Public Interest Lawyer wrote on Apr 14, 2007 6:31 AM:This is a bad, bad idea, but in order to figure out why, you have to put yourself into the position of a personal injury lawyer. Let's say that someone gets killed by a train. It happens all the time, on average, two to three times locally each year. Now, imagine that the train victim's family goes to a personal injury lawyer. The personal injury lawyer takes the case and thinks of all of the possible theories why the city should be held liable. Maybe the city was negligent in how it posted signs. Maybe the city was negligent in how it operated the stop lights. Maybe the train was going too fast. Now, if the City adopts a "quiet zone" policy, the City has given the personal injury lawyer another theory on which to assert the city's liability, another theory on which the lawyer can assert that the city "knowingly tolerated" something in an "unsafe condition." And maybe that theory, unlike the others, is enough to create a factual dispute that might survive a "motion for summary judgment," which then gives the personal injury lawyer the opportunity to tell his tale of woe to a jury. And, once in front of a jury, baby, hold on to your wallet because it's lottery time! If the case gets to a jury, the jury will likely be so overcome by the tragedy, it will reach out to the first big pocket (e.g. the city) and award substantial compensation (loss of projected future income, loss of consortium, emotional distress, etc.) to the victim's family, even if the death had nothing to do with the quiet zone. Like it or not, this is how our legal system works, and a jury is unlikely to get caught up in the details of whether the quiet zone was a substantial factor in causing someone's death.

observer wrote on Apr 14, 2007 7:25 AM:Hey Pryor, get them to sell the worthless airport and there will be enough mmoney for quite zones..

Matt wrote on Apr 14, 2007 8:20 AM:Am I missing something? Is not having trains blow their horns even worth that much money, regardless of how it's paid for?

Carter: wrote on Apr 14, 2007 8:43 AM: Give it up! Get used to the train whistles. The trains are going to run even if they are empty. The first person that gets hit by the train at a crossing will start the whistles again. I grew up beside the tracks and I sleep like a baby beside the tracks and beside a crossing. Don't waste your money trying to improve and beat the whistles.

Oceanside Chris wrote on Apr 14, 2007 8:50 AM:As a ten year rider of the Coaster from Oceanside to San Diego, I see too many fools tempt fate in crossing the tracks. Having quiet zones only sets of the city of Oceanside, the NCTD, and taxpayers for failure. Someone will cross in the path of a high-speed train and die. That's for certain. Just like living near an airport, the horns of the train are part of the price of living near the track. The only known solution is the put the train either above or below ground -- and that will not happen. The Coaster continues to be the best time saver to and from the North County. Keep the horns!

reply to lawyer wrote on Apr 14, 2007 8:57 AM:Give me a break. In all those train deaths you talk about, most are suicide or outright stupidity. Typical ambulance chasing lawyer and mumbo jumbo talking. It would all come down to selecting a jury that could possibly blame the city for the idiot that walks or drives around a barrier, ignores the flashing red light and crossing bells and not looking both ways at a rairoad crossing like every two year old is taught. I've got a better idea, don't pay the money for the quiet zone, lets spend the money to figure out how to get rid of the bad personal injury lawyers and public interest lawyers. And by the way most of this could have been paid for in the Sprinter deal if the O'side City Council started considering this when it was first brought up years ago before the Sprinter was even thought of.

Fred wrote on Apr 14, 2007 8:58 AM:For the money they're going to spend, they should consider building grade separations at the crossings. That is the safest solution.

Jimmy the III wrote on Apr 14, 2007 9:27 AM:As the area redevelops maybe the new developments or their patrons should be conditioned with this cost? After all the noise for the new resort hotel/s users, it would disturb their rest and sleep. So Why not add a 'Quiet zone fee' to any hotel room or timeshare? This way over a long period of time it could be paid for by small added amounts of say a quarter a day since it would directly benefit their stay and enjoyment. This was not considered by staff.

Airport will live trains will die wrote on Apr 14, 2007 9:56 AM:Hey observer didn't you read the paper a couple weeks back. Oceanside Airport will remain open for 30 or more years. This is because it recieves FAA federal funding.....

Who Represents Who? wrote on Apr 14, 2007 9:57 AM:This is stupid and NOT in the best interest of all of the city. To pick the pockets of the many to fund a project for the few reeks of BAD BUSINESS! Just say NO! to theis crazy project!

help is on the way wrote on Apr 14, 2007 10:18 AM:Just ask the Chargers, they want to be part of the community...I'm sure they would be glad to pay for the quiet zones.

Just say No wrote on Apr 14, 2007 10:23 AM:This is a project for which funds clearly should NOT be expended. People knew the tracks were there when they bought their homes. Perhaps another way to go is to look at helping those closest to the crossings with insultated windows to help knock the noise down. I have them and they make a huge difference. Maybe a rebate type program? Of course that should be born by the folks who live by the tracks, not the rest of the city or with our road improvement money. PS_- those of us on the Sprinter line bought our homes years and years and years before that project was dreamed up. I say extend the insulated window rebate and build some additional sound walls and landscape with some large trees and maybe we won't go out of our minds when loud horns blast every 15 minutes from pre-dawn to 10 pm.

quiet zone?? wrote on Apr 14, 2007 10:23 AM:don't worry it will run on a limited schedule after a while anyway. not enough people will ride it to keep it going. Money will spent in the 1st place. Remind the public how much of their money was spent on this thing

To Public Interest Lawyer wrote on Apr 14, 2007 10:23 AM:Did you just graduate from law school? You're giving a perfect lecture from Torts I. They have these crossings all over Europe and have no problems with them. Get some real world experience and stop spouting legal platitudes.

Brad wrote on Apr 14, 2007 10:51 AM:While it is true locally, that 2 – 3 people die at the railroad crossings each year very few were because they didn’t know the train was coming. I have lived next to a railroad track crossing in Carlsbad for over 9 years and of the 4 people that have died at my crossing all of them were suicides. A few years ago a couple was killed in down town Carlsbad but they were fooling around and were intoxicated at the time. I am talking about deaths at crossings not in between them. The train blowing its horn didn’t attract their attention. The one incident last year in Carlsbad where a kid was killed in downtown was because he was standing too close to the tracks. The trains horn didn’t move him back neither did the wall of wind coming off the front of the train. I doubt a gate would have kept him away either. It is my understanding that if the engineer observes a hazard on the tracks in front of him he is allowed to use the horn under the quiet rules. I believe that the train blowing the horn does not alert anyone as the train approaches the crossing. The gates activation with the bells, flashing lights, and crossing gates coming down do that as they activate long before the train starts to blow the horn. I have observed on quite a few occasions where the gates activating didn’t stop people from trying to get around them often with damage to their vehicles. The train blowing its horn didn’t do a thing. My desire to see a quiet zone in Carlsbad is because many of the engineers start blowing their horns over a half mile from the intersection and are still blowing them through the intersection and beyond. I fail to see how that is keeping anyone from danger in the intersection after the train has passed. I also don’t see how pedestrian crossing gates are going to keep people safe if the train isn’t using the horn. If they can’t observe that the gate is down and they have to walk around the counter weight now I doubt they well stop for a gate. It is too easy to duck under or go around it. If they do, the engineer can and should use the horn. In my opinion the extreme cost of installing new “quiet zone” crossing gates is a waste of money. I doubt that it will reduce the number of incidents with trains as crossings as I stated earlier the vast majority of them are intentional and the very few that are not intentional the horn didn’t make any difference. I can see were the use of the horn may have avoided incidents between crossings but I seriously doubt that it has made a difference at one. I don’t see the need for huge costly upgrades to crossings either as I don’t believe the horn makes a 6 to 9 million dollar difference. I agree with Lee Pryor Brad Carlsbad

Jack A wrote on Apr 14, 2007 1:21 PM:The whole issue of train whistles needs some upgrading. In todays cars, with the windows rolled up, you can't hear the whistle anyway, at least not until the train is so close it's too late to do anything about it. Whistles are needed where here are no gates. But we do have the gates, and we have bells for the pedestrians. Anyone foolish enough to drive around the gates, or walk around them,is a candidate for the Annual Darwin Award. So where we have the gates and the bells, what's the need for the tooting the train whistles in the first place?

Bob wrote on Apr 14, 2007 1:44 PM:Did the people who bought next to the Railroad tracks not notice that they were there? This is typical of Americans, buy next to something that was there long before they were and makes noise, and then complain about it until it is done away with or costs millions to fix (Of course you will then complain about how much money was spent on this). Save the money and let the trains blow their horns!!

a little info wrote on Apr 14, 2007 2:45 PM:These so called quiet zones aren't as quiet as you might think. Current federal law says trains must honk their horns at all crossings. Quiet zones are crossings that are upgraded so that they no longer have to honk their horns at that crossing. That doesn't mean they can't honk their horns. If the engineer sees a pedestrian on or near the tracks he can still use his horns to warn them of his approach. Like a couple of other posters noted, if you don't like the sound of trains don't buy near the train tracks. Same for planes and airports.

Change the horn wrote on Apr 14, 2007 4:22 PM:Don't spend the money on fixing the intersection, spend it changing the sound of the horn. Europes' trains have a different sound to them, use that instead. They don't have as many train accidents.

Stephen wrote on Apr 14, 2007 11:16 PM:Change the horn? Huh, Jack A? To that I say yeah right. Contrary to what you said, a train's horn is audible with the car windows rolled up. Heck, I can hear the horn blaring from my house even though it is across the freeway from the tracks.

Jo wrote on Apr 15, 2007 11:21 AM:The money for anything the Cities need to have to do to help with street crossings/horns barriers for the rail should be born by Sandag and the favored developers who have pushed to cover the cement in the County. Smart Growth by Sandag (a fantasy) should pay for all the "Quiet Zone" costs... I have asked for statistics on the amount of new residents in these Smart Growth areas who ride the trains and Sandag does not have such a thing....but are still promoting Smart Growth. Sandag's stupid concept supported by inept Councils of building way up near main transportation corridors so that those residents will use transportation and leave their cars at home..is truly a fantasy as the now transportation system is a failure as to coordination of Coaster/bus and now the dream world of Sprinter/bus...with Sandag's recent interference has led us to this mess....just go to all the Coastal Cities and see the parking problems for the downtown businesses....from the cars being driven to the train stations..not to mention the special buses to accomodate Coaster rail passengers. No residents should be charged an assesment fee for the benefit of Rail Crossings. Smart Growth needs to be readdressed.

O'side Res wrote on Apr 16, 2007 8:53 AM:As a kid when you talked about trains, the response was "Woooo, Wooooooooooo", when you buy next to train tracks you are going to hear horns. Location, Location, Location. You buy next to a dairy farm, your going to smell manure. Its not Sandags fault. Quit blaming. maybe checking the horn set ups of other countries could or has been done. Trains blow there horns because the are huge and can be upon you before you can hear them. I've been down at the beach in San Clemente where you have to cross the tracks to get to the beach and I was thankful the horn blew. Quit wasting money on this no issue.

Sandy wrote on Apr 16, 2007 12:03 PM:To Bob: Some of us live 2 miles away from the track and we still hear it. Last night for instance, the train on Oceanside Blvd blew it's horn at approx. 10:30pm, 12:30am, 2:30am, and 4:30am. I know because it woke me up and I live 2 miles away. When I bought my house 2 years ago, I was told by my realtor that the track was not in use and that I wouldn't be able to hear a train 2 miles away. Fortunately for me, I can sell my house and move from Oceanside. Others are not so lucky.

DET wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:06 AM:1. Could "quiet zones" only be in effect at night (say from 10 pm to 6 am)?

2. If an active crossing (one with a wig-wag or other, more modern signals) has visual (red lights), audible (bells), and physical (gates) devices to warn motorists and pedestrians of the approach of a train, why would anything have to be added to enable a "quiet zone" to be implemented? A sign plate advising motorists that trains are in a quiet zone could be attached to each RR crossing advance sign for probably $50 each. In an area with, say, five crossings, with two signs at each (and maybe an extra set for a crossing near an intersection), the whole "quiet zone could be implemented for little more than $1000. The millions of dollars that are being discussed here would probably do little or nothing to improve safety. It sounds like regulations have been written by politicians and/or lawyers who expect to pocket some loot somewhere down the line.