Just wonder, how many Talgos and other European equipment was crash-tested. I recall a similar discussion and I think, someone told "none". Looking at the accident "survivability" odds it seem, Europe or Australia is not worse than USA. Indian subcontinent used to be much worse, but as new cars enter the service it seem to improve.
This is a little off the topic of new cars, but if a railroad already owns a right-of-way with tracks and all that a growing town now urgently needs to build a road crossing over, could the railway potentially refuse the town's request to build a grade crossing and say that the they must build an under- or overpass (even if this is was practically infeasible, prohibitively expensive etc?)
While I don't consider myself to be an expert in this area, I do believe that the answer to your question is, yes. Yes, the RR could say to the town, no I won't permit a crossing to be built there. The RR right of way is technically private property and they don't have to conform to what anyone else wants. Now, it might no be politically smart to refuse the crossing, but again I do think that they could do so.
Yes, the host RR can require the town/county/state to pay for a grade crossing. But even if the town/county/state offers to pay for the crossing, that doesn't mean that the host RR can't refuse to allow one. Or at least that's my understanding of how things work.
I suppose there's always the risk that you'll end up facing some kind of eminent domain litigation, which, even if it weren't succesful (i.e. purchase price set too high or whatever), would probably still be no small nuisance...
Nope, not a chance of a town/city/state using eminent domain on a RR. RR's fall under Federal law, so locals laws including eminent domain cannot be used to force a crossing.
There is no simple answer to your question. Using Pennsylvania as an example, actions involving private railroads are subject to regulation by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PAPUC). When a town or county or the state has a project that affects a private railroad, the project goes before the PAPUC for review. The PAPUC hears testimony from all interested parties and issues rulings as to what can and cannot be constructed and how much each involved party will pay. So, a grade crossing could be proposed, and even if the railroad objected, it might be approved. Or, it might not. But the final decision, at least in PA, would not rest with the railroad.
Hmm - what do you mean by railways fall under federal law? I'm not a lawyer, but is it really possible for an organization to be given immunity from all state and local laws? This would seem to raise interesting constitutional issues.
Although railroads are regulated by the Federal government, they are not Federal entities. Private railroads are indeed subject to state eminent domain laws subject to review by the state utility commissions. Been there, done that in a prior life (PennDOT).
Thanks for your detailed answer! But by 'not likely' do you mean, 'no' or 'yes, but not likely'? Logically, the answer can't be the same to both questions, I think.
Well I'll defer to your experience Bill, but I have to admit that I remain confused as to how a city/state can exercise eminent domain over a RR, when they can't enforce local laws like blocking a crossing and such. Technically a local police officer can't even board a freight train to hand the crew a ticket. Yes, most crews won't throw the cop off the train, since he/she is carrying a gun. But they do have the right to throw the officer off the train.
I might be putting words into Bill's mouth, but I believe that what he's saying is that know one really knows. It wouldn't be wise for a RR to refuse a crossing, but then it wouldn't be wise for a city/state to absolutely insist that a crossing must be built.
The answer would be that a railroad would likely be forced to permit a crossing if that crossing were shown to be clearly in the public interest, would meet all state and federal regulations, and when that crossing would not result in an unacceptable safety risk. So, it is not likely that a railroad could successfully block such a crossing. On the other hand, governments could not propose any crossing anywhere regardless of need. Regulatory agencies would never stand for that.
I also defer to your superior knowledge but I think we might want to wait for a lawyer to comment on this (do any read the forum?) and clear up how this works. After all, there are limits on what kinds of laws the federal government can enact -- it can't, for example, allow railways to do blatantly illegal things in any state -- no license-to-kills for the UP -- and I'm sure this issue comes up frequently with state and local environmental regulations or perhaps even in noise regulations.
First, we have at least two lawyer's that I know of here on the forums. Although one is now on vacation, so it may be a while before he comments on this.
Oh, it has. Most often the disputes involve cost allocation that do not go the way the railroads would like, but sometimes also involves facilities that the railroads either want or do not want. In PA, the PUC has the final say over such issues as grade crossings or any public or desire to access or cross a private railroad.
The PA regulations can be found HERE.
I imagine this falls under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the constitution, which is the most vague of those vague clauses that you mention in Constitution (recently used, as you recall, unsuccesfully to try to extend Endangered Species Act protection some kind desert toad in the Southwest). Judging by PRR's posts, it is not interpreted or, at least, the Federal Government has not tried to interpret it to allow the Federal Government to deny states the right to eminent demain on railroad property -- at least certainly not if that right was being exercised on, say, an abadoned right-of-way or merely to install a grade crossing which would not significantly inhibit (interstate) rail traffic on the line. Anyway, this all sounds like quite the mess - I'll be quiet until one of our lawyers has a look!
The state authority to regulate railroads comes from specific Federal delegation of such authority to the states or by the states regulating areas not regulated by the FRA. In the case of grade crossings, the FRA sets the general design standards and the states regulate the locations and costs.
Are there many lawsuits against railways for damages at grade crossings? I'm surprised that railways can't insist on indemnification as a condition of allowing the grade crossing. I'm not sure how the mechanics of this would work so again, I'll take the expert's word for it and will also hope that a lawyer can comment on this for us!
Someone may have the statistics, but I would suspect that a for a large percentage of the grade crossing accidents there is a lawsuit filed against the railroad. Quite frequently there are very large awards by juries. Whether and haw much they hold up under appeal, I have no idea. However, every time a case, no matter how rediculous is filed, it must be defended. Generally there are claims of impaired visibility, no horn blowing, train speeding, lights not working, etc., etc., etc. Quite frequently the claims are false, but still gather symapthy.
