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.
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.
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...
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
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
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.
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.”
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.”
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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 “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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The Florida quiet zone legislation did not require anything except for the carriers to stop sounding for crossings. Anecdoteally, I feel the 60% number is low, with just my 'seat of the pants' from working Florida territories during this time frame.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bucyrus What I am hearing is: Nothing can fix the problem, but in case you doubt that, there is no problem that needs fixing.
What I am hearing is: Nothing can fix the problem, but in case you doubt that, there is no problem that needs fixing.
Yes, but you missed one. Whose problem is it to begin with? Should I (taxes) have to pay for 45,000 gates and overpasses because someone doesn't have the intellectual fortitude to operate their motorcarriage in a most safe behaviour?
What do the statistics say? Are there more collisions at quiet zone crossings than at more-or-less equivalent "normal" crossings?
Boulder, CO says that the railroads and the FRA say that quiet zones may increase the likelihood of accidents of crossings. That's a far distance from "will."
In a City of Matteson (IL?) document found on the web, they reported " In 1984, Florida imposed a horn ban and the FRA noted a 60 percent increase in grade crossing accidents." The document does not mention what measures were taken at the crossings (ie, barriers, four-quadrant gates, etc), so while the number is probably accurate, it lacks enough information to make any comparisons to the current situation.
That said, I was unable to find any current information indicating that quiet zones actually do represent a problem, safety-wise.
I stand by my previous post:
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Well yes, I am glad to hear everyone’s viewpoint on this. Being right or wrong is only relative. All we have is our opinions and the power of persuasion. Even technical studies and references are only worth their power to convince people.
But that goes to the larger point about grade crossings. That being what we are discussing here in regard to quiet zones and whether they are more dangerous than normal crossings. I think they are. The U.P. thinks they are. Seemingly most railroaders on other forums think they are as well. The people who say quiet zones are safe are those who represent the noise complainers clustered around the railroad in the cities.
But here, the jury is still out on the matter. Anybody have any thoughts?
The real issue no one want to admit, you cannot fix stupid.
Impatient and in a hurry. I can make it.
I have lost track of how many I have seen, run a railroad crossing, stop signs, pedestrian crossing on streets. The list goes on.
Many videos have been posted in the different railroad forums.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Unfortunately the only foolproof crossing is a grade separation crossing where the road goes under or over the tracks, they majors out here have spent millions digging underpasses at the worst crossings out here to avoid this problem. but this cannot be done at all problem crossings and I'm sure somewhere some idiot went into the underpass, lost control and hit a support pylon and sued the RR for putting that pylon there in the first place.
Have fun with your trains
(So what if their self worth dignity is insulted!)
Phoebe Vet If the flashing lights, ringing bell, and a wooden barricade being lowered across the road are not sufficient notice of the approaching train then the driver is too stupid to be allowed to roam free anyway.
If the flashing lights, ringing bell, and a wooden barricade being lowered across the road are not sufficient notice of the approaching train then the driver is too stupid to be allowed to roam free anyway.
There was a crossing warning sign near Granada Mississippi built by a Mr. Billups that used sirens and flashing neon signs. Here is a link to an animation on YouTube of what it may have been like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGhFHKtDhns
I wonder how well it worked.. (Sure got MY attention!)
See also:
http://depletedcranium.com/railroad-crossings-the-trouble-with-idiots/
for other info.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Methinks it comes down to this: Crossing incidents are a problem (as are many things).
Fixing the problem involves two things: Engineering and Human Behavior.
I don't think anyone will disagree to the idea that grade separation is the ultimate engineering cure. There are many impediments to achieving that goal, the biggest being money.
I also don't think anyone has a clue on how to cure the human behavior aspect.
Given that scenario, all we can hope for is to engineer crossings so as to minimize the side effects of human behavior. But we all know that the usual outcome of making something idiot-proof is to generate a new class of idiots.
That said, and given that both railroads and governments want to reduce/eliminate crossing incidents, I believe that the vast majority of crossings are as good as they need to be.
The bottom line is that just because an incident occurs at a crossing, it doesn't mean that said crossing is defective. Unless a crossing has a documented history of similar incidents, it simply means that somebody found a way around the protections that were built in. Separation notwithstanding, no amount of engineering can prevent such incidents.
Just like that 150 year old oak in your front yard isn't a traffic hazard until somebody finally goes off the road and hits it.
Yes, but there's a difference between something being a "big" problem (based on someone's opinion), and a problem that happens in large numbers or rates.
Railroads are going to say vehicle crashes are a "big" problem. If nothing else it causes huge delays of moving freight - the whole point of the game. Quite frankly, automobiles crashing at intersections or into trees aren't that big of a deal for them (save for the occasional company truck or contractor van).
Here is a very comprehensive report on crossing safety by the U.S. DOT. It certainly seems to me that they regard the crossing problem very seriously, and look for ways to mitigate it. It gives an idea of how much care and attention is given to finding solutions to the crossing problem.
http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/pdfdocs/mh2004065.pdf
Quote from the link:
Motorist behavior caused most public grade crossing accidents. Risky
driver behavior or poor judgment accounted for 31,035 or 94 percent of public
grade crossing accidents and 3,556 or 87 percent of fatalities, during the 10-
year period. With the exception of 22 train passengers and railroad employees,
all of these fatalities were motorists. According to accident reports, motorists
failed to stop at grade crossings or drove around activated automatic gates. Of
the 10 states we visited, only Illinois had passed photo enforcement legislation
to deter grade crossing traffic violations. Further, only 4 of the 10 states we
visited—Illinois, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas—had imposed specific
grade crossing penalties for motorists’ violations. Safety could be improved
with enhanced education, legislation, and traffic enforcement to target motor
vehicle drivers who violate grade crossing safety laws and warnings.
Here is another report titled:
Risk assessment techniques and a new human reliability analysis technique, the Event Window specific to the behavior characteristics at Active and Passive railway grade crossings, how this can assist risk assessment and save peoples lives
http://www.trforum.org/forum/downloads/2005_RailGradeCross_paper.pdf
Like the above report, this one goes miles deep into learning driver attitudes and how to modify those attitudes in order to mitigate crossing crashes.
Regarding comments about my bank robbery analogy:
It was only to reply to zugmann in the context of his comment where he used the same analogy. I don’t understand the points that some are now trying to make of it.
Regarding crash statistics comparing the number of crossing crashes to the number of drivers:
I doubt that any railroad company concludes that grade crossing crashes are not a problem because there are only 2054 of them in a year. Everything I have read about crossing crashes indicates that they are regarded as BIG problem.
Bucyrus zugmann Bucyrus In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case. What do you mean by this? it's like saying banks have an unusual magnetism for attracting robberies. Where else are you going to have train-car crashes? Of all types of robberies, it seems that banks have a sort of magnetism for robberies. In that case, we know that the explanation is that banks are relatively lucrative robbery targets. I believe that there is also an explanation for the magnetism of grade crossings attracting crashes.
zugmann Bucyrus In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case. What do you mean by this? it's like saying banks have an unusual magnetism for attracting robberies. Where else are you going to have train-car crashes?
Bucyrus In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case.
In a very general sense, I perceive that grade crossings seem to have an unusual magnetism for attracting crashes. So I ask why that is the case.
What do you mean by this? it's like saying banks have an unusual magnetism for attracting robberies. Where else are you going to have train-car crashes?
Of all types of robberies, it seems that banks have a sort of magnetism for robberies. In that case, we know that the explanation is that banks are relatively lucrative robbery targets. I believe that there is also an explanation for the magnetism of grade crossings attracting crashes.
Trailer courts attract tornadoes.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BucyrusOf all types of robberies, it seems that banks have a sort of magnetism for robberies. In that case, we know that the explanation is that banks are relatively lucrative robbery targets.
Two percent of all robberies are of banks.
Six percent are of convenience stores...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.