2007 Eugene Public Library – Bascom/Tykeson Room 3:00 to 5:00 pm 30+ Attendees Facilitators: Tom Larsen and Rob Inerfeld Other City Staff present: Lindsay Selser Ya-Po-Ah Terrace Meeting – September 24, 2007 350 Pearl St, Eugene 3:00 to 4:30 pm 50+ Attendees Facilitator: David Roth Other City Staff present: Eric Jones, Lindsay Selser and Tom Larsen Public Meeting #2 – October 16, 2007 Campbell Center, 155 High Street, Eugene 7:00 to 9:00 pm 30+ Attendees Facilitator: Tom Larsen and Rob Inerfeld Railroad Quiet Zone Public Input Report Page 1 RRQZ AIS 2/25/08 Other City Staff present: David Roth and Lindsay Selser Process Summary City of Eugene staff hosted four public forums to discuss and solicit input on the feasibility of establishing a Railroad Quiet Zone in the Downtown and Whiteaker areas. The involvement process was designed to provide residents and business owners near the rail tracks and members of the community living outside of the study area with opportunities to comment on the implications of creating a quiet zone in Eugene. The first three meetings included background information about railroad quiet zones and a presentation on various alternatives and options. These alternatives and options were refined after each meeting as we obtained further public input. Presentations were typically followed by staff facilitated break-out sessions and focused discussions to capture and synthesize issues important to participants. Goals for the meetings included 1) information sharing to the public, and; 2) collecting and recording feedback and concerns about on implementing a quiet zone in Eugene. The final public meeting included a review of the public involvement process and the input that had been received to date. The primary purpose of the final meeting was to obtain final comments and opinions and to report back on the most widely accepted scenario for establishing a quiet zone. City Traffic Engineer Tom Larsen and Transportation Planning Manager Rob Inerfeld presented at the final meeting. Advertisement Advertisement for the workshops included the following: A postcard invitation was mailed on August 22 to more than 4300 residents, ? property owners and business owners in the area surrounding the Railroad tracks from Hilyard to Van Buren Streets. Personal invitations were mailed to other interested parties and stakeholders. ? An article on quiet zone study-related events was included in the August 16 ? edition of the Council Newsletter. A news release was distributed on August 20. ? An advertisement was run in the Register Guard on August 25. ? An article titled "Public input sought on railroad quiet zones" appeared in the R-G ? on Aug. 27, 2007. City staff attended the Whiteaker Community Council meeting on July 11, to give ? updates on the project and to provide notice of the upcoming meeting. th Prior to the September 6 business meeting reminder leaflets were distributed to ? the businesses along the railroad corridor. th Prior to the final meeting on October 16 reminder emails were sent out to all the ? . stakeholders and interested parties Railroad Quiet Zone Public Input Report Page 2 RRQZ AIS 2/25/08 Input Summary This section provides a summary of the responses received during public forums and through the online survey. Public Meeting #1 – August 28, 2007 Should existing conditions be maintained (No railroad quiet zone in Eugene)? ? Participants indicated near unanimous support for implementing a quiet zone in Eugene. Many cited quality of life issues with some concerned about the negative consequences of closing at-grade crossings. Would you support spending local funds to establish a railroad quiet zone? ? Most participants indicated support for spending some amount of local funds to establish a quiet zone. Although staff did not ask for particular dollar figures, some participants suggesting spending whatever necessary, while others took a more conservative stance suggesting paying up to 25% of the total cost with local funds. Indicate your support for complete closure of 5 streets (50% of crossings in the ? study area) to establish a railroad quiet zone. There was near unanimous rejection of the concept of closing 5 rail crossings within the study area. Many suggested that no streets should be closed to implement a quiet zone. Indicate your support for complete closure of 1 to 3 streets to establish a railroad ? quiet zone. When asked for their level of support in closing 1 to 3 crossings, participants provided a mix of responses. Those who supported this concept generally did so because of the increased potential availability of Section 130 funds. Those who were opposed to this concept noted the potential negative effects of decreased connectivity and spillover traffic onto neighborhood streets. Indicate your support for converting two-way streets to one-way street couplets to ? establish a railroad quiet zone. While few respondents indicated support for this option (citing connectivity issues), the majority were supportive of converting existing two-way streets to one-way streets to facilitate a quiet zone. Jefferson and Washington Streets were most frequently cited as the two streets to convert to a one-way couplet. Provide any other input or comments ? When prompted for additional comments, participants noted a variety of related issues included frustration with federal rail regulations, interest in seeing above or below grade crossing solutions and many alternative suggestions. Railroad Quiet Zone Public Input Report Page 3 RRQZ AIS 2/25/08 Business Meeting – September 6, 2007 City staff asked participants at the business/commercial property meeting for their input on a number of potential at-grade rail crossing configurations that may lead to an official railroad quiet zone in Eugene. A summary of the comments received follows. Should existing conditions be maintained (No railroad quiet zone in Eugene)? ? Participants suggested collecting additional data before moving forward with a railroad quiet zone. One participant noted that a quiet zone was “long overdue.” Comments made during the meeting indicated a fairly even divide between those in favor of implementing a quiet zone and those opposed to it. Implement quiet zone with no closures. ? Participants expressed mixed opinions on implementing a quiet zone without closing any streets. Each of the individual crossing treatments necessary to implement a quiet zone would still affect surrounding properties and nearby neighborhoods. Some participants indicated opposition to creating additional one-way streets due to the forced rerouting of patron traffic. Business and commercial owners were particularly concerned about changing the existing ingress and egress points to their properties. One participant noted that one-way configurations could potentially negatively effect the new Monroe- Friendly Bikeway. Implement quiet zone with 2 street closures (Madison and Lincoln). ? Respondents favored this option over other, more extreme closure scenarios. One participant noted the potential positive effect this scenario would have on their business operations. Some noted concerns about shifting traffic from closed streets to neighboring streets. Business owners located on Lincoln expressed dissatisfaction with the negative impacts associated with a reduction in access through crossing closures. Implement a quiet zone with 3 street closures (Madison, Jefferson and Lincoln). ? Respondents provided similar responses to the 2 street closure option. Positive responses cited the increased probability of receiving State administered funding. Other participants noted that closing three crossings would be too disruptive. Implement a quiet zone with 5 street closures (Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, ? Lawrence, and Lincoln) This option was universally opposed. Implement a quiet zone using quad gates at all crossings. ? Most respondents indicated conditional support for this option. Participants noted support for quad gates because of their minimal impact to existing conditions, however those in favor also suggested this option was too expensive. Railroad Quiet Zone Public Input Report Page 4 RRQZ AIS 2/25/08 Implement a quiet zone using wayside horns at all crossings. ? Participants rejected this option because it does not eliminate train horn noise. Provide any other input or comments. ? Those who provided additional comments suggested installing quad gates at all crossings, maintaining the traditional street grid pattern without closing any streets and examining potential funding options such as a special assessment district to fund the quiet zone. Ya-Po-Ah Terrace Meeting – September 24, 2007 Should existing conditions be maintained (No railroad quiet zone in Eugene)? ? Participants indicated unanimous support for implementing a quiet zone in Eugene. Residents at Ya-Po-Ah Terrace were particularly concerned about the level and duration of noise coming from the train horns. Would you support spending local funds to establish a railroad quiet zone? ? While participants were universally supportive of establishing a quiet zone to improve local quality of life, those who commented on this question suggested that funding come from the railroad corporations. The few residents answering this question were unsupportive of spending local funds to establish a quiet zone. Indicate your support for complete closure of 5 streets (50% of crossings in the ? study area) to establish a railroad quiet zone. Received only one comment suggesting to leave the streets as they were. Indicate your support for complete closure of 1 to 3 streets to establish a railroad ? quiet zone. Received only one comment suggesting to leave the streets as they were. Indicate your support for converting two-way streets to one-way street couplets to ? establish a railroad quiet zone. Received only one comment suggesting to leave the streets as they were. Provide any other input or comments ? Of the three comments received, one suggested doing nothing, another suggested under-grounding the railroad, and the third provided a description of the horn patterns. Public Meeting #2 – October 16, 2007 Railroad Quiet Zone Public Input Report Page 5 RRQZ AIS 2/25/08 Staff distributed a survey with more refined options for proceeding with a railroad quiet zone at this meeting. The survey options were developed taking into account feedback and comments received at the previous three meetings and through the online survey. Options to close more than two crossings were eliminated at this stage due to near universal opposition. The three options included in the survey and a summary of responses follow: Establish a quiet zone, but close zero crossings ? Consistent with earlier input during the study, this option proved to be the most popular option for participants at the final public forum. Concerned citizens desire a quiet zone, yet are not willing to compromise by closing existing crossings to facilitate the process. Close one crossing (indicate Madison or Lincoln as your preferred closure) ? After the first option of closing no crossings, this was the second most popular choice. The majority of respondents selected Madison as the preferred crossing to close to facilitate a railroad quiet zone. Close two crossings (Lincoln & Madison) ? This was the least popular option with respondents. Those who selected this option commented that the City should pursue a quiet zone at any cost because of the disruptive nature of the train horns. As any option to pursue a railroad quiet zone will require some amount of public ? investment, please provide your funding suggestions. A bulleted list of suggestions follows: Matching grants from the state Negotiate with FRA and UP ?? Special assessment district(s) Local property tax assessment ?? Share costs with railroad(s) Transportation bonds ?? Earmark from DeFazio Local improvement district ?? Business tax or other payment LID for residents within 5 blocks ?? system of railroad Bond Entire city should pay ?? Gas Tax ? Additional Comments ? While the majority of respondents expressed interest in seeing a railroad quiet zone implemented in Eugene, several suggested that it was not a high priority especially if it required spending local funds. Those in support often cited community livability and quality of life issues as being the driving factor in their support of the concept. Railroad Quiet Zone Public Input Report Page 6 RRQZ AIS 2/25/08 Online Survey Responses – August 15, 2007 to October 16, 2007 To reach a broader audience, staff posted an online survey on the Railroad Quiet Zone project website; responses were accepted during a three-month period from August 15 to October 16, 2007. Questions from the survey and summaries of the responses follow. Maintain existing conditions, do not establish a railroad quiet zone. ? In general, respondents indicated a fairly even split between support and opposition to the concept of a railroad quiet zone in Eugene. Those who were opposed to the concept cited safety concerns, narrow geographic impact of train horns and nostalgia about train horns as reasons to do nothing. Those in favor cited improving neighborhood and community livability and quiet nights as reasons to implement a quiet zone. Would you support using local funds to establish a railroad quiet zone? ? The majority or respondents were opposed to spending local funds to implement a quiet zone. Those who were in favor suggested capping the amount to a percentage of the entire cost and suggested the railroads or ODOT pay for a portion. Indicate your support for complete closure of 5 streets (50% of crossings in the ? study area) to establish a railroad quiet zone. There was near universal opposition to closing five crossings to implement a quiet zone. Indicate your support for complete closure of 1 to 3 streets to establish a railroad ? quiet zone. Similar to the previous question, respondents were nearly universally opposed to closing one to three streets to implement a quiet zone. Indicate your support for converting two-way streets to one-way street couplets to ? establish a railroad quiet zone. While approximately half of the respondents were opposed to one-way conversions, the other half were primarily unsure of the consequences and indicated having no opinion on the matter. Please enter any other railroad quiet zone-related comments or ideas. ? Other input was mostly a rehashing of previous comments and fell in line with those either strongly in favor of the project or strongly opposed to the project. Few respondents were on the fence. Railroad Quiet Zone Public Input Report Page 7