In recent threads, there have been discussions about the solution to the problem of grade crossing crashes. One of the most common suggestions is the elimination of all grade crossings. Often, it is suggested that the railroads were in place before roads that cross them, so the responsibility for crossings should not be placed on the railroads. I believe this may be an oversimplification of the crossing rights issue, but maybe others here can shed some light on that point.
Rather than applying a blanket solution such as closing all crossings, protecting crossings has always been done on a prioritization in protecting first, the crossings that are most likely to have crashes. There are many passive (non-signalized) crossings in existence. On one hand, it does not pay to signalize them because the low traffic count does not justify the cost of signalization.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome onboard the Trains.com Forum with discussions ranging from grade crossings to economies. We are currently third in line for take-off and are expected to be unlocked for approximately seven minutes time. We ask that you please fasten your seatbelts at this time and secure all feelings underneath your seat or in the overhead compartments. We also ask that your seats and table trays are in the upright position for take-off. Please turn off all personal electronic devices, including laptops and cell phones. Smoking is prohibited for the duration of the discussion . Thank you for choosing Trains.com. Enjoy your discussion.
Just a note in passing about a personal perception referencing the North Carolina issue of grade crossings.
Over the last couple of years, there seem to have been a number of incidents in rural NC at ‘passive’ (?) crossings in which the NC DOT train service on their Piedmont Express, reported in the media, (although I have not seen any in recent memory). There for a while in the last couple of years collisions seemed to be a fairly regular occurrence in rural areas(?)
Section B in the following link may be of interest here:
FTL:"…Norfolk Southern Railway on-board video uses a proprietary locomotive-mounted system that captures, at four frames per second, real-time digital video and audio of track conditions as well as unusual events, such as incidents and trespasser activity, through the use of a camera and microphone installed on the locomotive. This system also superimposes the speed of the train at any given point, train direction (forward or reverse), as well as horn and brake activations. As part of the research effort, Norfolk Southern will be recording video and sound for at least two years. NCDOT will utilize the data collected to monitor and evaluate the performance of the enhanced warning devices previously installed on the Sealed Corridor and will make design revisions as deemed necessary…"
FTL:"…In addition, NCDOT Rail Division and Norfolk Southern are currently in the process of initiating a joint research project with FRA to develop and validate a predictive trespasser model utilizing the data collected on both the Sealed Corridor and Norfolk Southern’s system as a whole. In addition to model calibration, the data will be used to determine the effectiveness of potentia
FRA has developed some fairly elaborate measures for evaluating the effectiveness of grade crossing protective devices, and supplementary measures such as four-quad gates and medians, which they use in evaluating quiet zone proposals under their “train horn” rule, 49 CFR Part 222. They are described in the appendices to the rule, and the rulemaking preambles.
Somebody never heard of the Volpe Center or its predecessors apparently.
Somebody also needs to remember the state PUC/ RR Commisions/ DOT’s etc call the shots by state mandate. Those folks, not the railroads, tackle what stupid zones are remediated with what limited funding is out there.
The elimination of all/most grade crossings is unrealistic. Here in Guelph that would mean putting the entire railroad underground. The only cost effective solution, which will also not eliminate all crossing incidents, is more training for drivers and more protection at those crossing that are deemed to be at highest risk of collision. Maybe a regulation that would require all vehicles to come to a complete stop at unprotected crossings would also help. Stop…look both ways…open the windows to listen…and then proceed. That’s what school buses and some others are now required to do…might be good to apply that to everyone. As for people dying as a result of being stupid…there’s just no way to avoid that. You can’t precent someone from driving 120 mph through a 30 mph school zone unless you govern all vehicles to 30 mph…
This much is true. A lot of those are repeat offenders…thy are just too hard core to stop doing it anyway. That would be why they would need to keep them behind bars or summat. My neighbour, who is a cop, had said on numerous occasions that some of these guys who do this are really hard core alcoholics. They never stop because they really cannot help themselves…
Perhaps taking the vehicle away (upon conviction) from the violators for the duration of the suspension? Or at least an ignition interlock device that prevents the vehicle from being started during the suspension; that way the perp can look out his window at the vehicle he cannot drive because of his stupidity?
Many drivers are motivated to try to beat the train by the avoidance of a delay. However, the report linked to my first post finds that some drivers are motivated to beat the train by the thrill of it.
Your claim seems to assume that the elimination of the crossing involves moving the tracks up or down. While that might be the cost effective solution in a dense urban environment, moving the road would usually be more cost effective solution.
Increasing the penalty, as some have suggested here, might reduce gate-running. But it won’t help in cases where drivers believe the signals and gates are only advisory. Just to clarify, advisory means that a driver is simply informed that a crossing exists, and then the driver is permitted to use his or her own discretion in deciding whether it is safe to cross.
That belief is not as far-fetched as it might at first seem. Grade crossings come out of a 150-year tradition where the warnings were advisory for much of that history. To some extent, they still are. Today, there is nothing about the full warning system of gates and flashers that clearly dispels the left over belief that the warning is advisory.
Based on what I’ve seen at any number of intersections, there’s plenty of drivers and pedestrians out there who consider traffic lights to be merely advisory.