Letter: Quiet zones will have consequences

  • Mail this page!
  • Delicious
  • 0

The proponents of the no-whistle trains point out how safe the railway crossings are going to be with the installation of the special barriers and lights and gates (some of it, I imagine, at taxpayer expense). So now, we have about 50 feet of track, that is very safe. They make no mention however, about the bridges, and miles of track, between these crossings, that will now be, less safe. If the trains do not sound their whistles, as they are now required to do, at certain locations along the tracks personal safety could be compromised.

People walk on the tracks. Hunters walk on the tracks. Nearer to cities, homeless people walk on the tracks. People under the influence of various things walk on the tracks. Young people, especially, like to walk on the tracks.

The trains are going to be traveling up to 60 miles per hour and making no sounds except for the sound of their own machinery. How can you believe that this is a safe situation? If an accident should happen on the tracks and it is decided that the sound of a whistle might have prevented it, who do you think will be held liable? It won’t be the railroad company. Isn’t the safety of the public a little more important than the perceived discomfort of a few families who live near the tracks? I implore any community that is contemplating a quiet zone along their tracks to give a lot of thought to the possible consequences.

Everett White
Cumberland

0