Puyallup staff and consultants say city already meets quiet‑zone scoring; diagnostic meeting with BNSF next step

Puyallup City Council received results of a feasibility study showing the city’s downtown rail corridor is likely eligible for a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) quiet zone, and staff said the next step is a diagnostic meeting with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and other stakeholders to agree on modest crossing improvements.

The city hired PH Consulting to evaluate the corridor that parallels Stewart Avenue and Pioneer Way through downtown. Pablo Parra, a principal with PH Consulting, told the council the corridor includes seven public and one private crossing within the city and extends about 3.5 miles to the east end near Fifteenth Street Southeast. He said the FRA’s quiet‑zone risk calculator gives Puyallup a favorable score once existing one‑way street conversions are accounted for.

“The difference is, it will be, primarily the bells,” Parra said when describing what a quiet zone would sound like. He added that locomotives would retain authority to sound horns for safety concerns or equipment malfunctions.

Why it matters: residents along Stewart Avenue and nearby blocks have reported repeated train horn noise. A quiet zone would direct train engineers not to routinely sound horns within the defined half‑mile segments, changing the dominant warning sound at crossings from long horn blasts to crossing bells and occasional short horn bursts used only for immediate safety warnings.

The presentation outlined three ways to qualify for a quiet zone. One approach is to install supplemental safety measures (SSMs) at every crossing (for example, four‑quadrant gates or qualifying medians). Other approaches rely on lowering the corridor’s average FRA risk score by installing SSMs at a subset of crossings or using existing traffic changes such as one‑way streets to reduce the calculated risk. Parra said the city’s prior one‑way conversions lowered the score substantially and, with the currently available FRA inventory data from BNSF, the corridor’s average score falls below the FRA threshold in the study.

Consultant and staff recommendations and clarifications - PH Consulting recommended a diagnostic, site‑by‑site meeting with BNSF, the FRA regional inspector, the state UTC (rail crossing authority), Pierce County (where applicable) and city staff to confirm data, identify any additional safety deficiencies and agree on the minimal improvements needed. Hans Unger, the city engineer who introduced the item, reiterated that the diagnostic meeting would produce a clearer list of near‑term, mostly low‑cost improvements such as pavement markings and signage. - Parra said the memorandum provided to the city included proposed improvements and approximate per‑crossing costs in the “tens of thousands” range; he summarized those as roughly $20,000 per crossing as an order‑of‑magnitude estimate for the minor treatments in the memorandum, and noted some items could be done by city crews. - Parra cautioned that BNSF sometimes requests voluntary upgrades to older railroad signal equipment; if the diagnostic meeting identifies such a request tied to a crossing where signal upgrades are needed, that could change cost and schedule expectations.

Council questions and concerns Council members pressed consultants on how FRA scoring is calculated and on public‑safety implications at specific crossings. Council member Whiting asked what drives the FRA risk scores; Parra said volumes, collision history, train counts and train speed are primary factors. "So they're a function of traffic volumes," Parra explained, adding collision history within the last five years affects the score.

Council member Gilliam raised a safety concern at a private crossing to the west of Stewart Avenue where, he said, motorists cross with only a stop sign and no drop gates; Parra confirmed the corridor analysis included only the public crossings inside the city limits and that private crossings are handled differently. Parra also said BNSF typically does not sound horns at private crossings unless they are adjacent to a public crossing where engineers are already sounding horns.

Timing and next steps Parra said the city already meets the FRA scoring threshold in the study, so the project does not require the longer FRA alternative‑approval process. He estimated, optimistically, that after the diagnostic meeting and limited improvements, the city could reach implementation in roughly nine to twelve months; if substantial signal upgrades were needed the schedule could extend. Parra described the process steps as: (1) hold diagnostic site meetings with all stakeholders; (2) agree on improvements and responsibilities; (3) issue the FRA notice of intent and complete agreed improvements; (4) issue the notice of establishment and implement the quiet zone 21 days later.

The council asked staff to schedule the diagnostic meeting and to return to a future council meeting with authorization language for any city agreement needed to proceed. No formal action or ordinance was taken at the meeting; the item was presented for information and direction.