Quiet Zone Question

[Falcon48]

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?

 

Because UP obviously does not agree with FRA's view, and that is its perrogative.  There are plenty of things FRA does that railroads do not agree with.

[Falcon48]

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.

 

That is correct.  Neither Union Pacific nor anyone else has to agree with FRA's conclusions, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise - there's plenty of room in this arena for differing opinions. I was simply responding to those who were saying they couldn't understand what FRA did or why it did it, or couldn't find the materials explaining the agency's position.  However, keep in mind that, in formulating railroad regulations, it is ultimately FRA's opinion that counts, for better or worse.

[edblysard]

Because people do stupid things around trains, like put beds on trestles and shoot movies without the railroad permission, or drive blindly through and around gates, ignoring all the devices, including stops signs, yield signs , advance flashing yellow or red signs, warnings painted on the roadway in ten foot letters hundreds of yards before the crossing, or walking in the middle of the tracks with their Ipad cranked up and ear buds in…..because UP understands that no matter how many devices, what type of devices and barricades, someone will manage to get around it somehow, and because UP, unlike some of the posters here, understands completely that trains can’t stop, and if it hits you, the odds are great you will die.

To quote Linda Morgan, “the only safe grade crossing is the one that isn’t there”….

By the way, the FRA report is 14 years out of date and the numbers are no longer valid.

Get current numbers and use them.

 

 

 

Wanswheel, you are absolutely correct, that’s why they made and continue to make that statement.

 

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.

 

 

 

[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.

[wanswheel]

God forbid something awful happens in a UP quiet zone, they can say, wasn’t our idea.

[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?

[wanswheel]

Whistle ban = 'pre-rule' quiet zone

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0629

Requirements for quiet zones

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e0f444a10d38c4f1ca9f7e93849d9d0b&node=se49.4.222_135&rgn=div8

[Falcon48]

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

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-27/pdf/05-8285.pdf

 

Finally, there is no difference between a "quiet zone" and a  "whistle ban".  "Quiet zone" is simply a name FRA came up with for a whistle ban established under the Part 222 train horn rule. 

[Euclid]

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.    

 

[erikem]

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.

I was amused reading about the discussions between the city of Calsbad, CA and the AT&SF, later NCTD about setting up quiet zones. The talks broke down because the city wanted the railroad to assume lliability for the quiet zone and the railroad wanted the city to assume liability. Seems to me if the city thought the quiet zones would be safe, then they would have no problem in assuming liability.

 

N.B. These discussions were taking place a couple of years after two women were killed by a northbound AT&SF freight in Del Mar when they were rushing to get to the other side assuming it was the NB Amtrak train they were trying to catch.

 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.

 

 

If the cameras demonstrated a pattern of people tresspassing, could the railroad in quesion use that against the city or other appropriate government agency?

 

- Erik

 

[BaltACD]

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.

[Euclid]

.

[zugmann]

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.”

 

Call and ask them.  How would we know?

[Euclid]

Ed

I have not attempted to prove a claim, so I had no intention to “cite a source.”  I am just showing the range of opinion on the topic of whether quiet crossings are made more dangerous by the elimination of routine horn blowing. 

wanswheel,

Thanks for posting that link, but that does appear to be a study on the so-called “horn bans” which I believe are different than quiet zones.  What I would like to see is some definitive position by the FRA on the question I that have posed about quiet zone safety. 

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.”

[Overmod]

wanswheel

Updated Analysis of Train Whistle Bans - January 2000

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02686

 

Or this, from 2003 (using 1997-2001 data)...

 

Mike, you're the expert ... can you find anything in the FRA e-library or Research Reports regarding 'quiet zone' safety that's newer than 2003?  Surely there's something objective that has come out of the last decade-plus of experience with QZs...

 

Of course, the railroads don't like them, because they know attorneys will be itching to fine them when the engineer 'should' have blown the horn, but municipalities will be itching to fine them when he or she 'shouldn't'. 

 

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.

 

Why there is this ongoing discussion over something that was essentially a straw-man sort of argument in the first place, I'm not sure.  Seems to me the situation goes something like this:

 

QZ ordinance says 'don't blow horns in a quiet zone'.  It prescribes penalties for people who do.

 

GCOR and other rules say 'don't blow horns -- unless in your sole judgment there is an emergency'.

 

Citizens, or enforcement personnel, or whoever, who are annoyed by horn-blowing in quiet zones can file a complaint under the ordinance.  This will likely result in a citation or notice (with the date and time of the 'offense') being sent to the railroad in question, with the matter set to be heard in municipal court on such-and-such a date.

 

Railroad will have internal hearings, probably involving the engineer concerned explaining why he 'in his sole judgment' blew the horn.  Then the railroad will make some arrangement for legal representation to meet with the prosecutor, etc., either to pay for the infraction or have the matter dismissed.  If there turns out to be internal discipline required for violation of the horn rule... that's a matter between the carrier and the engineer.  I'd presume there would be discipline involved if the 'offense' were repeated with any particular frequency, etc.* -- if that satisfies the question that Keeps Getting Asked Here; 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.

 

I'll be happy to provide a more detailed procedural explanation, from one of our local municipalities with a QZ ordinance, if Certain Persons continue to dispute the idea and still need more facts.

 

*Note that I don't discuss what happens if a given railroad just pays any QZ violations it happens to receive, just as a matter of routine, then conducts internal discipline that's nobody's business but theirs.  I happen to think it's in a railroad's best interest to cut down on unnecessary QZ-ordinance fines, but also in its best interest to support an engineer's judgment whenever it's justifiable.  (But that and 50 cents would get me a ride on the Staten Island ferry, as folks used to say in New York.)

 

 

[wanswheel]

Updated Analysis of Train Whistle Bans - January 2000

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02686

[edblysard]

Wow, an opinion editorial piece being used as a cited "offical source…..no bias there of course, and fun with the new math included!

[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.”

*******************************

 

Here is a quote from an article that takes the opposite position:

http://gallupjourney.com/2012/12/why-you-are-wrong-about-a-train-quiet-zone/

“A common misconception is the belief that if the trains no longer blew their horns in a Quiet Zone it would make our downtown crossings even more dangerous. 

The FRA and federal government, however, aren’t so stupid to simply let communities increase their risk. It is, of course, just the opposite. To create a Quiet Zone, the city must improve the crossings with supplementary safety measures that MUST make the risk assessment lower than the crossing was with the horns blowing.”

*******************************

 

The following reference is all over the Internet, but I cannot find the actual FRA report that it mentions.  It also may be confusing the issue with whistle bans which are different than quiet zones.  The reference statement:

“But as quiet zones sprung up all over the country, safety concerns emerged. A January 2000 study by the Federal Railroad Administration found a 62-percent increase in accidents at crossings where train horns were banned.”