Embedded Files
To return to main screen click the "No Train Horn" sign.
Please note that the answers to these questions and more are in the proposal PDF that is available on the main screen.
QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION
Q: What about liability?
A: On 6/2/14, the Federal Government's USDOT/FRA (including the FRA Quiet Zone director in Washington, DC), indicated that the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR 222 and 229 and preamble, which implements a Federal law) makes it clear that FRA set a federal standard (standard of care) and that a local road authority should not be held to fault for complying with a federal standard. Compliance with a federal standard should not be a “cause of action” for a lawsuit.
The following is from the preamble of the Train Horn Rule:
"These highway-rail grade crossing corridors have been deemed, by the Administrator, to constitute categories of highway-rail grade crossings that do not present a significant risk with respect to loss of life or serious personal injury or that fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn. Therefore, communities with highway-rail grade crossing corridors that meet either of these standards may silence the locomotive horn within the crossing corridor, if all other applicable quiet zone requirements have been met. (See § 222.39.)"
By definition, Quiet Zones are safer than non-Quiet Zones because of the additional safety measures that are required to qualify for Quiet Zone status. We checked in with three different cities (of about the same size as the City of Plymouth) that have Quiet Zones: a Mayor, a City Council member, and a city engineer (at a CSX crossing Quiet Zone). They all indicated that there was no change to their insurance or liability because Quiet Zones are, by definition, safer than non-Quiet Zones. A quote from each of them:
- "There is a formula developed that analyzes how safe the crossing is both before construction and after the quiet zone is complete and our quiet zone is actually safer now than what it was prior to quiet zone, so no need for any type of indemnification."
- "[our city] did not need any additional insurance for our railroad quiet zone."
- "no more liability than any accident that might occur at any intersection."
One could reasonably argue that not having a Quiet Zone makes the City more liable because the City knowingly is not making the crossings as safe as they could be. The Federal Government’s laws and regulations preempt local laws and regulations. Although one can be sued for anything, one can generally not be successfully sued for complying with a Federal law.
At 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229, specifically, Federal Register, Volume 70 Issue 80 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005) page 21846 there is a full discussion of liability. See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-04-27/html/05-8285.htm . It reads in part as follows:
“As stated in the interim final rule, FRA does not expect that future lawsuits will not arise over accidents within quiet zones, as such lawsuits may be due to factors other than the lack of an audible warning. However, this final rule is intended to remove failure to sound the horn, failure to require horn sounding, and prohibitions on sounding of the horn, at grade crossings located within duly established quiet zones, as potential causes of action.”
and
“[...] a federal standard of care defined by this rule will replace the standard of care that would otherwise apply at highway-rail grade crossings in each State”.
In addition on page 21858, it reads as follows:
“As stated in the interim final rule, FRA intends to protect from liability the locomotive engineer who, in accordance with this rule and railroad operating rules that were established in response to the creation of a quiet zone, does not sound the locomotive horn. As for the public authority that creates a quiet zone in accordance with this part, FRA expects that the courts will apply the standard of care set by this rule, inasmuch as any quiet zone established in accordance with this part will have been established in accordance with federal law and FRA's intention to preempt State law is expressly stated. This rule, in effect, establishes the standard of care for the creation of quiet zones and the sounding of train horns, providing reassurance both to railroads and communities that no plaintiff will prevail on the basis that an audible warning has been withheld.”
The implication seems clear as stated by FRA’s Quiet Zone lead in Washington D.C. on 6/2/14: The Train Horn Rule’s preamble makes it clear that FRA set a federal standard (standard of care) and that a local road authority should not be held to fault for complying with a federal standard. Compliance with a federal standard should not be a “cause of action” for a lawsuit.
It would seem to be a challenging argument for a plaintiff to make against a City that further improved the safety at a crossing – particularly considering this is a Federal standard with years of success. Theoretically someone could sue you for being unsafe for using your seatbelt; however, that would not prevail because law requires it because it is safer than no seat belt. In a similar way, a Federal law allows Quiet Zones because they are safer than train horns if the requirements are met.
Q: Can there be multiple Quiet Zones within the City of Plymouth?
A: Yes; Quiet Zones are approved in half-mile segments, not by political jurisdiction. Per 49 CFR 222.35(a)(1) a New Quiet Zone must be at least one-half mile (2,640 feet). A Quiet Zone extends one-quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) beyond its outermost public at-grade crossing. This is significant because the City of Plymouth would not need to consider all seven crossings at once. Instead a city can start with one set of crossings as a pilot project with a small, manageable scope. Then, in later years, it would have the option to apply lessons-learned to other crossings.
Q: What is the minimum distance between a Quiet Zone crossing and the next non-Quiet Zone crossing?
A: None. There is no minimum distance between a Quiet Zone crossing and a non-Quiet Zone crossing. This question was specifically asked of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and this was the response.
Q: Would crossings in the Township of Plymouth be impacted?
A: No; for example, the crossing on Haggerty Road south of Schoolcraft is in the Township of Plymouth. In addition, it would not seem reasonable to spend resources on that because there are no nearby residential properties.
Q: Could the City of Plymouth talk with peers at communities (in similar financial situations) who have already successfully implemented Quiet Zones in other places?
A: Yes; there are over five hundred communities that have done this already. They are listed on the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) website.
Q: When would the FRA provide approval for a crossing's Quiet Zone status?
A: The FRA would provide conditional approval after it was demonstrated that there is a specific plan in place to make the crossing safer than a crossing with train horns. For example, adding safety equipment such as signage and a "non-traversable curb median" to stop cars from driving around closed crossing gates would typically suffice. First an on-site "Diagnostic Review" is done to provide specific, actionable suggestions for what needs to be done to qualify.
Q: Would the additional safety equipment need to be purchased and installed before obtaining approval?
A: No. The FRA would provide conditional approval based on a plan. Then, contingent upon the plan being implemented, the full approval would be provided. This is significant because there is no risk of spending funds to make changes that will then not be used.
Q: Would the city be required to pay a consultant to expedite this process?
A: Although there are many consultants that specialize in "Quiet Zones", this is not required.
Q: Has the FRA and CSX changed anything in the past few years regarding the Quiet Zone process?
A: Yes; they both have more experience and have streamlined certain aspects of the process. In addition, those applying now can benefit from the precedents set by other communities.
Q: Why would a 6-inch high "non-traversable curb median" (as described in 49 CFR 222.9) seem like a good option instead of other safety equipment?
A: They are economical, durable, and practically maintenance-free concrete. They are simple and have no moving parts or electronics. They do not require much interaction with the railroad company to install. Most importantly, they have been proven effective in improving safety at crossings.
Q: If "non-traversable curb medians" are not feasible what are other options?
A: All crossings in Plymouth already have "two quadrant gates", so an impacted crossing could be upgraded to a "three quadrant gate" or a "four quadrant gate". Adding a no left turn sign and a channelization "pork chop" traffic island to prevent cars from turning left is an option. A "wayside horn" is a horn at a crossing that is pointed directly at the cars at the crossing, but the noise would not be nearly as wide-spread as a train horn. These have varying costs.
Q: What is "Constant Warning Time" (CWT) circuitry?
The purpose of CWT circuitry is to provide the same amount of warning time regardless of the speed of the approaching train. Section 8D.06 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices, produced by the Federal Highway Administration, states that CWT devices should be used where there speed of trains on a given track vary considerably under normal conditions. According to the FRA crossing inventory (as of 6/5/13) the Main Street crossing has CWT in place.
Q: Is it possible to obtain a waiver for "Constant Warning Time" (CWT) circuitry?
A: Yes; it is possible to indicate that it is not "reasonably practical" and many communities have obtained this type of waiver. For examples, visit www.regulations.gov and search for the term.
QUESTIONS REGARDING FINANCIAL ASPECTS
Q: For you, what percentage of your assets is your home?
A: The largest financial asset for many is the value of their home. As anyone who has bought or sold real estate knows, "comparable values" of surrounding homes, even those many blocks away (or on the other side of town), impact property values. If one could increase the value of your home, then it may be worth considering.
Q: What is the market value of your home today?
A: To get an estimate talk with a realtor, review "comparable" properties' recent sales or visit a site like www.zillow.com .
Q: If you could increase your property value by 10% to 25% would you?
A: All things being equal, most people would. If your residential property was worth $100,000 a ten percent increase would be $10,000. When multiplied by hundreds of similar homes, the overall value of this becomes apparent.
Q: For a city, what percentage of revenue is real estate taxes?
A: For most cities, it is the largest source of revenues. As shown in the 2013-2014 City of Plymouth Budget, for the "General Fund", $4.7M of $7.2M is derived from property tax revenue.
Q: If a city could receive increased revenues by without raising the tax rate (through increased property values), then should it be considered?
A: All things being equal, it would seem worth pursuing purely for economic development reasons, let alone improving public safety, public health, and quality of life. Similar to how a corporation acts to "maximize shareholder value", most cities would like to do this for their shareholders (the property taxpayers). Like any investment, it should only be considered contingent on the availability of funds and the estimated return on the investment.
Q: What might the financial benefits be?
A: Potentially 10 percent to 25 percent of values of properties within 1 mile of crossings. See the "Increase Property Value" section of this site for details based on economists' estimates.
Q: What might the financial costs be?
A: Approximately $15,000 per crossing for the installation of safety equipment such as a concrete "non-traversable curb median" to stop cars from going around crossing gates. Source: FRA and other communities that have successfully implemented Quiet Zones.
Q: How might this be paid for?
A: Federal, State and local funds, offset by increases in tax base due to increased property values. See other sections of this site for details based on economists' estimates. Note that funding is typically provided for safety improvements to crossings, not necessarily for Quiet Zones.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) section 130 also known as 23 USC 130 provides annual funding for railroad grade crossings. See http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/
U.S. DOT FHWA https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/0646bsu1.cfm
U.S. DOT FRA: “Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing” loan program www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0128
U.S. DOT’s Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grant program www.dot.gov/tiger . In fiscal year 2013, there were 585 grants. Of which 78 had "rail" in the project name and 4 had "crossing" in the project name
The U.S. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CDFA) contains various railroad safety related grants www.cfda.gov The following searches the CDFA for the term “railroad” www.google.com/search?q=railroad+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.cfda.gov
MDOT: www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT-GradeCrossingFundingStandards_55781_7.pdf
Q: What are some examples of communities that have received Federal funds (grants or earmarks) for Quiet Zones or railroad crossing safety improvements that would help quality a crossing for a Quiet Zone designation?
A: Click on the following links to see examples:
http://www.recovery.gov/espsearch/Pages/default.aspx?k=Quiet+Zone
http://www.google.com/#q=%22quiet+zone%22+site:thomas.loc.gov
http://www.google.com/#q=%22quiet+zone%22+site:http%3A%2F%2Fearmarks.omb.gov
http://www.usaspending.gov/search?form_fields=%7B%22search_term%22%3A%22Quiet+Zone%22%7D (This last link searches a large database so it is somewhat slow).
Note that these are merely searches for "Quiet Zone" while searches for railroad crossing safety improvements would result in even more results.
Q: If the City of Plymouth were to use funds on this, what percentage of the benefits would be for residents?
A: 100% of the benefit would be for residents. Sometimes the city needs to pay for things that benefit visitors such as providing city services to a multitude of events each year, streets, library, and amenities to entice non-residents/visitors from other areas to promote economic development. In those cases, only some portion of the direct benefits goes to the taxpayers and residents.
Q: Would commercial and rental property owners benefit?
A: Yes; the beneficiaries would be any resident of the City of Plymouth (property owners and renters) as well as rental property owners and commercial property owners whose property values would have the potential to increase. Rental property owners would have the potential to reduce vacancy rates and unpaid rent from empty units due to the reduced time between tenants.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE RAILROAD COMPANY (CSX)
Q: Does the railroad company (CSX) have experience with Quiet Zones?
A: Yes; as of 4/12/13, of the 549 communities that have Quiet Zones, 44 are with CSX. See the most recent "Quiet Zone Locations by City and State” at www.fra.dot.gov . CSX has a well done “Public Project Information” manual prepared by their “Public Projects Group” that provides CSX-specific Quiet Zone information and contacts. See www.csx.com/index.cfm/community/contact-us/ .
Q: Might the railroad company (CSX) be willing to provide the information needed to make initial assessments?
A: Yes; 49 CFR 222.49 requires the railroad company to provide certain grade crossing inventory form information within 30 days to the public authority that requests it or face a civil penalty.
Q: Might the implementation of a Quiet Zone help the railroad company (CSX)?
A: Yes; Quiet Zones reduce the possibility that railroad companies would need to pay fines due to their employee's lack of compliance with various provisions of the FRA regulations regarding the proper sounding of train horns (for example, not too low, not too loud, proper sounding pattern, proper timing). See Appendix G to 49 CFR 222 for the "Schedule of civil penalties". An implementation of a Quiet Zone, would in no way negatively impact CSX.
CSX is a vital contributor to our nation's economy and an employer of many employees in the State of Michigan. As indicated at the "Community" section of their website ( www.csx.com/index.cfm/community ) "CSX wants to be a good neighbor in the states and communities that we operate." A number of those supporting the creation of Quiet Zones in Plymouth are CSX shareholders and almost anyone with a retirement plan probably has some portion invested in CSX because it is represented in major stock indexes, such as the S&P 500. The CSX corporation, like any corporation, exists to maximize shareholder value.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse