http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/27/3345465/wreck-prone-kings-mountain-crossing.html
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Another ped hit by Metrolink today.
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_20934064/this-just-metrolink-fatality-san-fernando?source=most_viewed
another grade crossing fouled by an automobile which got creamed.
http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Train-Pushes-Car-Along-Tracks-in-New-Haven-Critically-Injury-Reported-159991055.html
Another ped
http://lewistownsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/535244/Coroner--Teen-dies-after-being-struck-by-train.html?nav=5010
I was referring to an area that was outer suburban in those days.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm blownout cylinder: This always ends up begging the question ...how did we manage to do things before the two lane wide crossing barriers, the flashing lights, the bells, the whistles, the median barriers..... Was it by.... Accident? In the 1960's, many crossings on the UP (C&NW Galena div) were 4 quadrant, with flashing lights and bells, and in the 1950's and earlier were manned.
blownout cylinder: This always ends up begging the question ...how did we manage to do things before the two lane wide crossing barriers, the flashing lights, the bells, the whistles, the median barriers..... Was it by.... Accident?
This always ends up begging the question ...how did we manage to do things before the two lane wide crossing barriers, the flashing lights, the bells, the whistles, the median barriers.....
Was it by....
Accident?
In the 1960's, many crossings on the UP (C&NW Galena div) were 4 quadrant, with flashing lights and bells, and in the 1950's and earlier were manned.
I'm thinking in terms of rural/semi rural/suburban areas...I know north of where we live many crossings were just crossbucks...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinder This always ends up begging the question ...how did we manage to do things before the two lane wide crossing barriers, the flashing lights, the bells, the whistles, the median barriers..... Was it by.... Accident?
Your apples vs oranges comparison is a red herring.
Modelcar I like the improvement the four quadrant, center barrier does over a standard flashing light, and the normal two crossing arms crossing. Assuming it really does that 98% improvement.....that's very significant to the point I'd call it contained. In a perfect world, no...but we all know perfect is not possible. The crossing at the Netherlands live cam site...seems to get very good respect.
I like the improvement the four quadrant, center barrier does over a standard flashing light, and the normal two crossing arms crossing.
Assuming it really does that 98% improvement.....that's very significant to the point I'd call it contained. In a perfect world, no...but we all know perfect is not possible.
The crossing at the Netherlands live cam site...seems to get very good respect.
That's because has more adults than the US. Too many Americans don't grow up, they just grow old. (If they're lucky.)
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
Phoebe Vet Yesterday a woman went around the gates and got broadsided by a light rail train at a grade level crossing that did not exist until they built the light rail line several years ago. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/18/3325904/woman-hurt-in-car-light-rail-collision.html Like I said before: Step one - stop building NEW grade level crossings. They went up and over several roads, even building a couple of elevated stations, but they also created several new grade level crossings. Two of the roads they went up and over still have grade level crossings for the NS track that parallels the Light rail for part of the route.
Yesterday a woman went around the gates and got broadsided by a light rail train at a grade level crossing that did not exist until they built the light rail line several years ago.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/18/3325904/woman-hurt-in-car-light-rail-collision.html
Like I said before: Step one - stop building NEW grade level crossings.
They went up and over several roads, even building a couple of elevated stations, but they also created several new grade level crossings. Two of the roads they went up and over still have grade level crossings for the NS track that parallels the Light rail for part of the route.
The Comments section said there were gates there. Does that mean we can't install new traffic lights anymore, for fear that somebody will drive through a red light because there wasn't a signal there before.
BucyrusWhen a driver stops at a red traffic signal, he or she knows that the signal is not controlled by the traffic. Instead, the signal operates on its own predetermined cycle, completely oblivious to the passing traffic. So drivers know that the signals will change their aspect on a predictable interval regardless of traffic conditions. So the driver feels control of the situation by surrendering control to the signals. The driver knows that the signals will change every few minutes no matter what traffic is doing.
Not.
I wish I had a few bucks for every time I've been caught by a red light which was triggered by oncoming traffic on the intersecting street/road.
Virtually every traffic light I encounter is controlled by traffic, not a set timer. I've had lights stay green as I approached from a great distance - only to have a car arrive at the intersection before I did and turn the light in my face.
I've been stuck for extended periods of time at lights that didn't trigger properly on my approach for whatever reason. On occasion I've had to make a "right on red" followed by a U turn to get through the intersection without actually running the red light. Conditions permitting, many drivers will go through the red light if it doesn't seem to be operating properly.
Lights at complicated intersections may not even run the same sequence each cycle, responding instead to sensed traffic (particularly true of left turn lanes).
Next time you pass through a traffic light controlled intersection, look for grooves in the pavement covered by tar. They usually take the form of rectangles at and some distance before the intersection, and have additional lines leading to the side of the road.
That's the traffic sensors controlling the light at that intersection.
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...
I suppose she could have run into the bridge supports. But at least she wouldn't have been hit by the train.
Phoebe Vet Bucyrus: Of course she was not trying to beat the train, and of course the collision with the gate would cause damage. I was being sarcastic to make the point that you cannot make grade level crossings idiot proof. Four quadrant gates wouldn't have prevented this, median barriers would not have prevented this. She did not try to go around the gate, which was only blocking one lane. She just failed to see the gate or the flashing lights and she failed to hear the bells or the train horn. One has to wonder what she was doing or if she was conscious.
Bucyrus:
Of course she was not trying to beat the train, and of course the collision with the gate would cause damage. I was being sarcastic to make the point that you cannot make grade level crossings idiot proof. Four quadrant gates wouldn't have prevented this, median barriers would not have prevented this. She did not try to go around the gate, which was only blocking one lane. She just failed to see the gate or the flashing lights and she failed to hear the bells or the train horn. One has to wonder what she was doing or if she was conscious.
I wonder if a bridge would have even stopped her from getting hit.
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
Working my train last night, saw some overly intelligent person drive around the barriers to save a few seconds.
Dave,
I suspect the article is incorrect in saying the driver in the video was trying to beat the train. Sure it is possible for someone to intentionally bust through the gates, but I don't think that is common. I suspect the driver in the video was distracted.
The gates break away like other roadside structures. That is itended to prevent someone from getting killed, but I would think such collisions would easily do at least minor damage to a vehicle.
Bucyrus It is only the gates that are 100% regulatory. If the gates are down, you cannot pass them under any circumstance. But many drivers do not realize that the gates are sacrosanct. So they approach activated, gated crossings still with the conscious consideration of whether or not they should stop. If they think there is time to get across, they may go around the gates. In their minds, they might very well be proceeding when it is safe to do so. If they don’t get hit by the train, they assume they were correct.
Or, in the case of the one I just posted above, just go THROUGH the lowered gates. After all, they seem to be made to break away.
It has been widely observed that many drivers believe the crossing protection devices are advisory as opposed to regulatory. I believe this mistake plays a significant role in many crossing crashes. Of course, the signals and gates are mostly regulatory, but it is not too hard to see how this driver misinterpretation comes about.
When a driver stops at a red traffic signal, he or she knows that the signal is not controlled by the traffic. Instead, the signal operates on its own predetermined cycle, completely oblivious to the passing traffic. So drivers know that the signals will change their aspect on a predictable interval regardless of traffic conditions. So the driver feels control of the situation by surrendering control to the signals. The driver knows that the signals will change every few minutes no matter what traffic is doing.
On the contrary, grade crossing signals are activated by the approaching trains. And it is possible for trains to activate the signals when they do not intend to cross, or will take a lot more time approaching than would be needed to warn drivers to yield. So, because a driver cannot predict what a train will do, he or she cannot know when the signals will clear. Sometimes the signals are prohibiting traffic when no train is present. That can go on for hours. So drivers naturally feel a need to decide for themselves whether an activated crossing signal is actually indicating a danger from an approaching train.
While the vast majority of drivers approaching an activated grade crossing will stop, I believe that most of those drivers will also consider whether or not they should stop. And yet, I suspect that hardly any drivers approach a red traffic signal and consider whether they should stop or not. Approaching a grade crossing with the mindset of deciding whether it is safe to cross is looking at grade crossing protection through the advisory lens. That does not mean that these drivers think the warning does not need to be heeded if there is danger. It is just that they believe it is up to them to decide if there is danger.
Indeed, crossings without gates are advisory, at least on a conditional basis. A passive (non-signalized) crossing tells a driver that a crossing exists, and that he or she must yield to trains. But that action is not that easy to define. The law stipulates that it means to stop and wait for an approaching train if it poses a danger. So again, the driver is placed in the position of deciding whether an approaching train meets the criteria of constituting a danger. So, for all practical purposes, passive crossings are advisory.
Signalized crossings without gates require vehicles to stop if the signals are flashing. But then the law permits them to proceed against the flashing lights if it is safe to do so. So after stopping, the signals are advisory. In the case of these non-gated, signalized crossings and of passive crossings, it is not just that drivers mistakenly believe they are advisory. The crossings actually are advisory in an actual legal sense.
It is only the gates that are 100% regulatory. If the gates are down, you cannot pass them under any circumstance. But many drivers do not realize that the gates are sacrosanct. So they approach activated, gated crossings still with the conscious consideration of whether or not they should stop. If they think there is time to get across, they may go around the gates. In their minds, they might very well be proceeding when it is safe to do so. If they don’t get hit by the train, they assume they were correct.
But if they had to go for 100% grade separation, would it have been built? or would the costs have been too high?
I think we should be glad that light rail was there, the way that driver was operating her vehicle. At least she hit something she couldn't hurt. (better the light rail than a bicyclist)
Zug:
Yes. They went up and over several other streets.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/21/3332903/raw-video-south-charlotte-light.html#storylink=misearch
Phoebe Vet Like I said before: Step one - stop building NEW grade level crossings. They went up and over several roads, even building a couple of elevated stations, but they also created several new grade level crossings. Two of the roads they went up and over still have grade level crossings for the NS track that parallels the Light rail for part of the route.
But if they couldn't create a couple new crossings, do you think that the light rail would have ever gotten built?
How do you build grade level crossing protection to prevent this?
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/21/3332903/raw-video-south-charlotte-light.html
Watch the video from the LRV. The car is not on the wrong side of the road, the video is from the rear view camera on the trailing end of the LRV.
The report linked to the first post deals with the pursuit of a sealed corridor. And while it recognizes that a sealed corridor cannot include today’s grade crossings, it pursues the question of whether crossings can be made inviolable so they can be included in a sealed corridor. So the report is unusual in its deep exploration of the driver attitudes and beliefs that are commonly associated with crashes.
It makes sense to learn as much about the crossing violator profile as possible. If you are going to build a mousetrap, you need to learn what mice think. One thing they think is that cheese tastes good. Another thing they believe is that the presence of a mousetrap is irrelevant to the safety of mice. If mice quickly learned that mousetraps were deadly, mousetraps would not work.
Here is an example of this type of intelligence gathering on drivers, and the fine-tuning of crossing protection in reaction to that insight:
Surveys have shown that most drivers do not realize that the grade crossing crossbuck means yield. Most drivers simply believe that a crossbuck only marks the location of a grade crossing. As a result of this finding, authorities are adding YIELD signs to all “passive” (non-signalized) crossings. Logically, there is absolutely no need for the yield signs because the crossbuck means yield by its legal definition. But most drivers do not know that, so authorities have concluded that passive crossings are largely unprotected in a practical sense.
So what we will have, in effect, are crossings protected by two “yield” signs. One drivers will understand, and one they won’t.
However, I would say that the authorities have drawn the wrong conclusion in this case. Drivers may not know that a crossbuck means yield, but they do know that a crossbuck means trains cross. And most people realize that trains don’t stop for vehicle traffic. So they understand what is required even if they don’t know that the crossbuck literally means yield. So I would conclude that the authorities have decided to install a whole bunch of new yield signs to address a distinction without a difference.
To clarify, I didn't mean to imply any or all suggested solution are a pie in the sky version, nor did I say that doing nothing is the best idea, so Schlimn can get a grip.....
What I did mean to imply is that, even if the root cause of why people try to "beat the train" is ever truly discovered, it won't make that much statistical difference, changing human behavior is next to impossible.
They will still try!
And I also fully agree, closing all grade crossings is unrealistic, and un- desirable.
But, I also agree with Linda Morgan, when she commented, in a speech about the FRA"s grade crossing closure program, "The safest grade crossing is the one that's not there", referring to the program's success with eliminating grade crossings that are/were dangerous, have little current or future transportation relevance, or failed to meet the FRA standard.
I live in a county with lots, and I mean lots of crossings, many at main line tracks.
Over 3000...that's a lot!
Take a look at the Hardy Toll road in north Harris County, and note the double track main line right between the south and north bound lanes.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=harris+county+tx&hl=en&ll=29.893601,-95.368195&spn=0.006623,0.015106&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=24.87208,61.875&t=h&hnear=Harris,+Texas&z=16
The tracks are UPs main to Dallas and points north, it was a single main before, but also note that this toll road is a recent project, last 15 to 20 years.
.
Also note that all major streets that crossed the tracks at grade have become either overpasses or underpasses, and that all minor streets simply terminate at the feeder or access road and lead the driver to a major crossing.
Before this project, trains crept along through here; there were places where 6 or 7 crossings in a mile were the normal.
The project was a co-operative effort between the county, and the railroad, built with city/ county bonds and federal transportation funds.
The project has paid for itself in tolls several times over.
Granted, not all toll roads are successful, some are political projects, never intended to do anything but benefit a small group, some are flat useless, but look closely at this project, and realize that from the day it was finished until today, only one train vs. automobile accident has occurred on the stretch inside Harris county, at of all places, UP's Lloyd yard in Spring, a trainmaster fouled the lead with his company truck, and got wacked.
Now UP and BNSF trains zip through there at up to 50 mph.
When UP took over the SP and Houston train traffic melted down, UP could, and did, park trains on alternating sides here, used the crossovers to move traffic, and didn't block one crossing, not one, while trains sat parked for days on end.
Automobile traffic at cross streets flows really well, much better than it did before, minor cross streets don't back up.
If you start at the junction of IH Loop 610 and the Hardy Toll road, and scroll north, (up) just count the number of crossing that used to be there...go all the way to Spring Texas, where the toll road merges into IH 45 North...if a bunch of red neck oil patch folks can do this....and make it not only work, but turn a profit....it begs the question why not elsewhere?
23 17 46 11
Quentin
Bucyrus Paul, Thanks for that perspective. My numbers in the cost estimate are just a wild extrapolation. But I don't find any cost data for an average overpass if there is any such thing. I would imagine that total cost comparisions for overpasses, crossing improvements, etc. is an extremely complex computation. But I would assume that an average overpass is many times the cost of the maximum crossing protection upgrade.
Thanks for that perspective. My numbers in the cost estimate are just a wild extrapolation. But I don't find any cost data for an average overpass if there is any such thing. I would imagine that total cost comparisions for overpasses, crossing improvements, etc. is an extremely complex computation. But I would assume that an average overpass is many times the cost of the maximum crossing protection upgrade.
All cost estimates for such improvements are extremely 'site-specific' (dependent). For a general discussion such as this, some recent figures that I've seen are along the following lines for a rural or suburban crossing of a busy 2-track main line (40 trains per day) with a parallel dirt access or maintenance road (for an overall opening, clearance, or work area of 55 to 60 ft.):
Signals, gates, and high-grade crossing surface (only within 10 ft. of the tracks or so); $250,000 to $300,000 per crossing.
Road overpass (2 lanes each 12' wide, plus 8' shoulders, break-down lanes, walkways, etc. = 40 ft. wide overall); $5 million.
- Paul North.
Have you ever watched "Insane or Inspired" on SciFi channel, or "Dumbest Stuff on Wheels" on the Speed channel?
There are some very stupid people out there. A guy who sits on an airbag and fires it for fun is unlikely to be intimidated by a wooden gate or flashing lights.
tree68 I'd be interested in hearing how the 2% that did manage to disregard the four-quadrant-with-median-barrier set up did so. I'd opine that they are at the core of the problem.
I'd be interested in hearing how the 2% that did manage to disregard the four-quadrant-with-median-barrier set up did so. I'd opine that they are at the core of the problem.
Yes, the 2% figure definitely represents the unsolved portion of the problem. To me, it represents the portion of the problem that remains an obstacle to the “perfect” solution. However, it may be confusing as to exactly how to interpret the statistic. One might interpret it to mean that, out of every 100 drivers approaching the activated crossing prior to the arrival of the train, two of those drivers will not comply with the law.
However, in reading it carefully, I conclude that the baseline for the statistic is a crossing (Sugar Creek Road) with conventional gates and flashers where the gates can be circumvented. So, say that crossing has two drivers out of 100 who go around the lowered gates. Then when you add fully blocking gates, the number of violators is reduced by 98%. So that would mean that the number of violators would be only 4/100ths of one violator. So the 2% figure is 2% of what was already vastly improved because the statistic is based on adding the insurmountable gates to a crossing that already had conventional lights and gates.
So the statistics represent a protection enhancement to a hazard that is already substantially protected. And just the added enhancement alone made a 98% improvement.
I'd think they would have pulled what a certain bonehead did here recently..went around to the right..around the things....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.