Appendix C. Grade Crossing Impacts Evaluation

Transcription

1 Appendix C Grade Crossing Impacts Evaluation

2 Final Report Pier T Grain Export Terminal Project prepared for Port of Long Beach, California prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. October 27, 2011

3 1.0 Project Study Area An EIR must evaluate the environmental impacts a proposed project might have in the project s area of impact. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4 th 1184, 1216.) In determining a proposed project s area of impact, CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) provides that an EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and regional perspective. That environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. Consequently, the analysis of potential rail impacts from port projects is appropriately limited to at-grade crossings immediately adjacent to the ports and between the ports and the downtown Los Angeles train yards, a location 20 miles away to which virtually all port trains travel. Certain agencies in the Inland Empire, however, have requested that the ports evaluate potential rail impacts from port projects in their jurisdictions, which are well beyond the Los Angeles train yards. The Inland Empire, located 50 miles and more from the ports, is not in the vicinity of the ports. Even though the number of trains that would leave the ports on-dock rail facilities is quantifiable, the evaluation of potential impacts from these trains on the regional mainlines becomes too speculative due to the number of assumptions that must be made in order to conduct such an evaluation. These assumptions include, for example, the identity of the port terminal operator, the Class I railroad that would operate the on-dock rail yard, and the major route/sub-route on which the railroad operator would choose to operate the trains, all of which is information generally not available at the time environmental review documents are prepared. Also, trains that are built from drayed intermodal port cargo at the near- and/or off-dock downtown yards would not cause significant rail-related impacts along rail lines that lead east of the Los Angeles rail yards into the Inland Empire because many of those trains are broken down, reconfigured, or otherwise modified at the downtown rail yards, and these reconfigured trains then leave the state by any one of the major routes. The rail operators, not the ports, will choose what routes the trains will take, as well as the day and time they will move. Because the rail mainline tracks were designed and built to accommodate the anticipated rail activity in the region, and rail volumes on the mainline are controlled and limited by the capacity of the mainline itself, project trains from the ports could not use the mainline unless it still had remaining capacity. The number of trains generated by various port projects would not typically cause the mainline rail tracks to exceed the regional capacity. Thus, under CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a), the ports could utilize an area of impact for rail-related impacts from a port project that is limited to areas immediately adjacent to the project site, and as far away as the Los Angeles rail Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1

4 yards, 20 miles from the ports. That area of impact has been expressly upheld as appropriate in scope for port projects by the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three. (City of Riverside v. City of Los Angeles (G043651, August 11, 2011) included as Attachment A-4 of the Final Port of Long Beach/Port of Los Angeles Rail Impact Analysis Methodology 1, slip opinion pages 8-11 [the County of Riverside is not in the vicinity of the project, and thus the Port of Los Angeles did not abuse its discretion by failing to include an analysis of rail-related impacts in the County of Riverside in its draft EIR]; see also Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (July 14, 2011) 2011 Cal. LEXIS 6866 [although indirect impacts may not be ignored, less detail required where claimed effects would be outside area encompassed by project itself and therefore difficult to predict with accuracy].) Nevertheless, in deference to their sister agencies in the Inland Empire, the ports have determined to voluntarily go above and beyond the requirements of CEQA and to include in their environmental documents analyses of the potential rail impacts in the Inland Empire of proposed port projects. The following methodology will be used in those analyses. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. has developed a series of spreadsheets to compute the impacts of freight and passenger trains on vehicular delays at grade crossings in the region. Spreadsheets are available for five different rail lines and all atgrade rail crossings on those lines. Shown in Figure 1.1, the five lines include: BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard near downtown Los Angeles to San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow UP Alhambra Subdivision from Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) near downtown Los Angeles to Colton Crossing UP Los Angeles Subdivision from East Los Angeles Yard near downtown Los Angeles to West Riverside Junction UP Yuma Subdivision from Colton Crossing to Indio. It is anticipated that the BNSF will be the only carrier involved in the POLB Grain Export Facility, thus only the BNSF San Bernardino and BNSF Cajon lines were evaluated for grade crossing impacts. Union Pacific background trains, however, must be considered, because a portion of the UP trains use the BNSF Cajon Subdivision and the segment of the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from West Riverside Junction to San Bernardino. 1 Final Port of Long Beach/Port of Los Angeles Rail Impact Analysis Methodology, September 2011, available at the Port of Long Beach Transportation Planning Division (925 Harbor Plaza, Long Beach, CA 90802). Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2

5 Figure 1.1 Map of Rail Lines Evaluated for Grade Crossing Impacts Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3

6 2.0 Grade Crossing Impacts Evaluation Methodology The inputs and outputs to the spreadsheets include the following data: Inputs for each grade crossing 1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for each analysis year (e.g., 2010, 2035) 2. Hourly percentage of ADT for four time periods (am peak, midday, pm peak, and night time) 3. Vehicle arrival rate (computed, based on 1 and 2 above) 4. Number of lanes 5. Speed of train at that location 6. Departure rate of queue 7. Number of trains per day, per period, by length and type (e.g., 8,000-ft intermodal train) Outputs for each crossing (per train, per period, per day) 1. Gate down time 2. Vehicle hours of delay 3. Number of vehicles delayed 4. Total vehicle arrivals 5. Percentage of vehicles that are delayed 6. Percentage of time grade crossing is blocked 7. Average delay per vehicle in minutes and seconds (computed by dividing total vehicle delay by total no. of vehicles arriving during the same period). 8. Queue length 9. Results of threshold of significance test for PM peak hour. The gate down time is computed, based on the length and speed of the train, as well as the lead and lag times of the gates, and the width of the intersection. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-1

7 Grade Crossing Delay Calculation Methodology The equations for vehicular delay are based on Figure 2.1, which shows cumulative vehicle arrivals and departures for an isolated grade crossing blockage. Figure 2.1 Cumulative Arrivals and Departures for an Isolated Blockage Source: Graphic and mathematical derivation adapted from Dr. Robert C. Leachman, San Pedro Bay Access Study: Phase 2: Railroad Access, 1984, Appendix G, Figure G-1, prepared for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Original equations for computing vehicle hours of delay are from James Powell, Effects of Rail-Highway Grade Crossings on Highway Users, Presentation to the Transportation Research Board, January 19, 1982, p. 12. The equation for the arrival line in the graphic, A(t), is: where: y = cumulative number of vehicles arriving at the crossing q = arrival rate in vehicles per minute t = time in minutes Arrivals are assumed to be uniformly distributed, i.e., vehicles arrive at equal intervals. The equation for the departure line in the graphic, D(t), is: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-2

8 where: y = cumulative number of vehicles departing the crossing after the gates are up d= departure rate in vehicles per minute = gate down time in minutes The total number of vehicles (N) delayed by the train is calculated as follows: where: t* = time at which the queues have fully dissipated Point B in Figure 2.1 is where the arrival and departure lines intersect. The coordinates of point B are (t*, N). At this point, Thus, 1 Since, 1 The number of vehicle minutes of delay (V) for an isolated blockage is derived by calculating the area of the triangle OAB. Note that delay is a function of the square of the gate-down time The length of line represents the amount delay experienced by the nth vehicle. Calculating the value of this line for each vehicle arriving at the crossing and then adding those values up is equivalent to computing the area of triangle OAB. The equations above relate to the effects of an isolated blockage; i.e., it is assumed that the vehicle queues are completely dissipated before the next train arrives at the crossing. However, where the rail corridor has more than one track, it is possible that a second train travelling in the opposite direction could arrive at the crossing before the queues from the first train have fully dissipated. More complex delay equations for these multiple events have been derived by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-3

9 Dr. Robert Leachman of U.C. Berkeley. 2 In an effort to compute these effects and how likely they are to occur, Dr. Leachman simulated railroad traffic for both 2010 and 2035 against streets with varying ADT per lane and recomputed vehicular delays including the impacts of multiple events. With higher train volumes, multiple events occur more often, and the severity of the impact is greater on streets with more vehicular traffic per lane. Based on a sample of Dr. Leachmans results for different train volumes and ADT per lane, Cambridge Systematics fitted a curve for the calculation of a Bias Factor. This Bias Factor adjustment accounts for additional delay associated with multiple train crossings that overlap in time. The fitted equation for the Bias Factor, BF, is as follows:... The R-squared value for the fitted equation is , indicating a very good correlation among the variables. Using this equation, a Bias Factor was computed for each grade crossing that has more than one track crossing the street. The Bias Factor is then multiplied by the unadjusted vehicle hours of delay for an isolated blockage to account for the effects of multiple events. For example, the average Bias Factor for all grade crossings on the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision for 2035 is approximately 1.081, meaning that the unadjusted delay values are increased by an average of 8.1 percent. Estimates of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The most recent traffic counts for all grade crossings in the study area were acquired from multiple jurisdictions. If the year of the count was prior to 2010, the value was increased by 1.0% per year to get an estimate of 2010 ADT. Using results from the SCAG model, projections of ADT were made to 2015, 2020, 2025, 2027, 2030, and Only the 2035 forecasts were used in the Grain Terminal analysis. Separate compound annual growth rates (CAGR) for ADT were estimated for each county for all streets crossing the main lines in those counties. Daily highway traffic was then allocated to four different time periods of the day, based on the results from the SCAG model (Table 2.1). 2 Robert C. Leachman, San Pedro Bay Access Study: Phase 2: Railroad Access, 1984, Appendix G, prepared for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-4

10 Table 2.1 Hourly Factors Applied to Average Daily Traffic (ADT), by County Period Time of Day San Bernardino County Riverside County Orange County Los Angeles County AM Peak (3 hours) 6 AM 9 AM Midday (6 hours) 9 AM 3 PM PM Peak (4 hours) 3 PM 7 PM Night (11 hours) 7 PM 6 AM Estimates of Background Freight and Passenger Train Traffic in 2010 and 2035 For the SCAG Regional Goods Movement Evaluation and Implementation Plan, Dr. Robert Leachman estimated freight and passenger train volumes and lengths on the study area main lines for 2010 and He then simulated railroad traffic to assess track capacity requirements. The 2035 train forecasts assume San Pedro Bay Ports volume of 43.1 million Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs). Dr. Leachman assumed that 2035 container trains from the port terminals would consist of 30% 12,000-foot trains, 40% 10,000-foot trains, 30% 8,000-foot trains. Because of the capacity limitations of rail yards at port terminals, the Port of Long Beach believes that a more realistic distribution of port-related trains by length for 2035 would be two-thirds 8,000-foot trains and one-third 10,000-foot trains. Accordingly, all intermodal trains using the Alameda Corridor in 2035 are assumed to correspond to this distribution. This results in a higher 2035 train count than in Dr. Leachman s forecast. For the main lines east of downtown Los Angeles, Alameda Corridor trains are combined with estimates of trains originating or terminating at BNSF s Hobart Yard, UP s East Los Angeles Yard, and UP s Los Angeles Transportation Center. Some 12,000-foot domestic intermodal trains are assumed to be loaded at these yards in For the purposes of estimating grade crossing impacts on main lines east of downtown Los Angeles, it does not matter whether container trains are loaded at on-dock rail yards, near-dock yards (such as the ICTF and SCIG), or off-dock yards such as Hobart and East Los Angeles Yards. A few intermodal trains are loaded at UP s City of Industry Yard and a few automobile trains are loaded at UP s Mira Loma Yard. The UP s Colton Yard and the BNSF San Bernardino Yard also generate additional traffic. 3 Dr. Robert Leachman, Inland Empire Main Line Rail Study 2010 Update, February 8, 2011, prepared for Southern California Association of Governments. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-5

11 All background trains are assigned to main line routes, with 50% of the intermodal trains assigned to BNSF and 50% assigned to UP. The UP uses its Los Angeles and Alhambra subdivisions in a one-way loop configuration. However, trains originating or terminating at City of Industry and Mira Loma must flow in the opposite direction of prevailing train traffic. Excluding the proposed grain export facility, projections to 2035 have been made for non-intermodal trains; i.e., unit auto trains, unit bulk trains, and carload trains. For 2010 and 2035 freight and passenger train traffic was assigned to individual segments of track. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (MetroLink) provided projections of commuter rail service to SCAG for use in Dr. Leachman s railroad simulations. Their unofficial 2025 forecasts were used in the 2035 grade crossing impact assessment. It was assumed that there would be no change in AMTRAK train volumes from 2010 to Project Trains for 2010 and 2035 It is assumed that the 2035 background train volumes do not include the projected train traffic from the new grain terminal. To analyze the contribution that the Project Trains make to total delay at grade crossings, the 2035 Project Trains are added to the 2035 background trains. The impacts of the without project case is then compared to the with project case. Next, it is determined whether the incremental impact of the Project Trains is significant. The significance threshold is described in the next section. The Port of Long Beach and the Project Applicant have provided the following assumptions regarding the number and length of trains serving the proposed project site. In 2035 there would be a total of 4 loaded trains per week, and 4 empty trains returning to source. Half of the trains are assumed to be grain trains, and half would be carrying Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS). Characteristics of the two types of trains are slightly different, as indicated in Table 2.2 below. Since the BNSF Railway will be the only carrier involved in the project, grade crossing impacts of the grain export facility have been assessed for only the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision (from Hobart Yard near downtown Los Angeles to San Bernardino) and the BNSF Cajon Subdivision (from San Bernardino to Barstow). There are no at-grade crossings along the Alameda Corridor from Hobart Yard to the port area. Project trains would not run on the weekend. On the average there would be 0.4 loaded trains per weekday for each type of train. Counting loaded and empty trains, there would be an average of 0.8 grain trains and 0.8 DDGS trains per weekday in Based on the current freight train operations, there are no time-of-day restrictions on the schedule of project trains, thus they are assumed to operate throughout the day. The impacts on the grade crossings are the highest during the PM peak period when highway traffic is the heaviest. The PM peak hour is used in significance testing. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-6

12 Table 2.2 Train Volumes and Length Assumptions for Pier T Grain Facility Grain DDGS Total No. of hopper cars per train Length of hopper car (feet) Train length w/o locomotives (feet) 6,820 7,000 No. locomotives per train 4 4 Length of locomotive (feet) Total length of train (feet) 7,108 7,288 Share Grain/DDGS 50% 50% 100% Avg. no. of loaded trains per week in BNSF share 100% 100% Avg. no. loaded trains per week by subdivision BNSF San Bernardino BNSF Cajon (same trains as above) Avg. no. loaded trains per weekday by subdivision BNSF San Bernardino BNSF Cajon (same trains as above) Avg. no. loaded & empty trains per weekday by subdivision BNSF San Bernardino BNSF Cajon (same trains as above) To test the 2010 CEQA Baseline impacts, the 2035 project trains (0.8 grain and 0.8 DDGS) are added to 2010 background trains. The difference between the estimated grade crossings delays in the without project and the with project conditions is then calculated. Threshold of Significance The Port of Long Beach has chosen to apply the threshold of significance for the impacts on grade crossings shown in Table 2.3. This is the same threshold that the City of Riverside uses for signalized intersections. If the Level of Service (LOS) with the project at the crossing is A D, then the impact is not significant. If with the project the crossing is at LOS E (55 80 seconds of average delay per vehicle), and the change in delay is 2 seconds or more, then the impact is Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-7

13 significant. If the crossing is at LOS F (over 80 seconds of average vehicle delay), and the change in average delay is 1 second or more, then the impact is significant. Table 2.3 Threshold of Significance Level of Service (LOS) with Project A - D E (55-80 seconds of average delay per vehicle) F (over 80 seconds of average delay per vehicle) Change in Average Delay per Vehicle Not Significant 2 seconds 1 second The average delay per vehicle is computed by dividing the total delay experienced by vehicles over an hour s time by the total number of vehicles arriving at the crossing in that hour. Many of the vehicles arriving at the crossing will not be delayed by a train, but they are included in the calculation of average delay. This is the same way that average delay is computed for signalized intersections. 4 The significance test has been conducted for 0.27 Project Trains occurring in the four-hour PM peak period based on a uniform distribution of trains over a day. 5 4 The average delay for vehicles that are delayed is computed by dividing V by N in the equations in the Delay Calculation Methodology section. The result is that the average delay for delayed vehicles is equivalent to one-half the gate down time. 5 ( )*(4/24) = Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-8

14 3.0 Grade Crossing Impacts Evaluation Results The results of the analysis are shown in the following tables (Table ), one table for the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision and one for the BNSF Cajon Subdivision for each of the analysis years (2010 and 2035). All existing at-grade crossings are listed. No significant impacts were found, in either the 2010 CEQA Baseline case or in the 2035 Cumulative Case. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1

15 Table 3.1 BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard to San Bernardino Scenario: 0.8 Grain Trains and 0.8 DDGS Trains per Day, 2010 Boundary/Junction Street San Bernardino MP 0.0 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/Proj Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle Proj Change SIG or Not SIG? Laurel St 2 2, NOT SIG Olive St 2 2, NOT SIG E St NOT SIG H St 2 1, NOT SIG Valley Bl 2 10, NOT SIG Colton Crossing MP 3.2 Highgrove Junction MP 6.1 (Connection to Perris via Metrolink) Main St 2 3, NOT SIG Riverside-San Bernardino County Line MP 6.41 Center St 4 8, NOT SIG Iowa Av 4 22, NOT SIG Palmyrita Av NOT SIG Chicago Av 4 12, NOT SIG Spruce St 4 6, NOT SIG Kansas Av 2 6, NOT SIG 3rd St 4 15, NOT SIG Mission Inn (7th St) 4 3, NOT SIG Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2

16 Boundary/Junction Street Riverside Yard and Amtrak Station MP # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/Proj Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) Pier T Grain Export Terminal PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle Proj Change SIG or Not SIG? Cridge St 2 2, NOT SIG West Riverside Junction MP 10.6 (Connection to UP Los Angeles Sub) Jane St 2 2, NOT SIG Mary St 4 12, NOT SIG Washington St 2 11, NOT SIG Madison St 4 17, NOT SIG Jefferson St 2 5, NOT SIG Adams St 4 6, NOT SIG Jackson St 4 7, NOT SIG Gibson St 2 3, NOT SIG Harrison St 2 3, NOT SIG Tyler St 4 1, NOT SIG Pierce St 2 2, NOT SIG Buchanan St NOT SIG Magnolia Av EB 2 15, NOT SIG Magnolia Av WB 2 15, NOT SIG Mckinley St 4 9, NOT SIG Radio Rd NOT SIG Joy St 2 8, NOT SIG Sheridan St 2 6, NOT SIG Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3

17 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/Proj Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) Pier T Grain Export Terminal PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle SIG or Not SIG? Cota St 4 9, NOT SIG Railroad St 4 15, NOT SIG Smith St 4 14, NOT SIG Auto Center Dr 2 11, NOT SIG Riverside-Orange County Line Kellogg Dr 4 6, NOT SIG Lakeview Av 3 18, NOT SIG Richfield Rd 4 9, NOT SIG Atwood Junction MP 40.6 (Connection to Old Olive Sub) Van Buren St 2 6, NOT SIG Jefferson St 3 6, NOT SIG Tustin Av (Rose Dr) 4 28, NOT SIG Orangethorpe Av 4 27, NOT SIG Kraemer Bl 4 19, NOT SIG Placentia Av 4 14, NOT SIG State College Bl 4 23, NOT SIG Acacia Av 4 6, NOT SIG Raymond Av 4 20, NOT SIG Fullerton Junction MP 45.5 Orange-L.A. County Line Alondra Bl 4 26, NOT SIG Proj Change Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4

18 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/Proj Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) Pier T Grain Export Terminal PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle SIG or Not SIG? Valley View Av 4 23, NOT SIG Rosecrans/Marquardt Av 4 22, NOT SIG Lakeland Rd 2 6, NOT SIG Los Nietos Rd 4 19, NOT SIG Norwalk Bl 4 25, NOT SIG Pioneer Bl 4 14, NOT SIG Passons Bl 4 12, NOT SIG Serapis Av 2 6, NOT SIG Commerce Yard MP Hobart Yard MP OVERALL No SIG Found Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle 1, , Proj Change Table 3.2 BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard to San Bernardino Scenario: 0.8 Grain Trains and 0.8 DDGS Trains per Day, 2035 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle SIG or Not SIG? Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5

19 San Bernardino MP 0.0 W/Proj Pier T Grain Export Terminal Laurel St 2 3, NOT SIG Olive St 2 4, NOT SIG E St 2 1, NOT SIG H St 2 2, NOT SIG Valley Bl 2 15, NOT SIG Colton Crossing MP 3.2 Highgrove Junction MP 6.1 (Connection to Perris via Metrolink) Main St 2 5, NOT SIG Riverside-San Bernardino County Line MP 6.41 Center St 4 11, NOT SIG Iowa Av 4 31, NOT SIG Palmyrita Av NOT SIG Chicago Av 4 18, NOT SIG Spruce St 4 9, NOT SIG Kansas Av 2 8, NOT SIG 3rd St 4 21, NOT SIG Mission Inn (7th St) 4 4, NOT SIG Riverside Yard and Amtrak Station MP Cridge St 2 4, NOT SIG West Riverside Junction MP 10.6 (Connection to UP Los Angeles Sub) Proj Change Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6

20 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/Proj Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) Pier T Grain Export Terminal PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle SIG or Not SIG? Jane St 2 2, NOT SIG Mary St 4 17, NOT SIG Washington St 2 15, NOT SIG Madison St 4 24, NOT SIG Jefferson St 2 7, NOT SIG Adams St 4 9, NOT SIG Jackson St 4 11, NOT SIG Gibson St 2 4, NOT SIG Harrison St 2 4, NOT SIG Tyler St 4 2, NOT SIG Pierce St 2 2, NOT SIG Buchanan St NOT SIG Magnolia Av EB 2 22, NOT SIG Magnolia Av WB 2 22, NOT SIG Mckinley St 4 13, NOT SIG Radio Rd NOT SIG Joy St 2 11, NOT SIG Sheridan St 2 8, NOT SIG Cota St 4 13, NOT SIG Railroad St 4 21, NOT SIG Smith St 4 20, NOT SIG Auto Center Dr 2 15, NOT SIG Riverside-Orange County Line Proj Change Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 7

21 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/Proj Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) Pier T Grain Export Terminal PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle SIG or Not SIG? Kellogg Dr 4 7, NOT SIG Lakeview Av 3 20, NOT SIG Richfield Rd 4 10, NOT SIG Atwood Junction MP 40.6 (Connection to Old Olive Sub) Van Buren St 2 7, NOT SIG Jefferson St 3 6, NOT SIG Tustin Av (Rose Dr) 4 31, NOT SIG Orangethorpe Av 4 30, NOT SIG Kraemer Bl 4 21, NOT SIG Placentia Av 4 15, NOT SIG State College Bl 4 25, NOT SIG Acacia Av 4 7, NOT SIG Raymond Av 4 22, NOT SIG Fullerton Junction MP 45.5 Orange-L.A. County Line Alondra Bl 4 28, NOT SIG Valley View Av 4 25, NOT SIG Rosecrans/Marquardt Av 4 24, NOT SIG Lakeland Rd 2 6, NOT SIG Los Nietos Rd 4 21, NOT SIG Norwalk Bl 4 27, NOT SIG Proj Change Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 8

22 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/Proj Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) Pier T Grain Export Terminal PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle SIG or Not SIG? Pioneer Bl 4 16, NOT SIG Passons Bl 4 13, NOT SIG Serapis Av 2 6, NOT SIG Commerce Yard MP Hobart Yard MP OVERALL No SIG Found Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle 5, , Proj Change Table 3.3 BNSF Cajon Subdivision, from San Bernardino to Barstow, 2010 Scenario: 0.8 Grain Trains and 0.8 DDGS Trains per Day, 2010 Boundary/Junction Street Barstow MP 0 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/Proj Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle Lenwood Rd 2 4, NOT SIG Hinkley Rd NOT SIG Indian Trail Rd NOT SIG Vista Rd 2 2, NOT SIG Proj Change SIG or Not SIG? Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 9

23 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/Proj Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) Pier T Grain Export Terminal PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle Turner Rd NOT SIG North Bryman Rd NOT SIG South Bryman Rd 2 1, NOT SIG Robinson Ranch Rd NOT SIG 1st St NOT SIG 6th St 4 3, NOT SIG Silverwood Junction MP 56.6 Keenbrook Junction MP 69.4 Swarthout Canyon Rd NOT SIG Devore Rd/Glen Helen Pkwy Dike Junction Proj Change 4 6, NOT SIG Palm Av 2 11, NOT SIG San Bernardino MP 81.4 OVERALL No SIG Found Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle SIG or Not SIG? Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 10

24 Table 3.4 Pier T Grain Export Terminal BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow Scenario: 0.8 Grain Trains and 0.8 DDGS Trains per Day, 2035 Boundary/Junction Street Barstow MP 0 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) W/Proj Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle Proj Change SIG or Not SIG? Lenwood Rd 2 6, NOT SIG Hinkley Rd NOT SIG Indian Trail Rd NOT SIG Vista Rd 2 3, NOT SIG Turner Rd NOT SIG North Bryman Rd NOT SIG South Bryman Rd 2 2, NOT SIG Robinson Ranch Rd NOT SIG 1st St NOT SIG 6th St 4 4, NOT SIG Silverwood Junction MP 56.6 Keenbrook Junction MP 69.4 Swarthout Canyon Rd NOT SIG Devore Rd/Glen Helen Pkwy Dike Junction 4 8, NOT SIG Palm Av 2 15, NOT SIG San Bernardino MP 81.4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 11

25 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) W/Proj Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Daily Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) Pier T Grain Export Terminal PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle SIG or Not SIG? OVERALL No SIG Found Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh- Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle Proj Change Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 12