Caltrain QUIET ZONE at Fair Oaks Railroad crossing. You can HELP

Raise the tracks. San Bruno, Belmont etc have town-long quiet zones, and better traffic flow.

# Raise the tracks.

A Quiet Zone at Fair Oaks will cost zero dollars in infrastructure costs, as the infrastructure is already in place.

Raising the tracks will cost 100s of millions of dollars in infrastructure costs, just for a part of the peninsula.

And creating a Quiet Zone does not preclude grade separation.

NIMBYs, the lot of ya. How many people need to be squished by trains they can't hear before you give up on this dangerous initiative? Atherton residents are doing everything they can to kill off Caltrain because they think they're too precious to have a train running through their enclave of privilege.

@David The Federal Railroad Administration has studied this issue extensively. They have concluded quiet zones are safe. Not all railroad crossings can be a quiet zone. Quiet zones require additional safety measures installed. Once those safety measures are in place, train horns become superfluous from a safety perspective.

Keep in mind, horns can still be sounded in a quiet zone if the engineer sees someone or a vehicle on the tracks.

Quiet zones will not affect the level or frequency of Caltrain service.

# NIMBYs, the lot of ya.

Unsubstantiated.

# How many people need to be squished by trains they can't hear

Unsubstantiated. 1st of all, Fair Oaks has *additional* safety infrastructure at the intersection, which is why it qualifies as a Quiet Zone.

Second, keep in mind that railroad crossings have both visual warnings AND auditory warnings that do NOT change with a Quiet Zone status. The warning bells and lights and gates are still in place. Anyone needing to hear a warning of an approaching train will still get ample notification.

Third, there are already Quiet Zones in many other parts of California, including the Bay Area, and include areas near residential and commercial areas (San Rafael and Richmond, for examples). The Fair Oaks intersection is just as qualified to be a Quiet Zone as the other Quiet Zones in California.

You are effectively arguing that an intersection with additional safety equipment is less safe. There is no known data that supports your position.

# Atherton residents are doing everything they can to kill off Caltrain



# Atherton residents are doing everything they can to kill off Caltrain because they think they're too precious to have a train running through their enclave of privilege.

Wrong. Atherton has long requested more service at the station, not less.

Here's an article on some of the Quiet Zones in other cities in California. As you can see from the article, they are not unusual. The only thing unusual about the CalTrain right-of-way is that it is long overdue to have Quiet Zones:

Web Link

We should follow San Jose's and Richmond's leads and establish a Quiet Zone at the Fair Oaks crossing.

AFAIK -- any city that establishes a Quiet Zone has to accept all legal liability for all accidents involving any trains at all grade crossings where there are Quiet Zones in that city. Is Atherton going to accept that liability?

Trains have been running on that right of way since 1864. If the noise they make is so bad that you think Fair Oaks should be a Quiet Zone, then why did you buy homes so close to the tracks?

# AFAIK -- any city that establishes a Quiet Zone has to accept all legal liability for all accidents involving any trains at all grade crossings where there are Quiet Zones in that city.

Do you have a reputable, independent source to base this statement on? Quiet Zones exist all over the country, in both urban and rural locations; there is absolutely nothing trailblazing about establishing a Quiet Zone at Fair Oaks.

Also, do you think Caltrain and Union Pacific accept liability at the intersections now? Of course not. Your statement strongly implies a transfer of liability ... but from whom? Does anyone seriously think Caltrain thinks it has liability at every intersection along the right-of-way?

According to the FRA, railway intersections with additional safety measures are safer. That should be the driving force for establishing a Quiet Zone at Fair Oaks, not unsupported speculation.

"not unsupported speculation"

Sounds like you ought to have a real answer, instead of attacking the poster, before moving forward. Does Atherton face increased liability if they move in this direction?

You are the self declared expert here with the OP and 4 of the 8 responses - it's a rather basic question.

Does Atherton face increased liability if they move in this direction?

"there is absolutely nothing trailblazing" is not an answer to that question.

A quiet zone will not change the town's legal liability according to the Federal Railroad Administration. The town staff report to the council has a section on FRA's rule on liability and indemnification if anyone is interested in the details.

Web Link

You'll have to scroll down to near the end of the document to find the section.

However, I would not be surprised if Caltrain and UP *tried* to get Atherton to take on their liability. They will try, but they won't get it. The FRA says Atherton does NOT have to take responsibility for others' liability. If Caltrain and UP could really transfer their liability upon the municipality requesting a quiet zone, Caltrain and UP would be the ones pushing for a quiet zone at Fair Oaks (and up and down the peninsula).

Yet, they are not encouraging quiet zones. In fact, I would characterize their behavior as discouraging quiet zones because they do not receive any benefits. They get more government compliance paperwork and a new way to be fined if they violate the quiet zone, but the surrounding community gets an immense benefit in reducing noise pollution without compromising safety.

Jeremy replied more eloquently than I could have, thank you.

I'm very interested in keeping debate and conversation civil, so if my tone to "Louise68" was interpreted as hostile, that was not my intent and I apologize.

That said, challenging the assertion that Atherton would need "to accept that liability" is a very reasonable position for me to take.

Expecting me to refute an assertion is an attempt to unreasonably shift the burden of proof: "one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed." Michalos, Alex (1969). Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p. 370.


"You are the self declared expert here"

I have never declared myself an expert.


"Does Atherton face increased liability if they move in this direction?"

Jeremy responded to this, and he answered this better than I could have (thank you Jeremy). See his post above, as well as the link he provided.

See Bourbonnais train wreck in Wikipedia. Amtrak's crack "City of New Orleans" - on 79 mph track (the same as Caltrain's) - in 1999 hit a heavy truck at a grade crossing, derailing two locomotives and 11 of 13 cars. Had that been a packed commute train in push mode (engine behind) and the speed been 110 mph as Caltrain reportedly plans, the death toll would have been staggering. Concerns about liability are justified.

@Robert

In the Bourbonnais case, the municipality was NOT at fault. Thus, the municipality had no liability.

Municipalities cannot be at fault when individuals knowingly make unsafe decisions. Municipalities cannot be at fault for lack of safety equipment maintenance because that is the track operator's sole responsibility. Caltrain and UP will try to offload their liability to Atherton, but Atherton can refuse and still get a quiet zone. Atherton's liability will be unchanged before and after the quiet zone.

Quad gates at quiet crossings greatly reduce the likelihood of collision. Still, though, a truck with a dangerous or heavy load can stall on the track, and there is another Bourbonnais, perhaps many times worse. Higher speed trains, especially without an engine in front as a "shield", are vulnerable at grade crossings. The best of warning devices can fail if a vehicle is disabled or stalls at a crossing. Concerns about liability arise with any grade crossing.

Bourbonnais? You mean this one?

Web Link

Wouldn't that take out a lot of homes right on the tracks?

re: Atherton and liability - the town's track record regarding court proceedings and legal action is darn poor.

All for quiet. However, even with the quad gates in place there have been car/train accidents at FairOaks crossing and afew train/pedestrian accidents in the "quiet zone area"

While the FRA may absolve Atherton of liability, it does not sit on the Bench nor sit in the Jury box.

Regardless I fully support the Town doing the additional research on the matter.

Posted by David a resident of another community
"NIMBYs, the lot of ya" David, you sound angry and resentful of people who have worked hard to live in this area. So, take your unwarranted remarks elsewhere. Also, realize that every step taken to make our--and your--environment more pleasant helps us all.

"Municipalities cannot be at fault when individuals knowingly make unsafe decisions."

Exactly.

While I appreciate and respect those with concerns about liability, keep in mind that keeping things unchanged does NOT protect someone (or something, like a municipality) from being sued. For example, Menlo Park had not change the Ravenswood crossing in any significant way in years, yet it's being sued for the death at that intersection earlier this year.

As previously mentioned, Caltrain and UP may demand that they be waived of liability if a Quiet Zone is implemented. They can ask for that simply because they have nothing to lose by asking. But they are in no position for their demands to be enforced. All Atherton has to do is say, "no", and that is the end of that.


"a truck with a dangerous or heavy load can stall on the track"

Blowing a train horn isn't going to make the truck un-stalled. The establishment of a Quiet Zone is a non-factor in your scenario.