Score: +1
(1/0/0)
Orange County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
Orange County Rail Crossing Safety:
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
The engineering firms involved in rail crossing safety have a strong record of accomplishment in this process and the capacity to complete this project in a timely fashion does not seem seriously in doubt; however, the OCTA has fallen behind in their schedule.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The work proposed by the OCTA has fallen behind schedule. The OCTA should work with the affected entities to complete the construction on schedule by finalizing the various memoranda of understanding with impacted cities and vigorously proceed with the succeeding steps.
F2
Impacted cities are strongly concerned about noise from OCTA/Metrolink train horns at railroad crossings. The cost of totally eliminating train horns county-wide through quiet zone corridor treatments of could be in the range of $50-$60 million.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The OCTA should create a comprehensive Quiet Zone program to preserve the quality of the environment and property values adjacent to railroad tracks. If the OCTA can mitigate freeway noise with sound walls to preserve the quality of life adjacent to freeways, alternative public transportation modes that may negatively impact the environment and property values should also receive comparable considerations, such as Quiet Zone applications.
F3
It is unclear how the burden of cost for upgraded crossings will be shared by the OCTA and impacted cities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The burden of construction and inspection costs for these grade crossing treatments needs to be shared by the OCTA and impacted cities according to an agreed formula.
F4
OCTA/Metrolink has an excellent safety program to inform the public on issues of concern to the public, including first-responder teams. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-4 are required from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors. Responses to Findings F2 and F-3 are required from the city councils of Anaheim, Fullerton, Dana Point, Irvine, Orange, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana and Tustin. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
A timely and robust rail-safety education program in conjunction with Metrolink will have to be mounted by the OCTA, in various languages, to make the public aware of the increased service and potential risk at grade-crossings, and to counteract trespassing on railroad property. The upgrade in Metrolink service is unprecedented in local history and the impacted public should be made aware of the potential problems this may cause. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-4 are required from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors A Response to Recommendation R-3 is required from the city councils of Anaheim, Fullerton, Dana Point, Irvine, Orange, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana and Tustin. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 8 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. GLOSSARY 1. Quiet Zone: A corridor of railroad at least one-half mile in length equipped with grade crossing treatments that eliminate the need for the routine sounding train warning horns. 2. Subdivisions (or “subs”): A geographic segment of track between two specific points. 3. Betterment or cosmetic upgrades: Beautification treatments not related to safety. 4. Grade-crossing separation projects: Generally a bridge over or under a railroad that separates the railroad right-of-way from other cross traffic. 5. Delineation of the dynamic envelope: Signs and warning signals that inform pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists of the danger of grade crossings. 6. Channelization: Fences and other devices that direct individuals to a safe crossing location. 7. Increasing sight distance: Clearing obstructions that would hide safety warning devices and signage. 8. Raised medians: Curbs or barriers that prevent motorists from changing lanes at grade- crossings. 9. Flexible bollards: Rubber or soft plastic vertical “posts” that enhance medians and channelization of motorists. 10. Four –quadrant grades: Crossing grades that protect both the upstream and downstream highways and prevents “drive-around” violations. 11. Signal preemption: Signals that turn red at intersections adjacent to crossings at the approach of a train. 12. Federal Railroad Administration’s Final Train Home Rule of June 24, 2005: A series of rules for the applications of Quiet Zones. 13. Rolling Stock: Locomotives and passenger cars.
Commendations 1
-
CM1The staff of the Orange County Transportation Authority and Metrolink is to be commended for their refreshing openness and transparency of process that should serve as a model for other agencies. The OCTA-Metrolink team has a comprehensive program to upgrade 56 railroad crossings in Orange County that will strongly enhance the safety of Metrolink riders, motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
Observations 1
-
OB1The interviews conducted by the Grand Jury included items such as the construction capacity of the potential firms which might be engaged in upgrading the grade crossings. The OCTA documents envision four contract packages with the construction phases beginning during late summer 2007 and completing a year later during the fall of 2008. It is anticipated that the rolling stock would begin arriving at about the same time. In a perfect world this seamless knitting of construction and service upgrade would be the ideal situation; however, evidence indicates that slippage in completion dates has already occurred. Other interviews have raised questions on the costs of these proposed treatments. The original study estimated slightly over $20 million for Tier 1 treatments for the original 64 crossings. At this time the improved Tier 1 treatments are indicated to cost over $45 million, including Orange’s requested Tier 3 treatments. In the original program the OCTA had offered to fund approximately 88% of the costs; with Tier 2 and Tier 3 diagnostics now adding substantially to the cost; the question is whether the OCTA will maintain their commitment to fund the previously allocated amounts or hold at the previously allocated 88% funding commitment. Other concerns expressed by elected officials include who will pay for the liability insurance of these grade crossings? The SCRRA maintains liability insurance for the Metrolink system. The costs of insurance are borne by all of SCRRA member agencies, including the OCTA, on an “all share basis” and are allocated to each county on a train-mile basis. Therefore, the more service in a county, the more train-miles, and the higher the percentage of cost that is paid by the county. If Quiet Zone applications are adopted by a city and it results in an increase in SCRRA’s insurance premium, the city would have to pay the incremental cost. 6 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY A final concern expressed in interviews questions the role of educating the public about the potential danger that an increase in Metrolink service may incur. Metrolink has a Rail Safety Education program that visits schools and community organizations, and in concert with Operation Lifesaver, an organization supported by the railroads that utilizes volunteers, makes the public aware of the dangers of grade crossings and trespassing on railroad property. The various private (BNSF, Union Pacific, Pacific Harbor Lines) and public railroads (OCTA/Metrolink, Los Angeles Metro) meet monthly to discuss safety concerns and problems and look to mutually agreed solutions. This panel is unique in the industry. With the increase in service by Metrolink, a parallel increase in public education should be examined by the OCTA.
Agency Responses 11
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.