What’s the process, when a railroad crossing needs to be expanded? As our city grows to the south, at some point, gravel county roads will become paved city streets and the occasional 4 lane main thoroughfares. Does the city/county/state have to negotiate for the right to expand a crossing?
If you change the use, signals, size or location of the crossing, you had better :
(1) talk to the railroad and see if they agree,
(2a) Get your plans ready and be ready to notify/ meeting all the nearby neighbors of a certain radius,
(2b) get an application ready for the local regulatory agency (in your case, South Dakota DOT, Department of Railroads in Pierre (These folks are NOT the rubber tired highway bubbas, they are an entity to themselves, enforcing the state statute Chapter 49-16A - 50 thru 53, 81-100) … if these folks don’t agree, nothing changes…
(3) because you are increasing traffic, start thinking about a grade separation and Section 400 $$$
The railroad section has the ultimate authority to say who does what, pays for what and is responsible for what …puts out a Decision which is a binding contract to all parties.[X-)]
Lots of $$$ even if it stays as an ‘at-grade’ crossing, too. What about relocating the utility poles and overhead wires along the road approaching the crossing on each side - and maybe some underground utilities, too ? Moving stormwater drainage facilities - ditches or pipes, inlets, etc., which are not wanted in the middle of a wider road ? Adding or upgrading crossing signals and gates ? Synchronizing them any adjoining grade crossing signals, and also with the nearby traffic signals, which are likely involved because the traffic is increasing, after all . . . Reconstructing the track in the approaches, at least so it doesn’t have to be renewed soon, and maybe to respace ties and go to a larger/ higher rail section for maximum depth and strength for a manufactured crossing product ? And the railroad is - justifiably - going to take the position that the city ought to pay for all of it, because it’s the city and its traffic that’s changing the existing conditions/ status quo ante, not the railroad, which would be otherwise perfectly happy to leave everything as it is now . . . [:-^]
- Paul North.
Is it usually the regulatory agency that decides what’s going to happen, with agreement from the railroad, or is it the other way around? Is there a possibility of the railroad just saying NO ?
In most cases the government in charge of that specific road - in your example, probably the City, but in other circumstances it could be a township, the county, or even the state DOT - and the railroad, and anyone else who has a serious financial or government interest in the crossing meet informally in advance to agree on the scope of the improvements and the proposed allocation of the costs. It’s ‘not their 1st rodeo’, so they have a good idea of how it will play out before the agency, and frame their proposal around that. In your example, the city - or a developer, or their fees - usually pays for all or almost all of the construction, but the railroad will agree to maintain the new crossing signals into the future. I’ve been involved in some new crossings for a railroad to serve an industry or an industrial park, and there the shoe’s on the other foot - the railroad pays for all of it, at least formally - but always gets reimbursement up front from the industrial user.
At least here in Pennsylvania there’s a pretty standard petition form for that kind of thing. It is approved and signed by the railroad, the local government, the government in charge of the road if different, and the state DOT. Then it is forwarded to the state PUC, which gives formal notice to all involved. If there are no objections - and even if there are - a ‘field conference’ is held at the site to view it and hear what everyone has to say. The results of that are written up as a routine administrative ‘‘Proposed Secretary’s Order’’, and again circulated. If there are no formal objections filed, it becomes effective after like 30 days.
If objections are filed, it then goes to the full PUC board, which as in all litigaiton can be like rolling the dice. A hearing officer - Administrative Law Judge - takes formal sworn testimony and exhibits, etc., and makes a recommendation to the full PUC board. The full board then acts like
What Paul says is bang on the money (Illinois DOT’s highway bubbas found that out near Alton, IL with IL HWY 9 a few years back and discovered they weren’t the only big fish in the pond. [:-,])
[bow][bow][bow]
Thanks, MC. Here’s a report on another nearby example from the western Philly suburbs ‘‘Main Line’’ area in December 2007 - note that the railroad/ Amtrak’s share was zero, nada, zilch, none, $0.00:
Church Street Bridge: The 100 year old bridge is now expected to open on Thursday, Dec. 20th. Although the bridge has been closed for almost 15 months, the Director of Public Works, Don Cannon, said it had been expected that the bridge would be closed for 18-24 months. There will be a brief ceremony on Dec. 20th at 8:30 am, on the north, Sibley Avenue side. The old weight restrictions have been eliminated thanks to the reconstruction. The township will also assume ownership and responsibility for the bridge. When Amtrak took over the railroad it did not take ownership of the bridge and it became an “orphan”, with no assigned responsibility for care or maintenance. However, the Township was able to re-construct the bridge with 80% federal funds, 15% state funds, and only 5% local funds, thanks to the “Orphan Bridge Act.” [emphasis added - PDN]
[from the League of Women Voters of Lower Merion and Narberth, at - http://palwv.org/LMN/voterinfo/ObserverCorps.htm#ObserverCorpsDecember2007 ]
- Paul North.