Questions for the FRA on the Glendale OH Quiet Zone
1) According to the Calculator it is possible to qualify for a quiet zone without SSMs
implemented at every crossing within the zone, as long as the total risk for all
affected crossings is at or below the current risk index with horns (e.g.: quad gates
at Sharon and Oak, leaving Albion “as is “ still qualifies). Do we understand
correctly? How should we evaluate safety at crossings that do not get SSMs?
Answer: Your understanding is correct. It is NOT NECESSARY that every
crossing within a Quiet Zone have Supplemental Safety Measures (SSM), only
that the total Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI) for the entire zone qualifies by
comparison to either National Safety Risk Threshold – (NSRT) or Risk Index
with Horns – (RIWH). In the specific case of Glendale – All crossings in the
Village qualify for a Quiet Zone by installing four quadrant gates at both Sharon
Rd and Oak Rd, and leaving the existing ‘traditional’ gates at Albion. Non SSM
equipped crossings are a safety concern for the Village. Ron suggested we may
consider other Alternative Safety Measures (ie. ‘abbreviated’ median strips at
Albion…not to be included in reducing the QZRI), to provide additional safety
precaution, if we deem necessary. A full evaluation of all crossings in the Quiet
Zone, including discussion of crossings that may not use SSMs should be made
during a Diagnostic Review.
2) If it is possible to have a Quiet Zone where some crossings do not get SSMs, are
there any constraints or recommendations about how/where to use SSMs? How
would locomotive engineers recognize Quiet Zone crossings without SSMs (and
so not blow their horns)? Answer: There are no additional constraints . It is not
necessary that beginning and ending crossings in a Quiet Zone have SSMs. Only
that the QZRI for the entire Quiet Zone qualifies. Locomotive engineers are
advised by ‘operating notice’ or bulletin once a Quiet Zone is established, in
addition, the railroad may choose to install signage to advise engineers. The ban
on train horns in the Quiet Zone includes all grade level crossings, whether
equipped with SSMs or not.
3) The inventory data for Sharon Rd has a mistake (listing 4 lanes of traffic, but only
three exist, one ‘through’ lane in each direction and one ‘left turn’ lane). We can
change the calculator data to reflect the existing situation. How do we correct the
data in the FRA inventory? Answer: The Calculator is configurable, so
corrections may be made during use. Updates to the inventory are made by the
local road authority and railroad for their respective inputs. (Correction to the
Sharon Road lane count may be made thru Ms Leah Dalton, ORDC) The
inventory updates are voluntary, and the Village is cautioned to ensure the data
used in the Calculator is current.
4) SSM options for four quadrant gates with and without vehicle detection are
possible. “With” vehicle detection seems to present higher risk. What / who
determines whether vehicle detection is used at our crossings? Answer: Vehicle
106729117
5)
6)
7)
8)
Detection recommendation is made jointly by the local road authority and the
railroad. Ron believes that most ‘western’ railroads use it, however he is not
familiar with the CSX position on this topic, suggests we cover in the Diagnostic
Review. The FRA believes that vehicle detection provides a higher risk option, as
drivers learn over time to ‘trick’ the system to keep gates up and drive through.
The QZ Calculator reflects the increased risk (+5%).
The calculator provides separate four quadrant gate options (option 4 - reuse of
existing equipment, and option 8 – all new equipment). The risk index is the
same for either option, with only a cost difference (presumably) due to efficiency
in reuse of equipment. Are these ‘equivalent’ options from a safety standpoint?
Who has decision rights in determining if the existing equipment is economically
reuseable? Answer: Reuse of existing equipment or installation of new
equipment to provide a four quadrant gate solution are equivalent from a risk
standpoint. It may be possible to reuse/upgrade existing crossing equipment to
provide an adequate SSM at lower cost than ‘all new’. The Railroad and local
road authority will ascertain whether this is economically reasonable. An
assessment of the existing equipment will be made during the diagnostic review,
and final decision made as part of the engineering design. Ron thinks most gates
would need to be replaced, but variables such as age, functionality, and condition
of equipment and circuitry will drive the decision.
The calculator shows the Glendale pedestrian crossing (between a Parking lot, and
our Village Square, on opposite sides of the tracks). However it’s listed as “not a
public at-grade crossing – do not update”. How does this crossing affect our
Quiet Zone application? How is it considered in the Calculator? Answer: The
pedestrian crossing does not impact Quiet Zone qualification. The Calculator
does not consider factors related to pedestrian crossings. The Pedestrian crossing
is a safety concern for the Village. The Diagnostic Team will make
recommendations for Pedestrian crossings. We must comply with those
recommendations.
What is the process for applying for a Quiet Zone that spans multiple village
boundaries? Answer: One village will ‘take the lead’ in the application process.
The other village must provide written authorization for the application process.
The pro for joint application is that it provides a single, consistent process; the
con is cross jurisdiction risk (crossing in one Village may be subject to review due
to incidents in the other Village)
One option under consideration by our committee is use of Wayside Horns. Are
these considered to be the equivalent of Horns mounted on locomotives from a
risk standpoint? Answer: Yes, completely equivalent.
Additional questions submitted by Mr Dan Raabe:
According to the FRA final rule: ‘following the diagnostic review, you must comply with
the diagnostic team’s recommendations concerning those crossings”, can the FRA share
any recommendations other pedestrian crossings in other Quiet Zone applications?
Answer: Should be discussed during the Diagnostic Review.
106729117
Per the final rule’Once the quiet zone has been created, install the required signage’. Do
we know what signage will be required? Answer: Signage standards and best practice
are defined by MUTCD Part 8, and include signs and placards used independently and in
conjunction with existing advance warning signs (the round yellow RR Crossing signs).
The signs should be of size, color, orientation, placement etc as indicated in the Standard.
Ron says our city engineer should be able to identify appropriate signage. This topic
should be included in the Diagnostic Review. Ron thinks MUTCD Part 8 signs W10-1
and W10-9 are likely to be required.
Per the final rule “Quiet Zones established by comparison to the NSRT are subject to
annual FRA review”. Does Glendale have a stake in this process or is it done by FRA
independently? Answer: This review does not pertain to Quiet Zones that qualify by
comparison of the QZRI to the RIWH (which is the current committee plan).
Per final rule: “Periodic updates, including updates USDOT Grade Crossing Inventory
forms, must be submitted to FRA every 2.5 – 3.0 years”. What is Glendale’s role in this
process (if any)? Answer: Glendale is expected to continuously monitor the Quiet Zone
for safety and operation of SSMs, as well as verify updates to the inventory data are
reasonable and current.
106729117