$170k Crossing Gates, Lights Proposed for One Daily Train

[UPTRAIN]

Crossings be safe, wear protection.  No really, we have gates on gravel roads here, but we also have 60 trains a day and some blind curves.  Sometimes it's needed sometimes it's not, this looks like a not.

[SD60MAC9500]

How can you spend $170K when the U.S. and all its locales are in the red. U.S. debt -$740 trillion. !!!! You can't spend worthless money nor can you when you don't have it !. How do I figure the money's worthless.  Next time you go to Ft. Knox don't bother to ask who sold all are gold reserves decades ago.

[nbrodar]

Reading the article, it seem the local government, and Penndot are concered with the heavy vehicle traffic over the road.  Also they are concerned with the high number of out-of-town visiters.   These are valid concerns.  NS also states that AT LEAST one train a day operates over the crossing.  I am familar with many grade crossing in the Philadelphia area, that the see one train a week, but still have full protection because thousands of vehicles a day roll over them.

I wish all crossing had full protection. There's nothing scarier that watching a car cross in front of your locomotive and knowing there's NOTHING you can do but hang on and pray.  Until you hit and kill someone at a crossing, you have no right to talk about the lights and gates being overkill. 

Nick

[solzrules]

Solzrules stated:

If the safety regulators have unlimited funds (and sometimes you must admit that government regulators tend to feel like tax dollars are theirs by right) then all crossings of all types would have the maximum safety equipment installed.  Is this a wise use of funds?  Probably not. 

FYI - (1) The state portions of the Federal Section 300 funding amounts to $450,000.00 per state per year. Those funds have to pay for all the grade crossing improvements plus grade separations (bridges) in a year. Doesn't go very far, does it? The rest of that $$$ comes out of the state or local general funding. Go back and look at the risk factors. Something is screaming "stupid zone" / liability in terms of crossing geometry, accident history, train operations, traffic volume projections or hazmat. States hoard the program $$$ to get the most public benefit. 

(2) The state PUC's determine how much each (state, county, city, railroad, etc.) contributes to the costs of a crossing upgrade.

If it's not a wise use of funds, then I bet you would ride that shove accross the crossing every time?

 

Mudchicken - not trying to say you are wrong here, you may be right.  I admit that my position is an idealogical one and in this scenario you are probably right.  It has been my experience (as a driver and a construction worker, not a railroader) that typically governments (OSHA in particular, I don't know if railroads operate under this entity)  overreact to an accident and assume that everyone is going to make the same mistake as those involved in the accident.  The "knee-jerk" reaction follows and suddenly there are stoplights, bridges, gates, barricades, flashers, etc. that appear everywhere - when one impatient person was the problem.  On the surface, spending 170k on a crossing that sees one train a day seems extreme.  If the projections indicate a future problem, then I stand corrected.  It seems that this is the case.  My larger point is that no matter what you spend there are still people who will place themeselves in danger for really ridiculous reasons.  No amount of safety precautions will prevent accidents of impatience. 

As for your last comment I would be mighty sure there isn't a train near the crossing before I go barreling across.  This is good practice no matter where you are - it is called defensive driving. 

[zardoz]

 But I'm sure the train crews will appreciate them.

100% correct. 

Flagging a crossing is extremely dangerous for the train crew.  Drivers have even less respect for a person holding a fusee than they do for crossing gates. 

Many times I would (out of anger) literally throw the fusee at a vehicle that was disregarding my warning signals; sometimes I would get lucky and the fusee would actually land inside an open window.  Of course, immediately after launching a fusee at a vehicle, I would light another one (it would be handy to use as a weapon in case the irate driver who's car I just set on fire decided to confront me).

[mudchicken]

Solzrules stated:

If the safety regulators have unlimited funds (and sometimes you must admit that government regulators tend to feel like tax dollars are theirs by right) then all crossings of all types would have the maximum safety equipment installed.  Is this a wise use of funds?  Probably not. 

FYI - (1) The state portions of the Federal Section 300 funding amounts to $450,000.00 per state per year. Those funds have to pay for all the grade crossing improvements plus grade separations (bridges) in a year. Doesn't go very far, does it? The rest of that $$$ comes out of the state or local general funding. Go back and look at the risk factors. Something is screaming "stupid zone" / liability in terms of crossing geometry, accident history, train operations, traffic volume projections or hazmat. States hoard the program $$$ to get the most public benefit. 

(2) The state PUC's determine how much each (state, county, city, railroad, etc.) contributes to the costs of a crossing upgrade.

If it's not a wise use of funds, then I bet you would ride that shove accross the crossing every time?

 

[CNW 6000]

+4 to what Mudchicken said.  I also firmly agree with the following paragraph!

As long as there are motorists out there that feel a car can beat a train, no amount of safety precautions will prevent accidents from happening.  Ultimately the responsibility lies with the motorists for their safety.  Wild spending will not eliminate stupidity and reckless behavior.  A defensive driver will have no problem navigating a busy mainline of four tracks over a freeway.  An offensive driver could potentially have a problem navigating a seldom-used siding crossing a country road.

[samfp1943]

If crossing protection is important enough to the community....they should shoulder the $170K.  Don't go around spending other peoples money.

Mud Chicken may be able to confirm this, and would be familiar with this process, but I believe that the $170 K[in this case] is the responsibility of the local government entity in which the crossing exists. Public[through the governmental entity involved] money is appropriated, for whatever amount of money the cost of the crossing requires; somecrossings can get very expensive, very quickly. The railroad that occupies the crossing is then responsible for erecting the protection devices at the crossing, and then for the life of the crossing the railroad is responsible for on-going maintenance of the crossing. So the community DOES have a stake in crossing safety[your tax dollars at work!]. 

[jchnhtfd]

I also agree with Mudchicken (no surprise there).  And I would add that in some cases, such as a track which sees only one train a day (or fewer -- like that industrial lead) is almost more dangerous than one which sees heavy traffic.  Why?  Because the locals get the idea that there aren't any trains on the line ("I've never seen one") because they always go through at the same time -- then some day they come through at a different time and whoa nellie, splat time.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I agree with the mudchicken on this issue.  Those of us who are members of this forum generally have a much more alert and cautious approach to grade crossings than the public at large. And the safety issue has to address the public at large, not just us.  An industrial lead or a branch with only a triweekly local freight should get the full treatment with lights and gates where it crosses a four-lane arterial highway with a 45-50 MPH speed limit.  I'm certain that even an experienced conductor like Ed would not be too thrilled with having to flag his industry job across such a highway.  Grade crossing safety doesn't just apply to motorists, it also involves railroaders.

[solzrules]

Some folks here are missing the boat:

(1) Pennsylvania PUC/Bureau of Transportation calls the shots here. Not NS or the local road agency.

(2) Those orders for installation of flashers bells and gates are determined by risk.

(3) You cannot change the size of the crossing or type of protection  w/o bless-off by PA PUC/BofT.

(most of the 50 states operate in a similar fashion)

(4) You just might want to see what PA PUC has on their risk sheet(s) that prompted the installation order before listinening to the local political hacks and their equally uninformed media cronies.

I don't doubt that somebody must feel there is a risk.  Maybe I am being a little too idealogical here by saying that this is overkill.  My point is that there are crossings like this all over the country, wether rail crossing road, road crossing road, sidewalk crossing road or whatever.  If the safety regulators have unlimited funds (and sometimes you must admit that government regulators tend to feel like tax dollars are theirs by right) then all crossings of all types would have the maximum safety equipment installed.  Is this a wise use of funds?  Probably not. 

I have a hard time believing that this particular crossing is so risky that it justifies the 170k.  One train over four lanes of traffic is not new.  Neither are motorists upset by a 2 minute delay.  If gates are installed, do you think that this will prevent the impatient motorist from crossing the tracks?  If the motorist is willing to take the risk with crossbucks what would change if there were gates at the crossing?  Gates can be driven around, as I am sure any railroader would testify to. 

As long as there are motorists out there that feel a car can beat a train, no amount of safety precautions will prevent accidents from happening.  Ultimately the responsibility lies with the motorists for their safety.  Wild spending will not eliminate stupidity and reckless behavior.  A defensive driver will have no problem navigating a busy mainline of four tracks over a freeway.  An offensive driver could potentially have a problem navigating a seldom-used siding crossing a country road. 

   

[zugmann]

Somehow I doubt the PUC will object ot the installation of gates, if both parties (crosser and crossee), as well as anyone else have no objections. 

I don't even know if the townshiop has filed yet.

[mudchicken]

Some folks here are missing the boat:

(1) Pennsylvania PUC/Bureau of Transportation calls the shots here. Not NS or the local road agency.

(2) Those orders for installation of flashers bells and gates are determined by risk.

(3) You cannot change the size of the crossing or type of protection  w/o bless-off by PA PUC/BofT.

(most of the 50 states operate in a similar fashion)

(4) You just might want to see what PA PUC has on their risk sheet(s) that prompted the installation order before listinening to the local political hacks and their equally uninformed media cronies.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I have seen industrial leads that see only three or four movements a day at most get the full treatment with lights and crossing gates where they cross a four-lane arterial road.  The rail traffic may be light but the road traffic is quite heavy.  It would be quite risky for a conductor or switchman to be expected to flag a movement across the street in such a situation.

SAFETY is of the FIRST importance in the discharge of duty.

[solzrules]

If crossing protection is important enough to the community....they should shoulder the $170K.  Don't go around spending other peoples money.

The money comes out of a DOT fund admisistered by PennDOT. 

It's there for spending.

But ultimately it is still tax dollars, wether local or federal.  I do not think that every grade crossing should have gates by them for 170,000 dollars a set.  If it is a main line with multiple trains in a populated area, then it is a different story.  If the community decides they want to pay for it, great.  But in this scenario it is a community using other peoples' money to spend it on something that is not really justified.  Again, I will go back to the example of a stoplight.  These are the safest way to control intersections.  Does this mean that we should put them in at every intersection in the country, with the reasoning that they MAY save one life (and therefore justify the cost)?  If people can't use common sense they will find a way to place themselves in danger no matter how many precautions you take. 

[zugmann]

If crossing protection is important enough to the community....they should shoulder the $170K.  Don't go around spending other peoples money.

The money comes out of a DOT fund admisistered by PennDOT. 

It's there for spending.

[BaltACD]

If crossing protection is important enough to the community....they should shoulder the $170K.  Don't go around spending other peoples money.

[zugmann]

Here's my thoughts:

1. OK, one train a day.  But there are plenty of grade crosssing around here (south-central PA) that get far fewer trains and have crossing protection.  Besides, that one train is still pretty heavy.

2.  The line is owned by NS, so they have the resources and manpower to maintain such protection.

3. It seems every shopping center and houseing development in the area gets their own traffic lights.  All it takes is some idiot who had to wait 40 seconds before making a left turn across traffic at 5pm to complain, as well as a local government who is looking for some re-election fodder.  Somehow these gates don't bother me as much.

4. The road is driven by people unfamiliar to the area visiting the museum.  An extra step of safety never hurts.  A train on such a quiet crossing will also surprise many regulars.

5. $170,000 is not that much in the big picture.  And if it can prevent an accident or two, it will pay for itself.

6.  I never really heard of too many cases of peple complaining about gates.  Heck when there's no train coming it doesn't really impede traffic flow.  Unlike traffic lights, or 4-way stop signs (which should be banned in busy areas!)

So in the end, are the gates needed?  Heck if I know; I'm no traffic engineer.  But I'm sure the train crews will appreciate them.

[solzrules]

Sounds like a waste of money to me.  170,000 dollars for one train?  And all this on the hypothetical that there MAY be an accident?  If you go that route you could justify putting gates up on all crossings everywhere because there MAY be a fatality in the future.  This is nothing but emotional fiscal spending. 

[railfan619]

Well I know how you are all feeling cause wisconsin just did that not to long ago at a crossing that dead ends at a recycling plant in fact it Union Pacfic's tracks and I beleave that they get a train only three times a month and that's when they need to switch out cars. In fact really the only reason they put them in is cause everytime a train comes up there it's right at bar closing time and. I beleave 4or 5 people have been hurt or killed at that crossing by running into the train. Beacuse they are to drunk to notice something really big is sitting there blocking the road.

[Modelcar]

....If the view is clear....I wonder why a simple stop sign might not do the job for maybe 200 dollars....{for just one train a day}.

[Anonymous]

From the Carlisle (PA) Sentinel:

"Plans are in the works to install warning lights and a signal arm at the railroad crossing on Army Heritage Drive in Middlesex Township.

"Secretary/Treasurer Mary Justh said the township is willing to pay $5,000 toward the design and engineering of the safety features."

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2006/07/29/news/news17.txt

This is the former Cumberland Valley RR. NS now services
several industries in Carlisle.

http://d_cathell.tripod.com/car.html

I am familiar with the crossing at Army Heritage Drive.
There is clear line of sight in both directions for
motorists.

By the way, the Army Heritage Center is worth a visit:

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ahec/index.htm

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2006/07/29/news/news15.txt

Dave