HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 Safety EvaluationAIL CROSSING SAFETY EVALUATION
Yo
0 11110110 •
CONSIDERING IMPLEMENTATION
ALL ABOARD LORI A PASSENGER TRAINS
Prepared by
Railroad Consultant Group, Inc.
4914 Lake Carlton Drive
Mount Dora, Florida 32757
IRC PO#71372-00
May 30, 2015
• - of contents
Introduction
---------------
Scope of Work Defined
TASK 1
Projection and Impact of Increased Trains
Exhibit 1A AAF EIS Table for Traffic and Grade Crossings
Exhibit 1B Existing Freight Operations and Crossing Closure Times
TASK 2
Impact on Safety and Delays from Freight and Passenger on Same Track
TASK 3
Safety Statistics FEC v Peers
Table 3A Employees Injuries per 200,000 Man Hours
Table 3B Highway/Rail Incidents by RR in Florida
Table 3C Highway/Rail Deaths & Injuries in Florida by RR
Table 3D Trespasser Death/Injury not at RR Crossings Florida
TASK 4
Highway Crossing Accidents at FEC Tracks in Indian River County
Table 4A Hwy/Pedestrian Incidents with FEC in Indian River County
Table 4B Hwy/Pedestrian Incidents Causes with FEC in Indian River County
Table 4C Hwy/Pedestrian Incidents with FEC System —JAX to MIA
Table 4D Hwy/Pedestrian Incident Causes on FEC —JAX to MIA
Exhibit 4E Annual WBAPS 2015
TASK 5
All RR Crossings in IRC, Current Protection v Recommended Improvements
Table 5A Grade Crossing Inventory
pg 3
pg 3
pg 4
pg 4
pg 5
pg 7
pg 8
pg 9
pg 10
pg 10
pg 11
pg 11
pg 12
pg 12
pg 13
pg 13
pg 15
pg 19
pg 20
Rail Crossing Safety Summary pg 21
Page 12
Introduction
Indian River County (IRC) has contracted Railroad Consultant Group, Inc. (RRCGI) to conduct a grade crossing
safety evaluation to offer advice on the consequences of the additional passenger rail traffic on the current
FEC railroad that traverses their County. The combination of freight trains and All Aboard Florida (AAF) higher
speed passenger trains could increase the potential for conflicts at the existing crossings.
In the evaluation that follows, RRCGI will present data about current and past events. RRCGI will review future
projections and the possible impacts on the County at these crossings as requested in the Scope below. Also
included are the Florida East Coast (FEC)/ AAF Railroad's proposed changes for operating freight and passenger
on the same tracks with our predictions of the increase in risks. RRCGI's evaluation can be used by IRC to
support a pending legal action against AAF. RRCGI will also suggest mitigations to those identified risks so that
IRC can make an informed decision on an appropriate course of action if AAF becomes a reality.
Scope of Work
(1) A projection of increased grade crossing occupancy caused by the addition of AAF passenger
services and the impact on emergency services and schools.
(2) The impact on public safety and delays to vehicular traffic at grade crossings caused by the
combination of freight and passenger trains operating over the same tracks.
(3) A review of safety statistics according to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) records of FEC in
comparison to its peers in the railroad industry, including Amtrak and CSX Transportation in the
State of Florida.
(4) A review of grade crossing accidents over FEC tracks in Indian River County including causal
factors where determinable and grade crossing warning systems in place at the time of each
accident.
(5) An inventory of grade crossings in IRC including existing type of warning system protection and
recommend upgrades where applicable.
Page 13
Task 1
The first task (1) of increased grade crossing occupancy and its effect on emergency services, schools and the
community as a whole, looks at existing data of the number of freight trains today, the geography, operations
and surroundings as they exist today. A view of the rail operation with the same parameters if AAF was to be
instituted and the projected freight increases, due to increase business by 2019 as projected, were to occur.
Another scenario of the projected 2019 freight only business without AAF, was considered. It is important to
realize that there are certain aspects that cannot be controlled but possibilities exist to mitigate those aspects,
such as an increase in the freight business.
This portion of the AAF environmental Impact Statement indicates the number, kind and speeds of trains
projected in 2019.
Exhibit 1A
The Project will increase the number of times fhat each at -grade
crossing is dosed to traftic, but closures from passenger trains
would be much shorter than closures from existing freight traffic,
on average, an at -grade crossing requires { ` _ O-ildS to
activate and close the gates, and i 5 5ee a i O to bring the gate
back up.
r`t
Brevard 55 22
bwbn Ower 30 22
St Lucie 20 - 22
Nuft _ 25 22
Pah Beach 26 22
For freW tains (average leng 8,150 feet and average speed
approximaiely51 mph), asingle train crossing torahs in an average
crossing closure of 155 seconds (ranging from 147 to 170 seconds)
Or%',ilii�i%L.
For passenger trains (average ienO 725 to tW feet and average
speed 93 mph), a single train Diss ng results in an average
crossingaosure of 5" 5'wrld's.
538
25
32
gat
17 42
542
25
32
_
10"
_...
17 42
47.8...
27
32...
92.6
3.7 42
44.4
28
32
79.5
17 4.2
%3
25
3Z
892
1.7 42
Page 14
The following chart was taken from the Study prepared for AAF by AMEC in 2013 shows the existing freight
operating characteristics and average crossing closures.
Exhibit 16
Table 9_1 S Unman, of Fxistinn Freiaht Operating Characteristics and Averaqe Crossing Closures
Notes:
1. FRA regulations require 20 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the railroad crossing
and 10 seconds to bring the gate back up. FDOT uses 30 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train
entering the railroad crossing and 15 seconds to bring thp�gate back up. To account for the worst-case scenario,
FDOT timings were used in this analysis.
2. Maximum crossings per hour includes north -bound and south -bound trains combined
3. 2011 freight speed for Palm Beach, Martin, St Lucie, Indian River, and Brevard Counties was was obtained from
Section 3:3.1.1 of the Environmental Assessment for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project — West Palm
Beach to Miami, Florida, dated October 31, 2012,
4. Maximum Delay per Hour calculated as the Total Time to Activate and Clear multiplied by the Maximum
Crossings per Hour.
Projection of Increased Grade Crossing Occupancy Caused By the Addition of All Aboard Florida (AAF)
Passenger Services and the Impact on Emergency Services and Schools:
Grade crossing occupancy in frequency will increase with the addition of 32 AAF trains scheduled to begin in
2019. By Florida State Law, each grade crossing closure must begin 30 seconds before the gates close and the
train reaches the crossing and for an additional 15 seconds after the train is clear of the grade crossing for the
gates to return to their upright, vertical position. This increase in occupancy frequency will be mitigated by
several factors:
0 The addition of the second main track through Indian River County (IRC). The additional main track will
allow northbound and southbound trains to pass one another without one having to take the siding
each time they meet.
• On a single track there would be 52 activations but the occasional passing of trains within the same
closure, due to double track, there would be a reduction in the number of closures. The total daily
closure time would be reduced accordingly. However, this is not a quantifiable number but the
occurrences exist and will reduce the number of closures. Because it is not quantifiable, that factor
was not used.
Page 15
Total
Time toTime
to
Time to
Activate
Avg.
Bring the
Activate
Maximo
and Close
Train
Time to
Gate
and
Crossings
Closure
Maximum
Delay per
the Gate
Avg. Train
Speed
Clear
Back tip
Clear
{Trains
{min/
Crossings
flour
County
{sec
Length ft}
m h}
sec}
sec
{sec}
per Da
da }
per Haur
min
2011 Frei
ht
Palm
Beach
30
8150
59.4
94E15
5
139
18
41.6
1
2-3
Martin
30
8150
28.5
1955
240
18
72.0
1
4.0
St
Lucie
30
8150
28-5
195
240
18
720
1
4.0
Indian
River
30
8150
28.5
1955
240
18
72.0
1
4.0
Brevard30
8150
28.55
240
18
72.0
1
4.0
Notes:
1. FRA regulations require 20 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the railroad crossing
and 10 seconds to bring the gate back up. FDOT uses 30 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train
entering the railroad crossing and 15 seconds to bring thp�gate back up. To account for the worst-case scenario,
FDOT timings were used in this analysis.
2. Maximum crossings per hour includes north -bound and south -bound trains combined
3. 2011 freight speed for Palm Beach, Martin, St Lucie, Indian River, and Brevard Counties was was obtained from
Section 3:3.1.1 of the Environmental Assessment for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project — West Palm
Beach to Miami, Florida, dated October 31, 2012,
4. Maximum Delay per Hour calculated as the Total Time to Activate and Clear multiplied by the Maximum
Crossings per Hour.
Projection of Increased Grade Crossing Occupancy Caused By the Addition of All Aboard Florida (AAF)
Passenger Services and the Impact on Emergency Services and Schools:
Grade crossing occupancy in frequency will increase with the addition of 32 AAF trains scheduled to begin in
2019. By Florida State Law, each grade crossing closure must begin 30 seconds before the gates close and the
train reaches the crossing and for an additional 15 seconds after the train is clear of the grade crossing for the
gates to return to their upright, vertical position. This increase in occupancy frequency will be mitigated by
several factors:
0 The addition of the second main track through Indian River County (IRC). The additional main track will
allow northbound and southbound trains to pass one another without one having to take the siding
each time they meet.
• On a single track there would be 52 activations but the occasional passing of trains within the same
closure, due to double track, there would be a reduction in the number of closures. The total daily
closure time would be reduced accordingly. However, this is not a quantifiable number but the
occurrences exist and will reduce the number of closures. Because it is not quantifiable, that factor
was not used.
Page 15
• With the upgraded track and signaling infrastructure to accommodate AAF, track
speeds for passenger trains will be 110 MPH and for freight trains 70 MPH through IRC.
Based on current freight train speeds, this will reduce the amount of time that
crossings are closed each time a train passes.
• The calculation of time that the daily crossing closures of FEC and AAF in 2019, without
consideration of any dual passing time savings, is less than the time of the projected 22
FEC trains only at current speeds by 3.6 minutes.
• In 2013, the closure time for FEC trains was 4 minutes each. In 2019 at current speeds,
4 minutes times the projected 22 FEC trains would be 88 minutes of daily crossing
closure.
• In 2019 with the additional infrastructure allowing faster train speeds due to the
construction of AAF, 22 FEC trains would take 2.6 minutes for each closure and 32 AAF
trains would take .85 minutes for each closure totaling 84.4 minutes or 3.6 minutes
less than 2019 freight only. From an operating basis, we would consider the time
savings a non -issue. Accordingly, there is no increased closure time from the addition
of 32 AAF trains due to the time savings achieved by the infrastructure capacity
improvements allowing high speeds.
• While the grade crossing closure time will not be significantly different with the
addition of AAF, the additional trains will increase the risk of an incident. Measuring
this risk is difficult because it involves the human factor in circumventing safety
infrastructure, whether in a vehicle or a pedestrian.
• What is known is that the number of trains operated through IRC will increase from an
FEC only scenario of 22 to a combination FEC and AAF total of 54. Additionally, the
speeds of both FEC at 70 MPH and AAF at 110 MPH are a significant increase over the
FEC speeds in 2015 of 60 MPH and 45 MPH through IRC.
• An additional risk is the seasonality of the IRC population, which is greater during the
first and fourth quarters each year in comparison to the second and third quarters.
The mitigation of these risks could involve the following:
• To deal with the increased frequency and train speeds, the grade
crossing warning system at each crossing for both vehicular traffic
and pedestrians must have a Diagnostic Analysis. For vehicular
traffic, in addition to the crossing gates with flashing lights presently
in place, this could mean additional pavement markings with signs
that read "DO NOT STOP IN THIS AREA"; increased visibility of do not
stop area; on -mountable median dividers in the roadway, and
possibly three or four quadrant gates. These measures may qualify a
grade crossing for "quiet zone" designation, eliminating the need for
the use of train horns except in emergency crossings, a similar
process of an increased crossing warning system must occur with
gates and a sidewalk across the tracks.
Page 1 6
® Visually gauging the speed of an on -coming train for a pedestrian is
extremely difficult. With the increase in train speeds from the
current 45/ 60 MPH to 70/ 110 MPH, the arrival of a train to a
pedestrian's location will be shortened considerably. To prevent
pedestrian crossings not at designated grade/ pedestrian crossings,
fencing of the railroad right-of-way on both the eastern and western
boundaries of FEC property in urban areas is recommended.
® The seasonality of the population will require an ongoing public
education campaign by various forms of media with the addition of
AAF and the increased operating speeds of FEC and AAF. Seasonal
residents and workers must be reminded of these factors since their
most recent memory will be of where they were immediately prior
to arriving in IRC.
In conclusion: The increase in grade crossing closure time, in and by itself, will not have a
measurable impact on IRC and its emergency services and schools. The impact will be a
possible increase in risk due to FEC and AAF frequencies totaling 54 versus 22 without AAF
and the increase in speeds from the current 45/ 60 MPH to 70/ 110 MPH for FEC and AAF.
Additions/ improvements to the grade crossings, pedestrian crossing warning systems,
enforcement of existing traffic laws and a public education campaign will assist in
mitigating these risks.
Task 2
The impact on public safety and delays to vehicular traffic at crossings caused by the combination of freight
and passenger trains operating on the same tracks.
The plans for AAF include Positive Train Control (PTC)for freight between Jacksonville and Miami and for
passenger trains operating between Orlando and Miami. It is common for freight and passenger trains operate
on the same tracks as Amtrak has trackage rights over freight railroads throughout the United States except in
the Northeast Corridor, which is owned by Amtrak. FEC has extensive grade crossing warning systems in place
today, they will be updated during construction and AAF has contracted with GE to install PTC, which will apply
to all passenger and freight trains, prior to the implementation of passenger services.
The construction specifications of the track infrastructure for passenger service are the same as for freight so
FEC and AAF will be compatible operating over the same trackage. Specifications are based on highest speed.
FEC also has extensive coverage over its network of Defect Detectors for Hot Wheel Bearings, Hot Wheels,
Wide Loads, Dragging Equipment and Impact Detectors to identify locomotives and freight and passenger cars
not in compliance with rail industry standards. The installation of PTC by AAF will add to the array of safety
equipment for FEC and AAF to maintain a safe operating environment. The ability to operate different types of
trains safely on double and triple tracks is common as noted above with Amtrak operating over extensive
trackage owned by freight railroads.
Page 17
The only time that freight and passenger trains may increase the closure times of crossings in IRC would be
when two trains pass simultaneously. This occurrence would however reduce the number of closures for the
day and should reduce the total daily closure times as mentioned earlier in this report as not being quantifiable
for this analysis.
In conclusion, operating freight and passenger trains on the same tracks or multiples thereof would have no
adverse impacts on public safety or delays.
Task 3
A Review of Safety Statistics according to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Records of FEC in
comparison to its Peers in the Railroad Industry, including Amtrak and CSX in the State of Florida
One of the most quoted statements in the railroad industry is "Safety is of first importance in the discharge of
duty." It has been included at the beginning of each railroad's Safety Rule Book for decades. It grew out of an
awareness of the hazards faced by employees in working around heavy equipment that could not be stopped
quickly due to its great mass. As the railroad industry has modernized its equipment, work procedures and
instituted a strong safety culture over the past 50 years, its safety statistics have significantly improved. The
rate of improvement has largely been driven by an increase in safety awareness and a strong management/
employee safety culture first on certain individual railroads and more recently across the entire industry. This
mentality has grown to include the communities they traverse.
It is difficult to compare individual railroads with each other in many ways due to the diversity of geography,
climate, and the amount of line haul versus switching operations. The latter is particularly apparent in the
more heavily populated eastern United States where industrial growth in the 19th century drove development
of thousands of miles of parallel railroads whereas the western railroads were largely developed after the Civil
War in the open plains as the United States expanded westward.
However, there is one safety statistic by which all railroads can be and are measured by themselves and the
FRA. It is the Rate of Employee on Duty Injury per 200,000 Man Hours Worked Table 3A. Since safety statistics
are compiled by the FRA on an entire railroad and not by state, FEC, whose railroad operations are wholly
within Florida, must be compared with Amtrak and CSX as a whole. For the ten year period in Section A of the
chart below that measures the rate of employee on duty injuries, FEC averaged 1.458 injuries versus CSX with
1.149, Amtrak with 3.307, and All Railroads in the US with 2.041. In perusing the 10 -year rates in the chart, it is
evident that FEC does have a strong safety culture. It is also evident that CSX has had a stronger safety culture
developed over the last 10 years as their rate has improved progressively over that period.
Since this study is based on the prospective development of All Aboard Florida, which will be a passenger
service entity, the question could be asked if Amtrak's injury rate is indicative of what to expect from AAF.
There is no inherent reason that a passenger railroad should have an injury rate higher than a freight railroad.
In fact the opposite seems more logical as passenger trains operate more as a unit than freight trains, thus
typically involving less switching. In addition, the hours that the passenger services employees working
onboard a train are counted in the total man hours worked for the calculation. Since both FEC and AAF share
the same parent company, the safety culture should carry over from FEC to AAF.
Page 18
The other charts below, Highway Rail Incidents in the State of Florida, Highway Rail Accident Deaths and
Injuries in the State of Florida, and Trespasser Deaths and Injuries Not at Highway Rail Crossings in the State of
Florida, reflect the number on FEC, CSX, and Amtrak. As a common base for comparison purposes is not
available, comparable rates cannot be established. This is due to the fact that FRA accumulates safety statistics
on an entire railroad, and because large railroads such as CSX and Amtrak do not maintain divisions at state
boundaries but instead by geographical boundaries unique to their networks. While direct comparisons cannot
be made, a review of the safety statistics in each chart shows a correlation between the four charts in Florida.
From Table 3B Highway Rail Incidents in the State of Florida and Table 3C Highway Rail Accident Deaths and
Injuries in the State of Florida for FEC, a Diagnostic Analysis should be conducted at each highway rail grade
crossing prior to AAF initiating its passenger services. Train frequencies and train speeds will be significantly
increased. The most efficient and least expensive time to improve/ upgrade highway rail grade crossings, such
as quiet zones, is during construction of the second main track and the related signaling additions/
improvements. The work can be incorporated into the construction schedule as it evolves, and would
eliminate a second wave of work that would disturb and cause additional work for the improvements already
in place.
From Table3D Trespasser Deaths and Injuries Not at Highway Rail Crossings in the State of Florida, it is evident
that residents along the FEC right of way have created their own railroad crossing points, leading to 124
fatalities and 60 injuries over the last 10 years. With the introduction of AAF passenger services and higher
operating speeds for FEC, fencing is recommended along the entire right of way on both the eastern and
western boundaries of FEC property. Judging the speed of an oncoming train is extremely difficult and
dangerous to anyone who so attempts. Fencing on one side only can trap a trespasser on the right of way. A
secure fence on both sides will significantly reduce if not eliminate this hazard. Pedestrian crossing gate
systems should be installed at each highway rail grade crossing with sidewalks to alert pedestrians to the
potential danger that they are confronting.
Table 3A
Safety Chart of FEC Peer Group
Rate of Employee On Duty Injuries per 200K Man Flours
Page 19
FEC
CSX
Amtrak
All Railroads
2014
2.362
0.971
3.997
1.832
2013
1.840
0.901
4.090
1.869
2012
2.264
0.728
3.672
1.741
2011
0.562
0.926
3.336
1.847
2010
1.772
1.021
3.244
2.026
2009
1.855
1.212
2.335
2.102
2008
0.303
1.232
2.884
2.102
2007
1.782
1.239
2.684
2.266
2006
0.609
1.471
3.290
2.178
2005
1.234
1.789
3.535
2.444
10 Yr Avg
1.458
1.149
3.307
2.041
Page 19
Table 3B
Table 3C
Highway Rail Incidents in State of Florida
Highway Rail Accident Deaths and Injuries in State of Florida
FEC
CSX
Amtrak
2014
19
28
16
2013
18
28
3
2012
15
22
15
2011
15
23
6
2010
13
28
12
2009
10
25
7
2008
10
30
15
2007
36
29
13
2006
33
45
13
2005
29
49
12
TOTAL
198
307
112
Highway Rail Accident Deaths and Injuries in State of Florida
Page 1 10
FEC
CSX
Amtrak
2014
1-4
0-10
4-9
2013
4-6
3-11
0-1
2012
4-6
2-12
4-43
2011
4-4
1-7
1-3
2010
3-3
2-16
5-13
2009
2-4
4-8
2-11
2008
1-7
10-9
6-9
2007
3-11
6-16
11-39
2006
4-6
1-8
2-19
2005
10-2
1-10
3-7
TOTAL
36-53
30-107
38-154
Page 1 10
Table 3D
Trespasser Deaths & Injuries Not at Hwy Rail Crossings in State of Florida
Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety, Washington, D.C.
Task 4
A Review of Highway Grade Crossing Accidents over FEC Tracks in Indian River County
Using the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety data base, in Chart 5 below, there have been 13
incidents resulting in 2 deaths and 4 injuries involving various types of highway vehicles or pedestrians with
FEC trains in Indian River County between 1995 and 2014, a 20 -year period. Automobiles were involved in 8 of
the 13 incidents or 62% with 4 autos being struck by a train resulting in 1 death and 3 injuries and 4 autos
hitting a train with no casualties reported. Of the remaining 5 incidents or 38%, 2 involved pedestrians
resulting in 1 reported injury, 1 van and 1 truck with no injuries reported, and 1 incident reported as "Other"
with no casualties reported. The term "Other" in the FRA data base refers to buses, motorcycles, etc.
Since individual accident reports are not available through the FRA data base, the type of grade crossing
warning system in place in some cases at the time of each incident cannot be determined. FEC was not
approached by us for access to these reports.
The Indian River County statistics are 3.1% of the highway/ pedestrian incidents experienced by FEC over its
entire Jacksonville to Miami route during this 20 -year period as there were 416 total incidents on FEC during
this period. Over the entire route, 322 or 77% of the 416 involved a train striking a vehicle or pedestrian while
94 or 23% involved a vehicle or pedestrian running into a train.
FEC has an extensive network of grade crossing warning systems in place over the Jacksonville to Miami route,
involving gates with flashers in most cases. It would seem that they are being circumvented in many cases as
the average number of highway/ pedestrian incidents involving FEC trains per year, for the 20 -year period is
20.8 with a high of 36 in 2007 and a low of 10 each in 2008 and 2009. 2013 reflected 18 incidents and 2014 19,
which are near the 20 -year average.
In contrast, Indian River County, with gates with flashing lights at each crossing, had a high of 2 incidents in any
one year three different times and no incidents in 10 of the 20 years. However, with the introduction of 32 AAF
trains traveling 110 MPH through Indian River County, each highway grade crossing should be analyzed to
determine what additional safety warning/ prevention systems are needed, such as additional pavement
markings, non -mountable median dividers between lanes, and possibly four -quadrant gates. Increased train
frequency means the possibility of increased risks. These risks need to be mitigated to protect the vehicle
operator who may try to circumvent the existing warning systems.
Page 1 11
FEC
CSX
Amtrak
2014
13-8
9-12
2-0
2013
7-7
11-9
2-2
2012
7-4
3-7
2-0
2011
14-6
8-9
0-0
2010
16-7
12-6
2-0
2009
9-2
6-5
3-0
2008
11-4
8-6
2-3
2007
17-10
12-4
2-1
2006
14-6
12-12
1-0
2005
16-6
13-14
1-1
TOTAL
124-60
94-84
17-7
Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety, Washington, D.C.
Task 4
A Review of Highway Grade Crossing Accidents over FEC Tracks in Indian River County
Using the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety data base, in Chart 5 below, there have been 13
incidents resulting in 2 deaths and 4 injuries involving various types of highway vehicles or pedestrians with
FEC trains in Indian River County between 1995 and 2014, a 20 -year period. Automobiles were involved in 8 of
the 13 incidents or 62% with 4 autos being struck by a train resulting in 1 death and 3 injuries and 4 autos
hitting a train with no casualties reported. Of the remaining 5 incidents or 38%, 2 involved pedestrians
resulting in 1 reported injury, 1 van and 1 truck with no injuries reported, and 1 incident reported as "Other"
with no casualties reported. The term "Other" in the FRA data base refers to buses, motorcycles, etc.
Since individual accident reports are not available through the FRA data base, the type of grade crossing
warning system in place in some cases at the time of each incident cannot be determined. FEC was not
approached by us for access to these reports.
The Indian River County statistics are 3.1% of the highway/ pedestrian incidents experienced by FEC over its
entire Jacksonville to Miami route during this 20 -year period as there were 416 total incidents on FEC during
this period. Over the entire route, 322 or 77% of the 416 involved a train striking a vehicle or pedestrian while
94 or 23% involved a vehicle or pedestrian running into a train.
FEC has an extensive network of grade crossing warning systems in place over the Jacksonville to Miami route,
involving gates with flashers in most cases. It would seem that they are being circumvented in many cases as
the average number of highway/ pedestrian incidents involving FEC trains per year, for the 20 -year period is
20.8 with a high of 36 in 2007 and a low of 10 each in 2008 and 2009. 2013 reflected 18 incidents and 2014 19,
which are near the 20 -year average.
In contrast, Indian River County, with gates with flashing lights at each crossing, had a high of 2 incidents in any
one year three different times and no incidents in 10 of the 20 years. However, with the introduction of 32 AAF
trains traveling 110 MPH through Indian River County, each highway grade crossing should be analyzed to
determine what additional safety warning/ prevention systems are needed, such as additional pavement
markings, non -mountable median dividers between lanes, and possibly four -quadrant gates. Increased train
frequency means the possibility of increased risks. These risks need to be mitigated to protect the vehicle
operator who may try to circumvent the existing warning systems.
Page 1 11
Table 4A
Table 4B
Hwy/Pedestrian Incidents with FEC in Indian River County
Train Struck Hwy User/Ped Train Struck by Hwy User/Ped Killed
Injured
Auto
P/U Truck Truck Truck -
Van Pedestrian
Trailer
Other
TOTAL
2014
0
0 0 0 0
1
0
1
2013
0
0 0 0 0
1
0
1
2012
0
0 1 0 0
0
0
1
2011
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
2010
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
2009
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
2008
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
2007
1
0 0 0 1
0
0
2
2006
2
0 0 0 0
0
0
2
2005
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
2004
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
2003
1
0 0 0 0
0
0
1
2002
1
0 0 0 0
0
0
1
2001
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
2000
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
1999
0
0 0 0 0
0
1
1
1998
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
1997
1
0 0 0 0
0
0
1
1996
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
1995
2
0 0 0 0
0
0
2
TOTAL
8
0 1 0 1
2
1
13
Note: Other includes buses and motorcycles
Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety, Washington, D.C.
Table 4B
Page 1 12
Hwy/Pedestrian Incident Causes with FEC in Indian River County
Train Struck Hwy User/Ped Train Struck by Hwy User/Ped Killed
Injured
2014
1
0 0
1
2013
1
0 0
0
2012
0
1 0
0
2011
0
0 0
0
2010
0
0 0
0
2009
0
0 0
0
2008
0
0 0
0
2007
2
0 0
1
2006
1
1 0
0
2005
0
0 0
0
2004
0
0 0
0
2003
1
0 0
2
2002
0
1 1
0
2001
0
0 0
0
2000
0
0 0
0
1999
1
0 0
0
1998
0
0 1
0
1997
0
1 0
0
1996
0
0 0
0
1995
1
1 0
0
TOTAL
8
5 2
4
Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety, Washington, D.C.
Page 1 12
Table 4C
Table 4D
Hwy/Pedestrian Incidents with FEC System —JAX to MIA
Hwy/Pedestrian Incident Causes on FEC —JAX to MIA
Auto
P/U Truck Truck Truck -
Van Pedestrian
Trailer
Other
TOTAL
2014
12
2
1 2 1
1
0
19
2013
12
1
0 0 2
3
0
18
2012
9
0
1 1 0
2
2
15
2011
8
1
1 0 0
5
0
15
2010
7
0
1 1 0
4
0
13
2009
7
1
0 1 0
1
0
10
2008
9
1
0 0 0
0
0
10
2007
21
1
1 1 3
8
1
36
2006
20
5
2 1 1
3
1
33
2005
14
1
1 1 0
11
1
29
2004
16
2
1 2 2
7
1
31
2003
16
2
0 0 0
2
0
20
2002
12
2
0 2 0
2
0
18
2001
13
3
0 3 0
2
1
22
2000
12
1
0 0 0
0
1
14
1999
11
2
0 0 1
5
3
22
1998
10
1
0 1 1
2
0
18
1997
12
1
2 1 2
1
0
19
1996
13
0
7 2 0
4
2
28
1995
14
0
6 0 0
3
3
26
TOTAL
248
26
25 22 13
66
16
416
0
7
11
Note: Other includes buses and motorcycles
13
1
0
2
0
Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety, Washington, D.C.
1 0
0
Table 4D
Page 1 13
Hwy/Pedestrian Incident Causes on FEC —JAX to MIA
Train Struck Hwy User/Ped
Train Struck By Hwy User/Ped
Auto
Trucks
Van
Ped
Other
Auto
Trucks Van
Ped
Other
Killed
Injured
2014
10
3
1
1
0
2
2 0
0
0
1
4
2013
8
1
2
3
0
4
0 0
0
0
4
6
2012
5
1
0
2
1
4
1 0
0
1
4
6
2011
3
1
0
4 1
0
1 5
1 0 1
1
0
4
4
2010
4
1
0
3
1
3
0 0
1
0
3
3
2009
4
2
0
1
0
3
0 0
0
0
2
4
2008
7
1
0
0
0
2
0 0
0
0
1
7
2007
19
2
1
8
1
2
0 2
0
1
3
11
2006
14
6
0
3
1
6
2 1
0
0
4
6
2005
14
3
0
11
1
0
0 0
0
0
10
2
2004
10
5
1
7
1
6
0 1
0
0
7
11
2003
13
1
0
2
0
3
1 0
0
0
2
11
2002
8
3
0
2
0
4
1 0
0
0
8
5
2001
11
6
0
2
1
2
0 0
0
0
3
3
2000
9
0
0
0
0
3
1 0
0
1
7
6
1999
9
1
1
4
3
2
1 0
1
0
5
12
1998
7
5
1
1
0
3
0 0
1
0
1
8
1997
8
3
1
1
0
4
1 1
0
0
5
9
1996
10
6
0
4
1
3
3 0
0
1
5
10
1995
10
4
0
3
3
4
2 0
0
0
6
7
TOTAL
183
55
8
14
14
65
16 5
4
4
85
135
Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety, Washington, D.C.
Page 1 13
Web Accident Prediction System (WRAPS)
The Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Web Accident Prediction System (WBAPS) is one means of
identifying a highway/ rail grade crossing's probability that a collision between a train and a highway vehicle
will occur at that crossing in a year (Exhibit 4E). On page 4 of the WBAPS for Indian River County below, the
second column is titled "PRED COLLS." This is the accident prediction value for each crossing. The two more
significant factors in the calculation are the Average Annual Daily Traffic count (AADT) and the past 5 year
accident history for that highway rail grade crossing. The values indicate a percentage of the likelihood of an
accident in a year. For instance, the value for 20th Street in Vero Beach is 0.066991 or less than 7/ 100ths of
one (1) percent.
The following are the parameters used in the collision prediction calculation: Average Annual Daily Traffic
Count, the number of highway traffic lanes, whether the crossing is paved on both sides of the crossing, the
railroad maximum timetable speed, the number of railroad tracks through the crossing, the number of trains
per day over the crossing, the type of safety warning device present, and the number of rail/ highway
accidents reported to the FRA.
The following factors are not included in the collision prediction calculation because of their variability from
day to day: sight distances, highway congestion, bus and hazardous material traffic, local topography, and
passenger exposure.
WBAPS does not state which crossings are most dangerous, but does provide an indication that conditions are
such that one crossing may possibly be more hazardous than another based on the data in the program. The
formula is based on two independent factors. The first is the basic data about a crossing's physical and
operating characteristics. The second is based on 5 years of accident history data at the crossing.
Page 1 14
Exhibit E
f *R
2 Annual WBAPS 2015
WEB ACCIDENT PREDIC-nON SYSTEM
lncLudbig.
Prmidgd by.
Accident 'ediction Report for
Public at -Grade Highway -Rail Crossigs
Disclaimer/Abbreviation Key
Accident Prediction List
Federal Railroad,4&ninistration
Office of Sqfe�y -A naly s i s
I
Highivay-Rail C-)-ossing Stfe& Trespass Prevention
Dia Coifudned in tis Rep4XV
STAIE: EL
COUN—u Y: ENDRAIN, RI N�
RAILROAD: FEC
DzEtoPF4epar4F&
Page 115
ChoU.S. Department ,�� �, DAT
or Tray os. tion �I SI1�f G DAY A PRODUCED Y � '` S 1200 l ewJersey. venue; SE
Federal afroad Thin Floor -West
Administraton (Web Accident Preclkirion System)
Washington, X2gGSO
r4'8.",FS genwate5 Fv(1 t5 listing lh high A°a} >3II inteiseCtiOnS f . 3 St3tECOWIN, ICa ik:3 n Gr Dict J1 collisions pa
y`vas_ Fteserep�Is hJude t jf Ists ofthe Iruertc v fe:c""i 3nd ihce -ccIIj jons a
TM -e- 12.i f ` La s alongwith a list�f nta f
fusel information.T.n,Sedaa�R ¢pou d Yth,.FderalFadJadA.&Nnt5ratr3n c A; e b A -,o'dB ntPradi•�bnSys ter(VVB.RSi,
iAl'BAFIS s a computer model w hieh pr yid the use€ am analytical .may, w hid Mabin2d ,%,Kn other sit€--specftc fnfy- mation, can ass I;t
I determining w ha e s cwcs highway -rail grads aossIrig re -sources ca test be ci?ected. This �;mputcg m dell not rank imosings
in 1&ms of mos ttoleas t:d3ngwous.. UseofWBAFIS data nthhe mane es s i9co; -c, --,d mist-ading,
` SAPS provides the samereports as KAPS, which is FP As K, Accident Faedicta^ Sy.tem, P 1r' PS l as ofiginaity d�svalpped. as a
tooftoa[at lacy entm�cement and loca l efficias of the impaAa n I need to improv ssafe t at publivhirhavay-rail intersections within they
jusdictrons. It has sincebecome anmdspenseolesinformation Nesowlmwhnch is helping the FRA, States ; railroads, 0perati n
Lifesavesandothers, toraIse the, awarenessofth-epotentiaidanger~atpu`btIi h ig,'Tv ay -f a il inteirs ecticms.TheFC PS 8APS cutp,ut
enables State ard local highway and law enforcement agencies identifj public highway -rail --easing locations Which May levuJFe
additna{speciali_edattiext. Its.as€tatool ashicrrcap. haused *Istate high4aautli particu
ossings which may require Physiealsafety Improvements orenhan em?nts.
The WSAFISa ientpr ictiort formala is based upontvl indepa-Ment factors(variables),whi-ch iriclus ss (1) basircdata,about
crcss I njs physica I a nd operati ngcharact istiWand �2)froeyears ofavcidEnt hist^ldataatthec,assirig- TWsedataareobtainei
fromth FRAsinventoryandaccideriVins htfileswhicharµsuW-rttokeypunchandsunmiissionerras. AIthoughevery attemptis
made tofitid..and- ederrc4s;themsstillapassihilitythatsomeeromstillexist. F-rToreous,inacuratearrdnon-current data will
after 1+ F— PS accident prediction values, 'Old 1,30 00fl Inventory file :,hams and updates are- vo ntanly Ixovided
an nualfy by States, and railroads and prod sEd by FRA into the Hationa l I nvento;_v File, data recxds fcr s pecific cies sfts may notbe
comp Meelycmieflt„;lnlytheintended uses{States and railroads) are ieally`kngw"s zhleastohow currsrtth inventoffy�,datas'Wa
pastiC lar Stats iailroad; r bcaton:
Its tie application dtheoutpLtgdata;
'eiSAF1S-does hot state that spacific cross ingsarethe mostdaAger us. Rather,the 'VBAPSdatagcvidas.an indicatia-srthatcondab s
aresu"rhthat panearm,"sing may possiblybe mcreba_xdcusthan anotherbased OP. the spacific: data that isintheprogram: It is only
one of many tools, bahichcap baused toassist ndhid l States, failroads ard local highwayauthofftieB'indetermimingoftyreandt tea
initially focus attention fc4im Ing Safety° atPUN ichig^vay-raitinter. ecrvns_ WGAPS s= designadtpnominateeressingsfor further
evaluaticn taasedonly upm the c'¢tysical and operating Casactef sties of speraft ccossingsas +roluntarity reperte `and updated try
tates ;and railroads and five years of a ccident his tay data.
PCAFSandVia$;SPSsoftware aresnotdesignssdtosingle outspeciPiccrossings„vit; ut=yrsidesingthe Manyctharfa-dorswhich may
influalce aciefentsatesorparobabilfti a.5tatehighwayplanr smay,,,,Tmatnotu ePfr'PSWBfi,PSaccidentI:red lenm ei Some
States tai li=e their own ffAmu la ar model tvhi `'r may I”- U de Oth-- geographic and s fte-s p ethic factors. At best PAPS and WELAPS
software and daf3nominates� sfngsforfuttheren-the-groundfetiew bykncavledgeablehighwayt4affivGngineersands pepialists,
The output infta3rroationsnot theendorfinal pfoduct and the Wo3APSdatashould not be used for non -intended 0ufpow%
Itaboufdalsobenotedthat thereare tainchiaderisticsmfaders,&hichare not, nor ran ,included intheWSAPSdatabase.
ThaseindLdesi4ht-dstancs,higbw.3ywng�tion,bLraba_ar ua rr erialt�affic itppo apiby a,7dpassengesaxp eftrair c
mMciej, etc Be aware that ftAF11SN EAF�S is onlyo �Y model and that other a enf � -,"then molJs whir -h may to used dy states
may yield different by just as valid, results fix laMi ng ties s ings for safety i r xaemenrts_
FiraIly, it shouIdbe tvdthatthis database sriot the soleindicatcrofthe nditiondaspecificpublichighway-fail inters eptian. Til
AIR.A,FS output must tre-cansidefed as a supplemantto, the InfoTmationneeded tourdert kespedificactions aim ,at enhandng
hh�'h'sfiia}+�ailt�".�Sin�Sa$�$y8tti€X1sai�i�:SthY�l.�:. Tli�aL'tI1�21tj`an�fi���i�iv=ntG3appalatc��nt�,"n..-S$?�rV�{}�#flcafyt
in-proverrientoT aliminatimpfspecific.aossing5lie-swiththelndividualStates.
Page 1 16
U.S. Department
311 lion UBRIVIATION KEY 1200 11 ewJ ersey Avenue, '�-E
.1jortal
F"'.dZ ailroadhird Floor'Nest
for use with INTLAPS SR—oafs Auninistration Vjashinqtnn, DC 20EH
The lists produced are onlyfor publicat-rgrade higliviay-rail intersections for the entii:ylisted at the top ofthe page- Theparameters
sho%vn are those uszad in the milison prediction calculation.
RAJI K-
C rossin cs. are listed in order and ranked ti%ith the highest collision prediction 'value I rst,
PRED GULLS:
The accident prediction value is the proba Nli4r that a collision beta en a train and ahighmy
vehicle will occur at the crossing in a year.
CRO-SI I I G:'The
uniclue sight specifitidentifing DOTIAAR Crossing Inventoryt-lumber
RR:
The alphabetic abbreviation farthe railroadnamc.
CITY. Y.
The cityin (or nears which the crossing islocated.
ROAD:
–1 he game ofthe road, street, orhigWay (if prmtidedl Mere the crossing is located.
HUM OF
The number of accidents repoited to FRAin each of the years indicated. Note: Mostrecent
COLLISIONS-
year is partial year(data isnot fo rthe complete calendar year) U nless Accidents per Yea r is
`AS OF GECEMBER31,",
DATE CH G:
The date of the latest change of -the warning device, category at the crossing wbichimpactsthe
collision prediction calculation, e.g., a change from crassbucks to lashing lights, orlashing
lights to gates. The accident prediction calculation utilizesthree different -formulas, an eachfor
(1k passive devices,, (2) lashing lights only, and t�j flashing lights %%ith gates. When a, dateis
shown, the collision historyprioTta the indicated year-finonth is not included in calculating the
accident prediction value,
X10:
The type of warning device shown on the current Inventory rid fir the crossing %�ere:
FQ=Four Quad Gates; GT= All 011herGeites, FL = 1`13,51 -ling lights; H S = Wigwags, H ighway
Signals, Bells, or0thefAcivated;SP =Special Protection(a.g,, a 1agmanj-'SS=Stop Signs;
XB = Crossbucks-,IDS –Other Sipse orSignals; 1,10 = RaSigns orSignals.
TOTTRNS:
Number oftotal trainsperday.
TOTTRKS:
i otal numberof railroad tracks. be-tmefy the, ViVarning devicesat the cfassbig.
BL -1 -PD:
T h e m a)� m u m timetable (a 0 a w2ble) we, &d fo r tra ins t h r a u gh the crassi n g.
HVNPVD:
Is thebighway paved on both Wes of the crossing?
A-
HVVY LHS:
The n u mber a f highmy tra ffic laries,crossing the tracks at the crossing;'
A4,DT:
The Average Annual DailyT ra ffic count far hi ghvay v --hid as using the crossing -
Page 1 17
RA -NK TIPIED
PLBLICIHGHTf,'4F-R4lL CROSSLYGS R4.v=13YPREDIC1ED
ACCLDEN7.9 PER IT -AR AS OF, 1.2,3112014*
year tpaftls I Jc rcifofi},: conno I ate is 'A S
NLi MLI'`_'"L-i..' L, t Y "C I -i A,
qcmD MA OF -ATE JIN' Fur I 6'r IT
1 140 B 12 11 10 I iitI-N RK �D FM t,-,�,s
OL-m-�'
2-2Z:V
FL
INC194 R,%ER.
V:RL ELACH
20 7 H 7.P=,
C
�11
1
11
11
QT 4
1
45
1i 2
l.fcc
2
2--J�%'W
TM
17
INDAN 9PrER
VERD EF -Ar Hl
-TH ST
I
C.
c
0
OT 24
1
f%
IM 2
?ems
e 13-
_
wT l 41
2 -,-'E U
- ;
jtCjAx4 RN,,�7Z
V EERO ACH
24= -RD
i
--ll
a
IT 24
1
-55
I= 2
A-62
4
2�KIal,
F -T
It DAN RN'ER
V EF -n A
517-D,
0
^1
c
0
0
GT 14
1
'5.,,
-IM I
-233-DD
0432Sk',
2721,3-13
x -mc
FT-
INDIAN R1 32
VF Fn.- MACIT'll
Iff H `:T
0
0
0
0
0
GT 24
1
25
IES 4
17.44+3
m &t4 Rwuz
Y MD
1-fTH 2T
0
0
0
Q�
0
OT 24
2
65-
4
I'OAN RrljaZ
D -RD MA�:F
21ST TI,
0
0
0
0
GI -.4
1
Z
11M 4
'03340
7'-
M.W RNER
":PP- MACH
�=I=
0
0
0
0
0
OT 1-4
2
5D
Ir- 2
ll%oX-
Q10.101D
172r-LNE
= =FL
NIX44 Kv-UZ
VE ED MAC- Rl'
0
0
^1
0
0
91 24
1
-1;
IM 3
,0125424
-272170
_-c
F -L
INDAN RAVER
`,7MO BEAC-h-
-IP-D FL
a
I'll
0
lzr
0
QF --
j
�
-Im -1
Zrcg
Il
1=13n
2l1
Fm
FLI
INUaN Rr4,,-R
SY-1:1 AM -u
F=XERE -7,
^,
0
0
0
0'
GI :24
1
C5
-IES 2
d'7-54
12
=41,16
27-1M- k
7zc
YL
INVAN RN,',ER
V= =,ACH
2G=FCpZR.D
a
C,
0
0
OT N
2
d5
Ya, 2
2
Q-3
Mfgr
FL
ltOM RNIEF
VEPDMACH
Tk- V,7.'MA'K-RD
0
0
0
0
0
er 2,
14
OIBMN
MISIM
---L
MM W -M
V E FO M4 ZH
=H==i
0
0
0
0
0
G7 24
1
4;
IYMI
'jt770
i:%,
N:32--
=21',7D
TL
INDW4 RHEA
VERDMACH
a-L-1ALEps
o
c
o
C'
o
GT '-�i
1
65
2
4,7�7
I-
L214
2M—fr,:'
Mr
MN -4 FU,.f,-R
---, 13 -A,- TT LkN
NLALINI ST
0
0
0
0
0
bT,'-4
I
E
lit --
2720T
ILE
INDAN F?JV---R
V --ET- MACH
147E.- 4:N E
0
0
0
0
c
GT :N
1
25
Ml
24-
ls
wms&
2m,^,--
-L
JN:)j&x Rrv,---R
v
0
0
0
0
2
CTT 19
1
5
-im z
19
019935
2711-177V
FL
INDAN RVEZ
-UTH STIRLET
0
0
0
0
S
GF 19,
1
45�
-IM 2
SSS
2
0,01IQ92
-mrK
HL
It I OAN RNER
YERD aACI-1
3W=PL-
0
0
0
0
Or I -q-
I
W
1t -s- 4
LIF
21
017 -f -M-
2M,' -V-
11
M,*l RN'19'
Vlh—iU MCH
SI=LAIN Ep-
0
0
o
o
G7
1
65'gl
2,
L431
Fzc
FL
INUIAN RNEF
VMD M -1-M
I UITIR, KH(Z7
0
0
0
0
GI -14
1
ea
147
LIH
0014M
272U3,
c
ITL
INUARfUVER
VEM MAZH
=H 371
0
0
0
0
0
Gil 22�,,
1
15
TM 2
SO
24
Q01Q
2. 17
YL
MAN RN -ER
VE-RO M -ICH
IKE ARI -RD(
r,
0
0
o
ra
GT 23
1
-5
'M 2
57f
il:
con -m
m
MAN
y-220 MAM
0
o'
o
0,
c-
Gr
1
s
'ims I
E0
16
,012PO
2 -2 -N -3-S
YL
MAN RNEER
VERO Mk�H
F—PST IT I
o
o
o
o
o
�-,r '24
1
5
M'2
'41§
iii 1 l, -W
2272115-X
,FL
IND AR Rpi,:IR
%-= MAH
'%IC=?D;gl
0
0
0
0
0
C77 "14
1
f-,
I'm- 2
212
213
'2y DOH
2'n-lrzF
FL
INDAN RNM
VUDMAM
IMD= IMIT
"
0
0
(17 '24
1
S,
IM 1
11
1.
OGOLPjD
27,2171B
-rc
TEL
INDAN Rry-,:R
VERDEZAZH
i:= AFI F.D
,
0
0
S,
0
GT 24
1
15
'I'M 2
1; i
1o
OOMD
FL
INDqAN EWER
V ERD MACH
4:,TH ST,
0
0
0
GT 24
2-0;
YM, 2
44,
I
n-,3DS;-P
=7 3D
3
FL
jfV.qj RrVER
VEROMkCH
CF-krED
0
0
Ol
0
0
CT7 24
1
5
NG 2
ZZ
TTL: A-17735 0 1 2 1 0 ril
Page 1 18
Task 5
An inventory of grade crossings in IRC including existing type of warning systems and recommended
upgrades where applicable
Indian River County has 32 grade crossings covering 30 roads and streets with State Route 60 and County Road
512 being divided in eastbound and westbound directions on the 21.2 miles of FEC trackage through the
county for a grade crossing every 0.66 mile. Each crossing currently has a grade crossing warning system of
gates with flashing lights that is activated by an approaching train.
With the advent of AAF passenger services operating at 110 MPH and FEC increasing its current operating
speeds from 45/ 60 MH to 70 MPH, a new analysis is required to determine the adequacy of the current
warning system and the need to upgrade it with the new infrastructure being constructed to accommodate
the increased number and type of trains and the higher train operating speeds. Since AAF has issued 90%
Construction Plans for review, there is an urgency to accomplish this analysis so that upgrades can be included
in the construction schedule, which will be the most efficient and less costly method, versus having to add
these improvements after the completion of construction.
The analysis and recommendations may qualify a series of crossings in Indian River County to be designated as
included in a Quiet Zone (QZ). A Quiet Zone is a section of railroad corridor where train crews do not routinely
sound the horn at rail/ highway grade crossings. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provides the
requirements necessary to establish Quiet Zones since the sounding of the train horn at grade crossings is an
FRA safety rule with which all railroads must comply. Railroad segments will qualify for Quiet Zone designation
if crossing safety improvements identified in the grade crossing safety analysis are implemented. These
improvements include crossing closures, one-way traffic conversions, non -mountable median dividers
between lanes, additional signage and pavement marking, and the installation of four -quadrant gates. All of
these improvements are intended to prevent a motorist or pedestrian from circumventing the safety warning
system. The Quiet Zone process can take 12 to 24 months from initiation to completion.
The Quiet Zone Establishment Process includes the following steps:
• Feasibility Study: A Quiet Zone (QZ) study is initiated by a local government or citizen's request. A
diagnostic team, consisting of the Public Works staff, Florida East Coast Railway (FEC), All Aboard
Florida (AAF) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) staff, visits QZ crossings to identify safety
improvements necessary.
• Data Collection: FEC and AAF provide train data (including train schedules through IRC, switching and
local trains, and train speeds) and Public Works staff collects daily traffic counts.
• Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) Calculation: The collected traffic and train data and proposed safety
improvements are entered into the FRA's QZRI calculator to ensure that the QZ can be established
• Identify Funding: Identify the available funding source with Indian River County Commissioners
recommendation and approval.
• Complete Design: Design Plans are prepared to include the safety improvements and signage and
pavement markings modifications.
• Notice of Intent (NOI): NOI and design plans are submitted to stake holders, such as IRC, FRA, AAF,
FEC, FDOT, etc. The stakeholders are required to respond within a 60 -day timeframe.
• Complete Safety Improvement Construction: A contractor is hired to complete the construction of the
traffic safety improvements in the design plans.
• Final Inspection: An inspection is done by the diagnostic team to verify the safety improvements.
Page 1 19
® Notice of establishment (NOE): NOE application and as -built plans are submitted to stakeholders. The
stakeholders are required to respond within a 30 -day timeframe.
It is important to note that the establishment of a QZ does not mean that a train will never sound its horn in
the QZ. Federal regulations and FEC Operating Rules require that the engineer sound the train's horn in several
instances, such as when approaching people or equipment working on the right-of-way. Further, engineers are
permitted to sound the train horn in a QZ if they believe a situation exists that warrants operation of the horn,
such as the presence of trespassers or animals crossing the tracks. A QZ is unrelated to other sounds
associated with railroads, such as engine noise or the sounds of freight or passenger cars moving over the rails.
Task 5
Table 5A
Page 120
IRC at Grade -Crossing on FEC in Indian River County Rev 2
Road/Street Name
UniversalMile
Code
Post
TTBL SPD
AAF SPD
Warning System
Recommendations
Roseland Rd, CR505
272159U
212+2991
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Main Street
272161V
214+2238
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
CR 512 WB
273063H
214+4375
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
CR 512 EB
272162C
215+315
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Old Dixie Hwy
272163J
216+20
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Schumann Dr.
272164R
216+3116
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Vickers Rd, 99 St
272165X
217+3226
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Stratton St
272974H
218+171
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Wabasso Rd, CR 510
272168T
219+3059
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Hobart Road
27217OU
220+3689
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Cemetery Road
2721718
221+2832
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
N Winter Bch
272172H
221+4212_
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
S Winter Bch, CR 632
272173P
222+1704
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Hawks Nest GC
272175D
223+943
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
49` Street
2721775
224+2199
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
45`h Street
272178Y
224+4945
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
43rd Street
272179F
225+632
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
41'` Street, CR 630
272180A
225+2418
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Aviation Blvd
273047Y
225+3412
45/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
26`h Street
272189L
227+301
45/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
10 Avenue
27219OF
227+745
45/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
23rd Street
272191M
227+1623
45/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
21A Street
272192U
227+2520
45/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
20`h Place, SR 60
2721938
227+2920
45/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
19`h Street
272958Y
227+3245
45/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
16` Street
272195P
228+118
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
12`h Street
272196W
228+3486
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Glendale Rd, CR 612
272197D
229+983
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
4m Street
273049M
229+3982
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
1'` Street
272199S
230+767
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Oslo Road, SR 606
272200J
231+1651
60/70
110
Gates
Quiet Zone
Highland, 20` PI SW
272201R
232+4583
1 60/70
110 1
Gates
Quiet Zone
Note: TTBL SPD — First number is current FEC Freight Timetable Speed and second is proposed FEC Freight Speed
after infrastructure improvements
Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety, Washington, D.C. and Florida East Coast Railway Timetable No. 39
Page 120
Rail Crossing Safety Summary
RRCGI contacted Indian River County (IRC) based on the knowledge that IRC was preparing litigation against All
Aboard Florida (AAF). RRCGI prepared a submission to perform the Scope of Work less item 6, from an
interoffice memorandum dated February 24, 2015 from Commissioner Bob Solari. In an email reply dated
April 23, 2015, RRCGI stated in part "We pride ourselves in presenting all aspects of a situation/problem with
expert advice on how to resolve same."
RRCGI looked at multiple sources including extensive analyses already completed by various consultants,
numerous Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reports and extensive data from the FRA Office of Safety, FEC
timetables and AAF information available through their web sites. We reviewed the issues in the Scope of
Work in light of these sources, and set out to address the issues with data to support the findings, using RRCGI
extensive experience and suggesting mitigations to risk factors found.
The order of issues to be addressed was changed by IRC due to the delay in issuing the Notice to Proceed and
the time constraint of an impending meeting scheduled for May 28, 2015, which now has been rescheduled.
Realizing the importance of the issues to IRC, RRCGI moved forward to complete the report for use by IRC. A
summary of the findings follows:
TASK 1 Projection and Impact of Increased Trains on schools and school bus traffic.
It is the view of RRCGI that with the increased freight traffic projected by FEC in 2019, the total delay time
without improvements from AAF, the current speeds operated by FEC would result in grade crossings closure
of 88 minutes per day. With the infrastructure improvements required for the inclusion of AAF on the FEC
corridor and the increased operating speeds for both freight and passenger, the combined crossing closure
time with FEC and AAF are 83.4 minutes per day or approximately the same as freight only without
infrastructure improvements to tracks, signaling, and bridges. The construction of double and triple main track
elsewhere at a higher FRA Class than today, facilitates increased capacity, fewer train meets, means main
tracks will seldom be used by standing trains waiting their counterpart from the opposite direction. During the
construction all grade crossings will be upgraded to the latest industry technology to meet the higher class of
track standards. With schools buses mandated to stop at all crossings and total crossing closure time with AAF
the same, no school bus impact or delay is foreseen.
Task 2 Impact on Safety and Delays Caused by Freight and Passenger Operating on the Same Track
Freight and passenger trains share the same tracks across the U.S. as Amtrak has been operating over the
freight railroads' tracks since 1971. Up-to-date train control, signal systems and computerized train dispatching
systems make higher speed freight and passenger on the same tracks a reality. Before AAF is operational, FEC
will have installed Positive Train Control (PTC) on its tracks. PTC is the most advanced train control signaling
system and is under development as mandated by Congress as the result of a collision in 2008 between a
commuter train in the Los Angeles area with a Union Pacific freight in which the commuter train failed to
comply with a STOP signal indication. According, in accordance with the significantly improved FEC
infrastructure, RRCGI can find no substantive risk factors in task 2.
Page 121
Task 3 Safety Statistics FEC v Peers
Railroad safety statistics cover a broad range of factors and disciplines due to the particular geography, nature
of operations and facilities and the size of the physical plant of different railroads. When statistics for the three
major railroads in the state of Florida are viewed, they vary significantly. CSX operates a 33,000 mile system in
the U.S., and in Florida has many miles though rural areas as well as in the major metropolitan areas of
Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, and South Florida. The freight only railroad has a diverse traffic mix and
substantially more trains than FEC. Amtrak is completely different than FEC with a passenger only operation
with four daily trains in Florida. Thus any comparison has to be viewed from this perspective. The one safety
statistic that is common across the industry in the rate of injuries per 200,000 man hours, in which both FEC
and CSX are among the industry leaders while Amtrak is a laggard as the Table in Task 3 illustrates.
Task 4
The tables in Task 4 illustrate that IRC has a small percentage of the overall incidents involving vehicles and
pedestrians on FEC. However the increase in the number of grade crossing activation closures increases the
risk factor for anyone who attempts to evade the crossing warning system once it has been activated by an
oncoming train. It would be difficult to quantify precisely, but the FRA's Web Accident Prediction System
(WBAPS) model is a valuation based on vehicular traffic at a crossing (AADT) and the accident history at that
grade crossing. With the installation of additional warning/ protection systems, including recommendations
such as media campaigns, installation of quiet zones, fencing and higher visibility pavement markings, should
assist in mitigating the increased risk. It should be noted that all 13 grade crossing incidents in IRC since 1995
involved motorists or pedestrian ignoring activated flashing lights and crossing gates.
Task 5 Current Crossing Protection in IRC and Recommended Improvements if AAF happens.
Table 5A provides the listing of crossings and current warning systems at the 31 crossings in IRC. AAF's 90%
and 100% plans will show in detail the changes to the warning systems at each crossing as a result of a
Diagnostic Analysis in 2014 in which all stakeholders participated. It is our recommendation that IRC request
"Quiet Zones" throughout the County. The added safety features will mitigate the risks in our view in the
number of crossing closure activations. These closure activations will increase by 32 if AAF becomes
operational. Fencing the right of way in urban areas to promote pedestrians crossing at the crossings with
flashers and crossing gates instead of creating an unauthorized crossing is recommended.
If AAF operates through the Treasure Coast as planned, it is hard to imagine, with the planned significant
investment, that AAF would not seek to fully utilize the expanded physical plant, after the initial startup. From
a railroad business standpoint, we can foresee additional train patterns that would provide more opportunity
for local ridership.
Railroad Consultant Group, Inc. thanks Indian River County for the opportunity to serve.
Page 122