Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Railroad Quiet Zone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edina study shows quiet‑zone is feasible but costly; implementation needs multi‑year, multi‑agency work
Summary
A city‑commissioned study found Edina’s at‑grade railroad crossings don’t meet FRA quiet‑zone device standards and would require gates, signals and coordination with St. Louis Park and the railroads. Planning‑level costs and a multi‑year process were presented; staff recommended staged options and exploring state safety funding.
SRF Consulting presented a railroad crossing safety and quiet‑zone feasibility study to the Edina City Council on June 16, saying none of the city’s public at‑grade crossings currently meet the Federal Railroad Administration’s minimum device standards (flashing lights, gates, constant warning time and power‑out indicators) required for a quiet zone.
Consultant Justin Scott mapped the corridor and proposed four implementation subzones. He emphasized that any quiet zone requires reducing the risk at every included crossing to meet FRA thresholds and that private crossings are treated differently under federal rules. Because rail crossings within a quarter mile of each other must be included together, Edina’s plan requires coordination with St. Louis Park for northern crossings; that collaboration will affect schedule, scope and cost. Planning‑level cost estimates vary by subzone; staff included preliminary capital projections and placed smaller subzone projects in the city CIP for 2027 with a larger coordinated subzone tentatively staged for 2030.
Scott warned that implementation is not immediate: the feasibility phase took months, and the full implementation—design, railroad review, construction and federal paperwork—could take two to three years after funding is in place, and the FRA review timeline has trended longer in recent years. The city manager and staff said they have examined federal and state grant opportunities but that competitive federal programs typically prioritize grade separations over quiet zones and that available state Section 130 funds for crossing devices could be a nearer‑term source. Councilmembers asked staff to develop a public‑engagement plan and to continue coordination with St. Louis Park and the railroads if they wish to pursue staged improvements.
Next steps outlined to the council were: refine cost estimates, pursue state Section 130 funds and other programmatic grants where eligible, and prepare an engagement plan so residents can weigh community priorities versus the capital costs and timing of quiet‑zone implementation.
