A little blurb in our local Sioux Falls, S.D. Argus Leader newspaper shows BNSF and city officials at a construction site. An overpass is being built over the BNSF (former Milwaukke Road) tracks on the south edge of town. This is the direction that major housing development is heading. The article mention that this is the 5,000th railroad crossing that BNSF has eliminated in the name of safety. It doesn't say what time of time frame they're talking about, or anything else, that would put the 5,000 number into any kind of context. Would 5,000 crossings being eliminated by BNSF be a significant number? Would it represent any kind of accelerated effort to do so?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Crossings aren't that easy to close. It could be that this is the 5000th crossing since BNSF was created, which indicates a bit of effort--that would be about a crossing a day, every day.
All railroads strive toward eliminating grade crossings--some just pursue it more actively than others (I only heard about UP eliminating crossings when they'd do some major line relocation project, but I suspect they've really closed quite a few in the past 15 years or so).
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
(1) It is a significant number.
(2) While accellerated, it is still far short of the 50% reduction that FRA/DOT has been pushing for since 1991.
(3) BNSF is a little ahead of the other Class 1's at the moment, but some of the others are making strides to catch BNSF.
(4) I believe that is 5000 since 1/1/96. (Public, Private & Company use at-grade x-ings)
(5) ...and not without some major headaches along the way (usually political at a local level...every town seems to think they are the exception to the rule when they want to expand and that requires a new crossing or expanding an existing crossing....)
Is it the cost for the construction that makes closing grade crossings hard or is it obtaining adjacent land for the up and down grades for the street?
Ungern
mudchicken (1) It is a significant number. (2) While accellerated, it is still far short of the 50% reduction that FRA/DOT has been pushing for since 1991. (3) BNSF is a little ahead of the other Class 1's at the moment, but some of the others are making strides to catch BNSF. (4) I believe that is 5000 since 1/1/96. (Public, Private & Company use at-grade x-ings) (5) ...and not without some major headaches along the way (usually political at a local level...every town seems to think they are the exception to the rule when they want to expand and that requires a new crossing or expanding an existing crossing....)
Mudchicken:
The number of 5,000 crossings, simply designates those crossings as nothing specific, as to type of roadway. It could be anything from a 4 lane highway to a farmer's access road to a field.
Traveling back and forth beween Kansas and Memphis,Tn. Particularly, over in Arkansas, [across the BNSF's Thayer sub], and East of Springfield, Mo. There were any number of the latter described access roads across their tracks, and many seem to have slowly disappeared. Those crossings were mostly marked with a embossed, and painted metal sign warning for the cross traffic to stop, look before crossing, were placed on both sides of the track.
The Frisco before the BNSF had used the standard cross buck warning sign, which was what the BNSF has gradually replaced; except at the crossings that had more traffic, in which case the cross buck is still used.
My question is: Are these lower access crossings counted in the number of removed formal crossings? With the crossing materials removed, and the higher CWR in place, it makes it impossible to access across tracks at those points. Which makes the effected adjacent property owner seek another point of entry to their property.
samfp1943 Mudchicken: The number of 5,000 crossings, simply designates those crossings as nothing specific, as to type of roadway. It could be anything from a 4 lane highway to a farmer's access road to a field. -those all have a catagory...PUBLIC, PRIVATE or PRIVATE-Company Use Traveling back and forth beween Kansas and Memphis,Tn. Particularly, over in Arkansas, [across the BNSF's Thayer sub], and East of Springfield, Mo. There were any number of the latter described access roads across their tracks, and many seem to have slowly disappeared. Those crossings were mostly marked with a embossed, and painted metal sign warning for the cross traffic to stop, look before crossing, were placed on both sides of the track. -typical private crossing sign, BN issue. (BNSF version is more common Santa Fe 13-B sign, stop sign over private crossing sign and showing permit/contract # The Frisco before the BNSF had used the standard cross buck warning sign, which was what the BNSF has gradually replaced; except at the crossings that had more traffic, in which case the cross buck is still used. -Standard Issue....Public Crossing signage My question is: Are these lower access crossings counted in the number of removed formal crossings? With the crossing materials removed, and the higher CWR in place, it makes it impossible to access across tracks at those points. Which makes the effected adjacent property owner seek another point of entry to their property. -They count them all.. If the adjacent property owner won't pony up for the contract and the insurance, he deserves to lose use of the crossing (there are certain exceptions*, ignorance of the contract in effect with the previous owner is NOT one of those exceptions. There are plenty of ignorant title people, county officials (**) and real estate people that ought to be held accountable for their ignorance and rarely are. Private crossings rarely come into play as an easement that is in fact documented. Railroads rarely grant easements to an outside entity (even states and government agencies, CA is an exception here) - they want the specific performance that comes with the terms of a contract. Contracts run with the land, permits and contracts run with the individual. Failure to assign a contract to a new owner is breach of contract. Railroads do their best to flush out the owner/user of the crossing using signs and data from the local county assessor . The contract expense and or insurance cost often kills the crossing at the outset. * Exceptions include grandfathered in crossings, restrictive covenants in the deeds and old landlocked parcels. Newer attempts at creating a landlocked parcels usually run afoul of county and state subdivision regulations and never are supposed to happen. ** Witnessed a rash of cases in this state where county fathers got their hands slapped by the local designated regulatory agency (PUC, RR Commission, RR Section of DOT , etc.) over trying to designate a crossing as public when it wasn't to start with or never existed at all. The rules are often crystal clear, but politics and egoes make some of the local political hacks go stark raving stupid with ex$pensive consequences..
-those all have a catagory...PUBLIC, PRIVATE or PRIVATE-Company Use
-typical private crossing sign, BN issue. (BNSF version is more common Santa Fe 13-B sign, stop sign over private crossing sign and showing permit/contract #
-Standard Issue....Public Crossing signage
-They count them all.. If the adjacent property owner won't pony up for the contract and the insurance, he deserves to lose use of the crossing (there are certain exceptions*, ignorance of the contract in effect with the previous owner is NOT one of those exceptions. There are plenty of ignorant title people, county officials (**) and real estate people that ought to be held accountable for their ignorance and rarely are. Private crossings rarely come into play as an easement that is in fact documented. Railroads rarely grant easements to an outside entity (even states and government agencies, CA is an exception here) - they want the specific performance that comes with the terms of a contract. Contracts run with the land, permits and contracts run with the individual. Failure to assign a contract to a new owner is breach of contract. Railroads do their best to flush out the owner/user of the crossing using signs and data from the local county assessor . The contract expense and or insurance cost often kills the crossing at the outset.
* Exceptions include grandfathered in crossings, restrictive covenants in the deeds and old landlocked parcels. Newer attempts at creating a landlocked parcels usually run afoul of county and state subdivision regulations and never are supposed to happen.
** Witnessed a rash of cases in this state where county fathers got their hands slapped by the local designated regulatory agency (PUC, RR Commission, RR Section of DOT , etc.) over trying to designate a crossing as public when it wasn't to start with or never existed at all. The rules are often crystal clear, but politics and egoes make some of the local political hacks go stark raving stupid with ex$pensive consequences..
Thanks, M.C. !
As you have previously noted, The business of railroad land, titles, and various other legal impediments for the uninitiated, is the legal equivalent of being mugged in an alley!
Until recently, I would have thought that something as simple as removing even a field access railroad crossing was a simple thing to accomplish. WRONG!
I have to admit though, it is sort of convoluted, but interesting.
Gaining appreciation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.