Quiet Zone Implementation Study
Prepared for:
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
10 S. Almaden Boulevard
Suite 1250
San Jose, CA 95113
Prepared on:
June 26, 2025
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates., Inc.
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130
CITY OF PALO ALTO QUIET ZONE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Document Review and Initial Data Collection........................................................................................ 3 Quiet Zone Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 5 SSM at Each Crossing ......................................................................................................................... 6 SSM at Some Crossings (QZRI Less Than RIWH) ............................................................................... 6 No SSM (QZRI Less Than NSRT) ........................................................................................................ 6 Quiet Zone Alternative – Wayside Horns (WSH) ...................................................................................... 7 Wayside Horns Case Study – Flagstaff, AZ .......................................................................................... 7 Prevalence of Wayside Horns .............................................................................................................. 8 Quiet Zone Evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 8 Conceptual Design .................................................................................................................................. 9 Field Diagnostic Meetings ...................................................................................................................... 10 Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Outreach and Coordination .................................................................................................................... 10 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 11 Next Steps............................................................................................................................................. 11 Final Design ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Permitting .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Funding ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Construction....................................................................................................................................... 12 Quiet Zone Certification...................................................................................................................... 12 Continued Outreach ........................................................................................................................... 13 List of Appendices
Appendix A Full Quiet Zone Analysis
Appendix B Conceptual Designs
Appendix C Field Diagnostic Meeting Minutes
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130
BACKGROUND
There are four at-grade vehicular railroad crossings within the City of Palo Alto, all along the Caltrain corridor, whose right of way is owned by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB). Per Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements, locomotive engineers are required to sound their horns upon approach to at-grade crossings in a four-blast sequence, beginning either 20 seconds or ¼- mile upstream of the at-grade crossing. In Palo Alto, these four vehicular at-grade crossings span over
3.5 miles – meaning that for each train passing through this city, the train horns sound sixteen times (excluding any train horns sounded on approach to the Caltrain stations within the City). With Caltrain being a transit agency boasting robust service, trains pass through Palo Alto quite frequently; Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) also maintains trackage rights, allowing them to use this corridor for freight operations. These train movements, and the required horn soundings, result in significant noise pollution and quality of life degradation for nearby residents and businesses.
For the reasons listed above, the City Palo Alto (subsequently referred to as “City”) has undertaken a study to determine the feasibility of implementing a quiet zone along this railroad corridor.
SCOPE OF WORK
The work accomplished under this study included analysis, conceptual designs, field diagnostic meetings, and public outreach for the four at-grade crossings. The crossings located in the City of Palo Alto are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Crossings located in the City of Palo Alto
Crossing DOT# Crossing Roadway Name
754992N Palo Alto Avenue
754998E Churchill Avenue
755010S East Meadow Drive
755011Y Charleston Road
Source: FRA Office of Safety Analysis (https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/crossing/crossing.aspx) The northernmost at-grade crossing in Palo Alto (Palo Alto Avenue) was evaluated in a previous quiet zone implementation study, which was then followed by a final design phase. The Palo Alto Avenue crossing is approaching the construction phase for its set of quiet zone improvements, which is comprised of a raised median on both sides of the tracks. Any improvements to the remaining crossings in the City would then append the quiet zone at Palo Alto Avenue. The purpose of this study is to determine the recommended set of improvements at the remaining three crossings in the City – Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road.
Kimley-Horn performed the necessary analysis prescribed by the FRA, prepared draft conceptual designs of the improvements to each of the three remaining at-grade crossings within the scope, scheduled and attended diagnostic field meetings with stakeholders, and assisted the City in public outreach efforts.
DOCUMENT REVIEW AND INITIAL DATA COLLECTION
Kimley-Horn staff performed an initial site visit to evaluate the existing conditions of the grade crossings and assessed both the opportunities and constraints for the potential improvements. This investigation
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130 involved taking photographs and discussing the site conditions internally and evaluating potential improvements.
Kimley-Horn staff also reviewed available documents from the FRA, including existing U.S. DOT Inventory Forms and historical incident reports. The inventory reports detail the existing conditions of the crossing, and include vital information about the roadway infrastructure, railroad infrastructure, crossing geometry, railroad organization information, train information (including daily counts and timetable speeds), and general location information. The incident reports include collision details and provide insight into historic events at each crossing, including what, if any, safety measures were implemented at that time. The incident reports allowed Kimley-Horn staff to directly compare the data for each crossing and identify major safety differences among the crossings.
Since 2015, there have been 26 incidents along this three-crossing section of the corridor. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the incidents, including the year of the incident and a summary of the incident.
Table 2: Incidents at Each Crossing from 2015 to present Crossing
DOT#
Crossing
Roadway
Name
Date of
Incident Type of Incident
Injury/Fatality
754998E Churchill
Avenue
4/16/2023 Person Fatality
9/09/2022 Vehicle (unoccupied) None reported
5/10/2021 Vehicle (occupied) None reported
1/21/2021 Person Fatality (intentional)
11/15/2019 Vehicle (unoccupied) None reported
8/03/2018 Vehicle (occupied) None reported
10/16/2017 Vehicle (unoccupied) None Reported
6/15/2017 Vehicle (unoccupied) None Reported
5/22/2017 Vehicle (occupied) None reported
755010S
East
Meadow
Drive
2/20/2024 Person Fatality
1/26/2024 Person Fatality
7/06/2023 Person Fatality
7/23/2022 Person Fatality (intentional)
1/19/2017 Vehicle (occupied) None reported
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130 10/16/2016 Vehicle (unoccupied) None reported
9/19/2016 Vehicle (occupied) Injury
9/13/2015 Vehicle (occupied) None reported
755011Y Charleston
Road
1/23/2024 Vehicle (unoccupied) None reported
12/02/2021 Vehicle (unoccupied) None reported
10/26/2021 Person Fatality (intentional)
8/16/2019 Vehicle (unoccupied) None reported
3/25/2018 Vehicle (unoccupied) None reported
2/12/2018 Vehicle (unoccupied) None reported
10/05/2017 Vehicle (unoccupied) None reported
12/23/2016 Vehicle (occupied) Fatality (intentional)
1/25/2015 Person Fatality (intentional)
Source: FRA Office of Safety Analysis (https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/crossing/crossing.aspx) The City collected traffic volumes in April 2023 at each crossing to determine the mode share for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. See Table 3 for a summary of the traffic counts collected. In 2025, Caltrain operates 104 Caltrain commuter trains per day across these crossings. Of note, Caltrain may adjust service frequency in the future to meet customer demand. Based on Caltrain’s 10-Year Strategic Financial Plan as of December 2024, the assumed weekday trains per day (TPD) will increase to 116 TPD in 2029 and to 128 TPD in 2031.
Table 3: Summary of daily total traffic volumes at study locations Crossing
DOT#
Crossing Roadway
Name
Pedestrian Count Bicycle Count Vehicle Count
WB EB WB EB WB EB
754998E Churchill Avenue 105 9 298 187 1,162 4,622
755010S East Meadow
Drive 58 5 224 370 3,028 3,716
755011Y Charleston Road 77 1 186 224 4,416 5,768
Source: Traffic Counts provided by the City of Palo Alto
QUIET ZONE ANALYSIS
There are multiple ways a section of railroad corridor can achieve quiet zone status, which are outlined below. These include the installation of Supplemental Safety Measures (SSM) at all crossings, a partial implementation of SSMs across the crossings, and in rare cases, demonstrating that the existing risk index qualifies for a quiet zone.
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130
SSM AT EACH CROSSING
The first method is to provide a Supplemental Safety Measure (SSM) at each crossing within the quiet zone. SSMs are defined by the FRA in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Appendix A to Part 222. It includes options such as “four-quadrant” (or “exit”) gates, non-traversable medians, one-way streets with entry gates, and temporary or full crossing closure. Table 4, below, shows the full list of 14 SSMs accepted by the FRA.
Table 4: SSM Codes and Definitions
SSM
Code
SSM Definition
1 Temporary Closure of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 2 Permanent Closure of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 3 Grade Separation of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 4 Four-Quadrant Gates Upgrade from Two Quadrant gates, No Vehicle Presence Detection 5 Four-Quadrant Gates Upgrade from Two Quadrant Gates, with medians and no Vehicle Presence Detection
6 Four-Quadrant Gates Upgrade from Two Quadrant gates, with Vehicle Presence Detection 7 Four-Quadrant Gates Upgrade from Two Quadrant gates, with medians and Vehicle Presence Detection
8 Four-Quadrant Gates New Installation, No Vehicle Presence Detection 9 Four-Quadrant Gates New Installation with medians and no Vehicle Presence Detection 10 Four-Quadrant Gates New Installation with Vehicle Presence Detection 11 Four-Quadrant Gates New Installation with medians and Vehicle Presence Detection 12 Mountable medians with Reflective Traffic Channelization Devices 13 Non-Traversable Curb Medians with or without Channelization Devices 14 One-Way Streets with Gates
Source: FRA Quiet Zone Calculator (https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/ssm.aspx)
SSM AT SOME CROSSINGS (QZRI LESS THAN RIWH)
The second method to qualify for a quiet zone is a partial establishment of SSMs at one or more crossings within the proposed quiet zone such that the Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) is reduced to a level at or below the Risk Index With Horns (RIWH). The RIWH is the risk associated with all crossings included in the specified quiet zone when train horns are sounded per FRA requirements. Under this method of quiet zone qualification, SSMs may not be required at all crossings. The quiet zone rule defines a rate of effectiveness for each SSM to formulaically assign risk reductions to each crossing.
NO SSM (QZRI LESS THAN NSRT)
The third and final method by which a quiet zone can be achieved is if the Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) along the section of corridor is at or below the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT). The NSRT is defined as the average of the risk indexes for all grade crossings in the country where train horns sound. As of May 2025, the NSRT is currently equal to 15,488.00. Because the NSRT is representative of all grade crossings in the country, it includes grade crossings which may have undergone safety improvements and may have implemented the full range of crossing improvements or implemented significantly impactful SSMs or ASMs, like one-way streets or partial closure. If the QZRI with no
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130 improvements is at or below the NSRT, the specified crossings would automatically qualify for a quiet zone. Alternatively, if SSMs are implemented along the section of corridor such that the QZRI is at or below the NSRT, the corridor would then qualify as a quiet zone. This method exposes the quiet zone to risk in the event the NSRT, which is evaluated yearly by the FRA, drops below the quiet zone QZRI, which would invalidate the quiet zone status.
However, this corridor does not qualify for a quiet zone in its current state, unless crossing closures are considered. Crossing closures were not determined to be in the best interest of the community.
Therefore, the NSRT method was not considered for the study.
QUIET ZONE ALTERNATIVE – WAYSIDE HORNS (WSH)
An alternative to a quiet zone, but one that still promotes noise reduction, would be the installation of wayside horns. Wayside horns are fixed audible warning devices, which are physically present at the crossing. The wayside horn is required to sound at the same frequency, decibel level, and duration as a traditional train horn. The noise reduction stemming from a wayside horn is due to the fixed nature of the horn. Where the noise distribution of a traditional train horn moves as the train moves, the wayside horn stays fixed at the crossing, with the horn itself directed at the stop line for oncoming motorists. The result is a reduction in noise for those that are not directly adjacent to the crossing. It should be noted that for those directly adjacent to or at the crossing, the result is that the full volume of all four sounds of the horn can be heard.
While a wayside horn is not a quiet zone measure, it is evaluated as a one-for-one replacement of the train horn. The requirements for installation of a wayside horn are noted in Appendix E to Part 222 of the Code of Federal Regulations – Requirements for Wayside Horns. As noted in Appendix E to Part 222, wayside horns must provide a minimum sound level of 92 dB(A) – maximum 110 dB(A) – when measured 100’ from the centerline of the nearest track. The horn system is required to sound a minimum of 15 seconds prior to the train’s arrival at the crossing.
WAYSIDE HORNS CASE STUDY – FLAGSTAFF, AZ
Kimley-Horn reached out to internal partners nationwide to gather information surrounding wayside horns.
The most recent example evaluated was a 2010 WSH installation in Flagstaff, Arizona. In this location, Fanning Drive (Crossing DOT# 025129Y) and Steves Boulevard (Crossing DOT# 025099J), have implemented wayside horns. These crossings see about 100 to 120 trains per day (TPD) operating at a maximum authorized speed of 55mph. The TPD is similar to Caltrain’s current 104 TPD.
These two crossings are part of a larger quiet zone project with three other crossings. The other crossings do not use wayside horns. Instead, they have implemented other SSMs such as median upgrades or conversion to a one-way street. Of note, the city has fielded continuous complaints from residents since their installation in 2010. There has also been community feedback noting equity issues that arise from certain parts of the city receiving what the community refers to as a “true” quiet compared to a wayside horn implementation with the same frequency of train horns sounding in a localized area.
The City of Flagstaff installed wayside horns manufactured by Railroads Controls Limited (RCL), which was acquired by Wabtec Corporation in 2015. The sound level of the wayside horns is recertified every two years using a sound meter purchased by the City – this recertification involves ensuring the wayside horns sound at the required decibel levels as prescribed in Appendix E to Part 222 of the Code of Federal
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130 Regulations. The City also noted that obtaining replacement parts has been challenging, as the original company no longer exists.
Due to the factors of community feedback, lack of ongoing technical support, and cumbersome recertification, the City of Flagstaff is seeking funding to replace the wayside horns with a four quadrant gate system at both the Fanning Drive and Steves Boulevard crossings.
PREVALENCE OF WAYSIDE HORNS
Wayside horns are not considered quiet zone crossings on their own, but may be listed as quiet zone crossings if they are included as part of a larger quiet zone. Because the City of Palo Alto is working toward a quiet zone on Palo Alto Avenue / Alma Street, the crossings at Churchill Ave, E Meadow Dr, and Charleston Rd could be appended to this existing quiet zone.
Kimley-Horn also evaluated the usage of wayside horns on a nationwide basis. Kimley-Horn used data published by the FRA on April 30, 2025, and found that there are 5,757 crossings listed as having either a partial or full/24-hour quiet zone. Of these 5,757 quiet zone crossings in the FRA Crossing Inventory Dataset, 76 crossings, or 1.3% of crossings, have wayside horns. There are a total of 672 crossings with wayside horns, though as noted, only 76, or 10%, of wayside horn crossings are part of larger quiet zones. implement SSMs or wayside horns.
Figure 1: Diagram comparing total quiet zone crossings and quiet zone crossings with wayside horns Source: FRA Office of Safety Analysis (https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/crossing/crossing.aspx)
QUIET ZONE EVALUATION
Kimley-Horn used the FRA Quiet Zone calculator, an online tool provided by the FRA, to determine what upgrades would generate quiet zone approval. Based on the existing conditions at each crossing, Kimley- Horn staff determined the Supplemental Safety Measure treatment most applicable for these three locations to be four-quadrant gates with vehicle presence detection.
Wayside Horns Crossings,
76, 1%
Quiet Zone Crossings,
5757, 99%
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130 As noted in Table 4, there are 14 total SSMs accepted by the FRA. Full closure of the crossings was not evaluated as the implications for equity and access would likely exceed the cost for implementation of SSMs and temporary closure during peak periods would likewise be impractical. Conversion of roadways from two-way to one-way traffic is another SSM that was not considered as part of this study due to the impracticality of converting residential roadways into one-way streets; similar concerns for equity and access arise when evaluating one-way traffic. All three crossings are less than 60’ from an adjacent roadway (Alma Street); because of this proximity, installation of mountable or non-traversable medians would not qualify as an SSM. Four quadrant gates become the only available option; since all three crossings are currently equipped with gates, it would be an upgrade from the existing two-quadrant system.
A four-quadrant gate system prohibits vehicles from driving around gates in the down position and moving onto the tracks during a train event. The gates on the departure side of the crossing have a delayed lowering compared to the entry gates to ensure no vehicles are on the tracks and at risk of fouling the tracks. It should be noted that vehicle presence detection is required at all crossings implementing a four- quadrant gate system in California per California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order No. 75-D. Because of this, if a vehicle is detected in the trackway during gate activation, the exit gates would also remain in the “up” position and would not descend until the vehicle clears the trackway. See Figure 1 for an example graphic of a four-quadrant gate system as depicted by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA).
Source: https://hsr.ca.gov/about/safety/quad-gates/
Wayside horns are not in the Quiet Zone Calculator but are viewed as a direct replacement to SSMs. If wayside horns are applied at each of the three crossings, the quiet zone would qualify through the first listed option for quiet zones – installing SSMs at every crossing.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Kimley-Horn staff prepared conceptual design plans for each of the three at-grade crossings to provide a complete evaluation of the impacts and potential needs for upgrades at each crossing. Kimley-Horn evaluated the four-quadrant gate alternative, as well as wayside horns.
See Appendix B for the finalized conceptual layouts.
Figure 2: Four-quadrant gates
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130
FIELD DIAGNOSTIC MEETINGS
A preliminary field diagnostic meeting was performed in October of 2024 to evaluate the proposed improvements with relevant stakeholders to determine if the quiet zone is feasible. This field diagnostic included staff from the City, Kimley-Horn, Caltrain, CPUC, and FRA. While UPRR has trackage rights to operate on the corridor, they were not included in the diagnostic meeting.
The draft conceptual designs for SMM installation were provided to all invited to the field diagnostic meeting to allow for review ahead of the meeting. During the field diagnostic meeting, small design revisions were noted by stakeholders, and the conceptual layouts were then updated accordingly.
Kimley-Horn drafted field review minutes following the diagnostic meetings and sent them to stakeholders for review and input. The meeting minutes then incorporated City and stakeholder feedback and were finalized.
See Appendix C for the Field Diagnostic Meeting Minutes.
COST ESTIMATES
Kimley-Horn staff drafted cost estimates for each crossing. These estimates detail approximate infrastructure costs, as well as expected project delivery costs associated with the completion of the project. Construction costs were derived from the following sources:
· Bid results from recent at-grade rail improvement projects in Northern CA. · Caltrans Unit Price Database.
· Project research on wayside horn implementation, adjusted for inflation and geographic location.
Table 5 shows the rough order of magnitude costs determined by crossing for each of the three crossings in the study area.
Table 5: Rough Order of Magnitude Costs for Each Crossing Crossing DOT# Crossing Roadway Name Four-Quad Gate Cost Wayside Horn Cost 754998E Churchill Avenue $1,200,000 $500,000
755010S Meadow Drive $1,670,000 $500,000
755011Y Charleston Road $1,220,000 $500,000
Source: Kimley-Horn prepared the Rough Order of Magnitude cost estimate.
It should be noted that these order of magnitude estimates include a contingency factor, provisions for engineering design and permitting, escalation, and a Caltrain signal design allowance. For the four-quad gate cost, a new signal cabinet at each location has also been included. This is often required by railroads when there are changes to the signaling infrastructure. The wayside horn cost does not include this line item, though it should be noted that the need for a new signal cabinet may be a possibility and could increase the cost at each crossing by approximately $400,000.
OUTREACH AND COORDINATION
The Caltrain corridor is located adjacent to existing residences, schools, and businesses. Due to its proximity to residents and the fact these improvements hinge on safety considerations, this project required public outreach and coordination. The Kimley-horn team developed presentations for use at
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130 various City Council, subcommittee, and public meetings, as well as attended and presented at these meetings. Kimley-Horn presented to the Palo Alto Rail Committee in August of 2024, and to the public in April of 2025. At these meetings, Kimley-Horn fielded questions from the public and supported the City in highlighting the importance of a Quiet Zone for this area.
In these presentations, Kimley-Horn touched on the background of a quiet zone, the process by which a quiet zone can be achieved (including a rough timeline for implementation), what this quiet zone would entail in terms of infrastructure upgrades, and the next steps for the City to implement a quiet zone. A recording of the public meeting for the project will be made available at https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/Quiet-Zone- Studies/Churchill-Avenue-Meadow-Drive-Charleston-Road-Crossings.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Kimley-Horn recommends the City of Palo Alto implement a quiet zone by installing a four-quadrant gate system at each of the three crossings. While the capital costs associated with a four-quadrant gate system are higher than that of wayside horns, the impact to the community will be more significant.
Wayside horns do reduce the noise level for a majority of residents along the corridor, but there will still be train horn blasts sounded for all residents directly adjacent to the crossings themselves, which does not provide the same benefit to the entire surrounding community as would a four-quadrant gate system.
The general community feedback received was in support of a four-quadrant gate system, and viewed wayside horns as a half measure. Additionally, Kimley-Horn’s case study research showed low implementation of wayside horns across the country, with a correspondingly low amount of suppliers and technical support.
Additionally, the FRA and CPUC noted that the Caltrain corridor sees a significant level of train incidents, given its high speed and high volume. Providing the four-quadrant gate system would provide a physical barrier to entry to reduce the potential of gate go-arounds, thereby actively providing a safety enhancement and reducing the ability for crossing users to enter the trackway during a train event.
NEXT STEPS
Following the conclusion of this quiet zone study, the City may begin preparing for the implementation of a quiet zone. For this to occur, the City must still undergo several necessary steps, including developing final engineering plans, acquiring necessary permits, securing funding, undergoing construction, and certifying the quiet zone with necessary agencies.
FINAL DESIGN
After securing board approval to pursue the remaining work for a quiet zone, the City would need to develop Request for Proposals (RFP) for engineering firms to submit a proposal to perform the engineering work associated with the design of the crossing(s).
Typically, the engineering consultant would submit plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) to the City and all stakeholder agencies at various levels of design completion, adding additional detail and information through each submittal. Comprehensive demolition, civil improvements, signage and striping, grading and drainage, lighting/traffic signal (if necessary) plans, along with traffic control plans and
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130 construction phasing plans would all be required at the culmination of the final 100% plan set. The plans will be circulated for comment by multiple stakeholders, including the City, Caltrain and CPUC.
PERMITTING
Alongside the final design process, the engineering consultant may support the City with the permitting process. CPUC General Order 88-B (GO 88-B) is a permit required for any modifications to an existing rail crossing. Obtaining approval for this permit is paramount to the modification of any grade crossing, as it ensures the plans provided meet CPUC criteria and acts as government approval for safety upgrades.
Caltrain would likely require the City to obtain an encroachment permit for any work performed in the right of way owned by the PCJPB.
In addition to obtaining permits through CPUC, there may need to be an agreement between the City and PCJPB/Caltrain outlining possible cost sharing for design, construction and maintenance.
Environmental clearance would be required through CEQA; the level of environmental documentation required would be a function of the various resources impacted. If federal funding is secured, the crossings would also need to be cleared through NEPA.
FUNDING
The City would also need to secure funding to support the design and construction associated with the quiet zone. Funding sources exist through federal, state, regional, and local levels, and the engineering consultant may be able to support the City with grant applications for some of these funding opportunities.
On the federal level, the FRA offers the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Grant, which is a program funding projects to improve safety, efficiency, and reliability of intercity passenger and freight rail. Municipalities in California have also been successful at obtaining funding through various state grants; the City could, in conjunction with local and state representatives, investigate and lobby for additional funding.
The City may also pursue funding through the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (PATMA).
CONSTRUCTION
For the improvements to be constructed, the City should hire a firm familiar with performing construction work in and around railroad right-of-way. Depending on PCJPB/Caltrain regulations at the time of construction, construction crews may be required to be trained by Caltrain staff for safety while working near electrified tracks, or Caltrain themselves may install the railroad devices such as automatic gates or wayside horns. The engineering consultant may be tasked with providing construction support to the City, in the form of field visits and general oversight during the construction phase.
QUIET ZONE CERTIFICATION
The City would be required to file the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Notice of Establishment (NOE) for the quiet zone. The NOI can be submitted prior to construction, and requires a minimum 60-day comment period for all parties in the service list. The NOE should be filed after construction, and requires a similar 60-day comment period. After the NOE is approved by the FRA, the quiet zone can be certified and the “No Train Horn” plaques can be visible to motorists.
Kimley-Horn.com 10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1250, San Jose, CA 95113 669-800-4130 For wayside horns, the notice required is a minimum of 21 days prior to when the wayside horn shall be operational.
CONTINUED OUTREACH
Throughout the final design and construction phases, the engineering consultant should continue to attend public outreach meetings and hearings to support the City. A post-construction meeting will likely be held with the same attendees as the initial diagnostic meeting to secure final approval of the quiet zone.
MAINTENANCE OF CROSSINGS
At-grade crossings require ongoing maintenance to ensure the warning devices and systems are operating appropriately. The level of maintenance required depends on the crossing and its features.
Per CPUC General Order (GO) 72-D, the railroad owner/operator is responsible for the maintenance of the crossing area measuring 2’ outside the rails of each track, and between sets of tracks (if there are multiple tracks less than 15’ apart). Caltrain also maintains train-activated warning devices for each crossing. Additionally, Caltrain is financially responsible for the maintenance of the gates, and does not currently have cost sharing agreements with local agencies.
Page A-1
APPENDIX A
Full Quiet Zone Analysis
Palo Alto Quiet Zone
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
Mountable medians with Reflective Traffic Channelization Devices Non-Traversable Curb Medians with or without Channelization Devices One-Way Streets with Gates
Four-Quadrant Gates Upgrade from Two Quadrant gates, with Vehicle Presence Detection Four-Quadrant Gates Upgrade from Two Quadrant gates, with medians and Vehicle Presence Detection
Four-Quadrant Gates New Installation, No Vehicle Presence Detection Four-Quadrant Gates New Installation with medians and no Vehicle Presence Detection Four-Quadrant Gates New Installation with Vehicle Presence Detection Four-Quadrant Gates New Installation with medians and Vehicle Presence Detection Four-Quadrant Gates Upgrade from Two Quadrant gates, with medians and no Vehicle Presence Detection
Supplemental Safety Measure (SSM) Codes
Temporary Closure of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Permanent Closure of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Grade Separation of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Four-Quadrant Gates Upgrade from Two Quadrant gates, No Vehicle Presence Detection Palo Alto Quiet Zone
Existing SSM SSM Risk SSM Risk Δrisk
Palo Alto Ave 0 0 102,853.18 13 20,570.64 -82282.54
Churchill 0 0 588,964.84 6 135,461.91 -453502.93
E Meadow 0 0 295,736.94 6 68,019.50 -227717.44
Charleston 0 0 426,060.47 6 97,993.91 -328066.56
Total 353403.86 80511.49
SSM Risk SSM Risk SSM Risk SSM Risk
Palo Alto Ave 13 20570.64 13 20570.64 13 20570.64 13 20570.64 Churchill 0 588964.84 6 135461.91 0 588964.84 0 588964.84 E Meadow 0 295736.94 0 295736.94 6 68019.5 0 295736.94
Charleston 0 426060.47 0 426060.47 0 426060.47 6 97993.91 Total 332833.22 219457.49 275903.86 250816.58
SSM Risk SSM Risk SSM Risk
Palo Alto Ave 13 20570.64 13 20570.64 13 20570.64
Churchill 6 135461.91 6 135461.91 0 588964.84
E Meadow 6 68019.5 0 295736.94 6 68019.5
Charleston 0 426060.47 6 97993.91 6 97993.91
Total 162528.13 137440.85 193887.22
UPGRADE TWO CROSSINGS ONLY
QZ does not qualify
UPGRADE ONE CROSSING ONLY
RISK INDEX WITH HORN: 211872.82
DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE ADD SSM TO ALL CROSSINGS
QZ qualifies
The following scenarios were analyzed using the FRA Quiet Zone calculator. The Supplemental Safety Measure (SSM) codes are listed below; the full description of SSMs are presented in page 1 of this appendix. To be eligible for a quiet zone, the total risk associated with the zone of interest cannot exceed the risk index with horn (RIWH). For this zone, the RIWH is 211872.82 These calculations are performed under the assumption that the Palo Alto Avenue crossing is to be upgraded in all cases.
Page B-1
APPENDIX B
Conceptual Designs
NORTH
W10-1RRW10-2TRACKS2W48(CA)W10-9PTRAIN HORNNO
NORTH
W10-1RRW10-2TRACKS2W48(CA)W10-9PTRAIN HORNNOR8-8DO NOTSTOPONTRACKS March 2023
NORTH
CHARLESTON RD AT-GRADE CROSSING
10.0'
10.0'
18.0'12.0'
NORTH
10.0'10.0'13.0' 26.0'
NORTH
10.0'
10.0'12.0'12.0'
NORTH
Page C-1
APPENDIX C
Field Diagnostic Meeting Minutes
Pre-Diagnostic Meeting
Palo Alto, CA – Multiple Crossings
October 22nd, 2024
Meeting Attendees:
Name Agency/Company Email
Ripon Bhatia City of Palo Alto [email protected] Ade Sogbesan CPUC [email protected]
Eric Walker FRA [email protected]
Lou Tolentino Caltrain [email protected]
Rick Bartholomew Caltrain [email protected]
Janet Wang JPB/Caltrain [email protected]
Amanda Zerbe TASI/Caltrain [email protected]
Fred Sandoval TASI/Caltrain [email protected]
Shawn Lima JPB/Caltrain [email protected]
Blake Silkwood Design/ Kimley-Horn [email protected] Taylor Brown Design/ Kimley-Horn [email protected] Definitions:
• Diagnostic Team: Pursuant to CAMUTCD 8A.01.05a, the diagnostic team needs to include at a minimum, representatives of the highway agency or authority with jurisdiction over the roadway, the railroad with responsibility of the track and signals, and the California Public Utilities Commission with statutory authority over grade crossings. • CPUC Standard No 9: An automatic gate arm used in combination with a Standard No. 8. The gate mechanism may be mounted on the Standard 8 mast or separately on an adjacent pedestal.
The automatic gate shall be designed to fail in the down position. A Crossbuck sign shall be installed on the mast.
• CPUC Standard No. 8: An automatic flashing light signal assembly which, by alternately flashing red lights facing each approach, provides a warning of an approaching train. A Crossbuck sign shall be installed on the mast.
• CPUC Standard No. 8-A: A Standard 8 with additional flashing signals over the roadway on a cantilever arm.
• CPUC Standard No. 9-A: A Standard 9 with additional flashing light signals over the roadway on a cantilever arm.
• CPUC Standard No. 9-E: A Standard 9 installed on the departure side of the at-grade crossing (also known as an exit gate) in addition to the typical approach side of the at-grade crossing (also known as an entrance gate).
• Highway Safety Improvement Act (23 U.S.C. § 407)
• Roadway diet: The narrowing of the roadway and moving vehicle gates to improve visibility of the flashing lights.
• AADT: Annual Average Daily Traffic
• ADT: Average Daily Traffic
• CAMUTCD: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices • CPUC: California Public Utilities Commission
• FRA: Federal Railroad Administration
• RRTCD: Railroad Traffic Control Devices.
• RIRO: Right-in Right-Out.
Meeting minutes:
Introductions and Meeting Logistics:
• Draft notes to be provided within two weeks of meeting for Stakeholder review.
Stakeholder comments to be returned within 2 weeks of receipt of notes. • The team reviewed the purpose and definition of a Diagnostic and the Diagnostic Team (CA MUTCD Sections 8A.01, 8A.02 and Code of the Federal Regulations. o “A diagnostic team, consisting of knowledgeable representatives of parties of interest in a highway-rail or highway-LRT grade crossing, using crossing safety management principles, evaluates conditions at a grade crossing to make determinations or recommendations concerning safety needs at the grade crossing. The diagnostic team needs to, at a minimum, include representatives of the highway agency or authority with jurisdiction over the roadway, the railroad or LRT agency with responsibility for the track and signals, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which is the state regulatory agency with statutory authority over grade crossings. The removal, reduction, addition, or change in the type of warning devices at each public grade crossing, or publicly- used private grade crossing (as determined by CPUC or a court competent jurisdiction), must be authorized by CPUC. This includes any changes that can affect interconnections with adjacent traffic signals, or any other modification that may impact the safety of the grade crossing. Refer to Public Utilities Code Sections 1201 through 1205, 7537, 99152 and CPUC General Orders 75 and 88, as amended.”
• The FRA shared the District 7 statement.
Crossing Data Review:
Churchill Meadow Charleston
AADT (year) 8,146 (2021) 6,762 (2021) 12,931 (2021)
% trucks 51% 54% 49%
Speed limit (MPH) 25 25 25
Train Counts (year) 108 (2023) 108 (2023) 108 (2023)
Max Train speed (MPH) 79 79 79
Incident History (since
2015)
2023: Pedestrian fatality
2022: Unoccupied
vehicle
2021: Occupied vehicle;
no injuries reported
2024: Pedestrian fatality
2024: Pedestrian fatality
2023: Pedestrian fatality
2022: Pedestrian fatality
2017: Occupied vehicle;
2024: Occupied vehicle,
no injuries reported
2021: Unoccupied
vehicle
2021: Pedestrian fatality
2021: Pedestrian fatality
2019: Unoccupied
vehicle
2018: Occupied vehicle;
no injuries reported
2017: Unoccupied
vehicle
2017: Unoccupied
vehicle
2017: Occupied vehicle;
no injuries reported
no injuries reported
2016: Unoccupied
vehicle
2016: Occupied vehicle;
1 injury reported
2015: Occupied vehicle,
no injuries reported
2019: Unoccupied
vehicle
2018: Unoccupied
vehicle
2018: Unoccupied
vehicle
2017: Unoccupied
vehicle
2016: Occupied vehicle,
fatality reported
2015: Pedestrian fatality
Crossing Improvements – Basis of Design
• Feasibility of Wayside Horns (WSH)
o The City would like to discuss the potential use of WSH as an interim measure or as an alternative to a four-quadrant gate system.
• Caltrain does not currently have wayside horns on the corridor. o Installation of WSH does not preclude train operators from sounding their horn any situation where the train operators feels it is warranted. • Caltrain noted that any roadway work or construction on the corridor would require train operators to sound their horns regardless of quiet zone status or installation of WSH.
o Caltrain noted this would not decrease the noise experienced by those in the vicinity of the crossing.
• Consultant team agreed, but pointed out that the spread of noise from a moving train horn is larger than a WSH, since the WSH would be a static object.
o Caltrain noted installation of a WSH would still require an encroachment permit.
Caltrain would want to see how a WSH integrates with their current systems. o Caltrain noted that a WSH may need an indicator light to alert train operators whether the WSH is operating or not.
o City requests Consultant team show an optional WSH alternative. o The FRA noted that from 2017-2024, there have been 21 strikes across these crossings. If WSH are installed, what stops people from being hit? • The City and Caltrain are undergoing trespass fencing enhancements through a separate project.
• Churchill Avenue
o Refresh pavement markings and upgrade warning signage to be compliant with 11th Edition MUTCD.
▪ Inclusion of W10-9P signs (NO TRAIN HORN) to all W10-1 posts. o Section 130 improvements are under construction. This includes upgrading warning devices and installation of a pre-signal.
o Due to location of pre-signal foundation on 100% plans, exit gate is shown as located downstream of mast arm.
▪ CPUC and FRA noted they would need to bring this configuration to their larger teams for confirmation that this is acceptable.
o The City noted that their constituents may not be supportive of the pedestrian gate in the SW quadrant being shortened, given the high volume of pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. City may request the pedestrian infrastructure being pushed down the corridor further in order to accommodate the exit gate. o Caltrain asked the City if there has been any consideration for restricting trucks, at least for the southbound direction? Caltrain noted there have been several instances of broken gates and the SB entry gate being struck by vehicles making the right turn from Alma Street to Churchill Avenue.
▪ City noted restricting Caltrans Legal Design Vehicle may not be possible due to CVC regulations. As part of the project, we can review the existing truck routes and appropriate signage can be installed for truck turning restrictions. ▪ Consultant team will evaluate turning templates at this intersection and present the results to the diagnostic team.
• CPUC noted the truck turning templates may be requested for any future GO 88-B applications.
• Meadow Drive
o Refresh pavement markings and upgrade warning signage to be compliant with 11th Edition MUTCD.
▪ Inclusion of W10-9P signs (NO TRAIN HORN) to all W10-1 posts. o Caltrain noted the concepts say “Meadow Drive”. The roadway is listed as “East Meadow Drive” in inventory forms. Consultant team to update concepts to reflect correct roadway name.
o Caltrain noted that the handrailing could be brought closer to the tracks, rather than terminating at the beginning of the tactile warning strip. The Consultant team terminated the railing further from the track due to the proximity to the gates and counterweights. Caltrain noted that they are not concerned with the location of the counterweight and the fencing, as the counterweight is only active during a train event. ▪ Consultant team to modify handrailing to terminate 15’ from centerline of nearest track.
• Charleston Road
o Refresh pavement markings and upgrade warning signage to be compliant with 11th Edition MUTCD.
▪ Inclusion of W10-9P signs (NO TRAIN HORN) to all W10-1 posts. o Charleston Road was recently obligated Section 130 funds for a similar scope of work as Churchill Avenue. The City has selected a consultant for the design phase. ▪ Note that Section 130 will not fund Quiet Zone improvements, but will allow for spatial provisions for future quiet zone improvements. o Due to the Section 130 project likely advancing prior to any Quiet Zone improvements, much of the infrastructure upgrades are assumed to be part of the Section 130 program. o Caltrain noted the gates at this crossing (and the others) will likely need to be articulated due to needing to maintain clearances to the OCS. ▪ If the height of the gate tip when upright is longer than 22’, the gates will need to be articulated.
▪ This is due to NFPA 70E.
Field Diagnostic Meeting - Palo Alto, California
October 22nd, 2024
Field Meeting Attendees:
Name Agency/Company Email
Ripon Bhatia City of Palo Alto [email protected] Ade Sogbesan CPUC [email protected]
Eric Walker FRA [email protected]
Lou Tolentino Caltrain [email protected]
Rick Bartholomew Caltrain [email protected]
Janet Wang JPB/Caltrain [email protected]
Amanda Zerbe TASI/Caltrain [email protected]
Fred Sandoval TASI/Caltrain [email protected]
Shawn Lima JPB/Caltrain [email protected]
Blake Silkwood Design/ Kimley-Horn [email protected] Taylor Brown Design/ Kimley-Horn [email protected]
Existing Conditions/General Crossing comments:
Preliminary Discussion/Existing Conditions:
• The Diagnostic Team noted that all crossing signage and pavement markings should consider the current MUTCD.
o W10-1 sign for all crossings should be 36”.
o W48(CA) sign showing number of tracks at the crossing should be provided at the W10-1s.
o Pavement marking should be refreshed if they are either faded or missing. o “CAUTION” signs are nonstandard and should be removed wherever present. • Existing vegetation should be removed or trimmed if obscuring visibility of the crossing traffic control devices as on-going maintenance items.
• Caltrain noted the need for Vehicle Presence Detection (VPD) with exit gates. • During construction, a contractor shall maintain an ADA pathway. • When construction activities are near a school, the contractor should be mindful to schedule work activities during times when there will likely not be students present. o It has been suggested to begin work after the school day begins, and end work before the school day ends.
Crossings included in Diagnostic Meeting
Crossing Roadway Name DOT# Roadway Authority Railroad Owner / Primary Operator Churchill Avenue 754998E City of Palo Alto JPB/Caltrain East Meadow Drive 755010S City of Palo Alto JPB/Caltrain Charleston Road 755011Y City of Palo Alto JPB/Caltrain
Diagnostic Team Review and Recommendations by Location:
Crossing Location: Churchill Avenue, DOT 754998E, on October 22, 2024 at 10:00am.
General Crossing Comments:
• Caltrain noted construction activities from the Section 130 project have created tripping hazards in two quadrants. Caltrain requests the City coordinate with the Section 130 contractor as soon as possible to have the trip/fall hazards remedied.
• Existing entry gates are not articulated. This is due to vehicle strikes breaking the gates. Non- articulated gates were all that was readily available. Articulated gates to be reinstalled once Caltrain receives them.
Location 1:
• Quiet Zone project does not propose any improvements to this quadrant. • CPUC noted the “CAUTION” signs affixed to the W10-1/W48(CA) sign post is nonstandard and should be removed as an immediate action item.
Immediate action items:
1. City to trim vegetation blocking visibility of flashing light pairs and existing W10-1/W48(CA) signage.
2. City to remove nonstandard “CAUTION” signs affixed to the W10-1/W48(CA) sign post.
Location 2:
• The pre-signal foundation has been poured, and it placed further north of the tracks than shown
on the approved construction drawings. Based on visual observations, it appears the exit gate can be placed between the tracks and the pre-signal mast arm and still remain parallel to the entry gate.
o The Consultant team will evaluate the photographs taken in the field and show the pre- signal mast arm as placed as it does in the field. Consultant team will update exit gate location accordingly.
Immediate action items:
1. City to coordinate with Section 130 contractor to remedy trip/fall hazard in this quadrant.
Location 3:
• Quiet Zone project does not propose any improvements to this quadrant. • Caltrain noted an additional trip hazard in this location.
Immediate action items:
1. City to coordinate with Section 130 contractor to remedy trip/fall hazard in this quadrant.
Location 4:
• Caltrain noted the exit gates could employ square weights (rather than oblong) to reduce the length of the counterweight. Square weights would reduce the length of counterweight from
4.5’ to approximately 3’.
• From visual observation, it appears the exit gate could be placed such that the detectable warning surface and pedestrian gates do not require relocation. o Consultant team to evaluate if this is feasible and provide updated design to Diagnostic Team.
• CPUC noted the existing curb is not 6” in height. CPUC recommended the curb lines be reconstructed to a 6” height.
Immediate action items: N/A
Diagnostic Team Review and Recommendations by Location:
Crossing Location: East Meadow Drive, DOT 755010S, on October 22, 2024 at 11:00am.
General Crossing Comments:
• Diagnostic Team noted the existing pedestrian gates in Locations 1 and 3 require upgrades to have flashing light pairs.
Location 1:
• Quiet Zone project proposes to reconfigure sidewalk to relocate the pedestrian gate arm to 15’ from near track centerline.
o Diagnostic Team noted that existing sidewalk infrastructure could likely be maintained. • Existing pedestrian gate to be upgraded in place to include flashing light pairs and a bell. • CPUC inquired as to how the pedestrian gate flashers will be visible to oncoming pedestrians, given the sidewalk angle, vegetation, and other existing infrastructure. o Consultant team noted the front-facing flashers could be angled toward the sidewalk approach to be more visible for pedestrians.
• Diagnostic Team noticed existing vegetation obstructs the visibility of the W10-1/W48(CA) sign post.
o CPUC noted the “CAUTION” signs affixed to the W10-1/W48(CA) sign post is nonstandard and should be removed as an immediate action item. • FRA noted the existing limit line is not placed 8’ from the nearest RRTCD, and should be shown as relocated.
o Consultant team to revise design.
Immediate action items:
1. City to trim vegetation blocking visibility of flashing light pairs and existing W10-1/W48(CA) signage.
2. City to remove nonstandard “CAUTION” signs affixed to the W10-1/W48(CA) sign post.
Location 2:
• Quiet Zone proposes sidewalk reconfiguration to accommodate exit gate. • From visual observation, it appears the exit gate could be placed such that the detectable warning surface and pedestrian gates do not require relocation. o Consultant team to evaluate if this is feasible and provide updated design to Diagnostic Team.
• Caltrain indicated gate arm foundations to be installed in a material that is easily removable for maintenance purposes. A 1’ buffer surrounding the visible foundation, backfilled with pea gravel or equivalent, is preferred to allow for access to maintain the equipment. This is particularly important for the exit gates due to needing island radar.
Immediate action items: N/A
Location 3:
• Quiet Zone proposes to upgrade existing pedestrian gate to include flashers. • CPUC inquired into the ability to provide a 2’ wide median between the railroad tracks and the Alma Street intersection.
o Consultant team to evaluate turning templates with a school bus for right- and left-turns from Alma Street onto East Meadow Drive.
Immediate action items: N/A
Location 4:
• From visual observation, it appears the exit gate could be placed such that the detectable warning surface and pedestrian gates do not require relocation. o Consultant team to evaluate if this is feasible and provide updated design to Diagnostic Team.
Immediate action items: N/A
Diagnostic Team Review and Recommendations by Location:
Crossing Location: Charleston Road, DOT 755011Y, on October 22, 2024 at 12:00pm.
General Crossing Comments:
• N/A
Location 1:
• Quiet Zone proposes to replace the pedestrian gate device to include flashers. o Upon further discussion, this will be removed from the Quiet Zone scope and coordinated through the Section 130 project. The Section 130 project has funding and will likely be constructed prior to Quiet Zone improvements. In the interest of pedestrian safety, having these gates be replaced through Section 130 accelerates the timeline of installation.
• Diagnostic Team witnessed vehicles obeying the R10-6 (“STOP HERE ON RED”) signage, then advancing through the crossing and stopping in the hashed area downstream of the tracks. This was primarily observed for vehicles making a northbound right turn onto Alma. o Diagnostic Team recommended installation of a static R13-A (“NO RIGHT ON RED”) sign below the R10-6 sign to deter vehicles from queueing downstream of the tracks.
• CPUC noted the “CAUTION” signs affixed to the W10-1/W48(CA) sign post is nonstandard and should be removed as an immediate action item.
• CPUC also noted the W10-1 sign is placed in close proximity to a tree, such that the tree appears to be growing around the sign face. City to remedy.
Immediate action items:
1. City to remove nonstandard “CAUTION” signs affixed to the W10-1/W48(CA) sign post.
2. City to remedy W10-1 sign face with tree growing around it.
Location 2:
• Quiet Zone proposes to install an exit gate and realign handrailing, allowing for provisions for a pre-signal mast arm foundation (which will be installed through the Section 130 project). • CPUC recommended the City remove the speed limit sign affixed to the existing traffic signal mast arm, and replace with a R13-A sign.
• Caltrain noted the existing “STOP HERE” pavement markings on the sidewalk approach appear to be fading. Caltrain will coordinate with their maintenance groups and have the marking refreshed.
Immediate action items: N/A
Location 3:
• Quiet Zone proposes to upgrade existing pedestrian gate to include flashers. o Upon further discussion, this will be removed from the Quiet Zone scope and coordinated through the Section 130 project. The Section 130 project has funding and will likely be constructed prior to Quiet Zone improvements. In the interest of pedestrian safety, having these gates be replaced through Section 130 accelerates the timeline of installation. • Caltrain noticed the existing power pole appears to not have sufficient backfill to create a level surface. While this area is channelized and there should be no pedestrians, it still is a trip/fall hazard and should be remedied.
o Caltrain to coordinate with the City and PG&E on responsibility to perform this work.
Immediate action items:
1. Caltrain to coordinate with City and PG&E to have the trip/fall hazard remedied.
Location 4:
• From visual observation, it appears the exit gate could be placed such that the detectable warning surface and pedestrian gates do not require relocation.
o Consultant team to evaluate if this is feasible and provide updated design to Diagnostic Team.
• Existing W10-/W48(CA) sign and post to be removed from this quadrant. Sign faces EB motorists and is nonstandard.
Immediate action items:
1. City to remove W10-1/W48(CA) on north side of roadway facing EB motorists.