Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project Rail Grade Crossings Analysis

Transcription

1 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project Rail Grade Crossings Analysis Prepared for Port of Long Beach Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. July Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-1 December 2016

2

3 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project Rail Grade Crossings Analysis Prepared for Port of Long Beach Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO July 2016 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-3 December 2016

4

5 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... C Railroad System in Southern California... C Estimating Railroad Traffic Volumes... C Intermodal (Container) Trains... C Project-Related Trains... C Non-Intermodal Freight Trains... C Passenger Trains... C Train Assignment to Track Segments... C Grade Crossing Impact Analysis... C Conclusions... C Results of Analysis... C Mathematical Derivation of Grade Crossing Delay Equation... C-77 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-5 December 2016

6 List of Tables Table 3.1 Container Train Markets and Sub-Markets... C-16 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Total Ports (POLA and POLB) TEUs, On-Dock TEUs, and Off-Dock TEUs by Scenario... C-19 Sample Calculation of Daily Train Volumes at ICTF, 2035 (basic assumptions)... C-21 Sample Calculation of Daily Train Volumes at ICTF, 2035 (basic assumptions)... C-21 Table 3.5 Assumed Distribution of Intermodal Trains by Length, C-21 Table 3.6 Assumed Distribution of Intermodal Trains by Length, C-21 Table 3.7 Mainline Distribution of Pier B On-Dock Trains by Length, 2012 Baseline... C-22 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Mainline Distribution of Pier B On-Dock Trains by Length, th Street Alternative (Proposed Project)... C-22 Mainline Distribution of Pier B On-Dock Trains by Length, Difference Between th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) and 2012 Baseline... C-23 Table 4.1 Thresholds of Significance for Project Impacts Due to Rail Traffic... C-33 Table 4.2 Sample Page from Grade Crossing Delay Model... C-34 Table 4.3 Hourly Factors Applied to Average Daily Traffic by County... C-36 Table 4.4 Distribution of Freight Train Volumes by Time Periods of the Day... C-37 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard to San Bernardino, 2012 Baseline... C-41 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow, 2012 Baseline... C-43 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Alhambra Subdivision from Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) to Colton Crossing, 2012 Baseline (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR LA Subdivision)... C-44 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision from East Los Angeles Yard to West Riverside Junction, 2012 Baseline (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR Alhambra Subdivision)... C-45 At-Grade Crossings Results for Combined UPRR Alhambra and LA Subdivisions in Pomona and Montclair Area, 2012 Baseline... C-46 December 2016 C-6 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

7 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 6.9 At-Grade Crossings Results for UPRR Yuma Subdivision from Colton Crossing to Indio, 2012 Baseline... C-47 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard to San Bernardino, 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project)... C-48 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow, 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project)... C-51 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Alhambra Subdivision from Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) to Colton Crossing (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR LA Subdivision), 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project)... C-52 Table 6.10 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision from East Los Angeles Yard to West Riverside Junction, 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR Alhambra Subdivision)... C-54 Table 6.11 At-Grade Crossings Results for Combined UPRR Alhambra and LA Subdivisions in Pomona and Montclair Area, 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project)... C-56 Table 6.12 At-Grade Crossings Results for UPRR Yuma Subdivision from Colton Crossing to Indio, 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project)... C-57 Table 6.13 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard to San Bernardino, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative... C-58 Table 6.14 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative... C-61 Table 6.15 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Alhambra Subdivision from Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) to Colton Crossing, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR LA Subdivision)... C-62 Table 6.16 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision from East Los Angeles Yard to West Riverside Junction, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR Alhambra Subdivision)... C-64 Table 6.17 At-Grade-Crossings Results for Combined UPRR Alhambra and LA Subdivisions in Pomona and Montclair Area, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative... C-66 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-7 December 2016

8 Table 6.18 At-Grade Crossings Results for UPRR Yuma Subdivision from Colton Crossing to Indio, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative... C-67 Table 6.19 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard to San Bernardino, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project)... C-68 Table 6.20 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project)... C-71 Table 6.21 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Alhambra Subdivision from Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) to Colton Crossing, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) (Excluding Segment Combined with UPRR LA)... C-72 Table 6.22 At-Grade Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision from East Los Angeles Yard to West Riverside Junction, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) (Excluding Segment Combined with UPRR Alhambra)... C-74 Table 6.23 At-Grade Crossings Results for Combined UPRR Alhambra and LA Subdivisions in Pomona and Montclair Area, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project)... C-75 Table 6.24 At-Grade Crossings Results for UPRR Yuma Subdivision from Colton Crossing to Indio, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project)... C-76 List of Figures Figure 2.1 Southern California Rail Network... C-13 Figure 7.1. Cumulative Arrivals and Departures for an Isolated Blockage... C-77 December 2016 C-8 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

9 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of the Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility on vehicular delays at railroad grade crossings (e.g., railroads that have at-grade crossings with public roads) in southern California. This report documents the methodology and results of the regional grade crossing impact assessment. A series of spreadsheets to compute impacts of trains on vehicular delays at grade crossings in the southern California region was developed for the 2012 Baseline Year and 2035 Cumulative Year. The analytical procedures were developed using methodology accepted by the Port of Long Beach (POLB), the Port of Los Angeles (POLA), and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The grade crossings analysis focused on those Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) lines that are most affected by portrelated freight trains: UPRR Alhambra Subdivision from Los Angeles to Colton UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision from Los Angeles to Riverside UPRR Yuma Subdivision from Colton to Indio UPRR Mojave Subdivision from West Colton to Silverwood BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Los Angeles to San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow The grade crossings study area excluded the Alameda Corridor and the UPRR Mojave Subdivision from West Colton to Silverwood since these do not have at-grade crossings. The study area also excluded rail lines that San Pedro Bay port-related freight trains typically do not use, such as the UPRR Coast Line, which runs north from downtown Los Angeles, and the BNSF Orange Line south of Fullerton. For all lines included in the study, grade crossing impacts were evaluated for port-related freight trains, non-port related freight trains, and passenger trains. Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-9 December 2016

10

11 2.0 Railroad System in Southern California The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are served by two Class I 1 railroads: the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). Pacific Harbor Line, Inc. (PHL), a Class III 2 railroad, provides rail transportation, maintenance and dispatching services within the harbor area. Both ports have contracted with PHL to provide rail services to all on-dock rail terminals, other shippers/tenants, and BNSF/UPRR railroads. North of the harbor area, the ports are served by the Alameda Corridor, a 20-mile rail cargo expressway, which was completed in All harbor-related trains of the UPRR and the BNSF use the Alameda Corridor to access the railroads mainlines, which begin near downtown Los Angeles. The Alameda Corridor eliminated all of the at-grade crossings between the Ports and the intermodal railyards located on Washington Boulevard (BNSF s Hobart Yard and UPRR s East Los Angeles Yard). East of downtown Los Angeles, port-related trains use the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, the UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision, or the UPRR Alhambra Subdivision. To transition from the Alameda Corridor to the Alhambra Subdivision, the UPRR utilizes trackage rights over Metrolink s East Bank Line, which runs parallel to the Los Angeles River on the east side of downtown Los Angeles. There are no grade crossings on the East Bank line. The UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision terminates at the West Riverside Junction where it joins the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision. The BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision continues north of Colton Crossing and transitions to the BNSF Cajon Subdivision. The Cajon Line continues north to Barstow and Daggett, and then east toward Needles and beyond. UPRR trains exercise trackage rights over the BNSF Subdivision from West Riverside Junction to San Bernardino and over the Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Daggett, which is a short distance east of Barstow. The UPRR Alhambra Subdivision and the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision cross at Colton Crossing in San Bernardino County. East of Colton Crossing, the UPRR Yuma Subdivision passes through the Palm Springs area, Indio, and to Arizona and beyond. The BNSF operates intermodal terminals for containers and trailers at Hobart Yard and at San Bernardino. The UPRR operates intermodal terminals at: East Los Angeles Yard (ELA) at the west end of the UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision, Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) at the west end of the UPRR Alhambra Subdivision, 1 In the United States, the Surface Transportation Board defines a Class I railroad as "having annual carrier operating revenues of $250 million or more" after adjusting for inflation using the Railroad Freight Price Index developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2 A Class III or short-line railroad has an annual operating revenue of less than $20 million (1991 dollars). Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-11 December 2016

12 City of Industry (COI) on the UPRR Alhambra Subdivision, and the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) near the south end of the Alameda Corridor. In addition, both UPRR and BNSF operate trains hauling marine containers that originate or terminate at on-dock terminals within the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. UPRR also has a large carload freight classification yard at West Colton (at the east end of the Alhambra Subdivision). A large auto unloading terminal is located at Mira Loma (mid-way between Pomona and West Riverside on the Los Angeles Subdivision). The BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision is predominantly double-tracked; however, there are segments of triple track between Hobart and Fullerton. The BNSF recently completed a third main track from San Bernardino to the summit of the Cajon Pass. The UPRR Alhambra Subdivision is mostly single-track, while the UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision has two main tracks west of Pomona and a mixture of single and double tracks east of Pomona. North from West Colton, UPRR operates the single-track Mojave Subdivision to Northern California and Pacific Northwest points. This line closely parallels the BNSF Cajon Subdivision as the two lines climb the south slope of the Cajon Pass. Connections are afforded at Keenbrook and Silverwood to enable UPRR trains to enter/exit the main tracks of the BNSF Cajon Subdivision. Beyond Silverwood to Palmdale, the UPRR Mojave Subdivision has very little train traffic. East from Colton Crossing, UPRR operates its transcontinental Sunset Route mainline, also known as the UPRR Yuma Subdivision. The line has two main tracks the entire distance to Indio. East of Indio, the Sunset Route has stretches of single track, but construction of a second main track is underway. The grade crossing impacts were assessed as far east as Indio on the UPRR Yuma Subdivision and as far north as Barstow on the BNSF Cajon Subdivision. Crossings beyond these points are in rural areas with very low average daily traffic and were, therefore, not considered. Figure 2.1 shows rail mainlines on which the grade crossing impacts assessment was conducted. December 2016 C-12 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

13 Figure 2.1 Southern California Rail Network Note: Node locations on the rail network map are approximate and presented only to help understand segment train volumes. Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-13 December 2016

14

15 3.0 Estimating Railroad Traffic Volumes Grade-crossing delays are based on the frequency, length and speed of trains, and the amount of highway traffic per lane crossing the tracks. As documented in Section 4.0, vehicular delay at grade crossings is a function of the square of the gate down time; thus, it is critical that parameters that affect gate down time be estimated as accurately as possible. Trains of different length and speed will produce different gate down times. Freight trains operate in many different configurations and lengths. The most common type of freight train in the southern California area is the double-stack container train, which typically ranges in length from about 6,000 feet to about 12,000 feet. Noncontainer trains are typically 5,000 to 6,500 feet in length. MetroLink passenger trains and Amtrak trains are about 500 feet and 1,000 feet in length, respectively. Estimates of train volumes were made for four scenarios: 2012 Baseline 2012 CEQA 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative 2035 Cumulative with 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Based on direction from POLB staff, the 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) was chosen as representative of the worst-case scenario. If no significant impacts were identified with this alternative, then it was anticipated that the 9th Street and 10th Street Alternatives would not have significant impacts as they would have fewer impacts than the 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project). A method was developed to generate trains of various types and length, and then assign them to specific segments of railroad track based on assumed routing scenarios (see discussion of QuickTrip-TrainBuilder under Steps 6 and 7 below). 3.1 INTERMODAL (CONTAINER) TRAINS It is important to separate container volumes into their constituent markets and submarkets because the railroad cars are different for marine and domestic containers and for trailers. Different rail equipment has implications for train length and, therefore, gate down time. It is also important to estimate where containers are loaded onto trains (or unloaded from trains) because this affects where trains start or end their journeys and what tracks are used. The first step was to estimate container train volumes and lengths. This involved breaking down container volumes into their constituent markets and sub-markets, as shown in Table 3.1. Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-15 December 2016

16 Table 3.1 Container Train Markets and Sub-Markets Market Number Market Description 1. On-dock direct intermodal 2. Off-dock intermodal (includes near-dock) and two submarkets a. Direct intermodal marine stack (no transloading involved) Transload intermodal domestic stack (transloading of international cargo from 40-foot marine containers b. to 53-foot domestic containers) 3. Pure domestic intermodal and two submarkets a. Domestic trailer-on-flatcar service (TOFC) for 2012 only b. 53-foot domestic stack container-on-flatcar service (COFC) for 2012 and 2035 Estimates of lift 3 and TEU 4 volumes were made for the following intermodal railyards: On-dock yards (as a whole). Since all on-dock trains are generated from outside the mainline tracks that make up the grade crossing impact study area, there was no need to separate these volumes by individual on-dock yard. Some of the off-dock yards, however, are inside the grade crossing impact study area, such as the UPRR City of Industry Yard and the BNSF San Bernardino Yard and, therefore, produce different volumes of trains on the various tracks. Lift and TEU volumes were estimated for the following near- and off-dock yards: UPRR Near- and Off-dock Yards Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) existing near-dock yard and proposed modernization. East Los Angeles Yard (ELA) Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) City of Industry Yard (COI) BNSF Near- and Off-dock Yards Hobart/Commerce Yards (H-C) Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) proposed new near-dock yard San Bernardino Yard (SB) The railroads have supplied historical data on lifts of marine containers at on-dock yards (in total, by port, and railroad) and at near- and off-dock yards. In addition, some 3 In the context of this study, a lift is the movement of a container on to or off of a train. 4 TEU = twenty-foot equivalent unit. By definition, one forty-foot container represents two TEUs. December 2016 C-16 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

17 domestic lift data by yard were available for 2010, which were used as a basis for estimating 2012 domestic container volumes by yard. The modeling procedure for estimating 2035 container volumes by railyard follows the steps shown below. Step 1. Estimate intermodal volumes by major market segment and by railroad. a. Total port TEUs, and the percentage of on-dock intermodal (Market 1), off-dock direct intermodal (Market 2a), and off-dock transload intermodal (Market 2b) were estimated. The percentages were applied to estimate totals for these markets. It was assumed that direct intermodal (on-dock and off-dock) amounted to 40 percent of total port throughput; however, the direct intermodal percentage by terminal (and therefore by port) may be higher or lower than 40 percent. Based on empirical data and studies, for 2012, it was assumed that about twenty-seven (27) percent of loaded inbound 2012 actual total Ports TEUs constituted the off-dock transload intermodal. For 2035, it was assumed that thirty (30) percent of loaded inbound forecast total Ports TEUs constituted the off-dock transload intermodal. b. In 2012, the BNSF and UPRR split of the total intermodal lifts at on-dock and offdock yards (including marine and domestic containers) was about 56:44. For 2035, a split between BNSF and UPRR was assumed. c. For marine containers in 2035, the TEUs/lift conversion factors for the port direct intermodal market segment vary by terminal. These factors imply the split between 40-foot containers and 20-foot containers. A factor of 1.85, for example, means that 85 percent of the containers are 40-feet long and 15 percent are 20-feet long. d. For transload containers, both in 2012 and 2035, a factor of 3.0 TEUs/lift 5,6 was used to convert port transload lifts (53-foot containers) to marine TEU equivalents. This factor reflects the fact that 53-foot domestic containers carry more cargo than 40-foot marine containers. e. For 2012, pure domestic eastbound loaded lift volumes were computed as the sum total of: six (6) percent of eastbound loaded 53-foot container lifts, one hundred (100) percent of the eastbound loaded van lifts, and one hundred (100) percent of eastbound empties (all except International Organization for Standardization (ISO) empty containers). Pure domestic westbound total lift volumes were estimated to be the sum total of the westbound loaded and empty 53-foot container and van lifts (again, all except ISO empty containers). In 2012, the eastbound empty TEUs made up about 1.3 percent of total Ports TEUs. Also, 5 The factor 3.0 TEUs/lift was obtained using assumptions on cargo volumes per container for a 40-foot high cube container of about cu meters and a 53-foot high cube container of about cu meters, and also assuming that the transload market utilizes 53-foot high cube containers exclusively. 6 Capacity of a 53-foot high cube container = 3,955 cubic feet, capacity of 40-foot high cube container = 2,694 cubic feet Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-17 December 2016

18 in 2012, the total of transload and pure domestic in the eastbound direction was about 49.1 percent of the total in both directions. f. For 2035, pure domestic loaded total lift volumes were estimated by growing both eastbound and westbound domestic loaded lifts in 2012 at a compound annual growth rate of 2.0 percent. Based on the 2012 data, the pure domestic eastbound empty lift volumes were estimated by assuming 0.1 percent of total Ports TEUs. Also, based on the 2012 data, the pure domestic westbound empty lift volumes were estimated through balancing (or making equal) the total eastbound transload and pure domestic lifts volumes and the total westbound transload and pure domestic lifts volumes. g. Similar to the transload containers, both in 2012 and 2035, a factor of 3.00 TEUs/lift was used to convert pure domestic 53-foot container lifts to marine TEU equivalents. In 2012, a factor of 2.0 TEUs/lift was used to convert pure domestic ISO van lifts to marine TEU equivalents. Step 2. Allocated volume for on-dock direct intermodal (Market 1) by railroad and direction. a. A split between BNSF and UPRR (as mentioned in Step 1b above) was assumed. b. A directional split for both BNSF and UPRR on-dock direct intermodal lifts was assumed. Step 3. Allocated volume for off-dock direct intermodal (Market 2a) by railroad, yard and direction. a. 50 percent the total off-dock direct intermodal volume was allocated to the BNSF off-dock yards and the remaining 50 percent to UPRR off-dock yards. b. Accounting for a recent trend in the increase of eastbound direction share of the total off-dock direct intermodal, a 67:33 directional split was assumed for each BNSF and UPRR off-dock yard s direct intermodal lifts. The lifts for off-dock direct intermodal (Market 2a) were therefore not balanced, which means some of the marine containers that leave the off-dock yards by rail need not return to the off-dock yards by rail. c. The analysis assumed that both the SCIG and ICTF improvements would be operational in Up to a maximum of 47.5 percent of the total off-dock intermodal demand or the estimated capacity of the SCIG and the improved ICTF (2.775 million annual TEUs each), whichever was smaller, was assigned to these facilities. The lower of the remaining BNSF off-dock intermodal demand and the estimated capacity of Hobart/Commerce Yards was assigned to the Hobart/Commerce Yards. The lower of the remaining UPRR off-dock intermodal demand and the estimated capacity of East Los Angeles Yard, was assigned to the East Los Angeles Yard. d. Lifts at each off-dock yard were converted to TEUs by applying a factor of 1.81 TEUs/lift in 2012 and 1.82 TEUs/lift in December 2016 C-18 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

19 Step 4. Allocated volume for transload intermodal (Market 2b) by railroad, yard and direction. a. 50 percent of the total transload intermodal volume was allocated to the BNSF off-dock yards and the remaining 50 percent to UPRR off-dock yards. b. It was assumed that the transload intermodal lifts at all off-dock yards was 100 percent eastbound. These lifts are balanced using domestic loaded and empty lifts (as described in Step 5). c. Lifts at each off-dock yard were converted to TEUs by applying a factor of 3.00 TEUs/lift. Step 5. Allocated volume for pure domestic intermodal by railroad and yard (Market 3). a. A split between BNSF and UPRR was assumed. b. Eastbound and westbound pure domestic lifts were estimated by using assigned transload intermodal and pure domestic lifts for both directions. c. Lifts at each off-dock yard were converted to TEUs by applying a factor of 3.00 TEUs/lift. Step 6. Generated estimates of the number of trains per day by length by using TEU and lift estimates by market, key train building procedures, and assumptions on the distribution of trains by length. This process was handled in a spreadsheet model called QuickTrip-TrainBuilder which is discussed in more detail below. Step 7. Allocated the trains by length to railroad lines by track segments to obtain train volumes for each rail segment. For the Pier B alternatives analysis, major assumptions regarding total port TEUs, on-dock and off-dock marine TEUs are shown in Table 3.2. For 2035, it was assumed that 40 percent of the port TEUs was direct intermodal (sum of on-dock and off-dock marine containers). Table 3.2 Total POLA and POLB TEUs, On-Dock TEUs, and Off-Dock TEUs by Scenario Scenario Total Port TEUs On-Dock TEUs Off-Dock TEUs (marine containers only 2012 (Actual) 14,124,116 3,540,585 1,592, CEQA 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) 14,124,116 4,410, , Cumulative No Project Alternative 35,890,000 7,188,314 7,167, Cumulative 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) 35,890,000 10,898,386 3,469,981 Source: 2012 actual data from POLB and POLA; 2012 and 2035 estimates from QuickTrip-TrainBuilder model (141006_QuickTrip_TrainBuilder_Oct6th2014-Year2012_and_2035_NoProj_v2.xlsm, _QuickTrip_TrainBuilder_Oct6th2014-Year2012_and_2035_12thProjAlt_v2.xlsm.) The next step was to estimate the number of intermodal freight trains generated using an intermodal train-trip generation spreadsheet model called QuickTrip-TrainBuilder developed by Cambridge Systematics. This approach was adapted from the methodology for estimating intermodal train volumes by major market segment (marine stack, Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-19 December 2016

20 domestic stack, and pure domestic) developed by Leachman for the update of rail line capacity in the SCAG region. 7 Cambridge Systematics expanded on Leachman s approach by estimating train volumes for market types. The parameters for estimating intermodal (containerized) rail volumes and train lengths include: Annual TEUs Monthly peaking factor, days per month, daily peaking factor (used to convert annual volumes into daily volumes) Average rail car length (depends on the mix of rail cars of varying lengths that make up the trains) Locomotive length Number of locomotives per train for different train lengths Number of rail cars per train for different train lengths Distribution of trains by length (percentage of trains that are 6,000 feet, 8,000 feet, 10,000 feet, and 12,000 feet long, including locomotives) Number of TEUs per train Slot utilization The slot utilization is the percentage of rail car capacity that is actually used by containers. For example, a 265-foot long, five-well rail car can carry ten 40-foot doublestacked marine containers. If only nine containers are loaded onto the car, then the slot utilization is 90 percent. For the same number of containers, a lower slot utilization implies a longer train. Cambridge Systematics consistently assumed a slot utilization of 90 percent in this analysis. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 show a hypothetical QuickTrip-TrainBuilder calculation for the ICTF in These calculations assume completion of proposed improvements with demand equivalent to yard capacity of 1,500,000 lifts (2,775,000 TEUs). This yard is assumed to handle marine stack trains only. It was assumed that, in 2035, approximately 33 percent of the trains would be 10,000 feet long and that approximately 67 percent would be 8,000 feet long. This yields a total of 15.7 trains per day in 2035 (approximately ,000-foot trains and ,000 foot trains). The average rail car length of 278 feet was based on an assumed mix of 67 percent 265-foot long five-well cars, and 33 percent 305-foot five-well cars. 7 Robert C. Leachman, PhD, Regional Rail Simulation Update, prepared for Southern California Association of Governments, November December 2016 C-20 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

21 Table 3.3 Sample Calculation of Daily Train Volumes at ICTF, 2035 (basic assumptions) Variable 12,000 ft Train 10,000 ft Train 8,000 ft Train 6,000 ft Train Locomotives per Train Marine Cars per Train TEUs per Train (0.9 slot utilization) Distribution by Length 0% 33% 67% 0% Number of Trains Per Day Table 3.4 Sample Calculation of Daily Train Volumes at ICTF, 2035 (basic assumptions) Service Type TEUs per Year Monthly Peaking Factor Days per Month Peak Day Factor TEUs per Peak Day Avg. Car Length Locomotive Length Marine Stack 2,775, , Tables 3.5 and 3.6 show the assumed distribution of intermodal trains by length for 2012 and Table 3.5 Assumed Distribution of Intermodal Trains by Length, 2012 Train Length 12,000 ft 10,000 ft 8,000 ft 6,000 ft Total On-Dock Marine Stack 0% 30% 40% 30% 100% Near-Dock Marine Stack (ICTF Only) 0% 30% 40% 30% 100% Off-Dock Marine Stack (Except ICTF) 0% 30% 40% 30% 100% Transloaded Domestic Stack 0% 40% 50% 10% 100% Pure Domestic Stack 0% 40% 50% 10% 100% Table 3.6 Assumed Distribution of Intermodal Trains by Length, 2035 Train Length 12,000 ft 10,000 ft 8,000 ft 6,000 ft Total On-Dock Marine Stack 0% 33% 67% 0% 100% Near-Dock Marine Stack (ICTF Only) 0% 33% 67% 0% 100% Near-Dock Marine Stack (SCIG Only) 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Off-Dock Marine Stack (Except ICTF/SCIG) 0% 33% 67% 0% 100% Transloaded Domestic Stack 67% 33% 0% 0% 100% Pure Domestic Stack 0% 33% 67% 0% 100% Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-21 December 2016

22 3.2 PROJECT-RELATED TRAINS To evaluate the impact of the project on grade crossing delays, it was necessary to estimate how the project would affect train volumes in the study area. For the grade crossing analysis, the number of project-related trains is consistent with the air quality impact assessment for this project. The number of trains originating and terminating at the Pier B Yard was estimated for the 2012 Baseline and the th Street Alternative (Proposed Project). The difference between these figures was then computed. The change in grade crossing delays caused by the change in the number of trains was then analyzed. The number of weekly trains by various lengths originating and terminating at Pier B Yard for the Baseline 2012 and the th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) was estimated for this study by Castle Environmental Consulting (2015) for the air quality analysis of this project. Some of these trains are shorts cuts of cars (approaching 2,000 feet in length). Train volume estimates were converted to the equivalent number of trains of 10,000, 8,000 and 6,000 feet lengths. It was assumed that by the time trains enter the mainlines east of downtown Los Angeles, they will no longer consist of short cuts of cars. Estimates of the number of project-related trains on the mainlines for the 2012 Baseline and th Street Cumulative scenarios are shown in Table 3.7 and Table 3.8, respectively. The difference between the two scenarios is shown in Table 3.9. Table 3.7 Mainline Distribution of Pier B On-Dock Trains by Length, 2012 Baseline Weekly Total Length (ft.) Daily Total Length (ft.) 10,000 ft Train 8,000 ft Train 6,000 ft Train Total Trains/Day Avg. Length (ft) Train length distribution 30% 40% 30% BNSF Originating 101,040 15, ,692 BNSF Terminating 51,560 7, ,692 UPRR Originating UPRR Terminating 45,897 6, ,692 Total 198,497 30, ,692 Source: Gill V. Hicks and Associates Inc. based on Castle Environmental Consulting (2015) Table 3.8 Mainline Distribution of Pier B On-Dock Trains by Length, th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Avg Weekly Total Daily Total 10,000 ft 8,000 ft 6,000 ft Total Length Length (ft.) Length (ft.) Train Train Train Trains/Day (ft) Train length distribution 33% 67% 0% BNSF Originating 343,175 54, ,565 BNSF Terminating 80,317 12, ,565 UPRR Originating 190,609 30, ,565 UPRR Terminating 160,754 25, ,565 Total 774, , ,565 Source: Gill V. Hicks and Associates Inc. based on Castle Environmental Consulting (2015) December 2016 C-22 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

23 Table 3.9 Mainline Distribution of Pier B On-Dock Trains by Length, Difference Between th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) and 2012 Baseline Weekly Total Length (ft.) Daily Total Length (ft.) 10,000 ft Train 8,000 ft Train 6,000 ft Train Total Trains/Day BNSF Originating 242,135 39, BNSF Terminating 28,757 4, UPRR Originating 190,609 30, UPRR Terminating 114,857 18, Total 576,358 92, Source: Gill V. Hicks and Associates Inc. based on Castle Environmental Consulting (2015) As shown in Table 3.9, there is an estimated net difference of 10.5 daily trains between the two alternatives. There is an increase of ,000-ft trains, an increase of 8.8 8,000-ft trains, and a reduction of 1.5 6,000-ft trains. It was assumed that 6,000 ft trains would not be used in 2035, as railroads prefer to operate longer trains. The Pier B project allows more marine containers to be loaded onto trains on-dock as opposed to off-dock. This frees up capacity at off-dock rail yards to handle more domestic and transload trains if the demand arises. The net change in the number of trains dispatched from Pier B with the project (about 10.5 marine stack trains per day) is roughly equivalent to 7.7 domestic and transload trains that hypothetically could be accommodated at off-dock yards due to the freeing up of off-dock rail yard capacity. For the same amount of cargo, fewer domestic trains are needed because more cargo can be placed into each domestic container compared to a marine container, thus fewer lifts are required. In addition, the domestic train mix assumes longer trains up to 12,000 feet. The changes in the number of trains by length in Table 3.9 were then added to the 2012 background trains by mainline in order to test for the significance of grade crossing impacts conditions were also tested with and without the project. The resulting impacts, using the thresholds of significance shown in Table 4.1, are included in tables in Section NON-INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRAINS Non-intermodal freight train volumes were based on values in Leachman s mainline rail simulation update. 8 Types and lengths of trains included unit bulk (5,000 feet), unit auto (6,000 feet), and carload (6,500 feet). Train counts were assigned in the same manner as intermodal trains (described in Section 3.1) with the exception of UPRR auto trains built in the Mira Loma yard which must use the Los Angeles Subdivision. 8 Robert C. Leachman, PhD, Regional Rail Simulation Update, prepared for Southern California Association of Governments, November People/Faculty/leachmanpubs/FinalUpdate_RailSummary Report_Nov2011.pdf Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-23 December 2016

24 The baseline year data and forecast information used for non-containerized cargo trains was based on data from SCAG (2011). 9 The SCAG report states that, For each of the various types of non-intermodal freight trains, generally only modest growth was assumed, on the order of one-to-three trains per day per origin-destination pair. Exceptions include local carload freight trains (no growth assumed) at one extreme and unit bulk trains (collectively growing from 5 to 13 trains per peak day) at the other. In aggregate, the count of non-intermodal freight trains was projected to grow from the 74 trains per peak day in 2010 to 109 trains per peak day in Pure domestic intermodal trains were forecast to grow at two percent per year from 2010 to PASSENGER TRAINS Actual scheduled Amtrak and Metrolink train data were used for baseline year For 2035, the same volumes assumed in Leachman s 2011 simulation work were used. Commuter train forecasts to Year 2025 were provided by Metrolink. Leachman assumed that these volumes were a reasonable forecast for Year TRAIN ASSIGNMENT TO TRACK SEGMENTS Table 3.10 Once train volumes for each alternative were estimated, trains were assigned to individual segments of track. This assignment is handled within the QuickTrip- TrainBuilder module. BNSF trains were assigned to the Alameda Corridor, the San Bernardino Subdivision, and the Cajon Subdivision. UPRR trains were assigned to the Alameda Corridor, 50 percent to Los Angeles Subdivision, and 50 percent to the Alhambra Subdivision. These trains run in a one-way loop routing pattern eastbound on the Los Angeles Subdivision and westbound on Alhambra Subdivision. Exceptions are intermodal trains built in the City of Industry, which must use the Alhambra Subdivision. Beyond the Colton crossing, most of the UPRR trains were assigned to the Yuma Subdivision (85 percent) east of Colton crossing. The remaining UPRR trains (15 percent) were assigned to a combination of the BNSF Cajon Subdivision (trackage rights) and the UPRR Mojave Subdivision. Tables 3.10 through 3.13 show the estimated number of trains by type, length and segment of track for the four scenarios: 2012 Baseline, 2012 CEQA 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project), 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative, and 2035 Cumulative 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Daily Train Volumes by Segment and Train Length Length (ft) 12K 10K 8K 6K 5K 6K 6.5K Freight Pass. Total Type Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Unit Bulk Unit Auto Carload Metrolink Amtrak UPRR Trains per Day UPRR LA Sub East LA Pomona Pomona Montclair Montclair - Mira Loma Mira Loma - W Riverside UPRR Alhambra Sub 9 SCAG, Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy s Regional Rail Simulation Update Summary Report. November December 2016 C-24 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

25 Length (ft) 12K 10K 8K 6K 5K 6K 6.5K Freight Pass. Total Type Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Unit Bulk Unit Auto Carload Metrolink Amtrak LATC - El Monte El Monte Bassett Bassett Industry Industry Pomona Pomona Montclair Montclair Kaiser Kaiser - W Colton W Colton Colton Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-25 December 2016

26 Length (ft) 12K 10K 8K 6K 5K 6K 6.5K Freight Pass. Total Type Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Unit Bulk Unit Auto Carload Metrolink Amtrak UPRR Mojave (Palmdale) (Multiple Crossing with BNSF-Cajon at Devore/Glen Helen only) W Colton Silverwood UPRR Yuma Sub Colton Indio BNSF San Bernardino Sub W Riverside Riverside Riverside Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino - Keenbrook Keenbrook Silverwood Silverwood Barstow BNSF Trains per Day BNSF San Bernardino Sub Hobart - Fullerton Fullerton - Atwood Atwood - W Riverside W Riverside - Riverside Riverside - Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton - San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino - Keenbrook Keenbrook Silverwood Silverwood Barstow BNSF Lines - Total Trains per Day BNSF San Bernardino Sub a Hobart - Fullerton Fullerton - Atwood Atwood - W Riverside W Riverside - Riverside Riverside - Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton - San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino - Dike Dike - Keenbrook Keenbrook - Silverwood Silverwood - Barstow UPRR Lines - Total Trains per Day UPRR LA/Alhambra Sub Pomona Montclair b Notes: a This section refers to all trains on the BNSF San Bernardino sub (UP and BNSF trains). Label in line above says TOTAL trains per day. UP uses the BSNF San Bernardino sub from W. Riverside to San Bernardino, thus that segment includes both UP and BNSF trains. The numbers for Hobart to W. Riverside are the same as the earlier section because only BNSF trains are involved on that segment. b In this segment (Pomona to Montclair), the two tracks of the UPRR LA and Alhambra subs are so close together that the combined train volume (Total Trains per Day) for both subs is used to compute grade crossing delays in this segment. See Table 6.11 for results for this segment. December 2016 C-26 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

27 Table Daily Train Volumes by Segment and Train Length, CEQA 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Length (ft) 12K 10K 8K 6K 5K 6K 6.5K Freight Pass. Total Type Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Unit bulk Unit Auto Carload Metrolink Amtrak UPRR Trains per Day UPRR LA Sub East LA Pomona Pomona Montclair Montclair - Mira Loma Mira Loma - W Riverside UPRR Alhambra Sub LATC - El Monte El Monte Bassett Bassett Industry Industry Pomona Pomona Montclair Montclair Kaiser Kaiser - W Colton W Colton Colton UPRR Mojave (Palmdale) (Multiple Crossing with BNSF-Cajon at Devore/Glen Helen only) W Colton Silverwood UPRR Yuma Sub Colton Indio BNSF San Bernardino Sub W Riverside Riverside Riverside Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino Keenbrook Keenbrook Silverwood Silverwood Barstow BNSF Trains per Day BNSF San Bernardino Sub Hobart - Fullerton Fullerton - Atwood Atwood - W Riverside W Riverside Riverside Riverside - Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton - San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino Keenbrook Keenbrook Silverwood Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-27 December 2016

28 Length (ft) 12K 10K 8K 6K 5K 6K 6.5K Freight Pass. Total Type Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Unit bulk Unit Auto Carload Metrolink Amtrak Silverwood Barstow BNSF Lines - Total Trains per Day BNSF San Bernardino Sub Hobart - Fullerton Fullerton - Atwood Atwood - W Riverside W Riverside Riverside Riverside - Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton - San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino - Dike Dike - Keenbrook Keenbrook Silverwood Silverwood - Barstow UPRR Lines - Total Trains per Day UPRR LA/Alhambra Sub Pomona Montclair December 2016 C-28 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

29 Table Daily Train Volumes by Segment and Train Length, Cumulative No Project Alternative Length (in ft) 12K 10K 8K 6K 5K 6K 6.5K Freight Pass. Total Type Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Unit bulk Unit Auto Carload Metrolink Amtrak UPRR Trains per Day UPRR LA Sub East LA Pomona Pomona Montclair Montclair - Mira Loma Mira Loma - W Riverside UPRR Alhambra Sub LATC - El Monte El Monte Bassett Bassett Industry Industry Pomona Pomona Montclair Montclair Kaiser Kaiser - W Colton W Colton Colton UPRR Mojave (Palmdale) (Multiple Crossing with BNSF-Cajon at Devore/Glen Helen only) W Colton Silverwood UPRR Yuma Sub Colton Indio BNSF San Bernardino Sub W Riverside Riverside Riverside Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino - Keenbrook Keenbrook Silverwood Silverwood Barstow BNSF Trains per Day BNSF San Bernardino Sub Hobart - Fullerton Fullerton - Atwood Atwood - W Riverside W Riverside - Riverside Riverside - Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton - San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino - Keenbrook Keenbrook Silverwood Silverwood Barstow BNSF Lines - Total Trains per Day Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-29 December 2016

30 Length (in ft) 12K 10K 8K 6K 5K 6K 6.5K Freight Pass. Total Type Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Unit bulk Unit Auto Carload Metrolink Amtrak BNSF San Bernardino Sub Hobart - Fullerton Fullerton - Atwood Atwood - W Riverside W Riverside - Riverside Riverside - Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton - San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino - Dike Dike - Keenbrook Keenbrook - Silverwood Silverwood - Barstow UPRR Lines - Total Trains per Day UPRR LA/Alhambra Sub Pomona Montclair December 2016 C-30 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

31 Table Daily Train Volumes by Segment and Train Length, Cumulative 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Length (in ft) 12K 10K 8K 6K 5K 6K 6.5K Freight Pass. Total Type Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Unit bulk Unit Auto Carload Metrolink Amtrak UPRR Trains per Day UPRR LA Sub East LA Pomona Pomona Montclair Montclair - Mira Loma Mira Loma - W Riverside UPRR Alhambra Sub LATC - El Monte El Monte Bassett Bassett Industry Industry Pomona Pomona Montclair Montclair Kaiser Kaiser - W Colton W Colton Colton UPRR Mojave (Palmdale) (Multiple Crossing with BNSF-Cajon at Devore/Glen Helen only) W Colton Silverwood UPRR Yuma Sub Colton Indio BNSF San Bernardino Sub W Riverside Riverside Riverside Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino Keenbrook Keenbrook Silverwood Silverwood Barstow BNSF Trains per Day BNSF San Bernardino Sub Hobart - Fullerton Fullerton - Atwood Atwood - W Riverside W Riverside - Riverside Riverside - Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton - San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino Keenbrook Keenbrook Silverwood Silverwood Barstow BNSF Lines - Total Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-31 December 2016

32 Length (in ft) 12K 10K 8K 6K 5K 6K 6.5K Freight Pass. Total Type Cont. Cont. Cont. Cont. Unit bulk Unit Auto Carload Metrolink Amtrak Trains per Day BNSF San Bernardino Sub Hobart - Fullerton Fullerton - Atwood Atwood - W Riverside W Riverside - Riverside Riverside - Highgrove Highgrove Colton Colton - San Bernardino BNSF Cajon Sub San Bernardino - Dike Dike - Keenbrook Keenbrook Silverwood Silverwood - Barstow UPRR Lines - Total Trains per Day UPRR LA/Alhambra Sub Pomona Montclair Once the train volumes by type, length, and track segment were estimated, these values were input to the grade crossing impact spreadsheet model discussed in the Section 4. December 2016 C-32 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

33 4.0 Grade-Crossing Impact Analysis A spreadsheet model was developed for estimating vehicular delays at highwayrailroad grade crossings. For any particular train crossing event, vehicular delay is a function of the square of the gate down time. For individual streets crossing the rail line, the model predicts gate down times, vehicle hours of delay per day, and average peak hour delay per vehicle. The model can be used to test the incremental impact of new projects that generate additional train traffic. Specific thresholds of significant impact can be coded into the model for use in environmental impact analysis. Thresholds used are shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Thresholds of Significance for Project Impacts Due to Rail Traffic 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 Source: Port of Long Beach and CH2MHill (2010) The Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles have defined significance criteria for project impacts due to rail traffic; this criterion has been used for various projects at both ports. The criteria are composite: in the first stage, a level of service (LOS) range or threshold (the first column) in terms of PM period at-grade rail crossing delay due to CEQA baseline plus project rail traffic is determined; then, in the second stage, the estimated project added at-grade rail crossing delay is compared against the project impact threshold (the second column) corresponding to the LOS range to determine significance of project impacts. The impact of traffic delays by rail are evaluated as follows: If CEQA baseline plus project at-grade rail crossing delay is LOS A though D (< 55 seconds per vehicle), then project impacts are considered not significant. If CEQA baseline plus project at-grade rail crossing delay is LOS E (55-80 seconds per vehicle), and if project added delay does not exceed 2 seconds, then project impacts are considered not significant. If the delay exceeds 2 seconds, the impact due to rail traffic is considered significant. If CEQA baseline plus project at-grade rail crossing delay is LOS F (>= 80 seconds per vehicle), and if project added delay does not exceed 1 second, then project impacts are considered not significant. If the delay exceeds 1 second, the impact due to rail traffic is considered significant. The Ports have not defined a significance criterion for cumulative impacts due to rail traffic. The cumulative impacts with and without project are reported for information purposes only. Major inputs to the model include Average Daily Traffic (ADT) crossing the tracks, number of traffic lanes, train speed, queue departure rate in vehicles per minute (queue Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-33 December 2016

34 departure rate and queue length depend on the assumed percentage of trucks in the queue), peak hour factor, and number of trains by type and length. Train speeds were taken from published railroad timetables. A sample page for a specific street and rail line (3-hour AM peak period, intermodal trains only) is shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Sample Page from Grade-Crossing Delay Model Average Daily Traffic No. Lanes Train Speed Land Use Departure Rate (D) 18, mph Commercial 25 Train Length (ft) 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 Type Intermodal Intermodal Intermodal Intermodal Code IM-12k IM-10k IM-8k IM-6k Hr. Factor Trains/day Trains/period A G V Q H Total A 3,877 3,877 3,877 3,877 Total G Total V Total Vadj Total H % V 3% 7% 15% 0% % G 2% 4% 9% 0% ADV-M ADV-S ADV-Madj ADV-Sadj A = Arrival rate in vehicles/minute/lane D = Departure rate in vehicles/minute/lane G = Gate down time in minutes per train V = Vehicle hours of delay per train Q = Queue length in feet H = No. of vehicles delayed per train TOTAL A = No. Vehicle arrivals per period TOTAL G =Total gate down time all trains per period TOTAL V = Total veh. Hrs delay from all trains per period TOTAL H = Total no. Vehicles delayed per period %V = Percentage of vehicles that are delayed %G = Percentage of time crossing is blocked ADV-M = Avg delay per vehicle counting all vehicles (min) ADV-S = Avg delay per vehicle counting all vehicles (sec) ADV-Madj = Adjusted average delay per vehicle counting all vehicles (min) ADV-Sadj = Adjusted average delay per vehicle counting all vehicles (sec) For all at-grade crossings in the grade crossing impact study area, traffic delay impacts were analyzed in terms of: Total vehicle hours of delay per day, and Average vehicle delay in the PM peak hour. The total vehicle hours of delay per day is the sum of all vehicle delays from all trains over a 24-hour period. December 2016 C-34 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

35 The equation for total vehicle delay, V, is: Where: V = vehicle delay = vehicle arrival rate, = gate down time, and = vehicle departure rate. = Delay is a function of the square of the gate down time. The mathematical derivation of the equation is shown in Section 7. Average vehicle delay was calculated by dividing the total vehicle delay caused by trains passing a crossing during the PM peak commute hour by the number of vehicles passing the at-grade crossing in that hour. The calculation of hourly average vehicle delay accounts for the following: Total vehicles arriving at the crossing in a one-hour period, whether the vehicles are delayed by a train or not; Total delay experienced by all vehicles in that hour; and All trains passing through the crossing in that hour. Using average control vehicle delay is a universally accepted approach for evaluating vehicle delay at signalized intersections consistent with methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. 10 At-grade crossings operate similarly to traditional signalized intersections where some vehicles experience no delay (during a green phase or when the gate is up) and others are stopped for a certain period of time (during a red phase or when a train is crossing). Per the Highway Capacity Manual, Level of Service (LOS) E includes delays ranging from 55 to 80 seconds. LOS F includes delays that are over 80 seconds per vehicle. The equation for total vehicle delay relates 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 traveling 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 Leachman. 11 In an effort to compute these effects and how likely they are to occur, Leachman simulated railroad traffic for both 2010 and 2035 against streets with varying 10 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Fifth Edition, Robert C. Leachman, San Pedro Bay Access Study: Phase 2: Railroad Access, 1984, Appendix G, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments. Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-35 December 2016

36 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 Leachman s 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 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 was 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 1.065, meaning that the unadjusted delay values are increased by an average of 6.5 percent. Year 2012 highway traffic volumes were developed using traffic counts from the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). 12 Since 2012 counts were not available, 2008 counts were increased by one percent per year to estimate 2012 values. Year 2035 traffic volumes were based on RTP modeling results. Estimated daily highway traffic was then allocated to four different time periods of the day, based on the results from the SCAG RTP model and traffic counts. As shown in Table 4.3, the hourly factors vary slightly from one county to the next. Table 4.3 Hourly Factors Applied to Average Daily Traffic by County Period Time of Day San Bernardino County Riverside Orange County Los Angeles County AM Peak (3 hours) 6 AM 9 AM Mid-day (6 hours) 9 AM 3 PM PM Peak (4 hours) 3 PM 7 PM Night (11 hours) 7 PM 6 AM Freight train volumes were assumed to be uniformly distributed over a 24-hour period and assigned to four different time periods of the day, as shown in Table 4.4. For example, the a.m. peak period consisted of 3 hours which equals 12.5 percent of a 24- hour day (3/24 = 12.5 percent). This means that 12.5 percent of the daily estimated freight trains were assigned to the three hour a.m. peak period. To validate the assumption that freight trains are uniformly distributed over 24 hours, actual train volumes by time of day were acquired from the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) and from the BNSF Railway. The actual distribution by time period is reasonably close to the uniform distribution. Thus, a uniform distribution of freight train 12 SCAG, Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), December 2016 C-36 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

37 volumes for 2012 and 2035 was considered to be a reasonable assumption. Passenger train volumes were allocated to time periods according to actual Metrolink and Amtrak schedules. Table 4.4 Distribution of Freight Train Volumes by Time Periods of the Day % of 24 Hours Time of Day No. of Hours (Uniform Distribution) a.m. Peak Period 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m % Mid-day 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m % p.m. Peak Period 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m % Night 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m % Total Daily % Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-37 December 2016

38

39 5.0 Conclusion This regional grade crossing impact assessment for the proposed Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility was conducted using analytical procedures accepted by the POLB, POLA, and SCAG. The 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) was chosen as representative of the worst-case scenario. If no significant impacts were identified as a result of this alternative, then it was anticipated that the 10th Street and 9th Street Alternatives would not have significant impacts because these alternatives would have fewer impacts than the 12th Street Alternative. Grade-crossing delays were based on the frequency, length, and speed of trains, and the amount of highway traffic per lane crossing the tracks. Vehicular delays at grade crossings are a function of the square of the gate down time. Section 3 showed the methodology for calculating train lengths and numbers of trains, and Section 4 provided a detailed methodology for calculating vehicle at-grade delays. Section 6 shows detailed calculations of vehicle delays at grade crossings throughout southern California for the 12 th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) compared to the No Project Alternative. Traffic impacts analyses were examined under 2012 and 2035 conditions. In all cases, no significant traffic impacts from at-grade rail crossing delays were identified. The Proposed Project as evaluated for 2012, delays at all at-grade rail crossings would fall within the range or threshold of LOS A through D. Based on the Port of Long Beach thresholds of significance as shown on Table 4.1, impacts of the proposed Project due to rail traffic would not be considered significant. The cumulative grade crossing delay impacts in 2035 with and without the Proposed Project are provided in Section 6 for information purposes only. Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-39 December 2016

40

41 6.0 Results of Analysis The resulting estimated delays for grade crossings in 2012 and two 2035 scenarios are presented in this section. Tables 6.1 through 6.6 show the 2012 Baseline, Tables 6.7 through 6.12 show the 12 th Street Project Alternative (2012), Tables 6.13 through 6.18 show the 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative, and Tables 6.19 through 6.24 show the 2035 Cumulative 12 th Street Alternative. The resulting delays were evaluated against Port of Long Beach/Port of Los Angeles thresholds of significance for impacts associated with rail traffic as shown in Table 4.1. Results show no significant impacts from rail traffic for all scenarios. Table 6.1 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard to San Bernardino, 2012 Baseline Boundary/Junction Street San Bernardino MP 0.0 # of Lanes Baseline Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/ Day) Baseline Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Baseline Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Baseline Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/ Day) Baseline PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/ Vehicle) Laurel St 2 2, Olive St 2 2, E St H St 2 1, Valley Bl 2 10, Colton Crossing MP 3.2 Highgrove Junction MP 6.1 (Connection to Perris via MetroLink) Main St 2 2, Riverside-San Bernardino County Line MP 6.41 Center St 4 6, Iowa Av 4 22, Palmyrita Av 2 3, Chicago Av 4 13, Spruce St 4 7, rd St 4 10, Mission Inn (7th St) 4 5, Riverside Yard and Amtrak Station MP Cridge St 2 3, West Riverside Junction MP 10.6 (Connection to UPRR Los Angeles Sub) Jane St 2 2, Mary St 4 11, Washington St 2 8, Madison St 4 15, Jefferson St 2 8, Adams St 4 17, Jackson St 4 7, Gibson St Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-41 December 2016

42 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Baseline Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/ Day) Baseline Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Baseline Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Baseline Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/ Day) Baseline PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/ Vehicle) Harrison St 2 6, Tyler St 4 15, Pierce St 2 11, Buchanan St 2 9, Magnolia Av (eastbound) 2 8, Magnolia Av (westbound) 2 8, Mckinley St 4 26, Radio Rd 2 4, Joy St 2 7, Sheridan St 2 2, Cota St 4 6, Railroad St 4 9, Smith St 4 13, Auto Center Dr 2 11, Riverside-Orange County Line Kellogg Dr 4 6, Lakeview Av 3 18, Richfield Rd 4 9, Atwood Junction MP 40.6 (Connection to Old Olive Sub) Van Buren St 2 6, Jefferson St 3 6, Tustin Av (Rose Dr) 4 29, Orangethorpe Av 4 28, Kraemer Bl 4 19, Placentia Av 4 14, State College Bl 4 23, Acacia Av 4 6, Raymond Av 4 20, Fullerton Junction MP 45.5 = MP Orange-LA County Line Valley View Av 4 24, Rosecrans/Marquardt Av 4 22, Lakeland Rd 2 6, Los Nietos Rd 4 20, Norwalk Bl 4 25, Pioneer Bl 4 15, Commerce Yard MP Hobart Yard MP OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) 1,038.5 PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 7.0 December 2016 C-42 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

43 Table 6.2 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow, 2012 Baseline Baseline Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/ Day) Baseline Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/ Day) Baseline Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/ Day) Baseline Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/ Day) Baseline PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/ Vehicle) Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Barstow MP 0 Lenwood Rd 2 4, Hinkley Rd Indian Trail Rd Vista Rd 2 2, Turner Rd North Bryman Rd South Bryman Rd 2 1, Robinson Ranch Rd st St th St 4 3, Silverwood Junction MP 56.6 Keenbrook Junction MP 69.4 Swarthout Canyon Rd Devore Rd / Glen Helen Pkwy 4 6, Dike Junction Palm Av 2 11, San Bernardino MP 81.4 OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) 92.1 PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 10.8 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-43 December 2016

44 Table 6.3 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Alhambra Subdivision from Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) to Colton Crossing, 2012 Baseline (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR LA Subdivision) Baseline Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/ Day) Baseline Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Baseline Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/ Day) Baseline Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/ Day) Baseline PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/ Vehicle) Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes LATC MP San Pablo St 4 4, Vineburn Av 2 1, Worth/Boca Rd 2 7, Valley Bl 4 27, Ramona St 2 12, Mission Rd 3 22, Del Mar Av 2 20, San Gabriel Bl 4 34, Walnut Grove Av 3 15, Encinita Av 2 6, Lower Azusa Rd 4 17, Temple City Bl 4 20, Baldwin Av 4 25, Arden Dr 4 10, El Monte Junction MP Tyler Ave 4 11, Cogswell Rd 2 9, Temple Av 4 26, Bassett Junction MP Vineland Av 2 12, Puente Av 4 31, Orange Av 2 5, California Av 2 18, City of Industry Junction MP Fullerton Rd 4 18, Fairway Dr 4 19, Lemon Rd 4 16, Brea Canyon Rd 2 14, Pomona Junction MP LA-San Bernardino County Line MP HANDLED SEPARATELY DUE TO PROXIMITY TO UPRR LA SUB Montclair Junction Bon View Av 2 9, Vineyard Av 4 30, Milliken Av 6 34, Kaiser Junction MP West Colton MP Colton Crossing MP OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 4.9 December 2016 C-44 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

45 Table 6.4 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision from East Los Angeles Yard to West Riverside Junction, 2012 Baseline (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR Alhambra Subdivision) Baseline Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/ Day) Baseline Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Baseline Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Baseline Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/ Day) Baseline PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/ Vehicle) Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes East Los Angeles MP 5.85 S. Vail Av 2 7, Maple Av 2 5, S. Greenwood Av 4 7, Montebello Bl 4 20, Durfee Av 2 13, Rose Hills Rd 4 9, Mission Mill Rd 2 2, Workman Mill 4 7, Turnbull Canyon Rd 4 14, Stimson Av & Puente Av 4 14, Bixby Dr 2 2, Fullerton Rd 4 23, Nogales St 6 37, Fairway Dr 4 25, Lemon St 4 14, Pomona Junction MP 31.9 LA-San Bernardino County Line MP HANDLED SEPARATELY DUE TO PROXIMITY TO UPRR ALHAMBRA SUB E. Montclair Junction MP Bonview Av 2 3, Grove Av 6 39, Vineyard Av 4 4, Archibald Av 4 5, San Bernardino-Riverside County Line MP Milliken Av 6 20, Mira Loma Junction MP 45.7 Bellegrave Av 2 7, Rutile St 2 8, Jurupa Rd 2 13, Clay St 4 16, Mountain View Av 2 1, Streeter Av 4 13, Palm Av 2 7, Brockton Av 4 13, Riverside Av 2 11, Panorama Road 2 6, West Riverside Junction MP 56.7 OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 2.5 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-45 December 2016

46 Table 6.5 At-Grade-Crossings Results for Combined UPRR Alhambra and LA Subdivisions in Pomona and Montclair Area, 2012 Baseline Baseline Average Daily Traffic (Vehicle s/ Day) Baseline Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/ Day) Baseline Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/ Day) Baseline Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/ Day) Baseline PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/ Vehicle) Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Pomona Junction MP Hamilton Bl 4 7, Park Av 2 5, Main St 2 1, Palomares St 2 3, San Antonio Av 4 6, LA-San Bernardino County Line MP Monte Vista Av 4 12, San Antonio Av 4 10, Vine Av 2 7, Sultana Av 2 11, Campus Av 2 10, Montclair Junction OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) 89.5 PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 4.7 December 2016 C-46 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

47 Table 6.6 At-Grade-Crossings Results for UPRR Yuma Subdivision from Colton Crossing to Indio, 2012 Baseline Baseline Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/ Day) Baseline Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/ Day) Baseline Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/ Day) Baseline Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/ Day) Baseline PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/ Vehicle) Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Colton Crossing MP Hunts Lane 4 13, Whittier Av Beaumont Av San Timoteo Cyn Rd 2 11, Alessandro Rd San Bernardino-Riverside County Line MP Live Oak Cyn Rd 2 1, San Timoteo Cyn Rd 2 1, Veile Av California Av 2 6, Pennsylvania Av 2 8, Sunset Av 2 3, nd St 4 15, San Gorgonio Av 2 12, Hargrave St 2 16, Apache Trail 2 2, Broadway 2 6, Tipton Rd Garnet MP West Indio MP Indio MP Avenue , Avenue 56/Airport Blvd 2 4, Avenue 66/4th Street 2 7, OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 6.5 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-47 December 2016

48 Table 6.7 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard to San Bernardino, 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Boundary/Junction Street San Bernardino MP 0.0 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/ Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Total Gate Down Time (minutes/day) W/ Proj Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (vehhrs/day) W/o Proj Change W/ Proj W/o Proj Change W/ Proj PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Project W/o Proj Change Laurel St 2 2, NO Olive St 2 2, NO E St NO H St 2 1, NO Valley Bl 2 10, NO Colton Crossing MP 3.2 Highgrove Junction MP 6.1 (Connection to Perris via MetroLink) Main St 2 2, NO Riverside-San Bernardino County Line MP 6.41 Center St 4 6, NO Iowa Av 4 22, NO Palmyrita Av 2 3, NO Chicago Av 4 13, NO Spruce St 4 7, NO 3rd St 4 10, NO Mission Inn (7th St) 4 5, NO Riverside Yard and Amtrak Station MP Cridge St 2 3, NO West Riverside Junction MP 10.6 (Connection to UPRR Los Angeles Sub) Jane St 2 2, NO Mary St 4 11, NO Washington St 2 8, NO Madison St 4 15, NO Jefferson St 2 8, NO Adams St 4 17, NO Jackson St 4 7, NO Impact Significant? December 2016 C-48 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

49 Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/ Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Total Gate Down Time (minutes/day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (vehhrs/day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Project Boundary/Junction # of W/ W/o W/ W/o W/o Street Lanes Proj Proj Change Proj Proj Change W/ Proj W/o Proj Change W/ Proj Proj Change Gibson St NO Harrison St 2 6, NO Tyler St 4 15, NO Pierce St 2 11, NO Buchanan St 2 9, NO Magnolia Av (eastbound) 2 8, NO Magnolia Av (westbound) 2 8, NO Mckinley St 4 26, NO Radio Rd 2 4, NO Joy St 2 7, NO Sheridan St 2 2, NO Cota St 4 6, NO Railroad St 4 9, NO Smith St 4 13, NO Auto Center Dr 2 11, NO Riverside-Orange County Line Kellogg Dr 4 6, NO Lakeview Av 3 18, NO Richfield Rd 4 9, NO Atwood Junction MP 40.6 (Connection to Old Olive Sub) Van Buren St 2 6, NO Jefferson St 3 6, NO Tustin Av (Rose Dr) 4 29, NO Orangethorpe Av 4 28, NO Kraemer Bl 4 19, NO Placentia Av 4 14, NO State College Bl 4 23, NO Acacia Av 4 6, NO Raymond Av 4 20, NO Fullerton Junction MP 45.5 = MP Orange-LA County Line Valley View Av 4 24, NO Rosecrans/Marquardt Av 4 22, NO Impact Significant? Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-49 December 2016

50 Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/ Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Total Gate Down Time (minutes/day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (vehhrs/day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Project Boundary/Junction # of W/ W/o W/ W/o W/o Street Lanes Proj Proj Change Proj Proj Change W/ Proj W/o Proj Change W/ Proj Proj Change Lakeland Rd 2 6, NO Los Nietos Rd 4 20, NO Norwalk Bl 4 25, NO Pioneer Bl 4 15, NO Commerce Yard MP Hobart Yard MP Impact Significant? OVERALL NO Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay 1, , (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) December 2016 C-50 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

51 Table 6.8 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow, 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Boundary/Junction Street Barstow MP 0 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Total Gate Down Time (minutes/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (vehhrs/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) Project W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Lenwood Rd 2 4, NO Hinkley Rd NO Indian Trail Rd NO Vista Rd 2 2, NO Turner Rd NO North Bryman Rd NO South Bryman Rd 2 1, NO Robinson Ranch Rd NO 1st St NO 6th St 4 3, NO Silverwood Junction MP 56.6 Keenbrook Junction MP 69.4 Swarthout Canyon Rd NO Devore Rd / Glen Helen Pkwy 4 6, NO Dike Junction Palm Av 2 11, NO San Bernardino MP 81.4 Impact Significant? OVERALL NO Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-51 December 2016

52 Table 6.9 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Alhambra Subdivision from Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) to Colton Crossing (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR LA Subdivision), 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Boundary/Junction Street LATC MP # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Total Gate Down Time (minutes/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (veh-hrs/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change San Pablo St 4 4, NO Vineburn Av 2 1, NO Worth/Boca Rd 2 7, NO Valley Bl 4 27, NO Ramona St 2 12, NO Mission Rd 3 22, NO Del Mar Av 2 20, NO San Gabriel Bl 4 34, NO Walnut Grove Av 3 15, NO Encinita Av 2 6, NO Lower Azusa Rd 4 17, NO Temple City Bl 4 20, NO Baldwin Av 4 25, NO Arden Dr 4 10, NO El Monte Junction MP Tyler Ave 4 11, NO Cogswell Rd 2 9, NO Temple Av 4 26, NO Bassett Junction MP Vineland Av 2 12, NO Puente Av 4 31, NO Orange Av 2 5, NO California Av 2 18, NO City of Industry Junction MP Fullerton Rd 4 18, NO Project Impact Significant? December 2016 C-52 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

53 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Total Gate Down Time (minutes/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (veh-hrs/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Fairway Dr 4 19, NO Lemon Rd 4 16, NO Brea Canyon Rd 2 14, NO Pomona Junction MP LA-San Bernardino County Line HANDLED SEPARATELY DUE TO PROXIMITY TO UPRR LA SUB MP Montclair Junction Bon View Av 2 9, NO Vineyard Av 4 30, NO Milliken Av 6 34, NO Kaiser Junction MP West Colton MP Colton Crossing MP Project Impact Significant? OVERALL NO Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-53 December 2016

54 Table 6.10 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision from East Los Angeles Yard to West Riverside Junction, 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR Alhambra Subdivision) Boundary/Junction Street East Los Angeles MP 5.85 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Total Gate Down Time (minutes/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (veh-hrs/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle W/ Proj W/o Proj Change S. Vail Av 2 7, NO Maple Av 2 5, NO S. Greenwood Av 4 7, NO Montebello Bl 4 20, NO Durfee Av 2 13, NO Rose Hills Rd 4 9, NO Mission Mill Rd 2 2, NO Workman Mill 4 7, NO Turnbull Canyon Rd 4 14, NO Stimson Av & Puente Av 4 14, NO Bixby Dr 2 2, NO Fullerton Rd 4 23, NO Nogales St 6 37, NO Fairway Dr 4 25, NO Lemon St 4 14, NO Pomona Junction MP 31.9 LA-San Bernardino County Line MP HANDLED SEPARATELY DUE TO PROXIMITY TO UPRR ALHAMBRA SUB E. Montclair Junction MP Bonview Av 2 3, NO Grove Av 6 39, NO Vineyard Av 4 4, NO Archibald Av 4 5, NO San Bernardino-Riverside County Line MP Milliken Av 6 20, NO Project Impact Significant? December 2016 C-54 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

55 Boundary/Junction Street Mira Loma Junction MP 45.7 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Total Gate Down Time (minutes/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (veh-hrs/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (seconds/vehicle W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Bellegrave Av 2 7, NO Rutile St 2 8, NO Jurupa Rd 2 13, NO Clay St 4 16, NO Mountain View Av 2 1, NO Streeter Av 4 13, NO Palm Av 2 7, NO Brockton Av 4 13, NO Riverside Av 2 11, NO Panorama Road 2 6, NO West Riverside Junction MP 56.7 Project Impact Significant? OVERALL NO Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-55 December 2016

56 Table 6.11 At-Grade-Crossings Results for Combined UPRR Alhambra and LA Subdivisions in Pomona and Montclair Area, 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Boundary/Junction Street Pomona Junction MP # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) W/ Proj Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/o Proj Change Total Gate Down Time W/ Proj (minutes/day) W/o Proj Change Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (veh-hrs/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Minutes/Day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Hamilton Bl 4 7, NO Park Av 2 5, NO Main St 2 1, NO Palomares St 2 3, NO San Antonio Av 4 6, NO LA-San Bernardino County Line MP Monte Vista Av 4 12, NO San Antonio Av 4 10, NO Vine Av 2 7, NO Sultana Av 2 11, NO Campus Av 2 10, NO Montclair Junction Project Impact Significant? OVERALL NO Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) December 2016 C-56 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

57 Table 6.12 At-Grade-Crossings Results for UPRR Yuma Subdivision from Colton Crossing to Indio, 2012 CEQA 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Boundary/Junction Street Colton Crossing MP # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) W/ Proj Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) W/o Proj Change Total Gate Down Time (minutes/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (veh-hrs/day) W/ Proj W/o Proj Change PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Minutes/Day) Total Gate W/ Proj W/o Proj Change Hunts Lane 4 13, NO Whittier Av NO Beaumont Av NO San Timoteo Cyn Rd 2 11, NO Alessandro Rd NO San Bernardino-Riverside County Line MP Live Oak Cyn Rd 2 1, NO San Timoteo Cyn Rd 2 1, NO Veile Av NO California Av 2 6, NO Pennsylvania Av 2 8, NO North Sunset Av 2 3, NO 22nd St 4 15, NO San Gorgonio Av 2 12, NO Hargrave St 2 16, NO Apache Trail 2 2, NO Broadway 2 6, NO Tipton Rd NO Garnet MP West Indio MP Indio MP Avenue , NO Avenue 56/Airport Blvd 2 4, NO Avenue 66/4th Street 2 7, NO Down Time (minutes/day) OVERALL NO Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-57 December 2016

58 Table 6.13 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard to San Bernardino, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative Boundary/Junction Street San Bernardino MP 0.0 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Laurel St 2 3, Olive St 2 4, E St 2 1, H St 2 2, Valley Bl 2 15, Colton Crossing MP 3.2 Highgrove Junction MP 6.1 (Connection to Perris via MetroLink) Main St 2 3, Riverside-San Bernardino County Line MP 6.41 Center St 4 8, Iowa Av 4 31, Palmyrita Av 2 5, Chicago Av 4 18, Spruce St 4 9, rd St 4 14, Mission Inn (7th St) 4 7, Riverside Yard and Amtrak Station MP Cridge St 2 5, West Riverside Junction MP 10.6 (Connection to UPRR Los Angeles Sub) Jane St 2 2, Mary St 4 16, Washington St 2 11, Madison St 4 21, Jefferson St 2 11, Adams St 4 23, Jackson St 4 10, December 2016 C-58 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

59 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Gibson St 2 1, Harrison St 2 9, Tyler St 4 21, Pierce St 2 15, Buchanan St 2 13, Magnolia Av (eastbound) 2 11, Magnolia Av (westbound) 2 11, Mckinley St 4 36, Radio Rd 2 5, Joy St 2 9, Sheridan St 2 3, Cota St 4 8, Railroad St 4 13, Smith St 4 18, Auto Center Dr 2 15, Riverside-Orange County Line Kellogg Dr 4 7, Lakeview Av 3 20, Richfield Rd 4 10, Atwood Junction MP 40.6 (Connection to Old Olive Sub) Van Buren St 2 7, Jefferson St 3 6, Tustin Av (Rose Dr) 4 31, Orangethorpe Av 4 30, Kraemer Bl 4 21, Placentia Av 4 15, State College Bl 4 25, Acacia Av 4 7, Raymond Av 4 22, Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-59 December 2016

60 Boundary/Junction Street Fullerton Junction MP 45.5 = MP Orange-LA County Line # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Valley View Av 4 25, Rosecrans/Marquardt Av 4 24, Lakeland Rd 2 6, Los Nietos Rd 4 21, Norwalk Bl 4 27, Pioneer Bl 4 16, Commerce Yard MP Hobart Yard MP OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) 3,581.5 PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 20.0 December 2016 C-60 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

61 Table 6.14 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative Boundary/Junction Street Barstow MP 0 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Lenwood Rd 2 6, Hinkley Rd Indian Trail Rd Vista Rd 2 3, Turner Rd North Bryman Rd South Bryman Rd 2 2, Robinson Ranch Rd st St th St 4 4, Silverwood Junction MP 56.6 Keenbrook Junction MP 69.4 Swarthout Canyon Rd Devore Rd / Glen Helen Pkwy 4 8, Dike Junction Palm Av 2 15, San Bernardino MP 81.4 OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh- Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-61 December 2016

62 Table 6.15 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Alhambra Subdivision from Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) to Colton Crossing, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR LA Subdivision) Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes LATC MP 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 (Seconds/Vehicle) San Pablo St 4 4, Vineburn Av 2 1, Worth/Boca Rd 2 8, Valley Bl 4 30, Walnut Grove Av 3 17, Encinita Av 2 7, Lower Azusa Rd 4 19, Temple City Bl 4 23, Baldwin Av 4 29, Arden Dr 4 12, El Monte Junction MP Tyler Ave 4 13, Cogswell Rd 2 11, Temple Av 4 30, Bassett Junction MP Vineland Av 2 14, Puente Av 4 35, Orange Av 2 6, California Av 2 21, City of Industry Junction MP Fullerton Rd 4 20, Fairway Dr 4 22, Lemon Rd 4 19, Brea Canyon Rd 2 16, Pomona Junction MP HANDLED SEPARATELY DUE TO PROXIMITY TO UPRR LA SUB LA-San Bernardino County Line MP Montclair Junction Bon View Av 2 13, Vineyard Av 4 41, December 2016 C-62 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

63 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 (Seconds/Vehicle) Milliken Av 6 45, Kaiser Junction MP West Colton MP Colton Crossing MP OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) 1,093.1 PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 10.4 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-63 December 2016

64 Table 6.16 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision from East Los Angeles Yard to West Riverside Junction, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative (Excluding Segment That is Combined with UPRR Alhambra Subdivision) Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes East Los Angeles MP 5.85 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 (Seconds/ Vehicle) S. Vail Av 2 8, Maple Av 2 6, S. Greenwood Av 4 8, Montebello Bl 4 22, Durfee Av 2 15, Rose Hills Rd 4 10, Mission Mill Rd 2 2, Workman Mill 4 8, Turnbull Canyon Rd 4 16, Stimson Av & Puente Av 4 16, Bixby Dr 2 3, Fullerton Rd 4 27, Nogales St 6 42, Fairway Dr 4 28, Lemon St 4 16, Pomona Junction MP 31.9 LA-San Bernardino County Line MP E. Montclair Junction MP HANDLED SEPARATELY DUE TO PROXIMITY TO UPRR ALHAMBRA SUB Bonview Av 2 4, Grove Av 6 54, Vineyard Av 4 6, Archibald Av 4 7, San Bernardino-Riverside County Line MP December 2016 C-64 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

65 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 (Seconds/ Vehicle) Milliken Av 6 29, Mira Loma Junction MP 45.7 Bellegrave Av 2 10, Rutile St 2 11, Jurupa Rd 2 18, Clay St 4 22, Mountain View Av 2 2, Streeter Av 4 19, Palm Av 2 10, Brockton Av 4 18, Riverside Av 2 16, Panorama Road 2 8, West Riverside Junction MP 56.7 OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 7.4 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-65 December 2016

66 Table 6.17 At-Grade-Crossings Results for Combined UPRR Alhambra and LA Subdivisions in Pomona and Montclair Area, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Pomona Junction MP 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 (Seconds/Vehicle) Hamilton Bl 4 8, Park Av 2 6, Main St 2 1, Palomares St 2 4, San Antonio Av 4 7, LA-San Bernardino County Line MP Monte Vista Av 4 14, San Antonio Av 4 13, Vine Av 2 10, Sultana Av 2 10, Campus Av 2 14, Montclair Junction OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 13.9 December 2016 C-66 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

67 Table 6.18 At-Grade-Crossings Results for UPRR Yuma Subdivision from Colton Crossing to Indio, 2035 Cumulative No Project Alternative Boundary/Junction Street Colton Crossing MP # 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 (Seconds/Vehicle) Hunts Lane 4 21, Whittier Av Beaumont Av San Timoteo Cyn Rd 2 18, Alessandro Rd San Bernardino-Riverside County Line MP Live Oak Cyn Rd 2 1, San Timoteo Cyn Rd 2 2, Veile Av California Av 2 10, Pennsylvania Av 2 12, Sunset Av 2 5, nd St 4 24, San Gorgonio Av 2 19, Hargrave St 2 25, Apache Trail 2 3, Broadway 2 10, Tipton Rd Garnet MP West Indio MP Indio MP Avenue , Avenue 56/Airport Blvd 2 7, Avenue 66/4th Street 2 11, OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) 1,014.3 PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 23.4 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-67 December 2016

68 Table 6.19 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, from Hobart Yard to San Bernardino, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Boundary/Junction Street San Bernardino MP 0.0 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Laurel St 2 3, Olive St 2 4, E St 2 1, H St 2 2, Valley Bl 2 15, Colton Crossing MP 3.2 Highgrove Junction MP 6.1 (Connection to Perris via MetroLink) Main St 2 3, Riverside-San Bernardino County Line MP 6.41 Center St 4 8, Iowa Av 4 31, Palmyrita Av 2 5, Chicago Av 4 18, Spruce St 4 9, rd St 4 14, Mission Inn (7th St) 4 7, Riverside Yard and Amtrak Station MP Cridge St 2 5, West Riverside Junction MP 10.6 (Connection to UPRR Los Angeles Sub) Jane St 2 2, Mary St 4 16, Washington St 2 11, Madison St 4 21, December 2016 C-68 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

69 Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Boundary/Junction # of Street Lanes Jefferson St 2 11, Adams St 4 23, Jackson St 4 10, Gibson St 2 1, Harrison St 2 9, Tyler St 4 21, Pierce St 2 15, Buchanan St 2 13, Magnolia Av (eastbound) 2 11, Magnolia Av (westbound) 2 11, Mckinley St 4 36, Radio Rd 2 5, Joy St 2 9, Sheridan St 2 3, Cota St 4 8, Railroad St 4 13, Smith St 4 18, Auto Center Dr 2 15, Riverside-Orange County Line Kellogg Dr 4 7, Lakeview Av 3 20, Richfield Rd 4 10, Atwood Junction MP 40.6 (Connection to Old Olive Sub) Van Buren St 2 7, Jefferson St 3 6, Tustin Av (Rose Dr) 4 31, Orangethorpe Av 4 30, Kraemer Bl 4 21, Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-69 December 2016

70 Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles /Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Placentia Av 4 15, State College Bl 4 25, Acacia Av 4 7, Raymond Av 4 22, Fullerton Junction MP 45.5 = MP Orange-LA County Line Valley View Av 4 25, Rosecrans/Marquardt Av 4 24, Lakeland Rd 2 6, Los Nietos Rd 4 21, Norwalk Bl 4 27, Pioneer Bl 4 16, Commerce Yard MP Hobart Yard MP OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay 3,821.4 (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 21.3 December 2016 C-70 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

71 Table 6.20 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for BNSF Cajon Subdivision from San Bernardino to Barstow, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) Boundary/Junction Street Barstow MP 0 # of Lanes Average Daily Traffic (Vehicles/Day) Average Daily Train Volume (Trains/Day) Total Gate Down Time (Minutes/Day) Daily Total Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Lenwood Rd 2 6, Hinkley Rd Indian Trail Rd Vista Rd 2 3, Turner Rd North Bryman Rd South Bryman Rd 2 2, Robinson Ranch Rd st St th St 4 4, Silverwood Junction MP 56.6 Keenbrook Junction MP 69.4 Swarthout Canyon Rd Devore Rd / Glen Helen Pkwy 4 8, Dike Junction Palm Av 2 15, San Bernardino MP 81.4 OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 28.6 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-71 December 2016

72 Table 6.21 At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Alhambra Subdivision from Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) to Colton Crossing, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) (Excluding Segment Combined with UPRR LA) Boundary/Junction Street LATC MP # 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 (Seconds/Vehicle) San Pablo St 4 4, Vineburn Av 2 1, Worth/Boca Rd 2 8, Valley Bl 4 30, Walnut Grove Av 3 17, Encinita Av 2 7, Lower Azusa Rd 4 19, Temple City Bl 4 23, Baldwin Av 4 29, Arden Dr 4 12, El Monte Junction MP Tyler Ave 4 13, Cogswell Rd 2 11, Temple Av 4 30, Bassett Junction MP Vineland Av 2 14, Puente Av 4 35, Orange Av 2 6, California Av 2 21, City of Industry Junction MP Fullerton Rd 4 20, Fairway Dr 4 22, Lemon Rd 4 19, Brea Canyon Rd 2 16, Pomona Junction MP LA-San Bernardino County Line MP HANDLED SEPARATELY DUE TO PROXIMITY TO UPRR LA SUB Montclair Junction Bon View Av 2 13, Vineyard Av 4 41, December 2016 C-72 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

73 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 (Seconds/Vehicle) Milliken Av 6 45, Kaiser Junction MP West Colton MP Colton Crossing MP OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) 1,144.3 PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 10.9 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-73 December 2016

74 Table 6.22 Pier B Rail Grade Crossings Analysis At-Grade-Crossings Results by Street for UPRR Los Angeles Subdivision from East Los Angeles Yard to West Riverside Junction, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) (Excluding Segment Combined with UPRR Alhambra) 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 (Seconds/ Vehicle) Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes East Los Angeles MP 5.85 S. Vail Av 2 8, Maple Av 2 6, S. Greenwood Av 4 8, Montebello Bl 4 22, Durfee Av 2 15, Rose Hills Rd 4 10, Mission Mill Rd 2 2, Workman Mill 4 8, Turnbull Canyon Rd 4 16, Stimson Av & Puente Av 4 16, Bixby Dr 2 3, Fullerton Rd 4 27, Nogales St 6 42, Fairway Dr 4 28, Lemon St 4 16, Pomona Junction MP 31.9 LA-San Bernardino County Line MP HANDLED SEPARATELY DUE TO PROXIMITY TO UPRR ALHAMBRA SUB E. Montclair Junction MP Bonview Av 2 4, Grove Av 6 54, Vineyard Av 4 6, Archibald Av 4 7, San Bernardino-Riverside County Line MP Milliken Av 6 29, Mira Loma Junction MP 45.7 Bellegrave Av 2 10, Rutile St 2 11, Jurupa Rd 2 18, Clay St 4 22, Mountain View Av 2 2, Streeter Av 4 19, Palm Av 2 10, Brockton Av 4 18, Riverside Av 2 16, Panorama Road 2 8, West Riverside Junction MP 56.7 OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 8.1 December 2016 C-74 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

75 Table 6.23 Pier B Rail Grade Crossings Analysis At-Grade-Crossings Results for Combined UPRR Alhambra and LA Subdivisions in Pomona and Montclair Area, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) 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 (Seconds/Vehicle) Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Pomona Junction MP Hamilton Bl 4 8, Park Av 2 6, Main St 2 1, Palomares St 2 4, San Antonio Av 4 7, LA-San Bernardino County Line MP Monte Vista Av 4 14, San Antonio Av 4 13, Vine Av 2 10, Sultana Av 2 10, Campus Av 2 14, Montclair Junction OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-75 December 2016

76 Table 6.24 Pier B Rail Grade Crossings Analysis At-Grade-Crossings Results for UPRR Yuma Subdivision from Colton Crossing to Indio, 2035 Cumulative 12th Street Alternative (Proposed Project) 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 (Seconds/Vehicle) Boundary/Junction Street # of Lanes Colton Crossing MP Hunts Lane 4 21, Whittier Av Beaumont Av San Timoteo Cyn Rd 2 18, Alessandro Rd San Bernardino-Riverside County Line MP Live Oak Cyn Rd 2 1, San Timoteo Cyn Rd 2 2, Veile Av California Av 2 10, Pennsylvania Av 2 12, Sunset Av 2 5, nd St 4 24, San Gorgonio Av 2 19, Hargrave St 2 25, Apache Trail 2 3, Broadway 2 10, Tipton Rd Garnet MP West Indio MP Indio MP Avenue , Avenue 56/Airport Blvd 2 7, Avenue 66/4th Street 2 11, OVERALL Total Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay (Veh-Hrs/Day) PM Peak Average Delay per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) 1, December 2016 C-76 Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

77 7.0 Mathematical Derivation of Grade-Crossing Delay Equation The methodology for computing vehicular delay is based on total vehicle arrivals and departures for an isolated grade crossing blockage, as shown on Figure 7.1. Figure 7.1. Cumulative Arrivals and Departures for an Isolated Blockage Source: Leachman (1984) 13 and Powell (1982) 14 The yellow line represents vehicles arriving at an at-grade crossing, beginning at the time when the gates go down (point O in the figure). Total gate down time is depicted as T G. The green line represents the vehicles departing the queue after the gate is lifted starting at time = T G (point A in the figure). The queues are fully dissipated at time = t* (point B in the figure). The total vehicle delay is represented by the area of triangle OAB bounded by the yellow line, the green line, and the X axis. 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. This calculation is performed for each train arriving at the crossing over the course of a day. Delay will vary by time of day, because there is more highway traffic during peak hours. 13 Graphic and mathematical derivation adapted from Leachman, San Pedro Bay Access Study: Phase 2: Railroad Access, 1984, Appendix G, Figure G-1, prepared for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 14 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. Pier B On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project C-77 December 2016