A Lower Cost Grade Crossing Protection System

[BaltACD]

tree68

 

Euclid

Okay, I do recall that $4,000 target.   

Couldn't find $4,000.

Did find $250,000, and the estimated $400,000, as well as a documented  $768,000 for a full four quandrant set-up.

The Minnesota set-up was $40,000, with inflation taking that to some $60,000.

One could probably go through the shopping list for Rochelle and figure out a rough cost for two sets of lights and gates, along with the required sensing equipment.

Can't we just find a maimed former operating department employee and construct a shack on the premises for them to live in and have them flag the crossing for food & WiFi until they die?

[tree68]

Euclid

Okay, I do recall that $4,000 target.  

Couldn't find $4,000.

Did find $250,000, and the estimated $400,000, as well as a documented  $768,000 for a full four quandrant set-up.

The Minnesota set-up was $40,000, with inflation taking that to some $60,000.

One could probably go through the shopping list for Rochelle and figure out a rough cost for two sets of lights and gates, along with the required sensing equipment.

[Euclid]

Okay, I do recall that $4,000 target.  

[Backshop]

Actually, it was the World's Greatest Marketer who suggested $4000, not $40,000.

[Euclid]

tree68

Early estimates in the other thread listed the cost at around $40,000 for a conventional active crossing.  Which would be cheaper than the Minnesota project.

I recall you mentioning that, but I don't recall seeing estimates of $40,000 in that thread.  Who provided that estimate, and what was it based on?  What I recall were estimates around $750,000 for an active protection crossing.  

The Minnesota project in 2005 estimated $40,000 for their active system and they said it was about 10% of the cost of the active systems being used today.

[tree68]

Don't forget that between the writing of the report and today, the cost, adjusted for inflation, has risen to around $65,000.

Early estimates in the other thread listed the cost at around $40,000 for a conventional active crossing.  Which would be cheaper than the Minnesota project.

[Euclid]

This was brought up by Greyhounds in another thread, but I am starting a new thread dedicated to the topic, since other thread is only indirectly related to this topic. 

 

This relates to the two different types of grade crossings named Active and Passive.  Active crossings have flashing lights, bells, and often have automatic gates.  Passive crossing have only a crossbuck and an advance warning sign of a railroad crossing.  They also often have a stop sign, or yield sign.

 

Passive protection is used for crossings in rural areas because funding is limited for active crossing protection.  And rural crossings have less road traffic so can get by with a lower level of protection.  Still, the limited protection of rural crossing tends to raise their danger compared to active crossing in any given train/vehicle encounter.

 

But the cost of active crossing protection is very high, and funding is short for changing passive crossings into active crossings.  So there is an interest in developing a new type of active crossing protection that is on par with the safety provided by today’s active crossings, but to do that at a substantially reduced cost, so it becomes affordable to convert today’s passive crossings into active crossings.   This is what Greyhounds has proposed. 

 

I found this reference to exactly what Greyhounds is suggesting.  It is a new low cost active crossing system to convert passive crossings into active crossings, developed by Minnesota DOT and others:

 

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/guidestar/2001_2005/hri/HRI_Evaluation_Report_Final.pdf

 

The information in the PDF seems to say that this new system costs $40,000 per crossing which is about 10% of the average cost of an active grade crossing protection system currently available.  The article also seems to say that the new system works and is reliable. 

 

So this seems to be the solution to the need for a lower cost protection system to make passive crossings into active crossings. Why is it not going forward?  This report was released in 2005, so this experiment was conducted over 17 years ago. 

 

I skimmed over the entire report and find some points that need some clarification.  It may be that the new system has never been developed to the point where it can be said to be adequately reliable.  I also did not see reference to what it is that makes this new system only 10% of the cost of an existing active system being used today.  It would also be interesting to see a cost breakdown for the existing systems.