Bucyrus, Schlimm…
Not so much attacking the messenger, but the message, and obviously you failed to read all of my post.
A few items you should be aware of before you go forward with your normal attack toward those who don’t agree with you that change is always good or that we should change because we can…
One, the “Tenneco Road” test actually took place at Jones Channel Road, which leads to the Tenneco/Georgia Gulf complex, it is locally known as Tenneco road.
Now, for a research scientist to not even give the proper official name to a location where testing and data gathering is done strikes me as odd, I know a researcher or two, and they are anal beyond belief about the most minute detail.
Two, the report states that the public pays for the installation of the crossing devices.
One would hope that a research scientist could at least spend the time to look up the facts, as here in Texas, TDot determines what, if any protection is required at any public grade crossing, and what type of protection installation is put in.
TDot does all the design and engineering specifications, the carrier has some input, but not much.
By state law, the carrier is responsible for 75% of the cost of installation, 100% of maintenance and repair.
The report claims/states the public pays 90% of the installation cost which is simply not true or correct in Texas, oddly the very state TTI is located in.
We, the PTRA, contract all of our active crossing device repairs to the UP Signal department, simply because of cost.
S. Roop is TTI, he has been doing “studies” of rail crossings, rail capacity, so forth and so on for years, all based on his version of junk science.
Had you read my post completely, you would have gotten to the part where I stated that, if there was an agency created to assume all liability at all grade crossings, and assume all the associated cost in