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.
Tom
COAST LINE FOREVER
It is better to dwell in the corner of a roof than to share a house with a contentious woman! (Solomon)
A contentious woman is like a constant dripping! (Solomon)
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)
aegrotatioI 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?
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 the greater disrespect for grade crossings will become more attached to STOP signs in general, and thus render stop signs less effective for road intersections.
It therefore stands to reason that the applications of traffic signals to grade crossings will not only fail to improve compliance with grade crossing law, but it will also reduce compliance with those signals where they control road intersections.
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.
aegrotatio 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.
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:
1) Grade crossing compliance would not improve.
2) Traffic signal compliance would go down where they are protecting highway intersections.
What would help is a century of railroad operations that never blocked a grade crossing for more than a few minutes. It would improve compliance with the grade crossing signals.
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
Bucyrus [snip; emphasis added - PDN] 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. [snip]
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 grade crossing collision typically does, it's "just another traffic accident" in the daily carnage on the roads, and doesn't get the media attention that a grade crossing collision does.
Stated more simply - traffic signals would not be a panacea or 'silver bullet' to end all grade crossing collisions in our time.
- Paul North.
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 or 'silver bullet' to end all grade crossing collisions in our time. But I would go further than that. If traffic signals were applied to grade crossings, it would not improve grade crossing compliance at all—and—traffic signals would become less respected at road intersections as a result of applying them to grade crossings.
(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...
On the other hand, there wouldn't be any repeat offenders.
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...
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. Which is not to say that I disagree . . .
Bucyrus What would help is a century of railroad operations that never blocked a grade crossing for more than a few minutes. It would improve compliance with the grade crossing signals.
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...
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann Bucyrus What would help is a century of railroad operations that never blocked a grade crossing for more than a few minutes. It would improve compliance with the grade crossing signals. 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.
Bank robbers rob banks because banks are full of money. That does not mean that robbing banks is okay.
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. But why did this car almost end up in front of us? Because they were too busy trying to get aorund a trash truck doing its pick-ups. They were passing this truck right at a blind crossing. Never mind us int he GP38, another car could have easily ran head-on into the moron.
Impatience. It will be the death of us all.
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
zugmann ....snip.... How about we try some better enforcement of the laws? I bet red light cameras cut down on people blowing the traffic lights...
....snip.... How about we try some better enforcement of the laws? I bet red light cameras cut down on people blowing the traffic lights...
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
zugmann 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.
I agree with your point about convenience stores getting robbed more than banks, but my analogy to the bank robber is only to show that there is a connection between the money and the motivation of bank robbers.
The motivation to beat trains because of fear of a delay runs deep in the driving culture, and it has developed over a long period of time. That is why I suggested you would need a century to undo the mindset. But nevertheless, I stand by my assumption that the unusually strong motivation in many drivers to beat trains is directly the result of the their experience with trains blocking crossings.
It makes no difference that trains block crossing only 2-3 minutes on average. The unusually strong motivation to beat the train comes from drivers who have experienced crossing delays of 15-30 minutes. And they worry about that possibility every time they encounter activated crossing signals and an approaching train.
Is it personal experience, or societal (or even media) experience, though?
I can think of few places (and I can only speak about personal experience here) where there isn't another way around the tracks. Even if it takes 3 mins to fully complete the detour, it would be better than having to wait for that 20 minute train the driver has never personally experienced.
It's not just railroads. I'm sure trash collectors, mailmen, oil delivery guys, and a host of other professions get to deal with impatience more and more in our current times. Culture we live in, I guess. Always in a rush, otherwise we wouldn't look important (even if we aren't).
Many places in Europe uses crossing gates that completely block the road on both sides of the yellow line, leaving no path for a driver to go around. Our railroads still want to use old-fashion gates which barely block one lane and are easy to break if somone drives through it. Although most trains in Europe are shorter and faster, some still try to "Beat the Clock" and either get hung up in the gate or get close enough to shake the engineer's hand as he wizzes by. One of our late-night radio announcers said, "You can't fix stupid." Human nature is built on curiosity and you know how the cat ended up.
Ken Rimmel
Sorry:
The railroads want the barrier gates. The public road owner who pays for the initial installation under most rules, administered by a public utility agency, RR Commission or DOT does not want the expense. There is an awful lot of whining by smaller municipalities about PUC orders to upgrade to 4-Quad gates with train horn rule stipulations (The mother of all stupid government regulations).
Railroads absorb the cost of maintaining the gates and testing the system which more than offsets the cost of installation.Once the crossing is in, you cannot change the crossing or signal system without another PUC/RRC/DOT application and hearing. Any change with out the PUC Decision is breach of contract and all the liability falls on the entity that changed the crossing. (this really ticks off highway engineers and municipal engineers when their road widening upgrades approach a crossing.)
Big Bend Ken Many places in Europe uses crossing gates that completely block the road on both sides of the yellow line, leaving no path for a driver to go around. Our railroads still want to use old-fashion gates which barely block one lane and are easy to break if somone drives through it. Although most trains in Europe are shorter and faster, some still try to "Beat the Clock" and either get hung up in the gate or get close enough to shake the engineer's hand as he wizzes by. One of our late-night radio announcers said, "You can't fix stupid." Human nature is built on curiosity and you know how the cat ended up. Ken Rimmel
While not exactly what the original poster had in mind, the MONON used to use green lights at some of their grade crossings. When the green light was on, it was OK to go through, just light a regular stop light. When the green light was off, stop, look and listen. IIRC there was a sign next to the signal to clue in drivers from out of state.
......And there are lots of locations that use a regular Highway stop sign.
Quentin
I was raised on a farm in Indiana and the railroad crossing just down from our farm did not have any lights but it did have the X railroad sigh on bot sides., All that was used and may still be is the train driver blew his wistle at the wistle marker some yards up the track. In all the years I lived there there were no mishaps at this crossing. So I don't think it makes any difference if a crossing gate or light or what have you will make any difference. If the people are not trained bad, things will happen.
Fatman
There is another element that is woven into the culture of grade crossing behavior besides the worry about being excessively delayed by the train. That is the general belief by drivers that the signals are merely advisory to indicate the approach of a train, and that drivers are permitted to use their own discretion as to whether to stop and wait for the train. When you couple this belief with the worry about being delayed, you get extreme risk taking in trying to beat the train.
With the three-color traffic lights, most drivers understand that the red light means absolute stop and wait. But that is not necessarily how they interpret the meaning of the grade crossing flashers. With grade crossings, drivers often believe that the flashers indicate an approaching train, and that they (the drivers) can then assess the nature of the train event, and then base their response on that assessment. This belief is a carryover from the passive (non-signalized) grade crossings that were once universal throughout the country, and are still widely used.
Passive crossings simply require drivers to yield to trains, and all that yielding requires is that they do not get hit by a train. If a car gets over a crossing just a few feet ahead of a train without getting hit, the driver has yielded to the train. At some point, however, such a near miss might be considered reckless driving, but that determination will vary between police officers that happen to observe it. Yielding does not necessarily even require a driver to slow down for the crossing.
Adding more to the ambiguity arises from the long use of the Griswold signals with the STOP sign that rotates to face traffic when the signals activate. That is the conventional octagon stop sign that means stop and yield, not stop and wait. Furthermore, some grade crossing laws do permit drivers to proceed against the flashing grade crossing signals under certain conditions.
Most, if not all, state laws stipulate that the lowered gates do require drivers to stop and wait unconditionally, but that is not the case with the flashing lights. And no driver is going to unravel the meaning of the state laws on grade crossings and make distinctions between the fine points. In parsing the words of the Illinois law on grade crossings, for instance, I am not able to interpret its meaning as it applies to the Amtrak crash that killed Katie Lunn.
So drivers are not likely to adhere to the letter of the law. Instead, they behave by tradition, even if the tradition is at odds with certain points in the law. Therefore, it is understandable that drivers might believe they are permitted to use their own discretion in going around lowered gates as well as in passing the red flashing lights, just as they use their discretion at non-signalized grade crossings.
Bucyrussnip... So drivers are not likely to adhere to the letter of the law. Instead, they behave by tradition, even if the tradition is at odds with certain points in the law. ...snip
Fifteen or more years later, a state trooper informed me that the law states a driver is not to enter the intersection prior to safely being able to complete the left turn.
The way the driver's ed. class taught was the way I had observed my parents, friends and relatives drove. Here the "traditional" left turn was at odds with the law. It was, also, believed to be the reason for numerous "left on red" tickets issued by the new "Red Light Cameras."
James
James,
I make left turns the way you were taught. I would not necessarily assume the highway patrol has it right.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.