Join the discussion on the following article:
Private crossings cause dust-up in Oregon
Both Vermont and Maine are also facing private crossing flaps.
There is a lot more I would like to know about this situation. First is whether or not BNSF enforced the same rules and regs; especially on the liability insurance! To me, something seems rotten in Oregon.
Railroad property has always been private property. It cost railroad companies install and mantain grade crossings. They pass all operating expenses onto their customers. When it comes to crossings for public use government municipalities often pickup the tab on public crossings. Private crossings have been a gift from the railway companies until the private parties begin start demanding upgrades from a rough dirt and gravel to asphalt or concrete, with bells, lights and gates and regular maintenance. Crossings cause lawsuits and railroads would rather not have them. Private parties should pay their fair share or use public crossings. If there are no public crossings then chose isolation and need to pay for the privilege. I should not be paying higher prices for railroad transported products because others want free right of way privilege.
Sorry, folks. At private and unprotected public crossings, liability and litigation is what it is all about. In any legal environment, the onus is on the owners and the users, not on the railroad. Once it has been established in court that the railroad has conformed with FRA, state, and railroad operating rules with regards to crossing condition, sightlines, signage, train speed and use of whistle and bell, the judge will dismiss any frivilous suit. The signage says it all. ‘‘Private crossing. Use at your own risk.’’ I have had to investigate hundreds of crossing accidents in my career. In the large majority of those I have handled with regards to private crossings, the vehicle operator is usually (but not always) at fault. While accidents at unprotected public and private crossings make up a decreasing quantity of the statistical totals, they contain an inordinate number of fatalities and serious injuries. It is not about property owner’s rights, it is about property owners public and private responsibilties.
The social costs involved are huge, never mind the personal costs to the victims and the operating crews and the carrying costs to the railroads. I am on the side of the railroads on this issue. Reducing the number of public and private crossings reduces the risks, and the ultimate costs, both public and private.
Here in New Hampshire people that have private crossings on former rail routes that have become snow mobile trails have found out that in fact they still have to get insurance and have to pay the state a yearly because the routes have reverted to state ownership.
For being a truck driver, I’ve seen too many private crossings that I would declare as death traps because the parties that wanted them didn’t care a @+#_$*%&^ about safety at those crossings. I’m sure it’s going to bankrupt their companies to invest in a stop sign or its relocating one to a more proper location so trucks don’t have to stop with vehicles hanging over the tracks.
Albany & Eastern operates on former SP track to Mill City and also on former BN (Oregon Electric) track out to Foster. The article indicates the problem only involves former BN tracks. Why don’t former SP tracks present the same problem?
I think it is important to find out who granted access to whom first, the property owner to the original railroad (for the right-of-way) or the railroad to the property owner (for the private crossing).
Hi Everyone,
STEVE CALLAGHAN : Thank you so much for your comments. My feeling exactly. I am glad to hear that frivolous lawsuits get dismissed-- sometimes. Your career sounds fascinating.