A Big Change for Grade Crossings?

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

I don’t know if this will actually happen, but it seems like a rather broad swipe at the grade crossing problem. It is a uniquely interesting model of increasing crossing safety which amounts to increasing the collective crossing safety by raising the safety of non-signalized (passive) crossings. It does that by adding signal protection to the most dangerous existing non-signalized (passive) crossings.

It gets the funding for this by reducing the cost of signalized (active) crossings. It reduces the cost of signalized crossings by relieving the railroad from responsibility and ownership of all crossings, including the signalized ones.

The cost of fully signalized grade crossings is substantial, and that high cost limits the number of crossings that can be so equipped. Therefore, the application of automatic crossing protection is prioritized to equip the crossings where it can do the most good. However, the high cost still results in a net shortage which prevents many crossings that could benefit from signalization from receiving it.

According to the linked report, it would be possible to reduce the cost of the automatic crossing protection systems, and that would allow the protection to be broadened to cover more crossings that could benefit from automatic protection. They explain that reducing the cost is based on the fact that the cost is higher than it needs to be. They explain why that is, and what to do about it.

The report explores the origin of the automatic crossing protection and what led to the relatively high cost of such systems. It explains that railroads began to run

2

The results of the study are summed up on page 62 of the report: Tort Liability.

3

This is not an FRA document.

I find it flawed in two important aspects. First, it does not evaluate the existing detection technology, so there is no baseline for comparison. Second, it is all about the cheapest part of a grade crossing installatiion, the detection system.

Looks to me like somthing to keep Aggies in funds.

Mac

4

The railroads were responsible for crossings long before automatic signaling. I remember many manned crossings with 4-quadrant gates when i was a kid.

5

A number of decades ago an NTSB finding suggested replacing alternating flashers (but not gates) with RYG traffic lights identical to those used at road intersections. The staetment said something like: “drivers are familiar with them, respect them, and traffic laws make enforcement of violations straightforward.” At that time passing a dropped crossing gate or running flashers wasn’t even a violation in some states.

6

We, in this country, are experts at shifting blame to someone else. Banks have convinced us that when they loan money to someone who was dishonest about who they are, they have not stolen money from the bank, they have stolen YOUR identity and thus actually stole the money from YOU.

Trains cannot swerve, or stop quickly. Everyone knows that. When an idiot chooses to ignore warnings at grade crossings, somehow we have shifted blame to the railroad for not making the crossing idiot proof.

A stop sign would be sufficient warning for a person of average intelligence. It is not possible for a train to quietly sneak up on a crossing.

7
  1. Roop, S., Ruback, L., Intelligent Transportation Systems – Positive Train Separation

(ITS-PTS) Research Initiative, Texas Transportation Institute, 1997.

  1. Warner, J., Roop, S., EVA Grade Crossing Warning Assessment: Tenneco Road,

Houston, Texas Transportation Institute, 2000.

There is so much assumption with the report its silly.

First and foremost, the cherry picking of supportive data is shameful, note that for crossing accidents they went to one of the worst years they could find in recent history…had they included the following years, the Bell curve one could draw would show a marked decrease in fatalities and motor vehicle accidents up to the current available number for 2011.

Stephen Roop is, for all intents and purposes, TTI…he was the founding researcher there when it was created.

I love the conclusion the report obliquely draws that the reason any new technology will be rejected by the railroads is because of the Signal Maintainers Union…

Fact is if someone came along, offered to buy out the signal maintainers, and assume liability for all grade crossing safety, not just the “passive” or rural crossings, most railroads would jump at the chance to opt out completely…

But under our current legal system, its either all in or all out, you can’t split the responsibility or liability.

I do like the fact the report pointed out the legal conundrum the carriers would find themselves in if somehow the “cheaper” technology was adopted.

“By this we mean that if the system put in place to warn

motorists of train movement was somehow better than existing systems (i.e., track circuit based),

then when an accident occurs at a location equipped with a traditional active system, plaintiffs

would contend that the railroads are liable because they know there are better systems available

but have chosen to neglect upgrading certain grade crossings &m

8

I agree with EdB …Seriously warped and not based in reality. One case where academia ought to be labelling the report Op-Ed instead of science.

9

City wants SAFE and QUIET crossing, then CITY BUILD over-pass.

City Cheap? so sas. LOUD HORN… Train a’commin!

BTW: TRAINS can be VERY SILENT when they want to be. Try standing on an LIRR platform, A train will come in at 79 mph, and you will never hear it.

Yes, LION can hear BNSF locomotives 10 miles away and that is before they sound their horns. but LIONS know and love the sound of the train.

ROAR

10

I agree with his conclusion as well…confirmation bias all the way around it.

11

The one essential component of the proposal is to remove all crossing liability from the railroads and give it to the public sector.

I might have misinterpreted the report, but I assume that it proposes to take ALL crossings out of the purview of the private railroads, and not just the newly signalized passive crossings.

If it is true that the railroads would jump at the chance to “opt out” of the grade crossing ownership and responsibility, then it seems to me that the only obstacle would be to change the liability so it can happen. It does not seem to me that the report is asking anything of the railroads. So I cannot see how they would be in any position to criticize it.

12

“SUMMARY

Technological advances over the past decade suggest that there has to be a low-cost way

to signalize some of the thousands of passive grade crossings that exist in our country. Perhaps

the most likely candidate technologies that can reduce active warning costs are those with

significantly lower installation costs. In a fully redundant system, installation is one of the

largest cost items of systems now in use, ranging from 25 to 35 percent of the total system cost.”

From page 69,

“If we focus on the systems that are off of railroad property, there is an implicit suggestion

that the public sector can and would endeavor to install active warning systems at passive

crossings, independent of the operating railroad(s). This seems to the research team the most

plausible and practical path to pursue if in fact low-cost active warning is to become a reality.

Therefore, we will focus the remaining discussion on systems that do not require access to

railroad property.”

There are a few more references to passive crossings, I didn’t look them all up.

But the summary uses that phrase exclusive of active crossings, so that leaves only the mentioned passive ones.

That being what I read in this, then the possibility of this going forward with railroad cooperation is nil, until liability at all crossings, active or not, is assumed by whatever agency formed.

As I stated, it’s a all-in or all out proposition, ya can’t have both.

13

Low cost warning systems sound wonderful in concept, but a warning system that fails to warn is deceptively dangerous. I suspect the currently used systems could also be installed a lot more cheaply if standards were relaxed.

We have an interesting ethical dilemma. Lower cost will allow warning systems at more crossings, and presumably reduce accidents for inattentive motorists. But a less than 100% perfect system may lure the law-abiding careful motorist into danger when it fails to operate, whatever the reason. Do we sacrifice one intelligent person to save a dozen dummies? And, no, there isn’t a correct answer to that!

One introductory comment did bring a question to mind, and that was the origin of the track ciruit. The authors suggest that the original purpose was broken rail protection, and that train occupancy detection was a serendipitous by-product. As far as I know, in fact the reverse is true, with the early track circuit installations in the 1870s developed as part of block signal systems.

John

14

Cx,

Your recall of history is correct.

Mac

15

Ed,

I understand your point about their references to passive crossings. I assumed that they intended to apply this to all grade crossings, but I cannot find that clearly stipulated. They do focus on passive crossings because that is where they expect to gain safety. So this is about passive crossings.

But I saw nothing indicating that present active crossings would not be a part of it. If cost could be saved on new crossing installations, it makes sense to save it on existing installations as they are maintained and upgraded. And if we can relieve the railroads from liability at crossings with cheap signals, we should not have anything to lose by relieving them from liability at crossings with expensive signals.

It seems to me that the paper assumes there will be no resistance from the railroads once the railroads are shielded from liability. So the report is ultimately an appeal to the public sector to make this happen. It would amount to nationalizing all railroad grade crossings.

However, doing this requires a legal sea change restructured by the government. If this were granted, I would expect it to apply to all existing and new crossings. Or at least, I can’t see why it would not be. So the railroads would be liberated from the entire crossing spectrum simultaneously. Why would railroads oppose that?

But even if the existing active crossings were grandfathered in to the old liability system; and the railroads owned and operated them as they always have; why would the railroads oppose the signalizati

16

From what has been written in the report - the writer sounds like a heavy consumer of recreational pharmaceuticals and out of touch with 21st Century reality. The Lawyers, who form the bulk of Congress as well as State Legislatures would never agree to curtail one of their bread and butter torts.

17

As an Aggie I find this report an embarrassment not worthy of a great school, but then the TTI always in a world of their own.

18

[Snipped] from Bucyrus’ original Post:

“…Therefore the report concludes that to get “outside the box” so to speak, and develop lower cost crossing protection systems, the entire protection system must be taken out of the purview of the railroads and placed in the hands of the public sector. To do this, the crossing activation system has to be separated from the railroad tracks and made part of a public sector warning system…”

There are a couple of questions that seem to have been ignored by the report:

#1 My understanding of Signalized Crossings is that a local jurisdiction makes the determination that a signalized crossing is needed (studies done,etc.).

b.)Then in consultation with the railroad that owns the line involved.

c.)They agree on the signalization.

1.)The Cost is determined for the specified installation.

d.) The railroad crews do the installation, and the jurisdiction pays all the costs involved in creating the active crossing.

e.) The railroad then owns the

19

Well everyone here agrees that grade crossing are a big problem for the railroads. And everyone assures us that the crossing problem cannot be fixed except by eliminating crossings. Otherwise, we are assured than nothing can make a crossing safer because drivers are incorrigible. Everyone here complains about tort liability and how unfair it is to the railroads because they can’t stop their trains fast.

So now comes a far sighted proposal to finally wipe the problem off of the map from the railroads’ perspective; and what kind of reaction do we get? Must be self-serving scheme. Must be junk science. Too many lawyers for it to happen. Seriously warped and not based in reality. No baseline in the report. Goes after the cheapest part of crossings for savings. Author must be on drugs.

Why on earth should railroads be liable for death, damage, or injury caused by their trains at public crossings? Everyone knows that trains cannot stop in time to avoid a vehicle, so the country grants trains the right of way at crossings. What kind of a society gives trains the right of way and then punishes them if they hit somebody?

I am sure that if you asked the American public if they thought it is fair to hold railroads liable for something they have no control over; they would agree that it is not fair. I am sure they would agree to collectivize the risk so it could be properly and fairly borne by society as a whole.

I can’t imagine why any railroader or person with railroad knowledge would oppo

20

Unfortunately, a problem wherever wheels ride the rails.

Level Crossings in UK

Artificial intelligence by no means beats human stupidity.