A Lower Cost Grade Crossing Protection System

[Overmod]

.

[Overmod]

BaltACD

 

charlie hebdo

Sensibly and in accord with the Constitution's commerce clause, uniform regulation of railroad crossings should become s federal function.

Railroads' track structure can be viewed as Interstate.  Streets and Roads within a State are Intrastate.  It is up to the states to design and pay for the crossing of their Intrastates with the Interstate railroads.

I think what he is saying is that the Federal government, under the current interpretation of the 'commerce clause', can regulate the precise type and requirement of the portion of crossings that are on 'railroad property'.  They could logically be given the power to mandate closing that narrow but effectively 'controlling' portion of a crossing unless and until "somebody" responsible for the approaches and their signage or signaling has fixed their part to the standards charlie hebdo finds essential.  That is how the Government could effectively put teeth into which is otherwise largely a Tenth Amendment sort of issue, and it thoroughly satisfies the 'safety' remit that the Government has chosen as grounds for its federal regulation of railroad matters.

[charlie hebdo]

The issue is uniformity over the 50 states plus the thousands of municipalties instead of lax regularity in some, overregulation in others.  We hear on this forum so many times that the rails have precedence on this because they were there first (arguably not necessarily so in many areas). So this is a federal concern. And it needs to be done so we don't have more fatal accidents on lightly traveled crossings.

[Euclid]

The Perfect Solution versus Good Enough:

 

The theme is to somehow upgrade several thousand passive crossings to make them as safe as other active crossings, but not to make all crossings 100% safe.  However, in contemplating that 100% goal, the solution always lands on barriers that automatically place a crossing into a vault so no vehicles or pedestrians can possibly foul the crossing clearance zone. 

 

Walls or bollards rising out of the road surface to make a vault/fortress effect is overkill because it will vastly increase the price.  Also, regulators will instantly reject the idea because it poses a fatal collision risk to drivers by colliding with solid impediments.   Besides, this idea is driven by the presumed need for an absolutely 100% effective crossing protection system. 

 

Why do we need that?  None of the transportation infrastructure meets that objective.   The most practical, ultimately protective crossing protection is 4-quadrant gates, flashing lights, and bells.  The gates eliminate circumvention by drivers trying to beat the train, which is the main cause of going around the gates.  While the gates cannot physically stop a vehicle, they will damage a vehicle that breaks through them.  So drivers are generally not intentionally crashing the gates in order to beat the train.

 

A unique problem with grade crossings is that there is a long historical legacy of crossing protection being advisory rather than regulatory.  Advisory means that the system merely warns the driver of an approaching train, and the driver is allowed to use their own discretion as to whether it is safe to cross.  In order to overcome this perception, there must be gates blocking the crossing across the entire width of the roadway in both directions.  Even then, it creates a new potential problem of vehicles getting trapped on the crossing by lowered gates. 

 

 

Adding Yield Signs to Passive Crossings:

 

Passive crossings with only a crossbuck are entirely advisory, except when a train is in dangerous proximity.  In other words, there is no requirement to stop unless an approaching train is dangerously close.  The proper warning for that condition is a “YIELD” sign.  The crossbucks actually mean yield, but that requirement still allows drivers to use their own discretion.  A stop sign added to a passive crossing does mandate a stop and yield.  But again, the “yield” condition allows the use of driver discretion.

 

Regulators object to stop signs at passive crossings because they cause rear end collisions with following vehicles, so they have begun replacing stop signs with yield signs at passive crossings.  This eliminates the routine mandatory stop, which a stop sign requires even when it is safe to cross.  Yet the yield sign is redundant because the crossbuck legally means yield.  The problem with that is that hardly any drivers know that the crossbuck means yield, so they regard the crossbuck as being 100% advisory and not regulatory.  But even a yield sign is only regulatory if a train is so close that it is in what is called a “dangerous proximity” to the crossing.  Determining whether that condition of dangerous proximity exists is still a matter of opinion, unless it is made by a law enforcement officer observing the site.

 

I believe there is also a major problem with a yield sign in that it is almost universally misunderstood as meaning only that, “You don’t have to stop.”  Its message is taken to relieve the driver of a requirement that is otherwise often required.  The subjective judgment of how yield will actually apply where posted is overlooked by most drivers.  They just worm their way into conflicting traffic, and if they make it without a collision, they feel they have yielded.  And actually they have, if the act was not so risky as to be considered “dangerous.”

 

So, while a yield sign is technically perfect for a passive crossing in terms of what it actually means, most drivers operate within a long tradition of not understanding what it means.  So in practical terms, a yield sign has the potential to make a passive crossing more dangerous than one with just a crossbuck. 

 

So a passive crossing with a crossbuck and a yield sign is equivalent to a crossing with two yield signs.  Not only is that redundant, but the message is poorly understood.  In general, adding a yield sign to a passive crossing has the unintended potential of increasing the danger rather than lowering it, because its underlying implied message dismisses the danger.

 

This is another one of those unintended consequences that I mentioned.  

[zugmann]

Euclid

I believe there is also a major problem with a yield sign in that it is almost universally misunderstood as meaning only that, “You don’t have to stop.”  Its message is taken to relieve the driver of a requirement that is otherwise often required.  The subjective judgment of how yield will actually apply where posted is overlooked by most drivers.  They just worm their way into conflicting traffic, and if they make it without a collision, they feel they have yielded.  And actually they have, if the act was not so risky as to be considered “dangerous.”

some actual studies on that would be neat.   I'm sure there were some studes done when they decided to add the yield to begin with. 

Until then...*shrugs*

 

-------

We have xings in town (public) that used to just have the crossbuck.  Then the town decided to toss up a stop sign.  Then the railroad, following the current standards, added yield signs to the crossbucks.  So now you get a stop and yield.  (Kind of a highway equivalent to a stop and proceed situation). 

 

While we're doing studies, I wonder if adding a Yield sign would draw attention because the red can stand out a little more than just the white crossbuck?  

---

 

[jeffhergert]

From DOT's Highway Rail Crossing Handbook.  

The Yield sign is the preferred default.  Stop signs can be substituted.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/com_roaduser/fhwasa18040/chp2e.cfm

Jeff