Figure out the "cost per life saved" by a grade crossing elimination project - not just the initial capital investment costs, but the ongoing 'opportunity costs' if that money were spent on other potentially life-saving projects instead - such as improving a really bad highway (only - no RR) intersection, or feeding and vaccinating impoverished children (choose anything else you'd like in here, too), etc. Keep in mind that around 40,000 people are killed each year in the US by road accidents.
What you'll find is a cost per life in the $10 million and up range for the grade crossing, and much less for any of the others (I don't have ready access to those figures - maybe someone else can supply them). Which is to say that an argument can be made that it's good policy to put the $ where it will do the most good - and the eliminating grade crossings isnt one of them, because so much is dependent on and results from the 'free will' and bad choices/ actions made by adult drivers, etc.
And don't tell me that "You can't put a price on human life", either.* It's done every day, either expressly or implicity (which is worse, because then it's not transparent and not open to an informed discussion, debate, etc. - essentially intellectually dishonest). To duck the issue is like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand.
*"One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." - Joseph Stalin (per Tom Clancy, in his ca. 1996 fiction book Executive Orders, in the context of an Ebola virus outbreak . . . ).
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr Figure out the "cost per life saved" by a grade crossing elimination project ... And don't tell me that "You can't put a price on human life", either.
Figure out the "cost per life saved" by a grade crossing elimination project ... And don't tell me that "You can't put a price on human life", either.
To amplify on what Paul wrote:
No one and no society has unlimited resources, so the truly compassionate thing to do is maximize he number of lives saved for a given expenditure. Simple math will show that's done by adjusting priorites so that the incremental cost of saving ech life is the same.
In the real world there are various reasons for deviating from this goal, but it doesn't make sense to expend tens of millions per life saved when there may be places where a life could be saved for tens of thousands. Seems to me that Operation Lifesaver has been a lot more cost effective than grade crossing separation.
- Erik
As an aside, it should be noted that railroads have often sought to eliminate as many grade crossings as possible. Much of the "Water Level Route" across NY state has only occasional crossings, and the line that ran through the streets through downtown Syracuse, NY was completely relocated, to include a new station.
As for the cost of accidents - recall the infamous Ford Pinto and it's fuel tank (which was later found to be no more dangerous than any other similar vehicle). Word was that it was cheaper for FoMoCo to pay the damage claims than to do a redesign on the vehicle to mitigate the perceived problem.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
What I haven't addressed yet - and probably won't, because these are inherently imprecise and incapable of even approximate estimates - are:
More later on another funding option.
edblysard zkr123 With all of these accidents happening between motorists and trains, why hasn't grade separation become mandatory? I don't know....why don't you ask your local DOT why they insist on building roads and streets across railroad tracks, most of which were there long before the road was even needed.
zkr123 With all of these accidents happening between motorists and trains, why hasn't grade separation become mandatory?
With all of these accidents happening between motorists and trains, why hasn't grade separation become mandatory?
I don't know....why don't you ask your local DOT why they insist on building roads and streets across railroad tracks, most of which were there long before the road was even needed.
Really? I don't know where you are, but here in the Mid Atlantic, the birthplace of American Railroading, there were a great many people and roads LONG before the trains.
In fact, there were BIG cities here long before the trains - so everything had to adapt to the presence of the train to take advantage of the benifits of the train.
In cities like Baltimore, railroads built tunnels and/or elevated as much of the main trackage as possible early on - but in industrial areas it is simply not practical.
Grade crossings are relatively rare compared to the total number of road/railroad crossings in a city like Baltimore and its suburbs. I would bet in the Baltimore metro area it is 100 to one in favor of grade seperated crossings - but some nut always manages to stop his car or truck on that one.......
But as explained numerous times above, it is simply not practical in every case.
Some people will always do stupid stuff - personally I don't loose any sleep over what happens to them - I simply hope they don't hurt too many others in the process.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALIn fact, there were BIG cities here long before the trains - so everything had to adapt to the presence of the train to take advantage of the benifits of the train.
And adapt they did - railroads were the lifeblood of commerce and travel, so they were welcomed with open arms. Smaller towns grew around the station/depot - it was a hub of activity.
I can cite one instance (and there were many) where the railroad bypassed a town, building "Podunk Station" well outside of town. "Podunk" withered and died, and the new "Podunk" grew around the station.
Today most people are vaguely aware of railroads, and mostly in the context of bad things - delays at crossings and wrecks, for two. Unless they use them themselves (travellers, commuters and shippers/receivers), the railroad is something they wish would just go away.
tree68 As an aside, it should be noted that railroads have often sought to eliminate as many grade crossings as possible.
As an aside, it should be noted that railroads have often sought to eliminate as many grade crossings as possible.
Bingo -- and here in North Dakota, people raise Cain every time BNSF tries to maintain its "no net gain" policy; i.e., closing an old grade crossing in exchange for a subdivision's request for a new one.
It's not by accident that we have tens of thousands of grade crossings in this country. More are sought every day -- with the applicants expressing no worries whatsoever about the idiots, their constituents, who will kill themselves in coming years despite all the protections.
And the rest of us are supposed to worry about them? Why? They're not our constituents. My only concern is the welfare of the railroads and the cost to them of defending the court cases brought by the idiots, their survivors and their lawyers.
dakotafredAnd the rest of us are supposed to worry about them? Why? They're not our constituents. My only concern is the welfare of the railroads and the cost to them of defending the court cases brought by the idiots, their survivors and their lawyers.
I don't want to hit anyone at a crossing. Haven't yet, and knock on wood, hopefully I never will.
So yeah, I worry about it. Guess there's a shred of humanity left in me afterall.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
I think the reason grade seperation is not mandatory is that the vehemence to have it by those that want it is slightly less than the vehemene by those same people to not spend any of THEIR money to have it.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
The number of grade crossing collisions in 2013 was 22% of the number in 1981. The number of fatalites 35%,. The number of injuries 28%.
http://oli.org/about-us/news/collisions-casulties
According to FRA safety data in 2014 there were 267 people killed and 831 people injured in 245 grade crossing incidents. There was a total of 558 fatalities (excluding at grade crossing fatalities) including 526 trespassers at locations other than grade crossings. There were 419 trespassers injured.
There are 209,485 grade crossings (public and private) in the current (2014)inventory. 129,502 crossings are public. There were 2280 grade crossing incidents in 2014.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
DSchmittAccording to FRA safety data in 2014 there were 267 people killed and 831 people injured in 245 grade crossing incidents. There was a total of 558 fatalities (excluding at grade crossing fatalities) including 526 trespassers at locations other than grade crossings. There were 419 trespassers injured. There are 209,485 grade crossings (public and private) in the current (2014)inventory. 129,502 crossings are public. There were 2280 grade crossing incidents in 2014.
No one says this is an all or none issue. That is a reductio ad absurdem argument. The key statistic is not just aggregate numbers as above, because you lose the ability to see where the problem lies. For starters, try determing which crossings with high traffic volumes and higher speeds have had multiple accidents in the past year (the CA Metrolink crossing had 2 in one week!). Those should be the crossings that need upgrades of some type. Likely that would be a managable number. And most private crossings, lightly-used and crossbucks-only rural crossings should be closed.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm DSchmitt According to FRA safety data in 2014 there were 267 people killed and 831 people injured in 245 grade crossing incidents. There was a total of 558 fatalities (excluding at grade crossing fatalities) including 526 trespassers at locations other than grade crossings. There were 419 trespassers injured. There are 209,485 grade crossings (public and private) in the current (2014)inventory. 129,502 crossings are public. There were 2280 grade crossing incidents in 2014. No one says this is an all or none issue. That is a reductio ad absurdem argument. The key statistic is not just aggregate numbers as above, because you lose the ability to see where the problem lies. For starters, try determing which crossings with high traffic volumes and higher speeds have had multiple accidents in the past year (the CA Metrolink crossing had 2 in one week!). Those should be the crossings that need upgrades of some type. Likely that would be a managable number. And most private crossings, lightly-used and crossbucks-only rural crossings should be closed.
DSchmitt According to FRA safety data in 2014 there were 267 people killed and 831 people injured in 245 grade crossing incidents. There was a total of 558 fatalities (excluding at grade crossing fatalities) including 526 trespassers at locations other than grade crossings. There were 419 trespassers injured. There are 209,485 grade crossings (public and private) in the current (2014)inventory. 129,502 crossings are public. There were 2280 grade crossing incidents in 2014.
The problem with even the "farmer-only" type crossing is that his equipment might nevertheless be big and bulky enough - such as a tractor-trailer to haul grain, etc. - to derail a train, and especially a lighter-weight passenger train, as happened at Oxnard.
It's fair enough to let him accept the risk of crossing the tracks at his own private crossing - but the unacceptable part is the risk he poses to the trains.
schlimmNo one says this is an all or none issue. That is a reductio ad absurdem argument. The key statistic is not just aggregate numbers as above, because you lose the ability to see where the problem lies. For starters, try determing which crossings with high traffic volumes and higher speeds have had multiple accidents in the past year (the CA Metrolink crossing had 2 in one week!). Those should be the crossings that need upgrades of some type. Likely that would be a managable number. And most private crossings, lightly-used and crossbucks-only rural crossings should be closed.
Crossing are monitored by local agencys, State agencys and the Feds. You can go to the FRA website and look up the accident history fo specific grade crossings. There is a limited amount of money for upgrading. There are many other issues most not involving grade crossing that need attention. The monitoring is to help determine where and how the money available can be most effectively spent.
In the 1980's I was involved in traffic accident analysis for a State Transportation Department.
An old Engineer told me that although specific problem locations can be identified overall accidents are random. An example he gave was a particular road intesection.
There were three reported accidents involving injuries and one fatality in less than 6 months. His records back more than 20 years showed no prior accidents. In more than four years after those accidents there were no more accidents at that location. No work had been done at that location
I studied one location at a curve on a mountain road because of the number of accidents including fatalities in a 5 year period entered in the computer data base. I pulled the actual police reports, went to the location and determined that not one of the accidents were actually at that location. I was able to determine that they were all at a number of other nearby locations.
Paul,
I can see your point about about the farmer posing a risk to trains at private crossings. You say that the risk is unacceptable. But what about the comparable risk posed to trains by heavy trucks at public crossings? Wouldn't that risk be unacceptable just as you say that it is at private crossings?
DSchmittThere are many other issues most not involving grade crossing that need attention.
Exactly. If a crossing is generating multiple incidents, it will usually get the attention it needs, if the money is there. As spectacular as incidents like the Metro North collision may be, if it's a "one-off" thing, odds are little will be done, if anything.
As a highway aside (and therein lies the competition for the funding), if a tour bus overturns on an unremarkable stretch of road, and a number of people are killed or injured, the roadway probably won't get the blame.
Getting rid of all of the crossings is an admirable goal, but as has been noted, we simply can't afford it.
Euclid Paul, I can see your point about about the farmer posing a risk to trains at private crossings. You say that the risk is unacceptable. But what about the comparable risk posed to trains by heavy trucks at public crossings? Wouldn't that risk be unacceptable just as you say that it is at private crossings?
A public crossing is likely to be used by a lot more vehicles - yes, including heavy trucks - than a farm crossing. But what that does is concentrate the risk at a few discrete locations, instead of all over the countryside (literally), which makes the risk easier to measure and manage. More importantly, the higher traffic volume at the public crossings thereby justify them being improved as above, and then with flashers, gates, and perhaps even being bypassed with a bridge, none of which will ever happen at the farmer's crossing.
In statistical terms, I suppose the farmer is no more likely to be unsafe than any other truck driver at an unprotected crossing, so that factor is equal for all trucks at all unprotected crossings. But if we accept the premise that a crossing with active protection - lights and bells, and perhaps gates - reduces the truck-train collision rate over what is experienced at unprotected crossings, then the goal of improving safety is better served by routing more of the traffic over the protected crossings than the unprotected ones.
I see what you mean in those comparisons. That all makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying that.
Paul_D_North_JrIn statistical terms, I suppose the farmer is no more likely to be unsafe than any other truck driver at an unprotected crossing, so that factor is equal for all trucks at all unprotected crossings.
We just had an incident this summer involving a dump truck whose driver failed to stop for the stop sign at a private crossing. The CSX locomotive wasn't kind to the truck, although the driver escaped with minor injuries.
The approach to the crossing is uphill, and the trucks at that point would usually be loaded with products of the adjacent gravel pit, so they probably hate to stop. I'd opine that they're lucky nobody got caught before.
PDN's explanation is important. Private crossings can be deadly. Couple months ago a car hauler stalled on a private crossing was hit by a CSX freight and 4000 ft of track was damaged and / or destroyed. How the engine crew got by with no injuries puzzled many officials. Took 36 hours to restore track. Certainly could have been deadly.
Crowned crossings are especially bad for TT and to less extent to autos pickup pulling trailers.
Euclid - Glad you asked. Helped me crystallize and organize my own thoughts, too.
- Paul.
Sam1 Ulrich Also, level crossing accidents are way down and keep going down, thanks in large part to better driver training and programs like Operation Lifesaver. Yes indeed! In 1970, according to National Transportation Statistics, Table 2-5, there were 3,559 Rail-Highway-Grade Crossing accidents resulting in 1,440 fatalities and 3,272 injuries. In 2013 there were 2,089 accidents resulting in 249 deaths and 952 injuries.
Ulrich Also, level crossing accidents are way down and keep going down, thanks in large part to better driver training and programs like Operation Lifesaver.
Also, level crossing accidents are way down and keep going down, thanks in large part to better driver training and programs like Operation Lifesaver.
Yes indeed!
In 1970, according to National Transportation Statistics, Table 2-5, there were 3,559 Rail-Highway-Grade Crossing accidents resulting in 1,440 fatalities and 3,272 injuries.
In 2013 there were 2,089 accidents resulting in 249 deaths and 952 injuries.
For over 20 years the USDOT's Federal Railroad Administration has discouraged the use of the term "accident" to describe damaging contact between road and rail vehicles. Such incidents are almost invariably the result of a volitional act on the part of the road vehicle operator, thus certainly not an "accident" (which is a chance occurrence), but rather the result of a poor decision (to willfully proceed across the tracks) on the part of such operator. The damaging interaction in such a case should thus properly only be called a "collision".
JC from Ct.There is a railroad bridge over the Merritt Parkway in Trumbull/Bridgeport, Ct., which, according to some, never saw a train. The highway was built in the 1930s (I think), and there are few remaining traces of the rail line (except for the bridge, obviously), as the area has built up. John in Ct.
At one time in the early 60's - The Baltimore Beltway was crossed at grade by the Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad....as traffic on that segment of the Beltway mounted it was finally realized that a 1930's style solution to the problem was a bigger problem than a solution.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sam1 Interesting. 41% decrease in grade crossing collisions. 83% decrease in deaths 71% decrease in injuries. Certainly makes one wonder why the % of deaths and injuries down much greater than number of collisions. Any ideas ? Yes indeed! In 1970, according to National Transportation Statistics, Table 2-5, there were 3,559 Rail-Highway-Grade Crossing accidents resulting in 1,440 fatalities and 3,272 injuries. In 2013 there were 2,089 accidents resulting in 249 deaths and 952 injuries.
Interesting. 41% decrease in grade crossing collisions.
83% decrease in deaths
71% decrease in injuries.
Certainly makes one wonder why the % of deaths and injuries down much greater than number of collisions. Any ideas ?
Safer automobiles with crumple zones that work, and safety appliances that work well, making the odds better of surviving a train/auto collision.
23 17 46 11
1 in 9 bridges in the US are structurally deficient. Almost all of these bridges are needed as they cross either natural obstacles like rivers, or busy highways. In addition, many bridges are not sufficient to carry the amount of traffic they are dealing with. Many bridges are crumbling as the maintance was put off to save money. Considering the fact that we can't even repair or replace the bridges that are are a hazard and vital to traffic, how in the world do you expect the government to build bridges over existing grade crossings. In addition, closing crossings and building bridges at a few points would create bottlenecks that would make traffic horrible.
Railroads already have to install PTC. If you try to make railroads foot the bill, you would most likely bring the economy to a halt. Railroads could shutdown and bring the economy to a halt. With no oil trains, a limited supply of oil would send prices skyhigh. Goods wouldn't be shipped, so they wouldn't be sold. Many industries couldn't get materials delievered and would shutdown. Within several weeks electricity would go out as power plants run out of coal. Railroads have a lot of power, especially with the giant class 1s of today.
I don't think I was specific when I said getting rid of crossings. I'm mostly talking about ones in high dense populations, double lane highways, and ones that go through major intersection.
zkr123 I don't think I was specific when I said getting rid of crossings. I'm mostly talking about ones in high dense populations, double lane highways, and ones that go through major intersection.
Even that is a difficult proposition. As an example, the UP (C&NW) main line crosses through the intersection of 4th Street (ILL 23) and Lincoln Highway (ILL 38) in the middle of downtown DeKalb IL. There are also three grade crossings immediately to the west and two or three to the east. Grade separation is quite impractical in this situation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.