6.3. SR 12-10-2012 Elk REQUEST FOR ACTION
River
TO ITEM NUMBER
Mayor and City Council 6.3
AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
Work Session December 10, 2012 Justin Femrite,P.E., City Engineer
ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By
Quiet Zone Discussion Cal Portner, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY
ACTION REQUESTED
Consider quiet zone implementation,associated costs and funding options.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The idea of establishing a Quiet Zone along the BNSF rail line through Elk River continues to be
brought up by numerous concerned residents. The concerns are not limited to residents in the
downtown area,but are coming from along the entire rail corridor through Elk River.
Additional background information on the subject of Elk River Quiet Zones is contained in the attached
staff memo that was presented to the City Council on April 8, 2011. The most frequently raised opinion
is that the cost estimate for a Quiet Zone in Elk River is too high. Reference is generally made to other
communities being able to implement Quiet Zones for far less cost. We have had the previous plan
reassessed by an engineering firm,which has experience with implementing Quiet Zones and they
generally concur with past estimates and the improvements required based on the geometric layout and
type of infrastructure currently in place at the 10-crossings in Elk River.
The improvements and costs detailed in 2011 are for implementing a Quiet Zone at all of the crossings
with the installation of Supplemental Safety Measures or SSMs. SSMs are recognized standard safety
improvements. These improvements include adding 100-foot long raised medians or installing four
quadrant gate systems at a crossing. SSMs have been proven,through the Federal Rail Administration,to
reduce the Risk Index of the crossing and thus are standard treatments that can be implemented to make
a crossing Quiet Zone eligible. There are alternative options to installing SSMs that can be considered
that would reduce the soundings along the line. Staff will be prepared to discuss the potential option at
the Council meeting.
With the understanding that train horns are a concern the questions to be discussed are as follows:
1. How"quiet"is a Quiet Zone?
a. Federal warning requirements
b. Locomotive horn vs. Locomotive engine and car noise
c. Locomotive horn vs. Wayside horn
2. What are the Options?
a. Status Quo
b. Full Quiet Zone
c. Phased-in Quiet Zone
P a w I R E a a T
NA URA
3. Cost of a Quiet Zone?
a. Initial capital improvements
b. Ongoing operational and maintenance
4. Who should pay?
a. Citywide property tax (ad valorem)
b. Benefitting property owners
c. Citywide or improvement area fee
With no formal City Council direction on this subject, staff has not reopened formal discussion with any
agencies that would be affected by this project.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding opportunities for any type of quiet zone improvements are not available from State,Federal or
Rail sources because the establishment of a quiet zone is not classified as a safety improvement.
ATTACHMENTS
■ April 8, 2011, Staff Report
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
paw IaIa 0
NAT- URA
ECitylk MEMORANDUM
liver
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Justin Femrite, P.E., City Engineer
DATE: 4-18-11
SUBJECT: BNSF Quiet Zone Update
Over the last month I have reviewed the feasibility study and estimated costs that were presented in
December of 2007 for establishment of a quiet zone along the BNSF railroad through Elk River.
Mayor Dietz contacted me with information that Anoka is currently establishing a quiet zone for far
less cost than estimated in our 2007 study. I spoke to the City of Anoka who directed me to TKDA,
the consultant they hired to complete the quiet zone work through Anoka. TKDA has expert staff
with comprehensive understanding of the required improvements in establishment of quiet zones.
Anoka is working at establishing a quiet zone at two crossings. TKDA indicated the improvements
required to establish a quiet zone in Anoka were very minor. The street crossings in Anoka had
sufficient width to accommodate the required median improvements,without need to widen the
roadway or relocate the existing crossing arms. In addition,the controls for the existing crossing gate
systems are already upgraded and in place. The cost for improvements at each intersection on
Anoka's project is estimated at$50,000 for a total project cost of$100,000.
TKDA attended a meeting with me to review the proposed improvements and associated costs from
the Elk River 2007 study. This review found the costs presented in the 2007 study were accurate for
that time period but have since increased due to current pricing structures of the BNSF. The 2007
study estimated the full establishment of a quiet zone through Elk River would cost about$4.3
million. These costs are now estimated at$5.0 million. The cost increase reflects the higher price
BNSF currently charges for the work they would be responsible to complete including all controls
work,gate installations and relocations,crossing surface extensions and installation of vehicle
presence detection systems.
As detailed in 2007,funding for the improvements would be 100% from local funds. TKDA
indicated funding opportunities for these improvements are not available from State,Federal or Rail
sources because the establishment of a quiet zone is not classified as a safety improvement. In 2007
Sherburne County indicated they would not participate in funding the quiet zone improvements.
With no formal City Council direction on this project,we have not reopened any discussion with the
County of any other agencies that may be affected by this project. Our work to this point has been
limited to the review of our 2007 study and the estimated project costs. No costs have been incurred
for this review.
If you have any questions or would like additional work be completed on this issue please
call.
N:ADepartments\Public Works\Engineering\$IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS\2011 Improvement Projects\$General Engineering\418-
11 Memo on Quiet Zones.doc
uiet Zone Discussion
December 10,, 2012
aty
of
Nb
t..; � �• El
Elk River Zone y
• What is the concern?
• What are the options?
• What are the costs?
• What are the steps to implementation?
• How to fund the improvements?
10 ■
Crossings
Crossing Type Controlling Entity
Zebulon Street Public County
Ogden Street Public City
Meadowvale Road Public County
Proctor Avenue Public County
Jackson Avenue Public City
Main Street Public City
Great River Energy Private Great River Energy
171st Avenue Public City
165th Street Public City
Jarvis Street Public City
1 I
• Excessive decibel level
• Re uired by Federal rules a
• The concern is not new
.rr
The Impact7.
Train Horn
Decibel (a3A) Contour Map
iG •,
s 0.
:r 1
500' 1000'
`0•
f 0-d
'
500'
V
t Train Direction 4.,
Train
Horn '
90 Decibels and above ..
0 80 - 90 Decibels
'Over 80 Decibel ' area larger than 40 acres per crossing
Options?
1 . Status Quo
2 . Establish a citywide Quiet Zone
3 . Phase-in a full Quiet Zone
Option 1
Status Quo
Results
No reduction to the soundings or affected area
Anticipated Costs
• Initial Investment - $0 .0 Million
• Yearly Maintenance - $0 .0 Million
• Yearly Insurance - $0 .0 Million
Option 2
Full Quiet Zone
Improvements
• Install SSM "s at all 10 crossings
• Similar as recommended in 2007 & 2011
including :
o Full Quadrant Gates at 4 crossings
o Install medians and modify existing gate
systems at 6 crossings
Option 2
Full Quiet Zone
Results
• Reduce number of horns up to 98%
• Reduce "Over 80 decibel ' area up to 98%
• Commuter required to sound horn at station
• No guarantee that all trains will quiet
• Stopped trains must sound to start moving
Option 2
Full Quiet Zone
Anticipated Costs
• Initial Investment - $5 - OM — $5 - 5M
• Yearly Maintenance - $30K - $50K ( BNSF)
w .,.p- .e•� d
.r r
i
NNW-
,. R
'
Ogden Street Crossming
192ND AVENUE
"'ErIAN (B618 CURB AND WTTER,
EX GUADRAMT GATE-N,",
BITUMINOUS EDGE
BlTummau5 EDGE
wmp� `
Proctor Avenue Crossing
�I IJ
r—N�-•J—"-V i,'NTAH.E I:CF,_,"l-[E MEDIRh
I _
E.�.0 .T ='"E. i
1
i
71 _--RELQ.-A.iE CUI: _TE
E7a:mr, COAO —�.MIST0.LL C41'
gE"a51NG SURFACE INSTALL.PEQESTRIM GATE
.. .R
MDAI : TABLE CUFM 8818
—'CCN'RETE WALK
x�PEDESTRIAN C—BOSSING i1 •.,1"
F
SUR`Aa
F Y
—REPLACE E)QSTrMG Q.JADRRNT GATE
� IN:TALL RED ESTd21ANl ,t
- -
_ N L5Q[1N"TJ4lJ.E CONCRETE AIEQIMI
18 CURB ANN QUTrFR 100 F
ain Street Crossming
r
j'ECIC�}iR��.T# �,I T f. '.'IC � •��
F �
_ I
S 411
?' f L{*}y11T.'AIT ti
_
81T)MN ' t�
k 1 fREPLK:EM E +1
_ t k
1 C
ANDN
h` I1hl fIL1�dT� LE CPACRETE
. m °.av (w �uFs kvr CCi7ZEP)
hky(7� 1F `1, 2- ry, r
�CHANTiE Z14
'DEVICES
' ,•�.Y
., SPACE AT 70/—, . t
BITUWINCIU& PAt'olLt1LNi _ !
,:• - � —� �y.lel}.:^off •::A�
is
b
Option 3
Implement Quiet Zone Using Alternatives
Improvements
• Install SSM "s at:
0 171St Avenue
' 0 165thAve
o Jarvis St.
• Install wayside horns at 7 crossings
• Upgrade to SSMs as streets are reconstructed
What are Waysmide Horns .
A stationary horn located at a ra i I crossing,
designed to provide, upon the approach of a
train, audible warnin to oncomin g g motorists.
Train Horn - Automated I om Sysfi ..........
DeciGt ap decibel WRA)Guntour Map ' 1
f+ •'�
504' 1004' 1500" 1, 50 1000' 5':i
t
<Traiin Defection
it
f:
Train
Horn i 1
- 1
90 Decibels and above i
80-90 Decibels �
Option 3
Implement Quiet Zone Using Alternatives
Results
• Reduce soundings up to 98% .
• Reduces total soundings by 39%
• Reduce 'Above 80 decibel ' area by up to 95%
o Commuter trains will sound at station
o Conductors may sound
o Stopped trains will sound as they start
Option 3
Implement Quiet Zone Using Alternatives
Anticipated Costs
• Initial Investment - $ 1 . 5M — $ 1 .75M
• Yearly Maintenance - $0 .0 (BNSF)
Replace Wayside Horns with SSM's as roadways
are upgraded
Implementation
1 . Decide on approach/option to implement
2 . Determine funding approach
3 . Hire a railroad consultant
o Conduct a field diagnostic
o Refine plans, schedule, and costs.
4. Final Council approval of plans & funding
. Install Quiet Zone Improvements
Funding Options
1 . General Tax Levy
2 . Assessment
3 . Franchise Fee
4. Fundraising Drive
5 . Other Options?
Funding Options --
General Tax Levy
• Bonds
• Referendum
Pros
• Paid for by all property owners
• May finance debt over many years
Cons
• Higher value property pays greater share
• Not all properties see same benefit
Funding Options --
Assessment
Pros
• Costs attributed to benefitting property
• Not tied to property tax levy
• Paid by benefit, not property value
Cons
• Legislative change
• Large lump sum payment
Funding Options --
Franchise Fee
Pros
• Fee correlates to benefit
• Payable over longer period of time
• Billing flexibility to match degree of benefit
Cons
• Utility companies pass on
• Payment tied to utility payment
• Capital payment received over life of fee
Funding Options --
Fundraising
Pros
• City not involved — not a government program
• Voluntary participation, no required payments
• No taxes or fees
Cons
• May take a long time to raise funds
• Requires nongovernmental organization
• City at risk for payment if fundraising fails
Discussion
Credits:
BNSF: http://www.BNSF.com
Quiet Zone Technologies: http://www.guietzonetech.com
City of Fridley
City of
er1 •
Nb