Why has there been little movement to quiet zones by cities?

I almost assumed that as soon as the FRA finalizied the quiet zone rules that a large number of cities would have their city engineer contact the railroads, file the FRA paperwork, and maybe create a local taxing district for a year to pay for the improvements needed to make a quiet zone. As a civil/structural engineer I have not gone through the process myself but can it be so difficult as to require a consultant do it? What is holding back a general expansion of quiet zones, particullarly near residential areas?

Simple, the cost to a city is just to much, specially when the city has to assume all financial responsibility for accidents .
Its not just the cost of crossing improvements.

The cities also must pay for ongoing inspection and upkeep of the protection equipment if I am not mistaken.

Actually, railroads and municipalities have been co-operating for years where it's feasible. I remember a number of references in Employee's timetables to local ordinances which stipulated that whistle signals need be sounded at only the first of a series of crossings, or that whistling be kept to a minimum. The recognition in the ordinance is important, since it mitigates the carrier's potential liability.

Air horn technology also seems to have improved. I live within 50 yards of a crossing that sees about 35 moves per day, most of them at speed. The sound now seems to be more pronounced directly in front of the train, rather than in all directions as years ago.

Finally, a suprising number ofd my neighbors seem to agree that they simply become accustomed to the noise within a short time after moving into the neighborhood.

Doesn't bother me a bit, of course!