11/18/2014 (7) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 2 z if, ,.L,° i f Brun- t,,i il,101111 <-ni„I (mi” much longer than at the railroad crossing. For example, the year 2036 eastbound delay at the intersection is projected to be 656.2 seconds (10 minutes 56 seconds) (passenger train) versus 87.5 seconds at the railroad crossing. It seems that eastbound traffic would be delayed a similar amount of time whether it is due to the rail gate down condition or the traffic signal at US 1 being preempted by the train. Furthermore, the northbound left and southbound right turn delays and queues for traffic turning from US 1 onto Oslo Road are not shown. It is assumed that the northbound and southbound through movements on US 1 will have a green indication while a train is crossing Oslo Road, but all other movements at the US 1 and Oslo Road intersection oriented towards westbound Oslo Road will be prohibited. This could be substantial and create safety problems at the intersection. For example, the northbound US 1 dual left turn lane will likely reach its capacity of 26 vehicles or approximately 650 feet while a train is crossing Oslo Road such that excess vehicles are blocking the inside through lane. As the left turn lane demand increases, motorists may maneuver unsafety in and out of it as they attempt to travel westbound. Additionally, the southbound US 1 right turn lane at Oslo Road is approximately 150 feet long and can store approximately six vehicles. While a train is crossing Oslo Road, this right turn lane will likely reach its capacity. Finally, it is not clear where the westbound projected queue at the Oslo Road and US 1 intersection would be. For example, at that intersection, the westbound queue is projected to be 4,099 feet in 2036. At the FEC railroad crossing the westbound queue is projected to be 1,594 feet. If the 4,099 foot queue would consume the US 1 lanes feeding westbound Oslo Road, the impact on US 1 would be significant. As the results appear flawed, the FRA should review the Synchro output to determine assumptions and more details about their methodology. It is not clear where or if the consultant got the actual traffic signal splits and offsets (traffic signal cycle lengths and timing). The DEIS fails to give an adequate delay and queuing analysis for two trains crossing simultaneously The results of the delay analysis shown in Table 3-10 and 3-11 seem to represent one train crossing. CDM Smith understands that two trains could cross a road consecutively and that would lengthen the delay and queue. In effect, back-to-back trains crossing would compound the impact even more because queues from the first train would not have a chance to dissipate before the second train arrived. CDM Smith believes that FRA must reexamine the appropriateness of the weighted average shown in these tables. The weighted average of delay, queue, and LOS does not provide meaningful information. The DEIS failed to provide any mitigation for the long delays created by the rail crossing delays. The mitigation could include improvements to US 1 or the perpendicular crossing streets in the form of additional turn lanes, additional through lanes, or improved traffic signal equipment. Other potential mitigation could include improvements to the overall street network to relieve congestion caused by train crossings, or grade separating some of the railroad crossing to provide relief. I d I o(:'11 i f(-ifti(. In)I)or:ls The frequency projections of freight and passenger trains along the N -S Corridor identified in the DEIS would be anticipated to cause delays at one or multiple at -grade crossings simultaneously through Indian River County, however the DEIS states that there may be minor increased traffic delays at existing at -grade crossings. The report also states there may be delays to trains on a "shared use" environment (both passenger and freight service) which will be controlled by the Train Dispatcher as shown on pages 3-4 and 3-5. There is mention of installing additional passing tracks and from our understanding there are no existing passing tracks within Indian River County. With both the frequency projections of freight and passenger trains along the N -S Corridor it is safe to assume delays could increase at one or multiple at - 2 -2 CDM 301 � x-31