Cn1 ( .t:t.. ~ t t ,.

,,
; ., A1 r,t 1'''. 1 . /\ 1' )1, ;"'/)'
37
SYSTEM SAFETY AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 15, 2012
SUBJECT: METRO BLUE LINE SAFETY ASSESSMENT
ACTION: APPROVE LIFE OF PROJECT BUDGET INCREASE TO IMPLEMENT
RECOMMENDED MBL SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
A. Approve the increase in the Life-of-Project (LOP) budget for the Metro Blue Line
(MBL)Pedestrian and Swing Gates Capital Project in the amount of $6,780,000,
increasing the total project budget from $920.000 to $7,700,000.
B. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to amend the FY2013 budget to reflect this
adjustment.
ISSUE
At the August 6, 2012 Metro Board Meeting, the Board adopted a motion by Director
Yaroslavsky, that was subsequently amended by Director Ridley-Thomas, directing the CEO
to convene a Metro Blue Line Task Force to investigate and report back to the Board in
November 2012 on the following:
1. Causes of accidents, including but not limited to adequacy of current safety
procedures, operational concerns, structural concerns, signage, design and traffic
conditions
2. Potential suicide prevention strategies
3. Solutions to the issues that are identified as well as plans for implementing those
solutions
The amended Motion directed the CEO to report back on establishing public information
protocols in cases of reporting accident and service disruption information when incidents
occur As requested. this report will be provided by the CEO to the Board of Directors in the
November Board meet1ng
Also, 1n a letter dated August 7, 2012, C1ty of Los Angeles Councllmember Jan Perry
requested the CEO to cons1der expand1ng the scope of the Task Force to 1nclude an
evaluat1on of the Metro Blue L1ne stat1ons with the goal of improv1ng signage, amenities,
wa1t1ng areas. and the overall urban des1gn of the stat1ons.
DISCUSSION
In response to the Directors' motions, a Task Force comprised of Metro, Los Angeles
Department of Transportation (LADOT) , Los Angeles County Public Works (LACPW),
City of Long Beach- Traffic Engineering. Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) ,
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) staff
was formed . Metro Board of Directors' staff was also invited to participate on the Task
Force
Several proposals to enhance safety were discussed by the Task Force at its meetings on
August 10, August 30, and September 26, 2012. The Task Force concurred on implementing
many safety enhancements. Attachment A includes all the proposals that were carefully
evaluated by the Task Force, and the decisions reached for each proposal.
Installation of some safety enhancements, such as active Light-Emitting Diode (LED)
Pedestrian signs, swing gates/pedestrian gates and changes to operational procedures
were already in progress or completed. For example, the scope of Capital Project#
205063 includes the implementation of pedestrian gates and swing gates with a Life of
Project (LOP) of $920,000. This scope was limited to installing these devices adjacent
only to Metro's tracks.
The Task Force's recommendations in Attachment A significantly expand the scope of
this capital project by also installing such barriers adjacent to the Union Pacific (UP)
tracks, and installing other warning devices and signs to further enhance safety along
the entire alignment. These additional enhancements require an increase of the LOP
by $6.780,000, the amount staff is recommending the Board to approve.
Additionally, the Task Force discussed suicide prevention strategies and decided to
pursue the installation of suicide prevention signs at mid-corridor grade crossings in
consultation with a local mental health services organization. Staff will also partner with
the LASD to train personnel on behavioral signs and patterns displayed by persons
contemplating suicide.
In response to Councilmember Perry's letter, staff distributed the Project RENEW report
to Task Force members for review and consideration. This report was discussed at the
Task Force's September 26, 2012 meeting. The Task Force supported the
recommendations in the report . Metro staff that a capital project scheduled to begin
this fiscal year will focus on refurbishing 21 Metro Blue stations. Items under
consideration in the scope of work include painting, refinishing platform surfaces.
installing enhanced lighting, improved signage, closed circuit television cameras.
platform canopies and a Vanable Messag1ng System. Th1s effort will supplement the
plannmg recommendations 1n the proJect RENEW report to revitalize the neighborhoods
along the Metro Blue L1ne.
DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT
Approval of this item will allow Metro to continue efforts to operate a safe and efficient
rail system for passengers. Staff anticipates that these enhancements will also reduce
accident-related service interruptions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost of these enhancements is $6,780,000. Upon approval of the project LOP
increase. funding will be included in the capital LOP budget in cost center 3960-
Transit Systems Engineering, line item 50316- Professional and Technical Services,
project 205063- MBL Swing Gates and Safety Enhancements.
Since this is a multi-year project, the cost center manager, project manager, and
Executive Officer will ensure that the balance of funds are budgeted in future fiscal
years.
Impact to Budget
The source of funds for this capital project is Local Enterprise Funds from prior year
and Measure R Metro Rail CP 2% which are eligible for Rail capital enhancements.
NEXT STEPS
Upon receiving board approval in November, staff will develop a scope of work for the
implementation of the recommended enhancements through an Invitation for Bid (IFB)
process
ATTACHMENTS
A. Metro Blue Line Recommended Enhancements
B. Estimated Implementation Costs
C. Funding and Expenditure Plan
Prepared by: Abdul Zohbi, Systems Safety Manager (213) 922-2114
Arthur T. Leahy
(
I
(.r---
Chief Executive Officer
I Proposals LPRR Comments
ATTACHMENT A
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
LB Comments/LADOT Comments ' CPUC Comments Task Force Discussion Task Force
Recommendations . . ,Ul
I I -- -
1
(underlined)
---- ___,
Current 1
r- _ I --
l LED 'TRA!NfA.t L"nion Pacific has no I'm unclear as to the specifications Regarding the current MBL Staff mentioned that an
Ped Heads Street- objections to the and operation ofthe proposed signs: ' projects identified at the estimate for the LED
runnrng installation of LED however. the comment made above meeting. CPUC Staff supports Ped.Head srgns has
StatiOn Ped Head signs at>-.- regarding experimental devices both efforts, the first being been received from the
Crossv.al walks ncar Station applies for the Cit; of Long Beach. addition of train activated City of Los Angeles
ks locations. As to the I'm unclear as to ''h) such a sign is pedestrian signal heads at and a Work Order along
issue of modifying the needed. The Ped Head controls crosswalks along street- with a Letter to Jaime
crossing on the Union pedestrian movement at a signalized running portions of the line, De La Vega'' ill be sent
Pacific side. UPRR intersection so wh: is another sign ' and the second being addition out shor1l) to start the 1
will require a that could be potential!; distracting of pedestrian/swing gate design. acquisition and
1
preliminary flom the primar; message of the Ped improvements to pedestrian installation phase. Staff I
engineering letter be Head be needed. In Long Beach we pathways at gated crossings. also reiterated to the
1
provided b) Metro to have found that countdown We do however have some City of Long Beach that
1
reimburse us for the pedestrian indications have been a concerns with treating the it wants to expand the
labor. design and significant safct: enhancement UPRR side of the corridor project of installing
material required for yielding a 25/o reduction in all different!) than the Metro side these srgns at street
an) upgrades at an; of accidents. l believe that all Blue of the alignment. In the effo11 running Long Beach
the crossings along the Line traffic signals are outfitted with to send a clear and Station locations to
Blue line. A such devices in Long Beach ..... if understandable message to maintain uniformit) of I
supplement to the the; have not been so implement in users. consistency should be a safety warning devices I
existing agreement Los Angeles I would make such an goal. We urge UPRR to look along the Metro Blue
\\ill need to be added improvement a priority. beyond its normal prcfened Line alignment. :vletro
for the construction configuration and resistance to staff will discuss the
and maintenance of City of Los AneiCUldflj2Qits this active pedestrian gates along project with the City
an) improvements endeavor. As mentioned. LADOT is the line. Manager of Long
recommended at each waiting for final funding and Beach.
I
crossing. The commitment fiom Metro before
mamtenance costs for beginnin design. A funding-backed
additional devices will work order and a lener to LA DOT
Install LED Ped Heads in
both Los Angeles and
Long Beach crosswalb at
street running Blue Line
Station locations.
oeed to be the
1
Ge<tml "'""m. J,ime deb Veeo, 1
responsibilit\ of are necessan before LADOT will
f- __ _ - --W:JJ:OCccd. _ I +---
2 Ped 'iv. ing f Mtd- l PRR does not . The Cit) of Long Beach has Same as Above lin discussion with the Install Sv. mg Gates on the
__ ..L the implemented such gates at 12th UPRR and CPUC staff, 1 UPRR side ofthe right-
t----
r- "''
)
Proposals
--+-
Location- .-- LPRR Comments
,_ill_ . --t- -
Crossmg the traditional active
pedestnan gates
because past histor)
has shovvn the public
11 Ill tamper "ith these
devices rendering
them inoperable or
the) do not provide
enough of a deterrent
for pedestrian 11 ho
, 11ill either maneuver
around or duck under
the gate arms. An
alternative automated
interconnected gate
mechanism was
recommended at the
meeting and \\e
encourage the CPl 'C
to consider this option
m place of the
ATTACHMENT A
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIO!\S
LBComments/LADOT Comments
(underlined)
Street and the
implementation of such '>)stems at
other locations as appropriate
fhe Cit\ of Los
this effort. crossinL'.s can
be evaluated to '' iden side11 <lLks as
necessan to pro\ ide additional room
for pedestrian and or swing gates.
CPUC Comments
--
_ J -----+ traditional ped. gates +- ______ _
Proposed
1
Projects
LED

Ped Head
signs
At all
--+ - - -- -
l
1
nion Pacific has no Same as Above
'-,treet-
runn mg
(rosswal
KS
obJections to the
installation of LLD
Ped I lead signs at \-
''alks ncar Station
locations. As to the
Issue of mod it) ing the ,
crossing on the l nion
Pacific side. l'PKR
w Ill require a
P
rel!minan
' I
Same as Above
cngmeering letter be 1
--- ---
_L
Same as Above
2
Task Force Discussion
it was agreed that
uti I izat ion of
Interconnected gates
as recommended by the
l"PRR 11as not feasible
Both agencies agreed to
Metros proposal of
installing mechanical
Swing Gates on the
UPRR side of the right-
of-way. Metro staff
11ill start taking field
measurements to
accommodate the
l'PRR gates into their
drawings.
-+-
Task Force
Recommendations
of-\\a) in mid corridoi
( 11 here space [lLTm its)
1-or local ions \\here no
gates can be installed
(total of7). install In-
Koadwa; Warnmg Lights
(please refer to item tt (l on
this matrix)
J
-+This propos;;!- D Ped f.Tead !
represents Phase T of signs at all crosS\\ alks in
the u: D Ped. Head Los Angeles and Long
signs project. rhe Beach (Target
active signs\\ ill be completion date FY 14-
installed at all FYI 5)
cross11alk locations in
the Cities of Los
Angeles and Long
Beach. 1
I ,-----

'-
f <+LOOK
BOTH
f \\A ys
actrve srgns
at stations
Location L PRR Comments
. .W.
\lletro
Blue
Line
'Vlid-
corridOI
'-,tat ion>
provided b) \!Ierro to
r-eimburse us tor- the
labor. design and
material required for
an; upgrades at an: of
the crossings along the
Blue line. A
supplement to the
e'..Jsting agreement
wi II need to be added
for the construction
and maintenance of
an; improvernenb
recommended at each
crossing_ rhe
maintenance cosh for
additional Jev ices ''iII
need to be the
responsibilit; of
Metro_
----
L PRR has no
objections to the
installation of LOOK
BOTH WAY
roadwa; warning
lights. SUICide
prevention srgns_ \\art
here pavement
markings and auJrblc
warning devrces
A
TASK FORCE
LB Comments/LADOT CPUC Comments
1
Task Force Discussion Task Force
Recommendations (underlined)
Such messages were implemented in
S,1lt Lake Cit; for the 2002 01) mpics
in Salt Lake the messages 1\ere
pa1111ed '' ithin the cross\\alk rather
than by signagc_ In our revic\\ of the
Salt Lake Cit; treatment 1\e did not
find a demonstrated safet) benefit_ I
think it 1\0uld be wise to check in
11ith Salt Lake Cit; to see if!ong
tenn usage of the messages have
been well received and understood
b) the public and if the) still use the
treJtment _
( r_l_) of Los Angeles supports the
ertQ_rts to install additional "'LOOK
--,
_)
----r--
I
I
S;mifiC"II) ;n cegocd to the l'PL'C "'ff '"gg"ted mw;ng h""""
train-activated ""Look Both evaluation of different CPL"C and Metro staff to
Wa) s-- pedestrian -,igns. CPLC pesigns of ""LOOK e-._plore 'LOOK BO 1 II
staff supports the efTorts of !BOT! f W A vs-- active WAYS-- srgn
ILAC\!11 A to place additional The; mentioned :altematives_ Once a
warning to clearl) communicate 1'\e\\ Jerse; might decision i> reached as to
to pedestrians that trains are a design that should [he proper srgn. installation
approaching from either lbe considered and "ill be implemented at eight
direction. hO\\ ever there are Worward a photo to V!etro rstations_
tontinuing questions regarding It was further
effectiveness of the sign and bgreed that the CPLC
whether and to ''hat extent the Metro staff wi II meet
srgn rs understood b) the in order to
public. Additional!)_ we explore other
'be I ieve that '' e shou !d e:-..arn i ne ves designs.
some the newer signs that I
Proposab Location
f--t-

5 Audible Cross\\al
l
Warning and
Device 1 Pedestna
n Xings-
Street-
running
LPRR Comments
'lame as above
ATTACHMENT A
TASK FORCE RECOM:YIE:\DATIONS
LB Comments/LADOT Comments
(underlined)
BOTH WAYS .. active signs at
stations as lont>. as their installation
\tlLTCD compliant. Citv of L.A.
supp011s the task force looking into
other possible active signs that ma)
provide improved notice to
pedestrians.
I'm unclear if it is intended to install
APS or some other train specific
device. In the case of APS such
devices require an engineering
review as per the California
MUTCD. As for a unique audible
warning system my comment
regarding appropriate approvals for
experimental devices applies.
City of L.A. interprets this scenario
as being proposed at both street-
running crosswalks and pedestrian
crossmgs. City of L.A. feels that
1 the test installation at Exposition
8 lvd. and Gramercv Ave be fullv
tested and evaluated before any other
installations are considered in the
Cit\ of L.A. (ill of L.A. is opposed
to interconnecting the audible
devices to the traffic signal
controllers. Has there been anv
discussion as to why the crossing
bells couldn ' t be allowed to sound
continuouslY instead of cutting out
after 8 seconds'l Can the audible
buttons on the trains be used in a
more useful manner to provide the
CPUC Comments
have appeared in recent
some of which are currently in-
place or being tested. before its
determined to go \\ ith a sign.
(Sec PUC letter dated August
;24. 2012 for additional details)
_____ intended audible warning'l __ _
4
1
Task Force Discussion I Task Force
I Recommendations
-l
2 audible warnmg
devices have been
ordered by Metro for
testing purposes at
street -running locations.
With CPUC staff
approval. the audible
warning devices with be
tested at station locations
tirst followed b) testing at
crosswalks (all in street-
; running)
i
6
7
Location

In- Road\\a) Pedestrta
\\ annng
L1ghb
(IRWLs)
Suicide
Prevention
Signs
ll
side\\ a I"
s at nnd-
corndm

+-
1 Mid-
, COITidor
<:rOSSIIlgs
LPRR Comments
",a me as abm e
')ame as above
ATTACHMENT A
TASK FORCE RECOMME:\DATIO:\S
Comments CPLC Comments
(underlined)
A number of studies across the nation
have shown the lack luster safet)
performance of such devices as well
as the high maintenance costs of
keeping such systems operational. A '
number of cities arc actually
removing such devices due to poor
pcrforn1ance. The Cit) of Long
Beach does not have any such
systems and does not support the
installation of such systems within its
right-of-way. FUI1hermore. all
pedestrian crossings in Long Beach
are signalized: therefore. such
devices would only be confusing to
both pedestrians and motorists. As
for the question of using such devices
on a sidewal" ...... Yes. such a use
would be experimental and require
CTCDC and FHWA approval.
Cit; of L.A. would consider
supporting this installation ifthe
I R WLs were red and operated in an
alternating flashing pattern. There
would need to be full discussion on
the maintenance of these devices.
Additionall). if such an installation
was apiJroved. the Cit'> of L.A ..
\\Ould also li"e them installed at
Vernon Ave. 92"d '' Graham Ave.
Centur) Blvd. and 103'd St.
It's doubtful that a person intent on
committing suicide b) train \\ ould be
persuaded not to do so by a sign. It's
+---
more likely that such a sign would

5
Force Discussion
-
Staff proposed the
installation ol I R WLs at
mid-corridor pedestrian
sidewal"s that cross the
trad.s \\here neither
Ped nor S\\ing gates
can be installed. Field
revie\\S revealed that
there were a total seven
( 7) locations \\here the
lights would be
installed. Staffwill
obtain an estimate for
the IRWLs and
incorporate their
installation in the
current ped gate/s\\ ing
gate installation
dra\\ ings. Staff has
reque::.ted information
from LA DOT \\ hether
an VIUTCD FHWA
application is required
for installing these
lights in sidewal"s.
\!letro stafl reported a
175% increase in
suicides in the last I I
years when compared
Task Force

lnstaiiiRWLs at -,e,en (7)
locations in m1d-comdm
where Swing and
Ped.gates cannot be
installed. (estimate
included in #2 abo\e)
lnstaiiiRWLs at 2 Street-
running pedestrian.
Crossings for Lelt Turn
and Cross traffic
- Install suicide
prevention signage at
MBL Mid-corrido1 grade
crossings
_j

Proposals
8 --r--.. WAI I
HER!::"
Pavement
Markings
9 four-Quad
Gate'
Location
_ill
Pedes tria
n waitmg
areas at
stations
at ramp
landtngs

_L
Lntire
Vlid-
corndor
UPRR Cornmcnh
Same as above
--+-
ATTACHMENT A
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIO:\fS
-,-- LBComrnents/LADOT Comments
(underlined)
give a person on the edge of suicide
the idea that the; could commtt the
act b) train.
!he Cit\ of L.!\. suppons the
force recommendation.
Such markings should be deployed
on!; in the manner specified in the
1 MLJ I CD. Any such markings withm
Long Beach right-of-,, ay require
prior approval from the Cit) 1 raffic
1
Engineer
City Qf L.A. suppons these
installations as long as the\ are
installed in a manner consistent with
the \lll.JTCD.
The Cit) of Long Beach endorses
METRO's effort to upgrade existing
gating systems to the latest
technolog) and suggests that such a
project that has demonstrated safer:
benefits not be a "long term" project
but a priorit;...
, Cit} of L.A. full\ supports the
in)tallation of Quad (Exit) Gates at
all crossinL>.s alan!!. the Blue Lines
mid-COITidor. (it.) Qf L.A. \\..Q!!j_d
prefer that this endeavor take(l
, higher priorit) for installations to
6
CPUC Comments T Task
to the first I I ) ears of
M B L operation. Staff
also in formed the 1 as"-
Force that some
agencies have installed
signs at crossings and
on station platforms
\\hi le other agencies
have conducted
specialized training in
behavioral pattems.
The task force agreed to
implement this safet)
enhancement.
1 he Tas"- Force
I discussed the rate of
train vs auto collisions
in mid-corridor" hich
has dramaticall;
decreased. Metro staff
emphasized the need to
focus on pedestrian
related accidents as an
urgent pri01ir;.
-r=----
Task Force
Recommcnda tions
- Panner "ith the
to train "-e: personnel on
hm' to observe behavioral
patterns of people
contemplating suicide
--l
pavement marh.ings at the
bottom of ali ramps in
both Street-running and
Mid-corridor. lnstallatton
1 to commence in Los
Angeles followed b;
Long Beach after
consultation with their
City Traffic Engineet.
Since Pour Quadrant
gates are not applicable
for pedestrian safet;. the
1 ask Force recommended
not to pursue at this time
___,
'-
Proposab
I 0 '' POP-UP''
Bollards
11
I Traffic
Lane to
install L 1
Gate
_J_

Location LPRR Cornmenh
.J.U
+--- ---
Street
runnrng
+
Street
runntng
ATTACHME:\T A
TASK FORCE RECOMME:\DATIONS
LB Comments/LADOT Comments CPLC
( u nd_erlined)
happen much sooner than later
[)ecause of the significant _;;_a_fill
enhancements that the\ '' ill_J:Jrovide.
I his line has been in operatiQn sitK,e
]_\me 1990. a total of (lnd
the Cit\ of L.A. feels it is time for
viable improvements such tg
ge ag!!ressively pursued. l he C,:ill of
L.A. proposes that the 0L!iltl (Jatc:
program be at the top of the li st of
recommendations to the Board.
-
Tash. Force Discussron ' Tash. Force

The benefits of such systems are
unclear: however. we are interested
-+--- -- ----
----,
in hearing about research effort s.
rhe City of L.A. is concerned about
the safety of pop-up bollards. as \\ell
' as their operation and m'lintenance ..
Generally we are not supportive of
losing travel lanes'' ithin Long
Beach: however, we are \\illing to
I isten to proposals.
!he City of L.A. is not suppqr1ive Q[
IQs_in!! travel lanes unless addJ.liQnal
right-of-wa\ can be obtained to
m_iti!!ate the loss of Ci!lli!City-'
7
The Tas"- Force
concluded that this
proposal is neither
viable nor practical
because of reliability &
maintainabilit;
concerns . Moreover.
failure of the bollards
I \\ill disrupt traffic flo\\
--+ pattems _
The 1 as"- I orcc was
informed that traftic
lane closure is subject
' to approval b) the
respective local
jurisdiction- s Bureau of
Engi necri ng. Staff
requested the Cit)
representatives to
review this proposal
'' ith their Engineering
departments and let the
task force "-mm if this
proposal is viable at any
intersection.
The Task Force
recommendation is not to
implement ,
See City of LA
comments.
2

Street

Eliminate
Ll
Movements
Location
_ _ill
_!__
Lnttre
align men
Street

LPRR Comments
l n1on Pacific is in
-;uppon ol the
possibilit) of street
closures to improve
-.afet) and \\ill glad!:
assl\l 'v1etro \\ ith these
efforts an:\\ a)
possible.
A TT ACHME:\T A
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
LB Comments/LADOT Comments
(underlined)
General!: \\Care not supponive of
losmg crossings 1n that a lack of
access across the tracks is not
pedestrian friend!) and tends to
create a division bet,vccn
neighborhoods. llo\\ C\ er. '' e arc
'' illing to listen to proposals.
The Cit) of LA-' not support the
of crossings along busv
roadwav s that service mam vehicles
and pedestrians. !"he closure of
i crossings 'v\Ould result in longer
I travel distances for both pedestrians
and vehicles. which would create
manv more contltcts and increased
volumes at adjacent crossings.
Crossing closures would also force
more trucks to make left turns at
adjacent crossings_ The Citv of L.A.
il>_)till willing to consider proposals if
CPUC Comments
---+-=t=hev are prO\ ided.
General!) ''e are not supponive of
losing access across the tracks ...
especial!) \\hen losing such access
on!: moves demand from one
intersection to another and can
increase u-turns.
fhc ('itv of L./\, docs not sup _ _p__Q_r(
left turn access over
crossings_ Eliminating left turns at
crossings along the Blue Line vvould
promote illegal lcf1 t_lJIJl.movc__!i ang
would result in added len turn
conf1icts at adjacent crossings.
8
1 Task Force
---r-
The discussion centered
on poss1bl) closmg
minor anerials I he
Cit) representatives
vv er-e requested to
revie\v the crossings
vv ithin their jurisdiction
and determine if an)
\\ere candidates for
closure based on traffic
volumes (lo'v\ AD1 s)
The I ask Force
requested both the Cit)-
of Los Angeles and the
Cit) of Long Beach to
perform a stud:- and
recommend if an: Len
!"urns could be
eliminated. Long
Beach mentioned that it
\\Ould increase Left
Turn demands at other
intersections'' hilc also
increasing the amount
of U-turns.
----
,----
Task Force
Recommendations
See Cit: of l A
CO!lllllellb.
See Cit) of LA
comments.
Proposals
-+-
"-
1--1 f lrD Blanh.-
out
I
TP in
'Street-
running
Location LPRR
--.--& __ -
-!-
"v1Id-
corndor
nossmgs
V.Ith
parallel
streets
Street
ntnnlri!!
1-- --t-;::-;- -l -'-
16 I S lo\\ order \II id-
at l-ar-s1de
'itations
( OITldOI
A TT ACHl\'IE:\'T A
TASK FORCE RECO:vJ:viE:"iDATIO:"iS
LB Comments/LADOT Comments
(underlined)
:vlotorists would be forclj to drive
additional distances to accc2.0 the
other side of the tracb. The c::.ill_ of
L.A. is still willim: to consider
proposals if the) are _pr(JVLded.
the Cit) of Long Beach is general!:
supportive of such signs f(x turn
restrictions that var) b; time orb;
da).
The City of L.A. CUITenti) has
protected left turns at most crossings
and LED blank-out for rit:ht
turns at the remainder of
along the Blue Line.
1
[hc traffic 2} 'tcm 1s not
(je,it:ned for interface '' ith A II'
lj\QQ r docs interfacing
the traffic sit:l_la_l Sl*ln tQ Jll_; :\ T P
S) slem Qg(:t() g_pcrat1ona I and
liahi_l_ill._ concerns
objections
9
CPLC Comments Task Force Discussion Task Force
Recommendations
The tash. force agreed
to implement this safet)
enhancement.
The CPUC ash.ed
v. hether Automatic
Train Protection (ATP)
could be interfaced \\ ith
the bar-signaling
system. Staff explained
that it is not feasible
since trains could block
intersections.
fhe CPl'C ash.ed
'' hether train speeds
could be reduced on
approach to far-side
stations. Staff
informed them that it
has aiiead) been in
effect at mid-corridor
stations.
Install blanh. out signs
''here applicable
-
Wa:side signal., \viii
conduct an anal\ siS to
detem1ine the teasibiiit)
of this nwasure and
provide a \\hite paper" .
Completed
_j


17 Passive Fine Y11d-
amount
signs at
grade
crossings. rei
ocate " DO
t\'01
ENTI::R
when lights
and bells are
active" s i !!.ns
I

18 I Vehicle
I (0\\-
I Catcher
I
I
I
I
(_ omdor
+-
1
h-9traintin -end -
I ofraJ!Cars
I
with
retlectJ v e
paint
. I
20 Wayside
I Ho;lb
t
UPRR Comments
T-
ATTACH:YIENT A
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIO:\TS
LB Comments/LADOT Comments
(underlined)
',_()
_in be_QoJ](C Ill
coo [Jera ti_o_tUiith_l _A DOT.
- +----
CPUC Comments

-- -l-
l._ ---
10
T T;skForce Discussion-T Tash. Force
Recommendations
rhe Task Force Install the recommended
recommended the
mstallation of passive
signs sho\\ ing the
dollar amount of the
fine for violating grade
. .
cross mg warn mg
devices. Also. the task
force recommended the
relocation of some
warning signs to reduce
signs at mid-corridor
crossings and relocate
signs onto a separate post
sign clutter. _j
The UPRR suggested Staff researched "co\\ i
that the Task Force
1
catcher guard in front of
evaluate the utilization the vehicle and couldnt
of a cow-catcher as a find any examples as such
means to mitigate and doubt can be done to
pedestrian deaths I the MBL neet because of
resulting from our coupler mounting
traintped. Accidents. location and protrusion
from anti-climber. The
The Task Force
discussed the
possibilit; ofpainting
rail cars \\ ith renectivc
1
materials to increase
train visibilit). As is
done in a lot of
European l ransit
+- Properties .
The CPUC suggested
that Metro tests
Wayside Horns at its
1
couplers also have lateral
SV\ ing to accommodate
curves on the main line.
Due to the large
\\ indshield and limited
1
surface area on the front
ofrail cars. Rail
Operations deemed this
proposal as non-effective
+-
Proposal to be evaluated
1
by Wayside Systems.
_l__
-;
Location LPRR
_ ___,.w
' +- - -- Ls+
p for Left
Turns. and
Cross-traffic
23 I Pre-emption
Destgn
Evaluatwn
24 E-nhanced
ltghtmg at
crossmgs
+ ---
2 Reopen I: ast
to
the Artesta
Statton
_j_
+
-
----
ATT ACHME:\'T A
TASK FORCE RECOMYIE:\DA TIO:\S
----
LB Commcnts/LADOT Comments CPLC Task Force Discussion Task Force
(underlined)
-----
+---
!
I

1 1
grade crossings to
enhance audible
warnings for both
\ eh ic les and
Rccom
-l
pedestrians. _ ___j
The Task Force Corporate Safet) \\ill
discussed e\panding pursue a trial installatton
the recent!) approved at 2 street-running and 7
gold Line application mid cotTidot
b) the FAHWA to subject to rHWA
initiate trial
1
approvaL
installations on the
MBL
Concerns relating to
signal timing and
vehicle storage \\ere
discussed at the
intersection of WardiO\\
and Pacific.
The !ask Force
discussed the
possibilit; of enhancing
I ighting at grade
crossings to provide
train operators with
better visibilit) at
intersections.
A meeting \\'as held at
the Artesia Station and
a path fon\ ard tO\\ ards
reopening the station
was proposed.
The design evaluation
\\iII be done b) the Cit)
of Long Heach l 1 affic
______j
I
I
Division on grade
crossings such I
Wardlow. I
Proposal to be evaluated l
b: Wayside S)stems. !
Schedule a meeting '' ith
\tletro. The Casino. the
Cit) of Compton. and
Director Ridle)-Thomas
office to pursue options
available.
J
ATTACHMENT 8
COST ESTIMATES
FY13-FY15 lrnplernentat1on
Ped/SVilng Gates. ln-Roadvv"ay VVarning Lights (IRWLs)
-Mid-corridor. Crossing Panels. and Sidewalk lrnprovernents
(Detatled breakdovm attached)
FY13 Implementation
\/Vays1de Horn Trial I nstallat1on
LED TRAIN Pedestnan Heads a1 Station Cross'vvalks
1n the Ctty of Long Beach
'LOOK BOTH 1/VAYS' Active Signs
Aud1ble: V\farning Devices
Suicide Prevention Signs
\NAIT HERE Pavement Markings
Passrve Fme Amount Signs
FY14-FY15 Implementation
LED 'TRAIN'' Ped Heads at Pedestrian Crosswalks
Pilot I R\;VLs for Left Turns and Cross-traffic- Street-running
Enhanced Lighting at Grade Crossings
Total
$5.580.000
$ 150,000
$ 100 000
$ 50,000
s 60.000
s 20.000
s 50.000
s 20.000
$ 300.000
$ 250,000
$ 200,000
$6.780,000
I
I
:: ;. I .
I
I
! .b,;,, ' ' ~ ' - ' - ,1,!+ .. ;; .. " . I
.I.
- 'I"'
I
... -;
';;.;,.:.
I ~
,,
.... , '
~ : : -, - : ~ ' " ~ / " " ,;; = " : ~ ~ I
'
I
~ I
:..!
/I
.-_.-:,;
;;.:,;;.::
~ - ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ' ; ' ~ ~ :l ~ : ~ : :
. .I
ATTACHMENT C
Fl'NDING AND EXPENDITURE PLAN
Inception
Through %of
FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Total Total
Des1g n/S pecifica
tions/Const
Mgmt. $ 349,000 $150,560 $ 174,278 $ 208,252 $ - $ 882,090 11 00%
Advert1s1ng $ - $ 5,000 $ - $
-
$ - $ 5,000 0.00%
Construct1on/Re
hab/Renovat1on $ - $727,477 $2,757,669 $2,757,669 $ 255,770 $ 6,498,585 85 00%
Contingency $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ -
$ -
0 00%
Professional
Serv1ces $ - $ 37,500 $ 18,750 $ 18,750 $ - $ 75,000 1 00%
Force Account
Labor $ - $ - $ 121 ' 164 $ 118,161 $ - $ 239,325 3.00%
Total Project
Cost $ 349,000 $920,537 $3,071,861 $3,102,832 $ 255,770 $7,700,000 100.0%
Sources of
Funds
Local Enterpnse
Funds from Pnor
Year $ 349,000 $571 ,000 $ - $ -
s - $ 920,000 12 00%
MeasureR
Metro Ra11 CP
2%
$ - $349,537 $3,071,861 $3,102,832 $ 255,770 $ 6,780,000 88 00%
Total Project
Funding $ 349,000 $920,537 $3,071 ,861 $3,102,832 $ 255,770 $ 7,700,000 100 0%