railroad crossing...train horn blowing (Kingman, Holbrook: hotel, luxury, living)

[kdog]

Originally Posted by mrspeedyt

one more thing... (then i'll shut up for a while...) back in the steam days (when downtown and my house were built) the whistles weren't as obnoxious sounding as the modern horns.... and they didn't blow them so much!!! (in duration). thank you.

Yeah, I was wondering if that was the case. Thanks for verifying it.

BTW, concerning closing intersections. I looked at some info on Flag, and it appears you're right. I'm surprised. It sounds like they didn't do much with that $1M they spent on it. I'm pretty sure the Kingman plan would include traffic changes though. I'm almost positive I saw some info about closing down the one at 2nd Ave, or whatever street that is right downtown. Sure, some folks would have a slightly longer drive. But nothing like the impact of the closing of Louise Ave. That was a big deal and totally changed traffic patterns. My GPS still wants to route me that way. The Railroad hates crossings, which is why they're usually happy to help provide funding for new underpasses.

[Ritchie_az]

I agree with Bummer. Good post!

Try standing on Rt66 in downtown Kingman and carry on a conversation or even talk on your cell phone. I'll bet you'll change your tune because it can't be done. Those horns are deafening.

I lived in Vail, AZ right by the tracks (could clearly see the trains from the front yard). If you don't like the noise, don't live near the tracks or do business near the tracks. It's really that simple. The horns are for safety--both of the public and those who's job is on those rails. How would you like it if a law was forced upon your work that made you less safe? I doubt you would be happy.

one more thing... (then i'll shut up for a while...) back in the steam days (when downtown and my house were built) the whistles weren't as obnoxious sounding as the modern horns.... and they didn't blow them so much!!!

It's been one long, one short, and two long whistles (or horns) for over one hundred years for road crossings. That is federal law. I think your mind is playing tricks on you.

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

If you don't like the noise, don't live near the tracks or do business near the tracks. It's really that simple. The horns are for safety--both of the public and those who's job is on those rails. How would you like it if a law was forced upon your work that made you less safe? I doubt you would be happy.

Get off your high horse, and don't lecture me. First of all, I don't live anywhere near the tracks. Secondly the tracks are DOWNTOWN, parallel to RT66, not 50' off the road. Not doing business downtown isn't an option. It would be nice to be able to talk every 15 minutes when the trains go by, but honestly it's not that big of a deal. Perhaps you missed the part where I said I don't have strong feelings on it and I'm still collecting data.

Flagstaff already created a quiet zone that Kingman is looking at as an example. They spent a million dollars on doing that project, and I have no doubt they did it in a safe manner. Exactly who are you to suggest that any laws were forced on anyone or anything was done in an unsafe manner?

[Ritchie_az]

Get off your high horse, and don't lecture me. First of all, I don't live anywhere near the tracks. Secondly the tracks are DOWNTOWN, parallel to RT66, not 50' off the road. Not doing business downtown isn't an option. It would be nice to be able to talk every 15 minutes when the trains go by, but honestly it's not that big of a deal. Perhaps you missed the part where I said I don't have strong feelings on it and I'm still collecting data.

The tracks were there first. Period. If not for the tracks, Kingman would likely not be there.

Flagstaff already created a quiet zone that Kingman is looking at as an example.

Is it safer? I don't know. I'd be interested to know if more people have been hurt or died. I would think so. The horn is a strong safety feature. Taking that away makes it a less safe environment. Perhaps studies would confirm that... I'll see if I can find any.

Exactly who are you to suggest that any laws were forced on anyone or anything was done in an unsafe manner?

The railroad companies and their employees.

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

The tracks were there first. Period. If not for the tracks, Kingman would likely not be there.

So? What's THAT got to do with anything?

Is it safer? I don't know. I'd be interested to know if more people have been hurt or died. I would think so. The horn is a strong safety feature. Taking that away makes it a less safe environment. Perhaps studies would confirm that... I'll see if I can find any.

So really you're just spouting off randomly about something you know nothing about. Perhaps you can do some research on what was done on the Flagstaff Quiet Zone project, do a full safety analysis and get back to us.

The railroad companies and their employees.

What? You speak for "the railroad companies and their employees"? Really?

Let me give you a little clue about the Railroad. The tracks and the land around them are owned by BNSF. It is their property. THEY have the final say-so about any changes to their property. If Flagstaff managed to create a quiet zone, then they got full buy-in by the railroad and did it to their specifications and rules. If you got some actual data that says otherwise, speak up. Otherwise, your outrage is misplaced.

[canibeyou]

I lived near an airport for over 3 decades and found it funny when new people moved into the area and then filed complaints about the noise of the planes at the airport. Um... DER! If you didn't want to hear 'em, you shouldn't have moved within a mile of the place.

Who said anything about a town not trying to improve itself? No one in this thread. It's more like... if you don't like the train noise... don't. move. near. the. tracks. Pretty sure, the train was there before 95% of the current residents. No one's holding a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to buy homes near the tracks. So why do people buy there and then feel they have the right to complain and demand changes??!!? You knew what you were getting into when ya moved into that neighborhood.

I say, blow the whistle's. Ya never know if it'll save a life.

Wonder how many people would be complaining if the trains didn't 'honk' and how dangerous it is for the kids (cuz it's always all about the kids) in the area, etc. Damned if ya do.... damned if ya don't.

[kdog]

You pontificators are funny.

Kingman is working on revitalizing the downtown area to make it more attractive for businesses. Part of that assessment is to consider reducing the horn blasts in town so that business doesn't have to effectively stop every few minutes when a train go by. Flagstaff did it, and their downtown is blissfully quiet now. And presumably they did it in a safe manner, otherwise the railroad would not have agreed to it. So Kingman is looking into it as well. Really, what's with all the outrage?

[Ritchie_az]

kdog, do you realize how petty it sounds that folks want the trains, which have been going through that area for over 100 years, to stop blowing their horns, because it interfers with their cell phone conversations?
I disagree and have no sympathy. If you don't want train noise, why live in a railroad town?

What? You speak for "the railroad companies and their employees"? Really?

I was a railroad employee and still know several. I have not met anyone who works for the railroad who are for these "quite zones" because they feel it places train crews' safety at risk, and it places the general public's safety at risk.
Like I asked earlier, if a law came down that would make your job less safe, would you be for it? The train crews are the folks that pass through these things day after day after day, and see many, many close calls. They'll also likely witness two train-car crashes and see someone die (go back to that Operation Lifesaver link I provided earlier). These train crews want to see things become more safe, not less safe.

I could not find any study on the safety aspect of these "quiet zones" but I did find this:
Trouble In Houston's New Railroad Quiet Zones - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston (http://www.click2houston.com/news/24582752/detail.html - broken link)

THEY have the final say-so about any changes to their property.

Actually, often times, they do not. Railroads are highly regulated by the government (FRA).

[kdog]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

kdog, do you realize how petty it sounds that folks want the trains, which have been going through that area for over 100 years, to stop blowing their horns, because it interfers with their cell phone conversations?
I disagree and have no sympathy. If you don't want train noise, why live in a railroad town?

Times change. Towns widen roads, they improve infrastructure, they clean up toxic waste, etc, etc, and yes, they reduce noise where they can.

I was a railroad employee and still know several. I have not met anyone who works for the railroad who are for these "quite zones" because they feel it places train crews' safety at risk, and it places the general public's safety at risk.
Like I asked earlier, if a law came down that would make your job less safe, would you be for it? The train crews are the folks that pass through these things day after day after day, and see many, many close calls. They'll also likely witness two train-car crashes and see someone die (go back to that Operation Lifesaver link I provided earlier). These train crews want to see things become more safe, not less safe.

I could not find any study on the safety aspect of these "quiet zones" but I did find this:
Trouble In Houston's New Railroad Quiet Zones - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston (http://www.click2houston.com/news/24582752/detail.html - broken link)


Actually, often times, they do not. Railroads are highly regulated by the government (FRA).

Well, thanks for your input. It sounds like you have some valid information after all. It makes sense that the RR's don't care for quiet zones, because it's different than what they do now. But are they more dangerous? That seems to be a subjective call, because there's never been a fatality directly caused by one. The article that you referenced states that there are added concerns with a quiet zone, but they're all theoretical at this point.

Again, I will remind you that I'm neutral on the issue, so let's not get too personal.

[Ritchie_az]

Again, you never answered my question: would you want a law forced on your work that made you feel less safe? The train crews do not, but that is the position they are placed in because some people feel like:

Times change. Towns widen roads, they improve infrastructure, they clean up toxic waste, etc, etc, and yes, they reduce noise where they can.

The trains were there first. The horns are for safety. If you don't like train noise, don't live in a railroad town. Don't live near the tracks. Don't shop near the tracks.
Like someone else said, it's like moving near an airport then complaining about airplane noise. In this case, the railroad was there long before the Wright Brothers made the first flight. So it's even more absurd.

What? You speak for "the railroad companies and their employees"? Really?

THEY have the final say-so about any changes to their property.

UP: Federal Railroad Administration's Train Horn & Quiet Zone Rule

I found this quote on a website:
"FRA and railroad documentation indicate that quiet zones may increase the likelihood of accidents at a crossing. In its consideration of establishing quiet zones, City Council will need to weigh the trade-offs, as a single tragedy at a railroad crossing will have a significant impact in our community." Quiet Zones - Train Noise

Also, Two teens hit by train in "Quiet Zone" *| ajc.com

There seems to be very few studies on this. The FRA has allowed it, and cities and towns have gone head-first into making "Quiet Zones" without really thinking out the consequences. All they know is they don't like train noise.

Quietness over safety. Less noise over a life.

Sad.