I was looking at the Cambridge, MA crossing of the Grand Junction Railroad and wondered why don’t railroad crossings use traffic lights in addition to crossing lights? People stop at traffic lights without thinking about it. Since it’s rare, people have to think about stopping at railroad crossing lights.
Have any studies pointed to the use of traffic lights in addition to crossing lights?
Here in this part of SC, the lights do exactly that. When the railroad lights activate, the traffic lights go to red or yellow, sometimes flashing, turn arrows go to red, etc. It has been this way for a long time.
Interlocked traffic signals are a nightmare. GWR has them here on the US-34 crossing in two places outside Loveland, CO. They don’t work. (Gates would be more effective).
Railroaders cannot maintain traffic signals and highway folks should NEVER be allowed to maintain railroad signals (lesson learned here)
What matters is not the difference between traffic lights and grade crossing signals. What matters is the difference between road intersections and grade crossings.
Drivers take unusual risks in trying to beat the train because they worry about insufferable delays that trains can sometimes cause. There is no reason to take such risks at highway intersections controlled by traffic lights. But if you put traffic lights on grade crossings, drivers will run the traffic lights and take the same kind of risk that they always do at grade crossings.
Traffic engineers have data showing that the level of compliance with a red octagon STOP sign is much worse when such signs are at grade crossings, as opposed to when they are at road intersections. Therefore, one of the reasons why traffic engineers resist the addition of STOP signs to non-signalized grade crossings is that
There is one crossing here in Springfield OR where the traffic light is set to turn red when the crossing gates activate. (The street intersection is adjacent to the railroad crossing.)
To clarify, I’m not talking about pre-empting traffic signals when a traffic signal has to work with a railroad crossing. I’m talking about using traffic signals in addition to crossing signals to protect railroad crossings.
THanks for the comments.
Like I said they don’t work - By law, the traffic signals (R-Y-G) on a mast have to be maintained by the rubber-tired people. In one of the accidents at the crossing west of Loveland, motorist to the highway patrol that they thought the R-Y-G signal out in the middle of nowhere between the cornfields was some kind of test decoration and did not apply to regular traffic.
I understand your point. You are talking about either adding traffic signals to the flasher lights of a grade crossing, or perhaps substituting traffic signals for the flasher lights. Either way, your reason is because compliance with traffic signals is better than compliance with grade crossing flashers.
You raise a logical question based on your observation of the difference in compliance between traffic signals and grade crossing flashers. But, as I mentioned above, if this were done, I would expect the following results:
Grade crossing compliance would not improve.
Traffic signal compliance would go down where they are protecting highway intersections.
If you think intersections can be confusing over a RR
Tri-Rail just south of the West Palm Beach station has a X shaped road intersection crossing centered over their double track. The traffic signals are controlled by the RR signals and lead the crossing gates by about 10 seconds? Maybe because locals know that the traffic signals control crossing traffic they do not ignore the traffic lights? This is 10 MPH permanent curve territory just north of the station so when a 7000ft+ CSX freight comes thru the delay will be over 7 minutes
I agree - no, there’s no reason - but some drivers “assume that risk” anyway and run the red light because they don’t want to wait for the traffic signal to cycle through for the traffic in the other direction(s) at the intersection. Implied in this discussion - but unstated - is that compliance with regular traffic signals is much higher than with grade crossing signals. I don’t have any statistics on that - it may well be that traffic does comply more with highway traffic signals than with grade crossing signals - but that compliance is just ‘more’, not universal or perfect, as there are a lot of red signals that are ‘run’ - that’s one reason why many cities now have ‘red light enforcement cameras’. Perhaps running red lights doesn’t get as much attention is that even if a collision occurs, it may not result in as high a likelihood of many fatalities as a gra
Paul,
I agree that people also run red lights at intersections controlled by traffic signals, but it is a matter of degree, not either/or. I cannot cite the statistics on this if any have been compiled, but the reason and motivation for running grade crossings against the flashers is obvious, and it is far more of a motive than the motive to run traffic lights. Simple observation ought to convince anyone that compliance with grade crossing signals is far less than compliance with traffic lights at road intersections. You can stand at any grade crossing, especially one without gates, and watch cars pour over the crossing against the flashers if the drivers believe they can beat the train.
I also agree that traffic signals would not be a panacea
(too many cooks spoil the broth/ er-um end product) Great Western out here is a low density RR and it does NOT work, even in town. Any increase in frequency in train traffic and/or vehicle traffic is a fatality waiting to happen. Full Quadrant Gates, barriers and bridges are much more effective.
(think of right turn on red as an excuse to ignore the signal)
Traffic sensor activated 50 cal machine guns would be more effective, but the collateral damage would be unacceptable… [swg]
On the other hand, there wouldn’t be any repeat offenders.
Wow - seems like that was written by somebody who’s had to clean up a few too many senseless accidents resulting from that exact behavior. [sigh] Which is not to say that I disagree . . . [;)]
Too bad we live in the real world. I wish every new development or strip mall didn’t get their very own traffic light, either. I also wish more traffic lights would shift to blink mode at 0 dark 30 when they are not needed, but I’m still going to follow the law. Why we blame the railroads for the jackasses breaking the law is beyond me.
Oh yeah, we are the nation of personal irresponsibility. Silly me. I forgot. Now who should I blame…
I don’t know who you think is blaming the railroads. I am only pointing out the obvious connection between crossing delays and drivers being motivated to beat the train. I have tried to explain this to you before, but you seem to think that I am saying that drivers have a right to take the risk or are not breaking the law by doing so.
The convenience store carries less that 100 bucks in the register at any one time, but they probably get robbed 100x more than the bank up the street. Why? Enforcement.
I’m not blaming you per se, but the assumption that if trains block crossings less, that grade crossing compliance would improve. So if you get the average time a train takes to clear the crossing down to 2 mins from 3, then people will blow the crossings because 2 is too much. Drop it down to one. That will still be too much. We live in an age of instant everything - from breakfast to communication. People will run red lights and crossings even if they think it will delay them 10 seconds. Trying to speed trains through crossings isn’t the answer. How about we try some better enforcement of the laws? I bet red light cameras cut down on people blowing the traffic lights…
The only crossings around here that get blocked for more than a minute or two, are those that are located near an industry. Now, unless we build a $10 billion overpass, or shut down the industry, there is really no way to avoid those delays. But people are still going to run in front of trains, even at crossings that never are blocked for long periods of times (unless in an emergency). People just have to pull their big boy britches on and deal with it.
Stroy time:
A couple trips ago, we were making a run into town to drop off a car. The lead engine was long hood forward. As we approached a rural crossing my hogger yelled “Whoa… thought that was gonna be my first.” (he’s a pretty new hogger). This crossing is protected only by crossbucks, is on a little hill (the kind trucks get hung up on), and has a curve at both ends. Basically as blind as they come. Bu
I would think the main point would be to reduce accidents, not have an ongoing dispute about fault.
As a point of information, there are many places where the traffic lights are coordinated with gated RR crossings (not as a substitute or as a replacement for flashing lights). Another poster mentioned the lightly-used one on a branch line in Springfield, OR, which I have seen. Another is in Wheaton, IL on the heavily-used UP West line. Both seem to work quite well.
We have a crossing in town that is very close to a T-intersection with a shopping mall and state highway. The tracks run parallel to the mall’s driveway. The intersection received traffic lights at the same time the rail line was being reactivated. So they tied the tracks into the traffic lights. The crossing only has crossbucks, but when the train occupies the circuit, the lights turn red (and the one set of traffic lights is set back far enough to ‘cover’ the tracks.) Then the little train can scoot across the crossing quite easily.
If I interpret the state vehicle code correctly, vehicles that normally have to stop at RR crossings, do not have to stop if a traffic light is in control at the crossing. Another small benefit, I guess.
Can’t say about fewer people blowing red lights, but it sure does improve the township’s bottom line!
Here in Clark County the local sheriff declared a one-day war on railroad crossing runners, and that was announced on the local tube news. Since there’s noplace to hide in the Dessicated Desert the patrol cars were in plain view. IIRC, they issued 160 tickets (and would have issued more if they had had enough officers to catch and write up the multiple-vehicle blow-bys.)
OTOH, in Japan rail traffic is much heavier - and the non-compliance rate is a lot lower. Seems that law enforcement started early (like in the 19th century) and the habit of stopping at rail crossings is pretty much ingrained in the Japanese public. Here, we’re trying to change mind sets that have had a LONG time to solidify. IMHO, nothing short of moving armor-plate barriers will keep motor vehicles off grade crossings when the track circuit is triggered by a train.
Note that I said, “Keep motor vehicles off grade crossings.” Anyone care to bet that there won’t be a lot of cellphone users and text messagers, and just plain inattentive car pilots, splattering their vehicles and themselves across the barriers? All that would happen is that the barrier would replace the locomotive as the Darwin enforcer.
Chuck