Most of the tracks were laid long before houses went up, so I don't blame the railroads for asking the homeowners who knowingly bought a house next to train tracks to pony up for the Quiet Zone.
Earlier articles indicated that this accident pretty well shut down the MAX, as it occurred in a location where multiple lines run in the same place.
A 62-year-old Washington woman was struck by a westbound MAX train early Sept. 5 near Portland's Lloyd Center. She later died from her injuries at a hospital. (Brent Wojahn/The Oregonian)
A Washington woman died after being hit by a MAX train in Northeast Portland early Thursday, authorities say.
Yvonne Osredkar, 62, of Ridgefield, Wash., was the pedestrian struck while in a marked crosswalk about 7:40 a.m. near Northeast 7th Avenue and Holladay Street, the Multnomah County Medical Examiner's Office said. It marks the second TriMet train-related death this year....
After being hit, Osredkar was dragged a short distance and then pinned between the tracks and the train's undercarriage, said Lt. Rich Chatman, a Portland Fire & Rescue spokesman. She was taken to a hospital in the area after being freed and later died there.
Reviews of surveillance video show Osredkar may have not heard the MAX train coming because of nearby heavy construction, police said.
3 of the (current) 4 MAX lines operate along that section.
That's not fully true the grade crossings could be upgraded and the line could become a federally designated Quiet Zone
True this!
Looking further at the FRA database of grade crossing incidents, I see accidents occuring in Modesto at grade crossings at all hours of the day and night. So your supposition that "no one is out" is incorrect, since people are colliding with trains all the time.
San Antonio has been making FRA mandated changes in order to create quiet zones. It's not a hard task for a major city to accomplish. I'm not sure they're as safe at first, mainly because our citizens need time to become familiar with the concept of silent crossings, but other than that I support the goals of lowering noise while still keeping safety to reasonable levels. If you're an alert driver you won't get hit. If you're a clueless phone-focused idiot or aggressive road raging (person), well, nice knowing you. The only problem I have with silent crossings is that they're nearly impossible to leave if the train stops or the crossing itself fails to deactivate. It creates a huge unmitigated mess that seems ripe for an accident.
It's a shame that's not what's happening here. There are plenty of things to complain about. Train horns when you choose to live near the railroad tracks isn't one of them.
Oh, please. If someone moves next to a railroad crossing, airport, hospital, police station, or major street, they should be darn well prepared to hear some noise. We aren't mocking them; we're pointing out their flawed accusations.
What I see is a lot of generalizing about anyone who complains about noises or smells that predated their arrival.
I think the flaw in your example is that power plants are not supposed to produce contamination whereas trains are supposed to blow their horns. Can you think of a better example?
I live two blocks from a hospital. However, this hospital is smack in the middle of a residental neighborhood and the ambulances are not supposed to use sirens while in the neighborhood. I made sure to research this and understand it before I purchased my home last year.
h34r:
Sure.
Early power plants had charters that made little or no reference to pollution or safety or efficiency or hundreds of other concerns that came long after the plants were built. Should those plants be grandfathered in or is there something unique about one impact versus another? For instance would there be a noise loud enough or a smell strong enough to compete with lead poisoning? The militarization of noise as a weapon and the ability for a strong smell to wake unconscious people would seem to be proof that it can have a substantial impact on quality of life over time. What about someone who lives in a house near the tracks which they inherited from their parents? Are they not allowed to expect anything better than what they started with without first moving somewhere else? If we really hold to that ideal then we might as well forget about high speed rail since there's no corridor left that won't require moving someone who was there first. Back to the original topic, to my understanding the original purpose of the train horn was safety. If the goal of safe operation can be sufficiently maintained through means other than a horn then what is fundamentally wrong with requesting or supporting such changes?
