.
I think what he is saying is that the Federal government, under the current interpretation of the ‘commerce clause’, can regulate the precise type and requirement of the portion of crossings that are on ‘railroad property’. They could logically be given the power to mandate closing that narrow but effectively ‘controlling’ portion of a crossing unless and until “somebody” responsible for the approaches and their signage or signaling has fixed their part to the standards charlie hebdo finds essential. That is how the Government could effectively put teeth into which is otherwise largely a Tenth Amendment sort of issue, and it thoroughly satisfies the ‘safety’ remit that the Government has chosen as grounds for its federal regulation of railroad matters.
Presumably, the existing convention where railroads maintain the active safety devices, and are reasonably promptly reimbursed from the States as appropriate, would continue without introducing need for Federal mandates or subsidies.
The issue is uniformity over the 50 states plus the thousands of municipalties instead of lax regularity in some, overregulation in others. We hear on this forum so many times that the rails have precedence on this because they were there first (arguably not necessarily so in many areas). So this is a federal concern. And it needs to be done so we don’t have more fatal accidents on lightly traveled crossings.
The Perfect Solution versus Good Enough:
The theme is to somehow upgrade several thousand passive crossings to make them as safe as other active crossings, but not to make all crossings 100% safe. However, in contemplating that 100% goal, the solution always lands on barriers that automatically place a crossing into a vault so no vehicles or pedestrians can possibly foul the crossing clearance zone.
Walls or bollards rising out of the road surface to make a vault/fortress effect is overkill because it will vastly increase the price. Also, regulators will instantly reject the idea because it poses a fatal collision risk to drivers by colliding with solid impediments. Besides, this idea is driven by the presumed need for an absolutely 100% effective crossing protection system.
Why do we need that? None of the transportation infrastructure meets that objective. The most practical, ultimately protective crossing protection is 4-quadrant gates, flashing lights, and bells. The gates eliminate circumvention by drivers trying to beat the train, which is the main cause of going around the gates. While the gates cannot physically stop a vehicle, they will damage a vehicle that breaks through them. So drivers are generally not intentionally c
some actual studies on that would be neat. I’m sure there were some studes done when they decided to add the yield to begin with.
Until then…shrugs
We have xings in town (public) that used to just have the crossbuck. Then the town decided to toss up a stop sign. Then the railroad, following the current standards, added yield signs to the crossbucks. So now you get a stop and yield. (Kind of a highway equivalent to a stop and proceed situation).
While we’re doing studies, I wonder if adding a Yield sign would draw attention because the red can stand out a little more than just the white crossbuck?
From DOT’s Highway Rail Crossing Handbook.
The Yield sign is the preferred default. Stop signs can be substituted.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/com_roaduser/fhwasa18040/chp2e.cfm
Jeff