Town of Castle Rock - File #: RES 2022-045

Date	Ver.	Action By	Action	Result	Action Details	Meeting Details	Video/Audio
4/19/2022	1	Town Council	Approved	Pass	Action details	Meeting details	Video

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of Town Council

Through: David L. Corliss, Town Manager

From: Daniel Sailer, P.E., Public Works Director

Michael J. Hyman, Town Attorney

Title

Resolution Approving the Pedestrian At-Grade Pathway Agreements between the Union Pacific Railroad and the Town of Castle Rock for the Second and Third Street At-Grade Rail Crossings

Body

________________________________________________________________________________

Executive Summary

The purpose of this item is to request approval of two Construction and Maintenance (C&M) agreements with the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) (Attachment A). These C&M agreements outline the terms associated with the UP constructing certain improvements and the Town’s obligation to pay for these improvements and continued annual operations and maintenance payments. The installation of these improvements allow for the Town to implement a Quiet Zone in accordance with federal rules.

The estimated cost to the Town associated with these two C&M Agreements are:

• Second Street:

o Use of UP ROW for public improvements: $ 46,000

o Four quadrant gate system: $625,000

o Annual operations and maintenance: $ 12,600

• Third Street:

o Use of UP ROW for public improvements: $ 28,000

o Four quadrant gate system: $623,000

o Annual operations and maintenance: $ 12,800

Subtotal: $1,347,400

Contingency (10%): $135,000

UP Total: $1,485,000*

*Rounded to the next $5,000

The construction estimate could change as a result of the original age of the UP supplied construction estimate. The C&M agreements state these estimates are good for six months, but that timeframe has already passed before receiving the C&M agreements from the UP.

There are also some additional construction improvements that are necessary that the Town will need to complete. These include roadway work to tie into the UP’s track adjustments, additional curb and gutter, new pedestrian sidewalks at each crossing, and some pavement marking and sign adjustments. The estimated cost of these improvements is approximately $300,000.

The total for both the UP’s and Town’s improvements is estimated to be $1,785,000. Rounding this to the nearest $100,000 brings the total estimate to $1.8 Million. The Encore development has contributed $900,000 toward this specific project as part of their development agreement with the Town. The Town would need to cover the remaining costs, which is currently estimated at $900,000. The Encore contribution was developed around an earlier UP project estimate developed in 2010 that was then inflated (estimated) to 2018. Staff recommends that the additional $900,000 to complete the railroad quiet zone improvements come from sales tax revenue that would otherwise have been allocated to the Castle Rock Downtown Development Authority TIF Fund. There is capacity to pay this cost in 2022 without alterations to previous commitments, and because this revenue is composed of the incremental sales tax and property tax revenues from downtown businesses and property owners this is viewed as an appropriate use. The downtown railroad quiet zone has been a priority of the Downtown Alliance for several years.

The primary benefits this project provides are: 1) Improved safety for vehicles and pedestrians, and 2) Improved quality of life for downtown businesses, residents, and patrons. The UP is estimating eight months from C&M agreement execution to complete their improvements. Staff estimates that the Town’s improvements will run concurrently with the UP’s. This would put a construction start in the second quarter of 2022, with completion likely to occur in the first quarter of 2023.

Discussion

The limit of the Quiet Zone includes the three public crossings at Second, Third, and Fifth streets. The following map shows the three crossing locations and the primary improvements planned at each:

Minor signage changes are needed at the Fifth Street crossing location, but no significant changes to the gate equipment is planned. A closure of the access to the alley on the north side of Fifth Street, between the crossing and Perry Street is also necessary. The existing median in the center of the road assists as a barrier to help prevent drivers from circumventing the existing gates.

The following photo is an example of what a four-quadrant gate system looks like.

Additional sidewalk improvements at the Second and Third Street crossings will be needed in order to accommodate this system. Minor curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements will be incorporated at each crossing to restrict certain alley accesses to minimize the potential of vehicles trying to evade railroad gates and getting trapped within the track area.

There are several entities that have responsibilities associated with the full implementation of this project: Town, Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Union Pacific Railroad (UP). The UP is projecting that construction of their improvements (four quadrant gate installations) will take approximately eight months from the completion of executed C&M Agreements. Town staff is estimating that this would put a construction start close to the summer of 2022 with completion to occur in the earlier part of 2023.

The intent of the federal rule is to maximize public safety at highway/rail grade crossings through standardization of train horn sounding. If communities desire to eliminate the sounding of train horns then the rule establishes methods that must be followed to compensate for the decrease in safety that results by implementing engineered treatments or programs that effectively compensate.

The total number of trains that run through Castle Rock each day on all tracks averages 30 to 40/day (close to 20 each side of I-25). The rule establishes a pattern of two long blasts, followed by one short blast, and concluded with a final long blast. The rule does not govern the duration of the long and short blasts. This pattern repeats for the full 15-20 seconds, but usually only one cycle is achieved prior to the first crossing. The UP and Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad are the two main companies that operate through Town. The duration could be longer or shorter than the new requirements based on the train speed.

The rule is extremely detailed regarding the methods to establish quiet zones. There are a few key definitions that should be understood prior to discussing the methods:

1. Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold (NSRT): This is a single numeric risk index that averages the total accidents at all public grade crossings in the U.S. with train horns being sounded and each crossing being equipped with warning signals and gates.

2. Risk Index with Horns (RIWH): This is a single numeric risk index for the crossings within the specific corridor being considered for a quiet zone. For the three crossings in the downtown area this would be the single calculated risk for this specific corridor associated with trains blowing their horn and current treatments at each crossing. Essentially, it’s the current safety risk. The Federal Railroad Administration considers this risk index to be lower (better) than the NSRT index.

3. Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI): This is a single numeric risk index for a corridor where trains no longer sound their horns at the crossing(s), but Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs) or Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) have been established at some or all of the crossings. In short, this is the safety risk associated with the horns silenced.

4. Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs): These are approved engineering treatments that are designed to increase safety at crossings. They include closing of crossings, raised median dividers, four quadrant gate systems, and one-way streets.

5. Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs): These are either a modified SSM or a legal enforcement or education program that requires FRA approval prior to implementation.

There are four methods that communities can utilize in pursuing a quiet zone. The methods that follow are in order of decreasing safety effectiveness. They are also generally in decreasing order of cost, but increasing order of administrative work and quiet zone revocation risk. As such, the last two are subject to increased annual scrutiny with the highest potential to have quiet zone status revoked.

Regardless of the method chosen every crossing is required to have minimum equipment at each that include both active warning signals and gates. The signals must also have constant warning devices and power out indicators. While each of the crossings in the downtown area has warning signals and gates some additional improvements may still be required by the operating railroads associated with the warning devices.

Each of the quiet zone methods available to the Town is described below along with some pros and cons provided for each:

METHOD #1 Install Supplemental Safety Measures at each crossing: This method is considered to be the most effective form of compensation for safety as a result of removing the train horn. Under this method, one of the approved SSMs (closure, median dividers, one-way streets, or four quad gate systems) is required to be installed at each of the crossings. This could be a combination of any of the SSMs. This method does not utilize any of the risk calculation factors as the installation of SSMs at each crossing is viewed as the safest approach.

This method maximizes safety. It also places the local jurisdiction in full control of establishing the Quiet Zone (no FRA application or approval). There is no annual reporting requirements to the FRA, but the Town must report on status to the FRA every five years. This method also has the lowest threat of a quiet zone status revocation. This method is also the most expensive as the installation of SSMs at each crossing is the highest.

METHOD #2 Install Supplemental Safety Measures at one or more crossing to achieve a Quiet Zone Risk Index less than the Risk Index with the Horn: This method is viewed as being the next in line regarding increased safety. In this method the RIWH is calculated for the entire corridor that considers train horns being blown and each of the three downtown crossings and each crossing equipped with the required lights and gates. Then a QZRI would need to be calculated for concepts that involve the installation of SSMs at one or more crossing. For example, if the Second Street crossing was closed, minor modifications were made to the medians / accesses at 5^th Street and nothing else was done to the Third Street crossing other than adding “No Train Horn” warning signs, the calculated QZRI for this option would be 13,285 while the RIWH for the area would be 18,125. Given this a quiet zone could be established under this method.

This method is safer than, or as-safe as the existing condition. It also places the local jurisdiction in full control of establishing the Quiet Zone (no FRA application or approval). There is no annual reporting requirements to the FRA, but the Town must report on status to the FRA every three years. This method also has a lower threat of a quiet zone status revocation. The use of some SSMs does make this option expensive, but not as expensive as #1.

The Town is utilizing this method with our current project. The four-quadrant gate SSM is being installed at both the Second and Third street crossings. An SSM could not be installed at the Fifth Street crossing due to the close proximity of the existing Front Street intersection.

METHOD #3 Install Supplemental Safety Measures at one or more crossing to achieve a Quiet Zone Risk Index less than the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold: The difference in this method from that of #2 is that the QZRI is compared to the higher risk index of the NSRT.

This method could decrease the safety of the current situation where horns are used. It also places the local jurisdiction in full control of establishing the Quiet Zone (no FRA application or approval). There is no annual reporting requirements to the FRA, but the Town must report on status to the FRA every three years. This method does have an annual FRA review of the QZRI and NSRT that could potentially result in the termination of our quiet zone status.

METHOD #4 Install Alternative Safety Measures at one or more crossing to achieve a Quiet Zone Risk Index less than the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold: This method differs from #3 in that ASMs are utilized instead of SSMs. ASMs are either a modified SSM or an approved education and/or enforcement program geared at improving safety by raising public awareness.

This method has the lower initial cost, but a high administrative burden. It could also decrease the safety over current conditions. It requires approval from the FRA, and their annual review of the QZRI and NSRT could result in termination of quiet zone status. There is an annual ASM expense as well.

An application to and approval from the FRA is only needed if the fourth method is pursued. If communities pursue one of the first three methods they must coordinate with both the railroad companies and the state regulatory agency (Public Utilities Commission in the case of Colorado) related to the SSM installation and follow specific notification procedures. Once followed, local communities can declare quiet zones and notify the FRA. The community is then required to follow up with the FRA on a 3 to 5 year period dependent on the method chosen.

The methods listed above are in order of decreasing first time capital improvement costs, but increasing long-term administrative costs. Due to the potential decrease in safety associated with methods #3 and #4, the significant administrative requirements, and the higher threat of status change it is recommended that these two methods not be considered for further investigation.

Liability associated with Quiet Zones

Under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA) the Town generally has immunity from tort claims. A tort claim arises from personal injury or property damage as a result of the negligent action or inaction of a person or entity (including a municipal corporation). A claim brought against the Town arising from an accident at a railroad crossing would almost certainly be a tort claim. Although there are certain exceptions to the Town’s immunity under the CGIA, a lawsuit based on the fact that a quiet zone was established, in and of itself, will be barred by the CGIA. Moreover, as discussed above, maintenance of public safety at the crossings through alternative or supplemental measures is a condition to quiet zone approval.

However, we have observed instances in Colorado quiet zones where the railroad has shifted some portion of its potential liability for claims arising within the quiet zone to the local government through a contractual indemnity. While it does not appear that this will be an issue under the express language of this contract, the possibility exists that the Town would be asked to enter into a future contract or contract amendment with the railroad that could impact the Town’s general immunity from liability.

Project Schedule

Public Works is continuing to make strides on the implementation of this project. The following items have occurred to date:

• Entered into a Quiet Zone Services Reimbursement Agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad. This agreement establishes administrative services incurred by the Union Pacific that are not engineering, or construction service related.

• Town staff has met with the Union Pacific Railroad (UP), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and Public Utilities Commission (PUC) staff as part of an on-site Diagnostic Review meeting to assess the concept, and provide a list of items necessary to include within the Town’s civil design plans.

• Completed design plans for the pedestrian, curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements that will be necessary

• Completed a Design Services Agreement with the UP for engineering services associated with the four-quadrant gate systems.

• Completed a PUC application to create a Quiet Zone

The following items are estimated for completion by the end of 2022:

• Complete a Construction and Maintenance Agreement with the UP for installing the four-quadrant gate systems.

• Begin construction of all improvements.

The following items are estimated for completion in 2023

• Completion of Notice of Intent to establish a Quiet Zone for public input.

• Completion of Notice of Establishment that notifies the public of the new Quiet Zone.

• Completion of all improvements and beginning of quiet zone implementation

There are a few items to be aware of once the Quiet Zone is established: 1) If there are any trespassers observed by a Train Engineer, they are required to sound their horn even within an established Quiet Zone, and 2) Quiet Zones may be revoked if an incident, or incidents, occur within an established Quiet Zone.

Private Crossings

There has been some inquiry about whether trains can be prevented from sounding their horns at the existing private crossings located near Liggett Road. The map on the following page shows the location of these crossings. Per the federal rule, private crossings must be located in a Quiet Zone that has a public crossing on each end of the zone. This would require expanding the Town’s downtown zone to include these, and be added to the County’s existing Quiet Zone. This would bring additional risk of a potential revocation should an incident occur within an extended zone. Another possibility may exist if the adjacent property develops and converts these crossings into public crossings, or eliminates them all together.

Recommendation

With the approval of the development agreement with Encore establishing their contribution toward this project, there is an inferred desire to implement this project as soon as possible. With current inflationary pressures, it is estimated that the current project implementation cost is only going to continue to grow. Staff is recommending that Town Council approve these two C&M Agreements.

Proposed Motion

“I move to approve the resolution as introduced by title.”

Alternative motions:

“I move to approve the resolution as introduced by title with the following changes .”

“I move to schedule this item for further discussion at a future Town Council meeting in the second quarter of 2022.”

Attachments

Resolution

2^nd Street Agreement

3^rd Street Agreement

DDA Letter of support