Agenda packet — Economic Development Committee, November 1, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

Project: City of Modesto Quiet Zone Feasibility Study
Date: Thu 8/10/23
Prepared By: JMA Civil, Inc.

COST, SCHEDULE & DEADLINES
COST, SCHEDULE & DEADLINES #6..
- 379 -
Office Location:
383 4th Street, Suite 201
Oakland, CA 94607
925.400.4356
www.jmacivil.com
#6..
- 380 -
9601 Camp Bowie West | Fort Worth, TX 76116 | +1 817 886 8210 (T) | www.ctcinc.com Quiet Zone Evaluation for
City of Modesto, California
May 23, 2016
#6..
- 381 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 1 ends

Contents
I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 2 II. Proposed Quiet Zone Corridor....................................................................................................... 4 III. Summary of Quiet Zone Safety Improvement Options ............................................................ 5 IV. Crossing Overview ............................................................................................................................ 8 Woodland Avenue – DOT No. 752855A........................................................................................ 8 L Street (SR 132) – DOT No. 752862K........................................................................................10 K Street – DOT No. 752863S.........................................................................................................12 I Street – DOT No. 752864Y..........................................................................................................14 H Street – DOT No. 752865F ........................................................................................................16 G Street – DOT No. 752866M........................................................................................................18 V. Summary of Estimated Quiet Zone Safety Improvement Costs ...........................................20 Maintenance Cost............................................................................................................................22 VI. Quiet Zone Implementation Process..........................................................................................22 USDOT Grade Crossing Inventory Updates – After Improvements.......................................24 Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment ..........................................................................................24 Quiet Zone Creation and Continuation......................................................................................25 VII. Liability .............................................................................................................................................26 APPENDIX A: City of Modesto Sign-In Sheet......................................................................................28 APPENDIX B: Final Diagnostic Notes...................................................................................................30 APPENDIX C: Quiet Zone Option Costs...............................................................................................51 APPENDIX D: FRA 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229 ...................................................................................69 APPENDIX E: Crossing Layouts .............................................................................................................73 #6..
- 382 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 2 ends

I. Introduction
The City of Modesto (City), in its effort to explore the possibility of prohibiting the sounding of train horns along the Union Pacific Railroad (Railroad) through their community, requested CTC, Inc. (CTC) to conduct an evaluation to determine the feasibility and approximate cost associated with creating a new quiet zone through Modesto, California.

In 2005, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229, the Final Rule on Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (Final Rule). The purpose of the rule is to mandate a federal requirement for the sounding of locomotive horns at all public highway-rail grade crossings. The rule also establishes both minimum and maximum decibel levels for the locomotive horns themselves. While the purpose of the rule was to require the sounding of locomotive horns, it also created a methodology by which communities could create quiet zones.

In accordance with the Final Rule, locomotive horn sounding is not required if each public highway-rail grade crossing is equipped with Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs) within the proposed quiet zone. SSMs are safety measures that have been determined by the FRA to adequately compensate for the lack of a locomotive horn. Examples of SSMs include:
 Temporary Closure (can only be used in a Partial Quiet Zone)  Four-quadrant gate systems installed with or without vehicle detection  Gates with non-transversable median barriers at least 100 feet in length on each side (60 feet if parallel roads or commercial driveways are present)  Gates with channelization devices at least 100 feet in length on each side (60 feet if parallel roads or commercial driveways are present)  One-way streets with gates that completely close off the roadway  Permanent Closure
Another possibility for use as a treatment in lieu of a SSM is the Wayside Horn System (WHS).

The WHS may be used either within or outside of a quiet zone as a one-for-one replacement for the train horn. The WHS is a traffic control device that is mounted at the highway-rail grade crossing and interconnected to the railroad’s grade crossing warning system. It is required to sound at a minimum level of 92 dB measured 100 feet along the roadway approach from the nearest track (49 CFR 222, Appendix E, 4). Many communities have implemented this technology as a means of reducing train horn noise levels.

In addition, locomotive horn sounding is not required within highway-rail grade crossing corridors that have a Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) at or below the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT) or the Risk Index with Horns (RIWH). Definitions of each of these terms are listed below:
#6..
- 383 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 3 ends

Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) is the average risk in the proposed quiet zone taking into consideration the increased risk caused by the lack of train horns and the reductions in risk attributable to the installation of SSMs or Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs).

Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT) represents a number reflecting a measure of risk, calculated on a nationwide basis, which reflects the average level of risk to the motoring public at public highway-rail grade crossings equipped with flashing lights and gates and at which locomotive horns are sounded.

Risk Index with Horns (RIWH) represents the average initial amount of risk in the proposed quiet zone with the train horn sounding.

Highway-rail grade crossing corridors that have a QZRI ≤ NSRT or RIWH have been deemed, by the FRA, to constitute categories of highway-rail grade crossings that do not present a significant risk with respect to loss of life or serious personal injury or that fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn. As a result, communities with highway-rail grade crossing corridors that meet either of these standards may silence the locomotive horn within the crossing corridor if all other applicable quiet zone requirements have been met.

Please note, the establishment of a quiet zone does not result in total elimination of all train horn noise. The Final Rule allows for the locomotive engineer to sound the locomotive horn to provide a warning to vehicle operators, animals, pedestrians, trespassers or crews on other trains in an emergency situation if, in the locomotive engineer’s sole judgment, such action is appropriate in order to prevent imminent injury, death or property damage. In addition, nothing in the rule prohibits the use of the locomotive horn in the following situations:

1. When active grade crossing devices have malfunctioned and use of the horn is required.

2. When grade crossing warning systems are temporarily out of service during inspection, maintenance or testing of the systems.

3. When the SSM, modified SSMs or engineered SSMs no longer comply with the requirements of the rule or as approved by the FRA.

4. There is no restriction for the sounding of the locomotive horn for the purposes of highway-rail crossing safety such as, to announce the approach to roadway workers under chapter 49 or required purposes under railroad operating rules.

5. When a wayside horn is malfunctioning.

The City should make every effort to educate the public through public meetings, website, and news articles that some trains will sound horns after the quiet zone is established. CTC’s experience has also indicated that it takes approximately 30-45 days for all railroad engineers to become familiar with a new quiet zone and cease blowing the train horns on a consistent basis. The City should make the public aware of the “grace period” needed once the quiet zone is established.
#6..
- 384 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 4 ends

II. Proposed Quiet Zone Corridor
The City is interested in determining the improvements required and the approximate cost to create a new quiet zone along Union Pacific Railroad, Fresno Subdivision located near the downtown area of Modesto, California. The proposed quiet zone corridor is shown in Figure 1.

The Railroad runs approximately 20 trains per day at speeds up to 40 mph on this subdivision through the city. The highway-rail grade crossings that were evaluated are described in the table below.

Table 1. Proposed Quiet Zone Crossings
Street or Road Name DOT No. Railroad Milepost
(MP) Subdivision Nearest Parallel Street
Woodland Avenue 752855A 111.62 Fresno N 9th Street
L Street/SR 132 752862K 112.75 Fresno 8th Street
K Street 752863S 112.85 Fresno 8th Street
I Street 752864Y 113.02 Fresno 8th Street
H Street 752865F 113.12 Fresno 8th Street
G Street 752866M 113.21 Fresno 8th Street
Figure 1. Overall View of Proposed Quiet Zone
#6..
- 385 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 5 ends

The limits of the proposed quiet zone will extend from MP 111.37 (0.25 miles north of Woodland) to MP 113.46 (0.25 miles south of G Street) for an actual quiet zone length of 2.09 miles. However, due to the location of adjacent crossings within the corridor, the effective length of the proposed quiet zone will be significantly longer. The closest highway-rail grade crossing northwest of the proposed quiet zone is Salida Blvd at MP 107.59. The closest highwayrail grade crossing southeast of the proposed quiet zone is B Street at MP 113.69. As a result, the effective length of the proposed quiet zone will be approximately 5.60 miles.

III. Summary of Quiet Zone Safety Improvement Options
CTC conducted a field review of the grade crossings within the proposed Modesto quiet zone on the afternoon of December 8, 2015. The purpose of the review was to evaluate proposed crossings for basic quiet zone requirements and review quiet zone concepts in preparation for the City team meeting and future diagnostic meeting with the Railroad and the FRA. Options available to the City for the creation of the quiet zone were presented after the field evaluation. Factors considered in the evaluation were safety, compliance with the FRA rules, public acceptance and budgetary constraints for the implementation of the proposed quiet zone.

As recommended in 49 CFR 222, Appendix F the crossings proposed for inclusion in a quiet zone should be reviewed in the field by a diagnostic team composed of railroad personnel, public safety or law enforcement, engineering personnel from the State Agency responsible for grade crossing safety and other concerned parties. A diagnostic meeting was conducted on March 2, 2016 consisting of representatives from the City of Modesto, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and CTC reviewed each of the highway-rail grade crossings in the proposed quiet zone for consideration of the options for approved SSMs as provided in 49 CFR 222, Appendix A. The diagnostic team members in attendance are listed in Appendix A and the diagnostic notes are located in Appendix B.

The Final Rule, Appendix A to Part 222 A, provides a list of approved supplementary safety measures (SSMs) that may be installed at each crossing within a quiet zone for risk reduction credit.

Each SSM has been assigned an effectiveness rate which is defined as a number between zero and one and represents the reduction of the likelihood of a collision at a public highway-rail grade crossing. This reduction is a result of the installation of an SSM or ASM when compared to the same crossing equipped with conventional active warning systems of flashing lights and gates. Zero effectiveness means that the SSM or ASM provides no reduction in the probability of a collision, while an effectiveness rating of one means that the SSM or ASM is 100% effective in eliminating collision risk.
#6..
- 386 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 6 ends

The effectiveness rate for SSMs are as follows:

Approved Supplemental Safety Measure (SSM) Effectiveness Rate Temporary or Permanent Closure of a crossing 1.00
One-Way Street with Gates 0.82
Gates with Medians (Non-Traversable curbs) 0.80
Four Quadrant Gate System with presence detection 0.77
Gates with Channelization devices 0.75
The results of that evaluation are shown as follows:
• P – Preferred Supplemental Safety Measure
• O – Optional Supplemental Safety Measure
• U – Undesirable (due to public acceptability or budget constraints) Table 2. Supplemental Safety Measures Options
Street or
Road Name DOT No.

Crossing
Closure
(SSM)
FourQuadrant
Gate
System
(SSM)
Concrete/
Channelization
Median
Barrier
(SSM or ASM)
One- Way
Street
(SSM)
Wayside
Horn
System
Woodland
Avenue
752855A U O P U O
L Street/SR
132 752862K U O P U U
K Street 752863S U O P U U
I Street 752864Y U O P U U
H Street 752865F U U U P U
G Street 752866M U U U P U
#6..
- 387 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 7 ends

This review also determined if the existing railroad active grade crossing warning devices meet the minimum requirements for establishment of a quiet zone. The rule requires that each public highway-rail grade crossing in the quiet zone must be equipped with flashing lights and gates, constant warning time device and power out indicator in accordance with 49 CFR Subpart C 222.35(3)(b). The following table provides the results of that review:

Table 3. Active Grade Crossing Warning Devices
Street or Road Name DOT No. Flashing Lights, Gates
and Bells
Constant Warning
Time Devices Power Out Indicator
Woodland Avenue 752855A   
L Street/SR 132 752862K   
K Street 752863S   
I Street 752864Y   
H Street 752865F   
G Street 752866M   
An overview of each crossing and discussion of the evaluation are described in the following section.
#6..
- 388 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 8 ends

IV. Crossing Overview
Woodland Avenue – DOT No. 752855A
The Woodland Ave crossing, located at railroad milepost 11.62, is the northernmost crossing of the proposed quiet zone. Woodland Ave is a two lane roadway crossing over one main line track and one siding. The crossing is located approximately 75 feet west of the traffic signal controlled intersection at North 9th Street. The traffic signal is interconnected with the railroad warning system which provides 10 seconds of advance preemption time. The advance preemption time provided is adequate to clear the design vehicle during the worst case scenario. The roadway west of the crossing is approximately 38 feet wide and constructed of asphalt composition with curb and gutter. The roadway east of the crossing is 32 feet wide and constructed of asphalt composition with no curb and gutter. The crossing is constructed with concrete crossing panels. There is asphalt pavement between tracks. There is a gated private driveway entrance to the Modesto Irrigation District’s Woodland Generation Station which is approximately 20 feet west of the crossing.

Figure 2. Woodland Avenue – Aerial View
The review team considered the approved quiet zone treatment options provided in 49 CFR 222, Appendix A and agreed with the City’s preference for this location to install nontraversable concrete median barriers. The required median length of 100 feet would require the private driveway in the southwest quadrant to be a right-in and right-out only.

The team recommended that concrete median barriers be 100 feet in length to the west and 40 feet to the east measured from the railroad gates, two-foot-wide and 7 inches high. #6..
- 389 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 9 ends

Should the plans for the installation of the median be determined not to be a feasible solution, a wayside horn system is the alternative recommendation by the team. The installation of the wayside horn system requires an interconnection with the railroad equipment for proper operation.

The team also discussed the issue of a vehicle turning down the track and requested that the city consider additional illumination, extending the edge line over the crossing, or addition of some reflective delineators to enhance the visibility of the edge line. These improvements need to be considered regardless of the quiet zone improvements and therefore will not be included as quiet zone recommendations.

The team discussed the need to provide pedestrian improvements for connectivity to the intersection crosswalks and new bike trail. The team recommended the extension of the sidewalks through the crossing on both sides of the crossing. The sidewalks will include the installation of detectable warning and stop lines at the crossing. The team further recommended the addition of railroad flashing lights and bell in the northwest quadrant to provide additional warning for pedestrians in the quadrant. The team determined that the existing flashing lights and bells south of the crossing provide adequate warning for pedestrians crossing the tracks in that area.

The diagnostic team recommended the following safety improvements at Woodland Ave:

Work to be completed by City:
• Concrete non-mountable medians – 110 feet to the west and 50 feet to the east, 2 feet wide and 7 inches high. (The total median lengths include 10 feet of additional median inside the railroad gates)
• Installation of sidewalks on both sides of the crossing. This will include the construction of approximately 250 feet of 5-foot-wide sidewalks.
• Installation of 2 bicycle signal heads and signs per CAMUTCD. • W10-1 Advance Warning signs with W10-9 No Train Horn plaques will be installed on each approach.
• W10-2 Advance Warning signs with W10-9 No Train Horn plaques will be installed on North 9th Street.
• W10-11 Short storage sign on eastbound Woodland Avenue. • R8-8 “Do Not Stop on Track” sign will be installed on eastbound Woodland Avenue. • New stop lines prior to each gate and railroad pavement markings.

Work to be completed by Railroad (funded by City):
• Installation of one railroad signal mast with two sets of flashing lights and bell in the northwest quadrant.
• Extension of the concrete crossing surface approximately 8 feet to the north and south.
#6..
- 390 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 10 ends

L Street (SR 132) – DOT No. 752862K
The L Street (SR 132) crossing is located at railroad milepost 112.75 and is the next crossing to the south of Woodland Avenue. L Street (SR 132) is a four lane undivided roadway crossing over one main line track. The roadway is approximately 60 feet wide on both approaches. The roadway is asphalt composition with curb and gutter on the approaches to the crossing. The crossing has concrete crossing panels. The crossing is located approximately 200 feet southwest of the traffic signal controlled intersection at 9th Street and approximately 71 feet northeast of intersection at 8th Street. The traffic signal is not interconnected with the railroad signal equipment. There are two commercial driveways located to the northeast of the crossing approximately 45 to 50 feet from the railroad gate. Therefore, a median that is SSM compliant is not possible at this location unless driveways are relocated. The driveways could be limited to right-in right-out traffic, but this would cause problems for bus access and therefore the driveways would have to be relocated.

Figure 3. L Street (SR 132) – Aerial View
The City review team considered the approved quiet zone treatment options provided in 49 CFR 222, Appendix A and agreed with the City’s preferred option to install non-traversable concrete median barriers. The proposed median lengths of 60 feet on the west approach is long enough to qualify for a SSM but the east median will be shortened to 40 feet due to the commercial driveways located less than 60 feet from the railroad gate, this crossing will not qualify as a SSM. Therefore, the City will install concrete medians but take no credit for these improvements in the quiet zone calculations.
#6..
- 391 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 11 ends

The team discussed pedestrian treatments in the area of the crossing and recommended that the eastbound sidewalk be relocated behind the gate. This will require extending the railroad concrete surface 8 feet in each direction and construction of additional sidewalk in that area.

The sidewalks will include the installation of detectable warning at the crossing. The team determined that the existing flashing lights and bells at the crossing provide adequate warning for pedestrians crossing the tracks in that area.

The team also recommended the installation of approximately 25 feet of curb and gutter at both gate locations. This is due to the current gates being located too close to the street without curb and gutter protection. The addition of the curb and gutter will provide the required clearance per the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Device (CAMUTCD) requirements.

The City agreed that the traffic on L Street (SR 132) queues over the crossing from the 9th Street traffic signal. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) states in Section 8C.09 that if a highway-rail grade crossing is equipped with a flashing-light signal system and is located within 200 feet of an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal, the traffic control signal should be provided with preemption in accordance with Section 4D.27.

Therefore, the team recommends that the traffic signal at 9th Street be interconnected to the railroad equipment and adequate preemption time provided to clear the design vehicle during the worst case scenario. This will require the Railroad to upgrade their warning system to provide the preemption time requested by the City.

The diagnostic team recommended the following safety improvements at L Street (SR 132):

Work to be completed by City:
• Concrete non-mountable medians – 65 feet to the west and 45 feet to the east, 10 feet wide and 7 inches high. (The total median length includes five feet inside the railroad gates)
• Installation of approximately 25 feet of curb and gutter for each railroad gate to provide required clearance.
• Installation of sidewalks on both sides of the crossing. This will include the construction of approximately 200 feet of 5-foot-wide sidewalks.
• Installation of interconnection cable from traffic signal controller to railroad bungalow.

This include boring conduit for cable installation.
• W10-1 Advance Warning signs with W10-9P No Train Horn plaques will be installed on each approach.
• W10-2 Advance Warning signs with W10-9P No Train Horn plaques will be installed on 8th Street.
• R8-8 “Do Not Stop on Track” sign.
• New stop lines prior to each gate and railroad pavement markings.

Work to be completed by Railroad (funded by City):
• Upgrade warning system to provide requested preemption time • Extension of the concrete crossing surface approximately 8 feet to the south. #6..
- 392 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 12 ends

K Street – DOT No. 752863S
The K Street crossing is located at railroad milepost 112.85 and is the next crossing to the south of the L Street (SR 132) crossing. K Street is a two lane roadway crossing over one main line track. The roadway is approximately 50 feet wide. The street is asphalt composition with curb and gutter on the approaches to the crossing. There are commercial driveways just to the north of the crossing in the northwest and northeast quadrants. The crossing has concrete crossing panels.

Figure 4. K Street – Aerial View
The City review team considered the approved quiet zone treatment options provided in 49 CFR 222, Appendix A and agreed with the City’s preferred option to install non-traversable concrete medians. The proposed median lengths of 60 feet on the west approach is long enough to qualify for a SSM but the parking lot entrance is located less than 60 feet from the gate. The east median will be shortened to 40 feet due to the commercial driveways located less than 60 feet from the railroad gate, therefore, this crossing will not qualify as a SSM. The City will install concrete medians but take no credit for these improvements in the quiet zone calculations.

Page 13 ends

enough existing right of way to accomplish this improvement and may not be able to construct these improvements if it extends outside of the existing right of way. The City staff will investigate to determine if they have enough right of way. The sidewalks will include the installation of detectable warning at the crossing. The team determined that the existing flashing lights and bells at the crossing provide adequate warning for pedestrians crossing the tracks in that area. The team also recommended that the City consider adding illumination to the area for better visibility for pedestrians.

The team also recommended that the City install approximately 25 feet of curb and gutter at both gate locations. This is due to the current gates being located too close to the street without curb and gutter protection. The addition of the curb and gutter will provide the required clearance per the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Device (CAMUTCD) requirements.

The City agreed that the traffic on K Street queues over the crossing from the 9th Street traffic signal. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) states in Section 8C.09 that if a highway-rail grade crossing is equipped with a flashing-light signal system and is located within 200 feet of an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal, the traffic control signal should be provided with preemption in accordance with Section 4D.27.

Therefore, the team recommends that traffic signal at 9th Street be interconnected to the railroad equipment and adequate preemption time provided to clear the design vehicle during the worst case scenario. This will require railroad to upgrade their warning system to provide the preemption time requested by the City.

The diagnostic team recommended the following safety improvements at K Street:

Work to be completed by City:
• Concrete non-mountable medians – 65 feet to the west and 45 feet to the east, 2-feetwide and 7 inches high. (The total median length includes five feet inside the railroad gates)
• Installation of approximately 25 feet of curb and gutter for each railroad gate to provide required clearance.
• Installation of sidewalks on both sides of the crossing. This will include the construction of approximately 150 feet of 5-foot-wide sidewalks.
• Installation of interconnection cable from traffic signal controller to railroad bungalow.

Work to be completed by Railroad (funded by City):
• Upgrade warning system to provide requested preemption time • Extension of the concrete crossing surface approximately 8 feet to the north and south of existing panels
#6..
- 394 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 14 ends

I Street – DOT No. 752864Y
The I Street crossing is located at railroad milepost 113.02 just south of the K Street crossing.

I Street is a four lane divided roadway crossing over one main line tracks. The roadway approach is approximately 60 feet wide and constructed of asphalt composition. The crossing has concrete crossing panels. There are commercial driveways located in the southeast quadrant less than 60 feet east of the crossing.

Figure 5. I Street – Aerial View
The City review team considered the approved quiet zone treatment options provided in 49 CFR 222, Appendix A and agreed with the City’s preferred option to install non-traversable concrete medians. The proposed median lengths of 60 feet on the west approach and over 100 feet long on the east is long enough to qualify for a SSM but will not qualify as a SSM due to commercial driveways located less than 60 feet from the gates east of the crossing. The City will install concrete medians but take no credit for these improvements in the quiet zone calculations.

There was a previous diagnostic meeting held at this crossing by the City, Railroad and CPUC since this crossing is on the state list to be funded through the Federal Section 130 Funds. The following recommendations by the quiet zone diagnostic team includes all recommendations made during the previous meeting.

Page 15 ends

the gates have lowered to the horizontal position. The team recommended that the City move the edge of the sidewalk to at least 5 feet from the center of the railroad mast to provide the required clearance. This will require extending the railroad concrete surface and construction of additional sidewalk on both sides of the crossing. The City is concerned that there is not enough existing right of way to accomplish this improvement and may not be able to construct these improvements if it extends outside of the existing right of way. The City staff will investigate to determine if they have enough right of way. The sidewalks will include the installation of detectable warning approaching the crossing. The team determined that the existing flashing lights and bells at the crossing provide adequate warning for pedestrians crossing the tracks in that area.

The team recommended the installation of a fence on the west edge of railroad right-of-way that will extend from I Street north to the existing fence line. This will prevent pedestrians from trespassing on railroad right of way.

The City agreed that the traffic on I Street queues over the crossing from the 9th Street traffic signal. The CAMUTCD states in Section 8C.09 that if a highway-rail grade crossing is equipped with a flashing-light signal system and is located within 200 feet of an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal, the traffic control signal should be provided with preemption in accordance with Section 4D.27. Therefore, the team recommends that the traffic signal at 9th Street be interconnected to the railroad equipment and adequate preemption time provided to clear the design vehicle during the worst case scenario. This will require the Railroad to upgrade their warning system to provide the preemption time requested by the City.

The diagnostic team recommended the following safety improvements at I Street:

Work to be completed by City:
• Concrete non-mountable medians – 65 feet to the west and 65 feet to the east, 10-feetwide and 7 inches high. (The total median length includes five feet inside the railroad gates)
• Installation of sidewalks on both sides of the crossing. This will include the construction of approximately 150 feet of 5-foot-wide sidewalks.
• Installation of approximately 25 feet of curb and gutter for each railroad gate to provide required clearance.
• Installation of approximately 450 feet of security fencing • Installation of interconnection cable from traffic signal controller to railroad bungalow.

Work to be completed by Railroad (funded by City):
• Upgrade warning system to provide requested preemption time and median gates • Extension of the concrete crossing surface approximately 8 feet to the north and south of existing panels
#6..
- 396 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 16 ends

H Street – DOT No. 752865F
The H Street crossing is located at railroad milepost 113.12 just south of the K Street crossing.

H Street is a three lane one-way roadway crossing over one main line track and one siding. The roadway is approximately 50 feet wide and is asphalt composite with curb and gutter. The crossing is concrete crossing panels with asphalt between the tracks.

Figure 6. H Street – Aerial View

The City review team considered the approved SSM options provided in 49 CFR 222, Appendix A and agreed with the City’s preference for this location as a pre-existing one-way street SSM.

The team discussed pedestrian treatments in the area of the crossing and observed that the existing sidewalks are located behind the gates but do not have enough clearance to prevent the counter weights on the gate arm from blocking pedestrian movements off the track once the gates have lowered to the horizontal position. The team recommended that the City move the edge of the sidewalk to at least 5 feet from the center of the railroad mast to provide the required clearance. This will require extending the railroad concrete surface and construction of additional sidewalk on both sides of the crossing. The City is concerned that there is not enough existing right of way to accomplish this improvement and may not be able to construct these improvements if it extends outside of the existing right of way. The City staff will investigate to determine if they have enough right of way to be used to widen sidewalks at the railroad gates. The sidewalks will include the installation of detectable warning approaching the crossing. The team determined that the existing flashing lights and bells at the crossing provide adequate warning for pedestrians crossing the tracks in that area. #6..
- 397 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 17 ends

The team also recommended the installation of a cantilever since the existing flashing lights and gates do not provide a set of flashing lights for the middle lane of traffic.

The diagnostic team recommended the following safety improvements at H Street:

Work to be completed by City:
• Installation of sidewalks on both sides of the crossing. This will include the construction of approximately 150 feet of 5-foot-wide sidewalks.
• Installation of approximately 25 feet of curb and gutter for each railroad gate to provide required clearance.
• W10-1 Advance Warning signs with W10-9P No Train Horn plaques will be installed on each approach.
• R8-8 Do Not Stop on Track sign.
• New stop lines prior to each gate and railroad pavement markings.

Work to be completed by Railroad (funded by City):
• Install one cantilever with flashing lights
• Extension of the concrete crossing surface approximately 8 feet to the north and south of existing panels
#6..
- 398 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 18 ends

G Street – DOT No. 752866M
The G Street crossing is located at railroad milepost 113.21 and is the southernmost crossing in the proposed quiet zone. G Street is a three lane one-way roadway crossing over one main line track and one siding. The roadway is approximately 50 feet wide and is asphalt composite with curb and gutter in the southwest quadrant only. The crossing is concrete crossing panels with asphalt between the tracks.

Figure 6. G Street – Aerial View
The City review team considered the approved SSM options provided in 49 CFR 222, Appendix A and agreed with the City’s preference for this location as a pre-existing one-way street SSM.

The team discussed pedestrian treatments in the area of the crossing and observed that the existing sidewalks are located behind the gates but do not have enough clearance to prevent the counter weights on the gate arm from blocking pedestrian movements off the track once the gates have lowered to the horizontal position. The team recommended that the City move the edge of the sidewalk to at least 5 feet from the center of the railroad mast to provide the required clearance. This will require extending the railroad concrete surface and construction of additional sidewalk on both sides of the crossing. The City is concerned that there is not enough existing right of way to accomplish this improvement and may not be able to construct these improvements if it extends outside of the existing right of way. The City staff will investigate to determine if they have enough right of way to be used to widen sidewalks at the railroad gates. The sidewalks will include the installation of detectable warning approaching the crossing. The team determined that the existing flashing lights and bells at the crossing provide adequate warning for pedestrians crossing the tracks in that area. #6..
- 399 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 19 ends

The City agreed that the traffic on G Street queues over the crossing from the 9th Street traffic signal. The CAMUTCD states in Section 8C.09 that if a highway-rail grade crossing is equipped with a flashing-light signal system and is located within 200 feet of an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal, the traffic control signal should be provided with preemption in accordance with Section 4D.27. Therefore, the team recommends that the traffic signal at 9th Street be interconnected to the railroad equipment and adequate preemption time provided to clear the design vehicle during the worst case scenario. This will require the Railroad to upgrade their warning system to provide the preemption time requested by the City.

The team also recommended the installation of a cantilever since the existing flashing lights and gates do not provide a set of flashing lights for the middle lane of traffic.

The diagnostic team recommended the following safety improvements at G Street:

Work to be completed by City:
• Installation of sidewalks on both sides of the crossing. This will include the construction of approximately 150 feet of 5-foot-wide sidewalks.
• Installation of approximately 25 feet of curb and gutter for each railroad gate to provide required clearance.
• Installation of interconnection cable from traffic signal controller to railroad bungalow.

This include boring conduit for cable installation.
• W10-1 Advance Warning signs with W10-9 No Train Horn plaques will be installed on each approach.
• W10-2 Advance Warning signs with W10-9 No Train Horn plaques will be installed on 8th Street.
• R8-8 “Do Not Stop on Track” sign.
• New stop lines prior to each gate and railroad pavement markings.

Work to be completed by Railroad (funded by City):
• Upgrade warning system to provide requested preemption time including the addition of the recommended cantilever with flashing lights.
• Extension of the concrete crossing surface approximately 8 feet to the north and south of existing panels
#6..
- 400 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 20 ends

V. Summary of Estimated Quiet Zone Safety Improvement Costs The table below summarizes the proposed quiet zone improvements and approximate costs for each crossing location and option. These are budget estimates to evaluate alternatives for planning purposes only. Specific detailed cost estimates should be obtained from Railroad, traffic engineering firms, and construction contractors once the City has determined the final quiet zone plan.

Three alternatives are provided for comparison of cost and types of quiet zone methods that are available to the City for establishing the quiet zone. • Option A – Pre-Existing SSMs to reduce QZRI below RIWH – Diagnostic Team Recommendations
• Option B – SSMs at all crossings
• Option C –Pre-Existing SSMs to reduce QZRI below RIWH – Diagnostic Team Recommendations with Wayside Horn at Woodland Ave
Option A – Pre-Existing SSMs to reduce QZRI below RIWH – Diagnostic Team Recommendations
This option includes the pre-existing SSMs one-way streets at G and H Street and the installation of non-SSM-compliant concrete median at Woodland Avenue, L Street, K Street, and I Street. This options includes all Diagnostic Review Team (DRT) safety improvement recommendations. This includes the installation of concrete medians, pedestrian treatments, railroad upgrades including installation of cantilevers at G and H Streets and installation of railroad preemption at G, I, K, and L Streets.

The advantages of this option are as follows:
• Lower construction cost
• Lower maintenance cost
The disadvantages of this option are as follows:
• There is concern that medians at Woodland Avenue may cause issues with traffic Option B – Supplemental Safety Measures (SSM) at all crossings This option includes SSM-compliant treatments at each crossing. The existing one-way streets at G Street and H Street qualify as a SSM compliant crossing. The remaining crossings cannot qualify as SSMs with the installation of medians due to the existence of commercial driveways less than sixty feet from the gate. Therefore, this options provides for the installation of four quadrant gate systems at Woodland Avenue, L Street, K Street and I Street to qualify as SSM compliant.
#6..
- 401 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 21 ends

The advantages of this option are as follows:
• No street construction of medians required
• No impact to adjacent driveways located within sixty feet of crossing gates • Quiet zone is not based on quiet zone calculations which have to be re-calculated during re-authorization every 4 ½ to 5 years
The disadvantages of this option are as follows:
• Higher construction cost
• Higher yearly maintenance cost
Option C – Pre-Existing SSMs to reduce QZRI below RIWH – Diagnostic Team Recommendations with Wayside Horn at Woodlawn Ave
This option includes the pre-existing SSMs one-way streets at G and H Street, the installation of non-SSM-compliant concrete median at L Street, K Street, and I Street and the installation of a wayside horn system at Woodland Avenue. This options includes all diagnostic team safety improvement recommendations. This includes the installation of concrete medians, pedestrian treatments, railroad upgrades including installation of cantilevers at G and H Streets and installation of railroad preemption at G, I, K, and L Streets.

The following table provides a summary of cost for each option outlined above. The detailed cost estimate for each option is located in Appendix C.

The advantages of this option are as follows:
• No medians at Woodland Avenue
The disadvantages of this option are as follows:
• Horn will sound at Woodland Avenue
Table 2. Summary of Quiet Zone Construction
Option Woodland
Avenue L Street K Street I Street H Street G Street Other Costs Contingency
10%
Estimated
Total Cost
A $106,111 $705,228 $429,390 $468,078 $103,018 $459,700 $32,500 $230,402 $2,534,426 B $650,911 $913,478 $662,890 $672,978 $103,018 $509,700 $32,500 $354,547 $3,900,021 C $230,976 $735,228 $429,390 $468,078 $103,018 $459,700 $32,500 $245,889 $2,704,777 #6..
- 402 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 22 ends

Maintenance Cost
Signs and Pavement Markings – (Minimal Maintenance Cost) Many of the signs and pavement markings recommended by the diagnostic team are already in place and being maintained by the City. The additional signs and pavement marking will have a minimal impact in additional cost to the City. The maintenance cost should be included in the annual budget cost for maintaining signs and pavement marking throughout the City.

Concrete Sidewalks and Medians – (Minimal Maintenance Cost) The proposed concrete sidewalks and medians will require minimal additional maintenance cost for the City. These new sidewalk and medians, once installed should be included in the annual maintenance budget of the City for routine concrete repair.

Wayside Horn System – (Minimal Maintenance Cost)
The wayside horn system is designed to require little maintenance and provide optimum reliability. The system performs a “self-check” every time the horn is activated to confirm the system is working properly and providing the required train horn sound at the crossing.

Therefore, the agency is recommended to check the system on a quarterly basis. Local agency will be trained to perform periodic testing which is simplified since the system has an “autotest function” which can be activated by city staff to confirm the system is working properly.

The agency will test the system and confirm the horn is sounding at the required >92 decibel level 100 feet from the track.

Based on our experience, the maintenance cost due to repair and replacement of parts is relatively rare. Other than the controller, all components are off the self, easy to obtain and reasonably priced. The primary maintenance cost is regular testing by city staff to confirm system is working properly.

Four-Quadrant Gate Systems – (High Maintenance Cost)
The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) does not charge cities for maintenance cost of railroad flashing lights and gates and/or cantilevers with flashing lights. However, Option B includes the installation of Four-Quadrant gate systems with vehicle presence detection and the UP does require cities to reimburse UP for additional maintenance cost of these warning devices. UP estimates the annual maintenance at approximately $10,000 per crossing per year. Some agencies have negotiated a one-time upfront payment of the maintenance fee of around $150,000 per crossing. The installation of four-quadrant gate systems adds significant annual maintenance cost for the City on an annual basis, which must be considered when choosing the appropriate quiet zone option.

VI. Quiet Zone Implementation Process
Once the City has made the determination to proceed with implementation of the quiet zone, there is a sequence of events that must occur. Those events are described below.

USDOT Grade Crossing Inventory Updates – Existing Conditions The City along with the assistance of the Railroad will be required to update USDOT Grade Crossing Inventory Forms for each of the highway-rail grade crossings within the limits of the proposed quiet zone to reflect the existing conditions. An average daily traffic count for each #6..
- 403 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 23 ends

affected roadways will be required. Once the City has collected traffic data for all crossings located in the quiet zone, the grade crossing inventory can be updated.

Notice of Intent to Create a New Quiet Zone
The purpose of the Notice of Intent (NOI) is to provide notice to the Railroads operating over the public highway-rail grade crossings within the quiet zone, the highway or traffic control authority or law enforcement authority having jurisdiction over vehicular traffic at grade crossings within the quiet zone, the State agency responsible for highway and road safety that the City is planning on creating a new quiet zone. The NOI provides an opportunity for the Railroads and the agencies to give input to the City during the quiet zone development process.

The agencies and railroads will be given sixty days to provide information and comments to the public City.

The NOI must contain the following information:

1. A list of each public highway-rail grade crossing, private highway-rail grade crossing, and pedestrian crossing within the proposed quiet zone. The crossings are to be identified by both the U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Number and the street or highway name.

2. A statement of the time period within which the restrictions would be in effect on the routine sounding of train horns (i.e., 24 hours or from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.).

3. A brief explanation of the City’s tentative plans for implementing improvements within the proposed quiet zone.

4. The name and title of the person who will act as the point of contact during the quiet zone development process and how that person can be contacted.

5. A list of the names and addresses of each party that will receive a copy of the NOI.

The City must provide the written NOI, by certified mail, return receipt requested to the Railroad(s), California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) and California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). Although it is not required by the rule, it is recommended to also send a copy of the NOI to the Associate Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration.

If the City receives comments within the sixty-day period, assistance from the FRA may be required to resolve any of the issues raised. Since we will include the Railroad and the FRA in the planning process, it is not anticipated that there will be any issues raised during the NOI process.

Diagnostic Team Review
The diagnostic team review conducted on March 2, 2016 provided the information necessary to develop a plan and budgetary costs for proposed improvements throughout the quiet zone.

Although a diagnostic team inspection is not required, it is highly recommended to allow the Railroad, FRA, and Caltrans the opportunity to be involved from the beginning and provide recommendations during the design process and prevent issues from occurring late in the process. This is also the time when project details can be finalized with all stakeholders involved in the decision making process. The diagnostic team must, at a minimum, consist of representatives from the Railroad, Caltrans, CPUC and the City. It is also recommended to include a representative from the FRA to ensure that the proposed quiet zone meets all the necessary requirements.
#6..
- 404 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 24 ends

Implementation of Improvements
Upon conclusion of the diagnostic team review, specific recommendations will be developed and responsibility for work to be done will be defined. The following steps are required for implementation of the improvement plan.

1. The City may be requested to enter into a preliminary engineering agreement with the Railroad authorizing preparation of plans and estimates for the proposed improvements to be performed by the Railroad. (This information was provided to the City by the Railroad during the diagnostic meeting). Union Pacific requires a deposit of $10,000 per crossing signal location when executing the preliminary engineering agreement. This will allow UP to complete necessary field work to provide the city with engineered estimates for the proposed quiet zone improvements.

2. The Railroad will prepare project agreements, plans and estimates for approval and execution by the City.

3. Once the agreements have been fully executed, the Railroad will begin assembling the material and schedule proposed improvements.

4. Upon completion of improvements by the Railroad, the City will place all of the appropriate signing as required in the implementation plan.

USDOT Grade Crossing Inventory Updates – After Improvements The City will also be required to update USDOT Grade Crossing Inventory Forms for each of the highway-rail grade crossing within the limits of the proposed quiet zone to reflect the conditions after the proposed improvements. The Grade Crossing Inventory Forms will be included as part of the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment to be filed.

Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment
The purpose of the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment is to provide a means for the City to formally advise affected parties that a new quiet zone is being established. All quiet zone improvements need to be in place and confirmed by the city and/or its consultant that the proposed improvement have been installed per the quiet zone design and meets FRA requirements. Once that is confirmed, the City must provide written notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following:

1. Union Pacific Railroad

2. City of Modesto Police Department

3. CalTrans

4. CPUC

5. Associate Administrator for the FRA
The Notice of Establishment must contain the following information:

1. The date upon which the quiet zone will be established, but in no event shall the date be earlier than 21 days after the date of the mailing.
#6..
- 405 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 25 ends

2. A list of each public highway-rail grade crossing and private highway-rail grade crossing within the quiet zone, identified by both U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory Number and street or highway name.

3. A specific reference to the regulatory provision that provides the basis for quiet zone establishment. For example, if the improvements are completed as proposed, the appropriate regulatory provision is § 222.39(a)(1). This indicates that the quiet zone is established by Public Authority Designation utilizing an SSM treatment the only public highway-rail grade crossing in the corridor.

4. A statement affirming that the State agency responsible for grade crossing safety and all affected railroads were provided an opportunity to participate in the diagnostic team review as required under § 222.25 (private crossings). The Notice of Quiet Establishment shall also include a list of recommendations by the diagnostic team.

5. A statement of the time period within which restrictions on the routine sounding of the locomotive horn will be imposed (i.e., 24 hours or from 10 p.m. until 7 a.m.)

6. An accurate and complete Grade Crossing Inventory Form for each public highway-rail grade crossing and private highway-rail grade crossing within the quiet zone that reflects the conditions existing at the crossing before any new SSMs or ASMs were implemented.

7. An accurate, complete and current Grade Crossing Inventory Form for each public highway-rail grade crossing and private highway-rail grade crossing within the quiet zone that reflects SSMs and ASMs in place upon establishment of the quiet zone. SSMs and ASMs that cannot be fully described on the Inventory Form shall be separately described.

8. A statement affirming that the Notice of Intent was provided in accordance with the rule. This statement shall also state the date on which the Notice of Intent was mailed.

9. The name and title of the person responsible for monitoring compliance with the requirements of this part and the manner in which that person can be contacted.

10. A list of the name and address of each party that is receiving a copy of the Notice of Quiet Establishment.

11. A statement signed by the chief executive officer of each public authority participating in the establishment of the quiet zone, in which the chief executive officer shall certify that the information submitted by the public authority is accurate and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

Quiet Zone Creation and Continuation
Once the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment has been filed properly, the quiet zone will be created on the establishment date described in the notice. It will then be the City’s responsibility to maintain all the appropriate signs, pavement markings, and medians as well as the sight distance improvements for the crossings. The Railroad will maintain the flashing lights and gates at the affected crossings. The project agreement will define cost responsibility associated with the Railroad’s maintenance.

Between 4½ and 5 years after the date of the quiet zone establishment notice, the City must:

1. Affirm in writing to the Associate Administrator that the SSMs implemented within the quiet zone continue to conform to the requirements of appendix A of this part. Copies of such affirmation must be provided by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties identified in § 222.43(a)(3) of this part; and
#6..
- 406 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 26 ends

2. Provide to the Associate Administrator an up-to-date, accurate, and complete Grade Crossing Inventory Form for each public highway-rail grade crossing and private highwayrail grade crossing within the quiet zone. This will include up-to-date traffic counts at the affected roadways.

This affirmation must be submitted every 4½ to 5 years thereafter.

VII. Liability
During the development of the federal rule for use of locomotive horns, several agencies and railroads provided comments related to the lack of guidance concerning liability when a crash occurs at a highway-rail grade crossing within a quiet zone established in accordance with the rule. The comments ranged from those who felt the rule should include language that local communities should not be liable for crashes occurring at crossing within the quiet zone to those who felt the communities implementing the quiet zones should assume all risk associated with the quiet zones. In Part II Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229 Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Interim Final Rule issued on December 18, 2003, (See Appendix D) the FRA concluded that the rule is intended to remove failure to sound the horn as a cause of action in a lawsuit involving crossings within a quiet zone. They added that they expect the courts will determine liability issues based on facts of each case and after reviewing the nature of this rule and its Federal requirements. As a result, the existing final rules issued in 2005 does not include guidance for or requirement of an agency to accept liability for crashes at crossings located in a quiet zone they establish under this rule. Additional detail on this subject is provided in Appendix D #6..
- 407 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 28 ends

APPENDIX A: City of Modesto Sign-In Sheet
#6..
- 408 -
#6..
- 409 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 30 ends

APPENDIX B: Final Diagnostic Notes
#6..
- 410 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 1 | 4
Woodland Avenue

GENERAL LOCATION INFORMATION
DATE: March 2, 2016 DOT#: 752855A
Railroad: UPRR State: CA County: Stanislaus
City: Modesto Street: Woodland Avenue Block: 900
Region: Sacramento Subdivision: Fresno MP: 111.60
Diagnostic Team Participants:

Name: Representing: Name: Representing:

See Sign-In Sheet

EXISTING HIGHWAY INFORMATION
Existing Channelization Devices or Medians:
☐All Approaches ☐Channelization ☐Median ☒None
☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Curb height minimum 6 inches
Length N/E:

Length S/W:

Street width:

Comments:

Posted Speed: 30 MPH
Recent ADT count available: ☒Yes ☐No Recommend new count: ☒Yes ☐No Year: 2012
Adjacent Intersections/Driveways: ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Does traffic queue onto the crossing? ☒ Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Is current preemption time adequate? ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Commercial driveway within 60 ft.? ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A
Private driveway within 100 ft.? ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Comments:
#6..
- 411 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 2 | 4
Woodland Avenue
Existing Pedestrian Treatments:
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) approaching railroad right of way
☐Yes ☒No Sidewalk(s) through railroad right of way
☐Yes ☒No Detectable warning surface
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian flashing lights and bells
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian gates
☐Yes ☒No Other pedestrian treatments
Comments:

EXISTING RAILROAD INFORMATION
Crash History (previous five years) – see comments: ☐Yes ☒No US DOT number clearly posted: ☒Yes ☐No
ENS sign clearly posted ☒Yes ☐No
Number of Track(s) sign (R15-2) properly displayed? ☒Yes ☐No ☐ N/A Condition of grade crossing surface: ☒Good ☐Fair ☐Poor
Does alignment of tracks cause problems for road users: ☒Yes ☐No Clear visibility at crossing (vegetation, buildings, other): ☒Yes ☐No Reports of motorists violating warning devices at excessive rate: ☒Yes ☐No Comments:
14 unsafe vehicles reported on track and 5 unsafe motorists per UP.

QUIET ZONE PLANS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Quiet Zone Established Under:

Public Authority Designation: Public Authority Application:
☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (1) (SSM at every crossing) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (b) (ASM) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (2) (QZRI<NSRT)
☒49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (3) (QZRI<RIWH)
#6..
- 412 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 3 | 4
Woodland Avenue
Does crossing meet minimum requirement of CFR 49 Parts 222.35:
☒Yes ☐No Minimum Length (1/2 mile)
Active grade crossing warning devices:
☒Yes ☐No Flashing lights and gates
☒Yes ☐No Constant warning time device (if practical)
☒Yes ☐No Power out indicator
☒Yes ☐No Advance warning signs
☒Yes ☐No Bells Number: Type:

Quiet Zone Treatment(s):
☐SSM ☒Non SSM ☐ASM Concrete Non Mountable Median
☐SSM ☐Non SSM ☐ASM Channelization (mountable)
☐SSM One-Way Street
☐SSM Four-Quadrant Gates with Vehicle detection or timed exit gates ☐SSM Closure
☐ Wayside Horn
Comments:

Adjacent Intersections Recommendations:
☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A Recommendations by Diagnostic Team for adjacent intersection Comments:

Signage and Pavement Markings Recommendations:

Recommended signs:
☒W10-1 # ☐W10-3 # ☐W10-5 # ☒W10-11 # ☐Other -see comments ☒W10-2# ☐W10-4 # ☐W10-9P # ☐W10-12 # ☐ NONE
Comments: Add R8-8

 Non SSM – Does not meet SSM requirement and no credit for improvements are being taken as a part of Quiet Zone calculations to reduce the QZRI below the NSRT or RIWH
#6..
- 413 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 4 | 4
Woodland Avenue
Recommended pavement markings:
☒Stop Lines ☒RR Xing Symbols ☐Dynamic Envelope ☐Other - see comments ☐None
Comments: Add edge line over crossing due to vehicles turning down the track Pedestrian Treatment Recommendations
☐Yes ☒No Existing/proposed flashing lights and bells provide adequate pedestrian warning and Diagnostic Team has no additional recommendations for pedestrian treatment.
☒Yes ☐No Improvements recommended
☐Yes ☒No Additional bell(s) recommended
☒Yes ☐No Additional Flashing Lights recommended
☐Yes ☒No Additional pedestrian gates recommended
☒Yes ☐No Additional signs/pavement markings recommended ☒Yes ☐No Add sidewalk(s)
☒Yes ☐No Add detectable warning on sidewalk(s) approaches ☒Yes ☐No Addition railroad crossings panels
☐Yes ☒No Other improvements – see comments
Comments:

Add Illumination to provide better visibility for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclist.

Warning System Recommendations
☐Yes ☒No Total crossing upgrade
☐Yes ☒No Upgrade to constant warning
☐Yes ☒No Upgrade to LED flashers / gate lights
☐Yes ☒No Add additional side lights
☐Yes ☒No Other improvements – see comments
☒ NONE
Comments:

Additional Diagnostic Meeting Documents (for on-site visit only):

Existing FRA Inventory Form
Crash Reports previous 5 years (if applicable)
Diagnostic Meeting Sign in sheet (if applicable)
Aerial and/or crossing layout
#6..
- 414 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 1 | 4
L Street / SR 132

GENERAL LOCATION INFORMATION
DATE: March 2, 2016 DOT#: 752862K
Railroad: UPRR State: CA County: Stanislaus
City: Modesto Street: L St / SR 132 Block: 700
Region: Sacramento Subdivision: Fresno MP: 112.70
Diagnostic Team Participants:

Name: Representing: Name: Representing:

See Sign-In Sheet

EXISTING HIGHWAY INFORMATION
Existing Channelization Devices or Medians:
☐All Approaches ☐Channelization ☐Median ☒None
☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Curb height minimum 6 inches
Length N/E:

Length S/W:

Street width: 60’
Comments:

Posted Speed: 25MPH
Recent ADT count available: ☐Yes ☒No Recommend new count: ☒Yes ☐No Year: 2007
Adjacent Intersections/Driveways: ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Does traffic queue onto the crossing? ☒ Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Is current preemption time adequate? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A
Commercial driveway within 60 ft.? ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Private driveway within 100 ft.? ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Comments:
#6..
- 415 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 2 | 4
L Street / SR 132
Existing Pedestrian Treatments:
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) approaching railroad right of way
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) through railroad right of way
☐Yes ☒No Detectable warning surface
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian flashing lights and bells
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian gates
☐Yes ☒No Other pedestrian treatments
Comments:

EXISTING RAILROAD INFORMATION
Crash History (previous five years) – see comments: ☒Yes ☐No US DOT number clearly posted: ☒Yes ☐No
ENS sign clearly posted ☒Yes ☐No
Number of Track(s) sign (R15-2) properly displayed? ☐Yes ☐No ☒ N/A Condition of grade crossing surface: ☒Good ☐Fair ☐Poor
Does alignment of tracks cause problems for road users: ☐Yes ☒No Clear visibility at crossing (vegetation, buildings, other): ☐Yes ☒No Reports of motorists violating warning devices at excessive rate: ☐Yes ☐No Comments: 2015 Pedestrians – No Injury
Unsafe pedestrian and vehicle on track reported to UP.

QUIET ZONE PLANS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Quiet Zone Established Under:

Public Authority Designation: Public Authority Application:
☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (1) (SSM at every crossing) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (b) (ASM) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (2) (QZRI<NSRT)
☒49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (3) (QZRI<RIWH)
#6..
- 416 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 3 | 4
L Street / SR 132
Does crossing meet minimum requirement of CFR 49 Parts 222.35:
☒Yes ☐No Minimum Length (1/2 mile)
Active grade crossing warning devices:
☒Yes ☐No Flashing lights and gates
☒Yes ☐No Constant warning time device (if practical)
☒Yes ☐No Power out indicator
☒Yes ☐No Advance warning signs
☒Yes ☐No Bells Number: Type:

Concrete medians will be installed but will not qualify as SSMs because of length and driveways less than 60 feet from gates. No credit will be taken in the quiet zone calculations for these safety improvements.

Adjacent Intersections Recommendations:
☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A Recommendations by Diagnostic Team for adjacent intersection Comments:

City stated that traffic does queue over the crossing from the traffic signal located on 9th Street.

Team recommended interconnection with traffic signal and advance preemption which requires a warning system upgrade by the railroad to provide the preemption time needed.

Signage and Pavement Markings Recommendations:

Recommended signs:
☒W10-1 # ☐W10-3 # ☐W10-5 # ☐W10-11 # ☐Other -see comments ☒W10-2# ☐W10-4 # ☒W10-9P # ☐W10-12 # ☐ NONE
Comments: Add R8-8 sign

 Non SSM – Does not meet SSM requirement and no credit for improvements are being taken as a part of Quiet Zone calculations to reduce the QZRI below the NSRT or RIWH
#6..
- 417 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 4 | 4
L Street / SR 132
Recommended pavement markings:
☒Stop Lines ☒RR Xing Symbols ☐Dynamic Envelope ☐Other - see comments ☐None
Comments: Relocate DNSOT Sign – Blocked by Post at present time.

Recommended move sidewalk outside gates
Warning System Recommendations
☐Yes ☒No Total crossing upgrade
☐Yes ☒No Upgrade to constant warning
☐Yes ☒No Upgrade to LED flashers / gate lights
☐Yes ☒No Add additional side lights
☒Yes ☐No Other improvements – see comments
☐ NONE
Comments:

Add advance preemption upgrade – Requires Caltrans’ approval since traffic signal is owned and operated by Caltran’s
UP requested that the City try to keep new concrete median width at 10 feet to reduce railroad gate length if possible.

Additional Diagnostic Meeting Documents (for on-site visit only):

Existing FRA Inventory Form
Crash Reports previous 5 years (if applicable)
Diagnostic Meeting Sign in sheet (if applicable)
Aerial and/or crossing layout
#6..
- 418 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 1 | 4
K Street

GENERAL LOCATION INFORMATION
DATE: March 2, 2016 DOT#: 752863S
Railroad: UPRR State: CA County: Stanislaus
City: Modesto Street: K St Block: 700
Region: Sacramento Subdivision: Fresno MP: 112.80
Diagnostic Team Participants:

Name: Representing: Name: Representing:

See Sign-In Sheet

EXISTING HIGHWAY INFORMATION
Existing Channelization Devices or Medians:
☐All Approaches ☐Channelization ☐Median ☒None
☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Curb height minimum 6 inches
Length N/E:

Length S/W:

Street width: 50’
Comments:

Posted Speed: 25 MPH
Recent ADT count available: ☐Yes ☒No Recommend new count: ☒Yes ☐No Year:

Adjacent Intersections/Driveways: ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Does traffic queue onto the crossing? ☒ Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Is current preemption time adequate? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A
Commercial driveway within 60 ft.? ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Private driveway within 100 ft.? ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A
Comments:
#6..
- 419 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 2 | 4
K Street
Existing Pedestrian Treatments:
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) approaching railroad right of way
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) through railroad right of way
☐Yes ☒No Detectable warning surface
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian flashing lights and bells
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian gates
☐Yes ☒No Other pedestrian treatments
Comments:

EXISTING RAILROAD INFORMATION
Crash History (previous five years) – see comments: ☐Yes ☒No US DOT number clearly posted: ☒Yes ☐No
ENS sign clearly posted ☒Yes ☐No
Number of Track(s) sign (R15-2) properly displayed? ☐Yes ☐No ☒ N/A Condition of grade crossing surface: ☐Good ☐Fair ☐Poor
Does alignment of tracks cause problems for road users: ☐Yes ☒No Clear visibility at crossing (vegetation, buildings, other): ☐Yes ☒No Reports of motorists violating warning devices at excessive rate: ☒Yes ☐No Comments:
4 unsafe motorist reports and 8 unsafe pedestrian reports QUIET ZONE PLANS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Quiet Zone Established Under:

Public Authority Designation: Public Authority Application:
☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (1) (SSM at every crossing) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (b) (ASM) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (2) (QZRI<NSRT)
☒49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (3) (QZRI<RIWH)
#6..
- 420 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 3 | 4
K Street
Does crossing meet minimum requirement of CFR 49 Parts 222.35:
☒Yes ☐No Minimum Length (1/2 mile)
Active grade crossing warning devices:
☒Yes ☐No Flashing lights and gates
☒Yes ☐No Constant warning time device (if practical)
☒Yes ☐No Power out indicator
☒Yes ☐No Advance warning signs
☒Yes ☐No Bells Number: 2 Type: Mechanical
Quiet Zone Treatment(s):
☐SSM ☒Non SSM ☐ASM Concrete Non Mountable Median
☐SSM ☐Non SSM ☐ASM Channelization (mountable)
☐SSM One-Way Street
☐SSM Four-Quadrant Gates with Vehicle detection or timed exit gates ☐SSM Closure
☐ Wayside Horn
Comments:

Adjacent Intersections Recommendations:
☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A Recommendations by Diagnostic Team for adjacent intersection Comments:

City stated that traffic does queue over the crossing from the traffic signal located on 9th Street.

Team recommended interconnection with traffic signal and advance preemption which requires a warning system upgrade by the railroad to provide the preemption time needed.

Signage and Pavement Markings Recommendations:

Recommended signs:
☒W10-1 # ☐W10-3 # ☐W10-5 # ☐W10-11 # ☐Other -see comments ☒W10-2# ☐W10-4 # ☒W10-9P # ☐W10-12 # ☐ NONE
Comments: ADD R8-8 sign

 Non SSM – Does not meet SSM requirement and no credit for improvements are being taken as a part of Quiet Zone calculations to reduce the QZRI below the NSRT or RIWH
#6..
- 421 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 4 | 4
K Street
Recommended pavement markings:
☒Stop Lines ☒RR Xing Symbols ☐Dynamic Envelope ☐Other - see comments ☐None
Comments:

Warning System Recommendations
☐Yes ☒No Total crossing upgrade
☐Yes ☒No Upgrade to constant warning
☐Yes ☒No Upgrade to LED flashers / gate lights
☐Yes ☒No Add additional side lights
☒Yes ☐No Other improvements – see comments
☐ NONE
Comments:

Add advance preemption upgrade – Requires Caltrans’ approval since traffic signal is owned and operated by Caltran’s
Need 4’3” Clearance for Gates
Diagnostic Team recommended installation of Illumination to help pedestrians since this is a dark area.

Additional Diagnostic Meeting Documents (for on-site visit only):

Existing FRA Inventory Form
Crash Reports previous 5 years (if applicable)
Diagnostic Meeting Sign in sheet (if applicable)
Aerial and/or crossing layout
#6..
- 422 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 1 | 4
I Street

GENERAL LOCATION INFORMATION
DATE: March 2, 2016 DOT#: 752864Y
Railroad: UPRR State: CA County: Stanislaus
City: Modesto Street: I St Block: 800
Region: Sacramento Subdivision: Fresno MP: 113.00
Diagnostic Team Participants:

Name: Representing: Name: Representing:

See Sign-In Sheet

EXISTING HIGHWAY INFORMATION
Existing Channelization Devices or Medians:
☒All Approaches ☐Channelization ☒Median ☐None
☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A Curb height minimum 6 inches
Length N/E: 165’
Length S/W: 40’
Street width: 60’
Comments:

Posted Speed: 25MPH
Recent ADT count available: ☐Yes ☒No Recommend new count: ☒Yes ☐No Year: 2004
Adjacent Intersections/Driveways: ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Does traffic queue onto the crossing? ☒ Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Is current preemption time adequate? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A
Commercial driveway within 60 ft.? ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Private driveway within 100 ft.? ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A
Comments:
#6..
- 423 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 2 | 4
I Street
Existing Pedestrian Treatments:
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) approaching railroad right of way
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) through railroad right of way
☐Yes ☒No Detectable warning surface
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian flashing lights and bells
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian gates
☐Yes ☒No Other pedestrian treatments
Comments:

EXISTING RAILROAD INFORMATION
Crash History (previous five years) – see comments: ☒Yes ☐No US DOT number clearly posted: ☒Yes ☐No
ENS sign clearly posted ☒Yes ☐No
Number of Track(s) sign (R15-2) properly displayed? ☒Yes ☐No ☐ N/A Condition of grade crossing surface: ☒Good ☐Fair ☐Poor
Does alignment of tracks cause problems for road users: ☐Yes ☒No Clear visibility at crossing (vegetation, buildings, other): ☐Yes ☒No Reports of motorists violating warning devices at excessive rate: ☒Yes ☐No Comments: CRASHES: 3 Pedestrian – 1 in 2015 and 2 in 2013 QUIET ZONE PLANS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Quiet Zone Established Under:

Public Authority Designation: Public Authority Application:
☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (1) (SSM at every crossing) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (b) (ASM) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (2) (QZRI<NSRT)
☒49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (3) (QZRI<RIWH)
#6..
- 424 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 3 | 4
I Street
Does crossing meet minimum requirement of CFR 49 Parts 222.35:
☒Yes ☐No Minimum Length (1/2 mile)
Active grade crossing warning devices:
☒Yes ☐No Flashing lights and gates
☒Yes ☐No Constant warning time device (if practical)
☒Yes ☐No Power out indicator
☒Yes ☐No Advance warning signs
☒Yes ☐No Bells Number: 2 Type: 1Mechanical and 1 Electronic Quiet Zone Treatment(s):
☐SSM ☒Non SSM ☐ASM Concrete Non Mountable Median
☐SSM ☐Non SSM ☐ASM Channelization (mountable)
☐SSM One-Way Street
☐SSM Four-Quadrant Gates with Vehicle detection or timed exit gates ☐SSM Closure
☐ Wayside Horn
Comments:

Concrete medians will not qualify as SSMs due to commercial driveways located less than 60 feet from gates. Medians will be 60 feet or longer and 6 inches of minimum height. No credit will be taken in the quiet zone calculations for these safety improvements.

Adjacent Intersections Recommendations:
☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A Recommendations by Diagnostic Team for adjacent intersection Comments:

City stated that traffic does queue over the crossing from the traffic signal located on 9th Street.

Team recommended interconnection with traffic signal and advance preemption which requires a warning system upgrade by the railroad to provide the preemption time needed.

Signage and Pavement Markings Recommendations:

Recommended signs:
☒W10-1 # ☐W10-3 # ☐W10-5 # ☐W10-11 # ☐Other -see comments ☒W10-2# ☐W10-4 # ☒W10-9P # ☐W10-12 # ☐ NONE
Comments: Diagnostic Team recommended adding R8-8 signs before and after crossing

 Non SSM – Does not meet SSM requirement and no credit for improvements are being taken as a part of Quiet Zone calculations to reduce the QZRI below the NSRT or RIWH
#6..
- 425 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 4 | 4
I Street
Recommended pavement markings:
☒Stop Lines ☒RR Xing Symbols ☐Dynamic Envelope ☐Other - see comments ☐None
Comments: R8-8 Before & After
Pedestrian Treatment Recommendations
☐Yes ☒No Existing/proposed flashing lights and bells provide adequate pedestrian warning and Diagnostic Team has no additional recommendations for pedestrian treatment.
☒Yes ☐No Improvements recommended
☐Yes ☐No Additional bell(s) recommended
☐Yes ☐No Additional Flashing Lights recommended
☐Yes ☐No Additional pedestrian gates recommended
☐Yes ☐No Additional signs/pavement markings recommended ☒Yes ☐No Add sidewalk(s)
☒Yes ☐No Add detectable warning on sidewalk(s) approaches ☒Yes ☐No Addition railroad crossings panels
☒Yes ☐No Other improvements – see comments
Comments: Fencing I Street to K Street (partial connect with existing fence) Seal Hole Access at Train Depot that allows pedestrians to cross track and enter depot area.

Warning System Recommendations
☐Yes ☒No Total crossing upgrade
☐Yes ☒No Upgrade to constant warning
☒Yes ☐No Upgrade to LED flashers / gate lights
☐Yes ☒No Add additional side lights
☒Yes ☐No Other improvements – see comments
☐ NONE
Comments: Add advance preemption upgrade - Requires Caltrans’ approval since traffic signal is owned and operated by Caltran’s
Add Median Gates – Remove trees/vegetation; maximum 3’ high Add Flashing lights in off-quadrants for pedestrians
NOTE: This crossing is currently on the state’s list of projects to be funded by Section 130 funds.

A previous diagnostic meeting was held in 2015 at this location as part of that project process.

Additional Diagnostic Meeting Documents (for on-site visit only):

Existing FRA Inventory Form
Crash Reports previous 5 years (if applicable)
Diagnostic Meeting Sign in sheet (if applicable)
Aerial and/or crossing layout
#6..
- 426 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 1 | 4
H Street

GENERAL LOCATION INFORMATION
DATE: March 2, 2016 DOT#: 752865F
Railroad: UPRR State: CA County: Stanislaus
City: Modesto Street: H St Block: 800
Region: Sacramento Subdivision: Fresno MP: 113.10
Diagnostic Team Participants:

Name: Representing: Name: Representing:

See Sign-in Sheet

EXISTING HIGHWAY INFORMATION
Existing Channelization Devices or Medians:
☐All Approaches ☐Channelization ☐Median ☒None
☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Curb height minimum 6 inches
Length N/E:

Length S/W:

Street width: 50’
Comments: One Way Street
Posted Speed: 25 MPH
Recent ADT count available: ☐Yes ☒No Recommend new count: ☒Yes ☐No Year: 1989
Adjacent Intersections/Driveways: ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Does traffic queue onto the crossing? ☐ Yes ☒No ☐N/A
Is current preemption time adequate? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A
Commercial driveway within 60 ft.? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A
Private driveway within 100 ft.? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A
Comments: One Way Street
#6..
- 427 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 2 | 4
H Street
Existing Pedestrian Treatments:
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) approaching railroad right of way
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) through railroad right of way
☐Yes ☒No Detectable warning surface
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian flashing lights and bells
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian gates
☐Yes ☒No Other pedestrian treatments
Comments:

EXISTING RAILROAD INFORMATION
Crash History (previous five years) – see comments: ☐Yes ☒No US DOT number clearly posted: ☒Yes ☐No
ENS sign clearly posted ☒Yes ☐No
Number of Track(s) sign (R15-2) properly displayed? ☒Yes ☐No ☐ N/A Condition of grade crossing surface: ☒Good ☐Fair ☐Poor
Does alignment of tracks cause problems for road users: ☐Yes ☒No Clear visibility at crossing (vegetation, buildings, other): ☐Yes ☒No Reports of motorists violating warning devices at excessive rate: ☐Yes ☒No Comments:

QUIET ZONE PLANS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Quiet Zone Established Under:

Public Authority Designation: Public Authority Application:
☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (1) (SSM at every crossing) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (b) (ASM) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (2) (QZRI<NSRT)
☒49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (3) (QZRI<RIWH)
#6..
- 428 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 3 | 4
H Street
Does crossing meet minimum requirement of CFR 49 Parts 222.35:
☒Yes ☐No Minimum Length (1/2 mile)
Active grade crossing warning devices:
☒Yes ☐No Flashing lights and gates
☒Yes ☐No Constant warning time device (if practical)
☒Yes ☐No Power out indicator
☒Yes ☐No Advance warning signs
☒Yes ☐No Bells Number: 2 Type: Electronic
Quiet Zone Treatment(s):
☐SSM ☐Non SSM ☐ASM Concrete Non Mountable Median
☐SSM ☐Non SSM ☐ASM Channelization (mountable)
☒SSM One-Way Street
☐SSM Four-Quadrant Gates with Vehicle detection or timed exit gates ☐SSM Closure
☐ Wayside Horn
Comments: Pre-Existing SSM
Adjacent Intersections Recommendations:
☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A Recommendations by Diagnostic Team for adjacent intersection Comments:

Signage and Pavement Markings Recommendations:

Recommended signs:
☒W10-1 # ☐W10-3 # ☐W10-5 # ☐W10-11 # ☐Other -see comments ☐W10-2# ☐W10-4 # ☒W10-9P # ☐W10-12 # ☐ NONE
Comments:

The W10-2 sign located on 8th Street just south of H Street should be removed since H Street is one-way and no right turns from northbound 8th Street is allowed.

 Non SSM – Does not meet SSM requirement and no credit for improvements are being taken as a part of Quiet Zone calculations to reduce the QZRI below the NSRT or RIWH
#6..
- 429 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 4 | 4
H Street
Recommended pavement markings:
☒Stop Lines ☒RR Xing Symbols ☐Dynamic Envelope ☐Other - see comments ☐None
Comments:

Pedestrian Treatment Recommendations
☐Yes ☒No Existing/proposed flashing lights and bells provide adequate pedestrian warning and Diagnostic Team has no additional recommendations for pedestrian treatment.
☒Yes ☐No Improvements recommended
☐Yes ☒No Additional bell(s) recommended
☐Yes ☒No Additional Flashing Lights recommended
☐Yes ☒No Additional pedestrian gates recommended
☐Yes ☒No Additional signs/pavement markings recommended ☐Yes ☒No Add sidewalk(s)
☒Yes ☐No Add detectable warning on sidewalk(s) approaches ☒Yes ☐No Addition railroad crossings panels
☒Yes ☐No Other improvements – see comments
Comments: Extended Panel Siding for Sidewalk
Curb at Gates – 4’ 3”
Warning System Recommendations
☐Yes ☒No Total crossing upgrade
☐Yes ☒No Upgrade to constant warning
☐Yes ☒No Upgrade to LED flashers / gate lights
☒Yes ☐No Add additional side lights
☒Yes ☐No Other improvements – see comments
☐ NONE
Comments: Add Side Lights
Add cantilever for middle lane
Additional Diagnostic Meeting Documents (for on-site visit only):

Existing FRA Inventory Form
Crash Reports previous 5 years (if applicable)
Diagnostic Meeting Sign in sheet (if applicable)
Aerial and/or crossing layout
#6..
- 430 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 1 | 4
G Street

GENERAL LOCATION INFORMATION
DATE: March 2, 2016 DOT#: 752866M
Railroad: UPRR State: CA County: Stanislaus
City: Modesto Street: G St Block: 800
Region: Sacramento Subdivision: Fresno MP: 113.20
Diagnostic Team Participants:

Name: Representing: Name: Representing:

See Sign-In Sheet

EXISTING HIGHWAY INFORMATION
Existing Channelization Devices or Medians:
☐All Approaches ☐Channelization ☐Median ☒None
☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Curb height minimum 6 inches
Length N/E:

Length S/W:

Street width: 48’
Comments: One Way Street
Posted Speed:

Recent ADT count available: ☐Yes ☒No Recommend new count: ☒Yes ☐No Year: 1989
Adjacent Intersections/Driveways: ☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Does traffic queue onto the crossing? ☒ Yes ☐No ☐N/A
Is current preemption time adequate? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A
Commercial driveway within 60 ft.? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A
Private driveway within 100 ft.? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A
Comments:
#6..
- 431 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 2 | 4
G Street
Existing Pedestrian Treatments:
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) approaching railroad right of way
☒Yes ☐No Sidewalk(s) through railroad right of way
☐Yes ☒No Detectable warning surface
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian flashing lights and bells
☐Yes ☒No Pedestrian gates
☐Yes ☒No Other pedestrian treatments
Comments:

EXISTING RAILROAD INFORMATION
Crash History (previous five years) – see comments: ☒Yes ☐No US DOT number clearly posted: ☒Yes ☐No
ENS sign clearly posted ☒Yes ☐No
Number of Track(s) sign (R15-2) properly displayed? ☒Yes ☐No ☐ N/A Condition of grade crossing surface: ☒Good ☐Fair ☐Poor
Does alignment of tracks cause problems for road users: ☐Yes ☒No Clear visibility at crossing (vegetation, buildings, other): ☐Yes ☒No Reports of motorists violating warning devices at excessive rate: ☒Yes ☐No Comments:

CRASHS - 2011 – Suicide (confirmed)
Unsafe motorist reports – 4 vehicles on the track; 4 unsafe pedestrians QUIET ZONE PLANS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

Quiet Zone Established Under:

Public Authority Designation: Public Authority Application:
☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (1) (SSM at every crossing) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (b) (ASM) ☐49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (2) (QZRI<NSRT)
☒49 CFR Parts 222.39 (a) (3) (QZRI<RIWH)
#6..
- 432 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 3 | 4
G Street
Does crossing meet minimum requirement of CFR 49 Parts 222.35:
☒Yes ☐No Minimum Length (1/2 mile)
Active grade crossing warning devices:
☒Yes ☐No Flashing lights and gates
☒Yes ☐No Constant warning time device (if practical)
☒Yes ☐No Power out indicator
☒Yes ☐No Advance warning signs
☒Yes ☐No Bells Number: 2 Type: Electronic
Quiet Zone Treatment(s):
☐SSM ☐Non SSM ☐ASM Concrete Non Mountable Median
☐SSM ☐Non SSM ☐ASM Channelization (mountable)
☒SSM One-Way Street
☐SSM Four-Quadrant Gates with Vehicle detection or timed exit gates ☐SSM Closure
☐ Wayside Horn
Comments:

Pre-Existing SSM
Adjacent Intersections Recommendations:
☒Yes ☐No ☐N/A Recommendations by Diagnostic Team for adjacent intersection Comments:

City stated that traffic does queue over the crossing from the traffic signal located on 9th Street.

Team recommended interconnection with traffic signal and advance preemption which requires a warning system upgrade by the railroad to provide the preemption time needed.

Signage and Pavement Markings Recommendations:

Recommended signs:
☒W10-1 # ☐W10-3 # ☐W10-5 # ☐W10-11 # ☐Other -see comments ☒W10-2# ☐W10-4 # ☒W10-9P # ☐W10-12 # ☐ NONE
Comments: R8-8 - Add 2 signs

 Non SSM – Does not meet SSM requirement and no credit for improvements are being taken as a part of Quiet Zone calculations to reduce the QZRI below the NSRT or RIWH
#6..
- 433 -
Quiet Zone Diagnostic Notes
Copyright 2016 by CTC, Inc. (CTC). This document is governed by 23 U.S.C. § 409.

P a g e 4 | 4
G Street
Recommended pavement markings:
☒Stop Lines ☒RR Xing Symbols ☐Dynamic Envelope ☐Other - see comments ☐None
Comments: Make Sure Solid Line at Crossing per standard for railroad pavement markings Pedestrian Treatment Recommendations
☐Yes ☒No Existing/proposed flashing lights and bells provide adequate pedestrian warning and Diagnostic Team has no additional recommendations for pedestrian treatment.
☐Yes ☐No Improvements recommended
☐Yes ☒No Additional bell(s) recommended
☐Yes ☒No Additional Flashing Lights recommended
☐Yes ☒No Additional pedestrian gates recommended
☐Yes ☒No Additional signs/pavement markings recommended ☒Yes ☐No Add sidewalk(s)
☒Yes ☐No Add detectable warning on sidewalk(s) approaches ☒Yes ☐No Addition railroad crossings panels
☐Yes ☐No Other improvements – see comments
Comments: City and UPRR to work together to resolve problems with grain trucks loading on Track and exiting onto H street behind gates.

Warning System Recommendations
☐Yes ☐No Total crossing upgrade
☐Yes ☐No Upgrade to constant warning
☐Yes ☐No Upgrade to LED flashers / gate lights
☐Yes ☐No Add additional side lights
☒Yes ☐No Other improvements – see comments
☐ NONE
Comments: Add advance preemption upgrade – Requires Caltrans’ approval since traffic signal is owned and operated by Caltran’s
Add cantilever to provide flashing lights for middle lane of traffic Additional Diagnostic Meeting Documents (for on-site visit only):

Existing FRA Inventory Form
Crash Reports previous 5 years (if applicable)
Diagnostic Meeting Sign in sheet (if applicable)
Aerial and/or crossing layout
#6..
- 434 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 56 ends

APPENDIX C: Quiet Zone Option Costs
#6..
- 435 -

QUIET ZONE OPTION A

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE

WOODLAND AVENUE
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount Comments:

CITY WORK
1 EA 2 Bicycle Signal Heads and Signs pre CAMUTCD $6,000.00 $6,000 52 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $351 2- 16 ft stop lines, 4-5' lines sidewalks 1 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $510
6 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,700 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2, 1 W10-11B 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $10,211
330 LF Curb and Gutter for Concrete Median 160' long $40.00 $13,200 320 SF Concrete median - 2 foot wide $25.00 $8,000 160 ft long times 2 ft wide = 320 SF 50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 1250 SF Concrete sidewalk - 250 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $12,500 250 ft long times 5 ft wide = 1250 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $43,700
TOTAL CITY WORK $53,911

RAILROAD WORK
16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 1 EA
Installation of one mast with flashing lights for
pedestrians in northwest quad $30,000.00 $30,000
3 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $3,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $52,200
Total Woodland Avenue $106,111

L STREET
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
50 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $338 2- 25 ft stop lines 4 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $2,040
5 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,250 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $5,278
250 LF Curb and Gutter for Concrete Median 110' long $40.00 $10,000 1110 SF Concrete median - 10 foot wide $25.00 $27,750 110 ft long times 10 ft wide = 1110 SF 50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 1000 SF Concrete sidewalk - 200 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $10,000 200 ft long times 5 ft wide = 1000 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $57,750
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $83,028

RAILROAD WORK
1 EA
Total warning system upgrade to provide advance
preemption $350,000.00 $350,000
160 ft long times 2 sides = 320 plus about 5
ft on each end = 330 LF
110 ft long times 2 sides = 220 plus about 15
ft on each end = 250 LF
#6..
- 436 -

QUIET ZONE OPTION A

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
1 EA Add Remote House for all preemptions $250,000.00 $250,000 16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 3 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $3,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $622,200
TOTAL L Street $705,228

K STREET
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
40 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $270 2- 20 ft stop lines 2 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $1,020
5 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,250 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $4,190
250 LF Curb and Gutter for Concrete Median 110' long $40.00 $10,000 220 SF Concrete median - 2 foot wide $25.00 $5,500 110 ft long times 2 ft wide = 220 SF 50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 750 SF Concrete sidewalk - 150 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $33,000
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $57,190

RAILROAD WORK
1 EA
Total warning system upgrade to provide advance
preemption $350,000.00 $350,000
16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 3 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $3,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $372,200
TOTAL K Street $429,390

I STREET
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount

QUIET ZONE OPTION A

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
1300 SF Concrete median - 10 foot wide $25.00 $32,500
50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 450 LF Fence - 6 foot high security fencing $20.00 $9,000 750 SF Concrete sidewalk -150 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $70,600
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $95,878

RAILROAD WORK
1 EA
Total warning system upgrade to provide advance
preemption (includes median gates) $350,000.00 $350,000 16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 3 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $3,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $372,200
TOTAL I Street $468,078

H STREET
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
50 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $338 1- 50 ft stop lines 3 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $1,530
2 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $900 2- W10-1 2 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $100
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $3,318
50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 750 SF Concrete sidewalk - 200 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $17,500
TOTAL CITY WORK $20,818

G STREET
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
50 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $338 2- 25 ft stop lines 3 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $1,530
5 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,250 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2 130 ft long times 10 ft wide = 1300 SF (may
be narrowed on east side but will use total
width for estimating purposes)
#6..
- 438 -

QUIET ZONE OPTION A

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $4,768
50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 750 SF Concrete sidewalk - 200 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $17,500
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $37,500

RAILROAD WORK
1 EA
Total warning system upgrade to provide advance
preemption including one cantilever $400,000.00 $400,000 16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 3 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $3,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $422,200
TOTAL G Street $459,700

OTHER COST
Quiet Zone Consultant $16,000
Street Engineering Design Consultant (PS&E for medians, sidewalks, pavement markings, etc) $15,000
Traffic Counts for each crossing $1,500
Total Other Costs $32,500
SUB - TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - OPTION A $2,304,024
CONTINGENCY 10% $230,402
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - OPTION A $2,534,426
#6..
- 439 -

QUIET ZONE OPTION B

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE

WOODLAND AVENUE
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount Comments:

CITY WORK
1 EA 2 Bicycle Signal Heads and Signs pre CAMUTCD $6,000.00 $6,000 52 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $351 2- 16 ft stop lines, 4-5' Sidewalks 1 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $510
6 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,700 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2, 1 W10-11B 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $10,211
50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 1250 SF Concrete sidewalk - 250 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $12,500 250 ft long times 5 ft wide = 1250 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $2,000.00 $2,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $19,500
TOTAL CITY WORK $29,711

RAILROAD WORK
16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 1 EA
Four Quadrant Gate Sytem with vehicle presence
detection $600,000.00 $600,000
2 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $2,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $621,200
Total Woodland Avenue $650,911

L STREET
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
50 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $338 2- 25 ft stop lines 4 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $2,040
5 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,250 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $5,278
50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 1000 SF Concrete sidewalk - 200 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $10,000 200 ft long times 5 ft wide = 1000 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $2,000.00 $2,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $17,000
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $42,278

RAILROAD WORK
1 EA
Four Quadrant Gate Sytem with vehicle presence
detection $600,000.00 $600,000
1 EA Add Remote House for all preemptions $250,000.00 $250,000 16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 2 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $2,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $871,200
TOTAL L Street $913,478
Note: The remote house cost is added to L
Street but is required for benefit of all
crossing preemption circuits
#6..
- 440 -

QUIET ZONE OPTION B

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE

K STREET
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
40 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $270 2- 20 ft stop lines 2 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $1,020
5 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,250 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $4,190
50 EA Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 750 EA Concrete sidewalk - 150 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $17,500
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $41,690

RAILROAD WORK
1 EA
Four Quadrant Gate Sytem with vehicle presence
detection $600,000.00 $600,000
16 EA Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 2 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $2,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $621,200
TOTAL K Street $662,890

I STREET
Qty. Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
50 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $338 2- 25 ft stop lines 4 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $2,040
5 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,250 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $5,278
50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 450 LF Fence - 6 foot high security fencing $20.00 $9,000 750 EA Concrete sidewalk - 150 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $26,500
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $51,778

RAILROAD WORK
#6..
- 441 -

QUIET ZONE OPTION B

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
1 EA
Four Quadrant Gate Sytem with vehicle presence
detection $600,000.00 $600,000
16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 2 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $2,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $621,200
TOTAL I Street $672,978

H STREET
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
50 FT 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $338 1- 50 ft stop lines 3 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $1,530
2 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $900 2- W10-1 2 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $100
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $3,318
50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 750 SF Concrete sidewalk - 150 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $17,500
TOTAL CITY WORK $20,818

RAILROAD WORK
1 EA
Insatllation of cantilever (approximately 30 foot) and
additional sidelight $60,000.00 $60,000
16 LF Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 3 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $3,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $82,200
TOTAL H Street $103,018

G STREET
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
50 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $338 2- 25 ft stop lines 3 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $1,530
5 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,250 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $4,768
50 EA Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 750 EA Concrete sidewalk - 150 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 ea Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $17,500
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 LF Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $37,500
#6..
- 442 -

QUIET ZONE OPTION B

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE

RAILROAD WORK
1 EA
Total warning system upgrade to provide advance
preemption including one cantilever $400,000.00 $400,000 1 EA Insatllation of cantilever (approximately 30 foot)' $50,000.00 $50,000 16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 3 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $3,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $472,200
TOTAL G Street $509,700

OTHER COST
Quiet Zone Consultant $16,000
Street Engineering Design Consultant (PS&E for medians, sidewalks, pavement markings, etc) $15,000
Traffic Counts for each crossing $1,500
Total Other Costs $32,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - OPTION B $3,545,474
CONTINGENCY 10% $354,547
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - OPTION B $3,900,021
#6..
- 443 -

QUIET ZONE OPTION C

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE

WOODLAND AVENUE
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount Comments:

CITY WORK
1 EA 2 Bicycle Signal Heads and Signs pre CAMUTCD $6,000.00 $6,000 32 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $216 2- 16 ft stop lines 1 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $510
6 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,700 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2, 1 W10-11B 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $10,076
330 LF Curb and Gutter for Concrete Median 160' long $40.00 $13,200 320 SF Concrete median - 2 foot wide $25.00 $8,000 160 ft long times 2 ft wide = 320 SF 50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 1250 SF Concrete sidewalk - 250 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $12,500 250 ft long times 5 ft wide = 1250 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $43,700
1 EA Wayside Horn System Installation $75,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $128,776

RAILROAD WORK
16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 1 EA Installation of Wayside Horn System Interconnect $50,000.00 $50,000 1 EA
Installation of one mast with flashing lights for
pedestrians in northwest quad $30,000.00 $30,000
3 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $3,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $102,200
Total Woodland Avenue $230,976

L STREET
Qty. Unit Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
50 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $338 2- 25 ft stop lines 4 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $2,040
5 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,250 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $5,278
250 LF Curb and Gutter for Concrete Median 110' long $40.00 $10,000 1110 SF Concrete median - 10 foot wide $25.00 $27,750 110 ft long times 10 ft wide = 1110 SF 50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 LF Edge Road Curb and Gutter $40.00 $0
1000 SF Concrete sidewalk - 200 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $10,000 200 ft long times 5 ft wide = 1000 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $57,750
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $83,028
160 ft long times 2 sides = 320 plus about 5
110 ft long times 2 sides = 220 plus about 15
ft on each end = 250 LF
#6..
- 444 -

QUIET ZONE OPTION C

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE

RAILROAD WORK
1 EA
Total warning system upgrade to provide advance
preemption $350,000.00 $350,000
1 EA Add Remote House for all preemptions $250,000.00 $250,000 16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 1 EA
Installation of one mast with flashing lights for
pedestrians in northwest quad $30,000.00 $30,000
3 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $3,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $652,200
TOTAL L Street $735,228

K STREET
Qty. Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
40 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $270 2- 20 ft stop lines 2 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $1,020
5 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,250 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $4,190
250 LF Curb and Gutter for Concrete Median 110' long $40.00 $10,000 220 SF Concrete median - 2 foot wide $25.00 $5,500 110 ft long times 2 ft wide = 220 SF 50 EA Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 EA Edge Road Curb and Gutter $40.00 $0
750 SF Concrete sidewalk - 200 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $33,000
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $57,190

I STREET
Qty. Description Unit Price Amount

QUIET ZONE OPTION C

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $5,278
290 LF Curb and Gutter for Concrete Median 130' long $40.00 $11,600 1300 SF Concrete median - 10 foot wide $25.00 $32,500
50 EA Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 450 EA Fence - 6 foot high security fencing $20.00 $9,000 750 SF Concrete sidewalk - 200 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $70,600
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $95,878

H STREET
Qty. Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
50 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $338 1- 50 ft stop lines 3 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $1,530
2 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $900 2- W10-1 2 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $100
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
SUB-TOTAL SIGNS/PVMT MKINGS $3,318
50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 750 EA Concrete sidewalk - 200 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $17,500
TOTAL CITY WORK $20,818

RAILROAD WORK
1 EA
Insatllation of cantilever (approximately 30 foot) and
additional sidelight $60,000.00 $60,000
16 FT Concrete crossing panel extension $1,200.00 $19,200 3 EA Flagging Cost for street construction $1,000.00 $3,000 TOTAL RAILROAD WORK $82,200
TOTAL H Street $103,018
130 ft long times 10 ft wide = 1300 SF (may
be narrowed on east side but will use total
width for estimating purposes)
130 ft long times 2 sides = 260 plus about 15
ft on each end = 290 LF
#6..
- 446 -

QUIET ZONE OPTION C

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE

G STREET
Qty. Description Unit Price Amount

CITY WORK
50 LF 24" SLD PVMNT MAKING HAE (W) $6.75 $338 2- 25 ft stop lines 3 EA LANE LEGEND RR $510.00 $1,530
5 EA Furnish and install Alum Sign Pole Mount/with Sign $450.00 $2,250 2- W10-1; 1 R8-8; 2- W10-2 4 EA W10-9P Plaque furnish and install $50.00 $200
1 EA Traffic Control $450.00 $450
50 LF Curb and gutter at gates - 25 long each gate $40.00 $2,000 750 SF Concrete sidewalk - 200 feet long X 5 foot wide $10.00 $7,500 150 ft long times 5 ft wide = 750 SF 4 EA Detectable Warning $750.00 $3,000
1 EA Site prep/mobilization $5,000.00 $5,000
SUB-TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $17,500
350 LF Boring - Preemption interconnection $50.00 $17,500 400 LF Preemption Interconnectioin cable $5.00 $2,000
2 EA Pull Boxes $250.00 $500
Sub-Total Preemption Work $20,000
TOTAL CITY WORK $37,500

OTHER COST
Quiet Zone Consultant $16,000
Street Engineering Design Consultant (PS&E for medians, sidewalks, pavement markings, etc) $15,000
Traffic Counts for each crossing $1,500
Total Other Costs $32,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - OPTION C $2,458,889
CONTINGENCY 10% $245,889
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - OPTION C $2,704,777
#6..
- 447 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 69 ends

APPENDIX D: FRA 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229
#6..
- 448 -
Thursday,
December 18, 2003
Part II
Department of
Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 222 and 229
Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail
Grade Crossings; Interim Final Rule
VerDate jul<14>2003 00:18 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\18DER2.SGM 18DER2 #6..
- 449 -
70606 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2003 / Rules and Regulations for whistle bans-—and which are
required in this rule for New Quiet
Zones—were in most cases installed
with primarily Federal funds. Thus
prior Federal funding has already
assisted local governments to some
extent in preserving Pre-Rule Quiet
Zones and creating New Quiet Zones.
‘‘Section 152 funds’’ (23 U.S.C. 152
(Hazard Elimination Program) are
intended to implement safety
improvement projects to reduce the
number and severity of crashes at
hazardous highway locations, sections,
and elements on any public road.

Typical projects include intersection
improvements (channelization, traffic
signals, and sight distance); pavement
and shoulder widening; guardrail and
barrier improvements; installation of
crash cushions; modification of roadway
alignment; signing, pavement marking,
and delineation; breakaway utility poles
and sign supports; pavement grooving
and skid resistant overlays; shoulder
rumble strips; and minor structure
replacements or modifications. It is
important to note that grade crossing
improvements can be funded under
section 152 if they are identified in a
State’s hazardous location survey.

The difference between the sum of the
funding levels for sections 130 and 152
and the overall 10 percent safety setaside in STP is in a category called ‘‘Optional Safety Funds’’ and is eligible
for use in either section 130 or section
152. In FY 2000, there was a total of
$368 million available in Optional
Safety Funds, but only $21 million (or
6 percent) was used on section 130
grade crossing safety enhancement.

Clearly this is an area where States can
be encouraged to change the mix of
safety projects advanced using this
funding to accommodate more grade
crossing safety improvements.

It should be noted that 90 percent of
the STP funds are available for general
use. Local Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, working with the State
departments of transportation, help
determine how those funds should be
allocated. As FRA was advised by
commenters in this proceeding,
community transportation needs differ.

Without question, engineering
improvements under this rule would
constitute eligible projects deserving of
consideration for use of this 90 percent
share.

Under section 1103(c) of TEA 21, an
amount of $5,250,000 per year was set
aside from STP funds, and this funding
is to be used for projects on designated
high speed passenger rail corridors.

Should a quiet zone be desired on a
portion of such a designated high speed
corridor, such funds could be used as a
part of the overall high speed corridor
improvement project. Given the
relatively small amount of funding
available under section 1103(c), it is
perhaps unlikely that any quiet zone
improvements would rise to the top of
the list on any such corridor. However,
note that there is a strong compatibility
between the kind of safety
improvements desired for high-speed
rail corridors (‘‘sealed corridor’’
treatments) and the supplementary
safety measures identified in this rule.

Transfers of funds from other
categories into the STP are permitted,
and any such transfers are not subject to
STP set-asides or suballocations.
• Up to 50 percent of National
Highway System (NHS) apportionments
may be transferred to the STP; indeed,
up to 100 percent of NHS funds may be
transferred to STP if approved by the
Secretary of Transportation, and if
sufficient notice and opportunity for
public comment is given.
• Up to 50 percent of Interstate
Maintenance apportionments may be
transferred to STP.
• Up to 50 percent of Bridge
Replacement funds may be transferred
to STP.
• Funds apportioned to the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Program may also be
transferred to STP, subject to the
following conditions. Up to 50 percent
of the amount by which the CMAQ
apportionment for the fiscal year
exceeds the amount that would have
been apportioned to CMAQ for that
fiscal year if the program had been
funded at $1.35 billion annually may be
transferred to STP. Transferred CMAQ
funds may only be used in air quality
non-attainment and maintenance areas.

Finally, please note that, with respect
to roadways on the National Highway
System, improvements would be
eligible for funding out of the NHS.

The subject matter of this regulatory
proceeding is the use of the train horn
at highway-rail crossings, not the
development of appropriations requests.

Accordingly, FRA neither endorses nor
argues against earmarked Federal
funding for this purpose. FRA does note
that, in general, State and local
governments have argued against
categorical transportation programs and
in favor of broad block grants over
which recipients could exercise full
control. As reflected above, to a large
extent that has become Federal policy.

Whether any deviation from that policy
is warranted by the fiscal impacts
claimed to be associated with this rule
is a matter for review in other forums.

Accordingly, FRA’s principal response
to those arguing for Federal funding has
been to ensure, to the extent practicable,
that any expenses attributed to
establishing Quiet Zones are no greater
than necessary to maintain safety.

As this interim final rule was being
drafted, the Congress and the
Administration were preparing to
address the reauthorization of surface
transportation programs (extending or
replacing TEA–21). That process was
being complicated by reduced revenues,
confirming FRA’s conviction that this
interim final rule should allow
additional time for implementation of
the rule. Although it is possible that the
program structure outlined above may
be reorganized significantly in new
legislation, FRA does not expect any
resulting reduction in the flexibility
afforded to the States (working with
local Metropolitan Planning
Organizations) to affect the utilization of
Federal transportation funds.

11. Liability
Several commenters noted that the
NPRM was silent as to the issue of
liability when an accident occurs at a
highway-rail grade crossing within a
quiet zone established in accordance
with the rule. The New Jersey
Department of Transportation (‘‘DOT’’)
explained that consideration should be
given to how liability issues presented
by the rulemaking will affect public
safety. Several commenters suggested
that legislation was necessary to
prohibit lawsuits by anyone injured
while circumventing highway-rail grade
crossing safety devices within quiet
zones. The Massachusetts town of
Manchester-by-the-Sea commented that
the NPRM appeared to be a paternalistic
effort directed towards those who
willfully violate traffic laws and
illegally proceed around grade crossing
safety devices. This commenter also
expressed concern that railroads may be
reluctant to agree to implementation of
quiet zones under the rule for fear that
it would increase their risk of liability
if an accident did occur at a crossing
within a quiet zone where the railroads
did not routinely sound their
locomotive horns. Manchester-by-theSea suggested that when there is willful conduct by a motorist or pedestrian that
jeopardizes his life or those of others,
e.g., proceeding through activated gate
crossing devices, railroads and local
communities should not be subject to
liability if an accident occurs.

Accordingly, the Town recommended
that FRA work with Congress to codify
limits to the liability of railroads and
communities when those who willfully
violate traffic or trespassing laws are
injured at rail crossings within a quiet
zone. Similarly, a Wisconsin State
VerDate jul<14>2003 00:18 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18DER2.SGM 18DER2 #6..
- 450 -
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 70607 legislative representative suggested that
local communities should not be liable
for accidents occurring at grade
crossings within quiet zones established
under the rule.

The North Carolina DOT suggested
that communities pursuing quiet zones
in their jurisdictions should enter into
agreements with the relevant State and
operating railroads agreeing to hold
harmless the State and railroads for any
accidents or injuries that occur as a
direct result of these quiet zones. This
same commenter emphasized that the
communities implementing quiet zones
should assume all of the risk associated
with the quiet zones.

Commenters from the railroad
industry strongly advocated that
municipalities seeking the
establishment of quiet zones under the
rule should assume liability for all
accidents that occur at crossings within
the quiet zones. Citing the historical
sounding of locomotive horns as a safety
feature of railroads for the past century,
the Florida East Coast Railway argued
that if a community insists that it cease
the sounding of the locomotive horns
when traveling through its jurisdiction,
then that community should be willing
to accept the liability associated with
the decision. The American Public
Transportation Association projected
that passage of a rule permitting quiet
zones as proposed in the NPRM would
probably lead to increased insurance
premiums for railroads.

Another concern raised by several
railroad industry participants, as well as
an individual locomotive engineer, was
the fact that State law often imposes
liability on individual members of train
crews and their employers when a train
does not sound its horn at a highwayrail crossing and an accident occurs.

These commenters contended that
nothing in the NPRM would remove
liability from individual train crew
members or their employers for failure
to sound the locomotive horn in the
event of an accident in a quiet zone
established pursuant to the rule. A
representative of the Wisconsin Central
System suggested that the rule should
clearly state that failure to sound the
locomotive horn in a FRA approved
quiet zone could not serve as a basis for
imposing civil liability on either the
train crew or the employing railroad.

FRA appreciates the legitimate
concern of the commenters regarding
liability issues surrounding creation of
quiet zones under this rule. We note
that the proposed rule would have had
the effect of relieving individual train
crew members and their employers from
liability for failure to sound the
locomotive horn. The proposed rule
clearly provides that establishment of a
quiet zone created no legal duty to
sound the horn in emergency situations.

Because the rule clearly covered the
subject matter of such a duty, it would
have prevented State laws imposing
such a duty. FRA does not expect that
lawsuits will never arise over collisions
which may occur at crossings within
quiet zones, nor should FRA attempt to
prohibit such suits since the cause of
such collision may in fact be due to
factors other than the lack of an audible
warning. However, this rule is intended
to remove failure to sound the horn as
a cause of action in such lawsuits
involving crossings within a quiet zone.

We expect that the courts will
determine liability issues based on the
facts of each case and after reviewing
the nature of this rule and its Federal
requirements.

We expect that courts, following
Norfolk Southern v. Shanklin, 529 U.S.
344 (2000) and CSX v. Easterwood, 507
U.S. 658 (1993), will conclude that this
regulation substantially subsumes the
subject matter of whether trains must
sound warning devices at highway-rail
grade crossings and, therefore, preempts
state law on that subject.

FRA perceives no reason why
establishment of quiet zones under this
rule should result in higher insurance
premium costs for railroads. In fact, a
quiet zone under this rule should be
evaluated as much less of an
underwriting risk than a current whistle
ban.

12. Wayside Horn
During FRA’s initial outreach process
prior to issuing the NPRM, several
commenters asked whether placement
of a wayside horn (a horn at the crossing
and directed at oncoming motorists)
might be entertained as a supplementary
safety measure. FRA also received
comments in the docket and at the
public hearings on this subject. It is
apparent that there is interest in using
such a device as an alternative means of
providing an audible warning to the
motorist of an approaching train.

A wayside horn system would
typically consist of horns mounted on
poles that are placed at the crossing. A
horn would be directed towards each
direction of oncoming vehicular traffic.

The system would be activated by the
same track circuits used to detect the
train’s approach for purposes of other
automated warning devices at the
crossing (flashing lights and gates) and
would produce a sound similar to the
horn signal given by an approaching
train.

At FRA’s direction, the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center
conducted an initial evaluation of two
wayside horn installations at Gering,
Nebraska in 1995 (Field Evaluation of a
Wayside Horn at a Highway-Railroad
Grade Crossing, Final Report, June
1998). This evaluation noted that use of
the wayside horn in lieu of the train
horn reduced net community noise
impacts. The evaluation also showed a
52 percent reduction in the number of
incidents in which motorists continued
to drive over the crossing after the
warning device’s gate arms had started
to descend as compared to the baseline
data collected with the train horn
sounding. There was no significant
difference between train horns and
wayside horns for motorists that drove
around lowered gates. While the report
indicated improved driver behavior
with the wayside horn, the report also
contains analysis that suggests questions
regarding the effectiveness of that
particular installation in alerting
motorists that should be answered
before implementing wayside horns as a
substitute for train-borne horns. Further,
this evaluation did not contain adequate
data or analysis to permit a
determination of whether a wayside
horn could fully substitute for a trainborne audible warning and additional evaluations at other sites should be
performed. The NPRM suggested three
questions related to the effectiveness of
the wayside horn:

1. Does the particular system provide
the same quality of warning, determined
by loudness at appropriate frequencies,
within the motor vehicle while it is
approaching the motorist’s decision
point?

2. As currently conceived, a single
stationary horn cannot give the motorist
a cue as to the direction of approach of
the train or trains. To what extent does
this lack of directionality detract from
the effectiveness of the warning? Can
wayside installation design be altered to
compensate?

3. To what extent will the stationary
horn suffer from the lack of credibility
sometimes associated with automated
warning devices, due to the fact that it
is activated by the same means? Over
what period of time may this problem
arise, if at all?
Since the installation of the original
wayside horn system in Gering, NE,
several other communities have
installed wayside horns. These sites
include: Ames, Iowa, Parsons, Kansas,
Wichita, Kansas and Richardson, Texas.

Additionally, other communities have
had temporary test installations of the
wayside horns.

This topic generated a number of
comments from various parties.

Additionally, the departments of
VerDate jul<14>2003 00:18 Dec 18, 2003 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18DER2.SGM 18DER2 #6..
- 451 -
Quiet Zone Evaluation
City of Modesto, CA
Final Report
May 2016

Page 73 ends

APPENDIX E: Crossing Layouts
#6..
- 452 -
#6..
- 453 -
ONLY
EXIT
GARAGE

PARKING
ONLY

ENTRANCE
GARAGE

PARKING
9TH STREET
8TH STREET

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
SCALE: 1' = 30'
RRMP 112.70
DOT# 752866M
DRAFT

PURPOSES ONLY

FOR DISCUSSION

NOT FOR DESIGN
L
S
T
RE
E
T
25' 25'

L STREET

CITY OF MODESTO, CA

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
200'
60'
10'
10'
40'
10'
10'
13' 12' 12' 13'
#6..
- 454 -

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
SCALE: 1' = 30'
RRMP 112.80
DOT# 752863S
9TH STREET
K
S
T
RE
E
T
8TH STREET
ONLY
BUSES
ONLY

ENTRANCE
GARAGE

PARKING
ONLY
EXIT
GARAGE

PARKING
UPRR
198'
25' 25'

K STREET

CITY OF MODESTO, CA

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
DRAFT

PURPOSES ONLY

FOR DISCUSSION

NOT FOR DESIGN
LOT

PARKING
60' ONE WAY
10'
40'
10'
2'
2'
#6..
- 455 -
I
S
T
RE
E
T
9TH STREET
8TH STREET

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
SCALE: 1' = 30'
RRMP 113.00
DOT# 752864Y

STATION
BUS
BELL
TACO
195'

I STREET

CITY OF MODESTO, CA

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
DRAFT

PURPOSES ONLY

FOR DISCUSSION

NOT FOR DESIGN
12' 12'
10'
7'
E
X
IS
T
IN
G
M
E
D
IAN
10'
10'
12' 12'
10'
7'
60'
#6..
- 456 -

UPRR SIDING

UPRR MAIN
9TH STREET
8TH STREET

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
SCALE: 1' = 30'
RRMP 113.10
DOT# 752865F
H
S
T
RE
E
T
DRAFT

PURPOSES ONLY

FOR DISCUSSION

NOT FOR DESIGN
(ONE WAY)

H STREET

CITY OF MODESTO, CA

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
(ONE-WAY ONLY)

ENTRANCE

PARKING

COMMERCIAL
#6..
- 457 -
9TH STREET

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
SCALE: 1' = 30'
RRMP 113.20
DOT# 752866M
8TH STREET

G STREET

CITY OF MODESTO, CA

CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
DRAFT

PURPOSES ONLY

FOR DISCUSSION

NOT FOR DESIGN
G
S
T
REE
T

DRIVEWAY

COMMERCIAL
+208'

DRIVEWAY

COMMERCIAL
#6..
- 458 -
1 4
City of Modesto | INF 24-02 Railroad Quiet Zone Feasibility Study and Establishment Cost, Schedule, and Deadlines
A Cost Proposal
#6..
- 459 -
2 4
City of Modesto | INF 24-02 Railroad Quiet Zone Feasibility Study and Establishment #6..
- 460 -

Economic Development CommitteeNovember 1, 2023

Economic Development Committee
November 1, 2023