seppburgh2 Nice idea, still would not work. Example, this week a double-decker bus "got lost" at a major air-port. Large signs, flashing lights denoted a low overhead bridge for over side tucks and buses. Signs say, make left hand turn now. Bus ran into said bridge and two elderly men on the upper deck were killed. There needs to be a physical barrier which gets us back to the discussion on when the barrier goes down and what kind of warnings to give.
Nice idea, still would not work. Example, this week a double-decker bus "got lost" at a major air-port. Large signs, flashing lights denoted a low overhead bridge for over side tucks and buses. Signs say, make left hand turn now. Bus ran into said bridge and two elderly men on the upper deck were killed. There needs to be a physical barrier which gets us back to the discussion on when the barrier goes down and what kind of warnings to give.
The same thing happened in Syracuse a couple of years ago, only it was a railroad bridge. Signs, flashing lights, the works. Again, the driver was lost, and in that case was concentrating on his GPS, not the road.
One or more died in that incident as well.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Even in quiet zones I feel safer crossing the tracks than I do crossing the street. At least I know the train will not go out of it's way to hit me.
Norm
Acouple of years ago one of the cities in the Metroplex (Dallas-Fort Worth area) requested a short line to implement quiet zones. The railroad would only agree to the quiet zones if the city assumed all responsibility for any accidents. Needless to say the city dropped the idea of quiet zones.
tree68 seppburgh2 Nice idea, still would not work. Example, this week a double-decker bus "got lost" at a major air-port. Large signs, flashing lights denoted a low overhead bridge for over side tucks and buses. Signs say, make left hand turn now. Bus ran into said bridge and two elderly men on the upper deck were killed. There needs to be a physical barrier which gets us back to the discussion on when the barrier goes down and what kind of warnings to give. The same thing happened in Syracuse a couple of years ago, only it was a railroad bridge. Signs, flashing lights, the works. Again, the driver was lost, and in that case was concentrating on his GPS, not the road. One or more died in that incident as well.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Phoebe VetI stand by my previous post: If the flashing lights, ringing bell, and a wooden barricade being lowered across the road are not sufficient notice of the approaching train then I don't see how the train horn adds to safety.
If the flashing lights, ringing bell, and a wooden barricade being lowered across the road are not sufficient notice of the approaching train then I don't see how the train horn adds to safety.
Clearly, we know that removing the horn from the crossing warning causes a higher risk of crashes.
Here is a definitive statistical study on the relative safety of whistle bans, but these are not ones associated with formally established quiet zones. However, this is definitive because it comes from massive anecdotal evidence from the implementation of a widespread whistle ban in Florida:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02690
Take a look at the chapter named, CONCLUSIONS on page 48. Statistics in this chapter indicate a very substantial reduction of safety resulting from whistle bans.
The final comment in that chapter is this:
“These trends give credence to both studies and indicate that whistle bans, whether they are effective 24 hours or nighttime-only, increase the risk of accidents at crossings.”
This question of whether quiet zones are more dangerous than regular crossings has not much occurred to me before. And I can find no informed or definitive answer to prove the answer. That leaves a variety of tentative answers which includes people’s opinions. Most of these opinions sound like they come from people who either work for a railroad of know a lot about them. I would say that maybe 90-95% of those opinions are vehemently opposed to quiet zones because they believe that the lack of a horn makes them more dangerous.
Obviously, the people expressing those opinions believe crossings are a problem for railroads, and that quiet zones exacerbate the problem. And the majority of those opinions include disdain for the people whom they regard as forcing quiet zones upon the railroad companies. Generally that disdain amounts to the feeling that the people opposing train horn noise are classic NIMBYS, and if they don’t like the noise, they should not have move next to the tracks. That entire viewpoint makes perfect sense to me.
Other than opinions, another way to find the answer to the quiet zone safety question would be statistical correlation with non-quiet zones crossings.
I don’t know if there is an informed answer to the question based on statistics. There may not be enough quiet zones to draw a statistical correlation or conclusion yet. Or there may not have yet been enough time to produce sufficient statistics.
Other than statistics and opinions, there is the possibility of a determination from a credible source based on some type of experience or knowledge. One such determination from a credible source is this from the U.P. website:
“Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. While the railroad does not endorse quiet zones, it does comply with provisions outlined in the federal law.”
It is here: http://www.uprr.com/reus/roadxing/industry/process/horn_quiet.shtml
By far, the most obvious credible source would be the FRA with their quiet zone criteria and authority over implementing quiet zones. However, all I find from them that gets close to the answer to the question is the rather understated premise that quiet zones have added safety to balance the loss of safety due the removal of the train horn. Perhaps the FRA does offer a definitive answer somewhere, but I have not seen it. However, I do find a site from the City of Boulder, CO that cites the FRA for a qualified answer to the question as to whether quiet zones are more dangerous than non-quiet zone crossings. It says this:
Do quiet zones increase the likelihood of accidents at railroad crossings?
It is here:
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7853&Itemid=3088#ACCIDENT
Some here have speculated that the statement from U.P. is disingenuous and only intended to shield them from liability. Anything is possible, but I see no reason not to take their rather plain spoken statement to mean what it says. The only question is how they know that quiet zones are more dangerous. They only say that they believe that to be the case.
Bucyrus “These trends give credence to both studies and indicate that whistle bans, whether they are effective 24 hours or nighttime-only, increase the risk of accidents at crossings.”
As noted by BaltACD, the Florida whistle ban did not include any changes to the configuration of crossings. As such any comparison between the Florida situation and current events is basically moot.
Yes, I understand your point, but I did not make such a comparison. I specifically stated that the whistle bans did not include quiet zones.
The point is not moot because it establishes the effect of the horn. Knowing that helps quantify the risk of removing the horn from quiet zones. Therefore, the point is quite germane.
The point is also germane because my comment was a response to someone who does not see how the horn can add safety.
Bucyrus Clearly, we know that removing the horn from the crossing warning causes a higher risk of crashes. Here is a definitive statistical study on the relative safety of whistle bans, but these are not ones associated with formally established quiet zones. However, this is definitive because it comes from massive anecdotal evidence from the implementation of a widespread whistle ban in Florida: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02690 Take a look at the chapter named, CONCLUSIONS on page 48. Statistics in this chapter indicate a very substantial reduction of safety resulting from whistle bans. The final comment in that chapter is this: “These trends give credence to both studies and indicate that whistle bans, whether they are effective 24 hours or nighttime-only, increase the risk of accidents at crossings.”
Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I would assume that the study from 1995 is still valid. It comes from a very large amount of input data. The distraction devices you mention are more prevalent today, but I would expect that to make the lack of the train horn more dangerous.
Clearly, those devices are distracting to drivers, distraction is a big factor in crossing crashes, and the train horn’s sole purpose is to break people out of distraction. So it seems reasonable to conclude that the lack of a train horn becomes more dangerous as drivers become more distracted. Thus overall, I conclude that the train horn plays a large part in the prevention of crashes.
For quiet zones, the question is whether the added danger from removing the train horn can be balanced by adding safety in the form of features that make it impossible to drive around the gate.
I don’t see how that balance can be possible because the train horn obviously prevents crossing crash causes other than just those caused by drivers going around the gate. The train horn can prevent causes such as a driver falling asleep, for instance.
I'd like to know how many quiet crossings are passive today. When that 1995 study was done, nearly half of the quiet zone crossings lacked gates, and about half of those lacked lights. I know Conrail had a lot of "handshake agreements" with local municipalities to make quiet crossings (many passive)- and those agreements have long since expired.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
You once again cite the 1995 FRA study, but don't bother or forgot to mention that as a result of that study, new standards for quiet zones were set to correct the previous deficiencies.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann I'd like to know how many quiet crossings are passive today. When that 1995 study was done, nearly half of the quiet zone crossings lacked gates, and about half of those lacked lights. I know Conrail had a lot of "handshake agreements" with local municipalities to make quiet crossings (many passive)- and those agreements have long since expired.
And this is the point I was making.
There can be no comparison between a crossing with passive warnings (or even those with just lights) and today's mandated four-quadrant gates, median barriers, etc, and so on.
A passive or lights-only crossing contains no method of keeping a vehicle off a crossing. If a motorist does not see the lights when they activate, it is up to them to judge whether the train is close enough to dictate that they stop (back to that "amber light" phase again).
A crossing with no lights at all and quiet to boot is like standing around a corner with a baseball bat whacking passersby. I'd be amazed if there wasn't an increase in collisions.
Yes, now that I look at it closer, that 1995 report may be bogus and pushing an agenda. I would have to print it out and carefully assimilate it to have any idea of what it is saying in the big picture. In trying to assimilate it, I get the feeling that it is blowing an incredible amount of smoke intended to prevent its assimilation. I just cannot weed through page after page of conditions and stipulations piled up one atop the other. Every sentence takes off and goes in about eight different directions. What it needs is to show the accident reduction for each crossing type. Maybe that is in there somewhere, but I don’t find it. I would throw it out.
So it leaves the question of the effect of the horn unanswered at least for now.
There is/was(?) one CP line going through Woodstock ON that has on one crossing a small hill that impedes visibility. It just so happened that one night, of course, fog enshrouded, a train was making its way along said ROW and got into a collision with a car that was speeding through the crossing. The crossing, at that time, and still, is one with just crossbucks and flashing lights....I suppose it could be called a passive quiet zone..this particular incident happened way back in the 1970's...no accident happened there since..
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinder There is/was(?) one CP line going through Woodstock ON that has on one crossing a small hill that impedes visibility. It just so happened that one night, of course, fog enshrouded, a train was making its way along said ROW and got into a collision with a car that was speeding through the crossing. The crossing, at that time, and still, is one with just crossbucks and flashing lights....I suppose it could be called a passive quiet zone..this particular incident happened way back in the 1970's...no accident happened there since..
While I will agree that a quiet zone removes a major safety device (the locomotive's horn), a municipality has to jump through a lot of hoops to get one established now. A well-engineered quiet zone can still be reasonably safe. The quiet zone on the CSX Blue Island Sub is well-engineered and it's almost impossible to enter the crossing once the signals have activated. The City of Elmhurst has established a quiet zone on the IC Iowa line, which cuts through residential areas. The crossings are well-protected (no four-quadrant gates but pavement dividers for at least 100 feet on either side of the crossing) and crossing gates have been installed where the Prairie Path crosses the line. It also helps that the line has light traffic. On the other hand, there is no quiet zone on the UP West Line through Elmhurst and extra crossing protection has been installed, especially at the Metra station.
As I have previously explained, I have thrown out the 1995 study. However, it is not needed for the point I am making.
One way to answer the question of this thread title would be with the use of empirical evidence. I do not find any reference to such evidence. Another way to answer the question is with logical deduction. For that method, we need to know the answer to this question:
What does horn blowing accomplish at crossings that have red flashing lights and gates that only block the lane, and no road center barrier? We know that the horn signal contributes safety at this type of crossing because the quiet zone authority tells us that it is true.
Therefore, to answer the question of what the horn blowing accomplishes at the crossing type described above, a determination must be made as to whether the train horn could prevent a collision or injury resulting from the following types of driver behavior:
1) Driver driving around lowered gate.
2) Driver driving straight and trying to beat the lowering gate.
3) Driver asleep.
4) Driver impaired.
5) Driver distracted by a medical condition.
6) Driver distracted by a device.
7) Driver distracted by inattention.
8) Suicide by train.
9) Vehicle stalled on tracks.
With a quiet zone, the horn signal is removed, and to compensate for the resulting loss of safety, new safety features must be added that address item #1 above. There is no requirement to add new features that address items #2-9.
Bucyrus 1) Driver driving around lowered gate. Already discussed - this is a risky behavior and in some cases a thrill for the driver in question. The fact that they are maneuvering around a lowered gate means they are fully aware of the presence of a train approaching the crossing. 2) Driver driving straight and trying to beat the lowering gate. Already discussed - this is a risky behavior and in some cases a thrill for the driver in question. The fact that they are speeding up in order to beat the gate means they are fully aware of the presence of a train approaching the crossing. 3) Driver asleep. Maybe - but the numbers of sleeping drivers is miniscule, compared to... 4) Driver impaired. Fatigued drivers, as well as those impaired by drugs or alcohol. This is a systemic problem, not an engineering problem. Blowing the horn on the locomotive does not make up for a failure in driver responsibility. And it's quite likely the driver won't react appropriately anyhow. In fact, this is the driver who will drive into the side of the train, vs being hit by it. 5) Driver distracted by a medical condition. If they aren't going to see the flashing lights and hear the ringing crossing bell, the locomotive horn isn't going to make a difference. In fact, in most of the incidents I've been to involving a medical problem, the fact that the driver was unconscious was a key factor in the collision. 6) Driver distracted by a device. A problem at stop signs, too. Again, a failure on the part of the driver. The same goes for reading an old-fashioned map. Been out on those, too. 7) Driver distracted by inattention. Ditto. 8) Suicide by train. Why even put this one in? If the person is determined enough to kill themselves, they will find a way. Blowing the horn on the locomotive is simply a message to them that they may be successful. 9) Vehicle stalled on tracks. The warning provided by the horn (15-20 seconds) is the same as that provided by the crossing protection. Maybe even less, especially at a high speed crossing, where the crossing protection is set to begin at a minimum of 20 seconds before the train arrives at the crossing, but the engineer is limited to blowing the horn not more than 1/4 mile from the crossing under normal circumstances (about 12 seconds at 79 MPH). With a quiet zone, the horn signal is removed, and to compensate for the resulting loss of safety, new safety features must be added that address item #1 above. There is no requirement to add new features that address items #2-9.
1) Driver driving around lowered gate. Already discussed - this is a risky behavior and in some cases a thrill for the driver in question. The fact that they are maneuvering around a lowered gate means they are fully aware of the presence of a train approaching the crossing.
2) Driver driving straight and trying to beat the lowering gate. Already discussed - this is a risky behavior and in some cases a thrill for the driver in question. The fact that they are speeding up in order to beat the gate means they are fully aware of the presence of a train approaching the crossing.
3) Driver asleep. Maybe - but the numbers of sleeping drivers is miniscule, compared to...
4) Driver impaired. Fatigued drivers, as well as those impaired by drugs or alcohol. This is a systemic problem, not an engineering problem. Blowing the horn on the locomotive does not make up for a failure in driver responsibility. And it's quite likely the driver won't react appropriately anyhow. In fact, this is the driver who will drive into the side of the train, vs being hit by it.
5) Driver distracted by a medical condition. If they aren't going to see the flashing lights and hear the ringing crossing bell, the locomotive horn isn't going to make a difference. In fact, in most of the incidents I've been to involving a medical problem, the fact that the driver was unconscious was a key factor in the collision.
6) Driver distracted by a device. A problem at stop signs, too. Again, a failure on the part of the driver. The same goes for reading an old-fashioned map. Been out on those, too.
7) Driver distracted by inattention. Ditto.
8) Suicide by train. Why even put this one in? If the person is determined enough to kill themselves, they will find a way. Blowing the horn on the locomotive is simply a message to them that they may be successful.
9) Vehicle stalled on tracks. The warning provided by the horn (15-20 seconds) is the same as that provided by the crossing protection. Maybe even less, especially at a high speed crossing, where the crossing protection is set to begin at a minimum of 20 seconds before the train arrives at the crossing, but the engineer is limited to blowing the horn not more than 1/4 mile from the crossing under normal circumstances (about 12 seconds at 79 MPH).
No, I am not trying to engineer the perfect crossing. And I am not saying that crossings should be made to prevent all the things I listed. I only listed those items to ask how the horn might affect them. It is obvious that the horn could affect all of them.
I am only asking whether quiet zone crossings are less safe than regular crossings. The Union Pacific believes they are. The FRA admits that they may be.
You are dismissing the effect of the train horn on drivers because the drivers have failed to discharge their responsibility. Well sure, but that is beside the point. The larger point is to prevent the collision, rather than just preventing the railroad from being responsible for it. The railroad, by default, is not responsible because the train has the right of way. If that were all that mattered, you would not need anything at a crossing besides a sign that told the driver it was there.
Interestingly, my objection to lack of clarity of the 1995 report conclusion has been addressed in the 2000 report. This is called Updated Analysis of Train Whistle Bans January 2000, and it breaks down the difference made by the train horn for each type of crossing. So after throwing out the 1995 report, I'll take this 2000 report.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02686
Quote from the report:
“The analysis showed that an average of 62 percent more collisions occurred at whistle ban crossings equipped with gates than at similar crossings across the nation without bans. FRA will use this value as the increased risk associated with whistle bans instead of the 84 percent cited in the Nationwide Study of Train Whistle Bans released in April 1995.”
A major lack of clarity in the 2000 report is the term "with gates."
From what I see int he report, the study only addressed three types of warning systems:
Passive
Lights only
With gates (which can probably be assumed to include lights)
Missing are:
Four Quadrant Gates
Median Dividers
And maybe some techniques that slip my mind right now.
I went looking for some information on the "APF," or Accident Prediction Formula.
It's a complicated beast. More than I want to wrap my mind around. The following site has the formulae:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/sec03.htm It dates to 2007.
In the 1995 study, Group D had the highest increase, while the higher risk groups (E-J) actually showed a downward trend, with a couple of the groups showing decreases.
I'd love to see a current study on the relative safety of whistle ban crossings.
Yes, I would love to see such a study too. And you are right that the 2000 report does not offer that insight. But I do find the 2000 report useful in quantifying the added danger from not blowing the horn. That is all I was asking of the 1995 report, but while it found an increase in danger from withholding the horn from a variety of crossings, it did not clarify and difference in effect from one crossing type to another. And as you and zugmann pointed out earlier, if their discovery of added danger from not blowing the horn had all been related only to passive crossings, then the result would have no meaning for the question I was asking.
But now, with their clarification that a lack of horn increased the collisions at gated crossings with flashing lights, we have a base line to say how much safety is removed from such a crossing when the horn is removed for the creation of a quiet zone. Then they only question remaining is to quantify the amount of safety that is added to the crossing by adding full gates or divider medians.
I am sure that the the full gates or divided medians reduce collisions, but I do not believe that they reduce collsions enough to balance the increase of collsions that results from removing the horn. I base that belief on common sense and logic.
There's another problem with all these studies - it is making all humans equal and doesn't account for individual behaviors. A statistical must, I guess, but not very real life-like. For example:
Driver A goes around gates in a quiet zone.
Driver B stops at the gates when a train is blowing its horn.
We can conclude that the horn makes the crossing safer.
--HOWEVER--
Driver B would have stopped at the gates at the quiet zone.
Driver A would have went around the gates even when the train is blowing its horn.
The only way to minimize this would be to have a very large sample size, but most of these studies really don't.
Bucyrus Then the only question remaining is to quantify the amount of safety that is added to the crossing by adding full gates or divider medians.
Then the only question remaining is to quantify the amount of safety that is added to the crossing by adding full gates or divider medians.
And I would maintain that those are huge factors. Too large to ignore. In fact, I would opine that even the 2000 report is hopelessly out of date.
What we need is a comparison of driver behavior and accidents pre-quiet zone and today. This may not be available on a nationwide basis, but may well be available on a crossing-by-crossing basis.
There is no doubt in my mind that a current study of would show less difference in safety between quiet zones and the non-quiet zones than the 2000 study showed between the whistled crossings with lights and gates and the non-whistled version of those types of crossings.
So, yes, a current study would tell us something that the 2000 study does not tell us, and we don’t have a current study.
However, even without the current study, and setting aside the 2000 study; I assume that although the divided median and full gates must make a big difference in reducing crashes, I don’t see how they can possibly fully compensate for the removal of the horn. I come to that conclusion without any empirical statistics from studies.
I come to that conclusion because it seems to me that the horn mitigates more crash causes than just those caused by driving around the gate. I do not believe that my items #2-9 above can be dismissed as not being affected by the horn. They won’t be affected in every occurrence, but they will be affected in some occurrences. The total effect of all of them may be small relative to the effect of driving around the gate. But if there is any effect at all from them, then it must follow that the quiet zone crossings are more dangerous than the non-quiet zone crossings.
BucyrusHowever, even without the current study, and setting aside the 2000 study; I assume that although the divided median and full gates must make a big difference in reducing crashes, I don’t see how they can possibly fully compensate for the removal of the horn. I come to that conclusion without any empirical statistics from studies.
But you are adding a physical barrier instead of just an audible one. Most people aren't going to jump a curb or smash a gate to beat a train. But they will ignore a horn. Again, no empirical statistics, just what I've witnessed.
I think in the end, we are just trying to idiot proof the crossing devices, and to that effect there is no perfect crossing. It's just a matter of how many regulations and how much money we want to throw away at the problem (for both sides - road and railroad).
Bucyrus I am only asking whether quiet zone crossings are less safe than regular crossings.
I am only asking whether quiet zone crossings are less safe than regular crossings.
Hard to add anything worthwhile this deep into the subject; I'll try.
A while back, in forum time, it was said that at 79 mph a train required to start the warning whistle-ing would only be sounding for 12 seconds, no problem. But there was an implication following that whistling was not allowed prior to the 1/4 mile initiating point. Well... "a series of short sounds" was a "warning to any one on or near the track" the rule said, with no specified distance. And, "in case of doubt the safe course must be taken." (Of course if you were sure you were being safe,could you be violating?)
The 1/4 mile specified to start the whistling, the requirement that crossing warning devices be timed to started 20 seconds ahead of crossing occupancy, posed no conflict in the Western Pacific's rule; it said to start the warning 20 seconds before reaching the crossing. Does anybody feel better about riding the CZ when it was the California Zephyr?.....
Many ways to submit a person's travel to grisley slaughter, reffering to the 9 symptoms of suicidal tendencies, might include a more universal deafness defintion than cell phones, texting, earbuds to playlists: a person senior to most may have a diminished ability where noise is signficant.
Re- Are quiet zone crossings less safe than regular crossings?
The more I think about this, I have decided that the answer cannot be determined.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.