Railroad Safety: Quiet Zone Analyses and Inspections Could Be Improved

Accidents at grade crossings are a major source of fatalities in the railroad industry. FRA—the federal agency responsible for providing regulatory oversight of grade-crossing safety—–issued regulations on the use of train horns in 2005. Railroads generally support sounding the horn, whereas, communities often support quiet zones to reduce noise.

Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to examine FRA's train horn regulations, including those on quiet zones. Among other things, this report: (1) describes benefits and costs of quiet zones, and (2) examines how FRA evaluates the effectiveness of its train horn regulations. GAO analyzed FRA's documentation on quiet zones, including FRA's train horn regulations and 2011 and 2013 studies on quiet zone safety; reviewed literature; and interviewed FRA program officials in headquarters, Grade Crossing Managers in FRA's 8 regions, and a nongeneralizable sample of another 32 stakeholders from 6 states, railroads, public authorities, and private industry consulting firms. State and public authorities were selected based on the number of quiet zones, geographic diversity, and FRA's recommendations.

GAO found that the benefits of quiet zones—–i.e., highway-rail at-grade crossings (grade crossings) where train horns are not sounded—have not been quantified and that the costs to establish quiet zones vary. The Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) train horn regulations allow public authorities (e.g., cities or towns) the opportunity to establish quiet zones if they install safety measures that reduce risks associated with the absence of the train horn (see fig.). While GAO did not identify any research that has quantified the benefits of quiet zones, most stakeholders GAO interviewed said that these quiet zones provide benefits to communities, such as reducing noise or increasing economic development. According to FRA guidance, the factors that affect the costs to establish quiet zones can vary based on the number of grade crossings and types of safety measures used. Public authorities, which typically incur the costs and receive the benefits of quiet zones, must therefore decide whether the benefits of quiet zones exceed the costs.

To evaluate the effectiveness of its train horn regulations, FRA has analyzed data on grade crossings in quiet zones and is transitioning to a formal process for inspecting quiet zones.

Analyses: FRA's analyses showed grade crossings in quiet zones were generally as safe as they were when train horns were sounded. However, these analyses did not control for changes to grade crossings' characteristics over time—–e.g., train speeds or frequency. Such changes may decrease the analyses' reliability. A revised methodology that accounts for these changes could provide FRA with better information on the long-term effects of the train horn regulations, including the safety of quiet zones.

Inspections: Recognizing the need for additional oversight, FRA has taken steps to formalize its process for inspecting quiet zones. FRA has primarily relied on public authorities to oversee quiet zones and ensure compliance with the train horn regulations, in addition to informal inspections by FRA's Grade Crossing Managers. In September 2017, FRA began conducting formal inspections of quiet zones using Grade Crossing Inspectors. However, FRA has not developed guidance for how inspections are to be conducted, including how frequently inspections are to be performed or what should be examined. Without guidance, FRA cannot ensure that inspections are being conducted consistently across FRA's eight regions.

GAO recommends that FRA: (1) revise its methodology for analyzing the safety of quiet zones, and (2) develop guidance on conducting quiet zone inspections. The Department of Transportation partially concurred with the first recommendation, saying it would consider it, and fully concurred with the second. GAO continues to believe changes to the methodology are needed, as discussed in the report.

Accidents where railroad tracks cross roads (termed “grade crossings”)  are a major source of fatalities in the U.S. railroad industry. According to  data from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)—the federal agency  that oversees rail safety, including the safety of grade crossings—in 2016  there were more than 2,000 accidents at grade crossings, resulting in 264  fatalities, or about 36 percent of all railroad fatalities.

To prevent accidents at grade crossings, railroads have historically  sounded their horns to warn motorists of oncoming trains. However,  according to FRA, since the 1970s, many cities, counties, and towns  around the nation enacted whistle bans (i.e., local ordinances which  prohibit or restrict the use of train horns or whistles at grade crossings).  The whistle bans were allowed due in part to community complaints about  the negative effects of the train horn noise on resident’s quality of life.  While whistle bans may have reduced noise, in 1990 FRA conducted an  analysis on Florida’s whistle bans that showed that they led to a 195  percent increase in accidents at grade crossings during nighttime hours.

Partially as a result of FRA’s analysis and the spike in accidents  associated with selected whistle bans, in 1994 FRA was required in  statute to issue train horn regulations governing the sounding of train  horns at all public grade crossings. The statute also provided FRA  authority to make exceptions. In August 2006, FRA issued its final rule on  the use of locomotive horns at highway-rail-grade crossings. The rule  provided states and public authorities with an opportunity to establish  “quiet zones,” where train horns are not routinely sounded as trains  approach grade crossings. However, certain conditions must be met to  mitigate the increased risks resulting from the absence of the train horn.  While grade-crossing accidents have remained relatively constant in  recent years, federal and private-sector railroad officials remain  concerned about grade crossings’ safety, including whether grade  crossings in quiet zones are as safe as grade crossings where the train  horn is sounded. These concerns are often in conflict with public  authorities who want to establish quiet zones to reduce noise.

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act included a provision for  GAO to review FRA’s final rule. This report discusses: (1) what is known  about the benefits and costs of quiet zones; (2) what challenges, if any,  public authorities and others encounter in establishing quiet zones; and  (3) how, if at all, FRA is evaluating the effectiveness of federal train horn  regulations.

The scope of this work focused primarily on new quiet zones—that is,  quiet zones that were established after FRA issued the train horn  regulations in August 2006. For each of our objectives, we reviewed  pertinent FRA regulations and documents; conducted a literature review  of academic material on quiet zones; interviewed FRA program officials  in headquarters and conducted in-depth interviews with a  nongeneralizable sample of 40 stakeholders—including officials from 8  freight railroads, 5 private industry consulting firms with experience  helping public authorities establish quiet zones, 6 state agencies, 13  public authorities that established quiet zones within these 6 states, and  Grade Crossing Managers (GCM) in each of FRA’s 8 regions. We  selected the states based on a number of factors including the number of  quiet zones established since federal regulations were issued, the  number of grade crossings within quiet zones, and geographic diversity.  We selected the public authorities for interviews based on factors similar  to the state selections, such as the number of new quiet zones, the  number of grade crossings in new quiet zones, geographic diversity, and  recommendations from FRA’s GCMs and FRA’s program officials. We  asked each of these stakeholder groups a similar set of questions to  gather the individual’s views on each of our objectives; these views  cannot be generalized to others. With respect to the freight railroads, we  selected the seven largest freight railroads, in addition to the railroad  involved with the Florida whistle ban. The private industry consultants  were selected based on recommendations from FRA and other  stakeholders we interviewed.

We also conducted additional work related to each of the objectives:

To describe what is known about the benefits and costs of quiet  zones, we reviewed FRA’s Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory  Flexibility Assessment (RFIA), which evaluated the economic impacts  of federal train horn regulations, and a user guide prepared by FRA  on how to establish quiet zones.

To identify what challenges public authorities and other stakeholders  encounter in establishing quiet zones, we conducted a content  analysis of interviews with stakeholders identified above. We also  reviewed FRA’s Notice of Safety Inquiry—the agency’s retrospective  review of the final rule—issued in March 2016.

To determine how FRA is evaluating the effectiveness of FRA’s train  horn regulations in quiet zones, we reviewed FRA’s safety studies,  published in 2011 and 2013, that compared the safety of grade  crossings before and after the establishment of the quiet zone to  determine whether safety was impacted. To assess the reliability of  FRA’s studies, we drew on established guidelines for assessing  research, our reports on evaluating research programs, and our  internal expertise in research design. We also compared FRA’s  approach to federal internal controls related to information and  communication. In addition, we reviewed FRA policies and  procedures to determine its’ oversight approach and then compared  this approach to federal internal control standards that would be  applicable to the control environment.

Finally, in order to obtain information about quiet zones, we reviewed  FRA’s data on quiet zones established from 2005 through 2017. To  assess the reliability of these data, we examined FRA reports, analyzed  the data to identify any outliers, and interviewed FRA program officials  about how the data were collected and used. We determined that the  data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. See appendix I for more  information on our scope and methodology and appendix III for a list of  organizations we contacted.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 to October 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The United States railroad system consists of a vast network of  operations that includes more than 780 railroads operating across  220,000 miles of track—including about 212,000 grade crossings. Both  freight and passenger railroads operate across the system. The freight  railroad industry is dominated by the seven largest railroads, referred to  as class I railroads, whereas passenger rail service includes Amtrak and  29 commuter railroads.

FRA is responsible for providing regulatory oversight of the safety of both  freight and passenger railroads. To accomplish this oversight, FRA issues  and enforces numerous safety regulations, including requirements  governing track, signal and train control systems, grade crossing warning  systems, and railroad-operating practices. FRA monitors railroads’  compliance with federal safety regulations through routine and special  emphasis inspections on railroads’ systems. FRA’s inspectors generally  specialize in one of five areas. These inspection areas are called  disciplines and include: (1) operating practices, (2) track, (3) hazardous  materials, (4) signal and train control, and (5) motive power and  equipment.

FRA also has specific responsibilities related to the safety of grade  crossings, including issuing regulations regarding the use of train horns at  grade crossings. FRA issued regulations in August 2006, after FRA’s  analysis illustrated the dangers of whistle bans. Federal regulations  require that train horns be sounded in advance of all public grade  crossings. However, the regulations also provide an opportunity for  public authorities to reduce the effects of noise associated with the train  horn by establishing quiet zones. While railroads are directed to cease  the routine sounding of the train horn at-grade crossings within quiet  zones, the final rule states that train horns may still be sounded in  emergency situations and to comply with other federal regulations and  railroad operating rules.

As of June 2017, there were 570 new quiet zones located across 42  states (see fig. 1).

Train engineers are generally required to sound the horns at least 15 seconds, and no  more than 20 seconds, in advance of all grade crossings. Train horns must be sounded in  a standardized pattern of 2 long, 1 short and 1 long blast, with the volume ranging from 96  decibels to 110 decibels.

Each pedestrian crossing or private crossing to an active commercial or industrial site  must be reviewed by a diagnostic team and equipped or treated in accordance with its  recommendations. The public authority must invite the state agency responsible for grade  crossings’ safety and all affected railroads to participate in the diagnostic review. FRA is  not required to participate in diagnostic reviews.  The Notice of Intent provides railroads and state agencies with an opportunity to provide  comments and recommendations on the quiet zone. A complete and accurate U.S.

Department of Transportation Grade Crossing Inventory Form must be on file with FRA for  all crossings within the quiet zone to reflect the current conditions at each crossing.  A Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment must be issued to FRA, applicable railroads, and  relevant state agencies indicating a quiet zone is being established at least 21 days prior  to the establishment date.

Throughout the process public authorities may work with a number of  stakeholders who have roles and responsibilities related to grade  crossings. These include:

FRA: In addition to issuing rules and regulations governing train horns  and quiet zones, FRA has staff—in headquarters and in FRA’s eight  regional offices—that review public authority applications for use of  ASMs, issue guidance on implementing federal regulations, answer  questions from the public, and provide technical assistance related to  the establishment of quiet zones. For example, FRA’s 19 regional  GCMs serve as subject matter experts on the train horn regulations  and respond to questions from public authorities, while FRA program  officials approve ASMs and conduct required annual reviews of quiet  zones established relative to the Nationwide Significant Risk  Threshold to ensure they equal or fall below this risk index.

Railroads: Railroads work with public authorities to: (1) identify  appropriate safety measures at grade crossings; (2) participate in  diagnostic review meetings when the quiet zone includes public,  private, or pedestrian grade crossings; (3) receive and comment on  public authority’s quiet zone notifications (e.g., the Notice of Intent and  Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment); (4) install safety measures on  railroad property; and (5) direct train crews not to sound horns in  established quiet zones.

State departments of transportation and rail regulatory agencies:  These agencies receive and comment on Notices of Intent, public  authority applications, and Notices of Quiet Zone Establishment;  review, and in some cases approve grade crossing modifications; and  participate in diagnostic reviews.

Private industry consultants: In some cases, public authorities hire  consultants to provide subject matter expertise on establishing quiet  zones. Consultants may perform such tasks as determining the  feasibility of a quiet zone; arranging diagnostic reviews; assessing  quiet zone risks; and identifying appropriate safety measures.

According to FRA officials, federal funding is available to reduce the risks  of accidents at grade crossings, but funding specific to quiet zones is  limited and no dedicated source exists. The primary source of federal  funding to improve grade crossings’ safety is the Federal Highway  Administration’s (FHWA) Railway-Highway Crossings (Section 130)  Program, which received a set-aside of $230 million for fiscal year 2017  from amounts authorized for the Highway Safety Improvement Program.  While the funds are not specific to quiet zones, Section 130 funds may be  used to upgrade crossing infrastructure, an upgrade that may result in a  public authority’s being more easily able to establish a quiet zone.  However, according to FRA program officials, the program is competitive  and funding must be used for safety projects. They said projects are  selected on a safety priority basis, and quiet zones are generally  considered a quality of life issue, not a safety improvement. Hence, it is  unlikely that many public authorities will obtain these funds to establish  quiet zones. Further, the officials said that while other federal funding is  available for which grade crossing improvements may be an eligible  expense, none is dedicated to quiet zones.

According to FRA officials, limited federal funding is available because  quiet zones are not a national issue. They produce highly localized  quality-of-life benefits and little or no improvement in the level of safety at  grade crossings, but rather the safety measures are installed to  compensate for silencing the sound of a train horn at grade crossings.  As a result, public authorities seeking to establish quiet zones generally  fund the installation of SSMs and ASMs. Given limited funding, public  authorities determine whether the benefits of establishing a quiet zone  outweigh the costs to establish them.

Benefits of Quiet Zones Have Not Been Quantified, and Costs Depend on Many Factors

While Benefits of Quiet Zones Have Not Been Quantified, Selected Stakeholders Highlighted Benefits for Communities

Benefits derived from establishing quiet zones and reducing noise from  the train horn have not been quantified in research we reviewed or by the  public authorities (i.e., communities) that we interviewed. Specifically, our  review of literature did not identify any studies that had quantified the  benefits resulting from public authorities establishing quiet zones at grade  crossings where the horn was previously sounded. Further, FRA has not  quantified benefits associated with quiet zones, but did note in its RFIA  that quiet zones would likely result in localized quality-of-life benefits from  silencing of the horn at locations where it had previously been sounded.  Finally, none of the public authorities we interviewed have conducted any  analysis that has quantified benefits associated with quiet zones or were  aware of any studies that quantified these benefits.

While the benefits of quiet zones have not been quantified, the majority of  stakeholders whom we interviewed stated that quiet zones do provide  benefits for communities. The most commonly cited benefit (35 of 40  stakeholders) was the reduction in noise due to the absence of routine  sounding of the train horn. Stakeholders told us this noise reduction led to  improvements in quality of life from, for example, the ability to sleep better  at night, as well as a reduction in residents’ noise complaints. To a lesser  extent, stakeholders also cited economic development and safety as  benefits for communities. Almost half of the stakeholders (19 of 40) we  interviewed told us that areas with new quiet zones saw an increase in  economic development from such things as new businesses or residential  developments. Similarly, almost half of the stakeholders (17 of 40) said  that quiet zones increased safety along rail lines, given the addition of  new safety measures at the grade crossings.

While the benefits associated with quiet zones have not been measured,  more generally, researchers have analyzed the effect of transportation  noise on property values and health to understand the effects.

Property values: Our review identified two studies that analyzed the  effect of freight train noise on property values in selected communities  and found mixed results. In one study, the authors looked at the effect  of a freight rail line on home prices and concluded that, while for  smaller homes results suggest a negative and statistically significant  effect on sale prices, results for medium and larger units were  mixed. In the second study, the author examined the effect of a  railroad’s decision to ignore whistle bans and found that proximity to  rail lines and crossings had a negative and statistically significant  effect on residential property values in some communities, with the  effect varying depending on distance to the rail line. The author  concluded that the crossing effects were largely temporary, because  over time, buyers less sensitive to noise would likely move into the  area, reducing or eliminating any long-term effect of the railroad’s  decision. However, both of these studies have limitations, are based  on data almost two decades old, and the results might not be  representative of the economic effects associated with quiet zones.

Health effects: In 2002, FRA summarized available academic  literature on the undesirable effects of noise—primarily focusing on  transportation noise associated with aircraft, highways, and  railroads. According to the research, transportation noise can cause  undesirable psychological health effects, such as annoyance, and  physiological health effects, such as hearing impairments and sleep  disturbance on individuals.

Costs to Establish Quiet Zones Depend on Many Factors

Total costs to establish quiet zones depend on many factors and vary  widely. Prior to issuing regulations, in the RFIA, FRA identified the types  of costs associated with establishing quiet zones that can be incurred by  public authorities, states, railroads, and FRA. These factors included such  things as upgrading signals at grade crossings; purchasing, installing, and  maintaining safety measures like flashing lights and gates; developing,  reviewing, and evaluating quiet zones; and designing public education  and awareness efforts. The actual cost that public authorities incur to  establish quite zones will vary and depend on these and other factors.  Both FRA program officials and FRA guidance has stated that, in general,  the factors that affect the costs include such things as the number of  grade crossings in a quiet zone, the geography of the area in which the  quiet zone is established, and the types of safety measures a public  authority decides to install. For example, some grade crossings may  require upgrades to constant-warning-time devices or installation of  complex and costly SSMs (e.g., four-quadrant gates), whereas other  grade crossings may require fewer upgrades or less complex safety  measures (e.g., traffic channelization devices). In 2013, FRA published  guidance for public authorities in which it estimated that the capital costs  public authorities may incur to establish quiet zones may range from  about $30,000 to more than $1 million per grade crossing, depending on  the types of safety improvements and existing infrastructure at grade  crossings. The RFIA stated that, because grade crossings may differ  significantly, public authorities must analyze the characteristics of each  and the safety measures needed to accurately estimate costs to establish  quiet zones.

Public authorities we interviewed confirmed that the costs to establish  quiet zones do vary and depend on many factors. All 13 public authorities  we interviewed often said that in establishing quiet zones they incurred  costs for identifying safety measures for grade crossings, purchasing and  installing these safety measures, and maintaining quiet zones, among  other things. According to the public authorities we spoke with in our  review, the cost to establish quiet zones ranged from about $14,000 to  several million dollars. However, this range also reflects different levels  of quiet zone activity; for example, one public authority established a quiet  zone at a single grade crossing, while another established a quiet zone  that encompassed 60 grade crossings.

In addition, railroads, states, and FRA may incur costs as part of  establishing quiet zones. For example, officials from seven of the eight  railroads we interviewed stated that they incur costs for such things as (1)  participating in diagnostic reviews, (2) commenting on Notice of Intents  and Notice of Quiet Zone Establishments; and (3) notifying and training  crews not to sound horns in quiet zones. States may also incur costs.  Two states included in our review—California and Colorado—have public  utility commissions that told us they are required to review and approve  any modifications to grade crossings in their states, including those  associated with quiet zones. Finally, FRA incurs costs related to quiet  zones. This cost includes reviewing quiet zone applications, participating  in diagnostic reviews when invited, and the time GCMs or other FRA staff  spends providing technical assistance to public authorities and others on  establishing quiet zones.

While public authorities are generally responsible for paying the costs to  establish quiet zones, about half of the public authorities we interviewed  (10 of 13) said they obtained funding from outside sources to help pay for  the zones, for example:

Federal funds: Six of the public authorities we interviewed reported  receiving federal funds to help establish their quiet zones. In  particular, one public authority that we interviewed reported receiving  a $3.3 million Transportation Investment Generating Economic  Recovery grant to establish a quiet zone. Alternatively, public  authorities in the remaining five communities were eligible for grade  crossing safety improvement efforts that were designated by the state  through FHWA or other programs.

State or railroad funds: For three of the public authorities we  interviewed, quiet zones were established in conjunction with larger  state department of transportation highway or railroad projects and  these entities paid a portion of the costs.

Grade crossing incentive funds: Four of the public authorities we  interviewed received grade-crossing incentive funds from railroads or  state departments of transportation to close grade crossings that were  part of a quiet zone.

Private funds: In two communities, private investors provided  financial assistance to public authorities for a quiet zone. For  example, a private developer paid for a quiet zone in order to facilitate  the building of residential developments.

Selected Public Authorities and Other Stakeholders Reported Several Challenges in Establishing Quiet Zones and Suggested Potential Improvements

Public authorities and other stakeholders that we spoke with reported  several types of challenges with establishing quiet zones. These  stakeholders noted three primary challenges, which included the cost to  establish quiet zones, obtaining stakeholder cooperation, and the process  to establish quiet zones. As aforementioned, public authorities generally  incur costs to establish quiet zones, so cost plays a major role in a public  authority’s decision of whether to pursue a quiet zone or not. The most  commonly cited challenge was cost (29 of 40 stakeholders). In some  cases, officials whom we interviewed reported that costs were the main  reason that public authorities delayed or discontinued the process to  establish a quiet zone.

In addition to cost, stakeholders cited two other primary challenges to  establishing quiet zones—obtaining cooperation among quiet zone  participants and the process for establishing quiet zones—and suggested  a variety of improvements related to bolstering the process.

Cooperation among quiet zone participants (18 of 40): Although  stakeholders we spoke with cited a number of cooperation issues,  including difficulties in getting private grade crossing owners to  participate and lack of state cooperation, over half (10 of 18) cited  cooperation between public authorities and railroads as a challenge.  Such cooperation is important since both must typically work together  to establish quiet zones. However, there are natural tensions between  public authorities and railroads with respect to establishing quiet  zones. As discussed earlier, stakeholders we spoke with supported  quiet zones believing they not only maintain safety, but improve  quality of life. On the other hand, all eight railroads told us that the  train horn is the most effective safety measure.

The process for establishing quiet zones (16 of 40): In general, the  stakeholders we spoke with cited a variety of process related  challenges, including that the train horn regulations are difficult to  understand, FRA waivers are difficult to obtain, and that the quiet  zone process could be better explained by FRA. In particular, over  half of the stakeholders whom said that process was a challenge (10  of 16) explained that the quiet zone process was either difficult to  understand or navigate or that the requirements to establish a quiet  zone were confusing. For example, one public authority told us that  rules for establishing a quiet zone can be difficult to interpret and that  this difficulty could impact public authorities’ establishment of quiet  zones. Four of the 16 stakeholders also told us the process was time  consuming and, in some instances, can take years to complete. FRA  program officials said the turnaround time for FRA reviews depends  on the quality of materials provided. They said it generally takes 90 to  120 days for FRA to complete its review, but it can take longer if there  is missing information or other problems with a public authority’s  application, as is often the case.

Stakeholders we spoke to suggested three types of process-related  improvements: administrative changes to improve the efficiency of the  process, improvements to FRA’s role in the quiet zone process, and  improvements to FRA guidance that public authorities use to establish  quiet zones.

Administrative improvements: Twenty-five of the 40 stakeholders that  we interviewed identified one or more types of administrative process  improvements to improve the efficiency of the process for establishing  quiet zones or better facilitate their establishment. These suggested  improvements included:

Making the quiet zone process more user-friendly (11 of 40  stakeholders that offered suggestions related to the quiet zone  process): Stakeholders we interviewed identified various  improvements that could streamline some administrative requirements  of the quiet zone process. These steps include standardizing or  automating the quiet zone process, developing sample Notices of  Intent or Notices of Quiet Zone Establishment that public authorities  could use to input information, and making quiet zone materials  available electronically. For example, GCMs in one FRA region told  us that by standardizing the paperwork all regions would receive the  same documents, a step that would make review easier. In addition,  these officials said public authorities often forget to include key  information in the Notice of Intent and with a standard form this may  not occur.

Requiring diagnostic reviews for all quiet zones (7 of 40): As  discussed earlier, when there are private grade crossings that allow  public access to active commercial or industrial sites or pedestrian  grade crossings in a quiet zone, a diagnostic review is required. The  regulations require public authorities to provide state agencies and  affected railroads, among others, the opportunity to participate in  diagnostic reviews. According to FRA program officials, FRA is not  required to participate in diagnostic reviews. Diagnostic reviews  evaluate conditions at proposed quiet-zone crossings and a  diagnostic review team makes recommendations about measures that  are needed to protect safety at these crossings. Seven stakeholders  we interviewed suggested that diagnostic reviews should be required  for all quiet zones, not just instances when there are private or  pedestrian crossings. For example, one GCM told us conducting a  review for all grade crossings provides a better idea of what safety  measures are needed and is a prudent action to protect public  safety.

FRA’s Role in the Process: About half of the stakeholders we spoke  with (21 of 40) suggested improvements related to FRA and its role in the  quiet zone process:  Increase FRA oversight and inspection of quiet zones (11 of 40): In  general, these stakeholders believe FRA should be more involved  with inspections and oversight of quiet zones, particularly between  when a Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment is issued and when a  quiet zone is established. Most of the railroad stakeholders we spoke  with (6 of 8) believe there is a need for increased FRA involvement  with quiet zones’ oversight. Among the railroad concerns were that  without additional FRA oversight, quiet zones may not achieve  compliance with the train horn regulations, and that public authorities  may not actually install the safety measures identified in the Notice of  Quiet Zone Establishment. A GCM in one FRA region told us that  officials discovered noncompliant safety measures and missing signs  after quiet zones had been established in this region, and that safety  measures that were supposed to be installed were not. We discuss  quiet zone oversight issues later in this report.

Expedite FRA’s review of quiet zone applications (10 of 40): As  discussed earlier, FRA plays a role in the quiet zone process, in part,  by reviewing quiet zone applications when ASMs are used. The 10  stakeholders felt that FRA should expedite its review process. For  example, a GCM in one FRA region suggested FRA shorten the  review time by developing a list of frequently used ASMs and their  safety effectiveness ratings and posting them online, a process that  would save FRA time when reviewing ASMs.

Guidance about the process: Finally, stakeholders we spoke with  suggested guidance on the quiet zone process could be improved (17 of  40).

In particular, 13 of the 17 stakeholders whom offered suggestions  about guidance said that FRA’s quiet zone guidance should be clearer  or that training about the quiet zone process is needed. As previously  discussed, some stakeholders told us the quiet zone process is  difficult to understand or navigate, or that FRA could better explain the  process. In particular, two public authorities suggested some form of  step-by-step guide is needed to better describe the process, and  GCMs in three FRA regions also suggested classes or other types of  education were needed to better help public authorities understand  the quiet zone process. According to FRA program officials, FRA’s  quiet zone guidance consists of its user guide and a document on  how to create a quiet zone. The train horn regulations also specifies  how public authorities are to establish quiet zones and includes steps  to follow under the public authority designation or public authority  application processes.

Moving forward, FRA is in the process of conducting a retrospective  regulatory review and deciding what, if any, changes may be needed. In  March 2016, FRA issued a Notice of Safety Inquiry, which, according to  FRA, is a retrospective review of the train horn regulations. The Notice of  Safety Inquiry solicited comments about many aspects of the train horn  regulations, including whether FRA can decrease the barriers public  authorities encounter when establishing a quiet zone. Among other  things, the inquiry seeks comments about whether there should be an  online process for submitting notices and other required quiet zone  paperwork, whether diagnostic reviews should be required for all quiet  zones, and if the regulations should be amended to include common  ASMs in the list of approved SSMs. The Inquiry is also looking at other  aspects of the quiet zone process and guidance. As of July 2017, FRA  was still in the process of reviewing comments received in response to  the notice. FRA program officials did not indicate what, if any, changes  may result from this inquiry, but said any changes that are made would be  handled through a rulemaking. However, FRA program officials noted that  a rulemaking would not be necessary for the agency to provide public  authorities with additional tools to aid in the development of a quiet zone,  such as guidance.

FRA Has Conducted Analyses of Safety in Quiet Zones and Is Formalizing Quiet Zone Inspections, but Limitations Exist

FRA’s Analyses Generally Indicate That Grade Crossings in Quiet Zones Are As Safe As The Same Grade Crossings When the Train Horn Was Sounded, but Methodology Has Limitations

One way FRA evaluates the effectiveness of its train horn regulations is  through conducting analyses of data on the safety of grade crossings in  quiet zones. Those analyses show that grade crossings in quiet zones  are generally as safe as the same grade crossings when the train horn  was sounded. Specifically, FRA conducted analyses in 2011 and 2013 to  assess whether there was a statistically significant difference in the  number of accidents before and after implementation of quiet zones.  The results showed that there was generally no statistically significant  difference in the number of accidents that occurred before and after quiet  zones were established. To conduct the analyses, FRA grouped quiet  zones by the number of years of available data since establishment of the  quiet zone, using an equal number of months before and after  establishment. FRA’s analyses in 2011 and 2013 included 359 and 203  quiet zones, respectively.

While FRA’s analyses of quiet zones generally showed that grade  crossings in quiet zones were as safe as the same grade crossings when  the train horn was sounded, in 2013 FRA identified one exception that  FRA program officials reported resolving in a subsequent analysis.  Specifically, while FRA’s 2011 analysis did not show any differences in  safety after establishment of the quiet zones, in 2013 FRA concluded that  for quiet zones established from May 2010 through April 2011, there was  a statistically significant increase in the number of accidents that occurred  after the establishment of the quiet zones. Specifically, FRA found that  accidents doubled from 11 accidents before establishment of the quiet  zones to 22 accidents following the establishment of the quiet zone. After  that finding, FRA program officials conducted a preliminary analysis for  2017 and reported that the results did not show a statistically significant  increase in accidents for any period of quiet zones, including those  established from 2010 through 2011. In addition to looking at quiet  zones by establishment year, FRA’s 2013 analysis also grouped quiet  zones by how they were established, such as with safety measures at all  crossings or against FRA’s risk indexes. Results from this analysis did not  show an increase in accidents by any establishment method analyzed.  As a result, FRA program officials told us that they believe the result in  2013 for quiet zones established from 2010 through 2011 was likely an  anomaly and that those quiet zones are as safe as other crossings.

Before-and-after analysis is a methodologically acceptable practice, but  the reliability of the results decrease over time because unlike other types  of analyses, they do not control for factors that may change over time. In  particular, FRA’s analyses assume that the number of accidents  experienced before the quiet zone is established is a good estimate of the  number of accidents that would be expected in the future had the quiet  zone not been established. However, FRA’s before-and-after analyses  have limitations because, unlike other methodologies, they do not take  into account changes to characteristics of grade crossings over time. For  example, a multivariate method can control for changes to characteristics  at grade crossings that may impact safety. These characteristics can  include changes to train or vehicle traffic, train or vehicle speeds, time of  day when train activity occurs, number of highway lanes, the number of  tracks in use, or other changes to surrounding roads or infrastructure at a  crossing. For example, if train or vehicle traffic increased over time, it is  possible that the number of incidents would increase, while the risk of an  accident would stay the same. Specifically, closing a grade crossing near  a quiet zone or increases in traffic from new businesses around a quiet  zone could increase traffic after the establishment of a quiet zone;  however, these changes would not be factored into FRA’s current  methodology for conducting safety analyses. This inherent limitation is  exacerbated over time, because the assumption that there would be no  changes to relevant characteristics of the grade crossings is less likely to  be the case as more time passes.

FRA also conducts annual reviews of selected quiet zones to ensure their  safety, and FRA program officials told us that this review further validates  its before-and-after analyses. As mentioned previously, FRA conducts  annual reviews of quiet zones established against the Nationwide  Significant Risk Threshold because the measure is variable and subject  to change over time. According to FRA program officials, about 11  percent of all quiet zones are established against the Nationwide  Significant Risk Threshold and are thus included in this annual review. To  ensure that established quiet zones fall at or below the Nationwide  Significant Risk Threshold, FRA is required to recalculate this measure on  an annual basis and notify a public authority if the Quiet Zone Risk Index  no longer falls at or below the threshold. By doing so, FRA program  officials told us that they are further validating that the grade crossings in  quiet zones are as safe as other grade crossings. While this annual  review may provide FRA with additional support that grade crossings in  quiet zones are as safe as others, it does not address the underlying  limitations of a before-and-after analysis.

While the reliability of a before-and-after analysis may decrease over  time, FRA has no plans to revise its methodology. In fact, as mentioned  previously, FRA program officials told us that preliminary results for their  2017 safety study mirror results from 2011, showing that there was no  statistically significant difference in accidents before and after the  establishment of quiet zones. According to FRA program officials, the  agency is not required to conduct this analysis, but moving forward,  program officials plan to conduct the same analysis on a biennial basis to  internally validate that grade crossings in quiet zones are as safe as  others.

By continuing to rely on the current methodology, FRA’s future analyses  may continue to provide the agency with information that does not  account for changes in characteristics of grade crossings over time. The  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management should use quality information to make informed decisions.  This requirement can be satisfied by, for example, obtaining relevant data  from reliable sources, obtaining that information on a timely basis, and  processing that data into quality information that accurately represents  what it purports to represent. Furthermore, a previous FRA study that the  agency relied on in developing the final rule has reported that changes in  grade crossings’ characteristics can affect the results of analyses used to  predict accidents at grade crossings. As a result, FRA’s Rail-Highway  Crossing Resource Allocation Procedures recommended that analyses  used to predict accidents at grade crossings only include accident data  for the most recent 5 years because older accident history information  may be misleading due to changes that occur in grade crossings’  characteristics over time. While FRA’s recommendation was not  developed to analyze the safety of grade crossings in quiet zones, the  agency’s recommendation that accident data older than 5 years may be  misleading because of changes that occur to grade crossings’  characteristics over time is relevant to those analyses. Nevertheless, FRA  program officials told us that they have no plans to revise the  methodology because it effectively compares the safety of grade  crossings in quiet zones to other grade crossings. By continuing to use  the same methodology, the agency may be missing an opportunity to fully  understand the safety of grade crossings in quiet zones.

FRA Has Taken Steps to Formalize Quiet Zone Inspections, but Lacks Formal Guidance

In addition to conducting studies, FRA also oversees quiet zones by  inspecting them to ensure their safety and compliance with train horn  regulations. According to FRA program officials, FRA is not required to  inspect quiet zones; rather, public authorities, in conjunction with the  railroads, are responsible for maintaining quiet zones and ensuring  compliance with train horn regulations. Until recently, FRA has utilized  its GCMs to, among other things, informally inspect quiet zones and work  with public authorities to resolve issues affecting the safety of quiet  zones—issues such as foliage covering signage, maintenance issues  with safety devices, or outdated pavement markings. In fact, GCMs in  all eight regions told us that they informally inspect quiet zones.  According to FRA program officials, the agency has recently identified the  need for “more eyes on the ground” to more systematically address  maintenance issues within quiet zones and to ensure compliance with  train horn regulations. As a result, FRA is transitioning its informal  inspection program for quiet zones to a more formal inspection process.

As of August 2017, FRA had not terminated any quiet zones because of violations or  fined any entities for quiet zone violations.

August 2017 that they planned to hire 24 new Inspectors. As of August  2017, FRA had also developed the Inspector training curriculum, and  began training three Inspectors. FRA program officials expressed  uncertainty over when the remaining 21 Inspectors will be hired because  of uncertainty regarding FRA’s hiring and training priorities, among other  things. In September 2017, FRA program officials told us that one of the  newly hired Inspectors had completed the training and had begun  inspecting quiet zones.

While FRA has started conducting formal quiet-zone inspections, we  found that FRA has not developed guidance on how the inspections  should be conducted, including guidance on how frequently these  inspections should be conducted and what should be examined. As a  result, such guidance is not included as part of the training curriculum  developed for Inspectors. According to FRA program officials, this  guidance has not been developed because program officials are still  finalizing the inspection program. Although no guidance has been  developed, FRA program officials told us that they are considering  inspecting all new quiet zones between when the public authority submits  a Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment and when the quiet zone is  established. Additionally, FRA program officials told us that existing quiet  zones would be inspected based on mission requirements, risk, and the  availability of resources, but ideally every 3 years. With respect to how  the quiet zones are to be inspected, FRA program officials said they plan  to develop guidance for Inspectors that is akin to the other FRA safety  disciplines. FRA program officials told us that they are working toward  establishing an Audit Division, which would be responsible for developing  this guidance. However, as of August 2017, FRA program officials had  not provided a timeline for when this division or guidance would be  completed.

The absence of guidance on inspections is inconsistent with internal  control standards. Specifically, the Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government states that management should implement control  activities through its policies that document each unit’s responsibility, or  further delineates day-to-day procedures. These procedures may also  include the timing of when a control activity occurs and state that  management should communicate these policies to its staff. Without this  type of guidance, FRA cannot have reasonable assurance that  inspections are being conducted consistently across FRA’s eight regions  and as FRA intends.

Grade crossing collisions are one of the leading causes of fatalities in the  railroad industry, and ensuring safety in these areas, including those  within quiet zones, is a vital part of FRA’s mission. While public  authorities are primarily responsible for safety in quiet zones, FRA can  help ensure that grade crossings in quiet zones are as safe as others.  However, the methodology FRA uses to assess the safety of quiet zones  has limitations because it does not account for changes to grade  crossings’ characteristics over time. By continuing to rely on this  methodology, FRA may be missing an opportunity to ensure that  established quiet zones are providing the same level of safety as when  train horns were sounded.

In addition to its safety studies, FRA is also taking steps to formalize its  process for conducting physical inspections of quiet zones. While FRA  has started hiring and training a few Inspectors, it lacks guidance on how  and when quiet zone inspections are to be performed. Without this  guidance, FRA cannot ensure that quiet zones will be inspected  consistently across FRA’s eight regions.

We are making the following two recommendations to FRA:  The Administrator of FRA should revise the methodology for the analysis  of safety in quiet zones to take into account relevant changes over time— including changes in train and automotive traffic, or in the physical  characteristics of the grade crossing. (Recommendation 1)

The Administrator of FRA should develop guidance for Inspectors on the  nature and frequency of quiet zone inspections. (Recommendation 2)

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for  review and comment. The department provided a written response (see  app. II), as well as technical comments that we incorporated as  appropriate. The department concurred with the second recommendation  regarding developing guidance for quiet zone inspectors and partially  concurred with the first recommendation regarding revising the  methodology for analyzing the safety of quiet zones. The department said  it would consider our recommendation to revise its methodology as it  explores options for updating its methodology.

We are encouraged that FRA is willing to consider revising its  methodology for analyzing the safety of grade crossings in quiet zones.   However, we continue to believe that our recommendation is valid and  that to fully understand quiet zone safety FRA needs to revise its  methodology to account for relevant characteristics of quiet—zone grade  crossings. As we state in the report, the reliability of FRA’s current  methodology will likely decrease over time because it does not control for  relevant changes to grade crossings in quiet zones including changes to  vehicle or train traffic or speeds. These and other factors are critical  determinants of grade-crossing safety. Further, developing a  methodology that incorporates characteristics that affect safety at grade  crossings in quiet zones may also provide FRA insight into the safety of  grade crossings more generally. Since grade-crossing accidents are a  major source of fatalities and, according to the department, are expected  to increase as train- and highway-traffic increases, it will become  increasingly important to have reliable information about grade-crossing  safety, both in quiet zones and across grade crossings more generally.

We will send copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Administrator of the  Federal Railroad Administration. In addition, we will make copies  available to others upon request, and the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act included provisions for  GAO to review the effectiveness of the Federal Railroad Administration’s  (FRA) final rule governing the use of train horns at highway-rail   grade  crossings. The objectives of this report were to determine: (1) what is  known about the benefits and costs of quiet zones, (2) what challenges,  if any, public authorities and others encounter in establishing quiet zones,  and (3) how, if at all, FRA is evaluating the effectiveness of federal train  horn regulations. The scope of this report was limited to new quiet  zones—that is, quiet zones that were established since FRA published  the final rule in August 2006. Federal regulations govern the use of train  horns at public-highway-rail-grade crossings (grade crossings) and  provide public authorities—typically a city, town, or county—with the  opportunity to create quiet zones where train horns are not sounded. We  focused on new quiet zones to better understand the benefits, costs,  challenges, and safety impacts associated with the regulations.

To obtain information about quiet zones, we reviewed FRA’s data on  quiet zones established from 2005 through 2017. To assess the reliability  of these data, we examined FRA’s reports, analyzed the data to identify  any outliers, and interviewed FRA officials about how the data were  collected and used. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable  for our purposes.

For each of our objectives, we reviewed pertinent law and FRA  regulations and documents; interviewed FRA program officials in  headquarters; and conducted in-depth interviews with a nongeneralizable  sample of 40 stakeholders. This sample included stakeholders from 8  freight railroads, 5 private industry consulting firms with experience  helping public authorities establish quiet zones, 6 state agencies, 13  public authorities within these six states, and FRA Grade Crossing  Managers (GCMs) in each of FRA’s 8 regions. The railroads selected  included all seven class I railroads, plus the Florida East Coast Railway.  The latter was selected due to its previous experience with whistle bans,  and it was located in a state where we conducted interviews. The private  industry consultants were selected based on several factors, including (1)  experience with assisting public authorities in establishing quiet zones, (2)  recommendations from FRA and other stakeholders we interviewed, and  (3) geographic dispersion.

We selected six states as part of a nongeneralizable sample for  interviews. These states included California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,  Maryland, and Texas. The states were selected based on a variety of  factors, including the number of new quiet zones and the number of grade  crossings in new quiet zones. Five of the six states accounted for about  48 percent of new quiet zones (California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, and  Texas). We also conducted interviews in Maryland before we conducted  other interviews to test our interview protocol. Maryland was selected for  this purpose to, among other things, minimize resources. Within these  states, we conducted interviews with 13 judgmentally selected public  authorities (see table 1). The public authorities were also selected based  on factors such as the number of new quiet zones and recommendations  from FRA and other stakeholders we interviewed.

For all our objectives we also conducted a literature review of pertinent  studies in scholarly/peer-reviewed journals, conference papers, non-profit  or think tank publications, and trade publications or industry articles to  identify research on quiet zones. We restricted our review to results  published between January 1, 1996, and October 17, 2016, and our  search yielded 99 results. Of these 99 results, we reviewed each abstract  or full article if available, to determine whether it was relevant to any of  our objectives. Our analysis identified 10 results pertaining to safety, 11  results related to benefits and costs, and 1 result related to challenges.  With respect to the articles related to costs and benefits, we also looked  at citations within the studies we reviewed to identity whether any of these  were relevant to our objective on costs and benefits of quiet zones. Using  this approach we identified one additional study. Each abstract was  reviewed by two analysts to determine whether it seemed relevant.  Where disagreement existed with respect to whether the abstract was  relevant, we included the abstract in our request for the complete study.  We then developed criteria/requirements for each objective and reviewed  each study against our criteria/requirements. Namely, we were only  interested in studies that quantified the benefits or costs of quiet zones or  that used data or analytics to measure safety at grade crossings in quiet  zones or compared safety at-grade crossings in quiet zones to grade  crossings where train horns sound. Further, each study was reviewed by  an analyst and a statistician or economist to determine its relevance.

With respect to our objective on the effectiveness of the train horn  regulations, we determined that none of the studies met our underlying  criteria. Specifically, none of the studies measured the safety at grade  crossings in quiet zones or compared the results to grade crossings  where the train horn sounded. Conversely, with respect to our objective  on the costs and benefits of quiet zones, we determined that six studies  were relevant. To assess the reliability and methodological soundness of  the studies we determined were relevant, we compared the studies with  general guidelines based on standards for assessing research and  analysis from the literature, past GAO reports on evaluating research  programs, and our internal expertise in research design. These guidelines  include, for example, examining a study based on: (1) the extent to which  it was well designed and the methodology supports the objectives; (2)  whether the assumptions were reasonable and explicitly stated; (3)  whether the study used the best available data; and (4) whether the  conclusions and recommendations were balanced and supported by data  analysis.

To determine what is known about the benefits and costs of quiet zones,  we reviewed the literature search discussed above and analyzed any  studies obtained using the methodology described above. We also  reviewed FRA’s Regulatory Evaluation and Regulatory Flexibility  Assessment for Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade  Crossings Final Rule (RFIA). The RFIA was issued before the final rule  and analyzed the potential economic effects of requiring the train horn to  be sounded at all public grade crossings, of eliminating whistle bans, and  of providing conditions under which the train horn can be silenced at- grade crossings. To review the RFIA, we compared it to selected  principles from Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) guidance for  developing regulatory analyses. These principles included whether the  analysis considered alternatives; whether the analysis estimated the  incremental effect of the rule compared to a business-as-usual baseline;  and whether the analysis analyzed uncertainty. In evaluating the RFIA, an  analyst and economist independently reviewed the analyses and  subsequently came to consensus about each element’s adherence to  OBM guidance. We also reviewed FRA’s September 2013 user guide for  quiet zones. This guide provides a high-level overview of the quiet zone  process, including an estimated cost range to establish quiet zones. We  discussed the cost range with FRA, including the source of the  information and its reliability. Since FRA program officials told us it was  an “order of magnitude” estimate and not meant to represent actual costs  to establish quiet zones, we did not determine the reliability of the  information. As a result, the cost range information is used for illustrative  purposes only, and we included a disclaimer about its reliability. Finally,  we interviewed FRA GCMs in all eight of FRA’s regional offices, states,  public authorities, railroads, and private industry consultants about the  benefits and costs of establishing quiet zones. Some of these  stakeholders provided information about costs to establish quiet zones,  but this was anecdotal, and we did not attempt to verify its completeness  or accuracy.

To determine the challenges encountered by public authorities and other  stakeholders in establishing quiet zones and improvements stakeholders  suggested to the quiet zone process, we interviewed FRA GCMs, states,  public authorities, railroads, and private industry consultants. We asked  these stakeholders to identify the primary challenges in establishing quiet  zones and for suggested improvements to the quiet zone process. We  then analyzed the information obtained to identify common themes of  challenges or suggested improvements. Based on this analysis, an initial  list of categories for each challenge and improvement was then  developed along with their definitions. The definitions identified specific  types of comments to be included in each challenge or improvement  category. After reviewing the initial list for overlaps and duplication, as  well as to keep the list manageable, a final consolidated list was  developed that consisted of eight types of challenges and seven types of  improvements (see table 2). Using this list, an analyst then reviewed each  interview and judgmentally assigned the information into one of the  categories. A second analyst then independently reviewed these  assignments using the consolidated list of categories and definitions. Any  differences were then reconciled by the two analysts.

To further enhance our understanding of quiet zone challenges and  improvements, we reviewed guidance issued by FRA about quiet zones  and the train horn rule. This included FRA’s How to Create a Quiet Zone  document (posted to the FRA website in September 2012) and FRA’s  user guide about quiet zones published in September 2013.  Additionally, we reviewed FRA’s regulations governing train horns and  quiet zones. We also interviewed FRA program officials about the quiet  zone process, application processing, various aspects of the train horn  rule, and obtained information from FRA about quiet zone guidance.

To determine how FRA is evaluating the effectiveness of the federal train  horn regulations, we reviewed FRA’s analysis of the safety of quiet zones  at highway-rail-grade crossings completed in 2011 and 2013, which  compared the safety of grade crossings in quiet zones to the safety of  grade crossings where the train horn is sounded. We also discussed with  FRA program officials the methodologies used to prepare these studies,  and concerns with the data, conclusions, and plans to conduct future  analyses. To assess the reliability and methodological soundness of the  studies, we used the same approach as above. Both analyses were  reviewed by a statistician and economist to corroborate the review. In  addition to developing criteria for reviewing the analyses, we also  reviewed guidance by FRA and others regarding analyzing incident data  at grade crossings and about the limitations of a paired t-test—FRA’s  methodology for comparing the grade crossings.

To assess the extent to which FRA’s methodology generally reflects  internal control principles, we reviewed it against practices for presenting  accurate information and communicating with internal and external  stakeholders outlined in the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government. We also conducted data reliability assessments with  respect to the underlying data FRA used in its analyses. FRA’s analyses  used data that originated from two distinct FRA databases: ccmMercury  (CCM) and the Safety Data Analysis website. CCM is a correspondence  management system which includes all data on quiet zones—such as the  establishment date and grade crossings included, among others. This  information is contained in the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment that  the public authority establishing the quiet zone is required to provide to  FRA. Alternatively, the Safety Data Analysis website contains two  datasets: the Grade Crossing Inventory System (GCIS) and the Railroad  Accident/Incident Reporting System (RAIRS). The GCIS contains  information on every crossing in the nation and was used to identify the  characteristics of the individual crossings within the quiet zone, whereas  the RAIRS contains details about each crossing collision incident that has  occurred. To assess the reliability of the data used in our review, we  examined FRA reports, reviewed prior GAO data reliability material, and  interviewed FRA stakeholders about how the data were collected, stored,  and used. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of our objectives.

Finally, to understand how FRA conducts oversight of quiet zones, we  interviewed FRA program officials about oversight of quiet zones,  guidance to staff and public authorities, and any planned changes for how  the agency conducts oversight of quiet zones. We also interviewed GCMs  in each of FRA’s eight regions to understand how they carry out oversight  of quiet zones and to learn about the extent to which differences exist  across regions. We also reviewed prior GAO reports that summarized  FRA’s oversight approach to the rail industry, including its more traditional  inspection disciplines. We also asked stakeholders included in our  sample of FRA GCMs, states, public authorities, railroads, and private  industry consultants about the challenges of establishing quiet zones and  potential improvements to the quiet zone process. We then assessed  FRA’s oversight approach using the Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Transportation

Appendix III: List of Organizations Contacted by GAO

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Susan Zimmerman (Assistant  Director), Krister Friday, Sarah Gilliland, Timothy Guinane, Richard  Jorgenson, SaraAnn Moessbauer, Malika Rice, Amy Rosewarne, Melissa  Swearingen, Larry Thomas, and Crystal Wesco made significant  contributions to this report.