Many who live along the FEC ROW are complaining about the additional horn noise AAF will bring when they add their trains to the mix with the freights. By law, the owner of the road crossing the railroad has to pay for any upgrades to reach "quiet zone" status. The first estimate has come in and people are looking under the federal mattress for the hidden dollars.
Per the SunSentinel:
Price tag hits $40 million for quiet zones on FEC railroad in Broward, Palm Beach counties
By Angel Streeter, Sun Sentinel
11:59 a.m. EDT, April 20, 2014
A couple of times a week, Steve Stahl is startled out of his sleep by a train horn.
The Fort Lauderdale resident lives just two blocks from the Florida East Coast Railroad where freight trains rumble down the tracks 10 to 20 times per day, he estimates. The series of horn blasts train engineers are required to blow at crossings can be heard day and night.
So Stahl and the hundreds of thousands like him who live near the tracks are worried about the repercussions to their sleep patterns when passenger trains start running on the FEC in less than two years.
"I can't imagine what it's going to be like with All Aboard Florida coming through," he said. "It's a big plus for Florida but it's a nuisance."
All Aboard Florida will run 32 passenger trains a day between Miami and Orlando. Silencing those train horns will cost $23.4 million in Palm Beach County and $17.1 million in Broward County.
That's the price tag for adding extra safety features at railroad crossings so quiet zones can be established along the FEC corridor. Those extra safety features could include new gates, lights or raised medians at 67 crossings in Broward and 115 crossings in Palm Beach.
Cities would normally bear the cost since they are responsible for maintaining railroad crossings. But the high cost has transportation officials in both counties scrambling to find other ways to pay for the quiet zone infrastructure.
The Palm Beach and Broward Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the counties' transportation planning agencies, have teamed up to seek a federal rail safety grant for $20 million.
To promote their cause, a contingent of elected officials from both counties went to Washington, D.C., earlier this month to show just how much the quiet zones are needed.
"A major portion of the population of Southeast Florida is affected by this," said Nick Uhren, Palm Beach MPO's executive director.
But even if the two counties win the grant, it won't cover the full cost of the quiet zone expenses. The grant requires the locals to pitch in some of their own cash.
So far, the Palm Beach MPO has allotted $6.6 million for safety improvements. The Broward MPO has set aside $2.5 million. But both agencies are looking to provide more — up to $8.5 million total from Broward and up to $11 million from Palm Beach.
They are working with the Florida Department of Transportation to increase local funding.
"We need everyone's money and commitment to get this done," Uhren said.
Trains horns along the FEC have been a problem for years, and the incessant noise should have been stopped years ago, said Steve Gratz, a part-time Highland Beach resident.
"Every couple of hours the horns explode all night as if they were in your bedroom," he said. "Trying to get a decent night's sleep is almost impossible if you like to breathe fresh air with your windows open."
The noise reaches 110 decibels, akin to a power saw or a live rock concert.
Even without the extra passenger trains, more freight trains are coming to the tracks. The state has made major improvements to all South Florida ports in preparation for bigger ships coming because of the expansion of the Panama Canal.
So the quiet zones have become a necessity, Uhren said. His concern is if federal and state money don't come through, only larger cities will be able to foot the bill for quiet zones.
"Those that can't pay for it will be left out," he said.
Those people should come up here and live in San Marco. Those FEC/CSX interconnect trains going 5 mph blow their horns constantly for 10 minutes coming through the neighborhood. Not that big of a deal.
I guess the rich folk don't want a bit of noise. They won't be happy until they make it too expensive to operate the trains.
If you don't like trains, don't move near tracks. I would guess the tracks have been there a very long time.
The tracks haven't been there that long. Just since the late 19th century but who's counting? ;)
Quote from: mbwright on April 21, 2014, 08:22:31 AM
I guess the rich folk don't want a bit of noise. They won't be happy until they make it too expensive to operate the trains.
If you don't like trains, don't move near tracks. I would guess the tracks have been there a very long time.
The tracks have been there for a long time but the requirment that trains blow their horns 4 times at each crossing hasn't been around that long. The number of trains has also increased. Anyhow, a quite zone is needed and all new crossing in the state should be required to be built as quite zones. A quite zone through San Marco should also be a top priority.
The number of trains have actually decreased over the last half century while the population living adjacent to tracks throughout the state has increased. The situation with the quiet zones is that this is an expense that should be covered by local communities (who can't afford it) and not the railroad. Thus, the ultimate problem.
Quote from: Kerry on April 21, 2014, 09:38:20 AM
Quote from: mbwright on April 21, 2014, 08:22:31 AM
I guess the rich folk don't want a bit of noise. They won't be happy until they make it too expensive to operate the trains.
If you don't like trains, don't move near tracks. I would guess the tracks have been there a very long time.
The tracks have been there for a long time but the requirment that trains blow their horns 4 times at each crossing hasn't been around that long.
Guess that is subject to what you'd call a long time??? The whistle came about in 1832, the first suggestions that it be made law were likewise in 1832, and the current codes standardized in 1880-90. Long before the FRA came about there was the I.C.C., and they generally told the railroads how the cow ate the cabbage, to the brink of extinction. The more recent codes which you might be referring to date to the work rules reform in the deregulation era. Firemen and Flagman as well as the caboose largely became a thing of history, rooftop running boards and hand set brakes on each freight car went out 50 years or so after air brakes, and automatic couplers and many of the old codes were dropped.
One of the oldest, if not the oldest, and almost universal around the globe is the crossing whistle code: _ _ o _ and this isn't going away anytime soon. The petty squabble over 'train noise' has been building in the last 10 years or so and will probably come to a head when the FRA finally slams its foot down and squashes the silence efforts. Like Lake has said, the moral of the story is, if you don't like the sound of trains, don't live near the tracks. Ditto for airports.
That said there might be some remedial efforts at 'fixing' what some see as a problem. There is new research into horn pitch and doppler sound effects, some findings are certain chimes can be heard louder inside a nearby building then in a car at the crossing with it's windows up and the AC running. If they crack that barrier you'll see some swift change in the sound of trains everywhere. Otherwise, the state could borrow from our Interstate Highway buddies and build sound barrier walls along the tracks.
Signals illustrated below are for North American railroads, "o" for short sounds, and "-" for longer sounds.
Sequence / Meaning
Succession of short sounds Used when an emergency exists, or if persons or livestock are on the track.
– When train is stopped. The air brakes are applied and pressure is equalized.
– – Train releases brakes and proceeds.
o o Acknowledgment of any signal not otherwise provided for.
o o o When train is stopped: means backing up, or acknowledgment of a hand signal to back up; when moving: stop at next station.
o o o o Request for a signal to be given or repeated if not understood.
– o o Warning that a second section of a timetabled train is following.
– o o o Instruction for flagman to protect rear of train.
– – – – Flagman return from the west or south.
– – – – – Flagman return from the east or north.
– – o – Train is approaching public grade crossing(s). This is known as Rule 14L in almost all railroad operating rules.
– o Inspect the brake system for leaks or sticking brakes.
Heres the historic codes:
What the whistle of the train stands for
- One short: Stop or stopping; apply the brakes
- One long: Approaching railroad station or junction (if moving), or apply air brakes and equalize pressure (if standing)
- Two short: A general answer signal or acknowledgement; identical to the "roger" or "10-4" radio terms
- One short, one long: Inspect the train
- One long, one short: Visibility obscured
- Two long: Train is about to proceed forward; release the brakes
- One long, two short: Additional section follows signaling train
- Two long, one short or two short, one long: Train is approaching a meeting or waiting point
- Two long, one short, one long: Train is approaching a grade level crossing (i.e. a road crossing). This is a widely used safety signal used to warn motorists and is blown at every grade level crossing, except where local noise ordinances prohibit it. Known in railroad rulebooks as rule '14L'
- Three short: Train is about to proceed in reverse (if standing), or train is about to stop at the next station (if moving)
- Three long: Train cars have come unhooked; train has come apart
- One long, three short: Flagman, go protect the rear of the train
- One short, three long: Flagman, go protect the front of the train
- Four short: Request for signals
- Four long: Flagman, return to the train from the west or north
- Five long: Flagman, return to the train from the east or south
- Four short, one long: Fire alarm; fire on the train
- Multiple short: Danger, get off the tracks! Used to warn pedestrians or livestock who are on the tracks in front of the approaching train.
...whatever. The current rule on how long a train must sound its horn was enacted on Sept 18, 2006. Not sure if there is a rule on how loud the horn has to be.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02809
No horn is needed if the community allows the railroad to close the remaining at-grade crossings. If that's not an option worth considering, then the community is most likely on the hook to pay for quiet zones or grade separated crossings.
Right Lake, and the Treasure Coast that fought so hard for the FEC trains to return is now falling prey to the Libertarian Think Tanks that are telling them 'Rail is Bad', 'Rail is 19th Century,' (Please, nobody write these guys and tell them the 'Via Appia' was a HIGHWAY built by the Romans in 300 BC. They've also said; 'The Tax Payers will have to pay for AAF,' and my favorite was the AAF is getting 'unfair federal loans because of Obama!'
This is a joke, it's no secret that I can't stand Obama, or 75% of his ideas, nor did I, or do I agree with his HSR program, but this is simply grasping at straws for the sake of hype. Railroads are incredibly capital intensive and being self maintained all they ask is lower interest, which the government allows. This isn't about Obama, HSR or anything short of the same few 'fellows,' stirring the pot at Liberty, Cato, Heritage.
In a recent report they are complaining that rail takes people from 'much cheaper' automobiles and passenger rail requires HUGE subsides.. but not a sentence about highway user fees covering only 51% of all highway costs.
There has been a widespread crossing closure program NATION WIDE long before the AAF program was ever announced. Cities and local governments 'earn' upwards of $5,000-$10,000 per crossing closed and they can spend that in any way they'd like. None of this is unique to AAF, Obama or Rail in general.
Quote from: Kerry on April 21, 2014, 10:17:19 PM
...whatever. The current rule on how long a train must sound its horn was enacted on Sept 18, 2006. Not sure if there is a rule on how loud the horn has to be.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02809
...whatever indeed, glad to be of assistance. The train horn must be at least 96 and not exceed 110 decibels, for a duration of a minimum 15 seconds and a maximum of 20 seconds per (49 CFR Part 222).
There is allowance for emergencies such as a person or vehicle on the track in which case one would hear a long line of oooooooooooooooooooooooo sounds. (Should you hear such, a word of advice... DON'T GO AND LOOK!)
There was a study done on this exact topic on the 90's on the FEC about crossing safety and the impact of whistle bans. I believe the 2006 final rule spells out the additional safety measures now needed for a whistle ban.
QuoteB. FRA's Study of the Florida Train Whistle Ban
Effective July 1, 1984, Florida authorized local governments to ban
the nighttime use of whistles by intrastate trains approaching highway-
rail grade crossings equipped with flashing lights, bells, crossing
gates, and highway signs that warned motorists that train whistles
would not be sounded at night. Fla. Stat. Sec. 351.03(4)(a) (1984).
After enactment of this Florida law, many local jurisdictions passed
whistle ban ordinances.
In August 1990, FRA issued a study of the effect of the Florida
train whistle ban up to the end of 1989. The study compared the number
of collisions at crossings subject to bans with four control groups.
FRA was trying to determine the impact of the whistle bans and to
eliminate other possible causes for any increase or decrease in
collisions.
Using the first control group, FRA compared collision records for
time periods before and during the bans. FRA found there were almost
three times more collisions after the whistle bans were established, a
195 percent increase. If collisions continued to occur at the same rate
as before the bans began taking effect, it was estimated that 49 post-
ban collisions would have been expected. However, 115 post-ban
collisions occurred, leaving 66 crossing collisions statistically
unexplained. Nineteen people died and 59 people were injured in the 115
crossing collisions. Proportionally, 11 of the fatalities and 34 of the
injuries could be attributed to the 66 unexplained collisions.
In the second control group, FRA found that the daytime collision
rates remained virtually unchanged for the same highway-rail crossings
where the whistle bans were in effect during nighttime hours.
The third control group showed that nighttime collisions increased
only 23 percent along the same rail line at crossings with no whistle
ban.
Finally, FRA compared the 1984 through 1989 accident record of the
Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC), which, because it was
considered an ``intrastate'' carrier under Florida law, was required to
comply with local whistle bans, with that of the parallel rail line of
interstate carrier, CSX Transportation Company (CSX), which was not
subject to the whistle ban law. By December 31, 1989, 511 of the FEC's
600 gate-equipped crossings were affected by whistle bans. Collision
data from the same period was available for 224 similarly equipped CSX
crossings in the six counties in which both railroads operate. As noted
above, FRA found that FEC's nighttime collision rate increased 195
percent after whistle bans were imposed. At similarly equipped CSX
crossings, the number of collisions increased 67 percent.
On July 26, 1991, FRA issued an emergency order to end whistle bans
in Florida. Notice of that emergency order (Emergency Order No. 15) was
published in the Federal Register at 56 FR 36190. FRA is authorized to
issue emergency orders where an unsafe condition or practice creates
``an emergency situation involving a hazard of death or injury.'' 49
U.S.C. 20104. FRA acted after updating its study with 1990 and initial
1991 collision records and finding that another twelve people had died
and thirteen were injured in nighttime collisions at whistle ban
crossings. During this time, a smaller study, conducted by the Public
Utility Commission of Oregon, corroborated FRA's findings and led to
the cessation of state efforts to initiate a whistle ban in Oregon.
FRA's emergency order required that trains operated by the FEC
sound their whistles when approaching public highway-rail grade
crossings. This order preempted state and local laws that permitted the
nighttime ban on the use of locomotive horns.
Twenty communities in Florida petitioned for a review of the
emergency order. During this review, FRA studied other potential causes
for the collision increase. FRA's closer look at the issue strengthened
the conclusion that whistle bans were the likely cause of the increase.
For example, FRA subtracted collisions that whistles probably would
not have prevented from the collision totals. Thirty-five collisions
where the motor vehicle was stopped or stalled on the crossing were
removed from the totals. Eighteen of these collisions occurred before
and 17 were recorded during the bans. When these figures were excluded,
the number of collisions in the pre-ban period changed from 39 to 21,
and the number of collisions in the post-ban period decreased from 115
to 98. Collisions which whistles could have prevented, therefore,
totaled 98 collisions as compared to 21 collisions in the pre-ban
period; this represents a 367 percent increase, compared to the 195
percent increase initially calculated.
Similarly, if collisions where the motor vehicle hit the side of
the train were also excluded (nine in the pre-ban period and 26 in the
post-ban period) as being unlikely to have been prevented by train
whistles, the pre-ban collision count became 12 versus 72 in the
whistle ban period. The increase in collisions caused by the lack of
whistles then became 500 percent.
FRA's data, however, showed that, before the ban, highway vehicles
on average, struck the sides of trains at the 37th train car behind the
locomotive. After the ban took effect, 26 vehicles struck trains, and
on average, struck the twelfth train car behind the locomotive. This
indicated that motor vehicles are more cautious at crossings if a
locomotive horn is sounding nearby. Before the whistle bans, highway
vehicles tended to hit the side of the train after the whistling
locomotive had long passed through the crossing. After the ban took
effect, highway traffic hit the train much closer to the now silent
locomotive--at the 12th car. The number of motor vehicles hitting the
sides of trains also increased nearly threefold after the ban was
established.
FRA also considered collisions involving double tracked grade
crossings where two trains might approach at the same time. Since a
driver's view of the second train might be blocked, hearing the second
train's whistle could be the only warning
[[Page 2232]]
available to an impatient driver. FRA's Florida study found the number
of second train collisions for the pre-ban period was zero, while four
were reported for the period the bans were in effect.
Several Florida communities asked whether train speed increased
collisions. FRA research has well established, as discussed below, that
train speed is not a factor in determining the likelihood of a traffic
collision at highway-rail crossings equipped with active warning
devices that include gates and flashing lights. Speed, however, is a
factor in determining the severity of a collision.
FRA also considered population growth in Florida, but found it was
not a factor. Day time collision rates were not increasing at the very
same crossings that had whistle bans at night. If population was a
factor, then the day time numbers should have increased dramatically as
well. FRA also reviewed the number of fatal highway collisions, and
registered drivers and motor vehicles and found no increases that
either paralleled or explained the rise in night time crossing
collisions.
In the first two years after July 1991, when FRA issued its
emergency order prohibiting whistle bans in Florida, collision rates
dropped dramatically to pre-ban levels. In the two years before the
emergency order, there were 51 nighttime collisions. In the two years
after, there were only 16. Daytime collisions dropped slightly from 34
collisions in the two years before the emergency order, to 31 in the
following two years.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-01-13/html/00-4.htm