A Discussion On RR Crossings

[Dinker]

More often than not, there is no jury trial, as the railroads have enough money to settle out-of-court for less than what they would end up paying attorneys to defend them; what is fascinating is how rarely non-fatality injuries are NOT prosecuted as trespassing cases against the injured (since pretty much every railroad right-of-way is considered private property)

Well, if it's at a crossing, this can hardly be considered trespassing, can it? As for when it's not at a crossing, I imagine that it's not worth the railroads while to sue the majority of people crossing railroad tracks and DAs probably figure that getting hit by a train was enough to teach these people their lesson. I agree, though, that something needs to be done about this - the statistics (3010 collisions last year, with 355 fatalities) are astounding. Of course this is a lot better than 26 years ago (9295 collisions, 728 fatalities)... Of course Texas has nearly twice as many collisions (324) as the second-place state (Illinois, 177).

 

[TransAtlantic]

Actually, at virtually all crossings it IS considered trespassing, as the rail lines more often than not predate the existence of the roads that cross the rights-of-way; it's legally an easement, private property with public access granted at the discretion of the property owners (such as in city sidwalks where you see plaques in the pavement indicating "right to pass at owner's discretion")

 

[Dinker]

Here's a link to a paper that gives some background on the problem of grade-crossings and why they seem to have become safer. I'll paste the abstract as well:

"The number of collisions and fatalities at rail-highway intersections in the United States has declined

significantly over the past thirty years, despite considerable increases in the volume of rail and

highway traffic. This paper disaggregates the improvement into its constituent causes. Negative

binomial regressions are conducted on a pooled data set for 49 states from 1975 to 2001. The

analysis concludes that about two-fifths of the decrease is due to factors such as reduced drunk

driving and improved emergency medical response that have improved safety on all parts of the

highway network. The installation of gates and/or flashing lights accounts for about a fifth of the

reduction. The development in the 1970s and early 1980s of the Operation Lifesaver public

education campaign, and the installation of additional lights on locomotives in the mid 1990s, each

led to about a seventh of the reduction. Finally, about a tenth is due to closure of crossings resulting

from line abandonments or consolidation of little-used crossings."

http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/eco...e/crossings.pdf

 

[PRR 60]

Actually, at virtually all crossings it IS considered trespassing, as the rail lines more often than not predate the existence of the roads that cross the rights-of-way; it's legally an easement, private property with public access granted at the discretion of the property owners (such as in city sidwalks where you see plaques in the pavement indicating "right to pass at owner's discretion")

I agree with some of what you said, but not with other aspects. Public highway grade crossings are easements, but they are not discretionary. Those easements are ordered by the government, usually state, to provide for the public good. The public is granted access across the railroad property. Persons or vehicles using a grade crossing are doing so within the terms of the easement and are not trespassing in any legal or other definition of the word. The railroads are not just being good neighbors.
One other clarification. The property plaques set in sidewalks are not defining pedestrian easements (quite the opposite) nor are they intended to limit liability. The purpose of those plaques is to define a private property line for a specific and unique reason.

There is almost always a specific setback from a street that is public property. Most often this is the area where sidewalks are located. But sometimes with large buildings there is additional sidewalk width provided by the building owner, or maybe even a public court area. These areas are open to the public but are actually on private property. It is legally necessary to publicly establish property rights to these areas to avoid the future imposition of a legal right called Adverse Possession. Simply put, Adverse Possession is a legal doctrine that states that if a property owner allows anyone to use their property for any purpose adverse to private property rights for a specified period of time, usually 21 years, and that property owner does nothing to prevent that use and advise those using the property of the ownership, then those using the property (an individual, a group, or the general public) are deemed to have established an easement on that property for that use and the owner cannot evict those using the property or prevent future use by them.

In the case of a building, maybe the public right-of-way extends 10 feet behind the curb line but for whatever reason the building installed a 15 foot wide sidewalk. Unless the building owner publicly establishes the private ownership of that extra five feet, after 21 years that extra five foot area, having been used as a public sidewalk for all those years, would in fact become legal, public right-of-way and the property owner would lose any right to use that property for any other purpose.

That is why those little plaques are there. They say "this is private property, not a public thoroughfare" and establish public notice of private property rights to prevent the 21-year Adverse Possession clock from starting to tick.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

I think the trespassing idea that was trying to be made was that perhaps if the gates are down and you enter the railroad's property, you could legally be considered a trespasser, and there may be some logic in that interpretation, because certainly you have no argument of an enforceable easement across the railroad's property when a train is using the property. And since it is illegal to go beyond the crossing gates when they are down, that concept would seem to be reinforced. But whether you are technically a trespasser or simply violating the law against going beyond the gates when they are down, I would have to research that. Certainly you are a jerk and a certifiable idiot at that point, but you may or may not legally be a trespasser.

 

[Dinker]

I think we have scared the lawyers Alan mentioned off! unless PRR is one of them(?)

But I think AmtrakWPK and TransAtlantic's point is well-taken - people who get hit by trains generally have broken some kind of law to get themselves in front of the train - whether or not this law is against trespassing or something else.

I wonder if anyone has got hit by a train twice - you'd think it'd be a like lightning (i.e. only once) but for a different reason: who would be stupid enough to do this twice (homeless living along rail lines, perhaps, excluded)? If no one or relatively few people have, then I imagine that's the reason that crime is rarely prosecuted (i.e. why bother?)

 

[AlanB]

I think we have scared the lawyers Alan mentioned off! unless PRR is one of them(?)

I don't believe that PRR is one of them, unless he's been hiding something from me. :lol:

And as I mentioned originally, I know that one is on vacation right now and will be away for at least a week. Of course even then he may or may not wish to respond. I'm not sure if our other lawyer has been around, although I haven't noticed any posts from him so far and again he's under no obligation either to comment. Especially if either feels that this is outside their area of expertise.

But have patience, who knows maybe someone will chime in.

 

[George Harris]

I wonder if anyone has got hit by a train twice - you'd think it'd be a like lightning (i.e. only once) but for a different reason: who would be stupid enough to do this twice (homeless living along rail lines, perhaps, excluded)? If no one or relatively few people have, then I imagine that's the reason that crime is rarely prosecuted (i.e. why bother?)

Not quite the same thing, but close. Remember the log truck that got hit by the Silver Meteor a few years ago, derailing the train, killing the engineer and the log truck driver? The wife of the log truck driver had been killed at a railroad crossing about 3 years previously. By the way, the log truck was hit at a crossing that had crossbucks only, BUT it was a road that went only about another half-mile, and the track was dead straight for miles in either direction. Also almost dead level, so that all trains would be moving fast - even a 100 car freight would only delay someone about one minute.

 

[Nngo11]

There are no grade crossings on the NEC, correct?

 

[AlanB]

There are no grade crossings on the NEC, correct?

Incorrect.

There are no grade crossing from New Haven south to DC, but there are indeed grade crossings north of New Haven.

 

[battalion51]

IIRC there are seven total, primarily in the New London area. But I could be wrong, I haven't done enough trips on the NEC to be qualified on the territory.

 

[Nngo11]

IIRC there are seven total, primarily in the New London area. But I could be wrong, I haven't done enough trips on the NEC to be qualified on the territory.

Are these a problem? Any plans to get rid of them?

 

[AlanB]

IIRC there are seven total, primarily in the New London area. But I could be wrong, I haven't done enough trips on the NEC to be qualified on the territory.

Are these a problem? Any plans to get rid of them?

I believe that 6 remain, 3 of which are in New London. The New London crossings aren't much of a problem, since the train speeds are already held to about 30 MPH due to the sharp curves in the area. They also could not be easily eliminated, since any bridge over the tracks would end in the waters of Long Island sound and any tunnel would have the same problem. Elevating the tracks might be possible, but that would bring it's own set of problems, including the NIMBY's who'd be crying about their blocked views of the sound. It would be helpful though if some way to by pass the town by running on the out skirts of town, such that speeds could then be increased. They could probably shave 5 to 10 minutes of running time here, if they could fly by at 80 MPH or greater. The remaining crossing are largely small roads with little traffic and they all have quad gates, 100 MPH speeds, and special detection equipment.

And no plans that I'm aware of to get rid of them.

 

[George Harris]

There was an accident at one of the crossings a couple of miles west of New London something like 6 months to a year ago. It is a fairly minor road that leads to something like 3 to 5 houses. Has gates, flashers, all the warnings you could need. The car hit, I believe one or two fatalities, was driven by someone who either lived there or used the road regularly for some other reason. About all you could say is that familiarity breeds comtempt. In other words, people get careless of the dangers that they face every day.

 

[AlanB]

There was an accident at one of the crossings a couple of miles west of New London something like 6 months to a year ago. It is a fairly minor road that leads to something like 3 to 5 houses. Has gates, flashers, all the warnings you could need. The car hit, I believe one or two fatalities, was driven by someone who either lived there or used the road regularly for some other reason. About all you could say is that familiarity breeds comtempt. In other words, people get careless of the dangers that they face every day.

There were three fatalities IIRC in that accident, one of the two children lived for a few days before passing on, while the other child and their grandmother died the same day.

That road had quad gates and even a system that would drop the signals if a car somehow got trapped on the crossing by the gates. I never saw any follow-up stories as to why they think that the grandmother didn't stop, I know possible heart attack was debated in the days following, but in any event she drove right through one of the gates and into the path of an Acela.

 

[PRR 60]

There are 11 grade crossings on the NEC between Miner Lane (the site of the tragedy earlier this year) near New London CT and Palmer Street in Westerly RI. The highest permissible speed through any of those crossings is 75 mph. The speeds in those areas are constrained by track geometry, not by the presence of crossings.

In most cases these crossings remain because track operating speeds were going to be low and the number of land-locked homes or businesses did not justify the cost of grade separation. Amtrak installed quad gates with motion sensors at all the crossings.

 

[AlanB]

There are 11 grade crossings on the NEC between Miner Lane (the site of the tragedy earlier this year) near New London CT and Palmer Street in Westerly RI. The highest permissible speed through any of those crossings is 75 mph. The speeds in those areas are constrained by track geometry, not by the presence of crossings.

An article on the NEC in Trains from March 2003 claims that only 6 crossings were left in service during the rebuilding project. Additionally it goes on to state that all crossings are in areas where track speeds are 100 MPH or less, but I do believe that at least one of those crossings is indeed rated for 100 MPH.

 

[battalion51]

According to the Employee Timetable effective April 29,2001 crossings at grade are at the following locations (the MSP for the crossing is listed in parentheses)

• MP120.2 Miner Lane (75 MPH)
  
• MP122.5 Bank St. Extension (25 MPH)
  
• MP122.8 State St. (25 MPH)
  
• MP123.0 Governor Winthrop Blvd. (25 MPH)
  
• MP131.2 School St. (70 MPH)
  
• MP132.3 Broadway Extension (70 MPH)
  
• MP133.4 Latimer Point Rd. (70 MPH)
  
• MP134.9 Wamphassuc (70 MPH)
  
• MP136.6 Walkers Dock (65 MPH)
  
• MP136.7 Freemans Island (70 MPH)
  
• MP140.6 Palmer St. (90 MPH)
  

New London Station is located at MP122.9, Mystic Station is located at MP132.3, and Westerly Station is located at MP141.3. Now granted this information is over five years old, however the information is in the post-Acela launch era, so the upgrades to the Shore Line had been done. Now is it possible some of this has changed, sure, but it's an idea of what things are like.

 

[PRR 60]

MP140.6 Palmer St. (90 MPH)

My bad. I missed the 90 mph speed at Palmer Street. And, sadly, Trains Magazine is a less than reliable source for Amtrak facts. Bob Johnson, the Trains Amtrak reporter, is at times, lacking in the accuracy department.

 

[battalion51]

You have to go based on the best information at hand. It's unfortunate that Trains can't be more accurate, but they still put out a pretty good product.

 

[Miami Joe]

Hi everybody!!!!

Just came across this thread and thought I would add my "2 cents"!

As most of us know, when the RR's were laying track in the 1800's, the government gave "right of way" and parcels of land along the 'right of way" to the RR barons. Many laws were passed during the "RR Era" that still exist today, including labor laws!!!

In Fla, CSX and FEC have been abandoning rail for years, but are required to go before a board, stating the reasons, etc.

In crossing accidents, they are very similar to auto accidents. Years ago, whoever got the ticket or was found guilty was liable for all damages.

Now, insurance companies try to assess a "percentage of liability" to all parties involved.

Most new crossings are digitally controlled and have a HD that records each activation. There was an incident in So. Fla recently where the victim claimed the the crossing failed and the HD confirmed it. The investigation found that a workcrew was looking for underground gaspipes or cables using a radioactive device which altered the program! The gates were coming down at different times or not at all!!!!!!!!!

MJ B)