All of the city managers who would like to have quiet zones through their cities have to build the roads on overpasses to eliminate all the road crossings.
It is much safer than the practice of having the horns not activated, yet still have the grade crossing.
Andrew Falconer (12-25):
“Have to”? I disagree.
Of course, it is not clear what you are trying to say. Repost-saying it another way would be helpful.
At Kearney, NE on Union Pacific triple-track mainline, the key grade crossing goes directly into a downtown area (left), where a grade separation is NOT possible.
Andrew or his CPU may have had a little too much Christmas cheer. Hope he reposts. (missing a hotlink?)
KP: Fortunately, Federal rule trumps local good-'ol-boy rule.
Which if I recall correctly is one of the principal reasons for the FRA developing its ‘quiet zone’ rules…
There are alternatives to ‘the only safe quiet-zone crossing is a grade-separated crossing’ that might be more palatable… or financially/technically possible… to city managers concerned with quiet. One of them, of course, is physically closing crossings. Another would be to provide or legislate statutory immunity for railroads at crossings, and other stretches of track, where a ‘horn ban’ is in effect. (OK, I’m being a bit sarcastic, but that would almost certainly clear up any municipal ‘confusion’ over the relative importance of peace and quiet from important safety provisions…)
It might be remembered that the ICC’s dropping ATC enforcement in 1928 was directly related to shifting cost and emphasis toward better crossing safety. (And even then it was understood that ‘the only good crossing is a dead crossing’ when that was feasible…)
However, there is a new (to me) issue emerging in this discussion, which was pointed out in a NPR radio piece that ran yesterday afternoon. Municipalities can apparently request ‘waivers’ from some of the FRA requirements as part of the application process, and at least one municipality (in the story) was making waivers an important part of their ‘negotiations’ establishing a quiet zone. I would think that ALL parts of the FRA-mandated requirements are, almost by necessity, part of what the FRA’s safety analyses consider a safe and effective alternative to horn signals, and I don’t think I have seen either an analysis or a cogent discussion of the actual safety of a crossing design for which bureaucratic waivers had been secured. Hopefully this is a Chicken Little issue in actual practice.
The Cities will fare much better if they work with the railroads via the State level.
My city has announced that they are trying to get a quiet zone, and the newspaper published an interview with an FRA official. They noted that eliminating whistling at crossings with lights and gates created a 66.8% greater risk of a collision, and that in a Florida test in the 1980s there was a 195% increase in collisions without horns.
The city is looking at costs of up to 6 million for what is actually a pretty short stretch. Surprisingly, there have been few calls for BNSF to bear the cost.
And why should BNSF be expected to bear the cost when it’s not their idea or in their best interest ?
To put it simply, NIMBYism. BNSF plans to double trains through the city, on top of a recent increase, and so most people believe that they “should” pay for the upgrades to counteract the extra noise. Of course, these people don’t care that the tracks have been there since 1891, and that BNSF does not exist to please them. About a year ago, to protest a planned coal export terminal, they tried to get an initiative on the city ballot to ban coal transport through the city… They are the type that moves next to the tracks and then complain about the vibrations. The whole attitude annoys me.
Well, why not ? The railroad wouldn’t be liable then, and likely not the muncipality, either - if not on the basis of statutory / sovereign immunity as a government, then by Federal/ FRA pre-emption, and possibly even as not having had ‘active’ involvement at the moment of any crossing collision that does occur (contributory negligence, acceptance of the risk, last clear chance, etc. might still apply to bar motorist claims, too).
Which would leave the motorist the sole responsible party - in effect, the city will have bargained away any claim that a person absent/ not present and not participating or represented at the negotiations - i.e., the motorists of the community - might have had against the railroad.
Which might be as it should be - and not far from the present state of the law, where a crossing equipped and maintained per FRA standards and funding makes the railroad immune to most claims (without equipment malfunction or maintainer’s mistakes/ errors/ ommissions, etc.).
Is this the NPR radio piece ?
http://www.kunc.org/post/feds-review-train-horn-rule-quiet-zones-2015
A few days ago a Minnepolis TV station had a story about how the volume of BNSF freight trains has increased to 80+ trains a day through the northern suburb of Coon Rapids. The story complained about long waits at grade crossings and congstion created by the passage of trains. They did not blame this upon oil trains. The Fire Chief complained about response times to fires since both of the city’s fire stations are near BNSF trackage. Anoka County built an overpass over the BNSF’s Duluth Line on a heavily traveled county road but other streets still cross the BNSF at grade. This line has around 20+ trains over this single track line; but often times trains are backed up at 121st street in Coon Rapids waiting to enter Northtown. Many of the crossings cannot be made into overpasses simlpy because there will be housing removed to build the overpasses.
It would seem like the Community Leaders in Coon Rapids are skirting the real issues of THEIR Infrastructure not matching current community needs?
This would seem to in some ways hearken back to the Bru-ha-ha that the railroad(MD&E) in Rochester(Mn) suffered with their issues of increasing railroad thru traffic on the MD&E (/CPR?), and Mayo Clinic. I am not sure how that one turned out; it seemed to drop off the news cycle.
It would seem to be one of those which came first arguments,“…The Chicken, or the Egg…”. The railroads were there first in many cases, and the communities grew up around them. It was the community that failed to keep up with the local traffic needs to deal with the increasing railroad traffic ( ie: build over or under passes) as the traffic needs of specific crosssings required for traffic flow).
AS aricat seemed to infer the local probelem has been exacerbated to the point of ‘no solution’
Yes, in downtown Reno the mainline runs through a trench–passengers on board do not see much downtown except the walls of the trench and the station, which does have an elevator as well as a stairway down to the track from street level. The ticket office is on the upper level. I did not make a note of the number of streets that cross the trench any time that I went through Reno since the trench was dug.
Perhaps the various city governments would consider paying to depress the tracks in the places where street traffic is stopped by “too many trains”?
Then the signals and gates at Grade Crossings need to be re-thought to keep drivers and pedestrians completely off the tracks while the train is occupying the right-of-way.
The current grade crossings are viewed as a casual suggestion, not life-or-death warnings that will restrain large vehicals from passing into the train’s path.
There are, of course, four-quadrant gates, and I’ve seen info/pictures on columns that rise out of the roadway to make passage impossible, both to be used at crossings.
That doesn’t address the pedestrians, who seem to be pretty adept at finding ways around the railroad’s attempts to keep them off the ROW (where such attempts are made).
Unfortunately, we have to chalk that up to human nature, especially in today’s rush-rush world, where a delay of even a few seconds is seen as intolerable. Despite repeated warnings that crossing protection is a life-or-death issue, the common driver seems to ignore that fact.
Saw the result of a young man who didn’t want to wait at a blocked crossing. Thinking his big, bad four-wheel-drive pickup would clear the rails, he drove across an open field and tried to drive over the tracks. He got hung up. Fortunately, the crew was switching and not doing 40 MPH.
Yes. I only heard part of the story in the background, and didn’t realize it involved the situation with Mason Street in Fort Collins, which is a somewhat unusual case that, among other things, shows how a legal horn rule can become a problem (I think in the same way that strict “anti-drug” regulations in schools sometimes result in kids being suspended for being caught with evil aspirin tablets in their backpacks). See this story for more on the situation.
Apparently the ‘waiver’ in the story was for the 2005 horn rule, not the quiet-zone provisions… but it took some work to figure that out.
Here is a picture of Story Street in Boone, IA.
http://www.instantstreetview.com/2i087iz1mdm0az30bzs6z2u
It is a quiet zone crossing. Notice anything missing that you usually see at Quiet Zone crossings?
Jeff
PS, the parking lot to the right is the front lot for the UP’s Boone terminal office.
No sign telling street traffic that there is no horn warning sounded?
No quad gates or center lane barriers.
Back in the 80s/early 90s, Conrail had tons of wink-wink, handshake agreements with towns around here for quiet zones. The one town near me had some crossings that led to river access points (ant not much else). They nailed No Trespassing signs below the crossbucks and made them quiet crossings. I don’t understand the logic or legal justification for that, and apparently it didn’t hold up for very long.
Now they are standard crossings, complete with horns.
Jeff,
Look at it in Google earth street view. As you cross 9th St. There is a “No Train Horn” sign under the RR sign on the pole holding the stoplight. Same thing crossing 10th St going south.