Otherwise known as “payday for lawyers.”
It would certainly do that. It would also make the crossing actually more dangerous for injury and death. Many drivers probably make no distinction between passive crossings and active crossings like railroad people do. To the average person, if no train is coming, both types of crossings are likely to look about the same. They see no differ
I suspect you are just guessing.
He and I are going to have a fundamental disagreement on this subject.
My response to this involved development of crossing design that would be distinctly different from current gated crossings, but still recognized as railroad crossings requiring additional diligence and safe lookout when approached. Think of it as an improved way to announce ‘stop, look, and listen’ that comes to be as recognizable to the public as crossbucks were many years ago.
We don’t generally acknowledge this today, but Holley Rudd specifically intended his design of crossing signal to serve as an ‘unmistakable and iconic’ railroad-crossing alert, by contrast with various kinds of mechanical-signalman wigwags. It succeeded remarkably well in this role, and continues to be a significant element in gated crossings.
I am interested in hearing where the estimated cost to implement effective drop gates and perimeter framing and fencing to prevent ‘going around’ is going to be found. A case might be made for ‘special assessments’ for landowners with private roads, but they will rightly scream at many thousands of dollars, plus maintenance assessment yearly, for the ‘privilege’ of being kept safe from themselves.
I continue to think that a low-cost addition of active signaling to additional approach signage is a reasonable approach to protection. Most laws currently mandate stopping (and looking and listening) at ungated or unlighted crossings already – I see no reason why more clearly indicating where and when to stop, when not to negotiate a crossing, when there is limited sight distance, and when trains are present or approaching requires a greater standard of care than what is in the law.
We’re already at the nanny-state point where some are advocating for those hydraulic rising bollards to be installed, stopping people from running gates. What’s next might be devices to disable ignition (I’ve actually seen nitwi
It’s about time (frankly, long since past) that a thorough census of all crossings and then categorizing by type and traffic flow, both toad and rail. My personal belief is a lot of crossings are an archaic remnant of horse and buggy days,where in rural areas family farms were 100-200 acres max. Times change. Many crossings should be closed.
The FRA database and identification of road crossings has all the information you desire.
https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data/crossing-and-inventory-data/crossing-inventory-lookup
Asking the data base for the information you desire is another question entirely.
Yes, because those would never screw up and get stuck in the raised position, especially not in our winters. And imagine if the ignition disabler messed up by a few feet and started shutting down engines as the vehicles entered the crossing…
I could see the drone idea becoming a thing, but why continue after the vehicle once you’ve got pictures of the license plate and perhaps the driver’s face as well?
I’ve seen bollards used on movable bridges where an opening over the edge exists when the bridge is raised. They are relatively rare and safety cables that are lowered into place are more common.
There are already the railroad crossing equivalent of red light cameras in use.
I recall one reported incident where the first violator caught was a patrol car…
Some movable bridges use the counterwieght that helps in the movement of the bridge as the device to keep trains from ‘falling’ into the abyss.
That situation occurs with vertical lift bridges on railroads. I’m not sure how successful that would be. I’ve seen pictures in TRAINS some years back where a PC freight train in Cleveland overran the signal and the locomotives were sheared at the frame when they hit the counterweight. The frame of the lead locomotive just missed the boat in the channel.
I’ve not seen the counterweights lowered to street level on vehicular vertical lift bridges.
Perhaps those who use this rightist term forgot that the fundamental point of a state and a Western government (as opposed to anarchy) is order, safety.and a sense of predictable continuity.
(1) The FRA and FHWA sponsored a model law in 2007 that addressed line of sight and vision distance issues. The states failed to adopt any of it. It is still out there if you know where to find it. https://railroads.dot.gov/.../files/fra_net/1259/BackgroundOverviewModelLaw.pdf
(2) Opening and closing/ modifying of crossings is a state responsibility (not federal). Each state has a memorandum/ letter agreement with the states over this.
(3) The approaches are the county/city/state agencies responsibility. None of them appears to even know there is an engineering standard (long published) that exists in the AREMA and AASHTO manuals (published jointly) … The road agencies continually ignore it. (Engineers acting badly … just caused a big derailment in Dennison IA on UP)
(4) Who is this crossing assessment team gonna be? (If it’s gonna be like the QZ teams, don’t even start. A cluster of the highest order would result.) The locals will insist Uncle Sugar will pay for it , never mind the fact that local negligence created most of the deficiencies.
(5) Closing crossings? Good luck with that. (employment for questionable lawyers hoping to find similarly unqualified judges?)
(6) Slowing down the trains? NOPE Not gonna happen. Especially the knee jerk stuff.
(7)If a crossing protection system goes into general use, then it must be properly vetted and tested. Brand-new/ outta da box is a prescription for failure - a fools errand (RTD Denver discovered this - what sounded good on paper did not translate into success…and the actual railroaders involved in the project warned that the system would fail just like it did (RTD would not listen) - With all the b
https://railroads.dot.gov/.../files/fra_net/1259/BackgroundOverviewModelLaw.pdf
Link returns only “permission denied” on my systems
This link may work
https://railroads.dot.gov/legislation-regulations/legislation/model-state-legislation
So, after the 7 barriers to progress are noted, let’s do nothing.
Nichts.
Nada.
Since it’s been pointed out that the states are responsible for enacting crossing legislation to facilitate any of this… how many states have used the FRA ‘model language’ for one of the intended purposes? What state laws of any kind are currently in consideration, or pending?
THAT is where the change will start.
Sensibly and in accord with the Constitution’s commerce clause, uniform regulation of railroad crossings should become s federal function.
I would opine that regulation of crossings already is. It’s the funding that’s the issue.
Railroads track structure can be viewed as Interstate. Streets and Roads within a State are Intrastate. It is up to the states to design and pay for the crossing of their Intrastates with the Interstate railroads.