There is a way to prevent crossing accidents-separation of the rail line with a bridge or underpass. This takes many $$ and the question comes up who pays. Of course there are problems with overpasses. A few years ago there was an accident where the highway bridged the rail line in England, a country where most of the crossings are grade separated. A car pulling a cmping trailer went crazy and the trailer dropped from the overpass on to the tracks. A minute later an Intercity 125 came through and resulted in a major accident with several deaths. The answer is to have the rail line to go over the highway to prevent this type of accident, however the bridge owned by the railroad adds a significant maintance expense. Nothing is perfect!
ccltrains There is a way to prevent crossing accidents-separation of the rail line with a bridge or underpass. This takes many $$ and the question comes up who pays. Of course there are problems with overpasses. A few years ago there was an accident where the highway bridged the rail line in England, a country where most of the crossings are grade separated. A car pulling a cmping trailer went crazy and the trailer dropped from the overpass on to the tracks. A minute later an Intercity 125 came through and resulted in a major accident with several deaths. The answer is to have the rail line to go over the highway to prevent this type of accident, however the bridge owned by the railroad adds a significant maintance expense. Nothing is perfect!
And are we going to bridge every industrial track that crosses an alley? Even when that industrial track may see 4 trains a month in the wee hours of the morning?
It's hard to come up with real solutions when one of the biggest variables in the equation is human behavior. People are strange. I've approached crossings where the people stop immediately when lights start flashing and gladly wait as you go by, while other times at the exact same crossing, same time of day, people don't even have the common courtesy to flip you off as they blow right through the crossing as you are laying on the horn.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann 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).
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).
I agree that if you prevent drivers from going around the lowered gate, they will not bust through it as an alternative. So yes, adding the features to prevent going around the gate does fully compensate for removing whatever role the horn had in preventing drivers from going around the lowered gate. In fact, it might more than compensate for removing the horn.
But as I have said, there are more crash causes besides a driver going around the lowered gate. And the horn also plays a role in preventing those crash causes. And yet, there are no extra features added to a quiet zone that compensate for the removing the role of the horn in those crash causes. So there has to be a loss of safety for taking the role of the horn away from those crash causes.
HOWEVER, it may be that adding the barrier to driving around the gate adds more safety than the amount of safety that is lost due to eliminating the role of the horn in preventing those other types of crash causes.
In considering that, I guess there is no way to logically deduce an answer to the thread title question. One would have to quantify the risk and danger of all the causes as well as their frequency. One cannot just tally which risk causes have been removed or remain, because they produce differing quantities of risk and the quantities are practically undiscoverable.
Furthermore, I don’t think the question could be answered even by empirical data from actual crossings. I can’t see how one could practically collect the data on an apples-to-apples basis. It would require a grand experiment of comparing identical crossings; one quiet and one not; with identical train traffic and road traffic. And even then, it would have to be a massive sampling to get a clean average.
So, to the question: Are quiet zone crossings more dangerous than regular crossings?
I conclude that the answer is: Nobody knows.
The Union Pacific answer is: They believe quiet zone crossings are more dangerous than regular crossings.
The FRA answer is: Quiet zone crossings may be more dangerous than regular crossings.
Other than that, I find no authoritative assertion whether the two crossing types pose equal danger, or that one is more dangerous than the other.
To me, it is an obvious question to ask whether quiet zones compromise safety because the quiet zone removes the preeminent train warning safety device while implicitly at least, assuring us that it is safe to do so.
It is kind of like one of those high-tech systems that can purify sewer water for drinking.
While the authorities do not seem to provide a direct answer to the question, I find it hard to believe that they have not made that determination by some sort of magnificent mathematical/statistical model. And if they have, I don’t believe it would be possible for an independent party to confirm or refute that conclusion. But it would at least provide a fallback position in case anybody challenges them on the issue.
The following link goes to the FRA analysis of the data from the train horn ban studies we were talking about earlier. This is where the math and science comes in. I would like to see lawyers argue this in court:
Analysis of the Safety Impact of Train Horn Bans at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings: An Update Using 1997-2001 Data
BucyrusFurthermore, I don’t think the question could be answered even by empirical data from actual crossings. I can’t see how one could practically collect the data on an apples-to-apples basis. It would require a grand experiment of comparing identical crossings; one quiet and one not; with identical train traffic and road traffic. And even then, it would have to be a massive sampling to get a clean average.
Empirical research in various fields uses several methodologies besides the experiment.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Bucyrus 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.
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.
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...
Re- the answer to the question, “Are quiet zones less safe than regular crossings?”
It is only my opinion that the question cannot be answered. However, it is also my opinion that the FRA has what they believe is the answer. They must believe that they have the answer, and that the answer is that quiet zones are not less safe; because the rebalancing of risk to compensate the removal of the horn requires knowing that answer to the question.
However, if the FRA has what they believe is the answer that shows no loss of safety for quiet zones, I wonder why they don’t just come out and tell us.
I do find sources of information from local government jurisdictions that are in the quiet zone planning phase, and some of them clearly state that the quiet zones make the crossing safer. Although, this issue can be blurred between public safety and public health. Clearly, a big part of the reason for removing train horns is that the noise damages health. So in that sense, quiet zones are safer.
Getting hit by a moving train that isn’t blowing its horn is far more damaging to your health than the noise from the horn.
23 17 46 11
tree68We also have to watch out for the "Hawthorne Effect," wherein a study subject modifies it's behavior because it knows it's being studied.
That term refers more properly to subjects changing their behavior due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because of any manipulation of independent variables in an experiment. In the case of crossing research, that wouldn't apply because the subjects wouldn't be aware of being measured and this would not be an experiment but a naturalistic correlational study.
One thing I'm not seeing in this discussion is actual statistics on the relative safety (or lack thereof) of FRA compliant quiet zones. As has been pointed out in some of the other posts, FRA believes quiet zones that are established in compliance with its rule are as safe as non-compliant crossings where locomotives sound their horns, and has some fairly intricate statistical measures (all of which predate the rule) purporting to quantify the relative effectiveness of various substitues to horn blowing. Lots of quiet zones were established (or continued) under this rule, and they have now been in place long enough that there should be meaningful statistics as to their actual safety experience before and after the quiet zones were established. I haven't seen any analysis like this. Has anyone else?
One other point. Just based on general principles, I don't usually like to defend FRA. But I'm going to do so here because I'm pretty familiar with the politics of the quiet zone issue. Like it or not, FRA had to come up with a scheme for establishing new quiet zones and continuing existing ones. And they particularly had to come up with a scheme for continuing the existing quiet zones in the Chicago area. If they had not done so, Congress would have repealed the "train horn" statute (49 USC 20153). There's no question this would have happened, and it actually came pretty close to happening (remember that Dennis Hasteart was Speaker of the House at the time, and he was from a Chicago suburb on a major commuter/freight line where trains weren't routinely whistling). Had the statute been repealed, states and localities would have been free to establish quiet zones without any of the safety improvements FRA requires. And you can bet they would have done so far more aggressively than they had in the past, since FRA's activities to implement the statute had made this a high profile issue in local communities across the country.
The bottom line is that the real choice was never between requiring trains to blow horns at virtually all crossings or not. There never would have been a Federal requirement for nearly universal horn blowing - Congress would have repealed the statute if FRA had attempted to impose one. The issue is whether the current scheme is safer than the pre-rule scheme (where states and localities could impose quiet zones without safety oversight or crossing improvements). My gut reaction is that we are far better off with the FRA scheme, as imperfect as it may be, than the realistic alternatives. Sometimes, perfection is the enemy of the good.
schlimm tree68We also have to watch out for the "Hawthorne Effect," wherein a study subject modifies it's behavior because it knows it's being studied. That term refers more properly to subjects changing their behavior due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because of any manipulation of independent variables in an experiment. In the case of crossing research, that wouldn't apply because the subjects wouldn't be aware of being measured and this would not be an experiment but a naturalistic correlational study.
True enough. My thought there is that when first established, a quiet zone is a new traffic pattern and drivers will be more likely to comply. As time goes on and they become more familiar with the whole scheme of things they may well begin to relax their vigilance and perhaps seek out ways to defeat the protections afforded.
While this wouldn't be a true example of the Hawthorne Effect, I believe there would be some similarity.
Falcon48One thing I'm not seeing in this discussion is actual statistics on the relative safety (or lack thereof) of FRA compliant quiet zones. As has been pointed out in some of the other posts, FRA believes quiet zones that are established in compliance with its rule are as safe as non-compliant crossings where locomotives sound their horns, and has some fairly intricate statistical measures (all of which predate the rule) purporting to quantify the relative effectiveness of various substitues to horn blowing. Lots of quiet zones were established (or continued) under this rule, and they have now been in place long enough that there should be meaningful statistics as to their actual safety experience before and after the quiet zones were established. I haven't seen any analysis like this. Has anyone else?
I have not found such information yet. I did find this FRA reference that does indicate that quiet zone crossings must pose no more risk than they would if they were not quiet zones and the horn was sounded:
"The state or local government must demonstrate
through data and analysis that implementation of these measures will
effect a reduction in risk at public highway-rail grade crossings
within the quiet zone (viewing risk in the aggregate rather than on a
crossing-by-crossing basis) sufficient to fully compensate for the
absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn.
For purposes of
this paragraph, risk will be viewed in terms of the quiet zone as a
whole, rather than at each individual grade crossing. The aggregate
reduction in predicted collision risk for the quiet zone as a whole
must be shown to compensate for the lack of a locomotive horn."
It does raise this question however:
Suppose you had a crossing that was not in a quiet zone, and yet it had full roadway gates and divided medians --AND-- the horn was routinely sounded. Now, suppose you wanted to convert that crossing to a quiet zone crossing. According to the FRA, if you remove the horn, you have to add new safety features to compensate for the increased risk due to losing the horn. What could you add to this crossing to compensate for removing the horn?
The answer to Bucyrus' question about how to "compensate" for the horn in order to establish a quiet zone is provided in the FRA rule itself, which provides both the types of improvements that a public authority can choose and their predicted effectiveness rates, see 49 CFR Part 222 Appendices A-B. To my knowledge, the predicted effectiveness rates haven't been changed since the rule was adopted. In other words, they don't reflect actual experience under the rule.
The answer to the question about how to treat "pre-existing" improvements is also answered in the rule, It's a numbers exercise which I won't even attempt to summarize, see 49 CFR Part 222, Appendix A, sec B & C,, Appendix C, sec B & C.
FRA also has a "quiet zone calculator" on its website, which will make many of the calculations for a proposed quiet zone based on grade crossing inventory data and other information provided by the user.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.