1) Makes a crossing more dangerous than if there were no quiet zone.
2) Makes a crossing less dangerous than if there were no quiet zone.
3) Leaves the danger the same as without a quiet zone.
23 17 46 11
wanswheel Updated Analysis of Train Whistle Bans - January 2000 http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02686
EuclidI would also like to know why the U.P. believes what they say about quiet zones. It is interesting that they don’t cite a source either, but only base their position on their “belief.”
Call and ask them. How would we know?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
.
Euclid I would also like to know why the U.P. believes what they say about quiet zones. It is interesting that they don’t cite a source either, but only base their position on their “belief.”
I suspect their 'belief' is based upon their internally developed statistical analysis of their own incidents over a period of time.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Overmod And municipalities want to prove the crossings are 'as safe' without the horns being blown ... whether or not it can be shown how much of the expensive gate, camera, enforcement, and other stuff has to be put in for that to be objectively true ... for comprehensible reasons of their own.
And municipalities want to prove the crossings are 'as safe' without the horns being blown ... whether or not it can be shown how much of the expensive gate, camera, enforcement, and other stuff has to be put in for that to be objectively true ... for comprehensible reasons of their own.
on the other hand, I'd expect the outside-facing cab cameras to be very effective in proving or disproving many kinds of 'emergency' that would justify sole-judgment use of the horn.
Of the three possible answers that I listed in the OP, I have seen a lot of reference to #3 being the answer, but how this is determined is usually not entirely clear. The point that is always emphasized is that creating a quiet crossing costs a lot of money. The premise seems to be that you get less horn noise for a price in terms of money. I don’t believe that I have ever seen any of these references say that there is also a price in terms of reduced safety. Union Pacific is the only one I have heard says that.
So it is an interesting question. I tend to believe that U.P. is correct. But then that means that most quiet zone proposals are sweeping the increased danger under the carpet. That seems hard to believe.
Right now there are two active threads dealing with quiet zones (this one and "Silenced automobile crossings"), and I'm not sure why.
With respect to the question in several of the posts about where to find the "FRA report" that requires communities wanting quiet zones to improve crossings with supplementary safety measures, the "report" is actually the FRA rule, 49 CFR Part 222, which makes this requirement explicit. The only thing I would add is that "supplementary safety measures" aren't required if the crossing risk post quiet zone is less than the risk level of of an index called the "National Significant Risk Threshold" (NSRT).
If anyone wants to read the gory details of what it takes to establish an FRA quiet zone, see 49 CFR 222, Appendix C ("Guide To Establishing Quiet Zones") at the following web address:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title49-vol4/pdf/CFR-2013-title49-vol4-part222-appC.pdf
In addition, the preambles to the FRA "interim" and "final" versions of the train horn rule (2003 and 2005, respectively), have extensive discussion of "whistle ban" safety and how FRA planned to prevent federal quiet zones from reducing safety. You may agree or disagree with this discussion, but at least you can understand what FRA thought about the subject and was trying to do. See the following web addresses:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2003-12-18/pdf/03-30606.pdf
Falcon48,
Thanks for that information. I looked at Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Parts 222 and 229
Without assimilating the whole document, I see that on page 92, there is discussion on controlling the risk of quiet zones. I gather that it is considered to be possible for the risk to not be increased when converting a grade crossing to a quiet zone.
I quote this from the link on page 92:
“The rule’s intent is to make the quiet zone as safe as if the train horns were sounding. If this is accomplished, the public authority may designate the crossings as a quiet zone and need not be concerned with possible fluctuations in the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold or annual risk reviews.”
So if the intent is to add a quiet zone without increasing the risk, and if this is possible and achieved; then why is Union Pacific saying they believe that quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public?
Just because the FRA (or other entity) believes that a study on a particular grade crossing says that there is no increase in risk does not mean that Union Pacific (or any other entity) must believe the same thing. We (and that includes corporations) are entitled to believe what we want about any studies that are made. Some will think there was a bias in some study and some will think the study was flawed in some maner, thus each will draw their own conclusions from the data and may or may not agree with any conclusions made by anyone else.
If U.P. says they believe that "quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers and the general public", that is their right, as is your right to agree or disagree with them. I am sure that they have access to the exact same data as anyone else and are just interpreting in according to their biases.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper Vaporo Just because the FRA (or other entity) believes that a study on a particular grade crossing says that there is no increase in risk does not mean that Union Pacific (or any other entity) must believe the same thing. We (and that includes corporations) are entitled to believe what we want about any studies that are made. Some will think there was a bias in some study and some will think the study was flawed in some maner, thus each will draw their own conclusions from the data and may or may not agree with any conclusions made by anyone else. If U.P. says they believe that "quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers and the general public", that is their right, as is your right to agree or disagree with them. I am sure that they have access to the exact same data as anyone else and are just interpreting in according to their biases.
Euclid Falcon48, Thanks for that information. I looked at Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229 Without assimilating the whole document, I see that on page 92, there is discussion on controlling the risk of quiet zones. I gather that it is considered to be possible for the risk to not be increased when converting a grade crossing to a quiet zone. I quote this from the link on page 92: “The rule’s intent is to make the quiet zone as safe as if the train horns were sounding. If this is accomplished, the public authority may designate the crossings as a quiet zone and need not be concerned with possible fluctuations in the Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold or annual risk reviews.” So if the intent is to add a quiet zone without increasing the risk, and if this is possible and achieved; then why is Union Pacific saying they believe that quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public?
In response to Wanswheel, we're saying the same thing. Prior to the FRA rule, government imposed "no whistle" restrictions were commonly called "whistle bans". These were imposed by state or local governments, not FRA. I'm not aware of any of these pre-FRA restrictions being called "quiet zones". The "quiet zone" tag is introduced in the FRA train horn rule.
edblysard [Excerpt] Again, you will not find a member of railroad management that will order an engineer to not sound the whistle, it leaves them liable if something happens.
EuclidPlease; I never said that U.P. did not have the right to their opinion. If you read carefully, you will see that I actually said that I tend to agree with them. I only asked what they based it on.
Reading between the lines, they base it at least partly on what is essentially CYA: if anyone tries to sue them for an accident in a QZ they're on record as unconditionally opposing their safety, but going along with the Government edicts. Keep in mind that indemnity agreements may violate State constitutions (they do in Texas, for example) and that FRA was thinking of prohibiting them, but did not do so in the final rule, saying that this was a matter for state law. At present, I think the law is still undecided about what happens if a municipality fails to enforce crossing intrusions 'strictly enough' to prevent accidents; about the best I can see is that "suit will most likely be filed to determine the legal answer" -- in other words, it's a crapshoot and the Union Pacific (and other railroads) would want to make their position as firmly and unambiguously as possible in that sort of situation.
Some of the details available in this page from Union Pacific may help in demonstrating UP's intentions, and establishing a basis for SSMs and ASMs that are required or advisable in a particular QZ project. Note sections 9 and 11 of the downloadable "Quiet Zone Warning Devices Agreement".
Seemingly, this whole argument ["Quiet Zones"] fall under the category of " Rish Management".
The trend for a number oif years has been growing in the Transportation Industry: Not many Coporate Management types want to be blind-sided by comments made in the field by someone who gains "Company Spokesperson" Status in a media interview ( or some prefer: Ambush) on the scene of an incident; status gained by simply wearing a shirt with a corporate logo, or desgnated, and required work clothing.
Such film segments seem to gain a life of their own, and can come back to haunt a Court preceeding. An innocent remark can be 'spun' in Court to demonstrate or show something totally not intended in the original circumstance.
Such reasoning is why many companies do not allow their own employees to be on the scene of an incident (accident). Such that an errant statement to a media person could be interpreted as a Corporate Policy, and repeted in a Curtroom under questioning, ruin the situation, and it's outcome for the involved parties. Many Companies have professiional, corporate risk managers. Those organizations that will be on the scene of an incident, and deflect the media attention, who are authorized in some cases to speak for a Company, and to also write checks to the injured parties (checks when signed, are 'hold harmless' statements of liability release).
The Companies that contract to perform Corporate Rish(k) management, are all focused on the goal of protecting a Corpration in a potential legal action. The most recent ncident of the MM&A's 'Lac Megantic Train Wreck' could be sited as an example of adverse risk management, as well as a corporate environment that was not prepared for anything of that kind of magintude to their operations.
samfp1943Seemingly, this whole argument ["Quiet Zones"] fall under the category of " Rish Management".
I have to ask: Is that using Larry Niven's definition of 'rish'?
Euclid This is the question that has no answer. Which of the following does a quiet zone result in? 1) Makes a crossing more dangerous than if there were no quiet zone. 2) Makes a crossing less dangerous than if there were no quiet zone. 3) Leaves the danger the same as without a quiet zone. The Union Pacific RR says this: “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.”
So contact up and ask them.
As edblysard said, the only way to make crossings safe is to eliminate them. People are too stupid to be allowed to cross the tracks in an automobile. Last week, I was riding the light rail here in Charlotte. The train came to a dead stop and sat there blowing the horn. I stood so I could see out the front window where I observed TWO automobiles that were stopped INSIDE the crossing gate, waiting for the train to pass.
That crossing, incidentally, was created during the construction of the Blue Line. A parallel road was reconfigured so that just the southbound lane crossed over the tracks and after a couple of hundred yards, crossed back. Someone apparently thought the station needed to be in the middle of the road.
http://binged.it/1zUH7z3
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.