Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Train Crossing Quiet Zones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates train ‘quiet zones’; staff and aldermen cite safety, liability and cost concerns
Summary
Council members, staff and a past poll were cited as reasons to avoid establishing quiet zones for railroad crossings; staff warned of significant costs, increased liability and extensive federal and railroad coordination if quiet zones were pursued.
The Committee of the Whole revisited the possibility of establishing Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) quiet zones — areas where routine train horn sounding at grade crossings is suppressed — and several council members and staff urged against pursuing the change.
Alderman Twiddle summarized past research and said a prior public poll showed a plurality opposed; staff described the national context (roughly 1,000 quiet zones nationally) but highlighted safety and cost trade-offs. Alderman Sanders and others said people routinely walk near downtown tracks and sometimes cross while impaired or wearing earbuds; they argued horn warning remains an important safety factor. City staff and finance personnel warned the city would assume maintenance responsibility for upgraded crossings and that liability and insurance costs would likely increase; one staff member estimated the city's insurance costs could more than double. Staff also noted Union Pacific and other railroads oppose quiet zones and the process requires extensive FRA and railroad coordination, signal upgrades, fencing and potential long-term maintenance obligations.
Council did not vote to pursue establishing quiet zones and, after discussion, the committee did not direct staff to advance the initiative further.
