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.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
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.
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...
Bucyrus wrote: “For twenty weeks, baseline data were collected at the Sugar Creek Road crossing. Median barriers were then installed, followed by 4-quadrant gates, and then finally, 4-quadrant gates with median barriers. Using each of these barrier enhancements, the number of gate running incidents was significantly reduced. For example, median barriers reduced violations by 77%, 4 quadrant gates reduced violations by 86% and 4-quadrant gates with median barriers reduced violations by 98%. Similar results were obtained at a second (Orr Road) crossing in Charlotte.”
Those are darn good figures...and just from this I would support this type of approach.
As well as bridge/underpass on some busier routes....
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/
PDN: Nice to read a thoughtful, rational response to this question without the usual name-calling and hidden motives.
Bucyrus: Your last quotation (in blue) puts the question into a realistic perspective. If accidents can be greatly reduced at crossings that warrant enhanced protection, then clearly that should become an objective to work towards, over time, with prioritization, with improved funding. To do nothing b/c it is impossible to be 100% effective is not a rational response to a problem.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
edblysard But this is true, there is no perfect solution for this problem other that eliminate all at grade crossings. No matter what device you install, there will always be at least one person who tries to defeat it. Yes, you could invest in more advance technology, but the cost would be staggering, your own numbers show that. While I abhor the idea of any death, it is inevitable. You are creating a false argument by pointing out that there is a predictable response to your statement. Fact, even with the "advanced" protection in Europe, touted by a few on this forum, people still managed to get killed there. Barricades would, as Larry pointed out, at some point trap someone. Anyone who has driven more than a year has at some point crossed railroad tracks, and even the most dim witted and dumb of us realize, after the first time they try and beat a train, and win, even then they still realize that losing means death. No way can you really argue that, it only takes one close scrape to convince even the dumbest of us that if they get hit, it's over. They get it, from the tips of their toes to the top of their pointy heads, loosing means dying. Yet the same people, rational and reasonable in most circumstances, still try and beat the train. I don't buy into any of the phyco- babble, urge motivated , teen mentality, mumbo jumbo....people are just willing to gamble, period. These same people will drive on the highway/freeway to and from work for months without every driving aggressively or dangerously, and then one day the mood hits and they try and be a Nascar driver and wipe out themselves and someone else to boot. No real explainable reason other than they just felt like it. Same at grade crossings, they may be the perfect driver at every intersection they come to, polity waving others through ahead of themselves, and then on the next block down, jump a gate and plow into a train. No reason beyond a moment's flash of dumbness. To clue the casual reader in, the gates and protection devices at most public road/railroad grade crossing are chosen by the state, county or local DOT, based on auto traffic count, and political consideration. The DOT pays for roughly 25% of the initial cost of product and installation, the railroad picks up the other %75, plus any repair cost and replacement when damaged, for the life of the installation...and it has little if any say in what devices are installed, or not installed. Most DOT/PUCs are immune from civil suits, so take a wild guess who gets sued when someone gets hit? The railroad of course, they all have deep pockets. Regardless of the fact the railroad didn't want the crossing, and in fact is almost always sued by the DOT/PUC to gain the "right" to cross the tracks, they foot the bill for the crossing, any upgrade, the warning devices, the maintenance of those devices, and ends up paying the civil suits when someone manages to get tagged. For some reason, folks seem to think the" government" spends money on grade crossing protections, when in fact, it only spends the railroads money on protection, which in reality is your money, gathered by paying higher transportation cost. You read statements like, "If "they" can spend 10 billion on an aircraft carrier, "they" should be able to spend 10 million on upgrade crossing protection"... Yup, "they" do spend billions on carriers, roads, bridges, airports, monuments, all of that, because that's what the laws say they can do with the money you authorized them to spend, and thats what you authorized them to spend it on. The DOTS install only what the law allows or instructs them to install, period. You don't like what is presently there, then change the lawmakers and change the laws, instead of arguing the finer points of a physiological study, mood swings, or the verbal minutia of some dim, dismal report filed by a office weenie who has no clue how a crossing gate works. All these "pie in the sky" solutions are meaningless unless you start at the basic root of the problem, funding, design, function and legal requirement. If the law said to install concrete barriers that raise from the road bed and two armed guards that pop out of the electrical shed to guard the crossing, then that's what will be installed....if the law only requires gates, bells, flashing lights, guess what, you get gates, bells and flashing lights....period. There is no real reason or real need, beyond the personal interest, to try and "understand" why people run grade crossings, race trains and park their Jeeps on the tracks playing "Ghost Train", even if you managed to figure it out, it would make no difference...all you have to understand is that they do, and will do these things no matter what. Trying to understand why people run through crossing gates and try and beat trains is like trying to understand why dogs chase cars....they wouldn't know what to do if they caught one, but they chase them any way...simply because that's what they do!
But this is true, there is no perfect solution for this problem other that eliminate all at grade crossings.
No matter what device you install, there will always be at least one person who tries to defeat it.
Yes, you could invest in more advance technology, but the cost would be staggering, your own numbers show that.
While I abhor the idea of any death, it is inevitable.
You are creating a false argument by pointing out that there is a predictable response to your statement.
Fact, even with the "advanced" protection in Europe, touted by a few on this forum, people still managed to get killed there.
Barricades would, as Larry pointed out, at some point trap someone.
Anyone who has driven more than a year has at some point crossed railroad tracks, and even the most dim witted and dumb of us realize, after the first time they try and beat a train, and win, even then they still realize that losing means death.
No way can you really argue that, it only takes one close scrape to convince even the dumbest of us that if they get hit, it's over.
They get it, from the tips of their toes to the top of their pointy heads, loosing means dying.
Yet the same people, rational and reasonable in most circumstances, still try and beat the train.
I don't buy into any of the phyco- babble, urge motivated , teen mentality, mumbo jumbo....people are just willing to gamble, period.
These same people will drive on the highway/freeway to and from work for months without every driving aggressively or dangerously, and then one day the mood hits and they try and be a Nascar driver and wipe out themselves and someone else to boot.
No real explainable reason other than they just felt like it.
Same at grade crossings, they may be the perfect driver at every intersection they come to, polity waving others through ahead of themselves, and then on the next block down, jump a gate and plow into a train.
No reason beyond a moment's flash of dumbness.
To clue the casual reader in, the gates and protection devices at most public road/railroad grade crossing are chosen by the state, county or local DOT, based on auto traffic count, and political consideration.
The DOT pays for roughly 25% of the initial cost of product and installation, the railroad picks up the other %75, plus any repair cost and replacement when damaged, for the life of the installation...and it has little if any say in what devices are installed, or not installed.
Most DOT/PUCs are immune from civil suits, so take a wild guess who gets sued when someone gets hit?
The railroad of course, they all have deep pockets.
Regardless of the fact the railroad didn't want the crossing, and in fact is almost always sued by the DOT/PUC to gain the "right" to cross the tracks, they foot the bill for the crossing, any upgrade, the warning devices, the maintenance of those devices, and ends up paying the civil suits when someone manages to get tagged.
For some reason, folks seem to think the" government" spends money on grade crossing protections, when in fact, it only spends the railroads money on protection, which in reality is your money, gathered by paying higher transportation cost.
You read statements like, "If "they" can spend 10 billion on an aircraft carrier, "they" should be able to spend 10 million on upgrade crossing protection"...
Yup, "they" do spend billions on carriers, roads, bridges, airports, monuments, all of that, because that's what the laws say they can do with the money you authorized them to spend, and thats what you authorized them to spend it on.
The DOTS install only what the law allows or instructs them to install, period.
You don't like what is presently there, then change the lawmakers and change the laws, instead of arguing the finer points of a physiological study, mood swings, or the verbal minutia of some dim, dismal report filed by a office weenie who has no clue how a crossing gate works.
All these "pie in the sky" solutions are meaningless unless you start at the basic root of the problem, funding, design, function and legal requirement.
If the law said to install concrete barriers that raise from the road bed and two armed guards that pop out of the electrical shed to guard the crossing, then that's what will be installed....if the law only requires gates, bells, flashing lights, guess what, you get gates, bells and flashing lights....period.
There is no real reason or real need, beyond the personal interest, to try and "understand" why people run grade crossings, race trains and park their Jeeps on the tracks playing "Ghost Train", even if you managed to figure it out, it would make no difference...all you have to understand is that they do, and will do these things no matter what.
Trying to understand why people run through crossing gates and try and beat trains is like trying to understand why dogs chase cars....they wouldn't know what to do if they caught one, but they chase them any way...simply because that's what they do!
Ed,
I am not sure why dogs chase cars, but I do believe that we can learn why people run grade crossings. In some cases, as you say, it might be just a spontaneous and arbitrary loss of reason or sanity. That could happen, but I do not believe it is the underlying explanation for all crossing violations. There has been over a century of probing the question of why people don’t yield to trains. They have found that people run crossings intentionally and unintentionally. Unintentionally, they are asleep, drunk, or distracted. Intentionally, they want to beat the train, want a thrill, or want to commit suicide. I think it is reasonable to conclude that, of those three reasons, wanting to beat the train is the most common motivation by far. And yes, I agree that in attempting to beat a train, they are engaging in a gamble.
Signs, flashing lights, and bells help get people’s attention, and that helps with the unintentional crossing violation. Gates stop traffic, and that helps with the intentional crossing violation.
I realize crossings cost a lot of money, and I don’t expect some mass conversion of all grade crossings to the highest state of the art. If it sounds that way, it is probably only because I am laying out an alternative to the mass replacement of crossings with grade separation because that approach was advocated earlier in the thread. But, any case, I am not agitating for a human right of universal crossing protection. And I am certainly not criticizing the railroads for not solving the problem. I realize that the solution must originate with the laws. My basic point is that there is an imperfect, but much improved solution to the problem of gate runners. And it is not a pie-in-the-sky solution. What it boils down to is that gates are the most effective approach to solving the problem, but only if drivers cannot go around them.
I have no idea what credentials are possessed by the authors of the report I linked to the first post. But North Carolina DOT took the report seriously, and they make a very convincing case why. The report sounds extensively researched. The study spent a lot of money gathering real data on the cause and prevention of crossing violations. The report sounds highly credible to me. It is by far the most useful and practical report I have ever seen on the topic. It does, by the way, set the objective for a perfect solution, at least as a benchmark goal.
But I agree that from a practical standpoint, there is no perfect solution. Even the fully gated crossing is not the perfect solution. The NC report does seek to find out what is in the minds of gate-runners by interviewing and profiling them, but the report also stipulates that obtaining this insight is not the entire remedy. The report makes it clear that the proper action must be taken in regard to the driver habits and motivations to develop an actual solution. But the report believes that learning driver motivations is a prerequisite to developing the solution to the problem. It makes sense to me.
Regarding the really good, but not perfect solution, the report says this:
“For twenty weeks, baseline data were collected at the Sugar Creek Road crossing. Median barriers were then installed, followed by 4-quadrant gates, and then finally, 4-quadrant gates with median barriers. Using each of these barrier enhancements, the number of gate running incidents was significantly reduced. For example, median barriers reduced violations by 77%, 4 quadrant gates reduced violations by 86% and 4-quadrant gates with median barriers reduced violations by 98%. Similar results were obtained at a second (Orr Road) crossing in Charlotte.”
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.
Bucyrus zugmann: A few million here, a few million there, and pretty soon you will be talking about real money. Yes it does add up. But I am only comparing the widely favored grade separation approach to the approach of infallible crossing protection. The former is $3 ¾- trillion, whereas the latter is $ ½- trillion. If both do the job, why not choose the cheapest?
A few million here, a few million there, and pretty soon you will be talking about real money.
Yes it does add up. But I am only comparing the widely favored grade separation approach to the approach of infallible crossing protection. The former is $3 ¾- trillion, whereas the latter is $ ½- trillion. If both do the job, why not choose the cheapest?
The better/ more economical result for society is not always the cheapest solution, but the more cost-effective one = lowest net cost, all things considered over the service life of the subject, etc. But you probabaly knew that already anyway . . .
That said, of the entire population of grade crossings, there's probably a good number that economically warrant replacement by bridges of one type or another; another large group for which the benefit of crossing signals and gates would outweigh their costs (all aspects properly considered); another bunch that should be closed; and finally, a group that don't justify anything more than simple crossbucks.
- Paul North.
23 17 46 11
If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done.
- Peter Ustinov
blownout cylinder That's because you couch it in terms of absolute infallibility. If one can keep the rate of death or injury down then fine.
That's because you couch it in terms of absolute infallibility.
If one can keep the rate of death or injury down then fine.
Infallible was only a term I used as shorthand to describe solving the problem as much as could be expected. When I mentioned infallible crossing protection, I was referring to solving the problem by improving crossing protection; as opposed to solving it by grade separation and eliminating crossings. That was my response to those who insist the only way to solve the problem is to eliminate crossings.
So let me back up and say we could reduce grade crossing crashes by 99.9999% of the number of crashes on average today by the best crossing protection system currently available. How's that?
I have noticed that whenever someone suggests a solution and the response is, “Why that won’t work because there is always some idiot who will--------.” That reaction makes my point when I say there are a fair number of people who are invested in the belief that the problem cannot be solved.
No solution will be perfect. Consider how many millions more trainmen would have died had the railroads never adopted automatic couplers. Was that a pointless exercise because trainmen are still occasionally killed in coupling accidents? If a safety improvement can reduce the death count from 1000 per year down to 1 per year, does that mean the safety improvement was a failure because one person still got killed?
blownout cylinder how about 3" thick steel plates coming out'n the road? The only problem with that is some clown will run right into it then sue the city/municipality for damages. Not to mention the road being closed to all traffic while the 'accident' is being investigated..and the rest of us get to do more stuff to get around....
how about 3" thick steel plates coming out'n the road?
The only problem with that is some clown will run right into it then sue the city/municipality for damages. Not to mention the road being closed to all traffic while the 'accident' is being investigated..and the rest of us get to do more stuff to get around....
I've seen such concepts proposed, and even tested.
The problem is when some yo-yo manages to get himself caught between the barriers and gets smacked.
Bucyrus - As several have already stated, all an idiot-proof solution does is make the idiots more creative. I witnessed such a result on an industrial track here a few years ago.
A young buck in his compact four-wheel-drive pick-up decided he didn't want to wait for the train that was fouling a crossing, so he set off cross-country, only to discover that his ride wouldn't clear the rails. He got hung up, and I heard the old-head engineer comment on the air that he'd never seen anything like it before.
As I said, it was an industrial siding, and the only locomotive in action at the time was on the train that was fouling the crossing (I think they were doubling out), so said motorist was never in danger of getting hit by a train.
Had that been a two-track main, with trains at speed on the other track, the outcome could have been entirely different...
Bucyrus tree68: Bucyrus: ...infallible crossing protection. A mythological creature often rumored to actually exist, including reported sightings. Such reports are generally quickly debunked. Well I don’t want to split hairs over a tiny number, so I just use the word infallible to indicate getting the problem to almost 100% solved, as opposed to where it stands now on average, being far from solved. You know what they say. “Perfect is the enemy of darned near perfect.” Oddly, it seems like there are a fair number of people who are invested in the belief that problem cannot be solved. The report I linked in the first post is not at all pessimistic about solving the problem. They go bravely right into the heads of the gate-runners to see what makes them tick. The full gates or barricaded median will stop nearly all intentional gate running. You might still have someone occasionally falling asleep from a sleep disorder, and crashing through the lower gates, but that will be very rare. Suicides are another possibility for breaching the lowered gates, but again, quite rare. The meat of the problem is people trying to beat the train because they don’t want to take a chance on a big delay. The barricaded gates will prevent almost all such attempts at gate running.
tree68: Bucyrus: ...infallible crossing protection. A mythological creature often rumored to actually exist, including reported sightings. Such reports are generally quickly debunked.
Bucyrus: ...infallible crossing protection.
...infallible crossing protection.
A mythological creature often rumored to actually exist, including reported sightings. Such reports are generally quickly debunked.
The full gates or barricaded median will stop nearly all intentional gate running. You might still have someone occasionally falling asleep from a sleep disorder, and crashing through the lower gates, but that will be very rare. Suicides are another possibility for breaching the lowered gates, but again, quite rare. The meat of the problem is people trying to beat the train because they don’t want to take a chance on a big delay. The barricaded gates will prevent almost all such attempts at gate running.
There have been reports from Chicago about people chaining open left hand quadrant gates in the middle of the night. Of course, median barricades would help with that.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
There is no such thing as a 100% perfect system....unless humans did not exist...THEN you can talk about 100% perfect systems....
Because there would not be ANY human to muck it up...
Grade crossings on curves and where high-speed trains operate are what need to be looked at first for investment in highly protected grade crossings.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Even bridges don't completely solve the problem! Vehicles have managed to leave the roadway either on or just before the bridge and end up on the tracks. And where the road goes under the track, large trucks occasionally knock the railroad bridge off its bearings, or worse.
It doesn't matter how idiot-proof you think something is, sooner or later a more ingenious idiot is born.
John
tree68 Bucyrus: ...infallible crossing protection. A mythological creature often rumored to actually exist, including reported sightings. Such reports are generally quickly debunked.
Well I don’t want to split hairs over a tiny number, so I just use the word infallible to indicate getting the problem to almost 100% solved, as opposed to where it stands now on average, being far from solved. You know what they say. “Perfect is the enemy of darned near perfect.”
Oddly, it seems like there are a fair number of people who are invested in the belief that problem cannot be solved. The report I linked in the first post is not at all pessimistic about solving the problem. They go bravely right into the heads of the gate-runners to see what makes them tick.
Bucyrus ...infallible crossing protection.
blue streak 1 Now we have the city of New york trying to get a PEDESTRIAN grade crossing across CSXT near the Bronx. Look at the second story on the following. If Someone in the NYC AREA could attend the posted public hearing and give us a report ?? http://www.progressiverailroading.com/c_s/news/Ohio-utilities-commission-OKs-crossing-upgrades-New-York-DOT-schedules-hearing-on-proposed-public-crossing--31356
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/c_s/news/Ohio-utilities-commission-OKs-crossing-upgrades-New-York-DOT-schedules-hearing-on-proposed-public-crossing--31356
http://www.schuylkillbanks.org/projects/schuylkill-river-parks-connector-bridge
http://www.schuylkillbanks.org/sites/72.27.230.230/files/Community%20Meeting%20Handout%202.pdf
http://nakedphilly.com/locust-square/schuylkill-river-parks-connector-bridge-and-locust-street-crossing/
*Between these 2 projects, does CSX now 'rue the day' it decided it wanted to buy ConRail ?
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/06/15/3321237/man-struck-killed-by-amtrak-train.html
Now we have the city of New york trying to get a PEDESTRIAN grade crossing across CSXT near the Bronx. Look at the second story on the following. If Someone in the NYC AREA could attend the posted public hearing and give us a report ??
It's probably doable. Assuming the track speeds are low, given the location, I don't see the problem.
The bike trail in Sioux Falls, SD has several crossings on it and I've never heard of any problems, other than a park wino who passed out on the tracks and got passed over untouched.
It will be something to see if it works....
zugmannA few million here, a few million there, and pretty soon you will be talking about real money.
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
Grade separation is often cited as the ultimate solution, but is it overkill? What about retaining grade crossings, but just improving their security?
Just the average crossing with flashers and gates must be a tremendous safety improvement over it being only protected by crossbucks. If we can then take that crossing with flashers and gates, and further improve its safety by 98% simply by making the gates 4-quadrant with median barriers (as the linked report says), it seems to me that, for all practical purposes, the problem is solved. What does that cost? Two-million dollars? If the problem can be solved that cheaply, why build overpasses and strive for grade separation?
Here is an article about building overpasses in Springfield, IL. It says they will cost at least $15-million each, besides posing many unsolvable problems in disrupting the business district. Let’s see, we have 250,000 crossings in the country, and at $15,000,000 each for new overpasses, if my math is correct, that would be $3.75 trillion plus any little cost overrun. That is only 7 ½ times the cost of the full nationwide HSR system.
http://www.sj-r.com/news/x1574721306/Railroad-plan-calls-for-9-overpasses-1-underpass-5-intersection-closings
Bucyrusdrivers believe the signals and gates are only advisory.
An adversary is often more like it.
Phoebe Vet Ulrich: The elimination of all/most grade crossings is unrealistic. Here in Guelph that would mean putting the entire railroad underground. The only cost effective solution, which will also not eliminate all crossing incidents, is more training for drivers and more protection at those crossing that are deemed to be at highest risk of collision. Maybe a regulation that would require all vehicles to come to a complete stop at unprotected crossings would also help. Stop...look both ways..open the windows to listen...and then proceed. That's what school buses and some others are now required to do...might be good to apply that to everyone. As for people dying as a result of being stupid..there's just no way to avoid that. You can't precent someone from driving 120 mph through a 30 mph school zone unless you govern all vehicles to 30 mph... Your claim seems to assume that the elimination of the crossing involves moving the tracks up or down. While that might be the cost effective solution in a dense urban environment, moving the road would usually be more cost effective solution.
Ulrich: The elimination of all/most grade crossings is unrealistic. Here in Guelph that would mean putting the entire railroad underground. The only cost effective solution, which will also not eliminate all crossing incidents, is more training for drivers and more protection at those crossing that are deemed to be at highest risk of collision. Maybe a regulation that would require all vehicles to come to a complete stop at unprotected crossings would also help. Stop...look both ways..open the windows to listen...and then proceed. That's what school buses and some others are now required to do...might be good to apply that to everyone. As for people dying as a result of being stupid..there's just no way to avoid that. You can't precent someone from driving 120 mph through a 30 mph school zone unless you govern all vehicles to 30 mph...
The elimination of all/most grade crossings is unrealistic. Here in Guelph that would mean putting the entire railroad underground. The only cost effective solution, which will also not eliminate all crossing incidents, is more training for drivers and more protection at those crossing that are deemed to be at highest risk of collision. Maybe a regulation that would require all vehicles to come to a complete stop at unprotected crossings would also help. Stop...look both ways..open the windows to listen...and then proceed. That's what school buses and some others are now required to do...might be good to apply that to everyone. As for people dying as a result of being stupid..there's just no way to avoid that. You can't precent someone from driving 120 mph through a 30 mph school zone unless you govern all vehicles to 30 mph...
Your claim seems to assume that the elimination of the crossing involves moving the tracks up or down. While that might be the cost effective solution in a dense urban environment, moving the road would usually be more cost effective solution.
True...an over/undrpass might work best for rural crossings.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.