Comments on: FRA Train Horn Tax

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:02:25 +0000

“But those horns got significantly louder, mainly as a result of the FRA rulemaking.”

No, they didn’t. I know the volume of the horns at the (ungated! unprotected!) private crossings in my town, and they haven’t really changed since I was a kid.

Were there some areas where the horns were extra-quiet before? I suppose it would have been a matter of railroad corporate policy. Conrail was pretty aggressive about such things, and perhaps had louder horns than some of your railroads out west?

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:00:20 +0000

This is Clark County, WA, who hate trains, hate taxes, and live there so that they can work in Portland Oregon without contributing to Portland society.

Accordingly, they won’t agree to it. Don’t worry about it.

By: Drunk Engineer

Drunk Engineer — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 05:28:57 +0000

Dear Marc,
We are all aware of the history of the FRA horn-blowing rule. That rule had nothing to do with safety.

And yes, many crossing already had horns and whistles at grade crossings. But those horns got significantly louder, mainly as a result of the FRA rulemaking.

By: Marc

Marc — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:44:57 +0000

Sorry, but trains have been blowing horns/whistles at grade crossings since well before you or I were born. The FRA rule was a response to local efforts to ban horn use at crossings as "noise pollution", which resulted in an increase in grade crossing accidents. The rule preempts such local efforts, but allows communities to create "Quiet Zones" by upgrading the crossings. There is plenty of information on why this happened here: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02573

By: T0

T0 — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:34:39 +0000

And, there is a clear benefit to BART of being above ground (i.e. saving money), while the benefits of the FRA horn rule are dubious at best.

This would be like asking property owners next to freeways pay for soundwalls, which as far as I know has never been done. (In fact, people who buy houses next to freeways that have existed for 60 years seem to view having those walls built as a birthright.)

By: Drunk Engineer

Drunk Engineer — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:20:53 +0000

No, it isn’t analogous. For one thing, the entire city paid for the subway bond — not just homeowners living near the line.

By: Henry Porter

Henry Porter — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:00:01 +0000

Don’t be ridiculous. It’s always the menace’s responsibility to cease being a menace.

By: Alai

Alai — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 10:06:57 +0000

Isn’t this somewhat analogous to, say, having Berkeley pay to put Bart underground? Seems fairly reasonable to me.

By: Drunk Engineer

Drunk Engineer — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 05:09:32 +0000

Did you move into that house after 2005? That is when the FRA train-horn mandate went into effect.

By: Marc

Marc — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 01:13:55 +0000

If I move into a house, knowing full well that that you have been walking by this house banging a drum at 3 am since before the house was built, then I paid less money for the house than I would in a quieter neighborhood. If I really want a quiet house at this point, I should be willing to pay…